"...(M)any fundamentalists have damaged their credibility as separatists because they don’t apply what they believe about separation to the KJVO issue."

Our church’s Doctrinal Statement says:

We believe that the Holy Bible, as originally written, was verbally inspired and the product of Spirit-filled men and has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter. We believe the Bible to be the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions shall be tried. We believe the Bible to have only one interpretation which may be revealed to any believer by the Holy Spirit. Whereas there are a number of other versions of the Bible in circulation, all of which are not reliable due to their omission of words and their being translated from corrupt manuscripts, we consider it, therefore, a necessity and privilege to use only the King James Version AV 1611 in our pulpit and in our classrooms.

As a member of http://www.charitybaptist.org/who-we-are/church.shtml] Charity Baptist Church , I believe in and support this statement. I’d say most of our folks who’ve been around awhile also believe and support it, but we do not separate from ministries that are not KJVO- we use materials from a variety of sources, like AiG and http://www.summit.org/ Summit Ministries , which use other versions in their books and videos. We have a definite ‘enjoy the meat and spit out the bones’ mentality, even with a KJVO stance at our core.

I think mounty has a good point when you are talking about separating over a teaching that doesn’t affect the Gospel. For instance, I firmly believe in home education, wearing dresses, and not ‘working outside the home’, and those are closely held convictions for me- but I don’t separate from people who do not think or practice the same because I believe people can fellowship with others who are living in good conscience before God but differ in these areas. I think the lines of separation are to be drawn over issues that deal directly with doctrines that affect the Gospel message, and then over areas of morality (1 Cor. 5:11). People seem to be itchin’ to separate over trivialities, but they won’t separate from a railer or a blackmailer- something that people indulge in on the internet quite often, but it is dismissed as the exercise of ‘free speech’. Riiiiiggghhht. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes010.gif

In my experience, the KJVO ‘double-inspiration’ crowd by default separate themselves, so separating from them is almost moot.

I agree with Doran that separation from ministries that promote the direct inspiration of the KJV is necessary (all accurate translations are inspired in a derivative sense only). I agree in principle with his second axiom, though it is not as easy to apply as the first. Where those endorsements and associations are clear and obvious, then it should be practiced. Even though I don’t agree with the enitre statement of Susan’s church on this issue, it has not crossed the line into heterodoxy. Providentially (secondary causation), God has preserved for us thousands of mss. All of them have value, some more than others. Their very presence indicates the providential preservation of God’s Word. Unfortunately, textual analysis is necessary. None of us can dismiss it by wishing that God preserved His Word solely in one particular text type or English translation. That is an awful lot to assume— and it is assumed by those who hold it via fideism. Nevertheless, the KJVO radicalism cited by Doran has been a dividing line for fundamentalists—and it should be.

[A. Carpenter] If membership has been handled well, then wouldn’t we assume the members to hold to whatever is in their church’s doctrinal statement?

In theory, yes, but in reality, usually no. Doctrinal statements, like church constitutions change very rarely, and often are rather long with a lot of clauses, many of which deal with doctrines that don’t deal directly with the Gospel. However, congregations grow and change, and pastors do often change positions over time to the point where the same pastor may have and preach quite a few different views than he held at the time the doctrinal statement was first approved. At the same time, the members who were around then may have changed and grown in some of their beliefs as well, and in different directions, but not to the point they feel they must leave the ministry.

At this point, unless you have a very authoritarian ministry, where people must always march in lock-step with what is being preached, you may have at least 3 different views on some of the non-core doctrines: the view of the doctrinal statement, the view of the pastor, and the views of the members. 20 or so years after the founding of a fundamental church, this is a very common place to be. Thus, mounty’s view of many churches with respect to the KJVO view is quite correct. Add in the concepts of the priesthood of the believer and soul liberty, and you could easily have a situation where you don’t know whom to separate from.

Of course, you could always just consider the doctrinal statement as the official view, which you would use for affiliation/separation purposes, and just ignore the realities of the beliefs of the pastor and/or members. That would make the decision easier, but also make it inflexible and not reflective of reality. Tough either way.

