Where do you say the modern versions come from?

[robycop3]

Back to your OP, Mr. Bunyan....

What EVIDENCE do ya have to show that, among all the common English versions, old and new...that the newer versions are corrupt? And JUST HOW canya prove they're not from GOD? Can GOD not rule His own word? Can He not keep it non-corrupt? Where in Scripture is He limited to just one version? How canya prove a doctrine ABOUT Scripture WITHOUT ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT?

All ya can do is GUESS. And, seeing whut WHOSE tripe you've believed(Ruckman, Kinney, the whole crooked KJVO "party line" it makes it all the easier to dismiss your assertions as false.

The MVs came from GOD just as much as the OVs did. You CANNOT prove otherwise.

BTW, I see no commentary about Ruckman's Mark Of The Beast. If you can read THAT sci-fi & still believe a word he writes...well...

And have you read his Bible Babel? If so, I hope ya didn't miss his lie about the KJV's being re-inspired, for which he presents absolutely NO EVIDENCE!

You're not gonna get any support here by citing RUCKMAN(or Will Kinney) as the source.

 

[HankD]

If I am wrong, I invite you to reason with me and show me where. Show me if I am wrong about the Church of England persecuting our Baptist forebearers. Show me one shred of evidence as to why I should believe the KJV translators to be directly inspired in any sense that any faithful translator isn't.

This is a worthy point. Though I am KJV/NKJV prefered, the KJV translators were not the sort which God had chosen in the past in the work of the inspiration of the Scripture in terms of doctrine and practice.

A fact which seems OK for KJVO folks to apply to the MV translators but not the AV men.

At the time these men practiced pado-baptism, celebrated the "mass" and believed in the AngloCatholic version of the Real Presence in the bread and wine. Also they had their own version of baptismal regeneration and even today in the Articles of Religion (which have changed over the years, there are 39 today but started out as 7 I believe under Henry the 8th) they make this confusing statement "they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church". So the reception of Baptism "grafts" us into the Church?

While in the current modern version of the Articles of Religion today they say that the Apocrypha is non canonical but that it is good for "example of life and instruction in manners" quoting from the AV preface Saint Jerome:

And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine

The fact is that they (to this very day) do not condemn them as containing and supporting romish heresies. Non-canonical IMO is not enough to say.

They included the Apocrypha in their first Edition with not word one (that I could find) within its pages (either in a facsimile or a full photographic reproduction online) stating plainly that it contains erroneous practices taught as good. Cross-referenced it with "other" Scripture and making them part of the daily "Scripture" reading calendar.

What would happen today if a Sunday School teacher pulled out one of these 1611 AV Bibles and began teaching "prayers for the dead" from the Apocrypha because it is good "for example of life and instruction of manners"?

In addition as has been previously stated they did indeed persecute Baptists and other dissenting groups, starving them in dungeons, whipping them and at least two poor fellows were even burned at the stake, and yes even John Bunyan was imprisoned 12 years for his obedience to "God rather than men" preaching the Gospel without a proper Church of England license.

It seems then that to be fair and honest folks ought to quit with the morality and/or doctrine and/or practice issue of the MV translators because the AV men had aired enough dirty laundry of their own.

OR let the KJVO equally condemn the AV men.

Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.​

HankD​

 

[Scott J]

I didn't realize that was Kinney's site.

He's been here before... His greatest authorities for what he claims are experience and Will Kinney's desire for something to be true.

He spins and spins and spins... all the while doing nothing more than distracting the gullible or willingly deceived from pursuing the truth.

 

[AVBunyan]

It seems then that to be fair and honest folks ought to quit with the morality and/or doctrine and/or practice issue of the MV translators because the AV men had aired enough dirty laundry of their own.

OR let the KJVO equally condemn the AV men.

Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.HankD​

I do not think I have ever brought up the translators of the modern versions as an issue.

I never put trust in the KJ translators themselves but the God behind the men.

God bless
​

 

[AVBunyan]

Why don't some of you read the works I mentioned if you are sincere about finding truth. Throw your prejudeces aside and study Dr. EF Hills, Burgon and Dr. Ruckman regarding the origen of the modern versions.

Some of you are quick to condemn these men's works. Where are your research papers? All I've seen from some of you are short posts on forums.

Question - are the modeern versions based upon manuscripts that originated from Origen's works in Alexandria or not?

This is ithe point of my thread here.

Also Scott regarding your opinion of bro. Will - I completely disagree.
Untill you have put 1/8 as much work regarding your research out for public viewing as bro. Will has I believe you should show more reservation in regards to such statements.

God bless

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Glad you changed your claim AVB that Dr Ruckman does not believe in the inspiration of the KJV - there is evidence aplenty that he does.

I appreciate you editing your claim.


Let is stick with AVBunyon's request to answe the question.

"...are the modeern versions based upon manuscripts that originated from Origen's works in Alexandria or not?"

Lets leave the KJVO debate aside here

 

[Logos1560]

Throw your prejudeces aside and study Dr. EF Hills, Burgon and Dr. Ruckman regarding the origen of the modern versions.

Where are your research papers?

.

I have read books by Edward F. Hills, Dean Burgon, D. A. Waite, F. H. A. Scrivener, David Sorenson, Douglas Stauffer, Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, Lloyd Streeter, Laurence Vance, David Cloud, Mickey Carter, Roy Branson, David Daniels, and others. I have read over 100 books and booklets by KJV-only authors. I have carefully checked out the claims of the KJV-only view including the claims concerning the origin of the modern versions. I have also examined and compared the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision.

I am the author of a 540 page book entitled THE UNBOUND SCRIPTURES: A REVIEW OF KJV-ONLY CLAIMS AND PUBLICATIONS. My book has a bibliography of over 1,000 sources. I am also the author of two booklets: TODAY'S KJV AND 1611 COMPARED AND MORE and COULD THE 1611 KJV HAVE BEEN BETTER.

Perhaps you are mistaken in your assumption that others who post here have not examined the actual evidence.

 

[Linda64]

Why don't some of you read the works I mentioned if you are sincere about finding truth. Throw your prejudeces aside and study Dr. EF Hills, Burgon and Dr. Ruckman regarding the origen of the modern versions.

I see that you read the works of Dr. Peter Ruckman. I have read some of what he has written and I don't believe he should be put in the same category as Dr. E F Hills and Dean Burgon. Dr. Ruckman has a foul mouth and is very mean spirited to anyone who does not believe the same as he does, about the KJV. Here are some excerpts from David Cloud's website (David Cloud has written many excellent books on Bible translations and is a staunch defender of the KJV/TR)

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/ruckmandefenders.htm

Some have written to me and charged me with trying to make Dr. Ruckman look bad by quoting some of his less than perfect defenders. That is not the case. It is Ruckman himself who has taught men to speak as foolishly as Mr. Waddle and Mr. Burton speak. When I wrote my article "What About Peter Ruckman" a few years ago, I really did not understand the depth of the man's strangeness. Consider the following excerpts from two articles about me in the November 1994 issue of Ruckman’s paper, the Bible Believer's Bulletin. (He calls me "Davey.") --

"Peter Ruckman ... is the Lord's `junkyard dog' for biting the britches out of conceited asses like David Cloud that don't have enough real knowledge about the contents of the Book to put into the left eye of a blind mosquito."

"... you little lying rascal, you. ... you lying little hypocrite ... Davey, ole son, you need to get you a sail stitcher's needle and puncture your inflated ego. ... you buttery, smook, slick, mush-mouthed sissy ... The wimps all talk alike if you analyze them. ... Correction, Davey! You smooth, slick, little, fluctuating compromiser ... A puffed-up, conceited ass cannot stand to have his balloon punctured."

"Cloud would not hesitate to run to the Greek to change any word in the AV he didn't understand or didn't agree with..."

"It shows what he was, inspite of his reputation: he was a soft-peddling, mealy-mouthed, dead orthodox apologist who had no higher ambition than to bolster scholarship and higher Christian education. Cloud doesn't know enough about the content of the Book he professes to believe in to teach a Freshman class at PBI."

"When Cloud says, 'In His eternal Word,' he means nothing on this earth." (Peter Ruckman, Bible Believer's Bulletin, November 1994).

These are lies. I have never corrected anything in the King James Bible and have never encouraged anyone else to do so. By "God's eternal Word" I mean the King James Bible. This is my Authority, and those who read after me know it. Ruckman and his followers have labeled me as a "TR man." They mock those who revere the Greek and Hebrew text of preserved Scripture. But the fact is that I am not merely a "TR man." My final authority is the King James Bible itself. That is why so many "TR men" have called me a Ruckmanite! Why does Peter Ruckman have no fear of lying? Why does he have no fear of speaking as he does?

"There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise is health" (Proverbs 12:18).

"Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go. Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul" (Proverbs 22:24-25).

"But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace" (James 3:14-18).

"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:24-25).

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Last warning - this is not going to be a Ruckman thread or anything else - lets address the topic.

 

[LeBuick]

I don't mean to be dense here, but how does this show that the KJV is more inspired than other versions?

Moses refused to be called the son of Pharoh who was king of Egypt.

David was the Kind chosen by God.

They were both murderer's who God inspired and used.

I read several books by Martin Luther King.

I heard some blues by BB King.

This evening I ate at Burger King.

You seeing the inspired commonality here or do I need to go on? It's all about the King.

 

[Deacon]

Let is stick with AVBunyon's request to answe the question.

"...are the modeern versions based upon manuscripts that originated from Origen's works in Alexandria or not?"

Lets leave the KJVO debate aside here

There is manuscript evidence that dates BEFORE Origen that refutes that claim.

Rob

 

[Ed Edwards]

AVBunyan: //Plus I just don't have the time
and my last lengthy post fried my wrist. //

You have tryed massive doses of B6, yes?
It works wonders for me and 60% of those
who try it. (the other 40% are doomed to
a life of pain & operations). Be sure if
you use more than 50 times the minimum
daily requirement of B6 to also supplement
your other B vitimans as well.

I was amazed that one can do this B6 thing
for under $3 per month.

 

[Scott J]

I never put trust in the KJ translators themselves but the God behind the men.

God bless
[/left]

You also failed once again to give even a hint of a reason as to why we should trust that God was specially behind those particular men and not the men who translated later versions.

You keep crafting evasions to issues you don't want to address directly. You seem to be a honest person but that behavior isn't honest at all.

 

[AVBunyan]

You have tryed massive doses of B6, yes?
It works wonders for me and 60% of those
who try it. (the other 40% are doomed to
a life of pain & operations). .

Thanks for the tip Ed - has a minor operation last October to decompress some nerves in my right foraram and still smarting from it - long recovery. But after what our forefathers in the faith have suffered my wrist is a small thing, amen?

God bless

 

[Scott J]

Why don't some of you read the works I mentioned if you are sincere about finding truth. Throw your prejudeces aside and study Dr. EF Hills, Burgon and Dr. Ruckman regarding the origen of the modern versions.

I have read arguments from the first and the last. The second is a poor authority for you to cite since he was neither KJVO or TRO. In fact, he asserted that both were in need of revision. I doubt very seriously that he would have called the LITV or NKJV a corruption. He probably wouldn't have considered all of the majority text efforts corrupt either. He simply didn't think the WH approach to criticism was valid.

Some of you are quick to condemn these men's works. Where are your research papers? All I've seen from some of you are short posts on forums.

The problem there is that you want to send us on the rabbit trail of reading these various authors whose arguments we've seen repeatedly while you evade answering our "short posts". I have presented you with some very simple, "short" objections that if you cannot adequately answer utterly destroy your conclusion that the KJV inspired or is exclusively God's Word in English.

Question - are the modeern versions based upon manuscripts that originated from Origen's works in Alexandria or not?

This is ithe point of my thread here.

Yes and no... but that is NOT where they came from. They came from God in every respect that the KJV did- by His gracious Providence.

The MV's based on the critical texts are based on all of the known witnesses to the biblical texts to one extent or another. You may argue with the premise that older necessarily deserves as much weight as CT proponents suggest... and would find allies here including myself and Hank. However, even the MV's based on the CT are not wholly dependent on the Alexandrian texts nor do they slavishly follow them at every variant.

Also Scott regarding your opinion of bro. Will - I completely disagree.
Untill you have put 1/8 as much work regarding your research out for public viewing as bro. Will has I believe you should show more reservation in regards to such statements.

Believe what you will. I have engaged him numerous times on this very board. He is a spinmeister. Catch him in his spin and he evades. Persistently steer back to the point and he turns attack dog. It doesn't take very much time to find that he equates skepticism of his assumptions with an affront to the "truth".

He uses lengthy speeches very well written at times. He uses much truth with unfounded assumptions sprinkled in... in the end, he bases his conclusions on the assumptions that you bought along side the true things he said. This is very much a tactic used by Satan.

AVB, rather than following the pattern of Mr Kinney, why don't you just give direct answers to direct questions?

 

[AVBunyan]

You keep crafting evasions to issues you don't want to address directly. You seem to be a honest person but that behavior isn't honest at all.

Scott - I am trying to be as up front and as honest as I can and yo u still question my behavior.

I've said before and will say again - I do not profess to know it all nor can I prove it all. I take my stand by faith like I do my salvation.

BTW - Can you prove to me by facts that Christ died for your sins?

Why not answer my question below- that is simple enough for now.

Question - are the modeern versions based upon manuscripts that originated from Origen's works in Alexandria or not?

And C4K - Regarding Dr. Ruckman's view - I always understood him to hold to preservation - I heard him say this in person - now he may have changed but I am going by what I heard him say some time ago. Many assume or believe he believes the KJV is inspired but it may be a misunderstanding or he may have changed his stance since I heard him.

Again floks - not trying too decieve or misrepresent here.

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

Perhaps you are mistaken in your assumption that others who post here have not examined the actual evidence.

I seek to be general - I do not know the background of all here - my apology for not choosing my words better.

BTW - Thanks C4K - You are right - I never meant for this thread to be a KJVO defence or a defence of Dr. Ruckman. These 2 issues were brought up by others I believe. Dr. Ruckman's character is not the issue here - I cited these men for they take the view that the modern versions originated from Oigen's works.

This thread has gone on for over 7 pages and the real issue has not really been discussed much as far as I can tell.

If the mv's came from where I stated earlier then I believe the mv's are basically on real shakey ground and this needs to be addressed by some folks.

God bless

 

[Logos1560]

Do you mean that they claimed that their translation was based upon the Textus Receptus and/or the Majority Text and/or the Byzantine Text and the translation was actually based upon the Alexandrian type texts?

If so, which translation (or translations)?

Please name one translation, cite and document the FULL statement from the translation preface and then give an example from both the GREEK texts (Byzantine, Alexandrian) where in the case of a difference/variance they obviously chose the Alexandrian variant.

Because unless you document your statement, I for one refuse to believe you and will assume you are simply passing on something you heard or read without taking the time to actually prove it.

In all my research I have not found a bona fide example of what you are claiming.

It may be, and if so, please prove it to me with hard evidence.

HankD

I have not noticed a response to this valid request. For example, where is your evidence that the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ21 are not based on the same underlying original language texts as the KJV?

 

[Scott J]

Scott - I am trying to be as up front and as honest as I can and yo u still question my behavior.

That's because you aren't answering direct, substanative objections to the beliefs you've stated. The truth does not contradict the truth. So when you claim something and I provide a directly contradictory fact... either I am wrong or what you said is wrong.

When you say the KJV translators were specially inspired and I say that scripture gives qualifications for being inspired and that they don't meet those qualifications... one of us is wrong. Yet rather than responding to such points, you evade and keep stating them over in different ways.

I've said before and will say again - I do not profess to know it all nor can I prove it all. I take my stand by faith like I do my salvation.

I hope that the faith that your salvation depends on is supported by scripture and is not contradictory to known, concrete facts... because your faith in KJVOnlyism is not supported by scripture (and some of the "proofs" you and others offer are contradicted by scripture) and it is contradictory to the cold, hard facts of history.

BTW - Can you prove to me by facts that Christ died for your sins?

Yes praise God I can. Scripture tells me this over and over and over. Not just once... not just a hint or a suggestion... I don't have to massage and bend what the Bible says to support my preconceived notion... the Bible tells me that Jesus died for my sins!

Conversely, there is not a single scripture anywhere that supports a single version-only stance. Only by twisting and contorting scripture has anyone even come close.

Why not answer my question below- that is simple enough for now.

Question - are the modeern versions based upon manuscripts that originated from Origen's works in Alexandria or not?

I did. Did you miss it?

Again floks - not trying too decieve or misrepresent here.

God bless

I for one haven't taken you that way. You have evaded though rather than tackling tough objections head on. And, while you have chided me for being closed-minded, it is you that have given direct evidence that you are unwilling to accept the facts as they lay if they contradict your KJVO beliefs.

Not trying to be offensive, just speaking plainly.

 

[Scott J]

BTW, in case you really did miss it, faithful MV's come from the same place as the KJV- God's gracious providence.