eswarden

I don't see why it isn't....When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray he didn't stop and say, "Bow your heads and close your eyes." He just started giving an example of a prayer. He give an example of the publican who was praying for forgiveness/salvation, and he appears according to scriptures to have his head facing down begging for mercy. There was the account of the prophet who was "competing" against the prophets of baal to see whose god would send down fire. He was looking and raising hands towards heaven. There are varying ways to pray. I don't see any set way for people to pray outside of the example of the prayer Jesus gave.

This short but powerful message of Alan's sums up his life's mission. He lived it to the very end for the Glory of God. 
Another classic sermon of his was about heaven and the New Jerusalem. He loved the topic and now he is living it. 
These two messages from Alan will be a blessing to hear. Though he is gone we will meet him again!

Its a good topic and one I would probably follow but not one that I would be dogmatic about or really contribute a lot to as being commanded or not commanded or necessary or not necessary. As the command to take the oversight and to "feed the flock" are exceedingly broad and general but direct and encompassing a lot of things that would not necessarily be covered in detail but would make something not mentioned directly necessary as needed for the well-being of that particular flock.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1 Peter 5:1-4 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

Ok then..... I will go first.
2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
A Pastor should teach faithful men to teach men.
This is of course referring to the things of doctrine and salvation.
Could we refer to this as "discipleship".
A pastor should disciple men to be faithful teachers of God's Word.
 

.

I do not consider the KJV an "issue" at all unless my individual church decides to use something else in place of it. It only becomes an "issue" among those of "like faith and order" when they look outside of each local church and see other versions being used.
I also take exception to the idea that IFB is a "movement". Each local assembly is Independent, therefore cannot be considered a "movement." "Movements" come about when God's people look outside of their local assemblies and follow men because of their "strong personalities."
Once God's people start down this road it is only a small step in the direction of conventions and associations. The word "Independent" means exactly what is says, independent from any outside influence or control. Once we depart from this simple definition we are setting ourselves up for problems. Scripture records that the churches we read about in the Bible were independent; this is not a name, it is a definition that denotes the stand each church takes for the truth regarding any outside control.

The  Nestle Aland or whatever it's called today is based on the fraudulent Textus Sinaiticus.  This was created by Tischendorf in the 1840s.  The ink it was written on has been dated to that timeframe even.  The LXX Septuagint was also created out of thin air and is a fraud.  It's only proof for existence is a letter and that too is bogus.
 
So, I use the King James Bible today because it is God's preserved Word in the English language and is inerrant and perfect in every way.  Everything else is is either based on the lies of the Sinaiticus/Latin Vulgate or was lacking perfection like the Geneva bible.      

The NKJV was sort of a hybrid bible. The original intent was to update the KJV and to show the N-A variations but several areas they directly changed the reading to reflect the N-A preferred reading rater then sticking with just updating the passage. Also the biggest issue with the NKJV is not the text but rather the N-A marginal notes. Everywhere the KJV differs from the preferred N-A reading they placed a note indicating what the the "better translation" was or where they think a scribe added a verse they would say "this verse does not appear in the best manuscripts", or etc. The manuscripts they claim are better are ones ignored by the TR composers and the KJV Translators because those manuscripts were of questionable origin and authenticity.

Interesting.
In the original post of this thread, there was a section which indicated, based upon a specific portion of Scripture (2 John 1:10-11), that there WOULD be at least one doctrinal realm wherein a firm confrontation might be appropriate.  That portion of the original post was as follows:
Even so, in my posting above I indicated, based upon another portion of Scripture (Galatians 1:6-9), that there was another doctrinal realm wherein a firm confrontation might seem to be appropriate.  My posting was as follows:
In this posting I quoted a portion of Scripture, and I asked a series of questions.  I made NO accusations.  I specified NO person's name.  I made NO snide remarks.  I employed NO "name-calling." 
Yet that posting, containing ONLY a portion of Scripture and series of questions, seems to have created offense and to have moved someone to feel that I was being unkind and unloving.
I say again - Interesting.

I thought there might be some members who might find value in a few Bible reading plans.  There is a 30 day, a 60 day, a chronological and an unscheduled checklist. They are in PDF format and I have attached them to this post.  I hope they are as helpful to others here as they have been to me. 
30 Day Reading Plan.pdf
60 Day Reading Plan.pdf
Chronological Reading Plan.pdf
Unscheduled Reading Checklist.pdf

I do not know of a book that addresses that particular side of the subject, nor will I be able to give the exhaustive answer that you need. But I do know that leading up to the time that King James commissioned the translation, England had been in a long, slow state of knitting together into one from several different cultures and languages. From Danish, Saxon, Norman, Gaelic (both Scottish and Irish) Latin and others, the English language had finally evolved over several centuries into a unique language, and these disparagent cultures themselves had become English. Remember, King James himself came from Scotland, and his own political reason for commissioning the translation was in part to use the common language to help bind the English people into one common entity.
The translations before the King James version were translations into a still-fluid, still-evolving, not-quite-yet-gelled language. Does that make them inferior? Not in my opinion. Not for their time. Does it make them inferior for today? Yes, again, in my opinion. A fully evolved language needed a fully evolved translation. When the time was right, God gave us what was perfect for us, what we were ready for.
How does that relate to today? The English language has de-volved over the years since that time, and any Bible translation that is translated into an inferior language will produce an inferior Bible.
That's just my simple, not-intellectual understanding and explanation of the question at hand. I'm sure that there are others on here that are much more studied on the subject than I am.

