Featured KJVO vs any other translation(s).

Not inspired, but are Infallible!

 

Valid translations are Infallible, but are neither inspired nor inerrant!

 

What do you mean when you say infallible?

 

The english translations still have known mistakes and errors in them, but that ANY issue of history or doctrine they touch upon is fully accurate and true!

 

What kind of mistakes and errors do you mean? How can the mistake or error be fully accurate and true?

 

Yeah, well Ruckman is out there. Not sure where he comes up with some of the stuff he does.

 

In response to the question "were prior 1611 English versions still inspired?", Michael Hollner answered "YES" (King James Only Debate, p. 396, 2021 edition), and yet those pre-1611 English versions differ in hundreds and likely thousands of places with the KJV.

Besides the large amount of differences in translation, there were many significant textual differences between the Great Bible, the first authorized English version, and the 1611 KJV.

 

Of course!

I have a fast red car.
I have a red fast car.
I have a car that's fast and red.
I have a car that's red and fast.

Get the picture?

 

He's dead now, but his store continues selling his stuff.

BTW, he used to be a Zen Bhuddist in the 1940s.

 

I am referring to say know issues mainly of the OT text regarding numbers, so while the numbers may not be 100 % accurate, the historical events described there were!

 

Seems that some KJVO do follow his lead!

 

His study bible was plain junk, and a great example of How NOT to make one!

 

And I was lost before I was found. His “stuff” -- and yours and mine -- must stand or fall on its own truth or untruth, regardless of what we used to be.

So, for example, would you mean like when the writer of Kings said that Israel slew 100,000 Syrians foot soldiers in one day (1 Kings 20:29), that the number might be inaccurate but the fact of having a battle was true? Or something else?

Merriam Webster gives three definitions for infallible:

• incapable of error, unerring
• not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint; certain
• incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

I am trying to figure which fits your meaning. The second or third? (No. one does not seem to fit, since you say they have some errors.)

 

While I certainly hope Ruckman died saved. But his past could've had a bearing on some of his outlandish stuff. For instance, the ZB stuff, plus the evil influence of the KJVO myth could've polluted his thinking, leading to the "advanced revelation" hooey. And it could've REALLY polluted it to the point where he invented his outlandish,insane-sounding version of the antichrist.

 

Could've, but you don't know that (or else you would have said did have instead of could've), and I don't know that.

 

You're right; I DON'T know that. But I DO know that both concepts of Ruckman's I mentioned above are just-plain-silly & wrong.

 

Just say that the Bible stated that X numbers died in battle in a day, but exact number not really known, the actual fight and battle was as stated!

 

Same as the million Ethiopians in 2 Chron. 14:9. There likely weren't a million Ethiopians of all ages & both genders living then. But they doubtlessly had a large army.

 

Double checking here.. you’re saying it’s likely only one gender living at that time??