kjv bible

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Acts+8%3A37&section=0&version=vul&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ac&NavGo=8&NavCurrentChapter=8

 

All texts have been preserved, whether they are Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, or Caesarian. Think of the ludicrousnes of Arguing that Alexandrian text is not a preserved text. If it isn't preserved, how do we have it???? Of course, it shows how easily terms are thrown around by people who aren't taught to think critically about arguments that are put forth.

All texts have Psalm 12:6-7. It is unfortunate that some people have twisted those verses to refer to a particular translation of God's word, when it truthfully relates to the preservation of the godly man. It is but another evidence of people who do not study Scripture but rather adhere to the words of man and take a certain preacher or author as their authority. It is a disgrace to God's word to use it in such a frivolous manner. Not to mention the fact that it is totally illogical since even if it did refer to the text it would refer to the Hebrew text which is not even in dispute.

 

This point has been made numerous times......

 

Dr. Bob,

Do you really think that your comments were not disparaging?

---

Everyone take note how intelligence (with which Dr. Bob is liberally endowed) and world-class wit (another characteristic of Dr. Bob) can blind you to the fact that you have made disparaging comments.

Jason

 

The Antiochian texts, the Syrian Texts, the Traditional texts, the Byzantine texts and the Textus Receptus texts are "preserved" texts. Approx. 90% of all extant manuscripts belong to this family.

 

The Antiochian texts, the Syrian Texts, the Traditional texts, the Byzantine texts and the Textus Receptus texts are "preserved" texts. Approx. 90% of all extant manuscripts belong to this family. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Which two are exactly the same?

According to this "family" what is the correct reading in Mark 16:9-20?... BTW, it must be determined by the majority or some other tangible reasoning.

 

Okay, Jason, you asked for it and I will share something with you.

To disparage is to "disrespect, belittle, slight, damning with faint praise". I said that changing the meaning of historical words (words have meaning, remember) and saying that old documents are "restored" and new documents are "preserved" is:

Revisionist history
Newspeak
Dishonest wording
Ruckmanism

No disrespect, belittle or slight. Just simple, straightforward condemnation of deceitful error.

In turn, however, you have chosen to say

"Everyone take note how intelligence (with which Dr. Bob is liberally endowed) and world-class wit (another characteristic of Dr. Bob) can blind you . . "

Not I ask, is this disrespect, belittle/slight by "damning with faint praise".

You judge who is disparaging. </font>[/QUOTE]You're right Dr. Bob, the whole pot and kettle thing .

I was serious about the intelligence and wit though. You have debating skills that are far beyond mine. No belittling at all. I respect your intelligence and how you incorporate it into a debate, and your wit has had me rolling in the floor before. No "damning with faint praise" from my corner. I very much look forward to your posts.

However (you had to have seen this coming) your evoking the words "Ruckmanism" and "sad" into your post were not only unnecessary to point out error, but injected emotion into the debate. You have perfected the fine art of insulting without insulting.

Jason

 

This verse appears in both what we call the "preserved" texts and the "restored" texts. So it's certainly not a verse referring to a specific set of texts or translation thereof. Additionally, if you read it in Hebrew, it doesn't speak about any texts at all. But that's a dead horse beaten.

 

OTOH, how shd one respond to Ruckies who r proud of their name n behaviour. i've met a few in the past who don't mind more than a passing association w Herr Doktor Petey of Pensacola.

 

Irenaeus in 2nd Century witnessed Mark 16:19. Also the website here: manuscript evidences

 

The "Traditional" family has this passages, but the Alexandrian family omitted this passages.

 

OTOH, how shd one respond to Ruckies who r proud of their name n behaviour. i've met a few in the past who don't mind more than a passing association w Herr Doktor Petey of Pensacola. </font>[/QUOTE]Ruckmanites who claim the title should be ridiculed freely IMHO. They've set themselves up for it. I have never met a person who was neutral as to the term "Ruckmanism." People either claim it, or they abhor it.

Jason

 

Right, while “moderates” such as Cloud and Waite try to distance themselves from Ruckman, it is worthwhile to note the similarities between the Ruckman position and the position of those who believe that God has preserved His Word inerrantly in the TR. Erasmus created unique Greek readings in the TR based solely on the evidence of the Vulgate; if the TR truly contains God’s perfectly preserved Word, then it follows that God used the Latin to correct errors that existed in every Greek manuscript. Indeed, this is the conclusion that Edward Hills draws in his discussion of 1 John 5:7 --

It is important for everyone involved in this controversy to realize that the doctrine of verbal preservation falls apart at this point. Consider, for instance, these candid remarks by Edward Hills and David Cloud, respectively:

These men admit that God has not verbally preserved His Word in any single Greek manuscript or text. If there are errors in the Textus Receptus documents but not in the KJV, then there was no complete preserved Word of God prior to 1611. There may be a difference between their position (i.e., Latin correcting the Greek and KJV English correcting TR documents) and Ruckman’s insistence that KJV English has corrected the Greek, but if so, that subtle distinction escapes me.

Andy

 

no admirer of Ruckman, i somehow seem to see him as more honest n forthright. a wolf that doesn't dress up is less dangerous, in a way, than one that looks n tries to bleat like a lamb.

Cloud n Waite have been discredited n exposed over n again, but they continue to gain credance among some possibly becos of a gter sophistication in their false arguments.

in a diff ballpark, it's kinda like the difference between Peter Popoff (of e-wireless WOrd of Faith fame) n Jack Deere.

what more evidence do we need of rank KJBOism. but notice how piously it's worded. add a couple of ripe expletives n u'll get authentic Ruckmanspeak

nobody's attacking the KJB, but its self-appointed modern defenders oughta be pitied for the quality of their icons.

 

The "Traditional" family has this passages, but the Alexandrian family omitted this passages. </font>[/QUOTE]Both of your responses ignore the condition of my question. What is the majority reading of this passage?

 

Here's a question: Since the Dead Sea Scrolls are 2000 years old, if the OT writings of the Dead Sea scrolls disagree with the source texts of the KJV (which are newer), which do you give more weight?