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

[UGC]

Ignore those two, Twisted. Their only function on this forum is to troll and insult others while accusing the people they troll of being trolls.

I'll continue to provide actual information for people to consider:

You want more facts? Here's just one of hundreds of obvious heresies found in the New Versions vs. the KJV:

Titus 3:10,
ESV: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,"
KJV: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"

John 7:43, Jesus divides the crowd
ESV: "So there was a division among the people over him."
KJV: "So there was a division among the people because of him."

Jesus was constantly saying things that divided people. He did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
He is the only way, the truth, and the life. He did not smooth over his words to make them more marketable to a wider target audience of multiple denominations. He was not ecumenical for Bible sales.

If you follow the New Versions, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus, for he stirred up division, and more than once. No, we reject a heretic, the most common heresy in the church today being false unity: one world in tolerance of heresy.
The New Versions tell you to reject truth that divides the sheep away from heretics in favor of kicking out anyone who causes division, which protects false unity, and to reject Jesus himself. It is Anti-Christ doctrine.

This is just one of hundreds, hundreds of facts from scripture alone, not to mention quotes from the translating board members of the New Versions who openly admit they changed God's words that "grate on the ears" in order to make them more palatable to a wider ecumenical audience of denominations. The love of money is the root of all evil.

 

[tmjbog]

Ignore those two, Twisted. Their only function on this forum is to troll and insult others while accusing the people they troll of being trolls.

I'll continue to provide actual information for people to consider:

You want more facts? Here's just one of hundreds of obvious heresies found in the New Versions vs. the KJV:

Titus 3:10,
ESV: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,"
KJV: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"

John 7:43, Jesus divides the crowd
ESV: "So there was a division among the people over him."
KJV: "So there was a division among the people because of him."

Jesus was constantly saying things that divided people. He did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
He is the only way, the truth, and the life. He did not smooth over his words to make them more marketable to a wider target audience of multiple denominations. He was not ecumenical for Bible sales.

If you follow the new versions, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus, for he stirred up division, and more than once. No, we reject a heretic, the most common heresy in the church today being false unity: one world in tolerance of heresy.
The Satanic New Versions tell you to reject truth that divides the sheep away from heretics in favor of kicking out anyone who causes division, which protects false unity, and to reject Jesus himself. It is Anti-Christ doctrine.

This is just one of hundreds, hundreds, hundreds of facts from scripture alone, not to mention quotes from the translating board members of the New Versions who openly admit they changed God's words that "grate on the ears" in order to make them more palatable to a wider ecumenical audience of denominations. The love of money is the root of all evil.

So you have stated which of the two renderings you prefer. But I could care less which one fits my (or your) doctrine better. I want the closest reading to what was originally given to the apostles.

 

[logos1560]

If you follow the new versions, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus, for he stirred up division, and more than once.

Actually your conclusion does not necessarily follow. Does your conclusion actually take into consideration the different contexts or do you take the verses out of context?

Would you try to suggest that dividing sheep from goats is supposedly the same exact thing as dividing sheep from sheep?

Are you really unable to see that there would be a big difference between stirring up division in a local congregation of believers and the proper division of a crowd or multiple of people into those who chose to believe and follow Christ and those who choose not to believe?

Would you suggest that Jesus Christ, the head, stirred up division in His body?

 

[UGC]

Actually your conclusion does not necessarily follow.

Actually it does.

Keep reading

Would you try to suggest that dividing sheep from goats is supposedly the same exact thing as dividing sheep from sheep?

Oh, trying our hand at mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious, are we?

Here's the simple answer to your question: Jesus uses division as the means to identify who the sheep are from the goats, otherwise we wouldn't know if it's sheep and sheep or sheep and goats in the first place: you need to know who the sheep are before you can even make that distinction.

For us: you can't know who they are until you speak truth and allow it to divide people, therefore rejecting anyone who causes division is moronic, because you're banning your means of discerning who the sheep are in the first place, meaning you wouldn't know if you're dividing sheep from sheep or sheep from goats.

First of all, Jesus brings a sword to divide everyone on earth:
“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:” -Luke 12:51
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." -Matt 10:34

Also, the analogy of a sword implies the "sword" is a usable object. Like a book. The Bible. Not scattered variations of readings in disagreeing manuscripts separated from each other around the world. The sword is not dragon balls.

So on earth, how's family:
"For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." -Luke 12:52-53

Jesus constantly divided:
"There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings." -John 10:19

Now again, what does this verse in the New Versions say?
ESV: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him," -Titus 3:10 ESV

But what does the Bible say?
KJV: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"

And finally, what is the most common heresy in the world today?
False unity. Portraying division and anyone who causes division as evil, as those "stirring things up", in protection of this unity. Manifested in: Socialism. Communism. Censorship. Passivity. Effeminate men. Tolerance.

Jesus stirred things up. Jesus caused division wherever he went. So did the Apostle Paul:

"And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut. And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul. Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done. And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude: and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle. And when he came upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people. For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him." -Acts 21:30-36

"And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation." -Acts 16:16-17

 

[logos1560]

Oh, trying our hand at mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious, are we?

You have it wrong.

It is KJV-only advocates who try their hand at mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging their unproven premises that involve the use of fallacies and to avoid admitting the clear KJV-only use of unjust divers measures [double standards].

 

[tmjbog]

Ignore those two, Twisted. Their only function on this forum is to troll and insult others while accusing the people they troll of being trolls.

I'll continue to provide actual information for people to consider:

You want more facts? Here's just one of hundreds of obvious heresies found in the New Versions vs. the KJV:

Titus 3:10,
ESV: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,"
KJV: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"

John 7:43, Jesus divides the crowd
ESV: "So there was a division among the people over him."
KJV: "So there was a division among the people because of him."

Jesus was constantly saying things that divided people. He did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
He is the only way, the truth, and the life. He did not smooth over his words to make them more marketable to a wider target audience of multiple denominations. He was not ecumenical for Bible sales.

If you follow the new versions, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus, for he stirred up division, and more than once. No, we reject a heretic, the most common heresy in the church today being false unity: one world in tolerance of heresy.
The Satanic New Versions tell you to reject truth that divides the sheep away from heretics in favor of kicking out anyone who causes division, which protects false unity, and to reject Jesus himself. It is Anti-Christ doctrine.

This is just one of hundreds, hundreds, hundreds of facts from scripture alone, not to mention quotes from the translating board members of the New Versions who openly admit they changed God's words that "grate on the ears" in order to make them more palatable to a wider ecumenical audience of denominations. The love of money is the root of all evil.

The division being spoken of in the two verses is not the same. In Titus 3:10 it's speaking of one who stirs up division within the church. See below starting several verses before Titus 3:10 and you can see it's talking about saved people and warning about stirring up division within the church. A "person who stirs up division" makes sense here as long as you understand you are talking about within the church as the preceding verses show. A warning regarding sowing division within the church does not conflict with a warning that there would be division within the world because of Christ.

Titus 3:6-10
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8¶This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
9¶But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;


The division being spoken of in John is regarding the world. The debate among these people were whether Christ was the Savior or not. Here you would fully expect division between the those who believed and those who did not.


John 7:40-43
Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.

Jhn 7:41
Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?

Jhn 7:42
Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

Jhn 7:43
So there was a division among the people because of him.

 

[tmjbog]

Then I'm sorry, but you're a moron.

One of the two renderings cannot work without the inevitable conclusion that Jesus Christ sinned by causing division and now we must reject him. Fact. Otherwise you ignore the plain readings.

If you read in context one verse is talking about division within the Church-which Christ did not come to create division within the church. The other verse is talking about division within the world. Christ definitely will and does create division within the world.

 

[logos1560]

If you follow the new versions, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus, for he stirred up division, and more than once.

Your tactics could be considered to involve use of the fallacy of false dilemma as you indicate an incorrect attempt to attack and smear "new versions" so that you incorrectly assume and suggest that the only alternative or other choice would be the KJV.

Your unproven premise or claim that the KJV is the most accurate English version may involve use of the fallacy of begging the question since you have not proven that the KJV has the most accurate rendering of every preserved original-language word of Scripture. Instead you take a few selective examples, and you assume from them concerning the entire translation; thus, you assume too much from too little, which may involve use of the fallacy of composition.

You avoid the different contexts and ignore the fact that the KJV translators translated the same Greek word translated heresies in the KJV in other verses as "sects." The dividing of sheep from goats is not at all the same thing as dividing believers into sects. Your comparison is invalid. You fail to prove your bogus accusation that the new versions are supposedly rejecting Jesus to be true.

 

[John20]

You want more facts? Here's just one of hundreds of obvious heresies found in the New Versions vs. the KJV:

Titus 3:10,
ESV: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,"
KJV: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"

John 7:43, Jesus divides the crowd
ESV: "So there was a division among the people over him."
KJV: "So there was a division among the people because of him."

Jesus was constantly saying things that divided people. He did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
He is the only way, the truth, and the life. He did not smooth over his words to make them more marketable to a wider target audience of multiple denominations. He was not ecumenical for Bible sales.

If you follow the new versions, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus, for he stirred up division, and more than once.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans16:17 KJV

So, seeing what it says in Romans 16:17, do you also say that if you follow the King James Bible, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus?

 

[Twisted]

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans16:17 KJV

So, seeing what it says in Romans 16:17, do you also say that if you follow the King James Bible, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus?

Welcome!

Your question makes no sense, but keep trying.

 

[logos1560]

If you follow the new versions, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus, for he stirred up division, and more than once

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans16:17 KJV

So, seeing what it says in Romans 16:17, do you also say that if you follow the King James Bible, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus?

Your question applying another poster's incorrect reasoning justly would make good sense to thinking believers.

KJV-only advocates seek to dodge and dismiss your valid question.

 

[Twisted]

Your question applying another poster's incorrect reasoning justly would make good sense to thinking believers.

KJV-only advocates seek to dodge and dismiss your valid question.

So JonJon and Logos666 thinks asking a question that claims Jesus caused division and offenses by getting people to follow the very doctrine Jesus Himself established, so you should now reject Jesus, is a "valid question if you are a thinking believer".

This is the insanity of those infected with Ruckman Derangement Syndrome.

These kind of comments make Smellin' look like a Rhode Scholar.

 

[tmjbog]

So JonJon and Logos666 thinks asking a question that claims Jesus caused division and offenses by getting people to follow the very doctrine Jesus Himself established, so you should now reject Jesus, is a "valid question if you are a thinking believer".

This is the insanity of those infected with Ruckman Derangement Syndrome.

These kind of comments make Smellin' look like a Rhode Scholar.

This was the agrument from UGC:
"Titus 3:10,
ESV: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,"

John 7:43, Jesus divides the crowd
ESV: "So there was a division among the people over him."
KJV: "So there was a division among the people because of him."

If you follow the new versions, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus, for he stirred up division, and more than once."

The argument above in summary is that since the ESV states you must reject one who stirs up division according to Titus 3:10, then you must reject Jesus since it is shown in John 7:43 in both KjV and ESV that he indeed caused divisions. Now in light of the following verse:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans16:17 KJV

You can see that according to the KJV Rom.10:16-17 the Christian is told to avoid those who cause divisions. And since UCG already showed us in 7:43 that Jesus did cause divisions we would according to UCG's logic have to avoid Jesus according to KJV.

 

[Ransom]

So JonJon and Logos666 thinks asking a question that claims Jesus caused division and offenses by getting people to follow the very doctrine Jesus Himself established, so you should now reject Jesus, is a "valid question if you are a thinking believer".

So the question doesn't apply to you. What's the problem?

 

[Ransom]

So, seeing what it says in Romans 16:17, do you also say that if you follow the King James Bible, it is a fact that you must reject Jesus?

Coming soon: UGC will arrive and blather at length (using lots of boldface) to "explain" why his claims don't apply to his claims. There's always an exception for the Blessed Version KJV.

 

[Ransom]

Coming soon: UGC will arrive and blather at length (using lots of boldface) to "explain" why his claims don't apply to his claims. There's always an exception for the Blessed Version KJV.

Nailed it again.

 

[tmjbog]

Can you read? At all? AT ALL? Lol!

"mark them which cause divisions and offences CONTRARY TO the DOCTRINE" (also known as a HERETIC)

The new versions tell you reject anyone who "stirs up division", nowhere in that passage does it mention that the person causing the division must also be a heretic.
Well Jesus sinned when he whipped people out of the temple, then.

You people don't believe what the KJV OR the new versions say, you only believe what you want and refuse to see any evidence to the contrary. Your blindness is astounding.

The best part is: there are hundreds of other verses that are even harder to avoid than just this one. Video coming soon.

If you pull lines of scripture out without regard to context you may arrive at that opinion. However if you back up a few verses in Titus you will see that the divisions being spoken of in Titus 3:10 were within the church. Christ will cause division in the world. He is not the cause of division within the church.

 

[tmjbog]

I'm going to put Gail Riplinger in this video just to piss you all off

Please do! The part where she uses acrostic algebra and talks about the NiV is evil because, well... the Titanic sank.

 

[Twisted]

Please do! The part where she uses acrostic algebra and talks about the NiV is evil because, well... the Titanic sank.

CNN Headline: tmjboggeddown reports that the NIV sank the Titanic

 

[tmjbog]

CNN Headline: tmjboggeddown reports that the NIV sank the Titanic

No that was Gail's reporting. I don't want to take credit for something I didn't do. Link to video/audio of her connecting sinking of Titanic to the NiV.