who is ruckman?

Ssssssssst! Sizzzzzzle! Scorch! Ouch!

 

rbrent says, "Your odd belief that God has preserved His word in

“all other faithful translations”

is a doctrinal error not supported by scripture.

IF that belief is supported by scripture, please enlighten the BB readers by listing the scriptures which support your belief."

Ok Here goes.

First, scripture shows that there are differing versions used in the NT quoting the OT that is not the KJV OT. If God changed what he said (as he has a right to do, as you all claim, I don't see any reason why he would as my God does things right the first time!) then the scriptures in the KJV OT is wrong. EX Lk 4 vs Is 61, (yeah I know there's a whole thread devoted to that) But you KJVOs go to any length to prove your myth, even to denying what the KJV says that Jesus stood to read a scripture.

Second,
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Notice that pesky three letter word at the beginning of the verse -- ALL!
All scripture is given by the inspiration of God.
Not just the KJV. Notice the KJV didn't even exist them. Anyone saying it did exist, isn't worthy to debate rationally. Can we say, "Older is better."
Come on now, say it, it won't hurt you, it is easy. "Older is better,"
Did you say it? Good.
No, Why not? Don't you believe we need to get back to "the old paths"
That what the MVs are doing.
They are taking you back to the old paths. What God really said, not what scribes added to make him say!

Jesus used other versions, Paul used other versions, Phillip used other versions, Paul told Timothy that ALL scripture was inspired.

I trust them more than I do some racist that puts a version on a pedestal that never even existed in Jesus' time.


BTW, to see proof that Ruckman was a racist, read the posts that Robycop posted on the first page of this thread. I was shocked. I knew he was off his rocker when it came to versions, but I never had any idea he was that sinful.

And people actually follow him down any road.
rbrent quoted
“You can go any distance on the right road with anyone."
Sorry, I don't follow racists down any road.

 

If I don't care what you say about me, as long as it is true, then I don't think it would do any harm now, do you?

If I were to say that Satan was Jesus' brother--do you think you might have something bad to say about me? I would sure hope so!

One example please. </font>[/QUOTE]Just one? Awwwwwwww! Well, here goes:

"The KJV has actually corrected older manuscripts and Bibles, including Greek manuscripts."

I think that one by itself puts the boy in a BAD situation. Especially, considering the fact that he publishes and preaches this herasy to other believers and non-believers alike.

Hows THAT? </font>[/QUOTE]Your example would have merit amongst those who love truth if you had actually documented it. Those who prefer lies will not care that there is no documentation.

Now that being said, and before someone gets the wrong idea, I am no fan, nor follower of Dr. Peter Ruckman. While I am convinced the man is very intelligent, and am sure he does preach some truth, I take issue with several of his beliefs. Since I do not have my source material handy to provide documentation for them.

I am KJVO by conviction, not preference.

I do not beleive that the KJV is advance revelation, nor do I believe that it corrects the MSS it is based upon.

I fully beleive that the KJV is the inspired word of God for us in the English tongue because it based upon the MSS that God originally inspired and then preserved. I will deny to my own death that the KJV was given in 1611 by revelation.

Dr. Bob posted:

"Judging all Bibles by the man-made standard of the AV
Holding the unscriptural ONLY the AV is inspired position
Unwilling to admit ANY thing in the AV is less than "perfect"
Calling other translations "per-versions"


I guess Dr. Bob would rather judge all Bibles by that which we no longer have (the originals, which would put him in a pickle) or by personal preference (which makes each person their own final authority). Personally, I find the mv "standard" to be 100% mythical at best and fully demonic at worst. Either way, the mv "standard" is from something, or someone other then God.

I do not claim that the KJV is the only inspired version. I beleive that any and all version that are based upon the inspired and preserved MSS are inspired.

Being that I have a perfect God, it's only logical to beleive that His word is also perfect. I guess that means that the "god" of the mv "defenders" is imperfect since according to them ALL Bibles have errors. Speaking of which, I notice how it's next to impossible to get an mv "defender" to say anything "bad" about any mv except for the nwt, while they consistently attack the KJV. This is very telling.

