Any other "only's"

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by deacon jd, May 7, 2009.

  1. deacon jd

    deacon jd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Has anyone ever met anyone who claimed that a particular version other than the KJV was the only accurate Bible?
     
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only in Mexico- some are Reina-Valera 1909 only but they are not as- uh, shall we say- rabid as KJVO here in the USA.
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I couldn't be sure you literally meant "met" (as in personally), so I will just mention two other very specific & extreme 'Onlyist' views:
    'Pure Cambridge Edition' perfectionsists (for example, see http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm )
    and
    'Real Douay-Rheims' perfectionists (see http://www.drbible.org/ )
    closely akin to the former official Catholic position of Latin Vulgate perfectionism
     
    #3 franklinmonroe, May 7, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2009
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    In addition to those already mentioned, I believe I recently read that some Germans support ONLY some particular edition of the "Luther Bibel" on another thread.

    I have personally met none other than several KJVO and a very few D-RO, in the past, to my knowledge.

    Ed
     
    #4 EdSutton, May 7, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2009
  5. InHisGrip

    InHisGrip
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    nope...........
     
  6. nodak

    nodak
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    15
    No debate here, so I hope it is ok to come up here and answer a simple question. Many years ago I was member of an SBC church in northern NM where the pastor taught that the NASB (original) was the only valid English translation.
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really should slightly modify my response, I think. I suspect there are actually a few supposedly 'KJVO' I've run into who might be more accurately characterized as "TR" ONLY (BB Member and translator Nigel comes to mind, here, with whom I've had quite a few exchanges, in the past), rather than as a 'true' KJVO, although I would say the percentage is most likely relatively small, in this category.

    One thing I have not run into much, if at all, is any 'KJVO' who appears willing to 'renounce' (or actually does renounce) the 1762 Paris and/or 1769 Blaney editions as entirely out-of-hand, in favor of the KJ-1611 ONLY for all the spelling and wordings, excluding any obvious typos in the first early editions.

    Ed
     
    #7 EdSutton, May 8, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...