[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by MC1171611

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the 1611 edition of the KJB have the Comma in italics?

Hi brother. No, it wasn't in italics.

Hopefully you can see it here:

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en...lation=kja&oq=

The Nelson reprint, including original printing errors, also has it not in italics.

Aparte de eso, estoy de acuerdo contigo, hermano Manny. La Biblia King James es el estandard perfecto, pero Dios bien puede usar traducciones basadas en los mismos textos y con el mismo sentido para comunicar Su palabra.

Will K

[MC1171611]

Lo siento, hermano.

Estoy de acuerdo con usted acerca la Biblia. Aunque la Biblia King James es el perfecto y es dado por inspiration del Dios, El puede usar lo qué quiere. Para instancia, la Biblia Reina Valera corecta la gramática de la lengua Castillano en 2 Corinthios 5:17 por decir "nuevo creatura ES" en vez de "esta."

Gracias al Señor para su Palabras Buenas en Inglés e Castillano!

Excuse my Spanish; it's terrible, but I'm working on it!

[Will Kinney]

Hi brother. Your Spanish is not too bad. Some mistakes but it is understandable. As you may know, I am a high school Spanish teacher and I love the Spanish language. It is a lot of fun.

Anyway, here are parts of an response I made to the question What about other languages. Some may have seen it before, but for those who have not, here is how I understand this important issue.

If the King James Bible in English is the perfect words of God, then What About Other Languages?

I am frequently asked this question by other Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any bible is now the inerrant words of God.

I finally decided to put a concise answer together to respond to this common question. Here it is.

Hi brother and sister......, this is a good question but not at all hard to answer if you think about it. God never promised to give every nation or every individual a perfect Bible. It certainly never turned out this way in history, did it?

In fact, for the first 3000 to 4000 years of recorded history, there was only one nation on earth that had the true words of God. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20.

Now that the gospel is going out to the nations, the only promise from God we have is that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 24:14

The gospel of salvation through the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible in any language it has been translated into, no matter how poorly or partially done it may be. God can and does use other bible versions, partial translations, or just simple gospel tracts to bring His people to faith in Christ. I do not deny but strongly affirm this to be true.

But that does not make these other partial translations, bible tracts or versions the perfect words of God. There has to be at least one perfect Bible in this world that serves as the Final Authority and Standard by which all others are measured.

It certainly does not exist in the Hebrew or the Greek. There is no "the Hebrew" and much less is there "the" Greek. Besides, once a complete Bible is put together, there has to be a translation of some kind in order to put both the Old and New Testaments into one language. Since God has promised to preserve His WORDS (not just the general, ballpark approximation) in the book of the LORD, this book must exist somewhere.

All the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that book for the last almost 400 years. It was the KJB that was used by English and American missionaries to carry to gospel to the nations in the greatest missionary movement in history. It was the KJB that was carried out into space and read from.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude. In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened.

Today it is only the King James Bible believer who boldly maintains that there really is an inerrant, complete and 100% true Holy Bible on this earth that a person can actually hold it in his hands and read and believe every word. All modern version proponents deny that any tangible, “hold it in your hands and read Bible” IS now the inerrant words of God.

God only holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. To whom much is given, from him shall much be required - "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48. God has given to the English speaking people His perfect words in the King James Bible. We will be held far more accountable for what we have done with this Book than any other people.

To the degree that foreign language bible versions follow the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, and to the degree that their individual translations match those found in the King James Bible, to that degree they can be considered to be the true words of God. To the degree that they depart from both the texts and meanings found in the KJB, to that degree they are corrupt and inferiour.

I do not believe that every foreigner in non-English speaking countries needs to learn the English language and read the King James Bible. Salvation through faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not only found the King James Bible. If there are several different versions in their own native language (Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, or whatever), then I would recommend they use the one that most closely follows the same Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible. If they only have a translation based on the ever changing, modern Critical Texts, then they should thank God for what they do have and use it.


This is how I see it and what I believe. Not a difficult question at all.

In contrast to the KJB believer's views, the multiple choice, contradictory meanings, and "different, omitted, added, or made up underlying texts" proponent has no Final Written Authority or Standard by which all others are to be judged, and he has no inspired, inerrant and 100% true Bible to give or recommend to anyone.

By His grace, accepted in the Beloved,

Will Kinney

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Hi brother. No, it wasn't in italics.Hopefully you can see it here: http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en...lation=kja&oq=
The Nelson reprint, including original printing errors, also has it not in italics.

And you usually can see it here, although this AM the picture is not coming up.

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...ePosition=1483

By the second half of the 1500's the Johannine Comma was in use in Reformation confessions, including the Belgic Confession and the Scottish Confession of Faith. The earlier issues with the first two Erasmus editions and his correspondence with Stunica and Lee and with Luther had little residual effect on the view of the Johannine Comma. The Geneva and the Bishops and the King James Bible all included the Johannine Comma in full undifferentiated text. And Lancelot Andrewes, KJB translators, references the Comma in his sermons (almost surely others as well, however we do not have that much easily available today). The period of the main debate came later, beginning late in the 1600's, and is a fascinating study.

Shalom,
Steven

[MC1171611]

I just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't arguing; I fully believe that God intended for the Comma to be in there and that any "Bible" that doesn't have it or throws doubt upon it is a perversion without equivocation. I just thought that since it was a minority clause at the time, it might have been placed in italics, but from what I remember, they pulled it from the Vulgate (forgive me if I'm off here again ) so there was an explanation for its inclusion. Again, sorry for the confusion.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by MC1171611

I just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't arguing; I fully believe that God intended for the Comma to be in there and that any "Bible" that doesn't have it or throws doubt upon it is a perversion without equivocation. I just thought that since it was a minority clause at the time, it might have been placed in italics, but from what I remember, they pulled it from the Vulgate (forgive me if I'm off here again ) so there was an explanation for its inclusion. Again, sorry for the confusion.

Hi brother. If you are interested, here is some more information on this verse.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html

Steven Avery knows a lot about the history of this verse which he may want to add too, or he can direct you to other good links. There is a lot of history and evidence behind the inclusion of this verse.

God bless,

Will K

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by MC1171611

any "Bible" that doesn't have it or throws doubt upon it is a perversion without equivocation.

My language on the pre-Geneva & Bishops English Bibles would be softer . Simply that their qualification was errant, wrong, and then corrected in the Geneva and King James Bible.

Originally Posted by MC1171611

I just thought that since it was a minority clause at the time, it might have been placed in italics,

Remember the quintessential Greek minority clause is Acts 8:37, never, afaik, placed in italics in the pure English Bible line. So the issue is not really "minority" (that would more likely be a margin note, if anything). However if preservation was almost entirely in the Latin line italics might be possible, but not mandated, and in fact the Johannine Comma preservation was primarily Latin. So overall you would have to do a bit of an italics study. Clearly the King James Bible translators correctly did not think either special print or a margin note about manuscripts was warranted.

Originally Posted by MC1171611

but from what I remember, they pulled it from the Vulgate (forgive me if I'm off here again ) so there was an explanation for its inclusion. Again, sorry for the confusion.

The King James Bible translators were principally following the Greek Received Text manuscripts of Beza and Stephanus, which had the Johannine Comma fully included. The claim might be made that Erasmus "pulled it from the Vulgate and Old Latin" but that would have all sorts of nuances in analysis as to the actual words in the text, something that Michael Maynard addresses.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

There is a lot of history and evidence behind the inclusion of this verse.

We hope to make a lot more clearly available in the near future, including my fav, more about the history of the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, one of the more fascinating evidences. You can learn a ton about Bible history simply by researching the Johannine Comma.

One of the ironies you will find is that the Reformation textual giants (including Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza) had a lot more respect for Latin writers and sources (early church writers, confessions, the Speculum, the Old Latin and the Vulgate) than comes forth today. Both from TR/KJB attackers and even from many KJB defenders. Even while holding the Greek as the fountainhead they were well aware that some deficiencies, especially omissions, had occurred within the Greek line. Their work was a beautiful synthesis of God's Scriptural sources brought into the pure Reformation Bible, which itself was purified throughout the early 1500's by men of great skill and insight.

Personally I do not think you can have a full-orbed exposition of King James Bible history without learning and teaching about the Reformation Bible. From that standpoint you begin to understand the victory over the Vulgate, which had a number of Latin errors and corruptions partially inspired by the wrong decisions made in 380 AD, and also the counter-reformation efforts to try to deceive with the far more corrupt alexandrian text in the late 1800s. This modern version text is so deficient and corrupt (even more so in its Greek sources than the smoothed-over English available) that it makes the Vulgate shine by comparison ! Thus it helps the King James Bible defender to seek a fuller view than simply "2 lines" and really try to understand the beautiful and powerful and accurate scholarship brought forth in the Reformation. Amazing stuff.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Gord]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

.... Amazing stuff.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Thank you this truly is wonderful study.

[PeterAV]

Brother Cob has a wonderful ministry at BBTI.
I would have been there in a shot had it not been for the "Independent Baptist member" pre-requisite.
He also chooses both the AV and the underlining texts.
BBTI's method is very good.
But, the only problem is this.
To learn a language takes years and years.
This means learning the nuances of the people and their idioms, etc.
All the grammar they have and the like. Lifestyle...
On the average, to transslate a Bible into any given language and do it a service, would take a couple decades to say the least.
But with ESL it takes 5 years at the most, and then they can learn the English with all of IT's idioms and grammar.
The locals simply put their children into the ESL children's course, while the adults have their own as well.
It is easy to have a whole generation learn English in less than ten years if logistics were available with financial support.

[PB1789]

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

As a Missionary to a non-english speaking people, I strongly disagree. You are out of touch with reality if you really believe that. There are thousands of language groups in this world. Most of which live in 3rd would countries where education is not very good. Some language groups in this world are simply not going to learn English and that is a fact and reality. Some will REFUSE to learn English because they are proud of their language, and if God calls you to minister to such people, the only way you are going to reach them is through THEIR language not yours. God has not called you to Americanize or Anglicize them but to evangelize them.

Besides, even if you COULD teach everyone English, the time, money, energy, and resources spent teaching them English could have very well been used to give them the words of God in their language. Outside of the Gospel itself, there is no greater gift you can give to a foreign people than the word of God in their own language.

Almost every pioneer Missionary to we read about and uphold today as heroes of the faith were involved in translating the word of God into the language of the people the minister to. Only in this day and age of apostacy and APETHY do you find a de-emphasis of translating the word of God into foreign languages.

Excellent Post/Points Manny !! Good for you and those Gents at William Carey Society for trying to do what our Lord Jesus said in Matthew 28. Reach them in the language that they learned at home from their momma.