What is the need for fundies to always talk about 'the movement'?

LRL71;
I tried to pm you but you have excercised your perogative. Therefore;

Your edit did not escape my notice. Thank you for retracting your accusation of heresy, per BB board rules. It is appreciated Brother.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

The Word of God being:

"All and every Scripture is Godbreathed and is usefully abounding with riches for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and discipling in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be adequately and thoroughly equipped for every good work." -- my own translation from the Greek NT. I could quote the KJV, NIV, ESV, RSV, NKJV, TLV, NASB, etc...., and they all translate the Word of God from the Greek NT effectively and are all trustworthy as they reflect the Greek. The mind of God is not restricted in just one version of the Bible, and through the study of the extant manuscripts, we can dig even further for the treasures that are contained within the Word of God. That is where I stand. God's Word, revealing the mind of God and boundless and free to mankind!

 

I think a better way of putting that would be to say that one may be a MV-preferred or KJV-preferred and still be a fundamentalist. I agree that those who only want to use the KJV can be fundamentalists, but KJVO means more than that. The problem with the KJVO position is that it makes claims that the Bible does not make.

It is refreshing, though, to hear a KJVO say that a MV-using person can be a fundamentalist.


Andy

 

Uh, wrong, my nefarious KJV-only adversary! By adding to and inserting KJV-only false doctrines into the time-honored doctrines of Bibliology, our assertion that KJV-onlyism is error is by default, not by addition to the doctrines. We are pointing out that your false teaching goes against the doctrines of inspiration (theopneustos), inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination because you substitute inerrancy as being contained only in the originals with inerrancy being applied to the KJV. This is false and unbelieving doctrine, opposed to the Word of God. You are therefore NOT a fundamentalist, but a her... here....heret.... hair-tick.

 

No problem there. It was correct of me to abide by the rules of the BB and retract the wording of my comments. Whether or not my comments have been edited, my original charge stands, regardless of the rules on the BB. The departure of sound Biblical doctrines by KJV-onlyists is what I called it, plain and simple. Just like the ancient Gnostics and Marcionites, such derision should be applied vigorously to KJV-onlyism.

 

Uh, wrong, my nefarious KJV-only adversary! By adding to and inserting KJV-only false doctrines into the time-honored doctrines of Bibliology, our assertion that KJV-onlyism is error is by default, not by addition to the doctrines. We are pointing out that your false teaching goes against the doctrines of inspiration (theopneustos), inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination because you substitute inerrancy as being contained only in the originals with inerrancy being applied to the KJV. This is false and unbelieving doctrine, opposed to the Word of God. You are therefore NOT a fundamentalist, but a her... here....heret.... hair-tick. </font>[/QUOTE]_________________________________________________

HAR DEE HAR HAR HAR! Show me. Show me where in the list of Fundamentals I listed that it is "In the originals only". Show me.
Or as it is said, "Put up or shut up".

Once more...produce this word of God" you are contending for.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

^^^

Well, OK, I guess I should retract the word 'hair-tick'. You have to admit it was kinda funny! In order to keep up with your constant begging the question, I will give a minor comment below. Unfortunately, you cannot give a defense, or even a definition, of inspiration (theopneustos), inerrancy, infallibility, and illuminiation. Please give a definition of these as you see them and we can go further. Simply put, inspiration and inerrancy apply to the original autographs by design and by default, and are upheld by doctrinal statements made by believers through the centuries. I'll demonstrate this in a later post.

Here's a simple question for you: Do you believe in speaking in tongues? How about prophecies and 'words of knowledge'? If so, you should be a charismatic (or, Charismaniac). If not, then God gave His revelation at the end of the Apostolic age (see 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, where 'that which is perfect' is a reference to the completed Word of God!) and He is no longer giving further revelation beyond that which is stated as "AMEN" at the end of Revelation. The Word of God is completely given by God and He is no longer giving revelation, and as a 'Baptist', you should believe that, too. If God is still giving revelation to man via any of the imperfect gifts (tongues, prophecy, divine knowledge), then the NT is still being 'inspired', thus you should still believe that God is still giving revelation in the form of speaking in tongues, prophecies, and divine knowledge. Likewise, if God ceased to be giving revelation to man at the end of the Apostolic age, then you cannot claim that God is still continuing to keep the Word of God perfect because God is no longer acting in the capacity of giving further revelation, written or otherwise, with the quality that is God-breathed (theopneustos). Thus, your KJV, nor its underlying Greek & Hebrew texts, are 'inspired' or 'perfectly preserved' as to reflect the preciseness of inerrancy that the original autographs did. God is no longer in the business of giving revelation to man today because the Word of God is now 'completed'. This is probably the least of the points I could give that prove that inspiration and inerrancy only apply to the original autographs.

I'll have to get back with your last comment after I'm at work tonight; I work third shift and it's now bedtime for me......

 

Yes it does. KJVOism is not scripturally supportable doctrine. To require adherence to the KJVO doctrine means that scripture must be added to. Adding to scripture is liberalism.

Yes, most people on this board are against false doctrines of many types.

Whoa, thatis' not what I said. If a person chooses to use only a specific translation, that is perfectly acceptible. However, for a person to assert that only one translation has scriptural authority over all other translations for all Christians, that is unscriptural, heretical, false doctrine, and very much a liberal position.

The KJVOs here have been intolerant. This is abundantly clear.

Only of the false doctrine, but not of the brethren.

Accepting of people, sure. But accepting of sin? Never.

 

I'm going to try this one more time. Show me scriptural support for KJVOism. This is my 55th request. Put up or shut up.

 

Do I smell smoke?
This is not about KJVo or any such thing. It is about "historic" fundamentalism, is it not?
If it is, then, once more, I ask;
Show me in that list I posted where it says anything about which version you choose, use, believe, or how you define it. Show me the words, "in the originals".
Show me. Then I'll shut up.
Otherwise, I submit, that you fellers are derailing this into something it is not. This is not the version forum.
I posted that list to show that the fundamentals have nothing to do with "versionism" or "originalism".
It is as plain as the text on this page.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

OK. I looked at the brochure for the Leadership Conference (see it on line at www.cbs.edu). Sorry, I don't see what you are talking about. There are about 75 workshops and few if any are about fundamentalists participating in naval-gazing.

 

One of the fundamentals of the historic Christian faith has to do with the nature and qualities of the written Word of God, the Bible. A fundamental understanding of what the Bible says about itself and why it is the Word of God is summed up into what we call doctrines. The study of the Bible is known as 'bibliology'. What we understand about the self-attesting nature of the written word is that it was God-breathed, Greek = 'theopneustos' (2 Timothy 3:16), which is called the doctrine of inspiration. The very nature of the Scriptures is that they are God-breathed. Now, bring in another verse that teaches that men spoke from God being carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:17-21). Some of these men were prophets (Deut. 9:10, Zechariah 7:12, Acts 4:24-27) who were specifically used by God to write Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Some of these men were apostles (Luke 1:1-4, Galatians 1:12) who were used in the same manner in writing down Scripture. All of these writings were considered God-breathed, and it was at the pen of the original autographs that such writings could be called God-breathed. The Scriptures are silent as to whether or not the copies of these manuscripts would hold to the same degree of accuracy, and it is the testimony of the manuscript evidence that copying errors entered into the transmission of the text of the Bible. The definition of inspiration is this: God’s superintending of human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error in the words of the original autographs His revelation to man (Ryrie). Plenary verbal inspiration is where all of the actual words of the Bible are inspired and without error in the original writings.

Infallibility is the quality in which the Scriptures are without error in its entire content, where the Scriptures do not present any event, fact, or statement without error (which is synonymous with 'inerrancy' in the classical sense where the entire content of the Bible is
stated without God making any 'mistake'). The Bible is God's Word, it is completely trustworthy and true, and every detail of Scripture which presents the Sovereign will of God cannot be broken (Matthew 4:4-11, Titus 1:2; Heb.6:18, John 10:35).

