It's Finally Here: The Ultimate Scale of "Ruckmanite" and Those Falsely-So-Called

tmjbog

Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
234
Reaction score
20
Points
18
You keep parroting this. I do nothing of the sort. I do the opposite. Read what I actually write.


I don't need to, the Nestle Aland Text already verified it. Nobody disputes this. You didn't read post #85.

You don't think on what people say, you immediately assume they're being subjective if they don't agree with you. Very lazy.
I can tell you aren't taking the time to understand half of what I'm saying, your responses aren't even responding to my points because you missed them.


If we still had the original manuscripts, then yes. We don't. There is less reliability and too many changes and variations between modern compiled Greek texts compared to the KJV. I do not believe the only people God intended to understand what he "really said" are Greek scholars, while keeping all the lay people in the dark. It's out of character with his personality.

Plus the Greek scholars admit they essentially believe the word of God is lost. It's "scattered somewhere among all the extant Greek manuscripts". I read my Bible and believe what it says, I don't doubt every word and wonder "maybe this was translated wrong and didn't really mean that". God is not the author of confusion. Ever learning and never coming to knowledge of the truth.

Occam's razor would help all of them greatly.
Plus the Greek scholars admit...

I don't think the Greek Scholars are as agreed on this as you would like to believe.

Below is what Kenneth Boa writes on the matter of the accuracy of our NT which, while not universal, seems to be consistent outside of the KJV Onlyists.

"While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism."
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
322
Reaction score
22
Points
28
I do not understand you people on the fff.
How we’re you not convinced 3 pages ago by ugh and twister that their (and Ruckman’s) brilliant arguments are...brilliant???
...and now I two r a belever.
BillandTed.gif
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
19
Points
18
You don't think on what people say, you immediately assume they're being subjective if they don't agree with you. Very lazy.
I can tell you aren't taking the time to understand half of what I'm saying, your responses aren't even responding to my points because you missed them.
You are the one who does not think soundly on all of what Bible-believers present. You do not respond to all the points and evidence that are presented. You skipped over and dodged the sound evidence that was provided. You even ignored the statements from KJV-only sources and authors. You also dodge scriptural truths that have been presented.

Your own selective responses suggest that you do not take the time to understand half of what other posters state. You do not practice what you preach. You make false allegations against believers.

Because I do not blindly accept what you claim does not mean that I do not understand your biased approach, your diversionary tactics, and your failure to prove what you claim.

God is not the author of the confusion caused by inconsistent, erroneous, human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching with its dependence upon fallacies and upon use of unscriptural, unjust divers measures [double standards]. You refuse to acknowledge the truth about human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Ok, I've been patient enough with this guy: it's now clear logos1560 is a chronic liar beyond reproach.
Readers may not think that you have demonstrated patience if they consider your improper, negative, incorrect tactics and name-calling

Perhaps you reveal that you may be unable to provide sound answers to verifiable facts, sound documented evidence, and scriptural truths that have been presented.

You also show that you disobey the Scriptures by bearing false witness.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
322
Reaction score
22
Points
28
"Allow me to describe myself"

-The Projector
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Since those who in effect seek to defend inconsistent, non-scriptural, erroneous, human KJV-only reasoning/teaching are unable to defend it soundly and scripturally, do they become so desperate that their only remaining, improper, vain, bogus tactic is an attempt to put words in the mouths of Bible believers that they do not say?
 

tmjbog

Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
234
Reaction score
20
Points
18
Since those who in effect seek to defend inconsistent, non-scriptural, erroneous, human KJV-only reasoning/teaching are unable to defend it soundly and scripturally, do they become so desperate that their only remaining, improper, vain, bogus tactic is an attempt to put words in the mouths of Bible believers that they do not say?
It's interesting how hard Ruckman, Inc. will fight for KJV onlyism, then abandon it for the Books of Ruckman. It reminds me of the Mormons. They will show up telling their prospect they are Christians just like them and they believe the Bible (they use KJV) just like them. As they draw an individual into their religion they slowly move them from the Bible to the book of momon.

Much the same way a Ruckmanite pretends to stand on the KJV but then will accept Ruckman's extra biblical teachings.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
19
Points
18
As a Bible-believer who seeks to present the truth, I have presented detailed, specific, scripturally-based arguments and verifiable facts.

