- This topic is empty.
- Posts
If doing his will is prison, what is disobedience to his will? You claim we must be obedient to his word and yet you deny his word. You cannot eat at both tables.
Hi H,
The truth will set you free.
Jesus is the truth.
KJV is one form of the revelation of that truth.The KJV contains errors so how can it be infallible?
If we are to say it is an infallible translation, then we have to accept that 1 John 5:7 is scripture, which it isn't. That is but 1 example perhaps the most serious one.
Also I quote the following from another website. I haven't had time to read it fully myself, but I quote it in order for you to perhaps answer the accusations:
Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:
Genesis 1:2 should read “And the earth became without form . . . .” The word translated “was” is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.
Genesis 10:9 should read ” . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD.” The word “before” is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.
Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is “scapegoat” which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means “one removed or separated.” The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.
Deuteronomy 24:1, “then let him” should be “and he.” As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
II Kings 2:23, should be “young men”, not “little children.”
Isaiah 65:17 should be “I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . .”
Ezekiel 20:25 should read “Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.
Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes “evening morning” for “days.” Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.
Malachi 4:6 should read ” . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction.” “Curse” doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.
Matthew 5:48 should be “Become ye therefore perfect” rather than “be ye therefore perfect.” “Perfect” here means “spiritually mature.” Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say “there should no flesh be saved alive.”
Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: “And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood.” The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.
Matthew 28:1, “In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . .” should be translated literally, “Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . .” The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.
Luke 2:14 should say, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing.” That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.
Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as “hate”, when it should be rendered “love less by comparison.” We are not to hate our parents and family!
John 1:31, 33 should say “baptize” or “baptizing IN water” not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.
John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. “By” should be “through”: “For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . .” Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.
John 13:2 should be “And during supper” (RSV) rather than “And supper being ended” (KJV).
Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word “Easter” which should be rendered “Passover.” The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.
I Corinthians 1:18 should be: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God”, rather than “perish” and “are saved.” Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be “are perishing” rather than “perish.”
I Corinthians 15:29 should be: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?”
II Corinthians 6:2 should be “a day of salvation”, instead of “the day of salvation.” This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.
I Timothy 4:8 should say, “For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . .”
I Timothy 6:10 should be, “For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . .”
Hebrews 4:8 should be “Joshua” rather than “Jesus”, although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.
Hebrews 4:9 should read, “There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God.”
Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation.”
I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.
Revelation 14:4 should be “a firstfruits”, because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.
Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence “This is the first resurrection.” in verse five refers back to “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” in verse four.
Revelation 20:10, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.
Revelation 22:2 should be “health” rather than “healing.”
Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong
No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.
In Psalms 81:4, “was” is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.
We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized “are” is incorrect and that “were cast” in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), “I am he.” The “he” is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely
obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great “I AM” of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words “the son” are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.
Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words “it were”. It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!
Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words “to be.” The fact is, Christians are now saints.
I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God.”
Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word “is” in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.
I Timothy 3:11 has “their” in italics, which is not implied in the original.
II Peter 2:5 should not have “person, a.” Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.
I John 2:23 has “[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.
Punctuation Problems
Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The comma should not be after “thee”, but “day.” The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.
Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between “risen” and “early” and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . .” Thus, it should say, “Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . .”
Italics. Give me a break. I am speaking of the doctrine of Christ. Show me the great words of knowledge given you from your bible. Show me your understanding and the depth of your understanding given you by the unction of the Holy Spirit. You want to argue translation. Yet, you cannot stand against the word itself.
Put it this way. I have a bible that is was put into print about the mid 1800's. And that is what is says.
Not sure what you mean heiscomingintheclouds.
My question was regarding 1 John 5:7. Is it scripture or not.
Yes/No.Proponents of the KJV as an acid test often say “does your bible have '1 John 5:7'”. If the hearer uses another translation, they realise that it is not included. The argument made is that the other translations are corrupted and that is why they do not include it.
However the complete opposite is true. The verse is a known addition and the reason for it not being included in other translations. So here is one example of the KJV in error and where other translations are more accurate.
So much for the perfect bible. This particular verse is called 'The Comma Johanneum'. You can read all about it by Googling it.
Wikipedia has some info on it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_JohanneumThe question is, how does a dodgy verse that was fraudulently introduced to bolster the Trinity doctrine become part of the perfect bible?
GOD SAID “there is one God the Father.
MAN SAID: God is triune and 1 John 5:7 is scripture.
Now you have THE RECORD.
References:
King James Bible
Other translationsIt is your opinion t8. You do not understand the scripture evidently, so you consider it bogus. Is it in your bible?
Did you know there are 3 baptisms in the bible. Did you know there are 3 heavens in the bible. Everything has it's place and reason. People take parts of scripture and try to understand it. The bible, to understand it, must have all the evidence gathered. In other words, you have to start from the beginning to the end and collect everything that may pertain to a subject if you want to get the complete understanding of it. It is like unsolving a mystery. You have to gather all the evidence to come to the right conclusion. What I am trying to tell you is that scripture does belong in the bible. I sure do not believe in the trinity. There is too much biblical proof in the KJ to debunk the trinity doctrine.
The first published Greek NT was edited in 1516 by Catholic priest, scholar, and humanist Erasmus in 1516. This edition did not include the disputed words. A revised edition in 1519 also did not include these words. Erasmus was severely criticised by other Catholic priests for not including in Greek these words which were well-known to them from the Latin. Erasmus said that the words were left out simply because he did not find them in any of the Greek manuscripts he had examined, and promised to insert them if they were found in even one Greek manuscript.
An Irish monk deliberately fabricated such a manuscript to meet Erasmus' requirement. This manuscript (no. 61) was copied from an early manuscript which did not contain the words. The page in this manuscript containing the disputed words is on a special paper and has a glossy finish, unlike any other page in the manuscript. On the basis of this one 16th century deliberately falsified manuscript, Erasmus inserted the disputed words in his 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the Greek NT, though he protested that he did not believe the words were genuine.
Nearly all printed Greek NTs from Erasmus until the 19th century were simply reprints of Erasmus' 4th or 5th edition, and so the words continued to be printed in Greek as part of I John even though there is no sufficient evidence for their inclusion. Recent editions of the Greek NT follow the manuscript evidence and therefore do not insert the words.
The earliest English New Testament, the translation of Wycliffe in the 1380s, was made from medieval Latin manuscripts, and so it includes the disputed words, though it reads “son” instead of “word.” Tyndale's translation of 1525 was based on Erasmus' 3rd edition and so it included the words. In the 2nd and 3rd editions of his translation, Tyndale placed the disputed words in parentheses to show that their genuineness was doubtful. Several editions of the NT edited by Tyndale's assistant Miles Coverdale also placed the disputed words in parentheses or smaller type or both to show that they were disputed. Jugge's 1552 edition of Tyndale's NT omitted the parentheses and printed the words in standard type, a practice followed in later English Bibles, including the KJV (based on Beza's 1598 Greek NT, a virtual reprint of Erasmus' 4th edition). Recent conservative translations of the NT (ASV, NASB, NIV) delete the disputed words entirely or put them in a footnote because the evidence is conclusive that they were not an original part of John's letter. [Verse numbers were not added until 1551 in a Greek NT based on Erasmus' 4th edition]
Bro, the translators used over 5000 hand written Holy writs and if it a verse was not in the majority, it was not included. Why do you believe this? The greek used in modern translations for one thing is not even the greek that was used for the KJ. The greek used in the modern translations was much later then that of the KJ. Thus making them inadequate.
Because it doesn't gel with your so-called revelation, you therefore conclude that it cannot be true from your understanding.
You should at least be open enough to truth outside your limited experience and provide something to rebuff this accusation regarding that verse. Otherwise your judgement in this case is worthless. It is better to remain silent when you do not have the answer.
The Comma does not appear until the third edition of Erasmus translation, published in 1522. Its absence in the first two editions provoked considerable animosity, chiefly led by Lopez de Zuniga (also written Stunica) who had been one of the Complutensian editors. Erasmus replied that the Comma did not occur in any of the Greek manuscripts he could find; he eventually compromised with his critics, saying that he would add the Comma to future editions if it appeared in a Greek manuscript.
Such a manuscript was subsequently discovered. Today called “Codex 61”. Erasmus added the Comma to his 1522 edition, with a note indicating that he doubted its authenticity. It was this third edition which became a chief source for the King James Version, thereby fixing the Comma firmly in the English-language scriptures for centuries.
Textus Receptus or Received Text generally refers to one of Erasmus's later editions or one of the works derived from them. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, a largely Protestant reference published in 1914, comments:
The textus receptus, slavishly followed, with slight diversities, in hundreds of editions, and substantially represented in all the principal modern Protestant translations prior to the nineteenth century, thus resolves itself essentially into that of the last edition of Erasmus, framed from a few modern and inferior manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot, in the infancy of Biblical criticism. In more than twenty places its reading is supported by the authority of no known Greek manuscript.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
