I believe Bible (KJB) is perfect.
Believe it or not, when something doesn't need anything added to it, or taken away from it to make it accurate and complete,
it is pretty hard not to fit that into a nuance of the word, 'perfect', isn't it?
1.) That type of qualification to the use of the word, 'perfect', 2.) along with my seeing the King James as certainly being far more perfect,
than any man-made project alone could produce*, and although it has not been mentioned, 3.) I have to believe The Bible, in a COMPLETE BY COMPARISON, FAITHFUL VERSION, is Inspired, because The Bible says it is. And the King James is one of those.
*The King James Translators were not given a second dose of infallible Inspiration, as those authors of the Original Autographs had,
however, owing to God's Promises to Preserve His Word, those Translators of the King James Version and other Faithful Translators, who have completed versions from the majority evidence of manuscripts, have obviously been kept within certain boundaries by the Superintendence of God, giving us a Divinely Inspired Copy of the Word of God, that the Holy Spirit Bares Witness to, in Salvation, and every other way, such as where Isaiah says,
"So shall My Word be that Goeth Forth Out of My Mouth: it shall Not Return unto Me Void,
but it shall Accomplish that which I Please, and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it", in Isaiah 55:11.
The Word of God is Inspired and Alive and Accomplishes everything that God Sent the Bible to Get Done and Intended the Bible to Do.
We just have to find a Bible and "buy the Word and sell it not; also Wisdom, and Instruction, and Understanding" Proverbs 23:23.
You're going to meet stiff resistance against the KJB being perfect, but I understand where you're coming from.
The More Extreme version of King James Only folks are looking back at a gap that there is between the limb they have gotten themselves out on, when they go to the extent of saying "The King James" Bible is genuinely flawlessly perfect, letter for letter, (in whatever publication of the KJV they designate, I suppose(???).
The only problem with that position and any of the other Points of Peter Ruckman's thoughts he had on his view of the KJV Bible, and that problem is that his position is utterly and absolutely indefensible. And, that is so easy to constantly find myriad ways for the anti-KJVO enthusiasts to up with new ways of busting those KJVOs who say the KJV is Actually Perfect, as if God Penned the KJV Himself, that they are coming out of the walls ready willing and able to fight to the death, you'd think.
Give up, to find another way to see the KJV as not being a carbon-copy from the English 'Portion of Heaven' sent Directly to us, if you do,
however, in the Divine Process by which God's Word has been Persevered throughout the Centuries before the KJV came along, the KJB is right there in line, next, and WAS GIVEN BY GOD TO MANKIND AS ONE OF THE GREASTEST GIFTS GOD HAS EVER BESTOWED TO MANKIND.
So, we might want to refer to extreme Ruckmanites as KJVO and those who prefer the KJV, as being just that, those who prefer the KJV,
however, in my case for me to say that I prefer the KJV simply just does mean that I can be quoted as caring one little bit about the 'modern bibles', but that there is a whole line of acceptable versions that men of God have referenced ever since they have been available., to draw from.
Are you really though KJVO, as in God only wants us to read and use that one translation period, or is it that you prefer to use it instead?
I would like to say I appreciate the kindness in you gentleman's questions.
No, its not preferred, its the only option.
Agreed vs the modern offerings, while the KJB predecessors show us the boundaries
within which God has Allowed His Word to be Presented to us, in prior versions which were also Inspired.
Yes, I am a King James Onlylist.
These are things that were believed by Peter and anyone who understands them correctly should reject them as extra-biblical, at the least, and the designation of 'KJVO' IS MOSTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THESE EXTREME VIEWS THE BIBLE DOESN'T TEACH.
So, people will want to know where your beliefs are taught in the Bible
and Peter Ruckman's claim to fame, in my mind, is that he fails miserably at any attempt to show any of his bright ideas being taught in the Bible.
...
"Ruckman insists that the King James Version of the Bible,
the "Authorized Version" ("KJV" or "A.V."),
provides "advanced revelation" in English beyond that discernible in the underlying Textus Receptus Greek text.
"Arguing that the KJV is more authoritative for English speakers than the Greek and Hebrew texts,
he believes the KJV represents the final authority for modern disputes about the content and meaning of the original manuscripts.
"For instance, in his
Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Ruckman says,
"Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!" Likewise, he advises where
"the perverse Greek reads one way and the A.V. reads the other, rest assured that God will judge you at the Judgment on what you know. Since you don't know the Greek (and those who knew it, altered it to suit themselves), you better go by the A.V. 1611 text."[]"
I used to follow these guys too. Their mentor was Peter Ruckman, who was wrong about so many things,
Amen.
Scofield has influenced the majority of Evangelical’s eschatology.
Sad but true.
Its off the very same textual sources used by the 1611 Translators
If you're talking about the NKJV, they may have had everyone promote it that way and print that on their packaging, but there are great, valid, concerns about what the NKJV's influences were, along with the vast majority of their publications including virtually an entirely different version in the footnotes, questioning the text, while based on admittedly some of the worst manuscripts known to mankind.
IF he had actually agreed with the 1611 translators themselves, would not have been KJVO
Right.
He was just a crazy person, like saying that women will get 33 year old male bodies at the rapture.
