1 John 5v12

[EdSutton]

Maybe the 1769 was advanced, advanced revelation...

Cute!

:thumbs:

Ed

 

[Keith M]

OK, so now you think God is some far away unreachable being that man can never really know, but yet is perfect due to the ideal you have.

I know man is not perfect, but His word is perfectly portrayed in either of your examples. Neither is a mistake to include or exclude "of God" in I John 5:12, both mean exactly the same thing.

Do you care to expand on how you think anyone else could be anything other than The Son of God when he is referred to as "Son" ???

You keep carrying on as if this is some sort of proof that exhonerates other versions to the status quo, but there is your mistake, man.:tonofbricks:

The truth is worded perfectly in the KJB, but the other versions may perfectly render the word to the thouhgt to effect the heart, but when you water down the eloquence in its effect to reach the heart in a substandard form you'll always end up with a substandard Chrisrian.:wavey:

Salamander, you continue to promote a double standard. According to you, it's alright that various KJVs may add or leave out the phrase "of God" in 1 John 5:12. However you go on to slam other versions. You also say "the truth is worded perfectly in the KJB." Just which of the KJVs is worded perfectly, since there are differences?

You proclaim that the fact there are differences in the KJVs is not a truth which "exhonerates other versions to the status quo." That of course is your mistake, Salamander. This little exercise has merely pointed out that there are those who, like yourself, hold MVs to a standard you dictate, yet when it is shown the KJVs do not meet that standard you ignore the facts. Your double standard just will not stand up in the face of the truth. If it is not an error to exclude certain words in one of the KJVs, then neither is it an error to do the same in one of the MVs. The message is still there, and it is just as perfect in the MVs as it is in the KJVs. The MVs do not present the watered-down truth as you errantly claim, Salamander.

 

[EdSutton]

So how is it you cannot understand that in the word of God where we find "Son" it is anything other than the Son of God???????

That is a false statement, and you well know it!

The words rendered as "Son" is found many times in Scripture, when it obviously does not refer to Jesus.

Ed

 

[rbell]

The truth is worded perfectly in the KJB, but the other versions may perfectly render the word to the thouhgt to effect the heart, but when you water down the eloquence in its effect to reach the heart in a substandard form you'll always end up with a substandard Chrisrian.:wavey:

Two thoughts:

• So, is the main issue regarding the KJV, then, eloquence?
• So...are you sure you mean to say that MV users are "substandard Christians?" (THAT should be an interesting response!)

 

[Salamander]

Do you consider every single individual word of God important? That's not a very hard question.

You are attempting , to no avail, to limit God to mere words in printed form. That is an avenue of unbelief I will not continue to go down.

Even in Hebrew and Greek God is not limited to any one word or even a group of words. English is no exception. As I told you many times, you have no point.

The ONLY point you've succeeded in is that one edition has "Son" while the other has "Son of God" Since there is no discrepency in either edition, except maybe the suspicion that a scibal "error" has been committed, you are certainly wasting redeemable time.

 

[Salamander]

That is a false statement, and you well know it!

The words rendered as "Son" is found many times in Scripture, when it obviously does not refer to Jesus.

Ed

In the NT the "s" capitalized always refers to Jesus. The only ezxception would be if "son" were at the begining of a sentence.

I made no false statement. You have made a gross error.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You are attempting , to no avail, to limit God to mere words in printed form. That is an avenue of unbelief I will not continue to go down.

Even in Hebrew and Greek God is not limited to any one word or even a group of words. English is no exception. As I told you many times, you have no point.

The ONLY point you've succeeded in is that one edition has "Son" while the other has "Son of God" Since there is no discrepency in either edition, except maybe the suspicion that a scibal "error" has been committed, you are certainly wasting redeemable time.

I didn't really think you would answer my question .

God's words in printed form really don't matter. Now thats a new one for the version debate .

My point is clear, as everyone reading this can see. The 1611 and the 1769 KJVs are different. Apparently God's precise written words really don't matter, so we can use any version we want!

 

[npetreley]

In the NT the "s" capitalized always refers to Jesus. The only ezxception would be if "son" were at the begining of a sentence.

I made no false statement. You have made a gross error.

That's a translation thing, I believe. I don't think the Greek capitalizes any references to "son" regardless of the person to whom it refers, and the Hebrew certainly does not capitalize anything (although you're just talking about NT anyway). Same thing with "He/he", etc.

