Defending Godhead VS Trinity using 1 John 5:7 KJV
Defending Godhead VS Trinity 1 John 5:7 KJV.
poor fellow! wish God give u the right path and correct understanding of God. 'For your God is One" (not three in one nor one in three).
The Godhead is NOT the Pagan Trinity it is NOT heretical Modalism also known as Sabellianism
Trinity is Pagan Practice of Polytheism in Mainstream Christianity #EndTimes #Apostasy (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
The Godhead is NOT the Pagan Trinity it is NOT heretical Modalism also known as Sabellianism but rather The Godhead exists as itself in scripture defining Jesus Christ as the visible image of God who is Spirit and the Holy Spirit is of the Spirit of Jesus Christ and The Father.
Human wisdom in the form of philosophy wants to make the Godhead into the form and vain imagination of our own thoughts coined: “Trinity”. Frankly, we are incapable of visual conceptualizing the Godhead. But as the Greeks seek wisdom (vain philosophy of man) and the Jews require a sign - but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness. 1 Corinthians 1:24,25 KJV. Just as pagans want to make images and icons of Jesus Christ they also want to conceptualize The Godhead into 3 separate “persons” and say these 3 separate persons are 1.
As I’ve stated over and over - God certainly has an amazing sense of humor in exposing the NASB, ESV, NIV and the other multitude of modern perverted bible translations and now we can see how Trinitarians and their pagan belief in the polytheistic existence of 3 separate gods as 1 is openly exposed and frankly shamefully ridiculed. God does look down from heaven and laugh, Psalm Chapter 2.
In the most dramatic fashion imaginable we find a major champion of my beloved King James Version Bible, Dr. Hinton, Phd Harvard declares 1 John 5:7 KJV is the best proof of the Trinity. Shockingly, in the greatest irony imaginable only a minute few Trinitarians dare agree with Dr. Hinton to support their staunch belief in the pagan concept of the trinity vs the biblical Godhead.
Here’s but a sample of the hundreds of Trinitarians who warn their followers not to use the “honeytrap” of the dreaded King James Version bible 1 John 5:7 KJV as a reliable scripture to support their pagan belief. They contend that not only is 1 John 5:7 KJV not found in the majority text but was also not in the early textus receptus, but was changed after Erasmus had succumbed to the Vatican or as others suggest by Eastern Orthodox churches to avoid confusion with Modalism or Sabellianism.
Prove the Trinity without using 1 John 5:7 KJV
A Spurious Reference to the Trinity Added in 1 John 5 verses 7-8 | United Church of God (ucg.org)
Here we have a laughable - yes, I laugh out loud with God - comment by Don Stewart from Blueletter Bible saying quote:
There’s also striking comments from liars like Blueletter Bible commentary Don Stewart who make outrageous comments like, quote: “This Verse Does Not Belong In Scripture
Although this verse clearly teaches the Trinity, there is serious question as to whether it belongs in Scripture. The evidence for its inclusion in the New Testament is nil. The passage found its way into the King James Version of the Bible by a strange route. Almost every modern translation of Scripture rejects its authority.
It Should Not Be Used To Argue For The Trinity
Consequently this verse should not be used in discussion about the Trinity. There is sufficient evidence in the Scripture with respect to the Trinity without appealing to 1 John 5:7.
Although 1 John 5:7, as it reads in the King James Version, is a clear Trinitarian statement, there does not seem to be much chance that it is original with First John. This verse should not be used in discussions concerning the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. There is sufficient evidence in Scripture for the Trinity without appealing to 1 John 5:7.
Does 1 John 5:7 Teach the Trinity? (blueletterbible.org)
Here are a few others:
CARM trying to prove KJV is not copied from reliable manuscripts - a sure sign of the Nicolaitan influence of believing in and repeating like a parrot the apostate teachings of the Greek - Jewish - Philosophy Gnosticism from Alexandria. Read FINAL AUTHORITY by Dr. Grady for a thorough understanding of how the early church changed with the influx of the Gnostics in the 3rd century.
1 John 5:7-8 and King James Onlyism | The Comma Johanneum (carm.org)
Although I strongly disagree with Dr. Hinton that the Godhead is the Trinity, I’m blessed to have his work to support the accuracy of the King James Version and to basically prove the King James Version did not “spuriously” add or wasn’t forced by the Vatican to add or didn’t succumb to Eastern Orthodox force to add Trinity language to 1 John 5:7 .
Here in reference link:
1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three are One" (Trinity/Godhead) (av1611.com)
Dr. Hinton quotes Dr. Holland:
"...it is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.
While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.
...The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report. " End quote...
NOTE: The False Modern Bible followers also believe that major portions of the book of Mark 16:9-20 were also added later and not official canonized scripture... Read "Final Authority by Dr. Grady to understand the hand of the Vatican behind this.
Although most scholars agree that 1 John 5:7 KJV is the "“trinity formula” even though they like or dislike the KJV, and yet the modern translations obscure this language and especially the Catholic Bible. Compare the KJV, The NASB, ESV, NIV, and The Catholic Bible: NOTE: This reveals 2 major blunders of the Nicolaitans: 1. They expose their false translation as well as expose their made up doctrine of trinity that is not even in scripture.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” KJV
For there are three that testify:
NASB NIV and ESV
1 John 5:7: So there are three witnesses,
Eastern/ Greek Orthodox
Since the PAGAN Trinity came from the third century Alexandrian Greek and gnostic Jews and adapted by the Vatican I found it amazing the Catholic Church Bible translation of 1 John 5:7
Knowing full well from years of studying this subject I was very disappointed to see Dr. Hinton and Holland would profess the KJV as supporting Trinity when in fact the early church fathers through the early church were staunchly opposed to it as Dr. Grady in FINAL AUTHORITY documents thoroughly. Further research led me to find numerous conflicting reports and studies regarding why the KJV translators would use such language not found in the majority text manuscripts and supposedly earlier revisions of the Textus Receptus of Erasmus - to include a last minute "spurious" add by Erasmus to appease the Vatican demand. To the editing of the Textus Receptus by the Eastern Orthodox to protect the church from
Some studies proclaim the reason the KJV uses the so-called Trinity Formula was they were forced by the Vatican to inject 1 John 5;7 KJV. But Dr. Hinton’s study refutes this and by sheer common logic - why would the Vatican insist on manuscripts they were opposed to and in fact completely different from their own bible translations? Why would Eastern Orthodox insist on changes to the textus recptus when they avoid involvement with the English translations.
I'd be remiss if I failed to add to this study the Some studies like the note below suggest that it was the Eastern Greek Orthodox who wanted to dispel the heresy of Modalism and insisted the “trinity formula” be added. .
But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles. and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply (removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.
Chick.com: Is 1 John 5:7 not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the KJV?
Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," Sabellianism
In Christianity, Sabellianism is the Western Church equivalent to Patripassianism in the Eastern Church, which are both forms of theological modalism. Condemned as heresy, Sabellianism is the belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct persons within the Godhead . Sabellianism - OrthodoxWiki
Letting the dust settle we see clearly there is quite a controversy surrounding the false doctrine of Trinity when brought to light against Scripture. Here we see King James Version defenders saying 1 John 5:7 KJV is the perfect Trinity scripture and otherwise staunch Trinitarians either agreeing against their normal bias against the KJV or flat out denying the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 KJV.
I firmly believe 1 John 5:7, 8 KJV is NOT proving the doctrine of the trinity, but rather proving the OPPOSITE which is the correct biblical doctrine of the Godhead.
Looking closely at 1 John 5:5-8 KJV using context we see clearly the biblical truth of 3 witnesses bear record as one witness - or in other words - 3 bear witness in one accord that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We have to look in the context of verses 5 - 8 to see that in accordance with Deuteronomy 17:6 KJV and Matthew 18:16 KJV etc. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and The Spirit bears witness of this. In heaven 3 bear witness of this and on earth 3 bear witness of this. Verse 7 proves Jesus is the Visible image of God and possesses the Holy Spirit to witness He is come as the Son of God. Verse 8 proves Jesus Christ came to earth as the Son of God by Spirit - Water - Blood and all of these are a testimony of this truth. Amen!
Now looking at the grammar we can see the neuter ev - hen used instead of the masculine adjective: Εἷς heis. (εἷς, μία, ἕν are the three genders (male, female, neutral respectively) of the ancient Greek word. In modern Greek we say ένας, μία ένα. ) .
This would be like telling someone we of one (neuter/neutral designation of one) accord in agreement VS we exist as the one and the same person (masculine or feminine depending on gender of the subject person) in agreement.
strongs 3754 ὅτι - For (conjunction ) τρεῖς - three (subject - nominative masculine adjective ) εἰσιν - there are (verb, present ind. 3rd person plural) μαρτυροῦντες, bearing testimony (verb pres part subj masc pl) - - - οὗτοι - these (dem pronoun - subject masc plural) τρεῖς - three (subject - nom masc adj) ἕν - hen - one (Adj Accus. Neuter Sing) εἰσι - are (verb 3rd pers plural)
Strong's Greek: 1520. εἷς (heis) -- one (biblehub.com)
I am looking for a concise explanation of HEN and HEIS - Ask Greek (learn-greek-online.com)
Take a look at a more detailed exegesis - THE GRAMMAR of “one” in the Greek - why 1 John 5:7 does not prove or even show us the pagan concept of Trinity. LINK
Disclaimer: other than agreeing with their stance against “Trinity” and the correct grammar of the adjective “one” and explaining the usage, I do not endorse or promote the additional comments of this author. “Examingthetrinity”.