King James Version Only organised by a Freemason Sect

I don't know nuthin 'bout them modern paraphrases so I reckon I literally believe in following the perfect Word of God...There! did I answer it right?

 

Nope, you sure didn't-- because you had already said you do not actually "hate" your parents or children, and hate is that literal KJV word. So do you -- or do you not-- follow the literal wording of the KJV here?

[ October 12, 2002, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]

 

Nope, you sure didn't-- because you had already said you do not actually "hate" your parents or children, and hate is that literal KJV word. So do you -- or do you not-- follow the literal wording of the KJV here?</font>[/QUOTE]CC, if someone is foolish enough to not intelligently interpret the Bible in context, that can hardly be blamed on the translation. If you are criticising the KJV based on this verse, you are also criticising every credible literal translation of scripture, since they all word it the same way (NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV, etc).

Luke 14:26 :: New International Version (NIV)
26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:26 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

Luke 14:26 :: King James Version (KJV)
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:26 :: English Standard Version (ESV)
26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:26 :: New King James Version (NKJV)
26"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

So are all these translations bad, because you believe people can't be trusted to interpret in context? Which translation do you use, anyway?

Eric

[ October 12, 2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

My, how very observant of you! It still stands that if a person is 'NASBO' and believes the NASB is THE Word of God, he also must accept the word "hate" in its exact denotation. So also if a person is 'NKJVO' or 'NIVO' or 'ESVO'.... If any of these are the one and only literal Word of God, this msut be the case.

BUT-- if one does not believe that any translation is THE Word of God, he is then allowed to consider the connotations of the verb in question. G. Gumbo, for one example, claims the KJV is THE preserved Word of God and is worded exactly as God forced it-- then she admits she does not follow it in its exact meaning. That serves as a proof by contradiction that the KJV need not be followed literally.

 

CC, That's a false dichotomy... if I say that KJV is the only uncorrupted translation (which I don't believe, btw, but let's pretend) that does not in any way imply that I need to interpret the text in an unnaturally literal way. There's nothing about that position that would require me to ignore context in interpretation in order to be intellectually consistent.

I find it curious that you feel the need to criticise KJVO's not on what they actually believe, but on what they don't actually believe but you think they should. You're a bright guy, don't you have any better arguments to make?

Eric

[ October 13, 2002, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

An "unnaturally literal way?" Now THAT seems like a "false dichotomy." How is something literal, yet "unnaturally literal?"

And your accusation is not exactly on target either. I know KJVO's neither follow nor believe Luke 14:26 literally. So I'm not criticizing them for what they don't believe. I am criticizing them for their proclamation that the KJV is the one and only perfect Word of God. If it was, there would be no need to consider "context" or "interpretation" or anything else besides the literal meaning. But since that IS necessary-- I agree with you there!-- then that makes the KJVO position a very weak one... If you have to dig for interpretations and context, instead of accepting the wording for what it literally says, then it is less than 100% perfect.

 

Did you mean to say "oxymoron"?

In any case, when someone tells you "I'm dying of hunger" do you call 911? When someone tells you their job is making them crazy, do you recommend a psychologist? If you do, you are being unnaturally literal.

I still don't understand why you think such a contrived idea of interpretation naturally follows from the KJVO position. The question of which texts are trustworthy and the question of how you should interpret them are two separate issues. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...?

Eric

[ October 13, 2002, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

[ October 13, 2002, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]

 

What I find strange is that KJV onlyist (and some other believers) say that the bible should be literally translated. They condemn any type of translation that employes dynamic equivalence and agrue that we should use translations that say what God said and not what God meant. However, then when presented with verses like Luke 14:26 they revert to what God meant. I know that in this instance, most of the MV's also use the word hate, but the principle is still valid. I would rather my children understand what I meant rather than simply hear what I said.

Let me interject that I use both literal and non-literal bibles and find them both to be helpful in understanding God's message. I think that translations such as the NIV are more helpful for people today, but I do not condemn any translation. It is ususlly the KJV onlyist who force the issue by demanding that the church accept their narrow view which is not even supported by scripture itself. I have been delivered from such a church many years ago and do not desire to be ensnared in one again. I have seen the damage this ridiculous belief can cause firsthand; this is why I tend to get upset when posting about this issue.

 

I'm not the one who started this thread. I'm not the one who brought up the verse in Luke. I'm not the one who "condemns" for what you've been led to use & believe in...

I love each of you & don't fault you for how you see things different from how I see things. I have peace about my Bible. You should have peace about what you've chosen to live your life by.

I can't imagine not "accepting" someone who came to our services using anything other than the KJBible. I guess I don't understand what you're saying here. It sounds to me like you don't or wouldn't accept me.

 

Well, Granny, I hope that your church is not the norm for KJV-only IFB churches! My experiences with visiting KJV-only IFB churches has been some of the weirdest experiences I have ever had to endure. I have had 'deacons' and 'ushers' inspect my Bible before I entered into KJV-only churches. Talk about being made unwelcome! Typically, KJV-only churches have many immature believers who are more eager to have the 'correct' Bible than to obey the Bible they already have!

I am in no way suggesting that you would be unwelcome at my church for having a KJV or any other Bible version. What I do have a problem with is the 'doctrine' you hold to-- that is, KJV-onlyism. KJV-onlyism is completely unwelcome to me since it has no basis in the Bible itself, nor is it a reflection of the Historic Christian Faith! It's OK to use the KJV, but to say that it is the *only* Word of God in English is complete heresy!

 

Well, Pastor Bob, one's experiences are different from another's, and especially this is so since we 'sit' on opposite sides of the fence! When I was a member of a KJV-only church (I have been a member of three different KJV-only churches, all about a decade ago when I was in my freshman & sophomore & junior years in college. BTW, my alma mater does not hold to KJV-onlyism), I heard the typical banter of KING JAMES ONLY several times from the pulpit. My pastor (at the time) took the time to explain why he (and his church) holds to KJV-onlyism. He is still a good friend of mine, but we cannot become partners in the ministry because of this issue (he also lives here in the Sarasota, FL area). My experience with persons 'inspecting' my Bible came twice-- once in Kentucky, and the other in Rhode Island. I'd say that my odds of being frisked at the door by KJV-only fanatics (in KJV-only IFB churches) has been two out of five! That church I mentioned in Kentucky is one that is very prominent in Lexington, and my experience from listening from the pulpit is a *constant* stream of KJV-only venom from the pulpit, whether a comment here or a whole sermon on the other.

Pastor Bob, I am sorry that this has been my experience with KJV-only IFB churches, and I believe you in saying that this isn't some 'hobby horse' from when you preach from the pulpit. I am simply amazed at how ridiculous this issue has gotten. To separate from bretheren over KJV-onlyism is a difficult thing to do, but if one's doctrines are not in line with the Biblical teaching of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, then we cannot be agreed to work together in the ministry (ecclesiastical separation). Do I believe in KJV-onlyism, I'd say no, and I must also separate from wayward believers (and churches) who do not hold to the same doctrines that have made the Historic Christian Faith a hallmark over the centuries. KJV-onlyism has destroyed the effectiveness of IFB's to preach the Gospel to all the world, and some KJV-onlyists are now insisting that missionaries also hold to their 'doctrine'. How sad, indeed!

[ October 14, 2002, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

LRL71,
I edited my quote out of the above message. Since your post was directly beneath mine, it was unnecessary to include my whole post as well. It make the reading a bit easier without having to wade through the same text twice. I did not change your post at all.

Regarding KJVO churches. Your experience here on the BB should tell you that Baptist Churches can be as different as night and day. We have Baptists here that I would call extremely liberal and we have others that I would call right . Seriously though, you see my point.

I would dare say that the same can be said about KJVO churches. There are those on both sides of the spectrum.

Here at our church, I have never brought a message totally dedicated to the KJVO position. I have never made the comment, "Turn with me in your King James Bibles to..." Now, if I am approached by an individual who asks me my position, I gladly share that with them.

We have 3 or 4 new families visiting our church. at least two of these carry in Bibles other than KJV. There is no way that I am going to stand in my pulpit and blow away their Bibles. As I read and preach from my KJV, they will eventually come to me and wonder why their's reads differently. Then I can explain to them my position in a why that is non-offensive.

Whoever made the statement, "People do not care how much you know until they know how much you care," sure knew what he was talking about.

 

Pastor Bob,

As for editing out your previous post from when I quoted you is a very good idea. It does take up a lot of space!

Yup, there are a lot of liberal Baptists here on other threads, and unfortunately I wouldn't want to even call them Baptist at all. It is shocking to me that they are here to promote their views, especially if they call themselves 'Christian'. At any rate, I'd say that you are correct about the entire spectrum of people who post here, and that would include KJV-onlyists to many degrees. I am glad that your position on the issue is not clouding your judgment about how you are handling it from the pulpit. Obviously, my experiences with KJV-onlyism can be called exceptional-- and it has also likewise clouded my judgment about fellow IFB brethren (like yourself) who hold to the KJV as *only* God's Word in the English language. Yes, I have constantly heard from KJV-only pastors the phrase, "Now turn in your KJV Bibles to".... such and such a verse. I felt that this was common in KJV-only IFB churches since this was all I had seen! I have a close friend of mine who probably holds to a mild form of KJV-onlyism, and you could probably say that he is only KJV-preferred. He is the only example of a KJV-onlyist that I have known that behaves the way you describe about yourself. Unfortunately, my friend is the only one who I know that doesn't make the KJV into some hobby horse! Anyway, it is good to hear that you are not so 'rabid' on the issue as I would have thought you were.

Currently, my 'younger' pastor (we have two pastors, the elder of which is about 80 years old and can preach the Word!) is teaching in Sunday School the issues behind textual criticism, translations, and the KJV-only movement. He has prepared material from all sides of the issue, but our church has agreed that we will have no part with KJV-onlyism. We do use the KJV from the pulpit, but since my 'younger' pastor teaches Sunday School, we are using the NASB there. I am sure that you have heard of David Cloud (O, Timothy!), and he will explain the KJV-only position next Sunday from Cloud's works. He is spending three class periods over three weeks to explain the translation/text issues. This is the only time I have been in a church where I have seen this subject taught except in KJV-only churches that I had been to.

[ October 14, 2002, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]