Why no commitment?

I have been using the NIV since 1979. I have no problem saying the NIV is the perfect and inerrant Word of God. However, I will not say it is the only Word of God in English. I know it is not the only because the Word of God existed in English before the NIV was translated. The Word of God also existed in English before the KJV was translated. Therefore, the KJV is not the only Word of God in English.

If you wish to use only the KJV out of personal preference, go right ahead and do so. Just don't make a doctrine out of it and try to force everyone else into your box.

 

Yeah,why take the time to research something that may deflate your KJVO balloon.

I guess that we don't have the requiste amount of arrogance.

Please name at least fifty.

 

I have said it many times -- Bible translations are approximations -- none are perfect. Some want to maintain a faith that isn't biblical compels them to believe their version is the only perfect one in English.

 

No, you're absolutely wrong. There were a number of verses in the book of Revelation for which Erasmus had no Greek manuscript. So he went from the Latin Vulgate and back-translated those passages into Greek.

[personal attack snipped]

An illogical and uninformed stand.

 

You keep getting confused. Translations are not word-for-word.

This is another example of your ignorance. The KJV's did not identify by italics which words "were added" to the text most of the time.

And some other versions do use italics or brackets to identify some "added words" to the text. Have you ever seen the HCSB, for instance?

It depends upon the person and context. Many Koreans want an English Bible, so I suggest the NIrV most of the time. I have given away plenty in my time. I have also given them GW and the NLTse. For advanced students I'll have to give them the 2011 NIV when it's published.

Boy, that was an easy question!

 

I am glad that you could finally admit the obvious Winman.

 

Well, the RT added to God's Word on a number of occasions.

 

For translations to be valid does not demand 100% perfection. The KJV's are valid -- but certainly far from perfection. Many MV's are much more accurate -- but certainly not perfect.

 

The four Gospels are different -- they are not the same. Which one is the true one? [Using your reasoning to show how silly your idea is.]

 

When has anyone said that? Lies are not becoming of you.

 

I'm not sure what your point is, nor what it has to do with the OP or my simple request- Show me a verse that says that I have to commit to ONE perfect and inerrant translation in ENGLISH at the exclusion of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and I might have to.

 

Winman:What do you fellows say when a new convert asks which Bible version he should use? Boy, that must be a real mess.

No, it aint. I simply say, "any valid version" & explain howta identify such. I DO NOT lie to them & say, "It's this version or that version."

 

Same as I am when i see the disagreements among the 4 Gospels in their narrations of the same events within one version.

 

Quote:
SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE! KJVO has neither.

Winman:What a profoundly ridiculous thing to say. The KJB only has 400 years of history in the Christian church.

But that aint substance & evidence! The Latin Vulgate has over 1K years of history within the church, so by your statement, it's far-more "official" than the KJV. But again, the only SUBSTANCE for KJVO is a man-made fishing story that's not found whatsoever in Scripture, not even in the KJV itself, and the only EVIDENCE id the opinion and guesswork of those who've succumbed to this false doctrine.


Quote:
Simple Computerese.

Unflattering.

As if I care.


Quote:
And, who is NOT COMMITTED to any one text nor translation.

You aren't. Will you say right now that your version is the only perfect, infallible version in English?

Any valid version I pick up is, perfect for GOD'S intended use of it. You CANNOT prove otherwise.


Quote:
And you ARE. Not in your committment, but in your REASONS for it.

So why does this bother MVs? You guys ridicule KJVOs constantly. It doesn't bother me at all, but it is obvious many MVs absolutely despise and hate those who hold to the KJVO position. It shows.

That's cuz KJVO is a NON-SCRIPTURAL position, same as salvation by worx or regenerational baptism, and JUST-AS-WRONG.


Quote:
EVERY VALID VERSION. YOU CANNOT PROVE OTHERWISE!
And no one here is saying the KJV aint a valid version.

How can a version with nearly 3000 less words in the Greek be exactly the same? Either on added to God's word, or the other diminished from it, but it is absurd to argue they both are valid. Of course, I do not know what you mean when you say valid.

First, "valid" means following its sources closely, those sources being the Scriptural mss that have been recognized as such for generations, as well as similar ancient mss more-recently discovered.
The argument has been going on for at least 130 years about the validity or non-validity of certain mss, and WE are no closer to resolving it now than the scholars of the past were. Until this question is authoritatively settled, none of us have any right to declare this ms valid or that ms non-valid. If ya do so, you're just GUESSING, & ya COULD be guessing WRONG! [/b]


Quote:
Nor any other specific version. Butcha liketa pretend there is!


I answered this. Again, your style of writing is very juvenile.

Actually, ya made an excuse and showed yourself unwise by saying in effect, "I KNOW there's NO Scriptural support for my position, but I take it anyway." As for my writing style-again, I couldn't care less if ya like it or not. If ya don't like it, that's just TUFF.


Quote:
The Scriptures were around long before the "RT". Again, you're simply GUESSING. Without ANYTHING FROM GOD IN HIS WORD about any doctrine of worship, we MUST assume it's false, since there's only ONE other ultimate source of doctrines of worship other than GOD......


The RT is the scriptures.

And so are many other mss. You CANNOT prove differently.


Quote:
Long ago, we identified the MAN-MADE SOURCE of the current KJVO edition as being a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) by Dr. Ben Wilkinson, a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official. So there's some EVIDENCE for KJVO's MAN-MADE origin. Now, do you have ONE QUARK of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT or authority for KJVO? Newp! Therefore, KJVO isshownyabee MAN-MADE AND FALSE. Since it aint from GOD, it must be from the devil. Betcha CANNOT prove otherwise!

You've got a short memory. On another thread we discussed this and there are records of Baptists who held to a KJVO long before this author wrote this book.

You ignored the word "current" in my post! I have read W. B. Riley's book as well as other stories about "KJVOs" of the past. Here's what Dr. Riley hadta say:
Quote:

(Riley, William B., The Menace of Modernism. 1917, New York: NY, Christian Alliance Publishing Co., pp. 11-13.)

There have been KJVOs since 1611, I'm sure. But our discussions here are about the CURRENT edition of that false doctrine that has arisen since the 1970s when GOD stirred certain people to make new English Bible translations in MODERN language, taking into account the mss that have been discovered since 1603, mss that have been preserved by GOD just-as-equally as those that have been longer-known.

 

I wonder if it's the same as when the KJVs differ from each other.

 

The USERS of a given version don't pollute it any more than one who uses his car to commit a murder doesn't make cars evil. Far as that goes, Vernon Lee Howell, AKA David Koresh, the Waco Wacko, used only the KJV, and MVs were certainly available to him.

And the JWs' "New World Translation" wasn't made until 1950.

 

TomVols & Annsi-Seems Dr. Waite & Gail Riplinger have quite a little spat going on now, with David Cloud weighing in every now-n-then.

 

I've just about run outta things to say in regard to the OP of this thread, so lemme summarize my perspective-I do NOT commit to any one English version for the simple fact that there's NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS WHATSOEVER for doing so. We see JESUS using another version of Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21 besides the one that was translated into the KJV's Book of Isaiah. We see the many differences between the four Gospels in their narrations of the same events, no matter what texts or versions we use. We know there are many, MANY Hebrew or Greek words/phrases that have multiple meanings in English & we should realize that different translators will choose differently from among those meanings when they have no help from the context in doing so.
Therefore, "making a stand" for any one version, saying this is the ONLY valid translation is simply INCORRECT! The late Dr. J. Vernon Mc Gee often said he used the KJV almost exclusively cuz it was the version he'd had before him all his life & he was very familiar with it....but it was CERTAINLY NOT the ONLY valid English translation out there, nor even the MOST ACCURATE.
Nothing wrong with using only the KJV if one likes it best, or feels 'led' to it, but to do so on the basis of believing it's the ONLY valid English version out there is simply WRONG! And it seems THAT is Winman's reason for being KJVO & asking his Q to begin with. It's easy to see he's misguided on the whole Bible versions subject, as his reasoning follows the old "party line" set forth in the worx of Wilkinson, Ruckman, Riplinger, etc. & needs to study to see the FALSEHOOD of KJVO, and contemplate the FACT that it's TOTALLY MAN-MADE, not supported by one quark of SCRIPTURE, not even in the KJV itself, & therefore could NOT be a TRUE doctrine of worship!

I make MY stand on the WORD OF GOD-EVERY VALID VERSION-and recognize GOD'S ability to present His own word to man in any form, language, or version HE jolly well chooses.