It is murky waters. Dave made some comments about a conf. that Schaap held back in the summer time. Yes, they actually had a whole day about it—KJ Bible Summit, I think they called it), but most who are rabid KJVonlyers consider them to apostatized about the issue. Some are even saying they don’t believe any different than BJU nowadays! I haven’t heard the cds or watched the sessions yet, so I wouldn’t begin to know. (I doubt I will watch them.)

Choosing which KJVonly ers to separate from will be tricky. There is a very fine line between those who believe the version is the best because of the text it’s based on and those who say it is best because it is “perfect” as a translation. Many people in the pew don’t have a clue as to the difference. They say you have to believe in a perfect Bible.

Also, as Ann said (from the Ukraine) some missionaries may have KJV only churches that support them when they didn’t seek it out or even know when they took them on. Obviously most of them will not choose to support a nonKJV only missionary if the issue rises to the importance of believing that the translation itself was inspired by the God during translation. Most of the time those churches will eliminate missionary candidates with a questionnaire and won’t even let them into their pulpit since they are “off” on this doctrine.

i do believe we have to give people time to grow, though. Some people are simply ignorant. For people who grow up in an environment of education, this may seem a bit far-fetched, but “out there in the trenches”—it’s not.

It sounds like when Jack Schaap wanted to educate people, some actually listened (to the history of the English Bible), others just figured they’d given into the non-Bible believers (their words). Exactly what is their stance now? To be honest, I’m not sure. They say they are what Hyles USED to believe.

[Becky Petersen] Choosing which KJVonly ers to separate from will be tricky.

For me, it’s easy. I just ask the question.

“What Bible version do you use in the church? Why?”

I was a member of a church which started a new members class soon after we joined. The teacher (Associate Pastor) began teaching things that sounded like “the Inspiration of the KJV.” I eventually went to the pastor and asked (humbly, respecfully) if the inspiration of the KJV was a doctrine of that IFB church.

I did tell him that if this *was* a doctrine of the church, we would - reluctantly - have to find another place to worship. It was not an ultimatum, and he did not take it as one.

He took two weeks to study and pray, and then came back with “No, it’s not found in the Bible.” He is, to this day, a staunch KJV Only pastor, but does not subscribe to the inspiration of the KJV.

A lot of times I have observed the “point of contention” is not the KJV, but the fact that one would *DARE* to question the pastor. I have been blessed with pastors who are stong in the pulpit, yet willing to study the Scriptures to see whether these things be so.

EDIT: This is something I do when looking for a church for my family. If I am going to visit, or minster just once, if it does not come up in conversation, then it’s not even an issue.

I grew up with the King James Bible. Wasn’t until I fellowshipped with a Church in my past that said the King James Bible was “perfect” and that other translations are perversions and shouldn’t be used that I realized this was another item on my list of “need to study and understand where I stand issues.” I always personally believed that The Word of God was more than just the pages of ink - the Bible is a sure witness and the words come alive when we read the Bible. But - I also agree that poorly translated text can hurt a message and hinder the Holy Spirit. Still …. can’t God use anything to reach us? He used Nebakanezer in the OT.

I recognize in some old Dr. Oliver B Greene sermons that being King James Only isn’t anything new, and exposing the errors found in newer translations isn’t anything new also. I also understand that Dr. John Rice wasn’t KJVO. I personally think many today go too far in their attempts to prove to the world that the King James Bible is what everyone should be reading - more important things should be on their mind and lips IMHO. Maybe God should be left to bring people to His written accounts of truth. God can do that to a heart seeking Him.

At the moment, apart from personal reading comfort, I find the King James Bible to be very good for the Christian because it has been around so long and we know it’s good, it isn’t linked so closely to many modern churches and faulty doctrinal statements, and I also put faith in the fact that many Godly men prefer it, preach from it, and say that it’s what God would have us read, so I follow their example. I don’t like it when preachers call other Bible translations perversions, the HIV, say that you can’t get saved unless you use a KJV Romans road, or say that the English corrects the Greek.

