1 John 5:7 and 2 Samuel 1:26

[Eddie42]

In the KJV & the Douay-Rheims Bible, 1 John 5:7 reads like this:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1John 5:7, KJV)

The verse is considered to be an error where a commentary or marginal note got copied into the text, and is removed in later versions after the KJV. Is the similar thing happening in 2 Samuel 1:26?

In the Latin Vulgate seen here: https://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/2-samuel/1.html The Latin reads "doleo super te frater mi Ionathan decore nimis et amabilis super amorem mulierum" and using the site https://translate.yandex.com/ the English comes out:

" grieve over you my brother Jonathan beautifully too and lovely on the love of women" 2 Sam. 1:26

The Wycliffe translation and the Douay-Rheims both are supposedly from the Latin and read thus:

Wycliffe from Bible Gateway:
" make sorrow upon thee, my brother Jonathan, full fair and amiable more than the love of women; as a mother loveth her only son, so I loved thee. (I have sorrow for thee, my brother Jonathan, so delightful, and whose love for me was more than even the love of women; like a mother loveth her only son, so I loved thee.)"

The Douay-Rheims:
" grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee."

Just as 1 John 5:7 was not in the original text, neither was the sentence "As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee" in the original Hebrew text!

Oddly, even though the text of 2 Sam. 1:26 is clearly translated "love of women" in the English translations, never wives or mothers; why do you suppose commentaries keep insisting this means wives or mothers? Maybe for the same reason some translators in the past added the spurious sentence with no textual basis, therefore adding the idea of love of a mother. When I search the phrase "of women" in the KJV OT, I think I see why the spurious sentence was added.

 

[Hopeful]

In the KJV & the Douay-Rheims Bible, 1 John 5:7 reads like this:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1John 5:7, KJV)

I'm surprised it is considered by some to be a error.
I wonder whose personal doctrines it upset?

The verse is considered to be an error where a commentary or marginal note got copied into the text, and is removed in later versions after the KJV. Is the similar thing happening in 2 Samuel 1:26?

In the Latin Vulgate seen here: https://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/2-samuel/1.html The Latin reads "doleo super te frater mi Ionathan decore nimis et amabilis super amorem mulierum" and using the site https://translate.yandex.com/ the English comes out:

" grieve over you my brother Jonathan beautifully too and lovely on the love of women" 2 Sam. 1:26

The Wycliffe translation and the Douay-Rheims both are supposedly from the Latin and read thus:

Wycliffe from Bible Gateway:
" make sorrow upon thee, my brother Jonathan, full fair and amiable more than the love of women; as a mother loveth her only son, so I loved thee. (I have sorrow for thee, my brother Jonathan, so delightful, and whose love for me was more than even the love of women; like a mother loveth her only son, so I loved thee.)"

The Douay-Rheims:
" grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee."

Just as 1 John 5:7 was not in the original text, neither was the sentence "As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee" in the original Hebrew text!

Oddly, even though the text of 2 Sam. 1:26 is clearly translated "love of women" in the English translations, never wives or mothers; why do you suppose commentaries keep insisting this means wives or mothers? Maybe for the same reason some translators in the past added the spurious sentence with no textual basis, therefore adding the idea of love of a mother. When I search the phrase "of women" in the KJV OT, I think I see why the spurious sentence was added.

 

[Eddie42]

I'm surprised it is considered by some to be a error.
I wonder whose personal doctrines it upset?

A pillar of the faith I admire, John Gill (November 23, 1697-October 14, 1771), defends the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 in his commentary: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/1-john-5.html

I believe fully in the doctrine of the Trinity, but the fact that none of the church fathers quoted it in opposition to the Arian heresy I find too powerful to ignore. Therefore, I'm not upset about the modern versions not including it. I believe the truth of the verse, I just would not use it as a basis for my belief.

 

[hawkman]

In the KJV & the Douay-Rheims Bible, 1 John 5:7 reads like this:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1John 5:7, KJV)

The verse is considered to be an error where a commentary or marginal note got copied into the text, and is removed in later versions after the KJV.

If someone were to ask me which Bible translation I trust the most it would be the KJV .

