What do you think of Peter Ruckman?

and how do we know what was orignally written?</font>[/QUOTE]By considering the massive evidence that God has providentially given us.

How would you go about proving that the KJV is the perfect "words" of God? I believe that it is perfect in the sense that we are commanded to become perfect- lacking nothing in substance, equivalent to the teachings of the originals, etc.

However, this doesn't mean that every word is in perfect correspondance to the originals.

The others seemed to have fallen down on a few questions so I will try you. Please cite the verse that says the KJV is the perfect words of God for the English speaking people.

 

I believe in perfect Bibles... not perfect in wording but perfect in teachings. While there might be 2% or even 5% uncertainty on the wording, there is no question about the teachings. God has provided us what we need to know Him as led by the Holy Spirit.

That said there are obviously legitimate questions about which Bibles best represent the text of the originals. Making this determination requires proof and reasoning.

 

do me a favor, grab your NIV or NASV or any of those other perversions and tell me what you find when you look up...

Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28
Luke 17:36, 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7

why do your "Bibles" have missing verses?</font>[/QUOTE]When you provide proof that these verses were in the originals, many here will be willing to discuss the comparative evidence for the readings.

Is there scripture that establishes the KJV as the standard by which all translations are to be judged? If not, is there objective historical proof? Or... are you simply trusting someone's feeling on the matter emanating from emotion absent reason?

 

Scott come on man, how many more versions do we need? It is like soap, new and improved over and over and over.
This is confusing to a new believer, it was to me!
Now I do not speak or read Greek, Hebrew or latin nor do I want to, I use the English language. When I was saved I went to the niv then the nasb and thank God the KJV. I did this not because of Gail R. or P.R, it seemed to me that it has been used by the Lord so much in the past and most of all it is TRUSTWORTHY. If an individual or translation commitee tells me that in the greek... or a better rendering would be...do I take YOUR or THEIR word for it?
When the asv come out they were saying the same things about it as said now over the nkjv nasb etc...
Enough already, when I am reading the Bible I want to have the word of God and that is what I have.
I strongly believe that the proponents of the modern and " more accurate" versions of today AND TOMORROW are doing more damage to the cause of Christ than a KJO ever could.
I know you and many others disagree as is your right, I know I am not perfect.. But one thing I do know is that when you tell a babe in Christ that his kjv is full of errors and if we only had the originals all would be well. When he has to trust the opinions of scholars to tell him what God has said,
Brothers and sisters you are doing him no service.

 

you people are searching for the truth? well, here it is. nice job swordsman.

 

I didn't say that we need more. In fact, I am not sure that we do unless some substantial new evidence comes to light... and I personally don't look for it.

Which is fine... but not necessarily confusing to everyone. From this perspective, how can you condemn someone who does not understand the grammar and diction of the KJV and desires a translation in their normal, daily tongue?

Why would you confuse or discourage a new believer who has been blessed by the NASB and accepts its authority over their life? Why would you tell them that the version that they were told was true is full of errors and omissions?

This is all good! It is great that you like and use the KJV. However, this doesn't justify your condemnation of those who choose differently.

That is a judgement for you to make... but please realize that you have already trusted what someone said the greek meant. You have placed your trust in the judgment of the KJV translators- men, Anglican and Puritan men... some of whom persecuted our Baptist forebearers in England.

I could not possibly agree more. You do have the Word of God but you do not have the words of God nor is it necessary to have mystically perfect wording. Pastor Larry made an excellent post on this using the KJV as proof. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000681

No. I don't believe this at all. Offering the scriptures faithfully in clear language is not damaging to the body of Christ.

I think you dramatically underestimate the intelligence of even new believers. They can understand the basic issues regarding transmission and translation. And also, why would you tell someone the KJV was full of errors? This is not the case. What it says is true. It teaches the exact same doctrines as the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and by all evidence the original autographs.

[ January 22, 2003, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Bartholomew, my understanding of Peter Ruckman's teaching and its implications is not just that some manuscripts were corrupted, but that it was lost or missing and had to be re-inspired in 1611. Why else does the talk of double inspiration mean? If it had to be inspired again, that means that God did not preserve it to all generations. Now this may have no practical implications for KJB users today, but what about the Englishman (or anyone else) in 1599? Would he have had to say the word of God does not exist? Another thing that I am not sure about concerning Peter Ruckman, but I do know that some of his followers believe that the word of God today only exists in King James English and that no other language translations are the word of God.

 

In my experience with new believers, this is not confusing.

[/.qb]When you accept the KJV, you do just that ... accept the word of a translation committee. However, by limiting yourself to just one, you have in effect established them as your authority.

I have not seen anyone here do that ... Can you quote someone who has said that?

This is exactly what you are telling him. The difference is that your scholars lived 400 years ago, other people's scholars live today. The old scholars (yours) were not in possession of much of the evidence that God preserved for us; they were not able to take advantage of the 400 years of linguistic advancement that has taken place. Simply put by analogy, they were building a house with logs and wood pegs made with an axe instead of using power saws and concrete and nail guns and the like. It is a great house; but there is nothing wrong with a new one.

 

That was the point of part of my response as well. I haven't seen anyone here say that the KJV isn't the Word of God or trustworthy or an accurate translation. In fact, those on our side have emphatically endorsed these truths.

So, if the concern is about those who read these threads, who does more damage to these readers and the church- those who acknowledge the evidence and accept that there is more than one valid, trustworthy translation of God's Word or those who call faithful translations like the NASB and NKJV "perversions, trash, etc."?

It is my position that someone coming here looking for information and understanding about why there is more the one Bible version will be more edified by an honest acceptance and explaination of the evidence. Sometimes we do that and I think on a couple of occasions KJVO's did change their opinions or at least softened them. In reality, those who refuse to look at the proof posted are a strong testimony against their own position.

Recently, I posted a link to a broadcast debate between Riplinger and White. During the show, she stated that Jesus gave her the acrostic algebra that she puts in her book. I cited a magazine article where she claims to have been divinely inspired in her writings. Steve K wouldn't consider the evidence and continued to declare her truthful... but you know what? There was probably one of those non-posting readers that did follow the links and then compare what they learned to what Steve wrote.

As I have stated before, you all can convince me. I already prefer the KJV as my primary Bible. All I ask for is the scriptural or historical proof that demonstrates that only the KJV is the Word of God in English or is, in fact, the actual words of God. But until this happens, I will continue to accept documented proof and consider KJVO a false, man-made doctrine.

 

I don't see this lack of surety about the trustworthiness of God's words. We are not saying that the KJV is not trustworthy. We don't believe that.

In my ministry, I have seen much greater fruit since I switched to a modern version. I find people excited about reading and studying and learning. I never saw that kind of excitement in the KJOnly church I was on staff at for a while. I believe the church is greatly helped by modern versions because it communicates to people in the language they speak.

I have said often, I don't care if people use the KJV or not. As far as I am concerned, use whatever you like, will study, and will live by. But I have a problem when some people tell us that our liberty to use a different version is wrong.

 

Pastor Larry,
I know this is off topic and I am not asking this as a shot at you.
You stated in the previous post about the excitement you see with the people using the modern versions.
Do you see:
Submission to Christ
A desire to live a holy life
A desire to be the salt and the light to a lost and dying world

or do you see an abundance of "undercover Christians"?

Like I said this is not against you but something I noticed with the church in general.
With all these "Christians" in the church today reading and enjoying these new and improved versions, why is this society we live in such a mess?


[ January 24, 2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: swordsman ]

 

swordsman, I am not Larry, but I have seen some very dedicated people who desire to live a pleasing and holy life for the Lord and use an MV. At the same time I see folks use the KJV and have no clue what it is talking about and simply are playing church. I don't think it is a version problem, I think it is a heart problem.

Personally I feel easy-believism is one of the biggest problems as to why we do not see so called Christians living a holy life.

Neal

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

I was in KJOnly church for a while on staff. I never saw the kind of excitement and passion for Christ there that I see now, in my life or in the life of others. In the bottom line, the versions are not the problem. The growing fundamental churches I know of are using the NIV. I don't know of one KJOnly church that is having any significant impact. That doesn't mean they don't exist. It simply means I don't know about them. My point is that the versions are not the problem. Having God's word in the common language is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Because of depravity.

 

RE: KJVO and leadership...

Romans 16:
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

[ January 25, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Why has any society anybody ever in been such a mess?

 

Hey all you KJVonlyist,
How does it feel to be on the losing end of a fight. You see it is just a matter of time until the KJV will simply be a thing of the past, like the Geneva bible.

Every day there are more modern versions being sold. Why just 34 years ago when I was saved, almost all the baptist churches here in Houston used only the KJV. Now, it is difficult to even find a KJV only church. Thank God.

Just imagine, in 100 years even your own offspring will be using a modern version, maybe it will be the New New International Version.

[ January 29, 2003, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Terry Herrington ]

 

Wishful thinking?? I would imagine a lot of folks will be glad when that book is gone(Matt 13:21) so it will leave them alone(Heb 4:12.)If the AV has not been replaced in nearly 400 years by scores of "better" bibles,what makes you think somthing "new" from Alexandria is going to do the job??

[ January 29, 2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

I wouldn't count on it. Remember the Vulgate? Tradition based religionists (RCC) used fear, manipulation, deceit, intimidation, and many other KJVO tactics to keep it the "only" Bible for almost 1000 years. They were completely satisfied to deny the masses a Bible in their on vernacular. This is what predictably happens when tradition over rules the Word.

 

You need to study your English history.

The AV became the exclusive Bible only after the Church of England declared it a High Commission crime to bind, print, or distribute any other version within the empire. Only after this did our Baptist forebearers accept it- their preference appears to have been the Geneva Bible which by the way was not a product of a state church union.