Featured Do those holding To KJVO Commit Christian Idolatry?

Maybe those questions should be asked of a lot of Bible believers - not just KJVO.

 

And all this time I thought the "Left Behind" series were the only inspired writings.

 

I'm very disappointed in this thread.

In the first place, idolatry is forbidden in both the 1st and 2nd commandments of the Decalogue, so any accusation of a Christian committing idolatry is a very serious one, akin to accusing a fellow believer of murder, robbery or adultery. In this thread, the charge is simply thrown out against a whole group of fellow believers with no proof whatsoever.

In the second place, the charge of worshipping the Bible was originally one leveled by liberals calling it bibliolatry against any evangelical who believes in verbal plenary inspiration--something I assume all of those on this thread believe. We should not follow liberals in any way, including this. As John R. Rice said, "So liberals in the churches, claiming to be Christians when they are not, claiming to speak as prophets of God when they represent Satan and not God, are enemies of the Bible and are wicked men, deceitful men" (Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible, pp. 39-40).

In the third place, I've seen real idolatry many times here in Japan. I've seen people bow to idols made of wood, stone or metal, pray to idols and give offerings to idols. That's real idolatry. KJVO people may truly love the Word of God, as has been seen many times on the BB, but they certainly do not bow to it, pray to it and give offerings to it. Even such radicals as Ruckman and Riplinger, who I strongly oppose, do no such thing.

Enough said.

 

Here is a typical liberal charge of "bibliolatry" from 1924: "From naive acceptance of the Bible as of equal credibility in all its parts because mechanically inerrant, I passed years ago to the shocking conviction that such traditional bibliolatry is false in fact and perilous in results" (Harry Emerson Fosdick in Modern Use of the Bible, p. 274, quoted by John R. Rice in Earnestly Contending for the Faith, pp. 206-207).

When believers charge other believers of worshipping the Bible, then, they are following the liberals.

 

Here is that website which follows the proposition that even certain KJV bibles are suspect including "satanic" spellings of selected words.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

Here they give another example (in fact a whole list of verses to check against your "1611 KJV".

e.g. Genesis 1:1

KJV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.​

Heaven - "The Real Bible"
Heavens - "Counterfeit".​

There is an underlying fallacy involved here: the original Hebrew has "heavens" - plural (dual).​

The fallacy is that the "pure" English of the Oxford version corrects the Greek and Hebrew (as opposed to the "counterfeit" Cambridge Edition).​

BTW, In the past (long before I joined the BB) I was KJVO but after reading some writings of Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger, I abandoned that position for KJVP/NKJVP.
I presently have a strongly held Traditional Text Greek NT position.

HankD​

 

Your post points out what I have been trying to say. I do not understand the controversy. If one wants to read only KJV, then go right ahead. If I want to read NIV and NKJV, that is really no one else's concern. The word idolitry seems thrown around quite freely as does heresy in the Calvin-free will debates. It almost seems that a good number of posters do not understand the seriousness of these two terms.

 

The two terms are extremely serious, and should never be advanced without definitive proof.

I don't see the point of these two controversies either, and don't participate in them normally. I'm making an exception here because I believe the charge of idolatry is grevious. Even the statement about the weird pastor who says he worships the KJV is only hearsay--though he may have very well said that (but I think he is atypical and very radical).

 

True, why not offer correction and let it be at that?

HankD

 

Exactly! :thumbsup:

 

LOL, at first I thought hearsay was heresy.

 

Well...there may be times it is! But I can't think of any at the moment. :laugh:

 

I have been uncomfortable with this thread since it opened, feeling like it violated the spirit of the rule against using the term heresy to refer to other poster's points of view. Thanks to John for helping me solidify that position.

I am closing the thread as being inflammatory.