• Hi Guest!

    You may be aware that "big tech" has been aggressively censoring conservatives on Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram, YouTube and other social media platforms. This is tyrannical and suppressive towards Christians and conservatives.

    Please share Talk Jesus community on every platform you have to give conservatives an outlet and safe community to be apart of.

    Support This Community

    Thank You

  • Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 13,000 members today

    Register Log In

Why 1 John 5:7-8 Is Missing From Older Manuscripts

Active
Why 1 John 5:7-8 Missing From Older Manuscripts

From this link above, is David W. Daniels explaining from that site for why 1 John 5:7-8 originally belongs in scripture.

Excerpts from that link are:

"The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all."

"The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment."

"1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts"

Thus leading into this;

"So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written. "

Why is this important? Because of the prophetic warning from the Father that there will be some who did not love Him to keep His words.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

So prove or reprove that article with Him as we are supposed to prove everything by Him since those who loved Him would want His words we are to keep and live by and teach by.
 
Active
Just a link to a site to see the comparison between the KJV and the NIV for the huge differences one can see to know why the Father warned is that there will be those who do not love Him that will not keep His words in John 14:23-24 KJV

Comparisons Between KJV & NIV
 
Moderator
Staff Member
Just a link to a site to see the comparison between the KJV and the NIV for the huge differences one can see to know why the Father warned is that there will be those who do not love Him that will not keep His words in John 14:23-24 KJV

Comparisons Between KJV & NIV
Looking at the History of the NIV, and you'll find out why there are issues with it.
I keep it only for comparison purposes.

Thanks for sharing Brother.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><
 
Loyal
I just checked a hand full of versions including the 2011 and 1984 version of the NIV and they are there.

To those who disqualify other versions of the bible to be false and lift up the KJV as the only truthful version are actually discriminating other Brethren do to their ability to comprehend what they are reading.

I would be very cautious that you don't end up being held accountable of causing any brethren to stumble or give up.

Is not The Holy Spirit able to teach those who prefer other versions.

Blessings in Christ
 
Active
I just checked a hand full of versions including the 2011 and 1984 version of the NIV and they are there.

To those who disqualify other versions of the bible to be false and lift up the KJV as the only truthful version are actually discriminating other Brethren do to their ability to comprehend what they are reading.

I would be very cautious that you don't end up being held accountable of causing any brethren to stumble or give up.

Is not The Holy Spirit able to teach those who prefer other versions.

Blessings in Christ
I did say at the end of the OP to prove or reprove the article. As it is, you will have to provide a link to those NIV online because the 3 versions of the NIV at Bible Gateway confirms the difference of 1 John 4:3 as that site says.

1 John 4:3 KJV VS NIV

Same for Philippians 2:6 at Bible Gateway.

Philippians 2:6 KJV VS NIV

Same for Matthew 9:13 at Bible Gateway.

Matthew 9:13 KJV VS NIV

That's 3 for 3 as proven at Bible Gateway. There may be a difference if I check them all but what reference are you talking about that is in the NIV? If you have a different NIV, then you best provide a site online for us to compare, brother.
 
Loyal
That's 3 for 3 as proven at Bible Gateway. There may be a difference if I check them all but what reference are you talking about that is in the NIV? If you have a different NIV, then you best provide a site online for us to compare, brother.
I gave year reference!!
I don't go online to read my Bibles

Oh and the Nkjv needs to be put on your list.
They changed many things in there and even tell you so..

Best to read older version's .
Blessings
 
Active
fantastic site thanks for sharing
A word of caution, brother. Although I value that site in showing the difference between the 2, I do not agree with every comment. Like the one comment for Isaiah 14:12 which I believe otherwise that Lucifer was a Latin name for the planet Venus, rather than being the original name for Satan, because the prophesied king's destruction for his fall was described in that chapter was for him to die and his corpse left on the earth, rotting without a burial; so hardly referring to Satan.
 
Loyal
the one verse I looked up in my NIV did not have it, but it had a foot note sending me to another scripture that was still not exactly what was mentioned. it was on fasting that was omitted and the. my nasb version had it in ( ).

great chart really like.
 
Active
I gave year reference!!
I don't go online to read my Bibles
Here we go on your wild goose chase. 1 John 4:3 is still the same as the NIV shown.

1973 & 1978 & 1984 NIV 1 John 4:1-3

Philippians 2:6 is still the same as NIV shown

1973 & 1978 & 1984 NIV Philippians 2:6

Matthew 9:13 is still shown the same as NIV shown

1973 & 1978 & 1984 NIV Matthew 9:13

That's 3 for 3 .

If you note at the bottom of the NIV UK version at Bible Gateway, it is copyrighted as 1979, 1984, 2011

So, you are found wanting, brother.

What scriptural references are you claiming in your 1984 NIV & 2011 NIV that is there that this site says it is not? As it is, you are not being entirely straightforward on the matter of your claim as if you looked every one of those references up and yet the first 3 has you looking like you did not. I can give you the benefit of the doubt if you were only looking up a few references but not starting at the top, but you can see why you are found wanting.

Oh and the Nkjv needs to be put on your list.
They changed many things in there and even tell you so..
I do not defend the NKJV if I am relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words.

Best to read older version's .
Blessings
Did you really looked all those scriptural references up or were you trying to be a smart aleck or were you thinking there was no way for me to check your claim? The only way I can give you the benefit of the doubt if you point to those few scriptural references that you had looked up that you assumed that the rest of those scriptural references were there too when obviously, the first 3 are not. If you do not, then we are done discussing in this thread.
 
Active
the one verse I looked up in my NIV did not have it, but it had a foot note sending me to another scripture that was still not exactly what was mentioned. it was on fasting that was omitted and the. my nasb version had it in ( ).

great chart really like.
Thanks for sharing.
 
Loyal
Here we go on your wild goose chase.
So, you are found wanting, brother.

What scriptural references are you claiming in your 1984 NIV & 2011 NIV that is there that this site says it is not? A
Brother you are bordering on a self righteous spirit and full of pride.

You gave 2 Scriptures.
I looked them up in many different versions including the 2 NIV I gave reference years to.

You are so quick to judge me by your own standards or beliefs and that will come right back on you.

When you decide to step down off your self built pedestal , let me know.

If I say I read the scriptures then I read them. If I say they are in my Two NIV then they are.

You are free to stop by and look for your self if you wish.
Blessings and Love in Christ
 
Active
Brother you are bordering on a self righteous spirit and full of pride.

You gave 2 Scriptures.
I looked them up in many different versions including the 2 NIV I gave reference years to.

You are so quick to judge me by your own standards or beliefs and that will come right back on you.

When you decide to step down off your self built pedestal , let me know.

If I say I read the scriptures then I read them. If I say they are in my Two NIV then they are.

You are free to stop by and look for your self if you wish.
Blessings and Love in Christ
You hardly take any one at their word without scripture backing it up or showing where they got that from but now you paint yourself as having self righteous spirit and full of pride, because I was?

I do not believe asking for source to show and prove your statements is painting me with pride, brother. You sent me on a wild goose chase and you still cannot prove it. We are done discussing this since it is only one way anyway. I was interested because I wanted you to show it here in the forum. I am open to correction in proving and reproving everything by Him. But you are not really participating in that discussion by proving your own statements. I am not doing this for you any more as the first 3 has been proven to be in the 1979, 1984, and 2011 NIV UK for why they don't have the 1984 NIV any more by itself at Bible Gateway. Indeed, looking at the NIV has at the bottom 1973, 1978, 1984 & 2011 for it as a copyright. If you cannot see the reasons why I cannot take your claim at your word, then I can see why you had not choice but to judge me the way that you did. When you repent, feel free to rejoin the discussion with evidence for your claims.
 
Loyal
You hardly take any one at their word without scripture backing it up or showing where they got that from but now you paint yourself as having self righteous spirit and full of pride, because I was?

I do not believe asking for source to show and prove your statements is painting me with pride, brother. You sent me on a wild goose chase and you still cannot prove it. We are done discussing this since it is only one way anyway. I was interested because I wanted you to show it here in the forum. I am open to correction in proving and reproving everything by Him. But you are not really participating in that discussion by proving your own statements. I am not doing this for you any more as the first 3 has been proven to be in the 1979, 1984, and 2011 NIV UK for why they don't have the 1984 NIV any more by itself at Bible Gateway. Indeed, looking at the NIV has at the bottom 1973, 1978, 1984 & 2011 for it as a copyright. If you cannot see the reasons why I cannot take your claim at your word, then I can see why you had not choice but to judge me the way that you did. When you repent, feel free to rejoin the discussion with evidence for your claims.
Friend you are way out of line and not presenting the facts in context.

