Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Trail of evidence:Also, another problem I see with the removal of the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery is that it gives us a second testimony to Jesus saying, "sin no more." (John 5:14 cf. John 8:11).
It also gives a another witness to Jesus first coming was not to judge but to save, as well. It shows a stark contrast between the Old and New Testaments in the followers of the Most High God behave. We do not seek to execute judgment like the nation of Israel did, but we seek to love and do good towards our enemies (Thereby being perfect like our Heavenly Father is perfect).
If an addition was made to Scripture that was false, then bad fruit and not good fruit would be evident in that addition. That is why I am heavily against the idea of those who say that 1 John 5:7 was added later. It not a truth that is bad but it is actually really really really really ..... really important to have in our Bibles. For it is the only verse that point blank describes the Trinity.
Not only that, but history tells us that 1 John 5:7 was in the Holy Scriptures in early years of the New Testament, as well.
A Trail of Evidence:
But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:
200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in hisAgainst Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitateagainst the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.
Source Used:
Is is true that 1 John 5:7 was not in any Greek manuscripts before the 1600s?
(Important Note: I may not believe everything website may believe or says; I am merely in agreement with this particular article).
Trail of evidence:
View attachment 213847
You said "it is noti illogical to thin that Satan has influenced the scriptures". YOU brought the subject of The devil up by trying to indicate that Isaiah 14:12 was about the devil and I pointed out that your interpretation was wrong if you read Isaiah 14:4 which says he is talking about the King of Babylon and not a fictional devil. Your faulty devil stems from the ignorance of Persian Dualism and Ahriman Humuzd (Ohrmazd) being pure and infinite light and Ahriman the principle of darkness and evil, who opposed Ohrmazd either originally or in his fall. (Manual History of Philosophy, 71) see also Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, pt. iii ch. Iii.This thread is not about the devil being imaginary. If you want to discuss this off topic point, then please start another thread.
Thank you;
And may God bless you.
Think , put on your detective hat. Where did the Textus Receptus come from? Erasumas who included the Johanna Comma even though it was not in the manuscripts and the only manuscripts he had available were 8 miniscules from the 15 to 10th Cent. Tyndale used Erasumas translations along with the Vulgate and he translated the word devil as "FIEND" He also translated Jn 1:1 as" the word was with God and GOD was the word".Your quoting from manuscripts based upon the Critical Text, right?
If so, no thanks. I am not interested in watering down the blood atonement, the deity of Christ, holiness, and other important truths and doctrines. I am not interested in adding names of the devil in place of where our Lord's name should be. Oh, right. You don't believe in a devil. So it really doesn't matter then (I suppose for you). Side Note:
oh, and by the way: Do you think it is a coincidence that Westcott and Hort chose those manuscripts (i.e. not the Textus Receptus) because they appeared to align with their heretical beliefs? I mean, they did after all create a Greek text by which all Modern Translations are based upon. Why should we trust their work? Think. Put on your detective hat for a moment.
If you put stock in man made history, many of your Modern Translations are based upon Westcott and Horts' Greek "Critical Text" (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westcott-Hort); And they do not really appear to be true Christians because they were into the occult and said things that were blasphemous to the faith according to their own written works.
Brooke Westcott said in May of 1860:
“All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture over whelming. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve. ” (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207.)
Westcott also said,
"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture overwhelming." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
Here are a few more quotes from Westcott and Hort:
“Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.” (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
“Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)
“Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration.” (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)
“He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
“(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.” (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).
“(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.” (Hort, Revelation, p.36).
"The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood." (Westcott, St. John, p. 159).
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
Is there any wonder why the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, salvation, holiness is watered down by comparison to the KJV?
Is there any wonder why the devil's name is in places where God's name should be there instead?
Is there any wonder 1 John 5:7 was taken out?
Surely these changes in the manuscripts aligned better with their beliefs. So that is why they clinged to using them instead of the Textus Receptus manuscripts.
You said "it is noti illogical to thin that Satan has influenced the scriptures". YOU brought the subject of The devil up by trying to indicate that Isaiah 14:12 was about the devil and I pointed out that your interpretation was wrong if you read Isaiah 14:4 which says he is talking about the King of Babylon and not a fictional devil. Your faulty devil stems from the ignorance of Persian Dualism and Ahriman Humuzd (Ohrmazd) being pure and infinite light and Ahriman the principle of darkness and evil, who opposed Ohrmazd either originally or in his fall. (Manual History of Philosophy, 71) see also Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, pt. iii ch. Iii.
Think , put on your detective hat. Where did the Textus Receptus come from? Erasumas who included the Johanna Comma even though it was not in the manuscripts and the only manuscripts he had available were 8 miniscules from the 15 to 10th Cent. Tyndale used Erasumas translations along with the Vulgate and he translated the word devil as "FIEND" He also translated Jn 1:1 as" the word was with God and GOD was the word".
View attachment 213922
You can cut and paste all you like. The fact of the matter is that the KJV is simply another translation of the Bible and to think it any different is wishful thinking.
Did you read what I copied and pasted?
Think , put on your detective hat. Where did the Textus Receptus come from? Erasumas who included the Johanna Comma even though it was not in the manuscripts and the only manuscripts he had available were 8 miniscules from the 15 to 10th Cent. Tyndale used Erasumas translations along with the Vulgate and he translated the word devil as "FIEND" He also translated Jn 1:1 as" the word was with God and GOD was the word".
View attachment 213922
No I stopped reading your cut and paste a number of pages ago.
I already have provided evidence that the KJV is the pure Word of God already.
If you missed it; I will repeat them again.
Three Scriptural Reasons to Trust in A Perfect Word Today.
#1. God's Word claims that it is perfect
#2. KJV vs. Modern Translations
#3. Biblical Numerics
Lucifer means light bearer.
As I said before this is fitting because the devil wore gemstones that acted like little light bearers upon himself. Gemstones reflect light. Satan is also called an "angel of light" in Scripture. Light bearer. It's fitting. Lucius derives from Latin word Lux (gen. lucis), meaning "light"
But to say that Satan is the "BRIGHT and Morning Star" and or "Day Star" is just wrong. The BRIGHT and morning star or the Day Star is the sun. In fact, Malachi 4:2 refers to the sun of righteousness (Which of course is Jesus).
Revelation 22:16 says, "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."
So again. You are wrong and you are not following the line of logic here. The devil is clearly trying to take on a name of Christ. This is wrong and evil. CEV, GNT, NIRV say that he is the BRIGHT and morning star!
Lucifer means "light bearer." It can mean "Day Star." But Modern Translations have called him the BRIGHT and morning star in Isaiah 14:12. This is a problem because it is the exact title given to our Lord Jesus Christ in Revelation. There is a difference between a regular "Day Star" and a BRIGHT and morning star. Today, with the passage of time, the word "Lucifer" has come to refer to as the devil (despite it meaning simply "light bearer" or "Day Star" in the Latin). Words change and evolve with a culture over the passage of time. The word "gay" could once be used in passing conversation without anyone turning any heads. Today, you say that word and you have to be very careful. To say that God would not be aware or care of how words would be used today (vs. back in the day) is not taking the Omniscience of our Lord into account. God would surely know that the word "Lucifer" would become to be known as Satan by our world language today.
Information is not your enemy. But I understand not looking if you think your view is correct. I generally would not look at information that comes from a Mormon or some other religion like it. For I know it is obviously false and not worth my time.
But we are talking about logic here. It is logical to assume that there may be one Word of God that is pure that exists today in our world language. It does not sound unlikely because I am sure you believe God can do miracles, etc. and that He has a high regard for His Word. But again, you are free to believe whatever you like, my friend. I cannot force you to see what I see.
Anyways, may God's love shine upon you;
And may you please be well.
Is the KJV more than a translation
Yes,and the Codex Sinaiticus uncial does not include Jn 7:53 or beyond, so the whole thing is spurious and was added to the scripture at a later date.
Saying the bible claims it is perfect and that his word will endure for all generations is not a proof to prop up the KJV as this example it is only a testament to God word being preserved for all generations... and it has, the KJV has had a role in this but nowhere near a dominate role.
You said:Today is persevered to the ability to look up the original languages and study each word in their unique context by a few clicks and available widely for free.
You said:saying the KJV is the pure Word of God because other bibles don't agree with the KJV is not a proof it is a bias. it's like saying my car has the perfect shade of blue because everyone else blue isn't like my car. That doesn't establish the perfect shade of blue it only establishes the others are different.
You said:biblical numbers are not a reliable and have questionable motives. What is their purpose giving glory to God or giving glory to the KJV? It is irresponsible to use thee numerics to elevate a translation as it will inevitably put a focus on the translation over God and lead to idolatry similar to what we see with the wrong focuses on Mary.
You said:If you claim that Hebrew/Greek are dead language and only those who grew up reading/writing/speaking the languages can justifiably understand the language then under this same logic you must also apply it to yourself. It is highly inconsistent of you to use a site like blueletterbible.com to understand a word and tell others at the same time not to. By your own admission we are not able to understand these words because we do not have the ability and cradle knowledge to understand them so why are you uses these tools to understand these words if you are convicted so passionately not to use them.
