Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Jordan Kurecki

Why King James Only?

Recommended Posts

I dunno - if someone - anyone - lies in the presentation of their argument, it kinda affects the strength of the argument.

Like when someone deliberately misquotes say, Mr Ruckman for the purposes of discrediting him, and someone else reveals through proper use of the quotation that the original quote was wrong, the original quoter kinda loses face with the audience.

You are inclined to not trust anything else he says.

Or if someone uses a quote to suggest that someone else was judged by God, and it turns out that the quote was from before the work that was apparently judged, the original quoter sorta loses face before the audience, and I for one am less inclined to trust them.

But let's not mention double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I have read her book New Age Bible Versions in it's entirety, the way she applies some scriptures is really bad interpretaion, some of her ideas about things really caused me to scratch my head.

 

And yes it is completely relevant that she misuses quotes, especially because in Hazardous Materials the main support she has is quotes and information bashing in Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and scholars, so it is completely relevant.

 

Riplinger may suport the KJV, but she sure does more damage to the position in the way she defends it... in fact her arguments really don't hold up, she just uses a bunch of quotes that are prOBably not even true to overwhelm you and make you think she's a scholar.

 

Greek and Hebrew does in fact often make the English translation more clear in certain places, to deny that is a denial of facts, does that mean the English is not sufficient, no, Study of Greek and Hebrew is just a tool one can use, Funny how the same people who are against Greek and Hebrew also often use uninspired commentaries, I think we can all agree that commentaries can sometimes shed light, yet we still use them.

 

people who bash on the learning and usage of Greek and Hebrew Lexicons are making a virtue out of ignorance, and if these people were to be consistent, then they need to throw out their study bibles, commentaries, etc.

 

Greek and Hebrew learning is a fallible tool, OBviously our final authority is the King James bible, which we know is reliable, we would not even have a King James Bible if the translators held to Riplinger's position.

 

I find Riplinger's arguments for King James Only to be lacking, and I would not cite her or her books to defend the King James bible.

Edited by Jordan Kurecki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno - if someone - anyone - lies in the presentation of their argument, it kinda affects the strength of the argument.

Like when someone deliberately misquotes say, Mr Ruckman for the purposes of discrediting him, and someone else reveals through proper use of the quotation that the original quote was wrong, the original quoter kinda loses face with the audience.

You are inclined to not trust anything else he says.

Or if someone uses a quote to suggest that someone else was judged by God, and it turns out that the quote was from before the work that was apparently judged, the original quoter sorta loses face before the audience, and I for one am less inclined to trust them.

But let's not mention double standards.

This is ridiculous.

 

David Cloud misquotes and misrepresents Dr. Ruckman, yet I trust Cloud on most everything else he presents.  I just know he is off base on THAT SUBJECT.  How so?  Because I can check his work and compare it with Scripture.

 

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater....

Eat the chicken and throw away the bones...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I have read her book New Age Bible Versions in it's entirety, the way she applies some scriptures is really bad interpretaion, some of her ideas about things really caused me to scratch my head.

 

And yes it is completely relevant that she misuses quotes, especially because in Hazardous Materials the main support she has is quotes and information bashing in Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and scholars, so it is completely relevant.

 

Riplinger may suport the KJV, but she sure does more damage to the position in the way she defends it... in fact her arguments really don't hold up, she just uses a bunch of quotes that are prOBably not even true to overwhelm you and make you think she's a scholar.

 

Greek and Hebrew does in fact often make the English translation more clear in certain places, to deny that is a denial of facts, does that mean the English is not sufficient, no, Study of Greek and Hebrew is just a tool one can use, Funny how the same people who are against Greek and Hebrew also often use uninspired commentaries, I think we can all agree that commentaries can sometimes shed light, yet we still use them.

 

people who bash on the learning and usage of Greek and Hebrew Lexicons are making a virtue out of ignorance, and if these people were to be consistent, then they need to throw out their study bibles, commentaries, etc.

 

Greek and Hebrew learning is a fallible tool, OBviously our final authority is the King James bible, which we know is reliable, we would not even have a King James Bible if the translators held to Riplinger's position.

 

I find Riplinger's arguments for King James Only to be lacking, and I would not cite her or her books to defend the King James bible.

Ok, so what I am hearing you say is that you don't like her approach.  But you have not answered some important questions:

 

1.  Have you personally checked her citations from the sources she listed to find out if she is misquoting someone, or did you get that information second and third hand?  If you are relying on someone else to feed you that info, then we have to ask if that second hand source is accurate or not.

