Is the "Version" issue really that Important?

[robycop3]

My two sons, now young adults, learned to read the NASV and NKJV. When they were teenagers, they began to read the KJV, but preferred the modern versions because they were in THEIR language. Like their mother and me, they consider the KJV as a valid version, better than none, but they both say they best glean understanding from versions in their own language.

Again, I don't believe God retired in 1611; He still provides His word in the languages He's created and changed.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I doubt that anyone here believes that God retired in 1611.

This is the kind of thing, from both sides, that keeps what sould be a minor disagreement in the forefront of far too many discussions.

Apparently, the "version issue" is important to many of us as we keep coming back to it again and again.

We all know 2 Timothy 2v15, the verse about studying to show ourselves approved unto God. I sometimes wonder if I am guilty of violating the principle of the next verse.

Is this whole silly English version discussion "profane and vain babbling?" Or as the Bishop's Bible put it - " prophane voyces of vanitie passe ouer: For they wyll encrease vnto greater vngodlynesse."

I wonder how much "greater vngodlynesse" has been carried on by this issue?

 

[Eliyahu]

Oops, Eliyahu, you just included the 1611 KJV in that catagory, for it contained the Apogrypha.

It included the Calendar too! Did it claim the Apocrypha is a part of the genuine Bible?

I had some debate on Infant Baptism.

If Acts 8:37 is taken as part of genuine Bible, can anyone claim Infant Bible is Biblical ?

Read NIV and RSV, then what was the answer to the question by the Eunuch in verse 36?

If we take KJV, such argument on Infant Baptism can be refuted easily.

I was born again when I read one of the modern versions similar to NIV and I would not ignore MV's entirely,but finds KJV is accurate on doctrinal issues.

" Whatever version " is not a good idea as we can see in Acts 8:37, though too much argument and condemnation on the other versions make Satan very much happy.

 

[Trotter]

though too much argument and condemnation on the other versions make Satan very much happy.

As does the promotion of extra-biblical doctrine as well evidenced in much of the recent activity on the BV/T forum.

 

[Askjo]

" Whatever version " is not a good idea as we can see in Acts 8:37, though too much argument and condemnation on the other versions make Satan very much happy.

Many of you use that versions, then you will be ashamed for not preaching/teaching on the doctrine of "infant baptism" because of ignoring that verse in MVs. [attack on users of other versions deleted]

The KJV rejects infant baptism. That is why you and I use the KJV for clear doctrines. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Salamander]

As does the promotion of extra-biblical doctrine as well evidenced in much of the recent activity on the BV/T forum.

Actually, believing that God is able to preserve His Word in the King James Bible doesn't make satan "happy" at all. I ,for one, know it makes him very angry, that's why so many well-intending Christians lisetn to him so much and get upset when some one declares their stand on the Preservation of God's Word in the King James Bible and make all sorts of accusations against their brethren for standing.raying:

The Preservation of God's Word is not "extra-biblical".raise: :Fish: raise:

 

[Salamander]

Salamander: //Hmmm? I hear the same arguement, against Scripture,
that says there is no "scriptural" proof for KJVOism,
but where is Scriptural proof that it isn't?//

2Ti 3:16-17 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God,
& is profitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction,
for instrution in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

"Instrution"?

BTW, in 1611 'perfect' mean 'complete',
in 2006 'perfect' can also mean 'without error'.

Um, complete still means perfect today. Since perfection is only determined by opinion by today's standards, it is thus required to know what the word actually means. It is the Word of Giod that perfects the man. It is his adherence to the precepts of the Word that completes his perfection.

Maybe you should try Trotter's icon of beating his head against his desk, that might make your arguement complete?

'All Scripture' includes the KJVs but is NOT limited
to the King James Versions.

The verse is speaking of all Scripture contained in the Word of God, but that cannot be said about versions that change the Word or omit passages that make the Word clear.raying:

This has been pointed out BEFORE in this very topic.
This is the scripture whereby I justify studying my
Holy Inerrent, Preserved Written Word(s) of God
in my HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/.

Your opinion.

If I were to waste my time, I am certain that I would find discrepensies in your opinion's version. I find none in the KJB.raise: :Fish: raise:

 

[Trotter]

The Preservation of God's Word is not "extra-biblical".

True, preservation of God's word is not extra-biblical.

Declaring that that preservation is only accomplished through one English translation is.

 

[Keith M]

Amen, Trotter!

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:Actually, believing that God is able to preserve His Word in the King James Bible doesn't make satan "happy" at all.[/u]

But Satan IS happy when one claims God preserved His word in English ONLY in the KJV.


I ,for one, know it makes him very angry, that's why so many well-intending Christians lisetn to him so much and get upset when some one declares their stand on the Preservation of God's Word in the King James Bible and make all sorts of accusations against their brethren for standing.

It's standing on the false KJVO MYTH that makes some angry, and me wondering how some intelligent, faithful Christians can be so deceived.

The Preservation of God's Word is not "extra-biblical".

But the KJVO myth IS!

 

[william s. correa]

MV or not mv that is the question?

What does it mean to one who reads the MVs and stick to ones opinion about them while saying "KJVO MYTH"; when the only myth is that no one has proven that the Mv's are God's Word (Some Contain Gods word) and that the real myth lies in the MV's themselves!Amen. Cause every one says that the KJB is the Word: while others can't really prove th MV's are(WORD for WORD), but yet agree that the KJB IS!:thumbs: You cant have your cake and eat it too! Only the Roman Catholic Apologetics team disprove the KJB and to apease ones curiosity by reading anything other than the KJB gives the RCC the Advantage to disprove the truth with A LIE! No Man can change Gods word but God Himself!

 

[Askjo]

What does it mean to one who reads the MVs and stick to ones opinion about them while saying "KJVO MYTH"; when the only myth is that no one has proven that the Mv's are God's Word (Some Contain Gods word) and that the real myth lies in the MV's themselves!Amen. Cause every one says that the KJB is the Word: while others can't really prove th MV's are(WORD for WORD), but yet agree that the KJB IS!:thumbs: You cant have your cake and eat it too! Only the Roman Catholic Apologetics team disprove the KJB and to apease ones curiosity by reading anything other than the KJB gives the RCC the Advantage to disprove the truth with A LIE! No Man can change Gods word but God Himself!

The LIES changed the modern world. [attack on Bible snipped]

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thank you brother Salamander
for pointing out the error in the KJV1611:

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable
for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instrution in righteousnesse,

Compared:
KJV1611 Edition of e-Sword
KJV1611 Edition of Nelson

both contain the 'instrution' for 'instruction' error

Probably another reason why some think the KJV1611 Edition
is NOT a King James Bible (KJB)???

 

[william s. correa]

OK

Thank you brother Salamander
for pointing out the error in the KJV1611:

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable
for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instrution in righteousnesse,

Compared:
KJV1611 Edition of e-Sword
KJV1611 Edition of Nelson

both contain the 'instrution' for 'instruction' error

WHY do some think the KJV1611 Edition
is NOT a King James Bible (KJB?)

 

[Ed Edwards]

William S. Correa: //WHY do some think the KJV1611 Edition
is NOT a King James Bible (KJB?)//

1. the KJV1611 Edition contains the non-scriptural Apocrypha
2. the KJV1611 Edition contains doubt causing
Translator Notes
3. the KJV1611 Edition contains typos & other errors

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What does it mean to one who reads the MVs and stick to ones opinion about them while saying "KJVO MYTH"; when the only myth is that no one has proven that the Mv's are God's Word

Here we go again William. The discussion here is if the version issue is important. You are intent on derailing every thread to your own agenda.

I will try to get it on track again.

As no one can "prove" that any accurate translation is the word of God more than any other translation (including the KJV), the versions debate is mostly a waste time and a divider of God's people.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

To make allowance for time zones I am announcing a closure notice for this thread of 1000 EDT.

I for one am tired of trying to drag it back on track.

 

[Scott J]

What does it mean to one who reads the MVs and stick to ones opinion about them while saying "KJVO MYTH"; when the only myth is that no one has proven that the Mv's are God's Word

They are provable in every single way that the KJV is. By their faithfulness to the evidence for the originals, by their self-affirming testimony, by their consistency in teachings with other faithful versions to include the KJV, consistency with the citations of early church fathers in various passages, etc, etc, etc.

Why on earth you are so persistent in your hatred for God's Word in the language of the people is beyond all comprehension.

(Some Contain Gods word)

Like the KJV translators said "nay," 'are God's word.'

and that the real myth lies in the MV's themselves!

Really? Those "myths" are supported by textual evidence. Those "myths" are supported by their effects on Spirit submitted readers. Those "myths" are the result of real scholarship, intellectual honesty, and ability to translate the biblical languages into understandable English.

There is nothing... absolutely nothing to support KJVOnlyism except deceptive manipulation of facts and ungodly presumption about what God "had to have done".

Cause every one says that the KJB is the Word: while others can't really prove th MV's are(WORD for WORD), but yet agree that the KJB IS!:thumbs:

We are able to prove one just as well as the other.

Only the Roman Catholic Apologetics team disprove the KJB

What? No one here is trying to "disprove the KJB". We may at various times point to technical flaws that do not diminish the overall accuracy and authority of the translation. No one here has any desire to disprove anything the KJV teaches. To the contrary, the fact is that the faithful versions AFFIRM ONE ANOTHER by teaching the same doctrines, gospel, and historical events albeit by slightly differing texts and verbage.

and to apease ones curiosity by reading anything other than the KJB gives the RCC the Advantage to disprove the truth with A LIE!

No it doesn't. That is a very ridiculous statement.

James White who is widely hated by KJVO's for exposure of their error is also disdained by Catholic apologists for the exact same reason. The despise the man because he shows them their errors in a compromising... and unfortunately sometimes smug... way. Same with Mormons and other errant groups.

No Man can change Gods word but God Himself!

Then why do you keep trying to do it? God never said that he would only preserve His Word in the KJV yet you keep insisting that He did. So again, why do you keep trying to limit His promise of preservation in a way that He NEVER DID?

 

[Scott J]

FTR,

The simple but effective errors like those I answered above are why this issue is important.

One of the biggest dangers of KJVOnlyism is that people are frightened away from using Bibles they can read and understand for themselves because they've been told KJVO lies. I know two people close to me in KJVO churches who've been affected this way. They are ashamed to acknowledge that can't understand it well because "Everyone knows that if you have the Holy Spirit you should be able to understand the KJV".

The result is that they don't read the Bible but rather let someone else tell them what the Bible says. It is a dangerous, unbiblical, anti-baptistic condition that threatens the key distinctive of "individual soul liberty". This contributed to the abuses and oppression that the RCC conducted for over 1000 years. The Bible was only allowed in a language that most people couldn't read or understand... they were put in a position to let someone else tell them what the Bible said. Again, a dangerous, unbiblical state of affairs that leads people into darkness.

 

[robycop3]

Mr. Correa:What does it mean to one who reads the MVs and stick to ones opinion about them while saying "KJVO MYTH"; when the only myth is that no one has proven that the Mv's are God's Word (Some Contain Gods word) and that the real myth lies in the MV's themselves!

Yu can't even BEGIN to prove this statment. Like mosta your other KJVP-supporting stuff, it's GUESSWORK.


Amen. Cause every one says that the KJB is the Word: while others can't really prove th MV's are(WORD for WORD), but yet agree that the KJB IS!

We're not trying to disprove the KJV; we HAVE disproven the myth about it. Yet, more than one KJVO, yourself included, tries vainly to disprove other valid versions.


You cant have your cake and eat it too! Only the Roman Catholic Apologetics team disprove the KJB and to apease ones curiosity by reading anything other than the KJB gives the RCC the Advantage to disprove the truth with A LIE! No Man can change Gods word but God Himself!

I can't fully comprehend mosta your babble, but this has nothing to do with the RCC. But before ya holler about changing God's word, the KJV is not the same as its valid predecessors in English. There was more than one change from the Bishop's Bible & the Geveva.

Yes, the versions issue is quite important. It's the facts of God's word being presented in manners & versions HE has chosen to exist vs a man-made set of lies about one version in particular. Now, while the KJVO myth won't automatically condemn anyone, it CAN undermine someone's trust in his/her Bible. It's a man-made false doctrine that has no place among Baptists nor Christendom in general.