1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by robycop3, Mar 14, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Origen

    Origen Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2020
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    36
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,625
    Likes Received:
    179
    Faith:
    Baptist
    People can like a translation for valid reasons or for invalid reasons.

    Liking could be a biased opinion of imperfect men.

    Liking something over a period of time could become a mere tradition of men.

    Because men choose to like something, they may overlook its flaws or weaknesses.

    The fact that some or even many like a translation does not make it correct, accurate or better than other Bible translations.

    The proper standard and authority for the making, trying, or evaluating for all Bible translations remains the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,625
    Likes Received:
    179
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Because you disagree with some modern translations does not prove that they are ugly and dishonest.

    It has not been proven that the Church of England makers of the KJV were more honest than any other Bible translators.

    Perhaps you are wrong to question the honesty and integrity of most translators of English Bibles.

    The Church of England makers of the KJV had their Church of England doctrinal biases that influenced their translation decisions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Shoostie

    Shoostie Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2019
    Messages:
    668
    Likes Received:
    66
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I've already proved my point. I'm not going to reprove it in every post. Is it too much trouble for you to review a thread before you start complaining about a lack of something in that thread?

    Perhaps you're wrong to question me.
     
  5. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    576
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I still trust the KJV more than any other. All others omit the Johannine Comma saying it is not in the oldest manuscripts. And most will avow the word "Trinity" is not in scripture. But Cyprian quotes from the comma and uses the Greek word for Trinity.

    Trinity in scripture

    The corresponding word in Greek is "Τριάς" (Trias), meaning "a set of three" or "the number three." Trinity - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Found in:

    “For there are three [Τριάς] that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7 (KJV 1900)

    Some might object the Johannine Comma is not in the older manuscripts. But Cyprian quoted it between 200 -258.

    CYPRIAN 200-258 AD. Treatises (I 5:423). "and again it Is written of the Father, and of the Son. and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one' "

    The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;”4 and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”5

    Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). On the Unity of the Church. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, p. 423). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    12,226
    Likes Received:
    456
    Faith:
    Baptist

    The KJV has plenty of goofs & booboos. We have discussed the "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4 ad nauseam. then, there's the ADDITION of "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. (Please show us those words in an ancient Greek ms. of Revelation.) and the OMISSION of "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25.

    But feel free to use the KJV (or drive a Model T) if you wish. I shall use modern versions in my everyday language, & continue to drive a new Fusion.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Origen

    Origen Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2020
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    36
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The word Τριάς is never used in the N.T. The word used in the Comma is τρεῖς.

    ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
  8. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    576
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So what is the difference?
     
  9. Origen

    Origen Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2020
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    36
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Etymologically they are related however τρεῖς was never used as a reference for the Trinity.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  10. Conan

    Conan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2019
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    79
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is not true. The Comma Johanneum is missing from virtually all Greek Manuscripts. Not just the oldest. Here is a list of manuscripts that do not have the Comma Johanneum.

    The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

    Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s: 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296

    Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s: 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464

    Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s: 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,

    Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s: 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746

    Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s: 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805

    Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696

    Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777

    Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704

    Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later: 90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104
     
    #30 Conan, Mar 15, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2020
    • Informative Informative x 2
  11. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    576
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How did Cyprian come up with it if not written earlier? Can you prove something does not exist?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Conan

    Conan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2019
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    79
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Cyprian was Latin, not Greek. Here are the only Greek Manuscripts which contain the Comma Johanneum.

    495 Greek manuscripts against the Comma Johanneum.

    Only 3 Greek manuscripts with the Comma Johanneum before the age of printing.

    2 more Greek manuscripts added after the age of printing.

    5 more have the Comma Johanneum written in their margin, but the text of these manuscripts are against the inclusion of the extra words.

    The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts
     
    #32 Conan, Mar 15, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2020
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    576
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But how do you prove his source did not exist?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,548
    Likes Received:
    39
    I primarily use the KJV, although I sometimes use the NKJV. I've read the KJV for over 60 years. It's my first choice in a Bible version. There are many people in my church that use different versions, and our pastor preaches from the ESV. What I don't understand is the bashing of the KJV on here. The OP wasn't about KJVO, it was plainly degrading a well loved, and still used by millions, version of God's Word. The obsession against using the KJV seems to dominate some people's thoughts here. I don't get it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,625
    Likes Received:
    179
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Because you claim it is proven or because you may believe it is proven is not actually proof that it is.

    You have not proven your point with use of consistent, just measures/standards applied completely justly to all Bible translators. You do not show that you apply the same exact measures/standards to the KJV translators that you may inconsistently and thus unjustly allege against other Bible translators.

    It would not be at all wrong to question the use of measures/standards that are not demonstrated to be applied justly.

    The honesty of the biased Church of England makers of the KJV could be as soundly questioned or challenged as your unproven allegations against other English Bible translators.

    Some of the possible motives and intentions behind the making of the KJV are just as questionable as those behind the making of some present-day English Bibles.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Conan

    Conan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2019
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    79
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I cannot prove his source did not exist. He may have quoted an old latin manuscript. However I believe he was interpreting the Verse. True he may indeed be quoting a Latin Bible.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    12,226
    Likes Received:
    456
    Faith:
    Baptist
    While the KJV isn't a poor version, it's certainly inferior to several newer ones. and is not in our current language style, same as a Model T, while still a street-legal vehicle, is not suited to today's roads or driving speeds. There are many English users who don't know the Jacobean-Elizabethan English style of the KJV too well, & that's especially true of those for whom English is a second or new language. When witnessing, I like to explain the GOSPEL, not interpret the language.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,625
    Likes Received:
    179
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Asserting or acknowledging the truth that the same measures/standards should be justly applied to all Bible translations would not be bashing the KJV.

    Most believers probably accept the KJV as what it actually is [a good overall English translation with some imperfections], but some try to assume and claim that the KJV is something that it is not.

    What is typically objected to is human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching, and not the KJV itself.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,625
    Likes Received:
    179
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your assertion that all other English Bibles omit 1 John 5:7 is not true.

    The KJV actually has many words added by men according to the KJV translators themselves [they inconsistently put some of the added words in a different type--in italics in later editions].

    Because words are in the KJV is not proof that they all should be in an English translation of the word of God. The KJV translators also acknowledged in their 1611 marginal notes that they did not provide an English word for some original language words of Scripture that were in their underlying texts.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,548
    Likes Received:
    39
    Logos, I understand that. However, the OP in THIS particular thread simply demeans the KJV. Period.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...