Is the "Version" issue really that Important?

Last warning fellas - you are about to get this thread closed.

 

So why do you hold to that position?

 

The topic here is not KJVO - the topic is "Is the version issue really that important. Unless we get back to that topic closure is getting very close.

 

What makes you think I do??
Where is your proof?
Show one post that supports your accusation,or concede that you're either lying or have no clue what you're talking about.
I wont hold my breath on this one.

 

The version issue is unimportant. I know many people who use many different versions, and yet have a great spiritual life. They are fantastic Christians. I think what it comes down to is how a person applies the Bible to their life, regardless of what version they use. With the possible exception of "The Message." I'm not a fan of that version.

 

Exactly. Thank you so very much for these extremely wise words.

-------------------------------------------

This issue is only personally insulting to the extent to which any of you have made it personally insulting. IMHO, some posters need to take a deep breath and reread your words before you hit the submit button. Would you say the words you typed outloud if the person were face-to-face with you? What would your tone be? No one will be won over with snipes and quips. They might be won over with a well-written and well-though out response that expresses kindness and love.

I use many versions. It doesn't bother me if you only use the KJV. It's your choice. It's my choice to use more.

 

That is true.

 

Is this your version?

John 7:53-8:11
The NIV notes in its text that the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11. The NKJV notes in its margin that the verses are not regarded as original by the Nestle- United Bible Societies text but are found in over 900 manuscripts. The RSV notes in its margin that the verses are omitted from the most ancient authorities and that other authorities displace the passage. (The 1946 Edition placed the passage in its margin in italics.) The GN brackets the passages, noting in its margin that it is not found in many manuscripts and early translations or is displaced by other authorities. The LB notes in its margin that the most ancient manuscripts omit the verses.
The AMP notes in the margin the omission from the older manuscripts but indicates it ought nevertheless to be retained. The NASV brackets the verses and notes in the margin that most of the old manuscripts do not contain them. The NSRB notes in the margin that the passage is not found in some ancient manuscripts but accepts it as genuine. The NEB displaces verses to the end of John's Gospel. The NWT places the passage in the margin. The JB notes in the margin that on the basis of style, the author is not John and that the oldest manuscripts do not contain the passage.
Fuller (4) p 1234, (33) p 155, cites Burgon as stating that of 73 copies of John's Gospel in the British Museum, 61 contain John 7:53-8:11 as found in this passage. Burgon (33) p 155, indicates that this proportioning would be typical for any collection of manuscript copies of John. He also cites, (33) p 149, a further 60 copies, from three distinct lines of ancestry, which agree with this passage. He alludes to 35 of the BM copies which contain a marginal note stating that verses 1-11 are not to be read on Whitsunday. Thus he explains how the Lectionary practice of the early church would have accounted for the omission of the verses from some of the seventy cursives from which they are absent. He also states, (33) p 148, that the subject matter itself would have been sufficient for deletion of the words from many copies, including the oldest uncials, Aleph and B. The verses are also absent from A (5th century), L (8th century), T (5th century) and Delta (9th century) but Codex A has two leaves missing, which in Burgon's considered view would have contained the verses, while L and Delta exhibit blank spaces which are witnesses FOR, not against, the validity of the verses. See remarks on B in relation to Mark 16:9-20. This leaves only T in agreement with Aleph and B, both notoriously untrustworthy. Burgon, ibid p 156, states that the verses are to be found in the large majority of later copies (i.e. over 900 manuscripts, as the NKJV so obligingly notes.)
Hills (3) p 159, (38) p 131, states that Papyri 66 and 75 and W omit the verses, in addition to the sources cited by Burgon. D however (6th century), contains them. Burgon (33) p 145-6, 1534, also cites in favour of the passage as found in this passage: Codex D and the Old Latin codices b, c, e ff, g, h, j-see notes under John 5:3b-4 for dates. Note that the Old Latin TEXT dates from the 2nd Century, (17) p77 Jerome (385 AD), who included it in the Vulgate after surveying older Greek copies, stating it was found "in many copies both Greek and Latin", before 415 AD, (17) p 134 The Ethiopic (5th century), Palestinian Syriac (5th Century), Georgian (5/6th century), some copies of the Armenian (4/5th century), Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions Ambrose (374 AD), Augustine (396), Chrysologus (433), Faustus (400), Gelasius (492), Pacian (370), Rufinus (400), Sedulius (434), Victorius (457), Vigilius (484) and others The Lectionary practice of the Eastern Church, from earliest times (i.e. the 2nd century.)
Burgon, ibid p 147, states that the dislocation of John 7:53-8:11 (see notes under RSV and GN) is attributable to four cursives, 13, 69, 124, 346, all evidently from one ancient and corrupt copy.

Ruckman (2) p 134, cites in favour of the passage, the Didache (3rd century document of Apostolic Teachings), Apostolic Constitutions (4th century) and Eusebius (324 AD) citing Papias (150 AD) as recognizing the passage. The Montanists (2nd century) were also aware of the passage. Ruckman (31) p 333, also cites besides D, uncials M, S and Gamma from the 5th, 8th and 9th centuries in favour of this passage. Concerning authorship of the passage (see note under JB), Hills (38) p 130, states that "arguments from style are notoriously weak." Berry's Greek text supports this passage.
"O Biblios The Book," by Allan O'Reilly:Fish:

 

William, as long as you keep quoting from that smarmy book that repeatedly quotes Ruckman & other jaybirds, no one's gonna believe a thing you're typing.

 

OK

Hes just a Man as we are men, and may be heard with proper objection! Let God be true and "EVERY"man a "LIAR"Amenraise: I mean look at the other witnesses and ruckman is merely a voice but has some Questionable but interresting material!

 

Copyright

William,
I don't know why I have to keep warning you, but you continue to push the copyright laws by copying from other websites or books. If you don't have anything original to say, then just provide a link or rewrite it in your own words.

We are going to have to start clipping your long messages again if you insist on pushing the copyright laws beyond that of "fair use". Do you understand this or do I need to start editing?

 

Originally Posted by robycop3
William, as long as you keep quoting from that smarmy book that repeatedly quotes Ruckman & other jaybirds, no one's gonna believe a thing you're typing.


Mr. Correa:Hes just a Man as we are men, and may be heard with proper objection!

In America, he has the right to speak, we have the right to ignore him, and you have the right to continue to be wrong.


Let God be true and "EVERY"man a "LIAR"Amen I mean look at the other witnesses and ruckman is merely a voice but has some Questionable but interresting material!

So does L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy, & Ellen Gould White.

And O'Reilly doesn't stop there. He quotes more garbage by more ad-libbers. He quotes Wilkinson, Ray, & Fuller as well as Ruckman. This tells me he's merely a "party-Line" KJVO who's dug up some old trash & re-packaged it in a new dumpster. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

Actually, all the quotes can land the BB in hot water legally.

A short quote is allowable, but continued quoting from a single source constitues copyright violation, as well as the overly long quotes.

Plus, the rag that is being quoted ain't worth the paper it is printed on...

 

Seems I read in the King James How that God says His people persih for a lack of knowledge. The "issue" was never an "issue" until after the induction of W/H texts that underlie all MV's, including the NKJV. This should be addressed without opinion and generalities as the "op" has insisted upon, again. This is emphatic that the more one should be taught on the Omniscience and Omnipotence of God in the area of His preservation of His Word, COMPLETE!

raise: :Fish: raise: I have the COMPLETE and AUTHORITVE Word of God!!!raying:

 

Me too---thank the Lord for my NKJV.

Bro Tony

 

Me Three!

Thank the Lord for the NASV, NKJV, KJV, Av 1611, Geneva, & the other valid versions!

 

Me four

Salamander: //I have the COMPLETE and AUTHORITVE Word of God!!!//

John 21:25 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
And there are also many other things that Jesus
did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose
not even the would itself could contain the
books* that would be written.

Translater's footnote * Lit scroll

Makes me wonder if all the COMPLETE and AUTHORITVE Word of God
can be put into one book???

Robycop3: //And O'Reilly doesn't stop there. He quotes more garbage
by more ad-libbers. He quotes Wilkinson, Ray, & Fuller
as well as Ruckman. This tells me he's merely a "party-Line"
KJVO who's dug up some old trash & re-packaged it in a new dumpster.
Garbage In, Garbage Out.//

Talking of old trash - his attack against the Bible concentrates
on a 20-year old nKJV, no mention of my MV: the
HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003).
It will take 10-12 years to launch an attack upon my Bible,
which attack will be repeated for 25-35 years

 

Amen

You said it Brother!:applause:

 

Valid?

Who says a Version is Valid or if it AINT?:smilewinkgrin:

 

A Question

What is the diffrence between legal and illegal?:Fish: