The KJV of the Holy Bible is based on what? A question for all the KJO folks.

[Wrangler]

You have to learn ... the KJV. Once you study it, it becomes simple.

I am not willing to do it. Not willing to study the KJV. That you equate a translation with the word of God shows your idolatry.

I do not speak 16th century King's English. I speak 21st American. Fortunately, there are translations in the language I speak that are far superior to the KJV.

The KJV is the most important book ever written in the English language. It's time in the sun has passed. It is now the worst translation available in English, both with respect to the FROM and the TO. The FROM has more errors than any other language. Why would anyone study a book with more known errors than ANY alternative and is written in Middle English, that people do not speak today? IDOLATRY.

 

[Rockerduck]

I am not willing to do it. Not willing to study the KJV. That you equate a translation with the word of God shows your idolatry.

I do not speak 16th century King's English. I speak 21st American. Fortunately, there are translations in the language I speak that are far superior to the KJV.

The KJV is the most important book ever written in the English language. It's time in the sun has passed. It is now the worst translation available in English, both with respect to the FROM and the TO. The FROM has more errors than any other language. Why would anyone study a book with more known errors than ANY alternative and is written in Middle English, that people do not speak today? IDOLATRY.

Name an error in the KJV. I can show you lots of blatant errors in translations, which are for profit.

 

[Scott Downey]

I don't disrespect the other Gospels. A false accusation doesn't make your error suddenly become correct or irrelevant.

There's only one Jesus.

In the beginning was the word.

And the word was with God.

And the word was God.

And the word became flesh and dwelt among us.

There need not be the name Yeshua there for us to know to whom it refers.

Why are you so intent on using other parts of John 1 in an effort to deny references to Yeshua in the first part of John 1?

I was thinking of that too. Christ the Son is the Word of God and the Word was with God in the beginning. so He the Word comes before all things and in Him all things exist.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it.

John’s Witness: The True Light​

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That[b] was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His [c]own, and His [d]own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the [e]right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Word Becomes Flesh​

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me [f]is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ ”

16 [g]And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten [h]Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

 

[Scott Downey]

In confirmation of Christ and God as Creator is Hebrews 1

1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,

2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

 

[rebuilder 454]

What would you say to Ed Hindson?

The following is taken from an old article I have. I just want to see how people would respond to this:

For example, Jack Hyles says:

It bothers me when people say, “We believe that the Bible, in the original
manuscripts, is the Word of God.” If that’s true, we have no Bible. Did
you hear what I said? We have no Bible. One day they did, but WE don’t.

Dr. Ed Hindson of Liberty Baptist College said concerning 1 John
5:7, “Thus, according to John’s account here, ‘there are three that bear record
in heaven.’ The rest of verse 7 and the first nine words of verse 8 are
not in the original and are not to be considered as part of the Word of
God.”

I’d like to ask Mr. Hindson a question: “When did you see the
original?” How does he know they are not in the original? Look at me now.
How does he know? The only way an honest man can say they are not in
the original manuscripts is to have seen them, and they are not available.

Bingo

The question is, " is God able to put His Word In my hands?".
Yes He is able.
The textus receptus is the final authority.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Yes, you did. John’s is not the only Gospel or the only Gospel that tells us who Jesus is. You might think it is not disrespectful to 3 in pretending only one states something but one could hardly act more disrespectfully of God’s words than that.

Then correct everybody and tell us who He is

 

[Wrangler]

Name an error in the KJV. I can show you lots of blatant errors in translations, which are for profit.

The most glaring error driven by theology is 1 John 5:7-8. Do your own research. I bet your search engine works as good as mine.

 

[Taken]

The KJV of the Holy Bible is based on what? A question for all the KJO folks.

Regarding the 1611 … old English KJV
Commissioned by King James I of England..
47 selected scholars with multiple personal and religious historical backgrounds to work on the project.

Others previous Translations and Transliterations were used…
* Translations —> English to English with ‘copy’ notes.
* Transliterations —> Greek, Latin, Hebrew (for example) to English.

for examples…
Tyndale, Wycliffe, Textus Receptas, Masoretic Text, Vulgate, Geneva, and others made available for their research, discussion, writing, notes, conclusion effected over a number of years.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Rockerduck]

The most glaring error driven by theology is 1 John 5:7-8. Do your own research. I bet your search engine works as good as mine.

But the over 2000 Latin texts have 1 John 5:7 in them.

 

[Taken]

The most glaring error driven by theology is 1 John 5:7-8. Do your own research. I bet your search engine works as good as mine.

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

I did a search, and basically found opinions, and arguments about commas.

Can you provide a quote from an early Bible that omits those particular verses?

Thank you.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Wrangler]

But the over 2000 Latin texts have 1 John 5:7 in them.

Can you provide a quote from an early Bible that omits those particular verses?

Both of you have misunderstood. It’s not that there is no 1 John 5:7. It’s that the KJV rendered it incorrectly. Compare to any translation written in the last century that does not have ‘James’ in the title.

Again, the KJV is the worst translation available in English. Why would anyone defer to the least accurate translation known?

 

[rebuilder 454]

Both of you have misunderstood. It’s not that there is no 1 John 5:7. It’s that the KJV rendered it incorrectly. Compare to any translation written in the last century that does not have ‘James’ in the title.

Again, the KJV is the worst translation available in English. Why would anyone defer to the least accurate translation known?

It is one of the best
Almost word for word the texts receptus.
You are not well informed but seem to speak as a watchtower.
If you are watchtower then nobody here is on that same page with you.

 

[Rockerduck]

Both of you have misunderstood. It’s not that there is no 1 John 5:7. It’s that the KJV rendered it incorrectly. Compare to any translation written in the last century that does not have ‘James’ in the title.

Again, the KJV is the worst translation available in English. Why would anyone defer to the least accurate translation known?

OK, you are just a KJV denier. I get it.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Both of you have misunderstood. It’s not that there is no 1 John 5:7. It’s that the KJV rendered it incorrectly. Compare to any translation written in the last century that does not have ‘James’ in the title.

Again, the KJV is the worst translation available in English. Why would anyone defer to the least accurate translation known?

I just peeked in the Greek.
KJV has 1 John 5:7,8 exactly like the Greek.

You are getting bogus info

 

[Taken]

Both of you have misunderstood. It’s not that there is no 1 John 5:7. It’s that the KJV rendered it incorrectly. Compare to any translation written in the last century that does not have ‘James’ in the title.

Don’t care to divert the topic to James.

I can not “misunderstand” a text I can not review.

IF 1 John 5:7 - 9 does NOT appear in earlier text…can you identify…source Bible and chapter 1 John 5 ?

Again, the KJV is the worst translation available in English. Why would anyone defer to the least accurate translation known?

Again, that was my point about researching…only finding opinions with no basis for the opinion.

Can you add any thing further regarding an earlier text of 1 John 5….from your research regarding chapter 5 ?

Thanks,

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[KUWN]

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

I did a search, and basically found opinions, and arguments about commas.

Can you provide a quote from an early Bible that omits those particular verses?

Thank you.

Glory to God,
Taken

Here is the Bible (the CT). This Bible is hundreds of years before the KJV. Notice it does not contain the disputed text.

7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

Which is translated: "For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water, and the blood, and these three are in agreement." (NET Bible)

Regarding the Comma Johanneum, this note appears in the NET Bible:

"The evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity." (tc note 7)

The deciding factor is whether or not one accepts the OLDER Greek manuscripts or the more recent ones. I believe that the OLDER ones are closer to the originals and are, therefore, more accurate.

 

[KUWN]

There are over 2000 Latin texts of the bible that have 1 John 5:7. All those that think it was added conveniently forget that. It's the anti-Trinitarians that don't agree with it and have successfully removed it in All the translations. The KJV is the bible.

Can you show me one scholar who is an anti-Trinitarian and successfully removed it in all the translations?

 

[Taken]

Here is the Bible (the CT). This Bible is hundreds of years before the KJV. Notice it does not contain the disputed text.

7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

Which is translated: "For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water, and the blood, and these three are in agreement." (NET Bible)

Regarding the Comma Johanneum, this note appears in the NET Bible:

"The evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity." (tc note 7)

The deciding factor is whether or not one accepts the OLDER Greek manuscripts or the more recent ones. I believe that the OLDER ones are closer to the originals and are, therefore, more accurate.

Reviewing your comment, right after I look up acronym's you used…

 

[Rockerduck]

Can you show me one scholar who is an anti-Trinitarian and successfully removed it in all the translations?

1 John 5:7 isn't in modern translations, so take your pick. NLT, NIV, ESV, NASB, NET, CSB, NABRE.

 

[KUWN]

Reviewing your comment, right after I look up acronym's you used…

Sorry about that. CT stands for Critical Text. This is a compilation of Greek manuscripts that are much OLDER than the Greek manuscripts from which the KJV Translation derives. The issue is between the CT and MT; MT is the majority text. This is a compilation of all the NEWER manuscripts. There are a lot more of these NEWER Greek manuscripts than the manuscripts for the CT.

For example, the oldest Greek manuscript behind the KJV is around the 10th century, if my memory serves me right. The oldest manuscript behind the CT is around the second and third centuries. The debate is over the age of the manuscripts supporting a text type. The CT is older than the MT, but the MT has a lot more manuscripts. Which is more important, the MORE there are or the OLDER they are.