When did statements on Bible versions first begin to appear in 'Statements of Faith'?

[Mexdeaf]

I wonder just when it became vogue to place a section regarding which Bible version is 'divinely preserved' or the "required standard" in 'Statements of Faith'? I can understand saying something like, "the English Standard Version shall be the preferred version of XYZ Baptist Church" or the like, but I have never liked the idea of placing statements such as "(we) believe God’s Word to be divinely preserved in the Authorized Version, commonly called the King James Bible (sic)" or "The NASB shall be the only version used by members of XYZ Baptist Church."

Just when did that come about?

(P.S. Just noted that "Bible" on thread title was not capitalized. Sorry for that error. Maybe a mod can fix?)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I don't know. If it were a part of a church constitution or by-laws it would be different, but to make it a part of the statement of faith makes it doctrine. I would think that everything in a statement of faith would be supported by scripture since that is where we claim to put our faith.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

From another thread:

Well, opinion it might be. That doesn't mean it is error

Should opinion be a part of a statement of faith?

 

[Winman]

From another thread:

Should opinion be a part of a statement of faith?

All faiths have opinions. If this were not so we would all be in complete agreement with each other. The Calvinist believes in Eternal Security and can quote scripture to support it, the Arminian believes a person can lose their salvation and can quote many scriptures to support it.

Doesn't that come down to opinion?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

There is no scripture to support any translation. That is a matter of pure human reasoning and opinion, which, IMNSHO, have no place in a statement of faith.

Practice and policy? Maybe.
Church constitution? Maybe.
Statement of Faith? I'll take mine with scriptural backing thank you.

As to the topic I would be interested to see when this trend started.

 

[TomVols]

I would prefer that SoFs not include an "opinion." That said, when does an interpretation become an opinion, or is it one to start with? It is my opinion that God is triune because I interpret Scripture to teach thus.

Back to the point: if there's no Scriptural backing, it doesn't belong in a SoF. But then again, KJVOs erroneously believe they have Scriptural backing for their sophistry. So like it or not, churches out there have man-made opinions in their SoF when they include this.

 

[jbh28]

All faiths have opinions. If this were not so we would all be in complete agreement with each other. The Calvinist believes in Eternal Security and can quote scripture to support it, the Arminian believes a person can lose their salvation and can quote many scriptures to support it.

Doesn't that come down to opinion?

The KJVO cannot quote any Scripture supporting one translation over an other. No one can, which is why I don't think it should be in the doctrinal statement. I think it's a good idea to have an official translation of Scripture, but I don't have biblical proof for that.

 

[gb93433]

I wonder just when it became vogue to place a section regarding which Bible version is 'divinely preserved' or the "required standard" in 'Statements of Faith'? I can understand saying something like, "the English Standard Version shall be the preferred version of XYZ Baptist Church" or the like, but I have never liked the idea of placing statements such as "(we) believe God’s Word to be divinely preserved in the Authorized Version, commonly called the King James Bible (sic)" or "The NASB shall be the only version used by members of XYZ Baptist Church."

Just when did that come about?

It seems that I can remember it being an issue in America about the 1970s. However it has been a problem in many other countries when the old and new clash.

 

[Winman]

The KJVO cannot quote any Scripture supporting one translation over an other. No one can, which is why I don't think it should be in the doctrinal statement. I think it's a good idea to have an official translation of Scripture, but I don't have biblical proof for that.

What would it say? Thou shalt read the King James Bible, thou shalt not read any other Bible? :laugh:

And guess what? If the scriptures did say that, the next day the ol' devil would publish a hundred different versions and call them all the King James Bible.

And you know this goes both ways, what scripture supports a multitude of different versions? God said not to add to or diminish from his word, so versions that either add or diminish words are forbidden. This does not identify the correct version, but it absolutely shows that the CT and RT cannot both be the preserved word of God at the same time.

I wonder just when it became vogue to place a section regarding which Bible version is 'divinely preserved' or the "required standard" in 'Statements of Faith'?

It started in 1881.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It started in 1881.

Got proof or is that just another fallacious statement?

 

[Winman]

Got proof or is that just another fallacious statement?

