Let's please be honest and logically consistent!

I was talking with a relative of mine. He started off by asking me what I and some of my "associates" and friends thought of Ruckman. I explained what I believe regarding Ruckman, his beliefs, etc.

We then continued discussing different views and it finally led to what I believe and what he believes.

He referred to Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, etc. asking me where the Word of God is. I said it is in my Bible. He said which one, I said, in my Cambridge KJV I have on my desk. I then continued saying that it's in the NKJ, the NASB, etc. and any other conservative translation of God's Word. He then kept saying it can't be in "two places" and I explained that the wordS of God are in the manuscripts which we have today, and I have His Word in my hands in any Bible version I have, whether that be the Geneva, the KJV, NASB, etc.

He then kept pressing the issue of just "one place" in English saying they can't be in two places. So I answered the same way again and he said that can't be. So I put the same question to him.

I said is the Word of God in the 1611 or 1769 (didn't mention any other revision) and he said "the one I have in my hands." So I said OK, would that be the Oxford or the Cambridge? He then said he couldn't answer because of this verse. . .
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

How that would be "unlearned" or foolish, I don't know, I was just being consistent with what he was asking.

So according to many KJV only bretheren, we have the Words of God in only one English *translation* but which one is it, I must ask again as SEVERAL others have asked on this aboard already.

Is the Oxford or Cambridge correct in Jer. 34:16, Nahum 3:16, and the other places they disagree at?

Is the 1611 or 1769 correct in 1 John 5:12 where one has "of God" and one doesn't?

So can we not be honest BEFORE GOD and pray and study over this issue?

Secondly, he mentioned that we don't have the "originals," so I said we don't have the "original" of the KJV as it was burned up in a fire in London. So that argument itself fails as well.

So let's all please by God's grace be consistent and scriptural.

If God's Word promised that He would give His exact words in English in the 17th century then I would believe it without problem. But when scripture is silent or doesn't support a divisive belief, I must abandon it!

Oh may God help us all!

 

I never said no one had the Word of God. I have the Word of God, you have it, etc.

 

Your position is not logically consistent, supported by scripture, nor supported by history. If you don't want to take time to study the issue, then don't make false accusations.

 

lol, no problem