1 John 5:7 in the KJV contains these words called the Johannine Comma (also known as the Comma Johanneum or the Heavenly Witnesses). 

Why this verse was not found in some translations today:

Was it fraudulent inserted?

OR

Was omitted from Ancient Greek?

Emusan:
1 John 5:7 in the KJV contains these words called the Johannine Comma (also known as the Comma Johanneum or the Heavenly Witnesses). 

Why this verse was not found in some translations today:

Was it fraudulent inserted?

OR

Was omitted from Ancient Greek?

A spurious addition to the Holy Scriptures just so Trinitarians can carry on in their folly.
Verse 6 acts as a precedent of what to expect at the later verses.

DappaD:


A spurious addition to the Holy Scriptures just so Trinitarians can carry on in their folly.
Verse 6 acts as a precedent of what to expect at the later verses.

Who added it?

Emusan:


Who added it?

YES it was!

Emusan:


Who added it?

I think just typing those words ‘Comma Johannine’ on Google would bring up several websites you can check on.

Maximus69:

YES it was!

The question is, who added it?

DappaD:

I think just typing those words ‘Comma Johannine’ on Google would bring up several websites you can check on.

Since you have done that and got your answer, now answer my question in a simpler form!

Who added it? Very simple

Emusan:


Since you have done that and got your answer, now answer my question in a simpler form!

Who added it? Very simple

I won't spoonfeed you lol.
You're going to have to learn how to do research

DappaD:

I won't spoonfeed you lol.
You're going to have to learn how to do research

I've done my research and I've never seen or read anywhere about WHO ADDED IT!

Now, if you know the person who added it, kindly provide the name with the link here

Emusan:


The question is, who added it?

It's the Council of Nicaea under the chairmanship of Emperor Constantine!
That's when so many pagan philosophies were added to believe of the church!

Emusan:


Was it fraudulent inserted?

OR

Was omitted from Ancient Greek?

1. Yes it was fraudulently included. Usual Catholic Church propaganda — King James also added the interpolation in his Bible.

2. What wasn't there in the first place can't be omitted.

Maximus69:
It's the Council of Nicaea under the chairmanship of Emperor Constantine!
That's when so many pagan philosophies were added to believe of the church!

Now we're going somewhere!

Which means the text didn't appear in any written or book before the council of Nicea took place, right?

DappaD:
1. Yes it was fraudulently included. Usual Catholic Church propaganda — King James also added the interpolation in his Bible.

By who? At least the fraudulent inclusion should be traced to someone or group or year

2. What wasn't there in the first place can't be omitted.

You mean it wasn't in the any known manuscripts or what?

Emusan:


Now we're going somewhere!

Which means the text didn't appear in any written or book before the council of Nicea took place, right?

YES!

Emusan:


1. By who? At least the fraudulent inclusion should be traced to someone or group or year



2. You mean it wasn't in the any known manuscripts or what?

1. The screenshot I shared said it was Erasmus, a so-called ‘Christian’ scholar who added it to his Bible in the year 1522 before other translators picked it up – including King James.

2. When compared with more reliable ancient manuscripts, those additions weren't found — particularly when compared with the Masoretes scrolls.

DappaD:
1. The screenshot I shared said it was Erasmus, a so-called ‘Christian’ scholar who added it to his Bible in the year 1522 before other translators picked it up – including King James.

But the text has been known before that time and even appeared in the oldest Latin Manuscript of 4th Century.

ATTENTION! ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!!!

I want to draw your attention to the same screenshot you first shared.

The last statement in that screenshot read:

"It was not always included in the first printed Latin translation of the Bible, but the editors of sixto-Clementine Vulgate (1592) chose to print it [1John 5:7] along with a number of other SPURIOUS PASSAGES"

If you can recall, your first post on this thread started with "A spurious addition to the Holy Scriptures...

Now from the statement above, there are OTHER SPURIOUS PASSAGES not only 1 John 5:7

Do you know some of these SPURIOUS PASSAGES are in the same 1 John 5 which many translations including your NWT which refused to have 1 John 5:7 still have till today?

But as we just started on this, I'll leave that to another time.

2. When compared with more reliable ancient manuscripts, those additions weren't found — particularly when compared with the Masoretes scrolls.

