A need for a reverse-litmus test

[Trotter]

IF God preserved His Word for us(and He did), than NOONE (sic) should be using more than one translation in their own language.

Using more than one English version of the Bible, is saying....“God could not preserve His Word for me, so I need to search for the truth myself!”

That's the problem, stilllearning. You are trying to make the bible say what it does not. If I remember correctly, there were many different translations used by the authors of the New Testament; this was arrived at by the quotations of Old Testament passages and how they differed from the various texts. It is very possible that Paul used the actual Hebrew and not a Greek translation as he was very learned.

Using your line of thinking we could claim that everyone should only wear one type of shoe as the people of the New Testament all wore sandals. Or that we shouldn't wear pants because everyone in the NT wore robes and tunics. Or that we shouldn't drive cars because... well, you get my point.

Mexdeaf is correct: Jesus should be the only "test" we use. And that is Jesus Himself, not the Jesus only found in the KJV, TR, or any other sort of nonsense.

The true "litmus test" should be whether KJVO (or any other doctrine, action or 'ism' for that matter) brings one closer to being like Jesus, or whether it does the opposite. (Ephesians 4:11-16)

The answer to me is quite obvious.

Amen, brother. Some spend all their energy and time trying to promote a man-made doctrine instead of trying to share the Author of the book...

 

[rbell]

That's the problem, stilllearning. You are trying to make the bible say what it does not.

Spot on. There will be no admission from Stilllearning...but spot on, nonetheless.

Amen, brother. Some spend all their energy and time trying to promote a man-made doctrine instead of trying to share the Author of the book...

The nail has officially been hit on its cranium.

 

[David Lamb]

It's spelled, "none."

Surely by "NOONE" he meant "no one."

 

[Jkdbuck76]

trouble comes when you try to say KJV ONLY auth /English Bible
That it is MOST accurate
That it is Superior to even hebrew/Greek texts

You forgot one....

Non-native speakers need to learn English if they ever want to read the real Bible.

 

[stilllearning]

Surely by "NOONE" he meant "no one."

Your right David.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Except for the fact, that NOONE in the New Testament, used more than one translation in a single language.

How do you know this? Have you compared every Old Testament reference in the New Testament to every Old Testament manuscript?

 

[stilllearning]

Hi C4K

You asked..........

“How do you know this? Have you compared every Old Testament reference in the New Testament to every Old Testament manuscript?”

I know this, because I believe that there was only one Old Testament version in Hebrew and one Old Testament version in Greek available at this time.

If I am wrong about this, please fill me in.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hi C4K

You asked..........


I know this, because I believe that there was only one Old Testament version in Hebrew and one Old Testament version in Greek available at this time.

If I am wrong about this, please fill me in.

Exactly which Old Testament Hebrew version and which Old Testament Greek version did they use?

You really think that you can take an Aramaic speaker translated into Greek and then English using a Greek or Hebrew Old Testament and state that they all used the same version of the Old Testament?

 

[Friend of God]

I always support the King James Translation of the Holy Scriptures and have yet to be branded a backwards doofus.

I agree 100%, Roger

There is not a shred of Bible evidence to support one version onlyism in any language.

That's why my signature doesn't say the KJV is perfect, just sufficient.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

That's why my signature doesn't say the KJV is perfect, just sufficient.

I totally agree with the Spurgeon quote in your signature line

 

[stilllearning]

Exactly which Old Testament Hebrew version and which Old Testament Greek version did they use?

You really think that you can take an Aramaic speaker translated into Greek and then English using a Greek or Hebrew Old Testament and state that they all used the same version of the Old Testament?

As I said before.......“there was only one Old Testament version in Hebrew and one Old Testament version in Greek available at that time”.

Therefore they must have used the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Septuagint Greek text.
There were no other versions available!

If they weren’t afraid of “onlyism”, than why are you?

 

[JesusFan]

As I said before.......“there was only one Old Testament version in Hebrew and one Old Testament version in Greek available at that time”.

Therefore they must have used the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Septuagint Greek text.
There were no other versions available!

If they weren’t afraid of “onlyism”, than why are you?

IF you can prove by facts that the translaters of the KJV, or its revisers in 1789, were under same inspiration as writers of the sacred NT books/texts, would agree with you on "onlyism" for today!

if not able to say that...

What 'special" rreason allows for KJV, not geneva Bible, one Reformers used/knew

or the NKJV/NIV/Nasb etc?

 

[stilllearning]

Hi JesusFan

As I have said dozens of times before, the KJV isn’t the issue; Preservation is!

You asked........

“What 'special" rreason allows for KJV, not geneva Bible, one Reformers used/knew
or the NKJV/NIV/Nasb etc?”

None; I make it a point not to ever criticize any version of the Bible.
But......I don’t bury my head in the sand either.

It is clear(to me), that Satan has always been attacking God’s Word;
It is also clear(to me), that the CT is a result of this attack;
Therefore I personally don’t use any Bible that comes from the CT.
But I am not critical of anyone who does; It’s their choice.
---------------------------------
You also stated........

“IF you can prove by facts that the translaters of the KJV, or its revisers in 1789, were under same inspiration as writers of the sacred NT books/texts, would agree with you on "onlyism" for today!”

Of course they weren’t.
(The KJV was not freshly inspired, it is simply a faithful translation, that has been proven by time!)

But Satan didn’t just sit on his hands and simply leave this issue alone.
This is why, so many Christians, are being convinced that a “faithful copy” of God’s Word in English, does not exist today!

 

[JesusFan]

Hi JesusFan

As I have said dozens of times before, the KJV isn’t the issue; Preservation is!

You asked........


None; I make it a point not to ever criticize any version of the Bible.
But......I don’t bury my head in the sand either.

It is clear(to me), that Satan has always been attacking God’s Word;
It is also clear(to me), that the CT is a result of this attack;
Therefore I personally don’t use any Bible that comes from the CT.
But I am not critical of anyone who does; It’s their choice.
---------------------------------
You also stated........


Of course they weren’t.
(The KJV was not freshly inspired, it is simply a faithful translation, that has been proven by time!)

But Satan didn’t just sit on his hands and simply leave this issue alone.
This is why, so many Christians, are being convinced that a “faithful copy” of God’s Word in English, does not exist today!

Again...

WHY would God JUST perserve though the KJV?
Why NOT Geneva Bible, Bishops etc

Which KJV gor perserved?

Why wouldn't God extend it to ALL Modern English versions?

 

[TomVols]

This is why, so many Christians, are being convinced that a “faithful copy” of God’s Word in English, does not exist today!

I only hear folks like you say this, Still. No offense.

 

[Trotter]

If preservation is the argument, and the fact that the devil has twisted the bible over time, then we should be going back to the Vulgate. It was around a very long time before ANY English translation. And there were several English translations BEFORE the KJV came about.

Sorry but that argument just doesn't hold water, SL. You are still trying to preach your personal preference as doctrine.

 

[TCGreek]

We have God's unadulterated Word in our modern translations.

 

[stilllearning]

We have God's unadulterated Word in our modern translations.

But which translation??

Like I said.....

"More and more Christians, are being convinced that a “faithful copy” of God’s Word in English, does not exist today!"

Saying that God's Word, is "in"....our modern translations, is like saying "the Bible contains God's Word".

 

[TCGreek]

Let me see where to begin: RSV, NASU/B, NIV, NRSV, REB, HCSB, TNIV, ESV, CEB, and so on.

Perhaps this is not the discussion for me.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Therefore they must have used the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Septuagint Greek text.

That is an interesting statement since the Masoritic Text was not started until the 6th century AD.

There were also several Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures. The LXX was simply the most used, recognised, and standardised one. How would you know that no one in the NT used one of these other lesser known translations since we only have scraps of the pre-church Septuagint?