Interaction between KJVO and nonKJVO

[Annie]

Thanks for explaining, Seth. In your opinion, what other doctrine holds a comparable amount of weight with "KJVO?" You've said it isn't as important as the fundamentals of the faith--the ideas all true Christians share. All Christian doctrine and practice find their source in the Bible. Can you share the biblical basis for your belief that the KJVO stance is important for your Christian walk?

[Annie]

[quote="John81"][quote="Annie"][quote="John81"]What do you mean by "associate with"? I've noticed many people have differing definitions of just what that means.

I have friends who use various MVs. I'm able to study and discuss Scripture with those who use MVs.

As for working with or supporting some ministry that uses an MV, that would depend upon exactly what they were doing.

It's also important to consider their doctrine. I know some who use MVs that are born again and they are mature in Christ and living for the Lord. However, I know far more who use MVs who are hold to rather liberal doctrines and probably are not born again.[/quote]

Thanks for responding, John. What I'm getting from you is that the KJVO stance is not as "important" a doctrine to you as the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith (such as the Virgin Birth, salvation by grace through faith, etc.).

I suppose I could use the word "fellowship" instead of "associate." What I mean by that term is the gathering together of fellow believers in which good, agreeable, unified study and fellowship around the things of God is possible, even natural. I could not have this kind of fellowship with an unbeliever (although I could interact socially with him), because we share no common ground at all in the spiritual realm. I could not have this kind of fellowship with a religious liberal...one who, say, espouses a social gospel. I could not have this kind of fellowship with someone who constantly makes "KJVO" an issue, or a test of faith.[/quote]

Yes, the fundamentals of the faith are most important.

I've had very good Christian friends who used MVs. I've also been a part of Bible studies with some who used MVs. So long as we are of like-minded faith and seeking to follow Christ, I can fellowship/associate with those who use MVs.[/quote]

I appreciate this position, and agree that the text issue is not as important as the fundamentals of our Christian faith.

[Bakershalfdozen]

My position is that versions are not a Fundamental. I can and do fellowship regularly with people who use other versions.

I'm curious though how everyone arrived at their respective beliefs concerning the texts. Please see my new thread titled, TR vs. CT. It is in the Bible forum.

[Guest Guest]

Thanks for explaining, Seth. In your opinion, what other doctrine holds a comparable amount of weight with "KJVO?"

Basically, for my purposes, I rank doctrines on only three levels. No more than that.

Level #1 I consider as doctrines esential to salvation.

Level #2 I consider as doctrines not esential for salvation but highly important for the Christian walk.

Level #3 Are doctrines that I believe to be correct but which I believe have room for disagreement. On these I do not mind to much if someone else has a different view.

There are a lot of important doctrines. I don't sit down and rate how each one compares to all the others because I am not willing to sacrifice ANY doctrine that ranks as either a #1 or a #2. If I believe after searching the scriptures that a doctrine is a #3 I will not make a issue out of it. I feel the KJV for English speakers ranks as a #2.

[John81]

Isn't that overstretching the term "doctrine"?

I've always confined what I actually call doctrine to be just biblical doctrine, which starts with the fundamentals of the faith.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't doctrine supposed to be biblically solid? If so, which has always been my understanding, wouldn't that preclude things that can be disagreed upon from being classified as doctrine?

[Guest Guest]

[quote]Isn't that overstretching the term "doctrine"?

I've always confined what I actually call doctrine to be just biblical doctrine, which starts with the fundamentals of the faith.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't doctrine supposed to be biblically solid? If so, which has always been my understanding, wouldn't that preclude things that can be disagreed upon from being classified as doctrine?[/quote]

Doctrine is just a teaching. That is all the word means.

[John81]

[quote="Seth Doty"][quote]Isn't that overstretching the term "doctrine"?

I've always confined what I actually call doctrine to be just biblical doctrine, which starts with the fundamentals of the faith.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't doctrine supposed to be biblically solid? If so, which has always been my understanding, wouldn't that preclude things that can be disagreed upon from being classified as doctrine?[/quote]

Doctrine is just a teaching. That is all the word means.[/quote]

If you are using that definition then what you said fits fine.

[Annie]

[quote="Seth Doty"][quote]Isn't that overstretching the term "doctrine"?

