Hyles, Riplinger, Ruckman

[Logos1560]

There are O.T. Hebrew translations in the Greek N.T.

Are these translations inspired of God ?

God gave by inspiration all the original language words of the New Testament to the NT prophets and apostles, and if those words included any actual translated words they are actually part of the giving of the New Testament revelation and part of that miracle of inspiration.

That is not the same thing as the translating of the Scriptures into English in the 1500's or in the 1600's by men who were not given their renderings by any direct miracle of inspiration.

Your attempted comparison is invalid.

 

[robycop3]

When God translates, there is obviously improvement.
Predestination, inspiration, providence and preservation
continued throughout final canonization and publication of scripture.


There are O.T. Hebrew translations in the Greek N.T.

Are these translations inspired of God ?

But not the KJVO myth. That was a later, TOTALLY-MAN-MADE invention.

 

[Yeshua1]

Wow. My God got it right the first time. He didn't have to keep trying till He got it right.

Your god seems have needed a long time to finally get his word the way he wanted it.

IF we want to go down this heresy pathway as some strident KJVO seem to get to with the Kjv superior to the originals even...

How can we be sure that God did not "inspire" the Queen james version, or Charasmactic Chaos bibles, per their reasoning and logic, for God would keep be improving his versions to us, so why not those as His "perfect" editions now?

 

[Revmitchell]

What is just as bad as the KJVO nutballs are those who treat their heresy as if it is a legitimate issue to debate.

 

[Mexdeaf]

What is just as bad as the KJVO nutballs are those who treat their heresy as if it is a legitimate issue to debate.

One and the same, aren't they?

 

[robycop3]

Well, we can't just IGNORE it; if we do, some newbie will possibly think it's right.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well, we can't just IGNORE it; if we do, some newbie will possibly think it's right.

That is precisely the problem with ignoring it.

 

[John of Japan]

Translation

KJV Hebrews 11:5

KJV Colossians 1:13
.

You have got to be kidding!! Equating God moving a human from one place to another with translating the Word of God into another language??

This proves you don't know 1611 English, because in 1611 "translating, translation" had a wider meaning than it does now.

 

[John of Japan]

Wow. My God got it right the first time. He didn't have to keep trying till He got it right.

Your god seems have needed a long time to finally get his word the way he wanted it.

Good point!

 

[Bob Alkire]

Heresy is the correct term. When Jack Hyles said that a person could only be saved using the KJV I felt he had nailed his own legacy to the wall and it would all crumble down with him.

I didn't feel insecure in MY salvation (using the 1901 ASV) but I truly questioned HIS. That is a false Gospel and truly evil teaching.

Bob, I used only the ASV 1901 till the early 70's when it became harder to find replacements and moved over to the KJV. I still like the ASV the best and have many others and a few that I read from time to time, but for the most part I use the KJV today. Very few have the ASV, so it makes it a little to follow along when I read Scripture to a group.

 

[Bob Alkire]

You have got to be kidding!! Equating God moving a human from one place to another with translating the Word of God into another language??

This proves you don't know 1611 English, because in 1611 "translating, translation" had a wider meaning than it does now.

John, I've met many Christians who has fell for this KJO deal. I never heard much about it until the late 70's.

 

[robycop3]

"Translate" was often used, 'back in the day', to mean "change from one form to another", I. E. 'Tadpoles translate into frogs.' I believe that's its use in the KJV in the verses Mak cited. While its commonest use is to change a given work from one language to another, that's far from its only meaning.

 

[Dr. Bob]

John, I've met many Christians who has fell for this KJO deal. I never heard much about it until the late 70's.

It was foundational teaching of the Adventist Cult who developed the whole myth of KJVonly. A few Baptists picked it up and one (Ruckman) ran with it as "pure doctrine".

In the 1970's Jack Hyles and HAC publically kicked out any faculty or student who held to this Adventist cult doctrine.

