Modern Version Only sect

Are there any Modern Version Onlyists here?

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

 

I don't know of any MV Onlyists anywhere.

 

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.

 

Indeed, a shocking abuse of higher crticism.

HankD

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I've never met an MV Onlyist. I don't know that there are any on this board.

 

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".

 

Did the Modern Version Onlyist reject the KJV:kjb when it came out in 1611? ***gasp*** 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)

 

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.

 

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.