1 John 5v12

[rbell]

just a reminder...this thread is a spin-off of the 1 Timothy 3:1 thread (in reading some responses, I don't think people are noticing that).

Some folk criticized the MV's in 1 Tim 3:1 for using the word "He" (which clearly refers to God). That was somehow evil. Yet the KJV omits the word "of God" and keeps only the word "Son." Now, it's obvious to Whom it refers.

But the same people who castigate some translations for one omission are strangely silent (or even supportive) of the same thing in another version.

I'm sorry, that's just plain inconsistent. If you're going to use that line of reasoning to criticize a version, then why not play by the same rules here?

(I had no problem with 1 Tim 3:1, and have no problem here).

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

just a reminder...this thread is a spin-off of the 1 Timothy 3:1 thread (in reading some responses, I don't think people are noticing that).

You are correct, but now my curiosity is honestly piqued - I would love to know which edition got the verse right. They are not exactly the same so both can't be perfect.

 

[Ed Edwards]

So now we have perfect and more perfect than perfect??? Or is that perfect and perfecter?

:laugh: :tonofbricks:

Oh, it is much harder than:
Perfect
Perfecter
Perfectist

Psa 12:6 (KJV1611 Edition):
The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes:
as siluer tried in a fornace of earth
purified seuen times.

Personally I prefer:

Perfect
Perfecter1
Perfecter2
Perfecter3
Perfecter4
Perfecter5
Perfectist

Compare with:
Psa 12:6 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes,
as the siluer, tried in a fornace of earth,
fined seuen folde.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I guess no one is going to tell me which edition's rendering of 1 John 5v12 I can trust and which one I have to worry about .

They are different, they can't both be right. Right? Or can translations/editions actually be different when they render a passage and still reflect the same truth?

 

[EdSutton]

I guess no one is going to tell me which edition's rendering of 1 John 5v12 I can trust and which one I have to worry about .

They are different, they can't both be right. Right? Or can translations/editions actually be different when they render a passage and still reflect the same truth?

Actually, I already did tell you which one is the correct rendering, in post #26, at least IMO. Didja' miss it??

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

The 1769!

Ed

 

[Bro. Williams]

I guess no one is going to tell me which edition's rendering of 1 John 5v12 I can trust and which one I have to worry about .

They are different, they can't both be right. Right? Or can translations/editions actually be different when they render a passage and still reflect the same truth?

I have already told you they were both sufficient, but since that was not good enough for your standard, I will tell you they are both right, for they do not contradict one another.

In the same sense, which scroll was right in Jeremiah 36? The original scroll? Or that which Jeremiah created again, with additional words from God?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have already told you they were both sufficient, but since that was not good enough for your standard, I will tell you they are both right, for they do not contradict one another.

In the same sense, which scroll was right in Jeremiah 36? The original scroll? Or that which Jeremiah created again, with additional words from God?

You still haven't told me which rendition was perfect, but I don't really expect an answer to that - there is no perfectly perfect translation.

So is any rendering in any version which does not contradict these two renderings acceptable?

 

[robycop3]

As for Jerry's scrolls, the first one was right while it existed. The second one, also from God, was also right. Had the first one still existed, it still woulda been right, while the 2nd one was right with more right material added.

 

[Keith M]

The scrolls were two separate inspirations by God with material added to the second. This is not at all similar to having two "perfect" yet different renderings of the same Greek text. According to the notion that what is different is not the same, then both the 1611 and the 1769 KJV renderings cannot be the correct one - since they are diferent then one must be perfect while the other is errant. So which is the perfect rendering of 1 John 5:12 - the 1611 KJV or the 1769 KJV?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Could one of our strong KJV brethren tell us which edition was perfect on 1 John 5v12 please? Not sufficient. not acceptable, but perfect.

 

[Salamander]

I don't understand, since I obviously don't measure up to your intellectual capacity. Could you satisfy my simple mind by telling me if it is the 1611 or the 1769 which is perfect and which one got it wrong please?

Since both of them got it right your question amounts to naught.

You want to dilly dally about one instant where a clarification is made, which is not anything different than the other, it is utter nonsense to think that there is any real difference.

Besides, I wouldn't put myself down the way you did above unless you like to be persistent about it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Since both of them got it right your question amounts to naught.

You want to dilly dally about one instant where a clarification is made, which is not anything different than the other, it is utter nonsense to think that there is any real difference.

Besides, I wouldn't put myself down the way you did above unless you like to be persistent about it.

So things that are different can still say the same thing? I am just trying to get this clear.

Does this apply to all translations or only one?

 

[Salamander]

You still haven't told me which rendition was perfect, but I don't really expect an answer to that - there is no perfectly perfect translation.

So is any rendering in any version which does not contradict these two renderings acceptable?

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???????

Talking about straining at gnats.

 

[Salamander]

So things that are different can still say the same thing? I am just trying to get this clear.

Does this apply to all translations or only one?

There is actually no difference. They both are correct, you're only making things up as if there is any difference.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

That is not the point. The strongest KJV proponents tell us there is a 100% perfect translation that can be trusted completely and that man lives my "every word" which proceeds from the mouth of God.

If the two words "of God" were truly God's words were they not important enough for God to protect? If they were not God's words who were the 1769 team to leave them out?

Why do we not hold the KJV to the same gnat straining standards as we do other translations?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

There is actually no difference. They both are correct, you're only making things up as if there is any difference.

There is a difference, one makes "Son of God" clear and the other does not.

In the 1 Timothy 3v16 thread "He" is obviously "God" - why is a big deal made about no difference there, but this difference defensible?

 

[Salamander]

There is a difference, one makes "Son of God" clear and the other does not.

In the 1 Timothy 3v16 thread "He" is obviously "God" - why is a big deal made about no difference there, but this difference defensible?

Nothing "big", except you're carrying on a conversation about a totally different subject about another totally different verse. See what trying to discriminate between two, in the I John 5:12 example, esthetically alike examples can cause?

But since you want to include I Tmi 3:16 in this discussion, I can see where the clarity that "God" was manifest in the flesh is much more to be desired than "He". The reason being that, yes, Jesus was in the flesh, as well as manifest. But in the sense the JW's say Jesus was a created being and not God, then the KJB has it right exclusively to make the distinction of His being God.

Of course if you'd like to argure against that reasoning......:tonofbricks:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Does the KJV have the right to clarify that "Son" means "Son of God"when it might very well mean "Son of Joseph"?

Do we have a 100% - every word perfect Bible or do we not? Is every single word of God important, or is it acceptable to leave a couple of His words out or add a couple here and there if it doesn't really change the meaning?

 

[Salamander]

Does the KJV have the right to clarify that "Son" means "Son of God"when it might very well mean "Son of Joseph"?

Do we have a 100% - every word perfect Bible or do we not? Is every single word of God important, or is it acceptable to leave a couple of His words out or add a couple here and there if it doesn't really change the meaning?

I would have to leave things in the hands of the Spirit , afterall, we should know that men are fallible, but the Spirit gives life and the letter kills.

So? I deduce it's more the preservation of the words that implicate the thought rather than what is accepted to be the same but usually gives the wrong impression upon the thoguht process.

God doesn't speak in any of man's tongues,per se, but men pen down the moving of God upon their hearts to communicate without error the mind of God. That means the more precise the words the more accurate the words are.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Which is more precise, including "of God" or not?

You admit man's fallibility in translation work. Is there a totally infallible translation/edition where every single word is trustworthy. Or is it acceptable to add or take away a couple of words here and there as long as the meaning is not affected?

My understanding of the strong KJV view is that every single one of God's words is vital, so is it okay to add or take away two words, whichever the case may be?

Or does every single word count?