Like always, the last forum that banned me (*cough*OB*cough) is embroiled in the TR vs. KJB debate again. The site claims to be "King James Version Only," and while the Administrator doesn't post enough for me to know for sure how he stands, the vast majority of the members there are "fair-weather KJB-onlyists," or they only believe the King James Bible because nothing better has come along to replace it.
Of course, this would only happen (the KJB being replaced) if it was a "faithful translation," though of course that very statement is insanely subjective, as anyone who uses his brain could figure. Someone who believes this is no better than Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, Bob Jones II and III, or Arlin Horton. The only difference is the text that they use to prop up their own ego and opinion. The first batch uses the Textus Receptus, while the other uses anything and everything except the TR. But in the end it's all the same thing: self-important, self-righteous men deciding for themselves what is right and wrong. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
Now I know as well as anyone that the King James arose mostly from the manuscripts that were compiled into the TR. That's a fact, and an indisputable one. However, what those TR-lovers neglect to mention is that there are many passages in the KJB that don't come from any Majority text manuscript or text. For instance the Johannine Comma: the only text at the time that had that passage in it was the corrupt Latin Vulgate! However, those "godly men" put that phrase in there, and were later vindicated by the rise of many Antioch manuscripts that included the passage.
Another fun topic that they love to rant against on that forum is what has been called "double inspiration," or "advanced revelation." Now double inspiration is their description of the Biblical teaching of Scriptural peservation and inspiration: that al Scripture is given by inspiration of God, so anything that claims to be Scripture must be given by inspiration of God. Simple, no? Then we have advanced revelation, which they tout as adding to God's word, when in fact it is simply things that showed up in the English LANGUAGE as a result of the translation from Greek and Hebrew. It wasn't something added in by the translators, it was something that was evidenced through the translation of Scripture that had been in the passage all along: it just wasn't evident in Greek or Hebrew!
Ok I'm tired of typing now, so I'll get into more down the road if I feel like it. Comments=more rant, so if you want more, comment! :D
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Ye do err...
Recently I have been hit by an onslaught of attacks (this blog not being included in that). I think the Lord is allowing Satan to touch my wife and I to a small degree; most likely in preparation for the ministry to which He has called us. I'd appreciate the prayers of anyone that calls themselves a born-again Christian; I'm simply doing (to the best of HIS ability: I can do nothing without Him) what He's called me to do.
On a slightly more enjoyable note, I'd like to address some of the more recent comments directed toward me through this blog.
I knew Daryn ("Big D") back when our families attended the same church in Missouri; in fact his father was the assistant pastor of the church. A huge falling out occurred in 2001 or so; several families left initially, and Daryn's family left a couple months after. Please bear in mind that in 2001 I was 12-13 years old.
We've attended several churches since then, my family and I, and the Lord has done some amazing things in my life. Since leaving that church, I learned the most vital part of Bible study: Rightly Dividing. This topic was anathema at the church that Daryn's and my family attended at the time, so understandably few if any people there would understand the Bible in the way that God intended.
Now back to the present, 2008. All of a sudden, Daryn, from whom I haven't heard a thing in years, shows up on my blog and claims to know me inside and out or some such nonsense; he said that he knows me better than a good friend of mine who I see occasionally and talk to online quite often. Basically, because of his attitude when he approached me, he got on my bad side really quick.
He began by questioning my attitude, of which he knows nothing, and saying that I was a fool for believing the King James Bible to be the perfect word of God. Now I don't know about anyone else that might perchance read my blog, but I believe that next to the doctrines of the Trinity, Salvation and Eternal Security, the King James Bible is the most important, mainly because nothing else has any degree of credence without the perfection of God's holy word. How do you show someone how to be saved if you don't have a perfect Bible to show them from??
Anyway, in the end, Daryn wound up attacking both me AND Jason (the friend he claimed didn't know me as well as Daryn) for showing him from the Scriptures and with plain logic that his position is wrong. Showing his arrogance, pride and haughtiness, Daryn continued, up until his last point, to make hypocritical and Pharisaical remarks about Jason and myself, though he knows absolutely nothing about Jason, and little more about me.
I gave him this simple challenge, which I will extend to any reader that disagrees with my simple premise (the King James Bible is the perfect word of God, and is given by inspiration of God): take a King James Bible, and study the topics:
On a slightly more enjoyable note, I'd like to address some of the more recent comments directed toward me through this blog.
