• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Would this be a KJ- Only?

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The "Without error in the original manuscripts" statement is like chumming shark-infested waters in the KJV-Only world! They certainly are not "Ruckmanites" but perhaps they want to be sufficiently "KJVO" in order to run with the more mainstream KJVO crowd? Sounds more like they are KJV-Preferred, perhaps "Bo-Jo" (BJU) types?

By and large, I do not disagree with their statement. The King James is an accurate English translation of its underlying (TR) text. I would repace "Manuscripts" with "Autographs" in the discussed statement though.
"Bo-Jo" :Laugh . I nevee heard that one. Love it.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I actually think Bo-Jo (gonna use it) when I think KJVO and IFB. I know the latter is not fair, but Bo-Jo was known for clinging to tradition over Scriprure.

I remember in....what...2000ish Bo-Jo forbade (used for @SovereignGrace .... or forbadded) interracial dating. They clung to racism so long for tradition sake. "It was good for our grandparents so it is good for us" type of thinking.

That is how I view KJVO and KJV-preferred-and-advocating people. We do not find it difficult so those who do really do not matter.
 

Armchair Apologist

Well-Known Member
"Bo-Jo" :Laugh . I nevee heard that one. Love it.
A few years ago, I spent some time with a "Bo-Jo" congregation that was transitioning to a more "reformed" direction. Great group of folks and I was actually liking where they were going - taking caution regarding the reformed doctrine, not going overboard, etc. They wanted me to give input in making the services more "Contemporary" and I told them that "I like where they were just fine" (Hymnbooks mixed with some good contemporary material). Told them to "stay away from the laser lights and fog machines, and it was OK to lose the ties but no tattoos and "skinny Jeans!":Laugh

Oh, and they were using the ESV as their congregational Bible.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
A few years ago, I spent some time with a "Bo-Jo" congregation that was transitioning to a more "reformed" direction. Great group of folks and I was actually liking where they were going - taking caution regarding the reformed doctrine, not going overboard, etc. They wanted me to give input in making the services more "Contemporary" and I told them that "I like where they were just fine" (Hymnbooks mixed with some good contemporary material). Told them to "stay away from the laser lights and fog machines, and it was OK to lose the ties but no tattoos and "skinny Jeans!":Laugh

Oh, and they were using the ESV as their congregational Bible.
I attended a similar church when I moved here. I did not join because they were too legalistic. I couldn't wear my skinny jeans. :Biggrin
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
...no tattoos and "skinny Jeans!"
Ok....I gotta ask.

Today tattoos are normal. Does the church view a person with a tattoo as un-savable (reformed, so maybe reprobate), disqualified to be a member when saved, or disqualified to serve as a pastor when called by God to that position?

The question just popped into my head. Things just pop into my head quite often these days. So I had to ask.
 

Armchair Apologist

Well-Known Member
Ok....I gotta ask.

Today tattoos are normal. Does the church view a person with a tattoo as un-savable (reformed, so maybe reprobate), disqualified to be a member when saved, or disqualified to serve as a pastor when called by God to that position?

The question just popped into my head. Things just pop into my head quite often these days. So I had to ask.
No, I was thinking of a pastor intentionally going out and getting tattoos in order to look "edgy!" same reason for a pastor not wearing skinny jeans (trying to be 'relevant' and such). Mainly a joke as I am certain such things were never entertained.

Two of my stepsons have tattoos (not all over but...) and are fast becoming pillars in our congregation. I'm sure one or both of them will likely take my place on our deacon board - tattoos and all.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
No, I was thinking of a pastor intentionally going out and getting tattoos in order to look "edgy!" same reason for a pastor not wearing skinny jeans (trying to be 'relevant' and such). Mainly a joke as I am certain such things were never entertained.

Two of my stepsons have tattoos (not all over but...) and are fast becoming pillars in our congregation. I'm sure one or both of them will likely take my place on our deacon board - tattoos and all.
I was just curious. I agree. Authenticity is important in worship, and everything we do is worship. We should avoid pretense (worship in spirit and truth), even if it makes us feel hip...wait...they don't say "hip" anymore...what do they say???
 

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I actually think Bo-Jo (gonna use it) when I think KJVO and IFB. I know the latter is not fair, but Bo-Jo was known for clinging to tradition over Scriprure.

I remember in....what...2000ish Bo-Jo forbade (used for @SovereignGrace .... or forbadded) interracial dating. They clung to racism so long for tradition sake. "It was good for our grandparents so it is good for us" type of thinking.

That is how I view KJVO and KJV-preferred-and-advocating people. We do not find it difficult so those who do really do not matter.
Why was I dragged into this? If there is a joke in this, it went "wooosh!!" over my head.
 

searchingtruths

New Member
I found this statement on a IFB church website:
"We believe that the bible is the verbally inspired and infallible, authoritative Word of God and that God gave the words of Scripture by inspiration without error in the original autographs. God promises that He will preserve His Words. Jesus said, “but my words shall not pass away” Matthew 24:35. We believe God kept that promise by preserving His infallible Word in the traditional Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and that the Authorized Version (KJV) is an accurate English translation of the preserved Word of God."

Would you consider this statement to be
as a King James Only church?

There home page states:

We are an Independent, Fundamental, Pre-Millennial, KJV Baptist Church.
Preaching The Gospel As It Is To Men As They Are. Romans 8:35-39
I believe they try to translate as accurately as they could and attempts to make the Bible simpler has caused some disconnections.

First time I've ever heard of a King James Only Church - live and learn
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
An interesting concept is the "elevation" of tradition over truth.

We can usually agree that the inspired word, as written in the original autographs was inerrant. And we usually agree that our translations from the original languages copies, are made by people, and thus could include human errors.

Anyone who claims an existent translation, such as any of the versions of the KJB are inerrant, seems to be practicing "elevation.
"

My view, reflecting what I was taught, is that all translations introduce errors from their original language sources. And those original language sources also include errors introduced by the copyists, some inadvertent, some in a mistaken effort to fix a perceived problem.

The bible student's best solution to minimizing mistaken understandings based on accepting errant presentations in our translations, is to compare several and when differences occur, to engage in a deeper study, including grammar and word or phrase possible alternate meanings.

Even with that, we no doubt, hold some views that are wrong, as we see through a glass darkly.
 
Top