More accurate?

So you're basically saying Jesus died to give us the KJB? Or the Textus Recepticus which has all sorts of inherent problems? Do you really believe that taking a fragmented Byzantine text and translating latin from the vulgate back into miniscule greek is superior to earlier text originally in greek? Or in the eastern Part of the world? Did God progressively improve the translation of the text apart from the autographs (which from this perspective could be erronious) to come to a culmination in the TR used by the KJ translators? Is this your position?

 

"You need to take the TR and and correctly add the deleted words back to the text in the modern day bibles.Better yet its already done in the KJV English."

Uhm no. I instead will accept the critical text reading as
1. It makes sense because it is an accurate quote, add "given" in italics and you would have a perfect quote.
2. The TR clearly adds to the Word and incorrectly.


"The most accurately Greek is the TR in Luke 22:19 "

Nope , both the TR and Alexandrians match word for word.

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 22:19 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)
καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 22:19 Greek NT: Westcott / Hort, UBS4 Variants
καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

 

There you go again putting words in my mouth.Who was burned at the stake among others killed for giving us the Bible in english?

Who was the murderers?

What text is behind the William Tyndale NT?

Hint:TR

Who died giving us the text behind modern day versions?

Who died translating the text behind modern day bibles into english?


Logic man logic.

God bless In Jesus.

Steven.

 

Another logic lesson.

Alexandria comes out of Egypt.

What does Egypt represent in the Bible?

TR comes out of Antioch.

Where were people first called Christians?

Yes Mr spock would think its logical to.


God bless in Jesus.

Steven.

 

yeah, whatever, but does it matter at all that Antioch's associated with the Abomination of the Desolation, Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Antichrist?

why settle for Mr Spock "logic" when the Bible tells us to be honest and not to make up false KJBOist arguments?

 

Well now,we must remember that Christians came out of Antioch first.First come first serve.There is no false KJVOist arguments only true ones.

According to modern day bibles your salvation is a works salvation.Look at 1st Cor 1:18 in your favorite version and see if you are saved or if your being saved.The KJV tells the believer he is saved not being saved.Every modern day version I have checked says the believer is not saved but being saved.

Even the so-called NKJV says being saved.That is mainly the reason many do not accept eternal security because their bibles has that one word of being in it.

Also can God be decieved?

The NASB and HCSB Etc says God can be deceived{Psalm 78:36}

The NKJV atleast gets this one right and the rest says God can be deceived.

If God can`t be deceived then the bibles that says so is a false witness.

God have mercy on these so-called easier to read and so-called older and better manuscripts.

Does God recruit or enlist believers in His service or does God choose them?

The HCSB has Jesus as a recruiter.KJV says they are chosen and thats a big difference.Oh the NKJV has recruiter.{2nd Tim 2:4}

Is salvation difficult?

{Mark 10:24b}how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God.(AV KJB)

HCSB {Mark 10:24} Children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God.

NASB {Mark 10:24b}Children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God.

The NASB {Mark 10:23}says its hard for wealthy people to enter the kingdom of God.

We know well that its trusting in riches other than God is what is meant {I.E.KJV Translation}.The NASB and HCSB will have the babe in Christ scared to death if He is a rich man.

Object of our belief {John 6:47}

KJV...He that believeth on me hath eternal life.

HCSB Anyone who believes.If this verse is read alone in the HCSB the reader will not know what the object of his faith is to be.

Same for the NASB.

NASB He who believes.


{Colossians 1:14}KJV Redemption through his blood.

NASB the blood of Jesus is gone.

HCSB the blood of Jesus is gone.


Did Christ come to save?

{Luke 9:55-56} the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them.(AV-KJB)

HCSB {Luke 9:55-56} But He turned and rebuked them and they went to another villiage.

The HCSB left out Christ came to save lives.

No Calvary in the NASB or HCSB read.

{Luke 23:33}

Thank God for Calvary in the KJV.{Luke 23:33}


My God brethren this small sample should be enough to cause you to wonder is the modern day Bibles really better?

There are many other important,very important words missing in these well trusted bibles.

God have mercy.

In Jesus and God bless you.

Steven.

 

Wouldn't it have been difficult for Wycliffe to use the Textus Receptus in the late 1300s when the TR didn't appear until 1516?

 

Pilgrim, your completely changing the subject.

