A
Amity
Guest
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
KJVO = Liberalism??
- Thread starter James_Newman
- Start date
A
Amity
Guest
SURE DID BROTHER!! PREACH IT!!
You call that refutation? Go back to school and learn logic.
(BTW, the personal quotation that you started this entire thread with was from ME. Hence the reason I thought you were addressing ME. How could I be so mislead).
1 & 2 - You don't like being lumped in that position? Sorry to have quoted the positions of Dr. Peter Ruckman, leader of the KJVonly movement, and Dr. Jack Hyles, pastor of the largest ifb church and guru of KJVonly (thousands of pastors follow his words).
Hate to mislead people here by actually stating the position of their leaders! I would sure come up with a different name if I wasn't linked to the heresies [used by persmission] of Ruckman/Hyles.
3 - KJVonly teach there is only one Bible - is there untruth in that? Why are you ONLY if you believe others are Bibles? The Greek/Hebrew, other translations, etc?
Change your name if you are NOT "only"
4 - Go back to the Fundamentalist conferences of 1890ff and read what they say. The Word of God IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS is inspired, inerrant.
You're trying to say this ISN'T what they believed?
Or are you saying that the KJV is also without error (or, again according to the leader of the KJVonly movement, that if they "look like errors", they are really "advanced revelation" in a second work of inspiration).
Liberalism. And under the pious-sounding guise of defending the Bible. Makes me sick.
I will check with the Administrators here to see if KJVonly sect should be allowed to post in Baptist-only forums.
(BTW, the personal quotation that you started this entire thread with was from ME. Hence the reason I thought you were addressing ME. How could I be so mislead).
1 & 2 - You don't like being lumped in that position? Sorry to have quoted the positions of Dr. Peter Ruckman, leader of the KJVonly movement, and Dr. Jack Hyles, pastor of the largest ifb church and guru of KJVonly (thousands of pastors follow his words).
Hate to mislead people here by actually stating the position of their leaders! I would sure come up with a different name if I wasn't linked to the heresies [used by persmission] of Ruckman/Hyles.
3 - KJVonly teach there is only one Bible - is there untruth in that? Why are you ONLY if you believe others are Bibles? The Greek/Hebrew, other translations, etc?
Change your name if you are NOT "only"
4 - Go back to the Fundamentalist conferences of 1890ff and read what they say. The Word of God IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS is inspired, inerrant.
You're trying to say this ISN'T what they believed?
Or are you saying that the KJV is also without error (or, again according to the leader of the KJVonly movement, that if they "look like errors", they are really "advanced revelation" in a second work of inspiration).
Liberalism. And under the pious-sounding guise of defending the Bible. Makes me sick.
I will check with the Administrators here to see if KJVonly sect should be allowed to post in Baptist-only forums.
A
Amity
Guest
Would make for a very one sided debate forum LOL....who's character would you then decide to defame?
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
Sad to say, but 'tis already a VERY one-sided debate forum, sisAmity. The sure-fire way to eliminate the "onlies" is to eradicate 'em. And if Granny isn't allowed to post in Baptist-only forums, then it's time to shake the dust off my feet. I was a Baptist & kjONLY before ever knowing of any such "sect" & those men (Ruckman/Hyles) were never known by me till coming here.
Lacy Evans
New Member
I think someone should check with the administrators and see whether such a bully should be allowed to be a moderator.
Lacy
A good example of KJVOism liberalisms:
They pardon the heresies of Ruckman.
They pardon the heresies of Hyles.
They pardon the heresies of Riplinger.
They pardon two thieves who stole several ideas from a SDA cultic. These two thieves are J.J. Ray and David Ottis Fuller.
They ignore KJVOist who deny the Eternal Sonship of Christ like Pastor Crosby etc...I have yet to see a KJVOIst stand on the Eternal Sonship of Christ to refute fellow KJVOist who teach against the eternal Sonship.
They overlook Ruckman’s odd view of the Trinity and Sonship of Christ.
Basically KJVOism covers a multitude of sins and heresies. How much more liberal can KJVOism get when it pardons heretics like Ruckman?
A true fundamentalist would separate from those that I mentioned in this thread. Instead so many KJVOist make excuses and ignore the problems with certain KJVOist. If Ruckman, Riplinger, Chick (by the way the Satan is not red with horns; Chick has yet to figure this out), Waite, and Hyles were MV users the KJVO Camp would scream so loud that it might wake the dead! The charge of liberal heretics would fly from the KJVO Camp blaming MV’s for causing Ruckman, Riplinger, etc… problems! Instead they defend these heretics because they are KJVO. Simply put this is liberalism!
Sorry but there is nothing conservative and fundamental about KJVOism. To be a KJVO you must compromise and bend in order to defend the KJVO myth. Double standards are liberal.
KJVOism = liberal modernism.
They pardon the heresies of Ruckman.
They pardon the heresies of Hyles.
They pardon the heresies of Riplinger.
They pardon two thieves who stole several ideas from a SDA cultic. These two thieves are J.J. Ray and David Ottis Fuller.
They ignore KJVOist who deny the Eternal Sonship of Christ like Pastor Crosby etc...I have yet to see a KJVOIst stand on the Eternal Sonship of Christ to refute fellow KJVOist who teach against the eternal Sonship.
They overlook Ruckman’s odd view of the Trinity and Sonship of Christ.
Basically KJVOism covers a multitude of sins and heresies. How much more liberal can KJVOism get when it pardons heretics like Ruckman?
A true fundamentalist would separate from those that I mentioned in this thread. Instead so many KJVOist make excuses and ignore the problems with certain KJVOist. If Ruckman, Riplinger, Chick (by the way the Satan is not red with horns; Chick has yet to figure this out), Waite, and Hyles were MV users the KJVO Camp would scream so loud that it might wake the dead! The charge of liberal heretics would fly from the KJVO Camp blaming MV’s for causing Ruckman, Riplinger, etc… problems! Instead they defend these heretics because they are KJVO. Simply put this is liberalism!
Sorry but there is nothing conservative and fundamental about KJVOism. To be a KJVO you must compromise and bend in order to defend the KJVO myth. Double standards are liberal.
KJVOism = liberal modernism.
Please forgive me if I am speaking out of turn, but I seem to detect a certain lack of Christian graciousness in this thread. I point no fingers, but merely ask that we all step back and push the "cloud of emotion" to one side......
Having said that, I would like to ask a question of those who may be identified here as KJVO.
First of all, I grew up with the KJV. I love the beauty and poetry in the way that it is written.
To this day, when I hear the words of the 23rd Psalm "Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me"; I am filled with reverent thanks for His provision. When I first bowed my knee before the cross, this was the version that I used.
Having said that, I cannot accept that the KJV is the ONLY version that contains the Word of God for the following reasons (and admittedly this is my opinion):
Having been allowed the great privelege of travelling the world, and having been exposed to other cultures, languages, and ways of thought; I have come to the conclusion that God is,has, and always will be, able to keep His word and give His word to any and all people.
If this is indeed so, given the dynamic/ever changing quality of the English language; and given the current educational quality/level we are suffering in the United States; does it not seem reasonable that God would transmit His Word to us in the modern vernacular? After all, does He not desire that "None perish, but all come to repentance"?
My question then is this: Do you hold the KJVO position as a matter of doctrinal truth? Or do you hold the KJVO position as a matter of personal preference (given that this is the version by which God ministers His Word to you personally)?
I am indeed interested in your answer to this question, as a loving brother in Christ.
Having said that, I would like to ask a question of those who may be identified here as KJVO.
First of all, I grew up with the KJV. I love the beauty and poetry in the way that it is written.
To this day, when I hear the words of the 23rd Psalm "Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me"; I am filled with reverent thanks for His provision. When I first bowed my knee before the cross, this was the version that I used.
Having said that, I cannot accept that the KJV is the ONLY version that contains the Word of God for the following reasons (and admittedly this is my opinion):
Having been allowed the great privelege of travelling the world, and having been exposed to other cultures, languages, and ways of thought; I have come to the conclusion that God is,has, and always will be, able to keep His word and give His word to any and all people.
If this is indeed so, given the dynamic/ever changing quality of the English language; and given the current educational quality/level we are suffering in the United States; does it not seem reasonable that God would transmit His Word to us in the modern vernacular? After all, does He not desire that "None perish, but all come to repentance"?
My question then is this: Do you hold the KJVO position as a matter of doctrinal truth? Or do you hold the KJVO position as a matter of personal preference (given that this is the version by which God ministers His Word to you personally)?
I am indeed interested in your answer to this question, as a loving brother in Christ.
I think a lot of people are arguing KJV preferred and not KJVO, are there any true KJVO out there? By that I mean the viewpoint that all other translations are wrong and the KJV is absolutely inerrant, period. There is absolutely nothing wrong with KJV-preferred, I am NASV-preferred but also recognize there are other very valid translations.
As to KJVO being liberal, I see it more as legalistic, except for the very extreme stance that the KJV corrects the original transcripts(that's flat out heretical). The adding on of man-made doctrines is wrong, period no matter what it is.
As to KJVO being liberal, I see it more as legalistic, except for the very extreme stance that the KJV corrects the original transcripts(that's flat out heretical). The adding on of man-made doctrines is wrong, period no matter what it is.
I think someone should check with the administrators and see whether such a bully should be allowed to be a moderator.
Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________
Amen Brother!
This is why a certain other Mod. has tried to distance himself from this board. I have it first hand that this kind of attitude has been "called-on-the-carpet" and ignored before this. It will likely go un-noticed here as well.
Too bad. One would think that one who so loudly hollers for conformity to Christian Fundamentals that one would exercise a bit of grace, especially one who espouses "Irresistable Grace". LOL But noooo! Instead it is disguised as "contending for the faith".
In HIS service;
Jim
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
I am a true Baptist and a true kjONLY...or as I like to put it...ONLY(King Jesus), having NEVER touched another or read anything else, & have never, ever had any desire whatsoever to do so, in ALL the 50 years I've been gloriously saved. To even consider something else, would mean I doubt I hold the true word of God...and Jesus NEVER fails!
BTW, the personal quotation that you started this entire thread with was from ME. Hence the reason I thought you were addressing ME. How could I be so mislead).
__________________________________________________
Dr. B;
Check the OP and the 2nd post of this thread and then kindly retract your knee jerk reaction. Contrary to your overinflated ego, I did not post my comments to you directly nor did I reference you personally. You are NOT the only one on this board who has said such derogatory comments. Hence my post was not to you directly. Again, if you think it was, then perhaps your conscience is bothering you.
In HIS service;
Jim
__________________________________________________
Dr. B;
Check the OP and the 2nd post of this thread and then kindly retract your knee jerk reaction. Contrary to your overinflated ego, I did not post my comments to you directly nor did I reference you personally. You are NOT the only one on this board who has said such derogatory comments. Hence my post was not to you directly. Again, if you think it was, then perhaps your conscience is bothering you.
In HIS service;
Jim
I guess my post will be ignored since it hit the heart of KJVOism liberal views.
I fully agree with Dr. Bob.
By the way, how is speaking the truth being a bully? Dr. Bob spoke truth and it ruffled some feathers. Then again truth can hurt
Why is it old time myth busting considered wrong today? Why should we be silent and allow the KJVO lie to spread?
I fully agree with Dr. Bob.
By the way, how is speaking the truth being a bully? Dr. Bob spoke truth and it ruffled some feathers. Then again truth can hurt
Why is it old time myth busting considered wrong today? Why should we be silent and allow the KJVO lie to spread?
Lacy Evans
New Member
David, If I put up a long "guilty-by association" list of "liberal" whackos who believe that only the autographs are/were inspired, you would probably be second in line (behind Dr. Bob) to kick and scream that the argument carries no weight. And you would be right. What kills me is that reason goes out the window when you go on offense.
Why don't you ask me if I am a liberal. (Once you define the term objectively.) Or directly confront me on one of my "liberal" beliefs or actions. Instead of carelessly bandying about subjective emotionally charged terms.
Lacy
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
Yabba, if you were "serious" with your question, then you'd never have asked it. I cannot answer for anyone but myself, but considering I've never read those you mentioned, and all I can go by is what I've witnessed on the BB these few years, I'd say, I got myself a genuine straight-stick!
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Standing up for the truth and boldly speaking against the lies from hell is NOT a lack of grace; it IS an exercise of grace. Grace is not being a weak-kneed rag doll allowing Satan and his host to trample all over you; grace is the dynamic of God whereby men are saved and empowered by God to stand up for the truth and denounce Satan and his host. KJOism is a lie from hell and those who coddle it are no better than those who teach it. Lies from hell have nothing to do with the Baptist faith, and those who believe in and promote lies from hell are NOT Baptists but liars and deceivers.
Dr. Bob is a bit stubborn at times, but he is one of the most gracious men that I have ever encountered and he deserves the respect of all of us—not only because he is an administrator of this message board, but because he is a man of God who stands up for the truth!
