Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Why King James Only?


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Old - You cant ascertain the context either, at least not on this post, I don´t know what youre bellyaching about.

 

Calvinism is a rotten heresy and it's promoted here all the time.

 

OB doctrinal statement includes a pre trib pre millenial position, MIke does not hold to it, though he is certainly free to choose his eschatology, this board has a stated position, so....

 

Talebearing is repeating a lie told by someone else, it's also called gossip. Mike did not find those quotes himslef but relied upon a secondary source and fell into the trap of publickly stating a matter to be thus when it was not so, as any reading of the context of those quotes would have shown, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE MATERIAL instead of merely quoting a slanderer.

 

I also know that Mike is not malicious about it, but I was simply making a point.

 

God bless you Mike,

 

calvary

I figured you were referring to Mike's eschatology, however:  here is the OB doctrine page in it's entirety

 

Doctrinal Statement for Online Baptist

Doctrine of God:

We believe in only one holy, righteous, just, perfect, merciful, gracious, long suffering, omnipotent, omniscient, God who is abundant in mercy and truth and composed of a Godhead of three distinct eternal persons. The Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe each of these persons is fully equal and fully God and yet fulfill different roles. We believe the Father is the supreme ruler of all things. We believe all things of the Father are Jesus Christ the Sons and that the Father has committed all judgement into his hands. We believe that the work of the Son is to glorify the Father and the Father glorifies the Son. We believe the work of the Holy Spirit is to guide believers into all truth and reveal the truth contained in the scriptures to their hearts. His work also includes convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement. We believe that while God can always do as he wishes certain "sign gifts" of the Holy Spirit(tongues, miracles, the gift of healing etc.) are not active at this point in time and those who teach otherwise have repeatedly been tried and found liars.

Concerning the Scriptures:

We believe that every word of the scriptures was given by inspiration of God and that every word of of the scriptures has been preserved by his divine power from the tainting of man thus retaining their inspired character in its entirety.
We therefore hold the scriptures to be the foremost authority for faith and practice and reject every doctrine or teaching contrary to the teachings of the 66 books of scripture as not of God and false. We believe that the revelation of scripture was completed with the book of Revelation. Online baptist holds that the King James Bible is Gods preserved word for the English speaking peoples and does not permit using other versions on the forum. We reject the teaching of the double inspiration of the KJV and hold that the KJV retains the original divine inspiration of the scriptures through faithful translation and Gods divine preservation rather than being re-inspired in the English language in 1611.

Doctrine of Salvation:

We believe all men are born sinners and deserving of hell. We believe God sent his only begotten Son Jesus Christ into the world to make a substitutionary sacrifice by his death that was sufficient to atone for the sin of the whole world. We believe man was dead in sin and unable to come to God yet the true light, Jesus Christ , "lighteth every man that cometh into the world" and through that universal grace of light every man is freely afforded the opportunity to repent and come to the light. We reject the doctrine that God has chosen some to go to heaven and has not chosen others. Rather we believe that God, who is rich in mercy, has chosen all mankind for salvation but unfortunately some will go to hell because they, by hardness of heart and self will, chose to frustrate the grace of God by rejecting his free gift and trampling under foot the precious blood of Christ. We believe in order to truly pass from death to life a person must repent of their sins and call upon God to receive salvation and remission of sins by grace through faith in Gods promise and Christ's blood. We believe good works do not and can never have any part in salvation, truly all our righteousness is as filthy rags, however if a person is truly saved good works will follow because their heart has been changed by the operation of God.

Christian living:

We believe God has called believers to be holy because he is holy. We believe God progressively conforms believers into the image of Christ as they submit to his revealed will. Stubborn resistance and failure to submit to Gods revealed will prevents spiritual growth indefinitely and may bring Gods chastening. Christians have a responsibility to warn, comfort, rebuke, and edify one another in a spirit of meekness and kindness with the good of each other at heart. God is not pleased when Christians forget this and debate in foolish anger or for strife, pride, or vainglory. Christians also have a duty not to take offense easily. "1st Peter 2:19-23 "For this is thank worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently,this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example,that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:"

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the long post --but, I don't see eschatology in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

First of all, when a mod says you're out of line, the appropriate response is to pay attention, not demean his comments ('bellyaching').
 

Secondly, I just read through the board rules and doctrinal statement, and I can't see where eschatology is listed in either place. Please copy and paste the URL so we can see what you are referring to. Frankly, it's really not up to you to 'police' the mods - that's BroMatt's jOB. If he has a prOBlem with any of us, he'll take care of it.

I'm not sure what Calvinism has to do with the OP, so let's not muddy the waters with old complaints, eh?

 

The topic is KJV, not Peter Ruckman. Let's see if we can get back to the OP, shall we? :wink

 

Ooops, I was typing when you posted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The only reason I posted anything on Dr. Ruckman was because Mike was propogating a lie about him, a distorted view of what the man really believes.  As someone who has personal knowledge of the man and what he believes, I felt compelled to challenge those false statements.

 

Thank you,

 

Goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

 

Notice:

Calvary and I will be representing the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position, which is also the official position of the Online Baptist Forum. There are a number of things that we agree with Pastor Totten on. We agree that there are good men who hold to both positions and that it is not necessary to separate over this issue. We also agree that the chief task given to us is to evangelize the lost world. Calvary, Pastor Totten, and I have agreed to keep this debate in a civilized manner. We have also agreed that when we get to a position where we must agree to disagree, the debate will be over. We agree that this is not about winning or losing, but about showing a clear presentation of when the rapture will occur.

 

Thank you,

Goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

“If you are able to OBtain a copy [of Ruckman’s proposed new book] you will have, in your hands, a minimum of 200 advanced revelations that came from the inerrant English text, that were completely overlooked (or ignored) by every major Christian scholar since 90 A.D.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Jan. 1994, pp. 2, 4).

 

The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611(Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9). [brother Cloud: In fact, God slammed the door of revelation shut in about 90 A.D. with the completion of the New Testament.]

 

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/ruckman.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

 

Notice:

Calvary and I will be representing the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position, which is also the official position of the Online Baptist Forum. There are a number of things that we agree with Pastor Totten on. We agree that there are good men who hold to both positions and that it is not necessary to separate over this issue. We also agree that the chief task given to us is to evangelize the lost world. Calvary, Pastor Totten, and I have agreed to keep this debate in a civilized manner. We have also agreed that when we get to a position where we must agree to disagree, the debate will be over. We agree that this is not about winning or losing, but about showing a clear presentation of when the rapture will occur.

 

Thank you,

Goodbye.

As has been shown by two mods, there is nowhere that states OB's office position on the rapture. BroMatt would be the one to do that, not one of the mods (which PastorJ was at the time he made this statement you quoted). That said, the majority of us are indeed pre-Trib, unashamedly so.  And we would agree with the last statement you quoted as well.  Too bad too many folk who try to force folks to just post certain things don't in actuality agree with it.

 

Now....a mod has already said get back on topic.  This is the second one to do so.  The topic is not Calvinism, nor is it the Rapture, nor even Ruckman (although Jordan began the thread and so it can go in that direction if he so desires). Back to topic.

 

~~~~~~

 

The KJV is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people. The TR may be used for translation into other languages, as may the KJV (although there are words in the KJV that are at times difficult to translate into other languages because they are transliterations from the Greek). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Clarification:

As far as an "endorsement" of Riplinger's position goes, that depends on your version of her "position." 

 

I have read most of her books.  Have you?

She, as anyone else, is human, and at times may get "off track."  Just as Dr. Ruckman is not right on every point, nor your favorite preacher/teacher. 

 

However, I have not seen where anything she has advanced contradicts Scripture - and that is the ultimate test - regardless of anyone else's "critique" of her work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Clarification:

As far as an "endorsement" of Riplinger's position goes, that depends on your version of her "position." 

 

I have read most of her books.  Have you?

She, as anyone else, is human, and at times may get "off track."  Just as Dr. Ruckman is not right on every point, nor your favorite preacher/teacher. 

 

However, I have not seen where anything she has advanced contradicts Scripture - and that is the ultimate test - regardless of anyone else's "critique" of her work. 

have you read Phil Stringer's books on Riplinger? also I have seen personal examples of how she is dishonest in her use of quotes, I have read her book New Age Bible versions and a lot of Hazardous Materials.

 

I don't trust Riplinger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

have you read Phil Stringer's books on Riplinger? also I have seen personal examples of how she is dishonest in her use of quotes, I have read her book New Age Bible versions and a lot of Hazardous Materials.

 

I don't trust Riplinger. 

No I have not.  I have no interest in reading someone's critique of somebody else.  It adds nothing to our knowledge of the KJV issue.  This is nothing more than gossip and backbiting.  

 

Riplinger's main points have not been refuted, so the only thing her critics can do is attack the way she got to her conclusions.  They have never SCRIPTURALLY refuted her points, only her methods.   Curious.

 

I am not saying she is blameless in the matter.

 

I am saying that her critics have added nothing to the discussion other than hearsay, gossip and backbiting.  Sounds like a bad case of "sour grapes" to me.  

 

So what is Stringer's position?  Perhaps you could enlighten us?

Edited by Steve Schwenke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No I have not.  I have no interest in reading someone's critique of somebody else.  It adds nothing to our knowledge of the KJV issue.  This is nothing more than gossip and backbiting.  

 

Riplinger's main points have not been refuted, so the only thing her critics can do is attack the way she got to her conclusions.  They have never SCRIPTURALLY refuted her points, only her methods.   Curious.

 

I am not saying she is blameless in the matter.

 

I am saying that her critics have added nothing to the discussion other than hearsay, gossip and backbiting.  Sounds like a bad case of "sour grapes" to me.  

 

So what is Stringer's position?  Perhaps you could enlighten us?

In her book Hazardous Materials and New Age Bible Versions, she makes tons of quotes that would lead you to believe she is scholarly and that her information is factual, but when she does things like this how can you trust any of it:

 

In New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger claims that God has struck some "new version" Bible editors with the loss of their voice; Westcott is one of the editors of whom Riplinger has made this claim:

Westc
ot
t's biographer cites that in 1858 "he was quite inaudible" and by 1870 "His voice reached few and was understood by still fewer."[2]

Riplinger cites this as coming from the book Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, written by his son, Arthur Westcott. The first misquote is from a line that actually tells of Westcott as a young man, as remembered by a Sir Dalrymple, who recalls, in a letter, Westcott's early years at Harrow School and that he was "shy, reserved, sensitive, a laborious student." Here is the actual paragraph from where Riplinger took her misquoted words:

He [Westc
ot
t] took his turn of preaching in Chapel, but he dreaded and disliked the duty, and 
he was quite inaudible
 to many of the boys. We knew all the same that his were no common sermons. It has been truly said "the se
nt
ences were closely packed with meaning, and the meaning was n
ot
always easy."[5] [bold text added to show the words Riplinger took out of co
nt
ext.]

The second misquoted line was again taken from Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1. In this case, a Dr. Butler gives another remembrance of Westcott in a letter to his son. Butler says:

You have kindly asked me to give you some impressions as to your father's work and influence at Harrow. [...] The years to which my words will refer are, speaking roughly, from 1860 to 1870. [...] At that time Mr. Westc
ot
t, n
ot
yet thirty-five years of age, held a very peculiar position at Harrow. He was little known in the School at large. He was n
ot
a Form Master. He had no "Large House" to administer. 
His voice
 was n
ot
yet a force in the chapel. It 
reached
 but 
few, and
 it 
was understood by still fewer.
 But even then he had at least two spheres of influence - his own pupils on the one hand, and the Masters on the
ot
her.[6]

Riplinger not only cut the two quotes from two different places in the original source but she also quoted the source incorrectly, leaving out the words that make the context clear, and making up her own quotation. Westcott never permanently lost his voice; he was simply known to have a quiet voice when he preached.

 

from: http://www.avpublications.org/gail-riplinger-misquotes.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No I have not.  I have no interest in reading someone's critique of somebody else.  It adds nothing to our knowledge of the KJV issue.  This is nothing more than gossip and backbiting.  

 

Riplinger's main points have not been refuted, so the only thing her critics can do is attack the way she got to her conclusions.  They have never SCRIPTURALLY refuted her points, only her methods.   Curious.

 

I am not saying she is blameless in the matter.

 

I am saying that her critics have added nothing to the discussion other than hearsay, gossip and backbiting.  Sounds like a bad case of "sour grapes" to me.  

 

So what is Stringer's position?  Perhaps you could enlighten us?

From Stringer:

 

MEGALOMANIA ON STEROIDS
Listen to the claims that Gail Riplinger makes about herself:
“The reader is in for many surprises, some that will verge on riveting shock. Before this
book, no one had ever critically examined the authors of Greek and Hebrew study fools.”
(Hazardous Materials,
p. 13)
That’s right! No one ever understood before Gail Riplinger. Without her, you would be forever ignorant.
“The worse mistake a reader could make would be to suppose that, because an author
is not mentioned in this book, his Greek or Hebrew study tools are safe. All tools have
been examined and ALL are corrupt.” (Hazardous Materials, p.37)
That’s right! Gail Riplinger has studied everything. She has not missed anything.
“That with which the reader may not agree or which the reader may not understand
will be rectified upon reading the entire book. All questions have been anticipated and are
explained somewhere and in detail. Assuming, ‘the author does not know or understand
‘something’ will only be possible if the entire book is not read.” (Hazardous Materials, p.
40)
That’s right. Dr. Riplinger has anticipated all your questions. She has answered them all. It is not possible that the
author misunderstands anything.
When has anyone, male, or female, ever made such claims about their work? All for the “Greater Glory of Gail!”
TRUST DR. RIPLINGER TO TELL YOU WHAT THE GREEK MEANS!
“ I have done all of the Greek work for the reader.” (Hazardous Materials, p. 42).
What a statement! Don’t do any research. Don’t check out anything for yourself. Gail Riplinger will tell you what the
Greek means. Trust her as your authority. What kind of a Baptist allows someone do all of their thinking for them?
This proclamation is all the stranger when you realize that Gail Riplinger does not know Greek.
 
In a May, 1994 radio interview with Dr. Wayne House, Dr. Riplinger was forced to admit that she cannot read Greek or
Hebrew.
Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

some more from Stringer:

 

In the January-February 1994 edition of the “End Times Victorious Living Prophecy Newsletter,” Gail Riplinger stated:
“Daily, during the six years needed for this investigation, the Lord miraculously brought
the needed materials and resources—much like the ravens fed Elijah. Each discovery was not
the result of effort on my part, but of the direct hand of God—so much so that I hesitated to
even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G. A. Riplinger—God as author and
Riplinger as secretary.”
That is an incredible statement in Baptist circles. It is literally a claim to divine inspiration.
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

https://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/StringerOnRiplinger.pdfheres a free link to his book:

 

The main points about Riplinger are that she basically claims Inspiration of God, she tear down all other people as authorities similar to a cult leader, Shes a woman teaching and preaching in churches which no other woman could get away with in Baptist circles, and she is not even an actual linguistic, She has also threatened to sue D.A. Waite when they found out that she had lied to them and the publicly stopped promoting her and her books in the Dean Burgon Society.

 

The Woman cannot be trusted, and she brings a lot of division into the King James camp, I think she's making a fool out of a lot of Baptist pastors who are promoting her, and also causing King James Bible defenders to be less credible when she manipulates quotes in her books. here is some examples from David Cloud:

 

 On page 2 Mrs. Riplinger misquotes Edwin Palmer, editor of the NIV. It would appear from the quote that Palmer is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. She prefaces the quote with these words: 

“The NIV’s chief editor vaunts his version’s heresy saying: ... [F]ew clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God.” 

In her notes, Mrs. Riplinger cites The Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 143. 
Actually Palmer IN NO WAY is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. In fact, in the paragraph cited, HE IS CONTENDING for Christ’s deity! The full quote which Mrs. Riplinger has pulled out of context is as follows:

“John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, due to no fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, has altered what the Holy Spirit said through John. It calls John ‘Son’, whereas it should have called him ‘God.’” 

 

 On page 59 Mrs. Riplinger calls John Burgon “a dissenting scholar on the ‘New Greek N.T. committee.” 

In fact, Burgon had nothing to do with the committee that produced the Westcott-Hort Greek N.T. or any other Greek New Testament.

 

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagebibleversions.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...