Another question for mormons.

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

The Meaningful evidence:

What does 1 John 5:7 KJB, actually mean in context?

Every person who believes what the scriptures [KJB] teach, believes in the Deity and eternality of the person/being of the Father, the person/being of the Son [Jesus] and the person/being of the Holy Spirit.

Those who thus believe the scriptures [KJB] fully agree with every text of scripture [KJB] which say that there is "One LORD" [Deuteornomy 6:4; Zechariah 14:9; Mark 12:29; 1 Corinthians 8:6 KJB], or "One God" [1 Corinthians 8:6 KJB, which is an expansion of Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29, etc KJB] or other texts such which say there is "no" other "God beside" JEHOVAH Elohiym [Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,8, 45:5,21 KJB].

Those who believe the scripture [KJB] agree fully with what they teach in that there is no other JEHOVAH Elohiym, but JEHOVAH Elohiym; though some may have a slight misunderstanding of what that specifically entails. The matter will fall into what the scripture [KJB] teaches about the persons/beings of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit, and the word "one".

JEHOVAH [name, character, singular] Elohiym [3 persons, multiple]. At-one-ment. Not a single person, but 3 eternal persons/beings.

Not a three-headed hydra.

Not one person masquerading as three persons. Not one being with three personalities. Not two persons pretending to be a third person. Not two beings with three personalities.

Not a ventriliquist.

There are three persons/beings. Working in perfect musical harmony, symphony, and in a singular "chord" [thus 'one accord']. We may see this in Matthew 28:19 KJB:

Matthew 28:19 KJB - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Matthew 28:19 GNT TR - πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

The name of God, represents His character:

Exodus 33:18 KJB - And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

Exodus 33:19 KJB - And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

Exodus 33:20 KJB - And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Exodus 33:21 KJB - And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

Exodus 33:22 KJB - And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

Exodus 33:23 KJB - And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Exodus 34:1 KJB - And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

Exodus 34:2 KJB - And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

Exodus 34:3 KJB - And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.

Exodus 34:4 KJB - And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.

Exodus 34:5 KJB - And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

Exodus 34:6 KJB - And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

Exodus 34:7 KJB - Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Exodus 34:8 KJB - And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.

Connected with His name/His glory/His character is in the Ten Commandments, the written transcript of His very perfect character:


The very name [singular], being the character and Glory of God, JEHOVAH, is shared amongst the persons [multiplicity] of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit/Ghost.

[the singular name]

This is singular and definite [article], yet there is seen plurality of persons which all share/have it. Three distinct definite [article] persons to be specific, each joined by the “and” [“kai”] construct:


The doctrine of Godhead, as taught in Matthew 28:19 KJB, is revealed all throughout the King James Bible, a small sampling:

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

The Meaningful evidence:

What does 1 John 5:7 KJB, actually mean in context?

[Jesus, the LORD [JEHOVAH Jesus, JEHOVAH E/Immanuel] who came down with the two covering cherubs, the two angels that are beside the LORD, is standing upon the earth [Genesis 18-19, especially 18:25 “Judge of all the Earth”] and calling down fire from His Father above, the Holy Spirit being included by the Fire also, for God is a consuming fire, and Sodom and Gomorah are said to have been destroyed by the vengeance of eternal fire, or in other words the vengeance of God]


[Jesus [JEHOVAH Jesus, JEHOVAH E/Immanuel] speaking not only to David, but God the Father, speaking to the Son also [David being a type pointing to Christ], as seen in the NT, since the whole of Scripture testifies of the the Son [John 5:39 KJB]]

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

The Meaningful evidence:

What does 1 John 5:7 KJB, actually mean in context?


I will even cite them from the NWT for the WTS, Jehovah Witnesses reading:


The Hebrew OT:


The Hebrew OT Translit.:


LXX [*so-called] -


How many JEHOVAH are in those verses [4,6,7]?

JEHOVAH said, "... I ["JEHOVAH ... God", vs. 4,6] will save them by JEHOVAH their God [vs. 7], ..."

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

The Meaningful evidence:

What does 1 John 5:7 KJB, actually mean in context?

Now, consider the definition of “one” in regards God, the disciples, marriage, covenant and atonement:


Side note:

The Hebrew word [H259] “אחד”, “'echâd” is not, [H905] “בּד”, “bad” nor, [H3173] “יחיד”, “yâchı̂yd”.

Side note, in the so-called LXX [*Septuagint, the work of Origen in his Hexapla, not the work of 70 or 72 Jewish scholars from the twelve tribes, and definitely not written before AD 100]


The Deuteronomy 6:4 KJB passage is quoted in the New Testament itself:


This is clearly explained in more detail in 1 John 5:7,8 KJB, the "are one" is defined by the next verse, "agree in one", meaning they three are one in purpose, etc, not person:


Marriage, in the King James Bible, uses these very same words to describe the at-one-ment of two persons of man-kind, a male and female in covenant relationship with God:


See how “they”, being before “twain”, that is to say two persons, one male and one female, are to be after the marriage covenant, “one”:

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

The Meaningful evidence:

What does 1 John 5:7 KJB, actually mean in context?

They, which are entered into the marriage covenant, are to be one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. This is how Jesus Christ even spoke of Himself and the Father, along with Himself and the Disciples, and even with the disciples amongst themselves, togetherness in mind, in purpose, in harmony, but not in person:


This is what prophecy said would be:


Other passages which also speak of togetherness of multiplicity:

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

The Meaningful evidence:

What does 1 John 5:7 KJB, actually mean in context?


As seen, even the wicked can be in a similar state:

The Bible [King James Bible for English] is a specific example of this “at-one-ment”, itself not only being a work of God and man-kind [even as Jesus is God and man], it is also “one” book, being many books, many prophets, many people, that all agree in one, even as the “law” and the “testimony” agree together with one mind, one purpose, though they are God's “two witnesses” [plural] agreeing together in witness [singular].

The 4 Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, though each a differing personal witness, all agree together when compared prayerfully:


Etc.

These are God's own standard for testimony, or witness. This is why there must always be 2 or 3 persons to witness. Jesus Himself stated that this is the way it was to always be:

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

The Meaningful evidence:

What does 1 John 5:7 KJB, actually mean in context?

Christ Jesus, the Son, was sent of the Father to witness and testify of the Love and character of God the Father:

Therefore, Jesus can only testify of the very character [name, etc] of JEHOVAH God the Father, if He [Jesus] Himself had been eternal, and JEHOVAH Jesus God, ever being “with” [John 1:1-3, etc KJB] the Father and Holy Spirit from everlasting.

If Jesus were not God, even JEHOVAH the Son, neither Eternal, neither self-existant having Life within Himself, being original, unborrowed, underived, neither having His own Will, He could never testify of the True eternal character of the Father unto men, or any being, for how could He ever actually know in verity?

Think about this for a moment.

If Jesus, as some erroneously and perhaps ignorantly, through lack of knowledge, teach, came into existence at some point in eternity past from nothing by the will of the Father, not only would John 1:3 KJB - “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”, be broken, but then He [Jesus] could never be “the True Witness” [Revelation 3:14 KJB], for a True Witness can only testify of what He has seen/heard/experienced. Yet it is written:

Even John Gill understood these things in regards 1 John 5:7 -


A pioneer T. M. Preble understood this text of 1 John 5:7 this way, though he was in error in other ways:

This was why the passage was not used primarily or prominently in the so-called Arian/Trinitarian debates, because it aided neither position.

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

Additional Historical sources:

Having already briefly commented on just a few of the problems with the "Westcott and Hort Methodology", I should now take this opportunity to present the alternative to their errant theories, and then apply this alternative to the Johannine Comma. ("Commata" were the original commas, indicating the end of a phrase. According to James A. Kleist, in "Colometry and the New Testament", Classical Bulletin, iv, 1928, pp. 26, there was no mark like our present comma, but a group of words isolated as a single group was a "comma". Groups of these would be "commata". Hence the classification of the group of words in 1 John 5:7 as a "comma".)

At the same time that WH were doing their research, there was another man doing his own research. He had at his disposal all of the resources available to WH. He devoted the last 30 years of his life to an examination of the false statements being made by the reigning Critics of his day.

He personally examined the Vatican ms B, he travelled to Mt. Sinai to personally examine the mss there, and he made several tours of European libraries, examining and actually collating NT mss as he went. At the same time he was compiling his massive Index of NT Quotations in the Church Fathers which is now deposited in the British Museum. He received B.A., M.A., and B.D., degrees from Oxford University, was appointed professor of divinity at Oxford in 1867, and was appointed Dean of Chichester in 1876. Through all of his works runs his fundamental thought: that the textual criticism of the NT must be according to the analogy of faith, and because of this it must be different from the textual criticism of any other book. As a result of this lifetime of labor and research and travel, John William Burgon set forth what he called the

"Seven Tests of Truth for NT Criticism".

• 
  1) Antiquity, or Primitiveness
  
  2) Consent of Witnesses, or Number
  
  3) Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity
  
  4) Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight
  
  5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition
  
  6) Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context
  
  7) Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness

In summary, he says about these Seven Notes, "...although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No Test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength resides in their cooperation." The very fact of competing variants means that some of the notes, at least, cannot be satisfied in full measure.

I shall apply these Seven Notes to the Johannine Comma, and by them it will be seen that there is a case for the inclusion of this important verse in the text of our Scriptures. As Burgon states further, "Undeniable as it is, (a) that ancient documents do not admit of being placed in scales and weighed; and (b) That if they did, the man does not exist who is capable of conducting the operation." For this reason, I will apply the Tests to 1 John 5:7 on a "pass or fail" basis.

Again by way of clarification, let me say that I am not defending its inclusion in the TR, but in the KJV. Whethor or not you can divorce the two in your own mind is unimportant - they remain separate, though related. No writer that I know of has claimed infallibility for the TR, although a great many have claimed the same for the KJV.

