Steven Avery
Administrator
Heavenly
καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν
and these three are one
Earthly
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν
and these three agree in one
Moreover, the words ‘that one’ (to hen) in verse 8 have no antecedent if verse 7 is omitted,
https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/a-defense-of-1-john.php
(3.) It is observed that there is a variety of reading even in the Greek text, as in v. 7.
Some copies read hen eisi–are one;
others (at least the Complutensian) eis to hen eisin–are to one, or agree in one;
https://marchtozion.com/three-historic-theologians-on-the-johannine-comma/
https://www.youtube.com/live/Gr24EGqnnJ8
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1818514748994379/
The basic argument on Cyprian is nonsense, this comment is interesting.
@antonioterrell354
@TheBiggestJesus ; Yeah... And I also feel the KJV and some others that contain the CJ, actually admit to dishonesty and Trinitarian bias. By translating the Greek "hEN" simply as "one", in 1 Jn. 5:7 to allow Trinitarians to read an ontological oneness into it. Yet, next in verse 8, they're forced by the context of the spirit, water, and blood to reveal the actual meaning of hEN's oneness as "*agree in* one." Whereas, if they were honest and impartial, they would have consistently rendered hEN as "agree in one" in both verses since the passages are in exact parallel to each other.
καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν
and these three are one
Earthly
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν
and these three agree in one
Moreover, the words ‘that one’ (to hen) in verse 8 have no antecedent if verse 7 is omitted,
https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/a-defense-of-1-john.php
(3.) It is observed that there is a variety of reading even in the Greek text, as in v. 7.
Some copies read hen eisi–are one;
others (at least the Complutensian) eis to hen eisin–are to one, or agree in one;
https://marchtozion.com/three-historic-theologians-on-the-johannine-comma/
https://www.youtube.com/live/Gr24EGqnnJ8
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1818514748994379/
The basic argument on Cyprian is nonsense, this comment is interesting.
@antonioterrell354
@TheBiggestJesus ; Yeah... And I also feel the KJV and some others that contain the CJ, actually admit to dishonesty and Trinitarian bias. By translating the Greek "hEN" simply as "one", in 1 Jn. 5:7 to allow Trinitarians to read an ontological oneness into it. Yet, next in verse 8, they're forced by the context of the spirit, water, and blood to reveal the actual meaning of hEN's oneness as "*agree in* one." Whereas, if they were honest and impartial, they would have consistently rendered hEN as "agree in one" in both verses since the passages are in exact parallel to each other.
Last edited: