KJV Only...which one!

[Jim B]

Why would I do that when I have God's very preserved words that I can hold in my hands right now (i.e. the KJB)?

Do you know how to speak, write, and speak Koine Greek fluently?
Is your faith in what different Lexicons says vs. Your experience of knowing that language intimately in growing up in that culture?

Well, the problem is that Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek are not living languages anymore. So there is a form of guessing involved. You don't have a Moses (for the Biblical Hebrew), and an apostle Paul (for the Biblical Greek) to make sure you are always 100% correct. So the only alternative is trusting that God preserved His Word in a language we do understand or a language that is pretty close to the one we speak (Which I believe is 1600's English with the King James Bible).

It would be like your trying to correct Chinese people on the true meaning of a great literary work they created by using a Chinese to English Dictionary. Most Chinese people would look at you crazy if you tried to do something like that.

Which Greek manuscripts do you follow?
Not all Greek manuscripts say the same thing or are of the illogical James White position in that they the contradicting manuscripts say the same thing if you piece them together?
Are you looking for general truths that you and other Modern Scholarship Believers deem as what you feel are important or are you after specific truth from what God’s Word says?

Your last sentence reminds me of the adage used on young children: do you want to go to bed with your shoes on or your shoes off? Your discarding of modern scholarship (including the many texts (Biblical and otherwise) and the increased knowledge of the ancient languages and societal norms) speaks volumes.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, from what you mentioned, "less viruses" would be the only reason I would put that kind of money onto a computer, I use mine for very few things and, have not had a virus in many years and do NOT have an antivirus program as, the computers software includes it. So, I only have Malwarebytes. I have a good friend who's job it is to fix computers all over the place and, he told me this years ago and since then, I have saved money and also have not gotten a single virus.
If I were into the things you are then I would consider it but, I have the laptop I am using now, and also a back up one in case this one crashes.

I did extensive research on Christian topics and every once in a while I would click on a website that was claiming to have Christian content I was interested in, and the webpage was all whacky (like it was infected with a virus). However, this is not a problem with a MAC (in most cases). For I don't get viruses on my MAC whereby they make my MAC run slow or shut down my machine (like in the past with PC's). Perhaps it was the hardware in some cases. In either case, I was tired of having to keep buying new PC's all the time. Once I made the switch to MAC, things ran smoothly. The PC (unless it is suped up) seems to run a lot more slower than a MAC, too.

My one brother uses the MAC, at first it was difficult for him, but he said "I'm just not accustomed to it yet, but I'll get there" Lol. And he did. :)

I took to the MAC like a duck to water. What I did not know I simply Googled it, and or watched a YouTube video on it. Oh, and I actually use the MACALLY mouse now. I used the magic mouse in the past, but I did not like it. Anyways, I am glad your brother has finally gotten used to his MAC.

Blessings to you in the Lord.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your last sentence reminds me of the adage used on young children: do you want to go to bed with your shoes on or your shoes off? Your discarding of modern scholarship (including the many texts (Biblical and otherwise) and the increased knowledge of the ancient languages and societal norms) speaks volumes.

Even if you had the perfect Hebrew/Greek English dictionary it is up to the user to correctly CHOOSE the right or correct definition that lines up with the context. Most of the time in what I see is folks changing the English words in the Bible to defend a false belief by hiding behind original dead languages that nobody really knows because nobody speaks or writes, or reads these languages in living cultures anymore. But to make matters worse, the dictionaries are from recent history and they don't come from Moses, or the apostle Paul. So folks are only guessing at best. For example: You cannot claim to know Chinese and be an expert in it by studying a Chinese to English dictionary. You cannot correct Chinese people and say you know Chinese as good as they do because you studied a book. That's nonsense. To really know a language you need to speak, write, and read it within that culture. There are always going to be things that you cannot learn in a book that is huge. I know firsthand. I tried to impress my wife by speaking Portuguese (Brazilian) and she said that the book is not exactly accurate in every case with some phrases. She said you would not say that. So she knew by experience more than some guy who wrote a book on the topic.

 

[Nancy]

I did extensive research on Christian topics and every once in a while I would click on a website that was claiming to have Christian content I was interested in, and the webpage was all whacky (like it was infected with a virus). However, this is not a problem with a MAC (in most cases). For I don't get viruses on my MAC whereby they make my MAC run slow or shut down my machine (like in the past with PC's). Perhaps it was the hardware in some cases. In either case, I was tired of having to keep buying new PC's all the time. Once I made the switch to MAC, things ran smoothly. The PC (unless it is suped up) seems to run a lot more slower than a MAC, too.



I took to the MAC like a duck to water. What I did not know I simply Googled it, and or watched a YouTube video on it. Oh, and I actually use the MACALLY mouse now. I used the magic mouse in the past, but I did not like it. Anyways, I am glad your brother has finally gotten used to his MAC.

Blessings to you in the Lord.

I just have to ask, what is the magical, or the MACALLY mouse? I know I could easily look it up but, most likely, since I don't use a MAC, will not understand it, I'm sure you would be able to explain it in plain English!

 

[Nancy]

BTW @Bible Highlighter , Yes, what better place for the evil one to spew his lies than a CHRISTIAN site.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I just have to ask, what is the magical, or the MACALLY mouse? I know I could easily look it up but, most likely, since I don't use a MAC, will not understand it, I'm sure you would be able to explain it in plain English!

The Macally mouse is not an Apple created product but it works with the MAC computer more efficiently for my tastes.

https://www.amazon.com/Macally-Wireless-Bluetooth-Mouse-Mac-Windows/dp/B07NH6CL3F/

The Macally mouse center button (that you can press or tap down to toggle or cascade all the windows to see them all) also is a roller. Meaning you can scroll up and down a page by rolling the button naturally. It takes 2 AAA batteries.

Apple's magic mouse:

https://www.amazon.com/Apple-Magic-Mouse-Wireless-Rechargable/dp/B09BRD98T4/

I don't like the Apple mouse because it got rid of the center button to scroll up and down a page naturally and to cascade all windows. Plus, I don't like the price for Apple's mouse, either. The Macally is way cheaper and way better in functionality.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

BTW @Bible Highlighter , Yes, what better place for the evil one to spew his lies than a CHRISTIAN site.

All we can do is pray for those who cannot see on this topic and to love them with the love of Christ, and for us to preach the truth.

Blessings to you and your family in the Lord.

 

[Nancy]

The Macally mouse is not an Apple created product but it works with the MAC computer more efficiently for my tastes.

https://www.amazon.com/Macally-Wireless-Bluetooth-Mouse-Mac-Windows/dp/B07NH6CL3F/

The Macally mouse center button (that you can press or tap down to toggle or cascade all the windows to see them all) also is a roller. Meaning you can scroll up and down a page by rolling the button naturally. It takes 2 AAA batteries.

Apple's magic mouse:

https://www.amazon.com/Apple-Magic-Mouse-Wireless-Rechargable/dp/B09BRD98T4/

I don't like the Apple mouse because it got rid of the center button to scroll up and down a page naturally and to cascade all windows. Plus, I don't like the price for Apple's mouse, either. The Macally is way cheaper and way better in functionality.

OOH, not that, I know I would not take to very fast! I use them both as you do, and have since day one. It would be difficult, for sure.

The MAC mouse looks very sleek, hence; expensive.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Nancy]

All we can do is pray for those who cannot see on this topic and to love them with the love of Christ, and for us to preach the truth.

Blessings to you and your family in the Lord.

Blessings to you and yours as well brother.
March on Christian soldier, and sing His praises along the way, boldly!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

OOH, not that, I know I would not take to very fast! I use them both as you do, and have since day one. It would be difficult, for sure.

The MAC mouse looks very sleek, hence; expensive.

Thanks for the info.

The Apple mouse may look like a Ferrari, but it has no functionality like the Macally. So appearances can be deceptive (Much like with the KJB issue when folks cannot fathom how God can preserve His words today in 1600's English - KJB). I know for a fact your brother would love the Macally as a gift and he probably would throw away his Mac mouse or sell it. The Macally is only 20 bucks. So it's definitely within the budget, for sure.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I didn't say the topic was waste of time did I? Maybe I did. What remains a waste of time is arguments over various translations and text families and manuscripts etc.

The only authoritative written record of the words of God are the original autographs. Everything else is a translation and ALL translations, including the KJV are interpretations of the autographs.

In the Bible, there was no mention of the originals alone being divine or perfect while all translation copies were imperfect.

Instead, in the Bible: We read about how there is a pattern of God preserving copies of His Word, and not the original autographs.

(a) Moses destroyed the original 10 Commandments on tablets of stone (the original autograph) (Exodus 32:19), and yet a copy was perfectly made to replace it (Exodus 34:1-4).

(b) King Jehoiakim burns the scroll of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:22-23), but God had Jeremiah make another copy (Jeremiah 36:27-28).

(c) Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” (Proverbs 25:1).​

In the New Testament, Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch read from a manuscript of Isaiah.

“And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts of the Apostles 8:30).​

Although Scripture does not specifically say this was a copy of Isaiah, and not the original autograph of Isaiah, logic dictates that the most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of a manuscript of Isaiah (and not the original). For the odds of him just happening to have the original would seem highly unlikely.

Philip calls this copy of Isaiah he possessed as Scripture.

“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:35).

In fact, Jesus also read from the book of Isaiah and so unless the Ethiopian enuch had stole the originals that Jesus read from, then we must assume it is a copy of which is called Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
So the copy of this Scripture was inspired by God.
If you were to pay attention and notice the verse above it, it says that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures since he was a child. Chances are he did not have the originals so as to study from. Yet, he had copies which was called the Holy Scriptures. Holy implies something is divine in the Bible.

So the belief of “Originals Onlyism” (i.e. Only the Originals are Perfect) that says that we need to look to the original autograph because it is perfect, and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical. Believers in God's Word can trust that God has preserved a copy of His Word for us today that is perfect (Which would be consistent in the way God operates involving the preservation of His Word). This then leads us to conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that we can find today.

 

[Nancy]

The Apple mouse may look like a Ferrari, but it has no functionality like the Macally. So appearances can be deceptive (Much like with the KJB issue when folks cannot fathom how God can preserve His words today in 1600's English - KJB). I know for a fact your brother would love the Macally as a gift and he probably would throw away his Mac mouse or sell it. The Macally is only 20 bucks. So it's definitely within the budget, for sure.

Thanks, I will let him know.

 

[Nancy]

In the Bible, there was no mention of the originals alone being divine or perfect while all translation copies were imperfect.

Instead, in the Bible: We read about how there is a pattern of God preserving copies of His Word, and not the original autographs.

(a) Moses destroyed the original 10 Commandments on tablets of stone (the original autograph) (Exodus 32:19), and yet a copy was perfectly made to replace it (Exodus 34:1-4).

(b) King Jehoiakim burns the scroll of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:22-23), but God had Jeremiah make another copy (Jeremiah 36:27-28).

(c) Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” (Proverbs 25:1).​

In the New Testament, Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch read from a manuscript of Isaiah.

“And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts of the Apostles 8:30).​

Although Scripture does not specifically say this was a copy of Isaiah, and not the original autograph of Isaiah, logic dictates that the most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of a manuscript of Isaiah (and not the original). For the odds of him just happening to have the original would seem highly unlikely.

Philip calls this copy of Isaiah he possessed as Scripture.

“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:35).

In fact, Jesus also read from the book of Isaiah and so unless the Ethiopian enuch had stole the originals that Jesus read from, then we must assume it is a copy of which is called Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
So the copy of this Scripture was inspired by God.
If you were to pay attention and notice the verse above it, it says that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures since he was a child. Chances are he did not have the originals so as to study from. Yet, he had copies which was called the Holy Scriptures. Holy implies something is divine in the Bible.

So the belief of “Originals Onlyism” (i.e. Only the Originals are Perfect) that says that we need to look to the original autograph because it is perfect, and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical. Believers in God's Word can trust that God has preserved a copy of His Word for us today that is perfect (Which would be consistent in the way God operates involving the preservation of His Word). This then leads us to conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that we can find today.

Agreed. The only thing that I would say is to be careful with the paraphrased ones. It's good to have several versions as not all of us see things the same, and nobody can tell me that those who do not use the KJ, is not saved, or they are deceived. God preserves, indeed.

The only reasons I use the KJ mostly is because it's easier for me to remember verses in that old English, and I learned on it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Agreed. The only thing that I would say is to be careful with the paraphrased ones.

No worries. The KJB is my final Word of authority.

It's good to have several versions as not all of us see things the same,

I agree it is good to use Modern Translations but I only see them as helpful in updating the 1600’s English in the KJB.
If a Modern Bible say something different than the KJB, I side with the KJB.

and nobody can tell me that those who do not use the KJ, is not saved, or they are deceived.

Well, I believe God can save a person using a Modern Bible Version, but I also believe that in some cases, a believer can fall away from the faith because of Modern Scholarship because it is a religion or way of thought that attempts to get a person to doubt the Bible (Because of all the footnotes in Modern Bibles saying this portion of Scripture is not in the oldest and best manuscripts, or they never have a settled text, or settled bible, etcetera). In Modern Scholarship, the scribe becomes the real authority and not the Bible. 70% of Christians who attend Bible college lose the faith, and I believe it is because of the religion of Modern scholarship that gets them to doubt their Bible or to say there is no perfect Bible on the planet Earth (Meaning, how can we truly trust what God said if there are errors from men mingled in with His words?).

God preserves, indeed.

I believe God preserves His words indeed (Psalms 19:6-7).

The only reasons I use the KJ mostly is because it's easier for me to remember verses in that old English, and I learned on it.

I am glad. May the Lord bless you with that indeed.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Just gonna drop this

Omissions in Modern Versions

King James Bible Omissions

KJV - Letter to the Reader
this.htm

King James Bible Facts
Fighting Back! A Handy Reference Guide For King James Bible Believers by James Melston www.av1611.org

History of King James (KJV)
King James I of England (VI of Scotland) Page

Thank you. May God bless you for sharing this.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

“[1 John]5:7; This verse has not been found in Greek in any manuscript in or out of the New Testament earlier than the thirteenth century. It does not appear in any Greek manuscript of I John before the fifteenth century, when one cursive has it; one from the sixteenth also contains the reading. These are the only Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in which it has ever been found. But it occurs in no ancient Greek manuscript of Greek Christian writers or any of the oriental versions. its chief support is in two Old Latin manuscripts of the sixth and eighth centuries and in some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, but not the oldest ones. Erasmus did not include it in his first edition to the New Testament in Greek (1516) nor in his second (1519). When criticized for the omission, he rashly said that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript containing the passage he would insert it, and the sixteenth century Codex Mantifortianus containing it was brought to his attention. He felt obliged to include the reading in his third edition (1525). From Tyndale the verse found its way into the King James Version. It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament."

The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament

Actually, 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:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
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, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD 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.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD 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.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
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.

Source:
David Daniels.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

“[1 John]5:7; This verse has not been found in Greek in any manuscript in or out of the New Testament earlier than the thirteenth century. It does not appear in any Greek manuscript of I John before the fifteenth century, when one cursive has it; one from the sixteenth also contains the reading. These are the only Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in which it has ever been found. But it occurs in no ancient Greek manuscript of Greek Christian writers or any of the oriental versions. its chief support is in two Old Latin manuscripts of the sixth and eighth centuries and in some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, but not the oldest ones. Erasmus did not include it in his first edition to the New Testament in Greek (1516) nor in his second (1519). When criticized for the omission, he rashly said that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript containing the passage he would insert it, and the sixteenth century Codex Mantifortianus containing it was brought to his attention. He felt obliged to include the reading in his third edition (1525). From Tyndale the verse found its way into the King James Version. It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament."

The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament

It is of interest that the Jerome's Latin Vulgate of 382- 405 A.D. as well as the Clementine Vulgate of 1592 both contain all these words in 1 John 5:7-8 - Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra : spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : et hi tres unum sunt.

Latin Vulgate Bible with Douay-Rheims and King James Version Side-by-Side+Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ

The Latin Vulgate 382-405 A.D., even with its flaws, is considered an older Greek witness than that of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"The Comma Joanneum, 5:7-8 of the Vg. is missing in all Gk MSS except four later MSS and in the Oriental versions. It is quoted by no Church father before Priscillian(380). There is no doubt that it is a gloss on the preceding lines, probably added in Africa or the Iberian peninsula."
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible


"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No repectable Greek MS contians it. Appearing first in a late 4th cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."
Peake's Commentary on the Bible


"We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim." F.H.A.Scrivener -A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament 1883 third ed., p. 654.

That’s all well in good to believe such a fantastic tale, but at the end of the day… we know the Critical Text is based on two spurious documents that comes from Alexandria. Even your own Textual Critics will admit that the Vaticanus (VATICAN) and the Sinaiticus come from Alexandria. Alexandria was the fountain head of Gnosticism. Alexandria is the origin of Arianism or Anti-Trinitarianism. So this is why 1 John 5:7 is removed because it is a fact that it is the one and only verse that point blank teaches the Trinity. No other verse is quite like 1 John 5:7. It’s why Godhead is also removed and changed to divinity etcetera in Modern Bibles. Anti-Trinitarians would obviously not like verses that talk about the Trinity and so it is only logical that they perverted the Scriptures. This is what we see. Alexandria (the origin of Anti-Trinitarianism) is attacking the verses in the Bible on the Trinity. It’s like denying the evidence that is right in front of you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Interesting that Bible Highlighter calls 1John 5:7: “the one and only clearest verse on the Trinity.”

That says a lot.

Yes, 1 John 5:7 is the one and only clearest verse on the Trinity. No other verse point blank teaches the Trinity like 1 John 5:7. Sure, you can find a lot of verses that imply the Trinity, but you will not find any that directly talks about the Trinity like 1 John 5:7. For if you believe otherwise, then show me otherwise. Where is another verse in the Bible that is like 1 John 5:7 or a verse that specifically explains the Trinity or Godhead? There is none and you know it. So what you say here is simply an opinion that is not actually substantiated by any evidence in Scripture.