Is FBC KJV Only?

[RAIDER]

BG is full of crap. JW is KJVO and If he wasn't he would not be pastor.

If 99% of FBCH wanted to include other versions he would go and pastor somewhere else. Believe that!!!!

Let one Sunday School teacher make a reference to "this word is better translated in the NIV" and see what happens.

Exactly!!

BG doesnt understand that we've known FBCH/HAC before today.

The scary part is that he has been a deacon during 3 pastors and he doesn't know it.

 

[sword]

BG is full of crap. JW is KJVO and If he wasn't he would not be pastor.

If 99% of FBCH wanted to include other versions he would go and pastor somewhere else. Believe that!!!!

Let one Sunday School teacher make a reference to "this word is better translated in the NIV" and see what happens.

Exactly!!

BG doesnt understand that we've known FBCH/HAC before today.

The scary part is that he has been a deacon during 3 pastors and he doesn't know it.

OR JUST WON'T ADMIT IT.

 

[bgwilkinson]

BG is full of crap. JW is KJVO and If he wasn't he would not be pastor.

If 99% of FBCH wanted to include other versions he would go and pastor somewhere else. Believe that!!!!

Let one Sunday School teacher make a reference to "this word is better translated in the NIV" and see what happens.

Exactly!!

BG doesnt understand that we've known FBCH/HAC before today.

And you should understand that I knew FBCH and Bro. Hyles for three decades before he started teaching  KJVO.

KJV onlyism is a very modern development at FBCH. It's a form of the Neo-Fundamentalism that is ironically called "Old Paths", now.

It's not old paths at all but new ones.

KJVO was called Ruckmanism in the 70s and was not embraced but resisted at FBCH and HAC.

You could have been expelled from HAC in the 70s for talking up KJV onlyism or Ruckmanism.

My best memories are of the days before the false teaching of KJV onlyism was introduced by Lacy and Riplinger.


There was better teaching on the Bible with more honesty and less mystic thinking in the 50s and 60s.
Here are some examples of Bible Correcting by Bro. Hyles. This is the Bro. Hyles I grew to love and respect before he went off the deep end into the swamp of KJVO.

Honesty in Bible teaching.

Here are just a few quotes from his series on Revelation that are characteristic of the whole book.

This is what I grew to love about Bro. Hyles' teaching of the Bible. KJVOs will call this Bible correcting but in reality he was just improving upon the translation were it was wrong or unclear.

The Greek that Erasmus had for Revelation was poor at best as it came from a commentary and not from a Bible manuscript and was missing the last leaf which contained the last 6 verses of Revelation.
The last 6 verses were reverse translated from the Latin Vulgate giving a Greek text that is found in no other manuscript anywhere.


Let me give you seven places where he used the words “is better translated” or “should be translated” in his commentary on Revelation that was compiled from Wed Bible studies at Miller Road in the 50s.

When I heard him speak in the 50s, 60s and 70s he frequently corrected the text,  giving what he considered a better English rendering of the Greek text. I believe Bro. Hyles was right to point out the places where the KJV could better be translated. He did not start to change until many years after I had first meet him.

He was most certainly not a KJVO in the 50s, 60s and 70s.  He did not start down the road of radical KJVO until the 80s after John Rice died.


Rev 1:6:
"AND HATH MADE US KINGS" is better translated, " And hath made us a kingdom of priests."

Rev 1:13:
"I KNOW...WHERE THOU DWELLEST, EVEN WHERE SATAN’S SEAT IS. " The word "seat "should be translated "throne. "

Rev  4:4:
"AND ROUND ABOUT THE THRONE WERE FOUR AND TWENTY SEATS. " The word "seats " is better translated "throne. "

Rev 9:1:
The fifth trumpet is sounded. Immediately John saw a star. "FALLING " is better translated "fallen. "

Rev 10:5-7:
The angels declares that time (better translated "delay ") should be no longer.

Rev 13:15:
"AND HE HAD POWER " is better translated, "And to him was given power. "

Rev 22:13-14:
"DO HIS COMMANDMENTS" should be translated, "wash their robes."

This is the kind of teaching you would have received from Bro. Hyles in a KJV class at HAC in the 70s.

