Featured KJVO and Missions

Of course not. Their very stance has become a doctrinal plank that is not warranted under any circumstance.

If a KJVO "missionary" goes to a native English-speaking community that is primary unchurched it would be extremely inappropriate to use the KJV --and KJVOism just makes it much worse.

If a KJVO "missionary" goes to a foreign field where English is not the first language --it shows that there is no heart for the people for which they are supposedly ministering.

A KJVP is only slightly better --but still not being sensitive to the needs of the people of the community to which ministry is focused upon.

 

Yes... if they convinced me that it was not an issue they would harp on nor teach... so in practice... No... b/c that is what they harp on the most and enforce in their newly planted church.

 

I'd have to have more information.

1. Are they church-planting in the US, and will make a fuss about the doctrine? (No support.)
2. What translation will they use on the field? (What if there are no "KJV-type" translations?)
3. How strong are they in their belief? Will they try to start or join a KJV movement among the nationals? (No support.)

 

annsni wrote: "No because they are following a false teaching that is based on lies and they question the Word of God."

Paidagogos: This is a pretty dogmatic assertion without warrant. (1) Not all KJVO believe the same thing. (2) The brush is too broad because the KJVO camp is diverse and this is not an apt and accurate description of all in the camp. (3) Labelling KJVO as a "false teaching" is opinion and is not necessarily Scripturally based. (4) The statements are unsupported generalizations expressed in intemperate language. (5) Finally, it is absolutely a misrepresentation to say "they question the Word of God."

 

Paidagogos : Don't confuse KJVO with KJVP. No one is arguing against KJVP here.

 

I would if they were going to an unengaged unreached people group. I don't personally know many KJVO missionaries, but none of the ones I know thinks that you must teach the native people English just so they can finally read the "pure" Bible, even if only in a foreign language. I'm aware that some think just this way, though. Rather, the ones I know think that the original language readings underlying the KJV are the only perfect ones and thus should be used for translation into their target languages.

 

Even more "moderate" KJVO-types would say that versions other than the KJV have some truth and that someone could get saved when reading and studying them. However, it would hinder one from having a close walk with the Lord. Only a KJVO could have that special Christ-likeness because other translations water-down the Word of God too much --they're only slightly better than the JW translation.

 

Although it may be hard to believe, some KJVO missionaries actually share the gospel and win people to the Lord and don't talk about Bible "(per)versions" every waking minute of the day, unlike those KJVOs who sit at their computer typing in online discussion forums all day long. Entering a foreign culture where no one believes in God does wonders for one's perspective on the Bible version debate.

 

Good point! I know a man in Japan from Ruckman's church who is doing his best to win souls with a NASB-type translation, the best there is in Japanese (till we finish our version :smilewinkgrin. However, he is reprinting an old NT from the TR (not the KJV!) which is, nevertheless, in the extremely difficult classical Japanese.

 

I know that the overwhelming majority of Japanese are not open to the gospel or reading the Bible. But aside from that, how many would understand "extremely difficult classical Japanese" if they had an opportunity? It seems that the percentage would be quite low. Isn't it a good idea to translate in the vernacular of the people like Purvey, Tyndale, Luther, and so many others have done?

He may be sincere, but his energy misdirected.

By the way, is his home church still supporting him despite his use of a NASB-type translation?

 

Years ago, I used to be a member of a KJVO church, but the pastor never really said much about it from the pulpit. It supported many different missionaries to many different countries--some might have been KJVO, but that was never an issue as to whether or not that church supported a particular missionary.

I find it bothersome to me when I come across people that are so died-in-the-wool KJVOers who spend so much of their lives being wrapped up defending their position but very little of their lives actually doing what their "beloved KJV" tells them to do---such as witnessing to lost souls, living a godly life, etc.

 

I agree. The language of the NT was of course koine Greek, the language of the man in the Roman street.

As far as I know they are. But then Ruckman never has been very consistent. :smilewinkgrin:

 

That is so wrong. I know of plenty of missionaries that are in areas where there are no King James Bible that love their people.

Also you seem to be able to fail to distinguish between Ruckmanism and other KJO advocates.

I believe in King James Only for English speaking people, I don't speak other languages but would accept the bible that is closest to an equivilent of the King James Readings.

For example, to my knowledge in Russian, there is no TR translated bible, and the only one they have is the critical text, so I would use that on the foreign field until a translation from the TR or the KJV was released.

 

I am KJO and dont believe your not saved if you use other translations.

the KJO camp I am in believes that the King James is the only bible in english that you should use, Can God still work in other translations? yes, I read the NIV for a bit in my early stages of Christian life... But the other translations are missing verses that we believe to be inspired and have weakened support for doctrines like the Deity of Christ as well as fasting.

Using and NIV or MV is like riding a bike with a broken peddle when you have access to an Airplane.

if anything the New Translations cause doubt on the word of God when they place the last section of Mark 16 in brackets, or when they have misleading footnotes for verses that say "the oldest and best manuscripts do not have this reading", When you look at one bible and it has a verse, and the other does not, that creates doubt and confusion.