Dr Peter Ruckman passes away

[Chewie2590]

Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's Obituary

obituary-picture.jpgPeter Sturges Ruckman
November 19, 1921 – April 21, 2016

Read the Obituary from Eastern Gate Memorial Funeral Website Here

Sign Dr. Ruckman's Guestbook

Matthew 25:21
“His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.”

Dr. Ruckman is survived by his wife Pamela Ruckman, married 27 years, Pensacola, FL; and ten children; Diana Walker, Alabama; Priscilla and Michael Thornton, Pensacola, FL; David Ruckman, Pensacola, FL; Mike and Lynette Ruckman, Pensacola, FL; Peter Jr. and Heidi Ruckman, Chicago, IL; Jeremy and Valerie Huggins, Wichita, KS; Bryan Huggins, Ft. Walton Beach, FL; Michael and Lydia Huggins, Pensacola, FL; Laura Ruckman; Rachel Ruckman; 18 grandchildren, and 13 great-grandchildren.

He is preceded in death by John Hamilton Ruckman, father; Mary Armstrong-Ruckman, mother; Marion Ruckman, sister; and John Ruckman, brother.

Peter Sturges Ruckman was born physically on November 19, 1921, to John and Mary Ruckman in Wilmington, Delaware. At a young age the family moved to Topeka, Kansas, where he grew up while going back to Wilmington during the summertime. He had a brother, Johnny, and a sister, Marion. Coming from a long line of military men, he followed in their footsteps by enlisting in the Army and served in World War II as a DI in hand-to-hand combat in the Philippines and spent time in Japan monitoring the radio broadcasts at Radio Tokyo. But at the age of 27 years old, he enlisted in a different Army. A Spiritual Army.

On March 14, 1949, Dr. Ruckman signed up in the Lord’s Army by accepting Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior at the radio station in Pensacola, Florida. He was lead to the Lord by a Baptist preacher, Bro. Hugh Pyle. At one time he wanted to be a “30-year man” and retire from the Army. He now has done over two “30-year hitches” in the Lord’s Army, the “right” Army. Through the 67 years he has served the Lord, his vision and his burden was to reach lost souls for Jesus Christ and to teach people that we have a Bible that is perfect and infallible, that you can hold in your hands – the Authorized King James 1611 Version. He had a burden especially to reach young men for Christ and get them rooted and grounded in the Word of God so they would be equipped to defend "the Book" against the agnostic scholars who try to rob you of your faith in your King James Bible. From this desire, Pensacola Bible Institute was started. It continues today from Dr. Ruckman prayerfully and wisely choosing a man, Brian Donovan, to train and equip to carry on the work of the school and church after he has gone on to Glory.

Dr. Ruckman had pastored for well over 50 years; including a church in Bay Minette, AL, Brent Baptist Church, and Bible Baptist Church in Pensacola since 1973. He also was the Founder and President of Pensacola Bible Institute which was started in September of 1965.

Dr. Ruckman was a man of many talents. He was a Preacher, Teacher, Street Preacher, Artist, Writer, played the tuba and the harmonica, had studied the Oriental religions, studied martial arts – Taekwondo and Aikido, and started playing hockey as a goalie at 68 years old with his last game being on his 84th birthday. He also played racquetball, enjoyed mullet fishing, was an avid reader, liked to garden and had a small “truck farm” as he called it, and was still swimming “laps” with a snorkel at 93. He had a profound knowledge of the Scripture and its correlation with History. God gave him a special gift to be able to tie in world events and History to the Bible.

And, then, of course, he dearly loved “kids” and “dogs” (especially German Shepherds!). He loved to have them running all around the place. He loved to see them play and laugh. His special treat was to give the kids gummy bears at each service. And if he ran out (to moms’ horror), he would give them strawberry Twizzlers – or – chocolate!

One of the things dearest to Dr. Ruckman’s heart was his burden and love for doing the Prison Ministry. He looked forward to each time he had an opportunity to go into the jails and minister to the men and women there, especially the yearly 2-week long summer “junkets.” That was his “Christmas.”

Words cannot express the appreciation and gratitude for all the love, support, friendship and prayers of so many saints through all the years; some for many years and some just a few. Through many dangers, toils, and snares he has already come. After a fall in 2015 and many months of declining health, he is now at HOME with his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

God gave him a “Full Cup.”




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arah-xtKCDc&feature=youtu.be  

[Garland-Green]

Excerpt; Upon the publication of my book, The King James Only Controversy, I wrote to Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, sent him the book, and challenged him to a debate. The correspondence that ensued, the behavior exhibited by Ruckman, and his eventual unwillingness to engage in the debate, is documented fully on our web page. Dr. Ruckman was unwilling to engage in any kind of meaningful scholarly debate, and as we work through his attempted replies to my book, we will see exactly why.

The unwary should be warned: Peter Ruckman is not a kind individual. His language is offensive to the vast majority of believing Christians, and he is well aware of this. It’s his trademark. That is why the vast majority of Christians don’t even bother with anything he has to say: he is obviously unfamiliar with the fruit of the Spirit in his life, and gives evidence of it in almost every sentence.

More: A Response to Dr. Ruckman


The Great Inconsistency Of King James Onlyism

Some Ruckman quotes;

I know I am no example. I’m one of the crudest fellows you ever met in your life. They have been trying to refine me for forty years, and I am worse now than I was ten years ago.
Ruckman, Peter. The White Throne Judgment. 1980 (1999 reprint), Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, p. 18

If I have used harsh and sarcastic language in dealing with them on these matters (and I certainly have), I make no apology to anyone, and I will continue to turn a deaf ear toward every suggestion from every corner to “reform” my ways.
Ruckman, Peter. Twenty-Two Years of the Bible Believers’ Bulletin Vol. 8 Essays on Bible Topics. 2010, p. 187

[Attitude when he attended a Fundamentalist conference] I would make a contribution occasionally by opening my upper shirt pocket with my fingers and then pretend it was a “barf bag” on a plane. After simulating a good “puke” I would “pat” the shirt pocket shut.
Ruckman, Peter. The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. 2004, p. 251

Ruckman admits to being involved in hundreds of church splits;

Those four messages [by Ruckman] were enough to split three national fellowships, more than fifty colleges and universities, and several hundred local churches.
Ruckman, Peter. Ruckman’s Battlefield Notes. p. 45  

[cristobela]

God must have a common theme this week:

Any person trying to follow his alleged “citations” will find it very difficult, as he has no concern for following context at all. [...]

"Ruckman plays upon the ignorance of his readers, seemingly hoping that no one who can check out the facts for themselves will ever face him with them."

Earlier, with the Senior Egyptian archaelogist; now, our attention is drawn to this Ruckman fellow.

---

Since Ruckman was already addressed, I'd like to draw attention to the obituary itself. The obituary uses verses with "no concern for context at all".

show spoilerhide spoiler

Chewie2590

Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's Obituary

obituary-picture.jpgPeter Sturges Ruckman
November 19, 1921 – April 21, 2016

Read the Obituary from Eastern Gate Memorial Funeral Website Here

Sign Dr. Ruckman's Guestbook

Matthew 25:21
“His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.”

Dr. Ruckman is survived by his wife Pamela Ruckman, married 27 years, Pensacola, FL; and ten children; Diana Walker, Alabama; Priscilla and Michael Thornton, Pensacola, FL; David Ruckman, Pensacola, FL; Mike and Lynette Ruckman, Pensacola, FL; Peter Jr. and Heidi Ruckman, Chicago, IL; Jeremy and Valerie Huggins, Wichita, KS; Bryan Huggins, Ft. Walton Beach, FL; Michael and Lydia Huggins, Pensacola, FL; Laura Ruckman; Rachel Ruckman; 18 grandchildren, and 13 great-grandchildren.

He is preceded in death by John Hamilton Ruckman, father; Mary Armstrong-Ruckman, mother; Marion Ruckman, sister; and John Ruckman, brother.

Peter Sturges Ruckman was born physically on November 19, 1921, to John and Mary Ruckman in Wilmington, Delaware. At a young age the family moved to Topeka, Kansas, where he grew up while going back to Wilmington during the summertime. He had a brother, Johnny, and a sister, Marion. Coming from a long line of military men, he followed in their footsteps by enlisting in the Army and served in World War II as a DI in hand-to-hand combat in the Philippines and spent time in Japan monitoring the radio broadcasts at Radio Tokyo. But at the age of 27 years old, he enlisted in a different Army. A Spiritual Army.

On March 14, 1949, Dr. Ruckman signed up in the Lord’s Army by accepting Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior at the radio station in Pensacola, Florida. He was lead to the Lord by a Baptist preacher, Bro. Hugh Pyle. At one time he wanted to be a “30-year man” and retire from the Army. He now has done over two “30-year hitches” in the Lord’s Army, the “right” Army. Through the 67 years he has served the Lord, his vision and his burden was to reach lost souls for Jesus Christ and to teach people that we have a Bible that is perfect and infallible, that you can hold in your hands – the Authorized King James 1611 Version. He had a burden especially to reach young men for Christ and get them rooted and grounded in the Word of God so they would be equipped to defend "the Book" against the agnostic scholars who try to rob you of your faith in your King James Bible. From this desire, Pensacola Bible Institute was started. It continues today from Dr. Ruckman prayerfully and wisely choosing a man, Brian Donovan, to train and equip to carry on the work of the school and church after he has gone on to Glory.

Dr. Ruckman had pastored for well over 50 years; including a church in Bay Minette, AL, Brent Baptist Church, and Bible Baptist Church in Pensacola since 1973. He also was the Founder and President of Pensacola Bible Institute which was started in September of 1965.

Dr. Ruckman was a man of many talents. He was a Preacher, Teacher, Street Preacher, Artist, Writer, played the tuba and the harmonica, had studied the Oriental religions, studied martial arts – Taekwondo and Aikido, and started playing hockey as a goalie at 68 years old with his last game being on his 84th birthday. He also played racquetball, enjoyed mullet fishing, was an avid reader, liked to garden and had a small “truck farm” as he called it, and was still swimming “laps” with a snorkel at 93. He had a profound knowledge of the Scripture and its correlation with History. God gave him a special gift to be able to tie in world events and History to the Bible.

And, then, of course, he dearly loved “kids” and “dogs” (especially German Shepherds!). He loved to have them running all around the place. He loved to see them play and laugh. His special treat was to give the kids gummy bears at each service. And if he ran out (to moms’ horror), he would give them strawberry Twizzlers – or – chocolate!

One of the things dearest to Dr. Ruckman’s heart was his burden and love for doing the Prison Ministry. He looked forward to each time he had an opportunity to go into the jails and minister to the men and women there, especially the yearly 2-week long summer “junkets.” That was his “Christmas.”

Words cannot express the appreciation and gratitude for all the love, support, friendship and prayers of so many saints through all the years; some for many years and some just a few. Through many dangers, toils, and snares he has already come. After a fall in 2015 and many months of declining health, he is now at HOME with his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

God gave him a “Full Cup.”

]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arah-xtKCDc&feature=youtu.be

Two examples illustrating this:

1. The use of "well done good and faithful servant".

Everything in Matthew 25 addresses Jesus' return at end times—whether we're looking at the parable of the ten virgins, the parable of the talents, or when Jesus describes the separation of the sheep from the goats. They describe a time when the person who was away comes back to receive the prepared, diligent, and obedient servants while rejecting, throwing away, the disobedient, lazy servants into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41). So, "Well done good and faithful servant" is not what believers are met with upon their death, but upon Jesus returning back to earth. Matthew 25 draws our attention to the initiation of His earthly reign at His return, not about how believers entering the realm of the dead get greeted upon their death.

Further, as Matthew 25:21 suggests, we become rulers over many things at this point ("[...]thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things[...]"): that doesn't happen at death, but after being raised from the dead, back to life.

• Revelation 20:4-6 (KJV)
  
  4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
  
  5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
  
  6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

And amongst the "many things" given them to judge / rule over, include the angels:

• 1 Corinthians 6:3 (KJV)
  
  3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

But we do not judge angels in death, so this will also be after the resurrection at end times, when the resurrected, loyal followers of Christ receive the power to judge (the good and faithful/loyal servant made "ruler over many things" Mt 25:21).

Not surprisingly, when does Satan—the devil, an angel—get thrown into the lake of fire? After Jesus returns to the earth, after several events that take place. According to Revelation 20: Jesus returns to earth, Satan is imprisoned in an abyss, Jesus reigns for 1,000 years [along with His loyal servants who didn't take the mark of the beast but kept the witness of Jesus and the Word of God; they have received thrones and the authority to judge]. Satan then gets released from the pit [in which he had been imprisoned during those 1,000 years, unable to go deceive], and the reason why he's being released: one last battle / deception against the beloved city (Jerusalem). After this battle, Satan is defeated, and gets thrown into the lake of fire. The rest, who get resurrected after this, and whose names are not found written in the book of life, are thrown in along with him).

• Revelation 20:7-11 (KJV)
  
  
  show spoilerhide spoiler

  7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
  
  8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
  
  9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
  
  10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
  
  11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
  
  12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
  
  13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
  
  14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
  
  15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Matthew 25:41, which says, "[...] Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" is a very brief mention of what John would later see in the parts of the vision described in detail in Revelation 20. Ergo, kept in the context of the biblical timeline of events, when Jesus say, "[...] Well done, thou good and faithful servant [...]"—in Matthew 25:21—He's speaking to loyal servants alive at / after His return, not before Jesus' return to earth. And this is said to those who are alive (or resurrected from the dead). Not said to people who are entering the realm of the dead upon their death.


2) "full cup"?

As in the "full cup" of Psalm 73 (which is the only time "full cup" ever appears in the KJV as this exact phrase)? Psalm 73 uses "full cup" in the context of wicked people and those who listen to wicked people. Let me quote it without the context (which is probably what they did):

• Psalm 73:10 (KJV)
  
  10 Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup are wrung out to them.

This might sound like a blessing if you don't open up and read the surrounding verses.

• Psalm 73:3-12 (KJV)
  
  3 For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
  
  4 For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm.
  
  5 They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men.
  
  6 Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment.
  
  7 Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish.
  
  8 They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they speak loftily.
  
  9 They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth.
  
  10 Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup are wrung out to them.
  
  11 And they say, How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the most High?
  
  12 Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.

They're drinking from the prideful (those who arrogantly refuse to submit to God / His Commands), drinking the water of the corrupt, those speaking wickedly, insulting God and His knowledge, suggesting God doesn't know anything, that God is neither aware nor taking into account all the evil that they do, and thinking that they're getting away with. And though the meaning of verse 10 is unclear, it seems to suggest that these wicked people speak with such an authority and things go so well for them that others, without discernment, cannot help but lap it all up. Those who listen to the wicked fill their cup with the water/guidance/words of these people. They're wholeheartedly drinking the wicked man's kool-aid, as it were.

Whoever wrote this obituary is distorting what the phrase originally meant by isolating it and cutting out the rest of the verse. Assuming they're even quoting from the bible in the first place (they did say only two words in quotes, "FULL CUP"). I can't tell if they're quoting some worldly philosophy and attributing it to God (is your cup half full and or half empty? optimism vs. pessismism type of thing) or are entirely alluding to Scripture. If the latter, then the ones receiving a full cup are not receiving anything good.

---

Based on the information in the obituary, Ruckman is not / was not in agreement with the truth, the biblical definition of truth, the Laws of God, for another reason: if—emphasis on if—he practiced those martials arts after coming into the knowledge of the truth. Our Heavenly Father prohibits us from mixing ourselves with the ways of the nation. Thus, in our life, as people who claim to follow YHWH, the Most High God, as His living sacrifices, we are not to incorporate, nor reflect, pagan beliefs, false notions of God, and false philosophies / false information. We follow Jesus: the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The philosophy behind the whole "belt" system in these martial arts is that of defeating the weak which goes against the mind of Christ to help the weak (helping the less strong and less skilled), not taking advantage of them at their expense just to advance yourself, show off your strength and skill, and win prestige. On top of that, Taekwondo and Aikido have philosophies rooted in yin-yang and Shinto, respectively. So, these practices cannot be a part of our lives. They are unholy.

I don't know what of the above Ruckman repented of while he still lived. They're not sins foreign to the rest of us. We all make mistakes, are ignorant of the true nature of certain practices in our lives, and end up misreading texts, but the problem is when we pridefully stay in error even when the Holy Spirit convicts us otherwise, shows us otherwise, and/or brings others who aren't in error (in that area) to us in order to correct us, but we still refuse. We're no longer ignorant at that point, but rejecting the truth. Ruckman may have done some things that are in accord with Scripture in certain areas of his life that we're not aware of (I certainly don't know), but only God knows what is truly commendable about him. I didn't know him like that (this is the first time I'm hearing about him) nor do I know him the way God knows him. This obituary is only one man's limited perspective, and is clearly put together by someone with confused biblical discernment (based on how they took passages out of context; so, their analysis of Ruckman's life loses credibility). Not that a person's ability to perceive another believer's life is what matters in the grand scheme of things: the commendation that matters is the one that comes from God.

• 1 Corinthians 4:5 (NIV)
  
  5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.

Good and faithful servant or wicked, lazy servant? Jesus will tell us when He returns. However, based on how Ruckman used verses, and how the person who typed up the obituary used verses, they should not be applauded. We do have to protect people from false ideas. And this guy's attitude and doctrine was / is unsound (as is the person's who wrote the obituary).

---

Note: up until now, I was quoting from the KJV to avoid the prejudice of those who are KJV-only. But I quoted this last verse from the NIV to demonstrate that I am not KJV-only. The KJV-only stance is an illogical stance because it insinuates that all the English translations that came before it were not inspired by God, so English speaking people were without the bible until 1611 KJV, which is not true (1380's Wycliffe's Bible, 1560's Geneva Bible, etc)

There is no one "authoritative" Bible version because the English is not the authoritative language it was written in. The Hebrew and Greek are what govern. And if parts of the textus receptus (particularly Erasmus' work) had to be back-translated from the Latin, then, by definition, the KJV will deviate from what the original languages said in certain parts. And if a modern English Bible version supplies and works directly from the Hebrew and Greek text, it will be more accurate than the KJV in those areas.

---

As an aside, reading through James White's post made me realize that no matther how highly one suspects something to be true, if one has no direct evidence, it's better not to say it because it could poison people's thinking with suspicion / conspiracy-type thinking, which is unjust. Direct evidence, direct evidence, direct evidence is being drilled into my head. I pray we all be protected from falling into such thinking, because it's everywhere, even under Christian labels and the Christian company we keep.  

[cristobela]

edited to correct BBCode, a footnote citation, and clarify what I meant by "consistent" and "base".

SARL0

cristobela

*

Cristobela -
i went to a youtuber that i frequently watch and told them what you said in your response about the KJV-only stance, to which he responded with this:

"The English Bibles that came before the KJB were inspired, since they were scripture.
Inspiration refers to life, not perfection.
The English language hadn't been perfected yet.
The KJB is it's own Received Text, it doesn't follow any particular existent text.
If it were back translated into Hebrew and Greek you would have exactly what the originals said in those languages.
It is lie that any part of the KJB was back translated from the Latin.
That is an unproven assertion on their part and it refers to some verses in Revelation.
But even if it was so what? As long as the Latin matched the earlier Greek!
No one has proven a single error in those verses.
These guys are always throwing out idiotic assumptions and assertions.
Never let anyone shame you for believing the KJB is the pure word of God because it is."

his channel is Edwardpf123 . i found it interesting that his latest video is of him exposing what a hack and liar that James White is, the guy that you refer to in your response. 

i've compared other versions and i just simply dont want to try to spiritually nourish myself or try to discuss and understand what God means by using bible versions that , imo, are corrupt. i've compared and researched and feel totally logical and reasonable in my decision.

*Quote added by Garland to aid in getting a quicker response.

His reply sounds like a knee-jerk reaction, not a comment that was well-thought out, namely because he says one thing, but then says the opposite in the same breath.

Exhibit A: he states that "It is lie that any part of the KJB was back translated from the Latin", but then he goes on to admit that, actually yes, parts in the Book of Revelation were back-translated from the Latin. So, is he a liar too for saying any part of the KJB was back translated? is any part of the King James Version back-translated or not? The answer is yes, parts of it are. So it is NOT a lie to say any of it was back-translated. He is double-speaking to make it sound like he disproved a fact and is being logical, when in fact he hasn't, isn't, and just served to contradict himself. How can he say that to claim any part of the King James Version was back-translated is "an unproven assertion", when clearly, even by his own reply, he is admitting there is proven basis for the claim. The Book of Revelation.

Exhibit B: What does that even mean ("its own received text")? That it was divinely inspired out of thin air and thus is unlike any other bible version? if so, and if the King James Bible is "its own received text" in that sense, then why is he trying to defend whether or not it matches up to an earlier language of a manuscript written in Latin or Greek? or is he actually referring to the "textus receptus"? the one Erasmus compiled together? which is based on five to six Greek manuscripts from the 12th century that weren't complete (ergo, the need for back-translations from the Latin)? and later was replaced by the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament in 1881 because of the errors in Erasmus' work (since it was a rushed job)? I can relate to rushing and making mistakes, but I admit when there are errors in what I write (as Erasmus did too) and his Greek New Testament was replaced by one that had less errors. So the 1611 KJV—which is based on Erasmus' work—is not the most accurate translation because an even more accurate Greek New Testament was printed 300 years later.

Quote:

Erasmus published two other editions in 1527 and 1535. Stung by criticism that his work contained numerous textual errors, he incorporated readings from the Greek New Testament published in Spain in later editions of his work. Erasmus’ Greek text became the standard in the field, and other editors and printers continued the work after his death in 1536. In 1633, another edition was published. In the publisher’s preface, in Latin, we find these words: “Textum ergo habes, nun cab omnibus receptum,” which can be translated as “the [reader] now has the text that is received by all.” From that publisher’s notation have come the words “Received Text.” The Textus Receptus became the dominant Greek text of the New Testament for the following two hundred and fifty years. It was not until the publication of the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament in 1881 that the Textus Receptus lost its position.

The reason for its losing its prominent position as a basis of biblical textual interpretation was the inception of textual criticism. Influential scholars paved the way for the acceptance of a critical text. The work of Westcott and Hort brought about the final dethronement of the Textus Receptus and the establishment of the principle of a critical text. However, the Textus Receptus is not a “bad” or misleading text, either theologically or practically. Technically, however, it is far from the original text. Yet three centuries were to pass before scholars had won the struggle to replace this hastily assembled text with a text which gave evidence to being closer to the New Testament Autographs.

Read More: http://www.gotquestions.org/Textus-Receptus.html

This has absolutely nothing to do with "the perfection of the English language" but using the most honest, well-done, non-rushed work, and what is most accurate to the original language and in agreement with the most authoritative manuscripts available. Basing this on historical fact, the KJV is not the best, nor the most accurate. And when we find ways to be more accurate to the Hebrew and the Greek, then that is what we should strive to defend and study as students of the Word of God. The original languages of the autographs have more authority. Not the limited knowledge of Erasmus or Stephanus with respect to the Greek.

And in fact, back-translating does matter. A word translated into another language does not carry the nuance of the original term. And if he doesn't have the original manuscripts, then Erasmus is merely guessing which word in the Greek was originally there. And that is exactly what he did, which caused variants in the text once we did compare them to Greek manuscripts that were not missing those areas of the text.

Quote:

In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been.

https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

That is not the definition of "best translation", "best work available". How is that "preserving what the manuscripts originally said better than all the rest"? So let's be KJV-Only?

And the most notorious variant, which many KJV-Only believers point to in order to allege that modern versions, like the NIV, are taking information out that was suppose to be in there: [shortened link to book]

The Textus Receptus, which the KJV is based on, mistakenly added this in; the earlier manuscripts did not contain them. This is an example of mistaking a Latin word for another, not inspiration. The Greek says, "tree". The Latin says, "tree". The NIV says, "tree". The KJV says, "book". I would not call the KJV the "purest" translation in this area.

Obviously, I would advise you to rethink the KJV-Only (or [whatever other English Translation]-Only") stance because if we're going for accuracy, then we study the Hebrew and Greek to the best of our ability. And, as far as the English goes, pick whatever version you understand best and that is striving to be accurate in both meaning and direct translation of the words (of which there are several e.g. ESV, NASB, NIV, even the KJV, etc); take your pick. The KJV has its pro's and con's just like the other versions that are striving to stay true to (1) the meaning of the text (2) to the direct words of the text found across the large collection of manuscripts and (3) to translate the text into the updated spoken language of the day. Today, people don't speak Old "King James" English, though it may have been the common man's language back in their day. People today speak something more equivalent to the NIV.

I study with a KJV because of the Strong's corcordance, and whenever I resort to the NASB concordance, I'm utilizing the NASB. I quote from the NIV in most typed conversations because it's close to conversational English but still high in word-for-word accuracy (link to continuum: http://www.mardel.com/bibleTranslationGuide). But I personally read from a different version altogether (Halleluyah Scriptures). The latter I've benefitted from the most because it keeps certain terms and names in the Hebrew, which, right off the bat, makes me delve deeper into the verse if I am not familiar with the Hebrew term. And then, when I notice what all the English versions are doing with the verse, why such varied translations of the term exist, that just furthers the study more than any other English version has been able to do for me. I can appreciate the AMP bible too (because the Greek and Hebrew terms can be translated in a number of ways, and getting several English synonyms in one sentence fleshes out the meaning of the word). But I still check the Hebrew and Greek anyway with a concordance.

I've come to find that the Hebrew and Greek win every time—regardless of the English version I am reading. You, anyone, everyone is free to study with the KJV. But the KJV-Only stance has no legs to stand on.

And in case this is what he's referring to, and in case this is an (or the) allegation that you came across in your searching: the modern versions do not change doctrines found in the KJV. If they would open up the chapter or cross reference elsewhere in the modern versions, they would see the modern versions do not disagree, but agree, with the same doctrinal statements that the KJV makes.

For example, Colossians 1:14 reads,

• Colossians 1:14 (KJV)
  
  14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
  
  
• Colossians 1:14 (NIV)
  
  14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

The phrase "redemption through his blood" does not appear in the NIV. Does the NIV change doctrine? somehow hide that redemption is through Jesus' blood? No, because the translators include that detail elsewhere (the manuscript reading they are siding with does not have that phrase in Col 1:14 specifically, but the phrase does appear in Ephesians 1:7 of those manuscripts; they agree there).

• Ephesians 1:7 (KJV)
  
  7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
  
  
• Ephesians 1:7 (NIV)
  
  7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace

What doctrine has the NIV changed? None whatsoever. The modern versions do not teach corrupt doctrines. Any KJV-Only-ist who claims that the NIV does change doctrines will dishonestly crop verses, fail to show you the other places that the so-called "omitted" detail can be found in that very same bible version, or is ignoring the footnote where they openly tell you why it reads differently from the Textus Receptus (because they are operating on different, earlier, thus older manuscripts—hand written copies—that is all).


For instance, contrasting KJV to NIV,

• Matthew 17:21 (KJV)
  
  21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
  
  
• Matthew 17:21 (NIV)
  [21] [a]
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Matthew 17:21 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29.
  

Okay, so, what does Mark 9:29 say because it apparently is 100% missing from the NIV (or so it is alleged).

• Mark 9:29 (KJV)
  
  29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
  
  
  
• Mark 9:29 (NIV)
  
  29 He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.[a]”
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Mark 9:29 Some manuscripts prayer and fasting
  
  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mat17:21;mk9:29&version=NIV;KJV

The modern translations did not lose information or deliberately omit verses to do away with biblical doctrines. They're just being true to the variances in all the manuscripts that exist. Some manuscripts (hand written copies of the letters) have certain phrases in certain places, others do not repeat them in the same place or at all. The honest thing to do is alert the public that not every manuscript contains certain phrases in the exact same place—which the KJV, with its lack of footnotes, does not alert anyone of. And considering that the manuscripts the Textus Receptus worked from are younger, and the phrases or words are absent from the older manuscripts, that means people started plugging it into the later (younger) manuscripts in order to be consistent with and echo other passages of Scripture. The KJV has been added into. Though the meaning in general has not changed, but to suggest it is the most accurate is factually incorrect.

Whatever information you looked into, it was not complete, at best, or dishonest at worst. And this is leading to unjust claims (outright false allegations, rumor) being passed around as truth, and causing division in the body of Christ over baseless claims. People fall victim to KJV-Only logic due to either sincerely just not being aware that this is a lie / untruth, that what they have been presented with is a sensationalized, unfounded, statement that only serves to poison the mind with suspicion. Or they're fleshly, lazy, they don't fact check, and it sounds so evil it must be true, they'll take any reason, at the slightest provocation, to hate on someone, because this appeals to their flesh (always looking for something to argue over), and their pride won't let them admit they're wrong nor reject something that has been traditionally taught no matter how prestigious it has become. Generally-speaking, those are the two camps I see, but regardless of level of ignorance or awareness, they're still wrong for suggesting, "KJV is the only one we should look to because it is the most accurate". Satan would like nothing more than to impede the study of the Word of God, especially in the language and vernacular that most people speak, so less people can be reached, and to have us tangled up in non-issues, creating division and causing doubt where there is no legitimate reason to divide on or suspect doctrinal error. In a society that is already overly "TL;DR", to then impose upon them "and you must read it in Old English" is one such impediment, especially if they won't sit through normal, conversational English.

To end with: the KJV translators themselves were not against ANY kind of translation, even the most base / low quality translation...

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

[shortened link to book]

...and were against the notion of subscribing to only one version...

They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

[shortened link to book]

...so where are the KJV-Only-ists adopting their attitude from? I do not know. The KJV translators themselves, who wrote it, do not agree with them. The KJV-Only tradition is so far removed from the truth, the same way the Pharisees were so far removed from the Old Testament Law in favor of their own sayings and traditions. Not even the one who wrote it agreed with them.

---

That said, I may not agree with everything James White defends in other areas of his life (e.g. calvinism), but I do not let that deter me from reading information and judging based on the facts presented. I do not judge the soundness of an argument at hand by what a person may or may not have done at other times in his or her life—but whether or not the claims I am currently reading match up to the totality of Scripture (and its manuscripts). The information contained in the link that Garland provided is what should be disputed. And it clearly illustrated evidence of KJV-Only-ists blinding their eyes to areas where the KJV does not honestly reflect what the manuscripts say. Read the article in its entirety. I didn't detect dishonest "double speak" in James White's replies or arguments, unlike this Edwardpf123 person is displaying by his comment. Edward should take the log out of his own eye if he truly wants to see the speck in James White's eye and thus see when White is erring or being dishonest. Because as it stands now, the one who has been dishonest with you, concerning this subject, is Edwardpf123.

Garland-Green

Thanks for the alert. :P  

[Garland-Green]

SARL0

i just believe that God preserved His word perfectly and that it's been preserved for the English speaking ppl in the KJV bible.

like i said, i've compared other versionis, read other versions and it bothers me that entire verses are omitted and then referenced in foot notes, i dont like the changes of the NIV and i certainly do not feel spiritually nourished or edified from other translations. It is the KJV that speaks to my spirit, so it's the KJV that i read, use and reference when discussing the things of the bible. i wouldn't join or faithfully attend a church that didnt use the KJV. my relationship with God is personal through Christ Jesus, therefore it makes perfect sense to me that my bible version of choice is also personal, and i personally choose to believe that the KJV is Gods word.

you can think of me as illogical and point out how i'm missing blahblahblah...
all i'm doing is choosing to believe that God kept his promise to preserve His word perfectly and refusing to fully rely on other versions as accurate.

do you believe that you have Gods perfect word in any one translation? Does anyone in this guild believe that they can hold in their hands Gods perfect word? when i claim that by faith i have accepted the KJV as Gods perfect word, what is your response? accuse me of being illogical and satanic?

you have your reasons for not believing that you have Gods perfect word or at least not believing that Gods perfect word is the KJV , i have my reasons for believing that it is. i find it extremely suspicious when ppl try to cause believers like me to doubt that i have Gods perfect word. why would another professed Christian want another Christian to doubt that they have the perfect word of God? to me, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. i can understand atheists wanting to cause someone to doubt that they can have Gods perfect word, i can understand ppl who hate God, Christians and the bible accusing then of being illogical and satanic for holding the stance of accepting the KJV as Gods perfect preserved word, but i cannot understand Christians doing that to other Christians.

No one is going to lynch you for holding that position, but no one is going to force me to say that it is right or logical. I used to hold that position myself, but after examining it further I saw that it doesn't match up with what I saw in other translations. You have the same doctrines and the Gospel present in newer translations. If God's word is limited to one English translation from 1611, then what about Christians before this year? What about Christians who can't read English? I come from a country where English is a second language. It would means that many people are not reading the word of God in their own tongue, because only the only perfect translation available is in English according to those who hold a KJV only position. The dangers of a KJV only position is that it could cause people to think that people for example are not saved because they are not saved with a verse from the KJV but from a newer translation, or that people isolate themselves with other KJV only Christians thinking they are the only ones being true (obedient) to God, or the only ones who have His word accurately.

The question we have to ask ourselves is what constitutes the word of God? Is it possible that we can have translations where the translators have done minor mistakes in copying, and we still have the word of God? I belive this. As long as the Bible convey the Gospel accurately, as long as it is striving to present itself as close to the original manuscripts in its wording and its content then I believe we can trust it. If the truth is that there is no translation that doesn't have a copying-mistakes or translation mistakes, then that is the truth - and as Christians we should be about the truth, even though it sometimes makes us uncomfortable. We don't want to misrepresent the truth to anyone we speak to about this - people are capable of doing research. Finding out that they have been lied to can be devastating to someones faith. It doesn't mean we can not reconcile this with inerrancy. Inerrancy as I understand it is that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. From what I have seen this is also true of most newer translations where it doesn't deviate from the original manuscripts, and perhaps this is the extent to which God goes about in preserving His word. Not that He holds the pen of every copyist, but that He preserves the truth and doctrines even in translations even though they do not have the same verses due to variances in the original manuscripts. What do you put in the word perfect?

I believe I can pick up any translation of the Bible, as far as they are not a translation done by a cult or someone who has succumbed to the popular opinions of the time e.g. The Queen James Bible, and find the same doctrines, teachings and that they are historically accurate as far as they are in line with the original manuscripts. It is a great blessing, not an obstacle that we have as many translations as we have. Some translations catch, or translate better things that other translator missed. Having so many translations and being able to compare them gives us a unique opportunity to study the word in a way that for example is impossible for a Muslim or even a Buddhist (Buddhist documents concerning the Buddha and Buddhist doctrines date hundreds of years after his death, compared to the synoptic gospels that date back to maybe a couple of decades after Jesus' Resurrection at the most). They have only one translation. Old manuscripts were burned, and they believe that God's word is only truly available in Arab. It shuts down any debate with someone who is an English speaker and want to debate the Koran. How can they really know what God wants if they only read English? Their understanding will be limited at best, corrupted at worst. Logically that would mean that if they proselyte from an English translation to someone not speaking Arab that they are not conveying the word of God. If it was the word of God, and it is to go out to all the world then why would he limit his word to one singular language?

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Quote:

all i'm doing is choosing to believe that God kept his promise to preserve His word perfectly and refusing to fully rely on other versions as accurate.

It is not all you are doing. You are making also an indirect statement about brothers and sisters reading other translations and who are reading the Bible in a different language believing that they are also reading God's word. Could God have meant that He would preserve His word in such a way that it would go out and accomplish what He intended no matter what kind of language it was uttered or written in?

That we don't feel something spiritual about a particular translation doesn't mean that we can rely on feelings in informing other people that it is not a good translation for them to read. Feelings are subjective. What you feel about the NIV, someone could say about the KJV. They can take by faith that the NIV is the only accurate perfect word of God. An argument in favor of this could be that English is a language that was not done developing in 1611, and so it was not perfect... I don't believe that the NIV is the only perfect word of God, but I am using it to illustrate a point.  

[Garland-Green]

SARL0

Garland-Green

SARL0

i just believe that God preserved His word perfectly and that it's been preserved for the English speaking ppl in the KJV bible.

like i said, i've compared other versionis, read other versions and it bothers me that entire verses are omitted and then referenced in foot notes, i dont like the changes of the NIV and i certainly do not feel spiritually nourished or edified from other translations. It is the KJV that speaks to my spirit, so it's the KJV that i read, use and reference when discussing the things of the bible. i wouldn't join or faithfully attend a church that didnt use the KJV. my relationship with God is personal through Christ Jesus, therefore it makes perfect sense to me that my bible version of choice is also personal, and i personally choose to believe that the KJV is Gods word.

you can think of me as illogical and point out how i'm missing blahblahblah...
all i'm doing is choosing to believe that God kept his promise to preserve His word perfectly and refusing to fully rely on other versions as accurate.

do you believe that you have Gods perfect word in any one translation? Does anyone in this guild believe that they can hold in their hands Gods perfect word? when i claim that by faith i have accepted the KJV as Gods perfect word, what is your response? accuse me of being illogical and satanic?

you have your reasons for not believing that you have Gods perfect word or at least not believing that Gods perfect word is the KJV , i have my reasons for believing that it is. i find it extremely suspicious when ppl try to cause believers like me to doubt that i have Gods perfect word. why would another professed Christian want another Christian to doubt that they have the perfect word of God? to me, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. i can understand atheists wanting to cause someone to doubt that they can have Gods perfect word, i can understand ppl who hate God, Christians and the bible accusing then of being illogical and satanic for holding the stance of accepting the KJV as Gods perfect preserved word, but i cannot understand Christians doing that to other Christians.

No one is going to lynch you for holding that position, but no one is going to force me to say that it is right or logical. I used to hold that position myself, but after examining it further I saw that it doesn't match up with what I saw in other translations. You have the same doctrines and the Gospel present in newer translations. If God's word is limited to one English translation from 1611, then what about Christians before this year? What about Christians who can't read English? I come from a country where English is a second language. It would means that many people are not reading the word of God in their own tongue, because only the only perfect translation available is in English according to those who hold a KJV only position. The dangers of a KJV only position is that it could cause people to think that people for example are not saved because they are not saved with a verse from the KJV but from a newer translation, or that people isolate themselves with other KJV only Christians thinking they are the only ones being true (obedient) to God, or the only ones who have His word accurately.

The question we have to ask ourselves is what constitutes the word of God? Is it possible that we can have translations where the translators have done minor mistakes in copying, and we still have the word of God? I belive this. As long as the Bible convey the Gospel accurately, as long as it is striving to present itself as close to the original manuscripts in its wording and its content then I believe we can trust it. If the truth is that there is no translation that doesn't have a copying-mistakes or translation mistakes, then that is the truth - and as Christians we should be about the truth, even though it sometimes makes us uncomfortable. We don't want to misrepresent the truth to anyone we speak to about this - people are capable of doing research. Finding out that they have been lied to can be devastating to someones faith. It doesn't mean we can not reconcile this with inerrancy. Inerrancy as I understand it is that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. From what I have seen this is also true of most newer translations where it doesn't deviate from the original manuscripts, and perhaps this is the extent to which God goes about in preserving His word. Not that He holds the pen of every copyist, but that He preserves the truth and doctrines even in translations even though they do not have the same verses due to variances in the original manuscripts. What do you put in the word perfect?

I believe I can pick up any translation of the Bible, as far as they are not a translation done by a cult or someone who has succumbed to the popular opinions of the time e.g. The Queen James Bible, and find the same doctrines, teachings and that they are historically accurate as far as they are in line with the original manuscripts. It is a great blessing, not an obstacle that we have as many translations as we have. Some translations catch, or translate better things that other translator missed. Having so many translations and being able to compare them gives us a unique opportunity to study the word in a way that for example is impossible for a Muslim or even a Buddhist (Buddhist documents concerning the Buddha and Buddhist doctrines date hundreds of years after his death, compared to the synoptic gospels that date back to maybe a couple of decades after Jesus' Resurrection at the most). They have only one translation. Old manuscripts were burned, and they believe that God's word is only truly available in Arab. It shuts down any debate with someone who is an English speaker and want to debate the Koran. How can they really know what God wants if they only read English? Their understanding will be limited at best, corrupted at worst. Logically that would mean that if they proselyte from an English translation to someone not speaking Arab that they are not conveying the word of God. If it was the word of God, and it is to go out to all the world then why would he limit his word to one singular language?

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Quote:

all i'm doing is choosing to believe that God kept his promise to preserve His word perfectly and refusing to fully rely on other versions as accurate.

It is not all you are doing. You are making also an indirect statement about brothers and sisters reading other translations and who are reading the Bible in a different language believing that they are also reading God's word. Could God have meant that He would preserve His word in such a way that it would go out and accomplish what He intended no matter what kind of language it was uttered or written in?

That we don't feel something spiritual about a particular translation doesn't mean that we can rely on feelings in informing other people that it is not a good translation for them to read. Feelings are subjective. What you feel about the NIV, someone could say about the KJV. They can take by faith that the NIV is the only accurate perfect word of God. An argument in favor of this could be that English is a language that was not done developing in 1611, and so it was not perfect... I don't believe that the NIV is the only perfect word of God, but I am using it to illustrate a point.

well here's the thing.

i'm NOT saying any of those things that you're saying.

i'm not even addressing the issue of translations in other languages. i am saying that i believe and have faith that i have Gods perfect word for me to read in english.

whatever anyone else feels or thinks based on my personal stance is their own thoughts that they can work out for themselves. i just want to let ppl know that my reasons for choosing the KJV to grow spiritually and to use when discussing and trying to understand what God says is based in research, comparison, logic and what i believe to be a reasonable choice. i dont think i'm relying solely on feelings for my choice, but so what if i was? so what if i only used the KJV because my greatgrandmother used it? Does that mean other Christians need to insult me or accuse me of doing something that would please satan?

i would never make the bible version that someone chooses to use a salvation issue, but since you brought it up, if someone should question if they're saved or not because i and others choose to believe that the KJV is Gods word, that isnt something i feel i'm responsible for. and Btw.... questioning ones own salvation, imo, is healthy.. Gods word tells us to examine ourselves if we be in the faith and there's nothing wrong with it, imo. I examine myself often. i look back on the time that i trusted Christ and go over what i was feeling and thinking and remember what the preacher was talking about from Gods word. i remember how i repented of what i used to believe and chose to accept and believe Gods word to be true with child like faith and simply take the bible's word for it. i remember the immediate change that came over me.
examining whether we're in the faith or not is, imo, something that we're instructed to do and should do.

i think it's really sad and creepy for other Christians to accuse me of being illogical and doing something that would please satan.

you and all believers have every right to like reading and feel spiritually nourished by whatever translation you choose, and i have every right to believe that other translations, especially the NIV, (cutting out 64,000 words and 17 whole verses are omitted from it) are corrupt , therefore i'm going to stick to the KJV as my weapon of choice (double edged sword) against the devil, as i believe it is powerful and cuts precise and accurate. 3nodding

the picture depicts the words that ppl say and how they treat ppl like me who have faith that the KJV is Gods perfect word. their words are their weapons, their teeth are swords and knives.

have you ever looked in to this: (its all about the KJV only stance)
The Answer Book

im not trying to force you or anyone to say or believe anything. believe what you want to believe about me and ppl who have faith that the KJV is Gods word. i prefer the KJV and have faith that it's Gods perfect and holy word w/out error. and my emotions are a God given sense that He allows me to experience and i'm very grateful to be not only a logical creature, but an emotional one too.

The words of God are spirit. and the KJV bears witness with my spirit that it is Gods words speaking directly to my heart. and i indeed experience this on an emotional level, a spiritual level and in my mind. I love the word of God, i love God with all my heart (emotional) mind, and spirit. the KJV allows the growth of this love and nourishment from His word. No other version does this for me.

if you wish to come against that, i think it's sad, strange and weird for you, or any other professed Christian to do so.

Quote:

i dont think i'm relying solely on feelings for my choice, but so what if i was? so what if i only used the KJV because my greatgrandmother used it? Does that mean other Christians need to insult me or accuse me of doing something that would please satan?

There's room for mistakes in Christianity without it necessarily being Satan who is behind it, at least there should be. Not one of us have been perfected yet. There should also be room to question something without fear of being viewed as doing Satan's work for him. Why do you feel like it is insulting to ask why you hold to a such a position or say that I don't think it is logical? If I have said something that was insulting to you then I apologize.

I usually stay away from the site Jesus-is-savior because of the way they handle certain issues.. Doesn't ring right to me.

A quote from his site to illustrate why I avoid it;

They [people] have been lied to by false prophets like Dan Corner, Ray Comfort and John MacArthur to think that they must live lives of obedience, holiness and faithfulness to be saved. They are self-righteous .(http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's Corner/eternal_security.htm )

What Jesus said;
John 14:15
"If you love me, keep my commands.

Matthew 24:44-51 King James Version (KJV)

44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;

50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Galatians 6:7 KJV
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Galatians 6:8 KJV
Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

For your sake I will read the book when I have the opportunity though, so I will get back to you on it. ^_^

Quote:

you and all believers have every right to like reading and feel spiritually nourished by whatever translation you choose, and i have every right to believe that other translations, especially the NIV, (cutting out 64,000 words and 17 whole verses are omitted from it) are corrupt

Have you researched why those 64,00 words have been removed, and why those 17 verses are removed from the NIV itself, or did you take someones word for it that there are evil intentions behind it? The NIV lists the verses that are removed and why they are removed in the commentary.

"Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?"

Quote:

if you wish to come against that, i think it's sad, strange and weird for you, or any other professed Christian to do so.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.

About salvation being based on Bible translation what I said was; "The dangers of a KJV only position is that it could cause people to think that people for example are not saved because they are not saved with a verse from the KJV but from a newer translation."

That is - someone else questioning the persons salvation because he or she was saved by a corrupt Bible translation.

Self-examination is always good, someone making you doubt your salvation because you don't follow their particular understanding, is not.

Examples of this happening in churches that teach KJV only;

John Komenda on Puritanboard.com:

I known quite a few pastors who teach that the NIV is a Satanic book. In my old church pastors would come in and tell people to burn that book if they were using it. Also you can not be saved if you read that bible or any bible not KJV. In fact they went so far as to say any pastors or teachers who do not use the KJV in their books are ministers of Satan. My friend gave me like 18 book's by James M. Boice due to the satanic verses in them. Then he was in trouble for giving them away and not burning them. They put him under church discipline and was not allowed to speak with me any more. Due to him helping dam my soul to hell for reading any scripture than the KJV. I even found they hated the HCSB more than the NIV. Before I left my old church I was told many times by a deacon I was going to Hell for reading the HCSB* and even compaired it to Maos little red book.

* Holman Christian Standard Bible

Gary Amirault on tentmaker.org said;

At an early point in my walk with Jesus, I was strongly under the influence of men and women who believed in the “Inerrant Bible” doctrine. They believed the King James Bible was the only one Christians should use because it was inspired of God and without errors. They believed other translations were inspired of Satan, the “Alexandrian cult,” and the Roman Catholic Church. But eventually, I was freed from their influence and decided to do some extensive research into Bible translations myself. I discovered that the people who were perpetuating the King James “Inerrant Bible” myth were actually promoting perhaps the most corrupt, inaccurate and error-filled translation of all of them! Furthermore, it has had more revisions by far than any other translation. If it’s “Inerrant” to begin with, why all the modifications and revisions? The answer if obvious – the King James Bible is FAR from inerrant.

Now, I don't agree that the King James is the most error-filled and corrupt Bible translation of them all or that people shouldn't read it, but his experience with those that hold to King James only seems to have colored his view of this particular translation.

Fred Butler wrote on fredsbibletalk.com;

As I wrestled with the intellectual consternation surrounding my KJV onlyism, I was also becoming aware of a couple of other problem areas inherent to KJV onlyism as a system. First, there is the vitriolic tone that is practically ubiquitous in all KJV only literature. This tone takes the shape of angry and vicious slander against the character of anyone who would dissent from the opinion of KJVO advocates and dare to challenge their core presuppositions. The person who boldly withstands them, will be called a Bible rejecter, corrector, or denier; equated with an atheist, humanist or worse yet, a Roman Catholic Jesuit; and, as if those designations are not strong enough, the person’s Christian testimony is questioned and he is told that he is an apostate from the true faith. The sad reality is that these KJVO advocates actually believe it is their Christian duty to hurl ungodly accusations and call their detractors names. They are under the delusion that such harshness somehow honors God, believing they are akin to modern day prophets.

The most insidious example of such crudeness comes from the regular diatribes of Peter Ruckman. He has personally anathematized every pastor, Bible college, theological seminary, and Christian professor, both conservative and liberal, in the entire United States of America during the last 20 plus years with his monthly Bible Bulletin, all in the name of defending his KJVO beliefs. When I was immersed in KJV onlyism, I was troubled by this incendiary rhetoric, and even though Ruckman was not a favored KJV hero of mine, I did emulate his style against my detractors, but in a milder manner of condemnation. Eventually, like the revelation I had regarding the lives of Westcott and Hort, I began to read what those authors actually wrote who are often demonized by KJVO publications. I discovered that they were not denying the Bible, and from my vantage point, they were much more Christ-like with the expression of their opinions toward those who disagreed with them and attacked their character. I even had the opportunity to personally meet some of these individuals, like James White, and they were nothing like the truth hating apostates frequently lampooned by KJVO advocates in their books and articles.

Read more about his experiences here; Confessions of a King James Only Advocate

Another example;
Pastors Who Preach the NIV AREN'T SAVED!

I am not saying this is you, but I am saying there is an inherent danger of cult like development in churches that hold to onlyism.

If the NIV is the word of God are these people in trouble?

Burning the NIV (Corrupted Bible)  

[Garland-Green]

SARL0

okay as for keeping the commandments = loving Jesus, yes.. that's what Jesus teaches. And i whole heartedly believe that if someone who claims to be saved and is not living their life in obedience to the bible, they cannot claim that they love Jesus.
However, i do not think that because a believer doesn't keep the commandments that it means they are not saved. it means they are not living a life of obedience to prove their love for Jesus. but i dont think you're saying that they're not saved, are you? maybe you are suggesting that someone who doesn't keep the commandments isn't saved, i can't tell.

as for the Matthew 24 verses. do you believe those verses are for new testament Christians ? i mean .. at that time, it was still old testament time, Jesus had not died yet and the new testament was not enforce. the way i believe, Jesus was speaking to the Jews and of the Jews how they will endure and live in obedience in order to be saved during the tribulation times/time of Jacobs trouble. if you're up for a thorough teaching and better understanding of Matthew 24, this bible study does a great job explaining how i believe. (He explains it in the first 5 mins of the sermon, but just click ahead to the 3 min. mark and listen from 3 mins - 5 mins. he will then in the rest of the sermon explain if you care to keep listening, it's actually a great bible study,imo, but you only need listen to 2 mins of it to understand my beflief about Matthew 24) I dont believe Matthew 24 is being taught to nNew Testament Christians. the new testament had not begun then and was not enforce at that time. Christians do not have to endure to the end to be saved. Do you believe a Christian can lose their salvation? Do you believe Christians will be left behind and have to go thru The Time of Jacobs Trouble/the tribulation?

i have never listened to a sermon by Peter Ruckman or read any of his material. i am not a "ruckmanite" but i understand that many KJV only folks really like him. i guess he was a pretty smart guy and good teacher, but he's not the type of teacher i would listen to for very long due to his mannerisms and ungentlemanly pulpiteering antics. Also, his stance on abortion just sickens me.

But i listen to many sermons by Bryan Denlinger on youtube and i think he's great as far as the Rapture/tribulation/time of Jacobs trouble teaching goes and as far as the KJV issue goes also. There's some things i dont agree w/ that Denlinger teaches and some of his preferences i dont agree w/ and some of his methods of reaching the lost , i dont agree with.

i'm not asking you to be KJV only or anyone else in this guild to change and become KJV-only. okay? i dont think you're illogical or satanic for reading your version of choice or however you use the versions all together, idk if you stick to one or if you use many. but i'm going to stick to the KJV. that's all and i'd like to not be insulted for my bible choice and my reasons for only using the kJV.

no, you didnt insult me. it was cristobela. saying that the KJV-only stance is illogical and suggesting that it's something that satan would be pleased with .

i prefer KJV and i'm going to stick to that version. i'm not trying to convince anyone that they need to change to kjv-only. my choice is an informed choice and from looking to tons of information on the issue. but the thing that is the most powerful reason for my choosing the KJV is from my own personal experience of reading the other versions and none of them spoke to my heart, the KJV spoke to my heart. that is my personal experience and my personal relationship w/ the word of God.

as far as are those guys in trouble for burning the NIV - i have no idea. who knows. i dont see the big deal in doing it. i mean, yea if it was the last NIV in existence yea... but there's thousands of copies. same w/ the KJV - what if i really needed to burn it to make a fire? do i fear God would clobber me over the head for it? no. that's rediculous, imo.

Also, i dont believe that ppl aren't saved just cos they didnt use the KJV or dont currently use the KJV. i believe we're saved by putting our faith in Christ Jesus. we're not saved by putting our faith in the king james version of the bible; the bible versions didnt die for our sins, Jesus Christ did. the Gospel is can be found in the NIV and other versions, a person gets saved by hearing the Gospel and trusting in Jesus Christ. I would ask that you not group me up w/ a bunch of wacko kjv-onlyists okay? please allow me to speak for myself and my own personal beliefs.
Westboro Baptists claim to be Christians, do you see me grouping you or anyone else in here w/ them since you also claim to be Christian? or any other group like the mormons or the catholics? no, i will learn what you believe personally and i'll let you speak from your own heart and from your own beliefs and if you so choose to name a particular denomination that you agree with you can let that be known. so i would appreciate the same treatment if that's okay.

Quote:

okay as for keeping the commandments = loving Jesus, yes.. that's what Jesus teaches. And i whole heartedly believe that if someone who claims to be saved and is not living their life in obedience to the bible, they cannot claim that they love Jesus.
However, i do not think that because a believer doesn't keep the commandments that it means they are not saved.

And that is the issue with MacArthur. He teaches something that is called Lordship salvation. This is why Jesus-is-savior deems him an heretic, but I think this stems from a misunderstanding of what he is talking about, and what Lordship salvation is.

At the core of the issue is grace: “Lordship salvation” advocates say that in order to be saved, one must not only believe and acknowledge that Christ is Lord, but also submit to His lordship. In other words, there must be — at the moment one trusts in Christ for salvation — a willingness to commit one’s life absolutely to the Lord, even though the actual practice of a committed life may not follow immediately or completely. Non-lordship proponents argue that such a pre-salvation commitment to Christ’s lordship compromises salvation by grace.

Neither side is saying that salvation is by works. Both affirm the clear teaching of Scripture that salvation is a gift freely given by God to man. Nor is either side advocating “easy­ believism,” a term coined by Lordship proponents to describe the idea that one receives salvation by simply giving intel­lectual assent to a set of doctrines. - Source

Quote:

it means they are not living a life of obedience to prove their love for Jesus.

Someone who believes in Lordship salvation would say that since their life is not showing any good fruit is is likely that they are not saved in spite of claiming themselves that they are. A good tree can not bear bad fruit etc.
They would say that; Scripture teaches that behavior is an important test of faith. Obedience is evidence that one’s faith is genuine (1 John 2:3). If a person remains unwilling to obey Christ, he provides evidence that his “faith” is in name only (1 John 2:4). A person may claim Jesus as Savior and pretend to obey for a while, but, if there is no heart change, his true nature will eventually manifest itself.

I am posting all of Matthew 24 for those who want to read it;

show spoilerhide spoiler

Matthew 24

The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times
24 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

29 “Immediately after the distress of those days

“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The Day and Hour Unknown
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

From what I am gathering here, anyone who is a servant who is a hypocrite will not be rewarded but punished, and He is talking here to to disciples. I don't gather from the text that some servants who have a special position over others will not be punished for being hypocrites. He is saying this is what you should look for to know when the time is near. I don't believe that those that don't belong to Him are capable of seeing any signs. Like those during Noah's time "they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away."

I will attempt to make time later today to view the video.

Quote:

as far as are those guys in trouble for burning the NIV - i have no idea. who knows. i dont see the big deal in doing it. i mean, yea if it was the last NIV in existence yea... but there's thousands of copies. same w/ the KJV - what if i really needed to burn it to make a fire? do i fear God would clobber me over the head for it? no. that's rediculous, imo.

If it is His words that are offered to us in the book, then I would not be brave enough to burn it to keep warm - even if the book is just one of several copies. I think we as Christians should hold the Bible whatever translation it is baring it is not a translation made by a cult, with the same regard Muslims do the Koran. I think it makes for a great testimony for the world looking at Muslims and seeing the reverence they treat their holy book with. We believe our book is holier - we should treat it as it is holier.

Quote:

i'm not asking you to be KJV only or anyone else in this guild to change and become KJV-only. okay? i dont think you're illogical or satanic for reading your version of choice or however you use the versions all together, idk if you stick to one or if you use many. but i'm going to stick to the KJV. that's all and i'd like to not be insulted for my bible choice and my reasons for only using the kJV.

It is great that you have a version you feel comfortable with, and I appreciate that you feel so strongly about it and I think you should continue doing that. I just had to say something because I don't feel it is fair to those who read the NIV, and prefer the NIV that you called it corrupt, and I think that calling a version corrupt says something about the reliability of that particular translation it terms of being God's word. If I thought it was true I wouldn't have made an issue about it.

Quote:

Also, i dont believe that ppl aren't saved just cos they didnt use the KJV or dont currently use the KJV. i believe we're saved by putting our faith in Christ Jesus. we're not saved by putting our faith in the king james version of the bible; the bible versions didnt die for our sins, Jesus Christ did. the Gospel is can be found in the NIV and other versions, a person gets saved by hearing the Gospel and trusting in Jesus Christ. I would ask that you not group me up w/ a bunch of wacko kjv-onlyists okay? please allow me to speak for myself and my own personal beliefs

.

That is fair enough. I didn't list those examples to show what you are like, but what the dangers of a KJV only position is. I agree with you that people are saved by putting their faith in Jesus, not in Bible - at the same time our faith is a faith that is not unreasonable and indefensible. Part of our defense is the reliability of the Bible. (The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.) We have this faith because of the Bible a written tradition that we can examine, not just an oral tradition which would be impossible to support. We are pretty blessed. smile I will not group you with them.  

[Garland-Green]

SARL0

Garland-Green

SARL0

i just believe that God preserved His word perfectly and that it's been preserved for the English speaking ppl in the KJV bible.

like i said, i've compared other versionis, read other versions and it bothers me that entire verses are omitted and then referenced in foot notes, i dont like the changes of the NIV and i certainly do not feel spiritually nourished or edified from other translations. It is the KJV that speaks to my spirit, so it's the KJV that i read, use and reference when discussing the things of the bible. i wouldn't join or faithfully attend a church that didnt use the KJV. my relationship with God is personal through Christ Jesus, therefore it makes perfect sense to me that my bible version of choice is also personal, and i personally choose to believe that the KJV is Gods word.

you can think of me as illogical and point out how i'm missing blahblahblah...
all i'm doing is choosing to believe that God kept his promise to preserve His word perfectly and refusing to fully rely on other versions as accurate.

do you believe that you have Gods perfect word in any one translation? Does anyone in this guild believe that they can hold in their hands Gods perfect word? when i claim that by faith i have accepted the KJV as Gods perfect word, what is your response? accuse me of being illogical and satanic?

you have your reasons for not believing that you have Gods perfect word or at least not believing that Gods perfect word is the KJV , i have my reasons for believing that it is. i find it extremely suspicious when ppl try to cause believers like me to doubt that i have Gods perfect word. why would another professed Christian want another Christian to doubt that they have the perfect word of God? to me, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. i can understand atheists wanting to cause someone to doubt that they can have Gods perfect word, i can understand ppl who hate God, Christians and the bible accusing then of being illogical and satanic for holding the stance of accepting the KJV as Gods perfect preserved word, but i cannot understand Christians doing that to other Christians.

No one is going to lynch you for holding that position, but no one is going to force me to say that it is right or logical. I used to hold that position myself, but after examining it further I saw that it doesn't match up with what I saw in other translations. You have the same doctrines and the Gospel present in newer translations. If God's word is limited to one English translation from 1611, then what about Christians before this year? What about Christians who can't read English? I come from a country where English is a second language. It would means that many people are not reading the word of God in their own tongue, because only the only perfect translation available is in English according to those who hold a KJV only position. The dangers of a KJV only position is that it could cause people to think that people for example are not saved because they are not saved with a verse from the KJV but from a newer translation, or that people isolate themselves with other KJV only Christians thinking they are the only ones being true (obedient) to God, or the only ones who have His word accurately.

The question we have to ask ourselves is what constitutes the word of God? Is it possible that we can have translations where the translators have done minor mistakes in copying, and we still have the word of God? I belive this. As long as the Bible convey the Gospel accurately, as long as it is striving to present itself as close to the original manuscripts in its wording and its content then I believe we can trust it. If the truth is that there is no translation that doesn't have a copying-mistakes or translation mistakes, then that is the truth - and as Christians we should be about the truth, even though it sometimes makes us uncomfortable. We don't want to misrepresent the truth to anyone we speak to about this - people are capable of doing research. Finding out that they have been lied to can be devastating to someones faith. It doesn't mean we can not reconcile this with inerrancy. Inerrancy as I understand it is that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. From what I have seen this is also true of most newer translations where it doesn't deviate from the original manuscripts, and perhaps this is the extent to which God goes about in preserving His word. Not that He holds the pen of every copyist, but that He preserves the truth and doctrines even in translations even though they do not have the same verses due to variances in the original manuscripts. What do you put in the word perfect?

I believe I can pick up any translation of the Bible, as far as they are not a translation done by a cult or someone who has succumbed to the popular opinions of the time e.g. The Queen James Bible, and find the same doctrines, teachings and that they are historically accurate as far as they are in line with the original manuscripts. It is a great blessing, not an obstacle that we have as many translations as we have. Some translations catch, or translate better things that other translator missed. Having so many translations and being able to compare them gives us a unique opportunity to study the word in a way that for example is impossible for a Muslim or even a Buddhist (Buddhist documents concerning the Buddha and Buddhist doctrines date hundreds of years after his death, compared to the synoptic gospels that date back to maybe a couple of decades after Jesus' Resurrection at the most). They have only one translation. Old manuscripts were burned, and they believe that God's word is only truly available in Arab. It shuts down any debate with someone who is an English speaker and want to debate the Koran. How can they really know what God wants if they only read English? Their understanding will be limited at best, corrupted at worst. Logically that would mean that if they proselyte from an English translation to someone not speaking Arab that they are not conveying the word of God. If it was the word of God, and it is to go out to all the world then why would he limit his word to one singular language?

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Quote:

all i'm doing is choosing to believe that God kept his promise to preserve His word perfectly and refusing to fully rely on other versions as accurate.

It is not all you are doing. You are making also an indirect statement about brothers and sisters reading other translations and who are reading the Bible in a different language believing that they are also reading God's word. Could God have meant that He would preserve His word in such a way that it would go out and accomplish what He intended no matter what kind of language it was uttered or written in?

That we don't feel something spiritual about a particular translation doesn't mean that we can rely on feelings in informing other people that it is not a good translation for them to read. Feelings are subjective. What you feel about the NIV, someone could say about the KJV. They can take by faith that the NIV is the only accurate perfect word of God. An argument in favor of this could be that English is a language that was not done developing in 1611, and so it was not perfect... I don't believe that the NIV is the only perfect word of God, but I am using it to illustrate a point.

well here's the thing.

i'm NOT saying any of those things that you're saying.

i'm not even addressing the issue of translations in other languages. i am saying that i believe and have faith that i have Gods perfect word for me to read in english.

whatever anyone else feels or thinks based on my personal stance is their own thoughts that they can work out for themselves. i just want to let ppl know that my reasons for choosing the KJV to grow spiritually and to use when discussing and trying to understand what God says is based in research, comparison, logic and what i believe to be a reasonable choice. i dont think i'm relying solely on feelings for my choice, but so what if i was? so what if i only used the KJV because my greatgrandmother used it? Does that mean other Christians need to insult me or accuse me of doing something that would please satan?

i would never make the bible version that someone chooses to use a salvation issue, but since you brought it up, if someone should question if they're saved or not because i and others choose to believe that the KJV is Gods word, that isnt something i feel i'm responsible for. and Btw.... questioning ones own salvation, imo, is healthy.. Gods word tells us to examine ourselves if we be in the faith and there's nothing wrong with it, imo. I examine myself often. i look back on the time that i trusted Christ and go over what i was feeling and thinking and remember what the preacher was talking about from Gods word. i remember how i repented of what i used to believe and chose to accept and believe Gods word to be true with child like faith and simply take the bible's word for it. i remember the immediate change that came over me.
examining whether we're in the faith or not is, imo, something that we're instructed to do and should do.

i think it's really sad and creepy for other Christians to accuse me of being illogical and doing something that would please satan.

you and all believers have every right to like reading and feel spiritually nourished by whatever translation you choose, and i have every right to believe that other translations, especially the NIV, (cutting out 64,000 words and 17 whole verses are omitted from it) are corrupt , therefore i'm going to stick to the KJV as my weapon of choice (double edged sword) against the devil, as i believe it is powerful and cuts precise and accurate. 3nodding

the picture depicts the words that ppl say and how they treat ppl like me who have faith that the KJV is Gods perfect word. their words are their weapons, their teeth are swords and knives.

have you ever looked in to this: (its all about the KJV only stance)
The Answer Book

im not trying to force you or anyone to say or believe anything. believe what you want to believe about me and ppl who have faith that the KJV is Gods word. i prefer the KJV and have faith that it's Gods perfect and holy word w/out error. and my emotions are a God given sense that He allows me to experience and i'm very grateful to be not only a logical creature, but an emotional one too.

The words of God are spirit. and the KJV bears witness with my spirit that it is Gods words speaking directly to my heart. and i indeed experience this on an emotional level, a spiritual level and in my mind. I love the word of God, i love God with all my heart (emotional) mind, and spirit. the KJV allows the growth of this love and nourishment from His word. No other version does this for me.

if you wish to come against that, i think it's sad, strange and weird for you, or any other professed Christian to do so.

Reading that book that you suggested, and I am finding it to be very dishonest and slanderous...

It says that " Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild." concerning Westcott and Hort.

I am going to quote what they themselves said; Many years ago I had occasion to investigate “spiritualistic” phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope. ~ B.F. Westcott

B.F. Westcott in “The Response to the Appeal”, Borderland, Vol. I, No. 1 (July 1893) p. 11.

Writing more on this later. Need it to be more quiet around me to be able to focus. smile