Using the KJV only in a church

If your church believes that only the KJV fits into that category, then your church is not Fundamental, because this is not a fundamental doctrine.

 

RaptureReady said "The only thing that I have ever heard from the pulpit is the pastor will mention that we should believe and adhear to God's word, God's word has been inspired and preserved for us today and that is in the KJB. He has never said that YOU MUST use only the KJB."

Never said you must "use" only the KJV? That doesn't mean much. What about accepting another translation as the word of God? Or not believing the KJV is not perfectly inspired and preserved?

To me, that sounds like your pastor is treating it like a doctrine but allowing people to "use" other versions as well. If the preacher is saying from the pulpit that "God's word has been inspired and preserved for us today and that is in the KJB", how is that not to be understood as doctrine by the congregation?

RaptureReady said "Our doctrinal beliefs are included in our statement of faith."

Yes, I know. But I'm asking if something about the KJV is mentioned. Can you provide exactly what your church's statement (statement of faith, doctrinal statement, etc.) says about scripture and the word of God?

 

I will try and get a digital copy of our SOF. I do believe that it does mention the KJB, as a matter of fact, I'm sure of it. We are a KJBO church, but we do not push it on people. When I say KJBO, I mean that it is all we use to teach and preach from. It is the Bible that we believe God inspired and preserved for us today. If the people in our church did not believe that or even like that, they would not be there, and we run around 3 to 4 hundred folks and growing.

God bless,
RR

 

RaptureReady said "I will try and get a digital copy of our SOF. I do believe that it does mention the KJB, as a matter of fact, I'm sure of it. "

I would be interested in seeing it. Most fundamental SOF's say doctrine comes from scripture, and yet if they have a doctrine in their SOF that is not found in scripture (such as "God's word has been inspired and preserved for us today and that is in the KJB"), then they have gone too far and even contradicted themselves.

 

No doubt God has promised to preserve His word.

But was God able to preserve His word from the original autographs to english?

And if so why would he give us many differant english translations and not just one complete one, I guess just to confuse us, or maybe He couldnt do it.

KJV #4 works for me but if you use a MV I wont argue with you, because the ver. isnt the problem
but if our doctrine differs from one another as a result of that ver. you use, then I would argue with you.

 

Yes it is preserved in the original languages.

When I make blackberry preserves, it stays the same over the weeks, months, years. If I open it 20 years later it's still blackberry preserves and not strawberry.

God preserved his word for us, every jot and tittle as jesus promised. BTW you won't find jots and tittles in the KJV, but in the Hebrew Masora, the Traditional Text of the Hebrew Bible.

HankD

 

For the sake of uniformity, that is everybody being on the same page during the sermons and Sunday School I see nothing wrong with that as long as it is not a doctrinal thing.
To keep things balanced I think I read that nobody makes a big deal out of it if someone brings another version into the church, people are not told not to read other versions or anything like that. This does'nt sound like a KJVO church it sounds like a KJV preferred church.
As long as it does'nt become a doctrinal thing (that would be extra-biblical)They certainly have a right to that without critisism.