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). 
The KJV Only & The Textus Receptus Only - a continuous thread
- Thread starter trofimus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
That's the problem when one cites specifically that it follows Scrivener's text which is not. But anyway I have to re-read the post.
There seems to be a little confusion here. The KJV followed the Received Text (primarily that of Stephanus 1550, but not exclusively so). Therefore there are some differences. What Scrivener did in 1894 was to compose a Textus Receptus which was altogether that of the KJV. So Scrivener followed the KJV, not the opposite. And at the same time Scrivener was opposed to that of Westcott & Hort (1881), and made this abundantly clear in his writings. The differences between Stephanus and Scrivener are negligible.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ· δύναμις γὰρ Θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ·, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι
King James Bible (Rom 1:16)
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ· δύναμις γὰρ Θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ·, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι
King James Bible (Rom 1:16)
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Being how there are good and bad "Christians" in every place, then discerning the origin of certain manuscripts determine whether it came from the good or the bad of that place.
The evidence is in the corrupted manuscripts. Since the lost books were not considered scripture because it was running against the truths in the accepted books of the Bible, then you can discern by Him the corrupted manuscripts when you have scripture running against scripture in that Bible. Since no lie can be of the truth, that is causation enough to take the manuscripts originating out of Antioch over the Alexandrian ones.... by your own words.. the correlation ( not of the place but of whom it comes from out of that place ) when it is corrupted works produced, should give causation, correct?
Obviously the bad guys won out in Alexandria whereas the good guys won out in Antioch for how His words survived.
The evidence is in the corrupted manuscripts. Since the lost books were not considered scripture because it was running against the truths in the accepted books of the Bible, then you can discern by Him the corrupted manuscripts when you have scripture running against scripture in that Bible. Since no lie can be of the truth, that is causation enough to take the manuscripts originating out of Antioch over the Alexandrian ones.... by your own words.. the correlation ( not of the place but of whom it comes from out of that place ) when it is corrupted works produced, should give causation, correct?
Obviously the bad guys won out in Alexandria whereas the good guys won out in Antioch for how His words survived.
I am not sure where you are going with that.
The Samaritans of that area were victimized by Simon the sorcerer as he was the one that somehow bewitched them with unclean spirits that were afflicting the people to such a point, he was regarded with fear as an infamous person in the area.
Then Philip came along and was undoing his work, as Philip was being seen and exalted by the people that he was delivering them from their afflictions and thus developed a fanfare following him around to behold in wonderment that even Simon did too in believing the things that Philip talk about while seemingly doing these "miracles".
So it was the mindset of the people that was not right with the Lord as they were coming not really to Him but to Philip which was why the promise of the Holy Spirit was not given yet but only they had been water baptized in Jesus's name.
Hence, they were not saved yet; and neither was Simon because they had not received the Holy Spirit yet.
So Peter & John was sent down so that by receiving the promise, they knew it was from the Lord Jesus Christ; and not from Philip just as it would eventually don on them that it was the Lord Jesus Christ performing those miracles and not Philip.
Unfortunately, Simon still had that wrong mindset as he saw Peter & John laying hands and thought that was a power from them in giving the Holy Ghost to others and sought to buy that power or ability from them for which he was rebuked in order to lift his sight higher and he did repent.
So water baptism has nothing to do with salvation as they had not received the promise of the Holy Spirit at their salvation yet because they had to COME to Jesus in believing in Him to be saved and to do that, the people had to get out of their fanfare of Philip to lift their sights higher to Him.
But you are right in that new versions are coming out more and more in these later days and one has to wonder if it is not being done for the love of money rather than trying to get an easier to read & understand Bible version since to get a copyright, one has to change enough words, drop or add words to make it a unique Bible version to get that copyright.
Seems to me that for all the hype to get an easier to read Bible than the KJV, one should go to Jesus Christ for help in understanding His words in the KJV rather than go to man's help in making the so called "easier to read then the KJV" Bible.
The Samaritans of that area were victimized by Simon the sorcerer as he was the one that somehow bewitched them with unclean spirits that were afflicting the people to such a point, he was regarded with fear as an infamous person in the area.
Then Philip came along and was undoing his work, as Philip was being seen and exalted by the people that he was delivering them from their afflictions and thus developed a fanfare following him around to behold in wonderment that even Simon did too in believing the things that Philip talk about while seemingly doing these "miracles".
So it was the mindset of the people that was not right with the Lord as they were coming not really to Him but to Philip which was why the promise of the Holy Spirit was not given yet but only they had been water baptized in Jesus's name.
Hence, they were not saved yet; and neither was Simon because they had not received the Holy Spirit yet.
So Peter & John was sent down so that by receiving the promise, they knew it was from the Lord Jesus Christ; and not from Philip just as it would eventually don on them that it was the Lord Jesus Christ performing those miracles and not Philip.
Unfortunately, Simon still had that wrong mindset as he saw Peter & John laying hands and thought that was a power from them in giving the Holy Ghost to others and sought to buy that power or ability from them for which he was rebuked in order to lift his sight higher and he did repent.
So water baptism has nothing to do with salvation as they had not received the promise of the Holy Spirit at their salvation yet because they had to COME to Jesus in believing in Him to be saved and to do that, the people had to get out of their fanfare of Philip to lift their sights higher to Him.
But you are right in that new versions are coming out more and more in these later days and one has to wonder if it is not being done for the love of money rather than trying to get an easier to read & understand Bible version since to get a copyright, one has to change enough words, drop or add words to make it a unique Bible version to get that copyright.
Seems to me that for all the hype to get an easier to read Bible than the KJV, one should go to Jesus Christ for help in understanding His words in the KJV rather than go to man's help in making the so called "easier to read then the KJV" Bible.
I believe the earliest confirmation of 1 John 5:7 as cited from other writings was 250 A.D. They did refer one from 200 A.D. but it was in general reference of the Triune God and not a citation.
Well, from claims that there were no earlier Greek documents of 1 John 5:7 than the "15th & 16th century" and yet other extra Biblical sources confirmed it as having existed back then as far as 250 A.D. ( IMO rather than 200 A.D.) , that is not to say that 1 John 5:7 was not written as it was before 70 A.D. Correct?
I mean I could say that you do not have evidence that 1 John 5:7 was not written as it was back before 70 A.D. , right?
FF Bruce is fallible like any other men. Indeed, our educational institution are the reasons why many pastors today are having that crisis of faith because of the evolution theory being taught as a fact.
Footnotes in some Bibles by Biblical scholars all believe that the behemoth was a hippo or an elephant, and yet neither one has a tail as long as a tree which is what a cedar is in the Book of Job 40th chapter.
So you really should take the men of degrees with some reservation and rely on Jesus Christ for wisdom & discernment.
If you read 1 John 5:6-10, removing verse 7 as the KJV has it, does not give the testimony to back up why the witness of God is greater than the witness of men as stated in verse 9 when John 8:17 testify the witness of two men are true.
Since the apostle John had written that gospel, it stands to reason he would keep that guideline in giving that testimony in the Book of 1 John 5:7 for why the witness of God was greater than the witness of men scripturally.
As it is, I would dismiss the 200 A.D. reference because it does not cite it per se as per 1 John 5:7 whereas the later ones in 250 A.D. and onward have done so.
And since no one can point to the Book of 1 John as it was written before 70 A.D., since only 9 -10 earliest copies exists of the earliest copy dating to 900 A.D., I am going to believe the extra sources citing 1 John 5:7 as original in 1 John's Book.
Well, from claims that there were no earlier Greek documents of 1 John 5:7 than the "15th & 16th century" and yet other extra Biblical sources confirmed it as having existed back then as far as 250 A.D. ( IMO rather than 200 A.D.) , that is not to say that 1 John 5:7 was not written as it was before 70 A.D. Correct?
I mean I could say that you do not have evidence that 1 John 5:7 was not written as it was back before 70 A.D. , right?
FF Bruce is fallible like any other men. Indeed, our educational institution are the reasons why many pastors today are having that crisis of faith because of the evolution theory being taught as a fact.
Footnotes in some Bibles by Biblical scholars all believe that the behemoth was a hippo or an elephant, and yet neither one has a tail as long as a tree which is what a cedar is in the Book of Job 40th chapter.
So you really should take the men of degrees with some reservation and rely on Jesus Christ for wisdom & discernment.
If you read 1 John 5:6-10, removing verse 7 as the KJV has it, does not give the testimony to back up why the witness of God is greater than the witness of men as stated in verse 9 when John 8:17 testify the witness of two men are true.
Since the apostle John had written that gospel, it stands to reason he would keep that guideline in giving that testimony in the Book of 1 John 5:7 for why the witness of God was greater than the witness of men scripturally.
As it is, I would dismiss the 200 A.D. reference because it does not cite it per se as per 1 John 5:7 whereas the later ones in 250 A.D. and onward have done so.
And since no one can point to the Book of 1 John as it was written before 70 A.D., since only 9 -10 earliest copies exists of the earliest copy dating to 900 A.D., I am going to believe the extra sources citing 1 John 5:7 as original in 1 John's Book.
Thank you for responding.
The only evidence I have, as I stated, is the absence of any mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD in Revelation or in any of John's letters. I think that that event is sufficiently significant that John would be unlikely to ignore it. I fully agree with your assessment on the validity of 1Jn 5:7.
Clement of Rome, one of John's disciples, also fails to mention the Fall of Jerusalem. To me this strongly suggests that Clement also wrote before 70 AD.
The only evidence I have, as I stated, is the absence of any mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD in Revelation or in any of John's letters. I think that that event is sufficiently significant that John would be unlikely to ignore it. I fully agree with your assessment on the validity of 1Jn 5:7.
Clement of Rome, one of John's disciples, also fails to mention the Fall of Jerusalem. To me this strongly suggests that Clement also wrote before 70 AD.
My bad! It does sound a bit like I am saying the KJV was translated from Scrivener! And my IPad somehow deleted the Stephanus Greek, which is virtually identical to Scrivener.
Of course, it is obvious that by putting the date of 1894 for Scrivener, the KJV, which came out in 1611 was not translated from it! Instead the KJV was translated from 7 corrupted later manuscripts, and relied heavily on Erasmus' Greek version, including one book which was back translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. However, as I said above, some Vulgate versions do have this verse, 1 John 5:7, some do not!
Anyway, had my IPad not deleted the Stephanus text when I was trying to size it and turn it blue, I think it would have been better understood by "following" I was referring to the text being similar, not that it was translated from that text. Or not!
I apologize for any misunderstanding!
Of course, it is obvious that by putting the date of 1894 for Scrivener, the KJV, which came out in 1611 was not translated from it! Instead the KJV was translated from 7 corrupted later manuscripts, and relied heavily on Erasmus' Greek version, including one book which was back translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. However, as I said above, some Vulgate versions do have this verse, 1 John 5:7, some do not!
Anyway, had my IPad not deleted the Stephanus text when I was trying to size it and turn it blue, I think it would have been better understood by "following" I was referring to the text being similar, not that it was translated from that text. Or not!
I apologize for any misunderstanding!
This site is your source? Seriously, you need to learn about scholarship. He puts up a lot if sources, but doesn't quite a single source for his assertions. And, as expected, he has no education or Bible training in his bio, merely some questionable books he has written!
As I stated already, the Johannine comma does appear in a few places, but not early in! Cyprian is the only credible possibility on his list, so I googled it to see what better sources say. I don't agree with everything this site says, but they do scholarly research, which is to say, they search out original source material, and will present all sides of an issue before drawing conclusions.
https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian
Even your source notes the minuscule texts are in the margin. Which then became incorporated, or added to the text. Because KJV used such late manuscripts, it does account for why the KJV has so many additions. Plus, the fact that the Vulgate was well known to then RCC scholars and theologians, and then forced Erasmus to include this spurious verse in his translation, which the KJV then included!
As for claims that eliminating 1 John 5:7 means you don't believe in the Trinity, there are literally hundreds of verses that support the Trinity in both the NT and the OT. One doesn't need to include a verse that John did not write, because the Trinity is found in the inspired original autographs, not just in later glosses in the margin by Latin scribes!
As for Romans 8:26-27, I have not looked into this, I will get back to it, perhaps!
As I stated already, the Johannine comma does appear in a few places, but not early in! Cyprian is the only credible possibility on his list, so I googled it to see what better sources say. I don't agree with everything this site says, but they do scholarly research, which is to say, they search out original source material, and will present all sides of an issue before drawing conclusions.
https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian
Even your source notes the minuscule texts are in the margin. Which then became incorporated, or added to the text. Because KJV used such late manuscripts, it does account for why the KJV has so many additions. Plus, the fact that the Vulgate was well known to then RCC scholars and theologians, and then forced Erasmus to include this spurious verse in his translation, which the KJV then included!
As for claims that eliminating 1 John 5:7 means you don't believe in the Trinity, there are literally hundreds of verses that support the Trinity in both the NT and the OT. One doesn't need to include a verse that John did not write, because the Trinity is found in the inspired original autographs, not just in later glosses in the margin by Latin scribes!
As for Romans 8:26-27, I have not looked into this, I will get back to it, perhaps!
I agree. Id they do not have an easier to read than the KJV Bible by now, they never will.
I don't either, but then the Lord is helping me to understand His words and to discern by them good & evil as well.
Still, one may understand what is written but wisdom comes from the Lord in understanding His message to follow Him by.
I don't either, but then the Lord is helping me to understand His words and to discern by them good & evil as well.
Still, one may understand what is written but wisdom comes from the Lord in understanding His message to follow Him by.
Angela,
Kindly stop posting this nonsense over and over again, and on top of that calling the later manuscripts "corrupted". That is totally false, and so is the allegation that the KJV translators relied only on the Greek text of Erasmus, and that Erasmus had access to only seven manuscripts. All of this is PURE BALONEY. I have already presented rebuttals to all this nonsense in another thread, which was created after this one, so I will not present the rebuttals here. I will simply ask the readers to ignore the baloney, and search for the truth.
And the truth will also reveal that Westcott & Hort made just TWO corrupt Greek manuscripts "infallible" and placed them in their critical text of 1881, and all the critics since then have accepted this as Gospel truth, and relied on those corrupt Greek manuscripts to seriously mutilate all modern Bible versions.
"We venture to assure him [the reader], without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus] B [Codex Vaticanus] D [Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis] are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD" John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp 12,13,16.
For those not familiar with Dean Burgon, he was one of the outstanding textual scholars of the 19th century, and he had personally examined and collated the manuscripts he is writing about. Read The Revision Revised for more details.
Kindly stop posting this nonsense over and over again, and on top of that calling the later manuscripts "corrupted". That is totally false, and so is the allegation that the KJV translators relied only on the Greek text of Erasmus, and that Erasmus had access to only seven manuscripts. All of this is PURE BALONEY. I have already presented rebuttals to all this nonsense in another thread, which was created after this one, so I will not present the rebuttals here. I will simply ask the readers to ignore the baloney, and search for the truth.
And the truth will also reveal that Westcott & Hort made just TWO corrupt Greek manuscripts "infallible" and placed them in their critical text of 1881, and all the critics since then have accepted this as Gospel truth, and relied on those corrupt Greek manuscripts to seriously mutilate all modern Bible versions.
"We venture to assure him [the reader], without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus] B [Codex Vaticanus] D [Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis] are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD" John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp 12,13,16.
For those not familiar with Dean Burgon, he was one of the outstanding textual scholars of the 19th century, and he had personally examined and collated the manuscripts he is writing about. Read The Revision Revised for more details.
You are welcome, brother.
I know I can be wrong too which is why each believer should discern by Him at that throne of grace for proving everything.
Are you sure THE Clement of Rome was a disciple of John? Paul mentioned a Clement but that does not necessarily mean it is the same Clement of Rome.
The Clement of Rome from what I have ascertained from his writings, was a tyrant, the beginning of the RCC rule over other churches. In one letter to the church at Corinth, he argued that the church was to give to representatives sent for the collection for his church, and that was going beyond the order of what Paul gave for the church at Corinth to be doing in supporting missionary directly in the fields.
Clement exposed himself by accusing the church at Corinth for jealousy; and they could have only been jealous when they defied the order from Rome to give to the church at Rome whom were receiving enough bounty from the Lord there at Rome. Clement attempt to make them feel guilty was openly vain to me as he was urging them to give to the church at Rome even though they had their own bounty provided by the Lord.
I do not know if Paul's Clement is the same Clement of Rome, but that Clement of Rome was covetous and exerting as well as abusing his unscriptural power of authority over other churches to give to his church at Rome.
The first letter of Clement to the church at Corinth can be found at this link below. I dare say his protests of accusing them of jealousy was too much to not see his covetousness.
First Clement: Clement of Rome
There is no way the church at Corinth would be "jealous" unless they were asking to give to a church at Rome when the order by Paul was for supporting the missionaries directly that are in the field.... not by giving to another church.
I know I can be wrong too which is why each believer should discern by Him at that throne of grace for proving everything.
Are you sure THE Clement of Rome was a disciple of John? Paul mentioned a Clement but that does not necessarily mean it is the same Clement of Rome.
The Clement of Rome from what I have ascertained from his writings, was a tyrant, the beginning of the RCC rule over other churches. In one letter to the church at Corinth, he argued that the church was to give to representatives sent for the collection for his church, and that was going beyond the order of what Paul gave for the church at Corinth to be doing in supporting missionary directly in the fields.
Clement exposed himself by accusing the church at Corinth for jealousy; and they could have only been jealous when they defied the order from Rome to give to the church at Rome whom were receiving enough bounty from the Lord there at Rome. Clement attempt to make them feel guilty was openly vain to me as he was urging them to give to the church at Rome even though they had their own bounty provided by the Lord.
I do not know if Paul's Clement is the same Clement of Rome, but that Clement of Rome was covetous and exerting as well as abusing his unscriptural power of authority over other churches to give to his church at Rome.
The first letter of Clement to the church at Corinth can be found at this link below. I dare say his protests of accusing them of jealousy was too much to not see his covetousness.
First Clement: Clement of Rome
There is no way the church at Corinth would be "jealous" unless they were asking to give to a church at Rome when the order by Paul was for supporting the missionaries directly that are in the field.... not by giving to another church.
G
How do you know that?
WOW, Angela - I can't believe that you would make such a claim concerning documents we don't actually have in our possession today, nor that anyone in this modern day has ever actually seen with their own eyes...
For someone who is always very vocal about other people having absolute "officially sanctioned" documented proof of their statements, you have really stepped way-out-of-bounds on this one!
How can you possibly make any claims with certainty concerning the autographs ?!?!
WOW.
Just --- WOW.
SMH
You can put stock in scholarship if you want, but I put my trust in the Lord for supplying His wisdom.
I can see why 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture when in context of 1 John 5:6-10. Take verse 7 out, there is nothing to tell readers why God's witness as in the Holy Spirit's witness is greater then men's when John 8:17 testifies that the witness of 2 men are true. Stands to reason that John would include that guideline in scripture for giving a testimony from God in how and why His witness is greater than men's by testifying to the Father's & the Son's as well as the Holy Spirit's.
Then let Cyprian be enough.
The guy did not do his homework. At best, he was saving face and thus defending his written essay.
Please do. You will find a Greek word for groaning and a Greek word for unspeakable or unutterable. Thus there is no way modern Bibles can say that sounds are being uttered when not even His groaning cannot be uttered.... like that one Bible version... the NIV has it as .... "through wordless groan".
Feel free to render John 16:13 for what Jesus is saying about how the Holy Spirit will speak and NOT speak.
May the Lord Jesus Christ be your Guide.
Last edited:
Could you clarify whether your KJV is the NKJV or something else? No genuine KJV cast doubts or aspersions on 1 Jn 5:7. And there is a whole raft of Bible translations which accept this verse as genuine Scripture.
Jubilee Bible 2000
For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
King James 2000 Bible
For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.
American King James Version
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
Young's Literal Translation
because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
Car il y en a trois dans le Ciel qui rendent témoignage, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit; et ces trois-là ne sont qu'un.Denn drei sind, die da zeugen im Himmel: der Vater, das Wort und der Heilige Geist; und diese drei sind eins.
1 Giovanni 5:7 Italian: Giovanni Diodati Bible (1649)
Perciocchè tre son quelli che testimoniano nel cielo: il Padre, e la Parola, e lo Spirito Santo; e questi tre sono una stessa cosa.
1 Juan 5:7 Spanish: La Biblia de las Américas
Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo, y estos tres son uno. Y tres son los que dan testimonio en la tierra:Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo (Jesucristo), y el Espíritu Santo, y estos tres son uno. Y tres son los que dan testimonio en la tierra:Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo, el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno.
1 Juan 5:7 Spanish: Sagradas Escrituras 1569
Porque tres son los que dan testimonio del cielo: el Padre, la Palabra y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno.
Jubilee Bible 2000
For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
King James 2000 Bible
For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.
American King James Version
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
Young's Literal Translation
because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
Car il y en a trois dans le Ciel qui rendent témoignage, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit; et ces trois-là ne sont qu'un.Denn drei sind, die da zeugen im Himmel: der Vater, das Wort und der Heilige Geist; und diese drei sind eins.
1 Giovanni 5:7 Italian: Giovanni Diodati Bible (1649)
Perciocchè tre son quelli che testimoniano nel cielo: il Padre, e la Parola, e lo Spirito Santo; e questi tre sono una stessa cosa.
1 Juan 5:7 Spanish: La Biblia de las Américas
Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo, y estos tres son uno. Y tres son los que dan testimonio en la tierra:Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo (Jesucristo), y el Espíritu Santo, y estos tres son uno. Y tres son los que dan testimonio en la tierra:Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo, el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno.
1 Juan 5:7 Spanish: Sagradas Escrituras 1569
Porque tres son los que dan testimonio del cielo: el Padre, la Palabra y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno.
The 1599 Geneva Bible also has it the way the KJV has it. Anyone can compare it at this link to Bible Gateway.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205%3A7&version=KJV;GNV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205%3A7&version=KJV;GNV