Featured Final Authority and Final Canonization

Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger do both hold a KJV-only theory as can be seen in their own writings. It is clear that you do too regardless of your attempted denial.

It seems that Peter Ruckman forgot what he used to know in agreement with doctrinally sound believers, and sometime after 1971 he in effect invented a new private inconsistent interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16.

In a letter written to Robert Sumner in 1971, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Verbal inspiration has to do with 2 Tim 3:16 and deals with the original autographs, as we all know” (letter, p. 2).

Peter Ruckman wrote: “So our position is this: The King James Bible may not claim for itself the original inspiration of God, breathing through the men who spoke when they were copied down by a writer at the time they spoke. However, it can be claimed to be preserved without proven error in the universal language of the world” (Theological Studies, Book 15, p. 23

 

Why do you follow the incorrect opinions and claims of KJV-only authors such as Ruckman and Riplinger?

 

Since we know that ONLY the originals were without ANY errors, and that some crept in the transmission of the copies of them forward, however they wish to state this, KJVO HAS to maintain the KJV translators had same degree of inspiration upon them to create the KJV as Apsotles had to write the NT down, as to them BOTh are without errors/mistakes!

 

Do they believe there is ANY scripture apart from the the KJV today?

 

As would most KJV only people. And what do you do when the KJV and the Bishops Bible disagree?

 

Yes they are. Ruckman even says the KJV corrects the Greek. Riplinger says that the KJV has purified previous translation and thus would only use and promote the KJV

 

strange that God would have to correct the text the KJV was based upon, as how can a perfect translation come off imperfect text?

 

That has to be about the most ridiculous statement ever made on this forum.

Yes I do, in several different languages. And I have a doctrine (not a theory) of preservation straight from the Word of God. All you have is a theory. How sad.

 

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

Let's just ask these two. Mr. Ruckman (twice married and thus unfit to pastor), are you KJVOnly?

"There is ONE English Bible that obeys these laws of common sense, math, reason, grammar, history, scripture and faithfulness to the
scriptures...a King James 1611 Authorized Version--as in 1611" ("King James Onlyism" in Action, p. 12, emphases in the original).

Ms./Mrs. Riplinger (twice divorced, who lied about this to the Waites, a woman preacher who dares to disobey God's commands on preaching to men), are you KJVOnly?

On p. 613 of New Age Bible Versions, (a contradition in terms if there ever was one) she calls herself a "KJV believer." Forgive me for not digging deeper into her pile of trash to get a better quote.

 

Indeed.

 

You are mistaken. These mss should not be called "Receptus." These are not TR, but Byzantine/Majority. The TR, while it may be considered a sub-category of the Byz/Maj, differs from the great majority of mss of this text type in significant areas.

 

I agree with you, brother!!!

 

The books penned down under the inspiration of the Holy spirit, the originals manuscripts/books!

 

So there KJVO who hold to ONLY the 1611 version, while other KJVO would hold to also "revisions" of the 1611 as being the only bible too?

 

In this generation, the Niv has been the most published/revered/loved and used to get sinners saved by the lord of any Bible version, including the KJV...

is the Niv word of God, scripture?