282Mikado

Jerome was commissioned in 383 AD by Pope Damasus to write the Latin Vulgate for the Roman Catholic Church. As the main foundation of this effort Jerome relied heavily on the Alexandrian texts with all their modifications. These same modifications are the foundation for many of the errors introduced into the RCC.
 
Jerome''s Vulgate was completed in 405 AD and became the RCCs official Bible. In 1546 at the council of Trent it was made the official Bible of Catholicism.
 
To Jerome's credit he was reluctant to take on this work as there was already a Latin version of the NT in use by the common believers already known as the Latin Vulgate. His concerns were well justified as shortly after the release of Jerome's Vulgate we begin to see defections of true believers who held to their "Textus Receptus" readings of that of Jerome and the RCC.
 
I'd rather not look to Jerome for scriptural guidance.
 
As for translations:
 
From the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon
ἀπο-στα^σία , ἡ, late form for ἀπόστασις,
 
1. defection, revolt, esp. in religious sense, rebellion against God, apostasy
2. departure, disappearance
3. distinguishing
4. distance
 
As has been mentioned before, from Strongs:
αποστασια apostasia ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
 
feminine of the same as 647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.
 
See Greek 647:
αποστασιον apostasion ap-os-tas'-ee-on
 
neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of 868; properly, something separative, i.e. (specially) divorce:—(writing of) divorcement.
 
See Greek 868:
αφιστημι aphistemi af-is'-tay-mee
 
from 575 and 2476; to remove, i.e. (actively) instigate to revolt; usually (reflexively) to desist, desert, etc.:—depart, draw (fall) away, refrain, withdraw self.
 
I could go on, but it is all the same meaning.
 
 
Beameup stated: "The newly adopted Greek word apostasia seems to have undergone somwhat of a change in meaning a century after it was originally brought transliterated into the English language."
 
From where do you get this bit of knowledge? The Translators of the KJV were the most knowledgeable men of their time, fluent in many languages, each devoted to God and His word. Every translated scripture was reviewed by another team of translators for accuracy. It may do you good to look up the various translators of the KJV and review their educational pedigree. Few come close even today. Add to that God's guiding hand and it is easy to see how the KJV is verbal and plenary inspired word of God for the English language. Why English? When Greek was used that was the language of commerce. When Latin was used (1st Latin Vulgate) Latin was the language of commerce. When English was used English was becoming the language of commerce, and it still is today.
 
I can actually see the word departure being used in this verse, but not as you seem to believe. How about instead of "a ship leaving the dock" it instead refers to a population leaving the Rock (Jesus Christ). When someone revolts against a concept, principle, or action, (like the draft dodgers of the 60's) they depart from those that are in support of that concept, principle or action. Many draft dodgers departed to Canada.
 
Let's not force something into the scripture that really just isn't there.

Jerome was commissioned in 383 AD by Pope Damasus to write the Latin Vulgate for the Roman Catholic Church. As the main foundation of this effort Jerome relied heavily on the Alexandrian texts with all their modifications. These same modifications are the foundation for many of the errors introduced into the RCC.
 
Jerome''s Vulgate was completed in 405 AD and became the RCCs official Bible. In 1546 at the council of Trent it was made the official Bible of Catholicism.
 
To Jerome's credit he was reluctant to take on this work as there was already a Latin version of the NT in use by the common believers already known as the Latin Vulgate. His concerns were well justified as shortly after the release of Jerome's Vulgate we begin to see defections of true believers who held to their "Textus Receptus" readings of that of Jerome and the RCC.
 
I'd rather not look to Jerome for scriptural guidance.
 
As for translations:
 
From the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon
ἀπο-στα^σία , ἡ, late form for ἀπόστασις,
 
1. defection, revolt, esp. in religious sense, rebellion against God, apostasy
2. departure, disappearance
3. distinguishing
4. distance
 
As has been mentioned before, from Strongs:
αποστασια apostasia ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
 
feminine of the same as 647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.
 
See Greek 647:
αποστασιον apostasion ap-os-tas'-ee-on
 
neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of 868; properly, something separative, i.e. (specially) divorce:—(writing of) divorcement.
 
See Greek 868:
αφιστημι aphistemi af-is'-tay-mee
 
from 575 and 2476; to remove, i.e. (actively) instigate to revolt; usually (reflexively) to desist, desert, etc.:—depart, draw (fall) away, refrain, withdraw self.
 
I could go on, but it is all the same meaning.
 
 
Beameup stated: "The newly adopted Greek word apostasia seems to have undergone somwhat of a change in meaning a century after it was originally brought transliterated into the English language."
 
From where do you get this bit of knowledge? The Translators of the KJV were the most knowledgeable men of their time, fluent in many languages, each devoted to God and His word. Every translated scripture was reviewed by another team of translators for accuracy. It may do you good to look up the various translators of the KJV and review their educational pedigree. Few come close even today. Add to that God's guiding hand and it is easy to see how the KJV is verbal and plenary inspired word of God for the English language. Why English? When Greek was used that was the language of commerce. When Latin was used (1st Latin Vulgate) Latin was the language of commerce. When English was used English was becoming the language of commerce, and it still is today.
 
I can actually see the word departure being used in this verse, but not as you seem to believe. How about instead of "a ship leaving the dock" it instead refers to a population leaving the Rock (Jesus Christ). When someone revolts against a concept, principle, or action, (like the draft dodgers of the 60's) they depart from those that are in support of that concept, principle or action. Many draft dodgers departed to Canada.
 
Let's not force something into the scripture that really just isn't there.

I read a little Spurgeon this morning (from his New Park Street Chapel Sermons) and thought what I read applied here:
 
"There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that sovereignty overrules them, and that sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God should more earnestly contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the Kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne. On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by unbelievers, no truth which they have kicked about so much, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his treasury to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up its pillars, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are ridiculed, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head.
 


For meditation: Do you have to think twice before addressing Jesus as Lord? Judas Iscariot could never bring himself to do it—the other disciples could say “Lord” (Matthew 26:22); Judas could only say “Rabbi/Master/Teacher” (Matthew 26:25, 49)."

2 Timothy 3:1-7 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disOBedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 
 
2 Timothy 4:3-5 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
 
That pretty much covers it.

I read a little Spurgeon this morning (from his New Park Street Chapel Sermons) and thought what I read applied here:
 
"There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that sovereignty overrules them, and that sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God should more earnestly contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the Kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne. On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by unbelievers, no truth which they have kicked about so much, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his treasury to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up its pillars, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are ridiculed, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head.
 


For meditation: Do you have to think twice before addressing Jesus as Lord? Judas Iscariot could never bring himself to do it—the other disciples could say “Lord” (Matthew 26:22); Judas could only say “Rabbi/Master/Teacher” (Matthew 26:25, 49)."

2 Timothy 3:1-7 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disOBedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 
 
2 Timothy 4:3-5 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
 
That pretty much covers it.

Proverbs 23:29-32 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? 30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. 31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. 32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
 
The word look used in these verses has multiple meanings. It can mean to simply glance upon. It can also mean to gaze approvingly upon, to enjoy, experience. Looking at the full context I would have to say it is the latter definitions that are more appropriate than the former. One is hardly likely to suffer all the negative ramifications mentioned in these verses by simply gazing at a glass of alcohol; regardless how potent it may be.
 
Also, to think Jesus never cast his gaze upon an alcoholic beverage in all his journeys is a pretty significant stretch.
 
If you decide to shun an occasion like this strictly because you will not gaze upon alcohol, you had best walk exceedingly circumspectly for the remainder of your days, especially in the company of those whom you may have offended. You had best not be seen in a grocery store, restaurant, sporting event, or any social event, festival, etc. where alcohol is sold or consumed, and where your eye may fall upon an alcoholic beverage; Thou hypocrite.
 
Ultimately, jebarr, this is really between you and the Lord. What HC said in post #4 is wise advice and worthy of consideration. I have had several family weddings over the past couple years (brother, nieces and nephews) and we go, congratulate, stay for dinner, and respectfully part company shortly thereafter (before the music and alcohol really begin to flow). On several occasions I have even been asked to give the opening prayer which officially gives me occasion to inject scripture into the event. Specifically how marriage is a picture of our relationship with Christ once saved.

Proverbs 23:29-32 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? 30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. 31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. 32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
 
The word look used in these verses has multiple meanings. It can mean to simply glance upon. It can also mean to gaze approvingly upon, to enjoy, experience. Looking at the full context I would have to say it is the latter definitions that are more appropriate than the former. One is hardly likely to suffer all the negative ramifications mentioned in these verses by simply gazing at a glass of alcohol; regardless how potent it may be.
 
Also, to think Jesus never cast his gaze upon an alcoholic beverage in all his journeys is a pretty significant stretch.
 
If you decide to shun an occasion like this strictly because you will not gaze upon alcohol, you had best walk exceedingly circumspectly for the remainder of your days, especially in the company of those whom you may have offended. You had best not be seen in a grocery store, restaurant, sporting event, or any social event, festival, etc. where alcohol is sold or consumed, and where your eye may fall upon an alcoholic beverage; Thou hypocrite.
 
Ultimately, jebarr, this is really between you and the Lord. What HC said in post #4 is wise advice and worthy of consideration. I have had several family weddings over the past couple years (brother, nieces and nephews) and we go, congratulate, stay for dinner, and respectfully part company shortly thereafter (before the music and alcohol really begin to flow). On several occasions I have even been asked to give the opening prayer which officially gives me occasion to inject scripture into the event. Specifically how marriage is a picture of our relationship with Christ once saved.

Well, it isn't just the son's decision, so it's not just about him respecting them...there is also the fiance to consider, and her family.  A wedding is not done in a vacuum, and many people are involved when plans are made.
 
jebarr, if you really feel that you cannot attend the reception if there is alcohol, you should let your son know...let him know how much you love him, and how glad you are for the addition to the family (you can say that, because it is not an unequal yoke since they are both unsaved) - and how much you are looking forward to getting to know them as a married unit (because, believe me, marriage does change our children). But let them know that, as a Christian, you can't participate when there is alcohol.  Let them know your biblical reasons, and that it is not a reflection on them or their choices (because, remember, they are not saved - you cannot expect for them to adhere to the same standards you have).  Tell them you've agonized over this, but that you do not have peace about attending with alcohol being served.  And then invite them to a special celebratory dinner after their honeymoon.
 
As to the mother/son dance - if you don't attend, it's not a prOBlem.  If you do, though, know that it isn't the same thing as a rock n roll type dance, or something of that nature.  Stipulate that you choose the song, so you can assure that it isn't something OBjectionable.
 
I would strongly recommend much prayer - make sure that if you don't attend, it is definitely what the Lord would have you do.  Remember that our Lord went to a wedding, and there was drinking there (no, I'm not saying He made alcohol, but I'm sure not all the three days worth of drinking was only grape juice).
 
As for me, I think I would attend. And I would dance the mother/son dance with my son.    That would give your wife his undivided attention for a few minutes...and she can most certainly make use of it with last-minute motherly advice...such as letting him know that he will make a fine husband, but would make a great husband if he only knew the Lord (or some such).
 
Congrats, jebarr.  I don't know if this is your first child (or if you have more than one) to get married, but a daughter-in-law can be such joy.

Yeah...let me know if you need any for your hourly avatar swap...

I created a Facebook acount using a nom de plume several years ago as a method of keeping in touch with my son in the Navy. My site had no information on it and I didn't use my real name. Surprisingly I had no friends on it either.

