Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

[JohnD]

Mark 7:7 + Mark 7:13 = Matthew 7:21-23

Human traditions (the traditions of man / ways of man / wisdom of man / understanding of man) are satanic (Matthew 16:23 / John 8:41-45) and confound and confuse and deceive... while making perfect sense to it victims.

Proverbs 14:12 (NKJV)
12 There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
25 There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

We can't even divide the Word of Truth accurately

2 Timothy 2:15 (NKJV)
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Look in your Bibles to find the division between Old and New Testaments falls between Malachi 4 and Matthew 1.

Hebrews 9:16–17 (NKJV)
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Jesus died on the cross (Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46, John 19:30).

All leading up to that point was under the Old Testament Law / Old Covenant.

So? What difference does this make?

It separates Legalism from the Grace often carried over into the New Covenant by tradition and teaching.

John 3:16-18, Ephesians 2:8-10 clearly state that faith in Jesus activates his prepaid salvation in our individual accounts. That the Father loves us (John 16:27) and we do the actual work of God only by this faith (John 6:29). Before the cross, "if you do not forgive others, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you..." (Matthew 6:14-15 / Mark 11:26). ← both before the cross ergo Old Covenant / Old Testament

[ChristB4us]

@Tony the student

I find that modern Bibles sows doubts in God's words within that same modern Bible for why I rely on my personal Good Shepherd to help me understand His words in the KJV to use the meat of His words to discern good and evil by the KJV.

In rightly dividing the word of truth, it pays to use the KJV when relying on Jesus Christ for discerning good & evil by His words as kept by those who loved Him and His words, thus prophesying and warning us that not all will do this for why we need discernment.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

The fact that John's testimony of the Three Witnesses in Heaven was originally scripture is one of the reasons why I rely on the KJV.

IS 1 JOHN 5:7 NOT IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE 1600S? IF IT IS TRUE, WHY IS IT IN THE KJV?

Although I do not align with Jack Chick's teachings, his site does show an excerpt from the author's page on answering that question at the link above, and even bothered to give actual references that proves 1 John 5:7 regarding the 3 Witnesses in Heaven was originally scripture by the extrabiblical sources where they had cited that verse as far back as 200 A.D.

I rely on the Greek documents that originated from Antioch where the disciples studied for a year in the word of God.  Acts 11:26 KJV

The Greek documents from Alexandria where Alexandria was an area known for poetic licensing and Gnosticism, are to be circumspect.  The argument of the oldest manuscripts being the best manuscripts should be discerned in that those manuscripts were not being used often in those monasteries for why they were not being worn out to need copying again.  The monks in those monasteries were known for praying and fasting and with Gnosticism as meaning secret or hidden knowledge, they were using tongues for private use which Paul exhorted his readers to study scripture and shun that kind of tongues for self edification.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness..... 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Paul set the precedent for the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:4-21 KJV as they were not for private use, but modern tongue speakers today would ignore that and pull verses 2,4,&14 out of context of what Paul was trying to exhort the gift of prophesy for believers to seek after over all spiritual gifts including tongues and gave the bottom line on tongues in verses 20-21 that it was for speaking unto the people and never to serve as a sign or proof for anything to the believers for;  1 Corinthians 14th Chapter KJV

Indeed, in rightly dividing the word of truth, they ignore how all Bible versions testify that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself but speaks what He hears and yet differ when it comes to the Romans 8:26-27 as if the Holy Spirit can groan from Himself but the KJV keeps the truth with John 16:13 in that He cannot even utter His own groanings out loud.  

John 16:13 & Romans 8:26-26 KJV, NIV, NASB. ESV, Living Bible

Because of modern bibles, many doubt John 16:13 meant that about the Holy Spirit and so assume when tongues comes without interpretation, they assume the Holy Spirit is praying out loud in making His intercessions for them when in actuality, the KJV and a few other Bible keeps the truth in that version whereby the Holy Spirit makes silent intercessions for every saved believer.

So it does go to show how believers today want to believe tongues are for private use as they wrest the scriptures at the expense of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 12:4-21 that none of the gifts are for private use but for the profit of the body of believers.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

I am sure there are other places where they had wrest Paul's words like in 1 Corinthians 7:25-28 KJV, thinking it is okay to sin for why the apostle John was rebuking that notion in 1 John 1st Chapter.

So we do need to trust the Lord Jesus Christ to help us understand His words in the KJV to use the meat of His words to discern good & evil and not just know which Bible version loved Him enough to keep His words for us to follow Him by.

Edited April 24, 2023 by ChristB4us

[BibleWords]

So, ChristB4us, would you call yourself a KJV only?  Or are you defending the Word of God in general.

Do you believe other translations are false or misleading?

Are you tying the KJV only to the Scripture which says “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” or do you believe you can “rightly divide” other translations.

Just wondering, because you used the term “KJV” several times.

[Arial]

54 minutes ago, ChristB4us said:

I find that modern Bibles sows doubts in God's words within that same modern Bible for why I rely on my personal Good Shepherd to help me understand His words in the KJV to use the meat of His words to discern good and evil by the KJV.

In rightly dividing the word of truth, it pays to use the KJV when relying on Jesus Christ for discerning good & evil by His words as kept by those who loved Him and His words, thus prophesying and warning us that not all will do this for why we need discernment.

On what do you base your assumption that the KJV is more reliable than all other translations? 

Do you have any examples where the KJV says one thing, presents a truth, and another or other translations translate the same passage in a way that would cause doubt, or change any truth?

It seems to me that if someone is going to make such a bold statement as fact, they should show to those who do not use the KJV because the archaic language is to them a distraction, a hindrance, and even annoyance, that what they claim is infallibly true. So if you would please.

[Arial]

1 hour ago, ChristB4us said:

So it does go to show how believers today want to believe tongues are for private use as they wrest the scriptures at the expense of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 12:4-21 that none of the gifts are for private use but for the profit of the body of believers.

Reading translations other than the KJV is not the reason tongue speakers believe tongues are active today, private and public. That would assume that not a one of them uses the KJV. And though they are not rightly dividing the word of God, it has nothing to do with the translation they are using.

They have come under the spell of a false teaching that offers them more than what Jesus gives and does. It offers them the desires of their flesh but are deceived into believing that all that emotion and feeling of superior spirituality, and manifestations, is the Holy Spirit. They do not know who the Holy Spirit is according to scripture, or what He does. They have completely divorced Him from His word. And His word is truth. John 17.

The Holy Spirit convicts of sin, brings one to repentance through faith in the person and work of Christ, seals them in Him, teaches, advocates for, gives understanding to the word and through it sanctifies. He is always and forever glorifying Christ. He does not speak in tongues or baptize or fill people with tongues. His presence was manifested as languages glorifying God, that people who spoke that language understood. It was necessary when the church was birthed and in its earliest beginnings. To make visible the beginning of this new age, to communicate this in the various languages of those who were present so all would hear and as the gospel spread to places of various languages, and to show that this same salvation came to Gentiles and not only Jews.

Signs and wonders and miracles also were given at that time as a verification of the authority of the apostles, that they spoke for God and God's truth. We do not need those things any longer. We have it all between the pages of our Bible.

That is why these things are no longer active in the church, not because someone is reading a translation other than the KJV. The tongue speakers use those scriptures you put forth as support for their actions, and the KJV would not stop them from doing so.

 

[Alive]

1 hour ago, ChristB4us said:

@Tony the student

I find that modern Bibles sows doubts in God's words within that same modern Bible for why I rely on my personal Good Shepherd to help me understand His words in the KJV to use the meat of His words to discern good and evil by the KJV.

In rightly dividing the word of truth, it pays to use the KJV when relying on Jesus Christ for discerning good & evil by His words as kept by those who loved Him and His words, thus prophesying and warning us that not all will do this for why we need discernment.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

The fact that John's testimony of the Three Witnesses in Heaven was originally scripture is one of the reasons why I rely on the KJV.

IS 1 JOHN 5:7 NOT IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE 1600S? IF IT IS TRUE, WHY IS IT IN THE KJV?

Although I do not align with Jack Chick's teachings, his site does show an excerpt from the author's page on answering that question at the link above, and even bothered to give actual references that proves 1 John 5:7 regarding the 3 Witnesses in Heaven was originally scripture by the extrabiblical sources where they had cited that verse as far back as 200 A.D.

I rely on the Greek documents that originated from Antioch where the disciples studied for a year in the word of God.  Acts 11:26 KJV

The Greek documents from Alexandria where Alexandria was an area known for poetic licensing and Gnosticism, are to be circumspect.  The argument of the oldest manuscripts being the best manuscripts should be discerned in that those manuscripts were not being used often in those monasteries for why they were not being worn out to need copying again.  The monks in those monasteries were known for praying and fasting and with Gnosticism as meaning secret or hidden knowledge, they were using tongues for private use which Paul exhorted his readers to study scripture and shun that kind of tongues for self edification.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness..... 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Paul set the precedent for the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:4-21 KJV as they were not for private use, but modern tongue speakers today would ignore that and pull verses 2,4,&14 out of context of what Paul was trying to exhort the gift of prophesy for believers to seek after over all spiritual gifts including tongues and gave the bottom line on tongues in verses 20-21 that it was for speaking unto the people and never to serve as a sign or proof for anything to the believers for;  1 Corinthians 14th Chapter KJV

Indeed, in rightly dividing the word of truth, they ignore how all Bible versions testify that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself but speaks what He hears and yet differ when it comes to the Romans 8:26-27 as if the Holy Spirit can groan from Himself but the KJV keeps the truth with John 16:13 in that He cannot even utter His own groanings out loud.  

John 16:13 & Romans 8:26-26 KJV, NIV, NASB. ESV, Living Bible

Because of modern bibles, many doubt John 16:13 meant that about the Holy Spirit and so assume when tongues comes without interpretation, they assume the Holy Spirit is praying out loud in making His intercessions for them when in actuality, the KJV and a few other Bible keeps the truth in that version whereby the Holy Spirit makes silent intercessions for every saved believer.

So it does go to show how believers today want to believe tongues are for private use as they wrest the scriptures at the expense of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 12:4-21 that none of the gifts are for private use but for the profit of the body of believers.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

I am sure there are other places where they had wrest Paul's words like in 1 Corinthians 7:25-28 KJV, thinking it is okay to sin for why the apostle John was rebuking that notion in 1 John 1st Chapter.

So we do need to trust the Lord Jesus Christ to help us understand His words in the KJV to use the meat of His words to discern good & evil and not just know which Bible version loved Him enough to keep His words for us to follow Him by.

The following is Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary

John 5: 7 three — Two or three witnesses were required by law to constitute adequate testimony. The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth,” are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them: the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99, of the eighth century. A scholium quoted in Matthaei, shows that the words did not arise from fraud; for in the words, in all Greek manuscripts “there are three that bear record,” as the Scholiast notices, the word “three” is masculine, because the three things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood ) are SYMBOLS OF THE TRINITY. To this CYPRIAN, 196, also refers, “Of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is written, ‘And these three are one’ (a unity).”

[Alive]

The following is Albert Barne's NT Note's...

The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:

I. It is wanting in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek Ms. written before the sixteenth century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age—one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be wanting in all the early Greek manuscripts.

II. It is wanting in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions—one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Sclavonic, Ehiopic, and Arabic.

III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity—a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the fifth century. If the passage were believed to be genuine—nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favour—it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the Divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to any one who examines the subject with an unbiased mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725,) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it.

IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.

(a.) The connexion does not demand it. It does not contribute to advance what the apostle is saying, but breaks the thread of his argument entirely. He is speaking of certain things which bear “witness” to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah; certain things were well known to those to whom he was writing—the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. How does it contribute to strengthen the force of this to say that in heaven there are “three that bear witness”—three not before referred to, and having no connexion with the matter under consideration?

(b.) The language is not such as John would use. He does, indeed, elsewhere use the term Logos, or Word, ο λογος John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1, but it is never in this form, “The Father, and the Word;” that is, the terms “Father“ and “Word“ are never used by him, or by any of the other sacred writers, as correlative. The word Son—ο υιος—is the term which is correlative to the Father in every other place as used by John, as well as by the other sacred writers. See 1 John 1:3; 2:22-24; 4:14; 1 John 3:9; and the Gospel of John, passim. Besides, the correlative of the term Logos, or Word, with John, is not Father, but God. See John 1:1. Comp. Rev. 19:13.

(c) Without this passage, the sense of the argument is clear and appropriate. There are three, says John, which bear witness that Jesus is the Messiah. These are referred to in 1 John 5:6; and in immediate connexion with this, in the argument, (1 John 5:8,) it is affirmed that their testimony goes to one point, and is harmonious. To say that there are other witnesses elsewhere, to say that they are one, contributes nothing to illustrate the nature of the testimony of these three—the water, and the blood, and the Spirit; and the internal sense of the passage, therefore, furnishes as little evidence of its genuineness as the external proof. It is easy to imagine how the passage found a place in the New Testament. It was at first written, perhaps, in the margin of some Latin manuscript, as expressing the belief of the writer of what was true in heaven, as well as on earth, and with no more intention to deceive than we have when we make a marginal note in a book. Some transcriber copied it into the body of the text, perhaps with a sincere belief that it was a genuine passage, omitted by accident; and then it became too important a passage in the argument for the Trinity, ever to be displaced but by the most clear critical evidence. It was rendered into Greek, and inserted in one Greek manuscript of the 16th century, while it was wanting in all the earlier manuscripts.

