|
Jeremy
You said that Dr. Sam Gipp being an Ruckmanite is self explainatory, I am new and would like a further explaination please. Also are there any threads where Dr. Gipp is discussed?? I would be very interested in seeing them. Thank you |
KK
I meant that as a sarcastic remark, i like Dr. Ruckman,so if you want to call me a Ruckmanite so be it. I have not read anything by Sam Gipp,but I am sure he has some good material. Now if you want to talk about Rick warren,Joel Osteen,Steve Gray,or Kenneth Copleand and Company,than thats a different story.:pound: Since being on this forum,i have learned alot about other Good preachers. however,when first joining i was swinging on a pendulum,looking for a middle ground. The more i learn the better it gets,a person becomes that way when coming out of a Ric warren influenced church. You will find your place as well. I think these new churches are sensitizing christians to the point where real Bible teaching is offensive. |
Quote:
My friend, the conflict has raged since Guy Fawkes first started collecting gunpowder to blow up Parliament. I don't see a controversy, the controversy is with those smart enough to correct the Scriptures, or think they are. I have no controversy. Conflict? As John Rambo said, they drew first blood. Most dangerous weapon in the world is supposed to be a US Marine and his rifle. Actually, it is a Christian and a bible. The root of all evil is the love of money and a Christian with a bible can obliterate many wallets and incomes. For one thing, I don't need James White or his books to help in my Christian walk, nor John MacArthur, or anyone else. All I need is a bible. Therein lies the "conflict" and "controversy". Do I begrudge a believing Christian from writing a commentary or other book, devotions or songs, or defense of doctrine? No. I never regretted a cent of what I spent on a book by Dr. Ruckman, I got a thousandfold value for the money. Me and Doc Pete differ, we all differ. The truth as I see it is that there is no empiric, or otherwise, evidence that the KJV is NOT a purified form of the "original manuscripts". These documents were never gathered together in one place at one time. Maybe in heaven there is a copy, on earth, in my language, it's a KJV. It was when I cleared the smoke of all the arguments, manuscript evidence, etc., and went with the internal evidence of the Scriptures, it gelled for me many years ago. Produce a manuscript for 1 John 5:7, produce 100, that are undoubtedly from the first century prior to Vaticanus, they'll say they are forgeries. So rather than argue manuscript evidence with Dr. Robert Gromaki's adherents when I was in college(they approached me, I didn't approach them) I did a simple exercise with Romans 10:17: If salvation is by grace through faith and faith cometh by hearing the word of God but if only contained in the original manuscripts, then no one has been saved since the original manuscript for Romans and I Corinthians decayed. Yea or nay? Hath Gary Hudson said? Here is a young college student many miles from home under an Orwellian regimen and asks you where is the word of God, how do I know? It's what works effectually in those who believe. From the evangelical-emergent-Protestant camps, the ASV-RSV-NASB-NIV ain't workin' too effectually in anything but increasing bank accounts. James White is another Watchtower/Jesuit propaganda salesman to me, I'll be watching the "controversy". Grace and peace friends. Tony |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Remember, remember, the fifth of November. If God in His providence caused the Gunpowder Treason and Plot to fail, people who fight the KJB must come to nought. "Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart." (Jeremiah 14:14). |
Quote:
Jud 7:20 And the three companies blew the trumpets, and brake the pitchers, and held the lamps in their left hands, and the trumpets in their right hands to blow withal: and they cried, The sword of the LORD, and of Gideon. Grace and peace Tony |
Quote:
Peace and Love, Stephen |
Jeremy
Thank you for clarifying. I have read several books by Bro. Gipp and have heard him speak, he is booked up 10 years in advance, so our church getting him was only by God's grace. I enjoy reading the threads, however confused I get by them. This is an awesome web site and I am so glad I stumbled upon it, or was led by God. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stephanos View Post
