Is there any evidence?

The only one-version-only group I have heard of among English speaking folks is the KJVO group. I know many people have a favorite Bible veersion, but are there seriously those who say that their favorite English version is the only valid English version?

 

Of course we have to prove our conclusion from the Bible itself

In order to do this, the obvious solution would be to show from the Bible that Jesus or the apostles either:

1) Used only one version of their Scriptures
2) Used many versions.

Is this possible?
I believe it is.

Here is an article I wrote a couple years ago... It is basically the information that brought me out of "one version onlyism":

Which Version did Jesus Use?​

By Tim Barnhouse​

Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Now Compare these 2 verses with below two. Both KJV. ​

Which is inspired in English?

(changes are underlined for easy reference)

If KJV English translators were “inspired”, wouldn’t both passages read the same, or did Jesus approve an uninspired text?​

​

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;


It has been argued that Jesus either changed the words that were read, or strung together parts of Isaiah to get the reading in Luke, and that he had the right to do this since He wrote the Book. That is all OK, except for the parts that I highlighted above. Notice It says “this scripture” and “the place”, and “it was written”. It does not say “these scriptures”, “the places”, or “they were written.” It also says that He stood to “read.” It doesn’t say he paraphrased, but He “read.” Also, because the Jews held scripture to such a high place of honor, if anyone would have “cut and pasted” Isaiah together to get a reading, they would have not sat there with their eyes “fastened “ to him, they would have ran him out of the temple immediately.
The reading in Luke matches other versions better than the Masoretic text that is the underlying text of the KJV. Therefore, I believe that Jesus used and read a different version than the Hebrew text we have underlying the KJV. And if Jesus used a version that differs from the KJV, then what is wrong with us using one. After all the KJV translators said themselves that the “meanest” (poorest) version of the scriptures is still the word of God.
Also for further study compare Acts 8:32-33 with Isaiah 53:7-8. Again the KJV in Acts matches other versions better than the Masoretic.

 

Robycop3: //May we step away from KJVO discussions
and discuss something even more basic? //

I doub it. Here is what was said recently in a thread now closed:

//I thank God that I have a trust in the Word of God in a way that ya'll can't
even comprehend. I would like to say that I am just giving up on all you
and that I will leave you alone and stop bothering you but I just can't.
I still believe that God is able to provide us with a perfect translation
of his Word that doesn't contradict istself or have errors within its pages.
I hope that you will someday realize this too. May God increase your
faith in his great love and provision for us.//

Can't you just see the superiority smirk on the face of this individual?
(note the two 'I's average per sentence.)
If one can feel that superior to the rest of us common ordinary folk
about what they BELIEVE, don't you think they would really lord it
over us if there was EVIDENCE?

Like all exercises in logic, you have to start with faith in
some undefined terms and basic statements.
Those basic statements were called in the past:
AXION - self evident truth.
But today there are called more realisticly
ASSUMPTION - one's best guess as what might be true.

Basic Assumption of the 'God has one and only one Book' limiter:

God has one and only one Book and
I found it so I'm better than you are!

Basic Assumption of the 'Freedom Reader':

God has, in His Divine Providence, preserved
for our generation His Holy Bible, God's Inerrant
Written Word, in all faithful translations.

Neither statement can be proved by piling up a bunch
of evidence. But i can judge as one with
the supernatural/Spiritual gift of Discernment: there is no place
for a Superitority Smirk among sinners saved by the Grace of
God through Messiah Jesus.

 

I see that smirk on your face Ed.

 

Preach it, Brother Ed! Preach it!

 

It would make my life much simpler if there was only one authoritative Bible. I wish it were true! But God's ways are higher than my ideas.

 

Amen, Brother FranklinMonroe -- Preach it! :thumbs:


I've got three different King James Versions (KJVs):

KJV1611 Edition
KJV1769 Edition
KJV1873 Edition

Life would be lots simplier if I didn't have to figure out which
one was right when I see a difference.

 

Life would be simpler if I could understand the Trinity too.

I guess things that are different can still be the same.... like the Trinity.

Maybe God is using the differing versions as an object lesson on the Trinity.

 

I'm writing the hymn for that:

Bible in three versions;
Blessed Trinity.

 

I was thinking the tune to 'Holy, Holy, Holy" would work nicely :saint:

 

Reckon the Alexandrianists have no evidence to support their views. They've been given ample opportunity to have posted it, here, and in many threads of the past.

Therefore I maintain that the ONLY valid excuses for Alexandrianism is PRIDE or IGNORANCE(or both), or the non-ability to accept proof.

 

Where is your evidence that anyone holds the view that you call
"Alexandrianism"? What posters make posts that advocate that others adopt Alexandrianism? Peter Ruckman may be the person who invented the so-called Alexandrian Creed.

 

Uh, er, well, you no, the only one
here with 'Alexandrian' in their name is, well, you know, never mind ...

 

Probably not, is my guess, but feel free to knock yourself out while trying; I'll just be watching. :smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

Ed

 

They are one in essence but not the same person, that's a heresy called "modalism".

http://www.carm.org/heresy/modalism.htm

The persons of the Holy Trinity are "distinct" from one another but not "identical to" or "separate from" one another. They are one in essence.

Speaking of the Holy Trinity, we owe considerable to Alexandria. The great defender of Trinitarian Truth amidst the early doctrinal assaults of the Church was Athanasius (a 4th century Alexandrian "bishop").

HankD