Let's please be honest and logically consistent!

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Spoudazo, Mar 18, 2005.

  1. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was talking with a relative of mine. He started off by asking me what I and some of my "associates" and friends thought of Ruckman. I explained what I believe regarding Ruckman, his beliefs, etc.

    We then continued discussing different views and it finally led to what I believe and what he believes.

    He referred to Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, etc. asking me where the Word of God is. I said it is in my Bible. He said which one, I said, in my Cambridge KJV I have on my desk. I then continued saying that it's in the NKJ, the NASB, etc. and any other conservative translation of God's Word. He then kept saying it can't be in "two places" and I explained that the wordS of God are in the manuscripts which we have today, and I have His Word in my hands in any Bible version I have, whether that be the Geneva, the KJV, NASB, etc.

    He then kept pressing the issue of just "one place" in English saying they can't be in two places. So I answered the same way again and he said that can't be. So I put the same question to him.

    I said is the Word of God in the 1611 or 1769 (didn't mention any other revision) and he said "the one I have in my hands." So I said OK, would that be the Oxford or the Cambridge? He then said he couldn't answer because of this verse. . .
    2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

    How that would be "unlearned" or foolish, I don't know, I was just being consistent with what he was asking.

    So according to many KJV only bretheren, we have the Words of God in only one English *translation* but which one is it, I must ask again as SEVERAL others have asked on this aboard already.

    Is the Oxford or Cambridge correct in Jer. 34:16, Nahum 3:16, and the other places they disagree at?

    Is the 1611 or 1769 correct in 1 John 5:12 where one has "of God" and one doesn't?

    So can we not be honest BEFORE GOD and pray and study over this issue?

    Secondly, he mentioned that we don't have the "originals," so I said we don't have the "original" of the KJV as it was burned up in a fire in London. So that argument itself fails as well.

    So let's all please by God's grace be consistent and scriptural.

    If God's Word promised that He would give His exact words in English in the 17th century then I would believe it without problem. But when scripture is silent or doesn't support a divisive belief, I must abandon it!

    Oh may God help us all!
     
  2. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you're telling me, that if I hadn't gotten "out into the world", via the computer, and hadn't learned/seen all the stuff I have since coming on the BB, that all these 50 yrs that I've been saved, using the ONE and ONLY Holy Bible I've EVER known, not having a CLUE whether it's [you pick the year], that I would die never knowing that I TRULY didn't hold the Word of God in my hands? You folks really need to get a life, lol!

    Granny~using her "straight-stick" as her walking cane.
     
  3. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said no one had the Word of God. I have the Word of God, you have it, etc.
     
  4. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what's the big deal with the dates?
     
  5. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your position is not logically consistent, supported by scripture, nor supported by history. If you don't want to take time to study the issue, then don't make false accusations.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Spoudazo - Don't fuss with granny. She's toothless in the arguments (but don't let her THINK you're badmouthing the KJV or you will watch for her stick!!) ;)
     
  7. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol, no problem [​IMG]
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    Not really Granny, we didn't start this. The KJVO-Ruckman clones came from afar calling the Word of God a "satanic counterfeit" throwing tantrums, shouting, ranting, raving, etc, (not you Granny, you are a dear).

    HankD
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    It relates to the statement that they (Radical KJVO) started: “things which are different are not the same”.

    We have therefore asked, “if that is so, which of the revisions of the KJV is the ‘perfect’ Word of God”?

    “it can’t be in two places” is a ploy to avoid answering for their own self-incriminating statements.

    The Oxford KJV is one place, The Cambridge KJV another place and they are different.

    Main Entry: Ploy: a tactic intended to embarrass or frustrate an opponent b : a devised or contrived move Merriam Webster Dictionary.

    HankD
     
  10. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honest and logically consistent? It ain't gonna happen in the KJVO camp! Most of the KJVO arguments are just inconsistent pieces of confused misinformation...
     

Share This Page

Loading...