Should KJVO be called a cult?

[robycop3]

The formal definition of a cult is a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies, or a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

This begs the question, "What is a sect?"

A sect is a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination, or any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader.

However, the common everyday definition of a cult, as we almost-always use that word, is an apostate religious org with a name, a headquarters building, and a specific leader or body of leaders, E. G. the "Watchtower" of the JWs.


We tend to view a cult or sect in a negative light, assuming all cults or sects are evil. We use the labels on the JW or Mormon denominations, or for Branch Davidians & other small religious groups which are quasi/pseudo-Christian, "having a form of godliness but denying the POWER thereof".


But, is KJVO a cult? In a word, NO. Not by our common everyday definition of 'cult'. KJVO has no central org, no headquarters, nor any one leader or body of leaders. It's merely a false doctrine believed by some people of almost every Christian religious denomination in the English-speaking world. Different people believe KJVO in differing degrees.


So, while a group of KJVOs believing the KJVO myth to the same degree might get together to form a little cultlet, there's NO universal KJVO cult.


Thus, I'm rather skeptical when I see a reference to "the KJVO cult". Few KJVOs believe exactly alike, but they DO share one fact in common...they're all INCORRECT in believing any part of the KJVO myth in any degree whatsoever.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I think it's unfair to refer to them as a cult. It's possible some specific places that hold to KJVO act like a cult, but none of the places I've ever been to. And I'm guessing the vast majority do not.

I was once given a list of "signs your church might be part of a cult". My childhood KJVO church didn't fit any. Essentially, cults try to control the members and have a "thought police" mentality. None of the KJVO churches or groups I've ever known have this.

 

[KRJ]

I'm about a 2/3 on the KJV scale. Am I a cultist?

Hey, if John MacArthur can say he is a leaky dispensationalist then I can be a leaky KJV onlyist. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

Ah, come on, I've always wanted to be in a cult.

Let's just pretend that KJVO is a cult, then I am a cultist. Yeah! :thumbsup:



Being a cultist is fun.

 

[RLBosley]

Cultish perhaps. Many are cultlike and many individual KJVO churches are cultish. But the entire movement a cult? No. No centrality or governing body. too fractured to be called a cult, IMO.

 

[preachinjesus]

Its inappropriate to call them a cult. Misled? Absolutely. But not a cult.

 

[Winman]

Its inappropriate to call them a cult. Misled? Absolutely. But not a cult.

You guys are no fun at all. Let KJVO be a cult, give us a break. Everybody else gets to be a cultist, why can't we?

Look how we dance in church!

 

[Reformed]

Generally speaking, I would say they are misguided and in error. Some KJVO churches are antagonistic towards those they consider to be in error. Case in point: there is a church on a back road to Annapolis, MD that has sign on their property that reads: "We only use the 1611 Authorized Version". What they are actually communicating to the public is, "We use the KJV, and if you do not, you are not welcome."

 

[Winman]

Generally speaking, I would say they are misguided and in error. Some KJVO churches are antagonistic towards those they consider to be in error. Case in point: there is a church on a back road to Annapolis, MD that has sign on their property that reads: "We only use the 1611 Authorized Version". What they are actually communicating to the public is, "We use the KJV, and if you do not, you are not welcome."

And what is wrong with that?

What is wrong with a church agreeing on doctrine?

Why are folks who use MVs so concerned about folks who choose to use the KJB only?

Use whatever version you want, but don't go into a church where the people all believe the KJB is the only accurate version and cause problems.

Go to another church and cause problems.

 

[KRJ]

What they are actually communicating to the public is, "We use the KJV, and if you do not, you are not welcome."

True, but I've seen the snobbery go both ways.

And the scholars on boards like this should remember that to the laity the definition of textual criticism is often something like, "The battle of the conflicting professors." TR or Westcott Hort? I bet I can find someone to endorse and disparage each one with the letters Th.D. after his name. So which doctor is the best doctor to be doctored by?

I've never seen Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. And if I saw them I would not know how to examine them. So no matter how many articles I read by scholars who claim to be in the know about them I can never make a truly educated decision.

 

[Salty]

And what is wrong with that?.

Lets see

What is wrong with a church agreeing on doctrine? .

Is it the church members who really believe it - or are they parroting what the pastor says? In addition - is that actually a doctrine or is it just simply a preference? Where does the Bible tell us the KJV is the only (best) version? With a good answer to that, I will become a KJO.

Why are folks who use MVs so concerned about folks who choose to use the KJB only? .

Depends - If you are KJ-T or P (Traditional or Preferred )- I don't have a problem with that. Its when the KJ O starts telling me that a person can only be saved out of the KJV and other such nonsense.

Use whatever version you want, but don't go into a church where the people all believe the KJB is the only accurate version and cause problems..

If I simply come in with a NJKV or ASVB, NIV, ect; and not say anything - will I be condemned for doing so?

Go to another church and cause problems.

You assume we want to cause problems - could be we just want an honest answer.


I do have one additional question for you. As a KJO - do you use the 1611 version or the 1769 version? (excuse me if you have answered that in the past)

 

[Winman]

Lets see

OK

Is it the church members who really believe it - or are they parroting what the pastor says? In addition - is that actually a doctrine or is it just simply a preference? Where does the Bible tell us the KJV is the only (best) version? With a good answer to that, I will become a KJO.

The church members believe it. Some like myself believe it because they believe God has promised to preserve his word to all generations, and we believe the KJB is that preserved word in English. Others probably believe because that is what they have been taught.

Depends - If you are KJ-T or P (Traditional or Preferred )- I don't have a problem with that. Its when the KJ O starts telling me that a person can only be saved out of the KJV and other such nonsense.

