Is "MV" or "MVer" correct description.

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Mar 28, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is really for the non-KJVO crowd. How do you feel about being called an MVer?

    I do not think that it is an accurate descriptive term, because it allows the KJVO crowd to state that we are against the KJV---which is not true.

    If that is the only term, I must say that I am proud to be one. But, I think a better term might be "non-KJVO" or something else that gives the opinion that we respect the KJV also. It is the Word of God exactly like (MOST) of the MVs are. "Non-KJVO" is a negative term; however, so if you can come up with a better descriptive term it might be useful. [​IMG]
     
  2. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    MVer doesn't bother me, but it is not true because I do use the KJV. Non-KJV is out for the same reason.

    'Bible believer' is a term I like, but it is also the one used by KJVO supporters who mentally replace 'bible' with 'King James bible' without telling anyone.

    I guess I am a MV supporter. I have never been KJVOnly, unless you count when I was first saved and didn't know that there were other translations out there that I could actually READ.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  3. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use almost all of the translations at some point or another, when I'm not reading the Greek. (Sadly, my Hebrew is too rusty for me to make good use of it.) Since the KJV was at one point a modern translation, (and since I use it), I am proudly a MV-user. Come to think of it, ANY translation was at one point a modern version. That should get the KJVO's in a snit.
     
  4. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I want my theology to be in the present and not past tense. My God works in the present.

    I sure to want to be seen as archaic in my walk with God. So I use whatever translation that communicates to the person I am speaking with. Most of the time I do not use an intimidating big Bible but quote from memory. I learned that from a man who had a real passion for people and won many to Christ. I too found it to work much better.
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really like your "interests" in your profile. That is what it is all about isn't it.

    Sadly, I went through a phase for a short period that I started believing some KJVO stuff. I kept studying and finally woke up. It didn't last long.

    My mother always thought God had a "hand" in the King James Version to publish it for the people under the circumstances in England, but she was by no means a KJVO person. She understood that I could understand my NASB (when I was younger) much better. I bought a Ryrie Study Bible, I still like it. (NASB with Ryrie's comments) I was told he is still preaching at SouthWestern Seminary in Texas. Does anybody know for sure? [​IMG]
     
  6. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,647
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ryrie never taught at Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth. I think you are thinking of Dallas Theological Seminary. If I remember correctly, he retired at least a decade ago.

    http://www.dts.edu/faculty/facultyemeriti.aspx
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I use the term "KJVo" with disgust and disdain, since I believe it an intrinsically false doctrine, non-fundamental and schizmatic to the Body.

    So I am SURE that when I am called an "mv'er" that the feeling is returned!

    (BTW, I preached from the KJV1769 Oxford revision this morning, Jeremiah 16:10-17:14. The church I am at for meetings here in Wisconsin is NOT "only", but prefers it. No problem for me!)
     
  8. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been called worse.
    Even here on BB. But I'm a pretty big guy so I can take it!!!

    MVer doesn't bother me.
    But I will say this, I am looking forward to the day when I stand before my Lord and Savior and am able to be counted as one of many MVPs on God's Team.

    2Ti 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished [my] course, I have kept the faith:
    2Ti 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

    But for now, I can't wait for my "Bible of the Month club" catalog to arrive :D [​IMG]
     
  9. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I have been called a liberal, fundamentalist, MVer and many other things. But I have never been called dishonest.

    One professor told me that probably meant I was just right theologically. I am sure Jesus had those same labels attached to Him too. So I guess I am in good company. My goal is not to be true to the party line but to Jesus.
     
  10. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I often use the term "anti-Onlyismist" to show that I'm against the Onlyist myth and not necessarily against the person who advocates it, and "multiversionist" to describe myself and others who use more than one BV.
     
  12. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Polytransism or "bible" of the month club member would better describe it..
     
  13. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think non-KJVO is best because most of us do not believe that all modern versions are acceptible.

    Andy
     
  14. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...most of us do not believe that all modern versions are acceptible.


    "And ALL (true)KJBoers DO believe that their Bible is completely unequivocally 100% acceptable, as is the Author. [​IMG]
     
  15. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    It's a misnomer. Most KJVO's use the term "MV" to refer to non-KJV Bibles. There are many non-modern, or non-contemporary Bible translations in use today. Additionally, many folks, like myself, who use non-KJV versions, also continue to use at least one revision of the KJV. I use the 1769 KJV myself. I also have a copy of a Dutch Pulpit Bible, dated to the early 1700's. Hardly a "modern" version.
     
  16. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I also have a copy of a Dutch Pulpit Bible, dated to the early 1700's. Hardly a "modern" version. "
    A Statenbijbel (Dutch AV) no doubt. A very good translation that has had a similar cultural impact to the English AV and has it's own onlymovement attached to it nowadays.
    Governments sponsoring Bible translations seem to have been the 'in' thing in the 17th century.
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I tend to agree, JohnV. I generally describe myself as a "multiversionist", which is a pretty big word to use every time I type. Why not "MVer"? Because I use the AV 1611 & the later KJV editions as well as the GB and several post-1611 versions. I believe every one of'em.

    Do I believe conflicting writings? Not any more than he/she who believes a Bible that says both that Jesus was slain BY hanging on a tree(all four Gospels) AND that He was slain AND hanged on a tree.(Acts 5:30, Acts 10:39, KJV)

    Yes, I believe the KJV same as I believe the others I use.
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    One thing about it, Mioque-that Dutch Bible would be all "Greek" to me, same as an English Bible would be to one who speaks only Dutch. The same God who created all languages has placed His word in each of them as He chose.
     
  19. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it's a really accurate term since most of us who would be labelled "MVer" don't necessarily PREFER "MVs" - rather we simply disagree with KJB only. I prefer the KJB but I am definitely not KJBO.
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Would "non-Onlyist" be correct? There are other Onlyists besides KJVOs, although the latter is by far the largest group of Onlyists.
     

Share This Page

Loading...