SGO

https://historicist.info/necromancers/the-ghostly-guild-channelings-lineage/ NECROMANCERS The Ghostly Guild: Channeling’s Lineage Posted on March 13, 2024 by historicist This entry is part 4 of 15 in the series New Age Bible Versions New Age Bible Versions The Necromancers Channelled Bibles and Doctrines of Devils The Occult Underground: Address for New Bible Translators The Ghostly Guild: Channeling’s Lineage Rosemary’s Baby: The Society for Psychical Research The Early S.P.R.’s Friends: Blavatsky and Westcott The One and the ‘One Life’ Blavatsky and Westcott Satan’s Apostles Eranus The Council of Twelve New World Order Footnotes Possessed Related Reading Westcott and Hort were not only ‘Fathers’ in the Angelican church but, according to numerous historians and New Age researchers, appear to be among the ‘Fathers’ of the modern channeling movement. (The Fox sisters along with H.P. Blavatsky were the ‘Mothers’.) The group referred to by James Webb as an element in the Occult Underground was ‘The Ghost Club’ or ‘Ghostly Guild’ launched in the 1850’s be Westcott, Hort and Benson. Webb discloses: Ghost Society [was] founded by no less a person than Edward White Benson, the future Bishop of Canterbury. As A.C. Benson writes in his father’s biography, the Archbishop was always more interested in psychic phenomena than he cared to admit. Two members of the Ghost Club became Bishops [Benson and Westcott] and one became a Professor of Divinity [Hort].(26) Hort writes of his and Westcott’s work to set this apparition association in motion. Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd ect. And I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things rally exist. . .Westcott is drawing up a schedule of question(27) In the very same letter Hort chaffs that the bible, extant in his day as the King James Version from the Greek Textus Receptus, was ‘Villianous’. (28) This letter, a foghorn sounded by Father Time to us today, testifies to the foreboding genesis of today’s community of translations like the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and NRSV. Westcott and Hort’s position in the current bloodline of the New Age movement is conceded by Hort’s son: Hort seems to have been the moving spirit of. . .’the Bogie Club’ as scoffers called it, [it] aroused a certain amount of derision and even some alarm; it was apparently born too soon.(29) Authors of the Ancient Empires of the New Age see this trend without a son’s bias noting, “Once the elite had closed their minds to Biblical revelation, they almost immediately began to fall for every spiritual con game and fringe teaching around.” (30) Their contemporaries gave ample warning as Hort admits: . . .Macaulay is horrified at the paper. . .During the vacation I distributed some eight or ten ‘ghostly papers’. . .I left a paper on my table the other evening when the Ray met here, and it excited some attention, but not I think much sympathy. Dr. __ was APPALLED to find such a spot of medieval darkness flecking light serene of Cambridge University in the nineteenth century. There were also grave smiles and civil questions; and finally several copies were carried off.(31) Although Hort referred to evangelical Christians as “dangerous” and “perverted”, “unsound”, and “confused” he was rabidly ‘evangelistic’ about his ‘necromancy’ as the bible calls it. Writing to C.H Chambers, Hort proselytizes: I sent you two ghostly papers; you can have more if you want them, but I find they go very fast and the 750 copies which we printed go by no means far enough. We are promised a large number of well-authenticated private stories, but they have not arrived yet. Our most active members are however absent from Cambridge; to wit Westcott at Harrow and Gordon at Wells. . .(32) Westcott’s son writes, “Westcott took a leading part in their proceedings and their inquiry circular was originally drawn up by him. He also received a number of communications in response.” Westcott’s “Ghostly Circular” reads in part: But there are many others who believe it is possible that the beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves to us. . .Many of the stories current in tradition or scattered up and down in books, may be exactly true. . .(33) The members apparently had their own ‘experiences’ and the circular was for eliciting “information beyond the limits if their own immediate circle.” (34) Referring to ‘the foundations’ of the occult revival, another historian W.H. Salter, points to Westcott, Hort and Benson, their guild and circular. First mentioned should be made of spontaneous cases of haunts and the like. . .[T]he founders of psychical research . . .The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’ had collected them by circular.(35) Topping over the heap of secular historians which identify Westcott and Hort among the seeds of the present New Age thicket is The Founders of Psychical Research, by Alan Gauld. He lists their ‘Guild’ among the ‘Founders’. In 1851 was founded at Cambridge a Society to conduct a ‘serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of phenomena vaguely called ‘supernatural’, and a number of distinguished persons became members. (36) Pogo sticking through the index of The Founders of Psychical Research reveals the following ‘company’ in which our esteemed bible revisers find themselves. Automatic Writing, Benson, Biblical Criticism, Mme, H.P. Blavatsky, Clairvoyance, ‘Control’ Spirit, Crystal-gazing, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Ghost Club, F.J. A Hort, Hypnotism, ‘Inspirational’ writing and speaking in early British Spiritualism, C.G. Jung, Levitation, J.B. Lightfoot, Mediumship, Mesmerism, Multiple Personality, Plato, Society for Psychical Research, Spiritualism, Swedenborne Society, Synthetic Society, Telepathy, Trance Medium, B.F. Westcott. Westcott’s son writes of his father’s lifelong “faith in what for lack of a better name, one must call it Spiritualism. . .” The subject was, he notes, unintelligible or alarming to the general”. In response to public disfavor regarding his esotericism and liberalism and in light of his position in the ‘religious’ community, Westcott determined that public involvement in the Ghostly Guild “led to no good.” (37) In 1860 and 1861, Hort wrote to Westcott of their mutual concern in this regard. [T]his may be cowardice – I have a sort of craving that our text [‘New’ Greek Testament] should be cast upon the world before we deal with maters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean a text issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy will find great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms. . .If only we speak our minds, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offense to. . .the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.(38) Their subversive and clandestine approach continued, as seen ten years later when Westcott writes, “. . .strike blindly. . .much evil would result from the public discussion.”(39) Westcott’s son alludes to the shroud of mystery surrounding the continuation of the ‘Ghostly Guild’. [M]y father laboured under the imputation of being ‘unsafe’. . . .What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered.”(40)

https://www.febc.edu.sg/article/def_the_inside_story_of_westcott_and_hort The Inside Story of Westcott and Hort Charles Seet Their Lives and Work Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), and Fenton J A Hort (1828–1892) were two renowned Anglican scholars at Cambridge University. They were known to be the chief architects of the critical theory which resulted in the revised Greek Testament which has replaced the Textus Receptus (TR) or Received Text. At the age of 23, in late 1851, Hort wrote to a friend: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus…. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones.” This early prejudice against the TR began Hort’s life-long crusade against it, and efforts to see it replaced with the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Scarcely more than a year later, the plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek Testament was first agreed upon with Westcott. In 1857, five Anglican clergymen started efforts to secure a revision of the English Bible. Being aware of this, Westcott and Hort worked together on the Greek text for twenty years, preparing for the day when they would be appointed to sit on the New Testament revision committee. They also concocted an imaginary theory (150 pages long) that would be tight enough to convince others to favour a change in the Greek text. The false assumptions are these: They assumed that between 250 AD and 350 AD there was a revision of the Greek text which produced the Majority text. Discordant manuscripts were blended together to form this text, and thus many additional verses and passages were added. They say that this revision caused the original text to be lost (until the Vatican and Sinai codices were found). They say that this was a conspiracy by the whole Orthodox church which has successfully suppressed the original up to and including the present time. These are the standard arguments against the Text of the King James Version (KJV). They are not fair. They are not honest. They do not deal with the actual facts of the case which show that the earlier manuscripts were probably from a mutilated text produced by the heretical sect called the Adoptionists (a form of gnosticism) late in the second century AD (described in Eusebius’ History). Orthodox churches recognised these shorter texts as false ones and did not use them. They continued to preserve and make copies of the true text (which is the Majority Text). In 1870, The Church of England finally passed a resolution to revise the English Bible. The New Testament revision committee finally consisted of 25 scholars (though only about 16 eventually attended the meetings) which included Westcott and Hort. The committee worked for ten years in the Jerusalem chamber, and these two scholars swept the Revision Committee along with them after work commenced. In fact, the “Cambridge trio” (Westcott, Hort and Lightfoot) colluded with others to dominate the meetings with their views of the text and to defeat any who opposed them. Their letters reveal this conspiracy: Westcott wrote to Hort, May 28, 1870, “Your note came with one from Ellicott this morning…. Though I think that Convocation is not competent to initiate such a measure, yet I feel that as ‘we three’ are together it would be wrong not to ‘make the best of it’ as Lightfoot says … There is some hope that alternative readings might find a place in the margin” (Westcott, Life of Westcott, I:231). Westcott wrote to Lightfoot, June 4, 1870: “Ought we not to have a conference before the first meeting for Revision? There are many points on which it is important that we should be agreed” (Westcott, Life of Westcott, I:391). Hort wrote to Williams: “The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted on by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time, if the process is allowed to go on quietly; and I cannot help fearing that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism” (Hort, Life of Hort, I:400). The only voice defending the Textus Receptus was Dr Scrivener, probably the foremost scholar of the day in the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and the history of the Text. But he was systematically outvoted by the Cambridge trio and outdone by Hort’s powerful debating skill. When the revision was completed, they had altered the Greek Text in 5337 places, thus violating the original rule that had been set for the committee of not altering the Greek Text unless absolutely necessary to do so. Today, even naturalistic critics have come to the conclusion that the Westcott and Hort critical theory is erroneous at every point. Epp confesses that “we simply do not have a theory of the text.” K W Clark says of the Westcott and Hort text: “The textual history postulated for the Textus Receptus which we now trust has been exploded.” And again, “The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through.” Their Beliefs According to D A Waite, Westcott and Hort denied certain fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith (see D A Waite, Heresies of Westcott and Hort [Collingswood: The Bible For Today, 1979]). The two scholars held modernistic views. Hort clearly believed in the new theory of evolution. He wrote to the Rev John Ellerton, April 3, 1860: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…. My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period” (Hort, Life of Hort, I:416). Westcott did not believe in the literal interpretation of the creation account of Genesis. Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did” (Westcott, Life of Westcott, II:69). Both Westcott and Hort were in favour of the worship of Mary. They were both heavily influenced by the “Oxford Movement” of Cardinal Newman. Cardinal Newman, whom they greatly admired, was a high churchman who led many back into the Roman Catholic Church. According to Benjamin Wilkerson: “By the year 1870, so powerful had become the influence of the Oxford Movement, that a theological bias in favour of Rome was affecting men in high authority. Many of the most sacred institutions of Protestant England had been assailed and some of them had been completely changed. The attack on the Thirty-nine Articles by Tract 90, and the subversion of fundamental Protestant doctrines within the Church of England had been so bold and thorough, that an attempt to substitute a version which would theologically and legally discredit our common Protestant Version would not be a surprise.” Westcott and Hort, in their own words, openly confessed their adoration of Mary. Westcott wrote from France to his fiancee, 1847: “After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighbouring hill…. Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life [ie a Virgin and dead Christ]…. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours” (Westcott, Life of Westcott, I:81). Westcott wrote to Archbishop Benson, November 17, 1865: “I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness” (Westcott, Life of Westcott, II:50). Hort wrote to Westcott: “I am very far from pretending to understand completely the oft-renewed vitality of Mariolatry” (Hort, Life of Hort, II:49) Hort wrote to Westcott, October 17, 1865: “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results” (Hort, Life of Hort, II:50). Their Secret Beliefs and Practices Although the integrity of Gail Riplinger’s work New Age Bible Versions (Ohio: AV Publications, 1993), has been questioned with charges that she has made up a lot of the information or got them from unreliable sources, it may be worth to mention her findings, based on the biographies of Westcott and Hort written by their sons, that: As a Cambridge undergraduate Westcott organised a club which he named Hermes, a mythological guide of departed souls to Hades. This club met from 1845–48 and was evidently a precursor to the Ghost Club. Westcott and Hort were among the founders of the Ghost Club (or “Bogie Club” as scoffers called it) in 1850, with the purpose of investigating “ghosts and all supernatural appearances of effects, being disposed to believe such things really exist.” Such practices are condemned in the Scriptures in Deut 18:11. Both of them were friends of Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, and Carl Jung who were enemies of the cause of Christ. Their Fruit Some have alleged that the background of Westcott and Hort is totally irrelevant to the issue concerning modern versions like the New International Version (NIV). But this allegation is untrue. Bringing up their background is not just an ad hominem argument. If Westcott and Hort had not been the kind of men they were, but had been true, regenerate, God-fearing, Bible-believing scholars like Dr Scrivener, how different the New Testament of the Revised Version (RV) would have been. There would have been no critical theory concocted to sway the committee into rejecting the Textus Receptus. There would have been no pressure to remove portions of Scripture that are not found in the “early manuscripts.” Indeed, the RV might have been an improvement on the KJV if its text had not been altered, and modern translations today would have been based on the Majority text. The background of the two Cambridge scholars has therefore made a very important difference in the recent history of the English Bible. The foregoing information on the lives and beliefs of the two men have demonstrated that they were hardly objective in their bigoted rejection of the Textus Receptus, but were deeply prejudiced against it by their liberal theology, anti-Protestant and anti-Evangelical stance, and by their low view of Scripture. Yet institutions and seminaries have continued to accept and use their views and dicta as if they were the totally objective and unbiased judgements of expert textual critics, even when later naturalistic critics have pointed out how erroneous they are. Moreover, the apostate spirit that motivated Westcott and Hort, as seen in their alleged disobedience to God’s Law prohibiting necromancy and spiritism, their persistent rejection of fundamental doctrines, and their elevation of humanistic scholarship above the authority of God’s Word, makes them very dangerous to the church. They should never have been allowed to come near to the precious Scriptures with their editorial scalpels. By tampering with the very sustenance that the flock needs in order to survive, they have inflicted much damage on the church for generations to come. They entered in as grievous wolves, not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29). After Westcott and Hort published their revised Greek New Testament, the only other available printed editions of the Greek text are the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament (UBSGNT) and Nestle’s Greek New Testament. Both of these are derived from the Westcott and Hort text. Although the later editions claim to be eclectic, the vestiges of Westcott and Hort remain. For instance, the UBSGNT editions persist in questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses of Mark (Mark 16:9–20), the passage on the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53–8:11), and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8), following Westcott and Hort. The New Testament of all modern English translations except the NKJV are based on these editions of the Greek New Testament. Besides that, Bible translators all over the world are using these Greek New Testaments for their translation work. All of these therefore bear the unmistakable legacy of Westcott and Hort to some extent. Thus, the damage done by them has been very extensive. Conclusion In conclusion, let it be said that no matter how good any modern version of the New Testament is in other ways, it is clearly blemished if the work of Westcott and Hort is present in it. The presence of their work means that it is based on a defective text. Those who want to honour the Word of God must not promote the use of any of these versions by the church, not because the content of the version is evil in itself, but because the attitude of being contented to use a blemished version rather than an existing unblemished one, dishonours God. If God has taken the trouble to preserve for His people a good Greek text of the New Testament for 18 centuries, how dishonouring it would be to Him if His people now chose instead to change over to a version that is based on a defective text. Let the biblical story of Nadab and Abihu be a lesson to all:

