Why the Spread of "onlyism" since 1970 in IFB Circles?

Thank you Dr. Bob for an excellent article that pretty well sums up this unscriptural biblical stance.

 

I never knew this issue existed. I do not know the original languages...I do use concordances as helps to understand these and I have been criticized as attempting to deny the KJV. Facinating, I did not realize this and thought the criticism was isolated.

Thanks for posting this article.

Bro. Dallas

[Finally read the instructions; still don't understand the issue, sorry] Confessional:

Dr. Bob, forgive me, I find that I am KJO, well this explains why I was criticized as trying to change the KJ text by doing a simple word study.

Oh well, where it helps me, I figure it will help others as well. I have also found that if you open your mouth about anything you are going to make somebody else open theirs.

What is that, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?

[ March 12, 2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

I never said it was Biblically accurate.

 

The first contact with an IFB that i recall
was when my daughter was in the 5th grade
she has switched to a new school. She was
having a terrible time with arithemetic.
At the beginning of the 5th she tested
in the 2.5 grade; at the middle of the 5th
she tested at the 4.5 grade. SHe had
advanced two grade levels in one semester.
She was given an "F" for her work. HELLO
REALITY, is this right? Oh, i got off to
griping about the public schools. Anyway,
now my Daughter is a ten year veteran
school teacher (2ed grade).

But back in the 5th grade we were concerned
about her flunking arithemetic.
A knock on the door. Twas the pastor of
an Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB)
church about 5 blocks away. He had a little
school. My daughter thrived there. At the
end of the year they gave awards to EVERYBODY.
They worked at finding something good about the
students. My daughter could read fast.

Anyway, back to the IFB and Humpty Dumpty falling
of the wall in a manner in such that all
the King's Men could not provide him a reliable
version.

I was really ticked when Mr. IFB Jerry Fallwell
was 'kicked out' of the IFB. COme on, Jerry Fallwell
personally sold Fundamentalism to a whole
generation of Americans in the 1960s and 1970s.

Here is the three legs the modern IFB error totters upon:

1. KJBO
2. distain of education past high school
4. distain of success

Yep, that is how they distain heathens like
Billy Graham and his tens of millions of
people saved (can you spell EASY BELIEVEISM?).
IF he is that successful, it must be of the devil.
Then comes Jerry Fallwell with the biggest IFB
church in the world. But i distain success
so i did Bro. Jerry - must be of the devil with
all those tens of thousands getting saved.

Last year i recall looking at some IFB sites.
There was one may be typical. Shows the Preacher
in a family picture (wife took it): the
PReacher and three foster children (teens).
Show a picture of the church (wife took it)
four adults and their 3 children,
the Preacher and the three foster children -
a total of 12 people.

Is this then IFB: KJVO, uneducated, a failure?

 

I've read that liberal baloney of Hudson's before;just a mask to hide the FACT that he has NO inspired Bible,and thusly never seen one verse of Scripture in his life.

 

Will Kinney has done an excellent rebuttal of Mr Hudson's lies. Hopefully it will get posted here [slur snipped]
Jim

[ March 12, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

Reminds me of how the early Christians
were dissed by the Roman Empire. The Roman
Empire had many gods, even the emperor was
a temporary god (as long as he was in office).
The Christians only had one god, about as
close to no gods as possible. The Christians
were dissed as athiests (NO godders).

 

I was wrong. It was not Brother Will, but Marty Shue who posted a reply to Mr. Hudson's article in another forum. I include here the link where I read the article and will post the article itself later tonight.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/message/16357

 

Can you PROVE that? Or are you merely parroting Will Kinney?

 

I've read Marty's whole article quite closely several times, and I don't see one thing to counter what Kutilek says. That's the difference between criticizing a KJVO author such as GAR or Ruckman-we can easily prove them wrong with empirical evidence such as Riplinger's absolutely-proven misquotes, while the KJVO relies upon guesswork and opinion to counter the work of authors such as Kutilek and Hudson.

Their work is a matter of public record on the net, so it shouldn't be too hard for the KJVOs to check the veracity of their assertions and to provide us with empirical evidence where they find their works wrong, same as we've done.

 

I think rsr was referring to sir Isaac Newton and not to brother Frogman.

 

Hi brother Jim, Yes, brother Marty Shue wrote an excellent point by point refuatation of Hudson's efforts to rob us of any inspired, inerrant Bible. Hudson doesn't have one, nor does "Doktor Bob", nor Larry, nor Archy, nor a whole bunch of people at this board.

None of them, especially Gary Hudson, knows for sure Where nor What God's words are but they are sure it is not in the King James Bible. That is the only thing our resident scholars agree on.

Each of these men has a mystical bible that exists only in their own minds and their individual "bibles" differ in many points from the other guys version.

Here is the direct link to Marty's excellent article. It is long because he is answering a long article, but it is very interesting.

http://www.avdefense.com/garyhudson.html

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Will K

 

Bob, there have been many Christians who have confessed a firm belief in the preservation of the Scriptures, and these confessions are found stated by those who used and believed the King James Bible to be the authoritative word of God.

Here are some thoughts by Mr. Bynum.

Notice the date of the first man mentioned here. Awhile before the 1970's. He is no relation of mine, as far as I know, but I definitely agree with this other Mr. Kinney.

LeBaron W. Kinney, wrote in 1942, "When a Bible teacher refers to the original languages of the Bible, there is a danger of giving a wrong impression about the authority and true value of the standard King James Version. Too many are ready to say that they have a better rendering, and often in such a way as to give an impression that the King James Version is faulty, or that other versions are much better. We believe that God overruled His gift of the King James Version of 1611, so that we have in it the very Word of God. We believe that no other English Version will ever take Its place. As a whole it is nearer to the original Greek and Hebrew than any other version. Every one of the various English versions claims to be nearer the original than the others. This could not be true of more than one of them." ("Hebrew Word StudiesAcres of Rubies" p. 9, published by Loizeaux Brothers).

 Many quotations could be given, from men now living, who believe in the Divine providential preservation of God's Word. It is not our purpose to be exhaustive in this little booklet. We could quote from Dr. Rice and others, who are attacking the KJV, showing that they have gone on record in favor of Divine preservation. It is unfortunate, that some of these also take the view that no version or text is correct, but that all of the texts and versions together are the infallible Word of God. Anyone should be able to see the fallacy of this view, for if it is true, no one can be sure that they have the Word of God today. All we have is thousands of contradictions and human errors mixed in with the Word of God. The Word of God cannot be sorted out of all this scrambled egg, and we are left with a task just as impossible, as putting Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

The Confessions Of Faith & Providential Preservation support the Divine providential preservation of the Scriptures. Let us briefly quote from some of them,to prove our contention.

         The Westminister Confession, of 1646, said that the Scriptures were "inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages. . . " The Helvetic Formula, 1675, affirms that God "has stood guard and watched over" His Word.

         The Second London Confession (Baptist) of 1677, said that the Scriptures were "inspired of God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages." The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, of 1742, says the very exact same thing as the Second London Confession in regard to the preservation of the Scriptures. At this point the reader might find it beneficial to turn back to our section on the Confessions of Faith, and read it over again.

Where Will You Stand In This Conflict?

         Others have taken their stand for and others against the King James Version. Dear reader, where will you stand in this conflict. You cannot be neutral! Remember that the King James Version was the Bible of the English speaking world during the times of revival. It was the Bible of Baxter, of Bunyan, of Edwards, of Tennent, of Wesley, of Whitfield, of Brainerd, of Carey, of McCheyne, of Spurgeon, and of Moody. It was the Bible of the whole fundamentalist movement of the 20th Century. It was the Bible of the fundamental, soul winning, Church building, Baptists of the 20th Century, which included some of the greatest preachers since the days of Paul. If these were handicapped by the use of the KJV, we could use such an handicap today.

         The cry for a new version has come from the apostasy of the 19th Century, which has taken root in the 20th Century, even among God's people. The source of the new versions has been from the putrid fountain of German Higher Criticism, humanism, ecumenicalism and modernism. Have you ever met a modernist that preferred the KJV? I have not, and I don't expect I ever will. A modernist will prefer almost any version above the KJV. That should tell us something!

         Not all advocates of the new versions are modernists by any means. But they have been drinking at the polluted fountains of modernism, Catholicism and ecumenicalism. They have adopted a position that is detrimental to the truth, and which will be used of Satan to lead countless numbers into error. No fundamentalist can be consistent in doctrine and practice while at the same time advocating the new versions which sprang from Westcott and Hort. Evangelicals who advocate the new versions, will soon slip into the camp of new-evangelicals, and from there into something even worse. When we abandon an absolute authority, we become the authority, or at least recognize the authority of some man who is a scholar, or at least claims to be one. Remember that God is a jealous God and that He has magnified His Word above His Name!

         Some good men and some good schools have taken the wrong side in this struggle. Some are no doubt already sorry that they have taken the wrong stand. It is not too late to admit a mistake, and correct it. This is God honoring, and will mean so much at the Judgment Seat of Christ. It is our prayer that many will do that very thing!

Pastor E. L. Bynum