The Test of Antiquity

Any reading, in order to be a serious candidate for the original, should be old. A word of caution in this respect is quite in order, however. On the surface, the "oldest is best" philosophy has sound reasoning as its basis. The problem is that there is much more to judging the age of the reading than simply ascertaining the actual age of the ms. Or, in other words, the oldest reading does not necessarily reside in the oldest mss. The most significant variants in the mass of textual sources came into being before 200 AD. As one competent judge stated, "It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the NT has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed." As a rule, at least fifty years must be assumed to have transpired between the penning of the inspired originals and the earliest written representation of them now extant. It was precisely in that first age that men would have been least careful or accurate in guarding the source, since most of them probably had no idea that the documents in their hands would prove to be additions to God's written revelation. Thus, while in this age they would have been least critically exact in their quoting of the sources, at the same time the enemy of truth would have been most restless and most assiduous in procuring its depravation. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the earliest shreds and scraps of quotations of the NT scriptures are not only disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character, and their vagueness, but they are often demonstrably inaccurate.

The point in all of this is that it is not the oldest DOCUMENT for which we search, but the oldest READING. That they are often not one and the same must be recognized in order to prevent that mistake from being made. So, in presenting the case for antiquity with regard to 1 John 5:7, my point is that not only can the age of the reading be demonstrated by a single early witness, but also by the agreement of a number of later independent witnesses, since their common source would have to be a good deal earlier.

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

Additional Historical sources:

Now, to specifics, the evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma is found in the following sources (some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):

• 
  1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
  
  2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)
  
  3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)
  
  4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)
  
  5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)
  
  6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)
  
  7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
  • 
    A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)
    
    B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)
    
    C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)
  8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)
  
  9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse
  
  10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse
  
  11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse
  
  12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse
  
  13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin
  
  14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse
  
  15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse
  
  16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.

From this it is seen that the case for antiquity extends at the earliest to Tertullian in 200 AD. The importance of Patristic evidence in the consideration of the antiquity of a given passage is significant. As Dean Burgon points out, these men often comment upon, freely quote, and habitually refer to the words of inspiration, especially when defending doctrine from attack. By this it comes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of scripture becomes producible. They thus testify in ordinary quotations to the existence of the readings in the ms copies they used. Indeed, very often the mss in their hands, which live in their quotations, are older, perhaps centuries older, than any copies that now survive. The antiquity being therefore established, it is seen that the text passes the first test. But antiquity alone does not suffice...

The Test of the Consent of Witnesses

By this is meant the simple counting of the available witnesses. In this case, of course, the witnesses are in the minority against the remaining mass of mss and various other sources. However, this does not prove the case one way or the other. Were there only one or two or three witnesses for the text, then I should say that it would fail. Since there are at least 25 witnesses, it cannot be ruled to have failed this test, although it remains by far in the minority.

The Test of the Variety of Evidence

By variety is meant, in the first place, geographical locations, but also the different kinds of witness; i.e, mss, Fathers, Versions, lectionaries, etc. Burgon states the obvious, saying "Speaking generally, the consentient testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of witnesses proceeding from the same locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of sympathy, and possibly some degree of collusion." By examining the variety, we are able to render a better judgement as to the independence of the witnesses. Since the above stated witnesses vary geographically from North Africa to Italy to Asia, and vary in source from Fathers to versions to mss, the text passes this test also.

The Test of Continuity

By this is meant to what degree the attestation to a given reading occurs throughout the ages of its transmission. If the history of the transmission of the text was at all normal, we would expect that the original wording would leave traces of its existence and of its use all down the ages. Where there is variety, there is almost always continuity, but the two are not identical. By examining the given list of witnesses, it is seen that the continuity is most pronounced, in that the reading appears consistently throughout history from 200 AD to 1500 AD, before Erasmus compiled the TR. Again, the text passes.

The Test of the Respectability of Witnesses

Whereas the previous four Notes have centered on the reading, this one centers on the witness itself. By it, the credibility of a witness is judged by its own performance. Burgon gives a further description, "Respectability is of course a relative term, but its use and applicability to this department of science will be generally understood and admitted by scholars, although they may not be altogether agreed as to their authorities." Among the witnesses listed, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, the orthodox African writers, and the Waldensian Bibles would stand out as respectable to most objective critics, and some of the Latin as well. On that basis, the text again passes.

The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage

This test does not concern itself with what is usually understood by the term "context", but is concerned rather by the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. It is a specific and limited application of the previous Test of Respectability. Burgon says, "As regards the precise form of language employed, it will be found also a salutary safeguard against error in every instance, to inspect with severe critical exactness the entire context of the passage in dispute. If in certain Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a very corrupt state, then it becomes self-evident that those Codexes can only be admitted as witnesses with considerable suspicion and reserve." Under this test then, it is not the general character of the witness that is under examination, but the particular passage in dispute. In that regard, all of the above stated witnesses in ms form exhibit unsullied integrity in these first few verses of 1 John 5.

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

Additional Historical sources:

The Test of Internal Considerations

This note has nothing to do with the "internal evidence" about which WH have been so eloquent. There is nothing so subjective as transcriptional probability and intrinsic probability meant here, but instead has to do with grammatical, geographical, and logical considerations. Or, in other words, the FACTS of the passage. In this particular case, if we omit the Comma, we are faced with tremendous grammatical difficulties. If we leave the verse as it stands in most Greek texts, we are given "witnesses" (hoy marturountes) in verse 7 which are masculine, with three neuter nouns in verse 8 (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to aima), which are then said to agree as one. In other words, by the rule of Greek syntax known as the "power of attraction" which says that the masculines among a group control the gender of a neuter connected with that group, we are given three masculine witnesses which are supposed to agree as one neuter witness. This is a grammatical impossibility. The genders don't match. On the other hand, if you accept the Comma as a part of the text, you would have two masculine subjects (the Father and the Word, "ho patare, ho logos") to agree with the masculine witnesses. (I hated this stuff when I was taking Greek - I can't believe I'm having to deal with it again!) It is therefore seen that on the basis of internal considerations the inclusion of the text is a must in order to avoid violating basic Greek grammar.

