BELIEFS ABOUT THE KJV

Yea, I like Chris Pinto and David Daniels, overall, the 4th century may well have been turned into a 15th ce manuscript based on the style, ornament, etc used in the seeming 4th ce mss. I heard recently that even the LXX is found to be faked based on paleographic evidence. Yes I have yet to see the full video series and thanks for the link.

Absolutely! Debunked many times.

(16) 1 John 5:7–8
Main article: Johannine Comma
KJV: 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, ...

This verse first appears, not in a New Testament manuscript, [[((but in a fifth century Confession of Faith))]], (because of the lack of Greek documentary support) omitted from the first two "Textus Receptus" printed editions of the New Testament (namely those edited by [[((Erasmus))]], 1516 and 1519).



the textus receptus and the kjv Bible are using a Catholic Confession Recital for 1 John 5:7-8 that was [[((never never never never never))]] the Inspired Word of God but a Catholic Confessional Recital chant!!

Are you kidding me and you call the KJV Inspired of God???????

more like inspired by the Roman Catholic Demonic Church!!

While I mostly agree with this post, I have found that sometimes the experts do not agree.
I use several Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and there are times that they do not fully agree.
Education is great. If I had had the opportunity to learn Greek and Hebrew I would have, but when a person demands I believe him just because he is more educated than me, I tend to be suspect.
While I prefer the KJV, I am not foolish enough to believe it is a perfect translation, or that God inspired the translation.

More SILLY anti-KJV propaganda. No one should be intimidated by nonsense.

PART I
The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory, ©2000, used with permission.
1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One"
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." —1Jo 5:7

The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. [1] However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. [2] It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine.

The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original.

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:
Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." [4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:
Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." [6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.

I would love to hear your reasoning for why Candlestick is accurate when Candlesticks were not invented yet and the Greek word is one used for lamp fed lamps not wax candlesticks.

I don't know what you have said about this in the past. It's not a myth or lie so debunking might be the wrong word. You will need to present your hermeneutics or reasoning as to why the Greek word should be translated as candlestick.

PART II
The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. [9]

While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.

[1] The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report.
[2] Kurt Aland, in connection with Annette Benduhn-Mertz and Gerd Mink, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166.
[3] Prologue To The Canonical Epistles. The Latin text reads, "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur."
[4] Treatises 1 5:423.
[5] Liber Apologeticus.
[6] Varimadum 90:20-21.
[7] Some other sources include the Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD). Interestingly, it is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.
[8] Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit.
[9] Actually the 1 John commentary is the work of "Mr. John Reynolds of Shrewsbury," one of the ministers who completed Matthew Henry's commentary, which was left incomplete [only up to the end of Acts] at Henry's death in 1714.

This was going to be my point!

First, the best Bible that anyone can use is the one they read, understand and obey. I've never studied Early Modern English. I've never conjugated 2nd person singular. In English. I use the two forms of you in Greek, Spanish, German, Greek and Ukrainian. I know what the endings/exceptions are for tu & vous are (French); du and Sie (German), and all the other languages I have studied and speak. I will even agree that having a singular "you" can be very helpful. But, we do NOT have this word in English anymore! We have not learned the grammar for the verbs that go with it. That is a huge barrier for me.

I have 2 years Seminary Greek, studied under Bill Mounce. His dad was also a Greek scholar, and he was learning Greek at 4! He was a brilliant man, excellent teacher, and really found a systematic & easy way to teach Greek. I also read my Greek NT daily, and I read current books and literature in the formation of the Bible. I have a year of Seminary Hebrew. I've lost my Hebrew, because I just don't have enough time to review 3 or 4 languages daily. I also read Martin Luther's updated translation. German is very similar grammatically to Koine Greek. It makes it a lot easier both to translate and read. None of the convoluted twisting that has to be done with every translations to Rnglish, including the KJV.

I use BDAG (Bauer) for a lexicon, and an excellent short logistical book by Rogers Jr & Rogers III. It was recommended by the Greek prof at my seminary, I have other tools, and lots of commentaries, including from the Greek NT. Great depth in those! There is no point in comparing translations. You really need the word in the original language, where else it is found in the Bible, and contemporaneous sources. Like a bill of sale in the first century. Or a love letter to mistress. (A wife?)

