0

1 John 5:7,8 (ESV, NIV):

  1. For there are three that testify:
  2. the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

1 John 5:7,8 (DRB):

7And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

It is clear that verse 7 in DRB isn't found in ESV, NIV, but why the word "earth" is not also found in these both versions (ESV, NIV)?

I mean, if verse 7 is spurious or gloss then why verse 8 is not identical, i.e: verse 8 DRB should be identical to verses 7,8 ESV, NIV.

This means that spuriousness in DRB and Latin Vulgate take place in both verses 7,8 DRB, but there are many evidences testify to Latin Vulgate and DRB that both of them are good versions of the Bible, having good reputation.

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    See Johannine Comma.
    – Lucian
    Jun 3 '20 at 6:26
  • 1
    This has been discussed endless times such as hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12/…
    – Dottard
    Jun 3 '20 at 7:03
  • @salah '7And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one' … This has been thoroughly accepted as a forgery - why are people still using it?
    – steveowen
    Jun 3 '20 at 7:08
  • Erasmus put this into the TR because of Roman Catholic influence. He intended not to put it in, if no manuscript could be reliably found that contained it. And a Latin one was found, I understand. But not a reliable Greek one, I believe is the case. It's very content (listing the Logos with the Father, which no scripture ever does) indicates that it is not part of the canon.
    – Nigel J
    Jun 3 '20 at 11:56
  • It should be banned on this site. It's use simply clutters the content with verifiable nonsense. (too strong?)
    – steveowen
    Jun 3 '20 at 12:04