[Brother Tim]

Manny, (first, I am NOT a student of Dr. Ruckman, just to be clear) the problem with "going to the Greek" is that the tools available today are often very limited (such as Strongs) or are produced by men who themselves do not hold to the same believing view of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Context and cross-referencing is a far better tool, along with definitions from a dictionary as contemporary with the 1600's as is possible. I use the 1828 Webster's (thanks to SwordSearcher!)

I am not saying that Dr. Smith is not a KJBO, only that some pieces didn't quite fit in my opinion.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by George

Aloha brother Manny,

I'll go along with brother Tim's "concerns":

But on the other hand, the man has testified strongly and clearly enough, that I wouldn't argue with him over his stand, or openly "criticize" or "fault" him for his stand. Nor would I hesitate to extend the right hand of fellowship to him. I have no right to demand that all King James Bible believers hold the exact same convictions that I hold, and I don't want to end up being a "gnat" strainer, but I also believe that brother Tim's "concerns" are valid.

Unless or until he proves otherwise I will accept that Shelton Smith is a "Bible believer".

Right. That's my whole "beef of contention". We may not agree on every single detail, but if a man takes a clear stand for the KJB we should thank God for another team member. It just baffles me how that some of our brethren will write someone off over a few technicalities.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Manny, (first, I am NOT a student of Dr. Ruckman, just to be clear) the problem with "going to the Greek" is that the tools available today are often very limited (such as Strongs) or are produced by men who themselves do not hold to the same believing view of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Context and cross-referencing is a far better tool, along with definitions from a dictionary as contemporary with the 1600's as is possible. I use the 1828 Webster's (thanks to SwordSearcher!)

I am not saying that Dr. Smith is not a KJBO, only that some pieces didn't quite fit in my opinion.

Having read your posts in the past I already knew you wasn't a student of Dr. Ruckman. If I implied such it was purely accidental and not intentional and I apologize. I brought up Dr. Ruckman simply to make a point.

I agree that we have to be VERY careful with the Greek and Hebrew references that are out there as most of them are produced by apostates. And I also think that God led the KJV translators to translated the Greek and Hebrew in a way that really provides the best definitions of words even in the Greek and Hebrew if you'll study the word in its context and cross references (in the KJB). However, it is TECHNICALLY not wrong if a person seeks out a definition of a word in its source language (Greek and Hebrew). And I just think that people would be better off (and get along better) by recognizing the difference between a preacher who references the original languages simply out of a pure desire to understand a certain word as opposed to the one who is using the Greek and Hebrew to undermine the KJB.

[bibleprotector]

And I also think that God led the KJV translators to translated the Greek and Hebrew in a way that really provides the best definitions of words

The KJB is not just the best translation, it is a perfect translation, sense for sense.

Smith says, "where the Greek term is theopneustos"

We should accept that the English is right, without having to refer to some Greek monstrosity and then attempt to define the meaning of that barbarian word.

Smith says, "The word pheromenoi means"

Again, God is interesting in letting us know His message in our tongue, not an alien one.

Smith says, "1. We have His inspired Word in the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus text of the New Testament."

Big problems here. First, the KJB men HAD access to the preserved words in those forms, but how can the Masoretic or Textus Receptus be the Word of God for us today, since there is no definite, correct or perfect single form of these in the original languages, and second, those are languages the world does not know today. (Those who think they know seem to disagree with the KJB to some degree.)

God did not inspire His Word in the Masoretic or Textus Receptus, these are simply collections of critical forms which attempt to reconstruct what was originally inspired. That is why Hills said that the KJB is an independent form of the Received Text.

Smith says, "We have His inspired Word preserved for us in other languages as well."

Actually WE do not have that, since WE use God's Word in English. However, we know that God's Word was preserved even in the Vulgate, and that cannot be said to be "based on the TR" as such. In reality, while there is a general preservation, where in many copies there is a sufficient giving of the Scripture, the only place which is showing the conclusion of the preservation, or an ongoing final form, is the KJB. No other Bible in the world is presenting the very TEXT and TRANSLATION as accurately as the KJB does. This is because while the Word of God itself is perfect, incorruptible, etc., the KJB actually presents it fully and utterly in English today. That cannot be found in any single form in any other language today, including the originals.

