Reviser online dating
Reviser online dating - webaffairs dating site
It is less understandable that scholars like Metzger and the Alands, who ought very well to have access to the full body of information on this subject, would continue to propagate claims that are verifiably false concerning this passage of Scripture.The disinformation that continues to be perpetuated by liberal textual critics results in confusion among the ranks of God's people concerning the Scriptures, which can only serve to divide and weaken the churches of Christ, the local assemblies who are charged with keeping and guarding the Word of God (I Timothy ).
'" Hiebert then continues on into a discussion of the much-heralded (and much-misrepresented) inclusion of the Comma by Erasmus into the third edition of his Greek text.
Conclusions End Notes Throughout the history of man's dealings with God's Word, the Holy Bible, few portions of Scripture have suffered from more vigorous assaults then the passage I John 5:7-8, otherwise known as the Johannine Comma.
Because this verse is one of the most direct statements of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, it has borne the brunt of attack by those who are in opposition to trinitarian beliefs, these most often being unitarians such as Muslims and certain of the various pseudo-Christian cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, some Churches of God, etc.). The attacks upon this verse have come from all angles.
Interestingly, most Islamic attacks on this verse find their basis in the work of liberal and atheistic scholars who have an ideological predisposition to oppose the verse.
Commonly relied upon as "proof" that the Comma is a corruption of God's Word is the statement below, "The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus." "1 John 5:7 in the KJV reads: 'There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one' but this is an interpolation of which there is no trace before the late fourth century." "1 John 5:7 in the Textus Receptus (represented in the KJV) makes it appear that John had arrived at the doctrine of the trinity in explicit form ('the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost'), but this text is clearly an interpolation since no genuine Greek manuscript contains it." Each of these statements, naturally, find much use among Muslim apologists and other anti-trinitarians who would probably have little use for anything else contained within these works.
However, the numbers game is reduced somewhat when we note that only 501 of these manuscripts contain the book of I John, chapter 5. Waite is reported to have identified manuscripts #634 and Omega 110 as containing the Comma, and Holland notes that the Comma appears in the margin of #635.
Further, we see that Metzger and the UBS have slighted the actual number of Greek manuscripts which contain the verse. Recently, Daniel Wallace reported that the Comma appears in the margin of #177, though he observes that the addition was made very late, at least after 1551.
Likewise, this verse is rejected by theological liberals who tend to view the Bible from an entirely naturalistic perspective, and who therefore also reject the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7, Matt. The personal experience of this author has mostly been in dealing with Muslims, whose ideas about the Trinity generally hold to the very simplistic and erroneous picture presented in the Qur'an (to see a typical Muslim argument against the Trinity, and this argument dealt with, click here).
For the most part, Muslim apologetics on the subject of this verse are simply the plagiarism of large parts of a "foundational" article dealing with this passage found at the Answering Christianity website.
This allows them to focus the discussion surrounding this verse around the one portion of the evidence which would, on its face, seem to support their contentions about the Comma.
However, the treatment which the Greek evidence is given suffers from being only partially presented, and often misrepresented, by the Critical Text side of the debate.
While this is indeed a plausible contention, it is not conclusive by any means.