Is "MV" or "MVer" correct description.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

I think Polytransism or "bible" of the month club member would better describe it..

 

I think non-KJVO is best because most of us do not believe that all modern versions are acceptible.

Andy

 

...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.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Would "non-Onlyist" be correct? There are other Onlyists besides KJVOs, although the latter is by far the largest group of Onlyists.