Meaningless

What meaning is there to life, anyone? When the people close to our hearts seem to be dead and transfixed in a past now behind us by many eons? 


What good is there in the world, which appears dark and untrustworthy; fake and synthetic, pulsating ever quickly beyond our comprehension, incomprehensibly complex in character, volatile in value, and fickle in stability? There are days when the sunlight does not bring warmth within, but all that remains inside us feels like a dry hollow that gnaws the bones from the bowels outwards, slowly yet surely, with deathly pace that causes the heart to cave in to wretched despair.


What hope remains, for a person who has no close friends, but only has himself to accompany him on the lonely paths of life, in the silence of the crowd, and as he treads the beaches alone facing the blood-red setting sun?


What sincerity remains in friendship, and what truth remains in spoken words? What honesty is preserved in promises, or security in the bosoms of close peers? How can one face the world and its dangers if there is none to hold his hands and watch his back and keep his feet from stumbling and his heart from turning cold with sorrow and anguish?


How can one stand tall amidst the treachery of the seas of life, and brave amidst the dark questionable shadows that lurk in the corners of fair-weather society?


No one. Except one who has the assurance of a Friend.


This Friend is a quiet person, who says few things, but is himself the fullness of wisdom and true understanding. He speaks quietly, but at the right times and with the sharpness of a double edged sword. He speaks forth light, and the darkness of the mind departs at his touch.


He speaks to the heart like a friend, and keeps no secrets away from us save that which only He can bear keeping. This Friend is the shelter in the rain, the comfort for the weak, the strong arm that stills the storm, the assuring word in the face of the most hurting words, the balm of the soul, the one who listens to every cry and lament of the spirit, who heeds every call for help, and grants grace to those who find Him.


He has our lives in his Hands, and looks upon the fallen with compassion; His mercy is overflowing like the streams swollen with snow-melt. His Promises are ever true, His tongue speaks no lie. His heart knows only love; and His eyes are a deep grey for he has seen all the suffering in this world; His ears are no stranger to the pleas of the world, and the prayers of the afflicted reach him day and night.


I have been through phases of life, where I have felt that life is not worth living, partly due to my errors and to unavoidable circumstances that have affected me deep inside. I have made terrible mistakes that should not have been committed. I have severely misplaced my priorities in life, and have stumbled countless times in matters of morality and faith. I have disappointed friends and hurt many others. And sometimes, I cannot even bear to look at them for fear that they will never forgive me.


I have experienced the silence of friendlessness, the sorrow of losing a friendship, the poison of jealousy which almost destroyed me entirely, the pain of being betrayed by compatriots and the fear of living life as a recluse.


I have eaten the bitter gall of my own mistakes, and have many times found myself headlong in the pits of disgrace. I have lost a loved one I should have stood up for. And I have lost myself to the world before. O, the cruel world, every competing, ever wanting, never satisfied.


But in all these times, I noticed that, there is Someone out there who hears our heartfelt pain, and the creaking of those cracks in our souls. He gives us peace in our darkest hour.


And that is the One Friend I know I have.


His name is God.

In Defense of the Johannine Comma

Yesterday, I had this interesting debate with a liberalist friend (I'll call him Skeptic) and it was about the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum (the Johannine Comma, also known as 1 John 5:7). He claimed that there is evidence which decries the canonicity of that Trinitarian verse. The following is a record of our debate.

Skeptic: I actually intended to prove my statement that the believers have relied on a spurious verse to prove the doctrine of Trinity. This verse is known as the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7), and its authenticity has long been debated upon. I am convinced and I believe that it has been added there to sway the crowds. If we take it away, we have no more doctrine.

(Skeptic continues)

I shall quote the verses here, starting with:

(v.7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (v.8)And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." 

Now, archaelogical and historical evidence from both the secular sources and the Sacred Tradition tells us that this verse was definitely not written by St John, and has only been added to the sacred text in the 14th to 16th century, hence casting a cloud of suspicion on the doctrine that this 'verse' clearly seeks to prove and support. The evidence are as follows: 

(1) It does NOT appear in the older Greek manuscripts (this refers to the Minority Texts, i.e. the Textus Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus), nor in the oldest Latin Vulgate (New Latin) manuscripts. 

(2) It is not quoted by the Doctors of the Church and in Patristic Ecclesiastical Tradition. 

(3) History has it that this verse was included ONLY in the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus of Rotterdam AFTER he was pressured to add in that verse by the ecclesiastical authorities who deemed it an important verse to support Trinitarianism. 

(4) Text analysts like Louis Dupin ascribe this verse as an act of homeoteutelon (scribal error). 

(5) Others consider it as a gloss, meaning, it was never there as part of the main text as it was actually a foot note to explain verse 8. And due to ignorant scribes, it was thought of as part of the main text. 

(6)And we have respectable Bruce Metzger who writes: "Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text." 

(7) According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The silence of the great and voluminous (St) Augustine and the variation in form of the text in (amidst) the African Church are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the three witnesses." 

(8) If it was an authentic verse which was in existence from the early days of the church, why didn't Tertullian quote it when combating the heresies of his day. Instead of using this 'verse' (which is a supposedly better and more powerful option), he only used John 10:30. 

(9) This verse does not exist in any of the Syrian, Armenian and Coptic manuscripts. 

(10) Jerome himself apparently does not know the existence of this Comma, which cannot be since Jerome is a Father of the Church. 

(11) According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, once again it is clearly proven that this 'verse' is found "in only four rather recent cursives — one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage." 

(12) According to Ezra Abbot, who was involved in the translation committee of the Westcott-Hort text, said: "The textus receptus [the text which contains the 'verse'], slavishly followed, with slight diversities, in hundreds of editions, and substantially represented in all the principal modern Protestant translations prior to the nineteenth century, thus resolves itself essentially into that of the last edition of Erasmus, framed from a few modern and inferior manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot, in the infancy of Biblical criticism. In more than twenty places its reading is supported by the authority of NO known Greek manuscript." Emphasis marks are mine. 

(13) It was omitted by Luther in his German translation of the Bible.

(14) It has been omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament since the Reformation:—in the two first of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinaus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach.

(15) It is first cited by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been forged. 

(16) This verse has been considered inauthentic by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an expert in the New Testament Greek Grammar, based on grounds of the verse structure. 

(17) Only 4 Greek manuscripts contain this spurious verse in the main text: the textus Ottobobianus, Montfortianus, Bucharesti and the Escorial text. And is attested only in the younger Latin manuscripts of Codex Legionensis, Frisingensia, Cavensis, Complutensis, Ulmensis, Toletanus and Sangellansis. 

Now, with this whole bulk of evidence which CASTS DOUBTS upon the authenticity of this fake and false verse, can you prove it to me otherwise?

Me: Very well written! But I have answers for these as well! 

Let me start with #1: I agree with you about your choice of using the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (and other Alexandrian texts) as your standard text since they are the oldest texts you can find. However, we must not assume that the oldest text is the most accurate. If that were so, then we must also remove and expunge the bible verses contained in Genesis 1 to 46, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, Revelation, the last 4 chapters of Hebrews, the last 12 verses of Mark, and nearly 47 Psalms. Why? Because if we were to rely on the age and seniority of these Alexandrian codices, then we must accept as correct the omissions of these huge number of verses. This view is therefore an incorrect view. We cannot assume these 2 texts to be totally sufficient to validate the canon of scripture. 

We must remember that the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus were never used for liturgy or public readings. In fact, the Vaticanus sat on its shelf in the Vatican library until it was discovered in the 15th century. The Sinaiticus, on the other hand, has been corrected by so many people, with numerous corrections and glosses(as many as 7 different handwritings were detected), that it was found, ironically, in a monastery trash bin, ready for the fire. Doesn't this give us any hints about its reliability? And to make it clear to you, Jude - the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts do not agree with each other on numerous verses, and both omit many verses and even books from the canon of scripture. 

Now, are we to establish the canonicity of the Comma Johanneum based on these 2 erroneous (though ancient) texts? Remember, even we did not establish the 66 books of the Bible based on merely these 2 texts alone. We base our conclusions on the many thousands of surviving manuscripts, scrolls and papyri of various languages, streams and traditions.  

As for your point #2, I can safely say that you merely quoted to me is not entirely correct. It has been proven in the records of Sacred Tradition, and in writings concerning the Fathers and Doctors of the catholic church, that the Comma has been quoted and alluded to in their sermons and essays. 

Remember, the concept of 'argumentum ex silentio' cannot be employed in this case, as silence (or lack of mention of the verse) does not necessarily mean absence of the verse. Although Augustine did not mention this verse directly, he does make allusions to it: "But if we will inquire into the things signified by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, "There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One." Even Raymond Brown's New Jerome Biblical Commentary wrote that Augustine "appealed to this text in combination with John 10:30". Even when we analyze the Latin translation of the verse in Clement's version, we can show that Clement's usage of the words "et iterum" clearly mark the interpolation of other topics and intervening text, between the two quotations of verse 6 and 8. Et iterum is "and again" in the English translation. 

In addition Bengel, John Gill, Ben David and Thomas Burgess see "Every promise is valid before two or three witnesses, before the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; before whom, as witnesses and helpers, what are called the commandments ought to be kept." This is taken from Eclogae propheticae13.1. 

And here's a big blow: St Athanasius, the person who drafted the Athanasian Creed, and hails from the 4th century, quotes without doubt the Comma Johanneum and even gave reference to St John as author of the verse. The claim that the passage where Athanasius is recorded to be using this verse, is fake has not been proven. In fact, that passage in which Athanasius is recorded to havve quoted the Comma is proven as authentic, as having come under his name, in a work that he wrote, and in the correct era, hence denying claims of its attempted forgery. 

Tertullian, in his work 'Treatise de Baptismo', alludes to this verse all too clearly when he states the 'Three Heavenly Witnesses' whom he calls the 'arbitros fidei, et sponsores salutis.' Even Theodorus, master of Chrysostom, wrote a treatise on the Trinity based on the Epistle of John, and according to Suidas, this verse even had some notoriety in the 4th century. Hence, for a verse to have notoriety, it definitely needs to be in existence. Therefore, this verse has been in existence from as early as 400 AD. 

Even Basil (who worte 'The Father, the Word and the Spirit are one Godhead') and Cyril have noted, paraphrased and alluded to this verse, as well as Euthymius Zigabenus, who quoted Cyril in his 'Panoply of Faith'. Gregory Naziansen, in his writings against the Arian heretics, quoted this verse in 381 AD, hence this disproves the sweeping statement that the Comma was concocted by overzealous scribes in the 14 to 16th centuries. 

To refute point #3, let it be known that Erasmus finally included the verse into his Textus Receptus, after it was proven to him that there were Greek manuscripts which contained the said Comma. He was pressure by the evidence,not so much by the ecclesiastical authorities. Eucherius quotes the verse in the 5th century AD.Cassiodorus of the 6th century AD, a man who was of same caliber like Jerome, and a staunch critic of manuscipts, included this verse in the work 'Complexiones'. 

And we have Vigilius of Thapsos, the very same unreliable Virgilius Tapsensis as noted in your point #15. And this man actually twisted the Comma by adding foreign clauses and amputated parts of verse 7 and 8 which stressed on the unity of the Trinity. Why would he want to do that, unless the verse was already in existence at that time? 

And lastly, are you saying that the 400 bishops who presented the confession of faith in 484 AD to Hunneric of the Vandals (the heretic and promulgator of Arianism which is a heresy that discredits the Trinity) were unlearned and deceived men? The very first verse they quoted to that heretic was 1 John 5:7 itself, the very same Comma Johanneum! And out of 400, 300 over bishops were exiled. Did you think they would have sacrificed their comfort and posts for the sake of a 'supposedly faked' verse? Remember, the very same Arian heretics actually knew, read and misinterpreted this verse 40 years before these 400 went to bravely meet Hunneric. This means, the verse has actually been read and debated about long before the Reformation itself.

And to add on, we must know that at the time of the 4th to 6th century, there was a widening schism between the Latin and Greek churches. Remember, most Greek manuscripts dating from this time, are more or less based on copies made by Origen,respectable though he is, is also infamous for holding to incorrect views on the Trinity. And why should be believe Ezra Abbott, who is a Unitarian. We must take note that Abbot, was one of at least three Christ-denying Unitarians who worked on the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881 and the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. 

