The Johannine Comma: Inspiration? Or Interpolation?
 

Chan, here ya go. Please present the evidence as to why you feel the Johannine Comma is uninspired.

I will then present the evidence as to why I feel the Johannine Comma IS inspired, and then everyone here can read and come to their own conclusions.

(We all know everyone here reads these kinds of threads with great interest, and we also know our postings on such topics actually impact the people who read them, so let's have a go at it, shall we?)

:D

Interpolation

I already provided some evidence:

Let's start with the footnote in the NIV:

1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

Here's a similar footnote in the NASB (the most literal of the English-language Bibles):

1 John 5:8 A few late mss add ...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit

Here's a source (okay, four sources) that explains the addition of what is called the Johannine Comma: http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html; http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1186; http://www.godglorified.com/1_john_57.htm; http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1jo05v07.htm

Now, there are some who claim that there is evidence of the passage in early texts but such claims are not well supported; e.g. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html information there is refuted here:
http://freeweb.lombardiacom.it/bergh...0johanneum.htm

And some people say the gospel isn't simple enough for a child to understand... who are they kidding? I understood all of the stuff in this thread... :D

Chan, I thought you would actually present some evidence beyond some marketing hype from the NIV publishers (who have to justify their 'new and better translation' in oder to make money off sales) and a collection of hyperlinks.

But to begin with, I would say your referencing the NIV footnote is a fallacious appeal to authority and a begging of the question. The fact the NIV publishers CLAIM that the Comma is 'not found in any pre-16th century Greek manuscripts' or that the Comma is only found in 'a few late manuscripts'.

First of all, WHO SAYS SO? The NIV? hahahahahahahaha (you get my drift).

WHAT manuscript evidence is there?

Secondly, what manuscripts do the NIV rely upon here? And do those manuscripts demonstrate superiority over others which the NIV rejected? And what was the basis of their detemrinations? And were those determinations consistent?

Thirdly, the entire argument of the NIV is an ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE. Enough said about that.

Now, as for the hyperlinks you provided, shall I just provide hyperlinks of my own to counter them?

Or shall we have a discussion, laying out the evidence for and gainst for the readers here?

I mean, if you aren't up to it, that's cool. Just let me know, and then I will simply post some hyperlinks, and we can be done with it, and the world will be a safer place, we having stemmed the evil tide of internet literacy...

Ya, and where is a child when you need one? lol

What I provided was the actual footnote that is IN the NIV Bible and NOT some marketing hype! You WILL repent of bearing false witness.

Those who translated the NIV. Since they translated it, they can be cited as an authority on why they rendered the passage the way they did.

Since the NIV translators used OLDER manuscripts than those used for the KJV and the OLDER manuscripts did not contain the phrase, that is manuscript evidence enough. Also, there is no argument from silence: the phrase does not appear in older manuscripts but does appear in later ones.
Evidence was asked for and I provided it (I even provided a link that argues your position).

I'm not going to sit here and type out word-for-word what's already been compiled and written by others and it is really stupid of you to demand that I do! You don't really want a discussion. If you did, you wouldn't take the tone with me that you took in your post!

Information has been compiled and arguments have been made on both sides. There is nothing new to them that you or I could add. It's enough for me that Erasmus was a humanist and, therefore, his Greek manuscript (why he needed to manufacture his own Greek manuscript I don't know) is automatically suspect. That the phrase in question does not appear in the earliest manuscripts or, for that matter, in any manuscript prior to the 16th century is sufficient to call the validity of the phrase into question.

Look Mommy, I did not 'demand' anything.

Never mind.

Chan ... it's now twice in one week that Eliseus gets the smackdown ....

So far, as an intersted party sitting in the cheep seats (and reading this stuff).... with no iron in the fire and willing to listen to the arguments in as unbiased a manner as possible.

I find Chan's case credible. Thus far I have not seen anything from Eliseus.