Can ANYONE Agree with KJVO #5?

I've never read any of Dr. Ruckman's or G.A.Riplinger's writings and I don't plan on it.

 

Evidently Dr. Ruckman has some who agree with him, or he'd have been outta business long ago. And on other boards I've seen "new" KJVOs who agree with him. However, those people don't usually keep an active dialogue going on the message boards, so I don't know if they actually investigate the matter for themselves, see Ruckman is wrong, feel too ashamed to admit it, and simply hide in absence-or they believe they're wasting their time with recalcitrant people like me & so drop out.

 

I've read most of Ruckman's stuff and Riplinger's two books, as well as the whole line of Onlyist books from Wilkinson's "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" to the latest works of reagan and Moorman, just to have a fair view of both sides of the issue. Seeing the total lack of PROOF for the assertions in the KJVO works, especially from SCRIPTURE, has convinced me that KJVO is a man-made incorrect doctrine. But again, I wanted to be FAIR in my assessment, so I have read, and will continue to read, the KJVO's material. But I support your choice to NOT read it, as we are different people with different tasks set before us by our Lord.

 

Has anyone read William Grady's book? I think he would also be in category #5 (if that's the extreme of the KJVonly positions listed). I had mine personally signed by the (expletive deleted) years ago. I also burned that book in 1994. Even while I was KJVonly back in 1991-1993 I thought it was extreme. Pure vitriol, if you ask me.

 

I'm afraid that you are NOT presenting all the info here.

Pg.116.Christians handbook of Manuscript evedence "In this chapter,we shall see why the A.V.1611 English text is superior to the Westcott and Hort GREEK text.Our recomendation of the A.V.1611 does not lie in the field of "literal beauty" or "graceful pose" or "poetic structure," but rather in the field of Textual Criticism:i.e. the English reading are superior to the Greek[W&H from Vaticanus,and Sinaiticus],which is born out by the comparison of one verse with another."


Which I agree with 110%!!!

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Typical KJVO

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Bob, you are entirely right in the extreme views attributed to Pete Ruckman. Even though I will defend the KJV, I don’t want to be associated with Ruckman because of his specious arguments, his pompous arrogance, his bombastic ranting, his wanton lifestyle, his venomous spirit, and his unscriptural views. The problem is the Ruckman and his followers do more to discredit any reasonable case for the KJV than anyone I know. Even my most reactionary KJVO friends will disavow any association with Ruckman. He is a heretic.

To my mind, the whole question is not so much about the KJV as the methodology for arriving at the modern critical texts. No one, who supports the critical text and modern translations, wants to discuss a critique of the W-H theory and methodology of modern textual criticism. Whereas the adherents have demonstrated some knowledge and skill with Greek and the extant MSS, they seem void of understanding the supposed scientific methodology upon which the whole business is based. This is the foundation upon which the whole house of cards stands. If the foundation collapses, the entire superstructure, regardless of technical details and beautiful scholarship, falls with it.

It is not textual criticism altogether that is bad but it is the one specific theory of textual criticism first proposed by W-H and adapted by modern scholars. It is a bastard theory. This is what Dean Burgeon opposed. As one familiar with scientific research, I know it to be so much hocus pocus and hogwash.

Upon scientific methodology, textual transmission, Divine preservation, and Biblical epistemology, I will critique the modern derived texts and defend the KJV, not upon the spurious ranting and ravings of a madman (pun intended ). Shakespeare said it better than I. You know the part in MacBeth.

 

In a word--NO! They're HERETICAL.

However, I do contend that there are serious KJVO advocates who are unfairly tarred with the same brush as these nut cases with whom they do not agree at all. It is somewhat like saying that all Nazis hate Communists. Therefore, if you hate Communists, you are a Nazi.

Their arguments are not my arguments and their views are not my views. Even James White who really tried to be fair and objective made a broad stroke that tarred many people with diverse views.

My point is this: Do not assume that if you have heard one KJVO argument, you've heard them all. There are cogent arguments. You just may not have heard them because of the dust kicked up the radicals.

Again, what is really a KJVO advocate? If you mean a Ruckmanite--I ain't. Do I accept the KJV as the verson for the modern English-speaking world and the underlying received text? Do I accept the KJV as the inspired* Word of God? YES! (NOTE: Please don't take my statement beyond what is specifically said. No assumptions, please. My considered beliefs and convictions cannot be fully stated, defined, and defended in just two sentences--it would take many pages.)


*I will argue that plenary verbal inspiration is moot and meaningless without an attendant understanding of Divine preservation of content and meaning. If modern textual criticism (i.e. W-H therory)is true, then we must revise our understanding and doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Bob, you are entirely right in the extreme views attributed to Pete Ruckman. Even though I will defend the KJV, I don’t want to be associated with Ruckman because of his specious arguments, his pompous arrogance, his bombastic ranting, his wanton lifestyle, his venomous spirit, and his unscriptural views. The problem is the Ruckman and his followers do more to discredit any reasonable case for the KJV than anyone I know. Even my most reactionary KJVO friends will disavow any association with Ruckman. He is a heretic.

To my mind, the whole question is not so much about the KJV as the methodology for arriving at the modern critical texts. No one, who supports the critical text and modern translations, wants to discuss a critique of the W-H theory and methodology of modern textual criticism. Whereas the adherents have demonstrated some knowledge and skill with Greek and the extant MSS, they seem void of understanding the supposed scientific methodology upon which the whole business is based. This is the foundation upon which the whole house of cards stands. If the foundation collapses, the entire superstructure, regardless of technical details and beautiful scholarship, falls with it.

It is not textual criticism altogether that is bad but it is the one specific theory of textual criticism first proposed by W-H and adapted by modern scholars. It is a bastard theory. This is what Dean Burgeon opposed. As one familiar with scientific research, I know it to be so much hocus pocus and hogwash.

Upon scientific methodology, textual transmission, Divine preservation, and Biblical epistemology, I will critique the modern derived texts and defend the KJV, not upon the spurious ranting and ravings of a madman (pun intended ). Shakespeare said it better than I. You know the part in MacBeth. </font>[/QUOTE]YES, I know that I mispelled John Burgon's name in the above post but my time to edit ran out. This is insurance from getting flamed by some anti-Alexandrian scholastic or Ruckmanite. (Ruckmanite almost sounds Biblical like Oznite, Mithnite, Nemuelite, Mahlite, Ramathite, Amalekite, or Perizzite. I wonder if Parasite is similar? )

 

i've heard of "Ruckie" as well. do a Google of "Ruckie" n "Peter Ruckman" n u'll see!

 

Paid, I believe your views represent the "KJV-PREFERRED" position as you seem open to the idea that the KJV isn't the be-all and end-all English translation, nor the only valid one.

The views of the "#5" type onlyist would be quite humorous if the subject-God's words to all mankind-wasn't so serious. They refuse to see God's evidence right in front of them, that every English BV considered valid, throughout the history of the language, is different from any other, and that Scripture, as found in the KJV itself, is against their view. They remind me of the Flat-Earth believer, when taken up high in an airplane to see the earth's curvature, attributes it to an optical illusion caused by the atmosphere.