KJVO claims disproven by the AV 1611/KJV itself

I think this prophet was named "God-and-Me" Gail!

 

God gave us the Geneva Bible. It's the word for word, settled in heaven Word of God. The King James VERSION and the other VERSIONS cannot compare to the Geneva BIBLE.

 

It was Peter Ruckman - God and rip just parrots many things he said. I read once a while back that someone thought Ruckman was the true auther of New Age Bible Version and that GA rip was just a cover to sell the book. I'll have to see if I can find that article again.

 

I came out of KJVO by studying the subject for myself and quit taking other peoples word for it. One of the main things that got me out of it was the replica AV1611 I bought. If the translators to the readers and the translators footnotes (actually sidenotes) would have been included in all KJV's, the KJVO movement as we know it today would never have gotten off the ground.

 

TC,

I'm more than certain that you are correct that Ruckman is the grand imperial nabob of the extremist KJV-only myth. However, I do believe that Gail wrote her own book-- she is just as looney on the video (see the other thread about her) as she was in her book-- which I had read parts therof.

[puke] [/puke]

 

I have one of her books. I was just pointing out what one author thinks. Philip pointed out (on the other thread) that Riplinger is lost without notes page by page. It almost gives credence to this article. I gave a presentation on data mining last year and I researched thousands of pages and made extensive notes. However, when I gave the presentation, I hardly referenced the notes. I learned the subject well and did not need to constantly doublecheck facts. Yet, Riplinger cannot remember what she claims to have researched for years.

 

TC,

Now, that is interesting! I didn't know the details of Gail's need for notes, nor of her inability to 'remember' the materials of what she allegedly wrote. Very interesting, indeed! Perhaps it is the grand imperial nabob himself that wrote her book?? It lends credence to your theory!

 

Yep, i suspect they would be shocked if the actually read the real KJV-1611 version. IT would blow their mind when they got to Genesis 1:3 and the first translator footnote. They wouldn't know what to do with it. They sure don't seem to be able to figure out the difference between "written word of God" (the rhema) and the "living word of God" (the logos) -
you know between a book called the Bible
and a person called Jesus. They sure can't tell
the difference between the three types
of margin notes:

1. translator notes
2. cross references
3. comentary (personal opinion)

IMHO the translator notes are inerrant.
Even the KJV Translators recognized that
as they used the translator notes a time
or two from the Bible sources they used.

 

The way she talks reminds me exactly of the way my mom talks who is a Catholic.

 

If thedy were so interested in geting their words out they would not charge for a book but make the materials availablke for free on the internet or just charge enough for the printing. But there's always somebody who will bite.

 

There are always those who peddle God's written word for profit. Yep, not a prophet but a profit.