And to make you think: In the first place, how did the Johannine comma originate if it be not genuine, and how did it come to be interpolated into the Latin New Testament text?… Why does it not contain the usual trinitarian formula, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Why does it exhibit the singular combination, never met with elsewhere, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit? In addition, this Comma Johanneum has been unchallenged in versions of the Bible which preceded the King James Version, in fact, it was in the first English Bible by John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, and the Bishop’s Bible of 1568. 

And your statement in #9 is not correct. This verse is found in the Syriac Peshitta, and even Syriac texts like Gutbier's Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci, and Old Latin (Vetus Latina) translations of 1 John. The presence of the Comma in Syrian communities is denoted by the testimony of Jaqub of Edessa, 7th century AD, who teaches with uncanny similarity:" The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit." This is definitely the Comma beign spoken here! #7 is easily debunked, because silence does not mean non-existence. If we were to use that principle to justify canonicity, then we should omit Obadiah from the Bible, because Obadiah is not quoted by any of the new testament authors in the New Testament's Gospels and Epistles. 

And to quote E.F.Hills in 'KJV Defended': "Between 220 - 270 AD, the heresy that Greek Christians were fighting was ...Sabellianism (named after Sabellius) which taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were identical, and that God the Father died on the cross when Christ died on the cross. The statement in the Johannine Comma that "these three are one" seemed to support the Sabellian heresy that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identical....In the Greek speaking east, where the struggle against Sabellianism was most intense, the Johannine comma came to be unanimously rejected. However, in the Latin manuscripts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was not so great, the Johannine Comma was retained. This explains why the Johannine comma is strongly represented in the Latin manuscripts, and why we should retain it today." 

To further solidify our case, we must not forget the rules of Greek Grammar, which Nolan and Dabney explicitly explain in defense of the Comma. If we were to omit the Comma, the masculine article, numeral and participle 'hoi treis marturountes', is ungrammatically made to agree directly with three neuters, which is grammatically unorthodox. If the words of the Comma are allowed to remain, they agree with two masculines and one neuter noun HO Pater (the Father), HO Logos (the Word), KAI (and) TO Hagion Pneuma (Holy Spirit) and, according to the rule of Greek syntax, the masculines among the group will grammatically control the gender over a neuter connected with them. Then the occurrence of the masculines Treis Marturountes in verse 8 agreeing with the neuters Pneuma (Spirit), Hudor(Water) and Haima (Blood) may be expained for by the 'power of attraction', well known in Greek syntax. To quote IH Marshall, "The words "Spirit," "water" and "blood" are all neuters, yet they are treated as masculine in verse 8. This is strange if the Johannine Comma is omitted, but it can be accounted for if it is retained; the masculine nouns "Father" and "word" in verse 7 regulate the gender in the succeeding verse due to the power of attraction principle." 

And speaking of your act of refuting the witness of Priscillian, isn't it a wonder that it is even quoted as a part of 1 John by this Spanish heretic, who died in 385? Now, to quote Martin Shue, "The fact is the Comma Johanneum is cited by Priscillian (385 AD), Cassian (435 AD), Vigilius (date unknown), Athanasius (6th century), Fulgentius (510 AD)(see John Gill), Ansbert (8th century), Jerome (4th century), Tertullian (3rd century), Athanasis (350 AD), Council of Carthage (415 AD), Vigilius of Thapsus (5th century), Cassiodorus (6th century) and Victor Vitensis, who records that the passage was “insisted” upon in a confession of faith that was drawn up by Eugenius Bishop of Carthage and authorized by no less than 460 bishops in 484 AD. This is sufficient evidence to prove the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum. 

And to answer #13, Luther's Bible had no Comma because he made the German translation based on the 2nd Edition of Erasmus' work, which lacked the Comma. 

And I shall also quote Dr Thomas Holland:"The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly." 

And by the way, the King James Bible was never made using just Erasmus' version. It was made with the combined sources of 4 other translations and original texts, and 50 over scholars skilled in Latin, Greek and Hebrew.

