I John 5:7 Is In My Holy Bible

If 1 John 5:7 is not in the Holy Bible then the textual critic of our day may have something to stand on as they rip-tear verses out of the Holy Bible. But it is there. If there is no Greek manuscript containing 1 John 5:7, as the critics and professors are teaching their young students, then there is cause to examine it for removal. But there are many Greek manuscripts with 1 John 5:7 fully intact.

The ignorance of many about the existence of this verse in the Greek Received Text and it's consequential ommision from the critical Greek texts stems from Erasmus' first edition of 1516. The Modernist Professors love to quote Erasmus' 1^st response to Edward Lee's charge that “he had omitted the testimony of the heavenly Witnesses in I John V.7.” Erasmus' replied that “he could not find the passage in his Greek manuscripts, and that even some Latin copies did not give it.” . Of course the professors and critics are still quite guilty of lying as they swelled this initial response into a claim that the passage appears in no Greek text. Because in time for Erasmus' third edition in 1522 the Codex Montfortianus, now at Dublin, was brought forward, and in consequence the passage was determined to be part of the Received Text and was printed. However, none of the corrections made to the Erasmus' 1^st edition of the Received Text will move the modernist critic from their lie.

Erasmus' first edition was made in great haste when he heard from Froben, the printer of Basle. Erasmus used what copies he could procure, for this first addition, but in a few cases where he either found or supposed his minimal on hand Greek authorities to be deficient, he translated from the Vulgate into Greek. Modernist critics love to recall this dilemma and site it as their justification for leaving out the “heavenly Witnesses” and to rumor that the TR is based on the Latin Vulgate and not on Greek manuscripts. The infant assembly of the Greek Received Text includes remarkable employment of multiple Greek manuscripts and remarkable believing (born again, converted, regenerated believing) Greek scholars, both are unparalleled in modern times. This article shall demonstrate the completeness of their work as they included the passage “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

If this passage was to be in the Holy Bible it would look and read in English as does the King James Bible in the table below. It the 'heavenly Witness' passage was an insertion that did not stream from the Apostles pen dipped in the ink of inspiration, the ASV English rendition in the table below would be adequate. However, before striking words from the divinely inspired and divinely preserved Holy Bible, even the novice at textual criticism would want to explore which Church Father had the audacity to add words to the Apostle John's writing. One would want some kind of evidence about where the addition came from before one would strike text from the Apostle Johns First Epistle. The modernist critic with no doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration cuts out verses first, then asks no questions later. In fact they get hostile and indignant when a Bible Believer does ask the embarrassing questions.

You do not have to know Greek to see what was done to this passage by the textual critics who are quick to cut and slow to research.

The Evidence That The Apostle John Penned The 'Heavenly Witness'

What manuscript evidences show that 1 John 5:7, the 'heavenly Witness', should be included in the Holy Bible?

The Received Text is given good witness to include the 'heavenly Witness' by these Greek manuscripts

The Received Text is given good witness to include the 'heavenly Witness' by these Latin versions. The early Latin versions are important witnesses for the Greek test of the New Testament because they derive from a relatively early stage of the tradition. They witness to the early form of the text as it was used at the time and place of their origin and development. These Latin manuscripts testify to the form and presence of the 'heavenly Witness' passage in the earliest Greek manuscripts. Clearly the translated passage listed below indicate that the 'heavenly Witness' passage was penned by the Apostle John and is in the Holy Bible. It is found in:.

The Received Text is given good witness to include the 'heavenly Witness' by these

other early versions. The early versions are important witnesses for the Greek test of the New Testament because they derive from a relatively early stage of the tradition. They witness to the early form of the text as it was used at the time and place of their origin and development. These testify to the form and presence of the 'heavenly Witness' passage in the earliest Greek manuscripts. Clearly the exactly translated passage listed below indicate that the 'heavenly Witness' passage was penned by the Apostle John and is in the Holy Bible. It is found in:.

The Received Text is given good witness to include the 'heavenly Witness' by citations of Church Fathers. For a Scripture citation to be authoritative it must be capable of verification, ( i.e. the NT text or the manuscript cited by the author must be directly identifiable and not be a paraphrase or variation) and the citation must relate clearly to the specific passage. Clearly the citations listed below indicate that the 'heavenly Witness' passage was penned by the Apostle John and is in the Holy Bible.

The Evidence That Some Bad Copy Left Off The 'Heavenly Witness'

What manuscript evidence exists that did not get I John 5:7 copied correctly.

INWORK

The only Church Lectionary found reflecting the omission was l 844 and it had substituted 'baptism' for 'blood' making it untrustworthy. Remember Lectionaries represent what the Churches read and used as their authority and are a very important apparatus for textual criticism.

Latin

Other Translations

Church Father Citations

Resons For Caution About Aggressive Hyperdeletion Criticism

INWORK

Caution Unbelievers Editing Our Holy Bible

INWORK

An antagonist to textual criticism and unbeliever wrote to me recently stating:

Justify, say, the inclusion of 1 John 5:7-8, which are not found in ANY Greek manuscript before thetenth century.

Justify the last six versions of the Apocalypse, containing readings not found in ANY Greek manuscript.

Justify an edition which its own editor said was not edited!

Justify all of these WITHOUT REFERENCE TO FAITH. Do it on purely
logical grounds. If you can do that, then I will examine your
evidence further.

A list of individual readings proves nothing. This mistake is one
made by textual critics of all sorts. They mistake readings for
history of the text. But you must start at a more basic level:
Explaining how a text created by such false means as the TR
can be original.

Again, we are speaking specifically of the Textus Receptus, not
the Byzantine Text. The Byzantine text (Hodges and Farstad,
Pierpont and Robinson) is completely different. But *don't* call
the Byzantine Text the Textus Receptus.

My reasoning is the same as that of a scientist presented with
a perpetual motion machine: It's *not* possible, and unless you
can offer a reason why it's possible, handing me a gadget (in
this case, a list of readings) means nothing. I may not be
smart enough to figure out the gadget. But unless you can explain how it does the impossible, the logical assumption is that it's a trick.

The danger we are in in these modern times is that of letting unbelievers handle the word. My antagonist here does not know Christ nor understand the supernatural inspiration and preservation of scriptures. This is the thinking of a professed unbeliever. Unregenerated professed belivers think the same. In fact one taught this man these lies and half truths and he regurgitates them in defiance of Bible Truth. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Truth. Know Christ, Know Truth! No Christ, no truth!

Any believer knows that the Words of God were guardianed by God, and when orthodox believers copied His scriptures into the 10^th century they did not add to His words nor make it up as they went along. If there is any 10^th century Byzentine text containing verses, phrases or names of Christ not found in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus or Vaticanus, a textual critic better justify very well his cutting them out. The scriptures were copied by Holy men of God who believed in the inspiration, preservation, inerrancy and infalability of the Words they were copying. Every copy needs to be weighed in. Weighed in with more than a majority rule menatality as done with the majority text, and weighed in with more than a older is all powerfull mentality of the critical text extremests.