Is KJVO Compatible with Classic Fundamentalism?

As do I ... That was not the point I was making. I was pointing out that they use the same argument which Gray answered very ably. The argument that the KJVO side uses holds no more water for them than it did for the liberals. I am not arguing that the KJVOs are liberal.

But with what Gray said, I cannot see how KJVOs can be fundamentalists becuase they hold to something the fundamentalists explicitly denied, in the historic sense of the word. Based on what Gray and others wrote, I think they would reject the KJVOs with vehemence.

 

There is an underlying fallacy of KJVOism:

They are in the same boat as the fundamentalists MV folks.

There is NO single identifiable KJV Bible.

There are several KJVs (1611-1769). There have been four major revisions to the 1611KJV with many substantive changes as has been shown here on the BB (Things which are different are not the same).

There are two editions of the 1769KJV, the Cambridge and the Oxford which have differences (Things which are different are not the same).

Just because the history of the variants in the text of the 1611-1769KJV is shorter than that of the Greek texts doesn't eliminate the problem of trying to determine the "pure" text (Things which are different are not the same).

Just because the errors of in the KJV text are caused by translators/printers and not scribes doesn't excuse them as errors (Things which are different are not the same).

The archetype original of the 1611KJV has been lost with nothing left to determine which of the different editions of the KJV above is the "pure" Word of God (Things which are different are not the same).

The KJVO folks are in the same lower textual criticism boat as the MV folks (without knowing or admitting to it).

HankD

 

First of all, I have been out of town and unable to respond to these questions.

Secondly, I never feel obligated to give a rebuttal when someone "refutes" my arguments. I have no desire to argue with anyone on this issue or any other. My sole objective was to answer the question offered by the originator of this thread. I stated what I believe to be true; others certainly have the right to disagree. I've learned that arguing never changes their mind.

 

Amen,PastorBob.

 

This underlying "fallacy" (although I wouldn't use that word) is there for all of us, even you. It is all a matter of probability.

 

Oh no Pastor Larry, I have the "pure" Word of God in the 1895 (revised from 1894) Scrivener Greek New Testament.



HankD

 

And you base this on what authority?????

 

It's called the Tongue in Cheek Authority.



Pastor Larry, I'm Sorry, I was a little too subtle.

But I did use the word "revised" (how can you revise that which is perfect?)

Actually, I'm not opposed to scholarly and believing ammendments to the text where the evidence is clear that it is necessary.
Having said that I probably should say that I treat the TR underlying the KJV/NKJV as the virtual Word of God in its entirety.
While I don't subscribe to the W&H theory, I have no real quarrel with believers who do.

HankD

[ April 07, 2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

We need to get back on topic.

 

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Originally posted by PreachtheWord

The question is whether those who hold the King James Version Only position are fundamentalists. That could vary according to how one defines fundamentalism. Historic Christian fundamentalism encompasses five fundamentals:

KJVOs technically fall out of the first definition of historic fundamentalism. But a definition of fundamentalism by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976 says:

The definition of the infallibility of the Bible in this case does not rule out KJVOs. IMO, it would be correct to say that KJVOs are a development in fundamentalism and among fundamentalists, and should correctly and definitely be considered part of the fundamentalist camp. For either side to engage in the technicalities of the Bible Versions issue to prove/disprove the others are not/are fundamentalists would, again IMO, be wrong. [/QUOTE]

rlvaughn,

Here is my take on whether IFBs who hold to KJB onlyism could be considered in line with the fathers of the fundmendalist movement which started in the late 1800's.

The following are excerpts from an excellant
article on this very subject from Detroit Baptist Seminary:

The Fundamentals could rightly be considered the manifesto of the Fundamentalist movement.

Here is more evidence asserted from the article:

The full text of this Article can be found at http://www.dbts.edu/media/journals/1996_2/nonissue.pdf
The Title of the Article is DOCTRINAL NON-ISSUES IN HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALISM by Rolland D. McCune

I would add the words of another great Baptist preacher on this subject,considered by some to be the greatest Bapist Preacher in modern times, and the at the beginnngs of the fundamenalist fight with the modernists:

Spurgeon used the Revised Version after it came out while using it in a sermon he made these comments:

While I would disagree with the FBF on some matters I am in whole hearted agreement with their historic fundamentalist stance on the issue of Bible translations:

So in closing, I would have to say that the historic evidence would clearly show that those who hold to KJV Onlyism are an abaration of historic fundamentalism.

IFBReformer

 

So it seems the ovewhelming majority believe that KJVO is not compatible with fundamentalism.

 

Yes sir. Can't argue with history.

If they want to start there own movement, then fine. But don't be dishonest with history and try to say it was not addressed in beginnings of fundamentalism or that they were KJV Only. David Cloud is really good at bending fundamentalist history to make people look like KJVOnlys.

He had an article on his site about Spurgeon(I don't know if it is still there) making spurgeon to be against the critical greek texts and new translations.

I wrote an email to him and challenged him on it. I don't know what became of it.

IFBReformer

 

Poor Spurgeon. He has been twisted to approve of so much, it's a miracle he's even recognizable! Thankfully, Iain Murray and Dallimore have written works/biographies to help straigten people out!

 

TomVols,

I have Ian Murray's "The Forgotten Spurgeon" and his Revialism book. Excellant writer.

IFBReformer

 

The question, "Is KJVO compatible with classic fundamentalism?"

The answer is no it is not. KJVOism is a legalistic doctrine invented by man. I am not talking about people who prefer the KJV, just those who exclude those that don't.

Unfortunately, this false doctrine has had a detrimental affect on the church. Many of these legalist spend most, if not all, of their time worrying about what translation everyone else is using instead of obeying the one they use.

The reason, I believe, is to build up walls in order to exclude those who are not exactly like they are. In doing this, they feel superior to everyone else.