IFB & the KJVO myth...

[JonC]

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

I agree. Like I said, we are in different situations. You bring up an interesting problem here. As a parent I would be concerned with a teacher correcting my child on a belief I strongly hold. I wonder, if the correction is successful, if ultimately it becomes a stumbling block for the child who now has reason to distrust his parents religion. As you point out, there are two options. Switch positions or weaken the view of the Bible being taught at one's church.

It just seems a better solution would be to acknowledge the different positions and disallow proselytizing. I would think that consulting the parents of the KJVO child would be an important step before "correcting" the child's beliefs.

But I am not in your position. I only know the struggles that have come about with friends who sent their children to a Presbyterian school. So my comments are not an argument but me "thinking aloud".

 

[Salty]

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. .

1) we do not speak English
We speak American.

2) How many of these 333 "King James era" words do your Granddaughters know?

3) Just curious - how old are your granddaughters?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

1) we do not speak English
We speak American.

That's interesting. I went to public school and have since worked in four Christian schools and now a Bible college. In none of these was a course entitled "American Grammar and Composition" offered.

2) How many of these 333 "King James era" words do your Granddaughters know?

About as many as these "easier to understand" words found in the NIV.

3) Just curious - how old are your granddaughters?

Don't be curious...

 

[Salty]

1) we do not speak English
We speak American.

Granted, "American" may not be officially be a separate language -
but you must agree that there are several differences.

3) Just curious - how old are your granddaughters?

IF your Granddaughters are 18 years old - they probably could understand most the KJV
if they are 13 - would not be easy
if they are 8 - it would be extremely hard for them to understand [/QUOTE]

 

[robycop3]

From the last several posts, we can see Satan has succeeded in at least one of his aims in creating the KJVO myth. It's sewn argument and disagreements among Christians, both within and among congregations. Satan's other aim, I believe was to cast doubt upon several legitimate English Bible translations, including the KJV, from the backlash that develops in some peoples' minds about the validity of the KJV due to the arguments it seemingly produces.

Still looking for more sources of its infesting the Baptist denomination, and IFBs in particular. I'm mystified by it, as we IFBs are generally the least-susceptible to man-made doctrines.

 

[JonC]

About as many as these "easier to understand" words found in the NIV.

Uh oh. I use several of those archaic words. That makes me .... archaic as well .

 

[Reformed]

Uh oh. I use several of those archaic words. That makes me .... archaic as well .

Nope. Not going to say it. I am going to be nice. Ouch! I bit my lip so hard I am bleeding.

 

[Rob_BW]

I am a member of a Facebook "fan" group for my preferred translation. We discuss the various different bibles available, and talk about the translation choices of the editors. Friendly stuff.

Every few months we get "infiltrated" by advocates for a different translation, who proceed to read us the riot act before the group admins can remove them.

 

[robycop3]

I am a member of a Facebook "fan" group for my preferred translation. We discuss the various different bibles available, and talk about the translation choices of the editors. Friendly stuff.

Every few months we get "infiltrated" by advocates for a different translation, who proceed to read us the riot act before the group admins can remove them.

Which begs the question, "What's your preferred translation?" (I promise not to read you the Riot Act if it's not mine!)

 

[Logos1560]

Still looking for more sources of its infesting the Baptist denomination, and IFBs in particular. I'm mystified by it, as we IFBs are generally the least-susceptible to man-made doctrines.

Evidence of erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching infesting independent Baptists can be seen in the 2003 book entitled The Need for An Every-Word Bible--A Layman's Guide for Understanding the King James Bible Issue by Jack Hyles. Hyles did not have this book published while he was alive, but it is said to be transcribed from Hyles' own preaching at his church on Wednesday nights.

Jack Hyles said: "You say, 'Brother Hyles, do you mean if there is one word wrong in the Bible, you have to throw everything else away?' That's exactly what I mean!" (p. 39).

Hyles said: "I believe that every word in the King James Bible is the Word of God and I believe it always was" (p. 139).

Hyles said: "Every single word of God has been preserved in the King James Bible, the only Bible! All the other versions that add to, take away, or change the King James Bible are satanically inspired" (p. 97).

Hyles said: "God is the Author of the King James Bible" (p. 29).

According to Hyles "all or nothing" reasoning concerning Bible translations including the KJV, he suggests that the 1611 KJV should be thrown away if there was one word wrong in it. Hyles should have known that there were actual errors [actual wrong words] in the 1611 edition of the KJV so why did he mislead his congregation with such erroneous KJV-only reasoning?

 

[robycop3]

Evidently, Hyles missed "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14) in his KJV. being a former cop, I had 'sources' to check out the veracity of the adultery accusations against him, & when I found they were true, I lost all respect I had for him.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

IF your Granddaughters are 18 years old - they probably could understand most the KJV
if they are 13 - would not be easy
if they are 8 - it would be extremely hard for them to understand

[/QUOTE]
He noted that 4 of the 7 could read, so unless there's a huge age difference between the readers and non-readers, those readers are probably in the "not be easy" and "hard for them to understand" age groups. They've probably also had considerable exposure to the KJV and have learned the lingo.

 

[Yeshua1]

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 brai froim either the scripture or textual criticismns 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.

KJVO has no support fr0m either the scriptures or textual criticism in regards to the TR/KJV being only correct ones to use. One can support a preferred, but not only view.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Ruckman teaching that the KJV can correct the Greek (including the TR) | Ruckmanism.org

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

One would be required though to be fluent in the original languages in order to be able to judge English translations, correct?

 

[Batt4Christ]

Yet the reality is - IFB and even denominational Fundamentalists buy into the KJV-Only myth with teeth bared and claws displayed... it boggles my mind.

I'm IFB, belonging to a church that doesn't believe any man-made doctrines of faith/worship, & that includes the KJVO myth. However, this false doctrine seems to be associated with IFB in general, much-more-so than in just about any other branch of Baptist worship. (And the KJVO myth seems associated with Baptists of all types more than it does with any other denomination.)

I'm wondering how this came about, as IFB generally rejects all man-made doctrines of faith/worship, & the KJVO myth is definitely man-made.

 

[Batt4Christ]

One would be required though to be fluent in the original languages in order to be able to judge English translations, correct?

Not necessarily fluent - but having a working knowledge (especially of grammar) and a solid Greek/English dictionary or lexicon would be greatly helpful.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not necessarily fluent - but having a working knowledge (especially of grammar) and a solid Greek/English dictionary or lexicon would be greatly helpful.

You would then agree that we need to know at least something of the Hebrew/Greek in order to judge any English translation as good or bad?

 

[Batt4Christ]

Certainly, at least some linguistic knowlege is a helpful tool.

You would then agree that we need to know at least something of the Hebrew/Greek in order to judge any English translation as good or bad?

 

[TurnTheTide1611]

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.

.

This is very interesting to me. I have not spent a whole lot of time debating on message boards - but I have never before seen a non-KJB-Onlyist recognize that the scripture does not directly tell us what books belong in the canon, and understand the significance of that point.

That being said, I believe the canon of scripture certainly contains 66 books and only 66 books, with no additions to Daniel or Esther. I believe that God providentially decided on and preserved the canon.

In the same way that God decided which books appeared in his Bible, I believe God also decided which specific words and verses were to appear in his Bible in English, and providentially selected the exact words and preserved them to this day.

I will make an assumption (perhaps foolishly) that believers on this thread agree with me that there are 66 books in the canon. I will go out on a limb and suggest that believers on this thread are certain there are 66 books in the canon. If you fall into this category, my question for you would be why do you have certainty as to which specific books are in the English Bible but are not certain as to which specific verses and words are in the English Bible?

And do you have any scriptures that directly or indirectly support your case?