New Cambridge Paragraph Bible

[lettheredeemedsayso]

[quote]
But then, what does fear really mean? Which fear is it? Is it the strongest fear I have toward someone who would kill me or is it the fear of stubbing my toe on the couch? Is it the fear of the Lord or the fear of The Look from my wife?
[/quote]


:nutty

[Guest Guest]

Doc H's question was a valid one. Why is someone that is truly KJBO and not TR only automatically considered a Ruckmanite?

Katy-Anne

[Will]

[quote="Katy-Anne"]
Doc H's question was a valid one. Why is someone that is truly KJBO and not TR only automatically considered a Ruckmanite?

Katy-Anne
[/quote]

I don't see how it's valid. I know many people who are KJVO and who aren't Ruckmanites.

[Alen]

[quote="Doc H"]
In 1611 the rules of English spelling had NOT been standardized.

eg Sin could be spelt sin, sinn, sine or sinne even on the same page.

Shakespeare used different spellings for the same words in his works.

Why is it that someone who is KJBO is called a 'Ruckmanite'?

Alen, forget the paragraph bible and stick with the KJV.

I would recommend you read Sam Gipp's 'Understandable History of the Bible'.
[/quote]

After buying my Concord wide margin, I have spent enough on Bibles for now :) I would of bought it if it were not for all the changes of the text.

-Alen

[Samer]

[quote="Katy-Anne"]
Doc H's question was a valid one. Why is someone that is truly KJBO and not TR only automatically considered a Ruckmanite?

Katy-Anne
[/quote]

The name "Ruckman" starts popping up once people start denying the original languages, and the fact that the King James Bible is a faithful [b]translation[/b] of the preserved words of God, and, as such, [b]is[/b] itself the word of God in English. Also, anything that starts saying English spellings were inspired after translation...that really raises some eyebrows.

[Doc H]

[quote="Samer"]
[quote="Katy-Anne"]Doc H's question was a valid one. Why is someone that is truly KJBO and not TR only automatically considered a Ruckmanite?

Katy-Anne
[/quote]

The name "Ruckman" starts popping up once people start denying the original languages, and the fact that the King James Bible is a faithful [b]translation[/b] of the preserved words of God, and, as such, [b]is[/b] itself the word of God in English. Also, anything that starts saying English spellings were inspired after translation...that really raises some eyebrows.[/quote]

Samer,

I don't think anyone is saying that the spelling was inspired (I don't believe that Doc Ruckman teaches that either).

The point is that the English langauge was at it's PURIST in the 17th Century and since then has been 'devolving'.

Again, this is evidence for God's hand being on the KJB and NO other translation.

[Will]

[quote="Doc H"]
[quote="Samer"][quote="Katy-Anne"]Doc H's question was a valid one. Why is someone that is truly KJBO and not TR only automatically considered a Ruckmanite?

Katy-Anne
[/quote]

The name "Ruckman" starts popping up once people start denying the original languages, and the fact that the King James Bible is a faithful [b]translation[/b] of the preserved words of God, and, as such, [b]is[/b] itself the word of God in English. Also, anything that starts saying English spellings were inspired after translation...that really raises some eyebrows.[/quote]

Samer,

I don't think anyone is saying that the spelling was inspired (I don't believe that Doc Ruckman teaches that either).

The point is that the English langauge was at it's PURIST in the 17th Century and since then has been 'devolving'.

Again, [b]this is evidence[/b] for God's hand being on the KJB and NO other translation.[/quote]

Not particularly.

[kevinmiller]

I agree Will. God's hand is on His Word whenever it is faithfully translated. I'm sure God had His hand on the KJV and He may have wanted it to be translated at that point in time when English was at that level but I don't think it means that simply because it was at it's height that God had His hand on it any more than any other faithful translation.

Kevin

[Guest Guest]

[quote="kevinmiller"]
I agree Will. God's hand is on His Word whenever it is faithfully translated. I'm sure God had His hand on the KJV and He may have wanted it to be translated at that point in time when English was at that level but I don't think it means that simply because it was at it's height that God had His hand on it any more than any other faithful translation.

Kevin
[/quote]

So, basically you are saying that you believe the King James Bible to be the only acceptable, currently available, faithful English translation of the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Chaldean texts and manuscripts. Am I reading you correctly?

[kevinmiller]

No. I'm was saying that I didn't think the English language being at its height had anything to do with God having His hand on it more so than another one. For the most part, I believe the KJV is the only version for English speakers to use. But I don't discount other TR faithful copies like the Geneva Bible.

[Guest Guest]

I just believe that we should now leave our King James Bible alone and stop "updating" it, it's perfect already.

Katy-Anne

[kevinmiller]

I don't think anyone "updated" it. :?

[Guest Guest]

[quote="kevinmiller"]
No. I'm was saying that I didn't think the English language being at its height had anything to do with God having His hand on it more so than another one. For the most part, I believe the KJV is the only version for English speakers to use. But I don't discount other TR faithful copies like the Geneva Bible.
[/quote]

I'm not talking about the English language being at its height, yada yada. I'm saying, is the KJB the ONLY acceptable Bible in English, or is It (in your opinion) "the best available," as in there could be a "better" one, but there isn't. That's what I mean. Just trying to clarify this.

[Guest Guest]

Wow, how'd I miss the fun in this topic? lol

Doc H is pretty much on track....and I do agree that the fact that the English language was at its purist when the KJV was translated is proof of God's hand being on it!!!

I sure wouldn't trust a translation of the Bible that didn't have obvious signs of God working a miracle in its translation. Just study the history of the Bible, from the time it was originally penned by people like Moses and Paul, to the time it got translated into our English language. It's amazing how God has kept His Scripture so pure and preserved through His people!!!

Maybe it's not inspiration that moved the men who translated the Bible into English....but God sure was involved!!!

[Samer]

Amen Kathie. :mrgreen:

One thing I want to point out that might be relevant as far as spelling...For a good while I had no idea what "divers" meant, until I realized it was just an archaic spelling of "diverse." Would changing something like that be any different than the 1769 updates in spelling that most of us accept (except Katy-Anne, I think)?