1 John 5v12

[tinytim]

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?

Out of all the versions I have, these are the ones that omit "of God"
Douay Rheims
Contempary English Version
NLT has "his son"
And of course the Message, which has been previously mentioned.

Checking my TRs, and versions which list variants; The Greek equivalent to "of God" is in there.
And no variants are listed...

So based on this information the 1769 has it right, and the 1611 is wrong...

But poetically speaking, the 1611 has a nicer sound to it as it is a balanced sentence...
But we are not about sounding nice... (itching ears anyone? lol)
We are about getting the text right....

So how many still want to say they are 1611KJVers after this flaw has been discovered...
I still say if you use a 1769, at least be honest and say you do...
But I have yet to see a KJV church use 1769... instead they all use 1611..

 

[Joe]

Thanks C4K & Tim.

I own a 1769 KJV version, a Gideon bible, I picked up at a yard Sale. I will start using it in place of the 1611 version. I will also do more research on this.


Joe

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

So if you were to write out the verse in question you would write "Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life."?

If so I am impressed, at least with your consistancy of argument.

 

[Keith M]

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.

Charles, it seems you believe it is not alright to change anything in the Bible as long as that change is made in any version not called a KJV. Yet if there are changes or additions made in a version called a KJV then it is alright to make those changes or additions. My friend, that is a double standard. And a double standard is wrong. It's either alright to make changes or it isn't alright to make changes. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Keith M]

Out of all the versions I have, these are the ones that omit "of God"
Douay Rheims
Contempary English Version
NLT has "his son"
And of course the Message, which has been previously mentioned.

Checking my TRs, and versions which list variants; The Greek equivalent to "of God" is in there.
And no variants are listed...

So based on this information the 1769 has it right, and the 1611 is wrong...

But poetically speaking, the 1611 has a nicer sound to it as it is a balanced sentence...
But we are not about sounding nice... (itching ears anyone? lol)
We are about getting the text right....

So how many still want to say they are 1611KJVers after this flaw has been discovered...
I still say if you use a 1769, at least be honest and say you do...
But I have yet to see a KJV church use 1769... instead they all use 1611..

Tim, maybe we need to start referring to the various editions as 1611A, 1611B, etc. That way everyone can say they use a 1611 KJV and be right about it. But then no one would admit to using a 1611B or 1611C, would they?

:laugh:

 

[EdSutton]

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?

The 1769 'revision', is correct, here. Since, as some others have mentioned, the five Greek texts I have any access to [TR1550; W/H; Aland/Black et. al., UBS 1966; and Hodges Farstad et. al. 1985 MT (TR1894 does not count, here, being a "reverse engineered" text)] are apparently all in agreement with the reading of

12 ο εχων τον υιον εχει την ζωην ο μη εχων τον υιον του θεου την ζωην ουκ εχει

Hence, the correct rendering is, as found in the NKJV

12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (I John 5:12 - NKJV)

Since there is no real question, as to whom is being referrred to, no 'doctrine' is actually challenged. But the text will only support one reading, here - "Son of God".

[Edited to add]

I'll edit this to add the reading found in the WYC, which predates the KJV by a little bit, I believe, if my history is correct. (updated spellings in the WYC)

12 He that hath the Son of God, hath also life [He that hath the Son, hath life]; he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life. (I John 5:12 - WYC)

You might note that the WYC attempted to make the verse "harmonize" with itself, by ADDING the words "of God" to the first clause, in the "Early Edition". The bracketed clause is the Wycliffe-Purvey "Later Edition", and is textually correct, here.

I disagree with this, first " Early Edition" rendering, as well. The text can stand on its own. WE do not need, once again, to "help" the Holy Spirit and the author, in deciding what He "really" intended, in I John 5!! Think about that one!

Oh yeah, and as another has already noted - consistency is not a defining hallmark of any 'ONLY'-ism.

Ed

 

[charles_creech78]

Charles, it seems you believe it is not alright to change anything in the Bible as long as that change is made in any version not called a KJV. Yet if there are changes or additions made in a version called a KJV then it is alright to make those changes or additions. My friend, that is a double standard. And a double standard is wrong. It's either alright to make changes or it isn't alright to make changes. You can't have it both ways.

I don't want it both way. I thank if God wanted it to be changed he would have not but them words that he did in the last chapter of rev.

 

[charles_creech78]

So if you were to write out the verse in question you would write "Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life."?

If so I am impressed, at least with your consistancy of argument.

I thank I would keep it the way that it is. Only because what it said in rev. It scares me to change the word of God. I trie to stay away from stuff like that.

 

[Bro. Williams]

That is a good fear to have, brother.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I thank I would keep it the way that it is. Only because what it said in rev. It scares me to change the word of God. I trie to stay away from stuff like that.

Amen, Brother Charles_chreech78 -- Preach it!

However, i have my doubts all understand what
the stuff you said reall means.

1 John 5:12 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
He that hath that Sonne,
hath that life:
and he that hath not that Sonne of God,
hath not that life.

1Jo 5:12 (KJV1611 edition):
Hee that hath the Sonne,
hath life;
and hee that hath not the Sonne ,
hath not life.

Note how the Bible (the inerrant Written Word of God)
was changed by the Translators of the KJV1611 Edition,
by taking away the 'of God' --
the KJV1611 Edition has directly violated
the unalterable, do not touch HOLY BIBLE:
Rev 22:19 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
And if any man shall diminish of the wordes
of the booke of this prophecie,
God shall take away his part out of the Booke of life,
and out of the holie citie,
and from those things which are written in this booke.

So if you take the conventional way of misunderstanding
Revelation 22, then you will have to say:
"the KJV1611 Edition will not be
in the New Jerusalem nor in heaven,
nor shall the baby baptizing Translators of the KJV1611
Edition be there."

1 John 5:12 {KJV1769 edition,
AKA: The King James Version (Authorized)}:
He that hath the Son
hath life;
and he that hath not the Son of God
hath not life.

Note how the Bible (the inerrant Written Word of God)
wasn changed by the EDITORS (not the Translator)
of the KJV1769 Edition, by ADDING 'of God' --
the KJV1769 Edition has directly violated
the unalterable, do not touch HOLY BIBLE:

Rev 22:18 (KJV1611 Edition):
For I testifie vnto euery man that heareth
the wordes of the prophesie of this booke,
If any man shal adde vnto these things,
God shall adde vnto him the plagues,
that are written in this booke.

And the plagues of the Book of Revelation
shall be added to those editors who changed the
KJV1611 to the KJV1769.

obviously the meaning of Revelation 22:18-19 needs
to be reviewed. Any translation/version will
add or subtract from the word count (usually both).
Obviosusly Revelation 22:18-19 is NOT about
translations & version of the Holy Bible.

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

I note this axiom disagrees with no other legitimate
Baptist Doctrine, indeed, one could probably prove
it from some of the other Baptist Doctrines, if one had
time to work on it (school starts tomorrow for the kids).

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

That is a good fear to have, brother.

So do you accept the deletion of "of God" in the 1611 edition?

It would make it easier if those who hold to the 1611 rendering would quote from it in their posts.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Can a copyist make an error? Certainly.

Placing what was there to begin with, after left out due to a copyist mistake is NOT adding to the word of God. You know that.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Can a copyist make an error? Certainly.

Placing what was there to begin with, after left out due to a copyist mistake is NOT adding to the word of God. You know that.

Strictly speaking, a copyist should just copy, NOT second-guess the previous copyist.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Strictly speaking, a copyist should just copy, NOT second-guess the previous copyist.

Agreed completely, but strictly speaking, most copying errors made are accidental, not from the means of purposely changing something.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Agreed completely, but strictly speaking, most copying errors made are accidental, not from the means of purposely changing something.

And you KNOW this how?

 

[kubel]

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.

I respect your decision. I read primarily from a KJV myself. I grew up reading the KJV (although I can't say I grew up reading the 1611, or learned to read English in blackletter- yikes!). I agree- I think we all have the right as believers to choose our translation of choice. But I think we also have the right to explain why we have certain positions, and explain why we reject others.

Anyway: here's some quick questions that came to mind when you said you choose the 1611:

From your post, it sounds like you agree that it's ok to add to the word of God as long as it "agrees" or "lines up" with the real word of God, even though such an addition is unnecessary- but it's not OK to change words (like moved to hovered). Is that an accurate summary of your position on that topic?

Do you accept your 1611 as 100% the only legitimate inspired English translation of the word of God?

Do you also accept the added Apocrypha that the 1611 has between the Old and New Testaments as the word of God (I mean, nothing was changed, it was just added)? Most believers that I'm aware of reject that addition to the word of God in the 1611 (which is why you generally don't find it in modern 'protestant' translations or even modern printings of older translations).

Do you accept the addition of pagan artwork on the title page of the 1611 that references to pagan gods (most noticeably the sun and moon characters on the upper left and right corners) as something God would appreciate having on his chosen translation? I've heard of Satan being involved with the NKJV because of the addition of the triqueta symbol on the cover (http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html), but I would hate to hear what the same crowd has to say about the artwork found right in the 1611 (http://minihost.org/1611/1611_title.jpg).

I choose the KJV, but I don't jump on the bandwagon and lift up the AV1611 without realizing the implications of clinging to such an edition so tightly. It adds to the word of God by including books that are rejected by most believers. It includes pagan artwork on the cover. Not to mention it's written in blackletter (kinda hard on the eyes).

But again, we each have the right to choose our translation of choice.

:type:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Can a copyist make an error? Certainly.

Placing what was there to begin with, after left out due to a copyist mistake is NOT adding to the word of God. You know that.

So you admit that there are mistakes in the 1611 edition of the KJV? Are there mistakes in other editions of the KJV?

 

[Bro. Williams]

Of course I don't admit there are mistakes in the translation of the KJV. There are misprints due to copyist error, but the translation is pure. Come now, you know us KJVers, if we have been around at all, we won't go for that.

 

[Rippon]

Of course you won't admit to mistakes in the KJV BW , why should you and your group have to kowtow to common sense , reason and unambiguously self-evident facts ?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Of course I don't admit there are mistakes in the translation of the KJV. There are misprints due to copyist error, but the translation is pure. Come now, you know us KJVers, if we have been around at all, we won't go for that.

Hmm, an error is not a mistake? Interesting perspective.

Which KJV edition is therefore totally trustworthy in this passage, 1611 or 1769?