The KJV Only & The Textus Receptus Only - a continuous thread

[Enow]

You are both completely overlooking two facts: first, Alexandria was home to faithful Christians as well as to false brothers, just as Antioch was; and second, the spread of Islam resulted in a great many churches being destroyed and with them, their contents. If a group of believers feared for the safety of their valuables, they could well have hidden them. Lack of use is not the only plausible reason for their survival.

Interesting speculation, but unless they were under occupations, there is no reason why a monastery would continue to hide it and forget about what they are supposed to love.

In one sentence you claim, "no one can really pin down what Gnosticism teaches for gaining secret knowledge" and in the next you claim that prayer in the power of the Holy Spirit is about secret knowledge. Care to justify your massive leap of logic here? People who pray in tongues don't generally claim any secret knowledge by it, nor do they seek by illicit means to teach anything they've learned through such practice. I would strongly suggest that you do some homework on what the Gnostics did believe. Praying in tongues has nothing to do with it.

Actual quote of the end of that paragraph...before I started my speculation...

"I can only assume since no one can really pin down what Gnosticism teaches for gaining secret knowledge."

Then I expressed my assumption of relating this diatribe of self edification by tongues of today as mayhap referring to how the gnostics were gaining this "secret knowledge". It makes sense to me since Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2nd chapter that this iniquity was already at work in his day of seeking that vain & profane babbling by receiving the Holy Spirit apart from salvation. The apostle John warned of it in 1 John 4:1-6 as the world does have a supernatural tongue by the spirit of error as this is gained by any one thinking they are receiving the Holy Spirit again for why John reminds them that He was already in them by citing "greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world" ~ 1 John 4:4

Paul's reproof towards that iniquity at work in his day can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 where he reminds believers when they had received the sanctification of the Spirit & the belief of the truth at the calling of the gospel.

So let me put it in this way; the way tongue speakers are talking today of using tongues without interpretation for self edification, it sure does lines up with the gnostics' penchant for secret knowledge, would it not? I mean really. Think about it. How can knowledge be secret unless it is unknowable and thus not understood, but hey... self edification by tongues without interpretation sure fits the bill. I remind you it is my speculation since no one really understands what the gnostics are talking about as far as secret knowledge and why prayer, fasting, meditation, and doing good works was the norm rather than reading His words.

So yes.. that same prayer in tongues is the same one that believers claim today you can use for self edification, and why those at the Toronto's Blessing claimed that they do not need the word of God any more; all they need is the Spirit. If that is not what they had actually meant, it sure sounds like it... and goes to that possible mentality of the gnostics back in the day.

As far as addressing facts; how is it that you are ignoring what John 16:13 says in ALL BIBLES to see that all modern Bibles has it wrong in Romans 8:26-27 whereas the KJV has it right?

 

[Enow]

"For there are three that testify," 1 John 5:7 NET

"For there are three that testify:" 1 John 5:7 ESV

"τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες," 1 John 5:7 SBL

"οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν" 1 John 5:7 (Scrivener) TR 1894

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7 KJV

It is obvious which versions follow which Greek renderings, above. Even if you don't read Greek, it is very apparent by its length that KJV follows the TR (and a few other corrupted later manuscripts.)

Why corrupted?

First, the longer version is based on scribal additions, placed in the margins. The next generation appeared within the text, rather than as a margin note.

An assumption that it originally started as a margin note.

Second, the longer version does not appear in any of the writings of the early church fathers. This is important, because, except for a few disputed verses, all the other verses of the NT appear somewhere in the early church fathers. During the Arian controversy, concerning the deity of Christ in the 3rd century, all the NT verses were scoured for proof of the Trinity. The later, longer version would have provided definitive proof of the Trinity, and hence, the deity of Christ, but this verse did not exost in th 3rd century. (Certainly, proof of the Trinity is found throughout the NT, and foreshadowed in the OT, but NOT this verse!)

