Thursday, May 14, 2015

Name someone with degrees that believes 1 John 5:7

I was recently challenged....

"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

2 comments:

  1. 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!

    Are 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the great comment! I agree.

      "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

      Delete

Your questions or comments welcome.