I knew Daryn ("Big D") back when our families attended the same church in Missouri; in fact his father was the assistant pastor of the church. A huge falling out occurred in 2001 or so; several families left initially, and Daryn's family left a couple months after. Please bear in mind that in 2001 I was 12-13 years old.
We've attended several churches since then, my family and I, and the Lord has done some amazing things in my life. Since leaving that church, I learned the most vital part of Bible study: Rightly Dividing. This topic was anathema at the church that Daryn's and my family attended at the time, so understandably few if any people there would understand the Bible in the way that God intended.
Now back to the present, 2008. All of a sudden, Daryn, from whom I haven't heard a thing in years, shows up on my blog and claims to know me inside and out or some such nonsense; he said that he knows me better than a good friend of mine who I see occasionally and talk to online quite often. Basically, because of his attitude when he approached me, he got on my bad side really quick.
He began by questioning my attitude, of which he knows nothing, and saying that I was a fool for believing the King James Bible to be the perfect word of God. Now I don't know about anyone else that might perchance read my blog, but I believe that next to the doctrines of the Trinity, Salvation and Eternal Security, the King James Bible is the most important, mainly because nothing else has any degree of credence without the perfection of God's holy word. How do you show someone how to be saved if you don't have a perfect Bible to show them from??
Anyway, in the end, Daryn wound up attacking both me AND Jason (the friend he claimed didn't know me as well as Daryn) for showing him from the Scriptures and with plain logic that his position is wrong. Showing his arrogance, pride and haughtiness, Daryn continued, up until his last point, to make hypocritical and Pharisaical remarks about Jason and myself, though he knows absolutely nothing about Jason, and little more about me.
I gave him this simple challenge, which I will extend to any reader that disagrees with my simple premise (the King James Bible is the perfect word of God, and is given by inspiration of God): take a King James Bible, and study the topics:
- Inspiration
- Preservation
- Translation
Sunday, May 18, 2008
To Canonize or not to Canonize
We received a comment recently, asking about the early Church, and where they went wrong, especially in regards to the Canonization of the Scriptures. Bear with me; this could get a little lengthy.
There is a belief among many denominations that the Apostles' positions were handed down to others: the view is commonly known as Apostolic Succession. This is a fundamental and essential part of the Roman Catholic Church's position, as their Nicolaitanistic clergy would have no justification without it. Likewise, many of the Protestant groups that came out of Rome (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) or split off (Episcopal, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican) teach a similar form of Apostolic Succession, though not as fiercely as the RCC.
To fully understand the quandary that modern "Christianity" is in requires a little digging into the history of the Body of Christ, or the Church. While the universal Body of Christ actually began at Pentecost, when the Disciples were empowered with the Holy Ghost, some groups teach that Christ founded His church on Peter, using Matthew 16:18;
Anyhow, that's how the Church started: Peter was the first spokesman, and later Paul was the main instrument to spread the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel began to spread when the Jews started persecuting the Christians, and they moved away, taking their relatively new-found faith with them. Eventually the Gospel reached Rome, where Paul wound up getting executed by Nero. When the number of Christians became a large problem for the Roman government, they were persecuted with all the fury of the Roman legions, yet they continued to grow even more.
By 300 A.D., Emperor Constantine realized that they would never be able to root the Christians out, and as the saying goes, "If you can't beat them, join them"; he did exactly that. He "Baptized" his troops by marching them through the river, after which he had his armies wear crosses on their armor. He cited a vision in the sky, where a cross stood bearing the inscription: "In Vince Hoc," or "With this conquor." Many church elders warmly welcomed the respite from persecution, though some feared the new union between the government and the body of Christ. Constantine's new religion began incorporating many of the trappings of the former pagan worship, including polytheism, ornate worship services, temple prostitution and other godless, profane things, under the guise of "Christianity."
There were many people, however, that fled this new abomination, and eventually were persecuted as the unholy union of church and state began to overshadow Europe and the entire Roman Empire. In an effort to stifle the resistance to their religion, the Roman church forbad the common people to own or possess any portion of the Scriptures, or writings of the apostles or the Hebrew Old Testament. In this they thought to control the people, and keep them in ignorance to the abominations they were perpetrating in the name of Christ.
Between 393 and 419 A.D., different councils and synods had declared the "Canon" of the Bible, or which books were and were not Scriptural. The Roman church, using the idea of Apostolic Succession, declared that since Jesus gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of God, that they still held those keys and also had the right to declare what was God's word.
By contrast, however, the Bible states that God's word is settled forever in Heaven, negating the necessity of a canon. Just because a group of men gets together and declares something to be so does not establish it, just as their refusal to accept something does not negate its existence. Therefore, to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the authority on the written word of God, when God had already settled it in Heaven in eternity past, is preposterous to the highest degree. The Catholic church simply wanted to keep the people in darkness to the word of God (hence the "Dark Ages") so their "Indulgences" and "Penances" and "Priests," "Monks," "Nuns," "Friars," "Cardinals" and "Bishops" wouldn't be uncovered as fraudulent, unblibical, paganistic trash.
There is a belief among many denominations that the Apostles' positions were handed down to others: the view is commonly known as Apostolic Succession. This is a fundamental and essential part of the Roman Catholic Church's position, as their Nicolaitanistic clergy would have no justification without it. Likewise, many of the Protestant groups that came out of Rome (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) or split off (Episcopal, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican) teach a similar form of Apostolic Succession, though not as fiercely as the RCC.
To fully understand the quandary that modern "Christianity" is in requires a little digging into the history of the Body of Christ, or the Church. While the universal Body of Christ actually began at Pentecost, when the Disciples were empowered with the Holy Ghost, some groups teach that Christ founded His church on Peter, using Matthew 16:18;
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."The only problem with that is that Jesus had just gotten done asking Peter who he thought Jesus was, to which question he responded, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Now, Peter's name means little stone, but Jesus is the Rock of Ages and the Cornerstone, so Jesus building His church on Himself (a rock) makes much more sense than Him building it on Peter (a stone).
Anyhow, that's how the Church started: Peter was the first spokesman, and later Paul was the main instrument to spread the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel began to spread when the Jews started persecuting the Christians, and they moved away, taking their relatively new-found faith with them. Eventually the Gospel reached Rome, where Paul wound up getting executed by Nero. When the number of Christians became a large problem for the Roman government, they were persecuted with all the fury of the Roman legions, yet they continued to grow even more.
By 300 A.D., Emperor Constantine realized that they would never be able to root the Christians out, and as the saying goes, "If you can't beat them, join them"; he did exactly that. He "Baptized" his troops by marching them through the river, after which he had his armies wear crosses on their armor. He cited a vision in the sky, where a cross stood bearing the inscription: "In Vince Hoc," or "With this conquor." Many church elders warmly welcomed the respite from persecution, though some feared the new union between the government and the body of Christ. Constantine's new religion began incorporating many of the trappings of the former pagan worship, including polytheism, ornate worship services, temple prostitution and other godless, profane things, under the guise of "Christianity."
There were many people, however, that fled this new abomination, and eventually were persecuted as the unholy union of church and state began to overshadow Europe and the entire Roman Empire. In an effort to stifle the resistance to their religion, the Roman church forbad the common people to own or possess any portion of the Scriptures, or writings of the apostles or the Hebrew Old Testament. In this they thought to control the people, and keep them in ignorance to the abominations they were perpetrating in the name of Christ.
Between 393 and 419 A.D., different councils and synods had declared the "Canon" of the Bible, or which books were and were not Scriptural. The Roman church, using the idea of Apostolic Succession, declared that since Jesus gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of God, that they still held those keys and also had the right to declare what was God's word.
By contrast, however, the Bible states that God's word is settled forever in Heaven, negating the necessity of a canon. Just because a group of men gets together and declares something to be so does not establish it, just as their refusal to accept something does not negate its existence. Therefore, to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the authority on the written word of God, when God had already settled it in Heaven in eternity past, is preposterous to the highest degree. The Catholic church simply wanted to keep the people in darkness to the word of God (hence the "Dark Ages") so their "Indulgences" and "Penances" and "Priests," "Monks," "Nuns," "Friars," "Cardinals" and "Bishops" wouldn't be uncovered as fraudulent, unblibical, paganistic trash.
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
(Isaiah 40:8)
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Who's causing division?
We've all heard it. "Those Ruckmanites, they just cause division among the brethren!!" It's a common accusation in churches across America, but is it true??
Maybe it happens in some cases, but not in what I've seen in a situation over the past few months to someone I know (and believe me, this is a very common thing to happen in churches when people become aware that a "Ruckmanite" is in the congregation).
So here you are... in a nice, friendly Fundamentalist church. When you come in as a new visitor, the people are all so friendly, the music is beautiful, and the preaching seems pretty dead-on (he's even preaching from a KJV! wow!). As you get to know people there, you get involved in fellowship activities and soulwinning and everything. Of course, since you happen to love Dr. Ruckman's preaching... you mention Dr. Ruckman's name to a few people (just to see how they react). Strangely, their faces turn grim and they start to avoid you. People who said that they just LOVED to talk to you are now shunning you. Pretty soon, the whole church is like one big clique and you're not a part of it. This "friendly" church is now cutting you out of the congregation just because you like the preaching of someone they don't like!