I did check out various family members and old acquaintances and was surprised to find what they are willing to divulge on a public forum. One of my cousins has his whole life history on there. Parents and sibling names, where he grew up, went to school, various commands in the service, where he has worked since, etc. The only thing lacking is the actual SSN and checking account numbers.

I can see the possible good such things can be used for, but I really long for the days when we did not have all of the technological gizmos. You know, back when relationships were personal, not electronic. A slower time, when friendships were worth more than the time they took to maintain.

1. They are lost and we know it; many are reprobate.
2. Let those who have turned over to a reprobate mind relish the moment.
3. Let any who do these things and they who take pleasure in these things receive from God what he has promised them; judgement.

We're still responsible to share the Gospel of Christ with them.

That's so true...but what's sad is that Jesus is ALWAYS in the Christian's home, and there's no putting on a show for him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=dxCRIF0m79w&feature=related

WHOEVER CAME UP WITH THIS IS A Genius!

Just put your mouse on a city anywhere in the world and the newspaper headlines pop up...

Double click and the page gets larger...you can read the entire paper on some if you click on the right place.You can spend forever here.

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/flash/

Also, if you look at the European papers, the far left side of Germany will pop up as The Stars & Stripes (European edition, of course). AND, this site changes every day with the publication of new editions of the paper. Hope you enjoy this.

You are absolutely correct Wilchbla. There have been many in my church labeled Ruckmanites because they hold to KJV only. We are also labeled legalists because our ladies dress modestly with dresses below the knee when seated, and we have been labeled a cult by Catholics and various others that don’t like the fact that we hold to everything written in the Bible. Did you know that the Mormons use the KJV as their Bible of choice? Perhaps soon we will be called Mormons as well.

From what I have witnessed, those that are not KJV only (and this includes Christian colleges) are not KJV only because they want the freedom to be able to water down scripture that goes against what they personally believe. I cannot count how many times I have heard “this is an unfortunate translation in the KJV and should really read this way”. It must be an onerous responsibility to have more knowledge, wisdom, and spiritual understanding than the 47 KJV translators that were the best society had to offer at the time in all of these attributes.

My belief that the KJV, KJB, King James Version, etc. is the purely preserved inspired word of God for the English language has nothing to do with Ruckman. I tried reading his “Church History” and could only get to chapter 7 before I had enough of Ruckman for a lifetime. I believe it is the purely preserved inspired word of God because God said He would preserve His word. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Here is a small (edited) portion of a cults curriculum I have been developing that I think clearly states my take on the preservation of the KJV.:

It is becoming increasingly prevalent today, even within Christian churches and colleges, to hear that the scriptures were only pure and inspired as written in the original manuscripts. Since that time error has crept in and there is no longer any truly error-free Bible available. Not surprisingly this is the position taken by every cult that claims any ties whatsoever to Jesus Christ and/or the God of the Bible. There is abundant evidence out there that proves this is not the case and that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the purely preserved word of God. I don’t have time to get into all the physical proof available that points to the KJV as God’s inspired word, so we will simply point to what God has to say about His word and let faith do the rest.

First let’s look at God’s promise to us that he will keep His word pure for us:

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

Here is God, giving us His word that He will keep His pure words preserved forever. These two verses alone should settle the matter for any true Christian. You either believe God is capable of preserving His word as promised, or you don’t.

As anyone that has been a Christian for any length of time knows, Jesus Christ Himself is identified in John 1:1 as The Word:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Note that not only was Jesus Christ the Word, but the Word was also “in the beginning”. So before anything else, the Word was already established. This can be seen in Genesis 3 where we see Eve discussing the Word with the serpent:

Genesis 3:1-3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Like so many today, Eve mistranslates the Word of God, but you can plainly see that the Word was in the beginning. We also see in Galatians that Abraham received the Word, and by faith in that Word was blessed:

Galatians 3:8-9
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

So if we are to be honest, the Word of God (even the gospel) was with us long before it was ever written in stone or any other medium, and as Psalms 12:7 states; it will be preserved forever.

As we saw in John 1:1 Jesus Christ IS the Word and it is His name that is set above all creation:

Philippians 2:9-11
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Every knee will bow at the name of Jesus Christ, and yet there is one thing that is even esteemed higher than the name of Jesus Christ: His Word.

Psalms 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

It would be hard to fathom a God that would not preserve that which He has set above His own Son. English is the international language of business and is the most common 2nd language for those in countries where it is not the primary. It is also the primary language of those countries that send out the most missionaries. It make sense that God would preserve His word in English...,and look how many revivals we would have missed out on without the KJV!

You are absolutely correct Wilchbla. There have been many in my church labeled Ruckmanites because they hold to KJV only. We are also labeled legalists because our ladies dress modestly with dresses below the knee when seated, and we have been labeled a cult by Catholics and various others that don’t like the fact that we hold to everything written in the Bible. Did you know that the Mormons use the KJV as their Bible of choice? Perhaps soon we will be called Mormons as well.

From what I have witnessed, those that are not KJV only (and this includes Christian colleges) are not KJV only because they want the freedom to be able to water down scripture that goes against what they personally believe. I cannot count how many times I have heard “this is an unfortunate translation in the KJV and should really read this way”. It must be an onerous responsibility to have more knowledge, wisdom, and spiritual understanding than the 47 KJV translators that were the best society had to offer at the time in all of these attributes.

My belief that the KJV, KJB, King James Version, etc. is the purely preserved inspired word of God for the English language has nothing to do with Ruckman. I tried reading his “Church History” and could only get to chapter 7 before I had enough of Ruckman for a lifetime. I believe it is the purely preserved inspired word of God because God said He would preserve His word. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Here is a small (edited) portion of a cults curriculum I have been developing that I think clearly states my take on the preservation of the KJV.:

It is becoming increasingly prevalent today, even within Christian churches and colleges, to hear that the scriptures were only pure and inspired as written in the original manuscripts. Since that time error has crept in and there is no longer any truly error-free Bible available. Not surprisingly this is the position taken by every cult that claims any ties whatsoever to Jesus Christ and/or the God of the Bible. There is abundant evidence out there that proves this is not the case and that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the purely preserved word of God. I don’t have time to get into all the physical proof available that points to the KJV as God’s inspired word, so we will simply point to what God has to say about His word and let faith do the rest.

First let’s look at God’s promise to us that he will keep His word pure for us:

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

Here is God, giving us His word that He will keep His pure words preserved forever. These two verses alone should settle the matter for any true Christian. You either believe God is capable of preserving His word as promised, or you don’t.

As anyone that has been a Christian for any length of time knows, Jesus Christ Himself is identified in John 1:1 as The Word:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Note that not only was Jesus Christ the Word, but the Word was also “in the beginning”. So before anything else, the Word was already established. This can be seen in Genesis 3 where we see Eve discussing the Word with the serpent:

Genesis 3:1-3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Like so many today, Eve mistranslates the Word of God, but you can plainly see that the Word was in the beginning. We also see in Galatians that Abraham received the Word, and by faith in that Word was blessed:

Galatians 3:8-9
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

So if we are to be honest, the Word of God (even the gospel) was with us long before it was ever written in stone or any other medium, and as Psalms 12:7 states; it will be preserved forever.

As we saw in John 1:1 Jesus Christ IS the Word and it is His name that is set above all creation:

Philippians 2:9-11
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Every knee will bow at the name of Jesus Christ, and yet there is one thing that is even esteemed higher than the name of Jesus Christ: His Word.

Psalms 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

It would be hard to fathom a God that would not preserve that which He has set above His own Son. English is the international language of business and is the most common 2nd language for those in countries where it is not the primary. It is also the primary language of those countries that send out the most missionaries. It make sense that God would preserve His word in English...,and look how many revivals we would have missed out on without the KJV!

You are absolutely correct Wilchbla. There have been many in my church labeled Ruckmanites because they hold to KJV only. We are also labeled legalists because our ladies dress modestly with dresses below the knee when seated, and we have been labeled a cult by Catholics and various others that don’t like the fact that we hold to everything written in the Bible. Did you know that the Mormons use the KJV as their Bible of choice? Perhaps soon we will be called Mormons as well.

From what I have witnessed, those that are not KJV only (and this includes Christian colleges) are not KJV only because they want the freedom to be able to water down scripture that goes against what they personally believe. I cannot count how many times I have heard “this is an unfortunate translation in the KJV and should really read this way”. It must be an onerous responsibility to have more knowledge, wisdom, and spiritual understanding than the 47 KJV translators that were the best society had to offer at the time in all of these attributes.

My belief that the KJV, KJB, King James Version, etc. is the purely preserved inspired word of God for the English language has nothing to do with Ruckman. I tried reading his “Church History” and could only get to chapter 7 before I had enough of Ruckman for a lifetime. I believe it is the purely preserved inspired word of God because God said He would preserve His word. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Here is a small (edited) portion of a cults curriculum I have been developing that I think clearly states my take on the preservation of the KJV.:

It is becoming increasingly prevalent today, even within Christian churches and colleges, to hear that the scriptures were only pure and inspired as written in the original manuscripts. Since that time error has crept in and there is no longer any truly error-free Bible available. Not surprisingly this is the position taken by every cult that claims any ties whatsoever to Jesus Christ and/or the God of the Bible. There is abundant evidence out there that proves this is not the case and that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the purely preserved word of God. I don’t have time to get into all the physical proof available that points to the KJV as God’s inspired word, so we will simply point to what God has to say about His word and let faith do the rest.

First let’s look at God’s promise to us that he will keep His word pure for us:

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

Here is God, giving us His word that He will keep His pure words preserved forever. These two verses alone should settle the matter for any true Christian. You either believe God is capable of preserving His word as promised, or you don’t.

As anyone that has been a Christian for any length of time knows, Jesus Christ Himself is identified in John 1:1 as The Word:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Note that not only was Jesus Christ the Word, but the Word was also “in the beginning”. So before anything else, the Word was already established. This can be seen in Genesis 3 where we see Eve discussing the Word with the serpent:

Genesis 3:1-3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Like so many today, Eve mistranslates the Word of God, but you can plainly see that the Word was in the beginning. We also see in Galatians that Abraham received the Word, and by faith in that Word was blessed:

Galatians 3:8-9
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

So if we are to be honest, the Word of God (even the gospel) was with us long before it was ever written in stone or any other medium, and as Psalms 12:7 states; it will be preserved forever.

As we saw in John 1:1 Jesus Christ IS the Word and it is His name that is set above all creation:

Philippians 2:9-11
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Every knee will bow at the name of Jesus Christ, and yet there is one thing that is even esteemed higher than the name of Jesus Christ: His Word.

Psalms 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

It would be hard to fathom a God that would not preserve that which He has set above His own Son. English is the international language of business and is the most common 2nd language for those in countries where it is not the primary. It is also the primary language of those countries that send out the most missionaries. It make sense that God would preserve His word in English...,and look how many revivals we would have missed out on without the KJV!

It seems the OP is letting her fear of one man's reputation decide what to believe about the KJV. This is not smart. This would be like letting our opinion about the deity of Christ be effected by the Pope. The Pope believes Jesus is the Son of God does that mean we shouldn't?

For those of you (like me) who don't like knowing that there are companies, ad networks, and social networks which track your every move on the web ...
...here's a neat web browser add-on that blocks them.

It can be added to Firefox, Chrome, IE, and Safari.

http://www.abine.com/dntdetail.php?

I wrote this a couple years ago when facing a few scriptural battles with some family members.

The Judgment Seat

Well God here I am, my life’s over you see,
It was living hell, but it mastered not me.
I’ve been through a lot on the world it is true.
So open the gates and I’ll just pass on through.

The trials that you faced were a test from above,
To see if you’d taste of the Saviors sweet love.
But anger you chose instead of salvation
And now you are sent to eternal damnation.

Greetings redeemer, I sure hope I am saved,
All the commandments I am sure I obeyed.
One special request if you would be so kind
Don’t let it be said I left my wealth behind.

Dear rich young ruler the message was free,
Cede all that you have and then come follow me.
You could not sever, the hold wealth had on you,
The Savior denied I can not let you through.

Baptized an infant, the sacraments not shirked.
I prayed to the saints, on the altar I worked.
All liturgical rites I have faithfully kept,
Please Holy Father, my admission accept.

I’m sorry poor soul, your toil was indeed true,
To all of those rites, and traditions you do.
One thing God asked, believe on the Savior,
That was not done, I can’t accept labor.

Lord I’m not worthy, to be in your presence,
I’ve nothing to offer, but humble repentance.
I’m just a sinner, by faith called a Christian,
Trusting the promise of total remission.

It brings me pleasure, to look into this book.
And find your true name, on this page where I look.
You have run the race, and have been proven true,
Come faithful servant, I’ve a mansion for you.

Isn't it a shame that some one is looked down upon for doing good?! Isaiah 5:20 warns us of such things, but to actually see it applied nothing short of amazing. How can doing good be bad. My mind can't go there.

In much of my experience it seems the lost believe that once you profess to be a Christian, all your sins and struggles magically disappear and you should be just like Christ. As soon as I stumble in any area they are very quick to say "See, that Christianity doesn't work", or "Christians are all just a bunch of hypocrites". I think the hardest person to win to Christ is someone from your own family. Luke 4:24.

Psalms 19:1
To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

I found it doubtful that this "christian" ever supported a Bible in her hands long enough to read it.

And if her church is gay friendly, it is most-likely not God friendly.

My son just got out of the Navy after 4 years active duty and one deployment to the Persian Gulf/Suez Canal/Mediterranean.

My son was going to be a lifer in the Navy as long as I can remember. He joined the Sea Cadets at 14 and attained the highest rank while in that program. This allowed him to enter the Navy as an E-3. He finished Boot Camp ranked 2nd over all out of 582 recruits. He then finished at the top of his class at Information Systems Technician school. This earned him an accelerated promotion to E-4. Once on board his ship his conduct and attitude earned him the ability to take the E-5 exam one cycle early. He scored in the 95 percentile and had made E-5 (Petty Officer 2nd Class) in just over two years. While aboard the ship he earned his Surface Warfare and Air Warfare Pins, qualified for every watch, and was awarded the Navy Achievement Medal for his involvement with Special Forces while deployed.

That's the good.

While doing all this he observed the true character of what the Navy had become. He worked with many females and what the Navy calls equality is far from equal. Suffice it to say it is the males that get all the heavy jobs. And it usually gets worse as the females advance in rank. He also said that as soon as they were underway on their 8 month deployment, almost everyone had a significant other they hooked up with to satisfy their needs; regardless if they were married or not.

When I was in the Navy (prior to women on combatants) we all had to live on the ship unless we were married. Today, everyone is given Bachelors Housing Allowance so they can live off the ship. My son was receiving $1200/month to live off ship. Multiply that times all the single people on sea duty and that is a hefty bill the taxpayer is footing. I guess the Navy figures it is better to pay that price than to suffer the embarrassment that all the fraternization on board the ships would cause if it ever leaked to the media.

Bottom line, after 3 years in the Navy my son went into loving, my son was completely disgusted with what the Navy had become. When sailors are getting processed out they have to go to a class called TAPS to help them prepare for civilian life. He said 95% of the class was white males on their first terms. He said only the lazy and incompetant have any desire to stay in. How sad is that?

He is now going to college on the GI Bill with no plans of ever returning to the Navy.