RUCKMAN EXPOSE
RUCKMAN EXPOSE
Return to previous Ruckman InfoTABLE OF CONTENTS.... * Please note page numbers refer to actual book used here as a guide only.Chapter ...............................................................................................................Page
What Leading Christians Have Said About This Book Dr. Robert L. Summer……... iv
Dr. J. G, Tharpe................................................................................................. ......iv
1. Introduction....................................................................................................... .1
2. The Doctrine of Ruckmanism.............................................................................3
The Man Ruckman.The Tenets of Ruckmanism..........................................................................................4
The King James Version is Given by Inspiration............................................................5
The King James Version is the Preserved Word of God................................................6
.
The King James Version is Infallible and Inerrant...........................................................7The King James Version is Superior to Any Greek and Hebrew Text.............................9
The King James Version Contains Advanced Revelation or Advanced Light..................10
The Incidentals of the King James Version are God-given..............................................12
Ruckman - Where is Your Bible?..................................................................................14
Ruckmanism Appeals to Anti-Intellectualism..................................................................15
The Definition of Ruckmanism.......................................................................................16
3. The Demonic Origin of Ruckmanism....................................................................18
Ruckman's Out-of-Body Experience..............................................................................19
Ruckman's Admission of Being "Full of Demons"............................................................19
Ruckman's Admission that the Demons "Are" in Him.......................................................19
The Possibility that Ruckman is Unconverted...................................................................20
Merrill Unger's Statements on the Demonic Origin of False Doctrine................................20
An Exegesis of Timothy 4: 1............................................................................................21
4. The Deception of Ruckmanism...............................................................................26
Ruckman's First Deception..............................................................................................27
Ruckman's Second Deception.........................................................................................34
Ruckman's Third Deception.............................................................................................35
5. The Defeat of Ruckmanism.....................................................................................38
Ruckmanism Wrong on Salvation.....................................................................................38
Ruckmanism Wrong on Bible Prophecy............................................................................41
Ruckmanism Wrong on Other Points................................................................................42
Ruckmanism's Similarities to the Catholicism of the Inquisition...........................................44
Ruckmanism's Similarities to Other Errors.........................................................................45
What Is the Answer?........................................................................................................47
Not too Late to Save Souls..............................................................................................47
Preaching Against Sin.......................................................................................................48
Personal Work.................................................................................................................49
The Power of the Holy Spirit............................................................................................49
1. Demons and Christians –
Quotations From Peter S. Ruckman's Tape on the Subject of Demonology.......................512. Preservation (by Rev. Gary Hudson, M.A.)..................................................................53
3. Ruckman's List of Nineteen Advanced Revelations.......................................................55
4. Why I Did Not Give These Ruckmanites One Thousand Dollars...................................56
5. Our Baptist Heritage....................................................................................................65
Bibliography....................................................................................................................66
Introduction
The "KJV only" controversy is probably the most important issue-facing fundamentalism at this hour. The issues are complex, but perhaps the simplest way to define the problem is as follows. There are three main groups in fundamentalism: (1) those who hold that the modern translations based on the texts of Westcott and Hort, are more reliable than the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, upon which the King James is based; (2) those who hold that the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, and therefore the King James translation, are the most reliable; (3) those who hold that the King James Version was given by inspiration of God. The third of these possibilities has come to be known as "Ruckmanism," because its chief proponent is Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, a well-known Bible teacher who holds and vigorously defends this view.
My personal position is that described in number (2). I believe that the King James Version is the most reliable translation in the English language today, because it is based on the superior Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus. Its translators were far better versed in the original languages, and the English language into which they were translating, than those committees which have produced modern translations such as the New American Standard Version, the New international Version, the Revised Standard Version the New King James Bible, the New Scofield Bible, the Living Bible, Good News for Modern Man, or any of the other translations or paraphrases based on the mutilated Westcott and Hort text.
I became convinced of the superiority of the Textus Receptus during a tour of the Sinai Peninsula in the summer of 1987. My wife and I were part of an expedition, which climbed Mount Sinai. After descending, we toured St. Catherine's Monastery, which is located at the foot of the mountain. I was struck by the queer and even satanic characteristics of this monastery. The skulls of monks from across the centuries are heaped in a large room. This heap of skulls is seven or eight feet high. The skeleton of one of the monks is chained to a door adjacent to this mound of skulls, left there as an ageless guard. Within the sanctuary at the monastery itself, ostrich eggs hang from the ceiling, lamps dimly illuminate the gloomy atmosphere, and strange drawings and unscriptural paintings decorate the entire edifice.
We were guided through this eerie church to the place where the Sinaiticus scroll had been kept by these monks across the centuries, until it was discovered by Tischendorf, taken to Germany, and ultimately sold to Great Britain. As I stood in front of the case where the Sinaiticus scroll had been kept prior to its being stolen by Tischendorf, I had the distinct impression that nothing in the way of spiritual light could come from this place. This impression led me to re-examine the facts concerning the Westcott
and Hort text, and to come to the conclusion that their use of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus scrolls as a basis for their new Greek text was spurious. I have come to the conclusion that the Westcott and Hort text is a mutilation, and that the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus, which are the basis of the King James Bible, are far superior. Therefore, I strongly defend the King James Bible as the most reliable translation of the Scriptures in the English language today.
It must be added, however, that godly Christians of the past have not been in complete agreement with me on this. R. A. Torrey, John R. Rice and others at times favored the Alexandrian text, based upon Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I think they were wrong in doing so, but who can deny that men like Torrey and Rice were used of God? Thus, I conclude that men may disagree with me on this issue and still be powerful instruments of revival and soul winning. ] Those who follow the teachings of Peter S. Ruckman, on the other hand, vehemently denounce anyone who uses a modern translation, based on Westcott and Hort, even for reference. These extremists hold the third position, that the King James Bible was given by inspiration of God.
Gary Hudson has given a working definition of Ruckmanism:
The belief that the King James Version is absolutely inerrant, containing advanced revelation over the Greek and Hebrew from which it came, with the demand for one exact, inerrant version to preach and teach.1
To this definition, Robert L. Sumner adds:
Ruckman teaches that the KJV English translation is superior to any Greek text (including the Textus Receptus), that it corrects the errors in any Greek text, and that it is 'advanced revelation."2
I am in basic agreement with these defintions from Sumner and Hudson. Therefore, I conclude that any theoery which assigns divine origin to the King James Version, or which in any way includes the idea of inspiration or even preservation in its view of the production of the King James Version, is borrowing ideas from Ruckmanis. Ruckmanism teaches that the King James Version is given by inspiration, and even contains "advanced revelation," and corrects the Greek and the Hebrew upon which the translation was based.3
----------------------------------------------------------------
2
Ruckmanism takes the honors assigned to the original Greek and Hebrew and places them upon the King James translation. The honors of inspiration, preservation, inerrancy, and revelation are assigned to the King James Version rather than strictly to the Hebrew and Greek. Historic Christianity has never done this. It is a tenet of Ruckmanism.
In this book, I propose to deal at length with the doctrines of Ruckmanism, including the life of Ruckman, the tenets of Tuckmanism, and the reason for Ruckmanism. Furthermore, I intend to show the demonic origin of Ruckmanism in the life experiences of its chief proponent, Peter S. Ruckman. I also intend to deal with the deceptions of Ruckmanism, and where I believe these deceptions will lead. Then, I will expound the dangers of Ruckmanism, including such particular errors as "advanced light," salvation errors, and numerology. In this section I will also show the similarities between Ruckmanism and Inquisition Catholicism, the similarities bewteen Ruckmanism and the cults, and even the similarities between Ruckmanism and Westcott and Hort's ideas. Then, I will deal briefly with the destiny of Ruckmanism, and conclude with how Ruckmanism may be defeated.