Now who's causing the division here? Is it the "Ruckmanite" or the members of the Fundamentalist church? I think the answer is quite clear.
Maybe it happens in some cases, but not in what I've seen in a situation over the past few months to someone I know (and believe me, this is a very common thing to happen in churches when people become aware that a "Ruckmanite" is in the congregation).
So here you are... in a nice, friendly Fundamentalist church. When you come in as a new visitor, the people are all so friendly, the music is beautiful, and the preaching seems pretty dead-on (he's even preaching from a KJV! wow!). As you get to know people there, you get involved in fellowship activities and soulwinning and everything. Of course, since you happen to love Dr. Ruckman's preaching... you mention Dr. Ruckman's name to a few people (just to see how they react). Strangely, their faces turn grim and they start to avoid you. People who said that they just LOVED to talk to you are now shunning you. Pretty soon, the whole church is like one big clique and you're not a part of it. This "friendly" church is now cutting you out of the congregation just because you like the preaching of someone they don't like!
Now who's causing the division here? Is it the "Ruckmanite" or the members of the Fundamentalist church? I think the answer is quite clear.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Evolution: man without God
Man has been trying to get along without God ever since Adam and Eve rejected His command in Genesis 3. The greatest push to ditch God since the Tower of Babel, though, is probably
the "theory" of evolution. Though scientists or other proponents of the "ToE," as it's called, will say that the "Big Bang" is separate from evolution, the whole kettle of (rotten) fish is inextricably tied together.
For one, the universe has to be here for evolution to take place, even though the only place anything has ever evolved is in the minds of willingly ignorant scientists. Therefore, first of all, we must understand the fantastical origins these people propose. In essence, billions of years ago (they don't know for sure when) something (they don't know what) exploded (they don't know how). Then, somehow, this unexplainable explosion created the galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, moons, asteroids, Martians and Earth.
The next big pile of dog doo-doo is better known as "abiogenesis," or the rise of living things from non-living things. Make sense? Didn't think so. Basically, they teach (whilst sucking on a bong, apparently) that after the Big Bang (see above), the earth was a blob of hot, molten rock that gradually cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust. Somehow the earth developed an atmosphere of primitive oxygen and hydrogen and it began to rain on the rocky crust. The rain created a sludge after a few million years, and a "simple," single-celled organism arose from the muck. Somehow this little critter found something to eat (he's the only organic material in the universe!) and someone to marry (huh??) and began the great process of Natural Selection.
Now Evolutionists take something like dogs, for instance, and say that since all these dogs came from a common ancestor (feasible, no problem there), then we all somehow came from that little sludge in the last section. Now, how they come to this conclusion I'll never understand; it's way easier when you just let God do it.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Why use something stupid like evolution when you're God?
the "theory" of evolution. Though scientists or other proponents of the "ToE," as it's called, will say that the "Big Bang" is separate from evolution, the whole kettle of (rotten) fish is inextricably tied together.
For one, the universe has to be here for evolution to take place, even though the only place anything has ever evolved is in the minds of willingly ignorant scientists. Therefore, first of all, we must understand the fantastical origins these people propose. In essence, billions of years ago (they don't know for sure when) something (they don't know what) exploded (they don't know how). Then, somehow, this unexplainable explosion created the galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, moons, asteroids, Martians and Earth.
The next big pile of dog doo-doo is better known as "abiogenesis," or the rise of living things from non-living things. Make sense? Didn't think so. Basically, they teach (whilst sucking on a bong, apparently) that after the Big Bang (see above), the earth was a blob of hot, molten rock that gradually cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust. Somehow the earth developed an atmosphere of primitive oxygen and hydrogen and it began to rain on the rocky crust. The rain created a sludge after a few million years, and a "simple," single-celled organism arose from the muck. Somehow this little critter found something to eat (he's the only organic material in the universe!) and someone to marry (huh??) and began the great process of Natural Selection.
Now Evolutionists take something like dogs, for instance, and say that since all these dogs came from a common ancestor (feasible, no problem there), then we all somehow came from that little sludge in the last section. Now, how they come to this conclusion I'll never understand; it's way easier when you just let God do it.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Why use something stupid like evolution when you're God?
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Bible Students vs. Willingly Ignorant Baptists
...and they never will agree till the end of the world. Literally.
It's so plain and simple. Some people haven't grown up past the baby Christian view of the Bible. They think the whole thing is written directly to them, so they get confused and misapply Scripture.
Only an open-minded student of the Bible will learn that God has written some Scripture TO us, and other Scripture FOR us. The majority of Scripture is written FOR us. We can learn doctrine (and who it's for), history, and spiritual applications from all Scripture. When you study doctrine, you must learn which doctrine applies to us and what applies to someone else. (it's pretty easy to figure out that we're not required to sacrifice goats and bulls in the Church Age). When you study history in the Bible, you get to know God. (history = His Story) When you study the spiritual applications in Scripture, you learn how to live a life that is pleasing to the Saviour.
Most Baptists are still at the baby Christian stage of seeing the Bible. Most of them don't know better. That's fine, someday the Lord may allow someone to come into their lives and teach them how to study the Bible, or a few might be intelligent enough to figure it out on their own.
Then you get the willingly ignorant Baptists. These are the Baptists that have been viewing the Bible the same simple way for SO many years that they can't change. Either that, or they became firmly hardened in their view quickly (like cement... they were soft in the beginning but dried too fast). These rock-hard Christians are completely unwilling to accept that the Bible is deeper than they perceive it to be. They'll tell you that they know they can't understand everything in the Bible, and that it's a deep Book, but their attitude betrays them. These Christians will probably never change and never have the joy of the Lord showing them the deep and amazing things hidden in His Book. Why would He bother with someone who thinks he/she already knows it all, anyway?
As far as I know, there isn't a true Bible student who ever goes back to that baby Christian view of the Bible and "rightly dividing". Once you've matured in your understanding of the Bible, why would you ever go back? That would be as stupid as a high school student in Algebra asking to be put back in 1st grade math.
It's so plain and simple. Some people haven't grown up past the baby Christian view of the Bible. They think the whole thing is written directly to them, so they get confused and misapply Scripture.
Only an open-minded student of the Bible will learn that God has written some Scripture TO us, and other Scripture FOR us. The majority of Scripture is written FOR us. We can learn doctrine (and who it's for), history, and spiritual applications from all Scripture. When you study doctrine, you must learn which doctrine applies to us and what applies to someone else. (it's pretty easy to figure out that we're not required to sacrifice goats and bulls in the Church Age). When you study history in the Bible, you get to know God. (history = His Story) When you study the spiritual applications in Scripture, you learn how to live a life that is pleasing to the Saviour.
Most Baptists are still at the baby Christian stage of seeing the Bible. Most of them don't know better. That's fine, someday the Lord may allow someone to come into their lives and teach them how to study the Bible, or a few might be intelligent enough to figure it out on their own.
Then you get the willingly ignorant Baptists. These are the Baptists that have been viewing the Bible the same simple way for SO many years that they can't change. Either that, or they became firmly hardened in their view quickly (like cement... they were soft in the beginning but dried too fast). These rock-hard Christians are completely unwilling to accept that the Bible is deeper than they perceive it to be. They'll tell you that they know they can't understand everything in the Bible, and that it's a deep Book, but their attitude betrays them. These Christians will probably never change and never have the joy of the Lord showing them the deep and amazing things hidden in His Book. Why would He bother with someone who thinks he/she already knows it all, anyway?
As far as I know, there isn't a true Bible student who ever goes back to that baby Christian view of the Bible and "rightly dividing". Once you've matured in your understanding of the Bible, why would you ever go back? That would be as stupid as a high school student in Algebra asking to be put back in 1st grade math.
Return to cyberspace
I guess it's not too bad out here; I used to be a very prolific poster and blogger (not as much the latter as the former) but I got really busy and didn't have as much time or interest in continuing the amount of online interaction. I just got back into it here within the last few days: a few interesting topics on a forum I'm a part of piqued my interest again and I tarted posting more. Then I got the bright idea to start a blog so I could post things I thought important. Of course the "bright" part is my own opinion, and to my knowledge there have been like two people that have viewed it so far. Not that I care of course; I wouldn't mind a little feedback though.
Anyhow, I'm back, temporarily anyhow; with wedding planning and the like I might run out of free time again; otherwise I'll be around, making people mad and stepping on toes like normal.
Anyhow, I'm back, temporarily anyhow; with wedding planning and the like I might run out of free time again; otherwise I'll be around, making people mad and stepping on toes like normal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
