Kjvo?

dcorbett:I was raised by a Southern Baptist Deacon, who, if he were alive today, would be IFB due to the liberalization of the Southern Baptist out west.

Can't lump ALL SBs into one basket.

I am now IFBKJO, as so many here already know. I grew up with the KJB and see absolutely no reason to accept another, as it is as close as you can get to the Textus Receptus.

What's so hot about the TR? And which of the some-30 versions of the TR is the "right" one?


I got locked out of here for standing up for the KJV in one thread.

Actually, you were standing up for the KJVO MYTH & not the KJV itself.

I hope it doesnt' happen again, my Pastor was livid when he found out. He said it was a violation of my rights.

Perhaps yer pastor needs to become a little more internet-savvy before making such statements. To post on these boards is a PRIVILEGE, and not a RIGHT unless ya PAY for a membership. This board is FREE to its members, so the membership only has the PRIVILEGE of using it.

And it's time for you and a few others to face SOME brutal truths ABOUT THE kjvo MYTH:

1.) The KJVO myth is entirely MAN-MADE, without one scintilla of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. Since Scripture is our highest written authority, any doctrine about Scripture must be derived from Scripture to be correct. Since the KJVO myth is NOT FOUND in Scripture by the slightest implication, believing it is placing it ABOVE SCRIPTURE in authority.

Some people use the excuse that since the KJV, nor the English language existed when God was giving His word to His prophets, that it woulda been impossible to have predicted the ascendancy of the KJV. My reply: WAS GOD TOO WEAK TO EXPRESS HIMSELF? If God had approved the KJVO myth, please rest assured that He woulda made it known! After all, He predicted many things unknown to His prophets that have come to pass, and had He intended for English speakers to use only the KJV, He woulda made it unmistakably clear! Fact is, He did NOT address it at all, so KJVO coulda come from only ONE other source!

2.) The KJVO myth was ADDED to the tenets of IFB in some circles. It was NOT a part of the original doctrines of IFB, all of which were Scripture-based. The KJVO myth is NOT scripture-based.

 

I am a member of a small, IFB, Sola Scriptura church.

My pastor uses mostly the NKJV, but he is not against the KJV, Geneva Bible, or any other valid translation, old or new. Like me, he believes KJVO is a false, man-made myth completely void of Scriptural support. However, he DOES preach from the KJV upon occasion, and sometimes cites Scripture from the Geneva Bible, HCSB, and others.

If I were 'shopping' for a new church to join, I would NOT join a church which has KJVO in its doctrinal statement. That statement would tell me that church carries at least one false doctrine.

 

Heh heh, if you'd seen the video that Pensacola Christian College put out a decade ago, you'd understand that BJU is actually the fountainhead of Fundamentalist apostasy from the dear old receptus. After all, as the video demonstrated, Custer and Neal were trained by Brokenshire, Brokenshire was from Princeton, Princeton housed Warfield, and Warfield studied in Germany, and Germany is where liberalism was born. Bro, there's just no arguing against that kind of air-tight logic.

BJU did adopt a position in the late '70s that only the KJV was to be carried to class, taught from, or preached from on campus. This was simply a hushpuppie thrown to the howling masses who were getting swept up in the KJVO idea. It didn't work; the KJVOs saw right through it. In Greek classes they continued to use ordinary eclectic texts. Hebrew text crit, of course, is a misty fog to the KJVOs, so it wasn't an issue.

Before the new policy, the NASB was extremely common on campus and some English Bible teachers taught from it. I had many friends on the faculty and in the student body in the '70s, so I have it all firsthand.

From what I hear from students now, the ESV is quite popular. Change and decay in all around I see ...

 

IMO, the final decision concerning the original language textual family choice is one based upon faith.

And faith does not necessarily have to go against or support the evidence even if it is overwhelming. For instance I believe 1 John 5:7 is apostolic.

In my opinion, I choose by preference the TR and/or Majority texts because it makes more sense to me as they have the greater preserved quantity and apparent textual quality as opposed to being the "oldest extant" text.

Even at that, the recently (historically speaking) discovered papyrii such as p66 which are older than any of the existing Alexandrian texts are actually split as to Majority vs. Alexandrian variant readings.

I bring both the KJV and NKJV to church but often call upon someone to read from the NIV or other modern version (in the spirit of the KJV translators who said that a proliferation of translations was a good thing to get the "sense" of the Scriptures). They said this (I am sure) because there are soooo many Greek/Hebrew words which do not have an exact correspondence in meaning and nuance to the English receptor word commonly used in a given translation.

Comparing translations (IMO) It is a kind of semantic triangulation to catch this "sense" of the Scriptures they (the KJV translators) spoke of.

HankD

 

Hello Roby,

How do you define what is a "valid translation"? What examples would you site as being invalid?

 

This is a thread about KJVO churches - not about versions.

Lets stay on track, or we will be forced to close it

 

Hello, Rufus...Roger is right, we should carry out further discussion in the "versions" forum if you wish to go further. However, I'll answer your question here.

A valid translation is one that follows its sources closely. The validity of the sources is food for another discussion.

 

Now, while I don't believe a church with the KJVO myth as part of its statement of faith and doctrines is necessarily an off-track church in its entirety, it DOES have a problem with embracing a doctrine not from GOD. Now, while I may sometimes attend such a church or hear its pastor on radio/TV, I flatly refuse to ever become a member of such a church. And I flatly refuse to even attend any church that tries to tell its members how to dress, how to wear their hair, what to eat, etc. Such churches have a very deep doctrinal problem, and I've found that most such churches are also officially KJVO. Such churches could be cases where one false doctrine has opened the door for others to come in.

 

In Flathead County Montana all of our 7 Independent Baptist churches are KJVO. Ruckman makes a trip up here every 2 years to preach against modern versions and this is the only conference they get together and attend although only 5 cooperated last year. I cannot say as to the rest of the nation.

 

The church where I preach is not KJVO, but I always preach (as do the other preachers) from the KJV. Because we openly reject the myth of KJVOism, the KJVO IFB churches have declared that we are not truly IFB.

Pipedude, my limited experience with BJU comes from 70's graduates (and a few others), and that's where my misunderstanding originates, apparently. Because these individuals are KJVO lite (by "lite", I mean, "I'm not KJVO, but I'm KJVO" type of sentiment), and I knew that's what they taught from at BJU, I assumed, and you know what happens when you assume.:tonofbricks:

My other experiences with BJU grads were from the 60's, and they are openly opposed to BJU teachings, and the ones that I work with who are currently attending/recently graduated don't seem to be as well educated.

 

This subject is being discussed in:
Versions that are Invalid:
at:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34374&page=5
which is also a poll.

 

Thanks Ed.

My apologies for the rookie error. I saw the title as being "KJVO?" and the recent dialogue didn't seem to be about churches and I didn't notice the original post.

Our church is an Independent Fundamental Baptist church and is KJVO. Not sure how a Fundamental Baptist church could be anything other than KJV as it seems like a contradiction to the spirit of being fundamental. However, I'm new to being a Baptist so take my comments for what they're worth.

 

How can one say that KJVO is part of being fundamental?

I have preached close to 100 IFB churches and though most might use the KJV and it might be the preferred version, I have preached in only a handful fo churches that are KJVO in the usual sense of the word.

 

I'm not an expert in the Baptist arena. I became a Baptist, much in part, because they (perhaps only some) are among the few that are defending the Word of God. To be fundamental, to me, is to apply the instructions of the Bible as God provided it. When folks get into the modern translations that work for them or they get into translating their own version, then the fundamentalism seems to become liberalism.

 

Rufus, please take time to read the history of IFB on any of a bazillion sites on the net. You should see that the KJVO myth was added in some churches some time after the IFB movement was established.

You said,"Not sure how a Fundamental Baptist church could be anything other than KJV as it seems like a contradiction to the spirit of being fundamental." Actually, the opposite is true. What is so fundamental about believing a false doctrine NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE? Fundamentalism is based upon having the BIBLE as one's highest written authority, and nowhere in that written authority is the KJVO myth supported. That's why I said I will never join a church that has the KJVO myth in its statement of faith/doctrines, because that doctrine is NOT FROM SCRIPTURE.

 

Maybe to be truly fundamental, we should all preach from the NA27 and the Septuagint...

 

Friend, no IFB churches were KJVO until the 1970's--with the exception of Ruckman's himself. And his first book on the subject was not printed until 1970, if I remember correctly. Furthermore, no IFB churches in Japan are KJVO. The same is true in many other countriees. We don't even have a Bible in print translated from the TR!

 

Rufus_1611: //Thanks Ed.
My apologies for the rookie error. I saw the title
as being "KJVO?" and the recent dialogue didn't seem
to be about churches and I didn't notice the original post.//

No problem. Say, you wouldn't have some good pointers
on how to keep ME from making rookie errors?
I have over 10,000 posts on this board alone.

 

Rufus_1611: //To be fundamental, to me, is to apply the instructions
of the Bible as God provided it.//

Amen, Brother Rufus_1611 -- Preach it!

Rufus_1611: // When folks get into the modern translations that work
for them or they get into translating their own version, then
the fundamentalism seems to become liberalism.//

I respectfully disagree.

BTW, this Forum is for Fundamentalist Baptists and is supposed
to be a safe haven for fundamentalists such as you and myself.
So please don't tell me that my MV is 'liberalism'. Thank you.

Here are the Fundamentals:

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

Nothing there about the King James Versions.
Nothing there about MVs.
BTW, the KJV1769 Edition is a 'Modern Version'.
I define 'Modern Version (MV)' to be any Version
written after 1700. So the KJV1769 is an MV
Too bad that makes many KJVOs who actually use
the KJV1769 Edition contradict themselves
by condemning the MV: the KJV1769 Edition ???

 

It's becoming obvious to me that I don't speak the same language as ya'll and I need to get educated on the lingo and definitions of terms before I run my mouth . I read from a 1611 reproduction but I've got nothing against the KJV versions that have been refined after the 1611 and would not have thought they would be called modern versions. Perhaps someone can point me to a playbook somewhere that explains the terms?