I used a NASB until Bro. Hyles started to loose it in the 90s. To keep the peace I gave lip service to KJVO knowing in my heart it was a false teaching.

 

[Bruh]

BG is full of crap. JW is KJVO and If he wasn't he would not be pastor.

If 99% of FBCH wanted to include other versions he would go and pastor somewhere else. Believe that!!!!

Let one Sunday School teacher make a reference to "this word is better translated in the NIV" and see what happens.

Exactly!!

BG doesnt understand that we've known FBCH/HAC before today.

And you should understand that I knew FBCH and Bro. Hyles for three decades before he started teaching  KJVO.

KJV onlyism is a very modern development at FBCH. It's a form of the Neo-Fundamentalism that is ironically called "Old Paths", now.

It's not old paths at all but new ones.

KJVO was called Ruckmanism in the 70s and was not embraced but resisted at FBCH and HAC.

You could have been expelled from HAC in the 70s for talking up KJV onlyism or Ruckmanism.

My best memories are of the days before the false teaching of KJV onlyism was introduced by Lacy and Riplinger.


There was better teaching on the Bible with more honesty and less mystic thinking in the 50s and 60s.
Here are some examples of Bible Correcting by Bro. Hyles. This is the Bro. Hyles I grew to love and respect before he went off the deep end into the swamp of KJVO.

Honesty in Bible teaching.

Here are just a few quotes from his series on Revelation that are characteristic of the whole book.

This is what I grew to love about Bro. Hyles' teaching of the Bible. KJVOs will call this Bible correcting but in reality he was just improving upon the translation were it was wrong or unclear.

The Greek that Erasmus had for Revelation was poor at best as it came from a commentary and not from a Bible manuscript and was missing the last leaf which contained the last 6 verses of Revelation.
The last 6 verses were reverse translated from the Latin Vulgate giving a Greek text that is found in no other manuscript anywhere.


Let me give you seven places where he used the words “is better translated” or “should be translated” in his commentary on Revelation that was compiled from Wed Bible studies at Miller Road in the 50s.

When I heard him speak in the 50s, 60s and 70s he frequently corrected the text,  giving what he considered a better English rendering of the Greek text. I believe Bro. Hyles was right to point out the places where the KJV could better be translated. He did not start to change until many years after I had first meet him.

He was most certainly not a KJVO in the 50s, 60s and 70s.  He did not start down the road of radical KJVO until the 80s after John Rice died.


Rev 1:6:
"AND HATH MADE US KINGS" is better translated, " And hath made us a kingdom of priests."

Rev 1:13:
"I KNOW...WHERE THOU DWELLEST, EVEN WHERE SATAN’S SEAT IS. " The word "seat "should be translated "throne. "

Rev  4:4:
"AND ROUND ABOUT THE THRONE WERE FOUR AND TWENTY SEATS. " The word "seats " is better translated "throne. "

Rev 9:1:
The fifth trumpet is sounded. Immediately John saw a star. "FALLING " is better translated "fallen. "

Rev 10:5-7:
The angels declares that time (better translated "delay ") should be no longer.

Rev 13:15:
"AND HE HAD POWER " is better translated, "And to him was given power. "

Rev 22:13-14:
"DO HIS COMMANDMENTS" should be translated, "wash their robes."

This is the kind of teaching you would have received from Bro. Hyles in a KJV class at HAC in the 70s.

I used a NASB until Bro. Hyles started to loose it in the 90s. To keep the peace I gave lip service to KJVO knowing in my heart it was a false teaching.

What in the world are you talking about "modern development"?

Jack Hyles was the pastor I think, 40 years and then JS 10 plus years. A new development, whatever!!

I'm starting to believe that you have never ever in your entire life step foot on any of the properties.

My family was there in the 80's and it was due hard KJVO it didn't start in the 90's or even the extreme side of the KJVO it was KJVO, period.

I asked my dad once and he said, it was KJVO when we got there and you wouldn't dare speak of another version.

If you really believe what you say here I think you've been in the Founders Department and there's nothing wrong with that little buddy.

 

[rsc2a]

I used a NASB until Bro. Hyles started to loose it in the 90s. To keep the peace I gave lip service to KJVO knowing in my heart it was a false teaching.

There are many words for that but "keeping the peace" aren't among them.

