just curious

Yes, moderators please respond. I will willingly abide by the decision of the moderators. It was not a personal attack, it was the truth spoken in defense of an attack, and I stand by what I said.

 

Ruckman has been sniffing too much chalk dust!

 

YOu need to figure out the quotes function on here to make your comments readable. I will try to figure this one out but in the future, try to do it properly so it is easier to read.

I was referring to your calling the KJV the KJB. ON the title page, it is titled the "King James Version." You did not even call it by its given name.

I wasn't suggesting that at all.

So? That doesn't have any thing to do with this discussion that I know of. When I talk of "interpretational differences" in translation, I am referring to things such as the understanding of genitives, participles, etc. The participle was inspired; the genitive was inspired. A translator may or may not get it right.

However, as I originally said, I will be glad to have a substantive discussion about issues with you. This kind of talk is not related to the actual issues of the debate. Unfortunately, it is the type of talk that is predominant.

 

The NT was not translated from the Hebrew. It was written in Greek. The OT translations found in the Greek NT show us that your method of reckoning inspiration and preservation is not the biblical approach.

As for KEVO, and being called a liar, when you made the statement that we are trying to destroy the Word of God, you told a blatant lie. It is necessary in these discussions to maintain an attitude of grace. In such a statement, you did not do so. Apparently your time off did not help you think through your demeanor issues. You and your friends need to understand that we love the Lord and his Word as much as you do. If you come and sit through one of my services, I assure you that you will find that out. This is not about loving God or his Word. It is about figuring things out that God has not explicitly told us about. You and your friends have yet to provide one verse where God tells us to use the KJV. You would like us to follow the teachings of man on this issue. We refuse to do it.

 

I have read these arguments and gone through these same arguments with different brothers and sisters in the past 14 years. But to save a lot of repeating, I have a book that explains the whole dilemma thoroughly.

Final Authority
A Christian's Guide to the King James Bible
By: Dr. William P Grady

Grady Publications, Inc.
P.O. Box 5217
Knoxville, Tennessee 37928
865-219-5990
[email protected]

I have read this book, and Dr. Grady has everything documented and cross referenced. It is in its 10th printing since 1993. He also explains about the other bibles out there and their problems, too. There is also an index so you can look up individual bible versions and look up in his book where each one is addressed through out the book.

It is a very easy book to read, and is in hard cover with 321 pages of text. I strongly recommend this book for pro and con KJB people to read and study. It will prove to be a valuable asset to your library. And is wriiten for the lay person to understand.

"this is an unpaid endorsement"

[ July 22, 2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Justified ]

 

Grady's book ranks up there with Riplinger's in terms of academic credibility. It has none. I have read parts of Grady's book and heard Grady speak in person. My pastor at that time (a rabid KJVOnlyite) thought Grady's book was weak (and my pastor (at that time) actually likes Ruckman).

In fact, it was my experience at the church that soured me on KJVOnlyism. I was more or less neutral when I went there. After three years of hearing the arguments for KJVOnlyism, I found them totally unconvincing and at times, borderline dishonest.

 

it was the truth spoken in defense of an attack, and I stand by what I said[BrianT]

"And I have spoken truth which has been deleted with the words "attack" inserted, where there were no attacks. I have rec'd 3 reprimands & I have been turned over to the authorities. ["So be it"]... And all because I choose to stand up for what I personally believe to be right; yes, this is a fight for God & His true & perfect Word, & it is because I DO love Him.

Pastor Lar~I could not & would not choose to sit in one of your services as it would be against everything I've ever believed in. Sorry.

And the reason I've ALWAYS written "KJBible" is because #1-it's shorter than writing out the whole thing: the King James Version of the Holy Bible #2-I believe it IS the ONLY Bible intended for us now, just as it's ancestors were the ONLY ones intended for those folks back then.

My God, who cannot lie, has spoken; His eternal, unchangeable, inspired, infallible, inerrant Word, given thru' prophets & apostles, has been divinely protected against corruption & preserved in all its purity & power down thru' the ages.

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

[ETC, ETC, ETC]... "When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him."

 

Granny, it's possible to discuss the issue without personally insulting someone.

"everything" you've ever believed in???!? Come on, Granny. Pastor Larry preaches the gospel - is that against what you believe. This is exactly the type of statement that gets you in trouble!

"KJV" is even shorter.

Interesting how the "unchangeable" word changed, making a transition from "those folk back then" to "us now". Why aren't we still using the other word of God, the one they used back then? I have some of those "ancestors", have they ceased to be the word of God? And if in 1605 all the "ancestors" were the word of God (ie. multiple versions), why are you against multiple versions today? Granny, don't you see the double standards and faulty logic required by your view?

Brian

 

I had a similiar experience, although it only took me 18 months. I was not soured on KJV-onlyism until I attended a KJV-only church. I did not openly oppose KJV-onlyism until I read "New Age Bible Versions", lent to me by the pastor there when I had questions. I would totally agree with your comments about KJV-only arguments, except for that book I would not have used the word "borderline".

 

Why? That sounds strange to me that you would refuse to sit in the service of a independent fundamental militant separatist Baptist who believes in the absolute authority of God's word for all areas of life because it is "against everything [you've] ever believed in." What in the world do you believe??

The standard abbreviation is "KJV" which is five letters shorter than your "shorter" KJBible.

On what Scriptural basis do you believe this? That is what I have been trying to get someone to tell us. You say you believe the Bible is the final authority. Yet you have not provided one verses the "Final Authority" tells us to use the KJV. Why? Do you not have a verse? Are you prepared to admit that you have established as doctrine the commandments of men?

My NASB says that I agree with it totoally.

My NASB says that and I have preached it explicitly to my people.

My NASB says this.

In other words, every verse that you put forward for the KJV is found in every modern version. So why does it refer to the KJV instead of the MVs?

What does this have to do with Bible versions??

 

Pastor Larry,

With all due respect, you are being very one sided and very unfair with your judgment on this matter! By your own words: "I have read parts of Grady's book and heard Grady speak in person." How can you objectively critic this book by only reading PARTS? Would that be like someone reading PARTS of the Bible, like only reading parts of Judges and reading PARTS of the Books of the Kings, and then their opinion of God is WHAT? I have heard Dr. Grady speak and I did not come up with that conclusion!

As for your Pastor at the time, if he wanted deep theological material, then Dr. Grady's book would not be for him, as this book is written for the lay person to read and understand. And you said that your Pastor at the time said "thought Grady's book was weak" he did not say "in terms of academic credibility. It has none.". You said that, and only after reading PARTS. And also considering that Dr. Grady has everything documented and cross referenced with facts, blows your insinuation of "not being creditable" right out of the water!

And also by your own statement, you seem to have problems with "AUTHORITY" in your own life anyway! "I was more or less neutral when I went there. After three years of hearing the arguments for KJVOnlyism, I found them totally unconvincing and at times, borderline dishonest." For 3 years you tainted that church, but yet you quote him?

Are you a double minded man, in your argument on this matter? And then in conjunction with everything you have stated, my 14 years of studying to your "After three years of hearing", I think I have a LITTLE more creditability on this issue!

 

Actually, while this admission may appear to be one small step by MV advocates it is a giant leap for our more radical KJVO brethren.

So Granny, do you realize that when the KJBible was published many resisited it because they felt the Geneva Bible (which was the Word of God for its generation) was superior?
A similar struggle ensued then as now.
Many felt the Geneva (or others such as the Great Bible) was all that was necessary.
There is nothing new under the sun.
This question of the Preserved Word seems to become evident only after the fact.

So that's another reason why I don't believe we/I should get ugly about it.

Some strong pro-KJV advocates (such as myself) feel that it is a "new generation" and a modern "TR" translation is on the horizon.
Personally, after reviewing the NKJV (and others based on the "TR") and the current church scene, there seems yet to be such a translation moving into the forefront.

Just some personal opinions.

HankD

[ July 22, 2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Because the parts I read were dishonest with the facts, weak in their logical approach, and misused Scripture. I do not need to read the whole book to know that it contains these things. Did he correct these mistatements somewhere?

Again, my point is not about his cross-references. My point is that he misrepresents the facts, misses some of the facts, has logical fallacies, and misuses Scripture.

Problems with authority? Based on what? I have no problems with authority. I specifically kept my mouth shut for three years. There were three people who knew the truth: two of my closest friends (one of whom figured it out by what I was not saying and who told the other) and the girl I was dating at the time. I quoted him because he is someone who believes the position Grady espouses but found Grady to be weak. It was to show that Grady is not a good source for this, even by the acknowledgement of those who agree with him.

No, I am not doubleminded. I have not "heard about" this issue for three years. I have been familiar with it for more than 15, and studied it for more than 10. If you want to start having a discussion about the facts and the theology, I will be more than glad to entertain that discussion. If you have honestly studied for 14 years, than it is inconceivable to me that you still hold the position you do.

Why don't you start by listing the Greek grammars from which you studied.
Then list the NT textual sources which with you are familiar.
Then list the NT grammatical and lexical sources you keep handy.
Then list the works that you have read on this issue.
Then list the classes that you have taken that pertain to this issue.
Approximate for me the amount of the NT that you have translated from the original language texts.

Then we will have a good idea on how deep we can go in this conversation. I am not saying you need all these things to be a good Christian. I am saying if you are going t hold your position dogmatically, then you better have studied these things. Thomas has. Have you?

[ July 22, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

you have not provided one verses the "Final Authority" tells us to use the KJV. Why? Do you not have a verse?[PLarry]

"And you have not provided one verse showing a baptism as recorded in Matt28:19 to the pentecostals/apostolics/onenesses down in the "tongues" section; and while ya down there, don't forget to ask'em to show you the verse that says tongues is for today, as they say it is

As in any war, it is truly necessary for the soldier to be able to clearly identify the enemy and to know his tactics, and to remain alert & I couldn't do that w/o my KJBible. Anytime we wander from the truths of God's Word, we are playing right into the devil's trap.

