WHY THE KING JAMES VERSION?

[shepherdsword]

Uh... well I think knowing what early believers thought does have value. If multiple, very early chuch fathers held to certain, common views, then we should find ourselves hardpressed to discount such views. So one cannot simply discount all such early writings - at least some will be very relevant.

And don't you yourself use the the "watchtower church fathers" to determine what the bible teaches?

Oh,the early church Fathers are irrelevant but the Microsoft encyclopedia and later reference works are.

[David Taylor]

The trinity doctrine began it's long and winding road some years before Cyprian (200-258).

Untrue GM.

There are many writings prior to Cyprian, which address the concept of the trinity, both intra-biblical, and extra-biblical.

Many non-Trinitarians attempt to pose the notion that the concept of the Trinity appeared centuries after the 1st century writings of the N.T., but that just aint so.

Didache (50 AD),
Justin Martyr (100 AD),
Irenaeus (115 AD),
Theophilus (130 AD),
Athenagoras (133 AD),
ClementA (150 AD),
Terntulian (160 AD),
Hippolytus (170 AD),
Origen (185 AD),
all predate Cyprian (200 AD) in discussing the Trinity.

To say that the trinity doctrine began with Cyprian is pure false information.

[guestman]

Untrue GM.

There are many writings prior to Cyprian, which address the concept of the trinity, both intra-biblical, and extra-biblical.

Many non-Trinitarians attempt to pose the notion that the concept of the Trinity appeared centuries after the 1st century writings of the N.T., but that just aint so.

Didache (50 AD),
Justin Martyr (100 AD),
Irenaeus (115 AD),
Theophilus (130 AD),
Athenagoras (133 AD),
ClementA (150 AD),
Terntulian (160 AD),
Hippolytus (170 AD),
Origen (185 AD),
all predate Cyprian (200 AD) in discussing the Trinity.

To say that the trinity doctrine began with Cyprian is pure false information.

Tertullian is known to have originated the term trinitas that has been extended upon with later "Church Fathers". However, it is not what either the "Apostolic Fathers" nor "Church Fathers" have said that establishes some belief as truth, but what is written in the Bible, for it alone is "inspired of God."(2 Tim 3:16)

And if you don't mind, please provide details that indeed show these discussed the trinity for everyone's benefit.

[David Taylor]

Tertullian is known to have originated the term trinitas that has been extended upon with later "Church Fathers". However, it is not what either the "Apostolic Fathers" nor "Church Fathers" have said that establishes some belief as truth, but what is written in the Bible, for it alone is "inspired of God."(2 Tim 3:16)

And if you don't mind, please provide details that indeed show these discussed the trinity for everyone's benefit.

You are the one who said above that "the trinity doctrine began with Cyprian", so don't complain about pre-Cyprian Trinitarian references being added as reference. That's a bit disengenuous.

And you do realize, that someone doesn't have to use the specific word 'trinity' to be teaching the concept of the trinity in their writings don't you? That's like saying Matthew 1 and Luke 2 aren't about the Nativity, because they don't use the specific word 'Nativity'.

The Bible alone is God's inspired Word; however when you claimed that Cyprian began the doctrine of the trinity, you introduce into the discussion the relevance of early historical extra-cannonical writings into play that refute your statement.

As for providing the details of the early discussions of the concept of the trinity prior to Cyprian, here ya go; both intra-biblical and extra-biblical.

[David Taylor]

Some Intra-biblical examples of the concept of the trinity, preceeding Cyprian's writings.

Matthew 28:19
Mark 1:10-11
Isaiah 9:6
John 1:1-14
John 3:13
John 14:25-26
2 Corinthians 13:14
Philippians 2:5-8
Colossians 2:9
Titus 2:13
1 John 1:1-2, 5:7-8
Revelation 1:17-18

[David Taylor]

Some Extra-biblical examples of the concept of the trinity, preceeding Cyprian's writings.

Didache (50-80 A.D.)
Chapter 6
"baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."


Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.)
Dialogue with Trypho Ch. 61, 62
“God begat before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power proceeding from Himself… which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him."

“this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father”

“begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided”


Irenaeus (115-202 A.D.)
On Apostolic Preaching 2:1:47
“the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God, since he who is born of God is God, and in this way, according to His being and power and essence, one God is demonstrated: but according to the economy of our salvation, there is both Father and Son,”

“The Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation.”


Theophilus of Antioch (130-180 A.D.)
To Autolycus book 2 ch.15 p.101.
"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries [sun, moon, and stars] are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom."


Clement of Alexandria (150-211 A.D.)
Exhortation to the Heathen Ch. 10, The Instructor Bk. 1, Ch. 1, Comments on the First Epistle of John
Clement calls Jesus “the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe” and “God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the form of God is God.”

“the Son of God, being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated.”


Athenagoras (133-190 A.D.)
A Plea for Christians ch.10 p.133; ch.12 p.134; ch.24 p.141
"Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognize also a multitude of angels and ministers"

"that they know God and His Logos, what is one oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity;"

"For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence, - the Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire"


Tertullian (160-220 A.D.)
Against Praxeus Ch. 8, 9, 2, 12
“Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other...and that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other.”

