1. 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!

The Question of All Time

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Kidz-4-HIM, Jun 16, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. Kidz-4-HIM

    Kidz-4-HIM New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.

    QUESTION: Where was the Bible before 1611?

    ANSWER: In the available Antiochian manuscripts.

    EXPLANATION: Critics of the perfect Bible like to throw out this question as though it will "stun" Bible believers. It doesn't.

    The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts in existence throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 A.D. (NOT to be confused with Jerome's corrupt "Vulgate") or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 A.D.

    That it would be difficult indeed to gather all of these sources together and place them in the hands of the common man gives credence to God's reasoning for the collation and translation of the King James Bible.
     
    #1 Kidz-4-HIM, Jun 16, 2004
  2. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Uhhhh....So?

    The question is asked because self-righteous KingJamesOnlyists want to look down their noses and claim that anything other than a 1611AV is a perversion of God's perfect bible (never mind that they are carrying a KJV from a different century, or two).

    When a KJVO states that the KJV is God's only bible, he is in effect saying that the bible didn't exist before 1611.

    The word of God has existed for many, many years, well before King James commissioned the translation of the bible that carries his name. And there were bibles in English before the KJV came out, as well.

    But, in answer to the KJVO idiocy, there is no perfect English bible, just like there is no perfect bible in any other language. We have the word of God, imperfect only because it has been copied and tampered with by man.

    Yet another KJVOlator attempts to set God on his side. God's word existed in several thousand manuscripts before ethe KJV was written, and not only in Antioch.

    Trying to pidgeonhole God into a single scenario is 'standard operating procedure' for the KingJamesOnly lunacy.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
    #2 Trotter, Jun 16, 2004
  3. Kidz-4-HIM

    Kidz-4-HIM New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here again this is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.

    QUESTION: Aren't all King James Bible believers "name callers?"

    ANSWER: No.

    EXPLANATION: In recent years, the issue of a perfect Bible has been expertly handled by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. Dr. Ruckman is a highly educated teacher/preacher who accepts the Antiochian manuscripts as authentic and views them with the Antiochian ideology that accepts the Bible as perfect.

    Dr. Ruckman's style is forceful in regard to the authority of Scripture and his treatment of Bible critics is devastating. His approach to most Bible issues is one of grace, where many Christians lack such grace. But on the singular issue of the authority of Scripture his approach is similar to the Apostle Paul (II Corinthians 10:10) and the great English scholar, John William Burgon.

    A very few advocates of the perfect Bible, lacking Dr. Ruckman's scholastic qualifications, have assimilated his caustic style with tragic results.

    The broad majority of King James Bible believers do not utilize this style simply because it is not their natural style.
     
    #3 Kidz-4-HIM, Jun 16, 2004
  4. Kidz-4-HIM

    Kidz-4-HIM New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again I refer to The following from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.

    QUESTION: Should we make an issue of Bible translations?

    ANSWER: Only if you believe anything out of it.

    EXPLANATION: Many Christians attempt to evade the issue of whether or not there really is a perfect Bible (as they are told from the pulpit) by piously hiding behind the statement, "I don't make an issue of Bible translations."

    It is perfectly acceptable to assume such a position as long as you are consistent in your stand...or lack of it.

    In other words, if the issue of a perfect Bible is a "non-issue" with you, then to be consistent, neither should be ANY of the following:

    1. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Isa 7:14

    2. The deity of Jesus Christ. I John 5:5

    3. The substitutionary death for sins made by Jesus Christ. Romans 5:8

    4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I Cor 15:4

    5. Salvation by grace alone without works. Eph 2:8,9

    6. The Pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ. I Thess 4

    7. The existence of a literal Heaven. John 3:13

    8. The existence of a literal Hell. Mark 9:42-44

    9. The acceptance of Creation over the theory of evolution. Gen 1:1

    This is by no means a comprehensive list of convictions held by those who call themselves "Fundamentalists." Yet every one is taken from the Bible. How on earth can a thinking, rational person make an issue or have a conviction on something that they have taken out of the Bible, but see "no issue" concerning the perfection of the Book on which they base their every issue? IF the Bible has mistakes in it, then how can we be sure that it is correct in those passages on which we base our convictions?

    Some may say, "I accept the Bible where it is accurately translated." Fine! THAT is the statement of faith of every Mormon in the world! WHO is to judge just where the Bible is "accurately translated?"

    No, it is impossible to make "any issue" over even one doctrine from the Bible and claim not to make an "issue" over the Bible itself.

    Why then do people make such a statement? Basically, it is out of fear of the consequences of such a stand. They are afraid of the rejection of their friends, family, and fellowworkers.

    How bold for the truth are you?
     
    #4 Kidz-4-HIM, Jun 16, 2004
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'd recommend getting a decent book. You can afford it. Leave the trash alone. You have not ever shared YOUR thinking; just quoted Gipp.

    As if THAT is an "authority"! Oh my that's laughable!

    Ruckman et al are not "name callers"? I have been called some pretty nasty stuff because I believe the Bible, not just a oft-revised English translation. By rule here, I can't even use the vitriolic smut poured upon me because I am not in the "only" sect.
     
    #5 Dr. Bob, Jun 17, 2004
  6. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Follow-up question: where was the Bible *in English* before 1611?

    The question impales KJV-Onlyism on the horns of a dilemma.

    Either God's perfect word *in English* existed before 1611, or it didn't.

    If it did, then the KJV was unnecessary because English speaking people already had God's perfect word in their own language.

    If it didn't, then English-speaking people who had the misfortune to live before 1611 didn't have God's perfect word, and God (according to KJVO theology) failed to preserve His perfect word for them.
     
    #6 Archangel7, Jun 17, 2004
  7. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    1
    Another "drive-by" by K-4-H?
     
    #7 USN2Pulpit, Jun 17, 2004
  8. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds to me that you have a good book. I also have this book and it's also free to view online. Dr. Griffin says these things about every KJB believing book. Do you suggest we read a book that says we don't have God's perfect word today or something that says this is the best we have.
     
    #8 RaptureReady, Jun 17, 2004
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sam Gipp via Kidz-f-HIM:
    "WHO is to judge just where the Bible
    is 'accurately translated'?"

    This is a very decieving question.
    It appears as a retorical question
    whose answer is implied: "no person".
    But in fact, every KJBO (King James
    Bible Only) has made this judgement
    about the KJV1769.

    It is another KJVO double standard:

    KJVOs are alloed to determine that
    the KJV1769 is accurately translated by
    MV users are not allowed to determine
    that thier specific MV is accuragely
    translated.

    [​IMG]
     
    #9 Ed Edwards, Jun 17, 2004
  10. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have some simple question for the Gipp crowd:

    If the AV is so important then why don't you use a real AV1611?

    What ever happened to "things that are different are not the same"?

    Would it not be confusion if in the same church four KJV's where used: AV1611,1762,1769, and 1873 KJV?

    Why do you use a corrected AV1611?

    These questions always generate so much spin from the KJVO Camp that it's pathetic!
     
    #10 David J, Jun 17, 2004
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was reading in a Chick comic
    one time about how the real KJV1611AV was
    CONTAMINATED by the RCC conspiracitors
    with the Apo. and those
    pesky translator notes. The KJV1762
    and KJV1769 both got ripped off by the
    American press, but they dropped the
    two evil features, thus restoring
    the PERFECT BIBLE to be a PERFECTER BIBLE.
    THe KJV1873 is NOT a real KJB, for it
    reintorduces the demonic pesky translator
    notes.

    [​IMG]
     
    #11 Ed Edwards, Jun 17, 2004
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ed, Chick Theology?

    Now THAT is an oxymoron.
     
    #12 Dr. Bob, Jun 18, 2004
  13. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am, the 1769 edition.
    The modern versions are different, so therefore they are not the same.
    No, because the scripture would be the same except for some spelling, textual corrections
    Because of some printing, spelling, and textual corrections.
    These questions always cast doubt on God's word, how pathetic.
     
    #13 RaptureReady, Jun 18, 2004
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    These questions have those KJVOs
    spinnin' so much they
    looking like dancin' Baptists :D
     
    #14 Ed Edwards, Jun 18, 2004
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The modern versions are different, so therefore they are not the same."?</font>[/QUOTE]The King James versions are different, so therefore they
    are not the same.

    Here is an excerpt from my forthcoming book
    DOUBLE STANDARDS OF THE KJVOs:

    [​IMG]
     
    #15 Ed Edwards, Jun 18, 2004
  16. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I was reading in a Chick comic
    one time about how the real KJV1611AV was
    CONTAMINATED by the RCC conspiracitors
    with the Apo. and those
    pesky translator notes. The KJV1762
    and KJV1769 both got ripped off by the
    American press, but they dropped the
    two evil features, thus restoring
    the PERFECT BIBLE to be a PERFECTER BIBLE.
    THe KJV1873 is NOT a real KJB, for it
    reintorduces the demonic pesky translator
    notes." posted by Bro. Ed

    Thanks Bro. Ed! Man that really clarifies so much for me! LOL! So I guess the 1769 Edition is the be all end all edition of the KJV according to some of our KJVO friends.

    Get that fire started! We going on a bible burning boys! Time to get rid of those perverted 1611's, 1762's, and that dreaded 1873 KJV! Wait a minute before we start, what if another KJVO declares the 1762 to be perfect! You might better hold off on that fire a little bit longer guys!

    So I guess man is the ultimate authority in the KJVO Camp on this KJV revision issue! Oh, I almost forgot that changes in the KJV don't count, silly me.

    Does Chick provide any evidence? Does Chick have an original 1611 to prove his theory? I already know the answer: NO! Sigh....more KJVO assumptions and conspiracy theories.
     
    #16 David J, Jun 18, 2004
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Remember 20 years ago when
    we had the 300-baud modems and typed things
    like ROFLMAO?

    That seems appropriate now when you
    ask "Does Chick provide any evidence?"

    ROFLMAO!

    ROFLMAO = Rolling On the Floor Laughing
    My reAr Off.
    (actually it was slightly different,
    but it never hurts to use an euphemism )
     
    #17 Ed Edwards, Jun 18, 2004
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother David J. -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    BTW, you have a really spiffy site at:
    http://www.geocities.com/king_james_onlyism_deceptions/King_James_Only_Introduction
    Keep up the good work.

    When i ordered AWE recently from Chick,
    i tryed to find that comic again so i could
    oreder one, but i can't find it on the
    Chick web page. Which comic was it?

    [​IMG]
     
    #18 Ed Edwards, Jun 18, 2004
  19. Dan Todd

    Dan Todd Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kidz-4-him said:
    I offer this quote from David W. Cloud - a KJO advocate - who quotes your Mr. Ruckman:
    Sounds to me that Mr. Ruckman is just a crude-rude person!
     
    #19 Dan Todd, Jun 18, 2004
  20. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ed Edwards said:

    I was reading in a Chick comic
    one time about how the real KJV1611AV was
    CONTAMINATED by the RCC conspiracitors
    with the Apo. and those
    pesky translator notes.

    Yeah, I've read that tract. (I may have it, as a matter of fact.) Chick's portrayal of the KJV's translation makes it look like them filthy Jezzuits slipped the Apocrypha into the pile when the "Godly" translators weren't looking. Of course they were too stupid to notice. Whoops!

    You gotta laugh. And you can, here.
     
    #20 Ransom, Jun 18, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...