I think I do understand you & BrianT better now after reading y'all's past experiences with the King James issue. I guess I am real fortunate to never once have doubted that what I walk by faith with IS God's Word & will remain so until the Lord calls me home.

 

Pastor Larry and Brian, I've been trying to figure out from y'alls posts where is the Word of God? If I'm not mistaken, y'all have said that the KJBible and the other so-called versions contain many errors...so y'all must not believe any of those are God's true and PERFECT Word! So, just where do y'all suppose His Word is? Do all English speaking have to learn a foreign language in order to determine what parts of this book and what parts of that book is God's true and PERFECT Word? Do we have to buy 15 different books to finally get all of God's true and PERFECT Word? Or, maybe it's only for the 'scholars' to know and then it's up to them to enlighten us regular common folks?(...that kinda sounds Catholicly to me )

And since y'all don't believe Psalms 12:6-7 is talking about preserving His Words then how do you know He preserved them? "Divine revelation"? Again, just being a simple minded farmer's wife having no 'formal' Greek/Hebrew education, according to everything y'all have said there is NO WAY for me to determine if the book I hold in my hand is the True and Perfect (without error) Word of God. Y'all seem to put alot of stock in knowledge and not enough in the leadership of the Holy Spirit!

 

I have repeatedly answered this. The KJV is the word of God, as is the NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc. The Westcott/Hort NT and the TR are the word of God. The Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Septuagint are the word of God. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts for the NT, dozens of ancient translations, and lots of modern translation - all the word of God.

Nothing man works on, except through divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit, will be "perfect" in the way you mean. Even the "perfect" KJV had hundreds of printing and translational errors in the first edition, most of which have been cleared up in the decades and centuries after the original translators died. Read and carefully consider these words of the KJV translators: "Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"

No, but what harm can there be in learning extra truth?

Um, no. How about Matt 24:15, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, Isa 40:8, Psa 119:89, Matt 5:17-18, John 10:35, 1 Pet 1:23-25, among others?

Yes, yes. The standard anthem of the KJV-onlyist: bring into question the spiritual condition of everyone who disagrees with you.

 

Brian, I guess I'm not getting what you're saying (and maybe never will) because you say all these you listed are THE WORD OF GOD but yet, you say they contain error. I believe that God's Word is perfect...without error! Or else, how would we know what to believe as truth in the Bible and what is a lie? If you will kindly re-read my post about the leadership of the Holy Spirit, I was not referring to your spiritual condition. When someone tells you that they believe the KJBible is the Word of God without error you always ask..."How do you know?"...to which many have replied because of the Holy Spirit's leadership and you always blow off that answer and demand some sort of written "knowledge" as if the Holy Spirit's leadership for them isn't good enough. I was not referring to your spiritual condition at all!

 

Pastor Larry,

AGAIN! THIS IS BASED ON YOUR TYPED WORDS! AS WAS BEFORE! SO, HERE GOES!

1st; "Because the parts I read were dishonest with the facts, weak in their logical approach, and misused Scripture. I do not need to read the whole book to know that it contains these things. Did he correct these mistatements somewhere?"

As I have said before, you only read "parts". Yes, I admit that Dr. Grady has not penned the inspired word of God, and I may not approve of 100% of everthing that is in his book, as outside of the Bible, I don't agree with 100% everything that is in any other books either. But you seem to be implying to the readers here that there is nothing to glean from this book.

2nd; "Again, my point is not about his cross-references. My point is that he misrepresents the facts, misses some of the facts, has logical fallacies, and misuses Scripture."

But! The point is that he does have the documentation and cross refrences to back up his statements and findings. Because you don't agree with them, doesn't make them wrong. Again, you are making some serious accusations against this man. What's wrong with this picture, that you are painting to these readers? Where are your facts?

3rd; "I have no problems with authority. I specifically kept my mouth shut for three years. There were three people who knew the truth: two of my closest friends (one of whom figured it out by what I was not saying and who told the other) and the girl I was dating at the time."

Again by your own words! You stayed in a church that you did not agree with, and now you admit that 3 other people knew. That means that words were exchanged and discussions were going on! HUMAN NATURE! Otherwise, how would the 4 of you know that you agreed with each other. And how many other people did you influence that you don't know about! A LITTLE LEVIN!

And also, by your actions and expressions are your motives and views made known!

That Pastor was faithful in trying to teach you and you rejected! REMEMBER! What goes around, comes around!

4th; "No, I am not doubleminded. I have not "heard about" this issue for three years. I have been familiar with it for more than 15, and studied it for more than 10. ... If you have honestly studied for 14 years, than it is inconceivable to me that you still hold the position you do."

And, I find that if you have honestly studied this subject for 10 years, then it is inconceivable for me to believe that you hold the position that you do!