Smith says, "I love the Hebrew Old Testament! I love the Greek New Testament!"

I can love God's Word, and love the Word I know, but whatever this means (where is the extant perfect Hebrew OT or Greek NT today?) I know not.

Smith says, "But let’s also be careful that we not diminish or dismiss them either."

I think God, in His providence, has laid aside Hebrew and Greek. It is obvious that Hebrew was not used normally in the NT, and that Hebrew and Greek are not used today as a normal speech. God shows that translations are the way He has perpetuated His Word through history, and since we have the world more and more knowing English, surely the English Bible, which is conceptually perfect, is the one to uphold. We do not have to prohibit Hebrew and Greek, simply rely upon the fact that the translators of 1611 got it right, and that since that time many have vindicated the accuracy of the Scripture in our KJB with reference to the original languages generally. I do not need Hebrew and Greek to know the Scripture, or to know that the KJB is right. That is, God's providential signs do not require the originals any longer, though there remains witness of them.

Smith says, "Very simply, if there were no Hebrew and Greek Word of God, you would have no English Word of God. Remember, that’s where we got the English text (from the Hebrew and Greek)."

But since it has been fully given in English now, why defer to Hebrew and Greek in any way? (Or has God's preservation and power failed in English, so that the Hebrew and Greek are actually still required?)

Smith says, "Using the Hebrew and Greek in your study or in your preaching doesn’t make you a “Bible corrector” unless you have a mind to correct the text."

Actually, by even altering the concepts in English today on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek would be changing the meaning of Scripture, even if it is not called "correcting".

The example of referring to "theopneustos" and "pheromenoi" above is clear enough. In this case, Smith tries to build a doctrine not on what the Scripture says and means in English, but on what those babble words mean. By merely subtly deemphasising the plain English words as they stand by some false allegiance to the Hebrew and Greek, this leads to mistakes in interpretation and doctrine.

Smith says, "There is a vast difference between defining and explaining the text and correcting it."

This is true, but putting emphasis on foreign words does begin to negate that the jots and tittles as they stand in English. The English should be sufficient to communicate God’s message. In fact, we should recognise that the KJB is giving God's Word perfectly.

Smith says, "Remember, there is no conflict between the Hebrew/Greek text and the English Bible"

There is no conflict between what was inspired, but there are textual conflicts in that there is no perfect text being presented in the original languages today, as opposed to the KJB being the perfect text, which happens to be a translation.

Smith says, "we can never attain perfection, because we are mere humans ... we hold that preserved inspiration dear and precious in the King James Bible."

Therefore, the text and translation of the KJB should be seen as perfect and accurate. Every word and its meaning should be right. Why would anyone need to go to the Hebrew and Greek to interpret or understand the Scripture, if it is right there in the KJB?

Smith says, "It is a mistake to so maximize the element of humanity (the human writers, etc) to the extent that we cannot see the true source of it all. The maximum attention needs to be placed upon the divine element that has produced the text from the start."

This argument claims that God inspired originally, but does not lay enough stress on the reality that the preserved form is the correctly gathered form of what was inspired. It is not merely that God inspired once far off, but that God has been able to get the entire Word perfectly here and now by his providential preservation to us.

In other words, if we emphasise the distant source, we have no present foundation to begin from. I cannot teach the doctrine of inspiration if I do not first have an authentic record of what was inspired today. Thus, our doctrines and examinations of Scripture must be on the proper basis that God has given His Word to us today, and then see where and how it came. Then when we say that it was inspired, we can then argue successfully that since this book says it was inspired long ago, we can understand that the same God who inspired would preserve, because that the Gospel today that we know must be the same that was set in motion from its beginning.

Ro 10:8 "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach"

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

Well I guess I better give my opinion because I really don't have something up my sleeve. I just really want to know what others opinions are on Shelton Smith's position on the KJB.

Personally, I say YES. He is a Bible-believer according to what he wrote in the article. However, I keep hearing from others that Shelton Smith is not a Bible-believer or that he is just taking a compromising position on the KJB that doesn't go far enough. Yet this doesn't jive with what I'm reading in Shelton Smith's writings. So the reason I made this thread is simply to hear (read) the opinion of some of the good brethren here as to what it is that they may think Shelton Smith is lacking in his position that would qualify him to be a true KJB believer (all the way - 100%). Because again, I'm reading his stuff and he is clearly stating that he believes the KJB is the inspired, infallible, preserved, pure words of God in English. So what is that I'm missing?

Manny, every man or ministry has it's supporters and detractors. If you go to Dr. Ruckman's website you can download his monthly bulletin in .pdf file back to the year 2004. For a number of months he ran a series about Smith that seems to contradict this page and statement you posted. You can read Doc Pete's stuff and also Google Smith on this topic. I don't read SOTL simply because I guess, and this may be a character flaw in me and possibly arrogance on my part, I consider my Biblical study and conclusions to be quite a bit advanced beyond what they teach and what their doctrine is. John Rice was a good man but he made no secret of his love for his ASV and though he was a light year wide on his topics he was maybe a half inch deep. Christianity is not a lifestyle, Christianity is warfare. Curtis Hutson didn't care for any kind of conflict or rebuke. Jack Hyles? Fugettaboutit. You couldn;t get me within 20 light years of Hyles. I thought the man was a Pharisee and if Nixon had had Hyles in charge of the Watergate coverup, Nixon would be remembered with praise rather than condemnation.

I'm like Luke brother Manny. I tend to interact and make value judgments on Christians on an individual basis. If you locate any information that runs contrary to this statement of Smith's I'm sure many would be interested in seeing it.

Grace and peace to you

Tony

[Manny Rodriguez]

Bibleprotector,

You read too much into people's words.

Theopneustos is not a Greek "monstrosity". It is simply the Greek word that underlies "given by inspiration of God" in the KJV. That you would refer to what God Himself preserved for us as a "monstrosity" is borderline blasphemous.

I don't see where Shelton Smith emphasized the Greek and Hebrew over the KJB as you imply. What I see is Shelton Smith saying that we should recognize that had it not been for the Received Texts, the collection of God's inspired and preserved words, we wouldn't have the KJV. And this much is true. I don't see that statement as undermining the KJB at all. Rather I see that statement as bolstering the KJV as God's Words in English. Plain and simple.

And I agree that the KJV is more than sufficient to define itself. Yes it is perfect. But again, there is nothing anywhere that says that it is wrong for a person to recognize the Greek or Hebrew word that underlies the KJB.

God's words will always be God's words. They do not expire. And so Shelton Smith is correct in recognizing the Received Texts as God's words in the original languages. You say that God has laid aside the Greek and Hebrew because they are "not used today as normal speech". But by that argument you would also invalidate the KJB because the KJB is not written in "normal speech" either. In fact, what a lot of Bible-believers don't even realize is that nobody EVER spoke the type of English that is used in the KJB, not even in the 1600s.

Now I agree that the KJB is the final authority that God has given mankind today. But to say that the Received Texts magically ceased from being God's inspired and preserved words is absurd. God's words will ALWAYS be God's words.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Manny, every man or ministry has it's supporters and detractors. If you go to Dr. Ruckman's website you can download his monthly bulletin in .pdf file back to the year 2004. For a number of months he ran a series about Smith that seems to contradict this page and statement you posted. You can read Doc Pete's stuff and also Google Smith on this topic. I don't read SOTL simply because I guess, and this may be a character flaw in me and possibly arrogance on my part, I consider my Biblical study and conclusions to be quite a bit advanced beyond what they teach and what their doctrine is. John Rice was a good man but he made no secret of his love for his ASV and though he was a light year wide on his topics he was maybe a half inch deep. Christianity is not a lifestyle, Christianity is warfare. Curtis Hutson didn't care for any kind of conflict or rebuke. Jack Hyles? Fugettaboutit. You couldn;t get me within 20 light years of Hyles. I thought the man was a Pharisee and if Nixon had had Hyles in charge of the Watergate coverup, Nixon would be remembered with praise rather than condemnation.