Because I have read the Bible so many times, I have read many translations. I read the NASB (an older version!) for 25 years. It got so wooden and stiff. I started reading other translations, that were less wooden, like the HCSB. I even read most of the Message, and the Living Bible, which had some major translational errors, which affected doctrine. Then I read ESV a few times, felt trapped in that wooden mess! My prof was on the translation committee for ESV. They were told it was to be, "a fresh, new look at the Bible!" When they got to the Lord's Prayer in Matt 6, they were told they didn't want it too free, and to follow the traditions of the KJV.

So I heard about the NET, and started reading it on my next read through. What attracted me, was the 66,000 footnotes. Plus they use the original letters for Hebrew and Greek, but also transliterate the words into the English alphabet. Loads of references, too! There were others too! But the only Bible I have not been able to get through is the KJV, because of the archaic & obsolete words and different grammar. I used the KJV as a child in Sunday school, memorized many verses. When God saved me, I remembered John 3:16! It didn't matter what language it was in!

Anyeay, neither the KJV nor any other English translation is perfect, or inspired, like the original manuscripts. Find a translation that speaks to you, and read it! They only thing I disapprove of, is people who insist that their translation is perfect, inspired and the only real Bible. If you like the KJV, and you use it very regularly, then great! Just don't tell me that your version is better than my Koine Greek NT! It simply is a lie, and I don't understand how godly men & woman, can lie, or accept such illogical support for the KJV being the only real Bible.

I would love to hear your reasoning for why Candlestick is accurate when Candlesticks were not invented yet and the Greek word is one used for lamp fed lamps not wax candlesticks.

I don't know what you have said about this in the past. It's not a myth or lie so debunking might be the wrong word. You will need to present your hermeneutics or reasoning as to why the Greek word should be translated as candlestick.

This only proves a lack of research, De Jonge disproves the claim over Erasmus insertion. The attachment may be a helpful one for your to consider.

It is both ironical and hypocritical that those who support THE MINORITY TEXT (where some things are found only in one or two manuscripts, but touted as outstanding) have the gall to mock the Johannine Comma. Indeed the Critical Text of Westcott & Hort (which continues to this day as the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies text) is based primarily on ONLY TWO CORRUPT GREEK MANUSCRIPTS -- Aleph and B!

You want to follow Roman Catholic Ritual over the true Inspired Word of God then enjoy!

More SILLY anti-KJV propaganda. No one should be intimidated by nonsense.

PART I
The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory, ©2000, used with permission.
1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One"
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." —1Jo 5:7

The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. [1] However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. [2] It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine.

The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original.

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:
Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." [4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:
Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." [6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.

PART II
The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. [9]

While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.

[1] The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report.
[2] Kurt Aland, in connection with Annette Benduhn-Mertz and Gerd Mink, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166.
[3] Prologue To The Canonical Epistles. The Latin text reads, "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur."
[4] Treatises 1 5:423.
[5] Liber Apologeticus.
[6] Varimadum 90:20-21.
[7] Some other sources include the Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD). Interestingly, it is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.
[8] Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit.
[9] Actually the 1 John commentary is the work of "Mr. John Reynolds of Shrewsbury," one of the ministers who completed Matthew Henry's commentary, which was left incomplete [only up to the end of Acts] at Henry's death in 1714.

The issue is not Roman Catholic Ritual which you try to base from. There are far more than that of your reference. Logically speaking, you are going in the wrong direction as if we are following Roman Catholicism. The support may haave come from Latin, but the passage is also supported by other witnesses other than your claim, for the meantime, you should have read the post earlier by Nehemiah and what can you say about that?

I guess also you have never heard of Greek expert today sayng I john 5:7 is ought to be there...

The Catholic Church preserved the Comma in the Clementine Vulgate

NOT FOUND IN THE JEROME VULGATE WHICH IS THE FACTUAL TRANSLATION OF THE ANCIENT GREEK TEXT!