As for the Septuagint LXX it was picked up and became known simply as the 'Septuagint', but Jerome quickly saw it for what it was, a defective if not outright corrupted text. So did Jesus and the apostles quote from the Septuagint? Lets take a closer look on this...

"There are absolutely NO manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament.

Quotations by Jesus or Paul in new versions’ New Testaments may match readings in the so-called Septuagint, because new versions are from the exact same corrupt fourth and fifth century A.D. Eusebius/Origen manuscripts which underlie the document sold today and called the Septuagint.

These manuscripts are Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus.

According to the colophon on the end of Sinaiticus, it came from Origen’s Hexapla. The others likely did also. Even church historians of questionable character and faith like Jerome, Hort, and Carson, agree that this is probably true.

Origen wrote his Hexapla two hundred years after the life of Christ and the apostles. Yes, the source is at least 200 years AFTER Christ! NIV New Testament and Old Testament quotes may match occasionally because they were both penned by the same hand, Eusebius/Origen. Origen rewrote both Old and New Testament to suit his antichrist and strange Gnostic leanings. New versions take the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts, which are in fact, Origen’s Hexapla, and change the traditional Masoretic Old Testament text to match these. Origen’s Hexapla is a very unsafe source to use to change the historic Old Testament. The preface of the Septuagint marketed today points out that the stories surrounding the B.C. (before Christ) creation of the Septuagint (LXX) and the existence of a Greek Old Testament are based on FABLES.

ALL of the Septuagint manuscripts cited in its concordance were written after A.D. 200 and represent Origen’s Hexapla. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics elaborates, calling "the letter of the pseudo- Aristeas, a manifest forgery and the fragments of Aristobulus highly suspect." It also points out many of the LXX’s Gnostic and antichrist heretical readings.

The fable of the Septuagint arose from the counterfeit and obvious hoax letter intended to deceive, of pseudo-Aristeas. That hoax and perfect deception said that seventy-two scholars were called, around 250 B.C., by Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to create a Greek Old Testament. This Egyptian ruler supposedly asked them a number of questions related to pagan philosophy and pagan theology. If they could answer these questions, they could be on the Septuagint "committee." The fable further states that six Jews from each of the twelve tribes were involved. The word Septuagint means seventy, however, not seventy-two.

The easily verifiable HOAX of the letter of pseudo-Aristeas proves that the Septuagint (LXX) cannot be the word of God for several reasons:

1. Only the tribe of Levi was permitted by God to write the scriptures (1 Chron. 16:4).

2. Any Jew living in or returning to Egypt was in direct disobedience to God’s command in Deuteronomy 17:16. "But he shall not... cause the people to return to Egypt... forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."

3. It contains apocryphal books such as Tobit, The Prayer of Manasses, 2 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees; there are also additions to Esther and Daniel. SOME OF WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN AT THE TIME OF ARISTEAS. Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha and the Jews rejected it also. (Corrupt manuscripts followed by the NIV and NASB contain these false books within the Old Testament text itself!)

4. Origen’s six-column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three were Gnostic occultists.

5. The Septuagint can be traced no farther back in time than to its obvious source of Eusebius and Origen’s Hexapala.

The Stewarton Bible School of Scotland says the following about the Septuagint:
The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament. It is not inspired. Tradition has it that the Septuagint (known also as the LXX because 70 scribes were involved in its production) was written some 250 years before the Christian era. But this is not the case. WAS THERE A PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT? In his book Forever Settled (published by The Bible For Today: 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood. N.J. 08108 USA) Jack Moorman writes that "Paul Kahle ( a famous O.T. scholar) who has done extensive work in the Septuagint does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archtype..."

Anyone notice the culprits which seem to have their hand at each point........."These manuscripts are Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus."

Here's an updated list of omissions now known to be accidental errors, which have crept into the copying streams of Codex Vaticanus (B)and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), which are the basis for most modern critical Greek texts (i.e., Westcott/Hort and Nestle/Aland):

Most modern versions follow the critical texts in either omitting or placing in a footnote these verses and half-verses, which are a part of the Traditional (Byzantine) text, and are found in most copies round the world, from the 4th century onward.
Homoeoteleuton (Aleph/B)

MATTHEW
5:44h.t. x2  (1) ...ς υμας / (2) ...οντων υμας
12:46h.t.  (...λαλησαι, ...λαλησαι)
15:6h.t.  (...αυτου, ...αυτου)
15:8 h.a.  (ΤΩΣ..., ΤΟΙΣ...)
17:20-22 h.a.  (ΤΟΥΤΩ/ΕΤΑΙ..., ΤΟΥΤΟ/ΕΤΑΙ...)
18:11 h.t.  (...-οις, ...-ος)
20:7 h.a.  (και..., και... )
20:16h.t.  (...-τοι, ...-τοι)
20:22 h.t./h.a. (και...-εσθε, και..-εσθε)
21:44h.t.  (θησεται...αυτ-...και, θησεται...αυτ-...και)
23:4h.t.  (...και, ...και)
23:14 h.t.  (...γραμματεις και φαρισαιοι, ..." " " ")
26:3 h.t.  (...και, ...και)
27:35h.t.  (... κληρον, ... κληρον)

