Inerrancy of Scripture - Bible believer or bible agnostic?

[John81]

I'm perfectly content with the KJB as is. I've read some of those that update the words into modern English and to me the reading, flow and understanding were undermined.

In actuality, the KJB is considered to be written at an 8th grade to high school level, depending upon which chart one uses. The KJB is written in very good form. The problem today is that many people here in America can't read beyond between a 3rd and 6th grade level. The NIV is one of the lower reading level versions out there, 6th or under, and I find that version to be like watery gravy.

I read something a missionary wrote earlier tonight and they quoted Romans 12:1 from the MSG. Reading that I was like, "HUH?" I thought I knew what it was referring to but I looked it up in my KJB to be sure. I don't see how anyone could read and use the MSG!

For the most part, I believe if a person is truly born again and seeking to grow in the Lord and understand His Word, the Lord Himself will hear your prayers and enable you to read and understand the KJB.

[Pastorj]

Peter Ruckman is a disqualified preacher from Pastoring who is also the foremost heretic in the KJV issue. He espouses a false doctrine of stating that the KJV translators were Inspired, which goes against the doctrine of Inspiration and the doctrine of Preservation. Though he stands on the KJV, in doing so, he has done more damage to the KJV debate than he has helped because of his heretical stand.

You can argue all you want as to his qualifications, but he is not qualifed. I find it interesting that prior to his 1st divorce the church he pastored very clearly believed that husband of one wife meant what it does, no divorce and remarriage. After his 1st divorce, he changed his position to justify his remarriage. Scripture calls him an adulterer not a pastor.

Back to the OP - What is at issue in this discussion are two doctrines: Inspiration and Preservation. One must have a proper view of both doctrines to understand the issue.

[futurehope]

Peter Ruckman is a disqualified preacher from Pastoring who is also the foremost heretic in the KJV issue. He espouses a false doctrine of stating that the KJV translators were Inspired, which goes against the doctrine of Inspiration and the doctrine of Preservation. Though he stands on the KJV, in doing so, he has done more damage to the KJV debate than he has helped because of his heretical stand.

You can argue all you want as to his qualifications, but he is not qualifed. I find it interesting that prior to his 1st divorce the church he pastored very clearly believed that husband of one wife meant what it does, no divorce and remarriage. After his 1st divorce, he changed his position to justify his remarriage. Scripture calls him an adulterer not a pastor.

Back to the OP - What is at issue in this discussion are two doctrines: Inspiration and Preservation. One must have a proper view of both doctrines to understand the issue.

Seems to me as though this may speak as to the point that Ruckman's arguments should be examined very carefully before being considered for exceptance - if at all. Can anyone else give me a little more info on this and possibly elaborate as to the nature of the cause of Ruckman's "pitfalls"??

[Guest Guest]

1 Corinthians 727 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

I suppose then a widower would be disqualified as well?

[Guest Guest]

1 Corinthians 727 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

I suppose then a widower would be disqualified as well?

KJB. :thumb

[tired]

I know some people here do not like David Cloud but I think this article on Ruckman is well thought out and specific false statements from Ruckman are looked at through a bible view.

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm :hijack:

[futurehope]

KJB. :thumb

I'm not so sure I can agree with you here. Can you expound on why you believe that way?

[kevinmiller]

Do we even need to discuss his disrespect for women and God's plan for marriage when the guy is a total nut-job to begin with? :frog

[futurehope]

I know some people here do not like David Cloud but I think this article on Ruckman is well thought out and specific false statements from Ruckman are looked at through a bible view.

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm :hijack:

Thank you "tired" . This helps make sense of it all. Now I understand why this is such a touchy subject. The Word warns us that we shall not add or take away from It. Who knows? Maybe that is exactly why Ruckman ended up in the situations that he did. :hide

[kevinmiller]

Anyone know if Ruckman has learned any new information on alien life forms recently? I wonder if he found that in the KJV, too. :lol
What was it, black aliens with green blood? :bonK:

[futurehope]

Anyone know if Ruckman has learned any new information on alien life forms recently? I wonder if he found that in the KJV, too. :lol
What was it, black aliens with green blood?

:lol:

[Guest Guest]

I know some people here do not like David Cloud but I think this article on Ruckman is well thought out and specific false statements from Ruckman are looked at through a bible view.

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm :hijack:

That article has been discussed many times, and Dr. Cloud repeatedly takes Dr. Ruckman out of context in it. Many times he simply doesn't provide a rebuttal, while the materials he's referencing are packed with Bible passages and references. That article is not a proper examination of Dr. Ruckman whatsoever.

Do we even need to discuss his disrespect for women and God's plan for marriage when the guy is a total nut-job to begin with? :frog

Disrespect? I'm afraid you must be thinking of the wrong person, Kevin.

I'm not so sure I can agree with you here. Can you expound on why you believe that way?

PastorJ contends that divorce disqualifies a man from pastoring, while this verse clearly states otherwise, or at least that the person isn't guilty of sin. I was pointing out that by the reasoning that he and many others use, widowers would also be disqualified. If a divorced man "has more than one wife," then what's to say the same doesn't apply to a widowed man?

[Guest Guest]

Anyone know if Ruckman has learned any new information on alien life forms recently? I wonder if he found that in the KJV, too. :lol
What was it, black aliens with green blood?

What's sad, Kevin, is that you make fun of it like this without actually taking time to see what he actually said. You have your preconceived ideas and that's how it's going to stay, apparently. Have you even read his book where he discussed this?

[futurehope]

That article has been discussed many times, and Dr. Cloud repeatedly takes Dr. Ruckman out of context in it. Many times he simply doesn't provide a rebuttal, while the materials he's referencing are packed with Bible passages and references. That article is not a proper examination of Dr. Ruckman whatsoever.



Disrespect? I'm afraid you must be thinking of the wrong person, Kevin.



PastorJ contends that divorce disqualifies a man from pastoring, while this verse clearly states otherwise, or at least that the person isn't guilty of sin. I was pointing out that by the reasoning that he and many others use, widowers would also be disqualified. If a divorced man "has more than one wife," then what's to say the same doesn't apply to a widowed man?

Thanks for clarifying, but I would think it is totally different. Really, one is by death and the other by choice. Divorce is a condition brouth on and only allowed due to the hardening of the heart (as Christ explains in the NT). If a man hardens his heart against his wife enough to follow through in divorce, I would say he is guilty of sin. Look for example at Christ. We (the church) are His bride. But we often commit whoredoms. Christ does not "divorce" us but is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. And I believe that this is the example he has commanded us to follow as men.

[Annie]

The Inerrancy of Scripture - are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic?

I consider myself a believer in Christ, and a follower of the Bible, God's Word. Our definition of "Bible" may be different. It would be important to establish that definition before getting too far into a discussion about the topic.

What people really believe about ?The Bible? can essentially be broken down into 5 different positions regarding the inspiration, preservation and inerrancy of the Bible. Four of them are complete nonsense, yet normally intelligent people often spout them off as though they were irrefutable facts. Only one of them is Biblically correct and in keeping with the truth and faithfulness of Almighty God.

In the interest of fairness, I would add that the fifth position (the one you advocate) is often "spouted off as though it were an irrefutable fact." Confusing phrases like "the logic of faith" (whatever that might be) are used to support this "irrefutable fact," along with Scriptures that appear to be taken out of context. In a thread I started a week or two ago entitled "the scriptural basis for KJVO," no one on here could give any Scripture in which God promised to preserve all of His words in one language, much less in one publicly accessible volume. The Scriptures they did quote are the same ones upon which I base my own view of preservation. I'd be interested to hear any verses you'd like to bring up that show that God did indeed promise to preserve all of his words in one language, or in one volume.

MY RESPONSE: Hi Barry, I did see the post. In it you mention that you believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture, and then you immediately put as a qualifier "original manuscripts".

Barry, what this means to anybody who thinks about it and takes language literally, is that you believe in something that you know does not exist.

This is an interesting way to put it...Again, it depends on what you mean when you say "believe in." I do not "believe in" God's Word as some kids "believe in" Santa Claus, or as I "believe in" Christ for salvation; I "believe" God's Word. There is a difference. My belief is IN the speaker of the Word, but I "believe" what He has said. Since I believe that God has promised to preserve His words, then I know He has done so. My belief is not IN the original autographs; it is IN the living God, whose Holy Spirit teaches me through His preserved word. I find your terminology confusing.

The Niagara Bible Conference also resulted in the fourteen point creed otherwise known as the "Niagara Creed."

1. We believe "that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," by which we understand the whole of the book called the Bible; nor do we take the statement in the sense in which it is sometimes foolishly said that works of human genius are inspired, but in the sense that the Holy Ghost gave the very words of the sacred writings to holy men of old; and that His Divine inspiration is not in different degrees, but extends equally and fully to all parts of these writings, historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical and to the smallest word, and inflection of a word, PROVIDED SUCH WORD IS FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTES: 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:13; Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Acts 1:16; 2:4."

Now THINK about what these men are actually saying. If they were to be cross examined in a court of law, or even by a high school debating team, their "bold confession" would be found to be an empty show of pious sounding words signifying NOTHING.

I think this creed was poorly worded, which is unfortunate for these men. But I think you go too far in saying that it is "an empty show of pious sounding words signifying NOTHING." If I understand them correctly (which is difficult to do, given the awkward wording), they are simply saying that God, not men, wrote the original manuscripts which have, through history, been copied and translated into what we now call "the Bible." I don't understand what is so illogical about this statement; there's really no "reasoning" to argue with here...just a statement.

They like the philosophical concept of the inspiration of Scripture, but utterly lack the reality of an inspired Scripture they can hold in their hands. Notice these last qualifying words (which are just like your own) - "PROVIDED SUCH WORD IS FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.?

Do the words of God suddenly cease to be inspired when they are included in a book with words that are not inspired by Him?

They talk about the original manuscripts as though they all had these original manuscripts right there in front of them and were able to simply look over and compare their English (or whatever language) translation to what these non existent and never seen "original manuscripts" say, so they can then see how they line up and compare.

On the contrary, I am certain that they are not concerned with seeing how the originals line up and compare with other documents, since they know very well that the originals are not available. It is precisely because they trust that God has done what He said He would do (preserve His word) that the absence of originals is not a big deal to them.

Your confession of faith in the Inerrancy of Scripture "provided such word is found in the original manuscripts" means NOTHING! It is a very poorly thought out piece of nonsense which contradicts itself on the foundational level. You are claiming to believe in something you KNOW you do not have and have no way of proving one way or the other.

I would never have worded the confession in the way they did. But why is "proof" necessary? Did God or didn't God promise to preserve His word? If He did, then what's the big deal about the autographs?

In addition, this 'confession of faith' in the inerrancy of Scripture effectively steals the Bible from every common Christian who doesn't have a thorough knowledge of the original languages.

Did God or did not God promise that His word would be preserved in a volume accessible to "every common Christian?" You yourself deny this fact by acknowledging that God in fact did not promise that "every common Christian" could have a copy of His Word in his/her language. So, by your words above, "every common Christian," do you mean only "English-speaking common Christians?" Your rhetoric here expresses a sense of indignation that someone would say that Christians need knowledge of a language other than their own in order to know what God said, but it is apparent by your own words further down that you have said exactly the same thing: that "every common Christian" cannot have a perfect translation which he/she can understand in his/her own language. With all due respect, this looks like a case of the "pot calling the kettle black."

And even if he or she did know these original languages, it would still not do him or her any good, because it is an undeniable fact that we do not have any hope at all of ever seeing one sjunk of your "original manuscripts" foundation.

You are assuming that the men of whom you are speaking do not believe that God will preserve His word, when, in fact, they do believe this. So, as I've said, the absence of the originals isn't a "faith-shaker" at all.

I am somewhat amazed that normally intelligent men can put together such a silly piece of self-evident contradiction and try to pass it off as some kind of pious sounding orthodoxy.

Maybe they're more intelligent than you realize.

First,when you say "God does not inspire translations", you didn't get this from the Bible. Seminary maybe, or from some other pastor who likewise does not believe in an inerrant Bible, but certainly not from the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches that a translation CAN BE the inspired words of God.

The question is not "CAN it?" but, "MUST it be?" or, more pertinent to this discussion, "IS it?" You simply cannot base an adamant claim on a "possibility."

Secondly, when you say God only inspired the originals, and the originals no longer exist, then the ONLY logical conclusion is: THERE IS NO INSPIRED BIBLE NOW. But, of course, this is what you really believe isn't it?

No, because God has promised to preserve His word. You jump so quickly from "the originals" to "a Bible," as in ONE BOOK. The originals were not "one book," yet you feel justified in equating the two concepts, as if they're one and the same. How can you make this leap?

MY RESPONSE:....<<>>...Now, let's look at your theory, shall we. You tell us that what we now have are 5000 pieces (mostly scraps and small sections of diverse verses), and not a single one of these is a complete Bible - not one. Not the goofy Sinaiticus nor the Vaticanus mss. are complete Bibles or even New Testaments, and they disagree with each other some 4000 significant times in the New Testament alone. You do not accept all the conflicting readings found in these 5000 + manuscripts, and will not take a stand on anything for sure as being the complete and 100% true words of God.

Is this a problem? Why is "a stand" necessary on something about which God has been silent?

God calls us to faith in His words and promises. I believe The Book. You do not. You don't even have "the book" to believe in. Instead you now have 5000+ scraps of wildly conflicting readings and you do not know which ones are right and which are not.

Let's talk about faith in God's words and promises. Where has He promised to do exactly what you say He HAS to have done (preserve all of His words in only one language/volume)? I agree that our faith should not be based on anything God has not said. So, what has He, in fact, said?

Your view of Preservation is like saying God's words are preserved in Webster's unabridged dictionary - "they're in there SOMEWHERE, all mixed up with thousands that are not right and all out of order, but Hey, they're "preserved" somewhere in there."

This is a misrepresentation of this man's position, and I think you know it. Webster's Dictionary has no common themes throughout, no parallel passages, nothing with which to compare, no reiterated truths, no overriding messages.

Now, you can dispute all this as much as you please, but the end result is that I and thousands of other Christians believe we have the perfect Bible (all present 66 books in a single volume), and You do not have nor believe in any bible in any language as the pure and complete words of God.

God's words are by their very nature pure, wherever they are found. God has promised to preserve these words. That's all I need to know, isn't it? Why the insecurity over "where exactly every word is" when we have the Holy Spirit residing in us, to teach us and help us to discern what God has said? No, the Holy Spirit doesn't teach us a different language...Fortunately, language helps abound--language helps that are so simple that a child can use them. In this technologically advanced age, it is so very easy to access and compare what different manuscripts say. Much of our work has been done for us; it's not hard at all!

You keep telling us you have faith in what "the Bible" teaches, yet it is abundantly obvious that you have no such tangible thing as "the Bible"; instead you have 5000+ scraps of conflicting partial readings. What I think is a more honest evaluation of your position is that you have faith in SOME PARTS of what WOULD make up a bible IF there WERE such a thing.

Mr. Kinney, do you believe that the doctrine of preservation could possibly be found repeated at least a few times in, say, at least half of these manuscripts? In other words, do you think it's a common theme? Evidently it is, since the manuscripts used to translate the KJV as well as more modern versions contain this doctrine, repeated a number of times. This argument is IMO absurd. I think it's pretty obvious that the man with whom you were speaking has figured this out.

You say there is no such "Book" and tell us that the Bible never promises there would be a perfect book. However the Scripture definitely seems to teach that there is "the book of the LORD" somewhere in existence on this planet, and it definitely would not be in those 5000+ wildly divergent readings found in these confused and contradictory scraps. That is not a book nor are they "The Bible" you say you have faith in.

"Definitely seems to?" What does this mean? "Definitely" does not go with "seems." It either "definitely" teaches it, or it "seems to" teach it. I'm not trying to pick on you here; just trying to figure out what you mean. The fact that you tempered your "definitely" with "seems to" indicates some doubt on your part. I'd be interested to see the verses you are talking about.

The Bible says in Psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD is PERFECT, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is SURE, making wise the simple." God says His word (same as law) is perfect.

Amen. So it is. Since God is perfect, what He says is also perfect.

here are a multitude of verses that teach there will be a tangible Book. Sure, the revelation of God's words was a continuing process carried out over centuries, and even a silence of more than 400 years between testaments, but "the Scripture cannot be broken". Your "scripture" is all broken up into 5000+ conflicting and partial manuscripts, and that is not even considering the Hebrew texts that are so often rejected by such modern versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and even the NKJV, and not even in the same places.

If the "Scripture cannot be broken," then how is it that you say "it has been broken?" I asked someone else this question recently, and never got a straight answer. I'll try to paste here my remarks about the statement about which you are talking.

This is where you lose me. Here is your reasoning:

1) Scripture cannot be broken/corrupted.
2) Scripture has been broken/corrupted (see Alexandrian texts, modern versions, Septuagint, etc.).

Both statements cannot be true. Scripture either can or cannot be corrupted. It either has or has not been corrupted. Which is it?

Let's look at what was going on when Jesus uttered the words you mentioned. Basically, He was proving a statement based on a scripture that He quoted. He said (and I paraphrase): "If that scripture (in Psalms) calls people 'gods,' and scripture can't be broken, then why are you saying I am blaspheming by claiming to be God?" (It is interesting--and detrimental to your position--to note that Christ did not use every word of the OT Scripture as rendered in the KJV, even though he clearly was, as you say, quoting that Scripture: "I said, Ye are gods." You'll note that He left out the have that was in the original passage...and that "quote" is right in the same sentence as "scripture cannot be broken.")

Here's a comparable modern-day scenario: Let's say that I wrote each of my kids a letter promising each one a surprise sometime during the next month. A couple of weeks pass, with no surprises. They begin to question me about it. I remind them of what I wrote in each of their letters, and tell them that since I will not break my word (my word will not be broken), they can expect that what I said would happen will indeed happen. The fact that I will keep my word demonstrates that what I have said is TRUE. This seems to be a whole lot more sensible way of looking at the meaning of the word broken than what you have suggested.

You accuse me of using circular reasoning, and yet your reasoning has left you with no sure or perfect words of God. I see my reasoning as the logic of faith. God said there would be "the book of the Lord" and I assume He really meant what He promised. I then look for the evidence of where this book is found NOW, and all the evidence clearly points to the King James Bible as being the providentially approved true Bible.

Here's that phrase: "the logic of faith." What does that mean? That you base your position on both faith and logic? I've looked for a reference to the place God promised to preserve all of His words in one language/volume, but I can't find it. Could you provide that reference?

#3. ALL ?reliable, valid versions? are the inspired, perfect, and inerrant words of God.

You are absolutely correct that this is an untenable position.

Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Ps 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Ps 106:12 Then believed they his words; they sang his praise.

Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Amen to all of these verses!

It is well documented that the vast majority of seminarians and pastors no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

According to whose definition of inerrancy?