When did statements on Bible versions first begin to appear in 'Statements of Faith'?

Just looking at the list in TN and for KY, there are many that are duplicates. I wonder if those are counted more than once. And I also notice some that actually KJVP. More than one would deny the fundamentals. We've already hashed that. One in KY has closed its doors due to legal/moral issues.

So I wonder how accurate this is. That said, it matters not. Truth isn't decided by numbers.

 

So Bro Pyle is to blame, huh? :tongue3: Kidding, friend.

 

In my home church's constitution, which was written around 1915- 1917, it reads that ONLY the KJV could be used in the pulpit.

 

Wow, that's a long time ago. I had no idea it went back that far.

Although I am not KJVO, one thing I find amusing is that I have never found anyone who attends these churches complain. It's always someone from the outside that has a problem with it.

 

What would be used if a Spanish speaking church owned the building and the English speaking church disbanded?

 

I have had more than one of these pastors say that they often used the NIV or the Amplified Bible in study, often as a sort of a commentary.

I believe many KJVO churches stay that way because the people expect it and for continuities sake.

 

Complaining is not the same as disagreeing. Every local church has a right to have whatever they want in the SoF. I simply disagree that it should be part of one.

 

At Crossroads Fellowship we simply put a line in the by-laws that states we are NOT onlyists when it comes to translations and that each member is free to use which ever translation they prefer. So no group within the church can spread that poison such as KJVOism without being in violation of the Church by-laws.

It's kinda sneaky, but it should work out just fine.

 

Both the CT and RT are man-made; neither is inspired. Agreed?

What are the chances that either of them is perfect down to the last exact word? It is likely that neither one is actually perfect. Agreed?

If the above is true (and it probably is) then it seems you do not have the written "word of God" preserved in Greek by your definition. How then could it ever be possible to have the written "word of God" (NT) preserved in English?

 

I don't agree at all, I believe the RT is the preserved word of God, and so do hundreds of IFB churches, this is what they proclaim in their statement of faith.

This is part of the statement of faith of Heritage Baptist Church in Manheim, Pa.

I do not know what year this was written, but I did find a statement of faith that concerned using the KJV only dated 1991 at another church's site.

 

The first sentence of that section is good. It fell apart once they said, "We believe that this has been done in the Old Testament Masoretic Text and the New Testament Received Greek Text. It is of keen interest that all pastors, speakers, teachers, missionaries, and evangelists use the King James Version of the Bible, or a Bible translated from the same line as the Received Text. We believe that God has preserved his inspired, inerrant, and infallible text in the MT/TR/KJV line of text." All of that is man's supposition and has no biblical grounds whatsoever. They basically tried to turn the section into an explanation of one of the KJVOs favorite proof texts (Psalms 12:6-7).

Believing something is a personal preference. Putting something into a statement of faith that is not in the bible is heresy.

 

I have nothing to do with what churches put in their statement of faith.

The oldest church that I have found so far that supports the KJB only in their statement of faith is the Bible for Today Church in Collingswood, N.J.. This was founded in 1965 by Pastor D.A. Waite who is a famous supporter of the KJB and head of the Dean Burgeon Society.

 

Baptist Orthodox Creed (1678):