Let's discuss 1 John 5:7 Dave

[Dave]

I know this is the mistranslation forum, but for me, this language is translated from greek, so yea, it's disapearance from the syriac text is a mistranslation in my view.

This has been one of the more known problem areas in the NT.

It is easy to show a plurality of GOD in the old testament in relation to this section of scripture, actually Dave is able to break it down in the hebrew language to show just how easy it is to see this.

Firstly, there are a couple of sites that list quite a bit of information over what quotes/manuscripts have the section, along with individuals who have done a bit of research on their own.

Here is a site that I found to be pretty thorough in it's listing of quotes/manuscripts:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm">http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm</a><!-- m -->

Now look at the dates applied here to those quotes/manuscripts. Quite old. One of the problems in modern criticism is the disbelief that they even exist, it seems:

Benjamin Wilson states, "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."

Quite interesting.

Here is a compilation of those manuscripts that have it earlier than that:

1 John 5:7 is found in: Greek manuscript 61, codex Ravianus and Britannicus, it's also in the margins of 88 and 629, manuscript E (735 AD; has Acts 8:37). Likewise, it is found in the old Latin manuscripts Codex Freisingensis (Latin "r", "Beuron 64"; AD *500*), leon 1 (various readings of 1 John 5:7-8; AD 913-923), leon 2 (margin, 930 AD; has Acts 8:37) harl 2 (AD 752), Codex Toletanus (988 AD; has Acts 8:37, 9:5, 9:6), Codex Demidovianus (1150 AD; has Acts 8:37), Codex Colbertinus (AD 1150), Codex Perpinianus (AD 1250; has Acts 8:37), and Speculum (Latin "m" AD *450*, within a century of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)

It is found in 68mg(mg=margin), 636mg and 918. It is also found in omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318. It's in the Montfort MS and Codex Wizanburgens (8th century). It is found in the margin of Codex Ottobonianus (629, 14th century).

It is also found in the Ulmensis manuscript (AD 850), and Codex pal Legionensis (AD *650*). It is found in the German manuscript The Augsburger Bibelhandschrift (2 Cod 3)(AD 1350).

That is not all the evidence, but it is enough to provide a bit of insight into this area.

One of the problems with the peshitta text is that none of the manuscripts supposedly have this bit of scripture within 1 John. Western church history is providing a substantial witness here that something was there way back when, but this text has it not. The peshitta crowd claim originality, so what happened in this area?

[trettep]

I'm a bit confused. What are you saying the text should render?

Paul

[Dave]

Paul,

The peshitta text does not have 1 John 5:7, whereas there appears to be considerable evidence to the possibility of it's originality within the text.

I've started posting some of the evidence towards my view on this. My outlook on this is the correctness of scripture, not doctrine.

[trettep]

I have heard the verse may have existed also but only in part. For the same reason that I feel Matthew 28:19 is spurious I feel the inclusion of the Father Son and Holy Ghost in 1 John 5:7 is tampered also. My reason again is on an understanding of what the Holy Ghost is in my opinion. Additionally, it is to be included in that verse then that lends weight to the verse in Matthew 28:19. That verse to would support the Trinity doctrine - again I think that doctrine is not found within the Word of God based on the fulfilling of the temple design as mentioned in the OT. So I'm using the OT representation of the Temple design and its symbolic references to those things fulfilled and revealed in the NT.

Paul

[Dave]

I understand your views Paul. Doctrine can be quite the touchy thing and everyone is given their level of understanding and faith within the word, so it is quite easy to stir up emotions in this regard.

I do not want to trample on yours or anyones beliefs, but I do value scripture originality, so my look into this is more towards the exactness of scripture, not doctrine. In my view, doctrine is built only on our text, and if it be corrupted in areas, then the doctrine will be misleading to the Christian for years to come.

By you pointing out the text in Matthew 28:19, and then looking for the scripture references, it was easy to see how this section had been tampered with. Basically, it was a no-brainer with all the scripture aligned to Eseubius's quote.


