Question about LXX

Back on the farm, it has been shown that the KJV translators beleived in a pre-NT LXX. Yet, some who claim their work on the Bible text was perfect, will call them liars (or totally ignore them) on this issue (and other issues). Go figure.

 

I tryed your suggestion.
I found an interesting article about the
MYTH of the Equidistant Bible Code.
That is with the Hebrew Bible.
Does the same code work with
the ~200BC LXX? Yes. It doesn't matter
which source you use, the phony code
is phony still. You can even use a long
book like MOBY DICK in English

Also i know some sites that
use AV=authorized version
and/or KJV=King James Version
with "1611" but do NOT use the KJV1611
edition - those HAVE to say that the LXX
is a myth. If there is a real LXX
prior to 33AD, then the persons in the
New Testament might have read it.
And because it is in a different language,
different words are used.
This fact blows the KJV Onlyist out of
the water - of course they must argue
against it.

 

Yes, Phillip...my bad...I only followed part of the posts in this thread. I thought he was referring to just posting certain parts of the articles here. That would have been acceptable.

 

AVL1984--after I read my post I sounded a little harsh. I tend to do so when I'm trying to quote legal issues and I appologize publically for that.

For the others:
The point is that they may use ideas from his site and even quote some of his quotes in order to rebut them. Just don't type a whole article and then try to comment. Pick one point at a time is the safest.

These kind of guys can be litigious if they smell a case. I was only warning to be careful.

As far as a link, I do not believe this has been settled in court, yet. But, you probably don't want to be the first. As for typing his address, I don't think you can stop that. It is in the public database. Just don't provide a hyperlink to THAT address.

He would have a LOT of trouble trying to sue you for listing his address.

Also, another thing to consider is that the Title of a Book or Song cannot be protected by copyright. This is why books with the same names are sometimes published. I would assume this would apply to websites too, along with its address.

Just some thoughts...

 

Retrieved from http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Books_V/RuckamnHymers2.htm#3.

"NO BAPTIST OR PROTESTANT SCHOLAR BELIEVED THAT THE KJV WAS GIVEN BY INSSPIRATION BEFORE 1950! Only by pulling statements of dead Christians out of context can Ruckmanites pull the wool over the eyes of uneducated bumpkins. We will answer each Ruckmanite claim from the actual writings of the Baptist and Protestant scholars they claim. We will show each time that the Ruckmanites have pulled their statements out of context or twisted them, and that no Baptist or Protestant scholar believed the KJV was given by inspiration prior to 1950. I therefore boldly repeat the offer I made earlier in this book:

We offer one thousand dollars to anyone who can cite a single Baptist or Protestant scholar who held the view that a translation was given by inspiration, and who held this view prior to 1950."

The KJVO's need to get busy. A challenge has been set before them. Maybe they can get 1000 dollars. What do you think?

 

Phillip, no offense was taken, so no apology necessary...but thank you. God bless.

 

gb, that was too funny. Do you think they'd actually exert themselves that much???

 

I'll try to find one for 1000 bucks.

 

C4K said:

Sorry, he has asked that no one quote him or reference his sources without his permission.

He has no legal right to make any such demands, nor is anyone morally bound to honour them.

Copyright law is a shield against piracy of one's intellectual property, not a sword with which to hold oneself unaccountable.

Since Ruckman's claims concerning the LXX are so influential in KJV-only circles, they ought to be on the table.

 

Sure, he cannot prevent your from quoting him or referring to his sources. I would keep the quotes short and to one subject at a time. He wouldn't find a lawyer that would take that one.

 

At least we now know what Ruckman is really like. But he won't last forever. His Christian kindness is a clear demonstration of the fruit of the spirit he possesses. He clearly demonstrates the god he knows.

 

Yep, that site is apparently his, I'm assuming that everyone is referring to the "Dial The Truth Ministries". (No, he can't sue me for listing his title.)

The sad thing is that it is so obvious how he attempts to make things fit into his world view.

He makes a remark that "condemned" is nowhere as harsh as "damned". Hmmmmm, that really changes the meaning, I guess. . .

I liked the 666 mark page and the NKJV pages that try to make a 666 out of the symbol used by the NKJV publishing company and every other symbol or trademark used by anybody.

I don't know how he can accuse anybody of copyright violations when his entire site is nothing but a bunch of quotes taken out of context and then his far out commentaries.

I don't think he poses much of a threat, except to those who are not very bright and buy into that kind of stuff. He dumbs down his entire web-site by adding all of the conspiracy. If he would stick to his beliefs and keep the WILD claims out, he might be considered more believable.

I haven't seen so much spin and half-truths in a long time. He would make a great conspiracy theory buff. Maybe even a late-night AM talk-show host. He and Art Bell would make a great talk-show together.

What a winner.

 

That is a different site - Mr Ruckman's site is uses "kjv1611" and is a .org site

I still didn't link his site .

 

I am assuming that this is the message that has the participants here gun shy?

Here is a couple of links on the fair use clause of TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107.

The Baptist Board very much appreciates the desire of the participants here to obey the law of the land concerning copyright. However, the http://www.kjv1611.org/ website can not prevent anyone from linkng to their material. They posted it in on the web, they submited it to Google, they made it public with no password requirements or security in place. There is nothing illegal about using the site as a reference or quoting it within the guidelines posted above. Just please remember to cite the source when doing so.

Our webmaster's statement on posting copyright protected material:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/20/186.html?

 

Thank You Clint.

HankD

 

That's what I thought, Clint. I hold copyrights to several items, and I know that there have been fair use violations. My attorneys have given me the same info you have...so I just don't argue with people about it any more.

 

Clint, I agree with you pretty much, but the last part numbering words and percentages appears to be a commentary or opinion.

What really matters in legal issues are the court cases that interpret the law. The hyperlinking is still out to court. Remember, there is a difference between placing a "hyperlink" and just spelling out the website address (which would be the same as quoting a title). I personally would not hyperlink to it until a few court-cases have interpreted it.

Computer and internet law is all new territory for the courts. Without court cases to back it up, then our remarks are simply opinions. So, please be careful.

Also, remember, that anybody can sue for anything, whether they win or not (or it is thrown out of court) is completely another issue. But, defending frivilous suits has been the death of many a small company attacked by a company backed with money.

I am not disagreeing with anything quoted here, just be careful.

 

HaHa, just looking at Ruckman's site. Obviously he doesn't know much about copyright law because he says you can't even print his title. Anybody who knows anything about copyright law knows that titles cannot be copyrighted.

Anyway, I noticed he got his Master and PHd in two years. It took me three to get my masters. Sounds fishy to me.

Back to the threads subject matter, It is very interesting that he is so blatant about the LXX being a myth. I would be curious to read his book, but I just cannot find it within myself to send the guy any money. If someone has one and would lend it to me I would appreciate it.

I also noticed that he claims all new Bibles are a conspiracy of the Roman Catholics. Funny, most MVs I've read don't contain the apocrypha.

 

Philip, you are absolutely correct in your assessment. The figures in the second quote are from the CONFU (Conference On Fair Use) meetings. Though not legally binding as no consensus could be made, those figures are considered as conservatively stringet as any would have hoped to have in place. That standard is recognized by the educational community and has seemed to stand fairly well (in and out of court) since the late 90's.

That we are also not a commercial site also stands in our favor concerning fair use. No one is making a dime off of the links or quotes here. In fact, it may end up selling one of the site's books. The link I posted is not "authorized" by that site or this one. I acknowledge that. It is "unauthorized." The system automatically makes any web address a hyperlink.

As for suits, yes, frivolous lawsuits are always a concern, but if it were not fair use it could be anything else. (Someone may have spilled their coffe on their lap when they clicked the link.) As stated, the site recognizes intellectual property and we have always insisted on sources when quoting another's work. To date there have been no ramifications, but I will let the webmaster know of your concern just to be sure.