To summarize this rebuttal against your presumptuous statement that the Comma Johanneum is a fake, a forgery and an innovation: 

#1 - Age is no measure of reliability. If not, why not acccept the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocrypha as scripture. Anyways, just for your info: It is not the oldest DOCUMENT for which we search, but the oldest READING. Tertullian quotes the Comma in part as early as 200AD. Although no Greek manuscript survives from this early age, it does not mean it was never in existence, since the early Fathers quote it, including Cyprian, Chrysostom, Basil, Athanasius, and even heretics quote it, like Priscillian. And this verse is even found in the bibles of the heretical Socinians, who dispute the Trinity of God. Hence point #1 is debunked. 

#2 - You are definitely ignorant concerning matters of the Sacred Tradition and the Writings of the Fathers. Go back and read more on Tertullian, Athanasius and Cyprian. That should convince you the Comma was already on their bibles back then. 

#3 is merely a spiced up tale of controversy. And the Textus Receptus is, by the way, independently in agreement with the Waldensian texts which predate Jerome's translation and are descended from the ancient Latina translations of the early church, and they all have the Comma included. Coincidence much? 

#4 If indeed this was scribal error, then those sleepy-headed scribes should have come up with something like the Modern Translation which chops off the Comma and makes the verses sound 'hanging'. THAT is what I call a scribal error. Again, what you have stated is merely conjecture. If that was so, then we should reject the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which you value so much, because they not only reek of heretical books, but have missing chapters too! 

#5 is also mere conjecture. This statement is made because of #1 to 3, which we have debunked. Besides, to quote Jesse Boyd, "the Comma is to be found in the midst of a brief discourse dealing with three witnesses.  This discourse contributes to the overall theme of the Book by promulgating a consequence of Christian fellowship, the verification of Christ's credentials.  The Comma, nicely aligned with the structure of the entire book, shows plainly that Christ is one with the Father and the Spirit as he bears witness in heaven. At the same time, his baptism, crucifixion, and the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit bear witness on earth.  It is these witnesses that verify Christ's identity as the Son of God.  In light of these facts, the believer can have fellowship with God Almighty.  If the Comma is omitted from the passage, the structure breaks down.  The theological argument of 5:6-12 becomes vague and one is left trying to figure out how to apply these verses." 

Next is #6. Also debunked by the witness of the church Fathers and the assumption that the verse started off as a marginal footnote is debunked by the witness of the Old Latin, Waldensian and Peshittal texts. Also, refer to the numerous works of the Fathers, which bear both references and allusions to the Comma. 

#7 is based on the assumption that silence =  absence. Well, Augustine might not havve mentioned this verse, but his other successors and colleagues did. 

#8 Clearly, you did not quote the entire sentence from Tertullian's essay. He also actually included the phrase: The Father, Son and Spirit are one. This is not found in John 10:30 (which only mentions the Father and the Son). Please don't make Tertullian look Unitarian because you want him to. 

#9 is either due to your ignorance or blatant rejection of the fact that there are actually Peshittal, Syriac and Armenian texts with the Comma that have been validated by the United Bible Society. 

#10 is debunked by the same argument we used for Augustine. 

#11 is also due to the refusal to acknowledge the others valid texts we have from other contemporary languages which existed at the time of the early Church. #12 Ezra assumes that because there is no surviving 200AD to 300AD Greek manuscript which mentions the Comma, the Comma is too young and hence, a fake. He seems to ignore the testimony of the many bishops, writers, doctors of the church, heretics and evangelists of the early chruch, who quote and allude, and even misinterpret the Comma Johanneum. #13 Luther was merely doing a translation of Erasmus' 2nd edition, which lacked the Comma. 

#14 Historically inaccurate. Erasmus did not omit the verse because he suspected it of innovation, but he did so because his Greek texts did not have them. Zwingli based his work on Eramus', so there is no surprise. 

#15 Refuted by the rebuttal given for #1 to 3. 

#16 is refuted by the explanation given by Nolan, Dabney, Holland and the lack of flow of thought in the scriptures if the Comma is deleted. 