Versions based on corrupt and perverted MSS are perversions. Plain and simple.


Now, to those who wish to disagree with me, that's fine. But before you start asking for proof, make sure you are first providing the facts to "prove" that I am wrong and you are right.

 

No PM.

 

Evidence from Ruckman's own pen:


“You say, ‘Why does he do it?’ Because everything I have I gave to God...I can play the tuba in the church orchestra...I play the harmonica at youth camps and sometimes in churches...I write songs and poetry as well as prose and commentaries...I paint in acrylics and oils as well as pastels and chalk...I can preach and teach the Bible; and I do it. I have done it for forty-one years. You say, ‘Are you a good preacher?’ Well, just fair, just average; nothin’ to write home about. I talk too fast, I give too many illustrations, my mannerisms tend to scare people or repulse them, and I have never been very good at giving invitations. You say, ‘Then why do you preach?’ Because God called me and told me to. I am a much better teacher than a preacher. But I tell ‘n***** jokes’ while teaching, I use expressions that would shock the refined sensibilities of the Apostate Fundamentalists who make a living off a Book they don’t believe, and I cover too much material at one time for the average student to grasp” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Bible Believer’s Bulletin, September, 1990, page 2).


“That was Charles Haddon Spurgeon waving a King James Bible at his congregation and telling them that he SAW GOD’S BOOK and they could READ IT...Why, you bunch of conceited a****, Spurgeon was the most radical Ruckmanite that ever lived on the face of this earth if you accept the statements of HIS REGENERATED NATURE” (Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Believer’s Bulletin, June, 1989, page 12)."

""Where a real Bible Believer accepts the article ‘the’ in Galatians 1:12 (even though it is not found in the Greek)...The Greek Original Manuscript has ‘THE revelation of Jesus Christ’..How do we know this? The same way the conceited a**** who criticize the AV 1611 know that it doesn’t!” (Peter S.Ruckman, Bible Believer’s Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, pages 28-29)."

"

“To this day Ham’s children are born light-colored and turn dark in 18 hours! Japheth’s children are born red and turn white! Since our original color is defined as ‘Adam’ (‘red-brown’), the original color must have been red-clay, as we find it in Georgia. This itself accounts for a curious Negro custom, which close-hand observers have had time to watch--the eating of red clay by the spoonful out of the clay banks of North Alabama BY NEGROES. Ham’s hidden desire is to get a color back that was evidently lost somewhere between Genesis 3 and Genesis 10” (Peter S. Ruckman, Segregation or Integration, page 34)."

His quotes speak for himself. Follow him? Never.

 

No PM. </font>[/QUOTE]No biggie, wasn't it you that said you knew people from my church? Unless, it was Elijah (he's from OK too.) but, I really thought it was you and I was just telling you about myself and how I came to Frink. If it was, I'll resend it later.
Have a good evening. Enough of this chatter.

I think we know where we stand. God bless and have a good evening.

 

sorry, folks double post again, I'm getting tired. bed-time, Good-night and God bless you all!

 

If I don't care what you say about me, as long as it is true, then I don't think it would do any harm now, do you?

If I were to say that Satan was Jesus' brother--do you think you might have something bad to say about me? I would sure hope so!

One example please. </font>[/QUOTE]Just one? Awwwwwwww! Well, here goes:

"The KJV has actually corrected older manuscripts and Bibles, including Greek manuscripts."

I think that one by itself puts the boy in a BAD situation. Especially, considering the fact that he publishes and preaches this herasy to other believers and non-believers alike.

Hows THAT? </font>[/QUOTE]Your example would have merit amongst those who love truth if you had actually documented it. Those who prefer lies will not care that there is no documentation.

