Are the majority of IFB churches KJV0 or KJVP

[Van]

Okay, I'll play.

Originally Posted by Van View Post
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.

Van's translation of the posters remarks= Yes we prefer the the KJV over and against the NKJV.

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?

Translation = Hides the answer by pointing to an alternate reading where God preserves His people, rather than His word.
Assumption, the posters answer probably yes.

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).

Translation = Yes

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

No. There are no mistakes in the bible.

Translation = No admission or any mistakes or 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?

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.

Translation = Yes, the TR presents the Word of God over and against the Majority/Byzantine text form and the Critical Text.

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

Your answers indicate your church is a KJV only church in my opinion

Still waiting for JOJ, Don, or others to actually answer the question, which of these criteria do you agree with and which do you disagree with. Jesus said our yes should be yes.
S

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Van's translation of the posters remarks= Yes we prefer the the KJV over and against the NKJV.



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

Translation = Hides the answer by pointing to an alternate reading where God preserves His people, rather than His word.
Assumption, the posters answer probably yes.



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

Translation = Yes



No. There are no mistakes in the bible.

Translation = No admission or any mistakes or corruptions in the KJV.



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.

Translation = Yes, the TR presents the Word of God over and against the Majority/Byzantine text form and the Critical Text.

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

Your answers indicate your church is a KJV only church in my opinion

Still waiting for JOJ, Don, or others to actually answer the question, which of these criteria do you agree with and which do you disagree with. Jesus said our yes should be yes.
S

NO mistakes in the originals, those were the inerrant /inspired Ones from god!

Current greek/Hebrew text VERY close to them, so can be rightly considered to be authoritative/infallible...

ANY english version translated correctly of them would be seen in same light, but NONE are without ANY errors/mistakes in them , ALL of those would be monor numbers , or later additions/insertions!

 

[Van]

Everybody except Ruckermen agrees the originals are inerrant/inspired, but that is meaningless. Now we have the CT which I think comes closest to the originals, the MT which JOJ believes comes closest to the originals and the TR which KJV only folks believe comes closest to the originals.

Certainly the existing copies of the original language texts can be considered trustworthy and reliable, but since they differ from one another, only the mindless would claim all three are infallible.

And again, to say a translation of the original language text can be translated "correctly" misses the point that all translations rely of picking and choosing variant readings of the original text, and then sometimes mistranslates the intended message, even if they managed somehow to pick the "correct" variant.

 

[Van]

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

Is anyone attending an IFB church willing to give straight answers, i.e. yes or no, to these straightforward questions?

 

[TCassidy]

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.

Van's translation of the posters remarks= Yes we prefer the the KJV over and against the NKJV.

Wow! You certainly missed the point on that one! So far 0 for 1.

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

Translation = Hides the answer by pointing to an alternate reading where God preserves His people, rather than His word.
Assumption, the posters answer probably yes.

Uh, sorry, wrong again. That's 0 for 2.

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

Translation = Yes

Uh, nope, wrong again. That's 0 for 3.

No. There are no mistakes in the bible.

Translation = No admission or any mistakes or corruptions in the KJV.

The bible is without error of fact. 0 for 4.

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.

Translation = Yes, the TR presents the Word of God over and against the Majority/Byzantine text form and the Critical Text.

Wrong again! The TR is a late, and flawed, representative of the Byzantine text form! There really isn't a published Greek New Testament called "The Majority Text" that actually reflects the majority reading in every instance. Hodges and Farstad did a good job, but it must be recognized as a first effort. And much better GNT can be found in "The Greek New Testament According to the Byzantine Text" by Robinson and Pierpont. (In the interests of full disclosure, Maurice Robinson is a friend so I am a bit biased toward his work on the basis of that friendship.) 0 for 5.

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

Your answers indicate your church is a KJV only church in my opinion

Well, I guess it is understandable that you got all of the above wrong so it stands to reason your conclusion would also be wrong.

 

[TCassidy]

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

Is anyone attending an IFB church willing to give straight answers, i.e. yes or no, to these straightforward questions?

The problem is that your questions are NOT straightforward nor can they honestly be answered with a simple YES or NO. They are similar to:

1. Have you stopped beating your wife?
2. Have you stopped abusing your children?
3. Have you stopped stealing from the church offering?
4. Have you stopped cheating on your wife?
5. Have you stopped ________________ (you fill in the blank).



1. I can't honestly answer your question with a simple YES or NO. I think SOME readings as found in the KJV are superior to the readings found in the NKJV. And vice versa. Not a YES or NO question.

2. As Psalm 12 is not about God preserving His word, but about His preserving His people (the poor and needy of the preceding context) the question is meaningless.

3. I believe both the originals and the KJV are without error of fact. I see no dichotomy between the two so, the question cannot be honestly answered with a simplistic YES or NO.

4.There are differences between English versions. That is a fact. The basis of those differences are, for the most part, due to variants in the underlying text form. There are a few instances (about a dozen in the New Testament) where the textual basis for the reading is unknown. As we don't know the textual basis for the reading it would be hubris to claim it is an error or corruption. Again, not a YES or NO question.

5. To not include the Byzantine text form, which is the most attested to by the manuscript evidence, invalidates your question. So, as it is invalid it cannot be answered by a simplitic YES or NO.

Now, if you would like to discuss the issue, without the logical error of the false dilemma, I would be glad to continue. But you have to read what I actually type, and not what you wished or thought I typed.

 

[Don]

Still waiting for JOJ, Don, or others to actually answer the question, which of these criteria do you agree with and which do you disagree with. Jesus said our yes should be yes.

And I'm still waiting for a simple response: does a church need to answer yes to all 5, or only 1, or some combination, or 3 or more out of 5, in order to be considered KJVO?

 

[Don]

Hey TCassidy,

Did you get a chance to review those verses or did you just decide to hijack another thread? Here they are again in case you missed them:

TCassidy,

Here are some more verses you should review

2 Corinthians 11:13-15
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works"

and

Proverbs 3:7

"Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil"

I'm not a moderator; but I would ask that you discuss personal off-topic conversations through private messages, or a separate thread.

 

[Van]

Hey Don, you asked me a question and I answered it. Then I asked you a question, and you evaded the question and asked another question. Does do unto others as you would have them do unto you ring a bell?

 

[Van]

Hi TCassidy, thanks for answering my questions.

Here are my answers:

1. No, I prefer the NKJV over and against the KJV. But sometimes the KJV seems to do a better job in a few places.

2. No, I do not believe God fulfilled His promise to preserve His word exclusively with the KJV.

3. No, I do not believe the KJV is inerrant, but contains mistranslations and corruptions. It remains trustworthy and reliable, but better translations are available. The original writings are the very words of God and correctly present God's intended message, thus inerrant.

4. Yes, the KJV contains mistranslations and corruptions, as do all translations.

5. No, the TR is not as reliable a text as either the Critical Text or the Majority/Byzantine text form.

 

[Don]

Hey Don, you asked me a question and I answered it. Then I asked you a question, and you evaded the question and asked another question. Does do unto others as you would have them do unto you ring a bell?

"Evaded" it? How about "asked for further clarification"?

It's pretty simple: Thank you for identifying criteria; but do you require a church to answer "yes" to all 5 in order to be a KJVO church, or will answering "yes" to only 1 classify it as KJVO? Or is there a "2 out of 5" or "3 out of 5", etc., etc.?

 

[Van]

Are the majority of IFB churches KJV0 or KJVP

Here are the criteria I use to consider a church a KJV only church. I appears to me that many if not most IFB churches satisfy one or more of these criteria.

Do they prefer the KJV over and against the NKJV?
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 Ruckerman heresy?
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?

Is anyone attending an IFB church willing to give straight answers, i.e. yes or no, to these straightforward questions?

Here are my answers:

1. No, I prefer the NKJV over and against the KJV. But sometimes the KJV seems to do a better job in a few places.

2. No, I do not believe God fulfilled His promise to preserve His word exclusively with the KJV.

3. No, I do not believe the KJV is inerrant, but contains mistranslations and corruptions. It remains trustworthy and reliable, but better translations are available. The original writings are the very words of God and correctly present God's intended message, thus inerrant.

4. Yes, the KJV contains mistranslations and corruptions, as do all translations.

5. No, the TR is not as reliable a text as either the Critical Text or the Majority/Byzantine text form.

 

[John of Japan]

Still waiting for JOJ, Don, or others to actually answer the question, which of these criteria do you agree with and which do you disagree with. Jesus said our yes should be yes.
S

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.

But just by way of information, the way to tell a KJVO doctrinal statement is if it says something like, "The KJV is the preserved Word of God for the English language." If it simply states that the KJV is the official version (for the church, school, mission board, etc.), chances are it is not KJVO but is simply keeping things uniform. I know of one college that uses the KJV officially but uses the UBS Greek NT for their Greek classes--so they are certainly not KJVO. If it states that they believe the Bible was preserved in the Masoretic text and TR, I classify that as TR-only. And no I won't discuss this paragraph further. It's merely FYI.

Oh and by the way, it's Ruckman, not "Ruckerman.":type:

 

[Van]

Hi JOJ, thanks for the input. Any TR only church would be a KJVO church, according to my criteria #5.

 

[Salty]

Oh and by the way, it's Ruckman, not "Ruckerman.":type:

Are you saying that the KJV spells it "R-u-c-k-m-a-n"?

So which version spells it R-u-c-k-e-r-m-a-n"?

 

[Don]

I appears to me that many if not most IFB churches satisfy one or more of these criteria.

Thanks for the answer.

Not speaking for any church; only myself. On the face of it, pretty much what Mr. Cassidy wrote; but here are my personal abbreviated versions.
1. Yes, I prefer the KJV over the NKJV.
2. No.
3. Vice the original autographs - no.
4. No more so than any other translation.
5. Over and against the Byzantine or Critical - no.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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

Is anyone attending an IFB church willing to give straight answers, i.e. yes or no, to these straightforward questions?

The problem here is that Van is attempting to set the standard for who is or is not KJVO. I don't understand how his personal test can be used to determine, for anyone but himself, what KJVO means.

As John pointed out above there is one way to see if a church is KJVO - look at the statement of faith and see if it says something like

But just by way of information, the way to tell a KJVO doctrinal statement is if it says something like, "The KJV is the preserved Word of God for the English language."

I have not answered Van's questions because I simply don't see them as authoritative.

 

[Salty]

Check out what Dr Bob said

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Check out what Dr Bob said

I love Dr Bob, and agree with his assessment, but that too is a personal/board opinion.

 

[John of Japan]

Are you saying that the KJV spells it "R-u-c-k-m-a-n"?

So which version spells it R-u-c-k-e-r-m-a-n"?

Whatever modern version Van is using.