Why do fundamentalists tend to use the KJV

Yes it is But I think our definitions are similar. Where we would differ is what contradicts those doctrines. I don't think either of would disagree that mere verbal assent to a set of fundamentals qualifies as fundamentalism, especially if further verbal action negates such an assent.

 

If you want to know why so many IFB churches use the KJB only, all you have to do is look at their statements of faith. Here are some examples from several IFB churches.

 

Why would any church include a statement in their statement of faith that has no scriptual basis such as

 

Heretic! :tongue3: But then again, so am I, since I agree with you.

Winman, you mentioned IFB churches and the Genesis account of creation. That's another one (though not an explicit Fundamental in the sense of the word) that I've heard quite a few IFB preachers/churches preach contrary to. Forgot that one.

 

Obviously they disagree with you and do believe there is scriptural support for their position. And I agree. I believe God has promised to preserve his Word. The original autographs do not exist, so copies must be preserved. I, like these others believe his Word was preserved through the Received Text and not the Critical Text.

 

Where would that be?

 

I've never known an IFB pastor who did not believe in a literal six day 24 hour per day creation. There might be some out there, but I've never met one.

 

You know all the verses I could present, you've seen them dozens of times. You don't agree with mine and others intepretation of these scriptures, but that is a different matter altogether.

But just in case, here are a few examples. I took these examples from another site to save time, but I am in agreement with them.

If God's Word is preserved (which it is), and the original autographs do not exist (which they don't), then God's Word must be preserved in the copies that have been handed down from those original autographs. There are basically two texts that are recognized, the Received Text and the Critical Text. I personally believe the RT is the uncorrupted preserved text. I do not believe the Critical Text is the preserved text. And very many IFB churches believe as I do.

You already knew all of this.

 

I'm sorry. I don't see the KJT mentioned in any of those. The doctrine of preservation should indeed be a part of the statement of faith. Pining it down to any one translation is opinion, as you admit.

Man's opinion is not doctrine. I would not put my faith in the opinion of men.

 

Well, opinion it might be. That doesn't mean it is error.

What scriptures do you have to support a multitude of versions that are very different, many excluding thousands of individual words, scores of verses, and many complete passages?

 

None, that's why I would never include a statement on translations in a statement of faith. There are no scripture which address translations.

Back to the OP - while many IFB churches would use the KJT, only a tiny segment would include an abiblical backing for it as official church policy.

 

It is really not so difficult. If God promised to preserve his words (which he did), then his words are out there somewhere. All the different versions cannot be his preserved word because they are very different. Whether you want to say the RT added words, or the CT omitted words, they are not the same, the CT lacks nearly 3000 words in the original Greek.

If you want to argue that the KJB based on the RT is not the preserved words of God, then you have an argument. But you cannot argue that God's preserved word does not exist. And they must exist in copies as the original autographs disappeared centuries ago.

But you cannot argue that the RT and CT are both the preserved words of God, that is impossible.

 

Then again none of the texts upon which the RT is based completely agree with one another so... back to square one.

 

And here we are again, back to a reliance on and faith in flawed, fallacious, and fallible human reasoning.

I'll stick to what the word of God says when it comes to church doctrines.

 

It is not back to square one. We do not know for an absolute fact all of the texts the KJB translators used to translate the KJB. There are approximately 30 different distinct versions of the TR printed over the years according to the Trinitarian Bible Society. We are not absolutely sure which texts the KJB translators used. There is evidence they accepted some texts outside the TR.

This is what I have said from day one, you will never be able to resolve this issue through scholarship. You must simply believe God's promise that he would preserve his exact words to all generations. It is not something you can prove.

Have you ever thought that in Jesus's day that there might have been men who challanged the scriptures? After all, Moses had written 1500 years before. Israel had been invaded and destroyed by enemies, the scriptures had been lost for periods of time...

I am sure there were men in those days who questioned the accuracy of the scriptures.

But Jesus nor any of the apostles ever doubted that the scriptures they had were the accurate and preserved word of God.

We are supposed to live by faith, not scholarship.