KJV Only...which one!

[Bible Highlighter]

You are not using the right dictionary. The Bible was not written in English, so an English dictionary will do you no good. But more importantly, I already showed you, from Paul's letter to the Hebrews, how the term "μονογενοῦς" is used. If you don't understand, then ask.

But you use an English to Greek dictionary as if it is inspired by God. It still involves English in some way or you would be clueless. How do you know the religious dictionary is more accurate? For example: James Strong and his buddies did not translate the word “repent” correctly. So this simply shows you that they have a bias to their own personal beliefs. In fact, the word “repent” (or it's variations) can have a wide variety of meanings depending on the context.

English dictionaries usually have less of a bias because they are supposed to be words used by everyone. They are less likely to be distorted by others in a way that can trick another person, as well. With the original languages this is not the case. You can say this Greek word means that or this, and none would really be the wiser because it is a completely foreign dead language that no longer exists. There are no Lexicons given to us by Paul, etcetera and the apostle Paul is not around to help you make sure you are getting your Koine Greek correct.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, in general I think that is true. The KJV translators, however, did not have some of the original Greek manuscripts. Some of the KJV was translated from the Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate. As time passed, more manuscripts were found and eventually we recovered copies of the entire New Testament.

With the KJB translation beginning in 1604: The KJB translators worked off many manuscripts. They used the Textus Receptus English Bibles, and the Greek manuscript by Erasmus (Textus Receptus). They used the Syriac Peshitta (2nd or 3rd century) and the Old Latin and various old papyri (scrolls). Yes, these were copies, but they did use works that were taken from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. 47 Translators worked in small committees that peer reviewed each other's work and they each had an impressive resume. King James also supervised their work to make sure they were not being biased to their own beliefs or thoughts. This was the first Bible that truly had a great influence upon many people.

It was until the Revisers (Westcott and Hort) in 1881 that changed or attacked the Received Text or Textus Receptus (or Traditional Text). Thousands of changes were present with their new text based off of two spurious manuscripts.

The KJB was based off thousands of manuscripts (that come from Antioch Syria).
The Modern Bibles are based off like 50 (and their manuscripts come from Alexandria, the center of Gnosticism or Arianism).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, they did. Prove they didn't. You can't, can you?

What existed in English Bibles is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is what John actually wrote. And he wrote Greek, not English.

Here are some Textus Receptus Bibles that have 1 John 5:7:

Tyndale 1534:
Tyndale Bible 1534 Textus Receptus Bibles

Geneva Bible 1560/1599:
Geneva Bible 1560/1599 Textus Receptus Bibles

Bishop's Bible 1568:
Bishops Bible 1568 Textus Receptus Bibles

Early Church Fathers & certain minuscules confirm 1 John 5:7:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

Source:
David Daniels

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, they did. Prove they didn't. You can't, can you?

What existed in English Bibles is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is what John actually wrote. And he wrote Greek, not English.

The phrase was originally part of the Vulgate and the Vulgate was translated into Greek and inserted into some printed editions of the Greek New Testament. But there is no manuscript evidence of it. NONE. It doesn't belong in our Bibles. Period.

Then you have no defense for the Trinity. If you woke up on an island and you knew nothing of the Trinity, your chances of knowing about the Trinity are better if you have a King James Bible because of 1 John 5:7. Without this verse, there really is no real description of the Trinity. Also, why do Modern Bibles replace Godhead (Trinity) with divinity? Again, it is an attack by the Arians or Anti-Trinitarians because the very manuscripts Westcott and Hort used come from Alexandria (Which is the birthplace of Arianism).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You are not using the right dictionary. The Bible was not written in English, so an English dictionary will do you no good. But more importantly, I already showed you, from Paul's letter to the Hebrews, how the term "μονογενοῦς" is used. If you don't understand, then ask.

The Bible was written in English just as it was written in Greek. Why was it written in Greek? Because it was the world language at the time that the Jews rejected their Messiah and salvation went out to the Gentiles (Greeks). Why not other languages at that time? Why did God only choose Greek to begin with? Well, the world language at that time was Greek. That was God's choice. Just as the world language of today is English. It makes sense if we are to follow the character of God and the way He does things in the past, it would logically make sense that He would make available His words in the world language of today (Which is English).

For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

None of this matters. You just said that God can direct anyone, including evil people to produce an authorized Bible. Do you believe what you say or are you making this stuff up as you go along?

Your claims that the Vatican had an influence on the Nestle-Alan are irrelevant. Why? Because nothing is omitted in the "Novum Testamentum Graece" Absolutely nothing is missing. Every Greek text, and every alternate reading is included in the Novum. You are very much mistaken if you think that the Catholic church or anyone else influenced the authors of the Novem to change something or leave something out. It just isn't true. You seem to have gulped down the hogwash floating out there and haven't taken the time to research it out yourself.

You aren't proving anything. All you are doing is raising suspicion and attacking people.

Which Nestle and Aland Critical Text are you talking about? Is it the 25th Edition? The 26the Edition? The 27th Edition? The 28th Edition? It does not seem like they got it right the first time. It appears to be ever evolving and never settled.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

None of this matters. You just said that God can direct anyone, including evil people to produce an authorized Bible. Do you believe what you say or are you making this stuff up as you go along?

Your claims that the Vatican had an influence on the Nestle-Alan are irrelevant. Why? Because nothing is omitted in the "Novum Testamentum Graece" Absolutely nothing is missing. Every Greek text, and every alternate reading is included in the Novum. You are very much mistaken if you think that the Catholic church or anyone else influenced the authors of the Novem to change something or leave something out. It just isn't true. You seem to have gulped down the hogwash floating out there and haven't taken the time to research it out yourself.

You aren't proving anything. All you are doing is raising suspicion and attacking people.

It says so right in the 27th edition that it was under the supervision of the Vatican. Whether the Catholic influence happened exactly at that point or with Westcott and Hort and their favoritism towards Catholicism is not really the point. The point is that there is a Catholic connection to Modern Bibles and we can see 14 verses that are altered from the Traditional Text (the KJB) that favors the Catholic church. I have already provided the evidence of this for you.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Here are some Textus Receptus Bibles that have 1 John 5:7:

Tyndale 1534:
Tyndale Bible 1534 Textus Receptus Bibles

Geneva Bible 1560/1599:
Geneva Bible 1560/1599 Textus Receptus Bibles

Bishop's Bible 1568:
Bishops Bible 1568 Textus Receptus Bibles

Early Church Fathers & certain minuscules confirm 1 John 5:7:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

Source:
David Daniels

Okay. But the question remains, was the statement spoken by John? I say no, because as I argued before, the statement is a non-sequitor and out of place.

Even so, your view is that the Novum leaves it out, which is not true.
Your view is that modern translations leave it out, which is also not true.
My NASB has it in the margin, stating that some of the later manuscripts have it.
Thus, your claim that the Comma is left out of modern translations is erroneous and your view that nefarious motives are the reason for the the omission is also bogus.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Then you have no defense for the Trinity.

People have been murdered, burned at the state, stoned etc. over one verse? Really? Give us a break will you? If the Trinity is so important to the teaching of the New Testament, why do you suppose it's only found in one verse of the entire Bible?

Also, why do Modern Bibles replace Godhead (Trinity) with divinity?

Because the Greek word actually means "divinity" or "divine nature."

Again, it is an attack by the Arians or Anti-Trinitarians because the very manuscripts Westcott and Hort used come from Alexandria (Which is the birthplace of Arianism).

It isn't a question of who assembled the manuscripts into a Greek edition of the New Testament. The only question that matters is whether the Greek Edition represents all the manuscripts. Those translating the Greek into English will decide whether to include disputed texts or not.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Okay. But the question remains, was the statement spoken by John? I say no, because as I argued before, the statement is a non-sequitor and out of place.

Not only is there the historical testimony that you ignore, when we read John 1:1 and then 1 John 5:7, it explains the Trinity nicely to us.

John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

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.”

Unless of course you need a scholar or Roman Catholic priest to believe in the Trinity, I will simply believe the Bible that tells me that this is so.

We also know that John mentions the Word in context previously in the 1st epistle of John chapter 1.

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” (1 John 1:1).

The Word of life is Jesus Christ.

Again, you also have to ignore that the word Godhead is changed to divinity in Modern Bibles. Godhead means Trinity. Again, ALEXANDRIA is the origin of ARIANS or ANTI-TRINITARIANS. It’s not a coincidence that the manuscripts you favor just so happen to come from a place where Anti-Trinitarians would obviously attack these Trinitarian verses. But keep ignoring the evidence if that helps you to sleep at night.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

If God leading me to the NKJV isn't enough proof. I'm not sure what to tell you.

I prayed and asked God. He is my ultimate authority. Anything else matters not when He answers my questions and prayers.

This, of course, is Very troubling (lost sleep over it...), because, the Mormons do
THE SAME about their book of mormon. Pray and ask for God to "put a burning
(indigestion?) in their heart, to know the book is True."

And they Also claim God answers. Problem is their doctrine
Polytheism (Multiple GodS), is DENIED by their own "book of mormon,"
saying "There Is ONE True God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
(part of 25,000 words plagiarized From The KJB!???)

So much for "God leading them" To Truth! What think ye?

 

[CadyandZoe]

It says so right in the 27th edition that it was under the supervision of the Vatican. Whether the Catholic influence happened exactly at that point or with Westcott and Hort and their favoritism towards Catholicism is not really the point. The point is that there is a Catholic connection to Modern Bibles and we can see 14 verses that are altered from the Traditional Text (the KJB) that favors the Catholic church. I have already provided the evidence of this for you.

