What does Ruckmannite mean?

Brian
Romans 4 is addressed in the link on my previous post, check it out.

 

swordsman,

Kevo (and Ruckman) say works are required for salvation in the OT. Rom 4 makes it clear that this is not true. The website you listed, talking about Rom 4, avoids the bulk of the chapter (and its main point) by only talking about Abraham. But even here it errs, by saying that Abraham's righteousness was because he believed "that he would have as many children as there were stars in the sky". That is a subtle but dangerous spin: for Rom 4 does not say that it is Abraham's belief "in many offspring" that resulted in his righteousness, but because "Abraham believed God" (verse 3). Do you not see the subtle difference? It was not belief in the particular promise in and of itself, but belief *in God* that he would fulfill the promise (verses 21-22). Faith. Not faith + works. Read the whole chapter, slowly and carefully. Highlight verses 4 and 5. Put a star beside verse 14. And drop Ruckman's books in the trash.

 

Japheth, I have continued to watch the "doctrines missing in MV's" thread. Amazingly, you have yet to post one of those numerous fundamental doctrines which cannot be found in modern translations. In fact, that thread has actually turned into a scholarly debate over a textual variant.

Just wondering what happened to all that proof you had lined up.

 

I have repetivly posted verse after verse that attacts his diety,virgin birth,ect. But if I'm not mistaken, we were told to stay on topic(Ruckmanites)however, I do agree 100% with KEVO, why not come and quiz Dr Ruckman face to face!! Yes, this is a invitation!!!!!!!

 

KEVO & Japheth, I noticed that several times that you have issued an "invitation" to come see, hear, and quiz Peter Ruckman (I guess when he is at your church). Does this mean that you do not think that what he has issued in black & white (his books) is representative of what he truly believes?? If it is, I am sure I do not wish to hear him, because his writings show some very serious heretical doctrines. If it is not, I still do not wish to hear him, because it shows that what he says and what he writes are not consistent! Which is true?

 

Exactly, you have posted a few verses out of context then claim that they "attack" certain doctrines. What you have not done is demonstrate that MV's do not teach the doctrines in question.

With regard to Ruckman, I doubt I will travel 800 miles to listen to his unscriptural babble... thanks anyway.

 

Again, I do not agree 100% with him or anybody else on some issues. For example, everybody does not agree with my stand for the AV1611.. However, I do agree with his stand 100% on the infalabilty of the AV1611.

[ August 23, 2002, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

Oh,scottJ, I did not quote anything out of context,My AV1611 has the said verses in there. The others,well, don't!!!

 

Do you agree with his statements that the AV1611 is infallible because the Holy Spirit "thrust himself" on the translators, it contains advanced revelation, and corrects the Greek?

 

When you take a verse from an MV, compare it to a verse in the KJV, then claim that the MV undermines a doctrine because it says "Him" rather than "Christ" or "gospel" rather than "gospel of Christ" while ignoring the surrounding verses that make it clear that the MV is teaching exactly the same thing as the KJV... that is taking verses out of context.

Furthermore, you keep shifting and evading. You accuse MV's of attacking doctrine then cite isolated verses while ignoring numerous other verses.

The challenge still stands. Name a doctrine that can be proven from the KJV but cannot be proven by the NASB or NKJV or other conservative translations. The fact is that you cannot do it and therefore you are evading the issue by throwing out these isolated verses that you think stand as proof text from the KJV but not the MV's.

 

Do you agree with his statements that the AV1611 is infallible because the Holy Spirit "thrust himself" on the translators, it contains advanced revelation, and corrects the Greek?</font>[/QUOTE]YES!!2 Tim 3:16& PS 12:6-7

[ August 23, 2002, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

If the MV'S are the same, then where are the missing verses. If the MV's are the same as the AV1611, then where are they??? They are not there!!!!

 

YES!!2 Tim 3:16& PS 12:6-7</font>[/QUOTE]Neato. :eek: :eek: :eek: Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Japheth, a type of KJV-onlyist many here have said they have never met or seen on this board.

Why do you believe this, because of a burning in your bosom? Since these doctrines are not from the Bible itself, what is the source of these extra-Biblical beliefs?

2 Tim 3:16 and Psa 12:6-7 do not mention the KJV. If they are "proof" of this belief, were these verses lies in 1605?

 

No one says they are worded the same. They establish the same doctrines and express the same Word of God. You still want to go back to the KJV as the standard. Only the originals can be that standard and we have enough manuscript evidence to confirm most of the original text and all of the original teachings.

The question isn't and never can be a comparison of translations. It must always be a comparison of which version most likely matches what the originals said.

 

1).Hebrew. (2.) Aramaic,(3.)greek(atic koine greek,or common). (4.)Old Syriac (5)Old Latin) (6)German (7)English. I believe this proves Psa 12:6-7 purified 7 times just like God said. Although this is off the original topic, it is still worth noting.. Oh, I bet I'm not the only one who belives that way on this board :rolleyes:

[ August 23, 2002, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

I'm still unsure and waiting for an answer. Will Mr. Ruckman's words be more true and authoritative when he speaks in Childersburg in October than they are in his books??
:confused:

 

Come & hear for your self!!!!!!! KEVO said he would pay the way!!!!! What do you have to lose????? ;)

[ August 23, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

Japheth said:

1).Hebrew. (2.) Aramaic,(3.)greek(atic koine greek,or common). (4.)Old Syriac (5)Old Latin) (6)German (7)English. I believe this proves Psa 12:6-7 purified 7 times just like God said.

How so? The English KJV was not translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Syriac to Latin to German to English. It went from either Hebrew or Greek directly into English, skipping all the intermediate steps.

So at most, assuming your argument to be true (which I do not), it is 3 times purified.

 

Do you agree with his statements that the AV1611 is infallible because the Holy Spirit "thrust himself" on the translators, it contains advanced revelation, and corrects the Greek?
--------------------------------------------------YES!!2 Tim 3:16& PS 12:6-7

That's the most [edited] you've posted yet. God's Word need "correcting" from the one in which He inspired it, to the one you want because a bunch of Anglican [gentlemen; edited] did for their sovereign, who incidentally was not Jesus.... such fantastic reasoning!

[ August 23, 2002, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

Then I guess God lied when he said Psa 12:6-7 right??