Are Ruckman's claims concerning editions of the KJV in agreement with each other and factually correct?

you only believe what you want and refuse to see any evidence to the contrary. Your blindness is astounding.
You do not describe those whom you incorrectly accuse. Instead you describe yourself and KJV-only advocates.

You have refused to see and understand sound evidence to the contrary of your incorrect claims.

You close your eyes to clear scriptural truths that would be a serious problem for your use of unjust divers measures/standards.
 
Please do! The part where she uses acrostic algebra and talks about the NiV is evil because, well... the Titanic sank.
Just to remind (or inform, if you've never heard this one before) everyone about the absolute loon that Gail Ludwig-Latessa-Kaleda-Riplinger is:

You know the Titanic traveled to America from England in 1912. This was the same year as the corrupt American Standard Version, and, coincidentally, it was a man named Murdoch who threw the famous Titanic into reverse causing it to sink. And scientists have just discovered that, of course, it wasn't as big a gash as previously thought that sunk [sic] the Titanic, but six small slits. And today's NIV has cut out 64,000 words in 16 verses. . . . I have an educated guess about why the Titanic sunk [sic] and why the NIV will eventually sink in the lake of fire. The Titanic was from something called the White Star Line owned by J. P. Morgan. The term "white star" is a code name for Lucifer.​

LOL! What a load of stream-of-consciousness garbage. Rupert Murdoch is William Murdoch! The white star on the White Star Line's pennant is Lucifer! Six small slits, sixteen verses, sixty-four thousand verses--six six six, geddit? An "educated guess"! Bwahahahaha!

Ludwig-Latessa-Kaleda-Riplinger's conspiratorial drool probably all started out as a bunch of newspaper articles taped to a wall and connected with yarn. Anyone who thinks she's anything more than a fraud is only calling their own mental faculties into question.
 
Last edited:
Ransom is still trying to talk to me.
laughing.gif
 
Clyde Pilkington, Jr., who says that he was the author of "the King James Bible Song" and that he taught classes and seminars in support of the KJV, has written a book in which he apologizes "for the pride and bondage that can be found" in his former KJV-only position (p. 11).

His 2010 book is entitled: The Plowboy's Bible: God's Word for the Common Man.
 
Last edited:
And you say nothing specific to prove what you say. Anyone can do what you do. Watch I'll do it too:

"All you do is eisegetically interpret passages to make them match to your subjective will and approach anything that disagrees with it with a biased desire to prove it wrong rather than allow yourself to see it in its proper context.

Also you're angry and belligerent. Oh you claim you aren't? Well your opinion doesn't matter: I'm on the receiving end so I'm the judge and jury of what you are, and I say you're angry and insulting. Even if you aren't, now you are because I said so."

Is there any proof for that statement? No. It could be a lie mixed with half truths. You wouldn't know unless I actually specified.
I actually was specific in several prior posts. I'll summarize her in case you do not have the ability to back to the previous ones. For reference I have included your original analysis below:

Titus 3:10,
ESV: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,"
KJV: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"

John 7:43, Jesus divides the crowd
ESV: "So there was a division among the people over him."
KJV: "So there was a division among the people because of him."



So to recap, your point was that the ESV was contradicting itself because at one point a person who stirs up contradiction is to be rejected and at another point there is division among the people over him. Like so many verses that Bible haters will pull out as their "proof" that the Bible contradicts itself, this can appear to be contradictory if you casually glance at them without context. First in Titus 3:10 a person is person is intentionally causing division ("stirs up"). In the second the people (believers mixed with un-believers) divided themselves based on their own hearts. To say that Jesus divided them would be to say that he did not want some of them to come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

So Titus 3:10 if you back up and read the preceding verses is talking about in the church. John 7:43 is talking about the world. Jesus certainly will cause division in the world, although, it would probably be more accurate to see individual's own hearts are causing the division not Christ. Jesus did not come to divide the church. both passages are true in either version and are congruent with one another.
 
First in Titus 3:10 a person is person is intentionally causing division ("stirs up").
Jesus intentionally stirred up the temple when he threw over tables and whipped people out of the temple.

The question you need to be asking yourself is why the KJV translated that word as "heretic" while the new versions changed it to one who "stirs up division", and how someone can translate the same word into one of two completely different words with completely different definitions in English.

To say that Jesus divided them would be to say that he did not want some of them to come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
No it is not. You are imbuing intention onto his actions. Jesus' words divided them, fact.

