After being confronted with the reality surrounding the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7, my precious dependence on said version was reduced to the same dependence as I have on versions like RSV, NIV, ESV, etc. I used to think that the KJV/NKJV/YLT/etc. versions were infallible in that the Textus Receptus was the inspired Greek Text that God preserved, but I was wrong, after many hours of research on the issue. (Doesn't mean I reject the Trinity. Never.)
But it came to my mind just now that no Bible translation by human hands (other than the original authors) are infallible. Copyist's errors, a mistakenly added verse, mistakenly removed verse, etc. It's a sad reality of the imperfection of mankind. (Honestly writing this to calm my conscience. I personally cannot stand reading an imperfect Bible translation but maybe that's my mild OCD symptoms messing with me. I've always had OCD tendencies.)
The Bible is inerrant but Bible translations are fallible.
If you have anything constructive to offer, please share.
I believe that our basic Texts (from"original" languages not paraphrased nor altered for a group) are still reliable Word of God texts. But my native language is English and we have so few words to describe things, unlike Greek that has a different word for every nuance of change in meaning! There's no way the English could give us exactness like the Greek, for instance. But the SPIRIT of GOD's Word is intact!
Commentaries and concordances like Strongs and Ungers, Vines etc (there are others I cannot think of right now) are good to use for references and study. I must have 13 different Bibles plus the Bible app that allows for many more that I can read in parallel!
The main thing is to read and read...and then when the Spirit reminds you of something else you had already read, go and find it and consider it having a fuller meaning.
I enjoy the NASB. But I also have the Jack Van Impe prophecy Bible (items denoted as to first coming, rapture, second coming, millennium, tribulation texts... and full verse by verse commentary of the book of Daniel, and of Revelation). I have RC Sproul's study Bible too (well, not HIS Bible but a copy of the one he commented with)..
When you come down to it, there are limits to how much even words can really express. English is a decent language overall but it has limitations. Of course, any language has limitations compared to ancient Greek. But what can you do, right?
Still, the best we can do is find the best translations and work with them as best as we can. The KJV doesn't have to be perfect. It just needs to be good. If you liked the KJV before, there's no reason not to use it now.
The KJV-Only crowd is at least right about the fact that it's a great translation and one that every English-speaking Christian should have some kind of familiarity with.
Whatever its flaws, it's still a solid translation.
I agree with all three of you. I feel better about the KJV already and accept that 1 John 5:7 wasn't an original addition but it's not heterodox by any means.
Words can be better translated as well to give clearer understanding. For example Eve actually put upon Adam, causing him to eat of the fruit. The term "gave" is very misleading based on the narrative as presented in the KJV.
Words can be better translated as well to give clearer understanding. For example Eve actually put upon Adam, causing him to eat of the fruit. The term "gave" is very misleading based on the narrative as presented in the KJV.
But my native language is English and we have so few words to describe things, unlike Greek that has a different word for every nuance of change in meaning!
After being confronted with the reality surrounding the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7, my precious dependence on said version was reduced to the same dependence as I have on versions like RSV, NIV, ESV, etc. I used to think that the KJV/NKJV/YLT/etc. versions were infallible in that the Textus Receptus was the inspired Greek Text that God preserved, but I was wrong, after many hours of research on the issue. (Doesn't mean I reject the Trinity. Never.)
But it came to my mind just now that no Bible translation by human hands (other than the original authors) are infallible. Copyist's errors, a mistakenly added verse, mistakenly removed verse, etc. It's a sad reality of the imperfection of mankind. (Honestly writing this to calm my conscience. I personally cannot stand reading an imperfect Bible translation but maybe that's my mild OCD symptoms messing with me. I've always had OCD tendencies.)
The Bible is inerrant but Bible translations are fallible.
If you have anything constructive to offer, please share.
Three Scriptural Reasonsto Trustin A Perfect Word Today.
#1.God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not.
#2.KJV vs. Modern Translations
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions. Have no idea what I am talking about?
Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.
