Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

praise_yeshua

Well-known 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 ?

There is no Scriptural support for the KJV.... Chapter and verse please?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
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.
I have seen the same response to other posters that have answered your questions. Basically deny they answered , challenge the person with “ you never answered the question “ , and insults. Have a great day.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
I have seen the same response to other posters that have answered your questions. Basically deny they answered , challenge the person with “ you never answered the question “ , and insults. Have a great day.

Provide the number of the post where you yourself actually and truthfully gave me what a reasonable person would genuinely say is a real answer.

If you cannot find a post of your own, then provide the author and number of the post in the thread where you believe/imagine I have been answered, so that I and everyone can see what you are referring to.

Because otherwise, your post above is as fraudulent and false as a 3 dollar bill, and you are doing something that I've had JWs and Mormons do - Say a bunch of stuff that actually and truthfully does not answer something I've asked about or challenged them on, and then say, "I answered your question/challenge. I'm not going to go over all that again."

Do not go down the road of using the tactics of a cultist.

What I'm saying here is not a difficult thing at all - Since you know where the responses are that genuinely and truthfully answer me, there should be no problem in referring me to them. They should be easy for you to produce. I'm sure you won't mind quoting yourself.

It's time now for you to back up your claim, or deliberately avoid and be exposed as a fraud...and possibly worse. Your response to this post will tell which.
 
Last edited:

Our Lord's God

Well-known 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.

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.

Do you mean this one?

And he summoned the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his soul will lose it, but whoever loses his soul for my sake and the Gospel will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
And the Vulgate had similar problems,from what I hear!
(Greek Version Only? 😉)

--Rich

Absolutely! The primary difference being a translation vs a reproduction. Jerome basically justified his efforts in the Vulgate over one verse he considered to be superior. Even then, there have always been issues with reproductions. Just to a lesser degree.

I noticed the other day that Greg Boyd had written a book on how "God inspired imperfection".....

I'm like.... Geesh. What a misnomer.

God can't help but be PERFECT. What is.... revolves around our failure compared to His perfect. When I see mistakes. I see them for what they are. Sin. Failure.

My opinion is far different than Greg Boyd or the KJVOist. The mistakes we see should force us to SEEK GOD FOR THE ANSWER. Notarbitrarilyy declare a winner so we can be lazy. Seeking God involves getting to know where we failed.

Most of the time, I can't even have an reasonable discussion on the matter because even the supposed "experts" don't really know what they claim they know.
 

Truth7t7

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 ? 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.
Modern translations NIV, NASB, ESV, ETC are supported by the Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece) this Greek Text was created by Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Homosexual Union Supporter And Jesuit Roman Catholic Cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini)

Kurt Aland divorced his wife Ingeborg and ran off and married his college student Barbara Nee Ehlers, being 22 years her senior

Did God Use Adulterers And Homisexual Union Supporters To Preserve His Words In The Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece)?

Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Carlo Maria Martini, Are Corrupt Trees, And The Novum Testamentum Graece Is Their Corrupt Fruit

Matthew 7:17-18KJV

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Matthew 7:17-18KJV
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
You fail to demonstrate that Matthew 7:17-18 support your human KJV-only reasoning.
 

kiwimac

Member
Modern translations NIV, NASB, ESV, ETC are supported by the Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece) this Greek Text was created by Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Homosexual Union Supporter And Jesuit Roman Catholic Cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini)

Kurt Aland divorced his wife Ingeborg and ran off and married his college student Barbara Nee Ehlers, being 22 years her senior

Did God Use Adulterers And Homisexual Union Supporters To Preserve His Words In The Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece)?

Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Carlo Maria Martini, Are Corrupt Trees, And The Novum Testamentum Graece Is Their Corrupt Fruit

Matthew 7:17-18KJV

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
What a load of fetid dingoes kidneys.
 
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.
For the 10,978,197,431st time ... it's not so much about the translation, as the text(s) from which the translation occurs.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
For the 10,978,197,431st time ... it's not so much about the translation, as the text(s) from which the translation occurs.

Your repeating an assertion does not make it true. Your assertion is not true of KJV-only reasoning. KJV-only advocates will condemn and attack English translations made from the same multiple original-language texts from which the KJV is made.

KJV-only advocates will be just as negative or even more negative and critical of the NKJV based on the same texts than as they are of translations based on the Critical Text.
 
Your repeating an assertion does not make it true. Your assertion is not true of KJV-only reasoning. KJV-only advocates will condemn and attack English translations made from the same multiple original-language texts from which the KJV is made.

KJV-only advocates will be just as negative or even more negative and critical of the NKJV based on the same texts than as they are of translations based on the Critical Text.
And the same goes for your critical text camp .... repeating assertations regarding the critical text while ignoring it's obvious deficiencies is rather hypocritical. The bottom line is that it's one or the other, it cannot be both.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
And the same goes for your critical text camp .... repeating assertations regarding the critical text while ignoring it's obvious deficiencies is rather hypocritical. The bottom line is that it's one or the other, it cannot be both.
I am not a member of any so-called "critical text camp." It is not my camp so your statement would bear false witness. I have not advocated nor recommended the Critical Text nor any English translations made from it. I do not make any assertions advocating the Critical text.

You can appeal to a fallacy of false dilemma or the either/or fallacy, but that does not indicate that your reasoning is sound.

The KJV was translated from multiple, textually-varying original-language texts, and in addition translations based on textually-different sources such as the Latin Vulgate of Jerome were consulted and influenced the making of the KJV. The printed Textus Receptus Greek NT editions had some readings added from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The Hebrew-Latin and Greek-Latin lexicons used by the KJV translators had Latin definitions for original-language words of Scripture that often or even usually came from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The KJV translators also borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

Does the KJV itself suggest that it can be "both--and" instead of "either--or" since the KJV has readings and renderings from both so-called streams of Bibles? How can you assert that it is a matter of text since the KJV has some readings and renderings from the claimed "corrupt" text?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
In the 2021 edition of his book The King James Only Debate that promotes KJV-onlyism, Michael Hollner claimed that it [the KJV-only movement] is growing, and it is spreading much more than you realize" (p. 415).
 

imJRR

Well-known member
In the 2021 edition of his book The King James Only Debate that promotes KJV-onlyism, Michael Hollner claimed that it [the KJV-only movement] is growing, and it is spreading much more than you realize" (p. 415).

I very much doubt Hollner's claim is true - I believe it is much more wishful thinking on his part.
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
Modern translations NIV, NASB, ESV, ETC are supported by the Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece) this Greek Text was created by Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Homosexual Union Supporter And Jesuit Roman Catholic Cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini)

Kurt Aland divorced his wife Ingeborg and ran off and married his college student Barbara Nee Ehlers, being 22 years her senior

Did God Use Adulterers And Homisexual Union Supporters To Preserve His Words In The Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece)?

Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Carlo Maria Martini, Are Corrupt Trees, And The Novum Testamentum Graece Is Their Corrupt Fruit

Matthew 7:17-18KJV

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Did God use a Monk , Eramus, enslaved to Rome heresies to give us the word of God?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Did God use a Monk , Eramus, enslaved to Rome heresies to give us the word of God?
Yet YOU cannot find even one RCC tradition in the KJV. God used a donkey so if He used a monk it would NOT change the fact that the KJV was translated from the majority texts and the minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because the Minority text is corrupt.
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
Yet YOU cannot find even one RCC tradition in the KJV. God used a donkey so if He used a monk it would NOT change the fact that the KJV was translated from the majority texts and the minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because the Minority text is corrupt.
I cannot find RCC theology in Nas/esv/Nkjv either!
 
Top