Is the "Version" issue really that Important?

[robycop3]

I believe that the HOLY SPIRIT guides each believer to the version(s) He wants each to use, so we shouldn't diss someone else's choice of version(s).

Now, while for years I have assailed the KJVO myth, I haven't assailed anyone's choice to use only the KJV unless they've assailed MY choice or tried to proclaim the KJV as the ONLY valid English version.

 

[BruceB]

I have to agree with Dr. Bob; this board is where I learned that this was a "big issue". I was aware of different translations, but never ascribed any evil intent to the variety in the past. Having just become a Baptist 23 years ago at age 27, and having grown up Roman Catholic, I had no real knowledge of the Bible at all, except for the Epistle and Gospel readings that were done at Sunday Mass.

When I became a member of a SBC church I went down and treated myself to a "Protestant Bible", choosing a NKJV simply by reading all the descriptions on the boxes and sales brochures (the idea of a time tested translation in modern English appealed to me then - and now). I started carrying the NKJV to Sunday School and church services, reading and studying in it. No one at our SBC church ever asked me what version I had or why I had chosen it. I realized that there were many more options as I listened to people read and realized I was hearing different words/sentence structure to what I was reading. I used that NKJV until about 3 years ago when it suffered from a "shrinking print" problem and I had to replace it with a Bible with larger print. It was only about 2 years ago (when I joined here) that I found out the "Translation Wars" were such a big deal - I doubt any but a few in my church are much aware of the crisis!

Our old preacher read and preached often from the RSV, but referred to many including the KJV. Our interim pastor uses the NIV, and there are others who come in to fill the pulpit occasionally who read from others (KJV, RSV and NIV seem to be the most popular with the preachers I hear). I personally have settled for the NIV for the most part, but still own and refer to a NKJV, a NASB, a HCSB, and a KJV (retirement gift from my Army Guard buddies). Bruce

 

[David J]

Those who claim one version onlyism...

All one has to do is hold those people teaching O'ism to their own standards without allowing them to weasel around using double standards and you will see the many problems with one version onlyism. Those who promote these myths generally destroy their own myths by their own words.


Double standards, evasion, answering questions with questions, attacking God's Word, and making claims that God never said or did, etc... are ways that people who promote KJVOism discredit themselves to many of us bible believers and non believers. All we need to do is ask for Scriptural support that is exclusive to only the KJV and that one question destroys the KJVO myth because KJVOist can not answer it.

 

[Trotter]

As was mentioned earlier, here in the South KJVO is silently taught in many churches, independant AND SBC.

When I was saved, I was given a KJV. I heard the NIV dissed in many sermons. The only quotes from the bible I heard was in Elizabethan English. All the verses I was to memorize were from the KJV.

I had never looked upon a different translation until I started listening to some great teachers of the word... McArthur, Swindoll, and others... on Moody radio.
I noticed that they used a different sounding bible... one that I could understand. Once I found out that something other than the KJV was actually God's word as well, I never looked back.

I still have several KJVs, and I sometimes use one or two in study. But I carry a NKJV under my arm, and use it as well as NASB, NIV, and CEV
for the most part.

Is the "Version" issue really that important? Only in the fact that there are some who are teaching things that are not from the bible, and are actually against God's word by declaring that His word can only be found in one translation. By shutting the door of comprehension and understanding what the text is trying to say by forcing someone to wade through archaic words and sentence structure, many are kept as baby Christians.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

versions

There should'nt6 even be a KJVO controversy.The translators themselves gave us the first BIG hint.

 

[SBCPreacher]

Bible Versions

I'm a NKJV kind of guy, not exclusively, but mainly. My wife is a NASV (not the updated) kind of gal. We've ben married 29 years now, and the different preferences in Bible versions hasn't come up even once!

I think this "???Onlyism" is a pride issue. "My Bible's better than yours." "My Holy bible is Holier than yours."

Yes, there are some poor versions out there. I wouldn't recommend them. But, I would recommend ANY version rather than recommend that a lost person stays away from the Bible altogether.

As I've said on another thread, "let's keep the main thing the main thing!" And the KJV1611 bible ain't it!

I'd sure hate to think that lost folks are dying without Jesus while some debate what version of the Bible we should use to reach them.

 

[william s. correa]

I'm a NKJV kind of guy, not exclusively, but mainly. My wife is a NASV (not the updated) kind of gal. We've ben married 29 years now, and the different preferences in Bible versions hasn't come up even once!

I think this "???Onlyism" is a pride issue. "My Bible's better than yours." "My Holy bible is Holier than yours."

Yes, there are some poor versions out there. I wouldn't recommend them. But, I would recommend ANY version rather than recommend that a lost person stays away from the Bible altogether.

As I've said on another thread, "let's keep the main thing the main thing!" Andbible ain't it! I'd sure hate to think that lost folks are dying without Jesus while some debate what version of the Bible we should use to reach them.

