KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[KJV1611]

Adam Clarke's commentary stated the use of Easter was absurd and has nothing to do with an attack on the KJV as his whole series of commentaries is based on the KJV - he just had the integrity and fortitude of honesty to state so.


"Intending after Easter to bring him forth - Μετα το πασχα, After the passover. Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text."

But to admit this is an error by the KJV only crowd would be to knock the KJV off the pedestal they created for it in their minds.

Yeah what else should we expect from someone who believes God's word is corrupt or lost or in disarray.... not surprising. He probably believes Christ returned in AD 70 too.

 

[Locutus]

Yeah what else should we expect from someone who believes God's word is corrupt or lost or in disarray.... .

Where have I ever stated "God's word is corrupt or lost or in disarray"?

Desperate attempt here while losing the argument.

 

[Dino246]

Yeah what else should we expect from someone who believes God's word is corrupt or lost or in disarray.... not surprising. He probably believes Christ returned in AD 70 too.

What do you believe about 1 John 5:7 which is not found in any Greek version prior to the late 1500's? Was it lost, or in disarray, or is it corrupt?

 

[KJV1611]

What do you believe about 1 John 5:7 which is not found in any Greek version prior to the late 1500's? Was it lost, or in disarray, or is it corrupt?

If it was lost then where did the KJV translators get it from?

 

[trofimus]

Yeah what else should we expect from someone who believes God's word is corrupt or lost or in disarray.... not surprising. He probably believes Christ returned in AD 70 too.

The fact that something is lost doest not mean that we lack it.

We do not have all words God ever said to Adam, to Enoch etc. We do not have all words Jesus ever said. We do not have all words apostles ever said.

These words of God are lost from our point of view. Does it matter? No.

We are not certain about lets say 1% of the NT text. Yes, it means that some details are lost. Does it mean we lack it? No.

God will preserve His people in all generations (Ps 12:7, LXX) and will always provide what is needed. We have many more creeds, wonderful Christian works etc which for example the first church did not have.

This is my personal view.

 

[Locutus]

Adam Clarke's (1760 - 1832) commentary on 1 John 5:7

Verse 7

There are three that bear record - The Father, who bears testimony to his Son; the Word or Λογος, Logos, who bears testimony to the Father; and the Holy Ghost, which bears testimony to the Father and the Son. And these three are one in essence, and agree in the one testimony, that Jesus came to die for, and give life to, the world.


But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.


It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.


The words, as they exist in all the Greek MSS. with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following: -

1. " 1 John 5:6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.
   1 John 5:9. If we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater, etc."

The words that are omitted by all the MSS., the above excepted, and all the versions, the Vulgate excepted, are these: - [In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three which bear witness in earth].

 

[KJV1611]

The fact that something is lost doest not mean that we lack it.

We do not have all words God ever said to Adam, to Enoch etc. We do not have all words Jesus ever said. We do not have all words apostles ever said.

These words of God are lost from our point of view. Does it matter? No.

We are not certain about lets say 1% of the NT text. Yes, it means that some details are lost. Does it mean we lack it? No.

God will preserve His people in all generations (Ps 12:7, LXX) and will always provide what is needed. We have many more creeds, wonderful Christian works etc which for example the first church did not have.

This is my personal view.

I respect your view, and do I think it matters as far as salvation goes, no. But without a standard then the sky's the limit on incorrect beliefs.

 

[MarcR]

No there was no confounding with fertility rites at that time. If you check the original KJV and the tables of Christian feasts and festivals provided, Easter is shown as a Christian festival, and had been so for over a thousand years.

(Wikipedia)

True that the origins of Easter were pagan, but the whole Christian world celebrates Easter as the resurrection of Christ to this day. So harking back to the pagan origins does not cut any ice.

First: If you look at post # 2702 you will see that most of the Christian world celebrates Paska to this day.

Second: I'm totally unconcerned with whether or how people celebrate Easter! This thread is about claims of special inspiration for the KJV; and THAT is the ONLY issue I am addressing.

