View Single Post
Old 10-20-2008, 02:01 PM
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 57

Originally Posted by tlewis3348 View Post
Okay, let's just get this straight. You believe that the KJV translators were inspired and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated from (at least this is what Peter Ruckman believes and from what I can tell you are ardent supporters of him and his doctrine). I believe, on the other hand, that while the KJV translators did an excellent job, to say that they could actually correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts is akin to saying what the pope says is the infallible Word of God. I believe that if any of the translators were to hear that they would greatly disagree. That said, neither of us are going to be convinced that the other is right so I am just going to stop wasting my time with this foolishness. I have much better things to do with my time than to spend it aruing with people that are never going to admit wrong even when it is extremely obvious.
(bold/underline my emphasis)

"You believe that the KJV translators were inspired...."

My comment: I did not say that.

"... and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated :..."

My comment: Again, wrong premise, wrong conclusion.

Your premise, your "supporting walls:
Preservation of God's inspired, infallible word, is dependent on man's ability.


One of the premises of the bible believers' argument is that the Holy Bible has as its source the LORD God-He wrote it, and is responsible for its preservation(not you, not me, not "scholars/experts with 45 titles before and after their name", not the KJB Translators...................) You/I/we are not to trust other men, including me,and their judgments/ability/power-you will be disappointed time after time. I gave up a long time ago trusting in my heart(it is deceitful and desperately wicked-(Jer. 17:9) and my ability. You are to trust Him, and His ability/power/promise in His word, and this same word, if it is to be believed, and not corrected/doubted, promises preservation without error, and this is dependent on God's ability, God's faithfulness, not man's.

Again, your premise is that the Holy Bible is a work of men. And this faulty, unscriptural premise is how you build your argument/conclusion.

"wasting my time with this foolishness."

My comment:

What is more foolish? Believing on the Holy Bible's own testimony, its witness,the scriptural principle that biblical preservation rests on God's promise and associated power to accomplish it,


instead listening to/believing the "lords" that convinced you that the Holy Bible has not been/is not/cannot be preserved without errors-the same ones that talked you out of your faith in the Holy Bible, and convinced you that the LORD God needs mankind's "help"?

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." Luke 1:1-4

You still seem "uncertain."

Alas-the never ending "Paper Chase"(with a "mind full of mush"-Prof. Kingsfield) for that illusive "the" Bible!

"so I am just going to stop wasting my time"

My comment:

The Lord Jesus Christ many times "walked away" from unbelief, "...Let them alone..."(Mt. 15:14), as it is written

"Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:29-31

"....Neither do I tell..."(Mark 11:33).

"...What I have written I have written."(John 19:22 spiritual application).

In Christ,

John M. whalen