Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible?

[prophet]

I did not know Waite, although his name had a familiar ring.
Has he written on the subject?
Has he publicly defended his position?

You mean his KJV-only position generally, or a position on the Johannine Comma specifically?

I can't speak to the latter, but on the former, he has written books such as Heresies of Westcott and Hort (probably his best known), Defending the King James Bible (in which he states his theory of the four-fold superiority of the KJV), and many others--all self-published, which does cast some question on whether he counts as a "scholar." He's also responsible for the Defined King James Bible, a KJV-only study Bible that defines all the difficult or archaic words in the KJV. (Hang on--I thought the KJV was easier to read than any modern Bible?)

Waite also founded the Dean Burgon Society, which holds an annual conference to defend the KJV every July. Ironically, the DBS's namesake could never qualify as an Anglican for membership in this Baptist society. Apparently, the keynote speaker this year is David Daniels of Chick Publications, which means Waite and co. are giving tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism now.

This (Chick et al) is the clown show that  casts shadow over all of us that came to be TRO honestly.

Eventually, anyone standing on this position, is tempted to align with the Ruckmanites, for the sake of strength in numbers, resources, etc.

I still don't know wether the Jesuits recruited the Bhuddist when he came to them, to infiltrate the Baptists, or he was already on a mission from Satan when he was "led to the Lord" in that radio studio...(that kind of public conversion theatrics smacks of Loyola's breed...but i digress).  But Pensecola Pimp could not have done more to destroy faith in the common English Bible, from lamenting updates, to endorsing mistake riddled printings of the Bible early on.

Nowadays, all one of you Hortian Maryolaters has to do associate any Bible Believer with Ruckman, Kinney, Gipp, Riplinger, or some other 20th Cenury modernist bapticostal, and the true historical acvount gets tossed out the window.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

The burden one must bear as a true KJVO scholar is evidently very heavy.

There you go, editing my post into your strawman kjvo (an undefined term) argument.
Will you admit it, or pretend you are debating honestly?

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

To which serious, scholarly KJVO ?doctrine? do you refer?
There are more than one.

Strawman reference #2

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

Tomato, tomahhhhhto.
A KJVO by any other name is still a KJVO.

I understand your wanting to deflect, but there is a reason that there are no KJVO, TRO, Ruckmanite scholars or scholarly works.

See?
I just waited til you said what you would've said anyway, whoopin that strawman reel good...

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

I'm sorry but your thoughtful and typical KJVO, TRO, Ruckmanite scholarly arguments are just too thorough to argue with...

There you go.
You've wrapped it up, all on your own.
You never even needed me, Donkey Hote....

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[illinoisguy]

Years ago I received a catalog from Alberto Rivera's AIC International Ministries, containing this statement: "Startling facts surrounding the 1611 Translation . . . The translation committee contained devoted Puritan scholars but it was also infiltrated by Jesuits."

Since Jack Chick was publishing comic books promoting Alberto, I wrote to him about this.  I got a personal letter from Jack Chick of Chick Publications (undated) in which he stated "Dr. Rivera told me the Jesuits infiltrated the translation committee and insisted that the Apocrypha be included in the very first printing, but the Puritans strongly objected and insisted that it be removed on the  next printing."  So Chick agreed with Alberto that there were Jesuits on the King James Version translation committee.  He presented this teaching in the tract "The Attack" which depicts guards watching over the Jesuit KJV translators to watch what they are doing.  Yeah, I'm sure those guards would have known if the Jesuits were messing around with the original Hebrew text.  Wouldn't it have made more sense to just remove the known Jesuits from the committee?
So there is another mystery - supposedly the AV1611 was verbally inspired by God, and yet there were those sneaky Jesuits taking part in and meddling in the translation process.  And although God supposedly verbally inspired the AV1611, this was not good enough to prevent the Jesuits from slipping a bunch of un-inspired Roman Catholic Apocryphal books into the final product.  Let's see the minions of Ruckman, Gipp, Riplinger, et. al. explain that.

 

[Twisted]

Years ago I received a catalog from Alberto Rivera's AIC International Ministries, containing this statement: "Startling facts surrounding the 1611 Translation . . . The translation committee contained devoted Puritan scholars but it was also infiltrated by Jesuits."

Since Jack Chick was publishing comic books promoting Alberto, I wrote to him about this.  I got a personal letter from Jack Chick of Chick Publications (undated) in which he stated "Dr. Rivera told me the Jesuits infiltrated the translation committee and insisted that the Apocrypha be included in the very first printing, but the Puritans strongly objected and insisted that it be removed on the  next printing."  So Chick agreed with Alberto that there were Jesuits on the King James Version translation committee.  He presented this teaching in the tract "The Attack" which depicts guards watching over the Jesuit KJV translators to watch what they are doing.  Yeah, I'm sure those guards would have known if the Jesuits were messing around with the original Hebrew text.  Wouldn't it have made more sense to just remove the known Jesuits from the committee?
So there is another mystery - supposedly the AV1611 was verbally inspired by God, and yet there were those sneaky Jesuits taking part in and meddling in the translation process.  And although God supposedly verbally inspired the AV1611, this was not good enough to prevent the Jesuits from slipping a bunch of un-inspired Roman Catholic Apocryphal books into the final product.  Let's see the minions of Ruckman, Gipp, Riplinger, et. al. explain that.

