What do you think of Peter Ruckman?

this is probably the funniest post i have read to date. (i'm being serious too)

to be honest with you, believing the Bible and "licking Dr. Petey's boots" are two different things. do i believe the KJB to the THE perfect and complete Words of God? yes. do i believe Dr Ruckman is a great Bible teacher? yes. two different subjects. i believed the KJB to be the true Words of God before i ever even heard of Peter Ruckman.

 

Same difference. I believe the KJV. I just don't believe the superstitious garbage the KJV-onlyists push about the KJV.

Dr. Petey being the head garbageman, who knows where his boots have been?

 

I see your point, but the King James Bible is the only Bible.

The NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NEB and all the others are not Bibles. They are cheap imitations (and bad ones at that).

So when I say Bible believer, KJB is a given.

 

The Harvest said:

I see your point, but the King James Bible is the only Bible.

Ironically, the KJVers call the rest of us "Bible deniers," while simultaneously denying more Bibles.

You gotta laugh.

 

you can say what you want about PSR. you aren't going to offend me (Ps 119:165) he's a man. i respect his teachings, but he's a man.

what i don't understand about your post is the "superstitious garbage". What do you mean there?

 

again, you have lost me here. swordsman, you getting this?

 

The Harvest said:

what i don't understand about your post is the "superstitious garbage". What do you mean there?

There's nothing to understand. The false belief that the KJV is exclusively the Word of God in English without error, is superstitious garbage.

 

The Harvest said:

again, you have lost me here.

"Bible denier" is a common epithet used of non-KJV-onlyists.

You said: "The NIV, NASV [sic], NKJV, RSV, NEB and all the others are not Bibles."

In other words:

You deny the NIV is the Bible.
You deny the NASB is the Bible.
You deny the NKJV is the Bible.
You deny the RSV is the Bible.
You deny the NEB is the Bible.
You deny the "all the others" are the Bible.

I don't deny any of them are the Bible, including the KJV. Therefore, KJV-onlyists who deny the above are the Bible are the true Bible deniers.

Conversely, those of us who believe that God did not limit the distribution of his holy Word to one seventeenth-century Anglican translation, are the true Bible believers.

This isn't exactly rocket science.

[ January 21, 2003, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

On the first, if the information I have received is correct, Peter Ruckman is not qualified to be an ordained minister according to the King James Bible - "the husband of one wife" (I Tim. 3:2). On the second, if I understand what he is teaching, his doctrine of double inspiration or re-inspiration denies the doctrine of preservation as found in the King James Bible - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35).

 

do me a favor, grab your NIV or NASV or any of those other perversions and tell me what you find when you look up...

Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28
Luke 17:36, 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7

why do your "Bibles" have missing verses?

 

Sorr, bro., could you explain why you think, this, please? It is my understanding that Bro. Peter teaches that God's word was perfect, got corrupted, and then got perfected again in 1611. I could well be wrong - sorry if I am. But if I am right, why does this deny the doctrine of preservation? You believe the same thing, excpet that you don't think it got perfected again. I mean, don't you believe ALL Bibles out there have errors in them? Why, then, does thinking all could be removed from one Bible deny the doctrine of preservation?

Trying to have an open mind,

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

For the exact same reason the KJV does. Psalm 145:13b, half of Jude 1:25, etc: textual evidence available at the time of translation led the translators to make a decision as to which reading was more likely to represent what was originally written.

 

This is false. Dr Ruckman teaches that scriptures were perfect in their origin and God preserved the words He wished through various generations and languages until it reached us in the last times in the universal language--English.

This is also my view. I do not mind being called a "Ruckmanite."

 

I'm not sure that I understand all of your question, but I think this is the main part, and I would violently disagree with Peter Ruckman or any one else who teaches it - that is, the got corrupted and perfected again part. II Timothy 3:15 reads, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," and II Peter 1:21 says that in old times "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." This is what my Bible teaches as inspiration. And unless it was lost or corrupted, it doesn't need to be re-inspired. The "got corrupted and perfected again" idea requires that God did not preserve it to all generations (cf. Psalm 12:7) and that not only were the apostles and prophets inspired, but also that the KJB translators were inspired. I can't find that anywhere within the lids of my Bible.

 

and how do we know what was orignally written?

 

and how do we know what was orignally written?</font>[/QUOTE]Let me guess...

We are about to be treated with the fallacy that the absence of the original mauscripts also means the absence of the reading of those manuscripts?

 

The Harvest said:

do me a favor, grab your NIV or NASV or any of those other perversions

The NIV is not a "perversion," and the "NASV," whatever that is, is nonexistent. Therefore, your request is contradictory and incoherent, and cannot be fulfilled.

 

Latreia said:

We are about to be treated with the fallacy that the absence of the original mauscripts also means the absence of the reading of those manuscripts?

And the KJV-onlyists call us skeptics . . .

 

I'm not sure that I understand all of your question, but I think this is the main part, and I would violently disagree with Peter Ruckman or any one else who teaches it - that is, the got corrupted and perfected again part. II Timothy 3:15 reads, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," and II Peter 1:21 says that in old times "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." This is what my Bible teaches as inspiration. And unless it was lost or corrupted, it doesn't need to be re-inspired. The "got corrupted and perfected again" idea requires that God did not preserve it to all generations (cf. Psalm 12:7) and that not only were the apostles and prophets inspired, but also that the KJB translators were inspired. I can't find that anywhere within the lids of my Bible.</font>[/QUOTE]But you think it got corrupted, don't you??? I mean, you don't think there's a perfect Bible ANYWHERE, do you? So it's corrupted. Doesn't Peter Ruckmann agree with you? Your only difference is that he thinks God totally undid that in 1611, but you won't let that be. Or am I missing something?

Still trying to keep an open mind,

YFAB

Bartholomew

 

Bartholomew,

I don't think we would call what happened with the copyists making boo-boos corruptions. certainly not with the same connotation that Ruckman would.

Ruckman uses corrupt to imply totally worthless. If we were to use corrupt as a term to describe copyist errors, we would not mean that at all. Ruckman would try to imply some sort of moral value to the word corrupt where we would not.

But corrpt can easily lend itself to the moral value connotation, and indeed, in popular parlance that is how it is taken. So that's why we would not use that term.

Inspiration and inerrancy apply only to the original reading, that is, the reading that we would find in the original manuscript. We still have that reading. It is preserved in the massive volume of manuscripts. But becuase of copyist errors, we have to sift through that eveidence to find the true reading. Ruckman would deny that the original reading exists anymore, and so we have to use he KJV which is (they hold) the Word re-inspired, and free from error. Indeed, some of his friends go so far as to say we should correct the manuscripts using the KJV.

That of course is where al the spelling errors come in, and priinting flaws come in as well, for these are exactly the kinds of mistakes that copyists would make on the Greek manuscripts. The fact of the many editions and updates of the KJV show that the KJV itself has undergone the same historical process as the Grek manuscripts. For KJVOs, that means the manuscripts are "corrupt", but they don't apply that same standard to the KJV.