Yes, I am issuing a challenge to all of you who follow Peter Ruckman.
This is a simple challenge: a challenge suitable for anyone.
Where is the original 1611 KJV Bible? Do the original manuscripts written by the translators still exist? If so, where? Does the Queen of England have it? Where is it?
Before you spout off that you have it in your hand, you don't. I am not asking what the location of a copy is (by the way, you're using a 1769), I am asking where the single, original text that is the 1611 is. The text penned by the translators.
See, all of you claim that the Textus Receptus is not reliable because all we have are copies, we do not have an original manuscript. If that argument is true, then the 1611 KJV cannot be relied upon because we do not have an original 1611 manuscript either.
In fact, aside from including the Apocrypha, the one of the earliest 1611's still in existence (not the original) actually says, "Thou shalt commit adultery". Yes, it was a typographical error. The Word of God certainly does not encourage adultery. The KJV we have today is actually the seventh revision of the 1611, and IS the perfectly translated, preserved Word of God for the English Speaking People
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Since you seem to have a warped view of our relation to Dr. Ruckman, I'll attempt to clarify it. Doc is a great man of God much like any others that He has used in the past, and God has given him a lot of insight on things because of his faithfulness. However, neither I nor anyone that I know follows Dr. Ruckman or accepts his teachings or personal beliefs at face value. Yes, I give his opinion a lot of weight, but I don't swallow it outright because the Bible comes first.
Logically there wasn't one text penned by the translators; they would have been writing simultaneously over a period of years, with copyists making myriad duplicates for different uses.
No, I don't possess copy of the original 1611. What's the relevance of this question? It's about as relevant to the issue as my pointing out that apostrophes don't pluralize words is compared to the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Well, see Vince, that is one of the keys of the issue. You,yourself, once told me that we could not trust the original text manuscripts (such as the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts) because we did not have the originals. This is so important because if the logic is true for the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts then it must also true for the 1611. Since the ‘originals’ do not exist, then, based on the Ruk’s logic, the text cannot be trusted. Of course, this is just one of many flaws in the Ruk’s thinking, teaching and logic.
Now, on to your claim that the Ruk is a ‘great man of God’: by claiming to be a Pastor, he is simply ignoring the very words of the KJV he holds so dear. To refresh your memory:
1 Tim 3:2-7 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;(4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (5)
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (6) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. (7) Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
I know, some of the oldest KJV 1611’s mistakenly say ‘Thou shalt commit adultery’. Perhaps the Ruk is looking at one of those instead of the teachings of Jesus when he justifies being twice divorced and thrice married because Jesus clearly taught that anyone who divorces and remarries is committing adultery. Someone who lives in denial of the very Word of God he is claiming to defend, he cannot be called a ‘man of God’.
When you quote someone, then support that quote with a second quote from the same person taken from a different location, you are not really searching things out for your own. You do realize that you are basically saying "The Ruk is right because the Ruk said he is right in another book."
If you ever took the time to genuinely study the origins preservation of the Word of God, you would see just how flawed the ‘Ruckman’ version of the KJV Only position is. Of course, the next thing you would realize is just how much the Ruk has damaged the KJV Only cause and the cause of Christ.
"Since you seem to have a warped view of our relation to Dr. Ruckman"
By the way, it is not my view of the Ruk that is warped, it is the Ruk.
If you would notice, the verse simply states "the husband of one wife." Now divorce isn't a good thing in any case (save adultery, which is any sinful sexual sin), but under the New Covenant (which began at Christ's death) and Paul's teachings on the issue, God allows it though He doesn't like it. I don't have time to go into detail here, and I'm not certain that this will ever see the light of day, so I'm not going to waste my time.
That being said, "Husband of one wife" means that the man has one wife. I am the owner of one car, the owner of one computer, the holder of one job, etc. However, I've had two cars, four computers, and four jobs, so the statements simply give my current state. I could own two computers or get a second job, and my status would change. To exegete the verse to prohibit divorce is extra-biblical and you won't be able to back it up with any other Bible verses applicable to the Church.
Anyone who rightly divides the Word of God can plainly and clearly see that divorce should never be. God established marriage to be a life-long union between a man and a woman. I just posted a few notes on marriage. Perhaps you should take a look at them. In that post, I briefly showed the Biblical foundation for marriage, the Lord's view on divorce, and the Lord's view of one who divorces and remarries.
In short, one who divorces and remarries is an adulterer. In Ruckman's case, he has run off two wives (they left him) and married a third. Even if you allow adultery or fornication as a cause for divorce, this was not the cause of Pete's divorces. So, by the definition (even the liberal one), Ruckman is living in adultery.
Second, how can anyone who runs two wives off be blameless? How can his house be in order?
By the way, Vincie, I must admit: you have skillfully distracted the issue. Where is the original KJV? By Ruckman's teachings, if we cannot find the 'original' we cannot trust the copies.
So where is the standard? Where is the original KJV?
The answer is: you don't have it. By your argument, that means we cannot trust the KJV. Does that mean that the KJV is not reliable? No it does not. It is the God-ordained, perfect translation for the English-speaking people because it is a faithful, perfect, preserved translation of the Word of God.
Vince, I implore you, humble yourself, put away your headiness, repent, turn from this foolishness and turn to God. He will receive you with open arms and He will forgive you. You have a zeal which, if used for God's glory, could possibly be used to bring many to the Lord. But so long as you dabble in this heresy and follow fools, your zeal will only continue to turn people against the cause of Christ.
Post a Comment