KJV's Textual Error

[SavedByGrace]

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" (1 John 2:23)

The KJV has wrongly assumed that the words they have in italics, are not part of the Original Letter of the Apostle John.

Rightly, the greater majority of Bible's have these words are part of the Letter of John, which has the greater textual evidence. This is a very good example to reject any so called "priority text", as is done by Robinson and Pierpont, for their "Byzantine text-type", as they are very clearly wrong in their decision not to include these very important theological words.

Here is a quick look at the versions that include these words, 1 John 2:23 Parallel: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

The 1588/1598 edition by Theodore Beza, which was consulted by the revisers of the 1611 KJV, reads:

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει"

Which is the complete verse.

Scrivener's 1894:

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει"

Wycliffe, who used the Latin Vulgate, reads:

"So ech that denyeth the sone, hath not the fadir; but he that knowlechith the sone, hath also the fadir"

The omission in the Textus Recepitus, is, according to Bruce Metzger, because of "homoeoteleuton", because the previous sentence is similar in the Greek. This is clear that the earlier Versions, like the KJV, are NOT, as some suppose, to have been "Inspired" by God the Holy Spirit. Neither is ANY "translation" of the Holy Bible, regardless of how good they might be.

 

[Van]

NET Bible footnote concerning 1 John 2:23
63tc The Byzantine text, almost alone, lacks the last eight words of this verse, “The person who confesses the Son has the Father also” (ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, Jo Jomologwn ton Juion kai ton patera ecei). Although shorter readings are often preferred (since scribes would tend to add material rather than delete it), if an unintentional error is likely, shorter readings are generally considered secondary. This is a classic example of such an unintentional omission: The τὸν πατέρα ἔχει of the preceding clause occasioned the haplography, with the scribe’s eye skipping from one τὸν πατέρα ἔχει to the other. (Readings such as this also suggest that the Byzantine text may have originated [at least for 1 John and probably the general epistles] in a single archetype.)

 

[SavedByGrace]

NET Bible footnote concerning 1 John 2:23
63tc The Byzantine text, almost alone, lacks the last eight words of this verse, “The person who confesses the Son has the Father also” (ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, Jo Jomologwn ton Juion kai ton patera ecei). Although shorter readings are often preferred (since scribes would tend to add material rather than delete it), if an unintentional error is likely, shorter readings are generally considered secondary. This is a classic example of such an unintentional omission: The τὸν πατέρα ἔχει of the preceding clause occasioned the haplography, with the scribe’s eye skipping from one τὸν πατέρα ἔχει to the other. (Readings such as this also suggest that the Byzantine text may have originated [at least for 1 John and probably the general epistles] in a single archetype.)

The Byzantine text is faulty here as it is in other places and is not reliable by itself and needs to be compared with other texts. John 1.18 is a another example where the Byzantine is wrong on a very important text for the Lord Jesus Christ

 

[Van]

The Byzantine text is faulty here as it is in other places and is not reliable by itself and needs to be compared with other texts. John 1.18 is a another example where the Byzantine is wrong on a very important text for the Lord Jesus Christ

I agree, sometime the Byzantine appears to be more accurate than the Critical Text, and sometimes (most times in my opinion) the Critical Text is more accurate. And this is one of those times...

 

[37818]

I had not really give the variant reading of 1 John 2:23 much consideration. The evidence strongly suggests the added phrase is not original to 1 John. The KJV included it because the Bishop's Bible did.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I had not really give the variant reading of 1 John 2:23 much consideration. The evidence strongly suggests the added phrase is not original to 1 John. The KJV included it because the Bishop's Bible did.

More nonsense. The KJV is wrong

 

[Yeshua1]

The Byzantine text is faulty here as it is in other places and is not reliable by itself and needs to be compared with other texts. John 1.18 is a another example where the Byzantine is wrong on a very important text for the Lord Jesus Christ

Think best to use the Critical text, but update it in instances where it seems the MT got it more right!

 

[37818]

More nonsense.

Maybe your nonsense.

The KJV is wrong

Yeah, for including the added text, following the Bishop's Bible.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Think best to use the Critical text, but update it in instances where it seems the MT got it more right!

It is always best to compare the different texts that are available, and where possible to check the patristic manuscript and versional evidence for yourself as I have seen quite a few wrongly used by some of the Critical Greek New Testaments

 

[SavedByGrace]

Maybe your nonsense.

Yeah, for including the added text, following the Bishop's Bible.

You have much to learn about textual studies if you have an open and fair mind

 

[37818]

You have much to learn about textual studies if you have an open and fair mind

At issue is the said variant is either the word of God or it is not the word of God. By what standard does one decide? I have been looking at this type of issue since 1968. I claim no expertise. I am also not a novice.

 

[Conan]

The Byzantine text is faulty here as it is in other places and is not reliable by itself and needs to be compared with other texts. John 1.18 is a another example where the Byzantine is wrong on a very important text for the Lord Jesus Christ

The evidence is overwhelming against you on this. Almost all different branches of manuscripts back the KJV here. Only a few very faulty manuscripts support your reading here. Perhaps another look at the evidence is in order?

 

[Conan]

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" (1 John 2:23)

The KJV has wrongly assumed that the words they have in italics, are not part of the Original Letter of the Apostle John.

Rightly, the greater majority of Bible's have these words are part of the Letter of John, which has the greater textual evidence. This is a very good example to reject any so called "priority text", as is done by Robinson and Pierpont, for their "Byzantine text-type", as they are very clearly wrong in their decision not to include these very important theological words.

Here is a quick look at the versions that include these words, 1 John 2:23 Parallel: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

The 1588/1598 edition by Theodore Beza, which was consulted by the revisers of the 1611 KJV, reads:

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει"

Which is the complete verse.

Scrivener's 1894:

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει"

Wycliffe, who used the Latin Vulgate, reads:

"So ech that denyeth the sone, hath not the fadir; but he that knowlechith the sone, hath also the fadir"

The omission in the Textus Recepitus, is, according to Bruce Metzger, because of "homoeoteleuton", because the previous sentence is similar in the Greek. This is clear that the earlier Versions, like the KJV, are NOT, as some suppose, to have been "Inspired" by God the Holy Spirit. Neither is ANY "translation" of the Holy Bible, regardless of how good they might be.

Just to be clear, are you criticizing the KJV for including the words in italic or for putting the words in italic? Either way, the 1611 was honest with the evidence.

 

[Conan]

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" (1 John 2:23)

The KJV has wrongly assumed that the words they have in italics, are not part of the Original Letter of the Apostle John.

Rightly, the greater majority of Bible's have these words are part of the Letter of John, which has the greater textual evidence. This is a very good example to reject any so called "priority text", as is done by Robinson and Pierpont, for their "Byzantine text-type", as they are very clearly wrong in their decision not to include these very important theological words.

Here is a quick look at the versions that include these words, 1 John 2:23 Parallel: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

The 1588/1598 edition by Theodore Beza, which was consulted by the revisers of the 1611 KJV, reads:

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει"

Which is the complete verse.

Scrivener's 1894:

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει"

Wycliffe, who used the Latin Vulgate, reads:

"So ech that denyeth the sone, hath not the fadir; but he that knowlechith the sone, hath also the fadir"

The omission in the Textus Recepitus, is, according to Bruce Metzger, because of "homoeoteleuton", because the previous sentence is similar in the Greek. This is clear that the earlier Versions, like the KJV, are NOT, as some suppose, to have been "Inspired" by God the Holy Spirit. Neither is ANY "translation" of the Holy Bible, regardless of how good they might be.

The 1598 Beza edition was followed heavily by the original 1611 translators, not later revisers of 1789 which followed Stepens 1550. Those words were not in all the other editions of the Textus Reptus, that's why they printed the words in italic, knowing that Beza got the words from the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. The words may or may not belong, but the 1611 translators were honest, knowing Beza got it from the Latin. Scriveners TR was made from the KJV, which is why he has the words, because the KJV has the words, although in italic.

 

[MB]

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" (1 John 2:23)

The KJV has wrongly assumed that the words they have in italics, are not part of the Original Letter of the Apostle John.

Rightly, the greater majority of Bible's have these words are part of the Letter of John, which has the greater textual evidence. This is a very good example to reject any so called "priority text", as is done by Robinson and Pierpont, for their "Byzantine text-type", as they are very clearly wrong in their decision not to include these very important theological words.

Here is a quick look at the versions that include these words, 1 John 2:23 Parallel: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

The 1588/1598 edition by Theodore Beza, which was consulted by the revisers of the 1611 KJV, reads:

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει"

Which is the complete verse.

Scrivener's 1894:

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει"

Wycliffe, who used the Latin Vulgate, reads:

"So ech that denyeth the sone, hath not the fadir; but he that knowlechith the sone, hath also the fadir"

The omission in the Textus Recepitus, is, according to Bruce Metzger, because of "homoeoteleuton", because the previous sentence is similar in the Greek. This is clear that the earlier Versions, like the KJV, are NOT, as some suppose, to have been "Inspired" by God the Holy Spirit. Neither is ANY "translation" of the Holy Bible, regardless of how good they might be.

The KJV was translated from over 5000 manuscripts. In your rush to judge those who worked hard to make scripture as clear as it is. You failed to judge your self first. Nothing in this world is perfect this includes your opinion.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

Just to be clear, are you criticizing the KJV for including the words in italic or for putting the words in italic? Either way, the 1611 was honest with the evidence.

Did they not just do what my 1977 Nas did though, use Italics to show added words for clarification sake?

 

[Yeshua1]

The 1598 Beza edition was followed heavily by the original 1611 translators, not later revisers of 1789 which followed Stepens 1550. Those words were not in all the other editions of the Textus Reptus, that's why they printed the words in italic, knowing that Beza got the words from the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. The words may or may not belong, but the 1611 translators were honest, knowing Beza got it from the Latin. Scriveners TR was made from the KJV, which is why he has the words, because the KJV has the words, although in italic.

the 1769 was more of a revision then the NKJV, so why is it accepted as legit, by KJVO. but reject the Nkjv?

 

[MB]

the 1769 was more of a revision then the NKJV, so why is it accepted as legit, by KJVO. but reject the Nkjv?

Because the NKJV and the KJV are not the same. The NKJV was not produced by the same people. Nor is it as an accurate translation.
MB.

 

[Yeshua1]

Because the NKJV and the KJV are not the same. The NKJV was not produced by the same people. Nor is it an accurate translation.
MB.

Its overall more accurate then the Kjv!

 

[MB]

Its overall more accurate then the Kjv!

Prove it if you can.
MB