1 John 5v12

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Every single word that reflects the correct meaning and without error in the thought process is of course "right" and "perfect".

Since you cannot accept that, I won't continue in your game any longer.

If you're gonna go anywhere you'll have to release the clutch before you blow your motor.

In other words we don't need to know every single precise word of God in order to have an accurate translation. Thanks for the clarification, that is what I have been looking for.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So you think that when God inspired holy men as they were moved by the Holy Ghost to pen the word of God He wasn't perfect.:tonofbricks:

My point exactly - God is always perfect. Man is not - that is why we have "of God" in one rendering but not the other. God does not make any mistakes - man does.

 

[rbell]

In other words we don't need to know every single precise word of God in order to have an accurate translation. Thanks for the clarification, that is what I have been looking for.

hmmm....if you put that with consistency....where would all the versions fights go?

 

[Bro. Williams]

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.

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

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

Look back up at your last paragraph, genius. If something is not "perfect" then it is "imperfect". Since you don't believe the 1611 and 1769 are both correct, then one is imperfect. If it has an imperfection it has a corruption. 1 plus 1 still equals 2.

You claim that MVs are errant because they do not say the same thing as the KJVs,

.

Are you sure I said that? I don't recall saying that. I am placing you as a flase accuser unless you can claim I stated such. That is not a tactic of mine. If you can find where I said that, I will apologize, but I want some proof that those are my words.

 

[TC]

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.

How do you know its a copyist error? Since the original KJV that the translators made has dissapeared (probably destroyed in the London fire - from what I read), nobody knows if it is an error or the way the translators meant it to be. What if the 1611 is what the translators wanted and the 1769 add to it?

 

[tinytim]

Is there a possibility the phrase was added to one of the revisions between 1611 and 1769?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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



Look back up at your last paragraph, genius. If something is not "perfect" then it is "imperfect". Since you don't believe the 1611 and 1769 are both correct, then one is imperfect. If it has an imperfection it has a corruption. 1 plus 1 still equals 2.

.

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The possibilities are as follows as far as I can see.

1) The KJV translating team left it on purpose or by mistake
2) Those who prepared the manuscripts fro printing left it out by mistake
3) The typesetters left it out by mistake. Typesetting was a massive, intricate task and this kind of task would be assisted by apprentices.

#3 would be my personal opinion, but we will never know. I am pretty sure it was corrected by the Oxford printing of 1762 (don't have an Oxford at hand). I would guess the correction was made much earlier than that though considering the major difference. Something this big would not have survived for long. Praise the Lord that the mistake was corrected and sorted out before today's most popular KJV editions were printed.

 

[Keith M]

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

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?

Look back up at your last paragraph, genius.

Name-calling is not necessary, Bro. Williams. Does this demonstrate your spiritual maturity level or did you simply allow your carnal side to speak?

If something is not "perfect" then it is "imperfect". Since you don't believe the 1611 and 1769 are both correct, then one is imperfect. If it has an imperfection it has a corruption. 1 plus 1 still equals 2.

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?

Are you sure I said that? I don't recall saying that. I am placing you as a flase accuser unless you can claim I stated such. That is not a tactic of mine. If you can find where I said that, I will apologize, but I want some proof that those are my words.

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?

 

[EdSutton]

Isn't almost everyone an 'Only-ist' (sp.?) in some form or fashion?

I know that I can 'only' read one version (or write in one language) at a time (and I assume most other folks are the same way), unlike President James A. Garfield, who could simultaneously write Greek with one hand, and Latin with the other, with me not having the ability to read even two parallel versions together, simultaneously.

No matter what I may think of any version, I cannot read it with any other, at the same time. Even trying to so, would give me a major migraine!

Kinda' like trying to follow some logic (and eisegesis) I see posted on the BB, at times!

'Headache City'!!

Ed

 

[Salamander]

My point exactly - God is always perfect. Man is not - that is why we have "of God" in one rendering but not the other. God does not make any mistakes - man does.

OK, so now you think God is some far away unreachable being that man can never really know, but yet is perfect due to the ideal you have.

I know man is not perfect, but His word is perfectly portrayed in either of your examples. Neither is a mistake to include or exclude "of God" in I John 5:12, both mean exactly the same thing.

Do you care to expand on how you think anyone else could be anything other than The Son of God when he is referred to as "Son" ???

You keep carrying on as if this is some sort of proof that exhonerates other versions to the status quo, but there is your mistake, man.:tonofbricks:

The truth is worded perfectly in the KJB, but the other versions may perfectly render the word to the thouhgt to effect the heart, [attack on my Bible snipped]

 

[Salamander]

The possibilities are as follows as far as I can see.

1) The KJV translating team left it on purpose or by mistake
2) Those who prepared the manuscripts fro printing left it out by mistake
3) The typesetters left it out by mistake. Typesetting was a massive, intricate task and this kind of task would be assisted by apprentices.

#3 would be my personal opinion, but we will never know. I am pretty sure it was corrected by the Oxford printing of 1762 (don't have an Oxford at hand). I would guess the correction was made much earlier than that though considering the major difference. Something this big would not have survived for long. Praise the Lord that the mistake was corrected and sorted out before today's most popular KJV editions were printed.

Um, man, it's Cambridge 1762, Oxford 1769.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

OK, so now you think God is some far away unreachable being that man can never really know, but yet is perfect due to the ideal you have.

I know man is not perfect, but His word is perfectly portrayed in either of your examples. Neither is a mistake to include or exclude "of God" in I John 5:12, both mean exactly the same thing.

Do you care to expand on how you think anyone else could be anything other than The Son of God when he is referred to as "Son" ???

You keep carrying on as if this is some sort of proof that exhonerates other versions to the status quo, but there is your mistake, man.:tonofbricks:

The truth is worded perfectly in the KJB, but the other versions may perfectly render the word to the thouhgt to effect the heart, but when you water down the eloquence in its effect to reach the heart in a substandard form you'll always end up with a substandard Chrisrian.:wavey:

Do you consider every single individual word of God important? That's not a very hard question.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Um, man, it's Cambridge 1762, Oxford 1769.

Very good - you caught me out in an egregious error. I told you I was no match for your intellectual superiority.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Do you care to expand on how you think anyone else could be anything other than The Son of God when he is referred to as "Son" ???

It is obvious, but that does not explain that fact that either the 1611 edition took away two of God's precious words, or 1769 added two words the the holy script.

 

[Mexdeaf]

The truth is worded perfectly in the KJB, but the other versions may perfectly render the word to the thouhgt to effect the heart, but when you water down the eloquence in its effect to reach the heart in a substandard form you'll always end up with a substandard Chrisrian.:wavey:

In your eyes maybe. The most godly people I know have never seen a KJV, never read it. Their language is Spanish.

I am sure that God is pleased with your typing his people as being 'substandard' based on the Bible version they use.

Not to mention, you have absolutely no proof to back up your unchristian slam.

 

[tinytim]

The 1611 is not perfect ... it left out the phrase
Therefore, to everyone that has a 1611 sign on their church, or personal belongings, you are promoting an translation that is not perfect...

Remember that whenever you pull up to church and see that sign.
Let it be a remembrance that just like the 1611 is not perfect... neither are the people in your church... neither are you...

But aren't we glad, that God still uses things that are not perfect to accomplish His will?

 

[EdSutton]

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]

Don't call us male types 'Shirley'!! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

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:

Very good! :thumbs: :thumbsup:

Two thumbs up!

(I'm just now starting to go through the thread, after answering the question before.)

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

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.

Amen, Brother Keith M! Preach it!

Ed