Originally posted by Alliance
Ok. Then can you hurry up an leave this world? If you are only part of the kingdom of god..go there."his word will never fail us" 😆 his "word" never did anyhting for you.
🙂 And how would you know that His word nas never done anything for me. Like thousands of other people I have testimony of the power of His Word working in my life and in those of others. But wait....it can't be God, it must be some kind of Christian conspiracy.... 😆
Originally posted by Atlantis001
What about the books of the Hebrews that are not accepted such as the apocrypha, like the Nag Hammadi and other books... the kabbalah.... or the gnostic scriptures.... They are all branches of the Jewish culture. If they were not accepted, them some branches were indeed cut off...
Originally posted by debbiejo
Actually Sonnet, the letters from Paul go against Jesus and the OT..................who are you following?
Originally posted by sonnet
These books were not included because they were simply not inspired by God and the Spirit of God gave this knowledge to the people who compiled the books of the Bible so that it would stay the divine word of God and not of men. The Jewish branches of culture had nothing to do with the compilation of the Bible and are of no relevance for that matter. God was in fact the spiritual author.
But the bible says that the Old Laws were supposed to be preserved, and it was not... branches were cut off.
If branches were cut off, then the Law was not preserved.
Originally posted by sonnet
These books were not included because they were simply not inspired by God and the Spirit of God gave this knowledge to the people who compiled the books of the Bible so that it would stay the divine word of God and not of men.
And who the heck determined this?
It sure as heck wasn't god, because if these books weren't inspired by his word, why were they written by him (or indirectly through humans) in the first place?
Originally posted by Alliance
And who the heck determined this?It sure as heck wasn't god, because if these books weren't inspired by his word, why were they written by him (or indirectly through humans) in the first place?
Originally posted by Alliance
And who the heck determined this?It sure as heck wasn't god, because if these books weren't inspired by his word, why were they written by him (or indirectly through humans) in the first place?
However, yes, men decided on the canon, and left out parts of the Bible that I personally believe should be apart of it (names the Books of Enoch), and the Protestant church later took out the Apocrypha which could easily have been left in (not really a big deal though). However, I believe that these men were directed and inspired by God in accepting the canon. There right in leaving out the Gnostics texts.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
But the bible says that the Old Laws were supposed to be preserved, and it was not... branches were cut off.If branches were cut off, then the Law was not preserved.
* here's what i found:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second."
Hebrews 8:7
"In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
Hebrews 8:13
* we should NOT cling on the Old Testament that much, for we will be like the Jews who crucified Jesus and never believed on Him... the Old Testament Laws was only for whom?
"Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel."
Malachi 4:4
* the Old Laws were only for all Israel... in the time of Christ, He amended and perfected these Old Laws to create a New one... for example:
"You shall not kill."
Exodus 20:13
* this law was amended and perfected by Christ...
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.
But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, You fool! shall be liable to the hell of fire."
Matthew 5:21-22
* if the Old Laws were amended, to whom or what should we listen to?
"He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
Matthew 17:5
* the Father spoke from the heaven and said that we should listen to His Son -> Jesus Christ... 😉
"The time is coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant... It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers..."
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people... the will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Jeremiah 31:31-34
Jesus made a new covenant with us through the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on everyone who believes, not just rulers and prophets.