I would have to see Rivera's sources for such a claim.  He should have listed his sources since he was claiming "facts".

There was, no doubt, Jesuit influence in all of England.  The book "God's Secretaries" goes into the problems caused by the Jesuits.  As to specific "meddling in the translation process", I know not about that and I'm not sure the book mentions that.

 

[illinoisguy]

I personally am not aware of any evidence that Jesuits meddled in or had anything to do with the translation of the King James Version, and I don't believe that.  All I am saying is that Chick's tract "The Attack" (available on the Chick web site) depicts Jesuits as having taken part in the translation process, which, if true, might seem to call into question the divinely and providentially inspired nature of the KJV.  Jack Chick's source for that allegation was Alberto Rivera, who I do not regard as a reliable source of information.  It is a fact that the 1611 King James included the Apocrypha.  This was probably not due to any Jesuit influence, but I believe it was  because the Anglican Church at that time was still using some Apocryphal readings in their liturgy so they felt that it would be a good idea to make the Apocrypha available in the original KJV.  Article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles of Faith, 1571 version, lists the Old Testament books as canonical, and then the Apocryphal books are listed separately, with the statement "the church doth read [these books] for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."  So the Anglicans regarded the Apocrypha as helpful but not canonical, so that explains how they got into the KJV.  Yes, Roman Catholic agents in England were definitely prowling around and making plots, such as the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 where they almost succeeded in blowing up King James I and the entire Parliament to kingdom come.  I have not seen any documentation that the Jesuits were in on the translation of the KJV, but if there are folks who want to believe that, hey, anything is possible.

 

[Ransom]

So there is another mystery - supposedly the AV1611 was verbally inspired by God, and yet there were those sneaky Jesuits taking part in and meddling in the translation process.  And although God supposedly verbally inspired the AV1611, this was not good enough to prevent the Jesuits from slipping a bunch of un-inspired Roman Catholic Apocryphal books into the final product.

Yeah, the Jesuits tampered with the text, and the Puritans were so dim they even translated the Apocrypha without realizing what they were doing. Whoops! How'd that get in there?

Chick et al seem to forget that the KJV translators were Anglicans. The English didn't have as radical a reformation as the Lutheran one. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion regard the Apocrypha as non-inspired, but nonetheless important and useful. It wasn't published in the KJV by accident or because of the wiles of some Jesuits.

 

[Twisted]

I personally am not aware of any evidence that Jesuits meddled in or had anything to do with the translation of the King James Version, and I don't believe that. 

I asked Laurence Vance if he had any knowledge of this.  His response, verbatim:  "absolute nonsense"

 

[illinoisguy]

Yeah, sure, the Anglican translators of the KJV (and a few Presbyterians among them) were the greatest scholars of all time, and yet they were hoodwinked into allowing sinister Jesuit conspirators to work with them and slip extraneous stuff into the Bible .  If they really were that dumb, how can we put any trust in their scholarship and say that the AV1611 is the only Bible we are allowed to read today?  Laurence Vance is right - it is "absolute nonsense" to think that they allowed wily Jesuit wreckers to add the Apocrypha into the Bible, as opposed to this being the decision of the Anglican hierarchy.  I never could understand why KJV-only folks regarded Chick as a champion of their views, while he was propagating this "absolute nonsense" about the original KJV being the product of a Jesuit plot.

 

[Twisted]

I never could understand why KJV-only folks regarded Chick as a champion of their views...

A "champion"?  Who does that?  The guy was a gifted cartoonist and did a great work, but he was also human and made errors.

I asked Dave Daniels about a position Chick took in his tracts.  All I got in response was "crickets".

I appreciate Chick, but a "champion"?  No thanks.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I personally am not aware of any evidence that Jesuits meddled in or had anything to do with the translation of the King James Version, and I don't believe that. 

I asked Laurence Vance if he had any knowledge of this.  His response, verbatim:  "absolute nonsense"

KJVO's denouncing wild accusations against manuscript translators!
Oh! The irony!

