IFB & the KJVO myth...

[Reformed]

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

The onus is on you to prove your point from scripture before you challenge anyone else.

 

[TurnTheTide1611]

The onus is on you to prove your point from scripture before you challenge anyone else.

I am willing to provide a scriptural basis for KJB-Onlyism. (Any passages that talk about the preservation of God's words would be a good place to start. Another helpful study would be to examine all the places in the scripture where scripture is quoted, and see how many times a speaker corrects the text he is quoting.)

But I'm not sure the onus is on me to make that positive case yet.

Right now, I am merely trying to establish first that from a non-KJB-Only perspective, there is no scriptural support for which books belong in the canon. (At least there are no scriptures I am aware of that one could use to defend 66-Book-Onlyism that could not logically apply to the verses and words, instead of just the books.)

The reason I'm not presenting positive evidence for KJBO right now is because I am trying to stay somewhat on topic. This discussion started out with the OP describing the "KJVO myth" being a "man-made doctrine" because it is not found in the scripture.The only supreme reason he provided is because KJBO allegedly has no direct scriptural support. Other than that statement, it was just assumed that KJBO was a myth. (It was also called "junk" and was said to be "created by Satan.") "

If 66-Book-Onlyism is also not found in the scripture, it seems that it would follow from the OP's logic that 66-Book-Onlyism could also be claimed to be a man-made myth, being not directly stated in the Bible.

So unless the OP agrees that 66-Book-Onlyism is a man-made doctrine, isn't the onus on him to explain either why 66-book-Onlyism has scriptural support, or else withdraw the idea that the Bible needs to say something like, "The King James Bible is the exclusive word of God today in English composed of 66 books as found in an Oxford printing" or such like, in order to not be man-made myth?

 

[robycop3]

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?

There's absolutely NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth, which is an entirely MAN-MADE false doctrine. That's why it's hard to believe the IFB fell in love with such a lie.

 

[robycop3]

I am willing to provide a scriptural basis for KJB-Onlyism. (Any passages that talk about the preservation of God's words would be a good place to start. Another helpful study would be to examine all the places in the scripture where scripture is quoted, and see how many times a speaker corrects the text he is quoting.)

But I'm not sure the onus is on me to make that positive case yet.

Right now, I am merely trying to establish first that from a non-KJB-Only perspective, there is no scriptural support for which books belong in the canon. (At least there are no scriptures I am aware of that one could use to defend 66-Book-Onlyism that could not logically apply to the verses and words, instead of just the books.)

The reason I'm not presenting positive evidence for KJBO right now is because I am trying to stay somewhat on topic. This discussion started out with the OP describing the "KJVO myth" being a "man-made doctrine" because it is not found in the scripture.The only supreme reason he provided is because KJBO allegedly has no direct scriptural support. Other than that statement, it was just assumed that KJBO was a myth. (It was also called "junk" and was said to be "created by Satan.") "

If 66-Book-Onlyism is also not found in the scripture, it seems that it would follow from the OP's logic that 66-Book-Onlyism could also be claimed to be a man-made myth, being not directly stated in the Bible.

So unless the OP agrees that 66-Book-Onlyism is a man-made doctrine, isn't the onus on him to explain either why 66-book-Onlyism has scriptural support, or else withdraw the idea that the Bible needs to say something like, "The King James Bible is the exclusive word of God today in English composed of 66 books as found in an Oxford printing" or such like, in order to not be man-made myth?

Please provide your Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. And, PLEASE, don't tell us "Psalm 12:6-7". That thingie was proven false long ago.

 

[Salty]

I am willing to provide a scriptural basis for KJB-Onlyism. (Any passages that talk about the preservation of God's words would be a good place to start ...

Yes, the Bible does state His Word will be preserved!!!

BUT there is NOT ONE Scripture that states that preservation is in the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

I am willing to provide a scriptural basis for KJB-Onlyism. (Any passages that talk about the preservation of God's words would be a good place to start.

The passages that talk about the preservation of God's words has not been demonstrated to support a modern KJV-only view. Which words do the Scriptures teach that God would preserve? It would be the actual, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles and that were written by them.

A consistent, sound view of the preservation of the Scriptures would be true both before and after 1611 while the KJV-only view of preservation is inconsistent. The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611, and KJV-only advocates do not suggest that means that the words in any pre-1611 English Bible are the inspired, preserved words of God.
KJV-only reasoning suggests that the preservation of the words of Scripture changed in 1611 to different ones rather than the exact, specific words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

The KJV translators acknowledged that they did not provide an English rendering for each and every word that was found in their original-language texts, and they also acknowledged that they added many words for which they had no original-language words of Scripture. The KJV does not preserve every specific original-language word of Scripture given to the prophets and apostles. Over 140 words not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV were added in later KJV editions, which is another problem for any attempt to claim preservation refers to the KJV.

 

[robycop3]

And the "preservation" Scriptures are found in every valid Bible version.

 

[Salty]

I am willing to provide a scriptural basis for KJB-Onlyism. ...
...The reason I'm not presenting positive evidence for KJBO right now is because I am trying to stay somewhat on topic. This discussion started out with the OP describing the "KJVO myth" being a "man-made doctrine" because it is not found in the scripture.The only supreme reason he provided is because KJBO allegedly has no direct scriptural support. Other than that statement, it was just assumed that KJBO was a myth. (It was also called "junk" and was said to be "created by Satan.") "

Well, TTT - has been several comments to the fact that KJO is man-made.

I think it is time for you to give us that Scripture Support for KJO

We're waiting........................

 

[robycop3]

Well, TTT - has been several comments to the fact that KJO is man-made.

I think it is time for you to give us that Scripture Support for KJO

We're waiting........................

I agree. TTT said he'd provide it, so I'm waiting as well.

I'm wondering if he was a "drive-by" poster who left when his bluff was called. However, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt, as we all have lives away from the keyboards.

 

[Salty]

I'm wondering if he was a "drive-by" poster who left when his bluff was called. However, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt, as we all have lives away from the keyboards.

He has made several posts in other forums.

 

[robycop3]

He has made several posts in other forums.

I just repeated the challenge to him in the "other denoms" forum.

 

[Salty]

"When you remain silent - you have spoken" - Bobby Tutton

Evidently TTT has "spoken" looks like he cant back up his claim.

 

[Salty]

I found this interesting link

 

[robycop3]

I found this interesting link

Good link! "Logos" has made a much-longer list that he'd likely post here is he's asked.

And, BTW, I repeated the request for Scriptural support for the KJVO myth to TTT. Seems he just might be a "drive-thru" KJVO poater, as many of them are. But for now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a work schedule, computer prob, etc.

 

[Salty]

Good link! "Logos" has made a much-longer list that he'd likely post here is he's asked.

And, BTW, I repeated the request for Scriptural support for the KJVO myth to TTT. Seems he just might be a "drive-thru" KJVO poater, as many of them are. But for now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a work schedule, computer prob, etc.

Well, he posted twice on last Friday and 8 times this past Sat - which was his last post
Lets remind him on Friday AM!

 

[robycop3]

Well, it appears "Turn The Tide" was a "hit-n-run" poster. Evidently, he's skeedaddled when his bluff was called. There's simple NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth, & evidently he now realizes that, but is too proud to admit it.

 

[Salty]

Its been over a year & 1/2 since TTT has posted - He was only on for a few days.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I attended an IFB church that held the position. The pastor explained that they were “King James Only”, not “King James Ugly” (they did not condemn people for using other translations, per se).

His reasoning is that he has to be able to hold a Bible and say that it is the Word of God. He explained that he could not do this if he believed that more than one translation was God’s Word. He also explained that he believes the doctrine of “double inspiration” is a heresy and that is something he does not hold or teach.

My explanation to him was that I hold the Word of God as Scripture when I hold the KJV. But I also do so when I hold a NASB, NIV, or ESV. My reasoning is that these are translations and must be studied as translations. I also explained that, while denying “double inspiration” I do not see how he could get around it as a logical conclusion.

I do not attend that church (although I would not be opposed to visit). The pastor and I get along very well. This is the only IFB church that I've attended at any length. They were a little too much on the legalistic side for me (in matters of girls wearing dresses, boys wearing ties, etc.) but the KJO part is why I felt it inappropriate for me to seek membership. They were wonderful people AND God was using that church in great ways in the community. They are a healthy church and expanding by adding a new building this year.

I say this to point out that their identity was not in legalism or "KJO-ism" but in Christ. I've witnessed many dead and dying churches (both IFB and SBC) and each time it seems that they are failing for taking their eyes off Christ and focusing instead on some religious aspect as they seek a particular set of doctrines or on the world. Both can be equally unhealthy.

