Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Baptist Fundamentalism And Kjvo


Arbo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...