Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Is there scriptural support for modern versions ? Book chapter and verse please.
As did Paul.Jesus quoted from the LXX.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with modern translations.Jesus quoted from the LXX.
There is the same scriptural support for the making of Bible translations in present-day English as there was for making of Bible translations in 1500's English and as there was and is for making of Bible translations in other languages.Is there scriptural support for modern versions ?
I have often cited Neh. 8:8.Is there scriptural support for modern versions ? Book chapter and verse please.
Since this is my thread the better question is there ANY scriptural support for modern translations that are translated from known corrupted texts like the minority texts, and or Greek translation from the two heretics like Westcott and Hort ? After that please cite the book, chapter, and verse that refers only to modern translations. You will need to be absolutely certain and provide real, actual and solid substantiation that whatever book, chapter and verse you appeal to is meant exclusively, and I do mean exclusively for modern translations.Since this is a KJVONLY forum, perhaps a better question is - Do you believe there is real, actual Scriptural support just for only the KJV or KJVONLYism? A simple "yes" or "no" will do for starters.
After that - Please cite the book, chapter and verse that refers ONLY to the KJV.
You will need to be absolutely certain and provide real, actual, and solid substantiation that whatever book, chapter and verse you appeal to is meant exclusively, and I do mean exclusively, for the KJV.
Since this is my thread the better question is there ANY scriptural support for modern translations that are translated from known corrupted texts like the minority texts, and or Greek translation from the two heretics like Westcott and Hort ?
I believe attacking the KJV to promote modern translations is a red herring. Like I said I started this thread if you don’t like it move along or answer the question. Where is there scriptural support for modern translations ?So you began the thread - So what?
The fact, truth, and reality is that this is a KJVONLY forum.
That means your thread is off-topic for the subject and purpose forum itself, right from your very first post.
That's why I wrote what I did. What I wrote is directly relevant to the subject and purpose of this forum.
That's not true/truthful for what you've written. What you have done is called a red herring.
Believe me - I can and do understand that you don't like and don't want to deal with what I wrote. I'd run away from my challenge too, were I in your shoes. I mean, besides my being on topic for the subject and purpose of the forum, we both know that you don't have any chance at all whatsoever of providing anything even remotely resembling an adequate answer to my challenge. It's easy to imagine that an alley cat would want to have a full immersion bath a lot sooner than you would want to directly answer my challenge.
And it's actually somewhat interesting to see how your post above twisted and perverted what I wrote to suit yourself. It's kind of reminiscent of what the JWs did by creating their own "Bible" with the NWT - They did so in order to suit themselves.
But, when it comes down to the bottom line for this forum - This is a KJVONLY forum, and both your initial post and your latest post are off-topic for the forum. I know it, you know it, and any intelligent person can and will see and know it.
Perhaps you merely demonstrate that you believe incorrectly and thus you may deceive yourself. Believing assertions that are not true is being deceived, whether being deceived by following the opinions of others or being deceived by your own incorrect assumptions.I believe attacking the KJV to promote modern translations is a red herring.
Do you ignore the fact that a question can be answered by another question?answer the question
I believe attacking the KJV to promote modern translations is a red herring. Like I said I started this thread if you don’t like it move along or answer the question. Where is there scriptural support for modern translations ?
So a different set of requirements are made for the KJV and modern translations gets a pass, got ya. When those that support modern translations are asked for the same evidence and proof they ask of those that believe the KJV is the best English translation they are usually indignant that their preferred golden cow is challenged, but I understand the twisting and diversion of those who promote modern translations since they are based on the corrupted minority texts. This debate has raged since Roman Catholics claimed superiority over anything to do with God. The KJV was the preferred translation of those who broke the chains off of common men and made scripture available for those who longed to have scripture and know God. Ever wonder why the Roman Catholic Church has zero problems with modern translations and hates the KJV ?I have never attacked the KJV. I have attacked and do attack KJVONLYism, because it is a very wrong, even cult-like movement.
Yes, you started the thread. And I rightly and correctly pointed out that your thread is off-topic to the subject and purpose of the board. That's the fact and truth. Now believe me, I do see that being off-topic is something very preferred by you and other KJVONLYists. It gets the focus off of the very wrong belief of KJVONLYism.
How could you not (greatly) prefer that?
As to your question: "Where is there scriptural support for modern translations?"
