An Example of Forgery in the King James Bible

This is to inform you that 1 John 5:7-8 in the Authorized Version is a forgery. Thankfully, those two verses were corrected in subsequent translations of the Bible.

Bart Ehrman is a prominent scholar on the New Testament, and is the author of several books including "Misquoting Jesus." This is a segment of his lecture at Stanford University in 2007.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bart Ehrman
• Trinity doctrine

[AgApE010]

That 1 John 5:7 is not in the autographs has been known by Christians 400 years before there was a Mormonism. It's also interesting to note that Tertullian, Augustine, or Nicea did not need 1 John 5:7 to see the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@AgApE010 In Mormon Scripture, Jesus was the God of the Old Testament before His incarnation; so my posting this vid is in no way intended to prove Mormonism true, but,as I said in a previoous comment, intended to inform all Chrisiians (mormons included) that they've been fooled by a verse of the Authorized Version.

The only that's true about the Trinity doctrine is that Jesus really is divine, but God the Father and His only begotten Son really are two seperate persons

[bayreuth79]

I am not sure why an LDS apologist is posting Bart D Ehrmann- if the New Testament doesn't teach trinitarianism it certainly doesn't teach tritheism either (the idea that there are three separate 'gods')!If the Bible as a whole teaches anything about God it is radical monotheism, not trinitarianism nor tritheism, or any other -ism. Of course, Mormonism teaches tritheism; but that is even remoter from the OT & NT than trinitarianism.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@bayreuth79 My posting this vid is in no way intended to prove Mormonism, since Latter-day Saints themselves use the King James version: it's intended to inform the whole of Christendom, Mormons included.

The duty of any Christian is to inform other Christians about religious frauds

[jehovahuponyou]

@AgApE010 - MY PLEASURE, BROTHER!

YOU TAKE CARE ALSO AND LORD BLESS YA!

[AgApE010]

@jehovahuponyou

Lol fair enough. Thanks for the discussion. :) Take care.

[jehovahuponyou]

@AgApE010 - THE AUTHOR SAYS: "It appears to me very clear..." - BUT, I DO AGREE WITH YOU, THAT IT IS NOT A PERFECT QUOTE, HOWEVER ONE MIGHT GO, "HMMM!".

IT IS THEOLOGICALLY SOUND, BUT SUCH IS REASON IS NOT VALID WHEN SOMEONE INSERTS SOMETHING INTO SCRIPTURE.

I DO BELIEVE IT IS LEGIT - BUT ANY DEFINITE ANSWER AS TO ITS BEING AUTHENTIC OR NOT IS LOST TO ANTIQUETY.

I SURE WISH YOU LIKED MY SARCASM, I AM MUCH MORE FUNNY THAT WAY - ROFL!

:^)

[AgApE010]

@jehovahuponyou

It seems that he's quoting 1 John 5:7 because both of the verses in question are teaching the Trinity. But he doesn't plainly cite 1 John 5:7; he just says the three persons are one person.

One can't take such a vague passage and pit it against the manuscript and historical evidence against the comma Johanneum being in the original.

[jehovahuponyou]

CONTRA = AGAINST (LATIN, MAYBE?)

FROM, ‘Latin Christianity: It’s Founder'

Tertullian is quoted on pg 631 (FROM "Against Praxeas")

“So closely tied in the Son of the Father, and of the Son in the Paraclete, the three are closely linked together makes one from the other: who are the three are one, not one person as it is said, I and the Father are one.”

THE AUTHOR SAYS: “It appears to me very clear that Tertullian is quoting I. John v. 7. in the passage now under consideration.”

[AgApE010]

@jehovahuponyou

I didn't say cite John Gill citing the text. I said cite the text.

There is no such book as Contra Praxeam. There is Praxeas. Is that what you mean?

[jehovahuponyou]

@AgApE010

FROM JOHN GILL'S EXPOSITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

1 JOHN 5:7

"...; and is referred to by Tertullian {c} about, the year 200;..."

c. Contr. Praxeam, c. 25.

[AgApE010]

@jehovahuponyou

Cite Tertullian. In which book and chapter of that book does Tertullian quote 1 John 5:7?

I never said it doesn't match the theology of Scripture. I said it is almost certainly not in the original text.

[jehovahuponyou]

@AgApE010 - THE COMMA JOHANNEUM WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN FIRST SEEN IN ERASMUS THIRD EDITION OF HIS CODEX OF NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS, 1522AD. THE STORY GOES THAT HE WAS PRESSURED INTO INCLUDING IT BY HIS CHURCH.

BUT, WHY WAS IT:

QUOTED BY TERTULLIAN IN 200AD?

OR FOUND IN THE PESHITA BIBLE 250AD?

THIS VERSE MATCHES THE THEOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE AND HAS AN EARLIER ORIGIN THAN 1522AD, ENOUGH FOR ME.

NO, WE DO NOT NEED THE AUTOGRAPHS.

I SORTA LIKE MY SARCASM.

[AgApE010]

@jehovahuponyou

You don't need to read the autographs themselves to have a good idea of what they said. We don't see 1 John 5:7 quoted until much later in history, despite many relevant places where it would've been quoted if it existed (like Nicea). Additionally, the manuscript evidence is against it.

Your sarcasm really makes you look stupid.