Maximus69:

Never mind, interested persons will surely come and make related comments!

I am not!

For your information, this thread was indirectly created for JWs because they're the ones who lack the full knowledge about the COMMA because the organization has withheld a lot of information about it from them. Simply because the moment JWs accept COMMA the basis of their doctrines shattered.

That was why you shouted in surprise "That's impossible..." when I told you the text already in used before the Council of Nicaea.

The only interested persons here are JWs who need to know the truth about the COMMA so that they can see how the organization has deceived them.

Emusan:


I am not!

For your information, this thread was indirectly created for JWs because they're the ones who lack the full knowledge about the COMMA because the organization has withheld a lot of information about it from them. Simply because the moment JWs accept COMMA the basis of their doctrines shattered.

That was why you shouted in surprise "That's impossible..." when I told you the text already in used before the Council of Nicaea.

The only interested persons here are JWs who need to know the truth about the COMMA so that they can see how the organization has deceived them.

Alright i've heard you!

Emusan:


I am not!

For your information, this thread was indirectly created for JWs because they're the ones who lack the full knowledge about the COMMA because the organization has withheld a lot of information about it from them. Simply because the moment JWs accept COMMA the basis of their doctrines shattered.

That was why you shouted in surprise "That's impossible..." when I told you the text already in used before the Council of Nicaea.

The only interested persons here are JWs who need to know the truth about the COMMA so that they can see how the organization has deceived them.

Your hatred for JWs is blurring your senses more and more!

Before they publish the New Word Translation of the Holy Scriptures JWs make use of the KJV, yet there are several versions that omitted this verse.

So are you now saying the interpreters of these other versions are all Jehovah's Witnesses?

TATIME:


Your hatred for JWs is blurring your senses more and more!

Before they publish the New Word Translation of the Holy Scriptures JWs make use of the KJV, yet there are several versions that omitted this verse.

So are you now saying the interpreters of these other versions are all Jehovah's Witnesses?

Is it really funny?

All those Bible translations that omitted 1John 5:7 must have been influenced by the GB of JWs!

TATIME:
Your hatred for JWs is blurring your senses more and more!

Says the fake elder

Before they publish the New Word Translation of the Holy Scriptures JWs make use of the KJV,

So you agree with KJV at that time that "Jesus is God" John 1:1 and 1 John 5:7 is true that "they're three witnesses...and they are one" or you selected KJV as you like bah?

yet there are several versions that omitted this verse.

So why are you not using "this other versions"?

So are you now saying the interpreters of these other versions are all Jehovah's Witnesses?

No! but JWs cling to this erroneous belief as a strong support for their doctrine and the essence of this thread is to show that NWT and "this other versions" are wrong for rejecting 1 John 5:7 in their translations.

Maximus69:
Alright i've heard you!

Now it's time to put more light on the whole issue!

Emusan:


Now it's time to put more light on the whole issue!

Never mind, at least we know that there are many other versions of the scriptures that omitted this verse in question.
Hen go and make all of them to agree with the KJV nah!
Jehovah's Witnesses have published our own Bible translation and that's what we've been working on for decades now. It has helped us to cultivate LOVE, JOY and PEACE throughout all the congregations of JWs globally.
I think we're OK with that Sir!

When people quote 1 John 5:7 as a support for Trinity many critics of the doctrine of Trinity will quickly reject it and say it's a spurious text, which isn't suppose to be part of the Holy scripture. That's why any translations that contain the text are considered to be fraud and inaccurate.

So, the question we can ask is: Should 1 John 5:7 be included in the Bible we have today?

The Text is called "The Johannine Comma (also known as the Comma Johanneum or the Heavenly Witnesses)."

Truly some translators rejected it while some added it which resulted from different view of scholarship; for instance, "Bruce M. Metzger said that if the Johannine Comma were original, there is no good reason to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts and by translators of ancient versions (Bruce M. Metzger. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. 1994, p. 647-649.).

Metzger statement means since the early Greek manuscripts don't have the COMMA then it can't be original part of the Apostle John writings.

