I John 5:12

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salamander, Oct 10, 2008.

  1. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since when is the "sonne, son, Son, or Sonne, etc" NOT Jesus Christ?

    My name is Alan Manders: some call me Alan, some Mr. Manders, some "Salamander", some The Salamander, dude, hey guy, good looking, etc. but they're all me!

    I've been called wet dirt, or just call me "mud" for short.
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    So, would you approve of omitting "of God" every time that "Son" is mentioned?

    Question remains, still not answered - is the 1611 exclusion of 'of God' perfect or is the 1769 inclusion of it perfect.

    Things that are different cannot be the same.
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Has to be the 1611, c4, since God re-inspired His word in Jacobean English. Sal is trying to teach that there was a second work of inspiration and the PERFECT words in 1611.

    Not those evil modern 1762 or 1769 revisions.


    (BTW, my mother called my sunny because I was so bright)
     
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is not the question; the question is the rendering of the text, as C4K noted over a year ago.

    To my knowledge, not one person has suggested, on this board, that any other than the Lord Jesus Christ is in view in I John 5:12, at least during the time I've been on the BB.

    FTR, I did happen to already know your name, having found it previously (but not on the BB). I just make it a practice to use the posted 'handle' of all BB members.

    Ed
     
  5. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Son is The Son, care to object?
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Which version is perfect?

    One says, 'of God.' The other doesn't. They are not the same. One has to be right and one wrong.

    Is not every single word of God important?

    On second thought, never mind. No one has ever answered this on except to say.

    "Things that are different are not the same, except in 1 John 5v12."
     
    #6 NaasPreacher (C4K), Oct 17, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2008
  7. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry this is such a complication for you. The context determines that this is none other than The Son.

    Your reply shows you object to this being one is "wrong" when neither actually is wrong.

    If this was a printer error or not, it makes NO difference in WHO the passage referes to.

    Another dilemma according to the rationality of men.

    Secular reasoning never did amount to much where the Lord is concerned, huh?
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Your reasoning is correct, but you only apply that to this one verse. Anyone else using your logic to explain away an inconsistency, would be attacked as a Bible corrector.

    These two renderings, 1611 and 1769, are different - try as you might you can't explain that away. If the 1611 rendering was correct, why was it changed for 1769?

    Only one other major version agrees with the 1611 rendering, the Douay Rheims, a Catholic Bible.

    Why is that the only two identical renderings for this verse are the KJV1611 and a Catholic Bible?

    Is that where, perhaps, where the KJV translators got the idea?

    That would explain why it had to be corrected later.
     
    #8 NaasPreacher (C4K), Oct 17, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2008
  9. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    People are fallable.

    I only find a word count difference and not that the Son of God is any different than The Son according to context.

    I place no authority on the catholic version as you do.

    Printer's choice.

    You will have to go dig them up and ask them.

    It presents no dilemma for me, why you?

    I think you're trying to "strain out a gnat":laugh:
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 John 5:12 (Tyndal Bible)
    He that hath the sonne hath lyfe:
    and he that hath not the sonne of god hath not lyfe

    1 John 5:12 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition, e-sword.com ):
    He that hath that Sonne, hath that life:
    and he that hath not that Sonne of God, hath not that life.

    1 John 5:12 (KJV1611 Edition, e-sword.com ):
    Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life;
    and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

    1 John 5:12 (KJV1769 family of versions, crosswalk.com ):
    He that hath the Son hath life;
    and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

    The modern Bibles condemned by some cause it was made 'after the faulty 5%':

    1 John 5:12 (NIV1984, crosswalk.com )
    He who has the Son has life;
    he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

    1 John 5:12 (HCSB2003, crosswalk.com )
    He who has the Son has life;
    he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

    1 John 5:12 (TNIV2006, crosswalk.com )
    Whoever has the Son has life;
    whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

    Isn't that strange? the only Bible out of step is the KJV1611 Edition. IMHO, according to THE TRUTH in my trailer/signature: 'of God' should go into the phrase 'have not the Son' & does in the original. In this case, the majority OF WITNESSES* have the right reading.

    *note: NOT the majority of people witnesses but the majority of Bible Witnesses.
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    In other words, mistakes are acceptable in the KJV1611.

    If any other version left out 'of God,' no matter what the context, the KJVO crowd would be crying 'HERESY' at the top of their lungs.

    Got it - thanks for clarifying. Things that are different are indeed the same!
     
  12. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Prove the "mistake"?

    You seem to be carrying on a previous conversation with some one else you have this issue with concerning I John 5:12.

    I haven't ever "cried out" against anything that follows context.

    Now heresy does occur when God is placed under the authority of translators to behave as wicked deceitful men as found in Job 24:22 in the NKJV.

    God sent The Son so we might have life and that more abundantly, never leaving any man unsure of life, but leaving certain that eternal life rests solely in The Son!:godisgood:

    Yep, you "got it" alright!:laugh:

    The truth according to what you've presented as some sort of "difference" doesn't exist except in the figment of your imagination. The Son is The Son of God, care to prove otherwise?:jesus:

    I do not agree with everyone who has been awarded the dubious title "KJVO". Making out as if we're all lumped together believing exactly the same thing is gross error. But we do know that is the mindset so often portrayed here in the BB.

    We accept any good commentary on the Bible as a valid one, but when those versions delineate from the harmony of the context and cause a fasle idea through the subtle way of changing the words, we cry "HERESY! SERPENT ALERT!", and if one would be honest they would too!
     
  13. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    Sure is hard to argue against that kind of logic.

    Rob
     
  14. dfj

    dfj
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that Huión toú Theoú says it all.
     
  15. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for offering this, but now translate it into what the Lord would have us English speaking peoples to know?

    May I?

    "Jesus is The Son of God"
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    'Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.'


    'He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.'


    Any difference you see is a figment of your imagination.
     
    #16 NaasPreacher (C4K), Oct 18, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 18, 2008
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is another one like the KJV1611 reading:

    1 John 5:12 (Williams Translation, 1937 Original-Edition)-
    Whoever has the Son has life;
    whoever does not have the Son does not have life.


    1 John 5:11 clearly denotes that we are talking about the Son of God.
    IMHO, this would be a clear translations (though adherence to the Original language still has merit :)

    1 John 5:12 (ALL CLEAR EXPRESSION - ACE)
    Whoever has Him has life;
    whoever does not have Him does not have life.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fig Newton

    Amen, Brother C4K - Preach it! :thumbs:

    I had a work friend (1980s) named 'Strange' who said: " ... is a Fig Newton of your imagination"
     
  19. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are One in the Same; care to disagree?
     
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Nope, just good to see you agree that things that are different can indeed be the same.

    Welcome to the club.
     

Share This Page

Loading...