Jump to content


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fmcsimmons

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday November 28

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,566 profile views
  1. Unqualified "yes" to all except the following which I will expound on in more depth. I would agree with the following explanation. There is no single underlying "original text" on which the AV is translated from. Rather, the AV takes reading from an eclectic mix of sources and is thus a perfect culmination of God's words for us today in English. This is evidenced by its unparalleled usage by God in history among other things. Therefore it is superior to any other text in any other language. If you believe that the AV can be corrected from some Hebrew or Greek text today, you have no reason to be fooling around with the AV in the first place. Why settle for second best? Dictionaries can be helpful but typically the context will define the usage of a word in Scripture. As with all literature, the author is the final authority as to the interpretation. The author of Holy Writ, the Lord God, is the final and authoritative interpreter of his words. How blessed it is to have the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. This should be strived for in all manners of communication(1Pe 4:11). That being said, certain common theological terms (trinity for example) are not present in Holy Scripture although their basis is derived therefrom.
  2. Okay. Just curious, why did you post if you didn't want anybody to discus the tithe being necessary?
  3. I disagree completely. The tithe is not mentioned once in the NT with church age Christians in mind. Furthermore we have positive Scriptural support that we are to give out of thanksgiving and from a heartfelt desire, not out of fear of retribution or fear of the law. This Scriptural support makes it clear without any reasonable doubt that the tithe is not a biblical mandate to church age Christians. I do not believe this is an area of uncertainty.
  4. Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek was not commanded or even asked. Not to mention, Abraham was circumcised before the law too. Everything we have belongs to God. Not just some percentage or our first fruits. Again, if you want to use the tithe as your example, that's fine. But to teach it as a mandate or as doctrine in this dispensation is incorrect.
  5. There is no scriptural mandate for the church age Christian to tithe. There is no percentage guideline given. 2 Corinthians 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. If one wishes to use the OT tithe as an example or a reference that's their prerogative, but to teach that a set percentage is mandated for the Christian today is to yank them under the curse of the Mosaic law. Those who do so must wrest the Scriptures. A classic case of "wrongly dividing".
  6. There are others. John 8:6 for example. The "as though he heard them not" is not found in Beza's editions, although it is found in the first two editions of the Stephanus and various other Greek manuscripts. The AV follows the Bishop's Bible here. In a modern AV printing the reading is in italics although it is not so in the original printing. Again, there are other examples if you want them. The plain fact is that the AV is not simply a literal word for word translation of some edition of the TR. It takes readings from numerous sources, although chiefly it is based on the Beza's later editions of the NT. It is best viewed as a purified English text, an "independent variety of the Textus Receptus" as Edward Hills says. It is the final and perfect revision of the work started by Tyndale.
  7. This is basically correct. The difference between the various editions of the TR are minor. However, the AV sometimes departs from the TR in favor of readings from the Vulgate, the Bishop's Bible, The Great Bible etc. For example, in Luke 23:42 the TR reads "Lord, remember me when Thou comest IN Thy kingdom" while the AV and previous English bibles contain the Vulgate reading of "Lord, remember me when Thou comest INTO Thy kingdom". There are other examples as well. We therefore see that the AV is not a direct translation of any edition of the TR. It drew off of other sources frequently. Therefore to hold that the AV is simply a accurate translation of the "pure TR" is a faulty position. What do we do with these differences? My answer is simple, I trust the text God has used for 400 years above all others and disregard the others where they differ.
  8. The issue is you can't run to an edition of the TR and say well this disagrees with the AV so the AV is wrong. The AV is not a direct translation of any one edition of the TR and it shouldn't be viewed that way.
  9. In his book, The King James Version Defended, Edward Hills writes: As I stated before, there is no single text from which we can say the King James was translated. Therefore we can't go to a single text and use it to correct the AV because it differs. What we have is an English received text that has been used by God for 400 years. I trust completely in His ability to give me the words he wants me to have. Therefore when a text differs with the AV readings, I can safely rest assured that what the English says is correct and the others are in error.
  10. Good question. Apart from the fact that the AV text is in the modern universal language of the end times there are other reasons why it is superior to all other texts. It is important to realize that the AV is not a direct translation of one greek/hebrew text. There are areas in which they drew from other translations, even the Vulgate and the Rheims NT. We can't therefore hold to the superiority of Beza's Greek text (which was their chief source) because the AV contains readings that are not found in that text. There exists no single critical text from which the translators drew from. The underlying text of the AV is eclectic.
  11. Once again, this simply is not his or my position. You have yet to substantiate these claims but keep repeating them over and over. Yes I do identify as a Ruckmanite in order to remove it as a pejoritive insult from people who oppose the absolute perfection of the AV. Let me make my position on the Bible very clear: I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God. It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all. I do not believe that the Bible was somehow "lost" and was therefore re-inspired by the AV translators. I don't know of anybody who does believe that. Where did God promise to preserve his word in the original languages only? By God's seal of approval I mean his clear and unmistakable usage of the AV above all other competing texts. It is also evident that since the advent of the modern-version movement there has been a near universal apostasy in the English speaking world. One needs look only at the sorry state of "Christianity" in America today to see the fruit of rejecting the God-honored text that came out of the protestant reformation. Look, if you don't like Dr. Ruckman that's fine. We all have preachers we favor or don't enjoy much. That being said, it is wrong of you to mischaracterize his position and label it as "heresy". If believing the Bible that God has provided me as the perfect word of God is heresy, you can count me as a heretic.
  12. Could you provide them? Your claim that he believes the Bible lost inspiration still remains unsubstantiated. Nobody does have the originals today. We can either attempt to hazard a guess at what the originals said by examining the extant manuscripts or we can trust the text God has placed his providential seal of approval on, the English text of 1611. I agree with both statements. Neither state that the Bible ever lost inspiration.
  13. The AV text is scripture and is therefore given by inspiration. ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration. The verse is certainly not referring to original manuscripts only. It does not follow that Ruckman believes the Bible lost inspiration at any point.
  14. I have read the majority of Ruckman's (quite voluminous) writings and never once have I seen him say that the Bible lost inspiration. I have a pretty good grasp on Dr. Ruckman's teachings and beliefs. Do you have any quote or reference proving the accusation that he teaches the Bible lost its inspiration?
  15. Could you please provide documented evidence showing that Dr. Ruckman teaches that the Bible lost inspiration and was therefore reinspired in 1611?

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

  • Create New...