Are you insane?? The Word of God is lost?? Perhaps you are not aware of the 22,000 extant manuscripts (about 5,500 of them in the original Koine' Greek!) that support the text of the NT?? Seems you are more concerned with certainty rather than truth. Do you honestly think that we have lost a phrase or two, maybe even a word? If so, let me know.... I'll check the originals if I have them somewhere. If you have the original manuscripts, then you have the KJV?? Puh-leeze.... gimme a break. If you think that the KJV is, in effect, the original manuscripts, then we are in a lot of trouble!
-
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!
Fundamentalist & KJVO Mutually Exclusive?
- Thread starter USN2Pulpit
- Start date
timothy 1769
New Member
tim: Fundamentalism without ultimate, real, hold it in your hands biblical authority is meaningless. What does it mean to be sola scriptura without any reliable scripture?!?
BrianT: Who's questioning Biblical authority or reliability of scripture?
If you can't hold a Bible in your hands and say it's 100% correct, you are
tim: All it takes to change or remove any verse of scripture in the critical text is the discovery of one older conflicting manuscript. For any give verse, how can you know such a manuscript won't be found tomorrow? You can't. Hence the entire critical text bible, every verse of it, is provisional.
BrianT: Not that I agree, what does any of that have to do with KJV-only doctrine vs. fundamentalism?
KJVO, far from undermining fundamentalism, actually establishes it by providing a 100% reliable foundation. Within sola scriptura, establishing rock solid 100% correct doctrine is impossible, that's right, completely impossible without a rock solid %100 correct Bible.
BrianT: Who's questioning Biblical authority or reliability of scripture?
If you can't hold a Bible in your hands and say it's 100% correct, you are
tim: All it takes to change or remove any verse of scripture in the critical text is the discovery of one older conflicting manuscript. For any give verse, how can you know such a manuscript won't be found tomorrow? You can't. Hence the entire critical text bible, every verse of it, is provisional.
BrianT: Not that I agree, what does any of that have to do with KJV-only doctrine vs. fundamentalism?
KJVO, far from undermining fundamentalism, actually establishes it by providing a 100% reliable foundation. Within sola scriptura, establishing rock solid 100% correct doctrine is impossible, that's right, completely impossible without a rock solid %100 correct Bible.
Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Problem is the Word was lost and we don't really know what it said. It likely matches up quite a bit with what we have, but that's not really a great foundation to build on, certainly not to establish absolute Truth.
So much for God preserving his word.
There you have it my friend, a KJVOist stating God lost his Word!
Problem is the Word was lost and we don't really know what it said. It likely matches up quite a bit with what we have, but that's not really a great foundation to build on, certainly not to establish absolute Truth.
So much for God preserving his word.
There you have it my friend, a KJVOist stating God lost his Word!
Up until this thread, I believed I would meet my father in heaven and all my relatives and friends who went before me who believed the Gospel from their battered old KJVs.
Now I wonder if any of them got there after all. Thousands of people through the generations may not be there! All my ancestors who had the KJV before 1970! Millions of people who thought there were going to meet Jesus may not be in heaven after all! They had the wrong version! And most were fundamental Baptists. At least they really believed they were.
Now I wonder if any of them got there after all. Thousands of people through the generations may not be there! All my ancestors who had the KJV before 1970! Millions of people who thought there were going to meet Jesus may not be in heaven after all! They had the wrong version! And most were fundamental Baptists. At least they really believed they were.
And, like those of us who use and read MV's aren't 'saved'?? The KJV is a translation of the Word of God-- don't you get it?? You, nor your relatives, nor your ancestors, nor all the generations gone before were saved by the KJV! They were saved by grace through faith in the Person of Jesus Christ! Sounds like you are worshipping a version of the Bible rather than the author of the Bible. Fundamentalism is not defined or derived from using the KJV exclusively and calling it the 'correct' Bible.Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Up until this thread, I believed I would meet my father in heaven and all my relatives and friends who went before me who believed the Gospel from their battered old KJVs.
Now I wonder if any of them got there after all. Thousands of people through the generations may not be there! All my ancestors who had the KJV before 1970! They had the wrong version! And most were fundamental Baptists. At least they really believed they were.
timothy 1769
New Member
Are you insane?? The Word of God is lost?? Perhaps you are not aware of the 22,000 extant manuscripts (about 5,500 of them in the original Koine' Greek!) that support the text of the NT?? Seems you are more concerned with certainty rather than truth. Do you honestly think that we have lost a phrase or two, maybe even a word? If so, let me know.... I'll check the originals if I have them somewhere. If you have the original manuscripts, then you have the KJV?? Puh-leeze.... gimme a break. If you think that the KJV is, in effect, the original manuscripts, then we are in a lot of trouble! </font>[/QUOTE]No, I think non-KJVO fundamentalism is in a lot of trouble, since every one of their doctrines has a an unsure basis that could be undermined at any moment by an older manuscript that may happen to turn up. Perhaps that'll never happen? Perhaps not, but if that's what you are relying on that's your own extrabiblical opinion that you have chosen to put your faith in. I put my faith in the KJV.
Btw, there's no biblical proof the originals were in Greek, so you may be guilty of raising a mere translation to the level of the inspired originals.
Pot, kettle, black.
Ladyeagle >>> "But when you are telling me I'm wrong, then you're also telling me all the Independant Fundamental Baptists I've known for over 50 years, plus my independant fundamental Baptist father/pastor/missionary, and all the IFB pastors/missionaries/evangelists he fellowshipped with (and he lived to be 76 and would be in his 80s now if the Lord hadn't taken him home) through decades, including his education at BBI under Doc Ketchum, (before it became Cedarville College) and all the IFB missionaries, evangelists, and thousands upon thousands of members of their congregations are wrong too. That is quite amazing."
If the shoe fits. KJVO was never a fundamental.
Briant is right. If you are going to rely on scripture alone, then show us where it says ONLY the KJV, is the inspired words of God.
I thought it said in 2Ti 3:16 " ALL scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
Not just the KJV!
If you hold that this isn't talking about just the originals, and that it holds to copies of scripture, you must then follow the logical path that it includes the NIV,NASB,NLT, THE MESSAGE, ESV,GENEVA, TYNDALES, NESTLES,UBS,TR,ETC.
After all it does say ALL!!!!!
One reason I'm not a IFB is because of the lies that have been preached in IFBs that to be fundamental you must be KJVO.
I grew up IFB, back when there was no talk of KJBO!
From where I sit all IFBs in central WV are KJVO.
Half even lie and say they are 1611, when half of their uneducated pastors couldn't even read a true 1611. Let alone preach from it!!
They say they are KJBO, but when asked which one, 1611, 1769, or 1873, you get the deer in the headlights look.
KJVO has hurt the true fundamentalists.
If the shoe fits. KJVO was never a fundamental.
Briant is right. If you are going to rely on scripture alone, then show us where it says ONLY the KJV, is the inspired words of God.
I thought it said in 2Ti 3:16 " ALL scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
Not just the KJV!
If you hold that this isn't talking about just the originals, and that it holds to copies of scripture, you must then follow the logical path that it includes the NIV,NASB,NLT, THE MESSAGE, ESV,GENEVA, TYNDALES, NESTLES,UBS,TR,ETC.
After all it does say ALL!!!!!
One reason I'm not a IFB is because of the lies that have been preached in IFBs that to be fundamental you must be KJVO.
I grew up IFB, back when there was no talk of KJBO!
From where I sit all IFBs in central WV are KJVO.
Half even lie and say they are 1611, when half of their uneducated pastors couldn't even read a true 1611. Let alone preach from it!!
They say they are KJBO, but when asked which one, 1611, 1769, or 1873, you get the deer in the headlights look.
KJVO has hurt the true fundamentalists.
timothy 1769
New Member
When the personal insults start flying, I know I must have hit a nerve. Please stop calling me a insane heretic long enough to refute what I'm saying:
Within sola scriptura, without a 100% certain Bible it is absolutely impossible to have 100% certain doctrine.
Within sola scriptura, without a 100% certain Bible it is absolutely impossible to have 100% certain doctrine.
When has any 'new' manuscript that has turned up changed the Word of God or the historic fundamental doctrines? Archaeologists have been turning up new manuscripts in droves since the 1800's and nothing has changed. If you call the historic Christian doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility to be 'unbiblical', then you have not proved your point(s). I am sure that you could not even define what they mean! If my 'extrabiblical opinions' are so 'extrabiblical', then why do you not prove me wrong by comparing them to what the Bible says?
You have my points here on this BB, listed on the last page, so go ahead and quote them. Prove them wrong, and don't just bluster your opinions as you have done here. Simply put, your opinions are the unbiblical ones!
If I have about 5,500 manuscripts in Greek, and the oldest ones dated are in Greek, then why would you suppose that they weren't written originally in Greek? You are asserting something in which you have no proof of, either. I read something from some 'Jewish' scholars (unbelievers, of course) that think that the NT was originally written in Hebrew. I think that others here would first believe in aliens!Btw, there's no biblical proof the originals were in Greek, so you may be guily of raising a mere translation to the level of the inspired originals.
Pot, kettle, black.
Exactly, but the only version they had was the KJV and now it's been discovered to be "full of errors" by some people. Wasn't the title of this thread Fundamentalists & KJVO Mutually Exclusive?
I have been told I am wrong, even though thousands of web sites are out there which prove otherwise. Now they are wrong too.
As well as my whole Baptist upbringing and beliefs, those of my Baptist father and his whole generation of Baptist Fundamental Pastors, etc., and generations before them who believed they were fundamentalist Baptists and loved the KJV. And now I find out they hijacked fundamentalism. Something I never knew until this thread.