 

[bgwilkinson]

BG is full of crap. JW is KJVO and If he wasn't he would not be pastor.

If 99% of FBCH wanted to include other versions he would go and pastor somewhere else. Believe that!!!!

Let one Sunday School teacher make a reference to "this word is better translated in the NIV" and see what happens.

Exactly!!

BG doesnt understand that we've known FBCH/HAC before today.

And you should understand that I knew FBCH and Bro. Hyles for three decades before he started teaching  KJVO.

KJV onlyism is a very modern development at FBCH. It's a form of the Neo-Fundamentalism that is ironically called "Old Paths", now.

It's not old paths at all but new ones.

KJVO was called Ruckmanism in the 70s and was not embraced but resisted at FBCH and HAC.

You could have been expelled from HAC in the 70s for talking up KJV onlyism or Ruckmanism.

My best memories are of the days before the false teaching of KJV onlyism was introduced by Lacy and Riplinger.


There was better teaching on the Bible with more honesty and less mystic thinking in the 50s and 60s.
Here are some examples of Bible Correcting by Bro. Hyles. This is the Bro. Hyles I grew to love and respect before he went off the deep end into the swamp of KJVO.

Honesty in Bible teaching.

Here are just a few quotes from his series on Revelation that are characteristic of the whole book.

This is what I grew to love about Bro. Hyles' teaching of the Bible. KJVOs will call this Bible correcting but in reality he was just improving upon the translation were it was wrong or unclear.

The Greek that Erasmus had for Revelation was poor at best as it came from a commentary and not from a Bible manuscript and was missing the last leaf which contained the last 6 verses of Revelation.
The last 6 verses were reverse translated from the Latin Vulgate giving a Greek text that is found in no other manuscript anywhere.


Let me give you seven places where he used the words “is better translated” or “should be translated” in his commentary on Revelation that was compiled from Wed Bible studies at Miller Road in the 50s.

When I heard him speak in the 50s, 60s and 70s he frequently corrected the text,  giving what he considered a better English rendering of the Greek text. I believe Bro. Hyles was right to point out the places where the KJV could better be translated. He did not start to change until many years after I had first meet him.

He was most certainly not a KJVO in the 50s, 60s and 70s.  He did not start down the road of radical KJVO until the 80s after John Rice died.


Rev 1:6:
"AND HATH MADE US KINGS" is better translated, " And hath made us a kingdom of priests."

Rev 1:13:
"I KNOW...WHERE THOU DWELLEST, EVEN WHERE SATAN’S SEAT IS. " The word "seat "should be translated "throne. "

Rev  4:4:
"AND ROUND ABOUT THE THRONE WERE FOUR AND TWENTY SEATS. " The word "seats " is better translated "throne. "

Rev 9:1:
The fifth trumpet is sounded. Immediately John saw a star. "FALLING " is better translated "fallen. "

Rev 10:5-7:
The angels declares that time (better translated "delay ") should be no longer.

Rev 13:15:
"AND HE HAD POWER " is better translated, "And to him was given power. "

Rev 22:13-14:
"DO HIS COMMANDMENTS" should be translated, "wash their robes."

This is the kind of teaching you would have received from Bro. Hyles in a KJV class at HAC in the 70s.

I used a NASB until Bro. Hyles started to loose it in the 90s. To keep the peace I gave lip service to KJVO knowing in my heart it was a false teaching.

What in the world are you talking about "modern development"?

Jack Hyles was the pastor I think, 40 years and then JS 10 plus years. A new development, whatever!!

I'm starting to believe that you have never ever in your entire life step foot on any of the properties.

My family was there in the 80's and it was due hard KJVO it didn't start in the 90's or even the extreme side of the KJVO it was KJVO, period.

I asked my dad once and he said, it was KJVO when we got there and you wouldn't dare speak of another version.

If you really believe what you say here I think you've been in the Founders Department and there's nothing wrong with that little buddy.

You obviously did not know Bro. Hyles in the 50s, 60s or even the 70s.

You get a pass.

I'm sorry if you have some kind of burr under your saddle, not trying to raise your blood pressure.

 

[RAIDER]

You obviously did not know Bro. Hyles in the 50s, 60s or even the 70s.

You get a pass.

