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

...and one more thing while I'm thinking about it...

 

All of this hoopla about "copies, copies, copies". What of it? God promised to preserve his word...and he did it through copies. It would be kind of hard for me, as an American, to have to go to Israel (or wherever) so that I could see God's word in the ONE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT! After all, that's the only one we could trust...we sure can't trust that an all-powerful God...who can't lie...would do what he said...and preserve his word and make it available to all.

 

Sorry for the sarcasm, but this gripe about "all we have are copies" doesn't hold water when you compare it to what an omnipotent God can do.

 

Okay...I'm finished now. 

Yes, God forbid that He would actually COMMAND that copies be made: Deut 17:18:

" And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites"

 

How dare God to expect kings and judges to follow laws from a COPY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Now for Jeffrey, I'll ask you the same questions that James White keeps dodging about the Codex Sinaiticus:

1. If the correctors of Aleph are supposed to be 4th - 5th century, then explain how a 12th century Islamic prophecy is written in Arabic in the folio of Revelation chapter 7-8 in the footnote?

 

2. If the correctors of Aleph are 4th & 5th century, explain how 9th century miniscules were used in corrections (such as the uncial 'betas' used in Mark 2). Kind of hard to ascribe correctors to the 5th century when there is evidence of styles that were not in use until 400 years later.

 

3. Defend James White's assumption that Aleph was "in much usage" by the earlier churches when there are numerous folios that are written on pure white parchment (and free of any lemon or other whitening process). 

 

I have about 20 more anomalies I could list, but those 3 are smoking guns against the Sinaiticus that James White has refused to answer from us for at least a year now. Why? Because the life of all your modern versions and the veracity of their textual criticism apparatus DEPENDS ON CODEX SINAITICUS, and if just one card falls out, the whole house of Sinaiticus crumbles.

 

And what's funny about James White is that he recently criticized a person for failing to show up on his radio show to debate Molinism (He's also made fun of Ergun Caner for failing to appear for a debate with him). However, White does not hold Constantine Tischendorf (the alleged founder of the Sinaiticus) to the same standard when Tishy failed to show up for a debate with Constantine Simonides who claimed authorship of the document that Tishy was trying to pass off as the oldest mss known to Christendom. Tishy had already once before accused Simonides of fraud when Simonides claimed to have a Greek copy of the Shepherd of Hermes (which ironically was included in Tishy first edition of his Russian copy of the Sinaiticus) and then had to retract his statements and apologize to Simonides. When Simonides publicly challenged Tishy in all of the local media outlets, Tischendorf was a no-show on the day of the debate.

 

By the way, James White in his book on the KJVO Controversy had initially agreed with the commonly held story that Tischendorf found the Sinaiticus in a 'trash can'. It was not until later when this story was challenged that White altered his story to it being found bound in a red cloth carefully guarded by the monks at St. Catherine's. White is a professional liar that his boot licking followers don't pay attention to when he changes his stories.

 

And for the rest of you, pay attention to what the subject was about. It wasn't about Peter Ruckman but about the oft made claims by KJV haters that the KJVO position was started by Ruckman giving the impression that defense of the KJV is some new phenomena.  The quote is simply posted to show that defense of the KJV preceded Peter Ruckman by a long shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

 

 

And for the rest of you, pay attention to what the subject was about. It wasn't about Peter Ruckman but about the oft made claims by KJV haters that the KJVO position was started by Ruckman giving the impression that defense of the KJV is some new phenomena.  The quote is simply posted to show that defense of the KJV preceded Peter Ruckman by a long shot.

Thank you but we don't need a lecture about paying attention.  Believe it or not, we can all read.  Words back atcha: pay attention to the fact that Ruckman was only discussed for a short time in the thread.  Any part of a post is free game for discussion on a discussion board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you but we don't need a lecture about paying attention.  Believe it or not, we can all read.  Words back atcha: pay attention to the fact that Ruckman was only discussed for a short time in the thread.  Any part of a post is free game for discussion on a discussion board.

You're right, I should have limited my admonition toward the people commenting that actually think they know something about the history of the KJV and modern version debates, as opposed to the people that commented who DO know what they're talking about.

It makes no difference how long the discussion lasted about Ruckman, that was not the ONLY thing I said "pay attention" to. I said that the thread was about how long the concept of King James Version Only preceded Ruckman, which has not so far been discussed at length (if at all). You even made the comment earlier on that you did not want to "derail the thread", and yet you did it any way. So you can stop being a hypocrite by telling me what can and can not be up for "discussion" on a "discussion board" when you admitted yourself that threads have a purpose of sticking to the point as per your response in Post #11.

 

Thus if this is how it's going to be from now on every time I post something, at least make sure your arguments and comments have a little bit more weight to them than this one did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

You're right, I should have limited my admonition toward the people commenting that actually think they know something about the history of the KJV and modern version debates, as opposed to the people that commented who DO know what they're talking about.

It makes no difference how long the discussion lasted about Ruckman, that was not the ONLY thing I said "pay attention" to. I said that the thread was about how long the concept of King James Version Only preceded Ruckman, which has not so far been discussed at length (if at all). You even made the comment earlier on that you did not want to "derail the thread", and yet you did it any way. So you can stop being a hypocrite by telling me what can and can not be up for "discussion" on a "discussion board" when you admitted yourself that threads have a purpose of sticking to the point as per your response in Post #11.

 

Thus if this is how it's going to be from now every time I post something, at least make sure your arguments and comments have a little bit more weight to them than this one did.

I know what you said the thread was about - I can read. Honestly I can.  Yep, I said I didn't want to derail the thread - and the discussion stopped there, so, no, I didn't derail the thread. So there was no need for your admonition - the discussion was done.    My comment had weight and continues to do so.  Whether or not you think so.  

 

Every time you post?  A little paranoid, aren't you?  Mayhap you should make sure your OBservations about my activities are a little more accurate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@James Ach, are you going to answer my question about John 14 from earlier in the post?
Second, I have never read any if White's books other than video's and articles so I don't know much on how he came to his conclusions. Since you claim he dodges the issue, why don't you publicaly challenge him? He claimed on a podcast that most IFB won't debate him , let alone Muslims or Mormons, do you have videos of you debating anyone? I haven't seen anything from you on Google in such matters, only articles written of your crude behavior towards people that you don't agree with. (Nice "testimony"!)
I'm sorry if I offended you by attacking your friend Ruckman but by the article you posted that the individual claimed that the KJV were better than the Greek and Hebrew, if you believe that, then you have a serious issues to deal with!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You're right, I should have limited my admonition toward the people commenting that actually think they know something about the history of the KJV and modern version debates, as opposed to the people that commented who DO know what they're talking about.

It makes no difference how long the discussion lasted about Ruckman, that was not the ONLY thing I said "pay attention" to. I said that the thread was about how long the concept of King James Version Only preceded Ruckman, which has not so far been discussed at length (if at all). You even made the comment earlier on that you did not want to "derail the thread", and yet you did it any way. So you can stop being a hypocrite by telling me what can and can not be up for "discussion" on a "discussion board" when you admitted yourself that threads have a purpose of sticking to the point as per your response in Post #11.

 

Thus if this is how it's going to be from now on every time I post something, at least make sure your arguments and comments have a little bit more weight to them than this one did.

 

All we see here is a 'bossy' attitude that keeps slamming into people in a mean spirit.

Do you really treat people this way in person?

 

Can you not see that you are so harsh in 'how' you say things to 'fellow' Christians?

 

I saw and read your article with interest, and found it a 'statement', rather than something to discuss.

 

Who here thought that KJVO wasn't before Ruckman? A man I find kinda like yourself in personality.

I have read plenty of articles from Ruckman, and found powerful truths in them, yet his spirit was also

overbearing. To the point of non-Christ like.

 

So for him to be the focus on whether KJVO was before him or not is irrelevent. (to me)

 

Who can see the 'loving' spirit, that the Lord said would identify his children to the world, in your type of 'attitude'?

 

As ignorant as you think I am, I don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I know what you said the thread was about - I can read. Honestly I can.  Yep, I said I didn't want to derail the thread - and the discussion stopped there, so, no, I didn't derail the thread. So there was no need for your admonition - the discussion was done.    My comment had weight and continues to do so.  Whether or not you think so.  

 

Every time you post?  A little paranoid, aren't you?  Mayhap you should make sure your OBservations about my activities are a little more accurate.  

Considering that I have been gone all weekend and today is really some of my first postings in about 4 days, and your very first response to me is sarcastic (after just telling someone else to "cut the sarcasm" in Post #81), I would say that my assumption on how you intend to respond was pretty accurate. But it does appear that with the accusation of "paranoid" you have joined the ranks of the other James White hooligans (some on this board such as Genevan Preacher) that have labeled me a "conspiracy theorist". 

 

Here's a little bit more accuracy about your "activities": you are sympathizing more and more with those who purposely throw around false doctrine on this forum. Of all of the points I made toward Jeffrey, instead of dealing with the issues related to his attack on the KJV and support of modern version, you isolated one part of my comment to be sarcastic about whether or not you had the ability to read. And for the record, I never said you couldn't read (since you adamantly repeated it twice in 2 separate comments), even a 1st grader can read, but that doesn't mean they have enough comprehension to understand how many calories are in a bowl full of modern version soup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow, what a bunch of pious sounding Palestinians who throw rocks and Molotov cocktails into our living quarters, and then go crying to the UN (in this case, the moderators) about how bad my "attitude" is.

 

You want bad attitude? Take this forum and shove it in between a Catholic Bible like an Apocrypha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Considering that I have been gone all weekend and today is really some of my first postings in about 4 days, and your very first response to me is sarcastic (after just telling someone else to "cut the sarcasm" in Post #81), I would say that my assumption on how you intend to respond was pretty accurate. But it does appear that with the accusation of "paranoid" you have joined the ranks of the other James White hooligans (some on this board such as Genevan Preacher) that have labeled me a "conspiracy theorist". 

 

Here's a little bit more accuracy about your "activities": you are sympathizing more and more with those who purposely throw around false doctrine on this forum. Of all of the points I made toward Jeffrey, instead of dealing with the issues related to his attack on the KJV and support of modern version, you isolated one part of my comment to be sarcastic about whether or not you had the ability to read. And for the record, I never said you couldn't read (since you adamantly repeated it twice in 2 separate comments), even a 1st grader can read, but that doesn't mean they have enough comprehension to understand how many calories are in a bowl full of modern version soup.

 

I said you spoke about conspiracies in past postings. I never called you a conspiracy theorist.

And I don't even know James White, nor what he espouses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Wow, what a bunch of pious sounding Palestinians who throw rocks and Molotov cocktails into our living quarters, and then go crying to the UN (in this case, the moderators) about how bad my "attitude" is.

 

You want bad attitude? Take this forum and shove it in between a Catholic Bible like an Apocrypha.

Ach is banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow, what a bunch of pious sounding Palestinians who throw rocks and Molotov cocktails into our living quarters, and then go crying to the UN (in this case, the moderators) about how bad my "attitude" is.

 

You want bad attitude? Take this forum and shove it in between a Catholic Bible like an Apocrypha.

 

You are about the rudest so-called Christian I have ever met.

And I have met a bunch.

 

By the way, this thread is overtaken by you, and you have made it this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

By the way, as anyone knows, the apocryphal books are blended in the text of the Catholic bible, and are not placed in the center, like other Bibles of the past.

(with the exception of 1 & 2 Esdras, and The Prayer of Manasseh, which the Catholics do not have in their 'bible')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yet sarcastic comments are allowed on OB?  What's the difference?  IFB's are dropping like flies on a once IFB site.  This site has been turned over to Protestants.  How is anyone that is an IFB supposed to learn more from strong people in the faith like Dr. Ach?

I believe this thread never talked about Peter Ruckman and the KJV, except the first post made by Jeffrey, because so many IFB's have a prOBlem with Ruckman.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



×
×
  • Create New...