who is ruckman?

See, I told you so!

 

Since you just divided numerous Christians by your shameful comparisons, you should be ashmed.

 

Why should a man be ashamed for speaking the truth?

 

Now that would not be very Christ like now would it.

One example please.

 

How do you seperate the man from what he is?

If I were to say that he publishes very damaging literature, that indicates the AV "corrects" the Greek manuscripts, am I attacking his person?

Yes, probably, but how do you say it any other way?

The bottom line is the man puts out cultish work and it is not only wrong, but he is also leading a lot of people down the Yellow Brick Road. If that is attacking the man, then I guess there is just no other solution!!??!!

 

If I don't care what you say about me, as long as it is true, then I don't think it would do any harm now, do you?

If I were to say that Satan was Jesus' brother--do you think you might have something bad to say about me? I would sure hope so!

[qb]One example please. </font>[/QUOTE]Just one? Awwwwwwww! Well, here goes:

"The KJV has actually corrected older manuscripts and Bibles, including Greek manuscripts."

I think that one by itself puts the boy in a BAD situation. Especially, considering the fact that he publishes and preaches this herasy to other believers and non-believers alike.

Hows THAT?

[ March 16, 2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

Okay, Okay, I don't know how to spell. I admit it. I slept through spelling. I don't have a spell checker to catch "herasy" and all my other little typos. Oh, well.

 

Come on now....don't change the subject. We were talking about whether or not I should say anything about Doc. Ruckman and you asked for an example of what he says that is wrong. I gave you one and all you did was say you didn't know, but you like your KJV. Well, I like my KJV too, but I don't go and tell you its translators were "inspired" or they were SOOOOOOO "inspired" that they "corrected" the translated manuscripts...........

 

I'm not saying that the KJB translators were inspired either, but that God's word is. That makes it just as good if not better than the originals.

 

HomeBound,

I agree that the translators of the KJV were not inspired themselves. They were translating manuscripts of copies of the inspired words of God. Therefore (using my own pea-brain here), one could say that any translation that is a true translation (not a paraphrase) is the inspired word of God.

But I have a feeling that when you say "God's word" that you are mentally switching it for "the King James". Am I correct?

That is not a prablem, if you agree with my point above. But if you don't, then all you have done is to cast the same old declaration in a new disguise.

I am afraid that I must part company with you on you second statement. No translation can equal, or supercede, the originals that it was copied from. Too much does not translate from one to the other.

I went on a mission trip to Mexico several years ago. Since none of us spoke Spanish, we had to rely on an interpreter. It was sort of funny, because we would say something, and it took him twice as long to say it in Spanish. Why? Because, although Spanish and English have some of the same roots (Latin), they are different languages. What is plain in on is not plain in the other.

The same goes for a translation of the bible. What was plain in the originals must be translated into the target language being used. Some things are plain, some things are not.

But, then, I forget that the KJV corrects the originals. Sorry about that...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Amen, Brother Homebound -- Preach it!

That makes God's word as inspired in
the New International Version (NIV) which
was inspired AFTER the unauthorized
editions of the Authorized Version;
the NIV is more the inspired Written
Word of God (iWWoG) than the KJVs.

 

Unfortunately so, Brother Trotter.
The KJV is substitued for Jesus,
the Christ, the Living Word of God.

To bad they don't read the part of the KJV
that talks about the living word of God (Jesus)
and the written word of God (Bible).

 

KJVO friends, how do you deal with Dr Ruckman's prejudice against Blacks, etc? I haven't read any of his latest works, but in the early 90's he called them by the "N" word in his "Bible Believer's Bulletin" I think (know) that this grieves our Lord, don't you? And please don't minimize this wickedness.

 

It is impossible for a human translation to be better than what God breathed, i.e. the Originals. see 2 Peter 1:21 in the Greek or any valid English B.V. "old time"...that's not 1611, is it?

 

I have not heard this, but if it is indeed true (and I have no reason to disbelieve you); there IS no excuse!

 

It is impossible for a human translation to be better than what God breathed, i.e. the Originals. see 2 Peter 1:21 in the Greek or any valid English B.V. "old time"...that's not 1611, is it? </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Pastor KevinR, preach-on!

 

Unfortunately so, Brother Trotter.
The KJV is substitued for Jesus,
the Christ, the Living Word of God.

To bad they don't read the part of the KJV
that talks about the living word of God (Jesus)
and the written word of God (Bible).

</font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Ed, you hit the nail on the head also. I sent you a PM a while back, did you get it?

 

Unfortunately so, Brother Trotter.
The KJV is substitued for Jesus,
the Christ, the Living Word of God.

To bad they don't read the part of the KJV
that talks about the living word of God (Jesus)
and the written word of God (Bible).

</font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Ed, you hit the nail on the head also. I sent you a PM a while back, did you get it? </font>[/QUOTE]We read it all alright, we just don't separate the two and set them at odds with One another.