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

Then this is where we will have to agree to disagree on both points. I don't believe most take the KJV out of context. Formerly being a rabid KJVO person myself, having preached and pushed others into that position I started to question why I was doing so. Was there proof of one version only? After months and months of study, I came to the conclusion that there was no proof of it. Many verses are used to TRY and support this position, but there truly are none unless they are taken out of context.
So, though I still use the KJV as my Bible of choice, I also am comfortable using the other versions as well. I am not an apologist for the MV's, but I will stand up for those who intentionally/unintentionally mirepresent them, as I will the KJV. Nobody here is against the KJV, but they are against KJV Onlyism, and for good reason. It is not supported by the Bible.

AVL1984

 

Well, I'm glad to see you have a sense of humour and that I didn't offend you with my "tweety bird" thing.

Multiversion users can be of one accord because all faithful translations teach the same doctrine.

Sorry, I thought you would be familiar with it. Here, I'll quote the passage for you, and show you what I mean. Luke 4:16-19:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Luk 4:17
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

Luk 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Luk 4:19
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Luk 4:20
And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

You'll notice that Jesus opens the scripture to Isaiah and finds a place (one place) and reads from it. Luke records for us what was written in that one place.

The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Here is that passage as it reads from our Old Testament:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD...(Isaiah 61:1,2)

You'll see that the two passages differ, but all the differences are small (like "he" in the passage Jesus read, and "the LORD" in ours, "bind up" instead of "heal" etc.) except for one place. The passage Jesus read from has a whole extra phrase--"and recovering of sight to the blind"--that is left out of the text we have in Isaiah. Either the phrase was added to the text Jesus read from, or deleted from ours.

Jesus, it seems to me, approved of the text he read from, even though it is not the same as ours.

So, here are my questions in relation to this: Why shouldn't we approve of "different versions" if Jesus seemed to? Why shouldn't we approve of "different versions" if the KJV does?

If both versions of this passage were preserved by God and both recorded for us in the KJV, then doesn't God sometimes preserve his word in more than one version of a passage? Why do we think God has to preserve his word in only one version when it seems obvious from our very own KJV's that that's not always the way he does it?

If God didn't think we'd be confused by the differences in these two versions of this passage, why do we assume people will be confused by different versions?

No problem. Nice joke!

Even a multiversionist doesn't think they're all the same, though. Even a multiversionist prefers that our translations match the underlying text. But hey! if the two versions of Isaiah 61 that are recorded for us in the KJV have "The LORD" in one place and "he" in another, then maybe some are making a bigger deal out of it than it really is.

 

mjwegs: "This is simple 2 Peter 1:20. "The scripture (KJV) is of no private interpretation (NKJV)."

mjwegs: "Two people chose to laugh at taking the Bible in context."

Wow...Once more an appeal to context ... context ...context ....all in order to *prevent* exactly what you did by inserting (KJV) so that the KJV equals "Scripture" and (NKJV) so that the NKJV equals "private interpretation"!

mjwegs: "2 Peter 1:20 was for the argument of changing the KJV to the NKJV. so you were right, the prophets were inspired not the NKJV interpreters."

Can we also now say, "2 Peter 1:20 was for the argument of changing the Greek text into the KJV, so you were right, the prophets were inspired not the KJV interpreters? I'll bet you won't allow that one, right?

All this nonsense is just more proof that KJVOism is a joke, and not even good enough to be labeled a cult (can I say that, Dr Bob?).

mjwegs: "I will stand firm on my context post.I beleive most people take the KJV out of context and thus make mistakes in judging or interpreting it."

"O thou Pot of darkish hue, who black the kettle callest do...."
---Ziggy 7:14

 

Dr Bob: "But always always always make sure that any allusion as a joke, false, error, etc etc is about KJV ONLY sect/teaching, and NOT about the precious KJV itself, which is a faithful translation of the Word of God in English."

Absolutely on that, Dr Bob!

 

mjwegs42:Yes this scripture can be directed to any scripture. But it does support One-versionism. You pick yours, I'll pick mine. I stated earlier why I chose mine. Tell me which you will pick?

I pick several, including the NIV, the NASB, the AV 1611, the NKJV, and the KJV. There's no Scripture in any of them prohibiting me from using any of the others.. God is not confined to the pages of just one version, & I'm not, either. Remember, the AV translators wrote in their preface, "Variety of Translations Is profitable for the Finding Out of the Sense of the Scriptures". If you place so much stock in the version those men made, you should believe their opinions also.

 

The biggest problem with this statement is that it could be said of any Scripture citation no matter how long or short. Unless the entire Bible is quoted any portion of the Bible is "out of context".

Are you aware that the KJV has had at least a 2 century history of correction and refinement of human "corruption"?

Therefore, according to your logic this was due to the lack of faith of King James or the translators, or printers or someone else or all of the above.

Yes, but the Scripture says "And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written"
Then He read words which cannot be found (word-for-word) anywhere in the King James Bible.

Jesus said nothing concerning the difference, the synagogue leaders said nothing, and the people said nothing.

We have (as has been noted) several other places where this phenomena happens.
It has little or nothing to do with a lack of faith. It has only to do with version differences and version differences which are apparently acceptable in the sight of God.

IMO, people offering any other explanation are rationalizing because as it were of the "emperor’s new clothes" syndrome and a state of denial which keeps them from facing the fact of the obvious.

In the meantime as the KJVO bubbles are burst, new strange and convoluted arguments are brought forth to save face such as the "4 refinements" or the "7 purifications".

Third, a KJVO statement offered as evidence of the "Only" status of the KJV is that the KJV has always been accepted by the Church as the "pure" words of God.

However many Anabaptists and dissenters and some Puritans lost their lives, families, body parts and suffered incarceration (some for life) in the dungeons of England at the hands of "bishops" and "archbishops" (some of which were on the translation committee) because they opposed the "Authorized Version" and it's Anglo-Catholic Church of England bias.


HankD

 

First I would like everyone to read the below scripture. I hope you will be convited as I am when I read it. Alot of you seek a Biblical stance for One-Biblism. So here is my "One-Biblism" stance.

I Timothy Chapter 1:1-8
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

This is the direct word of Paul against the influence of false teachers, who by subtle distinctions and endless disputes, corrupted the purity and simplicity of the gospel. I beleive Whole-Heartedly that this is a direct slam against Version Onlyism, and other variations on Judaism, Gnosticism, and the Colossian Heresy. With Version Onlyism comes confusions. With confusion, comes "fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:" I Tim 1:4.

I Tim 1:5-6 Goes on to speak of using "faith unfeigned", not being "swereved", and "turned aside unto vain jangling;". Is it not very clear from at least the versions forum on this board that version onlyism leads to vain jangling! That is why your a memeber here since that is the only subject you post on. I beleive vs. 7 is clear as can be. Can you teach complete understanding even though you choose to attack the Bible? We know that the "flaws" in all modern translations are seen in ancient translations as well, and saying otherwise causes confision. Vs. 8 is simple and pure the law is good! if we use it lawfully.

I think the Autograph innerancy stance is more than just seeking proof. You take a charge through faith to stand firm on ONE beleif. "One Beleif!" I don't think there will be to many "fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:" when you take one stance! The Bible has been preserved, the agreement of the manuscripts proves the faithfulness of several transltations.

I think the verses are much more easily and correctly interpreted this way.

 

hmmm. The spell checker on my text cut and paste software must be broken.