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!

Are KJVonly Truly Fundamentalist?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Sep 18, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,466
    Ratings:
    +70
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All fundamentalists of various denominations held that the Bible was inerrant, infallible and perfectly inspired IN THE ORIGINALS. This is the first of the 13 original fundamentals, and oft repeated.

    Until 1970 99.99% of anyone claiming to be a "fundamentalist" would agree with this. Only a rare bird would say that a particular English translation was perfectly inspired, except as derived (accurately translated from the originals).

    Then came the rise of a sect called the "onlies". They insist that only (hence the name) the AV1611 was inspired, only the underlying Greek text of the AV1611 was inspired, and that any perceived "error" was just advanced revelation.

    A church in Colorado Springs was hosting a conference on the fundamentals of the faith a few years back. In their literature, they said that a NEW FUNDAMENTAL - perfectly preserved and inspired Word of God was ONLY in the KJV (not sure which revision was the correct one). And that a person was NOT a "fundamentalist" if they did not thus believe.

    My point for discussion would be that, by definition, such a KJVOnly sect position would preclude a person as NOT an HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALIST.

    Floor is yours. I'm on vacation! [​IMG]
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,466
    Ratings:
    +70
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Major premise: Only the KJV (whichever revision) is the inspired Word of God

    Minor premise: My Greek NT is NOT the KJV

    Conclusion: My Greek NT is NOT the inspired Word of God
     
  3. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,499
    Ratings:
    +10
    KJVO's are not historical fundamentalists. Of those who would have called themselves fundamentalists before 1970 were those who believed in the fundamentals of the faith in contrast to those who were liberals and did not believe in quite a number of things that scripture clearly teaches.

    I have found staunch KJVO hardly exists where one must do evangelism to exist. Where I lived awhile back, one of the KJVO churches got mad at their new pastor because they had just brought him in and he told them evangelism was their personal responsibility. The old die hard deacons didn't like that so well because they put their personal responsibility on the shoulders of the pastor.

    If a KJVO is doing God's work and leading people to Christ and discipling them then I pray for God's blessing upon them. But if anyone is not and are only causing trouble I pray for them to leave quickly.
     
  4. superdave

    superdave New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Ratings:
    +0
    The answer is No, It is not even a historic position (except perhaps for the Anglican Baptist-killers), let alone historic fundamentalism
     
  5. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Ratings:
    +0
    Anyone else ever notice how there is NEVER any Scriptural support for the vies brought up by the mv lovers regarding inerrancy and infallibility?
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Ratings:
    +0
    What's a "vie"? Is that supposed to say "lie"? If so, then there has been plenty of biblical support. We have shown constantly that no one in the biblical times ever used the KJV, much less was KJVOnly. That is clear and indisputable proof that KJVO is not a biblical doctrine.

    You have yet to provide even one verse of Scripture where God says to use the KJV. You keep missing little things like that.
     
  7. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Ratings:
    +0
    What's a "vie"? Is that supposed to say "lie"? If so, then there has been plenty of biblical support. We have shown constantly that no one in the biblical times ever used the KJV, much less was KJVOnly. That is clear and indisputable proof that KJVO is not a biblical doctrine.


    You have yet to provide even one verse of Scripture where God says to use the KJV. You keep missing little things like that.
    </font>[/QUOTE]:rolleyes:
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Ratings:
    +0
    I notice your response was still that scriptural support for KJVOnlyism. I know why it is missing it ... you don't have any. There is not one bit of revelation from God that supports you. He told us that he gave us everything we needed to know, and the doctrine of KJVO is not found anywhere.

    We have shown time and time again with Scripture that KJVO is not a biblical doctrine. HOw long will you continue in rejection of God's word?
     
  9. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    16,353
    Ratings:
    +1,311
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The closest thing to scriptural support points in the other direction. As Archangel has pointed out.
    Where OT Scripture is quoted in NT Scripture there is a mismatch, therefore God allows the use of translations that vary somewhat from the original.

    Second, but not the final authority of course, is the testimony and belief of the KJV translators that even the "meanest" of the translations "is The Word of God".

    Personally and in this case I chose to believe this along with them (KJV translators) rather than the second guessing and "advanced revelation" theories of the KJVOs 400 years later.

    HankD
     
  10. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Ratings:
    +43
    The KJO sect is not only Biblically wrong, it is fundamentally wrong! The Watch Tower organization teaches that Christ was nailed to a stake rather than a cross, and yet the leaders of the Watch Tower organization know for a fact that Jesus was nailed to a cross rather than a stake. Do the leaders of the KJO sect know for a fact that they are teaching a lie? I would not be surprised if they do. They have certainly seen more evidence against them than any Watch Tower leaders have seen. “Birds of a feather flock together.”

    Christian fundamentalism presupposes that both appellations fit. The KJO sect . . . .
     
  11. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Ratings:
    +0
    No they are not.

    A lie can never be a fundamental of the faith.

    KJVOism is a modern myth that has no scripture to support it. Any true fundamentalist has to be against KJVOism.

    KJVOism goes against what the AV1611 translators said in the Message to the Reader.
     
  12. AV Defender

    AV Defender New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Ratings:
    +0
    How would you know?!

    None of you &lt;attack deleted&gt; have shown that were NOT;just your slanted opinions.

    Where is Biblical support for your position??

    [ September 19, 2004, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Ratings:
    +0
    We know becaue we know the Bible. We have shown from teh infallible word of God that the authors of Scripture used versions other than the KJV. We have shown from the infallible word of God that NT authors quoted OT passages that were not precisely identical to the Hebrew text.

    That is clear, infallible evidence that KJVOnlyism is not of God and that those who espouse are espousing false teaching.

    IT is a strange world that we live in here ... Your side gives no biblical evidence and expects the world to believe. Our side gives solid biblical evidence and you refuse to believe. It shows that your authority is not the word of God, but rather the words of man. You would rather believe man than God.
     
  14. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,499
    Ratings:
    +10
    Anyone else ever notice how there is NEVER any Scriptural support for the vies brought up by the mv lovers regarding inerrancy and infallibility? </font>[/QUOTE]Have you not read the Chicago statement of inerrancy that was created in 1978?
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jim Ward:Anyone else ever notice how there is NEVER any Scriptural support for the vies brought up by the mv lovers regarding inerrancy and infallibility?

    What we DO notice is that a doctrine called KJVOism was started by some people, and that there's NO Scriptural support for it. The burden of proof is upon them to prove their doctrine, to raise it from "myth" status. We who are NOT limited to just one version aren't trying to push any man-made doctrines of our own; we're just requesting YOU fellas prove YOURS.
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_which_bible.htm

    An excerpt from the above site:

    "Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits."

    "We know of no Fundamentalists...that claim the King James as the best translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation." Richard V. Clearwaters, THE GREAT CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST COMPROMISE (Minneapolis: Central Seminary Press, n.d.), pp. 192, 199.

    I bring this to your attention because Dr. Clearwaters was one of Dr. Bob's teachers, and was about as Fundamentalist as one can be.

    Anyone wonder who Richard V. Clearwaters was? Here's a brief bio of Dr. Clearwaters, written in tribute to him:

    http://www.aletheiabaptistministries.org/Richard%20Clearwaters.htm
     
  17. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Ratings:
    +0
    Their "Biblical" support is thier own &lt;snipped&gt; minds and the statements of others who believe and love the same lies they do. Their bible, that they really believe, is their own selves. Bunch of &lt;attack snipped&gt; they are.

    [ September 19, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  18. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Ratings:
    +0
    My, my...what a Christian debate, NOT!

    KJVO is not fundamentalism..no way, shape, form, or fashion. Legalism, definately. Fundamentalism, nada.

    As Dr.Bob stated in the opening post, the first fundamental of the faith is the belief in the innerrancy of the original autographs. The King James Version is not one of those autographs, nor is it a copy of them; it is a transaltion of a manuscript compiled from a relatively few copies of differing manuscripts (with a dose of the Latin Vulgate to "fill in the gaps").

    King James Version Onlyism, the cancer of Christianity.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  19. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Ratings:
    +0
    --------------------------------------------------
    King James Version Onlyism, the cancer of Christianity.
    --------------------------------------------------

    Rather, it is modern versions and the texts that underline them, that have corrupted the word of truth that is the "cancer of Christianity".


    The church has always and continues to believe the scriptures are infallible and inerrant. MV's have been proven they are not, and those that use them do not believe they are. Therefore, it is not following the fundamentals of the faith to believe all modern versions are the infallible scriptures, because they have shown otherwise. It seems, those who would defend them are showing forth their liberalism, and modernism by virtue of what is called "compromise" of truth for error.
    This definately indicates a sickness within the churches that is the real cancer.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  20. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Ratings:
    +0
    ROTFL thanks for the proof of my statements ck4.


    I can understand why you would want the truth snipped out, you must have an image of some kind to try to protect.


    trotter open your eyes, it's mvism and how it affects a person that is the cancer. Nothing good comes from mvism. No good sound solid Christian holds to the mv view. But then not all Bible believers are good sound and solid either.

    We get more corrupt versions of God's word put out each year and things keep getting worse and worse, and yet no one wants to stop believing lies to see what is happening.


    Only good thing about mv's and the apostacy they are helping, is the sign of the soon return of the Lord Jesus Christ.


    Jim
     
Loading...