I'm sorry if you have some kind of burr under your saddle, not trying to raise your blood pressure.

While I cannot speak for Bruh, I can speak for myself.  What bothers me about much of your posting is this - you were a deacon while Dr. Hyles was pastor.  You have very little good to say about your MANY years with him as your pastor.  You complain about things that you as a deacon should have spoke up about.  If your voice was not heard you should have found a different church.  The same pattern took place with you while Schaap was pastor.  Now Wilkerson is your pastor.  Some of the same items are in front of your face and you are not checking into them.

 

[Bruh]

BG is full of crap. JW is KJVO and If he wasn't he would not be pastor.

If 99% of FBCH wanted to include other versions he would go and pastor somewhere else. Believe that!!!!

Let one Sunday School teacher make a reference to "this word is better translated in the NIV" and see what happens.

Exactly!!

BG doesnt understand that we've known FBCH/HAC before today.

And you should understand that I knew FBCH and Bro. Hyles for three decades before he started teaching  KJVO.

KJV onlyism is a very modern development at FBCH. It's a form of the Neo-Fundamentalism that is ironically called "Old Paths", now.

It's not old paths at all but new ones.

KJVO was called Ruckmanism in the 70s and was not embraced but resisted at FBCH and HAC.

You could have been expelled from HAC in the 70s for talking up KJV onlyism or Ruckmanism.

My best memories are of the days before the false teaching of KJV onlyism was introduced by Lacy and Riplinger.


There was better teaching on the Bible with more honesty and less mystic thinking in the 50s and 60s.
Here are some examples of Bible Correcting by Bro. Hyles. This is the Bro. Hyles I grew to love and respect before he went off the deep end into the swamp of KJVO.

Honesty in Bible teaching.

Here are just a few quotes from his series on Revelation that are characteristic of the whole book.

This is what I grew to love about Bro. Hyles' teaching of the Bible. KJVOs will call this Bible correcting but in reality he was just improving upon the translation were it was wrong or unclear.

The Greek that Erasmus had for Revelation was poor at best as it came from a commentary and not from a Bible manuscript and was missing the last leaf which contained the last 6 verses of Revelation.
The last 6 verses were reverse translated from the Latin Vulgate giving a Greek text that is found in no other manuscript anywhere.


Let me give you seven places where he used the words “is better translated” or “should be translated” in his commentary on Revelation that was compiled from Wed Bible studies at Miller Road in the 50s.

When I heard him speak in the 50s, 60s and 70s he frequently corrected the text,  giving what he considered a better English rendering of the Greek text. I believe Bro. Hyles was right to point out the places where the KJV could better be translated. He did not start to change until many years after I had first meet him.

He was most certainly not a KJVO in the 50s, 60s and 70s.  He did not start down the road of radical KJVO until the 80s after John Rice died.


Rev 1:6:
"AND HATH MADE US KINGS" is better translated, " And hath made us a kingdom of priests."

Rev 1:13:
"I KNOW...WHERE THOU DWELLEST, EVEN WHERE SATAN’S SEAT IS. " The word "seat "should be translated "throne. "

Rev  4:4:
"AND ROUND ABOUT THE THRONE WERE FOUR AND TWENTY SEATS. " The word "seats " is better translated "throne. "

Rev 9:1:
The fifth trumpet is sounded. Immediately John saw a star. "FALLING " is better translated "fallen. "

Rev 10:5-7:
The angels declares that time (better translated "delay ") should be no longer.

Rev 13:15:
"AND HE HAD POWER " is better translated, "And to him was given power. "

Rev 22:13-14:
"DO HIS COMMANDMENTS" should be translated, "wash their robes."

This is the kind of teaching you would have received from Bro. Hyles in a KJV class at HAC in the 70s.

I used a NASB until Bro. Hyles started to loose it in the 90s. To keep the peace I gave lip service to KJVO knowing in my heart it was a false teaching.

What in the world are you talking about "modern development"?

Jack Hyles was the pastor I think, 40 years and then JS 10 plus years. A new development, whatever!!

I'm starting to believe that you have never ever in your entire life step foot on any of the properties.

My family was there in the 80's and it was due hard KJVO it didn't start in the 90's or even the extreme side of the KJVO it was KJVO, period.

