The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Elizabethan English is great, if one happens to be Elizabethan 
. I just don't prefer it to the exclusion of all others. Apparently, that makes me some type of heretic or apostate, even though those who actually put the KJV together recommend that people use a variety of translations.
I am also aware that others have problems with it, so I do not often quote it out of consideration
for them. I guess that makes me a very bad person too in the eyes of KJ onlyists. A friend once
tested me to see if I could read very old English, and she was surprised at my ability to do so.
-
1
- Show all
There are 16 omitted verses. 17 omitted verses if you count the NIV, NAS, GNT, RV (Westcott and Hort’s English version).*
There is also footnotes casting doubt on the ending of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery. Note: I can actually prove the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery is a part of the text. There is an OT reference that ties into what Jesus was writing on the ground. So you have the Bible correctors moving part of 1 John 5:8 to 1 John 5:7 to try and hide that there is no missing verse for them to discover it is an attack on the Trinity. Then you have the removal of the story in John 8, which I can clearly demonstrate from Scripture that it is supposed to be there. Then there are all the verses that have missing words or words that are changed to say something else.
Matt 23:14 REMOVED: ["Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]
Matt 17:21 REMOVED: ["But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."]
Matt 18:11 REMOVED: ["For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.]
Mrk 7:16 REMOVED: ["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."]
Mrk 9:44 REMOVED: [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]
Mrk 9:46 REMOVED: [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]
Mrk 11:26 REMOVED: ["But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."]
Mrk 15:28 REMOVED: [And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with transgressors."]
Luke 17:36 REMOVED: ["Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."]
Luke 23:17 REMOVED: [Now he was obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner.]
John 5:4 REMOVED: [...for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.]
Act 8:37 REMOVED: [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]
Act 15:34 REMOVED: [But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.]
Act 24:7 * "REMOVED: [But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands,]*
Act 28:29 REMOVED: [When he had spoken these words, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves.]
Rom 16:24 REMOVED: [The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.]
1 Jhn 5:7 says, For there are three that testify: (Note: This taken from verse 8, this was no doubt done to make it look like there is no empty verse here - which implies deception on their part) REMOVED: [For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.]
Matt 17:21 REMOVED: ["But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."]
Matt 18:11 REMOVED: ["For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.]
Mrk 7:16 REMOVED: ["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."]
Mrk 9:44 REMOVED: [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]
Mrk 9:46 REMOVED: [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]
Mrk 11:26 REMOVED: ["But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."]
Mrk 15:28 REMOVED: [And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with transgressors."]
Luke 17:36 REMOVED: ["Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."]
Luke 23:17 REMOVED: [Now he was obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner.]
John 5:4 REMOVED: [...for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.]
Act 8:37 REMOVED: [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]
Act 15:34 REMOVED: [But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.]
Act 24:7 * "REMOVED: [But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands,]*
Act 28:29 REMOVED: [When he had spoken these words, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves.]
Rom 16:24 REMOVED: [The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.]
1 Jhn 5:7 says, For there are three that testify: (Note: This taken from verse 8, this was no doubt done to make it look like there is no empty verse here - which implies deception on their part) REMOVED: [For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.]
There is also footnotes casting doubt on the ending of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery. Note: I can actually prove the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery is a part of the text. There is an OT reference that ties into what Jesus was writing on the ground. So you have the Bible correctors moving part of 1 John 5:8 to 1 John 5:7 to try and hide that there is no missing verse for them to discover it is an attack on the Trinity. Then you have the removal of the story in John 8, which I can clearly demonstrate from Scripture that it is supposed to be there. Then there are all the verses that have missing words or words that are changed to say something else.
-
1
- Show all
The burden of proof is on you to show that you are right with sources that the chart is wrong. In either case, it still does not change the reality of how Easter was just another name for Passover when Tyndale invented the word “Passover.” Just check out the book, “Don’t Passover Easter” by Bryan C. Ross. It is cheap if you get the Kindle version. In either case, I am sure you really don’t care. Your goal is to attack the faith of those who believe in the King James Bible. That is your goal. Just know that if you succeed, it could lead to destroying the faith of some in the process. I know that if I was convinced by the Textual Critics of an error in the Bible, I would no longer have any faith in what God says. How could I? If He cannot get His Word correctly to me, how could I trust what was true or false? I would have to become the authority or a scholar would have to become the authority then. I believe God’s Word is perfect and incorruptible because that is what the Bible says about itself. Nothing is said that this applies only to the originals. Jesus said His words will not pass away. But in Textual Criticism, they are still trying to piece together His Word. They don’t have the perfect set of God’s words.
Actually, they were supposed to go by the Bishop’s Bible and if any words needed to be updated and changed do to more accuracy to what the original language manuscripts say, they would then do so. They would go over a verse sometimes 17 times in different groups and one group would review the other’s work. There were men on the team who knew the original languages intimately (Unlike most scholars today).
-
2
- Show all
This is actually infallible proof that translation can be inspired the same way it was directly written by the prophets or Apostles themselves. What really lacks is faith in God’s promises he would preserve his words in a way to produces the same sense as the originals. If an all-powerful God cannot do the same as he guides those original penmen, then surely, we can question his power and nature. This is about the logic of faith. The translation carries the inspiration. So, when God guided those translators of the KJb they produced pure words of God. Yes, the inspiration is carried by perfect translation from the copies of the originals.
The translator of the KJB professes, that the scripture is perfect and pure and needs such translation to understand. The translators of the KJB do not deny previous translations set forth by men of our faith are God’s word however, they needed to be purified thus the task of a new translation. The translators were then experts in Biblical languages but it wasn’t their ability to arm them but rather have prayed for understanding. So humble that these translators would still seek the guidance of the Lord so that we can say it is the Holy Spirit guiding these translators to translate it to become the pure words of God.
The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect,… Finally, the Word of God is a fountain of pure water springing up unto everlasting life… it is necessary to have translations for the people to use. ..Therefore such translators were selected who were experts in the Hebrew and Greek tongues. And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpeness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting: they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord: “O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them… to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer…”
Translators to the Readers
The translator of the KJB professes, that the scripture is perfect and pure and needs such translation to understand. The translators of the KJB do not deny previous translations set forth by men of our faith are God’s word however, they needed to be purified thus the task of a new translation. The translators were then experts in Biblical languages but it wasn’t their ability to arm them but rather have prayed for understanding. So humble that these translators would still seek the guidance of the Lord so that we can say it is the Holy Spirit guiding these translators to translate it to become the pure words of God.
The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect,… Finally, the Word of God is a fountain of pure water springing up unto everlasting life… it is necessary to have translations for the people to use. ..Therefore such translators were selected who were experts in the Hebrew and Greek tongues. And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpeness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting: they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord: “O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them… to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer…”
Translators to the Readers
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The evidence you presented argued against the conclusion that you're trying to argue for. You showed evidence for a separate word or expression for Easter and for Passover in each of those languages.
Everyone who speaks English reasonably well knows that Passover and Easter are not even the same day in the English language.
Don't commit the etymological fallacy and act as if the origin of the word is the same thing as its definition in the language now.
and based on what you have said on the book I did not see how it is relevant to the assumption that some translation in just one language has to be perfect for God's word to be preserved. just like other translations the KJV was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek. God's word existed just fine before the KJV was translated and exist just fine afterwards. Hebrew and Greek manuscript lines did not instantly disappear just because King James had a group of people translate the Bible again.
Our faith should be in God and in the word of God and not in man-made doctrines developed in the past few hundred years.
Everyone who speaks English reasonably well knows that Passover and Easter are not even the same day in the English language.
Don't commit the etymological fallacy and act as if the origin of the word is the same thing as its definition in the language now.
and based on what you have said on the book I did not see how it is relevant to the assumption that some translation in just one language has to be perfect for God's word to be preserved. just like other translations the KJV was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek. God's word existed just fine before the KJV was translated and exist just fine afterwards. Hebrew and Greek manuscript lines did not instantly disappear just because King James had a group of people translate the Bible again.
Our faith should be in God and in the word of God and not in man-made doctrines developed in the past few hundred years.
-
1
- Show all
That sounds like a good process, but it does not sound like evidence in favor of the idea that these men were inspired to translate the scriptures like the apostles were to write them.
the tradition about the LXX, the Septuagint, was that 70 elders working independently each translated exactly the same and that is more of a compelling argument.
-
1
- Show all
Really? Are you not aware that the LXX is a CORRUPT Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh? The King James translators said so in their Preface, and many others who came later have also pointed this out:
"Yea, Epiphanius above named doth attribute so much unto it [i.e. the LXX], that he holdeth the Authors thereof not only for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect; and Justinian the Emperor enjoining the Jews his subjects to use especially the Translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened with prophetical grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament."
Adding and omitting from Scripture -- as done by the 70 -- is simply corrupting the Bible and God has forbidden it. And furthermore adding all the Apocryphal books to this translation in itself is MAJOR corruption. According to the Lord Jesus Christ there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh -- The Law of Moses (5 books), the Prophets (8 books), and the Psalms (11 books).
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses, and [2] in the Prophets, and [3] in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:44,45) [Note: "The Psalms" is named for the first book in that grouping, which is also called "the Writings"]
So any claims about the "excellency" of the Septuagint are bogus.
"Yea, Epiphanius above named doth attribute so much unto it [i.e. the LXX], that he holdeth the Authors thereof not only for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect; and Justinian the Emperor enjoining the Jews his subjects to use especially the Translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened with prophetical grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament."
Adding and omitting from Scripture -- as done by the 70 -- is simply corrupting the Bible and God has forbidden it. And furthermore adding all the Apocryphal books to this translation in itself is MAJOR corruption. According to the Lord Jesus Christ there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh -- The Law of Moses (5 books), the Prophets (8 books), and the Psalms (11 books).
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses, and [2] in the Prophets, and [3] in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:44,45) [Note: "The Psalms" is named for the first book in that grouping, which is also called "the Writings"]
So any claims about the "excellency" of the Septuagint are bogus.
Again, what you are saying may or not be true. But I don't believe the understanding of...all scripture is given by the inspiration of God...means transistors are under inspiration. I believe it means those who originally penned scripture were under inspiration. I do believe those who quoted the OT in other languages did so under inspiration, making the translation being done by the Holy Spirit. I don't believe translations made by others not also writing scripture at the same time were or are under inspiration.
At the same time, I don't say that God hasn't preserved His word. I believe He has. Nor do I believe God didn't inspire some translators. I simply don't believe the Bible makes such a claim. And it's not because I don't understand the arguments that have been put forth. It's because I disagree with the underlying premise of what some say certain scriptures mean and the evidence that exists that shows error.
At the same time, I don't say that God hasn't preserved His word. I believe He has. Nor do I believe God didn't inspire some translators. I simply don't believe the Bible makes such a claim. And it's not because I don't understand the arguments that have been put forth. It's because I disagree with the underlying premise of what some say certain scriptures mean and the evidence that exists that shows error.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I am in no way a KJVO however,
There are no errors in the word of God. There are what is known as Copiest. Discrepancies but no errors.
The KJV is next to the NIV pre1984, NASB, and other moderate translations like reading the same. Yet the KJ is a version.
I would choose the KJV over those Liberal translations any day or progressive translation.
"
Progressive Christianity is a postliberal theological movement within Christianity that, in the words of Reverend Roger Wolsey, "seeks to reform the faith via the insights of post-modernism and a reclaiming of the truth beyond the verifiable historicity and factuality of the passages in the Bible by affirming the truths within the stories that may not have actually happened."
The idea is that one attacks the KJV yet does not provide anything that completely removes the effective work of the word of God seen in the KJV.
Yet the same criticism, when applied to other translations, has similar or the same copiest discrepancies.
Does the KJV do the following:
What is the issue with the KJV?
The KJV records Jesus as the Only way, the only Truth, and the only Life.
The KJV is very clear on who Christ is and our need for salvation through Him alone.
Please show me one translation. that doesn't show those same truths and is worth being called the bible?
The foundational truth of the Word of God is plainly seen in the KJV and there are in others.
