Must a Conservative Baptist use the KJV?

So let me get this straight.

Others can preach using the “KJV only”, for 20+ years(like myself), and get a pass;

But I talk about using only the KJV, and I am called a re#!@rd and a member of some sect.
--------------------------------------------------
What is this, the main-stream media?

Please check your double standards, at the door.

 

That is right. I have been only preaching from the King James for more than 30 years, but I am certainly not King James Only! In fact in my personal study I refer to many translations, and also to the Greek and Hebrew.

 

Hi DHK

You said........

What made you think, that I put the KJV above the Greek & Hebrew?

 

I didn't. I simply said that for thirty years I have been using the KJV, and that would be from the pulpit. However for my own personal study I use Greek, Hebrew, and a multitude of other translations. I never put a translation over the Greek or Hebrew. Fact is, I can't read the Greek or Hebrew from the pulpit, and if I could no one would be able to understand it.
So, I am not sure of what you are objecting to.

 

Nobody cares what version you use, the problem is when you make comments like the one that is the subject of this thread.

 

So, you use the Vulgate, since it's the longest-lived...right?

 

annsi is right:

I know of IFB and SBC churches that use the KJV only. They're not who I speak of. I speak of KJVO churches I have been part of or know well. They are not even in the same zip code as holding to sound doctrine.

 

I'm about as conservative as you can get and when dealing with potential churches to serve in the past I always told them that if the church wanted me to preach from the KJV that I would with no questions asked. It is a perfectly valid version. But, I would not promote the KJV as being the only legitimate version of the Bible. Nor would I stand idly by and allow someone else to promote that ideology. There's enough to deal with in a church without having that false doctrine floating around creating havoc in the assembly. Most have told me they would prefer me to preach from whatever version I felt led of the Lord to use.

 

Our mission board has a policy that we must use the KJV when preaching in the States. All of the preaching at my home church in Alabama is form the KJV. I have absolutely no problem adhering to that policy. It is a fine translation of God's word. We are privileged to have access to it.

 

Well, you know it's funny, because for the last three weeks our pastor has been teaching why we only use the KJB. In fact, you might notice I have started writing KJB instead of KJV. And that is because of something my pastor said. He said that the King James is not a version, it is "the Bible". I thought about that, and in my opinion he is right.

But we are not what people think when they say King James Only. We do not hold to the teachings of Ruckman. We do not believe the English is superior to the original languages. In fact, our pastor will often give the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic to explain a word in the KJB.

So, you have to distinguish between those who only use the KJB, and those that go much further, much more extreme. Now, we do believe that only the KJB is the accurate scriptures in English, and that it came from the Antioch line, all other versions coming from the Alexandria line which we believe is corrupt. We don't argue over "translation", in fact our pastor said the NASB is an excellent translation. The problem is the source. It is an excellent translation of a corrupt text. But we don't believe in double inspiration and other things like that.

And every IFB church I have ever attended has only used and believed in the KJB. We aren't obsessed over this issue, it rarely comes up, although that is what we are presently studying in Sunday School at this time.

 

And I've noticed that you absolutely despise and hate those that believe in the KJB. Very telling.

You never contribute anything of substance to the argument except to spew your vile hatred for folks like me.

Do I spew such poison out? No. I simply say I disagree with you and try to explain why I disagree.

Do you think I am a heretic? I could care less. You see, I am very comfortable and secure in my position. Perhaps you are not.

 

And this is the false argument. Very slick, most people would not catch it, in fact it got by me for a while.

It is not a matter of whether the KJB, the NIV, or NASB are "good translations". It is the source of that translation that matters. As my pastor said, the NASB is an excellent translation of the original languages into English, the problem is the source of that translation. It comes from the Alexandrian line which we believe is corrupt.

Very clever argument though, gotta give you that.

 

The KJVO argument is not really even worth debating. It is held by a very small sect - a minute percentage of the Baptist population - and an even smaller percentage of the evangelical population. It is representative of a mindset that denies the validity of good scholarship as if it were some sort of conspiracy, which, of course, is not true.

 

hey Winman, what is your opinion of the NKJV as it comes from the same texts as the KJV?

 

It does not deny scholarship. Have I not said twice now that the NASB is an excellent translation from the original languages into English?

Is is not a matter of whether the NASB is an inferior translation compared to the KJB. They come from different sources. The Received Text and the Critical Text are very different. The KJB is a translation of the Received Text, the NASB is a translation of the Critical Text.

So, it is a false argument that this is a matter of scholarship, or of which translation is most accurate. The NASB is an excellent and very accurate translation of the Critical Text, the KJB is an excellent and accurate translation of the Received Text.

You could translate Moby Dick into another language. You could translate Alice in Wonderland to the same language. Both could be excellent and accurate translations. Both could be masterful works of scholarship on the part of the translators who performed the work. But they are not the same because the source of the translation is different.

That is the real issue. Which line is correct, the line from Antioch, or the line from Alexandria? Translation is not the issue. But some use this clever argument to distract people from the true issue.

 

There are some debated text between the two lines, but I do not believe that the texts are as different as you make them to be. I have wanted to do research on which text do the early church fathers seem to support more, but I have not done an indepth and inclusive research on the issue. However, there were some instances where I think supports the Critical. However, this is just a tertiary look.

As well, I think if you took all the textual variants and placed them into a Nestle's Greek text, it would not fill up an entire page (Josh McDowell cites this in one of his books). There are not many if you look at the bottom of a Nestle's Greek, as it shows the textual variants in the footnotes.

 

Closed - totally off topic of the original question.