Jehovah`s Witness/truth be told


Hello Mr. Holland I'm back again with a reply to your plethora of answers.  I can only take on one at a time as my time permits so please bear with me.  As I have stated I am searching truth and have studied your first point, that is John 5:7. Sir Isaac Newton on 1 John 5:7; In 1690, Newton wrote a manuscript on the corruption of the text of the New Testament concerning 1 John 5:7 and Timothy 3:16. It was entitled,"A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruption of Scripture." Due to the prevailing environment against criticism, he felt it unwise to profess his beliefs openly and felt that printing it in England would be too dangerous! Newton sent a copy of this manuscript to John Locked requesting him to have it translated into French. Two years later, Newton was informed of an attempt to publish a Latin translation of it anonymously. However, Newton did not approve of its availability in Latin and persuaded Locked to take steps to prevent this publication.  It was only the horrors of the infamous Church inquisition which held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all.          Using early Church writers, the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the testimony of the first versions of the Bible, Newton proved that the words "in support if the Trinity doctrine, did not appear in original Greek Scriptures. The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, "In heaven, the Father , the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there and there are three that bear witness in earth," are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added as a marginal note by a recent hand of Cardinal Ximenes in Codex Ottobonianus in 1515 on the strength of the late Greek manuscript corrected from the Latin. However, all old world versions omit the words, and the oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them. It is as simple as that. The Bible was throughout time corrected by human hands.  Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third edition of Erasmus's New testament.  Finally, Newton considered the sense and context of the verse, concluding, "Thus is the sense plain and natural, and the argument full and strong; but if you insert the testimony of 'the Three in Heaven' you interrupt and spoil it.          Below are excerpts from Newton's "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruption of Scripture." " When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date.  And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed."         "Let them make good sense of it who are able.  For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is Scripture what not by our private judgments, I confess in places not converted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand,  It is the temper of hot and superstitious art of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best."          The note in the NIV Study Bible, which is well known for its ardent belief in the Trinity, says, "The addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or NT translation prior to the 16th century."  There are times when people adore their theology more than the God-inspired original, and the fight for the man-made addition as if it were the original words of God.  This has been the case with 1 John 5:7 and 8, and we applaud the honesty of the translators of modern versions who have left it out of their translations.          There are many Trinitarian scholars who freely admit that the Greek text from which the KJV is translated was adjusted in this verse to support the Trinity.  The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, author of the unparalleled work, A Grammar of the New Testament in Light of Historical Research, and the multi-volumes Word Pictures in the New Testament, supports the theory that addition entered the text of these verses.          I thank you for your time and wish you to consider this information. The site address is      sincerely, Jose

Good day, Jose.  Thank you for the follow-up.

Well, to be honest, I found this reply a little bit interesting, for several reasons.  First, you make no mention at all of the many Scriptures I have already given you, which refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as "God".  And there are several more that I can give.

Nor did you mention the logical reason for believing in the Trinity....Coupled with the fact listed above (Jesus and the Spirit being called "God"), that the Trinity is the only viewpoint that can take all the Scriptures into account, and harmonize them.  Neither the JW view, nor the Oneness view, can do that.  When a view causes Scriptures to contradict each other, that is a great sign that its the wrong view.  When a view causes the Scriptures to completely harmonize and fit like a puzzle, that is a good indication you have the correct view.

But something else.  I started thinking about this question, and how you want to simply focus on the Johannine Comma, and 1 Timothy 3:16, the latter of which was not even mentioned in our last correspondence.  Now, BOTH of these passages as found in the KJB, can be easily defended, by 2 different approaches.  You write about the supposed "lack" of evidence for 1 John 5:7....Man, have you ever looked at he manuscript evidence FOR "God" , in 1 Timothy 3:16?  The last time I checked, it was something like 252-2, in favor of the King James rendering.  

But that isn't what really stood out to me.  The nature of your question seemed I had received this same question before, with some of the same arguments.  And I checked back, and sure enough, I HAVE received it before....From YOU.

So I have to ask myself...Why would I receive this question, from the same person, using the same arguments, which have already been addressed?  I can't quite make it compute.  

First off, you write in a manner which IMPLIES that we have not discussed this issue before.  You ask me to "consider this information", as if you think I am not aware of it.  That comment intrigues me, because as I recall, when you wrote me this same question back in May of 2012, I gave you a truckload of information in support of the Johannine Comma.  Spent MANY hours of my time doing so, I might add.  You said you were thankful for the evidence and that is was "impressive".  But now, you come back like you have never seen evidence in support for it.

What's up?

Also, you ask me to "consider this information", as if you think I haven't heard it before.  May I just quote from my LAST reply to you, just a few short weeks back?  I wrote....

"1 John 5:7-  “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

To begin with, this is a direct statement from an AUTHENTIC passage of Scripture, which has been under attack perhaps more than any other passage in the Bible.  And for good reason….it is a clear declaration of the Trinity.  If I were non-Trinitarian, I would want this verse removed also.  Now, I can provide you in another writing, if need be, the support for retaining this verse as part of the inspired writings."

Now Jose, I believe the above statement from me, would indicate that I am no stranger to the so-called arguments that this Scripture is not authentic.  In fact, I have not only heard (and researched) the ones you listed, but there are several more attacks on this verse that you did not list.  I'm familiar with those, too.

Here's what is at the heart of this issue....You state that "There are many Trinitarian scholars who freely admit that the Greek text from which the KJV is translated was adjusted in this verse to support the Trinity" , as if this carries some sort of weight.  It does not.  Here's why...There are also many Trinitarian scholars who believe the evidence is overwhelming, that 1 John 5:7 is not an "addition" to the text, but a later OMISSION from the text.  And their reasons are simply more compelling, than those of whom claim it was an "addition".

For one thing, the argument about it not being in any older GREEK manuscripts, is misleading.  It has SEVERAL ancient authorities, which I have already provided you before.  Most notably, the passage is seen being QUOTED by Christians PRIOR to the writing of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which are widely believed to be among the oldest.  How can they QUOTE a "later omission/invention", which supposedly didn't exist in their day?

Furthermore, why have LIES been circulating about Erasmus supposedly agreeing to "put it in there", if one Greek manuscript could be found?  This is a completely bogus story, and it is amazing that it has been believed and repeated by so many.

And you might want to do a great study on the men in Alexandria, Egypt, who freely edited and omitted things from the "older" manuscripts, to the point where even the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts have over 5,000 disagreements with EACH OTHER, and over 3,000 in the Gospels alone!  Yet, these are the main manuscripts that make up the "wonderful" Westcott/Hort Greek text.

Next, you reference the NIV.  Sir, with all due respect, I would just as soon not use a "bible" that has a publicly known lesbian as a consultant, and another homosexual on the translating committee.  Nor do I use "bibles" that come from Westcott/Hort's text, either.  A great study, if you are so inclined to do it.  That is, if you are really interested in knowing the truth, rather than simply picking apart doctrines you don't want to accept.

But here's the bottom line, Jose...."Scholars" can be found which do not believe in the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.  "Scholars" can be found, who DO believe in it.  That is why you don't see me reference "scholars" too often, unless I'm doing it in response to someone else who has done it, and possibly misused those "scholars".  These so-called "scholars" have their biases, too.  Nor do I base my position on the NUMBER of "scholars" for, or against, a particular reading.  I base my position on the VALIDITY and the LOGIC of the arguments themselves.  If 10 guys are making the most compelling, sensible, and Scriptural points, and 10,000 guys are not, then guess which way I am going to go with that one?

"Scholars", as well as Christians, approach this issue from 2 basic premises, which are:

1.  The Bible was inspired in the originals, but alas, ONLY the originals were inerrant, and it is now up to us to examine all of the many thousands of manuscripts available, and try our best to piece back together what God inspired, but ultimately, lost.


2.  That God not only inspired the originals, but actually honored His promise to protect and preserve His words from error through ALL generations, as He stated in Psalm 12:6-7....

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Now granted, this passage doesn't argue WHICH Bible is the preserved Word of God.  That is a separate discussion altogether, which we can have, if you would like.  But it certainly does do away with option #1.

And you know what?  Without fail, the people who hold to option #1, will always tell you that there is "no perfect Bible" on earth today.  What a sad existence!  I am glad that the God I serve, is able to preserve what He has written, and does not need our help in "piecing it back together" for Him.

I'm always amused when I hear someone say "This rendering is closer to the original manuscripts" , or, "The original manuscripts actually read..." , as if they actually HAVE the originals, and know what they're talking about.  I've got news for you, Jose...They do not have "the originals", nor have they ever seen or touched them.  The "originals" don't exist....ANYWHERE.  No man alive today, has lived within centuries of "the originals".  Meaning, if it weren't for the doctrine of PRESERVATION, then we are sunk, as far as having the Word of God is concerned.

But those are the 2 basic approaches....Either you go in with the notion that the Bible is in disarray, and it is up to us humans to help God out, and reconstruct it as best we can.  Or, you believe that God is simply able to keep that which He inspired, and preserve it for us He said He would.  

Which approach do you use, Jose? Unfortunately, your comments above seem to indicate you are going into the discussion, thinking that the best way to determine truth, is to follow the "scholars" who believe the Bible contains errors, and needs THEIR input to sort it all out.

I simply take the opposite approach.  I do not believe that the early Christians could've quoted a passage, that didn't exist yet.  I am aware of the editing, omitting, and tampering of Scripture that went on with the Alexandrian manuscripts.  Are you aware, Jose, that MANY extant Greek manuscripts do not contain the BOOK of 1 John at all?  Why is this?

But again, Jose...Why ignore the SCRIPTURAL evidence I gave you, and then re-ask a question for which I have already provided you loads of information on, over a year ago?  I mean, you are welcome to reject the information if you wish.  But you write as if there isn't any, and I am simply wondering what is up with that.

I remember you telling me that you Googled "disproving 1 John 5:7", or something like that, and all the thousands of results that popped up.  I then pointed out to you, that I Googled "refuting the New World Translation", and about 3 TIMES that many results popped up.  

I don't think "truth" is arrived at, by how many "hits" you get on Google.  I think its best arrived at, by weighing the individual arguments.

Thank you for your desire to learn, Jose, if indeed you have a desire to actually learn.  But I gave you loads of information, none of which even depends on 1 John 5:7.  I simply list 1 John 5:7 along with the others, because I am satisfied that it is inspired Scripture, and I see no valid reason to avoid it.  I know some Christians who are scared to list it, because of the backlash they are afraid of getting.  I'm not afraid of it.  I use it, and believe it, without apology.  I will go to my grave being a Bible-BELIEVER, instead of a Bible-corrector.  Someone is going to turn out to be wrong...I'll take my chances on believing it, instead of correcting it.  

I did find it amusing that you said you found the JW view "overwhelmingly more believable", while their view that Jesus is Michael, has no Scriptural support whatsoever.  Hard to be "believable", if there isn't even one Scripture which states it.  That is, unless you already have decided what you WANT to believe.

Don't mean to question your motives, but why would you ask a question about the Trinity, to someone who is so ignorant of it, that they would make these statements:


2. The Trinity Doctrine comes down to this BOLD LIE:  God became a man, so that man can become God.

3. “The Trinity denies that Jesus is the Christ”

4. "{{trinitarians}} preach that if you do not believe that Jesus is one of the gods, then Jesus will burn you in an eternal burning hell "

Since none of these statements are true, nor do they correctly represent the beliefs of Trinitarian Christians, why ask a question to someone who is this unqualified to answer it?  Shouldn't someone actually KNOW what the doctrine is, before they discuss it?  Jose, do you realize that no Trinitarians believe any of those statements that he claims?

Jose, why don't we just discuss the Scriptures that have been given you, and you explain to me why they don't actually mean what they say?  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Derrick Holland


I was raised in the religion known as Jehovah`s Witnesses for 13 years. Since becoming a born-again Christian, I have researched extensively this religion, especially their doctrines and their history. I can answer questions about their doctrines from the perspective of Biblical Christianity. To be clear: Jehovahs Witnesses is the religion of my upbringing, though I myself was never baptized into the religion, nor have I ever been considered as a Jehovahs Witness.


29 years of Biblical research into the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and how they differ from the teachings of the Watchtower.

I would advise each questioner to this forum, to carefully READ the profiles of the various volunteers. There are several such as myself, who are not practicing JWs, but will provide you with an accurate and honest answer, regarding JW teaching. If we don't know the answer, we will try to research and get it for you. There are also some excellent practicing JWs here, who also endeavor to give you a factual and honest answer, based on their point of view. I believe by getting both points of view, the questioner can weigh the evidence for themselves, and make an informed decision. Unfortunately, there are also 3 here who claim to be JWs, but do NOT give honest, or well-researched answers. They will tell you only what they want you to believe, and they often hide facts about the history of their religion, as well as print untruths about other people's beliefs. This is done in an attempt to deceive the unsuspecting reader. It can be easily seen who these 3 are, simply by reading the public posts and "answers" which they write. Their posts will normally be filled with personal attacks, and if you question them about some teaching or aspect of the Watchtower that makes them uncomfortable, they will often reject your question, question your motives for asking it, tell you that you have been reading "apostate" sites, or turn the conversation into an attack on another expert. These ones are better avoided, as there is nothing to be gained by way of positive discussion, as they are not interested in intelligent conversation, or honest dialogue. If after reading the forum, you still have any questions as to who they are, just ask me, and I will be happy to tell you. And I can also provide documentation of their willful dishonesty. One thing is for a forum where people from both sides claim to be "Christians", there should never be any willful lying. Such ones only create a distraction in the forum, and provide nothing of any real value.

High School, some college. Studies of God's Word, the Bible, and how it compares to JW theology. I have found my own personal study and experiences to be far more valuable than any formal education or training. The Bible message is clear...Salvation is ONLY through and by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and no religious organization has a thing to do with it. While attendance at a Bible-preaching, Bible-believing church is a must for spiritual growth and fellowship, no church can grant salvation to its members. Nor is joining a particular group a prerequisite for being saved.

©2017 All rights reserved.