Are There Actual 'Fundamentals" In Theology for Fundamentalists?

The problem is there is a wide range of KJVO beliefs. I was probably too hasty in saying MOST KJVO people simply think its the best. I do recognize that many beleive it to be perfect. However, even those that hold to KJV infallability have not lessened the infallibility of the originals. They have simply added a beleif that God perfectly guided the KJV translators to produce a perfect english Bible. An incorrect belief, but not heresy.

I would like to know what BIBLICAL doctrine this violates. (violating the chicago statement on inerrancy is not heresy).

I have read Dr. White's book, but it was several years ago and I do not own it. I have read other writings on both sides of the issue and have come to the conclusion that KJVO simply does not stand up to rational scrutiny... unless they are arguing simply that the TR is more trustworthy, In which case it is a bit more rational, but still flawed by rejecting the much greater number of ancient manuscripts we have since found. KJVOism is incorrect, and can cause much divisiveness and confusion about the Bible where there does not need to be. Also, The KJV is written in a language that most english speakers to day do not speak. Also, It has been edited numerous times since 1611, and so which edition is the perfect one? I do not believe they have an answer to these questions.

However, I have yet to see the Heresy of the position. I am convinced that if I were invited to preach at a KJVO church, the course of action that would honor God would be to preach out of a KJV Bible...Not stand up and condemn KJVOism.

 

Hi Luke,
My background is SBC and I'm going back as soon as I decide which one I want to attend. I am now in an IFB that I joined because my kids and grandkids are attending--need I say more.

Your list is almost a 100% match, except you left out a two major items this church has a problem with.

First, the legalism from the pastor is incredible. There is more legalism preached than anything else. The pastor also jumps around from verse to verse, but he will go from the OT to the NT and back again to prove points that aren't even related to the Bible's actual context. He makes them fit.

Second, The preacher is into Urban Legends and last week I listed to the old back-tracked records made in the early 70's that a few were real and probably done for marketing reasons in reality-- (My background is broadcasting so I listened to every record with a hint of back-tracking during those years. The only one we could find was "Stairway to Heaven" Has one spot that SOUNDS like "My sweet Satan", but whether or not this was intentional, it sold a lot of records at the time. He had five or six more that nobody could hear what he was saying and he would tell us what it meant. For instance, the Beatles Strawberry Fields" stands for track needle marks on a person's arm.

Some of the Urban Legends are so ridiculous that I have to hold my head down to keep from chuckling outloud. But, all of the members listen and eat it up as if it were from the Bible itself.

He quotes Riplinger and anybody else who writes something that fits his theme that we are in the end-times (next few years) and fits his teaching on how the world is making people evil. (We have the world making enough people evil without churches adding to it.)

If you will add those two: Legalism and Urban Legends; I would think that you were sitting in the pew of the church I have been attending and will soon leave.

 

12 Strings, the church I'm going to right now is so KJVO that they preach the KJVO is the ONLY Bible in the WORLD that is now 100% correct and other translations should be made from the English KJVO. According to this pastor, it even corrects the ancient manuscripts we have and if you were saved using an NIV (Non Inspired Version) you are not really saved and must be saved again.

In this case, there is a problem, if I were to preach there, I would use the KJV but I wouldn't keep saying that's from "the Word Of God The King James Bible" every time I quoted a verse.:thumbs:

Added: But, then I would ask myself why I'm preaching in a church with the KJVOism in their statement-of-beliefs in the first place.

 

First of all, that is what was brought up- the fundamentalist view of inspiration. I rightly pointed out that many who tout the title "fundamentalist" violate this very important tenet of fundamentalism.

Secondly, as to the heresy of the doctrine, I am in good company when I call it heresy. Well respected evangelicals have used such terminology and even going so far as to call it a cult. Dr. Price who spearheaded the translation of the NKJV calls the KJVonlyists a cult- and rightly so, imo.

The traditional view is that ONLY the originals are inspired.

The kjvo position contests that God did not finalize once and for all the inspiration of the Scriptures with the conclusion of the canon.
Furthermore, many, if not most, preach this doctrine in such a way that it is VERY divisive. They contend that only churches and people who use the King James Version actually have the Word of God. Many of them claim that you cannot be SAVED via any other English version.

Those things are sufficient to meet the definition of heresy, imo.

Here is the definition according to theopedia:

Heresy is a doctrine which is unorthodox and divides and ostracizes parts of the Body of Christ.
KJVO certainly meets that criteria.

According to theopedia KJVO, at the very least, comes VERY close to heresy because it denies one of the essentials of the Christian faith (namely the doctrine of inspiration), it is very divisive and it CERTAINLY deserves CONDEMNATION.

I do not think it is OK for you NOT to condemn it.

I believe you are OBLIGATED to condemn it.

 

-After reading this and the rest of your reply, I am starting to agree at least that SOME FORMS of Kjvo can be heretical. If I was too quick to disagree with blanket statements, I appologize. However, You did simply throw out the statement that you considered it Heresy, without the supporting statements you have made since.

We do still have our differences, of course...

-The same could be true of Calvinism, or Anti-Calvinism.

This part is obviously heresy, as it denies that salvation is by Grace, through faith in Jesus Sacrifice on the cross.

I would say that SOME FORMS of KJVO can be considered Heresy, and other forms could easily lead someone into heresy.

I am not ready to say that anyone who says they are KJVO deserves immediate condemnation as a heretic, especially since at that point in the conversation I would not know exactly what their beliefs are.

Again, we disagree here. Even in the extreme case of someone who told me you can only be saved though the KJV (which I have never actually heard articulated and affirmed), I am convinced that the reply:

"Are you sure you mean that, because aren't we saved by trusting in Jesus death on the cross?...it sounds as though you are saying Jesus death wasn't enough."

...would be more helpful than a reply of:

"That is a Heresy straight from the pit of hell!"

 

You descibe pretty much my experience in the IFB.

As an ex IFB pastor, I never taught in manner you describe, nor were my beliefs anywher near in line with these beliefs.

The "proof-text" preachings and "take a text and have a tantrum" messages I witnessed for years ended my run with "them."

There was no way I could stay or endorse this type of ministry. Unfortunately persons would jump to our church from another IFB (when they were mad at the preacher) but assumed/expected I too would harp on the same issues, preach about the "1611" against pants, you name it, anything but solid exegesis of the Scriptures.

After some preachers found my stance wasn't their stance I would receive phone calls about these issues, and would be called every thing but a preacher. This would most likely be fodder for their message coming up the next service.

I am more than happy to not be associated with these types. Recently my family and I visited one of these churches while out, and experienced this all once again. It was truly saddening to witness this still going on.

The preacher hit me with many things while visiting "I'm local church. I preach against women and pants. My daughters go to school and are made fun of for dresses &c." None of this was provoked by myself, these were simply his initial remarks made to me.

- Peace

 

Thank you for your honesty.

As to your last few lines- you are wrong here- biblically.

I am not saying that you have to immediately say what you said.

But I am saying that it is UNBIBLICAL for you NOT to, as soon as they indicate they are not willing to repent, condemn their doctrine vociferously.

You don't get to say, "Well I just disagree with you, Luke."

God told us how we are to approach heresy or any doctrine that genuinely hinders the Kingdom- we are to REPROVE it. We are to DEMOLISH it.

God said that in his word. You don't get to opt out as if you have a better way than that which God commanded.

Not only is it wrong for you to reprove me for reproving false doctrine- it is wrong for you not to join with me in reproving false doctrine.

This is not a matter of liberty. God EXPECTS it of those who are equipped to do so.

 

See, on this ONE PAGE there are FOUR... count them... 1,2,3, FOUR... people who testify that their experience with MOST of all of the IFB they have ever been exposed to was that it was a cultic, legalistic movement.

This is why I have a hard time believing John and others, who are no doubt decent people themselves, but who say that the IFB is really a WONDERFUL movement of sweet, wonderful people who come from lolipop land and are made of sugar cookies and gum drops.

That is not MOST of our experience.

MOST of what I have seen in IFB is pretty close to being a cult.

 

Brother - I'd preach in such a church, because God needs to be preached everywhere...especially in the places where His love is missing.

 

Yes, there is no need to pretend everything is well in Camelot. It's a mess, and that's a fact. Now, there are a few that are OK, but some that are OK now will resort to preaching an "amen garnering" sermon when their audience is IFB preachers. Fear of men, nothing more, nothing less.

These facts also need to be faced; there is very little true Biblical text preaching going on. The people are conditioned to want to hear a rant about issues, and seemingly no matter what text is used, it goes down this route.

 

"In the Bible" doesn't mean in the KJV or NKJV.

Referencing Matthew 16:20.

Steve,B (which dates back to 350) and Sin. (dating back to the 4th century all precede the earliest TR reading.

This refers to Matthew 25:13.

From a portion of NET notes:"The earlier and better witnesses lack this phrase[in which the Son of Man is coming]. The longer reading appears to be an explanatory expansion and should not be considered authentic."

Some documents supporting the WH NU reading : Sin. (4th century),B (350),P35 (4th),A (5th)D (5th),W (5th).

Re Mark 1:14 where the TR added the kingdom of God.

Net notes say in part:"Scribes would be more prone to add than to omit it.Further,the external support for the shorter reading ...is significantly stronger than that for the longer reading.There is little doubt,therefore,that the shorter reading is authentic."

I love that phrase "the NIV leaves out..." You are aware,are you not,that most modern versions (dating back to Weymouth)follow the NIV here and in most of the other passages under consideration?

Regarding this verse,Mark 9:24 -- Comfort says:"The variant reading is likely the result of scribal coloring,which found its way into TR,followed by KJV and NKJV." (p.130)

Your claim of the TR having excellent manuscript support is not true. The WH NU reading is superior.

Regarding Luke 4:8.

Well it may seem perverse to you Steve. But,thankfully,men that have done the research like to rely on facts,not emotional attachments. As Comfort says:"The variant reading [Get behind me Satan] is the result of scribal conformity to Matt 4:10 (the parallel passage),expanded further by Matt 16:23." (p.178)

The Net notes say that the extra words "are suspect as a later addition."

 

You have to understand that the NIV is not alone among translations to be singled-out. Even the old Weymouth and ASV do not have worshipped Him.

Some examples :
NASB : bowed down before Him
HCSB : knelt down
ESV : knelt down before him
NLT : knelt down before him
Wey : profoundly bowing

This isn't a matter of textual variants. The KJV and NKJV simply added it in.

See the above.The same things apply .Besides,it's kind of funny. Your claim that the rendering of the NIV here leaves out His Lordship is humorous. John MacArthur uses the NASB (pre 1995) and it doesn't have Lord in the text. But you have to know that he is certainly a Lordship man.

No,the KJV and NKJV add the word Jesus. See my remarks earlier. And remember aim your water pistol at many other Bible translations on this score also.

You have to realize that the KJV is not the original document. So you have no reason to say the NIV (and many other translations) have changed anything. Did you ever think of the possibility that the KJV actually may have changed the wording?

One method of teaching is to repeat the same thing. But I tire in the attempt. Refer to my earlier remarks.

I knew I had you pegged.

You see,this kind of remark is why I called your charges silly.

You are :

1) grossly misinformed --- i.e.duped
2) deliberately engaging in trolling and you think you can get away with it


Take your pick.

I think you have a dishonorable agenda.

 

The TR variant "is an expansion most likely derived from 2 Sam 7:12-13 and Rom 1:3-4..." (p.33 of Philip W Comfort's book New Testament Text And Translation Commentary)

From Comfort's work :"If the verse was an original part of Luke's text,there is no good reason for explaining why it would have been omitted in so many ancient manuscripts and versions. Rather,this verse is a classic example of scribal gap-filling,in that it supplied the apparent gap left by the unanswered question of the previous verse." (p.363)

Aside from the KJV and NKJV no other modern version that I know of has it in the actual text of a translation.

Nonsense.

From Comfort :"The WH NU reading has both early and diverse testimony. The change from 'God' to 'Christ' in TR was influenced by 14:9,where it speaks of Christ's death and resurrection. The natural follow-up would be to speak of Christ on the throne executing judgment where,as it says in the next verse,'everyone will make confession to God.' " (p467,8)

For good reason. Comfort states:"The omission of this verse is strongly supported by all the earliest manuscripts. The verse was copied from 16:20 by some scribe (or scribes0 who thought it was also suited to follow the postscript.since TR and Majority Text include this verse,so do KJV and NKJV." (p.477)

The above is dirty hogwash. You are dishonoring the Lord with your tripe.

I wish Steve could read your sinful ruminations and rebuke you though he favors the NKJV.

Where are the mods? The above is reprehensible. The poster is in violation of BB rules.

 

Don't tell me what these people (many if not most IFBs) beleive is not close to, if not altogether, heretical. Just read this above. This is why many reputable scholars like Dr. Price who translated the NKJV, call this bunch a cult.

 

What I stated is fact.

And I don't belong to a cult, I belong to a church.

Tradationally cults are considered non-christian.

Are you saying that I am not a christian? Are you questioning my salvation?

John

 

In the Bible certainly doesn't mean the NIV. Not only does it regularly omit verses that are in 95% of the extant Greek manuscripts, but it also adds whole phrases that do not appear in any manuscript whatsoever (1Cor 14:29; 1John 2:2), and because it does not use italics to indicate added words as the KJV, NKJV and NASB do, readers without Greek are unaware of it. I have to go and see a member of my congregation shortly to correct his faulty understanding of 1Cor 14:29 which he has gained from the NIV.

True, but so what? Because a manuscript is older, it doesn't mean that it is better. An older manuscript could have been corrupted and therefore seldom copied, while a more recent ms could have been faithfully copied down the generations. King George 1 of England is no longer extant, but that does not mean that Elizabeth II is not his true and direct successor. William I is much older than either of them, but if he were alive today it would not alter the fact that he was illegitimate.

