Are all Fundamental baptist churches KJO?

[Van]

Pitchback

He's asking you to refine your question. So, he can better answer you.
Me, I belong to what many here consider an IFB church. Our pastor has no problems using the NASB in the pulpit without comment. Our bookstore stocks the KJV, NASB, and the NJKV. But, we have KJV bibles in the pew racks along side the hymnals for visitors. Now, do we fit your criteria for a KJVO church?

You have got to be kidding. Don only asks questions of other, but when others ask him questions, he answers with another question. Just look at his posts in this thread.

Turning now to your question, I gave 5 criteria and you only addressed one.

Copy and paste my 5 criteria and then answer each with a yes or no. Then I will be able to answer "do we fit your criteria for a KJVO church." As I said, IFB church members deny being in a KJVO church to avoid the baggage of that label.

And I have one more question, when was the last time you replaced your pew bibles? Did the leaders do an evaluation and determine the KJV was the best, over and against the NKJV? Just saying....

 

[Squire Robertsson]

You have got to be kidding. Don only asks questions of other, but when others ask him questions, he answers with another question. Just look at his posts in this thread.

Turning now to your question, I gave 5 criteria and you only addressed one.

Copy and paste my 5 criteria and then answer each with a yes or no. Then I will be able to answer "do we fit your criteria for a KJVO church." As I said, IFB church members deny being in a KJVO church to avoid the baggage of that label.

And I have one more question, when was the last time you replaced your pew bibles? Did the leaders do an evaluation and determine the KJV was the best, over and against the NKJV? Just saying....

As best as I can remember, we use the KJV as a pew Bible not because we think it is the "best". (In the rear of the auditorium, we have a table with free NTs. On the table, folks have the choice of a KJV or a NASB) Rather, we use it for consistancy. We get visitors from all over the country and the world. So, we use the KJV as the Bible of record. If I am reading you correctly, your posisition is if a person or church uses the KJV in almost any capacity of authority, they or it is KJVO. That is a far stretch.

Again as as best as best as I can remember, our senior pastor uses a Nestles-Aland NT in his NT sermon prep.

 

[John of Japan]

You have got to be kidding. Don only asks questions of other, but when others ask him questions, he answers with another question. Just look at his posts in this thread.

Don only asks questions of you on this thread, no one else. (I checked all his posts.) That is because you are hard to pin down in your criteria. IMHO, Don's questions are all legitimate. Why would they be hard to answer? :type:

 

[Don]

You have got to be kidding. Don only asks questions of other, but when others ask him questions, he answers with another question. Just look at his posts in this thread.

Turning now to your question, I gave 5 criteria and you only addressed one.

Copy and paste my 5 criteria and then answer each with a yes or no. Then I will be able to answer "do we fit your criteria for a KJVO church." As I said, IFB church members deny being in a KJVO church to avoid the baggage of that label.

And I have one more question, when was the last time you replaced your pew bibles? Did the leaders do an evaluation and determine the KJV was the best, over and against the NKJV? Just saying....

You listed 5 criteria; but you didn't list whether all 5 are required, or only 1 of the 5, or any particular combination.

Pretty simple question; hard to understand why you don't just answer. If any of the 5 qualify, I'll be happy to address all 5. If only 1 or 2, or a combination, I'll be happy to address those.

So - is it any? Or all? Or 2 out of 5, or 4 out of 5?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I assumed that was the crux of your question.

You listed 5 criteria; but you didn't list whether all 5 are required, or only 1 of the 5, or any particular combination.

Pretty simple question; hard to understand why you don't just answer. If any of the 5 qualify, I'll be happy to address all 5. If only 1 or 2, or a combination, I'll be happy to address those.

So - is it any? Or all? Or 2 out of 5, or 4 out of 5?

 

[TCassidy]

Okay, I'll play.

1. Do they prefer the KJV over and against the NKJV?

I prefer the KJV over the NKJV is some instances, especially in the translation of the present passive participle. Also in the treatment of some of the qere/ketive pairs in the OT.

2. Do they assert God fulfilled the promise of Psalm 12:6-7 with the KJV?

How does God fulfilling His promise to preserve His people relate to the KJV?

3. Do they claim the KJV is the inerrant word of God vice the original autographs, i.e. the Ruckerman heresy?

I believe the KJV is the inerrant word of God (in the derivative sense).

4. Do they admit to mistakes and corruptions in the KJV?

No. There are no mistakes in the bible.

5. Do they claim the TR presents or more closely presents the Word of God, over and against the Majority Text or Critical Text?

Yes, I believe the Byzantine text form (of which the TR is a late derivative) is more likely to represent the autographs than the Alexandrian text form.

So, what does that make me according to your criteria?

 

[Salty]

What is a New Testament church


from Baptist Board
KJO, KJP, ect, by Dr. Bob

 

[milby]

Okay, I'll play.
I prefer the KJV over the NKJV is some instances, especially in the translation of the present passive participle. Also in the treatment of some of the qere/ketive pairs in the OT.

Wow, do you guys really get that deep into it. I just rely on the Holy Spirit to speak to me through the Word. Do you speak like that (qere/ketive pairs) whatever the heck those are, when you are witnessing to someone who doesn't know the Lord?

 

[gb93433]

Wow, do you guys really get that deep into it. I just rely on the Holy Spirit to speak to me through the Word. Do you speak like that (qere/ketive pairs) whatever the heck those are, when you are witnessing to someone who doesn't know the Lord?

I hear that all the time in my profession and see many mistakes due to ignorance.

Would you go to an undertaker (who has seen many more hearts than a heart surgeon) to get heart surgery or the doctor who knows how to do heart surgery?

It is better to have more experience and knowledge than you need at the time than to not have enough and give out ignorance or nothing.

Do you really think the Holy Spirit uses your ignorance?

 

[milby]

I hear that all the time in my profession and see many mistakes due to ignorance......



Do you really think the Holy Spirit uses your ignorance?

Are you really calling me ignorant cause I don't know what a qere/ketive pair is?

 

[milby]

In case I am not the only "ignorant" one on the forum who didn't know what a qere/ketive pair was..this explaines it so that even I can understand it.

"Something Qere is going on in the KJV"
http://www.kjv-only.com/qere.html

 

[Yeshua1]

Okay, I'll play.
I prefer the KJV over the NKJV is some instances, especially in the translation of the present passive participle. Also in the treatment of some of the qere/ketive pairs in the OT.How does God fulfilling His promise to preserve His people relate to the KJV?I believe the KJV is the inerrant word of God (in the derivative sense).No. There are no mistakes in the bible.
Yes, I believe the Byzantine text form (of which the TR is a late derivative) is more likely to represent the autographs than the Alexandrian text form.

So, what does that make me according to your criteria?

ONLY the originals are inerrant/inspired by/from God, and NO English versions are such!

God preserved the original texts to us today, in the Greeks/Hebrew texts used to make translation today, but there ARE still some "mistakes" in KJV , or any other english version! Those mistakes would be from mainly numbering variations in OT texts, and scribal/textual insertions made over time!

 

[TCassidy]

Wow, do you guys really get that deep into it. I just rely on the Holy Spirit to speak to me through the Word. Do you speak like that (qere/ketive pairs) whatever the heck those are, when you are witnessing to someone who doesn't know the Lord?

Milby, please try to pay attention. We are not discussing witnessing. We are discussing KJVO as it relates to IFBs.

 

[TCassidy]

ONLY the originals are inerrant/inspired by/from God, and NO English versions are such!

So, which facet of derivative inspiration do you deny? That the originals were inspired or that the vernaculars are derived from the originals?

God preserved the original texts to us today, in the Greeks/Hebrew texts used to make translation today, but there ARE still some "mistakes" in KJV , or any other english version! Those mistakes would be from mainly numbering variations in OT texts, and scribal/textual insertions made over time!

Are you certain there are errors in the bible or is it possible you just don't understand the full meaning of the text in question?

 

[TCassidy]

Wow, do you guys really get that deep into it.

Yes. It is God's word. We ought to go deep, stay long, and come up refreshed. That is the whole point of God giving us the bible.

I just rely on the Holy Spirit to speak to me through the Word.

How can you rely on the Holy Spirit to illuminate something you don't read, understand, and study?

Do you speak like that (qere/ketive pairs) whatever the heck those are, when you are witnessing to someone who doesn't know the Lord?

The subject is the KJV and IFBs, not witnessing. Didn't the Holy Spirit tell you?

 

[Yeshua1]

So, which facet of derivative inspiration do you deny? That the originals were inspired or that the vernaculars are derived from the originals?Are you certain there are errors in the bible or is it possible you just don't understand the full meaning of the text in question?

ONLY the originals were inspired by the Holy spirit, and they alone were fully inerrant!

Copies of them that came to us today in the Critical/majority/TR texts and Hebrew text used to translate into english versions are extremely close to originals, NO mistakes that violate any doctrinal position, so they can in truth be regarded as the word of God to us today!

and ANY English version off them can be regarded and seen as being authoritative and infallible!

It is well known and accepted by even most conservatives that there are SOME minor mistakes in greek/hebrew text used, mainly in numbers and additions by scribes that were added in over time!

and IF one held that the KJV is the word of God to us for today, so would be the ESV/NASB/NIV etc!

 

[milby]

Milby, please try to pay attention. We are not discussing witnessing. We are discussing KJVO as it relates to IFBs.

You got me there. Why bother witnessing when we can show everyone on a forum how smart we are. I think there is something about people like that in the bible. Weren't they called Pharisees?

 

[milby]

The subject is the KJV and IFBs, not witnessing. Didn't the Holy Spirit tell you?

I really can't believe you can mock the Holy Spirit so flippantly.

 

[milby]

Milby, please try to pay attention. We are not discussing witnessing. We are discussing KJVO as it relates to IFBs.

Actually I started this thread and the question was simply....Now pay attention..... Are all fundamental churches King James Only?

I really don't care what YOU prefer or what YOUR thoughts are on the issue of KJVO or other translations.

 

[gb93433]

Are you really calling me ignorant cause I don't know what a qere/ketive pair is?

You are ignorant about that. People who are knowledgeable know what they do not know and do not blame their ignorance on the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is no substitute for preparation. I have never once seen God ever use ignorance in dealing with others.