Mistake or Advanced New Revelation?

AVL1984 · Sep 9, 2004

Agreed, TC.

AVL1984

LarryN · Sep 9, 2004

Originally posted by Karen Rose:
Dr. Peter S. Ruckman (a Ph.D. in theology from B.J.U. by the by) Doesn't say that they are "new revelations" What he does say (right or wrong) is that the AV is right, even when others may say it is wrong.... that if a person or school of thought sees a "mistake" in the AV, that they are wrong.... that God included the so called mistakes to prove that His Word is right and that later, the mistakes will be proven right.
Click to expand...

Let's judge for ourselves. Here are some Ruckman quotes:

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118).

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvelous undesigned ‘coincidences’ which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigation of the greatest Bible students 300 year later” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 127).

“A little English will clear up the obscurities in any Greek text” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 147).

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 336).

“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).

“We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or to demonstrate the superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew.” (Peter Ruckman, Problem Texts, Preface, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).

“We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, page xii).

“If you had the original manuscripts, you couldn’t find what a soul was, no matter how educated you were, because the key for ‘finding out’ had nothing to do with the Hebrew or Greek” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. 145).

“Observe how accurately and beautifully the infallible English text straightens out Erasmus, Griesbach, Beza, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Trench, Vincent, Davis, Wuest, Zodhiates, Elzevir, and Stephanus with the poise and grace of a swan as it smoothly and effectively breaks your arm with one flap of its wings. Beautiful, isn’t it? If the mood or tense isn’t right in any Greek text, the King James Bible will straighten it out in a hurry” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, pp. 348, 349).
“The original Hebrew had nothing to do with Genesis 1:1-3 at all [referring to Ruckman’s unique idea that the flood of 2 Peter 3:5-6 speaks of a flood that took place in Genesis 1:2]. It only muddied the issue. Hebrew is of no help at all in understanding the passage” (Peter Ruckman, The Unknown Bible, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1984, p. 67).

“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).

Hmmmmm.....it seems to me that Ruckman does claim that there are "new revelations" in the KJV.

AVL1984 · Sep 9, 2004

LOL...Thanks Larry. I don't have my folder on "Ruckmanite Hogwash" as it is labeled. It contains most of what you've posted. Glad someone had it on hand!

AVL1984

LarryN · Sep 9, 2004

Dr. Peter S. Ruckman (a Ph.D. in theology from B.J.U. by the by)
Click to expand...

Yes, and a closer relationship between graduate and alma mater one will never find!

BJU disavows Ruckman with about as much fervor as Ruckman uses in attacking BJU!

Dr. Bob · Sep 9, 2004

Originally posted by LarryN:
Let's judge for ourselves. Here are some Ruckman quotes:

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118).

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvelous undesigned ‘coincidences’ which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigation of the greatest Bible students 300 year later” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 127).

“A little English will clear up the obscurities in any Greek text” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 147).

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 336).

“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).

“We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or to demonstrate the superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew.” (Peter Ruckman, Problem Texts, Preface, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).

“We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, page xii).

“If you had the original manuscripts, you couldn’t find what a soul was, no matter how educated you were, because the key for ‘finding out’ had nothing to do with the Hebrew or Greek” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. 145).

“Observe how accurately and beautifully the infallible English text straightens out Erasmus, Griesbach, Beza, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Trench, Vincent, Davis, Wuest, Zodhiates, Elzevir, and Stephanus with the poise and grace of a swan as it smoothly and effectively breaks your arm with one flap of its wings. Beautiful, isn’t it? If the mood or tense isn’t right in any Greek text, the King James Bible will straighten it out in a hurry” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, pp. 348, 349).
“The original Hebrew had nothing to do with Genesis 1:1-3 at all [referring to Ruckman’s unique idea that the flood of 2 Peter 3:5-6 speaks of a flood that took place in Genesis 1:2]. It only muddied the issue. Hebrew is of no help at all in understanding the passage” (Peter Ruckman, The Unknown Bible, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1984, p. 67).

“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).

Click to expand...

THANK YOU, Larry, for sharing those direct quotations from Ruckman. I quoted them all again to give Granny, Michelle, Askjo and others a chance to DISTANCE THEMSELVES and DECRY such vile and false teaching.

I reject them all. I will wait to see our resident "only" sect's reaction to them.

And wait not holding my breath!!

