Featured Most accurate translations

he at least can validate and prove all of his conclusions, unlike the Kjvo !

 

τρεῖς εις τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. Literally "are into the one" witness. Not just article but the preposition with the article.

 

Removing from the Inspired, Infallible Word of God, what rightly belongs in it!

Frederic Kenyon, who was a first rate textual scholar, wrote in his Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,

"On the one hand there is the statement of Eusebius (Constant, iv. 36) that the Emperor Constantine about the year 331 ordered fifty copies of the Scriptures on vellum for the churches in his new capital ; on the other, there is the statement of Jerome that the (papyrus) volumes in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea were replaced by copies on vellum through
the efforts of Acacius and Euzoius {circ. 350)" (pages 47-48)

This is the time and place when the Greek Codices, the Sinaticus and Vaticanus were copied. Both Acacius and Euzoius, were followers of the arch-heretic, Arius!

 

the point being, in good Greek grammar, and with the absence of the words in verse 7, "οι τρεις εν εισιν", there is no grammatical reason for John to have used the article in verse 8. Middleton gets this, it seems that either you don't, or you cannot admit this, because it would then cause you problems in rejecting the words in verse 7!

 

then WHY do you even bother to read his comments, if they bore you? Unless you like being bored, or like to complain about him!

 

And why do you care? Are you his mom?

 

Textual critic Wilbur N. Pickering's translation footnote on 1 John 5:7, "Those who use the AV or NKJV are used to: “There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” The words in italics are only found in five late Greek manuscripts (less than 1% of the total) and part of the Latin tradition, from which they came. To be more precise, the manuscripts are: (61)[16th], (629)[14th], (918)[16th], 2318 [18th], 2473 [17th], wherein the cursives in ( ) all differ from each other; the two that agree verbatim with TR were probably copied from it. The only one that is clearly early enough to have served as TR’s exemplar, 629, is far too different—it lacks the seven last words in TR, omits another five, changes five and adds two—19 out of 40 words is too much; the Textus Receptus is not based on cursive 629, so it must be a translation from the Latin (or its exemplar is lost). The shorter reading makes excellent sense. [Those who make ‘the three heavenly witnesses’ a litmus test for orthodoxy are either ignorant or perverse (or both).]"

 

A brother in the Lord!

 

He says nothing about the Greek grammar

 

There is very good textual evidence to support it not being part of the original book from John!

 

The textual evidence supports it to be excluded!

 

You and those who take your view are wrong

 

There is no consistent text, Greek or Latin for that add. And the oldest texts for a similar reading are Latin and they like the Greek do not agree. Read Adam Clarke's essay in the print edition in his commentary.

 

I first looked at the Grammar argument in Peter Ruckman's The Christians Handbook of manuscript evidence. Peter S Ruckman The Christian's Handbook Of Manuscript Evidence: Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive

 

Perhaps you only read one of my posts and incorrectly assume that they are all the same. The fact is that all my posts are not the same.

Your response suggests that you find sound reasonable observations and factual points extremely boring while you seem in effect to try to aid or defend KJV-only advocates. You fail to point out any factual errors or erroneous reasoning in my posts. Do your posts suggest that you prefer erroneous KJV-only allegations over truth?

 

Oh, dear Logos, if you would just talk and post like an ordinary human being, I might stop and read your posts. You just post with a really strange, to me, phraseology that sounds like I'm sitting in my college professor's class and it bores me to tears. I apologize, but will continue to just ignore your posts because of the way you write. Sorry.

 

I am an ordinary human being, who is a Bible believer. A lot of my "phraseology" comes from the KJV itself and from KJV-only books. I attempt to apply the assertions of KJV-only advocates consistently and justly so I apply KJV-only allegations and assertions back to KJV-only teaching.

Is it interesting, Baptist4life, that you do not find repeated unproven KJV-only allegations and assertions strange and weird? However you do claim to find a consistent application of them applied justly according to scriptural truth strange even though you do not read them carefully and completely. Do you in effect suggest that the KJV English in many of my assertions is strange? You do not ignore my posts when you make your inconsistent, strange allegations against them. You could choose actually to ignore them instead of calling attention to them.

You do not refute nor answer my sound objections to erroneous KJV-only teaching. Other readers of this forum find many of my posts helpful and informative. I advocate a consistent, just application of scriptural truths to the issue of Bible translations.

 

Done!

 

he uses textual and biblical and historical evidences to support his case, none of which Kjvo can do!

 

To bad. You could have learned much, instead of falling for onlyism.