Can someone be saved by reading the NIV?

[John81]

A very good Christian friend of mine was saved while reading the Good News Bible. If I'm not mistaken, after being saved and growing some he moved to the NASB. Unfortunately, I haven't seen him in about a dozen years so I'm not sure what he reads now.

The only Bible I had at the time I was saved was an RSV which I received as a child for attending Sunday School at a Methodist church.

[Kubel]

[quote="pneu-engine"]
Kubel,

I'm praying that you will come to see and be comletely convinced that the KJV is God's perfectly preserved Word, and unlike John R. Rice, cannot hold second place, or even an equal place, with any other translation for all English speaking peoples.
[/quote]

I will be completely convinced if I could get an answer to these questions:

[quote="DesiderioDomini"]
1. Where was the perfectly inspired "word of God" in English before 1611?




2. If there was a perfectly inspired "word of God" in English before 1611, what was the need for the KJV?




3. In which edition of the KJV are the promises for preservation fulfilled? Remember, there are still typos and differences in the KJV. Which one is 100% right?




4. If God did inspire the KJV, why did he allow so many errors which needed to be revised?




5. Why did God include the apocrypha in the KJV1611? Why did he include the translators preface, which clearly did not agree with KJVO? Why did he include the margin notes? Couldn't he have made sure these were not included, since they would clearly be against KJVO?




6. If the KJV is perfectly word-for-word inspired, why would italics even be necessary?




7. Why must the perfectly inspired "word of God" in English be found in one volume? Does any verse of scripture say that it should? Does any verse say which one? Is there any scriptural support for KJV-Onlyism?
[/quote]

Now I don't mean to be smart by quoting this guy- but he does present some very fair and valid questions. I can take something by faith- but it must have some scriptural support. If I don't take something by faith, I take it though evidence and logic which is enough to convince me.

Example: My mom... She thinks theres a bunch of people out to get her and that she is being poisoned by the illuminati who is out to kill christians. She doesn't go to doctors because they are in on it, and she doesn't trust phsychiatrists because they are satanic. I do not take what she's saying by faith because it is not scripturally supported. I also don't believe it because it is not logical and lacks evidence. Therefor, she is nuts. I could be wrong, but I would need definate evidence first.

I hope you all can understand my position. Thanks for your prayer. I can always use it :).

[BaptistBibleBeliever]

A man can be concerned about what events transpired in 1611 - a time far ago, or he can deal with the world of 2005.

What did they have in 1610? I don't care.

I know what I have today. GOD's perfect, preserved Word for the English speaking people - and He has mightily blessed that book 395 years.

[pneu-engine]

:goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:

[dwayner79]

[quote="BaptistBibleBeliever"]
A man can be concerned about what events transpired in 1611 - a time far ago, or he can deal with the world of 2005.

What did they have in 1610? I don't care.

I know what I have today. GOD's perfect, preserved Word for the English speaking people - and He has mightily blessed that book 395 years.
[/quote]

Except that part of the premise of the KJVO argument fails when you ask why did God not fulfill His promise to the guy who died in 1610.

You say you have GOD's perfect, preserved Word for the English speaking people. I think the posters point is you have no proof of that. You have a conviction, feeling, or some other emotional or logical conclusion based of personal experiences. You have no scriptural support besides the Preservation promise in Psalm 12. It is promised to "...preserve them from this generation for ever." If the KJV is the fulfillment of this, how do you answer the 1610 question. I think that the KJV is part of the fulfillment of this promise, but the overwhelming manuscript evidence is the main fulfillment of this.

Besides, what makes English so special. God is still not fulfilling His promise to many nations since they do not have a Bible in their language. A translation can NEVER be the full fulfillment of this passage. It simply make no logical sense. Now I know there are many who believe it. They have Holy Spirit conviction about it, so they use it. That is fine. The point is it should not be anyone's personal goal to "convert " someone to KJVO. It is not a matter of Biblical doctrine. It is a personal conviction.

[Kubel]

That's exactly my stand. I choose to read the KJV out of preference. I reject any teaching that is not included in the scriptures.

As far as Psalms 12: Even if that chapter was talking about scripture (which it was not, it was talking about the poor and needy), it does not support any particular translation as being the means through which the scriptures are preserved. If you have a 1611 reprint, notice the margin note.

If you or I have a preference of translation- that's fine. If there be any errors or short comings in ANY translation, let them be known so we can know the best translation. But never preach a doctrine, and try to force someone to believe in that doctrine, when it has no scriptural backing.

[dwayner79]

:goodpost: but some will probably respond with... :lies:

[Kubel]

:D

Thats ok, I won't hold it against them. I just want someone to answer my questions. Probably all ex-KJVO's have left this doctrine because they could not find a reasonable answer to at least one of those questions.

"I don't know and I don't care" responses only reaffirm my beliefs. One should know and one should care about the things they teach others as Bible truths. I'll be checking back at this thread once in a while to see if anyone can shed some light on these unanswered questions.

[Chelle]

[quote]
"I don't know and I don't care" responses only reaffirm my beliefs. One should know and one should care about the things they teach others as Bible truths.
[/quote]

:goodpost: I agree, Kubel.

[BaptistBibleBeliever]

So Matt and Dan, Is this board taking on the dimensions of baptistboard where a once good board went to seed because the "intellectuals" came in and took root right under the admin's nose?

At the Judgment Seat, Is JESUS CHRIST going to reward us because we could trace the genuineness of His Word from the day it was penned until it became the King James Version? Or are those rewards going to given to those who simply believed it and used it to His glory and the winning of precious souls?

When Peter said that each of us needs to be able to give a reason for the hope which is within him, did this refer to being able to explain which Bible GOD used before any of us were born, or does it refer to our soul's knowledge of salvation and the assurance thereof?

In the long run, are these endless, tedious discussions of this nature actually designed to bring men to question the Book and the salvation it presents?

Am I the only one that suspects yet another attempt by the evil one to ask the question: "[b]Yea, hath God said?[/b]"

I see we are being told that those of us that have an "I don't care attitude" toward intellectualism is reaffirming another's belief that he is right to reject a total and absolute dependence in the Bible for the English speaking people. Interesting.

But then, I believe that I would rather count myself among those baser things, and foolish things that my Bible tells me that GOD prefers to use in order to confound the wise that have studied away simple faith in "[b]Thus saith the Lord![/b]"

Kubel, you can check back all you want - but I truly hope that you don't find any of the "light" that you seem to be seeking.

But then, I guess that if you need a "reasonable" excuse to read and study corrupt versions - this one is as good as any.

[BaptistBibleBeliever]

[quote="Kubel"]
"I don't know and I don't care" responses only reaffirm my beliefs. One should know and one should care about the things they teach others as Bible truths.
[/quote]

But, I am somewhat curious as to just what "Bible truths" you are objecting to? What is it that we are teaching in apparent error?

[Pastor Matt]

[quote]
Besides, what makes English so special.[b] God is still not fulfilling His promise to many nations since they do not have a Bible in their language.[/b] A translation can NEVER be the full fulfillment of this passage. It simply make no logical sense. Now I know there are many who believe it. They have Holy Spirit conviction about it, so they use it. That is fine. The point is it should not be anyone's personal goal to "convert " someone to KJVO. It is not a matter of Biblical doctrine. It is a personal conviction.
[/quote]

Show me where God said he would preserve his word in [b]every [/b]language. You are



[quote="Dwayner79"]
The point is it should not be anyone's personal goal to "convert " someone to KJVO.
[/quote]

Since you are debating this it implies that you are trying to convert others to not KJVO. It is a 2 way street and you are going reverse in the wrong. lane. :D If it wasn't your goal you would'nt be debating it.

You are asking us why God choose English to preserve His Word in. That is like asking you why did God love you enough to save you. I am not the one who decided to preserve it into English, that was Gods doing so you will have to ask him.

I am sorry to hear that you could possible believe that God did not preserve his Word in English,I am sorry to hear that you do not have a Bible that you can call Gods Words, but rather Gods words and mans words mix together.

[quote]
It is not a matter of Biblical doctrine
[/quote]

Sorry, I found that too funny. The Bible is not part of [b]Biblical[/b] Doctrine? :haha

[Pastor Matt]

[quote="BaptistBibleBeliever"]
So Matt and Dan, Is this board taking on the dimensions of baptistboard where a once good board went to seed because the "intellectuals" came in and took root right under the admin's nose?
[/quote]

No sir it is not. When they say they have no Bible they can call Gods Words it makes them look rather silly don't you think?

BTW, Who is Dan?

[BaptistBibleBeliever]

Brother Matt, with you last response I am greatly relieved that this board is in good hands and will remain a repository for biblical, foundational truth until JESUS comes.

In other words, Amen!

[BaptistBibleBeliever]

Apparently I am wrong. I had been told, I think, that this board was run by yourself and your brother - Dan, but apparently he isn't your brother since you don't know him! My apologies!

Thank you for reaffirming this board's solid stand on the King James Bible.