heavenly and earthly witnesses - two different usages of pneuma/spirit

Steven Avery

Well-known member
1 John 5:7-8 (AV)
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.

This was discussed earlier on another thread, the following is new.


=================================

Joseph John Gurney (1788-1847)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_John_Gurney

on the two different usages of spirit, (which also affects the capitalization), when Richard Porson mistakenly claimed the Holy Spirit was in both verses.


Remarks on the general tenour of the New Testament, regarding the nature and dignity of Jesus Christ, addressed to Mrs. Joanna Baillie
- Appendix on sir Isaac Newton's suppression of his dissertation on 1 John v. 7. and 1 Tim. iii. 16 (1832 2nd edition)
https://books.google.com/books?id=m6sGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR9

Joseph John Gurney, Esq. Author of Biblical Notes and Dissertations

A difficulty has also been objected as to the right acceptation of the word spirit, in the eighth and the seventh verses. Mr. Porson asks,

“If the spirit, in the eighth verse, refers to the Holy Spirit, what is the sense of the same Spirit witnessing both in heaven and on earth ?”

I see no difficulty in an omnipresent Spirit's witnessing both in heaven and on earth, if the same Spirit were meant in both verses ; but if Augustine, Eucherius, Cassiodorus, and others of the ancient commentators have rightly interpreted (as I conceive they have) the literal sense of the eighth verse, the Holy Spirit is not there meant, but the human Spirit (SA: this should be spirit) of Christ, expiring on the cross.

Again, Mr. Porson asks, “ Why is the epithet [holy,] ” after being twice omitted, added [to Spirit] in the seventh verse ? Beza says,

“In order to distinguish one Spirit from the other, ut ab eo distinguatur cujus sit mentio in sequenti versu."

Perhaps, too, because when the Three Divine Persons are connumerated in the same passage, as in Matth. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, the epithet was usually added. It may also be asked, why, in the original, the expression of unity in the two verses differs, one from the other, both doctrinally and grammatically? The reason appears to be, because in one the unity is essential and real; in the other, adventitious and apparent only; and because the eighth verse is dependent on the seventh, as a relative is on its antecedent.*

* On the grammatical ground of the dependence of the eighth verse on the seventh, see Wolfii Curae Philol. ad locum; the Archbishop of Cherson’s Letter to Matthaei; and Bishop Middleton’s Doctrine of the Greek Article.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
"[To say] that the Father is the same as the Word inside him, and that his Son is the Word inside him is the mark of the heresy of Sabellius.
So again also the saying that the Three are One, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; for this is also of Sabellius."
Eusebius of Caesarea, De Ecclesiastica Theologia 3.3-3.4 (PG 24:1001-1004c).

Steven, is your understanding or interpretation of 1 John 5:7 basically the same as the claimed sayings of Sabellius? Would your interpretation of 1 John 5:7 result in the same basic denial of the Trinity to which the sayings of Sabellius would lead? Perhaps Sabellius and Eusebius were not even referring to 1 John 5:7 since the saying of Sabellius does not match what is stated in the verse. Have you clearly demonstrated that your unpresented "oneness" view is that much different from the conclusion to which the sayings of Sabellius would lead?

The sayings of Sabellius do not make good sense, and there are serious scriptural problems with his sayings. According to Sabellius' sayings, there would not be three Heavenly witnesses [three persons], but only one. The Scriptures do not teach that the Father and the Son [the Word] are identical to each other or are the same person. God the Father is not identical to the Son or the Word. God the Father is a person. The Son or the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, is also a person distinct from the Father. God the Father was not born of a virgin. God the Father was not baptized by John the Baptist. God the Father did not die on the cross. It has not been soundly demonstrated that the sayings of Sabellius are taught in 1 John 5:7. Why would 1 John 5:7 supposedly be omitted because of the nonsense sayings of Sabellius?

In 1 John 5:7, there are three Greek nouns [translated the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost in the KJV] that identify three heavenly witnesses. William D. Mounce observed: "A noun is a word that stands for someone or something (i.e., a person, place, or thing)" (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 46). Do these three Greek nouns refer to three someones (three persons) or to three somethings (three things)? It is should be clear that "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" would refer to three persons, and not to three things. These three persons are one God, not three things are one God. To try to claim that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are one identical person would seem to be to try to deny that they are "three." How would these three be three heavenly witnesses if they were supposedly only one person? Why suggest that Holy Ghost should be capitalized if it does not refer to a person?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
s
Steven, is your understanding or interpretation of 1 John 5:7 basically the same as the claimed sayings of Sabellius?

Thanks for bumping up this thread.

Do you have any actual quotes from Sabellius, rather than his opponents?
It is quite tricky to work with an opponent's representation, which is often skewed.

