The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

Thank you.

 

People can like a translation for valid reasons or for invalid reasons.

Liking could be a biased opinion of imperfect men.

Liking something over a period of time could become a mere tradition of men.

Because men choose to like something, they may overlook its flaws or weaknesses.

The fact that some or even many like a translation does not make it correct, accurate or better than other Bible translations.

The proper standard and authority for the making, trying, or evaluating for all Bible translations remains the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

Because you disagree with some modern translations does not prove that they are ugly and dishonest.

It has not been proven that the Church of England makers of the KJV were more honest than any other Bible translators.

Perhaps you are wrong to question the honesty and integrity of most translators of English Bibles.

The Church of England makers of the KJV had their Church of England doctrinal biases that influenced their translation decisions.

 

I've already proved my point. I'm not going to reprove it in every post. Is it too much trouble for you to review a thread before you start complaining about a lack of something in that thread?

Perhaps you're wrong to question me.

 

I still trust the KJV more than any other. All others omit the Johannine Comma saying it is not in the oldest manuscripts. And most will avow the word "Trinity" is not in scripture. But Cyprian quotes from the comma and uses the Greek word for Trinity.

Trinity in scripture

The corresponding word in Greek is "Τριάς" (Trias), meaning "a set of three" or "the number three." Trinity - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Found in:

“For there are three [Τριάς] that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7 (KJV 1900)

Some might object the Johannine Comma is not in the older manuscripts. But Cyprian quoted it between 200 -258.

CYPRIAN 200-258 AD. Treatises (I 5:423). "and again it Is written of the Father, and of the Son. and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one' "

The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;”4 and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”5

Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). On the Unity of the Church. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, p. 423). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

 

The word Τριάς is never used in the N.T. The word used in the Comma is τρεῖς.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν.

 

So what is the difference?

 

Etymologically they are related however τρεῖς was never used as a reference for the Trinity.

 

That is not true. The Comma Johanneum is missing from virtually all Greek Manuscripts. Not just the oldest. Here is a list of manuscripts that do not have the Comma Johanneum.

The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s: 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296

Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s: 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464

Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s: 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s: 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s: 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later: 90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104

 

How did Cyprian come up with it if not written earlier? Can you prove something does not exist?

 

Cyprian was Latin, not Greek. Here are the only Greek Manuscripts which contain the Comma Johanneum.

495 Greek manuscripts against the Comma Johanneum.

Only 3 Greek manuscripts with the Comma Johanneum before the age of printing.

2 more Greek manuscripts added after the age of printing.

5 more have the Comma Johanneum written in their margin, but the text of these manuscripts are against the inclusion of the extra words.

The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

 

But how do you prove his source did not exist?

 

I primarily use the KJV, although I sometimes use the NKJV. I've read the KJV for over 60 years. It's my first choice in a Bible version. There are many people in my church that use different versions, and our pastor preaches from the ESV. What I don't understand is the bashing of the KJV on here. The OP wasn't about KJVO, it was plainly degrading a well loved, and still used by millions, version of God's Word. The obsession against using the KJV seems to dominate some people's thoughts here. I don't get it.

 

Because you claim it is proven or because you may believe it is proven is not actually proof that it is.

You have not proven your point with use of consistent, just measures/standards applied completely justly to all Bible translators. You do not show that you apply the same exact measures/standards to the KJV translators that you may inconsistently and thus unjustly allege against other Bible translators.

It would not be at all wrong to question the use of measures/standards that are not demonstrated to be applied justly.

The honesty of the biased Church of England makers of the KJV could be as soundly questioned or challenged as your unproven allegations against other English Bible translators.

Some of the possible motives and intentions behind the making of the KJV are just as questionable as those behind the making of some present-day English Bibles.

 

I cannot prove his source did not exist. He may have quoted an old latin manuscript. However I believe he was interpreting the Verse. True he may indeed be quoting a Latin Bible.

 

Asserting or acknowledging the truth that the same measures/standards should be justly applied to all Bible translations would not be bashing the KJV.

Most believers probably accept the KJV as what it actually is [a good overall English translation with some imperfections], but some try to assume and claim that the KJV is something that it is not.

What is typically objected to is human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching, and not the KJV itself.

 

Your assertion that all other English Bibles omit 1 John 5:7 is not true.

The KJV actually has many words added by men according to the KJV translators themselves [they inconsistently put some of the added words in a different type--in italics in later editions].

Because words are in the KJV is not proof that they all should be in an English translation of the word of God. The KJV translators also acknowledged in their 1611 marginal notes that they did not provide an English word for some original language words of Scripture that were in their underlying texts.

 

Logos, I understand that. However, the OP in THIS particular thread simply demeans the KJV. Period.