Are the majority of IFB churches KJV0 or KJVP

[Van]

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"

 

[Yeshua1]

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



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

pretty simple really!

IF you hold to the greek texts superior used to translate KJV, but also see that modern versions are also the word of God for us today, just that the Kjv is the best version available..

You are KJV preferred!

IF you hold to not alone the TR is superior greek text, but that KJV IS THE word of god to us today, ONLY version to use, are KJVO!

 

[John of Japan]

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

It might be simply an effort to help. :type:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.
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"

And I am not going to answer. I don't recognise your criteria as authoritative or valid no matter how many times you post your questions.

 

[Van]

Not to put too fine a point on it, C4K but I have your view down in my book as a KJVO who hides it. Now I may be wrong. But your unwillingness to say which you agree with or link to an authoritative list you accept speaks volumes.

 

[Van]

Yes JOJ, your correction was at least in part aimed at help. However, what would any person make of your chiming in with Salty?

 

[Van]

In the abortion debate, one side says pro life, but rather than the other side saying they are pro baby death at the whim of the mother, they say they are pro choice. Here we have KJV only folks, avoiding that label and putting on the far more reasonable title of KJV preferred. But a rose would smell as sweet...

And to go back to the beginning, fundamentalism adheres to scripture alone doctrine, but KJVO and KJVP betray that doctrine with "the traditional translation of scripture over and against the mainstream view represented by modern scholarship. So are many if not most IFB churches KJVO or KJVP? The inability to reveal the position of supposedly non-KJVO IFB churches on the "non authoritative criteria" drops a flag, or so it seems to me.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes JOJ, your correction was at least in part aimed at help. However, what would any person make of your chiming in with Salty?

Hmm. You seem to have mislaid your sense of humor. :tongue3:

 

[Don]

What is "marginally KJVO"? Is that like being "marginally pregnant"?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Not to put too fine a point on it, C4K but I have your view down in my book as a KJVO who hides it. Now I may be wrong. But your unwillingness to say which you agree with or link to an authoritative list you accept speaks volumes.

If your standard for being KJVO is anyone who does not answer your criteria you must be right. You got me

I am glad that your book is not the one that determines truth

 

[John of Japan]

Yes JOJ, your correction was at least in part aimed at help. However, what would any person make of your chiming in with Salty?

But you know, the fact that you don't seem to know who Ruckman is makes your whole thread suspect. You've not even done the basic research to be able to put your criteria together if you don't Ruckman.

 

[John of Japan]

What is "marginally KJVO"? Is that like being "marginally pregnant"?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Don]

If your standard for being KJVO is anyone who does not answer your criteria you must be right. You got me

I am glad that your book is not the one that determines truth

C4K - don't get too into this. You see, Van has made the same mistake he made with a previous thread: he offered up his criteria as the authoritative source, without ensuring that it was agreed upon.

For example, my answer to #4 - do we all agree that all translations have corruptions and mistranslations? Or do we all agree that *only* the KJV has corruptions and mistranslations? And/or do we all agree that there is one translation that has no corruptions or mistranslations, or has the least amount of corruptions and mistranslations?

From one of his posts at the top of page 3:

Here again are the criteria.

More correctly: Here again are my (Van's) criteria. And thus, any responses to the (Van's) criteria judges that church or individual in Van's mind, not anyone else's.

Before discussing whether the criteria determines that a church, or an individual, is KJVO, the debate must agree upon the criteria used, or provide the authoritative, unarguable source of the criteria, rather than simply presume that the criteria offered up is authoritative.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

C4K - don't get too into this. You see, Van has made the same mistake he made with a previous thread: he offered up his criteria as the authoritative source, without ensuring that it was agreed upon.

For example, my answer to #4 - do we all agree that all translations have corruptions and mistranslations? Or do we all agree that *only* the KJV has corruptions and mistranslations? And/or do we all agree that there is one translation that has no corruptions or mistranslations, or has the least amount of corruptions and mistranslations?

From one of his posts at the top of page 3:
More correctly: Here again are my (Van's) criteria. And thus, any responses to the (Van's) criteria judges that church or individual in Van's mind, not anyone else's.

Before discussing whether the criteria determines that a church, or an individual, is KJVO, the debate must agree upon the criteria used, or provide the authoritative, unarguable source of the criteria, rather than simply presume that the criteria offered up is authoritative.

I know, have tried to watch the threads. His claiming that I am a closet KJVO because I wont answer his survey was just too much fun

 

[Yeshua1]

I know, have tried to watch the threads. His claiming that I am a closet KJVO because I wont answer his survey was just too much fun

Well, since your bible of choice would be the NKJV?

Doubt KJVO!

 

[Salty]

Did Salty answer any of the questions? Nope

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, probally will not change your mind.

 

[Van]

If your standard for being KJVO is anyone who does not answer your criteria you must be right. You got me

I am glad that your book is not the one that determines truth

First, you misrepresent the basis I gave for my opinion, and then you claim my views "determine truth."

First, anyone can present the truth, those that think truth only comes from "authoritative sources" are a tad judgmental, which actually inhibits knowledge of truth.

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.

Last item, the claim that I had no idea of the Ruckman heresy. However, I explained my understanding when I first mentioned it. Folks that hide their views, yet ridicule the views of others are not, as Paul was, examples to model.

Are there any actual IFB folks who will tell us how their home church measures up the criteria? Otherwise, the assessment that many if not most IFB churches are KJVO/KJVP seems sound.

 

[Don]

First, you misrepresent the basis I gave for my opinion, and then you claim my views "determine truth."

First, anyone can present the truth, those that think truth only comes from "authoritative sources" are a tad judgmental, which actually inhibits knowledge of truth.

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.

Last item, the claim that I had no idea of the Ruckman heresy. However, I explained my understanding when I first mentioned it. Folks that hide their views, yet ridicule the views of others are not, as Paul was, examples to model.

Are there any actual IFB folks who will tell us how their home church measures up the criteria? Otherwise, the assessment that many if not most IFB churches are KJVO/KJVP seems sound.

There's that "'the' criteria" again, instead of "'my' criteria, which one other person agrees with 3 of them"....

1. Do they prefer the KJV over and against the NKJV?
Is this the correct wording? If someone "prefers" a version over another, does that make them an "only"? If so, how many Douay-Rheims Only churches are out there? How many ESVOs or NIVOs?

In other words, is this a valid criterion?

Please limit your discussion to this one point. Once we have a consensus on whether it's valid or not, then we'll discuss #2. If preferred, I'll start separate threads.

 

[Van]

There's that "'the' criteria" again, instead of "'my' criteria, which one other person agrees with 3 of them"....

1. Do they prefer the KJV over and against the NKJV?
Is this the correct wording? If someone "prefers" a version over another, does that make them an "only"? If so, how many Douay-Rheims Only churches are out there? How many ESVOs or NIVOs?

In other words, is this a valid criterion?

Please limit your discussion to this one point. Once we have a consensus on whether it's valid or not, then we'll discuss #2. If preferred, I'll start separate threads.

As I recall, I asked you which ones of these 5 criteria you agree with. You have not even bothered to answer that question. Now you ask yet another question. Please limit your discussion to this question. Folks please read the OP including the last question.

 

[Don]

As I recall, I asked you which ones of these 5 criteria you agree with. You have not even bothered to answer that question. Now you ask yet another question. Please limit your discussion to this question. Folks please read the OP including the last question.

Hmm. Since I provided answers as to whether I agreed with any of the 5, would you please clarify how I haven't bothered to answer that question? Unless you mean, you asked whether I agreed with your criteria; in which case, your question wasn't clear, and I answered the wrong question...and which I'm now answering with my previous post.