Originally posted by peejayd
* ooopps, sorry, got carried away... i just want to say that the name of God is the tetragrammaton YHWH and not Jehovah... and we should call God as "Father"... so there... 🙂* yes, i do... and the verse mr.jesusisalive gave -> I John 5:7 is NOT included in the original manuscripts of the Bible... 😉
1 John 5:7 - KJV "Errors"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
First John five-seven is sometimes referred to as a "mis-translation" in the Authorized KJV Bible. It is not a mistranslation. This "error" myth has been perpetuated by some who are under the false impression that this verse (and other KJV texts) is in reference to the Roman Catholic Trinity/Doctrines. In fact, this is one of the most powerful verses in the Bible attesting to the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only true God (I John 5:20). It is said by some that this text is "not part of the original Greek". But the fact of the matter is that this text is indeed found in the original Greek. Scriptural evidence for inclusion of this and other disputed verses is well documented. Manuscripts which pre-date the corrupt Latin Vulgate corroborates the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible. The articles below should help put to rest any misconceptions about this verse and other so-called KJV "errors".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING JAMES VERSION "ERRORS"
The Father and The Word and The Holy Ghost Are One - by David Terrell
THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD AGREES - by David Terrell
One Baptism, One God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Johannine Comma: 1 John 5:7
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)
Having already briefly commented on just a few of the problems with the "Westcott and Hort Methodology", I should now take this opportunity to present the alternative to their errant theories, and then apply this alternative to the Johannine Comma. ("Commata" were the original commas, indicating the end of a phrase. According to James A. Kleist, in "Colometry and the New Testament", Classical Bulletin, iv, 1928, pp. 26, there was no mark like our present comma, but a group of words isolated as a single group was a "comma". Groups of these would be "commata". Hence the classification of the group of words in 1 John 5:7 as a "comma".)
At the same time that WH were doing their research, there was another man doing his own research. He had at his disposal all of the resources available to WH. He devoted the last 30 years of his life to an examination of the false statements being made by the reigning Critics of his day.
He personally examined the Vatican ms B, he travelled to Mt. Sinai to personally examine the mss there, and he made several tours of European libraries, examining and actually collating NT mss as he went. At the same time he was compiling his massive Index of NT Quotations in the Church Fathers which is now deposited in the British Museum. He received B.A., M.A., and B.D., degrees from Oxford University, was appointed professor of divinity at Oxford in 1867, and was appointed Dean of Chichester in 1876. Through all of his works runs his fundamental thought: that the textual criticism of the NT must be according to the analogy of faith, and because of this it must be different from the textual criticism of any other book. As a result of this lifetime of labor and research and travel, John William Burgon set forth what he called the
"Seven Tests of Truth for NT Criticism".
1) Antiquity, or Primitiveness
2) Consent of Witnesses, or Number
3) Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity
4) Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight
5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition
6) Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context
7) Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness
In summary, he says about these Seven Notes, "...although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No Test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength resides in their cooperation." The very fact of competing variants means that some of the notes, at least, cannot be satisfied in full measure.
I shall apply these Seven Notes to the Johannine Comma, and by them it will be seen that there is a case for the inclusion of this important verse in the text of our Scriptures. As Burgon states further, "Undeniable as it is, (a) that ancient documents do not admit of being placed in scales and weighed; and (b) That if they did, the man does not exist who is capable of conducting the operation." For this reason, I will apply the Tests to 1 John 5:7 on a "pass or fail" basis.
Again by way of clarification, let me say that I am not defending its inclusion in the TR, but in the KJV. Whethor or not you can divorce the two in your own mind is unimportant - they remain separate, though related. No writer that I know of has claimed infallibility for the TR, although a great many have claimed the same for the KJV.
The Test of Antiquity
Any reading, in order to be a serious candidate for the original, should be old. A word of caution in this respect is quite in order, however. On the surface, the "oldest is best" philosophy has sound reasoning as its basis. The problem is that there is much more to judging the age of the reading than simply ascertaining the actual age of the ms. Or, in other words, the oldest reading does not necessarily reside in the oldest mss. The most significant variants in the mass of textual sources came into being before 200 AD. As one competent judge stated, "It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the NT has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed." As a rule, at least fifty years must be assumed to have transpired between the penning of the inspired originals and the earliest written representation of them now extant. It was precisely in that first age that men would have been least careful or accurate in guarding the source, since most of them probably had no idea that the documents in their hands would prove to be additions to God's written revelation. Thus, while in this age they would have been least critically exact in their quoting of the sources, at the same time the enemy of truth would have been most restless and most assiduous in procuring its depravation. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the earliest shreds and scraps of quotations of the NT scriptures are not only disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character, and their vagueness, but they are often demonstrably inaccurate.
