1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Extreme KJV-Onlyism - not a Baptist doctrine

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Harald, Jan 6, 2002.

Top Posters
  1. Harald

    Harald New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Extreme KJV-Onlyism – not a Baptist doctrine

    I have just been reading a book which concerns Baptists and the Bible, by Bush and Nettles. As I read what the Particular Baptists affirmed in their 1689 confession of faith it just struck me how un-Baptist a doctrine this extreme KJV-Onlyism amidst us is. I mainly refer to that brand of KJV-Onlyism which regards the King James Bible as totally without translational errors or failures, and which says that the KJV translators were guided, or, inspired, by God in their translation work. This same extreme brand says we do not need the Greek and the Hebrew, that the KJV is even more accurate than the originals. I remember Gail Riplinger having said some such things in one of her books, and she is just one example of such extreme people. I remember that I almost swallowed what she said. But yet how I am thankful to God the Lord that I was hindered from accepting such erroneous a view. I do not remember if it was the man Ruckman who began actively propagating such a heresy as this. Correct me if I am wrong. But just to show all who regard themselves Baptists I here give paragraph nine (of Ch. 1 – Of the Holy Scriptures) from the Baptist confession of 1689, which shows these forefathers were definitely not KJV-Only in the same sense as Ruckman, Riplinger et.al. They recognized the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the translations, and maintained they were the final appeal in all controversies of religion. Read for yourself.


    9. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope. (Rom. 3:2; Isa. 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39; 1 Cor. 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; Col. 3:16)

    Harald
     
    #1 Harald, Jan 6, 2002
  2. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very, very perceptive post. KJVonlyism is definitely a new kid on the block, though it does smack of gnosticism which has been around forever and a day.
     
    #2 TomVols, Jan 6, 2002
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,406
    Likes Received:
    557
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some of us are actively supporting and using the KJV but at the same time trying to do battle against this "extreme" position. Appreciate your time to enter that info from a truly "historic" baptist perspective.

    God HAS preserved His Word. In Hebrew. In Greek. So all men of all languages can accurately translate it and see the amazing life-transforming power of the Word!
     
    #3 Dr. Bob, Jan 7, 2002
  4. dp

    dp Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    While I, personally, believe that the King James Version is the best translation, I'm not a KJV-Only person... more accurately... a KJV-Preferred.

    I have several different versions with those being the NIV, NASV, NKJV, NLT, ESV. I do sometimes like to see/hear how passages read in other versions as I'm sure many other people do.

    I don't think there is anything wrong with KJV-onlyism in and of itself. It's the extremism that's wrong. Of course, it could be said that it is hard to distinguish between the two and I don't claim that ability to any degree of infallibility. However, I don't believe that using a version other than the KJV is going to get anybody sent to hell as some extremists would have you to believe.

    dp
     
    #4 dp, Jan 7, 2002
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dp:
    I don't think there is anything wrong with KJV-onlyism in and of itself. It's the extremism that's wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Some interesting perspectives (not original with me):

    KJV Onlyism (distinct from KJV "Preferism" -- to make up a new word) is heresy because

    1) It directly assigns to a translation that which can only be said of the autographs.

    2) It takes the miraculous qualities of inspiration and applies them to the fallible process of copying and translating the Bible.

    3) It stands in stark contrast to the historical orthodox position.

    4) It denies the God-given right of the people of God to translate the Scriptures.
     
    #5 Pastor Larry, Jan 7, 2002
  6. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
    ....... though it does smack of gnosticism which has been around forever and a day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Can you explain what that means? [​IMG]
    da Gina
     
    #6 Gina B, Jan 7, 2002
  7. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
    Some of us are actively supporting and using the KJV but at the same time trying to do battle against this "extreme" position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Dr. Bob:

    Could you elaborate as to why you support/use the KJV, knowing its weaknesses, instead of other modern versions? I think all would benefit from a "moderate" KJV position.

    (Whoa - did I just call you a moderate?) ;)
     
    #7 Chris Temple, Jan 7, 2002
  8. Harald

    Harald New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone mentioned a new word with regard to KJV - KJV-preferism. I believe many are in this camp, if I may say so, but there not being any proper name they get labeled as KJV Onlyists along with extremists such as the ones already mentioned. I cannot say I have any big problem with someone who plainly prefers the KJV as his personal Bible, before any other translations, new or ancient. And I would guess most KJV preferists are open minded to such other translations which may be regarded good or excellent. Personally I hold the KJV a good translation, not excellent. As for me I would say, at the present moment, that the NIV is bordering on being God-dishonoring. Someone else who knows more about its flaws might say it is real bad. I do not have it nor do I need it, for there are so many other Bibles which are far more accurate. Just for research purposes it might be good to have a copy, but then again it is available on the net. As for the Living Bible or such paraphrases I would not waste my time or energy on such rubbish, nor would I ever recommend such to any one. Of the more modern versions I have come to consider NASB quite good, apart from the negative thing that it is based on Alexandrian manuscripts (NT)from which follows omitted words, verses and parts of verses. But yet I am such an one that I cannot say I have any favourite Bible to put above others. As to source texts I am all for the Textus Receptus, whether Stephanus´, Scrivener's, or Beza's (not much differences between them,in my opinion). As to translation method or technique I am for formal equivalency, and I believe it is the only method which honors the inspired originals, as well as is consistent with the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration, and the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scripture.

