Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

KJB Only Preachers Are Not Lost


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I believe that the KJB Only Baptist preachers, are preaching firmer, the Word. I am not KJ Only my self, because I also use a Spanish Bible, La Reina Valera in Spanish. Those Baptist using many versions of the Bible are still looking for something. They are preaching the Word, but they are not as firm, not all preachers brother Tony. Not a wide brush like you always mention. Which Baptist churches preach fire and brimstone. The KJ only preachers in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Once you start throwing shade on the inerrancy of the English translation, ( any of them, pick one, believing one is better than believing in the long lost originals, IMO, or a language nobody reads ever except maybe some bible correcting reprobate in a college seminary), you will move next to the teachings of the bible itself. 

"Yeah, hath God said".

Many are being tossed around by 300 translations since 1900 by all the Hebrew/Greek scholars correcting the bible whenever they want, including TR scholars sitting on the fence, in order to pump out a new translation (there must be 10,000 to the English text to qualify as a new version $$$). You will never be steadfast in the words of God listening to these reprobates most who never made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Heeding them you will become just another unstable judge of God's word.

As far as the Spanish versions I cannot make any comment on that. Maybe God has preserved his word for the Spanish speaking people in one of those versions. I'm concerned about an English version I can hold and read everyday. My litmus test is the KJV has proving itself over the last 400 years to be the word. The fact that they are to this day still trying to replace it with a myriad of versions just strengthens my conviction.

Finally, there's a movement going on in the underground church in China where they believe the KJV is the pure word of God. I guess "Ruckmanism" to the horror of my IFB Christians has crept in over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Being KJVonly does not make a preacher sound in itself. There are MANY Baptist preachers who even use they KJV that have gone by the wayside. Consider Steven Anderson, Ruckman, and a pastor in Phoenix that my sister's family went to for years. Sometime after they moved out to where I live in 2014, their pastor rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. One of my nephews very recently moved back to Phoenix and started reattending his church. He told his brother (who was visiting me last night) to check out this pastor's youtube channel. I did last night, and saw various videos speaking against the Trinity, that it was a pagan doctrine, that Jesus was the Father was the Spirit. And he is KJVonly. So that is not a reflection on his Bible version itself.

That being said, I would rather listen to a KJVonly SOUND preacher than any other preacher using a modern version. I can fellowship with a regular believer while I use my KJV and they use whatever version they have (as long as they are reading and studying it, not explaining it away); but, am unwilling to put myself regularly under the preaching of a non-KJV preacher. (That doesn't mean I won't check out a non-KJV preacher for research or to find out what he is like, what he believes, etc. - but not to be part of his church or regular audience.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Jerry said:

Being KJVonly does not make a preacher sound in itself. There are MANY Baptist preachers who even use they KJV that have gone by the wayside. Consider Steven Anderson, Ruckman, and a pastor in Phoenix that my sister's family went to for years. Sometime after they moved out to where I live in 2014, their pastor rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. One of my nephews very recently moved back to Phoenix and started reattending his church. He told his brother (who was visiting me last night) to check out this pastor's youtube channel. I did last night, and saw various videos speaking against the Trinity, that it was a pagan doctrine, that Jesus was the Father was the Spirit. And he is KJVonly. So that is not a reflection on his Bible version itself.

That being said, I would rather listen to a KJVonly SOUND preacher than any other preacher using a modern version. I can fellowship with a regular believer while I use my KJV and they use whatever version they have (as long as they are reading and studying it, not explaining it away); but, am unwilling to put myself regularly under the preaching of a non-KJV preacher. (That doesn't mean I won't check out a non-KJV preacher for research or to find out what he is like, what he believes, etc. - but not to be part of his church or regular audience.)

I agree that not all KJ only preachers are the best, or on the same page.

Also any church that preach against the Trinity or the Virgin birth are fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Since I am not a pastor, my question to pastors and preachers. Is it easy or harder to prepare a gospel message with the KJ version. Do you use the KJ for only certain messages, like In preaching on sins or preaching on a place called Hell. The old English, is it better then the new English. I hear that today people don’t care much for the old English, do you. How hard is the KJ really to understand, when it comes to sharing the gospel. Lastly, why do we need so many new versions of the Bible, and are there people making much money selling these new versions of the Bible.  
 

