"Why do you KJV only people attack the word of God?"

you keep up with some pretty meaningless stuff.

is it your attitude to permanantly ban people from BB, your church, your life?

"years ago"?

 

No, actually Tiny Tim is one of the better posters on this board. His posts are edifying, and one is usually able to learn something from them. As to your post, that is a good auto-biography for you.

 

yes, the protestant "roots" do have a way of making themselves known.

My Bible teaches me to restore and forgive. The catholic mnetality says to cut off, burn, convert or die! ( or in BB lingo: comprimise or get banned)

 

[Non-Baptist posting in a Baptist Only forum]

 

Your characterization of "the Baptists" (which, by definition would include yourself, by your own admission, here) as "Apostates" is "painting with an extremely broad brush" in considering the thread topic and the fact that "Baptists" run the gamut, form those who are definitely 'liberal" in every sense of the word, to those whose own views on the subject of 'KJVO' would make you look like one of the so-called, but entirely misnamed "Bible Agnostics" as labeled by one posting on this thread. (Does the name of Dr. Peter J. Ruckman come to mind, here?)

So which will it be? Would you prefer to retract this 'charge' in Black bold, or do you also consider yourself an Apostate, now, as well??

Ed

 

This isn't church.

I see pretty vile attitudes on both sides. But Will calling people "Bible agnostics" as he has is definitely against the BB rules.

 

Saying an organization or denomination has gone into Apostasy, does not mean every single member. But it means those who do not agree, need to separate themselves from it.

Also you do not have to be a Ruckmanite, to support a KJVO, or KJV preferred view. Someone has boxed all such folks into one little group, when that is not so. There are some of us, who realize the problems in the so called better manuscripts, and simply try to encourage others to see it also. But you can only see what you want to see, otherwise you are blinded by opinions. The very words Critical Text, constitute something less than honesty to me.

 

Let's try this again, perhaps your hearing aid was off-

THIS ISN'T CHURCH!

And it has nothing to do with 'hypocrisy' or 'rebellion'.

I am taking a stand against the doctrine called KJVOism. I do the same in my church. Anyone who comes in with that stand is free to hold to it as long as they keep it to themselves- and we do have a couple of members who do just that. If they start calling people "Bible agnostics" or questioning the Word of God they quickly find out that they will be happier elsewhere. I don't go out of my way to preach against KJVO, but if it rears it's head and threatens to become a divisive issue I will protect my flock.

Personally, I feel that KJVO is just as divisive and h-l as the 'Millenial Exclusion' teaching which got several banned from the BB. But that is not my decison to make.

 

No such doctrine exists

 

I find it odd that you ignore my posts Will. I believe it is because you cannot carry on a legitimate debate with actual responses that make sense.
Your response here, for example, is not legitimate.
Almost all of us have repeatedly told you that we use the Bible as our final authority; we believe the Bible to be infallible and inerrant.
Do you know what neo-orthodoxy is?
Those involved in neo-orthodoxy take orthodox meanings of the Bible (grace, justification, salvation, etc.) and deliberately change the meaning, making the same words mean something else. In that way they sound evangelical when they are not. You are doing the same thing. You have deliberately taken the word "Bible" and similar words, and changed their orthodox meaning to make them fit your own paradigm. That falls into the heresy of neo-orthodoxy. And that is where this confusion lies.

We all believe in an infallible, inspired, inerrant Bible; inspired and inerrant in the original autographs. It is that last phrase that you hate and detest. As I have said before, 100 years that phrase would have never even had to be mentioned. It was understood. That is what all believers believed when one spoke of inspiration. It was a given fact. This KJVO movement is a Johnny-come-lately movement of the last part of the 20th century. It is so recent that it began in your lifetime, and in mine. You actually saw its origin. You fell for it: hook, line and sinker.

As the KJVO is a new movement so is neo-orthodoxy.
Both are wrong.

 

KJVOism is a doctrine in and of itself. If it isn't why is the statement being made by one who holds to KJVOism, that if you believe otherwise you are a "Bible agnostic." Would not that indicate that you deny the doctrines of KJVOism.
Bible agnostic
a = no or not
gnostic from gnosis or knowledge.
agnostic = no knowldge
Bible agnostic = no knowledge of the Bible or Bible doctrines.
Is that what Will is accusing us of--having no knowledge or no belief of the Bible?

 

Will, you can try to justify yourself all you want. But the real unbelievers are folks like yourself who just cannot accept the fact that God can use imperfect beings and imperfect translations to do His perfect work.

I hate repeating myself, but you seem to enjoy it so I'll repost this from another thread that was closed:

Millions of Bible believers exist who have never heard of you, Ruckman, or even the KJV. They are Bible believers who know that what they have and hold IS the Word of God even if you would deny it. Many of them don't even have a complete copy of God's Word in their own language, but they cherish and believe what they do have.

Your teaching does not build faith in the Word of God, rather it destroys it.

That's my stand.

 

I am tired of pretended naive ignorance Will. I have repeated myself, defined my terms, etc. Others understand what I say, why don't you. You pretend not to. That is an insult. The reason you pretend not to understand is that you cannot come back with an intelligent answer to the arguments that I have set forth in my posts. You have redefined "Bible." You are just like the neo-orthodox. As long as you redefine terms and refuse to acknowledge terminology that is orthodox and common among us all it is like talking to a brick wall, or a person in a different language.
Comprenez Vous?

 

I haven't done any of this so-called 'boxing' and in fact, just recently made some posts which show such a difference. There are 'miles' of difference between an extreme KJVO, such as Dr. Ruckman or the late Dr. David Otis Fuller, and the position you hold which is that of a strongly "KJV preferred view", neither of which, incidentally, I have ever opposed, although I may and do disagree with one or both, and am on record as advocating an 'MT' view of the New Testament.

What I have consistently done is to "call the hand" when one makes (or repeats) historical and factual errors and/or lies when I notice such. I will continue to do so, and refute such "Death in the Pot", when and if I am able as long as God (or the "powers that be" of the Baptist Board) allow(s) me to do so, when and if I have the time available. I am not constrained by any one particular position on this, and call all such errors into play equally, when and if they appear, if I notice such or have the time to invest.

FTR, I believe you will search the BB in vain to find where I have ever 'advocated' any of these so-called "better manuscripts" which I suggest is a 'code word' for the "text form" of the Greek NT, commonly, but mistakenly called the W/H or so-called "Critical Text" although I have advocated the Majority text, as I have previously noted.

FTR, I use (and generally advocate) the KJV and NKJV editions that I do, because I have not been able to find an acceptable MT version easily available, and the text(s) underlying the KJV and NKJV are far superior to that of such as the NIV, NASB, etc., IMO.

And where exactly have I supposedly done this, speaking of being "blinded by opinions" and 'boxing' "all such folks into one little group"?

While that may well be your opinion, and in fact, may even well be an accurate assessment, that designation (which is a proper noun, when in "Upper Case" letters) is used to describe one general particular "text-form" as previously noted.

In small case letters, every known text both NT and OT is a "critical text" (as opposed to a MSS or Codex in the Biblical languages, which is not a "critical text" for a MSS is not to be confused with any collated text), in that every such known text from the first one, until now is the result of someone's 'critical analysis' of more than one MSS, with the reading adopted, aside from some portions of Revelation that are found in the earlist editions of the text-form compiled by Erasmus, that would later be known as the TR.

The only reason for this is that at least initially, Erasmus had only one text of Revelation available to him.

Otherwise he had more than one manuscript at his disposal {in each instance, choosing what he considered the 'preferred reading' [as no two manuscripts discovered from that day until now, happen to agree exactly, in every single detail, including "Dabs1 or "Abscrift" (which happens to be a known direct and intentional ninth century copy of the Pauline Epistles found in Codex Claramontanus or "D")]}, although he had nothing like the number of MS that are available to one today, given more recent discoveries and technology. Later editors of the TR, as well as Erasmus, added and consulted more MSS as they became available to them, emending the TR, in that process.

It is simply a misrepresentation to deny this known fact, just as it is a misrepresentation to claim that the W/H text is the same as the UBS text of today, or that the MT(s) as collated by Pierpont and Robinson, and/or Hodges and Farstad are the same as the TR of Erasmus, Estienne, Beza, et al.. This is simply not so.

All of these above ("MT", "CT", "TR") now take the readings of many (even reaching into several hundred, in some instances) of MSS into account (and the editors and collators of them make "critical" choices in readings and MSS), and not a mere handful. (Granted, I am here speaking of the NT MSS and texts, and not the OT MSS and texts, which process, although similar, receives much less "ink" than does that of the NT.)

As has been well and often said, "Things that are different are not the same."

This is certainly no less true for Bible texts than for any other endeavor.

Ed