Search results

The quote is on page 146 in the edition I have. I double checked to make sure that I did not make a typing error in the page number. I have a later edition that states that it was reprinted in 1999 on the copyright page. The copyright page does not say it was revised, but perhaps...

Thanks for admitting that KJV-only out-of-context quotes confuse and don't edify. You demonstrate that KJV-only advocates do not practice what they preach. Unwilling and likely unable to present any positive, clear, consistent, convincing, sound, just, true, scriptural case for human KJV-only...

Perhaps you reveal that you are the one trying to distort Ruckman's stated view of Luther's German Bible since you ignore and avoid the other statements that Ruckman himself made. Your own incorrect allegations would condemn your own seeming attempt to misrepresent some of Ruckman's stated...

Did Peter Ruckman recommend and advocate two differing final authorities--the KJV and Luther's German Bible? Peter Ruckman recommended “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible...

I have read completely several books written by Peter Ruckman. D. A. Waite and perhaps some other KJV-only advocates attempt to assert that only the followers of Peter Ruckman should be identified as being KJV-only advocates. Waite misrepresents and distorts some of Ruckman's views in order...

The poster did not claim that Peter Ruckman was a OT prophet in the third paragraph. He claimed that he was a false prophet. There could be false prophets in NT times just as in OT times.

Where did the poster assert that Peter Ruckman was an OT prophet? Would you deny that there were NT prophets? Have you demonstrated that the scriptural tests for a prophet would not apply to NT prophets? Would blind followers of Peter Ruckman seek to dismiss and avoid scriptural truths?

Had the KJV-only view's trusted Church of England scholars in 1611 easily figured it out since they suggested that the NT writers quoted from the Greek Septuagint? Does your assertion suggest that the critics who made the KJV were not so well informed and studied on textual matters? The Greek...

The two lines argument has not been proven to be true, and it has not been proven that the two claimed lines were kept completely separate without any mixture. You ignore the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV made use of texts and translations that KJV-only advocates places on...

It is typical for KJV-only advocates to throw out terms of accusation without defining them and without proving them to be true. KJV-only advocates themselves could be soundly considered Bible truth rejecters since they in effect reject the scriptural truth against showing partiality to one...

Sometimes KJV-only advocates seem to be blind, blind to their use of fallacies in their human KJV-only reasoning, blind to their use of unjust divers measures [double standards] in their comparisons of Bible translations, and blind to their showing of partiality to one exclusive group of Church...

Perhaps and perhaps not. You merely assume that the NT writers translated OT passages into Greek, but it is one of two or three possibilities. There is the other possibility that it was God who gave them the words in Greek for the OT passages in Hebrew without the NT writers themselves having...

How do you know that your assertion is correct? Are you assuming instead of proving your assertion to be true? Does the New Testament directly say whether any of the apostles or NT prophets directly did any translating themselves in the NT words that proceeded from the mouth of God by...

This is another example of how KJV-only advocates reveal that they do not apply the exact same measures/standards justly.

Proclaiming unproven and wrong conclusions and making unproven allegations and personal attacks against believers is not giving light. It is spreading darkness. It is clear that KJV-only posters fail to obey clear commands in the KJV such as the command to prove all things. They refuse even...

The NKJV is the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense as the 1611 KJV is the word of God translated into English and as the 1560 Geneva Bible is the word of God translated into English. KJV-only advocates play games and try to avoid accepting the KJV as what it actually is...

KJV-only advocates do not present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, scriptural doctrine for their human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning.

Does a consistent, just application of your own assertion maintain that the fact that the Church of England critics/revisers in 1611 made use of multiple, textually-varying sources lead to the same inevitable conclusion? Perhaps you demonstrate that you jump to a wrong conclusion since you fail...

Along with making vain, empty boasts and displaying pride in their own imperfect human reasoning, do KJV-only advocates use carnal smear tactics and name-calling to avoid their burden of proof?

Yes, Christians are instructed to speak the truth. I read one story that claimed some violent offenders were poised to be released in the release concerning the virus. I looked for that article, but I did not find it. Here is a link to a different article...