Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the KJV?
Read the NET Bible note on this verse and you will find the answer.
The OP question seems to come directly from the Chick.com site:
https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=is-i-john-5:7-missing-from-older-manuscripts
I searched Logos for this: "Comma Johanneum" for 419 results--which shed some light on the matter. Especially note thoughts by Daniel Wallace.
I spotted several factual errors and statements made in a very biased manner in this article. It has some useful, accurate information but check and double check before using it.
https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=is-i-john-5:7-missing-from-older-manuscripts I spotted several factual errors and statements made in a very biased manner in this article. It has some useful, accurate information but check and double check before using it.
I think you're being unbelievably charitable (or temporarily lost your mind). I think the author pretty much used every fallacy available, and then created some.
I think you're being unbelievably charitable (or temporarily lost your mind).
Let's just say that there are times when I very carefully edit myself to minimize the number I offend.
The evident fallacies in the article were my point in posting it since the OP was apparently sourced from it.
See Research Query - Faithlife Forums (logos.com) for another sourced question.
Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s?
No, the Lexham Bible Dictionary gives 1215 as the date of the earliest Greek manuscript containing it.
If it is true, why is it in the KJV?
Because Br.Froy/Roya provided a (contemporary manufactured) manuscript "Codex Montfortianus" to Eramus convincing him to add the Comma Johanneum to the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus which was used for the Authorized Version. The majority text plays no role in this discussion; the Eastern Orthodox uses the Patriarchal text - not the Textus Receptus or the Majority Text.
Why was a manufactured/spurious manuscript provided?
Because the Comma Johanneum was expected by people used to the Latin Vulgate version. To the best of my knowledge, other ancient translations - Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Coptic, Gothic, Arabic, . . . all lack the comma.
All this information is easily found in a Bible Dictionary.
