Inspired Text

Having a KJVO preference for oneself does not preclude one from being a fundamentalist. However, asserting a KJVO position for all English speaking Christians precludes fundamentalism.

 

I don't think so. Asserting KJVO does not violate any of the fundamentals as stated in those publications. It certainly ignores the practice of many of those early fundamentalists, but it does not deny the inerrancy of the Scriptures which is the fundamental under consideration.

 

Posted by Skan:

I think KJV onlyism confuses the fundamentals -- at the very least -- because it asserts that a translation is inerrant. This is not what is meant by the inerrancy of Scripture, which is a fundamental belief.

Believing that a translation can be inerrant also violates the fundamental belief that the canon was closed when original scripture was completed.

 

Correct, Marcia.

Being King James Version *Preferred* is not the same as King James Version *Only*. For a church to say that they would prefer you to use the KJV is not a problem. But for a church to declare that the KJV is inspired and "God's Only True Word" is heresy.

God's word is inerrent. The KJV is not inerrent. Nor is the NIV, NASB, NKJV, or any other tranlation ever written by man, for the simple reason that it was done by man who is fallible.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Yes it does. The orthodox view of scripture versus an unorthodox view of scripture formed the basic dividing line for the original fundamentalists. One cannot hold an unorthodox, unbiblical view of scripture and be a fundamentalist.

You cannot assert (with integrity) that the scriptures are your final authority for all matters of faith and practice while at the same time insisting on a doctrine that is neither based in scripture nor rendered by the application of biblical principles for discerning the truth. KJVO's twist scripture on this subject in such a grievous manner that they cannot rightly be called fundamentalists nor Bible believers.

Unfortunately, anyone can call themselves anything they like in this day and age. KJVO's can and do call themselves fundamentalists and even charge that others are not because they are non-KJVO. However, by definition, KJVO's separate themselves from other Christians based on an extra-biblical doctrine and are therefore not fundamentalists.

 

I disagree. I believe the bible in English is inerrant and I am an historical fundamentalist. The problem lies, not in believing the bible, even in translation, is inerrant, but in having a heterodox definition of "inerrant." I believe the bible, even in translation, is inerrant in that it is without factual error. The history of the bible, even in translation, is history without factual error. The prophecy is likewise without factual error, and the promises are without factual error.

What we have done is allow the radical fringe to redefine words to the point they no longer have real meaning. This is known as the "false to fact" fallacy in the study of semantics.

 

The problem is, of course, that you cannot prove, from the bible, using your own criteria, that the OT was inspired in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. The bible is silent regarding the language of inspiration. Therefore, your position, if held to the same standard you hold the KJVO to, will be equally invalidated.

The KJVOs, as mistaken as they are regarding translation, still hold to the inerrancy of the Scriptures and therefore qualify as fundamental in that arena.

 

Sorry, Skan, but I can't agree on this one.

The KJV, as well as any other bible translation, is only as accurate as the word choices of the translators. Translation itself changes the meanings and ideas of the original words into something similar, albeit as close as possible, in the target language.

The authors of the bible wrote it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.If the bible was inspired at all, it has to be in the original languages. True, the bible does not state that the inspiration is only in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. But if you were to follow the path you have outlind to its extreme, you find that any translation of the original tongues could claim 'inspiration'. Heaven knows we hear enough of that from the KJVOlators now!!!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

But, you must remember that to the KJVOlator, the Scriptures are an archaic English translation, not the words written and read by the prophets and apostles.

To place a inferior copy of anything as equal (or, in the KJVO case, superior) to the original is idiotic. And, yes, a translation is inferior to the original by the very fact that it is a translation. And to elevate an inferior copy to the level of inerrency is lunacy, to say the least.

Sorry, but the KJVO camp are as far away from being fundamental as Henny Penny himself.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I know that, and it has nothing at all to do with the point I am making.

The problem with your position is that you have no more scripture to support your position that "the authors of the bible wrote it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek" than the KJVO does for his position that the KJV is the only authority.

I too believe the OT was inspired in Hebrew, for the most part, and the NT was inspired in Greek, but there is no verse of scripture to support that belief, and therefore, I cannot say a KJVO is not a fundamentalist simply because the fundamentals don't mention anything about the subject.

The KJVO believes in the inerrancy of scripture and thus qualifies as a fundamentalist.

 

Just a quick reminder from the exposition of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

E. Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

 

And the Hebrew and Greek are even more archaic than the English of the KJV.

I agree, but that is entirely beside the point.

Again, I agree, but that is not the point.

Your saying so is no more authoritative than the KJVO saying the modern versions are "perversions."

When we become dogmatic about our presuppositions we fail to differentiate facts (verifiable, historical observations/events) from inferences, assumptions, premises, beliefs, etc.

Again, quoting from GS literature:

 

The above is an a priori assumption which the rest of the statement is based upon. I disagree with that presupposition. I believe God has promised to preserve His word, and that His word is inerrant. The problem is, again, that we have allowed the KJVO to redefine "inerrant" to mean something it does not mean, and back us into a corner of having to deny the inerrancy of all existing scripture on the basis of the non-existence of the autographs.

The scriptures, as preserved and available to us today, are without error of fact, and that is the true meaning of "inerrant." The word, and the doctrine, have absolutely nothing to do with the transmission of the apographs nor the copyist errors which occur (as far as we are able to tell) in every manuscript.

 

I think the problem w/the statement in the Chicago Statement is that it equivocates on the definition of "inerrant" in Section E of the exposition in comparison to Section C which defines it this way: "Similarly, 'inerrant' signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions." as compared with "infallible."

Section E refers to a KJVOish mentality, which Section C refers to a traditional approach that is, as you would say, "Scripture is without error in all that it affirms." In other words, everything the Bible affirms to be true is, in fact, true. It would be helpful if they had used the same definitions of "inerrant" within their own statement, since Section C is referring to "the" definition of "inerrant" itself and Section E is the expostion of what it means with regard to the translational process. That's theological democracy at work for you .

The KJVOish inerrancy is a hyperinerrant mindset that would deny even spelling errors and such. Moreover, what the KJVO camp does is imbue the authority of Scripture from the Church itself, through a set of translators, not God alone, because they invest their confidence in a particular translation. That, by definition, is both a theologically liberal view or a traditionally Catholic view of Scripture, not a Biblically based view of the authority of Scripture.

 

I agree, but the KJVOs, nevertheless, believe in inerrancy and thus fall under the list of fundamentals.

If we are going to go beyond what the fundamentals say, and add our own particular positions regarding what the bible teaches and what it does not teach, in my opinion, we would have to exclude many of the authors of "The Fundamentals" as they were pedobaptizers.

 

Posted by GeneBridges:

That is what I was trying to say!

Inerrancy of scripture cannot mean the KJ translation is inerrant -- we know God did not inspire the writers of the Bible in 17th century English, or in any English. But when KJVOs say scripture is inerrant, they are including their belief that the KJV is inerrant.

Inspiration of God's words ends at the closing of the canon. To think otherwise, i.e., that God "inspired" a translation, is to say that there is inspiration of inerrant words (via the translation) going on after the canon, which is extra-biblical.

Okay, maybe I'm repeating myself, but it's almost 12:30 a.m. Good night!

 

Disagree with Dr. Bob. Believing the Bible is a fundamental of the faith.

 

Nope. And the reason is so simple I am surprised you missed it. God qualified certain men to be the penmen of scripture. Their languages were His de facto choice of language for the originals.

I agree with your assessment of "inerrant" given to Marcia. Precisely for the reasoning you gave her, I disagree with your statement above.

KJVO's do not hold an orthodox, biblical, fundamental view of scripture. Therefore they do not qualify as biblical fundamentalists.

 

Disagree with Dr. Bob. Believing the Bible is a fundamental of the faith. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. Believing in KJVOnlyism is not a fundamental of the faith and in fact is a departure from a fundamental of the faith.