Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
There's no "scriptural support" for ANY English translation.

You don't seem to know this.
Then why do the modern version crowd ask for biblical evidence for those who believe the KJV is the most accurate translation in English ? I agree but it seems when the MV crowd uses the scriptural argument there is usually only crickets.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
The above post totally fails to deal with at least the first 3 sentences of my post. Oh well, not really a surprise. Moving on....

Actually my memory is quite fine. Here's why that's true: The posting history of the thread is that your initial post begins with the foolish (and off-topic from the subject and purpose of this forum) question of, "Is there scriptural support for modern versions? Book chapter and verse please."

Now - Do you understand the above? Seriously - Do you? What is written there is about the FIRST post of this thread - Your post.

Again - That is a very foolish (and off-topic for this forum) question; and the reasons why have already been given.

My post - as yourself have admitted - doesn't come until post #5.

Although the "new math" may have it differently, the way I was taught is that 1 comes before 5.

This means that you brought the whole issue of "scriptural support" from the very beginning.

Anyway - To answer your foolish (and off-topic) question about scriptural support for modern translations by positing the very same foolish question in the direction of the KJVONLY movement is a perfectly fair, reasonable and legitimate thing to do - It was/is done in order to get any reader (including yourself) to see just how foolish the initial question is.

I confess, I did not think that communicating this point would be difficult at all for anyone reading to see and understand. However, from the above post, it does appear that I expected too much.

Now - If you wish to say that KJVONLYites do not claim scriptural support for KJVONLYism, then all you have to do is say that. Just make that statement. Say something like, "We of the KJVONLY movement do not claim scriptural support for our belief."

Yes - It really IS just that simple.
 
Last edited:

imJRR

Well-known member
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.

The above post totally fails to deal with at least the first 3 sentences of my post. Oh well, not really a surprise. Moving on....

Actually my memory is quite fine. Here's why that's true: The posting history of the thread is that your initial post begins with the foolish (and off-topic from the subject and purpose of this forum) question of, "Is there scriptural support for modern versions? Book chapter and verse please."

Now - Do you understand the above? Seriously - Do you? What is written there is about the FIRST post of this thread - Your post.

Again - That is a very foolish (and off-topic for this forum) question; and the reasons why have already been given (by more than just me).

Now then: My post - as yourself have admitted - doesn't come until post #5.

Although the "new math" may have it differently, the way I was taught is that 1 comes before 5.

This means that you brought the whole issue of "scriptural support" from the very beginning.

Anyway - To answer your foolish (and off-topic) question about scriptural support for modern translations by positing the very same foolish question in the direction of the KJVONLY movement is a perfectly fair, reasonable and legitimate thing to do - It was/is done in order to get any reader (including yourself) to see just how foolish the initial question is.

I confess, I did not think that communicating this point would be difficult at all for anyone reading to see and understand. However, from the above post (and others), it would appear that I expected too much.

Now - If you wish to say that KJVONLYites do not claim scriptural support for KJVONLYism, then all you have to do is say that. Just make that statement. Say something like, "We of the KJVONLY movement do not claim scriptural support for our belief."

Yes - It really IS just that simple.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
The above post totally fails to deal with at least the first 3 sentences of my post. Oh well, not really a surprise. Moving on....

Actually my memory is quite fine. Here's why that's true: The posting history of the thread is that your initial post begins with the foolish (and off-topic from the subject and purpose of this forum) question of, "Is there scriptural support for modern versions? Book chapter and verse please."

Now - Do you understand the above? Seriously - Do you? What is written there is about the FIRST post of this thread - Your post.

Again - That is a very foolish (and off-topic for this forum) question; and the reasons why have already been given.

My post - as yourself have admitted - doesn't come until post #5.

Although the "new math" may have it differently, the way I was taught is that 1 comes before 5.

This means that you brought the whole issue of "scriptural support" from the very beginning.