I'm looking at some of the same things here in our text while also checking claims of originality from the peshitta crowd. I do not want to discuss doctrine in this as much as I can refrain from it, and I know it will be tempting for those to lead it into that very arena.

[trettep]

I appreciate the consideration in your response. I hope you seek the Truth of the matter as you stated and hope that the results you find will be presented to the appropriate authorities in such compilations.

Paul

[Dave]

I went looking for additional information on the text, but had to settle in on one site.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john572.htm">http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john572.htm</a><!-- m -->

Almost anything that one may want in regards to quotes and language understandings is contained on that site and the others I posted. An amazing wealth of information is available on this section of text, much more than I had ever imagined before I went looking into this. How the greek section without it basically becomes wrong in its grammar and it only corrects itself with the section placed back in, the church father that complained about this very problem, and so forth and so on.

In this being the second area I have looked into with similar textual problems, it has become apparent to me that the personnel who are in positions to make final determinations towards what we receive in our bible and what we don't must be bias'd in regards to manuscript evidence. I see no other way to explain it.

When a group of people can so easily look the other way at a glaring mistake in the greek language when this section is not installed in the text, only tells me that there is a form of bias at work here from those who are in positions to make these kinds of decisions. I'm not sure if theology has any impact on their decisions, but it definitely has the same textual evidence problems that matthew 28:19 has, so these commitees must be taking the easy road out and making decisions on the weight of manuscript evidence alone rather than text correctness. I not sure if it is just pure laziness, language bias, or what, but this section has more textual evidence available than the ending of matthew does, yet they still say no.

"Who cares if any bible is correct, just stand behind the non-textual support supplied so that omissions such as this can be easily explained by all of us."

That is what seems to be the stance here from our scholars in these two areas. Who cares what the church fathers say or any of the Old Latin evidence has, just hide behind the greek evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence available that one can claim.

"Let us not be divided in this regard!"

Amazing.

[gbausc]

Where will it all end ?

According to Dave of Diego Garcia,Matthew 28:19, as it is found in all Greek and Aramaic mss. has the wrong reading (The Trinity) .

1 John 5:7 ,as the Received Text has it, (There are Three that bear witness in heaven, The Father , The Word and The Holy Spirit, and these three are One". is found in practically no Greek ms. or Aramaic ms., and he declares it must be inspired and the original text !

I should have known ! If its in the Greek and Aramaic Bible mss. - its wrong. If it isn't in the Greek and Aramaic Bible mss., it must be right !

Amazing !

I can't discuss this or anything else with such a blockhead, Dave.

But you seem to enjoy hearing yourself write, so knock yourself out !

We will read your findings with great amusement.

Rev. Dave

[Dave]

It's quite easy Dave,

-for me, I have no language barriers. You do, but I don't.

-Also, I have no bias towards what could be wrong or what could be right, you do as you claim inerrancy, I don't.

In those regards, I would go to the oldest and least interpolated text, then work my way through the variants, comparing and validating what is right and what is wrong, working with The Spirit of Truth, you wouldn't do that since you only wish to find one text that you can place a claim on and go from there, no matter what may be in it or what is missing.

You want the "easy hand it to you place your bets on and be done with it text," similar to the King James Only folks except your would be called "peshitta-onlyism."

I want the most correct text, so mine would be called an eclectic text.


But besides this, let's hear your reasoning as to why this section of text does not belong in there Dave. I'll buy you a clue, "because it's not in the peshitta" is not an answer, that is a language bias. Just so you would know ahead of time.

[judge]

Paul,

The peshitta text does not have 1 John 5:7, whereas there appears to be considerable evidence to the possibility of it's originality within the text.

.

Considerable evidence to the possibility?

Is there also "considerable evidence to the possibility" that it was not there?

Or perhaps more considerable evidence to the possibility it was not there?
<!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

[Dave]

Or considerable possibilities that people removed it, that tends to speak more for itself in light of the language issue in the greek when it is removed.

Would you care to provide some sort of evidence that proves it does not scripturally belong in there, mister judge?

It may be hard, as the manuscript evidence amount that most people hide behind has been proven to not be a complete fullproof method, as we witnessed on Matthew 28:19 issue.