KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[trofimus]

I think I could say black and you would automatically say white my friend. Go get some sleep and we can pick up tomorrow. Good night.

Its very simple. I will accept it as some evidence to consider, if you will find a clear quotation like "as it is written", "as John says in his letter" etc. Not just an allusion.

I do not accept just similarity of words used in personal sentences of various authors. This cannot be used as evidence, IMHO.

---

I, personally, would be very interested in that council of Carthage and generally in era when arianism emerged. If such a verse was in the Bible in those times, they would certainly use it as one of main pillars in defense of Trinity.

On the other hand, if it is not clearly quoted (as clearly as other Bible verses) in those times, its a very serious evidence that it was not present in the Bible and that it was added later, probably because of this arian controversy.

So I would probably start here. I found some text of the council of Carthage online, but I am not sure if it is it. The verse was not quoted there.

 

[KJV1611]

Suuuuuure...

A Latin word employed that now has ppl erroneously attributing the King of Babylon as being another name for Satan, and adding 'Easter', a pagan fertility goddess that uses a bunny and an egg, to say it has always been celebrated as the Christ's resurrection.

Yep, sure seems to be 100% spot on to me.

Nice segue! I think it's Satan... who do you think the king of Babylon is?

 

[KJV1611]

Its very simple. I will accept it as some evidence to consider, if you will find a clear quotation like "as it is written", "as John says in his letter" etc. Not just an allusion.

I do not accept just similarity of words used in personal sentences of various authors. This cannot be used as evidence, IMHO.

---

I, personally, would be very interested in that council of Carthage and generally in era when arianism emerged. If such a verse was in the Bible in those times, they would certainly use it as one of main pillars in defense of Trinity.

On the other hand, if it is not clearly quoted (as clearly as other Bible verses) in those times, its a very serious evidence that it was not present in the Bible and that it was added later, probably because of this arian controversy.

So I would probably start here. I found some text of the council of Carthage online, but I am not sure if it is it. The verse was not quoted there.

Maybe this is what you're looking for?

Old Latin:
The Old Latin manuscripts say it this way: "Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt" (verses 7-8).

This wording (which matches the King James) is similar to that of Cyprian's words in Latin about 250 AD "Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unim sunt.' (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One."). (See the King James Bible preservation lessons by Dr. Thomas D. Holland, Th. D., Lesson 9, Textual Considerations.) [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

 

[trofimus]

Maybe this is what you're looking for?

Old Latin:
The Old Latin manuscripts say it this way: "Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt" (verses 7-8).

This wording (which matches the King James) is similar to that of Cyprian's words in Latin about 250 AD "Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unim sunt.' (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One."). (See the King James Bible preservation lessons by Dr. Thomas D. Holland, Th. D., Lesson 9, Textual Considerations.) [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

If it is just in Latin, its a lead that it was added by the Roman Church.

But still, I would like to look it up. Do you have any source I can check? I mean which work of Cyprian, which chapter, verse.

Your link is redirecting me to aol.com

 

[SovereignGrace]

Nice segue! I think it's Satan... who do you think the king of Babylon is?

I have read commentaries saying Nebachudnezzar and also his grandson Belshazzar was Lucifer. Personally, I believe it’s Nebachudnezzar, as in Daniel 4 he exalts himself after Daniel clearly warned him the consequences if he did. He lost his mind and ate grass. I could see ppl looking at this crazy king eating grass and thinking why they feared him after seeing him eating grass.

FWIW, I have a Nave’s topical bible and he stated Nebachudnezzar was Lucifer. But that does not mean we are right.

 

[trofimus]

Comma Johanneum:

"The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome ... or as revised by Alcuin...

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text."

https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian

 

[KJV1611]

If it is just in Latin, its a lead that it was added by the Roman Church.

But still, I would like to look it up. Do you have any source I can check? I mean which work of Cyprian, which chapter, verse.

