The Real Story of King James I

I have always heard a number of textual critics say things like KJ was a homo and an ungodly man. But this article really shows the oposite. If you read some of the work that KJ actually wrote you will find that he loved God and hated sin.The Real Story of King James I

i've never heard any textual critic say that: can u name any?

there are some accounts regarding James' lifestyle (links below), but i don't believe any of them to be textual critics:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814796931/kjb1611biblevsmo
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877456690/kjb1611biblevsmo
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0884051234/kjb1611biblevsmo
http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew5/D5-KingJamesBackground.html

William Tyndale, the Father of the English Bible, had been used of God to bring an early translation of the Bible in English to the English people. For this crime he was declared to be a heretic and was burned at the stake. His last words were "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." Now a born again English king was sponsoring an English Bible, produced openly on English soil for English churches and English Christians.

That was a little part from that piece and I throughly enjoyed it. I am writing to the author and ordering the book it came from. I hope all who love the KJV will also read and order this book... God Bless You... Brother Glen

If you are a critic of the KJB then you are a textual critic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Little Light:
If you are a critic of the KJB then you are a textual critic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are a defender of the KJV then you are a textual critic. Everyone who holds any textual position (Majority, TR, Eclectic) or even a non-textual position (KJVOnly) is a textual critic. It is impossible to hold a Bible in your hand without, at least tacitly, endorsing textual criticism.

BTW, who King James was and what he stood for is a non-issue. It doesn't matter. King James is not under scrutiny. It is a translation that is the issue.

&lt;&lt;If you are a defender of the KJV then you are a textual critic. Everyone who holds any textual position (Majority, TR, Eclectic) or even a non-textual position (KJVOnly) is a textual critic. It is impossible to hold a Bible in your hand without, at least tacitly, endorsing textual criticism. &gt;&gt;

How true! KJVO advocates claim that the English defines the Greek and Hebrew, therefore throwing out ALL Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as virtually useless.

HankD

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
How true! KJVO advocates claim that the English defines the Greek and Hebrew, therefore throwing out ALL Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as virtually useless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have heard this charge before, and even seen it in print, but have not been able to verify that KJVO advocates (as a whole, or even a majority) make such a claim. Can you substantiate this claim?

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

Ruckman has made this claim, or one very similar to it, in a number of places including His Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence (p. 126), his autobiography, a number of his commentaries where he addresses textual variants (although "addresses" is probably not what he does to them).

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

Quotes from Peter Ruckman:

I've NEVER said that the King James Bible was inspired, . . . [his booklet, Why I Believe the King James Version Is the Word of God pg. 6]

Not one time did God guarantee that ONE of the translations was inspired. [his Bible Believer's Bulletin Nov. 91, pg. 10]

Now, at no time have I stated flatly that the A. V. 1611 was the "verbally inspired Word of God." Verbal inspiration has to do with 2 Timothy 3:16 and deals with the Original Autographs, as we all know. [his Letter to Robert Sumner 1971]

Wow, thank you very much Thomas. I have never seen these quotes from Peter Ruckman before.

Textual Critics cannot refute the Word of God and the promise that GOD will preserve His word and does not need their help. Therefore they have a habit of attacking men and making lies up.

They just don't understand that the KJV is the Inspired Word of God through PRESERVATION not re-inspiration.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

Not so, I come to God's Word with the idea that it is inerrant and infalable and do not question the received text found in the KJV AV 1611.

A textual critic comes to the Bible with the idea that there may be errors with translation and it is up to them to study, fix it and enlighten everyone. We can all see how this has enlightened Churches right into liberalism. Proverbs 22:23THE CERTAINTY OF GOD'S WORD!.

My question is if you can't trust God to preserve His word how can you possibly trust Him for salvation?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


If you are a defender of the KJV then you are a textual critic. Everyone who holds any textual position (Majority, TR, Eclectic) or even a non-textual position (KJVOnly) is a textual critic. It is impossible to hold a Bible in your hand without, at least tacitly, endorsing textual criticism.

BTW, who King James was and what he stood for is a non-issue. It doesn't matter. King James is not under scrutiny. It is a translation that is the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you look up the sources I gave? You asked for sources about where the above statement came from. I gave them. At no time in my post did I address the issue of inspiration. I did not think that was the topic of discussion here.

However, since you have mentioned it, I saw your quotes when I posted them earlier and was surprised to hear Ruckman say that. It is in total contradiction to things that he has said elsewhere. Over the years, I have had the (mis)fortune of reading some of Ruckman's material and even hearing him preach (only on tape) and have been shocked at the things he has said.

I do not doubt that he said those things you have attributed to them. However, it seems very inconsistent with what he has said in multitudes of sources that are readily available.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Little Light:Not so, I come to God's Word with the idea that it is inerrant and infalable and do not question the received text found in the KJV AV 1611.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The received text is not found in the KJV. It is a translation of the received text. And in different editions of the KJV, the translation is found differently. FHA Scrivener addressed a number of these differences in a little publication he has put out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A textual critic comes to the Bible with the idea that there may be errors with translation and it is up to them to study, fix it and enlighten everyone. We can all see how this has enlightened Churches right into liberalism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do not appear to know what textual criticism is. A textual critic comes to the Bible with the knowledge that there is more than one manuscript and that there are differences between the manuscripts. Therefore, the task of lower criticism is the task of deciding which of the conflicting manuscripts most likely represent the original reading. Erasmus practiced textual criticism with the TR as did Scrivener after him. Hodges and Farstad practiced textual criticism in the Majority Text. Nestle and Aland practiced textual criticism in the Eclectic text. Anyone who chooses an Oxford KJV over a Cambridge KJV is practicing textual criticism.

Textual criticism (lower) simply deals with the reality that there are over 5000 manuscripts, no two of which perfectly resemble each other.

Furthermore, textual criticism has nothing to do with translation. It has to do with the establishment of the text.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My question is if you can't trust God to preserve His word how can you possibly trust Him for salvation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do trust God to preserve his word so you will have to ask someone who doesn't.

My question is that if you trust God to preserve his word perfectly, why don't any of the manuscripts match? And why does the KJV contain portions that are not found in any Greek manuscript?

Back to the subject at hand!! Textual Critisim is another discussion. I just posted this article to defute the lies about King James. And to some extent it does make a differance.

I believe this concept of smashing King James reputation was grabbed on to by Textual Critics so they could fuel the Greek Text put together by those devil worshippers Wescott and Hort.

I noticed that when I brought up the conduct of W and H in discussion with textual critics they were quick to point out that King James was an evil homo. Which obviously is not the case.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: This Little Light ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Little Light:
Textual Critics cannot refute the Word of God and the promise that GOD will preserve His word and does not need their help. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not convinced you have a good grasp of what textual criticism really is. Textual Criticism, as I understand it is the "Detailed investigation of the origin and history of literary documents, such as the Bible." (American Heritage Dictionary)

I am not convinced textual critics are trying to refute the word of God nor deny preservation. There seem to be two different styles of textual criticism, based on differing principles, that has resulted in two primarily different results. I tend to fall into the Burgon/Hills style as opposed to the Greisbach/Lachmann - Westcott/Hort style.

I was not aware of a different style. I have only ran into a style that caused doubt to the inerrancy of my Bible.

Perhaps there is a different descriptor I could use? As you have defined it here I have no problems with textual criticism. However I have always perceived a textual critic as someone that critiques. And by that definition we do not have the right to critique God's Word.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

I believe that the KJV is the preserved word of God. What others believe and if they use another translation is between them and the Lord.

Man will not believe God has preserved his word for future generations. God tells us his ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Man can believe what he wants, even christian men, and they usually do.

If God purposes a thing he brings it to pass and none can stay his hand. The crux of the matter with the King James is God heard the prayer of a dying martyr and answered it. Name another translation the was the result of God personally answering a dying martyrs prayer? Maybe you can but I can't

You can disect the King James to pieces like you do a frog in science class but I just believe it as it is written. I feel as I'm sure all of us that love our King James Version that it won't be long until I can't find a KJV.

Right now I'm looking at my Grandfathers KJV written in 1941. Its been 60 years since this KJV was published but in that amount of time the publishers for whatever reason in other editions of KJVs have removed the dedication to King James. That I might add was the seal to the person who bought it, that it was a King James. Why? What was the reason? Does anyone know?

How long will it be before I can't find a KJV? How long will it be before the christian community decides we want a more updated version and the KJV that I love is replaced? How long?... How long will it be before it disappears from not only our homes but our churches? How long?... Yeah hath God said?... Brother Glen

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

AMEN Brother

2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

Articles about King James, Ruckman, KJVOnlyism, and much more!

I am terribly sorry that I was drawn into this debate. I was just hoping to post a good article about King James, which I thought was interesting. Years ago when I came on these boards an article like this was received with amen’s and thank-you's. It is obvious that the ratio of liberals has changed since then and many people no longer stand by God's uncompromising word.

I am settled on the AV KJV and have come to this conclusion based on my study of God's Word and where the texts come from not some compromising liberal teaching.

It is sad to see how many churches have fallen to other versions. The outcome is dead churches that don't even believe God and spend more time trying to persuade kids to come with rock music and compromise because all they have is a hollow book that can't be trusted (NIV and others). Bring in the sodomites cause our new versions have replaced the word sodomite with sexual pervert or prostitute. Bring in the infant baptism cause one of the strongest texts supporting believer’s baptism has been dropped. (Acts 8:37). Take out the reason Jesus came to earth. (Matthew 18:11 and Luke 9:56). Take away the scripture that shows God fulfilling prophesy. (Matthew 27:35) Change and garble references to the deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16) (Revelations 1: and the trinity. (1 John 5:7) Bring in whatever you want because you can always find a version that will tell you what you want, and if you don’t, get a group together and come up with your own version.

Confusion Confusion Confusion

1 Corinthians 14:33 “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

Proverbs 3:5-7 “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.”

1Thessolonians 2:13 “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”