Imperishable Inheritance

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:7-8 (KJV)

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1 John 5:7-8 (NASV)

We have another issue in the continual KJV only debate. We must remember that we must approach this debate, not by what the english translations themselves say, but what texts the translations were both founded upon. When I studied this the first time, I remember hearing about the story of Erasmus including a verse against his wishes (referring to the Johannine Comma); but I didn't follow up on it, because I resided at that time that there were many texts included in the Textus Receptus that Erasmus did not intend for them to be in the text. This falls under the umbrella of Johannine Theology, or better put the theology of John in his gospel and his epistles.

The story I mentioned about Erasmus was that he did not include this text in his first two versions of his greek New Testament, but he would include if anyone could provide a greek transcript with the text in it. "The manuscript was made by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) in 1520 A.D. Erasmus kept his word and added the passage in his 3rd edition, but he added a long footnote expressing his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared just so to confute him."¹ Now, of course the KJV-Onlyites claim this is a lie, so let's move to analyze the facts.

• The Johannine Comma is only present in 8 greek manuscripts (4 in the text, 4 in the margin).
• Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.²
• "No Greek-speaking church father, even during the great Trinitarian controversies of the 2nd-4th centuries shows any knowledge whatsoever of the existence in Greek of the disputed words."³
• The Comma was absent from over 400 manuscripts, including all of those dated before the 12^th century.⁴
• The Comma is in many latin texts, including the Vulgate.
• Martin Luther did not include the Comma in his translation (as contended by Dr. Ruckman, a KJV-Only advocate). This important because of the turmoil surrounding Luther's ministry.
• It should be noted that there are some that claim the Comma was inserted for the Arian controversy, but this researcher found no substantial evidence to back such a claim.

We must be careful not to judge the Comma as unfounded due to the fact that it is only 8 manuscripts; numbers are a misleading in the search for the authenticity of this text: "...in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage."⁵ Although it is a staggering fact, we must remember that textual criticism (to which the Westcott-Hort greek is devised is exactly what KJV-Onlyites attack) is the reason this text is not present in any modern translation.

Is it valid?

I found nothing conclusive to determine that it cannot be treated, and sourced, as the Word of God. Much as the conclusion I came to in my first study is that of a rather neutral position. Neither side gives a convincing enough argument to solidify the argument; although, I do believe the advocates for the Comma do provide convincing arguments for it to be treated as Scripture.

I also find weight in the fact that 1 John is in essence a book of promoting good theology. But we have an issue...

Are the two versions reconcilable?

No. I do not believe the verse in the KJV as compared to a modern translation are the same. I actually believe that the KJV version of 1 John 5:7 actually provides an aberration from the surrounding context. The KJV version renders the difference from a testimony from "heaven" to "earth," and no such distinction is made in the NASV. The use of "the Word" as referring to Jesus is consistent with that of John's reference in John 1:1 (although still not enough for a good conclusion). So does this make on translation not valid? I have to meditate more on it.

I have studied this for hours, and I feel as though I have accomplished nothing. I think this is a good reason why we use textual criticism.