I am simply trying to tell you that both versions read the same in Luke 22:19. But as for Paul's quote of this in 1 Corinthians 11:24, Neither have the word "given" but the TR adds the word "broken" out of place in the quote.

 

The NASB and HCSB Etc says God can be deceived{Psalm 78:36}

The NKJV atleast gets this one right and the rest says God can be deceived.

If God can`t be deceived then the bibles that says so is a false witness.

The Hebrew word translated in the KJV as "flattered" is only done so this once. It is translated as "deceived" 6 other times. Actually look into this and think about it.

Does God recruit or enlist believers in His service or does God choose them?

The HCSB has Jesus as a recruiter.KJV says they are chosen and thats a big difference.Oh the NKJV has recruiter.{2nd Tim 2:4}

These are called synonyms in English. You leave out the context that this verse compares the believer to a soldier. Either chosen, enlist or recruit is fine given the context of this verse. Your splitting hairs while ignoring the context.

Is salvation difficult?

{Mark 10:24b}how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God.(AV KJB)

HCSB {Mark 10:24} Children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God.

NASB {Mark 10:24b}Children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God.

The NASB {Mark 10:23}says its hard for wealthy people to enter the kingdom of God. <--So does the KJV

The reading is based on Aleph (Sinaiticus) and others

We know well that its trusting in riches other than God is what is meant {I.E.KJV Translation}.The NASB and HCSB will have the babe in Christ scared to death if He is a rich man.

Mar 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
Mar 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
Mar 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

With the exception of the words in question in verse 24, the KJV says the same thing. But you leave this out.

Mar 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

But this is not a new statement by Christ. Our Lord went into detail about this at the Sermon on the Mount. A wealthy man must always remember that God is his Master, not money. But this is another debate. We can talk about this one from a Biblical perspective in a thread in the proper section if you want. Its a good topic.

Object of our belief {John 6:47}

KJV...He that believeth on me hath eternal life.

HCSB Anyone who believes.If this verse is read alone in the HCSB the reader will not know what the object of his faith is to be.

Same for the NASB.

NASB He who believes.


The reading is based on P66, P75 and Sinaiticus.

{Colossians 1:14}KJV Redemption through his blood.

NASB the blood of Jesus is gone.

HCSB the blood of Jesus is gone.

This is a textual decision and if my sources are right, a majority reading. But this seems to be the only place where it is "left out". If there is a conspiracy to remove "the blood" then they did a poor job. They forgot to remove it everywhere else.


The HCSB left out Christ came to save lives.

No Calvary in the NASB or HCSB read.

{Luke 23:33}

Thank God for Calvary in the KJV.{Luke 23:33}


G2898
κρανίον
kranion
kran-ee'-on
Diminutive of a derivative of the base of G2768; a skull (“cranium”): - Calvary, skull.

 

Wrong.

The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these being Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure.



Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament. The first in 1516 was followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther for his historic and earth shaking German translation. His third, fourth, and fifth followed in 1522, 1527 and 1535. Erasmus' work was magnificent and set the standard for centuries (sic) to come.


Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 through 1549, 1550 and lastly 1551.

Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament. Four were published in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. These were printed in folio, meaning a sheet of paper was folded over once, thus producing four separate pages of the book. He also published five octavo editions, these dates being; 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590 and 1604. "Octavo" means that one printed sheet folded in such a way as to produce eight separate pages of the text. Books printed in this manner tended to have a smaller page size than folio works, but sometimes led to the need of a work being printed in two or more volumes. It is Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators.


Some years later, the Elzevir brothers published three editions of the Greek New Testament. The dates being; 1624, 1633 and 1641. They followed closely the work of Beza, who in turn had followed the standard set by Erasmus. In the preface to their edition of 1633 they coined a phrase which was to become so popular as to be retrofitted to texts which preceded it by many years. They stated in Latin "textum ergo babes, nunc ab omnibus receptum,ei "According to the text now held from the volume received,Thus the title "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" was born.

So we see that, even though the name Textus Receptus was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch.


AV-KJB {Acts 11:26b} And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.



Steven.

 

Isaiah 29:13
Then the Lord said,
"Because this people draw near with their words
And honor Me with their lip service,
But they remove their hearts far from Me,
And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,

Isaiah 29:15-16
15 Woe to those who deeply hide their plans from the LORD,
And whose deeds are done in a dark place,
And they say, "Who sees us?" or "Who knows us?"
16 You turn things around!
Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay,
That what is made would say to its maker, "He did not make me";
Or what is formed say to him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?

Yep the NASB really says you can deceive God alright......................

And you completely dodged the rest.

 

Uh- would this be a good place to point out that, in fact, Dr. John Wycliffe, along with his contemporaries John Purvey and Nicholas de Hereford, et al., translated the Bible from the Latin Vulgate, rather than any Greek or Hebrew texts, anywhere.

Also, uh- might this be a good place to note that neither Moses, David, nor any other OT writer ever wrote in Greek, but rather primarily in Hebrew with a small portion in Aramaic?

But what are a few misrepresentations among friends, I guess, especially when one is attempting to 'prove' an opinion?

Ed

 

Strange, the number of individuals who 'invest' especially Erasmus, Paris, and Blaney, when they spoke, with the offices of "holy apostles and prophets", above most all others, including, incidentally, those who actually gave their lives and souls for the Bible, such as Tyndale, Rogers, Wycliffe, and Hus, to name some of the better known.

Ed

 

The comparison should be to the Scriptures in the original languages. It may be claimed that a certain rendering is more accurate than the rendering of another translation, but the authority or standard for that comparison should be the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Here is an example from John 10:16.

In the KJV, two different Greek words are translated "fold" in John 10:16 which removes the distinction between them. A. T. Robertson pointed out the distinction here by Jesus between aule (fold) and poimne (flock) (Word Pictures, V, p. 181). Concerning this verse, J. B. Lightfoot observed: "The point of our Lord's teaching depends mainly on the distinction between the many folds and the one flock" (The Revision, p. 73). William Tyndale kept this difference of meaning between the two Greek words by translating the second Greek word (poimne) as "flock," as it is also translated in Jay Green's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament and Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Arthur Farstad in his Logos 21 Version of the Gospel of John also translated this second Greek word as "flock" (Living Water, p. 37). This difference is also found in the 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible. In their tract entitled “A Corrected English Version Needed for the Heathen,“ Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff asserted that “the learned monarch’s translators rejected this rendering [Tyndale’s] of the original, and adopted one made from the Vulgate Latin, which has ovile fold, for both Greek words“ (p. 2). Bullinger's Lexicon defined poimne as "a flock," and it noted that in the KJV at John 10:16 "it is wrongly rendered 'fold'" (p. 291). At its entry for fold, William Swinton as edited by Baptist T. J. Conant noted that it is “from the Latin Vulgate ovile” and that “the true rendering is flock” (Bible Word-Book, p. 56). The KJV translators themselves translated poimne as "flock" at Matthew 26:31, Luke 2:8, and 1 Corinthians 9:7. A. T. Robertson observed that the Latin Vulgate's use of one Latin word for these two Greek words "confused this distinction" and "helped Roman Catholic assumptions" (Word Pictures, V, p. 181). Marvin Vincent wrote: "It will readily be seen that the incorrect rendering fostered by the carelessness or the mistake of some of the Western fathers, and by the Vulgate, which renders both words by ovile, fold, has been in the interest of Romish claims" (Word Studies, II, p. 194). In the volume on John in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, A. Plummer asserted: “The change from ‘flock’ to ‘fold’ has been all loss, leading to calamitous misunderstanding” (p. 217). Glenn Conjurske maintained: “There are places where the King James Version follows the Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek, as, for example, where it reads ’fold’ instead of ’flock’ in John 10:16” (Olde Paths, July, 1992, p. 154). John Brown wrote: “Sometime a change made from Tyndale was a change decidedly for the worse; as in the case of John 10:16 where ’there shall be one flock’ was altered to ’one fold’” (History, p. 50). J. H. Murray contended that “the sense is perverted by ’one fold’ being given for ’one flock’” (Help, p. 203). Solomon Malan, a defender of the A.V., translated this word at John 10:16 where the KJV has “fold” as “flock” in his English translation of eleven old versions [Syriac, Ethiopic, Sahidic, Memphitic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Arabic, Persian] (Gospel according to John).

 

Well this is a highly ridiculous and error-laden reply. As EdSutton rightly mentioned Moses and David didn't write in Greek, they wrote in Hebrew. And even when they were authoring their books they did so long before the Greek language even existed.

The Septuagint, the Latin version of the Old Testament, wasn't even begun to be created until about 300 BC.

