Transgender Virginia Mollenkott and the NIV Bible Translation

[tmjbog]

illinoisguy, all you do, the literal only tools in your toolbox, are strawmen and ad hominems. That's it.

I am here to disprove this. Therefore, you unfortunately need to know I am smarter than you, my education was better than yours, I have real experience as a professional analyst in multiple fields, I operate at what you racists call "skill level asian", and my IQ is out of your ball park. I'm not wasting any more of my time trying to get alongside everyone here, in what is supposed to be a "Fundamental Baptist" forum, to try and hold your hand and guide you along. I have exercised patience and even joked back and forth with you to lighten the mood, and all you've been is stiff-necked and stubborn.

You forgot to mention how humble you are as well. Below you can see that Ruckman shared your humility. Of course an argument either is valid or it's not. The credentials or achievements of the the one making it do not validate it if it has no merit.


Five earned degrees, with 120 books authored, and handling a curriculum of 22 subjects (by myself)… (Ruckman, Peter. The Scholarship only Controversy. p. 275)

I’ve only read a book a day since I was 10 years old. (Ruckman, Peter. Theological Studies. Part 15, p. 7)

I have only written 120 books: how many have YOU written?
If you counted the books that I have written by handlettering (that were never published), you would have fifteen more. If you had the cassette tapes I have made, transcribed and printed, as books, you would have forty more. That would be 175 books. (Ruckman, Peter. Ecclesiastes. 2001 reprint, p. 358)

I may be the only man alive on the American continent who has taught twenty-five different subjects in one curriculum AT ONE TIME with three of the subjects being on a graduate level. (Ruckman, Peter. How to teach the Bible. 2000 reprint, p. 1)

It will be a cold day in Mobile, in July, when these Alexandrian jacklegs lecture me on “What the Bible Teaches.” I have been through it 130 times in English, and I study it in German, Spanish, Latin, Hebrew and Greek; (Ruckman, Peter. How to teach the Bible. 2000 reprint, p. 2)

[Ruckman’s books] they are the only set of books on this earth that exposit the AV text word-for-word, without altering one word out of 788,258 words in the Bible. (Bible Believers' Bulletin May 2004, p. 5)

 

[Twisted]

You forgot to mention how humble you are as well. Below you can see that Ruckman shared your humility. Of course an argument either is valid or it's not. The credentials or achievements of the the one making it do not validate it if it has no merit.


Five earned degrees, with 120 books authored, and handling a curriculum of 22 subjects (by myself)… (Ruckman, Peter. The Scholarship only Controversy. p. 275)

I’ve only read a book a day since I was 10 years old. (Ruckman, Peter. Theological Studies. Part 15, p. 7)

I have only written 120 books: how many have YOU written?
If you counted the books that I have written by handlettering (that were never published), you would have fifteen more. If you had the cassette tapes I have made, transcribed and printed, as books, you would have forty more. That would be 175 books. (Ruckman, Peter. Ecclesiastes. 2001 reprint, p. 358)

I may be the only man alive on the American continent who has taught twenty-five different subjects in one curriculum AT ONE TIME with three of the subjects being on a graduate level. (Ruckman, Peter. How to teach the Bible. 2000 reprint, p. 1)

It will be a cold day in Mobile, in July, when these Alexandrian jacklegs lecture me on “What the Bible Teaches.” I have been through it 130 times in English, and I study it in German, Spanish, Latin, Hebrew and Greek; (Ruckman, Peter. How to teach the Bible. 2000 reprint, p. 2)

[Ruckman’s books] they are the only set of books on this earth that exposit the AV text word-for-word, without altering one word out of 788,258 words in the Bible. (Bible Believers' Bulletin May 2004, p. 5)

Thanks for posting that. All true as far as I know.

Of course, this list doesn't mention the missionaries on the field or pastors sent out under his ministry.

What's your resume'? I'm sure it's much more impressive.

 

[Twisted]

The truth is that the scorners go absolutely NUTS seeing a man as flawed as Ruckman getting so many blessings.

 

[tmjbog]

Thanks for posting that. All true as far as I know.

Of course, this list doesn't mention the missionaries on the field or pastors sent out under his ministry.

What's your resume'? I'm sure it's much more impressive.

Nope. My resume is quite boring. But I also typically find the person jumping up and down saying they are the smartest person in the room, is usually not the smartest person in the room.

 

[Twisted]

Nope. My resume is quite boring. But I also typically find the person jumping up and down saying they are the smartest person in the room, is usually not the smartest person in the room.

True, but we know Ruckman is smarter than you ( or me).

 

[tmjbog]

Proceeded by your own resume...

Backing your credentials or abilities is not arrogant, especially when your intelligence is being called into direct question simply because you read and agree with many things Ruckman taught. The Apostle Paul used his Roman citizenship to defend himself, was this "worldly"? He was also smart, and God used him. It's not like God only wants to use people of lower intelligence and can't use smart people.

If you are an olympic gold medalist, let's say you're Michael Phelps, and someone asks you "what do you know, why should I trust what you say about swimming", is it arrogant if Phelps says "because I'm one of the best swimmers in the world."
No, he's simply making an accurate statement vouching for his capabilities. It does not mean he's not being humble.

People have a distorted application of such terms in the church today. It's almost like the more you can project that you're stupid, the better. I do not think being smart or well-educated is something to be ashamed of or else you're being arrogant. That is ridiculous thinking.

Maybe you are the smartest person in the room, but it wasn't long ago you were claiming to use your super secret Pokeman-losing is really winning move to now informing everyone that you are the super genius in the room. I'm just not buying it. But at the end of the day it does not matter either way. You either have valid arguments or you don't-does not really matter if you have an IQ of 150 or 15.

