Are most Fundamental Baptists Churches KJVO then?

[Ben1445]

Its the verse about craftsmen...

I am aware of the Jer. 34.16 discrepancy in the Oxford edition which Oxford recognized as it's error and has even now changed most of its printings to be accurate (I am told. I didn't Check this myself).

I am not finding a discrepancy in this one in Revelation right off. if you don't mind pointing it out when you get a chance, I would appreciate it.

 

[KJB1611reader]

I am aware of the Jer. 34.16 discrepancy in the Oxford edition which Oxford recognized as it's error and has even now changed most of its printings to be accurate (I am told. I didn't Check this myself).

I am not finding a discrepancy in this one in Revelation right off. if you don't mind pointing it out when you get a chance, I would appreciate it.

That's different.

Go read Revelation side by side the 1611 KJB.

 

[Ben1445]

I read Chapter 18 and didn't see it.

 

[KJB1611reader]

I read Chapter 18 and didn't see it.

Okay, I shall find it to morrow and send a photo.

Shawn

 

[Dr. Bob]

It's my understanding that the original KJV translators included the extra books not considering them a part of the 66 books, but significant in history.

The original AV1611 listed a daily Bible Reading as well as cross-references to other Bible verses. In BOTH, the translators included passages from the apocryphal books with old and new testament books as "Bible" readings/references. Remember, these were "Anglican", just one generation from Roman Catholicism, so were still in theology and practice tied closely to the papists.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Yes Dr. Bob.

Though it wasnots scripture, just historical books thst may contain some good wisdom.

Also, Holy Bible contained Old and New Test.

Also, to the others whom it may concern regard craftsman in Rev 18:22 in 1769.

 

[JesusFan]

I don’t recall it being disliked that much prior to the 2011 revision.

Those holding to Kjv did see it in a bad light, but we who were evangelicals saw the 1984 version as a decent translation, but still preferred the Nasb

 

[JesusFan]

You’re probably right, there are many fundamentalists who will reject anything that is not the KJV.

The NIV has been the best selling translation for the last 20+ years, so it has become an easy target.

1984 was a good one, but the Gender inclusive 2011 took it off the tracks, as it then "jumped the shark"

 

[JesusFan]

Historic fundamentalist would NOT be "only" any man-made translation. The Bible is verbally, fully inspired and inerrant. NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION can make that claim.

We (I am openly a Fundamentalist) feel that much of the KJVonly sect (on the BB we forbid the use of the word "cult" unless referring to an identified cult like Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Oneness Pentecostal) beliefs are an ATTACK on the doctrine of inspiration. We will not cooperate or fellowship with such vile conduct and reprove them for this error.

God did NOT breath His exact perfect inerrant inspired words to 40 Anglicans in 1611. To give man's work such is blasphemy and God's judgment guaranteed.

BTW, I love the KJV1769 Oxford revision. Use it with my Scofield Reference Bible. So I am not attacking a good (but FAR from perfect) English translation of God's Words.

While not a cult, would say that many holding to the Kjvo position act and think in a cultic like fashion

 

[Logos1560]

The 1769 had missing words in REVELATION.

The 1769 Oxford edition has several missing words at Revelation 18:22 [“and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee”].

 

[KJB1611reader]

The 1769 Oxford edition has several missing words at Revelation 18:22 [“and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee”].

Yes.

 

[Salty]

I can only speak for my experience in Churches where I know folks and visit for revivals in the NC/SC area of the nation.

It's not so much that they believe it's perfect, they believe it is the version God wants us to have and use.

In all of these Churches which are IFB that I know, they use only the 1611 KJV.

I was raised in an IFB from a child as far back as I can remember, I suppose the reason I have never used another version.

If you're not in that atmosphere you can't understand it. But I can't see where anyone has ever gone wrong with the 1611 KJV.

Are you sure you only use the KJV (+ "Authorized" means it was approved by the King of England - who is an Anglican, and currently under copyright in England)

So check out this link - and then let us know you only use the 1611!

The Original 1611 KJV Bible vs the 1769 Edition - James Japan

What the original 1611 King James Bible looked like. A friend on social media shared with me a YouTube entitled, "AV1611 The True Bible" by John Doerr. In it, Mr. Doerr says, Throughout the 1800s you've got a number of attacks on Scripture. The most subtle would be the change of the authorized...

www.jamesjpn.net

 

[Salty]

The version that we Fundamentalist's use is the Authorized 1611 KJV. That is the version that was corrected in spelling and punctuation in 1769, but minus the Apocrypha.

Well, I am a fundamentalist - and I use several different versions!!!

 

[Charlie24]

Are you sure you only use the KJV (+ "Authorized" means it was approved by the King of England - who is an Anglican, and currently under copyright in England)

So check out this link - and then let us know you only use the 1611!

The Original 1611 KJV Bible vs the 1769 Edition - James Japan

What the original 1611 King James Bible looked like. A friend on social media shared with me a YouTube entitled, "AV1611 The True Bible" by John Doerr. In it, Mr. Doerr says, Throughout the 1800s you've got a number of attacks on Scripture. The most subtle would be the change of the authorized...

www.jamesjpn.net

I don't know who these people are so I trust the info from the KJV store.

See what they have to say.

How the KJV Bible of 1611 Differs From the Modern Version

Though the King James Version of the Bible has been an enduring work of literature, it may not be as preserved in amber as you think. Learn how it has changed.

www.thekjvstore.com

 

[Charlie24]

I don't know who these people are so I trust the info from the KJV store.

See what they have to say.

How the KJV Bible of 1611 Differs From the Modern Version

Though the King James Version of the Bible has been an enduring work of literature, it may not be as preserved in amber as you think. Learn how it has changed.

www.thekjvstore.com

Everyone plus his brother have an opinion on the changes of the original 1611 version and the current 1611 version we have today.

This should put to rest those rumors.

 

[37818]

I have two different reprinted 1611 editions.
One with and one without the Apocrypha.

 

[Charlie24]

I have two different reprinted 1611 editions.
One with and one without the Apocrypha.

Most of the fundamentalists I know use the 1611 authorized modern version with Schofield notes.

I don't use the 1611 version with Schofield notes.

 

[JesusFan]

Most of the fundamentalists I know use the 1611 authorized modern version with Schofield notes.

I don't use the 1611 version with Schofield notes.

Would you see it as more like raised up to support Kjv 1611, and not really exploring if the KJVO position is really true or not?

 

[Charlie24]

Would you see it as more like raised up to support Kjv 1611, and not really exploring if the KJVO position is really true or not?

The Schofield notes is a reference to mainly dispensationalism.

I am a dispensationalist, but not exactly as Schofield notes.

 

[Charlie24]

The Schofield notes is a reference to mainly dispensationalism.

I am a dispensationalist, but not exactly as Schofield notes.

Dispensationalism is the opposite of what most Baptists here believe, which is Covenant Theology.

This is where all or I would say most of the arguments come from.