Now as for the suggestion that these other "collectors" influence Wycliffe...you're wrong wrong wrong. None of them are contemporaries of Wylcliffe who published his translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate in 1382. Look at their life dates:
Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536)
Theodore Beza (1519-1605)
Robert Stephanus Estienne (1503-1559)
Abraham Elzevir (1592-1652)
Bonaventure Elzevir (1583-1652)

Now seriously if you want to believe John Wycliffe translated his Bible from Greek feel free to do so in light of the overwhelming evidence (and personal testimony of Wycliffe) that he used Latin as his textual base. I can't change your mind.

I agree with you here except that the Textual Receptus was magnificent. It is okay. In light of the modern textual knowledge we have and the history of the TR we know that he didn't have complete manuscripts to create a complete TR so he fudged and back translated Latin into Greek in several portions.

Okay, but it wasn't the textual basis for Wycliffe. My point was that Wycliffe used LATIN not Greek, or Hebrew, or Aramaic, or Ugarittic, or Sumerian, or any other language.

Okay, what are you inferring that only "Christians" use the King James Version? This is like the ridiculous assertion (that has, thankfully, died off) about Baptists going all the way back to John the Baptist.

 

The abundance in bible translations in christian stores some are different from each other and different from the KJV Bible.Verses are sometimes missing ordeleted or set aside in small print.

The reason for the differences in translations are twofold.First modern translations may simply be translating the same passage differently.

Some may be using the dynamic equivalency method (resulting in a very loose translation)others may be using formal equivalency (resulting in a more literal translation).

All languages and this is certainly true for the biblical languages have various nuances and subtleties.Different translations seek to bring these out in different ways.Sometimes they miss them entirely or maybe feel that they are not important and interrupt the flow of translation.


Secondly differences may be due to the original language texts behind the translation.Not all original language text agree.The King James Bible New Testament (KJBNT) is translated from the Textus Receptus (TR) also known as the Received Text.The TR is a Greek texual edition which except for a few exceptions is very close to the Majority Text which is so-called because it makes up approximately 90 percent of the total testimony of all existing Greek New Testament Manuscripts.

The new versions of the New Testament are translated from a different set of original language manuscripts which though older than the majority of texts are not "Better" as is often assumed.

These supposedly "older and better" manuscripts which comprise the basis of all modern Greek editions such as the Nestle - Aland Greek New Testament 21st edition (which is the edition used for the new translations)are notorious for their unreliability and show signs of poor quality of transmission.

The New Testament is very well attested and shows a greater preponderance of ancient manuscripts than other documents of antiquity.There are some 5,500 Greek manuscripts and 10,000 Latin manuscripts.Added to this are some 4,000 ancient manuscripts in other languages and some 86,000 references to the New Testament quoted by the Church Fathers.


The overwhelming majority of these ancient manuscripts and quotations of ancient sources are in general agreement with each other and form what is known as "The Majority Text"Manuscripts from the second century A.D.(Such as P66)down through the Reformation are in basic agreement with this Majority Text.It is the text type avalible today in the common King James Bible.The new versions however are not based on the Majority Text but on a handful of dissenting manuscripts which disagree with the Majority and "Many Times Disagree Among Themselves"

Even so antiquity is NO PROOF of transmissional purity.Many of the ancient heresies (Docetism for example)developed quite early.The Docetics believed that Jesus did not have a real body.He only seemed ("Docetism is from the Greek verb "dokeo"to seem or to appear")to have a body,but in reality was a phantom.

So in 1st John 1:1 John writes That which we have seen with our eyes... and our hands have handled.

The same is true with the doctrinal variants of the New Testament.Texual scholar F.H.A.Scrivener argues that the worst corruption to come upon some of the New Testament manuscripts occurred within a century of their writing.It was during this early period that many of the New Testament books were yet being disseminated to the churches.Hence it would have been easier in certain cases to introduce corruptions into the text or to at least modify the text to suit a preconceived doctrinal bias.

Texual Scholar H.C.Hoskier observed that there are more than 3,000 points of disagreement in the Gospel alone in which the two primary Alexandrian witness (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus)differ between themselves not including spelling errors and variants between synonyms.

So older is not necessarily better.In 1st John 5:7 the KJB reads:" For there are three that bear record in heaven the Father,the Word,and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.Modern versions will have a footnote that says something like "this verse is not in the best and earliest manuscripts"or thisis the reading of a few late manuscripts.

Critical Text supporters will tell you this verse is found in a late Irish manuscript the ("Codex Montfortianus")now located at Trinity College in Dublin hence the inclusion of the Erasmus Greek New Testament and ultimately the King James Bible.

Opponents of the KJB argue that here is a verse in the KJB that is probably not authenic and only a late derivation.This seems like a formidable argument.

Who can argue with the facts
+right?

However one of the Church Fathers ("Cyprian") quotes the verse 1st John 5:7 in A.D.250!The quote is as follows:"The Lord says,I and the Father are one.And again,it is written of the Father,the Son,and the Holy Spirit:"And these three are one.

Is not it strange that the same verse that is challenged on the basis of being found in only a few,very late,manuscripts was quoted by one of the early Church Fathers in A.D.250?

This brings us to an astounding truth that is often obsecured by the supporters of the so-called Critical Text.Nearly all of the verses omitted in th
e modern versions are cited bu the early Church Fathers some of whom wrote hundreds of years ("Before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Even Existed")In their sermons and doctrinal writings early Christians quoted verses that are "OMITTED IN" Modern translations.

Fact is older is not better.

That a manuscript is of great antiquity does not prove that it accurately reflects the original,God breathed writing of God`s inspired oracles of truth.

Do the Alexandrian manuscripts show Gnostic influence and tampering?

Were they deliberately changed to support gnostic teaching?

Can it be proved that they were so changed?

We need to remember that even in the first century the apostles indicated that many were corrupting the Scriptures (2nd Cor 2:17)

From some of the comments of the early Church fathers we are told that Marcion,the Gnostic heretic,deliberately altered the text of the New Testament for doctrinal purposes as early as A.D.140.Some modern scholars recognize this.In his "What Is the Best New Testament" (University of Chicago Press 1952)E.C. Colwell writes:

{quote}
The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons.Most of the manuals and handbooks now in print {including mine}will tell you that these variations were the fruit of careless treatment which was possible because the books of the New Testament had not yet attained a strong position as Bible.The reverse is the case.It was because they were the religious treasure of the church that they were changed....Most variations I believe were made deliberately...Scholars now believe that most variations were made deliberately.{unquote}


A case in point from an acient writer Eusebius quoting Caius who wrote around A.D.215.

{quote}

For this reason the heretics have boldly laid their hands upon the Divine Scriptures alleging that they have corrected them.....And many such copies can be obtained for their disciples were very zealous in inserting these corrections as they call them...Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs when the copies have been written with their own hands.{unquote}

(A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs p.640)



Something to think on brethren.


In Jesus and God bless you all.

Steven.

 

"However one of the Church Fathers ("Cyprian") quotes the verse 1st John 5:7 in A.D.250!The quote is as follows:"The Lord says,I and the Father are one.And again,it is written of the Father,the Son,and the Holy Spirit:"And these three are one.

Is not it strange that the same verse that is challenged on the basis of being found in only a few,very late,manuscripts was quoted by one of the early Church Fathers in A.D.250?"

The Treatises of Cyprian.

------------------------

Treatise I.

On the Unity of the Church. [3097]
.......................................skipping on down

6. The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and
pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity
of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has
born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is
joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church;
nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of
Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no
longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.
If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also
may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying,
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me
scattereth." [3116] He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ,
does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the
Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, "I and the Father
are one;" [3117] and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." [3118] And does any
one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength
and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and
can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does
not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of
the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Whats in bold is the closest thing to a quote. There is nothing other than "and these three are one" and none of the rest of the debated text. Scholars agree that this is Cyprian's interpretation of 1 John 5:7-8. My question is , since Tertullian was the Church father who came up with the trinity concept in a word, why didnt he quote this? This is close but not quite. Where is "in heaven" ?

Actually come to think of it. Why did they even argue the concept at all if the KJV rendering was in the originals? If 1 John 5:7 (KJV) were the original then there never would haven been a debate as to the nature of Christ in the early church.

The part " I and the Father are one" is a correct interpretation of various parts of the Gospel of John. This part "and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit," is not part of the quote but telling who "it" is written about. Then " these three are one" is his interpretation of 1 John 5:8.

Also why be deceitful, you changed your quotation marks to indicate that the whole is a quote then the original only quotes the first and last sections?

 

John Wycliffe didn't die a martyr's death as the others did.