Dealing with a Contradiction

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Interesting....how do the KJO bunch explain that?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Sigh

 

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

 

Let's ask Dr. Ruckman. He may clue us in with s'more ADVANCED REVELATION...

 

Well, at least some time in pergatory.

Remember, Dr. Bob, we ARE talking about an Anglican (former RCC) group of translators.

 

And the translators would be accused of being New Age as well.

HankD

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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