I wrote that I checked the two scriptures in a hand full of different bible versions I have including 1984 and 2011 versions of the NIV. They were in them all.

I told you twice , that I have here and once that I don't read my bibles on line.

You then make accusations and judged me wrongly.
I responded to those words by using the quote feature of those words.

You then come back with tid bit parcel statements changing things once again. You seem to have a habbit of leaving key features out even in your scripture quotes you write.

Repent? For you twisting the facts and not replying in context to what was said? How about this...I forgive you!
That seems more appropriate .

Blessings and Love in Christ
 
Member
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Is there sufficient textual evidence to support this verse?
1. No Greek text contains this verse in the body of the text until 1520. There are some 300 Greek manuscripts of 1John and of these 300 manuscripts, the longer reading appears in only eight very late manuscripts none of which date prior to the tenth century AD. Of these eight, four have it only as a marginal note and does not appear as part of the body of the text. It did not actually become part of the body of the text until it was added in MS 61 in 1520. The other four are one from the tenth century, one from the twelfth century, one from the fourteenth century and one from the fifteenth century.
2. So, where did this verse come from? Priscillian, a Spanish Bishop from 340-385 AD was the first one to add this longer reading to the text of his Latin MSS in about 380. Thereafter, it continued to appear in all succeeding Latin MSS.

So, why does this appear in the KJV?
Erasmus and Froben (a printer in Basle Switzerland) sought to be the first to publish the Greek NT and beat the Spanish publication of Computensian Polyglot to the market place. But Erasmus was confronted by a number of problems in creating his text.
a. He had very limited access to reliable Greek MSS.
b. The Greek MSS of the gospels he used contained nothing prior to the twelfth century. Not reliable sources for such an undertaking.
c. He only had one MSS of the book of Acts and the Epistles from the twelfth century. He also had a copy of the Latin Vulgate.

When Erasmus published his test in 1516, the longer reading containing verse seven did not appear in that edition. It was not found in the twelfth century MSS used by Erasmus. This resulted in a fevered controversy because many preferred the longer reading. Erasmus then issued a challenge that if anyone could produce a Greek MSS that contained this verse, he would revise his publication. In Britain, the MS 61 (a 16th century MSS) was then produced and true to his word, Erasmus inserted the longer reading into his third edition in 1522.
 
Active
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Is there sufficient textual evidence to support this verse?
1. No Greek text contains this verse in the body of the text until 1520. There are some 300 Greek manuscripts of 1John and of these 300 manuscripts, the longer reading appears in only eight very late manuscripts none of which date prior to the tenth century AD. Of these eight, four have it only as a marginal note and does not appear as part of the body of the text. It did not actually become part of the body of the text until it was added in MS 61 in 1520. The other four are one from the tenth century, one from the twelfth century, one from the fourteenth century and one from the fifteenth century.
"The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all. "

"The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment."

2. So, where did this verse come from? Priscillian, a Spanish Bishop from 340-385 AD was the first one to add this longer reading to the text of his Latin MSS in about 380. Thereafter, it continued to appear in all succeeding Latin MSS.
"Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25" in 200 A.D.

"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, (see note for Old Latin)" in 250 A.D.

"The Old Latin manuscripts say it this way: "Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt" (verses 7-8). This wording (which matches the King James) is similar to that of Cyprian's words in Latin about 250 AD "Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unim sunt.' (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One." (See the King James Bible preservation lessons by Dr. Thomas D. Holland, Th. D., Lesson 8, Textual Considerations.) Dr. Holland is an excellent scholar that thoroughly discusses the whole issue of the King James Bible and its preservation from the apostles and prophets to the present day. His new book, Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version goes into these issues in detail."

Link to Old Latin Notes

So, why does this appear in the KJV?
Erasmus and Froben (a printer in Basle Switzerland) sought to be the first to publish the Greek NT and beat the Spanish publication of Computensian Polyglot to the market place. But Erasmus was confronted by a number of problems in creating his text.
a. He had very limited access to reliable Greek MSS.
b. The Greek MSS of the gospels he used contained nothing prior to the twelfth century. Not reliable sources for such an undertaking.
c. He only had one MSS of the book of Acts and the Epistles from the twelfth century. He also had a copy of the Latin Vulgate.

When Erasmus published his test in 1516, the longer reading containing verse seven did not appear in that edition. It was not found in the twelfth century MSS used by Erasmus. This resulted in a fevered controversy because many preferred the longer reading. Erasmus then issued a challenge that if anyone could produce a Greek MSS that contained this verse, he would revise his publication. In Britain, the MS 61 (a 16th century MSS) was then produced and true to his word, Erasmus inserted the longer reading into his third edition in 1522.
Since they did not have all the available Majority Text manuscripts, and most of those manuscripts were from Eastern Orthodox religion, it might be wise to read the article at this link below for why Eastern Orthodox had a vested interest to remove the troubling passage and that was to combat to combat Sabellianism.

How the Eastern Orthodox Handled Manuscripts
 
Member
Yes, I am aware of all of this. I am in no way challenging the validity of the verse. I was simply confirming the simple fact that this verse appears nowhere in any Greek text that we currently have anywhere until it was added in a 1520 AD MSS. The fact that the language of verse 7 appears in the personal writings of some third and fourth century writers suggests that it was familiar to them. Perhaps one day, we may yet discover an early MSS that does contain this verse in the body of the text. Who knows?
 
Active
Yes, I am aware of all of this. I am in no way challenging the validity of the verse. I was simply confirming the simple fact that this verse appears nowhere in any Greek text that we currently have anywhere until it was added in a 1520 AD MSS. The fact that the language of verse 7 appears in the personal writings of some third and fourth century writers suggests that it was familiar to them. Perhaps one day, we may yet discover an early MSS that does contain this verse in the body of the text. Who knows?
When I read verse 9, about how the witness of God is greater than the witness of men, I can see that witness plainly enough of what John is talking about with 1 John 7-8 being originally in scripture. Otherwise, by taking it out, some may wonder how God's witness of His son was greater than men's when John had written in the gospel of John what a true witness is in how it is established.

John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

So how can the witness of the Father of His Son be true unless there was another Witness from Heaven? The fact that Jesus had to defend Himself at one point by including the witness of the Father suggests that there are 3 Witnesses from Heaven that John had mentioned in order for 1 John 5:9 to be true in the witness John is giving in how the Father had testified of His Son for God's testimony to be greater then men's.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. 13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. 14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. 15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Since John did gave us the Father's warning....

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

As did Jesus in that same Gospel Book of John.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

I believe I am led to those verses to accept the prophetic warning and believe that 1 John 5:7-8 was originally in scripture; otherwise, where else does the warning apply for why we are to discern with Him which Bible as in the actual scripture that loved Him to keep His words?

But I agree with you that only God can prove that to each individual believer and not just knowing for sure when we are face to face with Him.

Thanks for sharing.
 
Member
I do not doubt the truth of the verse, even if it proves to be a later addition and not part of the original text. The truth this verse represents is provided for us in other places in scripture. So. even if the verse itself proves to be unauthentic, what is teaches it true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Active
Why 1 John 5:7-8 Missing From Older Manuscripts

From this link above, is David W. Daniels explaining from that site for why 1 John 5:7-8 originally belongs in scripture.

Excerpts from that link are:

"The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all."

"The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment."

"1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts"

Thus leading into this;

"So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written. "

Why is this important? Because of the prophetic warning from the Father that there will be some who did not love Him to keep His words.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

So prove or reprove that article with Him as we are supposed to prove everything by Him since those who loved Him would want His words we are to keep and live by and teach by.
The first sentence is highly suspect. What is the basis for saying the Majority Text is not based on the Majority Text? The Majority Text is made up of more than 5000 copies. It is also known as the Textus Receptus and the Antioch Text. The Minority Text is made up of 45 manuscripts also known as the Alexandrian Text. Which is why it is called 'minority'.

Second, (1 John 5:7) is found in some Greek manuscripts. It is not only found in some Greek manuscripts, but it is also found in the Old Latin versions which date at around 157 A.D. Which makes them far older than the oldest present day Greek manuscript.

The Minority texts, from which your modern Bibles come from, are at odds in several places with the Majortiy Text, from where the King James Version comes from. But the majority texts, of which there are some 60 Old Latin manuscripts, usually agree with the King James Version.

Quantrill
 

Similar threads

Top