I am always concerned when those who speak weaken a translation based on liberal methods. That is how we ended up with postmodernism and progressive mindsets.
The testimony of the KJV is praise-worthy, and many have come to know Christ as Lord and Savior from studying the word of God using the KJV. The idea of "errors" claimed by some liberal theologians shows no humility or reverence for the word of God.
God has placed His word above his name and is able to Keep it. God allowed the Hebrew and Greek languages to become dead to make them alive again so will could see it in every language the word of GOD.
The KJV
The NKJV
The NIV pre-1984
NLT
NASB
I use it all with prayer and study. I don't listen to a bunch of YouTube Guru's or self-professing theologians.
FYI, Peter and Paul disagreed, yet they were one on Christ. That is textual Criticism we must ask in all Texts and translations.
Where do they stand on the Person of Christ? Not to
"strain at a gnat but swallow a camel."
There are no errors in the word of God. There are what is known as Copiest. Discrepancies but no errors.
The KJV is next to the NIV pre1984, NASB, and other moderate translations like reading the same. Yet the KJ is a version.
I would choose the KJV over those Liberal translations any day or progressive translation.
"
Progressive Christianity is a postliberal theological movement within Christianity that, in the words of Reverend Roger Wolsey, "seeks to reform the faith via the insights of post-modernism and a reclaiming of the truth beyond the verifiable historicity and factuality of the passages in the Bible by affirming the truths within the stories that may not have actually happened."
The idea is that one attacks the KJV yet does not provide anything that completely removes the effective work of the word of God seen in the KJV.
Yet the same criticism, when applied to other translations, has similar or the same copiest discrepancies.
Does the KJV do the following:
- The fall of man? Yes,
- the plan to redeem man back to God? Yes
- Show Jesus as Lord and Savior? Yes
- The work of the Cross? Yes
- Death, Burial, and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? Yes
- The mission of the church? Yes
- The return of the Lord? Yes
What is the issue with the KJV?
The KJV records Jesus as the Only way, the only Truth, and the only Life.
The KJV is very clear on who Christ is and our need for salvation through Him alone.
Please show me one translation. that doesn't show those same truths and is worth being called the bible?
The foundational truth of the Word of God is plainly seen in the KJV and there are in others.
I am always concerned when those who speak weaken a translation based on liberal methods. That is how we ended up with postmodernism and progressive mindsets.
The testimony of the KJV is praise-worthy, and many have come to know Christ as Lord and Savior from studying the word of God using the KJV. The idea of "errors" claimed by some liberal theologians shows no humility or reverence for the word of God.
God has placed His word above his name and is able to Keep it. God allowed the Hebrew and Greek languages to become dead to make them alive again so will could see it in every language the word of GOD.
The KJV
The NKJV
The NIV pre-1984
NLT
NASB
I use it all with prayer and study. I don't listen to a bunch of YouTube Guru's or self-professing theologians.
FYI, Peter and Paul disagreed, yet they were one on Christ. That is textual Criticism we must ask in all Texts and translations.
Where do they stand on the Person of Christ? Not to
"strain at a gnat but swallow a camel."
Ok, thank you, seems to me there are differences between certainty and uncertainty but I choose to believe that "We have also a more sure word...".
2 Peter 1:19
King James Version
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2 Peter 1:19
King James Version
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
-
1
- Show all
Yes, they are all very similar. But actually it was the Bishops Bible which was recommended. However (as you will note in the original Preface -- The Translators to the Reader) the KJV was a fresh translation out of the Hebrew and Greek, and with all versions compared. This is what was printed in the original KJV (in current English): "The Holy Bible containing the Old Testament and the New: Newly translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised..."
And they consulted all available sources. There is more of Tyndale in the KJV but even so they did not rely on any one translation. They even consulted the various printed Greek texts, and while their primary text was that of Stephanus, they also resorted to other texts. Thus Scrivener's Textus Receptus shows slight variations from Stephanus.
"Neither did we think much [it unnecessary] to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."
And they consulted all available sources. There is more of Tyndale in the KJV but even so they did not rely on any one translation. They even consulted the various printed Greek texts, and while their primary text was that of Stephanus, they also resorted to other texts. Thus Scrivener's Textus Receptus shows slight variations from Stephanus.
