Modern, unsound, nonscriptural doctrine of KJV-onlyism

L

logos1560

Active member
Elect
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
30
Points
28
KJV-only advocates have presented no positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for their human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

It has not been demonstrated that modern KJV-only teaching is sound Bible doctrine clearly taught in the Scriptures.

It has been demonstrated that human KJV-only reasoning/teaching conflicts with some clear scriptural truths.
 
I would say KJV only would be limiting God's Word to only those that can read and comprehend late 16th-early 17th century English. No document can be translated word for word into multiple languages with the results being identical other than the language. Is a person lead to salvation by the NIV any less saved?
 
Man without a country said:
I would say KJV only would be limiting God's Word to only those that can read and comprehend late 16th-early 17th century English.
Click to expand...

This is a fine example of the lunacy and straw-man building that those who have no clue about the issue.

Yes, there are a few lunatics that actually say (in public speech and in print) that NO ONE can get saved except through using a KJV.

So of course group ALL KJV users together. Idiocy and a prime reason no one pays attention to your posts.

"Comfort the feebleminded"
 
Twisted said:
This is a fine example of the lunacy and straw-man building that those who have no clue about the issue.
Click to expand...
Perhaps your own statement would describe your human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning as you may have no clue about a consistent, sound scripturally-based view of Bible translations. You have presented no positive, clear, consistent, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory.

Your inconsistent, unsound KJV-only reasoning would contradict clear scriptural truths.

It is KJV-only advocates who group all believers who do not accept blindly their opinions together as though they all have the same beliefs even though they don't. It is KJV-only advocates who make use of the fallacy of false dilemma when they try to suggest that unbelief is the only alternative to non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.
 
Twisted said:
This is a fine example of the lunacy and straw-man building that those who have no clue about the issue.

Yes, there are a few lunatics that actually say (in public speech and in print) that NO ONE can get saved except through using a KJV.

So of course group ALL KJV users together. Idiocy and a prime reason no one pays attention to your posts.

"Comfort the feebleminded"
Click to expand...
So I'm not that deep in the IFB world and I've heard two pastors come close to making that claim. Typically they leave themselves a little bit of wiggle worm. Typically they say something similar to "I'm just not sure how a guy can get saved using a perversion of God's Word". On top of that I've heard several more claim that the NIV and other versions are the work of the devil. If that is accurate, and a person gets saved using an NIV, are you not saying that the devil is in the business of saving souls? That seems quite odd. Seems a more logical position would be that a work of the devil (as most KJVO would call modern versions) would not be something useful in carrying out God's purpose.

Of the camps I'm familiar with I would say the Hyles crowd would be those most likely to see little or no chance of a person getting saved using a modern version. The West Coast crowd seems a little less dogmatic on the issue.
 
logos1560 said:
Perhaps your own statement would describe your human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning as you may have no clue about a consistent, sound scripturally-based view of Bible translations. You have presented no positive, clear, consistent, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory.

Your inconsistent, unsound KJV-only reasoning would contradict clear scriptural truths.

It is KJV-only advocates who group all believers who do not accept blindly their opinions together as though they all have the same beliefs even though they don't. It is KJV-only advocates who make use of the fallacy of false dilemma when they try to suggest that unbelief is the only alternative to non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.
Click to expand...
<yawn>
 
tmjbog said:
So I'm not that deep in the IFB world and I've heard two pastors come close to making that claim. Typically they leave themselves a little bit of wiggle worm. Typically they say something similar to "I'm just not sure how a guy can get saved using a perversion of God's Word". On top of that I've heard several more claim that the NIV and other versions are the work of the devil. If that is accurate, and a person gets saved using an NIV, are you not saying that the devil is in the business of saving souls? That seems quite odd. Seems a more logical position would be that a work of the devil (as most KJVO would call modern versions) would not be something useful in carrying out God's purpose.

Of the camps I'm familiar with I would say the Hyles crowd would be those most likely to see little or no chance of a person getting saved using a modern version. The West Coast crowd seems a little less dogmatic on the issue.
Click to expand...
Allen Domelle (he even wrote a book about it!!), Wally Beebe and Jack Hyles have made those claims that the KJ must be used for a person to be saved. All "Hyles crowd". There are no doubt others in other camps, but who cares?

The "work of the devil"? Hmmm, maybe Good News for Modern Man or the Revised Version of 1952. Such claims make for "good preaching" (I guess) and make it easier than to take the time to show the factual differences and corruptions in the new versions.

I'd use an NIV if that was all I had to witness to someone. tHen after they got saved I'd take them to the Bible bookstore and buy them a KJV.
 
Here is what Jack Hyles said in his book "Enemies of Soul Winning:"

"The words of God are the genes of regeneration. Titus 3:5, 'Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.' Actually the word 'regeneration' means 'to be re-gened.' Just as the genes of my parents brought my old nature into existence, even so the genes of God brought my new nature into existence. Your old nature is sinful because there was sin in the genes, but the genes of the Word of God are incorruptible, meaning that which is born of God; that is, the new nature, cannot sin. 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. ... we must have the incorruptible seed in order to be re-gened, or regenerated, or born again. Suppose corruptible seed is used. Can a person then be born again from it? You answer that question. 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, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that that incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever. ..."

Here it appears that Hyles, like some others, left some "wiggle room." In theory, if the soul-winner leads someone to pray the "sinner's prayer" using the Revised Standard Version, that person may be saved if they had previously read the KJV or had it read to them - otherwise, they are definitely not saved.

I totally disagree with this statement by Jack Hyles. I don't know if there are still any "lunatics" who still hold to this teaching. Hyles supporters and KJVO people are welcome to chime in and tell us that they disavow this teaching, as Twisted has just done - which is commendable.

As recently as 2013, this extremist teaching by Hyles was being circulated via the article "False Bibles: An Enemy of Soul Winning" which was printed in the Flaming Torch, July-Sept. 2013 issue. (The Flaming Torch is now under a new editor and management, so the current management of that paper may not necessarily still agree with Hyles' extreme teaching on the subject).
 
Twisted said:
Yes, there are a few lunatics that actually say (in public speech and in print) that NO ONE can get saved except through using a KJV.
Click to expand...

Is it merely a logical conclusion of the erroneous KJV-only claim that only the KJV is incorruptible seed and that other English Bibles are corruptible seed?

Do some KJV-only advocates find themselves having to deny a logical consequence to which one or some of their own unproven assertions would lead?
 
logos1560 said:
Is it merely a logical conclusion of the erroneous KJV-only claim that only the KJV is incorruptible seed and that other English Bibles are corruptible seed?

Do some KJV-only advocates find themselves having to deny a logical consequence to which one or some of their own unproven assertions would lead?
Click to expand...
<double yawn>
 
KJV-only pastor John C. Phillips wrote: "The preservation of a work in a perfect state must, of necessity, include all aspects of a work inspired in a perfect state. If any part of the inspiration is omitted, then the product cannot be identified as preserved" (King James Contender, Nov.-Dec., 1980, p. 2).

Is this statement a problem for KJV-only claims that present, post-1900 KJV editions are the preserved, inspired word of God?
 
The lot of you sound like those that believe scholarship should always come before spirituality. And you call yourselves fundamentalists? For real?

There's a big difference in the texts from Antioch, and Origens corrupted texts from Alexandria. And to go even further, these new translations were given us by the Westcott/Hort texts which are equally corrupt because much of their source came from the Alexandrian texts. These guys spent more time dabbling in the occult, than they did the "Good things of God". And these afore mentioned guys were, in most all probabilities, lost as last weeks socks. Is that where you put your trust of your source material?
 
SC1 said:
The lot of you sound like those that believe scholarship should always come before spirituality. And you call yourselves fundamentalists? For real?

There's a big difference in the texts from Antioch, and Origens corrupted texts from Alexandria. And to go even further, these new translations were given us by the Westcott/Hort texts which are equally corrupt because much of their source came from the Alexandrian texts. These guys spent more time dabbling in the occult, than they did the "Good things of God". And these afore mentioned guys were, in most all probabilities, lost as last weeks socks. Is that where you put your trust of your source material?
Click to expand...
What I like about the fundamentalists is how quick they are to denigrate scholarship while claiming themselves (and in some cases demanding to be called) "Dr." without a real degree.

We can back date history all we want. If you are being fair minded in your analysis you will then have to condemn those on the KJV board and even the good king himself for their evil acts. If you can point to the parts of a newer version that are not supported by texts then that would be a fair criticism. My goal is to know as close as possible what Paul and the rest actually said, not to get stuck on one version from one point in history. Which was the philosophy of the KJV translators themselves. They claimed better translations would come about and that they were only one translation in a line of translations.
 
The criticism in it's self would then have to be in the Received texts, and not Origens twisted work, which are actually a re-translation of the Antioch texts. I don't know where you get your revisionist history from, but it's unbecoming to rewrite the past.
 
SC1 said:
The criticism in it's self would then have to be in the Received texts, and not Origens twisted work, which are actually a re-translation of the Antioch texts. I don't know where you get your revisionist history from, but it's unbecoming to rewrite the past.
Click to expand...
To whom are you replying, and to what "revisionist history" are you referring?
 
And for the record, I'm not a "fundamentalist". I'm a historic Baptist, and I am very willing to defend the mindset of my fundy brethren. It's to be admired, not scorned.
 
SC1 said:
And for the record, I'm not a "fundamentalist". I'm a historic Baptist, and I am very willing to defend the mindset of my fundy brethren. It's to be admired, not scorned.
Click to expand...
Yes, the fake doctors and sex offenders are too be admired I guess in some circles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top