Should KJVO be called a cult?

[RLBosley]

So how did people get saved before 1610?


Does anyone have a valid reference in which a preacher actually has been quoted as saying that a person can only get saved by a KJV?

The grand poobah of fundamentalism himself - Jack Hyles.

3. The genes of the new birth must be incorruptible. I Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." These words were penned in the first century, but it says that the incorruptible seed "liveth and abideth for ever." Since today is a part of "for ever," we must have the incorruptible seed in order to be re-gened, or regenerated, or born again.

4. 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.

.....

In conclusion, one may ask, "What does this have to do with soul winning?" Beloved, it has everything to do with soul winning. If the words of God are the incorruptible seed, and if seed must be incorruptible, if someone is born again, then the soul winner must have a perfect Bible. Thank God, we do!

http://www.soulwinning.info/books/jack_hyles/enemies_of_soulwinning/false_bibles.htm

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The grand poobah of fundamentalism himself - Jack Hyles.

Jack Hyles is an extreme form of KJO, definately not representative of the views of most of those holding to KJO.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Well, actually, it's the TREE of life. Please check the Greek for yourself.

Actually no it's not:

Strong:

G976
βίβλος
biblos
bib'-los
Properly the inner bark of the papyrus plant, that is, (by implication) a sheet or scroll of writing: - book.

Thayer:
βίβλος
biblos
Thayer Definition:
1) a written book, a roll, a scroll
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: primitive root
Citing in TDNT: 1:615, 106


Even the Wescott and Hort critical text has Biblos (book)

 

[evenifigoalone]

Jack Hyles is an extreme form of KJO, definately not representative of the views of most of those holding to KJO.

To my knowledge this is correct.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Again, cuz they don't know any better. They bypass such goofs in the KJV as "Easter" in Acts 12;4, or "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. The "perfection" claim is one of the lies of the KJVO myth.

How many times do we have to go back and forth on these?

You are so ignorant of the usage of the word Easter in the King James, Easter is simply a Christian synonym for Passover in the 1611 English, that's why Tyndale translated a verse as Christ our Easter Lamb instead of Passover Lamb.

It's not an error in translation, it's simply an error in your understanding.
Either Passover or Easter were both acceptable translations of the word back then.

Look at the context of 1 Tim 6:10..it's about false teachers.... who love money, he's saying the Love of money is the root of all evil from these false teachers.

Let's talk about how your modern versions remove many references to fasting, Let's talk about how references to the blood of Christ are removed, and let's talk about how references to the Deity of Christ are made obscure.

 

[RLBosley]

Jack Hyles is an extreme form of KJO, definately not representative of the views of most of those holding to KJO.

I didn't say he wasn't extreme. The request was for a legitimate quotation of KJVO preacher who said you cannot be saved if the KJV wasn't used. Of course that's extreme.

 

[RLBosley]

Let's talk about how your modern versions remove many references to fasting, Let's talk about how references to the blood of Christ are removed, and let's talk about how references to the Deity of Christ are made obscure.

nonsense. The "modern versions" are significantly stronger in many places regarding the deity of Christ. The KJV is weaker in this area.

 

[convicted1]

The grand poobah of fundamentalism himself - Jack Hyles.

We need a "facepalm" smiley.....

 

[robycop3]

Well, there's a 2003 thread in the archives called "Rev. 22:19: Book of Life or tree of Life?" started by rabid KJVO Mr. Will Kinney, and answered most resoundingly by Archangel7. It answers why many lexicons have "book" & others have "tree".

 

[robycop3]

How many times do we have to go back and forth on these?

As often as some KJVO insists "Easter" is correct.

You are so ignorant of the usage of the word Easter in the King James,

No, not a bit. Easter meant the same to the AV makers as it does to us. They considered Easter to be one of the two holiest days of the year. (along with Christmas.) Thus, they placed an "Easter-Finder" in the AV 1611. And yes, I'm fully aware that at one time passover & Easter were used interchangeably in English, and the OED gives one use of Easter to be passover....and I'm also aware they were NOT synonymous to LUKE when he wrote the latter that became the Book of Acts, as Easter didn't then exist. The translation is supposed to reflect LUKE'S written thoughts, not a translator's religious beliefs.

Easter is simply a Christian synonym for Passover in the 1611 English, that's why Tyndale translated a verse as Christ our Easter Lamb instead of Passover Lamb.

As I said above, the AV men definitely separated Easter from passover. They included an "Easter-Finder' in the AV 1611, not a "Passover-Finder". Tyndale lived some 80 years before the KJV was made, and the language had changed during that time.

It's not an error in translation, it's simply an error in your understanding.
Either Passover or Easter were both acceptable translations of the word back then.

Not in LUKE'S time, nor in 1611. Luke was clearly referring to PASSOVER, as Acts 12:3 confirms. Now, if the AV had rendered "pascha" as Easter EVERY TIME, there would be no argument & it'd simply be attributed to archaic English, but that ONE-TIME usage was a goof. Logos 1560 has posted some info as to how this goof got into the AV.

Look at the context of 1 Tim 6:10..it's about false teachers.... who love money, he's saying the Love of money is the root of all evil from these false teachers.

MMRRPP ! WRONG !

It simply sez in the KJV that "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil". Clearly, that's incorrect. Did Lanza shoot up that elementary school & kill himself for lova $$?

Let's talk about how your modern versions remove many references to fasting, Let's talk about how references to the blood of Christ are removed, and let's talk about how references to the Deity of Christ are made obscure.

Actually, many newer versions are STRONGER about the Deity of Jesus in many places, as well as the Deity of the Holy Spirit. You said you don't use any version but the KJV and it SHOWS by your making such an incorrect assertion.

As for fasting...Older usages of the word included not eating for awhile for any reason, not just for worship purposes. Also, there are simple wording differences between the manuscripts used to make various translations.

How about discussing the FACT that the KJVO myth has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, and the FACT that the KJVO myth is derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book by two dishonest authors? Or, will you be as most KJVOs are, avoiding those FACTS like a dose of plague?

 

[Yeshua1]

nonsense. The "modern versions" are significantly stronger in many places regarding the deity of Christ. The KJV is weaker in this area.

I am still wondering how the KJVO can claim hat Nasb/Niv water down the text, when BOTH of them actually highlight the Deity of Jesus even more so then the Kjv did!

 

[Rippon]

I am still wondering how the KJVO can claim hat Nasb/Niv water down the text, when BOTH of them actually highlight the Deity of Jesus even more so then the Kjv did!

Because they don't actually read the NASB and NIV. They just believe the hype against those and other modern versions.

 

[Yeshua1]

Because they don't actually read the NASB and NIV. They just believe the hype against those and other modern versions.

What is really sad is that they make it either/or for Kjv and the MV, while it should be both are acceptable as being in English the word of the Lord to us!

 

[robycop3]

I think all true Baptists believe only those doctrines of worship found in Scripture, either directly or by clear implication, E. G. the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The KJVO myth isn't found in Scripture whatsoever, not even in the KJV itself.

While KJVO itself isn't a cult in the sense we use that word, mucho activity done in the name of KJVO can be considered cultic behavior.

 

[RLBosley]

I am still wondering how the KJVO can claim hat Nasb/Niv water down the text, when BOTH of them actually highlight the Deity of Jesus even more so then the Kjv did!

Ignorance. They simply don't know. Also they've been lied to repeatedly by those they trust and believe are authorities on the subject.

 

[SaggyWoman]

Bottom or any line: "YES!"

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am closing this thread as a technical violation of rule 9b in this thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2393

The thread opens the door for posters to refer to KJVO as a cult.