how KJBOism rips the Body

i get what you guys are saying. i'm not that stupid. you're just too busy staring at the face of this thing thinking how smart you are because you found a "contradiction". but you refuse to look any deeper to see what the problem is.

i'll make you the same offer i made jim and scott. i'll send you the book for free. just give me your address via email or PM. and if you people were really honest with yourselves in wanting to know the truth about the Bible you would forget about how much you hate Ruckman. i don't like the way he says a lot of things, but i'm not going to ignore how much he knows about the Book because i don't like how he says it.

but you're not going to want it either because you've already made up your mind that you are smarter than the nearly 70 men that translated the king james.

 

There is nothing to figue out. I can read for myself and these parallel passages disagree with each other while otherwise using almost the exact same wording. The difference is that I am not blinded by KJVO presuppositions to the point of ignoring the black and white text of the KJV.

I always give God the benefit of the doubt. Copyists and translators on the other hand are human and therefore fallible. I believe that both passages probably said "22" originally. This position is by definition deferring to God's perfection in the way He inspired the original writers.

You are giving the benefit of the doubt to Ruckman and the KJV translators, not God.

Really, when were you in my home? Do you spy on me at night? You have falsely accused me without any basis. Of what spirit does this come?

To the moderators: Please do not edit "The Harvest's" comments. I am not hurt and will not follow to the point of the discussion escalating out of control. I think that it is very important that anyone reading this discussion see who is dealing with the issues and who is making personal accusations having nothing to do with the subject.

Harvest: Really? Another baseless charge written not in the spirit of truth?

OTOH, it is you that defers to Ruckman rather than simply reading the words of the KJV and accepting them at face value. While you accuse me, it is you that have allowed another man to do your thinking for you... without simply comparing it back to the simple, straight forward facts.

No. I am saying that Hebrew copyists and Anglican translators were neither infallible nor directly inspired by God in their work. Why would you lie in accusing me falsely?

I don't think that I am dodging any real issue you have brought up nor most of the non-issues.

I do understand because I can read what the translators wrote and I have no other agenda than the truth.

Perhaps you should heed your own admonition since the NT says nothing about KJVO but says a great deal about making false statements/accusations.

 

Not at all. We are just not so blinded by our presuppositions that we fail to see that there is a real problem.

Now you are a mind reader too?

I never claimed to be smarter than those men. I simply recognize as they did that their translation was not infallible. I also recognize that hand copyists made errors. It is you and Ruckman that seem to want to outsmart what the translators wrote. Perhaps the two of you would benefit from (re)reading the 1611 translators' "To the Reader".

 

oh well in that case, since YOU believe the originals said 22 then let's all just trust in Scott! maybe we'll start calling you Holy Father and you can wear a big crucifix around your neck and we'll all kiss your ring since you have the keys to understanding.

you are the one who is refusing to study the issue because all you want to do is look at the "black and white" of the king james text. your words.

really? cause it would appear to me that your agenda is to show everyone how smart you are in that you can correct nearly 70 men who were experts in Hebrew and Greek.

 

let me ask you a question.

what if the translators had said they were inspired? then what would your argument be? let me answer for you...

you would say "those pompous arrogant fools, how could they claim to be inspired? did they get a memo from God saying, hey boys, i'm inspiring you."

your argument that the translators didn't know that they were inspired is pointless. john the baptist didn't know that he was elias. Jesus said he was. just because he didn't know it, did that mean he wasn't?

 

Hmmm...so the KJV translators were inspired? That would make them Charismatics or Pentecostals!

 

Kiffin,

do you ever correct the KJB in church services or Bible studies or anything like that?

 

I wouldn't have one because this would not be an issue. The Baptists of the past would have rejected the KJV on principle just as we reject the ex cathedra (inspired) declarations of the Pope now.

But for the record, Baptists of the past did reject the idea that any translation was inspired or perfect. Your belief is a very recently contrived false doctrine.

And you accuse me of thinking too highly of myself?

It is also not the point I was making. (Re)read their own words. They claimed the word choices as their own. They acknowledged that some passages were questionable and that they could be wrong in places. They assigned these uncertainties to the providence of God and asserted as we do that none of these questionable texts affect doctrine. They gave alternate readings in the margin.

They had no delusions about being inspired, inerrant, or that their work was perfect... they KNEW that it wasn't. They knew that they had no claim to apostolic authority nor to being prophets of God.

Jesus didn't say that the KJV translators were inspired... you and Ruckman did.

 

proof?

 

oh well in that case, since YOU believe the originals said 22 then let's all just trust in Scott! maybe we'll start calling you Holy Father and you can wear a big crucifix around your neck and we'll all kiss your ring since you have the keys to understanding.</font>[/QUOTE] Did you say that you didn't like the way Ruckman said things?

I didn't place any limitations on you. I told you what I believe.

Now I'll tell you what I don't believe. I don't believe that words mean something different from what they mean just because you or Ruckman have a problem with the conclusions those words dictate. In this whole exchange, you have yet to deal with the plain fact of what these two verses say. But, you have found time to falsely accuse me and make assumptions about what kind of Christian I am because I don't accept Ruckman's denials.

Harvest said: you are the one who is refusing to study the issue because all you want to do is look at the "black and white" of the king james text. your words.</font>[/QUOTE] There is no profit in making this effort unless there is some indication that the translators meant to say something different or that there might be some meaning indicated by the context that needs clarification or that some essential doctrine is at stake. The translators translated an error in one place or the other. There is nothing in either passage that suggests anything different.

You and Ruckman appear to be motivated by your belief in an unbiblical, false doctrine and its inherent presuppositions. You start with the conclusion then try to twist the facts to agree with that conclusion. Sorry but you have it backwards.

really? cause it would appear to me that your agenda is to show everyone how smart you are in that you can correct nearly 70 men who were experts in Hebrew and Greek. </font>[/QUOTE]Then maybe the problem is with your suppositions on my intent as well.

I am not trying to compare myself to those men at all. I am simply agreeing with their acknowledgement that their work was not perfect nor infallible.

 

It's perfectly legitimate to correct the KJV (or any other English translation) where it is confusing, misleading, unclear, or just plain wrong. After all, the KJV translators themselves had no qualms about correcting similar translational difficulties in earlier English versions like the Geneva Bible.

 

proof? </font>[/QUOTE]What kind of proof do you want? It is very difficulty to prove things in the negative. The proof comes from the fact that no one prior to the last few decades affirmed what you affirm. I do have some quotes however that go at least part of the way. When I have access to them I will quote some for you.

I have seen evidence of the seeds of what came to fruition with the likes of Wilkerson, Ray, and later Ruckman from the early 1900's. Some people rejected modern methods of criticism and favored the traditional texts and the KJV. This is perfectly legitimate.

What these earlier people did not say was that the KJV was perfect beyond revision which is the crux of KJVOnlyism.

 

Section A - Bible
We believe the Bible to be the complete Word of God; that the sixty-six books, as originally written, comprising the Old and New Testaments were verbally inspired by the Spirit of God and were entirely free from error; that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice and the true basis of Christian union.

===============================================

This is the statement of my group of Baptists, which was formed in 1953. It was formed out of the Regular Baptists of Ontario and independents around the province. Notice,,,"as originally written.

The same is true of the British Baptist Union where I was trained and ordained. We never claimed infallibility in any copy of the Bible; only the original manuscripts....and the Baptist Union goes back to before Spurgeon's time. Fairly good evidence, I should think.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The preacher i listen to:
Bishop Phil, reads in the pulpit from
the KJV1769. He is much smarter than
all 50 of the original KJV translators
(those guys who included the Apocrapha
and those pesky translator
side notes) cause he
has read the NIV

Jesus loves me this I know.
For Chick comics told me so.

 

Yes, I do. The KJV like all translations has errors. To say differant gives the KJV translators and the Church of England some sort of infallibilty (and I'm not ready to join the Episcopal Church ) KJV Only's of the Ruckman style don't realize they hold to an extremist Charismatic theology plus are admitting some infallibilty on the part of the Church of England (Yet they don't join the Anglican church )


I do not place the KJV translators and the Church of England on the same level as the Bible writers. To do that undercuts the inerrancy of Scripture and teaches extra Biblical revelation, and that is a serious error. There is no validity in claiming inerrancy for the KJV translators or any translation. All translations are judged by the original languages not vice versa.

 

Sigh!!

 

It would be interesting if Ruckman could do
for the alledged discrepancies between the KJVs and
the MVs what he haws done for the alleged discrepancies
of the KJVs. Then we could call him "Ruckman the Healer"
instead of "Ruckman the Destroyer".