The point in all of this is that it is not the oldest DOCUMENT for which we search, but the oldest READING. That they are often not one and the same must be recognized in order to prevent that mistake from being made. So, in presenting the case for antiquity with regard to 1 John 5:7, my point is that not only can the age of the reading be demonstrated by a single early witness, but also by the agreement of a number of later independent witnesses, since their common source would have to be a good deal earlier.
Now, to specifics, the evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma is found in the following sources (some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):
1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)
3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)
4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)
5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)
6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)
7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of [Christ] ... against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)
B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)
C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)
8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)
9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse
10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse
11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse
12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse
13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin
14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse
15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse
16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.
From this it is seen that the case for antiquity extends at the earliest to Tertullian in 200 AD. The importance of Patristic evidence in the consideration of the antiquity of a given passage is significant. As Dean Burgon points out, these men often comment upon, freely quote, and habitually refer to the words of inspiration, especially when defending doctrine from attack. By this it comes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of scripture becomes producible. They thus testify in ordinary quotations to the existence of the readings in the ms copies they used. Indeed, very often the mss in their hands, which live in their quotations, are older, perhaps centuries older, than any copies that now survive. The antiquity being therefore established, it is seen that the text passes the first test. But antiquity alone does not suffice...
The Test of the Consent of Witnesses
By this is meant the simple counting of the available witnesses. In this case, of course, the witnesses are in the minority against the remaining mass of mss and various other sources. However, this does not prove the case one way or the other. Were there only one or two or three witnesses for the text, then I should say that it would fail. Since there are at least 25 witnesses, it cannot be ruled to have failed this test, although it remains by far in the minority.
The Test of the Variety of Evidence
By variety is meant, in the first place, geographical locations, but also the different kinds of witness; i.e, mss, Fathers, Versions, lectionaries, etc. Burgon states the obvious, saying "Speaking generally, the consentient testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of witnesses proceeding from the same locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of sympathy, and possibly some degree of collusion." By examining the variety, we are able to render a better judgement as to the independence of the witnesses. Since the above stated witnesses vary geographically from North Africa to Italy to Asia, and vary in source from Fathers to versions to mss, the text passes this test also.
The Test of Continuity
By this is meant to what degree the attestation to a given reading occurs throughout the ages of its transmission. If the history of the transmission of the text was at all normal, we would expect that the original wording would leave traces of its existence and of its use all down the ages. Where there is variety, there is almost always continuity, but the two are not identical. By examining the given list of witnesses, it is seen that the continuity is most pronounced, in that the reading appears consistently throughout history from 200 AD to 1500 AD, before Erasmus compiled the TR. Again, the text passes.
The Test of the Respectability of Witnesses
Whereas the previous four Notes have centered on the reading, this one centers on the witness itself. By it, the credibility of a witness is judged by its own performance. Burgon gives a further description, "Respectability is of course a relative term, but its use and applicability to this department of science will be generally understood and admitted by scholars, although they may not be altogether agreed as to their authorities." Among the witnesses listed, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, the orthodox African writers, and the Waldensian Bibles would stand out as respectable to most objective critics, and some of the Latin as well. On that basis, the text again passes.
The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage
This test does not concern itself with what is usually understood by the term "context", but is concerned rather by the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. It is a specific and limited application of the previous Test of Respectability. Burgon says, "As regards the precise form of language employed, it will be found also a salutary safeguard against error in every instance, to inspect with severe critical exactness the entire context of the passage in dispute. If in certain Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a very corrupt state, then it becomes self-evident that those Codexes can only be admitted as witnesses with considerable suspicion and reserve." Under this test then, it is not the general character of the witness that is under examination, but the particular passage in dispute. In that regard, all of the above stated witnesses in ms form exhibit unsullied integrity in these first few verses of 1 John 5.
The Test of Internal Considerations
This note has nothing to do with the "internal evidence" about which WH have been so eloquent. There is nothing so subjective as transcriptional probability and intrinsic probability meant here, but instead has to do with grammatical, geographical, and logical considerations. Or, in other words, the FACTS of the passage. In this particular case, if we omit the Comma, we are faced with tremendous grammatical difficulties. If we leave the verse as it stands in most Greek texts, we are given "witnesses" (hoy marturountes) in verse 7 which are masculine, with three neuter nouns in verse 8 (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to aima), which are then said to agree as one. In other words, by the rule of Greek syntax known as the "power of attraction" which says that the masculines among a group control the gender of a neuter connected with that group, we are given three masculine witnesses which are supposed to agree as one neuter witness. This is a grammatical impossibility. The genders don't match. On the other hand, if you accept the Comma as a part of the text, you would have two masculine subjects (the Father and the Word, "ho patare, ho logos"😉 to agree with the masculine witnesses. (I hated this stuff when I was taking Greek - I can't believe I'm having to deal with it again!) It is therefore seen that on the basis of internal considerations the inclusion of the text is a must in order to avoid violating basic Greek grammar.
As one last consideration which has nothing to do with any of the Tests of Truth, but would actually delve into the intrinsic probability desired by WH in their theories, the formula of the Comma does not lend itself to the idea that it is a trinitarian interpolation which arose from a private interpretation of verse 8. It seems obvious that the phrase "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost," is not at all compatible with the standard trinitarian formula "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Why does it exhibit the singular combination not seen anywhere else in scripture by the use of "Word" instead of "Son"? It is always said that the person who made this up was attempting to buttress the doctrine of the Trinity, yet with this as his main concern it is quite unlikely that he would abandon the time-honored formula and invent an entirely new one.
The fact is that the use of "Word" is consistent with the apostle John's style. In the second place, the omission of the Comma seems to leave the passage incomplete for more reasons than just the grammatical. It is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four. See Pr 30, Amos 1:3,6,9,13 etc; the visions of the butler and baker in Ge 40; the combination of the words of Christ in Mt 12:40. It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5, the formula "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.
From the Tests of Truth, and these last observations, it is quite apparent that there is indeed a case for the inclusion of the text in our Bibles. As to how strong a case, I leave to the reader's individual judgement. I do not say that it is all conclusive, but on the other hand by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should NOT be included. In the case of the accusation against the KJV, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, whose responsibility it is to prove his case that the inclusion of the verse is a textual error. No such case has been proven. The evidence I have given at the very least is enough to throw the shadow of doubt on the accusation itself, which therefore precludes its ability to be proven. On the basis of the external evidences alone, it is at least possible that the Johannine Comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek NT text, but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin speaking church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability when the internal evidences are considered.
Originally posted by Nellinator
"The time is coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant... It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers..."
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people... the will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Jeremiah 31:31-34Jesus made a new covenant with us through the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on everyone who believes, not just rulers and prophets.
So technically God does change his mind....I was always taught that God was unchanging, and thinks the SAME every moment of his fictional existance...
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So technically God does change his mind....I was always taught that God was unchanging, and thinks the SAME every moment of his fictional existance...
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.Debbiejoe, who has bewitched you? You continue to spout damnable heresies about the writings of the New Testament calling it the word of Paul instead of Scripture. You are adding to the Scriptures stating that Paul's teachings go against Jesus. Futhermore, you are taking away from Scripture when you state that Paul corrupted the Scriptures. You are going to give account in the day judgment for every idle word that you speak.
Here are your own words:
The Bible states:
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!You say there are no sins, the Bible states that Jesus came to take away the sin of the world. Who is right you or God's Word?
1 John 1:7-8
But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
To deny that sin exists is to be deceived. Debbiejoe are you deceived?
John 8:21
Then Jesus said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come.”John 8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”Jesus believes that sin/sins exist why don't you?
You constantly spout that Paul's writings contradict Jesus' teachings but yet you fail to furnish any evidence of this. Does the apostle Paul believe in the existence of sin? Let us put the nail in the coffin. The Bible says that in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. I have just given you two witnesses: the words of the apostle John and the words of Jesus Christ Himself (that is two witnesses). I have already met the standard for substantiating testimony. But I will yet add the words of Paul himself whom you frequently and falsely accuse go against the teachings of Jesus.
1 Corinthians 15:3
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,Three witnesses (the Lord Jesus, the apostle Paul, and the apostle John all declare that sin does in fact exist. You are the only one that denies this fact.
I could enumerate as well as refute every one of your heresies. But why bother, I just wanted to show this one example of your many heresies to exonerate the apostle Paul. I could do this with all of your heresies. But this one speaks volumes in itself and is representative of all of your heresies especially against Paul. This one heresy is false and so it is safe for me to conclude that all of your heresies are false as well. There is nothing more for me to say.
I rest my case against your false allegations against the apostle Paul. I have proven beyond all vestiges of your doubts that Paul's writings and Jesus' statements are in complete accord and cogently consistent with one another. [/B]
http://www.answers.com/topic/mosaic-law
Hebrew meaning of sin doesn't mention hell..
Then why does Paul condradict so much of Christ?and we know he was literate because he stood up and READ in the temple......Why not have Christ write to us instead.
Perhaps Christ was illiterate.
GOD WANTS US TO BE ILLITERATE!
Originally posted by sonnetCertainly not of Jesus but of Mithra.
. Paul was a instrument .
Originally posted by debbiejo
mr.alliance, never did Saint Paul contradict Christ, ever...super wrong.
Indeed?
Perhaps you wouldn't mind posting some of these "contradictions".
Seeing as how the Bible was "invented by Men" and "controlled", it is remarkable then that you with your vast intellect have some how discovered "contradictions" inside the Bible that all of the people who "put it together" over hundreds of years managed to over look.
Pray-tell what are they?
(having been a supervisor at a Christian bookstore for 2 years, I've done plenty of research, and will be glad to point out to you what is probably just a misunderstood point that Paul was trying to make that you flubbed.)
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Indeed?Perhaps you wouldn't mind posting some of these "contradictions".
Seeing as how the Bible was "invented by Men" and "controlled", it is remarkable then that you with your vast intellect have some how discovered "contradictions" inside the Bible that all of the people who "put it together" over hundreds of years managed to over look.
Pray-tell what are they?
(having been a supervisor at a Christian bookstore for 2 years, I've done plenty of research, and will be glad to point out to you what is probably just a misunderstood point that Paul was trying to make that you flubbed.)
I'm sure that Christian bookstore carried very unbaised books? You misinterpreted debbie's post. She is much more well versed on the subject that I am, I'm shure she'd be happy to point out how she views Paul as a corruptor of Christianity.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
1 John 5:7 - KJV "Errors"[B]"the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
First John five-seven is sometimes referred to as a "mis-translation" in the Authorized KJV Bible. It is not a mistranslation. This "error" myth has been perpetuated by some who are under the false impression that this verse (and other KJV texts) is in reference to the Roman Catholic Trinity/Doctrines. In fact, this is one of the most powerful verses in the Bible attesting to the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only true God (I John 5:20). It is said by some that this text is "not part of the original Greek". But the fact of the matter is that this text is indeed found in the original Greek. Scriptural evidence for inclusion of this and other disputed verses is well documented. Manuscripts which pre-date the corrupt Latin Vulgate corroborates the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible. The articles below should help put to rest any misconceptions about this verse and other so-called KJV "errors".
[/B]
* the I John 5:7 of the King James Version is not in the original manuscript...
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
King James Version
"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
Modern King James Version
"Because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;"
Young's Literal Translation
"And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."
Douay-Rheims Version
"For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."
Webster's Bible
"And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth."
American Standard Version
"For there are three that testify:"
New American Standard Bible
"And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth."
Revised Standard Version
"So we have these three witnesses-"
New Living Translation
"For there are three that testify:"
New International Version
"For there are three that testify:"
English Standard Version
"For they that bear witness are three:"
Darby Bible
"For there are three who testify:"
Hebrew Names Version
"There are three witnesses:"
Good News Bible
"In fact, there are three who tell about it."
Contemporary English Version
* notice the inconsistency of the different translations... however, majority of them do not recognize the same account from the King James Version... because it is not in the original manuscript... 😉