Textual/version stance

[Guest Guest]

Fine. Since Elizabethan English is the only pure language, the next time I hear of a missionary suffering for Christ, I'll know that he has been allowing something. Suffer in the N.T. means allow so that is all it means and all it can mean. Words never, ever change meaning over centuries and even if they do, we can only define a modern word by a 400-year old definiton. Gotcha.

The Bible defines ITSELF. I wasn't talking about re-writing our language to accommodate King James-era English. I'm talking about allowing God to define Himself through His word. You ask how a translation can be superior to its predecessor, yet ignore God's explanation through the King James Bible. You all wish to use your own human understanding to interpret God's word and limit God's power with regard to His word. You all don't think God could or would produce a perfect, superior Bible in English when there's absolutely nothing in the Scripture to say that He wouldn't. All the material evidence points to God using the King James Bible more powerfully than any other text or translation in the history of the world, yet you all refuse to believe that God would inspire men to translate His word into the common language of today.

What evidence do you have that God would NOT provide a superior translation?

[Guest Guest]

Why didn't the Holy Spirit author any other Bibles?

He wanted one Bible...and, that is the KJV 1611 AV. Satan is the one that is causing this confusion, NOT...God. We are in the last days, as you are well aware. It is the Devil's tool to confuse people with different Bibles. There is only one Bible. The Lord Jesus Christ spilled His precious blood on the cross of Calvary so that we could have ALL the "blood scriptures" in the KJV 1611 AV. I don't want to use a version with missing verses. That is absurd. All the other Bibles do is take out the "blood" scriptures. Take a look at them, and compare them. Hopefully you will see that.

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

Seth...after carefully reading what Dr. Ruckman wrote, I agree 100%. Of course the KJV 1611 AV is superior above all other Bibles. The author is the Holy Spirit, himself. Again...it is written by God himself.

I agree that God wrote the bible. However the KJV is a translation not a originial work. If the Holy Spirit didn't write the Hebrew and Greek then the KJV was based on the work of man. It was a translation after all. If on the other hand the KJV is perfect then the Hebrew and Greek must be as well. If they are also written by the Holy Spirit the KJV would be in no way superior.

[Guest Guest]

The Bible defines ITSELF. I wasn't talking about re-writing our language to accommodate King James-era English. I'm talking about allowing God to define Himself through His word. You ask how a translation can be superior to its predecessor, yet ignore God's explanation through the King James Bible. You all wish to use your own human understanding to interpret God's word and limit God's power with regard to His word. You all don't think God could or would produce a perfect, superior Bible in English when there's absolutely nothing in the Scripture to say that He wouldn't. All the material evidence points to God using the King James Bible more powerfully than any other text or translation in the history of the world, yet you all refuse to believe that God would inspire men to translate His word into the common language of today.

What evidence do you have that God would NOT provide a superior translation?

Well stated KJB_Princess.

candlelight

[Bakershalfdozen]

The Bible defines ITSELF. I wasn't talking about re-writing our language to accommodate King James-era English. I'm talking about allowing God to define Himself through His word. You ask how a translation can be superior to its predecessor, yet ignore God's explanation through the King James Bible. You all wish to use your own human understanding to interpret God's word and limit God's power with regard to His word. You all don't think God could or would produce a perfect, superior Bible in English when there's absolutely nothing in the Scripture to say that He wouldn't. All the material evidence points to God using the King James Bible more powerfully than any other text or translation in the history of the world, yet you all refuse to believe that God would inspire men to translate His word into the common language of today.

What evidence do you have that God would NOT provide a superior translation?

What evidence do you have that the KJV English translation is superior to its source texts or that it is superior to another TR language version? Why does it HAVE to be superior? Why can't they all be God's preserved Word? Our God is powerful enough to have given His pure Word to many peoples and many nations, not just English-speakers.

[Guest Guest]

Hi OB members. :smile This is what I have found out so far about the TR - Textus Receptus. By and large, there are 2 families of Greek manuscripts. Right? The New Testament was written mostly in Greek, with some small portions written in Aramaic. One of the manuscript families is the "Alexandrian", because the manuscripts originate in Alexandrian Egypt...and, as everyone knows, Egypt is a type of the world. BTW, I learned that these Alexandrian manuscripts are portions or fragments of the NT text. The other family is the "Antioch" line, because it came out of Asia Minor, which as I am full aware...is the location of the majority of the Apostle Paul's ministry, where they were first called Christians. The Antioch family, as I have been told, is by far the most faithful and accurate of these manuscripts. Since the late 1800's, the acceptance of the Alexandrian manuscripts has led to the overwhelming amount of corrupt Bible translations and the apostacy that is occuring in these last days. However, I have learned that the textual issue is a different story.

Texts (as you well know) are compilations of manuscripts, which are chosen for their consistency and agreement with one another. There are also 2 main texts: the Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible was translated for the most part, and, the "Critical Text", which was compiled from the corrupted Alexandrain manuscripts. So, what I have found is that the TR, in and of itself, isn't corrupt or bad at all (I apologize for my ignorance here). :ooops So, from what my sister in Christ has clarifed for me...when translating from another language, it is usually important to translate mostly from the TR, and compare the KJV Bible to that. I know that English is terribly difficult to translate into another language. This, I am VERY aware of, in fact. :frog However, it is critical that any foreign language Bible be in line with the KJV 1611 AV. This is my whole point on the matter.

This is also interesting to note: The KJV didn't always follow the available Antioch texts. I John 5:7...For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. KJV 1611 AV. was not included in any manuscripts available at the time, and the only place that it was found was in the Latin Vulgate...the corrupt Bible of the RCC. God saw it fit somehow to have the AV committee include that portion, which later lays claim to the discovery of many Antioch-family manuscripts that included that passage. This to me...says that the KJV 1611 AV is God's pure and Holy word, and no one should mess with that.

She also informed me that while there are dozens of editions of the TR, every one of them is in Greek. BTW, what an education for me all in a period of one day. However, the use of the Greek language has become such a tool of Satan, but with that in mind...any Bible scholar can turn that around and defend the KJV 1611 AV. This is one thing that no one has EVER been able to dispute! BTW, my pastor sometimes will explain while he preaches...what a word means in English and what it means in Greek. My sister in Christ did inform me too, that people who are fluent in the Spanish language will understand the complications of translations. I know we have many people on OB that can speak Spanish. Well, with that being said, if it weren't for God we'd all be in much trouble. :thumb In His precious and Holy name.

candlelight

[Bakershalfdozen]

He wanted one Bible...and, that is the KJV 1611 AV. Satan is the one that is causing this confusion, NOT...God. We are in the last days, as you are well aware. It is the Devil's tool to confuse people with different Bibles. There is only one Bible. The Lord Jesus Christ spilled His precious blood on the cross of Calvary so that we could have ALL the "blood scriptures" in the KJV 1611 AV. I don't want to use a version with missing verses. That is absurd. All the other Bibles do is take out the "blood" scriptures. Take a look at them, and compare them. Hopefully you will see that.

candlelight

Lately, no one in this thread has been arguing MVs vs. KJV. So I'm not sure where your last comment came from.

God doesn't want ONE Bible. He wants His Word spread all over the world so that all men might come to Him and be saved. The KJV does not stand alone. It stands with all other faithful translations as God's Word for all people.

If you want to say that the KJV is the correct Bible for English speakers, that's fine but please say so.

[speerjp1]

2.) Dr. Ruckman never said the TR was corrupt. He just said the KJV was superior.

Kathie, candlight, and whoever else is wrapped up in Ruckmanism,

The main problem most of us have with Ruckman's stand on the KJV is validated by this statement. It is as though you guys (including Ruckman himself) are always coming up with arguments to sustain your position with thoughts off of the top of your head. This seems so because it is apparent that absolutely none of the implications of what you are saying seem to cross your mind.

The main implication of Ruckmanism: God is a liar.

Here is how I see Ruckman's line of reasoning:

1. God promised mankind through prophets and kings that his word would be preserved in the Old Testament.
2. God promised mankind through apostles and pastors that not one jot or tittle of his word would not pass away in the New Testament.
3. The canon of scriptures was completely written before the end of the 1st century AD.
4. Somewhere between 100 AD and 1611 AD God's word was diluted and made incomplete/insufficient.
5. In 1611, men were commissioned to translate God's word into the language of the common man.
6. The result was a Bible superior to every previous text. (The word "superior" implies that the thing it is being compared to is inferior. "Inferiority" implies insufficiency)
7. The texts used to translate the KJV were corrupt in some way: even if it was just one jot or tittle, something was insufficient about God's word. (This implies that God had not preserved his word completely up to this point.[see above promises])
8. IMPLICATION: God is a liar and, therefore, fallible and, therefore, unholy and, therefore, unjust and, therefore, unrighteous and, therefore, unable to pay our sin debt and the list of implications go on and on and on forever!

Is that what you believe?

If it is not what you believe then you have failed miserably to explain it to us in all of these threads and posts where it has been brought up. I know from past experience that you will tell me that you do not believe the ways I mention above at all and that I obviously don't understand Ruckmanism. I get the same thing from folks who are always trying to push Calvinism. I've found that the ideas and beliefs taught by these men is unknowable by everyone except their followers.

Deny it all you want, though, those are the implications of your beliefs. That is not the God I love and serve.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

[Annie]

It is repugnant to me that (if what KJB Princess says about him is true) I actually share some opinions with the arrogant, crass, rude, prideful man named Peter Ruckman. (And I can use those terms unreservedly, since I literally got sick to my stomach yesterday watching a video of him "defending the King James Bible." I couldn't believe the video was actually posted on a KJVO site--It certainly is doing more harm than good to their cause!)

It has been interesting to watch this discussion develop between "sorta KJVOs" and "hard core KJVOs." I say that I share some opinions with P.R. because he at least seems to acknowledge that the KJV is qualitatively different than the texts which came before it. (See below for explanation.) Of course, he comes to a completely different conclusion than I do with this information. On the other hand, those who do not think that the KJV (or TR) differs from previous manuscripts seem to ignore the fact that there are over 1,800 differences between the TR and the Majority (Byzantine) text, which "non-Ruckmanite" KJVOs are fond of claiming is the "pure strain" of manuscripts.

I posted the following before as a response to Jerry, but so far this post hasn't been addressed. I think it is germane to the current trend in the discussion, so I'm reposting it.

It is a position of belief in God's promises to preserve His Word - including all the specific words contained therein - in manuscripts or books available to His children.

Here we have common ground, Jerry (I think...except maybe for the word specific). I too believe that God has promised to preserve His words...the "where" and "how" is not mentioned in the biblical promises, though. But I would agree that God has preserved His words in manuscripts or books that are available to us today. Woo-hoo! Have we found common ground?

Let's deconstruct the rest of what you have said here:

It is better than some vague wanna-be belief

My beliefs are not "wanna-be" beliefs. I don't understand what you mean here. I believe that God has preserved His words through manuscripts that are available today, and that any Christian can easily acquire.

that says we can have some approximation of His Word

I'm not sure what you are saying here...Of course we do not have the actual words of God as they were first uttered by him to the writers of the originals (in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). What we have, as we all know, are translations (translations of copies of copies of translations). Most of us know that when words are translated from one language to another, it is not always possible to translate "one-to-one correspondence"...for example, the Greek language has four words for love, which each describe a specific kind of love (agape, phileo, storge, eros). English, poor language that it is, has one word for love.

(Note to KJB Princess: Sister, just so you're not confused by what I'm saying, the definition of the word "translate" you were talking about--the process that happened to Enoch, Elijah, etc.--is not exactly the same thing as what I am talking about--the changing of a word from one language into another--although the meanings are similar, in that they both connote a "change.")

So, the word "love" in the KJV is an approximation of each of the four Greek words that are more specific than the word "love." It's the best word they could come up with to be closest to the original meaning. Our language doesn't have comparable words for agape, phileo, storge, and eros. So, do I panic that since "meaning is lost" in the KJV translation of these words (because it really is), that I don't really have the words of God? No...I have concordances and other language helps available that further explain and clarify the meanings for me. If other translations use words like affection or lust where the KJV uses love, do I assume that these versions must not agree with the KJV, or must not be the preserved words of God? No...again because I have so many easy ways to verify exactly what those verses are talking about.

Those who get hung up on specific "words" do not understand the difficulties inherent in any work that has been translated from a different language. Because of the different idioms, expressions, structure, and grammar of different languages, it is just not possible to say everything in exactly the same way (same word/sentence order, same actual words, etc.) as it was in the original work. Quick example: The Spanish translation for our English, "I am hungry," is "Tengo hambre." Notice that the English is three words, the Spanish is only two, since the personal pronoun I is indicated by the o at the end of the verb. But tengo (the verb) does not mean "I am." Rather, it means, "I have." Hambre is not the adjective hungry; it is the noun hunger. IOW, Spanish speakers do not say, "I am hungry," but rather, "I have hunger." Yet, any Spanish-to-English translator will render it as, "I am hungry," because that is the English way of expressing the same concept.

in a general idea - not in any specific place

Again, I don't think I ever said that God's words are merely "general ideas," although I do think the ideas of what God said has indeed been preserved. (If all of the words but not the ideas had been preserved, we really wouldn't understand what God was trying to say, would we?)

As far as being in a specific place...I would say that it is not just in ONE specific place, but can be discerned as we study, meditate, and familiarize ourselves in other ways with biblical content as well as concordances and various translations. This is not hard to do. It does take time, devotion, and sensitivity to the Illuminator of God's Word, the Holy Spirit.

and we can glean it from whatever source we want, regardless of how much it is messed with or changed

As Kevin has already said, I don't know anyone who believes that we can just pick up any Bible we want to and find a reliable translation of God's Word. There are obviously Bibles out there that are inferior works of translation.

Sounds like you have made yourself - or some Bible scholar/textual critic - your final authority in determining what is and what is not God's Word - and are truly blinded to the fact that contradicting sources/words/meanings cannot all be from God.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is an incorrect understanding of my position. For one thing, I have not noticed any more contradictions between the major reliable translations and the KJV than I have noticed within the KJV itself. And any differences I've noticed are negligible, as they do not give contradictory information about any important biblical themes, ideas, or doctrines.

[Guest Guest]

Hi Bakershalfdozen. I don't know what happened. I went to post and my PC went haywire. Hmmm?

I understand the burden that you have for the lost people in other nations. I am trying to explain that the TR and CT together compile the KJV 1611 AV. Accurate Bibles have already been printed in various foreign languages so that IFB missionaries can take the Gospel out to the lost and dying world. Our missionaries lead the lost to Christ, disciple these Christians, build IFB churches all over the globe, and then...when the Lord's work is done...they turn these churches over to trained pastors in those areas. When that time is? It is up to Jesus Christ. These churches are flourishing in other nations. It is the USA that is falling apart. We have had the KJV 1611 AV for eons. No one can dispute it's accuracy. People have tried, and they can't do it.

Yes, I have stated that I stand firm on the KJV 1611 AV. It is God's Holy word.

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

Kathie, candlight, and whoever else is wrapped up in Ruckmanism,

The main problem most of us have with Ruckman's stand on the KJV is validated by this statement. It is as though you guys (including Ruckman himself) are always coming up with arguments to sustain your position with thoughts off of the top of your head. This seems so because it is apparent that absolutely none of the implications of what you are saying seem to cross your mind.

The main implication of Ruckmanism: God is a liar.

Here is how I see Ruckman's line of reasoning:

1. God promised mankind through prophets and kings that his word would be preserved in the Old Testament.
2. God promised mankind through apostles and pastors that not one jot or tittle of his word would not pass away in the New Testament.
3. The canon of scriptures was completely written before the end of the 1st century AD.
4. Somewhere between 100 AD and 1611 AD God's word was diluted and made incomplete/insufficient.
5. In 1611, men were commissioned to translate God's word into the language of the common man.
6. The result was a Bible superior to every previous text. (The word "superior" implies that the thing it is being compared to is inferior. "Inferiority" implies insufficiency)
7. The texts used to translate the KJV were corrupt in some way: even if it was just one jot or tittle, something was insufficient about God's word. (This implies that God had not preserved his word completely up to this point.[see above promises])
8. IMPLICATION: God is a liar and, therefore, fallible and, therefore, unholy and, therefore, unjust and, therefore, unrighteous and, therefore, unable to pay our sin debt and the list of implications go on and on and on forever!

Is that what you believe?

If it is not what you believe then you have failed miserably to explain it to us in all of these threads and posts where it has been brought up. I know from past experience that you will tell me that you do not believe the ways I mention above at all and that I obviously don't understand Ruckmanism. I get the same thing from folks who are always trying to push Calvinism. I've found that the ideas and beliefs taught by these men is unknowable by everyone except their followers.

Deny it all you want, though, those are the implications of your beliefs. That is not the God I love and serve.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

speer...and, who has spewed this line of reasoning that you believe about Dr. Ruckman? This is NOT what Ruckman believes at all. This is laughable. Sorry.

candlelight

[speerjp1]

This is NOT what Ruckman believes at all. This is laughable.

See, I told you so. :cooldude:

[Jerry]

As far as Cloud being jealous? That is a laugh. There is always going to be arguing and competition w/ man. It is human nature...it is called sin. Satan loves to cause this kind of turmoil amongst human beings. The Devil is always on a mission to cause chaos. It is his game...

We all have problems with sin - each with their own sins. However, to state Cloud is dealing with a particular sin without proof is called slander. You don't like it when others slander Ruckman (though the issues brought forth have been quotes from his own writings) - then don't be guilty of what you profess to hate.

[Jerry]

You ask how a translation can be superior to its predecessor' date=' yet ignore God's explanation through the King James Bible. You all wish to use your own human understanding to interpret God's word and limit God's power with regard to His word.[/quote']

Funny how you have a problem with a dictionary definition - a dictionary put together by a man who spent his whole life studying words - YET you want us to accept your definition, when you have not done so. :duh



You're right - we don't believe God inspired the KJV translators - and He never said He did either. He inspired His Word when He gave is - and it is still inspired today. He USED the KJV translators to give us His Word in English; however, He did not inspired them, He did not breathe His Word through them or give them new revelation (despite Ruckman's false claims).

The KJV is no superior than the manuscripts it was translated from. (Perfect means complete, by the way. Please stop giving the word your own definition.) The KJV is complete and without error - because the manuscripts it was translated from are complete and without error. It is a faithful (and yes, the only faithful) translation of the preserved manuscripts in English.

[Jerry]

It is repugnant to me that (if what KJB Princess says about him is true) I actually share some opinions with the arrogant' date=' crass, rude, prideful man named Peter Ruckman. (And I can use those terms unreservedly, since I literally got sick to my stomach yesterday watching a video of him "defending the King James Bible." I couldn't believe the video was actually posted on a KJVO site--It certainly is doing more harm than good to their cause!)[/quote']

That is one of the main reasons many here are against Ruckman. If he is some spiritual man of God, his language should reflect his godliness and maturity - and it doesn't!



The TR is the majority text. In the 1980's, some man named Hodges (I think) came up with his own text which he coined the Majority Text - and this text is different than the TR.



No, I believe God's promises to preserve specific WORDS - you do not obviously - or you would be opposed to differing texts.



A whole bunch of problems with your statements above. God promised to preserve His Word - yet you do not think any specific manuscript or translation is that preserved Word. Don't you believe God?

Yes, we do have His Word (and words) as originally given - in extant copies (the original scrolls themselves having already perished). We also have many true translations of His Word.

Your "love" illustration is flawed. The Greek only uses two of those words for love - and they both still mean love. Yes, it is good to know when agape or when phileo is used - as they do slightly signify different kinds of love - but the KJV is not wrong - they still both mean love. Studying out the passages (whether in Hebrew/Greek or English) will reveal what specific love is in view.



We know what God said because we can study His words out. We do not need Dynamic Equivalency translations that give us someones commentary or ideas of what they think God meant, we need what God said - then we can study that to find out what He meant ourselves. Yes, there are people who start with the right text and arrive at the wrong meaning; however, If you start in the wrong place, you will never get the right meaning out of the text.



Then you and every other Bible critic is playing God - determining what you think should be in or not in God's Word. The fact that no two scholars/Bible critics can agree on which phrases/words/verses, etc. should be in the Bible is proof enough that your understanding and methods and filled with errors.



Oh, you believe there are SOME English Bibles with errors - yet you think no one else has the right to come to the conclusion that all other English Bibles are flawed. What makes your position better or more authoritative? Is it based on facts and research, or just preference?

I am going to be rude and say this once: Put up or be quiet. You have not proven ONE SINGLE ERROR in the KJV - yet myself and others here have shown various ones in different Bible versions. Prove an error in the KJV or be quietly ignorant. It doesn't do any of God's people and good for you to be repeating unproven statements. If you really care about the truth, dig into the KJV, find those errors and show us - or admit there aren't any of it, swallow your pride and embrace the KJV as God's Word in English.