incorruptible seed or no salvation without KJV?

[Logos1560]

The KJV-only claims about incorruptible seed and about no salvation without use of the KJV seem to reveal the logical conclusions of KJV-only reasoning. These claims also indicate the danger of such reasoning.

Herb Evans, a KJV-only advocate, in an article "Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?" wrote: "Almost without exception (and we are not sure about the exceptions) any births, resulting from the above perverted bibles [English Bibles other than the KJV], are perverted also--spiritual cripples" (The Flaming Torch, January-March, 1992, p. 10). This unscriptural claim would make the Holy Spirit responsible for the new birth of spiritual cripples and perverts (John 3:5-8, 1 John 3:9, 5:4, Eph. 1:13, Titus 3:5). In Ruckman's Bible Believers' Bulletin, Evans declared: "We have been born of incorruptible seed," and he claimed that this incorruptible seed is the 1611 KJV (October, 1978, p. 3). As noted earlier, Ruckman himself had claimed that “the AV was incorruptible in 1611, and it is incorruptible now.” Michael O’Neal also stated: “I believe that this (the King James Bible) is incorruptible seed” (Do We Have, p. 13). Perhaps, some KJV-only advocates might excuse this claim that modern translations produce spiritual cripples by saying that only the extreme followers of Ruckman would make such statements. However, fundamental pastors and advocates who do not claim to follow Ruckman's view have already gone to this extreme and even further. Almost no one admits that they follow Ruckman's KJV-only ideas.

KJV-only advocate Al Hughes acknowledged: "There is a movement afoot that claims 'no one can get saved by hearing one of the devil's perversions'" (Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 16). William Byers claimed: "I've said that I've never heard of a sound conversion coming from a modern translation" (The History of the KJB, p. 5). J. J. Ray wrote: "Only an unaltered Bible can produce a perfect, soul-saving faith" (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 10). In his fundamentalist publication Church Bus News (July-Dec., 1993), Wally Beebe stated: "My constant reference to the King James Version, being in fact the inspired Word of God and our authority, is very important as a prerequisite to salvation" (p. 11). Jack Hyles, well-known fundamentalist pastor, wrote: "Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible" (Enemies of Soul Winning, p. 47). Hyles also claimed: "This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible" (Ibid., p. 46). Hyles noted: "If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used" (Ibid., p. 47). In a recorded sermon, Hyles stated: "The King James Bible is necessary for anybody to be saved in the English language."

Gail Riplinger claimed: "The new birth occurs from the KJV seed" (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 12). Riplinger even seemed to imply that people may "receive a false salvation or a false spirit from reading them" [other translations instead of the KJV] (Ibid., p. 80). In his booklet entitled Another Bible Another Gospel, which is published by The Bible for Today, Robert Baker implied that other translations teach another gospel when he wrote: "Removing or adding to Jesus' words results in preaching 'another gospel'" (p. 5). Chick Salliby asked: "Will not a defective Bible produce a defective faith?" (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 93). Pastor Raymond Blanton declared: "Faith is not produced in the heart of the sinner by a powerless perversion of God's Word" (The Perilous Times, June, 1995, p. 7). In another issue of his publication, Blanton also claimed: "No one is saved through counterfeit Bibles. The New American Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, Amplied New Testament, NIV, etc., etc., are dead imitations and corruptions, and no one is saved through them" (Feb., 1997, p. 4). Douglas Stauffer wrote: "Our relationship with Jesus Christ is based upon a particular Bible translation" (One Book, p. 97).

Is the fact that people can be saved through the use of translations other than the KJV a problem for consistent KJV-only reasoning? If other translations were actually corrupt seed, could anyone be saved through their use?

 

[AngCath]

Is the fact that people can be saved through the use of translations other than the KJV a problem for consistent KJV-only reasoning? If other translations were actually corrupt seed, could anyone be saved through their use?

Translations don't save us.

 

[Jim1]

Some KJV only people think that God's word is restricted to the English language (the KJV). Thus, the original autographs must not have been God's word, because they were written in Greek. It's also interesting that they think that Peter's reference to the "incorruptible seed" out of which he had already been born was a reference to something that would not come into existence for another 1500 years (the KJV).

Jim

 

[daveleau]

Do people really believe that the KJV Bible is the only path to salvation? If so, what about those before 1611? Which KJV (there are dozens and dozens)? Is the KJV more inspired than the Greek (seeing as how there are many minor errors when comparing to the Greek)? What about those who cannot read English and cannot benefit from the KJV? Would God send to hell those who beleived in Him through another translation of His Word? That is contrary to everything the KJV teaches about God, isn't it?