 

[Salamander]

Two thoughts:

• So, is the main issue regarding the KJV, then, eloquence?
• So...are you sure you mean to say that MV users are "substandard Christians?" (THAT should be an interesting response!)

A. Without eloquence you only have man's words.

B. No, I am sure that generally speaking in these last days that ever since the induction of W/H inspired versions we have witnessed the whole of Christendom slip off into a slumber and apostacy has over-run most churches.

Your interests seem to be presumtuous in they are expecting a malignity in that response.

Any "MV user" should learn what the Bible really says and they will chunk that version and stick with God's word.

 

[Salamander]

I didn't really think you would answer my question .

God's words in printed form really don't matter. Now thats a new one for the version debate .

My point is clear, as everyone reading this can see. The 1611 and the 1769 KJVs are different. Apparently God's precise written words really don't matter, so we can use any version we want!

Use any version you wish, that is your freedom, but if you want to know what God really says, stick with what's tried, true, and God's Sure Word! The KJB.

Self-declaration of being the victor usually ends up overtaking the less suspecting proclaimer of such "victory"

 

[Salamander]

That's a translation thing, I believe. I don't think the Greek capitalizes any references to "son" regardless of the person to whom it refers, and the Hebrew certainly does not capitalize anything (although you're just talking about NT anyway). Same thing with "He/he", etc.

Funny, I never saw anyone say anything about Greek when we've been talking about English this entire time in that regard, but since you have made this fruitless effort, show us where the Greek denies the Son as being anything less than The Son of God, from the GREEK!!!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Use any version you wish, that is your freedom, but if you want to know what God really says, stick with what's tried, true, and God's Sure Word! The KJB.

Self-declaration of being the victor usually ends up overtaking the less suspecting proclaimer of such "victory"

No victory proclaimed here, my friend. It is you who have reverted to attacks on personages and Bibles.

You still haven't answered my question. I know you are much smarter than I am so I don't see how you can miss it.

Is every, single, individual, precise, written word of God important or not? Not trying to limit anything. just asking a question out of my ignorance.

Bedtime on this side on the pond lads.

 

[Salamander]

BTW, C4K, answer my question. Yours has been answered about 40 times already.

Is "Son" ever referring to anyone except The Son of God in the English NT, in any version you desire?

 

[Salamander]

No victory proclaimed here, my friend. It is you who have reverted to attacks on personages and Bibles.

You still haven't answered my question. I know you are much smarter than I am so I don't see how you can miss it.

Is every, single, individual, precise, written word of God important or not? Not trying to limit anything. just asking a question out of my ignorance.

Bedtime on this side on the pond lads.

I have made no attack against any person or Bible. You're insinuations are still unfounded, as usual.

 

[npetreley]

Funny, I never saw anyone say anything about Greek when we've been talking about English this entire time in that regard, but since you have made this fruitless effort, show us where the Greek denies the Son as being anything less than The Son of God, from the GREEK!!!

That's not what I meant. I simply meant that you can't point to the capital S as proof that the text must refer to the Son. The captial S was put there by translators. It wasn't in the original language.

 

[rbell]

If I use these emoticons:



does that allow me to attack certain translations?

 

[Salamander]

Every word of God is important. Those words are only translatable into words of men to express the same exact thought originally inspired. Those words never lose their inspiration as long as the thought remians true to the original intent. That cannot be said about many versions considewred to be "MV's".

It is proven, well, at least by those of us who believe the Bible, countless times by comparison.

Note: Mexdeaf? We are discussing English versions, not Spanish.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

BTW, C4K, answer my question. Yours has been answered about 40 times already.

Is "Son" ever referring to anyone except The Son of God in the English NT, in any version you desire?

Well, in my stupidity I missed the answer. Could you tell me one more time, in a simple yes or no so even someone as ignorant as I can understand.

Is every, single, individual, precise, written word of God important. A simple yes or no would be nice.

I don't deny, never have, that "Son" is the "Son of God." But that doesn't change the fact that if God's every single written word is important that either two were left out or two were added. If every single, individual, precise, written word of God is not important than we all have to do is get the main idea across and we are fine.

 

[Salamander]

That's not what I meant. I simply meant that you can't point to the capital S as proof that the text must refer to the Son. The captial S was put there by translators. It wasn't in the original language.

Ok, OK, but is the text referring to the Son?raying:

 

[Salamander]

If I use these emoticons:



does that allow me to attack certain translations?

No, those emoticons are specifically intended for the one responded to, just as those have been used towards me in the past!:applause: