Jump to content
Online Baptist

Another question I have.


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I have been doing a lot of studying and I have found that the KJB was not the first Bible to be translated to English.

Wycliffe (1382)
Tyndale (1526)
Coverdale (1535)
Matthew (1537)
Great Bible (1539)
Geneva (1560)
Bishops (1568)
Douai-Rhemis (1582-1610)
King James (1611)

So why are Independent Fundamentalists King James only?


I do not want to sound rude or discredit anyone...
I am simply curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here's the Calvery Baptist Church's "King James Bible Declaration" which pretty much sums up why independent fundamental Baptist churches use the KJB. http://www.olneycalvarybaptist.com/index.php?p=1_34_King-James-Bible-...
They also have this page, which goes into more depth. Why We use the KJB. http://www.olneycalvarybaptist.com/index.php?p=1_22_Why-We-Use-KJV

This is one of the most detailed sites that I've found for comparisons of the KJB and other versions. http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

Even more information:
Fighting Back - Scroll down to the 10 reasons: http://www.av1611.org/KJV/fight.html

The Bibles in your list and others, are IMHO, forerunners of the King James Bible. It's an interesting study of the history behind the KJB before and after the initial publication in May of 1611. Here's just one link of many. http://www.av1611.org/KJV/KJVhist.html that dive into this subject.

In closing, I'm just a layman who's also being studing this subject over the last 18 months or so. Hope this helps, a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

many disenters and baptists rejected KJV in favour of the Geneva Version.
Including the Pilgrim Fathers. The KJV/AV was not immediately accepted for political reasons, & King James wanted a revision for political reasons. The KJV was accepted as the years went by - & the other versions were no longer freely available. Edited by Covenanter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Geneva Bible was hard to find until more recent years. It's seen a revival of sorts among some who hold to more of a Reformed Theology.

The main problem many had with the Geneva Bible was that it was filled with study notes written from a Reformed, Calvinist viewpoint. This is one of the reasons the King James Bible was specifically put forth without study notes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The Geneva Bible was hard to find until more recent years. It's seen a revival of sorts among some who hold to more of a Reformed Theology.

The main problem many had with the Geneva Bible was that it was filled with study notes written from a Reformed, Calvinist viewpoint. This is one of the reasons the King James Bible was specifically put forth without study notes.


I am not sure that that has any bearing. The Church of England had reformed Calvinistic articles, I read recently that it was Calvinistic rather than Lutheran.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

The Geneva Bible was hard to find until more recent years. It's seen a revival of sorts among some who hold to more of a Reformed Theology.

The main problem many had with the Geneva Bible was that it was filled with study notes written from a Reformed, Calvinist viewpoint. This is one of the reasons the King James Bible was specifically put forth without study notes.


ah okay. That makes sense.

But I am still wondering, why IFB stand so strongly with King James.
Men like Tyndale risked their lives to translate the Greek and Hebrew texts to English.... If he loved God and was inspired to translate his word.... why don't IFB accept his translation?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



ah okay. That makes sense.

But I am still wondering, why IFB stand so strongly with King James.
Men like Tyndale risked their lives to translate the Greek and Hebrew texts to English.... If he loved God and was inspired to translate his word.... why don't IFB accept his translation?

I really couldn't answer that question. All I know is that God directed me to the KJB and from that moment on the Word opened up to me, I was able to memorize with relative ease and I grew like I never thought possible before that.

I didn't come by the KJB because I was taught that or told I had to, it was after prayer and asking about this that the Lord led me to the KJB.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members


I really couldn't answer that question. All I know is that God directed me to the KJB and from that moment on the Word opened up to me, I was able to memorize with relative ease and I grew like I never thought possible before that.

I didn't come by the KJB because I was taught that or told I had to, it was after prayer and asking about this that the Lord led me to the KJB.


I love that response.

My husband grew up with King James and I with NIV but we decided that we would use King James as a couple just because it is one of the best translations.
I love reading both NIV and KJB.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

But I am still wondering, why IFB stand so strongly with King James.
Men like Tyndale risked their lives to translate the Greek and Hebrew texts to English.... If he loved God and was inspired to translate his word.... why don't IFB accept his translation?


In point of fact the KJV borrowed heavily from Tyndales earlier translation. There are some differences here and there of course, but if you read the tyndale NT you will realize just how closely the language of the KJV follows tyndales translation much of the time. See it here and compare it to the KJV. http://faithofgod.net/WTNT/ Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Wycliffe translated into English from the Latin Vulgate. It was then hand-copied & distributed. It was so successful that there are nearly 200 copies in museums.

You might find it difficult to read, even when type-set:

JN 3:16 For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische n
ot
, but haue euerlastynge lijf.


The English reformation effectively began with Wycliffe, 150 years before Luther.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Wycliffe translated into English from the Latin Vulgate. It was then hand-copied & distributed. It was so successful that there are nearly 200 copies in museums.

You might find it difficult to read, even when type-set:
JN 3:16 For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische n
ot
, but haue euerlastynge lijf.


The English reformation effectively began with Wycliffe, 150 years before Luther.


I figured the language from Wycliffe would be different, given the time it was written.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are Independent Fundamentalists King James only?


They aren't. It's a misconception that all Independent Baptists are KJVO. I'm an Independent Baptist, and I am not KJVO. Neither are literally thousands of other IB's that I am aware of. The KJVO position is relatively new...It was not part of historic fundamentalism. Edited by Annie
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


They aren't. It's a misconception that all Independent Baptists are KJVO. I'm an Independent Baptist, and I am not KJVO. Neither are literally thousands of other IB's that I am aware of. The KJVO position is relatively new...It was not part of historic fundamentalism.

While that's true, there are many who will argue greatly against this fact.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have been doing a lot of studying and I have found that the KJB was not the first Bible to be translated to English.

Wycliffe (1382)
Tyndale (1526)
Coverdale (1535)
Matthew (1537)
Great Bible (1539)
Geneva (1560)
Bishops (1568)
Douai-Rhemis (1582-1610)
King James (1611)

So why are Independent Fundamentalists King James only?


I do not want to sound rude or discredit anyone...
I am simply curious.

I don't know how much time you're willing to dedicate to your answer, it could take a long....time. Just because the process to obtain newer versions was decried by the earliest fundamentalists doesn't mean you can't find God's word contained in them. However, there must have been some reason for objecting to the newer versions back in the early 20th Century. So, I'll err on the side of caution and stick with what was used in early fundamentalism, the KJV.

You're not sounding rude or discrediting, your curiosity is welcome. It seems to be a deep concern for you. Why don't you and your husband pray earnestly together about this, seek God's will, and come to a decision.
Link to post
Share on other sites


I don't know how much time you're willing to dedicate to your answer, it could take a long....time. Just because the process to obtain newer versions was decried by the earliest fundamentalists doesn't mean you can't find God's word contained in them. However, there must have been some reason for objecting to the newer versions back in the early 20th Century. So, I'll err on the side of caution and stick with what was used in early fundamentalism, the KJV.

You're not sounding rude or discrediting, your curiosity is welcome. It seems to be a deep concern for you. Why don't you and your husband pray earnestly together about this, seek God's will, and come to a decision.

I agree that studying out the text issues does take time. To whom are you referring when you say "earliest fundamentalists"? I'm not aware that fundamentalists as a group "decried" the modern versions at any time. Edited by Annie
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


I agree that studying out the text issues does take time. To whom are you referring when you say "earliest fundamentalists"? I'm not aware that fundamentalists as a group "decried" the modern versions at any time.


Annie, "the process to obtain newer versions was decried by the earliest fundamentalists." R.A. Torrey, Franklin Johnson, Bettex, James Orr, Sir Robert Anderson, George Frederick Wright, et al. Please note I said process. See Fundamentals of The Christian Faith Ed. R.A. Torrey.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

R.A. Torrey was not KJO. Neither was Rice or many other past Fundamentalists.

One source to check out:

http://www.dbts.edu/..._2/nonissue.pdf

There are plenty of footnotes with sources cited for further study.


I never said he was KJO but, he did have issues with their processing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Go with the Bible that has produce the most and best fruit. I can't see how you can argue against the KJV in this department. There has to come a time when you settle on some version of the bible, any version, and tell yourself this is the word of God without error. As far as I know that only bible that anyone claims this of is the KJV. If you don't get this settled in your heart and allow every theological and linguistic argument throw you off course and bring doubt in your heart you will never be stablished in the faith. You can't look back at men like John R. Rice and such and say "well, they didn't believe that the KJV was without error" and they turned out to be good, godly men. That was a different time and era and the purity of bible was not being attacked as it is today especially by Christian scholars themselves. Arguements like, "Where was the pure word of God before 1611?" or "What about all the revisions of the KJV? or even a question like the OP's question will only lead to more questions and an even more endless cycles of questions that will never get satisfactorly answered. Indeed, they are not asked to get answered but asked only to create doubt. It's best to just stick with the book that has proven itself for the last 400 years.

Edited by Wilchbla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I love reading both NIV and KJB.


The NIV was written by some gnostics and a militant lesbian among others. It's root is rotten as it comes from the Alexandrian texts via the gnostic/socialists Wescott and Hort.

One cannot learn the doctrines of Christ properly by reading and studying the corrupt NIV. The NIV was the bible that was in my hands every day for three years after my salvation. I was awash in all manner of error with the modern-charismatics until the Holy Spirit burdened me to study the different translations. It's been two years since I became a member of one of Jesus Christ's New Testament churches and a faithfull reader of the King James Bible. As others have said, I learned the doctrines we're supposed to follow very quickly with the King James but still struggle to de-program myself from the rotten and corrupt NIV text.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members



The NIV was written by some gnostics and a militant lesbian among others. It's root is rotten as it comes from the Alexandrian texts via the gnostic/socialists Wescott and Hort.

One cannot learn the doctrines of Christ properly by reading and studying the corrupt NIV. The NIV was the bible that was in my hands every day for three years after my salvation. I was awash in all manner of error with the modern-charismatics until the Holy Spirit burdened me to study the different translations. It's been two years since I became a member of one of Jesus Christ's New Testament churches and a faithfull reader of the King James Bible. As others have said, I learned the doctrines we're supposed to follow very quickly with the King James but still struggle to de-program myself from the rotten and corrupt NIV text.


I disagree with you there. I grew up with the NIV, I have taught from it and I have clearly seen Gods work done by using the NIV.
I do not read it as much, as my husband and I chose to go with King James. But as I said... Gods work is not bound by what translation we use.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



I disagree with you there. I grew up with the NIV, I have taught from it and I have clearly seen Gods work done by using the NIV.
I do not read it as much, as my husband and I chose to go with King James. But as I said... Gods work is not bound by what translation we use.

I know some solid Christians who mostly use the NIV so I know God can work through it, but I don't know how because to me the NIV has always seemed like very watered down tea, at best.

For serious growth in the Lord, I don't think anything is better than the KJB.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members


I know some solid Christians who mostly use the NIV so I know God can work through it, but I don't know how because to me the NIV has always seemed like very watered down tea, at best.

For serious growth in the Lord, I don't think anything is better than the KJB.


I think as long as we use the Bible that we feel God is leading us to then that should settle any and all arguments about what translation is "better"
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I disagree with you there. I grew up with the NIV,


It's ok to be wrong. :th_popout: The Lord says his Word will not return void. There is truth in the NIV but the overall translation is corrupt and therefore should be rejected and discarded because of the doctrine of separation at the very least. By using a translation written by homosexuals and gnostics one is ignoring the doctrine and commandment to separate from the world.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


I think as long as we use the Bible that we feel God is leading us to then that should settle any and all arguments about what translation is "better"

It's not that simple. One can't look at the dozens of different versions, all disagreeing with on another on various points, and believe they are all equal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Not if you believe God when He said He would preserve His Word.


That's the point that is conveniently forgotten by many.

In the Bible there are examples of "originals" being destroyed. Starting with Moses and the ORIGINAL 10 commandments. God did preserve those by His own hand. Do we doubt the 10 commandents because we can't put the original pieces of stone back together? No, as Christians, we understand (should understand) that God did and does preserve the scriptures, even though the evidence isn't as "dramatic" as the second writing of the commandments.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 36 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...