Modern Version Only sect

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Bluefalcon, Nov 4, 2004.

  1. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    Who will stand up to these folks? I will step forward and do so, but only with half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.

    From recent posts, it appears that some believe only the modern versions are acceptable, holy and pure without corruption. This is a mockery of human intelligence.

    One example out of many I have collected will demonstrate this:

    At Mt. 8:18 the NIV says, "When Jesus saw the crowd around him ...." The problem is that only one Greek manuscript in the world has "the crowd", and that is Codex Vaticanus. Hundreds of manuscripts have "(the) great crowds", a good many have "(the) great crowd", and one single manuscript has "(the) crowds".

    The Modern Version Only sect says in actuality that only the few people who had access to this one Greek manuscript throughout history had the correct reading at Mt. 8:18, and everyone else read from corrupt copies. God preserved his Word in only one manuscript here while all others promulgated corruption. They adamently oppose all other manuscripts and claim that their Bible based on a single manuscript is superior, is the only one to be accepted.

    This case is ridiculously funny if it wasn't so extremenly common throughout every Bible the Modern Version Only sect inundates the world with.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Are there any Modern Version Onlyists here?

    Everyone I know accepts the KJV as an accurate, viable, sound translation.
     
  3. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    I don't know of any MV Onlyists anywhere.
     
  4. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    Why does everyone keep bringing up the KJV whenever I post? I haven't appealed to the KJV in a single post in my life!

    Right now I'd just like some justification of the above instance (see original post) that occurs in most modern versions. If not every word is reliable, should we stop claiming such? Modern versions of the New Testament many times depend on 5-10 Greek manuscripts or less whenever a variant arises (of which there are thousands), and therefore arguments that every word of our modern Bibles is reliable fall hopelessly to the ground. The fact that over 5500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today is meaningless if 98 percent of them are corrupt whenever a variant arises.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  5. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Bluefalcon,
    I don't think anybody here will know who you are reffering to.Most of us use the KJV extensively.I myself am a KJV preferred(1-2 1/2). I read from the KJV daily, study from it, teach and preach from it,momorize from it.
    What we do say though is that there are valid modern versions of God's Word other than the KJV.That should not be to hard to grasp.Some of the better modern versions I think are the ESV,NASB,NKJB,RSV,& yes the NIV.I am sure there are others these just come to mind quickly.
    So the arguement does not come from those who read more than one version. I don't think you have anything to defend as the KJV is a much beloved and read Bible, it is the Word of God as are the other versions mentioned above.
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    Indeed, a shocking abuse of higher crticism.

    HankD
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I only used the KJV as an the alternative to the Modern Versions. As far as I know on this board there are no Modern Version Onlyists, unless I am missing something here.
     
  8. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Just because so many manuscripts are corrupt does not mean we cannot determine the original text. Study textual criticism and you will get a better idea of how that is done.
     
  9. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Your point has no validity on its own merit. We have one Jesus and many imposters. Does that make the one Jesus not the real one? After all there is only one compared to many others who claim to be. There is always only one truth and many lies. It is not about the majority text, but what is the real text.
     
  10. williemakeit

    williemakeit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am KJV-preferred (probably right at Dr. Bob's #2). I have led people to Christ using both the NIV and KJV. I have personally observed those that have 'grown in faith' through the NIV become earnest, relevant (for lack of a better term) Christians. The same observation has been made of some in KJV-only crowd. I know KJV-onlyists that are graduates of academically challenging colleges (i.e, Ivy-league, Military academies, etc.) and the same can be said for those on the MV side. I believe there are some on both sides that are very capable of handling God's Word. IMHO, KJV-onlyists make valid points that are not addressed. Also, IMHO, there are significant differences in translation between KJV and some MVs. Maybe one is right, and the other is wrong; however, I believe in God's promise that he will preserve his word. Considering the fraility and limitations of human understanding, I would not fully place my trust in any one translation. As members of the royal priesthood, we must rely exclusively on the Holy Spirit to lead us to all truth, whether the written word is in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, German, English (Olde and Modern), etc. Why else would God not preserve the original autographs? My opinion is so that it would not become an object of our adoration, on par with our adoration of Him.
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    First, where is your evidence that a "modern version only sect" even exists? Second, it is not true that your example or case is "so extremely common throughout every Bible."