B.B. Warfield wrote this about the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible, "These are but the culminating passages of a pervasive testimony to the divine character of Scripture, which fills the whole New Testament; and which includes not only such direct assertions of divinity and infallibility for Scripture as these, but, along with them, an endless variety of expressions of confidence in, and phenomena of use of, Scripture which are irresistible in their teaching when it is once fairly apprehended. The induction must be broad enough to embrace, and give their full weight to, a great variety of such facts as these: the lofty titles which are given to Scripture, and by which it is cited, such as “Scripture,” “the Scriptures,” even that almost awful title, “the Oracles of God ”; the significant formula by which it is quoted, “It is written,” “It is spoken,” “ It says,” “God says”; such modes of adducing it as betray that to the writer “Scripture says” is equivalent to “God says,” and even its narrative parts are conceived as direct utterances of God; the attribution to Scripture, as such, of divine qualities and acts, as in such phrases as “the Scriptures foresaw”; the ascription of the Scriptures, in whole or in their several parts as occasionally adduced, to the Holy Spirit as their author, while the human writers are treated as merely his media of expression; the reverence and trust shown, and the significance and authority ascribed, to the very words of Scripture; and the general attitude of entire subjection to every declaration of Scripture of whatever kind, which characterizes every line of the New Testament."

Historically, the church has held to these views of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. To see a brief history of the views of believers on the doctrines in Bibliology, you can see this link:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=688

Lorraine Boettner also states this about the historic views of inspiration at this website:

http://www.reformed.org/bible/boettner/inspire1.html

Specifically to the issue at hand, Boettner writes this, "The inspiration for which we contend is, of course, that of the original Hebrew and Greek words as written by the prophets and apostles. We believe that if these are understood in their intended sense -- plain statements of fact, figures of speech, idioms and poetry as such -- the Bible is without an error from Genesis to Revelation. While it leaves much unsaid, we believe that all that it does say is true in the sense in which it is intended. We do not claim infallibility for the various versions and translations, such as the American Standard or King James versions, and much less do we claim infallibility for the rather free one man translations which have attained some vogue in recent years."

Now, what does all of this apply to the recent false teachings of KJV-onlyism? This heretical movement is based on an erroneous assumption that God somehow performed a miraculous or supernatural act in protecting the KJV from transmissional errors committed in the copying of manuscripts. The KJV-only views of 'providential' preservation are equally untenable since all the manuscripts have errors in them, and it is impossible to ascertain the exact reading of the original writings of the OT and NT. KJV-onlyism necessitates that the KJV, and its subsequent underlying Hebrew & Greek manuscripts, have no errors in them is not only a logical fallacy, but a theological one as well. This is why the KJV-only view denies the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy; to demand inspiration and inerrancy requires that God somehow 'rewrote' the Bible in 1605-1611, which is completely a false teaching. The KJV-only views of providential preservation also deny the facts about the transmission of the text of the Bible. Thus, KJV-onlyists are NOT fundamentalists, but rather they agree more with liberal-thinking higher critics in their stance on doctrines.

 

LRL71,
I am not totally familiar with KJVOnlyisim per se. In my church we are KJV only. We do not take the extreme position the Ruckmanites take. We don't believe the KJV was inspired. We believe it is the preserved word of God. If God couldn't deliver an accurate preserved bible for these times then the whole thing is fake!

You claim the same preservation for all the other translations as far as I can see. Are you placing the N.W.T., Living bible and the Amplified in the same catagory?

Are any of the others as complete or as accurate as the KJV? I don't know. I haven't had the time or desire to try and figure it out. It doesn't matter. As long as I have the Word of God in my hand, I can go about the work of the Lord.

I stand for the Fundamentals of the faith and am therefore a fundamentalist. I know you reject that.

The KJVOnlys have settled in their hearts what they believe. They don't have to fight about it all the time.

If you want to use your NIV or whatever and call yourself a fundamentalist then go ahead. You are in the minority. Most Fundamentalists are KJVO. You are a bunch of wannabes'.

Why don't you get to the work of leading people to Christ and settle in your heart that you hold the word of God in your hand. Instead of irradicating fellow believers from the board try fellowshipping and discussing ideas instead of slamming each other.

 

^^^

1. If the KJV is the 'preserved Word of God', how do you construct such a doctrine that is completely unfounded in Scripture.

2. KJV-onlyism, whether it follows Ruckman, or the KJV-onlyism that you follow (perfect preservationism, I surmise) both deny the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy.

3. If God did indeed 'perfectly preserved the Word of God in the English language into the KJV, where do you go to in Scripture to teach this abominable doctrine?

4. Your statement, "If God couldn't deliver an accurate preserved bible for these times then the whole thing is fake!" is completely false, and espouses a false unbiblical doctrine. If preservation is true, then why all the errors in the transmission of the text of the Bible?

5. The reason why I seem to 'rant' here is because of the disingenuous statements made by those like yourself who are "KJV-Only". We have asked those like yourself to prove your 'doctrines' here on this BB and all we get is mindless braggadocio, unfounded and ignorant tripe, double-standards, and unproven 'facts'.

6. Most IFB's are not KJV-only, nor would your point be valid if they were. KJV-onlyism is heresy, which has been documented here without end.

7. I don't make claims of preservation in any translation. You cannot read my posts without quoting me out of context. The Bible does not make any claims of 'preservation' as you define it.

8. Without documenting what I said was wrong, proving them point-by-point, your argument that you are on one hand KJV-only and on the other hand a 'fundamentalist' seems absurd. You cannot be one and be the other. Fundamentalists do not hold to the so-called heresies of KJV-onlyism.

 

^^^

1. If the KJV is the 'preserved Word of God', how do you construct such a doctrine that is completely unfounded in Scripture.

2. KJV-onlyism, whether it follows Ruckman, or the KJV-onlyism that you follow (perfect preservationism, I surmise) both deny the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy.

3. If God did indeed 'perfectly preserved the Word of God in the English language into the KJV, where do you go to in Scripture to teach this abominable doctrine?

4. Your statement, "If God couldn't deliver an accurate preserved bible for these times then the whole thing is fake!" is completely false, and espouses a false unbiblical doctrine. If preservation is true, then why all the errors in the transmission of the text of the Bible?

5. The reason why I seem to 'rant' here is because of the disingenuous statements made by those like yourself who are "KJV-Only". We have asked those like yourself to prove your 'doctrines' here on this BB and all we get is mindless braggadocio, unfounded and ignorant tripe, double-standards, and unproven 'facts'.

6. Most IFB's are not KJV-only, nor would your point be valid if they were. KJV-onlyism is heresy, which has been documented here without end.

7. I don't make claims of preservation in any translation. You cannot read my posts without quoting me out of context. The Bible does not make any claims of 'preservation' as you define it.

8. Without documenting what I said was wrong, proving them point-by-point, your argument that you are on one hand KJV-only and on the other hand a 'fundamentalist' seems absurd. You cannot be one and be the other. Fundamentalists do not hold to the so-called heresies of KJV-onlyism.

 

^^^

Ooops. Sorry, double posting.

 

This statement is so childish that it does not deserve any further comment.

I have the Word of God, settled in my hand. I have several Greek NT's and several English translations. All of them are God's word. I'm settled and satisfied that all of which are sufficient for my faith in Christ. My problem with KJV-onlyists is that they continue to propagate and peddle their ways of ignorance and willful distortions. Such will be vigorously exposed and defeated here on this BB because the truth stands; KJV-onlyism is untruth and unbiblical.

 

If that's really true, then your church is adding to scripture.

And where exactly does scripture say this, let alone say it must be so in one sole translation?

Yes. They're all translations. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes. Sstudy of the source texts will be evident of that. Unfortunately, many KJVO's refuse to look at the source texts, for that would violate their doctrine.

Here we agree. Arguing over translations is subjective. If you have a good and accurate translation, then you're equipped to do the Lord's work.

Single-translation-onlyism is not a fundamental of faith. Therefore, a fundamentalist must reject it as doctrine.

True, but they have settled their hearts to adhere to something that is not scripturally supported, and attempted to pass it off as scriptural doctrine. That's a grave error.

Really? You mean only English speaking people are fundamentalist? There is not majority translation in fundamentalism worldwide.

Sorry, but you're incorrect. While it's probably true that most fundies use a KJV, I believe that only 25% of those are KJVO. Of course, strictly speaking, as soon as one adopts any form of single-translation-onlyism, it excludes you from being a fundamentalist.

Is it not the requirement of Christians to call the brethren on false doctrine when it is seen? Certainly, there are much bigger issues in teh world, but your statement sounds like the guy to gets a speeding ticket and then tells the cop he should be looking for "real" criminals, as though he did nothing wrong.

The history of this board has shown that it is the KJVO's who start the "irradicating", and then whenever they are asked to give scriptural support for their position, they flee. Regardless of that, some of the KJVO's I've met, both here and elsewhere, and some of the most Godly folks I've run across, and I'll gladly fellowship with them, if they will have me.

 

1. If the KJV is the 'preserved Word of God', how do you construct such a doctrine that is completely unfounded in Scripture.

It stands to reason that if we don't have in our hands what God intended, then we have nothing!

2. KJV-onlyism, whether it follows Ruckman, or the KJV-onlyism that you follow (perfect preservationism, I surmise) both deny the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy.

I believe the origionals were inspired. Since most of what we have today are copies, we now have the preserved word. Look the KJV is a translation. I do not believe like Ruckman that each word including italics is supposed to be there. I understand italics were used to bridge the language barrier. I just believe that the KJV is what God would have us to have. What about other versions? Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

3. If God did indeed 'perfectly preserved the Word of God in the English language into the KJV, where do you go to in Scripture to teach this abominable doctrine?

You obviously don't believe in preservation. Why not? It isn't a doctrine so much as it is common sense. Why would God give us inaccurate scripure and then hold us accountable? I believe the KJV is accurate. Are others? I don't know or care.

4. Your statement, "If God couldn't deliver an accurate preserved bible for these times then the whole thing is fake!" is completely false, and espouses a false unbiblical doctrine. If preservation is true, then why all the errors in the transmission of the text of the Bible?

What false biblical doctrine are you refering to? How do you know it to be false? I believe there are language errors, doctrine and meaning of the scriptures are intact.

5. The reason why I seem to 'rant' here is because of the disingenuous statements made by those like yourself who are "KJV-Only". We have asked those like yourself to prove your 'doctrines' here on this BB and all we get is mindless braggadocio, unfounded and ignorant tripe, double-standards, and unproven 'facts'.

I seem to be getting mindless braggadocio, unfounded and ignorant tripe, double-standards, and unproven 'facts'as well. Where is the substance to that statement?

7. I don't make claims of preservation in any translation. You cannot read my posts without quoting me out of context. The Bible does not make any claims of 'preservation' as you define it.

I define preservation as faithfully trusting God that I have in my hand His word. If you don't believe that then what is the point?

"your argument that you are on one hand KJV-only and on the other hand a 'fundamentalist' seems absurd. You cannot be one and be the other. Fundamentalists do not hold to the so-called heresies of KJV-onlyism."

Why is it heresy to believe I hold God's word? With all your translations and greek NTs' I would hope the KJV would be one of them and considered Gods' word.

Look, I know there are extremes out there. There are huge organizations like Sword of the Lord that reach alot of Christians. I know they are KJVO. You can go online and read the arguments for it. I don't agree with the staunchness of their stand. It is almost as though non KJV folks aren't even Christians. I DO NOT believe that.

I have been saved for over 30 years and don't take the party line verbatem on hardly any issue.

I am KJV by choice. I am in a KJVO church. I believe it to be Gods word and thats it for me. I

Just don't call it heresy. I use His word to lead people to Christ and to do His will. I use a KJV. It is not heresy to do so or to be of the OPINION that it is the best translation for me and my family.

 

LRL71,
Most Fundamentalists are KJVO. You are a bunch of wannabes'.

It was childish. I was just irritated. Sorry!!