The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

[Origen]

I didnt mean to quote your post. I meant to quote the O.P.
Sorry

Thank you.

 

[Logos1560]

People can like a translation for valid reasons or for invalid reasons.

Liking could be a biased opinion of imperfect men.

Liking something over a period of time could become a mere tradition of men.

Because men choose to like something, they may overlook its flaws or weaknesses.

The fact that some or even many like a translation does not make it correct, accurate or better than other Bible translations.

The proper standard and authority for the making, trying, or evaluating for all Bible translations remains the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

[Logos1560]

Most modern translations are ugly and dishonest. The KJV is neither.

Because you disagree with some modern translations does not prove that they are ugly and dishonest.

It has not been proven that the Church of England makers of the KJV were more honest than any other Bible translators.

Perhaps you are wrong to question the honesty and integrity of most translators of English Bibles.

The Church of England makers of the KJV had their Church of England doctrinal biases that influenced their translation decisions.

 

[Shoostie]

Because you disagree with some modern translations does not prove that they are ugly and dishonest.

I've already proved my point. I'm not going to reprove it in every post. Is it too much trouble for you to review a thread before you start complaining about a lack of something in that thread?

Perhaps you are wrong to question the honesty and integrity of most translators of English Bibles.

Perhaps you're wrong to question me.

 

[1689Dave]

I still trust the KJV more than any other. All others omit the Johannine Comma saying it is not in the oldest manuscripts. And most will avow the word "Trinity" is not in scripture. But Cyprian quotes from the comma and uses the Greek word for Trinity.

Trinity in scripture

The corresponding word in Greek is "Τριάς" (Trias), meaning "a set of three" or "the number three." Trinity - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Found in:

“For there are three [Τριάς] that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7 (KJV 1900)

Some might object the Johannine Comma is not in the older manuscripts. But Cyprian quoted it between 200 -258.

CYPRIAN 200-258 AD. Treatises (I 5:423). "and again it Is written of the Father, and of the Son. and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one' "

The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;”4 and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”5

Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). On the Unity of the Church. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, p. 423). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

 

[robycop3]

The KJV is no Model T. For one, cars change because technology changes over time. God's word doesn't change over time.

The KJV is practically unsurpassed by any modern version in its literalism, beauty, and conservative philosophy. Yes, it has some imperfections fixed in later versions, but those later versions have many more imperfections introduced. Yes, the KJV uses dated language, but I like reading something that sounds like the Bible.

KJV: "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." PERFECT! If there's one flaw, it's the use of Junia instead of Junias, but the KJV translators were victims of their source material.

NIV "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." SEVERELY FLAWED! The NIV changes the masculine "kinsmen" to gender-neutral Jews. The NIV just plain lies by using the word "Jews". And, the NIV distorts the verse to imply that these two people are Apostles. If there was something in the KJV to fix, it would have been to use Junias, not Junia, but the NIV deliberately does't fix this. The NIV has a few other problems in this verse, but I accept those problems as honest translations decisions, such as the NIV should have ended the verse with the literal "before me", not the pointless paraphrase "before I was."

The NIV deliberately contains four falsehoods in one verse, and is otherwise poor quality. While, the KJV innocently contains one possible error. How can anyone claim to love the Truth and use the NIV or other garbage modern translations? (There are some good modern translations, the ESV, NKJV, and the NASB except after the latest update.)

The KJV has plenty of goofs & booboos. We have discussed the "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4 ad nauseam. then, there's the ADDITION of "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. (Please show us those words in an ancient Greek ms. of Revelation.) and the OMISSION of "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25.

But feel free to use the KJV (or drive a Model T) if you wish. I shall use modern versions in my everyday language, & continue to drive a new Fusion.

 

[Origen]

Found in:

“For there are three [Τριάς] that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7 (KJV 1900)

The word Τριάς is never used in the N.T. The word used in the Comma is τρεῖς.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν.

 

[1689Dave]

The word Τριάς is never used in the N.T. The word used in the Comma is τρεῖς.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν.

So what is the difference?

 

[Origen]

So what is the difference?

Etymologically they are related however τρεῖς was never used as a reference for the Trinity.

 

[Conan]

I still trust the KJV more than any other. All others omit the Johannine Comma saying it is not in the oldest manuscripts.

That is not true. The Comma Johanneum is missing from virtually all Greek Manuscripts. Not just the oldest. Here is a list of manuscripts that do not have the Comma Johanneum.