“All are of One, by unity of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God.”

“All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, the Persons of the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith,” and, “I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable Persons.”


Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.)
Refutation of all Heresies Bk. 10, Ch. 29; On Genesis, Gen 49:16-20,26; Against the Heresy of One Noetus Section 14
“The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God.”

He further states of Jesus that “by nature He is God,” and Jesus, “who was co-existent with His Father before all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Godhead.” Jesus “is co-eternal with His Father”

“We cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit,” and, “Whosoever omits any one of these, fails in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.”


Origen (185-254 A.D.)
First Principles 1:2:2-4:3:5
“God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed.”

“We have been able to find no statement in Holy Scripture in which the Holy Spirit could be said to be made or created.”

“all things which exist were made by God, and that there was nothing which was not made, save the nature of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” and “the Father generates an uncreated Son, and brings forth a Holy Spirit, not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or Holy Spirit, and no anteriority or posteriority can be understood as existing in them.”

“the Holy Spirit is reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity along with the unchangeable Father and His Son.”


All Examples describing the concept of the trinity preceeding Cyprian, and also standing in strick contradictions of the Watchtower's concept that the Father created Jesus at some point prior to Earth's creation as a little, smaller god who was not eternally God.
Maybe today will be the day you finally turn from the false teachings of the watchtower, and find the true Jesus who loves you and created you; the eternal YHWH of our salvation and redemption...why not accept the true eternal Jesus today, for only He, and not the false jesus of the Watchtower's making, can save your soul from it's sins?

[guestman]

You are the one who said above that "the trinity doctrine began with Cyprian", so don't complain about pre-Cyprian Trinitarian references being added as reference. That's a bit disengenuous.

And you do realize, that someone doesn't have to use the specific word 'trinity' to be teaching the concept of the trinity in their writings don't you? That's like saying Matthew 1 and Luke 2 aren't about the Nativity, because they don't use the specific word 'Nativity'.

The Bible alone is God's inspired Word; however when you claimed that Cyprian began the doctrine of the trinity, you introduce into the discussion the relevance of early historical extra-cannonical writings into play that refute your statement.

As for providing the details of the early discussions of the concept of the trinity prior to Cyprian, here ya go; both intra-biblical and extra-biblical.

You are the one that said: "To say that the trinity doctrine began with Cyprian is pure false information." And I did not say that "the trinity doctrine began with Cyprian" , but rather "the trinity doctrine began it's long and winding road some years before Cyprian (200-258)." Please look more closely at what is really being said rather than distort it.

It was not until Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., that the trinity began to take shape, and continued developing with the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E., which now included the "holy spirit" into the formula as God, and in which just a year later at another synod, Pope Damasus had the document, the Tome of Damasus, written:

“If anyone denies that the Father is eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal: he is a heretic.”

“If anyone denies that the Son of God is true God, just as the Father is true God, having all power, knowing all things, and equal to the Father: he is a heretic.”

“If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit .*.*. is true God .*.*. has all power and knows all things, .*.*.* he is a heretic.”

“If anyone denies that the three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are true persons, equal, eternal, containing all things visible and invisible, that they are omnipotent, .*.*.* he is a heretic.”

“If anyone says that [the Son who was] made flesh was not in heaven with the Father while he was on earth: he is a heretic.”

“If anyone, while saying that the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, .*.*. does not say that they are one God, .*.*. he is a heretic.”

Now the trinity was fully formed.

[guestman]

Some Extra-biblical examples of the concept of the trinity, preceeding Cyprian's writings.

Didache (50-80 A.D.)
Chapter 6
"baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

What Jesus said to his eleven faithful apostles, to "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit" at Matthew 28:19, 20 does not in any form teach the trinity, for where does this show that these "three" are "one in a Godhead ", "equal" as the trinity teaches ? To draw the conclusion of the trinity doctrine being spoken here is like looking through a pair of glasses that are scratched, distorting the image. It is faulty reasoning.

What was Jesus telling his apostles ? Why did he say "in the name of " ? Does not saying "Stop in the name of the law" means by the authority of the law. Jesus was giving a command to teach all who become disciples, to understand who the Father is, Jehovah God as Almighty and the Son as his "only-begotten", his "master worker"(Prov 8:30) and what the holy spirit is as God's active force or applied power.(Luke 1:35; Acts 10:38)

In addition, what either the "Apostolic Fathers" or the "Church Fathers" has stated has no merit in God's eyes, for these are the very ones who began the slow wind to developing the trinitarian doctrine. As Jesus said, that "while men were sleeping" or after the death of the apostles (Matt 13:25a), that there would begin in earnest an apostasizing or "a standing away" from the Christian congregation that Jesus established and when into operation on Pentecost 33 C.E.

And so it happened. The "enemy", Satan the Devil, "came and oversowed weeds (counterfeit Christians) in among the wheat (true Christians), and left."(Matt 13:25b) Thus, these grew together and over the course of time the "weeds" almost completely swallowed the "wheat".

