mikeboll64

Well said.

1 John 5:7 was a comment in the margins, and also appeared in non-biblical writings of the period. It is believed to be a saying used in the early church which was someone added as margin comment, and was later included in the text. While true, and a good description of the Trinitarian concept, it is likely not in the original text. Unfortunately, inclusion in modern bibles adds a layer of difficulty in discussing the Trinity with non-trinitarians. A trinitarian will often use it as proof and a knowledgable non-trinitarian will use it to caste doubt on the trinitarian argument, as it was likely a scribal addition. Truthfully, the concept of the trinity is in scripture, so using this questioned passage is not needed to show the Trinity. Mark 16 verses 9 on, are generally agreed upon as not original. Early manuscripts do not contain them, as the writing style is different from the rest of the book of Mark. In the second century, there are manuscripts with nothing past verse 8 and other with just 1 more verse which is different then the current ending. Some scholars say that ending at verse 8 is too abrupt, and it is possible that the actual ending was lost so unknown people (person), added what was a logical ending based on other scripture verses from the book of Acts etc. Early church historical Christians fail to mention verses beyond verse 8. Of course, this is a different issue from a scribal error. If the original ending was lost, and a replacement written, not by Mark as it is not his style, but by someone else, what is written does not have the same grave effect as the scribal addition of 1 John 5:7, and is historically accurate if not part of the original. I wasn't aware that Butero ever asked ME any question about Mark 16.... but you have answered it well enough, Qnts2. You guys can also read footnote #9 here for more info about it: http://classic.net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mar&chapter=16#n9 A similar thing happened with John 7:53-8:11, and you can read footnote #139 here for info on that one: http://classic.net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Joh&chapter=7#n139 Btw, the event described in John 7:53-8:11 is one of my all time favorites. But as much as I want that event to be in John's original gospel, I have to face the facts of the matter.

Did you ever consider that they're not "leaving things out", but are instead refusing to include the known scribal "additions" that are found in the TR? I brought this up before, but you seem to have ignored it...... so I'll say it better. If we have 1500 different Greek mss that include 1 John 5:7, dating from the 2nd century to the 17th century, and only 5 of those 1500 mss have the extra words that are in the KJV, what most likely happened? Do you seriously believe that 1495 scribes who copied 1495 mss throughout the centuries decided to "leave things out" - and that only 5 of those 1500 scribes decided to put "all the words" in their copy? And what is your answer when you add in the fact that all 5 of the mss which include those extra words come from the 14th century or later? And what is your answer when you add the fact that we have 4 different mss (10th, 12th, 14th, and 15th century) that contain those extra words, but have them as a marginal note, and not a part of the scriptural text itself? Are you beginning to see how those words came to be? They were not in the original by John. They were not in ANY ms from the 2nd century all the way up to the 10th century....... where they were first added as a MARGINAL NOTE by a certain scribe. Then, 3 other times, a scribe included those words - also as a MARGINAL NOTE. Then, sometime in the 14th century, the scribe who produced ms known as 629 took that MARGINAL NOTE and added it into the actual text for the first time. Yet you somehow believe, based solely on the fact that those words are in the KJV, that those words were original, and for some reason, 4 scribes took them from the text and placed them as marginal notes, and 1495 scribes refused to include them at all. But then, in the 14th century, one scribe secretly came up with John's original, and included those words back into the text where they belong. Do you seriously not see how irrational that thinking is? And for what? Because you have a man-made desire to insist that one particular man-made translation of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures is the only "perfect" one?

Who told you any Bible is the Word of God? Hi Butero, I believe the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures are the written word of God - based on faith. I believe, on faith, that the one who truly did create the heavens, the earth, and everything in them was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Which sets of manuscripts of the originals to you believe God dictated. They are not all the same. The originals, of course. But since we do not have access to the original writings, I settle for the oldest ones we have discovered. It is a known fact that scribes sometimes added their own words to the texts throughout the centuries. So the closest to the originals we can get will be the better (less messed-with) mss.

Who told you any Bible is the Word of God? Hi Butero, I believe the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures are the written word of God - based on faith. I believe, on faith, that the one who truly did create the heavens, the earth, and everything in them was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But I don't believe that any translation into English, or any other language, is flawless and "God-inspired". Like I said earlier, the KJV is just one of many fine translations into English. There are also many other fine translations into English, and just like the KJV, those others ones also have their man-made flaws. There is no "conspiracy" against the KJV, as Trinitron and certain others seem to believe. It is simply a matter of the KJV scholars doing the very best they could with the mss they had to work from, and the fact that we today have many older and better mss to work from. You are free to believe what you like.

Hmmmmm............. Who told you the KJV was "God's bible"?

Hi Butero, The following is some information concerning the extra words the KJV has in 1 John 5:7. This information is from the 25 Trinitarian scholars who produced the NET Bible. I've only posted a small portion of the information........... Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. (Emphasis mine) From here: http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=7 (Click on footnote #2 in the NET translation at the top of the page.) So, out of the HUNDREDS of ancient Greek mss we have access to, only NINE have those extra words. And in four of those nine, the words aren't even in the scriptural text, but written in the margin. That means those extra words are in only FIVE Greek mss - the earliest of which dates to 1400 years after the scripture was written by John. I find it very hard to believe that hundreds of scribes accidentally left those particular words out of hundreds of mss for 1400 years. You must also consider the importance those words hold for Trinitarians, who are the very ones who produce most of these newer Bibles that DON'T have those words in them. As the guys from NETNotes pointed out later......... Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. Don't you think the Trinitarians that produce the vast majority of the newer English translations would LOVE to include those extra words - if there was even an inkling of a chance the words were authentic?

Why do you suppose those extra words were MISSING from those mss lying around in the caves?

The bottom line is that the scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Those original mss were copied and re-copied many, many times throughout the years. And many times, the scribe doing the copying added his own thoughts - into the margin or whatever - and those marginal additions were sometimes added into the actual scriptural text by an even later scribe........ as if those words were part of the inspired scripture. For example, the extra words in the King James Version of 1 John 5:7 are not found in any Greek ms that dates before the 14th century. And there are a LOT of Greek mss that date much earlier than the 14th century. So it seems to me that the only options are: 1. A scribe ADDED those extra words to the original, sometime around the 14th century. 2. Somebody went back in time and ERASED those words from all of those earlier Greek mss. The KJV is a fine and well-translated Bible....... but the scholars who produced it could only go off of the best mss they had at that time. Parts of it were even back-translated from the Latin Vulgate, since they didn't have access to Hebrew mss of the entire OT. We have since uncovered (or discovered) many older Hebrew and Greek mss.......... and these are the ones the newer English versions are translated from. (This is why you'll often see extra words in the KJV that aren't in, say, the NIV. It's not a matter of the NIV leaving words out for personal reasons. Instead, it is a matter of the NIV being translated from much older mss, and those other words simply aren't in those older mss.) Many people believe that the older the English translation, the closer to the truth. But in reality, the older the Hebrew or Greek mss, the closer to the original inspired words that were written.

Hi mevosper, Consider............ Revelation 19:12 His eyes are like blazing fire....... Revelation 2:18 .....These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire........ Revelation 19:15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword...... Revelation 2:16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. It is clear that the verses in chapter 2 are talking about Jesus, the Son of God. (See also the description of Jesus in Rev 1:14-16) These similar descriptions leave little doubt that Jesus is indeed the one being described in the passage you quoted as well.