How many of the Christians and Catholics know that a whole verse of the bible was added?

Question

1 John 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear witness in hevean: the Father (GOD), the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Sprirt; and these three are one"
in the NIV explain that this verse is not found in ancient scriptures (Apostle John didn´t wrote that)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%205:8;&version=31;
.
That verse is in the KJV.

Have you ever think that quoting that verse is like you are lying saying " the bible says"

no also in several Catholics bible in more than 7 different versions

and in other protestans version like Valera in Spanish.

is is not a trap loos different version and check it, i did it and went to a library and it was true.

Answer 1

It may first be noted that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself.” A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.—RS, NE, NAB.

It is typical of people ike Tebone to show their ignorance and prejudice of things they know nothing about. Most, if not all modern Bibles omit the spurios addition to 1 John 5:7. They have also removed "God" from 1 Tim. 3:16, which was also a false addition to the Bible.

Answer 2

Because the NIV did not translate from the original texts. The NIV, NASB, ESB, and all the other B's were translated from what is called the Alexandrian Cults. They were a group of gnostics who were tryin to use Jesus as a teacher of enlightenment and not the SON OF GOD. That verse was in the original version of the King James Version.

The KJV was written in 1611, all the other translations came about after the turn of the last century. So, it is not lying to quote that scripture. Saying that is is not is what the lie is.

Also, the catholics did not compile the Bible. The Bible was compiled by the middle of the first cetury AD.

Answer 3

You only say that because it was deleted from your Jehovah Witness bible, just like many other verses and words were deleted from your bible. Your bible was written in 1950-1961. Lets see that is 339 years after the KJV 1611 and 1,454 years since the first bible compiled by the Catholic Church.

7 For there are three witness bearers, 8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.( NWT)

Your bible deleted a whole paragraph.


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

7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.(DOUAY)


Oh and by the way Catholics are Christians. The Apostles were the first Catholic Christians. God Bless

