Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Dorightchristians - King James Onlyism Before Peter Ruckman


Dr James Ach

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Dr. Elisha Weismann Contrary to critics like James White, Rick Norris, Fred Butler, JD Hall, Doug Cutelick, and all modern professional liars, the King James Only view did not begin with Peter Ruckman, Ruckman was merely instrumental in causing professing Baptists to quit riding the fence on the issue. Thomas Morris posted the following quote […]b.gif?host=dorightchristians.wordpress.c

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

From the article:  … the Authorized Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611…our English translation is even better than the original Hebrew and Greek. There is only one way to explain this…I am confident that the Authorized Version was inspired.  

 

Is this what is known as secondary inspiration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What a seriously flawed statement. In order for our English Bible to be "better than the original Hebrew and Greek" that would mean somehow the originals God directly inspired were inferior.

 

There are some who lift the KJB up to the point of an idol with their false ideas and over exalting of it somehow rising above the original, directly, divinely inspired Scripture.

 

I believe the KJB is the true Word of God as were the originals and the faithful copies which followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I was KJB before Ruckman became known outside his home area.  It's been the Bible I used since childhood (except for one year in school: the teacher gave us all Good News for Modern Man.  We called it Bad News for Modern Apes - hated it) and still use today.  And I didn't need a man (who doesn't belong in the pulpit, IMO) to tell me so.  :wink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've been KJB since the Holy Ghost "told me" to use the KJB. It wasn't until after that before I ever even heard of anyone being KJO. It wasn't until I joined this board that I ever heard of Ruckman.

 

I don't like any of the paraphrase "Bibles" (which I don't really consider to be actual Bibles because they are some man's idea of taking God's Word and then putting His Word into the man's own choice of wording as if he could do a better jOB than God! All the while, these paraphrases which are not backed by any scholarship or peer review for accuracy, are tainted and sometimes outright tarnished with the leanings and preferences of how the paraphraser would like things to read.

 

I've never been able to understand why the NIV ever became so popular. That's one of the worst versions I've encountered. I've read books or articles where the author uses the NIV and I will read the passage from the NIV in the book and then go "huh?". Then I look it up in my KJB to find out what the verse or passage actually says and means.

 

I'm thankful God Himself directed me to the KJB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was KJB before Ruckman became known outside his home area.  It's been the Bible I used since childhood (except for one year in school: the teacher gave us all Good News for Modern Man.  We called it Bad News for Modern Apes - hated it) and still use today.  And I didn't need a man (who doesn't belong in the pulpit, IMO) to tell me so.  :wink

 

HC, is this because of Ruckman's many marriages.  Some of them after he was saved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

From the article:  … the Authorized Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611…our English translation is even better than the original Hebrew and Greek. There is only one way to explain this…I am confident that the Authorized Version was inspired.  
 
Is this what is known as secondary inspiration?


Hence, this is the prOBlem u have with these people who feel that the 1611 is better than the originals. It puts the translation as an idol and people worship it, rather than God our Savior.
Saw this on another forum;
apparently the KJV agrees with the Watch Tower Society

John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. KJV

John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. NIV

John 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. ESV

John 14:14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. NASB

John 14:14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. HCSB


you notice what is missing in the KJV?

All translations have their issues
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Hence, this is the prOBlem u have with these people who feel that the 1611 is better than the originals. It puts the translation as an idol and people worship it, rather than God our Savior.
Saw this on another forum;
apparently the KJV agrees with the Watch Tower Society

John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. KJV

John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. NIV

John 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. ESV

John 14:14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. NASB

John 14:14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. HCSB


you notice what is missing in the KJV?

All translations have their issues

Heh. I would say that the Watch Tower Society agrees with the KJB, not the other way around...especially since the KJB came first.  :clapping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Heh. I would say that the Watch Tower Society agrees with the KJB, not the other way around...especially since the KJB came first.  :clapping:


Luanne, seriously, do you see the mistake in the KJV compared ti the other translations? I'll let you look at it before I point it out
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Luanne, seriously, do you see the mistake in the KJV compared ti the other translations? I'll let you look at it before I point it out

I presume that you are prOBably referencing the fact that "me" isn't in there.  If so, I don't accept that it's a mistake.  Reading the context plainly points out whom we are to ask...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I presume that you are prOBably referencing the fact that "me" isn't in there.  If so, I don't accept that it's a mistake.  Reading the context plainly points out whom we are to ask...

but you can say that when we pray to God and not Jesus, that God will hear us, Rather that we do pray to Jesus in Heaven and Jesus will answer. It more proves Christ's divinity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...