Versions Not Considered?

[KEVO]

Larry,you need to do more homework on Dr. Ruckman.He does teach salvation by works in the tribulation period,which is correct.I can tell you read a lot of James White.He loves to take words out of contex.Ask Dr. Ruckman himself what he said about inspiration.

 

[KEVO]

Dr. Ruckman is "the junkyard dog" when you mess with the kjv!!

 

[DocCas]

KEVO, does Dr. Ruckman attack the present KJV? I suppose you use either the 1762 Cambridge or the 1769 Oxford, as do most of us. Did you know the 1762/1769 revisors "messed" with 421 words of the 1611? While most of those are minor changes of form only, 136 of them are changes of substance, and while most of them can be written off as the correction of printer's errors, I can give you a list of words which were changed in the KJV which cannot be dismissed as correction of printer's errors. Does Dr. Ruckman attack the present KJV and the editor's who made the changes?

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by KEVO:
He does teach salvation by works in the tribulation period,which is correct.

Hmmm... care to move to the theology board and prove that one from Scripture?

 

[TomVols]

Thomas,
You wrote:

The local UPC/OPC churches use, variably, the Living Bible, the NIV, the TIV, the RSV, and last the KJV.

Gee, that sounds like that subjective "folks round here" thing
You have yet to offer any evidence that shows that Mormons do not use the KJV. The fact that they use other teachings doesn't change that they use the KJV. Also, UPC, OPC, or Koresh-like cults do the same. This was my point.
It is not necessarily the KJV's fault, btw. Is it the fault of the RSV/NRSV that liberals gravitate towards it? I have repeated this before and will not do so again.

Those who love, and use the KJV are accused of cult like behavior

As far as I'm concerned, only those who nearly idolize it are.

the KJV is branded as promoting cults

No again. See above and other posts. All I said was cults and cult like folks gravitate towards it like liberals do the RSV/NRSV.

at the same time, the KJVOs refer to all users of other English bibles as the "Alexandrian cult." Neither side is correct, and such conduct, it seems to me, is the opposite of what Christ taught.

Finally, something solid

[ April 07, 2002, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[TomVols]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
This question is only for information as I am not savy in this area? What versions of scripture do other cults use like JVs, Mormons and others? I know Mormons have the book of Mormon and are now offering the KJV on TV commercials. What versions do these various cults use when someone want to witness to them? What is the version of the Bible they use?... Brother Glen

Let's at least pretend to get back on topic. For Mormons, since they are KJV, go with the KJV. You'll find that same advice from most all the folks who do Mormon evangelism.
______________
Since we've gone in circles and the 12 hour rule was not observed, Y'all enjoy. Turn out the lights when you're done

[ April 07, 2002, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by KEVO:
Larry,you need to do more homework on Dr. Ruckman.He does teach salvation by works in the tribulation period,which is correct.I can tell you read a lot of James White.He loves to take words out of contex.Ask Dr. Ruckman himself what he said about inspiration.

He also teaches salvation by faith plus works in the OT, both of which are heresy and which deny the sufficiency of our perfect sacrifice, Christ himself. I do not read a lot of James White. I have one book of his (the KJVOnly Controversy) in which I did not learn anything new. I have heard Ruckman speak, I have read his autobigraphy (My Cup Runneth Over I believe was the name of it), I have read parts of most of his books on textual criticism, I have looked at many of his commentaries, I know what he says about inspiration, I know what he says about the KJV being superior to the Greek and HEbrew, I have heard and read the profanity, crassness, rudeness, ungentlemanly and unbecoming language, I have seen his excuses for why he is still in the ministry in now his third marriage ... in other words I got it straight from the horses mouth. The man is a heretic and should be repudiated. He has rejected the plain and clear teaching of the KJV he claims to love. I have no sensitivity for someone like him, who has been confronted with biblical truth from many people and has chosen to reject it in favor of his own opinions.

I do on the other hand have concern for someone like yourself, who by your own admission are rather young in the faith. I fear that you are listening to the wrong people. John gives us a very important principle in 1 John 4:1 concerning the existence of false prophets. He says, do not believe every spirit but try the spirits to see whether they are from God for many false prophets have gone out into the world. In the immediate historical context of John, the doctrinal issue was the full humanity of the God man. In other contexts in church history, the issue has been other doctrinal issues. When a man's doctrine does not line up with revealed Scripture, that man is not from God; he is a false prophet. We should stand against him and expose him publicly. I would urge you to find yourself a good Baptist church where the truth is being taught and soak in the truth of God's word. Do not listen indiscrminately to any who name the name of Christ; test the spirits.

 

[DocCas]

KEVO, are you going to answer my question?

 

[KJVTIM]

As always the KJV is on trial!Look forward to seeing the NIV NASB etc.vs others.

