Psalm 12:6

Doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.

Also, if "Marginal notes are NOT Scripture", why did the KJV translators sometimes translate from the marginal notes in the Hebrew Old Testament, instead of from the main text itself? (e.g. Isa 10:32, translating "daughter" from the margin, instead of "house" from the main text.)

 

"...the vulgate and the RCC" This is a major stumbling block (note the KJV language) for the radical KJVO folks. Where is the authority for what they are trying to "teach"?

Some have and are appealing to the general assembly of Christian churches and the history thereof.

The canonization of the NT was accomplished between 367AD (Athansius Easter epistle) and 451AD Council of Chalcedon (which made final pronouncement).

However the present leadership of the KJVO movement would have us accept a doctrine that even the early church was wrong in that the door to the canon was not "slammed shut" until 1611 via the doctrine of "advanced revelation".

On page 9 of The book The Monarch of Books, Peter Ruckman says that the King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and that He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century. He goes not to say that that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389BC and slammed it shut again in 1611. A direct quote can be found at

http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Despatch/vol92_ruckman_dcloud.html

Most/many KJVO now do not publicly claim allegiance to Dr Ruckman and distance themselves from him.

However their words, arguments and illustrations are all his. For instance they try to defend "Easter" in Acts 12:4 (rather than the original language word "pascha-passover") which is indefensible apart from his notion of "advanced revelation".

This doctrine reaches back into at least the 4th century documents of the Church and claims that even they were wrong about "revelation" from 90AD to 1611 and then everyone else from 1611 to the present (except for you-know-who).

So, in truth, he is asking us to disregard, even overturn, the entire history of the Christian Church and accept this "advanced revelation" theory he is propounding.

The KJVO theory has as one of its pillar foundation dogma this "advanced revelation" doctrine.

The entire KJVO movement does a crash and burn if this doctrine is false.

Do a search on "the salient verses" and you will find documentation for this issue in the above website. In fact read the whole message and judge for yourselves.

They (radical KJVO) have no authority in Scripture or the general assembly of the Church for "Only"ism.

BTW, the reason for the indirect nature of the quote is because Dr Ruckman does not wish us to make direct quotes from his books. This is a personal request from him and not a legal requirement (It is legal to post them as long as we give the pub name and give him credit as the author according to fair trade and public domain regulations for limited quotes of copyrighted material).

For now I will honor that request, others will do as they see fit. However, others should first ask the BB leadership whether they will require us to honor his request or no.

HankD

 

I agree.

Hank, is this a general request or did he actually ask someone posting or administrating THIS particular BB? Just curious.

 

Agree! If Ruckman doesn't want people to quote his silly sayings or his cuss words he should have kept silent.

 

I too was privately emailed but I don't know for sure if it was indeed Dr. Ruckman.

It is my believe that one of the moderators was also contacted.

If it were indeed him, then it should have taken the form of an official letter sent to the BB administrator and signed by Dr. Ruckman.

I suspect now that it was a wanabe.

HankD

 

It may have been a ruse. That's quite common. None of our moderators or administrators have mentioned getting it.

 

Anyone can put a sender name in their emails. Always 'check source' to see who really sent junk like that. I sent hubby an apology telegram from a famous baseball player after an error that cost a game. LOLOL

 

I bet your husband enjoyed that one.

Robycop3, I'm with you. He may be making these little statements as part of a crazy stunt to sell his books. Then agin, it may be non-Ruckminites playing games. (Especially since they know how much of a jerk he can really be.)

 

Hey, where'd all the KJV-onlies go? Hmmm.....

 

I hope the side-issue of the alledged Ruckman request does not hinder folks from considering the bizaare doctrine he promotes which essentially opens the door of the teaching of the fixed canon of Scripture and makes it a moving target by selecting certain verses and pronouncing them "advanced revelation" with no authority whatsover and then modifying those passages (if necessary) because the "English corrects the Greek and Hebrew" apparently in order to promote a personal agenda.

2 Peter 1
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


HankD

 

Why YES it WAS Billy Buckner in 1986.... LOLOL

 

HankD said:

I too was privately emailed but I don't know for sure if it was indeed Dr. Ruckman.

Many of Dr. Petey's sycophants are fond of pointing ou the man doesn't even own a computer, presumably let alone an email account. It's fair to assume you're not being contacted by the man himself.

And even if you were, he has no legal leg to stand on. Published works are fair game for brief quotations for the purposes of comment and review, thanks to the "fair use" provisions of copyright law. Copyright is intended to protect the rights of the author to duplicate, distribute, and profit off his work. It is not intended to prevent critics from telling you what they think of it.

 

Anyone/everyone has access to a computer. Bible college, business, libraries.

http://www.kjv1611.org/

HankD

 

Interesting to note this:

from this link:
http://www.kjv1611.org/1611%20Reproduction.htm

Stresses the validity of the marginal notes, but they are argued against in Psalms.

 

^^^

Great observation, C4K!

The 'kjv-onlies' here want their cake, but don't like some of the icing!

 

An inaccurate statement, some changes were additions/deletions/changes of words which impacted the meaning of the text itself and were not just “spelling, punctuation and printing style”:

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm

HankD