MARK
6:33-34 h.t.  (...και, ...και)
8:26-27 h.a.  (MHΔΕ Ε..., MHΔΕ Ε... )
9:49-50 h.t.  (...I ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI, ...I ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI )
10:7 h.t.  (...και, ...και)
11:8 h.t.  (...ΩN KΑI, ...ΟN KΑI)
11:25-26 h.t.  ( ...τα παραπτωματα υμων, ..."" "" )
12:33 h.t.  (...και, ...και)
14:19 h.t.  ( ...Σ MHTI ΕΓΩ, ...Σ MHTI ΕΓΩ)
14:68 h.t.  (...ON KΑI, ...ΕN KΑI)
15:27-29  h.t.  (...και, ...και)

LUKE
4:5 h.t.  ( ...-ον, ...-ον )
5:38-39 h.t.  (α...και, α...και)
6:45 h.t.  ( ...-ου, ...-ου )
8:48 h.t.  ( ...Θ, ...Θ )
9:55-56 h.t.  ( ...και ε, ...και ε )
11:54 h.t.  ( ...αυτου, ...αυτου)
12:39 h.t.  (...-ται, ...και)
17:9 h.t.  ( ...-ω ου, ...-ω ου )
17:24 h.t. ( ...ωπου, ...αυτου )
17:36 h.t. ( ...παραληφθησεται και η ετερα/ος αφεθησεται, ..."" "" )
19:45 h.t. ( ...ουντας , ...οντας )
20:30 h.t. ( ...-ος, ...-ος )
22:68 h.t. ( ...η απο---ητε , ...η απο---ητε )
23:17 h.t. ( ...-αν, ...-αν )
23:23 h.t. ( ...αι--ωνα---ων, ...αι--ωνα---ων )
24:42-43 h.t. ( ...ου --οσ και, ...ου --ου και)
24:51 h.t. ( ...ωνκαια, ...ονκαια )

More:
5:20...ειπεν αυτω ανθρωπε...
6:15 ...Ιακωβον τον του αλφαιου...
7:28 ...Ιωαννουτου βαπτιστου ουδεις...
8:27 ...-σεν αυτω ανηρ τις...
10:27 ...εξ ολης της καρδιας...
10:32 ...λευιτης γενομενος κατα...
11:4 ...πειρασμοναλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου και...
11:48 ...οικοδομειτεαυτων τα μνημεια δια...
13:2 ...αποκριθεις ο Ιησους ειπεν... (prob. Nom. Sacra: EIS O IS)
16:21 ...απο των ψιχιωντων...
17:9 ...ου δοκω ουτω...
19:5 ...ειδεν αυτον και ειπε
23:8 ...πολλα περι...
23:11 ...περιβαλων αυτον εσθητα...
23:35 ...αρχοντες συν αυτοις λεγοντες..
24:12 ...oθονιακειμενα μονα...
24:32 ...ην εν ημιν ως...
24:36a ...αυτος ο Ιησους εστη...(probable Nomina Sacra )
24:36b ...αυτων και λεγει αυτοις ειρηνη υμιν πτοηθεντες...
24:46 ...γεγραπται και ουτως εδει παθειν τον ...

JΟΗΝ
3:13 h.a./h.t.   (ο υς του ανου , ο ωνεν τω ορω )
5:16 h.a.  (και..του..ον..., και..του..ον... )
5:44b h.t.  ( ΜΟΝΟΥΘΥΟΥΖΗΤΕΙΤΕ... )
6:11 h.t.  ( ...τοις, ...τοις )
6:22 h.t.  ( ...ν . οι. μαθηται. αυτου , ...ν . οι. μαθηται. αυτου )
8:59-9:2 h.t. ( ...ου και, ...ως και )
10:12-13 h.a. (ο'δε μισθωτος..., οτι μισθωτος... )
11:41 h.t. ( ...νος , ...ους )
13:31-32 h.t. ( ...ο Θς εδοξασθη εν αυτω, ...ο Θς εδοξασθη εν αυτω )
17:12 h.t. ( ...εντω, ...εγω )
19:16-17 h.t. ( ...ουν και, ...ον και )

ACTS
2:30 h.a. (κα..., κα... )
15:24 h.t. ( ...μων, ...μον )
15:32-35 h.t. ( ...τας αυτους, ...ναι αυτου )
20:15 h.a./h.t. (κατ...ου τη, και...ιω τη )
21:22 h.t. ( ...ι ουν --ιν π--ως, ...ι συν--ιν π--ος )
22:9 h.t. ( ...αντο, ...οντο )
26:29-31 h.t. ( ...ουτων, ...αυτου )

