Featured Does KJVO equal Fundamental?

If the Catholics believe the KJV was their work, why don't they ever sell it or recommend it? Here's a list of Bibles that the Catholic Church recommends

http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2009/01/esv-w-apocrypha-deuterocanonicals-is.html

• Douay-Rheims Bible
• Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition
• New American Bible Revised Edition
• New Revised Standard Version
• New Jerusalem Bible
• The Bible in Its Traditions
• Christian Community Bible
• NET Bible (By Dan Wallace with the Apocryphal books)
• English Standard Version
• NIV
• Common English Bible

Guess which one is NOT on the list!

 

No one has claimed that Roman Catholics believe that the KJV was their work. You are throwing out a straw man claim.

On the other hand, it is a well-established fact that the KJV translators borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

The Douay-Rheims was revised in the 1700's with many renderings borrowed from the KJV, making it more like the KJV.

 

Thank you! :thumbsup:

 

Interesting..... I did not know that!

 

The modern IFB movement can only trace it roots to the 1920s at best. At that time the RV and ASV Of course the RSV NT arrived in 1946. Despite that it would be another 25 years before even the first indications of a KJVO movement arose.

I have been in IFB churches since my salvation in 1974. I attended an IFB college and seminary. My sending church is a bastion of fundamentalism in North Alabama. I visited hundreds of churches raising support to come to the field in the early 90s. Despite all of that I was not even aware of the KJVO notions as seen today until about the time we moved to Ireland.

I have heard IFB preachers use the ASV, NKJV, rarely an NIV, and recently the ESV. To claim these men are not IFB is, frankly, absurd.

It is even more recently that the question of 'IFB=KJVO' has arisen. To claim that there the fact that there are IFBs who are not KJVO is an indication of how much IFB churches have slipped is simply not true.

 

Me too, Mexdeaf too, John of Japan too

 

We were one big happy family! :1_grouphug:

 

The issue is simple. IFB was here before KJVO. You can't impose an ex post facto requirement on defining who is IFB or not.

 

NO!

Just what does the F stand for in IFB?

I remember when we defined a Fundamentalist simply as someone who believed the fundamentals of the faith. At that time I was taught that there were five of them:

1. The inspiration of scripture.
2. The virgin birth of Christ.
3. Jesus’ sacrificial atoning death on the cross.
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
5. Christ’s imminent return.

A sixth requirement many added later was that a fundamentalist was also willing to fight for those fundamentals. I don’t know that I agree with that. Others added more to the list, but these five seemed standard for much of my life and ministry.

So when we get to the topic of translations the question becomes must you be KJVO to believe in the inspiration of scripture? I would say definitely NO.

I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible, yet I do not believe that inspiration is limited to any one language or translation. I would go as far as to state that those who believe in a 2nd inspiration or 2nd revelation in 1611 are preaching a new gospel in contradiction to our traditional fundamentals. I would argue that being KVO means you are not a true Fundamentalist, but then I would be using actual definitions of words instead of the common usage.

 

I one who still uses the KJV, but I'm not KJO and I agree with you 100 per cent. I started off with the ASV 1901 and moved to KJV in the early 60's, the KJV was easier to find.

 

many seem to make the KJVO position as the Fundemental position, but truth is that most are KJVp, and some do use versions such as nasb also!

 

I personally think the the above quoted portion of Dr. Ach's post from page two of this thread nails it and brings to light one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) emerging problems that Bible Believers face in this dispensation. As the end approaches the visible "church" is being homogenized before our very eyes by the ever-increasing and accelerating move back toward Rome. When our Bibles are being "neutered" by the ever deepening acceptance of that which meets the approval of the "Holy Mother Church" who is the "host" of that which has become the textual foundation of all the Modern versions of the scriptures (W&H, and the CT) then we need to step back and take a long, critical and discerning look at what is going on. I seriously doubt that many, if any, of those in the KJVO camp will ever be among those compromised groups that will re-align themselves with the harlot church of Rome. Many of the "protestants" are heading back in that direction with increasing speed.

I would also remind those of us here on the "BAPTIST Board" that true Bible-Believing Baptists ARE NOT, nor ever have been "protestants". The evangelical mainline protestant denominations are far more closely related in polity and practice to the RCC than they are (or have ever been)to Biblical Baptists. There are exceptions to that but as a general rule that is true. ALL the mainline denominations are moving back toward Rome in our day as the One World Church of the end-times takes shape. I will say though that I will personally be glad when we all get to heaven and the whole concept of "denominations" will be a thing of the past! I am not a denominationalist but I do believe that the Bible believing Baptists are, as a general rule, closer to the literal truth of God's Word than any of the other groups out there(personally, I include conservative SBC's, IFB's, RB's and some FWB's in that). I would also say that the basis of much of the current compromise can be traced to the foundation of the Bible versions that are being promoted. I will say that THAT IS MY OPINION...but I have seen many in our day who won't say a thing in opposition to the move toward what I call the "Catholization" of the visible "church" moving toward widespread acceptance of ANYTHING BUT the use of the KJV. I, for one, want no part of that. Dr. Ach, I thank you for the stand you take. To close this I'd like to quote the following portion of the Dedication Preface to the KJV...as follows:

"So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make GOD's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord; and sustained without by the powerful protection of Your Majesty's grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations."

We should be highly suspect of ANYTHING that would steer us back toward the so-called "Holy Mother Church".

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Wait a second. Is the argument that anyone who does not use the KJV is moving back to Rome?

If I use my 1611 KJV the Romish Apocrypha is right there for me to use.

 

Strange how some here hold to an almost cultic view regarding the translation made by and for the Church of england, yetsee as "evyl/corrupt" version such as the HCSB, made by and for the SBC!

 

Point 1.) You don't have a "1611 KJV"...they are worth 1million+ $

Point 2.) No serious person believes that the mere inclusion of the Apocryphal books in the KJV (in the middle as liner notes) was an attempt by the translators to suggest their cannonicity.

Point 3.) KJVO's will respect your superior knowledge at the precise moment that you stop pretending that we are so stupid as to think that the Apocrypha's inclusion is anything more than equivalent to the Dictionary, Liner notes, area maps, and indexes in the back of your Thompson's chain reference Bible...sheesh

Point 4.) I DO happen to posses a 1631 (you don't) (and wouldn't spend the 400 Lbs. it costs to buy it)....and it also includes every Psalm set to music with instructions...

Is your position then, that I should assume that those are upon the same par as the actual cannon? Is it your position then, that I must be so stupid as to think that their particular calculation of the date of Easter or their sidenotes are as perfectly inspired as the Apocryphal books are? What a stupid line of argument this is...Yet I know you sleep warmly at night knowing that the KJV's are the stupid ones. :sleep:

I hate the KJVO debates....I really do. Because No-one pro or con knows how to debate like an adult.

 

Wow, you freely and quite IGNORANTLY ascribe the KJVO to a cultic origin, and then whine when I show that Calvinism was derived from a murderous slave trading, baby sprinkling heretic that based his theology off of another murderous baby sprinkling heretic, that got his ideas from Gnostics, Buddhists and Manicheans (yeah yeah, blah blah he argued with the Manicheans later, BUT HE NEVER CHUCKED THEIR VIEWS OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION).

Here's a quote from one of your own Calvinist buddies about the KJV,

"Philpotts in 1880:

“The AV we believe is the grand bulwark of Protestantism; the safeguard of the Gospel and the treasure of the church, and we should be TRAITORS, in EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD, if we consented to giving it up to be rifled by Puseyites, concealed Papists, German Neologians, Infidel divines, Arminians, Socinians, and the whole tribe of the ENEMIES OF GOD AND GODLINESS…To alter our Bible ?the KJV? would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the word of God…there would be TWO Bibles spread throughout the land and what CONFUSION this would create in almost every place."

Benjamin Franklin Dearmore in 1900’s:

“As for me, I will take the King James translation as the very Word of God for the English people. I believe it is without error. It is 100 percent correct...I do positively state that people who do not know a word of Greek can become real Bible scholars. Many times their understanding is far greater than the Greek scholars.”

"Sam Morris before 1946:

“Open the Bible [KJV] where you will, and the first impression is that of vastness…It is the writing of God, and is NOT the work of man BUT OF GOD HIMSELF…This is not verbal inspiration, it is letter INSPIRATION. It is carrying inspiration to the very finest point possible. For if every letter was inspired, then every word, syllable, verse, chapter and book had to be inspired and is, therefore, authoritative. That is exactly the claim Paul made for the Scriptures when he wrote, ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God…it wasn’t Paul speaking anyway. It was the great God of MY MOTHER’S BIBLE [KJV]. He did not know it because He created men and so His Spirit took possession of Paul and ‘moved’ him to write this scientific truth…when we open the New Testament, the Word which was in the beginning with God becomes flesh and dwells among us, and we behold His Glory, the Glory as one of the only begotten of the Father, full of Grace and Truth.”

And if the KJVO controversy did not begin until 1970 THEN HOW COULD IT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED A FALSE DOCTRINE BEFORE 1970???

[Personal attack snipped] I notice the one college you say the least about is your PhD at St. Alcuin College, a school that TRAINS JESUITS.

Ruckman with all of his flaws and faux paus is more of a Bible scholar and an honest man than you will EVER be. The only thing blasphemous here is the filth you and others propagate against the preservation of God's word and a theology of a god that causes and even desires the murder and rape of woman and children, and if you weren't such a coward to defend your views as well as your accusations I'd debate you on it any day of the week.

 

No one of course includes everyone who has posted on this thread

 

Touche'...my friend....touche' :thumbsup: You earned that one

 

Calvinism was taught by the Apsotle paul in Romans, so yuo are not accusing him of being a heretic, are you?

And even the translators of the Kjv themselves did NOT view themselves as making the perfect translation, and they saw others like geneva and Bishop as valuable versions also!