Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace/Reformed Theology are from the pit of Hell.....they are heresies that make God Almighty a sinner and not just a sinner but the Author of ALL sin.
Every child raped....every women beaten...every person murdered...every deceitful business deal...every cruelty man has done, was authored by God. It is a blasphemous false religion and many otherwise fine Bible teachers are promoting it today. MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, are some of them. Flee and Repent of Calvinism!!
cuz their sales dropped off, so they hired James White? ROFL you have got to be kidding me. Oh this is so pathetic. So absolutely pathetic given the title of this video and the claims about James White lying, and then suggesting this book was written cuz of sales of other bible translations.
@blueblue1891 Calvinists are going to hell? Did you let Theodore Beza (John Calvin's successor) one of the editors of the Textus Receptus know that? What about Stephanus, or.... the KJV translators? Calvinists all. How'd that happen? You might want to think about the influence of a devout Calvinist working on the TR.
Consistency is not exactly a strength of Peter Ruckman. Did he ever finish identifying the aliens with blue blood who are coming to rapture us?
@blueblue1891 is that right!!! a calvinist gives more glory to God then any non reformed person we say God is sovereign non reformed say man is sovereign.
what is this? backwoods radio in some part of Hell & Gone Nowhere Arizona? do you have to have a nice tight string running into the studio to get good reception?
Amazing and also very telling...in less than a minute he plays the conspiracy card. Also, their hee hawing over the issue is nauseating. These people are awash in ignorance. I have listened to and read James White for several years and HAVE NEVER heard or seen him lose his bearing and resort to name calling like these KJV only people do. Sadly, they have many followers. I prefer to read the 1599 Geneva. The Geneva is just simply a more beautiful read compared to the KJV, in my opinion.
Proverbs 25:1 - "These (are) also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Juda copied out." Whoa! Inspired COPIES! almost three thousand years of inspired copies! and go through Jeremiah 36 and underline the phrase "all these words"!
@BrianMcClurg1 No, he clearly cursed. A Google search for "back out ship" results in a meager four (4) hits. Three of them can be dismissed outright in context (e.g., "...didn't have time to pull it back out, ship it back"); one appears to be a grammatical error. If "back out ship" were a bona fide sailor's term, it would be better attested than that. Don't bear false witness to cover-up the man's sin.
@BrianMcClurg1 No, he clearly cursed. A Google search for "back out ship" results in a meager four (4) hits. Three of them can be dismissed outright in context (e.g., "...didn't have time to pull it back out, ship it back"); one appears to be a grammatical error. If "back out ship" were a bona fide sailor's term, it would be better attested than that. Don't bear false witness to cover-up the man's sin.
@BrianMcClurg1 No, he clearly cursed. A Google search for "back out ship" results in a meager four (4) hits. Three of them can be dismissed outright in context (e.g., "...didn't have time to pull it back out, ship it back"); one appears to be a grammatical error. If "back out ship" were a bona fide sailor's term, it would be better attested than that. Don't bear false witness to cover-up the man's sin.
@BrianMcClurg1 Actually, the translation in Matthew 24:3 is correct. The King James Bible is always right. Here are some other Bible versions that translate the greek word "aion" into world. -Geneva Bible (1599), -Wycliffe(1395), -Tyndale(1525), the Revised Version(1881), John Wesley(1755), Living Bible(1981), New Jerusalem Bible(1985), God's Word Translation(1995). As you can see, even some of the modern versions translate this Greek word into world. Also, what is interesting to note is
@BrianMcClurg1 Regardless. If he had said "shit", be informed that it's a name for excrement and NOT a type of cursing. The Bible says the word "piss". Is that cursing too, because our society is reluctant to use that word socially? Cursing is praying or wishing that something bad happens to someone.
@KevinThompson1611 Hard to believe the last word is "yet". Since he said earlier that White was welcomed anytime. Why would he say, "I hadn't backed out yet." as if there's a future possibility he might back out. I'm pretty sure Ruckman has no problem using the word "sh__". His crass language, IMHO, does not effect the bigger contributions he's made for the KJV, but he's not a perfect man, like none of us are.
Jn. 5:2 (KJV, 1611 ed.): "There is at Hierufalem by the fheepe [market], a poole, which is called in the Hebrew tongue [Bethefda], hauing fiue porches." Jn. 5:2 (KJV, 1769 ed.): "There is at Jerusalem by the sheep [market] a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches." Βηθεσδά is present in the Greek text; the 1611 edition of the KJV italicizes "Bethesda", suggesting that it isn't. It is IN ERROR in so doing, that is an editorial MISTAKE; all translations have them.
Lk. 3:15: (KJV, 1611 ed.): "And as the people were in expectation, and all MEN mufed in their hearts of John, whether he were the Chrift or not." Lk. 3:15 (KJV, 1769 ed.): "And as the people were in expectation, and all MEN mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not." ἄνθρωπος, "men", is not present in the Greek text; both editions of the KJV do not italicize it, suggesting to the reader that "men" is in the Greek. That is an editorial MISTAKE; all translations have them.
Jn. 6:63 (KJV, 1611 ed.): "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flefh profiteth nothing: the wordes that I fpeake vnto you, they are Spirit, and they are life." Jn. 6:63 (KJV, 1769 ed.): "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life." Regarding italicization, how does one know which is correct unless he consults the Greek text? King James extremism is as ridiculous as it is proud and arrogant.
@Calvinist007 The point of a translation is so you don't have to go back to the "greek"; otherwise everyone should just learn greek and not even waste time translating. Silly protestants are doing the same thing Popery did for hundreds of years. Instead of Latin, now it's Greek. Protestant Popery is still Popery. But, I guess, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS, can't be a mother w/out children.
@tonyb408 No, sir, the point of translation is to render the original languages into other tongues so that people can read the Scriptures; that doesn't negate scholarship. The Latin Scriptures were translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek; Latin was the religious language for centuries. What makes the Greek grammatical opinions of the KJV translators superior to the Greek grammatical opinions of great scholars like A.T. Robertson except your own arbitrary KJO definition?
@Calvinist007 I have no issue w/ scholarship. I am a scholar in my field of experitse as well. That doesn't mean because I have a few letters after my name that my OPINIONS are fact. Common sense should always rule the day. And common sense says, things that are different are not the same. When tongues were interpreted in the bible how many times did the interpreter say thats what he said but if you really want the full meaning you need to learn the language he was speaking?
@tonyb408 You proceed from a false premise. Acts 2:8 (KJV): "How hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" Those men didn't hear a translation, it was a direct miracle of God; such was the case with tongues interpretation later, the Scriptures were not completed yet. When John finished Revelation all verbal inspiration ended. No translation is free of error for that very reason; ideas may be conveyed adequately, but something always is lost as a matter of linguistic fact.
@Calvinist007 I'm not talking about acts 2- see 1 corinth. Can you show me from scripture where inspiration is confined to original autographs? Can you show me from scripture where no translation is without error, and by default worse than the original? Can you show from scripture where ideas are lost due to translation or interpretation?
@tonyb408 You again proceed from a false premise. The Scriptures were written in those original languages because those were the languages that were spoken then; no translations were necessary. True, the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Koine Greek (the Septuagint); however, the chronologies are off in that Greek translation, which proves my point. It is a matter of fact that whenever any language translation is done, something always is lost; any linguist knows this to be true.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Calvinist007 Again, no scripture in your answer; what is your final authority? Any linguist...you mean any man basing his opinion on his own "scholarly" wisdom, not God's. My premise begins w/ believe the Book, and whatever does not line up w/ the book is not true. If you cannot produce 1 verse in the entire Bible that says a translation is inferior, cannot be perfect, and is not inspired then why would any bible believer believe you?