Anyway - To answer your foolish (and off-topic) question about scriptural support for modern translations by positing the very same foolish question in the direction of the KJVONLY movement is a perfectly fair, reasonable and legitimate thing to do - It was/is done in order to get any reader (including yourself) to see just how foolish the initial question is.

I confess, I did not think that communicating this point would be difficult at all for anyone reading to see and understand. However, from the above post, it does appear that I expected too much.

Now - If you wish to say that KJVONLYites do not claim scriptural support for KJVONLYism, then all you have to do is say that. Just make that statement. Say something like, "We of the KJVONLY movement do not claim scriptural support for our belief."

Yes - It really IS just that simple.
We who trust the KJV and believe it to be the best English translation because it,which you cannot seem to understand, was translated from the majority texts, and most modern translations were translated from the minority texts, which many believe are corrupt texts.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
?? You really are not able - You honestly, truly do not have the ability - to say something like what I suggested?

Or are you merely unwilling to make such an open, plainly-stated statement?

This is getting serious - I'm used to not getting a plainly-stated, straightforward response from someone like a JW. But from someone who is supposed to be a Christian brother?

This simply should not be.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
?? You really are not able - You honestly, truly do not have the ability - to say something like what I suggested?

Or are you merely unwilling to make such an open, plainly-stated statement?

This is getting serious - I'm used to not getting a plainly-stated, straightforward response from someone like a JW. But from someone who is supposed to be a Christian brother?

This simply should not be.
I answered you sadly you cannot accept the truth nor the answer.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
I answered you sadly you cannot accept the truth nor the answer.

To say you gave an actual real answer as I openly suggested is equal to a JW saying that he/she believes the Bible, in terms of truthfulness.
And he/she would say the rest of your post also.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
To say you gave an actual real answer as I openly suggested is equal to a JW saying that he/she believes the Bible, in terms of truthfulness.
And he/she would say the rest of your post also.
What you actually mean is I didn’t say what you wanted me to say, because you don’t like the answer does not mean you never got an answer.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
No, you are wrong, and actually worse than wrong. What I actually, honestly, truthfully and genuinely mean is what I said to you. It's not a question of like/dislike - that idea is sheer fantasy on your part. I know myself better than you ever will - ever - and I know when I've received a direct and clear answer, and you have not given me one in terms of what I've said to you. It is an amazingly pathetic (and worse) thing to see such intentional, deliberate avoidance on your part - it is genuinely and DISTURBINGLY too much like "responses" I have received from cultists like the JWs. But that is the posting history for any and all to read.
 
Last edited:

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
No, you are wrong, and actually worse than wrong. What I actually, honestly, truthfully and genuinely mean is what I said to you. It's not a question of like/dislike - that idea is sheer fantasy on your part. I know myself better than you ever will - ever - and I know when I've received a direct and clear answer, and you have not given me one in terms of what I've said to you. It is an amazingly pathetic (and worse) thing to see such intentional, deliberate avoidance on your part - it is genuinely and DISTURBINGLY too much like "responses" I have received from cultists like the JWs. But that is the posting history for any and all to read.
FYI, I follow and trust God not you. I go and stay where He leads unapologetically wether you agree or not. What is disturbing is when folks tell those pushing MV’s that God convicted them to stay with the KJV tell them they are wrong, and then presume to speak for God. Those pushing MV’s act more like cultist than any KJVO person I have met. I cannot speak for anyone that supports and trust the KJV other than myself. As mentioned in an earlier post I do not trust the minority texts, and expect honest translation from the best manu scripts available. The autobiography by the sons of Westcott and Hort proved to me that their Greek translation in the eclectic translation Was absolute garbage. My bible says let every man work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, and since you ain’t God I believe I will follow His lead NOT yours.
 
Last edited:

Beloved Daughter

Super 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 ? 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.

You don't have scintilla of evidence.