After critical study of different scholarly opinion on why the COMMA shouldn't be part of the Scripture, we came up with three (3) views which are:

1. The COMMA was not found in any Ancient Greek Manuscripts: This view holds that ancient manuscripts are more accurate and reliable than the later manuscripts.

2. The COMMA was only found in the late medieval manuscripts: This views holds that since the COMMA exists only in the late manuscripts then it must be a later insertion by "OVERZEALOUS TRINITARIAN" or by a TRINITARIAN for the support of Trinity.

3. The Majority Vs Minority: This views holds that there are 5000+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, manuscripts which contain 1 John 5 are limited to about 480 manuscripts.  Although the majority of these manuscripts lacks the Comma . Of the about 480 manuscripts of 1 John 5, only 12 of these manuscripts are from before the 10th century (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006)):

01 (4th century)

A (5th century)

B (4th century)

K (9th century)

L (8th century)

P (9th century)

Ψ (9th century)

048 (5th century)

049 (9th century)

056 (10th century)

0142 (10th century)

0296 (6th century)

The rest of the 480 manuscripts are minuscules from after the 10th century, the average being from around the 12th century.

Since the critics arguments are within these three views then we can proceed to address each of this in light of evidence before us.

Maximus69:
Never mind, at least we know that there are many other versions of the scriptures that omitted this verse in question.

So why don't you hold this other versions as more accurate and reliable like NWT?

Then go and make all of them to agree with the KJV nah!

Rather it should be stop calling it SPURIOUS TEXT just because other versions said so.

Jehovah's Witnesses have published our own Bible translation and that's what we've been working on for decades now. It has helped us to cultivate LOVE, JOY and PEACE throughout all the congregations of JWs globally.
I think we're OK with that Sir!

Stale....

Emusan:

So why don't you hold this other versions as more accurate and reliable like NWT?
Rather it should be stop calling it SPURIOUS TEXT just because other versions said so.
Stale....

Emusan:


I am not!

For your information, this thread was indirectly created for JWs because they're the ones who lack the full knowledge about the COMMA because the organization has withheld a lot of information about it from them. Simply because the moment JWs accept COMMA the basis of their doctrines shattered. [/b]

That was why you shouted in surprise [b]"That's impossible..." when I told you the text already in used before the Council of Nicaea.

The only interested persons here are JWs who need to know the truth about the COMMA so that they can see how the organization has deceived them.

Why do you cherish deceiving yourself?
E don tayy wey people know say your Trinity mentors committed forgery on 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 and several others

Janosky:


Why do you cherish deceiving yourself?

I wonder o!

That's why i often hail him saying

ARGUMENTATIVE Emusan!

Janosky:


Why do you cherish deceiving yourself?
E don tayy wey people know say your Trinity mentors committed forgery on 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 and several others

Just like I said by the time I present the full evidences for the COMMA all your critic mouths will be shut.

From your screenshot, you can see a reference to early church fathers and if you have done your research work very well, you'll see many early church fathers both Greek and Latin quoted or alluded to the text.

So just sit and relax as you see the evidence rolling out one after the other, yours is to refute them if you have counter evidences.

Before I begin dive into the three points usually raise by the critics against the COMMA listed above, let me first quote the statement of three noble scholars who were considered as great in the Reformation Era.

John Gill (1697 – 1771 AD): commenting on 1 John 5:7 says the Comma is found "in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens', nine of them had it" (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible).

John Calvin: commenting on 1 John 5:7, said, "The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject." (Calvin's Commentaries). Apparently in Calvin's time there were more Greek manuscripts with the Comma so as to give rise to a disagreement among the Greek copies. 

Francis Cheynell, the president of St. John's College, Oxford from 1648 to 1650: commented that the COMMA is "to be found in copies of great antiquity and best credit."

These testimonies by trusted Reformation era scholars should be given weight because in the centuries following their deaths Europe erupted into political and religious turmoil, resulting in the loss of manuscripts.

From Calvin's comment we can see a critical point raised, as "the Greek copies do not agree".

What is Calvin point really about?

We will found out next!

Emusan:
Before I begin dive into the three points usually raise by the critics against the COMMA listed above, let me first quote the statement of three noble scholars who were considered as great in the Reformation Era.

