Why do fundamentalists tend to use the KJV

[TCassidy]

Tom, I believe you and I have a different definition of fundamentalism, which is a topic for a different thread.

 

[TomVols]

Tom, I believe you and I have a different definition of fundamentalism, which is a topic for a different thread.

Yes it is But I think our definitions are similar. Where we would differ is what contradicts those doctrines. I don't think either of would disagree that mere verbal assent to a set of fundamentals qualifies as fundamentalism, especially if further verbal action negates such an assent.

 

[Winman]

If you want to know why so many IFB churches use the KJB only, all you have to do is look at their statements of faith. Here are some examples from several IFB churches.

We believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. We believe the Bible to be without fault and fully trustworthy. We believe the Bible to be the final authority of the church and believer, and that it is the sole basis for all practice and doctrine. We believe God has preserved the Bible through the majority or received text and only use the Authorized King James Version.

By this we mean, that we accept the so-called fundamentals of the faith as opposed to modern and ever changing ideas that deny the fundamentals of the faith. We believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, the Genesis account of creation, the Virgin Birth of Christ, His sinless life, His blood atonement, His glorious bodily resurrection, His ascension, and His second coming. We reject all books and writings, claiming to be God’s Word and divinely inspired, outside the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments and believe God’s Word to be divinely preserved in the Authorized Version, commonly called the King James Bible.

We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired,and it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter, and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the age, the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

By “The Holy Scriptures” we mean that collection of sixty-six books, from Genesis to Revelation, which as originally written does not only contain and convey the Word of God but is the very Word of God.

By “inspiration” we mean that the books of the Bible were written by holy men of old as they were moved by the Holy Spirit in such a definite way that their writings were supernaturally and verbally inspired and free from error, as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired.

We believe that God's Word is preserved for us today in the Authorized King James Version in the English language, and that it is the God-honored text. We believe that inspiration without preservation would be meaningless. We reject all other translations and paraphrases of the Word of God and subscribe to and use only the KJV in all out activities.

We believe the Bible to be the absolute and final rule of faith, doctrine and practice for the believer and that every believer must come under its authority in order to be obedient to God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Acts 1:16, 28:25; Psalm 119:105,130,160; Luke 24:5-27; John 17:17; Luke 24:44-45; Psalm 119:89; Proverbs 30:5-6; Romans 3:4; 1Peter 1:2-3; Revelation 22:19; John 12:48; Isaiah 8:20; Ephesians 6:17; Romans 15:4; Luke 16:31; Psalm 19:7-11; John 5:45-47;

John 5:39.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If you want to know why so many IFB churches use the KJB only, all you have to do is look at their statements of faith. Here are some examples from several IFB churches.

Why would any church include a statement in their statement of faith that has no scriptual basis such as

and believe God’s Word to be divinely preserved in the Authorized Version, commonly called the King James Bible.

 

[TCassidy]

Why would any church include a statement in their statement of faith that has no scriptural basis such as

C4K, I too "believe God’s Word to be divinely preserved in the Authorized Version, commonly called the King James Bible." After all, God promised to preserve His word, and we have it today, and there is no doubt in my mind that the KJV is the word of God in English, so, I can agree with that statement. The difference is that I also believe God has preserved His word in other English translations.

 

[wfdfiremedic]

Interesting. Thank you for all the replies. One of my first questions to my pastor was, "is this a KJVO church?" He replied no, and stated that he throws any mail that has to do with KJVO teachings in the trash. He stated he was KJVO preferred, but does not uphold to a KJVO position. We utilize KJV in the pulpit and in the pews. I have gone to the office several times to question readings with the CT. However, as I see it, there are no items that would displace traditional doctrines. Yes, some may challenge it, but overall there are no readings that would totally deny a certain doctrine.

 

[TomVols]

C4K, I too "believe God’s Word to be divinely preserved in the Authorized Version, commonly called the King James Bible." After all, God promised to preserve His word, and we have it today, and there is no doubt in my mind that the KJV is the word of God in English, so, I can agree with that statement. The difference is that I also believe God has preserved His word in other English translations.

Heretic! :tongue3: But then again, so am I, since I agree with you.

Winman, you mentioned IFB churches and the Genesis account of creation. That's another one (though not an explicit Fundamental in the sense of the word) that I've heard quite a few IFB preachers/churches preach contrary to. Forgot that one.

 

[Winman]

Why would any church include a statement in their statement of faith that has no scriptual basis such as

and believe God’s Word to be divinely preserved in the Authorized Version, commonly called the King James Bible.

Obviously they disagree with you and do believe there is scriptural support for their position. And I agree. I believe God has promised to preserve his Word. The original autographs do not exist, so copies must be preserved. I, like these others believe his Word was preserved through the Received Text and not the Critical Text.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Obviously they disagree with you and do believe there is scriptural support for their position.

Where would that be?

 

[Winman]

Heretic! :tongue3: But then again, so am I, since I agree with you.

Winman, you mentioned IFB churches and the Genesis account of creation. That's another one (though not an explicit Fundamental in the sense of the word) that I've heard quite a few IFB preachers/churches preach contrary to. Forgot that one.

I've never known an IFB pastor who did not believe in a literal six day 24 hour per day creation. There might be some out there, but I've never met one.

 

[wfdfiremedic]

I will say this: my IFB church believes in the 6 day creation, zero evolution and the absence of global warming.

 

[wfdfiremedic]

Another question: If one holds to absolutely literal interpretation, should a woman be aloud to speak in the church?

 

[Winman]

Where would that be?

You know all the verses I could present, you've seen them dozens of times. You don't agree with mine and others intepretation of these scriptures, but that is a different matter altogether.

But just in case, here are a few examples. I took these examples from another site to save time, but I am in agreement with them.

•1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever."
•Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."
•Ps. 111:7-8 "The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness."
•Is. 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
•Ps. 117:2 "... the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord."
•Ps. 119:152 "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."
•Ps 119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
•Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
•Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."
•1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever."
•Psalm 33:11 "The counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."
•Psalm 100:5 "For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."
•Ps 119:89-90 "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth."
•Isaiah 59:21 "As for me this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not pass out of the thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever."

If God's Word is preserved (which it is), and the original autographs do not exist (which they don't), then God's Word must be preserved in the copies that have been handed down from those original autographs. There are basically two texts that are recognized, the Received Text and the Critical Text. I personally believe the RT is the uncorrupted preserved text. I do not believe the Critical Text is the preserved text. And very many IFB churches believe as I do.

You already knew all of this.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I'm sorry. I don't see the KJT mentioned in any of those. The doctrine of preservation should indeed be a part of the statement of faith. Pining it down to any one translation is opinion, as you admit.

Man's opinion is not doctrine. I would not put my faith in the opinion of men.

 

[Winman]

I'm sorry. I don't see the KJT mentioned in any of those. The doctrine of preservation should indeed be a part of the statement of faith. Pining it down to any one translation is opinion, as you admit.

Man's opinion is not doctrine. I would not put my faith in the opinion of men.

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

What scriptures do you have to support a multitude of versions that are very different, many excluding thousands of individual words, scores of verses, and many complete passages?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What scriptures do you have to support a multitude of versions that are very different, many excluding thousands of individual words, hundreds of verses, and dozens of complete passages?

None, that's why I would never include a statement on translations in a statement of faith. There are no scripture which address translations.

Back to the OP - while many IFB churches would use the KJT, only a tiny segment would include an abiblical backing for it as official church policy.

 

[Winman]

None, that's why I would never include a statement on translations in a statement of faith. There are no scripture which address translations.

Back to the OP - while many IFB churches would use the KJT, only a tiny segment would include an abiblical backing for it as official church policy.

It is really not so difficult. If God promised to preserve his words (which he did), then his words are out there somewhere. All the different versions cannot be his preserved word because they are very different. Whether you want to say the RT added words, or the CT omitted words, they are not the same, the CT lacks nearly 3000 words in the original Greek.

If you want to argue that the KJB based on the RT is not the preserved words of God, then you have an argument. But you cannot argue that God's preserved word does not exist. And they must exist in copies as the original autographs disappeared centuries ago.

But you cannot argue that the RT and CT are both the preserved words of God, that is impossible.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is really not so difficult. If God promised to preserve his words (which he did), then his words are out there somewhere. All the different versions cannot be his preserved word because they are very different. Whether you want to say the RT added words, or the CT omitted words, they are not the same, the CT lacks nearly 3000 words in the original Greek.

If you want to argue that the KJB based on the RT is not the preserved words of God, then you have an argument. But you cannot argue that God's preserved word does not exist. And they must exist in copies as the original autographs disappeared centuries ago.

But you cannot argue that the RT and CT are both the preserved words of God, that is impossible.

Then again none of the texts upon which the RT is based completely agree with one another so... back to square one.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It is really not so difficult. If God promised to preserve his words (which he did), then his words are out there somewhere. All the different versions cannot be his preserved word because they are very different. Whether you want to say the RT added words, or the CT omitted words, they are not the same, the CT lacks nearly 3000 words in the original Greek.

If you want to argue that the KJB based on the RT is not the preserved words of God, then you have an argument. But you cannot argue that God's preserved word does not exist. And they must exist in copies as the original autographs disappeared centuries ago.

But you cannot argue that the RT and CT are both the preserved words of God, that is impossible.

And here we are again, back to a reliance on and faith in flawed, fallacious, and fallible human reasoning.

I'll stick to what the word of God says when it comes to church doctrines.

 

[Winman]

Then again none of the texts upon which the RT is based completely agree with one another so... back to square one.

It is not back to square one. We do not know for an absolute fact all of the texts the KJB translators used to translate the KJB. There are approximately 30 different distinct versions of the TR printed over the years according to the Trinitarian Bible Society. We are not absolutely sure which texts the KJB translators used. There is evidence they accepted some texts outside the TR.

This is what I have said from day one, you will never be able to resolve this issue through scholarship. You must simply believe God's promise that he would preserve his exact words to all generations. It is not something you can prove.

Have you ever thought that in Jesus's day that there might have been men who challanged the scriptures? After all, Moses had written 1500 years before. Israel had been invaded and destroyed by enemies, the scriptures had been lost for periods of time...

I am sure there were men in those days who questioned the accuracy of the scriptures.

But Jesus nor any of the apostles ever doubted that the scriptures they had were the accurate and preserved word of God.

We are supposed to live by faith, not scholarship.