Companion Thread for KJV only debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

daveme7

New member
Hi everyone,

What is inerrancy?

I would like to know. If it is preserving the pure words of God-word for word, then we would have to judge the KJV including any other version in any language as errsnt. Here is the reason why: Everyone can agree the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek(with a bit of Aramaic.)

take the word agape, translated charity and love in some places.

is agape the same word as love and charity? Lemme see.

agape has an A, G, A,P,E love has L,O,V,E wow, these two do not even have the same letters.

In matter of fact, they are not even the same language.

I always understood inerrancy was about the bible telling the truth, not error. In other words, when we read about a literal 6 day creation, we who beleive in the inerrancy of the bible beleive in a 6 day creation as opposed to evolution or the big bang theory.

Inerrancy is about what the bible teaches as being true. The bible is the truth
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Jn 17:17). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

infallability is very related to this. It means that the bible is unable to teach falsehood.

in•fal•li•ble \(ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl\ adj
[ME, fr. ML infallibilis, fr. L in- + LL fallibilis fallible] 15c
1 :*incapable of error :*unerring 〈an infallible memory〉
2 :*not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint :*certain 〈an infallible remedy〉
3 :*incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals — in•fal•li•bil•i•ty \-ˌfa-lə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ n — in•fal•li•bly \-ˈfa-lə-blē\ adv

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

This being a debate, Wil should define what he means by infalibil and inerant. What is his definition of preservation? I think Wil means one thing when he says infalible, inerrant, preserved word of God and probably most understand it differently.

God bless
God's Other Son
a.k.a. Dave Emme
 

Mr. 5020

New member
take the word agape, translated charity and love in some places.

is agape the same word as love and charity? Lemme see.

agape has an A, G, A,P,E love has L,O,V,E wow, these two do not even have the same letters.

In matter of fact, they are not even the same language.
That, however, does not change the meaning.

For example, I can tell my significant other "te amo," "je taime" or "I love you," but the all mean the same thing.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today.

That right there is easy to show wrong. The Red Sea was not crossed, but a sea of reeds.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
That right there is easy to show wrong. The Red Sea was not crossed, but a sea of reeds.

I believe the KJB gets Gal 2:16 KJV right. Faith "of" Christ. I think there
are 5-6 examples of this "faith of Christ" in Paul's letters.

If the KJB is right, all others are in error. If the KJB is wrong, all others are not in error. The only problem, all the others differ from each other in many places.
Then, we must conclude that God didn't preserve his Word as he promised!
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Based on what evidence? :idunno:

Ask somebody that reads hebrew. They can't all be wrong about "suphs".

And I think his word is preserved. A translator doesn't get everything right all the time. And then you have Mormons and Islam that really twist his word. His word is still preserved. They are just perverting it.

I wouldn't be suprised to find skeptic pages that are only trying to discredit his word, but here is some reading.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sea+of+reeds+versus+red+sea+crossing&btnG=Google+Search
 

dreadknought

New member
So then is inerrancy about meanng or "Preserving God's pure words"?



Evening Dave,

Using the definition you provided:

in•fal•li•ble \(ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl\ adj
[ME, fr. ML infallibilis, fr. L in- + LL fallibilis fallible] 15c
1 :*incapable of error :*unerring 〈an infallible memory〉
2 :*not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint :*certain 〈an infallible remedy〉
3 :*incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals — in•fal•li•bil•i•ty \-ˌfa-lə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ n — in•fal•li•bly \-ˈfa-lə-blē\ adv
Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.


then let's start with definition #1:
*KJV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
*(1) Geneva: 1 John 5:7 For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.
*(2) Bishops Bible: 1 John 5:7 For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one.
*(3) KJV 1611: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

"in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one " is an addition to the early autographs, thus errant under definition #1.
This addition into Scripture comes from one family of translation.


So the issue is? :think: Not to worry, the fallibility of man in his err's is corrected by God's infallibility when it comes to the transmission of HIS Word.


humbly in Christ,
bereancam
 

brandplucked

New member
1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

Evening Dave,

*KJV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
*(1) Geneva: 1 John 5:7 For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.
*(2) Bishops Bible: 1 John 5:7 For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one.
*(3) KJV 1611: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

"in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one " is an addition to the early autographs, thus errant under definition #1.
This addition into Scripture comes from one family of translation.


Wrong. 1 John 5:7 is true Scripture

Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.

Cyprian - 250 AD, Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Thomas F. Middleton, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is found in 10 remaining Greek manuscripts, at least 4 Old Latin manuscripts, is quoted or referred to by at least 8 church fathers, is in some ancient versions like the Syriac, Armenian and Slavic versions, in the Waldensian Bibles from 157 AD till the time of the Reformation, is in thousands of Vulgate Latin manuscripts, is in the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout the entire Spanish speaking world today, the Italian Diodati, the Russian, Portuguese, pre and post Lutheran German bibles, the French bibles, and all English versions till 1881.

1 John 5:7 was in the first English Bible by John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and the Authorized Version of 1611. The whole passage was included in the Mace New Testament of 1729, and John Wesley strongly believed it was genuine Scripture and included it in his own translation in 1755. It is still found in the NKJV 1982 Young's, the New Life Bible 1969, Green's 'literal' translation of 2000, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. It was even included in the Catholic Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions. It did not disappear from a standard English Bible until the English Revised Version of 1881, based on the Westcott-Hort Greek texts, omitted it.

It is important to note that the Greek Orthodox Church's New Testament contains 1 John 5:7 both in the ancient and in the Modern Greek versions. The passage is also included in the following foreign language Bibles today: Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Afrikaans 1957, the Basque N.T.; Czech Kralicka Bible, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish 1776, the French Ostervald 1996 and La Bible de l'Epée 2005, the Italian Diodati, Hungarian Karoli, Icelandic 1981, Latvian N.T.; Maori, Lithuanian, Romanian Cornilescu, Russian Synodal, Russian Victor Zhuromski, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout Mexico, Central and South America 1909, 1960 and 1995, the Thai Bible, Tagalog bible, Ukranian Kulish 1871, the Vietnamese bible, and the Xhosa language Bible.

Either God has been faithful to preserve His pure words with nothing added or He has failed and the scholars of today who do not believe any Bible on this earth is the perfect word of God are right. You decide.

For more on 1 John 5:7 see - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html

Will Kinney
 

dreadknought

New member
Evening Dave,

*KJV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
*(1) Geneva: 1 John 5:7 For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.
*(2) Bishops Bible: 1 John 5:7 For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one.
*(3) KJV 1611: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

"in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one " is an addition to the early autographs, thus errant under definition #1.
This addition into Scripture comes from one family of translation.


Wrong. 1 John 5:7 is true Scripture

Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.

Cyprian - 250 AD, Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Thomas F. Middleton, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is found in 10 remaining Greek manuscripts, at least 4 Old Latin manuscripts, is quoted or referred to by at least 8 church fathers, is in some ancient versions like the Syriac, Armenian and Slavic versions, in the Waldensian Bibles from 157 AD till the time of the Reformation, is in thousands of Vulgate Latin manuscripts, is in the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout the entire Spanish speaking world today, the Italian Diodati, the Russian, Portuguese, pre and post Lutheran German bibles, the French bibles, and all English versions till 1881.

1 John 5:7 was in the first English Bible by John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and the Authorized Version of 1611. The whole passage was included in the Mace New Testament of 1729, and John Wesley strongly believed it was genuine Scripture and included it in his own translation in 1755. It is still found in the NKJV 1982 Young's, the New Life Bible 1969, Green's 'literal' translation of 2000, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. It was even included in the Catholic Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions. It did not disappear from a standard English Bible until the English Revised Version of 1881, based on the Westcott-Hort Greek texts, omitted it.

It is important to note that the Greek Orthodox Church's New Testament contains 1 John 5:7 both in the ancient and in the Modern Greek versions. The passage is also included in the following foreign language Bibles today: Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Afrikaans 1957, the Basque N.T.; Czech Kralicka Bible, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish 1776, the French Ostervald 1996 and La Bible de l'Epée 2005, the Italian Diodati, Hungarian Karoli, Icelandic 1981, Latvian N.T.; Maori, Lithuanian, Romanian Cornilescu, Russian Synodal, Russian Victor Zhuromski, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout Mexico, Central and South America 1909, 1960 and 1995, the Thai Bible, Tagalog bible, Ukranian Kulish 1871, the Vietnamese bible, and the Xhosa language Bible.

Either God has been faithful to preserve His pure words with nothing added or He has failed and the scholars of today who do not believe any Bible on this earth is the perfect word of God are right. You decide.

For more on 1 John 5:7 see - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html

Will Kinney



Hmmmm...... So you have time from your one on one to venture into the peanut gallery? Huh....... since Wyclif used the Vulgate as his source of translation, as did the Bishop's Bible use the Vulgate as a primary source this proves what exactly. The Vulgate is the perfectly preserved Word of God? The perfectly preserved inerrant translation which you state is only the King James 1611, (with apocrypha I might add) itself being a revision of the Geneva and Bishops. The apocrypha removed later by the way, as the King James translation has been revised several times. Oh right, I think the Anglican Church uses the apocrypha too. Remind me again why the Reformation saints were in Geneva? It's not rocket science. Your point is?


Or is it the Textus Receptus that is the only perfectly preserved and inerrant Word of God.
There are no manuscripts prior to Erasmus +/- 50 years that support your position. That's 15th century. No amount of revisionist history can change the fact that it is not in the autographs. Erasmus himself commented on the unsubstantiated validity of the verse. Oh wasn't he Catholic? I have heard no credible scholar say otherwise. Your own source material supports one family of translation using this verse.

Here's the English translation from Codex Sinaiticus that I have:
1John 5:7 For they that testify are three, 8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.

That the early church father's write notes of the trinity in the margins shouldn't suprise anyone, esp. after Nicea. If there were 3rd century evidence as you state, Athanasius surely would have used this passage in defense of the Arian heresy. He did not because it was not there. The passage would be a vital piece of Scripture to use in the defense of the Word, wouldn't you say?:bang:

Or is the a revelation of some kind that the rest of God's children have missed out on?

So the issue is? :think: Not to worry, the fallibility of man in his err's is corrected by God's infallibility when it comes to the transmission of HIS Word. His Words are not stopped nor muted by errors of men.

Ah, maybe it should be left as your personal preference to read the King James, and not hold other believers in bondage to your fanatical myths. The Word of God in His Holy Scriptures are read by millions in all languages, and they too have the claim of being saved, just like anyone else through FAITH in Jesus Christ.

Sorry Will, I will not bow to your golden calf ideals. Just think, this is just about an addition to a verse. Better get ready for muz.

:upright:
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
I have heard much about the Authorized King James Version. By whom was it authorized?
 

johncalvinhall

New member
Evening Dave,

"in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one " is an addition to the early autographs, thus errant under definition #1.
This addition into Scripture comes from one family of translation.

Wow!

Were you there?

You actually saw the original autographs?

No? OH...! You're just mimicking what the liberal godless scholars have determined. Sad to say, too many Bible-believing Christians have been snookered into listening to these wolves in sheep's clothing.

What it really boils down is, what authority do you place your view of Scriptures? Do you believe God when He promised to preserve His Word, or do you really think that man, in all of his intellect, can determine what God really has said?

Spirituality and faith are totally and completely separate from intellectual scholasticism. This is why a little grey-haired granny, who has no formal education can be such a great prayer warrior for Christ, while some great and learned professors (like Bart Ehrman, Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, etc.) can totally miss the target, no matter how much education they have.

Intellectualism is great! But ONLY when it is subjugated by true Biblical faith.
 
Last edited:

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What is inerrancy?
Let's first clarify the distinction between verbal inspiration and inerrancy.

Inerrancy relates to the truth contained in a statement.
Inspiration relates to the Scriptures' wording.

Only the original text of Scripture is inspired.

Copies of Scripture can certainly be inerrant. For example, we have sufficient data in the extant witnesses (manuscripts, etc.) to construct the original New Testament in virtually every place. In other words, the original can be recovered from the materials that exist.


The Evangelical Theological Society affirms: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”

So, when I hold the original autographs of Scriptures to be inerrant (and I do claim this), I claim that when all the facts are known and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences.

The bottom line is that the viable textual variants that exist, i.e., the variants that may legitimately represent the original wording, in many manuscripts we have in our possession do not jeopardize any salvific doctrine.
 

johncalvinhall

New member
This thread is designed so that those interested can discuss the One on One debate between Brandplucked and themuzicman entitled: Is the King James Bible God's preserved and inerrant words?


If the question is, "Is the King James Bible God's preserved and inerrant words?". then the answer is NO!

But if we rephrase it, we can then ask, " Is the King James Bible the best English translation?", then you can confidently say, YES!

The King James Version is based on the most superior Greek Text, utilizing the most superior philosophy.

Is the King Jimmy absolutely PERFECT in it's translation from the Greek and Hebrew? Not Absolutely Perfect. Even though there are NO ERRORS, there are a few places where the English language has shifted enough to create a question to its interpretation.

[Addendum - Folks, you can't go wrong with the King James Bible. It's as literal as they come! I remember in Greek class doing my translations and complaining that it sounds too much like the King Jimmy. My professor just smiled and said that it should, because the King James Bible translators were freakish about literalism. When I say that there are questions to interpretations, I am referencing where the English language has shifted over the past 400 years. There are no errors in the KJV and is the best English translation.]

Though I personally believe that the King Jimmy is the best English Translation we have at the present, it cannot supersede the authority of the original languages. Some people believe this (which is called Secondary Inspiration) and it is not biblical.



The following is a paper I gave out in one of my recent classes:

Which English Translation Is Most Accurate?
We are not asking, which English Translation is easiest, most popular, or which one you are most “comfy” with.

One of the most common questions asked by English speaking Christians today is, “Which translation is best?” The question then needs to be begged, “what do you mean by best”?
• Which translation is easiest to read?
• Which translation is most popular?
• Which translation does my church and pastor use?
• Which translation am I most comfy with?
In Bible colleges across the country, many Bible and Ministry Majors ask the question, “Which Greek Text is Superior?”
There are only two Greek Texts:
• The Critical Text (Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, UBS4)
o Scientifically Compiled
o Focuses on what has been deemed as the “Oldest” Texts
o Many portions are still in Dispute
• The Traditional Text (Textus Receptus)
But the question must be boiled down even further. The Christian must ask the one question, “On what will I base my Authority of Scripture on?”
• Does man have the level of intellect and spiritual insight to truly determine what God has really said?
• Did God actively and dynamically preserve His Word throughout history?
Liberal Scholars (and those who mimic liberal scholasticism) will teach their churches that the modern English Translations are based upon the oldest and most superior Greek Texts. What they don’t tell you is that it is the liberal scholars who have defined what they deemed as “most superior” and oldest.

When referring to the actual Greek Texts, they snub the Traditional Text by claiming to use scientific methods in determining the correct readings. What they don’t tell you is that it is the liberal scholars (namely Westcott and Hort, who were extremely biased against the Traditional Text) who had established these basic scientific methods.


When the arguments are stripped away and the very foundation of the argument is exposed, the singular question is brought into the light,
“ON WHAT WILL I BASE MY AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE ON?”
IMPORTANT NOTE: We are not asking if you believe the Bible is the Word of God, but rather we are begging the question with regards to the physical authority of Scripture!
• Was the Canon of Scriptures determined by the Early Church Councils, or
Do Christians recognize what God had ordained as being canonical?

• When it comes to preserving the Scriptures, does man have the intellect to determine the Text, or
Do Christians recognize what God has Himself dynamically preserved throughout history?
Your view on this one issue will ultimately determine which Bible Translation you will use!
Matthew 24:35
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Proverbs 30:5
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Isaiah 40:8
8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
1 Peter 1:24-25
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever....
Do you believe this is so, or not?
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him….
It’s not a matter of the Physical,
It’s not a matter of the Intellectual,
It all boils down to the Spiritual!

--- End of Document ---

Folks, the philosophy will not only determine your Greek Text, but how you view Scripture as a whole. If you believe that intellectualism is superior than revelation, then you will easily be swayed by someone who has a lot of letters after their name and is popular.

For instance, Bart Ehrman is a well recognized Bible Scholar, yet he has come out and publicly claimed to no longer have faith in Scripture. According to Scripture this man is an apostate and should be dismissed from all true Christian venues. Bruce Metzger repeatedly wrote that even the original autographs contained errors (read his commentaries). Are these men saved? Who knows?!?! That's not the issue. The issue is, does their faith subjugate their intellectualism or does their intellect determine their faith?

WHAT YOU DETERMINE WILL EFFECT EVERYTHING IN YOUR MINISTRY, AND WILL HAVE ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES.

The decision is yours.
 

johncalvinhall

New member
This addition into Scripture comes from one family of translation.

Family?

Where, might I ask, did you get this concept?

No need to answer, I read Snort's Introduction (oops, I mean Hort's Introduction). Fenton John Anthony Hort had almost a demonic hatred for God's Word and refused to recognize the authority of Scripture (in his Introduction, FJA Hort states that the Scriptures should be treated on the same level as a work of Shakespeare). Even though he was specifically commanded by the Royal Bible Society to only provide an English Revision, he ignored their request and rewrote the Greek Text in his own interpretation.

By cataloging manuscripts (MSS) into families, Hort was able to intellectually boil down the vast amount of MSS into one single family (Byzantine Family) and thus reduce its dominance. The problem that even liberal scholars don't want to touch is the fact that MSS cross families more than they want to admit publicly. Rather than point this out, they blindly swallow what Hort gave them and not say a word.

Anything that comes from FJA Hort needs to be greatly questioned.
 

griffinsavard

New member
If the question is, "Is the King James Bible God's preserved and inerrant words?". then the answer is NO!

Is the King Jimmy absolutely PERFECT in it's translation from the Greek and Hebrew? Not Absolutely Perfect. Even though there are NO ERRORS,

I'm not sure I understand your statement. Not absolutely perfect, No errors?

Here is an error or two in the translation...

Mat 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell [# 86 Gr. Hades]: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell [# 1067 Gr. Geenna] fire:

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell [# 5020 Gr. Tartaroo], and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

One English word - Hell - is used to translate three different Greek words: Hades, Geenna, Tartaroo. If the KJV translators were 'freakish' about literalism, then why did they translate a geological place, Geenna, with the same word? I guess it could of come from ignorance but these men were not ignorant. It is said about one of these men [citation needed] that if he were at the Tower of Babel during the confusion of tongues he knew so many languages that he would of been able to prevent the dispersion. :dizzy:
 

brandplucked

New member
1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

That the early church father's write notes of the trinity in the margins shouldn't suprise anyone, esp. after Nicea. If there were 3rd century evidence as you state, Athanasius surely would have used this passage in defense of the Arian heresy. He did not because it was not there. The passage would be a vital piece of Scripture to use in the defense of the Word, wouldn't you say?:bang: [/COLOR][/FONT]

Or is the a revelation of some kind that the rest of God's children have missed out on?

So the issue is? :think: Not to worry, the fallibility of man in his err's is corrected by God's infallibility when it comes to the transmission of HIS Word. His Words are not stopped nor muted by errors of men.

Ah, maybe it should be left as your personal preference to read the King James, and not hold other believers in bondage to your fanatical myths. The Word of God in His Holy Scriptures are read by millions in all languages, and they too have the claim of being saved, just like anyone else through FAITH in Jesus Christ.

Sorry Will, I will not bow to your golden calf ideals. Just think, this is just about an addition to a verse. Better get ready for muz.

:upright:

Hi bc. Just a couple of points. You tell us that Athanasius didn't use the verse against the Arian heresy, yet John Gill clearly says he did. You also ignore all the evidence long before the 15th century. Maybe you should sharpen your reading comprehension skills just a tad. Read the whole article I posted very slowly, and then come back with your response if you wish.

Here is part of the article you apparently missed, or at least disagree with.

A Trail of Evidence

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:

Scholars often disagree with each other, but John Gill, in his well known commentary on the entire Bible, remarks concerning 1 John 5:7: "It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage."

200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number."

250 AD - 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. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN?

By the way, I do not question the fact that God uses imperfect Bibles to bring His people to faith in Christ. It should also be pointed out that the vast majority of all those people you referred to who believed in the Saviour before 1611 also had 1 John 5:7 in their Bibles! - unlike the versions that began to flood the English speaking market in 1881 and began to undermine the faith of the saints.

Will K
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top