₦airaland Forum

Maximus69:
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!

Your conscience keeps beating you hard that's why you keep patrolling this thread even when no one invited you.

You join this thread because you know the implication of COMMA in your doctrines and people who didn't join have no problem with it, that's why they can quote it as a support for Trinity.

But at the sight of it in any post, it's what demon in you people furious about, that is why you people always shout "IT'S A SPURIOUS TEXT"

For you to know that it's not a spurious text and that people quoting it are right to do so, since it's part of the original scripture, is the essence of this thread. That's why I'll present all the fact on this thread for a future reference.

So clamouring for people to ignore me when you can't do so it's a great delusional.

I've told you people several times that you should stop spamming my mention. Once you quote me, every knowledgeable person knows my post is being referenced except deluded JWs who must keep repeating my moniker here and there.

Janosky:
where is the "Trinitarian clause in 1 John 2:23"?

Check it it's there!

In what portion of your Bible did the Vulgate preserve it ?

It's even in your demonic translation.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:
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?

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:
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!

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!

I can see how you stylishly boycotted the Armageddon part of my post anyway no problem.

ospido:
@ the first bolded
I would have loved to provide answers to all your questions but you have already judged me and in deed all Jehovah's witnesses and yet you're accusing us of judging people of other denominations. Now between me and you who started the judging now? Even when i cited a scriptural truth to support the fact that Jesus is the judge,you said [b]this is pure lies. So no matter what i say to you, it will make no sense.

I call it lies because if you people already know that Jesus is the judge you people won't take the position of Jesus and condemned every other denominations and classified them as enemies of Jehovah and say it AUTHORITATIVELY that you're the ONLY TRUE WORSHIPERS OF GOD. Isn't only God who knows who actually worship Him?

@the second bolded.
The scriptures talked about the house of God and you're here referring to the Kingdom Hall. You seem to be antagonist from the onset. So you'll get no answer from me please.

Since scripture talks about the HOUSE OF GOD, do you agree that Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's witnesses is this HOUSE OF GOD that Judgement will begin or the place that the so called CHRISTENDOM gathered?

Watchtower has already made its position known that they're the only TRUE WORSHIPERS OF GOD then if there's a scripture that says "Judgement will begin in the HOUSE OF GOD"; then we can ask, does The True God still have a HOUSE somewhere else other than the Kingdom Hall where people are already doing His will?

Or you didn't agree that JWs are the ONLY TRUE WORSHIPERS OF GOD?

@ the 3rd bolded
You know absolutely nothing about Jehovah's witnesses. And as Jesus answered Pontius Pilate in John 18:34, i also answer you:

34Jesus replied, Are you saying this of yourself [on your own initiative], or have others told you about Me?



But kindly read 1Thessalonians 5:3;
Revelation 17:1-18. A woman is seen sitting on a beast that has 7 heads and 10 horns. Verse 16 says the beast will hate the woman and will kill her. But b4 now they were friends. Verse 17 says God puts it in the hearts of the beast to do the destruction. So God will not be the one to kill the woman but he will use something else to destroy the woman.
After the wild beast have destroyed the woman(who b4 now were friends), the wild beast and its cronies will begin to lament over the death of this woman. Apparently they never knew what they did. You can see the rest of the story in Revelation 18:1-24.
These events in 1Thessalonians and Revelation 17 and 18 refer to one and the same thing and it will happen b4 Armageddon. The war of Armageddon is recorded in chapter 19.

So Who is this woman and what is the wild beast? Who is Babylon the Great?
You can meet your Pastor/Bishop to explain these things to you because even if i do you will call it "pure lies".

Well I might not know absolutely nothing about them but at least many of their members are here making us to know them more.

As you can see one of your brother has already provided and answer.

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.

ospido:
Can you identify the true religion?

Which religion bases all its teachings on God’s Word, honors God’s name, and proclaims God’s Kingdom as mankind’s only hope? Which group practices love and shuns war? What do you think?​—Read 1 John 3:10-12.
Conclusion
The person who belongs to the Christian denomination that practice all 5 points above is my fellow believer.

So are other denominations practiced all these 5 points or only JWs?

Whether am a Church goer or not I'll keep it to my chest.

The clergy, their laity, the religious leaders and the Church itself are the ones that usually refer to themselves as CHRISTENDOM. That word does not originate from us. Believe me. And it is not a scriptural terminology.

Is THEOCRACY a scriptural terminology?

I told you earlier that Jehovah's Witnesses do not judge.

This is pure lies...

Why do they say they're the ONLY TRUE CHRISTIANS doing the will of Jehovah?

Rather, Jesus is the judge appointed by Jehovah (Acts 17:31). He will judge everyone including you and i.

So you know this but you join your organization to condemn everyone who doesn't belong to your organization as enemy of Jehovah.

And judgment will start in the "house of God." (1 Peter 4:17-19).

The Phrase "House of God" here does mean House of Jehovah or another God?

because I don't know why judgement will start from House of God (Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's witnesses) when everyone there are already doing His will.

Or should we say, the HOUSE OF GOD means everybody who is named with the name of Christ which Apostle Paul admonishes them to depart from iniquity.

While false religion will be judged adversely. See also Revelation 17:1-18; 18:4-24. Note that this woman here depict not a literal woman but false religion who commits spiritual immorality with the kings of the earth. Meaning they fuse religion with politics. God frowns at this (James 4:4). Rev.18:4 says we should "get out of her."

When, where and how will this judgement take place because you people only talk about Armageddon!

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....

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:
Alright i've heard you!

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

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:
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.

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

Janosky:
I challenge you to name one scribe who copied the Bible from its original manuscript to the ones discovered today

So how do you know it was added?

Anyways, you can visit this thread for more about the COMMA

https://www.nairaland.com/6032299/johannine-comma-1-john-5

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?

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:
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?

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.

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:
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?

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:
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.

Janosky:
Bros, The EVIDENCES full ground yakata... This is one of them in the screenshot

The evidences full ground but you couldn't tell us WHO ADDED IT.