The KJV, An article by Daniel B. Wallace

Askjo, As much as I am absolutely sure that you are sincere in your delusion, please at least try to post something that in some way masquerades as proof.

The fact that you call a fellow Christian a name then go on simply to rest on the authority of nothing but your own unqualified opinion to call him "wrong" and "dishonest" is simply a further proof of the complete futility of your position on versions.

If you don't understand what the man believes then ask or read... disagreeing with you doesn't make him wrong... disagreeing with the facts would but you never cite any.

 

Do you agree with Psalm145 3 talking about Daniel Wallace?

 

Askjo said:

I disagree with Daniel's articles. I realize that he is a naturalistic scholar because he denies the Biblical inspiration.

Daniel quoted: the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places.

Biblical inspiration is not limited to KJV inspiration, in English or any other language.

 

The KJV inspiration is the Ruckmanism.

 

Could you give us the name of that Greek text because of I am not aware that Dan Wallace has produced any Greek text.

 

Some have become gods to themselves. They are the absolute standard. They are the absolute standard of precision but not accuracy.

Kind of reminds me of the stuff that dairy farmers shovel each day.

 

Nothing, it is the dishonesty of Cloud and those who quote him that is distressing. Cloud does not understand the basics. IF he did, he would agree with Wallace. The fact that you agree with Cloud shows that you do not understand and unfortunately are not willing to listen to those who do. STudy the issue and you will see that what Wallace said is right.

And there is this continued lie that doctrines are affected. As many times as this charge has been made, there has been an utter failure to actually show these alleged changes. Why? If this doctrine has been changed, then you should be able to show it. But not one person has managed to show an actual doctrinal change. Telling, isn't it? It should be.

 

Do I agree with what he posted? No. From what I have read (including his own writings) Dr Wallace is biblical and orthodox in his doctrine on scripture.

Actually though Psalm 145:3 didn't say anything. He posted stuff that Cloud said. David Cloud has demonstrated that he is not a trustworthy source for information. In fact, he has demonstrated that he is willing to distort facts or even lie to support his contentions.

Cloud shouldn't be trusted by anyone, even KJVO's, until he repents and apologizes for past behavior. In a way, he is more insidious than Riplinger, Ruckman, Gipp, et al. They are obviously ridiculous. He is far more subtle and sucks in even some folks with a respectable degree of discernment.

 

askjo, can you tell me someone who takes the time and discipline to write and publish a book without the hope of a monetary return? Wallace, Cloud, Ruckman or Riplinger?

HankD