You said:I have no issue with the word "lucifer" meaning light bearer and agree with this but it only means light bearer in Latin as it is a Latin word, in English it is a misnomer for Satan. It misrepresents the text when words are not translated but just filled in the blank with the last best seller in another language; the KJV choose a misnomer for Satan over translating it
You said:Isaiah 14:12 has never been translated as "bright and morning star" this is hyperbole and you are misrepresenting translations to fit your slant on it.
You said:Lucifer is a latin word. Latin became a language in the 1st century during Isaiah's time latin did not exist. In Latin the word "lucifer" is the word that is used to represent the celestial object in the sky that can be see in during dusk/dawn which is the planet venus. This word in latin is being used in reference to "the day star" or "the morning star" which are english words used to represent the same celestial object. In latin "lucifer" is a good translation however in english it is a misnomer.
You forgot Isaiah 14:4 which says this was to a man, the King of Babylon, and not a false devil of figament your imagination.How many Bibles do you know where it's readers claim that it is the very pure Word of God? Not too many if you ask me. One keeps coming up. The KJV. When a person examines the KJV, they will find that it is the best version to memorize. It has no copyright here in America. They will find that it's formation was unique and unlike any other after it. Also, what is the world language today? It is English. For English has the most influence world wide. So it should not be hard to find God's Word if we narrow down how God used His Word in the past before. There are also no crazy things within the KJV like other translations, as well. I have also witnessed an almost pure hatred of the KJV by other self professing believers. They hate this Bible. I have been mocked and riduculed myself personally for defending the KJV. Why? Well, banks are not robbed because they have cotton candy within them (i.e. something of little value). Banks are robbed because they have high value within them (i.e. money). It's the same with the Bible. Nobody gets all bent out of shape when a person says they trust the ESV. But have a Christian defend the beauty and majesty of the KJV and watch out. Also, what appear to be contradictions in the KJV are merely misunderstandings by the reader. I have find sound solutions to supposed errors in the KJV. So yes. It is perfect. Yes, we see God's Word is preserved today in our world language with it's existence. The Problem with Relying Too Heavily on a Strong's Concordance and Greek Dictionary: The Problem of Using Strong’s Concordance Dictionary ~ Greek Words ~ Word Studies ~ and Greek Dictionaries The Dangers of Using Lexicons and Concordances: Dangers of Using Lexicons and Concordances You are making an inconsequential comparison. We are not talking about inconsequential things here. We are talking about the Word of God. Also, by comparing the KJV with Modern Transaltions we see that changes are for the worse and not for the better. The devil's name is placed within Modern Translations (unlike the KJV) and many important doctrines, and truths are eliminated and watered down (Like the blood atonement, the deity of Christ, and holiness, etc.). What other Bible besides the KJV stands out as not having any blatant errors or huge problems within them? The short answer is none. So we are led to conclude that the KJV stands as superior above all other Bibles in it's purity. I do not use numbers as a part of my worship. Nor do I worship numbers. Actually the Bible commands you to count numbers as a part of wisdom (See Revelation 13:18, and Ecclesiastes 7:25, Ecclesiastes 7:27). If you were to study Biblical Numerics properly, you would not want to uplift numbers to a level of idolatry. There is no bowing down to a set of numbers or getting those numbers to do something for you or anything silly like that. People pray to Mary hoping that she can help them. People bow down to statues of her. This is not biblical. But it is not in any way like Biblical Numerics. It is totally unrelated in any way. So your comparison is way off.
Because you value them. I only trust them as far as the English supports it. If it does not match the context or the English, I throw out their interpretation or definition at Strong's. Strong's is not like an English Dictionary. They were not writing it from experience or while that language was still alive. They are making guesses and assumptions. Not at all. Lucifer is an accurate description for Satan because he is a light bearer. He was adorned with jewels in his clothing. Jewels or gemstones reflect light. They are like little light bearers. Scriptures says Satan appears as an angel of light. So the name "Lucifer" is fitting indeed and the KJV got it right. The problem is when certain Modern translations say that he is the BRIGHT and morning star in Revelation (Which is a name given only for Jesus).
The devil is obviously venus and Jesus is paralleled with the sun.
You forgot Isaiah 14:4 which says this was to a man, the King of Babylon, and not a false devil of figament your imagination.
Isaiah 14:16 this was a man being addressed and not your imaginary devil. James 1:14You are forgetting that the devil can possess people. But you don’t believe in a devil and or demons (despite the obvious testimony of Scripture).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?