Back to Bible Version Reports
Back to the Way of Life Home Page
Way of Life Literature Online Catalog
DEFENDING 1 JOHN 5:7
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service.These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites without express permission from the author. The articles cannot be sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal is not devotional. OUR PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. If you desire to receive this type of material on a regular basis, e-mail us, tell us who you are and where you are located, and request to be placed on the list. Also include your postal address and the name of the church of which you are a member. Please note that this is not a free list. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and you will be expected to participate. To unsubscribe or to submit a change of address send your full name and the request to firstname.lastname@example.org. This is not an automated list. Changes in the database often require two to four days. Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine. David W. Cloud, Editor. O Timothy is a monthly magazine in its 16th year of publication. Subscription is $20/yr. Way of Life Literature, 1701 Harns Rd., Oa k Harbor, WA 98277. The Way of Life web site is http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud. The End Times Apostasy Online Database is located at this web site. (360) 675-8311 (voice), 240-8347 (fax). email@example.com (e-mail)]
August 16, 1998 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277) - James White (author of The King James Only Controversy), D.A. Carson (author of The King James Version Debate), and most other opponents of what they love to label "King James Onlyism," reject the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7 as inspired Scripture. They gloss over the powerful arguments which have led Bible believers to accept 1 John 5:7 as Scripture for centuries on end.
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7).
Most modern versions omit this passage, yet 1 John 5:7 as it reads in the King James Bible stood unchallenged in the English Bible for a full six hundred years. It was in the first English Bible by John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndales New Testament of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Matthews Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishops Bible of 1568, and the Authorized Version of 1611. It did not disappear from a standard English Bible until the English Revised of 1881 omitted it. James White would probably reply, "Sure, Wycliffe translated from the Latin Bible and 1 John 5:7 has always been in the Latin Bible. It was an accident of history. It doesnt mean anything." I believe this history means a lot. THE FACT THAT THE MOST WIDELY USED BIBLES THROUGH THE CENTURIES CONTAINED 1 JOHN 5:7 SPEAKS VOLUMES TO ME. It tells me that God had His hand in this, that it is preserved Scripture. Were the countless preachers, theologians, church and denominational leaders, editors, translators, etc., who accepted the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7-8 of these English Bibles through all these long centuries really so ignorant? What a proud generation we have today! White is correct when he states that long tradition in itself is not proof that something is true, but he ignores the fact that long tradition CAN BE an evidence that something is true, and if that tradition lines up with the Word of God, it is not to be discarded. "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set" (Proverbs 22:28). There are many reasons for believing 1 John 5:7 was penned by the Apostle John under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but Whites readers are not informed of this fact and are left with an insufficient presentation of this issue.
White ignores the scholarly defense of the Trinitarian passage published by Frederick Nolan in 1815--An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin. This 576-page volume has been reprinted by Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. The Southern Presbyterian Review for April 1871, described Nolans book as "a work which defends the received text with matchless ingenuity and profound learning."
White ignores the Christ-honoring scholarship of 19th-century Presbyterian scholar Robert Dabney, who wrote in defense of the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7 (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Vol. 1, p. 350-390; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1891, reprinted 1967). Dabney was offered the editorship of a newspaper at age 22 and it was said of him that no man his age in the U.S. was superior as a writer. He taught at Union Theological Seminary from 1853 to 1883 and pastored the College Church during most of those years. He contributed to a number of publications, including the Central Presbyterian, the Presbyterian Critic, and the Southern Presbyterian. His last years were spent with the Austin School of Theology in Texas, a university he co-founded. A.A. Hodge called Dabney "the best teacher of theology in the United States, if not in the world," and General Stonewall Jackson referred to him as the most efficient officer he knew (Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, cover jacket, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977 edition of the 1903 original).
White ignores the fact that it was particularly the Unitarians and German modernists who fought viciously against the Trinitarian passage in the King James Bible. For example, in my library is a copy of Ezra Abbots Memoir of the Controversy Respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v.7 (New York: James Miller, 1866). Abbot, Harvard University Divinity School professor, was one of at least three Christ-denying Unitarians who worked on the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881 and the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. Abbot was a close friend of Philip Schaff, head of the ASV project, and was spoken of warmly in the introduction to Schaffs history. According to the testimony of the revisers themselves, the Unitarian Abbot wielded great influence on the translation. Consider the following statement by Matthew Riddle, a member of the ASV translation committee:
"Dr. Ezra Abbot was the foremost textual critic in America, and HIS OPINIONS USUALLY PREVAILED WHEN QUESTIONS OF TEXT WERE DEBATED. ... Dr. Ezra Abbot presented a very able paper on the last clause of Romans 9:5, arguing that it was a doxology to God, and not to be referred to Christ. His view of the punctuation, which is held by many modern scholars, appears in the margin of the American Appendix, and is more defensible than the margin of the English Company. ... Acts 20:28. The Lord is placed in the text, with this margin: Some ancient authorities, including the two oldest manuscripts, read God. ... Dr. Abbot wrote a long article in favor of the reading [which removes God from the text]" (Matthew Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testament, Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Co., 1908, pp. 30,39,83).
Matthew Riddles testimony in this regard is very important as he was one of the most influential members of the American Standard Version committee and one of the few members who survived to see the translation printed. The ASV was the first influential Bible published in America to drop 1 John 5:7 from the text, AND IT DID SO UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A UNITARIAN. White sees no significance to these matters. I see great significance. White, as do most modern version defenders, ignores the direct Unitarian connection with modern textual criticism and with the textual changes pertaining to the Lord Jesus Christ which appear in the modern versions. We have exposed this connection extensively in our book Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy.
White also ignores the scholarly articles defending 1 John 5:7 which have been published since the late 1800s by the Trinitarian Bible Society. He also ignores the excellent defense of 1 John 5:7-8 by Jack Moorman in his 1988 book When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version (Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108). Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse. White also ignores the excellent reply given in 1980 by Dr. Thomas Strouse to D.A. Carsons The King James Version Debate, in which Dr. Strouse provides an overview of the arguments supporting the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the Received Text. Dr. Strouse (Ph.D. in theology from Bob Jones University) is Chairman of the Department of Theology, Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary (717 N. Whitehurst Landing Rd., Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464. 888-482-2287, firstname.lastname@example.org). White also ignores the landmark work of Michael Maynard, author of A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 (Comma Publications, 1855 "A" Ave. #4, Douglas, AZ 85607). It is possible, of course, that he had not seen Maynards book prior to the publication of The King James Bible Controversy. Maynards book basically summarizes the long-standing defense of 1 John 5:7-8 as it exists in the King James Bible, but White pretends that there is no reasonable defense of the Trinitarian passage.
1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture and God has preserved it to us through the centuries.
See also --
"The Authenticity of 1 John 5:7"
"New Book in Defense of 1 John 5:7"
"Vindication of 1 John 5:7"