John Gill (1697 – 1771 AD): commenting on 1 John 5:7 says the Comma is found "in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens', nine of them had it" (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible).

John Calvin: commenting on 1 John 5:7, said, "The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject." (Calvin's Commentaries). Apparently in Calvin's time there were more Greek manuscripts with the Comma so as to give rise to a disagreement among the Greek copies. 

Francis Cheynell, the president of St. John's College, Oxford from 1648 to 1650: commented that the COMMA is "to be found in copies of great antiquity and best credit."

These testimonies by trusted Reformation era scholars should be given weight because in the centuries following their deaths Europe erupted into political and religious turmoil, resulting in the loss of manuscripts.

From Calvin's comment we can see a critical point raised, as "the Greek copies do not agree".

What is Calvin point really about?

We will found out next!

During the Catholic-Reformation era from the 1500's you mean?
I thought we were addressing sources BEFORE the fourth century C.E(300–400C.E) ??
Why quoting sources from people who have no regard for Bible truth but only out for their personal interests?
Do you believe the Catholics and Protestants throughout the Dark Ages were Christians or blood thirsty politicians ? If they're not Christians, why should their words be trusted?

DappaD:


During the Catholic-Reformation era from the 1500's you mean?
I thought we were addressing sources BEFORE the fourth century C.E(300–400C.E) ??
Why quoting sources from people who have no regard for Bible truth but only out for their personal interests?
Do you believe the Catholics and Protestants throughout the Dark Ages were Christians or blood thirsty politicians ? If they're not Christians, why should their words be trusted?

@bold is where I'm more concerned, so the people I cited their statements, did I say they're the evidence I want to provide for the COMMA

They're TRUSTED scholars

You're just jumping like kangaroo, calm down and see the evidence rolling in bit by bit.

The funny thing is, your brother provided Isaac Newton statement who is an Anglican A PROTESTANT as a reliable support but here you are saying the testimony of PROTESTANT or CATHOLIC shouldn't be taken serious.

Hypocrisy has started.

Like I said, this statement is still the focal point here

From Calvin's comment we can see a critical point raised, as "the Greek copies do not agree".

What is Calvin point really about?

We will found out next!

Emusan:


@bold is where I'm more concerned, so the people I cited their statements, did I say they're the evidence I want to provide for the COMMA

They're TRUSTED scholars

You're just jumping like kangaroo, calm down and see the evidence rolling in bit by bit.

The funny thing is, your brother provided Isaac Newton statement who is an Anglican A PROTESTANT as a reliable support but here you are saying the testimony of PROTESTANT or CATHOLIC shouldn't be taken serious.

Hypocrisy has started.

Like I said, this statement is still the focal point here

From Calvin's comment we can see a critical point raised, as "the Greek copies do not agree".

What is Calvin point really about?

We will found out next!

First, use proper English
Second, you're quoting sources that are biased. Was it only Jehovah's Witnesses who disputed the falsehood added to 1John 5:7?

Emusan:


@bold is where I'm more concerned, so the people I cited their statements, did I say they're the evidence I want to provide for the COMMA

They're TRUSTED scholars

You're just jumping like kangaroo, calm down and see the evidence rolling in bit by bit.

The funny thing is, your brother provided Isaac Newton statement who is an Anglican A PROTESTANT as a reliable support but here you are saying the testimony of PROTESTANT or CATHOLIC shouldn't be taken serious.

Hypocrisy has started.

Like I said, this statement is still the focal point here

From Calvin's comment we can see a critical point raised, as "the Greek copies do not agree".

What is Calvin point really about?

We will found out next!

Common sense should be applied here.
Do you think there'd be this much fuss about said scripture if it had not been altered one way or another?

I asked,

What is Calvin point really about?

Let's see how the Greek copies, the so called early = the most reliable failed to agree with each other which proved textual variants in their works.

We're not going far, yes! you heard me clearly! we're looking at the just proceeding verse before the COMMA I mean the same 1 John 5 the verse 6 of it.

1 John 5:6 is the verse immediately preceding the Comma.  Among those who parrot the statement that "none of the earliest manuscripts contain the Comma," perhaps only a few of them are aware that the verse immediately preceding the Comma has textual variants in these early manuscripts. The earliest witnesses of the passage are Codices Sinaiticus (4th century), Vaticanus (4th century), Alexandrinus (5th century) and 0296 (6th century). Uncial 048 (5th century) is lacunae.

ESV (agreeing with Nestle-Aland 27):
"6 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7  For there are three that testify: 8  the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree."

Nestle-Aland 27:
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι  μαρτυρουντες 8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"

Nestle-Aland 27:
6 this is he that cometh by water and blood; Jesus Christ is not in the water only, but in the water, and in the blood: and the spirit is the witness, that the spirit is the truth; 7 that there are three who testify; 8 the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three in one being. (Translated by me)

Vaticanus (4th c.):
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ις χς ουκ εν τω υδατι μονω αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι· και το πνευμα τιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι ··τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες· 8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα· και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν·"

Vaticanus (4th c.): "6 this is he that cometh by water and blood, not in the water alone, but in the water, and in the blood· and the spirit that testifieth that the spirit is the truth; 7 that there are three that testify; 8 the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three in one is the truth.·"

Sinaiticus (4th c.):
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δια υδατος και αιματος και πνς ις χς ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι οι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες 8 το πνα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"

Sinaiticus (4th c.): "6 this is he that cometh by water, and blood, and blows(spirit) that are not in the water only, but in the water, and the blood, and the breath is that testifieth that the breath is the truth; 7 that the three are those that bear witness; 8 the breath, and the water, and the blood, and the three in one"

Alexandrinus (5th c.):
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος και πνς ις χς· ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον· αλλα εν τω υδατι και εν τω πνι· και το πνα εστιν το μαρτυρουν· οτι το πνα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες· 8 το πνα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"

Alexandrinus (5th c.): "6 this is he that cometh by water, and blood· and spirits; not in the water only, but in the water, and in the spirit· and the breath is the witness; that the breath is the truth; 7 that there are three who testify; 8 the breath, and the water, and the blood, and the three in one being."

I don't want to lengthy the post let me keep it short here!

Here we see that only Vaticanus among the early uncials agrees with Nestle-Aland 27.  Vaticanus says that Jesus Christ came by "water and blood".  Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus say that Jesus Christ came by "water and blood and Spirit".  0296 even has "Spirit" before "blood". 

Alexandrinus further adds to the confusion by replacing "not by the water only but by the water and the blood" with "not by the water only but by the water and by the Spirit".  The textual variants in verse 6 begin to increase when we include other manuscripts and witnesses:

ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος (B, K, Ψ, 049, 056, 0142, 181, 330, 451, 629, 1739*, 1881, 2127, Byz, Lect, it, vg, syrp)

ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος (43, 241, 463, 945, 1241, 1831, 1877*, 1891)

ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος καὶ αἵματος (P, 81, 88, 442, 630, 915, 2492, arm, eth)

ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος (א, A, 104, 424c, 614, 1739c, 2412, 2495, ℓ598m, syrh, copsa, copbo, Origen)

ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου (39, 61, 326, 1837)

By 350 AD this portion of 1 John 5  was already corrupt in the Greek tradition. Since verse 6 is corrupt in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and verse 7 in 0296 does not have "εισιν," there are only two manuscripts (Vaticanus and 048) from before the 7th century which read exactly as the Byzantine/Majority Text or the Nestle-Aland from verse 6 to 7:

DappaD:
Common sense should be applied here.
Do you think there'd be this much fuss about said scripture if it had not been altered one way or another?

Your head is so correct for asking this question!

But let me turn it around, does Jesus divinity and essence in Nature like Father wasn't a heated debate in the early Church that can responsible for the text to be ommited?

Emusan:


Your head is so correct for asking this question!

But let me turn it around, does Jesus divinity and essence in Nature like Father wasn't a heated debate in the early Church that can responsible for the text to be ommited?

WHAT!! Write well I can't understand you.

I fail to see how your previous comment supports your comma doctrine.

DappaD:
First, use proper English

Thanks for that, but why can't you tell me the proper English I should have used? Mr Teacher!

Anyway, that should be auto-correct "find"

Second, you're quoting sources that are biased

You can proof any bias source wrong by providing your own reliable source.

Was it only Jehovah's Witnesses who disputed the falsehood added to 1John 5:7?

One of your brother had asked the same or similar question and here is my reply again

No! but JWs cling to this erroneous belief as a strong support for their doctrine and the essence of this thread is to show that NWT and "this other versions" are wrong for rejecting 1 John 5:7 in their translations.

DappaD:


WHAT!! Write well I can't understand you.

I fail to see how your previous comment supports your comma doctrine.

You asked "Do you think there'd be this much fuss about said scripture if it had not been altered one way or another?"

Which means the text in question has a strong support for doctrinal teaching and has a higher focal point.

Then I turn the question around by asking, was there any debate about Jesus Divinity in the early time that could not have made the critic of Jesus Divinity to remove the text?

Emusan:


Thanks for that, but why can't you tell me the proper English I should have used? Mr Teacher!

Anyway, that should be auto-correct "find"



You can proof any bias source wrong by providing your own reliable source.



One of your brother had asked the same or similar question and here is my reply again

I actually don't have time for this

I'll make it short and quick.
Shortly after the death of the apostles, the congregation of Christ became largely overchoked by apostates and false teachers (2Peter 2:1, Jude 4)
From the second century, then arose men who the scriptures described as false teachers. They intentionally twisted and added to the scriptures so it would fit with their Trinity doctrine. Such scriptures would include the misinterpretation of John 1:1, 1Timothy 3:16, 1John 5:7 and others I can't mention now.
The fact that there's a fuss over this actually does show that there was an alteration somewhere and the only ones to do such were the false Christians at that time.

DappaD:
I actually don't have time for this

So what is my concern about that?

I'll make it short and quick.

Very short indeed

Shortly after the death of the apostles, the congregation of Christ became largely overchoked by apostates and false teachers (2Peter 2:1, Jude 4)
From the second century, then arose men who the scriptures described as false teachers.

So what were the teachings of these apostates and false teachers?

They intentionally twisted and added to the scriptures so it would fit with their Trinity doctrine.

So you agree that TRINITY has been around since 2nd century, that's wonderful.

Also, was it ONLY TRINITY that was the major issue then?

Such scriptures would include the misinterpretation of John 1:1, 1Timothy 3:16, 1John 5:7 and others I can't mention now.

Now you're talking, so these scriptures were only misinterpreted, which means they are actually part of the scriptures.

Also, what were your evidences that those scriptures were misinterpreted?

The fact that there's a fuss over this actually does show that there was an alteration somewhere and the only ones to do such were the false Christians at that time.

The fact is, those scriptures were part of the original scriptures that was why the Anti-Trinitarian made sure the strong one among them 1 John 5:7 gets lost.

Having seen textual variants of 1 John 5:6 the preceding verse before the COMMA in the early manuscripts, let's proceed to next one!

Let's turn to 1 John 2:23b, as it proves two things. First, it proves that a Trinitarian clause could be expunged from 1 John in the majority of manuscripts.

Second, it proves that the Vulgate can sometimes preserve authentic readings more accurately than can the majority of Greek manuscripts.

1 John 2:23 in the King James Bible says:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει" (Textus Receptus, Beza 1598)

The second clause of this Trinitarian verse is supported by the Vulgate, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Porphyrianus and about 70 other Greek manuscripts (Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior: IV Catholic Letters, Text, 2nd Ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013), p. 292).  Most modern translations (e.g. NIV, ESV, NASB) follow this reading.

But with there being about 517 extant Greek manuscripts of 1 John and with just over 70 manuscripts having 1 John 2:23b, the clause is a minority reading.  Accordingly, the Byzantine Majority Text does not include the clause.

The Majority Text says:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father."

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει" (Byzantine Majority Text)


The Geneva Bible in 1557 followed the majority of manuscripts here and left out the latter clause.  If a Trinitarian clause in 1 John 2:23 could be lost in the majority of Greek manuscripts, and the Vulgate can be more reliable here, it is not much of a stretch to believe that the Johannine COMMA was also lost in the majority of Greek manuscripts, and preserved by the Vulgate (as will be discussed below, the Vulgate preserves the COMMA).

The only difference between 1 John 2:23b and the COMMA could be that the COMMA was deleted earlier than 1 John 2:23b.

Emusan:
Having seen textual variants of 1 John 5:6 the preceding verse before the COMMA in the early manuscripts, let's proceed to next one!

Let's turn to 1 John 2:23b, as it proves two things. First, it proves that a Trinitarian clause could be expunged from 1 John in the majority of manuscripts.

Second, it proves that the Vulgate can sometimes preserve authentic readings more accurately than can the majority of Greek manuscripts.

1 John 2:23 in the King James Bible says:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει" (Textus Receptus, Beza 1598)

The second clause of this Trinitarian verse is supported by the Vulgate, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Porphyrianus and about 70 other Greek manuscripts (Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior: IV Catholic Letters, Text, 2nd Ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013), p. 292).  Most modern translations (e.g. NIV, ESV, NASB) follow this reading.

But with there being about 517 extant Greek manuscripts of 1 John and with just over 70 manuscripts having 1 John 2:23b, the clause is a minority reading.  Accordingly, the Byzantine Majority Text does not include the clause.

The Majority Text says:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father."

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει" (Byzantine Majority Text)


The Geneva Bible in 1557 followed the majority of manuscripts here and left out the latter clause.  If a Trinitarian clause in 1 John 2:23 could be lost in the majority of Greek manuscripts, and the Vulgate can be more reliable here, it is not much of a stretch to believe that the Johannine COMMA was also lost in the majority of Greek manuscripts, and preserved by the Vulgate (as will be discussed below, the Vulgate preserves the COMMA).

The only difference between 1 John 2:23b and the COMMA could be that the COMMA was deleted earlier than 1 John 2:23b.

Bros, do you even understand your copy and paste stuff ?


Where is triune deity in 1 John 2:23b and 5:6?

Geneva Bible is the same as KJV Bible, both were translations from the 16th century Textus receptus manuscript.

1 John 5:5
" Who can conquer the world?
Is it not the one who has faith that Jesus is the son of God"?


Trinitarians do not possess the faith, they have been fighting tooth and nail to deny and suppress faith in the son of God, their own almighty deity in their triune scam

Emusan:


So what is my concern about that?



Very short indeed



So what were the teachings of these apostates and false teachers?



So you agree that TRINITY has been around since 2nd century, that's wonderful.

Also, was it ONLY TRINITY that was the major issue then?



Now you're talking, so these scriptures were only misinterpreted, which means they are actually part of the scriptures.

Also, what were your evidences that those scriptures were misinterpreted?



The fact is, those scriptures were part of the original scriptures that was why the Anti-Trinitarian made sure the strong one among them 1 John 5:7 gets lost.

Emusan spurious history of the Greek scriptures.

Janosky:
Bros, do you even understand your copy and paste stuff ?

Make me understand

Where is triune deity in 1 John 2:23b and 5:6?

Then who said, 1 John 2:23b and 1 John 5:6 contain Trinity doctrine?

Can you see that you're the very one who didn't understand anything from this thread

Geneva Bible is the same as KJV Bible, both were translations from the 16th century Textus receptus manuscript.

1 John 5:5
" Who can conquer the world?
Is it not the one who has faith that Jesus is the son of God"?


Trinitarians do not possess the faith, they have been fighting tooth and nail to deny and suppress faith in the son of God, their own almighty deity in their triune scam

Read the lost you quoted again and stop talking nonsense.

Walahi Talahi you guys just dey fall my hand!

Why not allow Emusan to find out himself those who have interest in his topic? After all he never mentioned Jehovah's Witnesses and it's not only JWs that worked on 1John 5:7!
Please allow him to continue arguing with other religionsists who have interest in his topics, it's just as if he set a trap and you guys are running into it, giving him the pleasure he wanted namely ARGUING with JWs

Leave him alone, perhaps he will go and force all the tranlators to include what he wanted in their Bibles!