King james bible only

[OneLight]

Trying to in-cooperate into today's language what was meant 2000 plus years ago is difficult, to say the least.  Translations will always loose some of the initial depth of meaning due to language barriers.  I find it best to refer back to the copies of the originals we have for a better understanding.  Yet, since I don't read Hebrew or Greek, I have to depend on the scholars to translate for me, so there is also loss using the copies.

 

The point that needs to be remembered is that the Holy Spirit will teach us the truth.  He has no trouble with time like we do.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Butero,

The following is some information concerning the extra words the KJV has in 1 John 5:7. This information is from the 25 Trinitarian scholars who produced the NET Bible. I've only posted a small portion of the information...........

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”).

This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity.

For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49.

Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note.

Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century;

the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition.

The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. (Emphasis mine)

From here: http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=7

(Click on footnote #2 in the NET translation at the top of the page.)

So, out of the HUNDREDS of ancient Greek mss we have access to, only NINE have those extra words. And in four of those nine, the words aren't even in the scriptural text, but written in the margin. That means those extra words are in only FIVE Greek mss - the earliest of which dates to 1400 years after the scripture was written by John. I find it very hard to believe that hundreds of scribes accidentally left those particular words out of hundreds of mss for 1400 years.

You must also consider the importance those words hold for Trinitarians, who are the very ones who produce most of these newer Bibles that DON'T have those words in them. As the guys from NETNotes pointed out later.........

Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin).

This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.

Don't you think the Trinitarians that produce the vast majority of the newer English translations would LOVE to include those extra words - if there was even an inkling of a chance the words were authentic?

[Trinitron]

In regards to your last question, no.  Apparently, all people that translate and produce bibles are new world order devil worshippers in league with the Vatican.  It's all a big conspiracy against God's bible, the KJV.

[mikeboll64]

In regards to your last question, no.  Apparently, all people that translate and produce bibles are new world order devil worshippers in league with the Vatican.  It's all a big conspiracy against God's bible, the KJV.

Hmmmmm.............

Who told you the KJV was "God's bible"?

[another_poster]

No, I don't get your point.  There is a big difference in people holding personal beliefs and people having faith in their Bible, and they don't anymore.  

 

 

You are making that distinction. People still have faith in their bibles these days. In any case their beliefs come from the bible and by just accepting it. It was also not just a personal view but one promoted by the church in general. That is why I don't accept that just because it used to be understood that way then it means something or makes a difference.

 

You guys have helped me understand things about the modern church I didn't understand before.  I understand why I read things in the Bible on a variety of topics, and see people overlooking it or denying it or claiming it was written for people in another time, and things were cultural.  The difference between how I interpret scripture and others is I really believe everything I read, and believe it applies today as much as it did 2000 plus years ago.

 

 I believe scripture is applicable today. I believe you need to look at context. Context is not just looking at surrounding verses. It is understanding the cultural context of the day. I don't say oh that was cultural so doesn't apply but rather look for the principle being taught which can appear different if we don't understand culture of the time. The principle or truth is what is being taught and is valid for all time. To me it is undeniable that the letters were written to a specific audience. Parts of them were written in response to questions they had. We see that when we read phrases like 'Now to the matters you asked about' To me that says there was a question and that was the answer to the question. It would not be sensible to apply the answer to that question to a different question.

 

I don't question whether or not there might be errors in the translation, and seek a dozen or so translations so I can choose which version to believe on each topic.  I just believe what my KJV Bible says without question.  We are living in a time where people can't do that anymore.  I find that sad, but I get it. 

 

Sure there are some who pick and choose but I don't personally know a single person who does that. What I do is look at different translations to try and understand what is actually meant. In any case you could do exactly the same thing if you only read the Good News or RSV translations. You could just read one of them and accept what it says without question. So once again it comes down to you have decided the KJV is correct and others are misleading or confusing. 

 

The way I view what you are saying, you don't need a Bible.  You just need the plan of salvation, and you can just live by your own conscience.  I don't know why you even study or discuss scripture.  You don't know what part is real.  You might think 95 percent or so is real, but you can never be sure.  I can't place my trust in something like that.  I have found this discussion helpful and eye opening.  I can't tell you how many hours I spent today talking to the Lord about this.  It is truly disheartening to me, but educational, so I appreciate the civil discussion we have been able to have.  Everyone has been respectful, even when they don't agree. 

 

Well I can assure you that I am not saying we don't need a bible. 

[mikeboll64]

Who told you the KJV was "God's bible"?

Who told you any Bible is the Word of God?

Hi Butero,

I believe the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures are the written word of God - based on faith. I believe, on faith, that the one who truly did create the heavens, the earth, and everything in them was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

But I don't believe that any translation into English, or any other language, is flawless and "God-inspired". Like I said earlier, the KJV is just one of many fine translations into English. There are also many other fine translations into English, and just like the KJV, those others ones also have their man-made flaws.

There is no "conspiracy" against the KJV, as Trinitron and certain others seem to believe. It is simply a matter of the KJV scholars doing the very best they could with the mss they had to work from, and the fact that we today have many older and better mss to work from.

You are free to believe what you like.

[other one]

 

 

Who told you the KJV was "God's bible"?

Who told you any Bible is the Word of God?

 

Hi Butero,

I believe the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures are the written word of God - based on faith. I believe, on faith, that the one who truly did create the heavens, the earth, and everything in them was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Which sets of manuscripts of the originals to you believe God dictated.   They are not all the same.

[OneLight]

Which sets of manuscripts of the originals to you believe God dictated.   They are not all the same.

Which is the root of all debates pertaining to this topic and any other topic about which bible is Gods word.

[Trinitron]

One of the biggest reasons for KJV primacy is there was one found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[OneLight]

One of the biggest reasons for KJV primacy is there was one found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

Because someone found something new does not mean it is primacy, only that new information is found.  There is only one truth, and His name is God.