Should 1 John 5:7 be in the Bible?

From our series "Battle to Discredit the Bible" this clip answers the question: 1 John 5:7 which explicitly defines the trinity, should it be in or should it be out of the new Testament?

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Ankerberg
• 1 John 5:7
• Bible

[Donking595]

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

----- Ye workers of Satan will get your reward for your lies!

[seektruthandwisdom]

Amazing!A rare admission of truth about the Bible.Now if they can just keep this truth search going they might find much more.For example,start by comparing the Gospel of Mark with the Gospel of Matthew.Compare the two gospels verse by verse and you will see that Matthew copies Mark word for word on over 600 occasions but makes several changes and additions along the way.Then allow your reason to function properly and you will clearly see that Matthew was making corrections to Mark's gospel.

[gtepp031387]

..cont..but the word biblia was specifically generated to give a title to the Latin text that came out of Hippo. It does not reffer to any manuscript or any greek translation but solly to the cannon of the church that came from Hippo.

[gtepp031387]

There is no Greek text that has the word biblia in it, as that would be impossible, as the letters in biblia are Latin and not Greek. The word biblia was first put to use after the council of Hippo in which the church came together and selected from 100's of books what was to be the cannon of the church. It is a transliterazation of the Greek word "βιβλία"(see the Greek lettering) and holds one of the same meanings "books"..cont...

[TheChaseair]

Cyprian quotes 1 John 5:7 fairly clearly "and the three are one"....He lived in circa 250....

[atpilot]

I'll bet you can find an excuse to remove Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 and Mark 16:18 too!

[corkystorky]

Hayyy, what an adamant character... the council of Hippo collected certain books based on a 'canon'. Which came first? The synod, or the manuscripts? The manuscripts, of course, otherwise, they have nothing to collect. But then the books they were collecting contain the word BIBLIA, so the word Biblia is NOT post Hippo and NOT an invention. It's just that for The First Time, the canonical books gathered as one book was named Biblia, just like the LXX, Torah, etc. People, what do you think?

[corkystorky]

For my final remark: Is Biblia an invention? See wikipedia's statement of the etimology: The English word Bible is from the Latin biblia, from the same word in Medieval Latin and Late Latin and ultimately from Greek τὰ βιβλία ta biblia "the books" (singular βιβλίον biblion). --- See? The Latin biblia was from the Greek biblia, and was not an invention. The LXX's Ecclesiastes 12:12 contains the word biblia. Thanks again!

[corkystorky]

@gtepp031387 I actually enjoyed our little sharing. Perhaps it would be different if we speak face to face because I hardly conveyed ideas with limited typing space. Until then, God bless :)

[corkystorky]

@gtepp031387 then I quote the timothy, and then the greek church for reading 2 Tim. 4:13 - ton failonen on apelipon en Troadi par Karpo erkhomenos fere, kai ta Biblia, malista tas membranas. The greeks use biblia, not a chinese version or latin for the word books that they want to convey "Give me the books" (someone handed a spoon instead of books because the poor Greek doesn't know what biblos is.)