# KJV-o argument



## rmwilliamsjr (Dec 27, 2006)

I could use some help understanding someone's position.

first, it comes from:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30119568&postcount=24



> * Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
> wow. i've never heard anyone claim that the Hebrew and Greek texts are not Scripture!!!
> 
> *
> ...



here is the context:


> The Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus are Scripture.





> First of all --- it's not an "ideologue" --- it's plain blasphemy --- specifically, it's a form of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" --- by attributing an [inerrant] work of the Holy Ghost to the [errant] works of man.
> 
> Second of all --- that statement caught me off-guard. I've never met a person who considered the Masoretic Text and/or Textus Receptus as Scripture.
> 
> Thirdly --- I've gotten over it --- and now consider myself somewhat "anesthetized" to it. Christians are supposed to get upset --- but they have a duty to get over it, too.





> wow. i've never heard anyone claim that the Hebrew and Greek texts are not Scripture!!!
> 
> i even quoted a 400 year old confession that forms the bases for Presbyterian theology in the US to illustrate this point. It is not only a common point but is the common basis for the inerrantist position in the US conservative churches. The original Greek and Hebrew autographs, the closest we have to these is the MT for the OT and the UBS Greek or TR depending on some other issues.
> 
> ...



I don't wish to discuss the KJV-only movement. What i need help on is identifying where this person gets the set of ideas he identifies as:


> AV100 Koine Greek Version
> AV330 Gothic Version
> AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
> AV1389 Wycliffe Version
> ...



the original discussion at CF was deleted it is still available for context at:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...othic+bible&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8


it is obvious that he knows next to nothing about either textual criticism or the history of the English Bible. My immediate problem is to identify where or from whom he is getting this really funny (not as in ha ha) ideas.

thanks.

addendum:
the continuing saga of this poster, boy i need professional help to get involved in this *grin*

*Second though, would be the TR and MT - but they weren't prompted by God to be written, they were probably motivated by the love of money.
*
from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30129393&postcount=35


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 27, 2006)

> King James translators did use parts of TR, but only as a reference tool --- not as a source document.


This fellow apparently doesn't believe the translators themselves:
(from the title page of nearly any KJV)


> translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised


Pardon my denseness, but that sure sounds like the translators were using the Greek and Hebrew texts as the "source" documents, and "referenced" the extant contemporaneous and ancient translations. Oh, wow, it says exactly that in the "translator's note to the reader."


As for his list, it looks like he's claiming that the Bible is "transmitted" into some common or parent translation, and used until hardly anyone speaks that dialect anymore, when God then uses some scholar like Wycliffe to "transmit" the text from old Anglo-Saxon into Old English.

Hence, he can claim that the "source" documents are Middle English prior to the KJV. And they are the "inspired" Bible for some certain time and people, and have to be then the BASIS for the next generation--the KJV.

So, I guess since the KJV is still moderatly readable 4 centuries after it's first impression, it must still be (his view) the one pure Bible for anglos. Makes you wonder what the next pure language Bible will be?!?


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Dec 27, 2006)

*As for his list, it looks like he's claiming that the Bible is "transmitted" into some common or parent translation, and used until hardly anyone speaks that dialect anymore, when God then uses some scholar like Wycliffe to "transmit" the text from old Anglo-Saxon into Old English.
*

i can't seem to find anyone online making this same argument. curious i wonder if it is a single church or a single "Bible teacher" at the source?

addendum:

we've been given these references:


> In Awe of Thy Word, by Gail A. Riplinger
> 
> The Christians Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, by Peter S. Ruckman
> 
> Final Authority, by William P. Grady



anyone read them or have access that can tell me if:
any one of these references refers to these two unique ideas that:
(1)the MT and TR are not Scripture
(2)and that there exists this line of documents:


> AV100 Koine Greek Version
> AV330 Gothic Version
> AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
> AV1389 Wycliffe Version
> ...


as a supernatural inspired set?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 27, 2006)

Riplinger and Ruckman are both KJV-o bigwigs. The worst kind. I would check Ruckman's stuff for such a list. Seems I recall James White had to deal with his claims that the KJV is the inspired Bible for today...


