Church version

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Terry_Herrington, Feb 15, 2003.

  1. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    I would assume that the KJV only crowd would not even consider attending a church that did not use the KJV.

    Therefore, my question is directed to people who are not KJV only. Would you attend a church that used only the KJV?

    A second question is, how important is the accepted version of a church, regardless of which version is it, when it comes to deciding whether or not to attend there?

    I know that these questions may be worded awkardly, but it is late and I am sleepy.
     
  2. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would probably attend a church that uses only the KJV, only if it did not insist that everyone had to.

    Versions are not my main decision on which church to attend, but if it used a fairly liberal version or a loose paraphrase, I would more than likely not go there. I would have no problem attending a church that used the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, or NIV.

    Neal
     
  3. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    That would depend on many other things, such as: Is it the only reasonably close church that is biblically-based (using any competent translation)? Is it a welcoming church? Are they ridiculous about nonbiblical/extrabiblical issues [e.g.s, women wearing pants; forcing a teacher to quit if they find out he drank a beer 10 years ago...]? Do they have an arrogant self-righteousness about their KJVO or other beliefs?

    I might be willing to accept some of these (to me) negatives if such a church were the only serious NT gospel church around. But then the question may come down to whether that church is willing to accept the negatives (to them) about me and my refusal to go along with some of their defining issues.

    I assume you are differentiatig between 'KJVO' and having an "accepted version." My own church has NIV Bibles in the pew racks, making this an 'accepted version,' but not obligating anyone to use them[I prefer the more literal NASB]. So I know of no problem; many people do use those NIV's in front of them, but also many of us bring our own. So that never came into play in my decision to join there.
     
  4. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    My wife and I do attend a church where the preacher and several members of the congregation are KJVO. Occasionally someone will bring another version to church. There are times when I choose to take my King James Study Bible or my Matthew Henry Study Bible, both of which are KJV. At other times I choose to take my Ryrie Study Bible in either the NASB or the NKJV. Whatever Bible I carry, it is always in a Bible cover. I am not ashamed of the other versions I may choose to use - I just don't want to start any controversy.

    I feel that the Bible version a church uses is not the major deciding factor for me. I was brought up in a church where the KJV was the only Bible used. The difference in that church was that the KJV was the Bible of preference - no one taught that the KJV was the only Bible. I realize that no church is perfect, and I look at those which are KJVO as being in error in that regard. Despite my church's predominantly KJVO stance, it is a very spiritual church. The Holy Spirit really moves in the congregation quite often. There are churches where the Holy Spirit is left out when the doors are closed, and I would never attend one of those churches.
     
  5. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    If myself lived in an English speaking country I could attend a KJV preferred assembly without problem. But if the general versionological standpoint of it were KJV Onlyism of the brand exhibited by some on this board I would not attend, because such is clearly heretical and factious. I would also think twice about attending one who promoted Dynamic Equivalence and paraphrase versions. Most probably I would refraind from attending. Dynamic Equivalency in Bible translating is not according to godliness, but is lawlessness.

    Harald
     
  6. Bob Farnaby

    Bob Farnaby
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    0
    To Question 1 - Would have no problems with that, don't mind the KJV ... suppose I'm a kind of KJVO .. King James Version Occasionally ... But other factors would tend to make a big influence on which church I joined for regular worship.

    For Question 2 - the big advantage of all using the same translation is that it makes it easier for the congregation to follow the bible references.

    Regards
    Bob
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes.

    Though if the real KJV1611 is used, can
    i have my Roman font? The Gothic font is
    a tad much for my eyes.

    Of course, that is no problem, i know of
    no KJVO church that actually uses the real
    KJV1611. I wonder if there are KJV only
    churches that
    use the KJV1769 and others that use
    the KJV1873 [​IMG]
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I would no more go to a KJVonly church (that believed it to be the only inspired translation and all others were "perversions") than to a Mormon or other cult meeting.

    Oh wait, Mormons are KJVonly . . .

    Having a single version, however, is really a blessing for a church. In my church, we have a great mixture. Pew bibles are NIV, but that doesn't help many of us who are not enamored with theat version.

    We have hymnals with a large responsive reading/psalms in the back. Sunday we will do a reading from it - and that will be a blessing to the worship. It is something that is missed in our "mixed version" congregation.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    Or the Cambridge as opposed to the Oxford edition.
     
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I strongly disagree with this comparison and the analogy you are trying to make. First of all, Mormons are not KJVonly; they are Book of Mormomn only. If the KJV disagrees with the Book of Mormon, the KJV gets put aside.

    Second, a church that subscribes to the belief that the KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God and alone accurately reflects the originals is not a cult and in no way resembles a cult.

    Janet Reno tried to label Fundamental Christians as a cult a few years back. Her making this statement, and trying to find commonality between Fundamental Christianity and the cults, do not make her statement one bit true. The same applies to your implication and to those who would try to find a common denominator of some sort between KJVOs and the cults.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kind of like what happens when the KJV disagrees with GA Riplinger, Pete Ruckman, DA Waite, etc?? :D ... Sad but true in both instances. Had the Mormons been willing to stick with the doctrine of the KJV they would have been alright. Had Riplinger, Ruckman, Waite, et al done the same, they would have been alright too. The problem always enters when people add to doctrine.
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Pastor Bob, we will have to disagree with that. The only version that LDS use (and claim as divinely inspired) is the KJV1769 revision - I think that's the Oxford, not the Cambridge revision of the "perfect" 1611.

