Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By 1Timothy115 in Devotionals
         11
      Psalms 119:1-8                                         Sep. 5 - Oct. 2, 2019
      1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
      2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
      3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
      4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
      7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
      8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
      The following verse stood out to me...
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      At first glance it seemed to me this person’s soul is poured out with intense desire to have God’s direction in keeping His Word.
      I made a small wood fire in our backyard for my granddaughter, Julia, since she would be staying overnight with us. My wife and Julia stayed outside at the fire for about half an hour. Then, I found myself alone to watch the fire die out on a particularly lovely evening. So I took my verse from above and began to repeat it for memorization. As I repeated the verse, I tried to contemplate the words and apply them to what I was seeing around me. 
      The moon and stars were out now peering through the scattered clouds above.
      [Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.]
      Thought 1         
      The moon has stayed his course since the day God created him, also the stars, obeying the statutes directed by God from the first day they were created. Can you imagine God’s direction to the Moon and stars, “moon you will have a path through the sky above the earth, stars you will occupy the firmament above the moon and be clearly visible in the cloudless night sky.”
      Then, the trees, grass, even the air we breathe obey the statues God gave them from the beginning. None of these creations have souls, none have hearts, none have intelligence, but they all observe God’s statutes, His instructions for their limited time on earth.
      Thought 2
      What if we were like the moon, stars, trees, grass, or the other creations which have no soul? We would be directed to keep God’s statutes without choosing to keep them. This is not the image of God, there would be no dominion over other creatures, or over the earth. We would not be capable of experiencing the joy and peace of learning the love of God
      Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
      Thought 3 (October 2, 2019)
      Is the psalmist pleading God to force God’s statutes to become the man’s ways? No, he is speaking of his own failure in keeping God’s statutes and his desire to keep them, very much like Paul in Romans 7:14-25.
      God doesn’t work through force to turn men from their ways that they would desire His statutes or desire God Himself. Men must reject (repent) put aside his own ways and voluntarily seek God and His statutes.

Why King James Only?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • 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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

“If you are able to OBtain a copy [of Ruckman’s proposed new book] you will have, in your hands, a minimum of 200 advanced revelations that came from the inerrant English text, that were completely overlooked (or ignored) by every major Christian scholar since 90 A.D.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Jan. 1994, pp. 2, 4).

 

The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611(Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9). [brother Cloud: In fact, God slammed the door of revelation shut in about 90 A.D. with the completion of the New Testament.]

 

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/ruckman.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

'?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.

As has been shown by two mods, there is nowhere that states OB's office position on the rapture. BroMatt would be the one to do that, not one of the mods (which PastorJ was at the time he made this statement you quoted). That said, the majority of us are indeed pre-Trib, unashamedly so.  And we would agree with the last statement you quoted as well.  Too bad too many folk who try to force folks to just post certain things don't in actuality agree with it.

 

Now....a mod has already said get back on topic.  This is the second one to do so.  The topic is not Calvinism, nor is it the Rapture, nor even Ruckman (although Jordan began the thread and so it can go in that direction if he so desires). Back to topic.

 

~~~~~~

 

The KJV is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people. The TR may be used for translation into other languages, as may the KJV (although there are words in the KJV that are at times difficult to translate into other languages because they are transliterations from the Greek). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jordan,

You seem to be confusing the issue and missing the point.

The point I am making (and the source of the quotes from Dr. Ruckman) is not an anti-intellectual position, per se.  The point is that the "scholars" tell us that we simply cannot understand the depths of Scripture without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.   This is summarily false.  Many Greek and Hebrew "experts" hold to false doctrine.  Most miss important doctrinal points because they are so infatuated with the Greek and Hebrew "nuances" that they miss plain, OBvious things staring them right in the face.

So far as Dr. Ruckman's "advanced revelations" are concerned, the point again that these great intellectual "scholars" overlook the OBvious GREAT truth right in front of them to point out some irrelevant little "nuance" from the Greek or Hebrew.  these little "nuances" add ZERO to the Christian's daily walk with the Lord.

 

(BTW - the phrase "advanced revelation" is a tongue-in-cheek expression used to mock these bloated, egotistical "scholars.")

 

In addition, some of the "advanced revelation" in the KJV has to do with the specific wording of the KJV, the chapter and verse numbering, and the order of the books.  When you do a word study in the KJV you will find some amazing doctrinal points that you can not find in the Greek or Hebrew, because the Greek or Hebrew might use 3 or 4 words for that one English word. 

 

Again - missing the OBvious, overstating the insignificant.  There is not one major Bible truth these "scholars" have found that cannot be found in the English KJV without the aid of any Greek or Hebrew.  The Biblical phrase is "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."

 

So what is Dr. Ruckman driving at when he makes these statements?  The "scholars" are a fraud, boasting about their intellectual abilities, and trying to get the Bible student to rely on education instead of the Holy Spirit.  NOBody that God called in the Bible talks like the "scholars" talk.  They believed what they HAD IN THEIR HANDS to be the infallible authority.  God called commercial fisherman and shepherds, and every once in a while, he would get an educated man.  He calls men from all walks of life REGARDLESS of how much formal education they have.  The right attitude toward the word of God is what is important - see Isa. 66:1-2.

 

I am not against education.  I am not against learning Greek and/or Hebrew.  In fact, these are required courses at Dr. Ruckman's school - and we don't even learn from the TR - we learn from the CT so that we can understand how to use the Critical Apparatus (Nestles or the UBS4).  We were taught this so that when we come across a Bible corrector, WE CAN CHECK THEM OUT, and ultimately prove them WRONG from their own sources (something I have done many times!)

 

Riplinger:  I think she has a lot of good ideas and material, but I also think she pushes some of her ideas a little bit too far.  Her book In Awe of Thy Word has 700 pages of historical background with some amazing material in it.  She is a linguist by trade, so some of her material on the linguistics of the KJV are insightful.  I simply do not believe all of the attacks on her scholarship and credentials.  The books I have read from her have been very interesting, insightful and helpful of my understanding of the issue.  GOOD FRUIT (Mt. 7).  I have not found anything that she has written to violate any portion of Scripture at all.

 

I would not believe all of the negative press on either one of these individuals.  Anyone who stands up for God's word will be viciously attacked and maligned.  Br. Cloud often is, though for different reasons that Ruckman or Riplinger are.  The bottom line is that all three of them take a strong stand for God's word, and they are hated and vilified for it.  The test Jesus Christ gave us for determing a true prophet from a false prophet is found in Matthew 7 - "by their fruits ye shall know them." 

Of course, there are some bad apples that associate themselves with Dr. Ruckman, but anyone with any sense could see that these bad apples are just that.  However, these bad apples may not be representative of the GOOD fruit Dr. Ruckman has produced.  He has seen countless souls saved in his many years in the ministry, countless backsliders reclaimed, and has trained many good men for the ministry who are still out in the ministry.  Some of these guys are averaging over one soul a day saved on their respective missionary fields.  They are good men who love the Lord, win souls, and pastor churches.  Dr. Ruckman's desire for the Christian is that they spend time in daily fellowship with the Lord and have rewards for their service at the Judgment Seat of Christ. 

 

If you really want to see the heart of Dr. Ruckman, then you should invest some time and money getting some of his preaching.  He does not preach on the KJV all the time - in fact, very rarely.  His preaching centers on salvation, service, judgment for saved and lost, and prophecy.   I would be happy to send you some samples if you want.  Just send me your mailing address in a PM. 

 

Again, this is why I say that 2 or 3 random quotes do not properly reflect the true nature of the ministry God has given Dr. Ruckman.  I sat under that ministry and saw it first hand for 4 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Clarification:

As far as an "endorsement" of Riplinger's position goes, that depends on your version of her "position." 

 

I have read most of her books.  Have you?

She, as anyone else, is human, and at times may get "off track."  Just as Dr. Ruckman is not right on every point, nor your favorite preacher/teacher. 

 

However, I have not seen where anything she has advanced contradicts Scripture - and that is the ultimate test - regardless of anyone else's "critique" of her work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Clarification:

As far as an "endorsement" of Riplinger's position goes, that depends on your version of her "position." 

 

I have read most of her books.  Have you?

She, as anyone else, is human, and at times may get "off track."  Just as Dr. Ruckman is not right on every point, nor your favorite preacher/teacher. 

 

However, I have not seen where anything she has advanced contradicts Scripture - and that is the ultimate test - regardless of anyone else's "critique" of her work. 

have you read Phil Stringer's books on Riplinger? also I have seen personal examples of how she is dishonest in her use of quotes, I have read her book New Age Bible versions and a lot of Hazardous Materials.

 

I don't trust Riplinger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • 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   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 4 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...