Saved Using a Non-KJV??

I bet the "Holy Spirit" just might have had something to do with that.

Since you are a "Holy Spirit Christian" (Like all of us really are.) then you okie dokie!!!!!!!

 

Iveyleaguer, I couldn't agree more with your "abominations" pronouncement. This ties in with another false KJVO assumption: that we consider EVERY book that calls itself a Bible as legitimate.

I use the NASV, KJV, & NKJV, with some NIV and AV 1611 thrown in. I haven't read much of any newer versions as the ones named above are sufficient for me. But I certainly won't reject or degrade them just because they aren't on my current usage list.

An analogy is that while I prefer Ford vehicles right now because of certain features, I certainly won't reject Chevies or other common makes I don't now own. They're just as legit motor vehicles as Fords are.

 

FORD!Why that's the King James Version of the Automobile!Fix or repair daily.

 

Not sure how long you have been interacting with Dr. Bob but the last time I checked he was IFB. He is certainly a historic fundamentalist... which Hyles and Ruckman and even Cloud are not with regard to this issue.

 

I may be wrong but I think Dr. Bob would identify with Dr. John R. Rice pretty well.Dr. Bob is IFB especially in the classic IFB sense.

 

if this was true we are All Dammed to hell

if this is true we all better learn Hebrew Greek and Aramik.

reading the word does not save us
Jesus Saves
we are convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit through reading the word of God
then we must accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

there are words in the jing James translation that is not even used in modern English

My question to the KJVO folks is if the younger generation cannot comprehend what they are reading how then do you suppose they will learn of the knowledge of Gods saving grace?

 

Dr. Bob has said that among his teachers was DR.RICHARD CLEARWATERS, a main mover-shaker of the IFBs, who is held in high esteem by both he and I.

 

Dr. Bob may be an IFB in the historical sense. However, he has continually misrepresented the vast majority of churches that would hold to the KJV being the best translation for english speaking people. He would lump all churches that stand against the modern versions in with the Hyles/Ruckman crowd. This group is an extremely small percentage of the overall KJV churches within the IFB as a whole.

 

BUT, Pastor J...

The KJVO myth was NOT a part of IFB originally. It was an ADDED man-made doctrine, proven false long ago. The aforementioned Dr. Clearwaters believed the ASV to be the bext English version.

It's incorrect to declare ANY ONE bible translation as the ONLY "official" one in any language except for those which have had the Bible for so short a time that an updated translation hasn't been necessary. One-versionism is NOT found in Scripture, and for that reason alone a Fundamentalist could declare it false.

 

Now, I can say it to you, Dr. Bob, It sure is nice to be SBC. . .

 

I'm just amazed that those who fall for the KJVO myth can't see the truth for themselves. Shoot, if an unedjikated steel worker such as I can easily discern it, what's the prob with those who claim to be educated, know Koine Greek and/or old Hebrew quite well, etc? Are they simply too lazy to look for themselves? Can't they see the forest for the trees? Or, are they simply too stubborn to admiy they've been taken for a ride by the devil with one of his false doctrines?

 

Dr. Bob,

I agree that Hyles was a heretic, not just in this area, but in the area of easy believism. Most preachers I know that use the KJV, use it because they believe it to be the best translation. I have preacher friends who use the NAS and I don't condemn them for it. I still hold strongly that a number of the translations that are available are perversions and not versions, but do not hold to the KJV only position that you describe.

 

Also, Pastor J, I don't know of any non-KJVO here who believes that everything that calls itself a Bible is a velid version. Some, like the NWT, depart in some places from the known Scriptural mss so blatantly that one doesn't hafta be a native of Athens to see they're wrong.

I see lotsa probs developing between proponents of one translation over the others because some Greek and many Hebrew words have several different meanings in English, and different translators choose differently among those meanings when context is of no help. The one-versionnaires believe only THEIR fave translators' choices were right.

All the evidence in many languages shows us GOD is NOT limited to just one version in one language. However, there's nothing wrong with preferring just one version, long as that person isn't condemning someone else's choice of another version or versions.

 

My point here has been that I believe that the KJV is the best translation and that there are some of these mv's that are so messed up that, I would not recommend anyone to use them. My problem with some of the statements that have been made is that the militant KJVO's (Hyles and Ruckman crowd) are only a small percentage of the KJV crowd and it has been made out to be that they are the majority.

 

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it...and I think we ALL agree there are some pretty groddy books out there that call themselves "Bibles".

The Hylesophiles and Ruckophiles may be a minority, but they're generally the most vocal of the crew, and the most incorrect in their guesswork...and the first to leave the kitchen when the heat's turned up.

Please note the absence of responses from them in the "Dr. Ruckman's Advanced Revelations" thread.

 

D. A. Waite is usually considered a moderate
KJV-only defender. He even claims that it is wrong to describe his view as KJV-only. He opposes Ruckman's view and has made strong statements against his advanced revelation claims.
Yet he like other KJV-only who don't think that
their view is militant or extreme often do not consider the logical implications of some of their own claims and statements.

For example, D. A. Waite wrote: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED, p. 136). Waite claimed: "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (p. 129). Waite claimed: "The King James Bible is always superior to all others in the English language" (p. 80). He wrote: "The only valid Bible is the King James Bible" (p. 131). He wrote: "The King James Bible is the only accurate English translation in existence today" (p. 47). He claimed: "You cannot have the power of Christ if you read these false versions" (p. 145). He maintained that the KJV "is the only acceptable translation from the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts" and "is the only true Bible in the English language" (FUZZY FACTS, pp. 8-9).

Waite's own exclusive "only" claims for the KJV
clearly shows that he holds a KJV-only view and in some ways it seems to be as extreme as that held by Ruckman.

How many of those who claim that the KJV is the best overall English translation will at least acknowledge that at least some verses another English translation is more accurate than the KJV?

 

There are translations that have a more accurate translation in some verses than the KJV. That's what happens with a translation. Translating from one language to another is not an easy task because not all words have the exact same meanings. Add to that that the KJV is 400 years old and of course their are translations that have a few verses in them with a better translation. With that said, many of the them have altered other verses to teach things that would help their own cause and that is why I stick with the KJV. I am currently looking at the MKJV.

 

I really don't want to get into an all out debate on translations. My point in this thread is that I disagree with the characterization of KJV loyalists as being at the extreme of Ruckman and Hyles.

As far as an example, I will post one later when I can give an exact quote rather than just paraphrase.