Is "Bibliolater" a Legitimate Term?

'Bibliolater' and 'KJVOlator' pretty much mean the same thing. Which is really, really sad.

It has to hurt God's heart when He sees the sheer stupidity that is being paraded in His churches, all in the name of 'Chis-chi-anity'. When men have taken a stack of pages and turned them into an idol, an idol that is held up before congregation after congregation to be bowed down to. 'Kiss the feet of Baal' has been redefined, and 'Bibliolator' describes the worshipper all too well.

Should it be scrapped? No, the term can be used and applied unilaterally. It is not sect-specific. All we MV's have been called such as this, just not in so kind of a word.

I say, let it stand.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Yes.

 

Should this term also be thrown into the scrap?

Yes, if replaced with "idiot".

 

What is the purpose of using the term? To enlighten our brothers and sisters in Christ? To edify them? Or is it a term used pejoratively? The answer seems to me to be self-evident.

 

The words "heresy" and "cult" may be pejorative, but they are not in and of themselves insulting as is the expression "king jimmy." They not only should be allowed, they are necessary to clearly and accurately express what the KJO “thing” really is. The word "Bibliolater" should also be allowed if that is the best word the poster can find to express the concept that he wishes to express.

I believe, however, that a much more important question is where we should draw the line between Christian beliefs and heresies, and where we should draw the line between Christian organizations and non-Christian cults. In my personal opinion, many of those who teach KJOism are outside of the Christian ballpark. I believe this because I have personally seen them to deliberately lie and distort the truth in an attempt to justify their false teachings which have no Biblical basis.

Questionable doctrines such as infant baptism are just that—questionable. There are strong Biblical arguments for and against such doctrines depending upon ones perspective. The KJO doctrine, however, is not a questionable doctrine—it is a false doctrine with absolutely no Biblical support. I do not believe that Christian message boards should allow it to be taught as a Christian doctrine.

 

Seems right.

OUCH!!! This IS really true! Except, maybe, the last sentence.

However, the KJVO debate does create lots of debate. Yes, the KJVO's have some 'eccentric' (I'm being kind) ideas. The question I have is, does the debate serve an edifying purpose or does it do more harm than good. We are not going to 'squash' it any time soon any way.

I started a thread some time ago entitled (roughly) "Does KJVOnlyism have a purpose". In it I wrote how it was actually the KJVO debate that really got me interested in Bible study and Bible history issues. It forced me to examine the issues deeply enough that I resolved my initial questions (fears). I decided against KJVO. The question is; does this debate motivate more people like me or more people like those who truly won't or can't examine objectively (ie. they just follow somebody's line)? Another question; is the best Christian response to engage these people in the hope of turning them or is it better to let them languor in there 'eccentricities'? These are the points I had in mind in my original post, though I didn't get them across very well.

 

It is my personal belief that most proponents of KJOism are hopeless. I do not engage them in order to convert them, but in order to refute the false teachings that they are, for the present, allowed to post on this message board. This refutation is necessary lest those who are unlearned in these matters read their posts and believe them. A huge amount of time and energy could be spent on much more productive matters if only this message board would forbid the posting of KJOism as a Christian doctrine.

Yes, God does use these debates to the good, but there many other debates that could result in much more good if only our time was not sucked-up by KJOism. Satan is no fool, and KJOism is one of his favorite weapons against the people of God.

 

Hey,that's fine..Why not pull all of the stops and let's call it like it is?

I'm game.

 

Even if the term *is* accurate, it strikes me as pejorative and inflammatory. For this reason it should probably be set aside as not being especially helpful in maintaining an atmosphere of calm and reasoned debate.

I do have to wonder, however, about those whose operative theology seems to be, "For God so loved the world, that he gave THE KJV, that whosoever believeth in IT should not perish, but have everlasting life."

 

Personally, I believe they come close, ignorantly abusing what God meant for good as "Nehushtan" of 2 Kings 18:4 as has been previously mentioned here at the BB.

But, because it is done out of ignorance, no, we should not use the term as well as for the reasons that Archangel has pointed out.

Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

HankD

 

That sums up a lot of the verbiage of the KJVOs. I think I will keep this for future use.

I guess I have to agree with ArchAngel, though. Upon deeper thought, 'bibliolator' can only serve to add fuel to the fire.

But, while we're at it, let's ban 'Bible believer' as well. It is almost exclusively used by the KJVOs, and is used as an insult against those who are not KJVO by insinuating that any who do not kiss the feet of Baal, er, uh, agree with their view do not believe the bible.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I was being sarcastic when I suggested replacing "bibliolator" with "idiot" This is one of, if not "the" best-moderated board discussing a very touchy subject I've ever seen.

My real feeling is that it should be banned, at least as far as being applied to any of our members, as it would generally be applied only to KJVOs here. Outside our membership, I consider the authors "fair game" up to a point, subject to a little more assault, but as Christians we should use the common sense God gave us.

WHILE WE'RE AT IT:

Another little chant, often used by Will Kinney,should be given a review: "YOU HAVE NO FINAL AUTHORITY". This is applied by KJVOs against those who know differently, and anyone who knows an elephant from a doorknob knows that's a false statement.

Here's some advice I sometimes fail to heed myself: PROOFREAD IT BEFORE YOU CLICK "SEND"! Unlike a spoken word heard by someone else, a written word can be retracted before anyone else sees it!

 

I disagree somewhat.

A Versionolater is one who hold that a specific translation is the sole authoritative translation for all people, which is an unsctiptural view.

A KJVOlater is one who holds that the KJV is the sole authoritative English translation for all people, which is an unsctiptural view.

A Bibliolater is one who holds scripture to the level of worship (whether it be a specific version or scripture in general).

Alas, I know a few bibliolaters who are so into the Bible that they worship it.

 

It would be appropriate if they were worshiping the Bible. They are not. If they are worshiping anything, it is a translation of the Bible. Perhaps KJVolatry would be a better term, although it doesn't really have the right ring to it.

Truth be told, I think KJVonlism reflects false doctrine more than it does idolatry. It also reflects a prideful, unteachable spirit. In a sense, that is an idol of the heart, though.

Andy

 

Perhaps this is why God chose not to preserve the Autographs , far as we know. He knew that there'd be plenty of people who'd worship the BOOK rather than the AUTHOR.

 

We don't worship the author. We worship the inspirer. In other words, we don't worship the writers of the text. We worship the one gave the message contained in the text.

 

Good term Br. Bob, it is unfortunate that some have forgotten that it is possible to accept Jesus without ever seeing a bible, whatever translation.

 

That is what they said about a lot of truths through the centuries. Call it what you will.
Jim