I asked my dad once and he said, it was KJVO when we got there and you wouldn't dare speak of another version.

If you really believe what you say here I think you've been in the Founders Department and there's nothing wrong with that little buddy.

You obviously did not know Bro. Hyles in the 50s, 60s or even the 70s.

You get a pass.

I'm sorry if you have some kind of burr under your saddle, not trying to raise your blood pressure.

Well you are!!!    LOL

 

[Bruh]

You obviously did not know Bro. Hyles in the 50s, 60s or even the 70s.

You get a pass.

I'm sorry if you have some kind of burr under your saddle, not trying to raise your blood pressure.

While I cannot speak for Bruh, I can speak for myself.  What bothers me about much of your posting is this - you were a deacon while Dr. Hyles was pastor.  You have very little good to say about your MANY years with him as your pastor.  You complain about things that you as a deacon should have spoke up about.  If your voice was not heard you should have found a different church.  The same pattern took place with you while Schaap was pastor.  Now Wilkerson is your pastor.  Some of the same items are in front of your face and you are not checking into them.

He says he has and that JW is not KJVO for the English speaking ppl.

 

[bgwilkinson]

BG is full of crap. JW is KJVO and If he wasn't he would not be pastor.

If 99% of FBCH wanted to include other versions he would go and pastor somewhere else. Believe that!!!!

Let one Sunday School teacher make a reference to "this word is better translated in the NIV" and see what happens.

Exactly!!

BG doesnt understand that we've known FBCH/HAC before today.

And you should understand that I knew FBCH and Bro. Hyles for three decades before he started teaching  KJVO.

KJV onlyism is a very modern development at FBCH. It's a form of the Neo-Fundamentalism that is ironically called "Old Paths", now.

It's not old paths at all but new ones.

KJVO was called Ruckmanism in the 70s and was not embraced but resisted at FBCH and HAC.

You could have been expelled from HAC in the 70s for talking up KJV onlyism or Ruckmanism.

My best memories are of the days before the false teaching of KJV onlyism was introduced by Lacy and Riplinger.


There was better teaching on the Bible with more honesty and less mystic thinking in the 50s and 60s.
Here are some examples of Bible Correcting by Bro. Hyles. This is the Bro. Hyles I grew to love and respect before he went off the deep end into the swamp of KJVO.

Honesty in Bible teaching.

Here are just a few quotes from his series on Revelation that are characteristic of the whole book.

This is what I grew to love about Bro. Hyles' teaching of the Bible. KJVOs will call this Bible correcting but in reality he was just improving upon the translation were it was wrong or unclear.

The Greek that Erasmus had for Revelation was poor at best as it came from a commentary and not from a Bible manuscript and was missing the last leaf which contained the last 6 verses of Revelation.
The last 6 verses were reverse translated from the Latin Vulgate giving a Greek text that is found in no other manuscript anywhere.


Let me give you seven places where he used the words “is better translated” or “should be translated” in his commentary on Revelation that was compiled from Wed Bible studies at Miller Road in the 50s.

When I heard him speak in the 50s, 60s and 70s he frequently corrected the text,  giving what he considered a better English rendering of the Greek text. I believe Bro. Hyles was right to point out the places where the KJV could better be translated. He did not start to change until many years after I had first meet him.

He was most certainly not a KJVO in the 50s, 60s and 70s.  He did not start down the road of radical KJVO until the 80s after John Rice died.


Rev 1:6:
"AND HATH MADE US KINGS" is better translated, " And hath made us a kingdom of priests."

Rev 1:13:
"I KNOW...WHERE THOU DWELLEST, EVEN WHERE SATAN’S SEAT IS. " The word "seat "should be translated "throne. "

Rev  4:4:
"AND ROUND ABOUT THE THRONE WERE FOUR AND TWENTY SEATS. " The word "seats " is better translated "throne. "

Rev 9:1:
The fifth trumpet is sounded. Immediately John saw a star. "FALLING " is better translated "fallen. "

Rev 10:5-7:
The angels declares that time (better translated "delay ") should be no longer.

Rev 13:15:
"AND HE HAD POWER " is better translated, "And to him was given power. "

Rev 22:13-14:
"DO HIS COMMANDMENTS" should be translated, "wash their robes."