#17 is an assumption that only Greek and Latin Vulgate texts are to be used, and that the older Latina is not accurate. How can this be when the Latina predates the Jeromean version? And what were the early church leaders quoting from then? And how about the Council of Carthage, where the 400 bishops faced the Arian heresy of the Vandals by beginning with 1 John 5:7 itself! The witnesses indicate that there were Greek and Latin manuscripts containing the Comma, although they have not been found today. SO, there we are -  all 17 of your points against the Comma's authenticity have been soundly repudiated and refuted to the ground. The Comma Johanneum is undeniably part of the Canon of Holy Scripture. Case closed.

Skeptic: I still believe that the Doctrine of Trinity was a cocked-up doctrine, and this verse, doubtless, has no surviving manuscripts. So, none = no proof = difficult to substantiate its validity. Even John 10:30 mentions only the Father and the Son, and that makes a Holy Duonity, not a Trinity. Take away 1 John 5:7, and you have a crumbling theology. Tell me that we have the Peshitta, the Syriac, some Armenian wormholed scrolls that have the Comma - it is nothing against the Majority Text which numbers nearly 400 plus and they all don't have the Comma included. Even in Jerome's Latin Vulgate, we have seen no Comma included. The Comma is a mere concoction, and already some have said it was forged by a derelict Pastor in North Africa. The doctrine of trinity was mainly drafted up by Augustine, who is a mystic and has weird beginnings to start with. Now tell me something!

Me:And I will prove you wrong. 

The Majority Text, numerous though they may be, are actually mere mitotically duplicated copies of a few texts. Contrasted with the few but geographically diversified manuscripts containing the Comma, it is not so reliable as a witness. To have Commas quoted across the Mediterranean from coast to coast is more significant than a whole mountain of non-Comma sources which are limited to only the Aegean region. By the way, the testimony of historical church figures and the whole loads of quotations in their essays and books clearly speak of a verse called 1 John 5:7. True, Jerome did not have the Comma inside his translation, but compared to the testimonies of Cyprian, Basil, Eusebius, Cassian, Athanasius, Eucherius, Chrysostom and Cassiodorus and other figures of the early church, and to the Old Latin translation which had the Comma included, it is insignificant. One man's omission does not mean he is right.

And if you insist on using the majority-minority argument, please be reminded that majority does not always mean truth. For example, although it is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses, nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original (quoted from Dr Thomas Holland). Get it? 

Want more: For much of the 4th century, the eastern portion of the Empire (specifically Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, where the most prominent Greek manuscripts used in textual criticism were copied and kept) were heavily influenced by Arianism. After his condemnation, Arius fled to Syria-Palestine and succeeded in converting a large number of both the common masses and influential church leaders to Arianism (such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had previously sheltered Arius during his trials, and Eusebius of Caesarea). You may read http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html to have a full argument of the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum. 

The fact is this: Even IF the Comma is deleted, the Trinitarian doctrine STILL STANDS unchallenged, due to the HUGE number of Bible verses which speak of the Triune nature of God Himself. Read ALL the following verses which denote the Divinity of Father, Son and Spirit, and the Oneness of God - (the Father is God) 2 Corinthians 1:3; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Peter 1:3. (the Son/Jesus is God and is implied as having the attributes of God) John 1:1, John 20:28, Revelation 4:11, Acts 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Romans 10:9,13, Philippians 2:10-11, Isaiah 9:6, John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6; Col 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:14, Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; Eph. 1:23; 4:10; Col. 3:11, Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8, John 16:30. (the Holy Spirit is God and has the attributes of God too) 2 Corinthians 3:17-18, Acts 5:3-4, Rom. 1:4; 8:11, 1 Cor. 2:10-11, Heb. 9:14; (There is only One God) Deuteronomy 4:35, Isaiah 44:6, Rom. 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6, 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25, Deut. 4:39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9. The Father and Son is one, as is attested in John 10:30 and in John1:1, John 16 and 17. See also the baptismal formula given in Matthew 28. Hence, the case for the Trinity has been proven, even without the need for the Comma Johanneum. You cannot deny the Trinity, even if you wanted to blatantly deny the Comma its authenticity.

CONCLUSION: The Johannine Comma is part of the Scriptures and is of equal authority with all other verses in the Bible. It is not a vestige of the King James Version of the English Bible, and it is not a forgery from the 14th century AD. Case closed.

Language Barrier

My late paternal grandfather (I call him Mr Lee Senior) used to boast of the staggering number of grandchildren he had (and the increasing number of great grandkids as well). According to my last count, I have 53 cousins on my paternal side, as compared to only 6 on the maternal branch.

When I was a little kid back then, I never understood why my grandfather prided himself on having so many grandkids. Could he even remember 20 of their names? That I shall not speak on his behalf.

But I knew he used to say: Lee sin' ke ch'i lei ta por hou seh jin jia ho (It is good that the Li surname has one more son), each time we had a male addition to the family. Well, in a patrilineal society, nothing else is more important than the edification, expansion and continuation of the lineage.

However, of what is it to have 53 grand children when the only time they meet is during Chinese New Year? And to exacerbate matters, there is the socio-cultural barrier and the linguistic barrier.

I can say that we actually have cliches among ourselves.

My elder brother and I, and the bunch of Johore Bahru cousins comprised one tiny cliche (ok, that means roughly 10 percent of the manpower is on our side). And then we had the Kamunting gang, Klang gang, Nibong Tebal gang, Selama gang, Taiping gang and countless other 'factions'.

Seriously, I can't even get all their names right. And I can't even remember who belongs to which uncle or aunty, right until today.

And to make matters even worse, there was no common language among the grandchildren. No lingua franca to unite them whatsoever.

Out of 53 cousins, only 2 were educated in Missionary Schools. The rest were educated in Chinese National Type schools. And hence, there is, of course, a difference in mentality despite observing the same cultural values. As a result, only 2 out of 53 thought, wrote, spoke and reasoned in English. The rest were doing it in Mandarin. Coupled with merely once-a-year meet-ups, there was no meaningful interaction of any sort among us.

So, how did 2 guys end up studying at English schools? Because their father was from a missionary school himself. And among his 14 siblings, he was the only one who was sent to a missionary school.

It's an anomaly, isn't it? Ask my late grandfather to find out why he did that.

Believe it or not, my grandfather was a superstitious man, and when my father was born, he consulted the mediums, who told him to send this particular son to a Missionary School for a bright and promising future.

Irony much? I kid you not.

So, yea, coming back to where I left. I and my brother use English as our first language. Malay was our de facto second, and Penang Hokkien was designated as our third.

We were all Hokkien. All 53 of us. But now, here's the catch:
Hokkien is merely a 'supergroup' of languages and is morely accurately termed 'Min Nan Hua' -  an umbrella term which includes Quanzhou (Chin-chew), Zhangzhou (Changchew), Eng Hua, Eng-Chun and Xiamen (Amoy) dialects.

Being from Penang, we spoke a hybrid form of Hokkien called Penang Hokkien.

My cousins down south, on the other hand, were speakers of the Quanzhou prestige dialect.

So, whatever attempts we tried to bridge the differences using Hokkien were rarely successful. For example:

Me: Ah Hun, lu eh sai gia hor wa ha lei tuala?
(Ah Hun, could you please pass me the towel. Tuala is Penang Hokkien for towel.)
Ah Hun: Hu'e me' mi kia lai? Ha'r mi 'tuala'? Li si kong ha'r mi uea? Goa buerr bueng puek li si' kong ha'r mi uea.
(What on earth is that? What is 'tuala'? What language are you speaking? I don't understand what you are saying.)
Me: Wa si kong, gia hor wa ha lei tuala. Ha peng ar, zai to teng eh ui.
(I was saying, get me the 'tuala' (towel). It is over there, on the table.)
Ah Hun: Haiya! Mor kin si boh? Li geh uea jhin jhia buo bueng er. Hish...
(I say! You are telling me about the 'mor kin' [Quanzhou dialect for 'towel']? Your words aren't clear. Hish...)

That is just the tip of the iceberg. But I'll reserve my tales of epic mis-communication for later.

So, yes, we had many difficulties just to understand each other.

And we have to put up with the awkward silence at the CNY reunion table. Because we don't talk among ourselves.

What Have We Gotten Ourselves Into

The rut of Machiavellian power games.

Why do we need to treat life as though it is a stage for the re-enactment of Sun Tzu's Art of War?

It seems to me (actually, it really is) that many colleagues can no longer be fully trusted, neither can they be absolutely sincere in friendship. 

Friends with benefits. Yea, right. (sarcasm intended)

Friends don't backstab; they don't have hidden agendas; they're clear and see-through with no covert motives.

Unlike some: who use others to their own benefit -  and after that, you are no longer of any significance to them.

Well, that is still alright - but to ass-lick and flatter your way to the top; and then turning your back on friends and stealing the thunder when it wasn't yours - you would need a lack of conscience to do that without batting an eyelid.

Now I know why the world is such an unhappy place. 

Inspirational Speeches 3: We Shall Fight Them On The Beaches

Date: 4th June 1940

Orator: Winston Churchill 

Setting: The position of the B. E.F had now become critical As a result of a most skillfully conducted retreat and German errors, the bulk of the British Forces reached the Dunkirk bridgehead. The peril facing the British nation was now suddenly and universally perceived. On May 26, "Operation Dynamo "--the evacuation from Dunkirk began. The seas remained absolutely calm. The Royal Air Force--bitterly maligned at the time by the Army--fought vehemently to deny the enemy the total air supremacy which would have wrecked the operation. At the outset, it was hoped that 45,000 men might be evacuated; in the event, over 338,000 Allied troops reached England, including 26,000 French soldiers. On June 4, Churchill reported to the House of Commons, seeking to check the mood of national euphoria and relief at the unexpected deliverance, and to make a clear appeal to the United States.

Speech:

“I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.

The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Don't Say This To A Guy, Ever

Alright Ignatius, you win. So, if you're not reading this now, I'm coming for your jugular veins soon.

Now, coming back to where I left off (at the title) -  What things should we avoid saying to a guy in general?

In other words, what catch-phrases or 'urban-talk' should you veer away to safety rather than face the risk of stirring a guy's deadly ire (and possibly, fatal smackdown).

Note: Guys have feelings, and we have a pain threshold too. So, ladies, read this post. It might be helpful in the future, who knows.

We have all heard of the all too famous 'Dangerous Words To Say To Women'. But does it mean that guys don't have a purported 'Top-5-list-of-quick-sudden-death-words'?

As humans with functioning brains and hearts, we do have sensitive spots for both niceties and horrid 'treats' and 'slap in your faces'.

So, let us start with #1

#1: You a guy? Duncha' have balls? (mainly used to chide a reluctant guy into doing something 'she' wants)

Ladies, ladies -  guys have a code of honour as well, ad we do abstain from doing certain things that we judge as foolish and inappropriate. As competent beings, we indeed reserve and are fully entitled to a right to decide what to do and what not to do with our lives. Insulting a guy's manhood and speaking of it with the same disdain you refer to the main ingredients of 'sup torpedo' definitely outweighs your selfish wants. If you want someone to do it, get someone who prefers to be a sluttish a**-licker.

#2: Don't be a cry-baby

Most guys don't simply shed tears for nothing. Yes, we can be stoic, and stone-faced in the advent of adverse times, but we are not invincible to tough extremities. We have hearts of flesh just like you, and hence, we need a vent to release our pent up frustrations and disappointments too. Who says that real men don't cry? Only cold-hearted tyrants and cruel despots who impale guys on sharp poles don't.

#3: You're inconsiderate and mean!

NOTE: This is a legitimate phrase only IF you are using it on a really selfish and nasty brat of a man.

Now, have you asked yourself whether you're been fair towards him? Chances are, he's giving you the cold shoulder and spat a bitter wake-up call to your face because he's getting tired of you. Do a self-check first.

#4: You never understand me.

How should he? He is not you. Explain yourself if you really want him to know more about how you work.

And guys function differently from girls. Their brains are hardwired in a totally alien manner.

#5: You're a good-for-nothing

Unless you intend to character assassinate and smash his ego -  never use this phrase ever.

It is worse than dropping a boulder on his favourite car and more bitter than the deadliest poison.

Hold your tongue, and use some other alternative instead.

Relationships work best with plenty of trust, patience and common sense. Make sure all 3 are there.

Mistakes made at interviews