[A small tidbit for a response .... which I wrote on the Muslim-Christian dialogue mailing list.]

} As I said 1 john 5:17 is considered latter insertion by most scholars. Here
} is part from Kadhi's book. If all he said here about 1John 5:17 is a lie,
} then tell me, and will qoute from infidel.org next time. 

Al-Kadhi is mostly right in the facts (in this case, not in many other
parts of his propaganda manual), but the question is what is the 
conclusion from the facts? He is pretty wrong there.

It is interesting that Muslims use this case to bash the Christians
in any case. When one uses a KJV or NKJV Bible which contains this
verse, then the accusation is that we use a translation containing
a verse that is shown to be spurious. If we use a Bible (as all newer
versions not derived from the KJV) not containing the verse, then 
we are accused of changing the Bible and removing a verse. You can't
win either way. 

But the motivation is anyway, not to understand the issue but to find
something to accuse. If you are really interested to understand the
history of it, I recommend a very good and inexpensive book on the
topic:

D.A. Carson 
The King James Version Debate 

which does not only give a detailed history of this particular verse
but for many of the controversies whether the Greek text on which
the KJV is based is superior or inferior to the critical text used
by most other translations today.

} It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac
} Newton from openly revealing these facts to all: 
} 
} "In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in
} Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the
} 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. 

This is true. But what is the conclusion of this? When the council of 
Nicea was held and the doctrine of the Trinity discussed, this verse
was not even mentioned. But the council nevertheless came to the 
conclusion that the Trinity is the doctrine that is most true to the
Biblical revelation!  This shows that this doctrine never was based
on this verse and as such, the removal of this spurious verse does
not affect this doctrine in the least. It was established for reasons
absolutely independent from this verse and those verses it was founded
on are still in all our Bibles.  

Jochen

The Rebuttal to "What Did Jesus Really Say?"
Answering Islam Home Page