"The AV1611" Well the Bible is just Holy and And one cannot dispute that!As far as the main thing is concerned with out the word of God I am sure that we would all be lost and how shall they hear without a preacher? So we either have The Word of God or we have a book that Contains the word of God? You tell me! I would rather see a Beleiver that beleives 100% that he has the infallible inerrant Holy Word of God than to have Any Doubt what so ever about what he is Preaching out of. If he has a single doubt he needs to find a Job that he does really beleive in,and step down from the pulpit! If a Lost person reads "Any " Version then What Good did it do? Now If he/she gets faith by hearing the "WORD" of God and Gets saved then we have two more eyes ,ears,hand,feet etc... for the Kingdom! And Praise the Lord!God only wrote one Book and it is "Forever Settled in Heaven". When Jesus Spoke he had the Spoken words of the Father and people were "Astonished at his Doctrine". And thats One thing that has not changed in "Some IFB' churches! Old Time Religion is Slowly beeing pushed aside but thank God it is Still Around! Just a Tought Thanx and God Bless!

 

[robycop3]

"The AV1611" Well the Bible is just Holy and And one cannot dispute that!As far as the main thing is concerned with out the word of God I am sure that we would all be lost and how shall they hear without a preacher? So we either have The Word of God or we have a book that Contains the word of God? You tell me! I would rather see a Beleiver that beleives 100% that he has the infallible inerrant Holy Word of God than to have Any Doubt what so ever about what he is Preaching out of. If he has a single doubt he needs to find a Job that he does really beleive in,and step down from the pulpit! If a Lost person reads "Any " Version then What Good did it do? Now If he/she gets faith by hearing the "WORD" of God and Gets saved then we have two more eyes ,ears,hand,feet etc... for the Kingdom! And Praise the Lord!God only wrote one Book and it is "Forever Settled in Heaven". When Jesus Spoke he had the Spoken words of the Father and people were "Astonished at his Doctrine". And thats One thing that has not changed in "Some IFB' churches! Old Time Religion is Slowly beeing pushed aside but thank God it is Still Around! Just a Tought Thanx and God Bless!

Sorry, Wm. but the AV 1611 is just one version of the Holy Bible, same as are its many revisions, and every other valid version. You just CANNOT prove otherwise. Therefore, any valid version is fine.

When you disagree with this, we've asked for PROOF, and you've failed miserably to provide any. Didja ever stop to think that when ya bought the KJVO myth, you bought a pig in a poke, what, when opened, revealed a SKUNK?

Yes, God's word was forever settled in heaven, long before He gave it. David wrote that fact before most of the body of Scripture had been given to man. But that doesn't mean it was settled on EARTH. God regularly updates it to fit His changes in the languages, but you seem to think it's frozen in time as are the works of Shakespeare. Sorry, you lose again...no kewpie doll today.

 

[william s. correa]

Howdy KJVO

:Fish: :wavey:
1 John 5:7,8
"in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" has been omitted by the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV marg., RSV, GN, LB, NASV, NSRB marg. (insisting that the words have no manuscript authority and are an interpolation), NEB, NWT JB. AMP italicises the words.
The passage known as the "Johannine Comma" is lacking from most of the Greek manuscripts. However, it is found in Codex 61 of the 15-16th century, kept in Dublin and known as the Montfort manuscript, Codex Ravianus (Wizanburgensis) of the 8th century and in the margins of 88 and 629.
The main authorities for the passage are the Old Latin text of the 2nd century, including manuscript r (5/6th cent.) and the "Speculum," a treatise containing the Old Latin text, and several fathers. Fuller (4) p 213, citing Wilkinson, states that the passage was found in the Old Latin Bibles of the Waldenses, whose text pre-dated Jerome's Vulgate. See also Ray (15) p 98, who states that this "Italic" Bible dates from 157 AD. The Old Latin text carried sufficient weight to influence the later copies of the Vulgate, most of which from 800 AD onward incorporated the passage.
The fathers who cite the passage are Tertullian (2nd cent.), Cyprian (250 AD), Priscillian (385 AD), Idacius Clatus (385 AD), several African writers of the 5th century and Cassiodorus (480-570 AD).
The combined influence of these authorities, together with grammatical difficulties which arise if the Comma is omitted, was sufficient to ensure its place in most editions of the Textus Receptus-see Berry's text- where it undoubtedly belongs.

See Hills (3) p 209, (38) p 210, the TBS (58) "Notes on the Vindication of I John 5:7" and Ruckman (2) p 128-9, (31) p 334. The omission of the Comma from the majority of the manuscripts most likely stems from the influence of Origen and some of his supporters, who did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. This text is also discussed at length in Part 3. Taken from appendix 2, III: "O Biblios The Book," by Allan O'Reilly

 

[robycop3]

As unreliable as they come!

Look at some excerpts from your post, William!

Fuller (4) p 213, citing Wilkinson, states that the passage was found in the Old Latin Bibles of the Waldenses, whose text pre-dated Jerome's Vulgate. See also Ray (15) p 98, who states that this "Italic" Bible dates from 157 AD.

Do you know who "WILKINSON" is? If not, I'll tell ya! He was 7TH DAY ADVENTIST OFFICIAL DR. BENJAMIN WILKINSON, the "daddy" of the current KJVO myth. His error-filled 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, which was actually written in response to an internal squabble within the SDA cult, is the cornerstone for the current KJVO myth.