There are extrabiblical evidence of earlier writings as far back as 250 A.D. citing 1 John 5:7

Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Third, if something suddenly appears in a 16th century version, was it removed by later scholars, such as Hort and Westcott and SBL, who could not find it in the first 15 centuries of Christianity, more or less, (Vulgate cl , arm mss, 2318, 221 vr, have it added,) or was it added later, then encoded in an English version which gained prominence for 4 centuries?

I believe the site, explains it as referenced from a book by David W. Daniels.

I do not endorse the site entirely, but just giving reference to a book source on what you had quoted.

I'm sure the answer was that it was added much later, and the popularity of the KJV gave rise to many thinking it was in the original manuscripts.

The fact is, the so-called "majority" texts are the majority or there are more copies than other versions, because the Byzantine Empire kept its Greek, and monastic orders arose to copy the earlier versions. Monks copied copies or copied or copies, and transcribing errors appeared which were incorporated into the Greek manuscripts. There are many examples of notes in the margins, added by scribes, then being incorporated into the text in the next generation. I have seen photos of these notes in a Greek text book, then the next generation incorporating it. (See Kostenburger.)

As for the volume of Greek texts, if they belong to the same family, in fact, they are not really 200 manuscripts, (to throw out a number) but 1 manuscript of that generation, copied 200 times.

Further, the argument that the Alexandrian manuscripts are heretical is based on flimsy logic. Yes, SOME of the Alexandrians, like Arius were heretical. But the bishop of Alexandria, Athenasius opposed Arius, and took the whole debate to a church council in 325 AD. In fact, that church council affirmed the Trinity and the deity of Christ, using versions which do not include the spurious and much later addition which the KJV copied.

Just because there were heretics, that didn't make their manuscript heretical. Just as people come into CC all the time, declaring some heresy or other, using the KJV, that doesn't make the translation heretical. On the other hand, the New World translation of the JWs has actually changed the words of the Bible to say something it never said in any manuscript. That is a heretical version.

Finally, Erasmus upon whose Greek version the KJV is based, to a large part, did not want to put that spurious longer verse (1 John 5:7) into his translation. The Catholic Church demanded he keep it in, despite the total lack of manuscript evidence to support it. The RCC wanted it there, because it was an easy verse to support the Trinity. Erasmus was not allowed to publish his translation and have the Imprimatur approved seal in 1516. Another version was being prepared, he rushed his version to press early, getting more sales and obeying the RCCs dictum! Profit motive in a priest. (There were other errors and problems with his version, which the KJV also copied!)

PS I do totally believe in the Trinity, but I would never support my belief with the longer version!

There is a huge list of early Greek manuscripts that do not contain the longer verse, including, aleph; A; B; 048; 33; 81; 322; 323; 436; 945; 1067; 1175; 1241; 1243; 1292; 1409; 1505; 1611; 1735; 1739; 1846; 1881; 2138; 2298; 2344; 2464; Byz; it,p; vg ww, st; syr p h; cop sa, bo; arm mss; eth; geo; slav; Clement; Ps-Dionysus; Rebaptism; Ambrose; Augustine; Quodvultdeus; Facundus.

It is in that light, I thank the Lord that He made sure One Bible got that 1 John 5:7 as it was originally written. ( So did the 1599 Geneva Bible, if you can excuse the errant marginal notes that were running against scripture at various places in that Bible version )

 

[Muzungu256]

If you had even bothered for a moment to read my post just above yours, you would see that the TR adds verses! Nothing like wishful thinking to confirm that the longer version of 1 John 5:7 is true! No wonder the Mormons and JWs get so many converts!

well u have ur post, but other people have their posts with their proofs u see..... its a sipple issue. even all the 'experts' dont agree.
i just read it and it fits better, i also think that its more likely people remove than add verses u see. but hey atleast u believe in the trinity so thats good..... i just like that verse because its easy proof text. what else can u go for thats as simple.

 

[Angela53510]

Why are there professing Christians today that deny the deity of Jesus Christ and the existence of the Triune God? Doesn't take much for the imaginations that what is going on today was going on back then too.