Now what you called more RELIABLE manuscripts also has some omittions which can only be traced to the other manuscripts you're talking about and these omittions still exist in the same translations that rejected the COMMA.

This shows that many people who rejected the COMMA don't know much about it rather than the lies they have been told that it's a spurious addition.

Emusan:


But the text has been known before that time and even appeared in the oldest Latin Manuscript of 4th Century.

ATTENTION! ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!!!

I want to draw your attention to the same screenshot you first shared.

The last statement in that screenshot read:

"It was not always included in the first printed Latin translation of the Bible, but the editors of sixto-Clementine Vulgate (1592) chose to print it [1John 5:7] along with a number of other SPURIOUS PASSAGES"

If you can recall, your first post on this thread started with "A spurious addition to the Holy Scriptures...

Now from the statement above, there are OTHER SPURIOUS PASSAGES not only 1 John 5:7

Do you know some of these SPURIOUS PASSAGES are in the same 1 John 5 which many translations including your NWT which refused to have 1 John 5:7 still have till today?

But as we just started on this, I'll leave that to another time.



Now what you called more RELIABLE manuscripts also has some omittions which can only be traced to the other manuscripts you're talking about and these omittions still exist in the same translations that rejected the COMMA.

This shows that many people who rejected the COMMA don't know much about it rather than the lies they have been told that it's a spurious addition.

That was before I did further research.

“In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of Trinitarianism evidently included the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one” as if these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage was put right into the text of a Latin Bible manuscript.”

Source — ‘The Word of God Endures Forever’ The Watchtower, October 1, 1997

Maximus69:

YES!

So how come many prominent Christian writers who live long before the council of Nicea quoted and alluded to the same text?

DappaD:


That was before I did further research.

“In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of Trinitarianism evidently included the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one” as if these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage was put right into the text of a Latin Bible manuscript.”

Source — ‘The Word of God Endures Forever’ The Watchtower, October 1, 1997

Smile.....

Just like I said, a lot of you don't know anything about the Comma apart from the lies you're being told.

So who is this OVERZEALOUS TRINITARIAN?

Doesn't the person have name?

What time was it added?

If these questions can be answered, then we'll know where we're going.

So are you now denying that there are no OTHER SPURIOUS PASSAGES apart from 1 John 5:7 in the Bible?

Emusan:


Smile.....

Just like I said, a lot of you don't know anything about the Comma apart from the lies you're being told.

So who is this OVERZEALOUS TRINITARIAN?

Doesn't the person have name?

What time was it added?

If these questions can be answered, then we'll know where we're going.

So are you now denying that there are no OTHER SPURIOUS PASSAGES apart from 1 John 5:7 in the Bible?

Oga that interpolation was added in the scriptures by trinitarians. You call it lies, yet it's not only one source that's disputing that falsehood.

There are other several spurious additions to the scriptures. Two of which are
1. The additional verses at Mark 16. Old reliable manuscripts ended at verse 8. Other translators added verses 9-20 as seen in the KJV Bible.

2. A good number of ancient and authoritative manuscripts skip verses found at John 7:53 – 8:11. All them KJV and NIV translators then manufactured those scriptures and added it in the Bible for reasons known to them.
Older, reliable manuscripts start John 8 at verse 12.

Emusan:


So how come many prominent Christian writers who live long before the council of Nicea quoted and alluded to the same text?

That's impossible. Before the council all the texts were exactly as written and copies from the first century. So there is no way anyone could have inserted any addition earlier than the 325 ad when the council sat.
But if you have any proof that it was there before 325 ad, i'm willing to learn more!

Maximus69:
That's impossible. Before the council all the texts were exactly as written and copies from the first century. So there is no way anyone could have inserted any addition earlier than the 325 ad when the council sat.
But if you have any proof that it was there before 325 ad, i'm willing to learn more!

I didn't say it was inserted earlier than council of Nicea but PEOPLE ARE USING THE TEXT BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF NICEA which nullified you assertion that the text only first appeared during the council of Nicea.

Which then leads us to how people get familiar with such a text if its origin not yet known?

Of course, many references of people who quoted or alluded to the text will be provided here when I'm done collating people opinions about their understanding of the COMMA!

DappaD:
Oga that interpolation was added in the scriptures by trinitarians. You call it lies, yet it's not only one source that's disputing that falsehood.

