Large Block Capital Letters in KJV

[Pastor Scott Markle]

11 hours ago, Bro. West said:

It was said or implied that I would add to or subtracted words from the TEXT. I would rather die first, that is a lie.

What was said (not at all implied, but directly said) was the following:

On 12/23/2021 at 9:37 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  You employed the phrase "advance revelations" in application to "the King James Bible," which came approximately 1500 years AFTER the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek had been completed.  It seems then that you are advocating that the King James translation has provided us with "advance [added] revelations" above that of the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Now, in your above posting you have employed the word "TEXT" without any modification or definition.  As such, your usage of that word "TEXT" can be misleading.  Are you using it as a reference to the Hebrew and Greek "text" of Scripture?  Or are you using is as a reference to the King James English "text" of Scripture?  Knowing the context of your doctrinal position, it seems clear to me that your usage of the word "TEXT" in your statement above is a reference to the King James English "text" of Scripture.  In fact, based upon the manner that you have presented your doctrinal position on the matter, I do indeed believe that you would be willing to die before you would be willing to alter one "jot or tittle" of the  "text" of the King James English translation.  Yet NOONE has accused you of seeking to alter in any way the English "text" of the King James translation.  Rather, the accusation against you is that it is a false doctrine to claim that the King James English translation ("text") is itself advance revelation upon the Hebrew and Greek original "text" of Scripture.  No lie has been spoken against you.  You yourself did INDEED state that the King James translation provides "advance revelations."

______________________________________________

11 hours ago, Bro. West said:

The original post was given rather naively for I stated that I wanted to polish it and check it for errors.

And I proceeded to point out one of those errors in your original presentation.  Indeed, I proceeded to declare that it was "a foundational doctrinal error that I view as a separational offense.  Even now, I stand by my accusation.

11 hours ago, Bro. West said:

I have never said from a pulpit or a class room that a better rendering should be, unfortunately the KJV said this (Easter rather than Passover or Jesus rather than Joshua)

 Good for you; neither have I.

11 hours ago, Bro. West said:

And when I stated in a previous post that: !Tim.3: 15, And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

To use verse 16 as pertaining to the originals and disregard verse 15 is foolish. Did little Tim have the originals? My, My what a lucky kid. Only one brother acknowledged that. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

In your statement above, you again employ a word in a misleading manner.  I refer to your usage of the word "originals."  By your usage of this word are you referring to the "original" manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament?  Or by your usage of this word are you referring to the "original" writings of the Hebrew Old Testament?  Contextually, by your added sarcastic statement, "My, my, what a lucky kid," in reference to "little Tim," it appears that you were indeed referring to the "original" manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament.  By your further claim that "only one brother acknowledged" this, I do not know to which brother you refer; but I can provide my own statement within this very thread discussion concerning the matter, as follows:

On 12/20/2021 at 3:40 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, I agree that the original penmen of the Hebrew and Greek were directly inspired (as per 2 Peter 1:20-21) by God the Holy Spirit.  Furthermore, I would agree that the Lord our God promised to preserve those original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures/Writings (not the original manuscripts, but the original writings from those original manuscripts) in a "jot and tittle" manner unto EVERY generation of His own people.  Thus I would hold that unto 1611 and even unto this very day the original writings of Hebrew and Greek from the original manuscripts (although NOT the original manuscripts themselves) STILL exist among the Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies that have been passed down from generation to generation.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

So then, you ask the question - "Did little Tim have the originals?" (And for that matter, did his grandmother and mother, who taught Timothy the truth of the Scriptures?)  If you are referring to the "original manuscripts," then the answer is - NO.  But if you are referring to the "original writings" from those original manuscripts, as preserved from generation to generation by the almighty power and providence of God, then the answer is a hearty - YES!!!

 

Edited December 25, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

11 hours ago, Bro. West said:

I do not claim to be infallible nor a bible scholar. A scholar is one who hath mastered his subject.

Nor have I ever claimed to be infallible or a Bible scholar.  Nor have I ever claimed to have "mastered" the subject of Biblical doctrine.  However, I am more than willing to claim that I am a Bible STUDENT, who ever seeks to diligently study and grow in the understanding of God's truth and wisdom from His Holy Scriptures, that I might show myself "approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Edited December 25, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Jerry]

Bro West, you stated above that you basically put this article here to be gauged by the other posters here to test what you were saying - yet nowhere in this thread that I can see have you actually modified or changed your position when others have stated they disagree with some of what you are saying.

And you have tried to confuse the waters a bit too. Getting more light out of the Word of God as we study it and grow in our walks with the Lord is a world apart from getting any kind of advanced revelation from it. The first one brings out what is already in God's Word as we learn more, the second one brings out things that were never in there - bit frankly, are all in the minds of those that think they can one-up on God and find out things He never said, in the Hebrew, Greek, or faithfully translated English.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 hours ago, Bro. West said:

In order to put to rest the overtones on advance revelations as being false doctrine . . .

In my case it is not simply "overtones;" rather, it is a very direct accusation.  (And I am not shy to acknowledge it as such.)

8 hours ago, Bro. West said:

. . . I will give just one example and one only.

Except that I have not asked for an "example" of a place wherein you think that the King James translation has provided "advanced revelation" upon the original Hebrew and Greek.  Rather, I have asked for you to provide actual doctrinal truth FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE that the Lord our God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation.  Indeed, above I provided the following challenge:

On 12/22/2021 at 5:15 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Claiming that the King James translation provided/provides "advance revelation" on the original Hebrew and Greek is a false doctrine that strikes directly against the teaching of Holy Scripture.  

If you wish to convince me otherwise, then demonstrate FROM HOLY SCIPTURE that God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation (or through any other translation for that matter).  For if Holy Scripture itself does not teach it, then indeed my mind is already "made up" - I refuse to accept it.

_______________________________________

However, let us consider your presented "example." --

8 hours ago, Bro. West said:

In order to put to rest the overtones on advance revelations as being false doctrine, I will give just one example and one only. If more were given it would be a waste of time for if you reject this you will reject any others.

For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Act 19:37 KJV, Geneva and Tyndale also say churches.

Ever newer libel translates churches as temples when it comes to this including the NKJV.

Why did the translators of the KJV carry on this advance revelation? I mean surely they were learned in the original languages.

Do you who advocate the original languages cry error? If so, then why not.

The chapter from verse 21 to the end is about the goddess Diana which fell from Jupiter. Do you know of a pagan “churches” that worships the Queen of heaven (Jer. 44), who’s name has been changed to Mary. Now you know that pagans have churches and craftsmen as well

1.  The King James translators did NOT "carry on" any "advance revelation" in their translational choice to use the English word "churches" in Acts 19:37.  In fact, if the word "churches" in this verse actually is "advance revelation" (which I emphatically deny), then the King James translators only continued the "advance revelation" that had already been revealed through the 1526 Tyndale translation (as you yourself admited above).

2.  No, as an advocate of the "original languages," I do NOT "cry error" to the translational choice of the King James translators for their usage of the English word "churches" in Acts 19:37.

3.  Yes, the King James translators certainly were "learned in the original languages," just as they were quite learned in the English language as well.  So, let us consider the English word "church."  In its etymology the English Word "church" comes from the Middle English "chirche, kirke," back through the Old English and the German ultimately to the Greek word "kuriakon."  Now, the meaning of the Greek word "kuriakon" is "a temple or religious building dedicated unto a god."  Even so, the most basic meaning for the English word "church" is "a building set apart or consecrated for public worship."  The particular deity for whom this building is consecrated is NOT specified in the word, only that the building is consecrated for the religious worship of some deity.  As such, the English word "church" is an English synonym for the English word "temple."  So then, why does the English word "churches" find its place in the translation of Acts 19:37?  In the King James translation the whole English phrase "robbers of churches" translates the single Greek word "ierosulos."  Now, the Greek word "ierosulos" was formed by the joining of the Greek noun "ieron" (translated by the English word "temple" throughout the King James translation) and the Greek verb "sulao" (meaning "to rob").  Even so, the basic meaning for the Greek noun "ierosulos" is "robbers of religious buildings."  Considering then the basic meaning of the Greek word in Acts 19:37 and the basic meaning of the English word "church," the King James translators were quite accurate in their translational choice, as per their superior understanding in both the Greek language and the English language.  We have no need to view them as being in some form of error.  Nor do we have any need to view them as presenting "advance revelation."  They simply translated the Greek that already existed with an accurate English phrase.

Edited December 25, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

[Bro. West]

because we are poore Instruments to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people, whom they desire still to keepe in ignorance

 

To say that these learned translators were humble would be an understatement.

And to think that the Holy Spirit was not there is quite foolish. For if God puts his word above his own name (Psa. 138:2) would he let them pick out English words at random? I believe that the order of the books in the Bible, the placement of chapters, verse numbering and words were guided by God. And yes, I know there is a difference between inspiration and preservation, but there is also providence where “Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people”. While I can not give you a verse that states God had a hand in placement of books, chapters and verses numbering and words as he deems necessary. This obviously was done in order to keep them out of ignorance and not have (they Popish) it chained to a pulpit or forbidden to the common plow boy.

And yes, I read your critique of the word churches and your labor evolved. However, I have software also (boy are we spoiled at one time I would have to count by hand how many times a word appeared) and can do the same. The KJV haters attack this reading (Acts 19:37) like a mad dog. The passage reveals that pagans have churches. The Mormons and Catholicism testify to that. If you translate it temples you will not see that.

Martin Luther in his Bible translated it “Kirchenrauber” which means church robbers in German. He could have translated it temples.

Another passage you might consider is 1John 2:23.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

The last 10 words are in italics, which you know means they had no manuscripts to justify this reading. Were they taking liberty with the word of God by adding these or is this advance revelation? We have them now, but they did not. Even the stinking NIV has to have this. This reading must drive KJV haters nuts. I bet dollars to donuts they wish no support was found.

 

Happy New Year

I should of send you my poem for Santa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BrotherTony]

Italicized words AREN'T advanced inspiration...NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO PUSH IT!

[Bro. West]

italicized words AREN'T advanced inspiration...NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO PUSH IT!

I do not recall using the term advance inspiration.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

These last ten words were originally written by the Apostle John, that is inspiration. They without manuscript support wrote down what the inspired original said, that is revelation. Had they had what we have now there would be not need of italicized words. They were not writing something as in the “Lost books of the Bible” and claiming inspiration.

There only 3 possibilities: they just made it up. It came from the devil or The Holy Spirit REVEALED it to them. We are not talking about one or two words to transfer from one idiom to another, but a complete sentence. Had they left out these 10 words critics now would have a field day. Had they left these off verse 23 would of flowed into verse 24 without any problem. Question, where did they get these 10 words? You have 3 options, pick one.

Happy New Year

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, Bro. West said:

italicized words AREN'T advanced inspiration...NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO PUSH IT!

I do not recall using the term advance inspiration.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

These last ten words were originally written by the Apostle John, that is inspiration. They without manuscript support wrote down what the inspired original said, that is revelation. Had they had what we have now there would be not need of italicized words. They were not writing something as in the “Lost books of the Bible” and claiming inspiration.

There only 3 possibilities: they just made it up. It came from the devil or The Holy Spirit REVEALED it to them. We are not talking about one or two words to transfer from one idiom to another, but a complete sentence. Had they left out these 10 words critics now would have a field day. Had they left these off verse 23 would of flowed into verse 24 without any problem. Question, where did they get these 10 words? You have 3 options, pick one.

Happy New Year

Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.

.

Edited December 29, 2021 by BrotherTony

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On 12/29/2021 at 8:28 AM, Bro. West said:

I believe that the order of the books in the Bible, the placement of chapters, verse numbering and words were guided by God. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

 

While I can not give you a verse that states God had a hand in placement of books, chapters and verses numbering and words as he deems necessary. This obviously was done in order to keep them out of ignorance and not have (they Popish) it chained to a pulpit or forbidden to the common plow boy. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

So, you believe that which you (admittedly) cannot support directly from Scripture.  By definition this seems to mean that you have chosen yourself (your own belief) as your final authority in this matter.

