Textual/version stance

[Jerry]

I am trying to explain that the TR and CT together compile the KJV 1611 AV.

You are mixing your texts up again! CT stands for the Critical Text and it is diametrically opposed to the preserved TR.

[Annie]

If [Ruckman] is some spiritual man of God, his language should reflect his godliness and maturity - and it doesn't!

Boy, am I ever with you there, Jerry! I'm still reeling from the effects of watching that video, and hearing Ruckman's "cheerleaders" in the background making the most noise when he got the most arrogant and crass. I couldn't stomach a whole sermon from him...And to think of the children he's leading astray... :sad

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.

To which manuscript are you referring when you refer to the Majority Text (from the Byzantine family of manuscripts)? What I'm asking is, IYO, from what specific copies did Erasmus translate the TR?

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.

Jerry, please give me a Scripture that asserts the bolded portion...not the "jot and tittle" verse, since that only refers to the Law (or at the most, the OT), and since it is not talking about the words themselves being preserved...just the words coming true (being fulfilled).

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?

I believe God as heartily as you do, Jerry...I just don't think His words are found in only one place. To my knowledge, He never promised they would be. I opened a thread on that very topic, and no one could come up with any Scripture that proved that God has promised to preserve His words all in one volume.

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.

Does love mean exactly the same thing as phileo? If the KJV truly contains all of God's words, then why in the world would the study of any other manuscripts be necessary or valuable? Why waste your time, if you have, right there in front of you, a perfect preservation of every one of God's words? I cannot fathom why, when perfection has been provided, you would go somewhere else to find modifications and clarifications of that perfection. The fact that you would do that reveals that you do not really believe that the KJV conveys all of God's actual words...Apparently, there are better, clearer sources somewhere else.

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.

Apparently, you missed my mention of the Holy Spirit. It's not about "Bible critics." It seems to me that, in consulting the Greek and Hebrew, you are doing the same thing I'm doing. I don't understand the difference.

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 have never questioned or attacked anyone's right to come to a different conclusion...Only KJVO people do that. I have never asserted that my position is any more authoritative than the KJVO position; neither is more authoritative, since Scripture doesn't specify either way. Better? Yes, I think it's a whole lot more reasonable than the KJVO position.

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.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you, and on everyone else who says that the KJV is without error. Proving errors in other translations does not strengthen your position, since your position states that the KJV is perfect. You are the one who has to prove that. So far, you haven't (especially when you refer to Greek texts for clarification). It is up to you to prove that God has promised that His words would all be preserved in one place only, and that that one place is the KJV.

[John81]

For what it's worth, that was a very well put together post.

Is the KJB perfect or can it be better understood by studying some of the underlying texts? Very good question.

Does the KJB stand on its own or can it be made better, or does it need to be compared to the source documents in order to get a full understanding?

Good questions that I'm looking forward to seeing just how they are answered.

For the time being I'll keep my thoughts to myself as I want to see how others answer these questions.

[Guest Guest]

You are mixing your texts up again! CT stands for the Critical Text and it is diametrically opposed to the preserved TR.

Just remember... she's new to the textual stuff. She's totally a "Ruckmanite" (I'm tired of people thinking she's somewhere in the middle of "Fundamentalist" and what you would call a "Ruckmanite"), but she hasn't been involved in discussions like this before.

[Guest Guest]

You are mixing your texts up again! CT stands for the Critical Text and it is diametrically opposed to the preserved TR.

Since, I have just learned about the TR and CT yesterday..I MOST likely am confused. All I know is that the KJV 1611 AV is the final authority...and, is the infallable, word of God. I take the LORD at his word, and that is preached from my church pulpet. I am ALWAYS challenged by my pastor to NOT take his word for it, but, the KJV 1611 AV. I answer to the Lord Jesus Christ himself. I haven't got to researching the TR and CT. To be honest, after all this confusion...I really don't care to at this point in my life. I just know that God is a gentleman...and, his word is preserved in the KJV 1611 AV. That "proof" lies right within my heart. The Holy Spirit speaks this to my heart, and that is all I need.

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

Just remember... she's new to the textual stuff. She's totally a "Ruckmanite" (I'm tired of people thinking she's somewhere in the middle of "Fundamentalist" and what you would call a "Ruckmanite"), but she hasn't been involved in discussions like this before.

KJB_Princess, thank you. :smile See my post directly below. LOL. This TR and CT stuff is NOT something I have ever learned before...obviously. I am also tired of these OB people talking about Dr. Ruckman this way. I needed fear to bring me to the Lord Jesus Christ. I understand that some people don't like his approach when he speaks and writes, but...that is NOTHING compared to the way I grew up. :lol He doesn't offend me in the slightest...and, NEVER has with his preaching. I don't need something that is "watered-down" and "candy coated". That is just me. As I have stated, I came out of the RCC and many former RCC people need the brutal truth...as it is stated in the KJV 1611 AV. OB would be surprised as to how many RCC people want to be told the truth. When you live under a HUGE lie...the truth comes easy for most. It is called conviction to me. The truth should be told for the sake of dying souls.

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

See, I told you so. :cooldude:

speer...this is my mistake. That isn't what I was "trying" to say. This whole thread is the reason that I am confused. :puzzled: I don't understand why people are even debating the validity of the KJV 1611 AV? Dr. Ruckman beleives in the KJV 1611 AV and has made no bones about it. Your reasoning on him doesn't make sense to me. Where have you come to these conclusions, is what I am trying to ask you?

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

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.

Dr. Peter Ruckman and David Cloud are the reasons this thread has gone this way, IMO. I wonder if they know how popular they are on OB? :lol

Jerry, can we just agree that the KJV 1611 AV is the word of God...and, nothing else will EVER replace it? This is the problem that I am finding in your posts. It seems to me that you defend the KJV 1611 AV, then...you turn around and say you might except another translation? This is where I am confused in your posts. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. Thank you. :smile

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

Just remember... she's new to the textual stuff. She's totally a "Ruckmanite" (I'm tired of people thinking she's somewhere in the middle of "Fundamentalist" and what you would call a "Ruckmanite"), but she hasn't been involved in discussions like this before.

I don't know about that one way or another. If she is actually ruckmanite she sure says quite a few things that totally contradict that doctrine. On the other hand she also says many things that look very ruckmanite contradicting the bible and the majority IFB view. So... :dunno:


I am inclined to think she is somewhat confused and not truly "set" one way or the other. I intend to cut her as much slack as possible until the time that she either sees the false doctrine of ruckmanism for what it is or is utterly consumed by it.

[Guest Guest]

Dr. Peter Ruckman and David Cloud are the reasons this thread has gone this way, IMO. I wonder if they know how popular they are on OB? :lol

Jerry, can we just agree that the KJV 1611 AV is the word of God...and, nothing else will EVER replace it? This is the problem that I am finding in your posts. It seems to me that you defend the KJV 1611 AV, then...you turn around and say you might except another translation? This is where I am confused in your posts. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. Thank you. :smile

candlelight

Good post, Candlelight!

In other words, let's get back on topic. If anyone wants to talk about Ruckman vs. Cloud, they can start another topic on it. :cool

[Guest Guest]

I don't know about that one way or another. If she is actually ruckmanite she sure says quite a few things that totally contradict that doctrine. On the other hand she also says many things that look very ruckmanite contradicting the bible and the majority IFB view. So... :dunno:


I am inclined to think she is somewhat confused and not truly "set" one way or the other. I intend to cut her as much slack as possible until the time that she either sees the false doctrine of ruckmanism for what it is or is utterly consumed by it.

Seth, I've talked to her outside of these forums, that's how I know she's a "Ruckmanite", in Fundamentalist terms. :smile

I'm really glad you're being nice to her. Even when I was confused and walking the line between "Fundamentalist" and "Ruckmanite", people were rude to me... so I'm glad you're being nicer than that to Molly. :smile

I was in her shoes once... unfamiliar with the textual issues and many other things. After I did some study on both sides, I've become what you would call a total "Ruckmanite". That's after I tried my hardest to accept Cloud's articles but still wanted to puke when I read them, and after reading "Ruckmanite" material I felt like understanding the Bible was so much easier.

Anyhow... what's most important is the King James Bible. I've read it, studied it, and I'm still completely amazed by it.

[Guest Guest]

Jerry, can we just agree that the KJV 1611 AV is the word of God...and, nothing else will EVER replace it? This is the problem that I am finding in your posts. It seems to me that you defend the KJV 1611 AV, then...you turn around and say you might except another translation? This is where I am confused in your posts. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Jerry is saying the exact same thing the majority of us are saying. The KJV is Gods perfect Word, and is currently the only English Bible of which that is true. That is why we are KJVO. We are NOT KJVO because we think it is the only true bible in the world, We are NOT KJVO because we think it is superior to the original Greek and Hebrew. We are KJVO because it is the perfectly preserved Word of God, translated for the English peoples and 100% faithful to the original. There is no additional revelation contained in it. That would be adding to the Word of God.

[Guest Guest]

I am glad to hear that Seth. However, some have said on OB that they would accept another Bible in the future...if we aren't raptured out in 200 years? This is what has me confused. :puzzled: The KJV 1611 AV is God's perfect word in my mind, yet some people on OB might accept some new translation? That is just inviting Satan right in the door. I don't get why people are being "wishy-washy" on this topic? Can you answer that question for me? God bless you, Seth.
candlelight

[Guest Guest]

I am glad to hear that Seth. However, some have said on OB that they would accept another Bible in the future...if we aren't raptured out in 200 years? This is what has me confused. :puzzled: The KJV 1611 AV is God's perfect word in my mind, yet some people on OB might accept some new translation? That is just inviting Satan right in the door. I don't get why people are being "wishy-washy" on this topic? Can you answer that question for me? God bless you, Seth.

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

So sorry about the double post. My PC is what is making me frustrated, as well. The Ruckman vs Cloud debate and my PC the last couple of days. :puzzled: Aye carumba.

candlelight