The Catholic Comma Johanneum is in my NKJV Bible.

[bgwilkinson]

I hear KJVOs disparaging MV Bibles for leaving out the Comma Johanneum, but looky here it is in my NKJV Bible in the body of the text itself. It is not placed in a margin note. Of course the preface explains that they did this in keeping with the tradition of the Great English Bibles. They are even following a Textus Receptus tradition. A margin note does however give the facts of the matter concerning the Comma and its history as a doubtful passage. Margin notes advise when the text disagrees with NA27 or the Majority text.

I just love honesty in a Bible translation. Let the reader decide. Just give the facts as they are known.

From NKJV web site:

Q:
How does the New King James Version compare with other modern translations? Does it follow their trend of removing words and phrases from the text of the Bible?
A:
Based on the more recently discovered texts, some modern translations omit some of the phrases and verses found in the original King James Version. The scholars of the New King James Version retained every verse of the original King James. Significant textual variations are footnoted, showing the source of every variant reading.



6 This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

The New King James Version. (1982). (1 Jn 5:6–8). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

 

[biscuit1953]

I hear KJVOs disparaging MV Bibles for leaving out the Comma Johanneum, but looky here it is in my NKJV Bible in the body of the text itself. It is not placed in a margin note. Of course the preface explains that they did this in keeping with the tradition of the Great English Bibles. They are even following a Textus Receptus tradition. A margin note does however give the facts of the matter concerning the Comma and its history as a doubtful passage. Margin notes advise when the text disagrees with NA27 or the Majority text.

I just love honesty in a Bible translation. Let the reader decide. Just give the facts as they are known.

From NKJV web site:

Q:
How does the New King James Version compare with other modern translations? Does it follow their trend of removing words and phrases from the text of the Bible?
A:
Based on the more recently discovered texts, some modern translations omit some of the phrases and verses found in the original King James Version. The scholars of the New King James Version retained every verse of the original King James. Significant textual variations are footnoted, showing the source of every variant reading.



6 This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

The New King James Version. (1982). (1 Jn 5:6–8). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

I have no problem with how the NKJV handled it.  Just as I have no problem with leaving Mark 16:9-20 in with translator notes explaining why some question the ending which has some reading in every Greek manuscript extant except the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

For me, the NKJV worked as a type of transitional Bible, in the right direction.  I still was susceptiple to the agitprop contra the pure AV, yet I understood enough about the Hortian game to want a Bible not corrupted in 1,000 places.

Later, I understood a bit more and moved toward the AV.  However, anybody who throws out their NIV, NAS and Living Bibles and moves to reading the NKJV has made a good step in the right direction.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hi,

For me, the NKJV worked as a type of transitional Bible, in the right direction.  I still was susceptiple to the agitprop contra the pure AV, yet I understood enough about the Hortian game to want a Bible not corrupted in 1,000 places.

Later, I understood a bit more and moved toward the AV.  However, anybody who throws out their NIV, NAS and Living Bibles and moves to reading the NKJV has made a good step in the right direction.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

I am not about to cast aspersions against Bible translations. I believe there is Great safety in using many translations. All translations must be tried against the Hebrew and Greek as stated by the Translators of King James.

My progression in main Bible translations started with the Swedish Gustuv Vasa Bible used by my mom and the German Luther Bible used by my dad. My mother taught me Greek and Latin with Erasmus 1519.

All four of these Bibles lacked the Catholic Comma Johanneum. As I got older my parents started using the ASV 1901 which also lacked the Catholic Comma.

I appreciate a multitude of translations in several languages. I will not be mired in an English only mode in the swamp of the KJVO.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I appreciate a multitude of translations in several languages.

If you are including versions from the Westcott-Hort recension (you are not clear) This means that you are using versions from underlying texts that are wrong in 1,500-2000 translatable places (and that is not including the relatively trivial translatable differences, which doubles the number).

If so, if you include WH, at this point, you have simply given up, and do not know which texts are the pure word of God. Even in the dozens of places where there is a hard error, from Vaticanus to the modern versions (like the swine marathon) you simply have contradictory texts.

Would you like to know which Bible text is the pure word of God?

=================

There are a couple of differences in the TR editions you references in Lutheran tradition, rather than the AV TR.  The main one is the heavenly witnesses.  Luke 2:22 may have the error "their purification" in some of those versions.  Not much more.  Erasmus 1519 has a bunch more that were corrected over the 1500s, so for the Greek you should use Stephanus, Bezae or Scrivener.

Let's allow that you can use the pure English Bible to help determine the text in those few editions (essentially from early TRs) and make the mental or mark adjustment yourself, if you desire to work with their language.

Why would you want to mix pure Bibles with versions with thousands of errors, hundreds of them very significant?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hi,

I appreciate a multitude of translations in several languages.

If you are including versions from the Westcott-Hort recension (you are not clear) This means that you are using versions from underlying texts that are wrong in 1,500-2000 translatable places (and that is not including the relatively trivial translatable differences, which doubles the number).

If so, if you include WH, at this point, you have simply given up, and do not know which texts are the pure word of God. Even in the dozens of places where there is a hard error, from Vaticanus to the modern versions (like the swine marathon) you simply have contradictory texts.

Would you like to know which Bible text is the pure word of God?

=================

There are a couple of differences in the TR editions you references in Lutheran tradition, rather than the AV TR.  The main one is the heavenly witnesses.  Luke 2:22 may have the error "their purification" in some of those versions.  Not much more.  Erasmus 1519 has a bunch more that were corrected over the 1500s, so for the Greek you should use Stephanus, Bezae or Scrivener.

Let's allow that you can use the pure English Bible to help determine the text in those few editions (essentially from early TRs) and make the mental or mark adjustment yourself, if you desire to work with their language.

Why would you want to mix pure Bibles with versions with thousands of errors, hundreds of them very significant?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

Yes I would like to know which text is the pure Bible, Word of God.

Is it Erasmus 1516, 1519 or one of his others. Is it the Greek text or the Latin text?

Maybe one of Robert Estienne's Greek or Latin texts?

Or how about one of Beza's Greek or maybe his Latin texts?

Or maybe you consider one of the manuscript Bibles as pure?

You seem to be asserting that only one can be the pure one.

Which one is it? Maybe it is forever lost.

Or maybe I didn't list it.

How many differences does it take to make a text impure? One? Translatable or non-translatable?