Gnosticism?

Correct Ben.

In fact the chief spokesman of the KJVO movement, Dr. Peter Ruckman, wrote a book in which he identifies at least 200 mistakes (which he admits as "mistakes") in the AV1611 which are in reality (according to him) "advanced revelation".

These advanced revelations were inadvertantly made by the KJVO translators. In reality (again according to him) the Holy Spirit was behind the scenes guiding them into these "mistakes" awaiting the grand revelator, Dr Ruckman.

Dr Ruckman claims to be the sole discoverer of this body of revelations which have been hidden since the apostolic age.

In a promotion of one of his books The Salient Verses, Dr. Ruckman says...

Please note that Dr. Ruckman is by implication the one and only who has this information and indeed he alone has the key of knowledge concerning these 200 or more pieces of “advanced revelation”, "that were completely overlooked (or ignored) by every major Christian scholar since 90 A.D".

This is a gnostic trait, extra and/or exclusive and/or secret revelation hidden in the ancient text to be revealed to those with the "gnosis".

Hence the "passover" in Acts 12:4 in 36AD becomes "easter" in 1611AD.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, many confuse Gnosticism
with mysticism. Gnosticism is a formal sort
of mysticism. Both the set: mysticism,
and the subset: Gnosticism, are Anathema
to we Baptists.
--------------------------------------------------

Gnosticism is mysticism. They are the same. There is not confusion about it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Seems clear to me, Michelle, that you are intent on making false allegations against people most of the time. I read your links, but there are more than just that flavor of gnostic. I think you need to grow up and quit painting with such a wide brush.

AVL1984

 

--------------------------------------------------
In fact the chief spokesman of the KJVO movement, Dr. Peter Ruckman, wrote a book in which he identifies at least 200 mistakes (which he admits as "mistakes") in the AV1611 which are in reality (according to him) "advanced revelation".

These advanced revelations were inadvertantly made by the KJVO translators. In reality (again according to him) the Holy Spirit was behind the scenes guiding them into these "mistakes" awaiting the grand revelator, Dr Ruckman.

Dr Ruckman claims to be the sole discoverer of this body of revelations which have been hidden since the apostolic age.
--------------------------------------------------

You might want to set your focus of gnosticism upon those men who had part in the underlying texts of the mv's, rather than some man who has no influence on versions translations at all. Those two men were Westcott and Hort. Your focus should be upon them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Actually, I thought our focus was supposed to be on the Lord Jesus Christ and his Word. Half truths about W/H aren't any more affective than the half truths told about King Jimmy.

AVL1984

 

--------------------------------------------------
Seems clear to me, Michelle, that you are intent on making false allegations against people most of the time. I read your links, but there are more than just that flavor of gnostic. I think you need to grow up and quit painting with such a wide brush.

AVL1984
--------------------------------------------------

The only painting that has been done is by the mv proponents against those who come here sharing the truth with you all. You all paint us with the broad stroke of some false man made label, and then attack and slander us also personally, all because we try to show you all that the mv's have errors in them, and that we do have God's pure word of truth in our language which has also been labeled and attacked.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Actually, I thought our focus was supposed to be on the Lord Jesus Christ and his Word. Half truths about W/H aren't any more affective than the half truths told about King Jimmy.
--------------------------------------------------

I never said it wasn't. I was commenting on Hanks post and the focus of it. You should be one to talk. When is your focus EVER upon our Lord Jesus Christ and his power and his concern about his saints? You say, He only left his inspired words for us in some foreign language we don't understand, and that what was provided for generations of English faithful believers have errors in them, and therefore God did not provide us English speaking people HIS words of truth in our own language, or anyone for that matter, unless of course they know these dead languages. Huh...go figure. How exactly is the glorifying Jesus Christ our Lord?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

In a limited way I have michelle. But, if and when I do set my focus in that direction, it will be substantiated with historical fact without the usual ad hominem smear.
Yes, I have used these smear tactics, the very same tactics used by KJVO against those individuals to whom the KJVO give honor in order to give them a little taste of their own ugly "medicine".

In the meantime there is no need for me to say anything about W&H, there are already sufficient voices doing that here at the BB.


HankD

 

One thing about a "dead" language. It NEVER changes, not one "jot" or "tittle". This literal fulfilment of the words of Jesus Christ by the Traditional Hebrew Text gives glory to Jesus Christ.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
Half truths about W/H aren't any more affective than the half truths told about King Jimmy.
--------------------------------------------------

First of all, King James has nothing to do with the translation of the texts. Secondly, he was a King, and times then were much different than W/H day, as well as today. Thirdly, W/H were responsible for much of the text and methods mv's come from. W/H were involved in secret societies during this, and also associated with some very skeptical people in history. This is not speculation, nor half truths, but FACTS. Jesus said:

Matt. 7

13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

There is nothing to discuss here.
I gave a fact. You express an opinion that
disagrees with fact. You look /snipped/.

Can you give a few clues as to what you
mean when you say "Gnosticism is mysticism"?
I read it that you claim
"Gnosticism" and "mysticism" are two different
names for the same set of facts. This
interpertation of mine is foolish.
If that is what you mean you look /snipped/

I said: "Unfortunately, many confuse Gnosticism
with mysticism." This is indeed unfortunate
and you swollowed the hook, the line, and
the sinker. The definition normally used
for "Gnosticism" and for "mysticism" is
that the set called "Gnosticism" is a subset
of the set of things called "mysticism".
If you choose to use a non-standard defintion,
then you have to explain yourself. What do
you mean? BTW, i also can misquote
scripture. You are confused here
and GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION.

Praise Iesus! {/b]

 

--------------------------------------------------
One thing about a "dead" language. It NEVER changes, not one "jot" or "tittle". This literal fulfilment of the words of Jesus Christ by the Traditional Hebrew Text gives glory to Jesus Christ.
--------------------------------------------------

Your point is? Do I rely upon what God has provided me? Or should I rather rely upon what you and many people today think it says, that is CONTRARY to what God has provided for me, and generations of believers in the churches? Let me remind you of something:

1 Tim. 3

14. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
There is nothing to discuss here.
I gave a fact. You express an opinion that
disagrees with fact. You look /snipped/.

--------------------------------------------------


You gave nothing but your OWN OPINION.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, Did any of these supposed secret societies ever persecute, imprison, or execute Baptists that got under their skin?

BTW, ample proof has been posted to call into serious question your "FACTS". I have no way of knowing whether the charges are true or not. We do have some historical records on how the Anglicans of the early 1600's up until the American Revolution treated Baptists, including those of the translators' era and some of the translators themselves.

What we can evaluate is if that narrow amount of W&H's scholarship that is still used by scholars to evaluate biblical texts is reasonable or not- and it is. Whether we agree with the critical method and its assumptions or not, it remains a valid possibility that in no way contradicts or compromises scriptural principles.

 

--------------------------------------------------
In a limited way I have michelle. But, if and when I do set my focus in that direction, it will be substantiated with historical fact without the usual ad hominem smear.
Yes, I have used these smear tactics, the very same tactics used by KJVO against those individuals to whom the KJVO give honor in order to give them a little taste of their own ugly "medicine".
--------------------------------------------------

And what smear tactic is this? Please I would like to know, how ridiculing and false accusing some man, who has no bearing whatsoever concerning Bible versions, is giving "them" a taste of thier own "ugly medicine?" I would much rather try to follow the command of our Lord Jesus Christ when He tells us:

2 Thess. 5

15. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle: "W/H were involved in secret societies during this,
and also associated with some very skeptical people in history.
This is not speculation, nor half truths, but FACTS."

Actually the W/H secret society speculation is speculation.
Yes, the W/H secret society is not a half truth, it ain't near that
close I've not seen any convincing evidience that would suggest
that Westcott and Hort were anything other than good Anglican
leaders and scholars. All i've seen is that certain usually
unreliable people claim that Westcott & Hort belonged to
a secret society. BTW, merely belonging to a secret society
does not disqualify one from making decisions on Bible Sources.

Why was it alright for the Anglican translators of the King James Version
to make "which Bible source is Best" decisions but it
is not alright for Anglicans Westcott and Hort to make these decisions?
My answer is "KJVO double standard".

Praise Iesus, Sonne of God

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, Did any of these supposed secret societies ever persecute, imprison, or execute Baptists that got under their skin?

--------------------------------------------------

Here is some scripture for you to contemplate regarding this:


Matt. 10

25. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
26. Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
27. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


Anyone doing something in secret is contrary to, and opposite of Christ Jesus our Lord, and is indicative of their spiritual state. Also pay close attention to what our Lord said to which I put in bold.

Secondly, there were 47 scholarly men who translated our Bible. They did not murder these Baptists as you so claim and would like others to believe. Westcott and Hort were only two men, and they were involved in things that are CONTRARY to a born again christian believer, and responsible for the texts and methods underlying the mv's of today. Please also read Matt. 7.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Actually the W/H secret society speculation is speculation.
Yes, the W/H secret society is not a half truth, it ain't near that
close I've not seen any convincing evidience that would suggest
that Westcott and Hort were anything other than good Anglican
leaders and scholars. All i've seen is that certain usually
unreliable people claim that Westcott & Hort belonged to
a secret society. BTW, merely belonging to a secret society
does not disqualify one from making decisions on Bible Sources.

--------------------------------------------------

Let me ask you something, Ed. If you never lay your eyes upon the Bible, and you never read it, can you say you know it? Can you say you are well informed of it? Can you say you have seen it?

You have admitted that you read NONE OF ANY of the LINKS that I provided, yet you can say you haven't SEEN ANY EVIDENCE. You cannot see something Ed, if you don't make the effort to read it. So I can truthfully say of you, that you are ignorant regarding this, and do not know what you are talking about, and that what you say is not based upon FACTS, but your OWN BIASED OPINION.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
BTW, merely belonging to a secret society
does not disqualify one from making decisions on Bible Sources.

--------------------------------------------------

If you even knew what Secret Societies were, then you would know that what you just stated in the above quote is VERY WRONG. No blood bought child of God WOULD EVER belong to such a thing.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
What we can evaluate is if that narrow amount of W&H's scholarship that is still used by scholars to evaluate biblical texts is reasonable or not- and it is. Whether we agree with the critical method and its assumptions or not, it remains a valid possibility that in no way contradicts or compromises scriptural principles.
--------------------------------------------------

The EVIDENCE proves otherwise, to which many today are sadly ignoring and compromising with.

Luke 14

26. If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
27. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
28. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
29. Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
30. Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
31. Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
32. Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
33. So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
34. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
35. It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.


Their methods come from apostacy, german rationalism. By their fruits you shall know them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle