Textual/version stance

[Guest Guest]

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. 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.

We aren't being "wishywashy" on this candlelight, the only way we would possibly except a new translation is if it was proved faithful to the originals in exactly the same way the KJV was and has been proved faithful throughout the years. The translators believed that the Word of God was given and existed in Greek and Hebrew; so do we. Any new translation in any language must line up with that. The KJV does line up with the original Greek and Hebrew and that is historically the reason why Gods people accepted it as Gods Word in English. If another version were to line up with the original Greek and Hebrew it would also be the Word of God. However, to date, the KJV in the only English version that does that. The other avalible English versions are either imperfectly translated or based on corrupted texts rather than the pefect Word of God to begin with.

[Guest Guest]

We aren't being "wishywashy" on this candlelight, the only way we would possibly except a new translation is if it was proved faithful to the originals in exactly the same way the KJV was and has been proved faithful throughout the years. The translators believed that the Word of God was given and existed in Greek and Hebrew; so do we. Any new translation in any language must line up with that. The KJV does line up with the original Greek and Hebrew and that is historically the reason why Gods people accepted it as Gods Word in English. If another version were to line up with the original Greek and Hebrew it would also be the Word of God. However, to date, the KJV in the only English version that does that. The other avalible English versions are either imperfectly translated or based on corrupted texts to begin with.

Where do we find these "originals"?

[Guest Guest]

Where do we find these "originals"?

In the 5000+ partial and complete texts found in the byzantine text line. Collectively known as the TR ie. the recieved text. Now before you try to tell me of the "thousands" of differences found within the TR I am going to challenge you to point out particular differences and post examples. Most of the "differences" within the TR are incredibly small, many the equivalent of missing a dot on an i. I can find "differences" like that in different printings of various KJV's. It is rather dishonest to imply those are actually real differences. Further, in the handful of cases where the difference is more significant than that we still have the other texts within the TR which overwhelmingly use one wording in each case. We don't find them evenly split. Since we are talking of hand written books it is hardly surprising that someone every now and then ,intentionally or accidentally, would write down the wrong thing. However God preserves his Word and within the TR there is always a vast majority of texts that show one reading of a particular passage.

[Bakershalfdozen]

Where do we find these "originals"?

Well, you can buy this and this which are what we used in college to learn the text that the KJ version of the N.T. is translated from. By the end of the study guide and workbook, you'll be translating too! :wave:

[Jerry]

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.

Come on - you just attacked our position, even though you say only KJVO people do that. :roll

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.

It's up to you to prove the errors or be quiet. Otherwise, you are just stirring up strife, and showing you are not here to learn about the issue, but to push your own agenda. This is a KJVonly website - accept that or move on. We are not opposed to discussing issues, but if you are determined to make claims against our position, without backing them up, then you will be warned and/or banned.

[Jerry]

We don't run to the Hebrew or Greek to get a different meaning or an alternate reading - we do it to clarify the text. And anyone that truly studies the Bible uses the helps that are available to them, whether a Dictionary, a Strong's Concordance, or whatever. It does not indicate a problem with the text itself - noone knows what all words mean, therefore we need to look up meaning to clarify passages. According to the example given, I am not using the Greek to get a different meaning for "love", but to show which love is in view and the significance of that - and yes, for the most part, that can be determined by the passage in English. It is for clarification, more indepth look at the passage, not to change or correct the passage.

[John81]

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

Ummm, if you are here and one of the group then you are one of "these OB people". :saint

I've never heard Dr. Ruckman preach so I don't know exactly what you mean by forceful preaching of the others mean by what they say. Is there anything of his on the internet that my dial-up could handle so I could hear him and his style myself?

Regarding the openness of Catholics to the truth: while in university myself and friend helped to bring many Catholics to Christ. During that time I found that most of the Catholics who really wanted to be right with God and who thought they were following the Bible, once it was pointed out to them in the Bible how the RCC teaches lies and what the truth is, they were quick to repent, accept Christ, and flee the RCC.

[John81]

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

:thumb :amen:

[Guest Guest]

I've never heard Dr. Ruckman preach so I don't know exactly what you mean by forceful preaching of the others mean by what they say. Is there anything of his on the internet that my dial-up could handle so I could hear him and his style myself?

How much can your dial-up handle? If it will handle youtube there are several sermon clips from him there... One of them shows him doing a chalk talk and drawing a long haired "Jesus"... You would think he would know better than that... Minor issue compared to his doctrine though...

The thing about ruckmans preaching is at first he sounds ok(to me at least). A lot like many hard preaching IFB's. For a while he will say things that you can pretty much agree with, then all of a sudden he will start expounding on some unbiblical doctrine... Further, after you listen a while, you start to hear excessive and unchristlike statements. Statements that seem more designed to rile and excite a generally like minded crowd than to actually teach truth... Anyway, depending on what your dial-up can handle, maybe you can judge for yourself.

The sound isn't so great on this one but even so it is informative... Some of his reasoning is certainly "interesting". He also uses some profanity in this sermon so be warned...

[Annie]

I have never attacked your right to come to a different conclusion. All I have done is to ask HOW you have come to that conclusion (seeing that there is no Scripture that promises that all of God's words have been preserved perfectly all in one volume), and WHY, if indeed all of God's words have been perfectly preserved in one place, you feel the need to consult other sources. I have not attacked; I have asked. On the other hand, I've seen post after post that has attacked the character of people who believe as I do. (We are "Bible critics," "poisoned by false teaching," wilfully ignorant and blind, closed-minded, educated above our intelligence, etc.) If I have hurled any insults such as these, please show me, and I'll retract them immediately.



In any discussion, the burden of proof lies on the person who is making a claim of some sort. Let's take a really mundane example: a discussion about where we should go out to eat. We all feel like eating Chinese food. My friend says, "Well, it's all the same to me. I don't care whether we go to Twin Dragons, The Pagoda, or Fried Feline. They all serve the same kind of food; it's all alike." Another friend pipes up and says, "Twin Dragons is so much better than The Pagoda or Fried Feline. It's the only Chinese place in town I'd recommend to anyone." What would be the next reasonable thing we'd all expect to hear (and that would almost certainly follow)? An explanation of what makes Twin Dragons the "only good Chinese place to eat." The person who makes the claim provides an explanation.

In this discussion, I've made no claims (that I'm aware of). I've asked questions of the ones who are making the claim that all of God's words are perfectly preserved all in one place--and only in that place. With all due respect, Jerry, no one on the KJVO side is backing up any of the claims they have made. They talk a lot about "preservation" being the basis for their KJVO beliefs...but when it comes right down to it, they don't provide any Scripture to back up those claims. I use the same Scriptures they've mentioned as the basis for my view of preservation. The people making the claims have not provided an explanation of why their claims are true.

I humbly ask that I not be banned from this site. Please show me any claims I've made "against your position." I believe you will find that I've mostly been asking KJVO advocates to back up their claims, not making claims of my own. I believe I even stated in another post that I'm thankful for you folks allowing me to discuss this topic with my brothers and sisters in Christ on OB. If I have made any such "claims," consider them retracted (and please show me what you're talking about, so I won't do it again).

[Guest Guest]

BTW

If you want to listen to that sermon from ruckman you will get some "interesting" quotes :roll

One of which is where he calls honesty a "fool thing like that" and another is where he says his preaching would be more spiritual if his enemies weren't so bad. I am sure we could make a book of ruckman quotes just from that sermon. :roll

[John81]

How much can your dial-up handle? If it will handle youtube there are several sermon clips from him there... One of them shows him doing a chalk talk and drawing a long haired "Jesus"... You would think he would know better than that... Minor issue compared to his doctrine though...

The thing about ruckmans preaching is at first he sounds ok(to me at least). A lot like many hard preaching IFB's. For a while he will say things that you can pretty much agree with, then all of a sudden he will start expounding on some unbiblical doctrine... Further, after you listen a while, you start to hear excessive and unchristlike statements. Statements that seem more designed to rile and excite a generally like minded crowd than to actually teach truth... Anyway, depending on what your dial-up can handle, maybe you can judge for yourself.

The sound isn't so great on this one but even so it is informative... Some of his reasoning is certainly "interesting". He also uses some profanity in this sermon so be warned...

Thank you Seth. A lot of youtube videos take a very long time to download (half-hour, hour or longer) but some of them go quicker so I'll give this a try and see I can watch it or not.

[John81]

Is it true that some or all of the exact texts those who put forth the KJB used are no longer available?

I read this somewhere and I can't remember where I read it. I also can't remember if they said some of the actual text used is no longer available or if they said all of the text they used is no longer available.

[Guest Guest]

Even if the video takes a while for you to download it is worth it... Tells you a lot about him...

[John81]

Even if the video takes a while for you to download it is worth it... Tells you a lot about him...

So far, after 10-15 minutes, I've managed to be able to listen to 2 minutes. :sad This is going really, really slow. :badday: