Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?

 

I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.

 

I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).

 

on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.

 

What is your position and why do you hold to it?

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I see a lot of criticism of Ruckman and Gail on here but no one giving first hand evidence as Steve mentioned. I don't care for Gail acting as a pastor at times and Ruckman's name calling but as for a

Whoa, reign in, dismount, throw the reigns around this here post, walk inside, take your boots off, have some ice tea. This thread AIN'T about GP. It AIN'T about Dave. It AIN'T about Alan. It AIN

Removing the usage of "ye," "thou," "thy," and "thine" from the King James translation would make it LESS accurate; for the usage of those 2nd person personal pronouns are in the King James translatio

Posted Images

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I started reading KJV because it was only large print Bible I had. Then I started attending my IFB church and that's what they use. I admit I do have to check another version sometimes to figure out what they're saying at it is hard to understand sometimes.

 

I don't know what textual theories even are.

Edited by Miss Daisy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I started reading KJV because it was only large print Bible I had. Then I started attending my IFB church and that's what they use. I admit I do have to check another version sometimes to figure out what they're saying at it is hard to understand sometimes.

 

I don't know what textual theories even are.

The textual theories that Jordan refers to, are the standard arguments that bible 'scholars' and critics use: the oldest manuscript is the best, because its closest to the originals in time. Or that the Bible should be interpreted no differently than any other work of literature, meaning one can make it to be whatever they want it to be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Many years ago, just as clear as could be, the Lord directed me to use the KJB. Thankfully I OBeyed and reading the KJB the Word was suddenly clear to me, memorization of the Word became almost easy, and my growth in the Word and in Christ excelled.

 

It wasn't until later I even learned of KJO, the history behind the many MVs, the basis and arguments of text sources, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The King James Bible is perfect for many reasons which I don't have time to get into. God promised to preserve his words. Modern versions, such as the ESV and NIV, are always coming out with new versions which change words. The King James Bible has stood the test of time and doesn't lack important passages that the modern Bibles lack. Finally, the modern Bibles contain legitimate conflicts which are not in the King James Bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The King James Bible is perfect for many reasons which I don't have time to get into. God promised to preserve his words. Modern versions, such as the ESV and NIV, are always coming out with new versions which change words. The King James Bible has stood the test of time and doesn't lack important passages that the modern Bibles lack. Finally, the modern Bibles contain legitimate conflicts which are not in the King James Bible.

That "stood the test of time" is a very important factor and one that most KJB detractors have a difficult time trying to deal with. That's why they will most often ignore and steer clear of the 400 year track record of success only the KJB has and instead argue that the language is "archaic" and "nOBody can understand it".

 

Interesting to consider that young children used to learn to read using the KJB but today it's claimed neither high school or college graduates can understand the KJB. I would say that's an indictment against the education system, not the KJB.

 

I see now they are promoting the MEV as being the newest and best Bible today. That's the same thing they said previously about the ESV, NIV and so many others. How long before yet another MV is deemed necessary for the sake of publishers profits?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

what does MEV stand for?

Modern English Version

 

They are marketing it as an updated KJB. That sounds good, and the parts where that's all they did was to update the spelling or wording is fine, but they did more than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Let's first clarify which "KJV Only" meaning you have in mind:

 

1: Ruckman-style, "the Bible was never perfect or complete until presented in the KJV 1611 version, which is perfect, and actually better than the autographs, as well as being inspired as a version. I am not of this mind. 

 

2: Preservation KJV only: The KJV is the preserved Bible, coming directly down in a perfect manner from the inspried autographs. We don't look to the 'originals' because they no longer exist, but we believe God preserved it exactly as He would have it. I hold to this position.

 

Why? As you said above, Jordan, one reason is the Wescott/Hort connection: a couple Anglicans who made plain that they didn't believe in the Bible, and held to many Roman Catholic doctrines, such as mariolatry.

 

As well, there is still many unanswered questions concerning Von Tischendorf's finding of the Sinaiticus, and whether it was even an authentic ancient manuscript. Despite the arguments from a man who claimed to have personally written the so-called Sinaiticus, there qas never any testing done to dispute this. As well, the copy was badly damaged and burned, though many of the burns look very neat and orderly, almost as if done on purpose, to look like it had been cast into a fire, as the story goes. AND there are numerous scribal errors and alterations, which as any scribe would know, should disqualify it as a 'good' text.

 

The Vaticanus manuscript, also supposedly 'discovered' by Von Tischendorf, was well-known by earlier translators and was rejected by them for its many deviations from the other extant manuscripts.   Yet, it was these two foundations of sand upon which W&H chose to build their Fawlty Towers of scripture.

 

That's a start for now.

 

Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.

 

Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....

 

MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.

Edited by Calvary
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.

 

Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....

 

“A little English will clear up the OBscurities in any Greek text” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 147)

 

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 336).

 

"We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or  to demonstrate thebelief superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew”  (Peter Ruckman,  PrOBlem Texts, Preface, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).“

 

MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.

 

Sorry, should have used ' ' instead-I was more referring to the general theory, not a specific quote-my error, and I withdraw the quotes.

BY the way, ever read the Ruckman book, "Black is Beautiful"? Interesting book, all about Ruckman's beliefs concerning UFO's and such things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have to chime in here:

 

To answer the OP:

I am KJV because the Bible demands it.  The Bible promises a perfectly preserved text.  When we study what the Scriptures say about themselves, the only Bible that matches all of the combined criteria is the KJV - none of the other versions come close.  Not even the TR qualifies.

 

Mike - I have a lot of respect for you, and appreciate your insight, wisdom, and hold you in high regard.  However, you are wrong about Dr. Ruckman. 

You have assembled a few quotes, taken out of context.  Can you even begin to explain anything he meant with the quotes you provided?

 

I have to ask because I was there - I attend Dr. Ruckman's school, and graduated in 1996.  I have read the vast majority of what he has written, and listened to countless hours of his teaching and preaching.  I know what he said, and I know what he MEANT when he said it.  Do you?  Or are you simply drawing off what somebody else wrote about him second and third hand?  Just curious.

 

No heat here....just curious.

 

In Christ,

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Miss Daisy, I don't want to get sidetracked here.  I am addressing the KJV issue.  Dr. Ruckman is a man after all, just like all of the rest of them, and he has his faults and failures, just like everyone else.

 

My issue here is that people are constantly misquoting him and falsely accusing him of a position he does not hold by taking his comments out of context, and assigning a meaning to them he does not intend.  Anyone who has read his books in full would understand that.  And anyone who posts quotes like these above has done one of two things:

 

1.  Copied a quote from someone else without checking into it, or,

2.  Purposefully maligned him for some weird reason.

 

So UFO's are not germane to the discussion.  It is merely a "guilt by association" tactic meant to discredit the man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't know who the guy is. I'll have to look him up. But if he does hold to some weird view as a Christian about UFO's as a popular Christian who influences other christians, they yes it can be "germane" to the discussion about someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...

 

Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.

 

So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian.

 

Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.

 

Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.

 

No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.

 

Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Bro Sam Gipp has a great website where he has scripted videos leading a young man to "why we should use the KJV"  It is at http://bigdealKJv.com/

 

It answered a lot of questions I had and helped me understand its importance and how other versions are incorrectly translated or downright leave verses out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...

Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.

So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian.

Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.

Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.

No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.

Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!


I make no comment to the information you include here - I am not interested in taking part in the discussion - but the attack against Bro Matt and the tone towards Mike is completely out of line.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...

 

Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.

 

So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian.

 

Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.

 

Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.

 

No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.

 

Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!

I just re-read he OB doctrinal position -- so, which part of it is not accepted by a mod? Which mod?

 

My son-in law graduated from PBI prior to '97 and doesn't have a newer copy of any textbooks. So, are you saying that no one can quote what another person wrote without managing to  ascertain as to whether a newer edition is out?

 

It looks as if the works he re-quoted were PBI press -- so how is that talebearing? (remember that it is in print available for public purchase)

 

 

In short -- Have a beef with him? Fine -- have at it BUT it definitely looks like you are out of line unless what is on screen and what you sought to convey didn't quite mesh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have to chime in here:

 

To answer the OP:

I am KJV because the Bible demands it.  The Bible promises a perfectly preserved text.  When we study what the Scriptures say about themselves, the only Bible that matches all of the combined criteria is the KJV - none of the other versions come close.  Not even the TR qualifies.

 

 

allow me to play devils advocate here, Where was the perfectly preserved text before the KJV? Why does nOBody hold to a Geneva Bible only position?

 

If as you say God has promised to give us a perfect preserved word, why does it have to be in english?

 

What about Russian? to my knowledge the only Russian Bible translation is from a Critical text, They do not have anything in their language that is perfect, has God failed them or lied to them? If you are willing to admit that God would leave them without a perfect bible, why do we English speaking people think God owes us a perfect english translation? on what basis do we have to say the King James is better than the Geneva, the Bishops, or even the Wycliffe Bible... how can we say we accept by faith that the King James is perfect and preserved, and not be able to apply that to the Geneva Bible translation before it? 

 

Some honest questions that I never find good answers to.

 

Again i am playing devils advocate, I do hold to a King James only position for English.

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jordan,

Where was God's perfectly preserved text prior to 1611?

Everywhere. 

The Russians had their own Bible from the correct text in the 1500's, as did most of the European languages.  That is why the Title Page on the KJV says "with the former translations diligently compared."  The KJV translators checked their work with other current vernacular translations, the Hebrew and Greek texts (rejecting what is now know as the CT), and other ancient translations.  There work was thorough in every sense of the word, unlike the modern slop that is coming out.  The Bibles in European languages at that time were the correct Bibles. 

 

Today, the CT has ruined the translation process.  Most languages has traded in their TR translation in for the CT translation to the extent that it is difficult to find a good translation in many parts of the world simply because nOBody prints the correct version anymore.  But still, the important thing for those people in that situation is their ATTITUDE toward the word of God.   The attitude of the "scholars" is that they think they know more than God, and it is their duty to tell everyone where the Bible is "wrong."  The attitude of the believer is to believe WHAT HE HAS IN HIS HANDS, and trust that the Lord will bless it.  And God will bless them on an individual basis for their faith, even if their Bible is wrong in some places.  Their growth will be stunted to some degree or another, but God is still able to overcome that.  A good missionary will seek to put the right Bible in their hands if at all possible, even if it means producing a new translation from the correct text. 

 

Why English?  It is the universal language of the day.  We send people all over the world to teach English.  It is the dominant language used universally.  In the OT times, if you wanted a copy of the TRUE Scriptures, it was in Hebrew.  Today, it is in English. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Jordan,

Where was God's perfectly preserved text prior to 1611?

Everywhere. 

The Russians had their own Bible from the correct text in the 1500's, as did most of the European languages.  That is why the Title Page on the KJV says "with the former translations diligently compared."  The KJV translators checked their work with other current vernacular translations, the Hebrew and Greek texts (rejecting what is now know as the CT), and other ancient translations.  There work was thorough in every sense of the word, unlike the modern slop that is coming out.  The Bibles in European languages at that time were the correct Bibles. 

 

Today, the CT has ruined the translation process.  Most languages has traded in their TR translation in for the CT translation to the extent that it is difficult to find a good translation in many parts of the world simply because nOBody prints the correct version anymore.  But still, the important thing for those people in that situation is their ATTITUDE toward the word of God.   The attitude of the "scholars" is that they think they know more than God, and it is their duty to tell everyone where the Bible is "wrong."  The attitude of the believer is to believe WHAT HE HAS IN HIS HANDS, and trust that the Lord will bless it.  And God will bless them on an individual basis for their faith, even if their Bible is wrong in some places.  Their growth will be stunted to some degree or another, but God is still able to overcome that.  A good missionary will seek to put the right Bible in their hands if at all possible, even if it means producing a new translation from the correct text. 

 

Why English?  It is the universal language of the day.  We send people all over the world to teach English.  It is the dominant language used universally.  In the OT times, if you wanted a copy of the TRUE Scriptures, it was in Hebrew.  Today, it is in English. 

So you are saying that if one wants God's word today, he must learn English? Otherwise, its not God's word? The hundred, nay, thousands of translations into other languages over the years from the TR, into oriental languages, European languages, even native American languages, are all worthless, because they aren't English?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

YAY! 2000 likes!

 

Sorry, back to topic.

 

By the way, not looking for a fight with anyone, and I apologize for what might seem like my pulling an attitude about Peter Ruckman. I admit to not reading a whole lot of his stuff-I have taken the word of some that I trust, but that being said, I should perhaps look a bit more into his actual works.

 

I am not, however, a liar-I did not lie about what I said, and I don't yet know for certain that I am in error about it. But I will look into it. Just hard to find time to read everything that is out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

YAY! 2000 likes!

 

Sorry, back to topic.

 

By the way, not looking for a fight with anyone, and I apologize for what might seem like my pulling an attitude about Peter Ruckman. I admit to not reading a whole lot of his stuff-I have taken the word of some that I trust, but that being said, I should perhaps look a bit more into his actual works.

 

I am not, however, a liar-I did not lie about what I said, and I don't yet know for certain that I am in error about it. But I will look into it. Just hard to find time to read everything that is out there.

 

Like! 

:coverlaugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

YAY! 2000 likes!

 

Sorry, back to topic.

 

By the way, not looking for a fight with anyone, and I apologize for what might seem like my pulling an attitude about Peter Ruckman. I admit to not reading a whole lot of his stuff-I have taken the word of some that I trust, but that being said, I should perhaps look a bit more into his actual works.

 

I am not, however, a liar-I did not lie about what I said, and I don't yet know for certain that I am in error about it. But I will look into it. Just hard to find time to read everything that is out there.

Mike, I don't think you are malicious in your intentions.  But these quotes get passed around all the time.  I am telling you as someone who was in his church for 4 years, and sat in his classes for 3 years, and played floor hockey with him during that time, and has read most of his books, and listened to countless hours of his teaching and preaching that those quotes are taken out of context.  

 

They are sarcastic jabs at people who worship Greek and Hebrew.  They are jabs at those who teach preacher boys that the only way they can understand the depths of the Bible is by learning Greek and Hebrew.  These jabs are usually thrown after he shows some tremendous truths that all of the great "scholars" MISSED while they were floundering around in Greek and Hebrew.  His point is simple - if you have a KJV, you have everything you need.  

If you read those quotes in their proper setting, anyone could see it.  Therefore, those who have purposefully LIFTED those quotes out of their proper context did so knowing full well that this was a great distortion and misrepresentation of what Dr. Ruckman believes.  

OF COURSE he believes the original manuscripts were infallible when they were written.  The point is simple - THOSE ORIGINALS DON'T EXIST ANYMORE, so why waste time going back to something we don't have?  We have God's perfect word for us today in the KJV - let's just stick with that, and stop wasting time elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I just re-read he OB doctrinal position -- so, which part of it is not accepted by a mod? Which mod?

 

My son-in law graduated from PBI prior to '97 and doesn't have a newer copy of any textbooks. So, are you saying that no one can quote what another person wrote without managing to  ascertain as to whether a newer edition is out?

 

It looks as if the works he re-quoted were PBI press -- so how is that talebearing? (remember that it is in print available for public purchase)

 

 

In short -- Have a beef with him? Fine -- have at it BUT it definitely looks like you are out of line unless what is on screen and what you sought to convey didn't quite mesh.

 

 

Old - You cant ascertain the context either, at least not on this post, I don´t know what youre bellyaching about.

 

Calvinism is a rotten heresy and it's promoted here all the time.

 

OB doctrinal statement includes a pre trib pre millenial position, MIke does not hold to it, though he is certainly free to choose his eschatology, this board has a stated position, so....

 

Talebearing is repeating a lie told by someone else, it's also called gossip. Mike did not find those quotes himslef but relied upon a secondary source and fell into the trap of publickly stating a matter to be thus when it was not so, as any reading of the context of those quotes would have shown, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE MATERIAL instead of merely quoting a slanderer.

 

I also know that Mike is not malicious about it, but I was simply making a point.

 

God bless you Mike,

 

calvary

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The originals didn't exist when the translators did the KJV either.

It is a silly argument.

I disagree.  For decades young preachers have gone off to Bible College or Seminary with their faith in the Bible they had grown up reading, studying, memorizing and preaching, only to have some stuffed shirt idiot tell them that their Bibles had mistakes in it, and that they had to learn Greek and Hebrew to know what the "originals" said, and that they would never understand the depths of Bible Doctrine without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.  These same over-educated idiots miss OBVIOUS TRUTHS staring at them out of the pages of the KJV.   In the mean time, those students leave these schools with their faith in the Bible and the Holy Spirit destroyed, and they are now dependent on their EDUCATION instead of the HOLY SPIRIT.  

A.T. ROBertson was one of the outstanding NT Greek Scholars of the early 1900's.  He wrote the definitive NT Greek Grammar - over 1500 pages - about the size of a dictionary.  For all of his knowledge of the NT Greek language, he was a dunce when it came to Bible Doctrine.  So while these "scholars" tell these young preachers that a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to have a proper knowledge of the Bible and Bible doctrine, the TRUTH is that having that knowledge is absolutely no guarantee that you will arrive at the truth.  

So, Dr. Ruckman's sarcastic jabs only EXPOSE THEIR LIES.  And he would know - he was still writing Greek and Hebrew verses from memory on the dry erase boards in class when I was in school - he was in his 70's then.  He knows as much about Greek and Hebrew as any "scholar" in the country....that is why they think he is so dangerous.  He can shred their arguments at the drop of a hat with the same knowledge and material they use.  

 

Conclusion? If all you had was a KJV, you would are better off than if you had any edition of any Greek NT available today.  The KJV has everything the Christian needs, and anyone who can read English can get the same information without having to go to Dr. Smellfungus to tell where it is all wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The translators still didn't have the originals - that is why it is a silly argument.

 

We still do have access to the stuff they had that they translated from.

 

Silly argument......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Old - You cant ascertain the context either, at least not on this post, I don´t know what youre bellyaching about.

 

Calvinism is a rotten heresy and it's promoted here all the time.

 

OB doctrinal statement includes a pre trib pre millenial position, MIke does not hold to it, though he is certainly free to choose his eschatology, this board has a stated position, so....

 

Talebearing is repeating a lie told by someone else, it's also called gossip. Mike did not find those quotes himslef but relied upon a secondary source and fell into the trap of publickly stating a matter to be thus when it was not so, as any reading of the context of those quotes would have shown, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE MATERIAL instead of merely quoting a slanderer.

 

I also know that Mike is not malicious about it, but I was simply making a point.

 

God bless you Mike,

 

calvary

 

First of all, when a mod says you're out of line, the appropriate response is to pay attention, not demean his comments ('bellyaching').
 

Secondly, I just read through the board rules and doctrinal statement, and I can't see where eschatology is listed in either place. Please copy and paste the URL so we can see what you are referring to. Frankly, it's really not up to you to 'police' the mods - that's BroMatt's jOB. If he has a prOBlem with any of us, he'll take care of it.

I'm not sure what Calvinism has to do with the OP, so let's not muddy the waters with old complaints, eh?

 

The topic is KJV, not Peter Ruckman. Let's see if we can get back to the OP, shall we? :wink

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Old - You cant ascertain the context either, at least not on this post, I don´t know what youre bellyaching about.

 

Calvinism is a rotten heresy and it's promoted here all the time.

 

OB doctrinal statement includes a pre trib pre millenial position, MIke does not hold to it, though he is certainly free to choose his eschatology, this board has a stated position, so....

 

Talebearing is repeating a lie told by someone else, it's also called gossip. Mike did not find those quotes himslef but relied upon a secondary source and fell into the trap of publickly stating a matter to be thus when it was not so, as any reading of the context of those quotes would have shown, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE MATERIAL instead of merely quoting a slanderer.

 

I also know that Mike is not malicious about it, but I was simply making a point.

 

God bless you Mike,

 

calvary

I figured you were referring to Mike's eschatology, however:  here is the OB doctrine page in it's entirety

 

Doctrinal Statement for Online Baptist

Doctrine of God:

We believe in only one holy, righteous, just, perfect, merciful, gracious, long suffering, omnipotent, omniscient, God who is abundant in mercy and truth and composed of a Godhead of three distinct eternal persons. The Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe each of these persons is fully equal and fully God and yet fulfill different roles. We believe the Father is the supreme ruler of all things. We believe all things of the Father are Jesus Christ the Sons and that the Father has committed all judgement into his hands. We believe that the work of the Son is to glorify the Father and the Father glorifies the Son. We believe the work of the Holy Spirit is to guide believers into all truth and reveal the truth contained in the scriptures to their hearts. His work also includes convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement. We believe that while God can always do as he wishes certain "sign gifts" of the Holy Spirit(tongues, miracles, the gift of healing etc.) are not active at this point in time and those who teach otherwise have repeatedly been tried and found liars.

Concerning the Scriptures:

We believe that every word of the scriptures was given by inspiration of God and that every word of of the scriptures has been preserved by his divine power from the tainting of man thus retaining their inspired character in its entirety.
We therefore hold the scriptures to be the foremost authority for faith and practice and reject every doctrine or teaching contrary to the teachings of the 66 books of scripture as not of God and false. We believe that the revelation of scripture was completed with the book of Revelation. Online baptist holds that the King James Bible is Gods preserved word for the English speaking peoples and does not permit using other versions on the forum. We reject the teaching of the double inspiration of the KJV and hold that the KJV retains the original divine inspiration of the scriptures through faithful translation and Gods divine preservation rather than being re-inspired in the English language in 1611.

Doctrine of Salvation:

We believe all men are born sinners and deserving of hell. We believe God sent his only begotten Son Jesus Christ into the world to make a substitutionary sacrifice by his death that was sufficient to atone for the sin of the whole world. We believe man was dead in sin and unable to come to God yet the true light, Jesus Christ , "lighteth every man that cometh into the world" and through that universal grace of light every man is freely afforded the opportunity to repent and come to the light. We reject the doctrine that God has chosen some to go to heaven and has not chosen others. Rather we believe that God, who is rich in mercy, has chosen all mankind for salvation but unfortunately some will go to hell because they, by hardness of heart and self will, chose to frustrate the grace of God by rejecting his free gift and trampling under foot the precious blood of Christ. We believe in order to truly pass from death to life a person must repent of their sins and call upon God to receive salvation and remission of sins by grace through faith in Gods promise and Christ's blood. We believe good works do not and can never have any part in salvation, truly all our righteousness is as filthy rags, however if a person is truly saved good works will follow because their heart has been changed by the operation of God.

Christian living:

We believe God has called believers to be holy because he is holy. We believe God progressively conforms believers into the image of Christ as they submit to his revealed will. Stubborn resistance and failure to submit to Gods revealed will prevents spiritual growth indefinitely and may bring Gods chastening. Christians have a responsibility to warn, comfort, rebuke, and edify one another in a spirit of meekness and kindness with the good of each other at heart. God is not pleased when Christians forget this and debate in foolish anger or for strife, pride, or vainglory. Christians also have a duty not to take offense easily. "1st Peter 2:19-23 "For this is thank worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently,this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example,that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:"

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the long post --but, I don't see eschatology in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

First of all, when a mod says you're out of line, the appropriate response is to pay attention, not demean his comments ('bellyaching').
 

Secondly, I just read through the board rules and doctrinal statement, and I can't see where eschatology is listed in either place. Please copy and paste the URL so we can see what you are referring to. Frankly, it's really not up to you to 'police' the mods - that's BroMatt's jOB. If he has a prOBlem with any of us, he'll take care of it.

I'm not sure what Calvinism has to do with the OP, so let's not muddy the waters with old complaints, eh?

 

The topic is KJV, not Peter Ruckman. Let's see if we can get back to the OP, shall we? :wink

 

Ooops, I was typing when you posted

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The only reason I posted anything on Dr. Ruckman was because Mike was propogating a lie about him, a distorted view of what the man really believes.  As someone who has personal knowledge of the man and what he believes, I felt compelled to challenge those false statements.

 

Thank you,

 

Goodbye.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

 

Notice:

Calvary and I will be representing the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position, which is also the official position of the Online Baptist Forum. There are a number of things that we agree with Pastor Totten on. We agree that there are good men who hold to both positions and that it is not necessary to separate over this issue. We also agree that the chief task given to us is to evangelize the lost world. Calvary, Pastor Totten, and I have agreed to keep this debate in a civilized manner. We have also agreed that when we get to a position where we must agree to disagree, the debate will be over. We agree that this is not about winning or losing, but about showing a clear presentation of when the rapture will occur.

 

Thank you,

Goodbye.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Similar Content

    • By BibleBeliever5
      Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version.  I love the KJV.  But the language is basically 400 year-old English.  So if there were a simple and accurate update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it?  What would be your thoughts generally about such an update?  Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV?  It would be great to hear what you all think.  May God be glorified.
       
      In Christ,
      Joseph
    • By Alan
      Brethren,
      One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.
      Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).
      After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.
      The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.
      Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 
      Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.
      Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.
      Regards,
      Alan
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 24 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...