Why do fundamentalists tend to use the KJV

[wfdfiremedic]

I am sure this has been asked frequently. I apologize. However, it seems fundamental churches utilize the KJV most often. Why? Is it because of the use of Hell so often etc? What I am referring to is the use of Hell for Hades, Sheol, Gehenna, etc. Modern versions make distinctions.

I would assume it is not because all fundamental churches believe the TR is superior. Maybe I am wrong? Is that a distinctive mark of fundamentalism?

I attend a fundy Baptist church, but the pastor is not KJVO. He is KJV preferred, with feeling the byzantine text is superior. Is this common with other fundy churches?

 

[Scarlett O.]

I am sure this has been asked frequently. I apologize. However, it seems fundamental churches utilize the KJV most often. Why? Is it because of the use of Hell so often etc?

Hi, brother.

I don't say this to be humorous or coy, but I don't think it's the fact that IFB churches utilize the King James Bible only. I think it's that people who are King James Only tend to congregate themselves into IFB churches.

Sort of like which came first - the chicken or the egg. The IFB church or the KJVO.

To me, the KJVO belief came first and then those who hold to that belief seek out IFB churches.

 

[TCassidy]

They don't.

 

[Mexdeaf]

KJVO is a Johnny-come-lately to the IFB world. It was not until the late 70's or early 80's that the KJVO position became a real issue in IFB ranks.

 

[Robert Snow]

KJVO is a Johnny-come-lately to the IFB world. It was not until the late 70's or early 80's that the KJVO position became a real issue in IFB ranks.

Regardless of when it came about, many, many IFB churches are KJVO.

 

[Alcott]

I think it's only half facetious to answer 'Because that's how they think God talks.' Churches which cling to traditions don't usually do so in one way only. So IFB churches do TEND (the poster who said "They don't" needs to note that word) to keep the appearance and order of what has long been established... the 'right' clothes, traditional hymns. blanket condemnation of certain activities, and the King James language in scripture, in prayer and readings. They have their excuses for these things-- there must be a perfect translation (and it must be what they have long used), "If you wouldn't you attend the governor's banquet without dressing your best, why approach God's table without that?", the appearance of evil in dancing, dining were liquor is served, women wearing pants/clothes that show their shape-- but it comes down to their grounding, which is tradition, rigid and exclusive.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Regardless of when it came about, many, many IFB churches are KJVO.

Thankfully, there are not that many ifb churches that are "only". Many use and prefer the KJV (whatever revision they think is best) but run the other way from Hyles or Ruckman's evil teaching.

The truth is that many OF the "only" group ARE IFB. Few from other denominations are caught up in it. The Adventists, where it was wildly popular in its origins, have categorically refuted the error and while many use and love the KJV, there are few "only"ists left.

Perhaps others can find some "only"ists in other random churches (berean, bible, ifca, etc) but that is rare.

In our area we have two ifbX type churches that are "only"; the other 20 Baptist churches are not. No other denomination church is "only".

 

[TomVols]

They don't.

I'd agree. Most KJVO or KJVP churches I know of are not fundamental, especially KJVO. Most fundamental churches I know of use the NKJV or NASB, with ESV next then NIV.

 

[TomVols]

Regardless of when it came about, many, many IFB churches are KJVO.

Agreed, but most IFB churches that I know of are not fundamental.

 

[Bob Alkire]

They don't.

You are correct. I prefer the KJV, but I am anything but KJO. I will say most KJO churches that I know of are IFB churches are that is what they call themselves.

Smith at the Sword of the Lord pushes KJO, while John R. Rice wasn't KJO.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Smith at the Sword of the Lord pushes KJO, while John R. Rice wasn't KJO.

The loud whirring noise you hear is poor John R spinning in his grave over what has happened to 'fundamentalism' since his demise.

As the lead voice of the more extreme ifb (southern variety) he kept much of the present lunacy in check during his lifetime. We northern types (CBA, GARBC, ABC, NTA) always look at Rice a little askew and thought him an odd duck.

Did not realize until his passing that he was the BEST of the suthran types that claim to be ifb.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Simplest and I think most obvious answer is tradition.

They use it because they have always used it. That is becoming less the case as more and more follow the courage of convictions about the truth and modern life and communication, but a large number will continue to use the KJV just out of habit and a desire not to offend the older group of the church.

 

[ktn4eg]

The loud whirring noise you hear is poor John R spinning in his grave over what has happened to 'fundamentalism' since his demise.

As the lead voice of the more extreme ifb (southern variety) he kept much of the present lunacy in check during his lifetime. We northern types (CBA, GARBC, ABC, NTA) always look at Rice a little askew and thought him an odd duck.

Did not realize until his passing that he was the BEST of the suthran types that claim to be ifb.

Well said, Doc!

 

[thegospelgeek]

I consider myself a fundamentalist, yet not a legalist. Maybe I define the term incorrectly.

I am a KJV stongly prefered and read only a KJ from the pulpit. I can't answer for others, but I have several reasons why. Many of the older folks own only the KJ and most would find it confussing to hear something else. Secondly, I do not see a reason to change, if the Holy Spirit lead me to do so I would.

