This is not a critique of the King James Bible nor is it a criticism of the King James Bible only movement. I think it's important as Christians that we define what God's word is. This is more of a video to show how the term fundamentalism was redefined. A fundamentalist meant to believe that God's word was true and to take it literally. As such, a fundamentalist could believe in the Bible yet not believe in King James only. Jack Hyles' goal was to change the term fundamentalist to mean belief in only the King James as the word of God.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever in English, the only perfect Bible is the KJB. John Bunyan used the Geneva as that's what was brought over to the US. Geneva is a thousand times better than the NIV. And it matches the King James most of the time. Plus, in this modern world, everyone has access to the KJB online.
@@KenyonBowers Thats all understood but please answer the question, if it is true that "if you don't have a King James Bible, you don't have the Bible" then John Bunyan didn't have the Bible? Does that standard apply to John Bunyan and all the members of the body of Christ in 1609?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever they didn't have a perfect Bible. The Bible in English was in its purification stage. Now, after the KJB was made, I believe everyone should have switched to the King James, and it took a few years, but that eventually happened. So John Bunyan was using one of, if not the best, translation that would have been available to him.
I was a member of Forrest Hills Baptist Church back in the late 70s when Hutson was the pastor there. I was also a student at the Baptist college of which he was the president for a while. He was KJV preferred but NOT KJV only then. I heard J. R. Rice often then and he was not KJV only. But when Hutson went to the Sword of the Lord he changed. I don't know if it was because they had to circle the wagons to protect Hyles in those days or other influences but he was not the same kind of preacher. The last time I heard Hutson preach was at a Southwide Baptist Fellowship meeting at Northside Baptist in Charlotte. He was suffering with cancer and this was one of his last conference sermons. He preached a sermon titled, "Things That are Different are not the Same". He came out with a pretty strong KJV emphasis in that message. In my observation the KJV only movement fragmented fundamentalism as it was then and led to the demise of some of its strongest institutions.
That's very interesting. I actually listened to two sermons by John R. Rice this past week about the inspiration of the Scriptures, and he was definitely a believer and promoter of inspiration of the original manuscripts and not any particular translation. He heavily used the King James, but he mentioned at times how the New American Standard rendered things better in some passages. I remember reading his books in college and seeing him say similar things in regards to certain passages, that they were rendered better in other translations.
Please do catalogue where fundamentalism has changed! I can see evidence myself it has changed and it is bothering me. For example my grandfather was a fundamentalist Baptist pastor and he was opposed to swapping the wine in communion for grape juice because that was a liberal attempt to change the Lords Supper. Bourbon was invented by a Baptist Preacher(Elijah Craig) and it still bears his name. Prohibition was a liberal Methodist idea, and Grape juice was invented by a Methodist prohibitionist who detested alcohol (Thomas Welch) and it still bears his name, but now it is preached as the "old fashioned, fundamental" position when it isn't but a little over 100 years old.
@@answersfromscriptureonline That is just plain wrong. The only way to keep grape juice from naturally turning into wine wasn't invented until Thomas Welch.
Read William Patton’s book, “Bible Wines: the Laws of Fermentation. Even the Scriptures talk about the difference between new wine and fermented wine. @@DrGero15
Hyles did definitely have an impact on fundamentalism and for the worse. I understand why fundamentalism was created and I can sympathize with their plight back then. However, the movement has always been anti-intellectual and listening and reading a lot of their literature, it shows. The strangest thing to me is that for a group so gung-ho on being against academia they tend to start up a lot of "higher education" colleges. Most of these colleges teach very biased and insufficient curricula that aligns with the pastor's views running the show. (most colleges and universities have an education major to run the school, makes sense if you think about it) All this to say that this shift to redefining fundamentalism has fractured and splintered everything they once stood against and for. There has been a steady decline in fundamentalism (a lot of it has to do with scandals, abuse, and scholarship) and it will eventually fade into the annuals of history. I disagree with the movement for many reasons but I want the best for the congregations involved. As far as the KJV only thing..... I have cited my views in detail on this channel and will not reiterate them but they do bear repeating. However, I will say one thing about it; I wish the churches would teach Hebrew and Greek to church members so they can read it in the original languages themselves and see the true beauty of scripture that no translation can accomplish. Some denominations do this as well as the Jews, it's a shame we don't and it would put an end to all this translation nonsense.
