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
A question about AV1611.com
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Thermodynamics, Jul 3, 2009.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
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 -
All I can say is "wow!" After reading just a little about this Peter Ruckman, watching a few of his "sermons" on Youtube and seeing a few of the things he has written, I find it hard to believe that anyone could take a person like that serious. It has become clear that at the very best Mr. Ruckman is a wicked heritic who is perverting the Bible and taking verses grossly out of context to "prove" his points. I say him state that Paul worshiped the Bible and suggest the he (Ruckman) does as well. I have seen him take a Bible verse about Christ and apply it to the Bible rather than Christ. I have done all the research I need to an that evil man! -
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. :) -
I grew up reading the KJV along with other writings from that era and before, so for me there is nothing difficult about it's language. While I have looked at a few other versions I have never really felt at home with any of them.
I do believe there is a good case to be made that the KJV is based on better manuscripts and that the translators were very careful with their methods. The result of that is a translation that has remained in common use for longer than any other English version and has a huge impact to this day. Yes, there are a few words that are no longer in common useage and a few words that have a meaning that has changed over the last 400 years, but that is not a problem that can't be easily overcome. The Trinitarian Bible Society puts out some great Bibles that have word lists in the back that explain these changes.
I tend to agree with the late Dr. Henry Morris on this issue. He says there are a few areas that could have been translated better and a few errors in translation, but he believes the KJV is the best English translation we have or are likley to have until Christ returns. He says that as someone who has used a number of different translations during his long life and as someone who was on the NKJV committee, so I think his words on the subject should carry a lot of weight. -
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. :) -
-
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 ??. -
-
-
-
Because he was ON the NKJV committee. -
Then again, sometimes you can understand why! there are Dr. Ruckmans in this world. :rolleyes:
-
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. -
Samuel Owen said: ↑...when more than likely if you are stupid like me, you will have to look up the modern words also. Same olde, Same olde.Click to expand...
-
tinytim said: ↑In the words of Barney Fife...
"That guy's a NUT!"Click to expand...
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. -
robycop3 said: ↑(He musta been reading the King George Edition. I have never seen a hint of this in my Cambridge Edition KJV.Click to expand...
He may have been using the "Prince Albert in a Can" version.
Page 2 of 3