Fundamentalist & KJVO Mutually Exclusive?

It's as if people believe English is the only language on the planet. I once attended a men's breakfast where a Chinese brother came to tell us of the evangelistic explosion going on in China. The first question one of the men asked (happened to be KJOV) was "Do they have a King James Bible over there?" If that wasn't such an ignorant question, it would be insulting.

Language is symbolic. It doesn't convey 100% accurate meaning. If it did there would never be any misunderstandings, and certainly no disagreements over Scripture.

 

What???? No one is saying that being KJV-only (or believing the KJV) is mutually exclusive with being saved.

 

Not at all. For the authority and reliability of scripture comes not from just the ink on the page. The Holy Spirit guides us. Someone can read a "perfect Bible" and come to wrong interpretations, and someone else can read a Bible with some textually imperfections in it and yet still come to a correct interpretation.

Completely wrong. You have just left the Holy Spirit out of the equation, or at least restricted how he can work. Besides, 100% correct doctrine is something none of us are going to achieve, even with a textually perfect Bible, for we are each fallible and filtering interpretation through our own imperfect understandings and perceptions.

No one is saying that. I really don't understand where you got that from.

 

Brian, Yes you are if your argument is followed to the logical conclusion.


Ladyeagle >>> "But when you are telling me I'm wrong, then you're also telling me all the Independant Fundamental Baptists I've known for over 50 years, plus my independant fundamental Baptist father/pastor/missionary, and all the IFB pastors/missionaries/evangelists he fellowshipped with (and he lived to be 76 and would be in his 80s now if the Lord hadn't taken him home) through decades, including his education at BBI under Doc Ketchum, (before it became Cedarville College) and all the IFB missionaries, evangelists, and thousands upon thousands of members of their congregations are wrong too. That is quite amazing.">>>>

TinyTim: >>>>If the shoe fits. KJVO was never a fundamental.

One reason I'm not a IFB is because of the lies that have been preached in IFBs that to be fundamental you must be KJVO.

I grew up IFB, back when there was no talk of KJBO! >>>>

Because that's what we used! So you are just proving my point that IFB and KJV are synonymous.

gb93433>>>>>
If people don't learn to study and learn the facts then they just keep playing follow the leader. >>>>


Titus 2:14 : Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (KJV)


Looks like I'm too "peculiar" for this crowd at the BB!

 

How? Explain it to me.

 

Exactly, but the only version they had was the KJV and now it's been discovered to be "full of errors" by some people. Wasn't the title of this thread Fundamentalists & KJVO Mutually Exclusive?

</font>[/QUOTE]There has never been a perfect translation. Spurgeon said something to the effect even with its problems it is the best we have. That was said in the middle 1800's. He advised people to use the authorized version. It was not a 1611. So he knew then. Why don't the KJVIO's know now.
It doesn't shake my faith to know that a translation is not perfect. But I do believe that because of the new information available and additional manuscruipts is helps the textual critics to make a better informed decision. I believe we have the best transklation today that we have veer had. The NAS is far superior to any KJV of today. There is loads of evidence to disprove the integrity of the Textus Receprtus. Just look at 1 John 5:7,8. There was not a single manuscript or quote from the early Chruch Fathers quioting those verses before the 16th century. It is a well known fact that what was once in the margin often made it into the text over time. Generally the longer text and easiest to understand is not the original text. But the Textus Recptus has all the wors including what was not a part of the original text and what was. Now the KJVO"s claim that the others remove words. No it's more like the Textus Receptus added words. I gave you just one example in 1 John 5:7,8.

If you really want to know some of the problems read "The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism" by D. A. Carson. I've been told that an even better book is "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" by James R. White

Just ask yourself which O was Jesus? Was he KJVO? Was HE NASO? Was he NIVO? Was He MTO? Was he LXXO? Was He TRO? Was He UBS4O? Was He NA27O? Was He NKJVO? Was He German only? How about Danish only? Do you really think Jesus was English only? If he were KJVO which version or revision was it? If someone is so staunch KJVO why did the KJV ever need revision if it was good enough the first time?

 

Notice how Jesus and Paul dealt with that same issue. There were diferent Greek translations available during Jesus' time on earth. Also they had Aramaic to deal with also. It seems to me Latin was around too. Try to find one case where anyone in scripture made translation preference an issue.

 

Uh, did you ever read my post, or the posts of others here? Again, you cannot continue to pontificate with an entirely emotional (and irrational) response let alone refute the points in the posts by others here who are not KJVO. Does one's 'unbelief' in KJV-onlyism lead one to hell for eternity? Such a statement is patently absurd. One does not enter eternal punishment in hell (or, the Lake of Fire) because they are or are not KJV-only. Again, argue your points without making silly comments or pontifications about your 'beliefs' without backing them up.

 

What I refute is DD & Dr. Bob's position that IFBs and others who claim to be fundamentalists really cannot be if they use the KJV. That they are at, what was the word, "loggerheads" I believe it was.

And I was trying to show the absurdity of this claim, because for centuries the KJV was the standard in fundamental Baptist churches. Even all the old great preachers from time past used the KJV. Millions, if not billions, have been won to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ all over this world down through the centuries because the only preserved precious Word of God they had was the trusy old KJV.

In my lifetime, the first "translation" if you will, though it claimed to not be a translation, but a "paraphrase" was the the Living Bible. Then, all of a sudden all these other MVs started flooding the market and it suddenly became an issue as the educated elite started picking apart the KJV.

Ya'll have carried this thread from the original post to a debate about KJV vs MV.

I really would like to see some of you go over to the IBF web site I posted in my original post and tell them they aren't fundamentalists because they use the KJV. That they are at "loggerheads."

In fact, I guess the SBC church I attended this morning is not fundamental either because they used the NKJV. Neither are any other IBF, GARBC, Missionary Baptists, or SBC who use the KJV according to Dr. Bob and DD.

What "version" if not the trusty KJV did all these Baptist fundamentalists use in time past?

And now, "if the shoe fits" as I was told, Old Doc Ketchum, and all the others from at least 100 years ago are all in hell because they believed and taught and preached from the KJV?

How ridiculous if not insane. Now I know for certain why the GARBC split from the American Baptists so many years ago - over these types of issues.

I wonder if this is a big issue in the Baptist churches you attend and if so, exactly what version of the Bible is used there - and please post links to your church websites. Thanks.

 

PS: If I have misunderstood Dr. Bob's & DD's position, please clarify what you meant. Thanks.

 

Ladyeagle,

I don't think they are saying that you can't be fundamentalist and USE the KJV. They are saying that you can't be a fundamentalist (in the HISTORICAL sense), and be KJVO.

Some of the founding fundamentalists used the RV. And they affirmed that the God-breathed text is found in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.

 

"Using" the KJV is not what we are discussing. Dr. Bob's post was dealing with the "only"ism aspect - how all other doctrines are supported by dozens of verses, but "only"ism (of any version) is not supported by a single verse. "Fundamentals" are supported by scripture. Since "only"ism is not supported by scripture (and fundamentalism requires doctrines to be supported by scripture), yet KJV "only"ism is usually the "number one" *doctrine* in KJV-only churches' doctrinal statements, this is at loggerheads with fundamentalism, as Dr. Bob puts it. Personally, I've never heard that term before, but I understand the point. It has nothing to do with using the KJV, loving the KJV, believing the KJV, etc. It is about "only" the KJV.

Send me an private message with some links. I would be happy to ask them how they make "only"ism a doctrine, if fundamentalism requires scripture to be the source of doctrine.

They used the KJV, they used the ASV, they used other as well. Again, this has nothing to do with which version they used.

AGAIN, what are you talking about? Who said anything about hell or salvation? Who said which version was believed and taught and preached from has anything to do with that?

 

Travelsong writes.."It's as if people believe English is the only language on the planet. I once attended a men's breakfast where a Chinese brother came to tell us of the evangelistic explosion going on in China. The first question one of the men asked (happened to be KJOV) was "Do they have a King James Bible over there?" If that wasn't such an ignorant question, it would be insulting."

Travelsong, Hi, I'm a moderator of a local American Baptist-USA association.
Along with this office is the duty to answer questions from local churches about our association as well as our state convention and the ABC-USA.
I was called to a church a couple years ago to answer questions about how our mission giving works. Within the ABC-USA it is possible for any church to designate it's mission money to any number of purposes. None has to go to something the local church disapproves of.
I said all that to say this....
One of the questions had to do with the KJV.
This church did not want any money going to any missionary that did'nt use a KJV.

I simply asked them, "What language do they speak in Africa?"

You could see the proverbial light bulb appear over there heads.
They had become so entrenched in KJVOnlyism that it blinded them to the truth.

 

LadyEagle&gt;&gt;&gt;"And I was trying to show the absurdity of this claim, because for centuries the KJV was the standard in fundamental Baptist churches."

There is your first misunderstanding. fundamentalism started in the 1920s. It nas not been around for centuries.

Also other versions has been around for ever, even the original fundamentalists used them.

Do you like John R Rice?

Here is what he says in his article, "Some questions for King James fans"

"But there are people who fanatically insist that the King James Version was perfectly translated with no errors; if there is a single error in the translation we have no trustworthy Bible. They say God is obligated to have such a perfectly translated Bible which is exactly true to every word of the original autographs. They are wrong, foolishly and perhaps ignorantly wrong, and they are often guilty of railing and unchristian talk and foolish, slanderous statements."

He also says, "Did God protect that version from error? In the first hundred years the King James Version has had many corrections and revisions. If it was right before, it did not need the corrections. If it is perfect now, then it was not perfect then."

Now these are his words. I believe J.R.Rice was a great fundamentalist. This is the way I remember IFBs when I grew up. My dad pastored one and we had great revivals with evangelists that used other versions. It was never an issue among fundamentalists until 30 years ago.

 

LadyEagle: //I really would like to see some of you
go over to the IBF web site I posted in my original
post and tell them they aren't fundamentalists because
they use the KJV. That they are at "loggerheads."//

Sorry, i have yet to be called to be a missionary
to the heathen Anyway, i've been there already
and done that, well, on a similar site.

Here is a story from last year:
----------------------------------

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
On a Bulletin board that says:

This is an independent, fundamental Baptist
discussion board that
accepts the King James Bible (AV 1611) as
the perfect word of God
and the final authority in all matters
of faith and practice.

I posted this:

Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):

That if thou shalt confesse with
thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
beleeue in thing heart, that God hath
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

It was edited out with this note:

"Note: Quotations from all other Bibles deleted
by the administrator."

The quote of the same verse from KJV1873 was
allowed to remain.

Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
doesn't accept quotes from
the KJV1611. Tee hee.

-----------------------------------
And here is more matter from a neutral site:

Dear Mr. Edwards,

Laugh now while you have the chance.
You came to our discussion board knowing
our stand on the King James Bible and
yet you decided to stir up a little trouble.
You quoted Romans 10:9 from many different
bible versions trying to prove that
they all stated the same thing.
In the middle you used King James Bibles
from 1611, 1769, and 1873 trying to
make it look like they were all different.
The deletion was to get rid of your redundancy
as well as your quotes from modern versions.
So laugh all you want to because
I am banning you from our board.

/name surpressed/

-----------------------------------
Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
bans KJV1611 quoters ?

 

Are you talking about - a movement? If so, your dates are wrong.

From the Internet:

Were the Anabaptists fundamentalists in belief? What version did they use? The KJV.

Were not many denominations historically "fundamentalist" in their beliefs? What version did they use? The KJV.

For ever?

What proof do you have of this? What version did the average English speaking person use for centuries? The KJV.

Look up any early American writings, even by the Founding Fathers with Scripture references and they used the KJV.

The KJV has been the most widely used Scripture text throughout the whole world for centuries. It has been the basis for translation into other languages as other countries were evangelized - even by many denominations who in "modern" times are no longer considered fundamentalists.

To claim Fundamentalism and the KJV are at "loggerheads" is absurd.

Brother Ed, that was my point. Tee Hee.

If we did a poll on this very board & limited it to IFB pastors and asked what version they use, preach from, use for congregational responsive readings, testimonies, Sunday School memorization, etc., I already know what the answer is. But according to some here, they aren't "fundamentalists." It's absurd.

 

Not to pick on Lady Eagle or anyone else but I honestly feel this is the problem with this argument. The statement about this thread leading someone to believe their loved ones are in hell is just wrong. I will add that if anyones loved ones put their faith in kjvo or in being a fundamental baptist instead of in Christ then they are in hell. I have asked time and again to leave this discussion in the version forum. As the thread started I thought it a legitimate question but sadly it went downhill fast. I will give everyone one more chance to answer the question asked by the topic starter but please leave the drama and hatred out of it.
Murph

 

No one is claiming this. Read slower.

 

Murph, are you saying I was being melodramatic?

Okay, maybe I was.

 

What I wish KJVO's would understand is that it is impossible for any human language to perfectly capture the intent and meaning of God. It is the underlying meaning behind the original inspired authors of Scripture which is infallible, not the words themselves. If it were possible to have perfect translations of God's Word, there would never be a misunderstanding or argument over doctrine. This is why all human language is limited, and this is the inherent flaw in KJVOism.