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

mjwegs42,

Don't you agree that Jesus reading from a "different version" is an example that we are free to follow? That it means that Jesus approves of using different versions?

 

LOL! So now context is important?

Please go back and re-read my "In the same loose spirit of exegesis..." preface to my remarks. I just thought that if you could rip the passage you referenced out of its context, then I should be permitted to do the same with mine!

 

mjwegs42 said "Again please use context!"

This should be moved to the humor forum.

 

I know that I can't stop laughing.

mj continues to chide me for taking Acts 12:24 out of context, when my original post citing this verse was intended only as a dripping-in-sarcasm, completely tongue-in-cheek rebuttal of his entirely serious exegesis of I Timothy 1:1-8!

He goes on to say that he posted 3/4 of the chapter, which doesn't promote his case at all, since even with numerous verses to form a contextual background, he still got it wrong!

 

mjwegs42 said:

And I do not see anywhere it supports multiversionism.

I don't see it supporting barbequed steak, either, but it ain't gonna spoil my dinner.

 

mjwegs42 said:

Please use context when you quote?

You first!

 

Actually, the factual history disagrees with you. The source texts used by newer translations predate the source texts used by the KJV translators considerably. Hence, if one were to argue "adding/deleting", it is more likely that the later source texts added text.

 

mjwegs42: “This clearly speaks "in context" ... about the spread of the Gospel thoughout the world. Not that the words were changed and reprinted into muliple text. Please use context when you quote?”

mjwegs42: “Let use context here also. Use verse 2 from the same chapter."

mjwegs42: “Again please use context!”

mjwegs42: “This is the direct word of Paul ... I beleive Whole-Heartedly that this is a direct slam against Multi-Version Bible use.”

1Cor 10:12 doesn’t say “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” for nothing.

Ed -- is this another double? “Context is important when MV users cite and apply the Scriptures to establish a point; context is _not_ important when OVO advocates use the same Scriptures to establish their point.”

“In the last days, saith the Pot, the Kettle shall be called black”
--- Ziggy 12:2

 

Let use context here also. Use verse 2 from the same chapter.

I Cor 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

also vs 4. might speak directly to you on this issue Kevin.

I Cor 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church

Again please use context! </font>[/QUOTE]Even if you are right, which I disagree, then there's the secondary application: God wants His Words to be easily understood! So, hence the MV's

 

No contradiction at all, because all faithful versions are in agreement as to the message of God's word. The various faithful translations speak in one accord.

Of course deletion can sometimes be restoration. I'll show you:

Okay, I shall now restore the text by way of deletion:

See. If words were added to the text of the scripture as it was originally written by the apostles and prophets--in the same way that I added words to the text that you posted--then deletion is indeed restoration. The argument ought to center around whether there have been any words added to the text or not, not on whether deletion can ever be restoration, because obviously it can.

No, I asked you to explain why, if Jesus read from a version different from the text of our Old Testament, and God considered it scripture, even though it had a whole extra phrase in it, why we can't feel free to read from different versions, too. Isn't Christ our example? Would something be bad for us to do that was good for Christ to do? That's what I want you to answer.

 

Mike, Here's a flaw (and it's a BIG one) in this analysis: In 1611, the KJV itself was simply the newest MV to be released. When it first was published, there were those who rejected it because they couldn't fathom the need to have some new-fangled translation of God's Word replacing their tried-and-true Bishop's Bible or Geneva Bible. At that time, the KJV was itself the dreaded "MV". If you object to MV's simply for the fact that they are newer translations of God's Word, how do you justify/overlook the fact that at one time the KJV itself fit that very description?

 

Archangel has just re-posted the comparisons in the KJV between Isaiah 61 & what JESUS read aloud in Luke 4...and between Isaiah 53 and what the Ethiopian official and Philip read in Acts 8. This is proof positive of more than one "official" version in use by both a man of God and God Himself.

You're still on Square One in trying to prove any One-versionism, as the Scriptures you posted could be applied to ANY version. There's nothing in'em pointing to the KJV(or the NIV, or Tyndale's) as the only "official" version.