"I use only the King James Bible."

https://cprc.co.uk/articles/aboutwestcottandhort/ Things You Should Know About Westcott and Hort (Promoters of the Critical Text) Before you join in the hordes that are accepting the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, it is important to know who and what they were. The theories of Westcott and Hort are what most of our modern translations are built upon. B. F. Westcott rose through the various offices of the Anglican church finally becoming a Bishop. He believed in the apostolic succession of the Anglican priests through the Roman Catholic succession, supposedly from the apostle Peter. He was a worshipper of the Virgin Mary, a lover of ritualistic church services. He did not believe in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ for his chosen people. In 1848 Westcott wrote that he did not dare to assent to the 39 Articles, the confession of faith of the Anglican Church. Westcott did not believe in the first three chapters of Genesis as a history. “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis give a literal history.” He believed in the Roman Catholic doctrine which they designate as The Person of Christ. This teaches that Christ entered into everyone after he was resurrected, and as Westcott put it, then “Christ’s actions become his, and Christ’s life and death in some sense his life and death.” He rejected the atonement of the substitution of Christ for the sinner, denying that the death of Christ counted for anything as a final atonement. He was a lifelong friend of Hort, but he was more careful, not allowing his heretical views to become public. Therefore, as to how much he agreed with Hort’s more forthright denials of the teaching of the Scriptures, we cannot say but certainly when Hort revealed these to Westcott in letters, Westcott issued no rebuke in the form of a return letter [Sources: Life of Westcott, vol. 1, pp. 81, 99, 214, 231, 239, 254, 312; vol. 2, p. 69; Some Lessons, pp. 44, 127, 184, 185, 187, 195, 198]. F. J. A. Hort was a heretic, or call it merely an unbeliever, of the highest order. He wrote, “I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology … Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue … still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority and especially the authority of the Bible.” Hort equated Mary worship with Jesus worship. He was a great believer in salvation by sacraments, including baptismal regeneration. He belonged to a club of spiritualists. He believed that “Christianity without a substantial church is vanity and disillusion … Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary.” Though being an Anglican, he stated that it had no sound standing, it “seems a poor and maimed thing beside great Rome.” Hort wrote to Westcott, “I entirely agree with what you say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that the absolute union of the Christian, or rather, of man, with Christ himself is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit.” Hort believed the Received Text to be vile and he sought revision in order to correct the “error and prejudices” in it. Hort believed in evolution; talked of a ransom being given to Satan; believed in purgatory; scoffed at the idea of an infallible Scripture; denied our guilt for Adam’s sin, and denied the Fall through Adam; considered Genesis 1-3 to be a parable, saying that no such place as Eden ever existed; denied the depravity of man by nature; disparaged Christ as the “believer’s God”; stated that God’s wrath was subservient to His mercy; etc. [Sources: Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, A. F. Hort, vol. 1, pp. 50, 78, 117, 213, 275, 329, 330, 332, 400, 416, 420-422, 424, 428, 430; vol. 2, pp. 30, 50]. How anyone can trust such a pair as these to tell us which are the words of God, and which the words of heretics, I cannot imagine! (Jay P. Green, The Australian Beacon, March 1993)

We do not have the originals. We have copies of them. God preserved them. The present thinking of many modern scholars is that yes, God preserved His ideas, but not the words. There are no verses that state this, but plenty that say, for example, "Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35). The "copious amounts" of copies for the modern versions come from manuscripts and fragments that are other than the Textus Receptus (TR), which are about 10% of the TR's 5,000 manuscripts and fragments. https://www.preservedword.com/content/antioch-or-alexandria/ Antioch or AlexandriaHow did God preserve His Bible? Luke Mounsey June 1, 2004 Manuscript Evidence Print I have previously established that God has preserved His Word, listing many Scriptures affirming this. But exactly which Bible is the perfect Word of God? If God preserved His Word, then it must be around here somewhere. In order to find the perfect Bible, it is necessary to determine which manuscript text-type is the preserved line. (A text-type is a group of manuscripts that generally agree with each other.) There are two major text-types, the Byzantine/Antiochian/Majority/Universal text-type and the Alexandrian text-type. The Byzantine text-type had it’s origin in Antioch, Syria, where the disciples of Christ were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). The Alexandrian text originated in Alexandria, Egypt, which was probably the first place that the pure doctrine of Christ was perverted with false teaching. 95% of ALL known New Testament manuscripts fall into the Byzantine text-type. (Even those who prefer the Alexandrian text are forced to admit this.) Only a very few manuscripts fall into the Alexandrian text-type, and these manuscripts are known to have many serious problems. Of the two most popular Alexandrian manuscripts, one (Vaticanus) is owned by the http://www.mag-net.com/%7Emaranath/OLDBEST.HTM for more information. There are those who prefer the Antiochan/Byzantine text and those who prefer the Alexandrian. Each group has different beliefs about how God preserved His word. Here is a brief overview. Antiochan Alexandrian God inspired the original manuscripts using holy men as His pens. They wrote what He inspired them to.These manuscripts were faithfully copied and translated by other holy men. But some evil men started producing their own modified version of the scriptures. The Roman Catholic Church arose, making the perverted Scripture the official Bible of Catholicism. All copies of Scripture were banned, pure or perverted, and only church leaders were allowed to possess a copy. True Christians prevailed dispute horrible persecutions, refusing to join the idolatrous Catholic Church, and being used by God to preserve the pure Bible for all generations. The Protestant Reformation ended the Dark Ages as multitudes fled from Rome to the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible was translated into many languages from the preserved text, making God’s pure Word available to the masses. Revivals continued for centuries as people used God’s Word. In the 19th century, a push was made by the Vatican and some apostate Protestant scholars to declare that the perverted Roman Catholic manuscripts were superior to the God-honored preserved text. New versions of the Bible were produced, which were not accepted at first, but slowly grew into acceptance. Most Protestants did not realize that these new “Bibles” came from the corrupt line of manuscripts, not the preserved line. But some did realize it, and when they attempted to warn others, were ostracized and declared divisive. God inspired His word using men, who were not necessary holy (see below). About 300 A.D, the Christian church revised God’s Word to make it better and “more orthodox.” Thus the true Word of God was lost at this point. The Catholic Church united Europe in Christian unity, but then the Protestants destroyed that unity by braking with Rome. The Protestants ignorantly made their Bible translations from the revised manuscripts. In the mid 1800’s, a glorious discovery was made. Two ancient manuscripts were found that predated the revised text the Protestants were using. These differed significantly with the traditional text, and therefore were considered to be pre-revision. After being lost for 1600 years, God’s word had finally been found!! So they began cranking out Bibles translated from the new manuscripts. As for the pure, preserved, inerrant Word of God, it of course was nowhere to be found, since it was perfect only in the “original manuscripts” which are long vanished. The “Byzantines” believe God used holy men to inspire His word and holy men to preserve His word. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Pet 1:21). On the other hand, Alexandrians believe that you don’t necessarily have to be holy to be used by God to preserve His word. You don’t have to be holy to help with a Bible translation. Maybe this is why there are so many liberals, heathens, and homosexuals on these Bible translation committees! You’ve got to be kidding, you say. They certainly wouldn’t allow anyone on their translation if they were living in sin! Surely they would demand that they must be holy. Well, their own new Bible versions have stripped being holy as a requirement for helping to inspire AND preserve the Word of God. The word “holy” is clean gone from 2 Peter 1:21 in these new Bibles! So the Alexandrians believe that you don’t have to be holy in order to work on a Bible translation! Is it then no wonder that many of the modern translators are either apostate liberals or flat out heathens!!! Is it no surprise that the fruit of their “Bibles” is not great revival but great apathy and apostasy!!! But this will be covered in more detail in a future article. So we see that the Byzantine/ Majority Text proponents believe that God inspired His word using holy men, and preserved it using holy men to make it available for all generations. The Alexandrian proponents, however, believe that God inspired His word, then lost it!! After not having the word of God for centuries, they finally found it again in the “oldest and best” Alexandrian manuscripts. What kind of preservation is this? This is NOT preservation! If you believe that the oldest manuscripts are the best, then you do not believe that God has preserved His word. IF you believe that the scriptures were inerrant only in the “original manuscripts” then you do not believe that God has preserved His Word. If you don’t believe that God preserved His word, you disbelieve the Bible and are calling God a liar!! Therefore, you must make a choice. You must chose between the Antiochan or the Alexandrian text. For the Bible-believer, this choice should be an obvious one. (Views: 15429) Updated: February 24, 2015 — 2:07 AM

Does God preserve His word or does man need to reconstruct it? The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah 40:8 Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6-7 ... that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. Deuteronomy 8:3b For verily I say unto you, Till haven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Peter 1:23 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Peter 1:25

https://brandplucked.com/nodoctrinechanged.htm No Doctrines Are Changed? I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and defend the multiple modern versions say: "Well, no doctrines are changed in the different versions." But is this true? Not at all, as we shall soon see. The Number One Doctrine that has been destroyed by today's Bible Babble Buffet versions is the belief in the Infallibility of the Bible! Recent polls show that the majority of professing Christians no longer believe in the Infallibility of the Bible and among seminarians and professional clergy the percentages are in the 90's of those who do not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God. If you do not think this is a major doctrine then it is probably already too late for you to be persuaded otherwise. Don't just take my word for it. Here are the polls that show this widespread and ever growing unbelief in the Inerrancy of the Bible - ANY Bible. The Basic Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Bible - I have been engaged in the Bible version issue for several years now and have been quite active in several Bible clubs on the internet. Over the years I have posted countless articles and examples of the literally hundreds of very real and significant textual differences, contradictions and totally changed meanings found in hundreds of verses among the Bible Babble Buffet versions out there today that NOBODY seriously believes IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. What I have found to be almost universally true is the typical response of those I refer to as "Bible agnostics" always come up with is shown by this recent post at our Facebook club called the King James Bible Debate. After I posted one more in an almost endless series of very real textual differences that changes the meaning of a verse of Scripture and where not even the modern versions agree among themselves, a man who does not believe that any Bible in any language is the infallible words of God posted the following: "Let me see - what doctrine exactly is impacted here? Other than the presupposed doctrine of KJV onlyism? Indeed, redemption as we know it rests on this verse!" My Response: Hi folks. This is the standard mantra every confirmed bible agnostic and unbeliever in the Infallibility of the Scriptures always repeats when faced with the FACT that he has no infallible TEXT of any Bible on this earth to give someone or to believe in himself -"What doctrine is impacted here?" How about the simple and basic doctrine of the Infallibility of the Bible? Is this a doctrine any of these bible relativists are concerned about or thinks is at all important to the Christian faith? The bible agnostics like James White and John Piper and a multitude of other big name Christians and countless hoards of lesser lights like our Bible agnostic friend here all want to give you the impression that they are "Bible" believers, but the simple and obvious fact is this - Not one of them REALLY believes God has preserved His infallible words in any "book of the LORD". They do not believe the Book. Oh, they may believe selected portions, and some parts of many, but there is not a single Bible on this earth they believe EVERY word is the infallible words of the living God. THAT is the doctrine that is most assuredly impacted - It's the whole foundation of everything God has revealed to us about Himself and what we believe about our Redeemer and Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He either told us the truth when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away but His words would not pass away, or He lied to us and cannot be trusted. You pick which option you are going to believe. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8 See "The Bible is NOT the inspired and Infallible word of God" http://brandplucked.webs.com/thebiblenotinspired.htm There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agrees with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. This is easily proved and well noted by many atheist, Muslim and Bible basher sites on the internet. Which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or have the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised? Is it true that "no doctrines are changed" in the various conflicting versions? Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired word of God? Shouldn't we say the bible WAS the inspired word of God? I and thousands of other Christians believe God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Holy Bible. In general terms the overall state of textual evidence and ancient versions is overwhelmingly on the side of the King James Bible readings as opposed to such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV. However, one can argue back and forth over the textual evidence till you are either red or blue in the face, and prove nothing. For me and many other Bible believers, we clearly see the Providential hand of God placing His divine approval upon the King James Bible that has been universally recognized as THE BIBLE of the English speaking world for almost 400 years. See the hand of God in history in this article called The Absolute Standard of Written Truth = the King James Bible http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm One of the clear and convincing proofs that the King James Bible is the complete, inerrant, and pure words of God is the purity and truth of its Christ exalting doctrines. Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. Modern versionists say they are examining the evidence to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. The problem with this is, the new versions continue to disagree with each other in both texts and meaning in a multitude of places. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His complete words into a language other than English. Some speak of the same General Message being found in all "reliable" versions. True, the simple gospel can be found in them all. Yet in all of them we also find contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and we find corruptions of other sound doctrines. The "Any Bible Will Do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, with several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. Seventeen entire verses, and about half of another 50 are omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV, which omits some 45 entire verses from its text, and the ESV (omits 18 entire verses), when compared to the King James Bible, Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, the NKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible. The examples in the following list, except Luke 2:22, and John 7:8, are not the result of different Greek and Hebrew texts being used, as is often the case, but rather of different ways the same underlying texts have been translated into English. Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have an "ORIGIN from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One reading teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origin or a beginning. For a further discussion of Micah 5:2 and the heretical reading found in the NIV, RSV, ESV please see the following article I have put together on this. http://brandplucked.webs.com/micah52heb211origin.htm Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible read? John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast. Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV, Holman Standard, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902. However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV , Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible 1985, and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The fickle nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast." Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: " Most mss (Ì66,75 B L T W 070 0105 0250 Ë1,13 Ï sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” here. Those with the reading "not" (ouk) are not as impressive ( D K 1241 al lat), but "ouk" is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10." So, in other words, because it absurdly makes our Lord Jesus a liar, it must be right! Wilbur Pickering, who himself is not even a KJB onlyist, comments on this blunder: Serious Anomalies/Aberrations -John 7:8 oupw - P66,75,B,E,F,G,H,L,N,T,W,X,D,Q,Y, 070,0105,0141,0250,f1,13, Byz, Lect, Syriac Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta, Palestinian, Harkelian, Coptic Sahidic, "NOT YET" ; ouk --À, D, K, P, lat, Syriac Sinaitic, Coptic Boharic "NOT" Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do), the UBS text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Him. Discussion: Since the UBS editors usually attach the highest value to P75 and B, isn't it strange that they reject them in this case? Here is Metzger's explanation: "The reading ["not yet"] was introduced at an early date (it is attested by P66,75) in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10" (p. 216). So, they rejected P66,75 and B (as well as 99% of the MSS) because they preferred the "inconsistency". NASB, RSV, NEB and TEV stay with the eclectic text here. (end of comments by Dr. Pickering.) Also in just these three verses we see that the word “this” of THIS FEAST is omitted by Vaticanus but found in Sinaiticus, but the NASB and NIV both omit the word, while "UNTO THEM" is in the NASB and Vaticanus, but not in the NIV or Sinaiticus. and "AS IT WERE" is in Vaticanus and the NASB, but not in Sinaiticus and the NIV. This is the character of these two manuscripts and bible versions in a nutshell. Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem bible and NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification. Can God be deceived as the NASB and Holman teach in Ps. 78:36? The NASB and the Holman Standard say the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not obeying Him, but you certainly cannot deceive God. For a much fuller discussion of this NASB blunder, and how one modern versionist tries to defend it, please see my article on this here. It is found in the second part of the article. The first part is interesting too http://brandplucked.webs.com/eze149ps7836deceive.htm Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV. The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18). In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!! The Catholic New Jerusalem bible of 1985 says: "today I HAVE FATHERED YOU." The NIV, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, ESV, St. Joseph, New Jerusalem bible to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting. Please see my article about the Only Begotten Son for more detail: http://brandplucked.webs.com/john118begottenson.htm Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman and others in 2 Samuel 14:14. The context is Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king. In the course of their conversation the woman tells king David: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him." The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard. Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible. However when we get to the New KJV, ESV, the NIV, Holman, and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is untrue and a contradiction. Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. (2 Samuel 12:15). In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also." 1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God." God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV, Holman, and NASB are all in error in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life. In 2 Peter 3:12 the King James Bible, Tyndale, Geneva and others correctly say we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV , St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem bible all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine. See my article dealing with this verse in much more detail at: http://brandplucked.webs.com/2peter312hastingunto.htm Who rules or is in control of this world, God or Satan? In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 (y todo el mundo está puesto en maldad), Lamsa's translation of the Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the KJV 21st Century version, Green's literal translation and Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible all say: "And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS." Miles Coverdale's 1535 translation says: "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is set altogether in wickedness." We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin and wickedness, just as the text says. But God is still in control and ruling over all His creation. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11. Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us three times that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Even though it may appear that wickedness is winning, the eye of faith sees His sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence. However, believe it or not, many new versions change the truth of God's sovereign rule and would have us believe that Satan is the ruler of this world and is in control. In fact, they come right out and say it in these exact words. The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE." NASB " the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." Today's English Version "the whole world is under the rule of the Evil One." ESV (English Standard Version) "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." Living Bible 1981 "the world around us is under Satan's power and control." ISV (International Standard Version) "the whole world lies under the control of the evil one." Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 "the whole world is under the evil one." Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "the whole world is in the power of the Evil One." The NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible try to strike a medium with : " the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" but the NKJV as well as the NASB are also wrong when three times they refer to Satan as the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31; 14:30, and 16:11. Satan is NOT the ruler of this world. He is the spiritual "prince of this world", as the KJB, RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, and even the NIV correctly say, but there are also other spiritual "princes" or beings working among the nations, and all of them are under the control of God and not Satan. For a more detailed study of who rules the world see: http://brandplucked.webs.com/satanorgodcontrols.htm What is the fine linen, clean and white? Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS." Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message. But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, the NIV , the Catholic St. Joesph NAB and the Catholic New Jerusalem have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the righteous deeds of God's people") If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same thing here. So, which one is true? Matthew Henry notes: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness... She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord." John Gill comments: "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, not good works, or their own righteousness;... these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints. "Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it. Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, (Isaiah 61:10) (Zechariah 3:4)." (To see more on "the fine linen is the righteousness of saints" in Revelation 19:8 please see the article here: http://brandplucked.webs.com/rev198finelinen.htm ) 1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Darby, NIV, NKJV, and even the Douay version too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh? Hosea 11:12 KJB "But Judah yet RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS." The Bible versions that agree with the King James Bible in that Judah IS YET FAITHFUL are the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Darby, Young, Spanish Reina Valera, Green's interlinear, the Hebrew-English 1936, and the Third Millenium Bible. But the NKJV puts a new twist here saying: "But Judah still walks with God, even with the Holy One, who is faithful." This time Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees in the main with the KJB saying: "But Judah still roams about with God; he remains faithful to the Holy One." The NASB, NIV, TNIV, Catholic St. Joseph NAB completely spin this verse around to mean the opposite with: "And Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God, even against the faithful Holy One." The St. Joseph NAB says: "Judah is STILL REBELLIOUS AGAINST God." But the other Catholic bible- the New Jerusalem- confuses things with "But Judah still is on God's side." Guess we need a "priest" or scholar ;-0 to sort this out for us, huh? The Holman Standard has come up with a different rendering, saying: "Judah STILL WANDERS WITH EL, AND IS FAITHFUL TO HOLY ONES." Say what?!? Then it tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure. If you think the Hebrew is obscure, then the English translations are downright mind-boggling. So which, if any, of the multiple-choice bible versions is the true word of God? Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF" An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions. "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF." The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí), Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently. Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off." John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation." Matthew Poole writes in his commentary - "our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i. e. not for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation." David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself." John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation." However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing". Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles". Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM." The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH NO ONE TO TAKE HIS PART." Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT." 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (again not true) St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY." Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS." Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER." Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "An Anointed One put to death without his...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." That is actually how it reads! The Septuagint (LXX) - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM." Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us? This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example from Daniel 9:26 can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses. These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant. If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones. Isn't there something written in the Bible that tells us of the falling away from the faith in the last days? Has Satan changed his hateful opposition and corrupting influence toward the words of God? Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these latter days to where he can now think more clearly? If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in hundreds of places, verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which it speaks is true? If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul? When does God start telling the truth? Do you still think that "no doctrines are changed" in the various versions? Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? If so, what exactly are you referring to when you say this? Some mystical bible that exists in your own mind, or a solid Book we can hold in our hands, read, believe and preach to a lost world? Will Kinney Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm No Doctrines Are Changed?

https://brandplucked.com/1john57.htm 1 John 5:7 "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" 1 John 5:7 "And These Three Are One" And here is a shorter article by brother David Daniels on the historical evidence for the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp Muslims love James White. They use James White's own material to try to convince Christians that we do not have an inerrant Bible. James White says 1 John 5:7 and Mark 16:9-20 are forgeries. The video is only 9 minutes long. Listen to the two Muslims discussing this in the last 4 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYkPn2aXKds 1 John 5:7-8 KJB - "For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." 1 John 5:7-8 - ESV, NIV, NASB - "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood: and these three agree." 1 John 5:7-8 is the clearest witness in the Bible regarding the Holy Trinity, yet it is missing in many modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NET and Jehovah Witness New World Translation. English Bibles that contain all these words in 1 John 5:7-8 are the first complete English Bible ever made by John Wycliffe in 1380. It was in Tyndale's New Testament of 1525 - "For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one.", the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible from 1557 to 1599 -"For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.", the Beza New Testament 1599, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, and the Authorized Version of 1611. It is also in the Bill Bible 1671, Mace's New Testament of 1729, John Wesley translation in 1755, the Clarke N.T. 1795, and Thomas Howeis N.T. 1795. It was included in The Revised Translation 1815, The Patrick Paraphrase Bible 1822, Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, The Hammond N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, James Murdock's translation of the Syriac Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta done in 1852 - "For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.", Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Calvin Version 1856, the Kenrick N.T. 1862, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, and Young's literal in 1898. All the words are found in the NKJV 1982, the New Life Bible 1969, the Amplified Bible of 1987, the 1994 KJV 21st Century Version, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Interlinear Greek New Testament 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Lawrie Translation 1998, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Worldwide English New Testament 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson New Testament 2002, the the Easter/Greek Orthodox Bible 2008, the Heritage Bible 2003, Green's 'literal' translation of 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Apostolic Bible 2006, the Catholic Public Domain Version 2009, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Online Interlinear Bible 2010 by André de Mol, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010. Other English Bibles that include the whole verse are The Work of God Children's Bible 2011, Revised Douay-Rheims bible 2012, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the Knox Bible of 2012 - "Thus we have a threefold warrant in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, three who are yet one.", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013, The International Standard Version 2014 - For there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. and The Holy Bible, and the Modern English Version 2014 - 7 There are three who testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one. 8 There are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are toward the one., and The New Matthew Bible 2016. The Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 in Chapter II, Of God, and the Holy Trinity gives 1 John 5:7 as their first reference. http://www.freepres.org/westminster.htm#chapter2 III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. 1 John v. 7; Matt. iii. 16, 17; Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; John i. 14, 18; John xv. 26; Gal. iv. 6. The London Baptist Confession of 1689 also specifically mentions 1 John 5:7 as being the first verse used to teach and support the doctrine of the Trinity. They certainly believed it was inspired Scripture. http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter02.htm They write: "In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him. ( 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6 ) The Belgic Confession of 1561 states, "The testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, which teach us to believe in this Holy Trinity, are written in many places of the Old Testament, which need not be enumerated but only chosen with discretion. " "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." In all these passages we are fully taught that there are three persons in the one and only divine essence. And although this doctrine surpasses human understanding, we nevertheless believe it now, through the Word, waiting to know and enjoy it fully in heaven. (The Belgic Confession, (CRTA), article 9.). The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 says, "Since there is but one only divine essence, why speakest thou of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" Answer: Because God has so revealed himself in his word, [b] that these three distinct persons are the one only true and eternal God. Footnote b says, "1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (The Heidelberg Catechism, (CRTA), section 8.) The Catholic Connection The entire reading was included in the earlier Catholic bibles like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and as late as the Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions (St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985), but now once again the 2009 The Sacred Bible Public Domain Version has gone back to include it. And so too does The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012 - And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. For some reason some of the online Vulgates have the shorter version of 1 John 5:7-8 and others have the longer version that reads like Wycliffe 1395, the Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the King James Bible. But Wycliffe translated his Bible long before the Clementine Vulgate came out in 1592, and he translated from the Latin Vulgate. So, if it was not in the Latin Vulgate, then where did Wycliffe get it from? It seems pretty obvious that he was using a Latin Vulgate copy that contained the whole of 1 John 5:7-8. Some bible critics like Michael Borosky tell us that the Latin Vulgate does not read like the KJB in 1 John 5:7 and that Jerome did not include it in his Latin translation but this online Vulgate clearly shows that it does. https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/jo1005.htm#007 He then points out that the Latin Vulgate says in 1 John 5:6 that ?Christ is the truth? rather than ?the Spirit it truth.? 6 Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus: non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et Spiritus est, qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas. 7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt. This is true. But the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 was translated from the Latin Vulgate and it not only says that ?Christ is the truth? in verse 6 but it reads just like the KJB in 1 John 5:7 proving that indeed the Latin Vulgate that was used by the Catholic translators of 1582 DID use the Vulgate and the Vulgate DOES read like it always has in the KJB in 1 John 5:7. The Douay-Rheims Bible. [6] This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. [7] And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. [8] And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. https://www.drbo.org/chapter/69005.htm And Wycliffe's Bible of 1395 was also translated from the Latin Vulgate and it also reads "Christ is truth" in verse 6 and verse 7-8 are the same as in the KJB. Wycliffe(i) 6 This is Jhesus Crist, that cam bi watir and blood; not in water oonli, but in watir and blood. And the spirit is he that witnessith, that Crist is treuthe. 7 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon. 8 `And thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in erthe, the spirit, water, and blood; and these thre ben oon. https://studybible.info/Wycliffe/1%20John5:6-8 Even the Nestle-Aland Critical text tells us that the phrase "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" is found in several Old Latin texts and in some Vulgate manuscripts, and that it is so quoted by Cyprian 210-258 A.D. et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus] (itc itdem itdiv omit in Christo Iesu) itl itm itp (itq omit et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu) vgmss (Cyprian) (Ps-Cyprian) (Priscillian) Ps-Vigilius Cassian Speculum Varimadum Fulgentius Ps-Athanasius Ansbert mssaccording to Victor-Vita Allusions Cyprian Treatise I On the Unity of the Church: and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."[22] Cyprian on The Unity of the Church. - (scroll down to point number 6.) The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;”3117 and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”3118 And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.” https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php The Latin Vulgates It is of interest that the Jerome's Latin Vulgate of 382- 405 A.D. as well as the Clementine Vulgate of 1592 both contain all these words in 1 John 5:7-8 - Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra : spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : et hi tres unum sunt. http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=23&c=5 The Latin Vulgate 382-405 A.D., even with its flaws, is considered an older Greek witness than that of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Jerome in his "Prologue to the Gospels" writes - "I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used." St. Jerome's Preface to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament Addressed to Pope Damasus, A.D. 383. https://vulgate.org This makes Jerome's Latin Vulgate a clear 4th-century witness or earlier in knowing that the Vulgate comes right after the 2nd century Old Latin, Italic, and older Greek texts than that of Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. Scholars must explain away these historical chains of custody and providence when confronted with them, and rarely bring this knowledge to the forefront. Yet now the New (Nova) Vulgate of 1979 has removed them and reads like the other Vatican Versions (ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc.) This is how the New Vulgate reads in 1 John 5:7 - Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur You can see all three of these Latin Vulgate editions here - https://www.studylight.org Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405) 1 John 5:7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=1+John+5%3A7&s=0&t1=la_jvl Foreign language Bibles that contain all these words are: the Clementine Vulgate - " Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 editions, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (put out by the Lockman Foundation, the same people who give us the NASB that omits it) and the 2010 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible, "Tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno." The words are included in the Italian Diodati Bible of of 1603 and 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991- "nel cielo: il Padre, la Parola e lo Spirito Santo; e questi tre sono uno.". 1 John 5:7-8, is in the 1535 Olivetan Bible. - 7. Car il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit: et ces trois sont un. 8. Et il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage sur la terre, l'esprit, et l'eau, et le sang, et les trois sont d'accord. the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald 1996 and La Bible de l'Epée 2005, -"dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit, et ces trois-là sont un.", the Portuguese de Almeida of 1681 and A Bíblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Porque três säo os que testificam no céu: o Pai, a Palavra, e o Espírito Santo; e estes três säo um.". Other foreign language Bible that include these words are the Afrikaans Bible 1853 - "die hemel: die Vader, die Woord en die Heilige Gees, en hierdie drie is een", Smith and van Dyck's Arabic Bible, the Basque N.T.; the Western Armenian N.T., Czech Kralicka Bible, Dutch Staten Vertaling "Want Drie zijn er, Die getuigen in den hemel, de Vader, het Woord en de Heilige Geest; en deze Drie zijn Een.", Finnish 1776 "Sillä kolme ovat, jotka todistavat taivaassa: Isä, Sana ja Pyhä Henki, ja ne kolme yksi ovate", the Hungarian Karoli, Icelandic 1981, Latvian N.T. s", Maori -"Tokotoru hoki nga kaiwhakaatu i te rangi, ko te Matua, ko te Kupu, ko te Wairua Tapu: kotahi ano enei tokotoru., Lithuanian" and the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible of 1998 - "May tatlong nagpapatotoo sa langit, ang Ama, ang Salita, ang Banal na Espiritu at ang tatlong ito ay iisa." The words are in the Romanian Cornilescu Bible and the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Pentru ca trei sunt cei care aduc marturie in cer: Tatal, Cuvantul si Duhul Sfant; si acestia trei una sunt.", Russian Synodal 1876, Russian Victor Zhuromski, the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Thai Bible, the Czech BKR - "na nebi: Otec, Slovo, a Duch Svatý, a ti t?i jedno jsou." Ukranian Kulish 1871, the Vietnamese bible 1934, The Indonesian - Terjemahan Baru (TB) - "Sebab ada tiga yang memberi kesaksian di dalam sorga: Bapa, Firman dan Roh Kudus; dan ketiganya adalah sati.", the Ukranian New Testament, the Xhosa language Bible, the Modern Greek Version - https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=1John+5%3A7&search_form_type=general&q1=1+John+5%3A7&s=0&t1=el_gmd&ns=0 Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550 - http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Stephanus/62/5 Theodore Beza's Greek text 1599 http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Beza/62/5 The Elzevir Textus Receptus 1624 - https://www.bible.com/bible/182/1JN.5.TR1624 Scrivener Textus Receptus 1894 - http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Scrivener/62/5 The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America - 1 John 5:7 - http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/?id=22&book=1John&chapter=5 and the Modern Hebrew bible - https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=1+John+5%3A7&s=0&t1=iw_hmd Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse. Cyprian - 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Stephanus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite. Richard Muller and the History of the Preservation of Scripture pt. 1 http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2010/04/richard-muller-and-history-of.html Richard A. Muller's Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. Muller holds the P. J. Zondervan Chair for Doctoral Studies as professor of historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. His Ph.D. is from Duke University. Muller talks about the Johannine Comma, the text of 1 John 5:5-8. Here are sentences in favor of this trinitarian text: Of the early sixteenth-century editions of the Greek text of the New Testament, the Complutensian Polyglott (1504-1514) includes the phrase. . . . Later editions [of Erasmus] (1527 and 1536) also include the "comma." Erasmus' third edition was followed on this point by both Stephanus (1546, 1549, 1550) and Beza (1565; with annotations, 1582). . . . Reformed theologians, following out the line of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, tended to accept the text as genuine and, indeed, to use it as an integral part of their trinitarian theology. . . . In the theological works of the seventeenth-century orthodox---on the model provided by Calvin and Beza---the Johannine "comma" appears frequently, without question or comment, as one Johannine text among others cited in a catena of texts from the Gospel, the Apocalypse, and the epistles as grounds of the doctrine of the Trinity. Often the phrase is simply cited without comment as a supporting text, while some of the high orthodox writers note that it was cited by Cyprian---thus, by implication, refuting the arguments concerning its extremely late date. . . . Turretin noted that Erasmus had located the passage in a "most ancient British codex" and that "most praiseworthy editions, the Complutensian, the Antwerp, Arias Montanus, R. Stephanus, and Walton, which have all utilized the best codices, have the phrase. Those who say this verse is not part of Holy Scripture will often say it is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and for this reason it should not be included in the Bible. It is true that 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 not found in the majority of remaining Greek manuscripts that exist today. However there is very much and weighty evidence for its inclusion. Those who argue that it is not in the majority of texts are being totally inconsistent when they bring up this argument. Most of the people like James White and Daniel Wallace who use this majority argument, do not care one bit for the majority of texts and what they might read. They themselves follow the constantly changing UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical Greek text which itself departs from the majority readings in literally thousands of places. Westcott and Hort, the very men who introduced the Critical Text methods found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, themselves said: "A few documents are not, by reason of their paucity (few number), appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them" (Introduction to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 45 Isn't it ironic that the very reason these two Bible critics gave for choosing a few manuscripts over hundreds suddenly becomes an 'issue' for them when it comes to the ONLY clear cut verse stating that "These Three are ONE", that is, the Godhead or the Trinity It should also be noted that Michael Maynard significantly points out that there are only 5 remaining Greek manuscripts that even contain the epistle of 1 John in whole or in part that date from the 7th century or before. That is a whole lot of time to have past by with only 5 partial Greek witnesses that remain today that were written within the first 700 years of Christianity. And among these 5 early manuscripts only 2 of them agree with each other in 1 John 5:6-8. Sinaiticus does not agree with Vaticanus, or Alexandrinus or with 0296. Sinaiticus and A both say "by water and blood AND SPIRIT" in verse 6 instead of "by water and by blood". Then Alexandrinus "not by water only but by water AND THE SPIRIT" instead of "not by water only, but by water and the blood" and 0296 omits the verb "are" in verse 7 and has the unique word order of "by water AND SPIRIT and blood" in verse six. As the KJV Today article says: What it demonstrates is that scribes were prone to alter this portion of 1 John based on theological or stylistic motivations. By 350 AD this portion of 1 John 5 was already corrupt in the Greek tradition. Since verse 6 is corrupt in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and verse 7 in 0296 does not have the verb "are" (eisin) there are only two manuscripts (Vaticanus and 048) from before the 7th century which read exactly as the Nestle-Aland from verse 6 to 7." See the KJV Today article on 1 John 5:7 for other examples of textual corruption and disagreement just in 1 John among the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" here - http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-The-use-of-the-Comma-at-the-Fourth-Lateran-Council What then is the textual evidence for 1 John 5:7? It is found in several Greek texts - Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Scrivener and Modern Greek Bible; it is quoted by several church fathers as Cyprian 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -380 AD, Varimadum 380 A.D., Jerome 420 AD, Victor Vitensis 430 A.D., Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus 580 A.D, and is found in many ancient versions of the Bible including the Old Latin, the Latin Vulgate 382-405 A.D. and is found in some copies of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 636 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century). It was part of the text of the Old Latin Bible that was translated in the second century, as it witnessed by a remaining copy that we have today. It is found in "r", a 5th century Old Latin manuscript. JEROME tells us that certain Arian scribes were removing this section of Scripture from the Greek manuscripts. Even more to the point is the testimony of Jerome on this matter. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate.14 At one point in his work, JEROME NOTED THAT THE TRINITARIAN READING OF I John 5:7 WAS BEING REMOVED FROM GREEK MANUSCRIPTS WHICH HE HAD COME ACROSS, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes, "Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where MUCH ERROR HAS OCCURRED AT THE HANDS OF UNFAITHFUL TRANSLATORS CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH OF FAITH, WHO HAVE KEPT JUST THE THREE WORDS WATER, BLOOD AND SPIRIT IN THIS EDITON OMITTING MENTION OF FATHER, WORD AND SPIRIT in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested." Thus, we see that JEROME SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THIS VERSE WAS BEING REMOVED FROM GREEK MANUSCRIPTS IN HIS DAY. Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss. The old commentators on 1 John 5:7 - John Calvin, John Gill, Matthew Henry, John Wesley. JOHN WESLEY commented on 1 John 5:7 saying: " I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one." "As they lie in the text :" -- but here arises a question: Is that text genuine? Was it originally written by the Apostle, or inserted in later ages? Many have doubted of this; and, in particular, the great light of the Christian church, lately removed to the Church above, Bengelius, -- the most pious, the most judicious, and the most laborious, of all the modern Commentators on the New Testament. For some time he stood in doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were removed by three considerations: (1.) That though it is wanting in many copies, YET IT IS FOUND IN MORE; AND THOSE COPIES OF THE GREATEST AUTHORITY: -- ( 2.) That IT IS CITED BY A WHOLE GAIN OF ANCIENT WRITERS, FROM THE TIME OF ST. JOHN TO THAT OF CONSTANTINE. THIS ARGUMENT IS CONCLUSIVE: FOR THEY COULD NOT HAVE CITED IT, HAD IT NOT BEEN IN THE SACRED CANON: -- (3.) That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands. And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived is commonly styled, Seculum Aranium, -- "the Arian age;" there being then only one eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world." JOHN CALVIN - "There are three than bear record in heaven" The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and AS I SEE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BEST AND MOST APPROVED COPIES, I AM INCLINED TO RECEIVE IT AS THE TRUE READING." MATTHEW HENRY on 1 John 5:7 - "We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse...There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading." "The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle...Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt?and these three are one. NOW THESE ARE THE WORDS, NOT OF V. 8, BUT OF V. 7. They are not used concerning the three on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; but the three in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost...If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt?they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt - they are one. And THEREFORE CYPRIAN'S WORDS SEEM STILL TO BE A FIRM TESTIMONY TO V. 7." "It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book." "I think, in the book of God,... THE TEXT IS WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION." JOHN GILL commenting on 1 John 5:7 - "As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerome, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters." "And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition the compilers of which made use of various copies" (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.) Speaking of the citations of the early church fathers John Gill continues: "And yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; AND IT IS CITED BY ATHANASIUS ABOUT THE YEAR 350; AND BEFORE HIM BY CYPRIAN, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRD CENTURY, ABOUT THE YEAR 250; AND IT IS REFERRED TO BY TERTULLIAN ABOUT THE YEAR 200; AND WHICH WAS WITHIN A HUNDRED YEARS, OR LITTLE MORE, OF THE WRITING OF THE EPISTLE, WHICH MAY BE ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANYONE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THIS PASSAGE; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation." CYPRIAN (Latin: Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus) (c. 200 ? September 14, 258) was bishop of Carthage and an important Early Christian writer, many of whose Latin works are extant. He was born around the beginning of the 3rd century in North Africa, perhaps at Carthage, where he received a classical education. After converting to Christianity, he became a bishop in 249 and eventually died a martyr at Carthage. As a side note, the entire quote by Cyprian is this: In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, The Lord says, I and the Father are one, AND AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, "AND THESE THREE ARE ONE." https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html This cannot be said of verse 8 where it says: "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." That verse is not referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Only verse 7 does this. You can see the quote from Cyprian in context here - http://www.pennuto.com/bible/1jn5_7.htm THE TREATISES OF CYPRIAN Ante-Nicene vol. 5 page 423 The Lord says: I and the Father are one; (4) and again IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, "AND THESE THREE ARE ONE."(5) (4) John X. 30. (5) I John V. 7 . (End of shorter Article on 1 John 5:7) Even the UBS 4th edition says that 1 John 5:7 was quoted by Cyprian. It's in their own Critical Greek text. the UBS Greek NT (4th ed.) notes that the "comma" is attested by the Latin church fathers Cyprian (d. 258), Pseudo-Cyprian (4th century), Priscillian (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date "445/480"), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few manuscripts. The Cyprian quote is simply irrefutable. Cyprian did cite 1 John 5:7, contrary to James White and Dan Wallace's argument to the contrary. Here are some: The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters. Matthew 12:30 He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, I and the Father are one; John 10:30 AND AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 1 John 5:7 And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation. (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1. On the Unity of the Church: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm) Note that the above source puts 1 John 5:7 after Cyprian's quote, indicating that the translators saw that this is where he was getting his reference from. UNITY OF GODHEAD, UNITY OF CHURCH. CYPRIAN. The Lord says, I and the Father are one. AND AGAIN OF THE FATHER AND SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IT IS WRITTEN, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. Does anyone believe that this unity that comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the church and be separated by the division of colliding wills? THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH 6.38 Additional Information about 1 John 5:7 It is sometimes erroneously asserted that this text originated close to the time of Erasmus. However, even the UBS Greek NT (4th ed.) notes that the "comma" is attested by the Latin church fathers (Cyprian) (d. 258), (Pseudo-Cyprian) (4th century), (Priscillian) (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date "445/480"), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few manuscripts. And these notes are found in the very Greek editions of those who oppose its inclusion in the New Testament! The UBS critical text keeps changing both its Greek texts and the footnotes found at the bottom of its pages. In addition to the names found in the UBS 4th edition that supported the inclusion of the Three witnesses in heaven - Cyprian, Priscillian and Fulgentius, the UBS 3rd edition also lists Varimadum, Cassian and Ansbert. Varimadum was an anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer in 380 A.D. that states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. Both UBS texts list Priscillian (380 AD) bishop of Avila, in support of the Three heavenly witnesses in 1 John 5:7 and many sites list him as "a Spanish heretic". And What exactly was his heresy? He DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY! Yet he himself writes in Liber Apologeticus: "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." Priscillian (who lived in the 4th century) said in 350 A.D., "As John says, There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus." Vigilius Tapsensis (who lived in the 5th century) stated in 450 A.D., "Also to the Parthians, "There are three", He says, "that bear record in earth, the water, the blood and the flesh, and the three are in us. And there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one." (Vigilius Tapsensis, Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7), (KJV Today), Latin fathers. He also said in 480 A.D., "...the Evangelist John says in his Epistle: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Spirit, and they are one in the Lord Jesus Christ..." Fulgentius Ruspensis (who lived in the 6th century) quoted from the Comma in 527 A.D. and even referred back to Cyprian's quotation of it in 250 A.D., For the blessed John the Apostle testifies, saying: There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and the three are one.' This is also confessed by the most blessed martyr Cyprian in the letter On the Unity of the Church, saying: He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, he does against Christ, who in another place says in addition to a collection of the Church, says, scatters the Church of Christ. And in order to show that there is one Church of the one God, he immediately inserted this into the testimonies of the Scriptures: The Lord says: I and the Father are one. And again: of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And the three are one. He also said, Likewise regarding it: There are three, he says, who are said to testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one. More on Athanasius To read their entire quotes in context, see this site: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007_04_22_archive.html Athanasius appears to have quoted the Comma in Disputatio Contra Arium: "But also, is not that sin-remitting, life-giving and sanctifying washing [baptism], without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful in the Thrice-Blessed Name" In addition to all these, John affirms, 'and these three are one.'" ONLINE LINK to Disputatio Contra Arium The clause "and these three are one", attributed to John, is quoted here explicitly in the context of the Trinity (of Matthew 28:19). If this work is indeed by Athanasius, then the Comma was cited in Greek by the 4th century. There is in fact no reason to doubt the Athanasian authorship, other than the fact that anti-Comma critics in modern times have done so in order to discredit the quotation of the Comma. Even if this work was by someone else, a "Pseudo-Athanasius," the work is still support for a Greek witness to the Comma well before 1000 AD. Thus the often heard claim that the Greek Church was unaware of the Comma for over a millennium is false. In English Francis Cheynell pointed this out as early as 1650; before that, in Latin is Estius (1614). The divine triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; or the blessed doctrine of the three co-essential substances in the eternal Godhead without any confusion or division of the distinct substances, or multiplication of the most single and entire Godhead (1650) Francis Cheynell http://books.google.com/books?id=gQE3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA255 "This Text is cited by the Ancient Fathers, by Athanasius in his dispute with Arrius at the counsel of Nice, and Arrius never denied it for to be Scripture, which certainly he would have done, it there had been any doubt made of it in the Primitive times."| Tim Dunkin, who is far more qualified than I to defend the historical authenticity of this verse, has written a very good defense of 1 John 5:7. He supports the contention, made by John Gill and others, that Athanasius did refer to this verse. Here are some of his quotes and the link to his site. He also demolishes the common claim that no Greek texts before the 16th century contained 1 John 5:7. A Defense of the Johannine Comma Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8 http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html The next to rely upon I John 5:7 in his work is Athanasius, the great (Greek) defender of the orthodox faith in the first half of the fourth century. Gill observes that Athanasius, around 350 AD, cited the verse in his writing against the Arians. A clear citation of the Comma is also found in the Synopsis, also know as the Dialogue between an Athanasian and an Arian, attributable to Athanasius. Critics have attempted to dismiss the Dialogue as spurious, largely on the basis of stylistic arguments (i.e. the style of the Dialogue is not consistent with Athanasius' other writings). For example, one early critic to make this argument was the 18th century classics scholar Richard Porson. However, Charles Forster refuted this line of argument by showing that the style and type of citation employed in the Dialogue is entirely consistent with that which appear in other works of Athanasius that are accepted as genuine by all. Additionally, David Martin (who believed that one of Athanasius' contemporaries was the author) writing in 1772, observed that the Dialogue itself speaks of the Emperor Constantine in the present tense, as ruling with his son Constantius, which would argue for a date of composition in the first half of the 4th century. Hence, there is no real reason to accept the arguments that the Dialogue is spurious or late - a position which appears to exist for no other reason than to try to get around the evidence testifying to the authenticity of the Comma. Further, as Forster points out, even if the Dialogue were attributable to one Maximus, writing in the 7th century, as some revisionists allege, this would still clearly demonstrate the existence of the Comma in the Greek witness at an extremely early date, which destroys the claims of critics that the Comma only appeared in Greek at a very late date. (73) - See John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, comments on I John 5:7, where he states that Athanasius cites the verse in his Contr. Arium. (74) - Forster, op. cit., pp. 48-63 (75) - See D. Martin, The Genuineness of the Text of the First Epistle of Saint John, Chap. v., V. 7, pp. 137-8 In addition to the ones listed above, D.A. Waite is reported to have identified manuscripts #634 and Omega 110 as containing the Comma, and Holland notes that the Comma appears in the margin of #635. Go to this site to actually see for yourself the Facsimile of a portion of I John containing the Comma, as it appears in Codex Montfortianus, a 13th century miniscule (reproduced from T.H. Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 241, Robert Carter and Bros.:NY, 1854). Even more to the point is the testimony of Jerome (347 - 420 A.D.) on this matter. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate. At one point in his work, Jerome noted that the trinitarian reading of I John 5:7 was being removed from Greek manuscripts which he had come across, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes, "Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.? - Jerome, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, from the text of the prologue appended to Codex Fuldensis, Trans. T. Caldwell. Thus, we see that Jerome specifically mentioned that this verse was being removed from Greek manuscripts in his day. Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss. (end of selected portions from Setting the Record Straight on 1 John 5:7) Another witness to the Athanasius witness The Antijacobin review and true churchman's magazine (1816) William Hale But further, is not that quickening and sanctifying baptism, productive of remission of sins, without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful, by the thrice blessed appellation [of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.] And beside all these [texts,] John affirms, "and these three are one.'' - Athanasius. op. Paris, 1698, Vol. II. p. 229, or Travis, p. 143. "This admirable collection and condensation of texts relative to Baptism and the Trinity, concluding with an express appeal to the disputed clause; namely, Mark i. 3; Matt. iii. 11; John iii. 3 - 5; Tit. iii. 5; Matt, xxviii. 19; 1 John V. 7 ; is so conformable to the spirit of the Synopsis, and so worthy of Athanasius himself, that I can scarely be persuaded that it was written by any other." Please notice that the quote from Athanasius is not just "and these three are one" but he prefaces this quote with "John affirms "and these three are one." It was written in the first epistle of the apostle John! "Majority text" or "minority readings" It is also fallacious and hypocritical to suggest that just because the reading found in 1 John 5:7 is not "in the majority of texts" that it therefore cannot be legitimate, when the very men who are behind the ever-changing modern critical text admit that the true reading may be found in a few or even one manuscript. Westcott and Hort, the very men who introduced the Critical Text methods found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, themselves said: "A few documents are not, by reason of their paucity, appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them" (Introduction to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 45) J. K. Elliott, a modern textual critic comments on transcriptional probabilities: "By using criteria such as the above the critic may reach a conclusion in discussing textual variants and be able to say which variant is the original reading. However, it is legitimate to ask: can a reading be accepted as genuine if it is supported by only one ms.? There is no reason why an original reading should not have been preserved in only one ms. but obviously a reading can be accepted with greater confidence, when it has stronger support." Even Kurt Aland says: "Theoretically, the original readings can be hidden in a single mss. thus standing alone against the rest of tradition," and Tasker has a similar comment: "The possibility must be left open that in some cases the true reading may have been preserved in only a few witnesses or even in a single relatively late witness." - The Effect of Recent Textual Criticism upon New Testament Studies," The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1956) Sure, there are a few minority readings in the King James Bible, but for every one in the KJB there are at least 20 minority readings found in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and that is no exaggeration. Another very common objection to 1 John 5:7 is the allegation that Erasmus said he would include the verse if he found a Greek manuscript that contained it. Then almost made to order, hot off the presses, one appeared. Bruce Metzger who was partly responsible for propagating this urban myth at least had the integrity to retract this false accusation in the 3rd edition of his book. Here is the exact quote from Mr. Metzger himself. "What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2. The church Council of Carthage in A.D. 484 is highly significant. Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians and a group of bishops from North Africa. An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ's deity. Acting as spokesman for some 350 church bishops Eugenius confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren with these words: "...and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by THE EVANGELIST JOHN, FOR HE SAYS, "THERE ARE THREE WHICH BEAR TESTIMONY IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE Holy Spirit, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE." Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. The Council of Carthage of 484 AD - In English one of the interesting summaries is given in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record "Victor Vitensis on the Vandal Persecution". Part II is in the 1898 edition, p. 24-37 by Philip Burton. And the basics are that there was a confession of faith presented, and that confession of faith included and emphasized the heavenly witnesses. Summaries are given, e.g. William Aldis Wright (1831-1914): "It is also cited by a contemporary African writer, Victor Vitensis, in his history of the Vandal persecution, written about the year 484, who, in his third book, thus represents the clause as contained in the Confession of Faith, drawn up by Eugenius, bishop of Carthage, and signed by 400 bishops. " Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ccelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; et hi tres unum sunt." Victor Vitensis (b. circa 430) was an African bishop of the Province of Byzacena (called Vitensis from his See of Vita). His importance rests on his Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, temporibus Geiserici et Hunirici regum Wandalorum. This is mainly a contemporary narrative of the cruelties practised against the orthodox Christians of Northern Africa by the Arian Vandals. Victor throws much light on social and religious conditions in Carthage and on the African liturgy of the period. His history contains many documents not otherwise accessible, e.g. the Confession of Faith drawn up for the orthodox bishops by Eugenius of Carthage and presented to Huneric at the conference of Catholic and Arian bishops in 484. Victor of Vita: history of the Vandal persecution (1992) Victor Vitensis (who lived in the 5th century) said in 485 A.D., And in order to show with clearer light that the unity of divinity is with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, John the evangelist bears record. For which it is said: There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. Council of Carthage 484 - confession of faith, with heavenly witnesses, English translation (emphasis added): And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.' Surely he does not say 'three separated by a difference in quality' or 'divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them ?' No, he says that the 'three are one.' But so that the single divinity which the Holy Spirit has with the Father and the Son might be demonstrated still more in the creation of all things, you have in the book of Job the Holy Spirit as a creator: 'It is the divine Spirit ... (p. 56) It is also important to note that most of the Greek copies that have existed throughout history are no longer with us today. Several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts; Calvin likewise says it is found in "the most approved copies". John Gill also believed in the inspiration of this verse. When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he included 1 John 5:7-8. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; and he described some of these as very "ancient codices" sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven't the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these "ancient codices"? They must have contained 1 John 5:7 because Ximenes included the verse. A Trail of Evidence We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful time line of references to this verse: Scholars often disagree with each other, but John Gill, in his well known commentary on the entire Bible, remarks concerning 1 John 5:7: "It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage." 200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number." 250 AD - Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN? 350 AD - Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.] 350 AD - Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.] 380 AD - Priscillian in Liber Apologeticus quotes "and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." In his book A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7, Michael Maynard, M.L.S, has at least two references to this quote. On page 39 he writes: 380 Priscillian. Liber Apologeticus. (This quote as given by A.E. Brooke from Schepps. Vienna Corpus, xviii) 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 on in Christ Jesus." Then on page 239 of his book, Mr. Maynard quotes from a Mr. Claude Jenkins' 1942 article titled A Newly Discovered Reference to the Heavenly Witnesses (1 John 5:7). From this book Mr. Maynard says: Jenkins made an especially valuable comment here: "Since the days of Porson, the most important contribution on the Latin side has been the discovery of the tractates of Priscillian in the Wurzburg MS. which throws the evidence back to the fourth century and quotes the passage (Priscillian Tractate i.4)." Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one. (Varimadum 90:20-21). 415 AD - Council of Carthage. The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox." It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It was quoted as "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus". 450-530 AD. Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are: A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven" B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.] C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.] 500 AD - Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.] 527 AD - Fulgentius in Contra Arianos stated: "Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt." 550 AD - The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.] 636 AD - Isidor of Seville quotes the verse as it stands in the KJB. 750 AD - Wizanburgensis, a Latin mss., contains the reference. 800 AD - Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] It is also in the Clementine Vulgate today. 157-1400 AD. Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse. Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s A.D. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s A.D. and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. Theodore Beza, John Wesley and Johnathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today. Many critics of this passage like to say that 1 John 5:7 occurs in no ancient language version except the Latin. Well, not only is the passage found in the Latin Vulgate, but it is also in some Old Latin manuscripts, and the Old Latin translation dates from around 200 A.D. As far as I know we do not have any specific manuscript from this date, but we do have some later copies of this ancient translation. The known Old Latin affirmations of the Comma (some with variations from the "canonical" version) are: m -- around the 5th century in the Catholic Epistles p -- 13th century c -- 12th -13th centuries dem -- 13th century div -- 13th century q -- 7th century The Old Latin translation was first made 150 years before anything we have in the remaining Greek copies. In addition to this, the newest UBS critical text has now admitted that it is found in some Armenian manuscripts. The first printed edition of the Armenian Bible was published in 1666 by Bishop Uscan. It contains 1 John 5:7. Also Giles Guthier, using two Syriac manuscripts published an edition at Hamburg in 1664. This edition places the passage in the text. There is a fairly modern translation of the Syriac that includes the verse done by James Murdock in 1852. It contains 1 John 5:7 in full. And the first printed Georgian Bible, published at Moscow in 1743 contains 1 John 5:7. Dr. Schrivener mentions a "few recent" Slavonic manuscripts as having the passage. (Jack Moorman, "When the KJV departs from the majority text" 2nd. edition.) Internal Evidence Dr. Thomas Holland, who recently wrote "Crowned with Glory", a very good book which defends the King James Bible, states: "The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are [preceded] by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar." Michael Maynard, M.L.S. in his 382 page book "A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8" quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) who remarks concerning this verse in his Theological Orations: . . . "he has 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 then 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 yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?" Mr. Maynard concludes: "Thus Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John 5:7." It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. Dr. Edward F. Hills argues the same grammatical points in defending the legitimacy of 1 John 5:7 in his book "The King James Version Defended" on pages 211-212. Dr. Hills says: "...the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in I John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in I John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. FOR IN VERSE 6 THE WORD SPIRIT PLAINLY REFERS TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE THIRD PERSON OF THE TRINITY. SURELY IN THIS VERSE THE WORD SPIRIT IS "PERSONALIZED," AND YET THE NEUTER GENDER IS USED. Therefore, since personalization DID NOT bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine Comma is retained, as reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. IT WAS DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF THE NOUNS FATHER AND WORD, WHICH ARE MASCULINE. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties." (Emphasis mine.) Dr. Gaussen in his famous book "The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures" uses the same grammatical argument and concludes: "Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent." Regarding the grammatical argument in favor of the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, King James Bible critic Gary Hudson made this erroneous comment: "As far as we have been able to discover, this argument was first suggested by Robert L. Dabney in 1871. Aware of the fact that the manuscript (external) evidence for the verse is extremely scant, Dabney introduced a new argument in its favor based upon what he believed to be an important internal consideration:" (I John 5:7 Grammatical Argument Refuted, Gary Hudson) Mr. Nolan employed usage of this "grammatical argument" in 1815, that is, 56 years prior to Hudson pinning it on Robert Dabney. Nolan discusses it on pages 259-261,294, and 304 of his work. Gregory Nazianzus in "Oration XXXII: Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit, c.XIX acknowledges such a grammatical difficulty as well. Another King James Bible critic, Doug Kutilek, says: "No Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words." On the contrary, Mr. Kutilek is refuted by Ben David in his work, "Three Letters Addressed to The Editor of The Quarterly Review, In Which is Demonstrated The Genuineness of The Three Heavenly Witnesses- I John v.7." Mr. David informs us, "If we turn to the Greek fathers, we shall find them equally well acquainted with the verse, and equally reluctant to quote it. I will notice a few of those who have been brought forward as vouchers for its genuinenss: "Basil paraphrases the text, but is afraid to quote it: "Oi pisteuontes eis Theon, kai Logon, Kai Pneuma, mian ousan theoteta. WHO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND THE WORD, AND THE SPIRIT, BEING ONE GODHEAD." (Ben David, pg. 57) Continuing with Ben David: "Theodorus, the master of Chrysostom and a contemporary of the emperor Julian, wrote in "A treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist" ( Eis ten Epistolen Ioannou tou Euaggelistou peri tou eis Theos en Triadi.) This is a remarkable testimony, as it implies the existence and notoriety of the verse about the middle of the fourth century." "Cyril, in his Thesaurus, attempts to prove that the Holy Spirit is God. With this view he extracts the 6th and 8th verse, and omits the 7th: yet he inserts an argument which demonstrates that this verse lay before him, though he was too much afraid directly to use it. Cyril's words are these: Eirekos gar oti to pneuma esti tou Theou to marturoun mikron ti proelthon, epipherei, a marturia tou Theou meizon esti. Pos oun esti poiema to ton olon Patri suntheologoumenon kai tes agias triados sumplerotikon - For having said that it is the Spirit of God that witnesses, a little forward he adds, the witness of God is greater: "How then is he a creature WHO IS SAID TO BE GOD WITH THE UNIVERSAL FATHER, AND COMPLETES THE NUMBER OF THE HOLY TRIAD." The words in capitals form the substance of the seventh verse which Cyril wished to quote, as being direct to his purpose; yet through fear he declined to produce it in express terms. This was in the fifth century. Mr. Frederick Nolan stated in 1815: "instead of "the Father, Word, and Spirit," the remaining passage would have been direct concessions to the Gnostics and Sabellians, who, in denying the personal difference of the Father and the Son, were equally obnoxious to those avowed adversaries, the Catholics and the Arians. Nor did the orthodox require these verses for the support of their cause; they had other passages which would accomplish all that they could effect; and without their aid, they maintained and established their tenents." (An Inquiry Into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, Rev. Frederick Nolan, 1815, pg. 278-279) Mr. Nolan gives two reasons why I John 5:7 is seemingly scanty in reference to quotations from the church fathers: One - The passage in I John 5:7 is among those like I Timothy 3:16 and Acts 20:28 that have all been tampered with in the manuscript tradition, all three having to do with the deity of Christ as "God." Two - That the major reason for NOT QUOTING I John 5:7 was based on its wording, chiefly, purporting Jesus Christ as the "WORD" instead of the "SON." Hence, with the Sabellian heresy being debated that Jesus Christ is the Father with no distinction, I John 5:7 would further propagate that notion. Therefore it wasn't quoted. Jesse Boyd also suggests the following reasons why the passage may have "dropped out" of 1 John 5:7. He says: "The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle. The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. The Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the Johannine Comma. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian." Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the New Testament. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching." There is another argument based on internal evidence that anyone can clearly see just by reading the Holy Bible in English. This has to do with the spiritual significance of numbers. We all know how significant the number 7 is, representing the spiritual perfections of the Godhead. There are many highly significant words or titles that are found either 7 times or in combinations of 7 only in the King James Bible. Words like Son of man (49x4) Son of God (49 or 7x7 in the New Testament), Most High (49), Jesus Christ (196 or 49x4 - different numbers in Critical Texts), Word of God (49 - different numbers in Critical Texts), My Beloved Son (7 times), It is written (63 or 7 times 9 in N.T.), Firstborn (7), Kingdom of God (70), Holy Spirit (7 in the KJB), Church (77 - different numbers in Critical Texts), Worshippers (7), Jerusalem (144 times in Textus Receptus, 21 times 7, different numbers in Critical Texts since they omit Jerusalem in Luke 2:42; 24:49 and Acts 18:21) and only when 1 John 5:7 is included does the title referring to Jesus Christ as the Word occur 7 times. It is found in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." 1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Revelation 19:13 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." Not only does the expression "The Word", referring to the Lord Jesus Christ occur 7 times with the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, but also in the epistle of 1 John itself, the word "ho logos" (the word) occurs exactly 7 times when including this verse. See 1 John 1:1,10; 2:5,7,14; 3:18; and 5:7. Just another coincidence - huh? If you are looking to scholars to settle the issue for you, there will never be any certainty at all. Those who criticize the King James Bible as being just another fallible book, riddled with errors, have nothing sure and certain to give you in its place. They set themselves up as the final authority but they constantly differ among themselves. It is like playing "scholar poker". "Well, my scholars can beat your scholars." No, they can't. I'll see your scholars and raise you two more." They may say that Dr. So and So went to Dallas Theological Whatever and he doesn't believe 1 John 5:7 should be in the bible. Well, on the other hand, there are many learned men with just as much knowledge who absolutely believe 1 John 5:7 belongs in the Holy Bible. Again, here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse. Cyprian - 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Thomas F. Middleton, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is found in 10 remaining Greek manuscripts, at least 7 Old Latin manuscripts, is quoted or referred to by at least 8 church fathers, is in some ancient versions like the Syriac, Armenian and Slavic versions, in the Waldensian Bibles from 157 AD till the time of the Reformation, is in thousands of Vulgate Latin manuscripts, is in the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout the entire Spanish speaking world today, the Italian Diodati, the French Martin and Ostervald bibles, the Russian Synodal, the Portuguese de Almeida and Bíblia Sagrada, pre and post Lutheran German bibles, and in most English versions till 1881. It is important to note that the Greek Orthodox Church's New Testament contains 1 John 5:7 both in the ancient and in the Modern Greek versions. The first printed text of the entire Greek New Testament was the Complutensian Polyglot Bible of 1520. It included all of 1 John 5:7 and it continues to be found in the Greek New Testaments used by the Greek Orthodox Churches today. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/biblegreek/ Pre-Lutheran German Bibles that include 1 John 5:7 1466 A.D. Strassburg: Johann Mentel 1470 A.D. Strassburg: H. Eggestein 1475 A.D. Augsburg: Gunther Zainer 1476 A.D. Augsburg: Gunther Zainer 1476 A.D.Nuremberg: Johammes Sensenschmidt & Andreas Frisner 1477 A.D.Augsburg: Gunther Zainer 1478 A.D. Kolner Bible, Die Neiderdeutschen Bibelfruhdrucke 1483 A.D.Nurember: Anton Koberger 1485 A.D. Strassburg: Johann Reinhard de Gruningen 1490 A.D. Augsburg: Johann Schonsperger: "wann drey sind, die da geben gezeugknub auff der erde, der geyst, das wasser, onnd auch de blutt, onnd dise drey sind eyns. Und drey sind die da geben gezeugknub im hymmel. Der vater, das wortt, onnd der heylige geyst, on dise drey sind eins. Ob wir auffnemen." And it is in the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 today - "7 Denn drei sind es, die Zeugnis ablegen im Himmel: der Vater, das Wort und der Heilige Geist, und diese drei sind eins;" The full text of 1 John 5:7 is found in several of the surviving Old Latin copies. The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 includes the verse. In the Clementine Vulgate it reads just like the King James Bible: "Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt." The Clementine Vulgate can be seen here: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/index.html Either God has been faithful to preserve His pure words with nothing added or He has failed and the scholars of today who do not believe any Bible on this earth is the perfect word of God are right. You decide. Will Kinney This is pretty amazing once you see the number similarities of the first and last verses in the King James Bible, along with the most disputed verse in Scripture about the Triune God who is himself the beginning and the end. These numbers do not work with any other modern bible, not the NKJV and certainly not with the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. both because of different texts (Revelation 22:21) and different translations (Genesis 1:1). Genesis 1:1, Revelation 22:21 and 1 John 5:7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnsgYcvXTyI&feature=share The numerical "coincidences" will not convince the gainsayers, but one brother posted the following example of numerical symmetry regarding this most disputed verse. Standing Up for The King James Bible: Beauty of Gods Perfect Word. The First Verse and Last Verse in King James Verse Bible: Who knows what lies in between! Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Rev.22:21 Now this last verse: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Count the number of letters in the first verse of the KJB 44 Count the number of letters in the last verse of the KJB + 44 Count the number of letters in 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 88. Count the number of vowels in the first verse of the KJB 17 Count the number of vowels in the last verse of the KJB + 17 Count the number of vowels in the 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 34 Count the number of consonants in the first verse of the KJB 27 Count the number of consonants in the last verse of the KJB + 27 Count the number of consonants in 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 54? Therefore the total number of letters, consonants, and vowels in the 1 John 5:7 equal those in "the first and the last" verse in the Holy Bible. Now if that's not enough proof...The first verse's words - 10. The last verse's words 12. The words in the verse 1 John 5:7 -22 For further study and documentation about the authenticity of 1 John 5:7, may I recommend a well done article by my Christian brother and friend, Marty Shue. He has written a response to Daniel Wallace's criticism of this verse found here: http://www.avdefense.webs.com/1John5-7.html Another good site is KJV Today. It has a lot of historical references to 1 John 5:7 and other evidence proving that 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture and belongs in our Bible http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Origen-or-Pseudo-Origen- Additional information in this KJV Today article on 1 John 5:7 http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Gregory-of-Nazianzus The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory, ©2000, used with permission. 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One" https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html?fbclid=IwAR0VaAZMhgGnt3MFjKHzAGHhrtkVxgoK4mJQ-e1GlAQrtA7z1CmOH-eV5KY Additional comments: At our Which Version club - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/ - we were discussing the textual and historic evidence for 1 John 5:7 and one of the members wrote in with these questions: "I know there are other reasons why ya'll claim the comma (1 John 5:7) should be included, but doesnt it makes sense to just admit that the KJV is assumed to be right, and where evidence supports it, that evidence reigns supreme, and if the same type or even the same exact evidence does not support it, that evidence is lacking in that case?" I then replied: Hi Kevin, these are good questions. I think basically what you are asking is Why do we sometimes uphold a particular reading (1 John 5:7 for example) that does not share the same textual evidence as do many other verses that are in dispute. Kevin, this is the problem faced by ALL translations and all Bible versions. Modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV, Holman, NKJV etc. ALL often will adopt or include a reading or omit an entire verse or several whole verses, even when the vast majority of texts and other Bible versions do not agree with them, and none of these modern versions agree all the way through with any other. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of a whole verse, but the NASB, NIV, RSV, Holman etc. will omit it all because it is not found in one or two mss. The KJB will also, though not nearly as often nor to the same extent, sometimes adopt a "minority" reading. Very often, particularly in the book of Revelation, the textual evidence for certain readings is equally divided. If one takes a purely humanistic view of Scripture, then the only conclusion we can come to is that there is no complete and inerrant Bible in any language and that God has basically left the scene as far as preserving His words is concerned. This also means that God actually lied to us when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away, but His WORDS (NOT just the general, ballpark message) shall not pass away. It is my belief that Textual Criticism or Textual Studies alone will never solve the problem or answer the question of "Do we have an inerrant Bible?" Generally speaking, the textual evidence is far and away in favor of the King James Bible readings, but there are a few notable exceptions. What I believe we need to do to come to a final decision on the issue of an inerrant Bible is to look elsewhere than mere Textual Criticism (which is a totally confused mess, and I can prove it). We need to look at the internal evidence and the spiritual fruit produced by the two different approaches to God's pure words. The true Holy Bible will be internally consistent and always true (even if there are some "apparent" contradictions). I have found through my comparative studies that ONLY the King James Bible is internally consistent and doctrinally sound 100% of the time. ALL other versions, especially the more modern ones like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and the NKJV break down at several points and teach false doctrines, thus proving themselves to be false witnesses. Here is one study you might like to look at called "No Doctrines are Changed?" http://brandplucked.com/nodoctrinechanged.htm ALL modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and the NKJV frequently (or sometimes as in the NKJV), reject the clear Hebrew texts, and God only gave His inspired words in the O.T. to the Jews - not to the Latins, Syrians or the Greeks. Another huge difference is the spiritual fruit produced by the various bible versions. God has used the King James Bible like no other in history. It has replaced all other previous English Bible versions, and was the one God used in bringing about the worldwide modern missionary movement. People who use and still believe the King James Bible are the only ones who actually believe The Bible IS (NOT "WAS in the non-existent originals") the inspired and inerrant words of God. The fruit of the modern, multiple-choice and contradictory bible versions is the open denial of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture in any language. Unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture is increasing more and more every day, and it will only get worse, not better. The Bible itself tells us that there will be a falling away from the faith in the last days, and this is happening now at an alarming rate. For more information on this growing unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture, may I suggest you read this article I have put together called "There is NO inerrant Bible" http://brandplucked.com/thebiblenotinspired.htm The Battle for the Bible is a spiritual battle and only God can open the eyes of the blind, and He does this by His grace and mercy alone; not because we are more holy, or smarter, or pray and study more than others do. It is all by His grace and He often chooses the weak and the babes to reveal these things to. "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are; That no flesh should glory in his presence." 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." Matthew 11:25-26 You either believe that the King James Bible is the inspired and inerrant words of God, or you become your own final authority and make up your own peculiar "bible version" as you go along and your version will differ from everybody else's. You won't even believe that "yours" is the 100% true and inerrant words of God Almighty. Will Kinney Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.com/kjbarticles.htm Tyndale, Old Latin on 1 John 5:7 http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/bibletrans/mbtu26.htm Another site called King James Version has some useful information on how even among the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" like Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, we see textual differences and corruptions in 1 John 5:6 (the previous verse) and Why as well as How the words in verse 7 would have "dropped out" of the inspired text. You can see that article here: http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57 Didn't Erasmus and the Reformation Editors Use Textual Criticism? http://libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Burgon/reports%5CDidn%27t%20Erasmus%20and%20the%20Reformation%20Editors%20Use%20Textual%20Criticism.htm Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy Nick Sayers Sept 3, 2020 https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/720761625436369/ Voulgaris vindicated by leading Greek expert. Most critical text proponents don't even engage in the grammatical issues surrounding the Johannine Comma, and those who do, such as Barry Hoffstetter, or James White, only reveal that they are not adequately informed about this issue. In an email discussion with Professor Georgios Babiniotis a few months ago, I asked him about validity of the claims of legendary Greek professor Eugenius Voulgaris concerning the Johannine Comma. Those familiar with the grammatical arguments made by Voulgaris will be pleased to know that Babiniotis, who is probably one of the most important Greek linguists alive today, said that not only was Voulgaris correct to say we need to keep the Comma for grammatical reasons, and he also took it a step further by pointing out that verse 7 justifies verse 8 because of the "syntactic parallelism" of these two verses. Babiniotis is a Greek linguist and philologist who has written several books about Greek grammar, etymology, and other Greek language related topics. He is the former Minister of Education and Religious Affairs of Greece, and previously served as rector of Athens University. As David Crystal is to English speaking people, so Georgios Babiniotis is to the Greek speaker. Here are some of the books he has written here: https://babiniotis.gr/ergografia/vivlia. You may know of Babiniotis from his Greek dictionary which is often simply called the "Babiniotis" dictionary. (Word Doc) I will not discuss the opinion of the really great theologist and scholar (yet not a linguist) bishop as I do not know on what conditions it was formulated. However, linguistically though with another explanation is right to consider verse 5.7 obligatory for the existence of verse 5.8. What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the linguistic aspect of the specific text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek. The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8. is linguistically justified on the pattern of "syntactic parallelism", i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (parallel) in structure with that of 5.7. So for Modern Linguistic analysis what is important is not the mere grammatical "gender agreement rule" (which would lead to the usage of neuter gender, simple gender agreement rule. Conclusion. The issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage; it is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntactic rule that would lead to neuter gender and which furthermore would eliminate verse 5.7. === (End of word doc) George later said in an email: ...I have given you my own linguistic explanation which is to keep verse 5.7. which justifies verse 5.8. It is grammatical and mainly "syntactic parallelism" of these two verses... So I hereby challenge those of the Anglo Sanhedrin who desire to delete the Comma, such as James White, Dan Wallace, Barry Hoffstetter, James Snapp Jr, Stephen Boyce, Bill Brown, Bart Ehrman, Elijah Hixson, etc, to refute the claims of this top Greek linguist, who has basically just confirmed that the Greek grammatical argumentation that myself (Nick Sayers), Steven Avery, Will Kinney, Edward Hill, Jack Moorman, and many other TR/KJV people hold to, is not only correct, but that the Comma is also linguistically justified on the pattern of syntactic parallelism.

