• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The KJV is A Revision

SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
And yet Eramus himself could not find it in his greek text until 3rd edition, having being ordered to do such!
Click to expand...

meaning what? Tertullian and Cyprian, who knew Latin and Greek quote the words from 1 John 5:7, so this shows that it was part of the Epistle at this early time
 
Hark

Hark

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
And yet Eramus himself could not find it in his greek text until 3rd edition, having being ordered to do such!
Click to expand...

Did you see in post #19 of the list of extrabiblical sources citing 1 John 5:7 dating back as far as 250 A.D. ?

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians,

350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)

That predates Erasmus regardless.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hark said:
Did you see in post #19 of the list of extrabiblical sources citing 1 John 5:7 dating back as far as 250 A.D. ?

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians,

350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)

That predates Erasmus regardless.
Click to expand...
No Greek source, as all are Latin though?
 
Hark

Hark

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
No Greek source, as all are Latin though?
Click to expand...

At one time, it was said there were a few minority of the Greek manuscripts but they are not saying it now.

You see how people that deny the deity of Christ & the Triune God argue against the KJV of 1 John 5:7. Is it that hard to fathom that with all the debates back then in referring to it, that a bunch of sore loser removes that verse & did not keep up with the Book of 1 John? Ask Jesus for help to discern that truth.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hark said:
At one time, it was said there were a few minority of the Greek manuscripts but they are not saying it now.

You see how people that deny the deity of Christ & the Triune God argue against the KJV of 1 John 5:7. Is it that hard to fathom that with all the debates back then in referring to it, that a bunch of sore loser removes that verse & did not keep up with the Book of 1 John? Ask Jesus for help to discern that truth.
Click to expand...
We do not need that passage to prove deity of Jesus!
 
Hark

Hark

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
We do not need that passage to prove deity of Jesus!
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is no nefarious reason to add it, therefore it was orignally in scripture.

From what I have seen on the internet & in Christian forums, they still argue about the deity of Christ & the Trinity & by denouncing the KJV of 1 John 5:7 while they are at it. Since defenders of the faith back then had to refer to 1 John 5:7 of the 3 Witnesses in Heaven, it can show support that the opposition went out of their way to remove it as sore losers in the debates.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
"The rules of procedure specified that the Bishops’ Bible was to be followed and “as little altered as the truth of the original will permit”; that certain other translations should be used where they agreed better with the text, namely, “Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s [= the Great Bible, so named from the name of the printer], and Geneva”; that “the Old Ecclesiastical Words [were] to be kept, viz. the Word Church not be translated Congregation, &c.”; and that no marginal notes were to be used except for necessary explanation of Hebrew or Greek words. Most of the remaining fifteen rules dealt with method of procedure...Miles Smith, begins in a leisurely and learned fashion, justifying the principle of Bible translation. It then goes on to declare the necessity of this new rendering, explaining that it is a revision, not a new translation, and that the revisers, who had the original Hebrew and Greek texts before them, steered a course between the Puritan and Roman versions. Unfortunately, modern editions of the King James Bible usually omit this preface, thus depriving the reader of the orientation originally provided concerning the purpose of the translators and their procedures and principles." (Bruce Metzger; Bible in Translation, The Ancient and English Versions)

"With this reputation it is not surprising that he was invited to join the teams of translators assembled in Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster to undertake the revision of the English Bible. And it is important to note that the task was a revision, not a new work. To quote from the instructions issued to the teams:The ordinary Bible read in church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible (is) to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit. ... These translations (are) to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible: Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Whitchurch’s (viz. the Great Bible), (and) Geneva.As is well known, these translations constituted the mainline succession of English Bibles in the sixteenth century. Coverdale, Matthew and the Great Bible were basically Tyndale with the missing parts supplied. The Geneva made fresh use of sources, but was still identifiably within the Tyndale tradition. The Bishops’ Bible, created by the Elizabethan hierarchy to avoid the use in church of the tendentious glosses of the Geneva, and its contentious translations of important ecclesiastical terms such as church and bishop, was in turn a revision of the Great Bible." (from, Miles Smith as Bible Translator)
Click to expand...
Good point
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hark said:
Exactly. There is no nefarious reason to add it, therefore it was orignally in scripture.

From what I have seen on the internet & in Christian forums, they still argue about the deity of Christ & the Trinity & by denouncing the KJV of 1 John 5:7 while they are at it. Since defenders of the faith back then had to refer to 1 John 5:7 of the 3 Witnesses in Heaven, it can show support that the opposition went out of their way to remove it as sore losers in the debates.
Click to expand...
Actually, the truth is that there are problems in the textual history of that passage, as more reasons to noty have it included in the original text!
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The KJV was a revision and not a completely new translation.

Concerning the KJV, P. W. Raidabaugh observed: “This great work was not strictly a translation, but a revision of all the English Bibles” (History, p 58). Likewise, Robert R. Dearden, Jr. asserted: “This monumental work was distinctly a revision and not in any sense a new translation” (Guiding Light, p. 233). George Milligan affirmed that the AV is “a revision rather than a translation” (English Bible, p. 117). Condit agreed that the KJV “was a revision and not a new translation” (History, p. 339). R. Cunningham Didham asserted that the AV “is not properly a translation at all, but a revision of former translations” (New Translation of the Psalms, p. 6). Thomas Abbott wrote: “It is important to remember that it [the AV] is not a new translation, but a revision” (English Bible, p. 3). David Teems wrote: “In truth, the new Bible was not a translation at all, but a revision” (Majestie, p. 173). John Beard asserted that the KJV “was not a translation, in the proper sense of the term, but a revision” (A Revised English Bible, p. 91). Robert Girdlestone noted: “The version of 1611 was not so much a new translation as a careful revision of already existing English Bibles” (How to Study, p. 10).
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Logos1560 said:
The KJV was a revision and not a completely new translation
Click to expand...

that is only because what went before, in the Bishop's and Great Bible, were very good translations, so there was no real need to change what was already good. Nonetheless, the translators for the 1611, were probably the best team assembled for any Bible version. Brilliant scholars in may languages. Lancelot Andrewes, for example, mastered at least 15 languages, and was said of him, At his funeral, by Bishop Buckeridge said of Andrewes that he knew and loved so many languages that… “He could have served as Interpreter General at the Confusion of Tongues"!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SavedByGrace said:
that is only because what went before, in the Bishop's and Great Bible, were very good translations, so there was no real need to change what was already good. Nonetheless, the translators for the 1611, were probably the best team assembled for any Bible version. Brilliant scholars in may languages. Lancelot Andrewes, for example, mastered at least 15 languages, and was said of him, At his funeral, by Bishop Buckeridge said of Andrewes that he knew and loved so many languages that… “He could have served as Interpreter General at the Confusion of Tongues"!
Click to expand...
They were among the best of their time, but not any more proficient then the translators that were on the Nas and Esv and Nkjv teams!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
They were among the best of their time, but not any more proficient then the translators that were on the Nas and Esv and Nkjv teams!
Click to expand...

the first 2 are based on inferior NT textual basis. this say enough! the NKJV is a rehash of the KJV!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top