Inerrancy of Scripture - Bible believer or bible agnostic?

[Pastorj]

Nothing is missing from the KJV. It is preserved by God for English speaking people. No other English translation can be considered preserved as they have numerous errors in them.

[futurehope]

By disrespect towards women, I mean the fact that he ignored and broke his vow before God to stay with his wife until death parts them. Three wives and you're going to say that he's totally innocent? I don't think so. I have zero respect for a man that can't respect his wife enough to make it work. By what I've seen of Ruckman's personality and disposition, if his first wife really did leave him because he wanted to be in the ministry, I doubt as if he even tried to work with her or discuss it with her. That last part is pure speculation on my part, but either way, I see a serious problem in his respect for vows made before God as well as respect to women in that he is on his third wife.

I, and quite possibly because I don't know all of the facts on this issue, don't think this is entirely fair. I mean, if she was a non believer, while that means they never should have been married, and she chose to leave him, then he is loosed. However, I agree that he should try to be an example and try to lead her to serving the Lord with him. Yet again though, if she is unwilling, he is no longer bound to her. That's not my opinion, that's what Paul told the church at (i believe without having my bible right here) Corinth.

[brandplucked]

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.

...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.

Hi annie. Thanks for all your thoughts. However the main point to be clarified is this: What is this "Bible" called you say you follow? You talk about God's word, and how maybe your definition of Bible differs from mine. Apparently it really is quite different. I am talking about a real and tangible Book of paper and ink that contains the complete, inspired, and inerrant words of God in written form. Now, as for your view, where can we all get a copy of the Bible you say you follow, so we can compare it to what the King James Bible says? Do you have such a Bible? If not, then you have an imaginary, invisible bible and are a Bible agnostic.

You say you believe God has preserved His words. OK then. Please tell us exactly WHERE you think they are preserved today.

One other point. I do not at all believe that every Christian nor every nation has to have a complete and inerrant Bible to get saved. I don't even believe that a Christians HAS TO believe in the inerrancy of Scripture to get saved. Most Christians today do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, yet I do not doubt that most of them are in fact real Christians.

Salvation by Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture are two very different topics and are not related. God can and does use imperfect and even corrupt bible versions to awaken faith in the Saviour.

All you arguments fall flat on their face if you yourself have no inerrant Book. So, please tell us where we can get a copy of the one you say you follow.

Thank you,

Will K

[Guest Guest]

By disrespect towards women' date=' I mean the fact that he ignored and broke his vow before God to stay with his wife until death parts them. Three wives and you're going to say that he's totally innocent? I don't think so. I have zero respect for a man that can't respect his wife enough to make it work. By what I've seen of Ruckman's personality and disposition, if his first wife really did leave him because he wanted to be in the ministry, I doubt as if he even tried to work with her or discuss it with her. That last part is pure speculation on my part, but either way, I see a serious problem in his respect for vows made before God as well as respect to women in that he is on his third wife.[/quote']

So he's held responsible if she divorced him? When she was keeping him from serving God?

[Guest Guest]

In learning all of these things about Peter Ruckman I would say that being divorced and remarried once doesn't really raise the flag' date=' it's the fact that he's done this a couple of times. Way beyond his being married three times (from the stuff on his Web site and then the video out on YouTube of him giving his chalk talks) he seems to me to be a whack job. Plain and simple. The only thing I can figure is that he's being given a pass from being a whack job by his supporters because of his hyper-KJV stance. I'm not sure one justifies overlooking the other.[/quote']

Hi trc---it just appears to me that you have a "pre-judged" idea of Dr. Ruckman based on a "YouTube" video (BTW, he is 87 years old, so I haven't seen the video---because for some reason "YouTube" isn't coming on my PC.) And, I really don't care (hehe) b/c I never liked Youtube---so, I am sure it is no accident. If you want to say that I have a "hyper-KJV stance?" Go right ahead. It doesn't bother me. God, through his Holy word---the KJV 1611 AV, saved my life and my soul from Hell.

If anyone wants to believe in any other "watered-down" version, then---it is your own decision.

[futurehope]

I think you all probably realize at this point that I'm not taking sides with any of you but only with what can be proven with the word - if that's you stand point, then we are in agreement. However, while trc may made some strong comments about a man here, his comment about being "hyper-KJV" (not the best choice of words) is not going against the KJV. He's saying that it appears as though Ruckman has some personal doctrines that don't agree with the KJB, but because he has been such a strong voice for it, many KJB supporters have been willing to overlook his doctrines for the sake of arguing for the KJB. If that makes any more sense. Again, not choosing sides, just looking at facts and hoping that my lack of knowledge of Mr. Ruckman will increase so that I will be able to make a better understanding and be able to discern the truth in this matter. BTW, I really appreciate those of you who are willing to share your opinions as it helps provide a wider perspective on the argument. God Bless.

[Guest Guest]

Some churches and church groups have very strict rules concerning anyone divorced. I've seen this in various Baptist churches' date=' from SBC to IFB. They tend to view divorce as a sin that precludes one from doing many things. [/quote']

This is so un-Biblical, too, John. I could go into a list of psychological words that talk about the human body and rejection. However, I gave up psychology when I left teaching. LOL. The Bible is my "Sword and my Shield." However, their are Christian IFB counselors out there to assist in these last days with these "natural" emotions of the human body. The word "excommunication" from the old RCC comes to mind here. Of course, that was in Vatican 1---Vatican 2 was basically, just a "face lift."

[Guest Guest]

Why does anything have to be explained to you? When I don't understand something' date=' I go read and study it for myself. I'd suggest that as a good thing for you to consider.[/quote']

KJB---that is what I do, but---I guess that is the former teacher in me. :frog I am also blessed with a woderful IFB family. My pastor goes over everything in the word of God, thoroughly. :wave:

[Revelation3:20]

He's saying that it appears as though Ruckman has some personal doctrines that don't agree with the KJB, but because he has been such a strong voice for it, many KJB supporters have been willing to overlook his doctrines for the sake of arguing for the KJB. If that makes any more sense.

There are a lot more of us who are not willing to overlook his doctrines for the sake of his arguing for the KJV. Many, if not most, reject and denounce him for the heretic he is. Do a search for Ruckman on this board if you are short on information.

The bible says:

"1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

[Annie]

So' date=' if it's not all there, what is missing from the KJB? It can't be unknown or the promise of preservation would be broken.[/quote']

Why do you say this? How would the promise of preservation be broken if the KJB does not contain all of the words of God, and only the words of God?



On what basis?



My position is that God promised to preserve His word, but He didn't say how or where He would do that. He did not say that He would preserve all of His words in one language, let alone one book. KJVO advocates insist that God HAS done something that He did not say He would do: preserve all of His words infallibly in one volume, and only in that volume.

[Guest Guest]

One other point. I do not at all believe that every Christian nor every nation has to have a complete and inerrant Bible to get saved. I don't even believe that a Christians HAS TO believe in the inerrancy of Scripture to get saved. Most Christians today do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, yet I do not doubt that most of them are in fact real Christians.

Salvation by Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture are two very different topics and are not related. God can and does use imperfect and even corrupt bible versions to awaken faith in the Saviour.

Well stated, brandplucked. WOW! :thumb He used the NIV with me, initially. :clap:

[Revelation3:20]

My position is that God promised to preserve His word, but He didn't say how or where He would do that. He did not say that He would preserve all of His words in one language, let alone one book. KJVO advocates insist that God HAS done something that He did not say He would do: preserve all of His words infallibly in one volume, and only in that volume.

Your position is that God has preserved his word but that we can't know what is his word and what isn't. You rely on your personal human reasoning to show you what Gods word is. If there is something you don't think fits you reject it as not being Gods word. I have seen you do this on other threads. "Scribal errors" I believe you called them. That is a Bible agnostic just as this thread title says.

[kevinmiller]

[kevinmiller]

Out of curiosity, since you say she uses her human reasoning to determine where God's Word is, what do you use?

[Annie]

Hi annie. Thanks for all your thoughts. However the main point to be clarified is this: What is this "Bible" called you say you follow?

I use a variety of versions of the Holy Bible, including Greek and Hebrew sources.

You say you believe God has preserved His words. OK then. Please tell us exactly WHERE you think they are preserved today.

God never told us "where" they would be, or that they would be all in one place...He merely promised to preserve them. And preserve them He did. I believe that every follower of Christ should make it a matter of habit to study out the wealth of manuscripts that are available to us today (5500, as compared to just a handful of other kinds of preserved ancient documents). This study is not hard to do; in fact, much of it has already been done for us.

The burden of proof always rests on the one who makes a claim. I make no claim about any "specific place" that ALL of God's inspired words HAVE to be. You do. Upon what Scripture do you base the claim that all of God's words have to be preserved in one place, and only in that place? I've asked a number of people this question, and no one has been able to answer it. I base all of my doctrinal beliefs upon Scripture. I have found no Scripture anywhere (and that's a bigger deal for me, since I study out of several versions, including the KJV) that remotely indicates that we should expect God to preserve all of His words in one language, or one volume, and only in that language/volume. If you have such a promise from Scripture, please produce it.

All you arguments fall flat on their face if you yourself have no inerrant Book.

Why is this true? Are not Christian doctrines and instructions for living repeated again and again and again throughout many, many different manuscripts? I quoted the following portion of the book Only One Bible? by Beacham and Bauder on a different thread, but it's so good that I'll post it again here.

Only One Bible?"]Some godly friends believe that to have an inerrant Bible, we need more than perfect original MSS. They insist that divine preservation must extend to every word of our Bibles. They say that if we allow for any error of transmission or translation, the Scriptures cease to be trustworthy.

Their logic suggests that if we allow for any uncertainty, all certainty is lost. A flawed text produces a flawed authority; a flawed authority produces a flawed faith...This kind of thinking sounds compelling. But it is misleading. The one-version-only argument is offset by the principle of inspired repetition. By repetition, the Author of the Bible has protected us from the dangers of a miscopied text or an inadequate translation.

The Spirit of inspiration did not limit Himself to one statement about salvation by faith, the distinctions between law and grace, the mission of the church, or the danger of a real lake of fire. He did not limit Himself to one pronouncement about misdirected sexual behavior, the misuse of alcohol, or the importance of prayer. Sacred Scripture repeats its doctrines over and over again through historical narrative, law, poetry, prophecy, parables, and letters. The 66 books of the Bible reflect a wonderfully orchestrated symphony of testimony.

When you get some more time, Mr. Kinney, I'd appreciate interaction about the rest of my response to your original post.