₦airaland Forum

Peacefullove:
. you already expose your self in the next post am gonna do

That's why you couldn't provide your fraudulent source.

I'm still waiting for it, and you must provide it.

I think I've expressed myself on this, and vibrant English students can see for themselves who is lying here.

Peacefullove:
fact remains the quote cannot be the same . Even if your source add the article " THE " , The " OF " wasn't in the verse . The use of Son instead of Word Even exposed your lies.

See liar trying to cover up his lies.

What is your source, show us so that we can apply see.

Your source must be a terrible, corrupt and dishonesty one for them to twist the statement that way.

So I'm still waiting for your source.

talk about the Bible, there are many direct quotes from LXX .

But is there ALLUSION also?

If yes! Does that mean it's just their expression or still quote?

You fall for the bait, I was asking where is " OF " in 1John 5:7 u claimed he quoted. is there" OF " before The Father , son or holy ghost ?? this is simply writers expression

Fraudster...

"IT IS WRITTEN OF The Father, of the Son, and The Holy Ghost..."

thank You! see the quote

so according to you in the first quote we have

" THE LORD SAYS" and we also have " I and the Father are one " ... one was an expression , the other was a direct quote.

hence Wikipedia QUOTE I and the Father are one SPECIALLY ... that got a special quote .

In the second instance , ONLY " These three are one" was QUOTED .

That's why you'll remain liar forever.
I know you lack basic English

"IT IS WRITTEN of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost..."

Which means the three names have been linked with "AND THESE THERE ARE ONE"

That's the reason your fraudulent source put "IT IS WRITTEN" after "of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" in other to change the narrative.

your argument would mean even the word " The Lord says " was directly picked from the bible , It's just an expression just as Of the Father, The son and the holy ghost are the writers expression.

It was never an expression stop lying...

This is simple English and stop disgracing yourself on public forum.

"IT IS WRITTEN of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost..." and verse 8 doesn't have these three names.

I believe you have sense to see the colored parts , I even strike some parts to help u... it's say more about this. the writer wasn't quoting 1John 5:7, but a quote from verse 8 just as the expression + the Lord says + which precede I and the Father are one is NOT a Bible quote but the writers expression

Does verse 8 mention the THREE PERSONS?

You're trying hard to make Cyprian commits theology suicide but using wrong verse for his Trinity support.

If comma wasn't existed that time, Cyprian wouldn't have used "IT IS WRITTEN of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost..."

Verse 8 is never a reference to the three persons of the Trinity and know one has ever used verse 8 as a prove for Trinity.

Peacefullove:
the funny thing is you admitted he wasn't quoting it FULL earlier which even add more doubts to your claim. if such verse existed, he would have done that .

How many early Christians writers make FULL quote when quoting scripture?

The fact is, everyone can see the COMMA from Cyprian statement except deluded and liar like you.

now here you are claiming Everything he said was Directly Quoted @ bold . contrarily you claimed it wasn't a full quote in a previous post

You can see the reason I said you lack wisdom!

I only presented to you how the COMMA part of "and the three are one" was written in Greek and how the verse 8 part of "and the three are one" was written too.

So, if you claim it's from verse 8 then it should be in that form but if it's from the COMMA then it should be in that form.

you are confused .

Lying liar mouth...

I'm still waiting for the source you got your quote from and even claim no ARTICLE "the" before Son and Holy Ghost.

Peacefullove:
you are a Liar , If that was a direct quote , it's Word that will be there NOT Son. neither will he omit the article " The "

How many early Christians writers make DIRECT quote?

here is the quote

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)

the bolded is that which is written but applied to his own Trinity doctrine. and the bolded appears at verse 8

Where is your source for this quote?

After I even tutor you about the wording of verse 7 &8 in Greek.

Provide the Greek word let's see whether it correlates with verse 7 or verse 8

Here is where your lying mouth will be shut forever!!!

Peacefullove:
even the article " THE " was interchangeable too ?? stop deluding yourself .

Now it's about ARTICLE "The"

when you make a quote, You make it exactly as it is , If you have any intention to add anything , it will be in bracket . YOU LIED!

How many of the early Christian writers usually make QUOTE exactly as it is from the scripture?

You are a Liar, that's not what he says ... okay In fact show me " OF THE FATHER " and Tell me why the Article THE was missing in his quote in reference to Son and Holy ghost.

You're the one who quoted Cyprian yet you didn't see "OF THE FATHER" there...that's wonderful.

Just like I said, you're just looking for a way to derail this thread which is very glaring.

he didn't , read the text again . that which is written is " these three are one " , it's the only word that appears in quote in that Statement .

That's your own fraud to just to twist Cyprian statement.

This is how Wikipedia put

The Lord says, "I and the Father are one"
and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
"And these three are one."[52]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

Original source puts it this way

"The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."

https://books.google.nl/books?id=hMU7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA382&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

you are a Liar , Quote it the way it is . u this fraud

This is how it is!

"The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."

The Comma never existed , that's why his words didn't match the acclaimed quote. he was only expressing a doctrine.

Liar, what you even called expression is called "ALLUDED" hardly early writers' quotes match their quoting WORD FOR WORD.

Majority alluded to the scripture.

Where does the idea of applying "And these three are one" to the three persons if the TRINITY comes from if not from the COMMA?

Peacefullove:
Does verse 7 says Son if he was even quoting 1John 5:7 ? What happen to the absence of article " THE" in his writing when the text says " The " if it was a direct quote ??

Does verse 8 has this three are one or it doesn't ?

"This three are one" in verse 8 is referencing to "the spirit, water, and blood" without the comma

So if anyone says "it is written OF the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

Someone with working brain will definitely knows this is not verse 8 but another verse.

---

Let me also tutor you because I know you lack wisdom

This is what appears "τρεις εν εισιν" in the Comma rather than of "τρεις εις το εν εισιν" in verse 8.  The Greek in verse 8 has the preposition "εις". 

Now, show us the Greek writing of Tertullian let's see whether it's in line with the COMMA or verse 8.

Peacefullove:
Tertulian quote is the oldest and sorry to Dissapoint you, it's a quote of John 10:30 not any fraud .

Tertullian quoted a fraud then because "the three are one" says Tertullian and this is even a quote for Trinity

You can erase it from his work

Peacefullove:
Your blood Don dey high ?

When it's obvious you're the one having HPB here

Does verse 7 has the wording " Son " ??

I have told you, that it's interchangeable which is even the reason why some scholars said, he wouldn't have quoted it full because the COMMA has THE WORD instead of THE SON

If comprehension is your problem , be humble enough to ask for help . That which he said is written is the " this three are one" that's the word in QUOTE. And which appears at verse 8

Says the person with low IQ

But he said "IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST"

Does such appear in verse 8?

"the Spirit, the water, and the blood— and these three are one. " ISV

But he said "OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST"

NOT OF THE FATHER, THE Son , or Holy ghost ... Those are his own expression of a doctrine, If he was making a direct quote , it would even be Word and not Son. Since that's what the fraud text says

IT IS WRITTEN "of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost" it was only verse 7 such text was applied to the three persons of the Trinity.

I ask again: If such verse exist, why didn't he Quote it in FULL ?

Where was the idea of THREE PERSONS said to be ONE comes from if not for the existence of the COMMA?

The next thing you'll ask now, is why didn't him quote the verse

Olodo...

Having seeing various textual variants in the proceeding verse before the COMMA and some surrounding verses which nullified the claim oldest = most reliable and we can see the reason why Calvin said "...The Greek copies do not agree"

Then one can ask, if truly the COMMA exists and was ommited, shouldn't there be any evidence for its removal?

I tell you, there is an undeniable fact that the COMMA was removed.

Umlaut in Codex Vaticanus

The oldest manuscript containing 1 John 5:7 demonstrates that a significant textual variant was known for 1 John 5:7 in the 4th century.  In 1995 Philip B. Payne discovered "umlauts" (double dots) in the margins of various places in Codex Vaticanus.

He and many scholars agree that these umlauts indicate lines where a textual variant was known to the scribe.  You can read his work, The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus here.  

Interestingly, an umlaut appears next to the phrase "there are three who bear witness." in Vaticanus.

Payne briefly discusses and seemingly dismisses the significance of the umlaut in 1 John 5:7 (p. 112, footnote 34), but without a doubt the umlaut is there.

There is clearly an umlaut in the margin of verse 7 indicating a textual variant.  The only significant textual variant here is the Comma.


1) The following is a scanned image of 1 John 5:6-8 in Vaticanus:

https://www.kjvtoday.com/_/rsrc/1307679740733/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57/Comma%20Umlaut%20Scan.jpg

2) The following is a screen capture of the transcription of the above from the official digitized Nestle-Aland on the University of Munster Institute website. The image below can be viewed by selecting 1 John 5:7 in "B - 03 (Vaticanus)" and selecting "view by page":

Peacefullove:
Tertulian quote

Tertullian's quote, in English, says

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

He only quoted John 10:30. This isn't any quote from supposed 1John 5:7. Emusan is just a fraud .

I've not even started presenting the evidence of the both Greek and Latin fathers yet your blood has started going higher.

Just wait until we get there.

I know you jump in for you to derail this thread but I won't allow you.

Peacefullove:
To further burst your bubble , If that was the phrase John used, WHY DID CYPRIAN have a different phrase ?

You burst your own bubble not mine.

The phrase of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is still the same as when WORD was used but "THIS THREE ARE ONE" is the most most important.

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)

SMH..

See your fraud mouth...

He said..."and again OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST it is written "and the three are One"

So does verse 8 as you claimed has FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST?

This is simply an expression of doctrine ... Such quote never existed at the time , If not Cyprian would have said THE FATHER , THE SON, THE HOLY SPIRIT. He never said this.

It never existed but he said "IT IS WRITTEN"

Everyone can see your lying mouth.

Mind you Cyprian evidence is weak, cos that which he said is written appears also at verse 8 . If such a verse existed , he would have quoted it in whole

Again see how your lying mouth is changing.

Does verse 8 has the wording "THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST?"

He didn't quote it you say...
What does it mean when he said "OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST, "IT IS WRITTEN"?

Do you even understand what your lying mouth is saying?

Peacefullove:
Don't fool yourself . It's an expression
If you are so sure it's a direct Bible quote, why was the verse not included in such quote ??

This alone shows that you lack knowledge of the matter at hand.

He should quote verse, when Bible hasn't been numbered or divided into verses....

Peacefullove:
Don't be silly , the tenets of the Trinity says the Father , Son , holy spirit are one . Then any such quote reffering to the Trinity could be misconstrued as though quoted from a verse when it was just an expression of a doctrine.

Don't be stupid.

The phrase "THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT" was only used by John and can only be found in the COMMA.

If the tenent of Trinity is the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are one, that's the phrase the COMMA should carry.

The truth is, the COMMA was part of the original writing.

Peacefullove:
This is really silly, This three are one is an expression of a doctrine . NOT a Bible quote

See your lying mouth....

Expression of a doctrine but where does the idea comes from, if not because it was originated from somewhere?

It's evident that people are aware of it before the council of Nicea which nullified the lie that the text was first introduced in the 4th century, that's why you want it to be EXPRESSION not direct Bible quote.


You can see you're the very silly one here.

QUICK RECAP!

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)):

---

Critics of the Comma are almost always silent regarding these textual variants and clause expunged of 1 John 5:6, 1 John 2:23b, 1 John 4:3 and 1 John 5:13 in the early uncials - corruptions that surely diminish the reliability of these early uncials in this portion of the text.  Despite there being this textual variant, none of the footnotes to 1 John 5:6 in the ESV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, NLT & HCSB mention it.  Such silence only serves to protect the undeserving reputation of the so-called "earliest and best manuscripts" and does not help the casual reader who wants the truth.

In line of this, those who hold the argument number 1 above can rethink.

1 John 5:13 was corrupted early

1 John 5:13 is proof that a clause in a parallel construction (such as that in the Comma) could drop out of some early manuscripts.  The proof of 1 John 5:13 may not be convincing to an Alexandrian text proponent, but it should be convincing to a Byzantine text proponent.  The verse in the KJV says:


"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

However, the underlined words are not found in the three earliest witnesses of the verse.  Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, essentially say:

"these things have I written unto you, that ye may see that ye have everlasting life: they that believe in the name of the son of God."

The Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority Text, in agreement with the fourth, fifth, and sixth earliest witnesses of the verse in its entirety, K (9th century), L (9th century), P (9th century), say:

"these things have I written unto you that believe in the name of the son of God, that ye may see that ye have everlasting life, and that ye may believe in the name of the son of God."

1 John 4:3 is another example of an early corruption in 1 John.

The verse in the KJV says:

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

This is the reading supported by Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest Greek manuscripts of 1 John, and the Byzantine Majority Text:

Sinaiticus:

"and every breath that confesseth not in the flesh is loosed from thy not; and this is the of Antichrist: that we have heard that he cometh now in the world already."

Byzantine Majority Text:

"and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ in the flesh is delivered from God; and this is not the Antichrist's: hear that he cometh now and now in the world."

However, 1 John 4:3 in Nestle-Aland 27, following Alexandrinus and Vaticanus and a few later manuscripts, reads:

"and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus of God is not; and this is that of Antichrist: hear that he cometh now in the world already."

["Jesus Christ in the flesh is delivered from" is omitted.]

From the evidence of one of the earliest manuscripts and the majority of manuscripts, it is reasonable to believe that 1 John 4:3 in the Textus Receptus is the correct reading.  Byzantine Majority Text proponents would agree.  If Sinaiticus and the Majority Text are correct here, 1 John 4:3 is further evidence that a clause could be expunged in the early stage of transmission.

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.