Jump to content

Photo

Dorightchristians - King James Onlyism Before Peter Ruckman


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
138 replies to this topic

#1 Dr James Ach

Dr James Ach

    Resident Wolf Hunter

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • LocationTel Aviv, Israel

Posted 12 June 2014 - 02:07 AM

Dr. Elisha Weismann Contrary to critics like James White, Rick Norris, Fred Butler, JD Hall, Doug Cutelick, and all modern professional liars, the King James Only view did not begin with Peter Ruckman, Ruckman was merely instrumental in causing professing Baptists to quit riding the fence on the issue. Thomas Morris posted the following quote […]b.gif?host=dorightchristians.wordpress.c

View the full article

#2 Jeffrey

Jeffrey

    Resident Liberal

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • LocationChicago suburbs

Posted 12 June 2014 - 04:58 AM

Just heard an interview with Dr James White, He named some other people that was KJVO before Ruckman.



#3 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,019 posts
474
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:35 AM

Surely everybody between about 1660 & 1881 (Revised version) was KJO? And KJO was the generally held position among evangelicals until about 1980.



#4 Arbo

Arbo

    Unwelcome, so Done.

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
320
Excellent

Posted 12 June 2014 - 06:25 AM

From the article:  … the Authorized Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611…our English translation is even better than the original Hebrew and Greek. There is only one way to explain this…I am confident that the Authorized Version was inspired.  

 

Is this what is known as secondary inspiration?



#5 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,889 posts
5,456
Excellent

Posted 12 June 2014 - 06:46 AM

What a seriously flawed statement. In order for our English Bible to be "better than the original Hebrew and Greek" that would mean somehow the originals God directly inspired were inferior.

 

There are some who lift the KJB up to the point of an idol with their false ideas and over exalting of it somehow rising above the original, directly, divinely inspired Scripture.

 

I believe the KJB is the true Word of God as were the originals and the faithful copies which followed.



#6 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,829 posts
2,007
Excellent

Posted 12 June 2014 - 11:09 AM

I was KJB before Ruckman became known outside his home area.  It's been the Bible I used since childhood (except for one year in school: the teacher gave us all Good News for Modern Man.  We called it Bad News for Modern Apes - hated it) and still use today.  And I didn't need a man (who doesn't belong in the pulpit, IMO) to tell me so.  :wink



#7 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,889 posts
5,456
Excellent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 08:08 AM

I've been KJB since the Holy Ghost "told me" to use the KJB. It wasn't until after that before I ever even heard of anyone being KJO. It wasn't until I joined this board that I ever heard of Ruckman.

 

I don't like any of the paraphrase "Bibles" (which I don't really consider to be actual Bibles because they are some man's idea of taking God's Word and then putting His Word into the man's own choice of wording as if he could do a better job than God! All the while, these paraphrases which are not backed by any scholarship or peer review for accuracy, are tainted and sometimes outright tarnished with the leanings and preferences of how the paraphraser would like things to read.

 

I've never been able to understand why the NIV ever became so popular. That's one of the worst versions I've encountered. I've read books or articles where the author uses the NIV and I will read the passage from the NIV in the book and then go "huh?". Then I look it up in my KJB to find out what the verse or passage actually says and means.

 

I'm thankful God Himself directed me to the KJB.



#8 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 08:13 AM

I was KJB before Ruckman became known outside his home area.  It's been the Bible I used since childhood (except for one year in school: the teacher gave us all Good News for Modern Man.  We called it Bad News for Modern Apes - hated it) and still use today.  And I didn't need a man (who doesn't belong in the pulpit, IMO) to tell me so.  :wink

 

HC, is this because of Ruckman's many marriages.  Some of them after he was saved?



#9 Jeffrey

Jeffrey

    Resident Liberal

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • LocationChicago suburbs

Posted 13 June 2014 - 09:05 AM

From the article:  … the Authorized Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611…our English translation is even better than the original Hebrew and Greek. There is only one way to explain this…I am confident that the Authorized Version was inspired.  
 
Is this what is known as secondary inspiration?


Hence, this is the problem u have with these people who feel that the 1611 is better than the originals. It puts the translation as an idol and people worship it, rather than God our Savior.
Saw this on another forum;
apparently the KJV agrees with the Watch Tower Society

John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. KJV

John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. NIV

John 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. ESV

John 14:14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. NASB

John 14:14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. HCSB


you notice what is missing in the KJV?

All translations have their issues

#10 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,829 posts
2,007
Excellent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 09:26 AM

Hence, this is the problem u have with these people who feel that the 1611 is better than the originals. It puts the translation as an idol and people worship it, rather than God our Savior.
Saw this on another forum;
apparently the KJV agrees with the Watch Tower Society

John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. KJV

John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. NIV

John 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. ESV

John 14:14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. NASB

John 14:14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. HCSB


you notice what is missing in the KJV?

All translations have their issues

Heh. I would say that the Watch Tower Society agrees with the KJB, not the other way around...especially since the KJB came first.  :clapping:



#11 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,829 posts
2,007
Excellent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 09:27 AM

HC, is this because of Ruckman's many marriages.  Some of them after he was saved?

That's the biggie, yes.  (I don't want to derail the thread, though...)



#12 Jeffrey

Jeffrey

    Resident Liberal

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • LocationChicago suburbs

Posted 13 June 2014 - 09:34 AM

Heh. I would say that the Watch Tower Society agrees with the KJB, not the other way around...especially since the KJB came first.  :clapping:


Luanne, seriously, do you see the mistake in the KJV compared ti the other translations? I'll let you look at it before I point it out

#13 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,829 posts
2,007
Excellent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 09:53 AM

Luanne, seriously, do you see the mistake in the KJV compared ti the other translations? I'll let you look at it before I point it out

I presume that you are probably referencing the fact that "me" isn't in there.  If so, I don't accept that it's a mistake.  Reading the context plainly points out whom we are to ask...



#14 Jeffrey

Jeffrey

    Resident Liberal

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • LocationChicago suburbs

Posted 13 June 2014 - 10:27 AM

I presume that you are probably referencing the fact that "me" isn't in there.  If so, I don't accept that it's a mistake.  Reading the context plainly points out whom we are to ask...

but you can say that when we pray to God and not Jesus, that God will hear us, Rather that we do pray to Jesus in Heaven and Jesus will answer. It more proves Christ's divinity.

#15 Jeffrey

Jeffrey

    Resident Liberal

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • LocationChicago suburbs

Posted 13 June 2014 - 10:28 AM

Actually, the watchtower does point to that verse to use against Christ divinity

#16 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,829 posts
2,007
Excellent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 10:40 AM

That's an interesting point.

 

Interestingly enough, by not using "me", though, it proves His divinity because He says He will answer.  And only God answers, right?  

 

It needs to be taken in context of the whole chapter - and other verses on prayer.  Watchtower is just like any other cult - take a verse here or there to "prove" what they believe.  As you well know, even some Christians do that.  But we aren't supposed to. Scripture dovetails and there are so many passages on prayer that, when taken together, we know that we are to pray to the Father through the Son - and God will answer.

 

I realize that cults can lead people astray by using one verse in a certain manner (heh - as do too many Christians today, too!) but that doesn't negate the truth of the KJB (and I know you didn't say that...).   :icon_smile:



#17 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 11:06 AM

That's the biggie, yes.  (I don't want to derail the thread, though...)

 

That's what I thought.  I think I know what other things you are talking about, as well.  However, I won't get into them.



#18 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 11:21 AM

Hence, this is the problem u have with these people who feel that the 1611 is better than the originals. It puts the translation as an idol and people worship it, rather than God our Savior.
Saw this on another forum;
apparently the KJV agrees with the Watch Tower Society

John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. KJV

John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. NIV

John 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. ESV

John 14:14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. NASB

John 14:14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. HCSB


you notice what is missing in the KJV?