As one last consideration which has nothing to do with any of the Tests of Truth, but would actually delve into the intrinsic probability desired by WH in their theories, the formula of the Comma does not lend itself to the idea that it is a trinitarian interpolation which arose from a private interpretation of verse 8. It seems obvious that the phrase "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost," is not at all compatible with the standard trinitarian formula "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Why does it exhibit the singular combination not seen anywhere else in scripture by the use of "Word" instead of "Son"? It is always said that the person who made this up was attempting to buttress the doctrine of the Trinity, yet with this as his main concern it is quite unlikely that he would abandon the time-honored formula and invent an entirely new one.

The fact is that the use of "Word" is consistent with the apostle John's style. In the second place, the omission of the Comma seems to leave the passage incomplete for more reasons than just the grammatical. It is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four. See Pr 30, Amos 1:3,6,9,13 etc; the visions of the butler and baker in Ge 40; the combination of the words of Christ in Mt 12:40. It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5, the formula "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.

From the Tests of Truth, and these last observations, it is quite apparent that there is indeed a case for the inclusion of the text in our Bibles. As to how strong a case, I leave to the reader's individual judgement. I do not say that it is all conclusive, but on the other hand by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should NOT be included. In the case of the accusation against the KJV, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, whose responsibility it is to prove his case that the inclusion of the verse is a textual error. No such case has been proven. The evidence I have given at the very least is enough to throw the shadow of doubt on the accusation itself, which therefore precludes its ability to be proven. On the basis of the external evidences alone, it is at least possible that the Johannine Comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek NT text, but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin speaking church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability when the internal evidences are considered.

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

Additional Historical sources:

WHY 1 JOHN 5.7–8 IS IN THE BIBLE

by G. W. and D. E. Anderson

• 1 John 5:6-8 -- (6) This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (8) And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

In recent months several of the Society’s supporters have written asking about the inclusion of 1 John 5.7–8, the so-called Johannine Comma (the passage underlined in the above quotation), in the Bible. These supporters have found versions which omit the passage without mention; [1] they have found writers who argue against the inclusion of the passage; [2] they have found preachers who avoid the passage in order to avoid the controversy. These supporters believe the passage rightly belongs in the Scriptures, as does the Society, as did the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith [3] and as have Godly men throughout the centuries. Three of these men, whose influential works span three centuries, Matthew Henry, R. L. Dabney and Edward Hills, upheld this passage in their writings. The purpose of this article is to allow these men to address this issue and give their reasons for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma.

All around us is scholarly argument against the inclusion of this passage. As John Stott says of verse 7,
Princeton Theological Seminary Greek scholar B. M. Metzger states that a manuscript of the entire New Testament dating from the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century…is the first Greek manuscript discovered which contains the passage relating to the Three Heavenly Witnesses (1 John v.7–8). [5]

In the face of such statements, how can one argue for the inclusion of the passage? But there are ample scholarly reasons for the inclusion of 1 John 5.7–8, and ample scholarly men who have given those reasons. Thus we quote works of three of these men. Much of this information is reproduced verbatim from the writings of these men and will be technical in nature; however, the reader should be able to follow the main points of the position and will find blessing in these men’s comments on the Word of God.

TEXTUAL EVIDENCE FOR INCLUSION
First, it must be stated that Metzger’s statement, at first glance, might make one believe that 1 John 5.7–8 does not appear in any writings before 1500. However, MS. 61 was the first Greek manuscript discovered which contains the passage. It is not the earliest manuscript containing the passage; it was merely the first manuscript found which contained the passage. [6] Metzger later admits that the Johannine Comma also appears in manuscripts from the twelfth century, the fourteenth century and the sixteenth century. "The oldest known citation of the Comma is in a fourth-century Latin treatise entitled Liber apologeticus." [7]

Edward Hills admits that there is not as much Greek manuscript support for this passage as there is for many other passages in the New Testament. However, there is an abundance of other ancient manuscript evidence in support of the passage. As Hills says, "The first undisputed citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops… In the 5th century the Johannine comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who…were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy." "Evidence for the early existence of the Johannine comma is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers." Among these is Cyprian (c. 250) and Cassiodorus (480–570), as well asan Old Latin manuscript of the 5th or 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an Old Latin text. It is also found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. [8]

INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR INCLUSION
In the seventeenth century the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith accepted the inclusion of 1 John 5.7–8 and used it to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. Others, believing the passage to be Scripture, have given internal evidence for the inclusion of the passage. This evidence, which comes from the passage itself, has been cited throughout the centuries in defence of the passage and of the Trinity which it supports.

The Eighteenth Century: Matthew Henry
Matthew Henry (1662–1714), the Welsh Nonconformist Bible commentator, "was a faithful, humble, devout, orthodox minister of the gospel, a loving pastor of souls, and a wise spiritual father. [He was] famous for his Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, now commonly known as Matthew Henry’s Commentaries…The value of his Commentaries lies not in their critical, but in their practical and devotional emphasis." [9] Henry [10] was not unconcerned about the Greek manuscript support of 1 John 5 7–8, but regarding it he says, "It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. We shall not here enter into the controversy. 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… But let the judicious collators of copies manage that business. There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading." [11] In this regard, Henry gives several ‘rational surmises’:

(1.) If we [delete] v. 7, [v. 8] looks too like a…repetition of what was included in v. 6… This does not assign near so noble an introduction of these three witnesses as our present reading does.

(2.) It is observed that many copies read that distinctive clause, upon the earth: There are three that bear record upon the earth. Now this bears a visible opposition to some witness or witnesses elsewhere, and therefore we are told, by the adversaries of the text, that this clause must be supposed to be omitted in most books that want v. 7. But it should for the same reason be so in all. Take we v. 6… It would not now naturally and properly be added, For there are three that bear record on earth, unless we should suppose that the apostle would tell us that all the witnesses are such as are on earth, when yet he would assure us that one is infallibly true, or even truth itself.

(3.) It is observed that there is a variety of reading even in the Greek text…

(4.) The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle… It is most suitable then to the diction and to the gospel of this apostle thus to mention the Holy Ghost as a witness for Jesus Christ. Then,

(5.) 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 page, 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. And,

(6.) It can scarcely be supposed that, when the apostle is representing the Christian’s faith in overcoming the world, and the foundation it relies upon in adhering to Jesus Christ, and the various testimony that was given to Jesus Christ in the world, he should omit the supreme testimony that attended him, especially when we consider that he meant to infer, as he does (v.9)… Now in the three witnesses on earth there is neither all the witness of God, nor indeed any witness who is truly and immediately God. The antitrinitarian opposers of the text will deny that either the Spirit, or the water, or the blood, is God himself; but, upon our present reading, here is a noble enumeration of the several witnesses and testimonies supporting the truth of the Lord Jesus and the divinity of his institution. Here is the most excellent abridgment or abbreviate of the motives to faith in Christ, of the credentials the Saviour brings with him, and of the evidences of our Christianity, that is to be found, I think, in the book of God, upon which single account, even waiving the doctrine of the divine Trinity, the text is worthy of all acceptation. [12]

"Having these rational grounds on our side," Henry says, "we proceed." [13] He than continues with a discussion of the passage itself with its "trinity of heavenly witnesses", [14] ending this section by stating that "These three witnesses (being more different than the three former) are not so properly said to be one as to be for one, to be for one and the same purpose and cause, or to agree in one, in one and the same thing among themselves, and in the same testimony with those who bear record from heaven." [15]

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

Additional Historical sources:

The Nineteenth Century: Robert Lewis Dabney
In addition, 1 John 5.7–8 is not without witnesses in the nineteenth century. Well known among these is Robert Lewis Dabney. Dabney "was the most conspicuous figure and the leading theological guide of the [American] Southern Presbyterian Church, the most prolific theological writer that Church has as yet produced… As a preacher, as a teacher and as a writer equally he achieved greatness… [He helped] reorganize the historical faith of the Reformed Churches in the face of the theological ferment which marked the earlier years of the Nineteenth Century." [16] Of the Johannine Comma Dabney says, "The often-contested text in 1 John v. 7 also furnishes us a good instance of the value of that internal evidence which the recent critics profess to discard." [17] "The internal evidence against this excision, then, is in the following strong points:

First, if it be made, the masculine article, numeral, and particle are made to agree directly with three neuters—an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one neuter noun…where, according to a well known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them…

Second, if the excision is made, the eighth verse coming next to the sixth, gives us a very bald and awkward, and apparently meaningless, repetition of the Spirit’s witness twice in immediate succession.

Third, if the excision is made, then the proposition at the end of the eighth verse [and these three agree in one], contains an unintelligible reference… "And these three agree to that (aforesaid) One"… What is that aforesaid unity to which these three agree? If the seventh verse is exscinded, there is none… Let the seventh verse stand, and all is clear: the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute." [18]

"There is a coherency in the whole which presents a very, strong internal evidence for the genuineness of the received text." [19]

Dabney then reminds his readers of the circumstances under which the apostle John wrote his first epistle. "The purpose of his writing was to warn [the recipients] against seducers (ii.26), whose heresy, long predicted, was now developed, and was characterized by a denial of the proper sonship (ii.26) and incarnation (iv.2) of Jesus Christ." In response to these heresies, in 5.7 the apostle declares "the unity of the Father, Word, and Spirit, and with the strictest accuracy". He declares "the proper humanity of Jesus, and the actual shedding and application by the Spirit of that water and blood of whose effusion he was himself eye-witness, and to which he testifies in his gospel so emphatically, in chapter xix. 34,35… Now, when we hear the apostle tell his ‘children,’ in the chapter above cited from his own Epistle, that the two heresies against whose seductions he designed by this writing to guard them were these, the denial of Christ’s sonship to God and the denial of his incarnation, and…we see him in his closing testimony exclude precisely these two errors." "Is it not hard to believe that he should, under the circumstances, write anything but what the received text ascribes to him? If we let the seventh verse stand, then the whole passage is framed, with apostolic wisdom, to exclude at once both heresies." [20]

