New KJV Versions

Amity,

I felt like you were just finding your place here. Please reconsider. I think you have a needed balance.

 

thanks for your nice words, C4K.....seems like every time I post I get my views trampled on. I guess I just need to remember not to take words on a computer screen so personally, and if something offends me....i should stay out of it. Just like I have done in the Ruckman thread(s).....those have disgusted me....so I have not even posted.....it's one thing to challenge a man's beliefs when he's not here to defend himself, but to gossip about his character regarding marriage, and such. I say he who is without sin may throw the next stone.


I will contribute as I feel led.

love in Christ.
Amity

 

This and the Politics Forum are very tough. All attempts are made to moderate fairly, but they are still rough places.

 

there's a politics thread??? now THAT is up my alley!!!! heeeeheeee




Oh, and sorry to have hijacked the thread. Hi Jack!

 

Besides what RSR wrote, we've proven Dr. Gipp wrong several times right here. In fact, we've dubbed him "the INCORRECT Answer Man" because of his obvious errors. For a man who is a KJVO, and a DOCTOR to boot, he doesn't seem to know his KJV very well, not does it appear that he knows very much about the AV 1611, either. Here are some examples:

RSR posted: 9. QUESTION: What is the LXX?

ANSWER: A figment of someone's imagination.

If Dr. Gipp is right, then the AV translators had the same imaginations, and Dr. Gipp knows more about the AV then THEY did. In their preface(I pasted from an edition modernized in spelling), the AV men wrote:

"While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry; [See S.August.lib.12. contra Faust.c.32.] then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient."

"But when the fullness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God, should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then, lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince (Greek for descent and language), even of Ptolomy Philadelph, King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek."

"This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal."

"For the Grecians, being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common."

"Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the colonies, which thither they had sent."

"For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too."

"Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market-place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by."


And recently, I made a post called, "The Gipper Shoulda Stuck to Football" proving him entirely wrong in his defense of "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4. I shall it for your benefit, Amity, since it's no longer available on this board.(Timed out. However, I WILL re-post it if requested.)

So you see, Amity, Dr. Gipp is a very unreliable source for "Bible answers". He follows the old KJVO "party line" of Wilkinson, Ray, & Fuller, long-ago proven false. He relies more upon emotion, imagination, guesswork, & the writings of others for his "answers". Clearly, he doenn't know his KJV very well, nor has he studied the AV 1611 too much. And he certainly hasn't studied the writings of those whom he imitates for VERACITY. Here, we show him wrong from the VERY BIBLE VERSION HE SUPPORTS!

Jack Chick? He simply takes the material of the pro-KJVO authors and makes comix & tracts from it, WITHOUT CHECKING IT FOR VERACITY WHATSOEVER! As RSR said, all he does as far as Gipp goes, is to parrot him. As most KJVO authors are, those two aren't very reliable.

 

Not just revisionism. It's an outright lie, and its author is an outright liar. Anyone who believes this quote believes in a lie.

 

Pastor J, would you give us some example of these discrepancies?

 

I remember buying Chick books at the Baptist bookstore at church camp. I would take them to the cabin and read them. I was quite good at science and I always thought it was funny that Chick would play so "loose" with his attempts to fight evolution and other things. Not that he didn't "try". But, he always played loose with the facts. During my later rebellious years, I remember the stuff that Chick had said and used that as a reason not to accept a lot of "what I thought was Christian garbage".

Not until I DID become a Christian, did I realize that Chick was just "loose" with his facts, to the detriment of the witness that he claims to be attempting.

I read one page in the link provided and interestingly enough found a TYPICAL Chick statement: ("the liberal Communistic translators of the RSV...."). Typical -- Chick: "Communistic"---new term, I guess.

 

Amity, have you ever studied the ORIGINS of the current KJVO myth? Here's a helper:
http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID43667%7CCHID152162%7CCIID447152,00.html

Some people will try to convince us that KJVO began in the early 1880s with Anglican cleric/scholar John Burgon, but what Burgon ACTUALLY did was to reject the British RV of 1881. He in no way advocated nor started KJVO; in fact he expressed hope that someone would both revise the Textus Receptus AND make a new Bible version; as far as he went in KJVO was to say the KJV was the best he had right then.

Yes, there has been the occasional KJVO ever since the AV 1611 was first published, but when we NOW speak of KJVO, we're referring to the CURRENT MYTH which originated in 1930. Because of some dishonest and error-prone authors, this myth has come out of the back streets & cul-de-sacs where it belongs out onto mainstream Christianity, especially invading the IFB movement.

One thing to remember: It was false when it was hatched, and is just as false now.

 

Another thing to remember about Dr. Ruckman, Amity...The "bad things" you've seen in here about him aren't mere gossip...they're a matter of PUBLIC RECORD.

But I'm not concerned about his Hollywood marriage record...I'm concerned about his FALSE DOCTRINES & FALSE PROPHECIES.

 

i've researched both sides of the issue. thank you.

and....i never said i agreed with Ruckman. but i wish people would leave his personal life out of it....matter of public record or not.

1 John 3:14
We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.


In Christian love.

 

roby: "what Burgon ACTUALLY did was to reject the British RV of 1881. He in no way advocated nor started KJVO; in fact he expressed hope that someone would both revise the Textus Receptus AND make a new Bible version."

Burgon's own "Textual Commentary" on Matthew 1-14 (published posthumously by Edward Miller) indicates throughout those places where Burgon *specifically* noted that he would *change* the TR text. What is interesting, is that all but one or two of the changes are *identical* to the changes found in the various Byzantine or majority text editions of today.

Even more ironically, the Burgon "Textual Commentary" is reprinted and sold by KJVO advocate D.A.Waite, as part of his "Dean Burgon Society", which claims *only* the TR underlying the KJV is "the" original text. Someone's left hand obviously doesn't know what their right hand is doing....

 

Amity:i've researched both sides of the issue. thank you.

and....i never said i agreed with Ruckman. but i wish people would leave his personal life out of it....matter of public record or not.

And I disagree with the whole KJVO myth...PERIOD. It's a man-made thing, based upon zero fact.

Dr. Ruckman needed the KJVO myth to become a mini-celebrity & the KJVO myth needed a mini-celebrity to keep it afloat. As you've seen in the Ruckman thread, he needs to use his imagination to bolster the myth he uses as material for sensationalism. His creation of false stories about a popular BV and his false prophecies show us just what the KJVO myth in general is founded upon. Dr. Ruckman is a loud, vocal hyper-extension of all the falsehood in the KJVO myth.

Dr. Gipp, while not as loud, vulgar, and fanciful as Dr. Ruckman, is just as wrong, ignoring the TRUTH to try to support that same false doctrine. The sad thing is that some people will see "Dr." before his name and believe he's right, without their taking the time to check the VERACITY of his answers. He may serve the Lord in some ways, but he's CERTAINLY not serving Him when he publishes a book full of wrong answers slanted to try to support a false doctrine. False plus false equals more false.

 

Amity,

I regret the words of others on this Board.

The KJV is a beautiful work and should not be denigrated.

 

Amen El_Guero.

I like Brother Gipp's sermons....for the record.

 

El_Guero:

We are NOT denigrating the KJV...we're attacking and denouncing a FALSE, MAN-MADE DOCTRINE concerning the KJV. That false doctrine, known to us as ""the KJVO myth", is that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version there is. THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE! We're not just GUESSING it is; we've PROVEN it.

While some say the KJVO myth may be a little off or use similar mild language, I've seen churches fall apart, long-time friendships torn asunder, and people chased off from Christ because of that stupid doctrine. Therefore I prefer a stronger, more succint description of the KJVO myth: IT'S A BIG FAT LIE! I have little to no use for those who keep this lie before the public.

There is but ONE legitimate reason to be KJVO...PERSONAL PREFERENCE. There are NO other valid reasons.

Amity:

I liked Jimmy Swaggart's sermons; despite his personal sins, he led many to Christ. If you like to listen to Dr. Gipp, fine, but remember he's not too reliable in answering Bible questions...he's gonna give answers from the KJVO point of view, which makes almost all of'em automatically incorrect.

 

Any quotes where the KJV is denigrated?

 

It is sad that the KJVo myth causes us to have to explain this over and over again.

Not believing in KJVonlyism does NOT mean that we do not think that the King James Version is a perfectly good version. Some like it better than others, but no-one here that I know of will say that the KJV is NOT the Word-Of-God.

The ONLY problem, is that the NASB is ALSO the Word-Of-God.

This has NOTHING to do with liking or disliking the KJV. In fact, many on this board who do not believe the KJVo myth use the KJV as their favorite version.

There is a BIG difference between being KJV "preferred" and KJV "only".

The KJV is a beautiful translation; although, in my opinion, not the best translation for a young or new Christian to cut his/her teeth on, but it is nevertheless an excellent translation with few errors (as long as you take into account the fact that many English Words have changed since the latest revision.)

So, please, when you see someone fight the KJVo myth, do not assume they do not like the KJV. This is not a mutually exclusive situation.