Featured Does KJV-only teaching affect or harm Bible doctrine of Sanctification?

Some KJV-only teaching suggests that use of the KJV and belief in a KJV-only view are essential to Christian service and sanctification.

In his publication The Perilous Times, Ray Blanton wrote: "Until you come to realize that we have an absolute authority, perfect and settled in the King James Version, you are not prepared to serve the Lord! It is a basic essential to Christian service" (June, 1995, p. 7). Were English-speaking believers before 1611 unprepared to serve God? Are believers who only speak languages other than English unprepared to serve God? On his TV program discussing the issue of Bible translation, John Ankerberg asked Samuel Gipp, a KJV-only advocate, the following question: "So if a guy is in Russia and he really wants to get to the truth of the Word of God, would he have to learn English?" Samuel Gipp's reply was "Yes" (Which English Translation, p. 1). Did the word of God come only unto those who speak English (1 Cor. 14:36)? When did the opinions and traditions of imperfect men become an essential to Christian service? Has a new form of denomination begun where KJV-only advocates alone set the rules and determine who is allowed to serve God? Is the Bible doctrine of sanctification being altered or harmed by KJV-only teaching?

David Hoffman asserted that "fake bibles kill Christians" (The Flaming Torch, July-Sept., 1996, p. 4). Do believers who use a translation other than the KJV risk losing their salvation or their opportunity to serve God? In this same issue, Herb Evans wrote: "The more conservative (copyrighted) bibles produce crippled Fundamentalists who doubt whether we really have God's Word or not" (p. 6). Earlier, it was noted that Herb Evans claimed that "perverted bibles" produce "spiritual cripples." William Grady suggested that any Bible-believers or fundamentalists that encourage doubt in the KJV-only view are "satanically motivated" and are "apostate" (Final Authority, pp. 8, 18). Was John R. Rice who disagreed with the KJV-only view "satanically motivated?" Roy Kendel wrote: "No one can be saved through the totally imperfect perversions (false bibles), nor can Christians grow spiritually by reading and studying the perversions" (Perilous Times, May, 1992, p. 14). Jack Hyles asserted: “The perfect word of God must be used if a person grows in grace” (Enemies of Soul Winning, p. 47). David O’Steen declared: “If you do not believe and study the KJB, you are greatly hindering your spiritual growth” (Study Notes, p. 19). Rolland Starr claimed: "The truth is, users of the NIV, NASV, NKJV, etc. do not believe God" (Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 17).

Gail Riplinger claimed: "It seemed that those who used the new bible versions, like the NIV, NASB, or NKJV, were beset by emotional problems or difficulties in their walk with the Lord" (The End Times, Jan.-Feb., 1994, p. 1). In this article, Gail Riplinger also suggested that her students "seemed to be left shipwrecked by new bible versions" (p. 7). Again, she claimed that new converts' "spiritual growth is going to be aborted" by use of new versions (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 12). William Grady declared: "A true Bible believer will never exchange his KJV for a NKJV" (Final Authority, p. 303). Wally Beebe wrote: "Since the KJV saves, corrects, convicts, and calls people to the mission field and Christian work, why should we change?" (Church Bus News, Apr.-June, 1992, p. 10). In another issue of his publication, Wally Beebe also claimed: "If our Bible (the KJV) is not true, then there is no reason to win souls, preach, or live a separated live" (April-June, 1996, p. 18). D. A. Waite declared: "You cannot have the power of Christ if you read these false versions" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 145). Waite wrote: "Loyalty to Christ and His Words are measured by what version you use" (Ibid., p. 133). Waite commented: "It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual's knowledge of the Scriptures" (Ibid., p. 144). Kelly Gallagher claimed: “It is vital, however to choose the true and complete and pure Word of God because it will affect our walk with God, our doctrine and our spiritual discernment” (Perfect Bible, p. 57). Kelly Gallagher wrote: “This writer has come to the conclusion that all modern versions of the Bible stunt real spiritual growth and discernment” (p. 77). Doug Stauffer asserted: "One loses the opportunity for effective Bible study by using these modern versions" (One Book Stands, p. 96). Edward F. Hills claimed that “only the King James Version can be preached authoritatively and studied believingly” (Believing Bible Study, p. 87). Edward Hills suggested that “these modern versions are much more likely to spread doubt and unbelief” (p. 54) and that they lead young Christians “away from the Bible by introducing them to the logic of unbelief“ (p. 55). Roy Branson asserted that “defending the King James 1611 is not only necessary, but vital to the very faith delivered by our fathers” (KJV 1611, p. 2). G. John Rov alleged that “if you believe that all English Bibles are equal in authority, you have not traveled far in your spiritual pilgrimage in Christ” (Concealed from Christians, p. 93). John Rov claimed: “You can never bear perfect fruit if you have not believed on the King James Bible. No matter how much you have matured in the Lord, you will always lack that critical belief from God’s view point” (p. 166). In the first chapter of his 2004 booklet intended to help new believers grow spiritually, Jack Chick teaches his KJV-only view as a basic step toward Christian maturity (Next Step for Growing Christians, pp. 9-11, back cover). On the other hand, in the 1973 edition of a booklet with this same title, Jack Chick did not teach a KJV-only view as a basic step toward Christian maturity. Do the Scriptures teach that the steps towards Christian maturity changed after 1973?

After observing that it was possible for someone to get saved through other versions, Samuel Gipp added that such believers "will never be a threat to the devil by growing" (Answer Book, p. 101). Joey Faust wrote: “There are serious consequences for rejecting this truth about the infallibility of the King James Bible. Christians that do not believe every word of the Bible is given by God will be hindered in their growth” (The Word, p. 329). Jack Hyles claimed: "The perfect Word of God must be used if a person grows in grace" (Enemies of Soul-Winning, p. 47). Chick Salliby wrote: "Beyond question, in the King James Version, as in no other translation, can we grow in both the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 96). Wally Beebe claimed that the fruit of those who studied the KJV are "different from the life-styles of the loose and infamous of NIV, NAS, and NKJV fame" (Church Bus News, Apr.-June, 1995, p. 7). Roy Branson wrote: "The fruits and works of all translations other than the KJV identify them as evil" (KJV 1611, p. 95).

 

It was not perfectly logical since it is based on unproven and false premises and on fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, and circular reasoning. It would require use of fallacies and assuming unproven premises to be true for it to be logical.

That KJV-only author has not proven his KJV-only teaching to be true and scriptural. That KJV-only author believes assertions that are not true; therefore, he deceives himself or has been deceived by others.

His conclusion does not follow because his premises were not true; therefore, his logic would be incorrect.

 

Pointing that their false KJV-only premises and faulty logic would affect Bible doctrine would be one way to try to get them to see that their view is unsound.

 

Incorrect.

There was nothing dishonest in my question. It was a honest question based on the logical implications of the various assertions made by KJV-only authors. You do not seem to want anyone to challenge their following their false premises to their logical conclusions except when someone does the same thing to try to show them that their premises are not true.

Were you trying to attack my honesty?

 

It is being demonstrated why KJV-only premises are not true and are not scriptural.

 

Readers have seen how you have a lot of respect for KJV-only advocates and their false teaching since you repeatedly seek to defend them. Perhaps you have not completely departed from all the KJV-only teaching that you were taught.

No matter how sincere and passionate that they are in believing claims for the KJV that are not true, it is not an excuse or justification for their KJV-onlyism.

The majority of their modern KJV-only teaching is false teaching that is not taught in the Scriptures. They read into verses many things (that the verses do not state) to try to support their non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.

 

Incorrect. When it is admitted that their unproven KJV-only premises are not true, it shows that their logic is faulty. When you start with premises that are not true, you need up with conclusions that are not true.

It is faulty and unsound logic to assume premises to be true by use of fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading.

 

Actually KJV-only advocates are not completely logically consistent within the scope of their incorrect KJV-only system. They are many times when what one KJV-only author asserts conflicts with or even contradicts what another KJV-only author states. KJV-only advocates do not apply their own assertions consistently and justly to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

For example, many KJV-only advocates will praise the Geneva Bible and place it in their pure stream of Bibles while they inconsistently condemn the NKJV which has many if not all the improvements that the KJV made to the Geneva Bible and which also has many of the renderings where the Geneva Bible is better or more accurate than the KJV. They are also not logically consistent when they avoid the fact that the Church of England makers borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, which is in their corrupt stream of Bibles.