prophet1

Yes.... A friend and I would go out, equipped like this, all night every Sat. night, when we were young Bible College students. We worked midnights, so we had a hard time sleeping at night. To this day, I keep tge assistance package handy, and look for those in need. They are often ready to be harvested.

The original 1611 did include the Apocrypha, but it with a note that it was recommended reading rather than scripture.

I see a lot of criticism of Ruckman and Gail on here but no one giving first hand evidence as Steve mentioned. I don't care for Gail acting as a pastor at times and Ruckman's name calling but as for accusations of misquotes first hand examples should be given. Steve is correct, all men are liars. I have yet to meet someone have has never lied in their lifetime. Fundamentalism's biggest weakness is everyone flocking to their own leaders. For some it is David Cloud, for others it is Ruckman. For others still it may be Sword of the Lord leaders or some school they attended. We need to go back to the Bible. The Bible alone needs to be our sole authority.

Let's first clarify which "KJV Only" meaning you have in mind:
 
1: Ruckman-style, 'the Bible was never perfect or complete until presented in the KJV 1611 version, which is perfect, and actually better than the autographs, as well as being inspired as a version.' I am not of this mind. 
 
2: Preservation KJV only: The KJV is the preserved Bible, coming directly down in a perfect manner from the inspried autographs. We don't look to the 'originals' because they no longer exist, but we believe God preserved it exactly as He would have it. I hold to this position.
 
Why? As you said above, Jordan, one reason is the Wescott/Hort connection: a couple Anglicans who made plain that they didn't believe in the Bible, and held to many Roman Catholic doctrines, such as mariolatry.
 
As well, there is still many unanswered questions concerning Von Tischendorf's finding of the Sinaiticus, and whether it was even an authentic ancient manuscript. Despite the arguments from a man who claimed to have personally written the so-called Sinaiticus, there qas never any testing done to dispute this. As well, the copy was badly damaged and burned, though many of the burns look very neat and orderly, almost as if done on purpose, to look like it had been cast into a fire, as the story goes. AND there are numerous scribal errors and alterations, which as any scribe would know, should disqualify it as a 'good' text.
 
The Vaticanus manuscript, also supposedly 'discovered' by Von Tischendorf, was well-known by earlier translators and was rejected by them for its many deviations from the other extant manuscripts.   Yet, it was these two foundations of sand upon which W&H chose to build their Fawlty Towers of scripture.
 
That's a start for now.

Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?
 
I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.
 
I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).
 
on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.
 
What is your position and why do you hold to it?

There is not enough sediment on the ocean floor to support an old earth, neither is there enough dust on the moon to indicate an old universe.

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

I always go to JOB for this answer. JOB 19:25-27 25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: 27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me. This Edomite knew his Redeemer. He knew of a bodily resurrection. And he knew that Jesus wouldn't return for His own until after the Trib. JOB 14:12-14 12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. 13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! 14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.

That would be a Eu-neeKJOB.

You just made me miss Coach's green beans!

They are HQ'ed in Conn., so, the local boys set the pace...Pats, RedSox, Yanks, Etc.

If you live in fly over country, you have no friend in National Sports Media.

Ban NoNics for using a word that's above my pay grade...overtime or not.

Personally, I guess I have never thought of a rabbit as a pet, anymore than I would think of a deer, elk, bear, antelope. or even a cow as a pet.  It must be a Pacific Northwest thing. Rabbits are a source of food and fur only, in my mind.  Please forgive me if I have offended anyone who keeps rabbits or other traditionally "food" animals as pets.  I don't mean to imply that I want to eat your "Fluffy" or whatever you name your pet rabbit.   There is a reason God created rabbits with an extraordinary ability to reproduce on a massive scale like...well...rabbits.  
 
If someone owns a pot bellied pig for a pet, please forgive me for wanting some bacon right now for breakfast...
 
I guess I would make a lousy Jew since the "hare" was unclean...
 
Leviticus 11:6 (KJV)
6  And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 
 
Bro. Garry

The gospel was there for Israel to see in God's word; however, they stumbled over the stumblingstone (which some here sadly continue to do).
 
Romans 9:31-33
31   But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32   Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33   As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
 
John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
 
What scriptures was Christ referring to? The Old Testament of course.
 
Edited to add...
 
Luke 24:25-27
25   Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26   Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27   And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

I think you would be better to say "bruise" as the Bible does.
 
I personally think it is pretty clear -
Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.    It says "her seed"  Gal_4:4  But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,    That is pretty clear.   An injury to the heel is an inconvenience, but not a final injury.   Christ died on the cross, but He rose again. He was injured, but not in a "final" way.   But Satan will be injured in a "final" way. Rev 20:10  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.      The battle will be between the serpent and the seed of the woman. The Serpent will have a minor victory, but the seed of the woman will deal a blow of finality - a heel injury is an inconvenience, a head injury was then always a death sentence - and often is today even with all our medical advancement.   So what we have here is a promise that one would come to battle the serpent, and in that battle the One would be injured, but not fatally, and the Serpent would be fatally injured.  
If that is not about Messiah being cut off and then rising again from the dead, and then Satan being triumphed over by Messiah, then I just don't know what it is.......
 
Yes I point some people to Genesis 3:15 to show the Gospel - I certainly don't leave it there, but this is the first promise of Messiah. Eve did not know the details, but she knew the promise.

Saying that Genesis 3:15 is the Gospel doesn't pervert the Gospel. 

When one sees that the serpent indeed has been crushed by the seed of the woman, one can see that man did indeed hear the Gospel in the garden of Eden.

I tell them it was crushed.

It has always been, and will be to the end of the 1,000 years, the same Gospel.


Rom 4:3-5
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


Psa 32:1-2
1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Rom 4:22-25
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Act 16:31
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

It has always been, and will be to the end of the 1,000 years, the same Gospel.


Rom 4:3-5
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


Psa 32:1-2
1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Rom 4:22-25
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Act 16:31
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

The six-day creation did not start at Genesis 1:3... it started at Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The beginning of what?  Not the beginning of eternity?  Eternity has no beginning, nor does it have a ending. 

So Heaven and Earth had a beginning that did not start in eternity.

I submit that the beginning referred to in Genesis 1:1 was the beginning of time... the first day.

Every time I try to contemplate eternity or the Trinity, I blow a brain circuit.

Time?  Time is something that does not effect God at all.  God was before time and is after time.  Time is a human experience.  God lives in eternity . . . . no beginning no end.  How can such an idea be measured by us?
 It cannot.  Everlasting is a word that will never be fully understood by me or anyone else until we experience it (and then not from it's beginning but it's forever more) in heaven.
 
Wow, I better get off this subject before I sound completely nuts.  How is it really possible to discuss things that have never been experienced without sounding irrational?
Sorry I tried to answer the question . . . . 

In Addition to Prophets, remarks above,  the word "about" is key in understanding that the one seeing the revelation, a man, is the attributing or guessing a time to how long he experienced the silence.  This does not mean heaven us under any type of time quantum (measurements).  Time only works here on this planet.  Even the scientist and sci-fi writers know that.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. JOB 38:4
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? JOB 38:7
 
God is not one who "has a lot of time" to accomplish his plans.  God dwells in eternity.  God created the space-time continuum.
 
In Rev., John is describing things from HIS perspective, using the best language he can to describe events.
 
Unless the desire is simply to be contentious (Pro 26:21, Rom 2:8),
these concepts are easy to understand by the simplest of minds.