Modern Version Only sect

Perhaps you should have called your thread "The Critical Text Only sect"?

Then I might very well have had cause to agree with you.

 

We're Baptists. If you wanted us to think you should have brought some food and set up a coffee pot.

 

We're Baptists. If you wanted us to think you should have brought some food and set up a coffee pot. </font>[/QUOTE]Yep. Bluefalcon mustn't been a Baptist too long. Or maybe he is one of those--heaven forbid--low-carb, spa baptist.

 

C4K asked:

Are there any Modern Version Onlyists here?

Which Modern Version are we supposed to be an Onlyist for?

I mean, isn't it dumb to call someone an "Onlyist" when what you are arguing is that they will accept anything as a Bible as long as it isn't the KJV?

 

Bluefalcon said:

This case is ridiculously funny

but not as ridiculously funny as identifying a "sect" whose only "doctrine" is claiming that KJV-onlyists have neither Scripture nor plain reason to support their doctrinal claims.

Imagine if L. Ron Hubbard had claimed that there was a massive cult of which every single person in the world was a member except for the Scientologists, and you can just begin to grasp the absurdism of a "Modern Version Only Sect."

 

No problem. The ESV has the problem, and most others are right. The problem is that these kinds of problems abound everywhere, mostly in modern versions, because of their dependence on the modern critical Greek text, which supposes only a handful of Greek manuscripts or less (out of the thousands we possess) to contain the original text.

BTW, I am not against all modern versions! It was a joke for crying out loud! I'm trying to make everyone think, but apparently it is not working.

Yours,

Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]It wasn't presented as a joke, nor was it in your subsequent post that rsr debunked you on. Blue, if you're going to present it as a joke, you might want to add a disclaimer. I'm not doubting your word or intent, I'm just pointing out what it appeared to be...and that is that it didn't appear to be a joke.

 

We're Baptists. If you wanted us to think you should have brought some food and set up a coffee pot. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't forget the donuts!

 

Bluefalcon,
You have presented some interesting things, but you must realize that this board has been debating these issues for quite a while. When you came in and started posting, you honestly sounded like a "newbie KJVo fanatic" who thought he was going to come in and teach all of the teachers.

I agree that if you are trying to make a joke or if you wish to discuss Critical Text, then get directly to the subject and make certain that it is clear what we are going to be discussing.

I honestly don't think it takes someone new to the board to make this group "think", many, if not most are quite on top of things.

Just a little hint.

 

Well now is a good time to look around the board for a while. Especially spend some time in the Versions discussions (reading)there are pages and pages and pages and pages and pages. This has been beaten to death.

 

A donut for (Baptist) thought:

If one moves beyond BF's MVO "joke" and turns to the more substantive issues he raised regarding the "one MS only" position at given variants, something of substance might be worth discussing.

I would like to throw my Baptist donut into the coffee here, however, and bring up the case of Lk 4:44, where the leading Alexandrian witnesses (p75 Aleph B Q 579 892 (W) (1424)) and our critical texts and translations based thereupon (ESV, NRSV, NIV, NASV, JB, etc.) read the problematic geographic text, "And he was preaching in the synagogues of *Judea*" -- yet the context *demands* the correct reading to be that which is found in *all* other MSS, i.e. "Galilee" (cf. Lk 4:14, 17, 31, 42, 5:1 etc. which clearly demonstrate the geographical anomaly). Any attempt to heremeneutically defend the "Judea" reading has to invoke some travel gymnastics that conflict with parallel Synoptic accounts as well as with the internal context of Luke's own gospel.

To accept the modern critical text at this location (and MV translations that reflect such as their main text) is indeed "obviously the more difficult" task (so admits Metzger, who favors the anomaly), yet that "more difficult" -- if not impossible -- text is established initially by non-inerrantist textual critics who seem to be unaffected by biblical contradictions.

On the other hand, Metzger elsewhere (Lk 6:4, where the Byzantine MSS clearly have the "more difficult" reading) flip-flops like someone else we know, and says that while a reading "is certainly the more difficult reading, it must not for that reason be adopted."

Seems like in Lk 4:44 the same wisdom should prevail, and "Galilee" restored to the text of most MVs.

Even the Good News Bible (TEV) sees the contradiction and chooses to eliminate it by paraphrasing the problem away: "So he preached in the synagogues throughout the country." Of course that reading (eliminating all geographic reference) has *zero* support from the manuscripts; but better that than what appears to be a problematic error, I would think.

Of course, the end result is to call into question the very MSS most modern critical editions and translations are based upon. Perhaps it indeed is time to call their hand on these and other key matters?

 

Well, POB, since you have failed to give us any scriptural evidence for KJVo, then I think it would be a great idea for you to go look around some.

If you find some scripture out there that backs your position, would you promise to come back and share it with us?

 

Phillip,
I am not KJVO. Never said I was. Never took a KJVo position.
So you know where I stand I am KJV preferred 1-2 1/2. I also read the ESV,NIV,& NASB.If you were to think of my stand in any exclusionary way it would be that I am not hot on paraphrases.IMHO all of the above versions are God's Word.

So I would always fail to give you any kind of proof for a KJVO stand. As a matter of fact I can provide you with reams of pages against just such a stand.But as I said before this horse has been beaten to death with no fruit bearing.

 

Plain old Bill, I think some are confusing you with Plain ol' Ralph. Just a plain old mistake, I guess.

 

Maybe we should all wear labels stating what versions we use and prefer, which ones we reject as bad, etc.?

 

We do by the way we live. There is the gospel according to Matthew. There is the gospel according to Mark. There is the gospel according to Luke. There is the gospel according to John and then there's the gospel according to you.

 

I would hope nobody would confuse the two "Plain"s. Bill isn't the abrasive type as Ralph is.