The origin of the KJVO myth...

robycop3

Well-known member
Ecc. 12:12
And further, by these, my son, be admonished:
of making many books there is no end;
and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

and the result is ?????????????????
A better understanding & overview of all Scripture.
 
R

Rotgold

Guest
"Onlyism" has its roots in the sinful pride of men and is as old as man himself. It just finds it way into various religious teachings from time to time.

It is a used a means to create a distinction wherein the "believer" is distinctly "set apart" from every other believer. Human beings seek and desperately desire to appear superior to their fellowman.

Such teachings and desires are contrary the message of the Gospel. The Gospel makes all men equal. The Gospel challenges and reveals our inner most desires.

King James wanted "HIS Bible". He got what he wanted.
I agree completely!
Good to read some sense here!
 

Shoonra

Active member
I am curious if pre-1611 English versions (such as the Geneva version or the Bishops Bible or the Douay-Rheims) or any foreign language versions (such as Luther's German) had their own Onlyist cult followings. Surely this phenomenon is not exclusive to the KJV.
 
R

Rotgold

Guest
I am curious if pre-1611 English versions (such as the Geneva version or the Bishops Bible or the Douay-Rheims) or any foreign language versions (such as Luther's German) had their own Onlyist cult followings. Surely this phenomenon is not exclusive to the KJV.
It is probably exclusive to conceited und very stupid idiots.
To those who give Christianity a bad name.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
It is probably exclusive to conceited und very stupid idiots.
To those who give Christianity a bad name.
This man would start his messages with reading from the KJV. https://www.rbthieme.org/index.html#tabs-3

Then after citing the KJV, he would proceed to teach us that same passage from the Hebrew, or Greek, and show us many things seen in the King James was either misleading because of anachronism, or the one translating should have failed his Greek or Hebrew lesson....

Add to that, not everyone who King James commissioned for his translation were born again.

Why are the same words translated "Holy Spirit?" And, then the same words translated "Holy Ghost?" They were not as good a translator we require and need today to be able to hone in on the target God has placed on His map for this generation.

Those who love the KJV, love the freedom it gives them. Freedom to make stuff up and receive the adoration from their listeners.

But... let's keep it in perspective. Some things rendered in the KJV is more true to the original than what we see glossed over today with contemporary religious taboos, and biases preventing honesty in telling us what is there.
 
Last edited:

robycop3

Well-known member
This man would start his messages with reading from the KJV. https://www.rbthieme.org/index.html#tabs-3

Then after citing the KJV, he would proceed to teach us that same passage from the Hebrew, or Greek, and show us many things seen in the King James was either misleading because of anachronism, or the one translating should have failed his Greek or Hebrew lesson....

Add to that, not everyone who King James commissioned for his translation were born again.

Why are the same words translated "Holy Spirit?" And, then the same words translated "Holy Ghost?" They were not as good a translator we require and need today to be able to hone in on the target God has placed on His map for this generation.

Those who love the KJV, love the freedom it gives them. Freedom to make stuff up and receive the adoration from their listeners.

But... let's keep it in perspective. Some things rendered in the KJV is more true to the original than what we see glossed over today with contemporary religious taboos, and biases preventing honesty in telling us what is there.
KJ didn't commission the translators. The Anglican church chose them before KJ became king. Their beginning their work was halted by the death of QE1; since the British monarch is head of the Anglican church, the clerix had to wait to see if the new monarch would wanna OK a new Bible version being made. KJ merely OK'd it & made Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, the translators' boss. Afterwards, he had little to do with it til it was done.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
KJ didn't commission the translators. The Anglican church chose them before KJ became king. Their beginning their work was halted by the death of QE1; since the British monarch is head of the Anglican church, the clerix had to wait to see if the new monarch would wanna OK a new Bible version being made. KJ merely OK'd it & made Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, the translators' boss. Afterwards, he had little to do with it til it was done.
Thank you for that detail....

Being that as it may.. What I shared is worth looking into.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Thank you for that detail....

Being that as it may.. What I shared is worth looking into.
Yes, it is. One of the translators, Thompson, was a drunk. Several others were, or had been, members of the notorious Court of High Commission, or the Star Chamber.
 

Hark

Well-known member
The Origin of the Current KJVO myth
By robycop3

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in public libraries, many religious bookstores, or are for sale at various web sites of many religious book stores.

Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine.
I do not see anything in your report citing that they came up with the term of King James Version Only or KJVO.

From your report, it seems that the contenders and you are the ones calling The SDA's original contention within the SDA as KJVO in 1930's.

That would be akin to calling every Christian a Catholic even though every Christian before Catholic became an identity, were not Catholics, and not every Christian are not Catholics now.

How SDA were contending about the KJV does not make the reliance only on the KJV as evil.

Dishonesty is a false charge that any contender can lobby against the other side and yet scripture says believers can be deceived.

Does a believer become dishonest when they ignore scripture that reproves how they are applying other scripture to mean? or is it pride that keeps them from accepting reproof? Or is it fear of not wanting to find out that they were wrong all this time? God only knows, because it is possible that the believer that errs, is blinded for whatever the reason.

You claim you are not anti-KJVer, but you have come across labelling those who rely only on the KJV as KJVO. So do not be surprise when they judge you in return as anti-KJVer.

Are there not mistakes in modern Bibles? And yet others state their preference on relying on another Bible version or versions than the KJV?

Are they NIVO? Are they NASBO? Are they ESVO? How is it that they do not get that label? They can do as the SDA has done and hype why that modern Bible of choice is superior over the KJC and so does that tempt you to call them NIVO or NASBO or ESVO? Do not cults and those that give false teachings from those modern Bibles make those relying only on that Bible version as the same thing you are judging KJVO as?

So it should make you wonder why KJVO is given as that label as if anyone relying only on the KJV has to be rooted in error.

You do not believe in OSAS, but you refuse to apply Hebrews 6:4-6 in context from verse 1 to 8 and to compare it with 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 for why Hebrews 6:1-8 is about OSAS.

You do not believe the rapture is before the great tribulation when God will judge His House first, separating the vessels unto honor from the vessels unto dishonor as He is faithful to keep the souls of His saints that suffer when left behind.

1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

Who is keeping their souls? The faithful Creator. So those who suffer are entrusting the keeping of their souls to their faithful Creator.

That is not the message in the NIV as it is read that those who suffer must commit as in make a commitment to their faithful Creator and in continue to do good.

1 Peter 4:19 So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good. NIV

Nothing about the keeping of their souls which is on the Lord to do while they suffer.


You believe Gehenna is the lake of fire when Gehenna was a reference to the valley of Hinnon on earth as a garbage heap, but you insist that Jesus cannot possibly refer to Gehenna as being on earth at all when He discards the vessels unto dishonor that were not ready as left behind when that fire comes on a third of the earth where the smoke descends up forever and ever... until He makes a new heaven and a new earth after the great tribulation; just as there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth until God performs the miracle to wipe the tears from their eyes to get past that loss of being left behind when they are resurrected after the great tribulation.

So for all your rantings against the KJVO when the SDA's never called that position as KJVO in the first place, is probably why you are not getting any SDA to defend KJVO position as stated today. What everybody has added to KJVO down through history from both sides of the KJVO debate is probably how people like you get riled up to have prejudices against any one relying only on the KJV like me for the meat of His words to discern good and evil by it that modern Bibles unwittingly support false teachings by..
 

robycop3

Well-known member
I do not see anything in your report citing that they came up with the term of King James Version Only or KJVO.

From your report, it seems that the contenders and you are the ones calling The SDA's original contention within the SDA as KJVO in 1930's.

That would be akin to calling every Christian a Catholic even though every Christian before Catholic became an identity, were not Catholics, and not every Christian are not Catholics now.

How SDA were contending about the KJV does not make the reliance only on the KJV as evil.

Dishonesty is a false charge that any contender can lobby against the other side and yet scripture says believers can be deceived.
Yes, we Freedom Readers began using the acronym "KJVO"(K ing J ames Version O nly) for bellevers of that myth for brevity. And we'll continue to use it. And KJVO IS a myth, as it's totally false, totally made by man at Satan's suggestion, with a cultic, dishonest origin, as I've shown elsewhere in this forum.
Does a believer become dishonest when they ignore scripture that reproves how they are applying other scripture to mean? or is it pride that keeps them from accepting reproof? Or is it fear of not wanting to find out that they were wrong all this time? God only knows, because it is possible that the believer that errs, is blinded for whatever the reason.
You seem to be that way over three goofy ideas you keep posting, hoping someone will believe them: that saints will be left behind at the rapture & that Jesus didn't call hell "gehenna" in Matthew, as well as the hogwash that gehenna is coming to earth-and that a saint who turns & rejects Jesus is still saved.
You claim you are not anti-KJVer, but you have come across labelling those who rely only on the KJV as KJVO. So do not be surprise when they judge you in return as anti-KJVer.
I'm right & they're wrong. I can prove I'm right; they can't prove they are.
Are there not mistakes in modern Bibles? And yet others state their preference on relying on another Bible version or versions than the KJV?
NO translation is absolutely-perfect. ALL are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.
Are they NIVO? Are they NASBO? Are they ESVO? How is it that they do not get that label? They can do as the SDA has done and hype why that modern Bible of choice is superior over the KJC and so does that tempt you to call them NIVO or NASBO or ESVO? Do not cults and those that give false teachings from those modern Bibles make those relying only on that Bible version as the same thing you are judging KJVO as?

So it should make you wonder why KJVO is given as that label as if anyone relying only on the KJV has to be rooted in error.
I don't know of any English-using non-KJVOs who are one-version-only unless there's only one version available to them.
You do not believe in OSAS, but you refuse to apply Hebrews 6:4-6 in context from verse 1 to 8 and to compare it with 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 for why Hebrews 6:1-8 is about OSAS.
That's silly Those verses do NOT establish OSAS! Hebrews says time to move on past basics & Corinthians says to build on faith's foundation with care. You would do well to quit ADDING ideas to God's word, which is, in effect, ADDING directly to it, expressly against God's command.
You do not believe the rapture is before the great tribulation when God will judge His House first, separating the vessels unto honor from the vessels unto dishonor as He is faithful to keep the souls of His saints that suffer when left behind.

1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

Who is keeping their souls? The faithful Creator. So those who suffer are entrusting the keeping of their souls to their faithful Creator.

That is not the message in the NIV as it is read that those who suffer must commit as in make a commitment to their faithful Creator and in continue to do good.

1 Peter 4:19 So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good. NIV

Nothing about the keeping of their souls which is on the Lord to do while they suffer.
ARE YOU NON-COMPREHENDE?????????? I just posted yesterday the sequence, as explained in Scripture, of the eschatological events-beast comes, rapture, trib... so scuttle that idea. And, at that rapture, ALL SAINTS will be taken, dead ones first.
You believe Gehenna is the lake of fire when Gehenna was a reference to the valley of Hinnon on earth as a garbage heap, but you insist that Jesus cannot possibly refer to Gehenna as being on earth at all when He discards the vessels unto dishonor that were not ready as left behind when that fire comes on a third of the earth where the smoke descends up forever and ever... until He makes a new heaven and a new earth after the great tribulation; just as there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth until God performs the miracle to wipe the tears from their eyes to get past that loss of being left behind when they are resurrected after the great tribulation.
It was JESUS, not I, who referred to gehenna as the LOF. You're denying the very words of He whom you say is your Savior. How can you claim Him when you don't believe Him ?????????? And NO ONE who is saved when the rapture occurs will be left behind! GAT THAT HERETICAL GARBAGE OUT OF YOUR HEAD ! And a pox upon that minion of Satan's who taught it to you !
So for all your rantings against the KJVO when the SDA's never called that position as KJVO in the first place, is probably why you are not getting any SDA to defend KJVO position as stated today. What everybody has added to KJVO down through history from both sides of the KJVO debate is probably how people like you get riled up to have prejudices against any one relying only on the KJV like me for the meat of His words to discern good and evil by it that modern Bibles unwittingly support false teachings by..
The SDA is no longer KJVO. Some of them use an entirely-false version called "Clear Word Bible"(1994, by Jack Blanco, an SDA official) Remember, the SDA is a quasi-pseudo-Christian CULT, which follows its guru, Ellen White's writings, at least as much as the Bible, & has many false doctrines, & their own storefront Jesus.

SATAN hatched the KJVO myth in the minds of certain men, & uses it to cast doubt on God's word & to cause strife/dissent within & among congregations. It's all false.
 
Last edited:

Hark

Well-known member
Yes, we Freedom Readers began using the acronym "KJVO"(K ing J ames Version O nly) for bellevers of that myth for brevity. And we'll continue to use it. And KJVO IS a myth, as it's totally false, totally made by man at Satan's suggestion, with a cultic, dishonest origin, as I've shown elsewhere in this forum.
So the KJVO myth was created by anti-KJVO and it started in the 1930's as claimed by anti-KJVO.

Yet Christians have been using KJV that were not SDA before the 1930's and afterwards too.

Given the choice of Bibles back then, are they considered KJVO by you also? Does every church that uses the KJV before SDA made a big deal about it and afterwards from the 1930's, thus are those non-SDA churches cultic too?

I dare say you protest way too much.
 

Hark

Well-known member
You seem to be that way over three goofy ideas you keep posting, hoping someone will believe them: that saints will be left behind at the rapture & that Jesus didn't call hell "gehenna" in Matthew, as well as the hogwash that gehenna is coming to earth-and that a saint who turns & rejects Jesus is still saved.
Whether you realize this or not, you are denying the Lord that bought them and you.
I'm right & they're wrong. I can prove I'm right; they can't prove they are.
Actually, you haven't aligned 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 with your theology nor address Hebrews 6:1-8 in context of your verses 4-6.
NO translation is absolutely-perfect. ALL are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.
The errors are not errors in the KJV but word preferences whereas modern Bibles are teaching errors in support of false teachings. When the message is changed in that modern Bible as going against the truth in His word in that same modern bible, doubt has been sown in His words.
I don't know of any English-using non-KJVOs who are one-version-only unless there's only one version available to them.
Yet.. for all those Freedom Readers, they all say not all Bibles are saying the same thing. No wonder you do not believe in OSAS. You doubt that He will lose nothing of all the father has given Him and you fail to see how He can say He will not cast out anyone in John 6:37-40, even though there is a casting out in Luke 12:40-49 & John 15:1-8 for not abiding in Him as His disciples & for not being willing to go Luke 14:15-35.
That's silly Those verses do NOT establish OSAS! Hebrews says time to move on past basics & Corinthians says to build on faith's foundation with care. You would do well to quit ADDING ideas to God's word, which is, in effect, ADDING directly to it, expressly against God's command.
Then you explain how the spirit is still saved in 1 Corinthians 3:15 in spite of his body being destroyed in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 as it will be done in that day when God judges His House per 1 Corinthians 3:13 for what they built on that foundation which can never be removed.

Go ahead. Post the scripture verse by verse and align that with your theology; how can the spirit still be saved after defiling the temple of God aka the physical body gets destroyed hence physical death in that day of fire?

Hebrews 6:1-8 is simply telling believers that there is no need to get water baptized again or have the laying on of hands again because it is impossible for someone to become unsaved that they need Jesus to save him again. Only what was produced by that life giving rain will be burned away, but the life giving earth remains just as the foundation which was laid by Jesus Christ remains & cannot be removed.

Hebrews 12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: 26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

How we be received into that kingdom of heaven which can never be removed from us is the question.... as vessels unto honor or as vessels unto dishonor ... as the great or as the least ( see Matthew 5:19 for cross reference with 2 Timothy 2:20-21 ) ?

2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
So the KJVO myth was created by anti-KJVO and it started in the 1930's as claimed by anti-KJVO.
Evidently, at the time, Dr. W was KJVO. He gathered up a collection of pro-KJVO statements, & without checking their veracity, put'em in a book.
Yet Christians have been using KJV that were not SDA before the 1930's and afterwards too.

Given the choice of Bibles back then, are they considered KJVO by you also? Does every church that uses the KJV before SDA made a big deal about it and afterwards from the 1930's, thus are those non-SDA churches cultic too?

I dare say you protest way too much.
If they insisted that a new English Bible version couldn't be made. The very KJV makers said differently.
So the KJVO myth was created by anti-KJVO and it started in the 1930's as claimed by anti-KJVO.

Yet Christians have been using KJV that were not SDA before the 1930's and afterwards too.

Given the choice of Bibles back then, are they considered KJVO by you also? Does every church that uses the KJV before SDA made a big deal about it and afterwards from the 1930's, thus are those non-SDA churches cultic too?

I dare say you protest way too much.
You're simply full of baloney. You apparently have some reading comprehension problems, or your KJVO myth has warped your judgment. After all, it IS from Satan.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Whether you realize this or not, you are denying the Lord that bought them and you.
No; I'm denying YOUR goofy garbage.
Actually, you haven't aligned 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 with your theology nor address Hebrews 6:1-8 in context of your verses 4-6.

