The other thread that "stilllearning" started claimed something to the effect that Conservative independent baptist do not use modern english translations.
So, my question is, can anyone show any support whatsoever to show that historically conservative baptists, fundamental baptists etc have held to a single translation only view?
By the way, I attend a Baptist church that is not affiliated with any denomination so that makes us independent.
We are not liberals, so I guess that makes us conservatives.
We hold to all of the historical fundamentals of the Christian faith.
So I guess that makes us "fundamentalists"
However we use the ESV and the NIV both in services and various members use the NASB and NKJV in private use and occasionally in classes.
I would like to know, does that make us not fundamentalists? Does that make us liberals?
I should also state that we hold to the Bible as out ultimate authority and hold it to be the God Breathed Word of God. Inerrant and infallible.
Anyway, this has been stated more or less a million times but I would like someone to come out and say that we are liberals, since that is what is often implied.
Must a Conservative Baptist use the KJV?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Dale-c, Jun 16, 2010.
Page 1 of 2
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
2.'Stilllearning" most likely has never actually tried to read a true 1611 King James Version. Fact is what most use today is a modern version of the original. I have seen one and I cannot read it. So his argument falls apart right there.
3. The KJVO argument is [edited] and should not be given serious consideration but only ignored. -
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Agreed, B4Life.
To answer the OP, I have not met one single conservative Baptist that was KJVO....not one fundamentalist. Some of the most conservative Baptists I know use other translations -
-
Retarded is not an acceptable term. As one who works with disabled children, I have stopped using it and I implore you to stop, as well. -
-
-
I'm not a parent, so I guess that part of your statement doesn't apply. I am a teacher, though, and children call me Mr. as they do all other adults. So that part doesn't apply, either.
I don't recall saying children should talk to adults as if they were peers. I only mentioned that I don't think "Sir" and "Ma'am" is necessary, which is a common belief in a number of places in the country. The southern thing is fine, but I don't think it needs be the standard.
It's fine if someone disagrees. My parents didn't insist on it, but it I had called them by their first name it wouldn't have been pretty.
Insulting someone using an offensive term is quite different. -
and now back to the OP - since ...
-
Must a Conservative Baptist use the KJV?
If not, these catholicized groups would love them and lead them falling in liberalism.
If yes, that makes these catholicized groups mad. It is like the story of William Tyndale, a martyr. Who killed him?
The KJV did not die, yet. When 2011 arrives, we will celebrate the KJV for 400 years. Can't you see why the KJV is still alive and goes on through future years? -
I do not hold to any translation exclusively because I reject superstition. Holding to the KJV only is superstition and thus rejected by the Bible itself.
Rather, I hold to the original manuscripts as being inspired. I believe several translations do a good job in reflecting the original language, but I do not believe any can perfectly reflect the originals. -
The "r" word is used only rarely in proper meaning. Most often it is just a way of genteel "cussing" at someone.
And to say the KJVonly sect and their adventist false doctrine is "retarded" in fact demeans those who truly are retarded. The only bunch is obviously impaired in many cognitive areas and needs our pity (for individuals caught in the evil web) and sword (for those propagating a false schismatic teaching that sullies the Bride).
Lert's call a spade a spade, not a shovel. And shelve the "r" word. -
Hello Dale-c
My exact quote was......
--------------------------------------------------
If it helps any....the first definition of Conservative in my dictionary is.....
“Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.”
--------------------------------------------------
I remember c.30 years ago, as a young Christian, reading the definition of the word “Evangelical”, for the first time, and feeling so excited to find out that there were other people who felt the same way I did about the Lord and His Word.
And then years later, hearing about the “New Evangelicals”, and how they called themselves that, because they were not as conservative as I was.
Maybe it’s time to come up with a new theological term......“A Neoconservative Baptist”. -
The 'one translation only per language' teaching is new, only about 50 years old. It is not traditional. It has no basis in God's word. I am a conservative. I oppose the change which comes with that teaching.
A true conservative independent Baptist has Individual Soul Liberty. He will not be forced to accept a teaching that has no scriptural basis.
Dictionary.com uses this phrase in the first definition of conservative - 'to restore traditional ones [values]'. I want to restore the days before this modern, abiblical teaching crept into the church. -
You'd love the Roman Catholic Church then. -
To this day I still prefer the ASV1901 but from the late 1970's I've used the ASV1901 for study at home and the KJV for preaching and Bible and doctrine in study classes at church. I know I'm out of date, but I have found out in classes that I've taught, the ones in class using the same version that I'm teaching from seem to score better than ones. At times I think many make change because it is the new in thing to do, some don't change because they don't like change and some on both side are doing what they believe is correct. So I do prefer all to use the same version as is being taught from, but that is their choice. -
-
The churches I came through before leaving the States in '95 were all KJV, but it was a non-issue.
They were not KJVO. -
Page 1 of 2