But by 1980, as more independent Baptists were influenced by Ruckman's teaching, Hyles not only announced it was "accepted", but then added to it his "good seed" teaching - unless a person was saved hearing/using the "good seed" of the KJV, he was not even saved.

Thankfully, the whole movement is dying off quickly . . and ignorant foolish Baptists will soon jump on another false teaching as "new from God".

Itching ears and non-existent exposition of truth demands continual stream of gimmicks and "new" revelation.

 

[Dr. Bob]

BTW, Adventists fully repudiated the KJVonly teaching and now brand it as divisive false doctrine.

Would God some of our ifb brethren had the spiritual insights of that cult

 

[John of Japan]

"Translate" was often used, 'back in the day', to mean "change from one form to another", I. E. 'Tadpoles translate into frogs.' I believe that's its use in the KJV in the verses Mak cited. While its commonest use is to change a given work from one language to another, that's far from its only meaning.

The Greek word in Col. 1:13 is methistemi, which means to remove (and thus to place elsewhere, as in Luke 16:4; 5 times in the NT). In Heb. 11:5 it is metatihemi, used 5 times in the NT with two main meanings, to move from one place to another (as in Acts 7:16 and I believe in Heb. 11:5), and to change the nature of (as in Jude 1:4, the meaning you've given).

So going by the way it was used in the KJV, in 1611 the word "translate" had two meanings: to remove or move, and to change into something else.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I've met many Christians who has fell for this KJO deal. I never heard much about it until the late 70's.

I think it is extremely important for a Christian to understand the words of the Bible, and thus a defender of the KJVO position such as the author of the OP should know the 1611 meaning of the words used in it--thus my objection to the misuse of the KJV word "translate."

As for the movement itself, I heard of it at Tennessee Temple in the early '70s. So it was gaining steam in the late '70s, but was still held by only a small percentage of IFBs. By the time of our first furlough in 1986 the movement had grown enough that I felt I should research it in case I was asked about it on that furlough--but not a single pastor asked my position that whole furlough, so by '86 it had still not gathered that much steam. Most knew that Ruckman was a weird radical, but unfortunately when Riplinger came around (late '90s?) many fell for her garbage who had ignored Ruckman.

 

[John of Japan]

It was foundational teaching of the Adventist Cult who developed the whole myth of KJVonly. A few Baptists picked it up and one (Ruckman) ran with it as "pure doctrine".

In the 1970's Jack Hyles and HAC publically kicked out any faculty or student who held to this Adventist cult doctrine.

But by 1980, as more independent Baptists were influenced by Ruckman's teaching, Hyles not only announced it was "accepted", but then added to it his "good seed" teaching - unless a person was saved hearing/using the "good seed" of the KJV, he was not even saved.

Thankfully, the whole movement is dying off quickly . . and ignorant foolish Baptists will soon jump on another false teaching as "new from God".

Itching ears and non-existent exposition of truth demands continual stream of gimmicks and "new" revelation.

Doc, why do you feel the movement is dying off?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Doc, why do you feel the movement is dying off?

Flippant answer: Because God's judging the leaders and church enmeshed in the error. Churches are struggling and pastors are horror story of what God would want in immorality, adultery, power struggles, financial ruin, empire building, homosexuality.

We've used names like Ruckman (on 3rd wife who divorced her husband - a student of Ruckman to marry him). Hyles (immoral, lying salvation by KJV or you are unsaved). Riplinger (uneducated woman leading men by the nose). And the list goes on.

More serious answer: It never was "big" in Baptist circles. Just a small part of the "independent fundamental Baptists" circle which is, of course, just a fraction of Baptists in the USA.

When teaching at Pillsbury Baptist College (Comparative Religions) we did some research on denominations within Christianity. Don't have the stats in front of me but will use general numbers -

15 million SBC
15 million Black conventions
4 million NBC and breakoff smaller groups
3 million "independent"

Of the last (IFB) less than a third or about 1 million people are in the "only" type of church, altho many of these are "preferred" and not true "only".

I get to travel the nation and have lots of contacts. I have never found an SBC or a Black convention KJVonly. May be a few, but tiny sliver.

I've met very few in the old NBC and other smaller organized groups of Baptists (GARBC, CBA, ABA, Missionary Baptist, etc) who were any sort of "only".

So "onlies" are big only in the small pond of Sword of the Lord, Ruckman, Hyles, some BBF churches. And in them, it is often the pastor, not the "sheeple" who just go along with it generally.

1 million (on the outside) v 40+ million non-only.

Movement created problems with Adventism where it originated and lost favor. Remember, cults NEED "authority" to control people, and especially "authority" that can be twisted/interpreted wildly as the KJV with archaic or words that have changed meaning in 400 years allows. Out here in Wyoming, Mormons do the same - take a verse and twist it but because people don't know what the old English meant (or worse - they THINK they know and it is 100% wrong) they flood them with false teaching.

Sadly, I've seen that from too many IFB churches, too. Pastors who don't know what God said, spouting to an even more-ignorant congregation and leading them into false doctrine.

 

[John of Japan]

Flippant answer: Because God's judging the leaders and church enmeshed in the error. Churches are struggling and pastors are horror story of what God would want in immorality, adultery, power struggles, financial ruin, empire building, homosexuality.

We've used names like Ruckman (on 3rd wife who divorced her husband - a student of Ruckman to marry him). Hyles (immoral, lying salvation by KJV or you are unsaved). Riplinger (uneducated woman leading men by the nose). And the list goes on.

More serious answer: It never was "big" in Baptist circles. Just a small part of the "independent fundamental Baptists" circle which is, of course, just a fraction of Baptists in the USA.

When teaching at Pillsbury Baptist College (Comparative Religions) we did some research on denominations within Christianity. Don't have the stats in front of me but will use general numbers -

15 million SBC
15 million Black conventions
4 million NBC and breakoff smaller groups
3 million "independent"

Of the last (IFB) less than a third or about 1 million people are in the "only" type of church, altho many of these are "preferred" and not true "only".

I get to travel the nation and have lots of contacts. I have never found an SBC or a Black convention KJVonly. May be a few, but tiny sliver.

I've met very few in the old NBC and other smaller organized groups of Baptists (GARBC, CBA, ABA, Missionary Baptist, etc) who were any sort of "only".

So "onlies" are big only in the small pond of Sword of the Lord, Ruckman, Hyles, some BBF churches. And in them, it is often the pastor, not the "sheeple" who just go along with it generally.

1 million (on the outside) v 40+ million non-only.

Movement created problems with Adventism where it originated and lost favor. Remember, cults NEED "authority" to control people, and especially "authority" that can be twisted/interpreted wildly as the KJV with archaic or words that have changed meaning in 400 years allows. Out here in Wyoming, Mormons do the same - take a verse and twist it but because people don't know what the old English meant (or worse - they THINK they know and it is 100% wrong) they flood them with false teaching.

Sadly, I've seen that from too many IFB churches, too. Pastors who don't know what God said, spouting to an even more-ignorant congregation and leading them into false doctrine.

Thank you for the detailed answer.

It does look to me too like many are drawing back from the nasty Ruckmanite radicalism of the "Dr." who is newly departed from here (and not mourned), and Riplinger is being rejected by certain groups.

 

[robycop3]

Thing is, once a false doctrine is established, it never dies out completely, with few exceptions. while the body of KJVOs is shrinking in number, it'll never be completely gone from this present age, until the antichrist arrives. It may die 'way back, but it may be revived again if some new demagogue comes along to spread its hooey.

But, fortunately, GOD, and Freedom Readers will be here, too, to counter the KJVO myth, and all other false doctrines of worship as new ones are made and old ones revived. They'll reach their zenith when the antichrist comes to power and none of us will be here to speak against them. That's when the KJVO myth will end, as the AC will succeed in discrediting God's word completely to most of the world.

But meanwhile, we must continue to do our part in fighting this insidious false doctrine.