King James Version only?

[Guest Butero]

hmm. i got out my Wycliffe Bible Commentary, and this is what it says about I John 5:7

The text of this verse should read, "Because there are three that bear record." The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era.

this commentary uses the kjv. i just found this really ironic. given the name of the commentary and all.

at any rate, i think a person limits God in saying truth can only come from one translation of the Bible. my God is bigger than that!

This proves nothing. It is just a false claim made by the Wycliffe Commentary. It doesn't matter whether he was using the KJV or not. Some of these commentators and historians are too smart for their own good, and they make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims. They have no proof to back any of these things they are saying up.

Holding to one reliable translation doesn't limit God at all. For instance, in Old Testament times, there were always hundreds of false prophets to one true prophet. Was it limiting God to hold to the true prophet because there might be 400 others making false claims?

[pokemaughan]

[i disagree with it, therefore] This proves nothing. [it isn't what I believe, therefore] It is just a false claim made by the Wycliffe Commentary. It doesn't matter whether he was using the KJV or not. Some of these commentators and historians are too smart for their own good, and they make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims. They have no proof to back any of these things they are saying up.

Holding to one reliable translation doesn't limit God at all. For instance, in Old Testament times, there were always hundreds of false prophets to one true prophet. Was it limiting God to hold to the true prophet because there might be 400 others making false claims?

[Guest Butero]

[i disagree with it, therefore] This proves nothing. [it isn't what I believe, therefore] It is just a false claim made by the Wycliffe Commentary. It doesn't matter whether he was using the KJV or not. Some of these commentators and historians are too smart for their own good, and they make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims. They have no proof to back any of these things they are saying up.

Holding to one reliable translation doesn't limit God at all. For instance, in Old Testament times, there were always hundreds of false prophets to one true prophet. Was it limiting God to hold to the true prophet because there might be 400 others making false claims?

You can add all the sarcastic remarks to what I said that you desire, but the Wycliff commentators have no proof to back up their claims. I have my own book, "Which Bible Can We Trust," that states that the TR was used by the early church. They can't prove that claim either, but it has as much credibility as the claim made by your source.

[Guest Butero]

ok Butero. do you have proof that there were manuscripts before the 14th century that had the rest of verse 7 in them??

as to your analogy: i don't see how that compares. were the people seeking truth... real truth.... and going to false prophets? if so, God would have redirected them or done something to get the truth to them. plus, it still remains to be seen that the kjv is the one and only "true" Bible. many people seek truth about God and He's not redirecting all of them to the kjv. i believe they are getting the truth they seek--from other Bibles than kjv.

The majority of the people in Israel were deceived by the false prophets, and God did not re-direct them to the true prophet. He allowed the deceived to remain deceived.

I never claimed to be able to prove the verses were there, but my point is, there is no proof they were not. Just because someone makes this kind of claim and says they are an authority doesn't make it true. I have heard all kinds of comments like this in the past, without one shred of evidence to back it up. There is nothing to stop me from writing my own book where I make up all kinds of slanderous attacks with no proof. I am sure there would be gullible people who would use that book as a source to prove their own points.

[Guest Butero]

ok Butero. do you have proof that there were manuscripts before the 14th century that had the rest of verse 7 in them??

as to your analogy: i don't see how that compares. were the people seeking truth... real truth.... and going to false prophets? if so, God would have redirected them or done something to get the truth to them. plus, it still remains to be seen that the kjv is the one and only "true" Bible. many people seek truth about God and He's not redirecting all of them to the kjv. i believe they are getting the truth they seek--from other Bibles than kjv.

The majority of the people in Israel were deceived by the false prophets, and God did not re-direct them to the true prophet. He allowed the deceived to remain deceived.

