Interaction between KJVO and nonKJVO

[Annie]

<<<<<<< incoming from The Lounge >>>>>>>>>>

And here we are, folks, with this question before us: What is the appropriate level of interaction (or highest possible level of interaction) between ministries that are in disagreement over the KJV issue? For those of you who are just joining this program, this is a continuation of a discussion about a ministry (The Wilds) that developed into--yes, a debate over textual issues. :-S

We don't have to keep talking about The Wilds, per se. I was just using that ministry as an illustration of a (nonKJVO) place that avoids conflict over textual issues, while accepting and successfully ministering to people of all perspectives. The church in which I grew up would fall into this category as well.

So, for the sake of discussion, let's picture a ministry (like my church, or a Christian school) whose official position is that the KJV is a faithful translation, just as certain other versions are also faithful translations of God's Word. This ministry uses only the KJV from the pulpit, as well as in all interaction with attendees. The average attendee would not ever know of the ministry's position on the issue. It is not brought up unless someone asks a question about it (in which case an honest answer is given). IOW, it is a non-issue, as far as this ministry is concerned, but it is not hidden from those who want to know. I'm curious to know how many of you would attend, say, a conference or service(s) at such a ministry, and I'd like to know the reasoning behind your answer, if you care to express it. I would also be interested in a comparison of the perceived importance of the textual issue compared to other issues (like choice of music, dress standards, doctrines that aren't part of the "fundamentals," etc.).

Here's what I'm not interested in: debate over Bible versions (I think we all know where each other stands on that issue); vague cliches that mean nothing because they aren't backed up by Scripture; and general name-calling.

Be careful...Thanks to Jess, I have just discovered my Thread-Locking Power. :cool So, be good! Happy posting!

[Guest Guest]

So, for the sake of discussion, let's picture a ministry (like my church) whose official position is that the KJV is a faithful translation, just as certain other versions are also faithful translations of God's Word. This ministry uses only the KJV from the pulpit, as well as in all interaction with attendees. The average attendee would not ever know of the ministry's position on the issue. It is not brought up unless someone asks a question about it (in which case it gets an honest answer). IOW, it is a non-issue, as far as this ministry is concerned, but it is not hidden from those who want to know. I'm curious to know how many of you would attend, say, a conference or service(s) at such a ministry, and I'd like to know the reasoning behind your answer, if you care to express it. I would also be interested in a comparison of the perceived importance of the textual issue compared to other issues (like choice of music, dress standards, doctrines that aren't part of the "fundamentals," etc.).

I find that position very painful. It amounts to saying the issue doesn't matter when it does. As to whether if I would be a part of a church or ministry that held that position, it would depend on what options I had. If I could find something comparable that took a firm stand on the issue I would be much more comfortable.

I would also be interested in a comparison of the perceived importance of the textual issue compared to other issues (like choice of music, dress standards, doctrines that aren't part of the "fundamentals," etc.).

They are all important. I really couldn't "sacrifice" any of them. There is a reason they are held. Fortunately, "most" of the time, if church holds to one they hold to all, and usually, if one area is compromised in a space of a few years all those areas are compromised. It tends to be a chain reaction.

[HappyChristian]

I don't know how much this will answer your question(s), but...

One of the colleges that I went to was like that -- KJB from the pulpit and in the classroom, but the pastor and the dean used other versions for their studies. I didn't know that when I went. Would that have made a difference in whether I went or not? I truthfully don't know. As I stand now, even though I don't care for any MVs, I most likely would because I know what I was taught there. The pastor was Dr. Dayton Hobbs. I attended there for two years, and I learned a lot. Dr. and Mrs. Hobbs were two of my favorite people.

Some of the college students had some dealings with a fellow who was going to PBI. Frankly, he was spewing a lot of nonsense that wasn't scriptural. But he began talking about the version debate. I went to see Dr. Hobbs about it, just out of curiosity. I appreciated his explanation, even though I can't remember all of it now (it was almost 30 years ago...). And in latter years was able to help my hubby with some things we faced at a church that was much like the college student.

We are both still KJB. Whether I would say we are "only" is up to other people who like to label. We don't see the necessity of changing it. We understand it, our son did as he was growing up, my students did, etc. So...

If we were looking for a camp or a church, we would find out what their stand on the KJB was. If there was a good camp available that wasn't KJB, and there wasn't a good camp (by good, I mean doctrinally correct, etc) that was, if this other camp used the KJB (like the Wilds), I wouldn't have a problem going. But if there were 2 camps from which to choose, and the only difference was their outlook on the KJB, I'd go with the one that did more than just use the KJB.

Does that make sense? And did that in any way come close to answering your question or did I go all around the block? :Green

[speerjp1]

I think most people's primary concern with the other versions is that there are obvious errors and contradictions that simply cannot be found in the KJV.

(I know there are many who believe the KJV has it's share of problems, but even if that were true, most people take issue with semantics or language when it comes to the KJV; the other versions end up leaving out or adding to scriptures, which is decried in the Bible.)

Truth should be important to every Christian, if for no other reason than the fact that contradictions found within any framework destroy credibility. When looking at other version that contradict what the KJV says, I can't say they are both true. If one is wrong, then why waste my time with it? I've yet to hear any convincing argument that the KJV is wrong. Sadly, that is what most conversations I've had with modern version-users ends up being: how the KJV is inferior (yes, even from folks I've discussed this with from BJU, The Wilds, Mt. Calvary BC, Faith BC, Hampton Park BC, and other affiliated groups that claim that they hold the KJV in the same regard as the NASB or other flavor of the day version).

For any reference, search this forum because the arguments have been so thoroughly laid out here.

That being said, I would tend to not attend any function at a church that doesn't see modern versions of the Bible as having any problems. In my opinion, it is simple to see that the KJV is superior to all other versions in every way. "Successful ministering" must be measured by God's word. It must be based in God's word.


Those are a few of the musings of a KJV only Christian.

[Bakershalfdozen]

It might be helpful to understand that there are differing levels of "KJVO".

1. Someone who believes the King James Version is a faithful translation while also believing that there are other translations out there, including foreign language translations and Critical Text translations that are equally faithful. For instance, the NASB is a faithful translation to the texts it was translated from. This person sees the textual issue an a non-issue. This person, however, uses the KJV because they believe it to be the best translation although they don't have a problem studying from other versions to gain differing or a deeper perspective.

2. Someone who believes that the Received Text is the accurate text and any Bible faithfully translated from it is God's preserved Word. This person is not opposed to a new English (or any other language) translation from the TR as long as it is faithful and accurate.

3. Someone who believes that the KJV is the only pure translation for English speakers and that nothing will ever replace the KJV for English speakers no matter how archaic the 1611 English becomes.

4. Someone who believes that the KJV is the only pure translation for English speakers. While this person accepts translations in other languages, they still believe that the KJV is superior to all the rest.

5. Someone who believes that the King James Version is the only true Bible in the world, that it - itself - was given by verbal inspiration of God in 1611, and that all nations should learn 1611 English in order to have the one, pure Bible.

[tired]

1. Someone who believes the King James Version is a faithful translation while also believing that there are other translations out there, including foreign language translations that are equally faithful. This person sees the textual issue an a non-issue. For instance, the NASB is a faithful translation to the texts it was translated from. This person, however, uses the KJV because they believe it to be the best translation.

2. Someone who believes that the Received Text is the accurate text and any Bible faithfully translated from it is God's preserved Word

I guess this would be me.

[Guest Guest]

I go with number two.

[speerjp1]

It might be helpful to understand that there are differing levels of "KJVO".

1. Someone who believes the King James Version is a faithful translation while also believing that there are other translations out there, including foreign language translations that are equally faithful. For instance, the NASB is a faithful translation to the texts it was translated from. This person sees the textual issue an a non-issue. This person, however, uses the KJV because they believe it to be the best translation although they don't have a problem studying from other versions to gain differing or a deeper perspective.

2. Someone who believes that the Received Text is the accurate text and any Bible faithfully translated from it is God's preserved Word.

3. Someone who believes that the KJV is the only pure translation. While this person accepts translations in other languages, they still believe that the KJV is superior to all the rest.

4. Someone who believes that the King James Version is the only true Bible in the world, that it - itself - was given by verbal inspiration of God in 1611, and that all nations should learn 1611 English in order to have the one, pure Bible.

