Featured KJV hate

I'm not impressed. They aren't anymore saved than I am. I do not hold any man as more important than anyone else. Neither does my Lord and Savior. I look up to my God not men.
MB

 

You consider incorrectly because I simply applied your own assertion back to you yourself. Are you suggesting that you were be very degrading by challenging another poster to prove what they asserted? I merely challenged you to do what you challenged another poster to do so clearly that was not being "very degrading." You seem to be jumping to wrong conclusions.

In my opinion, you are the one being far more negative and judgmental against me than I was supposedly towards you.

 

According to your assertions in your posts, you seem to hold the Church of England makers of the KJV to be more important and superior to other English Bible translators.

 

You are wrong to attack the honesty of those who object to KJV-only teaching.

Those who object to KJV-only teaching are not "anti-KJV" folks.

When several KJV-only authors and KJV-only preachers have suggested the necessity of the use of the KJV for salvation, that claim may be more common than you are aware of.

Herb Evans, a KJV-only advocate, in an article "Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?" wrote: "Almost without exception (and we are not sure about the exceptions) any births, resulting from the above perverted bibles [English Bibles other than the KJV], are perverted also--spiritual cripples" (The Flaming Torch, January-March, 1992, p. 10). This unscriptural claim would make the Holy Spirit responsible for the new birth of spiritual cripples and perverts (John 3:5-8, 1 John 3:9, 5:4, Eph. 1:13, Titus 3:5). In Ruckman's Bible Believers' Bulletin, Herb Evans declared: "We have been born of incorruptible seed," and he claimed that this incorruptible seed is the 1611 KJV (October, 1978, p. 3). Peter Ruckman himself had claimed that “the AV was incorruptible in 1611, and it is incorruptible now” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Seven, p. 26). Michael O’Neal asserted: “I believe that this (the King James Bible) is incorruptible seed” (Do We Have the Word of God, p. 13). Al Lacy wrote: “It takes the INCORRUPTIBLE seed to give the New Birth” (Can I Trust, p. 98).

KJV-only advocate Al Hughes acknowledged: "There is a movement afoot that claims 'no one can get saved by hearing one of the devil's perversions'" (Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 16). R. B. Ouellette noted: “Others took such extreme stands as alleging that only those led to Christ through the use of the King James Bible were actually saved” (More Sure Word, p. 4).

Jasper James Ray wrote: "Only an unaltered Bible can produce a perfect, soul-saving faith" (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 10). J. J. Ray asserted: “If the Word is corrupt, then the resulting faith which comes from it will also be corrupt and without life-giving essentials” (Ibid.). J. J. Ray suggested that Bible translations in the other claimed stream of Bibles have “faith destroying contamination” (Ibid.). Al Lacy asked: “How can you be sure you are saved and going to Heaven if your translated Bible has errors?” (Can I Trust, p. 99). Al Lacy asserted: “If there is NO perfect translation … and if even the Masoretic Hebrew and Antiochan manuscript copies we have today have errors … THERE IS NO WAY ANYBODY COULD EVER GET SAVED” (p. 98). Al Lacy contended: “If there is no PERFECT, FLAWLESS, INERRANT, INSPIRED, INCORRUPTIBLE translation in English … then NOBODY who speaks only English can get saved” (Ibid.). Al Lacy declared: “If ANY BOOK that is called a ‘Bible’ has even ONE error in it, it is NOT the word of TRUTH! Therefore, it cannot bring about the New Birth” (p. 99). William Byers claimed: "I've said that I've never heard of a sound conversion coming from a modern translation" (The History of the KJB, p. 5). In his fundamentalist publication Church Bus News (July-Dec., 1993), Wally Beebe stated: "My constant reference to the King James Version, being in fact the inspired Word of God and our authority, is very important as a prerequisite to salvation" (p. 11). 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). In his booklet entitled Another Bible Another Gospel, which is published by The Bible for Today, Robert Baker implied that other translations teach another gospel when he wrote: "Removing or adding to Jesus' words results in preaching 'another gospel'" (p. 5). Chick Salliby asked: "Will not a defective Bible produce a defective faith?" (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 93). Raymond Blanton declared: "Faith is not produced in the heart of the sinner by a powerless perversion of God's Word" (The Perilous Times, June, 1995, p. 7). In another issue of his publication, Raymond Blanton also claimed: "No one is saved through counterfeit Bibles. The New American Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, Amplied New Testament, NIV, etc., etc., are dead imitations and corruptions, and no one is saved through them" (Feb., 1997, p. 4). Norman Hopkins asserted: “There is no need to memorize scripture in the new versions or go on visitation with one, for there is no convicting power in altered scripture” (Right Bible, p. 17). Douglas Stauffer wrote: "Our relationship with Jesus Christ is based upon a particular Bible translation" (One Book Stands, p. 97). David Norris claimed: “The new, deliberately ‘modernised’ versions of Scripture will necessarily present a changed or ‘updated’ Christ, another Jesus. A false bible presents a false Christ” (Big Picture, p. 184). James Rasbeary asserted: “The new versions are deader than doornails. They do not have any life. They do not speak to people with the voice of the Shepherd” (What’s Wrong, p. 122).

 

Are you in effect suggesting that God did not make sure English-speaking believers before 1611 had a trustworthy English Bible?

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611. Many English-speaking believers before 1611 regarded the 1560 Geneva Bible to be a trustworthy English translation. Would you suggest that God showed partiality towards English-speaking people after 1611 compared to those who lived before 1611?

You do not demonstrated that the Scriptures state or teach what you believe. It is possible for you to believe something that is not true just like it is possible for everyone else.

 

You forgot the plain fact that Jehovas Witnesses used the KJV . why did you leave that out i wonder?

 

..

Well What can I say I'm not an expert on JW's like maybe you are.
So many who are misled have switched to modern translations and find them more palatable.
MB

 

Whatever.

 

Hold on Hoss, you are the one who accused those who do not prefer KJV as not preferring it because they can't understand it. My post was a direct response to you.

 

Why do you "believe" it's the KJV?
It's not the oldest.
It didn't come from the best manuscripts.
It was not done by the best translators.
Why is it the best?

 

Good. You seem to be a redneck like me and understand hoss is not an insult. It just means hold on a minute and listen.

 

Not sure what you mean. KJVO where? Here on the BB? In comparison to what? KJV-preferred? MV-preferred?

I sort of agree, but there is some gray area as well. For example, the NWT of the JWs may contain some of God's word, but I oppose the translation as a bad translation, as well as a translation skewed to a denominational viewpoint.

Another thing in order to be fair is to realize that someone who sees the RSV, for example, as a corruption of God's word does not see himself as opposing God's word when he opposes the RSV. You may disagree, but should also understand that they are operating from their own viewpoint and not that of another.

 

I have have heard the same from many of those who prefer the modern versions. No one says that about shakespeare.
MB

 

And your substantiating evidence that it's the best?

 

The reason I believe as I do is because of Faith in God's ability to lead me to the truth. Myself I make mistakes and I admit that I do but I'm not alone. No man has a perfect view. We all can be wrong at times. God has promised to preserve His word I believe He has in the modern versions as well. The truth of God seems to come through. Men are saved by the help of newer versions just like the KJV
MB

 

The KJV Translators copied from THE Geneva Bible. So that doesn't fly.