I never claimed to be able to prove the verses were there, but my point is, there is no proof they were not. Just because someone makes this kind of claim and says they are an authority doesn't make it true. I have heard all kinds of comments like this in the past, without one shred of evidence to back it up. There is nothing to stop me from writing my own book where I make up all kinds of slanderous attacks with no proof. I am sure there would be gullible people who would use that book as a source to prove their own points.

i would agree with you if it were only one man saying this. it's not. it's many many many who say it. people who have studied the original manuscripts and such. btw, the man who wrote the commentary on I john was Charles C. Ryrie, Dallas Theological Seminary. there is no proof that verse was in any early manuscripts. that, in turn, proves that it wasn't. you cannot prove a nonexistence. you can only prove an existence. and it ain't there, Butero. it just ain't there.

and the majority of the people in israel were not searching for real truth.

Saying that "there is no proof that verse was in any early manuscripts" proves it wasn't is absurd. Most of the early manuscripts are gone from decay, including those used by the KJV translators. If there were 500 manuscripts, and 50 reliable ones contained the words in question, and 450 less reliable ones did not, and all that remain today are 75 that don't contain those words, that is not proof that 50 didn't.

You are correct that the majority of the people in Israel were not sincerely seeking God, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to know what was coming, and that they were not deceived by the false prophets. The Bible warns that even God's elect can be deceived if they are not careful.

The thing is, this is not a question over whether or not people are saved or lost. This is a question over which translation is most reliable? It is my contention that the modern versions are probably 90 percent reliable, while I can fully trust the KJV. That may be good enough for some, and others trust the manuscripts the new versions were translated from, but not me.

[Born Crucified]

hmm. i got out my Wycliffe Bible Commentary, and this is what it says about I John 5:7

The text of this verse should read, "Because there are three that bear record." The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era.

this commentary uses the kjv. i just found this really ironic. given the name of the commentary and all.

at any rate, i think a person limits God in saying truth can only come from one translation of the Bible. my God is bigger than that!

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary was not written by Wycliffe, but by people of the late 20th Century.

[Born Crucified]

you have a copy of the 14th Century Wycliffe?

yes, I do.

[Born Crucified]

you have a copy of the 14th Century Wycliffe?

yes, I do.

when was it printed?

The Wycliffe Bible was hand-written in 1384. There are only a known 24 in existance. Edited April 23, 2009 by Born Crucified

[kross]

I will say that I believe that KJV is the one version that was put together by the leading of the HOLY SPIRIT. It was the Bible where GOD used men to accurately interpret scriptures and weed out those that were false and or questionable. I am one who believes it to be the perfect word of GOD.

my question to you would be, if the Holy Spirit led them, why was there so many errors? why did the original 1611 version have to be changed 3 times to fix the multitude of mistakes?

If it is the perfect word of GOD, why are there mistakes in it still today?

That said, I use the NKJV as well. It is taken from the same manuscript and has ver little deviation from the original and best.

There are thse who state that because the NIV is touted as coming from earlier transcripts, that it is more accurate. I do not agree. These earlier transcripts were written on more expensive paper by the rich aristocracy of the day. As a result, they lasted longer. If you look at the differences between the KJV and the NIV you will see that the NIV is a more palatable Bible for those who would rather not believe JESUS is GOD or would prefer to believe in their own merits.

could you point me to the parts of NIV that make Jesus less God?

It is my opinion that, though I have not seen this stated by anyone else, that these earlier texts were copied and altered to please the masters of the scribes who copied them.

This is what I have always said about the KJV.

Also, these supposed "New Translations" are translated by people who already have pre-concieved notions of what the scriptures say as a result of reading the KJV. Those who translated the KJV did not have those notions.

This makes no sense at all.

In addition, the level of scholarly and theological education of the translators of the KJV is far above that of those who have done the modern translations. (my opinion)

Totally false.

A person's opinion is never wrong or false, it is there opinion. Everything I wrote is my opinion. My unlearned, ignorant opinion.

While none of this really matters, people are saved by the HOLY SPIRIT with or without a Bible. So, whichever Bible HE uses to enhance or enlighten a saved person, is fine by me. HE can do as HE wishes.

[Born Crucified]

you have a copy of the 14th Century Wycliffe?

yes, I do.

when was it printed?

The Wycliffe Bible was hand-written in 1384. There are only a known 24 in existance.

and you own one of the 24?

I own a copy.