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

Chapter? Verse? So far I have not seen a single verse or chapter that supports this. I've seen verses posted that are taken out of context, but no verse that supports the idea that there is to be one sole translation of scripture for everyone in that language. I have continually asked for verses that support this claim, and no one ever seems to come up with any. Whassupwiddat??

 

mjwegs42 said "But it does support One-versionism."

If that's so, then you picked the wrong version to apply it to, for that scripture must have been true in 1610 as well.

 

Nope. It is an abuse of scripture to claim you citation as a support for one-version onlyism. The passage talks about doctrine and teaching the law with understanding but it does not come close to supporting the view that only one version of scripture is acceptable for use.

 

Do you understand what Calvinism is or do you have it confused with hyper-Calvinism?

Spurgeon said that the doctrine on salvation commonly known as Calvinism is nothing but the biblical gospel.

I believe that man is totally depraved. I believe that God is sovereign even over salvation. I do not believe in universalism. I do not believe that any person of their own independent will can muster up the goodness required to choose God's way over their own. I do not believe that those who God has saved will ever perish.

The system that best fits these views is commonly known as Calvinism.

BTW, yes. The Geneva was accused of being Calvinistic. But the emphasis was not completely on sotierology. Calvinism taught many things on a broad scope to include a rejection of the divine rights of monarchs over state and church.

 

Thanks for acknowledging that you don't understand calvinism...

 

Because Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus to pastors (shepherds) of churches (back then, simple house-congregations), they are often called the "pastoral epistles". They outline their pastoral duties, such as defending sound doctrine and maintaining sound discipline. Paul talks mostly on practical matters, and much less on theological matters.

1 Timothy was written from Paul to Timothy, a Christian convert, whose job was to represent Paul to the house churches (though, Timothy does not appear to be an elder).

Verss 1-2 is a salutational greeting.
Verses 3-20 lays out Timothy's mission in Ephesus, including his tasks (3-11) and insctuctions (both encouragement and reprimand) to be faithful (12-20).

It's important to note that Paul was writing a private letter of encouragement to Timothy, one person writing to another. This was not Paul addressing a multitude crowd.

No where in 1 Timothy is the issue of translations or versions addressed.

 

Hey MJ,

Prove what you have posted. Tell me which MV does this. If the only one is the gender neutral edition, well no real Bible scholar accepts that anyway. You have slandered all MVs with this false statement.

Bro Tony

 

MJ,

I would and do have a problem with any book that removes God's name, if it was there in the original manuscript. The pronoun "He" used in the NIV clearly refers to God. God is not being denied in this verse. Are you sure the manuscript placed the name of God rather than the pronoun?

Your original comment was more than just this though you said that MV's do not distinguish between He, She, or God, in the MV's they are all the same.

Bro Tony

 

This is a common versionite assertion. Oldest manuscripts read "He/Who appeared". Newer manuscripts read "God appeared".

Of course, KJVOs will often say that newer versions "remove" the name of God, but the historical fact is that it is more likely that the newer source texts replaced "He" with "God". So, if a KJVO makes the "altered scripture" cry, they must deal with the fact that the KJV source texs liky added to scripture, not the other way around.

Also, as far as the NIV "removing", you clearly have not read the NIV. Since the NIV uses multiple source texts for greatest inclusion, the NIV contains both iterations of the verse. In this case, there's a footnote that reads "Some manuscripts God". This gives the reader great discernment ability.

Also, that still does not answer the qustion of other translations that are primarily based on the same texts as the KJV. For example, the NKJV reads "God was manifested in the flesh". So the same "removed" arguement doesn't fly there.

 

mjwegs42 said " Read I Tim 3:16 in the KJV, then go the the NIV and read the same verse. Why does it not bother you when an MV removes the name of God, your LORD?"

Hmmmmm. Have you applied your own argument to Phil 1:14, Jude 1:25, Acts 4:25, etc.?

 

Funny that there were perfectly acceptable versions before the Anglican Version of 1611. I guess these weren't the Word of God, then, right, mj? There is nothing in the kjVERSION that supports your position of one version onlyism.

AVL1984

 

Careful MJ.

You have misquoted by deleting what the NKJV says,

2 Peter 1:20-- "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,"

and the Kjv says,

please don't add or take away.
Bro Tony

 

Apparently not what it means in the KJV!

Ludicrous!

AVL1984