Modern Version Movement

No, they are not the Word of God because they negated the wording of the autographs.

Many of the Modern Version Movement who attack the King James Bible do so with ulterior motives. They do not look at the issues with an unbiased eye. They have already made up their minds before hand. I have not met one modern version advocate who would under any circumstances become a King James Bible believer.

The truth of the matter is that most of the reasons people remain in the Modern Version Movement is because of peer pressure and emotionalism. They do not want to be ostracized from their neat little group and they just do not want to change. If the NIV was good enough for Paul, then it's good enough for them. </font>[/QUOTE]KJV VS modern versions
Tepl Bible VS modern versions
Waldensan Bible VS modern versions
TBS Bibles VS UBS Bibles
GBS Bibles VS ABS Bibles
Genuine Bibles VS Spurious Bibles
God spoken Word VS Satan spoken word
One Bible VS One seculiar Bible
Consistently Christian's Bible VS Naturalistic's Bibles
Which side are you?

 

???? Fear and Superstition of what? I thought that was the definition of a Ruckmanite!

I don't know of anyone in the "Modern Version Movement" (If there is such a animal ) that attacks the KJV. Most have a great respect for it. It is usually the extreme KJVO camp that is closed minded. Some people who have been advocates of Modern versions use the KJV! It is the KJV Onlys who trash Bibles not the Modern Version Movement" who view all translations as God's word.

Once again many who are not KJV only's love the KJV Bible. They just do not believe it is the ONLY BIBLE! We believe you can use any translation be it KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV etc,,,It is the extreme KJV Only movement that claims the Church of England had perfect translators!

 

I believe he is quoting MV supporters and simply changing MV with KJV and vice versa. He is probably trying to demonstrate the point that if MV supporters say he is "attacking" them then in actuality the reverse has been true.

 

I believe the KJV in all circumstances. I believe everyone here does. Would all of you who do not believe the KJV please raise you hand??

Thank you ... See, we all believe the KJV.

The peer pressure we face is from people like you trying to get us to compromise our beliefs. I would say we have held up pretty well in the face of peer pressure.

 

"Many of the Modern Version Movement who attack the King James Bible do so with ulterior motives."

I've never heard of any Christian "attack" the KJV. They do not because they would be attacking the Word of God. Using a modern english translation is not an attack or condemnation of the KJV.

The KJV is a great and timeless translation of God's Word. However, if you use it, you must be aware of words that are now obsolete or have changed their meaning over the centuries.

 

This [snip] character is simply mimicking this recent post:

"Many of the KJV onlyist who attack the MV's, especially the NIV, do so with alter motives. They do not look at the issues you mentioned with an unbiased eye. They have already made up their mind before hand. I have not met one KJV onlyist who would under any circumstance change bible versions."

[derogatory remark deleted]

[ May 06, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Pastor/Bob ]

 

(violation deleted) so let me tell you something: Romans 14:10 in the autographs according to Polycarp's evidence said, "But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" Bob, why did NASB negate the wording of the autographs and change "God" from "Christ? If the autographs were the Word of God, is NASB the Word of God by not identifying the wording in
NASB with the wording of the autographs? confused:

[ May 07, 2003, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Polycarb was not the author. He may have seen the autograph of Romans but that would be unlikely since Romans was written in the mid 50s and Polycarp was not the church scene until much later than that. Additionally, they were in two separate spots. Polycarp was probably in Ephesus.

So the evidence that Polycarp had is just like all the other pieces of evidence. You cannot prove he had the autographs and cannot prove that his reading was correct. There is evidence to that contrary that shows that the KJV changed the wording of the autographs.

Don't confuse extant evidence with teh autographs.

 

Definition - The belief that all modern versions are the word of God.

Most people who use modern version don't believe that their versions are the Word of God. Rather, they believe that all translations, be they modern or ancient, are TRANSLATIONS of the Word of God. Therefore, most people who have no problem with modern versions don't belong to any such movement. Additionally, you'll find that most people who "attack" the KJV also have n opeoblem pointing out problems with other versions as well.

To date, it has yet to be established that there is a single translation that is perfect and error free.

[ May 07, 2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

How true, Alcott! Isn't it strange the way some MVers like throwing mud, but get totally outraged when it gets thrown back?!

 

Polycarb was not the author. He may have seen the autograph of Romans but that would be unlikely since Romans was written in the mid 50s and Polycarp was not the church scene until much later than that. Additionally, they were in two separate spots. Polycarp was probably in Ephesus.

You cannot prove he had the autographs and cannot prove that his reading was correct. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. He witnessed the autographs from the disciples of Jesus and quoted about 50 passages from there.

 

Do you have a source for this?

Jason

 

Do you have a source for this?

Jason </font>[/QUOTE]I researched the life of Polycarp. Where to find info about him is thru the Internet, library, somewhere. If you want to know what Polycarp actually said about the Word of God, let him speak, "whoever preverts the sayings of the Lord...let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning." Do you believe what Polycarp said?

 

I think we all agree with Polycarp here. However, that does not identify Polycarp as possessing the originals. Nor does it guarantee the accuracy of the transmission of Polycarp's writings. There is a reason why Polycarp is not in the NT ... Because he is not inspired. Therefore, his writing is just like mine, or like yours, or like anyone else's. It is the words of man.

Secondly, if you want to return to what God originally said, why are you devoted to the KJV? God did originally "say that." That is a translation of what he said. It possesses authority and inspiration in that it accurately communicates what he said.

As I say, I think we all agree with Polycarp here (at least with what you report him to have said). I think you are the one who is most inconsistent with that though.

 

I think we all agree with Polycarp here. However, that does not identify Polycarp as possessing the originals. Nor does it guarantee the accuracy of the transmission of Polycarp's writings. There is a reason why Polycarp is not in the NT ... Because he is not inspired. Therefore, his writing is just like mine, or like yours, or like anyone else's. It is the words of man.

Secondly, if you want to return to what God originally said, why are you devoted to the KJV? God did originally "say that." That is a translation of what he said. It possesses authority and inspiration in that it accurately communicates what he said.

As I say, I think we all agree with Polycarp here (at least with what you report him to have said). I think you are the one who is most inconsistent with that though. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Do you believe Polycarp derived some passages from the autographs that the disciples of Jesus showed him?

 

From John, possibly. From others, who knows? It is impossible to tell. I think Polycarp is saying what we would all say. When there is dispute, we go to the Scriptures. We don't dispute that.