A pillar of the faith I admire, John Gill (November 23, 1697-October 14, 1771), defends the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 in his commentary: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/1-john-5.html

I believe fully in the doctrine of the Trinity, but the fact that none of the church fathers quoted it in opposition to the Arian heresy I find too powerful to ignore. Therefore, I'm not upset about the modern versions not including it. I believe the truth of the verse, I just would not use it as a basis for my belief.

I would rather the "modern versions" leave 1 John 5:7 in their text and they can put in as many footnotes as they want about it .

I am like you Eddie42 I believe fully in the doctrine of the Trinity . The more I walk as a Christian the more I see the truth of the matter .

 

[Hopeful]

A pillar of the faith I admire, John Gill (November 23, 1697-October 14, 1771), defends the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 in his commentary: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/1-john-5.html

I believe fully in the doctrine of the Trinity, but the fact that none of the church fathers quoted it in opposition to the Arian heresy I find too powerful to ignore. Therefore, I'm not upset about the modern versions not including it. I believe the truth of the verse, I just would not use it as a basis for my belief.

You don't use "truth" as a basis of belief?

 

[Eddie42]

If someone were to ask me which Bible translation I trust the most it would be the KJV .

I would rather the "modern versions" leave 1 John 5:7 in their text and they can put in as many footnotes as they want about it .

I am like you Eddie42 I believe fully in the doctrine of the Trinity . The more I walk as a Christian the more I see the truth of the matter .

Your remark about the footnote prompted me to check the versions on my software and was surprised. Only the NRSV had a footnote about it. The note reads: "A few other authorities read (with variations) 7There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8And there are three that testify on earth:"

The KJV is my primary study Bible and I find at times the old English is helpful and some translation choices I just think are more accurate, such as: "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." (2Cor 11:3, KJV)

When I read or hear an interpretation of a verse or passage that is complicated, convoluted and frankly 'oddball', I go for the natural and simple straight forward understanding, considering the type of composition it is. On 2 Cor. 11:3, I surely don't want to rely on my sincere and pure devotion because I know my heart! I want to know the sure truth, Jesus is truth and God's word is truth, pure and simple. But, I do use various translations and compare and have some favorites in modern translations.

 

[for_his_glory]

I use The Open Bible KJV as it is very easy for me to understand. Each book is outlined as it gives a little summary of the book, details the author of the book. the time period of the book, Christ within the book, keys of the book and a survey of the whole book.

I have no worry about anything being of error in it as for after all, is it not the Holy Spirit that needs to be teaching us all truths. I had a Pastor one time that wanted us to cross out the errors that were in the Bible, but I have yet to see any. I do find that all these newer versions, as there are just way to many, take away from the word and add to the word in how the writers of all these newer versions translated the scriptures in a more "easy understanding".

I do not think it was anyone's intention to change the meaning of scripture, but our English words have so many definitions for just one single word that IMO the writers of all these newer versions have actually changed words to a different meaning then what was given in the KJV.

I've been using the KJV since I was 12 years old when I received my first Bible and I'm 67 and still using it. Not the same Bible as I have worn out a couple over the years, LOL.

 

[Free]

A pillar of the faith I admire, John Gill (November 23, 1697-October 14, 1771), defends the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 in his commentary: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/1-john-5.html

I believe fully in the doctrine of the Trinity, but the fact that none of the church fathers quoted it in opposition to the Arian heresy I find too powerful to ignore. Therefore, I'm not upset about the modern versions not including it. I believe the truth of the verse, I just would not use it as a basis for my belief.

I also think that it appears far too developed compared to all other NT passages used to support the Trinity. It is always possible, of course, but the likelihood is very small. Most manuscript evidence we have has been post-KJV, if I remember correctly, making the KJV more likely to be in error.

 

[Hopeful]

I also think that it appears far too developed compared to all other NT passages used to support the Trinity. It is always possible, of course, but the likelihood is very small. Most manuscript evidence we have has been post-KJV, if I remember correctly, making the KJV more likely to be in error.

Maybe it wasn't meant to support a Trinity.
Jesus wasn't even mentioned.

 

[Free]

Maybe it wasn't meant to support a Trinity.
Jesus wasn't even mentioned.

Jesus, the Son, is the Word, is he not?

 

[jaybo]

If someone were to ask me which Bible translation I trust the most it would be the KJV .

I would rather the "modern versions" leave 1 John 5:7 in their text and they can put in as many footnotes as they want about it .

I am like you Eddie42 I believe fully in the doctrine of the Trinity . The more I walk as a Christian the more I see the truth of the matter .

1 John 5:7 (in its entirety), "For there are three that testify" (NIV, NET, NASB, and other modern translations). What are you talking about??

BTW, what does trusting the KJV have to do with this?

 

[Eddie42]

1 John 5:7 (in its entirety), "For there are three that testify" (NIV, NET, NASB, and other modern translations). What are you talking about??

BTW, what does trusting the KJV have to do with this?

Jaybo, I was surprised myself that the responses have been all about 1 John 5:7 KJV, but no comments about the added sentence in 2 Sam. 1:26.

 

[hawkman]

1 John 5:7 (in its entirety), "For there are three that testify" (NIV, NET, NASB, and other modern translations). What are you talking about??

BTW, what does trusting the KJV have to do with this?

I am talking about the wording of the verse .

7For there are three that testify:

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

jaybo do you have a version of the Bible you trust more than another ?

https://christianforums.net/threads/your-desert-island-bible.88584/

 

[Hopeful]

Jesus, the Son, is the Word, is he not?

Jesus was/is the Word made flesh.
I don't know if He still answers to "Word".
If 1 John 5:7 was meant to cement a Trinity doctrine in the minds of believers, don't you think they would have used the name of Jesus?

 

[Free]

Jaybo, I was surprised myself that the responses have been all about 1 John 5:7 KJV, but no comments about the added sentence in 2 Sam. 1:26.

It is likely for the same reason as the removal of some of 1 John 5:7--the weight of manuscript evidence showed that it shouldn't be there.

 

[Free]

Jesus was/is the Word made flesh.
I don't know if He still answers to "Word".
If 1 John 5:7 was meant to cement a Trinity doctrine in the minds of believers, don't you think they would have used the name of Jesus?

No, not necessarily. Jesus is known as the Son of God and also as the Word and the Lamb. So any of those would be sufficient. It isn't a matter of what he may or may not answer to now; it is about who he is revealed to be in Scripture.

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. (ESV)

But the argument by KJVOists is that 1 John 5:7 is trinitarian and those versions which "remove" that portion of the verse are anti-trinitarian or at least removing the deity of Jesus. Those claims are false, of course.

 

[jaybo]

I am talking about the wording of the verse .

​

7For there are three that testify:

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

jaybo do you have a version of the Bible you trust more than another ?

https://christianforums.net/threads/your-desert-island-bible.88584/

I don't know about "trusting" one version more than another. Each one has its strength and its weaknesses, and are based on the translation governors' philosophy.

My preferred translation is the NET 2.1. It's an excellent translation, written in modern English, with more than 60,000 translators' notes. I also like the NRSV and the NIV. They are also excellent translations, written in modern English, with good explanatory notes.

I don't use the King James translation, as 1) it is not written in modern English, so it's easily misinterpreted (sometimes intentionally?) and 2) the sources available in the early 17th Century are not as comprehensive as those we have today.

I want God's Word to "speak" to me as clearly as possible, both in the use of the receptor language and the fidelity to the source languages' meaning.

 

[Hopeful]

No, not necessarily. Jesus is known as the Son of God and also as the Word and the Lamb. So any of those would be sufficient. It isn't a matter of what he may or may not answer to now; it is about who he is revealed to be in Scripture.

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. (ESV)

But the argument by KJVOists is that 1 John 5:7 is trinitarian and those versions which "remove" that portion of the verse are anti-trinitarian or at least removing the deity of Jesus. Those claims are false, of course.

OK, I understand from which perspective the argument is made against using 1 John 5:7 now.

What dos the "O" stand for in KJVO ?
Only?

 

[jaybo]

It is likely for the same reason as the removal of some of 1 John 5:7--the weight of manuscript evidence showed that it shouldn't be there.

Here is the NET 2.1 translator's note on 1 John 5:8, "A few late mss add ...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit".

1 John 5:7 reads: "For there are three that testify" which seems to repeat the long end of 1 John 5:8 above.

 

[jaybo]

OK, I understand from which perspective the argument is made against using 1 John 5:7 now.

What dos the "O" stand for in KJVO ?
Only?

Yes, "only" There are those who consider the KJV to be the only valid English translation. Really!