Your question is moved to the proper Trinity forum.

the heavenly witnesses verse and the Trinity doctrine
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the-heavenly-witnesses-verse-and-the-trinity-doctrine.9788/
 

logos1560

Well-known member
It is quite tricky to work with an opponent's representation, which is often skewed.
Do you claim that it is tricky to work with Edward F. Hills' representation of Sabellius' view?

Is that true of your typical representation [sometimes distortion and misrepresentation] of the statements of posters with which you disagree?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Do you claim that it is tricky to work with Edward F. Hills' representation of Sabellius' view?
Is that true of your typical representation [sometimes distortion and misrepresentation] of the statements of posters with which you disagree?

Anything about Sabellius is limited and incomplete, because we have no actual first-person quotes. And I will say that as a Biblicist any representation that says simplistically that the Son is the Father is the Holy Ghost I would find quite questionable. However, I do not know if that was the position of Sabellius.

Your second sentence is jargon.
If you want to accuse me of distortion and misrepresentation, you should be specific.
Vague accusations are not writing with integrity.

From this point on, if you put that type of jargon accusation in your post, I will likely bypass the bulk of the post and just point out the unethical accusation.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
If you want to accuse me of distortion and misrepresentation, you should be specific.
Vague accusations are not writing with integrity.
Are you describing your own vague accusations?

You do not demonstrate that any unethical accusations have been made against you, but it has been demonstrated that in some of your posts you have distorted and misrepresented what other posters state as you try to put words in their mouth that they do not say. The truth was stated concerning some of your accusations against others.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Are you describing your own vague accusations?
You do not demonstrate that any unethical accusations have been made against you, but it has been demonstrated that in some of your posts you have distorted and misrepresented what other posters state as you try to put words in their mouth that they do not say. The truth was stated concerning some of your accusations against others.

You are doing the same unethical writing as the last post.
 

Conan

Active member
It is clear the Comma does not belong.
5:1Whosoever beleveh that Iesus is Christ is borne of god. And every one that loveth him which begat loveth him also which was begotten of him.
5:2In this we knowe that we love the children of god when we love god and kepe his comaudementes.
5:3This is the love of god that we kepe his comaundemetes and his comaundementes are not greveous
5:4For all that is borne of god over commeth the worlde. And this is the victory that overcometh the worlde even oure fayth.
5:5Who is it that overcommeth the worlde: but he which beleveth that Iesus is the sonne of god?
5:6This Iesus Christ is he that cam by water and bloud not by water only: but by water and bloud. And it is the sprete that beareth witnes because the sprete ys trueth.
5:8For there are thre which beare recorde , the sprete and water and bloud: and these thre are one.
5:9Yf we receave the witnes of men the witnes of god is greater. For this is the witnes of god which he testifyed of his sonne.
5:10He that beleveth on the sonne of god hath the witnes in him silfe. He that beleveth not God hath made him a lyar be cause he beleved not the recorde that god gave of his sonne.
5:11And this ys that recorde how that god hath geven vnto vs eternall lyfe and this lyfe is in his sonne.
5:12He that hath the sonne hath lyfe: and he that hath not the sonne of god hath not lyfe.
5:13These thynges have I written vnto you that beleve on the name of the sonne of God that ye maye knowe howe that ye have eternall lyfe and that ye maye beleve on the name of the sonne of god
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It is clear the Comma does not belong.
5:1Whosoever beleveh that Iesus is Christ is borne of god. And every one that loveth him which begat loveth him also which was begotten of him.
5:2In this we knowe that we love the children of god when we love god and kepe his comaudementes.
5:3This is the love of god that we kepe his comaundemetes and his comaundementes are not greveous
5:4For all that is borne of god over commeth the worlde. And this is the victory that overcometh the worlde even oure fayth.
5:5Who is it that overcommeth the worlde: but he which beleveth that Iesus is the sonne of god?
5:6This Iesus Christ is he that cam by water and bloud not by water only: but by water and bloud. And it is the sprete that beareth witnes because the sprete ys trueth.
5:8For there are thre which beare recorde , the sprete and water and bloud: and these thre are one.
5:9Yf we receave the witnes of men the witnes of god is greater. For this is the witnes of god which he testifyed of his sonne.
5:10He that beleveth on the sonne of god hath the witnes in him silfe. He that beleveth not God hath made him a lyar be cause he beleved not the recorde that god gave of his sonne.
5:11And this ys that recorde how that god hath geven vnto vs eternall lyfe and this lyfe is in his sonne.
5:12He that hath the sonne hath lyfe: and he that hath not the sonne of god hath not lyfe.
5:13These thynges have I written vnto you that beleve on the name of the sonne of God that ye maye knowe howe that ye have eternall lyfe and that ye maye beleve on the name of the sonne of god

Thanks. This shows many of the reasons the heavenly witnesses are part of the original text.
Examples.

