# 1 John 5:7



## Solo Christo (Apr 3, 2005)

I never noticed this translation difference until Matt highlighted Thomas Watson's piece on the Trinity. The KJV seems to drive the Trinity home with a bit more force.


*KJV*: 6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


*ESV*: 6This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 

7For there are three that testify: 

8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. 


*NASB*: 6This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 

7For there are three that testify: 

8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 3, 2005)

This is a powerful verse. I know that its authenticity is questioned by many, but I am persuaded that it is the very word of God, testifying to the remarkable truth of the Trinity.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 3, 2005)

It's an interesting verse. I know it shows up in the Latin Vulgate a lot from 4th Century onward and the first recorded use of it (ironically) is by Marcion. 

I'm not too worried over it, either way. The trinity doesn't stand or fall on 1 John 5:7.


----------



## Authorised (Apr 4, 2005)




----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 4, 2005)




----------



## larryjf (Apr 13, 2005)

Whether or not 1 Jn 5:7 would be found in the original manuscript or not we may never know.
We do know however that it speaks the truth. Even those who do not believe it is authentic do not deny that it is truth.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 13, 2005)

While it may be true, the first time that it appears in Greek is quite late (16th Century?). Some believe that it may have entered into the Vulgate from Augustine's notes on the verses. In any case, I find it a serious blow to the authority of the TR. Even if you prefer the Byzantine text-type, I would think you would be unhappy with the insertion from the Vulgate into the TR.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> This is a powerful verse. I know that its authenticity is questioned by many, but I am persuaded that it is the very word of God, testifying to the remarkable truth of the Trinity.



Powerful verse maybe, but it has very, very weak manuscript support. It appears to be a western (read RCC) and very late addition to the original. Western texts are NOTORIOUS for adding trinitarian formulas. While we can affirm the Trinity we can also be fairly certain that John did not write those words.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...


BTW, this is yet another reason not to hold to a TR position. The TR is based on the Western text tradition which is simply inferior.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



And it would be better to hold to the Critical Text, which is based in large part on a manuscript found in a Vatican trash bin?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 13, 2005)

My pastor is preaching through 1 John (up to 63 sermons now) and defended 1JO 5:7 a couple of weeks back. The audio is on the page below.
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/OOW/2005/03272005.htm


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 13, 2005)

"My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's notes and Moody Press"


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Hey... if Rome disapproves of it then that gives it instant credibility in my book!


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> "My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's notes and Moody Press"





*thinks of additional verses to add to this.....*


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 13, 2005)

> Hey... if Rome disapproves of it then that gives it instant credibility in my book!



Aaaaaamen.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Fred, you know better than that! You talk ask if the CT is a single manuscript.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by kevin.carroll]


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



You are right; it is actually based for the most part on two:

1. Codex Vaticanus (the aforementioned)
2. Codex Sinaiticus

There are some papyri, and other manuscripts, but when (for example) the NIV mentions "the oldest and best manuscripts" Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is what they mean.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 14, 2005)

By the way, I am not a proponent of the inclusion of 1 John 5:7. I just am not a CT guy - as I have stated many times in many threads.


----------



## DocCas (Apr 20, 2005)

This is one of the really tough verses to deal with. As you know, if you read the other thread in which I posted my personal guidelines for doing (lower) textual criticism, I have some things I look at to help me understand why a reading is present or absent in the published texts. 

1. The first thing I look at is the number of witnesses. It is clear, at first glance that the comma is only represented by about 10 witnesses, the oldest of which, 221, is a 10th century mss with the comma included in the margin as a variant reading. 2318 can be disregarded as it dates to the 18th century, well after the TR. 61 (16th century) and 629 (a diglot containing both Greek and Latin versions and usually dated to the 14th or 15th century) contain most of the comma but omit part of it. That leaves us with 88, which only contains the comma as a marginal variant, 429, which does the same thing, and 636 which also contains the comma as a marginal variant. 918 contains the reading in the text but with minor variants. The reading is contained the some lectionaries as published in Apostoliki Diakonia, and is in the Clementine Vulgate. The comma is also contained in the Armenian version as quoted by one of the Patristics. It is also found in the Latin lectionary "q" and is quoted by Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Priscillian and other Patristics. That is not a lot of manuscript evidence, even bearing in mind that copies of 1 John older than the 12th century are some of the rarest mss of any book. Insufficient evidence on which to base a certain conclusion.

2. Age. The most ancient cites date to the 4th century but none are older than that. No conclusive evidence.

3. Historicity. Mixed. Latin church seemed to use it but the Greek church seems not to have done so. No compelling evidence. 

4. Geography. Both the majority of the Byzantine mss and the majority of the Alexandrian mss omit the verse. That is quite telling.

5. Agreement. Doubtful. Most Greek manuscripts omit it but the only Greek mss which include it are Byzantine in general tone. The Greek Patristics don't quote it and the Latin Patristics do. 

6. Credibility. Again, mixed. 

7. Grammar, syntax, and immediate context. Some believe this is where the most compelling evidence in support of the comma is found. There are three nouns in the Greek which are all neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). But, they are followed by a masculine participle. Verse 6 has the same participle, but it is neuter, which, in the context of verse 6 is correct Greek grammar. But, to have a masculine participle in verse 8 and three neuter nouns is claimed to be an error in Greek grammar. However, if you include the two masculine nouns from the comma, "Father" and "Son," followed by the neuter noun "Spirit" the participle rightly follows the masculine gender of the two controlling nouns and is masculine. 

(And I know that John seems to have deliberately violated this rule of Greek grammar in John 16:13-14 but that is, in my opinion, not a violation but John is referring back to verse 7 and using "'o paraklhtos" in verse 7 as the antecedent, not "pneuma" of verse 13.)

So, I view the comma as being probable but not certain. However, as it does not introduce a theological error into the text, I don't have a problem with the versions which include it. But I would not use the comma to defend the Deity of Christ when arguing with an Arian. But then, I wouldn't have to. The NT is replete with examples of the Triune nature of the Godhead.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Authorised (Apr 20, 2005)

Dr. Cassidy, what is your opinion regarding the evidence for the comma in early Latin MSS for this verse, considering that those Latin MSS would have been translated from contemporary Greek MSS?


----------



## DocCas (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> Dr. Cassidy, what is your opinion regarding the evidence for the comma in early Latin MSS for this verse, considering that those Latin MSS would have been translated from contemporary Greek MSS?


Good question (the old teacher said). 

The evidence from old Latin manuscripts is just as bad as the evidence from the old Greek manuscripts! 

Manuscript "m" which dates to around the 5th century contains the comma as does "q" a 6th-7th century Latin manuscript. The rest of the old Latin manuscripts which contain the comma, "c," "p," "dem," and "div" date from the 12th to the 13th centuries, well after the Vulgate of Jerome had risen to ascendancy.

What we do have is possible (or even probable) citations from the Latin Patristics as early as the 2nd and 3rd centuries which cite the comma prior to the age of the oldest Latin manuscripts. 

Now, your question is very telling. If the earliest old Latin manuscripts were translated from the Greek New Testament, which is a logical conclusion, where did the Latin reading of the comma come from? Did it originate in a Greek exemplar or was it added to the Latin translation by later correctors or commentators? 

The answer is, we don't know. The problem is, of course, that of all the old Latin manuscripts we have available only about 10% of them contain the catholic epistles and only about half of that 10% contain 1 John 5.


----------



## weinhold (Apr 21, 2005)

Arthur W. Wainwright, _The Trinity in the New Testament_. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001) 245.

"Nor can the version of 1 John 5:7,8 which refers to Father, Word, and Spirit, be regarded as part of the authentic text. The Byzantine text reads: 'There are three who bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.' This is a gloss which may have arisen in Spain. Westcott points out that the words are not found in any independent Greek manuscript, in any independent Greek writer, in any early Latin Father, or in any ancient version except the Latin, and not in the earliest form of that."*

*Westcott, _The Epistles of John_, 202-9


----------



## DocCas (Apr 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by weinhold_
> Arthur W. Wainwright, _The Trinity in the New Testament_. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001) 245.
> 
> "Nor can the version of 1 John 5:7,8 which refers to Father, Word, and Spirit, be regarded as part of the authentic text. The Byzantine text reads: 'There are three who bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.' This is a gloss which may have arisen in Spain. Westcott points out that the words are not found in any independent Greek manuscript, in any independent Greek writer, in any early Latin Father, or in any ancient version except the Latin, and not in the earliest form of that."*
> ...


I wonder why the textual apparatus of UBS/4 lists 10 Greek manuscripts (with minor variants), one lectionary, the Arminian version, and says that the comma is quoted by Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, and Priscillian (all with minor variants) and Speculum, Varimadum, Pseudo-Vigilius, and Fulgentius all quoting the comma in Latin exactly as found in the old Latin? Does he not consider 258AD (Cyprian) "early?" Or the 4th century (Pseudo Cyprian)? Or 385 (Priscillian)? Granted the rest are 5th or 6th century but 3rd and 4th century manuscripts are usually considered "early." If Aleph and B can be called "oldest" and date to the mid 4th century why wouldn't 3rd and 4th century Latin manuscripts be considered "early." At least 2 of them are ante-nicean.


----------



## street preacher (Apr 21, 2005)

Look guys, take it from one of the best greek scholars that there are, ME, if the ESV, OR THE NASB, doesn't say it then it doesn't exist!


----------



## weinhold (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DocCas_
> I wonder why the textual apparatus of UBS/4 lists 10 Greek manuscripts (with minor variants), one lectionary, the Arminian version, and says that the comma is quoted by Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, and Priscillian (all with minor variants) and Speculum, Varimadum, Pseudo-Vigilius, and Fulgentius all quoting the comma in Latin exactly as found in the old Latin? Does he not consider 258AD (Cyprian) "early?" Or the 4th century (Pseudo Cyprian)? Or 385 (Priscillian)? Granted the rest are 5th or 6th century but 3rd and 4th century manuscripts are usually considered "early." If Aleph and B can be called "oldest" and date to the mid 4th century why wouldn't 3rd and 4th century Latin manuscripts be considered "early." At least 2 of them are ante-nicean.



1) I'm no greek scholar, and unfortunately I only have the 2nd edition of the UBS, which is why I quoted Wainwright (who quotes Wescott)

2) Are you certain that the textual apparatus is referring to the tradition which renders verse 8 "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and not "the spirit and the water and the blood" which appears in the main body text? If so, then that is very interesting.


----------



## DocCas (Apr 22, 2005)

Yes, I am certain as to what the apparatus is addressing. My post was an old teacher reminding everyone that sources should be checked for accuracy prior to putting too much store in them. 

The note deals with the reading in Greek, "marturountes 'en tw o'uranw, 'o pathr 'o logos kai to 'agion pneuma, kai o'utoi oi treis 'en e'isin. (8) kai treis e'isin o'i marturountes 'en th gh to pneuma kai to 'udwr kai to a'ima" and in Latin, "testimonium dicunt (variant: dant) in terra, spiritus (variant: spiritus et) aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. (8) et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus."


----------



## weinhold (Apr 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DocCas_
> Yes, I am certain as to what the apparatus is addressing. My post was an old teacher reminding everyone that sources should be checked for accuracy prior to putting too much store in them.
> 
> The note deals with the reading in Greek, "marturountes 'en tw o'uranw, 'o pathr 'o logos kai to 'agion pneuma, kai o'utoi oi treis 'en e'isin. (8) kai treis e'isin o'i marturountes 'en th gh to pneuma kai to 'udwr kai to a'ima" and in Latin, "testimonium dicunt (variant: dant) in terra, spiritus (variant: spiritus et) aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. (8) et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus."



Gosh, this is fascinating stuff! One more question: are you just questioning the validity of Wainwright's methodology regarding 1 John 5:8, or are you saying that the passage should be rendered so that it explicitly refers to the trinity?


----------



## DocCas (Apr 23, 2005)

I am calling into question the validity of both Wainwright's and Westcott's statements. Later scholarship has determined them to be incorrect.

I believe the passage should be rendered as closely to the original reading as possible. Knowing what the original reading was is a matter for godly scholarship to debate and offer evidence and opinion about. Then we will all have to make up our minds where we are going to stand on the issue.


----------



## weinhold (Apr 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DocCas_
> I am calling into question the validity of both Wainwright's and Westcott's statements. Later scholarship has determined them to be incorrect.



Thanks for the clarification. Could you point me toward any of the scholarship you mentioned that proves Wainwright and Wescott wrong on this specific point? I'd like to do a little personal study on this topic. Thanks!


----------



## DocCas (Apr 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by weinhold_
> Thanks for the clarification. Could you point me toward any of the scholarship you mentioned that proves Wainwright and Wescott wrong on this specific point? I'd like to do a little personal study on this topic. Thanks!


I thought I already had. The textual apparatus of USB 4. The 10 Greek manuscripts listed in that apparatus. The comma being quoted by Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, and Priscillian (all with minor variants) and Speculum, Varimadum, Pseudo-Vigilius, and Fulgentius.


----------



## weinhold (Apr 24, 2005)

Here's a question then: Doesn't the main thrust of Wainwright and Wescott's argument remain given the apparatus in UBS/4? I borrowed a copy from a friend at church, and the apparatus doesn't seem to support the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7-8.


----------



## DocCas (Apr 24, 2005)

> and the apparatus doesn't seem to support the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7-8.


Who said it did? The point was that the statement "Westcott points out that the words are not found in any independent Greek manuscript, in any independent Greek writer,"

has now been proven to be incorrect. The UBS/4 cite says otherwise. And, 

"in any early Latin Father, or in any ancient version except the Latin, and not in the earliest form of that."

has been proven to be incorrect. The USB/4 cite says otherwise.


----------



## weinhold (Apr 24, 2005)

Oh, I guess I misunderstood. I thought that you were saying the verse should be rendered to explicitly refer to the trinity, but now it seems that you do not take that stance. Thanks for the clarification.

Also, I am interested in possibly going to seminary at some point. Could you direct me to San Diego Baptist Seminary's website? Thanks!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 13, 2005)

For what it's worth, The Westminster Standards on 1 John 5.7:

Confession, Chap. 1, Sec. 2:



> II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
> 
> Of the New Testament:
> 
> ...



Confession, Chap. 2, Sec. 3:


> III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.(o) The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: (p) the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.(q)
> 
> (o) *I John 5:7;* Matt. 3:16, 17; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14.
> (p) John 1:14, 18.
> (q) John 15:26; Gal. 4:6.



Shorter Catechism:


> Q6: How many persons are there in the Godhead?
> A6: There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;[1] and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.[2]
> 
> 1. Matt. 28:19
> 2. *I John 5:7*



Larger Catechism:


> Q9: How many persons are there in the Godhead?
> A9: There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.[1]
> 
> 1. *I John 5:7;* Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; II Cor. 13:14; John 10:30


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 13, 2005)

Andrew, come on . . . do you really think the people drafting the WCF in the 1600s had anywhere _near_ the textual evidence to consider as we do now?

You are a brilliant man, Andrew, and I highly respect you. I also highly respect the confessions. But using the WCF to support the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 just makes no sense at all, in my opinion.

The drafters of the WCF were godly, brilliant men. But I seriously doubt that they had intense comparative knowledge of all available Greek & Latin MSS, compared to that of Christian scholars today. 

I think Dr. Daniel Wallace is better equipped to make decisions like this than Calvin, Luther, Twisse, or anyone alive in the 16th-17th centuries.



There is such a thing as holding to a confession WAY TOO TIGHTLY.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 13, 2005)

I said, For what it's worth. I don't expect many modern-day Puritans to accept 1 John 5.7 as Scripture or to adhere to the 1646 Confession fully. However, while confessing that I am not a Greek scholar, I accept both without reservation. There are many respected modern scholars today, among them Theodore Letis of blessed memory, though who do accept 1 John 5.7 as canonical.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I said, For what it's worth. I don't expect many modern-day Puritans to accept 1 John 5.7 as Scripture or to adhere to the 1646 Confession fully. However, while confessing that I am not a Greek scholar, I accept both without reservation. There are many respected modern scholars today, among them Theodore Letis of blessed memory, though who do accept 1 John 5.7 as canonical.



Thank you for the info. I am shocked to hear that highly educated men like Rushdoony and Letis accept 1 John 5:7 as canonical.

As I said in a different thread, I WISH it were canonical. It would be great to have a concise little "Trinity proof text" in my Bible (not that it's difficult to prove otherwise).

Is there any well-written book or internet-site you recommend, which gives good reasons for accepting the canonicity of this particular verse? . . . a book or website that you yourself agree with?

Thank you,
Joseph


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 13, 2005)

Joseph, 

Here are a couple of articles that have been profitable reading for me:

1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) by Dr. Thomas Holland

Vindication of 1 John 5:7 summarized from _Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney_ by Banner of Truth

Book review of _A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8_ by Michael Maynard


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Joseph,
> 
> Here are a couple of articles that have been profitable reading for me:
> ...




Andrew, thank you very much for the resources. 

I have to admit I'm pretty skeptical, having read what I have of textual criticism. 

But I can also say that I would be very happy to agree with you. I do hope I become convinced by what is in these books.

Thank you,
Joseph


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 13, 2005)

I hope I am convinced as well. Thanks for those resources Andrew!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Andrew, thank you very much for the resources.
> 
> I have to admit I'm pretty skeptical, having read what I have of textual criticism.
> ...



You're welcome, brother. There are a couple of additional resources that may also be of interest:

The Johannine Comma Archives

Treatise by Frederick Nolan @ the American Presbyterian Church website


----------



## Peter (Jul 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Rather, eastern (read Arian) texts are notorious for *subtracting* trinitarian formulas. Is it any coincidence the anti-trinitarian manuscripts which are the basis of the CT came from the starting point and epicenter of the 1st wave of the arian scourge viz. Alexandria? I trust orthodox scribes to have been faithful to the orginials (ie not violating the 9th commandment) over heretics.


----------



## larryjf (Jul 13, 2005)

Interesting statements on 1 Jn 5:7 that i found on numerous web pages defending the verse...

_"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." *Bruce M. Metzger*, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2._

*Beza* said that 1 Jn 5:7 was found in many of the manuscripts of his time.
*Calvin* said it was found in the most approved copies.
*Stephanus* said that of the 16 copies he had, 9 contained 1 John 5:7

*John Gill* said,_"It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage." _

*Bishop Middleton* in his book, "œDoctrine of the Greek Article," argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. 

In his commentary, *Matthew Henry* has a note that says we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.

Any comments on these statements, their accuracy, or their importance in this discussion?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Joseph,

I don't think this is open and shut either way, but you are aware that Wallace has made some really big blunders - most notably his espousal of the subjective genitive in Gal. 2:16 ?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Joseph,
> 
> I don't think this is open and shut either way, but you are aware that Wallace has made some really big blunders - most notably his espousal of the subjective genitive in Gal. 2:16 ?



Fred,

I did not know that. Thank you for the info. I looked around after reading your post and found this excerpt in one of Wallace's articles:



> In fact, a number of times the New Testament not only points to the faithfulness of Christ, but does so in such a way that it stresses that our salvation and sanctification are based on the faithfulness of Christ Himself. The following verses as translated in the NET Bible illustrate this:
> 
> Romans 3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction,
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, I don't know enough Greek to know who's blundering what.

But this is very interesting stuff, and I look forward to trying to sort it all out after I have studied Greek for a few years.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> It's an interesting verse. I know it shows up in the Latin Vulgate a lot from 4th Century onward and the first recorded use of it (ironically) is by Marcion.
> 
> I'm not too worried over it, either way. The trinity doesn't stand or fall on 1 John 5:7.



 (which is good, because it's probably not original)


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Yep. We both have our presuppostions and neither of us will budge. So why aregue it again?


----------



## Peter (Jul 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Well, our presuppositions are challengable, but im not interested in arguing. A debate for another time?


----------

