IFB & the KJVO myth...

[robycop3]

There comes a point when you may have to. If one of the Christian schools in your area has a teacher, who teaches kids the KJV is the only Bible and they (kids) go to 20 different churches on Sunday and Wednesday, that can cause a problem. I have had kids from this school question or be upset because I was not teaching from the KJV. I would have to unteach that this indoctrinated kids with. I only had a small percentage of a percent of his students. The rest are in other churches, likely questioning their Sunday School teachers and pastors because they don't use the KJV. Most people can't defend modern translations against this kind of attack.

So, it may come to a nessacity to "take the show on the road". Confronting the teacher/administrator that teaches such.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I take a similar view to that which Paul took to Peter's refusing to dine at a table with gentiles. Peter was clearly wrong, & Paul didn't hesitate to call him down for it.

Teaching the KJVO myth is clearly wrong, and so I speak out against it.

 

[robycop3]

I disagree. I make that very claim, for me. What, may I ask, is your final authority?

I know Logos will answer,but so will I, for myself. My final authority is God's written word, either in the ancient Scriptural mss, or any accurate English translation of such. There are a number of such translations available, old & new.

I'm not going to change my position just because a radical happens to believe the same thing. That being said, I am worlds apart from Ruckman in my position and my disposition.

The late Dr. Ruckman had the right to be wrong, & so do you.

I disagree. What about the overwhelming majority of English-speaking church-goers who cannot read the first word of Hebrew or Greek? What should their final authority be? Isn't that what the doctrine of preservation is all about?

Why confine them to a "Model T" English version that's not in the current English style?

I don't deny this; in fact, I have said as much. The KJV derives it's authority insofar as it correctly reflects the originals.

...Except where it has goofs & booboos.

 

[HankD]

The NT Scripture is in Koine (common) Greek. A subset of Attic/Classical Greek developed supposedly by Alexander the Great. Some claim that it is a dialect meant for the not so highly educated.

The Greek in the New Testament is the so-called koine 'common language'. Based originally on the Greek of Athens, it was circulated throughout Alexander the Great's empire. Languages acquired by many non-native speakers are generally simplified, as was the koine. Morphological categories were lost, such as the dual and the optative, though forms of them may occur in written texts. Sentences were greatly simplified, as noted below. Yet many forms remain, especially for verbs.

Introduction to New Testament Greek

As such since the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of the scripture then any translation into any language should be true to this aspect as well (NKJV or NIV with TR footnotes) as grammatical and semantic accuracy.

Personally I prefer a NT translation based upon the TR (Textus Receptus - Scrivener 1894).

Probably any translation which attempts intellectual honesty to the elements of Grammar, Syntax, vocabulary, etc is acceptable unless of course there is an obvious agenda RE: JW - New World Translation.

 

[Lodic]

The prob comes when a KJVO disses someone else's Bible version. That's ALWAYS wrong, long as the other person is using a VALID version, not a bogus one such as the NWT, "Clear Word", etc. (Before the question is asked - a valid translation is one that accurately follows its sources closely.)

Didn't know about the "Clear Word" translation, so I just looked it up on CARM. Thanks for bringing it up to beware of it's false teachings.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Because you choose and want to believe something does not demonstrate that what you believe is actually the truth.

Of course not. That is why I have a much deeper basis for my beliefs that just simply choosing to believe something.

According to the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, there are places where the KJV does not have the most accurate translation.

Agreed. Although, precious few, relatively.

According to the KJV translators themselves, the KJV does not actually preserve some original-language words of Scripture.

In their 1611 marginal notes, the KJV translators sometimes pointed out that they did not provide an English rendering for some original-language words in their underlying texts.

Most present KJV editions do not preserve every word that was in the 1611 edition of the KJV, and they add over 140 words not in the 1611 edition.

This is intellectual dishonesty. Your statements are true statements, but one is led to believe that there are great and numerous disagreements between the KJV and the underlying texts.

Allow me to ask two direct questions:

What is the percentage of agreement between the KJV New Testament of today and the extent Greek manuscript evidence?

What is the percentage of agreement between the Critical Text and the extent Greek manuscript evidence?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

My final authority is God's written word, either in the ancient Scriptural mss, or any accurate English translation of such.

I agree 100%. Since I do not read Hebrew or Greek fluently, I have to resort to the English.

There are a number of such translations available, old & new.

For me, not as many new. If you're reading, heeding, leading, and feeding...I have no problem with whatever version you've chosen.

Why confine them to a "Model T" English version that's not in the current English style?

I have seven granddaughters. Four of them are old enough to read. They have no problem at all reading from or memorizing their KJV Bible verses. The KJV is not an antique; it is still the English Bible version by which all other versions are measured.

...Except where it has goofs & booboos.

I've not found any.

 

[Yeshua1]

I honestly think it came about because of the mindset you listed above "rejecting man-made" doctrines and practices. I think they see the NIV, ESV and even the NKJV as man-made products changing God's word. They see the ECM (NA/UBS) as man-made, therefore rejecting all translation based on it. They however fail to see the TR was made with many of the textual principles and the NA/UBS. It just involved a much smaller scope of manuscript evidence. But they accept the TR because they don't see or hear about man's hands being involved. They accept the KJV because they are so far divorced from its inception and don't see man's hands involved.

They want a bible they can claim like the Muslims do with Qur'an. The KJV basically fell from heaven in their minds. Though they will not say that. They will say it was purified by the Holy Spirit.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Those on the extreme side of the KJVO seem to end of almost worshiping the Bible as equal to the God whote wrote it!
I have rread where them equated the logos/word of God as being the 1611Lkv itself!

 

[MartyF]

Seems they've picked up that false doctrine from somewhere. They'll be stumped if asked for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. That's the ace of trumps that "wins" any KJVO discussion.

Unfortunately, like Flat-Earthers, people can make a passage somewhere in the Bible support their beliefs.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I have rread where them equated the logos/word of God as being the 1611Lkv itself!

Can you provide references where you read this? This is new to me.

 

[JonC]

I have seven granddaughters. Four of them are old enough to read. They have no problem at all reading from or memorizing their KJV Bible verses. The KJV is not an antique; it is still the English Bible version by which all other versions are measured.

I think there can be an issue at times with literacy. Not that the KJV is antiquated but that it uses antiquated terms that do not fit naturally in our conversations. This is not to detract from the KJV but to acknowledge a change in language and a need to study the Bible and not to take it superficially.

As an example, a few months ago I had to listen to a sermon about how God called out people for their stupidity. The preacher confused "dumb" (unable to speak) with "stupid". On another occasion a preacher confused "so" ("thusly") with "so much" in John 3:16 and gave a sermon on how God loved us "so much" that He gave His Son (not that God did not love us "so much", but that is not the meaning of the text).

These are not mistakes in the KJV but a reflection of how language has changed.

 

[HankD]

Unfortunately, like Flat-Earthers, people can make a passage somewhere in the Bible support their beliefs.

I know the earth is flat - I lived in Kansas for 3 years.

 

[HankD]

I think there can be an issue at times with literacy. Not that the KJV is antiquated but that it uses antiquated terms that do not fit naturally in our conversations. This is not to detract from the KJV but to acknowledge a change in language and a need to study the Bible and not to take it superficially.

As an example, a few months ago I had to listen to a sermon about how God called out people for their stupidity. The preacher confused "dumb" (unable to speak) with "stupid". On another occasion a preacher confused "so" ("thusly") with "so much" in John 3:16 and gave a sermon on how God loved us "so much" that He gave His Son (not that God did not love us "so much", but that is not the meaning of the text).

These are not mistakes in the KJV but a reflection of how language has changed.

KJV
2 Corinthians 6
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

NIV
2 Corinthians 6
11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
13 As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also.

 

[JonC]

KJV
2 Corinthians 6
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

NIV
2 Corinthians 6
11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
13 As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also.

When I turned 50 I learned to appreciate streight bowels.

 

[rsr]

For the record, let me say that I lean toward CT-preferred translations, but I do not despise the Majority Text or "TR" versions, though I would accept MT before TR translations.

That said, it has bothered me for many years that Roby has constantly bandied the shibboleth that the KJV-onlyism has no scriptural support.

Duh. No version has scriptural support. In fact, no canon has scriptural support. When the Reformers adopted Sola Scriptura, what they really meant was Prima Scriptura, i.e., Scripture is above all other sources of doctrine and practice. You will look in vain in the Bible for advice on which manuscripts to use, or even which books should be in the Bible.

The Latin Rite folks love to trot this out to prove that Sola Scriptura is not a valid doctrine. Humbug. God has given us teachers and brains and expects us to draw conclusions in concordance with Scripture; unlike the Latin Rite folks, we do not consider our teachers and brains infallible and able to pronounce the Words of God in our own opinions.

Those who want to use the KJV should certainly do so. The KJV is the word of God. And all we who would use other versions, having been convinced of their validity, would simply like not to be called heretics or schismatics or worse for our considered opinions.

 

[JonC]

There comes a point when you may have to. If one of the Christian schools in your area has a teacher, who teaches kids the KJV is the only Bible and they (kids) go to 20 different churches on Sunday and Wednesday, that can cause a problem. I have had kids from this school question or be upset because I was not teaching from the KJV. I would have to unteach that this indoctrinated kids with. I only had a small percentage of a percent of his students. The rest are in other churches, likely questioning their Sunday School teachers and pastors because they don't use the KJV. Most people can't defend modern translations against this kind of attack.

So, it may come to a nessacity to "take the show on the road". Confronting the teacher/administrator that teaches such.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

This is the problem I have with that reasoning – where do we draw the line?

If it is acceptable to “condemn” the “servant of Another” for holding to the KJV as the only legitimate version of Scripture then is it also appropriate to condemn other people for holding versions that meet our disapproval (e.g., the NIV, the Message, etc. ).

What about the secondary doctrines we hold? Is it appropriate for those who disagree to combat us for those beliefs?

I do not know where we are to draw the line. I have a place, case by case, where I (personally) draw the line. And this place dictates churches I’d consider joining.

But there seems more “in fighting” than “out fighting” – what I mean is that Christians seem much more willing to fight other Christians than they are willing to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I am in no way saying that you are wrong in how you determine to address others for whom Christ died. Perhaps such error, given particular circumstances, can only spark such conflict among brethren. I am not in that situation, so for me I cannot grasp a situation that would elicit such a response. I’m simply left saddened with the idea that Christians “kill their own”. I think that those who are active in the full-time ministry, particularly with other denominations, can more identify with your sentiment.

 

[McCree79]

. I’m simply left saddened with the idea that Christians “kill their own”. I think that those who are active in the full-time ministry, particularly with other denominations, can more identify with your sentiment.

It is isnt about "killing their own", but about fellowship and maintaining trust of the Bible. I can't allow a middle school kid to tell other kids that the NIV or NKJV are not real bibles. If you allow this teaching to go unchecked, you are left with 2 options. Switch to postion KJVO or allow someone to posion the minds of other believers and allow it to weaken their view of their Bible and what is being taught at your church.

This is about correction, not attacking. You post also mentioned people using the Message or other versions someone might disaprove of. If they promote Message onlyism, that is an issue. But if they prefer the Message or NLT ....or whatever....that is a much different animal than saying it is the only acceptable and true Bible.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[robycop3]

I agree 100%. Since I do not read Hebrew or Greek fluently, I have to resort to the English.


For me, not as many new. If you're reading, heeding, leading, and feeding...I have no problem with whatever version you've chosen.



I have seven granddaughters. Four of them are old enough to read. They have no problem at all reading from or memorizing their KJV Bible verses. The KJV is not an antique; it is still the English Bible version by which all other versions are measured.


I've not found any.

Well, actually, Sir, there are quite a few. A short list includes "Easter" in Acts 12:4, "thou shalt not KINN" in Ex. 20:13, & "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. While the KJV is an overall excellent translation, it's not perfect.

And your granddaughters wiuld likely do better reading Scripture in their everyday language.

 

[robycop3]

For the record, let me say that I lean toward CT-preferred translations, but I do not despise the Majority Text or "TR" versions, though I would accept MT before TR translations.

That said, it has bothered me for many years that Roby has constantly bandied the shibboleth that the KJV-onlyism has no scriptural support.

And I'll CONTINUE to "bandy that shibboleth" because it's TRUE! And NO doctrine of faith/worship can be true unless it's found in Scripture, at least by clear implication, as is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Duh. No version has scriptural support. In fact, no canon has scriptural support. When the Reformers adopted Sola Scriptura, what they really meant was Prima Scriptura, i.e., Scripture is above all other sources of doctrine and practice. You will look in vain in the Bible for advice on which manuscripts to use, or even which books should be in the Bible.

Well, translations are shown in Scripture, such as the Holy Spirit's causing all people present to hear Peter's preaching in his/her own best language at the "first pentecost".

The Latin Rite folks love to trot this out to prove that Sola Scriptura is not a valid doctrine. Humbug. God has given us teachers and brains and expects us to draw conclusions in concordance with Scripture; unlike the Latin Rite folks, we do not consider our teachers and brains infallible and able to pronounce the Words of God in our own opinions.

Those who want to use the KJV should certainly do so. The KJV is the word of God. And all we who would use other versions, having been convinced of their validity, would simply like not to be called heretics or schismatics or worse for our considered opinions.

Seems we're getting into a KJVO debate here instead of finding out why the KJVO myth is so prevalent among IFBs, & Baptists in general, more than in any other major denomination. (And, for the record, I am sola scriptura.)

 

[robycop3]

It is isnt about "killing their own", but about fellowship and maintaining trust of the Bible. I can't allow a middle school kid to tell other kids that the NIV or NKJV are not real bibles. If you allow this teaching to go unchecked, you are left with 2 options. Switch to postion KJVO or allow someone to posion the minds of other believers and allow it to weaken their view of their Bible and what is being taught at your church.

This is about correction, not attacking. You post also mentioned people using the Message or other versions someone might disaprove of. If they promote Message onlyism, that is an issue. But if they prefer the Message or NLT ....or whatever....that is a much different animal than saying it is the only acceptable and true Bible.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Far as I'm concerned, ALL "one-version-onlyism" teaching is false.

I'm still wondering how & why the KJVO myth became so attached to Baptists, IFBs in particular, while KJVO is quite-unpopular among other major denominations.

 

[robycop3]

Didn't know about the "Clear Word" translation, so I just looked it up on CARM. Thanks for bringing it up to beware of it's false teachings.

This bogus Bible version was made & published by one man, Jack Blanco, in 1996. Dr. Blanco is a retired Dean of a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST college, and so has some ties with Dr. Ben Wilkinson, the SDA official who wrote the "foundation book" for the current version of the KJVO myth. As is to be expected, this Bible version is biased toward the SDA cult, and is wholly paraphrased. It is NOT a legitimate Bible version, and was put together by Dr. Blanco from other existing English Bible translations.

While the SDA does not endorse it as its "official" version, they're certainly not against it! And Blanco says he made it as a "devotional paraphrase of the Bible expanded for clarity", being careful not to call it a "Bible version". And it IS printed & sold by an official SDA printing house!

But, Brethren, lemme tellya, it's phony as a Chevy Mustang! It's meant to push SDA doctrine, & NOT as a legitimate translation of God's word!