"Why do you KJV only people attack the word of God?"

[Harold Garvey]

How is Will posting again since he was banned a few yrs ago under Brandplucked?

you keep up with some pretty meaningless stuff.

is it your attitude to permanantly ban people from BB, your church, your life?

"years ago"?

 

[saturneptune]

you keep up with some pretty meaningless stuff.

is it your attitude to permanantly ban people from BB, your church, your life?

"years ago"?

No, actually Tiny Tim is one of the better posters on this board. His posts are edifying, and one is usually able to learn something from them. As to your post, that is a good auto-biography for you.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Hear, hear! Let's burn him at the stake!:tonofbricks:

Will Kinney

yes, the protestant "roots" do have a way of making themselves known.

My Bible teaches me to restore and forgive. The catholic mnetality says to cut off, burn, convert or die! ( or in BB lingo: comprimise or get banned)

 

[Samuel Owen]

[Non-Baptist posting in a Baptist Only forum]

 

[EdSutton]

Ha Ha, I've been asked that one before. I am a Baptist, I just don't choose to identify with the Baptist organization any longer. So I registered as non-denominational. When the Baptists became Apostates, I got out of Dodge.

Your characterization of "the Baptists" (which, by definition would include yourself, by your own admission, here) as "Apostates" is "painting with an extremely broad brush" in considering the thread topic and the fact that "Baptists" run the gamut, form those who are definitely 'liberal" in every sense of the word, to those whose own views on the subject of 'KJVO' would make you look like one of the so-called, but entirely misnamed "Bible Agnostics" as labeled by one posting on this thread. (Does the name of Dr. Peter J. Ruckman come to mind, here?)

So which will it be? Would you prefer to retract this 'charge' in Black bold, or do you also consider yourself an Apostate, now, as well??

Ed

 

[Mexdeaf]

true and just! But then that is the way to censor what others know to be true and keep one's little playhouse intact.

I was being "told on" for bringing to the attention some pretty vile attitudes towards other members and certainly they wanted me banned! they even told me i was not :wanted" and should just leave. Now isn't that nice!:love2:

And people wonder why most people want nothing to do with christians or the church!

This isn't church.

I see pretty vile attitudes on both sides. But Will calling people "Bible agnostics" as he has is definitely against the BB rules.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Saying an organization or denomination has gone into Apostasy, does not mean every single member. But it means those who do not agree, need to separate themselves from it.

Also you do not have to be a Ruckmanite, to support a KJVO, or KJV preferred view. Someone has boxed all such folks into one little group, when that is not so. There are some of us, who realize the problems in the so called better manuscripts, and simply try to encourage others to see it also. But you can only see what you want to see, otherwise you are blinded by opinions. The very words Critical Text, constitute something less than honesty to me.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I find it that maintaining the same character in church as well as out of church prevents hypocrisy.

I also find when one uses the "we're not in church" remark it indicates a level of rebellion.

I dont change my colors depending on the situation, it's calle making a stand.

Let's try this again, perhaps your hearing aid was off-

THIS ISN'T CHURCH!

And it has nothing to do with 'hypocrisy' or 'rebellion'.

I am taking a stand against the doctrine called KJVOism. I do the same in my church. Anyone who comes in with that stand is free to hold to it as long as they keep it to themselves- and we do have a couple of members who do just that. If they start calling people "Bible agnostics" or questioning the Word of God they quickly find out that they will be happier elsewhere. I don't go out of my way to preach against KJVO, but if it rears it's head and threatens to become a divisive issue I will protect my flock.

Personally, I feel that KJVO is just as divisive and h-l as the 'Millenial Exclusion' teaching which got several banned from the BB. But that is not my decison to make.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Let's try this again, perhaps your hearing aid was off-

THIS ISN'T CHURCH!

And it has nothing to do with 'hypocrisy' or 'rebellion'.

I am taking a stand against the doctrine called KJVOism. I do the same in my church. Anyone who comes in with that stand is free to hold to it as long as they keep it to themselves- and we do have a couple of members who do just that. If they start calling people "Bible agnostics" or questioning the Word of God they quickly find out that they will be happier elsewhere. I don't go out of my way to preach against KJVO, but if it rears it's head and threatens to become a divisive issue I will protect my flock.

Personally, I feel that KJVO is just as divisive and h-l as the 'Millenial Exclusion' teaching which got several banned from the BB. But that is not my decison to make.

No such doctrine exists

 

[Will J. Kinney]

What are Bible agnostics?

This isn't church.

I see pretty vile attitudes on both sides. But Will calling people "Bible agnostics" as he has is definitely against the BB rules.

Hi Mexdeaf. Did you by any chance miss post 36? I already addressed this. Here it is again.

Hi Mexdeaf. When I refer to a person being a "Bible agnostic" I simply mean they do not know what the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible is, or where to find it. Anyone who holds to the "originals onlyist" view clearly does not have an inspired and infallible Bible now.

The term has nothing to do with whether or not you are a redeemed child of God.

If you don't like the fit description of being referred to as a Bible agnostic, then I hope God opens your spiritual eyes to see that the true "book of the LORD" is the Authorized King James Bible and then you can honestly call yourself a Bible believer. You would then believe every word of a real Bible (not just an imaginary one like those never seen by you "originals") and not change a thing. You would leave it alone just like God in His sovereignty gave it to us.

Blessings,

Will K

 

[DHK]

Most of the guys on this forum have already told us that either the KJB or even all the bible versions have errors in them. So are you guys eliminating the King James Bible from the list of possible candidates of "the Bible" which is never identified in that very poorly thought out confession?
Will K

I find it odd that you ignore my posts Will. I believe it is because you cannot carry on a legitimate debate with actual responses that make sense.
Your response here, for example, is not legitimate.
Almost all of us have repeatedly told you that we use the Bible as our final authority; we believe the Bible to be infallible and inerrant.
Do you know what neo-orthodoxy is?
Those involved in neo-orthodoxy take orthodox meanings of the Bible (grace, justification, salvation, etc.) and deliberately change the meaning, making the same words mean something else. In that way they sound evangelical when they are not. You are doing the same thing. You have deliberately taken the word "Bible" and similar words, and changed their orthodox meaning to make them fit your own paradigm. That falls into the heresy of neo-orthodoxy. And that is where this confusion lies.

We all believe in an infallible, inspired, inerrant Bible; inspired and inerrant in the original autographs. It is that last phrase that you hate and detest. As I have said before, 100 years that phrase would have never even had to be mentioned. It was understood. That is what all believers believed when one spoke of inspiration. It was a given fact. This KJVO movement is a Johnny-come-lately movement of the last part of the 20th century. It is so recent that it began in your lifetime, and in mine. You actually saw its origin. You fell for it: hook, line and sinker.

As the KJVO is a new movement so is neo-orthodoxy.
Both are wrong.

 

[DHK]

No such doctrine exists

KJVOism is a doctrine in and of itself. If it isn't why is the statement being made by one who holds to KJVOism, that if you believe otherwise you are a "Bible agnostic." Would not that indicate that you deny the doctrines of KJVOism.
Bible agnostic
a = no or not
gnostic from gnosis or knowledge.
agnostic = no knowldge
Bible agnostic = no knowledge of the Bible or Bible doctrines.
Is that what Will is accusing us of--having no knowledge or no belief of the Bible?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Will, you can try to justify yourself all you want. But the real unbelievers are folks like yourself who just cannot accept the fact that God can use imperfect beings and imperfect translations to do His perfect work.

I hate repeating myself, but you seem to enjoy it so I'll repost this from another thread that was closed:

Millions of Bible believers exist who have never heard of you, Ruckman, or even the KJV. They are Bible believers who know that what they have and hold IS the Word of God even if you would deny it. Many of them don't even have a complete copy of God's Word in their own language, but they cherish and believe what they do have.

Your teaching does not build faith in the Word of God, rather it destroys it.

That's my stand.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

DHK's "the Bible"

I find it odd that you ignore my posts Will. I believe it is because you cannot carry on a legitimate debate with actual responses that make sense.
Your response here, for example, is not legitimate.
Almost all of us have repeatedly told you that we use the Bible as our final authority; we believe the Bible to be infallible and inerrant.

Hi DHK, Uh...which "the Bible" would that happen to be that you use as your final authority?

In view of what you have said in the past:

DHK post # 66 - No, there is not a single translation of the Bible that I believe is the complete and inerrant word of God, totally infallible in every word, without any error whatsoever.

If I have a question about the translation I can go back to the Greek or Hebrew which I believe God has preserved his Word in.

Only the originals were inspired.

No translation of the Bible is perfect. You do not have a perfect Bible.

DHK post # 50 - There is no perfect translation. It is an impossibility.

So, could you please be a little more explicit about what this alleged "the Bible" is that is your final authority? Does it have a name? Is it in print? Can you hold it in your hands, read it and believe every word?

Or is it nothing more than a figment of your imagination and a hypothetical fairy tale?

Thanks,

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

What is a Bible agnostic

Is that what Will is accusing us of--having no knowledge or no belief of the Bible?

Hi DHK. So far you have utterly failed to tell us exactly what this "the Bible" is that you keep telling us you believe in as your final authority. You never have identified it for us, so at this point it is a totally unknown entity.

Do you happen to have a copy of it you can post here for us, or possibly email it to us? Do you have a copy of the as of yet unknown and unidentified "the Bible" that we can actually see and read, or do we have to imagine what it might look like if it really did exist?

You tell us, DHK.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

the invisible originals

We all believe in an infallible, inspired, inerrant Bible; inspired and inerrant in the original autographs. It is that last phrase that you hate and detest. As I have said before, 100 years that phrase would have never even had to be mentioned. It was understood. That is what all believers believed when one spoke of inspiration. It was a given fact. This KJVO movement is a Johnny-come-lately movement of the last part of the 20th century. It is so recent that it began in your lifetime, and in mine. You actually saw its origin. You fell for it: hook, line and sinker.

As the KJVO is a new movement so is neo-orthodoxy.
Both are wrong.

Not so, my friend. The "originals only" fairy tale did not come along until the last 100 years or so.

All the former formal church confessions about the inerrancy of Scripture utterly failed to mention anything about the non-existent and never seen "originals".

The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life."

What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt, but what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611.


Will K

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK. So far you have utterly failed to tell us exactly what this "the Bible" is that you keep telling us you believe in as your final authority. You never have identified it for us, so at this point it is a totally unknown entity.

Do you happen to have a copy of it you can post here for us, or possibly email it to us? Do you have a copy of the as of yet unknown and unidentified "the Bible" that we can actually see and read, or do we have to imagine what it might look like if it really did exist?

You tell us, DHK.

Will K

I am tired of pretended naive ignorance Will. I have repeated myself, defined my terms, etc. Others understand what I say, why don't you. You pretend not to. That is an insult. The reason you pretend not to understand is that you cannot come back with an intelligent answer to the arguments that I have set forth in my posts. You have redefined "Bible." You are just like the neo-orthodox. As long as you redefine terms and refuse to acknowledge terminology that is orthodox and common among us all it is like talking to a brick wall, or a person in a different language.
Comprenez Vous?

 

[EdSutton]

... a KJVO, or KJV preferred view. Someone has boxed all such folks into one little group, when that is not so.

I haven't done any of this so-called 'boxing' and in fact, just recently made some posts which show such a difference. There are 'miles' of difference between an extreme KJVO, such as Dr. Ruckman or the late Dr. David Otis Fuller, and the position you hold which is that of a strongly "KJV preferred view", neither of which, incidentally, I have ever opposed, although I may and do disagree with one or both, and am on record as advocating an 'MT' view of the New Testament.

What I have consistently done is to "call the hand" when one makes (or repeats) historical and factual errors and/or lies when I notice such. I will continue to do so, and refute such "Death in the Pot", when and if I am able as long as God (or the "powers that be" of the Baptist Board) allow(s) me to do so, when and if I have the time available. I am not constrained by any one particular position on this, and call all such errors into play equally, when and if they appear, if I notice such or have the time to invest.

There are some of us, who realize the problems in the so called better manuscripts, and simply try to encourage others to see it also.

FTR, I believe you will search the BB in vain to find where I have ever 'advocated' any of these so-called "better manuscripts" which I suggest is a 'code word' for the "text form" of the Greek NT, commonly, but mistakenly called the W/H or so-called "Critical Text" although I have advocated the Majority text, as I have previously noted.

FTR, I use (and generally advocate) the KJV and NKJV editions that I do, because I have not been able to find an acceptable MT version easily available, and the text(s) underlying the KJV and NKJV are far superior to that of such as the NIV, NASB, etc., IMO.

But you can only see what you want to see, otherwise you are blinded by opinions.

And where exactly have I supposedly done this, speaking of being "blinded by opinions" and 'boxing' "all such folks into one little group"?

The very words Critical Text, constitute something less than honesty to me.

While that may well be your opinion, and in fact, may even well be an accurate assessment, that designation (which is a proper noun, when in "Upper Case" letters) is used to describe one general particular "text-form" as previously noted.

In small case letters, every known text both NT and OT is a "critical text" (as opposed to a MSS or Codex in the Biblical languages, which is not a "critical text" for a MSS is not to be confused with any collated text), in that every such known text from the first one, until now is the result of someone's 'critical analysis' of more than one MSS, with the reading adopted, aside from some portions of Revelation that are found in the earlist editions of the text-form compiled by Erasmus, that would later be known as the TR.

The only reason for this is that at least initially, Erasmus had only one text of Revelation available to him.

Otherwise he had more than one manuscript at his disposal {in each instance, choosing what he considered the 'preferred reading' [as no two manuscripts discovered from that day until now, happen to agree exactly, in every single detail, including "Dabs1 or "Abscrift" (which happens to be a known direct and intentional ninth century copy of the Pauline Epistles found in Codex Claramontanus or "D")]}, although he had nothing like the number of MS that are available to one today, given more recent discoveries and technology. Later editors of the TR, as well as Erasmus, added and consulted more MSS as they became available to them, emending the TR, in that process.

It is simply a misrepresentation to deny this known fact, just as it is a misrepresentation to claim that the W/H text is the same as the UBS text of today, or that the MT(s) as collated by Pierpont and Robinson, and/or Hodges and Farstad are the same as the TR of Erasmus, Estienne, Beza, et al.. This is simply not so.

All of these above ("MT", "CT", "TR") now take the readings of many (even reaching into several hundred, in some instances) of MSS into account (and the editors and collators of them make "critical" choices in readings and MSS), and not a mere handful. (Granted, I am here speaking of the NT MSS and texts, and not the OT MSS and texts, which process, although similar, receives much less "ink" than does that of the NT.)

As has been well and often said, "Things that are different are not the same."

This is certainly no less true for Bible texts than for any other endeavor.

Ed

 

[Will J. Kinney]

you're still not getting it

Will, you can try to justify yourself all you want. But the real unbelievers are folks like yourself who just cannot accept the fact that God can use imperfect beings and imperfect translations to do His perfect work.

I hate repeating myself, but you seem to enjoy it so I'll repost this from another thread that was closed:

Millions of Bible believers exist who have never heard of you, Ruckman, or even the KJV. They are Bible believers who know that what they have and hold IS the Word of God even if you would deny it. Many of them don't even have a complete copy of God's Word in their own language, but they cherish and believe what they do have.

Your teaching does not build faith in the Word of God, rather it destroys it.

That's my stand.

Hi Mexdeaf, you are still missing the point. I do agree with you that God can and does use any version out there no matter how poorly translated or incomplete it may be. God can use a simple gospel tract, or even a good Christian hymn to awaken faith in the Saviour.

I have never said nor do I believe that a person has to be KJB only in order to get or be saved.

The point I was clearly getting at is that it is the seminarians, the scholars and the modern versionists themselves who are teaching that No Bible in any language is the complete, inspired, preserved and 100% true Bible.

This is well documented. It shows up in the most recent polls about what most seminarians and pew sitting Christians believe about "the Bible". People who are not even KJB only believers are lamenting the spiritual state of America right now, and the ever growing ignorance about what the Bible teaches.

If you cannot see the conection between the abandoned faith in the inerrancy of Scripture to our present declining spiritual state, then I do not know what else I can say.

The issue I was and still am addressing is whether or not there exists such a thing as an inspired, complete and 100% true Bible in any language or not. Most Christians today do not believe so. Those are the facts whether you choose to accept them or not.

The King James Bible believer is the only one who is not budging on this vital doctrine of the inerrancy of a REAL Bible that people can actually see, hold in their hands, read, memorize and believe every word.

Your "originals only" or anything else you choose to believe outside of the KJB only position has no such Bible.

There are two sides and two sides only. The Bible believers or the Bible agnostics.

You believe parts of certain bible versions but not all of any of them. It is either that or you go completely loopy with the absurd view that 5 or 6 "reliable" versions that contradict each other in hundreds of passages are all somehow and magically "inspired and inerrant".

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

DHK's invisible bible

I am tired of pretended naive ignorance Will. I have repeated myself, defined my terms, etc. Others understand what I say, why don't you. You pretend not to. That is an insult. The reason you pretend not to understand is that you cannot come back with an intelligent answer to the arguments that I have set forth in my posts. You have redefined "Bible." You are just like the neo-orthodox. As long as you redefine terms and refuse to acknowledge terminology that is orthodox and common among us all it is like talking to a brick wall, or a person in a different language.
Comprenez Vous?

Yes DHK, I am stupid enough to think that when somebody talks about "the Bible" as their final authority for faith and practice, that they are actually talking about something that is REAL. Forgive me this wrong.

Maybe I should have gone to seminary so I could have come out and been able to understand your secret language codes.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will K