Textual criticism, which seeks to remove errors from biblical manuscripts is a method which is neither fail-safe nor immune to human prejudice, and thus it also fails. It is based as much on probabilities as on personal taste. It is a tool but not a prefect tool. And as such it does not give perfect results.
FTD wrote: Gee, aren't you Greek Orthodox guys the ones who use the Koine Greek?
What makes him think that the writer of 1 John (written between 90 and 120 AD) knew Koine Greek well?
Or, more likely, that the scribe who copied a copy of what we now call 1 John was an expert in Greek grammar; or that he was even Greek?
It is just as likely that some other scribe, who did know Koine Greek well, decided the previous scribe made a mistake and simply added the verse as a "correction," which is probably one of the most common errors found.
Surely, you will recognize that even among the educated in America, including our top executives, correct English grammar is not always their strong characteristic. Why should it be when it comes to an ancient scribe of a persecuted faith?
The rules of internal and external evidence are clear and plentiful. But it's not hard science.
The link FTD provides also mentions the grammar comment by one of the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, because the grammar is poor; that only proves that the verse was not there!
The same source lists an anonymous anti-Arian work, Varimadum (380 AD), which includes the additional verse. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if such verse was available to those who spearheaded their work against heretics, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, etc. they would have gladly used it!
Historical evidence shows that the verse were not known to those who needed them the most, and who knew their scriptures as well as Koine Greek, the church fathers who fought against christological heresies.
Once the errors crept into the manuscript copies, they multiplied. All the additions and deletions, smoothing of the text, adding commas where one "felt" they should be, represent profane changes of non-inspired individuals, and therefore corruption of the scripture. For, that which is perfect is complete and cannot be changed without introducing corruption.
That's why only the Church could have interpreted various scrolls as inspired and included them in the NT; it was only the Church that could see through all the corurption of various texual samples and give us the perfect Christian canon. Yet Protestants deny the authority of the Church to interpret scripture!
It really helps to familiarize oneself with the work of textual criticism to be able to understand that what we call the inerrant Bible never existed.
Not true.. "some/a church" has the authority to interpret scripture wrongly if they must.. they just cannot interpret it for everybody.. Thats WHY the Holy Spirit is needed.. but IF "that" church is NOT lead by the Holy Spirit, well then.. ERROR could and most likely will happen.. Churchs have difficultly admitted gross error.. for it tends to makes their forefathers look like idiots.. when they were not idiots at all they just never knew or in some caes maybe cared to know the Holy Spirit..
Happens a lot in places where the organization is called "THE church" instead of "A church".. There... continuous hierarchy trumps truth.. That church then becomes a hive with drones instead of a flock with sheep.. Being drones they could care less whether they are insects or sheep.. Visit a church and you tell after awhile wether they are a HIVE or a flock.. At least a sheep can..
Maybe God made bees, ants, termites and wasps as a metaphorical object lesson to sheep.. probably did..