Romans:
9:27-29 h.t. ( ...συντεμνων, ...συντετμημενον)
11:6 h.a. (ει δε...επει ...ουκετι..., ει δε...επει ...ουκετι... )
13:9 h.a./h.t. (ου...-εις, ου...-εις )
14:6 h.t. ( ...φρονων την ημεραν κυριω ... φρονει και ο , ..."" "" )
14:21 h.t. ( ...τει, ...νει )
15:24 h.t. ( ...νιαν, ...υμας )
15:29 h.t. (...του, ...του)

Others:
1st Cor. 10:28 h.a. (και..., και... )
1st Cor 15:52-54 h.a. (το ----τον τουτο ενδυσηται..., "" ""... )
Gal. 3:1 h.a. (τα----μα..., τη----ια... )
Eph. 3:14-15 h.t. ( ...του, ...-του )
Eph. 5:30 h.a./h.t. (εκ...αυτου, εκ...αυτου )
Phil. 3:15-17 h.t. ( ...τω αυτω...-ειν, ...τω αυτω...-ειν )
1st Thess. 3:2 h.a. (και...ον..., και...ον... )
1st Tim. 6:7 h.t. (...ον, ...ον )
Heb. 1:8-9 h.a./h.t. ( τον αιωνα, του αιωνος )
Heb. 7:21-22 h.a. (κατα τ..., κατα τ... )
1st Pet. 4:14 h.t. ( ...υμας ...-εται, ...υμας ...-εται )

Here h.t. stands for homeoteleuton (similar ending causing an eye-skip) and h.a. stands for homeoarchton (a similar beginning of a line).
The notes in brackets show the similar letters/words at each end of an omission. Typically, a modern translation will put the verse or half-verse in the margin or a footnote, with a terse comment that gives no inkling of the nature of the evidence which shows these are accidental deletions. Sometimes a translation will just delete the passage without even a note or clue for the reader that it is now missing.

Notice the culprits always seem to be the same when it comes to deletions or half deletions or outright changes, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus

Well that didnt come through too good..

This is a great explanation.......'ARE THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS WE HAVE TODAY THE BEST?

How important are "early Greek manuscripts"? How do we know we have the "Perfect Law of Liberty"? Can we consider translations as the Word of God, or preserved ancient manuscripts (MSS), or were only the original autographs God's Word? Is the Bible complete?

According to Norman Geisler and William Nix in their book General Introduction to the Bible (pg. 406), the earliest portion of Scripture we have is called p52 (John Rylands Fragment). This fragment was found in Egypt, and it contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. It is a piece of fragment 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 inches and dates from around 117-138 AD, although a fellow named Adolf Deissmann argues that it may be even earlier.

This may be the oldest Greek manuscript. But it is important to consider the oldest translations that were accurately translated from very early Greek MSS. The oldest translations follow the Received Text (TR) of the KJV:

1. The Old Latin Vulgate (AD 157) was used by the Waldenese in N. Italy. Shortly afterwards the French Waldenese received their Gallic Bible (AD 177). The Reformers held that the Waldenese church was formed around AD 120. They gave much blood to protect the True Bible. (Which Bible, pg. 208; The Bible Version Manual, pg. 19; Defending the King James Bible, pg. 45)

2. The Syriac Version (The Peshitta) of AD 150. Called the "Queen of Versions" because of it's beauty and simplicity. There are 177 of these MSS, most in the British Museum. (The Bible Version Manual, pg. 19) This was the translation used by the church at Antioch. It is the Word of God.

God promised to preserve the original letters of Scripture down to the smallest stroke of the pen (Matt 5:18), but He also said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable..." (2 Tim 3:16) If the original was "given by inspiration of God" does not common since dictate that the final ancestor would retain that inspiration. Notice in the verse it says, "IS [not was] given by inspiration", and that it says, "ALL Scripture". That would indicate that every correctly translated word is "given by inspiration of God". So we have the inspired Word of God both in the originally given languages (Hebrew and Greek), and we have it in many other different languages also.

After the Rylands Fragment (p52) the next earliest collection of NT papyri is in the Beatty Museum near Dublin p45, p46, p47. It was written around 250 AD and contains most of the NT. p45 is made up of pieces of 30 leaves of a papyrus codex: 2 from Matt.,2 from John, 6 from Mark, 7 from Luke, and 13 from Acts. The original codex consisted of some 220 leaves. The type of text in Mark is nearer to the Caesarean family. This collection is Alexandrian and Western text-types.