Faith building for believers in the KJV. 52 minutes

https://bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm A list of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament Books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers. A conservative, bible believing perspective! God's providence gave us the 27 book New Testament Canon, not the church. God, not men decided the canon. This providence does not mean that church leaders were inspired in their selecting the canon, only that God had his eye on the scriptures the whole time and brought about His will to form the Bible we see today! A list of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament Books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers. Go to: "Canon of the Bible" Home Page A list of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. Books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers. Introduction: The New Testament quotes from all Old Testament Books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. This does not mean they are not inspired. And Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books. List of Old Testament texts quoted in the New Testament: Gen 1:27 Matt 19:4 Gen 5:2 Mark 10:6 Gen 2:2 Heb 4:4 Gen 2:7 1 Cor 15:45 Gen 2:24 Matt 19:5, Mark 10:7-8,1 Cor 6:17, Eph 5:31 Gen 5:24 Heb 11:5 Gen 12:1 Acts 7:3 Gen 12:3 Gal 3:8 Gen 12:7 Acts 7:5 Gen 13:15 Gal 3:16 Gen 14:17-20 Heb 7:1-2 Gen 15:5 Rom 4:18 Gen 15:6 Rom 4:3,9,22, Gal 3:6, Jas 2:23 Gen 15:13-14 Acts 7:6-7 Gen 17:5 Rom 4:17 Gen 17:7 Gal 3:16 Gen 17:8 Acts 7:5 Gen 18:10 Rom 9:9 Gen 18:14 Rom 9:9 Gen 21:10 Gal 4:30 Gen 21:22 Rom 9:7, Heb 11:18 Gen 22:16-17 Heb 6:13-14 Gen 22:18 Acts 3:15 Gen 25:23 Rom 9:12 Gen 25:23 Rom 9:12 Gen 38:8 Luke 20:28 Gen 47:31 Heb 11:21 Ex 1:8 Acts 7:18 Ex 2:14 Acts 7:27-28,38 Ex 5:2 Acts 7:30 Ex 3:5-10 Acts 7:33-34 Ex 3:6 Matt 22:32 Ex 3:15 Mark 12:26, Acts 3:13 Ex 4:16 Rom 9:17 Ex 5:18 Jam 2:11 Ex 12:46 John 19:36 Ex 13:2 Luke 2:23 Ex 16:18 2 Cor 8:15 Ex 19:6 1 Pet 2:9 Ex 19:12-13 Heb 12:20 Ex 20:12-16 Matt 19:18-19 Ex 20:13 Matt 5:21 Ex 20:13-17 Rom 13:2 9 Ex 20:12 Matt 15:4 Ex 20:14 Matt 5:27 Ex 20:17 Rom 7:7 Ex 21:17 Matt 15:4, Mark 7:10 Ex 21:24 Matt 5:38 Ex 22:27 Acts 23:5 Ex 24:8 Heb 9:20 Ex 25:40 Heb 8:5 Ex 32:1 Acts 7:40 Ex 32:6 1 Co 10:17 Ex 33:19 Rom 9:15 Lev 10:9 Luke 1:15 Lev 12:8 Luke 2:24 Lev 18:5 Rom 10:5, Gal 3:12 Lev 19:2 1 Pet 1:16 Lev 19:12, Num 30:2 Matt 5:33 Lev 19:18 Mark 12:33 Lev 19:18 Matt 5:43,19:19,22:39 Lev 19:18 Mark 12:31, Gal 5:14,Jam 2: Lev 23:29 Acts 3:23 Lev 24:20 Matt 5:38 Lev 26:12 2 Co 6:16 Num 16: 2 Tim 2:19 Num 27:17 Matt 9:36 Deut 5:16-20 Mark 10:1, Luke 18:20 Deut 24:14 Mark 10:19 Deut 5:16 Mark 7:10, Eph 6:2-3 Deut 5:17 Jas 2:11 Deut 4:24 Heb 12:29 Deut 4:3 Mark 12:32 Deut 6:5 Luke 10:27 Deut 6:4-5 Mark 12:29-30 Deut 6:5 Matt 22:37 Deut 6:13 Matt 4:10, Luke 4:8 Deut 6:16 Matt 4:7, Luke 4:12 Deut 8:3 Matt 4:4, Luke 4:4 Deut 9:4 Rom 10:6 Deut 30:12-14 Rom 10:6-8 Deut 9:19 Heb 12:21 Deut 17:7 1 Co 5:13 Deut 18:15-16 Acts 7:37, 3:12 Deut 19:15 Matt 18:16,2 Co 13:1 Deut 21:23 Gal 3:13 Deut 24:1,3 Matt 5:31, Matt 19:7, Mark 10:4 Deut 25:4 1 Co 9:9,1 Tim 5:18 Deut 25:5,7 Matt 22:24, Mark 12:19 Deut 27:26, Gal 3:10 Deut 29:3 Rom 11:8 Deut 30:12-14 Heb 13:5 Deut 32:21 Rom 10:19 Deut 32:35-36 Rom 12:19 Deut 32:43 Rom 15:10 1 Sam 12:22 Rom 11:2 1 Sam 13:14 Acts 13:22 2 Sam 7:8 2 Co 6:18 2 Sam 7:14 Heb 1:5 2 Sam 22:50 Rom 15:9 1 Ki 19:10,12 Rom 11:3 1 Ki 19:`8 Rom 11:4 2 Ki 1:10,11 Luke 9:54, Rev 20:9 1 Chr 17:13 Rev 21:7 2 Ch 18:16, 30:2 Mark 6:34 Job 5:13 1 Co 3:19 Job 16:19 Mark 11:10 Job 41:3 Rom 11:35 Ps 2:7 Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5,5:5 Ps 2:9 Rev 2:26-27 Ps 4:5 Eph 4:26 Ps 5:10 Rom 3:13 Ps 6:9 Matt 7:23 Ps 8:2 Matt 21:16 Ps 8:5-7 Heb 2:6-8, 1 Co 15:27 Ps 10:7 Rom 3:14 Ps 14:1-3 Rom 3:10-12 Ps 16:8-11 Acts 2:25-28, 2:31,13:35 Ps 19:5 Rom 10:18 Ps 22:1 Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34 Ps 22:18 John 19:24, Matt 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:24 Ps 22:23 Heb 2:12 Ps 24:1 1 Co 10:26 Ps 31:6 Luke 23:46 Ps 32:1-2 Rom 4:7-8 Ps 34:9 1 Pet 2:3 Ps 34:13-17 1 Pet 3:10-12 Ps 34:21 Joh 15:25 Ps 36:2 Rom 3:18 Ps 40:10 Heb 10:5-7 Ps 41:10 Joh 13:18 Psa 42:5,11 Matt 26:38 Ps 43:5 Mark 14:34 Ps 44:23 Rom 8:36 Ps 45:7-8 Heb 1:8-9 Ps 51:6 Rom 3:4 Ps 62:12 Matt 16:27 Pro, 24:12 Rom 2:6 Ps 68:19 Eph 4:8 Ps 69:10 Joh 2:17 Ps 69:23-24 Rom 11:9-10 Ps 69:26 Acts 1:20 Ps 78:2 Matt 13:35 Ps 78:24 Joh 6:31 Ps 82:6 Joh 10:34 Ps 86:9 Rev 15:4 Ps 91:11-12 Matt 4:6, Luke 4:10-11 Ps 94:11 1 Co 3:20 Ps 95:7-11 Heb 3:7-11, 3:15,4:3,5,7 Ps 102:26-28 Heb 1:10-12 Ps 104:4 Heb 1:7 Ps 104:12 Matt 13:32, Mark 4:32, Luke 13:19 Ps 110:1 Matt 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42-43, Acts 2:34-35, Heb 1:13 Ps 110:4 Heb 5:6,-10, Heb 7:17,21 Ps 111:2 Rev 15:3-4 Ps 112:9 2 Co 9:9 Ps 116:10 2 Co 4:13 Ps 117:2 Rom 15:11 Ps 118:6 Heb 13:6 Ps 118:22-23 Matt 21:42, Mark 12:10-11, Luke 20:17 Ps 118:22 Acts 4:11, 1 Pet 2:7 Ps 118:25-26 Matt 21:9,Mark 11:9-10, Joh 12:13, Matt 23:39 Ps 118:26 Luke 13:35, Luke 19:38 Ps 132:11 Acts 2:30 Pro 3:11-12 Heb 12:5-6 Pro 3:34 Jam 4:6, 1 Pet 5:5 Pro 11:31 1 Pet 4:18 Pro 25:21-22 Rom 12:20 Pro 26:11 2 Pet 2:22 Isa 1:9 Rom 9:29 Isa 6:9-10 Matt 13:14-15, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:26-27 Isa 6:9 Luke 8:10 Isa 6:10 Joh 12:40 Isa 7:14 Matt, 1:23 Isa 8:12-13 1 Pet 3:14-15 Isa 8:17-18 Heb 2:13 Isa 9:1-2 Matt 4:15-16 Isa 11:10 Rom 15:12 Isa 13:10 Matt 24:29, Mark 13:24-25 Isa 34:4 Luke 21:26 Isa 22:13 1 Co 15:32 Isa 25:8 1 Co 15:54, Rev 7:17 Isa 26:19 Matt 11:5 Isa 35:5-6 Luke 7:22 Isa 26:20 Heb 10:37-38 Isa 28:11-12 1 Co 14:21 Isa 29:13 Matt 15:8-9, Mark 1:3, Joh 1:23 Isa 40:6-8 1 Pet 1:24-25 Isa 40:13 Rom 11:34, 1 Co 2:16 Isa 42:1-4 Matt 12:18-21 Isa 45:23 Rom 14:11 Isa 49:6 Acts 13:47 Isa 49:8 2 Co 6:2 Isa 52:5 Rom 2:24 Isa 52:7 Rom 10:15 Isa 52:11 2 Co 6:17 Isa 52:15 Rom 15:21 Isa 53:1 Joh 12:38, Rom 8:17 Isa 53:7-8 Acts 8:32-33 Isa 53:9 1 Pet 2:23 Isa 53:12 Luke 22:37 Isa 54:1 Gal 4:27 Isa 54:13 Joh 6:45 Isa 55:3 Acts 13:34 Isa 55:10 2 Co 9:10 Isa 56:7 Matt 21:13 Jer 7:11 Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46 Isa 59:7-8 Rom 3:15-17 Isa 59:20-21 Rom 11:26-27 Isa 61:1-2 Luke 4:18-19 Isa 62:11 Matt 21:5 Isa 64:3 1 Co 2:9 Isa 65:1-2 Rom10:10-21 Isa 65:17 2 Pet 3:13 Isa 66:1-2 Acts 7:49-50 Jer 5:21 Mark 8:18 Jer 9:23 1 Co 1:31, 2 Co 10:17 Jer31:15 Matt 2:18 Jer 31:31-34 Heb 8:8-12 Ezk 11:20 Rev 21:7 Ezk 37:5, 10 Rev 11:11 Dan 3:6 Matt13:42, 50 Dan 7:13 Matt 24:30, 26:64, Mark 13:26,14:62, Luke 21:27,22:69 Dan 9:27 Matt 24:15 Dan 11:31 Mark 13:14 Hos 2:1, 3 Rom 9:25-28 Hos 6:6 Matt 9:13, Matt 12:7 Hos 10:8 Luke 23:30, Rev 6:16 Hos 11:1 Matt 2:15 Hos 13:14 1 Co 15:55 Joel 3:1-5 Acts 2:17-21, Rom 10:13 Amos 5:25-27 Acts 7:42-43 Amos 9:11-12 Acts 15:16-17 Jonah 2:17 Matt 12:40 Mic 5:2 Matt 2:6 Mic 7:6 Matt 10:35-36 Hab 2:3-4 Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11 Hab 1:5 Acts 13:41 Hag 2:6, 21 Heb 12:26 Zac 8:16 Eph 4:25 Zech 9:9 Joh 12:15 Zac 11:12-13 Matt 27:9-10 Zac 12:10 Joh 19:37 Zac 13:7 Matt 26:31, Mark 14:27 Mal 1:2-3 Rom 9:13 Mal 3:1 Matt 11:10, Mark 1:2,Luke 7:27 Mal 4:5-6 Matt 17:10-11

What is made of leather and sounds like a sneeze? A shoe. How do you turn soup into gold? Add 24 carrots. What is white and ruins your dinner? An avalanche.

Bible Baptist Bookstore https://store.kjv1611.org/bbb/

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

Pastor D. A. Waite -- December 8, 1927 -- May 4, 2024

https://textus-receptus.com/wiki/D._A._Waite D. A. Waite Donald A. (D. A.) Waite is pastor of Bible For Today, an Independent Baptist Church in Collingswood, New Jersey, a leading spokesman for the authority of the King James Version of the Bible, and author of numerous books explaining this position. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan in 1948, a Master of Theology in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1952, an M.A. in Speech from Southern Methodist University in 1953, a Doctor of Theology in Bible Exposition from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1955, and a Ph.D. in Speech from Purdue University in 1961. He has been a teacher in the areas of Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for over thirty-five years in nine schools, including one junior high, one senior high, three Bible institutes, two colleges, two universities, and one seminary. He served his country as a Navy Chaplain for five years on active duty; pastored two churches; was Chairman and Director of the Radio and Audio-Film Commission of the American Council of Christian Churches; since 1971, has been Founder, President, and Director of The Bible For Today; since 1978, has been President of the Dean Burgon Society; has produced over 700 other studies, booklets, cassettes, or VCR's on various topics; and is heard on both a five-minute daily and thirty-minute weekly radio program in defense of traditional Bible texts, presently on 25 stations. Dr. and Mrs. Waite have been married since 1948; they have four sons, one daughter, and (at present) eight grandchildren. Contents [hide] 1 Defense of Textus Receptus 2 Personal Conviction and Belief 3 Waite and BJU 4 Publications 5 See Also 6 References 7 External links Defense of Textus Receptus During the first 100 years after the New Testament was written, the greatest corruptions took place to the Received Text used by the early church. The Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and 43 another manuscripts are the result of such corruptions. Some of the heretics operated in this period.[1] Westcott and Hort used these corrupted manuscript to his New Testament. They made 5 604 changes to the Textus Receptus, 1 952 of these Waite found to be omissions, 467 to be additions, and 3 185 to be changes.[2] Historical evidences for the priority of the Textus Receptus:[3] All of the Apostolic Churches used the Textus Receptus Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta (150 A.D.) was based on the Textus Receptus Papyrus 66 used the Textus Receptus The Italic Church in the Northern Italy (157 A.D) used the Textus Receptus The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.) used the Textus Receptus The Celtic Church used the Textus Receptus The Waldensians used the Textus Receptus The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used the Textus Receptus Curetonian Syriac is basically the Textus Receptus Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used the Textus Receptus Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used the Textus Receptus The vast majority of extant New Testament manuscripts all used the Textus Receptus (99% of them) The Greek Orthodox Church used the Textus Receptus. Manuscript evidences:[4] 85% of papyri used Textus Receptus, only 13 represent text of Westcott-Hort 97% of uncial manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 9 manuscripts used text of WH 99% of minuscule manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 23 used text WH 100% of lectionaries used Textus Receptus. Personal Conviction and Belief “It is my own personal conviction and belief, after studying this subject since 1971, that the words of the Received Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts that underlie the King James Bible are the very words which God has preserved down through the centuries, being the exact words of the originals themselves. As such, I believe they are inspired words.” D. A. Waite. - (Defending the King James Bible, pp. 48–49.) Dr. D.A. Waite stated: “In 1881, two theological heretics (posing as conservatives) from the Anglican Church (Church of England), Westcott and Hort, published their Greek text that rejected the Textus Receptus in 5,604 places by my actual count. This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from the Textus Receptus. This involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek New Testament, or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of 140,521 words in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament.” D. A. Waite. - (Defending the King James Bible, p 41.) Waite and BJU Waite's son, D. A. Waite, Jr., is a graduate of Bob Jones University. Waite, Sr has recently begun expressing his views about how BJU does not uphold the King James Only position, and does not subscribe to his views on the textual history of the Bible. See, for example, an open letter to the school's president. Waite also authored BJU's Errors on Bible Preservation. Publications Waite both writes original material, and republishes hard-to-find, out-of-print material, especially from the 19th century figure Dean Burgon. Notable publications: The Four-Fold Superiority of The King James Version is a presentation of his basic position, also available online. Defined King James Bible was produced by Waite's ministry to aid modern English speakers understand the text. (This Bible is similar to Liberty University's The King James Study Bible from 1988, which has center-column definitions of difficult words, but Waite's Bible does not include general study notes.) Defending the King James Bible See Also Bible For Today Dean Burgon Society References 1. D. A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible (New Jersey, 2004), p. 45. 2. D. A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible (New Jersey, 2004), p. 41. 3. D. A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible (New Jersey, 2004), pp. 45-46, 56 4. D. A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible (New Jersey, 2004), pp. 54-56. External links Bible For Today website Dean Burgon society headed by Waite. Calvin's Error of Limited Atonement "At home at church: Baptist pastor preaches from his living room and over the Web", Courier Post (Cherry Hill, New Jersey), September 4, 2004