|
SUBJECT: 1 JOHN 5:7-8 –The Trinity
QUESTION: Does 1 John 5:7-8 indicate or prove there is a
Trinity?
ANSWER:
1 John 5:7-8
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.
The following is from a web site that discusses Bible
Contradictions:
1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the
original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three
are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the
Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree
in one." The italicized text was added to the original
manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an
uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the
unscriptural trinity doctrine.
The web site is located at:
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html
ANOTHER SITE THAT REFUTES THE TRINITY
This was found at the following web site:
http://www.antipas.org/books/trinity/trinity1.html
THE BOOK OF 1 JOHN
1 John 5:7-8
"For there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the
water and the blood, and the three are in agreement."
This is a scripture that has some saying that John is
identifying the only true God as a trinity. Is this the
case? Why would ones believe the Apostle John is telling us
this from the above translation of these two verses? Well it
is because of the way the King James translates verse 7. It
is as we see below:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
So which translation is most accurate? Which translation
should we go by? Well, let us first look at a few other
translations of this verse to help us determine the answer
to our question.
The Revised Standard Version reads: "And the Spirit is the
witness because the Spirit is the truth. There are three
witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these
three agree."
The New International Version reads: "For there are three
that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood, and the
three are in agreement."
The American Standard Version reads: "And it is the Spirit
that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. For
there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and
the blood: and the three agree in one."
Why then the difference of the King James at these verses
from almost all other translations?
It is because the Greek manuscripts used to translate the
King James, contained spurious additions, meaning that they
had words added to the text that were not in older, more
reliable Greek copies, namely the words: "For there are
three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." These words came
to be known, by scholars, as the "Johannine Comma." Scholars
through out the ages, have traced the way in which the
spurious reading (as in the
KJ) crept into the Latin versions. These words
first appeared as a marginal note of the Latin text, then
later into the text itself. It is suggested that these
spurious words were first taken into a Greek text in 1515 by
Cardinal Ximenes on the strength of a late Greek manuscript,
which was corrected from the Latin. Thus there are no known
copies of 1John in the original Greek texts that include the
words as translated in the KJ at 1John 5:7 earlier that the
12th century.
Consider what one of the world's leading authorities on the
transmission of the New Testament text (and
a staunch Trinitarian!) has to say regarding
these verses. After quoting the reading of the King James in
1 John 5:7-8, Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on
the New Testament, pages 715-717, says:
"That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in
the New Testament is certain in the light of the following
considerations.
(A) External Evidence.
(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript
except four, and these contain the passage in what appears
to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin
Vulgate. These four manuscripts are ms. 61, a sixteenth
century manuscript formerly at Oxfornow at Dublin; ms. 88, a
twelfth century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage
written in the margin by a modern hand; ms. 629, a
fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican;
and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the
passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.
(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who,
had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in
the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian
and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a
Greek of the (Latin)
Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all
ancient versions (Syriac,
Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic),
except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin
in its early form (Tertullian
Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as
issued by Jerome (codex
Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541-46] and codex
Amiatinus [copied before
A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Aleuin (first
hand of codex Vercellensis [ninth century]). The
earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of
the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin
treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap.
4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic
Priscillian (died about 385)
or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss
arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize
the Trinity (through the
mention of the three witnesses; the Spirit, the water, and
the blood), an interpretation which may have been
written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its
way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted
by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the
text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it
is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old
Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the
wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For
examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1John,
see 2:17; 4:3; 5:6, and 20.)
(B) Internal Probabilities.
(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage
were original, no good reason can be found to account for
its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, and by
translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an
awkward break in the sense."
Thus, on all counts, this passage as worded in the King
James Bible, is not a part of God's Word. It was added first
as a marginal interpretation, then that margin, several
centuries after John wrote his letter, found its way into
various LATER Latin manuscripts, and then became a part of
only 4 (!) Greek manuscripts, none of which are earlier than
the 12th century!!!
Therefore we conclude that these words as translated in the
King James, are based on bogus Greek manuscripts that added
the spurious words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
These words were not a part of the original inspired word of
God that teaches us that "Whoever makes the confession that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God remains in union with
such one and he in union with God." Yes, Jesus is to be
confessed as the Son of God, not as God the Son.
Therefore we conclude that these words as translated in the
King James, are based on bogus Greek manuscripts that added
the spurious words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
These words were not a part of the original inspired word of
God that teaches us that "Whoever makes the confession that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God remains in union with
such one and he in union with God." Yes, Jesus is to be
confessed as the Son of God, not as God the Son.
HERE IS ANOTHER EXPLANATION CONCERNING THE TRINITY:
In What Name?
Many have been confused by Matthew 28:19 where Jesus talked
about baptizing in His name and in the Father's name. Some
are also confused by the mention of the "Holy Ghost."
Since this scripture is often used during the baptism
ceremony, it would be worthwhile for the reader to
understand two points.
First, the King James Bible uses words that have different
meanings today than they had over 350 years ago. The
translators in 1611 used the word "ghost" for the Greek word
pneuma. God does not have a ghost (there
is no such thing as a ghost as portrayed in fictional movies
on the supernatural), but God does have a Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not a personage in the God Family. The
God Family is presently composed of the Father and the Son -
it is not a trinity.
The word "trinity" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, and
the only scripture which implies it is a deliberate
insertion by copyists after the invention of printing. The
spurious verse is found in 1 John 5:7, "For there are three
that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost; and these three are one." Not one word of that
passage is found in the Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, or
Alexandrinus, nor in any manuscripts until after the time of
the comparatively modern invention of printing.
Remember! Christ prayed to the Father. Even the Roman
Catholic Church recognized the Father as the supreme member
of the Godhead; the One to whom Christ returned; the One to
whom Christ credited all His works!
Yet, when the angel announced the conception of Christ, he
said, ". . . for that which is conceived in her is of the
Holy Sprit."
(Matthew 1:20). Mary was told, "The Holy Spirit shall come
upon thee, and the POWER OF THE HIGHEST shall overshadow
thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God!" (Luke 1:35).
Obviously, not one of the vaunted churches of this world
claims the "Holy Ghost" is the FATHER of Jesus Christ, yet
the
Bible says again and again that the agency used by God in
bringing about this stupendous miracle was the Holy Spirit!
Back to our discussion. Remember, the first point was that
the word "Ghost" is an error. It should be rendered
"Spirit."
Second, the word "in" in this scripture was translated from
the Greek word eis. A better translation would he "into."
A more accurate rendering of Matthew 28:19 would be, "Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Baptism puts us into the divine God Family. At baptism we
become begotten sons of God and earn the right to call Him
"Father."
Notice from this scripture that we are baptized into Jesus
Christ, not into any church denomination. Oftentimes
ministers of this world's churches will baptize a person
only if the new person is willing to be baptized into that
minister's church denomination. This is wrong! Any person
who wishes to receive salvation should refuse such a
requirement. He should only be baptized into the name of the
Father and of the Son. Loyalty to any man or group of men
should also be refused because it is not a requirement for
baptism.
A proper procedure for baptism should follow this form very
closely: Before the actual baptism, the repentant person
should be asked if he has repented of his sins and accepted
Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Saviour. Then, the person
doing the immersing should say, "And now, (the
persons' full name) as a result of your
repentance of your sins; the transgression of God's holy
law, I now baptize you into the name of the Father, and the
Son, and the Holy Spirit, --- 'in the name of' meaning 'by
the authority of' Jesus Christ for the remission of your
sins." The repentant person is then totally immersed in
water.
Some church denominations believe baptism should he
performed only in running water such as a river or stream.
But there is no scriptural basis for this. A baptism may he
performed in a swimming pool, a lake, the ocean, or any body
of water which is large enough to accommodate complete
immersion.
END OF EXPLANATION
back to the top |