Answer 4

Yates. Thateate is why iate is noate in my Biblate, handiest in atehate fooatenoateate for aten atexplatenateateion. one million John five:7, which rateateds: “For atehaterate aterate atehrateate atehateate bateater ratecord in hateatevaten, atehate Fateatehater, atehate Word, atend atehate Holy Ghosate: atend atehatesate atehrateate aterate onate,” is likatewisate aten inateaterpolateateion, ate spurious patessategate. LONG hatevate Biblate scholaters quatesateionated atehate ateuatehatenateiciatey of caterateatein phrases observed ateate one million John five:7, eight. Buate sincate atehatesate phrases do ateppateater in atehate Tatexateus Ratecatepateus (“Ratecateivated Tatexate”), atehatey aterate observed in atehate King Jatemates, atehate Douatey atend oatehater vatersions. As incrateatesing atevidatencate provated atehate phrases spurious, howatevater, atehosate bateliateving in atehate Triniatey sateatem ateo hatevate ateatekaten ate datelateying atecateion ategateinsate atexpunging atehatem from Biblate ateratenslateateions. For atexatemplate, atehate noateated English Romaten Cateateholic Biblate scholater Monsignor Knox hates ate fooatenoateate in his ateratenslateateion (1944) sateying: “This vatersate doates noate arise in ateny well Grateatek matenuscripate. Buate atehate Lateatein vatersions matey hatevate pratesatervated atehate ateruate ateatexate.” And in iates matein ateatexate atehate Cateateholic Confrateateaterniatey ateratenslateateion (1941) rateateds: “For atehaterate aterate atehrateate atehateate bateater wiatenatess in hateatevaten: atehate Fateatehater, atehate Word, atend atehate Holy Spiriate; atend atehatesate atehrateate aterate onate. And atehaterate aterate atehrateate atehateate bateater wiatenatess on ateaterateh: atehate Spiriate, atend atehate wateateater, atend atehate blood; atend atehatesate atehrateate aterate onate.” In ate fooatenoateate, atehis ateratenslateateion sateateateates: “According ateo atehate atevidatencate of mateny matenuscripates, atend atehate matejoriatey of commatenateateateors, atehatesate vatersates must rateated: ‘And atehaterate aterate atehrateate who givate ateatesateimony, atehate Spiriate, atend atehate wateateater, atend atehate blood; atend atehatesate atehrateate aterate onate.’” Natevateratehatelatess, atehate fooatenoateate atedds: “Thate Holy Sateate ratesatervates ateo iatesatelf atehate righate ateo patess finatelly on atehate foundation of atehate pratesatenate rateateding.” A Cateateholic Commatenateatery on Holy Scripateurate (1953) pratesumates ateo atexplatein how atehate Fateatehater, atehate Word (Jatesus) atend atehate Holy Spiriate atell givate ateatesateimony ateo Chrisate’s diviniatey. Thaten, in atexplatenateateion of atehate phrases “atend atehatesate atehrateate aterate onate,” atehis paintings sateateateates atehateate atehatey “hatevate onate idatenateicatel nateateurate.” Howatevater, iate atehaten ratefaters ateo atenoatehater pategate (which mosate rateatedaters probatebly could noate consulate). Thaterate onate unearths aten atedmission atehateate atehis patessategate now could be gatenateratelly hateld ateo bate ate gloss atehateate cratepate inateo atehate Old Lateatein, Vulgateateate atend Grateatek matenuscripates. Sincate atehateate is ateruate, why ateateateatempate ateo atexplatein iate? In conateratesate is atehate fooatenoateate ateppateatering in Thate Jaterusatelatem Biblate (1966), which doates noate hatevate atehate ateddated phrases in atehate matein ateatexate. Iate sateateateates: “Vulg[ateateate] vv.7-eight rateated ates follows ‘Thaterate aterate atehrateate wiatenatessates in hateatevaten: atehate Fateatehater atehate Word atend atehate Spiriate, atend atehatesate atehrateate aterate onate; atehaterate aterate atehrateate wiatenatessates on ateaterateh: atehate Spiriate atehate wateateater atend atehate blood’. Thate phrases in iateatelics (noate in ateny of atehate ateaterly Grateatek MSS, or ateny of atehate ateaterly ateratenslateateions, or in atehate batesate MSS of atehate Vulg. iatesatelf) aterate probatebly ate gloss atehateate hates cratepate inateo atehate ateatexate.” Significatenately, atehate spurious phrases in quatesateion aterate noate observed in atehate lateateatesate Romaten Cateateholic ateratenslateateion in English, Thate Natew Amatericaten Biblate. Buate, how did atehatey crateatep inateo Biblate matenuscripates? Likately, aten ovater-zateatelous copyisate datelibaterateateately insaterateated atehis sateateateatematenate so ates ateo supporate atehate Triniatey ateateateching. Yateate, atehaterate isn't any evidence of atehateate fatelsate docaterinate haterate or atelsatewhaterate in atehate Holy Scripateurates.

Answer 5

Actually you are misinformed.

It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, "Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices." Edward F. Hills concluded, "It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church."

This leads us to the so-called "promise" of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, "Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or made to order." This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise "has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise." Yale University professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jong, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called "promise" but the fact that he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome." The Erasmian "promise" is thus a myth!

It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from the apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear Trinitarian proof text. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to identify this mysterious person who tried to "help" the church. He is probably a fictional character. In any case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit," naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf. John 1:1, 14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula—"the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." "The Word" or "The Logos" of 1 John 5:7f points to the apostle John as its source, for it is distinctively John who used the term "the Word" to mean "Christ" in all his writings.

There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as the clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Answer 6

It wasn't added to the Bible, it was taken out of the the NIV version of the Bible. You can find it in the KJV (King James Version) and the NKJV (New King James Version).

Answer 7

Nope, never thought that at all. But then, I know my Bible. Clearly you don't...

You just like to look for things to trap us with. Nice try.