PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error by Me and Most Bible Believers,
PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error, to be viewed with abhorrence and indignation.
(1) the KJV is doubly inspired;
Nothing could be further from the Truth and just like the man-made fleshly theory about how the Original Source Language Manuscripts used for Eighteen or Nineteen Centuries had been compromised, corrupted, and were full of errors, which then required a new New Testament Greek text to be Written, in the sole interest of Changing the Word of God, by calling it a necessary "Reconstruction" project, to repair and recover the Word of God which no one had had since the First Century, they and Peter Ruckman both denied the Preservation of the Scripture, where in his case, he was claiming that a brand new Act of Directly Inspiring the Bible was needed because God hadn't Preserved it up 'till then?
(2) the KJV is advanced revelation;
No way. Crazy. That's not how it works.
(3) the English KJV is as or more Inspired than the Original language Scriptures;
Wrong. 100%. And stupid.
(4) the KJV can be used to correct the Original language Scriptures;
This guy had a thing about Going in the Wrong Direction and playing into the hands of Satan to look like a fool.
(5) there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an “Inspired” English Translation;
Nutcase.
(6) the KJV cannot be improved on (The Defined King James Bible edited by D A Waite and S H Tow and published by Bible For Today is certainly an improvement on the KJV);
The Translators are famous, as you know, from
"The Translators to the Reader," in the original 1611 preface to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, which states that their goal was
"not to make a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one". [
1] and it was not their goal to make the King James where it "cannot be improved upon".
Building on Previous Work: The King James Translators stated they did not set out to create a brand-new Bible from scratch, but rather to review, polish, and build upon earlier valid English translations (such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible) using the original Hebrew and Greek. [
1,
2,
3]
"The Translators to the Reader"
"...as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us."
(7) the KJV is the only Bible that has Gospel or Salvific content;
This is what's known in religion as "Blowing Smoke".
(8) those who do not use the KJV are Condemned to Hell; and
I'm sorry he thought that he had that kind of authority to even dream of such a farse.
(9) all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.
This and the above is what's known in religion as "another Gospel".
Are Peter Ruckman's tenants as seen in his definition of scripture seen as pure error?
You co-joined the words "seen as pure error" to a different subject altogether, to manipulate a way to ignore facing the issue at hand, as is your way of avoiding ever taking an honest look at any subject other than that of bashing the King James, in lieu of taking the inexcusably inadvisable modern day Translation concerns under consideration.
It gets very ugly, very fast, doesn't it?
"The NU is a shorter and more difficult text than the TR. However, recent academic research, including the author’s at Cambridge, shows that scribes tended to omit rather than add at a rate of sixty to forty.
4 This is only common sense – omission is the easiest mistake to make. The author’s study also showed that scribes created more difficulties rather than improving the text. Scribes are the (unintentional) corrupters, not improvers(!), of God’s word.
"Some commentaries which follow the NU text speak of the so-called ‘best’ manuscripts,
but this is now admitted by textual scholars to involve circular reasoning –
"the ‘best’ manuscripts are ones which contain the ‘best’ readings,
but the ‘best’ readings are those found in the ‘best’ manuscripts."
"Avoiding this circularity, studies in scribal habits show that these ‘best manuscripts’ contain many errors.
"Another problem with so-called ‘earliest and best’ manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, is that they disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone, ignoring minor spelling variants.5
"Simple math means that one or the other is wrong, at least, 3,000 times – thirty times per chapter. Few people copying out a chapter of an English Bible today would make as many mistakes.
"The signature errors of these manuscripts are excessive omissions, and more difficult readings."
"The NU text is largely Alexandrian, that is, based on manuscripts related to the early Coptic (Egyptian) versions and quotes from Alexandrian Church Fathers. It preserves an early, but likely localized, form of text.
"The NU text is also often based on very few manuscripts, and in a few places, none at all – the editors abandon all manuscripts and conjecture, i.e., guess, the original reading, Acts 16. 12; 2 Pet. 3. 10."
A Little History In AD 1453 the fall of Constantinople to the twenty-one-year-old Sultan Mehmed of the Ottoman Empire brought an end to the Byzantine (i.e., Eastern Roman) Empire which had stood for 1,000 years. Greek Orthodox monks fled westward into Europe bringing with them Greek New...
www.preciousseed.org
