Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

imJRR

Active member
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.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Is there scriptural support for modern versions ?
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.

The Great Commission is one scriptural teaching that requires Bible translation since in order for the Great Commission be carried out among people who speak languages other than the original languages of Scripture translation is needed.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
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 ? 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.
 

imJRR

Active member
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.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
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 ?

You fail to define your term "corrupted" and fail to apply the term justly. There were some significant textual variations including corruptions in the Greek NT manuscripts used for making the textually-varying Textus Receptus editions. The Textus Receptus editions have many minority readings (perhaps over 1000 to 1800).

The Church of England makers of the KJV held most of the same Church of England doctrinal views as Westcott and Hort. Do you suggest that the baptismal regeneration view and other Church of England views of the KJV translators makes them "heretics"? I do not advocate the unsound Church of England doctrinal views of the KJV translators and of Westcott and Hort.

I have not recommended nor advocated the Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort so I have no reason to provide support for it.

You do make claims for the KJV and the Textus Receptus so you have a burden of proof to back up what you claim from the Scriptures. You do not provide book, chapter and verse that exclusively provide substantiation for your claims so you do not practice what you preach. You contradict your own demand.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
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.
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 ?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
I believe attacking the KJV to promote modern translations is a red herring.
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.

Applying the same exact standards/measures to all Bible translations including the KJV is not a red herring.
It is the just application of clear scriptural truths. According to the Scriptures, applying different standards/measures or applying measures unjustly is an abomination to the LORD.
Are you advocating that different measures/standards should be applied to the KJV than are applied to other English Bible translations?

Taking the exact same standards/measures that you yourself would use to attack other English Bibles and applying them to the KJV would prove your use of double standards.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
answer the question
Do you ignore the fact that a question can be answered by another question?

Is there any sound scriptural support for exclusive only claims for only one English translation--the KJV?

Asking a question that applies the reasoning in your question to the KJV is a proper answer to your question.

A question can be invalid and thus it would not deserve an answer. Questions do not determine nor establish truth.
 

imJRR

Active member
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 ?

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.

I suppose you could possibly 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. You can argue, sure, but you can't refute.

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, quite plainly and accurately, the truth. If this bothers you, then I submit that it is fair to say that the truth bothers you.

Which means - You're in a very bad position here.
 
Last edited:

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
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.
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 ?
 

robycop3

Well-known member
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 ?
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".
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
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".
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.
 

imJRR

Active member
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 ?

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.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
So a different set of requirements are made for the KJV and modern translations gets a pass, got ya.

You clearly have it backwards. You assume a different set of requirements for the word of God translated into present-day English while the KJV in effect gets a pass or is not compared to any standards/measures unless possibly mere assumptions based on the fallacy of begging the question.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
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.
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.
 
Top