The errors are not errors in the KJV but word preferences whereas modern Bibles are teaching errors in support of false teachings. When the message is changed in that modern Bible as going against the truth in His word in that same modern bible, doubt has been sown in His words.
Poppycock. More Will Kinney trash. Newer versions have far-fewer incorrect or poor translations.
Yet.. for all those Freedom Readers, they all say not all Bibles are saying the same thing. No wonder you do not believe in OSAS. You doubt that He will lose nothing of all the father has given Him and you fail to see how He can say He will not cast out anyone in John 6:37-40, even though there is a casting out in Luke 12:40-49 & John 15:1-8 for not abiding in Him as His disciples & for not being willing to go Luke 14:15-35.
If one doesn't abide in Jesus, He doesn't abide in one.
Then you explain how the spirit is still saved in 1 Corinthians 3:15 in spite of his body being destroyed in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 as it will be done in that day when God judges His House per 1 Corinthians 3:13 for what they built on that foundation which can never be removed.

Go ahead. Post the scripture verse by verse and align that with your theology; how can the spirit still be saved after defiling the temple of God aka the physical body gets destroyed hence physical death in that day of fire?
When the Romans placed Christians on their javelin-catching team, their spirits were still saved. Your'day of fire' will be a plague of the great trib, & some trib saints will perish.

Hebrews 6:1-8 is simply telling believers that there is no need to get water baptized again or have the laying on of hands again because it is impossible for someone to become unsaved that they need Jesus to save him again. Only what was produced by that life giving rain will be burned away, but the life giving earth remains just as the foundation which was laid by Jesus Christ remains & cannot be removed.
No, 6:4-6 says if one falls away, one won't be able to come back.
Hebrews 12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: 26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

How we be received into that kingdom of heaven which can never be removed from us is the question.... as vessels unto honor or as vessels unto dishonor ... as the great or as the least ( see Matthew 5:19 for cross reference with 2 Timothy 2:20-21 ) ?

2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
Heb. 6:4-6.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Evidently, at the time, Dr. W was KJVO. He gathered up a collection of pro-KJVO statements, & without checking their veracity, put'em in a book.
So Catholics were Christians and so everything Catholics says and put it in their Catechism is Christian? If it is not true for the Catholic Catechism, then why should dr. W's and his book speak for the just cause for relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by Him?
If they insisted that a new English Bible version couldn't be made. The very KJV makers said differently.
It was the Puritans that put in that request to King James for a new Bible because of errant marginal notes in the Geneva Bible.
You're simply full of baloney. You apparently have some reading comprehension problems, or your KJVO myth has warped your judgment. After all, it IS from Satan.
Can you prove that your prejudices against KJVO has not blinded you to the truths as kept in the KJV?

You say you are not anti-KJV & yet you argue if someone only relies on the KJV and calls them KJVO?

Why don't you accuse everyone of being Catholic then?

For most of your ministry, it is anti-KJVO. Don't you think something is off the mark here? But then again, only Christ Jesus can show that to you.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Don't confuse being anti-KJV-ONLY with being anti-KJV, which seems to be easy to do.
Personally, I go with what the KJV translators said in "To the Reader", which used to be found in the front of the KJV. Loosely translated, it said, "The worst translation of the Word of God is still the Word of God."

--Rich
 

Hark

Well-known member
Don't confuse being anti-KJV-ONLY with being anti-KJV, which seems to be easy to do.
And vise versa.
Personally, I go with what the KJV translators said in "To the Reader", which used to be found in the front of the KJV. Loosely translated, it said, "The worst translation of the Word of God is still the Word of God."

--Rich
Do you believe in OSAS? I forgot your position on that issue of faith. If you are, then you would be the first anti-KJVO that believes in OSAS that I have come across in this forum so far.

If you are against OSAS, then you can see the difference in the message in 1 Corinthians 1:18 as your modern bibles says "are being saved" from "are saved" as the KJV has it for why having the right Bible is key in keeping the faith that OSAS is true but not everyone will be ready for the Bridegroom when He comes. This is why many believers may find themselves left behind but will be with the Lord when they die & be resurrected after the great tribulation because... OSAS is true for Jesus had bought every one that believed in Him and are saved as His forever.
 
Top