Dr. Peter S. Ruckman Clip, "Revelation 12: Future Fall of Angels"

[rsc2a]

   

   

 

[Ransom]

Have you looked into the King James Code and Bible Numerics?

Every time I ask you a question, you demand that I do your homework. Not happening.  If you can't be bothered to prove your own arguments, I can't be bothered to believe them.

Well then why do most of the modern Vatican versions go out of print within the first 10 to 15 years of their publication?

Ditto. Do you have a point to make? Don't waste my time telling me to make it for you.

Not one modern version can stand up to the God Honoured Authorized King James Bible.

"Is too!"

You have a problem distinguishing opinion statements from fact statements.

Scott, in order to be of the same mind and same judgment, we Christians need to submit to the Authority of One Bible.

Something your "One Bible" never claims for itself. Why should I believe you?  You tell me - don't get me to tell myself again.

There are a lot of changes in the modern versions. Therefore, the main cause for a lot of the confusion in Christianity today is the modern bible versions.

"Is too!"

Well first off, you need to bring the Bible Version Issue to your pastor's attention

There is no "issue" to bring to his attention. Both he, and the church, are better informed than that.

and then if he does not change, then leave his church.

He has done nothing to warrant that.

Any church that does not preach from the Authorized King James Bible, that very same church has gone into apostasy.

Says you, but not the "Authorized King James Bible." You refute yourself by making theology up that you cannot even find in your own Bible.

And no Ransom, they aren't tales. It is the truth.

"Is too!"

The use of multiple, contradictory, modern bible versions does create confusion.

"Is too!"

That is one of the reasons why a lot of Christians can't even agree on the Biblical Doctrine of Eternal Security.

That controversy predates any English Bible.

Now, come on. Admit you're just making this horse puckey up as you go along.

Name some Sound, Bible-believing Seminaries. Go ahead Scott. Name them.

Heritage Theological Seminary
Toronto Baptist Seminary
Tyndale Bible College and Seminary
Southern Baptist Bible Seminary
Reformed Theological Seminary
Westminster Theological Seminary

You were saying?

If they teach modern textual criticism. Then no, they are NOT sound, Bible believing seminaries.

"Is too!" Er, "is not!"

And do these men really have confidence in the word of God?

As much as you. Probably more, since their confidence is based on reality instead of false theology.

What Bible do they believe to be the perfect, pure and inerrant word of God?

What am I, a mind reader? Ask them yourself.

Because of the external and internal evidence testifying that it is the King James Bible. For the internal witnesses. Look into the King James Code. Study the fascinating Bible numerical codes and patterns that are in the text of the Authorized Version.

"Is too! Look, math!"

Seriously Scott. If my Bible which I have is not perfect, well then can you hand me a copy of God's perfect, pure and inspired word?

"Is too!"

I asked you if you believe that the NASB is the perfect, pure, and infallible words of God. It is how you answered the question Scott.

So you admit I did answer the question. Why did you lie when you said I didn't?

Do you believe that the New American Standard Bible is the perfect and inerrant and inspired word of God?

Asked and answered, by your own admission.

The Final Authority is where you have to start from. The King James Bible is the preserved, pure word of God.

"Is too!"

Now if you don't believe so, then simply offer me a perfect replacement.

"Is too!"

Okay, I am going to answer your question with a question Scott. Does the word "Bible" appear anywhere in the Bible?

I'll be happy to answer that question - in fact, I have already written it in a text editor, and I will paste it into the forum. That is, as soon as you answer my question instead of changing the subject again.

Just by way of reminder:

Where does the Scripture say that "the book (singular) of the LORD" is the KJV?

 

[bgwilkinson]

I have an incredibly hard time with Biblebelievers vacuous mindless blather.
KJVO is certainly a mental disorder.

 

[PappaBear]

I have an incredibly hard time with bgwilkinson's hateful and ad hominem foaming at the mouth, teeth-gnashing rhetoric. 
Bible correctors certainly have a mental disorder -- or they are demon possessed.  One or t'other.

 

[Ransom]

Bible correctors certainly have a mental disorder -- or they are demon possessed.  One or t'other.

Someone who insists over and against all reality that Michael Servetus was a Baptist, is in no position to be accusing anyone else of mental illness.

LOL!

 

[PappaBear]

Bible correctors certainly have a mental disorder -- or they are demon possessed.  One or t'other.

Someone who insists over and against all reality that Michael Servetus was a Baptist, is in no position to be accusing anyone else of mental illness.

LOL!

I suppose you can prove that he isn't?  Since when did Trinitarianism become the main distinctive of a Baptist?