See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...
Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.
See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.
Why is this a problem?
Let's look at...
Genesis 22:17
"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"
Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.
For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I").
Here are a few more places the devil tries to place himself in God's Word (wrongfully). Click on the spoiler button to check it out.
In fact, this is not the only time the devil has tried to place his name in the Bible in exchange for something that is supposed to be sacred or holy. We see the devil tries to place his name in Modern Translations in Daniel 3.
In Daniel 3, the Babylonian king says there is one like the "Son of God" in the fiery furnace along with Daniel's three friends. This is Jesus! Yet, in the Modern Translations it says the "son of the gods." In many false religions we can see how certain gods had mated with human females and created a hybrid. This is popular even in Greek mythology. So who saved Daniel's friends? Jesus or some hybrid like Hercules?
Nebuchadnezzar thought this was an angel of God (singular and not plural).
"Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." (Daniel 3:28).
This was not the "son of the gods (plural) (little "g")!!!
No way Hosea! I mean, "No way José!"
Nebuchadnezzar clearly was referencing the most high God.
The Bible says (even something similar in your Modern Version),
"Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire." (Daniel 3:26).
Angels are called the: "sons of God" in Job.
The fourth person in the fire was still Jesus! The son of God. The Scriptures were still correct in their inspiration by God when they say, "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." While Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity, the Lord our God who inspired Scripture surely would have glorified the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in this instance. For it was Jesus who was in the fire with Daniel's three friends!
Also, please check out this thread here, as well. It will help to explain this situation a little better, too.
Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.
(Please take note: I do not believe Jesus is an angelic being; I believe Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity and that He is fully 100% God who took on the flesh of man).
In Isaiah 14:12, the devil's name "Lucifer" is replaced with "Day Star" or the "Morning Star."
Yes, I am aware that "morning stars" are angels in the book of Job.
But Modern Translations also say this is the Shining Star or the Son of the Dawn. Why?
Jesus says,
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16).
So Jesus is the BRIGHT and MORNING star!
Yet, the individual in Isaiah 14:12 in Modern Translations is called the shining (bright) and morning star or the Day Star, etc.
So the devil is trying to be like the most high here. He is taking a similar sounding title of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12.
For where is the bright and morning star up in the sky?
It is the sun.
That is why He is called the bright and morning star because the sun is bright and rises in the morning.
Also, Lucifer means "light bearer."
Scripture tells us this is what it means.
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14).
The word "angel" also means "messenger." So 2 Corinthians 11:14 is saying that Satan is a light messenger or light bearer. In fact, when Satan is described with having all kinds of jewelry on him, it was symbolic of who he was. Certain gemstones refract light. They are not light themselves, but they merely reflect whatever light is in existence. Gemstones are like little light bearers. So how fitting the name "Lucifer" is for the devil. Yet, Modern Translations seek to give the devil a name that is similar to Jesus. This is wrong (of course).
Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).
#3.Biblical Numerics
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our everyday life and all things glorify God. So obviously the numbers in God's Word would naturally glorify Him in some way. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers & the Greek New Testament.
Sevens in the Bible - Chuck Missler:
Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.
King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 1):
King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 2):
Now, while I may not agree with Mike on everything he teaches in the Bible nor on the way he teaches Bible numbers in every example, I have found that he has made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the King James.
I believe the 1769 KJV is the Word of God for our world language (English) today.
In 1611, the printing process was not perfected yet and there was no set standard in spelling yet, either.
From my experience, I have discovered that there are two wrong extremes on this topic. One wrong extreme says the KJV is evil and to even use it is to be a part of a cult (That teaches that one must worship a book - Which is simply not true). The other wrong extreme says the same thing. For I have found that many KJV-Onlyists believe that you should only read the King James. Many other KJV-Onlyists will also say that the King James is not all that hard to understand, too. However, I disagree with both of these conclusions, though.
Anyways, while I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God, I do not think one should stick to just reading it alone. For I have found Modern Translations to be very helpful in updating the language (From Old English); However, I do not put my entire trust in Modern Translations because the devil has placed his name all over them and key doctrines have been watered down and important messages within God's Word have been neutered.
In other words, I read Modern Translations as if I am panning for gold. I have to sift thru the dirt or the garbage in order to get to the gold of the passage that lines up with the King James (and the original Hebrew and Greek).
This gold that is found within the dirt of the translations can be very useful because it reflects what is in the King James. This is the gold that people hear and are saved when they hear the gospel message. For someone can be saved just by hearing a few Bible verses about the gospel message of Jesus Christ. This gold shines thru and penetrates their heart.
Like the Parable of the Sower. Believers receive the Word of God into their heart from those passages that are talking about salvation. Words that line up with the King James. These words are sown in their heart. And if they let this Word take root in their heart by continually reading the Word of God, then they will have hidden His Word in their heart so they will not sin against Him. It will have taken root and they will not fall away due to persecution or the trials of this life.
For it only takes a few Bible verses to get someone saved. However, washing yourself with the water of the Word is going to be a lot more effective if you use the pure Word of God.
Side Note:
I also do not believe everything Chuck Missler teaches, either. But agree with his videos on the defense of God’s Word being divine.
Three Scriptural Reasonsto Trustin A Perfect Word Today.
#1.God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not.
#2.KJV vs. Modern Translations
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions. Have no idea what I am talking about?
Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.
See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...
Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.
See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.
Why is this a problem?
Let's look at...
Genesis 22:17
"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"
Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.
For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I").
Here are a few more places the devil tries to place himself in God's Word (wrongfully). Click on the spoiler button to check it out.
In fact, this is not the only time the devil has tried to place his name in the Bible in exchange for something that is supposed to be sacred or holy. We see the devil tries to place his name in Modern Translations in Daniel 3.
In Daniel 3, the Babylonian king says there is one like the "Son of God" in the fiery furnace along with Daniel's three friends. This is Jesus! Yet, in the Modern Translations it says the "son of the gods." In many false religions we can see how certain gods had mated with human females and created a hybrid. This is popular even in Greek mythology. So who saved Daniel's friends? Jesus or some hybrid like Hercules?
Nebuchadnezzar thought this was an angel of God (singular and not plural).
"Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." (Daniel 3:28).
This was not the "son of the gods (plural) (little "g")!!!
No way Hosea! I mean, "No way José!"
Nebuchadnezzar clearly was referencing the most high God.
The Bible says (even something similar in your Modern Version),
"Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire." (Daniel 3:26).
Angels are called the: "sons of God" in Job.
The fourth person in the fire was still Jesus! The son of God. The Scriptures were still correct in their inspiration by God when they say, "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." While Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity, the Lord our God who inspired Scripture surely would have glorified the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in this instance. For it was Jesus who was in the fire with Daniel's three friends!
Also, please check out this thread here, as well. It will help to explain this situation a little better, too.
Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.
(Please take note: I do not believe Jesus is an angelic being; I believe Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity and that He is fully 100% God who took on the flesh of man).
In Isaiah 14:12, the devil's name "Lucifer" is replaced with "Day Star" or the "Morning Star."
Yes, I am aware that "morning stars" are angels in the book of Job.
But Modern Translations also say this is the Shining Star or the Son of the Dawn. Why?
Jesus says,
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16).
So Jesus is the BRIGHT and MORNING star!
Yet, the individual in Isaiah 14:12 in Modern Translations is called the shining (bright) and morning star or the Day Star, etc.
So the devil is trying to be like the most high here. He is taking a similar sounding title of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12.
For where is the bright and morning star up in the sky?
It is the sun.
That is why He is called the bright and morning star because the sun is bright and rises in the morning.
Also, Lucifer means "light bearer."
Scripture tells us this is what it means.
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14).
The word "angel" also means "messenger." So 2 Corinthians 11:14 is saying that Satan is a light messenger or light bearer. In fact, when Satan is described with having all kinds of jewelry on him, it was symbolic of who he was. Certain gemstones refract light. They are not light themselves, but they merely reflect whatever light is in existence. Gemstones are like little light bearers. So how fitting the name "Lucifer" is for the devil. Yet, Modern Translations seek to give the devil a name that is similar to Jesus. This is wrong (of course).
Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).
#3.Biblical Numerics
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our everyday life and all things glorify God. So obviously the numbers in God's Word would naturally glorify Him in some way. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers & the Greek New Testament.
Sevens in the Bible - Chuck Missler:
Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.
King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 1):
King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 2):
Now, while I may not agree with Mike on everything he teaches in the Bible nor on the way he teaches Bible numbers in every example, I have found that he has made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the King James.
I believe the 1769 KJV is the Word of God for our world language (English) today.
In 1611, the printing process was not perfected yet and there was no set standard in spelling yet, either.
From my experience, I have discovered that there are two wrong extremes on this topic. One wrong extreme says the KJV is evil and to even use it is to be a part of a cult (That teaches that one must worship a book - Which is simply not true). The other wrong extreme says the same thing. For I have found that many KJV-Onlyists believe that you should only read the King James. Many other KJV-Onlyists will also say that the King James is not all that hard to understand, too. However, I disagree with both of these conclusions, though.
Anyways, while I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God, I do not think one should stick to just reading it alone. For I have found Modern Translations to be very helpful in updating the language (From Old English); However, I do not put my entire trust in Modern Translations because the devil has placed his name all over them and key doctrines have been watered down and important messages within God's Word have been neutered.
In other words, I read Modern Translations as if I am panning for gold. I have to sift thru the dirt or the garbage in order to get to the gold of the passage that lines up with the King James (and the original Hebrew and Greek).
This gold that is found within the dirt of the translations can be very useful because it reflects what is in the King James. This is the gold that people hear and are saved when they hear the gospel message. For someone can be saved just by hearing a few Bible verses about the gospel message of Jesus Christ. This gold shines thru and penetrates their heart.
Like the Parable of the Sower. Believers receive the Word of God into their heart from those passages that are talking about salvation. Words that line up with the King James. These words are sown in their heart. And if they let this Word take root in their heart by continually reading the Word of God, then they will have hidden His Word in their heart so they will not sin against Him. It will have taken root and they will not fall away due to persecution or the trials of this life.
For it only takes a few Bible verses to get someone saved. However, washing yourself with the water of the Word is going to be a lot more effective if you use the pure Word of God.
Side Note:
I also do not believe everything Chuck Missler teaches, either. But agree with his videos on the defense of God’s Word being divine.
Interesting case. I do notice the change with Nebuchadnezzar there. I'll research that. I enjoy reading many versions because of the different wording. If something seems off, I tend to hold KJV to a higher standard (still) than the others and compare to it. If that's not enough, I open up my Hebrew-Greek KJV Study Bible.
After being confronted with the reality surrounding the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7, my precious dependence on said version was reduced to the same dependence as I have on versions like RSV, NIV, ESV, etc. I used to think that the KJV/NKJV/YLT/etc. versions were infallible in that the Textus Receptus was the inspired Greek Text that God preserved, but I was wrong, after many hours of research on the issue. (Doesn't mean I reject the Trinity. Never.)
But it came to my mind just now that no Bible translation by human hands (other than the original authors) are infallible. Copyist's errors, a mistakenly added verse, mistakenly removed verse, etc. It's a sad reality of the imperfection of mankind. (Honestly writing this to calm my conscience. I personally cannot stand reading an imperfect Bible translation but maybe that's my mild OCD symptoms messing with me. I've always had OCD tendencies.)
The Bible is inerrant but Bible translations are fallible.
If you have anything constructive to offer, please share.
I believe 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that describes the Trinity point blank. You may disagree, but I believe the reason folks doubt 1 John 5:7 is because of outside man made documents that cast doubt in having faith that God's Word was preserved.
