Letter from Dr. Frank Logsdon Editor of NASV

Post by **_Derek** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:22 pm

The unfortunate thing is that becasue neither of you two actually understand the issues involved, nor the enormity of the material needed to be familiar with to have a common frame of reference to discuss this in a productive way, you assume I am evasive and think these issues are answered with little soundbites. That is a dead give-away that you do not understand things.

It seems your whole method of argumentation is merely to state a topic, and then when someone actually trys to engage in a discussion, you avoid the questions posed to you and simply tell everyone they don't "understand the issues".

You did the same thing with that "Alexardrian Cult" Ruckmanite nonsense. When someone poses a question, you tell them they are ignorant of the issue at hand, or hurl accusations of "baiting" and the like. You are clearly not interested in dialogue.

If you will not answer my question, I will assume you don't have an answer, and choose remain willfully ignorant as to why it is that this translation is inspired, or you do not wish to discuss the matter. Either way, not very fertile ground there for discussion.

Post by **_Christopher** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:20 pm

Thanks for the clarification Steve.

I freely admit that I have a very limited knowledge on the various sources for the different bible translations and their names.

I don't believe that any of the translations teach Arianism either, but I wanted to give Sola a chance to demonstrate why he thinks they do and why he thinks that verse in particular does so. I'm definitely learning a thing or two from all of this.

Post by **_Steve** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:52 pm

I think it has become evident that, for all his accusations of others being "ignorant," our friend Sola really doesn't know his stuff at all. What little I and others here present, we present from memory. Sola must cut-and-paste arguments from other websites, written by other people. When asked to give reasons and evidences for his beliefs, all he is capable of saying is "read the books!" This seems to be another way of saying, "I have read the books, and they have convinced me. However, I do not really understand the topic or the arguments well enought to summarize them in my own words. I believe that Sola is a mere Ruckmannite clone, as I stated earlier. He certainly has provided nothing to indicate otherwise. I don't believe that he can.

Post by **_Super Sola Scriptura** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:59 pm

Steve, you don't define terms here. Who knows what a "Ruckmanite" is? Second, your use of this term implies it is some subjedtive belief with no facts and scholarship behind it. The problem most people have is with his attitude and caustic language, and I agree. But those things DO NOT change the facts he presents. He is a legitimate PhD, and hs studied this issue for over 50 years now. Unfortuantley, much of his assessments of contemporary Christian scholarship is as bad and as deceived as he claims. I know for I have many books and I see it everywhere.

Now the cut and pasting I do is simply to save time. Why rewrite a well-written piece? Also understasnd that some questions requie complex answers, and i don't have that time--I can only refer people to the books that do the subject matter justice. I would say the same for the Calvinist Arminian debate. I try to get Calvinists to read Arminian books in the hopes that the full treatments will presuade them far better than I can with short little writings. Capeche?

p.s. You are wlcome to write Ruckman and debate him on this issue. He has and will do formal debates, with all the rules and proper decorum, and they are all videotaped so no one can spin what was said or how it went. He offers to pay whoever wants to debate this issue their travel expenses to come to his school where the debate can happen and be filmed. Since I know you do debates, are you interested?

Post by **_Derek** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:37 pm

Who knows what a "Ruckmanite" is?

One who goes around posting Ruckman's ridiculous "Creed of the Alexadrian Cult", and saying things like:

"... do you have a Bible???
Do you have God's infallable Word, the Holy Scriptures?
If you do, WHERE is it? Can you hand it to me.
Where is the book called the Bible, that is perfect and inspired?? "

(with not effort to explain why the KJV is inspired, of course).

I am pretty sure these kind of statements would put you in that camp.

Post by **_Derek** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:40 pm

p.s. You are wlcome to write Ruckman and debate him on this issue. He has and will do formal debates, with all the rules and proper decorum, and they are all videotaped so no one can spin what was said or how it went. He offers to pay whoever wants to debate this issue their travel expenses to come to his school where the debate can happen and be filmed. Since I know you do debates, are you interested?

Has he ever debated James White that you know of?

Post by **_Super Sola Scriptura** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:55 pm

James White backed out of a debate with him.

As for the questions you posted that puts me into a "camp", can you answer those elementary questions then? If you ask them from me, I can answer yes, and I'll hand you an Authorized Version, and assure you that you can believe every Word as from the Lord. What do you say?

Post by **_Derek** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:58 pm

If you ask them from me, I can answer yes, and I'll hand you an Authorized Version, and assure you that you can believe every Word as from the Lord. What do you say?

Can you tell me why it's inspired? The fact that you can hand it to me and say that it is, does not make it so.

Post by **_Super Sola Scriptura** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Because Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Do you not believe this? If you do, why not just say so and tell me what you believe to be the Holy Scriptures--infallable and inerrant.

Post by **_Derek** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:23 pm

Super Sola Scriptura wrote:Because Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Do you not believe this? If you do, why not just say so and tell me what you believe to be the Holy Scriptures--infallable and inerrant.

I was asking about the inspiration and infallablility of the translation KJV. Not the bible. Of course I believe it is inspired.

I don't know why I am doing this agian. Can you please answer a question without evading it by asking another?

I will at this point repost what I asked earlier.

If you will not answer my question, I will assume you don't have an answer, and choose to remain willfully ignorant as to why it is that this translation is inspired, or you do not wish to discuss the matter. Either way, not very fertile ground there for discussion.

You have not laid out in even the most elementary way, why I should believe what is your starting point for this arguement. Namely, that the KJV is the word of God and not merely a translation of the word of God.