KJV claims 1John 5:7 part of text

[gilgal]

One of the differences between the King James and the modern versions is the absence of one of the most important verse, 1John 5:7.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html

[Richard Amiel McGough]

One of the differences between the King James and the modern versions is the absence of one of the most important verse, 1John 5:7.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html
Yes, almost all scholars are convinced that was a late addition that shouldn't be in the Bible. The scholars could be correct that it was late, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. We know that God continued working on the canon long after the documents were originally composed. But it raises the question - if God wanted it in the Bible, why did he allow it to appear to be a late addition? :confused:

I have written about this in an article Three Witnesses for 1 John 5:7 (http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tzaddi_Comma_Johanneum.asp)because it has an amazing set of connections with other elements on Spoke 18. Whether the scholars are correct or not, it does fit very nicely with the Bible Wheel.

But in no case would I agree with the King James Only stuff on that page you linked. They are wrong on many points.

[gilgal]

Yes, almost all scholars are convinced that was a late addition that shouldn't be in the Bible. The scholars could be correct that it was late, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. We know that God continued working on the canon long after the documents were originally composed. But it raises the question - if God wanted it in the Bible, why did he allow it to appear to be a late addition? :confused:

I have written about this in an article Three Witnesses for 1 John 5:7 (http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tzaddi_Comma_Johanneum.asp)because it has an amazing set of connections with other elements on Spoke 18. Whether the scholars are correct or not, it does fit very nicely with the Bible Wheel.

But in no case would I agree with the King James Only stuff on that page you linked. They are wrong on many points.
If the verse shouldn't have been there in the first place it would make a Greek poor grammar. In other words it belonged there in the first place!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If the verse shouldn't have been there in the first place it would make a Greek poor grammar. In other words it belonged there in the first place!
Yes, I'm familiar with the grammatical arguments, but the scholars don't find that convincing. The problem is that almost none of the Greek manuscripts have that passage.

[gilgal]

Yes, I'm familiar with the grammatical arguments, but the scholars don't find that convincing. The problem is that almost none of the Greek manuscripts have that passage.
But the Textus Receptus has it right? vs the Alexandrian manuscript?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But the Textus Receptus has it right? vs the Alexandrian manuscript?
Yes ... and that's the only one as far as I know.

[gilgal]

Yes ... and that's the only one as far as I know.
I need to brush up my knowledge. The Textus Receptus is in Greek right?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I need to brush up my knowledge. The Textus Receptus is in Greek right?
Yes.

It is the Greek text from which the KJV was translated.

[gilgal]

Yes.

It is the Greek text from which the KJV was translated.Were there any vernacular texts i nthe apostles time? I think there was during the reformation times.