Well a KJO is a KJP. :laugh:

I won't use any other version. When I got saved 50 years ago, at first I had several different versions and that caused me to be confused. That is why I studied the subject. I came to believe the KJB is the preserved word of God in English.

If I simply come in with a NJKV or ASVB, NIV, ect; and not say anything - will I be condemned for doing so?

No, lots of folks come to our church with other versions, nobody says a word to them. They can use whatever they want. Now, if they wanted to get up and preach from another version, that might cause some heads to turn.

You assume we want to cause problems - could be we just want an honest answer.

Give me a break.

I do have one additional question for you. As a KJO - do you use the 1611 version or the 1769 version? (excuse me if you have answered that in the past)

I use the 1769 version. I am aware of the many changes made since 1611, including textual changes. I do not have a problem with any of these. Most of the changes were spelling as spelling in English was not standardized very well in 1611. Changing the font means nothing. The few textual changes were made to clarify the text. No problem whatsoever.

 

[Logos1560]

present KJV editions are not identical to 1769

I use the 1769 version.

Have you ever actually seen and examined the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV?

I know of no present KJV edition that is identical in its text to an actual 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. There would be as many as 400 differences between the 1769 KJV and any present KJV edition.

Besides over 100 differences involving LORD/Lord and GOD/God, over 100 differences in spelling, capitalization, use of hyphens, etc., some places were the 1769 Oxford would differ from most present editions include the following Old Testament examples: “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe“ (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2). In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “lifted“ (Luke 16:23), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and 17 missing words at Revelation 18:22.

 

[robycop3]

And what is wrong with that?

It shows that church leadership, and most likely, all its members, believes at least one false doctrine, and teaches it.

What is wrong with a church agreeing on doctrine?

Nothing, if it's CORRECT doctrine.

Why are folks who use MVs so concerned about folks who choose to use the KJB only?

Because many KJVOs falsely tell others that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version.

Use whatever version you want, but don't go into a church where the people all believe the KJB is the only accurate version and cause problems.

And let them continue in a false doctrine without speaking out? That's sinful. God gave us His truth to tell others, not to keep hidden. Remember Jesus' parable about the rich man's servants, one of whom hid his master's money rather than invest it?

Go to another church and cause problems.

If the "problem" is condemning the KJVO myth ot any other false doctrine, then I'm all for it.

 

[robycop3]

Now, two KJVO congregations that HAVE earned the "cult" label are Faithful Word IFB church in Phoenix AZ, pastored by Steven Anderson and the infamous Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS.

Anderson prayed for the death of Obama. (Not a word of prayer that Obama might cometa Christ.)

He sez gays should be executed. (Again, not a word that they should cometa Christ,)

He is anti-govt. which is in opposition to JESUS' command to obey those in authority, except in idol worship.

He sez he WORSHIPS THE KJV.

He is very controlling.

I believe his "church" is phony as a Chevy Mustang, and is no more representative of IFB than a mosque in Mecca is.

Nothing needsta be said about Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist except my last sentence above.

And both can be examples of one's believing the KJVO myth, which kept the door open for other false doctrines to enter the psyches of those two "pastors".

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Lets see

Is it the church members who really believe it - or are they parroting what the pastor says? In addition - is that actually a doctrine or is it just simply a preference? Where does the Bible tell us the KJV is the only (best) version? With a good answer to that, I will become a KJO.

Depends - If you are KJ-T or P (Traditional or Preferred )- I don't have a problem with that. Its when the KJ O starts telling me that a person can only be saved out of the KJV and other such nonsense.

If I simply come in with a NJKV or ASVB, NIV, ect; and not say anything - will I be condemned for doing so?

You assume we want to cause problems - could be we just want an honest answer.


I do have one additional question for you. As a KJO - do you use the 1611 version or the 1769 version? (excuse me if you have answered that in the past)

I would not condemn someone for using a NKJV, ASVB, NIV ,etc, But I would strongly suggest they switch to a KJV.

 

[robycop3]

i would not condemn someone for using a nkjv, asvb, niv ,etc, but i would strongly suggest they switch to a kjv.

why ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 

[evenifigoalone]

You guys are no fun at all. Let KJVO be a cult, give us a break. Everybody else gets to be a cultist, why can't we?

Look how we dance in church!

Hehe.:laugh: I like you. You're funny.

 

[KRJ]

If you are KJ-T or P (Traditional or Preferred )- I don't have a problem with that.

I reckon that describes me, since my pastor was reading from another translation yesterday and I don't consider him a heretic. I followed along in the KJV, of course, just because I like to read it the way Paul really wrote it you know. :tongue3:

Its when the KJ O starts telling me that a person can only be saved out of the KJV and other such nonsense.

You can be saved reading a tract, which is not the Word of God. A tract may contain the Word of God but it is not the Word of God. Years ago a well meaning brother gave me an issue of Ruckman's Bible Believer's Bulletin to read. I found it offensive. Still love my King James Bible though. I used a NKJV and NASB for about 10 years. I finally quit them and went back to the Bible of my youth. I'm not leaving it again.

 

[Salty]

...What is wrong with a church agreeing on doctrine? ...

Lets see ... Where does the Bible tell us the KJV is the only (best) version? With a good answer to that, I will become a KJO.

... Some like myself believe it because they believe God has promised to preserve his word to all generations, and we believe the KJB is that preserved word in English. ...

I am still waiting on a Scripture reference that the KJV is the preserved Word in English.

One more questioned - why was the "preserved version" not even translated for well over 1400 years after the cannon was closed?

Salty

and I wont even get into which are the "preserved Word of God in other lanuages"