Defenders of human KJV-only reasoning may string together a bunch of generalizations and unproven claims and allegations in their effort to rationalize their following the non-scriptural opinions of men.
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,471
Reaction score
74
Points
48
UGC has gone bugsy. Full Ruckman. You never go full Ruckman.
 

tmjbog

Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
234
Reaction score
20
Points
18
Which Bible do you believe is the Hoy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God?
The one inspired & written in the original greek & hebrew which we have very reliable copies of today in several translations and many languages.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,489
Reaction score
69
Points
48
The one inspired & written in the original greek & hebrew which we have very reliable copies of today in several translations and many languages.
To help me out, when I go to the Bible bookstore, which one do I ask for?
 

tmjbog

Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
234
Reaction score
20
Points
18
To help me out, when I go to the Bible bookstore, which one do I ask for?
KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV. All good translations with solid translation work behind them.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,489
Reaction score
69
Points
48
KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV. All good translations with solid translation work behind them.
So then there are BAD translations with non-solid translation work behind them. Which ones are those?
 

tmjbog

Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
234
Reaction score
20
Points
18
So then there are BAD translations with non-solid translation work behind them. Which ones are those?
Of course there are. There are versions made to intentionally support a particular religion or agenda. There are versions made that were done poorly.
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,471
Reaction score
74
Points
48
UGC goes beyond Ruckman.
Actually, "retard" comes earlier in the dictionary.

I wouldn't expect either the retard or the Ruckmanoid to know that.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
322
Reaction score
22
Points
28
KJV-only author David Cloud maintained that “the extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any degree of certainty” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 207; Faith, p. 692).

John William Burgon as edited by Miller noted that “of multitudes of them [MSS copies] that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of the rest” and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars” (Traditional Text, p. 46). Peter Johnston wrote: “Yet as Burgon pointed out in the last century each surviving Byzantine manuscript is a genuine individual” (Green, Unholy Hands, Vol. II, p. 10). Wilbur Pickering noted that “the main lesson to be drawn from the variation among ‘Byzantine’ MSS is the one noted by Lake and Burgon—they are orphans, independent witnesses; at least in their generation” (Identity of NT Text IV, p. 42).

Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Rather than lining up in ‘clear streams’ or ‘text-types’ (as objectively defined entities) the earliest manuscripts are dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variation. Although varying degrees of affinity exist between and among them, they should be treated as individuals in the practice of textual criticism. Until such time as the relationships among the later manuscripts are empirically plotted, they also should be treated as individuals. To dump them into a ‘Byzantine’ basket is untenable” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 28; Identity of NT Text IV, p. 46). Pickering cited that Gunter Zuntz maintained that “the great bulk of Byzantine manuscripts defies all attempts to group them” (Identity IV, p. 39; see also Fuller, True or False, p. 231).
I didn't have time to address all this before, but let's all take a look at why just being a famous guy who writes books with a paper degree does not mean you have strong critical thinking or analytical abilities.

All of these arguments are typical of scholars with an unhealthily affinity for using the mainstream opinion as their preferred "home base" by which their analytical approach is then to defend the mainstream "until an overwhelming amount of evidence AND all my friends shift their position". The correct way to approach analysis is to be completely and totally impartial and unbiased toward whatever the mainstream opinion is: this is the only way you can approach new data without the primitive desire to categorize it as something that either "attacks" or "supports" your current variable set, when in fact you need to constantly add new variables to the overall equation based on their validity alone: not based on whether they agree or disagree with your current conceptualization of the topic. Typical of low IQ paper mill scholars. Not saying IQ is the end-all-be-all by any means, but if you're trying to be a professional analyst and you have a 90 IQ, might want to consider a different area of expertise.

So let's go one by one.

"KJV-only author J. A. Moorman acknowledged that “only a relative few of the 5555 MSS now catalogued have been collated” (When the KJV Departs, p. 17)."

Before I prove my point, how many is a "relative few"? We need to know to compare this statement to the definitive numbers we have from collations that actually did take place. But never mind that, first I need to say that the greatest weakness of poor analysts is their inability to argue from source material (you cherry-picked Moorman, but we'll go with it) that actually leads to a definitive conclusion: their style is easily identified as one which instead leads to "therefore, everything is too scattered and vague to know that much for certain". The lazy approach to analysis: trying to debunk definitive positions to appear intelligent for finding a loophole (which might barely shift the entire variable set) to then lead everyone to believe "it can't be that definitive. It's complicated". They will never argue for a definitive position other than those that are already easily agreed upon by the majority, because doing what they do is far easier. Amateurs (btw I'm not talking about Dr. Moorman, I'm talking about what you cited from him for your own argument, how it argues for ambiguity rather than narrowing into an actual conclusion. ANYBODY can do this).

So let's keep it simple (the thing all scholars will avoid at any cost because they think making things more complicated is being intelligent, they've got it backwards themselves: any fool can make something bigger, more complex, and less certain, but it takes a stroke of genius to find the truth. A fairly smart guy said something like that once):

At least 100 of them were collated according to Dean Burgon alone, now hold on to this and see why it matters (we can assume more than 100 were collated, but I don't even need more than that to refute this garbage stance that attempts to deny reality).

"and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars”"
"countless" how many? "unimportant" to who? "particulars" what subject of particulars? This statement says absolutely nothing. Notice how I provide numbers and conduct a definitive analysis by accurately comparing variables in the true context of the variable set at hand. Your quote here is the most vague statement I've ever seen. We will see why in a second.

"Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Rather than lining up in ‘clear streams’ or ‘text-types’ (as objectively defined entities) the earliest manuscripts are dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variation. Although varying degrees of affinity exist between and among them, they should be treated as individuals in the practice of textual criticism. Until such time as the relationships among the later manuscripts are empirically plotted, they also should be treated as individuals."

They were "dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variatian". This guy writes like a moron. This is not analysis, it's a general statement complaining about how he couldn't conduct a definitive analysis. Then he makes this conclusion from that generalized statement: "they should be treated as individuals". First of all, why does every professional still refer to them as the Byzantine-type text and why does the standard, the Nestle Aland Text, still identify a Majority Text? Why does even James White not dispute this fact? Second, every manuscript is treated as an individual until you compare it with two or more: then varying degrees of alignment will show up.

Boom:
The only way to defend Pickering's mathematically illiterate statement would be to prove that during a comparative analysis, no individual manuscript could stand out significantly more than the rest of them: because that would instantly place it in a different category than the rest of the variable set, therefore they wouldn't all be individuals with no category anymore. The only way they could be is if all of their variations shared the same relative degree of variation from the rest of the MSS to where no single MS could be said to significantly stand out from the rest: otherwise you inevitably get at least 2 categories. This is unavoidable. Unless you're a moron.

Now,
Dean Burgon said Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, and P75 differed from 99 out of the 100. That's why they fall into their own category. If you can't accept this fact, you are blinding yourself by readings idiots who think a 99 out of 100 disagreement means "they aren't in another category because the other 99 also share variations between each other". Yeah but the entire variable set ALREADY ACCOUNTS for those variations, WHILE STILL those 4 differ considerably from 99 out of the 100. There you have it.

"Yeah but what happens if you add like 1,000 more manuscripts"
There will still be at least 2 distinct categories. Even if all of the newly added MSS are varied all over the place, the original 99 would at BEST become their own category apart from every other MS because they were discovered to share a 99% cohesion compared to the 1% prior to other MSS added later to the analysis (meaning the category might be a locational or time-based one as opposed to a strictly percentage-based cohesion AT BEST). Further, to bridge the gap between the 1% MSS and the 99% group, you'd HAVE to have more variations that fell in between these groups to varying degrees of relativity in order to successfully dilute the distinction. Guess what: all of those would differ from the 99 to whatever degree they aligned closer to the 1 to bridge the variation gap, otherwise the gap remains and you may even create more categories, meaning again: the 99 would at best become its own category, albeit even it's by something like locational or time-based origin as a sub-category to the larger whole.


The stance of the Anti-KJV "scholar" crowd is one of denial, poor logic, laziness, an affinity to make everything "incalculable" along with a lack of understanding of basic mathematics. They're amateurs.
 
Last edited:
Top