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Dec 27, 2006)

bingo



> Brief preview of Chapter 16
> This is the only history of the Bible that is built almost entirely from the time-buried words of old Bibles, their texts, their prologues, and the eye-witness reports of history’s great Christians, translators, and martyrs. This is an all-new history of the text itself; it proves wrong many of the time-fogged imaginations of modern writers. This and upcoming chapters [of] this book will document the never-before-seen footsteps of the early pre-English scriptures - from the disciples (1st century), century by century, to Wycliffe (14th century) - through direct quotations from the men who actually lived during these times: Tertullian (200s), Gildas (500s), Bede (700s), Asser (800s), William of Malmesbury (1100s), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (700-1200s), and John Foxe (1500s). In these pages this author will share the extraordinary blessing one receives by reading, not about old Bibles and great martyrs, but reading their very words. The English Bible’s seven purifications are covered, including,
> •• The Gothic
> •• The Anglo-Saxon
> ...


from: http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/inaweofthyword.html
the source is:
IN AWE OF THY WORD
by G. A. Riplinger

looks like the outline of his main ideas are here.

anyone familiar with this particular work?


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Dec 27, 2006)

It might be that his point that the MT and TR are not Scripture is a personal misunderstanding. From reading: http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/inaweofthyword.html
i don't see any immediate problems with a denial that the Hebrew and Greek are the original languages.

are any of these 3 references above worth getting?
none in my local libraries and none cheap used in Amazon.

found:
Which Bible Is God's Word? (Paperback) 
by G. A. Riplinger

Final Authority: A Christian's Guide to the King James Bible (Hardcover) 
by William P. Grady

are both affordable, the rest are $20 plus.

any recommendations? (other than doing something worthwhile today with my time, rather than debating a KJV-o)


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Dec 27, 2006)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Riplinger and Ruckman are both KJV-o bigwigs. The worst kind. I would check Ruckman's stuff for such a list. Seems I recall James White had to deal with his claims that the KJV is the inspired Bible for today...



thanks.
got it at:
http://aomin.org/kjvo.html

i'll read it next.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 27, 2006)

Hello Richard,

Some weird/interesting stuff you bring up.

I haven't seen Riplinger's book you mentioned, though I have read a good bit of _New Age Bible Versions_; while some stuff in it is accurate, on the whole it is way off, and she is bitterly opposed to Reformed/biblical theology. Don't spend your money -- if you want to see it, get it through your library's Inter-library loan system. Ditto with Peter Ruckman. I have the book of his you mentioned, and occasionally it is helpful. Yet his manner toward other believers is sinful, and some of his ideas are way off. I could see him saying the Hebrew MT and Greek TR are not Scripture, due to his doctrine that the KJV is directly inspired by God, and the English of it corrrects errors in the Greek (if he says that about the Hebrew too, I'm not sure). Thus I suppose the KJV English would be Scripture, but the Greek not. This erroneous view has been noted by more responsible King James Version defenders.

As for William Grady he is far better than the others mentioned. Nonetheless, he is a stalwart opponent of the Reformed faith. And his book, _Final Authority_, does have that view in parts of it. Still, I think this book is quite worthwhile despite my caveat. You can listen to it on audio at:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Grady/Final_Authority.html

I would suggest the 2nd audio, pages 36-75. On this same web page, his personal testimony was interesting to me.

He has another interesting book, _What Hath God Wrought!_, on Baptist history in America. Interesting reading this with Ted Letis' view of anabaptist influence on the U.S. in mind (& Franky Schaeffer's critique of Christianity in the U.S. as well). It's not easy sorting through all these spiritual-historical views!

If you are solidly against the KJVO position, however, getting his books will likely only further alienate you. Because he is not a "nice" guy, but tough over the textual issues, as Burgon himself was with the Anglican "scholarly" crowd of his day, which latter's agendas were far from genuinely scholarly.

Perhaps you do know, Richard, there _are_ some KJV defenders who are amicable and scholarly, and present the case well.

Steve


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 27, 2006)

I was schooled under Ruckman and have read Riplingers books. I would not believe anything Ruckman or Riplinger say without independent verification.
In Riplingers "new age bible version" she starts out by saying that Dr. Frank Logston was part of the translation commitee and that he now renounces any connection to it. The truth is, according to the Lockman foundation, Logston had no connection to the NASB whatsoever and served in no capacity in the endeavor. He WAS at a prayer breakfast on a couple of occasions. As for Ruckman, he is a hyper dispensationalist and rabid zionist.
He teaches salvation by faith and works in the OT, grace alone in the NT(by free will of course), faith and works in the 7 year "tribulation", and works during the 1000 yr millennium. He also teaches that the anti-Christ will arrive on a spaceship at the Vatican. He teaches that the KJV corrects the greek when they disagree and that the KJV translators were inspired by God.
I did not go to his school, but early in my christian life I read ALL of his books available at the time. I also was associtated with churches that had him in to preach on a regular basis and have met the man in person on several occasions.

http://www.kjvonly.org/bob/ross_black_lip.htm

THE BLACK-LIPPED ANTICHRIST . . . OR, PERSEVERANCE IN "BIBLE READING" PAYS-OFF FOR "POSSEL" RUCKMAN 
by Bob L. Ross

Sometime ago, I received the following from a reader: 

Brother Ross,
Some time back you sent a rather comical note out concerning Ruckman's view of the anti-Christ - UFO in Rome, 10 ft tall... black lips, etc. Was that just a gag, or is it something Ruckman really believes/wrote? If it's something he truly believes, could you point me to a document or something he wrote on that topic?



REPLY: 

I keep getting "questions" about this story, so here it is again: 

It's not a gag at all -- Ruckman actually teaches that the Antichrist will fly in on a flying saucer, land at St. Peter's in Rome, de-saucer, and start kissing people with "two huge black lips," giving them the "Mark of the Beast." He claims he discovered this "revelation" in the "King James Bible" after reading it through "forty times." Here is the story: 

Peter Ruckman ("Possel") has two books which he says are "definitive" writings; one of them is called THE MARK OF THE BEAST. It is in this book in which he imparts his
fabulous revelation about the Antichrist. 

In "The Mark," Ruckman tells all about the Antichrist, or the "Man of Sin" and "Beast," in chapters 4 and 5. But he wants us to know that this knowledge didn't come easy,
and he didn't get it listening to Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, or Charles R. Taylor. He had to put in a lotta-time reading the King James Bible. He says: 

"After searching the scriptures through 40 times fruitlessly, it suddenly occurred to me that I must be ignoring something as plain as the nose on my face. (This is usually the case when a truth is left undiscovered.) Here, all over the country people were talking about 'the mark of the Beast,' and yet no one was producing anything that resembled anything scriptural along the line of the subject. 

"Suddenly in Revelation 13:2, the truth bared itself. (Truth always appears naked because Error steals its clothes!)" (page 79). 

He goes on to explain that the "MARK" is like the "leopard's spots"-- two black "half moons." "If the spots are examined carefully, it will be seen that they most nearly resemble TWO, HUGE, BLACK LIPS pressed against the skin." He goes on with this and says, "The riddle of the Sphinx is solved!" (p. 80). 

He has a picture on page 81 which illustrates a man, a woman, and a child with the "mark" on their foreheads, and over the picture is the heading, "Receiving the KISS of 666!" 

But . . . there's MORE! . . . 

His reading the Bible through "40 times" reaped even greater information about the "Mark of the Beast"! He learned "how" this is going to transpire [read s-l-o-w-l- y for a really "chilling" effect]: 

"Looking northward one sees a peculiar light, as when sunlight reflects on a CAPSULE in orbit. The light increases in size. It disappears on the European side of the globe. Standing around ST. Peter'S in ROME, by the huge, BLACK, North AFRICAN SEX-symbol in ST. Peter'S (the EGYPTIAN obelisk), the crowd of superstitious papists wait with baited breath, and clenched rosaries. A mysterious CIRCULAR-SHAPED OBJECT about 600 feet in diameter and 60 feet thick, slowly descends, basked in iridescent, translucent light. The hum increases till the watchers clap their hands over their ears. 

"Suddenly the noise ceases. THE SAUCER HAS LANDED. As the crowd kneels, crossing themselves with the CURSE OF THE CRUX ('X'), the door opens and out steps a GIGANTIC FIGURE. The figure is bathed in a halo of light, and as it FLOATS DOWN to the ground from the door, TWO FINGERS can be seen raised, and with them the soft, droning, sonorous voice of the 'Christ' is heard: 'PEACE be unto you!!'" 

This is "HIM"! THE BEAST!! Ruckman goes on to say he is "a figure fully TEN-FEET TALL, with a handsomely bearded face." 

"All right, sucker, TAKE THE MARK. . . Go on, take the mark. Let him KISS YOU in the palm or the forehead" (pages 106, 107). 

Despite having this information "bared" to him, Ruckman did not get "everything;" he says, "Many of the details on the coming of this false Christ are STILL LYING HIDDEN in the Word of God" (p. 107). 

Even now, Possel is probably reading the KJV another 40 times, looking for more truth to be "bared" on the "details"! Any month now, he may come-out with an issue of "The Bulletin" in which these "details" will be made known. 

Oh . . . yes . . . I almost forgot this: Ruckman says the Beast will have "a bad right arm and a bad right eye" (p. 108). 

Now, the "Moral" of the story is: 

If you ever go to Rome, be sure you take along a tube or two of Black Lipstick Remover, and if you happen to see a UFO hovering over St. Peter's, it lands and the door opens, and a 10-foot tall, handsome fellow floats down, and he has two huge black lips, a bad right arm, and a bad right eye . . . 

THEN . . . RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

**************** 

Note: You may order tubes of Black Lipstick Remover from the following address (cash with order ONLY; NO REFUNDS). Ask for it "by name" -- "666 REMOVER." Limit 25 tubes per purchase, no more than five purchases per day. Credit Card payments via phone. If you do not receive your Remover before the arrival of UFO BEAST-1, I hope you enjoy the Great Tribulation! You can get a tract from Ruckman on how to be saved by the "plan of salvation" through "keeping the law" in the Tribulation. It is called "Millions Disappear" and sells for 25 cents.


----------



## MW (Dec 27, 2006)

A sound and sensible resource: Plain Reasons for using the KJV Today, by David Silversides.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=12140662448


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 27, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> A sound and sensible resource: Plain Reasons for using the KJV Today, by David Silversides.
> 
> http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=12140662448




Thanks for that link brother! In spite of my bad experience with the Ruckman/Riplinger crowd I still cling to the A.V.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Dec 27, 2006)

thank you very much for:
*I could see him saying the Hebrew MT and Greek TR are not Scripture, due to his doctrine that the KJV is directly inspired by God, and the English of it corrrects errors in the Greek (if he says that about the Hebrew too, I'm not sure). Thus I suppose the KJV English would be Scripture, but the Greek not. This erroneous view has been noted by more responsible King James Version defenders.*

i had never heard this before. the guy defending KJV-o actually got rather upset that i called the MT and RT Scripture so i felt that his passion warranted my further study on the issues. this was the last piece to learn about, thanks. i'll get and listen to the audio files while walking tomorrow morning. Looks like my first encounter with KJV-o is more with the fringes than the mainstream of the movement. i guess sometimes they are the more passionate in any group *grin*. I can respect passion for God even if it is a bit off target, it does beat apathy hands down.


----------



## Tallen (Dec 28, 2006)

I have been slowly putting this list together, mostly by textual critics, so that the neophyte like myself can have a decent place of reference.

Please feel free to reference it, the textual criticism articles are about half-way down the page.

http://www.light-after-darkness.org/articles/articles.php

Blessings.


----------