 

[illinoisguy]

Yeah, yeah, Rucky was the smartest man on earth - that is why he predicted a 1989 Rapture. If Rucky was so smart, why did he say in his commentary on Revelation that "there has been no advanced revelation from the Holy Spirit from 1909 until the present time. The last thing the Holy Spirit ever revealed, along Biblical lines, was revealed to . . . C.I. Scofield - more than 50 years ago!"
Here is what Scofield wrote on January 1, 1909 in his introduction to the original Scofield Reference Bible. "The discovery of the Sinaitic MS and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of that text. Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition, which therefore combines the dignity, the high religious value, the tender associations of the past, the literary beauty, and remarkable general accuracy of the Authorized Version with the results of the best textual scholarship."
Rucky has clearly described Scofield's scholarship, which was based on the work of Westcott and Hort and on corrections to the textus receptus, as "advanced revelation from the Holy Spirit." I guess we have to agree with that, since Rucky was the most brilliant man that ever lived.
Rucky's hero Scofield described the work of Westcott and Hort as "the results of the best textual scholarship." Do we agree with that?

 

[illinoisguy]

That's surprising - no answer to my post #35 from the man with superior smarts and education, and the "best Biblical perspectives."

Okay, let's try this. Ruckman described Scofield as having received "advanced revelation from the Holy Spirit." On page 1271 of his Old Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield said, "The theme of 2 Thessalonians is, unfortunately, obscured by a mistranslation in the A.V. of 2:2, where 'day of Christ is at hand' should be 'day of the LORD is now present.'"

Scofield changed (or shall we say, "corrected,)" the text of the KJV in order to create an artificial distinction between the "day of Christ" and the "day of the LORD" in order to shore up his "pre-trib rapture" theory.

Okay, here's the question. In light of Scofield's established practice of changing the wording of the KJV in this and a plethora of other places, do I have to agree with Ruckman that Scofield was receiving "advanced revelation from the Holy Spirit" in order to become a card-carrying member in good standing of the Rucky-worshipping cult?

 

[UGC]

Scofield changed (or shall we say, "corrected,)" the text of the KJV in order to create an artificial distinction between the "day of Christ" and the "day of the LORD" in order to shore up his "pre-trib rapture" theory.

Lol. One of the typical "Darby and Scofield started the rapture theory" crowd are we?

This was already debunked on these forums by proving Irenaeus wrote in defense of a pre-trib (pre-wrath at least) rapture in the 2nd century, and in every century since then, there are multiple writings about the rapture, in each century.
Even the Amillennial Augustine wrote about Dispensationalism using a thoroughly accurate definition of it.

Anyone who still believes the delusional covenant theology propaganda that Darby or Scofield created the "pre-trib rapture theory" around the time of the 1800's needs to return their Google PhD.

Of course, if you already have a predisposition to not want the rapture or Dispensationalism to be true, you can't accept these facts and must twist things out of context to fit your private beliefs. Such people only see what they want: they have decided they don't want God or truth to be a certain way. They do not approach new information to learn: they approach only to try and refute in defense of their current belief construct, which is no longer allowed to grow or change to accommodate for new information. They are their own gods.

 

[UGC]

"The discovery of the Sinaitic MS and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies

So you're saying Scofield is also not infallible like the Pope and is capable of getting something wrong (he was probably just going with the narrative and hype at the time).

Compare this to Dean Burgon of Chichester, highly respected source who lived at the time, who criticized not just Codex B and Sinaiticus, but also D (Bezae) and P75:



-from The Revision Revised, Dean Burgon

We see here that the KJV aligns with 99% of the majority of extant manuscripts,
while the 4 problematic manus align with only 1% of the majority, while they also don't even align with each other.

So you're fighting to defend the 1% while attacking the 99% majority. My question to you: how are you at math?

You're fighting to defend the 1% that Erasmus himself rejected (source: Al Hembd, Trinitarian Bible Society, Jerusalem, Israel: https://paddlingupcreek.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/erasmus-rejected-vaticanus/ ).

 

[illinoisguy]

As usual, Mr. Ugh didn't answer my question. Instead, as usual, he dodged my question and jumped all over me for saying that Darby and Scofield started the "pre-trib rapture" theory.

I didn't say that. The tongues-promoting charismatic pre-tribbers Edward Irving and the "Scottish lass" Margaret Macdonald came before Darby and Scofield.

I have an earned PhD from a "King James Only" IFB college that was advertised in the Sword of the Lord, but of course that's not good enough, if they don't worship Rucky as their Lord and Savior (Saviour?)

 

[Twisted]

I have an earned PhD from a "King James Only" IFB college that was advertised in the Sword of the Lord, but of course that's not good enough, if they don't worship Rucky as their Lord and Savior (Saviour?)

All kidding aside, what KJVO IFB college gives out PhD's?

 

[Twisted]

How can I possibly answer, I've never been a part of any "Rucky-worshipping cult", so I wouldn't know what it would take to become a member.

I doubt he's been sent an invitation to join.

 

[tmjbog]

All kidding aside, what KJVO IFB college gives out PhD's?

I think there are several that give them out. Not sure if there are any that offer earned ones, though.

 

[Twisted]

I think there are several that give them out. Not sure if there are any that offer earned ones, though.

So...you don't have an earned PhD?

 

[tmjbog]

So...you don't have an earned PhD?

I don't even have an unearned one.

 

[Twisted]

I don't even have an unearned one.

Sorry, I thought you were the one claiming to have one. My bad.

 

[Ransom]

if they don't worship Rucky as their Lord and Savior (Saviour?)

Definitely "Saviour." Remember, according to some Ruckies, the American spelling "Savior" has six letters, and six is the number of man and has a bad connotation. On the other hand, "Saviour" has seven letters, which is the number of perfection.

Gah, Ruckmanism is so moronic.