Spread of the "Only" Sect

I attended HAC and know several HAC graduates. I have not personally met one that would agree with Dr. Hyles statement. I certainly do not.

 

All you're gonna get in your eyes there Bro James is a bunch of hay from another straw man.


Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]A direct quotation provided (by more than one BB member) is called a "straw man". Lacy, how can you manage to breathe with your head stuck so far down in the sand?

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Hyles posted here. I thought it was explicitly stated in the rules that dead guys could not post on the BB.

I suppose you could provide examples on the extreme fringes of lots of wierdness.

You guys just start hollering "Hyles, Ruckman, Ripplinger!" when you run out of objective arguments. (Normally pretty quickly.)

If we (KJVOs) believe the KJV is perfect, then why shouldn't we try to make our foreign translations agree as much as possible with the "original"?

You guys translate according to your own convictions (or lack thereof) and we will follow our own. Thank you very much!

lacy (the ostrich)

 

Lacy,
Are you saying that if you were to provide a Bible to a language that does not have one, that you would translate it from the KJV rather than from the TR and Hebrew?

 

If that is the case then those people would have, by definition, a paraphrase rather than a literal translation.

Bro Tony

 

On Lacy's behalf- I believe that is exactly what he is saying. That's how we wind up with absurdities such as this one:

The Hebrew word signifying "grain" is often translated as "corn" by the KJV translators. Since "corn" in 1611 England was simply a generic term representing many kinds of "grain" in general, this was an acceptable translation.

Jump ahead to the late 20th century, when some American KJVo's went about to translate the KJV into Spanish. They took the KJV's "corn" and used in its place the word "maiz" (alternately "maize"), which in Spanish only denotes "ear corn", or "corn on the cob".

We therefore wind up with a Spanish translation of the KJV which informs the reader that the Israelites cultivated "corn on the cob"!

 

I attended HAC and know several HAC graduates. I have not personally met one that would agree with Dr. Hyles statement. I certainly do not. </font>[/QUOTE]Great for you, Pastor Bob. You've been blessed. I sat under one here in Murfreesboro for nearly two years that preached it. He took the church from 200+ people down to 40 or so and then took off for a church in Massachusetts. I find this typical, too. The church I helped in in Minnesota which is now defunct had five pastors in ten years that taught this wicked doctrine. Luckily, the last pastor was able to undo some of the damage those pastors had done. He was an MBBC graduate!

 

"he said 6 different US missionaries were now in country who were undermining the Word by proclaiming that unless folks used a translation BASED ON THE KJV, they were not getting the truth, were not even saved!"
"
Worth mentioning, I think is that there is a person who calls himself Bro. James on this board who seems to belong to a church that funds at least some of those 6 different US missionaries.

 

Lacy Evans
"If we (KJVOs) believe the KJV is perfect, then why shouldn't we try to make our foreign translations agree as much as possible with the "original"?"
"
Because it isn't the original.
I sincerely hope you never receive a position on any Bible translation committee.

 

For several reasons. First, a translation is not authoritative over its source texts. The KJV's source texts (the TR) are readily available today. Second, a translation of a translation results in a poor translation when compared to the source translation's source texts.

 

It looks to me that the main issue on this thread that is being hashed around(basicly to the choir, its amazing the amount of back patting going on
here. Looks like a case of "you scratch my back and ill scratch yours.") is whether or not we KJVOs believe that you cant get saved through anything but the KJV. This, is a lie.
You can get saved even through the Catholic bible(which I have looked at and I find it better in some places then the new versions. The Catholics just dont pay attention to the parts of it that they dont like.) the thing is, you will never be a threat to the devil by growing. Once the philosophy of "if you dont like it, then get a new version" has spread then the new converts faith is weakened and the fire is gone. That is why the new versions are destroying America! They have produced a generation that fears not God. The reverence and respect that the Holy Bible once was held in is gone. Our churches for the most part now are little more then social clubs where anything goes. The gospel is watered down and good sound preaching has been replaced by milksop preaching, as the congregation cannot stomach the meat. This trend will only keep going downhill as more and more Christians are seduced by the world and apathy replaces fervor.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

 

Thumper!

"the new versions are destroying America!"

Ah, thanks. I'll be sure to let the NSA know.

 

The new versions aren't destroying America. Men's own sin does that. We are lead astray by our own evil desires, not by the version of the Bible we use. Last I checked, the NIV still says homosexuality is a sin; yep, my NASB does too; and I think Ed Edwards can check the HCSB for us and come to the same conclusion. I think all the other sin lists are intact. I see that the Trinity is still taught too, so is the Incarnation, salvation by grace through faith, the substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, and so forth. Yup, all sins in the KJV are sins here, all the doctrines are intact. Check...yup, check ! Let's see...oh yeah, there is a wee bit of KJV equivocation on the prepositions that might favor infant baptism; I also note an equivocation in it regarding faults and trespasses that we might take as a reference to venial sins and mortal sins, respectively, but other than that, everything's pretty much the same as my NASB, the Word of God for English speaking people. !


You know, Finney is one of the places where some of this started. He wrote that revival is "the result of the rightly constituted means." The KJVO says that America is being destroyed by the new versions. Where is God and man his sinfulness in this equation. Revival is the product of the working of the Holy Spirit. Sin is the result of the outworking of man's own sinful nature. God is still on His throne.

This is the kind of rhetoric that puts its faith in a version of God's Word rather than God's Word itself and God's Spirit Himself. America's decline is no more related to the MV's than revival is to "the rightly constituted means."

 

'fraid I have no idea what the "NSA" is, but by all means let them know.

 

National Security Administration

 

Gee, Thunper. You wrote on a thread in the Music forum that the requirements of salvation were different in MV's, but now you're saying that one can be saved through the use of them? What changed?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I dont believe that I ever said that you couldnt get saved through a MV, however, many important points of doctrine are changed in them. I would say more but its getting late and im almost out of time on here.

 

thanks.

 

Sorry y'all im out of time on here for the night. Ill try and get back on as soon as possible, possibly Sunday. School and a few other things really restrict my time on here during the week now.
Good-night,
KJVBibleThumper