The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s: 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296

Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s: 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464

Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s: 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s: 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s: 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later: 90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104

 

[1689Dave]

That is not true. The Comma Johanneum is missing from virtually all Greek Manuscripts. Not just the oldest. Here is a list of manuscripts that do not have the Comma Johanneum.

The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts
Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s: 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s: 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s: 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s: 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s: 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later: 90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104

How did Cyprian come up with it if not written earlier? Can you prove something does not exist?

 

[Conan]

How did Cyprian come up with it if not written earlier? Can you prove something does not exist?

Cyprian was Latin, not Greek. Here are the only Greek Manuscripts which contain the Comma Johanneum.

495 Greek manuscripts against the Comma Johanneum.

Only 3 Greek manuscripts with the Comma Johanneum before the age of printing.

2 more Greek manuscripts added after the age of printing.

5 more have the Comma Johanneum written in their margin, but the text of these manuscripts are against the inclusion of the extra words.

The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

 

[1689Dave]

Cyprian was Latin, not Greek. Here are the only Greek Manuscripts which contain the Comma Johanneum.

495 Greek manuscripts against the Comma Johanneum.

Only 3 Greek manuscripts with the Comma Johanneum before the age of printing.

2 more Greek manuscripts added after the age of printing.

5 more have the Comma Johanneum written in their margin, but the text of these manuscripts are against the inclusion of the extra words.

The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

But how do you prove his source did not exist?

 

[Baptist4life]

I primarily use the KJV, although I sometimes use the NKJV. I've read the KJV for over 60 years. It's my first choice in a Bible version. There are many people in my church that use different versions, and our pastor preaches from the ESV. What I don't understand is the bashing of the KJV on here. The OP wasn't about KJVO, it was plainly degrading a well loved, and still used by millions, version of God's Word. The obsession against using the KJV seems to dominate some people's thoughts here. I don't get it.

 

[Logos1560]

I've already proved my point.
Perhaps you're wrong to question me.

Because you claim it is proven or because you may believe it is proven is not actually proof that it is.

You have not proven your point with use of consistent, just measures/standards applied completely justly to all Bible translators. You do not show that you apply the same exact measures/standards to the KJV translators that you may inconsistently and thus unjustly allege against other Bible translators.

It would not be at all wrong to question the use of measures/standards that are not demonstrated to be applied justly.

The honesty of the biased Church of England makers of the KJV could be as soundly questioned or challenged as your unproven allegations against other English Bible translators.

Some of the possible motives and intentions behind the making of the KJV are just as questionable as those behind the making of some present-day English Bibles.

 

[Conan]

But how do you prove his source did not exist?

I cannot prove his source did not exist. He may have quoted an old latin manuscript. However I believe he was interpreting the Verse. True he may indeed be quoting a Latin Bible.

 

[robycop3]

I primarily use the KJV, although I sometimes use the NKJV. I've read the KJV for over 60 years. It's my first choice in a Bible version. There are many people in my church that use different versions, and our pastor preaches from the ESV. What I don't understand is the bashing of the KJV on here. The OP wasn't about KJVO, it was plainly degrading a well loved, and still used by millions, version of God's Word. The obsession against using the KJV seems to dominate some people's thoughts here. I don't get it.

While the KJV isn't a poor version, it's certainly inferior to several newer ones. and is not in our current language style, same as a Model T, while still a street-legal vehicle, is not suited to today's roads or driving speeds. There are many English users who don't know the Jacobean-Elizabethan English style of the KJV too well, & that's especially true of those for whom English is a second or new language. When witnessing, I like to explain the GOSPEL, not interpret the language.

 

[Logos1560]

What I don't understand is the bashing of the KJV on here.

Asserting or acknowledging the truth that the same measures/standards should be justly applied to all Bible translations would not be bashing the KJV.

Most believers probably accept the KJV as what it actually is [a good overall English translation with some imperfections], but some try to assume and claim that the KJV is something that it is not.

What is typically objected to is human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching, and not the KJV itself.

 

[Logos1560]

I still trust the KJV more than any other. All others omit the Johannine Comma saying it is not in the oldest manuscripts.

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.

 

[Baptist4life]

Asserting or acknowledging the truth that the same measures/standards should be justly applied to all Bible translations would not be bashing the KJV.

Most believers probably accept the KJV as what it actually is [a good overall English translation with some imperfections], but some try to assume and claim that the KJV is something that it is not.

What is typically objected to is human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching, and not the KJV itself.

Logos, I understand that. However, the OP in THIS particular thread simply demeans the KJV. Period.