Featured Random KJVO Discussion Poll

Is it really sound or scriptural to attempt to suggest that the presenting of scriptural truths or doctrine relating to the Bible has run its course? The subject of KJV-only relates to important and essential doctrine concerning the Bible. Presenting scriptural truths and verifiable facts is good and edifying.

Is it surprising that someone would attempt to suggest that a discussion of toast would be more interesting and important than a discussion relating to Bible doctrine? None of the choices for this poll are sound.

Sound Bible doctrine has to be repeated and taught over and over while refuting unsound doctrine also has to be repeated as long as there are those advocating the unsound doctrine. One way to have better discussion of this subject would be for posters to be willing to back up and support what they claim or assert instead of dodging and avoiding serious discussion.

There are recent books advocating KJV-only claims along with the older KJV-only books still being printed and distributed. There are still advocates of KJV-only views and TR-only views making their unproven claims.

If there was no one making exclusive only claims for one English translation--the KJV, then there would be no need for believers to answer it or discuss it. It would be great if there was no need to refute or expose unsound KJV-only teaching because no one was any longer teaching it. If KJV-only teaching no longer existed, there would be plenty of other areas of Bible doctrine to discuss.

 

Perhaps that only demonstrates that you are not well-informed or that you may have closed your eyes to seeing it. Actual quotations from KJV-only preachers and authors have been provided that prove that such claims have been made. There are hundred of preachers that have listened to and follow Jack Hyles' opinions. Have you never heard of Jack Hyles?

KJV-only advocate Al Hughes acknowledged: "There is a movement afoot that claims 'no one can get saved by hearing one of the devil's perversions'" (Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 16). R. B. Ouellette noted: “Others took such extreme stands as alleging that only those led to Christ through the use of the King James Bible were actually saved” (More Sure Word, p. 4).

Early KJV-only author Jasper James Ray wrote: "Only an unaltered Bible can produce a perfect, soul-saving faith" (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 10). J. J. Ray asserted: “If the Word is corrupt, then the resulting faith which comes from it will also be corrupt and without life-giving essentials” (Ibid.). J. J. Ray suggested that Bible translations in the other claimed stream of Bibles have “faith destroying contamination” (Ibid.).

Al Lacy asked: “How can you be sure you are saved and going to Heaven if your translated Bible has errors?” (Can I Trust, p. 99). Al Lacy asserted: “If there is NO perfect translation … and if even the Masoretic Hebrew and Antiochan manuscript copies we have today have errors … THERE IS NO WAY ANYBODY COULD EVER GET SAVED” (p. 98). Al Lacy contended: “If there is no PERFECT, FLAWLESS, INERRANT, INSPIRED, INCORRUPTIBLE translation in English … then NOBODY who speaks only English can get saved” (Ibid.). Al Lacy declared: “If ANY BOOK that is called a ‘Bible’ has even ONE error in it, it is NOT the word of TRUTH! Therefore, it cannot bring about the New Birth” (p. 99). William Byers claimed: "I've said that I've never heard of a sound conversion coming from a modern translation" (The History of the KJB, p. 5). In his fundamentalist publication Church Bus News (July-Dec., 1993), Wally Beebe stated: "My constant reference to the King James Version, being in fact the inspired Word of God and our authority, is very important as a prerequisite to salvation" (p. 11).

Jack Hyles, well-known fundamentalist pastor, wrote: "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" (Enemies of Soul Winning, p. 47). Jack Hyles also claimed: "This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible" (Ibid., p. 46). Jack Hyles noted: "If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used" (Ibid., p. 47). Jack Hyles asserted: “The precious seed is the King James Bible, preserved for us word-for-word” (p. 136). In a recorded sermon, Jack Hyles stated: "The King James Bible is necessary for anybody to be saved in the English language."

Gail Riplinger claimed: "The new birth occurs from the KJV seed" (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 12). Gail Riplinger even seemed to imply that people may "receive a false salvation or a false spirit from reading them" [other translations instead of the KJV] (Ibid., p. 80). In his booklet entitled Another Bible Another Gospel, which is published by The Bible for Today, Robert Baker implied that other translations teach another gospel when he wrote: "Removing or adding to Jesus' words results in preaching 'another gospel'" (p. 5). Chick Salliby asked: "Will not a defective Bible produce a defective faith?" (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 93). Raymond Blanton declared: "Faith is not produced in the heart of the sinner by a powerless perversion of God's Word" (The Perilous Times, June, 1995, p. 7). In another issue of his publication, Raymond Blanton also claimed: "No one is saved through counterfeit Bibles. The New American Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, Amplied New Testament, NIV, etc., etc., are dead imitations and corruptions, and no one is saved through them" (Feb., 1997, p. 4). Norman Hopkins asserted: “There is no need to memorize scripture in the new versions or go on visitation with one, for there is no convicting power in altered scripture” (Right Bible, p. 17). Douglas Stauffer wrote: "Our relationship with Jesus Christ is based upon a particular Bible translation" (One Book Stands, p. 97). David Norris claimed: “The new, deliberately ‘modernised’ versions of Scripture will necessarily present a changed or ‘updated’ Christ, another Jesus. A false bible presents a false Christ” (Big Picture, p. 184). James Rasbeary asserted: “The new versions are deader than doornails. They do not have any life. They do not speak to people with the voice of the Shepherd” (What’s Wrong, p. 122).

These quotations from KJV-only authors demonstrate that KJV-only teaching can affect the Bible doctrine of salvation.

 

I'm not KJV only but use it as my main bible translation. I think some important issues remain.

One, why did God provide it to the masses if it is not up to par with all the others he could have provided?

Also, the Johannine Comma remains an issue not to be dismissed.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7 (KJV 1900)

Mentioned by CYPRIAN 200-258 AD. Treatises (I 5:423). "and again it Is written of the Father, and of the Son. and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one' " Where did he get this idea?

 

My church was one that taught that salvation comes only through thru the KJV. A thought my family never agreed with, but the importance placed on KJVO doctrine was and is ridiculous.
I don't view it as a huge issue overall because most of the world doesn't take KJVO seriously. I can see a case to be made if the KJVO movement is still attracting people.

I honestly have come to see KJVO as heresy.

 

New here.

I personally like the King James Version. I find it easier to commit KJV verses to memory. However, about 10% of the world's population read English. About 10% of those read and understand 400-year-old English. The KJVO claim is relevant to about 1% of the non-Christians to whom we are called to preach. The growth of Christianity in 2020 is primarily in places where English is not used.

And yes, I like toast.

 

The problem with discussions of the flaws in the doctrines of others, is the others simply deflect and foist an endless denial.
Only those who have closed their minds would advocate KJVO doctrine, but that does not prevent many posters asserting its validity. Nothing said has any chance whatsoever in altering those views. Ditto for Calvinism. It is like the guy who says, my country, right or wrong.

The bible addresses stubborn or obstinate behavior, but those lessons fall on deaf ears.

The bible contrasts being stubborn with being righteous.

 

Not from the original Greek. None of the Greek Fathers knew of the extra words from the Old Latin.

The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

 

Hello, Hackberry. Welcome to the Baptist Board. I hope you find a blessings here.

 

A pastor preaching or teaching only from the KJV is not what constitutes a KJV-only church or a KJV-only preacher. I have been members of Baptist churches where the pastor and teachers only taught from the KJV that were not KJV-only churches. I do not assume nor claim that a church is KJV-only because the pastor only preaches from the KJV. That can be an incorrect assumption. There are many Baptist churches where pastors preach only from the KJV that are not KJV-only.

Perhaps the church you visited was not actually even a KJV-only church so that you could be partially basing your understanding about KJV-only on experience from a church that was not KJV-only.

Whether the pastor or church is KJV-only depends upon what they claim, believe, and teach concerning the KJV (whether they make any exclusive only claims for the KJV or teach a KJV-only view).

 

I think it should continue because I'm a contrarian.

 

Remember, Jesus says all whom the Father gives to him will come to him. None will be lost.

 

Where did Cyprian come up with John's trinity quote? Can you spot the trinity in scripture?

 

It is not Johns trinity quote, so he got it from a gloss, or it was his gloss. Yes, the Trinity can be shown from other scriptures. The Orthadox Greeks all supported the Trinity verses the heritics and they did not have the extra words from the Old Latin inserted in their Bibles. No Greek Father quoted the extra words from the Latin when defending and preaching the Trinity, because they never existed in the original Greek language.

A pretty vast subject. This is from Wikipedia I think you would enjoy. Trinity - Wikipedia

Biblical backgroundEdit
While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, the New Testament contains a number of Trinitarian formulas, including Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Corinthians 12:4-5, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2 and Revelation 1:4-5.[7][9] Reflection by early Christians on passages such as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and Paul the Apostle's blessing: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all", while at the same time the Jewish Shema Yisrael: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one"[10] has led theologians across history in attempting to articulate the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Eventually, the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were brought together to form the doctrine of the Trinity—one Godhead subsisting in three persons and one substance. The doctrine of the Trinity was used to oppose alternative views of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods.[11]

The Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7, is a disputed text which states: "There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." However, this passage is not considered to be part of the genuine text,[12] and most scholars agree that the phrase was a gloss.[13]

Trinity - Wikipedia

 

About the same as certain doctrinal topics...
Some professing Christians will agree and most will not.

Some will weigh the evidence presented by those who see the marked differences in the various translations ( now propagating themselves into other languages than the English for the past 100 years or so ), and most professing Christians will simply go along with those who, in effect, say "it's all good", or "there are no differences that affect major doctrines";

Side note:
Whatever a "major" doctrine is, I have no idea unless someone were to define what is "essential" and what is "non-essential"... but to me it's all essential ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).

Those who love God's every word and tremble at them because they know that they are God's words and not man's words, will always be in the minority.
Those who see a spiritual agenda with today's use of collated Greek texts that remove or change what has been, until relatively lately, the very words that solidify the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ ( for example ), or that change key words that lead to false doctrines...


Will always be ridiculed by those who don't actually care, for "making something out of nothing".

 

Brothers and sisters, these are the last days.

The Scriptures have much to say about what will occur during those days in passages like 2 Timothy 3:1-13, 2 Timothy 4:3-4, Titus 1:10-11, Titus 1:15-16, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1:3, and Jude 1:10-16 among many others, and those things are occurring right before our very eyes.
People who profess to know God and yet deny the Lord in their actions, are all over the place...
They deny things that His word teaches, and yet maintain quite loudly that they are saved and that they love Him.

Instead of hearing God's words and inherently knowing them when they see them ( or hear them preached ), they question whether or not they really are God's words, and then engage in "textual criticism"... as if to say that the words on the page are not enough...that they must be persuaded by other influences outside of their spirit to be convinced that they really are the Lord's words.


Christ says His sheep hear His voice and they follow Him ( John 10:27 ), that he that is "of God" hears ( welcomes or receives ) God's words ( John 8:43-47 ) ...
But it appears that most of today's professing Christians seem unable to ascertain which words are God's, and which are man's;
As if they don't have "ears to hear".

That said,
I confess that these last of the last days sadden me greatly... in that the condition of the church-at large is so very far from what it started out as being when the Lord ascended to Heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father.

But because of these perilous times, I know that His coming is very near.
Look up, my brothers and sisters who read this...
The times are very telling;
The lump has been fully leavened ( Matthew 13:33 ) and evil men and seducers have waxed worse and worse.

We shall know them by their fruits ( Matthew 7:15-20 ).
Those fruits ( Galatians 5:19-23 ), are readily apparent to those who are looking for them.



May God bless you with much wisdom, for He promises to give such if we ask Him for it ( James 1:5 ),
and may you always remember to look up, for your Salvation is much nearer now than when you first believed.

 

You cannot prove your position. You cannot prove something does not exist. Cyprian got it from somewhere, possibly an early fragment you cannot prove didn't exist. Plus, did you know scripture mentions the trinity. Most think it does not.

 

It would be wrong to attempt to suggest that believers who are not KJV-only or who are not TR-only do not love God's every word.

According to the Scriptures, it is just as wrong to add to the word of God as to omit from it. The textually-varying Textus Receptus editions have additions added by translating from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and have some conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts. An TR-only position advocates an inconsistent view of preservation as it in effect suggests that God failed to preserve some of the exact, specific words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

Do you present any textual measures/standards for determining God's every word that you apply justly?

The KJV does not provide an English rendering for each and every original-language word of Scripture in its underlying text.
The KJV also adds many words in English for which it has no underlying original-language word of Scripture.

 

Yes, I know scripture mentions the Trinity. It's how we know the truth about it.