Can someone be saved by reading the NIV?

[lettheredeemedsayso]

It is not about Dr Ruckman. It is about perverting the Word of God. Yes, people may come to know the Lord because there are fragments of the scripture there. But God will not hold those guiltless that take away or add to the Word of God.

http://www.chick.com/information/biblev ... ivquiz.asp

[pneu-engine]

Most excellent, Linda. :D

:clap: :clap: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :clap: :clap:

[Jerry]

Cloud IS NOT a TR man - he has never corrected or sought to replace the KJV. He is not opposed to a new translation (neither are most here - [b]IF[/b] it was done exactly like the KJV with modern wording only - [b]BUT[/b] and he also quite clearly states this: [u]he does not believe that will ever happen! because of the apostasy of Christendom[/u]) - but it is seriously twisting that statement to make him out to be some Bible corrector or TR man. I have been reading his material for over 7 years - and he is solid. Ruckman and Riplinger hate him because he does not endorse all their opinions and material - quite a difference between that and being accused of correcting the Bible or being a TR man.**

**By the way, a TR man believes the underlying manuscripts are more important than any particular translation of them, and will correct the translations at his will or whim - DAVID CLOUD HAS [b]NEVER[/b] DONE THAT - AND IT IS SLANDER TO STATE SO WITHOUT PROOF. [b]Just like you hate someone saying something about Ruckman that may not be true, it is just as wrong for YOU to state something about another Bible defender that is not true.[/b] [u]The difference is, I have read many Ruckman defenders make the claim you are refuting[/u] - if they are completely wrong, as you say, so be it, and thank you for clarifying what you believe Ruckman teaches on the issue. [u]But I daresay, you or anyone else has never seen Cloud correct the KJV or promote the TR above it.[/u] It is one thing to uphold the underlying manuscripts on the same level and always submit to the authority of the King James Bible when there is any question of differences - which Cloud does - HE UPHOLDS AND ENDORSES THE KJV, AND HAS NEVER CORRECTED IT - and it is quite another thing to correct the KJV because of any supposed differences between the two, WHICH CLOUD HAS NEVER DONE. Cloud's material has strengthened my faith in the KJV more than any other current KJV defender, including Ruckman and Riplinger.

[pneu-engine]

AMEN, jerry. :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:

[lettheredeemedsayso]

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV)

[John81]

Amen Jerry!!!

I've learned and grown greatly as a result of David Cloud and his ministry for the Lord.

[Guest Guest]

[quote="Jerry"]
He is not opposed to a new translation (neither are most here - [b]IF[/b] it was done exactly like the KJV with modern wording only - [b]BUT[/b] and he also quite clearly states this: [u]he does not believe that will ever happen! because of the apostasy of Christendom[/u])
[/quote]

A new translation from the [b]TR[/b] that CHANGES (Jer. 2:36) the WORDS (Matt. 4:4) of the King James Bible? And Cloud is not a TR man? Based on what you just said, he is so a TR man that it isn't funny!

[quote="Jerry"]
By the way, a TR man believes the underlying manuscripts are more important than any particular translation of them...
[/quote]

Isn't that what you just said?

[quote="Jerry"]
...and will correct the translations at his will or whim - DAVID CLOUD HAS [b]NEVER[/b] DONE THAT - AND IT IS SLANDER TO STATE SO WITHOUT PROOF.
[/quote]

Exactly what would that "New and improved King James Bible" be doing?

[quote="Jerry"]
The difference is, I have read many Ruckman defenders make the claim you are refuting - if they are completely wrong, as you say, so be it, and thank you for clarifying what you believe Ruckman teaches on the issue.
[/quote]

What Doc teaches is Bible, not just my opinion. I will say that some believe as has been said, but I personally have never met anyone that has said the things that have been attributed to Dr. Ruckman without cause, reason or logic, let alone FACTS.

[Bakershalfdozen]

http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Despatch ... CKMAN.html


Ruckman believes that God "breathed again" in 1611.

Ruckman believes that the KJV corrects the TR.

Ruckman believes that there was advanced revelation given to the KJV.

Ruckmanites believe that everyone should learn English so they can read the only "true Word of God".

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

[Guest Guest]

[quote="Bakershalfdozen"]
Ruckman believes that God "breathed again" in 1611.
[/quote]

Your problem with that is...

[quote="Bakershalfdozen"]
Ruckman believes that the KJV corrects the TR.
[/quote]

And so it must, if It is truly God's Word. Study it out a little, and you will find that the TR isn't very consistent in the manuscripts among the dozens of languages they were written in.

[quote="Bakershalfdozen"]
Ruckman believes that there was advanced revelation given to the KJV.
[/quote]

Again, your problem or refutation is...

[quote="Bakershalfdozen"]
Ruckmanites believe that everyone should learn English so they can read the only "true Word of God".
[/quote]

Oh, is that so? I am what some would call a "Ruckmanite," and I surely don't believe that! Furthermore, I personally know [i]three[/i] PBI graduates that are missionaries in Spanish-speaking countries, and THEY don't believe what you just attributed to all "Ruckmanites." MY SENIOR PASTOR graduated from PBI, he speaks fluent Vietnamese, and he would laugh in your face for that ridiculous statement, if he even was to waste his time.

Don't copy-and-paste from other people's sites without checking out the veracity of what you are quoting. And don't EVER, [b]EVER[/b] attribute something to "Ruckmanites" when you probably know very few, if any, and have no real idea what Doc (Ruckman) teaches!

[quote="Bakershalfdozen"]
Etc.

Etc.

Etc.
[/quote]

And just what is this supposed to mean? What are you implying from this? Please don't make such posts that have no real FACTS to back them up, and simply quote another man's OPINION. Thank you.

[Junebugwv]

MC1171611, I am really going to enjoy having you on this board. I won't get into the discussions (I'm a quiet granny) but that doesn't mean I won't cheer you on!

[dwayner79]

MC,

I will not get into the whole debate about Ruckman from a doctrine point of view. What I want to know is what is your view on the whole attitude issue. I mean, he is simple ungodly in his speach. He comes across as rude and obnoxious (sp?). I have never met him, but I do not think I would want to, let alone have his views hold any water.

Just curious your take from someone who supports him.

[Guest Guest]

The only things that you will hear about Doc are the bad things, just like the News. When Dr. Ruckman is quoted, normally it is in response to a Bible perverter, or some religious hypocrite, just like Christ did to the Pharisees. However, when preaching or dealing with sinners, he is one of the most compassionate people you would ever hear or see.

[dwayner79]

Well, that is fair. I understand that people paint people in a certain way.

That said, Jesus had an unfair advantage (being omniscient and all) that allowed him to deal with people perfectly. If I am going to error, I will error on the side of Grace. I am not perfect at this, and consider it wrong when I get up in arms. Dr. Ruckman does not seem to understand this when dealing with a "perverter". Wouldn't it be wise for him to be above reproach in this area. If he is wanting to help people see his point, calling them names will probably not help the matter.

Just my .02

[Jerry]

[quote="MC1171611"]
And don't EVER, [b]EVER[/b] attribute something to "Ruckmanites" when you probably know very few, if any, and have no real idea what Doc (Ruckman) teaches!
[/quote]

And I am going to ask the same of you - you have just slandered Cloud again without any documented support - that means you have publicly sinned on this board and thrown mud on a good defender of the KJV. [b]If you would like to give us specific examples of Cloud IN ANY WAY correcting the KJV, please do so. Otherwise, I am warning you - this type of thing will not be tolerated.[/b]

Ruckman has been debated on these boards - with quotes from his own material, so many of us do know what he has stated - maybe not about all areas. You are getting upset because you think others are slandering Ruckman - yet you are doing the exact same thing you are condemning others for - that makes you a hypocrite according to the Word of God, and you are doing explicitly what Jesus commands us not to in Matthew 7:1-5.

[Jerry]

MC1171611, there is a big difference between updating language - ie. using a modern word - and changing the meaning, which the modern versions do.

God didn't inspire 1611 English - He inspired His Word. In 1611, the KJV translators used the words that were most appropriate to give us the exact meaning in English. If they were translating it today, there would be different words used in some cases - but I am not referring to using different words that change the meaning. What do you think translators in other languages used? The wording is different, but the meaning is still the same. Or are you saying that all the precursors to the KJV are all worthless - even where they agree in meaning 100% but have used a different English word meaning the same thing? Are you also stating there is no good translations in other languages that are true to the originals (which is what the TR and Masoretic Text is) - because they are not using the English words of the KJV (which would be kind of impossible if it was a translation into another language)?

The problem with modern versions is that they not only change the wording, they change the meaning. They add to, subtract from, and twist the meaning of countless passages of Scripture. Aside from the fact that they are based on completely different manuscripts. I know for a fact that Cloud does not endorse any of these kind of changes. He is not advocating any changes at all. Why take a supposition of his - that has never happened and possibly never will - and make some bug issue out of it? Like I said, most here would not be opposed (in theory) with a modern day KJV - if it was exactly the same in meaning, translated from exactly the same manuscripts, and alike in all particulars - except using a word that we use today, instead of an archaic word. But none of us, including Cloud, believe that this will likely happen. Are you going to write us all off too? If so, you might not enjoy fellowshipping here (that is why you came here, right?).