Who gave them the authority to OMIT ?

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think Bro Tim might have learnt us all he could and gone elsewhere to tell how persecuted he was.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
Dear brother Skan, I respectfully disagree with each of your rebuttals which I don’t feel led to re-rebut.

Of course. You can't answer the facts so you argue the semantics of "ad hominem."

 

[HankD]

Of course. You can't answer the facts so you argue the semantics of "ad hominem."

Here is yet another fine example of an ad hominem.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
Here is yet another fine example of an ad hominem.

Here is yet another fine example of dodging the issue and trying to misdirect the thread away from your inability to answer.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Christ4Kildare:
I think Bro Tim might have learnt us all he could and gone elsewhere to tell how persecuted he was.

I certainly hope not! He still hasn't answered my question!

Let me ask you a question, Brother Tim. Can a person get saved through reading the NASB? If so, and you are a bible believer, don't you have to admit the NASB is the word of God as the bible says in Romans 10:17 "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God?" And in 2Timothy 3:15 we are told how we can know that the NASB is scripture is that "the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

If the NASB is able to make a person "wise unto salvation" then the bible says it is "holy scripture" and the "word of God." How then can you claim to be a bible believer if you deny these important verses found in the bible?

 

[Dr. Bob]

The apocryphal books WERE considered "scriptures" for daily reading, Bible lessons, et al, by the translators.

My 1611AV has the original charts for daily reading and in these "scriptures" were selections from Ecclesiasticus, Tobit.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
The apocryphal books WERE considered "scriptures" for daily reading, Bible lessons, et al, by the translators.

My 1611AV has the original charts for daily reading and in these "scriptures" were selections from Ecclesiasticus, Tobit.

I see. So then, by your reasoning do you also consider "Our Daily Bread" to be scripture? How about "My Utmost For His Highest?" They are to be read daily too, right? Are they scripture? Is everything listed in a daily reading chart automatically canon?

Do the 39 Articles of 1571 say the Apocrypha is scripture or not?

Let's see:

In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. (They then list the canonical Old Testament books.)

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: (They then list the Apocrypha.)

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

Now note the word "canonical" regarding the OT books, and the word "canonical" regarding the NT books, but that word seems to be missing from the list of Apocryphal books, and they go out of their way to make sure everyone understands the Apocrypha may be interesting. Valuable for lessons on life. Even instruction in manners. But not for doctrine! They did not believe the Apocrypha was canonical! By the testimony of their own writings they contradict you.

By the way, the RCC did not declare the Apocrypha canonical until the Council of Trent in 1546, as part of the Counter Reformation. The Church of England was established in 1536, before the Council of Trent!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Bro. Tim L. Bynum:
I am a BIBLE BELIEVER but not a believer in a book called the NASV . It is only a opinion by man of what thay THINK the bible ought to say. No, I don`t believe you can be saved using curupted seed, why would the Holy Spirit use something with ERRORS . HE knows you would continue in that error.

So, Brother Tim, if a person cannot be saved except with a KJV then you are saying that nobody was saved prior to 1611 and no person anywhere in the world is saved who doesn't speak English? Can you give me a verse of scripture which supports your position? Please don't try to use the "seed" argument because that verse is clearly speaking of the "seed of the woman" the Lord Jesus Christ and not a bible version.

 

[Charles Meadows]

I wonder if Tim Bynum realizes the implications of what he said here:


"No, I don`t believe you can be saved using curupted seed, why would the Holy Spirit use something with ERRORS . HE knows you would continue in that error."

This reference was to the NASV. The plan of salvation is very clear in the NASV as well as in other "MV"s. If Tim Bynum denies that professing Christ as savior (reading any version - or even no version) is saving then he is no brother of mine. To say that we must read John 3:16 in the KJB to be saved is putting paper and cardboard above the blood of Christ. Is the Holy Spirit insufficient? BLASPHEMY!!!!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
I wonder if Tim Bynum realizes the implications of what he said here:


"No, I don`t believe you can be saved using curupted seed, why would the Holy Spirit use something with ERRORS . HE knows you would continue in that error."

This reference was to the NASV. The plan of salvation is very clear in the NASV as well as in other "MV"s. If Tim Bynum denies that professing Christ as savior (reading any version - or even no version) is saving then he is no brother of mine. To say that we must read John 3:16 in the KJB to be saved is putting paper and cardboard above the blood of Christ. Is the Holy Spirit insufficient? BLASPHEMY!!!!

He uses men and women who are much less than perfect to give out the gospel.

 

[Precepts]

Yall've been rantin' and ravin' for well over three pages about this Brother, and he hasn't posted since. Man, don't the wolves ever get their appetite satisfied?

 

[Charles Meadows]

QS,

You're right we've wolfed him! Maybe we went a little too far...

But his brand of doctrine hurts all of our witnessing for Christ - from you and Will K to Dr Bob, me, everyone!

 

[Precepts]

Hey, harles, be careful how you say that. I'm not used to fitting in. Besides, you put me in the ranks with Dr. Bob? Wow! Just Wow!

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
If you guys keep ignoring the truth, the facts, and the testimony of history, you will soon be just like the KJVOs!

The FACT is that KJVOism predated Wilkerson. You may not like that, and you may lack the character to admit it, but the facts are still the facts. I know that FACT ruins one of your favorite arguments, that of "guilt by association" with an SDA, but the facts are still the facts. Time to get over it and move on with your Christian growth.

Hi Skan! I've been reading the back and forth regarding when the KJVO movement began, and Wilkinson's involvement, etc I have a hypothetical question, because I believe that w/o Mr Wilkinson's book written in 1930, today's KJVO movement would very likely not be anywhere it is today. Question: What if B. Wilkinson had not written his book, would it had reached where it is today, from the pre-1930 KJVO's?
I acknowledge that the KJVO movement predates Wilkinson. But I am under the impression that without his book, the movement would not be where it is today. What are you (or anyone's?) thoughts about this?
Thanx!

 

[tinytim]

Yeah man, you fit in fine. God has a place for all of us. Even me. Besides if you left, who would I debate? Will, nah, he's to scholarly.

 

[tinytim]

Skan, i'll admit that somewhere before 1930 there existed some KJVO. Why, every version had to have some groupies. But here in WV, Where unemployment is out of sight, Education has been traditionally looked down upon, where the Average income Falls below poverty standards. The KJVO movement, And I'll call it a movement to differintiate it from the pre-1930-KJVO, took off in the late 1980's.

I grew up very IFB. Taught that the Baptist Church was the only one pure enough to be Christ's bride. (Baptistbride) I was taught that we were'nt protestants, And that it was a sin for a woman to do anything in church except look pretty!! (That's where I found Mrs, tinytim!!)

But the issue of different versions never came up. My dad was a pastor, and we had other preachers in that used other versions. No problem. And we were staunch IFBers. Loved J.R. Rice., Ironside, sword of the Lord, the whole works.

This was until around 1988 or 89, When I first heard a sermon on the evils of the NIV. And I first read my first chick comic. (Iknow, mistaaake) Anyway, by that time I had joined an ABC-USA church, married, and by 1992 had my first son. In 1998, I moved my membership back into a IFB church. And boy, was I surprised. KJVOnlyism was the hot topic that year. It had invaded every IFB church around. You couldn't go anywhere without hearing about the copyright issue.

Anyway, I stayed IFB until 2000 when I started pastoring another ABC-USA church. In our local association it wasn't an issue. Until last year.

Now KJVOnlyism has invaded every denomination around here. It is spliting churches and hurting new babes in Christ. 30 years ago I never heard of it. Today it's everywhere.

Where did it come from within the last 30 yrs?
If it existed for 400 years Why did it wait til 1980's to infect WV? (I know were behind the times, but not 400 yrs behind!!!)

I really believe that along with all the well knowns of KJVO land. The availability of the NIV to common people had a lot to do with it.
It got people curious enough to question "what's the difference"

Just my thoughts.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Pastor KevinR:
But I am under the impression that without his book, the movement would not be where it is today. What are you (or anyone's?) thoughts about this?

That would depend on what you mean by "not be where it is today." Would KJVO be different? Possibly. Would it have died out without Wilkinson? Probably not. Never underestimate the power of error to propagate itself with very little human help!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by tinytim:
Where did it come from within the last 30 yrs? If it existed for 400 years Why did it wait til 1980's to infect WV? (I know were behind the times, but not 400 yrs behind!!!)

KJVO hasn't existed for 400 years. At least there is no evidence to suggest it has. KJVO first appeared in the 1860s with the publication of the first English bible to try to compete with the KJV, the Revised English Version published by the American Bible Union in cooperation with the American Baptist Publication Society. The REV failed to gain a following and the movement became mostly dormant until the advent of the ASV in 1901. The ASV also failed and the movement again slumbered until the proliferation of competitive English versions in the 1930s (which probably prompted Wilkinson to write his book). It was the immense popularity of the NIV which brought the movement to its full blown maturity which we see today. But even then the NIV did not present a serious challenge to the KJV until 1983 when it surpassed the KJV in yearly sales. It was that event that brought KJVO to its present fevered state.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by tinytim:
Skan, i'll admit that somewhere before 1930 there existed some KJVO. Why, every version had to have some groupies. But here in WV, Where unemployment is out of sight, Education has been traditionally looked down upon, where the Average income Falls below poverty standards. The KJVO movement, And I'll call it a movement to differintiate it from the pre-1930-KJVO, took off in the late 1980's.

I grew up very IFB. Taught that the Baptist Church was the only one pure enough to be Christ's bride. (Baptistbride) I was taught that we were'nt protestants, And that it was a sin for a woman to do anything in church except look pretty!! (That's where I found Mrs, tinytim!!)

But the issue of different versions never came up. My dad was a pastor, and we had other preachers in that used other versions. No problem. And we were staunch IFBers. Loved J.R. Rice., Ironside, sword of the Lord, the whole works.

This was until around 1988 or 89, When I first heard a sermon on the evils of the NIV. And I first read my first chick comic. (Iknow, mistaaake) Anyway, by that time I had joined an ABC-USA church, married, and by 1992 had my first son. In 1998, I moved my membership back into a IFB church. And boy, was I surprised. KJVOnlyism was the hot topic that year. It had invaded every IFB church around. You couldn't go anywhere without hearing about the copyright issue.

Anyway, I stayed IFB until 2000 when I started pastoring another ABC-USA church. In our local association it wasn't an issue. Until last year.

Now KJVOnlyism has invaded every denomination around here. It is spliting churches and hurting new babes in Christ. 30 years ago I never heard of it. Today it's everywhere.

Where did it come from within the last 30 yrs?
If it existed for 400 years Why did it wait til 1980's to infect WV? (I know were behind the times, but not 400 yrs behind!!!)

I really believe that along with all the well knowns of KJVO land. The availability of the NIV to common people had a lot to do with it.
It got people curious enough to question "what's the difference"

Just my thoughts.

Amen, Brother Tinytim - Preach it!

I first claimed Jesus as my Lord in 1952
(so He then became my Savior). The whole
history of King James Bible Only (KJBO)ism
has happened since I was saved and in
my lifetime. In fact, i became a human
adult in 1964 and the whole history
of KJBOism happened since then.

It was in 1967 that i was listening to
Christian radio progams (they were on
secular channels back then instead of
their own channel like now). I sent
off for a pamplet against whatever
was the newest Bible version of the time.
The pamplet was stamped with the
address of and was being distributed by
a KJV salesman.

 

[Charles Meadows]

You know one thing that really makes me sick?

Kidnapping Christ and making Him a legalistic hatemonger!! I can tolerate KJBO, catholicism, tongues - but not this!

QS, maybe I was too harsh in a post or so in defense of this - I'm not meaning to offend Tim Bynum or you or anyone... Maybe our brother Tim is just mixed up and doesn't know better.

But he said that you cannot be saved by reading a non KJB version of the plan of salvation. That makes salvation a ritualistic work! That denies the power of the blood of Christ! That denies what the Holy Spirit can do in a person's heart. Really!

Now I shouldn't judge - I won't judge. But if a man comes without the love of Christ or the fruit of the Spirit and has false doctrine I have to doubt how much Christ's church can benefit from his ministry. This should make us alarmed.

I think everyone here pretty well "fits in" otherwise.