Are Ruckman's claims concerning editions of the KJV in agreement with each other and factually correct?

[Tarheel Baptist]

This KJVO argument is the epitome of a dead horse argument.
I was once told I should be KJVO because it was the true position to take on the English Bible.
As a young budding theologue I accepted it until I determined to write a term paper on the English Bible. I approached it from a KJVO perspective but the evidence I uncovered made me begin to realize how disconnected from truth that (KJVO) position was. Later, the more I actually studied the issue, the more I was convinced that KJVO is as sensible as believing the earth is flat.

Truthfully, Ransom stated the conclusions earlier on this thread:

If the apostles' original mansucripts are lost, but we have many accurate copies, that proves there is no inerrant Bible on this earth that you can hold in your hand and believe.

If the KJV translators' original manuscripts are lost, but we have many accurate copies, that proves God supernaturally preserved the King James Bible as the inspired, inerrant word of God for English speaking peoples.


That is essentially their claims.

 

[tmjbog]

Let's turn up the heat (it's a saying. I'm not causing contention, only controversy):

Matthew 5:22,
ESV: "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment..."
KJV: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."

Mark 3:5 on Jesus: "And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts..."

KJV reader: "Ohhh, Jesus was angry and he had a cause: their hearts were hard"
New Version-Onlyist: "Jesus better stop sinning with that anger or God will judge him... Oh that makes sense, Jesus' crucifixion was his judgment. That sinner. Sinner's can't be God. I'm becoming a Jehovah's Witness." (Btw New Versions must be made to fit the JW's doctrine too, if you weren't aware).

I

You just called Jesus Christ a heretic.

Let's go 3 for 3:

1 Tim 3:16,

KJV: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..."
ESV: "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh..."

Is the KJV saying "without heated argument great is the mystery of godliness"? Is that what controversy means?
No, it means dispute. Without dispute, great is the mystery of godliness.
So according to the ESV, you can't openly disagree (controversy, dispute) with anyone in church. Where do you go to church, a Communist country?

Oh yeah, and the New Versions have been "softened" to accommodate JW doctrine that Jesus is not God manifest in the flesh.
You keep defending those New Versions while attacking "KJV-onlyists" and watch the reprimanding hand of God come down on you.
I'm not feeling bad for you, only a moron claims to be a Christian and attacks the validity of the King James Bible.

I don't know of a place where Jesus Christ stirred up division within the church.

 

[UGC]

"Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land." -Hosea 4:1

Looks like the LORD had a controversy with these heretics devoid of truth and knowledge.

"Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD’S controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel." -Micah 6:2

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

You can see that those causing the division were creating controversies, quarrels & dissensions. What would we call someone who does that within the church?

One of them would be called the LORD.

 

[tmjbog]

Let's turn up the heat (it's a saying. I'm not causing contention, only controversy):

Matthew 5:22,
ESV: "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment..."
KJV: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."

Mark 3:5 on Jesus: "And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts..."

KJV reader: "Ohhh, Jesus was angry and he had a cause: their hearts were hard"
New Version-Onlyist: "Jesus better stop sinning with that anger or God will judge him... Oh that makes sense, Jesus' crucifixion was his judgment. That sinner. Sinner's can't be God. I'm becoming a Jehovah's Witness." (Btw New Versions must be made to fit the JW's doctrine too, if you weren't aware).

Here is what Origien one of the early church fathers had to say about "without a cause" being added to Matthew 5:22

"Since some think that anger sometimes occurs with good reason because they improperly add to the Gospel the word “without cause” in the saying, “Whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment”, for some have read, “Whoever is angry with his brother without cause”


Here is what Jerome, another church father who died in 420AD, had to say about it.

“”Everyone who is angry with his brother.” In some codices the words are added: “without reason.” But in the authentic texts the judgment is definite and anger is completely taken away, since the Scripture says: “Whoever is angry with his brother.” For if we are commanded to turn the other cheek to the one who strikes us, and to love our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us, every pretext for anger is removed. Therefore, the words “without reason” should be erased. For “man‘s anger does not work the justice of God”

Greek manuscripts are mixed on readings with the ones considered "more reliable" not containing it.

 

[tmjbog]

"Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land." -Hosea 4:1

Looks like the LORD had a controversy with these heretics devoid of truth and knowledge.

"Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD’S controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel." -Micah 6:2


One of them would be called the LORD.

Which part of that pertained to the church? Titus 3:10 is talking about one stirring up division/being a heretic within the church (saved Christians).

 

[UGC]

I don't know of a place where Jesus Christ stirred up division within the church.