This is the kind of teaching you would have received from Bro. Hyles in a KJV class at HAC in the 70s.

I used a NASB until Bro. Hyles started to loose it in the 90s. To keep the peace I gave lip service to KJVO knowing in my heart it was a false teaching.

What in the world are you talking about "modern development"?

Jack Hyles was the pastor I think, 40 years and then JS 10 plus years. A new development, whatever!!

I'm starting to believe that you have never ever in your entire life step foot on any of the properties.

My family was there in the 80's and it was due hard KJVO it didn't start in the 90's or even the extreme side of the KJVO it was KJVO, period.

I asked my dad once and he said, it was KJVO when we got there and you wouldn't dare speak of another version.

If you really believe what you say here I think you've been in the Founders Department and there's nothing wrong with that little buddy.

You obviously did not know Bro. Hyles in the 50s, 60s or even the 70s.

You get a pass.

I'm sorry if you have some kind of burr under your saddle, not trying to raise your blood pressure.

Well you are!!!    LOL

I'm calling a time-out to let the BP return to normal.

 

[Walt]

In another thread, a back and forth recently occurred wherein the KJV-ness of FBC was kind of debated. People at FBC I speak with seem pretty KJV only oriented. They use references like "The KJV has the blood" and I have even heard the term "Devil's bible" in reference to modern version - specifically the NIV.

So, KJV Only or not?

Having read most of the comments to this thread, it seems clear that FBCH is KJVO, but that the pastor is leading them away from the Ruckmanite lunatic position.

KJVO is not that same as Ruckman's teaching.

Having been in various IFB churches for decades, they used to hold to a non-Ruckman position that God inspired the originals, preserved them, and that only the KJV was translated from the texts that had been in use by various churches down through time.  The "new versions" were not trusted, NOT because they didn't match the KJV, but because their source documents were considered suspect.

It was the Ruckman/Riplinger position that the KJV is superior and corrects the Greek/Hebrew, and that people should not use any concordance or commentaries.

 

[RAIDER]

Having read most of the comments to this thread, it seems clear that FBCH is KJVO, but that the pastor is leading them away from the Ruckmanite lunatic position.

KJVO is not that same as Ruckman's teaching.

Having been in various IFB churches for decades, they used to hold to a non-Ruckman position that God inspired the originals, preserved them, and that only the KJV was translated from the texts that had been in use by various churches down through time.  The "new versions" were not trusted, NOT because they didn't match the KJV, but because their source documents were considered suspect.

It was the Ruckman/Riplinger position that the KJV is superior and corrects the Greek/Hebrew, and that people should not use any concordance or commentaries.

Nicely done.

 

[Bruh]

Having read most of the comments to this thread, it seems clear that FBCH is KJVO, but that the pastor is leading them away from the Ruckmanite lunatic position.

KJVO is not that same as Ruckman's teaching.

Having been in various IFB churches for decades, they used to hold to a non-Ruckman position that God inspired the originals, preserved them, and that only the KJV was translated from the texts that had been in use by various churches down through time.  The "new versions" were not trusted, NOT because they didn't match the KJV, but because their source documents were considered suspect.

It was the Ruckman/Riplinger position that the KJV is superior and corrects the Greek/Hebrew, and that people should not use any concordance or commentaries.

Nicely done.

Ok I can except this as to what FBCH actually is.

Which still makes them KJVO, BG!!!!!!!!! And JW as well!!!!!!!!

 

[RAIDER]

Having read most of the comments to this thread, it seems clear that FBCH is KJVO, but that the pastor is leading them away from the Ruckmanite lunatic position.

KJVO is not that same as Ruckman's teaching.

Having been in various IFB churches for decades, they used to hold to a non-Ruckman position that God inspired the originals, preserved them, and that only the KJV was translated from the texts that had been in use by various churches down through time.  The "new versions" were not trusted, NOT because they didn't match the KJV, but because their source documents were considered suspect.

It was the Ruckman/Riplinger position that the KJV is superior and corrects the Greek/Hebrew, and that people should not use any concordance or commentaries.

Nicely done.

Ok I can except this as to what FBCH actually is.

Which still makes them KJVO, BG!!!!!!!!! And JW as well!!!!!!!!

B-I-N-G-O!!