Not inspired, but are Infallible!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
KJVO vs any other translation(s).
- Thread starter Paul from Antioch
- Start date
Valid translations are Infallible, but are neither inspired nor inerrant!
What do you mean when you say infallible?
The english translations still have known mistakes and errors in them, but that ANY issue of history or doctrine they touch upon is fully accurate and true!
What kind of mistakes and errors do you mean? How can the mistake or error be fully accurate and true?
Last edited:
Stratton7
Member
Yeah, well Ruckman is out there. Not sure where he comes up with some of the stuff he does.
In response to the question "were prior 1611 English versions still inspired?", Michael Hollner answered "YES" (King James Only Debate, p. 396, 2021 edition), and yet those pre-1611 English versions differ in hundreds and likely thousands of places with the KJV.
Besides the large amount of differences in translation, there were many significant textual differences between the Great Bible, the first authorized English version, and the 1611 KJV.
Of course!
I have a fast red car.
I have a red fast car.
I have a car that's fast and red.
I have a car that's red and fast.
Get the picture?
He's dead now, but his store continues selling his stuff.
BTW, he used to be a Zen Bhuddist in the 1940s.
I am referring to say know issues mainly of the OT text regarding numbers, so while the numbers may not be 100 % accurate, the historical events described there were!
Seems that some KJVO do follow his lead!
His study bible was plain junk, and a great example of How NOT to make one!
And I was lost before I was found. His “stuff” -- and yours and mine -- must stand or fall on its own truth or untruth, regardless of what we used to be.
So, for example, would you mean like when the writer of Kings said that Israel slew 100,000 Syrians foot soldiers in one day (1 Kings 20:29), that the number might be inaccurate but the fact of having a battle was true? Or something else?
Merriam Webster gives three definitions for infallible:
- incapable of error, unerring
- not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint; certain
- incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals
Last edited:
While I certainly hope Ruckman died saved. But his past could've had a bearing on some of his outlandish stuff. For instance, the ZB stuff, plus the evil influence of the KJVO myth could've polluted his thinking, leading to the "advanced revelation" hooey. And it could've REALLY polluted it to the point where he invented his outlandish,insane-sounding version of the antichrist.
Paul from Antioch
Active Member
This is just another reason why I tend to shy away from people who emulate the "High & Mighty Know-it-alls," & I DO Know-it-ALL, MY mind is closed to any & all who'd DARE oppose my self-righteousness!! It's one thing to discuss one's views on which version they prefer, but these "I'm a KJVO die-hard," people, many of whom I sincerely question their logic (If they ever had logic to begin with!). One BB poster likened his experiences with these people to a "circular firing squad." I'd only add to that the adjective clause: ".....consisting of machine guns aimed in all directions at once & manned by some one who's NEVER even seen a machine gun work, much less how to use one!!" It's a shame that mostly otherwise rational & "TRYing to understand some things," sort of Christians can't seem to at least agree to disagree on some obtuse matters as "Which version has God's personal handwriting in its contents & that ALL others from the days of Moses don't know what they're talking about!!
At just the mere thought of someone somewhere having a conclusion that's just a tad different than their's IMHO is grasping at straw men. I sometimes wonder if (gasp!!) Satan has a good old-fashioned belly laugh at these folks, don't you?Could've, but you don't know that (or else you would have said did have instead of could've), and I don't know that.
You're right; I DON'T know that. But I DO know that both concepts of Ruckman's I mentioned above are just-plain-silly & wrong.
Just say that the Bible stated that X numbers died in battle in a day, but exact number not really known, the actual fight and battle was as stated!
Same as the million Ethiopians in 2 Chron. 14:9. There likely weren't a million Ethiopians of all ages & both genders living then. But they doubtlessly had a large army.
Stratton7
Member
Double checking here.. you’re saying it’s likely only one gender living at that time??