Modern Version Onlyists and Formal Equivalence Onlyists
KJV Onlyism is a False Teaching! ~ Please Be Patient While Graphics Download Home Page Link
Navigation ~ Please be Patient While Graphics Download Home Page False Teachings in Christianity
bottom graphic

 

Modern Version Onlyists and Formal Equivalence Onlyists

January 2003

Many of the same points I raised in regards to New King James Version Onlyism can be applied to those who adhere to the opinion, "I like 'xyz' modern / contemporary version, but all other modern and contemporary versions are trash," as can be witnessed, for example, in a page linked to elsewhere at my site in an interview with a "Reverend Gary" who is pro- NASB but, oddly enough, anti- NIV. (Then there are the occasional odd balls who use modern and contemporary versions and who also rail against the use of the KJV.)

My theory of why those who are pro- contemporary version "xyz" will reject another contemporary version is that they do so based upon translational styles: formal verses dynamic equivalence.
Those, like a "Rev. Gary" who supports the contemporary version the NASB but who also warns and laments that the NIV is "trash" (yes, that was his word, not mine) do so, I believe, because, like the KJV Onlyists, they think that the NIV editors and translators became possesed by scissor-happy demons.

The individuals who comprise this "pro- contemporary version 'xyz,' but anti- contemporary 'abc' version" onlyist group seem to believe that those behind the NIV did not have valid, legitimate reasons for relegating some reading or the other to the footnotes.

Or else they believe that rendering Scriptures meaning- for- meaning, rather than word- for- word, is a form of 'removing' verses and thus corrupting the Scriptures.
Their thought process seems to be that
"It must be totally unethical, a Satanic conspiracy, or an evil plot by the faithless,"
since a dynamic version or a paraphrase version doesn't match a formal equivalence version in every aspect: number of words or number of verses.

If this were true, that would mean that most children's Bibles -- you know the ones, heavy on the paintings and illustrations and with the 16 to 25 point type -- are corrupt, Satanic works.

I don't think that most in this crowd would advocate that, since they appear to be more intelligent and reasonable than your usual KJV Onlyist.

I dare say that most Christians probably would not have a problem allowing their children to read these types of "kiddie" Bible versions, ones that have summarized biblical content rather than give the full text.

Such Christians would not condemn the "kiddie" dynamic versions since they would (or should) recognize that these versions are meeting the needs of one group, that is, in this example, children.
So why begrudge other people -- Christian adults who may have reading difficulties or learning disabilites, or a "newbie" to the faith, or what have you -- from reading more mature varieties of biblical paraphrases and dynamic equivalent versions?

Yes, every word of Scripture is imporant. What needs to be remembered, though, is that even in such a "loosely" translated version, one will get the essential ideas, such as the truths of the resurrection of Christ, sinful humankind's need of Him, and so on.

I cannot fathom how a person can determine that the KJV Onlyist view is incorrect but then preach that only their particular contemporary version is trustworthy. It doesn't happen as nearly as KJV Onlyism does, but it's just as repulsive.

 

KJOism Page > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > The Other Onlyists > MV /FE Onlyists