1 John 5v12

[npetreley]

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?

You're trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You're trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

Its a simple enough question.

 

[npetreley]

Its a simple enough question.

It's a very simple question. Good luck getting an answer, though. :BangHead:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I'll post it separate to make it clear.

Is every single one of God's words important?

If so, which KJV edition gives us God's exact words - 1611 or 1769?

 

[Keith M]

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?

Roger, these questions have been asked over and over again in this thread and in other threads. No matter how many times the questions are asked there is no truthful and meaningful answer offered. There are many times when the "answer" provided is nothing more than stepping on eggs trying to avoid admitting the obvious.

Salamander, Bro. Williams, et al, you have still not provided an answer as to which of two differing KJVs has the correct rendering of 1 John 5:12. Is it the 1611 KJV or the 1769 KJV that has the perfect rendering? Since the words are different in both versions, one of them must be perfect and the other imperfect. If you claim both are correct then you totally negate the criticisms you habitually heap upon the modern versions that they are different and not correct.

It's impossible for you to get out of this corner without admitting your standards for the KJVs are not applied equally when it comes to the modern versions. You have a double standard that does not hold up under scrutiny.

 

[Bro. Williams]

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

Both. Not that you will accept this answer either, but both.

Someone was correct in saying that "things that are different are not the same", but that has little to do with perfection. The OT and NT are different, but both are perfect.

You will have to excuse my lack of response today, I have been away. I assumed my previous posts were acceptable, I mean sufficient, wait, I mean perfectly fine for the answer. What should I expect? You guys judge the Bible to be corrupted, why should my words fair any better?:thumbs:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Both. Not that you will accept this answer either, but both.

Someone was correct in saying that "things that are different are not the same", but that has little to do with perfection. The OT and NT are different, but both are perfect.

You will have to excuse my lack of response today, I have been away. I assumed my previous posts were acceptable, I mean sufficient, wait, I mean perfectly fine for the answer. What should I expect? You guys judge the Bible to be corrupted, why should my words fair any better?:thumbs:

Where did you read the Bible is corrupted??? I should have know that when there is no answer a personal attack would be next.

All I want is an answer, is every single word of God important? Is there a translation where every single word, every word is perfect? Is it acceptable to add a word or tow here or there or take a word or two away if it doesn't change the meaning. From you have just said it is okay to add or take words away as long as he meaning does not change.

Or can we use editions/translations which say the exact same thing with different wordings?

Its late here, I am off to bed.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Sorry, I was in bed and thought of a way to ask the question more clearly.

If Oxford, Cambridge, Nelson, or one of the other KJV publishers commissioned a 2008 edition of the KJV should they include or omit "of God" in 1 John 5v12?

Simple question.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Sorry, I was in bed and thought of a way to ask the question more clearly.

If Oxford, Cambridge, Nelson, or one of the other KJV publishers commissioned a 2008 edition of the KJV should they include or omit "of God" in 1 John 5v12?

Simple question.

It is already in the 1769, why would they need a new one?

Just joking, I will play along. Sure.

 

[Keith M]

Both. Not that you will accept this answer either, but both.

If both renderings of 1 John 5:12 are perfect in the various KJVs with their differences in wording, then why is it the MVs are not perfect with different wording?

Someone was correct in saying that "things that are different are not the same", but that has little to do with perfection. The OT and NT are different, but both are perfect.

Ah, another smoke screen. We're not talking about the two halves of the whole Bible here. We're simply talking about two different renderings of the same Greek text. And since they are different, they aren't the same. Since there is a difference, both cannot be perfect - so therefore one KJV reading is correct or perfect and the other KJV reading is in error.

You will have to excuse my lack of response today, I have been away. I assumed my previous posts were acceptable, I mean sufficient, wait, I mean perfectly fine for the answer. What should I expect? You guys judge the Bible to be corrupted, why should my words fair any better?:thumbs:

Who said the Bible is corrupted? The only claims of corruption I have seen are from those who support the radical onlyist movement.

Bro. Williams, your posturing, your dancing, your bending over backward, your sidestepping and your avoidance still do nothing to answer the question of which KJV is perfect in its rendering of 1 John 5:12. You claim that MVs are errant because they do not say the same thing as the KJVs, but when you are faced with differences in the various KJVs you claim both are perfect. Can we have different words that convey the word of God, or can we not? It can't be both ways. It's either alright to have different words or it isn't alright to have different words.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It is already in the 1769, why would they need a new one?

Just joking, I will play along. Sure.

You said sure, but you didn't say which they should do, leave it out or include it.


I think it is obvious that somewhere along the way the words "of God" were left out of the 1611 edition. I personally doubt that they were excluded by the translators themselves. They seem far to skilled and the KJV is too excellent a translation to have left the words out. Chances are it was a copyist or a typesetter who made the mistake. Later editions properly and wisely corrected the mistake. If a new edition were to be done, of course it should include the words "of God." The 1611 was excellent, but there were mistakes in it, no matter who made them. It certainly wasn't God's fault.

Chances are that without the 1611 error being discussed here, we might very well have a whole thread on how The Message and the CEV left "of God" out of the verse, but now it is clear that that would have been sufficient because it still says the same thing.

 

[Bro. Williams]

you said something to the effect of, "should they include it?". I think... I am going off little sleep this week. That was what my "sure" was to.

 

[Keith M]

Chances are that without the 1611 error being discussed here, we might very well have a whole thread on how The Message and the CEV left "of God" out of the verse, but now it is clear that that would have been sufficient because it still says the same thing.

Yet that way of thinking is not always applied equally across the board. Something that says the same thing in different words and is accepted in some versions is condemned in other versions. How very inconsistent! Tsk! Tsk!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If I had been sneaky I would have posted the KJV1769 compared with The Message and asked if it was acceptable to leave out "of God." I am almost certain what the response would have been.

Good thing I am not sneaky

 

[npetreley]

If I had been sneaky I would have posted the KJV1769 compared with The Message and asked if it was acceptable to leave out "of God." I am almost certain what the response would have been.

Good thing I am not sneaky

I wish you were! That would have been pretty funny, and it would have driven the point home much more quickly.

 

[Salamander]

Yet that way of thinking is not always applied equally across the board. Something that says the same thing in different words and is accepted in some versions is condemned in other versions. How very inconsistent! Tsk! Tsk!

Nope. As I stated earlier, it's the wordings that affect the thought process. Although one can come to the same conclusion using other words, that is not always the case. We know that, you know that.

C4K was splitting hairs over a phrase that is never defined any different no matter "of God" was omitted.

If that were the case in all versions and in every instance there would be no room for discussion, but that is NOT the case.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Nope. As I stated earlier, it's the wordings that affect the thought process. Although one can come to the same conclusion using other words, that is not always the case. We know that, you know that.

C4K was splitting hairs over a phrase that is never defined any different no matter "of God" was omitted.

If that were the case in all versions and in every instance there would be no room for discussion, but that is NOT the case.

So... which KJV is PERFECT? My thought processes demand a clear answer!


:laugh:

 

[tinytim]

Nope. As I stated earlier, it's the wordings that affect the thought process. Although one can come to the same conclusion using other words, that is not always the case. We know that, you know that.

C4K was splitting hairs over a phrase that is never defined any different no matter "of God" was omitted.

If that were the case in all versions and in every instance there would be no room for discussion, but that is NOT the case.

So it is OK to split hairs over a MV, but the sacred KJV any version must never be questioned.... HMmmmm...

I see a dichotomy.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So... which KJV is PERFECT? My thought processes demand a clear answer!


:laugh:

The answer is obvious, they both are perfect even though they are different. It was okay to leave "of God' out of the 1611 or add it in 1769 because things that are different can still both be perfect and we should stop splitting hairs over trivial trivialities. Not EVERY SINGLE word of God is inspired, as long as you get the basic idea right two different renderings both perfectly express God's perfect words.

 

[Keith M]

The answer is obvious, they both are perfect even though they are different. It was okay to leave "of God' out of the 1611 or add it in 1769 because things that are different can still both be perfect and we should stop splitting hairs over trivial trivialities. Not EVERY SINGLE word of God is inspired, as long as you get the basic idea right two different renderings both perfectly express God's perfect words.

There are those of us who have been preaching this truth for a loooooong time. Yet there are those who deny it unless accepting it better fits their agenda. This is easily seen from some of the posts in this thread.