1 John 5v12

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

My thoughts were spurred by the 1 Timothy 3v1 thread.

Which is the correct translation.

1 John 5v12 (KJV 1679) He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.


or


1 John 5v12 (KJV 1611) Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

Is the 1611 clear about who Jesus is the Son of? Should we accept "of God" or leave it off? Which edition captured the exact translation?

 

[John of Japan]

My thoughts were spurred by the 1 Timothy 3v1 thread.

Which is the correct translation.

1 John 5v12 (KJV 1679) He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

or

1 John 5v12 (KJV 1611) Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

Is the 1611 clear about who Jesus is the Son of? Should we accept "of God" or leave it off? Which edition captured the exact translation?

Hi, Roger.

All of my Greek NTs have "hath the Son of God": W & H, Byz. Textform, UBS, even Scrivener, which was edited following the KJV after the fact. So probably the only way we'll know why the 1611 left of "of God" is by going back in a time machine and asking them! For guesses about how this can happen, please go back and see my thread earlier this year on how to have a perfect translation. :type:

I hope the family's well! We pray for you guys with a pretty old prayer card. Most of the kids are grown up now, aren't they? :wavey:

John

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Been looking and the only MV that agrees (so far) with the KJV1611 is The Message

 

[TCGreek]

For what is worth, here's what I dug up:

1. ο εχων τον υιον εχει την ζωην ο μη εχων τον υιον του θεου την ζωην ουκ εχει 1 John 5:12 (Stephanus, 1550)

2. ο εχων τον υιον εχει την ζωην ο μη εχων τον υιον του θεου την ζωην ουκ εχει
1 John 5:12 (Scrivener, 1894)

3. ο εχων τον υιον εχει την ζωην ο μη εχων τον υιον του θεου την ζωην ουκ εχει 1 John 5:12 (Wescott-Hort)

4. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life
1 John 5:12 (KJV, 1611)

5. In my 27th ed. of NA, there are no variants. :thumbs:

 

[charles_creech78]

I thank that we all know what it means by life and that there is only one person you can get that life. It is Jesus Christ and we all know that is the only begotten son of God. I learn to read by reading the KJV 1611 edition. don't get me wrong it was very hard to read at first. But I ask God for understanding in it and he open my eyes to it. I guess that is why I don't understand people when they say they can't read the 1611. I do get upset when they leave verse. Like in some of the new KJV I seen one where it said in Genesis The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. They changed moved to haver. That makes me so mad. Does anyone now what moved means. Stuff like that upsets me . My wife had a book that had that in there. I took it out side and light it up. That book went up like it was nothing. I do not take it lightly when they change the word of God.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I thank that we all know what it means by life and that there is only one person you can get that life. It is Jesus Christ and we all know that is the only begotten son of God. I learn to read by reading the KJV 1611 edition. don't get me wrong it was very hard to read at first. But I ask God for understanding in it and he open my eyes to it. I guess that is why I don't understand people when they say they can't read the 1611. I do get upset when they leave verse. Like in some of the new KJV I seen one where it said in Genesis The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. They changed moved to haver. That makes me so mad. Does anyone now what moved means. Stuff like that upsets me . My wife had a book that had that in there. I took it out side and light it up. That book went up like it was nothing. I do not take it lightly when they change the word of God.

How come it is okay for the 1611KJV to delete 'of God', but if a MV says 'He' instead of 'God', it is not okay? More KJVO inconsistency.

I find it interesting that you 'learned to read by reading the KJV', yet you do not write in anything like Elizabethan English.

Oh, yes- you more than likely did not learn to read from the actual KJV1611. Probably it was a 1769 edition.

 

[Keith M]

Amen, Bro. Mexdeaf! Preach it!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

How come it is okay for the 1611KJV to delete 'of God', but if a MV says 'He' instead of 'God', it is not okay?

This was my point here.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

How about it? Which KJV edition has the correct translation here - 1611 or 1769?

 

[charles_creech78]

Look you have the right to like other bibles. I have my right not to. If you have a problem with that then I am sorry. I did learn to read out of a 1611 EDITION KJV bible. I still have it and the reason I do not like reading other bible because of what it said in rev. in the last chapter. I did not say nothing about them adding Gods name to that verse I agree with that but to add haver to moved that is just wrong. it is stuff like that I do not agree with.I do agree with adding Son of God. But we need to watch some of the bibles because it could be what God wanted in it. Exspecially the older vers.

 

[Joe]

KJV 1611 :thumbs:


Although I do sneek peeks at a few other translations from time to time


Joe

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

KJV 1611 :thumbs:


Although I do sneek peeks at a few other translations from time to time


Joe

So you think that leaving "of God" out was the right decision and the 1769 edition erred?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Look you have the right to like other bibles. I have my right not to. If you have a problem with that then I am sorry. I did learn to read out of a 1611 EDITION KJV bible. I still have it and the reason I do not like reading other bible because of what it said in rev. in the last chapter. I did not say nothing about them adding Gods name to that verse I agree with that but to add haver to moved that is just wrong. it is stuff like that I do not agree with.I do agree with adding Son of God. But we need to watch some of the bibles because it could be what God wanted in it. Exspecially the older vers.