I do not beleive in "second-inspiration".
I do not believe that other versions are "The Devils Bible"
I do beleive that there are other acurate translations.

I use the KJ because I believe it is an acurate translation that has stood the test of time and it is what my congregation is familiar with.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I consider myself a fundamentalist, yet not a legalist. Maybe I define the term incorrectly.

I am a KJV stongly prefered and read only a KJ from the pulpit. I can't answer for others, but I have several reasons why. Many of the older folks own only the KJ and most would find it confussing to hear something else. Secondly, I do not see a reason to change, if the Holy Spirit lead me to do so I would.

I do not beleive in "second-inspiration".
I do not believe that other versions are "The Devils Bible"
I do beleive that there are other acurate translations.

I use the KJ because I believe it is an acurate translation that has stood the test of time and it is what my congregation is familiar with.

Well said and no one would look askance at what or why you are doing that.

The real test is whether you would not look negatively at someone doing the exact same thing .. only with the NASB or NIV. THAT is the line many who "say" that are not "only" but just "strongly prefer" any translation have to cross in their thinking. :type:

 

[thegospelgeek]

Well said and no one would look askance at what or why you are doing that.

The real test is whether you would not look negatively at someone doing the exact same thing .. only with the NASB or NIV. THAT is the line many who "say" that are not "only" but just "strongly prefer" any translation have to cross in their thinking. :type:

I have absolutly no issues if someone uses another version. Although there are some that I would discourage, not becuse they are not KJ but because of other issues.

 

[TCassidy]

I'd agree. Most KJVO or KJVP churches I know of are not fundamental, especially KJVO. Most fundamental churches I know of use the NKJV or NASB, with ESV next then NIV.

Tom, how are they not fundamental? Which of the fundamentals of the faith do you believe they deny?

My point was that IFB churches (taken collectively) do not "tend" toward KJVOism. KJVOs are, in fact, in the vast, vast minority among historic IFB churches.

 

[TomVols]

In my circles, the KJVO churches tend to jettison solid bibliology, sound doctrines on the atonement and human sin, among others. Verbal plenary inspiration is gone. Total depravity is jettisoned. And there are various ways the shed blood of Christ is swiped at in these churches. These are just a few areas.

My point was that IFB churches (taken collectively) do not "tend" toward KJVOism. KJVOs are, in fact, in the vast, vast minority among historic IFB churches.

Again, in these parts, KJVO is rooted in the fabric of churches claiming to be IFB as well as many SBC churches. But, among the churches I know of who claim to be IFB (if I can steal the phrase) they aren't independant, aren't fundmamental, and aren't really Baptist :tonofbricks:

 

[TCassidy]

In my circles, the KJVO churches tend to jettison solid bibliology, sound doctrines on the atonement and human sin, among others. Verbal plenary inspiration is gone. Total depravity is jettisoned. And there are various ways the shed blood of Christ is swiped at in these churches. These are just a few areas.

As I understand the Fundamentals they include:

The Deity of Christ.
The Virgin Birth.
The Blood Atonement.
The Bodily Resurrection.
The inerrancy of the scriptures.

There is no question they jettison sound bibliology regarding the historic transmission and preservation of the scriptures, but that hardly qualifies as a rejection of the inerrancy of the bible.

They believe in the blood atonement but, for the most part, tend toward modified Arminianism, but again, that does not, in my mind, amount to rejection of the blood atonement.

They believe in verbal inspiration but limit it to the KJV. That is an error, but is not a denial of verbal or plenary inspiration.

Total depravity is not a fundamental and has been debated by well meaning believers for centuries, if not millennia.

As for the shed blood, they accuse other fundamentalists of denying it but I am unaware of anyone in IFB circles denying it.

I have been in IFB churches my whole life, and have never encountered any denials of the fundamentals. Doctrinal errors? Yes. Many. But I have never seen an IFB church that denied any of the fundamentals. There are so many legitimate reasons to question many IFBs on the fringes but I hardly think it is necessary to redefine "fundamentals" to exclude them.

 

[TomVols]

I don't believe I am redefining them. You yourself admit that they:

There is no question they jettison sound bibliology regarding the historic transmission and preservation of the scriptures.......They believe in verbal inspiration but limit it to the KJV.

This is not orthodox.

Total depravity does relate to the atonement of Christ, for if we are not in need of substitutionary atonement, how is the atonement an atonement?

I can take you to IFB churches in TN, KY, Ohio, VA, etc., that will preach one or more of the above and one or more of the following:

No trinity;
subservience of Christ (No deity as historically understood as orthodox);
denial of substitutionary atonement;
denial of eternal security;
Other errors already mentioned.

I hardly see how a church that believes any of these, let alone multiples, can call itself fundamental. I'm sorry to say I've been a member or staffer at these churches. I'm even sorrier to say these churches exist in the first place.

To be sure, you'll find churches in the SBC, etc., that would also fall into one or more of the above doctrinal malaises. But that doesn't excuse or mitigate their lack of fundamentalism either.

I fully realize we may have run in different IFB circles. I am not trying to be monolithic or paint with a broad brush. That's why I said "most IFB churches I know of...."

Doctrinal apathy and error is a blight on the church, for if we compromise our footing, we will not stand.

Anyway, I suspect this is off topic.