• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

1 John 5v12

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Salamander

New Member
Mexdeaf said:
So... which KJV is PERFECT? My thought processes demand a clear answer!


:laugh:
Click to expand...
All the ones which hold true to the thought process implied by the correct wordings.

Linguistics demand it. Altered words and new defintions go contrary to the laws of simple linguistics.

MV's use these "lawbreakers" often which effect the thought process in the adverse to cause the reader to think something other than what is intended by the Spirit.

Thus our objection to the MV's is sustained, again.
 
K

Keith M

New Member
Salamander said:
Nope. As I stated earlier, it's the wordings that affect the thought process. Although one can come to the same conclusion using other words, that is not always the case. We know that, you know that.

C4K was splitting hairs over a phrase that is never defined any different no matter "of God" was omitted.

If that were the case in all versions and in every instance there would be no room for discussion, but that is NOT the case.
Click to expand...

As is always the case, you're wrong Salamander. You accept different wording in particular versions, yet you condemn different wording in other versions. Your position is not at all consistent.

Salamander, just which of the differing KJVs is the perfect one in the case of 1 John 5:12? It is not "splitting hairs" to demand an answer to this question from those who condemn the MVs because they have different words yet convey the same thought. There are none of the legitimate MVs that preach another Gospel. So why is there a problem accepting different words in the MVs while embracing different words in the KJVs? Again, you're not at all consistent, and because of this you destroy your own credibility.
 
K

Keith M

New Member
Salamander said:
All the ones which hold true to the thought process implied by the correct wordings.

Linguistics demand it. Altered words and new defintions go contrary to the laws of simple linguistics.

MV's use these "lawbreakers" often which effect the thought process in the adverse to cause the reader to think something other than what is intended by the Spirit.

Thus our objection to the MV's is sustained, again.
Click to expand...

So then by your definition, the 1611 KJV must have been wrong for omitting "of God." C'mon, Salamander, you can do better than this!
 
S

Salamander

New Member
tinytim said:
So it is OK to split hairs over a MV, but the sacred KJV any version must never be questioned.... HMmmmm...

I see a dichotomy.
Click to expand...
You have again introduced another false dichotomy. There is no true bifurcation of advanced theology where the KJB into the MV realm is concerned.

The KJB is definable and without error. That statement cannot always hold true to what we all consider as "MV's".

Linguistic studies have proven that over and over and countless times. It's time yall accept the facts.
 
S

Salamander

New Member
C4K said:
Is this an acceptable rendering of 1 John 5v12?

"He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."
Click to expand...
An acceptable commentary which holds to the accuracy of God's word, yes, but only in that scenario.
 
S

Salamander

New Member
C4K said:
Which edition had no error in 1 John 5v12 - 1611 or 1769?
Click to expand...
Neither they both say the same thing. No thought process can be altered to think otherwise. You have no point to make, only your assertion lacks credibility in that it serves no actual purpose.:wavey:
 
S

Salamander

New Member
C4K said:
It must be perfect - it says the same thing as 1769.

Quit splitting hairs please
Click to expand...
Rightly dividing the word, nothing "hairy" about that.

If you attempt to rightly divide "Son" when compared to "Son of God" you find no contradiction, well, except in........
 
NaasPreacher (C4K)

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
Salamander said:
Neither they both say the same thing. No thought process can be altered to think otherwise. You have no point to make, only your assertion lacks credibility in that it serves no actual purpose.:wavey:
Click to expand...

Then the NKJV rendering is also perfect - it says the same thing.

Do you believe Sal that EVERY WORD of God is important? Apparently not - you defend the exclusion or addition of two of His words as being acceptable.
 
NaasPreacher (C4K)

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
Which of these three renderings is perfect?

KJV1611 - Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.


KJV1769 - He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

NKJV - He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
 
S

Salamander

New Member
C4K said:
Then the NKJV rendering is also perfect - it says the same thing.

Do you believe Sal that EVERY WORD of God is important? Apparently not - you defend the exclusion or addition of two of His words as being acceptable.
Click to expand...
Um, C4K, in case you didn't notice the Son is the Son of God. I never said the NKJV didn't have most things right, it's only some things that it has wrong.

Nice playing this little game with you though.

If I were to say, "The Son of God: Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, Prince of Peace, King of kingd, Lord of lords." Would I be contradicting myself in adding to, or taking from the word of God?

No, of course not.:godisgood: :jesus: The same yesterday, today and forevermore.
 
S

Salamander

New Member
C4K said:
Which of these three renderings is perfect?

KJV1611 - Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.


KJV1769 - He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

NKJV - He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
Click to expand...
All 3 render the same thought in this particular offering. It's just like I said, you have no point here.

Now if you're trying to go somewhere with all this, may I suggest you at least crank your truck befiore you put it in gear?
 
S

Salamander

New Member
C4K said:
Do you think every single one of God's words is important Sal?
Click to expand...
Every single word that reflects the correct meaning and without error in the thought process is of course "right" and "perfect".

Since you cannot accept that, I won't continue in your game any longer.

If you're gonna go anywhere you'll have to release the clutch before you blow your motor.
 
S

Salamander

New Member
C4K said:
So rendering the same thought is perfection? Can we get that for the record?
Click to expand...
So you think that when God inspired holy men as they were moved by the Holy Ghost to pen the word of God He wasn't perfect.:tonofbricks:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top