Now I want to comment on inspiration. I don't think the translators of the KJB were inspired in the way that, say, Paul was. But I don't see how they could have produced a flawless rendition of God's Word without the Spirit guiding their hearts and minds. So, if God was guiding the hearts and minds of these fallible men to produce an infallible Book, what does it say about the process? I know that many moderate KJBO folks want to stay clear of those that believe the KJB translators were inspired, but what I keep being lead to think upon is that I don't see how uninspired men could have produced an inerrant and infallible Book without some mode of inspiration. What say ye? Peace and Love, Stephen I say , brother Stephen; in the same way I believe the Spirit guided the placement of chapter and verse divisions. __________________ The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. Psalm 119:130 In Him, Laura ================================================== ======= Although many Charismatics follow the original manuscript fraud, many fundamentalist Christians try and define "inspiration" as a Pentecostal-like Magic Trance you go into and write or speak via automatic writing, which is occultic and the belief of the Greeks, their "Muse" or "daemons" speaking to and through them. We need to abandon this pagan magic trance view of inspiration and define the word Biblically. Square one is the oracles of God are given unto the Jews. God will speak through no one but of His chosen people for initial revelation. Now, what about the king's decree in Daniel? Well, the Gentile king wrote it but God works effectually in those who read the decree and believe God, so Daniel(a Jew)recorded it in his book. Square two is words are inspired, men are not. Nowhere did Peter claim to be inspired. The OT prophets all exclaimed, thus saith the Lord, but not my words, not my opinions, but HIS words. God's words are ALIVE, as uranium is radioactive, sodium is not. When Jesus raised Lazarus, He did not snap His fingers, he SAID, Lazarus, come forth. No electrodes plugged into his neck like Frankenstein, God SPOKE him to life. Peter said, I am not in a trance, I am a holy man of God speaking God's words as moved by the Holy Ghost for this scribe to record. Paul can be said to be the closest to declaring he was "inspired", yet he said the THINGS I WRITE UNTO YOU, are THE commandments of THE LORD, NOT ME. Let me give an example of inspiration: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. I just wrote those words. I am not in a trance. The Holy Ghost moved me to check the copy I read them from as Job 32:8 and II Timothy 3:16 commands to write them accurately with nothing added or left out. This passage in John is ALL Scripture, it is INSPIRED Scripture, it is God's living words that give life to a lost soul, that works effectually in those who believe it after reading it. It is GOD who does all that, not ME. I was MOVED of the Holy Ghost to give whoever is reading this a living copy of His living word. It's not ME who is inspired, it is the WORDS I WROTE that are inspired. Now the question is asked, who decided the canon? The oracles of God, Jews. Deut.17 says the Levites were given custody of the OT writings. The Apostles were given custody of the NT. I believe John decided the canon of the NT, that may be conjecture but he was the apostle "who Jesus loved" and who He gave the Revelation through. Whoever decided the canon did it under God's inspiration and was a Jew, not a Gentile. Is it outrageous to say that God collected an inspired copy of ALL the original manuscripts together in one volume for the first time in history in a common language worldwide(KJV)? Is it outrageous that there is a resurrection of the dead, a flood of water covered the earth, a sea parted to the dry bottom for a nation to walk through, ot that a God would take the form of His creatures and die for them becasue they could not satisfy His Justice? I'm still the new guy, one of them "dry cleaners" and I hope you all pardon me being so dogmatic. I believe we need to be dogmatic about the truth. This is my best description of inspiration. God is inspiration(noun), men are not inspired(verb), Gods words ARE. Grace and peace to all Tony |
Quote:
Concerning inspiration, the Scriptures tell us that: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV) If what you're saying is the case (and I think of a truth it is) then that would say that "all Scripture is inspired of God" but it doesn't. It says that it is "given" by inspiration. Here is the mode: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21 KJV) So you're going to have to shew that these words are alive as you described them to be. I agree that they are, but when dealing with the doctrine of inspiration you need to get your mode right. For Jesus' sake, Stephen |
Quote:
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Inspiration is a gift of God's words he gives us. The passage in John 3 I wrote in my message; the motive for writing it was inspired by God, and the words I wrote are His words and they are inspired. I acted as a scribe. As His words they are alive and work effectually in those who believe them. That is Scriptural, is it not? My attempt at levity also has touched a nerve. I have spent my life with angry people. I was raised by them. Anger anger anger anger anger. So I evolved, for want of a better word, a sense of humor. Since we are being serious and somber, I'll clarify the terms "hyperdispensationalist/dry cleaner". Both are artificial(man-made) terms used by various defined sects and when applied to a person, defines them as a follower of Stam-Darby-O'Hair, and their theology is Calvinist, meaning they won't pass out a tract at gunpoint, and do not have a Bible they can hold in their hands as Stam did not. Call it profiling, categorizing, I call it marginalizing. Impeach. Neutralize. We are not supposed to exist before Darby and Schofield, yet the sect most vocally in opposition to us grace dispensationalists is one I can find nothing as history before the 1600s and John, the last OT prophet, certainly did not found this church. If it's a matter of "oldest and best manuscripts" Wycliffe stated the Scriptures needed to be divided rightly and applied to the ones each division is written to, so if we have to point to a founder it would be to have originated in the 14th century. We grace believers actually claim Sergius Saulus Paulus of Tarsus as our denominational founder. We call ourselves grace believers because we believe in salvation by grace through faith apart from the works of the law, the washing of Leviticus 8 and Acts 2 being one. Our walk is based not on sight, "acts of obedience", but on faith. The terms we are discussing are actually cuss words to me, I resent the labels, they are used by one sect to attempt to marginalize another who has bags of urine thrown at them on the street ministry just like any other Christian. This main fundamentalist sect views us as a threat to their existence since in truth many of them have ceased to be held together as a sect by the Holy Ghost of God but by a work of the law 2000 years out of date. As I said, believing the KJV is the inspired word of God will not get you to heaven, it also will not get you accepted by other fundamentalist Christians. We are outcasts among the Stamites, I am an outcast among the outcasts, I believe the church did not begin in Acts, the body of Christ began at Calvary. Clear anything up for you brother? Till later, grace and peace to you:) Tony |
Stephen,
By his definition, I'd tend to be more of a "hyper-dispensationalist" than he, because I tend to place the beginning of the Body of Christ in Acts 8 or thereabouts. I'm not fully set in that, but that's what I tend toward. Give the guy a little grace. :) On the subject of Inspiration, though, I believe he and I are almost step-in-step: I don't see why God could have inspired those MEN (He does not inspire "words") and couldn't or wouldn't inspire the men producing the translation of those words that would be used for the rest of human history. Why would God inspire Paul, Peter and James to write the words, but not inspire the translators of the King James Bible to translate those pure words into English? ¡No comprendo! |
Quote:
I personally don't see how the Church could begin at Calvary since the Gospel which saves includes Christ's resurrection. But anywho, I personally hold to the position that the Church began when the first disciples were sealed with the Holy Ghost at Pentacost. I think that was when the Holy Ghost added the first souls to the Body of Christ which IS the Church. So to understand this doctrine, it's a matter of first knowing which Gospel we are saved by (the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ out Lord 1 Corinthians 15) and what seals us until the day of redemption (the Holy Ghost [Ephesians 4:30] which sealed the first disciples at Pentacost [Acts 2:4]). Pretty straight forward if you ask me. I think people in the dry cleaners camp get hung up on the fact that Paul was given many manifold revelations (2 Corinthians 12:7). But those were not Gospel changing revelations, nor did they change the mode by which Christians are sealed until redemption. Peace and Love, Stephen |
Quote:
When I teach the inspiration of the Scriptures to children and young people, I put it in an analogy of wood and uranium. One is radiative and one isn't. Of some 3 million words(now) in the English language they communicate in various forms thoughts and intentions. When combined in the manner they are in the KJV, they form the Will of God, they represent what He told holy men of God centuries ago, just as wood can be made radioactive, men can be saved and have the spirit of God reside in them. The words of the KJV are inspired, they are "radioactive": God had His hand in them being in the form they are in. There is nothing magic or occultic in that teaching, magic and occultism are a counterfeit of something Truthful. I hope that clarifies a few things. I'll be glad to continue to clarify till it's understood. Early, Mid, and Late Acts dispensationalism is not confined to the "hypers". My closest friends are Mid Acts. When Paul was called the Body began. Early Acts followers believe Acts 2 is the birth of the Body, and they are close. Late Acts followers believe when Paul stopped dealing with Jews as he said and then went "...to the Gentiles" at the end of Acts then the Body began. Bullinger was a Late Acts, which caused him to say only Paul's books of Galatians on to Philemon were applicable doctrine for Christians today. There is a problem with the Late Acts view. The Body of Christ contains saved Jews as well as Gentiles. There is a problem also with the Mid Acts view in a statement by Paul himself: Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Ooops. The Body was present before Paul. That places us at Acts 2, Early Acts. Right? Wrong. Without the crucifixion there can be no Body. The Body BEGAN at Calvary. It's Jewish-Gentile nature was REVEALED through Paul LATER(Eph.3). We have the advantage of the Whole Counsel of God and are in the position of looking BACK on these events through the Scripture history. Let's narrow it down in Eph. 3: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Many of my grace brethren and sisteren make the Body of Christ the mystery, the Mystery was that Jews and Gentiles would be equally yoked within it. When Paul preached this all the Scripture he had was the OT and the Body of Jews and Gentiles TOGETHER are not in it. Or are they? The key is verse 5 above where it was not revealed "...as it is NOW REVEALED...". How? Verse 3, by revelation of God to Paul, then Paul taught by similitudes from the OT, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, precept upon precept, then the Bereans searched the Scriptures to see if these things be so. So did I. God has showed me the Body began at Calvary. Entrance was through the apostles. Salvation was by grace through faith and water baptism. When He set Israel aside after Acts 7, He then grafted the Jewish-GENTILE church in through Paul. Entrance is by salvation through grace and nothing else. Peter didn;t graft the Gentiles, Paul didn;t graft the Gentiles, GOD grafted the Gentiles, He did what was "contrary to nature" Look this over Matt. Critique' it, tell me what you find. Grace and peace to you my friend Tony |
Quote:
Stephanos = Stephen |
Quote:
This is to meet the character limit. |
Quote:
The reason I bring out my dispensational belief right here at the beginning is this: I tried to have a dialogue with Gary Hudson. When he found out that I was holding the inspired Scriptures in my hand, he cut me off, used my words to try and illustrate his own agenda, the same as the Jesuits(the original manuscripts), and branded me a "Ruckmanite". Like I've said before, Doc Pete ain't no Absolom or Ahab, that didn't bother me. Being labeled and marginalized did. This was in 1988. The middle part of this decade I was a member of several KJV yahoo groups and one Ruckman group. I know Will Kinney online and gave him the number of words in Shakespeare's vocabulary and the number now obsolete, with Chaucer and Poe and the KJV. it took me like 21 months compiling that information. Anyway, I was thrown out of the KJV groups when they found out I wuz one a them thar church splittin' dry cleaners. I was thrown out of the Ruckman group because the Pharisees in that group accused me of being "antinomian" an' one a them thar church splittin' drycleaners. Brother, so you know the only person to ever emulate(Gal. 5:20) Dr. peter Sturges Ruckman's bitter sarcasm and facetiousness? Dr. Peter Sturges Ruckman. The Pharisaic attitude didn't upset me, being labeled and marginalized did. When I am called "hyperdispensationalist drycleaner" it marginalizes the fact I'm willing to be hit on the street with a syphilis-infected bag of urine for the gospel of Christ as you are, or any other Christian. I'm not a cussword, I'm an ambassador for Christ, a minister of the reconsiliation to wit, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Don't call me a drycleaner, it might make me cry. No one will agree with you more about Paul's manifold revelations than a grace believer like me. Paul had the signs of an apostle till he no longer was witness to Israel alone. He baptized in water till the signs of an apostle were taken from him. 1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. No one will let Paul be a wise masterbuilder more than me. He laid his foundation and then it was grafted into the Body of Christ that the 12 apostles were given. I take heed that I do not baptize in water Jews who are to be a kingdom of priests but let the Holy Ghost circumcise my listener's spirits from them and baptizing them into the Body Of Christ, where there is no Jew or Gentile. I respectfully disagree with you on Acts 2 being the beginning of the Body. He was buried yes, he was resurrected, yes, he added TO this Body on Pentecost. But for Him to be buried and resurrected first he had to die, ergo, the Body began at Calvary when He said, it is finished. The Body began. Brother, if the truth of water baptism first occurring in Leviticus 8 to first consecrate a Levite splits your church, that church is not held together by the Holy Spirit but by an ordinance of the law of Moses. If it hears it, and is not split, it is then held together by the Holy Spirit of God. God spilts churches, not men. Stam was the wedge that split the grace believers 25 years ago with Calvinism and the belief in the original manuscript fraud. You may have chapter and verse on the Grace Movement's teaching on water baptism when I answer your message to me on the topic. Grace and peace to you Stephen, thank you for at least reading this. Tony |
Quote:
Grace and peace Tony |
Re: " King James Only Controversy"
Quote:
Aloha fightthegoodfight, I went to review your "review" of James White's book and within a very short time (in your introduction) you say - and I quote: "Now I'm NOT a King James Only person; I look at several translations; I like the New King James for my every day reading, it's a little bit simpler, but in this case, the King James is clearly superior" - BASED ON WHAT? :confused: If the King James Bible is NOT your FINAL AUTHORITY on all matters of faith and practice - WHAT are you basing your "assessment" or "conclusion" on, when you say: "but in this case , the King James is clearly superior"? :redface: Huh? :confused: |
Re: "King James Only Controversy"
Aloha brother tonybones2112,
I have enjoyed many of your Posts, and find myself in agreement with you - {most of the time :)}. Since 1973, I too have been tossed out (or left) of four so-called "Fundamentalist" churches (1973 - asked to leave; 1982 - left of my own accord; 1986 - "de-churched" by a "pastor" {after having left that church 6 months earlier}; and 1993 - threatened to be "pounded from the pulpit", if I didn't leave). However, a statement in your Post #57 has me puzzled. Your quote: Quote:
I'm a big believer in Christian liberty and toleration (with the exception of clear, incontrovertible Heresy); and I can have "Fellowship" around the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy word with many different kinds of Christians; and I would never break fellowship with a brother in Christ, if he held a conviction such as yours - as long as that conviction didn't lead to the insistence that I believe the same thing. What you believe is not a "deal breaker" (i.e. fellowship breaker) for me, but (like several controversial topics on this Forum) there are some spiritual issues that will never be settled this side of Glory, and that do not reach the "breaking point" (i.e. fellowship breaker) or "threshold" of incontestable Heresy; and then there those issues that I refer to as the "weightier matters" where I refuse to give place - No, not for an hour! It is obvious, from your Posts, that you have studied the word of truth and done your own thinking, meditating, and deliberating upon them (which is always dangerous around those who are doctrinaire , i.e. "narrow minded" ;)); that is why it is my hope that you will continue to seek to edify us with those things that God has shown you, and not seek to divide us with a doctrine that can only bring controversy and much contention. I appreciate your honesty and forthrightness in declaring, up front, what you believe (rather than subtly trying to deceive). Let's us endeavor to concentrate on the "weightier matters" brother - there are enough differences of opinion, dissension, discord, and disputes going on amongst the brethren to keep us occupied for some time. :rolleyes: Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. |
Brother George, thanks for asking that question for me!:)
Brother tonybones 2112, I seem to agree with some of your "disagreements", but I disagree with you concerning the beginning of the Body of Christ and with your "drycleaning" conclusion. I would like to ask two more questions: 1. Wasn't Christ made HEAD of the church, which is his body, at the Ascension? (Ephesians 1:22,23) If so, then the body has to be at least begin AFTER that. 2. Also, if water baptism is a sign (and signs are for the benefit of the Jew), then why did Paul baptize Gentiles even without one Jew present (as in Acts 16)? This viewpoint may also vary from most of the brethren's in this forum, but have you ever considered that Paul's water baptism is different from that of John the Baptist's and Peter's in mode and meaning? I don't see water baptism as a sign or a law only for the Jew (the word "baptism" being absent in the KJV OT). So, instead of doing away water baptism, I "rightly divide" the different baptisms, such as, Peter's vs. Paul's. That is, I observe the "ordinancES" (plural, at least two) AS PAUL delivered it (1 Cor. 11:2), and not observe the "ordinances" which is CONTRARY to us (Col. 2:14-16). Concerning your experience being an "outcast", I suffered the same thing with my fellow IFB's and "Ruckmanites". The two groups don't mix here, but I'm glad I haven't really broken fellowship from either as they are solid KJV Bible believers, and many times, we'd go together preaching (and "street preaching") with one mind and heart.:amen: |
Quote:
2. The first water baptism in the bible was in Leviticus 8, the first step in consecrating a Levite priest, the second step being the pouring of oil, a type of the Holy Spirit.To fulfill the prophecy of Exodus 19 to make a kingdom of priests, John The Baptist, of the tribe of Levi, came baptising with water., as he said several times, but One greater than he would perform the second part of the consecration, Christ, Who would "baptize"(pour out to wash)with the Holy Ghost. This is why the Holy Spirit points out in the Scriptures Apollos knew only "the baptism of John" and had to be shown a more perfect way. That's why Paul, a wise master builder, wrote to Jewish-Gentile churches (Rome, Corinth)and administered both "ordinances" and "signs". 1. Water baptism 2. Spirit baptism 3. Tongues 4. Signs 5. Wonders 6. Heal the sick 7. Raise the dead 8. The "Lord's supper" 9 Poisonous serpents will cause no harm. 10. Deadly poisons drank will cause no harm(to be fulfilled in the Tribulation when the waters are made bitter.) I want to engrave two things into stone right now: The book of Acts is a very dangerous place to nest in and build a church denomination or theology from. I told my former Church Of Christ relatives that years before I read Doc Ruckman's words to that effect in his commentary on the book of Acts. The second is that we have to let Paul be what God made him into, a wise MASTER buldier who oversaw the whole project. Paul was the apostle through which God grafted the Gentiles into the Body and the apostle the 12 deferred to as the "prince" of the apostles, NOT Peter. So yes, Paul, a WISE master builder baptized in Acts 16 and then got bit by vipers in Act 28 and threw them into the fire. His ministry exclusively to Israel ended at the end of that chapter/book. Bullinger said the Body began there. No, the Body began at Calvary, the signs ended at Acts 28. Paul mentions the Lord's supper to the Corinthians in the context of stop having orgies at church. When we were on the street with that ministry, every beer bottle and rock, every bag of urine thrown at us was a reminder of why we were there, to tell the lost of Christ's broken body and shed blood for everybody, not Welch's juice and a Zesta saltine. Jesus Christ and the 12 observed the Jewish Passover where Christ showed them the TRUE meaning of the ordinance and Feast. I don't observe it. I'm a Gentile born outside the commonwealth of Israel but made nigh by the blood of Christ, not by immersion in water nor Welch's and a Zesta saltine. If we are going to cherry-pick Messianic Jewish ordinances and signs from the book of Acts, I need to see where church buildings, church letters, and denominations are found in the book of Acts since the only church buildings mentioned were synagogues and meeting in people's homes. Paul went to the Jews FIRST right up to the end of the book of Acts. I go to anybody and everybody. Brother George, I'd be proud to serve in the front lines with you preaching Christ and Him crucified. if you need any further clarification just ask. My dispensationalist brethren are still trapped at Early, Mid, Late Acts. I'm in Acts chapter 29 verse 1. You say there is no Acts 29. Yeah, look in the mirror. Right now, today. Acts 29 is us. The fields are white to harvest, today is the day of salvation. Grace, peace, and much fruit to you. Tony |
I'm Biblestudent, not George!:D
|
"Baptism" is a NT word and not once found in the OT in the KJV.
Water baptism to the Jew is different than the water baptism for the church. Lord's Supper for the Jew has a different meaning than the Lord's supper for the church. 1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. Church ordinances AS DELIVERED BY PAUL are not the same as the ordinances to Israel,which "are contrary to us" (Col. 2:14-16). Kingdom signs and kingdom ordinances were dropped, but Christ delivered through Paul church ordinances. |
The body may be "framed" at the cross, but no one can be in there before Christ was made head. No one is in Christ before Christ.
|
Stephanos, I am unfortunately in the camp with those that believe that the men of God were clearly inspired in formulating the KJB (although not of course like Paul). Further, I also feel that desires and attitudes have certainly changed over the last nearly 400 years. I feel that in the 1600's people of God looked at their life and attempted to conform more closely to the image of God and monitored their behavior while the majority of people today have a strong desire to match what they think God should be to their life today this can only seriously delute our connections with sovereign Holiness.
|
That's a great observation.
I see many people being conformed to this world instead of being transformed by the Word of God. (sadly, in the church as well) Wickedness has many more avenues today than in 1611; as a result, it abounds more and more. Television is the best transmission wickedness has found. It appeals to our senses and is easy to access and requires no effort to absorb...just sit and let it fill you with darkness. Reading the Bible requires one to pay attention and use your mind. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
1Th 4:11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Studying the Scriptures can be laborous to the body (Ecc. 12:12)yet refreshing to the mind. You need to be attentive and in privacy and not concerned with the deacons new Caddy(I Thes. 4:11) but the rewards are many(II Tim. 2:15). Grace and peace. Tony |
Quote:
And, "We have heard of small groups that go even further, claiming that the KJV was written in eternity, and that Abraham and Moses and the prophets all read the 1611 KJV, including the New Testament!" I wonder if the new edition of James White’s “King James Only Controversy” will have solid citations for this type of vague reporting. |
Quote:
|
Amazon has a preview of James White's new revised edition of his anti-King James Bible Only book.
By comparing to White's first edition, it would be easy enough to see if White improved by correcting the problems with deceptive reporting. The preview shows that White retains his foggy definitions, and rather than dealing honestly or with any objectivity, he in fact increases the obscurity level. He says, “They believe that the KJV, as an English language translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant.” The way that reads is as if the English Bible was made by inspiration. It seems like he is being deliberately ambiguous, so that while a KJBO may say that the Bible contains the inspired Word, he writes in a way which implies that the normal KJBO believes that the KJB, and not other Bibles, are inspired, and more, that the KJB was somehow made by inspiration itself. He goes on with a new footnote, which does nothing but add further confusion to his above-quoted statement, “Some advocates try and avoid using the words inspired and inerrant, but when you ask them if there are any errors in the KJV, they will say there are not. If you ask whether a better translation could be made, they will deny the possibility. Hence, whether or not they use the exact terms, the functional position they take is the that the KJV is inspired and inerrant.” Notice that he points to certain who avoid using certain terms, then says what they really believe, all the while implying such individuals are either ignorant or deceptive as concerning their true position. Now, what about those people who believe that the King James Bible is inspired by virtue of it being gathered out of the scattered original language witness, thereby reconstructing by traditional scholarship what was the contents of the autographs? White never addresses such a position at all. Rather he says, “Many of these folks believe that the TR is inspired and inerrant as well”. Of course, I have just shown that the TR editions are not inspired nor inerrant, and that the KJB translators had to gather out of various witnesses the true text and translate it. But White never addresses that, only the absurd position that apparently many believe that Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza must have all been giving an inspired and inerrant text in their various editions!? He says, “it would seem logical”, obviously stressing that word “seem”, “that the text from which the KJV was translated would have to be inerrant if the resulting translation is to be considered inerrant”. This is a straw man. I do not think that many KJBOs believe that the TR was inspired or inerrant, since the TR differs to the KJB. But then, White knows that, which is why he claims that this is the argument for the position, which he can at a later stage completely destroy with a few facts. In all this, we notice that White is extremely fuzzy about what “inspired” and “inerrant” actually mean. Now, I can state my view, which is that the KJB has the inspired Word of God, and that the Word of God is inerrant, and that the KJB is without error. But this is something different than what White seems to be attempting to identify. After White smugly declares that the KJBO believes that the KJB is the Word of God alone (quite preposterous, in that the Patrick, Bede, Luther, Calvin or Queen Elizabeth the First were not using the King James Bible!) White then goes on to claim that we spend our time and effort on comparisons to other translations, and that we must reject all Bibles because the KJB is inspired and inerrant. What White is doing is over-simplifying and stating only part of the facts, at least, the parts that suit him, which he will be able to demolish with ease. There is no leeway, by the way he portrays KJBOs, that they would actually believe that the KJB is supersuccessionary to sufficient forms of Scripture. If the KJB is supersuccessionary, then we are not overtly rejecting other good Bibles. KJBOs are not going to burn Geneva Versions or foreign TR-based translations just because they don’t match the KJB exactly. But White talks about KJBOs being “zealous for the cause”, that is, an intolerance and vindictive hatred toward anything not KJB, so that “all are seen as dangerous” except the KJB, that there is “a massive conspiracy — one which is deceiving Christians right and left”. Was there really a dangerous conspiracy deceiving William Tyndale because he omitted a few verses in his 1526 New Testament? Are the “William Carey Bible Society” part of a dangerous conspiracy because they have supported Bibles which differ in words and concepts to the King James Bible? If White was being fair, he would show why KJBOs would reasonably, according to their own teachings, not use Tyndale or Scrivener’s Textus Receptus. But it should be clear to anyone, that White’s book is not a balanced treatment of the subject, but a biased polemic which has a commitment to destroying any confidence in the King James Bible as the Word of God. |
Thanks Bibleprotector for this post. A novice in Bible version issue like me can be easily confused by cleaverly designed arguments from people like Mr. White. Your explanation has helped me to learn some of their tricks so I can better defend our position. Take care.
|
A very useful thread on this topic (by member Jerusalem Blade) can be found here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/resp...e-aomin-44382/ A collection of threads by JB is listed here, too: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/jeru...ilation-48676/ AMR |
Quote:
The big problem is that because this Calvinist is arguing from a self-defeating position. He allows for changes in the TR. If the TR needs changes, if something is not in true “majority”, if something is not “Byzantine”, he is willing to change it. That is the crack by which the enemy enters. Rather, if we have the absolute and settled KJB, and see that there are no places where it can or should be “improved” or altered, then we are in a safe and strong position. |
Good points, BB.
AMR |
IN regard to Banned Solabiblia post#71
did not God inspire the original and then preserve it in a Language for each Generation? I disagree that God re-inspired the Bible into the English KJV, but rather he preserved it in the English KJV |
Quote:
At the birth of Christ, a key event was happening in world history: the Greek language was common in the East, but the Roman Empire entered a period of great consolidation, where roads, trading and civilisation were enforced to the edges of the Empire. All this was for the future spreading of the Gospel. It is no coincidence that Constantinople fell at the same time, allowing for good Greek copies to travel West, while English was made the national language of England by the fact that the English had no more French possessions, and that the printing press was invented. Thus, consequently, the Greek manuscripts could be gathered into printed forms (TR), and then this would be translated into English, which would consequently allow for the Bible in its highest and best form to be in all the world. We are seeing that the internet is another vital step in the world's history. Roman roads and the rise of the Gospel. The printing press and the Reformation. The internet and the beginning of the times of Restitution. The doctrine of Providence and providential preservation lead us to the King James Bible. |
The truth must prevail over false accusations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De81DV8-j90
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.
