Presenting the irascible Peter S. Ruckman

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by LarryN, Apr 9, 2004.

  1. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    A few days ago I asked one of the frequent posters to the Bible Versions/Translations board if her KJVO views were based on first-hand comparisons of the KJV & MV's, or if her knowledge of the issue was mostly based on the writings of KJVO's such as Ruckman or Riplinger. I believe that she replied that she wasn't really familiar with Ruckman (or someone else said so).

    For those who may not know who he is, here's his website:

    http://www.kjv1611.org

    In his bio you'll notice that he lists Bob Jones University as his alma mater for both Master's and Doctoral degrees. Since his leaving the BJU campus, they have been the frequent target of some of his most scathing criticisms for their stance on textual & Bible version issues. About the nicest term he uses in reference to BJU is "apostate".

    He's well know for using sarcasm, derision, and name-calling against those who don't 100% agree with his KJVO beliefs. John R. Rice (d. 1980) is for some reason still a frequent target in many issues of this newsletter. He likes to derisively refer to him simply as "Johnny".

    For a sample of his tirades, click on "BBB downloads" from the website's homepage, and then click on the "free trial download Dec 2003 issue" link.

    This is the man who to many represents KJVOism.
     
  2. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds to me like he would fit in well here at the BB on either side of the debate.

    Lacy
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    His tone makes ME look "meek and mellow" and Ed look like ah, er, Ed! Maybe he WOULD fit in here!

    But his divisive and damaging doctrine is unique to him the the extreme "onlies". And lots of moderate onlies who try to distance themselves from Peter, but still, in the end, ONLY accept the KJV (whatever revision).
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Edify - to make like Ed [​IMG]
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good to see the deceptive practives
    still at work :(

    //In Psalm 12:6–7 God has promised
    to preserve His words forever.
    "The words of the Lord are pure words:
    as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
    purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them,
    O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from
    this generation for ever."
    //

    Even in this quote from the KJV1769 the
    "them" in verse 7 clearly denotes
    the "poor" and "needy" from verse 5
    NOT the "words" from verse 6.
    God preserves people, not words.

    BTW, if they would use the REAL KJV1611
    instead of the Modern Version (MV)
    KJV1769 edition the would find:

    Pfalmes XII:7 (KJV1611):

    Thou shalt keepe them, (O
    LORD,) thou shalt preserue +them,
    from this generation for euer.


    +Heb. him, euery one of them.

    The "Heb" denotes a variation
    in the Hebrew source. Let me say that
    again. The Translators of the KJV1611
    (the Hebrew to English translators,
    not the KJV1769 re-"spellers") had
    multiple sources of the Old Testament
    that were NOT in agreement here.

    Pfalmes XII:7 (KJV1611):

    Thou shalt keepe them, (O
    LORD,) thou shalt preserue him, euery one of them,
    from this generation for euer.


    This is much more understandable.
    The "him, euery one of them" refers
    not to the Words in v.7 but refers to the
    poore and needy.

    But hey, if you need to use inate
    arguments to maintain your loosing
    argument, then you have to ...

    [​IMG]
     
  6. R. Charles Blair

    R. Charles Blair
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Ed - EXCELLENT POST. Much appreciated.

    Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    If the KJVO argument were true for Ps 12:7, then they've destroyed their own argument, because that would mean God preserved His word unchanged from C. 1000 BC onward. The Hebrew used by David is somewhat different from that used by Malachi, not to mention all the other languages into which God caused His word to appear.
     

Share This Page

Loading...