Some can speculate due to some of the heresy back then, but it really doesn't explain why the Eastern Orthodox omitted 1 John 5:7 as explained at this site;

Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

But it was done.

Are you kidding? Jack Chick? Hilarious!

First, the RCC wanted to preserve the longer version of 1 John 5:7. Erasmus, as I just said in post #97 above, could not find it in any earlier manuscripts and tried to leave it out, the Catholic Church would not approve of his transcription, unless he left it in!

To say nothing of the fact that the Catholic Church has always had a high Christiology. As for the Byzantine texts, the trend is to add to the titles of Jesus. So, the earliest versions of a verse say, Jesus, later, the Lord Jesus, then even later, they add, the Lord Jesus Christ! Adding to the text is always the issue. Never subtracting from it.

Certainly, the RCC was after Protestants from its earliest days. This includes the very earliest groups, later the Puritans in England, the Huguenots in France, to name only 2 groups. But, this obscure group Chick cites are not even classed in the manuscript families, which are as follows:

Byzantine
Western
Alexandrian
Caesarian

There are almost 6000 catalogued partial or complete NT catalogued Greek New Testaments. If these manuscripts are so important from the Waldenses, I would love to know their catalogue numbers and who has studied them. Let me know when you find out.

I'm a little concerned about the foolish and poor arguments being used to support the KJVO fantasy. It seems like faith in a translation is more important than real manuscript evidence, of which I have seen NONE in this thread! I'm a bit frustrated with the ant-intellectual quality of this Forum right now. I think I'll take a break for a while!

(Not just speaking to Enow right now! All the people saying God inspired a perfect translation is total ignorance on the whole princess of how you translate anything from one language to another!)

 

[Muzungu256]

relax angela.
they got good tracts

but its a very sipple issue u see, often times the experts are wrong. i think all translations ive seen are good enough. i just like the kjv more because it dont got missing verses. im not a greek expert so i cant say what is translated and how but i do know that God wouldnt let us just be here without any instruction

 

[Enow]

Are you kidding? Jack Chick? Hilarious!

The site is Jack Chick's but not the reference to the book which is by David W. Daniels. Daniels had listed extra biblical writings that quoted 1 John 5:7.

First, the RCC wanted to preserve the longer version of 1 John 5:7. Erasmus, as I just said in post #97 above, could not find it in any earlier manuscripts and tried to leave it out, the Catholic Church would not approve of his transcription, unless he left it in!

Actually, There is a different report as to why and how Erasmus included it in. Do note; not a Chick site.

1 John 5:7 and the Record in Heaven

Erasmus omitted it from his first edition of the printed Greek N.T. (1516), because it occurred in the Latin Vulgate and not in any Greek manuscript. To quieten the outcry that followed, he agreed to restore it if one Greek manuscript could be found containing it. Two Greek manuscripts, Codex 61 and 629 were presented, so Erasmus
included it in his 1522 edition. Since these manuscripts are late (15th and 16th centuries) some think the readings are corrupt. What do we answer? Early manuscript evidence that exists for I John 5:7,8
Early church writers that used it:
Cyprian 200 - 258 AD. "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'." If Cyprian quotes I John 5:7 from his Bible in 200• 258 AD, it must be a valid reading. His Bible was copied from an older manuscript containing this verse.
Cyprian lived only 100 years after John wrote the book of I John. Cyprian would have had access to the original manuscript to check.
• Priscillian 350 AD, a Spanish bishop quotes I John 5:7,8.
• Idacius Clarus 360 AD, who opposed Priscillian quotes it.

There is more but you can peruse at your pleasure.

To say nothing of the fact that the Catholic Church has always had a high Christiology. As for the Byzantine texts, the trend is to add to the titles of Jesus. So, the earliest versions of a verse say, Jesus, later, the Lord Jesus, then even later, they add, the Lord Jesus Christ! Adding to the text is always the issue. Never subtracting from it.

Certainly, the RCC was after Protestants from its earliest days. This includes the very earliest groups, later the Puritans in England, the Huguenots in France, to name only 2 groups. But, this obscure group Chick cites are not even classed in the manuscript families, which are as follows:

Byzantine
Western
Alexandrian
Caesarian

There are almost 6000 catalogued partial or complete NT catalogued Greek New Testaments. If these manuscripts are so important from the Waldenses, I would love to know their catalogue numbers and who has studied them. Let me know when you find out.

I'm a little concerned about the foolish and poor arguments being used to support the KJVO fantasy. It seems like faith in a translation is more important than real manuscript evidence, of which I have seen NONE in this thread! I'm a bit frustrated with the ant-intellectual quality of this Forum right now. I think I'll take a break for a while!

(Not just speaking to Enow right now! All the people saying God inspired a perfect translation is total ignorance on the whole princess of how you translate anything from one language to another!)

I thank you for sharing but I had explained why I rely only on the KJV and it was because the KJV kept the truth of Romans 8:26-27 in His words in lining up with the truth in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues to utter His intercessions when it is unspeakable... even His groaning cannot be uttered; hence no sound at all whereas all modern bibles speak to the contrary in Romans 8:26-27 and yet opposing the truth in John 16:13 of that modern Bible.

Since no lie can be of the truth and keeping the faith is the good fight, I have to say that the KJV is the one to rely on for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by it since all modern Bibles are supporting the false notion that the Holy Spirit can use tongues for prayer when it comes with no interpretation in Romans 8:26-27... that same supernatural tongue of vain & profane babbling nonsense that is always identified with apostasy of receiving the Holy Spirit apart from salvation.

Is KJV a perfect Bible? No. But there are no lies in it as far as scripture running against scripture that would support false teachings & false tongues gained by apostasy that many believers today are falling away from the faith FOR and modern Bibles are certainly sowing doubts in His words as far as John 16:13 says in that modern Bible... except for the KJV.

It is so bad that most believers cannot even see what John 16:13 is saying in ALL BIBLES that the Holy Spirit CANNOT use tongues for His own intercessions at all.

But .... oh well. Jesus is still Lord. He shall be coming soon as the Bridegroom while many may still be out to the market seeking to be filled with the oil, "Spirit", and following a stranger's voice which tongues without interpretation but just vain & profane babbling is an apt description of that stranger's voice while the ones holding fast to their faith knows they are Spirit-filled since they were saved at the calling of the gospel & follow His voice of the written word to rest in Him as filled.

 

[Nehemiah6]

You are both completely overlooking two facts: first, Alexandria was home to faithful Christians as well as to false brothers...

No we are not overlooking any facts. Church historians have confirmed that Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnosticism, and Origen, Eusebius, and others under their influence "corrected" (read corrupted) Bible texts. Please note that "wresting" Scriptures is twisting them, and that is how Bible manuscripts were corrupted:

Epiphanius, in his 26[SUP]th [/SUP]Heresy, counts the apocrypha of the Gnostics by thousands, and Irenaeus found among the Valentinians alone a countless multitude of such writings. And finally, when it suited their purpose, the Gnostics employed single portions of the Bible, without being able to agree either as to the extent or the interpretation of the same. The Old Testament they generally rejected, either entirely, as in the case of the Marcionites and the Manichaeans, or at least in great part; and in the New Testament they preferred certain books or portions, such as the Gospel of John, with its profound spiritual intuitions, and either rejected the other books, or wrested them to suit their ideas. Marcion, for example, thus mutilated the Gospel of Luke, and received in addition to it only ten of Paul’s Epistles, thus substituting an arbitrary canon of eleven books for the catholic Testament of twenty-seven. In interpretation they adopted, even with far less moderation than Philo, the most arbitrary and extravagant allegorical principles; despising the letter as sensuous, and the laws of language and exegesis as fetters of the mind...

CHAPTER XI:

 

[Dino246]

Interesting speculation, but unless they were under occupations, there is no reason why a monastery would continue to hide it and forget about what they are supposed to love.

Did you consider the likelihood that many of those who did the hiding did not survive the Islamic onslaught and therefore were not around to un-hide them? Were you aware that the spread of Islam resulted in at least tens of millions being slaughtered?

Actual quote of the end of that paragraph...before I started my speculation...

"I can only assume since no one can really pin down what Gnosticism teaches for gaining secret knowledge."
...
So let me put it in this way; the way tongue speakers are talking today of using tongues without interpretation for self edification, it sure does lines up with the gnostics' penchant for secret knowledge, would it not? I mean really. Think about it. How can knowledge be secret unless it is unknowable and thus not understood, but hey... self edification by tongues without interpretation sure fits the bill. I remind you it is my speculation since no one really understands what the gnostics are talking about as far as secret knowledge and why prayer, fasting, meditation, and doing good works was the norm rather than reading His words....

I still think you're taking your speculation too far without having done research to support it, but since you emphasize that it is only speculation, I'm content with that. However, your characterization of secret knowledge as unknowable is perhaps a little narrow. Knowledge can be secret in the sense that not everyone knows it. This is the means by which the Freemasons and Mormons draw people into their upper ranks. Some have the knowledge, others want it, even though the knowledge is worthless. It makes far more sense to me that such groups are the gnostics of today, rather than groups who are actually worshiping Jesus as Lord.

As far as addressing facts; how is it that you are ignoring what John 16:13 says in ALL BIBLES to see that all modern Bibles has it wrong in Romans 8:26-27 whereas the KJV has it right?

I have no obligation to address every issue.

 

[Nehemiah6]

... i also think that its more likely people remove than add verses u see...

Muzungu,

That is a very perceptive observation. I wonder why most Christians have missed this, but you latched on to it? And in fact the documentary evidence confirms it. Out of all the mutilations of Scripture OMISSIONS dominate the corrupt manuscripts in the thousands. Words, verses, and entire passages have been torn out of Scripture because "the experts" think they know better. I could provide you with lists of all the omissions, yet it would make no difference to the fans of the critics and the modern versions. That's why I don't bother to post them.

 

[Dino246]

No we are not overlooking any facts. Church historians have confirmed that Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnosticism,....

I only need one name to refute your argument: Athanasius... of Alexandria.

 

[MarcR]

The site is Jack Chick's but not the reference to the book which is by David W. Daniels. Daniels had listed extra biblical writings that quoted 1 John 5:7.



Actually, There is a different report as to why and how Erasmus included it in. Do note; not a Chick site.

1 John 5:7 and the Record in Heaven



There is more but you can peruse at your pleasure.



I thank you for sharing but I had explained why I rely only on the KJV and it was because the KJV kept the truth of Romans 8:26-27 in His words in lining up with the truth in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues to utter His intercessions when it is unspeakable... even His groaning cannot be uttered; hence no sound at all whereas all modern bibles speak to the contrary in Romans 8:26-27 and yet opposing the truth in John 16:13 of that modern Bible.

Since no lie can be of the truth and keeping the faith is the good fight, I have to say that the KJV is the one to rely on for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by it since all modern Bibles are supporting the false notion that the Holy Spirit can use tongues for prayer when it comes with no interpretation in Romans 8:26-27... that same supernatural tongue of vain & profane babbling nonsense that is always identified with apostasy of receiving the Holy Spirit apart from salvation.

Is KJV a perfect Bible? No. But there are no lies in it as far as scripture running against scripture that would support false teachings & false tongues gained by apostasy that many believers today are falling away from the faith FOR and modern Bibles are certainly sowing doubts in His words as far as John 16:13 says in that modern Bible... except for the KJV.

It is so bad that most believers cannot even see what John 16:13 is saying in ALL BIBLES that the Holy Spirit CANNOT use tongues for His own intercessions at all.

But .... oh well. Jesus is still Lord. He shall be coming soon as the Bridegroom while many may still be out to the market seeking to be filled with the oil, "Spirit", and following a stranger's voice which tongues without interpretation but just vain & profane babbling is an apt description of that stranger's voice while the ones holding fast to their faith knows they are Spirit-filled since they were saved at the calling of the gospel & follow His voice of the written word to rest in Him as filled.

You have some well argued points; but I question your dating of 1Jn at 100AD although I agree it is mainstream scholarship.

John makes no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. This is strong evidence that the entire NT was written before 70AD.

The early dating was far more mainstream in the 19th century before higher criticism began liberalizing the seminaries.

Furthermore FF Bruce, whose scholarship is impecable follows early dating.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I only need one name to refute your argument: Athanasius... of Alexandria.

Actually Athanasius proves my point. Eusebius was an Arian and Athanasius opposed him. Tatian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, etc. were all involved in a huge library and a catechetical school in Alexandria, and many scholars believe that Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) originated in Alexandria. Hence "Gnostic corruptions" of Scripture.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Furthermore FF Bruce, whose scholarship is impecable follows early dating.

At the same time since FF Bruce was involved with the New International Bible Commentary, it is clear that he has no problem following the critical texts and modern translations such as the NIV (which is probably the most corrupt of all, being a paraphrase).

 

[Enow]

Did you consider the likelihood that many of those who did the hiding did not survive the Islamic onslaught and therefore were not around to un-hide them? Were you aware that the spread of Islam resulted in at least tens of millions being slaughtered?

Logical reasoning to a point. How were they found unless they survived the onslaught and were around? As it was, one was found in the wastebasket and others were just plain out in the open, right? So the Islamic invasion scenario does not pan out very well.

I still think you're taking your speculation too far without having done research to support it, but since you emphasize that it is only speculation, I'm content with that.

Thanks, as it is, since it was derived from the phrase for which gnostics were famous for, it just stands to reasons with me.

However, your characterization of secret knowledge as unknowable is perhaps a little narrow. Knowledge can be secret in the sense that not everyone knows it. This is the means by which the Freemasons and Mormons draw people into their upper ranks. Some have the knowledge, others want it, even though the knowledge is worthless. It makes far more sense to me that such groups are the gnostics of today, rather than groups who are actually worshiping Jesus as Lord.

If there was a teaching for which secret knowledge was not to be shared with outside groups, or a known gnostic vow to keep certain knowledge secret as within their ranks, but I highly doubt it since gnostics were not exactly keeping their false teachings secret since it did spread far and wide.

So this is why I suspect that this secret knowledge is modern day false tongue speakers are using for self edification as they misapplied 1 Corinthians 14:2-3 out of context of what Paul was saying about why believers should seek the singular gift of prophesy over all spiritual gifts ( verse 1 ) and began explaining why by comparing the singular gift of tongues against the singular gift of prophesy as that tongue in verse 2 is the same tongue spoken of thru out that chapter as needing interpretation.

Thus tongues is not a stand alone gift for it requires interpretation whereas prophesy does not.

I have no obligation to address every issue.

You do have an obligation to defend the truth and keep the faith which is the good fight so you might want to pray about this, brother, since you do bother to do that in other issues... so why not search it out with Him in your own personal study time?

 

[Dino246]

You are both completely overlooking two facts: first, Alexandria was home to faithful Christians as well as to false brothers, just as Antioch was; and second, the spread of Islam resulted in a great many churches being destroyed and with them, their contents.

No we are not overlooking any facts. Church historians have confirmed that Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnosticism

Actually Athanasius proves my point. Eusebius was an Arian and Athanasius opposed him.

You just contradicted yourself, and proved my point correct. I stated that you overlooked the fact that there were faithful Christians as well as false ones in Alexandria. You responded (rather dogmatically, with bold font) that "we are not overlooking any facts." I responded with "Athanasius", and you responded that he proves your point... that you have not overlooked any facts? Actually, by making such a claim regarding Athanasius, you prove my point that you did overlook the presence of faithful Christians in Alexandria.

By taking the dogmatic view that, to borrow a phrase, "nothing good comes out of Alexandria", you leave your point open to easy refutation. However, since your view of the manuscripts seems to depend on this view, you hold to it, even trying to co-opt the refutation into your argument. It doesn't work.

The logic is simple. Either "nothing good comes out of Alexandria" is true, and therefore Athanasius was himself a heretic, or it is not true, and therefore it cannot be applied as a valid reason to reject the Alexandrian family of manuscripts.

To put it another way, the fact that there were heretics at Alexandria does not, by itself, prove that the Alexandrian manuscripts were corrupted. Correlation does not prove causation.

 

[MarcR]

At the same time since FF Bruce was involved with the New International Bible Commentary, it is clear that he has no problem following the critical texts and modern translations such as the NIV (which is probably the most corrupt of all, being a paraphrase).

First, as stated earlier, I am not with the KJV only crowd.

Second, FF Bruce was involved with the commentary not the translation. If you find fault with his contribution to the commentary, you might have a valid argument. If not, you appear to advocate guilt by association.

Third Paraphrase is not inherently bad. I think Ken Taylor's Living Bible is excellent; but not as a study Bible.

 

[Muzungu256]

new versions coming out all the time and each time more verses and words missing lool.
the bible is on a lowcalorie diet. i think acts 8:37 is one serious omission, since it proves believer's baptism that to be baptized u need to believe first u see......

 

[fredoheaven]

"For there are three that testify," 1 John 5:7 NET

"For there are three that testify:" 1 John 5:7 ESV

"τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες," 1 John 5:7 SBL

"οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν" 1 John 5:7 (Scrivener) TR 1894

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7 KJV

It is obvious which versions follow which Greek renderings, above. Even if you don't read Greek, it is very apparent by its length that KJV follows the TR (and a few other corrupted later manuscripts.)

This is where your researched goes wrong Angela that KJV text of 1 John 5:7 follows Scrivener’s text. Scrivener, a member of the Revising body of 1881 is of late by at least 200 years before KJV crafted the 1 John 5:7.

Scrivener texts were based from the KJV. Some say it it’s “reversed engineered” meaning the Greek text was actually translated from the KJV

 

[Dino246]

This is where your researched goes wrong Angela that KJV text of 1 John 5:7 follows Scrivener’s text. Scrivener, a member of the Revising body of 1881 is of late by at least 200 years before KJV crafted the 1 John 5:7.

Scrivener texts were based from the KJV. Some say it it’s “reversed engineered” meaning the Greek text was actually translated from the KJV

If you read carefully, you will see that Angela is not asserting that the KJV follows Scrivener, but that it follows the TR, which did exist in 1611, (though not by that name).

 

[fredoheaven]

"
Why corrupted?

Second, the longer version does not appear in any of the writings of the early church fathers. This is important, because, except for a few disputed verses, all the other verses of the NT appear somewhere in the early church fathers. During the Arian controversy, concerning the deity of Christ in the 3rd century, all the NT verses were scoured for proof of the Trinity. The later, longer version would have provided definitive proof of the Trinity, and hence, the deity of Christ, but this verse did not exost in th 3rd century. (Certainly, proof of the Trinity is found throughout the NT, and foreshadowed in the OT, but NOT this verse!)

Actually, the verse did! It was only mutilated or omitted. Why omitted and not “added” later was of the sure evidence that the Vaticanus, the pope’s bible has the evidence of the umlaut.


Now concerning the umlaut found in the Vatinacus:

“…these umlauts indicate lines where a textual variant was known to the scribe.”

Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) - King James Version Today

This simply means the other variant which were the copies of the original Greek that 1john 5:7 has to be omitted. Further evidence to this point is that the early versions have. For how can these early versions do have if not for the copies of the original Greek. But why it was omitted? The main reason is that Mary worship must be established or that worship placed not the triune Godhead only.

“..reconstruction of Saint Ambrose's 4th-century view of Mary as the Mother of the Church, was adopted at the Second Vatican Council, is an example that shows the influence of early traditions and views on Mary in modern times.[SUP][3][4][5][/SUP] This view was then emphasized by Pope John Paul II in 1997, and today Mary is viewed as the Mother of the Church by many Catholics, as Ambrose had proposed.[SUP]”[/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Catholic_mariology