VI. The passage is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics. See Griesbach and Hahn. On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. One or two remarks may be made, in addition, in regard to its use.

(1.) Even on the supposition that it is genuine, as Bengel believed it was, and as he believed that some Greek manuscript would yet be found which would contain it **; yet it is not wise to adduce it as a proof-text. It would be much easier to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from other texts, than to demonstrate the genuineness of this.

(2.) It is not necessary as a proof-text. The doctrine which it contains can be abundantly established from other parts of the New Testament, by passages about which there can be no doubt.

(3.) The removal of this text does nothing to weaken the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, or to modify that doctrine. As it was never used to shape the early belief of the Christian world on the subject, so its rejection, and its removal from the New Testament, will do nothing to modify that doctrine. The doctrine was embraced, and held, and successfully defended without it, and it can and will be so still.

* Mill. New Test., pp. 379-386; Wetstein, II. 721—727; Father Simon, Crit. Hist. New Test.; Michaelis, Intro. New Test. iv. 412, seq.; Semler, Histor. und Krit. Sammlungen uber die sogenannten Beweistellen der Dogmatik. Erstes Stuck uber, 1 John 5:7; Griesbach, Diatribe in locum, 1 John 5:7, 8, second edit., New Test., vol. II., appendix 1; and Lucke’s Commentary in loc.

[ChristB4us]

1 hour ago, Arial said:

On what do you base your assumption that the KJV is more reliable than all other translations? 

Do you have any examples where the KJV says one thing, presents a truth, and another or other translations translate the same passage in a way that would cause doubt, or change any truth?

It seems to me that if someone is going to make such a bold statement as fact, they should show to those who do not use the KJV because the archaic language is to them a distraction, a hindrance, and even annoyance, that what they claim is infallibly true. So if you would please.

I did provide examples, brother.  Do read the whole post.

I can add another example.  In the face of those who believe we are not saved yet.. but in the process of being saved...they would use this reference;

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness(C) to those who are perishing,(D) but to us who are being saved(E) it is the power of God.(F)  NIV

I would rely on the KJV to not only have the right words but how in context, God is pleased to save those that believe.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.  KJV

Then you have a bunch of self proclaimed Greek scholars claiming that the KJV has it wrong and that it does mean "are being saved".  They go to the preaching of the cross as if that preaching is a present participle refers to a form of the verb in English that expresses an action that is taking place at the moment (or in the present) rather than the subject of the preaching of the cross to justify having "are being saved" in that modern bible version.

And yet although they agree with we are saved, those that use that verse out of context for that false teaching are supported by those who oppose the KJV and a few modern bibles for having it as "are saved".  It is annoying, but there it is.

@FreeGrace

What is your take on 1 Corinthians 1:18 per your level of knowledge in the Greek?  Is it "are being saved" or is it "are saved"?

 

[ChristB4us]

54 minutes ago, Alive said:

The following is Albert Barne's NT Note's...

The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:

I. It is wanting in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek Ms. written before the sixteenth century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age—one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be wanting in all the early Greek manuscripts.

II. It is wanting in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions—one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Sclavonic, Ehiopic, and Arabic.

III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity—a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the fifth century. If the passage were believed to be genuine—nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favour—it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the Divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to any one who examines the subject with an unbiased mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725,) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it.

IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.

(a.) The connexion does not demand it. It does not contribute to advance what the apostle is saying, but breaks the thread of his argument entirely. He is speaking of certain things which bear “witness” to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah; certain things were well known to those to whom he was writing—the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. How does it contribute to strengthen the force of this to say that in heaven there are “three that bear witness”—three not before referred to, and having no connexion with the matter under consideration?

(b.) The language is not such as John would use. He does, indeed, elsewhere use the term Logos, or Word, ο λογος John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1, but it is never in this form, “The Father, and the Word;” that is, the terms “Father“ and “Word“ are never used by him, or by any of the other sacred writers, as correlative. The word Son—ο υιος—is the term which is correlative to the Father in every other place as used by John, as well as by the other sacred writers. See 1 John 1:3; 2:22-24; 4:14; 1 John 3:9; and the Gospel of John, passim. Besides, the correlative of the term Logos, or Word, with John, is not Father, but God. See John 1:1. Comp. Rev. 19:13.