 

[brianb]

It is a standard cliche (taught by Metzger, Hort, Bob Jones III, Custer, Zane Hodges, Curtis Hutson, and all apostate Fundamentalists such as Waite, Hudson, Combs, Dell, Walker, Sherman, et al), that 1 John 5:7 has no business being in the Bible because Erasmus only added it after finding a sixteenth-century Greek manuscript (61) probably "written in Oxford in 1520 by a Franciscan friar." On the basis of this "historical" fairy tale the NIV omits the "Johannine Comma," and so does the ASV and NASV along with the RSV and NRSV and similar Roman Catholic Alexandrian productions.

How well do I remember my dear professor at Bob Jones, back in 1951, telling me that there was NO Greek manuscript evidence for the reading. When I called 61 to his attention he said, "Well, only one." He lied. Professor Armin Panning (New Testament Textual Criticism) lists an eleventh century manuscript. I was then told, "Well, that is all." It wasn't all. There was a ninth century manuscript that the Vulgate used to put the verse into its text with. That all? Well, not by a long shot. It shows up in the Old Latin of the fifth century. Knowing this, supercilious little pipsqueaks like Doug Kutilek respond with "Well, if you are going to correct the Greek with the Old Latin why don't you use the Old Latin every time to correct the Greek?" Because we are "eclectic," just like anyone else. The AV translators didn't choose either every time, so why should we?

Here is a twelfth century manuscript (min. 88) with the words found in the margin, but it is cited as scripture in a fourth century Latin treatise by Priscillian. Get rid of Priscillian. They do; all of the critics of the Johannine Comma call him a "heretic." That is what the Roman Catholic Church called him.

The plot thickens. When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he planned to include 1 John 5:7-8 and did. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; he described some of these as very "ancient codices" sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven't the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these "ancient codices"? They must have contained 1 John 5:7. Ximenes printed the verse.

Shall we do some homework? I mean, why stop with the insipid, shallow, traditional cliches of the faculty and staff of Louisville, Denver, Chicago, New Orleans, Dallas, BJU, BBC, and the University of Chicago?

John Gill (appealed to by Doug Kutilek as a CORRECTOR of the AV) says that Fullgentius cites the passage at the beginning of the sixth century (where did he get it? From a friar at Oxford in 1520?), and Jerome cites it in his epistle to Eustochium and wants to know why it was excluded (450 A.D.). But Gill says further that Athanasius cites it in 350 A.D. WHERE FROM? Jerome's Latin Vulgate? Jerome hadn't been born yet.

But why stop here? Gill says that CYPRIAN quotes it in 250 A.D. nearly one hundred years before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were written. (Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (3 vols.), Vol. 2, pp. 907-8), and Tertullian beats him by fifty years. Tertullian evidently had Erasmus's manuscript 61 in 200 A.D., more than one hundred years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus removed the verses from the text.

Why was I not given this material at BJU? How is it that the faculty and staff at Tennessee Temple and Liberty University never picked up the information? How does one explain this cocky, blatant, dogmatic correction of the Holy Bible going on year after year by lazy children who have not done their homework? These are the people that think YOU are a fanatic for believing the Book. These are amateurs like Kutilek and Hudson whose lives are taken up with simply reproducing CLICHES that are passed on from one legendary campfire to another as Alexandrian myths move from generation to generation.

When the AV committee sat down they didn't have just Erasmus and his "61." They had Diodab in Italian, Luther in German, Olivetan in French, and Geneva in English, plus six Waldensian Bibles whose sources come from the fourth and fifth centuries. Suppose you couldn't find a Greek manuscript reading for 1 John 5:7 but saw it show up in 200 A.D., again in 250 A.D., again in 325 A.D., again in 350 A.D., and then found it in four anti-Catholic texts which were based on Old Latin that often disagreed with the Vulgate?

Don't get much for your tuition these days, do ya?

Manuscript 61: Professor Michaelis says that this manuscript in four chapters in Mark possess three coincidences with the OLD SYRIAC, two of which agree with the Old Itala, while they differ from every Greek manuscript extant. Do you mind if I remind you of something very basic? The AV of the English Reformation and Luther's Heilige Schrift of the German Reformation BOTH contain the Johannine Comma. "By their fruits ye shall know them." (I just thought I would throw that in there "extra, free of charge," since by now any scholar reading this has already become completely unglued and has forgotten the basics.)

Manuscript 61 was supposed to have been written between 1519 and 1522; the question comes up "from WHAT?" Not from Ximenes; his wasn't out yet. Not from Erasmus for it doesn't match his "Greek" in places. The literal affinities in 61 are with the SYRIAC (see Acts 11:26), and that version was not known in Europe until 1552 (Moses Mardin). The Old Latin and Old Syriac (despite Custer of BJU espousing the liberal theories of the unsaved scholar Burkitt) date from 130 and 150 A.D. The Diatesseron of Tatian (Syriac) which has the King James readings in Luke 2:33 and Matthew 1:25 and Matthew 6:13, contrary to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, was written no later than 180 A.D., and probably earlier.

The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox." It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It came out. "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus" (1 John 5:7).