Anyways, here is a thread I started that answer some tough Bible contradictions I encountered in my faith (that I resolved).
I believe 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that describes the Trinity point blank. You may disagree, but I believe the reason folks doubt 1 John 5:7 (should be in their Bibles) is because of outside man made documents that cast doubt in having faith that God's Word was preserved.
Anyways, here is a thread I started that answer some tough Bible contradictions I encountered in my faith (that I resolved).
There are two sets of manuscripts from the original languages. The Textus Receptus (KJV) and the Critical Text (Modern Translations). There is a Textus Receptus website that created a New Testament 2016 King James. I like it, but I disagree with their taking the word "perfect" out of certain verses. But you may find it helpful on the rendering of other verses, though.
Mike Hoggards videos on Biblical Numerics in my first post within this thread I really great. It truly makes me in awe that God's Word is divine and preserved for our day. Chuck Missler goes into how the words are divine in the Greek.
I disagree with some of Mike and Chuck's teachings, but their teaching on showing how God's Word is divine is absolutely amazing. A must watch - IMO.
There are two sets of manuscripts from the original languages. The Textus Receptus (KJV) and the Critical Text (Modern Translations). There is a Textus Receptus website that created a New Testament 2016 King James. I like it, but I disagree with their taking the word "perfect" out of certain verses. But you may find it helpful on the rendering of other verses, though.
Mike Hoggards videos on Biblical Numerics in my first post within this thread I really great. It truly makes me in awe that God's Word is divine and preserved for our day. Chuck Missler goes into how the words are divine in the Greek.
I disagree with some of Mike and Chuck's teachings, but their teaching on showing how God's Word is divine is absolutely amazing. A must watch - IMO.
There are two sets of manuscripts from the original languages. The Textus Receptus (KJV) and the Critical Text (Modern Translations). There is a Textus Receptus website that created a New Testament 2016 King James. I like it, but I disagree with their taking the word "perfect" out of certain verses. But you may find it helpful on the rendering of other verses, though.
Mike Hoggards videos on Biblical Numerics in my first post within this thread I really great. It truly makes me in awe that God's Word is divine and preserved for our day. Chuck Missler goes into how the words are divine in the Greek.
I disagree with some of Mike and Chuck's teachings, but their teaching on showing how God's Word is divine is absolutely amazing. A must watch - IMO.
Welp, the Textus Receptus is the most logical one there in that case. I am decidedly unsure about the exact place the Comma Johanneum has in the Scripture but I have no doubt about the verse in regards to Nebuchadnezzar.
After being confronted with the reality surrounding the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7, my precious dependence on said version was reduced to the same dependence as I have on versions like RSV, NIV, ESV, etc. I used to think that the KJV/NKJV/YLT/etc. versions were infallible in that the Textus Receptus was the inspired Greek Text that God preserved, but I was wrong, after many hours of research on the issue. (Doesn't mean I reject the Trinity. Never.)
But it came to my mind just now that no Bible translation by human hands (other than the original authors) are infallible. Copyist's errors, a mistakenly added verse, mistakenly removed verse, etc. It's a sad reality of the imperfection of mankind. (Honestly writing this to calm my conscience. I personally cannot stand reading an imperfect Bible translation but maybe that's my mild OCD symptoms messing with me. I've always had OCD tendencies.)
The Bible is inerrant but Bible translations are fallible.
If you have anything constructive to offer, please share.
Knowing is half the battle. What I mean is, the advantages we have today through technology, means of transportation, ways information is easily accessible, Bible scholars having more resources at their fingertips and ways to compare manuscripts and so on. So that the discrepancies, the differences, the alternative readings and so on are not secrets, they are known, and it is the only way to maintain integrity and humility in approaching the subject. Although it would have been nice to learn Greek, at this point, it is doubtful I ever will, but it is well with my soul, the living Word is inerrant and the Spirit of truth dwells in me, guiding and leading through the highs and lows of simply trying to understand the original intended meaning of the text. It is slow going for me, but the Lord is patient!
