Bible Versions

[Bruh]

We have been attending a SBC and may join in the next few weeks.

My question is this, if a church is not KJVO where would they differ doctrinally with a church that is KJVO?

 

[IFB X-Files]

We have been attending a SBC and may join in the next few weeks.

My question is this, if a church is not KJVO where would they differ doctrinally with a church that is KJVO?

That would be an impossible question to answer based on the little info given.  It would depend on the church and the version used.

Example:  If a church used Good News for Modern Man as their Bible, it would be safe to say that church would be weak on the blood of Christ.

Now you say it is an SBC church.  Not enough info as there is diversity within the SBC.  Some (not all) SBC pastors are amillennial and anti-jew, even if they use the KJV.  So even being KJVO is no guarantee of doctrinal purity.

 

[rsc2a]

Actually, a church that is KJVo should be considered doctrinally unsound.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Actually, a church that is KJVo should be considered doctrinally unsound.

Very true, but they would consider their doctrine superior to anyone else.

Just ask one of them if the NIV is the Word of God.

 

[rsc2a]

If a church used Good News for Modern Man as their Bible, it would be safe to say that church would be weak on the blood of Christ.

Then, of course, there is no way one could definitively make this statement.

 

[IFB X-Files]

If a church used Good News for Modern Man as their Bible, it would be safe to say that church would be weak on the blood of Christ.

Then, of course, there is no way one could definitively make this statement.

Oh, I think that I can, in fact, I did.

 

[rsc2a]

If a church used Good News for Modern Man as their Bible, it would be safe to say that church would be weak on the blood of Christ.

Then, of course, there is no way one could definitively make this statement.

Oh, I think that I can, in fact, I did.

"Cause I said so" does not a definitive statement make.

 

[IFB X-Files]

If a church used Good News for Modern Man as their Bible, it would be safe to say that church would be weak on the blood of Christ.

Then, of course, there is no way one could definitively make this statement.

Oh, I think that I can, in fact, I did.

"Cause I said so" does not a definitive statement make.

No problem.  We all understand that in the rat/rodent world there are no absolutes.

 

[Walt]

We have been attending a SBC and may join in the next few weeks.

My question is this, if a church is not KJVO where would they differ doctrinally with a church that is KJVO?

There is a difference between the nutty and strange "KJVO" of Peter Ruckman, Bob Gray (TX), Gail Riplinger, and their stripe, and the more rational KJVO beliefs.

Ruckman and his ilk believe that God failed to preserve His word, and that the KJV was given be inspiration, and that it is more authoritative than the texts from which it was translated.  I don't believe any of that, and neither do most people who might call themselves KJVO. They teach their disciples not to use concordances or to read commentaries.

I believe that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text and that we have a beautiful translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version.

I believe that modern textual criticism is wrong; that the men who developed modern textual criticism are unreliable and approach the Bible as any other book.

Anyway, answering your question depends on what you or they mean by "not KJVO" - if they refuse to follow Ruckman, that's a good thing.

If they hate and despise the KJV, I don't know that I would trust them.

If they think that all versions are the same, and they prefer the NIV (or whatever), then clearly, they don't believe that God has preserved his word; the texts behind the KJV and pretty much all of the modern translations are dramatically different; the texts behind the KJV were the texts that had been used in churches for generations; the texts behind the modern versions were "missing" for centuries, and are very much shorter than the texts behind the KJV.

 

[rsc2a]

...they prefer the NIV (or whatever), then clearly, they don't believe that God has preserved his word...

Feels nice to tell others what they believe, no?

 

[Walt]

...they prefer the NIV (or whatever), then clearly, they don't believe that God has preserved his word...

Feels nice to tell others what they believe, no?

The source material for the NIV includes the variant readings from texts that were "hidden" for centuries and found late. If one follows holds that these texts are authoritative, though hidden from Christians, I don't really see how one can believe that God has preserved His word unto each generation.

 

[Bruh]

The pastor studies from the Hebrew and Greek and chooses a translation that best translates from the Hebrew or the Greek.

I've been part of a IFB church my entire adult life, attending a SBC I'm really trying to figure out where this particular SBC church differs from the IFB churches I have attended. Right now all I can see is that they are not KJVO, that being said, I really don't see any difference, honestly.

 

[cpizzle]

I believe the KJB is the supernatural preservation of original divine inspiration.  I think the KJB is correct in all of its doctrine, where other translations are wrong (I accept that there are probably a few wording errors, as evidenced by the many revisions through the years.)  I accept this by faith and the leading of the Holy Ghost.  I do not require everyone to believe like me.

However, my primary concern is that a Pastor is a "Bible Believer."

Let me explain....

I am ok with someone who says that God preserved his word by giving us hundreds of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.  They believe that God wants us to diligently study them, compare them, and learn his truth through diligent effort.  They would say there is no "perfect" translations, but we still have God's word today.  I disagree with this position, but I don't consider someone who thinks this way to be a "heretic."  They still believe the Bible is the Word of God and believe that we have access to it today.

I am not ok with someone who says that we don't have the Words of God available in the 21st century.  They claim we have no perfect Bible nor do we have perfectly preserved manuscripts.  This view takes away any "final authority" and allows individuals to establish our their own doctrines.

I would be careful of anyone who uses one of the "highly discredited" translations such as the NIV.  Even the liberal theologians have proved it is a poor translation and full of errors.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

If a church used Good News for Modern Man as their Bible, it would be safe to say that church would be weak on the blood of Christ.

Then, of course, there is no way one could definitively make this statement.

Oh, I think that I can, in fact, I did.

"Cause I said so" does not a definitive statement make.

No problem.  We all understand that in the rat/rodent world there are no absolutes.

Absolutely.

 

[FSSL]

I would be careful of anyone who uses one of the "highly discredited" translations such as the NIV.  Even the liberal theologians have proved it is a poor translation and full of errors.

The NIV is highly discredited by those who have preferences against it, not because it is "full of errors."

The NIV is reliable. It is a remarkable good translation. I know. The more I translated from the Greek and Hebrew, the more my translations sounded like the NIV.

 

[16KJV11]

It's all about getting the Bible to say what I want it to say when I'm making a point while preaching, isn't it?

 

[Bruh]

So what's the difference?

Between a IFB church and a SBC church?

Those that say they are IFB and would never join a SBC church, why?

This particular pastor preaches against sin, Halloween, R-rated movies, preaches that we should evangelize, preaches that we should live holy lives, that we should be involved in church..............like I said I'm really trying to find a reason that they are different.

No, they aren't KJVO, but them not being KJVO, where are they different in practice and faith?

Serious question.

 

[16KJV11]

So what's the difference?

Between a IFB church and a SBC church?

Those that say they are IFB and would never join a SBC church, why?

This particular pastor preaches against sin, Halloween, R-rated movies, preaches that we should evangelize, preaches that we should live holy lives, that we should be involved in church..............like I said I'm really trying to find a reason that they are different.

No, they aren't KJVO, but them not being KJVO, where are they different in practice and faith?

Serious question.

I have heard our local SBC preacher say that he is as independent as we are.
It is very possible that he is.
Check the missionaries that they support.
Does any of the church's mission money go to the cooperative program?

 

[Bruh]

So what's the difference?

Between a IFB church and a SBC church?

Those that say they are IFB and would never join a SBC church, why?

This particular pastor preaches against sin, Halloween, R-rated movies, preaches that we should evangelize, preaches that we should live holy lives, that we should be involved in church..............like I said I'm really trying to find a reason that they are different.

No, they aren't KJVO, but them not being KJVO, where are they different in practice and faith?

Serious question.

I have heard our local SBC preacher say that he is as independent as we are.
It is very possible that he is.
Check the missionaries that they support.
Does any of the church's mission money go to the cooperative program?

So what if they do? Than what? Is that so bad?

 

[Binaca Chugger]

So what's the difference?

Between a IFB church and a SBC church?

Those that say they are IFB and would never join a SBC church, why?

This particular pastor preaches against sin, Halloween, R-rated movies, preaches that we should evangelize, preaches that we should live holy lives, that we should be involved in church..............like I said I'm really trying to find a reason that they are different.

No, they aren't KJVO, but them not being KJVO, where are they different in practice and faith?

Serious question.

I have heard our local SBC preacher say that he is as independent as we are.
It is very possible that he is.
Check the missionaries that they support.
Does any of the church's mission money go to the cooperative program?

And therein lies the issue with most.