This is a thread that you have started and people who respond choose to do so and will hopefully stay on topic. Bottom line, the minute you post a thread it belongs to CARM.

Exclusive to modern translations? Where is the fun in that. You've never been able to account for the errors that are present in the KJV. Why the KJV is different than the AV1611. And we have proven your bias against Westcott and Hort by showing you their real words, not what lying KJVO's have said.

The entire purpose of the KJVO forum is to compare and contrast different translations. You cannot control that.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
FYI, I follow and trust God not you. I go and stay where He leads unapologetically wether you agree or not. What is disturbing is when folks tell those pushing MV’s that God convicted them to stay with the KJV tell them they are wrong, and then presume to speak for God. Those pushing MV’s act more like cultist than any KJVO person I have met.

By all means Dulos, run along and read your KJV. No one will stop you.

What we will do, is make impossible for you to promote the dead KJVO nonsense without correcting you.

One more thing. Name calling is against the rules.

Remember what I said earlier, "Count on it".
 

imJRR

Well-known member
FYI, I follow and trust God not you. I go and stay where He leads unapologetically wether you agree or not. What is disturbing is when folks tell those pushing MV’s that God convicted them to stay with the KJV tell them they are wrong, and then presume to speak for God. Those pushing MV’s act more like cultist than any KJVO person I have met. I cannot speak for anyone that supports and trust the KJV other than myself. As mentioned in an earlier post I do not trust the minority texts, and expect honest translation from the best manu scripts available. The autobiography by the sons of Westcott and Hort proved to me that their Greek translation in the eclectic translation Was absolute garbage. My bible says let every man work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, and since you ain’t God I believe I will follow His lead NOT yours.
Who said anything about trusting me instead of God? I certainly have not. Dear Heaven - You sure do make up ludicrous strawman arguments a LOT. It might be great fun to do and cause goosebump feelings of being "spiritual", but you're talking/arguing about something I've never referred to or expected of you.

Also - You are now totally and completely off-topic from the subject of the original post...which is totally and completely off-topic from the subject and purpose of this particular forum. This is not a surprise, considering the absolutely foolish question you began with that you knew was foolish from the get-go. But, I'd run away to something else too, were I in your position.

As for your statement, "Those pushing MV’s act more like cultist than any KJVO person I have met" - That is totally laughable. Dave Breese, in his excellent book, The Marks Of A Cult, lists nine characteristics of cults. I not only invite you, I flat out challenge you - Start a new thread and talk about a cult mark that you believe ("imagine" is probably a better, more accurate word considering the "content" of your posts) that non-KJVONLYites are manifesting.
 
Last edited:

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
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.

Again, if you want to use the KJV exclusively, then run along and find some like-minded folks to fellow-ship with. No one here will stop you. After all these are your very words: 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.

Of course, that would mean that you won't come here to spread KJVOnly nonsense. You know what to expect if you stay here. You will be challenged at every turn.

God Speed.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Then why do the modern version crowd ask for biblical evidence for those who believe the KJV is the most accurate translation in English ? I agree but it seems when the MV crowd uses the scriptural argument there is usually only crickets.

So what are saying is that you don't like our responses so much, that you decided to use it.

You are OFF TOPIC in your own thread.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
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.

Sure you do. But until you provide proof of the scripture that promotes the KJVOnly, you are DIW (dead in the water)
 

Beloved Daughter

Super 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".

Amen roby. The Only churches around my part of the woods are leaving or changing their tune. There will always be a few hold-outs, but it's going to become difficult for those who promote anything other than the saving grace of Jesus Christ. The Master has given us the command and it has nothing to do particular Bible translations.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Amen roby. The Only churches around my part of the woods are leaving or changing their tune. There will always be a few hold-outs, but it's going to become difficult for those who promote anything other than the saving grace of Jesus Christ. The Master has given us the command and it has nothing to do particular Bible translations.

There was a "Vulgate Only" mentality for over a thousand years.
 
Top