Scripture Verse Basis for AVonly

[Dr. Bob]

John - psr2 is taking a vacation from the BB, but your statement is the logical conclusion of my original question.

IF one can show scriptural support, then we should most certainly accept and believe it.

IF not, then one can CHOOSE to believe it by faith alone. Or reject it out of hand.

 

[robycop3]

The usual KJVO answer is another question, to-wit: "Please provide Scriptural support for the MV position." My usual answers are to read from the KJV the comparisons between Luke 4:16-21 and Isaiah 42:7 & 61:1-3. as well as Acts 8 & Isaiah 53. OH YEAH...and 2 Timothy 3:16.

Unlike the KJVOs, WE answer THEIR questions.

This is the umpteenth chance over more than 30 years that they've been openly given to answer a simple little request that would elevate their doctrine from "myth" status. But please, don't anyone hold yer breath waiting for an answer...ya might become a little cyanotic...

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by robycop3:
The usual KJVO answer is another question, to-wit: "Please provide Scriptural support for the MV position."

Of course, you and I know that the problem with that statement is there's no such thing as an "MV" position. There's only the position that single-translation-onlyism has scriptural support, or the position that single-translation-onlyism lacks scriptural support.

 

[Trotter]

Exactly, Johnv. And that is why Dr.Bob asked for scriptural proof.

Our little Miss Ruck-linger is always so fast with proof-texts, and cutting and pasting entire chapters of Scripture, but what she (and psr.2, and Anti-A, and AVBunyan, and...and...and...) fail to acknowledge is that those exact same Scriptures apply to all translations.

There has never been ANY Scriptural support for KJVOnlyism (or any other versionism), nor will there ever be any...unless you follow Ruckman's shenanagins about modern day revelation (or is that the Mormons...sorta the same to me).

In Christ,
Trotter