Featured Does KJVO equal Fundamental?

Wow, talk about begging the question. Common sense (which seems to be lacking VERY MUCH in followers of Calvinism) should tell you that if Paul was a Calvinist, he would have endorsed baby sprinkling, the "spiritual presence" of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments, amillennenialism, and the murder of heretics of whom he did not agree with. Paul didn't teach Calvinism any more than Mohammed taught the Bible.

Did the KJV translators HAVE TO BELIEVE that they produced a perfect translation? Coming from Calvinists that believe that everything that occurs and comes to pass is the divine act of God is a little surprising that you would claim that whatsoever comes to pass depends on mans acknowledgment of its veracity.

Not one of you KJVO critics believe that God has continued to preserve His word, or that it is perfectly preserved in ANY language so what difference does it make what the KJV translators said about their translation work?

 

Are you saying that all baptist calvinists hold to infant sprinkling then?
that we agree with presby church govt then?

And the translators themselves stated they were not perfect, nor their finishe dproduct was, so wer they liars or what?

 

Need Some Clarification....

Roger....I AM saying that a move towards the use of Modern Versions may not (always) necessarily mean that one is moving back toward the RCC....but...it DOES (potentially) weaken the "divide" since the RCC neither endorses NOR uses the KJV in any of it's editions....(as far as I know). They do, however, endorse or recommend numerous of the MV's as previously posted elsewhere in this thread.

Now...my own knowledge about the Apocrypha is limited to the fact that I do know it was of Catholic origin (or at least that is what I have always believed) so I have always rejected its use outright. Any of you knowledgable or scholarly types who can expound more about it would be welcome to do so and I, for one, would be interested. What was it's origin? Why did the KJV translators choose to include it since they have an obvious aversion to things of a "Popish" nature (as mentioned in their dedicatory preface)? How long did it remain a part of the original 1611 edition before it was removed/edited out?

Either way...I stand by my suggestion that the use of MV's is (at least) one distinguishing aspect of the move back towards Rome. Genuine Bible Believers should think real hard about that. I believe it to be a slippery slope. I would also add that I believe that Contemporary music is another aspect of this slide. I don't want to derail this thread but that does bear mentioning since many of those who embrace and endorse that style of music demonstrate by their actions (and their choice of Bible versions) that they have a higher regard for their music than they do their Bibles. I know that is a broad brush stroke but that is what I believe. I do believe that there is a demonstratable correlation. You rarely see any KJVO going in THAT direction either. I shall now crawl back under my rock.

:tonofbricks:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

I have no doubt that using the NJKV is NOT a step back to Rome.

 

The Apocrypha was placed in between the OT and NT and was only included because of it's historical significance. The KJV translators in their list of translation rules stated quite a few times they did not believe the Apocrypha was Scripture.

Beliefs of translators are not always a valid method for judging the translation. Many of the KJV translators were Calvinists. Now of course, some would jump on that and claim that the KJVO should not then criticize the Catholic versions because that is the same argument. No it's not. The difference is the KJV translators did not set out to alter Scripture to support their views whereas the Catholic church DID and even some admitted it (Martin, 1560). THAT is one of the main issues that KJVOs have against the modern translations is that they are based off of the manuscripts of a church that set out to deliberately obstruct belief in the Bible, and if they couldn't destroy the Book, they would confuse everyone by putting out 30,000 different translations of it.

Not one single IFB church that is not KJVO is a separated, fundamental, soul winning church. NOT ONE. All of them compromise in some form or another with the ecumenical and emerging church movement, contemporary doctrines and music and flimsy standards. Of course, they would object to that by redefining what it means to be separated and then they have their pick of the litter of translations they can use to support whatever wind of doctrine is the soup of the day.

 

Yes...well....