    All modern versions are NOT inspired. Why? Because they can skew and twist the archaic wording of the KJV to fit their false doctrine and continue to deceive millions.

    The parallel I draw between the LDS "cult" and the KJVO "cult" are very intentional. False doctrines, built around strong personalities, and adding to the Word of God (tell me where KJVonly is taught in the Word of God - even in the KJV version???) are ALL characteristics of the LDS, JW, et al.

    Show me how it is NOT a "cult" and I'll quit using the perjorative language!

    Better yet, show me one verse in the KJV that says that the KJV is the only inspired translation!
     
  13. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    KJVO Churches are NOT a cult because:
    1. We believe in the deity of Christ. We believe Jesus Christ was God incarnate.
    2. We believe in the virgin birth of Christ.
    3. We believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ; plus nothing, minus nothing.
    4. We believe in the triune God. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
    5. We believe that God inspired His Word, preserved it, and made it available so that we may live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
    6. We believe in a literal heaven that awaits all those redeemed by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
    7. We believe in a literal hell, created for the devil and his angels, that awaits those who reject the sacrificial atonement that Christ made for us on Calvary's Cross.
    8. We believe that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave and ever lives making intercession for the saints even now.

    If you can make a valid claim that this church is a cult, then I will be the first to stand and proclaim that, by your definition, I belong to a cult.

    How many times must this request be answered? Show me one verse in your Bible that says we are to have a Sunday School. Does that make Sunday School wrong? Show me one verse that says we are to have a Mid-Week Prayer Meeting. Does that make it wrong?

    The absence of a "specific" verse of Scripture that fails to exactly identify any given subject does not mean that there are no Scriptural principles involved. There is not one verse that specifically condemns smoking cigarettes, or injecting heroin into your arm. Does the absence of such a verse mean that the activity is condoned by God?

    You'll not find a verse that says "The KJV is the Word of God for English speaking people." Again, the absence of a verse does not mean the absence of a truth.
     
  14. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Pastor Bob said,
    "How many times must this request be answered? Show me one verse in your Bible that says we are to have a Sunday School. Does that make Sunday School wrong? Show me one verse that says we are to have a Mid-Week Prayer Meeting. Does that make it wrong?"

    If the KJV onlyist would only adapt this logic to their belief in the scripture, we would not have a problem. I do not know of anyone who would make Sunday School mandatory. If you desire to have it fine. If you replace it with something or do without it at all, fine.

    To apply your analagy (equating Sunday School with the KJV) the way the KJV onlyist do would be to say that any church that does not have Sunday School is wrong.
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob,
    I stand with you in your comments. They are accurate. I know because I came out of the KJVO cult. Speak the truth even though people don't like it!

    Pastor Bob, many cults would also claim to believe the items you list. But they believe other things that invalidate these other theological claims, such as oneness, UPC, JWs, and KJVOs in this case.
     
  16. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    This is very good reasoning. Now why can't you follow this reasoning all the way with your "Anglican Version Only'? Sunday School is one means of teaching about God and His Word (Acts 15:35; Acts 18:11; Colossians 3:16; et al). But it is only one method and is not the exclusive method. So it is with KJV-- it is one method of conveying what the biblical writers wrote in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, but it is by no means the exclusive means of conveying this to English speakers.
     
  17. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then by all means tell us what is...
     
  18. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    By all means... there ain't no such animal! What gives you the idea that a translation of biblical manuscripts is to be the 'one and only'? and we must chunk all before it and produce none after it? If the Bible itself was like that, we would not have 4 'gospels' with each being unique and not telling the same specifics exactly alike... e.g., the 4 different renderings of the sign placed on the cross of Jesus.
     
  19. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no 'exclusive' means. However, the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV all do a fine job for starters. :D

    Tell us, why must there be an 'exclusive' way of translating God's Word?

    Neal
     
  20. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Okay. I believe exactly what PastorBob believes in the doctrines he listed. But here is Josh MacDowell's list of "new" items that apply to cults. Some of them are applicable to this disucssion. (CAPS are his list; lower case are observations that may/may not apply)

    1) NEW TRUTH - God has given THEM a "new truth" or "new revelation"

    2) NEW INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE - Redefine inspiration as "preservation" and make it a new "fundamental" which all must believe

    3) NEW JESUS

    4) NEW CHRISTIANITY - Only those who believe the way they believe are "true"; all others have departed from the faith

    5) NEW LANGUAGE - Definitions change (Inspiration of the original manuscripts somehow became applicable to only one translation in one language)

    6) NEW GOD

    7) NEW THEOLOGY - New doctrine of Inspiration

    8) NEW LEADERSHIP - cults often have strong leaders with unique understanding (think Ruckman, Riplinger, Hyles et al)

    9) NEW SALVATION - Jack Hyles stated that if a person was led to the Lord by any version OTHER than the KJV, they were not saved.

    Man, I can't make stuff like that up.

    So, 7 of the 9 marks of a "cult" are universally characteristic of the "onlies". NOT of the KJV itself; just of those who hold this extreme position.
     

Share This Page

Loading...