Guest Butero Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 7 hours ago, saved34 said: Most of the scholars I have read that say that verse was added, are staunch Trinitarians. If there were some kind of conspiracy against God, and the Kjv, it would stand to reason that they would be fighting against the true nature(Triune) of God. On the contrary, most of them are the biggest defenders of that Biblical truth. Who are these people? Do you have their names and where I can read their opinions? Just wondering. Also, you said "most of the scholars I have read." That is not really saying a whole lot, since most of us tend to gravitate to those who will back up our positions. How many are there? Are there 3, 5, a dozen? Those kind of comments don't mean much. Still, the only opinion I care about is what my KJV Bible says, and since 1 John 5:7 is part of the text, I choose to believe it over your word that "most of the scholars I have read that say that verse was added, are staunch Trinitarians." Another interesting thing here is that leads one to believe that non-Trinitarians are more likely to accept it as scripture. Is that true? Inquiring minds you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghtan Posted April 30, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 422 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 216 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted April 30, 2016 10 hours ago, Butero said: I am saying the manuscripts they used to translated the KJV Bible were perfect, and the KJV translators used the best possible corresponding words to translate them to English. I am also saying that we were supposed to have had a closed canon, so to come back now and claim this verse should be added and this verse removed flies in the face of that position. Even something as innocent as the addition to Psalm 145:13 matters, because it sets a precedent that it is ok to add to or remove text based on new discoveries. I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. When was the nt canon closed? The person regularly credited with it was Athanasius in the 4th century. He listed the accepted books of the nt but who knows what texts he was using. It certainly was not the TR. He was from Alexandria and more likely than not he was using the Alexandrian texts which you distrust! 10 hours ago, Butero said: You say Erasmus "introduced 1 John 5:7 into the 3rd edition of his Greek NT?" Where did the verse originate from? Are you accusing Erasmus of writing this verse himself and placing it in the Latin Vulgate and in some Greek manuscripts as well? But again, the biggest issue to me is how they are discrediting the Biblical canon. I have no reason to believe that what we call a Bible is indeed the Bible if I accept modern translations altering, removing or adding to the established text. We might as well start examining all the extra-Biblical books out there and trying to figure out what should have been part of scripture, in the same way people look to a dozen translations to try to figure out the correct meaning or which verses should be there. I already said a 16th century mss was conveniently produced to pressure Erasmus to add the verse. Either you honestly did not read that or you are pretending not to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted April 30, 2016 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 790 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 878 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted April 30, 2016 18 hours ago, Butero said: Luther is the same guy who claimed that the book of James shouldn't be in the canon. He has no credibility as far as I am concerned. It is amazing to me how people that are too reading challenged to understand the KJV Bible read German! I suppose you have a copy of that translation too, or know someone that does? I can't quite get my head round this. Erasmus "leaves out" a verse from his text (a verse of very dubious provenance), and you hold Luther responsible? He couldn't translate a sentence that wasn't there! I speak French, German and a bit of Russian and Welsh as well as English. My German is fairly good, but I wouldn't attempt an old translation like Luther's; in any case, I read the German Bible to improve my German, so a 16th century version wouldn't be much help for that. I use a modern German translation, but the Luther Bible is available online, and I checked the info before posting it. As far as I know, there is no controversy over old v new translations in any language other than English. It seems to be purely a KJV effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccfromsc Posted May 2, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 58 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 17 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/16/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted May 2, 2016 On 4/29/2016 at 7:38 AM, manuelf324 said: On 4/29/2016 at 9:36 PM, ccfromsc said: Dude you can't be serious? OK check this out https://ivarfjeld.com/2012/03/01/the-vatican-claims-king-james-bible-is-catholic/ The Vatican claims the KJV is Catholic!! The KJV is copyrighted. Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? Do you even know what Wescott & Hort did? Please without all of the mumbo jumbo Please state it as simple as you know. THE DEVILS IN THE DETAILS Satan lies by omissions that's why man fell. Its the NEW king james thats Catholic. Look all this will be sorted out with Christ at the great white throne for many and the judgement seat of Christ for some. This will all be sorted soon. Did you even look up the urrl? Did you rather than spout out your drivel like a broken record? The Vatican says the KJV is Catholic.....not the NKJV. Did you get that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccfromsc Posted May 2, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 58 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 17 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/16/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted May 2, 2016 On 4/29/2016 at 11:53 AM, Butero said: matters, because it sets a precedent that it is ok to add to or remove text based on new discoveries. You say Erasmus "introduced 1 John 5:7 into the 3rd edition of his Greek NT?" Where did the verse originate from? Are you accusing Erasmus of writing this verse himself and placing it in the Latin Vulgate and in some Greek manuscripts as well? But again, the biggest issue to me is how they are discrediting the Biblical canon. I have no reason to believe that what we call a Bible is indeed the Bible if I accept modern translations altering, removing or adding to the established text. We might as well start examining all the extra-Biblical books out there and trying to figure out what should have been part of scripture, in the same way people look to a dozen translations to try to figure out the correct meaning or which verses should be there. Several people has told you already including me. It was in some Vulgate manuscripts. it is not in the TR and others. It originated around the 12 century. Here is a fact even manuel does not even realize the Alexandrian texts he fears so bad are about 97-98% the same as the precious TR. In fact your TR borrows from the Alexandrian too! Book of Jeremiah was originally around 35 chapters from the Jewish or Hebrew version. The full version came from Egypt. Why? Because Jeremiah was kidnapped if you remember and taken there. His scribe Baruch finished the writing for him. Later the two versions were combined. For you and Manuel who scream about the KJV so much you both know so very little on how the bible came about. Why is that? Reading the KJV Only line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccfromsc Posted May 2, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 58 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 17 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/16/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted May 2, 2016 On 4/29/2016 at 11:44 AM, Butero said: What we must ask ourselves is, did the people that created our canon get it right the first time? Was what was called scripture in the Geneva and later the 1611 KJV Bible correct? If people are now going to say they messed up, as we have found verses that don't belong, and in the case of Psalm 145:13, a portion of text that needs to be added, then we are saying we have an open canon, and we can rightly come together to create Bibles that leave out entire established books or add more books. I can actually see that happening in the future, but I oppose it, as I believe in a closed canon. Still, if the modern translations are right to remove or add to the text, those people that have come in here in the past saying Paul is a false apostle and his books should be removed, or that James contradicts scripture so we should take it out, at least have the right to a fair hearing, given people are defending doing the exact same thing on a smaller scale. Ok this may help you. Look up creeds. Read about them. That will help explain a lot of the questions you are asking right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccfromsc Posted May 2, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 58 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 17 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/16/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted May 2, 2016 Heck with this I am going back to this again: Do you realize the KJV says not once but twice "there is no God?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccfromsc Posted May 2, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 58 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 17 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/16/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted May 2, 2016 7 hours ago, manuelf324 said: Yes I did I actually read not skim if you believe what you want be your own God! God is not MOCKED that whatever ye sow that ye should also reap. You want read the fairly tale NKJV Bible that has no damnation or devil's in it Go ahead be sure your sin will find you out You need glasses lets try again I do not need glasses. You do not like the question so you change it. What I posted had nothing to do with the NKJV. Why do you blatantly lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccfromsc Posted May 2, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 58 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 17 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/16/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted May 2, 2016 On 4/28/2016 at 9:45 PM, hmbld said: I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Don't all versions say this? The point with the "there is no God" is to show the nuttiness of the KJV Only. They take one item and stay on it irregardless of whether another version says it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted May 2, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.80 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted May 2, 2016 8 hours ago, manuelf324 said: Yes I did I actually read not skim if you believe what you want be your own God! God is not MOCKED that whatever ye sow that ye should also reap. You want read the fairly tale NKJV Bible that has no damnation or devil's in it Go ahead be sure your sin will find you out You need glasses lets try again 1 Corinthians 1:18 "those who are being saved" and "those who are saved". No difference. You are grasping at straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts