Let's Talk About Hell (5)

[he-man]

yes, that is a problem. But dynamic equivelence is not a reliable or trustworthy translation technique. It make the Bible more of a commentary than an actual translation.
fourthly, NKJV the most recent edition of the KJV has corrected all the verses you listed without compromising all the above errors in modern translations.

Here it is from the NKJV and they are all the same as the KJV. Luke 2:52 changes the word men. [changed from man to men], so why are you claiming otherwise?

Codex Lu 1:58 And her neighbours and her relatives heard how the Lord had magnified her with His mercy, and they congratulated1 her.
1* Greek 4796 συγχαιρών συνεχαιρον congratulated

Campared with the NKJV
Luk 1:58 When her neighbors and relatives heard how the Lord had shown great mercy to her, they rejoiced with her.

Codex Lu 2:47 And everyone 1 that heard him was put (standing) out of their wits2 at his wisdom3 and answers.
1*SP: B Omits “that heard him” NA includes

2* Greek G1839 εξισταντο put (standing) out of wits

3* Greek G4907 σύνεση σύνεσεως wisdom

NKJV
Luk 2:47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers

Common verb existēmi εξισταντο meaning that they stood out of themselves as if their eyes were bulging out [RWP]

to put (stand) out of wits [Strong's Hebrew and Greek]

Codex Lu 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in maturity1, and in grace from God and of people.
1* Greek 2244 ηλικια age, mature, get older

NKJV
Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men. [changed from man to men]

Codex Lu 3:6 And all flesh shall view with wide open eyes the beneficial purpose1 of God
1* Greek σωτηριος beneficial purpose

NKJV Luk 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

 

[createdtoworship]

Codex Lu 1:58 And her neighbours and her relatives heard how the Lord had magnified her with His mercy, and they congratulated1 her.
1* Greek 4796 συγχαιρών συνεχαιρον congratulated

NKJV changed the only verse in your list that needed changing, the rest have multiple definitions for each word in strongs and I can proove it.

for example the definition of the above word can mean congratulated or rejoice (most translations picked rejoice like NKJV).

http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/4796.html

Your translation is not in the majority here.

Codex Lu 2:47 And everyone 1 that heard him was put (standing) out of their wits2 at his wisdom3 and answers.
1*SP: B Omits “that heard him” NA includes

2* Greek G1839 εξισταντο put (standing) out of wits

3* Greek G4907 σύνεση σύνεσεως wisdom

I found only one translation that states the pecular and confusing phrase "out of whits" and that is rotherhams translation which has it's own problems

Rotherham Version

Codex Lu 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in maturity1, and in grace from God and of people.
1* Greek 2244 ηλικια age, mature, get older

the word in question can mean stature or age

strongs-concordance-2244 | New Testament Greek Dictionary for ἡλικία

most translations say stature, yours however chooses another word instead without any backup whatsoever.

Codex Lu 3:6 And all flesh shall view with wide open eyes the beneficial purpose1 of God
1* Greek σωτηριος beneficial purpose

word in question means salvation in most greek dictionaries according to this link

Strong's Number 4992 Greek Dictionary of the New Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Thayer's Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com

and most Bibles say salvation here, again your version is in the minority here and a poor choice of wording yet once again

I HOPE THIS STUDY GOES TO SHOW YOU THAT THE KJV/NKJV ARE AMONG THE HIGHEST IN ACCURACY IN THE WORLD, especially compared to your poor choices in translations coming from the libraries of the Roman Catholic vatican.

 

[he-man]

NKJV changed the only verse in your list that needed changing, the rest have multiple definitions for each word in strongs and I can proove it. for example the definition of the above word can mean congratulated or rejoice (most translations picked rejoice like NKJV).Your translation is not in the majority here.I found only one translation that states the pecular and confusing phrase "out of whits" and that is rotherhams translation which has it's own problems

Strong's Concordance
G1839
ἐξίστημι
existēmi
ex-is'-tay-mee
From G1537 and G2476; to put (stand) out of wits

Rotherham Version the word in question can mean stature or age
strongs-concordance-2244 | New Testament Greek Dictionary for ἡλικίαmost translations say stature, yours however chooses another word instead without any backup whatsoever.

Blue Letter Lexicon
1) age, time of life
a) age, term or length of life
b) adult age, maturity
c) suitable age for anything
d) metaph. of an attained state fit for a thing

word in question means salvation in most greek dictionaries according to this link
Strong's Number 4992 Greek Dictionary of the New Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Thayer's Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com and most Bibles say salvation here, again your version is in the minority here and a poor choice of wording yet once again

G[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]4992 σωτηριος salutary, beneficial purpose, wholesome; healthful [/FONT][/FONT]

I HOPE THIS STUDY GOES TO SHOW YOU THAT THE KJV/NKJV ARE AMONG THE HIGHEST IN ACCURACY IN THE WORLD, especially compared to your poor choices in translations coming from the libraries of the Roman Catholic vatican.

I hope this study shows the fallacy of your statement that the NKJV is different than the KJV.

Here it is from the NKJV and they are all the same as the KJV. Luke 2:52 changes the word men. [changed from man to men], so why are you claiming otherwise?

Codex Lu 1:58 And her neighbours and her relatives heard how the Lord had magnified her with His mercy, and they congratulated1 her.
1* Greek 4796 συγχαιρών συνεχαιρον congratulated

Campared with the NKJV
Luk 1:58 When her neighbors and relatives heard how the Lord had shown great mercy to her, they rejoiced with her.

Codex Lu 2:47 And everyone 1 that heard him was put (standing) out of their wits2 at his wisdom3 and answers.
1*SP: B Omits “that heard him” NA includes

2* Greek G1839 εξισταντο put (standing) out of wits

3* Greek G4907 σύνεση σύνεσεως wisdom

NKJV
Luk 2:47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers

Common verb existēmi εξισταντο meaning that they stood out of themselves as if their eyes were bulging out [RWP]

to put (stand) out of wits [Strong's Hebrew and Greek]

Codex Lu 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in maturity1, and in grace from God and of people.
1* Greek 2244 ηλικια age, mature, get older

NKJV
Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men. [changed from man to men]

Codex Lu 3:6 And all flesh shall view with wide open eyes the beneficial purpose1 of God
1* Greek σωτηριος beneficial purpose

NKJV Luk 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

 

[Timothew]

It seems better all around to go to the original languages rather than rely on any one translation. When that is not possible, I would suggest going to a variety of translations.

 

[createdtoworship]

Strong's Concordance
G1839
ἐξίστημι
existēmi
ex-is'-tay-mee
From G1537 and G2476; to put (stand) out of wits
Blue Letter Lexicon
1) age, time of life
a) age, term or length of life
b) adult age, maturity
c) suitable age for anything
d) metaph. of an attained state fit for a thing G[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]4992 σωτηριος salutary, beneficial purpose, wholesome; healthful [/FONT][/FONT]I hope this study shows the fallacy of your statement that the NKJV is different than the KJV.

Here it is from the NKJV and they are all the same as the KJV. Luke 2:52 changes the word men. [changed from man to men], so why are you claiming otherwise?

Codex Lu 1:58 And her neighbours and her relatives heard how the Lord had magnified her with His mercy, and they congratulated1 her.
1* Greek 4796 συγχαιρών συνεχαιρον congratulated

Campared with the NKJV
Luk 1:58 When her neighbors and relatives heard how the Lord had shown great mercy to her, they rejoiced with her.

Codex Lu 2:47 And everyone 1 that heard him was put (standing) out of their wits2 at his wisdom3 and answers.
1*SP: B Omits “that heard him” NA includes

2* Greek G1839 εξισταντο put (standing) out of wits

3* Greek G4907 σύνεση σύνεσεως wisdom

NKJV
Luk 2:47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers

Common verb existēmi εξισταντο meaning that they stood out of themselves as if their eyes were bulging out [RWP]

to put (stand) out of wits [Strong's Hebrew and Greek]

Codex Lu 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in maturity1, and in grace from God and of people.
1* Greek 2244 ηλικια age, mature, get older

NKJV
Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men. [changed from man to men]

Codex Lu 3:6 And all flesh shall view with wide open eyes the beneficial purpose1 of God
1* Greek σωτηριος beneficial purpose

NKJV Luk 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

look for yourself, no translations accept for maybe one use the wording you are using.

Online Parallel Bible: Weaving God's Word into the Web

we all know how to use strongs, and secondly we all know that each word has various meanings. But the meanings chosen by accurate translations was verified already in post 862. You are simply out voted by the majority of translations.

 

[createdtoworship]

It seems better all around to go to the original languages rather than rely on any one translation. When that is not possible, I would suggest going to a variety of translations.

He man has quoted one or two obscure translations and has rejected the variety of translations in His posts. But I would normally disagree with your statement. Only in word studies can you benefit from a variety of translations, however when doing so you will actually see the difference among the alexandrian and byzantine texts. One correct, but not both. This is where you will have to decide to go with the older manuscripts or go with the more complete manuscripts, no other option available. And no Bible uses both. Alexandrian manuscripts omit crucial aspects of 1 John 4:3

All modern translations omit "is come in the flesh" in this verse.

so it is not a true test of anti christ doctrine 1 John 4:2-3

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

This is an amazing test for modern translations to fail, because it proves that the modern translations comes from a spirit that is not from God. The modern translations cannot confess here that “Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh”. John says that modern translations has the spirit of antichrist, as seen by its many omissions
of Christ’s names, titles and attributes. To merely confess “Jesus”, is not passing this test, because Paul warns us of people coming and preaching “another Jesus”. Which Jesus are they confessing?

 

[he-man]

look for yourself, no translations accept for maybe one use the wording you are using.

Online Parallel Bible: Weaving God's Word into the Web

we all know how to use strongs, and secondly we all know that each word has various meanings. But the meanings chosen by accurate translations was verified already in post 862. You are simply out voted by the majority of translations.

Sorry, but Christ was not a majority. He only had about 500 followers.

The KJV is Based on the Biased and faulty "Received Text" Textus Receptus
The "Received Text" is also not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500's and early 1600's.

It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516. They are based upon a small number of late [16th Century] medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text.

The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various flavours agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to.

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe.

The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the DutchCatholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The lacking text was translated from Vulgate. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.

Erasmus's third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus "for the sake of his oath." Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since.
Textus Receptus

​

The King James translators made the same erroneous translation of the covenant name of the Almighty. They changed the name “Yahweh”, which means, He is,” to the Anglo-Saxon word, “LORD.” Why? They cared less about the truth of scripture than orthodoxy, and they decide to conform and relate to their manmade tradition. It was too much work, too big a leap of faith, and too unorthodox to step outside of their paradigms and comfort zone.
"The Origin of the English Word for God," Part One Craig Bluemel​

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry, but Christ was not a majority. He only had about 500 followers.

The KJV is Based on the Biased and faulty "Received Text" Textus Receptus
The "Received Text" is also not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500's and early 1600's.

Early sources for Textus Receptus date back to time near Christ.

ASSERTION "There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine Text type was known before the middle of the fourth century," D.A. Carson.

DOCUMENTATION: [Proving that assertion false.]

KJV Mk. 1:1,2 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is
written in the prophets.,."
Irenaeus (130-202) "Mark . . . does thus commence his Gospel narrative: 'The beginning
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets. . .' Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets and point out Him. . .whom they confessed as God and Lord (Against Heresies III:10:5, :11:14, :16:3).

KJV Mk. 16:19 "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into
heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."
Irenaeus (130-202) "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: 'So then,
after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God."' (Against Heresies III:l0:6)

KJV Lk 22:44 "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it
were great drops of blood failing down to the ground."
Justin (100~165) "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass'" (Trypho103:24)

KJV Jn. 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
Irenaeus (130-202) "the only begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father. . ." (Against Heresies III :11:6), "the only begotten Son, who. . ." (IV:20:6), "the only begotten God, which . . ." (IV:20:11)

KJV Jn. 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Hippolytus (170-236) "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus I:1:4).

KJV Jn. 5:3,4 "...waiting for the moving of the water, For an angel went down at a certain season unto the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
Tertullian (160-221) "If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in 'waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention was want to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing ceased to complain." (On Baptism I:l:5).

KJV Jn 6:69 "And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."
lrenaeus (130~202) "By whom also Peter, having been taught, recognized Christ as the Son of the living God..." (Against Heresies III:11:6)

KJV Jn.14:l7 "...but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
p66 (c. 200) "...shall be in you'."

KJV Acts 8:36,37 "...See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Cyprian(200-258) "In the Acts of the Apostles: 'Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Phillip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." (The Treatises of Cyprian 1.1:143).

