Dealing with a Contradiction

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Dec 9, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I John 5:12 KJV1769 "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

    I John 5:12 AV1611 "Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life."

    Based on two different "KJV" (one the original, the other in my Scofield's Oxford edition)

    1. Did the modern KJV "ADD" words OF GOD not found in the AV1611?

    2. Did the AV1611 "OMIT" words OF GOD found in modern KJV?

    3. Which one is correct? They are vastly different and only ONE can be perfect (by definition of the word).

    We KNOW that they mean basically the same thing. But the modern versions are mercilessly attacked because they add/delete phrases like "OF GOD" as if attacking the deity of Christ. What about the contradiction here between the REAL AV and the MODERN KJV??

    This has nothing to do with Greek manuscripts or the NIV or other translations. This is an internal issue within different versions of the KJV.

    Thank you for sharing how you deal with this omission/addition of words.
     
  2. Rich_UK

    Rich_UK
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6181.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob is the word *of God* in this particular sentence, in the original manuscripts? I'm just curious. I couldn't care less for the KJO debates as I prefer the NIV and NKJB, but I'm asking because if its in the original manuscripts, then the obvious answer would be that the 1611 version omitted the words. I'm probably way off base but I genuinley don't have a clue whether its in the TR or not.
     
  3. pastorjeff

    pastorjeff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's in the TR. The Geneva Bible has "of God". The only answer is it was left out, whether by accident or on purpose we can't say. This is a good reason to have updated versions. It may have just been an oversight by the original translators of thwe 1611.
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    Although the most radical KJVO could care less about any Greek mss, the AV 1611 omitted the words of God which is is found in all Greek mss.

    HankD
     
  5. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are a dozen or so manuscripts that add "of God" following the *first* occurrence of "Son".

    On the other hand, it appears that *all* manuscripts have the phrase "of God" following the *second* occurrence of "Son".

    The *only* source I could locate that *omits* "of God" in the second occurrence (like the 1611 KJV) seems to be Tertullian, Adv. Praxeas 31: "Qui filium non habet, nec vitam habet".

    Looks to me like the AV 1611 wasn't "perfect" at this point.
     
  6. Rich_UK

    Rich_UK
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6181.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting....how do the KJO bunch explain that?
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    TYpically via circular reasoning: The KJV doesn't have any omissions. So if someone produces an omission, it cannot be an omission, because the KJV doesn't have any omissions.
     
  8. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    They would probably say it was a printer error that was corrected. Because we know that the KJV translators got everthing right, it had to be those careless printers. Of course, since the original KJV manuscript is lost, the world may never know.
     
  9. Rich_UK

    Rich_UK
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6181.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    OR: All the Greek mss and KJVs subsequent to 1611 are wrong!

    OR: BOTH are correct! Things which are different can be the same when it come to the AV (however if this occurs in the NIV then they are NOT the same).

    HankD
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Let's ask Dr. Ruckman. He may clue us in with s'more ADVANCED REVELATION...
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Add Matthew 16:16 to the list when you ask.

    The AV1611 says:
    "And Simon Peter answered, and said, Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God."

    The KJV1769 Blayney/Oxford revision say:
    "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art THE Christ, the Son of the living God."

    Which is correct? Is Jesus "A" Messiah or is He "THE" Messiah?

    Obviously the 1611 DESTROYS THE DIETY of Jesus. (Well, of course we know that isn't true, but if a Modern English Version omitted the definite article, there would be hades to pay!)
     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, at least some time in pergatory.

    Remember, Dr. Bob, we ARE talking about an Anglican (former RCC) group of translators. :rolleyes: [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    And the translators would be accused of being New Age as well.

    HankD
     
  15. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question was asked improperly.

    It should have been asked like this:

    I read the following verse in the standard KJV, and also in another modern version. Is this a change in doctrine?

    I John 5:12 KJV "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

    I John 5:12 MV "He that has the Son, has life; and he that has not the Son, has not life."

    Please, I only want the opinions of KJVO Bible believing Christians.


    Then, after you get the responses, then explain that the latter verse is the KJV1611, which is definitely a modern version as Tyndale, Geneva, Bishop's Bible, etc. were more than enough for English readers. I suspect you'd find KJVO's attacking the Modern Version (KJV1611) as not scripture and a mockery of God's Word.
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    You're right, m'chester, I could have "blind-sided" them good. But would have had to fudge on truth a little (like calling the 1611 a MV).

    And 'fudging on truth' is part of the issue under discussion.
     
  17. gopchad

    gopchad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    1
    I, as a KJV preferred person, am personally glad that the onlyist crowd has quieted down in recent days. I am not a big poster, but I read these posts several times a week.

    Quite honestly the KJVO crowd has given the KJV crowd a bad name. Nearly every IFB church in North central WV is KJV preferred, and we went through the KJVO controversy/division several years back. It for now seems to be a non-issue here as both ends of the spectrum have cooled down the rhetoric (stopped using words like heretic in public at least), and I pray that it would get that way everywhere.

    Chad
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Chad, what part of WV are you in? I'm in Lawrence Co. Oh, not far from Huntington. (I'm a big Marshall fan!)

    One Baptist church in Huntington, Walnut Hills Baptist Church, is KJVO-fanatic. I've written them letters asking them for a Scriptural basis from the KJV for their stand, and for a response I get the same dreary ole Psalm 12:6-7 reply, which is incorrect anyway. They appear to be "party-line" KJVOs, having derived their myth from the old Wilkinson-Ray-Fuller line.
     
  19. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    I have many friends and family in the KJV crowd, and several who have "crossed over" into the Onlyist doctrine, one being my mother. She goes on the offensive when presented with facts, and relies on the standard "The Holy Spirit led me to this as the truth". I don't believe this when she hasn't even studied the evidence presented, and cannot answer where the perfect WOG was before 1611. I believe my mother, two sisters and their families are the only ONLYISTS in my family, and they are all IFB, one being a preacher. I have noticed that when confronted with these contradictions, and other questions, they quickly get loud, defensive, etc. They have no answers. It is truly a concern and a shame.
     
  20. gopchad

    gopchad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm in Morgantown. Sadly the rhetoric on both sides of the issue has forced many to take unscriptural stands. I consider myself pretty balanced, as I see it as a textual issue for me. However, neither side on this issue really accepts guys like me (i.e., those who refuse to judge/name-call). It got so bad here at one time that we actually had the KJVO and "only KJV's" which were on two sides of the same version. I am actually quite tired of rehashing the same old debates.

    If you are ever in the Mo-town area look our church up. It's Victory Baptist in Fairmont.

    Chad
     

Share This Page

Loading...