1 John 5:7

[jfrog]

Is 1 John 5:7 a later addition to the bible? If it isn't how do you explain it in relation to oneness?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Is 1 John 5:7 a later addition to the bible? If it isn't how do you explain it in relation to oneness?

Large number of scholars don't believe this was in the original manuscript, or that it was worded like the KJV does. The NIV, which doesn't use the TR, even words it differently.

Either way, it's not a stumbling block to godhead. The burden of proof is not on the Shema, it's on this newfound theology that holds to three separate persons.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Large number of scholars don't believe this was in the original manuscript, or that it was worded like the KJV does. The NIV, which doesn't use the TR, even words it differently.

Either way, it's not a stumbling block to godhead. The burden of proof is not on the Shema, it's on this newfound theology that holds to three separate persons.

Good job jeffery, you tell me it's not a problem and offer no explanation of why it isn't a problem.

[Praxeas]

supposedly it does not appear in any MS that forms the TR but Erasmus added it because some early church father refers to it...something like that

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Good job jeffery, you tell me it's not a problem and offer no explanation of why it isn't a problem.

I'm sorry.

It is my opinion that accepting the TR and/or Erasmus version of the text does not conflict with the Shema, that God is one and there are no other gods beside him. "Bearing record" has to do with the testimony of God at work. A pure modalist would explain these records of testimony as proof that the godhead is about the One, eternal God, manifesting himself to His creation, and that these relationships are further defined and to be made sense in light of the next verse "blood, water, and Spirit."

I personally don't accept that rendering of the passage, but only because it doesn't seem to fit.

Here's the ESV

Testimony Concerning the Son of God
6This is he who came(K) by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And(L) the Spirit is the one who testifies, because(M) the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. 9(N) If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God(O) that he has borne concerning his Son. 10Whoever believes in the Son of God(P) has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God(Q) has made him a liar,(R) because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11And this is the testimony, that God gave us(S) eternal life, and(T) this life is in his Son. 12(U) Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Here's the Message (more of a commentary/paraphrase than a translation)
6-8Jesus—the Divine Christ! He experienced a life-giving birth and a death-killing death. Not only birth from the womb, but baptismal birth of his ministry and sacrificial death. And all the while the Spirit is confirming the truth, the reality of God's presence at Jesus' baptism and crucifixion, bringing those occasions alive for us. A triple testimony: the Spirit, the Baptism, the Crucifixion. And the three in perfect agreement.

[pelathais]

Up until the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, the only Bibles available in Northern and Western Europe were based upon Jerome's translation of the original languages into Latin. Jerome's work was a boon for its time, Latin was increasingly surpassing Greek as the language of the world.

However, by the 15th century, Latin was pretty much the province of the clergy and the educated elite. There was a hunger for Bibles in the languages that were then common, and not the one from 1,000 years earlier.

When Constantinople fell, bands of refugees made their way into Europe bringing with them their possessions, and their Bibles. Europe was soon filled with excitement over the idea that a new translation could be made from the original languages - much like Jerome had done for his time ten centuries earlier.

The Dutch theologian and linguist Desiderius Erasmus produced a printed edition of the Greek New Testament that is known as the Textus Receptus (or "Received Text"). Erasmus went through scores of manuscripts, redacted the obvious copyist errors and such and compiled his First Edition which was a huge success.

However, there was a problem. The text for a portion of 1 John 5:7-8 was not found by Erasmus. Here's the difference:

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The underlined and bolded part is not in the first two editions of Erasmus' Textus Receptus because he could not find the words in any Greek manuscript. Some say he was bullied and pressured relentlessly, until finally he promised to include the passage if "a single manuscript" could be found that had the missing words.

And, what do you know? Someone found one, and with surprising ease too, considering that Erasmus and his team had been scouring Europe for the manuscripts the whole time. However the "missing" element was supplied - not within the text itself, but in a margin. Bruce Metzger argues that the writing is rather "clearly" from the 16th Century, Erasmus' own time.

Others debate this hypothesis. A balanced article can be found at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Up until the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, the only Bibles available in Northern and Western Europe were based upon Jerome's translation of the original languages into Latin. Jerome's work was a boon for its time, Latin was increasingly surpassing Greek as the language of the world.

However, by the 15th century, Latin was pretty much the province of the clergy and the educated elite. There was a hunger for Bibles in the languages that were then common, and not the one from 1,000 years earlier.

When Constantinople fell, bands of refugees made their way into Europe bringing with them their possessions, and their Bibles. Europe was soon filled with excitement over the idea that a new translation could be made from the original languages - much like Jerome had done for his time ten centuries earlier.

The Dutch theologian and linguist Desiderius Erasmus produced a printed edition of the Greek New Testament that is known as the Textus Receptus (or "Received Text"). Erasmus went through scores of manuscripts, redacted the obvious copyist errors and such and compiled his First Edition which was a huge success.

However, there was a problem. The text for a portion of 1 John 5:7-8 was not found by Erasmus. Here's the difference:

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The underlined and bolded part is not in the first two editions of Erasmus' Textus Receptus because he could not find the words in any Greek manuscript. Some say he was bullied and pressured relentlessly, until finally he promised to include the passage if "a single manuscript" could be found that had the missing words.

And, what do you know? Someone found one, and with surprising ease too, considering that Erasmus and his team had been scouring Europe for the manuscripts the whole time. However the "missing" element was supplied - not within the text itself, but in a margin. Bruce Metzger argues that the writing is rather "clearly" from the 16th Century, Erasmus' own time.

Others debate this hypothesis. A balanced article can be found at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

You're a veritable storehouse of knowledge, pel!!!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

You're a veritable storehouse of knowledge, pel!!!

nah. Erasmus was one of those guys. That's why his story sort of sticks with me. He was truly amazing in many ways.

He was probably the first real Reformer since John Hus, but he never left the RCC. He said something along the line that he preferred to remain and be "nettlesome" and work for change and reform from within.

His contemporary, Martin Luther, was a different sort. Two guys, both saw the same problem and both tried to work at it in their own way. I always thought Erasmus had class.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by pelathais

nah. Erasmus was one of those guys. That's why his story sort of sticks with me. He was truly amazing in many ways.

He was probably the first real Reformer since John Hus, but he never left the RCC. He said something along the line that he preferred to remain and be "nettlesome" and work for change and reform from within.

His contemporary, Martin Luther, was a different sort. Two guys, both saw the same problem and both tried to work at it in their own way. I always thought Erasmus had class.

Nah, he should have just left if he disagreed. jkjk

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Nah, he should have just left if he disagreed. jkjk

Yeah. "Build a bridge and get over it!" C'mon, who wants all that hassle?

"If your opinions have changed then be a gentleman and turn in your card." I remember hearing that at a GC business meeting. The part he left out was: "or if you do not agree with the changes the org. has made..."

Funny, "the org." never "changes." Despite all of the voting and resolutions and rewriting and redrafting of documents, amendments and changes to the Fundamental Doctrine and Articles of Faith: the org. never changes.

They said pretty much the same thing to Wycliffe, Hus, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and all the rest.