(c) Without this passage, the sense of the argument is clear and appropriate. There are three, says John, which bear witness that Jesus is the Messiah. These are referred to in 1 John 5:6; and in immediate connexion with this, in the argument, (1 John 5:8,) it is affirmed that their testimony goes to one point, and is harmonious. To say that there are other witnesses elsewhere, to say that they are one, contributes nothing to illustrate the nature of the testimony of these three—the water, and the blood, and the Spirit; and the internal sense of the passage, therefore, furnishes as little evidence of its genuineness as the external proof. It is easy to imagine how the passage found a place in the New Testament. It was at first written, perhaps, in the margin of some Latin manuscript, as expressing the belief of the writer of what was true in heaven, as well as on earth, and with no more intention to deceive than we have when we make a marginal note in a book. Some transcriber copied it into the body of the text, perhaps with a sincere belief that it was a genuine passage, omitted by accident; and then it became too important a passage in the argument for the Trinity, ever to be displaced but by the most clear critical evidence. It was rendered into Greek, and inserted in one Greek manuscript of the 16th century, while it was wanting in all the earlier manuscripts.

VI. The passage is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics. See Griesbach and Hahn. On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. One or two remarks may be made, in addition, in regard to its use.

(1.) Even on the supposition that it is genuine, as Bengel believed it was, and as he believed that some Greek manuscript would yet be found which would contain it **; yet it is not wise to adduce it as a proof-text. It would be much easier to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from other texts, than to demonstrate the genuineness of this.

(2.) It is not necessary as a proof-text. The doctrine which it contains can be abundantly established from other parts of the New Testament, by passages about which there can be no doubt.

(3.) The removal of this text does nothing to weaken the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, or to modify that doctrine. As it was never used to shape the early belief of the Christian world on the subject, so its rejection, and its removal from the New Testament, will do nothing to modify that doctrine. The doctrine was embraced, and held, and successfully defended without it, and it can and will be so still.

* Mill. New Test., pp. 379-386; Wetstein, II. 721—727; Father Simon, Crit. Hist. New Test.; Michaelis, Intro. New Test. iv. 412, seq.; Semler, Histor. und Krit. Sammlungen uber die sogenannten Beweistellen der Dogmatik. Erstes Stuck uber, 1 John 5:7; Griesbach, Diatribe in locum, 1 John 5:7, 8, second edit., New Test., vol. II., appendix 1; and Lucke’s Commentary in loc.

There is a problem with that line of suppositions due to lack of evidence.  By taking verse 7 out as if it was not originally scripture, then how can God's witness be greater then men's witness in the earth in verse 9?

1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.  KJV

1 John 5:6 This is the one who came by water and blood(A)—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.(B) 7 For there are three(C) that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept human testimony,(D) but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God,(E) which he has given about his Son.  NIV

The human testimony would be greater because it has the testimony of the Spirit, the water and the blood in the NIV.  Where is the witness of God when you remove verse 7 from the KJV?  Nowhere in sight.

Since Jesus testified that those who do not love Him will not keep His words as a warning from the Father John 14:23-24 & John 15:20, then I would say that prophesy came true as evident for 1 John 5:7 in the KJV.

[ChristB4us]

2 hours ago, BibleWords said:

So, ChristB4us, would you call yourself a KJV only?  Or are you defending the Word of God in general.

Do you believe other translations are false or misleading?

Are you tying the KJV only to the Scripture which says “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” or do you believe you can “rightly divide” other translations.

Just wondering, because you used the term “KJV” several times.

Because I do not believe the KJV is a perfect Bible, is why I do not consider myself as a KJV onlyist, but I have noticed that when dealing with false teachings from tongues for private use as if used by the Holy Spirit to make intercessions for tongue speakers per Romans 8:26-27 & John 16:13 and those who believe we are not saved yet but working out our salvation 1 Corinthians 1:18, and Bible versions like the CEV that would teach believers that it is okay to make vows and man made bondages contrary to what most bible versions say in Matthew 5:33-37 & Galatians 5:1-5, I have come to rely on the KJV for the meat of His words in discerning good and evil in these latter days where faith is hard to find.

I had been a reader of the NASB Study Bible and the NIV, but when reading disturbing & conflicting passages, I was led to read the KJV and sure enough, it maintained the truth in His words whereas other modern bibles changed the message to sow doubts in His words in that modern Bible version and thus give credence to false teachings, even though it is taken out of context.

By using only the KJV, they can't take it out of context.  But it never works.  Even those who profess to only using the KJV, if I correct them by the KJV in rightly dividing the word of truth, they go to Bible NET.  Suddenly, their reliance on the KJV is not so solid after all when wishing to defend their false teachings.

Still, I leave the ministry to the Lord.  it was Jesus Christ that led me to the KJV where there is no scripture going against scripture, even though it is not a perfect bible.  I'd rather have the truth in His words for the meat in discerning good and evil than not.