Saved Using a Non-KJV??

[Dr. Bob]

Came across this quotation. Trust it to be accurate, but also to show the depth of pernicious false doctrine of the KJVonly position.

Many of the ifb here will recognize the message. All would know the messenger. If this doesn't sicken you, you'd better consider your walk with God.

In order to live as a child of God, I must have a perfect Bible. Matthew 4:41, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Notice the words, "every word."

If I have my prayers answered, I must have a perfect Bible. John 15:7, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." That means that somewhere in the world, there has to be a perfect Bible.

God has told us that His words are pure. Psalm 12:6, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in afurnace of earth, punfied seven times."

Now if the very words of God must be pure, and if in fact the King James Bible contains the preserved words of God, then any other words are not the words of God. This means that the Revised Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Good News for Modern Man is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Living Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Reader's Digest Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New Scofield Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New International Version (NIV) is not precious seed, and it is not incorruptible. This means that the American Standard Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. If the versions do not agree, then all of them cannot be the very words of God that have been preserved for us.


Suppose corruptible seed is used. Can a person then be born again from it? You answer that question. According to I Peter 1:23 we read, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed...." 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. Does that mean that if someone goes soul winning and takes a false Bible that the person who receives Christ is not saved? I believe with all of my soul that the incorruptible seed must have been used somewhere in that person's life. If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that that incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever.

This is also borne out in Psalm 19:7, "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." Notice the words, "the law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul." It is the law of the Lord that converts. It is the Word of God that regenerates. The Word is the seed, and the seed must be incorruptible.

Thoughts?

 

[robycop3]

When I was saved, the only Bible I'd ever read in depth was the NASV. I knew about the KJV, but even then, I didn't believe the KJV was the end-all, be-all English Bible. The only preachers I'd ever heard were Billy Graham, and the locals who preached as if they had a respiratort disorder, I.E. "And the Lord(grunt) sent fire(hick)from heaven(uggh)". I thought half of them were on LSD. And NEVER had I heard the myth that God had provided only ONE BV for English speakers.

As is the case with most KJVO diatribe, the quote above has more "ifs" than anything. There's nothing to cover the very likely that most of his "what ifs" AREN'T REALITY.

 

[rsr]

You got the quote right, Dr. Bob. It's Jack Hyles.

My thoughts? It borders on bibliolatry, denying the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[HankD]

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

Which one, 1611 or 1613 or 1629 or 1638 or 1644 or 1664 or 1701 or 1744 or 1762 or 1769 or 1850?

They are all different and "Things that are different are not the same".

HankD

 

[TaterTot]

yep, it sickens me too

 

[Slambo]

A person can get saved using any version.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I quoted this for a purpose. MANY ifb and their pastors are in the "hyles" mentality. They DISTANCE themselves from Ruckman, saying they are not the EXTREME KJVonly. Evil. Bad.

But then they embrace the hyles thinking. This is the de facto result of KJVonly position. IF there is only one Bible, then how CAN a person be saved reading anything else?

I am glad Hyles put it succinctly into words. It shows the poisoned fruit of poisoned theology.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by robycop3:
When I was saved, the only Bible I'd ever read in depth was the NASV. I knew about the KJV, but even then, I didn't believe the KJV was the end-all, be-all English Bible. The only preachers I'd ever heard were Billy Graham, and the locals who preached as if they had a respiratort disorder, I.E. "And the Lord(grunt) sent fire(hick)from heaven(uggh)". I thought half of them were on LSD. And NEVER had I heard the myth that God had provided only ONE BV for English speakers.

As is the case with most KJVO diatribe, the quote above has more "ifs" than anything. There's nothing to cover the very likely that most of his "what ifs" AREN'T REALITY.

Not to question your salvation Robycop3, just to make sure you had better check it out. I would hate for you to miss out because you studied the NASB.

OH MY GOODNESS! I USED THE NASB, TOO.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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

Which one, 1611 or 1613 or 1629 or 1638 or 1644 or 1664 or 1701 or 1744 or 1762 or 1769 or 1850?

They are all different and "Things that are different are not the same".

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, but HankD, it's just correcting printer's errors and different spelling back in "the day" (as my daughter says). Don't you guys know anything?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with inaccurate or missing jots and tittles if they are "printer's errors".

Hmmmmmm! Interesting, that the translators can't make mistakes but the printers can.

 

[gb93433]

If the quote is true, then I would wonder how any followers of Jesus could have ever been saved because the NT was not around.

 

[Phillip]

Even worse, GB---A lot of people lost between the first use of the English language and 1611. GASP!

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
I quoted this for a purpose. MANY ifb and their pastors are in the "hyles" mentality. They DISTANCE themselves from Ruckman, saying they are not the EXTREME KJVonly. Evil. Bad.

But then they embrace the hyles thinking. This is the de facto result of KJVonly position. IF there is only one Bible, then how CAN a person be saved reading anything else?

I am glad Hyles put it succinctly into words. It shows the poisoned fruit of poisoned theology.

I think it shows that anything can be taken to an extreme, and that almost anything taken to an extreme is a bad thing. But this is not always the case. Some things God wants us to be extreme in. I would venture to say that extreme charity would be looked upon favorably.

If the King James Bible is the perfect word of God in English, it does not follow that you can not get saved without it. Hyles was wrong. But does that mean that we run now to the opposite extreme and say that since a man can be saved regardless of what version he reads, that it doesn't matter what version one reads? This is, after all, the de facto result of multiple versionism, right?

 

[Pastor J]

Dr. Bob,

Again you completely misrepresent the IFB stand on the KJV issue. Peter Ruckman and Jack Hyles are fanatics with the IFB movement. They do not represent the vast majority of people who hold to the KJV as the only version that is the preserved word of God. Most in fact, myself included, would have no problem using another translation to lead people to Christ. Though I will only use the KJV, the use of other translations does not make one an heretic. I am tired of your casting a gloom and doom on the entire KJV group because of Hylesites and Ruckmanites, who make up a small percentage.

 

[robycop3]

Slambo:A person can get saved using any version.

How very correct, Slambo! JESUS does the saving and not any version of His word, contrary to what Hyles preached.

 

[HankD]

Oh, but HankD, it's just correcting printer's errors and different spelling back in "the day" (as my daughter says). Don't you guys know anything?

The problem with this Phillip is that some of the corrections were more than just “typos”.

In fact Dr. Ruckman admits to this and has proclaimed that these “mistakes” (such as “easter” in Acts 12:4) were actually “advanced revelations” planted there by God via the inadvertent actions of the King James translators to be discovered by none other than he himself (Dr. R) in the 20/21st century

This, IMO is the KJVO version of The Emperor’s New Clothes in an attempt to cover up their tracks leading back to the ex catherda promulgation by Dr. R of a perfect, flawless and inspired English canon of the Holy Bible in 1611 (and not 90AD and not in Hebrew and/or Greek).

HankD

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I agree with Pastor J that this philosophy is not prevalent in most IFB circles. I know many HAC graduates, many Oklahoma Baptist College (Jim Vineyard) graduates, and many preachers who run in these circles, and I do not know of one who would agree with the late Dr. Hyles' quote.

Having attended OBC, I can testify first-hand that they do not teach this philosophy.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I pray you are right Pastor J and Pastor_Bob. I know some HAC'ers who have bought everything Jack sold. And many OBC who immitated &gt;gasp&lt; the words, actions and thoughts of Vineyard.

Many coming from PCC also take the KJVonly position to this extreme.

Remember that I am historic IFB and would not classify Hyles, Ruckman, Vineyward, Pensacola, etc as historic ifb in any sense of the word.

 

[Slambo]

I agree with Pastor_Bob,I've encountered only a hadfull(If that many) of people that are like you described.Nor do I agree with such....Even the worst translation has enough of the woG in it for a person to be saved.

 

[av1611jim]

I agree with James Newman.
ANY position taken to the extreme is wrong. This Sword cuts both ways. On one extreme you have idolatry of the version. On the other you have idolatry of the "scholar".

I have never held that one could not be saved except he use the KJV. But once they are saved, I will not disciple them with anything but the KJV. Not that they could not grow with something else, rather, they will blossom with only the KJV.
In HIS servcie;
Jim

 

[Trotter]

Gee, I guess we'll have a lot of bloomin' idiots running around, huh?

I cut my teeth on the KJV. KJVOism wasn't taught...exactly...but it was very heavily emphasised. It was many years before I discovered that the KJV is not the only repository for God's truth.

I still use the KJV...but only because one of my study bibles is KJV. If and when I can afford a new KeyWord Study Bible in NASB, I'm gonna buy it.

In Christ,
Trotter