A question about AV1611.com

As a small detour (not derail), I'll just say that while it can be a bit difficult at times, in the Bible to tell whether the Bible is speaking of the living Word of God or the living Word of God, there doesn't seem to me to be any real place where the Bible confutes the living Word of God with a translation of the scripture(s).

At least, IMO.

Ed

 

You have a very nice website. :wavey:

 

Also look up Gail Riplingers " New Age Bible Versions".

Ruckman runs a seminary in Pensacola Florida where apparently many of the guys at AV1611 have attended.

In 1995 James White wrote to Peter Ruckman to set up a debate. Read the letters here to get a good insight about Ruckman.
http://vintage.aomin.org/ruckcor.html

 

Dr. Ruckman, and others like him, of which there are more than a few. Are responsible, for all the flack someone gets that says they prefer the KJV.

I prefer the KJV, and don't like to argue about it. Debates usually end up producing more confusion, than just not saying anything. The old saying about horses, and water is very sensible, and the person who came up with that is a smart fellow.

I can see why the modern crowd, like the modern versions. Its no secret the KJV uses words, that are no longer in our vocabulary. Also there are old world phrases in there, sometimes hard to understand. So the hurry up and go folks of today, just don't want to take the time to really study the KJV, and learn their way around those things.

I can say one thing, once you make up your mind to take the time. It won't be long before you come to the conclusion, something different is going on between the KJV, and other versions of the Bible.

 

The Scofield lll Study Bible I bought a few months ago, tries to overcome the language barrier, and does a pretty good job. Instead of changing words in the text, the substitutes are in the margin notes. Now before someone says they are Alexandrian, realize there are just so many words that suit, and some are similar to the words used to translate the Alexandrian text. But this in no way makes the Scofield lll follow, or suggest any other text. They are just the most suitable! modern English words to use in each case.

As for antiquated phrases, these are discussed or alternate readings are given in some of the footnotes. But this is not done to excess, only where there are some real difficult passages to follow. Other than that the text is that of the 1769 Oxford, and you can ignore everything else if you so desire. So if you have one of these Scofield lll Bibles, there is no reason to say you can’t understand the KJV.

 

That might be so in your case. But not for others whose primary language is not English.

 

I don't see the object. If your primary language is not English, why would the KJV be a bigger problem than some MV. The reading level of the KJV is lower, because it uses simpler two syllable words, instead of the multiple syllable words of the MV's.

I can vouch for that myself, the first NKJV I looked at, I had to get a dictionary to make out some of the modern word meanings. Of course I am just an old undereducated person, who can only understand the words in the KJV. All things aside, what is the difference ?. If you don't understand some of the Olde English words, or some of the modern ones ??.

 

Good. That's because folks living in contemporary times appreciate reading modern English. And I've noticed that you use the latter also in your posts. More than likely you use modern English in your daily spoken communication. So what's your problem again?

Why bother when we have access to English versions which are several centuries more modern than KJV-speak?

You are impling that something sinister is going on. You do like to stir the pot Samuel.

 

That is completely nonsensical. Do a survey of a couple of unchurched young people. Have them read a passage of Scripture in the KJV first. Tell them to rephrase it in modern English. Then have them look at the same passage in the NIV and have them reword it. Thsi test will demonstrate that the NIV (as an example) is much easier to understand than the KJV. The NIV reading level is undeniably lower.

Let me get this straight. You had to use a dictionary to find the meaning of modern words? And you don't need a dictionary of 200-plus years ago to discover the meanings of words and phrases that the English language hasn't used for centuries?

 

Why should his words on the subject carry a lot of weight? His life's work had nothing to do with Bible translations.

 

Then again, sometimes you can understand why! there are Dr. Ruckmans in this world.

 

Ah! You noticed that little, often easily overlooked detail too, I see.

Ed

 

Well since I usually don't see the object in having to detail every gnat hair, I guell I will.
My statement was I had to look up some of the modern words I did not comprehend, just as I did with the KJV when I first read it. So what is the object in saying you can't read the KJV, when more than likely if you are stupid like me, you will have to look up the modern words also. Same olde, Same olde.

 

Not wanting to derail the thread, so I'll be brief, Sportzz Fanzz:

Ya might read Ruckman's Mark Of The Beast in which he sez the antichrist will be a 10-ft. tall alien with huge black lips who will land a mile-wide spaceship on the Mt. of Olives & impart his mark with a kiss. He sez he ascertained this after having read the KJV cover-to-cover 40 times.

(He musta been reading the King George Edition. I have never seen a hint of this in my Cambridge Edition KJV, which I've read in its entirety at least 10 times, or in the AV1611 which I've read completely umpteen times, inclusing all the marginal notes & all the other extratextual material.)

But such jive falls right in line with mucha the other codwallop in that goofy site.

 

Oh yeah, that's one I forgot, I told you there was more. Well I have a Cambridge, 3 Scofields (old, 1967, & Scofield lll), Thompson Chain, Zodhiates Hebrew & Greek key study system KJV, NKJV, Amplified, Living (original), RSV, NIV, NASB, and several New Testament preversions. Maybe some I have forgot.

Anyway not even the most perverted version I have, says anything about any 10 foot tall big black lipped alien . Not even the Wuest "New Expanded Translation of the New Testament". If you want a perversion, that one is it.