Thanks, E Morales Florida 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I use the King James for all my written messages and all my preached messages - on every subject. It is no harder to preach salvation out of it than any other subject - in fact, EVERY SINGLE MESSAGE I preached at the Gospel Mission for 7 1/2 years contained the Gospel, even if my main subject/theme was on another theme.

If it is a difficult passage to cover or understand, then I take the time to explain it thoroughly and define the necessary words - OR I don't preach on it. It doesn't do anyone any good if they do not understand what you are teaching.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1st off you can not blame the KJV for false doctrine. The Church of Christ for example will use 1 Pet 3:20-21 for water regeneration, when the people who got wet perished and those who stayed dry were saved. They have a severe case of hydrocephalus (water on the brain). Just because you twist Scripture does make the Scripture twisted!

2nd the litmus test for seeing if one just uses the KJV or believes it to be God’s preserved word for the English speaking people is these two following verses.

And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Act 12:4

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: Rom 8:16

True some may not know how to defend these readings, but we are here to reveal the pliable who will say they are mistakes in the English text and should have been rendered ********** or what they were taught at some Bible collage.

3th Degrade the belief to a man’s name Ruckmanite. The Catholic church did this for years with the early church (Waldenses, Hussities and any group that opposed them). I personally was persuaded by a man called J. J. Ray who’s work God Only Wrote One Bible (published 1956). I guess that makes me a “Rayite”. There were others Dr. Hill and Dr. fuller.

These men were polite, but ignored. Dr. Ruckman was not polite but he kick them in their stones, GOOD. I have more respect for a pimp in Gray Indiana, at least he is dirty but does not try to hide his physical sins. Spiritual sins are far worst. David was guilty of terrible physical sins, but he did not lose the kingdom, Solomon’s sins were spiritual (idolatry) which lead to the fall of the kingdom. So to reduce the belief to calling people Ruckmanite or KJV only is a smoke screen to hide their spiritual snake oil.

We Baptist claim that a BOOK , the Bible is our final authority. Where is it? Can I get my hands on it? And did God lose it? Do I have to go to some “scholar” to give it in pieces. If some one tells you that you are following a man. The simple question is who are you following?

I have seen the results back when I was a Nazarene in a Sunday School class. My translation says this. But my translation has it missing. What does your say? What confusion, no wonder why Christianity is in such sad shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 hours ago, E Morales said:

Since I am not a pastor, my question to pastors and preachers. Is it easy or harder to prepare a gospel message with the KJ version. Do you use the KJ for only certain messages, like In preaching on sins or preaching on a place called Hell. The old English, is it better then the new English. I hear that today people don’t care much for the old English, do you. How hard is the KJ really to understand, when it comes to sharing the gospel. Lastly, why do we need so many new versions of the Bible, and are there people making much money selling these new versions of the Bible.  
 

Thanks, E Morales Florida 

 You do not have to be a pastor brother, I preach and I am not, big deal. If everyman was a pastor who would they preach to-----women. In fact some of the duties would drive you nuts.       The backbiting, gossip, usurpers, finance, hospital calls, marriage problem, false brethren, Calvinism, hyper-dispensationalist, plus he has to battle the world, the fresh and the devil in his personal life. A church generally does not get any higher than the pulpit.

I once told my deceased pastor that I had, that I had it made, years ago, I teach adult Sunday school, fill in at the pulpit once in a while, street preach, nursing homes and once in a while a different church or rescue mission. And I did not have the mess he has to deal with.

As far as the old English, sure there are just some archaic words look at below, this will keep you busy. Perhaps, next time verb endings (eth and est) they are helpful

Archaic Words in the NIV

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

BIBLE VERSE

NIV

AV

Ezra 9:5

abasement

heaviness

Is 24:23

abashed

confounded

Ezek 40:18

abutted

over against

2 Chr 15:14

acclamation

voice

Is 13:8

aghast

amazed

Ezek 40:13

alcove

little chamber

2 Chr 13:22

annotations

story

Num 31:50

armlets

chains

Acts 2:6

bewilderment

confounded

Ps 58:7

blunted

cut in pieces

Job 8:2

blustering

strong

Ps 93:4

breakers

waves

Ex 35:22

brooches

bracelets

Is 57:4

brood

children

Dan 10:6

burnished

polished

Rev 4:3

carnelian

sardine

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Bro. West said:

1st off you can not blame the KJV for false doctrine. The Church of Christ for example will use 1 Pet 3:20-21 for water regeneration, when the people who got wet perished and those who stayed dry were saved. They have a severe case of hydrocephalus (water on the brain). Just because you twist Scripture does make the Scripture twisted!

