Church version

I would probably attend a church that uses only the KJV, only if it did not insist that everyone had to.

Versions are not my main decision on which church to attend, but if it used a fairly liberal version or a loose paraphrase, I would more than likely not go there. I would have no problem attending a church that used the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, or NIV.

Neal

 

That would depend on many other things, such as: Is it the only reasonably close church that is biblically-based (using any competent translation)? Is it a welcoming church? Are they ridiculous about nonbiblical/extrabiblical issues [e.g.s, women wearing pants; forcing a teacher to quit if they find out he drank a beer 10 years ago...]? Do they have an arrogant self-righteousness about their KJVO or other beliefs?

I might be willing to accept some of these (to me) negatives if such a church were the only serious NT gospel church around. But then the question may come down to whether that church is willing to accept the negatives (to them) about me and my refusal to go along with some of their defining issues.

I assume you are differentiatig between 'KJVO' and having an "accepted version." My own church has NIV Bibles in the pew racks, making this an 'accepted version,' but not obligating anyone to use them[I prefer the more literal NASB]. So I know of no problem; many people do use those NIV's in front of them, but also many of us bring our own. So that never came into play in my decision to join there.

 

My wife and I do attend a church where the preacher and several members of the congregation are KJVO. Occasionally someone will bring another version to church. There are times when I choose to take my King James Study Bible or my Matthew Henry Study Bible, both of which are KJV. At other times I choose to take my Ryrie Study Bible in either the NASB or the NKJV. Whatever Bible I carry, it is always in a Bible cover. I am not ashamed of the other versions I may choose to use - I just don't want to start any controversy.

I feel that the Bible version a church uses is not the major deciding factor for me. I was brought up in a church where the KJV was the only Bible used. The difference in that church was that the KJV was the Bible of preference - no one taught that the KJV was the only Bible. I realize that no church is perfect, and I look at those which are KJVO as being in error in that regard. Despite my church's predominantly KJVO stance, it is a very spiritual church. The Holy Spirit really moves in the congregation quite often. There are churches where the Holy Spirit is left out when the doors are closed, and I would never attend one of those churches.

 

If myself lived in an English speaking country I could attend a KJV preferred assembly without problem. But if the general versionological standpoint of it were KJV Onlyism of the brand exhibited by some on this board I would not attend, because such is clearly heretical and factious. I would also think twice about attending one who promoted Dynamic Equivalence and paraphrase versions. Most probably I would refraind from attending. Dynamic Equivalency in Bible translating is not according to godliness, but is lawlessness.

Harald

 

To Question 1 - Would have no problems with that, don't mind the KJV ... suppose I'm a kind of KJVO .. King James Version Occasionally ... But other factors would tend to make a big influence on which church I joined for regular worship.

For Question 2 - the big advantage of all using the same translation is that it makes it easier for the congregation to follow the bible references.

Regards
Bob

 

Yes.

Though if the real KJV1611 is used, can
i have my Roman font? The Gothic font is
a tad much for my eyes.

Of course, that is no problem, i know of
no KJVO church that actually uses the real
KJV1611. I wonder if there are KJV only
churches that
use the KJV1769 and others that use
the KJV1873

 

Or the Cambridge as opposed to the Oxford edition.

 

I strongly disagree with this comparison and the analogy you are trying to make. First of all, Mormons are not KJVonly; they are Book of Mormomn only. If the KJV disagrees with the Book of Mormon, the KJV gets put aside.

Second, a church that subscribes to the belief that the KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God and alone accurately reflects the originals is not a cult and in no way resembles a cult.

Janet Reno tried to label Fundamental Christians as a cult a few years back. Her making this statement, and trying to find commonality between Fundamental Christianity and the cults, do not make her statement one bit true. The same applies to your implication and to those who would try to find a common denominator of some sort between KJVOs and the cults.

 

Kind of like what happens when the KJV disagrees with GA Riplinger, Pete Ruckman, DA Waite, etc?? ... Sad but true in both instances. Had the Mormons been willing to stick with the doctrine of the KJV they would have been alright. Had Riplinger, Ruckman, Waite, et al done the same, they would have been alright too. The problem always enters when people add to doctrine.

 

KJVO Churches are NOT a cult because:
1. We believe in the deity of Christ. We believe Jesus Christ was God incarnate.
2. We believe in the virgin birth of Christ.
3. We believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ; plus nothing, minus nothing.
4. We believe in the triune God. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
5. We believe that God inspired His Word, preserved it, and made it available so that we may live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
6. We believe in a literal heaven that awaits all those redeemed by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
7. We believe in a literal hell, created for the devil and his angels, that awaits those who reject the sacrificial atonement that Christ made for us on Calvary's Cross.
8. We believe that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave and ever lives making intercession for the saints even now.

If you can make a valid claim that this church is a cult, then I will be the first to stand and proclaim that, by your definition, I belong to a cult.

How many times must this request be answered? Show me one verse in your Bible that says we are to have a Sunday School. Does that make Sunday School wrong? Show me one verse that says we are to have a Mid-Week Prayer Meeting. Does that make it wrong?

The absence of a "specific" verse of Scripture that fails to exactly identify any given subject does not mean that there are no Scriptural principles involved. There is not one verse that specifically condemns smoking cigarettes, or injecting heroin into your arm. Does the absence of such a verse mean that the activity is condoned by God?

You'll not find a verse that says "The KJV is the Word of God for English speaking people." Again, the absence of a verse does not mean the absence of a truth.

 

Dr. Bob,
I stand with you in your comments. They are accurate. I know because I came out of the KJVO cult. Speak the truth even though people don't like it!

Pastor Bob, many cults would also claim to believe the items you list. But they believe other things that invalidate these other theological claims, such as oneness, UPC, JWs, and KJVOs in this case.

 

This is very good reasoning. Now why can't you follow this reasoning all the way with your "Anglican Version Only'? Sunday School is one means of teaching about God and His Word (Acts 15:35; Acts 18:11; Colossians 3:16; et al). But it is only one method and is not the exclusive method. So it is with KJV-- it is one method of conveying what the biblical writers wrote in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, but it is by no means the exclusive means of conveying this to English speakers.

 

Then by all means tell us what is...

 

By all means... there ain't no such animal! What gives you the idea that a translation of biblical manuscripts is to be the 'one and only'? and we must chunk all before it and produce none after it? If the Bible itself was like that, we would not have 4 'gospels' with each being unique and not telling the same specifics exactly alike... e.g., the 4 different renderings of the sign placed on the cross of Jesus.

 

There is no 'exclusive' means. However, the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV all do a fine job for starters.

Tell us, why must there be an 'exclusive' way of translating God's Word?

Neal