1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is KJVO fundemental?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by EaglewingIS4031, Aug 19, 2004.

?

Which one of these things does not belong?

  1. Triune God

    1 vote(s)
    2.9%

  2. Sinless savior (saviour)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  3. the virgin birth and the resuresction of Christ

    1 vote(s)
    2.9%

  4. the bodily resurection of the saints

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  5. sacrificial atonement

    1 vote(s)
    2.9%

  6. Baptism

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  7. Scripture alone, Grace alone, Faith alone, Christ alone

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  8. Eternal security

    31 vote(s)
    91.2%

  9. KJVO

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Fundamentalism never historically included areas like eternal security, baptism, or even the rapture.

    There were fundamentalists in a great variety of denominations, each with their own doctrinal interpretations of a great variety of issue.

    The key was that they AGREED on the "basics".

    (And, of course, kjvonly was NOT even dreamed of by the Seventh Day Adventists yet, much less thought of as a fundamental)
     
    #21 Dr. Bob, Aug 19, 2004
  2. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Anybody got a link to a website that has a comprehensive list of "The Fundamentals"? I would actually like to read them, instead of what everyone thinks they should be.

    KJV onlyism is not only non-fundamental, it is gnostic. The only way one can accept KJV-onlyism is to "know" that it is true - there is no other evidence.

    Woohoo! You go, Natty-baby! Right on! But, don't worry...I'm sure one of the KJVO "faithful few" will post a link that refutes it and the NIV as well, or will try to give it a spin that it was a personal attack or something...

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
    #22 Trotter, Aug 19, 2004
  3. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    KJV onlyism is not only non-fundamental, it is gnostic. The only way one can accept KJV-onlyism is to "know" that it is true - there is no other evidence.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    You wouldn't know gnosticism if it hit you square in the face.


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #23 michelle, Aug 19, 2004
  4. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    I know the KJV is the word of God, after all isn't that the version Jesus used?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jesus didn't "use" the word of God, he GAVE it and provided it perfectly in all prospective languages.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #24 michelle, Aug 19, 2004
  5. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    michelle said "You wouldn't know gnosticism if it hit you square in the face."

    Does the idea of something hitting me square in the face please you? ;)

    Oh, I think I know a little bit more about Gnosticism than you realize.
     
    #25 natters, Aug 19, 2004
  6. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVO is not fundamental, nor even conservative theologically.
     
    #26 TomVols, Aug 19, 2004
  7. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    KJVO is not fundamental, nor even conservative theologically.

    Amen, Tom!
     
    #27 Trotter, Aug 19, 2004
  8. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVOism is not truthful therefore it can never be a fundamental!
     
    #28 David J, Aug 19, 2004
  9. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVO is questionably Christian, but it is definitely not fundamental. Now if you take off the f, the u, the n, the d and the a, you're getting much closer...
     
    #29 Keith M, Aug 28, 2004
  10. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's what I want to know!

    Eaglewing, as a former Literature major, I must let you know that "fundamental" is the correct spelling. Everywhere you have it, you have "fundemental" (even on thread title) and it's driving me nuts! :eek: (We Lit majors are picky that way). ;)

    I think the extreme KJVO is more cultic than anything.
     
    #30 Marcia, Aug 28, 2004
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dr. Bob will prolly remind us that one of his teachers, Dr. Richard Clearwaters, called "The Fundamentalists' Fundamentalist" by many, was NOT a KJVO, and NEVER advocated such a doctrine.

    And Dr. RC lived 1900-1996, so he saw the ENTIRE development of the KJVO myth without buying it.

    And I don't believe Dr. Wilkinson was actually trying to start a new doctrine; he was having some disagreement with some other SDAs who were moving to more modern Bibles, although this was only ONE of Wilkinson's disagreements with them. Can anyone else elaborate?

    I believe some authors, recognizing a potential "cash cow", took Wilkinson's book, re-wording some of his points slightly(including many of his proven errors) and wrote books of their own, hyped by modern media, thus expanding a little-known false doctrine until a whole genre of literature began to be published extolling the "virtues" of KJVO and enriching several of these authors. The common KJVO simply hasn't explored the facts to know this.
     
    #31 robycop3, Aug 28, 2004
  12. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    That rights come on guys I mean look in the front of the KJV 1611 and look at the Tranlsator(s) there you will see the proof michelle is talking about:

    Translators: Iesus Chrift Sonne of God
    1611 KIV.

    1cross+3nails=4given
     
    #32 DeclareHim, Aug 28, 2004
  13. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen [​IMG] Amen [​IMG] Amen [​IMG]
     
    #33 DeclareHim, Aug 28, 2004
  14. EaglewingIS4031

    EaglewingIS4031 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry! Spellling is not my strong suit. This board does not have a spell check! I'm Dyslexic. I taught High school for seven years, would not have been able to do it with out spell checks. Please forgive me! And thanks for pointing out my error. I will not do it again. [​IMG] [​IMG]

    P.S. After Noah Webster published his dictionary in 1820, which standardized the Amercan English spelling, President Andrew Jackson said; "It's mighty poor mind, that can't think of more than one way to spell a word." :D

    [ August 29, 2004, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: EaglewingIS4031 ]
     
    #34 EaglewingIS4031, Aug 29, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...