Now that being said, and before someone gets the wrong idea, I am no fan, nor follower of Dr. Peter Ruckman. While I am convinced the man is very intelligent, and am sure he does preach some truth, I take issue with several of his beliefs. Since I do not have my source material handy to provide documentation for them.

I am KJVO by conviction, not preference.

I do not beleive that the KJV is advance revelation, nor do I believe that it corrects the MSS it is based upon.

I fully beleive that the KJV is the inspired word of God for us in the English tongue because it based upon the MSS that God originally inspired and then preserved. I will deny to my own death that the KJV was given in 1611 by revelation.

Dr. Bob posted:

"Judging all Bibles by the man-made standard of the AV
Holding the unscriptural ONLY the AV is inspired position
Unwilling to admit ANY thing in the AV is less than "perfect"
Calling other translations "per-versions"


I guess Dr. Bob would rather judge all Bibles by that which we no longer have (the originals, which would put him in a pickle) or by personal preference (which makes each person their own final authority). Personally, I find the mv "standard" to be 100% mythical at best and fully demonic at worst. Either way, the mv "standard" is from something, or someone other then God.

I do not claim that the KJV is the only inspired version. I beleive that any and all version that are based upon the inspired and preserved MSS are inspired.

Being that I have a perfect God, it's only logical to beleive that His word is also perfect. I guess that means that the "god" of the mv "defenders" is imperfect since according to them ALL Bibles have errors. Speaking of which, I notice how it's next to impossible to get an mv "defender" to say anything "bad" about any mv except for the nwt, while they consistently attack the KJV. This is very telling.

Versions based on corrupt and perverted MSS are perversions. Plain and simple.


Now, to those who wish to disagree with me, that's fine. But before you start asking for proof, make sure you are first providing the facts to "prove" that I am wrong and you are right. </font>[/QUOTE]No Proof? Reference Scott Emerson's post above. If that is not good enough for you, I will get some quotes that you can confirm from other sources. That's no problem, Ruckman was quite vocal.

So, if the KJV is the inspired word for us in the "English" language, what is the inspired word for the "French", "Russians", "Chinese", Taiwanese", "Spanish", "Mexicans", "Choctaw Indians", "Italians"; I'm assuming from what you say, EVERY language must have its own inspired word--otherwise, why would we English speakers be so blessed as to have an inspired copy and no-one else?

You see, you have less proof for your theory (including Biblical proof) that English has THE inspired bible in the KJV than I do for what Ruckman said.

I will give you a warning from the depths of my heart. I would be VERY, VERY CAREFUL calling God's Word as being demonic. If the book tells the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the way of Salvation is clear and direct, then you, my friend, are treading on very thin ice. Jesus hates sin and Satan, He loves His Gospel.

 

Thanks Scott. I do echo your final three words, "Follow him? Never."

I must ask though, do actually own or have actual copies of the information your posted, or have you read this second hand?


I have a video tape here with 4 sermons from Ruckman, in one of them he made mention of US (believers) placing people on other planets (is Ruckman also a Mormon?). I will, when things slow down go back through the tape and locate the exact quote and which of his sermons it's on. I may even see if I can locate someone here in town who can get that quote off the video tape and onto the comp so that when I eventually build a new web page, I can include it.

I do know that his books can be purchased, but can copies of past issues of his BBB also be purchased?


Jim

 

Phillip wrote:

Now Phillip - surely you have enough intellectual horsepower to understand that if your argument is true, then the same applies to the Hebrew language originals and to the originals in the Greek language.

What was the “inspired word” for the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Sumerians, etc., if God actually did inspire the Hebrew originals and the Greek originals?

Your argument goes nowhere since God NEVER promised to put his inspired words into every language.

 

Then how can we claim that God put his inspired Word in ANY other language except Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. You're right - God NEVER promised to put his inspired word in ANY langugage, except for the three he chose.

Otherwise, why English - what is the Scriptural support for that?

 

The Masorectic Text and The 1894/5 Scrivener TR comprises the Bible which is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God.

BTW, your final authority is King James, the 1611 titular head of the Church of England and his Anglo-Catholic heretical priests who (like their parent Church, the Church of Rome) persecuted and killed Baptists and other CofE dissenters.

HankD

 

Now Phillip - surely you have enough intellectual horsepower to understand that if your argument is true, then the same applies to the Hebrew language originals and to the originals in the Greek language.

What was the “inspired word” for the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Sumerians, etc., if God actually did inspire the Hebrew originals and the Greek originals?

Your argument goes nowhere since God NEVER promised to put his inspired words into every language. </font>[/QUOTE]Now Rbrent - surely you have enough intellectual horsepower to understand that if your argument is true, that English is not the only language on this Earth, nor did God say he would preserve His Word in the English language, nor is the English language the most used language (Spanish is). YOUR argument goes nowhere since God NEVER promised to put his inspired words into ENGLISH!

 

The Masorectic Text and The 1894/5 Scrivener TR comprises the Bible which is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God.

BTW, your final authority is King James, the 1611 titular head of the Church of England and his Anglo-Catholic heretical priests who (like their parent Church, the Church of Rome) persecuted and killed Baptists and other CofE dissenters.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]heeeheeee hawww hawww
..... love it ....

 

Now Phillip - surely you have enough intellectual horsepower to understand that if your argument is true, then the same applies to the Hebrew language originals and to the originals in the Greek language.

What was the ?inspired word? for the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Sumerians, etc., if God actually did inspire the Hebrew originals and the Greek originals?

Your argument goes nowhere since God NEVER promised to put his inspired words into every language. </font>[/QUOTE]Now Rbrent - surely you have enough intellectual horsepower to understand that if your argument is true, that English is not the only language on this Earth, nor did God say he would preserve His Word in the English language, nor is the English language the most used language (Spanish is). YOUR argument goes nowhere since God NEVER promised to put his inspired words into ENGLISH! </font>[/QUOTE]Why I am still amazed at the utter inability of mv "defenders" to come up with an original thought?

 

Jim Word: "I notice how it's next to
impossible to get a mv "defender" to say
anything "bad" about any
mv except for the nwt while they constantly
attack the KJV. This is very telling."

Unfortunately it tells on you. By your
very presence on this forum you change
the nature of the fourm so you really
cannot trust your reading of what is going on
here.

I'd like to have a servious disucssion of
various passages of what might be the best
translation or most meaningful translation
or understanding of that passage.
But no, we have rabid KJBOs that turn every
topic, no matter what the subject (for example:
the subject here is the New King James
Version /nKJV/ which subject has long
been forgotten) into a MV versus KJVO.
And the only thing that KJVOs seem to
notice is when the MV advocate says
something alleged to be bad about the KJV.
Actually, every thread continues to
be filled will KJV users who are not
stuck on the KJV.

I.E. this forum is as you describe,
because the KJBOs will have it no other way.

I.E. "Mommy, mommy -- he hit me back first!"

 

Dear Bible [snipped] Pickler, what do you mean by "original thought"? Is it like the alleged KJVO:kjbo "scholars" you read? Is it Waite? Ruckman? Riplinger? Cloud? I know, all your "original thought" is from the Anglican Prophets, named after the king who wished all the Baptists out of England. But you appear to follow these Baptist despisers blindly. BTW, aren't you the least bit aware that what you accuse the MV advocates of doing, the AV translators did the very same thing? i.e. "variety of translations is profitable"; "correct when needed", etc I wonder if you consider Charles H Spurgeon a "Bible Corrector" when he said the AV was "faulty in many places"?
"One flew over the cockoos nest"

[ March 18, 2004, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

Blaming others for the faults of your own side Ed? There is a very unoriginal thought.

Us Bible believers want honest discussion. We want you myth lovers to be honest, to have integrity. We want you to drop your double standard SOP. But, for reasons known only to your side, you refuse.


Jim

 

Homogenizing the opposition - how dull.

Does anybody remember what this topic
was about, you know, like at the start?