"There is no one who today supports I Jn 5:7 as real text. Do you really want to risk that?"
"There is not a soul with an education, I think, who denies the history of the obvious forgery of I Jn 5:7.
Can you cite any DD’s who argue that I JN 5:7 is genuine?"
"Please cite at least some scholars with degrees who agree with you that I Jn 5:7 is genuine text."
My reply,
These are the best articles on support for 1 John 5:7.
What do you mean that there is no one today that supports 1 John 5:7 as a real text?
Though he died in 1981, Dr. Edward Hills accepted the verse (Graduated summa cum laude at Yale University, Th.D. from Westminster Theological Seminary, Th.M. from Columbia Theological Seminary,Th.D. in New Testament textual criticism from Harvard ). He was the author of The King James Bible Defended and Believing Bible Study.
There is Dr. Peter Ruckman who accepts the verse as authentic, received doctorate from Bob Jones University and was an excellent student. (has also written many books on MSS evidence)
There is also Dr. Gail Riplinger, who has a BA., M .A., and M .F.A. from Harvard. She has written college text books and many books in defense of the KJB.
There is D.A. Waite who has a Bachelor of Arts in classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan, a Master of Theology in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary, an M.A. in Speech from Southern Methodist University, a Doctor of Theology in Bible Exposition from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Speech from Purdue University.
Then there is Dr. Thomas Holland, he has written several books on MSS evidence.
Dean Burgon may have believed 1 John 5:7 was authentic, though I would have to check on that.
Thanks. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
This particular topic is an interest of mine, and I have to say I have not yet found a coherent and convincing argument that actually demonstrates that 1 John 5:7 truly is inauthentic. The arguments I have come across, if I can even dignify them by referring to them as 'arguments' to begin with, are so illogical, and so lame, that I have to seriously question both the motives and intellect of the ones who actually claim to believe the nonsense they spout. One notable example of what I mean is their oft-repeated assertion that since no reliable (in what sense 'reliable' they never say) Greek manuscript prior to the 14th century (or is it the 16th, or 15th? It always changes, they can't even agree on this) that they have thus found so far has this specific passage, it therefore cannot be genuine!
ReplyDeleteAre they actually serious about this? Have they never before encountered the expression, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'? Do they not understand that, due to the passage of time (approx. 2,000 years) and the destruction, deliberate and otherwise, of the vast bulk of literary works over this time, that it is highly unlikely that we will ever find evidence for precisely whatever it is that we are looking for? If someone came forth and claimed to have found a document dating from the first century that contained this specific passage, I would be very sceptical of that claim, and would strongly suspect an ulterior motive behind it. Is this what they are looking for (i.e. unambiguous, irrefutable proof that the passage is real)? If so, then they are not scholars anyone should waste their time listening to.
They also whine about the context, saying that it just does not 'fit in'. Well, I have to confess to not being a biblical scholar myself, and do not understand Classical Greek (or the common, koine), so perhaps they may - may - have a point here, but I do know this: the KJV text flows perfectly, and is not at all ad hoc or incongruous. It fits, like nothing else does.
No, I strongly suspect a hidden agenda here, and I am not the type to fall for silly conspiracy theories. 1 John 5:7 represents irrefutable evidence for Trinitarianism, and so they therefore have to do their best to discredit it, and by 'they' I mean those who really don't care about the text in question, or who would like to see Christianity die out completely.
Signed: the not anonymous Peter A. who does not have a Google, LiveJournal or other such account, and therefore has to select 'anonymous' from the options below.
Thank you for the great comment! I agree.
Delete"Textual criticism" is based on ridiculous logic (if you want to call it "logic"). God promised to preserve His words to every generation, so why would we need to dig up ancient copies from the 1st and 2nd centuries to confirm what God is preserving today? It would defeat the point of preservation if we had to confirm it with the original copies from centuries ago.
The KJB is 100% infallible, inspired, inerrant, and is "all authority" (Titus 1:9, 2:15)
Thanks, --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
Gail Riplinger has a degree.... in interior design, not in Bible. She also has claimed that God has spoken to her and has taught churches from the pulpit in front of both men and women which are both forbidden in Scripture. She also lied to D.A. Waite and his wife Yvonne and said she didn't have any divorces, and her book New Age Vwesions is a disaster!... not someone I would trust.I've read some Peter Ruckman, he puts all scholars down in every single one of his books. According to him everybody is going to hell.. which is a violation of Scripture. He and Sam Gipp and David Otis Fuller got their ideas from the same place.. Benjamin Wilkinson who wrote "Our authorized Bible Vindicated". Wilkinson was a Seventh-Day Adventist cult leader. All these people also heavily edited Westcott and Hort's books to make them say something they didn't. KJ onlyists who said they have read their "Life and Letters" books really didn't. Please do actual research instead of sticking with these decievers who plagiarize non-Christians and cults. Antioch are the only documents KJ onlyist's will accept because that's the place where they were first called Christians?? And?? Pelagius supported Nestorius from Antioch both heretics does not support a clean Antioch. But of course according to KJ onlyist's Egypt was crawling with heretics that edited good manuscripts (told by Gipp, who claims good manuscripts were in Egypt)failed their editing because people who read "modern versions" are against Rome, do not practice New Age, do not believe in an Illuminati and believe that through the blood of Christ we are saved.. so the mission of the heretic editors failed. So let's talk about people that teach heresy with the KJV.. Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn and many more. KJ onlyist's claim many things that they have no evidence for and yes I have waited for this "evidence" as soon as they stop talking smack about the scholars and translators of the "modern versions" as they are people they do not persoanlly know. So stop telling people they are going to hell for reading the ESV or any other good translation! That is not your call!! And please stop bringing up the NIV the 1984 version is out of print. If you're going to advocate the KJV (and I do) which one? The "pure" Cambridge edition or the Oxford? Which TR? And which revision of the KJV? There have been many. The Majority text and Byzantine Text and different TR copies disagree with the KJV and the translators admit it's not perfect!I could go on but I probably won't get a good response. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI don’t care if someone has a bible degree or not. I did not mention the NIV in that post and if I have ever quoted it then it was whatever version is on biblegateway.com. Which I doubt is the 1984 version. I don’t think I said anyone was going to hell for reading the ESV.
DeleteI don’t read Greek and don’t know anything about the majority text, Byzantine text, and TR copies. I’ve never claimed any of them were perfect and I have never claimed that they agreed with the KJV 100%. In fact I have said the opposite, the KJV is a mixture of Hebrew/Greek translation and revisions of previous English translations. As the 1611 version stated, “with former translations diligently compared and revised”.
As for Gail Riplinger, I have never read her new age versions book and my belief in the KJV has nothing to do with her. And I especially don't care about her divorces or who she has lied to.
This post was in response to Sir Anthony Buzzard, a unitarian, and we were discussing the trinity. He was under the impression that no educated person believes that 1 John 5:7 is part of the Bible.