Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

KJB Only Preachers Are Not Lost


Recommended Posts

  • Members
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

  • Members
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

  • Members
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

  • Members
16 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

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.

Please tell me you do not believe that these differences are of no consequence? A heretic changing the Red Sea (which is an actual sea) to the Reed Sea (which is a swamp) is a big difference. One is a miracle that only God can perform, the other is nothing.

And the word Easter in Acts 12 in the KJV can be easily and accurately defended; however, using the word Passover in that passage is actually an error, seeing as the days of unleavened bread are AFTER Passover.

Acts 12:3-4 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 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.

If it was the days of unleavened bread, then God's Passover had already gone by - however, the pagan holiday celebrating Ashtar fluctuated in its exact timing, and obviously that year it came later than Passover. We can see the exact same thing in our calendars today - the Jewish Passover (which happens on a set day of their Calendar); whereas Easter is so many days after a particular cycle of the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
54 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Please tell me you do not believe that these differences are of no consequence? A heretic changing the Red Sea (which is an actual sea) to the Reed Sea (which is a swamp) is a big difference. One is a miracle that only God can perform, the other is nothing.

And the word Easter in Acts 12 in the KJV can be easily and accurately defended; however, using the word Passover in that passage is actually an error, seeing as the days of unleavened bread are AFTER Passover.

Acts 12:3-4 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 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.

If it was the days of unleavened bread, then God's Passover had already gone by - however, the pagan holiday celebrating Ashtar fluctuated in its exact timing, and obviously that year it came later than Passover. We can see the exact same thing in our calendars today - the Jewish Passover (which happens on a set day of their Calendar); whereas Easter is so many days after a particular cycle of the moon.

  Good Job Brother, it saved me from having to answer Act 12. I think I will send you a "Christ mas" card.

SCRIPTURAL MARY

I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
MY PAP
S ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                         2
WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
MY PAP
S ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                        3
THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR

HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                            4
MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
NO REPUTATION A SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM

SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                         5
SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
6

FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                 WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • Members
On 12/11/2021 at 2:55 PM, SureWord said:

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.

Normally its the KJVO that question if others not using the Kjv are saved though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.



×
×
  • Create New...