Jesus did:
"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;"
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:"
"There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings." (Jesus' words caused division)

And again if you try the argument "he's not dividing sheep from sheep, but sheep from goats", you need to go back and read what I said on that because that argument has been completely debunked.

Paul did:
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed... But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

Paul had a controversy with Peter, before them all.

"And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians:"

Paul had a controversy with the Grecians.


Go back and try reading what I said about Jesus dividing sheep from goats without trying to force whatever I say to be wrong in your own mind ahead of time while you're reading, otherwise your biased mindset won't allow you to see what I'm actually saying. You can't fill a cup that is already full. Unlearning is harder than learning, but you must make room in your cup for something new otherwise you will be incapable of learning anything that doesn't only add to what you already believe. You will be incapable of correction, because what's already in your cup can't be changed, even if it's wrong. A very dangerous gamble.

 

[UGC]

Which part of that pertained to the church? Titus 3:10 is talking about one stirring up division/being a heretic within the church (saved Christians).

So not only are you calling Jesus Christ a heretic, the LORD in the OT a heretic (he had a controversy with his people), but also Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles.

And you've completely ignored my comments on the fact that truth comes first, and if that truth causes division, that's how you know who the real members of the church are, because they won't divide themselves away from the truth. You're getting it backwards: you're saying anyone who causes division in the church is a heretic, except you don't even know who the real members of the church are until you allow the truth to divide the sheep from the goats. You're getting the cart before the horse.

 

[tmjbog]

Jesus did:
"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;"
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:"
"There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings." (Jesus' words caused division)

And again if you try the argument "he's not dividing sheep from sheep, but sheep from goats", you need to go back and read what I said on that because that argument has been completely debunked.

Paul did:
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed... But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

Paul had a controversy with Peter, before them all.

"And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians:"

Paul had a controversy with the Grecians.


Go back and try reading what I said about Jesus dividing sheep from goats without trying to force whatever I say to be wrong in your own mind ahead of time while you're reading, otherwise your biased mindset won't allow you to see what I'm actually saying. You can't fill a cup that is already full. Unlearning is harder than learning, but you must make room in your cup for something new otherwise you will be incapable of learning anything that doesn't only add to what you already believe. You will be incapable of correction, because what's already in your cup can't be changed, even if it's wrong. A very dangerous gamble.

Those in the outer area of the temple were involved in commerce. Nothing suggests they were Christians or they would have known better.

I don't see Paul being controversial. I see Peter being controversial by being hypocritical and Paul correcting him in the manner stated in Titus 3:10.

 

[UGC]

Here is what Origien one of the early church fathers had to say about "without a cause" being added to Matthew 5:22

Are you seriously quoting Origen in defense of your argument? (you spelled his name wrong).

Origen was one of the biggest heretics in history. He didn't believe in hell. He was a universalist and given to heavy allegorization of scripture.
Most Jehovah's Witness doctrines can also be traced back to Origen.



Origen is one of the reasons we stay away from the New Versions. My goodness, I have never seen anyone quote him in defense of their positions!

 

[tmjbog]

So not only are you calling Jesus Christ a heretic, the LORD in the OT a heretic (he had a controversy with his people), but also Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles.

And you've completely ignored my comments on the fact that truth comes first, and if that truth causes division, that's how you know who the real members of the church are, because they won't divide themselves away from the truth. You're getting it backwards: you're saying anyone who causes division in the church is a heretic, except you don't even know who the real members of the church are until you allow the truth to divide the sheep from the goats. You're getting the cart before the horse.

I do not know if Titus 3:10 pertains to the old testament. I think it would be a leap to automatically assume that it does.

Truth is important as well as unity. Too much "truth" without unity and you have a one man church. Too much unity without truth and you have a social club. There is a balance in between where you don't have to divide over minor issues. Members do not have to be clones of their dear leader.

 

[UGC]

I don't see Paul being controversial. I see Peter being controversial by being hypocritical and Paul correcting him in the manner stated in Titus 3:10.

It's amazing how everything you say is a backwards twisting of what it actually is.

You invert everything, like a Satanist.

A controversy is an open dispute. Peter was not openly disputing anybody. Paul was the one who stirred up the dispute.

 

[tmjbog]

Are you seriously quoting Origen in defense of your argument? (you spelled his name wrong).

Origen was one of the biggest heretics in history. He didn't believe in hell. He was a universalist and given to heavy allegorization of scripture.
Most Jehovah's Witness doctrines can also be traced back to Origen.

View attachment 975

Origen is one of the reasons we stay away from the New Versions. My goodness, I have never seen anyone quote him in defense of their positions!

He still would have had access to manuscripts that no longer exist today. I see nothing that would suggest removing "without cause" would help support his theology.

 

[UGC]

I do not know if Titus 3:10 pertains to the old testament. I think it would be a leap to automatically assume that it does.

So now your argument is "it was OK to openly dispute people in the Old Testament, but now it's a sin."

I really think you should back out in grace at this point. God is not the author of confusion.

Too much "truth" without unity

Now you're arguing against a new whacky strawman: "too much truth". The only way your flailing argument can work.

I'm literally not going to even bother with this one.

 

[tmjbog]

So now your argument is "it was OK to openly dispute people in the Old Testament, but now it's a sin."

I really think you should back out in grace at this point. God is not the author of confusion.


Now you're arguing against a new whacky strawman: "too much truth". The only way your flailing argument can work.

I'm literally not going to even bother with this one.

Ya, I know silly of me since nothing changed between old and new testament. I mean Christians are still called to stone adulterers and disobedient children. We still must take our sacrifices to the temple and worship on on the Sabbath. I stick by my original-in the absence of information to the contrary I'm not going to assume that Titus 3:10 applies to the old testament.

By too much "truth" I mean that you can get so hung up in the details and require every member of your congregation believe exactly as you do or they are compromising.

 

[tmjbog]

Apparently you've skipped over many of my posts on this.

Twice I've posted in these forums that Erasmus also had access to the same heretical manuscripts as the Universalist cult of Origen, but he rejected them: https://paddlingupcreek.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/erasmus-rejected-vaticanus/

(Source: Al Hembd, Trinitarian Bible Society, Jerusalem, Israel)

Also, you do realize that the manuscripts included late in the game by Westcott and Hort in the New Versions, favored by Origen and the like, are among the most edited manuscripts in history? And again, Dean Burgon of Chichester, who lived at the time, clearly stated they were in disagreement with 99% of the majority of extant manuscripts, while also disagreeing with each other?

How in the world does anyone get the idea that defending the KJV is the position with "no evidence". Other way around, gents! Trying to defend the New Versions is like trying to defend the idea that Epstein wasn't guilty and committed suicide. I hope you're getting paid nicely, and aren't just tools of those who are. A New Versionist who isn't getting paid to publicly defend that position is the ULTIMATE tool.

So you are saying these lines of manuscripts differ 99% of the time but yet the Bibles produced from them have few differences.

 

[UGC]

So you are saying these lines of manuscripts differ 99% of the time but yet the Bibles produced from them have few differences.

...What in the world did you just say...

 

[tmjbog]

Oh yeah, this should be good. So what's your argument that open disagreements were allowed in the OT but now in the NT it makes you a "heretic".

When did God declare a "safe space" over his people? You a Bernie Bro?

Which by the way, according to you you're a heretic. Your openly disputing with me right now.

Never said a disagreement was not allowed. Divisiveness is what Titus 3:10 is talking about.

 

[UGC]

Never said a disagreement was not allowed.

Uh

Here:

A believer (part of the church), regardless of whether they are in a church building or not, who stirs up division and controversy is a heretic.

Remember, you were backwards rationalizing that Titus 3:9 in the ESV (which says controversy, making God and Paul sinners) means it's not allowed because Titus 3:10 in the ESV says reject division (making Jesus a sinner), using circular reasoning to verify the ESV from the ESV that creating controversy is creating division is the definition of a heretic (you pulled "heretic" from the KJV to argue for your ESV's readings), while rationalizing that the KJV says the same thing as the ESV when it doesn't.

 

[tmjbog]

Uh

Here:

Remember, you were backwards rationalizing that Titus 3:9 in the ESV (which says controversy, making God and Paul sinners) means it's not allowed because Titus 3:10 in the ESV says reject division (making Jesus a sinner), using circular reasoning to verify the ESV from the ESV that creating controversy is creating division is the definition of a heretic (you pulled "heretic" from the KJV to argue for your ESV's readings), while rationalizing that the KJV says the same thing as the ESV when it doesn't.

As I've stated, causing division and being a heretic are the same. I don't think the Christians causing division in Titus 3:10 were causing it because they wanted blue curtains instead of green or Lasagna instead of tacos before Wednesday night prayer. Doctrine was the dividing issue. Dividing is not the same as disagreeing. My wife disagrees with me at times but I don't go file for divorce because she's not a clone of me.

 

[Ransom]

He was a divider.

The psycho-fundies can't be against causing division. Their left leg would disfellowship from their right leg if it found out it was wearing pants.