 

2.  I don't consider an intensive study of the KJV to be ignorance.  Dr. Ruckman's works have proven conclusively that you don't need Greek and Hebrew to "clarify" anything.   The people who go back to the Greek and Hebrew have not brought out anything that cannot be found in the KJV.

 

3.  You have not actually dismantled Riplinger's thesis or conclusions.  You have stated that you did not LIKE some of the things she said, and that you QUESTIONED parts of her book.  That would be normal for any book you read, right?  So why pick on her?

 

4.  Your statements betray you.  You OBviously have not read and understood the point Riplinger is making in Hazardous Materials, and you are unable to make the proper application because of your bias against her.  Unfortunate.  You truly have thrown the baby out with the bathwater....your loss...

 

5.  You still have not answered my question about Stringer's position on the KJV, even though I have asked 3 times now.  Why continue the Riplinger bashing when you could shed some more light?  Or is it just that Stringer's position is the Anti-Riplinger position?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Machiavelli would be proud...

Wow...so now you accuse me of being dishonest?

 

That's a low blow.

adjective 

1.

of, like, or befitting Machiavelli.

2.

being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described.

3.

characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty:

 

I have been honest here.  I can't comment on Riplinger's quotations because, as I have said, I do not have the time or resources to check them out.  

But let's be honest...NOBODY ELSE HERE HAS EITHER.  Everyone is operating off what SOMEBODY ELSE SAID about her quotes, and, so far as I know, NOBODY has checked these quotes out personally.  I at least am willing to admit it.  

So the entire argument against Riplinger is that she misquotes her sources, which is only proven by 2nd and 3rd hand information, which is accepted without question.

 

Now, considering that this is the exact same tactic used against Dr. Ruckman, and considering that I know for a fact that those cheap shots against Dr. Ruckman are blatantly false, then I have to question the criticisms of Riplinger.  

 

Machiavellian???  

That is just plain uncalled for, offensive, disgusting, and abhorrent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, cut it out. Apparently you have come back with an axe to grind.  No, I did not accuse you of being dishonest.  The reference to Machiavelli is simply applied to your acceptance of Riplinger's conclusions, regardless of her methods (not to you personally).  I'm sorry, but I do not believe the ends justify the means.  Scripture does not teach that, either.  She lied.  She lied. She lied.  Enough for me to disregard her stuff - yes, completely.  There's a boatload of excellent work, scholarly work, honestly written, that I don't need hers. To defend her lies by citing her conclusions, and calling those who've pointed them out "goons", is Machiavellian.  That has nothing to do with your honesty, but everything to do with what you (generically meant) accept.  

 

I don't like Ruckman - and it's based on stuff he wrote and actually said...that I heard with my own ears.  You want to defend him, go ahead and do it. It matters not the least to me. You like Riplinger's conclusions regardless of her lies in her presentation (and, really, how hard is it to research the lies she told?  Not very.  She openly admitted not knowing Greek or Hebrew and said God gave her her information...claiming inspiration, without actually using the words. Meh, no thanks.), go for it.  But that isn't hard to research, either.  That doesn't mean I'm calling you dishonest.

 

Mayhap I find defense of a liar abhorrent, uncalled for, offensive, and disgusting.  But I never said you were dishonest. Nor did I imply it. Thicken your skin, Steve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOBody has proven to me that she has lied....

I am to trust what her critics say absolutely without question, but I can't trust what she says in her own defense????

 

Not very Christian like.

 

I don't understand how we can discuss something 2nd hand and accept the accusations without question.  Since nOBody here can prove it either way, then all we really have the right to discuss is the substance of her arguments, and NOBODY wants to do that.

 

Shame on all of you.

 

I provided the definition of Machiavellian above, and that is what I went off.  You don't have to worry about my skin being thick enough - I have faced some pretty hostile crowds.  You are the one who levelled that charge against me, and yes, it is a charge of being dishonest - CHECK THE DEFINITION.

 

And as a reminder, the only reason I jumped into this discussion is because of the FALSE ACCUSATIONS leveled against somebody that I know personally.  Those false accusations have not been retracted.  There is no "axe to grind."  I just don't like it when people are dishonest in their mischaracterization of people, and when they fail to discuss the actual substance of the issue.  

Edited by Steve Schwenke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since she herself said she got her writings from God, inferring inspiration, I guess we can let her words speak for themselves.  I could care less, really, if you choose to believe what she says in her own defense. That's your choice. *shrugs* I don't think that's even been an issue

 

I know the definition, thanks.  I'm actually up on my vocabulary, and use words as they fit into the topic.  The Machiavellian principle of ends justifying means is what was intended, but, hey, you don't have to believe me that I wasn't "leveling the charge against you".  After all, since I said it, I must not know what I intended, right?  And, believe me, I'm not worried about your skin being thick enough. I simply adjured you to thicken your skin because you were seeing a personal attack where there was none. And that's not very Christ like...

 

Yes, I don't like it when people are dishonest in their characterizations of people, either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Machiavelli would be proud...

This was posted after one of my posts.  

It is not a very clear post.  No explanation. No elaboration.  But OBviously was addressed to me, since it followed one of my posts.  And I never said the "ends justifies the means."  

I said I could not comment on her  methods, because I don't have the time or resources to check them.  

What that means is that I would have to get the sources she cited and check them for myself.  I don't trust her critics to be honest in their representation of her.  

Why?

BECAUSE THEY DON'T DEAL WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF HER ARGUMENT.   If her argument is wrong, then prove it wrong - don't waste my time trying to convince me she "lied."  ALL MEN ARE LIARS, including her critics.  So why should I trust her critics more than her????????????????  It makes no sense.

 

I have addressed the accusations of her claiming inspiration...

 

I have been absolutely clear in my position, but because I am not ready to throw Riplinger or Ruckman under the bus based on hearsay, inuendo, and 2nd hand information, then my posts are largely UNREAD in their entirety.  I am getting the same treatment they get.  

 

Second hand accusations don't cut it for me.  All of this stuff is Diotrephes at work.  

And I think we all have better things to do.

 

I would suggest that we simply close the thread.  We are not getting anywhere nor  are we edifying each other.

Edited by Steve Schwenke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was posted after one of my posts.  
It is not a very clear post.  No explanation. No elaboration.  But OBviously was addressed to me, since it followed one of my posts.  And I never said the "ends justifies the means."  
I said I could not comment on her  methods, because I don't have the time or resources to check them.  
What that means is that I would have to get the sources she cited and check them for myself.  I don't trust her critics to be honest in their representation of her.  
Why?
BECAUSE THEY DON'T DEAL WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF HER ARGUMENT.   If her argument is wrong, then prove it wrong - don't waste my time trying to convince me she "lied."  ALL MEN ARE LIARS, including her critics.  So why should I trust her critics more than her????????????????  It makes no sense.
 
I have addressed the accusations of her claiming inspiration...
 
I have been absolutely clear in my position, but because I am not ready to throw Riplinger or Ruckman under the bus based on hearsay, inuendo, and 2nd hand information, then my posts are largely UNREAD in their entirety.  I am getting the same treatment they get.  
 
Second hand accusations don't cut it for me.  All of this stuff is Diotrephes at work.  
And I think we all have better things to do.
 
I would suggest that we simply close the thread.  We are not getting anywhere nor  are we edifying each other.

i had to chuckle when I read the above bolded. I wonder, if Steve believes that all men are liars, then why should Steve trust Gail more than her critics? It makes no sense.

The thing is, it has been proven that Gail misquotes people in order to make her position seem more credible. She also has a prOBlem with giving proper resources to substantiate her claims in other alleged quotes.

This, to me, would raise red flags to her credibility. As it should for any Christian. I admire her for wanting to defend the KJV. However, it does no good to attempt to defend the truth through lies and deceit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you King James only?

 

I wasn't there when they translated the "Textus Receptus". I don't [personally know the men who translated the 1611 KJB. But I believe that Jesus is The Word of John chapter one, and the King of Glory of Psalm 24, the Shepherd of Psalm 23 and I the powerful Voice of Psalm 29 whose Spirit moved over my heart and shook my wilderness, broke my prideful heart. divided the flames of fire and I have never been the same. He is the Bridegroom of Psalm 19 whose Law is perfect, and His word is PRESERVED the Bible says and  I can testify assuredly. with the officers in John 7:46 who said "never man spake like this man" . Those are just a few of the reasons I believe the King James Bible is the "Very pure" word for my ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely understood Riplinger's point in Hazardous Materials, basically she says your stupid for using Greek and Hebrew because Satan is corrupting the bible through corrupt lexicons, all based on quotes that you can't even trust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I regard Mr Ruckman as........
Well to be honest I rarely consider him either way.
This Riplinger woman I have heard of - I think someone gave me the book at one stage.....

I am rarely critical of either of them.

The thing that erks me about this is that normally rational people become rabid the moment someone dares to be critical of them.
Well, newsflash! They are sinful people. They make mistakes or are possibly even sinfully deceitful.
Ruckman is by no means a blameless man.

Want some unequivocal proof of ungodliness?
How many times has he been married?
He is self confessed to have a temper and to use language that the overwhelming majority of us would find unacceptable.

These are public facts.

He is due criticism.

This has no bearing on what he teaches, but it does have a bearing on his right to teach........

Funnily enough matters of character are used in regard to Wescott and Hort by KJV defenders - including me.
And matters of character are used by critics of false Christian teachers - think of how Calvin is (rightly) attacked because of his moral failures.

Goose and Gander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Let me say very plainly at the outset of this article, I do not believe New Age Bible Versions is a dangerous book; I believe it is an undependable book. I agree with Mrs. Riplinger that the multiplicity of modern versions has caused great spiritual damage. At the same time, I have decided I must warn our readers of the many errors we have found in New Age Bible Versions. ... Some might be thinking, ‘Why are you defending the modern versions? Aren’t they corrupt?’ Yes, the modern versions are corrupt, and I am not defending them. I am against error, though, regardless of where it appears. We do not have the right to make false statements even about the devil himself. When our speaking and writing is filled with error of fact and is characterized by shoddy research and indefensible extremism, we discredit our entire position. I am not saying there is no good in New Age Bible Versions. The book contains many helpful insights and it documents the frightful corruption of the modern versions, but it also is filled with illogical and improper statements which have the effect of discrediting everything the author says that is true. There is no reason, friends, to promote a book like this when there are so many dependable volumes which defend the preserved Word of God and expose the error of the modern versions. We would recommend the following: Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite and Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. For a smaller overview we recommend Jack Moorman’s Modern Bibles: The Dark Secret. [These are available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.]”

 

From David Cloud - http://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagebibleversions.html

THis is the same link Jordan gave above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have very OBviously not done a good jOB of communicating my point here.  I take responsibility for that.

 

I am not "rabid" nor am I Machiavellian.

 

I am calling for a more careful approach to these subjects.  If we are all KJV Believers, then our authority rests on the Scripture itself, not on man.  Man can help us see certain truths through their preaching, teaching, and writing.  However, all of this must be filtered through the Bible itself. 

 

I am no stranger to this debate.  I have been reading things from as many different perspectives as I can get my hands on for the last 24 years.  I have read Dr. Ruckman's materials, and I have read the materials of his detractors as well.  I have read all of the criticisms of Riplinger.  There is nothing here that has been presented that I have not read or heard before. 

 

The criticism against Riplinger is that she does a poor jOB of accurately presenting the views of the people she quotes.  Examples are given in each instance. 

 

The prOBlem is that I have no way to check her quotes, nor do I have any way to check the quotes of her critics.  Where does that leave us?

 

In my view, if I were to write a critical response to somebody's book, I would address the SUBJECT MATTER, not their use of quotations.  I would deal ONLY with the main thesis, the arguments presented, the conclusions, and how these correspond to Scriptural Truth.  Period.

 

Her detractors do not do that.

In my mind, this casts doubt as to their motives and the validity of their criticisms. 

 

In fact, the quote I provided above from Br. Cloud admits that he cannot find fault with the OVERALL idea, just her methods. 

 

In my view Cloud's critique is very subjective, because now I am being asked to take his word on the matter. 

 

I don't trust people when their argument against somebody else's work is nothing more than a smear campaign on their personal character.  I am sure if we looked hard enough, we could find plenty of "dirt" on the critics as well.  I don't think that approach is Biblical. 

 

I simply cannot take somebody else's word that she has "lied" or misrepresented others.  I am being asked to believe one person, and dismiss another based on.....wait for it....what that one person said.  No dice.  Can't do it.  Won't do it. 

 

"Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar...." Romans 3:4. 

 

Let's just stick to the Scriptures, use it as our guide, follow its example, and judge all things by the KJV, not by man's opinion of another man.

 

In Christ,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for "first-hand" evidence?  Won't find it.  None of us have met Gail.  We have only seen her books and seen the writings of others who have critiqued the books and found her misquotes and errors.

The evidence you seek, (if you truly are seeking it) is out there on the www.  Google it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First hand evidence would be me getting all of her primary sources and checking them for the accuracy of her quotations.  

Her critics have produced a very small number of alleged discrepancies.  I can't check them either.  

 

Where does that leave us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one cannot check the discrepancies that critics have given, then one really should not look condescendingly upon or bad mouth the the critics who HAVE done the homework.

Might be worth doing the homework first before one says "all men are liars so why should I trust the critics?". Though all men are liars, it does not necessarily mean they never tell the truth. If that were the case, we'd all do better to not even talk with others about anything. LoL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this whole thread from beginning to end. I have refrained from posting numerous times simply because my thoughts and convictions stray from Jordan’s original question.

 

But now, after much prayer and thought, I feel I must post the burden that The Lord has laid on my heart.

 

This thread has drifted from the original topic to posts about who follows who; why others are wrong; (Riplinger, Ruckman) and others. And I just keep coming back to the “why” of it all. Let me lay it out plainly since what I have said so far is OBscure.

 

I guess this will come in the form of questions. Why do so many feel the need to read after men or women that they don’t know personally, or who have ministries outside of their own church?

 

Are your churches so weak that you are not being fed proper spiritual food? The local church is, or should be, the place where we are fed, where we grow in Grace and love toward our God and our brethren. There is no substitute for the local church.

 

Paul says this about the local church: 1Tim. 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. If we believe God’s inspired Word why do some feel the need to seek it elsewhere? If our churches are what they should be, why waste our time and resources elsewhere?

 

2Thes. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

Now I know that someone will say that they are just defending the KJV. But this issue goes far beyond this concept. There are false teachers and preachers world wide, does that mean we have to address each one? I think not! 2Tim. 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprOBate concerning the faith.

 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. Simply put; God is able!

 

I am not saying that these things should not be addressed; they certainly should be as they pertain to our own churches. But why go outside to look for windmills to tilt at? Do we who comprise a local Church of the Living God not have enough to do to keep ourselves pure; preach the Gospel; teach our own people; visit the sick; study; pray?

 

Brothers and sisters, I will end by encouraging each one to fully support your local church by your attendance, prayers and care one for another. Rebuke false teaching in your midst, but don’t get all caught up in the errors of others. It is not profitable. The local church needs you and all of your heart, mind and soul.

 

God bless you as you serve Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this whole thread from beginning to end. I have refrained from posting numerous times simply because my thoughts and convictions stray from Jordan’s original question.

 

But now, after much prayer and thought, I feel I must post the burden that The Lord has laid on my heart.

 

This thread has drifted from the original topic to posts about who follows who; why others are wrong; (Riplinger, Ruckman) and others. And I just keep coming back to the “why” of it all. Let me lay it out plainly since what I have said so far is OBscure.

 

I guess this will come in the form of questions. Why do so many feel the need to read after men or women that they don’t know personally, or who have ministries outside of their own church?

 

Are your churches so weak that you are not being fed proper spiritual food? The local church is, or should be, the place where we are fed, where we grow in Grace and love toward our God and our brethren. There is no substitute for the local church.

 

Paul says this about the local church: 1Tim. 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. If we believe God’s inspired Word why do some feel the need to seek it elsewhere? If our churches are what they should be, why waste our time and resources elsewhere?

 

2Thes. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

Now I know that someone will say that they are just defending the KJV. But this issue goes far beyond this concept. There are false teachers and preachers world wide, does that mean we have to address each one? I think not! 2Tim. 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprOBate concerning the faith.

 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. Simply put; God is able!

 

I am not saying that these things should not be addressed; they certainly should be as they pertain to our own churches. But why go outside to look for windmills to tilt at? Do we who comprise a local Church of the Living God not have enough to do to keep ourselves pure; preach the Gospel; teach our own people; visit the sick; study; pray?

 

Brothers and sisters, I will end by encouraging each one to fully support your local church by your attendance, prayers and care one for another. Rebuke false teaching in your midst, but don’t get all caught up in the errors of others. It is not profitable. The local church needs you and all of your heart, mind and soul.

 

God bless you as you serve Him.

 I think it is necessary that we know what the false doctrines are and who the false teachers are. Paul warned of them and even named names. The 'grievous wolves' can and will, the first chance they get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If others are hearing false doctrines, how will they hear truth except someone goes to them?

Yes, our Church is to be a pillar of truth. But WE are supposed to be light in a world of darkness. If we don't take the light to them, they remain in darkness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • 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. 
    • By paid4
      Found this website today. Thought some of you might like it.
      Good fundamental preachers on here.
      I've listened to Danny Castle several times and everytime it was good.
       
      http://www.goodpreachin.com/
       
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 819 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...