What is the need for fundies to always talk about 'the movement'?

LRL71,
I am going to make at least a temporary consession concerning my KJVO stand. I have come across alot of material online that I will be investigating. I doubt that I will give up my KJV but may realize where you folks are comming from in your rejection of this apparent movement. I seek truth and will go where it leads.

 

Nice dodge, but you didn't answer the question. Your a priori assumption is demonstrably false, and yet you cannot make any sense of what you believe in a coherent statement. If you say that God preserved the Bible into the KJV, then prove your point. Otherwise your pet doctrine is nothing!

Your 'shaking a stick' at me is besides the point; my salvation does not depend on the KJV nor on your corrupted understanding of what constitutes God's Word. Did you get some 'revelation' from God saying that "I believe that the KJV is what God would have us to have". Again, you are either mentally unstable or demonstrably incapable of dealing with the truth. Again, you dodged my question.

Either you don't care or you are careless about believing the truth. Common sense doesn't make a doctrine a doctrine. You stated earlier that you believed that the originals were inspired, yet you now you question why God would give us inaccurate Scripture. Hey, did you realize that there is a difference between the original autographs and copies of the original autographs? If the KJV is just as 'perfect' as the original autographs, then how do you account for all manuscripts having errors? Or, is it that you cannot accept the fact that there are errors in the KJV. You assume too much, and again have dodged my question.

Perhaps you cannot distinguish between KJV-onlyism and the well-documented Biblical doctrines of inspiration (theopneustos), inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination. Are you that ignorant that I am referring to the error and false doctrines of KJV-onlyism? Duh! If you believe that there are 'language' errors, that's a good start. You cannot deny that there are errors in the copies of the manuscripts, and the degree of error in the extant manuscripts does nothing to destroy anyone's trust in the Scriptures to be infallible and fully authoritative. The Scriptures were perfect only in the original autographs, not in the manuscript copies, nor in your beloved KJV. The KJV is equally authoritative so long as it faithfully translates and reflects the languages that it was translated from. Thus, the KJV is the Word of God, as equally as well as the NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, and other fine translations.

Again, you did not answer my question! Dodge, deflect, hide, obfuscate, and you still continue to beg the question! Sad, indeed!

Have you been reading any of my above mentioned posts? Don't insult my (or your) intelligence! Again, you beg the question and don't give any clear and concise answers! Dodged again.....

OK, let's take your statement about preservation at face value. We can agree to that, so long as your false assumptions of a 'perfectly preserved' (pickles, yum! ) KJV. I have God's Word in my hands, too. I have the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, 3 Greek NT's, and others. What makes you think anything less of the other translations?

Nice dodge, again, and again, and again.....
You haven't answered the question. If you claim that it is ONLY the KJV that is the Word of God in the English language, then you are defacto not a fundamentalist. You have therefore denied the Biblical doctrines of the historic Christian faith. I too believe that the KJV is the Word of God, so long as it reflects and translates faithfully the underlying Hebrew/Aramaic & Greek texts. I would also apply this to any other translation.

First off, if you had clarified this much earlier, then you wouldn't have been tarred & feathered. If it is merely your opinion that the KJV is the 'best' translation, then that is not KJV-only, but rather KJV-preferred. Nothing 'heretical' about that so long as you understand that you don't make claims that it is ONLY the KJV that is the ONLY Word of God in English and that all others are corrupt Bibles. You can rest assured that the KJV is the Word of God, but don't make silly claims that it is the ONLY Word of God!

By the way, I was once KJV-only while I was in college, about 13 or 14 years ago. I was that way for about a year until I realized the truth through my friends and a college professor. If you love the truth, it will set you free indeed!

 

Praise the Lord!!

If you so desire, start here:

www.kjvonly.org

 

Once more what starts out as a relatively decent discussion, turns ugly as the KJVo haters derail it into yet ANOTHER diatribe about that "hateful concept" of a perfect Book.

When oh when are you people going to GROW UP?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

AGAIN for the SLOW learners.

SHOW ME IN THE LIST I PROVIDED ANYTHING THAT REMOTELY RESEMBLES ANYTHING ABOUT THE ORIGINALS OR VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES!!!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

^^^

You are begging the question, again. I've stated clearly that the doctrine of inspiration has always applied to the original autographs only. Whether or not you accept this is irrelevant, and yet you continue to post nonsense about having to prove the doctrines about the Bible.

If you are KJV-only, you are not a fundamentalist. I've made my case earlier, now it's your turn to detail your points rather than your childish rantings and bellicose ignorance.
Part of this loving duty to Christ is to find answers for those who criticize God’s Word. For, as Solomon said, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes" (Prov. 26:5).

 

KJV is a perfect book? Are you smoking wacky tobackee? You continue to beg the question without making any defense of your indefensible position. You grow up; you should know better.

 

Here ya go!


2Ti 3:14
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Scripturally and contextually Scripture is NOT the originals as you wish it was. This Passage simply does not support your view.

You just got done redefining what Scripture IS.
Here we have Paul telling Timothy that he has known the Scriptures since he was a child.
It is IMPOSSIBLE that Timothy had the originals. So WHAT Scriptures did he have? I realize you cannot see this easy-to-discern error based on your redefinition. I understand you have been as indoctrinated in redefining your terms just as surely YOU accuse us of the same. But this ONE fact you cannot ignore.
1.) IF Timothy has KNOWN the Scriptures from childhood then he could NOT have had the originals since they were a.)long gone to dust and b.)the cannon had NOT been completed.
This is first year stuff my friend. Now, kindly define Scripture again. Only this time try not to insert you "cemetary" hogwash.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Here we have Paul telling Timothy that he has known the Scriptures since he was a child.
It is IMPOSSIBLE that Timothy had the originals. So WHAT Scriptures did he have? I realize you cannot see this easy-to-discern error based on your redefinition. I understand you have been as indoctrinated in redefining your terms just as surely YOU accuse us of the same. But this ONE fact you cannot ignore.

Maybe Jim before you cough up the Timothy defense you ought to ponder what scripture he read as a child. Did it line up 100% with the KJV OT?

Where did Timothy live when he was a child? What manuscripts did people in that region use when they read the Word?

Problem for you is that you can not prove that the KJV is error free and perfect. I have a 1611, 1769, and 1873 KJV and they do not agree 100%. So how can you claim that the KJV is a perfect book when the KJV’s history says it is not? Which KJV did Ex Cathedra fall upon thus making it perfect?

You say KJVO haters and that is very true. We are told in the Word to stand against false doctrines, false teachers, heresies, and lies. I do not hate the KJVO but I hate the liberal modernism known as KJVOism.

I was a KJVO for seven years. Once you dig into KJVOism it's very easy to see that the whole movement is built upon lies and distortions. KJVOism was started by a SDA named Benjamin Wilkinson, pushed by two dishonest Baptist who stole Wilkinson’s work, and KJVOism best defense methods were perfected by a man named Ruckman who has visions of a 10 foot tall black lipped anti-Christ. To be a KJVOist one must compromise something in order to defend KJVOism. Generally truth is compromised and replaced with double standards. There is nothing fundamental about KJVOism.

A good place to start in order to refute the KJVO lie is the AV1611. The Message to the Reader destroys the KJVO myth. The marginal notes in the AV1611 destroy the KJVO lies and distortions about the KJV. KJVOist try to play off the AV1611 and many KJVOist do not want you to read it for yourself. Like the RCC they want to tell you what the AV1611 translators meant and detour you from thinking for yourself. Chick has a comic about the AV1611 that is a good example of this type of thinking.

I.F.B can never be KJVOist because KJVOism has no scripture to stand upon. Being KJV preferred is not being a KJVOist.


http://www.kjvonly.org/articles.htm

 

This thread was to discuss the Fundamentalist movement, not the KJV debate. We have a place for that.

Moderator warning: This thread will be closed if it does not return to topic.

 

__________________________________________________

Thank you Mod's for your noitce.
Way back at THIS post I tried to street clear of this in this forum.
Now...can we get back to the topic?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I really do not know why many folks today speak of "the movement".
Perhaps it is because as Dr. Bob stated; that at ONE time, it meant something, and that these folks are trying to get back to the simplicity it once meant.
I suppose also that it demonstrates the ievitable line of decay of anything good that God gives us once MAN gets his grubby paws on it.
Man, Movement, Machine, Monument.
Lutheranism would illustrate what I mean. Once upon a time, it had some good in it. Then after Luther died, it became a movement all over Europe, then as a machine it consume whole countries a little resembled what the man was trying to accomplish. Finally today it is just a monument. We erect monuments to dead people to honor them but it is really just a cold dead hunk of stone.
I fear, should the Lord tarry, that Fundamentalism will follow the same path.

Just my take on it.
In HIS service;
Jim

 

What we need to do is get back to the real fundamentals. I have visited many I.F.B churches and no two are the same. All I.F.B should stand on the true fundamentals of the faith which are backed with scripture:

1. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ: eternal security through the blood.
2. Virgin birth
3. Sinless life of Christ
4 the deity of Christ
5 Teaching the doctrine of the Trinity being the Eternal Son (yes eternal), the eternal Father, and the eternal Holy Spirit being three beings but yet one.
6. Living clean and not being legalist judges
7. And basically letting the Word be our guide teaching all the major doctrines of the Christian faith to anyone who will listen.
8. Having an aggressive outreach program for the lost.
9. Praying and asking God to keep us from error and sin.

These are just some things that came to mind as I was typing this reply.

I think that some of our I.F.B churches have slid off into some legalism (women can not wear pants, men can not have beards, etc…) and this has hurt the movement. There is nothing wrong with standards. For example a woman in a dress can look more immoral than a woman in pants; I have been in I.F.B and seen women in dresses that make me blush because they are so tight. I’m just using this as an example not to start an off topic war. I feel like we need to get back to the basics and teach the truth in love without compromise. I myself am guilty sometimes of trying to do the work of the Holy Spirit instead of planting the seed and praying while the Spirit does His work.

To me being a fundamentalist simply means being able to support my beliefs with scripture not matter what I am discussing.

I guess fundamentalist are like everyone else under the sun. We are human and prone to get off coarse sometimes. I say this to myself more often than I say it to anyone else.

In His service,
David J Horn

 

DavidJ;
I agree whole-heartedly.
When fundamentalistS get to waging war on non-fundamentals, all kinds of evil erupts. I think this is why there is even a message board to that effect.
It is called "The FIGHTING Fundamentalists"

In HIS SERVICE;
jIM

 

av1611jim,

If you wish, I can continue 'our' discussion(s) in the Translations/Versions forum. I was about to post a follow-up to your last question, but the moderators have intervened. I will await your answer here, or you may start a topic over there.

LRL71

 

LRL71;
Thanks for the invite but, frankly brother, that dog won't hunt.
It has been beaten around so much that now that poor old dog has gotten mean, and is beginning to turn on they who love him.
I would rather not. Not because I am "skeered" but because it is fruitless. And I suppose you know that.
In HIS service;
Jim

 

To David J and AV1611Jim...I agree that we all need to get back to the bare fundamentals of the faith.
Quote by David J:
"1. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ: eternal security through the blood.
2. Virgin birth
3. Sinless life of Christ
4 the deity of Christ
5 Teaching the doctrine of the Trinity being the Eternal Son (yes eternal), the eternal Father, and the eternal Holy Spirit being three beings but yet one.
6. Living clean and not being legalist judges
7. And basically letting the Word be our guide teaching all the major doctrines of the Christian faith to anyone who will listen.
8. Having an aggressive outreach program for the lost.
9. Praying and asking God to keep us from error and sin.

By this standard the SBC church I now attend is definitely FUNDAMENTAL.I used to go to Independent Baptist churches and I still love them but I got tired...so very tired of watching the Independents "shoot their own wounded" so much of the time.After experiencing divorce firsthand(I was put away)...(twice)I had the unfortunate experience of being made to feel like I didn't belong anymore.It took me years to get my feet back under me again.I will say though that I am currently somewhat distraught about the lack of biblical seperation I see overtaking fundamental brethren and the churches they attend.It is scary to me how undiscerning many christians have become.

Greg Sr.

Greg Sr.

 

^^^

Good post, Greg & Jim (re: topic at hand, not KJV-onlyism). I am curious to know what exactly you mean by a lack of separation in fundamentalism today (Greg)? It is interesting to note that new-evangelicalism has decayed to the point where many in that 'movement', which started about 60 years ago, have fallen into neo-orthodoxy and rank liberalism. Little compromises in the 'fundamentals' have caused new-evangelicals to commit greater compromises to the point where apostacy exists. There are some here on the BB, who 'pose' as being "Baptist", but rather are new-evangelical compromisers, neo-orthodox, liberal, or pentecostal/charismatic. The battles that Fundamentalists have fought were in the arena of battling those who I've listed above, and should be continued today.

 

LRL...I was talking about the apparent compromise and shift in thinking of "fundamentalists" like Dr.Falwell as they seem to have abandoned the traditional fundamentalist concept of seperation from the world and other ecclesiatical organizations.Why?I don't know.I read a lot of news from sources like Bro.David Cloud at Way Of Life.org,the Calvary Contender by Bro.Huffman,and the Plains Baptist Challenger by E.L.Bynum.Bro.Cloud has a daily/weekly newsletter that he will email free by going to his website and subcribing.No cost but a lot of good info from an obviously well-studied man who is a thorough researcher.You may not agree with all of his conclusions but he does try to give whatever he publishes from a strictly biblical basis.
My personal conviction is that as Bible Believing Christians we must maintain a stance of speration from not only the world but also from any organization/church who abandons the fundamentals of the faith "once delivered unto the saints".

Greg Sr.