Pro-KJV but not a KJO

[37818]

I'm having to confess my confusion as to why you don't believe that those are actually God's words.

1) To me, they fit the context of the passage perfectly.
Otherwise, it's like someone simply set a "speedbump in the road" regarding the flow of the text.

2) It places into one statement all the other references in His word that make mention of the Godhead ( the "Trinity" )...Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Colossians 2:9.
Genesis 1:26.
John 15:26.
Ephesians 1:17.
2 Corinthians 13:14.
Matthew 28:18-20.
1 Peter 1:2.



Something inside me says, "Something's not right" when I see a translation that doesn't have it.
For example, in the NASB, it says, "For there are three that testify".
What are those three?
It tells me the Spirit, the water and the blood.

In the Av, I see a fuller reading of two distinct statements...
Three that bear record ( or "testify" ) in Heaven, and three that bear record in earth.
But when I read the NASB, I see only the ones that are bearing record in earth.



That's part of why I believe that they are God's words...
Because to me, something's missing in most of the newer translations in this area.
However, at the end of the day, you're free to believe whatever you wish.

I wish you well, as always.

Thank you for your kind reply.

There are a number of reasons. One primary reason is that there is no good manuscript evidence. The main manuscript evidence are 99% of 1 John manuscripts which do not have those words. Of the 1% there are nothing before the 14th century in the Greek. Now in the old Latin there are no two manuscripts which agree, that is a problem, no agreement.

 

[John of Japan]

The KJVO folks are one sub-sector of the IFB galaxy. And yes, it seems to be restricted to IFBdom. But, it is a minority POV. And is shrinking over the years.

Actually, the Bible Presbyterian movement in Singapore is KJVO, though some would classify them as TR Only. Here is their school: Far Eastern Bible College | Singapore

 

[Yeshua1]

No the Greek has ". . . και θεος ην ο λογος," and the Word was God." And as such that did not change when the Word change how He was witb the God, John 1:2, ". . . προς τον θεον." John 1:14, and the Son being the Word was the sole cause, John 1:2-3.

The Word was not God?

 

[Salty]

Actually, the Bible Presbyterian movement in Singapore is KJVO, though some would classify them as TR Only. Here is their school: Far Eastern Bible College | Singapore

Arent Presbyterians just Baptists in Training?

 

[John of Japan]

Arent Presbyterians just Baptists in Training?

Har har. Well, they should be.

 

[Yeshua1]

We disagree on God never changing.

God never changes in His nature and His attributes, but the Second person did "change" by assuming humanity and human nature for now on forever!

 

[Yeshua1]

Because He the Son of God became Jesus the Christ. As God He did not change to do this. But He changed how He was with God, John 1:2-3.

Jesus is still in the same relationship with the Father and Holy Spirit!

 

[Yeshua1]

Your answer fails to acknowledge He was not "Just God," hut was also someone else being "with the God," . . . προς τον :the God",
He was always "the God" along with the Father and Holy Spirit!

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, the Bible Presbyterian movement in Singapore is KJVO, though some would classify them as TR Only. Here is their school: Far Eastern Bible College | Singapore

Would you be then a KJVP?

 

[Yeshua1]

Arent Presbyterians just Baptists in Training?

Once they get rid of that silly Infant Baptism!

 

[John of Japan]

Would you be then a KJVP?

I would not reject that label, but would have to qualify it with "Byzantine Priority." And I could not be KJVP in any other language than English.

Tis is precisely where the KJVO movement fails. They have no prescription for a "KJV" in other languages. Ruckman thought that the Bungoyaku, Japanese Classical Bible was the "KJV of Japan." But it's NT was from Nestle's Greek text. Or perhaps the Motoyaku, "Original Translation." Either way, he was ignorant--about that and so much else.

 

[Yeshua1]

I would not reject that label, but would have to qualify it with "Byzantine Priority." And I could not be KJVP in any other language than English.

Tis is precisely where the KJVO movement fails. They have no prescription for a "KJV" in other languages. Ruckman thought that the Bungoyaku, Japanese Classical Bible was the "KJV of Japan." But it's NT was from Nestle's Greek text. Or perhaps the Motoyaku, "Original Translation." Either way, he was ignorant--about that and so much else.

Is there not a Japanese translation based off the Nas?

 

[John of Japan]

Is there not a Japanese translation based off the Nas?

Yes, but not off the KJV.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

I rely on the KJ V as a resource to the text used for its translation via Strong's. The only other version I use is the ESV.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, but not off the KJV.

was that Nas based one good?

 

[Yeshua1]

I rely on the KJ V as a resource to the text used for its translation via Strong's. The only other version I use is the ESV.

The esv does deem to be the default version for many baptists today!

 

[John of Japan]

was that Nas based one good?

Pretty good (though wooden like the NASB), except for the Greek text used (Nestle's).

 

[Yeshua1]

Pretty good (though wooden like the NASB), except for the Greek text used (Nestle's).

One can still get a decent translation off even that text source though....

 

[John of Japan]

One can still get a decent translation off even that text source though....

Translation theory and textual criticism are two different disciplines. A pet peeve of mine is that they are often crammed together for no reason.

 

[37818]

The Word was not God?

No. The Word was both prior to the incarnation. John 1:1-3. ". . . with the God" and ". . . was God."