Askjo · Sep 9, 2004

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
THANK YOU, Larry, for sharing those direct quotations from Ruckman. I quoted them all again to give Granny, Michelle, Askjo and others a chance to DISTANCE THEMSELVES and DECRY such vile and false teaching.
Click to expand...

Am I a Ruckmanite?

michelle · Sep 9, 2004

No Askjo, you are not. Neither am I.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

michelle · Sep 9, 2004

....and neither is Sister GrannyGumbo.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

GrannyGumbo · Sep 9, 2004

Thank-you, sis!

HankD · Sep 9, 2004

My opinion:
Anyone who believes "easter" is correct in Acts 12:4 is at very least an unwitting ruckmanite because there are only two ways to explain the KJV translators blunder in this verse 1) They made a mistake, 2) Ruckman is correct and it is "advanced revelation" made in 1611.

The canon was closed in 90AD. Luke wrote "pascha" which means "passover", the context also bearing witness.
The King James men changed the word to "easter" in 1611 in direct contradiction to the original language text.

The bottom line: someone has changed the Word of God. Take your chances on the 1611 KJV "easter" or the originally inspired word of the Holy Spirit "pascha".

HankD

GrannyGumbo · Sep 9, 2004

I've never felt I've ever taken any "chances" by believing, by faith, in God's words. Everything that I've read and believed in is there for a reason. I've never questioned it nor cared to look elsewhere. Nor did my people before me or theirs before them, etc.

HankD · Sep 9, 2004

I've never felt I've ever taken any "chances" by believing, by faith, in God's words. Everything that I've read and believed in is there for a reason. I've never questioned it nor cared to look elsewhere. Nor did my people before me or theirs before them, etc.
Click to expand...

Who can debate that kind of faith Granny.

It is my kind of faith as well.

HankD

David J · Sep 9, 2004

Well said Granny

Dr. Bob · Sep 9, 2004

And no one ever called Michelle, Askjo or Granny a "ruckmanite". What was given were direct, factual and documented statements by Ruckman and a chance for each to REPUDIATE his stated view.

I will wait.

Ed Edwards · Sep 9, 2004

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
And no one ever called Michelle, Askjo or Granny a "ruckmanite". What was given were direct, factual and documented statements by Ruckman and a chance for each to REPUDIATE his stated view.

I will wait.
Click to expand...

You may need some
patience there, Dr. Job

Did you know Lifeway has Holman Christian
Standard Bible (HCSB), the plain (translator
notes only) presentation Bible on sale
for under $5 (before taxes)?

Sure cheap for a mecerenary money makin'
scheeme, eh?

mesly · Sep 10, 2004

Here is a partial list of the "advanced revelations" that Ruckman teaches. I believe that this list was published in his newsletter, but I don't know the exact source (if someone does, could they please post it?). It looks like it was before 1990 since in point V below he mentions the year 1990 as being in the tribulation (hows that for date setting! What does scripture say about a false prophet and date setting for that matter?).

Remember, this is from Ruckman, so there is name calling (i.e. against modern versions). I do not have a link to this, so I cut/pasted it directly. I only posted it here to aid us in the this discussion, but if the moderators do not think this should be here, then please delete it. This in no way is to give any credence to Ruckman or his teachings.

I. The Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts end the Old Testament canon in 2 Chronicles. No book follows the command to return to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 36). In the AV, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, and Psalms follow, showing 1. THE RETURN (1917); 2. THE REBUILDING (1948); 3. THE RAPTURE (Esther 1); 4. THE TRIBULATION (Job); and 5. THE ADVENT (Ps. 1, 2). If this is not an "advancement" in revelation, what is it? A coincidence?

II. The Hebrew word for "REPLENISH" in Genesis 1:28 is defined in all Hebrew lexicons as meaning simply "fill." It is not translated that way in an AV. An AV points to a PREVIOUS POPULATION (Job 38; Ps. 82) WHO WERE DROWNED (2 Peter 3:6; Gen. 1:1-2; Ps. 82).

III. The word "PICTURES" in Numbers 33:52 doesn't appear as "pictures" in any work done by any Hebrew scholar since 1700. The word reveals that "PICTURES" are one of the main threats to a called-out people who are in danger of picking up the customs and religions of the HEATHEN. With TV in front of you and the warnings about the eyes in Genesis 3:6; Joshua 7:21; 2 Samuel 11:2; and Genesis 20:10, don't you appreciate THE ADVANCED REVELATION OF THE 1611 TEXT? It isn't in the NKJV.