I've always confined what I actually call doctrine to be just biblical doctrine, which starts with the fundamentals of the faith.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't doctrine supposed to be biblically solid? If so, which has always been my understanding, wouldn't that preclude things that can be disagreed upon from being classified as doctrine?[/quote]

Doctrine is just a teaching. That is all the word means.[/quote]
Upon which biblical teaching (doctrine) do you base your KJVO stance? (Unless I'm mistaken, all Christian doctrine emanates from Scripture.) I've asked you this twice now. Do you have an answer for me?

[Guest Guest]

[quote]Upon which biblical teaching (doctrine) do you base your KJVO stance?[/quote]


[color=#0000FF]"Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."[/color]

[color=#0000FF]Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.[/color]

[color=#0000FF]Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.[/color]

I believe in the preservation, perfection, and purity of the Word of God. The MV's do not fit that. Both by examination and in many cases the authors admissions. I would say more and use more verses but I am going to bed... Goodnight...

[PreacherD]

Annie,

Thanks for this thread. Your EE talk was quite funny. I think it was funnier, though, that someone said the KJV is actually easier for them to read than the NKJV. That made very little sense to me. Here are a few examples:

Phil 3:20 (KJV) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Phil 3:20 (NKJV)For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,

James 1:21 (KJV) Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
James 1:21 (NKJV) Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

Colossians 3:5 (KJV) Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
Colossians 3:5 (NKJV) Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Readability is not the only issue when choosing a translation. However, to somehow think that the KJV is more readable for ANYONE is really shows how far some have come in the blind support for the KJV.

[Annie]

[quote="Seth Doty"][quote]Upon which biblical teaching (doctrine) do you base your KJVO stance?[/quote]


[color=#0000FF]"Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."[/color]

[color=#0000FF]Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.[/color]

[color=#0000FF]Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.[/color]

I believe in the preservation, perfection, and purity of the Word of God. The MV's do not fit that. Both by examination and in many cases the authors admissions. I would say more and use more verses but I am going to bed... Goodnight...[/quote]

I'm going to move this to another thread ("Questions about the biblical basis for KJVO), because I'd like to ask you some questions that would hijack this one. Good-night to you as well.

[PreacherD]

One more: :smile (for now)

Acts 17:5 (KJV) But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
Acts 17:5 (NKJV) But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

Please understand that I LOVE the KJV of the Bible. 99% of the time I preach from the KJV. However, to say that the KJV is more readable than the NKJV is just not being honest with ourselves. I would recommend the NKJV to a teenager or to a new Christian coming to my church even if I was preaching from the KJV. I really don't see why this is such a compromise. It starts getting silly, after a while, when we won't allow the Scriptures to be read by the common man.

[Annie]

Thank you all for your comments.

Back on track now...

Does anyone else want to add something to, agree, or disagree with the explanations given so far regarding levels of interaction? This has been a most enlightening thread.

[Guest Guest]

Agree PreacherD Learned a lesson on this one will not get into it but let the Lord do the convicting on people and KJV. I listened to a Preacher beat this one up for almost 2 years every Sunday morn and even. and Wed.. To the point he even made it seem like only those that were shown Salvation through the use of KJV bible were saved all others were not. Do not let it come to the point where you put other versions down in front of people who have not been convicted or taught KJV. This only pushes them away from Christ. I am not saying not to take a open stand on the issue but be careful. I personally have no problem with others using different versions or associating with them. Like I stated before I learned a very hard lesson on this one.

[John81]

PreacherD,

If you have questions please feel free to ask but it's very unchristian and impolite to accuse me of being dishonest.

I'm not a blind follower of anything. You might have picked up on this if you had read my posts even in these past couple of pages.

I've read many different versions over the years but it wasn't until I was pointed to the King James did the Holy Ghost fully open my eyes and my spiritual growth took off by leaps and bounds. When I read the KJB the meaning is clear and what I read is fixed in my heart and mind. I can't say that about other versions.

That said, nowhere did I say that my experience was or would be everybody elses experience. I know many people who, for one reason or another, have great difficulty trying to read and understand the KJB. I know people who can read the NIV and espouse the truths of the Bible as clearly and spot on as a sound KJVO person even though so much of the NIV doesn't present so many things clear at all to me.

For myself, the KJB is easy to read and for me it's easier to understand than the MVs. Those are facts with regards to myself. My integrity is intact as these are honest statements which you have falsely attempted to paint as a lie.