Web Listing of KJVO Churches.

[IFB X-Files]

I will also not criticize those who use other translations, as long as they are honestly seeking God's Word.

I appreciate this earthling's spirit on the matter.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

For the 50th time...

In my opinion, there are 2 kinds of Bible believers:

1. Those who believe God must have given us a perfect (define how you please) Bible that is still available to us today in a final, understandable form.  Hence, the KJB.

2. Those who believe God inspired the original writers and that a perfect Bible still exists in the multitude of preserved manuscripts.  Through diligent study we can determine what the original writers transcribed by comparing, contrasting, accepting, and eliminating various differences.

Although I hold to the first option by faith, logic, and study, I still consider those of the 2nd opinion true Bible Believers and in no way inferior to myself.

Others take the KJV only position to crazy levels.  On this, we agree.  But believing in a single, God ordained translation is certainly not "heresy."

Quick question. If you lived prior to 1611, would you have held firmly to the 2nd opinion then? Or would you have been Geneva Bible Only or Bishop's Bible Only, etc?

 

[cpizzle]

I probably would have held to the 2nd position - Preservation in the multitude of manuscripts.

Keep in mind, I likely wouldn't have accepted the KJB in 1612 either.  However, its longevity and "good fruit" have singled it out.  It has proven to be more than just another translation in a long line of translatons.  It was the "gold standard" for several years and still outshines its current competitors. 

 

[Agent P]

Went through this website with a search of churches in Illinois.  It returned 23 pages of hits, including churches in Iowa, Missouri, and Indiana.  However, I find it impossible to believe that there isn't a single KJVO church in the southern third of the state!  Not a single IFB/KJVO church in the metro-east St Louis area?  Seriously?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

For the 50th time...

In my opinion, there are 2 kinds of Bible believers:

1. Those who believe God must have given us a perfect (define how you please) Bible that is still available to us today in a final, understandable form.  Hence, the KJB.

2. Those who believe God inspired the original writers and that a perfect Bible still exists in the multitude of preserved manuscripts.  Through diligent study we can determine what the original writers transcribed by comparing, contrasting, accepting, and eliminating various differences.

Although I hold to the first option by faith, logic, and study, I still consider those of the 2nd opinion true Bible Believers and in no way inferior to myself.

Others take the KJV only position to crazy levels.  On this, we agree.  But believing in a single, God ordained translation is certainly not "heresy."

The only KJVO I?ve seen referenced as a heretic is Anderson.
I am not KJVO. As a younger Pastor, I did significant, sincere research on the subject and cameto the position I now hold. You, and some others here seem like reasonable sound men. But in my experience you are in the minority of KJVO?s.

Most KJVO?s always lead with that issue and define us as Bible deniers, among other things.
I have had many, many folk visit our church (mostly Christians relocating to our area) ask me if we were KJVO. Almost always they are people who seek to flee that ?lunacy?.

I do seek to bring "soundness" to this issue amongst the folks who are also KJ.  I wince at their fanaticism as well, but I can't throw out the "baby with the bathwater."  I would rather "reform" the King James position than abandon it.  I will also not criticize those who use other translations, as long as they are honestly seeking God's Word.

I understand, appreciate and can?t criticize that.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

1. Those who believe God must have given us a perfect (define how you please) Bible

I think this statement may be the cause of the differences among us.

You seem to be saying that your definition is "letter perfect perfection in all words, word choices, variants, etc."

But that is not how I, and the dictionary, define "perfect." The primary definition of "perfect" according the the Oxford English Dictionary (which I believe is the standard reference work on the English language) is "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perfect

The more modern versions are "perfect" in the sense that "nothing is missing that is required for the whole." The same History, the same Prophecy, the same Promises are found in all the major English translations. Some use different words and different word forms. But all that is necessary for a mature faith can be found in all of them.

Now, in my case, I am Byzantine Preferred. I believe the Byzantine Textform is superior to the Alexandrian Textform so I prefer bibles translated from representatives of that textform. So I prefer the KJV, NKJV, EMTV, WEB of the versions currently in print.

But neither can I denigrate the other versions as they too are "perfect" in that nothing necessary to the whole is lacking. Every one of them can achieve God's goal of inspiring His word, that they be "able to make you wise unto salvation." And that is the bible's own description of the bible. If it is able to make you wise unto salvation it is, according to God, "given by inspiration." (We won't go into the difference between direct inspiration and derived inspiration at this time.)

I started attending Sunday School in 1947. I was given a brand new bible in 1952. It was the Revised Standard Version. The Version Evangelicals loved to hate. But it was that RSV that I was reading when Christ saved my sin sick soul. It was able to make me wise unto salvation and was thus the very word of God.

 

[cpizzle]

A couple of points:

1. I don't believe in "verbal inspiration" so I don't require "word for word" perfection (did Jesus say "forgive us our debts" or did he say "forgive us our trespasses?")  I would imagine there are some incidental "errors" in the KJB when it comes to word choices that do not affect the truth the verse is trying to convey.
2. The differences between the KJV and most modern translations is much more than word choice.  They translate verses very differently in many locations, changing the meaning of those passages. 
3. I would never say new translations are the Devil's work.  I think they are mainly the work of men who have good motives (accurately translate scripture) and bad motives (for the purpose of profit.)  I do believe the KJB was directed by God.
4. A person can certainly get saved through any Bible that presents the plan of Salvation (Grace through Faith.)
5.  New translations are mostly correct, but not completely (again, in my opinion.)  When I read the other versions (which I often do to help me in understanding a difficult passage), I can never take what I read as truth.  I use them as commentary, but I have no faith in them.  I believe that I can trust the King James. 

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

A couple of points:

1. I don't believe in "verbal inspiration" so I don't require "word for word" perfection (did Jesus say "forgive us our debts" or did he say "forgive us our trespasses?")

Uh, neither one. In the Prayer He was teaching His disciples in Mat 6:12 he said "???? ???? ?????? ??? ???????????? ??????, ??? ???? ??????? ????????? ????? ???????????? ???????"

In other places, when not instructing the disciples regarding how to pray He said as in Mat 6:15 "????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ??????????? ??? ???????????? ???????, ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ???????????? ??????."

Different words, different subjects.

I would imagine there are some incidental "errors" in the KJB when it comes to word choices that do not affect the truth the verse is trying to convey.

Can you give me an example of what you would consider an error?

2. The differences between the KJV and most modern translations is much more than word choice.

Most of the differences that affect translation are the result of textual variants in the Greek text being translated.

They translate verses very differently in many locations, changing the meaning of those passages.

Can you give me an example of a translation choice changing the meaning of the passage?

3. I would never say new translations are the Devil's work.  I think they are mainly the work of men who have good motives (accurately translate scripture) and bad motives (for the purpose of profit.)  I do believe the KJB was directed by God.

And others were not?

4. A person can certainly get saved through any Bible that presents the plan of Salvation (Grace through Faith.)

Does that not, by bible definition, make that version "The Holy Scriptures?"

5.  New translations are mostly correct, but not completely (again, in my opinion.)  When I read the other versions (which I often do to help me in understanding a difficult passage), I can never take what I read as truth.  I use them as commentary, but I have no faith in them.  I believe that I can trust the King James.

Why? What has caused you to trust the KJV but distrust the later translations?

 

[Ransom]

I took a little flak for listing one heresy and one heretic earlier. So here's another.

Now if the very words of God must be pure, and if in fact the King James Bible contains the preserved words of God, then any other words are not the words of God. This means that the Revised Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Good News for Modern Man is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Living Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Reader's Digest Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New Scofield Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New International Version (NIV) is not precious seed, and it is not incorruptible. This means that the American Standard Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. If the versions do not agree, then all of them cannot be the very words of God that have been preserved for us....

According to I Peter 1:23 we read, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed...." Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible. Does that mean that if someone goes soul winning and takes a false Bible that the person who receives Christ is not saved? I believe with all of my soul that the incorruptible seed must have been used somewhere in that person's life. If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used....

- Jack Hyles, Enemies of Soul Winning

Hyles added an additional requirement to salvation: that one hear the gospel from a particular translation of the Bible, else he cannot be saved. Hyles taught another gospel. He is a heretic. He is accursed.

 

[Twisted]

Hyles added an additional requirement to salvation: that one hear the gospel from a particular translation of the Bible, else he cannot be saved. Hyles taught another gospel. He is a heretic. He is accursed.

Hyles was/is not the only one to teach such nuttiness.

 

[Ransom]

Hyles was/is not the only one to teach such nuttiness.

So you can't claim that KJV-only heresy is rare or isolated.

 

[Twisted]

Hyles was/is not the only one to teach such nuttiness.

So you can't claim that KJV-only heresy is rare or isolated.

Sorry, but don't paint with too broad a brush.  On that particular point/issue I would disagree.

 

[Baptist City Holdout]

I know a branch of Lutherans that use only the KJV.

 

[16KJV11]

I saw several in the Pittsburgh area that I know are not KJVO and one of them does not exist anymore.  That's the problem with these sites, they are hard to verify and maintain.

 

[Twisted]

That's the problem with these sites, they are hard to verify and maintain.

Yes.  The site creator is some kind of "missionary" so his time is split many ways.

 

[Walt]

Hyles was/is not the only one to teach such nuttiness.

So you can't claim that KJV-only heresy is rare or isolated.

But what you cited is NOT KJV-only - it may be on offshoot, but I know very few who hold to this position; however, I know quite a few who are some flavor of KJV-only...

And that's the crux of the matter. There is not one uniform KJV only position, so one must define what one means by it.

I believe that any translation that is not based off of the traditional texts is building on a bad foundation; the so-called critical texts are wrong. They are significantly different than the texts behind the KJV.

As cpizzle has noted, the KJV wasn't immediately accepted; the Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible to the states.  But the KJV soon became the preferred Bible over all others.

I consider myself KJV-only, but I utterly repudiate the nonsense taught by Riplinger, Ruckman, and Bob Gray, Sr that the KJV itself is somehow "inspired".  When they claim that the KJV has "preserved the inspiration" - I don't know what the silly phrase means; inspiration is how God gave the Bible to man; I believe that God has preserved the words He gave to man - the result of the inspiration. That group also despises commentaries and dictionaries, but of which have been a blessing to me over the years.

 

[logos1560]

Neither of us believe that God preserved his Word in "multiple translations" because they disagree with one another.

The 1611 KJV is a revision of multiple pre-1611 English Bibles with some textual differences and many differences in translation.

Along with being primarily a revision, the KJV is also a translation of multiple, imperfect, textually-varying original-language text editions.  The KJV translators did not follow any one original language OT text edition and any one NT Greek text  edition 100%.

Are you claiming that God's word was not preserved in the multiple sources on which the KJV is based?

 

[logos1560]

A couple of points:

2. The differences between the KJV and most modern translations is much more than word choice.  They translate verses very differently in many locations, changing the meaning of those passages. 

The same could be said of the differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.

The Church of England makers of the KJV changed the meaning of some passages in the pre-1611 English Bibles, which were understood to teach congregational church government or Presbyterian church government,  to make them more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government.