This has got to be one of the simplest yet informative responses on this subject I have ever heard! Thank you Dave for giving this for those of us who sometimes struggle to say what we're thinking or explain what we know. God bless you for your ability and willingness to expound in an understandable way without using big words.

They are two different objects.
One being the source of the other.
The Word, (the Lord Jesus), is the "word" in physical form - while the "word" is the Word (the Lord Jesus) in verbal form.
That's why we call the scriptures the word of God, because they are from God, whose name, in human form, is Jesus Christ.
God's word (the Bible) and God's Word (the Lord Jesus).

This has got to be one of the simplest yet informative responses on this subject I have ever heard! Thank you Dave for giving this for those of us who sometimes struggle to say what we're thinking or explain what we know. God bless you for your ability and willingness to expound in an understandable way without using big words.

This has got to be one of the simplest yet informative responses on this subject I have ever heard! Thank you Dave for giving this for those of us who sometimes struggle to say what we're thinking or explain what we know. God bless you for your ability and willingness to expound in an understandable way without using big words.

Well, I now find myself in the place of a difficulty.  Brother Kurecki, a personal friend of mine, has requested that I might engage in the discussion of this thread.  However, throughout my few years as a member of the forum, I have carefully chosen to avoid a heated engagement over the matter of referencing the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Greek and Hebrew.  On various occasions I have made it clear that I am quite willing to engage in a consideration of that Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Greek and Hebrew when another member chooses that path of discussion.  However, I have carefully sought not to engage in a heated discussion over the matter.  Furthermore, when I am requested by another member to discuss a Biblical issue without any reference unto the Greek or Hebrew, or when I am dealing with an individual whom I have become aware is quite adverse to any reference unto the Greek or Hebrew, I seek to discuss the Biblical issue under discussion strictly through a precise and thorough handling of the English grammar and context (although I have found that many do not much care for this approach either). 
Now then, with all of that preface, I will simply state at this point in this discussion -- I myself stand in agreement with Brother Kurecki that referencing the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Greek and Hebrew can be quite helpful in Bible study.  However, I will also acknowledge that an understanding and reference unto the Greek or Hebrew is not at all a necessity for sound Bible study, since a precise and thorough handling of the English grammar and context (under the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit) is very sufficient.
Finally, if an individual desires to confront my position, I am willing to defend it more forcefully (as, I dare to say, most are likely already to know about me).

This has got to be one of the simplest yet informative responses on this subject I have ever heard! Thank you Dave for giving this for those of us who sometimes struggle to say what we're thinking or explain what we know. God bless you for your ability and willingness to expound in an understandable way without using big words.

I agree there are times it is good to go back and look into the original languages. Clearly, there are no 'original texts' we can reliably look into, else it would be worth it even more. But, since the Hebrew part of scripture is of the Masoretic text and I believe there are some of them, (though I would have to study into that) AND we have texts that are over 2000 years old in the Dead Sea Scrolls, at least we have some things pretty reliable and of certain antiquity into which we might enquire. Of course, being always very careful that it doesn't change what we know. It is good for clarification-but many try to use it to change or question what is clear.

I think it is simply to differentiate between the living Word of God and the written word of God, the former being a person, the latter being a book.
Think of it this way - they could not leave the (person of the) Word of God even if they wanted to, but they were being forced to leave the ministry of the study of the (written) word of God by the necessity of the physical ministering required.
The translators wanted to leave the reader in no doubt of this matter and made a difference of notation.
There is no question that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God, but as you sit in church with a Bible in your hands you do not consider it to be the physical presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in that actual book, do you?
Hope this helps.

​The Lord deals with His people according to His perfect wisdom and timing. I was a follower of Christ for nearly a decade before the Lord brought the matter of a Bible version to my attention. One day, as clear as can be, the Holy Ghost directed me to the KJB, and I wasn't even considering the matter at the time. Even so, the direction was so clear I got a KJB and the Word opened to me like never before and I've used the KJB ever since.
I know some fine men of God who use other Bible versions, some of which I find so watered down and/or hard to understand it's amazing to me they can walk with God so closely using them. All things are possible with God! The Bible they use is, ultimately, between them and God. I'll share with them how the Lord directed me. I'll share with them some of the ways I've found the KJB to be superior to the NIV (or whatever version they use). I'll show them resources or share web links on the subject. At that point, it's still between them and God. I certainly won't dismiss them as unbelievers when they exhibit the fruits of salvation.
The Bible one reads from doesn't prove, or make, them a true or false believer. Just as there are many true believers who don't use the KJB, there are also many false believers who do use the KJB. Our salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone.