 

[KEVO]

Larry,are you a baptist?It is faith plus works in the old testament.Peter Ruckman did not teach me that,the bible did.I was saved in 1994.I did not know who Peter Ruckman was for a year,and it seems that I knew more about dispensations then than you do now.For your imformation I am in a bible believing baptist church.My pastor is Dr. Joe Coley.He preaches and teaches the truth.I can not believe a baptist so called "preacher" does not believe that people were saved by faith plus works in the old testament.That is what happens when you don't have a final authority.
Dr.Cassidy,the "changes"in the AV text between 1611 and 1883 are changes in commas,semicolons,arachic spellings,and Germanic print.Observe that the changes between any edition of the AV by any press,Nelson,Oxford,ect.is in no way connected with,or related to,the types of changes that Wescott and Hort made in 1881 when they rid educated Christendom of the hated AV text. To complain about "changes"in the AV text is to classify oneself as a gnat-straining hypocrite{Mat.23:24}who wants to strain "out"the gnat instead of straining "at" it.
Larry,I can't get over you.You are a complete idiot.God help the people you pastor.I will pray that they find the truth and get out from under your false teachings.
Mr.Cassidy I have been working long hours,I havent had time to respond.

 

[DocCas]

Still no answer. May I deduce that both KEVO and KJVTIM have failed the 1 Peter 3:15 test?

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by KEVO:
I can not believe a baptist so called "preacher" does not believe that people were saved by faith plus works in the old testament.

The bible is very clear. Grace and works cannot be mixed. The one cancels out the other (Romans 11:6). The Bible (KJV) says that before the Law, salvation was by grace without any admixture of works. Romans 4:3 "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Paul goes on in Romans 4 to tell us that David, under the Law, was also saved by grace without any admixture of works. "6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,"

Mr.Cassidy, the "changes"in the AV text between 1611 and 1883 are changes in commas, semicolons, arachic spellings, and Germanic print.

I listed the word changes from the 1611 to the 1762/1769, but you ignore then and talk about punctuation and type face. Please deal with what I posted. Look up the verses and see for yourself that there have been substantial changes in words in the KJV from 1611 to 1762/1769 and respond to those quotes.

Larry,I can't get over you.You are a complete idiot.God help the people you pastor.I will pray that they find the truth and get out from under your false teachings.

If I ever see you call a fellow Christian, and a Pastor, and idiot on this forum again you will be gone. No warning, no suspension, but a complete and permanent banning.

Mr.Cassidy I have been working long hours,I havent had time to respond.

I too have been working long hours. I pastor a growing, going church, teach 12 hours per week Seminary classes, am a husband, father, and grandfather, not to mention having a very full life quite apart from the internet, so I understand. But my previous post still needs to be answered. You can't have it both ways. The facts say that the KJV has changed from 1611 to now. How do you deal with those changes? Do you attack the 1762/1769 as a perversion? Or do you attack the 1611 as a perversion? Or will you allow me to teach you the truth about God's wonderful word which we have in the KJV?

 

[KEVO]

The answer is no he dosen't.My pastor has an original kjv1611.

[ April 09, 2002, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[Chris Temple]

Larry,are you a baptist?It is faith plus works in the old testament.Peter Ruckman did not teach me that,the bible did

Not THE Bible. You had best spend some time on the theology board, and under a (sound) pastor-teacher who knows and teaches the only means of salvation ever taught in Scripture - by grace through faith.

Romans 4:9-16 (ESV)
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. [10] How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. [11] He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, [12] and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
[13] For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. [14] For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. [15] For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
[16] That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by KEVO:
The answer is no he dosen't.My pastor has an original kjv1611.

Again I ask: why do you and "KJVtim" have the same vocabulary, syntax and inability to type with spaces between words?

[ April 09, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[KEVO]

James2:17,"Even so faith, if it hath not works,is dead,being alone."James is a tribulation epistle,what do you do with that verse? It is bedtime.I will be back Tuesday or Thursday.

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by KEVO:
The answer is no he dosen't.My pastor has an original kjv1611.

So do I. Several of them. And, as I noted, the 1611 is different from the 1762/1769 in the places I quoted. Are you ever going to answer my question? If the 1611 has not changed, do you think the present KJV is a perversion? If the present KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God do you think the 1611 was a perversion? Things that are different are not the same! So, which is the perfectly preserved word of God in English, the 1611 or the 1762/1769?

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by KEVO:
James is a tribulation epistle,what do you do with that verse?

Who says James is a "tribulation epistle?" Please give me chapter and verse which teaches that James is a "tribulation epistle." The book of James is obviously written to the early church (which James pastored). See 2:1-4; 5:1-6, 14-16 for a vivid picture of life in the early church.

 

[KEVO]

Revelator,give me your e-mail address and I will send you some info.

 

[KEVO]

No the 1611 was not a perversion.Show me a verse that changes doctrine or takes "the blood"out like the mv's do.