Your link is redirecting me to aol.com

It comes from "On the Unity of the Church"

https://archive.org/stream/TheUnity...hage/Cyprian_The_Unity_Of_The_Church_djvu.txt


THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH 101

1 He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ acts against Christ; he who gathers somewhere out- side the Church scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says: 'I and the Father are one.'

2 And again of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And these three are one.'

3 Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does rot hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

 

[trofimus]

It comes from "On the Unity of the Church"

https://archive.org/stream/TheUnity...hage/Cyprian_The_Unity_Of_The_Church_djvu.txt


THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH 101

1 He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ acts against Christ; he who gathers somewhere out- side the Church scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says: 'I and the Father are one.'

2 And again of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And these three are one.'

3 Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does rot hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

Great work finding that!

But, there is a problem The verse "And these three are one" is not comma johanneum.

The sentence "And these three are one" is in every Greek text.

Cyprian thinks that this sentence is about Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, but this part about persons of Trinity is not present in his quotation, so its more about his personal interpretation.

 

[KJV1611]

I have read commentaries saying Nebachudnezzar and also his grandson Belshazzar was Lucifer. Personally, I believe it’s Nebachudnezzar, as in Daniel 4 he exalts himself after Daniel clearly warned him the consequences if he did. He lost his mind and ate grass. I could see ppl looking at this crazy king eating grass and thinking why they feared him after seeing him eating grass.

FWIW, I have a Nave’s topical bible and he stated Nebachudnezzar was Lucifer. But that does not mean we are right.

Nebuchadnezzar became a follower of God didn't he? I wouldn't think he didn't go to hell.

Daniel 4:34 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

 

[trofimus]

Daniel 4:34 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

Who authorized 1769 version? :O

 

[KJV1611]

Great work finding that!

But, there is a problem The verse "And these three are one" is not comma johanneum.

The sentence "And these three are one" is in every Greek text.

Cyprian thinks that this sentence is about Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, but this part about persons of Trinity is not present in his quotation, so its more about his personal interpretation.

I don't follow you. "And these three are one" is 1 John 5:7... please elaborate.

 

[KJV1611]

Who authorized 1769 version? :O

Who rules over the kings of the world?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Nebuchadnezzar became a follower of God didn't he? I wouldn't think he didn't go to hell.

Daniel 4:34 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

Like I said, I could be wrong. But clearly Isaiah 14 is speaking about the king of Babylon. It may not be Belshazzar either, but another Babylonian king.

 

[KJV1611]

Like I said, I could be wrong. But clearly Isaiah 14 is speaking about the king of Babylon. It may not be Belshazzar either, but another Babylonian king.

How does an earthly king fall from heaven?

 

[SovereignGrace]

How does an earthly king fall from heaven?

It’s called figurative language. But Lucifer was a Latin word that got into a Hebrew(Aramaic?) text. Lucifer should have never been inserted.

 

[trofimus]

I don't follow you. "And these three are one" is 1 John 5:7... please elaborate.

Comma johanneum:

1J 5:

7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.

8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.


Most Greek texts:

1 J 5:

7 Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες,

8 τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

=======

In English (KJV):

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

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


Most English Bibles:

7 For there are three bearing testimony:

8 the Spirit and the water and the blood--and these are three in one.


Your quote can be part of the 8th verse, present everywhere.

 

[KJV1611]

Comma Johanneum:

"The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome ... or as revised by Alcuin...

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text."

https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian

Are you taking these peoples word for it or are you going to investigate their claims to see if they are right? They admitted Liber Apologeticus mentioned it... so it did exist. Then they went on to dismiss it with speculative charges of a heretical author.

 

[trofimus]

Who rules over the kings of the world?

I hope its not king James

 

[trofimus]

Are you taking these peoples word for it or are you going to investigate their claims to see if they are right? They admitted Liber Apologeticus mentioned it... so it did exist. Then they went on to dismiss it with speculative charges of a heretical author.

I respect them for their professionality and knowledge in this field.

But of course, they can be wrong. Any evidence they are?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Isaiah 14:12 Commentaries: "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!