The KJVO myth...

[robycop3]

No offense again, but this sounds like you are taking Herman Hoskier’s words by faith and you did not actually check out these manuscripts for yourself to determine if they truly are the divine and perfect Word of God. Can you point me to a perfect Bible today? You don’t appear to have one that you can tangibly point to and read and prove and say it is the perfect Word of God personally.

And neither do you. After all translations are the products of God's perfect word handled by imperfect men.

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

And I bet they got God's word accurately, & in their own languages.

 

[robycop3]

So you have no perfect Word of God today that you can read? How do you trust one word is true over another word being false? We cannot be the arbiters of truth when it comes to what words are from God or not in His Word. We don’t have a Bible truth detector machine or device. The only way we can determine the true Word of God is by doing a fruits test between the different Words that are out there and pick the one that we believe to be the most pure in regards to doctrine, and instruction in righteousness.

You wrote the same thing earlier, & I answered.

 

[robycop3]

You are discounting all the points I made and you are repeating the same ole arguments that have been explained already. There are also KJB apologetics on some of these verses that have refuted your points time and time again. Your other points are not even points in my opinion but they appear more like nitpicks that can be explained rationally. But what about the problems in the Modern Translations? They are too problematic to ignore - IMHO. I believe you want to see what you want to for your own reasons. For me: Your position is illogical because I would not be a believer today (most likely) if I believed there was no perfect Word of God I could trust (Because God did not have the power to preserve His own Word perfectly for me fully to understand). It would be a holey bible (full of holes), and not a Holy Bible. I don’t believe God makes mistakes in His Word. I believe God is perfect in everything He does.

No, NO ONE has refuted a single point I made about those verses. They've simply said, Youse aint right" or similar.

Now, can you name a perfect rendition of the word of God for us? Remember, it's not the KJV.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Source?

And if the manuscripts were "very late", whats the benefit of having them?

Scholars say they were very late. But Jesus said beware of the scribes. So is their intel correct? I don’t know. I don’t have a time machine. But even if this was the case, truth is not determined by time or an age of something. If a person had a pagan religious document dated before the birth of Christ, it does not mean it is true just because it is older. Older does not always mean better. Jesus said, “No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.” (Luke 5:29). Granted, I know that Jesus was primarily saying this in regards to His New Covenant teachings that was to eventually replace the Old Covenant ways, but this verse can be universally applied in this case, as well. Everyone wants the old way, but God had moved with the times by preserving His Word and people just don’t believe it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You wrote the same thing earlier, & I answered.

I just want to clarify because your position is not a logical one to me. So you cannot hold in your hands a perfect Bible that you easily read and understand such words plainly?

 

[Der Alte]

No, NO ONE has refuted a single point I made about those verses. They've simply said, Youse aint right" or similar.
Now, can you name a perfect rendition of the word of God for us? Remember, it's not the KJV.

I usually refer to those type arguments as the "Neener, neener, neener. You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh!" response.

 

[robycop3]

No. There are two Latin Vulgates. One is good, and the other is bad.

No, neither is very good.

Did you live in that time to truly know that as a fact? In either case, I do understand it did take time for the King James to go through a purification process. I believe the 1900 Cambridge Edition is the final purification out of seven purifications of the KJB. The Bible talks about the Word being purified seven times. I believe by this time, families were able to own the pure Word of God. It was not an overnight thing.

God's word needed no purification. And the CE is no more pure than any other KJV(NOT"KJB") edition. It still has "Easter" in Acts 12:4 & the other goofs I pointed out. (And many more that I didn't.)

No, Psalm 12 does NOT say God's word was purified 7 times! It COMPARES His word with with silver purified 7 times, which was the standard used for the Tabernacle/temple tools.
From your KJV-Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
That little word "as" has meaning. dave knew God's words were pure the instant He spoke them.

 

[robycop3]

I just want to clarify because your position is not a logical one to me. So you cannot hold in your hands a perfect Bible that you easily read and understand such words plainly?

I can hold several versions which are as perfect as God caused them to be.

 

[robycop3]

I usually refer to those type arguments as the "Neener, neener, neener. You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh!" response.

I'm waiting for some KJVO to provide actual evidence I'm wrong. The proof in my assertions about the 3 verses I mentioned above is in the Koine Greek mss. which was used in making the translations. I've posted it before, but here's a little sample for the sake of newer readers.

The Greek word incorrectly rendered"Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 is 'pascha', which in Luke's time meant only "passover" it's a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew "p'sach", the word GOD used when He gave Moses the passover command. In no way, shape, nor fashion did it have anything to do with Easter in Luke's day, especially since THE EASTER OBSERVANCE DID NOT EXIST then.

The ball's in the KJVOs' end of the court.

 

[pescador]

Read my post again.

I said that the Gospel, Christ's resurrection, salvation, the need to be born again, filled with the Spirit, that he gives us every spiritual blessing in Christ, makes us children of God, and others are the same in every Bible. EVERY bible tells us the Gospel, the need to repent etc etc - Christian doctrines are taught in all these Bibles which, you say, can maybe affect salvation and hinder Christian growth.

I did not post the references to verses that show the Trinity. Proving the Trinity was not my main point - it was to show that Christians can read modern versions of the Bible and be just as much born again and able to lead Christian lives as you do.

So enough of the "your Christian growth may be hindered if you do not read the KJV" statements please.

Great post!! Thanks!

 

[pescador]

They had no manuscripts to consult. Only Erasmus' work. They were totally dependent on him.

Also,why do you trust 47 anglican translators so much? Anglicanism is your favourite branch? Were they free to do their work or the king with his agenda had a word in it?

King James' desire was for an authorized Bible. Authorized by whom? Why?

His purpose was to create an "official" translation which defined his idea of the Protestant doctrine. Once it met his criteria it was authorized as the "official" Bible, authorized by the King, no less.

Is there a problem with this? The short answer: ask the Puritans who fled to this continent with their Geneva translations! The long answer: King James was a secular monarch who wanted to create an "official" translation so that he could control the religion of his subjects. His doctrine was truth, right?

The KJV is one of many translations, written in a language that is difficult to accurately understand, to a culture that no longer exists. Personally, I believe that many people like the KJV because they think it's the way God would communicate (beautiful prose that nobody on Earth speaks), forgetting of course that when God came to Earth He spoke Aramaic, a simple "people's language". We're probably getting close to the "truths" of the Bible by using The Message or the NLT than we are to the KJV.

Personally, while I consider the NIV the best of the modern translations, I read the NET most often because it's similar but has copious translators' notes.

 

[Oseas]

I believe the beginning of the gospel of John (John 1:1-4, John 1:14) offers some really great evidence of implying towards the step in believing in the Trinity, but it does not teach the Trinity point blank like 1 John 5:7 does. This is one of the many reasons why I am so for the King James Bible. It is doctrinally pure. I can defend the Trinity against a Jehovah’s Witness (JW, WatchTower Soceity) with my King James Bible by pointing them to 1 John 5:7. The rest of Scripture simply supports this truth but I do not believe it teaches exactly the same thing as 1 John 5:7. 1 John 5:7 directly teaches the Trinity by saying the three are one. We believe the Lord our God is one God but yet He is three distinct persons.

What you're saying is exactly what I commented in my above post about the Three Divine Persons; I did not say anything different of what you say in your reply on my post #918. Think we are speaking the same language about the Three Divine Persons.

THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS - 1 JOHN 5:v.7

I highlight and transcribe here the mystery of the unknown third person - the person of the Holy Spirit, who is not a ghost as is written in English language, maybe in all versions.


THE HOLY SPIRIT - AN UNKNOWN PERSON
The person of the Holy Spirit is not a ghost as is written in English language, but a Person, and as a Person, as was JESUS in flesh and bones, he is unknown completely. As a Person he has several missions; JESUS said: John 16:v.12-15 and v.8-11:
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of Judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of Judgment, because the prince of this world is Judged.

- The Person of he Holy Spirit has not genealogy as JESUS has; why? Because he is not a Jew.

- As I above said-post #918, JESUS, or the NAME of JESUS, is known of men, and is also known of the angels, and He is known of the demons too. But the person of the Holy Spirit has a NAME written (in the Holy Scriptures, course) that no MAN knows, but he himself. I repit: He has not genealogy as JESUS has, he is not a Jew.

- JESUS came from heaven and He was born in Israel. John 6:38 - I came down from heaven(Behold the man!John 19:5)not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.
In the other hand, the prophetic birth of the person of Holy Spirit is not in Israel, but in a Gentile nation. His birth is within the body of Christ-the Church-and as JESUS said, he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, for he shall receive of mine, he shall take of mine. This exposed picture or figure is like the Sun and Moon. The Moon receives light from the Sun and reflets the light over the Earth; Regardings the light of JESUS reflected by the Holy Spirit over the Earth, I can see by analogy in Genesis 1:v.16:-And GOD made two great lights; the Greater Light to rule the day, and the Lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Revelation 12:1-2 & 5.
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman(the Church of the Lord JESUS) clothed with the Sun (JESUS and His Light, the Greater Light), and the moon (the Lesser light - the person of the Holy Spirit) under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: (The twelve Apostles of the Lord JESUS)

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 5-And she brought forth a man child - the person of the Holy Spirit- , who was to rule all nations (EXCEPT ISRAEL) with a rod of iron: and her child was CAUGHT UP unto GOD, and to His throne. By the way, about GOD's Throne-Psalm 97:v.1-2CJB say: 1 Adonai is king, let the earth rejoice, let the many coasts and islands be glad. 2 CLOUDS and thick darkness surround Him; Righteousness and Justice are the foundation of His throne. (By the way, as is written in 1 Thessalonians 4:v.17, "We which are alive and remain shall be CAUGHT UP (AS HER SON-REV. 12:v.5) together with them in the CLOUDS-see Psalm 97:v.2, to meet the Lord in the AIR (AIR is heaven - here the third heaven): and so shall we ever be with the Lord.-(in the third heaven)

That said, what was asked by Mr. Porson and answered by Beza has sense, as I transcribe below:
>>> Again, Mr. Porson asks, “ Why is the epithet [holy,] ” after being twice omitted, added [to Spirit] in the seventh verse ? Beza
says,
“ In order to distinguish one Spirit from the other, ut ab eo distinguatur cujus fit mentio in sequenti versu." <<<

I highlight also the explanation below mainly where the commenter tries to understand and asks "why, in the original, the expression of unity in the two verses differs, one from the other, both doctrinally and grammatically?" Perhaps, too, because when the Three Divine Persons are connumerated in the same passage, as in Matth. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, the epithet was usually added. It may also be asked, why, in the original, the expression of unity in the two verses differs, one from the other, both doctrinally and grammatically? But his conclusion is much much more interesting and impressive when he says: The reason appears to be, because in one the unity is essential and real; in the other, adventitious and APPARENT ONLY (highlight mine); and because the eighth verse is dependent on the seventh, as a RELATIVE is on its antecedent.

the spirit, and the water, and the blood - small "s" - earthly witnesses.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, NO ONE has refuted a single point I made about those verses. They've simply said, Youse aint right" or similar.

Let’s see about that.

In Acts 12:4, is "passover" better than "Easter"

Is the KJV wrong for rendering "Pascha" as the English word "Easter" in Acts of the Apostles 12:4?

No. Although "Pascha" was originally a Hebrew word ("פּסח (pesach)"), Greek, being the language of a predominantly Christian nation, had appropriated the Jewish word and gave it the Christian meaning of "Easter". That is why in modern Greek, the primary meaning of "Πάσχα" is Easter and Passover is actually the secondary meaning when "Πάσχα" is qualified as the "εβραϊκό Πάσχα (Hebrew Pascha)" or the "Πάσχα των ιουδαίων (Pascha of the Jews)". Many other languages of Christendom are like modern Greek in making Easter the primary meaning of the transliteration of "Pascha":

See the entire article here:
“Easter” or “Passover” in Acts 12:4? - King James Version Today

Side Note:

You can Google the different words (English to French, etc.) here to check it for yourself. Oh, and the word “easter” is based on the word “east” (Which is the direction of the rising of the sun; For the dawn is associated with the discovery of Christ being risen in the Bible). Read the full article in the link provided above to learn more. They go into great depth on this topic.

In 1 Tim. 6:10, is "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil" better than the KJV rendition, especially since it's a MORE-ACCURATE translation?

In regards to 1 Timothy 6:10:

Well, in Ezekiel 28:2 we see a reference to "the PRINCE of Tyrus", whom many have seen as a type of the Antichrist, and in 28: 12 we see a reference to "the KING of Tyrus", the power behind the prince, whom they see as a description of Satan himself and his fall. The description of "the KING of Tyrus" is from verse 12 to 17. Here we read:

Ezekiel 28:12-18 King James Bible

12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the KING of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13 Thou hast been IN EDEN THE GARDEN OF GOD; EVERY PRECIOUS STONE WAS THY COVERING, THE SARDIUS, TOPAZ, AND THE DIAMOND, THE BERYL, THE ONYX, AND THE JASPER, THE SAPPHIRE, THE EMERALD, AND THE CARBUNCLE, AND GOLD: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 THOU ART THE ANOINTED CHERUB that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 BY THE MULTITUDE OF THY MERCHANDISE they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 THINE HEART WAS LIFTED UP BECAUSE OF THY BEAUTY, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.​

18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, BY THE INIQUITY OF THY TRAFFICK; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee."​

Keep in mind that the cause of the fall of Lucifer (Satan) was pride. His heart was lifted up because of his beauty, which was composed of numerous precious stones, diamonds and gold. "lest being LIFTED UP WITH PRIDE he fall into the condemnation of the devil." 1 Timothy 3:6

Some think that when God told Moses to make the ark of the covenant for the Holy of holies, the reason there were to be TWO CHERUBS facing each other, was so that "the covering cherubs" would see that there was another one just like them, and so they were not unique or the most beautiful of all the creatures God had made.

This was to be a spiritual lesson to reveal the reason behind the fall of Satan, or Lucifer. He was lifted up because of his beauty, which was all these precious stones and gold. It was the love of wealth that made up his own physical beauty that made him want more, and to ultimately be the wealthiest of them all, God Himself.

Likewise we see the same characteristics in the "Antichrist" or "the PRINCE of Tyrus." He is described in Ezekiel 28:2-8

Ezekiel 28:2-8 King James Bible

2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

4 With thy wisdom and with thine understanding THOU HAST GOTTEN THEE RICHES, AND HAST GOTTEN GOLD AND SILVER INTO THY TREASURES:

5 By thy great wisdom and BY THY TRAFFICK HAST THOU INCREASED THY RICHES, AND THINE HEART IS LIFTED UP BECAUSE OF THY RICHES:

6 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God;

7 Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.

8 They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.​

In other words, it actually WAS "the love of money" or wealth, that was the root of all evil that has happened since the fall of Lucifer.

Source used:
Another King James Bible Believer

In Ex. 20:13, is "You shall not MURDER" better than "Thou shalt not KILL"?

Source:
Definition of kill | Dictionary.com

Notice the last definition in the screen capture above for the word “kill.”
It says, “to commit murder.”

So there is no problem (unless you want there to be one).

 

[Isilwen]

As I've said before, if there are differences between the KJV and modern versions, you are always going to take the side of the KJV because its "perfection" is your starting point.
So if there is a verse that is not in the NIV, for example, but is in the KJV, then clearly the NIV is at fault and has removed it. The possibility that the KJV may have added a verse/word is not something that you will consider; that would mean that the KJV was in some way at fault, which can't be the case because you have already declared it to be perfect.

Yep, it's a false equivalency!

 

[Isilwen]

So you cannot hold in your hands a perfect Bible that you easily read and understand such words plainly?

You talk so much that you end up shooting yourself in the foot!

So, since I cannot easily read the KJV and understand the words perfectly, having to as you said earlier, use a dictionary or modern translations, I guess that means the KJV isn't so perfect after all.

I can easily read my modern Bible and never have to pickup a dictionary or another Bible to know the meaning of a word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm waiting for some KJVO to provide actual evidence I'm wrong. The proof in my assertions about the 3 verses I mentioned above is in the Koine Greek mss. which was used in making the translations. I've posted it before, but here's a little sample for the sake of newer readers.

You do realize that some words do not translate from one language to another, right? Also, are you looking at the right Greek manuscripts? My guess is you are looking at the Critical Text.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You talk so much that you end up shooting yourself in the foot!

So, since I cannot easily read the KJV and understand the words perfectly, having to as you said earlier, use a dictionary or modern translations, I guess that means the KJV isn't so perfect after all.

Uh, difficulty in understanding something does not mean that something is not perfect. For Jesus spoke in parables so as to hide the meaning from unbelievers. Also, even Christ’s own disciples did not know of Christ’s plan in dying for men’s sins and in how He was to be raised from the dead three days later. The meaning of His words were hidden from them. Jesus could have made the meaning clear to them, but He didn’t until after He rose from the dead and appeared to them. Even then… some did not believe right away (when they seen Him).

I can easily read my modern Bible and never have to pickup a dictionary or another Bible to know the meaning of a word.

But… what of the errors? How do you pick them out? Also, not all Modern Bibles agree with each other. So how do you choose which one is the correct one?

 

[Isilwen]

Uh, difficulty in understanding something does not mean that something is not perfect.

All I did was use your words. Don't back track now and set a double standard.

But… what of the errors?

What of the errors in the KJV?

So how do you choose which one is the correct one?

They all essentially say the same thing, just worded a little different.

Now, are you going to argue with God? God lead me to my current Bible. Maybe you and Him need to have a chat about your position.

With this post, I am done arguing over it. God lead me to this Bible. Who do you think I am going to listen to? You or God?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

All I did was use your words. Don't back track now and set a double standard.

Again, there is no problem because we know by Scripture that the difficulty in understanding certain things does not mean that the message given is faulty. The problem lies with the individual and not God or His Word. That’s the point I was making that you do not appear to accept.

What of the errors in the KJV?

So you have pre-established that there are errors in the King James Bible.
What is the basis of your logic for this?
Is it because you don’t like to try and figure out 1600’s English?

They all essentially say the same thing, just worded a little different.

Uh, that’s simply not even remotely true at all. Many even in your own camp will admit that this is simply not true.

Now, are you going to argue with God? God lead me to my current Bible. Maybe you and Him need to have a chat about your position.

With this post, I am done arguing over it. God lead me to this Bible. Who do you think I am going to listen to? You or God?

I believe God led me to the King James Bible. But I believe I have good evidence to back up my position. Therein lies the difference between us.

In any event, we can agree to disagree in love and respect.

May the Lord’s good ways be upon you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What you're saying is exactly what I commented in my above post about the Three Divine Persons; I did not say anything different of what you say in your reply on my post #918. Think we are speaking the same language about the Three Divine Persons.

THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS - 1 JOHN 5:v.7

I highlight and transcribe here the mystery of the unknown third person - the person of the Holy Spirit, who is not a ghost as is written in English language, maybe in all versions.


THE HOLY SPIRIT - AN UNKNOWN PERSON
The person of the Holy Spirit is not a ghost as is written in English language, but a Person, and as a Person, as was JESUS in flesh and bones, he is unknown completely. As a Person he has several missions; JESUS said: John 16:v.12-15 and v.8-11:
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of Judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of Judgment, because the prince of this world is Judged.

- The Person of he Holy Spirit has not genealogy as JESUS has; why? Because he is not a Jew.

- As I above said-post #918, JESUS, or the NAME of JESUS, is known of men, and is also known of the angels, and He is known of the demons too. But the person of the Holy Spirit has a NAME written (in the Holy Scriptures, course) that no MAN knows, but he himself. I repit: He has not genealogy as JESUS has, he is not a Jew.

- JESUS came from heaven and He was born in Israel. John 6:38 - I came down from heaven(Behold the man!John 19:5)not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.
In the other hand, the prophetic birth of the person of Holy Spirit is not in Israel, but in a Gentile nation. His birth is within the body of Christ-the Church-and as JESUS said, he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, for he shall receive of mine, he shall take of mine. This exposed picture or figure is like the Sun and Moon. The Moon receives light from the Sun and reflets the light over the Earth; Regardings the light of JESUS reflected by the Holy Spirit over the Earth, I can see by analogy in Genesis 1:v.16:-And GOD made two great lights; the Greater Light to rule the day, and the Lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Revelation 12:1-2 & 5.
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman(the Church of the Lord JESUS) clothed with the Sun (JESUS and His Light, the Greater Light), and the moon (the Lesser light - the person of the Holy Spirit) under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: (The twelve Apostles of the Lord JESUS)

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 5-And she brought forth a man child - the person of the Holy Spirit- , who was to rule all nations (EXCEPT ISRAEL) with a rod of iron: and her child was CAUGHT UP unto GOD, and to His throne. By the way, about GOD's Throne-Psalm 97:v.1-2CJB say: 1 Adonai is king, let the earth rejoice, let the many coasts and islands be glad. 2 CLOUDS and thick darkness surround Him; Righteousness and Justice are the foundation of His throne. (By the way, as is written in 1 Thessalonians 4:v.17, "We which are alive and remain shall be CAUGHT UP (AS HER SON-REV. 12:v.5) together with them in the CLOUDS-see Psalm 97:v.2, to meet the Lord in the AIR (AIR is heaven - here the third heaven): and so shall we ever be with the Lord.-(in the third heaven)

That said, what was asked by Mr. Porson and answered by Beza has sense, as I transcribe below:
>>> Again, Mr. Porson asks, “ Why is the epithet [holy,] ” after being twice omitted, added [to Spirit] in the seventh verse ? Beza
says,
“ In order to distinguish one Spirit from the other, ut ab eo distinguatur cujus fit mentio in sequenti versu." <<<

I highlight also the explanation below mainly where the commenter tries to understand and asks "why, in the original, the expression of unity in the two verses differs, one from the other, both doctrinally and grammatically?" Perhaps, too, because when the Three Divine Persons are connumerated in the same passage, as in Matth. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, the epithet was usually added. It may also be asked, why, in the original, the expression of unity in the two verses differs, one from the other, both doctrinally and grammatically? But his conclusion is much much more interesting and impressive when he says: The reason appears to be, because in one the unity is essential and real; in the other, adventitious and APPARENT ONLY (highlight mine); and because the eighth verse is dependent on the seventh, as a RELATIVE is on its antecedent.

the spirit, and the water, and the blood - small "s" - earthly witnesses.

What you are saying is not exactly clear to me. I believe the Trinity to be eternal (existing from eternity’s past), and uncreated. I hope that is what you are saying, too.