-
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!
who is ruckman?
- Thread starter Plain Old Bill
- Start date
Oh, rbrent, I AM ASHAMED.
Ashamed that I did not link him to Joseph Smith who also made up man-made doctrine and foisted if off on the public and developed the LDS cult.
Ashamed that I did not link him to William Miller, a renegade Baptist whose doctrine was ALSO so twisted that his followers eventually left the Baptists and formed the Adventists
Ashamed that I did not link him to Charles Taze Russell, Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones, Benny Hinn and a host of other well-known cultists who prey upon the weak-minded, those desiring a "book" or a hair of John the Baptist or a piece of the true cross that they can hold in their hands and worship.
These others wrote their own books. BUT MORE INSIDIOUS is taking the Anglican Bible of 1611 and then making outlandish doctrines of "re-inspiration" and "preservation in English" and "only" that has never, is not and will never have an iota (that's a little greek letter not to be confused with a Hebrew "jot") of evidence.
Ashamed-R-Us. And tired of this tripe on a hundred threads on the BB without one bit of evidence.
Brother, it is not ME that should be ashamed for spreading such an evil and divisive doctrine in the guise of fundamentalism.
RaptureReady
New Member
Now that would not be very Christ like now would it.
One example please.
How do you seperate the man from what he is?
If I were to say that he publishes very damaging literature, that indicates the AV "corrects" the Greek manuscripts, am I attacking his person?
Yes, probably, but how do you say it any other way?
The bottom line is the man puts out cultish work and it is not only wrong, but he is also leading a lot of people down the Yellow Brick Road. If that is attacking the man, then I guess there is just no other solution!!??!!
If I don't care what you say about me, as long as it is true, then I don't think it would do any harm now, do you?
If I were to say that Satan was Jesus' brother--do you think you might have something bad to say about me? I would sure hope so!
[qb]One example please. </font>[/QUOTE]Just one? Awwwwwwww! Well, here goes:
"The KJV has actually corrected older manuscripts and Bibles, including Greek manuscripts."
I think that one by itself puts the boy in a BAD situation. Especially, considering the fact that he publishes and preaches this herasy to other believers and non-believers alike.
Hows THAT?
[ March 16, 2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
RaptureReady
New Member
Originally posted by Phillip:
I have no idea that it does or does not. But, I'd prefer the King James Bible over a MSS anyday.Just one? Awwwwwwww! Well, here goes:
"The KJV has actually corrected older manuscripts and Bibles, including Greek manuscripts."
I think that one by itself puts the boy in a BAD situation. Especially, considering the fact that he publishes and preaches this herasy to other believers and non-believers alike.
Hows THAT?
Come on now....don't change the subject. We were talking about whether or not I should say anything about Doc. Ruckman and you asked for an example of what he says that is wrong. I gave you one and all you did was say you didn't know, but you like your KJV. Well, I like my KJV too, but I don't go and tell you its translators were "inspired" or they were SOOOOOOO "inspired" that they "corrected" the translated manuscripts...........Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
I have no idea that it does or does not. But, I'd prefer the King James Bible over a MSS anyday. </font>Just one? Awwwwwwww! Well, here goes:
"The KJV has actually corrected older manuscripts and Bibles, including Greek manuscripts."
I think that one by itself puts the boy in a BAD situation. Especially, considering the fact that he publishes and preaches this herasy to other believers and non-believers alike.
Hows THAT?
RaptureReady
New Member
I'm not saying that the KJB translators were inspired either, but that God's word is. That makes it just as good if not better than the originals.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
HomeBound,
I agree that the translators of the KJV were not inspired themselves. They were translating manuscripts of copies of the inspired words of God. Therefore (using my own pea-brain here), one could say that any translation that is a true translation (not a paraphrase) is the inspired word of God.
But I have a feeling that when you say "God's word" that you are mentally switching it for "the King James". Am I correct?
That is not a prablem, if you agree with my point above. But if you don't, then all you have done is to cast the same old declaration in a new disguise.
I am afraid that I must part company with you on you second statement. No translation can equal, or supercede, the originals that it was copied from. Too much does not translate from one to the other.
I went on a mission trip to Mexico several years ago. Since none of us spoke Spanish, we had to rely on an interpreter. It was sort of funny, because we would say something, and it took him twice as long to say it in Spanish. Why? Because, although Spanish and English have some of the same roots (Latin), they are different languages. What is plain in on is not plain in the other.
The same goes for a translation of the bible. What was plain in the originals must be translated into the target language being used. Some things are plain, some things are not.
But, then, I forget that the KJV corrects the originals. Sorry about that...
In Christ,
Trotter
I agree that the translators of the KJV were not inspired themselves. They were translating manuscripts of copies of the inspired words of God. Therefore (using my own pea-brain here), one could say that any translation that is a true translation (not a paraphrase) is the inspired word of God.
But I have a feeling that when you say "God's word" that you are mentally switching it for "the King James". Am I correct?
That is not a prablem, if you agree with my point above. But if you don't, then all you have done is to cast the same old declaration in a new disguise.
I am afraid that I must part company with you on you second statement. No translation can equal, or supercede, the originals that it was copied from. Too much does not translate from one to the other.
I went on a mission trip to Mexico several years ago. Since none of us spoke Spanish, we had to rely on an interpreter. It was sort of funny, because we would say something, and it took him twice as long to say it in Spanish. Why? Because, although Spanish and English have some of the same roots (Latin), they are different languages. What is plain in on is not plain in the other.
The same goes for a translation of the bible. What was plain in the originals must be translated into the target language being used. Some things are plain, some things are not.
But, then, I forget that the KJV corrects the originals. Sorry about that...
In Christ,
Trotter
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Amen, Brother Homebound -- Preach it!
That makes God's word as inspired in
the New International Version (NIV) which
was inspired AFTER the unauthorized
editions of the Authorized Version;
the NIV is more the inspired Written
Word of God (iWWoG) than the KJVs.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Unfortunately so, Brother Trotter.
The KJV is substitued for Jesus,
the Christ, the Living Word of God.
To bad they don't read the part of the KJV
that talks about the living word of God (Jesus)
and the written word of God (Bible).
Pastor KevinR
New Member
KJVO friends, how do you deal with Dr Ruckman's prejudice against Blacks, etc? I haven't read any of his latest works, but in the early 90's he called them by the "N" word in his "Bible Believer's Bulletin" I think (know) that this grieves our Lord, don't you? And please don't minimize this wickedness.
Pastor KevinR
New Member
It is impossible for a human translation to be better than what God breathed, i.e. the Originals. see 2 Peter 1:21 in the Greek or any valid English B.V. "old time"...that's not 1611, is it?
I have not heard this, but if it is indeed true (and I have no reason to disbelieve you); there IS no excuse!Originally posted by Pastor KevinR:
KJVO friends, how do you deal with Dr Ruckman's prejudice against Blacks, etc? I haven't read any of his latest works, but in the early 90's he called them by the "N" word in his "Bible Believer's Bulletin" I think (know) that this grieves our Lord, don't you? And please don't minimize this wickedness.
Unfortunately so, Brother Trotter.
The KJV is substitued for Jesus,
the Christ, the Living Word of God.
To bad they don't read the part of the KJV
that talks about the living word of God (Jesus)
and the written word of God (Bible).
Unfortunately so, Brother Trotter.
The KJV is substitued for Jesus,
the Christ, the Living Word of God.
To bad they don't read the part of the KJV
that talks about the living word of God (Jesus)
and the written word of God (Bible).
