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!

KJVO

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Bob Krajcik, Dec 29, 2002.

  1. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Author, I found this that seems to contradict your assertion.

    http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp

    According to this comparison, the ideas you claim come from '63 not '25.

    As for Steve's words, there is something lost when the statement of principle is not complete. The Bible is the authority for all matters of faith and practice. The last portion of this phrase specifically refutes his KJVO beliefs since the Bible does not teach any such idea.
     
  2. Author

    Author <img src="http://abooks.com/images/aralph.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems to, yes, Scott. ;) But that's from an SBC official site. They often contradict true Baptists today :D . However that topic is for another thread.

    --Ralph [​IMG]

    [ January 03, 2003, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Author ]
     
  3. sodzei

    sodzei New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you think we can leave this subject for a little while so that the heat can cool down. We're not making any progress. We can't change each others' minds. So let's ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to show us what is Truth.
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You missed again, and misrepresent matters by accusing me. </font>[/QUOTE]I really don't think so Bob aka Polycarp aka Muskeegetter. He has pretty much nailed the methods you used here:

    http://pub76.ezboard.com/fav1611godswordfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=835.topic&start=1&stop=20

    Except you haven't accused Pastor Larry of being unsaved because he disagrees with you yet.

    Other than that, your methods don't seem to have changed much at all. You refuse to deal with facts preferring to argue personalities, misapply scripture, attack your opponents personally, twist others words, etc.
     
  5. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    1
    You missed again, and misrepresent matters by accusing me. </font>[/QUOTE]I really don't think so Bob aka Polycarp aka Muskeegetter. He has pretty much nailed the methods you used here:

    http://pub76.ezboard.com/fav1611godswordfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=835.topic &start=1&stop=20

    Except you haven't accused Pastor Larry of being unsaved because he disagrees with you yet.

    Other than that, your methods don't seem to have changed much at all. You refuse to deal with facts preferring to argue personalities, misapply scripture, attack your opponents personally, twist others words, etc.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Scott, it was Larry that should have stated his position, if he were interested in clearing up and showing why he made the charge against me. It was not for me to "do my homework" but it was for Larry to state his position. That's all I have to say about that.

    As for the charges you made against me, on Baptist Board, the posts are available for any that want to read and honestly evaluate. The posts of mine in this Bible Versions / Translations forum between December 2002 – January 2003 speak for themselves.

    As for factual answers, with my position it is not needful for me to search out and identify for the critics the places where there are clear contradictions from the NA27, Robinson-Pierpont Majority 1995, Friburg UBS 3/4, Tischendorf NT 8th, Westcott & Hort NT, etc. plus a host of conflicting English versions and say, “Yep, there is a difference so it doesn't agree with my Bible.” I don’t use chicken bones tossed on the ground to settle on a reading, and I don’t use tea leaves to decide what I should read and count as true from a variety of conflicting readings from day to day. I have an authoritative Bible, and I don’t count contradictions to it as true. I quote the Bible.

    Getting all intellectual and scholarly referring to the sources that do not agree with my Bible will not change a thing. We simply are not saying the same thing and we use words that mean one thing to one person and something different to another person.

    But Scott, I’m sorry to see you are laboring under the notion you think you must draw other message board posts in to stir people up against me. Actually Scott, my posting enflames certain people by itself so your efforts to get others stirred up against me is not really necessary. Of course if you have nothing better to do, I hope you are enjoying yourself.

    Others here on Baptist Board have labored to stir people up against me as well, and it seems such a vain thing.

    My own posts right here on Baptist Board, that have been made by me between December 2002 - January 2003 stir people up. Read them and see. You don’t need to expend energy by dragging the other message board in. Of course if you have nothing better to do, I hope you are enjoying yourself.

    There are certain people here that really have a problem with what I say, and have made that very clear previous. Such things caused very much trouble. Some of the ones posting here were claiming what I publish on my web site is religious dribble, referring to me as ignorant, cultic, a heretic, schismatic, divisive, drug influenced, and such like. And it is not as if I always replied to such things as I would have liked. That was then, and this is now. But the point is, those that say such things are certainly not the sort I would trust or recommend to others.

    I had hoped such foolish things were over here at Baptist Board. I do know some of those that have said those things meant to harm me still post here, but I expected such things were over. Perhaps you hope to get nerve up to do such things here, or get others to say such things? I hope not, for your own sake.

    There are those that post here that I have warned others about. Those that refer to me as a publisher of religious dribble, refer to me as ignorant, cultic, a heretic, schismatic, divisive, drug influenced, I simply do not count as an old friend. I warn people about specific things, but some get confused and are not able to discern between one thing and another and image such warnings apply to each and every person here. I have those that post here I consider personal friends. I’m certainly not warning people about them. Others that post here have not expended efforts in hopes of harming me or enflaming me, and have conducted themselves in a manner exhibiting grace.

    As for those I would count friends, I don’t like to have them identified because of the childish ones that like to name call and stir up trouble. It’s like the other message board you want to drag in here. Some from here have sent their friends over there to harass. It seems to me Christians would have better things to do with there time.

    In any case, you haven’t shocked me and have not enflamed me.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bob, When your approach is so enflaming by your own admission, why do you try to make yourself a victim?

    In your effort to make yourself the victim of Pastor Larry's relatively polite chastisement, you made yourself out to be innocent when I knew you weren't.

    The reason you "enflame" so many people is because you make it personal since you don't have fact #1, scriptural or historical, to substantiate what you claim. I think you actually know this. So, you distort people's statements and beliefs and attack them in an effort to turn the debate away from real substance.

    In honesty, I think you vastly overestimate your ability to "enflame" those of us who disagree with you. What would bother me is if you actually substantiated what you believed with some sort of real proof. That would require alot of "crow eating". No one likes it... but I am pretty sure I would do it... and pretty sure I won't have to.
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Has anyone suggested you use chicken bones or tea leaves? If God saw fit to leave those conflicting readings in the mss evidence, who are you to argue with their being there? 5300+ mss which all differ from each other seems to be a bit more of a problem than the contradictions in the sources you cite above.

    In realtiy, if you dealt with the sources above and their honest, scholarly attempts to reconstitute the original text, you would be forced to face the fallacy of KJVOnlyism. Is that what you're afraid of?
    On what basis do you declare it authoritative in its wording? Did God directly inspire it unknown to its translators? Who established it as the standard by which other versions are to be judged for truthfulness? It has to be you or some other man because God did not say it.
    Really? I am still waiting for that scripture that says that only the KJV is the Word of God in English.... or if it is not there, an admission from you that your KJVO beliefs are wholly unscriptural.

    What source do you think teaches doctrines different from the ones in the KJV. Can you prove it?
    I am not attempting to inflame or stir up anyone. I am exposing what I view as a pattern and method.
     
  8. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    1
    2 Corinthians 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

    Scott, I’m really sorry to see you are so upset at what I have to say.

    If as you suggest my position is so weak I suggest you post your authority and let that speak for itself, rather than concern yourself with me, with how you perceive my traits.

    I haven’t seen you post anything of substance, but instead you have turned to an attack on me, but you are unarmed. You don’t have an affective weapon.

    I hope you will settle down and think of what you are saying before you make posts such as this effort of yours that is just about me, and not about the issues. Make up your mind.

    You ask on what basis I declare the Bible authoritative, while I reject contradictory readings in other versions, simply settling my mind on my Bible.

    On the basis of faith.

    To one person my English Bible is authoritative, above all other versions, and to another it is not. Some turn to contradictory readings. Contradictory readings is what I reject.

    KJV 1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

    KJV Hosea 8:12 I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.

    You mention what you refer to as 5300 + mss which all differ, you say. Keep these 5300 + mss in mind.

    Next you ask can I prove different sources I mentioned are showing different doctrine.

    Those sources I mentioned are attempts by various people to make Greek New Testaments. It should be obvious, if they are not different there would be no purpose for making all of them. Just like the changes some want to make to the Old and New Testament now. Further, it should be obvious the English renderings from the Greek sources are different. If you insist they are not different, why do you insist your 5300 + mss differ? Further, if the English renderings do not differ, why did they make them?

    If they did not want something different, why would they be so adamant about changing what has been used for the 1500 years the “different” readings were not used? The difference certainly goes beyond the use of synonyms.

    Scott, for now you go ahead and prove it yourself. Remember, you said they were different, all different. Or is there a way you say things but don’t mean what you say? I’m not following you. We are not going the same way. You should stick to factual matters to refute my, if you are able, and not let your imagination turn things about so much in an attempt to attack me, rather than my position.

    Bible doctrine is what you believe.

    Here are some words to define doctrine.

    The root meaning of the word doctrine means “to teach” and denotes both the act of teaching as well as the subject taught.

    From the Old Testament

    What is received or the matter or message taught:

    Deuteronomy 32:3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

    Job 11:4 For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in thine eyes.

    Proverbs 4:2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.

    Isaiah 29:24 They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.

    That which is heard:

    Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

    Discipline:

    Jeremiah 10:8 But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.

    From the New Testament

    The art of teaching:

    1 Timothy 4:13-16 13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

    1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

    2 Timothy 3:10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

    2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    Indication of that which is taught:

    Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

    2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

    Teaching:

    Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

    Paul repeatedly emphasized "sound doctrine:

    1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

    1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

    2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

    2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

    Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

    Titus 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

    Paul also referred to "good doctrine."

    1 Timothy 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

    The Bible never contradicts itself.

    My mind rests on a Bible that never contradicts itself. Good doctrine. Sound doctrine.
    Perhaps you would not be upset to the point of thinking you need to go after me, rather than the issues, if your mind were settled on sound words that did not contradict themselves.

    I don’t care to pursue this quarrel you have with me. You are welcomed to have the last word, if you care to post along the same line again on this thread.
     
  9. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "My mind rests on a Bible that never contradicts itself."

    Matthew 27:37 (KJV)... And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

    Mark 15:26 (KJV)... And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

    Luke 23:38 (KJV)... And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

    John 19:19 9KJV)... And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

    Above are the 4 "gospels'" rendering of the sign place on the cross of Jesus. No 2 are exactly the same, meaning 4 different 'versions' in only 3 languages (Luke 23:38), so even if the biblical writers were each copying from a different one of the 3 languages, then *at least 2* would have to be exactly the same. But they are not, at least not in the KJV. So-- what's the deal then?... does the KJV 'contradict itself' or can things be 'different,' yet 'the same'?
     
  10. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    perhaps it said THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS? no contradiction there, right?

    [ January 09, 2003, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: am ha'aretz ]
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, Bob, I'm really not upset. While I disagree with your methods and have difficulty respecting the opinions of someone who makes KJVO a test of salvation, I would not hesitate to reconcile with you or treat you as a brother.

    I do think your position is weak... actually I think it is completely impotent.

    My authority is the Bible. I accept the teachings of the KJV (as well as the NASB and NKJV) as completely authoritative because I believe it to be a faithful version of God's Word.

    However, I reject the notion that its words hold exclusive claim to the title "Word of God in English". I reject this notion because it is not taught by the Bible and does not line up with a reasonable interpretation of historical facts. You or any other KJVO can convert me in one instant by pointing to a single verse of scripture that proves your position. You can convince me that the KJV is the best version by honestly dealing with the facts and proving your position.

    I have explained my positions to you before. I don't think they have changed substantially from those I expressed on that other website that I linked to.
    Bob, I will gladly give you a list of my reasons for not being KJVO or give you a statement of my beliefs on the scriptures. To save space, I don't think I would have a disagreement with any of these:

    http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc01.html
    http://www.f-b-f.org/main.asp?id=2
    http://www.bbfi.org/structure/beliefs.htm#1
    http://www.garbc.org/garbc_home/artfaith.shtml#articles.scrip

    I think much of our difference revolves around what we think is preserved. I believe and scripture teaches that God's Word is preserved. KJVOnlyism demands preserved words. When I send one of my kids to give instructions to the other two, I don't really care if they quote me verbatum. What I care about is that they communicate everything that I intended. This is what I believe God intends in biblical preservation. Variants would only trouble me if they led to contradictory and irreconcilable doctrines or teachings

    It isn't about you. It is all about the issues. However, methods of debate can disrupt reasonable discourse.

    So we come full circle.

    I trust God's Word. So please if your mind is settled on your Bible, show me the verse in your Bible that establishes what you believe about KJVOnlyism.

    What is faith that is contradictory to scriptural and historical fact?
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I find it interesting that the oldest Fundamental Baptist organization (FBF 1920) does not espouse KJVonly position.

    Indicative, again, of the recent intrusion of such phenomena of this sub-sect belief into the historic movement of fundamentalism.
     
  13. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are taking the position that things can be different-- meaning *omissions* in particular-- and still be the same. Correct?
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is this the FBFI with Rod Bell et al.?
     
  15. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the FBF (now FBFI) originally existed as a fellowship fighting liberalism within the NBC. As I understand it, the FBF has always been an association of men, but until 1967 there was always a close connection to a series of associations of churches. Since 1967 it's been completely free-standing.
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Just making sure I had the right one. I was a member for awhile.
     
  17. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Did some poking around in their resolutions:

    But, to your credit, Dr. Bob, it appears that they now hold an "any version" stance with the exception of gender-inclusive Bibles.

    I have edited the resolutions for length and have attempted to keep the context. To see these resolutions go the following link:

    FBF Resolutions

    It appears that the FBF was originally KJVO (at least as far back as 1978), but now accepts most modern versions. Look specifically at the 1984 resolution.

    Jason :D
     
  18. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interestingly, the modern "KJV-only" position appears to have been started by a Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, Benjamin Wilkinson, who wrote a book in 1930 called "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated". Wilkinson also appears to be the first to apply Psalm 12:6-7 to the KJV-only understanding of preservation. I'm not sure when "Independent Fundamentals" started clinging to Wilkinson's views, but I suspect it was sometime after 1955, after J.J. Ray wrote "God Wrote Only One Bible", heavily plagarizing Wilkinson's book
     
  19. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hey, I've got an original copy of the J.J. Ray book.

    Jason
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not KJVO as you well know and I wouldn't disagree with any of those statements. To call them KJVO is a big stretch considering they assign inerrancy only to the original autographs.

    I like this statement from 2001 as well:

    "01.5 Regarding Schismatic “Brethren”

    In light of the public attacks and false accusations upon the FBFI, its leaders, and other like-minded Fundamentalist institutions regarding their respective positions on the text of Scripture and translations, we reaffirm that within the historic orthodox doctrine of Bibliology these are matters of soul-liberty and should not be a test of fellowship for Fundamentalists. Since not all professors or pastors have expertise in the field of textual studies, disagreements regarding text or translation should be resolved by honest discussion as opposed to libelous contention. Those who repeatedly attempt to unnecessarily divide Fundamentalists over this issue and refuse to repent should be regarded as schismatics who must be rejected as the Word of God instructs (Romans 16:17-18; Titus 3:9-11; I Corinthians 3:10-17)."

    The public attacks were probably those associated with the spat between BJU and PCC. PCC changed to KJVO and made a big public break of fellowship with BJU because they wouldn't. There are alot of links between BJU and the FBFI.
     
Loading...