Dabney freely admits that, according to strict Greek manuscript tradition, there is not strong manuscript support for the inclusion of 1 John 5.7. But here "the Latin Church stands opposed to the Greek" church. [21] "There are strong probable grounds to conclude, that the text of the Scriptures current in the East received a mischievous modification at the hands of the famous Origen." [22] "Those who are best acquainted with the history of Christian opinion know best, that Origen was the great corrupter, and the source, or at least earliest channel, of nearly all the speculative errors which plagued the church in after ages… He disbelieved the full inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, holding that the inspired men apprehended and stated many things obscurely… He expressly denied the consubstantial unity of the Persons and the proper incarnation of the Godhead—the very propositions most clearly asserted in the doctrinal various readings we have under review." [23]

• 
  Let the candid reader choose…in the light of these facts. We think that he will conclude with us that the weight of probability is greatly in favor of this theory, viz., that the Anti-trinitarians, finding certain codices in which these doctrinal readings had been already lost through the licentious criticism of Origen and his school, industriously diffused them, while they also did what they dared to add to the omissions of similar readings. [24]

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

Additional Historical sources:

The Twentieth Century: Edward F. Hills
During the twentieth century more and more Christians have been led into the belief that the Johannine Comma is not properly part of Scripture by its exclusion from, or bracketing in, many of the modern versions of the Scriptures. However, Godly men continue to uphold the inclusion of the passage. Among these is Edward Freer Hills. Hills "was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the B.D. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the Th. M. degree from Columbia Theological Seminary," and the Th. D. in New Testament text criticism from Harvard. [25] Yet in the midst of these textual critical schools Hills maintained a strict conservatism which has placed him among the staunchest supporters of the Textus Receptus.

Hills asserts that the Comma, indeed, does not have the Greek manuscript support of many passages of Scripture. Erasmus omitted the Comma from the first edition (1516) of his printed Greek New Testament, but restored it in his third edition (1522). [26] Some believe the inclusion to be the result of trickery; "but whatever may have been the immediate cause, still, in the last analysis, it was not trickery which was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine comma in the Textus Receptus but the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. It was this usage which made men feel that this reading ought to be included in the Greek text and eager to keep it there after its inclusion had been accomplished. Back of this usage, we may well believe, was the guiding providence of God." [27]

As noted, Hills gives ample evidence that the passage was in use well before the 15th century. But there is more evidence for the inclusion of the passage than just this. "On the basis of the external evidence it is at least possible that the Johannine comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek New Testament text but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability as we consider the internal evidence." [28]

• 
  In the first place, how did the Johannine comma originate if it be not genuine, and how did it come to be interpolated into the Latin New Testament text?… Why does it not contain the usual trinitarian formula, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Why does it exhibit the singular combination, never met with elsewhere, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit?
  
  In the second place, the omission of the Johannine comma seems to leave the passage incomplete. For it is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four, for example, the repeated Three things, yea four of Proverbs 30, and the constantly recurring refrain, for three transgressions and for four, of the prophet Amos… It is in accord with biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5.7–8 the formula, there are three that bear witness, will be repeated at least twice. When the Johannine comma is included, the formula is repeated twice. When the comma is omitted, the formula is repeated only once, which seems strange.
  
  In the third place, the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 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 1 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, a 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. [29]

Conclusions as we go into the Twenty-first Century

The view on 1 John 5.7 through the centuries, held by many Godly men, has been that the passage and its testimony of the Trinity by every right must maintain its place in the Scriptures. Thus the Trinitarian Bible Society continues to uphold this passage as inspired by God and profitable for doctrine. As we go into the twenty-first century we maintain the faithful testimony to the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity as found in 1 John 5.7–8 in order that all men may know our Triune God: Father, Word and Holy Ghost.
_____
Endnotes:

[1] Included in the English versions which omit the passage without note are the American Standard Version, the New Century Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Good News Bible (which some Bible societies use as the basis for their modem translations into other languages), the Revised English Bible, the Modem Language Bible, the New English Bible and the New Testament in Modern English by Phillips. Additionally, some versions add to the confusion over this passage by renumbering the verses. Among these are the American Standard, the New American Standard Bible and the Revised Standard Version

[2] See the quotation from John Stott in the text.

[3] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter II. iii. In the Scripture proofs for the statement of the Trinity, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost", 1 John 5.7 is quoted.

[4] J. R. W. Stott, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 180.

[5] MS61 [Bruce M. Metzger, The Test of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 62].

[6] This type of information, which has made its way into the margins of many editions of the Bible, has led to much confusion in our century, and thus confusion among Christians as to the validity of the passage. The Ryrie Study Bible says that "verse 7 should end with the word witness. The remainder of v. 7 and part of v 8 are not in any ancient Greek manuscript, only in later Latin manuscripts" (p. 1918). The New International Version claims that vv. 7–8 are from "late manuscripts of the Vulgate" and are "not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century" (p. 906). The New American Standard Bible says that "a few late [manuscripts] read" the disputed passage (p. 1066). The New Revised Standard Version says that "a few other authorities read (with variations)" the verses (p. 261) The Amplified Version has the disputed words in italics but gives no notation as to why (p. 380).The Scofield Reference Bible states that "it is generally agreed that v. 7 has no real authority, and has been inserted" (p. 1325); the New Scofield Reference Bible reiterates this sentiment. Even the New King James Version indicates that the passage is not worthy of status as Scripture ["NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late Mss. contain these words in Greek" (p. 1346)].

