My Biblical "One-Versionism" stance. That would be KJV.

First these verses have nothing to do with a Bible translation.

Secondly, how is making the Gospel understandable in todays language confusing? Seems to me we would want it as easy to understand as possible.

Finally, if you are really going to be consistent in you "stand" you should not be using any translation. You should just be reading the Greek and the Hebrew.

You have put forth another set of verses to prove the validity of KJVOism and have proved nothing.

Bro Tony

 

mj,

If that is the case as you state which version are you talking about? How does this verse teach such. All faithful versions are the Word of God and we can learn much from studying them. I am not confused when I use more than one version, many times I find it brings clarity to what is being said. My favorite thing to do though is go back to the Greek and break it all down.

I would hope you would answer my original question. If one-version only is appropriate, which one would you suggest and why?

Bro Tony

 

May I be frank here? There is no way you actually got this FROM the text. You read it INTO the text. The text says nothing at all about multiple versions usage. What you have done is not exegesis, but eisegesis.

Confusion reigns even among users of one version--just as much confusion as reigns among users of more than one version. Mr. Ruckman is a perfect example of confusion that comes from one-versionism. And I don't know any multi-version users who have ever had anything at all to do with "endless geneologies". Do you? I don't know any that pay any attention at all to myths (or fables) either, although I'm sure there are some, just as I'm sure there are some among KJV only users (Mormons, for one, might be a good example.)

There is indeed a lot of vain jangling going on here, but I think that an unbiased onlooker would see just as much "vain jangling" among the one versioners as among the multi-versioners. This criticism cuts both ways, and is probably just proof that no matter what our view on the version issue is, we're fallen creatures.

I never take multiple stances. I take one stance, and that stance is that reading more than one version helps get the true sense of God's word to us. Reading more than one version is an exercise in clarification, not obsfucation.

But they do match. Do they all have exactly the same wording? Of course not. But all faithful translations give us exactly the same message. If you can't see that, then you are approaching the differing versions looking for differences, making mountains out of what aren't even molehills, but simply different ways of expressing exactly the same truth.

Of course, and multi-version users have ONE belief just as much as KJV only users do. If you doubt this, look at the variation of beliefs among the people on this board who use only the KJV.

Criticisms like these are ones that any unbiased onlooker would see apply with just as much justification to KJV users as they do to multiversion users.

Anyway, a long winded way of saying that your scripture says nothing at all about using only one version of the scripture. It is a warning that we need to stay true to the faith.

And, BTW, if using more than one version leads inevitably to confusion, why did Jesus read from a version that is different than the version we have in out Old Testament? The version Jesus read from had a whole extra phrase that was either added to his version, or left out of our version. Was he being a poor example for us?

 

It doesn't support multiversions. It doesn't say anything about versions at all--single version OR multiversion.

 

mjwegs42 interpreted 1 Timothy 1:1-8 to imply that “the influence of false teachers, who by subtle distinctions and endless disputes, corrupted the purity and simplicity of the gospel” somehow becomes “a direct slam against Multi-Version Bible use.”

Aside from the fact that it is highly unlikely that any of the false teachers in Paul’s day were promoting or questioning “Multi-Version Bible use” (in which case mjwegs42’s interpretation becomes eisegetical and not exegetical), the end result of this interpretation is a claim that those of us who accept MV’s and state the same are somehow “false teachers” who “corrupt the purity and simplicity of the gospel”. To this I would strongly object.

mjwegs42: “Is it not very clear from every forum on this board that multiversionism leads to vain jangling!”

Absolutely. And the source of all that vain jangling (Greek MATAIOLOGIAN = “empty words”) seems to come from those who maintain a certain one-version-only position, who never defend their position with facts or logic, who reject or ignore facts and logic coming from the opposite side, and who suggest that anyone who differs and favors a MV is somehow suspect of disseminating false teaching.

On the other hand, the Scripture cited is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and of good report (Php 4:8), even in the MV renderings. That same scripture also provides sufficient warning to the KJVO advocates (by direct application without destructive eisegesis), one of the strongest scriptural warnings against one-version-onlyism that can be found:

“Charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths ... Certain persons ... have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers ... , without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.” (1Tim 1:3-4, 6-7 ESV)

In case this scripture is not clear in modern English, the KJV serves equally well:

“Charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables ...Some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers...understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.”

This passage probably should be the motto standing at the head of this board.

 

MJ,

You are not being totally honest with this statement to me. Look at the title you gave the thread. You do indeed support KJVO. Even if you deny it in your response to me and will not answer my direct question about such.

Bro Tony

 

Whew! Dizzying logic to get support for One Version Onlyism.

All of these languages around the world sure do confuse the Bible, don't they?

Vulgate - thats one all of the Western world could use.

1Ti 1:1 Paulus apostolus Christi Iesu secundum imperium Dei salvatoris nostri et Christi Iesu spei nostrae
1Ti 1:2 Timotheo dilecto filio in fide gratia misericordia pax a Deo Patre et Christo Iesu Domino nostro
1Ti 1:3 sicut rogavi te ut remaneres Ephesi cum irem in Macedoniam ut denuntiares quibusdam ne aliter docerent
1Ti 1:4 neque intenderent fabulis et genealogiis interminatis quae quaestiones praestant magis quam aedificationem Dei quae est in fide
1Ti 1:5 finis autem praecepti est caritas de corde puro et conscientia bona et fide non ficta
1Ti 1:6 a quibus quidam aberrantes conversi sunt in vaniloquium
1Ti 1:7 volentes esse legis doctores non intellegentes neque quae loquuntur neque de quibus adfirmant
1Ti 1:8 scimus autem quia bona est lex si quis ea legitime utatur

 

mj, in the same loose spirit of exegesis that you apply in your referenced Scripture passage, here is my Scripture that supports multi-versionism:

 

I wonder what I Timothy 1:1-8 meant in 1610.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]That'll preach!

 

It's been said before, but the KJV supports MV's. 1 Cor 14:9 "So likewise ye, except ye utter the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air."

 

That's a good reason to use only one version. My church has studied the issue and we believe that using multiple versions is the best way to go, and we are all of one-accord on that issue.

Actually, I don't know of the deletions you speak of. Remember, that to be a true deletion, that particular name of God had to be present when the scripture was originally written. If it wasn't in the scripture as originally written, then removing that name of God isn't a deletion from God's word, but a restoration of God's word. How can you be sure that what you are calling a deletion isn't really a restoration?

I don't know what this means. Can you explain?

And I believe that best is knowing the original languages and reading from them. Second best is using more than one version to get a truer sense of the message conveyed in the original languages. I stand for more truth and a better sense of the original message, rather than less.