However, I myself am NOT AT ALL bound to accept you (your particular beliefs that you cannot support directly from Scripture) as my authority for doctrine.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

To all,

At present I am encountering a difficulty with handling the discussion to the extent that I desire.  For the past few days, I have been unable to access my OnlineBaptist account from any computer at my own house.  On the other hand, I AM able to access my account from other people's houses, which is what I am doing at present (at my in-law's).  This has happened before and lasted approximately a week.  I believe that it is a problem either with my router or with my internet provider.  Therefore, having to access my account at other's houses limits my response-ability, because I do not have regular daily access.

___________________________________

To Brother West,

You posted the following on my personal profile:

Quote

Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.

I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.

Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9

And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..

Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.

It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.

Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?

  I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?

Happy New Year

Until the concluding two paragraphs, this presentation seems to be a response to the opening quote -- "Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles."  To this quote you then stated to me -- "I really do not know where you are going with this."  The problem is that I myself did not present the original quotation.  That original quotation was made above in this thread discussion by Brother Tony, not by me, as follows:

On 12/29/2021 at 2:24 PM, BrotherTony said:

Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.

Therefore, I cannot tell you where Brother Tony intended to be "going with this" statement.  In order to know that, you have to talk to Brother Tony about it, not to me.

__________________________________________________

Now, concerning your closing paragraph of that posting on my personal profile, as follows:

Quote

  I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?

First, let us recognize that chapter and verse divisions for the entire Old and New Testament Scriptures did NOT first begin with the King James translation.  Although they were not included in the 1526 Tyndale translation or the 1537 Matthews translation, they were included in the 1560 Geneva translation.  Even so, if for the sake of the argument we grant that these chapter and verse divisions were "advance revelation" (which I emphatically deny as true doctrine), then the King James translators did NOT themselves receive that "advance revelation."  Then the King James translators were only continuing the "advance revelation" that had originally been granted to the Geneva translators.  In addition, if we grant that such "advance revelation" can occur and be added through a sequence of English translations (which I emphatically deny), then there would be no grounds for claiming that a more modern English translation has not possibly also provided us with even further (and/or corrective) "advance revelation."  What doctrinal grounds would we then have to claim that such "advance revelations" that occurred in the Tyndale translation, then in the Geneva translation, then in the 1611 King James translation, then in the four further editions of the King James translation, has ended with the 1769 edition of the King James translation?  What doctrinal grounds would we then have to claim that God has not provided additional "advance revelations" in one or more of the English translations from the 1800s, 1900s, and 2000s?    

Second, since I would definitely deny that these chapter and verse divisions are "advance revelation," and since there is no direct Scriptural support for them, you ask whether I would reject them altogether.  In answer I would say - No, there is no need to reject them altogether.  These chapter and verse divisions serve as very useful TOOLS in locating specific statements of Holy Scripture for both Bible study and Bible memorization.  Even so, there is good reason to retain them, and not to reject them.  However, since these chapter and verse divisions were man made and were not a part of the original inspiration or divine preservation of the Holy Scriptures, they should NOT be viewed as carrying the "jot and tittle" authority of the very Holy Scriptures.  Thus if a preacher or teacher indicates that a particular chapter division or verse division is "unfortunate," he is only expressing disagreement with a man-made tool, not with the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Scriptures themselves.

 

[Jerry]

On 12/29/2021 at 5:28 AM, Bro. West said:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

The last 10 words are in italics, which you know means they had no manuscripts to justify this reading. Were they taking liberty with the word of God by adding these or is this advance revelation?

Actually, you are dead wrong - there is earlier manuscript evidence for those words. Maybe they KJV translators did not have a manuscript that had that passage or they felt the evidence was not conclusive or strong enough on its own (but they obviously believed the passage was genuine so included it), but to be honest with their translation, they put those words in italics.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

In this post I wish to respond concerning the question over the second half of 1 John 2:23.

On 12/29/2021 at 8:28 AM, Bro. West said:

Another passage you might consider is 1John 2:23.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

The last 10 words are in italics, which you know means they had no manuscripts to justify this reading. Were they taking liberty with the word of God by adding these or is this advance revelation? We have them now, but they did not. Even the stinking NIV has to have this. This reading must drive KJV haters nuts. I bet dollars to donuts they wish no support was found.

On 12/29/2021 at 1:09 PM, Bro. West said:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

These last ten words were originally written by the Apostle John, that is inspiration. They without manuscript support wrote down what the inspired original said, that is revelation. Had they had what we have now there would be not need of italicized words. They were not writing something as in the “Lost books of the Bible” and claiming inspiration.

There only 3 possibilities: they just made it up. It came from the devil or The Holy Spirit REVEALED it to them. We are not talking about one or two words to transfer from one idiom to another, but a complete sentence. Had they left out these 10 words critics now would have a field day. Had they left these off verse 23 would of flowed into verse 24 without any problem. Question, where did they get these 10 words? You have 3 options, pick one.

Happy New Year

And within the second to last paragraph of that which you posted on my personal profile:

Quote

 

But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?

 

By the fact that you have repeated this case to me three different times, it seems that it is important to you.  So then --

Your presentation of this case is somewhat false (and thus somewhat manipulative and deceptive).  You provide us with THREE options to choose (which all turn out to be false options), but you neglect to provide the FOURTH option wherein the truth is actually found.  The three options that you provide to us for the case concerning the second half of 1 John 2:23 are as follows:

1.  The King James translators just made up this portion of 1 John 2:23, and thus took liberties with the Holy Scriptures by adding these ten words.  (I answer -- This option is false.)

2.  The King James translators received this portion of 1 John 2:23 from the devil.  (I answer -- This option is false.)

3.  The King James translators received this portion of 1 John 2:23 as an "advance revelation" from God the Holy Spirit.  (This is the option that you desire for us to choose; however, I again answer -- This option is false).

Now, these were the only three options that you offered us.  Yet there is a fourth option that you neglected to offer us, as follows:

4.  The King James translators included this portion of 1 John 2:23 because it already existed in previous sources of Holy Scripture, sources which they did indeed have available to them for their consideration.

Brother West, you yourself attempted to cancel this option as even being possible with the following statements:

On 12/29/2021 at 8:28 AM, Bro. West said:

The last 10 words are in italics, which you know means they had no manuscripts to justify this reading. Were they taking liberty with the word of God by adding these or is this advance revelation? We have them now, but they did not. Even the stinking NIV has to have this. This reading must drive KJV haters nuts. I bet dollars to donuts they wish no support was found. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On 12/29/2021 at 1:09 PM, Bro. West said:

These last ten words were originally written by the Apostle John, that is inspiration. They without manuscript support wrote down what the inspired original said, that is revelation. Had they had what we have now there would be not need of italicized words. They were not writing something as in the “Lost books of the Bible” and claiming inspiration.

There only 3 possibilities: they just made it up. It came from the devil or The Holy Spirit REVEALED it to them. We are not talking about one or two words to transfer from one idiom to another, but a complete sentence. Had they left out these 10 words critics now would have a field day. Had they left these off verse 23 would of flowed into verse 24 without any problem. Question, where did they get these 10 words? You have 3 options, pick one.

Happy New Year (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

The problem here is that you are wrong about what the King James translators had available to them.  In truth, they did NOT develop these "10 words" completely new for the King James translation.  In truth, the second half of 1 John 2:23 ALREADY EXISTED in previous English translations.  Although it was not included in the 1526 Tyndale, the 1537 Matthews, or the 1560 Geneva translations, it WAS included in the 1395 Wycliffe translation and in the 1568 Bishop's Bible, which certainly were available to the King James translators for their consideration.  Furthermore, this second half of 1 John 2:23 was also found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, and Aramaic translations/versions, in Luther's German translation of 1545, in the Spanish Sagrada Escrituras of 1569, and in the Italian Diodati of 1649, which were also available to the King James translators for their consideration.  Finally, although this second half of 1 John 2:23 was not included in Stephanus' Greek text of 1550, it WAS indeed found in Beza' Greek text of 1598.  Indeed, this portion of 1 John 2:23 WAS found in various Greek texts that the King James translators certainly had available to them for their consideration.