KJV I Tim. 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh. . ."
Ignatius(35-116) "God was in the flesh" (To the Ephesians 1:1:7).
Hippolytus (170-236) "God was manifested in the flesh" (Against the Heresies of Noetus I :1:17).
Dionysius (3rd cent.) "For God was manifested in the flesh" (Conciliations I:1:853).

KJV 1 Jn. 5:7,8 "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."
Cyprian (200-258) "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one,' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘and these three are one.'" (The Treatises of Cyprian I :1:6).

KJV Rev. 22:14 "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
Tertulilan (160-221) "Blessed are they who act according to the precepts, that they may have power over the tree of life, and over the gates, for entering into the holy city." (On Modesty 1:19:2).

from
The Ante-Nicene Patristic Testimony To The Textus Receptus

 

[createdtoworship]

"Universalism is the teaching that God will ultimately bring all people, in all times, and all places to a state of reconciliation with Him. In other words, everyone who ever lived will be saved. Consequently, universalism cannot allow the possibility of an eternal hell as a realistic biblical teaching.

To get around the problem of the English Bibles translating Greek words into "eternal," "forever," and forevermore" when describing fire (Matt. 18:8) or torment (Rev. 20:10), the universalists go to the Greek. The Greek word that is translated into eternal is greek aionion"aionion." It comes from the Greek root "aion" meaning "age." This fact combined with the various uses of Greek words derived from the root "aion," are what the universalists use to attempt to show that "aionion" does not always mean "eternal" but can refer to a finite period of time.

The truth is, they are right. It can be translated into a temporal sense as it is in Rom. 16:25: "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages (aionios1) past." But the reason it is translated that way is because of context, and that is extremely important. Context determines meaning, as you will see later.

With the claim that "aionion" can be translated into something temporal and that its root means "age," the universalist then says that any reference to "eternal fire," "eternal torment," or "eternal punishment" is not really eternal. Instead of "eternal torment," it is "aionion torment." Instead of "eternal punishment," it is "aionion punishment." That way, to the universalist, there is no eternal hell, no eternal punishment, and no eternal damnation. Everyone will be saved.

This approach by the Universalists can be confusing to someone who doesn't understand Greek, and that is part of the reason that Universalism has followers. It is true that the root "aion" means age. But just because a root means age does not mean that every word derived from that root means a limited duration of time. For example, consider this verse that is speaking about God:

who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen, (1 Tim. 6:16)

The context is obviously dealing with God's eternal nature. The word in Greek for "immortality" is "athanatos." The Greek word for death is "thanatos." The "a" in front of the word is the negator -- without, non, etc. It means that God is deathless; hence, immortal. This is an eternal quality of God. Likewise, the verse states that God has eternal dominion. The word for "eternal" is "aionios" which is derived from the Greek root "aion" which means age. But, God is not immortal for only an "age," nor is His dominion temporal. The word "eternal" is absolutely the best way to translate the Greek "aionion" because God is immortal and eternal. Therefore, it would be wrong to translate the verse by stating that God has "aionion" dominion. Rather, He has eternal dominion.
How is "aionion" used in the New Testament?

The following two sections are verses that contain the word "aionion" which is translated as "eternal." Notice how using the word "eternal" in the first group is no problem. But, it is the second group with which the Universalists object. Nevertheless, the same word is used in both. See for yourself.

John 6:47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal (aionion) life.
John 10:28, "and I give eternal (aionion) life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."
Acts 13:48, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal (aionion) life believed."
Romans 2:7, " to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal (aionion) life."
Romans 5:21, "that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal (aionion) life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Rom. 16:26, " but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal (aionion) God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith."
Gal. 6:8, "For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal (aionion) life."
1 Tim. 6:16, "who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal (aionion) dominion! Amen."
1 John 1:2, "and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal (aionion) life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us"
1 John 5:11, "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal (aionion) life, and this life is in His Son."

The following set of scriptures divulge the nature of eternal damnation.

Matt. 18:8, "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal (aionion) fire.
Matt. 25:41, "Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal (aionion) fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;"
Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal (aionion) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (aionion) life."
Mark 3:29, "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal (aionion) sin."
Mark 10:30, "but that he shall receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal (aionion) life.
Luke 18:30, "who shall not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal (aionion) life."
2 Thess. 1:9, "And these will pay the penalty of eternal (aionion) destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"
Jude 7, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal (aionion) fire."

It should be quite obvious that there is an eternal punishment and that universalism is nothing more than a hopeful wish. The Universalists are not justified in picking and choosing the meaning of a word based upon their interpretations of "aion" that suits them and depending on which verse is used."

from CARM.org
A look at the word "aionion" | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[Timothew]

CARM uses 2 Thess 1:9 to attempt to prove that people are not destroyed but kept undestroyed in eternal torment.

That twists the verse around completely backwards.

 

[he-man]

Early sources for Textus Receptus date back to time near Christ.

ASSERTION "There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine Text type was known before the middle of the fourth century," D.A. Carson.

DOCUMENTATION: [Proving that assertion false.]

KJV 1 Jn. 5:7,8 "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."
Cyprian (200-258) "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one,' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘and these three are one.'" (The Treatises of Cyprian I :1:6).

The Ante-Nicene Patristic Testimony To The Textus Receptus

Sorry but they are based upon a small number of late [16th Century] medieval manuscripts

Textus Receptus
I personaly do not put much store by the terms "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian," because I think that these terms are prejudicial. They imply that the texts are local products of Byzantium or Alexandria, and this cannot be proven in either case.

The KJV is Based on the Biased and faulty "Received Text" Textus Receptus
The "Received Text" is also not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500's and early 1600's. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516.

They are based upon a small number of late [16th Century] medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text.
1 John 5:7. Omit "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" at end of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.
1 John 5:8. Omit "And there are three that bear witness in earth" at beginning of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.
The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text

The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various flavours agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to.

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe.

The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the DutchCatholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The lacking text was translated from Vulgate. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.

Erasmus's third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus "for the sake of his oath." Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since.
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry but they are based upon a small number of late [16th Century] medieval manuscripts

so I guess you didn't read the dozens of quotations from 1-3rd century.

....and how they match the receptus and not the westcott hort.

the rest of the post you have posted many times before always plaigerized by you.

secondly here is a clip from a site on alexandrian vs byzantine

"The omission of some words and parts of
sentences from the Alexndarian Greek texts, the Sianaticus and
Vaticanus could have been the word of Christian scribes who might have
been influenced to some extent by the Gnostics. But the shorter
wordings of the Alexandarian type Greek manuscripts, and the omission
of certain key words that is consistent with gnostic theology occurs
earlier than the fourth century as shown by earlier Papyri fragments
of the New Testament.

See http://www.uv.es/~fores/programa/majorityvscritical.html

Many Papyri fragments of the New Testament contain Byzantine readings,
that is, the verse wordings are more similar to the Byzantine Greek
text than to the Alexandarian text, used by Westcott and Hort. "Harry
Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his
book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism."

"The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri.
Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these
papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49,
59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)."

What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with
the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text
more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text.

"Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the
papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings
were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence
before the end of the second century and that, because of this,
Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69).""

from

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...wrecking-machine-alexandarian-gnosticism.html

the importance of the chester beatty papryi and the byzantine text

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1116112010467

 

[he-man]

so I guess you didn't read the dozens of quotations from 1-3rd century.
The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri.
Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these
papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49,
59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)."the importance of the chester beatty papryi and the byzantine text

You forgot to say where that came from :
Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Wordings
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/textype.html

Sturz says In addition to the many omissions in the New Bible versions, the new versions also, for some verses, are abbreviated and present different emphasis upon doctrines than do the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. I John 5: 7 is one very clear example of a dfferent "spin" on the important doctrine of the trinity when the new versions are compared to the King James Version

"There are only a few papyri earlier than the fourth-century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and these have been discovered after Westcott and Hort's time."
The more important ones (P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and
P75

Funny but P46, nor does any contain the spurious 1 Jn 5:7

P46, it contains (in order) "the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1–2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians Papyrus 46
P75 contains only John as well as P66, P45 and it agrees with B Sin. A

P72 contains James-Jude P72, agrees with B Sin. A
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

The KJV is based upon a small number of late [16th Century] medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text.
1 John 5:7. Omit "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" at end of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.
1 John 5:8. Omit "And there are three that bear witness in earth" at beginning of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.
The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text
Explanation of Abbrevations
S
Stephens 1550 (Estienne 1550)
E
Elzevir 1624
G
Griesbach 1805
L
Lachmann 1842
T
Tischendorf 1869
Tr
Tregelles 1857
A
Alford 1849 as revised in 1871
W
Wordsworth 1856 as revised in 1870
WH
Westcott & Hort 1881
NA
Nestle-Aland 1979 (Aland et al. 1979)
HF
Hodges & Farstad 1982 as corrected in 1985

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html
Translations:
Tyn
Tyndale 1535
Gen
Geneva Bible (1560)
Bish
Bishops' Bible (1568)
KJV
King James version (1611)
ERV
English Revised Version (1881)
JND
Darby Version (1890)
ASV
American Standard Version (1901)
RSV
Revised Standard Version (1946)
NASB
New American Standard Bible (1963)

 

[createdtoworship]

You forgot to say where that came from :
Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Wordings
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/textype.html

Sturz says In addition to the many omissions in the New Bible versions, the new versions also, for some verses, are abbreviated and present different emphasis upon doctrines than do the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. I John 5: 7 is one very clear example of a dfferent "spin" on the important doctrine of the trinity when the new versions are compared to the King James Version

"There are only a few papyri earlier than the fourth-century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and these have been discovered after Westcott and Hort's time."
The more important ones (P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and
P75

Funny but P46, nor does any contain the spurious 1 Jn 5:7

P46, it contains (in order) "the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1–2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians Papyrus 46
P75 contains only John as well as P66, P45 and it agrees with B Sin. A

P72 contains James-Jude P72, agrees with B Sin. A
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

The KJV is based upon a small number of late [16th Century] medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text.
1 John 5:7. Omit "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" at end of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.
1 John 5:8. Omit "And there are three that bear witness in earth" at beginning of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.
The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text
Explanation of Abbrevations
S
Stephens 1550 (Estienne 1550)
E
Elzevir 1624
G
Griesbach 1805
L
Lachmann 1842
T
Tischendorf 1869
Tr
Tregelles 1857
A
Alford 1849 as revised in 1871
W
Wordsworth 1856 as revised in 1870
WH
Westcott & Hort 1881
NA
Nestle-Aland 1979 (Aland et al. 1979)
HF
Hodges & Farstad 1982 as corrected in 1985

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html
Translations:
Tyn
Tyndale 1535
Gen
Geneva Bible (1560)
Bish
Bishops' Bible (1568)
KJV
King James version (1611)
ERV
English Revised Version (1881)
JND
Darby Version (1890)
ASV
American Standard Version (1901)
RSV
Revised Standard Version (1946)
NASB
New American Standard Bible (1963)

Actually I got that information from a forum I quoted, not islamic awareness.

you are talking about one verse, I was talking about 150 that have been found to support the recieved text.

besides in post 868 I already laid out dozens of verses which you ignore including 1 John 5:7 that have been quoted verbatim to a similar style than the received text only in the first few hundred years A.d..

 

[he-man]

you are talking about one verse, I was talking about 150 that have been found to support the recieved text.

besides in post 868 I already laid out dozens of verses which you ignore including 1 John 5:7 that have been quoted verbatim to a similar style than the received text only in the first few hundred years A.d. "There are only a few papyri earlier than the fourth-century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and these have been discovered after Westcott and Hort's time."
The more important ones (P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and
P75 .

You do know what late 16th Century medieval manuscripts mean don't you?

I explained all of the spurious texts that you quoted and they did not and still do not contain 1 John 5:7

Funny but P46, nor does any of them contain the spurious 1 Jn 5:7

P46, it contains (in order) "the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1–2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians Papyrus 46
P75 contains only John as well as P66, P45 and it agrees with B Sin. A

P72 contains James-Jude P72, agrees with B Sin. A
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

The KJV is based upon a small number of late [16th Century] medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text.

1 John 5:7. Omit "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" at end of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.
1 John 5:8. Omit "And there are three that bear witness in earth" at beginning of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.

 

[createdtoworship]

You do know what late 16th Century medieval manuscripts mean don't you?

I explained all of the spurious texts that you quoted and they did not and still do not contain 1 John 5:7

Funny but P46, nor does any of them contain the spurious 1 Jn 5:7

P46, it contains (in order) "the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1–2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians Papyrus 46
P75 contains only John as well as P66, P45 and it agrees with B Sin. A

P72 contains James-Jude P72, agrees with B Sin. A
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

The KJV is based upon a small number of late [16th Century] medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text.

