Is someone who believes in one version of the Bible unbiblical ?

[4boys4joys]

The comment was made in another forum about those who believe in one version of the Bible. It was said of them they were unbiblical. Any thoughts ?

 

[Pastor Larry]

The comment probably dealt with those who believed that only one English version was the Word of God and all others were corrupt or perverted. People who believe that are unbiblical.

 

[4boys4joys]

The comment probably dealt with those who believed that only one English version was the Word of God and all others were corrupt or perverted. People who believe that are unbiblical.

Could you explain why ? I have never heard this point of view and I am curious about the reasoning behind it.

 

[saturneptune]

The answer is no. I think those who believe the KJV is the only true Bible are misguided, but not unBiblical. There are many excellent versions of English. Nothing holy about King James.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Could you explain why ? I have never heard this point of view and I am curious about the reasoning behind it.

Not sure which point of view you are referring to. Some believe that the KJV is the only word of God in English. However, there is no Scripture to support that view, and in fact, Scritpure explicitly refutes it through its own use of Scripture where it cites the OT from a version that is different than the Hebrew text of the OT.

 

[Alcott]

"Is someone who believes in one version of the Bible unbiblical ?"

You think about this question and its denotative literal meaning, and it's nonsense. Do we need one or more proofreaders on here, at least for polls?

 

[TCGreek]

Not sure which point of view you are referring to. Some believe that the KJV is the only word of God in English. However, there is no Scripture to support that view, and in fact, Scritpure explicitly refutes it through its own use of Scripture where it cites the OT from a version that is different than the Hebrew text of the OT.

Good point, and one which has been lost upon those who call for the KJV only.

 

[4boys4joys]

"Is someone who believes in one version of the Bible unbiblical ?"

You think about this question and its denotative literal meaning, and it's nonsense. Do we need one or more proofreaders on here, at least for polls?

This question was derived from a comment that was made on another thread. I am simply asking for others to share the view they have on this statment, since it is one I have never heard before.

 

[4boys4joys]

Not sure which point of view you are referring to. Some believe that the KJV is the only word of God in English. However, there is no Scripture to support that view, and in fact, Scritpure explicitly refutes it through its own use of Scripture where it cites the OT from a version that is different than the Hebrew text of the OT.

Is there scripture (chapter and verse) which deals with this subject and would deem those who believe that there is only one version of the Bible unscriptural. IMO it was a pretty broad statment to make about those who have a different opinion than someone else. I do not know if I would have the bravery to tell someone they were unscriptural with out scripture itself.

Could you please explain or gives examples of how the scripture refutes itself ? I know I am asking alot of questions but this is a subject that I would like to know more about.

 

[tinytim]

I haven't voted yet... not because I don't want to... but because, I am confused by what you mean "unbiblical"

There is no scripture basis for onlyism for any version..

And since this doctrine is taught from pulpits, it should be based in scripture.

IOWS... when a new doctrine is being taught, the burden of proof is on the one teaching it...
The only ones that have ever taught Onlyism was first the Roman Catholic church back in the dark ages...
And now some of the more fundamental Christians...
But there is no doctrinal basis for onlyism.
If so, where is it?

If that is what you mean as "unbiblical" I would say yes... since the doctrine is not found. Actually, the more better word would be "extrabiblical" As it is an extra belief that is not in the Bible...

NOW.. if you meant "unbiblical' to mean that it is a sin, and you would not have a bible... then I would vote "no" As the KJV is a great translation of the Bible.... (assuming this is the version you use... I have never seen any other type of onlyism, except for the RCC use of the Latin) And if you choose to only use the KJV... you will still be greatly blessed... As have saints for the last 400 yrs...

I guess it all depends on what you meant by the word "unbiblical"

 

[4boys4joys]

I haven't voted yet... not because I don't want to... but because, I am confused by what you mean "unbiblical"

There is no scripture basis for onlyism for any version..

And since this doctrine is taught from pulpits, it should be based in scripture.

IOWS... when a new doctrine is being taught, the burden of proof is on the one teaching it...
The only ones that have ever taught Onlyism was first the Roman Catholic church back in the dark ages...
And now some of the more fundamental Christians...
But there is no doctrinal basis for onlyism.
If so, where is it?

If that is what you mean as "unbiblical" I would say yes... since the doctrine is not found. Actually, the more better word would be "extrabiblical" As it is an extra belief that is not in the Bible...

NOW.. if you meant "unbiblical' to mean that it is a sin, and you would not have a bible... then I would vote "no" As the KJV is a great translation of the Bible.... (assuming this is the version you use... I have never seen any other type of onlyism, except for the RCC use of the Latin) And if you choose to only use the KJV... you will still be greatly blessed... As have saints for the last 400 yrs...

I guess it all depends on what you meant by the word "unbiblical"

Like I said earlier this question is one that I got from a comment made by another poster in another thread. I do not know if they meant it was sin or it was not Biblical based on something else.

Tim I thank you for your part on the board. I would like to know if there is Biblical basis for not being onlyist ? Of course I know that this all comes down to interpretation and view points based on so many different backgrounds and beliefs. There are some who believe the complete opposite of what you said. That there is no Biblical basis for being anything but onlyist.

I guess I would have to say both is it sin or is it unreflective of the Bible itself or both ? I have already answered this I just wanted to see other views. Also I wonder this ? Should we deem someone unBiblical based on direct passages of scripture or on the basis of how they view the translation issues of the Bible ?
In other words scripture and verse or historically or both ?

Un- The reverse or opposite of an act ; removal or release from.

 

[Cutter]

What is it about the KJV that sparks such controversy and judging from others within the Christian community?

 

[Amy.G]

What is it about the KJV that sparks such controversy and judging from others within the Christian community?

In my own experience, the only judging that is done comes from the KJVO crowd (not KJV preferred). People who use MV's do not judge people who prefer the KJV. But the KJVO people harshly judge anyone who uses another version, even going so far as to say that MV's are "perverted" and cannot be God's Word.

 

[russell55]

What is it about the KJV that sparks such controversy and judging from others within the Christian community?

The question is general. It doesn't specify any particular version, just that it's only one version.

Should we deem someone unBiblical based on direct passages of scripture or on the basis of how they view the translation issues of the Bible ?

Believing that there can only be one version rightly called scripture is certainly unbiblical, because Jesus reads from the OT, and what is written there is different than what we have in our OT. And then he calls it scripture, too. From Luke 4:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. 17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”

20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

Here's what it says in Isaiah 61:1-2, the passage he was reading from, in our OT.

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor,

The text that Jesus read leaves out a couple of the phrases that are in the passage in the text we have. There is no mention of binding the brokenhearted or opening the prison in the text he read, and yet he calls it scripture.

And it's not as if this is the only place where our text of the OT and the one quoted from in our NT are different. Jesus accepts a different "version" than ours as scripture and so do the writers of scripture. The Bible and our Lord both affirm, then, that different wordings of the same text can both be scripture.

Therefore, believing that there can only be one version of scripture and any other version that varies from it is not scripture is unbiblical and not following the example of Christ.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Someone who believes....

The doctrine that allows for "puzzle bibles" is an amazing doctrine.
Is the Word of God here today?
If it is where is it?
"Oh don't 'cha know it is in at least 20 different versions and translations."
You have to piece all the parts of the puzzel together or maybe a scholar like those here on the board can help you.
My own paraphrase of the flyleaf on one of the more recent puzzle bibles
says.........In a sence we will always need the scholar.
My stepfather's church says the same thing, it is located in rome and they are called priests.

Not a point that I am going to debate. Just my take on the subject.

Bartimaeus

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

I think most people have a 'favorite' version and I don't think there is anything unbiblical about that...

 

[TC]

I think most people have a 'favorite' version and I don't think there is anything unbiblical about that...

That is true, but when someone says my favorite version is the only valid one and anybody who reads from a different one is not reading a 'real' Bible then the person has stepped into the unbiblical.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

I really don't care what version anyone else reads. It's none of my business, but I don't think I am unbiblical for preferring one version over another either...

 

[TC]

Nobody has said you were. I have met people that do care what Bible version others read - they will actually go up to complete strangers and tell them they are reading a perversion and should read only the KJV.

 

[TC]

What Bible version a person reads is between that person and God. I have my favorite version that I use most of the time. Since there is neither one scripture that says to use only one version nor one that says to read multiple versions, the believer needs to choose for himself or herself. As a Baptist, I believe in the priesthood of the believer. So, I let others choose for themselves what Bible version to use and expect the freedom to choose the Bible version that I want to use.