I like to personally just say to another believer that I know in my heart the King James Bible is what God would want me to read. It has a legacy of leading men down the paths of truth. It’s a translation blessed by God.

the more I agree with this guy. My dad uses the KJV in his personal study and when he is asked to teach a class. My mom reads from a KJV. I was raised in a church that used the KJV, although the pastor of that church, a gentle, humble servant of God, never even mentioned a debate about Bible versions. I own more KJV Bibles than I do other versions, and I think it’s a good version. While it’s not the one I prefer, I don’t try to convince others they are wrong for using it. In essence, I like it but I don’t use it. The “KJVO” crowd to which Doran refers is all to willing to castigate anyone who dares use any other version.
Doran’s article was like a walk down memory lane. His description fits to a T my experience with the KJV only crowd. As I mentioned in another thread, the pastor of the church I left a few months ago fired the first public shot in this “debate” amongst the mental midgets in the “KJVO” crowd. Unfortunately these types are the ones that tend to draw attention to fundamentalism, in a bad light obviously (refer to the Anderson idiot who is KJV Only praying for the death of our president). Let’s hope the movement eats its children, so to speak, and dies a quiet death.

Joshua 23:11 “Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God.”

2 Thessalonians 3:5 “And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.”

I wish all this time and attention spent by these KJV extremest would be spent getting people more in love with God. I think they fear that somehow they will lose more members to the Church down the street that is promoting an “easier Bible” so they create doctrine to scare people from doing just that. They create this illusion that you might lose your very salvation if you read another translation, listen to Christian Rock, and partake of another denominations fellowship. They put a level of fear into people - and it isn’t a Godly fear.

What I am saying is teach people true Biblical Love and maybe then God will make them KJV preferred and more in love with sacred music. Let God guide their life and show them how to listen to God and keep his commandments.

I was in a heavy KJVonly church and I find most of the sermon content surrounding their KJVonly doctrine full of pride, ignorance, and not very edifying to the Church. My current church takes the KJV and very lovingly suggest it for the believer. My pastor works more passionately toward helping his people develop more love for God.

[Susan R] Our church’s Doctrinal Statement says:

We believe that the Holy Bible, as originally written, was verbally inspired and the product of Spirit-filled men and has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter. We believe the Bible to be the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions shall be tried. We believe the Bible to have only one interpretation which may be revealed to any believer by the Holy Spirit. Whereas there are a number of other versions of the Bible in circulation, all of which are not reliable due to their omission of words and their being translated from corrupt manuscripts, we consider it, therefore, a necessity and privilege to use only the King James Version AV 1611 in our pulpit and in our classrooms.

As a member of http://www.charitybaptist.org/who-we-are/church.shtml] Charity Baptist Church , I believe in and support this statement.

I find the explicitness of this doctrinal statement fascinating and am impressed that there is a church that actually follows through on the conviction and practices it. It brings up a few questions:

1) Since you only use the 1611 edition of the KJV, where do you purchase copies of it? The closest I can find in a local Christian book store is the 1769 edition.

2) Does it take a long time for new converts to learn to read the Early Modern English with the various spelling variants and letter substitutions? I find the type setting of the 1611 edition generally very difficult to decipher.

3) Since only the 1611 contains the preserved Word of God, obviously you reject all the changes made in later editions of the KJV and therefore would never use them, correct?

4) Which 1611 do you use? (As you know, there were two separate simultaneous printings, and they weren’t identical.)

5) Don’t you feel very privileged to have been born in a country that speaks and reads the only language God has preserved His Word in? How tragic that God has overlooked billions of people who will never know Him because they don’t know English! We should be truly thankful. Amen?

Doctrinal statements are a brief summary of important points, and to cover every related jot and tittle would require a rather lengthy and complicated DS.

As for other languages, we encourage our missionaries to use translations based on the same line of manuscripts as the AV1611- it is elsewhere stated on our site that the KJV is the Word of God for “English speaking peoples”.

As I said earlier, it isn’t point of contention in our church. We don’t frisk people at the door to see if they are carrying a different translation, and we don’t make a big deal out of it if they have an NIV or NASV or whatever. If they are interested in the topic, we give them materials so they can study for themselves. But for consistency, all teachers use the KJV in all classes.

Our church is partnered with Umberto Gomez in http://www.reinavaleragomez.com/en/index.html creating and publishing a Spanish translation . Want to see how Bro. Gomez responds to his critics?

1. Our critics have a right to express their opinions.

I may be 100% in disagreement with all they say or write; yet I would give my life to defend the right they have to express their ideas and their opposition to our work. Even if they exceed the lines of decorum, it is far better to let them speak up, than to try to silence them. I am a firm believer in the freedom of speech.

2. Our critics have been a great blessing.

Criticism has forced us to seek perfection. The stronger the criticism, the more it requires of us to do a better job. Criticism is very healthy; it points to our mistakes (which been many). By the grace of God we have been man enough to admit our mistakes and correct them. Often our critics have contributed more than the ones that applaud our work. I recommend for you to read what they have to say, you may learn something.

3. Our critics have been our best promoters.

Many have found out about our Bible by reading the articles that have been posted against us. A very famous evangelist once said: “Bad promotion is better that no promotion” Men of God that have collaborated in this revision did not know about our Revision until they read the criticism posted in the web pages via Internet.

4. Our critics are our brothers in Christ

Some of the ones that criticize us are our brothers in Christ. Some of them are men of God that are better than us, and have a great Christian heritage. We commit sin if we loosely speak evil against them. Some have a wife, children, a mom and a dad, churches and great ministries; we do not have a right to question their character or their motives, just because they disagree with us. Let them alone! Lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

5. Our critics have their fears and reservations, some of them are justified.

Many have the fear that a “New Bible” will be the cause of division amongst our brethren, and there may be some validity to that claim; I think that’s a valid point and the possibility of that happening is there. But, we can not turn our back to the Truth either. “Buy the truth, and sell it not;” We stand for a Bible free of Critical Text, that calls Heaven, Heaven, and Hell, Hell. We want unity, but not at the expense of Truth. If truth divides, so be it! “We will not sacrifice the truth in the altar of unity”

Make no mistake about it. We will fight and take a stand for the truth, even unto death. But remember… “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” 2Co 10:3-5

Humberto Gomez

I wish more men had his grace and humility. Bro. Gomez has been treated brutally by some of the brethren for his efforts to provide a better Spanish translation than what was available. When he proposed this project, he brought the available Spanish Bibles at the time and read to the church the problem texts, and boy- there were some real humdingers. But instead of acknowledging that the Bibles available to Spanish peoples had problems, some rabid anti-KJVers as well as KJVOers started attempting to undermine the effort with outrageous slander and gossip. We’ve got one side calling us Hylesites because we carry some of his books, while others call us Ruckmanites because we carry his (I guess if both sides hate us, we must being doing something right!)

How about ENOUGH with the silly jabs and name calling, and let men of good will live according to their conscience before God?

Eric,

I’m another of those KJV-preferred people out there. I use it for myself, and I am very comfortable with it, but I don’t have a problem that other people want newer translations, especially new believers or those who have never read older English. I can’t speak for Susan, but I can tell you that our local book store does, or at least did, have 1611 reprints available (supposedly first edition, warts and all, but with Roman instead of Gothic type, and with margin cuts/artwork from a later print edition). It was my main church Bible for probably 6 or 7 years until I moved to using a Bible program with multiple translations/commentaries/Strong’s on an iPod/iPhone exclusively (where the KJV is still my preferred translation, but I don’t have a 1611 version available in that format).

I probably wouldn’t recommend that for new believers they use that particular version because of the spelling distractions, which would be an additional impediment over the 1769 version. Personally, I wanted one of that version to get all the original translator’s notes on the text, plus some of the other things like a scripture reading schedule that were included in the original edition were of some interest to me. Often, when a pastor “re-translates” one of the Hebrew or Greek words, the alternate meaning he gives is already given by the translators in the margins. Plus, the original translators also make clear where the meaning of the word is uncertain. Those notes made having to get over the spelling differences worth it for me.

It is also important to point out that the ‘revisions’ between 1611-1769 were to correct printing and spelling errors, and were not a re-translation of the translation- changes included such corrections as ‘shalt’ to ‘shall’ and ‘wayes’ to ‘ways’.

I think the OP seems to be referring to those who hold to the ‘double-inspiration’ theory, and that truly is an unsupportable view IMO, but when you say KJVO some people see red splotches in front of their eyes, just like when you say ASV or RSV is the wrong crowd, the same thing happens. It’s too bad, but it certainly is consistent with human nature.

Susan,

I am always glad to talk to people on either side of the version discussion who hold their views humbly and non-contentiously. I also appreciate when people are careful to clarify the differences and where they personally fall on the spectrum (KJV preferred, double-inspiration, etc.). I am also grateful for the spirit of men like brother Gomez. Regardless of position, we need more of that spirit!

[Susan R] Doctrinal statements are a brief summary of important points, and to cover every related jot and tittle would require a rather lengthy and complicated DS.

I totally understand that. I was just wondering if, since the DS goes out of it’s way to specify the 1611, if you in fact used the actual 1611 in services and classes. )In my experience, many people who claim to use the 1611 have never even seen one.) So, do you use the actual 1611?

[Susan R] As for other languages, we encourage our missionaries to use translations based on the same line of manuscripts as the AV1611- it is elsewhere stated on our site that the KJV is the Word of God for “English speaking peoples”.

So, if I am understanding correctly, the issue is more about manuscript lineage than the actual English translation itself? So the conclusion, then, would be that any faithful translation into another language that is based on the same manuscripts is “the Word of God for” langauge X. Is that correct?

[Susan R] As I said earlier, it isn’t point of contention in our church. We don’t frisk people at the door to see if they are carrying a different translation, and we don’t make a big deal out of it if they have an NIV or NASV or whatever. If they are interested in the topic, we give them materials so they can study for themselves. But for consistency, all teachers use the KJV in all classes.

I appreciate this spirit, but it strikes me as rather inconsistent. If the person sitting in your church who is carrying the NASV does NOT in fact posses the Word of God, how is that not a really big and important issue? I can’t imagine making sure that someone had the actual Word of God only if “they are interested in the topic.” To make the statment “the KJV is THE Word of God for English speaking peoples” seems to necessitate the conclusion that “all other English translations are NOT the Word of God.” What am I missing here?

I grew up with the KJV. I am currently on staff at a church that uses the KJV in the pulpit and classroom as a matter of policy. However, I am neither KJVO nor KJV preferred. I am seeking to understand the position of folks such as yourself and am always glad to find someone willing to talk about it openly and charitably. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matters I have inquired about.

Grace and peace to you!
Eric

P.S. I’m not trying to hi-jack this thread away from the OP being discussed. But your inclusion of the DS caught my interest.

I think I answered your first question (about using the ‘actual’ AV1611) in my post #27. I also think it is fair and accurate to say the main issue is manuscript lineage. But it isn’t inconsistent to not demand that every person in the church use the KJV, just as it is inappropriate to demand as a requirement of membership that people in the congregation not watch R-rated movies or go to the beach even though one teaches that viewing other’s nakedness and watching simulated sex is wrong. Is that helping to clarify things?

When it comes to separation and membership issues, I think it is best to keep the focus on matters of doctrines directly related to the Gospel, as well as those of morality and ethics (see post #16). I also believe that there is some hypocrisy on both sides of the Bible versions issue, and protectionism is often engaged whenever a ‘group’ feels that the failures of one person may reflect on the whole. Separation IMO should take place on an individual basis and be guided by grounds on which the Bible recommends separation.

Sorry I missed your point in post #27. So is it fair to say that your answer is “No, we actually don’t use the 1611 (even though the statement says we do), but the differences between it and the 1769 are only editorial, not translational.”?

I just find it odd to refer to a specific edition of a published work, when you are really referring to a later edition. You would never do this in citing a modern book having multiple editions, would you?

[Susan R] It isn’t inconsistent to not demand that every person in the church use the KJV, just as it is inappropriate to demand as a requirement of membership that people in the congregation not watch R-rated movies or go to the beach.

I agree with the second half of the statement - that would be inappropriate. But do you have specific clauses in your doctrinal statement about R-rated movies and beaches? Personal holiness and purity is a doctrinal issue, but the specific applications of it are matters of personal conviction. But since the statement “the KJV is the Word of God” is in the doctrinal statement, it seems to be elevated to a level of higher importance and clarity than personal conviction.

And to be fair, I’m not talking about “demanding” anything. I’m simply wondering how having a member in a church reading and studying something that is not the Word of God (but thinks it is) isn’t an urgent, serious matter that needs to be addressed with them!

I largely agree with your statements about separation and membership. But how is the question of whether or not we have the Word of God not a doctrine “directly related to the Gospel”?