Among the "Apostolic Fathers" and early "Church Fathers" were ones who became counterfeit Christians or "in name only". The apostle Paul wrote that "the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons."(1 Tim 4:1) The "one faith" (Eph 4:5) that Jesus laid the groundwork for became infiltrated with "weeds" or psuedoChristians, with the trinity just one of a myriad of false doctrines that came into acceptance by the churches of Christendom.

I am not going to continue this discussion on the trinity, for the OP was about the King James Bible.

[shepherdsword]

What Jesus said to his eleven faithful apostles, to "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit" at Matthew 28:19, 20 does not in any form teach the trinity, for where does this show that these "three" are "one in a Godhead ", "equal" as the trinity teaches ? To draw the conclusion of the trinity doctrine being spoken here is like looking through a pair of glasses that are scratched, distorting the image. It is faulty reasoning.

What was Jesus telling his apostles ? Why did he say "in the name of " ? Does not saying "Stop in the name of the law" means by the authority of the law. Jesus was giving a command to teach all who become disciples, to understand who the Father is, Jehovah God as Almighty and the Son as his "only-begotten", his "master worker"(Prov 8:30) and what the holy spirit is as God's active force or applied power.(Luke 1:35; Acts 10:38)

In addition, what either the "Apostolic Fathers" or the "Church Fathers" has stated has no merit in God's eyes, for these are the very ones who began the slow wind to developing the trinitarian doctrine. As Jesus said, that "while men were sleeping" or after the death of the apostles (Matt 13:25a), that there would begin in earnest an apostasizing or "a standing away" from the Christian congregation that Jesus established and when into operation on Pentecost 33 C.E.

And so it happened. The "enemy", Satan the Devil, "came and oversowed weeds (counterfeit Christians) in among the wheat (true Christians), and left."(Matt 13:25b) Thus, these grew together and over the course of time the "weeds" almost completely swallowed the "wheat".

Among the "Apostolic Fathers" and early "Church Fathers" were ones who became counterfeit Christians or "in name only". The apostle Paul wrote that "the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons."(1 Tim 4:1) The "one faith" (Eph 4:5) that Jesus laid the groundwork for became infiltrated with "weeds" or psuedoChristians, with the trinity just one of a myriad of false doctrines that came into acceptance by the churches of Christendom.

I am not going to continue this discussion on the trinity, for the OP was about the King James Bible.

You say quite a bit for someone who doesn't really say anything. I guess the large amount of discourse is an attempt to obfuscate the issue, an issue you dance around like an artful dodger,without ever making a salient point. Unless the point is that any early church father that disputes watchtower doctrine was an apostate. If that's the case I guess you believe the apostles were apostates as well. I am only getting strong because even when you are confronted with overwhelming evidence that dispute your position,it's ignored and you go on with statements that do not prove your position or disprove ours. It's senseless to continue.
The irony of the your last post is that is what the Watchtower actually is, an apostate group that has given heed to seducing spirits and doctrine of devils. We have a succession of those who were direct disciples of the apostles and then those that were disciples of them. None of them even remotely taught the heresy that the Watchtower propagates.

[TrustGzus]

I know guestman isn't talking about the Trinity anymore, and it is not the subject of the thread. That being said . . .

The doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent on 1 John 5:7. Would God allow a doctrine to stand or fall on a verse in which the history is so questionable?

To prove the Trinity we must prove three premises:

1) There is only one God.
2) Three persons are called God: The Father, the Son & The Holy Spirit.
3) The three persons are distinct persons: i.e. the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

If those things are true, 1 John 5:7 is not needed to support the doctrine. If 1 John 5:7 is authentic, then great! If it is not authentic, the doctrine is not lost.

Those three premises are all over the New Testament. And if they are all over the New Testament, then frankly, what the church fathers said or did not say doesn't add or take away from the doctrine (and I like the church fathers -- so don't take that as a pejorative statement about them -- I'm just saying the Trinity is so plainly taught in Scripture).

[glad4mercy]

I know guestman isn't talking about the Trinity anymore, and it is not the subject of the thread. That being said . . .

The doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent on 1 John 5:7. Would God allow a doctrine to stand or fall on a verse in which the history is so questionable?

To prove the Trinity we must prove three premises:

1) There is only one God.
2) Three persons are called God: The Father, the Son & The Holy Spirit.
3) The three persons are distinct persons: i.e. the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

If those things are true, 1 John 5:7 is not needed to support the doctrine. If 1 John 5:7 is authentic, then great! If it is not authentic, the doctrine is not lost.

Those three premises are all over the New Testament. And if they are all over the New Testament, then frankly, what the church fathers said or did not say doesn't add or take away from the doctrine (and I like the church fathers -- so don't take that as a pejorative statement about them -- I'm just saying the Trinity is so plainly taught in Scripture).

Extremely well put. Nothing needs to be added to this statement. You summed it up perfectly.

Regarding the KJV, I think it is the most accurate translation, but I will sometimes reference other versions. I only avoid translations that incorrectly translate the Greek text to make the Bible conform to a belief system. We must make our belief system conform to the Bible, not conform the Bible to our belief system.