A stupid question .

Welcome, Brother Rocco. Yes, "MV" denotes Modern Versions. The definition of exactly what a Modern Version is makes up many a post on this board, with arguments both erudite and impassioned. Come and enjoy the debate.



--Ralph

 

And it was not a stupid question, you asked. No question is stupid if it brings understanding to he or she who asked. So ask away.

--Ralph

 

mv: modern versions/modern versionists

Get some stability, be stedfast, stablished in the faith. Get a KJB and live for Jesus!
mv's fluctuate too much and can't seem to conclude any matter. I suppose that's why they need so many "versions"

There are no "stupid" questions, unless the word "stupid" is part of the question.

 

As you can see, some factious people will use MV in a derisive manner, taking any opportunity they can to attack God's Word and Bible believers. So be careful.

 

HI Rocco, Please don't feel silly with your question! I had to ask just a few days ago if my New King James Version was considered by the KJV crowd in the list of Modern Versions. Alas, they said ... Yes... but I ran fast enough that the tar and feather's did not stick.

Just kidding of course but welcome to bb.com

Diane Tavegia

 

Don't feel bad Rocco, even when you know what the words mean you still have to ask what someone means by it. They still haven't figured out what "saved" means on this board.

 

Must you try to hijack every thread, cause? He was asking a decent question. </font>[/QUOTE]Seems I only answered the question. I get the impression you don't like me and don't want my input in your utopian BB. Since when is it "hijacking" to suggest some one be stable, stedfast, and established in the faith?

I thought the question might have been directed to me since I use the term "mv" alot to mean modern version and modern versionists.

EXCUUUUUSE ME!

Methinks that bowtie is really a phylactery that has fallen to a lower level due to the "grease"!

 

MV - Modern Version (or translation) of the Bible.

Most typically, you'll here KJVO proponents refer to all versions that came after the KJV as MV's.

But MV can also refer to versions that are younger than a specific origin date. The origin date in question is left to context.


Idea of a version itself raises several questions. For example, if one refers to the 1611 edition of the KJV, are all revisions after 1611 edition modern versions? (The last most noteworthy revision was 1850). If not, then if we were to revise the KJV today, would it be a modern version? Or, since the current version of the KJV is 1850, are bibles that came about after 1611, but before 1850, modern, or not (such as the Webster Bible 1833).

Generally, I look for context whenever I see the letters "mv".

 

I Question Rocco:

II Answer( in part) Istherenotacause:

III Challenge to part of answer Dr.Bob Griffin:

IV Answer to challenge (in part) Istherenotacause:

 

Not to be a discouragement or anything, but I've heard it said that "there are no stupid questions, just stupid people who ask questions."

Just ribbing you a bit, Rocco.

Jason

 

II Answer( in part) Istherenotacause:

III Challenge to part of answer Dr.Bob Griffin:

IV Answer to challenge (in part) Istherenotacause:

</font>[/QUOTE]Wow! That's good detective work, but now would you please tell us what it means?

 

It's statements like this that actually repel me from ever using the famous Authorized Version.
If what you say is true, then why can't KJV folks agree on every point of doctrine? Your profile says your an "independent" baptist. Independents tend to prefer the KJV. That's all well and good, but I can know for certain from the testimony of "independents" that there is diversity on points of doctrine even when everyone is using the same KJV.