Baptist Fundamentalism And Kjvo

38 posts in this topic

Posted

Generally, must one be KJVO to be considered a Fundamentalist by other Baptists?  I am curious if it is viewed as a requirement by those who consider themselves such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I guess you mean in an English speaking country as opposed to Russia, Germany, Honduras, etc.

 

I've known Koreans who don't use a KJV AT ALL since they didn't know English and yet  would be considered "Fundamentalist".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

many other nations have the KJV translations available in their native tongue.  You can purchase a Spanish Bible and not necessarily have one that is KJV.  My SIL had a class that was specifically for Spanish-speaking people, and had a hard time finding a good Bible in that language.

 

And yes, I believe that a fundamentalist must believe in the KJB, others may not, but I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

many other nations have the KJV translations available in their native tongue.  You can purchase a Spanish Bible and not necessarily have one that is KJV.  My SIL had a class that was specifically for Spanish-speaking people, and had a hard time finding a good Bible in that language.

 

And yes, I believe that a fundamentalist must believe in the KJB, others may not, but I do.

You do realize, don't you, that the Синодальный перевод was from the TR manuscripts (as was the KJV) but not from the KJV itself and the 1602 Reina-Valera predates the KJV. Neither of these are English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

KJV is an English translation. Perhaps we should consider the foreign tongues question from the aspect of TR instead of KJV? It would be purposeless for other languages to use a translation from the English if a version directly based on the original manuscripts is available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Generally, must one be KJVO to be considered a Fundamentalist by other Baptists?  I am curious if it is viewed as a requirement by those who consider themselves such.

 

In my view, being a fundamentalist simply denotes that you believe the fundamentals of the faith.  However, there are many in IFB circles who would view being KJV-only as a mark of a fundamentalist.

 

I know people who are KJV-only, but they're not Baptists.

 

I also know people who call themselves Independent Fundamental Baptists, but they're not KJV-only.

 

I also know Independent Fundamental Baptists, and they are KJV-only...but they don't fit the modern view of a "fundamentalist".

 

I'm a fundamentalist, because I believe in the fundamentals of the faith.  Being KJV-only is my conviction.

John81, heartstrings and TheSword like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I use the Reina Valera bible in Spanish, the KJ in English. All other bibles in English are just copy caters. Where can you find the true Word of God? In the Originals. The newer bibles are just water down versions. How do you like your lemon aide? water down or strong. :)

Edited by The Glory Land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It is probably more reasonable to discuss why people are KJV rather than whether or not that point makes them fundamental.
The reasons for holding to a KJV only position are many, as are the variations of that position.

For instance, there are some who the KJV is newly inspired and in fact better than the greek and hebrew.
Then there are those who hold that God has providentially preserved His Word in the KJV (for english speaking people), and there are those who hold that the KJV is only the best version we have today due to technicalities of translation process etc.

These are obviously very different positions although the finish point ends up being the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Generally, must one be KJVO to be considered a Fundamentalist by other Baptists? 

At one time no, but it's getting to be that way. John R. Rice was a fundamentalist but he also corrected the KJV on many occasions. Today, it would be harder to convince others that you are fundamentalist when you correct the scripture. Plus, the RCC believes in the "Five Fundamentals of the Faith" so I think the term has lost it's meaning. Calling your church "KJV bible believing" is probably a more accurate way to describe who you are today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It is probably more reasonable to discuss why people are KJV rather than whether or not that point makes them fundamental.
The reasons for holding to a KJV only position are many, as are the variations of that position.

For instance, there are some who the KJV is newly inspired and in fact better than the greek and hebrew.
Then there are those who hold that God has providentially preserved His Word in the KJV (for english speaking people), and there are those who hold that the KJV is only the best version we have today due to technicalities of translation process etc.

These are obviously very different positions although the finish point ends up being the same.

 

If a person believes that the KJV is the best, would that not mean they do not think any Bible is perfectly the Word of God, & they feel they use the one they think is best.

 

I firmly believe that The KJV is God's Word to English speaking people. I don't feel qualified to say what Bible people that speaks other languages would need to hold in their hand to be holding God's Word. I just can't be sure that a KJV translated into their language would be truly God's Word, the translators might mess up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Jerry, that was my point - some believe that intellectually the KJV is the best - but that leaves the possibility that a better version might be possible.
So yes, that implies that there is no perfect Word of God today.

This is a position that I have been faced with on a few occasions.

I just wonder how they can trust any of it if they don't know what bits are God's Word and which bits are mistakes.........

HappyChristian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What if the KJV could be carefully and accurately translated into proper modern English, ensuring that all specifics were met, (ie, not using the genereic 'you' or 'your', regardless of whther the priginal was plural or singular, one of the greatest errors al the 'modern' versions have in common). I believe it could be done, though to make the necessary updates could make it clunky, due to a lack of modern-day equivilents to some words, which is why the KJV is still the most accurate, as well as the most beautiful to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What if the KJV could be carefully and accurately translated into proper modern English, ensuring that all specifics were met, (ie, not using the genereic 'you' or 'your', regardless of whther the priginal was plural or singular, one of the greatest errors al the 'modern' versions have in common). I believe it could be done, though to make the necessary updates could make it clunky, due to a lack of modern-day equivilents to some words, which is why the KJV is still the most accurate, as well as the most beautiful to read.

 

It needs no translation into modern English, each person that holds the KJV in their hands is holding the Word. Translators would mess it up.

irishman likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Jerry, that was my point - some believe that intellectually the KJV is the best - but that leaves the possibility that a better version might be possible.
So yes, that implies that there is no perfect Word of God today.

This is a position that I have been faced with on a few occasions.

I just wonder how they can trust any of it if they don't know what bits are God's Word and which bits are mistakes.........

 

I thought it was. 

 

I believe those who pick out a version that they feel is best are among those who chose what they want to believe instead of relying on God's Word to teach them what to believe. Of course most who feel that way do not chose the KJ.

HappyChristian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I use the Reina Valera bible in Spanish, the KJ in English. All other bibles in English are just copy caters. Where can you find the true Word of God? In the Originals. The newer bibles are just water down versions. How do you like your lemon aide? water down or strong. :)

At the risk of stiring the pot -- which R-V? 1602 (1865 edition), 1909, RVG, or RVR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I just ordered a copy of the New International Reader's Version of the Bible. It's meant for people who use English as their second language or just a low ability understanding and reading. It says a 3rd grader should be able to understand it. The person who it is intended for is recently saved and has limited education. The church gave her a KJV bible but there's no way she'd get through more than a few verses. This is a person who doesn't read anything other than facebook.

Sometimes I even feel like if the pastor wasn't there to explain a passage of verses I'd have no clue what they were really about. And to have words that don't mean what they say, because it's different than what we know the word as, is very confusing. Then you have a word that it may mean this in this passage, but something different in this passage given it's context!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can hardly believe some of the posts that BAPTISTS are posting here!  Modernism has taken hold, and the basic (fundamental) doctrines of the Baptists has been influenced by the error of modern thinking.

 

The KJV was good enough, even some people who were of "limited education" were saved through the use of the KJB.  It is said to be written on a fourth grade level, but I would say perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration; maybe 6th or 7th grade!

 

I believe we show our ignorance when we demand an "easier" translation (which is not realy easier to understand, but easier to swallow!)

 

Yes, I believe it was, and is, a necessary fundamental truth.  Remember, a man came up with the "five fundamentals" of the faith (or seven, or whatever) and since then it seems to have been written in stone.  Did anyone ever realize that it could have been his opinion?  Opinions differ on most things anyway, so we need to decide where we stand (scripturally as well as "sensibly") and stand there.

swathdiver and JerryNumbers like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What if the KJV could be carefully and accurately translated into proper modern English, ensuring that all specifics were met, (ie, not using the genereic 'you' or 'your', regardless of whther the priginal was plural or singular, one of the greatest errors al the 'modern' versions have in common). I believe it could be done, though to make the necessary updates could make it clunky, due to a lack of modern-day equivilents to some words, which is why the KJV is still the most accurate, as well as the most beautiful to read.

On this point, I think it might be wise that if one were to update words in the KJB they go into the project with the understanding that not all words must be updated. In those instances where there is no modern word that could rightly replace an older term, leave the older term in place. Words with "eth" on the end, such as "seemeth", could easily be updated with absolutely no change to meaning and this would help many folks be more comfortable reading the KJB.

 

For myself, even if a faithfully updated KJB were available, I would stick with the KJB I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I just ordered a copy of the New International Reader's Version of the Bible. It's meant for people who use English as their second language or just a low ability understanding and reading. It says a 3rd grader should be able to understand it. The person who it is intended for is recently saved and has limited education. The church gave her a KJV bible but there's no way she'd get through more than a few verses. This is a person who doesn't read anything other than facebook.

Sometimes I even feel like if the pastor wasn't there to explain a passage of verses I'd have no clue what they were really about. And to have words that don't mean what they say, because it's different than what we know the word as, is very confusing. Then you have a word that it may mean this in this passage, but something different in this passage given it's context!?

I know a few people like this. Their reading ability is very limited, due to mental deficiencies they were born with, not because they don't try.

 

One lady we used to help had found that an NIV was the only version she could get the most out of (she had tried several different versions but couldn't comprehend them). When we would help her in Bible study I still used my KJB and would guide her based on the KJB and was able to help her get a better, sometimes deeper, understanding of some verses or passages than she could through the NIV alone.

 

This lady basically faced the option of daily reading the NIV and writing down questions she might have or not reading any Bible at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can hardly believe some of the posts that BAPTISTS are posting here!  Modernism has taken hold, and the basic (fundamental) doctrines of the Baptists has been influenced by the error of modern thinking.

 

The KJV was good enough, even some people who were of "limited education" were saved through the use of the KJB.  It is said to be written on a fourth grade level, but I would say perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration; maybe 6th or 7th grade!

 

I believe we show our ignorance when we demand an "easier" translation (which is not realy easier to understand, but easier to swallow!)

 

Yes, I believe it was, and is, a necessary fundamental truth.  Remember, a man came up with the "five fundamentals" of the faith (or seven, or whatever) and since then it seems to have been written in stone.  Did anyone ever realize that it could have been his opinion?  Opinions differ on most things anyway, so we need to decide where we stand (scripturally as well as "sensibly") and stand there.

It's true that men decided upon the five fundamentals of the faith and that was the basis for Fundamentalists for a long time. Since then some, again just men, have decided to add to the original five, so depending upon what Fundamentalist church one enters, there might be just the original five in their list, or there may be one, two, or several others added.

 

Some Fundamentalists have added the KJO position, some have added the pre-mil rapture, some have added other points.

 

As we can see by looking at various IFB churches in our area, or by reading David Cloud's reports, or the Sword, or other sources, IFB churches today can vary greatly in many areas these days, including just what the fundamentals are, as well as in areas of music, Bible versions, separation matters, dress standards, etc. It's up to each of us to study the matter out, in prayer, and follow the Lord's leading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Generally, must one be KJVO to be considered a Fundamentalist by other Baptists?  I am curious if it is viewed as a requirement by those who consider themselves such.

 

The majority of KJVO Christians are Fundamentalists.  As it was stated the KJV is the perfect word of God for the English speaking people's of the world.  Off hand, I can't remember the Bible that the Spanish people use.  It is an 1800 (ish) edition that is identical to the KJV.  Many non English speaking people use Bibles other the KJV, although, I do know many who use the KJV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

At the risk of stiring the pot -- which R-V? 1602 (1865 edition), 1909, RVG, or RVR?



Just the RV with no more letters .... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And the KJ without any more letters. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just the RV with no more letters .... :)

2 down, 2 to go. 1865 edition of 1602 or the 1909. (just curious) (good to hear it's not the 1960 RVR)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

2 down, 2 to go. 1865 edition of 1602 or the 1909. (just curious) (good to hear it's not the 1960 RVR)

 

 

 

Sixteen Hundeds sounds and look pretty good. :coffee2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now