วีดีโอ

People think of the word of God as equal to Jesus, and that is wrong. No problem with the verse if teh word of God means just that ie the word of God. The verse did not mention Jesus.

It's in the original that we no longer have.

1st John chapter 5 verse 7 is in the oldest Original Byzantine Koine Greek Text of the New Testament

1st John

The oldest manuscript of the New Testament is the Original Ancient Byzantine Koine Greek Text at 320 to 3:25 AD

How old is the manuscript brother? I am watching the video piece meal.

Dwayne, wouldn't even suggesting that such a thing were possible throw doubt on the entire New Testament? If heretics had the ability to eradicate a passage from Scripture, and exercised that power, who knows what else they did? Literally anything is possible at that point.

Anyone who disagrees with my particular beliefs is a heretic.

groetnis, mynhear

i'm fascinated by the CSB. "The CSB was created using Optimal Equivalence, a translation philosophy that balances linguistic precision to the original languages and readability in contemporary English. In the many places throughout Scripture where a word-for-word rendering is clearly understandable, a literal translation is used. When a word-for-word rendering might obscure the meaning for a modern audience, a more dynamic translation is used. This process assures that both the words and thoughts contained in the original text are conveyed as accurately as possible for today’s readers." it may supplant my NIV. I carried the NIV 'til a pastoral change brought in a NKJV man. I didn't see a difference in the text 'til we got to God's instructions for crossing the Jordan.

7 Bible translations I value everyday: 1. Legacy Standard Bible with Strong's in Olive Tree Bible App (LSB is an updation of NASB95 by the Master's Seminary) 2. ESV (several Study Bibles and audio Bibles are associated with ESV) 3. NKJV (legacy of KJV) 4. NET Bible (60,900 translation notes) 5. CSB (Optimal Equivalence Bible with excellent notes) 6. NIV (NIV Study Bible is a valuable resource) 7. NLT (Bible in smooth english)

Saying it was removed isn't any more ridiculous and not historical than 99% of scholars that say Mark 16 was added in 1600 mss and 2 are correct. (Plus church fathers and versional)

Praying you get rid of the cough

so are you saying that Erasmus made it up out of the ether? I think you’re projecting the ethics (lack there of) of modern day lying scholarship to Erasmus, Tyndall, Hess, Whitcliff, Luther, The KJV scholars. I think it’s best to accept it rather than judge it based on evidence you can’t find nor do you have. These are the same people who changed the bible based of stuff found in wastebaskets, tombs, ditches and mysteriously conjured up in dungeons in the Vatican. I would stay away from those people.

A Trail of Evidence: enough with this “originals” fairytale. All witnesses extant are *independent productions* not lateral copies. Your worldview goes in the trash. Stand up for the Antioch Text. But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse: 200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25. 250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin) 350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.] 350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.] 350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione 398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism 415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ) 450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are: A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven" B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.] C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.] 500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.] 550 AD Old Latin ms r has it 550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.] 750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it 800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] 1000s AD miniscule 635 has it 1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin 1300s AD miniscule 629 has it 157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse 1500 AD ms 61 has the verse Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r. The Vaudois Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Are you still on this “oldest means best” stuff, Wayne?

Thank you, Dwayne for sharing compelling information on behalf of the Textus Receptus.

Dwayne, what do you do about Jerome specifically saying heretics were taking out that verse, Socrates of Constantinople saying heretics were changing 1st John 2:23, and a variety of other verses in 1st John being corrupted or changed in manuscript traditions? This is not a far out theory as I see it. If Marcion living in the early to mid 2nd century can cut out verses from the Gospel of Luke, what's harder for, I don't know, some Arian in the 3rd or 4th century to cut out the clearest proof for the Trinity in the New Testament? (And btw, we do know about ancient manuscripts that had the Comma that are now lost to time as cited by Calvin, Gill, and the translator of the Complutensian Polyglot)

This was a big debate internally with me but the Holy Spirit called to me and told me to read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and that calmed my battle. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [a]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. You nailed in when you said you hear the Holy Spirit in various other translations...and this is why.

Where was Arius from Dwayne? Was it Antioch?

The Creed says "BEGOTTEN NOT MADE". And Greek was their heart language.

Let’s suppose that the Arians were not responsible for the wholesale removal of the Comma from the Greek manuscripts? Why could it not have been the “orthodox”, on themselves realising, and/or being taunted by others, that the disputed words were capable of being cited as an argument against the Trinity? if the witnesses were genuinely three, they would qualify as three witnesses, to satisfy the test that every word/matter had to be substantiated at the mouth of two or three witnesses; but that this understanding of threeness would be cited as tritheism. On the other hand, if the three were only one for the purpose of testimony, then, not only would the testimony be rejected, but also this understanding of threeness would be cited as modalism. If such were the case. I could easily see that there could be a wholesale non-copying in lectionary and other manuscripts. The Latin world might later have revolted against the suppression, and re-introduced the missing words. The argument about the lack of the definite Greek articles would not be significant : Latin having no definite article, the first Greek re-introduction might not have had them; and later Greek correctors may have improved the Greek. I do not say that what I have said is the truth - but only that it is possible. One could construct several “just so”stories for what đo or do not have in various manuscripts!

The KJB 1611, there is nothing better.How does one take a book that i believe is Gods words and is over 400yrs old and has no copyright to it, then decides to bring some 300+ bibles and says this is Gods words. When one researches the 1881Alexandra text by the two corrupt theologins, wescott and Hort, and you hold these versions above the KJB then you have a serious problem just like the other so called bible writers. One word in the KJB "Fornication" does not allow devorce and remarriage which will be adultery. In the new versions (NKJB) the word used is "sexual imorality" which allows devorce and remarriage, major problem, you and the suporters of these bible are reserving a place in Revelations, "you shall not add or take from........someone is confused and it is not God. He is not a man that he should lie.

the short beard is looking pretty good

Dwayne Green, stop deceiving people with your ignorance of the Biblical Greek. You really are inspired by the devil. There's enough historical information and evidence that proves you wrong, and proves you are inspired by the devil.

Amen.

Just as a quick note: In the video when I say that the "Greek Orthodox Church was Arian for a 100 years or so", I'm not speaking factually, I'm simply recapitulating a common argument used to suggest 1 John 5:7 was removed from ALL the Greek manuscripts.

Very good points. I see the tri unity work in so many verses and even in the way I am led to pray. This verse is not necessary to prove Godhead, but I know people who are mean about this.

Liked your early thought about “begotten”. This word makes it easier to seek to show Jesus was created rather than existing.

Largely maybe but it was Not all of the Greek Church that became Arian. Also, many of the Northern barbarians, became Arian!

You need to read the book(s) tertullian against marcion. Tertullian flat out accuses marcion of destroying manuscripts with verses that go against arian beleifs, marcion was doing too! And possibly others.

Does the Comma feature now in the Orthodox Lectionary? Interesting that Antoniades could include a text not in the Byzantine texts.

Do we have evidence of KJB translators evaluating the readings of different editions or even different manuscripts? We know that they did not always follow Beza or Stephanus and even followed the Vulgate.

The earliest Greek Manuscript that we currently have access to*

Dwayne, could you provide the link for the previous video that you mentioned? i could not locate it on your YT page. thank you

1 John 3:1 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! (And that is what we are!). wish this variant had been discussed. but good video nonetheless.

Dwayne, do you know what Dean Burgon’s view was on this variant? Or a source where I can read it for myself?

Have you seen how the KJV Bible is mathematically encoded by God

A popular greek translation us the byzantine text

KJ21, KJV, AKJV, MEV, NKJV, BRG, DRA, GNV, ISV, JUB, NLV, NMB, RGT, WE, & YLT all have the Comma in their translations.

How many Greek manuscripts do not contain 1 John 5:7? Only 10 do and 6 are marginal notes? Is that correct Dwayne?

****please do a video on “begotten” because versions I have been perusing do not include the it.

Dwayne! Facts will never Trump perception or desire! (Why did spellcheck capitalize trump?) Christianity has become more like other world religions, ignore our beginning and transform it into what is comfortable.

Maurice Robinson's running count is 150 vs in NA found in 1 mss and 105 vs where whole vs is in 0 mss. NA regularly ignores the oldest Papyrus mss in readings and goes with later mss. The charges against the KJV are laughable when you understand reasoned eclecticism. It's found in 10 mss, 5 of those in margin.

That's not why they're not included. There's no evidence to suggest God was silent in that period. The reason they aren't included is because portions contradict the rest of scripture. The first reason is a lousy argument. The second one is a good one.

It was quoted by cyprian of Carthage in 250 ad

This is what Chat GPT4 could find who was the first person to use first John 5:7 Sent by Copilot: The earliest known reference to 1 John 5:7, the Comma Johanneum, is attributed to Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd century. Around 250 AD, Cyprian wrote, "The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’"1. This suggests that Cyprian was familiar with a version of the text that included the Comma Johanneum. However, it’s important to note that this passage does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts and is considered by many scholars to be a later addition to the text. The debate over its authenticity continues to be a significant topic in textual criticism and theological discussions.

Being in the UK, I didn't catch the Live: but my vote would be that the comma isn't original. 🤔

Hi Dwayne, Berean Patriot did thorough analysis in his website on this subject. It is very compelling.

What verse is he referring to, John 8:5? What manuscript has "nursing babies"? thnx