Does KJV-only teaching affect or harm Bible doctrine of Sanctification?

[HeirofSalvation]

To 37818:
I don't know if making a "KJVO" change their minds is really very important.
It depends on what version of "KJVO" they are.

They are simply not monolithic in their thinking, nor monolithic in what sense they are "KJVO".
The important issue is whether it is a "Theological" issue for them or not:

By way of example:
I was "KJVO" for years while I was a contributing member of a Church that wasn't.

I considered it a "Textual-critical"/ "historical" issue...
But I was "KJVO" on those points.

I also read my KJV enough to understand that causing division and splitting churches was not the wave.
This was simultaneous to my Senior Pastor occasionaly preaching from "The Message".
He was a Godly man, I gave him leeway, I guess to be (In my opinion) in error.

He was not KJVO....He knew I was, but, he let me preach from his pulpit.

I never would cause division from his pulpit, thus, I never brought it up.

KJVO's are no different from any other person. Treat them as individuals, and you'll know how to convince them as well as anyone else.

I DO KNOW....that what drives many of them, is an extreme passion for a black-white "God's word-vs-everything else" mentallity.
They tend to genuinely have passion for what they consider "God's Word"...
They just want to know it, believe it, and obey it. They don't want their pastors to Hem and haw about what a particular passage says:
They want an immediate answer to what "GOD SAID" and they insist you provide it to them.

That's at least the Psychology behind what drives them.

 

[Logos1560]

I'm not at all objective....
I seek to expose you.

Please go ahead and expose me for standing for sound Bible doctrine that can be demonstrated to be taught in the Scriptures. You will be shining the light on my honest efforts to present the truth.

You will be shining the light on my accepting and believing the KJV as what it actually is [a good overall English translation with some archaic language, some translators' bias, and some imperfections] and for disagreeing with what it is not [an absolutely perfect, inspired, inerrant Bible translation, or the final authority].

You will be shining the light on my advocating the application of the same exact measures/standards justly. You will be making either righteous judgments against KJV-only use of double standards or unrighteous judgments in opposing the use of the same measures/standards for all Bible translations.

Thanks in effect for affirming that I am attempting to present the truth concerning actual claims made by KJV-only authors. I treat KJV-only authors as individuals which is why I quote each one directly even if they seem to be saying the same thing or almost the same thing. I also quote them favorably when they make points with which I agree.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Please go ahead and expose me for standing for sound Bible doctrine that can be demonstrated to be taught in the Scriptures. You will be shining the light on my honest efforts to present the truth.

You will be shining the light on my accepting and believing the KJV as what it actually is [a good overall English translation with some archaic language, some translators' bias, and some imperfections] and for disagreeing with what it is not [an absolutely perfect, inspired, inerrant Bible translation, or the final authority].

You will be shining the light on my advocating the application of the same exact measures/standards justly. You will be making either righteous judgments against KJV-only use of double standards or unrighteous judgments in opposing the use of the same measures/standards for all Bible translations.

Thanks in effect for affirming that I am attempting to present the truth concerning actual claims made by KJV-only authors.

I love this.
This is the one of the most self-important and arrogant set of accolades I have ever seen one person ascribe to themself.

By all means....keep talking.

 

[Logos1560]

It was obvious that I did not claim to be perfect. I asserted that I was attempting to present the truth, which is not arrogant at all.

What I merely and honestly noted was my sincere efforts to present the truth and to advocate the just application of the same measures/standards. There is nothing arrogant in my accepting and believing the KJV as what it actually is.

Perhaps some have their eyes closed to extreme KJV-only arrogance where KJV-only posters suggest that they cannot possibly be wrong in their claims for the KJV.

Does a certain poster have their eyes closed to posts of the KJV-only poster who suggests that anyone who disagree with his KJV-only opinions and interpretations is guilty of unbelief?

 

[Conan]

I love this.
This is the one of the most self-important and arrogant set of accolades I have ever seen one person ascribe to themself.

By all means....keep talking.

Actually, that came from you.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It was obvious that I did not claim to be perfect. I asserted that I was attempting to present the truth, which is not arrogant at all.

What I merely and honestly noted was my sincere efforts to present the truth and to advocate the just application of the same measures/standards. There is nothing arrogant in my accepting and believing the KJV as what it actually is.

Perhaps some have their eyes closed to extreme KJV-only arrogance where KJV-only posters suggest that they cannot possibly be wrong in their claims for the KJV.

DUDE!

YOU are so Awesome!

Thank you, sincerely, (from the bottom of my heart) for deigning to both create, and contribute to.... this thread.

Love so much boo!

 

[Logos1560]

Since the KJV is an English Bible translation, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain view or teaching concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages.

The accurate term KJV-only is used by Bible believers to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation—the KJV.

Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense that they would claim only or solely for the KJV. In typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching, no other English Bible is accepted as equal in authority to the KJV as a translation.

It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. Reading only the KJV would not identify the person’s view or beliefs concerning the KJV. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not preferring the KJV that constitutes a KJV-only view, and it is not considering the KJV to be the best English translation.

What is soundly considered to constitute a KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV (his exclusive only claims for it), not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Someone can accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus and still be KJV-only if they also make any exclusive, only claims for this one English translation--the KJV. Someone can consult the Hebrew or Greek texts for clarification and study and still be KJV-only if they also make exclusive claims for only one English translation—the KJV. Someone can read and consult concordances, Bible dictionaries, and commentaries and still be KJV-only. Someone can read another English Bible in order to criticize it and still be KJV-only. KJV-only defines and describes any person who makes any absolute exclusive only claim for one English translation—the KJV. Any view that suggests or implies perfection, inerrancy, or inspiration for the KJV and any view that supposes or assumes that its translating is the word of God in a different sense (equivocally) than any other English Bible could accurately be described as KJV-only. The subjective opinion or unproven assumption that the KJV alone is a perfect English translation or that the KJV is the final authority would be a form of KJV-only view. The subjective opinion that the KJV is the only faithful and true English translation would also qualify as being a KJV-only view since it involves accepting an exclusive, only claim for this one English translation.

On the other hand, this accurate term KJV-only does not suggest that every person who makes any KJV-only claims holds and accepts all the same ideas or uses identical arguments. Different individuals may use different arguments for their varying exclusive only claims for the KJV, and they may disagree with or even reject the arguments that others use for their exclusive only claims. Different individuals, groups, or camps can differ on some significant or important points and still be KJV-only. While the modern KJV-only movement may be diverse and multifaceted in some of its claims and teaching, it is united in making some type of exclusive only claim for one English translation--the KJV. The varying claims and arguments of different camps result from the underlying exclusive only claims that constitute KJV-only reasoning.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Why Logos!
I had no idea that God himelf authorized you and you alone to define what KJVO meant!

And here, I thought that humans were individuals, but you....YOU!
Defined all terms for us!

Thank you for arbitrating all definitions for us!
We'd be lost without you!

I don't know what this has to do with your initial O.P.....Something about Sanctification and....something you are no longer remotely interested in.
But, thank you for copy/pasting some diatribe you once made...probably from your book which I will never pay for, because you might get one penny out of me.

 

[37818]

Unfortunately, you won't get a sort of "peaceably agreed" suggestion agreed upon by myself and Logos.
I do think (provided that it's somewhat archaic verbiage isn't a distraction) that the KJV is the best translation overall.

I think it's best to train children to use it.
In that way the language is hardly foreign to them.

I also don't advocate a Church using numerous translations regularly because memorization becomes more difficult.
Scripture memorization is paramount for the little ones, so, I prefer that the congregation be united (generally on which translation they used).

In, say, 50 years, if the ESV for instance, became so regular that it was almost the "default"....then, I would encourage churches to use it.
It's a REALLY good translation.
I doubt it will ever get that status though.
As it stands, everyone still tends to only know KJV.

Target them individually.
IMO, Logos presents them as being monolithic in thinking.
They aren't.
They are no more or less "swayable" (that's probably not a word) in their thinking as any other group.

The argument is both a Theological one, and a textual-criticism one.
As long as you don't insist that they use something else, you can easily reach them...
I can give you more info later.

Well, personally, the only modern Bible I would recommend would be NKJV. The NASB over the ESV. I use an edition of the KJV. It is a subject to be discussed.

 

[Logos1560]

Some KJV-only advocates such as D. A. Waite seeks to maintain that the term KJV-only should apply only to Peter Ruckman and his followers.

D. A. Waite tried to suggest that the “KJV-only camp” is “the Peter Ruckman camp” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 100). Waite contended that KJV-only “is a term for the Ruckmanites” (p. 67). Waite alleged that “Ruckman does not believe the Bible should be in Spanish, English, Russian, French, or any other language” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, p. 9). Waite claimed: “The Ruckman position’s ‘only’ is ‘only’ in English (no Spanish, no Italian, no French” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20). Waite’s factually incorrect claims would misrepresent and distort what Ruckman has actually written. According to a just application of Waite’s incomplete definition, Peter Ruckman would not be KJV-only since Ruckman does not claim that the word of God is only in the English KJV and does not claim that all Bible translations in other languages are not the word of God.

Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

Perhaps D. A, Waite attempted to define the accurate term KJV-only too narrowly or tried to distort its meaning. Someone can be strongly anti-Ruckman as Waite is and still be KJV-only. Perhaps Waite should have been more careful with the truth since it is clear that he made some misleading or incorrect claims that misrepresented Ruckman’s own stated views.

 

[37818]

Definitions of KJV Only

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Well, personally, the only modern Bible I would recommend would be NKJV. The NASB over the ESV. I use an edition of the KJV. It is a subject to be discussed.

yeah...unfortunately, this thread isn't gonna help you much.
If your concerns are pastoral.....you'd probably be better off going to the Pastoral Ministries thread.

I do note that Logos has ZERO concern for your genuine questions and is remarkably disintetested in answering them.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

yeah...unfortunately, this thread isn't gonna help you much.
If your concerns are pastoral.....you'd probably be better off going to the Pastoral Ministries thread.

I do note that Logos has ZERO concern for your genuine questions and is remarkably disintetested in answering them.

He's got a one-track anti-KJVO mind..
He not only can't help you, but isn't interested in doing so either way.

 

[37818]

Perhaps D. A, Waite attempted to define the accurate term KJV-only too narrowly or tried to distort its meaning. Someone can be strongly anti-Ruckman as Waite is and still be KJV-only. Perhaps Waite should have been more careful with the truth since it is clear that he made some misleading or incorrect claims that misrepresented Ruckman’s own stated views.

Even as good or better than Ruckman he might be. There still issues.

 

[37818]

yeah...unfortunately, this thread isn't gonna help you much.
If your concerns are pastoral.....you'd probably be better off going to the Pastoral Ministries thread.

I do note that Logos has ZERO concern for your genuine questions and is remarkably disintetested in answering them.

The issues are per references. The basis of my KJV view goes back to about 1968.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If your concerns are Pastoral....I would encourage you to be consistent with whatever translation you used.
Preach from it, have the children memorize from it etc...
No one is served well by a multitude of various insignificant verbiages being used in the same passage all the time.

It renders "Hiding God's word in your heart"...impossible.
It makes memorization impossible for the little ones.

I think a MULTITUDE of various ways of saying the same thing makes things so hard on kids....I think it's evil to express it a multitude of different ways.

Just give them a translation, and let them use it. Let them memorize it, and let them think they have listened to "God's Word".
Leave it up to the Logos' of the future to plant doubt in their minds.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Even as good or better than Ruckman he might be. There still issues.

Ruckman is a non-person.
He is irrelevant.
He has zero influence and is not worth discussion.

Ruckman has power only if people who hated him bother talking about him.

Logos has done more to promote his cause (at this point) than Ruckman could.

Logos is the only one keeping Ruckman alive. He died in 2016
Logos has personal financial interest in keeping Ruckman alive and significant.

He is promoting his work and life and his books, by giving him a platform, and relevance

 

[37818]

Ruckman is a non-person.
He is irrelevant.
He has zero influence and is not worth discussion.

Ruckman has power only if people who hated him bother talking about him.

Logos has done more to promote his cause (at this point) than Ruckman could.

Logos is the only one keeping Ruckman alive. He died in 2016
Logos has personal financial interest in keeping Ruckman alive and significant.

He is promoting his work and life and his books, by giving him a platform, and relevance

I do not hate Ruckman. I simply cannot agree with him on everything. I am not going to promote his ideas. Such as the AV corrects the Greek.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I do not hate Ruckman. I simply cannot agree with him on everything. I am not going to promote his ideas. Such as the AV corrects the Greek.

Ruckman has zero influence.
Ruckman died 6 years ago.....for the most part, his ideas died with him.
He only has influence as long as anti-kjvo's refer to him and give him a platform from which to speak.

Logos does that brilliantly, because he needs Ruckman.
In order to stay relevant (and maybe to sell his own book) he needs dead men to still be alive.

Peter Ruckman's biggest fan is, and always has been...........LOGOS1560
And he will keep Peter Ruckman alive as long as he can.

Logos is the only person who will EVER quote Peter Ruckman on Baptist Board....
the only one.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

.