1 John 5v12

[rbell]

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

Okey dokey then.

 

[Salamander]

Well, in my stupidity I missed the answer.

"Victim! Victim!"

Could you tell me one more time, in a simple yes or no so even someone as ignorant as I can understand.

""Victim! Victim! Victim!!!"

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

If I answer Yes, you will feel vindicated, but that doesn't respect the words of God to limit His intent to one single word.

If I answer no, you will still feel vindicated becuase your symposium is totally pointless.

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.

If therefore the Son hath made you free, you are free indeed.

It's not what we think the "amin idea" is that is important, then you fall under the negative of causing the letter to kill. You limit the Spirit by limiting God's words.

 

[rbell]

You limit the Spirit by limiting God's words.

Couldn't that argument have been made of the KJV edition that left out "of God?"

I wouldn't make that argument...but...consistency dictates that those who have problems with the 1 Timothy passage in the other thread for the same reason would have to...

 

[Bro. Williams]

If something has a "mistake" it is not "perfect". If something is not "perfect" then it is "imperfect". If it has an imperfection it has a corruption. 1 plus 1 plus 1 still equals 3. According to your own logic you also consider the word of God corrupted.

At least you have the courage to admit there is a mistake in the KJV1611. Thank you for you honesty.

No, I do not admit there is a mistake. If I write something perfect, and you mistakenly copy it incorrectly, then my work is still perfect. There is no imperfection in the work.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Copyist mistake, translational error, two different renderings, whatever you wish to call it, there are two differing wordings going by the name KJV. If, as you seem to believe, God inspired a perfect translation in the 1611 KJV, why did He allow "copyist mistakes" to make it imperfect?

Wrong, there are many different differences in the varying KJV's, especially today with the modern publishers (ex. Joshua and Jesus). That doesn't make the KJV of 1611 incorrect.

Then by your own definition, a "copyist error" caused the 1611 KJV rendering of 1 John 5:12 to be corrupt. Did this error cause the whole translation to be corrupt in your eyes, Bro. Williams? Or did it just corrupt this single verse?

I never said it was corrupt. Try to pay more attention. Furthermore, which one of these following statements is false:

1) John, the carpenter's apprentice, the son of Mark, went to the well.
2) John, the carpenter's apprentice, went to the well.


If I wrongly accused you of this, then I am sorry. Most people who follow onlyism claim perfection in the very words on the printed page. Thus, since the MVs do not have the same "perfectly preserved" English words as the KJVs (and even the KJVs don't all have the same words) then the onlyists claim the MVs are errant and corrupt. Do you not hold the position that perfection lies in the very words on the printed page? If not, then apparently you accept different words as legitimate and therefore the word of God. Therefore, because the MVs present the same message as the KJVs but in different words, then the MVs are just as much the word of God as one of the various KJVs. Is this now your position, Bro. Williams? Have you been converted from the onlyist camp?[/QUOTE]

I typically claim the errancy of MV's due to manusrcipts and their line. I would not begin to say MV's are acceptable, in the least. Why would I go against where God has led me and deny where he has brought me and go back to the MV's? I wouldn't unless He told me to do so, which He hasn't and since He led me away from them to begin with, I have my doubts He will. :thumbs:

 

[EdSutton]

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.

Not so.

Since the NT was written in all upper case letters, as far as we know, any current upper and lower case letters is the result of translators judgment, not the text itself.

I admit not knowing any Hebrew, but do not think Hebrew even has upper and lower case letters, but I could be wrong.

You have just "made the leap" to translator inerracy, a opposed to text inerrancy, even if not admitting it.

Ed

 

[Dr. Bob]

No, I do not admit there is a mistake. If I write something perfect, and you mistakenly copy it incorrectly, then my work is still perfect. There is no imperfection in the work.

Since we do not have a single copy of the "original 1611" that was "perfect", all we have are the printer's editions, starting with edition #1. With that mentality yoiu can simply look at ANY variation between any edition and revision of the AV (100+ of them) and say that it is a "mistaken copy".

And the original AV1611, which no one has (destroyed in a fire), has no imperfection.

Amazing twisting and dancing. Chubby Checker would shout. :applause:

 

[UZThD]

... It said not to add or take away. Do you thank it was right after God said not to to add and take away? He put them words in rev. for a reason. It shows you the first authorized edition is right because he but that at the end of rev.

==

you mean that when John wrote Rev 20:18,19 John meant the KJV ??:BangHead: "

 

[EdSutton]

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.

I am not C4K, but he (and also Keith M) has asked a perfectly legitimate question -

Which one?

The 1611 or the 1769??

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

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!!!

Actually, I and at least one other did bring up the wording of the Greek text. I did in post #26 in this thread.

Here is the page where I mentioned it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=42271&page=3

I'llk repeat for those who may have missed it. There is no difference in the wording of any of the five I have access to, including two hard copies. Not even one letter! All say the exact same thing, although I did not include TR 1894 since it is a "reverse engineered" text, from the later editions of the KJV.
>
>
>
>
>


Oh wait a minute! That is what the more 'militant' KJVOs advocates usually do, correct??

Correct the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts from the English, with a little bit of Old Latin and Coptic tossed in for good measure, like in I John 5?

Ed

 

[Mexdeaf]

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

Okay, then, let me re-phrase, your honor...

I know godly people who use other English versions and they are by no means 'substandard Christians'.

OTOH, I know people who swear by the KJV who I wouldn't take a walk in the park with after dark. One is a man who was my pastor for 6 years and a well-known KJVO proponent.

But I would never call ALL KJVO people 'substandard' as you have slammed all who use MV's.

 

[EdSutton]

"Victim! Victim!"

""Victim! Victim! Victim!!!"

If I answer Yes, you will feel vindicated, but that doesn't respect the words of God to limit His intent to one single word.

If I answer no, you will still feel vindicated becuase your symposium is totally pointless.

If therefore the Son hath made you free, you are free indeed.

It's not what we think the "amin idea" is that is important, then you fall under the negative of causing the letter to kill. You limit the Spirit by limiting God's words.

Yet you apparently have no problem with 'limiting His intent' to a single version, which is not really such but has had many 'revisions' even while being known as the KJV. Americanized spellings, I John 5:12, which we are discussing, etc.

So who is it that really is 'limiting' "the Spirit by limiting God's words"??

I say "Not me!"

I have never denied that any version is incorrect or is fallible regardless of the words actually employed, if the accurate sense of the Greek of the NT is conveyed accurately. (I know no Hebrew or Aramaic, so that does not apply, here, as I have to depend on others in that.)

As to who actually denies or 'limits', on the other hand ....

Ed

 

[npetreley]

Not so.

Since the NT was written in all upper case letters, as far as we know, any current upper and lower case letters is the result of translators judgment, not the text itself.

I admit not knowing any Hebrew, but do not think Hebrew even has upper and lower case letters, but I could be wrong.

You have just "made the leap" to translator inerracy, a opposed to text inerrancy, even if not admitting it.

Ed

I pointed that out, too. And Hebrew does not have capital letters. It doesn't have punctuation, and the OT Hebrew doesn't even have vowels.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Since we do not have a single copy of the "original 1611" that was "perfect", all we have are the printer's editions, starting with edition #1. With that mentality yoiu can simply look at ANY variation between any edition and revision of the AV (100+ of them) and say that it is a "mistaken copy".

And the original AV1611, which no one has (destroyed in a fire), has no imperfection.

Amazing twisting and dancing. Chubby Checker would shout. :applause:

I am more of a Fats D. man myself. And I disagree.

 

[tinytim]

No, I do not admit there is a mistake. If I write something perfect, and you mistakenly copy it incorrectly, then my work is still perfect. There is no imperfection in the work.

Do you realize what you just said?

That applies to all versions....
God's word is God's word... inerrant.

 

[Bro. Williams]

I don't think we are on the same page here Tim, as usual. Just keep your MV's and I'll keep my KJV. Too tired tonight to try and figure out what you are saying.

 

[tinytim]

I don't think we are on the same page here Tim, as usual. Just keep your MV's and I'll keep my KJV. Too tired tonight to try and figure out what you are saying.

I'm tired too.. when I wake up tomorrow, I will wonder what I wrote....
but here is my thought process...

God wrote the Bible... it was perfect, no imperfections...

God's word is still perfect no matter what translation.

 

[Bro. Williams]

OKay I see what you are saying now. I disgree, different manuscripts... blah blah blah... contradictions in verses (not words missing or added, but complete opposite sayings)... blah blah blah ... etc. etc.

I hope this one doesn't sound rude, that's not my intention. It is just in the sense of, I have to be up in 5 hours... and all of us have been through all these things countless times with each other, ourselves, and others... and not moved an inch (not compeltely true because i didd move from MV's to KJVO about 7 years ago... but I think you know waht I mean). So... sleep is wonderful... night.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It's not what we think the "amin idea" is that is important, then you fall under the negative of causing the letter to kill. You limit the Spirit by limiting God's words.

And this is exactly what those who limit God to one version do.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No, I do not admit there is a mistake. If I write something perfect, and you mistakenly copy it incorrectly, then my work is still perfect. There is no imperfection in the work.

Here is your quote from post 124

"No we are not talking about two different "renderings", we are talking about copyist mistake."

How do you know who made the mistake since we don't have the translators working copies? I mentioned before that as far as I can tell the words were left out by either:

1) The translating team (which I doubt)
2) A copyist preparing their work for the printer (your view, which is certainly feasible)
3) The printers (my own choice)

If you look here (I hope this link goes to the correct page) you can see 1 John 5 in the first edition of the KJV ( http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1483 ). You will note that "hee that hath not the Sonne," is at the end of a line. It would have been very easy for the typesetter, who may very well have been an apprentice, to drop the words "of God" when he set the type for the next line.

Either way, there is a mistake in the 1611 edition that we have available to us. Whoever made the mistake it was corrected in later editions.

The 1611 had many changes made to its spelling, grammar, and there were even a few word updates (kine to cows, for example) but 1 John 5v12 is one of the very few places where a real mistake was corrected. God's word is perfect, you are correct, and in the KJV line there was the wisdom to correct the human error of leaving out "of God" (whether it was made by the translators, copyists, or printers). I am grateful for the careful scrutiny of later editors who caught which, in fairness, might be called a "little mistake" and took action to correct it.

The KJV is a masterful work, in my mind the best and most accurate English translation ever carried out, but no edition and no printing of it is totally free from any error and the very first edition give evidence of that in the verse under discussion.

Perhaps, since the meaning was not changed by the omission of the these two words, the Lord allowed this to happen so we did not put our confidence in the work of men, but to keep us constantly looking to Him for His perfect word?