2nd the litmus test for seeing if one just uses the KJV or believes it to be God’s preserved word for the English speaking people is these two following verses.

And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Act 12:4

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: Rom 8:16

True some may not know how to defend these readings, but we are here to reveal the pliable who will say they are mistakes in the English text and should have been rendered ********** or what they were taught at some Bible collage.

3th Degrade the belief to a man’s name Ruckmanite. The Catholic church did this for years with the early church (Waldenses, Hussities and any group that opposed them). I personally was persuaded by a man called J. J. Ray who’s work God Only Wrote One Bible (published 1956). I guess that makes me a “Rayite”. There were others Dr. Hill and Dr. fuller.

These men were polite, but ignored. Dr. Ruckman was not polite but he kick them in their stones, GOOD. I have more respect for a pimp in Gray Indiana, at least he is dirty but does not try to hide his physical sins. Spiritual sins are far worst. David was guilty of terrible physical sins, but he did not lose the kingdom, Solomon’s sins were spiritual (idolatry) which lead to the fall of the kingdom. So to reduce the belief to calling people Ruckmanite or KJV only is a smoke screen to hide their spiritual snake oil.

We Baptist claim that a BOOK , the Bible is our final authority. Where is it? Can I get my hands on it? And did God lose it? Do I have to go to some “scholar” to give it in pieces. If some one tells you that you are following a man. The simple question is who are you following?

I have seen the results back when I was a Nazarene in a Sunday School class. My translation says this. But my translation has it missing. What does your say? What confusion, no wonder why Christianity is in such sad shape.

You seem to have a habit of trying to introduce new "subject matter" in to the conversation to divert from the fact that you really can't defend your position. I can't find any validity in the two verses you quoted to try and defend your position. And to be honest, Peter Ruckman was one to twist the Bible to fit his ideology, or his interpretation of what the Bible actually said. Granted JH was a questionable praeacher  from Hammond/Gary, Indiana. Baptists DO claim the book. The only one who seems to think that they don't do this is you. You cast dispersions on people who go back to some of the things they were taught in Bible college (I take it that this was a reference to me...for which I will defend myself) and I am one who will call you on your deflections. There's nothing wrong with people going back to their training. That's what it's there for. Ruckmanites do the same thing, so, that negates your argument, as it seems that YOU are doing the same thing you accuse others of....Remove the moat from your own eye first Mr. West. 

Also, the other versions are just as "preserved" in fact. That argument doesn't fly here. Being KJV PREFERRED (I used to be KJVO, having been raised in KJVO church) I found that many of the arguments the onlles use in defending their position don't fly and ignore the facts that people ARE being saved and many are living more Godly lives using those versions than many who are onlies. Sorry...it's just not a viable position. I still use my KJV for Bible study, preaching, writing, and even had a website with KJV in the title. I defend the KJV as the bgtter version for English speaking people. It's NOT the only version though. To cast dispersions on the other translations is to limit the Holy Spirit and tell him what HE can and cannot use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Bro. West said:

 You do not have to be a pastor brother, I preach and I am not, big deal. If everyman was a pastor who would they preach to-----women. In fact some of the duties would drive you nuts.       The backbiting, gossip, usurpers, finance, hospital calls, marriage problem, false brethren, Calvinism, hyper-dispensationalist, plus he has to battle the world, the fresh and the devil in his personal life. A church generally does not get any higher than the pulpit.

I once told my deceased pastor that I had, that I had it made, years ago, I teach adult Sunday school, fill in at the pulpit once in a while, street preach, nursing homes and once in a while a different church or rescue mission. And I did not have the mess he has to deal with.

As far as the old English, sure there are just some archaic words look at below, this will keep you busy. Perhaps, next time verb endings (eth and est) they are helpful

Archaic Words in the NIV

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

BIBLE VERSE

NIV

AV

Ezra 9:5

abasement

heaviness

Is 24:23

abashed

confounded

Ezek 40:18

abutted

over against

2 Chr 15:14

acclamation

voice

Is 13:8

aghast

amazed

Ezek 40:13

alcove

little chamber

2 Chr 13:22

annotations

story

Num 31:50

armlets

chains

Acts 2:6

bewilderment

confounded

Ps 58:7

blunted

cut in pieces

Job 8:2

blustering

strong

Ps 93:4

breakers

waves

Ex 35:22

brooches

bracelets

Is 57:4

brood

children

Dan 10:6

burnished

polished

Rev 4:3

carnelian

sardine

 

Are you intentionally trying to misrepresent these words? I don't think this is an equal comparison of the facts. I'm not a fan of the NIV...In fact, for many years my former pastor and I argued about this version. Still, to misrepresent the translation with the meaning of cherry picked words is dishonest and unbecoming of anyone who says they rightly divide the Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother Tony, I don't want to sidetrack this thread too much, but wanted to clarify: this board and most members here are KJVonly. Yes, some are KJV-preferred. That is the only current English translation in use that is based on the preserved Textus Receptus Greek Text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Every single other version is from some form of the Critical Text - therefore not preserved texts. This includes the NKJV, despite what others say (the proof is in the pudding and in the readings that differ from the KJV).

Yes, people can be saved from probably many (I don't know about most) modern versions - but the more that is added, removed, and changed, the less true spiritual growth they will get from it AND the harder it will be to present the truth of Christ (who He is, what He has done, etc.) from them. For example, Robert Bratcher who "translated" Today's English Version (the Good News Bible) did not believe Jesus was God; therefore he played with or removed many references to Jesus' deity in his version. Are there any plain references to Jesus' deity left in that version? I don't know - but many of the ones Christians might use to witness to others and show His deity from are unusable for that purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
32 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Brother Tony, I don't want to sidetrack this thread too much, but wanted to clarify: this board and most members here are KJVonly. Yes, some are KJV-preferred. That is the only current English translation in use that is based on the preserved Textus Receptus Greek Text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Every single other version is from some form of the Critical Text - therefore not preserved texts. This includes the NKJV, despite what others say (the proof is in the pudding and in the readings that differ from the KJV).

Jerry, just wanted to clarify, what you are saying here is simply untrue. The Modern English version for example is also based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text/Greek Textus Receptus, and so is the NKJV, regardless of what you are asserting. Just because the NKJV differs in translation choice from the KJV, does not mean it's based on a different Greek text, anymore than the KJV is from different text than the previous Geneva Bible and Bishops Bible (of which the KJV was a officially a revision of) If you could demonstrate one example of where the NKJV follows the critical text, I would be interested to see it.

If you want to reject the NKJV for it's translational choices, there are some legitimate criticisms to be made there, but to say it's based on a different text is patently false. Even if you still wrote off the NKJV as being " based on the critical text" (even though it's not), the MEV exists and entire churches even use it, Also the Geneva Bible is based on the Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus, and there are individuals today still using it, in fact there is even a "Modernized Geneva Bible" with modern spelling of words (No word  changes), therefore the charge the the KJV "is the only current English translation in use that is based on the preserved Textus Receptus Greek Text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text" is simply not true. 

20 hours ago, SureWord said:

(there must be 10,000 to the English text to qualify as a new version $$$).

Can you please provide a source for this statement, I have never been able to find any law that actually states this but would be glad to see it. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Okay, let me add this to clarify then: There are no other mainstream versions today that are solely based on the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts. There may be some individuals, maybe even a church here and there that uses something like the KJV21 or something like that - but those do not have the support of the people like the KJV itself or certain modern versions. I have no desire to rehash the differences between the NKJV and the KJV - the fact there ARE differences is proof they are not the same and using the exact same manuscripts. Just because you are someone that likes to sit on the NKJV fence and has a tolerance for it doesn't mean others should accept your viewpoint on it either. Seeing this is a KJVonly site, I am standing where this site stands, and I don't need to prove that stand any more than I have in all the years I have been here. If someone cared, they could do a search for all my past posts or search for older posts on the NKJV, if they are still available on this site (the older a topic or posts are, the harder it is to access or view them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
56 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Brother Tony, I don't want to sidetrack this thread too much, but wanted to clarify: this board and most members here are KJVonly. Yes, some are KJV-preferred. That is the only current English translation in use that is based on the preserved Textus Receptus Greek Text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Every single other version is from some form of the Critical Text - therefore not preserved texts. This includes the NKJV, despite what others say (the proof is in the pudding and in the readings that differ from the KJV).

Yes, people can be saved from probably many (I don't know about most) modern versions - but the more that is added, removed, and changed, the less true spiritual growth they will get from it AND the harder it will be to present the truth of Christ (who He is, what He has done, etc.) from them. For example, Robert Bratcher who "translated" Today's English Version (the Good News Bible) did not believe Jesus was God; therefore he played with or removed many references to Jesus' deity in his version. Are there any plain references to Jesus' deity left in that version? I don't know - but many of the ones Christians might use to witness to others and show His deity from are unusable for that purpose.

I'm well aware of the arguments for and against the KJV. I grew up with Dr. David H. Sorenson (the writer of "Touch Not the Unclean Thing" ) as one of my youth pastors, and he was the associate pastor under his father, Henry Sorenson in Pekin, IL. I used to be KJVO...but it's a position that is not defensible, especially in the light of the way it's presented by many of it's supporters. If the critical text is so bad, and isn't preserved, then the truth is God doesn't preserve his word...if only the received text is correct, then God wrote in the Kings English. This isn't necessarily my position, but I know many who support the texts...ALL OF THEM, BOTH RECEIVED AND CRITICAL, that do hold this position. I'm aware also that MOST on this site are KJVO, and I don't have a problem with that. As stated, I use my KJV for everything as the main source. But, we also know that when Paul and Timothy were faced with this situation in Philippians 1:15-18, others preaching the gospel, but not in the way that they did...they didn't dispute it...they were thankful for it because Christ was being preached. Let's stay on track here and remember the motives man has don't stymie God's plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

if only the received text is correct, then God wrote in the Kings English.

But, we also know that when Paul and Timothy were faced with this situation in Philippians 1:15-18, others preaching the gospel, but not in the way that they did...they didn't dispute it...they were thankful for it because Christ was being preached. Let's stay on track here and remember the motives man has don't stymie God's plans.

I truly do not know what you mean by the first statement above. The Textus Receptus existed since the first century. The translation of it in the seventeenth century resulted in what became known as the king's English - but the TR and the Masoretic Text are the underlying languages. Yes, preserved faithfully into English a little over 400 years ago, but the TR, etc. was not English.

And not to sidetrack too much - the Critical text is a text that was edited over and over (in fact, the NU text comes out with a new edition every few years). How is that the PRESERVED TEXT when it comes from proven corrupt manuscripts and is continually being edited today.

I agree with the second statement above - it is not up to us to critique the motives of the preacher AS LONG AS the truth is being preached. However, if the message is corrupted that is a different matter altogether.

And no, I am not specifically stating that someone is presenting a corrupt message because they are using a modern version; however, as much as that version is watered down and changed, that WILL effect their preaching eventually. You cannot rise above your source. If your source is changed and corrupted, eventually that will show in the messages from it.

My opinion: It someone preaches enough from a Bible version that minimalizes the deity of Christ, for example - even if the message of Jesus' deity is not changed, it will be minimalized or made of less importance because there are less passages that clearly teach it in that version. Someone cannot preach what is not there in their Bible version, unless they are winging it and making it up as they go along, which is NOT a method of studying and preaching any godly person should resort to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 hours ago, Jerry said:

Okay, let me add this to clarify then: There are no other mainstream versions today that are solely based on the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts. There may be some individuals, maybe even a church here and there that uses something like the KJV21 or something like that - but those do not have the support of the people like the KJV itself or certain modern versions. I have no desire to rehash the differences between the NKJV and the KJV - the fact there ARE differences is proof they are not the same and using the exact same manuscripts. Just because you are someone that likes to sit on the NKJV fence and has a tolerance for it doesn't mean others should accept your viewpoint on it either. Seeing this is a KJVonly site, I am standing where this site stands, and I don't need to prove that stand any more than I have in all the years I have been here. If someone cared, they could do a search for all my past posts or search for older posts on the NKJV, if they are still available on this site (the older a topic or posts are, the harder it is to access or view them).

I am not asking you to prove the KJVO position, nor did I anywhere state my position, nor did I attack the KJV. I simply asked you to give one example to substantiate a very specific claim. If your not willing to do that, nor if you are desiring to discuss the differences between the KJV and the NKJV, then why did YOU bring it up? You are the one that brought up this oft repeated talking point. I find it rather disingenuous that now you are saying you don't wish to discuss that point. You are on a public forum and you made an assertion, I simply asked for one example, if the examples are so clear and obvious, I don't understand why you would not take the opportunity to give concrete evidence? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, Jerry said:

I truly do not know what you mean by the first statement above. The Textus Receptus existed since the first century. The translation of it in the seventeenth century resulted in what became known as the king's English - but the TR and the Masoretic Text are the underlying languages. Yes, preserved faithfully into English a little over 400 years ago, but the TR, etc. was not English.

As stated many times here, I know that. I'm very well versed in the texts...I'm also aware that, however, in a word for word translation, which the "onlyists" claim the KJV is...there would be no "kings English" based on the underlying texts. One would have to go for a dynamic equivalent, or a paraphrasing of certain portions of the text. 

8 hours ago, Jerry said:

And not to sidetrack too much - the Critical text is a text that was edited over and over (in fact, the NU text comes out with a new edition every few years). How is that the PRESERVED TEXT when it comes from proven corrupt manuscripts and is continually being edited today.

The only texts that were perfect were the autographs. We don't have them today...we have what has been copied down and passed from generation to generation..but it's a proven fact that even so, with the changes in languages, the meanings of words, we have to rely on translators to "get it right," which often they do not. Scribes make mistakes....on big one that keeps coming to mind is the constant infighting over the "Red" or the "Reed" sea. Just using it as an example. A second one is the use of the word "Easter," in certain texts. I've fought on both sides of this subject in debates, and I'm NOT going to debate it here. "Preserved" is a long fought over word....it applies to both underlying texts. RECEIVED is the word that the "Only's" should be using....JMHO. Then we get into the "better" and "best" texts...It's a jumble that the everyday Christian doesn't understand, nor do they often have the time or the inclination to dealve deeper into things like this for fear that it will confuse them further. 

8 hours ago, Jerry said:

I agree with the second statement above - it is not up to us to critique the motives of the preacher AS LONG AS the truth is being preached. However, if the message is corrupted that is a different matter altogether.

And no, I am not specifically stating that someone is presenting a corrupt message because they are using a modern version; however, as much as that version is watered down and changed, that WILL effect their preaching eventually. You cannot rise above your source. If your source is changed and corrupted, eventually that will show in the messages from it.

"Watered down" is an opinion. It's NOT necessarily a fact in all versions. One tries to misrepresent the critical text and compare them to the received texts, and then state junk like "the critical texts leave out" yada yada...REALLY? C'mon...It's like comparing apples and oranges...they're not the same, nor are they ever going to be the same. They're both still fruit. They're both still healthy for us. I don't believe the translators were trying to do anything nefarious in the critical texts...the gospel would be totally or sufficiently damaged otherwise, and that's just not the case. People are still being saved through the use of the critical texts. 

8 hours ago, Jerry said:

My opinion: It someone preaches enough from a Bible version that minimalizes the deity of Christ, for example - even if the message of Jesus' deity is not changed, it will be minimalized or made of less importance because there are less passages that clearly teach it in that version. Someone cannot preach what is not there in their Bible version, unless they are winging it and making it up as they go along, which is NOT a method of studying and preaching any godly person should resort to.

Could you please give an example of where Christ's diety is changed...I mean, I know where they say there is a change, but nobody has yet to prove that this is the case, especially if they read the content in it's proper context. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

...I simply asked you to give one example to substantiate a very specific claim. If your not willing to do that, nor if you are desiring to discuss the differences between the KJV and the NKJV, 

Jordan, we discussed this topic near ten years or so ago on here.  All of the changes to the NKJV come from the Sinaiticus which did not exist before the 1840s.  When it first came out, the authors admitted it in their writings.  It is not a secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 12/12/2021 at 5:22 AM, BrotherTony said:

You seem to have a habit of trying to introduce new "subject matter" in to the conversation to divert from the fact that you really can't defend your position. I can't find any validity in the two verses you quoted to try and defend your position. And to be honest, Peter Ruckman was one to twist the Bible to fit his ideology, or his interpretation of what the Bible actually said. Granted JH was a questionable praeacher  from Hammond/Gary, Indiana. Baptists DO claim the book. The only one who seems to think that they don't do this is you. You cast dispersions on people who go back to some of the things they were taught in Bible college (I take it that this was a reference to me...for which I will defend myself) and I am one who will call you on your deflections. There's nothing wrong with people going back to their training. That's what it's there for. Ruckmanites do the same thing, so, that negates your argument, as it seems that YOU are doing the same thing you accuse others of....Remove the moat from your own eye first Mr. West. 

Also, the other versions are just as "preserved" in fact. That argument doesn't fly here. Being KJV PREFERRED (I used to be KJVO, having been raised in KJVO church) I found that many of the arguments the onlles use in defending their position don't fly and ignore the facts that people ARE being saved and many are living more Godly lives using those versions than many who are onlies. Sorry...it's just not a viable position. I still use my KJV for Bible study, preaching, writing, and even had a website with KJV in the title. I defend the KJV as the bgtter version for English speaking people. It's NOT the only version though. To cast dispersions on the other translations is to limit the Holy Spirit and tell him what HE can and cannot use. 

No doubt but ye [are] the people, and wisdom shall die with you. Job 12:2

The things I wrote I believed prior to joining Online Baptist.

(I take it that this was a reference to me ), You wrote. Nothing I wrote was reference to you, you were not in my thoughts, so sorry. I am not against training for God gave teachers as one of the gifts to the body. (1Cor.12:28). But when a man, a school or an institution become the final authority you have problem. I know you have studied church history as well as I. And can see how a little leaven became the whore. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Col 2:8

I gave the example of the Church of Christ as an answer of some who want to suggest that the KJV promotes heresies , which I thought was both instructive and comical.

I too, have talked students back 35 years ago from Hyles. At the time, it seemed I’ve heard there training has improved which was needful. Especially when you are called a Hyper for believing in dispensations.

Yes, you are right I cast dispersion on other translations which call Joseph Jesus’ father (Luke 2:33), Jesus a begotten God (John 1:18) and state that Isaiah wrote Malachi (Mark 1:1)

You wrote: . To cast dispersion on the other translations is to limit the Holy Spirit and tell him what HE can and cannot use.

Just because you find gold in a thrash can does not make it a jewelry store.

All this shows is God is merciful, He hath used hymns, sermons, tracts, and even the Living Libel to reach the sinner. I was led to the Lord by a pastor who did not believe in a burning hell, taught you could lose your salvation and used an ASV to do so. Should I condone his errors, I wot not.

Nothing you wrote negates what I wrote! But at least I know what your final authority is, YOU

 

 

A Soldier's Blade

 

My blade was designed in heaven

But reproduced for me in 1611

In combat I've found it cuts quite well

To deliver men from the deepest hell

 

In every way I trust my blade

For by my Commander it was surely made

Others claim to have a sword

And claim it came from my LORD

 

But in my hand they do not feel

The two edge sword that makes men kneel

Bathed in blood and tempered by GOD

With this sword of the Spirit my feet are shod

 

With helmet and shield my sword is send

Oh the veil is torn and high places are rent

Other swords men bid me to take

Yet in real combat they will break

 

These Popish swords that invade the land

They trust the whore not the Son of Man

Take not their swords leavened with lust

But use GOD'S writ and parley and thrust

 

For it wounds the heads of Leviathan still

Preserved by the Captain from Golgotha's hill

So love the Book and study and kneel

Bow down and be knighted by Holy Steel

 

By Bro. West

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 1 Anonymous, 11 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...