[7] Metzger lists Greg. 88 from the twelfth century, Tisch. w 110 from the sixteenth century and Greg. 629 from the fourteenth century as containing 1 John 5.7 (Ibid., pp. 101–102).

[8] The Spanish bishops are Priscillian and Idacius Clarus [Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines, Iowa, USA: The Christian Research Press, 1984), pp.209–10].

[9] Elgin S. Moyer, The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church (Chicago, IL, USA: Moody Press, 1982), p. 188.

[10] The section in Henry’s commentary on 1, 2 and 3 John was completed posthumously using Henry’s notes and writings.

[11] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Iowa Falls, Iowa, USA: Riverside Book and Bible House, n. d.), VI.1090–91.

[12] lbid., pp. 1091–92.

[13] Ibid., p 1092.

[14] lbid.

[15] lbid., p, 1094.

[16] R. L Dabney, Discursions of Robert Lewis Dabney, biographical sketch by B. B. Warfield,2 vols. (Carlisle, PA, USA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), back book jacket.

[17] Ibid., p.377.

[18] Ibid., p.378.

[19] Ibid., p.380.

[20] Ibid., pp.379–81.

[21] Ibid., pp. 381–82.

[22] lbid., p 382.

[23] Origen’s "opinions on the Trinity veered between Sabellianism and Arianism.’ (Ibid., pp.383–84).

[24] Ibid., p. 389.

[25] Hills, back cover.

[26] According to Hills, Erasmus reinserted the passage "on the basis of manuscript 61, which was later supported by the presence of the verse in Codex Ravianus, in the margin of 88, and in 629" (Ibid., p. 209).

[27] Ibid., pp. 209–10.

[28] Ibid., p. 210.

[29] Ibid., pp. 210–12.

Source: Trinitarian Bible Society

Why 1 John 5:7-8 is in the Bible

A Defense of 1 John 5:7

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

The Biblical evidence:

God has stated in His word, that He would preserve His words from generation to generation:


These are more powerful than any Manuscriptural evidence.

The Logical evidence:

Divine inspiration without Divine preservation would be a Divine waste of time. This particular phrase whether in text or margin, quotations for varied persons in history, thus has been around a long time, and even with the Textus Receptus [TR], and moreso, in the King James Bible [the preserved word of God in English] for over 400 years. It is obviously being preserved by that which is greater than the human capability or mind.
The phrase is also unique to John, in that the text does not refer to the specific terms of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but rather to the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. The phrase "the word", in reference to the person of the Son, is unique to John's mind, among the gospel and epistle writers.

Just standing back and looking at it objectively, the phrase that is in dispute by critics [see wikipedia, etc], is actually quite large to have been purposefully inserted at some point in early history after the completion of the original text, but it would be far easier to drop it in transmission, transcribing.

Some may argue that the phrase is not in the majority of Koine Greek witnesses, and is therefore not to be retained. This is a logical fallacy. While it is true that it is not in the majority of Greek 'witnesses' [most of which are late mss, etc], that does not preclude its having been originally therein, nor of it's validity as standing in the texts of the other languages of the world, such as Latin, etc.

God never stated that He had to preserve His living word in any singular language, even dead [Koine Greek, Latin, etc] languages at that.
God never stated that He would preserve His word in just the 'early' works and fragments, or in just the 'late' works and fragments which are found in the dusty forgotten places of the world. He may use any combination thereof He chooses.

God never stated that He would preserve His word in the majority of texts. God is able to save by many, few or even just one. For instance, see the battles of Gideon and the 300 [Judges 6 KJB], or Jonathan and his armour bearer:


God is able to re-inspire a text that has been destroyed through various means [in fact, this is how DNA itself, which is a written language, works, when mutations, errors occur within itself. It has a self correcting mechanism.], for instance see the examples of Moses and Jeremiah:


Notice Matthew 1:11 KJB:

Notice who is suddenly 'missing'?

Jehoiakim... (for it was Jehoiakim that begat Jechonias, and Josias the father of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34; Jeremiah 1:3, 22:18, 25:1, 26:1, 27:1, 35:1, 36:1,9, 45:1, 46:2) and was Jechonias' grandfather (1 Chronicles 3:16; Jeremiah 22:24, 24:1, 27:20, 28:4, 37:1; "Coniah" = "Jeconiah/s")), but why?

It was for what he did to the word of God; which was cutting it up into pieces and having it burned.

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

The Logical Evidence:

On another note, some 'skeptics' , or even so-called Bible scholars [like the 'lawyers, scribes, etc of Jesus' day], try to point out in scripture, like this location, and say, “See, your Bible cannot be trusted, as it has gaps in the Genealogies, and therefore who knows how many persons are missing, etc, etc.” Yet, the only reason we know that there are so-called “gaps” in certain places like Matthew or elsewhere in the first place, is because those so-called “gaps” are filled in elsewhere, which means, there are no actual gaps in scripture [KJB].

Also, this particular example is good, because of what else it shows. Namely, that even though Jeremiah wrote [through Baruch; Jeremiah 36:1-4 KJB] the original note/letter and sent it to the King, from God, the King cut up and burned the original copy. Therefore, that “original manuscript” is forever lost [except God bring it back through miracle]. This goes to show that those who claim to only believe the “original manuscripts” do not know what they are talking about.

The “original manuscripts” are long gone, destroyed, burned, faded, erased, or re-used [called a 'palimpsest', scrape over a lambskin, etc and rewrite on top], buried at sea and eaten, and so on.

God does not care so much about the “originals” as He does about simply “preserving” His word [see Psalms 12:6-7 KJB], generally through memory, copying, etc.

Well, since the King cut up and burned [Jeremiah 36:23 KJB] the “original” manuscript copy of the letter by Jeremiah/Baurch, how then do we have a copy of it in scripture to read [Jeremiah 36 KJB]? Did you take notice all of the times that “scribes” are near at hand, making copies of what is said, or written? What was more important, the “original” or preserving what was said by God?

Obviously preserving the words, not the “original” manuscript.

Yet, this is not all, for we even see that God had Jeremiah/Baruch, write an “original” manuscript number 2, to repeat what was in the first “original” with even more words, see Jeremiah 36:28,32 KJB. Therefore, we see, that if a piece of God's word be maliciously destroyed, God, through one means or another, preserves it. In this instance, Jeremiah and Baruch were to write such again, and add more to it.

Thus we now have “original” manuscript number 2.

Yet this “original” manuscript is taken and tied to a stone and cast into the Euphrates river [Jeremiah 51:63 KJB], thus eliminating “original” manuscript number 2, by decree of God, through an angel.

How then do we have those words in Jeremiah since the “original” manuscript 2 was purposefully destroyed at God's own command? Well, someone obviously made a copy of those words, either Jeremiah/Baruch, or a “scribe” in either the Temple or King's court, etc and thus we then have “original” manuscript number 3.

Yet, to be sure, “original” manuscript number 3 is more than likely, as the other two, long since been disintegrated. It is not the “originals” that are important, but rather it is the preservation [by God] of those words which were given by God [Acts 1:16; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21 KJB].

Consider also the original Tables of Stone written upon by the finger of God, were broken by Moses [Exodus 32:19; Deuteronomy 9:17 KJB].

Was the medium of the material important as much as the words, or were the words to be preserved instead on a new [though similar] medium [Exodus 34:1; Deuteronomy 10:2 KJB]?

God's words are still available today in the preserved word of God, in English, the King James Bible, and may be found in Exodus 20:1-17 KJB. No old fragment of an "original" is needed. God's word is "quick" ['living'; Hebrews 4:12 KJB], not dead.

God stated that God would preserve God's own words. We have the statement not just in the KJB (400 years), but long before that preserved in various languages since the dawn of the Epistle itself.

Christophany said:

Johannine comma alone should be the end of story for the kjv only crowd but they turn a blind eye to the truth. ...

Click to expand...

Will you bother to actually read and study the evidence I provided from numerous lines and historical sources? I very much doubt it. You like to talk a 'good game', but when it comes to actually study, I find you absent from the field of 'play'.


Will you answer me before you even read all of it?

Jane_Doe22 said:

When I say “anti-cult” stuff is junk, this thread is poster example of it. It’s completely illogical and hate filled.

Let us turn from this and instead focus on praising Christ and each being better disciple of Him, the almighty.

Click to expand...

I do not deny LDS because of what others say about it, but because what itself teaches about itself, as for instance, the state of the dead:


... because of what Joseph Smith taught and did, along with others:


... because it's own theology teaches that the 7th day is the sabbath (citations upon request from LDS official sources, BoM, Quorum 70, President, etc), and yet they say that somewhere in the "meridian" the church changed the day (A Roman Catholic position), see playlist:


... because in actual theology, and even practice, the system is not "Christian" (as defined by the Bible), though some worship the true God in ignorance.

@ReChoired

the fallacy known as" the appeal to authority" ad nauseum .............

nuff said...........

I've heard all the arguments long before you were born.....................

next....................................

justbyfaith said:

Are you a closet mormon, @Enoch111?

Click to expand...

Are you a closet MORON? Notice I let out the "M".

ReChoired said:

I do not deny LDS because of what others say about it, but because what itself teaches about itself, as for instance, the state of the dead:

... because of what Joseph Smith taught and did, along with others:

... because it's own theology teaches that the 7th day is the sabbath (citations upon request from LDS official sources, BoM, Quorum 70, President, etc), and yet they say that somewhere in the "meridian" the church changed the day (A Roman Catholic position), see playlist:

... because in actual theology, and even practice, the system is not "Christian" (as defined by the Bible), though some worship the true God in ignorance.

Click to expand...

Taking your day or worship example: LDS Christians believe it’s very important to set aside a day of rest and worship. However, this doesn’t have to be any particular calendar day of the week. Which day is most common varies across the world.

I realize that this is different than SDA beliefs, and it’s something we’ll simple have to agree to disagree on.

If you want me to sort out fact from fiction for anything else, just let me know.