Therefore, in the particular case of 1 John 2:23, the use of italicized words does NOT indicate that the King James translators were unaware of any source support for the second half of the verse.  So, why then did they put the second half of the verse in italics?  Since (as far as I am aware) none of the King James translators communicated their reasoning in print, and since none of them remain alive today to ask, we can only speculate.  One possible answer is that some of the King James translators were not as confident as others about the authenticity for that portion of 1 John 2:23.  Thus in order to demonstrate THEIR HUMILITY (as per your own declaration of their character, Brother West -- "To say that these learned translators were humble would be an understatement"), those who were less confident humbly allowed it to be included; and those who were more confident humbly allowed it to be placed in italics.  Another possibility is that the King James translators believed that the second half of 1 John 2:23 should be included, but they placed it italics in order to humbly acknowledge that it was not included in previously accepted English translations of the Holy Scriptures.

(Note: As for myself, I find that there is more than enough source evidence for its authenticity.  Even so, I have NO doubts against it.)

Edited December 31, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Bro. West]

 Then how do you account for the arrangement of books in a premillennial order, the break in Isaiah 40:3 matching the 40th book Matthew with John the Baptist or Isaiah 66 matching the 66 book, Revelation.   How do you explain But the men of Sodom [were] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. Gen 13:13 which has 13 words and 39 letters 3x13. This is rebelling  against human nature and the first time 13 appears in Writ it has to do with rebelling (Gen.14.4) and that Judas Iscariot has 13 letters and he rebelled against Jesus Christ. And Jesus gave Judas the SOP (Son Of Perdition). John 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. And we are not even mentioning the Large Block Letters and the BRANCH or the connection with the inscription at Calvary. And I will give you one more the Patriarchal trinity. 

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob whom one could call the patriarchal trinity appears in Scripture to designate the true line of the nation of Israel. This trinity appears 33 times, which is noteworthy Yet notice when the last time it is used.
(Acts 7:32)  [Saying], I [am] the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold.
 This is part of the sermon Stephen preached before the people (Jews), scribes and elders of Israel. Where upon hearing his message they stoned him. The patriarchal trinity never shows up again and Israel as a nation is becoming the tail and not the head in this dispensation as far as position is concerned (Acts 28:24-28). You see I believe I am reading a live BOOK (Heb. 4:12) The above is from one of my devotional I send out. I can not give you a verse to explain these things, you may scoff and call them accidental and there are many more. I wonder if I should chain down my Bible when I go to sleep for it might want to run around my den and knock over the furniture. Do not forget the BOOK is called a HIS. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things [are] naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Heb 4:13 You can not see these things if you believe we have a dead book and run to "the Greek". I am amazed at the English preserved, infallible and precious BOOK.

                                                 HAPPY NEW YEAR
 

 

 

[Bro. West]

Nothing happens by chance when it come to the Book and I appreciate your research. These chapter and verse marking, which you call a tool. They surely were not given by the devil or groups that wanted to control the masses. To believe that God was not behind this is foolish. They have helped to memorize Writ and help preach the Gospel and bring the lost to a saving knowledge of the Saviour. I do not know if they were inspired or guide to do so. There is no reason not to retain them at all. The printing press was used to print Bibles, should we retain it as a means to publish his word or should we ban the press and go back to hand written works.

God's provenance shows up in both the markings and the press. 

  

[BrotherTony]

3 minutes ago, Bro. West said:

Nothing happens by chance when it come to the Book and I appreciate your research. These chapter and verse marking, which you call a tool. They surely were not given by the devil or groups that wanted to control the masses. To believe that God was not behind this is foolish. They have helped to memorize Writ and help preach the Gospel and bring the lost to a saving knowledge of the Saviour. I do not know if they were inspired or guide to do so. There is no reason not to retain them at all. The printing press was used to print Bibles, should we retain it as a means to publish his word or should we ban the press and go back to hand written works.

God's provenance shows up in both the markings and the press. 

  

Your comparing the markings of pages and verses and the comparison of the printing press is like comparing apples and bananas. It makes no sense whatsoever! Both are simply tools made by man...