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

[gb93433]

The edition you are referring to was by Spencer Cone (a Baptist) and was a provisional edition for the consideration of the American and Foreign Bible Society.

That particular NT can be downloaded at http://ia311321.us.archive.org/2/items/commonlyreceived00cone/commonlyreceived00cone.pdf

 

[robycop3]

Some of that kind of literature came out of a church that I once lived near. The problem is that they are not evangelical at all. I do not know of one person who has ever talked with any of the people who go to that church and who became a Christian through any of them. I can remember when they met in a very small building as thought they were an Amish congregation and have grown little since. However the non-Christians know about them in town in a negative way.

The church had to change when Isaac Watts came along too. Imagine a church today without any of what we call hymns? When Isaac Watts wrote and sang contemporary music it was viewed as modern and many opposed it just as we have the naysayers today. For about 1000 years the church did not have singing and then when it did they sang the Psalms. Then along came Isaac Watts!

I believe that, in this thread, that when one refers to KJVO, he/she is referring to the CURRENT edition of that doctrine, the one derived from Dr. Wilkinson's book.

I believe we can safely conclude that the growth of "KJVO" in SOFs posted by many churches was concurrent with the publication & growth in sales of several of the familiar modern Bible versions.

 

[TomVols]

The Baptist Sunday School Board precipitated another split in around 1860 over the same issue but that was mostly in the south when they published the new American version based on the Greek texts of Griesbach and Lachmann, forerunners to Westcott and Hort. (In fact, the WH text of 1881 was an edited text based on those published by of Griesbach and Lachmann.)

Are we talking about the same BSSB? The BSSB I refer to didn't start until 1890.

even in the ABC where a friend of mine pastors a KJVO ABC church - go figure!).

Get out!

Actually, in a sense that doesn't surprise me much. I was interim at a couple of ABC churches in Southern Indiana, and more than a few others asked me to be their pastor. They were very conservative right down the line. I just couldn't do it. Afraid I'd get ABC cooties on my SBC decoder ring

 

[TCassidy]

Are we talking about the same BSSB? The BSSB I refer to didn't start until 1890.

No. It was the sunday school board or committee of the American Bible Union.

Actually, in a sense that doesn't surprise me much. I was interim at a couple of ABC churches in Southern Indiana, and more than a few others asked me to be their pastor. They were very conservative right down the line. I just couldn't do it. Afraid I'd get ABC cooties on my SBC decoder ring

Promise not to tell anyone but the church I took 25 years ago, and still pastor, was an ABC church at the time.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I believe we can safely conclude that the growth of "KJVO" in SOFs posted by many churches was concurrent with the publication & growth in sales of several of the familiar modern Bible versions.

Although there were in all honesty those who made KJVO claims prior to the 1970's, I think that we can agree that it did not become a real point of contention (and thus placed in SOF's) until that point in time- at least in Fundamental Baptist circles. Then again, FB's are a relatively new phenomenon in the whole scheme of Baptist history.

 

[robycop3]

I still wonder how KJVO, a strictly MAN-MADE doctrine, ever wormed its way into any IBF body of doctrines, as all their other docs have at least SOME Scriptural support. I think this was concurrent with the rise of KJVO in some other churches' SOFs.

 

[Winman]

I still wonder how KJVO, a strictly MAN-MADE doctrine, ever wormed its way into any IBF body of doctrines, as all their other docs have at least SOME Scriptural support. I think this was concurrent with the rise of KJVO in some other churches' SOFs.

I hope answering your question is on topic. Those churches that support the KJB only position in their statements of faith believe there is much scriptural support for their position.

Is there a verse in the scriptures that says God will preserve his Word in an English version called the King James Bible? No. And if it did say that, you can bet your last dollar that the ol' devil would publish 100 different bibles that were very different and call them all the King James just to confuse folks.
What the scriptures do say is that God will preserve his scriptures even after heaven and earth pass away. So, the true and pure Word of God is out there, it is just up to us to identify it.

How do we identify it? Most of this evidence is historical. We have the Received Text and we have early writings of church fathers and scriptures written in other languages that support it. That is historical and scholarly evidence.

We also have a historical evidence of history itself. We have the obviously corrupt RCC church with it's scriptures based generally on the Alexandrian texts. We also have a history of churches that many consider more pure and faithful to Christianity that followed the RT. We see the men who gave their lives to publish scriptures based on the RT. We see the church coming out of darkness and the scriptures made available to the common man. We see a period of great evangelism where the gospel was taken to nations all over the world.

So, this historical evidence is considered as pointing to that true text God said he would preserve. We also see evidence of the other line of scripture that points to a very corrupt church that literally killed millions of people over the centuries, very un-Christlike behaviour.

And so churches believe they have the many scriptures that say God will preserve his word forever. One of the SoF I showed showed the many scriptures they based their belief upon. But we also have historical evidence that points to these scriptures being fulfilled, even if a particular line of text is not specifically named.

Matt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

You might not think this verse for instance identifies the pure text, but it does. Look at the fruits of the Alexandrian texts and compare it to the fruit of the Received Text.

So, you may not understand our viewpoint, but we fully believe scripture supports the RT.

 

[Trotter]

How do we identify it? Most of this evidence is historical. We have the Received Text and we have early writings of church fathers and scriptures written in other languages that support it. That is historical and scholarly evidence.

We also have a historical evidence of history itself. We have the obviously corrupt RCC church with it's scriptures based generally on the Alexandrian texts. We also have a history of churches that many consider more pure and faithful to Christianity that followed the RT. We see the men who gave their lives to publish scriptures based on the RT. We see the church coming out of darkness and the scriptures made available to the common man. We see a period of great evangelism where the gospel was taken to nations all over the world.

. . .

And so churches believe they have the many scriptures that say God will preserve his word forever. One of the SoF I showed showed the many scriptures they based their belief upon. But we also have historical evidence that points to these scriptures being fulfilled, even if a particular line of text is not specifically named.

Allow me to sum that up for you:

"There is scriptural basis whatsoever, but we know if we keep on yelling about it people will accept it anyway."

 

[Winman]

Allow me to sum that up for you:

"There is scriptural basis whatsoever, but we know if we keep on yelling about it people will accept it anyway."

Well, not everybody believes as you do. Here is the SoF from a Baptist church that shows verses they believe do support a KJB only position.

(A) The Holy Scriptures. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the verbally and plenarily inspired Word of God. The Scriptures are inerrant, infallible and God-breathed and, therefore, are the sole and final authority for faith and practice. The sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament are the complete and divine revelation of God to Man. The Scriptures shall be interpreted according to their normal grammatical-historical meaning, and all issues of interpretation and meaning shall be determined by the pastor. We believe that the original language Texts which have been Providentially preserved are the Old Testament Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text that underlies the King James Bible, and the New Testament Traditional Greek Text (Textus Receptus) that underlies the King James Bible and that God has divinely preserved His Word for English speaking people in the King James Version of the Bible and shall therefore be the official and only translation used by the church. (2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 119:89, Matt. 5:18)

Now, you may disagree with their view that these scriptures support a KJB only position, but this is what they "believe". After all, it is not a statement of proven fact, it is a statement of "faith", what they believe.

Now I know you are going to jump all over this SoF, and I know why. Nevertheless, it is what this group of believers agrees to.

 

[gb93433]

"There is scriptural basis whatsoever, but we know if we keep on yelling about it people will accept it anyway."

Salesmen who sell poor products know that if you tell people the same thing long enough and hard enough then people will begin to believe you.