So the old dead heads at BJU lied to me, like they are Iying right now to a couple of hundred "ministerial students." They have plenty of company. The faculty at Dallas, Denver, and Pacific Coast are doing the same thing. Ditto Lynchburg, Arlington, and Springfield. The CULT IS THE CULT.

by Peter Ruckman

I've been doing some more research into this issue and it's amazing what you can find from before the 20th Century even before they even started working on the English Revised Version. You can find there were disagreements even after the King James Bible was published. Matthew Henry for example in his famous commentary argues for the inclusion of it (but not for doctrinal reasons) which probably means there were those in his day that argued for the exclusion of it. Even into the early 20th century the Roman Catholic Church saw this as an issue.  In 1927 Pope PiusXI  decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to investigative scrutiny.  Today's pope probably only cares about social issues and apparently thinks that atheists can get into heaven.  Sure today the ones speaking the loudest about it are the Ruckmanites and others to a lesser degree with people like James White reacting to it but if you look into history this isn't something that no one cared about - it's just that few may have been listening.   

By the way, when you say 1 John 5:7 it's really the Comma Johanneum which is in verses 7 and 8 in the King James and similar Bibles.  There is still 1 John 5:7 (it's just shorter, also verse 8 is shorter). 

 

[Maestroh]

It is a standard cliche (taught by Metzger, Hort, Bob Jones III, Custer, Zane Hodges, Curtis Hutson, and all apostate Fundamentalists such as Waite, Hudson, Combs, Dell, Walker, Sherman, et al), that 1 John 5:7 has no business being in the Bible

This is a bald-faced lie. D.A. Waite argues in favor of the Comma Johanneum.

because Erasmus only added it after finding a sixteenth-century Greek manuscript (61) probably "written in Oxford in 1520 by a Franciscan friar."

Well, he did....

On the basis of this "historical" fairy tale the NIV omits the "Johannine Comma," and so does the ASV and NASV along with the RSV and NRSV and similar Roman Catholic Alexandrian productions.

As did the Syriac Peshiddo, as did the majority of all non-Latin bibles.......and actually, the so-called "fairy tale" has nothing at all to do with its exclusion from any of those.

How well do I remember my dear professor at Bob Jones, back in 1951, telling me that there was NO Greek manuscript evidence for the reading.

I'd like to see where Jones said this in print. After all, most folks's memory plays tricks (note: mine never has)....but even if Bob Jones DID say this, he was wrong - at least as this is written.

When I called 61 to his attention he said, "Well, only one." He lied.

There are nine now, and they don't amount to a hill of beans.

Professor Armin Panning (New Testament Textual Criticism) lists an eleventh century manuscript.

If he actually lists it, why didn't you tell us the name of the MS?

I was then told, "Well, that is all." It wasn't all. There was a ninth century manuscript that the Vulgate used to put the verse into its text with.

Which one? There are to this day no Greek ninth century MS with the CJ.

That all? Well, not by a long shot. It shows up in the Old Latin of the fifth century.

1) Old Latin is not a Greek manuscript
2) Saying something is true doesn't make it true.

What fifth century OL manuscript has this? And even then - so what?

Knowing this, supercilious little pipsqueaks like Doug Kutilek respond with "Well, if you are going to correct the Greek with the Old Latin why don't you use the Old Latin every time to correct the Greek?"

Dead, thrice married little pipsqueaks (to say nothing of worm dirt) like Peter Ruckman don't believe God preserved His Word in Greek because Ruckman's god is a monumental failure.

Because we are "eclectic," just like anyone else. The AV translators didn't choose either every time, so why should we?

The AV translators also belived an LXX existed that Ruckman insists didn't - so appealing to the AV translators has nothing to do with it.

Here is a twelfth century manuscript (min. 88) with the words found in the margin,

Added by a hand centuries later, which makes it a LATER witness and not a 12th century one.

but it is cited as scripture in a fourth century Latin treatise by Priscillian.

Who also said "in Jesus Christ" as part of Scripture, which Ruckman rejects....

Get rid of Priscillian.

You already did.

They do; all of the critics of the Johannine Comma call him a "heretic."

I'd think Ruckman himself would call a modalist a heretic, but his refusal to do so creates more questions than his dismissal of fact answers.

That is what the Roman Catholic Church called him.

The Roman Catholic Church calls water "water," too, so what term should we use?

The plot thickens.

But will never be as thick as what passed for Ruckman's skull or his theological nonsense.

When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he planned to include 1 John 5:7-8 and did. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; he described some of these as very "ancient codices" sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven't the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these "ancient codices"?

Why haven't you done so?

They must have contained 1 John 5:7.

Let me translate for you: "If evidence that I have no evidence ever existed actually DID exist, I would be right."

Ximenes printed the verse.

But he was a Roman Catholic, wasn't he???? I hope Ruckman didn't drive like he argued - he's all over the place like a drunk.

Shall we do some homework?

Well, you had the opportunity but you failed to name several manuscripts right now you claim support you.

I mean, why stop with the insipid, shallow, traditional cliches of the faculty and staff of Louisville, Denver, Chicago, New Orleans, Dallas, BJU, BBC, and the University of Chicago?

Yeah, I know. I mean, all you have to do to prove them wrong is produce what you claim exists.....It could be worse, though, you could have quoted the generally unreliable John Gill and....

John Gill

I see I spoke too soon......

(appealed to by Doug Kutilek as a CORRECTOR of the AV) says that Fullgentius cites the passage at the beginning of the sixth century (where did he get it?

Probably from the corrupt Latin manuscripts written by the Roman Catholic Church.......

From a friar at Oxford in 1520?),

Well, the friar at Oxford was dealing with GREEK manuscripts, not LATIN ones - in this context anyway.

and Jerome cites it in his epistle to Eustochium and wants to know why it was excluded (450 A.D.).

You have to admit that Jerome writing to Eustochium in 450 AD, when BOTH had been DEAD FOR THIRTY YEARS is an amusing anecdote, but it tells me all I need to know about the intellectual level Ruckman possesses. He's not only a dead, thrice married worm dirt little pipsqueak, he's dumb, too.

But Gill says further that Athanasius cites it in 350 A.D. WHERE FROM? Jerome's Latin Vulgate? Jerome hadn't been born yet.

Gill saying something doesn't make it true. I mean, one need only read this insane, drug induced ranting of a racist to realize that just because someone writes something doesn't make it true.

But why stop here? Gill says that CYPRIAN quotes it in 250 A.D. nearly one hundred years before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were written. (Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (3 vols.), Vol. 2, pp. 907-8), and Tertullian beats him by fifty years.

Neither cited it, and Ruckman knows this, which is why he never bothers to tell us WHERE either man cited it.

Tertullian evidently had Erasmus's manuscript 61 in 200 A.D., more than one hundred years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus removed the verses from the text.

Yeah, he probably was reading dead Jerome's letter to dead Eustochium, too, right?

Why was I not given this material at BJU?

As a seminary grad myself, something tells me you likely had it as a homework assignment and stayed up watching "Flipper" instead.

How is it that the faculty and staff at Tennessee Temple and Liberty University never picked up the information?

Because....it isn't true, maybe?

How does one explain this cocky, blatant, dogmatic correction of the Holy Bible going on year after year by lazy children who have not done their homework?

Just remember that the guy who said this has a dead man writing another dead man thirty years later. This is almost as dumb as the ranting imbecile who claimed there was a typewritten note about Sinaiticus before the typewriter was even invented.

These are the people that think YOU are a fanatic for believing the Book.

This very paper is right next to the definition of "fanatic" in the dictionary.

These are amateurs like Kutilek and Hudson whose lives are taken up with simply reproducing CLICHES that are passed on from one legendary campfire to another as Alexandrian myths move from generation to generation.

I now think Trump was a closet Peter Ruckman watcher.

When the AV committee sat down they didn't have just Erasmus and his "61."

You're right, they had the LXX that you claim is a fake.

They had Diodab in Italian, Luther in German, Olivetan in French, and Geneva in English, plus six Waldensian Bibles whose sources come from the fourth and fifth centuries. Suppose you couldn't find a Greek manuscript reading for 1 John 5:7 but saw it show up in 200 A.D., again in 250 A.D., again in 325 A.D., again in 350 A.D., and then found it in four anti-Catholic texts which were based on Old Latin that often disagreed with the Vulgate?

Suppose you have ZERO Greek evidence supporting your pile of manure.....you write stuff like the above paragraph and hope nobody notices.

Don't get much for your tuition these days, do ya?

The guy is still mad BJU won't give him a refund.

Manuscript 61: Professor Michaelis says that this manuscript in four chapters in Mark possess three coincidences with the OLD SYRIAC, two of which agree with the Old Itala, while they differ from every Greek manuscript extant. Do you mind if I remind you of something very basic? The AV of the English Reformation and Luther's Heilige Schrift of the German Reformation BOTH contain the Johannine Comma. "By their fruits ye shall know them." (I just thought I would throw that in there "extra, free of charge," since by now any scholar reading this has already become completely unglued and has forgotten the basics.)

This is in the dictionary right next to the word "irrelevant."

Manuscript 61 was supposed to have been written between 1519 and 1522; the question comes up "from WHAT?" Not from Ximenes; his wasn't out yet.

No, but he was - dead in 1517, and the NT was complete. Besides, you know them Catholics - they'll say or do anything something something.