The "Fuller" is Dr. D. O. Fuller, who heavily copied Wilkinson and J. J. Ray, who heavily copied Wilkinson. Fuller even tried to conceal Wilkinson's cult affiliation!

See Hills (3) p 209, (38) p 210, the TBS (58) "Notes on the Vindication of I John 5:7" and Ruckman (2) p 128-9, (31) p 334.


In just one paragraph, O'Reilly manages to quote five of the most unreliable authors in Christendom! What a crew! I wouldn't believe any of them far as I can throw a locomotive. O'Reilly's quoting of these known incorrect authors makes him just as incorrect & non-believable. William, you're NOT gonna sway anyone's opinion by quoting from such a groddy source.

William, not even the other KJVOs believe any stuff from the "authors" mentioned above, as well as anything from Riplinger, Watkins, Vance, & several others. Those people aren't exactly always on the best of terms with the TRUTH. Your quoting any of their garbage shows you're only in the pre-school level of the versions discussions.


And as for the Comma, he managed to name four mss outta some 5300. Not exactly a majority, eh?

 

[william s. correa]

What?

:laugh: 2 Peter 3:10
"be burned up" has been altered to "laid bare" or similar by the NIV, Ne, NKJV marg., NEB, NASV marg., NWT.

Burgon (14) p 355-6, states that the modern alternatives stem from C (5th cent.), the Syriac and one Egyptian version. In support of this passage are the vast majority of manuscripts, the Latin, Coptic, Harkleian Syriac and Ethiopic versions. The only fathers who quote the text, Cyril (5th cent.) and John Damascene (8th cent.) support this passage. Berry's Greek text supports this passage. Taken from appendix 2, III: "O Biblios The Book," by Allan O'Reilly

 

[william s. correa]

SAy What?

. When one preaches, what can he hold in his hand to honestly say, "This is the Divinely, Inspired, and Inerrant Word of God"?
"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, bot h now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25):Fish:

 

[Ed Edwards]

. When one preaches, what can he hold in his hand to honestly say, "This is the Divinely, Inspired, and Inerrant Word of God"?
"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, bot h now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25):Fish:

The HCSB = Standard Christian Bible (Holman, 2003).
The HCSB contains the divinely inspired/inerrant written Word of God
and tells of the divinely inspired/inerrant Living Word of God,
Messiah Iesus (to use a KJV1611 Edition spelling). raise:

 

[ktn4eg]

Wouldn't it be better to spend more of our time, money, and effort in trying to reach a lost and dying world for Christ than squabbling over Bible versions?

As long as we're fighting amongst ourselves, guess who we're not fighting? (Hint: Think "Prince of this world.")

 

[Ed Edwards]

Wouldn't it be better to spend more of our time, money, and effort in trying to reach a lost and dying world for Christ than squabbling over Bible versions?

Strangely enough, I get more e-mails where I can witness over
the Versions/Translations issue than all other issues combined.
I do wish I had more time to post on eschatology though - it is
interesting and draws the second most number of witness oporotunities.

 

[IronWill]

It's only an issue among those who wish to make it an issue.

 

[robycop3]

. When one preaches, what can he hold in his hand to honestly say, "This is the Divinely, Inspired, and Inerrant Word of God"?
"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, bot h now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25):Fish:

His Bible, any valid version.

 

[robycop3]

Wouldn't it be better to spend more of our time, money, and effort in trying to reach a lost and dying world for Christ than squabbling over Bible versions?

As long as we're fighting amongst ourselves, guess who we're not fighting? (Hint: Think "Prince of this world.")

Who STARTED the squabble? Who FIRST told someone, "Youse dont got no BIBUL, thar, Sunny"?

 

[robycop3]

:laugh: 2 Peter 3:10
"be burned up" has been altered to "laid bare" or similar by the NIV, Ne, NKJV marg., NEB, NASV marg., NWT.

Burgon (14) p 355-6, states that the modern alternatives stem from C (5th cent.), the Syriac and one Egyptian version. In support of this passage are the vast majority of manuscripts, the Latin, Coptic, Harkleian Syriac and Ethiopic versions. The only fathers who quote the text, Cyril (5th cent.) and John Damascene (8th cent.) support this passage. Berry's Greek text supports this passage. Taken from appendix 2, III: "O Biblios The Book," by Allan O'Reilly

William, if ya want anyone to take you seriously, you'd better quit quoting from that groddy book.

 

[Ed Edwards]

robycop3 //I believe that the HOLY SPIRIT guides each believer
to the version(s) He wants each to use, so we shouldn't
diss someone else's choice of version(s).//

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!!

robycop3 //Now, while for years I have assailed the KJVO myth,
I haven't assailed anyone's choice to use only
the KJV unless they've assailed MY choice or tried
to proclaim the KJV as the ONLY valid English version.//

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!!

william s. correa: //So we either have The Word of God or we have
a book that Contains the word of God?
You tell me!//

OK, I will tell you: We have both
The Word of God and we have
books (plural, you know: more than one)
that Contains the word of God