CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Yes, I find it ironic that one would claim Vatican influence of the Modern Translations, when the Textus Receptus was totally under Vatican influence.
KJV Only...which one!
- Thread starter Nancy
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dr William Barclay on 1 John 5:7
"The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome's original version of the [Latin]Vulgate does not include it. The first person to quote it is a Spanish heretic called Priscillian who died in A. D. 385. Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts.
"How then did it get into the text? Originally it must have been a scribal gloss or comment in the margin. Since it seemed to offer good scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, through time it came to be accepted by theologians as part of the text, especially in those early days of scholarship before the great manuscripts were discovered.
"But how did it last, and how did it come to be in the Authorized [King James] Version? The first Greek testament to be published was that of Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus was a great scholar and, knowing that this verse was not in the original text, he did not include it in his first edition. By this time, however, theologians were using the verse. It had, for instance, been printed in the Latin Vulgate of 1514. Erasmus was therefore criticized for omitting it. His answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words in it, he would print them in his next edition. Someone did produce a very late and very bad text in which the verse did occur in Greek; and Erasmus, true to his word but very much against his judgment and his will, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.
"The next step was that in 1550 Stephanus printed his great edition of the Greek New Testament. This 1550 edition of Stephanus was called - he gave it that name himself - The Received Text, and it was the basis of the Authorized Version [KJV] and of the Greek text for centuries to come. That is how this verse got into the Authorized Version. There is, of course, nothing wrong with it but modern scholarship has made it quite certain that John did not write it and that it is a much later commentary on, and addition to, his words; and that is why all modern translations omit it." - pp. 110-111, The Letters of John and Jude, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, The Westminster Press, 1976.
"The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome's original version of the [Latin]Vulgate does not include it. The first person to quote it is a Spanish heretic called Priscillian who died in A. D. 385. Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts.
"How then did it get into the text? Originally it must have been a scribal gloss or comment in the margin. Since it seemed to offer good scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, through time it came to be accepted by theologians as part of the text, especially in those early days of scholarship before the great manuscripts were discovered.
"But how did it last, and how did it come to be in the Authorized [King James] Version? The first Greek testament to be published was that of Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus was a great scholar and, knowing that this verse was not in the original text, he did not include it in his first edition. By this time, however, theologians were using the verse. It had, for instance, been printed in the Latin Vulgate of 1514. Erasmus was therefore criticized for omitting it. His answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words in it, he would print them in his next edition. Someone did produce a very late and very bad text in which the verse did occur in Greek; and Erasmus, true to his word but very much against his judgment and his will, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.
"The next step was that in 1550 Stephanus printed his great edition of the Greek New Testament. This 1550 edition of Stephanus was called - he gave it that name himself - The Received Text, and it was the basis of the Authorized Version [KJV] and of the Greek text for centuries to come. That is how this verse got into the Authorized Version. There is, of course, nothing wrong with it but modern scholarship has made it quite certain that John did not write it and that it is a much later commentary on, and addition to, his words; and that is why all modern translations omit it." - pp. 110-111, The Letters of John and Jude, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, The Westminster Press, 1976.
The translators used the Vulgate and rheims, how much more Catholic can you get?
The Catholic Church did influence the Kjv translators far more so then the MV have been, as they did use the Vulgate and Rheims for some of their sources!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I am not putting words in your mouth because you are attacking the KJB and the TR which is the opposite side of the camp (i.e. Alexandrian manuscripts, Westcott and Hort, Nestle and Aland, the Vatican, etcetera).
As for 1 John 5:7: Already addressed this in this thread already with a line of witnesses that shows it's authenticity.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
This is just simply not true. The KJB translators used the Textus Receptus, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Old Latin Bible and other old papyri. The main manuscript text (the TR) is Byzantine (for the KJB). Alexandria text is what Modern Bibles use. So they are two different lines of manuscripts. Alexandria is from the gnostic fountain head, and Antioch Syria is the faithful line (TR) for the King James Bible.
King James himself actually made things difficult for the Catholics. Guy Fawkes (A Catholic) wanted to stop King James and his translation with a super bomb. The King James Bible was the chosen bible in public schools, and Catholics wanted to put their Catholic bible in schools. This led to riots in certain cities. Then you got Catholics forbidding the KJB in one of their own works.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Certainly not all KJB Only like myself believe that, though. The problem I have with the other side of the camp is when folks just undo what the Bible says in English as a result of their going to the original languages. Yet, the Bible in English was translated out of the original languages. Yet, somehow folks who don't know these languages think they know more than the 47 translators on the KJB.