Kurk Aland, however, says, "...the fact [is] that the oldest manuscript does not necessarily have the best text. P47 is, for example, by far the oldest of the manuscripts containing the full or almost full text of the Apocalypse, but it is certainly not the best." (Which Bible, pg. 27) It is a myth that the oldest MSS are best. I can see the logic in thinking the oldest is best, because it is closer to the original autograph. However, this logic does not hold up when we take the early Bible corrupters into account. The most notorious corrupters were Origen (Alexandrian Text) and Eusebius (Western Text).

Principals to note:

1.The oldest manuscripts are not necessarily carefully written.
3.The oldest manuscripts were subject to the greatest corruption.
4.The oldest manuscripts are in perpetual disagreement with each other.
2.The oldest manuscripts extant are not necessarily copied from oldest manuscript master.
(http://www.hutch.com.au/~rlister/bible/mvam1.htm)

The next earliest is called the Bodmer Papyri p66, p72, p75 and dates around 200 AD and is a mixture of Alexandrian and Western text-types.

Here again oldest is not best:

P66 contains portions of the Gospel of John. It has:

* 200 nonsense readings.
* 216 careless readings
* 269 corrections
* 482 singular readings
* 54 leaps forward, 22 backwards
Pickering notes it has "Roughly two mistakes per verse."

P75 contains portions of Luke and John. It has:

* 275 singular readings
* 57 careless readings
* 27 leaps forward, 10 backwards
Pickering notes, "...scarcely a good copy."
(New Age Bible Versions, pg 582)

The next earliest are Uncial codices Codex Vaticanus 325-350 AD.; Codex Sinaiticus 340 AD.; Codex Alexandrinus 450 AD.; Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 345 AD.; Codex Bezae 450 or 550 AD.

A Uncial Codice is a capital letter Classical Greek manuscript. The best manuscripts were the lower case (cursives) Koine Greek of the common people. The Koine Greek MSS are the ones that are in 99% agreement: the Received Text (TR). The original autographs were Koine, not Classical.

Codex Sinaititus (Aleph) (4th Century) "From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written. The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections, a few by the original scribe, very many by an ancient and elegant hand of the 6th Century whose emendations are of great importance, some again by a hand a little later, for the greatest number by a scholar of the 7th Century who often cancels the changes by the 6th Century amender, others by as many as eight (8) different later writers. " (Scrivener, Pg 93, Vol. I.)

Codex Vaticanus (B) (4th Century) "One marked feature is the great number of omissions which induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as an abbreviated text of the New Testament. He calculates that whole words or clauses are left out no less than 2556 times." (Scrivener, Pg 120, Volume I.)

Codex Bezae Graeco-Latinus (D) (5th or 6th Century) "The manuscript has been corrected, first by the original penman and later by 8 or 9 different revisors." And again: "No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations (600 in ACTS alone) countenanced, where they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac Version." (Scrivener, Pgs 128,130, Volume I.) ....'

'.....THE ANCIENT BIBLE CORRUPTERS

Vaticanus, and Sinaitcus are the two main manuscripts that almost all of the new translations are based on. They are indirectly the result of the work of Origenes Adamantius (AD 184-254).

Some feel that we should not bring up the errors and apostasy of the early and later Textual critics who corrupted the Bible. I beg to differ! It helps us see the problem much more clearly. Satan is clearly the head of this conspiricy, and he uses men.

Matthew 7:16-20 "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

The below indicated men deleted words and phrases that honored the Lord Jesus Christ, and affected about every important doctrine of the Bible including it incarnation, deity, and resurrection of Christ.

Origenes Adamantius (or Origen for short) was the third in a line of heretics that corrupted the Word of God. Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr (AD 100 -165), was a Gnostic (see note #1). "...Tatian wrote a Harmony of the Gospels...called the Diatessaron....The Gospels were...notoriously orrupted by his hand..." (Which Bible, pg. 191) Clement of Alexandria, Egypt (AD 150-217), was Tatian's pupil. "Clement himself claimed the...title of Gnostic often." (Church Leaders In Primitive Times, pg. 286; cf. The Revision Revised, pg 336) Clement established a school there in Alexandria. "[He] expressly tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with preceptsof pagan philosophy." (Which Bible, pg. 191) "Clement and Origen used concepts of Platonism and Pythagoreanism..." (Eerdmans' Handbook To The History Of Christianity, pg. 109) (see note #2) "All the writhigs of the outstanding heretical teachers were possessed by Clement, and he freely quoted from their corrupt manuscripts as if they were the words of Scripture." (Which Bible, pgs. 191-192) Origen was Clement's pupil and took over the apostate school that he started. Origen originated the Christ denying Arian heresy (see note #3) Origen also believed in the reexistence of the soul (i.e. reincarnation); baptismal regeneration; purgatory; etc.

Eusebius (AD 260-340) and Constantine the Roman Emperor (AD 306-337): "Eusebius worshipped at the altar of Origin's teachings. He...used Origen's six column Bible...in his Biblical labors....As the Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity, it became necessary for him to choose...(which Bible text to sanction. He had 3 to choose from: the Constantinoplitan [TR], the Hesychian, or the Eusebio-Origen)....[The Emperor] preferred the one edited by Eusebius and written by Origin...[who] combined Christianity with Gnostisticism [see note #1] in his philosophy, even as Constantine himself was the political genius that was seeking to unite Christianity with pagan Rome." (Which Bible, pg. 192, 194, 195) Eusebius like Origen also leaned toward Arianism, [see note #3] as did the Emperor. Constantine, the new "Christian" Pontifex Maximus, commissioned Eusebius to prepare 50 copies of the bible. These are the main source for the corruptions we see today.

FIRST JOHN 5:7

First John 5:7 is perhaps the weakest link in the chain for the TR. Origen did not believe in the Deity of Christ nor the Trinity so he or one of his followers excised it from the Greek text early in Church History. However, the Latin speaking church preserved it from the earliest time of Church History.

One that I once debated concerning the superiority of the KJV said, "Tischendorf's New Testament which compares Codex [A] Alexandrinus, Codex [B] Vaticanus, and Codex [Aleph] Sinaiticus with the KJV omitts 1 John 5:7 is from these 3 MSS. My understanding is that 2nd century Greek copies don't exist."

True, 2nd century Greek copies don't exist. However, as has already been shown, 2nd century translations do exist in Latin and Syriac. It has also been shown that Aleph and B are of the corrupt Alexandrian family of MSS. It can be clearly seen that A also is a member of this family although the corruptions in it are fewer. If we had the original copies some might be worshipping them. However, we can be sure that God is faithful to keep His word to preserve His Word. We have it. What every Christian needs to decide is this: Is it the Origin's Alexandrian Family of MSS, or is it the Received Text of the Waldenses? The answer is so simple! But many textual critics continue to make the issue difficult.

There is much confusion concerning the MSS evidence. For example, Evangelicals consistently state that there are, for example, no Scholars that believe that 1 John 5:7 were in the original text of the Bible. This statement excludes at least 40 Fundamentalist scholars that I know of. I am not a scholar, just study their teachings. Some of God's people are confused. A few wolves are destroying the faith of many. That does not mean that all the evangelical scholars are wolves or are not sincere. For example, I have great respect for, Dr. Norman Geisler.

My debater, "As far as 1 John 5:7-8 reading in the KVJ, they say that Erasmus omitted this reading from his first 2 editions of his Greek NT (1516, 1519) and was challenged for this omission. He replied that he would include it in his next edition if anyone could produce even one Greek manuscript that included that reading. One 16th century Greek minuscule was found, a 1520 manuscript…so he inserted it into his 1522 edition.

Dr. Thomas Holland answers this charge, "The Comma [1 John 5:7-8] did not appear in the first two editions of Erasmus' Receptus but was added to his third. Some have stated that Erasmus added the Comma reluctantly. Erasmus had been criticized for his earlier editions which did not contain the passage. Metzger writes, 'In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comman Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found--or was made to order!' (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, p 101.) This statement, however, is in question. Others have shown that Erasmus did not add the verse aversely, but was in fact searching for a Greek text which supported what was already in the Old Latin texts. (Donald L. Brake indicates this in his thesis present to Dallas Theological Seminary and reprinted in the book Counterfeit Or Genuine, edited by Dr. David Otis Fuller..., p 205. This is further verified by both Dr. Fuller and by Dr. Edward F. Hills in his book The King James Version Defended, p 209)." (MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, lessons given by Dr. Thomas Holland)

The "three heavenly Witnesses" (1 John 5:7) is contained in practically all of the extant Latin Vulgate MSS. Although not included in Jerome's original edition, around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin MSS. (Hills, Jones) This historic usage of the text in the Western Church lay behind its final inclusion in the Greek Text of Erasmus.

There is an abundance of evidence for 1 John 5:7's inclusion in the Bible. Today we know of at least ten Greek MSS that contain it (Dr. Kurk Aland names at least 6, and Dr. D.A. Waite an additional 4). It is cited by several sources prior to 500AD. Among them Tertullian (AD 200) (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8); and Cyprian (AD 250), 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)

In addition to the significant Greek and Latin MSS evidence, there is an abundance of Historical, Theological, and Greek Grammatical evidences that prove that 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture.

Floyd Jones says, "Finally, it cannot be overly stressed that the successive editors of the TR could have omitted the passage from their editions. The fact that Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs retained the Pericope, despite the reluctance of Erasmus to include it, is not without significance. The learned Lutheran text critic J.A. Bengel ("Gnomon", published in 1742) also convincingly defended its inclusion29 as did Hills in this century. The hard fact is that, by the providence of God, the Johannie comma obtained and retained a place in the Textus Receptus. We emphatically declare that the most extreme caution should be exercised in questioning its right to that place." "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." (Proverbs 22:28) ...http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/corruptions.html'

and this is right to the heart of the fallacy of using a few corrupted manuscripts Codex Vaticanus 325-350 AD.; Codex Sinaiticus 340 AD.; Codex Alexandrinus 450 AD, against the vast majority that have the true text.......

osh McDowell says in his book "A Ready Defense" that there are more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the NT in existence (5255 Greek manuscripts of NT; 10,000 Vulgate; 9,300 other early versions).

Many of the 10,000 Vulgate MSS referred to here are the pure Old Latin Vulgate, not Jerome's, and the 9,300 other early MSS include the Syriac and other reliable ancient MSS. The Word of God has been translated into various languages in order for the people to understand in their heart language from the earliest times of the church.

The vast majority of the Greek NT MSS follow the TR (5,210 out of 5255 MSS or 99%) (Defending the King James Bible, pg. 46) The KJV is based on the TR.

Here is a good article on why 1 John 5:7, has a deletion rather than a insertion....

'.... 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, KJV)

"οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν" (1 John 5:7, 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus)


This is the Johannine Comma (or Comma Johanneum), a clause that is omitted in most modern Bible translations. This article upholds the theory that the Johannine Comma is authentic. In proposing this theory, this article accepts the undeniable premise that the Comma has weak Greek manuscript and Greek Church father support. The evidence is stronger from the Latin stream, but there are some problems there as well. Thus the primary question answered in this article is, "How could one accept the Johannine Comma as Scripture in the face of much evidence against its inclusion?" The following arguments are made to answer this question:

The manuscripts of 1 John show that the epistle underwent early corruption, so there is a real possibility that the Comma could have been omitted at a very early stage.
The internal evidence for the Comma is strong.
There is not a lot but some external evidence for the Comma.
There are reasonable explanations as to how the Comma was omitted and why church fathers neglected it.....

There is proof throughout 1 John that omissions of important words happened. 1 John has its fair share of early textual corruptions to demonstrate that passages were indeed altered for reasons of carelessness or infidelity.

The omission of 1 John 2:23b
Did you know?
1 John 2:23b is proof that the Vulgate can sometimes be more reliable than the majority of Greek manuscripts.
The omission of 1 John 2:23b is proof of two things. First, it is proof that a Trinitarian clause could indeed be expunged from 1 John in the majority of manuscripts. Second, it is proof that the Vulgate can sometimes be more reliable than the majority of Greek manuscripts. 1 John 2:23 in the King James Bible says:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει" (Textus Receptus, Beza 1598)

This reading is supported by the Vulgate, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Porphyrianus and about 40 other Greek manuscripts (Aland, Tischendorf). Most modern translations (e.g. NIV, ESV, NASB) follow this reading.

(Tischendorf's critical apparatus to 1 John 2:23b)

But with there being about 517 extant Greek manuscripts of 1 John and with just over 40 manuscripts having 1 John 2:23b, the clause is a minority reading. Accordingly, the Byzantine Majority Text does not include the clause. The Majority Text says:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father."

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει" (Byzantine Majority Text)

The Geneva Bible in 1557 followed the majority of manuscripts here and left out the latter clause. The situation in 1 John 2:23 is proof that a verse which establishes a strong relationship of the Godhead could have been deleted in the majority of manuscripts. 1 John 2:23 is also proof that the Vulgate can preserve the authentic reading even while the majority of Greek manuscripts are corrupt. The only difference between 1 John 2:23b and the Comma is that the deletion of the Comma in manuscripts was earlier and more thorough than the deletion of 1 John 2:23b....

The corruption of 1 John 5:6
Did you know?
Early Greek manuscripts of 1 John 5:6, the verse preceding the Comma, are corrupt.
We can look even closer to the place of the disputed passage. 1 John 5:6 is the verse immediately preceding the Comma. This verse is corrupt in the early manuscripts. The earliest witnesses of the passage are Codices Sinaiticus (4th century), Vaticanus (4th century), Alexandrinus (5th century) and 0296 (6th century). Uncial 048 (5th century) is lacunae. There are already significant discrepancies among these early witnesses at 1 John 5:6....

The corruption of 1 John 5:13
1 John 5:13 is proof that a clause in a parallel construction (such as that in the Comma) could drop out of some early manuscripts. The proof of 1 John 5:13 may not be convincing to an Alexandrian text proponent, but it should be convincing to a Byzantine text proponent. The verse in the KJV says:

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."


