Brian,

There seems to be a disconect here and I'm not going to allow you to define the Artical that Ruckman wrote. This is what you people are good at, and this is why I began this thread to begin with.

Quote:
Ruckman : We are not talking about only a challenge to the English Bible, but we are also talking about a challenge to the Greek TR and majority texts, which have the begotten Son and not Ross and Augustus Strongs begotten God. There is absolutely no other passage, where such terminology is used in any Bible. To oppose Bob Ross perversion is not to oppose some aspect of the Son of Gods deity or His beings eternal preexistence as God as Ross charges King James Onlys. The mere availability of some higher or nobler word or concept in some obscure text does not demand its automatic insertion in our English Bible nor its authenticity nor correctness.


This is the very core of this Article, and as Ruckman said KJVonly's have been labeled as believing there was no Son of God. This is the point Ruckman made and I'm making. This lie was spread on the internet and even you have promoted this distortion.

This subject is far to interesting to have someone try to cloud the issue by using terminology that's not even in our English Bible. The Eternal Sonship is not found in our Bibles but yet somehow you are sticking to the Roman Catholic Doctrine that it exists when it doesnt. You are forcing something into the text that's not there and inventing some doctrine that's not there. And the kicker in all of this is that because we have challenged your side on this textual issue somehow we don't believe in the Son of God.
Shain1611

"SANCTIFY THEM THROUGH THY TRUTH: THY WORD IS TRUTH
(John 17:17)

And Jesus Speaking; " He that rejecteth me, receiveth not my words, hath one that, judgeth him:the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in
( John12:48 KJV)