Does King James Version only has this verse?

You may have a point and thanks for the reference. Still, the research mainly focused on 1 John 5:7 so I'm not contented. I'll consider it as an article in Wikipedia. The word 'Trinity' has never been written once in the Bible, but there are many Bible references indicating that the three are of the same level as God. God bless!

Owlwings, nothing of the sort has been proved. There are at least three Greek manuscripts that contain this verse, which is also in the traditional Latin Vulgate. However, it is definitely a minority reading, and the manuscript evidence is disputable and disputed, which isn't the same as saying it's proved wrong. Dabney and others produced an argument for the verse based on Greek grammar, but my analysis is that the whole grammatical argument hinges on the usage of Treis/Tria in Koine Greek (Does the agreement have to be strictly grammatical, or is it sometimes semantic? One can't draw conclusions from 1 Corinthians 13:13, because pneumatika, the subject of the entire discourse is neuter), and, as far as I can tell, evidence either way is lacking in both Ancient and Koine Greek. To my mind, a point in favour of the authenticity of the verse is that whilst it says "These three are one", it does not say that the three are one God, any more than John 10:30 says that the Father and the Son are one God. In both verses "one" is in the neuter (in both Greek and Latin), whereas the word for "God" is masculine. Were the verse an insertion to prove the Trinity, the word for "one" would be masculine.

1) John 14:28 King James Version (KJV)28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. Comment: If the Father is greater, then they are not on the same level. A father and a son can never be on the same level. A father is always older. The son gets life from the father but the father does not get life from the son. 2) Mark 13:32 King James Version (KJV) 32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Comment: If they were one, how could the Son not know, something that the Father knows? 3) 1 Corinthians 11:3 King James Version (KJV) 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Comment: Is the man on the same level as Christ? Then neither is Christ on the same level as God. Lovers of truth will pray and dig until they find the truth and it is my hope that all who love the truth will keep doing that. All the best!

I have never thought by this way, but I think you are right, I have studied it a lot, and I think that there are levels, and one day we will understand that better.

1hopefulman, I wonder about your thoughts regarding Isaiah 9:6. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." In this verse, the son (referring to Jesus Christ) is also called The everlasting Father. Don't tell this is also an error of the translator. John 1:1-14 1 In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. In these verses, Jesus was referred as God (which can clearly be seen in verse 1 and 14). Could this be an error again? Regarding John 14:28 and Mark 13:32, see http://bible.cc/mark/13-32.htm

You may have a point to that. It just made me wonder why the Puritans still inserted those words even if they were confused. One interesting research I found is this: https://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp The site link gave me the answer why Jack T. Chick insists that I John 5:7 is accurate.

If the KJV made a mistake here then how do we know it has not made many more? That is why, I prefer to use many translations to come to an accurate understanding of the truth. As far as I can see there is no trinity. It is a pagan teaching o thousands of years. The Bible never uses the word trinity. It's really weird that some "Christians" teach the Trinity that is not found in the Bible, not even once, but want to remove God's name Jehovah from the Bible that appeared about 7000 times? Even the KJV uses it 7 times instead of about 7000 times. Now that's a crime!

As far as I know, only KJV (and some other rare versions) has that passage that's why it's hard to preach the Godhead using that verse. I agree that there are many more solid passages that will work. God bless!

Yes the Bible never used the word trinity, but the Godhead is there. Regarding 1 John 5:7, http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp has a good explanation. Concerning the name Jehovah, see http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/jehovah.asp. If you're a JW, I suggest you to read the book defined in https://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0135.asp. God bless!

I think most Christians understand (even if a little loosely) the idea of the Trinity, God or Godhead in three persons - and whilst Jesus was a man on earth he was both God and fully man at the same time. This in itself is a difficult concept, but helps us to understand why Jesus prays to the Father, and appears (at least temporarily) to be 'lower' than the Father. Jesus himself reveals himself as God, specifically using the phrase 'I am' in the presence of the Jewish leaders, giving rise to an immediate call for his execution. In Matthew 26:64 his declaration of his own deity gives rise to accusations of blasphemy - If Christ was not fully God and fully man, then he was not perfect and not fit to be a sacrificial lamb for our sins, in that case we are still responsible for our own sin and therefore are condemned to suffer. Jesus must either be equal with God, or a false prophet, in my reading of the Bible, there is no room for a Christ who was not equal with God - if he was just another prophet, he cannot atone for his own sins, let alone mine.

thank you for your answer!

Please see my comment under 1hopefulman's response. Thanks!

How about this? http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

I really don't take the site having the reliable information. In the case of KJV translation (within your reference), I don't see any typographical error within Ruth 3:15 as Ruth was talking with Boaz at that time so the pronoun "he" (pointing to Boaz) should be used. I don't see any history articles of King James IV (of Scotland) and I (of England) desiring to divorce his wife. In fact, King James has little interest in women. He married Anne of Denmark, daughter of the Protestant Frederick II. England was already a Protestant nation when King James succeeded the throne from Queen Elizabeth I. All that I know is that King Henry VIII of England was the one who separated the Church of England from the Roman Catholic institution because of his ex-communion due to his six marriages.

Between the KJV and NIV, the verse I've pointed above is just one of the many differences.

Funchum, I would rather believe that God said that if you have a Biblical basis. Were talking about the true translation here and since Jesus said in Matthew 24:35 that His words shall not pass away even of heaven and earth will, there's no way Satan can destroy the true Bible. As based on my experience, it's difficult to say that Jesus Christ is God by having a mistranslated Bible.