NTEB Radio Live KJV Bible Study Rightly Dividing and Dispensational Truth
Why the KJV Translators Did Not Accept the Apocrypha as Scripture
Another favorite lie of the critics is that the original KJV of 1611 included the Apocrypha, which no true Christian today accepts as Scripture. The Apocrypha is a collection of several pagan writings which the Catholic church accepts as inspired Scripture.

In fact, the Council of Trent (1546) pronounced a CURSE upon anyone who denied that these books were inspired. The King James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them in the canon as such.

They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New testament as a historical document, not as Scripture. Their reasons for not accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture are listed on page 185 186 of the book Translators Revived, by Alexander McClure. The seven reasons are basically as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament books.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

Matthew 25 from a 1772 copy of the King James Bible

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves. For example, in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three times in three places!

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. source AV1611.org

Early Manuscript Evidence For Including 1 John 5:7

KJV Preserves It While Others Delete It - Who Is Right?

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7

The NIV denies the TRINITY and DEITY of CHRIST in I John 5:7,8. This is called 'The Johannine Comma'. I John 5:7,8 is omitted by all modern versions. It is called the "famous Trinitarian Proof text". Modernists claim that this passage ought not to be in the Bible, because it is not in most Greek manuscripts. Only 6 Greek manuscripts before the 7th Century omit v.7,8. (14 manuscripts before the 9th Century).

For there are three that testify
the Spirit, the water, and the blood;
and the three are in agreement.
For there are three that bear record
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear record
in earth,
the Spirit, and the water, and the blood

and these three agree in one".

Erasmus omitted it from his first edition of the printed Greek N.T. (1516), because it occurred in the Latin Vulgate and not in any Greek manuscript. To quieten the outcry that followed, he agreed to restore it if one Greek manuscript could be found containing it. Two Greek manuscripts, Codex 61 and 629 were presented, so Erasmus
included it in his 1522 edition. Since these manuscripts are late (15th and 16th centuries) some think the readings are corrupt. What do we answer?

1 John 5:7 Johannine Comma KJV

Early manuscript evidence that exists for I John 5:7,8

Early church writers that used it:
Cyprian 200 - 258 AD. "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." If Cyprian quotes I John 5:7 from his Bible in 200 258 AD, it must be a valid reading. His Bible was copied from an older manuscript containing this verse.
Cyprian lived only 100 years after John wrote the book of I John. Cyprian would have had access to the original manuscript to check.
• Priscillian 350 AD, a Spanish bishop quotes I John 5:7,8.
Idacius Clarus 360 AD, who opposed Priscillian quotes it.
Varimadum 380 AD.
Cassiodorus 485 AD.
Cassian 435 AD.
Victor Vita 489 AD.
Jerome 450 AD.
Fulgentius 533 AD.
Ps. Vigilius 484 AD.
Ansbert 660 AD.

Early bible versions that include it:
Old Syriac 170 AD.
Old Latin 200 AD, in North Africa and Italy.
Italic 4th and 5th century. Italic Monacensis 7th century.
Italic Speculum 9th century.
Latin Vulgate 4th, 5th century.

Greek miniscule manuscripts that include it:
221 in the 10th century.(variant).
88 in the 12th century.(margin).
629 in the 14th century.(Ottobanianus)
429 in the 14th century (margin).
636 in the 15th century. (margin).
61 in the 16th century.(Codex Montfortianus)
918 in the 16th century. (an Escorial ms).
2318 (a Bucharest manuscript).

Early writings:
Liber Apologeticus 350 AD. Council of Carthage 415 AD.

Question 1: If the NIV is right in omitting the Johannine comma, then why do we have a masculine Greek article (oi) in v.7 (oi marturountes = that bear record in heaven) wrongly agreeing with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water and blood) in v.8? Spirit, water and blood are all neuter Greek nouns with neuter Greek articles, which would dictate a neuter Greek article in v.7, (if the Johannine comma was never in the original), but we have masculine articles (oi) in v.7,8. Why?

Question 2: What is it that causes the masculine Greek article (oi) in v.7 and (oi) in v.8?
Answer: It is the two masculine nouns (Father and Word) of the Johannine comma in v.7. These control the gender of the article connected with them to be a masculine article (oi) which is what we have. Hence the problem is solved if the Johannine comma is part of the Greek text. Therefore, the NIV and NWT have wrong Greek grammar by omitting the Johannine comma, as seen by them having a masculine article in verse 7 wrongly agreeing with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water and blood) in verse 8.

Question 3: Why would the Johannine Comma be absent from some Greek manuscripts, but present in the Latin manuscripts?
Answer: Firstly, because of a similar ending in v.7 and v.8, a scribe may have been distracted in v.7, but when resuming his copying, his eye fell on v.8 from where he continued copying,thus accidentally omitting the Johannine Comma. Copies of this would have multiplied the mistake.
Secondly, between 220 - 270 AD, the heresy that Greek Christians were fighting was not Arianism (denying Christ's deity) as this had not yet arisen, but Sabellianism (named after Sabellius) which taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were identical, and that God the Father died on the cross when Christ died on the cross. The statement in the Johannine comma that "these three are one" seemed to support the Sabellian heresy that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identical. If, during the course of this controversy, manuscripts were discovered which had accidentally lost the Johannine Comma as described above, it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts to be the true text.
In the Greek speaking east, where the struggle against Sabellianism was most intense, the Johannine comma came to be unanimously rejected. However, in the Latin manuscripts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of
Sabellianism was not so great, the Johannine Comma was retained. This explains why the Johannine comma is strongly represented in the Latin manuscripts, and why we should retain it today. Source: "KJV defended". E.F. Hills, p.204 - 208.

About the author: This was taken from a larger work entitled "Serious Omissions In The NIV", written by Pastor Keith Piper. Click here to read the entire work in PDF format.


©2009 - 2014 NOW THE END BEGINS
All Rights Reserved