[Kottage Kat]

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

[Jeremy]

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.
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.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

THE CONFLICT

James White, in his book, writes that his view on the King James Controversy is that it is a conflict. This is true. It is a spiritual conflict that is playing right now for the minds of Christians everywhere. The battle is to do with truth, and getting the truth to be understood.

ERASMUS’ NEW TESTAMENT

The King James Bible issue is not made or broken on Erasmus, and what he accomplished. The battle is whether or not we have a perfect presentation of the underlying text in an English translation right now on Earth.

James White points to Erasmus and how he decided to portray instrumentally the New Testament, showing human errors, or his critical choices and the annotations in such a way as to deny the infallibility or perfection of Erasmus’ work.

The reality is that Erasmus is only one part of the working of the providence of God, and the ultimate form of the text of the King James Bible lays with the translators themselves, who produced an independent variety of the textus receptus. We see that King James Bible is the final form of the Received Text today.

James White shows how people were criticising Erasmus for going to the Greek, when he could have stayed with the Romanist’s Latin. James White attempts to link this with the doctrine of KJBOists, who say that we do not need the Greek (because we have the Bible in English).

The tremendous difference that James White does not show is that the Vulgate needed to be corrected in light of the Greek Tradition, and that by taking to measure all sources and witnesses, the correct text of Scripture could be recovered. Once that was completed (and it was completed with the making of the King James Translation), there would be no need to go to the Greek or Latin any more. Thus, the KJBO accepts the initial foundation of the original language basis with other witnesses in the forming of the Bible into its final form, quite unlike the ardent Catholic who believed that whatever edition of the Vulgate was in vogue was infallible, and required no correction. The point is that the Vulgate needed correction, whereas the King James Bible comes out of that process of correction (as primarily based upon the Greek with reference to the Latin).

Since the King James Bible has been made from the right springs, and has been checked and used by so many godly men, it is the height of pride, unbelief and foolishness to come up with a doctrine that requires the correction of the King James Bible. Unlike the Vulgate, the King James Bible does not require correction. In fact, going to the Greek today to change the King James Bible is always corruption, impure, error and wrong.

VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS WERE PROFITABLE

Anti-King James Bible only writers like to point out that the translators of the King James Bible wrote that variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures.

The modern version proponent immediately uses this to say how the King James Bible translators must think it is good that there are more modern versions than ever.

But this is not what the translators meant. They said that they were consulting the variety themselves, so that we would have one more exact translation of the holy Scripture in the English tongue. Ultimately, that denies having any other translation of the Scripture except the King James Bible.

In reality, once the variety had been consulted, only one correct text and translation was presented in the King James Bible. Whatever went into the margins was additional, peri-logical or notational. The margins were not provided so that we could pick and choose between them and the text. The margins were not provided to cast doubt on the text. They were there to show other thoughts, including some possible other renderings or translations, which the consensus and sound judgment of the translators rejected.

Many people have studied the Scripture, looked at the margins and the overwhelming judgment of English-speaking Christianity is that the margins are rightly marginal. They are not the very exact sense of the Scripture.

But the modernist tries to use the fact that the margins exist for the very purpose that the translators denied, namely, that they cast doubt upon the knowledge of what actually rightly is the Scripture.

ERROR IN GOD’S PRESERVATION OF THE KJB?

The preservation of God’s Word is providential. The KJB is only the way by which the preservation was finalised. In reality, the Scripture was scattered from the time of the original autographs until 1611, so that the underlying text was never presented correctly in any single manuscript or Bible to that time.

The issue of having a correct text and translation is different to having a perfect presentation.

The KJB was the end result of the gathering of the correct text and translation, however, the KJB itself went through a purification of editions that refined merely the presentation.

Let no one mix up preservation with perfection. Perfection in any single manuscript is unlikely, except for the Autographs and some immediate copies.

The Scripture was not preserved as perfect in a single entity (e.g. no golden plates at Constantinople in the year 1000). The perfect Word was in fact scattered in many MSS, in many witnesses, etc. Thus, there was a gathering process that was occurring, it happened in part in Latin, but primarily in Greek with TR editions, and more importantly with English Versions, and most importantly, finally and supersuccessionally in the King James Bible.

The perfect Word that was in the Autographs must have been scattered, then gathered, and translated into English, so that the perfect Word was recovered, and the preservation was complete. The next state has been the preservation of the perfect text and translation.

As a subset, the purifying work of the presentation of the King James Bible has been to ensure that the perfect text and translation of 1611 has been presented free from any presentational imperfection.

Modern translations display a different text and translation, and they are edited sometimes, and there are presentational errors in them, e.g. typographical errors.

God's providential work in history takes into account (simplistically):
1. the scattering of the text from the autographs to the gathering of the Reformation time,
2. the refining of the main Protestant English translations, and
3. the purification of the presentation of the lineage of proper traditional King James Bible editions.

Moses wrote, "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4).

Moses did not see the whole Old Testament. And yet, we would say that having only five books of Scripture is an imperfect Canon. How could God's work be perfect? Clearly, God's work in history must be taken in the total view. God's work when seen in the big picture is perfect.

In regards to text: The inspiration was perfect. Copies were not. But then God was able to providentially outwork so that there was a perfect critical amassing in one Bible.

Were true Christians saved when they practised only infant baptism? Does God require new born Christians to be fully developed? Why would it be wrong to have the book of God only perfectly rendered in 1611, and no perfect single volume in Earth in, say, 1517 A.D.?

IS THE KJB ALONE = WORD OF GOD ALONE TRUE?

James White has reduced King James Bible only as meaning that there is no other possible Scripture. This implication is false. Clearly, there have been many copies of the Scripture in many languages. Even the Alexandrian copies, as corrupt as they are, exhibit Scripture.

The issue in not the existence of Scripture, the issue is that one manifestation of the Scripture is perfect, namely, that there is a perfect text and translation. In regards to use for the King James Bible believer, the formula “the KJB alone = the Word of God alone” is only true in regards to the final and supersuccessionary form of Scripture. In other words, no Bible ever presented 100% what the Autographs had with 100% accuracy except the KJB. Therefore the KJB should be used as the standard. Indeed, it should be the world standard.

This authority is not because the King James Bible was made by inspiration from 1604–1611 as James White implies is believed. The authority of the KJB as being perfect is because it is a self-authenticating argument, consistent with internal and external evidence.

This is lamely accused of being “circular reasoning”. However, the existence of God Himself is based on “circular reasoning”, therefore, there is a proper, logical and consistent use of the self-authenticating argument in regards to absolute truth. Importantly, it is possible and easy to objectively show the existence of God, and likewise to make great inquiry of the truth of the perfection of the KJB.

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

[bibleprotector]

My friend, the conflict has raged since Guy Fawkes first started collecting gunpowder to blow up Parliament.

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3).

Me and Doc Pete differ, we all differ.

Transformity to Christ is important. If we have the KJB as foundation, we are able to come into a sameness which is right.

James White is another Watchtower/Jesuit propaganda salesman to me, I'll be watching the "controversy".

He has an exagerated view of his own work. Thinking that he can cause a blow against the establishment, he thinks that like a rolling snowball he might trigger great insurrection against the KJB. In reality, snowballs melt in the light of truth.

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).

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3).



Transformity to Christ is important. If we have the KJB as foundation, we are able to come into a sameness which is right.



He has an exagerated view of his own work. Thinking that he can cause a blow against the establishment, he thinks that like a rolling snowball he might trigger great insurrection against the KJB. In reality, snowballs melt in the light of truth.

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).

I look forward to what White "revises" in his book, but it's a hard sell. I'm not impressed with celebrity, I'm not impressed with scholarship, I'm not impressed by numbers.

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

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by fightthegoodfight

I did a youtube review of his book. I go by the handle of grasshoperjax, and initially I did a video where I called him a liar. Of course I should have read his whole book first ( I didn't want to justify wasting money on his propoganda,) but after reading it I posted a 23 part video series where I was able to expose so much error and falsehood in his book, using primarily the Scriptures to show why White's position, along with those who follow him, is totally UNBIBLICAL.

Here is a link of the playlist if you are interested. So far none of White's followers have had any rebuttals to the points I bring up regarding his book:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...A65F64DC4E99E2

Hey brother, glad to have you join. I was wondering when you would ^_^ I'm voidengineer on youtube

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[Kottage Kat]

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.

[kittn1]

Originally Posted by stephanos

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.

[tonybones2112]

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

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

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

Why is it that you keep trying to remind us that you're a hyper-dispensationalist? Is this a fact, or is this what some call you?

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