"There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings." -John 10:19

Did he know his words would divide them? Yes. Why did his words divide them? Because people have a free will to accept or reject the truth, but you do not censor or stop speaking the truth to avoid dividing people in the name of unity and harmony: which is a huge problem with modern churches today (and it is literally how many of them use Titus 3:10: to kick out the truth because the truth divides between those who accept it and those who reject it, otherwise you're arguing for Oprah's "your truth", meaning we can't divide anyone who simply shows up at church and must accept every subjective interpretation of the truth over sound doctrine, simply because they showed up at church and now apparently that makes them one of God's sheep).

Jesus did not come to divide the church.
No one said he did. Jesus came to speak the truth, which divides people and reveals who the true church is. The church is not a building, and not everyone who assembles in a building who carries a Bible is a Christian. Not everyone who does good works is a Christian either: lost people can do good works.

both passages are true in either version and are congruent with one another.
Impossible. Titus 3:10 says nothing about rejecting a heretic in the New Versions. The KJV does. Things that are different are not the same. You're forcing the Bible to say what you want it to say instead of reading it and believing it.
 
Last edited:
What The Bog Fish sees when he reads a dictionary:

Heretic (noun): a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.
Synonyms:
Divider (noun): someone or something who separates something into parts.

Really. Those two words are synonyms now are they. So there's a word in the Greek that can be translated either or. It doesn't matter, they're the exact same thing, are they.

Right.
 
What The Bog Fish sees when he reads a dictionary:

Heretic (noun): a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.
Synonyms:
Divider (noun): someone or something who separates something into parts.

Really. Those two words are synonyms now are they. So there's a word in the Greek that can be translated either or. It doesn't matter, they're the exact same thing, are they.

Right.

So here is the verse before the verse that offends you:
Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

You can see that those causing the division were creating controversies, quarrels & dissensions. What would we call someone who does that within the church?

I would say that Heretic and Divider are not exact synonyms but they aren't far off. Let me give you a real world example. The catholic church consider Martin Luther to be the biggest Heretic they ever had within their church. Why do they consider him such? He created division all the way to the point of formally dividing himself and his followers from the catholic church. He was a divider.
 
Since we are so concerned about division, I would like to point out that the Ruckmanites are the biggest purveyors of division. When I joined a Ruckmanite church years ago, another Ruckmanite pastor immediately started stirring up trouble between myself and my Ruckmanite pastor. I asked the other Ruckmanite pastor why he was doing that, and he said he was miffed because my tithe was going to a different Ruckmanite church instead of his church. A Ruckmanite man and wife then came to me and tried to blackmail me for money, saying if I didn't give them any money, they would go slander me to my Ruckmanite pastor. I refused to give them the money, they slandered me to my pastor who had his congregation vote to excommunicate me, without any notice or reason ever given. I was placed under a lifetime ban on joining any other Baptist church. I ignored their ban as a member of a non-Ruckmanite church, so this pastor and all his Ruckmanite preacher and missionary buddies bombarded my new pastor with phone calls, demanding that he kick me out of my church and extradite me back to the Ruckmanite church. They accused me of plotting to destroy two other non-Ruckmanite IFB churches. The pastors of those two churches said that the charges against me were untrue and that I would be welcome to join those churches. Meanwhile, a Ruckmanite pastor gave one of his cronies, a homosexual arsonist who had burned down an IFB church and had threatened to burn down my house, the address of my new church so that he could come there and harass and intimidate us. You would think that by then I would have learned my lesson to "reject" and "avoid" all Ruckmanites, but no, I foolishly loaned money to yet another Ruckmanite pastor who then immediately vanished and refused to pay my money back.

Ruckmanism is a movement that naturally breeds division, and it breeds arrogance, abusiveness and bullying. Based on their extreme version of dispensationalist antinomianism, they do not emphasize or require holiness and basic standards of Christian morality to be one of their cronies or part of their movement. They admire bad behavior and bullying, as part of their adoration of their much-divorced, much remarried founder who liked to brag about bruising his wife and how much he wanted to slug a Jew.

If you like division and heresy in the churches, Ruckmanism is the movement for you. Notice that they spend most of their time fighting KJV-only preachers who are not Ruckmanites, or else they spend their time fighting each other, like for instance Herb Evans who was an acolyte of Ruckman and then turned against him. These are the kind of troublemakers that Paul was warning about in Romans 16:1-18 and Titus 3:10. But hey, they have so much truth to offer about the 1989 Rapture, women turned into men at the Rapture, UFOs, racism, correcting the original manuscripts with the AV 1611, that I suppose it's worth it to invite them in and let them divide and destroy our churches from within.
 
Since we are so concerned about division, I would like to point out that the Ruckmanites are the biggest purveyors of division. When I joined a Ruckmanite church years ago, another Ruckmanite pastor immediately started stirring up trouble between myself and my Ruckmanite pastor. I asked the other Ruckmanite pastor why he was doing that, and he said he was miffed because my tithe was going to a different Ruckmanite church instead of his church. A Ruckmanite man and wife then came to me and tried to blackmail me for money, saying if I didn't give them any money, they would go slander me to my Ruckmanite pastor. I refused to give them the money, they slandered me to my pastor who had his congregation vote to excommunicate me, without any notice or reason ever given. I was placed under a lifetime ban on joining any other Baptist church. I ignored their ban as a member of a non-Ruckmanite church, so this pastor and all his Ruckmanite preacher and missionary buddies bombarded my new pastor with phone calls, demanding that he kick me out of my church and extradite me back to the Ruckmanite church. They accused me of plotting to destroy two other non-Ruckmanite IFB churches. The pastors of those two churches said that the charges against me were untrue and that I would be welcome to join those churches. Meanwhile, a Ruckmanite pastor gave one of his cronies, a homosexual arsonist who had burned down an IFB church and had threatened to burn down my house, the address of my new church so that he could come there and harass and intimidate us. You would think that by then I would have learned my lesson to "reject" and "avoid" all Ruckmanites, but no, I foolishly loaned money to yet another Ruckmanite pastor who then immediately vanished and refused to pay my money back.

Ruckmanism is a movement that naturally breeds division, and it breeds arrogance, abusiveness and bullying. Based on their extreme version of dispensationalist antinomianism, they do not emphasize or require holiness and basic standards of Christian morality to be one of their cronies or part of their movement. They admire bad behavior and bullying, as part of their adoration of their much-divorced, much remarried founder who liked to brag about bruising his wife and how much he wanted to slug a Jew.

If you like division and heresy in the churches, Ruckmanism is the movement for you. Notice that they spend most of their time fighting KJV-only preachers who are not Ruckmanites, or else they spend their time fighting each other, like for instance Herb Evans who was an acolyte of Ruckman and then turned against him. These are the kind of troublemakers that Paul was warning about in Romans 16:1-18 and Titus 3:10. But hey, they have so much truth to offer about the 1989 Rapture, women turned into men at the Rapture, UFOs, racism, correcting the original manuscripts with the AV 1611, that I suppose it's worth it to invite them in and let them divide and destroy our churches from within.
Until engaging on this board I thought they just had some odd views on the inspiration of the KJV. Never knew their was so much more to them. Years ago I did an in depth study of the Mormons. I see similarities with the Ruckmanites only not as well versed in the Bible and more profane language.
 
You can see that those causing the division were creating controversies, quarrels & dissensions. What would we call someone who does that within the church?
There you go creating the standard heretical megachurch doctrine from your new version, only proving my point.

Let's see what the Bible says, shall we. Watch this, now:
"9 But avoid foolish questions [not controversies], and genealogies, and contentions [which means heated arguing, not a controversy], and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
-Titus 3:9-11 (KJV)

So according to you, anyone who "stirs up division" around people who attend a church building is subverted and is condemned of himself.
Are you sure it's not that a heretic is subverted (because he subverts sound doctrine) and condemned (because of false doctrine)?

So according to you, it doesn't matter if they're someone with sound doctrine who's simply speaking that doctrine around a group of ecumenical leftists that get offended by everything, just as long as that ecumenical "church" gets offended and divides themselves away from the truth: now it's his fault because his words caused the division, much like Jesus' did? You're crazy. And your new version has made you a heretic. Which is why you've divided yourself away from the sound words of God.
 
Last edited:
You're forcing the Bible to say what you want it to say instead of reading it and believing it.

KJV-only advocates are the ones doing that. KJV-only advocates attempt to read into verses their own preconceived human KJV-only ideas that are not stated in the verses. KJV-only advocates avoid some clear scriptural truths. They will disobey scriptural commands in order to attack believers that disagree with their incorrect, subjective KJV-only opinions.

Modern, human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching has not been demonstrated to be sound Bible doctrine.
 
Let's turn up the heat (it's a saying. I'm not causing contention, only controversy):

Matthew 5:22,
ESV: "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment..."
KJV: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."

Mark 3:5 on Jesus: "And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts..."

KJV reader: "Ohhh, Jesus was angry and he had a cause: their hearts were hard"
New Version-Onlyist: "Jesus better stop sinning with that anger or God will judge him... Oh that makes sense, Jesus' crucifixion was his judgment. That sinner. Sinner's can't be God. I'm becoming a Jehovah's Witness." (Btw New Versions must be made to fit the JW's doctrine too, if you weren't aware).
 
There you go creating the standard heretical megachurch doctrine from your new version, only proving my point.

Let's see what the Bible says, shall we. Watch this, now:
"9 But avoid foolish questions [not controversies], and genealogies, and contentions [which means heated arguing, not a controversy], and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
-Titus 3:9-11 (KJV)

So according to you, anyone who "stirs up division" around people who attend a church building is subverted and is condemned of himself.
Are you sure it's not that a heretic is subverted (because he subverts sound doctrine) and condemned (because of false doctrine)?

So according to you, it doesn't matter if they're someone with sound doctrine who's simply speaking that doctrine around a group of ecumenical leftists that get offended by everything, just as long as that ecumenical "church" gets offended and divides themselves away from the truth: now it's his fault because his words caused the division, much like Jesus' did? You're crazy. And your new version has made you a heretic. Which is why you've divided yourself away from the sound words of God.
There you go creating the standard heretical megachurch doctrine from your new version, only proving my point.

Let's see what the Bible says, shall we. Watch this, now:
"9 But avoid foolish questions [not controversies], and genealogies, and contentions [which means heated arguing, not a controversy], and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
-Titus 3:9-11 (KJV)

So according to you, anyone who "stirs up division" around people who attend a church building is subverted and is condemned of himself.
Are you sure it's not that a heretic is subverted (because he subverts sound doctrine) and condemned (because of false doctrine)?

So according to you, it doesn't matter if they're someone with sound doctrine who's simply speaking that doctrine around a group of ecumenical leftists that get offended by everything, just as long as that ecumenical "church" gets offended and divides themselves away from the truth: now it's his fault because his words caused the division, much like Jesus' did? You're crazy. And your new version has made you a heretic. Which is why you've divided yourself away from the sound words of God.
A believer (part of the church), regardless of whether they are in a church building or not, who stirs up division and controversy is a heretic. Church buildings did not even exist when this was written. I don't care whether a newer version supports or opposes a mega church. I want as close to what was given to the apostles as possible.
 
Let's turn up the heat (it's a saying. I'm not causing contention, only controversy):

Matthew 5:22,
ESV: "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment..."
KJV: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."

Mark 3:5 on Jesus: "And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts..."

KJV reader: "Ohhh, Jesus was angry and he had a cause: their hearts were hard"
New Version-Onlyist: "Jesus better stop sinning with that anger or God will judge him... Oh that makes sense, Jesus' crucifixion was his judgment. That sinner. Sinner's can't be God. I'm becoming a Jehovah's Witness." (Btw New Versions must be made to fit the JW's doctrine too, if you weren't aware).
I'll look at this but I must say on the surface you seem to like the passages to be interpreted in a way that is permissive of being angry and divided.
 
A believer (part of the church), regardless of whether they are in a church building or not, who stirs up division and controversy is a heretic.
You just called Jesus Christ a heretic.

Let's go 3 for 3:

1 Tim 3:16,

KJV: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..."
ESV: "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh..."

Is the KJV saying "without heated argument great is the mystery of godliness"? Is that what controversy means?
No, it means dispute. Without dispute, great is the mystery of godliness.
So according to the ESV, you can't openly disagree (controversy, dispute) with anyone in church. Where do you go to church, a Communist country?

Oh yeah, and the New Versions have been "softened" to accommodate JW doctrine that Jesus is not God manifest in the flesh.
You keep defending those New Versions while attacking "KJV-onlyists" and watch the reprimanding hand of God come down on you.
I'm not feeling bad for you, only a moron claims to be a Christian and attacks the validity of the King James Bible.
 
Back
Top