Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Daniel David, Nov 11, 2002.
This is a poll for KJVO only. If you are not KJVO, do not participate.
Most KJV-O supporters are not Ruckmanites.
I heard a rumor that Ruckman was a Ruckmanite
Ruckmanite...isn't that a mineral of some kind?
Why don't I know who this Ruckman is? Is he a big name in the USA? I see his name connected in here with a number of things...the KJV and is he the one who had three wives?
I would be a KJV strongly perfered type person, so I didn't vote.
Like Jim1999 I'd never heard of Ruckman till I came to this board. From what I have heard I wouldnt think much of being identifed with him, however.
That's him, Jim, the leading exponent of KJVO.
I'd never heard of him before coming here either. He sure shows up a lot, though. Everyone, it seems, has an opinion on the man, most of them expressed on this board. And most of them unfavorable.
[ November 12, 2002, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]
Since there are many varieties of the "KJV only" position, many folks who love the KJV and use it but do NOT espouse some of the characteristics of the "onlies" (it is the ONLY version, all others are perversions, it uses the BEST Greek, it was divinely preserved, it was inspired, it is perfect, et al) use the term "only" or "ruckmanite" to describe this group.
Or heretic. Or cult. Or worse.
I think it no different than using the name of Calvin do describe those who hold to any of the 5 points of reformed theology (great differences there as to individuals) or even the name Baptist.
Some will use it to identify a general school of belief. Some will use it as a perjorative.
You can see why Ruckman has such a bad reputation here: http://aomin.org/ruckcor.html
Its a series of letters between James White and Peter Ruckman when White was trying to set up a debate on KJVO with Ruckman.
I think he deserves his reputation and I dont have much respect for him at all.
[ November 14, 2002, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Travis1980 ]
I read almost all that link, and I don't think there's much wrong with Ruckman's language at all. James White's letters shown there are extremely patronising, and he deserves the response he gets. I don't think brother Peter's replies are any less loving than James White's own letters are. I'm don't subscribe to a lot of Ruckman's teachings, I wouldn't go about talking to people the way brother Peter does, but I think you should just get off his back. How many other 80 odd-year-olds are out soul-winning like him???
Your friend and brother,
Are you for real?? It is unconscionable that someone could read Ruckman's writing alongside of the biblical qualifications for pastor and not "think there's much wrong" with it. Soulwinning at 80 years old is not the test of all things.
I watched this debate on television and was disappointed in the KJVO stance. First of all I've believe the whole thing is blown out of proportion.I've read and studied Gail Riplinger's book the (New Age Versions) and James white's the (KJVO Controversy).James White discounts col 2:18 like it's nothing.No big deal.Well compare the two version for your self the KJV says ("has not seen") and the bibles that come from the new Greek say ("has seen").this is a very important issue after all they both can't be right.But the thing that bothered me most about the debate was the way the KJVO people backed down from there claims in how they address certain people. At least the claims that grabbed my attention.Like there claims of Westcott and Hort.Lets not forget Clement and Origin and the Alexandrian School of Theology.
This is what I came away with .These people who wish to fight have just found there reasons and the rest of us who would stand back and take a long hard look at the people arguing will see that it's not really about the Bible at all. It's about who's right.
Anyone who seeks God and the truth will find Him no matter what version they use.Just about all the versions I've read say so.The key here is how badly do you want God and the truth.
I personally use on occasion about 10 different versions.But I let the KJV settle any disputes between them.I rely on the KJV as the final word.You have to let one version sway you more than the rest or you will have exactly what Satan likes which is confusion.The only reason I rely on the KJV is because it is taken from the majority of text.The new Greek is taken from just two text owned by the Catholic Church called the Vatican (Vaticanise)(not sure of spelling).I personally am suspicious of anything from the Catholic Church.
There are places where the KJV differs from the Majority.
No, much more greek is taken into consideration. And the Vaticanus, although it has it's name because it has been stored in the Vatican Library, comes from the mid fourth century, which is way before today's RCC.
Does that include Erasmus and the TR?
Hi Brian T;
Did you take offense from my post? I certainly didn't mean any.No version is going to be jot for jot perfect. You will noticed that I didn't say that the KJV is perfect, but they've had nearly 400 years to correct the mistakes.I personally consider the NKJV to be one of the most mistake filled imitations of God's word on the market.The thing is we all have to realize that all versions are just that versions.They are translated by men. Translation is not an easy task.Especially to do it with out bias from your own ideas of what scripture says
How anyone can understand Greek and Hebrew is mind boggling to say the least.So the only thing we can do is rely on the people who can translate the scriptures for us.It' all boils down to who do you trust.I look at several things to figure out who to trust the most by, who has the most to gain. Since all of the people who were involved in the translation of the KJV are dead. It would seem they have the least to gain and that to me makes them more trust worthy.All the newer versions have copy rights on them in order to get a copy right you have to first prove you are the author.I would hope God is the author,but never the less copyrights do make you wonder.
No, not at all.
Westcott and Hort, producers of the "new Greek" are also dead.
Not all the newer versions have copyrights. And the ones that do, do not claim to "own" the word of God, just that specific translation of it, so others do not change anything and try to pass it off as the same translation.
Interseting reading (the website) I have not heard of this stuff before.
Hi again Brian T;
I'm glad you didn't take offense, but as to your question what about Erasmus.To be honest I don't really know that much about Erasmus.I know he was catholic and that he translated the greek new testament to Latin in the 1500's or so. I also Know the man was a thinker and longed for reform of the church.He was friends with some who sought the same, like Melanchthon.I only know this Melanchthon was a reformer, weather or not a good one I don't know. I know Erasmus was a Catholic Priest and hob knob with the pope and other powerful men, but he died before the KJV was printed. Tyndales Bible was the first to be translated into English.I've been to the site where you can read tyndales Bible and compare it to the KJV I'll let you know what I think after I've had a good chance to look it over.So far what I've read I find very similar to the KJV in fact word for word.I would like to see the accused lies printed in red if you can accelerate this please do...
Bonne Steffen, in "The Christian Reader," May/June 2002
The Charles Caldwell Ryrie Collection, "Formatting the Word of God," Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University