I do have less issues with the NKJV than I do have with the rest of the MV's...but....I still think in falls short and I have mentioned to you before the works of Dr. Douglas D. Stauffer. His books, "One Book Stands Alone" and "One Book One Authority" offer numerous reasons or examples why the NKJV, though an improvement on the other MV's, still seems to follow some of the renderings/readings from the CT's rather than the TR though I think they promote it as being a TR translation. I'll just stick to my KJV. Better safe than sorry...IMHO. Regardless of any other reason or argument pro OR con, I see no reason to change. The Holy Spirit will ALWAYS be the only Interpreter in Whom we can have 100% confidence. He is the only true source by which the Believer derives an understanding of the scriptures! I went through 12 years of public education and a few years of college coursework and English was one of my WORST subjects. The Kings english is no problem for me. I just don't buy the standard excuses that I hear most use for tossing their KJV's.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Here is the symbol that John Calvin used for Geneva. http://s43.photobucket.com/user/tlthe5th/media/Uni-Geneve-seal.gif.html

Notice the Roman Catholic Pope's "Key to the Kingdom" and the Catholic use of the occultic Phoenix. You really need to learn more about the truth behind Calvin. I know it's a shock, just as much of a shock to followers of the Watchtower when they find out they've been lied to all their life.

 

Actually, reprints of the "1611 KJV" are fairly easy to get. I have one myself, a reprint of the first edition put out by Thomas Nelson Publ., complete with Apocrypha.

 

AAAACCCCTTUUUAAALLLYYYY....I already know this, and I have one myself too :laugh:

 

Okay, now I know where this guy stands, since he praises the railer Ruckman.

1 Cor. 5:11--"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

 

I might disagree with everything else you said James, but that is a good line.

I do! I believe God's word is preserved in ANY language and in a variety of translations. Sometimes it takes a little study to understand, but I think you miss the point entirely. I believe God's word is preserved and available to us today. I believe it to be authoritative, inerrent and inspired. I do not believe that inspiration is limited to the KJV, any other single translation, or the English language.

 

Then why quit? Why not include it for us today?

It was a Romish compromise to include it - no matter what the circumstances. I don't think any IFBer would accept a Bible that included the Apocrypha today no matter where it was in the Bible.

The idea that anyone who does not hold to a KJVO position is slipping otwards Rome has no merit.

Independent Baptists are supposed to be independent - that is supposed to allow us diversity of views.

 

It wasn't a threat in England to have the Apocrypha included because the Protestants knew it was not inspired. Quite different as time went on, it wasn't a good idea to leave it in because it gave the impression that it may be part of Scripture. That is a silly argument since it does nothing to advance or validate the criticism against the KJVO position since no KJVO critic can show where any of the translators thought it was part of Scripture.

And do Baptists being independent and allowing for the diversity of views also include mine? How is my position that you should use the KJV only in English any different than you telling me I shouldn't? Does that not impinge on my "right" as a Baptist to have a "diversity of views"? And before you say my position is not diverse-sure it is. On one view, I hold that the KJV is the inerrant word of God, and the other view as that the modern translations are trash. Thus two views=diversity, or do I need to have more views in order to be considered 'diverse'?

You stuck yourself with that one by using the same "tolerance" argument that liberals use against Christianity, tolerate every view but the oppositions. If any dialogue to the contrary of your views or mine are seen as an attempt to contravene the independency of Baptist churches (I didn't know we were "having church" anyway) then why is this forum even here?

Nevertheless, I would argue that the fact that many consider IFB churches to be identified by certain Baptist "distinctives" throws some what of a monkey wrench into your theory that diversity of views is tolerated or accepted. Being an independent does mean a church without distinction, but following your theory to its logical conclusion would leave no distinctions any different from the emerging and ecumenical church.

 

I recognise your right to hold to your view. We are, after all Baptists who should recognise individual soul liberty. I am happy to allow that diversity. My KJVO brethren preach Christ - and that is something in which I rejoice.

BTW, I do use the blessed old KJV, every day.

 

I have seen many different versions used in IFB churches and many different versions in Fundamental churches which aren't baptist.

 

1611 KJV and the Apocrypha

Please give and present those claimed direct quotations from the KJV translators with the documented source.

By the way, the KJV translators did not make the rules for their translating. The rules were likely made by Archbishop Richard Bancroft and approved by King James.

The Church of England's Book of Common Prayer required that portions or lessons from some of the Apocrypha books be read in the state churches on certain Sundays.

The actual high regard that the Church of England of the 1500's and 1600's had for the Apocrypha can also be seen in The Books of Homilies. These books were a collection of "authorized sermons" that were intended to be read aloud in the state churches. The first book of twelve homilies was issued in 1547 with authority of the Council. A second book with twenty-one homilies was issued in 1571 under Queen Elizabeth. Davies observed that "the first book of homilies was issued as a standard of Biblical doctrine and preaching for the nation" (Worship and Theology, I, p. 231). Hughes noted that King James I laid down that "preaching ministers are to take the Articles of 1563 and the two Books of Homilies 'for a pattern and a boundary'" (Reformation in England, p. 399). Does that suggest that the KJV translators were required to accept them as a boundary or standard? Peirce pointed out that in the Church of England's Homilies: "Baruch is cited as the Prophet Baruch; and his writing is called, 'The word of the Lord to the Jews'" (Vindication, pp. 537-538). Peirce also claimed that in the Homilies "the book of Tobit is attributed to the Holy Ghost" (p. 538).

This high regard is also clearly evident in the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604). Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a 1583 conference the following: "The books called apocrypha are indeed parts of the scriptures; they have been read in the church in ancient times, and ought to be still read amongst us" (Select Memoirs, p. 327). Benjamin Brook also quoted the same above statement made by Whitgift along with the following other statements: “The apocrypha was given by the inspiration of God.“ “You cannot shew that there is any error in the apocrypha. And it has been esteemed a part of the holy scriptures by the ancient fathers” (Lives, II, p. 317). Based on Whitgift’s statements, Samuel Hopkins commented: “I will only observe that the Archbishop of Canterbury insisted that the apocrypha books were part of the Holy Scriptures, were given by inspiration of God, and were without error” (The Puritans, III, p. 45, footnote 3). Several of the KJV translators who worked with, were taught by, or were associated with Whitgift may have held similar views. Is there any evidence that the KJV translators rebuked or criticized Archbishop Whitgift for publicly maintaining that the books called apocrypha are part of the scriptures? The few Puritans among the KJV translators would have disagreed with such high regard for the Apocrypha. It was Archbishop Whitgift that presided over the crowning of James as king of England in July of 1603.

The 1611 KJV had no clear disclaimer concerning the canonicity or inspiration of the Apocrypha. In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches.

In addition, the cross references in the 1611 edition of the KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority. In their cross references, did the KJV translators indicate any differences between when they have a reference to a book in the O. T. or N. T. and a reference to a book in the Apocrypha?


In contrast to the KJV, some of the earlier English Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired. KJV defender Thomas Holland acknowledged that the 1611 KJV did not have “an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible” (Crowned, p. 94). Arthur Farstad noted: “Unlike its predecessors, which clearly stated that the apocryphal books were not part of the canon of Scripture, the 1611 Version contained no comments about the canonicity of the Apocrypha, thus leaving the question open” (The NKJV, p. 24). Before the Apocrypha in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators’ disclaimer began with the following: “These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion.“ Did the 1611 KJV indicate the same clear distinction or separation between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha as it indicated between the Old Testament and the New Testament with its separate title page?

Probably aimed at the Geneva Bible, Archbishop Abbot, one of the KJV translators, issued in 1615 an order forbidding the sale of Bibles without the Apocrypha (Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). KJV-only advocate Jack Moorman also acknowledged that Abbot "in 1615 forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Forever Settled, p. 183).

 

A number of English translations were make before the KJ translation was made.

http://library.osu.edu/innovation-p...bible/sections/english-biblical-translation-b

 

How do you define contemporary music? Is it from 1985 to the present? Is it from this past century? I think that many Fundamentalists use a lot of contemporary music --stuff written in the last 100 years or so.