Are the majority of IFB churches KJV0 or KJVP

[John of Japan]

Three of my criteria actually mirrored the independent evaluation by Dr. Bob. JOJ, mirrored Obama, in that he is not willing to present his views because it might adversely affect his support. When he retires and does not depend upon the opinions of others, maybe his yes will become yes.

This is precisely NOT what I said, and precisely NOT the reason I do not discuss KJVO issues on the Internet. I am entirely willing to discuss my views on the KJV with any supporting pastor, regardless of whether or not I lost support by being candid, and have done so. But my actual reason or reasons for not discussing such things on the BB are none of your business or that of anyone else on the BB. So I'll thank you not to think you know what motive is behind any of my statements on the BB.

 

[Van]

Hi JOJ, I requested that you state whether or not you agreed with the criteria. You declined stating your reason. I simply restated it. Please stop acting like a dictator who can tell others what to think and post. I am trying to discuss what I believe is an important subject for the health of the body.

You'll wait a long, long time before I get involved in this kind of discussion. I am supported by 45 different churches with varying positions, and therefore don't discuss the KJVO issues on the Internet.

 

[Van]

KJO is in the eye of the beholder.

One church may say they are KJO, but another might say they aren't for whatever reason.

Myself, I am KJT (King James by Tradition) I use several versions - have used different versions when I preach. If I am invited to a KJO, I have no problem using only my KJ.

An extreme KJO will believe you must use only the KJV to be saved. Otherwise, if the King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul, its good enough for me.

If I didn't answer the questions to your satisfaction - then so be it. We don't need to make mountains out of mole hills. If you think it all that important - then go for it.
No matter what I or others say, probably will not change your mind.

You did not tell me whether you agreed with any of the criteria, but you did provide another criteria, Can the lost be saved using translations other than the KJV? If the church believes salvation depends on the KJV, they are a KJVO church. I would be surprised if very many IFB churches put such an absurd position in their statement of faith. Therefore this seems an extreme criteria designed to enable churches to deny they are KJVO because they do not meet this criteria.
Tell me where I went wrong?

 

[John of Japan]

Hi JOJ, I requested that you state whether or not you agreed with the criteria. You declined stating your reason. I simply restated it.

DEAD WRONG! I stated my reason and then you attributed a mercenary motive to me.

Please stop acting like a dictator who can tell others what to think and post. I am trying to discuss what I believe is an important subject for the health of the body.

"Acting like a dictator" because I object to you attributing a mercenary motive to me? Hilarious! :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Winman]

Any time a post addresses grammar spelling as opposed to content, that indicates an effort to ridicule rather than respond.

Did Don indicate the position of any IFB church? Nope. But he did indicate he is marginally KJVO.
Did C4K answer the questions? Nope
Did JOJ answer more than one of the questions? Nope
Did Salty answer any of the questions? Nope

Here again are the criteria.

1. Do they prefer the KJV over and against the NKJV?
Dr. Bob agrees, saying "These are only marginally KJVonly."

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

3. Do they claim the KJV is the inerrant word of God vice the original autographs, i.e. the Ruckman heresy?
Here is what Dr. Bob said, ""I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

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

5. Do they claim the TR presents or more closely presents the Word of God, over and against the Majority Text or Critical Text?
Here is an alternate view from Dr. Bob, "KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST"

Van, I will be glad to answer your questions. I attend an IFB church and we are KJB only. I would not attend a chruch that used other versions. And we do not use the NKJV.

#1 I wouldn't say we "prefer" the KJB, we believe the KJB is the only accurate version of God's word in English.

#2 Yes, we do believe God has preserved his word to all generations, and in the English language we believe it is preserved in the King James Bible.

#3 No, we reject the views of Ruckman, and our pastor has stated that on a few occasions. We do not believe the KJB is superior to the original languages.

Now, I do not know if my pastor considers the KJB inspired, but I do. I believe all accurate translations of the original languages are inspired regardless of what language they are translated into.

The scriptures themselves say all scripture is inspired, if the KJB is not inspired, then it is not scripture.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Now, I am not saying the KJB translators were inspired, I do not believe that whatsoever. But I do believe an accurate translation of the original text carries forth that inspiration and power of the original scriptures.

#4 We do not believe there are any mistakes or errors in the KJB whatsoever.

#5 I agree with Dr. Bob that the Greek/Hebrew text that underlines the KJB is the preserved text that was promised. Other texts being different cannot be the preserved text.

I make no apologies for being KJBO.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

All I can say is by Van's criteria, yes ,many if not most IFB churches are KJVO\KJVP. Now wheither or not I accept his criteria as being valid is another question all together.

 

[Don]

....Now wheither or not I accept his criteria as being valid is another question all together.

Which is where the crux of this discussion should be; yet we keep answering yes or no to the criteria presented.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If there is any supposed dictatorship on this thread it is on the part of the poster who establishes his own personal criteria as to what makes a church KJVO and then determines that whoever doesn't answer his specific questions must be hiding the fact that they are KJVO.

I flat out refudiate (I don't like Gov Palin particularly, but I do like her word ) Van's criteria for KJVO/KJVP. If that makes me KJVO in his eyes than so be it. Many others here already know the truth.

There is a very simple test.

If a church does not mention versions in their statement of faith they are not KJVO.

If a church says that the KJV is the only version they use they may or may not be KJVO.

If church says that the KJV is the only accurate English translation and contains no errors they are KJVO.

Again, my criteria are no more authoritative, but am not going to insist anyone answer and then declare anyone who doesn't to be KJVO.

 

[Salty]

...There is a very simple test.

If a church does not mention versions in their statement of faith they are not KJVO.

If a church says that the KJV is the only version they use they may or may not be KJVO.

If church says that the KJV is the only accurate English translation and contains no errors they are KJVO.

C4K - I think you have a good "rule of thumb" here! :thumbsup:

May I add a couple?

If a missionary accepts support from a Non-King James, he is NOT KJO

If a missionary has KJV and/or 1611 in his email address he most likely is KJO


Now about this Palin thing.....:smilewinkgrin:

 

[John of Japan]

If there is any supposed dictatorship on this thread it is on the part of the poster who establishes his own personal criteria as to what makes a church KJVO and then determines that whoever doesn't answer his specific questions must be hiding the fact that they are KJVO.

I flat out refudiate (I don't like Gov Palin particularly, but I do like her word ) Van's criteria for KJVO/KJVP. If that makes me KJVO in his eyes than so be it. Many others here already know the truth.

There is a very simple test.

If a church does not mention versions in their statement of faith they are not KJVO.

If a church says that the KJV is the only version they use they may or may not be KJVO.

If church says that the KJV is the only accurate English translation and contains no errors they are KJVO.

Again, my criteria are no more authoritative, but am not going to insist anyone answer and then declare anyone who doesn't to be KJVO.

Well said! :thumbsup:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Well said! :thumbsup:

I am glad, because I am finished with this discussion. I can't believe I got sucked in.

 

[Salty]

I am glad, because I am finished with this discussion. I can't believe I got sucked in.

You didn't - you told it like it was. I liked your second point where you stated "may or may not"

For some that could be a problem - as they want absolutes.

As I stated before - KJO is often in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Van]

JOJ, mirrored Obama, in that he is not willing to present his views because it might adversely affect his support. When he retires and does not depend upon the opinions of others, maybe his yes will become yes.

Note that I did not equate support with financial support, but with a favorable opinion held by others. JOJ inferred that I was referring to financial support, but that is precisely NOT what I said. I used his word - support - and attributed the meaning as referring to the opinions of him held in those 45 churches. I know he depends upon the thoughts, prayers, encouragements etc of the believers back home. It is not as if I do not fellowship with missionaries.

 

[Van]

Thanks Winman, your post was refreshing, after wading through the posts of the "artful dodgers." Basically you agreed that the criteria does identify a KJVO/KJVP church, and that a KJVO church could hold some of them yet not all of them, i.e. no need to be a Ruckman heresy church to be considered a KJVO church. And you agreed with the OP assessment.
Again thanks again, while we often disagree, your yes is yes and you no is no, and that marks you as a brother of Christ.

 

[Van]

If there is any supposed dictatorship on this thread it is on the part of the poster who establishes his own personal criteria as to what makes a church KJVO and then determines that whoever doesn't answer his specific questions must be hiding the fact that they are KJVO.

I flat out refudiate (I don't like Gov Palin particularly, but I do like her word ) Van's criteria for KJVO/KJVP. If that makes me KJVO in his eyes than so be it. Many others here already know the truth.

There is a very simple test.

If a church does not mention versions in their statement of faith they are not KJVO.

If a church says that the KJV is the only version they use they may or may not be KJVO.

If church says that the KJV is the only accurate English translation and contains no errors they are KJVO.

Again, my criteria are no more authoritative, but am not going to insist anyone answer and then declare anyone who doesn't to be KJVO.

ROFLOL, I asked whether folks agreed or not with the criteria. I did not get very many yes and no answers to build a consensus list. So now I am charged with claiming my list is authoritative. No kidding folks, that reflects C4K contribution.

But I agree that if an IFB church identifies the use of the KJV in their statement of faith, that is consistent with a KJVO/KJVP church.

 

[Van]

If C4K is not a KJV man I would be as shocked at the prefect of police.

 

[Don]

Apparently, folks, the question is: what can we use to determine if a church is KJVO?

So far, seems like the answer is: depends on who you are.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I am glad, because I am finished with this discussion. I can't believe I got sucked in.

"Suck" is a pretty good word to describe this thread... :tongue3:

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Round and Round

the mulberry bush, we've chased the weasel. So, I'm closing this thread.