Not from Erasmus for it doesn't match his "Greek" in places. The literal affinities in 61 are with the SYRIAC (see Acts 11:26), and that version was not known in Europe until 1552 (Moses Mardin). The Old Latin and Old Syriac (despite Custer of BJU espousing the liberal theories of the unsaved scholar Burkitt) date from 130 and 150 A.D. The Diatesseron of Tatian (Syriac) which has the King James readings in Luke 2:33 and Matthew 1:25 and Matthew 6:13, contrary to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, was written no later than 180 A.D., and probably earlier.

Following this guy is like trying to make sense of Trump. Oh btw - Cardinal Ximenes also secured airports.

The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox."

Uh, no, it was quoted at the 485 Council of Carthage, not 415. Remember, folks, this guy THINKS he's smart, but he's gotten nearly every single thing wrong so far.

It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It came out. "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus" (1 John 5:7).

Again, you got the date wrong and you'd have to prove that the KJV translators even knew about this AND got it from this.

So the old dead heads at BJU lied to me,

From the looks of your sloppy homework, they erred only in conferring a degree upon you.

like they are Iying right now to a couple of hundred "ministerial students." They have plenty of company. The faculty at Dallas, Denver, and Pacific Coast are doing the same thing. Ditto Lynchburg, Arlington, and Springfield. The CULT IS THE CULT.

by Peter Ruckman

It's easy to understand Peter Ruckman just so long as you remember that every single day of his miserable existence was Festivus.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

It is a standard cliche (taught by Metzger, Hort, Bob Jones III, Custer, Zane Hodges, Curtis Hutson, and all apostate Fundamentalists such as Waite, Hudson, Combs, Dell, Walker, Sherman, et al), that 1 John 5:7 has no business being in the Bible

This is a bald-faced lie. D.A. Waite argues in favor of the Comma Johanneum.

because Erasmus only added it after finding a sixteenth-century Greek manuscript (61) probably "written in Oxford in 1520 by a Franciscan friar."

Well, he did....

On the basis of this "historical" fairy tale the NIV omits the "Johannine Comma," and so does the ASV and NASV along with the RSV and NRSV and similar Roman Catholic Alexandrian productions.

As did the Syriac Peshiddo, as did the majority of all non-Latin bibles.......and actually, the so-called "fairy tale" has nothing at all to do with its exclusion from any of those.

How well do I remember my dear professor at Bob Jones, back in 1951, telling me that there was NO Greek manuscript evidence for the reading.

I'd like to see where Jones said this in print. After all, most folks's memory plays tricks (note: mine never has)....but even if Bob Jones DID say this, he was wrong - at least as this is written.

When I called 61 to his attention he said, "Well, only one." He lied.

There are nine now, and they don't amount to a hill of beans.

Professor Armin Panning (New Testament Textual Criticism) lists an eleventh century manuscript.

If he actually lists it, why didn't you tell us the name of the MS?

I was then told, "Well, that is all." It wasn't all. There was a ninth century manuscript that the Vulgate used to put the verse into its text with.

Which one? There are to this day no Greek ninth century MS with the CJ.

That all? Well, not by a long shot. It shows up in the Old Latin of the fifth century.

1) Old Latin is not a Greek manuscript
2) Saying something is true doesn't make it true.

What fifth century OL manuscript has this? And even then - so what?

Knowing this, supercilious little pipsqueaks like Doug Kutilek respond with "Well, if you are going to correct the Greek with the Old Latin why don't you use the Old Latin every time to correct the Greek?"

Dead, thrice married little pipsqueaks (to say nothing of worm dirt) like Peter Ruckman don't believe God preserved His Word in Greek because Ruckman's god is a monumental failure.

Because we are "eclectic," just like anyone else. The AV translators didn't choose either every time, so why should we?

The AV translators also belived an LXX existed that Ruckman insists didn't - so appealing to the AV translators has nothing to do with it.

Here is a twelfth century manuscript (min. 88) with the words found in the margin,

Added by a hand centuries later, which makes it a LATER witness and not a 12th century one.

but it is cited as scripture in a fourth century Latin treatise by Priscillian.

Who also said "in Jesus Christ" as part of Scripture, which Ruckman rejects....

Get rid of Priscillian.

You already did.

They do; all of the critics of the Johannine Comma call him a "heretic."

I'd think Ruckman himself would call a modalist a heretic, but his refusal to do so creates more questions than his dismissal of fact answers.

That is what the Roman Catholic Church called him.

The Roman Catholic Church calls water "water," too, so what term should we use?

The plot thickens.

But will never be as thick as what passed for Ruckman's skull or his theological nonsense.

When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he planned to include 1 John 5:7-8 and did. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; he described some of these as very "ancient codices" sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven't the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these "ancient codices"?

Why haven't you done so?

They must have contained 1 John 5:7.

Let me translate for you: "If evidence that I have no evidence ever existed actually DID exist, I would be right."

Ximenes printed the verse.

