cpizzle said: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.
cpizzle said:I will also not criticize those who use other translations, as long as they are honestly seeking God's Word.
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 said: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."
cpizzle said:Tarheel Baptist said:cpizzle said: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.
cpizzle said:1. Those who believe God must have given us a perfect (define how you please) Bible
Uh, neither one. In the Prayer He was teaching His disciples in Mat 6:12 he said "???? ???? ?????? ??? ???????????? ??????, ??? ???? ??????? ????????? ????? ???????????? ???????"cpizzle said: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?")
Can you give me an example of what you would consider an error?cpizzle said: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.
Most of the differences that affect translation are the result of textual variants in the Greek text being translated.cpizzle said:2. The differences between the KJV and most modern translations is much more than word choice.
Can you give me an example of a translation choice changing the meaning of the passage?cpizzle said:They translate verses very differently in many locations, changing the meaning of those passages.
And others were not?cpizzle said: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.
Does that not, by bible definition, make that version "The Holy Scriptures?"cpizzle said:4. A person can certainly get saved through any Bible that presents the plan of Salvation (Grace through Faith.)
Why? What has caused you to trust the KJV but distrust the later translations?cpizzle said: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.
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
Ransom said: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 said:Hyles was/is not the only one to teach such nuttiness.
Ransom said:Twisted said:Hyles was/is not the only one to teach such nuttiness.
So you can't claim that KJV-only heresy is rare or isolated.
16KJV11 said:That's the problem with these sites, they are hard to verify and maintain.
Ransom said:Twisted said:Hyles was/is not the only one to teach such nuttiness.
So you can't claim that KJV-only heresy is rare or isolated.
cpizzle said:Neither of us believe that God preserved his Word in "multiple translations" because they disagree with one another.
cpizzle said: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.