"Neither did we think much [it unnecessary] to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."
I wasn't endorsing the old tradition about the LXX. I am more than a little skeptical of it. But at least they had a better story, a more rational reasoning for thinking the LXX was inspired, than KJV-onlyists do. I haven't heard KJV-onlyists argue for such a miracle regarding their translation.
My understanding is that the 70 were supposed to have translated the Pentateuch, but other scriptures came to be referred to as Septuaging as well. Your example is from Isaiah.
The apostles quoted from the LXX, but not always, and sometimes they went with scriptures that are in the LXX, but not in the Masoretic text, to make a point. And there are scriptures in the LXX that align with the Samaritan manuscripts but not the Masoretic texts.
When did Christ point out the number of books?
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses, and [2] in the Prophets, and [3] in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:44,45) [Note: "The Psalms" is named for the first book in that grouping, which is also called "the Writings"] [/quote]
I've read what are called 'the Writings' now were categorized under 'Prophets' then,, but Jesus does not comment on the Apocrypha here, or say it is excluded from the prophets, or that there are no other books besides those three groups of bookings, or count out the number of books in this passage.
The 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha so you should consider your own comment in light of that.
My understanding is that the 70 were supposed to have translated the Pentateuch, but other scriptures came to be referred to as Septuaging as well. Your example is from Isaiah.
The apostles quoted from the LXX, but not always, and sometimes they went with scriptures that are in the LXX, but not in the Masoretic text, to make a point. And there are scriptures in the LXX that align with the Samaritan manuscripts but not the Masoretic texts.
When did Christ point out the number of books?
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses, and [2] in the Prophets, and [3] in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:44,45) [Note: "The Psalms" is named for the first book in that grouping, which is also called "the Writings"] [/quote]
I've read what are called 'the Writings' now were categorized under 'Prophets' then,, but Jesus does not comment on the Apocrypha here, or say it is excluded from the prophets, or that there are no other books besides those three groups of bookings, or count out the number of books in this passage.
The 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha so you should consider your own comment in light of that.
From Cross examined:
1 John 5:71
The KJV reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” The ESV reads, “For there are three that testify.” KJV Only proponents believe the absence of this clear Trinitarian reference in modern translations is a weakness. The problem is that the words “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” are most certainly not original to John.
When Erasmus made his Greek text in 1516, he left out this phrase which is now dubbed the “Johannine comma.” This omission upset many because the Latin Vulgate contained it. Again, people get upset when changes are made to their precious Bible translations. Erasmus left out the phrase because he couldn’t find it in a single Greek manuscript. Erasmus took heat for trying to be as accurate as possible. He even promised that if he found it in a single Greek manuscript, he would include it in a later edition.
It just so “happened” that a Greek manuscript was produced that contained the phrase. Hardly anyone disputes that this manuscript was created by one of Erasmus’ contemporaries. And being true to his word, Erasmus included the phrase in his third edition in 1522. That said, no manuscript before the sixteenth century contains this phrase. For this reason, modern translations leave it out.
1 John 5:71
The KJV reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” The ESV reads, “For there are three that testify.” KJV Only proponents believe the absence of this clear Trinitarian reference in modern translations is a weakness. The problem is that the words “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” are most certainly not original to John.
When Erasmus made his Greek text in 1516, he left out this phrase which is now dubbed the “Johannine comma.” This omission upset many because the Latin Vulgate contained it. Again, people get upset when changes are made to their precious Bible translations. Erasmus left out the phrase because he couldn’t find it in a single Greek manuscript. Erasmus took heat for trying to be as accurate as possible. He even promised that if he found it in a single Greek manuscript, he would include it in a later edition.
It just so “happened” that a Greek manuscript was produced that contained the phrase. Hardly anyone disputes that this manuscript was created by one of Erasmus’ contemporaries. And being true to his word, Erasmus included the phrase in his third edition in 1522. That said, no manuscript before the sixteenth century contains this phrase. For this reason, modern translations leave it out.
-
1
- Show all