But he was a Roman Catholic, wasn't he???? I hope Ruckman didn't drive like he argued - he's all over the place like a drunk.

Shall we do some homework?

Well, you had the opportunity but you failed to name several manuscripts right now you claim support you.

I mean, why stop with the insipid, shallow, traditional cliches of the faculty and staff of Louisville, Denver, Chicago, New Orleans, Dallas, BJU, BBC, and the University of Chicago?

Yeah, I know. I mean, all you have to do to prove them wrong is produce what you claim exists.....It could be worse, though, you could have quoted the generally unreliable John Gill and....

John Gill

I see I spoke too soon......

(appealed to by Doug Kutilek as a CORRECTOR of the AV) says that Fullgentius cites the passage at the beginning of the sixth century (where did he get it?

Probably from the corrupt Latin manuscripts written by the Roman Catholic Church.......

From a friar at Oxford in 1520?),

Well, the friar at Oxford was dealing with GREEK manuscripts, not LATIN ones - in this context anyway.

and Jerome cites it in his epistle to Eustochium and wants to know why it was excluded (450 A.D.).

You have to admit that Jerome writing to Eustochium in 450 AD, when BOTH had been DEAD FOR THIRTY YEARS is an amusing anecdote, but it tells me all I need to know about the intellectual level Ruckman possesses. He's not only a dead, thrice married worm dirt little pipsqueak, he's dumb, too.

But Gill says further that Athanasius cites it in 350 A.D. WHERE FROM? Jerome's Latin Vulgate? Jerome hadn't been born yet.

Gill saying something doesn't make it true. I mean, one need only read this insane, drug induced ranting of a racist to realize that just because someone writes something doesn't make it true.

But why stop here? Gill says that CYPRIAN quotes it in 250 A.D. nearly one hundred years before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were written. (Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (3 vols.), Vol. 2, pp. 907-8), and Tertullian beats him by fifty years.

Neither cited it, and Ruckman knows this, which is why he never bothers to tell us WHERE either man cited it.

Tertullian evidently had Erasmus's manuscript 61 in 200 A.D., more than one hundred years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus removed the verses from the text.

Yeah, he probably was reading dead Jerome's letter to dead Eustochium, too, right?

Why was I not given this material at BJU?

As a seminary grad myself, something tells me you likely had it as a homework assignment and stayed up watching "Flipper" instead.

How is it that the faculty and staff at Tennessee Temple and Liberty University never picked up the information?

Because....it isn't true, maybe?

How does one explain this cocky, blatant, dogmatic correction of the Holy Bible going on year after year by lazy children who have not done their homework?

Just remember that the guy who said this has a dead man writing another dead man thirty years later. This is almost as dumb as the ranting imbecile who claimed there was a typewritten note about Sinaiticus before the typewriter was even invented.

These are the people that think YOU are a fanatic for believing the Book.

This very paper is right next to the definition of "fanatic" in the dictionary.

These are amateurs like Kutilek and Hudson whose lives are taken up with simply reproducing CLICHES that are passed on from one legendary campfire to another as Alexandrian myths move from generation to generation.

I now think Trump was a closet Peter Ruckman watcher.

When the AV committee sat down they didn't have just Erasmus and his "61."

You're right, they had the LXX that you claim is a fake.

They had Diodab in Italian, Luther in German, Olivetan in French, and Geneva in English, plus six Waldensian Bibles whose sources come from the fourth and fifth centuries. Suppose you couldn't find a Greek manuscript reading for 1 John 5:7 but saw it show up in 200 A.D., again in 250 A.D., again in 325 A.D., again in 350 A.D., and then found it in four anti-Catholic texts which were based on Old Latin that often disagreed with the Vulgate?

Suppose you have ZERO Greek evidence supporting your pile of manure.....you write stuff like the above paragraph and hope nobody notices.

Don't get much for your tuition these days, do ya?

The guy is still mad BJU won't give him a refund.

Manuscript 61: Professor Michaelis says that this manuscript in four chapters in Mark possess three coincidences with the OLD SYRIAC, two of which agree with the Old Itala, while they differ from every Greek manuscript extant. Do you mind if I remind you of something very basic? The AV of the English Reformation and Luther's Heilige Schrift of the German Reformation BOTH contain the Johannine Comma. "By their fruits ye shall know them." (I just thought I would throw that in there "extra, free of charge," since by now any scholar reading this has already become completely unglued and has forgotten the basics.)

This is in the dictionary right next to the word "irrelevant."

Manuscript 61 was supposed to have been written between 1519 and 1522; the question comes up "from WHAT?" Not from Ximenes; his wasn't out yet.

No, but he was - dead in 1517, and the NT was complete. Besides, you know them Catholics - they'll say or do anything something something.