IV. In 2 Peter 3:6 we learn that there was a flood BEFORE Adam showed up (see Gen. 1:2), the earth was overflowed with water, and the earth spoken of was "FROM THE BEGINNING" according to the AV of 1611.

V. The KING JAMES inserted the word "SYNAGOGUE" (with no Hebrew authority for doing it) into Psalm 74:8. Who doesn't know that David (or whoever wrote the "Hebrew") wouldn't have known a synagogue from a synonym? Isn't it amazing how the passage moves over to 1990 in the Tribulation where the Antichrist HAS burned the synagogues?

VI. How would you know that pagans who worshipped a female "queen of heaven" had "CHURCHES" if the AV had not told you so (Acts 19:37)? You already knew that they had temples (see Ezra 5:14; etc.), but "CHURCHES"? Yep, they have churches, and they still worship the "QUEEN OF HEAVEN" (Jer. 44:17). It wasn't in any Greek manuscript. IT WAS IN AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION. If that isn't an advancement," what is it?

VII. I have the Hebrew text (Kittel's for Exod. 12). How do you explain a sinner needing "A" lamb, but not just any lamb; only "THE" lamb (Exod. 12:4), and then this still being unavailing unless it is HIS PERSONAL LAMB (Exod. 12:5)--IN ENGLISH.

VIII. In 2 Corinthians 2:17 we learn that many people were CORRUPTING the word of God before the New Testament was complete. FROM WHAT "GREEK TESTAMENT" DO YOU GET THIS INFORMATION? It is not in the Alexandrian manuscripts according to the NIV, ASV, and NASV. It is not in the Syrian manuscripts according to the NKJV. From whence, then, cometh this NEW LIGHT that the scholars cannot find in ANY set of Greek manuscripts? Easy: it comes from 370 years ago. It came from the AV HOLY BIBLE: IN ENGLISH.

IX. In 1 Timothy 6:5 we learn that apostates think that if they can get GAIN, that proves they are "godly" read the verse in the AV). Why was this advanced revelation obliterated in the NIV, NASV, ASV, RV, NRSV, and NKJV?

X. What are these notes in the Hebrew and English Bibles doing, saying that "LEVIATHAN" (Heb. levyathan) is a crocodile or a whale (Job 41:1) or hippopotamus or DINOSAUR? Who could make a foolish error like that unless it was a Hebrew scholar engaged in translating Hebrew from a Hebrew manuscript? The ENGLISH told you what Leviathan was (Isa. 27:1-2) and WHO he was (Rev. 12:9).

XI. Look at Exodus 3:22, where they translated "ASKED" for "BORROWED." No "BORROW" in the ASV, no "BORROW" in the NASV, no "BORROW" in the RSV, no "BORROW" in the NRSV, no "BORROW" in the NIV. No "advanced revelation" from "the original text," so shall we try the ENGLISH of 1611?

THE LOAN WAS "BORROWED" because they served to pay it back in Deuteronomy 28:68, they served for it again in Jeremiah 44--46, they paid a lot more of the revenue back in Hosea 12:1, and they paid the rest of it back in 2 Chronicles 12:9. It was BORROWED, but you wouldn't know that without the ADVANCED REVELATION OF AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION 370 years "out of date."

XII. Joshua 4:23, "AS THE LORD YOUR GOD DID TO THE RED SEA"? Why, how could Israel have crossed the "marshy grounds" around the "Bitter Lakes" if the crossing of Jordan was a REPEAT of the Red Sea crossing? In the crossing of the Jordan, the water came down one of the steepest descents in Asia Minor and stopped dead, with the rest of the water running on down into the Dead Sea. But "SUPH" means "Sea of Reeds," does it? Well, that's what you would get if you were dumb enough to believe a Hebrew lexicon instead of the Holy Bible. The "RED SEA" of Joshua 4 and Exodus 14 is the RED SEA of 1 Kings 9:26. IT'S THE SAME HEBREW WORD. So what is a NAVY DOING SAILING OUT ON THE "MARSHY GROUND" BY THE "BITTER LAKES"? SOLOMON'S NAVY was based on the Red Sea at Ezion Geber, and it was by the land of EDOM, which is not within fifty miles of the "Bitter Lakes" (Deut. 1:40; 2:1).

XIII. Micah 6:5. How fortunate we are to have here the advanced revelation of the AV, which surpasses all of the Hebrew scholars' translations of all Hebrew manuscripts. Here the archaic and obtuse versions (ASV, NASV, NIV, etc.) have translated "that ye may know the RIGHTEOUS ACTS OF THE LORD." There are no RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the Lord recorded in Balaam's "answer to Balak" in Numbers (read Num. 23:21). This theme is "THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD" (see Romans and Galatians). GOD DOES NOT IMPUTE SIN TO HIS PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE GUILTY OF IT (Numbers 23:21). He had just finished slaughtering several thousands of His people after killing off a whole generation. Balaam's "answer" to Balak IS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE SINLESS! They have the IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. "The righteous ACTS of the Lord" are not within 400,000 miles of the context in any direction. It was the "Hebrew" that misled the ASV, NASV, NIV, RSV, and NRSV translators.

XIV. Consider Hosea 12:4, where the greatly advanced revelation of the AV of 1611 corrects the archaiv mistakes of the ASV and New ASV. Here these Arian attackers of the Deity of Christ (see their rendering of John 1:18 and marginal reference to John 9:35) have capitalized the word "He" three times in v. 4 so it will look like it refers to God, but when they HIT THE TRINITARIAN STATEMENT ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE GODHEAD IN THE SAME VERSE--"US"--THEY WOULD NOT CAPITALIZE IT! THE "US" OF V. 4 IS THE GODHEAD. It is not, who is it? Jacob? Well, the "original Hebrew" didn't capitalize any of the words. SO THERE IS NO LIGHT ON THAT FROM THE HEBREW. But the "US" in the AV, following the Hebrew practice of no capitals, has God saying that Jacob spake with "US"--not "Him." The "Him" WHO TALKED TO JACOB SAYS THAT JACOB TALKED WITH "US."

XV. Thank God for the advanced revelation of the AV in Genesis 1:16, where we learn that the earth was made BEFORE the sun was made. Notice how greatly ADVANCED this knowledge is above all of the scientific knowledge gathered on this earth since 1800 A.D. Notice how reference to the "HEBREW" by Scofield obscures the revelation. SCOFIELD PRETENDS THE HEBREW WORD MEANT TO “FUNCTION," NOT TO "BE MADE." Thank God for the advanced revelation in 1611 that the greater light was "MADE" on the fourth day; since the sun is a type of Christ (Ps. 19), why wouldn't it be "made" the fourth day? CHRIST WAS BORN 4000 YEARS AFTER ADAM FELL (2 Peter 3:8).

The doctrines of ADVANCED REVELATION from a KING JAMES BIBLE has a great deal more to commend itself than the heretical teaching that the final authority for the child of God is a random set of non-existant manuscripts that got lost before Nero burned Rome down. We have given fifteen cases and gladly go on to sixteen.

XVI. Here in Genesis 24:22, Rebekah is having a little trouble hanging an earring in her nose (or hanging nose ring in her ear). The Hebrew "NEZEM" has gone into a "NOSE jewel" in all of the "reliable translations" put out by people who despise advanced revelation and stick to the "original Hebrew." Here their frustration knew no bounds, for the "earring" was said to go on Rebekah's "FACE" (24:47). They reasoned (as any Bible rejecting, apostate Fundamentalist would reason) that the word "FACE" blew it. The earring had to be a "NOSE JEWEL" to go on her "FACE." In their madness to unlock the unsearchable riches of the "Hebrew original" they failed to notice that the BRACELETS (v. 22) didn't go on her WRISTS; they went on her "HANDS."

The WRIST in the Bible is part of the HAND, and the EAR is part of the FACE. That is, in the 32: inerrant ENGLISH. (The word "Nezem," by the way, is "EARRING"--not nose jewel--in Exod. 2-3 and Isa. 3:20-21. The NEZEMS here were "IN THEIR EARS," not in their noses.)

XVII. How marvelously the ENGLISH clears up the HEBREW MESS of Genesis 49:6, where the Hebrew scholars used the "original Hebrew" to justify the LXX, written in 330 A.D. (Vaticanus: this is the main manuscript for the LXX and always has been.) Here the "original Hebrew" must have said "they houghed oxen," for that is how you got it in the NASV, ASV, RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV and NKJV. "Houghed oxen"? Why, no one on earth did that until Joshua 11:6. Do you think that Simeon and Levi "houghed oxen" when the Bible says they TOOK THEM AND WALKED OFF WITH THEM AS THEIR OWN PROPERTY Gen. 34:28-29)? It was pagan animals dedicated to the sun god that were "HOUGHED" (Josh. 11:9; 2 Sam. 8:4). Simeon and Levi weren't interested in "houghing" anybody's oxen. They "DIGGED DOWN A WALL," according to the DEFINITION of that term as found in the INFALLIBLE ENGLISH in Ezekiel 12:5; Job 24:16; 2 Kings 19:24; and Psalm 7:15.

XVIII. What about that "EASTER" in Acts 12:4 that "should have been Passover." IT ISN'T PASSOVER ONE TIME IN MARTIN LUTHER'S BIBLE: IT IS "EASTER" EVERY TIME IT (Pascha) APPEARS. Martin called Jesus Christ our "EASTER LAMB" (I Cor. 5:7). How would any of you have ever guessed that the background of the Roman Catholic "Easter" was pagan, without the reference to a Roman MURDERER in the context: HEROD WAS A ROMAN WHBSERVED "EASTER." It was the Babylonian festival for Ishtar (Astarte, Ashtoreth, etc.), and it was in EDOM (Herod was an Edomite) BEFORE MOSES WAS BORN (see Gen. 13:1-4).

XIX. Let's try one "below the belt," shall we? Since we believe the AV text is capable of correcting all the Hebrew and Greek scholars, let's just choose a place where an advanced revelation will show us why the Hebrew and Greek scholars want to correct it. We land on 1 Tim. 6:10: "THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL." Professors make a living correcting the KING JAMES BIBLE. Revisers make a living selling counterfeit translations. The income of Christian seminaries is in proportion to their ability to CORRECT the AV with Hebrew and Greek. "THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL." But there is "no article in the Greek," so we must drop the revelation of the AV and accept the unenlightened renderings of the ASV, RV, NASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, and NKJV; this must be done to over the sins of the translators. Money can only be "A ROOT" of "all kinds of evil," if you are a greekolator or a Manuscriptolator. The thinking is simple (exaclty like the thinking on Rebekah's "nose jewel" and Scofield's "sunlight"); the apostate reasons that since sinwas first found in Satan, that PRIDE just have caused more sin than the love of money, and since Eve sinned with her mouth before there were any dollars, pounds, marks, pesos, francs, or lira around, the HOLY BIBLE JUST COULDN'T BE TRUE. FIRST TIMOTHY 6:10 WAS A LIE. THE AV BIBLE LIED. IT SAID SOMETHING WAS "THE ROOT" WHEN IT WAS NOT.
Click to expand...

There are more, but I think this is enough for now.

So what think ye . . . advanced revleation or an elaborate "dog and pony show" in covering up problems in the KJV?

AVL1984 · Sep 10, 2004

Uh....Uh....should I, or shouldn't I???

"Dog and Pony show"!

AVL1984

Dr. Bob · Sep 10, 2004

I recommend we allow the quotation to stand, albeit with attacks on good translations of the Word of God. It shows the vile nature and heretical teaching of a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing.

Karen Rose · Sep 10, 2004

I know from when I heard him preach, Dr. Ruckman stated that advanced revelations were not new revelations, you could compare scripture to scripture and know what God said by reading it straight from the AV1611 without having to rely on any "originals" that are long gone...

Thank God I don't need the originals to read God's Word... My Bible is exactly what God wants me to read...

Also, Dr. Bob, I do believe that the above quotations are taken from Dr. Ruckman's books and are therefor copoyrighted. www.kjv1611.org listed under "an unhappy notice" states this if you care to check.

LarryN · Sep 10, 2004

Karen wrote:

...you could compare scripture to scripture and know what God said by reading it straight from the AV1611...
Click to expand...

My Bible is exactly what God wants me to read...
Click to expand...

Karen, do you then use the actual AV1611 mentioned in your post? Or do you use one of its later revisions (e.g. the 1769)?

Mistake or Advanced New Revelation?

AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

LarryN New Member

AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

LarryN New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

Askjo New Member

michelle New Member

michelle New Member

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

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

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

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

David J New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

mesly Member

AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

Karen Rose New Member

LarryN New Member

Useful Searches

Mistake or Advanced New Revelation?

AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

LarryN New Member

AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

LarryN New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator Administrator

Askjo New Member

michelle New Member

michelle New Member

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

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

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

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

David J New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator Administrator

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

mesly Member

AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

Dr. Bob Administrator Administrator

Karen Rose New Member

LarryN New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator