Why?

imJRR

Member
Maybe my contact with this has been limited, but all the KJVONLYists I've ever met are from Baptist or Baptistic churches ("Baptistic" meaning they may not use the particular word "Baptist" to identify themselves, but - when their beliefs are read/heard - they may as well use the word.)

My question is - Why? Why the Baptists, or those with Baptistic leanings? I find it to be a curious and even puzzling thing.
 

robycop3

Active member
One reason is that one of the daddies of the current edition of the KJVO myth, Dr. D. O. Fuller, was a Baptist, as was one of its hardest pushers & biggest quacks, Dr. Peter S.Ruckman.
 

JDS

Active member
Maybe my contact with this has been limited, but all the KJVONLYists I've ever met are from Baptist or Baptistic churches ("Baptistic" meaning they may not use the particular word "Baptist" to identify themselves, but - when their beliefs are read/heard - they may as well use the word.)

My question is - Why? Why the Baptists, or those with Baptistic leanings? I find it to be a curious and even puzzling thing.
Baptists are typically Bible believers. Most of main stream Christian denominations to day are from the Reformed persuasions and are Protestants. There are many similarities with the mother church, the Roman church, in all these denominations, not the least of which is the idea that there are powers and forces with more authority than the word of God. Remember, the Pope speaks ex cathedral and over rules the scriptures and even God himself.

Really, when you think about it, the nuts did not fall far from the tree. These fellows push scholarship and present themselves as the smartest guys in the room. But we are looking at the end of the age, the harvest. We are told these tares are going to be bundled up to be burned after the wheat is gathered into the barns. The bundles are these denominations, cults, para-church groups, religious groups. The burning is the great tribulation where all false religions and their religious books they have created will be destroyed never to be heard from again. Sadly, many Baptists have followed their pernicious ways and will join them in the great apostasy. There are Baptists who post here that are worse than most of the Protestants. They don't believe anything, they just have an opinion.

This age began with an empty field that the Lord began to sow seed in. The part of the field that produced was the one the devil sowed his tare in. Now, they are growing together and the tares are choking out the wheat. Harvest time is when the Lord will separate them. Well, you can read this whole growing season, beginning to end, in Matt 13 and get a flair for it in the 7 parables that explain it.

24 ¶ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

The good seed sown in the field is not the word like in the first parable but those who believed the word. The field is the world.

The tares are those who are deceived by the devil and belong to him. The devil knows what he is doing but it is doubtful his tares always knows. They are deceived many times.

The tares will not be burned until the reapers, the angels, have gathered the wheat into the barn, heaven. This is the translation of the church of Jesus Christ. After that the tribulation Day of the Lord, intense heat that will burn stuff up.

These guys here who teach that God is nonchalant when it comes to his glorious word aand has no interest in it's purity and they can handle it any way and as often as they want are tares. They are sure to feel the heat.
 

logos1560

Member
Baptists are typically Bible believers.

Since a KJV-only view is not taught in the Bible, why would Bible-believing Baptists adopt an inconsistent, non-scriptural, man-made view of Bible translations? The KJV was made by the Church of England, which held many doctrinal views in common with the Roman Catholic Church from which it came.

KJV-only advocates have presented no consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for their modern KJV-only view.
 

JDS

Active member

KJV-only advocates have presented no consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for their modern KJV-only view.
According to you, but the KJV tells of a coming judgement when God will assess every one of us individually. We will see how that shakes out. I live my life as if I believe that.

Your view of bible translation is not taught in the scriptures.
 

robycop3

Active member


According to you, but the KJV tells of a coming judgement when God will assess every one of us individually. We will see how that shakes out. I live my life as if I believe that.

Your view of bible translation is not taught in the scriptures.
OK, then, please present SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. Otherwise, you'll be viewed as a "dreamer/guesser", same as a cult member, being in thrall to a man-made false doctrine.
 

imJRR

Member
Baptists are typically Bible believers. Most of main stream Christian denominations to day are from the Reformed persuasions and are Protestants. There are many similarities with the mother church, the Roman church, in all these denominations, not the least of which is the idea that there are powers and forces with more authority than the word of God. Remember, the Pope speaks ex cathedral and over rules the scriptures and even God himself.

Really, when you think about it, the nuts did not fall far from the tree. These fellows push scholarship and present themselves as the smartest guys in the room. But we are looking at the end of the age, the harvest. We are told these tares are going to be bundled up to be burned after the wheat is gathered into the barns. The bundles are these denominations, cults, para-church groups, religious groups. The burning is the great tribulation where all false religions and their religious books they have created will be destroyed never to be heard from again. Sadly, many Baptists have followed their pernicious ways and will join them in the great apostasy. There are Baptists who post here that are worse than most of the Protestants. They don't believe anything, they just have an opinion.

This age began with an empty field that the Lord began to sow seed in. The part of the field that produced was the one the devil sowed his tare in. Now, they are growing together and the tares are choking out the wheat. Harvest time is when the Lord will separate them. Well, you can read this whole growing season, beginning to end, in Matt 13 and get a flair for it in the 7 parables that explain it.

24 ¶ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

The good seed sown in the field is not the word like in the first parable but those who believed the word. The field is the world.

The tares are those who are deceived by the devil and belong to him. The devil knows what he is doing but it is doubtful his tares always knows. They are deceived many times.

The tares will not be burned until the reapers, the angels, have gathered the wheat into the barn, heaven. This is the translation of the church of Jesus Christ. After that the tribulation Day of the Lord, intense heat that will burn stuff up.

These guys here who teach that God is nonchalant when it comes to his glorious word aand has no interest in it's purity and they can handle it any way and as often as they want are tares. They are sure to feel the heat.

Okay. The great majority of what you wrote might have been great fun to write, but I don't see where or how it deals with the questions I'm asking, and I'm a fairly intelligent person.

"Baptists are typically Bible-believers." Okay. But that doesn't answer the question of why are Baptists, or those with Baptistic leanings, KJVONLYists? If I am misunderstanding you, I will apologize in advance; but if you're trying to put forth the idea of "If you're a Bible believer (or a Baptist), then you are (or need to be or have to be) a KJVONLYist" - I'll submit that that is extremely legalistic thinking to say the least, and will surely result in a spirit of judgmentalism - Something for which KJVONLYists are very much known for. At the very least, it looks like you are begging the question of: "Can a person be a Bible-believing Baptist, and not be a KJVONLYist?"
 
Last edited:

JDS

Active member
Okay. The great majority of what you wrote might have been great fun to write, but I don't see where or how it deals with the questions I'm asking, and I'm a fairly intelligent person.

"Baptists are typically Bible-believers." Okay. But that doesn't answer the question of why are Baptists, or those with Baptistic leanings, KJVONLYists? If I am misunderstanding you, I will apologize in advance; but if you're trying to put forth the idea of "If you're a Bible believer (or a Baptist), then you are (or need to be or have to be) a KJVONLYist" - I'll submit that that is extremely legalistic thinking to say the least, and will surely result in a spirit of judgmentalism - Something for which KJVONLYists are very much known for. At the very least, it looks like you are begging the question of: "Can a person be a Bible-believing Baptist, and not be a KJVONLYist?"
Salvation does not come by being KJV only. I hope that answers your question.

I am not intimidated by the word judgmentalism if that is your purpose of bringing it up. The scriptures teaches us to judge righteous judgement.

I am an independent Baptist by choice and conviction after years of my own personal study and research. I am dispensational, pre trib and pre mil. I believe those thing because I believe the words of the scriptures. Some people are Baptist who do not believe the words of scripture. I am discussing the topic of "GRACE IN ACTION" with a Reformed Baptist in the mode of John McArthur on the Calvinist/Arminian forum now. He does not believe the words except in places where the words can be applied to his Calvinism. You can see the difference in Baptists by following our conversation there.

What is your fellowship. Are you a Christian?
 
Last edited:

imJRR

Member
Salvation does not come by being KJV only. I hope that answers your question.

I am not intimidated by the word judgmentalism if that is your purpose of bringing it up. The scriptures teaches us to judge righteous judgement.

I am an independent Baptist by choice and conviction after years of my own personal study and research. I am dispensational, pre trib and pre mil. I believe those thing because I believe the words of the scriptures. Some people are Baptist who do not believe the words of scripture. I am discussing the topic of "GRACE IN ACTION" with a Reformed Baptist in the mode of John McArthur on the Calvinist/Arminian forum now. He does not believe the words except in places where the words can be applied to his Calvinism. You can see the difference in Baptists by following our conversation there.

Although a good (and probably necessary) point to make - No, it doesn't really answer my original post. As for your not being intimidated by the word "judgmentalism" - (shrug) That is as irrelevant to me as a kickstand would be on a submarine. As for the rest of what you wrote - That, also, does not really address what I said in my initial post.
 

JDS

Active member
Although a good (and probably necessary) point to make - No, it doesn't really answer my original post. As for your not being intimidated by the word "judgmentalism" - (shrug) That is as irrelevant to me as a kickstand would be on a submarine. As for the rest of what you wrote - That, also, does not really address what I said in my initial post.
Okay.
 

CES1951

Member
OK, then, please present SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. Otherwise, you'll be viewed as a "dreamer/guesser", same as a cult member, being in thrall to a man-made false doctrine.
Oh, c'mon, man! You, who believe God created another race of people besides Adam and Eve! Please present SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for that MYTH! Until then, you'll be viewed as a "dreamer/guesser", same as a cult member, being enthralled to a roby-made false doctrine, and anything you say is irrelevant.
 

RiJoRi

New Member
...
My question is - Why? Why the Baptists, or those with Baptistic leanings? I find it to be a curious and even puzzling thing.
One thing I've realized is that the KJVO position is _emotionally based,_ and as such, you will be hard-pressed to get a rational response. James White, in one of his presentations, had a screen with :
"KJV alone == God's Word alone"

The two KJVO churches around here seem to be anti-intellectual - one pastor boasted that he was offered a scholarship to a Christian school, but turned it down. The attitude was, "Jesus will teach me what I need to know."

I am grateful that NYS schools - where I grew up - insisted that all students study a foreign language. It helps in understanding difficulties of translation.
 

imJRR

Member
That pastor was flat out foolish. C.T. Russell thought along the same lines, and that's how the cult of Jehovah's Witnesses got started.

Yes - I may well have been mistaken in thinking/hoping that I might get a rational response to my question.
 

JDS

Active member
That pastor was flat out foolish. C.T. Russell thought along the same lines, and that's how the cult of Jehovah's Witnesses got started.

Yes - I may well have been mistaken in thinking/hoping that I might get a rational response to my question.
What is your religious affiliation.
 

imJRR

Member
Why? So you can pigeon hole me (if you already haven't)? It really has nothing to do with the original post, but - I am a Christian. For here on this thread, I am one who is wondering if I will receive an actual cogent response to my wonderings. To date....Not.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Member


Your view of bible translation is not taught in the scriptures.
My view of Bible translation is much more soundly supported by the Scriptures than the modern, non-scriptural KJV-only view is. I have provided plenty of scriptural support for my scripturally-based position.

My view of Bible translation is also the same view as that held by the early English Bible translators, including the KJV translators.
 

logos1560

Member
The scriptures teaches us to judge righteous judgement.
Yes, it does.

On the other hand, KJV-only advocates fail to judge righteous judgment concerning Bible translations as they apply different measures/standards to the making of the KJV than they apply to the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles and to the making of post-1611 English Bibles.
 

logos1560

Member
One thing I've realized is that the KJVO position is _emotionally based,_ and as such, you will be hard-pressed to get a rational response.

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, who loved and defended the KJV and who was a critic of modern English Bible translations, observed: “The King James Only movement is based upon emotion divorced from reason—true and excellent emotion I freely grant, but in hopeless defiance of facts and reason” (Bible Version Controversy, p. 78).

Glenn Conjurske contended that the KJV-only movement “exists in the realm of a false and artificial absolutism, created by heated emotions which have put thought and reason to flight” (p. 85). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “The ‘King James Only’ doctrine is an over-reaction, the fruit of its own arrogance and self-complacent ignorance” (p. 153). Glenn Conjurske maintained that “the advocates of the King James Only doctrines have constantly misstated, ignored, and shunned the facts, and many of them have gone so far as to disallow an appeal to the facts at all” (p. 39).
 

robycop3

Active member
Oh, c'mon, man! You, who believe God created another race of people besides Adam and Eve! Please present SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for that MYTH! Until then, you'll be viewed as a "dreamer/guesser", same as a cult member, being enthralled to a roby-made false doctrine, and anything you say is irrelevant.
Cain's wife.
 

JDS

Active member
My view of Bible translation is much more soundly supported by the Scriptures than the modern, non-scriptural KJV-only view is. I have provided plenty of scriptural support for my scripturally-based position.

My view of Bible translation is also the same view as that held by the early English Bible translators, including the KJV translators.
What is the strongest passage in the scriptures for your position and where is the KJV addressed in your favorite version?
 
Top