We live in an area where there is a shortage of Bible believing Churches. There are some Baptist Churches locally, but they hold to the Central Seminary view of Gods Word.
We believe that God preserved His Word (as He said He would).
And we can find it in the English language through the Authorized (King James) version.
Of course, there are some who will condemn us with the 'King James Only' slur, though, if I held to that it would not be necessarily completely wrong. I don't agree with the Ruckman position that God re-inspired His Word, correcting errors, why would He need to?
I hold, based on Gods Word and study, that we can have the pure Words of God (as He promised), preserved in the King James Bible. Gods work, not man.
I believe that the other 'Bibles' are corrupted (with the texts and methods of translation). Does this mean that they are not Bibles? Of course not. I can paraphrase the Gospel. Does this mean it is not the Gospel?
It is a shame the times we live in. js
We believe that God preserved His Word (as He said He would).
And we can find it in the English language through the Authorized (King James) version.
Of course, there are some who will condemn us with the 'King James Only' slur, though, if I held to that it would not be necessarily completely wrong. I don't agree with the Ruckman position that God re-inspired His Word, correcting errors, why would He need to?
I hold, based on Gods Word and study, that we can have the pure Words of God (as He promised), preserved in the King James Bible. Gods work, not man.
I believe that the other 'Bibles' are corrupted (with the texts and methods of translation). Does this mean that they are not Bibles? Of course not. I can paraphrase the Gospel. Does this mean it is not the Gospel?
It is a shame the times we live in. js