@@Hereticalministries Well, Ancient Greek and Hebrew (koine Greek and “teaching” Hebrew) would be adequate. However, modern Greek and Hebrew would do as well though they would have to teach the differences between them as well. The real issue would be to make sure that the languages being taught are accurate which is another issue to talk about.
I mostly use the KJV. But the IFB has in some sense been successful in this. Making the KJV synonymous with IFB. When I say I use the KJV I feel like I have to qualify it by saying I’m not IFB. I think many people just avoid the KJV because they don’t want to be associated with the IFB. Martyn Loyd Jones, one of my favorite preachers was despised by the IFB but he used a KJV. They’ve broken so much fellowship…and caused so much division.
So true. These devils have given conservative/traditional Christianity a bad name. Traditional texts (not the obscure Alexandrian texts), traditional values (not rainbow flag waving or women preachers). But these people grifted us who seek tradition.
I use a TRANSLATION that I enjoy reading and actually understand without using a dictionary. I used to be KJV only but not now. I do consider myself INDEPENDENT in thinking and Baptist in doctrine. Many of the IFB preachers take things out of context and bully people into thinking a certain way. We should live in grace, not fear.
As Protestants we don't worship the Bible, we only Worship the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone. There is nothing wrong in loving and knowing whatever version of the Bible you please but we don't worship it, we Worship GOD through the Lord Jesus Christ. No where did Jesus instruct His Disciples to one day publish a book which would contain some of his sayings and other writings, but He did say that the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL Truth, John 16:13. It's the Spirit of GOD who leads us not the Bible nor the Preacher nor the Pope, only the Spirit. Instead of faffing about which version of the Bible is the correct one we should rather bow in repentance and submission to the Spirit of GOD and ask Him to lead us and enlighten us and guide us into ALL Truth.
how would you even possibly know anything about Jesus if it wasn't for this book. I would be my life that Jesus doesn't appear to you and speaks to you directly
Things that are different are not the same… think about it Btw instead of making videos about these men, why don’t the makers of this channel focus on more productive things that further the propagation of the gospel of Christ. Making fun of and slandering gospel preachers doesn’t help anything!
KJV-only is a purity standard added by men. The same men who do this to verses they don't think say things how they would say them (like Jesus turning water into actual wine) also do it to the Word Itself. The Word of God is preserved in parchments and fragments and whole entire scrolls, but there is no one place where they've been brought together definitively where God came and said, those scrolls and not those, those fragments and not those. KJV-only follows the Textus Receptus collection, and ALL arguments about it are based on the idea that it's the definitive collection, and all others are corrupt because they weren't gathered and grouped together by one man at the same point in time, Erasmus. It's beyond silly, but it attracts the type of ppl who like to feel like they're right, and they're privileged enough to have got the one single perfect preserved God-breathed ever-lovin true copy of the WORD. They couldn't quote one verse from every book of the Bible (66 is a lot of verses!!!!), and don't study more than the easy sections, but bless God they have it HAYMAN!
[The kjv Bible has to be Updated,] Possibly 1000 words are out of Date, & 1000 more are on their way out of being updated they are causing more confusion than the words that are outdated, Trained professionals have a hard time finding the words that are going out, This is why i don't believe the argument for kjv, This bible was good in its day but its day has passed. The kjv bible was not given by inspiration, You are saying the kjv is perfect and because of this you can attack all of the bible's, Then it must be perfect, The King James Translators Specifically Stated Their Work Is [Not Inspired And Perfect,] They said that they were not sure about how to translate some words, In Job 17:6 kjv, and aforetime I was as a tabret, [tabret means tambourine,] This word appears only once in the hebrew bible so how do we know what it means, They confused [tophet with toph], toph which means spitting in the face, [They got the word wrong,] They are not inspired they said they are not inspired, [You're saying perfection without inspiration, ‘‘Inspired Translators’’. We have inspired translators of the original hebrew & greek YES, But not an inspired translation of kjv or of any bible. We have the scriptures available that are updated so that we can read them, I took the time to do my own research. They need a bible they know it's true and correct, If they are afraid of the boogeyman they will not do it, They will stay with the KJV.
Fundamentalism in the beginning was formulated as a counter to the higher critics of German rationalism. The presbyterians and some baptists made common cause around the fundamentals of the faith, in which they did not fundamentally agree. I find it highly disagreeable at any rate to make common cause with those who if they had the power would imprison and kill you for disagreeing with their doctrine as they had in times past. The fundamentals of the faith do not encompass the milk of the word given in Hebrews 6:1, so any fundamentalist church is off-track from the beginning. Either pedo-baptism is correct, or it isn't. Either ordination is by Elders of the church, or it's by a Bible college. Either a church is universal, or it's local. Either baptism is entrance to the local church, or it's a ritual to enter a mystical universal church. Either the church is under the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ, or it's a creation of the state and subject to it. Fundamentalism was NEVER good, because it denied repentance and faith, baptism, ordination, and even the doctrine of resurrection as most hold to a heretical pre-trib rapture theory that denies the clear teaching of Scripture. Fundamentalism is a culture and religion rather than redemption and relationship with God through repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. There are truly saved fundamentalists I am sure, but fundamentalism never saved anybody, for all it's soul wining and standards. The King James stands alone in it's scholarship, that the strawmen of Ruckman, Riplinger and Hyles cannot detract from it's word for word accuracy, down to the Hebraisms. Gregory Miller has an excellent presentation showing how doctrine is changed in many of the new translations when compared with the King James, and I laugh at any scholar who thinks he can translate 'thought for thought'. I hope many fundamentalists trade the broken cisterns of fundamentalism for the living water of Jesus in sound doctrine through repentance and faith.
I mean the modern translation change what the king James has said for hundreds of years. Not only are they changing it they remove whole verses. I love the King James Bible
That is true. The point of the video is to bring up discussion about fundamentalism historically. The KJV issue was a not an historical issue in fundamentalism. Inspiration of the scripture was. The battle was over whether or not the Bible was given by God. Even Curtis Hutson, who was a staunch fundamentalist, would agree. He said that there were perversions and changes that would eventually lead to a one-world Bible. At the same time, he said there were other good versions and even owned 26 different versions himself. If we were to retroactively apply the definition of what "fundamentalism" has become, we would say that many of those who formed fundamental thought were not fundamentalists. The videos I'd like to do on this topic of redefining fundamentalism are to show that the modern-day IFB was not the historical fundamentalism. On a personal note, I do believe it is important to define what the word of God is. Things are different in different versions, and when things are different, not everything can be true. I read the King James Bible, and that's all I really use in teaching. But I also grew up with a strong belief in the word of God even though my first Bible was an NIV. I believed what it said was true. After studying the Bible issue, I have come to accept the King James Bible as following the texts that put forth the word of God accurately.
The NKJV never really grew on me, but I also was introduced to it at a time when I was steeped in the IFB, so it may be more bias than anything. I'm not familiar with the MEV, but I'm interested in checking it out.
@@IFBPreachersmev is the one of 3 translations that use the same base text (The textus receptus). KJV, NKJV, and MEV all translate from this same group of manuscripts. That's why all other translations don't have some of the verses seen in the KJV NKJV and MEV. I'll not share my personal thoughts on manuscripts cause lord knows you can find a thousand books and videos arguing both positions. I mostly read KJV and NKJV.
This is not a critique of the King James Bible nor is it a criticism of the King James Bible only movement. I think it's important as Christians that we define what God's word is. This is more of a video to show how the term fundamentalism was redefined. A fundamentalist meant to believe that God's word was true and to take it literally. As such, a fundamentalist could believe in the Bible yet not believe in King James only. Jack Hyles' goal was to change the term fundamentalist to mean belief in only the King James as the word of God.
But if you don't have a King James Bible, you don't have the Bible, so how can you believe in something you don't have?
@@KenyonBowers Therefore since John Bunyan didn't have a King James Bible, he didn't have the Bible? Please clarify brother.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever in English, the only perfect Bible is the KJB. John Bunyan used the Geneva as that's what was brought over to the US. Geneva is a thousand times better than the NIV. And it matches the King James most of the time.
Plus, in this modern world, everyone has access to the KJB online.
@@KenyonBowers Thats all understood but please answer the question, if it is true that "if you don't have a King James Bible, you don't have the Bible" then John Bunyan didn't have the Bible? Does that standard apply to John Bunyan and all the members of the body of Christ in 1609?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever they didn't have a perfect Bible. The Bible in English was in its purification stage. Now, after the KJB was made, I believe everyone should have switched to the King James, and it took a few years, but that eventually happened. So John Bunyan was using one of, if not the best, translation that would have been available to him.
I was a member of Forrest Hills Baptist Church back in the late 70s when Hutson was the pastor there. I was also a student at the Baptist college of which he was the president for a while. He was KJV preferred but NOT KJV only then. I heard J. R. Rice often then and he was not KJV only. But when Hutson went to the Sword of the Lord he changed. I don't know if it was because they had to circle the wagons to protect Hyles in those days or other influences but he was not the same kind of preacher. The last time I heard Hutson preach was at a Southwide Baptist Fellowship meeting at Northside Baptist in Charlotte. He was suffering with cancer and this was one of his last conference sermons. He preached a sermon titled, "Things That are Different are not the Same". He came out with a pretty strong KJV emphasis in that message. In my observation the KJV only movement fragmented fundamentalism as it was then and led to the demise of some of its strongest institutions.
That's very interesting. I actually listened to two sermons by John R. Rice this past week about the inspiration of the Scriptures, and he was definitely a believer and promoter of inspiration of the original manuscripts and not any particular translation. He heavily used the King James, but he mentioned at times how the New American Standard rendered things better in some passages. I remember reading his books in college and seeing him say similar things in regards to certain passages, that they were rendered better in other translations.
Many seek traditional Christianity but many churches went liberal. These grifters came to exploit that niche.
Please do catalogue where fundamentalism has changed! I can see evidence myself it has changed and it is bothering me. For example my grandfather was a fundamentalist Baptist pastor and he was opposed to swapping the wine in communion for grape juice because that was a liberal attempt to change the Lords Supper. Bourbon was invented by a Baptist Preacher(Elijah Craig) and it still bears his name. Prohibition was a liberal Methodist idea, and Grape juice was invented by a Methodist prohibitionist who detested alcohol (Thomas Welch) and it still bears his name, but now it is preached as the "old fashioned, fundamental" position when it isn't but a little over 100 years old.
There is not a verse in the Bible that uses the word wine for Lord’s Supper and grape juice is much older than alcohol.
@@answersfromscriptureonline That is just plain wrong. The only way to keep grape juice from naturally turning into wine wasn't invented until Thomas Welch.
Read William Patton’s book, “Bible Wines: the Laws of Fermentation. Even the Scriptures talk about the difference between new wine and fermented wine. @@DrGero15
Hyles did definitely have an impact on fundamentalism and for the worse. I understand why fundamentalism was created and I can sympathize with their plight back then. However, the movement has always been anti-intellectual and listening and reading a lot of their literature, it shows. The strangest thing to me is that for a group so gung-ho on being against academia they tend to start up a lot of "higher education" colleges. Most of these colleges teach very biased and insufficient curricula that aligns with the pastor's views running the show. (most colleges and universities have an education major to run the school, makes sense if you think about it) All this to say that this shift to redefining fundamentalism has fractured and splintered everything they once stood against and for. There has been a steady decline in fundamentalism (a lot of it has to do with scandals, abuse, and scholarship) and it will eventually fade into the annuals of history. I disagree with the movement for many reasons but I want the best for the congregations involved. As far as the KJV only thing..... I have cited my views in detail on this channel and will not reiterate them but they do bear repeating. However, I will say one thing about it; I wish the churches would teach Hebrew and Greek to church members so they can read it in the original languages themselves and see the true beauty of scripture that no translation can accomplish. Some denominations do this as well as the Jews, it's a shame we don't and it would put an end to all this translation nonsense.
Which Greek and which hebrew?
@@Hereticalministries Well, Ancient Greek and Hebrew (koine Greek and “teaching” Hebrew) would be adequate. However, modern Greek and Hebrew would do as well though they would have to teach the differences between them as well. The real issue would be to make sure that the languages being taught are accurate which is another issue to talk about.
I mostly use the KJV. But the IFB has in some sense been successful in this. Making the KJV synonymous with IFB. When I say I use the KJV I feel like I have to qualify it by saying I’m not IFB. I think many people just avoid the KJV because they don’t want to be associated with the IFB. Martyn Loyd Jones, one of my favorite preachers was despised by the IFB but he used a KJV. They’ve broken so much fellowship…and caused so much division.
Also, why was he beating on the Bible and being so careless with it?
Personally, I believe that the throwing of the Bible and beating it was more for theatrics than anything else.
@@ChurchPhone1769 Correct. As I said I use the KJV and am not IFB.
So true. These devils have given conservative/traditional Christianity a bad name. Traditional texts (not the obscure Alexandrian texts), traditional values (not rainbow flag waving or women preachers). But these people grifted us who seek tradition.
What is your opinion on John R. Rice?
I use a TRANSLATION that I enjoy reading and actually understand without using a dictionary. I used to be KJV only but not now. I do consider myself INDEPENDENT in thinking and Baptist in doctrine. Many of the IFB preachers take things out of context and bully people into thinking a certain way. We should live in grace, not fear.
I guarantee there are words in whatever phoney baloney version you're reading that you'd need a dictionary to understand.
If you need a dictionary every time you read the Bible, you are mentally handicapped
As Protestants we don't worship the Bible, we only Worship the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone.
There is nothing wrong in loving and knowing whatever version of the Bible you please but we don't worship it, we Worship GOD through the Lord Jesus Christ.
No where did Jesus instruct His Disciples to one day publish a book which would contain some of his sayings and other writings, but He did say that the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL Truth, John 16:13.
It's the Spirit of GOD who leads us not the Bible nor the Preacher nor the Pope, only the Spirit.
Instead of faffing about which version of the Bible is the correct one we should rather bow in repentance and submission to the Spirit of GOD and ask Him to lead us and enlighten us and guide us into ALL Truth.
how would you even possibly know anything about Jesus if it wasn't for this book. I would be my life that Jesus doesn't appear to you and speaks to you directly
you go ahead and bow in repentance and submission to please him. Ill study, be patient and trust and believe him to show myself approved.
Hyles got what he wanted.
Indeed.
What ? A home in heaven is what he got.
He got to commit adultery, and be a god to his members. Congrats Jack！
Either we have Gods words or we dont.
Things that are different are not the same… think about it
Btw instead of making videos about these men, why don’t the makers of this channel focus on more productive things that further the propagation of the gospel of Christ. Making fun of and slandering gospel preachers doesn’t help anything!
KJV-only is a purity standard added by men. The same men who do this to verses they don't think say things how they would say them (like Jesus turning water into actual wine) also do it to the Word Itself. The Word of God is preserved in parchments and fragments and whole entire scrolls, but there is no one place where they've been brought together definitively where God came and said, those scrolls and not those, those fragments and not those. KJV-only follows the Textus Receptus collection, and ALL arguments about it are based on the idea that it's the definitive collection, and all others are corrupt because they weren't gathered and grouped together by one man at the same point in time, Erasmus. It's beyond silly, but it attracts the type of ppl who like to feel like they're right, and they're privileged enough to have got the one single perfect preserved God-breathed ever-lovin true copy of the WORD. They couldn't quote one verse from every book of the Bible (66 is a lot of verses!!!!), and don't study more than the easy sections, but bless God they have it HAYMAN!
aka rapist and his friend
[The kjv Bible has to be Updated,] Possibly 1000 words are out of Date, & 1000 more are on their way out of being updated they are causing more confusion than the words that are outdated, Trained professionals have a hard time finding the words that are going out, This is why i don't believe the argument for kjv, This bible was good in its day but its day has passed. The kjv bible was not given by inspiration, You are saying the kjv is perfect and because of this you can attack all of the bible's, Then it must be perfect, The King James Translators Specifically Stated Their Work Is [Not Inspired And Perfect,] They said that they were not sure about how to translate some words, In Job 17:6 kjv, and aforetime I was as a tabret, [tabret means tambourine,] This word appears only once in the hebrew bible so how do we know what it means, They confused [tophet with toph], toph which means spitting in the face, [They got the word wrong,] They are not inspired they said they are not inspired, [You're saying perfection without inspiration, ‘‘Inspired Translators’’. We have inspired translators of the original hebrew & greek YES, But not an inspired translation of kjv or of any bible. We have the scriptures available that are updated so that we can read them, I took the time to do my own research. They need a bible they know it's true and correct, If they are afraid of the boogeyman they will not do it, They will stay with the KJV.
Mumbo jumb0
Fundamentalism in the beginning was formulated as a counter to the higher critics of German rationalism. The presbyterians and some baptists made common cause around the fundamentals of the faith, in which they did not fundamentally agree. I find it highly disagreeable at any rate to make common cause with those who if they had the power would imprison and kill you for disagreeing with their doctrine as they had in times past. The fundamentals of the faith do not encompass the milk of the word given in Hebrews 6:1, so any fundamentalist church is off-track from the beginning. Either pedo-baptism is correct, or it isn't. Either ordination is by Elders of the church, or it's by a Bible college. Either a church is universal, or it's local. Either baptism is entrance to the local church, or it's a ritual to enter a mystical universal church. Either the church is under the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ, or it's a creation of the state and subject to it. Fundamentalism was NEVER good, because it denied repentance and faith, baptism, ordination, and even the doctrine of resurrection as most hold to a heretical pre-trib rapture theory that denies the clear teaching of Scripture. Fundamentalism is a culture and religion rather than redemption and relationship with God through repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. There are truly saved fundamentalists I am sure, but fundamentalism never saved anybody, for all it's soul wining and standards.
The King James stands alone in it's scholarship, that the strawmen of Ruckman, Riplinger and Hyles cannot detract from it's word for word accuracy, down to the Hebraisms. Gregory Miller has an excellent presentation showing how doctrine is changed in many of the new translations when compared with the King James, and I laugh at any scholar who thinks he can translate 'thought for thought'. I hope many fundamentalists trade the broken cisterns of fundamentalism for the living water of Jesus in sound doctrine through repentance and faith.
Many false dichotomies here.
@@2wheelz3504 True- Fundamentalism and Reform Pedo- Baptist churches are false.
I mean the modern translation change what the king James has said for hundreds of years. Not only are they changing it they remove whole verses. I love the King James Bible
That is true. The point of the video is to bring up discussion about fundamentalism historically. The KJV issue was a not an historical issue in fundamentalism. Inspiration of the scripture was. The battle was over whether or not the Bible was given by God. Even Curtis Hutson, who was a staunch fundamentalist, would agree. He said that there were perversions and changes that would eventually lead to a one-world Bible. At the same time, he said there were other good versions and even owned 26 different versions himself.
If we were to retroactively apply the definition of what "fundamentalism" has become, we would say that many of those who formed fundamental thought were not fundamentalists. The videos I'd like to do on this topic of redefining fundamentalism are to show that the modern-day IFB was not the historical fundamentalism.
On a personal note, I do believe it is important to define what the word of God is. Things are different in different versions, and when things are different, not everything can be true. I read the King James Bible, and that's all I really use in teaching. But I also grew up with a strong belief in the word of God even though my first Bible was an NIV. I believed what it said was true. After studying the Bible issue, I have come to accept the King James Bible as following the texts that put forth the word of God accurately.
@@IFBPreachers Please do more videos on the redefining of fundamentalism. Also what are your opinions on the NKJV and the MEV?
The NKJV never really grew on me, but I also was introduced to it at a time when I was steeped in the IFB, so it may be more bias than anything. I'm not familiar with the MEV, but I'm interested in checking it out.
@@IFBPreachersmev is the one of 3 translations that use the same base text (The textus receptus). KJV, NKJV, and MEV all translate from this same group of manuscripts. That's why all other translations don't have some of the verses seen in the KJV NKJV and MEV. I'll not share my personal thoughts on manuscripts cause lord knows you can find a thousand books and videos arguing both positions. I mostly read KJV and NKJV.
@IFBPreachers your first 3 words that is absolutely not true. You cant have it noth ways. Either you are KJVO or you are not.