Why The KJV Bible Is One Of The Best Bible Translation

[LadyKay]

7 minutes ago, worthy said:

Is the verse displayed a footnote? Because my NIV dissent have the verse

Do I detect sarcasm lol

No it is not in the footnotes. But in the footnote it explains that some versions do not have verse 47. My NIV is from the 1980's. It is falling apart so I no longer use it for study. 

[Kindle]

1 minute ago, LadyKay said:

No it is not in the footnotes. But in the footnote it explains that some versions do not have verse 47.

OK

2 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

My NIV is from the 1980's. It is falling apart so I no longer use it for study. 

Even with duct tape

[Jayne]

2 hours ago, worthy said:

Go try to find 1John 5:7 in the NIV

I found it .... in the footnotes.

Here's what the NIV says in the text:  1 John 5:7-8"For there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and the three are in agreement."

And here's the footnote for .

" 7,8  Late manuscripts of the Vulgate -  testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.  ⁸    And there are three that testify on earth  - (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

 

[Kindle]

24 minutes ago, Jayne said:

I found it .... in the footnotes.

So why is it not right after 1john 5:6 why did they put it as a footnote

[Ezra]

30 minutes ago, Jayne said:

And here's the footnote for .

" 7,8  Late manuscripts of the Vulgate -  testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.  ⁸    And there are three that testify on earth  - (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

Before you accept this as Gospel truth, see what Edward Hills has shown about this disputed passage in The King James Version Defended.

3. The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7)

In the Textus Receptus 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows: 7 For there are three that bear witness IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 8 AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The words printed in capital letters constitute the so-called Johannine comma, the best known of the Latin Vulgate readings of the Textus Receptus, a reading which, on believing principles, must be regarded as possibly genuine. This comma has been the occasion of much controversy and is still an object of interest to textual critics.

One of the more recent discussions of it is found in Windisch's Katholischen Briefe (revised by Preisker, 1951); (26) a more accessible treatment of it in English is that provided by A. D. Brooke (1912) in the International Critical Commentary. (27) Metzger (1964) also deals with this passage in his handbook, but briefly. (28)

(a) How the Johannine Comma Entered the Textus Receptus

As has been observed above, the Textus Receptus has both its human aspect and its divine aspect, like the Protestant Reformation itself or any other work of God's providence. And when we consider the manner in which the Johannine comma entered the Textus Receptus, we see this human element at work. Erasmus omitted the Johannine comma from the first edition (1516) of his printed Greek New Testament on the ground that it occurred only in the Latin version and not in any Greek manuscript. To quiet the outcry that arose, he agreed to restore it if but one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. When one such manuscript was discovered soon afterwards, bound by his promise, he included the disputed reading in his third edition (1522), and thus it gained a permanent place in the Textus Receptus.

The manuscript which forced Erasmus to reverse his stand seems to have been 61, a 15th or 16th-century manuscript now kept at Trinity College, Dublin. Many critics believe that this manuscript was written at Oxford about 1520 for the special purpose of refuting Erasmus, and this is what Erasmus himself suggested in his notes. The Johannine comma is also found in Codex Ravianus, in the margin of 88, and in 629.

The evidence of these three manuscripts, however, is not regarded as very weighty, since the first two are thought to have taken this disputed reading from early printed Greek texts and the latter (like 61) from the Vulgate. But whatever may have been the immediate cause, still, in the last analysis, it was not trickery which was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine comma in the Textus Receptus but the usage of the Latin-speaking Church.

It was this usage which made men feel that this.reading ought to be included in the Greek text and eager to keep it there after its inclusion had been accomplished. Back of this usage, we may well believe, was the guiding providence of God, and therefore the Johannine comma ought to be retained as at least possibly genuine.

(b) The Early Existence of the Johannine Comma

Evidence for the early existence of the Johannine comma is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers. For example, it seems to have been quoted at Carthage by Cyprian (c. 250) who writes as follows: "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: and the Three are One." (29) It is true that Facundus, a 6th-century African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, (30) but, as Scrivener (1833) remarks, it is "surely safer and more candid" to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament manuscript "than to resort to the explanation of Facundus." (31) The first undisputed citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops, Priscillian, (32) who in 385 was beheaded by the Emperor Maximus on the charge of sorcery and heresy, and Idacius Clarus, (33) Priscillian's principal adversary and accuser.

In the 5th century the Johannine comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who ruled North Africa from 489 to 534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. (34) And about the same time it was cited by Cassiodorus (480-570), in Italy. (35) The comma is also found in r an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th or 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an Old Latin text.

It was not included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate but around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

(c) Is the Johannine Comma an Interpolation?

Thus on the basis of the external evidence it is at least possible that the Johannine comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek New Testament text but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability as we consider the internal evidence.

In the first place, how did the Johannine comma originate if it be not genuine, and how did it come to be interpolated into the Latin New Testament text? To this question modern scholars have a ready answer. It arose, they say, as a trinitarian interpretation of I John 5:8, which originally read as follows: For there are three that bear witness the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Augustine was one of those who interpreted 1 John 5:8 as referring to the Trinity. "If we wish to inquire about these things, what they signify, not absurdly does the Trinity suggest Itself, who is the one, only, true, and highest God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, concerning whom it could most truly be said, Three are Witnesses, and the Three are One. By the word spirit we consider God the Father to be signified, concerning the worship of whom the Lord spoke, when He said, God is a spirit. By the word blood the Son is signified, because the Word was made flesh. And by the word water we understand the Holy Spirit. For when Jesus spoke concerning the water which He was about to give the thirsty, the evangelist says, This He spake concerning the Spirit whom those that believed in Him would receive. " (36)

Thus, according to the critical theory, there grew up in the Latin speaking regions of ancient Christendom a trinitarian interpretation of the spirit, the water, and the blood mentioned in 1 John 5:8, the spirit signifying the Father, the blood the Son, and the water the Holy Spirit And out of this trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8 developed the Johannine comma, which contrasts the witness of the Holy Trinity in heaven with the witness of the spirit, the water, and the blood on earth.

But just at this point the critical theory encounters a serious difficulty. If the comma originated in a trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8, why does it not contain the usual trinitarian formula, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Why does it exhibit the singular combination, never met with elsewhere, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit? According to some critics, this unusual phraseology was due to the efforts of the interpolator who first inserted the Johannine comma into the New Testament text. In a mistaken attempt to imitate the style of the Apostle John, he changed the term Son to the term Word. But this is to attribute to the interpolator a craftiness which thwarted his own purpose in making this interpolation, which was surely to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity, including the eternal generation of the Son. With this as his main concern it is very unlikely that he would abandon the time-honored formula, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and devise an altogether new one, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.

In the second place, the omission of the Johannine comma seems to leave the passage incomplete. For it is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four, for example, the repeated Three things, yea four of Proverbs 30, and the constantly recurring refrain, for three transgressions and for four, of the prophet Amos. In Genesis 40 the butler saw three branches and the baker saw three baskets. And in Matt. 12:40 Jesus says, As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

It is in accord with biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5:7-8 the formula, there are three that bear witness, will be repeated at least twice. When the Johannine comma is included, the formula is repeated twice. When the comma is omitted, the formula is repeated only once, which seems strange.

In the third place, the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in 1 John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is "personalized," and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine comma is retained, a reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties.

(d) Reasons for the Possible Omission of the Johannine Comma

For the absence of the Johannine comma from all New Testament documents save those of the Latin-speaking West the following explanations are possible. In the first place, it must be remembered that the comma could easily have been omitted accidentally through a common type of error which is called homoioteleuton (similar ending). A scribe copying 1 John 5:7-8 under distracting conditions might have begun to write down these words of verse 7, there are three that bear witness, but have been forced to look up before his pen had completed this task. When he resumed his work, his eye fell by mistake on the identical expression in verse 8. This error would cause him to omit all of the Johannine comma except the words in earth, and these might easily have been dropped later in the copying of this faulty copy. Such an accidental omission might even have occurred several times, and in this way there might have grown up a considerable number of Greek manuscripts which did not contain this reading.

In the second place, it must be remembered that during the 2nd and 3rd centuries (between 220 and 270, according to Harnack); (37) the heresy which orthodox Christians were called upon to combat was not Arianism (since this error had not yet arisen) but Sabellianism (so named after Sabellius, one of its principal promoters), according to which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one in the sense that they were identical. Those that advocated this heretical view were called Patripassians (Father-sufferers), because they believed that God the Father, being identical with Christ, suffered and died upon the cross, and Monarchians, because they claimed to uphold the Monarchy (sole-government) of God. It is possible, therefore, that the Sabellian heresy brought the Johannine comma into disfavor with orthodox Christians. The statement, these three are one, no doubt seemed to them to teach the Sabellian view that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were identical. And if during the course of the controversy manuscripts were discovered which had lost this reading in the accidental manner described above, it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts to represent the true text and regard the Johannine comma as a heretical addition. In the Greek-speaking East especially the comma would be unanimously rejected, for here the struggle against Sabellianism was particularly severe.

Thus it was not impossible that during the 3rd century amid the stress and strain of the Sabellian controversy, the Johannine comma lost its place in the Greek text, but was preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great. In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek speaking Church. (38) 

[Jayne]

11 minutes ago, worthy said:

So why is it not right after 1john 5:6 why did they put it as a footnote

That was explained in the footnotes.  Those words, historically called the Johannine Comma (comma meaning clause), were not found in early manuscripts but in later manuscripts and in the marginal notes.

I don't have a problem with that.  I am no textual critic, but I like to study what others have researched in the field of Biblical textual criticism.

This clause does not teach any new revelation nor does it oppose anything else in the Bible.  There are plenty of grounds for the trinity in the Bible without this clause and as I said, there is no new doctrine presented in it - so it is benign as far as doctrine is concerned.

Whether this clause was in the originals - the autographs - we will never know.  Whenever I teach 1 John 5 in Sunday School, I include this verse no matter what version I am using and I explain all of what I just told you.

It does not affect my opinion of the King James - I was saved when the King James was preached from.  I like the King James.  It is not my primary source to read, but I do like it.

[Jayne]

7 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Before you accept this as Gospel truth, see what Edward Hills has shown about this disputed passage in The King James Version Defended.

 

I believe that this excerpt from your excerpt says exactly what the NIV footnote says ....

 

Quote

 

As has been observed above, the Textus Receptus has both its human aspect and its divine aspect, like the Protestant Reformation itself or any other work of God's providence. And when we consider the manner in which the Johannine comma entered the Textus Receptus, we see this human element at work. Erasmus omitted the Johannine comma from the first edition (1516) of his printed Greek New Testament on the ground that it occurred only in the Latin version and not in any Greek manuscript. To quiet the outcry that arose, he agreed to restore it if but one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. When one such manuscript was discovered soon afterwards, bound by his promise, he included the disputed reading in his third edition (1522), and thus it gained a permanent place in the Textus Receptus.

The manuscript which forced Erasmus to reverse his stand seems to have been 61, a 15th or 16th-century manuscript now kept at Trinity College, Dublin. Many critics believe that this manuscript was written at Oxford about 1520 for the special purpose of refuting Erasmus, and this is what Erasmus himself suggested in his notes. The Johannine comma is also found in Codex Ravianus, in the margin of 88, and in 629.

The evidence of these three manuscripts, however, is not regarded as very weighty, since the first two are thought to have taken this disputed reading from early printed Greek texts and the latter (like 61) from the Vulgate. But whatever may have been the immediate cause, still, in the last analysis, it was not trickery which was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine comma in the Textus Receptus but the usage of the Latin-speaking Church.

It was this usage which made men feel that this.reading ought to be included in the Greek text and eager to keep it there after its inclusion had been accomplished. Back of this usage, we may well believe, was the guiding providence of God, and therefore the Johannine comma ought to be retained as at least possibly genuine.

 

Whether it is genuine from the autographs, I cannot say.

I am content either way and the centuries old debate over this does not cause my faith in the infallible word of God to be shaken.

[other one]

what would be really great would be for everyone to be so acquainted with the Bibles that they knew all the differences by heart.....     cause I think if we all knew all that, it really wouldn't matter.

[GoldenEagle]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 6:52 PM, worthy said:

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 4:43 PM, GoldenEagle said:

Here are some questions to consider if you are KJV only:

1. What Bible would you recommend since before 1611 there was no "true" Bible?

2. Why do KJV only advocates reject the Apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the Apocrypha?

3. Do you realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV?

4. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?

5. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?

6. Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?

7. Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have some kinds of mistakes is irrelevant, because most people who are not KJV only maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?

8. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?

9. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?

10. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?

One Question  at a time Please

Are you saying that I am a KJV only reader? if so that's not true notice the title says why the KJV is one of the best translations.

Answer to question 1 I recommend reading the Hebrew.

Answer to question 2 I don't reject the Apocrypha at all I actually read it.

Answer to question 3 what does that have to do with me pointing out the scripture the took out in the newer translations.

Answer to question 5 I  read the KJV 1611 version which is the original.

Answer to question 6 the KJV bible  is not recognized  by the Catholic church.

I don't understand question 4 or 9 maybe you could rephrase them.

Answer to question 10 suggest  you read the original version of course.

Wow this is an incredibly long thread. No, I'm not necessarily saying you a KJV only follower. I have no way of knowing that. My post was more of general questions regarding the KJV only stance to anyone who would care to answer.

Sorry for so many questions in one post. Let me break it up. Lol  

1. Do you read Hebrew? What about the New Testament? You'd suggest reading Greek perhaps?

2. Do you believe the Apocrypha is inspired by God? If so, why do you think so many people reject the Apocrypha.

3. I just find it curious when some insist the KJV is the only inspired version of the Bible. It's a bit contradictory since Paul the apostle did not quote in English or use the KJV  

Note: I re-ordered your responses numerically so I could respond to each of them.

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

@worthy Let me rephrase the questions you asked for. Original questions in red. The rephrased question are in bold.

4. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?

If the KJV is an inspired translation, why would God not provide an inspired translation in each of the modern languages today? Why is English chosen as a language to have an inspired translation?

9. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?

Why make differentiation in these passages when the original Greek makes no such distinctions/changes?

Gen 15:6 (KJV)
⁶ And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Rom 4:3 (KJV)
³ For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 4:9 (KJV)
⁹ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

Rom 4:22 (KJV)
²² And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Gal 3:6 (KJV)
⁶ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

 

God bless,

GE