The clause, though appearing to be redundant at first, makes perfect sense. The present-tense subjunctive phrase "that ye may believe..." expresses a wish that the action continue. John is wishing that those who currently believe on the name of the Son of God would continue to do so. However, the underlined words are not found in the three earliest witnesses of the verse. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, essentially say:


"ταυτα εγραψα υμιν ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην εχετε αιωνιον τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου"

The Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority Text, in agreement with the fourth, fifth, and sixth earliest witnesses of the verse in its entirety, K (9th century), L (9th century), P (9th century), say:

"ταυτα εγραψα υμιν τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην αιωνιον εχετε και ινα πιστευητε εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου"


Text of 1 John: Conclusion
The examples of 1 John 2:23b, 1 John 5:6, 1 John 4:3 and 1 John 5:13 show that the transmission of 1 John is marked by demonstrable corruptions. These examples are related to the Comma in one way or another. Some of these examples concern the Trinity. Others concern the omission of a clause in a parallel construction. One thing is certain: the text of 1 John underwent corruption long before the alleged "fabrication" of the Comma. With there being these other demonstrable examples of early textual corruptions, it is reasonable to suppose that the omission of the Comma was also an early textual corruption...."
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57



Although the earliest Greek witnesses do not have the Comma at 1 John 5:7, we see that these witnesses had scribes who tampered with the text in this general portion of the chapter. By 350 AD this portion of 1 John 5 was already corrupt in the Greek tradition. Since verse 6 is corrupt in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and verse 7 in 0296 does not have "εισιν," there are only two manuscripts (Vaticanus and 048) from before the 7th century which read exactly as the Byzantine/Majority Text or the Nestle-Aland from verse 6 to 7:

"ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες" (Nestle-Aland 27)

"ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες" (Byzantine/Majority Text 2000)

Critics of the Comma are almost always silent regarding this corruption of 1 John 5:6, a corruption that may have been theologically motivated. When there is clear proof of a theologically motivated corruption at verse 6 in so many early witnesses, it is reasonable to suspect that the corruption extended into verse 7.....

The text just isnt being picked up, but it shows in the article...http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57

So lets look at these Manuscripts containing the corrupted Greek New Testament text, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century and 1 Codex Alexandrinus from the 5th century and see how they are connected.

Contents of Codex Vaticanus: “Vaticanus originally contained a complete copy of the Septuagint ("LXX") except for 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. Genesis 1:1 - 46:28a (31 leaves) and Psalm 105:27 - 137:6b (10 leaves) are lost and have been filled by a recent hand. 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13 are also lost due to a tear in one of the pages. The order of the Old Testament books is as follows: Genesis to 2 Chronicles as normal, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras (which includes Nehemias), the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the minor prophets from Hosea to Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.

The extant New Testament of Vaticanus contains the Gospels, Acts, the General Epistles, the Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews (up to Heb 9:14, καθα[ριει); thus it lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation. These missing pages were replaced by a 15th century minuscule supplement (no. 1957).

The Greek is written continuously with small neat writing, later retraced by an 11th century scribe. Punctuation is rare (accents and breathings have been added by a later hand) except for some blank spaces, diaeresis on initial iotas and upsilons, abbreviations of the nomina sacra and markings of OT citations.

The manuscript contains mysterious double dots (so called "umlauts") in the margin of the New Testament, which seem to mark places of textual uncertainty. There are 795 of these in the text and around another 40 that are uncertain.”

“Codex Vaticanus is one of the most important manuscripts for Textual criticism and is a leading member of the Alexandrian text-type. It was heavily used by Westcott and Hort in their edition of the Greek New Testament (1881).”

We see the Septuagint ("LXX") which is a based on the Alexandrian text.

Then on Codex Sinaiticus: “Codex Sinaiticus was found by Constantin von Tischendorf on his third visit to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, on Mount Sinai in Egypt, in 1859. The first two trips had yielded parts of the Old Testament, some found in a basket of manuscript pieces, which Tischendorf was told by a librarian that "they were rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery".[2] The emperor Alexander II of Russia sent him to search for manuscripts, which he was convinced were still to be found in the Sinai monastery. In May 1975 during restoration work, the monks of St. Catherine's monastery at Sinai discovered a room under the St. George chapel which contained many parchment fragments. Among these fragments, twelve missing leaves from the Sinaiticus Old Testament were found.
Von Tischendorf reached the monastery on January 31; but his inquiries appeared to be fruitless. On February 4, he had resolved to return home without having gained his object.

On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: "And I, too, have read a Septuagint"--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.[3]

After some negotiations, he obtained possession of this precious fragment, and conveyed it to Emperor Alexander, who fully appreciated its importance, and caused it to be published as nearly as possible in facsimile, so as to exhibit correctly the ancient handwriting. However, the tsar sent 9000 roubles to the monastery as a compensation.

Regarding Tischendorf's role in the transfer to Saint Petersburg, there are several views. Although when parts of Genesis and Book of Numbers were later found in the binding of other books, they were amicably sent to Tischendorf, the Codex is currently regarded by the monastery as having been stolen, a view hotly contested by several scholars in Europe. In a more neutral spirit, New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger writes: "Certain aspects of the negotiations leading to the transfer of the codex to the Czar's possession are open to an interpretation that reflects adversely on Tischendorf's candour and good faith with the monks at St. Catherine's. For a recent account intended to exculpate him of blame, see Erhard Lauch's article 'Nichts gegen Tischendorf' in Bekenntnis zur Kirche: Festgabe für Ernst Sommerlath zum 70. Geburtstag (Berlin, c. 1961); for an account that includes a hitherto unknown receipt given by Tischendorf to the authorities at the monastery promising to return the manuscript from St. Petersburg 'to the Holy Confraternity of Sinai at its earliest request'.

Notice again the the Septuagint ("LXX") of the Alexandrian text comes into the picture.

Codex Alexandrinus- “The Codex Alexandrinus (London, British Library, MS Royal 1. D. V-VIII; Gregory-Aland no. A or 02) is a 5th century manuscript of the Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Septuagint and the New Testament. Along with the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible. It derives its name from Alexandria where it resided for a number of years before given to the British in the 17th century.”

(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus).


Notice Codex Alexandrinus is from the 5th century again HUNDREDS of years after the disappearance of Jesus (PBUH) and again Codex Alexandrinus is ALL in Greek, Jesus (PBUH) did NOT speak Greek, Jesus (PBUH) spoke the language of ARAMAIC.



Contents of Codex Alexandrinus: “The text in the codex is written in two columns in uncial script, with between 46 and 52 lines per column and 20 to 25 letters per line. The beginning lines of each book are written in red ink and sections within the book are marked by a larger letter set into the margin. Words are written continuously in a large square uncial hand with no accents and only some breathings (possibly added by a later editor).

It contains a complete copy of the LXX, including the deuterocanonical books 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and the 14 Odes. The "Epistle to Marcellinus" attributed to Saint Athanasius and the Eusibian summary of the Psalms are inserted before the Book of Psalms.

The codex also contains all of the books of the New Testament, in addition to 1 Clement (lacking 57:7-63) and the homily known as 2 Clement (up to 12:5a).

There is also an appendix marked in the index, which lists the Psalms of Solomon, and probably contained more apocryphal/pseudepigraphical books but has been torn off. The pages containing these books have also been lost.

Due to damage and lost folios, various passages are missing or have defects:

Lacking: 1 Sam 12:18-14:9 (1 leaf); Ps 49:19-79:10 (9 leaves); Matt 1:1-25:6 (26 leaves); John 6:50-8:52 (2 leaves); 2 Cor 4:13-12:6 (3 leaves)

Damaged: Gen 14:14-17, 15:1-5, 15:16-19, 16:6-9 (lower portion of torn leaf lost)

Defects due to torn leaves: Gen 1:20-25, 1:29-2:3, Lev 8:6,7,16; Sirach 50:21f, 51:5

There are 773 vellum folios (630 in the Old Testament and 143 in the New Testament). The manuscript measures 12.6 by 10.4 inches. Most of the folios were originally gathered into quires of 8 leaves each. However, in modern times it was rebound into quires of 6 leaves each. The only decorations in the manuscript are decorative tailpieces at the end of each book (see illustration). It also shows a tendency to increase the size of the first letter of each sentence.”

Again as in the 2 previous Oldest Greek manuscripts notice all the errors, and addition and subtraction of numerous books. Codex Alexandrius contain the “Epistle of Marcellinus” and in it’s Corrupted New Testament it contents parts of books called “1 Clement” and “2 Clement”.

All 3 are based on the same corrupted text and the source hidden so Christians who already knew the corruption of the Alexandrian manuscripts would be fooled, but the true text of the Textus Receptus unveils the false corrupted one, their subterfuge notwithstanding, but we must see with eyes that see and understand what happened.

Now the corrupted Alexandrian text was allowed to creep into the church and led to the spread of a new theology which divided the church, confused even true followers, and is with us to this day. Arius, parish priest of the church of Alexandria, promulgated his doctrine to the world, occasioning so fierce a controversy in the Christian church that a general council was called at Nicaea, by the emperor Constantine in A.D. 325, to consider and rule upon its teaching. Arius maintained "that the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that He was the first and noblest of those beings whom the Father had created out of nothing, the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe, and therefore inferior to the Father, both in nature and dignity." This opinion was condemned by the council, which decreed that Christ was of one and the same substance with the Father. For ages it continued to agitate the Christian world, as the Arians spread the false teaching of Arianism among the people of the Roman Empire and beyond. We can look at the changes and deletions of the Alexandrian text and its derivatives and see the results in this view held by Arians, it almost destroyed the faith of Christian believers.

And yet here we are today, with the same text in the NIV and other new versions, and Christians pick it up and don't understand what it is......as the old saying goes..

"Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them."

Here is a false statement planted by Satan to undermine the confidence of people in the Word of God.

Who has claimed that all the books contained in Codex Alexandrius are part of the Bible? Or are such claims true?

Point out the doctrinal mistakes in 1 Clement compared with the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.