    There are several English translations that are based on the same underlying texts as the KJV is: the 1833 revision of the KJV by Noah Webster that was reprinted in 1987, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, modern-spelling editions of Tyndale's published in 1989 and 1992, 1982 New King James Version, 1987 Literal Translation by Jay Green, 1990 Modern King James Version, 1994 21st Century KJV, 1998 Third Millennium Bible, 2000 The King James 2000 Version. Bluefalcon, this fact makes your statement above false.
     
  12. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    gb: "Just because so many manuscripts are corrupt does not mean we cannot determine the original text. Study textual criticism and you will get a better idea of how that is done"; "It is not about the majority text, but what is the real text."

    So, gb, do you *really* think that in this case *one* and *only one* Greek manuscript is correct and all others wrong? Some of us who actually have studied textual criticism would consider any methodology that relies on purely singular readings seriously to be deficient.

    And in such a case, where you openly claim that *all* other 5500+ MSS are "corrupt" at this point ("corrupt" being your word), how does this square with the apologetic appeal that is constantly made regarding the NT as the best attested text in all literary history, and that these 5500+ MSS actually *do* count for something?

    BTW, my comments have nothing to do with KJVO or MVO as a specific issue.
     
  13. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    I've never met an MV Onlyist. I don't know that there are any on this board.
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct, C4K, Any "onlyist" stance in regards to scriptural translation. The "MV" label is something that KJVO's came up with to describe anyone who isn't KJVO, but the label isn't accurate, because most bible translations are not modern versions. For example, I'm not KJVO. I support the KJV (all editions), the Geneva, the Bishop's Bible, the Darby, and the Webster. None of those is a "MV".
     
  15. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did the Modern Version Onlyist reject the KJV:kjb when it came out in 1611? ***gasp*** :eek: the KJV was a MV at one time! Exactly how many years must pass before a version can be accepted as valid? (assuming for argument's sake, and the benefit of the AVOnlies that the version is based on the exact same text as the KJV:kjb) [​IMG]
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    MVonly? Never heard of it. No one I know is that stupid to be an "only" since there is NOT ONE BIBLE VERSE to support such an absurd position.

    And Blue, with half your brain tied behind your back, we will get the microscope to try to find the other half!! [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I use several versions, some old, some newer.

    I agree with the others who say there are no "MVOs" here. There are many "MV preferred", but no one I know of here rejects the KJV and other older English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible as non-valid.

    What we DO reject is the man-made false KJVO myth, a myth that has absolutely NO supporting evidence, especially SCRIPTURAL support.
     
  18. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the MVs are not reliable, then neither is the KJV. If you are correct, there is no Bible you can rely upon. Picking one version at random, claiming that only that version is uniquely inspired, and removing the footnotes referring to other sources, cannot fix the problems you mentioned.
     
  19. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,071
    Likes Received:
    101
    I admit it. I am an MVO.

    All of the extant English Bibles (with the exception of the Wycliffe) are written is what is considered Modern English. Shame on me.

    Dr. Bob would have me go back to the Vulgate, but I insist on the Septuaguint for the OT.
     
  20. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    Okay, well, does anyone wish to defend the text of Mt. 8:18 in the NIV, a text in which only one Greek manuscript in the world supports? MVO was only supposed to be a funny hypocritical play on the KJVO, both of which are unfounded. But I did it in order to show that believing in the inerrancy of a single Greek manuscript over and above all other existing Greek manuscripts is as bad if not worse than believing in KJVO.

    Here's another one of my favorites from the English Standard Version: Mt. 4:23: "And he went throughout all Galilee ...." The problem is that only one Greek manuscript has it like this, once again Codex Vaticanus. All other manuscripts have, "And Jesus ...." So those who believe this one manuscript is inerrant at this place against all the others is holding a doctrine similar to KJVO.

    I'd love to see some people defend these places, because they're likely to be defending them using KJVO arguments! Haha!

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     

Share This Page

Loading...