Not from Erasmus for it doesn't match his "Greek" in places. The literal affinities in 61 are with the SYRIAC (see Acts 11:26), and that version was not known in Europe until 1552 (Moses Mardin). The Old Latin and Old Syriac (despite Custer of BJU espousing the liberal theories of the unsaved scholar Burkitt) date from 130 and 150 A.D. The Diatesseron of Tatian (Syriac) which has the King James readings in Luke 2:33 and Matthew 1:25 and Matthew 6:13, contrary to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, was written no later than 180 A.D., and probably earlier.

Following this guy is like trying to make sense of Trump. Oh btw - Cardinal Ximenes also secured airports.

The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox."

Uh, no, it was quoted at the 485 Council of Carthage, not 415. Remember, folks, this guy THINKS he's smart, but he's gotten nearly every single thing wrong so far.

It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It came out. "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus" (1 John 5:7).

Again, you got the date wrong and you'd have to prove that the KJV translators even knew about this AND got it from this.

So the old dead heads at BJU lied to me,

From the looks of your sloppy homework, they erred only in conferring a degree upon you.

like they are Iying right now to a couple of hundred "ministerial students." They have plenty of company. The faculty at Dallas, Denver, and Pacific Coast are doing the same thing. Ditto Lynchburg, Arlington, and Springfield. The CULT IS THE CULT.

by Peter Ruckman

It's easy to understand Peter Ruckman just so long as you remember that every single day of his miserable existence was Festivus.

You really twisted twisted...happy Festivus! 

 

[illinoisguy]

Lots of good points in Maestroh's post.  Ruckman and Riplinger say the LXX or Septuagint didn't exist.  The translator's preface to the 1611 King James Version says, "it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek.  This is the translation of the 70 Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal."  It seems like a contradiction to maintain that the King James translators were the greatest scholars of all time, and that their translation is the "Final Authority" for all time, forever and ever amen, and yet they were totally deceived and hoodwinked into believing that the Septuagint existed, which according to Ruckman and Riplinger was just a figment of their imagination. 

 

[Twisted]

Lots of good points in Maestroh's post.  Ruckman and Riplinger say the LXX or Septuagint didn't exist. 

I can't speak to Riplinger, but Ruckman has never said the LXX "didn't exist".  He denies the existence of a BC LXX.

For a good read on the subject, I highly recommend Dr. Floyd Jones' work, "The Septuagint".  Amazingly, he has it online for FREE.

https://www.floydnolenjonesministries.com/files/131144972.pdf

 

[Ransom]

I can't speak to Riplinger, but Ruckman has never said the LXX "didn't exist".  He denies the existence of a BC LXX.

Denied. Fixed it for you.

In any case, Dead Petey was still lying. Multiple manuscript fragments of the LXX exist from the 2nd and 1st century BC: Papyrus Fouad 266, Papyrus Rylands 458, and the fragments found in the fourth cave at Qumran amongst the other Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Rylands and Fouad papyri were discovered in 1917 and 1939, respectively, and the Qumran fragments were published in the early 1990s. So Dead Petey and his carbon blobs have had around 25 years to retract their false claims about the LXX. They never did. Of course, if they were compelled to admit that Jesus and the Apostles had a flawed translation of the Scriptures and quoted it authoritatively, the very premise of KJV-onlyism would implode.

 

[Twisted]

I can't speak to Riplinger, but Ruckman has never said the LXX "didn't exist".  He denies the existence of a BC LXX.

Denied. Fixed it for you.

"God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."

 

[Ransom]

"God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."

Dead Petey's gifts were shouting and lying; and by it he being dead yet stinketh.

 

[illinoisguy]

Uh, yeah, now that you mention it, Christ and the Apostles did quote from the Septuagint.  Scofield said that Hebrews 2:12-13 was quoted from the Septuagint.  (See Scofield Reference Bible, 1917 version, page 1293).  The Scofield Reference Bible is regarded by many KJO devotees as authoritative, and it is peddled by the KJO Sword of the Lord Foundation.  So that raises the question, how could the Apostles quote from a version that according to Ruckman did not even exist?

 

[Steven Avery]

Any ways 1 John 5:6 - 13 is not mainly about the trinity but about assurance of salvation through the witness of God but as you know a single "witness" or "testimony" can't be established as true or valid - you need 2 or 3 witnesses.  1 John 5:11 says of the "testimony" or "record" - God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Agreed, the proposed Christological interpretations are way overdone.

There  is even good evidence that Eusebius considered the verse a bit too Sabellian, or oneness, in his epistle contra Marcellum.

 

[prophet]

1Jo 5:7 ? 1Jo 5:8 (RVR1909)
Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo, el Padre, el Verbo, y el Esp?ritu Santo: y estos tres son uno. Y tres son los que dan testimonio en la tierra, el Esp?ritu, y el agua, y la sangre: y estos tres concuerdan en uno.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk