[atlas]

Strongmeat,


What is your final authority in all matters of faith and practice?



Atlas

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by strongmeat

In order to become a Christian one must have heard the word. Which word did these millions of Christians hear? If it is not the KJV, then is/are there other Bibles that contain the word of God that the Holy Spirit used in their conversion?

strongmeat

bibleprotector said:

"I am not saying that if you didn’t use the King James Bible you would have gone to hell, in that millions of Christians have not used the King James Bible. But I am indicating that it should be the authority for us to the uttermost."

Strongmeat, Can a person be saved by reading John 3:16-18 in the NIV for example? (Personally, I'm a KJB only person, but I think he can.)

Even the av1611 site we've all benefited from agrees with that. People are saved the same way, believe in and receive the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Luke]

Here is the Romans Road - NIV Vs KJB

NIV first

As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one;
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

KJB
Romans 3:23 (KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 6:23 (KJV) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 5:8 (KJV) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 10:13 (KJV) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.


Now, the words are different to some extent. The KJB is perfect, but in here, the gospel is the same, IN THESE VERSES. It makes no difference whether someone hears the gospel from a KJB, from an NIV, in chinese, english, german, japanese. What matters is if the word pricks their heart, and they believe it.

There is a small remnant of old Hylesites from the 80's that still agree with Dr Hyles and Al Lacey that one can only be saved through the King James Bible. Hyles apparently later rejected this view, but it is still evident in his book "enemies of soulwinning".

We are not saved by a Bible. We are not saved by the word, but by the Word.

[Brother Tim]

Amen, Luke. Or else, what is the use of passing out tracts? Or preach?

Hello Forrest, Luke, Brother Tim

I fully agree. I hope I didn’t give the impression by my question to bibleprotector that I feel that one can only be saved through the KJV. On the contrary I think otherwise. The statement I quoted from bibleprotector implies that he also believes that one can be saved other than through the KJV. There were conversions to Christ before 1611 and there are many conversions today in non-English speaking countries that certainly do not use the KJV. Also there are conversions today other than through the KJV even in English speaking countries.

However, this leads on to something else. If the Holy Spirit can use the words and the gospel message in the NIV, etc and save people (and I am convinced that this does happen), then does this not mean that such versions also contain the word of God, even if not all of it? Will the Holy Spirit use words found in versions that are perverse and corrupt to save souls?

Let me make it clear (as I did in my opening introductory post in Chit-chat) that though I have read other versions, the Holy Spirit always leads me back to the KJV. It remains the only English translation that I am comfortable with. For me the KJV is the word of God in English. The modern translations clearly are inferior to the KJV. But don’t they also have truth, even if it is missing some of the truth and have garbled it in many verses.

The point I am driving at is that while I uphold the KJV above all other English translations, would I be legalistic if I state that all other English versions are not the word of God or do not contain the word of God? I do not wish to be legalistic. I do not wish to pigeon-hole or limit the working of the Holy Spirit by an extreme KJV only position. I know people who do not and will not read the King James Bible because of the old English. They read the NIV and other modern versions. I would rather they read the KJV. However, I would rather they read the NIV or another version than not read a Bible at all. Let us be careful that we do not drive people away from the Lord by an extremist or exclusive spirit.

strongmeat

[Luke]

Originally Posted by strongmeat

then does this not mean that such versions also contain the word of God, even if not all of it? Will the Holy Spirit use words found in versions that are perverse and corrupt to save souls?

Yes.

NIV - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life
KJB - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life

That is the word of God isn't it?

The NIV and modern perversions still have uncorrupted portions of the word of God in them, but the KJB IS the word of God. Every single word of it is God breathed, inspired and innerrant.

The reason we use the KJB is that Jesus said man must live BY every word of God. So we better have every word of God to live by them.

[Brother Tim]

A big distinction needs to be made here. Most modern versions CONTAIN the Word of God to various degrees. The KJB IS the Word of God in completeness. A person can read the MVs and still have the message of the Gospel presented (at this point ... future versions may not be useable) What will be hindered is the growth of the believer once he is saved. Because doctrines are distorted, and truth is compromised in the MVs, the meat necessary for spiritual growth will not be there.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by strongmeat

The point I am driving at is that while I uphold the KJV above all other English translations, would I be legalistic if I state that all other English versions are not the word of God or do not contain the word of God? ... I know people who do not and will not read the King James Bible because of the old English. They read the NIV and other modern versions. I would rather they read the KJV. However, I would rather they read the NIV or another version than not read a Bible at all.

There is a false dichotomy at work in this view. If a person were to not read the King James Bible, and they were to read an inferior version instead (as I did in a transitional period) the NIV and other alexandrian modern versions are by no means a possible solution. The reader would have to at least go to a version based on the Received Text, lest they are reading a horribly corrupt version. There is simply no excuse whatsoever for reading an alexandrian corrupt version from the Critical Text. Ignorance may be the only understandable cause -- whether it counts as an excuse is a question before God for the individual. We should never allow the simple fact that the King James Bible and the alphabet soup (NIV, HCSB, RSV, NWT, etc) are from radically differing underlying Greek texts, one pure, the Reformation Bible, the other corrupt, to be obscured by references to "English translations".

Switching to another aspect.

Many err in ignorance, that is understood. However those who consciously and actively promote attacks on the pure King James Bible must be impelled by a very deep rebellion against God, even more so if they have had brethren present them with the basic truths. Can we talk about the Christianity and the salvation of those whose primary purpose in study is to attack the word of God ? If there so much bondage, if they are the tool used by spiritual principalities to fight the word of God, I believe we should be slow to talk about their lining up as Christians or commending their salvation based upon some particular doctrinal bar. If their primary writings and efforts are against the pure and perfect word of God, something is deeply awry on a very fundamental level.

Shalom,
Steven

[atlas]

Steven & Strong,

Many err in ignorance, that is understood. However those who consciously and actively promote attacks on the pure King James Bible must be impelled by a very deep rebellion against God, even more so if they have had brethren present them with the basic truths. Can we talk about the Christianity and the salvation of those whose primary purpose in study is to attack the word of God ? If there so much bondage, if they are the tool used by spiritual principalities to fight the word of God, I believe we should be slow to talk about their lining up as Christians or commending their salvation based upon some particular doctrinal bar. If their primary writings and efforts are against the pure and perfect word of God, something is deeply awry on a very fundamental level.

This is a very good post my friend also very true. Most of the folks I know that read MV's always attack the AV. They also almost always will tell you that we do not have the perfect Word God in translation. They are always taught this by their " Godly Pastors and college professors. "

I know people who do not and will not read the King James Bible because of the old English.

Many of these same people that " will not read the King James Bible because of the old English " will read Shakespeare in spite of it's Old English. Maybe we need to revise Shakespeare and bring Shakespeare " up to date. " Many children in schools in all English speaking nations are being forced to read this " out dated " set of plays in schools all over the world. I have yet to hear of anyone that would not read Shakespeare because of the Old English have you? I have also yet to hear anyone say they could not understand Shakespeare because of it's Old English words. All of the libs that say we must update the AV would cry foul if we ever tried to touch Shakespeare and bring it up to date. I can almost hear the libs and high society types now saying, " how dare you try to revise Shakespeare? " Many times these are the same folks demanding the AV be revised and updated. If you defend the AV you are some kind of nut. It's a little ironic don't you think?


Atlas

Does deception have consequences?
If content is the bases for truth, how can any MV (or rather PV – Perversion Versions), that are deceptive in that they teach another gospel with corrupted words, spirit and intent have any pure words in it let alone very pure words, how can they lead to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Many so called believers have so called received Jesus Christ as their Saviour then along comes wolf in sheep clothing, ie Mormons and leads them into a false religion and then they go along and teach a false gospel themselves.
What are the consequences and the reality?

So called preachers of the Gospel have received Jesus Christ as their Saviour, ie John Hagee, and then start teaching and writing books that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah.
What are the consequences and the reality?

If PV’s have any of the word of God in them how can ;
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
How does this verse apply to you?

Are the words of PVs spirit? Do they quickeneth your spirit or your flesh? Do they bring life? Is there really any of God’s words in them?

When a preacher preaches does he preach to the spirit or the flesh, do tract minister to the spirit or to the flesh, these are questions we must be answered if we are going to judge PV’s as containing part of God’s words.
If you are receiving the gospel by the flesh rather than by the spirit are you saved? Do you begin in the flesh or in the spirit?
If Perversion Versions are not spirit (and they aren’t) how can they lead anyone to Jesus Christ of God?

There is no word of God in Perversion Version even when they quote the word of God exactly in places.