The NET makes assertions without any proof. The TR reading is supported by about 95% of the extant mss.

I disagree that scribes would be more likely to add than omit. The everse is far more likely to be the case. The TR reading is supported by 95% of the mss and gives the more God-honouring reading which we should expect to be the case in the word of God.

Of course I am aware of that. If you think the majority is always right, why don't you follow the Majority Text?

More totally unsupported assertions by Comfort. I don't know why you bother with the man. If you want good NT scholarship, read Burgon.

On the contrary, the TR reading is supported by the huge majority of mss. The tears of the father add important information as I observed in my previous post.

I leave the rest as constant repitition becomes tedious. To summarize, I do not believe that it is wise or safe to overlook the vast majority of the manuscripts in favour of a far smaller number of others, even if some of them are older. Moreover, I think it should be assumed that the fullest text, and that which is most honouring to Christ should be considered the most likely to be correct. Unfortunately, secular textual criticism assumes that the weakest and silliest and least likely text is probably the true one. That may have some logic in dealing with secular writings, but as a general approach to the word of God it is tragic.

Steve

 

This is not a textual issue, but a translational one. The Greek word in question is proskuneo. According to Thayer, it means, 'By kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance.' It is used of obeisance both to men of superior status as in Acts 10:25, but also to God and the ascended Christ (eg. John 4:20; 12:20; Heb 1:6; Rev 7:11).

In Mark 5:6, the demon-possessed man clearly recognizes who the Lord Jesus is (v7). I think therefore that 'worshipped' is a good translation and 'fell on his knees' somewhat inadequate though not utterly wrong. I think though that to claim that the NIV is an evil conspiracy to deny our Lord's divinity is silly. The NIV's translation of Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1 acknowledges His divinity far better than the KJV.

Comfort's comments are (as usual) nonsense. Verse 9 says that Christ is Lord of both the living and the dead. Therefore it is entirely logical that we shall stand before His judgement seat as Matthew 25:31-32 makes clear. Once again, the vast majority of the mss support the TR.

As you see, I have read them. My verdict is a Shakespearian plague on both your houses. I agree with Seekingthetruth that the KJV translation is often more honouring to Christ, but as I said above, it is silly to make this into some evil conspiracy. The KJV has numerous faults and it would have been much better if it had been carefully and sensitively revised every 50 years or so. We might then have been spared the proliferation of inferior modern translations.

I think both of you (and Luke) need to moderate your language. You are both seeking to honour God in your own way, but you are not doing it by calling each other heretics.


Steve

 

I don't have the time to wade in with the rest of your post at this time Steve. However,the text of the NKJV reads :"Let two or three prophets speak,and let the others judge."

2011 NIV : "Two or three prophets should speak,and the others should weigh carefully what is said."
ESV : "Let two or three prophets speak,and let the others weigh what is said."
HCSB : "Two or three prophets should speak,and the others should evaluate."
NET : "Two or three prophets should speak and the others should evaluate what is said."

I fail to see the perceived weakness of the NIV rendering. It means that there should determination to carefully consider what has been said. Use some discernment and examine the words of the prophet.

There is nothing faulty regarding the NIV wording. I think you are majoring in minors Steve.

 

That seems to be your usual fallback position Steve.

I just dealt with the first reference in my last post.

You are speaking of the use of the word propitiation as is used in the KJV,NKJV,ESV,NASB etc. Propitiation is a fine word. But it is quite indecipherable to most people. The NIV,MLB and other translations use the phrase atoning sacrifice. Sure,it doesn't convey all that would satisfy (no pun intended) critics. But it does communicate enough to express the idea.

If you think that your favorite version,the NKJV is so pure in its renderings from the original languages to English you are sorely mistaken. Sometimes English translations require a long phrase or sentence what was much shorter in the original.

Your claim is another distraction Steve. Those three versions do not,and cannot italicize every added -- or missing word(s) of the original. When the KJV first came out it didn't use nearly as many italics as was put into the 1769 edition for instance. It would be an optical nightmare and perfectly silly to italicize everything consistently.


I'm in China and the internet is spotty at times. I hope this gets through.

 

My point is that the words, "What is said" do not appear in any Greek manuscript whatsoever. They are an interpretational gloss. I am sorry to see that the ESV is no better than the NIV on this.

The point is, what are the 'others' judging? The NIV, ESV and NET leave the reader no option. I will start a new thread when I have time to suggest that the judging or 'weighing' is not on what is said, but on somethng else.

BTW, my comment on 1John 2:2 was not about the word 'Propitiation,' important though that is. It was the fact that the words 'the sins of' are not to be found in any Greek ms. Once again they are an interpretaional gloss. The KJV and NASB put them in brackets; the NKJV (rightly IMO) omits them.

Steve