Has the KJVO movement Hijacked the IFB

Follow the belief to its logical conclusion and I am not sure a KJVO could be consistent without believing that one could only be saved with a KJV.

If only the KJV is the Word of God and we can only be saved through the hearing of the Word of God then any other translation or paraphrase is a false basis for salvation.

As an alternative, I guess they could be consistent if they believed you could be saved without the KJV but never truly sanctified without becoming KJVO.

 

Welcome, Christlifter,
It is very nice to meet you. What you are referring to is what we call KJV Preferred. Or even Byzantine manuscript preferred.

There is nothing wrong with this position. Some very bright scholars believe the TR or the Byzantine manuscripts to be more accurate, while many believe older manuscripts have shown more accuracy. In reality, doctrine has never been proven to be different between the main stream sets of manuscripts used today whether they are TR or Nestle/Aland, etc.

If the KJV works for you, then by all means use it. If you like those manuscripts better, then you can use the latest TR translation the NKJV.

Although we may disagree on the underlying manuscripts there are very minor differences and because of that reason we know the Lord has been faithful to preserve His Word.

 

Posted by aefting :
"I think we really need to stop referring to translations as inspired. What God breathed out originally was inspired but translations and copies are not, and as such they can and do contain errors."

AMEN! Yes the KJV is a translation. I believe God has preserved His word in the KJV. What about the NIV or ASV, etc? I dunno. Mabey He has. Man is not perfect so grammatical errors will occur. I believe that we just have to trust God and seek truth and that will put into our hands what God wants us to have. For me that is the KJV.

 

A basic question would be, "Just HOW did the KJVO myth hijack the IFB movement?"

 

Hi robycop3,

I believe the problem first started years ago when weak conscience Christians begin to become the dominate type of Christian in Fundamentalism. Once the Fundamental movement was made up of mostly weak conscience Christians, the infiltration of the KJV-only idea was inevitable. That is because weak conscience Christians are the most susceptible to falling for the KJV-only idea.

By the way, I don't believe the KJVO idea has taken over all of the Fundamental movement yet, only a small part of it.

 

"Weak conscience christian"?

LOL

That kind of blanket critcism paints a very poor picture of one's understanding of the issue.

Define "weak conscience" Biblically. I don't think you can in this dicussion's context.

I have seen many who claim they have a "strong conscience" fall for much of this world's philosophy's as opposed to clear Biblical truth. You can see this in the evolution-creation threads.

I take great offense at the attitude displayed in the term "weak conscience christians" as it is applied to they of opposing view points.

I suspect that the passage you will likely use to justify this comment is 1 Cor. 10:23-33.
In the context given, the conscience you are not to offend is not your own but that of UNBELIEVERS who bid you to a feast. This has NOTHING to do with what you are trying to apply it to.


In HIS service;
Jim

 

What are other Bible Versions based off the TR/Byzantine/Received/(Majority?) Text?

Enquiring minds want to know


Yay for Jesus!

Brandon

 

The only other English version I know of is the NKJV. There has not been a real translation I know of from the acutal Majority Text. I get tired of people equating the TR to the Majority Text because they are not the same thing.

 

The whole prob with the KJVO myth being in IFB is that it's a false doctrine, totally man-made, not based upon any Scripture whatsoever.

I, also, was told I wasn't really saved since my only Bible at the time was the NASV. Luckily, I'd been saved long enuff to keep my hands in my pockets and measure my words. I merely told the gent to call on me again when he had SCRIPTURAL PROOF FROM THE KJV for his statement.

I never saw him again.

And I'm still tickled by seeing a logo in front of a church that says "1611 KJV" or similar, as I have YET to see ANY modern church, IFB or otherwise, that actually teaches/preaches from the AV 1611! To me, such logos spell "ignorant".

 

Boy, I sure hate to kick this one to the top, but I just had to say that the last time I was on this board (probably close to a year ago), the KJV was called a "rusty sword" among other derogatory things. I don't know if some of you guys who were around then remember that or not. I couldn't turn anything up in the archives. Even the MV'ers got all over whoever it was that said that. Maybe someone with a faster connection could search for that thread?

Jason

 

Boy, I sure hate to kick this one to the top, but I just had to say that the last time I was on this board (probably close to a year ago), the KJV was called a "rusty sword" among other derogatory things. I don't know if some of you guys who were around then remember that or not. I couldn't turn anything up in the archives. Even the MV'ers got all over whoever it was that said that. Maybe someone with a faster connection could search for that thread?

Jason </font>[/QUOTE]I kringe anytime some attacks any version of the Bible. There may be bad translations in versions and we can go after those places - but to attack any version of God's Word such names and disrespect it wrong.

I would never call the KJV a "rusty sword" but I know plenty of KJV Only's who will call the NIV "the New International Perversion".

I think the KJV translators had a wise take on the need for translations in the common man's language:

Is the King James Version written in the common language of the United States in the year 2004?

Would the King James Translators have wanted to see new translations of the Bible made over the centuries as the English language changed? I believe based on reading their own preface the answer is yes.

IFBReformer
http://www.ifbreformation.org

 

KJVO here, Dr Larry Chappell, Pastor, at Lighthouse Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, Cortez, Colo - and my son-in-law says that studies prove that you only need to read at a 5th grade level to comprehend the KJV.

And no, you don't need a KJV to be saved, but it is without a doubt THE best Bible to learn and grow in the study of God's Word and a person who is studying something like the NIV, which is missing about 600 verses, misses SO MUCH of the meat.

 

Some others disagree who know better.

Bible Translation Reading Levels
Translation Grade Level
KJV 12th
RSV 12th
NASB 11th
NRSV 11th
ESV 10th
HCSB 9th-10th
NIV 7th-8th
NKJV 7th
NLT 6th
Message 4th-5th
NCV 3rd
NIRV 3rd

I don't know what those KJV only folks have been smoking but they are not telling the whole truth.
Try looking at http://csep.psyc.memphis.edu/cohmetrix/readabilityresearch.htm
then make your own judgment.

So if you believe what the KJVO folks believe then you should easily know what propitiation means. Futhermore you should easily know the difference between propitiation and expiation. Certainly you should be able to ask the general public to explain those words without any trouble. And of course you should easily be able to define any latinisms.

 

Everytime this thread "wakes up" it goes right back to a KJV debate instead of debating if IFB is now dominated by the KJVO movement.

Since there is plenty of discussion on this topic in the BTV forum I am closing this thread.