Versions Not Considered?

I see.
so the BoM, PoGP, and DaC is their basis for doctrine. So, it would seem, your answer is, "sorry, I cannot, I shot my big mouth off and now regret it but refuse to admit it." </font>[/QUOTE]Whatever he's calling himself today wrote:

This is ridiculous. Why do they still use it then?

Never seen one that uses anything but the KJV, but that still doesn't vitiate my original point. You should be able to figure that out. You should also be able to see the KJVonly cult itself as guilty. But since you're "Clinton-ing" your way around, you probably won't admit it

[ April 05, 2002, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Actually, the Mormons do believe that the KJV includes translation errors -- they argue that the biblical text itself was corrupt until Joseph Smith restored it. I attended a "Religion Symposium" hosted at a local high school where representatives from a variety of faiths made presentations, and the corruption of the biblical text is part of their justification for the supplemental books. My impression was that their issue was not with the KJV per se, but with all translations of Scripture.

Mark

 

Mr.Vols,Pastor Larry,or anyone else this concerns.I love Dr.Peter S.Ruckman.He will be preaching at my church Oct.4-6.Everyone of ya'll are invited to attend.I would love to watch him shut you down.People will talk about him behind his back,but nobody can stand up to him in person.He knows the bible better than any three people put together.If believing the kjv is the word is being a "Ruckmanite",then I am one.I take offence to anyone who talks about him when they have never met him in person.I have to go.I guess the cat is out of the bag now!

 

I will. Invite me over.

I never met him but I worked for a personal friend of his and one of his greatest devotees. It was that experience when I was "on the fence" that drove me off of it. WHen I compared his teachings with what Scripture actually said, I could not believe the kind of stuff that was being taught. Ruckman fails to meet the biblical qualifications for the man of God and should not be allowed in any pulpit.

On the basis of Titus 3:10-11, we should reject him. He has been admonished both personally and publicly and has chosen to continue in his ways. I guess I should withdraw my consent to stand up to him in order to be obedient to Scripture.

[ April 05, 2002, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I know I did bro. Glen Pastor Larry,you were not as tough on me as I thought you would be.The truth is if you ever met bro.Ruckman in person and spent some time with him and listened to what the man has to say you would change your mind about him.If I only read what people like Gary Hudson,Bob Ross,and that croud said about him, and I did not know him personaly,and read a lot of his material I might think like you do.Larry you are invited.I will pick you up at the Birmingham,AL airport,we will provide you a place to stay,treat you with respect,and take you back to the airport.We don't break fellowship with anyone just because they are not kjvo.Now let me brace for Tom Vols,and the rest of the gang

 

Sorry to disappoint you. I have heard him speak and listened to many of his tapes. I have read much of his work. That is why I say what I do. My position stands as previously stated.

 

These are a mixed bag of information about cults and abusive churches:

Are King James Bible believers are a cult? http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_22.asp

Calvary Home Page - The Cults: http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/cults.htm

The King James Bible was used by various early cults: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/kjv.htm

General Info on Cults & Abuse Churches: http://caic.org.au/zgeneral.htm

 

Bro. Glen,the mormons will send you a free kjb,but when you call to request it they will try to get your permission to visit you.I said "no thanks just send the bible please".The jw's mostly use the new world translation,but sometimes I have saw them with a kjv.The catholics have their own catholic bible,but I have worked for some catholics who used the niv,and I am sure some use other versions.
Pastor Larry,I am glad that you have seen the doc in person.You certainly have a right to like or dislike who you want.Kevin.

 

KEVO

Please take a look at this web-sight and see just how Christ-like Mr. Ruckman is, especially when someone wants to confront him. Needless to say, not very Christ-like.

http://aomin.org/ruckcor.html

 

Kevo,
I don't know Mr. Ruckman though I've heard of him. But I'm curious, is this bit of exageration something he claims for himself, or did you think of it?

 

even still, there could be a contest Chris...

 

I guess I was thinking more like Larry, Curly & Moe.

 

Chris and Timothy,I disagree with you but I still laughed my tail off Chet,I looked at the web site.I had already read all that before.That would be a waste of the docs time to debate that man,plus it would not be fair to that man,just ask Bob Ross.Don't pass judgment on Dr. Ruckman until you meet him in person.He is a very friendly person,loves God,he is 80 years old and still preaches on the street three nights a week,preaches in prisions,reads a book a day,has read the bible through more than 200 times,and has lead thousands of souls to Christ in his life.

 

isn't it lovely? Dr Ruckman is "God's junkyard dog" biting the *sses of the likes of David Cloud, in http://www.touchet1611.org/RuckmanCloud.html

who _doesn't_ believe that he's such a gentle, friendly figure? sure, let's invite him home to play w the kids/grandkids.

NOT

 

It is amazing how people can read the things that Ruckman says and still give any credence to the guy. He is bankrupt morally and theologically. He fails the biblical qualifications to minister. Assuming for hte moment that Ruckman is right, biblically he should be following 2 Tim 2:24-26 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

But clearly, Ruckman has asserted himself as above the the standards given forth in SCripture for ministers of the word of God. He is not blameless or above reproach.

His theological positions are abominable. He believes in a works salvation denying the grace of God. He denies the biblical doctrie of inspiration.

This man should be repudiated by everyone who loves God. Meeting him in person will not change his theology and we are commanded to rebuke and chasten people based on their theology and their actions, not their personality.

 

Larry,
This would be great advice for some folks on here too.

________________________________________________

Since we're way off topic. I'm giving the 12 hour notice. Let's start winding this down.

 

That was my point! They don't! The basis of their doctrine is the BoM, PoGP, and DaC, as I said before!

Of course it does! It proves that neither group gets its false doctrine exclusively from the KJV!

I did. You made a silly statement and can't support it with facts.

We aren't talking about any KJVO cult, but about your assertion that cults base their false doctine exclusively on the KJV, a thesis which you have, so far, utterly failed to support.

I am not the one who who is weaseling, you are. If you have evidence to support your assertions post it, but if you contine personal attacks I will treat you as any other poster regardless of your moderator status!

 

Now that that's out of the way, can we continue the discussion? The original assertion (second post in this thread), by Chris

was later withdrawn (wisely, in my opinion, by him) but was picked up by others who have yet to offer any evidence other than subjective "the folks around here" arguments.

So, is there any substantive evidence that cults are drawn to the KJV, or to any other commonly published English version (I say commonly published due to the fact that the JWs publish their own NWT)? It seems to me that any cult that actually believed the bible they use would cease to be a cult. For the KJV certainly would not lead a person into cultish doctrine, any more than any other common English version would. (By the way, that would include the above referenced NWT, for I can prove the deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit from the NWT. The problem is that the JWs don't believe their own bible!)

I suspect the crux of this discussion centers on the tendency to call anyone a "cultist" who disagrees with our position.

Those who love, and use the KJV are accused of cult like behavior, and the KJV is branded as promoting cults, while, at the same time, the KJVOs refer to all users of other English bibles as the "Alexandrian cult." Neither side is correct, and such conduct, it seems to me, is the opposite of what Christ taught.