Baptist Fundamentalism And Kjvo

[Miss Daisy]

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!?

[irishman]

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.

[John81]

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.

[John81]

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.

[John81]

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.

[candlelight]

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.

[The Glory Land]

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

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

[The Glory Land]

And the KJ without any more letters. :)

[OLD fashioned preacher]

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)

[The Glory Land]

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.

[Ukulelemike]

On my last post, about updating the KJV, bear in mind I am not pulling for such a thing, I just believe it COULD be done, but the one(s) doing it would need to have the utmost respect and awe for both the Lord and His word-not looking to change for change's sake, but to do exactly as I said: update it as possible. John, you are correct: if a word does not have a modern equivilent, leave it as it is: even the ye's and thee's were obsolete when they were used in the KJV, but they were used to properly convey the meaning, something still needed today. But some terms, which have vastly changed meaning in the last 400 years, like "conversation", could be changed to 'manner of life', or something similar, since that was what it meant in 1611, and it would not at all hurt the content, nor the feel.

 

Jerry, you mentioned that thee is no need to change it at all, that we have the perfect word in our hands. I agree we have the perfect word, but remember that the whole reason the KJV was undertaken was to bring the language into the 'vulgar', or common, tongue of the time to be made available to the common man. Today's common man is seeming a bit dimmer today, and, as long as it was done carefully and again, with the fact in mind that it IS the very word of God we are dealing with, an update would by no means harm it, and it would STILL be the perfect, preserved word of God. 

 

But again, I am not endorsing it, nor do I feel capable of such a feat, so I don't see it occurring anytime soon, at least, not by my hand.

[irishman]

Ukelelemike I do not agree.  For one thing why change the KJB?  Is it really the "thee's and thous" that bother people? no, it's the "thou shalt nots".  Secondly, what right does man have to tamper with the Word after the men of old were inspired by God Himself? 

 

Even if the words have changed down through the years, who changed the language?  Man did, not God.  Does He have to keep up with mans idiosyncrasies?  Cultures have changed to, but many are outlined in the Bible as a "shadow of things to come", yet the Word of God stands supreme for every generation, and every people throughout the world.  We are warned at least three times not to tamper with God's Word, and yet, we still say there is room for "improvement" today. 

 

The reason for bringing the Word to the common people was so that the priests would not have a monopoly on it; so that man could know God personally, and finally without running to others to tell them what is right or wrong; we already know where that leads, and yet we run to Hebrew and Greek scholars today to tell us what it really means!  How redundant.  No, the "common people" have the Word already, and they need to come up to it instead of having it brought down to their level

 

By the way, someone mentioned John R. Rice as being a fundamentalist, but so does John MacArthur say he is a fundamentalist, and he denies the blood of Christ!  Anyone can claim anything, but the truth is revealed in their heart and not in their words.  John  Rice was an evangelist, but there are several things he thought very different on ("storehouse tithing" for one)  If we knew some of the things great men of the past have believed and preached, we would not allow them in our pulpits today! (Spurgeon; Sunday: Moody; even John Wesley, and the list goes on.)

[Miss Daisy]

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.

 

I'm the Baptist, not her and if she's ever going to open the Bible on her own it has to be on her level. This is a new (1-2 months) old Christian. She doesn't come to church. I'm the one who has the patience to listen to sermons and take notes to interpret a passage of scripture. I used the word "ambitious" the other day and she asked me that big word was! Some people can jump right in and understand KJV. She is NOT one of them.  Milk first, then meat.

[JerryNumbers]

On my last post, about updating the KJV, bear in mind I am not pulling for such a thing, I just believe it COULD be done, but the one(s) doing it would need to have the utmost respect and awe for both the Lord and His word-not looking to change for change's sake, but to do exactly as I said: update it as possible. John, you are correct: if a word does not have a modern equivilent, leave it as it is: even the ye's and thee's were obsolete when they were used in the KJV, but they were used to properly convey the meaning, something still needed today. But some terms, which have vastly changed meaning in the last 400 years, like "conversation", could be changed to 'manner of life', or something similar, since that was what it meant in 1611, and it would not at all hurt the content, nor the feel.

 

Jerry, you mentioned that thee is no need to change it at all, that we have the perfect word in our hands. I agree we have the perfect word, but remember that the whole reason the KJV was undertaken was to bring the language into the 'vulgar', or common, tongue of the time to be made available to the common man. Today's common man is seeming a bit dimmer today, and, as long as it was done carefully and again, with the fact in mind that it IS the very word of God we are dealing with, an update would by no means harm it, and it would STILL be the perfect, preserved word of God. 

 

But again, I am not endorsing it, nor do I feel capable of such a feat, so I don't see it occurring anytime soon, at least, not by my hand.

 

 

I don't believe so for you would have some with an agenda as has been on each version that has been produced.

[JerryNumbers]

What good does it do to go to a modern version of the Bible because its easier to read if it has many errors & your not holding the Word of God in your hands? They can lead to many people astray. And in the church setting, whether it be Sunday school or preaching services if there's many different versions in the hands of those present it can be very confusing & God is not the author of confusion.

 

I have been in services where the pastor read from a version that it was quite impossible to follow along.

 

I've read devotionals that have been based on other versions, & if I look the verses up they use in my KJ Bible there is no way they could have come to the opinion they did.

 

And a long time back I read a blog & person said, I used this version because it makes it plainer, no, he used that version because it had a different meaning that could not have been expressed using the KJ Bible.

 

Many use those parallel bibles that have verses from many different versions so they can pick & chose what to believe, so sad.

 

Kind of like many who write book & use 10 to 30 different versions picking out the scriptures from them that gives them the most credibility with what they chose to believe & teach, so sad.

 

Like the big leaded of liberalism, Rick Warren, in his book The Purpose Driven Life he used 14 different versions so he can teach his liberal teachings, now many are following him.