That was what I thought would be an obvious joke.

Then again, there is some truth to this, some churches and many pastors did not accept the new versions from the start. It really didn't pose much of a problem at first, because the KJB had been widely accepted as the very Word of God for over 200 years. It WAS the Bible. Only years later when the MVs became more popular did pastors and churches take a more formal stand.

 

[gb93433]

Then again, there is some truth to this, some churches and many pastors did not accept the new versions from the start. It really didn't pose much of a problem at first, because the KJB had been widely accepted as the very Word of God for over 200 years. It WAS the Bible. Only years later when the MVs became more popular did pastors and churches take a more formal stand.

Spurgeon said it was not perfect but it was the best they had at the time.

 

[gb93433]

The KJVO cannot quote any Scripture supporting one translation over an other. No one can, which is why I don't think it should be in the doctrinal statement. I think it's a good idea to have an official translation of Scripture, but I don't have biblical proof for that.

[off topic]

 

[Winman]

Spurgeon said it was not perfect but it was the best they had at the time.

Yes, there were preachers who supported the new versions as there are today. But there were many who opposed them as there are today.

[off topic]

 

[jbh28]

What would it say? Thou shalt read the King James Bible, thou shalt not read any other Bible? :laugh:

One would think so by reading some of their doctrinal statements.

{off topic}

And you know this goes both ways, what scripture supports a multitude of different versions? {off topic}

Did I say that only using one version was a bad thing? Did you read what I wrote? I said, "I think it's a good idea to have an official translation of Scripture, but I don't have biblical proof for that." I think it is a good idea to have an official translation of the church. My church uses the KJV. We don't teach that it is the only translation that is good, but we only use that in our worship services and for teaching in the church. It's not doctrine though. We have no verses to support it.

Also, how many have a doctrinal statement that has that you should use multiple versions. I don't think you understood the point of the thread. It's about putting the translation in the doctrinal statement.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Yes, there were preachers who supported the new versions as there are today. But there were many who opposed them as there are today.

But I have never seen any MV come out and declare a particular version the preserved and perfect Word of God the way people who support the King James do. Say what you will, KJB believers are people of principle and conviction whether you agree with them or not.

Ask an MV which is the preserved and perfect word of God and they say all (which is impossible) or none (which is possible). They don't really seem sure what they believe.

Please try to stop dragging this off topic. It isn't about which is the preserved and perfect Word of God. If you want an answer- start another thread even though it is a waste of time, IMHO.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It seems that I can remember it being an issue in America about the 1970s. However it has been a problem in many other countries when the old and new clash.

That is my recollection also as far as the USA is concerned. Bible versions were never an issue until the 1970's. And as far as other countries are concerned, in Mexico there are some churches that use the 1909 Reina Valera exclusive to the 1960, although it has not been a hot-button issue with most. I'd like to say more on that but then I'd be dragging my own thread off-topic.

 

[tinytim]

It started in 1881.

Actually June 21st, 1881.. 6:66 pm. LOL

 

[Dr. Bob]

I never saw it in a doctrinal statement of any Baptist church pre-1965. Of course, limited to a few thousand church statements.

BTW, it was not in FBC Hammond. Jack preached the dedication of Maranatha BBC in 1968 and gave me an autographed copy of his books on church admin, ss admin, etc etc.

Later when the Ruckman types started to grow and the sect develop, he changed the position (which was to expell any student or staff that taught the only position). I saw now it was in the college doctrine and wonder if in the church??

 

[Mexdeaf]

I never saw it in a doctrinal statement of any Baptist church pre-1965. Of course, limited to a few thousand church statements.

BTW, it was not in FBC Hammond. Jack preached the dedication of Maranatha BBC in 1968 and gave me an autographed copy of his books on church admin, ss admin, etc etc.

Later when the Ruckman types started to grow and the sect develop, he changed the position (which was to expell any student or staff that taught the only position). I saw now it was in the college doctrine and wonder if in the church??

Yes- from FBCH's page at http://www.fbchammond.com/about/what-we-believe/

We believe the Bible is the Word of God.

We believe in the King James Version of the Bible.


(That's actually a pretty innocuous statement. I expected much stronger.)