-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
kjv bible
- Thread starter PraiseHim
- Start date
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.Originally posted by Askjo:
Please show me the Scriptures referring to the "Restored."
For example, the "preserved" texts refer to Psalm 12:6-7.
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.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
This point has been made numerous times......
Alright, will try, but I am having trouble seeing "disparaging" in my remarks!
I said that to talk about a late set of Greek texts as "preserved" and an early set of Greek texts as "restored" (something that happens LATER) seemed like . .
My words
Revisionist history
Newspeak (changing meaning of words from 1984 by George Orwell)
Dishonest wording
Ruckmanism (Peter Ruckman of Pensacola, FL, is guru to the sub-sect called KJVO)
WisdomSeeker - This wording (sorry to hear your church is using it) IS
Revisionist history
Newspeak
Dishonest wording
Ruckmanism
Now, I just reread this post of mine and it is NOT disparaging. It IS designed, however, to help teach and understand truth, and NOT to be condescending. We all are learning and growing and no one (even a BB Administrator like me with almost godlike powers) should stop learning and growing!
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
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.
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.
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.Originally posted by Askjo:
For example, the "preserved" texts refer to Psalm 12:6-7.
Forever settled in heaven
New Member
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
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
Sadly, though, most who follow Dr. Ruckman's teaching are NOT HONEST in their own identification as such. They find such labels as too extreme!
Many have tried to edge "slightly" away from it, focusing NOT on a "reinspired" translation that corrects the Greek originals, but hedging on other KJVO positions such as:
"AV uses the only inspired Greek", even though no 2 Byzantine texts agree with each other and that the Textus Receptus was not even finally compiled until decades AFTER the 1611 translation in English.
"KJV is the ONLY perfect translation in English", even though there have been a vast number of changes in the KJV over its 400 year history.
"KJV is only version miraculous preserved by God", even developing a new (and odd) doctrine called "preservation".
Whether claiming the extreme Ruckman or just changing a few words to LOOK more moderate, these are all part of the KJVO sect and should be so marked as Paul warned us. (Romans 16:17 "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.")
Many have tried to edge "slightly" away from it, focusing NOT on a "reinspired" translation that corrects the Greek originals, but hedging on other KJVO positions such as:
"AV uses the only inspired Greek", even though no 2 Byzantine texts agree with each other and that the Textus Receptus was not even finally compiled until decades AFTER the 1611 translation in English.
"KJV is the ONLY perfect translation in English", even though there have been a vast number of changes in the KJV over its 400 year history.
"KJV is only version miraculous preserved by God", even developing a new (and odd) doctrine called "preservation".
Whether claiming the extreme Ruckman or just changing a few words to LOOK more moderate, these are all part of the KJVO sect and should be so marked as Paul warned us. (Romans 16:17 "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.")
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 --
Andy
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
Forever settled in heaven
New Member
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.