However, believing in adult baptism has long been one.
Believing in believers baptism (requiring a confession) such as Phillips demand of the Ethiopian has been historic.
Believing in the necessity of receiving Christ and not mere alignment with certain Catholic dogmas has been a Baptist distinctive.
Soul liberty has been a Baptist distinctive.
Separation of Church and State (denying the power of a State to execute someone based on religious disagreement) has been a Baptist distinctive.

No, what is nonsensical beyond all reality is that someone would try to claim greater identify with a man who burns someone over his belief about infant baptism because he insists on justification by faith, not by covenant and a man who murdered a woman's Anabaptist husband so he could take his wife once she was widowed, and with the same mouth try to claim it is part of Baptist history to follow that.  Beyond all reality indeed.

 

[Ransom]

I suppose you can prove that he isn't?

You're the one claiming he was a Baptist. It's your job to support your claims, not mine.

Does the burden of proof make the KJV-onlyists break out in hives? You'd think so, given the lengths they go to avoid it.

Since when did Trinitarianism become the main distinctive of a Baptist?

Trinitarianism is a main distinctive of a Christian. You can't be a Christian without being Trinitarian, and you can't be a Baptist without being a Christian. As usual, you get first principles exactly backwards.

 

[PappaBear]

I suppose you can prove that he isn't?

You're the one claiming he was a Baptist. It's your job to support your claims, not mine.

I already did. Quote below was a description of Servetus' beliefs, part of which he was burned for.

However, believing in adult baptism has long been one.
Believing in believers baptism (requiring a confession) such as Phillips demand of the Ethiopian has been historic.
Believing in the necessity of receiving Christ and not mere alignment with certain Catholic dogmas has been a Baptist distinctive.
Soul liberty has been a Baptist distinctive.
Separation of Church and State (denying the power of a State to execute someone based on religious disagreement) has been a Baptist distinctive.

Your turn.  But of course, you cannot.  You dare not.  So you won't.

Trinitarianism is a main distinctive of a Christian. You can't be a Christian without being Trinitarian, and you can't be a Baptist without being a Christian. As usual, you get first principles exactly backwards.

No, Ransom my friend, that is where you are confused.  Being a Christian is not a mental subscription to orthodox doctrine.  It is a new birth, the resurrection of the spirit, embracing Christ as Savior and Lord, which makes one a "Christian" (Of or Like Christ).  We receive Christ as a person.

Servetus did not deny the Christhood or deity or Sonship of Christ.  He wrote much of it.  Even in the section entitled, "Theology" in the Wikipedia article on Michael Servetus, where you are one of the editors, it shows his fundamentalist belief in Christ, far beyond your just proclaimed dogma of a creedalist's salvation.

It is also curious, in light of your recent statement regarding nicene trinitarianism, your choice to reject the King James in favor of the modern versions which share the Alexandrian line of texts with its Arian influence.  Curious, indeed.

 

[Ransom]

No, Ransom my friend, that is where you are confused.  Being a Christian is not a mental subscription to orthodox doctrine.

To deny the Trinity is to believe in a false god. You cannot be a Christian and an idolator.

It is a new birth, the resurrection of the spirit, embracing Christ as Savior and Lord, which makes one a "Christian" (Of or Like Christ).  We receive Christ as a person.

Servetus did not deny the Christhood or deity or Sonship of Christ.

Servetus professed a false Christ.

It is also curious, in light of your recent statement regarding nicene trinitarianism, your choice to reject the King James in favor of the modern versions which share the Alexandrian line of texts with its Arian influence.  Curious, indeed.

You wouldn't recognize "Arian influence" if it bit you on your rear.

 

[PappaBear]

It is a new birth, the resurrection of the spirit, embracing Christ as Savior and Lord, which makes one a "Christian" (Of or Like Christ).  We receive Christ as a person.

Servetus did not deny the Christhood or deity or Sonship of Christ.

Servetus professed a false Christ.

Did the thief on the cross profess a false Christ?

Can you show WHERE and HOW you believe Servetus professed a false Christ?

Personally, I like this quote of his, even if it is from a secondary source:

It is also curious, in light of your recent statement regarding nicene trinitarianism, your choice to reject the King James in favor of the modern versions which share the Alexandrian line of texts with its Arian influence.  Curious, indeed.

You wouldn't recognize "Arian influence" if it bit you on your rear.

Oh, that's right.  It's Saturday night.  I apologize that I forgot.  Sip it slow, the night is still young and you should want to keep your wits about you when posting openly on the internet.  Try some black coffee.  I don't know that it would work, but that's what they do in the movies.

 

[Ransom]

Can you show WHERE and HOW you believe Servetus professed a false Christ?

Sure. Right after you show us where he was a Baptist.

I'm sure you'll pull it out of the same orifice where you got your fibs about Calvin being gay, and the Comma Johanneum being crucial for the defense of the Trinity.

LOL @ PappaBearer-of-tall-tales.

 

[PappaBear]

Christ loves you, man.  I'll pray for you.

 

[Ransom]

I'll pray for you.

I'd say "thanks" if I thought that was any more true than anything else you've said so far.

 

[Biblebeliever]

Every time I ask you a question, you demand that I do your homework. Not happening.  If you can't be bothered to prove your own arguments, I can't be bothered to believe them.

No seriously Scott, have you looked into the King James Code?

Ditto. Do you have a point to make? Don't waste my time telling me to make it for you.

Yep I sure do Scott. My point is that the modern Vatican versions are dead books. The NIV is a dead book, that is why they have to keep revising it. And making an edition for moms, and an edition for the teens, and an edition to appease the feminists. Did you know that the NIV right from the very beginning was in financial trouble, that is why it was bought out by Zondervan.

"Is too!"

You have a problem distinguishing opinion statements from fact statements.

And I just gave you a fact. And that is that the King James Holy Bible is the Book of books. It is the perfect, inerrant and infallible word of God. And you cannot prove otherwise.

Something your "One Bible" never claims for itself. Why should I believe you?  You tell me - don't get me to tell myself again.

Oh really? Well we'll let the Scriptures speak for themselves:

12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. - Job 23:12 (KJV)



4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently. - Psalm 119:4 (KJV)


9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
10 With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments - Psalm 119:9-10 (KJV)


15 I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.
16 I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.
17 Deal bountifully with thy servant, that I may live, and keep thy word. - Psalm 119:15-17 (KJV)


21 Thou hast rebuked the proud that are cursed, which do err from thy commandments.
22 Remove from me reproach and contempt; for I have kept thy testimonies.
23 Princes also did sit and speak against me: but thy servant did meditate in thy statutes. - Psalm 119:21-23 (KJV)


25 My soul cleaveth unto the dust: quicken thou me according to thy word.
26 I have declared my ways, and thou heardest me: teach me thy statutes.
27 Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works.
28 My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthen thou me according unto thy word. - Psalm 119:25-28 (KJV)


41 Let thy mercies come also unto me, O Lord, even thy salvation, according to thy word.
42 So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in thy word.
43 And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments. - Psalm 119:41-43 (KJV)


57 Thou art my portion, O Lord: I have said that I would keep thy words.
58 I intreated thy favour with my whole heart: be merciful unto me according to thy word.
59 I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies. - Psalm 119:57-59 (KJV)



104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. - Psalm 119:104-105 (KJV)


127 Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold.
128 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. - Psalm 119:127-128 (KJV)


  Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.
2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law. - Proverbs 4:1-2 (KJV)


17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. - 1 Timothy 5:17 (KJV)


3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. - 1 Timothy 6:3-5 (KJV)



15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV)



4 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. - 2 Timothy 4:1-4 (KJV)


Well Scott. The word of God has a lot to say about the word and words of the Lord.


Now notice that last Scripture I posted, notice it says "Preach the word." It does not say preach the original manuscripts.

In order to preach the word, we must have the word of the Lord.

Now Scott, I know I have the words of God. And they are from His Book.

"Is too!"

Well there are a lot of changes in the modern versions. Here is a link where you can look them up.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/fight.html#fight16

Click on where it says: 16.  Fifty Stumbling Stones of the Laodicean Translations

There is no "issue" to bring to his attention. Both he, and the church, are better informed than that.

Yes there is an issue sir. So stop trying to deny it. It is a big issue when wicked men are changing God's words. The NIV alone is said to have removed somewhere around 64,000 words from the text of the Bible. So again Scott. It is an issue. It is a very serious issue sir. And you need to study the Bible Version Issue more thoroughly before you make ignorant statements like that.

Either you are greatly deceived and misinformed, or you know about the issue and you choose to be blind willfully.

He has done nothing to warrant that.

Well show him the Bible Version Issue. Show him the corruptions in the NIV, NASB, and ESV. Oh and you also may want to ask him if the believes that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God. Make sure he truly believes that the Bible is God's holy word.

Says you, but not the "Authorized King James Bible." You refute yourself by making theology up that you cannot even find in your own Bible.

Well Scott, doesn't the Bible tell us to preach the word? Yes it sure does tell us to preach the word. If the pastor of a church is not preaching the King James Bible, then he is not preaching the word.

The modern Vatican versions are simply counterfeits. They are not the word of God.

A Pastor of a church needs to stick with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation.
And he needs to reject the Jesuit Rheims Greek text of Westcott and Hort.

"Is too!"

Well it is. That is why the modern churches so apostate in these last days. Don't you know that we are living in the time of the falling away?

The Bible prophesied that there would come a falling away in the last days. And it is here. The main cause for the falling away is all the ridiculous modern bible counterfeits which contradict one another. I think the last time I checked, there were an estimated 230+ English translations on the market.

That controversy predates any English Bible.

Okay? But was it as bad as it is today? The disagreements and discussions may had been around, but again, was there as much confusion as there is today?

Now, come on. Admit you're just making this horse puckey up as you go along.

No. There is a falling away taking place. Humanism, Feminism, and all the other wicked humanistic philosophies have permeated in a lot of the modern churches. Again, this is reality Scott. So stop pretending to be ignorant about this. And if you don't see that we are living in a time of great apostasy, well then you lack spiritual discernment.

Heritage Theological Seminary
Toronto Baptist Seminary
Tyndale Bible College and Seminary
Southern Baptist Bible Seminary
Reformed Theological Seminary
Westminster Theological Seminary

You were saying?

Now do they believe the text of the King James Bible? And do they believe that the Bible (Singular) is the pure and inerrant word of God?

Because if the answer is no to those two questions, well then they are not Bible believing seminaries.

"Is too!" Er, "is not!"

Well Scott, they either believe the Bible or they do not. They either believe that the Bible is God's holy word or they do not. It is that simple sir. There is no grey area here. It is black and white.

As much as you. Probably more, since their confidence is based on reality instead of false theology.

Now when you say false theology, what is exactly are you talking about?

What am I, a mind reader? Ask them yourself.

Well you said they have every confidence in the word of God. Well if that is the case, which Bible is it?

I figured if you knew that they had every confidence in the word of God, then you would know which Bible they believed.

Or were you just saying that about them without really knowing whether or not they truly believed the Bible?

"Is too! Look, math!"

Did you know that Psalm 12 is the 490th chapter of the Bible?


490 is the product of 70 x 7. Which is the number 70 multiplied by the number of perfection.


In Bible Numerics, the Number 7 is the number of perfection and divine completion. The number 7 is God's number of perfection. It signifies completion and perfection in God's eyes.


When God said: "Let us make man in our image" this phrase has 7 words.


The first book of the Old Testament (Genesis) has 7 letters. The first book of the New Testament (Matthew) also has 7 letters.


The phrase: "the word of the LORD" is found 245 times in the Old Testament in the King James Bible


245 is the product of 7 x 7 x 5. You have the number of perfection multiplied to itself and then multiplied by the number 5.


The phrase "word of God" is found 49 times in the entire King James Bible. 49 is the product of 7 x 7.


The phrase "Thus saith the LORD of hosts" is found 70 times in the King James Bible.


the word "book" is found 188 times in the Authorized Version. The word "books" is found 8 times.


So if you add both together, that is 196! Which is the product of 49 x 4.

These are just some of the Numerical codes are internal witnesses that bear witness to the fact that the King James Holy Bible is God's supernatural and perfect Book.

So you admit I did answer the question. Why did you lie when you said I didn't?

I said that you did not give me a straight answer and you know it. Now either give me a straight forward "yes" or "no" answer to my question or just admit that you do not believe that any Bible is the perfect and inerrant word of God.

At least be honest about what you really believe Scott.

Asked and answered, by your own admission.

Just give me a simple "Yes" or "No" to my question or just be honest enough to admit that you are a Bible agnostic.

"Is too!"

Yep, the King James Bible is the absolute Final Written Authority.

"Is too!"

Well I see you have no perfect replacement. Well that must mean that you really do not believe that the Bible is perfect and inerrant.

Well whether you believe it or not Scott. There is a perfect and absolute standard of written truth. And that is the King James Authorized Bible.

I'll be happy to answer that question - in fact, I have already written it in a text editor, and I will paste it into the forum. That is, as soon as you answer my question instead of changing the subject again.

Just by way of reminder:

Where does the Scripture say that "the book (singular) of the LORD" is the KJV?

Again, Scott, I will answer your question with a  question. Does the word "Bible" appear in the Bible?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Biblebeliever][quote author=Ransom]Ditto. Do you have a point to make? Don't waste my time telling me to make it for you.[/quote]

Yep I sure do Scott. My point is that the modern Vatican versions are dead books. The NIV is a dead book, that is why they have to keep revising it. And making an edition for moms, and an edition for the teens, and an edition to appease the feminists. Did you know that the NIV right from the very beginning was in financial trouble, that is why it was bought out by Zondervan. [/quote]

[quote author=Biblebeliever]Yes there is an issue sir. So stop trying to deny it. It is a big issue when wicked men are changing God's words. The NIV alone is said to have removed somewhere around 64,000 words from the text of the Bible. So again Scott. It is an issue. It is a very serious issue sir. And you need to study the Bible Version Issue more thoroughly before you make ignorant statements like that. [/quote]

Of course a second option would be that the KJV added around 64,000 words to the text of the Bible. 

[quote author=Biblebeliever]The modern Vatican versions are simply counterfeits. They are not the word of God.

A Pastor of a church needs to stick with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation.
And he needs to reject the Jesuit Rheims Greek text of Westcott and Hort.[/quote]

You're pushing the Tyndale Bible? I thought you were a KJVo guy!

 

[Ransom]

No seriously Scott, have you looked into the King James Code?

I have. It's crap. Michael Hoggard left a forum in a huff because of me.

Yep I sure do Scott. My point is that the modern Vatican versions are dead books.

"Are too!"

And I just gave you a fact. And that is that the King James Holy Bible is the Book of books. It is the perfect, inerrant and infallible word of God. And you cannot prove otherwise.

"Is too!"

Oh really? Well we'll let the Scriptures speak for themselves:

"Is too!"

Good gravy, you really are this clueless.

12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. - Job 23:12 (KJV)

Not, I notice, "I have esteemed the words of the KJV only."

4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently. - Psalm 119:4 (KJV)

Not, I notice, "thy precepts as found in the KJV only."

9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.

Not, I notice, "according to thy word, the KJV only."

10 With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments - Psalm 119:9-10 (KJV)

Not, I notice, "thy commandments as found in the KJV only."

15 I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.
16 I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.
17 Deal bountifully with thy servant, that I may live, and keep thy word. - Psalm 119:15-17 (KJV)

Not, I notice, "thy word as found in the KJV only."

21 Thou hast rebuked the proud that are cursed, which do err from thy commandments.

Not, I notice, "thy commandments which are found in the KJV only."

And so on. It's pointless for me to repeat the same thing over and over again: KJV-onlyists see words that aren't there.

Well Scott. The word of God has a lot to say about the word and words of the Lord.

But not "the word and words of the Lord as found in the KJV only," as you imagine.

Now notice that last Scripture I posted, notice it says "Preach the word."

Not, I notice, "preach that the word is the KJV only," which is less a biblical concept than it is delusional horsecrap.

Well there are a lot of changes in the modern versions. Here is a link where you can look them up.

I hate clowns.

Yes there is an issue sir. So stop trying to deny it.

I'm not trying. I'm succeeding.

It is a big issue when wicked men are changing God's words.

There's more of that imagination stuff.

The NIV alone is said to have removed somewhere around 64,000 words from the text of the Bible.

Big deal. Peter S. Ruckman is "said" to wear frilly pink panties. I have no doubt my source is as reliable as yours.

Either you are greatly deceived and misinformed, or you know about the issue and you choose to be blind willfully.

I have been well informed on this issue for over 20 years. So well informed, in fact, that I recognize tired, old, often-refuted arguments like yours, and no longer care enough to take you or them seriously.

A Pastor of a church needs to stick with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation.

Oh, yes, because the front lines of the Protestant Reformation were in England, weren't they? Snort!

Well it is.

Thank you for admitting that "is too!" is the best argument you have.

Now do they believe the text of the King James Bible? And do they believe that the Bible (Singular) is the pure and inerrant word of God?

I answered you once already. Don't move the goalposts just because it didn't turn out to be the stumper you were hoping for.

Because if the answer is no to those two questions, well then they are not Bible believing seminaries.

You don't get to decide what "Bible-believing" means.

Well, that's enough of your drivel for one night.

 

[Biblebeliever]

I have. It's crap. Michael Hoggard left a forum in a huff because of me.

No it is not.

What is contained in his book are undeniable FACTS. Facts which you can choose to reject and ignore like most Alexandrians would do. But you cannot deny them Scott.

"Are too!"

Yes indeed they are. There is no power in an NIV (Non Inspired Version) or an NASB ( New American Satanic bible), or the ESV (Ecumenical Satanic Vacuum) or any other Catholic modern bible perversion.

Not, I notice, "I have esteemed the words of the KJV only."

Well again Scott, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. If the infallible words of God are not in the Authorized King James Bible, then which Bible contains them?

Not, I notice, "thy precepts as found in the KJV only."

Then which Bible contains His precepts?

Not, I notice, "according to thy word, the KJV only."

Which Bible then Scott?

Not, I notice, "thy word as found in the KJV only."

One more time, where is His word then? Which Bible is the pure and inerrant word of God?

And so on. It's pointless for me to repeat the same thing over and over again: KJV-onlyists see words that aren't there.

Well when the Scriptures talk about the words of God, we know they must be talking about literal words. In 2 Timothy 4:2, we are told to preach the word. It is singular. We are not told to preach the original manuscripts or to preach multiple versions that contradict one another in hundreds if not thousands of places.

But not "the word and words of the Lord as found in the KJV only," as you imagine.

Scott, the question then comes back to you sir. Where are God's pure words then? Where can someone find the pure and inerrant words of the Living God? The words of God cannot be found in the 220+ English translations that are out there today because they all do not say the same thing! God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).

Not, I notice, "preach that the word is the KJV only," which is less a biblical concept than it is delusional horsecrap.

Again Scott. God does not contradict Himself. He is not the author of the mass confusion that is in the body of Christ today.

Satan is the author of confusion.

I hate clowns.

No Scott. You just can't handle the facts. That is all. So what you do is you resort to name calling, hoping that will intimidate those who truly believe the Bible.

I'm not trying. I'm succeeding.

No your not. You have not proven your case.

There is an issue here when wicked men are corrupting God's pure words. If you do not think that there is an issue sir, then may I suggest that you pick up a copy of Dean Burgon's book: "Causes of Corruption of the New Testament Text." And see the documented facts he gives in showing how unreliable the Alexandrian manuscripts are, on which the NA/UBS Greek texts and nearly all the modern versions are based upon.

There's more of that imagination stuff.

Scott, it is not imaginary stuff and you know it. Will you just be honest about the issue? And stop trying to justify the wicked modern versions which are just Vatican versions.

Big deal. Peter S. Ruckman is "said" to wear frilly pink panties. I have no doubt my source is as reliable as yours.

Scott, this issue is not about Dr. Peter Ruckman. This issue is about the inerrant words of the living God.

So stay on the issue that is at hand here and that is being discussed.

I have been well informed on this issue for over 20 years. So well informed, in fact, that I recognize tired, old, often-refuted arguments like yours, and no longer care enough to take you or them seriously.

Well then you are deceived Scott. You are on the wrong side of the issue. And actually the Alexandrians and Bible correctors are the ones who keep repeating their same arguments which don't have any Scriptural support.

One of their arguments they keep bringing up is the Pascha: Easter/Passover argument and objection. This objection has been answered many times by Bible believers, that when an Alexandrian still continues to bring it up, they sound like a broken record.

I answered you once already. Don't move the goalposts just because it didn't turn out to be the stumper you were hoping for.

Well then you are still tip toe dancing and are dodging the question, because I asked you to simply respond with a "Yes" or a "No." If you truly believed that your preferred NASB version was the inerrant and infallible words of God. Then would be able to answer that question with a "Yes" or a "No" rather quickly. But you have still refused to give me a straight forward answer which means you just don't want to really admit what you believe about the Holy Bible.

You don't get to decide what "Bible-believing" means.

Bible believing means that they believe the Bible (singular). If they do not believe that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible words of God. Then they are NOT a Bible believer. Case closed. End of discussion.

Well, that's enough of your drivel for one night.

If you thought what I said was really drivel, then you would not even bother to answer me. But because what I say is convicting, you answer me in a condescending way. Scott, you will put at any straw you can to justify your rejection of God's Absolute Perfect Final Authority.

I have a copy of God's Perfect Written Standard.

Do you Scott?

 

[Ransom]

No it is not.

Says you, with no evidence whatsoever.

What is contained in his book are undeniable FACTS.

Prove it.

Yes indeed they are. There is no power in an NIV (Non Inspired Version) or an NASB ( New American Satanic bible), or the ESV (Ecumenical Satanic Vacuum) or any other Catholic modern bible perversion.

Says you, but not says God, so your opinion is worth nothing.

Well again Scott, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

Wrong again. You're the one seeing words that aren't there, not me.

Then which Bible contains His precepts?

Ditto.

Which Bible then Scott?

Ditto.

One more time, where is His word then? Which Bible is the pure and inerrant word of God?

Ditto.

Well when the Scriptures talk about the words of God, we know they must be talking about literal words.

The issue is that whenever you see "the words of God," you think (with no evidence whatsoever) that it says "in the KJV only."

Scott, the question then comes back to you sir.

No, it doesn't. If you want to argue that the words of God are exclusively found in one 17th-century English translation of the Bible that didn't exist for the first millennium-and-a-half of Christianity, then it's up to you to make your case.

It doesn't come back to me. It was, is, and always will be your job to prove your point.

Get to it, if you can.

Again Scott. God does not contradict Himself.

I am not accusing God of contradicting himself. I am accusing you of making baseless assertions.

No your not. You have not proven your case.

I have no case I need to prove. I'm not the one claiming special divine approval for one particular English translation without any evidence for it.

There is an issue here when wicked men are corrupting God's pure words.

There is an issue here when KJV-only blowhards expect to be believed without any evidence to back them up.

Scott, it is not imaginary stuff and you know it. Will you just be honest about the issue?

Not believing windbags who expect merely to be believed on their own say-so, is not the same as not being honest.

Well then you are deceived Scott.

Says you, without presenting any evidence whatever.

You just don't learn, do you?

 

[Biblebeliever]

Prove it.

I already did in my post: The King James Code.

You can see it here: http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/the-king-james-code/

And you can verify these Numerical patterns by going to the following site: http://www.dewtronics.com/KingJamesPureBibleSearch/

Download the software and look up the following words and phrases that were given in the post regarding the King James Code, and verify each one for yourself. And by the way, each of those Numerical patterns that were given have been rechecked  several times. And they have proven to be true.

Says you, but not says God, so your opinion is worth nothing.

Well Scott, let me ask you, If I am just giving you my opinion about the modern versions, then how come ever since these Jesuit Rheim bibles came on the scene starting with the Revised Version of 1881, that the church has been getting more and more apostate?

Wrong again. You're the one seeing words that aren't there, not me.

So what are you implying here Scott? Are you actually saying that God's inerrant and infallible words are found in hundreds of conflicting, contradictory bible versions?

Come on Scott, is that what you seriously think?

If you tried to prove that in a court of law, you would be laughed out of the court room so quickly that you could not deny the absolute absurdity to imply and suggest such an illogical and irrational argument.

And it is like I asked you before Scott, if the infallible and inerrant words of the Living God cannot be found in the Authorized King James Bible, well then where can they be found? Which Bible contains them sir?

God's pure and inerrant words cannot be in all of the modern English translations (230+), because that would be total confusion. And God is not the author of Confusion (See 1 Cor. 14:33). So if God Almighty preserve His pure and inerrant words, which He absolutely did. Then that means we have them. And they are in the Authorized King James Version.

Ditto.

I know which Bible does Scott. The question is do you?

Ditto.

I'll take that as you do not know.

Ditto.

Again Scott, I see that you do not have an answer for that question.

The issue is that whenever you see "the words of God," you think (with no evidence whatsoever) that it says "in the KJV only."

Well here is the thing Scott, I understand that the words of the LORD were purified seven times. So I am aware that His words were in the Tyndale New Testament, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and that these English Bibles led to the perfection of the King James Holy Bible.

No, it doesn't. If you want to argue that the words of God are exclusively found in one 17th-century English translation of the Bible that didn't exist for the first millennium-and-a-half of Christianity, then it's up to you to make your case.


It doesn't come back to me. It was, is, and always will be your job to prove your point.

Get to it, if you can.

Scott yes it does. Again, I am aware that the words of God did exist down through the centuries in different languages, such as Syrian, Latin, Hebrew and Greek. I understand that that is the case. The oldest form of the English Language did not even come into existence until the 5th century AD.

Are you aware Scott, that all of God's written words were not available until sometime in the first century when John the apostle completed the book of Revelation?

The question surrounding the Bible Version Issue is this: Do we have God's pure and inerrant words today?  And if we do, where can they be found? In which Bible, can they all be found?

I am not accusing God of contradicting himself. I am accusing you of making baseless assertions.

Well Scott that is what you are implying sir. If God's pure and inerrant words cannot be found in a single Book on earth today, then where are they?

Again Scott, would be so kind to tell me which Bible is the perfect and inerrant word of God?

If you cannot provide me with a clear, straight forward answer to my question Scott, then that must mean deep down you are a Bible agnostic. Which simply means that you do not believe that any Bible in any language today is the pure and inerrant words of God.

Can you just be honest enough to tell me what you really believe about the Bible sir?

I have seen Bible agnostics imply that while they believe that God's perfect and inerrant words cannot be found in a Book, that somehow they do believe that they can be found among 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and in all of the modern translations that are out on the market. Know what that means Scott? That means they are suggesting that God is the author of confusion. And again; God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. (1 Cor. 14:33).

I have no case I need to prove. I'm not the one claiming special divine approval for one particular English translation without any evidence for it.

There is great evidence. If you want to see some of it, you can by clicking on the following link:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm

There is an issue here when KJV-only blowhards expect to be believed without any evidence to back them up.

Scott, your problem is that you simply do not reverence the words of the God. You do not tremble at God's word. Because if you did, you would see the great error of textual criticism. You would see that what these modern scholars, Bible critics, and revisors are perverting the words of the living God. They constantly are changing and revising the text of the NASB, ESV, and others as well as the underlying Hebrew and Greek. They are even changing and revising the Greek and Hebrew that underlies these modern versions.

Not believing windbags who expect merely to be believed on their own say-so, is not the same as not being honest.

There is evidence out there Scott. There are undeniable facts out there on this issue showing why the Alexandrian side is wrong.

If you are still not convinced; well then look up some of Bryan Delinger's collation work. He documents thoudsands of word changes done both in the NIV and the TNIV alone. Also, get the following book: God's Inspired Preserved Bible. It is published by the Peoples Gospel Hour. There is lots of documentation in there.

Get a couple of books by Dean Burgon. There is evidence and support for the King James Bible.

Says you, without presenting any evidence whatever.

You just don't learn, do you?

Scott, you can't even give me a straight forward answer to my question that I have asked you several times already. I asked you do you believe that the edition of the NASB that you have, if you believe that it is the perfect and inerrant word of God. And you still have not given me a straight forward "Yes" or "No" answer.  If you have been led to believe that there is no perfect and infallible Bible out there that is the Absolute Perfect Standard and Final Authority. Well then you have been deceived Scott.

 

[Ransom]

I already did in my post: The King James Code.

Proof of nothing except that you are gullible.

Well Scott, let me ask you, If I am just giving you my opinion about the modern versions, then how come ever since these Jesuit Rheim bibles came on the scene starting with the Revised Version of 1881, that the church has been getting more and more apostate?

Correlation is not causation.

Also, "Jesuit Rheim bible" is a nonsense phrase, invented by you. The Rheims Bible was translated from the Vulgate, as anyone informed on actual Bible history could have told you, if you had bothered to do any proper research instead of pulling factoids out of your sphincter.

So again, no facts from you, only baseless assertions.

So what are you implying here Scott?

I'm not "implying" anything. I am saying that when you see "word of God" in the Bible and assume it means the KJV exclusively, you are seeing words that are not there.

Are you actually saying that God's inerrant and infallible words are found in hundreds of conflicting, contradictory bible versions?

No. I am saying that you see words that are not there.

Come on Scott, is that what you seriously think?

No, that's what you seriously imagined I think.

If you tried to prove that in a court of law, you would be laughed out of the court room so quickly that you could not deny the absolute absurdity to imply and suggest such an illogical and irrational argument.

Biblebeliever's fevered imagination =/= Ransom's facts.

And it is like I asked you before Scott, if the infallible and inerrant words of the Living God cannot be found in the Authorized King James Bible, well then where can they be found? Which Bible contains them sir?

"Is too!" is not an argument for anything.

And God is not the author of Confusion (See 1 Cor. 14:33).

If you actually knew that Bible you pretend you were defending, you wouldn't take it out of context so often.

So if God Almighty preserve His pure and inerrant words, which He absolutely did. Then that means we have them. And they are in the Authorized King James Version.

Non sequitur.

I'll take that as you do not know.

Take it for whatever you like. Your opinions aren't worth anything.

Well here is the thing Scott, I understand that the words of the LORD were purified seven times.

Another Bible verse taken out of context. Some "defender" of God's word you are, if all you are going to do is abuse it.

Are you aware Scott, that all of God's written words were not available until sometime in the first century when John the apostle completed the book of Revelation?

Well, duh.

The question surrounding the Bible Version Issue is this: Do we have God's pure and inerrant words today?  And if we do, where can they be found? In which Bible, can they all be found?

No, the question here, which you have no answer for, is why should I believe they are to be found exclusively in the KJV?

"Is too!" is not an answer.

"Well Scott where are they then?" is not an answer.

Proof is an answer.

And since I'm not the one making any theological claims, the proof is yours to provide. Not mine. Yours.

Well Scott that is what you are implying sir.

I'm not "implying" anything. I'm telling you you are making baseless assertions.

If you cannot provide me with a clear, straight forward answer to my question Scott, then that must mean deep down you are a Bible agnostic.

No, all it means is that I'm not going to allow you to shift the burden of proof for your baseless pseudo-theology onto me.  My beliefs are not in question here. Yours are.

Scott, your problem is that you simply do not reverence the words of the God.

And your problem is that you confuse "the words of the God" (LOL!) with your foolish opinions about the "words of the God."

I do not tremble at your opinions because they do not come from God. They are nothing but blind faith in a whole bunch of questionable assumptions.

Scott, you can't even give me a straight forward answer to my question that I have asked you several times already.

I gave you a straightforward answer. You didn't like the answer, so you changed the question. That's not my problem.