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