1 John 5:7. Omit "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" at end of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.
1 John 5:8. Omit "And there are three that bear witness in earth" at beginning of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.

you don't get it. I quoted 150 occasions where byzantine texts were quoted, not alexandrian. So where did they get their copies if ALL of them are late? My guess, which is a good one is that they had a non extant copy or a copy that has recently perished. Look it up for yourself.

secondly, cyprian quoted 1John 5:7-9. How could he quote it exactly if He had no copy of it until the roman church forged it in the 16th century. Again He had a non extant copy of the new testament.

Facts don't lie.

 

[he-man]

you don't get it."The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri.
Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these
papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49,
59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 I quoted 150 occasions where byzantine texts were quoted, not alexandrian. So where did they get their copies if ALL of them are late? Facts don't lie.

And here are the facts:
The great Dutch philologist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam had established a text from a handful of manuscripts dating from the later Middle Ages. Unfortunately he used only manuscripts of inferior quality for his edition of 1516.

A few verses from the Apocalypse were lacking in the manuscripts at his disposal. He simply re-translated them from the current Latin version! Erasmus' intention with his edition was to provide a basis for a new Latin translation of the New Testament. The Reformers used it to produce vernacular translations of their own.

The manuscripts Sin. (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are almost complete parchment manuscripts. With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable.

The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have.

Rumania.
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. 716]) 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.
For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

see any critical commentary on 1 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, 1888), pp. 458-463.

It is to be noticed that all the manuscripts listed above come from Egypt. The papyri were found there in the twentieth century. They are now in Dublin, Ann Arbor, Cologny (in Switzerland), the Vatican and Vienna. Sin. was found in a monastery library on the slopes of Mount Sinai in the nineteenth century and brought to St. Petersburg. In 1933 it was sold to the British Museum in London for a mere 100,000 pounds. A was transferred from the patriarchal library at Alexandria in the seventeenth century and is now also in the British Library. B has been in the Vatican since the Middle Ages. Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

 

[createdtoworship]

And here are the facts:
The great Dutch philologist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam had established a text from a handful of manuscripts dating from the later Middle Ages. Unfortunately he used only manuscripts of inferior quality for his edition of 1516.

A few verses from the Apocalypse were lacking in the manuscripts at his disposal. He simply re-translated them from the current Latin version! Erasmus' intention with his edition was to provide a basis for a new Latin translation of the New Testament. The Reformers used it to produce vernacular translations of their own.

The manuscripts Sin. (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are almost complete parchment manuscripts. With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable.

The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have.

Rumania.
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. 716]) 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.
For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

see any critical commentary on 1 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, 1888), pp. 458-463.

It is to be noticed that all the manuscripts listed above come from Egypt. The papyri were found there in the twentieth century. They are now in Dublin, Ann Arbor, Cologny (in Switzerland), the Vatican and Vienna. Sin. was found in a monastery library on the slopes of Mount Sinai in the nineteenth century and brought to St. Petersburg. In 1933 it was sold to the British Museum in London for a mere 100,000 pounds. A was transferred from the patriarchal library at Alexandria in the seventeenth century and is now also in the British Library. B has been in the Vatican since the Middle Ages. Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

we stopped talking about 16th century manuscripts a long time ago, we were already on the part of early non extant manuscripts.

 

[he-man]

we stopped talking about 16th century manuscripts a long time ago, we were already on the part of early non extant manuscripts.

No, you stopped talking about 16th Cent MSS, despite the fact that you have been shown that your references to early non extant manuscripts are also declared as spurious and are marginal errors. Your early non extant manuscripts are discussed below:

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. 716]) 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.
For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

see any critical commentary on 1 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, 1888), pp. 458-463.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you stopped talking about 16th Cent MSS, despite the fact that you have been shown that your references to early non extant manuscripts are also declared as spurious and are marginal errors. Your early non extant manuscripts are discussed below:

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. 716]) 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.
For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

see any critical commentary on 1 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, 1888), pp. 458-463.

I am sorry but my references to 150 quotations that support byzantine tradition cannot be ALL spurious or marginal errors. Evidence please?