Did the 1769 add to the word of God? If so we have a huge problem because the vast majority of the KJV users use this edition.

 

[Joe]

So you think that leaving "of God" out was the right decision and the 1769 edition erred?

No, I don't think it was the right decision.
I think they all have drawbacks, we need to do individual research to decide which one is more accurate. From what I understand, the 1611 is the most accurate. This is also the only bible I owned growing up, though I didn't read it much. Of course, others' opinions differ and that's fine.

As a new Christian, I agreed to lead a purpose driven life study. During this time, we had a lot of difficulty completing it because there were so many errors. We would look up the references, and often we became very disallusioned. This was the only time I began studying the various translations.

There were references to the Message Bible translation which frequently didn't come close to the other bible translations. This is one translation I would not encourage anyone to use. I also wouldn't use any translation which pertains to a specific religion. Otherwise, I am fine with others using various translations. I try to remain with my two King James Versions but use an NIV sometimes.

Joe

 

[charles_creech78]

Which bible was the first authorized vers. If this is what God wanted in it then we need not to change it. 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. If there are changes after the first edition there is something wrong with it. That is the way God wanted it. But I have my belief and you have yours and I hope you an't ill with me. I still love all of you on the BB.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I thank that we all know what it means by life and that there is only one person you can get that life. It is Jesus Christ and we all know that is the only begotten son of God. I learn to read by reading the KJV 1611 edition. don't get me wrong it was very hard to read at first. But I ask God for understanding in it and he open my eyes to it. I guess that is why I don't understand people when they say they can't read the 1611. I do get upset when they leave verse. Like in some of the new KJV I seen one where it said in Genesis The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. They changed moved to haver. That makes me so mad. Does anyone now what moved means. Stuff like that upsets me . My wife had a book that had that in there. I took it out side and light it up. That book went up like it was nothing. I do not take it lightly when they change the word of God.

Gen 1:2 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
And the earth was without forme and void,
and darkenesse was vpon the deepe,
and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the waters.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Genesis 1:2 (NIV):
Now the earth was formless and empty,
darkness was over the surface of the deep,
and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


Here is what Strong's says abaout the Hebrew term
translated 'moved' and/or hovering:

H7363
רחף
râchaph
raw-khaf'
A primitive root; to brood; by implication
to be relaxed: - flutter, move, shake.


Shirley, you don't want it to say
the Spirit of God brooded about the water?

[/FONT]

 

[charles_creech78]

Gen 1:2 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
And the earth was without forme and void,
and darkenesse was vpon the deepe,
and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the waters.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Genesis 1:2 (NIV):
Now the earth was formless and empty,
darkness was over the surface of the deep,
and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


Here is what Strong's says abaout the Hebrew term
translated 'moved' and/or hovering:

H7363
רחף
râchaph
raw-khaf'
A primitive root; to brood; by implication
to be relaxed: - flutter, move, shake.


Shirley, you don't want it to say
the Spirit of God brooded about the water?

[/FONT]

God put moved in there for a reason. Ed what was the purpose of changing the word moved to hovering?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Which bible was the first authorized vers. If this is what God wanted in it then we need not to change it. 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. If there are changes after the first edition there is something wrong with it. That is the way God wanted it. But I have my belief and you have yours and I hope you an't ill with me. I still love all of you on the BB.

Got no ill with you, friend. We can still love on each other even though we have a hissy fit once in awhile, right? :thumbs: :wavey: :1_grouphug:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Charles_creech78: //Ed what was the purpose
of changing the word moved to hovering?//

The word was NOT changed from 'moved' to 'hovering'.
Both are correct -- either is correct;
neither mean exactly the same thing
as the Hebrew term. The Hebrew term is also correct.
All three are more correct than either of the three of
them by themselves.


Charles_creech78: //God put moved in there for a reason.//

God put 'hovering' in there for a reason.

Both reasons of God are correct.

Charles_creech78: //Which bible was the first authorized vers. //

Which Bible was the last authorized version?
The last one I read through was the HCSB = Christian
Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/.
This HCSB was authorized by Messiah Iesus Himself, AMEN!


Genesis 1:2, Amplified Bible:
The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was
upon the face of the very great deep.
The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over
the face of the waters.

I axiomatically believe that all valid
English Versions individually and collectively
contain and are the inerrant, Divinely Preserved
Written Word of God, the Holy Bible.

From that I can prove: It is wise to use multiple
Versions/translation to help understand (under the guidance of
the Holy Spirit) the inerrant Written Word of God:
the Holy Bible.

 

[TC]

Which bible was the first authorized vers. If this is what God wanted in it then we need not to change it. 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. If there are changes after the first edition there is something wrong with it. That is the way God wanted it. But I have my belief and you have yours and I hope you an't ill with me. I still love all of you on the BB.

The first authorized version was the Great Bible. Then came the Bishops Bible and the KJV later. So, you should go back to the Great Bible to have the first authorized edition. :jesus: