[Paladin54]

I was discussing with my Theology teacher the latest modern version book, that he recommended The King James Only Debate: A Plea for realism, and I expressed how dated, amongst many things, it was, and we thought up a idea. If you will recall the debate book written by Dave hunt and James White dealing with Calvinism, Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views, that's pretty much what i suggested. What if we had a debate book to show the majority of Christians that we have logical reasons for why we believe what we believe.

I had a couple people just from this forum who I would nominate, however, my teacher informed me that any "Greek scholar" would refuse to meet with any one, especially an advocate, who did not "know the Greek". So my questions are:
1. Do you think that a debate book would be profitable?
2. Do you know of someone "educated enough in Greek" to compete with the modernist opponent?

I now that we ploughman do not need to be educated in a language if we have a book that says the exact same thing in English, since God is not limited to the barriers that man makes, but do we have anybody that could "become everything to the world for Christ"?

[Biblestudent]

Hi Paladin54, how about Dr. Peter Ruckman?

[Paladin54]

Brother Ruckman? I think they hate him too much. I actually hadn't thought of him before.

I wouldn't say that we hate him. However, we do not take him seriously because he makes too many wisecracks and does not present himself in a professional manner.

If your friend, John Hinton, would engage, then it would seem a touch better.

That is from an "outsider."

[Luke]

THe only people that know enough about the KJB, and the reasons for people hating it, are hated by everyone for the simple fact that they teach truth (Riplinger, Gipp, Marrs and Ruckman). Others who claim to hold the KJB as final authority, admit to it being liable to additions and corrections (Cloud for example. While I have found many of his articles encouraging and informative, he has stated that he believes the King James Bible could be updated in some ways.)

also: Deborah Riplinger, I mean Gail, is a woman, and many would object to her debating a man (but that never stopped God letting a woman stand up when the men were too weak).

[bibleprotector]

There are written refutations which I like:

1. Dr Thomas Holland's refutation of James White's deceptive anti-KJBO book.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Holland1.html
2. Will Kinney's refutation of Rick Norris' more scholarly anti-KJBO book.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucke...criptures.html

In my own book (draft available on my website), I address the false notions put forward by Cambridge editors Scrivener (1873) and Norton (2005).

[Luke]

I don't know Thomas Holland, and as much as I appreciate and love Will Kinney and the research he has done into the King James Bible "issue" (it's only an issue with those who hate it :P ), I cannot stomach the calvinist influence that comes through on SOME (not many) of his pieces of writing.

Originally Posted by Luke

Others who claim to hold the KJB as final authority, admit to it being liable to additions and corrections (Cloud for example. While I have found many of his articles encouraging and informative, he has stated that he believes the King James Bible could be updated in some ways.)

I think I've read every article on Cloud's site on the KJB and I have never heard him say that. That he has stated the King James Bible could be updated in some ways. The only thing he has said is that he thinks the Bible for Today's, (Dr. Waite's) defined King James Bible is great. Just bolds the harder to understand words and gives the definition below. I know Gail Riplinger says that we should just depend on the built in dictionary in the KJB. and this may be part of her beef with Dr. Waite and Cloud? To use the Defined KJB is not the same as wanting a revision. I like to look up the words anyway and it just makes it easier to have the definitions below the page.

That is quite a charge, (although a little vague) that you made about Cloud. I hope you can back it up with a quote of his.

Here are some articles written by Cloud re: the KJB. I think you will see he defends the KJB quite zealously.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/questionsanswered.htm

[Diligent]

Perhaps this is what Luke is referring to:

From http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kingjamesonlyism.htm

"I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and lovely translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors. (That is not to say that it cannot be updated or that things could not be translated differently.)"

Like you, (and Luke as he explained earlier), I find a lot of good stuff on Bro. Cloud's web site. His position is clearly better than the majority of fundamentalists on the issue of the Bible. I also have never seen him offer a correction for the KJV.

However, the simple matter is that I take it a step further. The KJV is final, needs no updating, and any translation that disagrees with the KJV is wrong.

Originally Posted by Diligent

Perhaps this is what Luke is referring to:

From http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kingjamesonlyism.htm

"I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and lovely translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors. (That is not to say that it cannot be updated or that things could not be translated differently.)"

Like you, (and Luke as he explained earlier), I find a lot of good stuff on Bro. Cloud's web site. His position is clearly better than the majority of fundamentalists on the issue of the Bible. I also have never seen him offer a correction for the KJV.

However, the simple matter is that I take it a step further. The KJV is final, needs no updating, and any translation that disagrees with the KJV is wrong.

Thank you for the quote. I can see that he did say it and I'm glad I could see the entire article so I can see the whole paragraph. I was surprised when Luke said that about Cloud only because Cloud is continually defending the verses that the textual critics continually bring up and also he defends the King James English used and why we should not change the "archaic" words and the thee's thous and thines...... I can only come to the conclusion that in updates, he may mean spellings, (especially when we see that the 1611 needed that type of updating)? and when he says that there are passages that could be translated differently, I wonder if he means that yes could be translated differently, but not meaning that the KJV is translated incorrectly. He does say he does not believe that the KJB contains any errors, so this is how I draw my conclusion. and like you said he gives no example of any changes that he thinks should be made.

I think it's good that we clarify Luke's remark about Cloud a bit.

In the article he is describing all of the different categories of different KJVO's, which we see on this site. In black bold is the statement in question, with his statement about the KJB being free of error in red.

Here is the whole paragraph.

Let me also emphasize, because I know from past experience that some will misunderstand and misrepresent my position, that I am not encouraging the variety which exists among King James Bible defenders. I'm simply saying this variety is a reality which must be acknowledged. If I had my way everyone would hold the RIGHT position, which is, of course, MY position! (I say that tongue in cheek, of course. I am not so deceived to think that I am right in everything.) I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and lovely translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors. (That is not to say that it cannot be updated or that things could not be translated differently.) I believe that God had His hand upon the KJV in a special way because of the singular role it would play in the transmission of the Word of God during a long and crucial epoch of church history. (This is not to say that I believe it is some sort of “advanced revelation.”) In contrast with the modern English versions, I believe that the KJV is based upon a superior underlying text; it was produced by superior translators; it incorporates superior translation techniques; it demonstrates a superior theology; it embodies a superior English; it was created in a superior era; and it has a superior history.

I can't say that I disagree with anything in the entire article. Cloud is a true defender of the KJB. His knowledge of the issue is incredible.