 

[Dino246]

If it was lost then where did the KJV translators get it from?

Erasmus, third edition, apparently added due to pressure from the RCC. He could not find it in any Greek source. Erasmus apparently got it from the Vulgate.

source: https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8

 

[trofimus]

I respect your view, and do I think it matters as far as salvation goes, no. But without a standard then the sky's the limit on incorrect beliefs.

The question is whether this 1% of the NT we are not certain about influences any important doctrine. I do not know of any.

So, what standard do we lack?

 

[Nehemiah6]

First: If you look at post # 2702 you will see that most of the Christian world celebrates Paska to this day.

The Christian world celebrates Easter. The Jewish world celebrates Passover.

Second: I'm totally unconcerned with whether or how people celebrate Easter! This thread is about claims of special inspiration for the KJV; and THAT is the ONLY issue I am addressing.

Only a very small minority of Christians would claim that the KJV -- as an English translation -- is "inspired" (God-breathed). Only the autographs (original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) are inspired. So just because a very small minority would claim that does not negate the reliability and accuracy of the KJV.

 

[KJV1611]

Adam Clarke's (1760 - 1832) commentary on 1 John 5:7

Verse 7

There are three that bear record - The Father, who bears testimony to his Son; the Word or Λογος, Logos, who bears testimony to the Father; and the Holy Ghost, which bears testimony to the Father and the Son. And these three are one in essence, and agree in the one testimony, that Jesus came to die for, and give life to, the world.


But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.


It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.


The words, as they exist in all the Greek MSS. with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following: -

1. " 1 John 5:6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.
   1 John 5:9. If we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater, etc."

The words that are omitted by all the MSS., the above excepted, and all the versions, the Vulgate excepted, are these: - [In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three which bear witness in earth].

A Trail of Evidence​

But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:
[TABLE="width: 500, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]200 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in hisAgainst Praxeas, chapter 25.[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]250 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]350 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]350 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]350 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]398 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitateagainst the heresy of Sabellianism[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]415 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]450-530 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]500 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]550 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Old Latin ms r has it[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]550 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]750 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Wianburgensis referred to it[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]800 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]1000s AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]miniscule 635 has it[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]1150 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]minuscule ms 88 in the margin[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]1300s AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]miniscule 629 has it[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]157-1400 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]1500 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]ms 61 has the verse[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[KJV1611]

Erasmus, third edition, apparently added due to pressure from the RCC. He could not find it in any Greek source. Erasmus apparently got it from the Vulgate.

source: https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8

Why do you have the idea that God used the original writings to preserve His word? See my response to Locutus that shows 1 John 5:7 has been preserved by the priesthood of believers.

 

[trofimus]

A Trail of Evidence​

But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:
[TABLE="width: 500, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]200 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in hisAgainst Praxeas, chapter 25.[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]250 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]350 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]350 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]350 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]398 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitateagainst the heresy of Sabellianism[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]415 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]450-530 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]500 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]550 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Old Latin ms r has it[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]550 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]750 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Wianburgensis referred to it[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]800 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.][/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]1000s AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]miniscule 635 has it[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]1150 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]minuscule ms 88 in the margin[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]1300s AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]miniscule 629 has it[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]157-1400 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][SIZE=-1]1500 AD[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]ms 61 has the verse[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100"][/TD]
[TD="width: 400"][SIZE=-1]Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I have checked just Tertulian and its not what you think it is. There is no evidence that Tertullian is quoting 1J 5:17.

He makes it clear what is quotation by "he says" or "it was said".

"Moreover he says, He will take of mine, 3 as I myself have taken of
the Father's. So the close series of the Father in the Son and the
Son in the Paraclete makes three who cohere, the one attached
to the other: And these three are one, not one person,
in the sense in which it was said, I and the Father are one,4 in
respect of unity of substance, not of singularity of number. Take
a further quick glance, and you will find that he whom you
believe to be the Father is called the Father's vine"

 

[KJV1611]

The question is whether this 1% of the NT we are not certain about influences any important doctrine. I do not know of any.

So, what standard do we lack?

Everything I talk about and get beat over head about lol.

 

[Nehemiah6]

You seem blind. You consistently attack other translations (the evidence is seen above), and then turn and write this tripe. You ignore the repeated statements that nobody is attacking the KJV, and instead are defending against the attacks on other translations by KJV-only proponents.

Stop the indefensible KJV exaltation and attacks on other translations, and the strife will cease. Keep promoting the exclusivity of the KJV while attacking other translations and the strife will continue.

Anyone who claims that a reasoned criticism of the KJV is an "attack" and criticizes newer translations on comparable issues or in similar ways hasn't got their head on straight on this matter. It is the same attitude of millennials who perceive anything short of wholehearted agreement with their views as "offensive"... and is similarly ridiculous... and unbalanced.

Instead of criticizing me for telling the truth, why don't you calmly and objectively examine the actual evidence which exposes the critical texts and the modern translations? There are plenty of books and articles to clearly establish the inferiority of the modern versions. More importantly, a hoax was perpetrated on the Christian world, and it is now being perpetuated.

BTW, you won't find the word "attack" in my post, just "anti-KJV propaganda". And as you know propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view".

 

[trofimus]

Everything I talk about and get beat over head about lol.

You just prefer the KJV readings over other readings.

But it does not mean that your preference is good or that the difference between the KJV and other translations should be any serious issue.

 

[graceNpeace]

All this talk about Easter and Passover is much ado about nothing. I believe that the KJB translators should have transliterated Pascha as Pascha, since it covers more than just the Passover. However we need to keep in mind that by the 17th century, Easter had already become an established Christian festival.

Also it would appear that "Easter" and "Pascha" had become interchangeable at the time that the KJB was translated, and "the days of unleavened bread" followed Passover (Acts 12:3). So while Pascha was for the Jews (including both Passover and the days of unleavened bread), Easter was the corresponding festival for Christians at the time of translation (since the resurrection followed the Passover). In hindsight, we could say that the King James translators should have simply transliterated Pascha.

Those who are trying to diminish the value and integrity of the King James Bible by citing this example prefer to ignore the fact that this was not an issue for anyone until the anti-KJV propaganda started. On the other hand, the errors and omissions of the modern versions are so overwhelming, that this is totally insignificant. Any preacher worth his salt would simply clarify the issue instead of trying to beat down the KJB because of this word.

Wow, talk about sanctimony and hypocrisy!

KJVO - every modern translation is corrupt AND KJV inspired and correct in every way.....

KJVO attack all translations other than the KJV and label them incorrectly as corrupt yet yell "foul" when obvious inaccuracies are found in the KJV.....

Talk about the absence of a level playing field....
Also, many of use USE the KJV, however we reject the false assumption that it is inspired and inerrant!

 

[MarcR]

The Christian world celebrates Easter. The Jewish world celebrates Passover.

You may think so but Trophimus has posted a map that proves you to be mistaken.

Only a very small minority of Christians would claim that the KJV -- as an English translation -- is "inspired" (God-breathed). Only the autographs (original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) are inspired. So just because a very small minority would claim that does not negate the reliability and accuracy of the KJV.

And those who don't find it an issue are not or shouldnot be posting on this thread

 

[KJV1611]

I have checked just Tertulian and its not what you think it is. There is no evidence that Tertullian is quoting 1J 5:17.

He makes it clear what is quotation by "he says" or "it was said".

"Moreover he says, He will take of mine, 3 as I myself have taken of
the Father's. So the close series of the Father in the Son and the
Son in the Paraclete makes three who cohere, the one attached
to the other: And these three are one, not one person,
in the sense in which it was said, I and the Father are one,4 in
respect of unity of substance, not of singularity of number. Take
a further quick glance, and you will find that he whom you
believe to be the Father is called the Father's vine"

Where else would he come up with this concept?

" the Father in the Son and the
Son in the Paraclete makes three who cohere"