AV Revision

Hank, while he believes the Scrivener TR to be the more accurate, that's fine. On the question of the Ruckman comment, I have found 99.9% of the time some one mentions Ruckman, they eventually begin to debate a dead man. Now I don't believe Ruckman to be apostate or anything of the sort. I really don't know alot about him, but I have heard way more than I would ever want, the same goes for Jack Hyles.

I know a lady who is the webmaster of another site that went to Hyles/Andersen and knew Dr. Hyles as a student in his college. If you were to even hint towards something negative about him, no matter how much you think it to be true, she would come real close to scratching out your eyeballs, nice gal, eh? No, she just loved the man, he cared when no one else seemed too.

Now, back to where we started. When I read what others say the Greek says, I don't mind looking into their resources, but sometimes I get the impression, especially from a certain, uh, two or three, they really didn't want me to do that, but rather I just accept what they say as Gospel and move on. I get real stubborn when the allegory is not fitting the flow of the context.

So how is it possible to take what some one says the Greek has to say, when the greek scholars are so often in disagreement with each other?

When some one like Larry says, "Well I know aht I'm talking about", uh, that there is the first warning to be real careful to believe what they say. It's not that I doubt they have studied, but what they studied comes into play.

I learned early in this Christian walk not to readily accept anything w/o first allowing the Lord to guide, that's where context has the authoritive. It's not somke charismatic "feeling' but when the Spirit is not expressly agreed, uh, there's something amiss. Some times , well, more times than I like to admit, it is usually on my behalf and I need correcting. I've learned I can be wrong, but I just know when I'm right, and that's not real often.

What really bothers me about some is, they get so bent out of shape over simple debate, as if they are some how deprived of life or something.

Take the passage of Job 24:22. I don't mean to wear it out, but it's just such a good example and others' disagreement cause me to look at it from what they say and re-examine what I believe, the same as when hell is preached on, I get the blessed opportunity to confirm my salvation, w/o any sacrement or ritual, uh, PRAISE GOD!.

If you follow the flow, from verse 1 all the way to Job 25:1, you find Job, the active speaker, examining the ways of the wicked, then in 25:1, you find his adversary jumping from the context and redirecting his aim back to Job; those miserable comforters.

I haven't studied Job in too much detail, but I have looked at Job 24 alot Now even more so since I heard a young man read from the nkjv in verse 22 that God is placed as the active pronoun, man, it just didn't sound right, so I started digging.

I found most commentators to say they believed it to be God, but there are a couple who couldn't determine who. I looked at the Hebrew and didn't find anything certain, except even the Rabbi's weren't sure either. some said they believed it to be the wicked, some believed it to be God. So to put an end to the perplexity, I just had to stay with the flow of the context of the passage. I learned a very valuable lesson in this endeavor, stay with the context, no matter what Dr. Gobstopperr has to say. He may share his interpetation from an objective point of vierw, but he best remember when it come to debate, we do our best to fend off what seems subjective.

I just don't have the wit and charm exhibited by some here, I get rather obnoxious, so do others. I don't mind healthy debate, as long as the brats don't behave like brats and get all puffed up. Like you said, I have a button to push too.

 

Doesn't annoy me, the more I learn about these theological icons, the more I see they're attacked by the hell bent type.

I don't have any problem with what these men actually believe. I only have to be accountable for what I believe, and that is God.

I heard Dr. Ralph Sexton preach on "The Master's Touch" he gave the analogy of a young man who just had heard a master violinist perform one of the most artistic and beautifully exquisite score, much like our AV 1611 KJB, but not perfect. That young man came to the master violinist and told him he wanted to play like that one day. The master then asked, "How much are you willing to give?" The answer wasn't what the young man wanted, much like what the mv advocates think, but the master was quick to inform the young man, it would require his life.

You see, that's what Jesus gave, His Life, that we might have the Bible, we might have eternal life, for even the Master said, "Search the scriptures, for in them, ye think ye have eternal life."

Many men have given their lives so we might have and hold with our sinful hands the Precious Word of God. I see mere men diligently, if that can be said, doing their best to destroy our Bible, that sir, is what drives my faith in knowing i must have the right One, the AV 1611 KJB. There are no modern day martyrs for the Word of God. Everybody waits till they're dead to burn them at the stake. Much like the catholic diosys did the bones of John Wiclif, (Wycliff).

 

Look unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith, that would be a great place to start!

 

ep, I agree, but since Jesus gave us the KJB, I still believe He saves souls in spite of the label of KJVO, uh, through the AV 1611 KJB, which emphatically contains the Gospel and much more accurately at that!.

BTW, if I walked into a church w/my KJB and some one stopped me and asked what mv I preferred, I would

But, now, back on topic. If the mv hounds know oh so much about MSS and the History of the Bible including all these in the years between 1550- 1993, and newer, why can't anyone show us anything about the differences in the 1762 Cambridge and the 1769 Oxford? Not studied enough?

Oh, I get it, Scott Emerson Clark is still shunning me.

 

I must apologize for playing the "polished troll". The debate forum has the identity of being just the place where 'WE", including the all of us, even Bro. Roger/Christ4Kildare, uh, also Thankful, "fit" in.

I just slash with my limited vocabulary, others use emotionalism, and "intellect", if you call it that, and even the high-hand of authority to push and pull in the process of debate.

Your silvery edged sword has it's effect, but "Touche'!" "En garde!"

I had only heard of Ruckman a few years ago, and it wasn't nice what I heard. Uh, from what is labeled as KJVO at that!

I suppose we could identify with the world and take on this perspective, I did hear a preacher use the analogy describing how Christians should get along, uh, get over differences.

But then we are more like what you've described, alternating the sides though.

We could at least be more like:

 

SasKatcheWAN, Good howlin', that's my 1762! Anybody got anymore? Reckon even the Oxford 1769 could have a printer error or two? Yet still be the Word of God?

Uh, Ed?

 

I have been here for a few years now... waiting. Waiting for someone to come along and give a valid biblical/historical/rational proof for statements like this.

I agree that in God's providence we have the KJV... but also the NASB, NKJV, ESV, etc. However, Jesus didn't give us any of these versions directly.

If you want to believe something that has not one ounce of proof to support it. Go ahead. But when you come out and express it publicly where it can do harm to the unwary then you must be challenged.

.... so, for the umpteenth time, please provide proof for your assertion that "Jesus gave us the KJB". </font>[/QUOTE]Give us proof of your ascertion He didn't! Now how is it that God's Providence isn't direct?

 

Never.

 

We don't hold your nationality against you. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe Adolf said that right before invading.

Naw. I get the pun, Thanks!