The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

[1689Dave]

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.

The point is, Cyprian, quoted the Johannine Comma that others say does not exist. Where did he get it from? How can you prove it does not exist?

 

[Logos1560]

However, the OP in THIS particular thread simply demeans the KJV. Period.

How would pointing out the truth that the KJV is an older English translation with some archaic English supposedly be demeaning the KJV?

 

[Logos1560]

The point is, Cyprian, quoted the Johannine Comma that others say does not exist. Where did he get it from? How can you prove it does not exist?

It is possible that he quoted from a Latin translation that had words added in translating or even that he quoted from a Latin marginal note or commentary. He could even be giving his own personal interpretation or his own commentary or explanation, and not quoting directly from any earlier source.

The makers of the KJV omitted at least three whole verses that were found in two earlier English Bibles, and they added at least two verses that were not found in some earlier English Bibles. The 1611 KJV put in a marginal notes some words and phrases that were in the text of an earlier English Bible while the 1611 KJV put in its text some words that were in the marginal notes of an earlier English Bible. There were over 150 words that were not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV that would be added in many later editions of the KJV.

It is possible for words to be added in copying, in translating, and in printing the Scriptures. According to the Scriptures, it is just as wrong for words to be added as it is wrong for words to be omitted.

 

[Baptist4life]

How would pointing out the truth that the KJV is an older English translation with some archaic English supposedly demeaning the KJV?

Comparing the KJV to an old car that really shouldn't be used today isn't demeaning?

"We don't drive Model Ts every day, so there's no reason to use only a "Model T" Bible version!"

I beg to differ........calling the KJV a "Model T" Bible version IS demeaning.
de·mean1
/dəˈmēn/
verb

1. cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something).

 

[1689Dave]

It is possible that he quoted from a Latin translation that had words added in translating or even that he quoted from a Latin marginal note or commentary. He could even be giving his own personal interpretation or his own commentary or explanation, and not quoting directly from any earlier source.

The makers of the KJV omitted at least three whole verses that were found in two earlier English Bibles, and they added at least two verses that were not found in some earlier English Bibles. The 1611 KJV put in a marginal notes some words and phrases that were in the text of an earlier English Bible while the 1611 KJV put in its text some words that were in the marginal notes of an earlier English Bible. There were over 150 words that were not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV that would be added in many later editions of the KJV.

It is possible for words to be added in copying, in translating, and in printing the Scriptures. According to the Scriptures, it is just as wrong for words to be added as it is wrong for words to be omitted.

Anything is possible without proof.

 

[Conan]

But how do you prove his source did not exist?

Again I do not. However it is clear to me that he is interpreting the verses and not quoting a written text.

Here is his quote starting with John 10:30


The Lord says, "I and the Father are one"
and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
"And these three are one."

Please note that he does not quote like the KJV nor the Latin Bibles which have, "Word".

"For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

[Logos1560]

Comparing the KJV to an old car that really shouldn't be used today isn't demeaning?

Actually that poster did not say that the KJV could not be read today.

According to the statement you quoted, he suggested that it should not only be read and he suggested that a person would not drive a Model T every day. Thus, his point could be considered to be addressing KJV-only reasoning.

Some make great effort to preserve a old car as a classic, and they may display it or drive it on an special occasion. They do not demean that old car by taking special care of it and by not driving it every day.

 

[Logos1560]

Anything is possible without proof.

Do you offer any verifiable proof that 1 John 5:7 is in the original autograph directly given by inspiration to the apostle John or do you assume without sound proof based on human KJV-only reasoning?

 

[Baptist4life]

Actually that poster did not say that the KJV could not be read today.

According to the statement you quoted, he suggested that it should not only be read and he suggested that a person would not drive a Model T every day. Thus, his point could be considered to be addressing KJV-only reasoning.

Some make great effort to preserve a old car as a classic, and they may display it or drive it on an special occasion. They do not demean that old car by taking special care of it and by not driving it every day.

I see it completely different. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[1689Dave]

Do you offer any verifiable proof that 1 John 5:7 is in the original autograph directly given by inspiration to the apostle John or do you assume without sound proof based on human KJV-only reasoning?

Does God watch over his word?

 

[1689Dave]

It is possible that he quoted from a Latin translation that had words added in translating or even that he quoted from a Latin marginal note or commentary. He could even be giving his own personal interpretation or his own commentary or explanation, and not quoting directly from any earlier source.

The makers of the KJV omitted at least three whole verses that were found in two earlier English Bibles, and they added at least two verses that were not found in some earlier English Bibles. The 1611 KJV put in a marginal notes some words and phrases that were in the text of an earlier English Bible while the 1611 KJV put in its text some words that were in the marginal notes of an earlier English Bible. There were over 150 words that were not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV that would be added in many later editions of the KJV.

It is possible for words to be added in copying, in translating, and in printing the Scriptures. According to the Scriptures, it is just as wrong for words to be added as it is wrong for words to be omitted.

How do you prove any of this?

 

[Origen]

I cannot prove his source did not exist.

The question in my opinion is not really relevant. Beside given the manuscript evidence and all the other evidence as well, the better question would be is there any reason to believe it did existed as part of the text?

He may have quoted an old latin manuscript.

Not impossible but the majority of scholars believe it was a gloss, a marginal note, that was copied into the body of the Latin text.

However I believe he was interpreting the Verse.

The evidence points to that very explanation.

Note how Cyprian phrases it: again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "and these three are one."

Also note the word de in bold.
Et iterum de Pater et Filio et spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt.

The de is a Latin preposition meaning "about." So the Latin reads: "it is written about the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit." I think it is clear that this section is not a quote but an introduction to the quote "these three are one." Thus it is better to understand it as Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7-8.

 

[Logos1560]

Does God watch over his word?

I nowhere questioned or challenged God's preservation of His word.

Disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not questioning God's watch over His word.

KJV-only advocates have presented no consistent, sound view of the preservation of the Scriptures that is true from A. D. 100 until today.

KJV-only advocates seem to close their eyes to the fact that the KJV followed some textual conjectures introduced by Erasmus and Beza that are found in no known, preserved Greek NT manuscripts, to the fact that the makers of the KJV added words, phrases, and verses not found in pre-1611 English Bibles, and to the fact that later editors/printed added words not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

 

[Origen]

Anything is possible without proof.

A few questions if you please.

First, what is the evidence the quote is from a Latin manuscript (and which one)?

Second, why favor the Latin manuscript tradition against the Greek manuscript tradition?

Third, is it really a good idea to alter the Greek text on the basis of a Latin Church father and\or the Latin manuscript tradition?

 

[1689Dave]

I nowhere questioned or challenged God's preservation of His word.

Disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not questioning God's watch over His word.

KJV-only advocates have presented no consistent, sound view of the preservation of the Scriptures that is true from A. D. 100 until today.

KJV-only advocates seem to close their eyes to the fact that the KJV followed some textual conjectures introduced by Erasmus and Beza that are found in no known, preserved Greek NT manuscripts, to the fact that the makers of the KJV added words, phrases, and verses not found in pre-1611 English Bibles, and to the fact that later editors/printed added words not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

So God watches over his word. But the KJV, his word for centuries and continuing is messed up?

 

[Logos1560]

So God watches over his word. But the KJV, his word for centuries and continuing is messed up?

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that God directly gave by a miracle of inspiration the 1611 edition of the KJV.

The 1611 edition of the KJV had some errors introduced by men whether by printers, editors, or translators.

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV had some errors introduced by men, including at least one that remained in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for 100 years.

Does modern, human KJV-only reasoning suggest that God failed to watch over His word in the pre-1611 English Bibles?

The word of God was translated into English many years before 1611.

The actual words given directly by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were the original languages words of Scriptures.

 

[1689Dave]

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that God directly gave by a miracle of inspiration the 1611 edition of the KJV.

The 1611 edition of the KJV had some errors introduced by men whether by printers, editors, or translators.

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV had some errors introduced by men, including at least one that remained in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for 100 years.

Does modern, human KJV-only reasoning suggest that God failed to watch over His word in the pre-1611 English Bibles?

The word of God was translated into English many years before 1611.

The actual words given directly by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were the original languages words of Scriptures.

Can the Spirit bear witness and produce faith in those who hear the word?

 

[37818]

There is no good evidence that 1 John 1:7-8 addition, ". . . in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, . . ." (1%) was ever part of the original text. The text without it is 99% of 1 John texts. The constant witness is always the 100% reading.

 

[Reynolds]

Anything is possible without proof.

That knife cuts both ways.

 

[1689Dave]

That knife cuts both ways.

But the sheep hear Jesus' voice.