@tonyb408 My final authority is the Holy Scriptures in the original languages. Any thinking person knows your position to be ridiculous. Can you read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek? No? Then you are basing your beliefs on the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek grammatical opinions of the King James translators; you are trusting those men for a valid translation. How do you know their translations are valid unless you check the original tongues for yourself? We all rely on responsible scholarship.
@Calvinist007 any thinking person..right so any person who comes to a different conclusion is automatically not thinking. Again, no "Holy" scripture in your reasoning, just man made ideas and theories. Still not 1 verse saying that a translation cannot be perfect or inspiration is confined to the original autograph. Since your final authority did not teach you that, it must have been a man who also did not get it from a biblical final authority. What was that about Pharisee traditions again?
@tonyb408 No, sir, any person who comes to the conclusion that an Elizabethan English translation of the Greek text is superior to the very text from which it was translated isn't thinking; he's embarrassing himself. The Scriptures are holy (II Tim. 3:16); they are perfect, inerrant, and infallible in the original tongues. The 1611 edition of the KJV italicizes "Bethesda" in Jn. 5:2 while Βηθεσδά is present in the Greek; it is IN ERROR in so doing. KJOism is so uncogent it isn't even funny.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Calvinist007 But you can't provide me 1 verse in the entirety of scripture that says a translation can't be perfect and inspired. Does 2 Tim 3:16 say all scripture is given by inspiration in the original tongues and autographs? What bible do you have becuzz that isn't in my archaic out of date KJB. Can you provide an example of where the word scripture is used to refer to the original autographs or original tongues only?
@tonyb408 Your reasoning is faulty. I don't have to produce any Scripture that says a translation can't be inspired; the burden of proof is on YOU to produce a Scripture that says a translation CAN be inspired. Paul wrote II Tim. 3:16 in the original Koine Greek to a man who was reading it in that tongue; you fail to recognize that. You have not answered my point regarding Jn. 5:2, obviously because you know you're NAILED; the 1611 edition of the KJV made an editorial MISTAKE there.
@Calvinist007 1 Cor 2:13 - comparing spiritual things w/ spiritual. Which means if you want to give me a definition defining a word or doctrine in the spiritual book called the bible, I am compare it against its own definition. If scripture is only inerrant and inspired in the original language then there should surely be at least 1 verse in the OT or NT that bears that definition out. Where is it? Does that definition only exist in "the Greek?"
@tonyb408 Again, how do you know you're reading an accurate translation of the Scriptures? Can you read the original languages? No. You are relying on the scholarship of the KJV translators to give you a trustworthy English translation, you are trusting them for that. What makes their Greek grammatical opinions superior to the Greek grammatical opinions of great scholars like J.N. Darby, J.H. Thayer, and A.T. Robertson, except your own arbitrary, contrived King James Only definition?
@Calvinist007 I believe the book by faith, as the just are supposed to live by, and since whatever is not of faith is sin. His word IS truth, that's present tense. if that is true then all opinions of man must be compared to His truth. Even in the original languages you cannot provide 1 verse that would even hint that translations cannot be perfect or inspired or that the word scripture only refers to some original. So why would I believe a point based on something you cannot prove?
@tonyb408 That's the point, sir; you don't know God's truth in written form except for the scholarship that has translated those original languages into the English that you can read. Your reasoning continues to be faulty; the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that a translation CAN be inspired, it is not on me to prove that a translation CANNOT be inspired. No one can prove a negative; it's a logical fact. I have given ample evidence on this forum that the KJV contains editorial mistakes.
@tonyb408 The definition of pistis is given by it's common usage in the time of it's popular use. The Bible doesn't define any words, but does give descriptions and illustrations of them.
@vedinthorn That's how men fall into heresy: not believing what the Bible clearly states. Heb 11:1 - Faith IS...you believe what you want, I'll believe the Book.
@tonyb408 Then, to be consistent: the definition of love is God. Of course, that doesn't work since Greek only uses one specific word there for 'love' while having many others available. But that's fine, go ahead and be a heretic and make minor things major and major things minor.
@vedinthorn I'm happy to be a heretic: Paul was too when believed the word and all the present day religious scholars made their own definitions (Acts 24:14). Baptists have historically been considered heretics too. So thanks. I also agree w/ Billy Sunday “When the Bible says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go plumb to the Devil.” AMEN!
@tonyb408 1) I happen to be a Baptist as is James White. 2) Basically, you're convinced of the truth despite the facts that cannot be argued against. That is not Christian faith, but blind religion.
@vedinthorn Jimmy white is a Reformed Baptist which is a Calvinist that doesn't baptize babies. Traditional baptist doctrine is at odds w/ Calvinist heresy which is why they are re-formed. Traditional Baptist's would never teach such blasphemy as 'God decreed the rape of child' as Jimmy said during a debate. I am convinced of the truth as found in the pages of scripture since we are told thy word IS truth, not in strongs concordance, not is some lexicon.
@tonyb408 London Baptist Confession of 1689, dude. Most Baptists were Calvinists in the early days. I realize that facts are difficult for people who take pride in ignorance.
@vedinthorn Paulicians, Montanists, donatists, cathari, waldensians, were all referred to as ana-baptist. The term anabaptist was used as early as the 3rd century. So i will ask again, are you implying that Baptists didn't exist before the reformation? Use logic, you cant be a REFORMED baptist, if you are the 1st Baptist's since there would be no FORM to REDO, dude.
@tonyb408 I'm saying that all those groups you listed were heretics by modern Baptist standards, and that they have no lineage to one another, nor to modern Baptists. They were all at some point former Catholics who broke away to do their own thing with no direct contact with each other any any point.
@vedinthorn By that definition, Southern Baptists are not baptists since they don't agree w/ IFB, and IFB, are not Baptists since they don't agree w/ Free Will Baptist's. Stupid logic, dude. BTW, Paulicians donatists etc can't be former Catholics since Popery didn't didn't exist yet. Wishy washy Christian's hadn't yet linked up w/ the State. BTW, are you saying there are no unitarian Baptist's today? LOL Study...
@tonyb408 Southern, IFB, and FWB don't consider each other heretics...at least, not if they are sane. All of them I have met (I am an IFB) see the rest as brothers in Christ with minor ecclesiological differences, not theological ones. A Cathar, however, denies that the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT because they are dualists. This is heresy.
The earliest Paulicians are after Rome took charge. You have me on Donatists, who still have no relation to modern Baptists.
And no, there are not Christian Unitarian Baptists. There are Unitarians who call themselves Baptists, however, they are not the same kind of Baptist because they are, by definition, not Christian since they are Unitarians.
@tonyb408 Requirement of the doctrine of the Trinity to be called a Christian is not a Catholic distinctive, it's a Christian one and predates the Roman Catholic church by centuries. To disbelieve that Jesus is God is to condemn yourself to Hell, and that is Scriptural.
@vedinthorn History lesson for you: the people 1st called Cathari separated from the churches that became Catholic in AD251 because those churches labeled libellatici or lapsi because they betrayed the faith and sacrificed/worshiped the emperor. The split became permanent one infant baptism was made law. It wasn't until this that doctrine became an issue. Be careful who's history you get this information from, jesuit and catholic hands have massaged much historical information.
@vedinthorn From Jerusalem to You by Jeff williams; PJ Twisck 3rd ed Chronicles. See also De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate by Cyprian as he writes about the division between Lapsi and Cathari.
@tonyb408 Yeah, I'm sorry, but this book is just a rehash of made-up history known as Landmarkism that no one with a PhD in history takes seriously. No historian denies that the Cathars were dualists by their own admittance. Does Jeff Williams even have a degree in history? Even an honorary one from an accredited academy? Every historian lumps them in with the Marcionites and the Manichaeans which were heretics of the worst kind: Gnostics. It's been fun, but we're done here.
@vedinthorn "no one w/ a PhD" "does Jeff Williams even have a degree in history?" "accredited academy?" And this is the judgment for whether a man is telling the truth? LOL. Well I guess the owner of the ad agency i worked at last wasn't qualified to work in mktg since she had a degree in art history. And what were peter and john doing preaching since they were unlearned. Must have been heretics! Historians also said King Sargon and the bethesda pool never existed either.
@tonyb408 Lk. 6:37 (KJV): "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." Lk. 6:37 (YLT): "Release, and ye shall be released." The Greek word translated "forgive" and "ye shall be forgiven" in the KJV is ἀπολύω, which means "to release"; Young renders it that way in his excellent translation. Christ is saying here that if one forgives, if he releases, he will be released. That doesn't show up in the KJV. Greek is much more precise than English is, and it conveys many ideas that are lost in translation.
@tonyb408 Col. 3:19 (KJV): "Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them." The Greek word translated "love" here is ἀγαπάω, which is the same word that is used in I Jn. 4:10 (KJV): "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins." Paul is telling these Colossian men that they are to love their wives just as Christ loved sinners in giving Himself for them. That doesn't show up in the KJV English translation.
@tonyb408 That's precisely the point, sir. It shows up in Eph. 5:25 because Paul specifically articulates it in the passage; he does not do that in Col. 3:19, which is why it doesn't show up there in the KJV English translation. He didn't have to articulate it there because those folks read it in the original language, where it was seen clearly.
@tonyb408 I have attended many Baptist churches in my lifetime and all of them had Pastors who used the Greek text to explain a biblical point more clearly. Never did the use of the Greek text take away from the scriptures but, rather, only helped to shed more light on the scriptures for better understanding.
@hldnoqtr I have too, and I have yet to hear a proper definition that could not be found by comparing scripture w/ scripture (cross-referencing) in the English bible or that is not contained in the Websters 1828. But I have heard Baptist pastors go to the Greek and preach erroneous messages becuzz they didn't believe the English and relied on Mr. Strong's (who was on the ASV committee BTW) definition. Ex. John 21 & Matt 16:18
Jn. 1:7 (KJV, 1611 ed.): "The fame came for a witneffe, to beare witneffe of the light, that all men through him might beleeue." Jn. 1:7 (KJV, 1769 ed.): "The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe." Regarding italicization, how does one know which is correct unless he consults the Greek text? King James extremism is as ridiculous as it is proud and arrogant.
Both Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman have been divorced twice and have been married a third time; Ruckman even holds a pastorate with that being the case, in direct violation of the Word of God (I Tim. 3:2, 5). James White is a good, decent man who debates prominent, well-educated people who oppose the Christian faith; I don't see Ruckman and his big mouth debating those people, nor do I see the impudent radio host in this video or any of Ruckman's other supporters doing that.
@tonyb408 You are in error, sir; the Pharisees were the religious conservatives of their day, and they were the ones whom Christ criticized the most. They had replaced the Scriptures with talmudic errors; in my opinion, King James extremism is akin to that very thing. It is a ridiculous position that cannot hold up scholastically; it never could, it never will. The KJV is a wonderful, beautiful translation, but it's not the only translation; modern translations are both valid and helpful.
@Calvinist007 Are you saying the Pharisees were not well educated? Wasn't Paul an ex-Pharisee brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, a doctor (PhD) of the Law?
@tonyb408 Yes, the Pharisees were well-educated, but that's not the point; they had replaced the Scriptures with rabbinical opinion. Mt. 23:23 (KJV): "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Mk. 7:7 (KJV): "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men."
@Calvinist007 I agree 100% Well educated religious people that created their own traditions over the authority of scripture. Today that tradition is called Textual Criticism where "scholars" say you must know greek to get the full meaning. Where is that in the scripture? Did Luke miss the true meaning of pauls speech in Acts 22 since he recorded in Greek but Paul spoke in hebrew? Where are these guidelines of Textual criticism in the scripture?
@tonyb408 You again proceed from a false premise. Luke recorded Paul's sermon in Koine Greek from the Author Himself: God. Jer. 30:1-2 (KJV): "The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book." Responsible textual criticism is valid; Christians should know why their Bible is the Word of God. English is a limited tongue compared to Greek, and cannot convey everything that it gives.
@Calvinist007 If what Luke recorded was word for word pauls speech then paul was speaking under inspiration as well. So what is the real original; paul's Holy Ghost inspired speech in hebrew or Luke's Holy Ghost inspired translation of hebrew into greek? Your assumption is that inspiration is confined to the original, which is not found in scripture so it is a man-made tradition, and that a translation cannot be perfect and translators cannot be inspired; none of which is found in scripture.
@tonyb408 Luke recorded Paul's speech in Koine Greek under verbal inspiration; that does not mean Paul was speaking under the same inspiration. If Luke would have recorded in the original Koine Greek that someone had accused another person falsely, that would not have meant that the false accuser was speaking under verbal inspiration. The simplistic thinking of King James Only advocates like you is astonishing. No translation conveys everything that the original does; it's a fact of life.
@tonyb408 II Peter 1:21 (KJV): "Holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost." One might get the impression from reading the English translation that those men spoke after they had been moved emotionally; however, the Greek word translated "moved" is φέρω, which means "to carry". It thus is seen that those men weren't moved emotionally, they were moved physically, in the same way that one moves a chair from one part of a room to another. That isn't seen in translation.
@Calvinist007 Holy men of God spake as they were carried across the room like a chair by the Holy Ghost? LOL. do have a verse of scripture as an example of this blessed revelation from "the greek"?
@tonyb408 Did you even read what I wrote? I said that the Greek word translated "moved" in II Pet. 1:21 is φέρω, which means "to carry". It therefore is seen that those men weren't moved emotionally, they were moved physically; I used the chair analogy to convey the idea, that they were borne by the Holy Spirit, that they were carried physically by Him. That doesn't show up in the KJV translation. Your objections to the validity of my point are feckless.
Peter Ruckman is a proud, arrogant, pharisaic man who is personally abusive toward anyone who disagrees with his scholastically ridiculous King James Only view, which is, in my opinion, akin to the talmudic errors of Christ's day. Ruckman really has his nerve accusing White of cowardice. John Ankerberg held a debate in 1995, inviting Ruckman to appear; he didn't show, but White did. Ruckman doesn't want any part of James White in any debate; White would destroy him, as he destroyed Riplinger.
Ruckman and Riplinger are nutjobs. She ACTUALLY said we shouldn't go by the original manuscripts that it was wrong to do so. NO translation is inspired. As the English language changes, the translations must be adjusted. And she also thinks the the 5 points of Calvinism is comparable to the satanic pentagram. That tells me LOADS about her.
CHALLENGE TO THE TWO NUTJOBS: Try explaining away the FALSE translation in the KJV of Matthew 24:3
In order to "harmonize" with the satanic New Age Movement (and of course the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!), the NKJV changes "end of the WORLD" to "end of the AGE"! And in it's no longer the "WORLD to come" but "AGE to come". The New Age Movement teaches a series of ages (hence the name: New AGE). See Matthew 12:32, 13:39, 13:40, 13:49, 24:3, 28:20, Mark 10:30, Luke 13:30, 20:34,35, 1 Cor 1:21.
@BrianMcClurg1 I realize you will block me for this but your
"When in Doubt throw 'the' Greek and Hebrew out!" are the words of a hopelessly deluded fanatic. May God have mercy on you for daring to tamper with His Holy Word.
The phrase "the end of the world" is defined in the English text of 1611 without reference to any greek text. Heb. 1:2, 6:5 and 9:26 show you it is the end of an "age"
But notice also that "the World" can have more than one "end" (1 Cor. 10:11). There is the "end" of the Church which Paul speaks of as "the last days" (2 Tim. 3:1). There is the "end" of the Tribulation, which is what the term usually refers to (Matt. 24:13; Dan.12:4, 8-9, 13; Heb. 3:6, 14).
@BrianMcClurg1 Yes, I KNOW that if we search through the scriptures we would, hopefully, come to the proper meaning of the word in Matt 24:3 But should we HAVE to? It is STILL mistranslated.
BTW You are also very mistaken as to the last days Paul is speaking about. He is speaking of the end of the Jewish sacrificial system and economy. I realize you are probably a premill pretribist and so Interpret Matt 24 in a Darbian/Schofieldian manner. I don't believe that is the case from my studies.
@BrianMcClurg1 And you are displaying a Satanic attitude as opposed to a Christ-like one. When someone says 'original manuscripts', they always mean the manuscripts in the original language.
@BrianMcClurg1 Actually that isn't entirely true. A manuscript means a copy. Perhaps what you meant to say is we don't have the original autograph, which means the original letter of the original writer. But that can be said of every ancient writer. I don't loose sleep over it.
@Blogrich55 You call Riplinger a nutjob because she doesn't think we should go by the original manuscripts? You think we should? Why don't you tell us what they say then you Bible-correcting nut.
@RyuXHalo ROFLOL So just WHERE do you think they got your precious paper idol the KJV1611 (which you don't even have or use) from? Did they find it in a cabbage patch? Maybe it fell from heaven like the dew? YOU are just as NUTTY as she is evidently. ALSO you are commenting against Blogrich55 even though he has been blocked and can't respond. WAY TO GO cowardly KJonliest!
@KalElohim First of all, the King James Bible was not translated out of the "original manuscripts." Secondly, you think we should use the "originals?" Well then why don't you show us what they say? You haven't seen them, your pastor hasn't seen them, NO ONE HAS. WE DON'T HAVE THEM TODAY. Before you go around saying we should use something maybe you should decide if we can CAN use it. Think about things before you so ignorantly post them.
@Blogrich55 what comfort is there or what promise is there for the Lord to say that he will be with us till the end of the AGE???? How do you know the AGE he was talking about isn't OVER???? You don't, but as long as this WORLD is here, you've got a PROMISE!! Its not an error pal.
@Blogrich55 that the modern versions such as the NIV and ESV both translate "aion" into world in Luke 16:8 and 2 Timothy 4:10. Yet, in Matthew 24:3, "aion" is translated as ages. Very interesting. If you look up the KJV Greek Lexicon. And look at Strong's number 165. The definition for the noun "aion" is: for ever, the worlds, eternity, universe, period of time, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time. Therefore, the King James Bible is correct.
@Blogrich55 Actually, the translation in Matthew 24:3 is correct. The King James Bible is always right. Here are some other Bible versions that translate the greek word "aion" into world. -Geneva Bible (1599), -Wycliffe(1395), -Tyndale(1525), the Revised Version(1881), John Wesley(1755), Living Bible(1981), New Jerusalem Bible(1985), God's Word Translation(1995). As you can see, even some of the modern versions translate this Greek word into world. Also, what is interesting to note is
I challenge anybody to go to James White's website, and you'll see that the only reason White didn't do the debate is because Ruckman couldn't agree on some basic rules. Check it out for yourself!!
p.s. read about what Ruckman views on black people, and abortion.
@ahumblechosenservant We all know better than that. James White use to go on paltalk and debate. When he was on there his colours really came out as a liar and a wanna be scholar! HE IS A JOKE!!! I'm sorry you got fooled by such a pom-pas Prick, but Ignorance can be fixed (There is Hope) ,but STUPIDITY can't. God Bless
Did you notice the video that this is the response too has a still shot of Gail with her middle finger out? That right there was a very weaselly thing for White to do. He IS a very smooth slick weasel NO doubt.
james white is 1 of the greatest debater in the christian community. he will totally put this dude in his place.
Erap1muzik 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace/Reformed Theology are from the pit of Hell.....they are heresies that make God Almighty a sinner and not just a sinner but the Author of ALL sin.
Every child raped....every women beaten...every person murdered...every deceitful business deal...every cruelty man has done, was authored by God. It is a blasphemous false religion and many otherwise fine Bible teachers are promoting it today. MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, are some of them. Flee and Repent of Calvinism!!
willpower242 1 month ago
cuz their sales dropped off, so they hired James White? ROFL you have got to be kidding me. Oh this is so pathetic. So absolutely pathetic given the title of this video and the claims about James White lying, and then suggesting this book was written cuz of sales of other bible translations.
Vball2718 1 month ago
@Vball2718 Did you read both books?
bmwhite1611 1 month ago
Calvinist = Reformed Roman Catholics
Roman Catholics = Mystery Babylon
They're all a bunch of heathen. All you calvos are going straight to hell.
blueblue1891 3 months ago
@blueblue1891 Calvinists are going to hell? Did you let Theodore Beza (John Calvin's successor) one of the editors of the Textus Receptus know that? What about Stephanus, or.... the KJV translators? Calvinists all. How'd that happen? You might want to think about the influence of a devout Calvinist working on the TR.
Consistency is not exactly a strength of Peter Ruckman. Did he ever finish identifying the aliens with blue blood who are coming to rapture us?
SkiesVibrant 2 months ago
@blueblue1891 is that right!!! a calvinist gives more glory to God then any non reformed person we say God is sovereign non reformed say man is sovereign.
Erap1muzik 3 weeks ago
what is this? backwoods radio in some part of Hell & Gone Nowhere Arizona? do you have to have a nice tight string running into the studio to get good reception?
ulisscarple 4 months ago
These two morons need to go back to school!.
morrisondan 5 months ago
The AV is not the Word of God, but a translation of the word of God.
October31st1517 5 months ago
@ReinaValera1865 no, YOU are a fool! Read Rev. 22 about what God will do with thouse who pervert His book! Watch Al Neal and learn from him!
diewahrheitistnochda 10 months ago
James White is a liar and a deciever! stay away from this hypocrite!!
diewahrheitistnochda 10 months ago
Amazing and also very telling...in less than a minute he plays the conspiracy card. Also, their hee hawing over the issue is nauseating. These people are awash in ignorance. I have listened to and read James White for several years and HAVE NEVER heard or seen him lose his bearing and resort to name calling like these KJV only people do. Sadly, they have many followers. I prefer to read the 1599 Geneva. The Geneva is just simply a more beautiful read compared to the KJV, in my opinion.
hldnoqtr 1 year ago
Proverbs 25:1 - "These (are) also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Juda copied out." Whoa! Inspired COPIES! almost three thousand years of inspired copies! and go through Jeremiah 36 and underline the phrase "all these words"!
pylgrym 1 year ago
Please tell me he didn't curse at 4:10.
wordsworth727 1 year ago
@wordsworth727 No he said "I didn't back out ship" sailors term.
BrianMcClurg1 1 year ago 2
@BrianMcClurg1 Thanks- I had hoped not. Thanks for the video.
wordsworth727 1 year ago
@BrianMcClurg1 No, he clearly cursed. A Google search for "back out ship" results in a meager four (4) hits. Three of them can be dismissed outright in context (e.g., "...didn't have time to pull it back out, ship it back"); one appears to be a grammatical error. If "back out ship" were a bona fide sailor's term, it would be better attested than that. Don't bear false witness to cover-up the man's sin.
aphobos1521 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BrianMcClurg1 No, he clearly cursed. A Google search for "back out ship" results in a meager four (4) hits. Three of them can be dismissed outright in context (e.g., "...didn't have time to pull it back out, ship it back"); one appears to be a grammatical error. If "back out ship" were a bona fide sailor's term, it would be better attested than that. Don't bear false witness to cover-up the man's sin.
aphobos1521 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BrianMcClurg1 No, he clearly cursed. A Google search for "back out ship" results in a meager four (4) hits. Three of them can be dismissed outright in context (e.g., "...didn't have time to pull it back out, ship it back"); one appears to be a grammatical error. If "back out ship" were a bona fide sailor's term, it would be better attested than that. Don't bear false witness to cover-up the man's sin.
aphobos1521 1 year ago
@BrianMcClurg1 Actually, the translation in Matthew 24:3 is correct. The King James Bible is always right. Here are some other Bible versions that translate the greek word "aion" into world. -Geneva Bible (1599), -Wycliffe(1395), -Tyndale(1525), the Revised Version(1881), John Wesley(1755), Living Bible(1981), New Jerusalem Bible(1985), God's Word Translation(1995). As you can see, even some of the modern versions translate this Greek word into world. Also, what is interesting to note is
177Jeremiah7 8 months ago
@BrianMcClurg1 Regardless. If he had said "shit", be informed that it's a name for excrement and NOT a type of cursing. The Bible says the word "piss". Is that cursing too, because our society is reluctant to use that word socially? Cursing is praying or wishing that something bad happens to someone.
joroma77 1 month ago
@wordsworth727 It sounded to me like he said, "I haven't backed out yet."
RyuXHalo 1 year ago
@wordsworth727
No. He plainly says, "...I hadn't backed out yet." He pronounces it "...backed outchyet" just as people pronounce it every day.
KevinThompson1611 5 months ago
@KevinThompson1611 Hard to believe the last word is "yet". Since he said earlier that White was welcomed anytime. Why would he say, "I hadn't backed out yet." as if there's a future possibility he might back out. I'm pretty sure Ruckman has no problem using the word "sh__". His crass language, IMHO, does not effect the bigger contributions he's made for the KJV, but he's not a perfect man, like none of us are.
wordsworth727 5 months ago
Jn. 5:2 (KJV, 1611 ed.): "There is at Hierufalem by the fheepe [market], a poole, which is called in the Hebrew tongue [Bethefda], hauing fiue porches." Jn. 5:2 (KJV, 1769 ed.): "There is at Jerusalem by the sheep [market] a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches." Βηθεσδά is present in the Greek text; the 1611 edition of the KJV italicizes "Bethesda", suggesting that it isn't. It is IN ERROR in so doing, that is an editorial MISTAKE; all translations have them.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 2
Lk. 3:15: (KJV, 1611 ed.): "And as the people were in expectation, and all MEN mufed in their hearts of John, whether he were the Chrift or not." Lk. 3:15 (KJV, 1769 ed.): "And as the people were in expectation, and all MEN mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not." ἄνθρωπος, "men", is not present in the Greek text; both editions of the KJV do not italicize it, suggesting to the reader that "men" is in the Greek. That is an editorial MISTAKE; all translations have them.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 3
Jn. 6:63 (KJV, 1611 ed.): "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flefh profiteth nothing: the wordes that I fpeake vnto you, they are Spirit, and they are life." Jn. 6:63 (KJV, 1769 ed.): "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life." Regarding italicization, how does one know which is correct unless he consults the Greek text? King James extremism is as ridiculous as it is proud and arrogant.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
@Calvinist007 The point of a translation is so you don't have to go back to the "greek"; otherwise everyone should just learn greek and not even waste time translating. Silly protestants are doing the same thing Popery did for hundreds of years. Instead of Latin, now it's Greek. Protestant Popery is still Popery. But, I guess, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS, can't be a mother w/out children.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 No, sir, the point of translation is to render the original languages into other tongues so that people can read the Scriptures; that doesn't negate scholarship. The Latin Scriptures were translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek; Latin was the religious language for centuries. What makes the Greek grammatical opinions of the KJV translators superior to the Greek grammatical opinions of great scholars like A.T. Robertson except your own arbitrary KJO definition?
Calvinist007 1 year ago 2
@Calvinist007 I have no issue w/ scholarship. I am a scholar in my field of experitse as well. That doesn't mean because I have a few letters after my name that my OPINIONS are fact. Common sense should always rule the day. And common sense says, things that are different are not the same. When tongues were interpreted in the bible how many times did the interpreter say thats what he said but if you really want the full meaning you need to learn the language he was speaking?
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 You proceed from a false premise. Acts 2:8 (KJV): "How hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" Those men didn't hear a translation, it was a direct miracle of God; such was the case with tongues interpretation later, the Scriptures were not completed yet. When John finished Revelation all verbal inspiration ended. No translation is free of error for that very reason; ideas may be conveyed adequately, but something always is lost as a matter of linguistic fact.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
@Calvinist007 I'm not talking about acts 2- see 1 corinth. Can you show me from scripture where inspiration is confined to original autographs? Can you show me from scripture where no translation is without error, and by default worse than the original? Can you show from scripture where ideas are lost due to translation or interpretation?
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 You again proceed from a false premise. The Scriptures were written in those original languages because those were the languages that were spoken then; no translations were necessary. True, the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Koine Greek (the Septuagint); however, the chronologies are off in that Greek translation, which proves my point. It is a matter of fact that whenever any language translation is done, something always is lost; any linguist knows this to be true.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Calvinist007 Again, no scripture in your answer; what is your final authority? Any linguist...you mean any man basing his opinion on his own "scholarly" wisdom, not God's. My premise begins w/ believe the Book, and whatever does not line up w/ the book is not true. If you cannot produce 1 verse in the entire Bible that says a translation is inferior, cannot be perfect, and is not inspired then why would any bible believer believe you?
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 My final authority is the Holy Scriptures in the original languages. Any thinking person knows your position to be ridiculous. Can you read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek? No? Then you are basing your beliefs on the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek grammatical opinions of the King James translators; you are trusting those men for a valid translation. How do you know their translations are valid unless you check the original tongues for yourself? We all rely on responsible scholarship.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
@Calvinist007 any thinking person..right so any person who comes to a different conclusion is automatically not thinking. Again, no "Holy" scripture in your reasoning, just man made ideas and theories. Still not 1 verse saying that a translation cannot be perfect or inspiration is confined to the original autograph. Since your final authority did not teach you that, it must have been a man who also did not get it from a biblical final authority. What was that about Pharisee traditions again?
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 No, sir, any person who comes to the conclusion that an Elizabethan English translation of the Greek text is superior to the very text from which it was translated isn't thinking; he's embarrassing himself. The Scriptures are holy (II Tim. 3:16); they are perfect, inerrant, and infallible in the original tongues. The 1611 edition of the KJV italicizes "Bethesda" in Jn. 5:2 while Βηθεσδά is present in the Greek; it is IN ERROR in so doing. KJOism is so uncogent it isn't even funny.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Calvinist007 But you can't provide me 1 verse in the entirety of scripture that says a translation can't be perfect and inspired. Does 2 Tim 3:16 say all scripture is given by inspiration in the original tongues and autographs? What bible do you have becuzz that isn't in my archaic out of date KJB. Can you provide an example of where the word scripture is used to refer to the original autographs or original tongues only?
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Your reasoning is faulty. I don't have to produce any Scripture that says a translation can't be inspired; the burden of proof is on YOU to produce a Scripture that says a translation CAN be inspired. Paul wrote II Tim. 3:16 in the original Koine Greek to a man who was reading it in that tongue; you fail to recognize that. You have not answered my point regarding Jn. 5:2, obviously because you know you're NAILED; the 1611 edition of the KJV made an editorial MISTAKE there.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 5
@Calvinist007 1 Cor 2:13 - comparing spiritual things w/ spiritual. Which means if you want to give me a definition defining a word or doctrine in the spiritual book called the bible, I am compare it against its own definition. If scripture is only inerrant and inspired in the original language then there should surely be at least 1 verse in the OT or NT that bears that definition out. Where is it? Does that definition only exist in "the Greek?"
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Again, how do you know you're reading an accurate translation of the Scriptures? Can you read the original languages? No. You are relying on the scholarship of the KJV translators to give you a trustworthy English translation, you are trusting them for that. What makes their Greek grammatical opinions superior to the Greek grammatical opinions of great scholars like J.N. Darby, J.H. Thayer, and A.T. Robertson, except your own arbitrary, contrived King James Only definition?
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
@Calvinist007 I believe the book by faith, as the just are supposed to live by, and since whatever is not of faith is sin. His word IS truth, that's present tense. if that is true then all opinions of man must be compared to His truth. Even in the original languages you cannot provide 1 verse that would even hint that translations cannot be perfect or inspired or that the word scripture only refers to some original. So why would I believe a point based on something you cannot prove?
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 That's the point, sir; you don't know God's truth in written form except for the scholarship that has translated those original languages into the English that you can read. Your reasoning continues to be faulty; the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that a translation CAN be inspired, it is not on me to prove that a translation CANNOT be inspired. No one can prove a negative; it's a logical fact. I have given ample evidence on this forum that the KJV contains editorial mistakes.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 3
@tonyb408 Faith = trust in something supportive.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn Faith = the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things NOT SEEN. I prefer the definition given by God revealed in scripture.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 The definition of pistis is given by it's common usage in the time of it's popular use. The Bible doesn't define any words, but does give descriptions and illustrations of them.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn That's how men fall into heresy: not believing what the Bible clearly states. Heb 11:1 - Faith IS...you believe what you want, I'll believe the Book.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Then, to be consistent: the definition of love is God. Of course, that doesn't work since Greek only uses one specific word there for 'love' while having many others available. But that's fine, go ahead and be a heretic and make minor things major and major things minor.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn I'm happy to be a heretic: Paul was too when believed the word and all the present day religious scholars made their own definitions (Acts 24:14). Baptists have historically been considered heretics too. So thanks. I also agree w/ Billy Sunday “When the Bible says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go plumb to the Devil.” AMEN!
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 1) I happen to be a Baptist as is James White. 2) Basically, you're convinced of the truth despite the facts that cannot be argued against. That is not Christian faith, but blind religion.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn Jimmy white is a Reformed Baptist which is a Calvinist that doesn't baptize babies. Traditional baptist doctrine is at odds w/ Calvinist heresy which is why they are re-formed. Traditional Baptist's would never teach such blasphemy as 'God decreed the rape of child' as Jimmy said during a debate. I am convinced of the truth as found in the pages of scripture since we are told thy word IS truth, not in strongs concordance, not is some lexicon.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 London Baptist Confession of 1689, dude. Most Baptists were Calvinists in the early days. I realize that facts are difficult for people who take pride in ignorance.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn Are you implying that Baptists didn't exist before the reformation, dude? LOL Ignorance, huh. LOL
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Landmarkism is wrong, dude. The Cathars and Paulicians and such were non-trinitarian heretics.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn Paulicians, Montanists, donatists, cathari, waldensians, were all referred to as ana-baptist. The term anabaptist was used as early as the 3rd century. So i will ask again, are you implying that Baptists didn't exist before the reformation? Use logic, you cant be a REFORMED baptist, if you are the 1st Baptist's since there would be no FORM to REDO, dude.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 I'm saying that all those groups you listed were heretics by modern Baptist standards, and that they have no lineage to one another, nor to modern Baptists. They were all at some point former Catholics who broke away to do their own thing with no direct contact with each other any any point.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn By that definition, Southern Baptists are not baptists since they don't agree w/ IFB, and IFB, are not Baptists since they don't agree w/ Free Will Baptist's. Stupid logic, dude. BTW, Paulicians donatists etc can't be former Catholics since Popery didn't didn't exist yet. Wishy washy Christian's hadn't yet linked up w/ the State. BTW, are you saying there are no unitarian Baptist's today? LOL Study...
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Southern, IFB, and FWB don't consider each other heretics...at least, not if they are sane. All of them I have met (I am an IFB) see the rest as brothers in Christ with minor ecclesiological differences, not theological ones. A Cathar, however, denies that the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT because they are dualists. This is heresy.
The earliest Paulicians are after Rome took charge. You have me on Donatists, who still have no relation to modern Baptists.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn You really need to go back and study. Do you know why and when the Cathari broke fellowship with other churches? LOL
tonyb408 1 year ago
And no, there are not Christian Unitarian Baptists. There are Unitarians who call themselves Baptists, however, they are not the same kind of Baptist because they are, by definition, not Christian since they are Unitarians.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn LOL. I love the popish explanation. nevertheless you answer the question in the affirmative.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Requirement of the doctrine of the Trinity to be called a Christian is not a Catholic distinctive, it's a Christian one and predates the Roman Catholic church by centuries. To disbelieve that Jesus is God is to condemn yourself to Hell, and that is Scriptural.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn History lesson for you: the people 1st called Cathari separated from the churches that became Catholic in AD251 because those churches labeled libellatici or lapsi because they betrayed the faith and sacrificed/worshiped the emperor. The split became permanent one infant baptism was made law. It wasn't until this that doctrine became an issue. Be careful who's history you get this information from, jesuit and catholic hands have massaged much historical information.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Source?
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn From Jerusalem to You by Jeff williams; PJ Twisck 3rd ed Chronicles. See also De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate by Cyprian as he writes about the division between Lapsi and Cathari.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Yeah, I'm sorry, but this book is just a rehash of made-up history known as Landmarkism that no one with a PhD in history takes seriously. No historian denies that the Cathars were dualists by their own admittance. Does Jeff Williams even have a degree in history? Even an honorary one from an accredited academy? Every historian lumps them in with the Marcionites and the Manichaeans which were heretics of the worst kind: Gnostics. It's been fun, but we're done here.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@vedinthorn "no one w/ a PhD" "does Jeff Williams even have a degree in history?" "accredited academy?" And this is the judgment for whether a man is telling the truth? LOL. Well I guess the owner of the ad agency i worked at last wasn't qualified to work in mktg since she had a degree in art history. And what were peter and john doing preaching since they were unlearned. Must have been heretics! Historians also said King Sargon and the bethesda pool never existed either.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 The Cathars, in their own words, said they were dualistic gnostics. What else matters after that?
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@Calvinist007 My copy of the Holy Scriptures nowhere says of itself that it is a translation.
pylgrym 1 year ago
@pylgrym That's what your English Bible is, sir; a translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 2
@tonyb408 Lk. 6:37 (KJV): "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." Lk. 6:37 (YLT): "Release, and ye shall be released." The Greek word translated "forgive" and "ye shall be forgiven" in the KJV is ἀπολύω, which means "to release"; Young renders it that way in his excellent translation. Christ is saying here that if one forgives, if he releases, he will be released. That doesn't show up in the KJV. Greek is much more precise than English is, and it conveys many ideas that are lost in translation.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
@tonyb408 Col. 3:19 (KJV): "Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them." The Greek word translated "love" here is ἀγαπάω, which is the same word that is used in I Jn. 4:10 (KJV): "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins." Paul is telling these Colossian men that they are to love their wives just as Christ loved sinners in giving Himself for them. That doesn't show up in the KJV English translation.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Calvinist007 It shows up in Eph 5:25.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 That's precisely the point, sir. It shows up in Eph. 5:25 because Paul specifically articulates it in the passage; he does not do that in Col. 3:19, which is why it doesn't show up there in the KJV English translation. He didn't have to articulate it there because those folks read it in the original language, where it was seen clearly.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 5
@tonyb408 I have attended many Baptist churches in my lifetime and all of them had Pastors who used the Greek text to explain a biblical point more clearly. Never did the use of the Greek text take away from the scriptures but, rather, only helped to shed more light on the scriptures for better understanding.
hldnoqtr 1 year ago
@hldnoqtr I have too, and I have yet to hear a proper definition that could not be found by comparing scripture w/ scripture (cross-referencing) in the English bible or that is not contained in the Websters 1828. But I have heard Baptist pastors go to the Greek and preach erroneous messages becuzz they didn't believe the English and relied on Mr. Strong's (who was on the ASV committee BTW) definition. Ex. John 21 & Matt 16:18
tonyb408 1 year ago
Jn. 1:7 (KJV, 1611 ed.): "The fame came for a witneffe, to beare witneffe of the light, that all men through him might beleeue." Jn. 1:7 (KJV, 1769 ed.): "The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe." Regarding italicization, how does one know which is correct unless he consults the Greek text? King James extremism is as ridiculous as it is proud and arrogant.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
Both Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman have been divorced twice and have been married a third time; Ruckman even holds a pastorate with that being the case, in direct violation of the Word of God (I Tim. 3:2, 5). James White is a good, decent man who debates prominent, well-educated people who oppose the Christian faith; I don't see Ruckman and his big mouth debating those people, nor do I see the impudent radio host in this video or any of Ruckman's other supporters doing that.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 5
@Calvinist007 The Pharisees were well-educated as well. Maybe nuthin' to it...But when all else fails, as liberals do, attack the messenger...
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 You are in error, sir; the Pharisees were the religious conservatives of their day, and they were the ones whom Christ criticized the most. They had replaced the Scriptures with talmudic errors; in my opinion, King James extremism is akin to that very thing. It is a ridiculous position that cannot hold up scholastically; it never could, it never will. The KJV is a wonderful, beautiful translation, but it's not the only translation; modern translations are both valid and helpful.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 3
@Calvinist007 Are you saying the Pharisees were not well educated? Wasn't Paul an ex-Pharisee brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, a doctor (PhD) of the Law?
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Yes, the Pharisees were well-educated, but that's not the point; they had replaced the Scriptures with rabbinical opinion. Mt. 23:23 (KJV): "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Mk. 7:7 (KJV): "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men."
Calvinist007 1 year ago 3
@Calvinist007 I agree 100% Well educated religious people that created their own traditions over the authority of scripture. Today that tradition is called Textual Criticism where "scholars" say you must know greek to get the full meaning. Where is that in the scripture? Did Luke miss the true meaning of pauls speech in Acts 22 since he recorded in Greek but Paul spoke in hebrew? Where are these guidelines of Textual criticism in the scripture?
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 You again proceed from a false premise. Luke recorded Paul's sermon in Koine Greek from the Author Himself: God. Jer. 30:1-2 (KJV): "The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book." Responsible textual criticism is valid; Christians should know why their Bible is the Word of God. English is a limited tongue compared to Greek, and cannot convey everything that it gives.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 3
@Calvinist007 If what Luke recorded was word for word pauls speech then paul was speaking under inspiration as well. So what is the real original; paul's Holy Ghost inspired speech in hebrew or Luke's Holy Ghost inspired translation of hebrew into greek? Your assumption is that inspiration is confined to the original, which is not found in scripture so it is a man-made tradition, and that a translation cannot be perfect and translators cannot be inspired; none of which is found in scripture.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Luke recorded Paul's speech in Koine Greek under verbal inspiration; that does not mean Paul was speaking under the same inspiration. If Luke would have recorded in the original Koine Greek that someone had accused another person falsely, that would not have meant that the false accuser was speaking under verbal inspiration. The simplistic thinking of King James Only advocates like you is astonishing. No translation conveys everything that the original does; it's a fact of life.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 5
@tonyb408 II Peter 1:21 (KJV): "Holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost." One might get the impression from reading the English translation that those men spoke after they had been moved emotionally; however, the Greek word translated "moved" is φέρω, which means "to carry". It thus is seen that those men weren't moved emotionally, they were moved physically, in the same way that one moves a chair from one part of a room to another. That isn't seen in translation.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
@Calvinist007 Holy men of God spake as they were carried across the room like a chair by the Holy Ghost? LOL. do have a verse of scripture as an example of this blessed revelation from "the greek"?
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Did you even read what I wrote? I said that the Greek word translated "moved" in II Pet. 1:21 is φέρω, which means "to carry". It therefore is seen that those men weren't moved emotionally, they were moved physically; I used the chair analogy to convey the idea, that they were borne by the Holy Spirit, that they were carried physically by Him. That doesn't show up in the KJV translation. Your objections to the validity of my point are feckless.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Calvinist007 Humor my ignorance...rewrite that verse for me in english utilizing the proper definition of the greek word.
tonyb408 1 year ago
@tonyb408 Please don't condescend to me, sir; you HAVE LOST this debate badly, and you ought to be man enough to admit it.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 The Pharisees were well-educated too. Maybe nuthin' to it...But when all else fails, as liberals do, attack the messenger...
tonyb408 1 year ago
Peter Ruckman is a proud, arrogant, pharisaic man who is personally abusive toward anyone who disagrees with his scholastically ridiculous King James Only view, which is, in my opinion, akin to the talmudic errors of Christ's day. Ruckman really has his nerve accusing White of cowardice. John Ankerberg held a debate in 1995, inviting Ruckman to appear; he didn't show, but White did. Ruckman doesn't want any part of James White in any debate; White would destroy him, as he destroyed Riplinger.
Calvinist007 1 year ago 4
Amen and amen!
edwardpf123 1 year ago
Ruckman and Riplinger are nutjobs. She ACTUALLY said we shouldn't go by the original manuscripts that it was wrong to do so. NO translation is inspired. As the English language changes, the translations must be adjusted. And she also thinks the the 5 points of Calvinism is comparable to the satanic pentagram. That tells me LOADS about her.
CHALLENGE TO THE TWO NUTJOBS: Try explaining away the FALSE translation in the KJV of Matthew 24:3
The world is NOT the Greek for world but age!
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55
In order to "harmonize" with the satanic New Age Movement (and of course the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!), the NKJV changes "end of the WORLD" to "end of the AGE"! And in it's no longer the "WORLD to come" but "AGE to come". The New Age Movement teaches a series of ages (hence the name: New AGE). See Matthew 12:32, 13:39, 13:40, 13:49, 24:3, 28:20, Mark 10:30, Luke 13:30, 20:34,35, 1 Cor 1:21.
When in Doubt throw "the" Greek and Hebrew out!
BrianMcClurg1 1 year ago
@BrianMcClurg1 I realize you will block me for this but your
"When in Doubt throw 'the' Greek and Hebrew out!" are the words of a hopelessly deluded fanatic. May God have mercy on you for daring to tamper with His Holy Word.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55
The phrase "the end of the world" is defined in the English text of 1611 without reference to any greek text. Heb. 1:2, 6:5 and 9:26 show you it is the end of an "age"
But notice also that "the World" can have more than one "end" (1 Cor. 10:11). There is the "end" of the Church which Paul speaks of as "the last days" (2 Tim. 3:1). There is the "end" of the Tribulation, which is what the term usually refers to (Matt. 24:13; Dan.12:4, 8-9, 13; Heb. 3:6, 14).
BrianMcClurg1 1 year ago
@BrianMcClurg1 Yes, I KNOW that if we search through the scriptures we would, hopefully, come to the proper meaning of the word in Matt 24:3 But should we HAVE to? It is STILL mistranslated.
BTW You are also very mistaken as to the last days Paul is speaking about. He is speaking of the end of the Jewish sacrificial system and economy. I realize you are probably a premill pretribist and so Interpret Matt 24 in a Darbian/Schofieldian manner. I don't believe that is the case from my studies.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55
We DON'T HAVE ONE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT!
Your brain must act like a pea in a boxcar LOL
BrianMcClurg1 1 year ago
@BrianMcClurg1 And you are displaying a Satanic attitude as opposed to a Christ-like one. When someone says 'original manuscripts', they always mean the manuscripts in the original language.
vedinthorn 1 year ago
@BrianMcClurg1 Actually that isn't entirely true. A manuscript means a copy. Perhaps what you meant to say is we don't have the original autograph, which means the original letter of the original writer. But that can be said of every ancient writer. I don't loose sleep over it.
Surfxeo 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 In contrast to which manuscripts do you say mt 24:3 is a false translation?
Onetruthrgv 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 You call Riplinger a nutjob because she doesn't think we should go by the original manuscripts? You think we should? Why don't you tell us what they say then you Bible-correcting nut.
RyuXHalo 1 year ago
@RyuXHalo ROFLOL So just WHERE do you think they got your precious paper idol the KJV1611 (which you don't even have or use) from? Did they find it in a cabbage patch? Maybe it fell from heaven like the dew? YOU are just as NUTTY as she is evidently. ALSO you are commenting against Blogrich55 even though he has been blocked and can't respond. WAY TO GO cowardly KJonliest!
KalElohim 1 year ago
@KalElohim I'm Sorry I'm too busy Working a job and Living the Bible not debating Bible Critics. Maybe when I have time I'll chat.
God Bless,
Brian R McClurg
BrianMcClurg1 1 year ago
@BrianMcClurg1 God bless you. I am sorry if I reacted harshly.Feel free to pm if you like.
KalElohim 1 year ago
@KalElohim First of all, the King James Bible was not translated out of the "original manuscripts." Secondly, you think we should use the "originals?" Well then why don't you show us what they say? You haven't seen them, your pastor hasn't seen them, NO ONE HAS. WE DON'T HAVE THEM TODAY. Before you go around saying we should use something maybe you should decide if we can CAN use it. Think about things before you so ignorantly post them.
RyuXHalo 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 what comfort is there or what promise is there for the Lord to say that he will be with us till the end of the AGE???? How do you know the AGE he was talking about isn't OVER???? You don't, but as long as this WORLD is here, you've got a PROMISE!! Its not an error pal.
jondabill 1 year ago 2
@Blogrich55 that the modern versions such as the NIV and ESV both translate "aion" into world in Luke 16:8 and 2 Timothy 4:10. Yet, in Matthew 24:3, "aion" is translated as ages. Very interesting. If you look up the KJV Greek Lexicon. And look at Strong's number 165. The definition for the noun "aion" is: for ever, the worlds, eternity, universe, period of time, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time. Therefore, the King James Bible is correct.
177Jeremiah7 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 Actually, the translation in Matthew 24:3 is correct. The King James Bible is always right. Here are some other Bible versions that translate the greek word "aion" into world. -Geneva Bible (1599), -Wycliffe(1395), -Tyndale(1525), the Revised Version(1881), John Wesley(1755), Living Bible(1981), New Jerusalem Bible(1985), God's Word Translation(1995). As you can see, even some of the modern versions translate this Greek word into world. Also, what is interesting to note is
177Jeremiah7 8 months ago
I challenge anybody to go to James White's website, and you'll see that the only reason White didn't do the debate is because Ruckman couldn't agree on some basic rules. Check it out for yourself!!
p.s. read about what Ruckman views on black people, and abortion.
ahumblechosenservant 1 year ago
@ahumblechosenservant We all know better than that. James White use to go on paltalk and debate. When he was on there his colours really came out as a liar and a wanna be scholar! HE IS A JOKE!!! I'm sorry you got fooled by such a pom-pas Prick, but Ignorance can be fixed (There is Hope) ,but STUPIDITY can't. God Bless
BrianMcClurg1 1 year ago
Comment removed
ahumblechosenservant 1 year ago
@BrianMcClurg1
btw, speaking of stupidity, aren't the words "ignorance" and "stupidity" interchangeable?
ahumblechosenservant 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahumblechosenservant "btw, speaking of stupidity, aren't the words "ignorance" and "stupidity" interchangeable? "
No.
Ignorant: Lacking education or knowledge. Unaware or uninformed.
Stupid: Marked by a lack of intelligence or care. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
AnotherBrotherMark 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BrianMcClurg1
btw, speaking of stupidty, aren't the words "stupidity" and "ignorance" interchangeable?
ahumblechosenservant 1 year ago
@CautiousSaint you mean "James AKA SNOW WHITE" James White is a JOKE!!!!
BrianMcClurg1 1 year ago
Two clowns laughing at one another!!! LOL
revholland1 1 year ago
Lol, on April fools day, and then White backs out, LOL....
kjvonly01 2 years ago
@kjvonly01
too bad you people wouldn't dare to call in on his radio show, now would you? :)
ahumblechosenservant 1 year ago
Ruckman calls it like it is. White is a LIAR, and a deceiver.
kjvonly01 2 years ago
Did you notice the video that this is the response too has a still shot of Gail with her middle finger out? That right there was a very weaselly thing for White to do. He IS a very smooth slick weasel NO doubt.
blackaboe 2 years ago
Hey this is Great stuff ! I like Ruckman and Tex Mars and Gail Riplinger.
blackaboe 2 years ago