Evidence for God from Science

1 John 5:

5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him. 2 This is how we know that we love God’s children when we love God and obey[a] His commands. 3 For this is what love for God is: to keep His commands. Now His commands are not a burden, 4 because whatever has been born of God conquers the world. This is the victory that has conquered the world: our faith. 5 And who is the one who conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 Jesus Christ—He is the One who came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and by 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, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement. 9 If we accept the testimony of men, God’s testimony is greater, because it is God’s testimony that He has given about His Son. 10 (The one who believes in the Son of God has this testimony within him. The one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony God has given about His Son.) 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

The two verses underlined above do not belong in the text. It is believed they are a gloss -- a gloss being a scribe put his thoughts in the margin and the next scribe thought it was part of the text and incorporated it into the text.

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement.

My question is: Have any of you researched the theology behind these verses? The scribe must/could have taken this theology from other Scriptures. The question is which ones?

Thank you.

The issue regarding 1 John 5:7-8 involves the textual difference between the Byzantine Text (Majority Text) and the Alexandrian Text (an older text family)
Generally speaking the KJV represents the Byzantine Text while modern translations like the NASB represent the older Alexandrian Text

We can see the 1 John 5:7-8 gloss when we compare the KJV and NASB
KJV

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.

NASB

7 For there are three that testify: 8 [j]the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are [k]in agreement.

The 'gloss' you mention is the explicitly Trinitarian statement that is found in the Byzantine text and the KJV (hilighted in red above).
However this 'gloss' is absent from the older Alexandrian text and most modern translations such as the NASB and the NIV.

The gloss was also absent from the translation that you quoted from in your original post.

Hope this helps.

DBowling wrote:The issue regarding 1 John 5:7-8 involves the textual difference between the Byzantine Text (Majority Text) and the Alexandrian Text (an older text family)
Generally speaking the KJV represents the Byzantine Text while modern translations like the NASB represent the older Alexandrian Text

We can see the 1 John 5:7-8 gloss when we compare the KJV and NASB
KJV

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.

NASB

7 For there are three that testify: 8 [j]the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are [k]in agreement.

The 'gloss' you mention is the explicitly Trinitarian statement that is found in the Byzantine text and the KJV (hilighted in red above).
However this 'gloss' is absent from the older Alexandrian text and most modern translations such as the NASB and the NIV.

The gloss was also absent from the translation that you quoted from in your original post.

Hope this helps.

I agree with this. When people claim that "For there are three that bear record in heaven,the Father,the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is not in the original text they are talking about the Catholic Alexandrian text,not the Byzantine text the KJV translators used. There were about five bibles translated before the KJV and these also used the Byzantine text and you can see they all are translated to say the samething and compare it to modern translations where they used the Alexandrian text and see the ommissions left out and the differences.Were Catholics getting back at Protestants for translating the bible in english and have tried to corrupt our bible? I can't say for sure but it might be up for debate because alot of these newer translations use the Catholic Alexandrian text for their translation. So when you read or hear "is not in original text" think Catholic Alexandrain text it was not found in.

Dbowling is correct.

Thanks guys. I am still working on this.

What is the earliest date of a NT manuscript that includes the Comma Johanneum.

My research so far says not before 1400AD.

Do you agree?

Thanks.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

DBowling wrote:The issue regarding 1 John 5:7-8 involves the textual difference between the Byzantine Text (Majority Text) and the Alexandrian Text (an older text family)
Generally speaking the KJV represents the Byzantine Text while modern translations like the NASB represent the older Alexandrian Text

We can see the 1 John 5:7-8 gloss when we compare the KJV and NASB
KJV

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.

NASB

7 For there are three that testify: 8 [j]the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are [k]in agreement.

The 'gloss' you mention is the explicitly Trinitarian statement that is found in the Byzantine text and the KJV (hilighted in red above).
However this 'gloss' is absent from the older Alexandrian text and most modern translations such as the NASB and the NIV.

The gloss was also absent from the translation that you quoted from in your original post.

Hope this helps.

I agree with this. When people claim that "For there are three that bear record in heaven,the Father,the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is not in the original text they are talking about the Catholic Alexandrian text,not the Byzantine text the KJV translators used. There were about five bibles translated before the KJV and these also used the Byzantine text and you can see they all are translated to say the samething and compare it to modern translations where they used the Alexandrian text and see the ommissions left out and the differences.Were Catholics getting back at Protestants for translating the bible in english and have tried to corrupt our bible? I can't say for sure but it might be up for debate because alot of these newer translations use the Catholic Alexandrian text for their translation. So when you read or hear "is not in original text" think Catholic Alexandrain text it was not found in.

Take a look at this article:

http://www.thegloriousgospel.ca/manuscr ... john-57-8/

Clips:

Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.) makes the following comment, ‘The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes an unity of these three, one with another, which three are one…’ . (Against Praxeas, II, Ante-Nicene Fathers) Not a direct quote of the Johannine Comma, but certainly he is alluding to it. Some many question whether he is alluding to the Johannine Comma, but keep in mind that the expression ‘three are one’, only appears in 1 John 5:7, the Johannine Comma.

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D.) from his book, ‘De Unitate Ecclesiae, (On the Unity of the Church), The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325’. His quote, ‘The Lord says ‘I am the Father are one’ and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one”. There is no question here that he is quoting from 1 John 5:7, the Johannine Comma. My simple question is, ‘Where did Cyprian get this from?’ Is it not common sense to conclude that he had a MS that contained the Johannine Comma?

Athanasius (c. 350 A.D.) quotes 1 John 5;7 three times in his writings.

Priscillian (380 A.D.) from his book, ‘Liber Apologeticus’, states the following words, ‘As John says, ‘and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

Jerome (382 A.D.) in his book, ‘Prologue to the Canonical Epistles’, quotes the following when discussing the Johannine Comma that, ‘…irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the Greek codices.’ He further adds the following, ‘…these Epistles I have restored to their proper order; which, if arranged agreeably to the original text, and faithfully interpreted in Latin diction, would neither cause perplexity to the readers, nor would the various readings contradict themselves, especially in that place where we read the unity of the Trinity laid down in the Epistle of John. In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which , above all places, the Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one’.

Theodorus ( 4th century) writes in “A treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist’ the following, ‘…that John in his Epistle, presents God as a Trinity…’

Gregory of Nazanzius (4th century) this quote is taken from ‘The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers’. Gregory of Nazanzius says, ‘What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not con substantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are con substantial. For who could assert that these are con substantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and the adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?’ It is interesting to note that Bruce Metzger claimed that no Greek Father quoted the Johannine Comma, however, it is not to hard to see from Gregory’s comment that he is indeed alluding to the passage and objecting to the grammatical structure if the Johannine Comma is omitted. Keep in mind that Gregory is a 4th century Greek Father of the Church!