The witness of God in verse 9 requires the heavenly witnesses in verse 7 for real context.
You have a wooden repetition from verse 6 to 8.
The amazing parallelism of the heavenly and earthly witnesses is virtually impossible to be the result of simply margin notes.

Then there are the problems in the Greek text that are solved with the full verse, starting with the grammatical gender solecism.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
A diversionary, false accusation on your part.
Here is the ethical way you could make accusations, rather than just giving us worthless jargon.

=======

First, the person who feels they are misrepresented puts in a post, with my full quote, and says specifically the supposed misrepresentation.

This allows me to respond directly, and the question can be hashed out. Readers thus can come to their conclusions.

Then, if you have carefully checked, you could come in with rah-rah support, making sure you include the url that has my response after the accusation.

========

Instead you just make worthless jargon accusations.

========

Now, since most of the posters are hostile to the AV as the pure word of God, readers will see that such complaints, if they occur, are often little more than word-parsing and posturing.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Now, since most of the posters are hostile to the AV as the pure word of God, readers will see that such complaints, if they occur, are often little more than word-parsing and posturing.
You fail to prove your accusation against "most of the posters" to be true. You provided no direct quotations from "most of the posters" that back up your worthless accusation. You do not practice what you preach.

As I do, most posters may accept the 1611 KJV as what it actually is--the word of God translated into English in the same sense and way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are and in the same sense and way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are. The KJV is an English Bible translation in the same sense as other English Bible translations such as the pre-1611 English Bibles.

The Scriptures do not teach that errors introduced by men in editions of the KJV including in the 1611 edition are "the pure word of God" and that the many words added by men in editions of the KJV are "the pure word of God." You make a claim for the KJV that you fail to prove to be true and a claim that would conflict with clear scriptural truths. You do not demonstrate that the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611 proceed directly from the mouth of God by inspiration to prophets and apostles. Your human KJV-only reasoning may be on display. Disagreeing with unproven and incorrect claims for the KJV would not be being "hostile" to the KJV. Perhaps you are being hostile towards any believer that chooses to disagree with your human opinions. Perhaps you were posturing when you claimed to be a Biblicist as you advocate and state some KJV-only opinions that the Scriptures do not state.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Now, since most of the posters are hostile to the AV as the pure word of God,

Were the makers of the KJV hostile to it being claimed to be the perfect, pure word of God? Were the KJV translators being hostile to their own translation when they suggested that it could be tried to by the standard of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages and that any blemishes or imperfections or anything halting or not so agreeable to the original in it could be corrected by that standard? Were they being hostile to their own revision/translation when they indicated that it is the word of God translated into English in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles that they were revising are?

Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds (1549-1607) "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). Mordechai Feingold cited where John Rainolds wrote: “We must diligently give ourselves to reading and meditating of the holy scriptures in tongues in which they were written by the holy Spirit” (Labourers, p. 14). Feingold also cited where John Rainolds asked: “Are not they blind, who prefer a translation, and such a translation before the original?” (p. 121). In a sermon on Roman 1:16, Miles Smith (?-1624) referred to “the fountain of the prophets and apostles, which are the only authentic pen-men, and registers of the Holy Ghost” (Sermons, p. 75). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.” Earlier on the third page of this preface, Miles Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.” Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or no so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indured with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.” In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Bishop Thomas Bilson (1546-1616) also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ Thomas Bilson wrote: “That out of the original sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue.”

If the 1611 edition of the KJV was the absolutely perfect, pure word of God, how could it have blemishes and imperfections (impurities) that needed to be corrected?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
As I do, most posters may accept the 1611 KJV as what it actually is--the word of God translated into English in the same sense and way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are and in the same sense and way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

"May accept" means nothing. You can not quote even one other poster who makes that claim. And many use and support the modern versions, whose corrupt critical text omits about 45 verses. We do not even know if you accept the corrupt critical text as pure scripture.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Were the makers of the KJV hostile to it being claimed to be the perfect, pure word of God?

None of them used or supported the corrupt Vaticanus-primacy text which omits about 45 verses.

Do you believe the AV is the perfect, pure word of God?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
None of them [the makers of the KJV] used or supported the corrupt Vaticanus-primacy text
You do not prove your unsupported statement to be true.

Do you ignore or dodge the fact that KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes took or cited a verse from the Latin Vulgate (which is on the KJV-only view's corrupt stream of Bibles) as the text of some of his sermons? [Andrewes also cited the verse in English often from the Geneva Bible] Are you unaware of the fact that the makers of the KJV made use of editions of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome? Do you dodge the fact that the makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Rheims New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate (both the 1582 Rheims and Latin Vulgate of Jerome are on the KJV-only view's corrupt line of Bibles)?

