another report on Sword Scripture Conference

[Rippon]

• There are probably no more than two men alive today who would be qualified to sit on the KJV translation committee. The men on the translation committee were fluent in the classic languages.

.

I thought it was common knowledge that the KJV revisors knew Latin better than Greek , Hebrew and Aramaic .

 

[Logos1560]

Please remember that I said that Ruckman was not mentioned in the sessions I attended.

The other person who attended this conference did not say in his first report whether Ruckman was mentioned in a positive or negative sense.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In additional comment, this person reported: "I stated that Ruckman was mentioned once in the conference. I should clarify that he was not mentioned in a positive light, but rather negative. During his first session, Don Jasmin held up a copy of a Ruckman book and commented negatively for about a minute on Ruckman's advanced revelation theory. I think Jasmin mentioned his name, but if he didn't (like if you listen to a recording) he did hold up one of his books."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now you know the session and speaker when he thought Ruckman was mentioned when you listen the rest of the sessions.

 

[Rippon]

Dr. Norris Belcher –

• With one version, God is the authority; with many versions, man becomes the arbitrator of God's Word.
• I Cor. 1:10 – Different speech causes divisions – the Tower of Babel.

So God has lost His authority ?! There have been countless versions throughout the world for quite some time now . How can man 'arbitrate' the Word of God ? What in the world does that mean ?

I appeal to you , brothers and sisters , in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ , that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you , but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought . ( 1 Corinthians 1:10 TNIV ) .

The above has nothing to do with regarding only one Bible as the authentic Word of God . And how this has anything to do with the Tower of Babel is beyond my comprehension . BTW , the Lord authorized the division of speech at that time . It was a good thing .

Dr. Belcher had a few misinformed thoughts in his presentation .

 

[Logos1560]

The other poster went in to find fault with the the conference and its intentions.

The other person who reported on the conference clearly stated that he uses the KJV exclusively and wishes others would as well.

Of course, different people attending a conference will each see it from their own perspectives. Should we seem to judge and condemn the motives and intentions of another person when we don't know them?
Because a person ended up disagreeing with some of what was said at a conference would not seem to be valid evidence for assuming that they went to it "to find fault."

 

[menageriekeeper]

Well I have to say, I'm still awfully itchy.

The scripture presented along with points in the sermon that Pastor Bob has reported leave me very close to believing that we should use the KJV because those with spiritual discernment (mind of Christ) says so.

Did he present any evidence that the KJV is indeed the Word of God as opposed to other translations? I know most of us here assume it is, based on our own knowledge of history. But just because this version contains God's Word hardly means other versions don't. I find that the discussion of which underlying text is best to be a better reason for choosing the KJV, but then they would have to deal with other versions translated from the same texts.

The next two points are red herrings and have little to do with the KJV being best. I will give him points for showing a potential problem with pastors who "retranslate", though personally if I don't understand the syntax of the KJV, I look to other translations for clarification.

Is this man qualified to make a broad based statement like #3? How on earth can he possibly know this?

The last two points: man is already in the postion of having to decide for himself what God is trying to tell him. There would be divison even if every human on earth used the KJV. Look at how many divisions the church has made just since the first KJV was published. At Babel, God wanted us divided. This is less than an excuse for demanding the use of KJV.

One last question/comment. Did any man at this conference tell us to do as the early church did and search the scriptures in order to discern the truth? Or were those in attendence expected to merely believe what was presented without question?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

First, good point of Logos to correct me for accusing the "other poster" of seeking to find fault, I don't know his heart.


I am disappointed that the preacher was able to eisegete this interpretation of the passage he used. The passage has nothing to do with Bible versions. He found a passage that he could apply to his own opinions.


It appears to have been a conference based on opinions instead of real Bible evidence. There is nothing wrong with opinions, we all have them. Is it right to structure a Bible conference on opinions?

The Tower of Babel comment really threw me. Is he saying that for the body of Christ to be united we must all speak one language?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The scripture presented along with points in the sermon that Pastor Bob has reported leave me very close to believing that we should use the KJV because those with spiritual discernment (mind of Christ) says so.

The scripture he presented teaches that it is the Spirit of God that will teach the one who is seeking. There is no need of any other source. If we needed additional info to understand the Word of God, then only those who know the original languages could know it. This has nothing to do with a version, but rather with our yielding to His Spirit to guide us.

Did he present any evidence that the KJV is indeed the Word of God as opposed to other translations?

There were other speakers who used their sessions to do that. It would have been quite redundant if every speaker said the same thing. Each session was to build upon the next.

But just because this version contains God's Word hardly means other versions don't.

The emphasis of the conference was, relative to the KJV, "this version" is the Word of God. The "other versions," by virtue of the fact that they sprang from what had been shown to be corrupt texts, cannot be the preserved Word of God.

I find that the discussion of which underlying text is best to be a better reason for choosing the KJV, but then they would have to deal with other versions translated from the same texts.

The underlying texts were clearly presented as the basis for standing for the KJV.

Is this man qualified to make a broad based statement like #3? How on earth can he possibly know this?

He was merely giving an opinion.

One last question/comment. Did any man at this conference tell us to do as the early church did and search the scriptures in order to discern the truth? Or were those in attendence expected to merely believe what was presented without question?

That was the point of the message. allow the Scriptures, along with the Spirit of God to teach you and guide you.

 

[rsr]

The reference to the NIV and the "HIV" was an attempt to "humorously" point out that this version is "infected" with error and corruption. It was not alluding to AIDS or linking it to homosexuality in any form or fashion.

Surely, Pastor Bob, don't you think such a defense of the comment is disingenuous?

Calling it the "HIV" is goes beyond "alluding to AIDS" because they two are inextricably linked. It may well be that the speaker was not intending to link it to homesexuality, but by the very name it is linked to AIDS.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I am disappointed that the preacher was able to eisegete this interpretation of the passage he used. The passage has nothing to do with Bible versions. He found a passage that he could apply to his own opinions.

You missed the point of the message. The message was not about Bible versions; therefore, the passage need not apply to Bible versions either. He presented a truth that would cross all version boundaries. If you believe that you hold God's perfect Word in your hands, why do you go the the Greek and Hebrew to improve upon it?

It appears to have been a conference based on opinions instead of real Bible evidence.

As has been pointed out ad nauseam on this forum, there is very little intrinsic evidence for choosing a specific version. There is a multitude of extrinsic evidence to support one's choice to hold to the KJV. This evidence was presented very adequately.

The Tower of Babel comment really threw me. Is he saying that for the body of Christ to be united we must all speak one language?

No, he is not saying that at all. I have tried to present this material with as little bias as possible; I would ask that one review it with as little bias as possible. It has already been said that, if one comes to the table looking for fault, one will find it without fail.

Dr. Belcher simply offered the Tower of Babel as an example of how different speech divides. The languages were confounded by God Himself, The result was division. There is no disputing this fact.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Surely, Pastor Bob, don't you think such a defense of the comment is disingenuous?

Calling it the "HIV" is goes beyond "alluding to AIDS" because they two are inextricably linked. It may well be that the speaker was not intending to link it to homesexuality, but by the very name it is linked to AIDS.

Now, now...
The speaker may have meant an entirely different meaning for the initials HIV. I myself have used those initials in reference to the NIV. And I stated what I believe the initials to be... the Harmful International Version.

If it was from corrupt tests, and we know it is, then it is harmful to take it as the preserved Word of God. That which is sown in corruption is reaped in corruption.

If we feed our minds and our hearts with corruption, it is very harmful to our spiritual walk.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Surely, Pastor Bob, don't you think such a defense of the comment is disingenuous?

I assure you, friend, that my comments are not in the least disingenuous. If I say it, you can be very sure that I believe it.

Calling it the "HIV" is goes beyond "alluding to AIDS" because they two are inextricably linked. It may well be that the speaker was not intending to link it to homesexuality, but by the very name it is linked to AIDS.

Which is why I would never personally use the term.

 

[Rippon]

But , Pastor Bob , you will not call the NIV the Word of God -- will you ?

 

[Logos1560]

Dr. Norris Belcher – “Shut Up! You Don’t Speak Greek!”

He was pointing out the inconsistency in saying that we believe we have the inspired, preserved Word of God in our hands and then go about correcting it or improving upon it by going to the Greek. He was asserting that you can’t have it both ways. Either the KJV is the Word of God or it isn’t.

The KJV translators already had in their hands English translations that they accepted as the Word of God, and yet they went to the Hebrew and Greek and attempted to improve them and correct them. The preface of the 1611 clearly shows that the KJV translators accepted the pre-1611 English Bibles as being the "word of God." KJV-only advocates also cannot have it both ways. If they permit a group of Church of England scholars in 1611 to go to the Hebrew and Greek and attempt to correct and improve earlier good English Bibles, they have no basis for saying that other Bible scholars cannot do the same.

Did Norris Belscher read and preach from the actual 1611 edition of the KJV or from a present-day edition of the KJV? If he used a present-day edition of the KJV, he was using an edition whose editors had went to the Hebrew and Greek to make corrections in the text of the 1611 edition. He also cannot have it both ways.

Actually, the earlier English translators including the KJV translators believed that a translation could be considered the word of God without its being 100% perfect or infallible. The earlier English translators did not regarding their translating to be inspired. The early English translators including the KJV translators accepted the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the standard and greater authority for the making and evaluating of all translations.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

But , Pastor Bob , you will not call the NIV the Word of God -- will you ?

No, sir, I would not. Nor would I use derisive terms to describe a Modern Version. I have no doubt that God can use the MVs to declare the message of salvation.

I would not, however, hesitate to say that, based on the textual foundation of the NIV, it is a corrupt translation. That, in my opinion, is speaking factually instead of emotionally. It is also not an affront to the translators of the NIV. It is, perhaps, an accurate translation. If so, it is an accurate translation of a corrupt text.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Gentlemen on both sides,

Please let us keep to the topic of the debate, the conference itself. This is not the place to discuss our views on the versions.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The KJV translators already had in their hands English translations that they accepted as the Word of God, and yet they went to the Hebrew and Greek and attempted to improve them and correct them.

The English translations they had in their possession were all Received Text based translations. Their purpose was not to "improve" or "correct" these translations. Their purpose was to present a translation that "openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered. Indeed, without translation into the vulgar tongue the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) without a bucket or some thing to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed."

The preface of the 1611 clearly shows that the KJV translators accepted the pre-1611 English Bibles as being the "word of God."

Did they accept any non-TR based Bibles?

Did Norris Belscher read and preach from the actual 1611 edition of the KJV or from a present-day edition of the KJV? If he used a present-day edition of the KJV, he was using an edition whose editors had went to the Hebrew and Greek to make corrections in the text of the 1611 edition. He also cannot have it both ways.

Did subsequent editions correct translational or factual error or mere printer's or scribal error?

The earlier English translators did not regarding their translating to be inspired.

Nor did the human authors of the autographa at the time they were writing them.

The early English translators including the KJV translators accepted the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the standard and greater authority for the making and evaluating of all translations.

As do I and quite possibly 100% of the conference attendees. This still does not mean that we cannot have an equal confidence in God's ability to preserve His Word. Inspiration without preservation leads only to man's frustration and inability to know for certain what God has said.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Please let us keep to the topic of the debate, the conference itself. This is not the place to discuss our views on the versions.

I apologize Roger. I will not respond to any more questions in this thread other than those relative to the conference.

 

[Armchair Scholar]

I am disappointed that the preacher was able to eisegete this interpretation of the passage he used. The passage has nothing to do with Bible versions. He found a passage that he could apply to his own opinions.


It appears to have been a conference based on opinions instead of real Bible evidence. There is nothing wrong with opinions, we all have them. Is it right to structure a Bible conference on opinions?

The Tower of Babel comment really threw me. Is he saying that for the body of Christ to be united we must all speak one language?

Amen to what you said! And the tower of Babel situation happened because they had all gotten together to do evil. They were able to communicate all together as one big group to work out their wicked plan. God confused their languages so that this would become impossible. I'm really tired of KJO teachers who try to twist God's word to fit their opinions. It is really getting old.

As for calling the NIV the "HIV," that is completely inappropriate for many reason and there is NEVER a "humorous" reason to call it that. I personally care for AIDS patients from time time and not all of them are homosexual. Some of them are women who were infected by husbands who either did not know they had the virus or did not tell them. Some are children. Shame on anyone who calls himself a pastor who gives any translation a label that is intentionally linked to the terrible infectious disease caused by HIV! There is Scripture being ignored that gives guidelines about how to speak. We are to refrain from course talk and jesting! We are to tell the truth in LOVE. If it is only an opinion and cannot be backed with objective truth then it ought not be taught. Enough is enough. Satan is the one who gets the glory in all this and he wins the battle when people play around this way. Some of these teachers need to read their Bible more diligently before they teach people things they ought not. How many of those who "humorously" label a translation this way would extend a loving hand to a person infected with HIV and share the gospel in truth and love? We all need to get back to the Bible and stop having so many conferences that waste time and invite such ignorance.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Paul spoke coarsely on many occasions, Peter also. Even our Lord was known to speak harshly on several occasions.

Speaking the truth in love does not omit harshness of words.

 

[Rippon]

Paul spoke coarsely on many occasions, Peter also. Even our Lord was known to speak harshly on several occasions.

Speaking the truth in love does not omit harshness of words.

Stepping aside from the love part of the equation -- it doesn't seem that too much truth emanated from this SS Conference .