Most churches KJVO or no?

Can't argue with that!

 

And if people were informed, they would have all voted that KJVO was outside of fundamentalism.

 

There are IFB churches scattered allover the planet. Many of them conduct their bussines in a language other than English. This factor heavily favors the non-KJVO side.

 

I stand corrected Jason, thanks.

 

Jason, it might be interesting to know what part of the country people are voting from. I know that here in Dayton, OH, it is very hard to find an IFB that is not KJVO - thus my vote was reflected by that. But, in other parts of the country I know that this is not true.

Michael

 

David, I think my pastor is as fundamental as they come and he is adamently KJVO, the only point on which we part company.
I would think that most KJVO's have the view that the King James is the best ENGLISH translation, but do not go so far as to believe, or teach, that the KJV is above the original languages.
That would be heritical and is not the position our pastor takes.
IMHO labeling these people as not being fundamentalists is unfair.

 

Most churches on them are KJV preferred more than the KJVO.

 

If the NASB omitted the doctrine of the Trinity on 1 John 5:7, you can't call yourself a fundamentalist.

 

LOL!

 

It didn't omit anything. Of course, biblical doctrine isn't founded on one verse anyway.

Erasmus did NOT include this in his first two editions of the TR. Only after pressure from (where else - the RCC), did he back translate and add it in. So much for the KJVO idea of preservation. Pardon me while I try and recover from busting another rib.

 

"I didn't take into consideration our non-English speaking brothers and sisters when doing this poll. I should have specified in English-speaking churches."
Don't bother Refreshed, Homebound would no doubt have claimed that those who don't speak English in church aren't true Christians anyway.

 

askjo, while I believe 1 John 5:7 is Scripture, where in the world do you get this idea?

Chapter and verse please?

A fundamentalist can be a Trinitarian without accepting 1 John 5:7 as authoritative.

Shouldn't you have said "in my opinion"...

HankD

 

That is funny, yet it really isn't

There really are those who are carrying KJVonlyism to other cultures and languages as insane as that may sound. I have heard of several translation projects in obscure languages that the missionaries involved are translating from the English KJV to the languages of their field. In some cases, they legitimately do not have a good translation that is properly done, but making another poor translation for a third language won't solve that. Not only is that ridiculous from a translation standpoint, but it automatically makes me question whether any of the missionaries teaching depends on the Bible, or whether they are teaching their converts a man-centered non-intellectual philosophy.

It is unfortunate that more languages do not have translations from the original as good as the several we have in English, but you lose enough meaning between the originals and English, to add another layer can only get more distant from the original intent of the author.

 

The church we attend in Southeastern Michigan is one of the largest IFB churches in our area. They were using the KJV before their new Pastor came I think about 13 years ago. When he came he was fresh out of seminary and had decided he was going to use the NIV with his church.

He just started preaching and reading from it and eventually most of the congregation switched over to the NIV. It really is a breath of fresh air that someone who is so fundamental on the truths of the scriptures also cares about the the Bible being presented in the common language of the day.

By the way, the church had I think around 300 when he started and now has 3 services each Sunday in a new building with a total of about 1700 each week in attendance.

IFBReformer

 

askjo, while I believe 1 John 5:7 is Scripture, where in the world do you get this idea?

Chapter and verse please?

A fundamentalist can be a Trinitarian without accepting 1 John 5:7 as authoritative.

Shouldn't you have said "in my opinion"...

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]God said, "Let us..." Is this not the doctrine of the trinity? The Bible did not say, "Gods ..."

 

askjo, you are a constant perplexity.

I say something and you come back with something else close to but not addressing my inquiry.

But no matter, some seem to have that problem with me.

But yes, Genesis Chapters 2:26 and 3:22 proves that "YHVH-Elohim" is more than one person but yet one God.

Genesis 3
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

 

IFB...KKJV Preferred...with a lot of respect for the NASB. My church had this near church splitting debate around thirty years ago. What God said won (originals as final authority)...What somebody said God said (all translations)lost. I know, it's confusing, but we just do the best we can to try and understand what God said and with the influence of the Holy Spirit, let preachers, authors, and experience teach us what it all means.