I'm like Luke brother Manny. I tend to interact and make value judgments on Christians on an individual basis. If you locate any information that runs contrary to this statement of Smith's I'm sure many would be interested in seeing it.

Grace and peace to you

Tony

Actually, I've already read what Dr. Ruckman said in the very editions of the BBB that you referred to, which is part of the reason why I brought up this thread. I see what others say about Shelton Smith and than I read what Shelton Smith himself writes about what he believes in plain English and the two just don't jive.

And I do agree with you and Luke that people should be judged on an individual basis. Trust me, I've spoken in almost 100 churches in the past year and a half and I know quite well the error of judging people based on their camp, college, circle of friends, etc.

[bibleprotector]

Theopneustos is not a Greek "monstrosity".

A Trojan horse could be described as a "monstrosity". But I was meaning, a large, strange word which has no meaning to a normal English-speaker.

It is simply the Greek word that underlies "given by inspiration of God" in the KJV.

I am sure that God did not inspire with English letters, but Greek ones. Anyway, the issue is not the reality of the existence of the word. The issue is that Greek words are being used rather than the English ones in our Bible. You must agree that the word “Theopneustos” is not in the King James Bible. Since all the Word of God is there, we do not need say “Theopneustos” to teach a doctrine or interpret Scripture.

That you would refer to what God Himself preserved for us as a "monstrosity" is borderline blasphemous.

How could a large, strange Greek word be what God has preserved for us? God’s preservation power is enough to get His Word to us in English. God is not exercising His power to keep the Greek for any special reason. Not one Scripture indicates that either the Greek or Hebrew are needed today, or that God’s preservation is linked into those languages especially.

Look at Romans 16:26 as an example.

I don't see where Shelton Smith emphasized the Greek and Hebrew over the KJB as you imply.

By simply using the Greek to teach a doctrine is in some way rejecting the KJB as it stands. Why can’t he teach a sound view of inspiration and preservation without the Greek? The problem isn’t that he uses a Greek word as such, the problem is that the use of Greek is somehow obligatory, defended and required. It is as if it gives authority to the doctrine, or makes the speaker appear learned, or is the right thing to do.

But again, there is nothing anywhere that says that it is wrong for a person to recognize the Greek or Hebrew word that underlies the KJB.

Of course that is not wrong. The problem is that there is no single source in the original languages which is perfect today. And it becomes risky when a person starts to study their Bible with reference to the original languages, especially when they begin to interpret and give doctrines with reference to them, because inevitably this means departing from the KJB as it stands. Since the KJB is perfect, it would logically mean going away from perfection.

They do not expire. And so Shelton Smith is correct in recognizing the Received Texts as God's words in the original languages.

But to whom are they God’s words today? Since people do not use those languages, they cannot be the means by which God has chosen to communicate today.

You say that God has laid aside the Greek and Hebrew because they are "not used today as normal speech". But by that argument you would also invalidate the KJB because the KJB is not written in "normal speech" either. In fact, what a lot of Bible-believers don't even realize is that nobody EVER spoke the type of English that is used in the KJB, not even in the 1600s.

The KJB is in English. That is the language which we speak. Now, the form of English is Biblical English, and that is unique, but it is conducive to normal English. That means that English-speakers can understand the KJB. There is a huge gulf between an English-speaker hearing the KJB and an English-speaker hearing Bible Greek and Hebrew. It is so obvious that Greek and Hebrew have become redundant. Everything has been gathered out of them so that it is all in English now. Their usefulness as sources has been outlived, but this does not mean that the copies and manuscripts should disappear. What it means is that our receiving of Scripture and our studies of it must be today in something we hear and believe, something which we see that we hold in our hand. That has to be the English Bible, not a Greek Testament.

But to say that the Received Texts magically ceased from being God's inspired and preserved words is absurd.

Who said anything about magic? All I say is that the original languages are not God’s Word to us because they are not comprehensible to us. God is not keeping His Word mysterious.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

Actually, I've already read what Dr. Ruckman said in the very editions of the BBB that you referred to, which is part of the reason why I brought up this thread. I see what others say about Shelton Smith and than I read what Shelton Smith himself writes about what he believes in plain English and the two just don't jive.

And I do agree with you and Luke that people should be judged on an individual basis. Trust me, I've spoken in almost 100 churches in the past year and a half and I know quite well the error of judging people based on their camp, college, circle of friends, etc.

We're on the same wavelength my friend. I don't know Smith, I didn't even know Curtis Hutson had died till a few months ago. There is an entire subculture out there, pardon the phrase, an alternative lifestyle, called "fundamentalism". I don't keep up with it. I know Dr. Ruckman points his rifle at someone and I guess expects everyone else to point their rifle at them too. I know he was right about Gary Hudson; I had a dialog with Hudson till he found out my "position" was that the KJV was given by inspiration and that God worked through it, he called me a "Ruckmanite". which was kind of him since I called him an Original Manuscript Fraud. On the other side of the coin when Jack Hyles got busted for adultery Ruckman took Hyle's "side" because Robert Sumner and several other "fundamentalists" made the silly mistake of accusing Hyles of holding to "the Ruckman position on the KJV". I appreciate and share Doc Pete's zeal for the KJV, Charley Manson held the position that the KJV was the word of God, but that in no way excused him being a mass murderer. Sumner was casting spears, Ruckman was using Hyles to cast spears at anti-KJV folks. With Dr. Ruckman's crowd, Hyle's "problems" didn't seem to be the issue, only that mean nasty anti-KJV folks were attacking him, a "KJVO", so they must have been wrong about Hyle's "other" problems too. Whether Hyles believed the KJV was the word of God or The Godfather was the word of God is not the issue: he was making whoopie with his secretary for 20+ years, ruined a family, and threw even more wood on the fire that was barely put out with the Bakker/Swaggart scandals.

I guess my point is that I'm gonna check out for myself whether or not an accusation against anybody is true or not. I respect and hold Dr. Ruckman in high esteem for his stand and teaching, but he can do and say things sometimes makes a stone statue shake it's head.

Grace and peace brother Manny

Tony

[Manny Rodriguez]

Bibleprotecter,

Since you basically repeated everything you said the first time you posted on this thread I will only respond to a something that continually pops up in your many words.

You keep bringing up this thing about "to us". God's words "to us".

It's pretty obvious that to the English speaker God has provided His infallible Words in the KJB. It is also well understood by everyone that the type of language in the Received Texts are no longer in use. Therefore, it is best for the English speaker to simply trust God's perfect Words in English - the KJB - rather than feel obligated to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar in order to understand God's words. Such is not necessary.

However, just because the Greek and Hebrew is not our language today does not mean that there is absolutely no benefit in the original languages in regards to the definition of words. Many people will argue, "Don't waste your time with the Greek and just look up the word in the 1828 Webster's dictionary." Yet how do you think Mr. Noah Webster came about his definitions of words. He dissected those words and resorted to their origins (many of which was Greek - check it out). The point is that there IS a benefit that can be had in referring to the Greek and Hebrew when studying the definition of a certain word. And by doing so, the Bible student is not undermining the KJV by simply availing himself of the very resources that God Himself preserved. Does he HAVE to do this? No. But is he wrong, or apostate, or a Bible corrector if he does this? Not at all. And there's nothing written ANYWHERE or revealed by God that says he is.

Again, God's words never expire. God's words will ALWAYS be God's words.