Usually, I don't get too involved in KJV-only debates, but when claims of salvation only through one translation come up, that's too much. The KJV is a great work of literature, but any translation of a work is going to be flawed slightly. The KJV is theologically infallible, as is the NIV, NASB, ESV and others. But, there is salvation outside of the KJV.

 

[Blank123]

Do people really believe that the KJV Bible is the only path to salvation? If so, what about those before 1611? Which KJV (there are dozens and dozens)? Is the KJV more inspired than the Greek (seeing as how there are many minor errors when comparing to the Greek)? What about those who cannot read English and cannot benefit from the KJV? Would God send to hell those who beleived in Him through another translation of His Word? That is contrary to everything the KJV teaches about God, isn't it?

i had a rather lengthy debate with a couple of avid KJV Only evangelists, for lack of a better term, last year and the best i could get out of them was - yes salvation comes through the KJV - all other translations (including the NKJV) lead to eternal damnation because they're corrupted. The only exception seems to be for people who speak other languages because obviously they wouldn't be able to understand King James English, but the goal would be to teach them English so they could read that particular Bible. Even people who only speak English as a second language and young children would be expected to read the KJV with perfect understanding.

They cannot answer which KJV is the right translation, the question seems to confuse them

They refuse to acknowledge variations within the Greek text that would point to human involvement (such as the different Greek terms for the word bed in Mark 2:4 and Luke 5:18).

 

[Jerrysch]

i had a rather lengthy debate with a couple of avid KJV Only evangelists, for lack of a better term, last year and the best i could get out of them was - yes salvation comes through the KJV - all other translations (including the NKJV) lead to eternal damnation because they're corrupted. The only exception seems to be for people who speak other languages because obviously they wouldn't be able to understand King James English, but the goal would be to teach them English so they could read that particular Bible. Even people who only speak English as a second language and young children would be expected to read the KJV with perfect understanding.

They cannot answer which KJV is the right translation, the question seems to confuse them

They refuse to acknowledge variations within the Greek text that would point to human involvement (such as the different Greek terms for the word bed in Mark 2:4 and Luke 5:18).

So then no one was saved priot to 1611?

Another question comes to mind... were then any people saved prior to the codifing of the Scripture then?

 

[Blank123]

So then no one was saved priot to 1611?

Another question comes to mind... were then any people saved prior to the codifing of the Scripture then?

thats another point that trips them up i actually had one of them tell me that both Jesus and Paul used the KJV 1611

but their keyword that they use is the preserved word, so the Textus Receptus to them is the shadow of the KJV1611, i suppose, by which men were able to be saved. Its something they never clarified for me so thats only speculation

 

[daveleau]

Maybe Jesus used the 1611 when He visited America... Sorry I couldn't resist.

 

[Jerrysch]

thats another point that trips them up i actually had one of them tell me that both Jesus and Paul used the KJV 1611

but their keyword that they use is the preserved word, so the Textus Receptus to them is the shadow of the KJV1611, i suppose, by which men were able to be saved. Its something they never clarified for me so thats only speculation

The real problemis that they confuse the translation with the original text. I really don't see thier real complaint, yet even so, if you use the KJV you will still have to retranslate it into your own modern usage of the English, if you know what I mean. 1Chron26:18At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

If we are limited to KJV we will never know what Parbar means, and it just might be important!!

 

[Blank123]

thats where i just couldn't get over their strange reasoning... over and over again they would say its okay to translate the Bible into foriegn languages so those people would have access to Scripture they could understand - but the idea of updating KJV English was the blasphemy of all blasphemies

 

[Jerrysch]

thats where i just couldn't get over their strange reasoning... over and over again they would say its okay to translate the Bible into foriegn languages so those people would have access to Scripture they could understand - but the idea of updating KJV English was the blasphemy of all blasphemies

There are some who even advocate that if you don't speak English and you want to understand the Scriptures you have to learn English to do so!! And yet noone speaks 1611 English anymore, and for that matter what did they do for Scripture in 1610?

 

[Blank123]

well what they don't like is when you show them a statement that the translation committee for the KJV 1611 made (i need to see if i can find it again) that basically said they saw the need for people to have a Bible in their own tongue and in modern language - so what it comes down to is the translation committe would endorse, encourage, and support versions like NKJV where KJVOs write them off as heretical

 

[Logos1560]

"Scripture belongs, writes Tyndale, to the whole body of Christian people, guided by the Holy Spirit in their congregation, and not to a few men or a line of men. Thus it can be reinterpreted in every generation" (Daniell, William Tyndale, p. 279). Puritan William Fulke (1538-1589) observed: "It is still free for men of every age to use the gift of knowledge, and interpretation of tongues, unto the exact finding out of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost in the scriptures" (A Defense of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue, p. 371).