In short, there is no real authority or real Word of God that people can trust today. The authority is in the scholar and or Modern Scholarship or those who think they know the original languages from recent dictionaries (when these dictionaries were created long after these languages were long gone).
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I told you about Erasmus. You didn't address that. I told you about Vatican influence with regard the TR. You didn't address that either. You don't seem interested in the truth. It seems that all you care about is your fear. You feel uncomfortable with your fear, which is why you seek others to be afraid with you. At this point, I must bow out of the conversation.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Erasmus was not working on behalf of the direct authority or backing of the Catholic Church to create a translation (Unlike the Nestle and Aland).
Erasmus did not agree with many Catholic practices and he ended up being slightly deceptive to get his work out there (And to avoid persecution by the Catholic Church). Erasmus would be considered more like an Anglican, and he died among his Protestant friends. Erasmus was said by the Catholic Church to be the egg that Luther hatched. Also, while Erasmus work (TR) was a primary manuscript used for the KJB, it was not the sole manuscript alone in the use of translating the King James Bible. The KJB translators also used the Syriac Peshitta, the Old Latin, and various papyri.
You can learn more here:
Another King James Bible Believer
You said:
A post number would be nice. I also gave you information that makes it clear that the Catholics actually hated the King James Bible throughout history. So your claims are merely untrue. Their own writings forbid folks from reading the King James Bible. They did not like that the KJB was the sole Bible in public schools. Guy Fawkes was a Catholic who made plans to stop King James and his translation with a super bomb. Westcott and Hort who hated the Textus Receptus were into Catholic practices. Today, we have the Nestle and Aland Critical Text that is supervised by the Vatican (Which is where all Modern bibles come from). This text is based on the Alexandrian manuscripts that Westcott and Hort used which removes key important doctrines and truths in the Bible. King James actually restricted Catholic worship in England. King James himself said he was no papist.
To learn more, see here:
Another King James Bible Believer
You said:
I can say the same for you, but we both cannot be right, brother.
You said:
Try reading 1 Kings 13 sometime. Ask yourself. Should the man of God in that story who died should have feared God’s Word?
You said:
Blessings be unto you in the Lord.
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
mnay textuak experts support the Critical Greek text, some the MT, but very few the TR!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Jesus said beware of the scribes. The scribes are those who… “tran-scribe” the Scriptures.
So the scribe is the scholar of our day.
So Jesus is saying don’t implicitly trust the scholars of our day.
Jesus says they go about in long flowing robes.
Catholics go about in long flowing robes and the Vatican supervised the Nestle and Aland.
It says so right in the 27th edition. How much more do you need? For me, if this was the only reason, it would be enough.
But there is so much more. More that you have to ignore or dodge and duck and run away from. From the false doctrines, to the devil’s name being placed where it does not belong in the Bible, to making Jesus appear to sin in Modern bibles… it should make it obvious. But folks simply see what they want to see. Maybe it’s friends they will lose at their church. Maybe it’s a matter of pride. I don’t know what the reason is… but anyone who does an unbiased study on this matter is simply going to side with the KJB / TRO as their final Word of authority (if they are good Bereans). Unfortunately most do not want to hear the truth on this matter. Nobody wants to be looked upon as an outcast within the churches or by respected scholars. But truth sometimes calls us to take a stand when all others in the majority of the church world may scorn or laugh at us. The stand is for what God really said.
The Nestle Aland and the Ubs greek texts are NOT corrupted nor satanic, as they just reflect all available manuscripts and variants for the books of the NT!
So this only applies to the modern versions and not the KJB? Your bias is showing!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
More like tainted or corrupted. A person can be saved by a Modern Bible, but when it comes to growth or in building their faith more accurately and securely, a perfect Bible will of course help with that better. If you want to challenge your belief: My encouragement is to pick up the book called “Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions” by David W. Cloud. David W. Cloud is unlike me in that he actually looks to the Koine Greek more in addition to the English in the KJB. Great read so far. He provides some testimonies of those who were into Textual Criticism and came out it. It’s a 775 page book. So no light reading here. He’s gotta lot to say on the topic.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Great, then you don’t have a sword but you got a butter knife when you go into battle against a JW. I can speak boldly about the Trinity by faith because the one and only verse on the Trinity is in my Bible and it’s not in yours. For if a person was on an island and they did not know about the Trinity, the chances of them knowing about the Trinity is greater if they have 1 John 5:7 in their Bible.
But most today have fell for the trick of Rome. Roman Catholic’s do not mind you believing in the Trinity (because they believe in it), but they don’t want you to get your understanding ultimately from the Bible but they want you to get it from Mother church. They want the priest to tell you what the Bible says. That is why there are Catholic connections with the Westcott and Hort NT Greek text, and the Vatican supervised Nestle and Aland Greek NT Text (of which all English Modern bibles come from).
Rome has won if you fall for Textual Criticism because they have gotten you to trust the scholar (priest) instead of the Bible to get your belief in the Trinity. For no other verse in the Bible describes the Trinity point blank besides 1 John 5:7. Is the Bible your authority? Or is the church or scholar your authority? That’s what this is really about. Can you really point to a Bible verse that is a good explanation of the Trinity? My guess is if you are using a Modern Bible (NKJV deception bible not included) you will not be able to really show a description of the Trinity. All you have are inferences. This is what Rome wants. They want you to get away from Sola Scriptura or the Bible alone. In fact, here are 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Catholic Church.
Here is an NIV (Which favors the Critical Text that is influenced by Rome):
Source used:
http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf
In the King James Bible, I don't see any clear influence like this by the KJB Translators's personal beliefs.
Besides, early Church Fathers & certain minuscules confirm 1 John 5:7:
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
Last edited:
Great, then you don’t have a sword but you got a butter knife when you go into battle against a JW. I can speak boldly about the Trinity by faith because the one and only verse on the Trinity is in my Bible and it’s not in yours. For if a person was on an island and they did not know about the Trinity, the chances of them knowing about the Trinity is greater if they have 1 John 5:7 in their Bible.
But most today have fell for the trick of Rome. Roman Catholic’s do not mind you believing in the Trinity (because they believe in it), but they don’t want you to get your understanding ultimately from the Bible but they want you to get it from Mother church. They want the priest to tell you what the Bible says. That is why there are Catholic connections with the Westcott and Hort NT Greek text, and the Vatican supervised Nestle and Aland Greek NT Text (of which all English Modern bibles come from).
Rome has won if you fall for Textual Criticism because they have gotten you to trust the scholar (priest) instead of the Bible to get your belief in the Trinity. For no other verse in the Bible describes the Trinity point blank besides 1 John 5:7. Is the Bible your authority? Or is the church or scholar your authority? That’s what this is really about. Can you really point to a Bible verse that is a good explanation of the Trinity? My guess is if you are using a Modern Bible (NKJV deception bible not included) you will not be able to really show a description of the Trinity. All you have are inferences. This is what Rome wants. They want you to get away from Sola Scriptura or the Bible alone. In fact, here are 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Catholic Church.
Here is an NIV (Which favors the Critical Text that is influenced by Rome):
Source used:
http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf
In the King James Bible, I don't see any clear influence like this by the KJB Translators's personal beliefs.
Besides, early Church Fathers & certain minuscules confirm 1 John 5:7:
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
Please feel free to battle all you want. You seem to thrive on it. I just want to know what is true. The truth about 1 John 5:7 has been clearly established. The Johannine Comma is spurious. It was inserted to offer proof of the trinity. Almost all of the Bible translators who reject it are trinitarians. I appreciate their integrity. They base their belief on verses that are actually in the Bible. They desire to do more than win a battle at any cost.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I am sorry. This is simply a lie that is being pushed by Modern Scholars. As I shown before, earthly church fathers quoted from 1 John 5:7.
Also, you have to think that Modern Bibles use manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt (Which was the origin of Arianism or Anti-Trinitarianism). So it makes sense that is why they removed 1 John 5:7 (Seeing Arians from Alexandria don’t believe in the Trinity). Also, Modern bibles also change Godhead to divinity (Which is yet another attack on the Trinity). Again, Modern bibles favor the corrupt Alexandrian texts (Which is the center of Gnosticism and Arianism). So the pattern of evidence is obvious here (unless of course people want to bury their head in the sand on such things).
You do know that Athanasius was from Alexandria also. Alexandria was also the center of Hellenism and Syncretism. That is where Platonic philosophy infected Christianity.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Alexandria is known for heresy and not faithfulness like Antioch. Certain places have a bad rep (despite any missionaries or churches in a particular place that may be bad spiritually). Arianism and Gnosticism is tied to Alexandria. Egypt is mentioned as predominantly as being negative in the Bible, as well.
Athanasius is also said to be a pope, and he did not have a problem with Monastic life because he wrote a biography on one who lived the life of a monk (Anthony). Believers are called to preach the gospel to people. One cannot do that if they are living a life of solitude.
Similar threads