All translations have their issues

 
Jeffrey, what "originals" are you talking about?  There are no originals with the KJV.  The Old Testament of the KJV comes from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (which in Hebrew, is flawless).  The New Testament of the KJV comes from the Textus Receptus (TR), not the corrupted Alexandrian Texts.  All Modern Versions come from the Alexandrian Texts.

So, now we are back to talking about the validity of the KJV on a KJVO forum?  I thought those days were gone.   :puzzled3:  I will say it again.  This reminds me of the days of Kevin Miller, and "His Purpose Driven Life" book by Rick Warren.  And, we can all see how that one turned out.  Chrislam?  Seriously, Jeffrey? 



#19 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,829 posts
2,007
Excellent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 11:32 AM

 
Jeffrey, what "originals" are you talking about?  There are no originals with the KJV.  The Old Testament of the KJV comes from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (which in Hebrew, is flawless).  The New Testament of the KJV comes from the Textus Receptus (TR), not the corrupted Alexandrian Texts.  All Modern Versions come from the Alexandrian Texts.

So, now we are back to talking about the validity of the KJV on a KJVO forum?  I thought those days were gone.   :puzzled3:  I will say it again.  This reminds me of the days of Kevin Miller, and "His Purpose Driven Life" book by Rick Warren.  And, we can all see how that one turned out.  Chrislam?  Seriously, Jeffrey? 

candle, there will always be people who question everything we believe - even whether or not the KJB is THE scripture for English speaking people.  

 

But, to be honest, Jeffery has a point (in the statement about some people correcting the originals).  There are people out there (and on here!) who believe that the KJB corrects the Greek, thus rendering the Textus Receptus to be inferior (whether they want to think so or not) to the KJB and allowing them to correct the Receptus by "reading between the lines" - which brings about some pretty strange teachings!

 

We learn oftentimes by discussing. If Jeffery begins to bash the KJB he'll be stopped, rest assured (I realize he said there was a mistake in John 14:14, but that is what we're discussing...and it won't go any further.  :icon_smile: )

 

I don't get your reference to Crislam, though...



#20 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 12:02 PM

candle, there will always be people who question everything we believe - even whether or not the KJB is THE scripture for English speaking people.  

 

But, to be honest, Jeffery has a point (in the statement about some people correcting the originals).  There are people out there (and on here!) who believe that the KJB corrects the Greek, thus rendering the Textus Receptus to be inferior (whether they want to think so or not) to the KJB and allowing them to correct the Receptus by "reading between the lines" - which brings about some pretty strange teachings!

 

We learn oftentimes by discussing. If Jeffery begins to bash the KJB he'll be stopped, rest assured (I realize he said there was a mistake in John 14:14, but that is what we're discussing...and it won't go any further.  :icon_smile: )

 

I don't get your reference to Crislam, though...

 

Yes, I know HC.  I meet them on Facebook all the time.  That is the main reason why I am not posting on there, as much.  I forgot to say that the KJV is for the English speaking people.  Thanks for saying that.

Yes, he does have a point.  I do see some of the strange teachings, when people "read between the lines" from IFB's, as well.  Please correct me if I ever do that.  I am still learning, and I do appreciate your knowledge... as you have been IFB longer than me.

Jeffrey and I are on good terms.  He is my brother in Christ.  I just wish he would go back to the IFB.  He is very strong, and I believe the IFB needs more people like Jeffrey.  Believe me when I say, if I can go from the RCC straight to the IFB (with a bit charismatic teaching along the way, that assured me of my salvation) then anyone can.   

I must not have read what he said in John 14:14.  Ooops.

Yes, we all need to beware of Chrislam or is it spelled "Crislam?" 


Edited by candlelight, 13 June 2014 - 12:02 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500