Search results

Your allegation is false, and it bears false witness. Pointing out problems with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching does not harm or destroy sound faith in the word of God. Blind faith in the human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning or opinions of men is not faith in the word...

You fail to prove that I do not understand Ruckman's position, and you fail to prove that I supposedly create any strawman position. What specific points or assertions made by Peter Ruckman do you allege that I supposedly do not understand? I have read enough of Ruckman's own writings so...

Your posts demonstrate that you do not know what a fact is. I accept the KJV as what it actually is instead of trying to claim that it is something that it is not as KJV-only advocates claim. I believe and accept all that the Scriptures actually state and teach concerning themselves. I have...

Because you claim something to be a fact does not mean that it is actually a fact. What KJV-only advocates claim to be facts are often not actually verifiable facts. KJV-only advocates will present their own subjective opinions as supposedly being facts and will present assumptions based on...

That is true. Many KJV-only advocates will not face or deal with any facts that expose the serious problems with their inconsistent, non-scriptural, human KJV-only reasoning/teaching. Those that do typically become former KJV-only advocates as they depart from or forsake their former...

You demonstrate that you do not see clearly and justly. Perhaps you are blind to your own subjective bias. Your posts would show partiality or respect of persons to some. You in effect make unjust allegations because of the use of inconsistent, unjust divers measures. What should be clear...

Your question is based on false assumptions or false allegations. I am not anti-KJV. I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I accept the KJV as what it actually is. I present verifiable facts concerning KJV editions. I am a fundamental, independent Baptist. Disagreeing with factually...

Because the copyright date was not changed in the Kindle edition is not proof that the its text could not have been revised or updated. My 1994 reprint edition may even have some changes or revisions if it was compared to an original 1983 edition of this same booklet. That was the case with...

KJV-only posters refuse to deal with actual facts, but they do seem to like to jump to wrong conclusions.

Because the same original 1983 date was left on the kindle e-book edition does not mean that the e-book edition was not revised. Your quotations from the e-book edition would prove that it has differences compared to the printed 1994 reprint edition. Did you forget the other example from...

Ruckman's booklet that I accurately quoted had a 1983 copyright with a reprint date of 1994. Ruckman did state what I accurately cited in that earlier edition of his booklet. The edition that I have was printed nine years before my book was even printed in 2003 so clearly Ruckman could not...

Is it interesting that a KJV-only advocate seems to think that presenting verifiable facts is "pathetic"? I acknowledged that there were more differences then just the examples that I cited. Differences that were listed included errors such as at Exodus 6:21, proving that the 1813...

The defenders of Peter Ruckman at this forum cannot demonstrate Ruckman's claims concerning KJV editions especially the 1813 Eyre and Strahan edition to be factually correct since they are not. Perhaps they try to close their eyes to his factually incorrect claims. While Peter Ruckman may...

Peter Ruckman asserted that “this edition [referring to the 1769 Oxford edition by Blayney] has been regarded as the standard copy for 200 years” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, July, 1981, p. 4). Ruckman wrote: “The standard edition was proofread further in 1806, and in 1813 it was published by...

Your repeating the same unproven claim does not make it become true. Believing something does not make it true. People can choose to believe many things that are not actually true. People can believe erroneous reasoning. People can believe assumptions that are based on fallacies. My...

Do you agree with and accept Peter Ruckman's clear recommendation of 1534 Tyndale's version, the 1539 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, Valera's Spanish Bible, and Luther's 1534 German version? Would you claim that Peter Ruckman would recommend any Bible translation that was not the inerrant...

Please back up and prove your own assertion to be true. Take the original-language OT and NT texts of Scripture and prove by use of consistent, just measures/standards that the KJV has the most accurate rendering of every word in every verse of those texts. Otherwise, your subjective, biased...

You show how KJV-only posters jump to wrong conclusions and cannot deal with the truth about their negative, non-edifying, and often incorrect allegations. I have read and still read the KJV as what it actually is. The KJV was a new Church of England version in its day when...

KJV-only posters are the ones who waste the time of readers as they do not present any positive, clear, consistent, edifying, sound, just, true, scriptural case for their unproven assumptions and claims concerning the KJV. In addition, they waste the time of readers with their negative...

In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Ruckman wrote: “We do not refer to the AV as the ‘verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God’” (p. 270). Ruckman claimed: “I’ve never said that the King James Bible was inspired, although I’ve broadly intimated it sometimes” (Why I Believe the KJV, p. 8).