Some KJV-only authors make assertions that would conflict with your claim.
In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams asserted the following as one of his criteria for translating: “Under no circumstances should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Mickey Carter listed the 1582 Douay [Rheims] on his “corrupted tree” of Bibles (Things That Are Different, p. 104). H. D. Williams maintained that “the Douay-Rheims Bible is based upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate” (Word-for-Word, p. 42). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Peter Ruckman referred to “the Greek text of Rome (Jesuit Rheims)” (King James Onlyism, p. 46). Peter Ruckman mentioned “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204). James Sightler maintained that Jerome “gave us the Latin Vulgate which was based on Greek manuscripts of the Vaticanus type” (Testimony Founded, p. 12). James Sightler claimed: “Jerome had used manuscripts resembling B and Aleph to prepare the Vulgate,” and “There are many other instances where the Rheims-Douay approaches the reading of the critical text” (pp. 130, 131). J. J. Ray asserted: “In the minds of those who are well informed; the Latin Vulgate; the Vaticanus; the Sinaiticus; the Hexapla; Jerome; Eusebius; and Origen; are terms which are inseparable” (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 19). J. J. Ray claimed that “Jerome’s Vulgate is largely in agreement with these two manuscripts [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus]” (p. 20). Terence McLean alleged: “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate came directly from the fifty Bibles made up by Eusebius from the deity-denying text of Adamantius Origen” (History of Your Bible, p. 32). James Rasbeary declared: “The Douay-Rheims is, of course, very corrupt, just like its source text and the men that translated it” (What’s Wrong, p. 137). James Rasbeary alleged that “they [two ancient manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] are no different than the Catholic Vulgate produced by Jerome” (p. 160).
 

Conan

Active member
None of them used or supported the corrupt Vaticanus-primacy text which omits about 45 verses.

Do you believe the AV is the perfect, pure word of God?
Oh yes they did. They used its Septuagint Text as marginal notes in some Apocraphal Books. They used what they had access to.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
None of them used or supported the corrupt Vaticanus-primacy text
Are you claiming that KJV translator John Bois made no use of his copy of the 1587 Rome Septuagint (whose Septuagint text is likely primarily from the Vaticanus) and which has his own annotations written in his own hand?

Jeffrey Alan Miller asserted that "it [referring to Bois' own copy of the 1587 Septuagint] appears to have been used by Bois during his work as a translator both with the Second Cambridge Company and as a later member of the general, revisory meeting" (Feingold, Labourerers in the Vineyard of the Lord, p. 221).

Could the KJV's rendering "pygarg" (Deut. 14:5) be the result of consulting the Greek Septuagint's rendering "pygargos" or the Latin Vulgate's rendering "pygargus" from likely influence of the Septuagint or both?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
None of them used or supported the corrupt Vaticanus-primacy text which omits about 45 verses.

Do you believe the AV is the perfect, pure word of God?

The 45 verses is clearly a New Testament reference, negating the responses above.

The Authorized Version is NOT a Vaticanus-primacy text in the OT, it is Hebrew Masoretic Text primacy. (Vaticanus has a major status for one of the competing Greek OT texts.) Of course, the Hebrew grammars like that of David Kimhi, the Greek OT, the Latin Vulgate, likely the Syriac Peshitta and the Targums and Midrashim were among the sources that helped with any Hebrew words that needed precision translation.

So I will skip the comments above that somehow thought this was an OT reference.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The 45 verses is clearly a New Testament reference, negating the responses above.
Your broad-sweeping generalization concerning the KJV translators was soundly demonstrated to be factually incorrect. Your statement ["None of them used or supported the corrupt Vaticanus-primacy text which omits about 45 verses"] was stated concerning the Church of England makers of the KJV, and it was incorrect.

Subjective KJV-only advocates seek to negate, dismiss, or dodge actual facts that conflict with or contradict their inconsistent, misleading, one-sided, and unproven claims. Perhaps they desire to avoid facts concerning the Latin Vulgate-added readings by Erasmus and facts concerning the KJV translators' borrowing of many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

Do they deal with all the facts of the whole verse differences in the varying imperfect Textus Receptus editions and in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision? Do they distort or distinguish scriptural truth when they allege omissions while ignoring the possibility of additions? According to scriptural truth, it would be just as wrong to add to the word of God as it would be to omit from it.

By use of the fallacy of begging the question, is one 1611 translation that had some imperfections assumed to be the standard for whether words are omitted or added when all Bible translations add some words for which they have no original-language words of Scripture and omit some words for which they have original-language words of Scripture?
 
Last edited:
Top