Answer to your questions....

Now, I warn you, with all humbleness, do not misquote my answer above. I was answering your specific question.

I am NOT saying the KJV is NOT the Word of God, this has never been the issue.

I just do not want my answer pulled out of context.

 

The following is what Bruce Metzger writes on 1 John 5:7,8. (Metzger is one of the editors of some of the Greek Texts published by the United Bible Societies).

I have transliterated the Greek words though.

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, Second Edition,pages 647-649


1 John 5:7,8
After marturountes the Textus Receptus adds the following: en tw ouranw Pathr, ho logos kai houtoi oi treis hen eisi (8)kai treis eisin oi marturountes en th gh. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation 'from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. T'he eight manuscripts are as follows:
61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88v,r : a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221v,r : a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429v,r : a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbiittel.636v,r : a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918 : a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318 : an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clem- entine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trini- tarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541-46] and codex'Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 7161) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three, witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of I John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the Passage makes an awkward break in the sense.

For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on I John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament[/], pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "I.John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible" in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1988), pp.458-463.

 

Michelle:Again, I can't believe you continue to bring up things that you have not proven. Your position and understanding regarding this, makes you add to the scriptures, by the assumption that Jesus Christ was reading from a different version, which is nowhere indicated in the scriptures, or history for that matter. It is pure subjection/assumption, and therefore does not prove anything.[/i]

With all due respect, M'am, the plain, undeniable proof is right there in the very words of the King James Bible, in every copy I own. All one need do is read the verses we've mentioned. it takes no special knowledge to see the differences in the verses named in Isaiah from the verses of Isaiah that Luke says Jesus read aloud. Given those differences, there are only so many possibilities. They are:

1.) Jesus read from a different version of Isaiah than the one translated into the OT of the KJV.

2.) Jesus couldn't read very well, or He skipped a few words.

3.) Jesus didn't really read aloud, but simply paraphrased the verse from memory, and Luke was wrong in indicating He READ them.

4.) Luke was altogether wrong.

The differences 'tween Luke and Isaiah are undeniable. There can be only so many explanations for those differences, and the OBVIOUS one is that jesus read from another version.

Believing this makes you add to what is plainly given in the scriptures, and rely upon assumptions, over that of what the plain scriptures tell us. You and others have NOT PROVEN ANYTHING.

What have we added to Scripture? All we've done is remind you of what's actually written in those Scriptures. Just because you don't like the proof doesn't mean it isn't so.

Secondly, I do not believe that that God's words of truth are only in one version. I believe God's word of truth are preserved as he promised, and that the modern versions do not represent all of God's pure and perfectly preserved words of truth, but the KJV does, in the english language.

Oh, so you're finally coming around to face the fact that KJVOism is false? GREAT!

But you simply CANNOT PROVE your assertion about the KJV.

 

The same thing. So has the book of Islam, that does not make it correct.

We do believe that our religion is based on the Scriptures, the KJV is the Word of GOD, no doubt, so looking in the scriptures, where does it say that it will be preserved specifically in English? WHat if it is preserved in the Catholic translations (Vulgate) == used for hundreds of years (probably longer than the KJV---historians help me here, was it used longer than the KJV?

 

This is going to turn into either a straw-man or circular logic. If I am a missionary and I win ten people on a desert island to Christ. I can speak their dialect because I have lived with them. I'm an American who went to be a missionary. Now, where is God's word for these ten individuals that I led to the Lord, with no Bible in their language?

Do you think all Bibles being translated into other languages are translated from the KJV or from its original manuscripts? Hardly.

 

To understand what I am about to write you must have at least studied a little bit of another language. No translation can perfectly translate another language. So many things are different. The understanding of a particular word in a given culture is often different than a direct translation of that word in another culture.

Sometime ask a Spanish speaker to translate Como estas? and Como esta? They translate exactly the same but have very different meanings. Ask a child what it would mean if he asked his dad Como estas. He might get a reprimand or some looks of disresepect. We do not show that same distinction in those words as a Spanish speaker would.

 

Good post robycop3. I like your list of reasons. It explains the point we have been trying to get across very well.

 

If you have viewed a lot of old documents, especially ones claiming to be prophecy, statements similar to this can be found often.

This was a form of early "copyright". Remember, in the Early Church the indivual books were passed around for many years before the canon was complete. John is referring specifically to WHAT HE WROTE. By adding this notation, his attempt to keep this "copied" correctly without change is a notice to scribes to not "add" or "subtract" to the information provided in the book.

When things are translated from one language to the other, individual words WILL change, but the "WORD" (message) does not change, there is a difference.

Many people like to think this relates to the whole Bible. This was simply a notice that if you are going to copy this book, do not add revelations of your own, or subtract revelations contained therein. As can be seen by the many manuscripts, many differently worded copies have arrived to present day (and to 1611). It is the job of translators and scholars to try to locate the manuscripts that are closest to the originals. This was inspired by God, but notice when God inspired scripture He did NOT take away the personality of the man writing the scripture. For example, as I mentioned earlier. Paul has a certain way that he wrote letters, God did not change his method, style or wording. He even allowed certain run-on sentences and sentences of poor grammer to be included. Every book in the Bible contains God's revelation to the man who wrote it, but He also allowed individuality of the writer to be maintained.

Another example, it is obvious that Luke was a Doctor based on his writings. He like to describe things from an early doctor's point of view. God did not have a problem with this, but God allowed this individuality of each author to be contained in His Word. The Holy Spirit worked THROUGH the writer to put the message, THE "WORD", down on paper, allowing the author freedom of his own dielect and personal preferences in writing. This does not make it any less the "WORD" of God. Even when translated to anther language which includes the necessity of changing words and phrases to put forth the same message of the original author.

 

Michelle, these sort of things have happened since missionaries have hit the fields. It is a made-up scenario only to the extent that my numeral examples may be wrong. This is a real-world scenerio which has happened often.

Michelle, If what you believe is true, then WHAT was the Word of God from 1500 to 1600 in English?

This is a long period (100 years--a century) since God provided the Bible in English to His people, then historically, WHAT WAS that specific Bible? The Bishop's Bible, The Geneva, others?

 

Okay, here is an example of circular reasoning. You have come in a full circle and now you are saying it is the "context or understanding of the meaning" not the specific "words, commas and periods" If this is the case, you have just said what we have been trying to say all along with other translations. As long as meaning and doctrine is preserved, God's Word is preserved.

 

I edited down to the point I want to make. It seems that answers are so general and do not get specific. So, I will answer one point at a time.
Or ask......

So, How do you go about "Proving all things" Michelle? Let us move back to "How do you go about proving the KJV is the ONLY Word of God in English.

You did NOT answer my question about the Vulgate (or at least I haven't seen a reply yet, they are coming in so fast.)

Answer just this question and we will deal with it: WHAT WAS THE CORRECT BIBLE FROM 1500-1600 in ENGLISH?

 

It doesn't assume anything about God's power. GOd could Speak a Word and a true 100% inerrant Bible, down to the periods and commas could appear in everyones hand on earth. But that is not what he chose to do.

Do you really think that all of these translations going out today for unreached people groups (Christians) are coming from the KJV or its original documents?