Critical warning for KJB believers from Bryan Ross

[Logos1560]

The alarmism directed at people who use the KJV is wearying.

What "alarmism" is directed at people who use the KJV. I use the KJV, having read it over 60 years. I accept and believe the KJV as what it actually is.

Pointing out the problems with non-true and non-scriptural human KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not "alarmism". Aspects of human KJV-only teaching is false doctrine that is not taught in Scripture.

 

[Ben1445]

What "alarmism" is directed at people who use the KJV. I use the KJV, having read it over 60 years. I accept and believe the KJV as what it actually is.

To quote the thread,

“Critical warning for KJB believers from Bryan Ross”​

So am I to believe that I should not believe my Bible? You say you also use it. You don’t believe it?

I don’t mind having discussions about it. But I see more people attacking KJV users. They want the liberty to use the version of their choice, but they attack anyone who uses KJV. They don’t allow others the freedom they desire for themselves.
Given your posts and name, I wouldn’t know that you used it except for your own statement.
I am not bothered by what version you use either. I just want the same consideration as what people expect for themselves.

Pointing out the problems with non-true and non-scriptural human KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not "alarmism". Aspects of human KJV-only teaching is false doctrine that is not taught in Scripture.

If you are not on board with it, then leave your KJV only church.
If you are not in them, great. Don’t forbid them. If they are not against us they are for us.

Philippians 1:18
What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

If Paul could rejoice in the pretense of Christ preached, surely we can endure Christ preached in sincerity.

As far as the false doctrine, which one is brings damnation to the believers of it?

 

[Logos1560]

You say you also use it. You don’t believe it?

I don’t mind having discussions about it. But I see more people attacking KJV users. They want the liberty to use the version of their choice, but they attack anyone who uses KJV.

I clearly stated that I believe the KJV as what it actually is. I believe the truth concerning the KJV. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. The KJV is an English Bible translation; it is not the original Scriptures given directly by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611.

You seem to jump to a wrong conclusion since people are not attacked for using the KJV or for believing the KJV as what it actually is--an English Bible translation. The sound criticism is when people make non-true and non-scriptural exclusive only claims for the KJV or make inconsistent and non-true accusations against other English Bible translations. KJV-only advocates do not apply the exact same measures/standards to the KJV that they try to apply inconsistently and thus unjustly to other English Bible translations such as the NKJV.

 

[Ben1445]

I clearly stated that I believe the KJV as what it actually is. I believe the truth concerning the KJV. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. The KJV is an English Bible translation; it is not the original Scriptures given directly by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611.

You seem to jump to a wrong conclusion since people are not attacked for using the KJV or for believing the KJV as what it actually is--an English Bible translation. The sound criticism is when people make non-true and non-scriptural exclusive only claims for the KJV or make inconsistent and non-true accusations against other English Bible translations. KJV-only advocates do not apply the exact same measures/standards to the KJV that they try to apply inconsistently and thus unjustly to other English Bible translations such as the NKJV.

I agree with you this far.
Now what are the damnable heresies of KJVO that we must protect against?

 

[Logos1560]

Now what are the damnable heresies of KJVO that we must protect against?

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).


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). Christopher Johnson wrote: “A question I have heard many times is, ‘What about people who don’t speak English? Which bible should they use?’ My answer: The King James Bible. One might argue that it would force them to learn English, and that is correct; they should learn English” (Why Christians, p. 294). Christopher Johnson asserted: “If they want the purity of God’s Word without flaw, they need to learn English to read and study it for themselves in the KJB” (p. 295).

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 can be saved and who is allowed to serve God? Are the Bible doctrines of salvation and sanctification being altered or harmed by some forms of KJV-only teaching?

 

[JesusFan]

I agree with you this far.
Now what are the damnable heresies of KJVO that we must protect against?

That is it perfect, inerrant, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, that it can correct even the hebrew and Greek texts, that it alone can be used to produce really saved, and missions must translate off the Kjvitself

 

[JesusFan]

To quote the thread,

“Critical warning for KJB believers from Bryan Ross”​

So am I to believe that I should not believe my Bible? You say you also use it. You don’t believe it?

I don’t mind having discussions about it. But I see more people attacking KJV users. They want the liberty to use the version of their choice, but they attack anyone who uses KJV. They don’t allow others the freedom they desire for themselves.
Given your posts and name, I wouldn’t know that you used it except for your own statement.
I am not bothered by what version you use either. I just want the same consideration as what people expect for themselves.


If you are not on board with it, then leave your KJV only church.
If you are not in them, great. Don’t forbid them. If they are not against us they are for us.

Philippians 1:18
What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

If Paul could rejoice in the pretense of Christ preached, surely we can endure Christ preached in sincerity.

As far as the false doctrine, which one is brings damnation to the believers of it?

many KJVO would slam the Modern versions for using perverted textual sources, those 'catholic Greek texts", yet even the 1611 translators in places used Vulgate, latin, and Rheims catholic sources for translation
And they slam us as holding to the KJv is a bad version, we do not, its still good, just not perfect. inerrant, nor inspired