There are certainly interesting things to read in the apocryphal books, but except in the Catholic church, no one has ever considered them as canon or trustworthy. They certainly add strange doctrines, as well as some areas that are blatantly in opposition to Bible doctrine.
As I understand, the book of Judith is about a prophet during the time of Jeremiah, who is supposedly given direction from God to tell the people that they are to stand and fight the invading Babylonian armies, while we know that Jeremiah told them to stand down and surrender and accept God's discipline, and He would protect them and the land and the temple, and bring them back. So Judith was telling them just the opposite of what Jeremiah was telling them. One is wrong.
 
So they are interesting, but dubious, at best, outright false at worse.

I have been following this whole thread from beginning to end. I have refrained from posting numerous times simply because my thoughts and convictions stray from Jordan’s original question.
 
But now, after much prayer and thought, I feel I must post the burden that The Lord has laid on my heart.
 
This thread has drifted from the original topic to posts about who follows who; why others are wrong; (Riplinger, Ruckman) and others. And I just keep coming back to the “why” of it all. Let me lay it out plainly since what I have said so far is OBscure.
 
I guess this will come in the form of questions. Why do so many feel the need to read after men or women that they don’t know personally, or who have ministries outside of their own church?
 
Are your churches so weak that you are not being fed proper spiritual food? The local church is, or should be, the place where we are fed, where we grow in Grace and love toward our God and our brethren. There is no substitute for the local church.
 
Paul says this about the local church: 1Tim. 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. If we believe God’s inspired Word why do some feel the need to seek it elsewhere? If our churches are what they should be, why waste our time and resources elsewhere?
 
2Thes. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
 
Now I know that someone will say that they are just defending the KJV. But this issue goes far beyond this concept. There are false teachers and preachers world wide, does that mean we have to address each one? I think not! 2Tim. 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprOBate concerning the faith.
 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. Simply put; God is able!
 
I am not saying that these things should not be addressed; they certainly should be as they pertain to our own churches. But why go outside to look for windmills to tilt at? Do we who comprise a local Church of the Living God not have enough to do to keep ourselves pure; preach the Gospel; teach our own people; visit the sick; study; pray?
 
Brothers and sisters, I will end by encouraging each one to fully support your local church by your attendance, prayers and care one for another. Rebuke false teaching in your midst, but don’t get all caught up in the errors of others. It is not profitable. The local church needs you and all of your heart, mind and soul.
 
God bless you as you serve Him.

Jordan,
You seem to be confusing the issue and missing the point.
The point I am making (and the source of the quotes from Dr. Ruckman) is not an anti-intellectual position, per se.  The point is that the "scholars" tell us that we simply cannot understand the depths of Scripture without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.   This is summarily false.  Many Greek and Hebrew "experts" hold to false doctrine.  Most miss important doctrinal points because they are so infatuated with the Greek and Hebrew "nuances" that they miss plain, OBvious things staring them right in the face.
So far as Dr. Ruckman's "advanced revelations" are concerned, the point again that these great intellectual "scholars" overlook the OBvious GREAT truth right in front of them to point out some irrelevant little "nuance" from the Greek or Hebrew.  these little "nuances" add ZERO to the Christian's daily walk with the Lord.
 
(BTW - the phrase "advanced revelation" is a tongue-in-cheek expression used to mock these bloated, egotistical "scholars.")
 
In addition, some of the "advanced revelation" in the KJV has to do with the specific wording of the KJV, the chapter and verse numbering, and the order of the books.  When you do a word study in the KJV you will find some amazing doctrinal points that you can not find in the Greek or Hebrew, because the Greek or Hebrew might use 3 or 4 words for that one English word. 
 
Again - missing the OBvious, overstating the insignificant.  There is not one major Bible truth these "scholars" have found that cannot be found in the English KJV without the aid of any Greek or Hebrew.  The Biblical phrase is "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."
 
So what is Dr. Ruckman driving at when he makes these statements?  The "scholars" are a fraud, boasting about their intellectual abilities, and trying to get the Bible student to rely on education instead of the Holy Spirit.  NOBody that God called in the Bible talks like the "scholars" talk.  They believed what they HAD IN THEIR HANDS to be the infallible authority.  God called commercial fisherman and shepherds, and every once in a while, he would get an educated man.  He calls men from all walks of life REGARDLESS of how much formal education they have.  The right attitude toward the word of God is what is important - see Isa. 66:1-2.
 
I am not against education.  I am not against learning Greek and/or Hebrew.  In fact, these are required courses at Dr. Ruckman's school - and we don't even learn from the TR - we learn from the CT so that we can understand how to use the Critical Apparatus (Nestles or the UBS4).  We were taught this so that when we come across a Bible corrector, WE CAN CHECK THEM OUT, and ultimately prove them WRONG from their own sources (something I have done many times!)
 
Riplinger:  I think she has a lot of good ideas and material, but I also think she pushes some of her ideas a little bit too far.  Her book In Awe of Thy Word has 700 pages of historical background with some amazing material in it.  She is a linguist by trade, so some of her material on the linguistics of the KJV are insightful.  I simply do not believe all of the attacks on her scholarship and credentials.  The books I have read from her have been very interesting, insightful and helpful of my understanding of the issue.  GOOD FRUIT (Mt. 7).  I have not found anything that she has written to violate any portion of Scripture at all.
 
I would not believe all of the negative press on either one of these individuals.  Anyone who stands up for God's word will be viciously attacked and maligned.  Br. Cloud often is, though for different reasons that Ruckman or Riplinger are.  The bottom line is that all three of them take a strong stand for God's word, and they are hated and vilified for it.  The test Jesus Christ gave us for determing a true prophet from a false prophet is found in Matthew 7 - "by their fruits ye shall know them." 
Of course, there are some bad apples that associate themselves with Dr. Ruckman, but anyone with any sense could see that these bad apples are just that.  However, these bad apples may not be representative of the GOOD fruit Dr. Ruckman has produced.  He has seen countless souls saved in his many years in the ministry, countless backsliders reclaimed, and has trained many good men for the ministry who are still out in the ministry.  Some of these guys are averaging over one soul a day saved on their respective missionary fields.  They are good men who love the Lord, win souls, and pastor churches.  Dr. Ruckman's desire for the Christian is that they spend time in daily fellowship with the Lord and have rewards for their service at the Judgment Seat of Christ. 
 
If you really want to see the heart of Dr. Ruckman, then you should invest some time and money getting some of his preaching.  He does not preach on the KJV all the time - in fact, very rarely.  His preaching centers on salvation, service, judgment for saved and lost, and prophecy.   I would be happy to send you some samples if you want.  Just send me your mailing address in a PM. 
 
Again, this is why I say that 2 or 3 random quotes do not properly reflect the true nature of the ministry God has given Dr. Ruckman.  I sat under that ministry and saw it first hand for 4 years. 

I appreciate the fine word exposition in support of the KJV. The KJV translators did a par excellence job of translating. Even the words which some folks consider out of date in the KJV is better than any version of the scriptures since the corrupt RV of 1881. There is no version of the scriptures in the English language that even comes close to the exactness of the Hebrew and Greek meanings than the KJV. 

Wellllll...another one bites the dust.
I was listening to one of the few preachers that I listen to when I listen to preachers that I like to listen to...AND...then he went and just had to say it...
The word "superstitious" is a poor translation in Acts 17:22. It actually means "religious".
I thought, "Great, there goes another one. My listening choices are getting thinner."
When are folks ever going to learn that you can't always apply a modern definition to a word that was penned in the 1600's?
Here's the verse...
Acts 17:22
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
Now, if you remember, these men of Athens...just to make sure they had all the god-bases covered...made an altar "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD". That's pretty extreme, isn't it? Just in case there's a god somewhere that we've missed...LET'S MAKE AN ALTAR FOR HIM TOO! Why...I'd almost call that religious extremism...religious zealotry...etc...
Okay...so today, we have our own idea of what "superstitious" means...right? Perhaps that definition could shortly be summarized as being akin to believing in something not based on reason or rational knowledge. Now, a lost atheist would definitely use today's definition in terms of belief in God...but this was Paul speaking...not a lost Atheist. 
So...what exactly did "superstitious" mean? In other words...what did "superstitious" mean in the 1600's? Let's have a look-see...from Robert Cawdrey's "A Table Alphabetical" of 1604...
superstitious, feareful in matters of religion without cause, one giuen to false and vaine religion 
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/cawdrey/cawdrey0.html#s
Hmmm...looks like the KJB translators nailed it to me...
By the way...look at one of the modern-day definitions of "superstitious"...
adjective
1.  of the nature of, characterized by, or proceeding from superstition : superstitious fears.
2.  pertaining to or connected with superstition : superstitious legends.
3.  believing in, full of, or influenced by superstition.
Oh great...to find it, now we have to look up the meaning of superstition...
noun
1.  a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence,proceeding, or the like.
2.  a system or collection of such beliefs.
3.  a custom or act based on such a belief.
4.  irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.
5.  any blindly accepted belief or notion.
Yep...the KJB translators nailed it. : )