Good break down. I'd put myself as a #2. :thumb

edited to add: No Critical Text versions for me. :cooldude:

[Bakershalfdozen]

Please, everyone, I in no way want to derail Annie's thread. Do not turn this thread into a version debate or even a "which level are you" debate. I just thought it would be helpful to understand that not everyone who is KJVO believes the same way.

Regarding the OP... YES, I do believe it is possible for organizations to minister effectively w/o making Bible translations a major issue. There is a rescue mission in our city that is supported by many different Bible believing churches all over the area. Not all churches agree on everything but they do agree on the important issues like salvation by grace through faith, believer's baptism, death, burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, avoiding worldliness, etc. Not all churches are Baptist. Some are Bible or non-denom. Some use the NKJV or the NASB. However, they support the mission for the sake of winning lost, homeless men to the Lord.

[HappyChristian]

Me too, #2.

[Annie]

I appreciate all of the response...Thanks! I do think, as Jess as has said, that it is important to understand that there are different levels of KJVO...and I don't mind y'all saying which level you are, since that does affect your perspective. I'm not as interested in a defense of your position...and I promise not to give a defense of mine (I hear y'all muttering: "That's because there IS no defense for her position." ). I'm encouraged to see that KJVO people in general (at least judging by what you all have said so far) are not as "separationist" about the issue as PCC is.

[Bakershalfdozen]

Glad you're not upset, Annie! I was afraid that I had skewed this thread right off the bat.

salyan wants to make a separate poll of the positions up there. I have added a couple of clarifiers since my original post. So if you vote in the poll, it will look different from the first list that was there.

[Pastorj]

I am a TR guy. Which means I only use the KJV in English, but would accept a new translation and accept foreign translations from the TR

With that said,
I would not attend a church, college, camp or any other organization that does not use the KJV.
I would not be a member of a church that is KJV preferred - A church that uses the KJV, but does not stand on it.
I can and do fellowship with preachers and other Christians who are not OKJV, but I would never have them preach in my pulpit

[Annie]

I am a TR guy. Which means I only use the KJV in English, but would accept a new translation and accept foreign translations from the TR

With that said,
I would not attend a church, college, camp or any other organization that does not use the KJV.
I would not be a member of a church that is KJV preferred - A church that uses the KJV, but does not stand on it.
I can and do fellowship with preachers and other Christians who are not OKJV, but I would never have them preach in my pulpit

To my brother in Christ Pastorj, I communicate much thanks for his eloquent speech pertaining to the question before us, inasmuch as his words do enlighten me further as to his understanding of what best pleaseth his Lord and suiteth his own conversation. Nevertheless, the question which doth burden my thinking erstwhile is as such: wherefore and in what manner didst thou come to these beliefs (concerning which assemblies of the children of Christ with which thou shouldst have fellowship)? Art thou bound by comfort, or by other philosophies and ruminations? If the latter, then of which sort? If the former, how so? My interest lieth chiefly in thy denial of fellow bondservants of Christ to preach the gospel in thy stead before many witnesses, even insofar as these pious men mightest agree to speak the words from the writings commissioned by His Most Royal Highness King James II while thus appointed, and avow most assuredly all other chief doctrines which thou hast been taught. Dost thou then make this a matter of ecclesiastical separation, and yet leave undone the matter of sancification of thine own earthly vessel? What sayest thou?

Mayhap that I shouldst inquire of you all after this saying: Of the works that follow, which avowest thee to be most precious in an assembly of the righteous? Perchance thou shouldst quicken my understanding by a scheme of number...the first shall be that which riseth to the highest importance, and the last shall be least. What sayest thou?

emphasis on expository preaching
KJVO (not as in "preferred," but ONLY acceptable version for English language)
emphasis on issues of personal application (dress standards, movies/music, makeup, etc.)
music in the church services is your preferred style (whether that means southern gospel or formal or whatever)
pastor a grad of a certain institution (BJU, PCC, etc.), or "aligned" with a certain institution
affirmation of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith (not necessarily KJVO)
atmosphere of reverent worship
fellowship with sincere, growing believers
good bus ministry
family integrated services
good youth program


What thinkest thou?

[Bakershalfdozen]

:lol: Don't mess with a teacher who specializes in literature. :lol: