THE FAKE KJV ONLY ARGUMENT

[Rockerduck]

Notice the greek kai is not between Father and Word.

The Word is John's way of describing Christ as you should know. Just like in Matthew 28:19 -baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[MonoBiblical]

The Word is John's way of describing Christ as you should know. Just like in Matthew 28:19 -baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

No, it isn't, and in the Greek of 1 John 5:7 the Father is the Word, not Valentinus's baby.

 

[Rockerduck]

No, it isn't, and in the Greek of 1 John 5:7 the Father is the Word, not Valentinus's baby.

And in Matthew too huh. How about Matthew 3:16-17. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God were at Jesus' baptism.

 

[MonoBiblical]

And in Matthew too huh. How about Matthew 3:16-17. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God were at Jesus' baptism.

Weak

 

[MonoBiblical]

And in Matthew too huh. How about Matthew 3:16-17. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God were at Jesus' baptism.

And I admit I do like those verses as a Unitarian.

 

[MonoBiblical]

While I agree that no one has ever been or will ever be misled by its inclusion, the historical and manuscript evidence raises questions about its authenticity.

It's missing from all known early Greek manuscripts and was not referenced during the Council of Nicea. It likely originated as a marginal note in a 4th-century Latin manuscript known as Liber Apologeticus and eventually had slipped into the main text during the hand copying process.

Based on Constantine von Tischendorf's own firsthand account, his discovery of Codex Sinaiticus came when a monk brought it out of the closet of his cell, wrapped in red cloth. It's highly improbable that people living in monasteries would have wrapped their garbage in red cloths.

While I have no issue with someone accepting the Johannine Comma as authentic, for these reasons, I don't fault the modern translators for relegating that passage to a footnote.

There is also an issue of missing omnicron Greek letters in the original version of the verse.

 

[MonoBiblical]

As far as I'm aware, the earliest known Greek manuscript that includes the Johannine Comma is Minuscule 629 from the 14th century, which was back-translated from the Latin Vulgate.

Johannine Comma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rockerduck]

While I agree that no one has ever been or will ever be misled by its inclusion, the historical and manuscript evidence raises questions about its authenticity.

It's missing from all known early Greek manuscripts and was not referenced during the Council of Nicea. It likely originated as a marginal note in a 4th-century Latin manuscript known as Liber Apologeticus and eventually had slipped into the main text during the hand copying process.

Based on Constantine von Tischendorf's own firsthand account, his discovery of Codex Sinaiticus came when a monk brought it out of the closet of his cell, wrapped in red cloth. It's highly improbable that people living in monasteries would have wrapped their garbage in red cloths.

While I have no issue with someone accepting the Johannine Comma as authentic, for these reasons, I don't fault the modern translators for relegating that passage to a footnote.

I'll just give you a quote from Constantine von Tishendorf's account.

I here pass over in silence the interesting details of my travels--my audience with the Pope, Gregory XVI, in May, 1843--my intercourse with Cardinal Mezzofanti, that surprising and celebrated linguist--and I come to the result of my journey to the East. It was in April, 1844, that I embarked at Leghorn for Egypt. The desire which I felt to discover some precious remains of any manuscripts, more especially Biblical, of a date which would carry us back to the early times of Christianity, was realized beyond my expectations. It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript. I transcribed a page of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way.

 

[MonoBiblical]

The table of manuscript evidence in the article confirms what I had previously posted.



Since you're claiming that there were missing Greek letters in the "original version," please clarify which Greek manuscript you're referring to.

Erasmus, and Von Soden copy the verse correctly from the cursives, but Erasmus decided to add omicrons o's to his next TR to include it. The omicrons are a TR thing.

 

[Davy]

I agree. While the Johannine Comma may indeed be a true phrase supported by other sections of Scripture, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that it was authored by St. John the Apostle, regardless of which manuscript tradition one considers to be authoritative.

Still irrelevant. Two or more witnesses to confirm every word in God's Word. And we have them on this matter, as I have already shown, so debate over.

 

[Wrangler]

Still irrelevant. Two or more witnesses to confirm every word in God's Word. And we have them on this matter, as I have already shown, so debate over.

Sad. What happens when two or more witnesses contradict the veracity of Johannine Comma?

 

[MonoBiblical]

Sad. What happens when two or more witnesses contradict the veracity of Johannine Comma?

I have [not] seen a manuscript that doesn't imply the same to exist. Michael Meynard believes Syrian manuscripts have it. It contradicts testimony that the Syrian doesn't have, and the Old Latin haven't been checked.

It is sad because the verse is not unitarian, and many liberal unitarians were threatened by it.

 

[Rockerduck]

1 John 5:7-8 is found in the Old Latin Vulgate and Greek Vulgate (90-150 A.D.), plus the Syriac Peshiito (150 A.D.) It is also found in many first century church lectionaries. Lectionaries were used in churches for readings and liturgy for church services especially for special days of the year. They are akin to the responsive readings which we find in today’s hymn books. Tatian’s Diatesseron which was a harmony of the four gospels written about 150 A.D. When Taitian was copying the book of John, he had referenced 1 John 5:7 which proves that 1 John 5:7 antedates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, by 200 years, where the verse is omitted.

Dr. John Overall, who was one of the King James translators was a scholar in the teachings of the early Church Fathers. His contribution concerning 1 John 5:7 was vital since manuscript evidence was lacking because of the Alexandrian school where it was mutilated. He knew that the early church fathers had referenced those verses quite frequently. The modern version proponents only look to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as their authorities and reject the massive amount of other evidences such as the church lectionaries. If 1 John 5:7-8 did not exist in the originals, then how could they have been quoted by the church fathers if it was non-existent? A simple question of logic.

 

[MonoBiblical]

I looked around and found no historical evidence that Erasmus specifically added omicrons to his Greek texts to alter their meaning. Can you please list your source?

It is in the latest extant edition of Erasmus. 1522 has the correct version of the verse. Michael Maynerd in his book talks about the changes Erasmus made to the various [later] editions. You can try a fascimile edition 1522 or a modernized version of it.

Novum Testamentum Graece Et Latine by Jean Nicolus Jager, Constantin von Tischendorf also did a good copy of 1 John 5:7.

I suggest books.google.com

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts had an article on it.

Tell me if I should add more details.

 

[MonoBiblical]

1 John 5:7-8 is found in the Old Latin Vulgate and Greek Vulgate (90-150 A.D.), plus the Syriac Peshiito (150 A.D.) It is also found in many first century church lectionaries. Lectionaries were used in churches for readings and liturgy for church services especially for special days of the year. They are akin to the responsive readings which we find in today’s hymn books. Tatian’s Diatesseron which was a harmony of the four gospels written about 150 A.D. When Taitian was copying the book of John, he had referenced 1 John 5:7 which proves that 1 John 5:7 antedates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, by 200 years, where the verse is omitted.

Dr. John Overall, who was one of the King James translators was a scholar in the teachings of the early Church Fathers. His contribution concerning 1 John 5:7 was vital since manuscript evidence was lacking because of the Alexandrian school where it was mutilated. He knew that the early church fathers had referenced those verses quite frequently. The modern version proponents only look to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as their authorities and reject the massive amount of other evidences such as the church lectionaries. If 1 John 5:7-8 did not exist in the originals, then how could they have been quoted by the church fathers if it was non-existent? A simple question of logic.

The cursive lectionaries really prove it beyond a doubt. Most 1 John manuscripts don't have chapter 5, and the ones that may, they probably won't have the 2 omicrons. If you search for these letters, you won't find 1 John 5:7 in old manuscripts.

 

[MonoBiblical]

...that Erasmus specifically added omicrons to his Greek texts to alter their meaning

Either he made a mistake or it was intentional.

 

[Davy]

Firstly, the "two or more witnesses" from 2 Corinthians 13 that you're referencing is in the context of church discipline, not the transmission of manuscripts. Secondly, the three that testify are the Spirit, the water, and the blood, which can be found in any critical text translation. So at the end of the day, I suppose this so-called "debate" would be irrelevant.

See my post #259

You haven't even begun... to touch on those Bible Scriptures in my post #259. So go ahead, I'm especially ready to laugh at how you try to skirt around that first Scripture reference I gave in my post #259. That's post #259, again that's post #259, like I have to act like a salesman just to try and get you to read those Bible references in my post #259!

 

[Davy]

There's no need for us to touch on or have our blood pressure levels spike over a doctrine that we already agree on. The only position I've taken is favoring the exclusion of the Johannine Comma, which is backed up by textual and historical evidence.

Again, that's my post #259, post #259, number 259, number 259... number 259, number 259.........

 

[Davy]

Thank you.

You were the one challenging me with the idea of Bible references in your post #286. And I gave proof of your error in my post #259. So I don't have time for those who speak falsely.

 

[Wrangler]

There's no need for us to touch on or have our blood pressure levels spike over a doctrine that we already agree on.

The cause of the spiked blood pressure is the all too common in Christendom manifestation of IDOLATRY.

Again, that's my post #259, post #259, number 259, number 259... number 259, number 259.........

Something about this post #259 has obviously got his blood pressure up. The IDOLATRY is some manmade doctrine, a doctrinal investment in the Johannine Comma! Sure, there may be a verse that is unclear if the subject is God the Father when invoking the word God. That's OK with me because literally every single epistle mentions God the Father. One cannot miss it. It must be that the Johannine Comma could be taken to ambiguously state something not stated elsewhere.

I compare manmade doctrine to what Scripture actually teaches. Let's refer to another point of fact not too controversial; Adam was created on Day 6. One can point to a verse that comes right out and states that. This is not the case with on what day Eve was created. It's fine to engage in speculation, read into text, invoke eisegesis to your heart's content.

There is absolutely no reason to make it a manmade doctrinal or salvation issue. To these IDOLATORS, it's like their entire religious foundation collapses if the Johannine Comma is specifically wrong or the KJV, in general, is wrong. They become so obnoxious about it, you can't even have a relationship with these people. Jesus would not be proud.

Sir, this conversation is over.

Agreed. One cannot even have a conversation because of their IDOLATRY. If I met people who strongly believe Eve was created on a certain day, it simply wouldn't get my blood pressure up. It poses no threat to my religion, to my set of beliefs or to my personal relationship with God. IDOLATRY drives these people to become disagreeable. Not very Christ-like.