Again, it doesn't matter how the product came about or who paid for it. All that matters is whether the product is scholarly, accurate and reliable. Many of my friends own a copy and can read and understand the Greek. I have seen the Greek edition myself and though I don't personally own a copy, I have read it while sitting next to my friends in Bible study. I can tell you that the product contains ALL manuscript evidence. The disputed texts are always placed in the margin. Nothing is ever deleted. Anyone who understands Kone Greek can produce an English translation of their own. I personally have translated the book of Romans, (four or five times) 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, Ephesians (four or five times) and some other book I can't remember at the moment. Anyway, I had access to every manuscript available. I could have easily translated 1 John and included 1John 5:7 in my translation.

You argue as if there is some kind of evil dictator making everyone read a bad translation. Get a grip will ya?

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Bible was written in English just as it was written in Greek.

False. The Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. If you insist that the Bible was written in English the conversation is over.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Which Nestle and Aland Critical Text are you talking about? Is it the 25th Edition? The 26the Edition? The 27th Edition? The 28th Edition? It does not seem like they got it right the first time. It appears to be ever evolving and never settled.

What would you expect? They are producing an Edition of the Greek text, which is a Greek New Testament, footnotes, margin references, and a lexicon. If someone would find another manuscript, a new Edition is necessary. They got it right every time.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

People have been murdered, burned at the state, stoned etc. over one verse? Really? Give us a break will you? If the Trinity is so important to the teaching of the New Testament, why do you suppose it's only found in one verse of the entire Bible?

Uh, you do realize, Tyndale was martyred by a Catholic king and he died for his faith and he translated a Bible that had 1 John 5:7 in it.

Because the Greek word actually means "divinity" or "divine nature."

How do you know? Did you talk with the apostle Paul about it?
Why are you so sure? You do realize James Strong was one of the REVISERS on the Westcott and Hort Critical Text committee. James Strong also worked on the ASV. Why are we to trust him if he is mixed up in such nonsense? Again, Westcott and Hort held to heretical beliefs. They had an Arian. I repeat. An Arian on their committee. They defended this Arian. They defended the Arian. The Arian. Yet, you got your 1 John 5:7 removed. Good job and win for the Arians. Are you an Arian or Anti-Trinitarian? Where is your biblical authority in proving the Trinity with the Bible? If you don’t have 1 John 5:7 you got nothing but assumptions and implications upon other verses, my friend. 1 John 5:7 ties it all together.

It isn't a question of who assembled the manuscripts into a Greek edition of the New Testament. The only question that matters is whether the Greek Edition represents all the manuscripts. Those translating the Greek into English will decide whether to include disputed texts or not.

Again, we have historical documentation for 1 John 5:7. We don’t have to play by the Modern Scholars rule book here.
They don’t get to decide truth.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What would you expect? They are producing an Edition of the Greek text, which is a Greek New Testament, footnotes, margin references, and a lexicon. If someone would find another manuscript, a new Edition is necessary. They got it right every time.

How do you know they got it right every time? That sounds like faith. Faith in the scholars. Again, Kurt Aland can be seen being all happy with the Catholic pope. Kurt Aland worked with a Catholic cardinal who was also an editor on the Nestle and Aland Critical Text. They based their work also off of Westcott and Hort who were also into Catholicism. We can see 14 changes in the Bible that favors Catholicism with the Modern Bibles that comes from the Nestle and Aland (Westcott and Hort) Text. Are you Catholic?

 

[JesusFan1]

You mean you want to hide behind some original language word you really don't know to teach something that is not true or what you want to be true?

Did the Holy Spirit inspire to us the biblical Hebrew and Greek, or the English? I want to get back to the Greek term chosen by Him and used!

 

[JesusFan1]

Yes, in general I think that is true. The KJV translators, however, did not have some of the original Greek manuscripts. Some of the KJV was translated from the Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate. As time passed, more manuscripts were found and eventually we recovered copies of the entire New Testament.

They used the Vulgate and Rheims catholic bibles, so much for "vatican influence"

 

[JesusFan1]

You are not using the right dictionary. The Bible was not written in English, so an English dictionary will do you no good. But more importantly, I already showed you, from Paul's letter to the Hebrews, how the term "μονογενοῦς" is used. If you don't understand, then ask.

You must use a Hebrew and Greek lexicons to get back into what the original words were used and their meanings!

 

[JesusFan1]

Yes, they did. Prove they didn't. You can't, can you?

What existed in English Bibles is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is what John actually wrote. And he wrote Greek, not English.

The phrase was originally part of the Vulgate and the Vulgate was translated into Greek and inserted into some printed editions of the Greek New Testament. But there is no manuscript evidence of it. NONE. It doesn't belong in our Bibles. Period.

Only found in Latin, and those were marginal scribal notes!