Plain Old Bill
New Member
Amen!Dr. Bob
-
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!
Has the KJVO movement Hijacked the IFB
- Thread starter Bro.Bill
- Start date
I think KJVO's are trying to do so... in contradiction to the "F"- as in fundamental.
Accepting the KJV alone as the Word of God in English and considering all other versions perverse is NOT a fundamental. However the vast majority of KJVO churches push this view in one way or another.
There are a few exceptions probably but in my experience every "educated" KJVO has considered anyone who is not KJVO a liberal and therefore not a true fundamentalist. I say "educated" because many KJVO's believe it without knowing even the most elementary facts about the issue. Basically someone told them what to believe, which in my mind is completely antithetical to being a Baptist or a fundamentalist. They believe it because "the most godly men" they know said it was so...
Bob Alkire
New Member
I haven't read all of the post but here are a few
HISTORIC fundamentalists remarks.
JAMES M. GRAY
There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it.
JOHN GIRARDEAU
Are translations inspired? The position is here taken that so far as a translation faithfully represents the original Scriptures, it is characterized by the same inspiration with them. If it exactly coincides with the original as to matter, it is substantially the same with it. So far as it deviates from the original, it ceases to be inspired... The translation was effected by fallible men, and therefore contains some errors... The translators were uninspired men, and consequently liable to mistakes; the translation is inspired, so far it exactly gives the original — so far, no more.
JAMES M. GRAY
There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it.
JOHN R. RICE
A perfect translation of the Bible is humanly impossible. The words in one language do not have exactly the same color and meaning as opposite words in another language, and human frailty and imperfection enter in. So, let us say, there are no perfect translations.
WILLIAM BELL RILEY
To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version, or even for the Revised Version, is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves; is to clothe with the claim of verbal inspiration a company of men who would almost quit their graves to repudiate such equality with Prophet and Apostle.
CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON
I do not hesitate to say that I believe that there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy Scriptures from beginning to end. There may be, and there are MISTAKES of translation — for translators are NOT INSPIRED — but even the historical facts are correct... there is not an error in the whole compass of them. These words come from him who can make no mistake, and who can have no wish to deceive his creatures.
Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability.
HISTORIC fundamentalists remarks.
JAMES M. GRAY
There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it.
JOHN GIRARDEAU
Are translations inspired? The position is here taken that so far as a translation faithfully represents the original Scriptures, it is characterized by the same inspiration with them. If it exactly coincides with the original as to matter, it is substantially the same with it. So far as it deviates from the original, it ceases to be inspired... The translation was effected by fallible men, and therefore contains some errors... The translators were uninspired men, and consequently liable to mistakes; the translation is inspired, so far it exactly gives the original — so far, no more.
JAMES M. GRAY
There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it.
JOHN R. RICE
A perfect translation of the Bible is humanly impossible. The words in one language do not have exactly the same color and meaning as opposite words in another language, and human frailty and imperfection enter in. So, let us say, there are no perfect translations.
WILLIAM BELL RILEY
To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version, or even for the Revised Version, is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves; is to clothe with the claim of verbal inspiration a company of men who would almost quit their graves to repudiate such equality with Prophet and Apostle.
CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON
I do not hesitate to say that I believe that there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy Scriptures from beginning to end. There may be, and there are MISTAKES of translation — for translators are NOT INSPIRED — but even the historical facts are correct... there is not an error in the whole compass of them. These words come from him who can make no mistake, and who can have no wish to deceive his creatures.
Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability.
Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
I would make this observation: there is just as vocal a group in Fundamental Baptist circles decrying the KJVO view as there is propogating it. Most of the established schools in the broad sense of Fundamental Baptist circles have not officially assumed this position. Much of the writing done by Fundamental Baptist leaders has been to react negatively, or at least with caution towards the KJVO movement. In reality, the KJVO movement is pretty much "grassroots," unless you want to claim that the likes of Hyles-Anderson and Pensacola Christian College dictate the IFB agenda.
The discussion is there, no doubt. But "hijacked"? That would be an overstatement, I believe.
The discussion is there, no doubt. But "hijacked"? That would be an overstatement, I believe.
Q. What percentage of true fundamentalism holds the "only one version" (I don't care which they opt for) position?
A. None. They cease to be fundamentalists.
Q. If we allow them to still use the historic title "fundamentalist", whose fault is it that the world has such a skewed view of our beliefs?
A. Bob
A. None. They cease to be fundamentalists.
Q. If we allow them to still use the historic title "fundamentalist", whose fault is it that the world has such a skewed view of our beliefs?
A. Bob
If you are so torn up about people that stick with the KJVO, just go about your business.
Lu 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
We are all Christians. The KJVO crowd does consider other version users Christians. They simply believe that the KJV is the preserved Word in the english language. You are angry because we won't have fellowship with you. How sad is that? I have seen some of the most vehement attacks on the KJV on this site than anywhere else.
Mabey if you people stopped whining about KJV onlyisim and reached out in love mabey we could get along. We fight amongst ourselves and that hurts the cause of Christ. No wonder the world doesn't want anything to do with us. If we cannot get it together we will never be effective. We need to show the world that we are different.
I extend an olive branch. Use the version you use. I will use my KJV. Lets get the job done!
Lu 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
We are all Christians. The KJVO crowd does consider other version users Christians. They simply believe that the KJV is the preserved Word in the english language. You are angry because we won't have fellowship with you. How sad is that? I have seen some of the most vehement attacks on the KJV on this site than anywhere else.
Mabey if you people stopped whining about KJV onlyisim and reached out in love mabey we could get along. We fight amongst ourselves and that hurts the cause of Christ. No wonder the world doesn't want anything to do with us. If we cannot get it together we will never be effective. We need to show the world that we are different.
I extend an olive branch. Use the version you use. I will use my KJV. Lets get the job done!
New to the site, not the topic.
Soulman,
Many KJVO IFB churches actively teach that the other versions are perversions and that anyone using a MV has denied the faith and is apostate.
We cannot not respond to that.
I use the KJV. It is the version I have used for at least 40+ years, since I could read. It is 1769, not 1611, only 66 books.
Most vehement attacks! Have you been to any KJVO sites where someone dared suggest that PERFECT inerrancy applied only to the original autographs?
Anyhow, thanks for the olive branch. Assume from your tone that you are holding the branch extended in front of your body in one hand. When most KJVO's extend a branch, they are holding it to the side clenched tightly in both hands, baseball style! AND, I have the bruises to prove it.
Ed,
Thanks for the good comments on Psa 12 and the preservation passage. As has been noted by others the language of the original (apographs) does not permit the great preservation interpretion. I think it is Doug Kutilek who does a great job with this as well. In fact it was Brian Tegart who directed me to this site!
Dr. Bob,
Agree with most of what you have written. However, most conservative fundamentalists have held to PRACTICAL inerrancy in the translations while at the same time rejecting PERFECT inerrancy and perfect preservation.
Also, as an IFB, I do think your ratios as to prevalence of KJVO are pretty accurate.
RJP
[ December 11, 2004, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: rjprince ]
Soulman,
Many KJVO IFB churches actively teach that the other versions are perversions and that anyone using a MV has denied the faith and is apostate.
We cannot not respond to that.
I use the KJV. It is the version I have used for at least 40+ years, since I could read. It is 1769, not 1611, only 66 books.
Most vehement attacks! Have you been to any KJVO sites where someone dared suggest that PERFECT inerrancy applied only to the original autographs?
Anyhow, thanks for the olive branch. Assume from your tone that you are holding the branch extended in front of your body in one hand. When most KJVO's extend a branch, they are holding it to the side clenched tightly in both hands, baseball style! AND, I have the bruises to prove it.
Ed,
Thanks for the good comments on Psa 12 and the preservation passage. As has been noted by others the language of the original (apographs) does not permit the great preservation interpretion. I think it is Doug Kutilek who does a great job with this as well. In fact it was Brian Tegart who directed me to this site!
Dr. Bob,
Agree with most of what you have written. However, most conservative fundamentalists have held to PRACTICAL inerrancy in the translations while at the same time rejecting PERFECT inerrancy and perfect preservation.
Also, as an IFB, I do think your ratios as to prevalence of KJVO are pretty accurate.
RJP
[ December 11, 2004, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: rjprince ]
I have never seen one, can you produce a link
Seen plenty of attacks on the evil doctrine of KJVOnlyism.
I am not KJVO, but I do love and respect the KJV, would never attack it. It is a high quality translation and is the Word of God, I wouldn't attack the Word of God ever, unlike some of my esteemed collegues here who have been known to refer to any version other than their favorite as a perversion, and other such garbage. I have seen more vile attacks on the Word of God here than anwhere else, and it is by KJVO individuals. I would not want to stand in the day of judgement having called the very words of God perverse.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
Dear Soulman,
I accept your offer. You seem to be pretty new here.There have been many heated arguements on the versions forum, if you go there and read some of the threads you will see what I mean.
The truth is that many of the people here who are not KJVO are KJV preferred like myself. I read from it daily,study from it,teach and preach from it.I just believe there is more than one valid translation.So I am in agreement with you.
I accept your offer. You seem to be pretty new here.There have been many heated arguements on the versions forum, if you go there and read some of the threads you will see what I mean.
The truth is that many of the people here who are not KJVO are KJV preferred like myself. I read from it daily,study from it,teach and preach from it.I just believe there is more than one valid translation.So I am in agreement with you.
davidgeminden
Member
Years ago (mid 1970s) I came to the conclusion that weak-conscience-Christians (Romans 14 and 1Corinthians 8) dominate the Fundamental movement. Also, years ago I did not hear of many Fundamental Churches following the KJV-only idea. Nowadays there are many Fundamental Churches holding to the KJV-only idea. Over the years, I have observed that it is the Fundamental Churches that contain extremely weak-conscience-Christians (weak-conscience-Christians that have weak consciences about extremely doubtful things and a lot of petty doubtful things) that have fallen for the KJV-only idea. Fundamental Churches that are dominated by what I call hybrid-weak-conscience-Christians (weak-conscience-Christians that only have weak consciences about extremely doubtful things but not about petty doubtful things) usually do not fall for the KJV-only idea. I have concluded that it is the weak-conscience of weak-conscience-Christians that make them the most susceptible to falling for the KJV-only idea.
Another Brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden
Another Brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden
I can't even believe what I'm seeing in here, There truly is a falling away, and only a remnant which still stick to God's word.
Why did any new translations need to be made? Think about it, to make it easier to understand? NOT That's why they change hell to hades, and the pit. so why didn't they change heaven to the Greek word? Deception! And who's the father of deception and this world? Yeah you got it, satan,
If you closely study and compare God's teachings through the KJV and all the other eng versions revised version included which bears the mark of satan on it's cover 666, they fully attack the diety of Christ, the trinity, hell, turn the Lords prayer into a prayer of satan, turn satan into the Lord, It's not because the KJV had all those errors in translation, nooo.
An honest person faced with these FACTS would not be supporting satan's confusion, but would be standing strong on God's word, not chasing after copywritten rip offs that attack God in any way they can, sit down take a while compare, then ask yourself would God really be in a version that twists salvation and all the major points of doctrine, so less people actually find the truth??
Why would God who is not willing that any should perish make it into bible-babel?
Come on some of you need to search out your faith with fear and trembling, Or don't be suprised if you don't end up where you think you will, Please look into it, It's worth your soul, I don't believe you're not saved if you use a different translation, <attack on Christians deleted>
[ February 07, 2005, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
Why did any new translations need to be made? Think about it, to make it easier to understand? NOT That's why they change hell to hades, and the pit. so why didn't they change heaven to the Greek word? Deception! And who's the father of deception and this world? Yeah you got it, satan,
If you closely study and compare God's teachings through the KJV and all the other eng versions revised version included which bears the mark of satan on it's cover 666, they fully attack the diety of Christ, the trinity, hell, turn the Lords prayer into a prayer of satan, turn satan into the Lord, It's not because the KJV had all those errors in translation, nooo.
An honest person faced with these FACTS would not be supporting satan's confusion, but would be standing strong on God's word, not chasing after copywritten rip offs that attack God in any way they can, sit down take a while compare, then ask yourself would God really be in a version that twists salvation and all the major points of doctrine, so less people actually find the truth??
Why would God who is not willing that any should perish make it into bible-babel?
Come on some of you need to search out your faith with fear and trembling, Or don't be suprised if you don't end up where you think you will, Please look into it, It's worth your soul, I don't believe you're not saved if you use a different translation, <attack on Christians deleted>
[ February 07, 2005, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Moderator note: The topic of this thread is the relation of the KJVO only movement to IFB. It is not the KJV. We have a forum for discussion of versions and translations.
Roger
C4K
Moderator
Roger
C4K
Moderator