This was way too informative and meaningful an answer to anything Robycop can handle....
He just wants to trash the KJV............or the KJVO (he doesn't really differentiate).
Responding in any intelligent manner to any thread is wasted on him.

Kudos for knowing something of what you are talking about.
But, you are dealing with a triple-threat guy who:
1.) Doesn't actually know what he is talking about
2.) Absolutely THINKS he does.
3.) Cannot possibly, under any circumstances whatsoever, be taught anything he doesn't already "know" or think he knows.

Don't waste your energy, time, effort, or years of education and hard study.
God himself couldn't walk up to him in a three-piece suit and tell him he has a minor misunderstanding of the KJV issue even though he was otherwise 95% correct.

He would tell God to pound sand (probably with horrid grammar, syntax, spelling likely mentioning the 'boox' he has read or something etc....)
And that he knows everything already, and way better than God does.
He's a one-trick pony, who doesn't have a great grasp on the only pony he cares about.

 

[robycop3]

This was way too informative and meaningful an answer to anything Robycop can handle....
He just wants to trash the KJV............or the KJVO (he doesn't really differentiate).
Responding in any intelligent manner to any thread is wasted on him.

Kudos for knowing something of what you are talking about.
But, you are dealing with a triple-threat guy who:
1.) Doesn't actually know what he is talking about
2.) Absolutely THINKS he does.
3.) Cannot possibly, under any circumstances whatsoever, be taught anything he doesn't already "know" or think he knows.

Don't waste your energy, time, effort, or years of education and hard study.
God himself couldn't walk up to him in a three-piece suit and tell him he has a minor misunderstanding of the KJV issue even though he was otherwise 95% correct.

He would tell God to pound sand (probably with horrid grammar, syntax, spelling likely mentioning the 'boox' he has read or something etc....)
And that he knows everything already, and way better than God does.
He's a one-trick pony, who doesn't have a great grasp on the only pony he cares about.

Yes, I'm a one-trick pony on a one-trick thread or sub-forum. But evidently you don't know a pony from a donkey, as is seen in your above post.
I can use any grammar or syntax I choose, same as you can, so faulting me for that shows your lack of any real answers to the matters at hand.
Not only have I shown PROOF the KJVO myth is false; I thoroughly explained the whys & wherefores on the appropriate forum. And that proof involves some trashing of the KJV & exposing some of its goofs.
Now, the subject here is the IFB & the KJVO myth. I started it because that myth seems more-prevalent within IFB than in any other major distinct denomination, & I'm IFB myself.
Our pastor & congregation does not follow any MAN-MADE doctrines or rules of worship, such as no pants on females, no earrings on males, etc.-nor does it believe the KJVO myth. Our pastor uses the NKJV & NASV, same as I. The only observances we follow are Communion several times a year, & foot-washing in the spring & fall, depending upon the weather, as members generally wear sandals when the observance is scheduled. It, & Communions are observed IN REMEMBRANCE OF JESUS, & His ginormous sacrifice on our behalf. Baptism is done outdoors in a creek in summer, & in cool weather, it's done in a Southern Baptist sanctuary whose leadership graciously lets us use their natatorium.
While we call ourselves IFB, we're more non-denominational in practices & beliefs than many other IFB congregations are. But we're alike in most baptismal beliefs, & in Sola Scriptura. The KJVO myth, being man-made & false, has no home in our congregation, altho anyone may use any valid version one wishes, including the KJV. I would like to see more IFB churches quit acting like pentecostals & get away from ALL the man-made stuff, including the KJVO myth.

 

[MB]

Bob, I am focusing on the ONLY part and the fanaticism some KJVO advocates display. When they say that only the KJV is the word of God they put themselves into a radical minority that views those who prefer the NASB, NIV, and ESV to be enemies of the gospel. Of course, there are KJVO'ers that are less fanatical but the movement does have its cultish overtones.

I believe it's the hatred of the KJV from any point of view. I've been accused of worshiping the KJV because I rely on it as final authority. I trust the KJV I cannot trust the critical text versions.
The only reason I can see for the hatred of the KJV is that some go for the newer versions because they can't read and understand the KJV. To me this is just plain ignorant. The Bible is not just some book. it is the only Book that brings Salvation. The newer versions In my opinion leave to much to the imagination.I realize the KJV is not perfect because it was translated by men and anything men touch brings with it mistakes. Can any of you swear your modern version is absolutely correct, or even more correct than the KJV.
MB
MB