That's why I said, the Trinitarian who added it doesn't have name.

What time was it added?

There are other several spurious additions to the scriptures. Two of which are
1. The additional verses at Mark 16. Old reliable manuscripts ended at verse 8. Other translators added verses 9-20 as seen in the KJV Bible.

The spurious addition I'm even talking about is from the same 1 John 5 not even from another which your own translation still have while rejecting 1 John 5 :7

2. A good number of ancient and authoritative manuscripts skip verses found at John 7:53 – 8:11. All them KJV and NIV translators then manufactured those scriptures and added it in the Bible for reasons known to them.
Older, reliable manuscripts start John 8 at verse 12.

But NIV also rejected the COMMA

Also, text not found in one place doesn't mean it/they wasn't/didn't there in the first place. Which is the basis for this thread.

DappaD:


That was before I did further research.

“In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of Trinitarianism evidently included the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one” as if these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage was put right into the text of a Latin Bible manuscript.”

Source — ‘The Word of God Endures Forever’ The Watchtower, October 1, 1997

OK I've seen where you added time to it.

Just like my reply to your brother above, the text COMMA has been in existence and in used before fourth Century which makes the information provided by Watchtower inaccurate.

If Watchtower didn't know the text has been in used ling before fourth century, we can then ask, what else they didn't know other than information provided here?

Emusan:


I didn't say it was inserted earlier than council of Nicea but PEOPLE ARE USING THE TEXT BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF NICEA which nullified you assertion that the text only first appeared during the council of Nicea.

Which then leads us to how people get familiar with such a text if its origin not yet known?

Of course, many references of people who quoted or alluded to the text will be provided here when I'm done collating people opinions about their understanding of the COMMA!

Simply quote, you're waiting for who will tell you how it was inserted shey?

I stand by my word that it was never part of the scriptures before the time of the council Sir!

Maximus69:


Simply quote, you're waiting for who will tell you how it was inserted shey?

I stand by my word that it was never part of the scriptures before the time of the council Sir!

Emusan is looking for who to spoonfeed him

DappaD:

Emusan is looking for who to spoonfeed him

His mind is twisted and his now trying to find a way out as it's now becoming clearer to him that the same JWs whom he has been criticising all his life happens to be the one and only group having the knowledge he seek!
If i were Emusan i will be on my knees now asking JWs to forgive me.
Just imagine, Emusan open a topic that's of real significance and none of his cohorts came saying anything except JWs. Is that not enough evidence to prove that they're all gullibly following the tradition they met?
Why is it that it's only JWs that could say something about what he is seeking to find?

Jesus said we shouldn't bother, because we are the light of the world! Matthew 5:14-16

So let him continue in his pigheadedness after all he always claim JWs are hypocrites, so let's see those who will come and chat with him on what he is seeking!

Maximus69:
Simply quote, you're waiting for who will tell you how it was inserted shey?

I didn't wait for anyone, rather you're the one who didn't know how it was inserted.

Rather my point still stands, it was already in use before the council of Nicea.

I stand by my word that it was never part of the scriptures before the time of the council Sir!

If it was never part of the scripture, that's why I asked, how come people quote or alluded to it before the council of Nicea?

Since you requested for a proof, all you have to do is to sit and relax then wait for your proof.

Just like I said, the lies that has been sold to you is that it was inserted during the council of Nicea, so any evidence of it being used before that time should tell you what could possibly happen to the text.

DappaD:

Emusan is looking for who to spoonfeed him

You're the one who needed to be spoonfeed because you only knew that the text first appeared at the council of Nicea when it's already in used before that time.

And just like I asked,

If Watchtower didn't know the text has been in used long before fourth century, we can then ask, what else they didn't know other than information provided here?

@ Emusan!

Let's see how many of your cohorts who aren't hypocrite like JWs that will come and say a thing here, thank God the thread is not about JWs.
So if you don't value those who have interest in spiritual things, at least you should be able to ignore them and search for those better than them!

Maximus69:
Let's see how many of your cohorts who aren't hypocrite like JWs that will come and say a thing here, thank God the thread is not about JWs.
So if you don't value those who have interest in spiritual things, at least you should be able to ignore them and search for those better than them!

How does this relate to the thread

Emusan:


Who does this relate to the thread

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