To be quite plain about it - It's an absolutely foolish question. It's a very huge, very red herring.
Where is the scriptural support for ANY translation, including the KJV?
You're not going to find one that directly and explicitly speaks about it. We all know this, including you.
You could appeal to Matt. 28:19-20 if you wanted, because in order to apply and fulfill that command, Bible translation work is necessary, even required. But that has to do with applying and obeying the verse. In terms of your demand to "supply specific book, specific chapter, and specific verse that supports modern translations" - You won't find that for ANY Bible translation, including the KJV. Therefore, the question itself is very, very foolish.
I do understand why you would prefer that I move along - You certainly cannot refute what I've written, which is the plain and obvious truth. Yes, I'm sure you do want - a great deal - for me to stop pointing out the things I'm pointing out. But, they are TRUE.
ANY "one-version-only" doctrines are false, but those believing KJVO have made an industry & a genre of boox out of it as well as making KJVO a myth. I've never seen a sanctuary with "NIV Only" or any other one version on its shingle, while I've seen plenty with 'KJV Only' on that shingle.So a different set of requirements are made for the KJV and modern translations gets a pass, got ya. When those that support modern translations are asked for the same evidence and proof they ask of those that believe the KJV is the best English translation they are usually indignant that their preferred golden cow is challenged, but I understand the twisting and diversion of those who promote modern translations since they are based on the corrupted minority texts. This debate has raged since Roman Catholics claimed superiority over anything to do with God. The KJV was the preferred translation of those who broke the chains off of common men and made scripture available for those who longed to have scripture and know God. Ever wonder why the Roman Catholic Church has zero problems with modern translations and hates the KJV ?
What is wrong with those who believe in God trusting His word ? Many simply do not trust modern versions. Should they ask permission of those who push modern versions if it ok to trust the KJV ? If a group of Christians band together and hang out a shingle that they are a KJV church because they don’t trust the corrupted modern translations why would that bother you or garner your involvement ? It’s simple you don’t agree go somewhere else. I don’t go to places where I disagree with their theology, and that is why I am not a Roman Catholic, JW, Mormon etc.ANY "one-version-only" doctrines are false, but those believing KJVO have made an industry & a genre of boox out of it as well as making KJVO a myth. I've never seen a sanctuary with "NIV Only" or any other one version on its shingle, while I've seen plenty with 'KJV Only' on that shingle.
And in my estimation, "NIV Only" would be as false as "KJV Only".
So a different set of requirements are made for the KJV and modern translations gets a pass, got ya. When those that support modern translations are asked for the same evidence and proof they ask of those that believe the KJV is the best English translation they are usually indignant that their preferred golden cow is challenged, but I understand the twisting and diversion of those who promote modern translations since they are based on the corrupted minority texts. This debate has raged since Roman Catholics claimed superiority over anything to do with God. The KJV was the preferred translation of those who broke the chains off of common men and made scripture available for those who longed to have scripture and know God. Ever wonder why the Roman Catholic Church has zero problems with modern translations and hates the KJV ?
So a different set of requirements are made for the KJV and modern translations gets a pass, got ya.
You wrote this in post # 5 “After that - Please cite the book, chapter and verse that refers ONLY to the KJV” .That was why I asked for scripture that promotes MV’s. Seems you have a short memory.There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in my post that suggests or even hints at your statement of, "So a different set of requirements are made for the KJV and modern translations gets a pass, got ya." There is no intelligent or even sane way for you to get to that position or statement from what I wrote. Your post is a complete strawman of blithering gibberish, and does not address directly or clearly anything I wrote. I've never asked you or any KJVONLYite to provide scriptural support for the KJVONLYist position. Nor would I do that - As I said, it's a foolish question because there is no scriptural support for ANY translation, including the KJV. I did say that a possible exception for creating translations could be Matt. 28:19-20. However, as I said, that wouldn't actually be scriptural support for any particular translation; it would merely be the natural application or obedience to those verses, and not something contained directly or explicitly in the verses themselves.
Again - How you got to your statement from what I wrote has nothing and resembles nothing in the way of intelligence or reason. In fact, what you wrote went total 180 degrees counter to those things. If you are going to respond to what I wrote, then DO THAT - respond to what I wrote. Otherwise, please have the good sense to not respond at all.