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

[TomVols]

You know, the OP is almost impossible to answer, you would have to contact each and every church (there are hundreds) and ask them when they first made Bible translation statements in their SoF.

I don't know if this counts, but there are hundreds of Baptist churches that identify themselves as King James only.

http://fundamental.org/fundamental/...ncountry&countryname=United States of America

This is just a listing for Baptist churches in the USA, there are also hundreds of Baptist churches listed in many other countries at this site.

Just looking at the list in TN and for KY, there are many that are duplicates. I wonder if those are counted more than once. And I also notice some that actually KJVP. More than one would deny the fundamentals. We've already hashed that. One in KY has closed its doors due to legal/moral issues.

So I wonder how accurate this is. That said, it matters not. Truth isn't decided by numbers.

 

[TomVols]

Do you know who lead Peter Ruckman to the Lord? Hugh Pyle.

So Bro Pyle is to blame, huh? :tongue3: Kidding, friend.

 

[Mexdeaf]

So Bro Pyle is to blame, huh? :tongue3: Kidding, friend.

Actually, BJU may bear the brunt if any 'blame' is to be assessed. But again... that's not the OP question. :laugh:

 

[tinytim]

In my home church's constitution, which was written around 1915- 1917, it reads that ONLY the KJV could be used in the pulpit.

 

[Robert Snow]

In my home church's constitution, which was written around 1915- 1917, it reads that ONLY the KJV could be used in the pulpit.

Wow, that's a long time ago. I had no idea it went back that far.

Although I am not KJVO, one thing I find amusing is that I have never found anyone who attends these churches complain. It's always someone from the outside that has a problem with it.

 

[gb93433]

In my home church's constitution, which was written around 1915- 1917, it reads that ONLY the KJV could be used in the pulpit.

What would be used if a Spanish speaking church owned the building and the English speaking church disbanded?

 

[Mexdeaf]

In my home church's constitution, which was written around 1915- 1917, it reads that ONLY the KJV could be used in the pulpit.

Don't have a problem with that. That's different from the SOF.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Wow, that's a long time ago. I had no idea it went back that far.

Although I am not KJVO, one thing I find amusing is that I have never found anyone who attends these churches complain. It's always someone from the outside that has a problem with it.

They don't complain, but when they go home, they grab their NIV off the bookshelf. :smilewinkgrin: Seen it happen many times.

 

[Robert Snow]

They don't complain, but when they go home, they grab their NIV off the bookshelf. :smilewinkgrin: Seen it happen many times.

I have had more than one of these pastors say that they often used the NIV or the Amplified Bible in study, often as a sort of a commentary.

I believe many KJVO churches stay that way because the people expect it and for continuities sake.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Wow, that's a long time ago. I had no idea it went back that far.

Although I am not KJVO, one thing I find amusing is that I have never found anyone who attends these churches complain. It's always someone from the outside that has a problem with it.

Complaining is not the same as disagreeing. Every local church has a right to have whatever they want in the SoF. I simply disagree that it should be part of one.

 

[Tater77]

At Crossroads Fellowship we simply put a line in the by-laws that states we are NOT onlyists when it comes to translations and that each member is free to use which ever translation they prefer. So no group within the church can spread that poison such as KJVOism without being in violation of the Church by-laws.

It's kinda sneaky, but it should work out just fine.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... 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?

Both the CT and RT are man-made; neither is inspired. Agreed?

What are the chances that either of them is perfect down to the last exact word? It is likely that neither one is actually perfect. Agreed?

If the above is true (and it probably is) then it seems you do not have the written "word of God" preserved in Greek by your definition. How then could it ever be possible to have the written "word of God" (NT) preserved in English?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Both the CT and RT are man-made; neither is inspired. Agreed?

What are the chances that either of them is perfect down to the last exact word? It is likely that neither one is actually perfect. Agreed?

If the above is true (and it probably is) then it seems you do not have the written "word of God" preserved in Greek by your definition. How then could it ever be possible to have the written "word of God" (NT) preserved in English?

Just wanted to say, "Hi Franklin! Nice to see you around these parts again."

 

[Winman]

Both the CT and RT are man-made; neither is inspired. Agreed?

What are the chances that either of them is perfect down to the last exact word? It is likely that neither one is actually perfect. Agreed?

If the above is true (and it probably is) then it seems you do not have the written "word of God" preserved in Greek by your definition. How then could it ever be possible to have the written "word of God" (NT) preserved in English?

I don't agree at all, I believe the RT is the preserved word of God, and so do hundreds of IFB churches, this is what they proclaim in their statement of faith.

This is part of the statement of faith of Heritage Baptist Church in Manheim, Pa.

B. The Preservation of Scripture - We further believe that every word of the inspired Scriptures has been preserved by God (Psa 12:6-7). We believe that this has been done in the Old Testament Masoretic Text and the New Testament Received Greek Text. It is of keen interest that all pastors, speakers, teachers, missionaries, and evangelists use the King James Version of the Bible, or a Bible translated from the same line as the Received Text. We believe that God has preserved his inspired, inerrant, and infallible text in the MT/TR/KJV line of text.

I do not know what year this was written, but I did find a statement of faith that concerned using the KJV only dated 1991 at another church's site.

 

[Trotter]

The first sentence of that section is good. It fell apart once they said, "We believe that this has been done in the Old Testament Masoretic Text and the New Testament Received Greek Text. It is of keen interest that all pastors, speakers, teachers, missionaries, and evangelists use the King James Version of the Bible, or a Bible translated from the same line as the Received Text. We believe that God has preserved his inspired, inerrant, and infallible text in the MT/TR/KJV line of text." All of that is man's supposition and has no biblical grounds whatsoever. They basically tried to turn the section into an explanation of one of the KJVOs favorite proof texts (Psalms 12:6-7).

Believing something is a personal preference. Putting something into a statement of faith that is not in the bible is heresy.

 

[Winman]

I have nothing to do with what churches put in their statement of faith.

The oldest church that I have found so far that supports the KJB only in their statement of faith is the Bible for Today Church in Collingswood, N.J.. This was founded in 1965 by Pastor D.A. Waite who is a famous supporter of the KJB and head of the Dean Burgeon Society.

 

[Jerome]

Baptist Orthodox Creed (1678):

by the holy scriptures we understand, the canonical books of the old and new testament, as they are now translated into our English mother-tongue

 

[TCassidy]

Baptist Orthodox Creed (1678):

Oh oh! Now you've gone and done it! There is a significant group on this forum who swear up and down that KJVO started with 7th Day Adventist Ben Wilkinson. (Okay, I am not sure the BOC of 1678 was making a KJVO statement so much as identifying the vernacular translations as the word of God in that particular language. The only English vernacular in common use at that time was the KJV.)

 

[Mexdeaf]

I have nothing to do with what churches put in their statement of faith.

The oldest church that I have found so far that supports the KJB only in their statement of faith is the Bible for Today Church in Collingswood, N.J.. This was founded in 1965 by Pastor D.A. Waite who is a famous supporter of the KJB and head of the Dean Burgeon Society.

I do believe that your dates are off. By Dr. Waite's recorded testimony he was not even aware of the issue until 1971-

(from http://www.wayoflife.org/database/waite.html)

The following TESTIMONY BY DR. WAITE PERTAINING TO HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE BIBLE TEXT/VERSION DEBATE is recorded from an interview he gave us on audiocassette in January 1992. I have updated some of the statistics:

For about twenty years, I was in darkness about this issue. I knew almost nothing of it from roughly 1951 to 1971.

[Edit: I should also mention that I know Dr. Waite and his family personally. They have been to my house- a long time ago . He is a good man, but good men can be (and are) wrong.]

 

[Mexdeaf]

Oh oh! Now you've gone and done it! There is a significant group on this forum who swear up and down that KJVO started with 7th Day Adventist Ben Wilkinson. (Okay, I am not sure the BOC of 1678 was making a KJVO statement so much as identifying the vernacular translations as the word of God in that particular language. The only English vernacular in common use at that time was the KJV.)

That would be what we call, "a win by default". IOW, as to the record books it means nothing.