Ruckman

So, then how do you explain all the four - letter words that he scrawled across his correspondence with Dr. White? Oh, let me guess, Dr. White "doctored" the letters. It's just a conspiracy.

You know, the followers of every cult leader say the same thing about their leaders. "He's really a nice guy, he's nothing like people say he is."

 

Put your money where your mouth is...Show us this proof!!!

Put up or shut up!!!!!!

 

roby: "I sought to speak to him in Pensacola in 1995. His "bodyguards" blocked my way and threatened to call the law if I persisted."

I saw him in the mid-80s in central Florida at an IFB church. Gave a chalk talk, and never brought up the KJV issue (although he certainly quoted only the KJV).

I didn't bother introducing myself or shaking his hand, however. Somewhat difficult to do after I had previously written David Otis Fuller a 10pp letter regarding plain and clear factual errors in Jack Chick's "Sabotage" comic book.

Fuller typically responded that he was "not a scholar" and could not evaluate the facts, so he forwarded my letter on to Chick, who also replied he was "not a scholar" but was totally dependent on Ruckman. So Chick forwarded my 10pp letter to PSR, and what I got in return would curl your hair. Not only was I an "apostate" and a "liar", but also a "communist fascist" and several other choice terms. I even got mentioned in his "Bible Believers Bulletin (late 1970s) as one of a list of "professional liars", but thankfully he misspelled my name

On the other hand, you asked:

>Why would a pastor in America need "bodyguards"?

Actually, many Baptist pastors in the US (generally superchurch) do have bodyguards, including Charles Stanley, Jerry Vines, Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell, etc. Why Ruckman thinks he might need one, on the other hand, is a mystery to me, since 99% of the Christians in the US would say "Ruckman who?" and the other 1% wouldn't care enough to do him harm (let alone the US government and their secret "hit list").

 

Slambo:My point is I've met Dr.Ruckman and he is nothing like his detractors say he is....There HAD to be a legit reason for his rejection by Dr.Ruckman.

Dr. Ruckman never even looked in my direction. I SAID I was kept from him by his flunkies. I had said nothing to anyone there. As I said, the only reason I can think of is my resemblance of the rassler George "The Animal" Steele. I don't really care; his writings tell me all I need to know about him. If you've met him and he seems to be a mild-mannered reporter for the daily Planet, fine. However, one of the most charming and eloquent men I've ever met was a serial rapist, who's now serving life in Lucasville Prison.

And I assure you it wasn't fear of defending the KJV or his position....

No, he has no fear, nor any legit argument for defending that myth. He DOES provide some comic relief for our serious discussions, however.

 

I figured I'd get the same response, Ziggy...he's just not worth the time or trouble. He's made other false prophecies besides the one I posted, but then how many false prophecies does it take to make a false prophet?

Slambo...How about it? Was Dr. Ruckman's prophecy I posted true or false? Did it come to pass within the time he specified?

 

Put your money where your mouth is...Show us this proof!!!

Put up or shut up!!!!!! </font>[/QUOTE]I did. There is a link to the letters themselves in my post on page one of this thread. Click on it.

Now, are you saying that Dr. White has doctored the letters in order to discredit Ruckman?

 

Why not.

Dr.Ruckman proved him a liar 79 times in his book "Scholarship Only Controversy:can you trust the professional liars."

I say Doc was callen' um like he seezum..

 

I used to receive the BBB back in the late 80's, as I wanted to see his actual writings. Besides the aforementioned KJVO stuff, he had an article calling Abraham Lincoln the "Great Communist", if memory serves, b/c of his role in the emancipation of the slaves. Also, he is an avowed racist, calling Blacks by the "n" word. I wish he's repent of this.
I haven't read anything he's written since those days, it would be nice to see that he loves and repects everyone, regardless of their race.

 

As you say, then, put your money where your mouth is and prove it. Why would somebody who teaches as an adjunct professor at a seminary in the SBC who is subject to peer review purposely doctor letters and risk public censure and termination? Why has Ruckman himself never said that writing on the letters is forged? You are making a serious allegation that requires proof.

Ruckman proved a sum total of zero in his book, other than his inability to think logically and his complete inability to handle scholarship at any level.

I noticed you still haven't told us whether or not Ruckman's prophecy came true or not. How many false prophecies does it take to make a false prophet?

 

May I recommend a good Eye Doctor?

 

Seeing as we have this subject coming up...again, I thought id say what I think of Ruckman.
First of all I dont think he was right in some of what he did in his private life. He also attacked and spread lies about a pastor that I know and respect and the way he puts things in some of his books I think is overly caustic.
That said, let me say this, I was saved because I was 6 years old and was looking at one of his books of paintings and saw the one with fire coming down from heaven on the unsaved, that scared the daylights out of my 6 year old self and that night I trusted God as my Saviour. Now, I am the son of a preacher and chances are good that I would have gotten saved anyway, but what if I didnt? I know of many preachers kids that are unsaved and living like the world, and if I didnt get saved then, I could have died never knowing Christ as my Saviour and gone to a devils Hell. And how many other kids have gotten saved because of his ministry?
Now, like I said I dont agree with everything Ruckman says and does but his position on salvation is Biblicly straight and I can find no fault with his views on the Bible. Maybe he doesnt always put things in the most polite way, but he says the truth and that is why he is so bitterly resented by the anti-KJV crowd. It is the same thing with Gipp and Ripplinger, it is because they stand for something that they are so attacked by the crowd that wants us to believe that the Roman Catholic church preserved the Bible for us.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

 

Then he is resented by a sum total of zero people, because persons that are against KJVOnlyism are not against the KJV itself.

Of course, what they stand for is unbiblical...

Guilt by association and double standard fallacies of logic all rolled into one.


And your camp ignores that the Byzantine texttype itself was preserved for us by the Eastern Orthodox Church (thus the name "Byzantine"), and their Trinitarian formula / Christology is considered less than orthodox and which carries the same soteriological dogmas as Roman Catholicism

 

This is incorrect, do you mind if I respond in depth to this in about half an hour?

 

Then he is resented by a sum total of zero people, because persons that are against KJVOnlyism are not against the KJV itself.

((Now this is an amazingly foolish statement, what if I said that I didnt not believe in God, I just thought that Lucifer was better then He is and that I preferred to put my trust in him? Wouldnt that mean that I was against God? All of the people that ive met on here that are arguing against the KJV are definently against it, you must know people I dont.))

Of course, what they stand for is unbiblical...

((Be nice if you proved it, sorry, I forgot. You cant!!))

Guilt by association and double standard fallacies of logic all rolled into one.

((So you admit that you believe the Roman Catholic Church preserved your bibles? At least you are honest enough to admit that you believe it, most anti-KJVs are not...))

And your camp ignores that the Byzantine texttype itself was preserved for us by the Eastern Orthodox Church (thus the name "Byzantine"), and their Trinitarian formula / Christology is considered less than orthodox and which carries the same soteriological dogmas as Roman Catholicism </font>[/QUOTE]((Does this mean you dont believe in the doctrine of salvation espoused in the KJV? I thought you werent against the KJV. By the way, as usual you display the normal "scholarly" lexiphanicist verbosity.))
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

 

I believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone, sir. I am a Protestant Christian, Reformed Baptist theologically. It's a shame you KJVO [snipped] have to cast aspersions on others' faith in order to substantiate your claims.

Now, if the texts of modern versions is somehow "tainted" because it has been preserved by Catholics, then what does that say of the Byzantine texttype, which was preserved in part by the Eastern Orthodox church (Greek=Byzantine=Constantinople). This is a double standard on your part.

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church...

The Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity is contrary to that of the Western Church, including Protestant Christianity. They objected to the Filoque clause essentially asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father. The Eastern Orthodox conception of the Trinity did not allow for this addition. The 3 Persons of the Trinity, in their view are not equal. They still affirm a Trinity, but it is Trinity that involves actual subordination in essence. Western Trinitarianism says that there is a subordination in role but not in actual essence.

Western theological tradition emphasizes the judicial aspect of salvation, asserting that in salvation, God is primarily concerned with the remission of sin. The Orthodox view is that the gospel is notprimarily the solution to man's problem with personal sin. It is God's provision of divine life in Christ, the beginning of theosis. A residual benefit of beginning the process of deification is the remission of sins. Baptism is the means by which the believer enters into this new life.

According to John Meyendorff, "Communion in the risen body of Christ; participation in divine life; sanctification through the energy of God, which penetrates the humanity and restores it to its "natural" state, rather than justification, or remission of inherited guilt--these are at the center of Byzantine understanding of the Christian Gospel.

They believe in infusion of grace, just as Catholics do. Their view of the Eucharist is somewhere between the views of Luther and Calvin and that of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.


Jesus died for our theosis, according to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Simply put, theosis means being deified or becoming like God. Theosis connotes participation in God's nature while maintaining a distinct human nature.

Yes, you were correct, I wasn't accurate...they're worse.

[ December 20, 2004, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

I was in Pensacola for a couple of months and watched him on TV. If there was ever someone that needed a hug it was Ruckman! He just came across as an angry, bitter man. His "teaching" (if you can call it that) was mostly rambling nonsense with alot of chalk dust.

 

When I lived in Pensacola my best friends family when to his church and my best friend went to his college, I had been to his church many times and I would never become a memeber or want to be under his "ministry". He has a foul mouth and some of his doctrine is way off.

 

It seems that Ruckman has advanced revelations himself about UFO's and a black ipped anti-christ:

http://www.kjvonly.org/bob/ross_black_lip.htm

more insights from Dr. Ruckman:

http://www.kjvonly.org/bob/ross_ruck_gov.htm

Ruckman is not a good example of what a christian should be.

 

KJVBT,

Dr. Gipp has been proven wrong many times. One small example is the thread in the archives of this forum called, "The Gipper shoulda stuck to football".

Riplinger has not only been proven wrong with her KJVO claims many times; it's been proven that she misquoted several authors several times, with those misquotes being too obvious to have been accidental.

Yes, they stand for something, all right...Error, guesswork, and sometimes OUTRIGHT DISHONESTY in their vain attempts to justify a false doctrine.