So all these thousands, maybe millions of people believed what a wrong Bible said and may be lost after all, because they believed the wrong version. They are heretics - all the way back to 1611, no less. Because if the KJV isn't God's word and is full of errors, and isn't the preserved Word of God, then all who came to a saving knowledge of Jesus through believing the KJV was God's Word - are probably lost if you follow this argument to the logical conclusion.
And thousands, maybe millions of people who claim to be fundamentalists and believe the KJV are wrong too. That's my point. Amazing what I've found out here.
And if I wasn't so grounded in God's Word (KJV), my faith would be terribly shaken by some of these posts if not destroyed.
Know anyone who has perfect doctrine? Jesus only.
Hebrews 11:6, "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."
James 1:22, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves."
They can please God the same way they early church did especially the 98 percent who couldn't read.
timothy 1769
New Member
Oh tinytim, you sorely tempt me to use the rolly eyes emoticon, something I've promised myself that I'd never ever do....
Exactly, but ....... if I wasn't so grounded in God's Word (KJV), my faith would be terribly shaken by some of these posts if not destroyed. </font>[/QUOTE]Yep, the title of this thread is regarding KJV-onlyism and Fundamentalism being mutually exclusive. Fundamentalism is not made wrong because of the KJV. KJV-onlyism is made wrong because of Fundamentalism. Did you read my earlier statement?? The KJV is a translation of the Word of God. All translations, even my favorites (NASB & ESV), have errors in them. The Greek & Hebrew manuscripts that all translations are based upon have copying errors in them. None of these copying errors detract or add to what the Word of God says. I think you are equating errors to being something so destructive as to dissolve your faith. Are you so certain that the KJV is 'inerrant'? If you are certain that the KJV is equivalent to being the same in quality, inspiration, and inerrancy as the originals are, then how can you prove that you are right? It is certain that we don't have the original autographs, and you can only wonder why God did not decide to somehow preserve them. It is incumbent to say this, that without the original autographs, you cannot say that the KJV is 100% inerrant, especially if the manuscripts used to translate the KJV have errors in them. I am certain that the KJV is full of errors, but not of the kind that would destroy your faith. This is where you err; if you are basing your faith on 'certainty' rather than truth, then you are in for a great fall.
What about the Germans?Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Up until this thread, I believed I would meet my father in heaven and all my relatives and friends who went before me who believed the Gospel from their battered old KJVs.
Now I wonder if any of them got there after all. Thousands of people through the generations may not be there! All my ancestors who had the KJV before 1970! Millions of people who thought there were going to meet Jesus may not be in heaven after all! They had the wrong version! And most were fundamental Baptists. At least they really believed they were.
What about the Spanish?
What about the Swedish?
What about the Danish?
What about the Eskimos?
What about the Latvians
Hey, where'd the 'onlies' go?? Perhaps they are in hiding in a hole somewhere.......
..... or, hiding from the truth. KJVO is inherently exclusive from the Historic Fundamentalist Christian faith. This error, being KJV-onlyism, must continue to be exposed for the heresy it is.
..... or, hiding from the truth. KJVO is inherently exclusive from the Historic Fundamentalist Christian faith. This error, being KJV-onlyism, must continue to be exposed for the heresy it is.
Well folks were ALL in trouble!
All our bibles have mistakes.I have been on lots of sites,and have done research myself.
Pastor D.A.Waite is said to be wrong! (Defined Bible) Ruckman is said to be wrong!Etc,Etc,Etc.
All other bibles - they used the oldest manuscripts or texts, but they conderdict.
plus man had to fill in some blanks.now come on stick with me here,you know what I am saying?
lets shake the Faith alittle! If you are allowed,Iam! How in Gods name can we say these are our bibles, and preach the Word, and have Faith.If we ONLY beleive parts of the Bible?
You can prove to me flaws in the K.J.V right?
Well guess what,I can prove flaws in the other Bibles,and the K.J.V. So whats left???
What a joke? Iam surprised that we can have Faith at all. I can say one thing, its a good thing Salvation, is heart felt! and peace with God !
Fraser.
All our bibles have mistakes.I have been on lots of sites,and have done research myself.
Pastor D.A.Waite is said to be wrong! (Defined Bible) Ruckman is said to be wrong!Etc,Etc,Etc.
All other bibles - they used the oldest manuscripts or texts, but they conderdict.
plus man had to fill in some blanks.now come on stick with me here,you know what I am saying?
lets shake the Faith alittle! If you are allowed,Iam! How in Gods name can we say these are our bibles, and preach the Word, and have Faith.If we ONLY beleive parts of the Bible?
You can prove to me flaws in the K.J.V right?
Well guess what,I can prove flaws in the other Bibles,and the K.J.V. So whats left???
What a joke? Iam surprised that we can have Faith at all. I can say one thing, its a good thing Salvation, is heart felt! and peace with God !
Fraser.
T
Travelsong
Guest
Man is fallible, therefore it is impossible to have 100% certain doctrine. Or do you claim to be 100% coorect in all interpretation and application?