    Harald
     
    #8 Harald, Jan 7, 2002
  9. Harald

    Harald New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gina, I hope you do not mind me trying to answer the question you addressed to Mr. Vols, while awaiting his answer. I once had a friend in USA. He was quite extreme in his KJV Onlyism. He was decidedly of that opinion that God does not save anyone through the NIV or other new versions being preached from or read, only through the KJV 1611. He had allegedly been saved through preaching which was from the KJV. I would guess it is this Mr. Vols is referring to, that the KJV is the only translation God choses to utilize when He converts people through the Gospel, that no one is or will be converted through new versions (NKJV, NASB, NIV etc.). Some, unbiblically, say that God does not beget people again from above except through the KJV. But the word of God does not teach regeneration by the KJV nor by any other version. This is the heresy of gospel regeneration. Well, I was graciously converted by God as I was reading in B-1917 (Swedish Bibel 1917, authorized by the Swedish king which lived back then). That Bible was my mom's wedding Bible and the only Bible in our home. I do not know what text the OT was based on, but the NT was definitely translated from an Alexandrian text. According to such extreme KJV Onlyists God probably made a mistake in utilizing a Bible based on Alexandrian texts, or they would say I am mistaken. God the Holy Spirit slew me by the law, more specifically it was Deut. 18:13. I'll never ever forget that moment when I was brought face to face with the HOLY One and JUST, the Lord of Sabaoth, terrible in majesty and in holiness. Blessed be His name now and evermore.

    Harald
     
    #9 Harald, Jan 7, 2002
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,406
    Likes Received:
    557
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I prefer to generally use the KJV1769 revision because my audience is almost always weaned on it. They are historic ifb'ers from way back. Every verse they ever memorized was KJV. Nothing else even "sounds" like BIBLE!

    When in Rome . . . but I translate the KJV into modern English as I read it. Example: I would never call the Holy Spirit, my God, an "it". Just can't do it. So I replace "it" with "He" as I read it. People always ask exactly WHAT version I read!

    And I translate every word of every verse, first from St. Stephens/Erasmus Greek, then from 3 other Greek compilations. Not quite so diligent from the Hebrew, I'll admit.

    In my public reading, for family, for the radio, and for many posts on general forums, I use an admixture of my own and NIV or NKJV.

    When I teach, my students (almost all adults) have various versions. When I stop to point out an archaism in the AV that will cause WRONG doctrinal interpretation, I am constantly amazed that the NASB and NIV often have the CORRECT updated word.

    So I am not even a genuine KJV-prefered. Maybe someone else will give you a better answer.
     
    #10 Dr. Bob, Jan 8, 2002
  11. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob -

    Thanks. Makes sense to me ;)
     
    #11 Chris Temple, Jan 8, 2002
  12. JAMES2

    JAMES2 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never understood why so many people think that the KJV of the bible just dropped out of heaven on a silver platter, and that is the ONLY true bible with the ONLY PLAN OF SALVATION IN IT. It makes me wonder for other strange doctrines they believe.
    As far as I am concerned, just consider where the KJ version originally came from.
    I will agree that the 23rd Psalm sounds strange in any other translation, but for me, I like the NASB.
    James2
     
    #12 JAMES2, Jan 8, 2002
  13. ddavis

    ddavis New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    james i think the jkv-only-perfered says its for the english speaking people, and can you elaborate on "As far as I am concerned, just consider where the KJ version originally came from."
     
    #13 ddavis, Jan 8, 2002
  14. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:


    Can you explain what that means? [​IMG]
    da Gina    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Let me try ;) Gnosticism was a heresy encountered in the NT times which stressed (among many things) that knowledge of God was a secretive thing able to be determined by only a select few blessed folks. Only a few were really in the know about God, so they would argue. KJV onlys argue similarly. To know God, you must know Him through the KJV alone. That is what I meant. Consult a good theological dictionary, Bible dictionary or Bible encyclopedia for a better and more complete treatment of the heresy of Gnosticism.
     
    #14 TomVols, Jan 8, 2002
  15. toolman

    toolman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    If someone (supposedly) can not understand the KJV, but the JW or Mormon Bible is more understandable; should they use these versions over the KJV? After all they are Modern Versions made to fit todays language and their religion. I see a position starting here and I call it "Anything BUT KJVism." It seems that it is not that many want the choice of a version of the Bible, I see that the KJV is being attacked. I do not believe that the KJV is better than or more inspired than the original, that is plain crazy; but I do believe it is the best and accurate translation for the English speaking people. [​IMG]

    [ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: toolman ]
     
    #15 toolman, Jan 10, 2002
  16. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    Toolman, don't be to upset by the occasional attacks on the KJV. Most of the posters on this forum recognize the KJV as a good translation even though they may have another translation of preference. There are only one or two posters who, no matter what is posted, will post the exact opposite. I suspect they suffer from some sort of self image problem and need a lot of attention. [​IMG]
     
    #16 DocCas, Jan 10, 2002
  17. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
    If someone (supposedly) can not understand the KJV, but the JW or Mormon Bible is more understandable; should they use these versions over the KJV? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    Last I heard, the KJV WAS the official Mormon version. :eek: Of course, that does not make it a bad translation.

    I consider the KJV my primary Bible. However, I don't think that any English translation perfectly represents the original language text. For this reason, I use the KJV, NASB, and on occasion others, plus many study aids in an effort to get the best "sense" of scripture.

    I believe that limiting myself to one version of scripture and nothing else would handicap my effort to know the Word of God.
     
    #17 Scott J, Jan 10, 2002
  18. superdave

    superdave New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Toolman,
    I think you are mistaking an attack on KJV-onlyism as an attack on the KJV, they are not the same. Many of those on this board who are quick to attack onlyism are also quick to describe their own love for the KJV.


    Dr. Bob,
    That was a good description of my position on the KJV as well. To me because of my background, it is the only one that really sounds like the Bible, but as I hear teachers explaining what a particular passage is meaning, I often find the more clear rendition in the NASV or NIV. I still use the KJV most of the time, but also refer to other versions for comparison. I am KJV-NASV-NIV preferred I guess! :D
     
    #18 superdave, Jan 11, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...