How dod KJVO invade IFB?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by robycop3, Oct 11, 2004.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Can anyone tell me for sure how the KJVO myth came to invade the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement, especially given the fact that one of its greatest luminaries, Dr. Richard Clearwaters, was definitely NOT KJVO?

    There are some IFB pastors and laymen who act as if the KJVO myth has always been a part of IFB, but I don't believe that's true.
     
  2. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    My testimony as IFB in the late 1960s:

    My pastor at that time was a graduate of Detroit Bible College, and preached from the KJV. However, he was the first to recommend the ASV 1901 and its update the NASV 1963 as “closer to the original Greek and Hebrew” than the KJV, and thus the translations that should be used for serious study purposes.

    At that time the KJVO claims simply were not present. The primary reasons urged for continuing to use the KJV were (a) “People were used to hearing it in preaching”; and (b) the various modern versions then available generally were “translated by liberals” and in certain places were doctrinally suspect (although this criticism obviously was *not* addressed to the NASV 1963).

    The RSV and TEV/Good News for Modern Man were the primary targets in such assertions, while the new paraphrase “The Living Bible” was coming under heavy fire due to certain unwarranted liberties (e.g. “You S.O.B.” written in full) and supposedly “implied” statements being present when such in fact were not “implied”, etc.

    But there was *none* of the current KJVO nonsense....nothing about Ps 12:6-7, nothing about “Easter” as a pagan festival observed by Herod, nothing about modern translations being “corrupt” or “perversions” because of their underlying Greek text, omission of names of Jesus, phrasing of words, etc.

    Basically the whole modern KJVO movement appears to have surfaced after 1970, and this came after certain key "KJV-preferred" people started to realize that the 1967 New Scofield revision of archaic words, and the NKJV revision then underway were “good”, “helpful”, and “beneficial”, and an “improvement” over certain weaknesses of the KJV.

    I even have a letter from David Otis Fuller(Mr “Which Bible?” himself) from that time period *praising* the work then going on to produce the NKJV as a sound and solid updating of the more archaic renderings. So obviously the pressures of the KJVO movement had not at that point reached the Duke (who also was allowing his deaf ministry personnel to use the Living Bible for signing purposes at his Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand Rapids).
     
  3. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I don't know this for sure but I suspect it came about when liberalism began to set in and they started using certain translations. The conservatives were using the KJV and the liberals were using a more modern translation. Then the KJVO's lumped all the modern translations together claiming them to be liberal.

    Before KJVO's I can't remember anyone talking about the RSV or any other translations being liberal until some of the liberals began to use them. But when people began to identify the liberals and the translations they used, they suddenly named certain translations as liberal too.
     
  4. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    One church at a time.
     
  5. superdave

    superdave
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is very similar to the clinical onset of most cancers. Small groups of deformed and out of control cells multiplying in a frenzy, than metasticizing to other areas of the body.
     
  6. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    How did Independent Fundamentalist Baptist?

    Very simply, they laid aside the doctrines of truth for the doctrines of man that have no scripture to support KJVO myths.

    I am a fundamentalist and I have visited several IFB churches over the years. Some IFB set themselves up for KJVOism in that they: IFB, hold to certain traditions and preach it like scripture (women can not wear pants, etc...). These types are open to the emotion reasoning that KJVOist present to scare the daylights out of the sheep!

    A true IFB will have nothing to do with KJVOism. As IFB we rely upon scripture to form our doctrines and KJVOism has no scripture.

    It's like any false doctrine. It starts with the ignorant and spreads like cancer if unchecked. I just wish the IFB had tackled the KJVO lie when it started.

    One thing that we have today is the freedom of information that is on the web. It seems that our KJVOist hate knowledge and do everything that they can to discourage research. This alone slaps IFB in the face because KJVOism tells us to dwell in ignorance.

    KJVOism is nothing but liberal modernism having nothing fundamental about it.
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Most IFB pastors I know are very thorough in their checking out of the various extra-Scriptural doctrines that have invaded Christianity, including the charges of "liberalism" against certain churches that seem to have become entertainment centers rather than a congregation of people meeting to praise and worship God, and study His word. But they seemed to have dropped the ball about this most basic part of IFB...God's word. More than one of'em has embraced the KJVO myth w/o fully investigation it for veracity or Scriptural support.

    Thanx, all, who've answered so far. Your answers, along with my own research, are starting to give me a little insight why some people, so brilliant in some fields, are so abysmally ignorant in this most basic foundation of our beliefs.
     
  8. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The New Testament portion of the RSV was first published in 1946 by Thomas Nelson & Sons, New York, in a hardcover edition that sold for $2.00. The full title was The New Covenant, Commonly Called the New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Revised Standard Version. It came with a blue and pink dust jacket on the flaps of which were printed the names of the nine members of the Committee who worked on the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament. Eight of them were professors at prestigious universities or seminaries; one of them, Luther A. Weigle, was the dean of the Yale University Divinity School and was the chairman of the Committee.

    • Luther A. Weigle, Yale University, Chairman.
    • James Moffatt, Union Theological Seminary, Executive Secretary. (died 1944)
    • Henry J. Cadbury, Harvard University.
    • Edgar J. Goodspeed, University of Chicago.
    • Walter Russell Bowie, Union Theological Seminary.
    • Frederick C. Grant, Union Theological Seminary.
    • Millar Burrows, Yale University. (joined 1938)
    • Clarence T. Craig, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology.
    • Abdel R. Wentz, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg.

    Immediately after its publication, the Revised Standard Version was attacked as being a liberal translation by conservative Christians from a very broad spectrum of denominations. These attacks were not based upon the people who began using this translation; these attacks were based upon the translation itself and the nine members of the revision Committee. The KJO sect has parroted and distorted some of these early attacks, but they were not the source of them.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...