Notes
1 Gary R. Hudson, Why I Left Ruckmanism (Collingswood, New Jersey: The Bible For Today, 1988 ), p.40.
2 Robert L. Sumner, book review of Why I Left Ruckmanism, in The Biblical Evangelist, February 1, 1989,pp.6-7.
3 Sumner, book review of Why I Left Ruckmanism, p.7.
---------------------------------------------
3
The Doctrine of Ruckmanism
The Man Ruckman
Peter S. Ruckman, the founder and guiding light of Ruckmanism, was born in Topeka, Kansas in 1921. As a young person, he lived in a "dream world," attending many movies and spending hours alone reading.1 He graduated from Kansas State Agricultural College and the University of Alabama. As a college student he drank, smoked, and read pornography.2
In 1944 he entered the Army, expecting ot be killed in action.3 He met a non-Christian girl and they were married. They had a baby. Shortly thereafter Ruckman went into Officer Candidate School. He became an officer in the United States Army in the fall of 1944. He never saw action.4 When the war ended, Ruckman volunteered to go to Japan from the Philippines, rather than to return to his wife and child in the United States.5 It was in Japan that Ruckman turned from Western philosophy to Zen Buddhism. Having read Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and other Western philosophers, Ruckman came to the conclusion that the answers to life could not be found in these or other philosophers of the West. In his search for the meaning of life, he turned to Zen Buddhism, Theosophy, and Hindu literature.6
Ruckman became so involved in Zen Buddhism in Japan that it consumed much of his time and thought. Concerning this time, he says, "I lived like the devil."7 He talked Buddhism with the Japanese, studied Zen, yoga, and meditated until he attained a state of samadhi (nirvana). His soul flew out of his body and floated around the room.8 This out-of-body experience was interpreted by him as enlightenment. However, after his soul flew out of his body and floated around the room, Ruckman sank deeper into immorality. Thoughts of suicide constantly filled his mind.9 Ruckman himself now states that he had let in demons during the passive state of samadhi (nirvana), when his soul flew out of his body.10
Coming back from Japan, Ruckman wanted to stay in the Army. But since he had gone AWOL in Hawaii, he didn't re-enlist. Instead, he returned to the United States. Here is his own description of himself at this time, "I came back uneasled(sic), uneasy, unsettled, full of demons, intense, emotional, disturbed, philosophical, brooding, frustrated." 11 Describing the method by which he became demonized, Ruckman says:
I'd sit at night crosslegged with the Japanese around the stove. I want to talk music. They'd say, don’t talk music, Lieutenant. Talk Buddha. And I'd talk Buddha. I was ahead of some of them. I studied Zen. I studied the Sutras, studied yoga; sat cross- legged, concentrated on the object until all was blank. One night in the hotel room I had the experience of nirvana, which the Zen call samadhi, the dislocation of the spirit from the body, temporarily. When that happened I thought I'd attained what I was looking for. I had found the enlightenment. I had found the answer. It was an unforgettable experience. And yet, looking at my moral life following that experience, and my desire at times to commit suicide, I realize I had produced a passive state, which was an entrance for spirits. And the spirits that entered are not the spirits described in the Bible in speaking of the Holy Ghost and the Lord Jesus Christ.12
Thus, Ruckman plainly tells us that demons came into him, spirits that were "not the spirits described in the Bible in speaking of the Holy Ghost and the Lord Jesus Christ." He came back from the war "full of demons." During this period, Ruckman got fired from a job he held at a Pensacola, Florida radio station. He was drinking heavily. He got his wife a job in a dance band. He himself was a disc jockey in the daytime and played drums at night. Ruckman got so depressed that he got a gun to kill himself.13
It was at this point, on the verge of suicide, that Ruckman began to hear a series of voices. He himself interprets the voices as being the voice of God, for the most part. He thinks that he learned to distinguish the voice of God from the voice of demons through yoga. Concerning this experience,
Ruckman said:
I guess if you were as stupid and as superstitious as a psychiatrist, you might say I was hearing voices. But you don't pull that one on me, because in yoga and samadhi and nirvana you get rid of the voices before you contact. And you get to the place where you can discern the subconscious voice from the subliminal level coming through.14
After stealing the Bible, reading it briefly and tossing aside, Ruckman went to see a Catholic priest and began studying to join the Catholic church.
-----------------------------------------------
4
Getting drunk again, Ruckman heard a voice, which he thought, was the voice of God when he got back to his room. The voice said, "If you don't get saved tonight you're going to Hell." Ruckman interprets this as the voice of God, but he did not get saved that night. He is not in Hell. Therefore, the voice lied to him. I think that most Bible-believing Christians will agree that the voice, which spoke to him on this occasion, as well as the other occasions, was demonic. At the end of hearing this series of voices Ruckman says that he felt that he was losing his mind.15
About this time Ruckman got back together with his wife, from whom he had been estranged during the previous months. He says that the marriage trouble he had up to this was eighty percent his fault, but implies that after his "conversion" the problems were her fault.16
This brings us to the "conversion" itself. An evangelist came to the radio station where Ruckman was working to give a talk. The evangelist spoke to Ruckman briefly, and then led him in a prayer. The evangelist did not know of Ruckman's extensive use of alcohol, the occult, or the fact that his spirit had flown out of his body. The evangelist had led Ruckman in the brief prayer, he asked Ruckman if he was saved. Ruckman stated that he was saved, but later he said, "I felt like I was lying when I said it."17
Was Ruckman lying when he said he trusted Jesus? Is it possible that this man remains demonized to this day and has never been truly converted? Ruckman himself said, I realize I had produced a passive state which was the entrance for spirits. And the spirits that entered are not the spirits described in the Bible in speaking of the Holy Ghost and the Lord Jesus Christ.18
Why did Ruckman use the present tense (are) in describing the demons within him? Remember that this man is extremely intelligent and would not use the wrong verb tense without a good reason. Was the Holy Spirit prompting him to tell the truth that the spirits within him "are not" the spirits spoken of as the Holy Ghost or Jesus?
After this questionable "conversion" experience, Ruckman went on to develop at least four different plans of salvation, which he says he finds in the Bible.19 He says that in the Old Testament people were saved by faith plus works; he thinks that people in the church are saved by grace; he says that in the Tribulation people are saved by faith plus works; finally, he says that people are saved in the millennium by works alone. Of course the Scriptures teach that there is but one plan of salvation, that all saved people are saved by grace through faith. One wonders if Ruckman's faulty views on the subject of salvation may rest in the fact that his own "conversion" experience was so faulty that he himself said afterward, "I felt like I was lying" when he claimed salvation on March 14, 1949.
Ruckman went from this questionable conversion to Bob Jones University, where he earned a Ph.D. After several separations a final break was made with his wife in 1959. He remarried in 1972.20 A divorce occurred, ending his second marriage. He married a third time in 1989. Thus, he has three living wives. His writings concerning the King James Version have become increasingly exotic. He has increased his attacks on those who disagree with him to the point that he describes them all as being members of a cult. In his book The Alexandrian Cult, Part One, Ruckman goes so far as to say:
...every "recognized" church historian and Christian "scholar" is a member of a CULT. This cult is the Alexandrian Cult of North Africa, and its tenacles(sic) stretch from Origen (184-254 A.D.) to John R. Rice and the faculty members of every "recognized" Christian school in the world.31
The tenets of Ruckmanism can be summarized as follows: (1) The King James Version is given by inspiration. (2) The King James Version is the preserved Word of God. (3) The King James Version is infallible and inerrant. (4) The King James Version is superior to any Greek and Hebrew text, including the Greek and Hebrew texts from which the King James Version was translated.
(5) The King James Version contains advanced revelation or advanced light.
(6) The incidentals of the King James Version are also God-given, including
words in italics, chapter and verse numbers, the order of the books, and
the
fact that it was translated under a king named James.
(7) Failure to distinguish between the various editions of the King James Version.
(8) An appeal to anti-intellectualism.
-------------------------------------------
5
The King James Version is Given by Inspiration
The first tenet of Ruckmanism, upon which all the other tenets rest, is the belief that the King James Version was given by inspiration of God. Ruckman is careful to say "inspiration"rather than "in- spired." Rather, he continually states that it is "given by inspiration." He bases this on II Timothy 3: 16.
Here's how Ruckman's logic works, taken from his latest magnum opus, The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship:
The Authorised Version says, "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD." Question one: What does the word "scripture" mean? Question two: What does "given by inspiration" mean
Answer (from the Alexandrian Cult): "The word 'scripture' is a reference verbally inspired original autographs and therefore has no application to TRANS- -LATIONS or COPIES OF THE ORIGINALS. The word 'inspiration' means that the words written down on a sheet of paper were 'GOD-BREATHED' THE FIRST TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN DOWN: the verse was mistranslated and should have been 'All scripture WAS God-breathed.' "
There. That is the standard "historical position" of the Alexandrian Cult.
There are three things wrong with it that labels it as a Catholic HERESY.
1. The word "scripture" in the Bible is ALWAYS used of copies or translations
(Mark 12: 10; Acts 8: 32; Acts 17: 11; etc.), and never once is referring to "original autographs." Christ read the scriptures; the Bereans studied the scriptures (Acts 17: 11), the Ethiopian eunuch had them open on his lap (Acts 8: 32), and Christ rebuked people for not reading them (Matt. 21: 42). 2. The word "scripture" was defined in the context (2 Tim. 3: 15) as something that Timothy had known all of his life, and he didn't have ONE "original autograph" of Moses, Isaiah, David, Jeremiah, Malachi, Zephaniah, Samuel, Asaph, Ezekiel, or Daniel to go by.
The heretics TOOK A TEXT OUT OF THE CONTEXT. Why? Obviously because of "feelings of uncertainty" engendered by "textual and translational difficulties..." 3. Paul ascribes FOREKNOWLEDGE AND SPEECH to copies of the scripture (Rom. 9: 17; Gal. 3: 8), since he never had an original of Exodus 9: 16 or Genesis 22: 18 a day in his life.
Someone is lying again. They must be pros, because they never quit... With them it is not only a vocation, a calling, and a profession, but a "life-style." They take to it like a mallard takes to water.
Now, observe, in contrast to all of this, that we believe the Book we quote, and use it to prove what we believe. There is no tortuous circuit around the facts or the truth; we aren't quoting scriptures to prove that some lost pieces of paper were "given by inspiration of God." We are quoting the scriptures to prove that the some lost pieces of paper were "given by inspiration of God." We are quoting the scriptures to prove that the scriptures (as the scriptures use the term) were "given by inspiration of God." "ALL SCRIPTURE." If it is "SCRIPTURE"," God gave it; the method He used was by inspiration: HE BREATHED ON IT.
That is what put LIFE into the Scriptures (see Gen. 2: 7 and Ezek. 37: 1-14)....
Now, this explains why you will not find the expression "inspired word of God" or "the inspired words of God" or the "inspired Bible" anywhere in this textbook. We took the English translation "GIVEN BY INSPIRATION" to be the truth.22
The major thought of this passage from Ruckman is that the words "all Scripture" in II Timothy 3: 16 refer to every copy of the Scriptures ever made rather than to the original autographs. A careful examination of the above quoted passage from Ruckman reveals that this is a wholly arbitrary designation. Ruckman assigns "all Scripture" to every copy rather than the autographs. He does this without solid Biblical proof. Ruckman says that Timothy had "scriptures," and that therefore the "all scripture" refers to these copies as well.
But Ruckman's logic quickly breaks down when one realizes that Ruckman himself does not consider Alexandrian copies of the Bible as Scripture. Any "Bible " with an error in it is not Scripture. But why is a Bible with an error in it not Scripture? Simply because of the error. Therefore, it is perfectly proper to call an accurate copy of the originals "Scripture." This is far more reasonable than the position posited by Rickman. The Scriptures which Timothy and others read are called "scripture," because they were faithful to the original, not because these copies were given by inspiration.
-----------------------------------------
6
By Ruckman's own omission of Bibles not faithful to the original, he admits that the only copies of the Scripture that are given by inspiration are those, which are accurate. But we must be careful to avoid Ruckmanism be distinguishing between the inspiration of the originals and the accuracy of copies. To claim that copies are given by inspiration is to make a claim not found in the Bible itself.
II Timothy 3: 16 does refer only to the original. The words "all scripture" do not refer to copies, but refer rather to all of the Bible, from Genesis to the end. All of these Scriptures (from Genesis to the end) were given by inspiration. The verse says nothing whatever about copies being given by inspiration. Thus, the first tenet of Ruckmanism rests not upon the Bible itself, but upon the twisted logic of Peter S. Ruckman.
But let Ruckman explain his position himself. He writes:
1. Major Premise: "The King James Bible says 'ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSTPIRATION OF GOD' " (2 Tim. 3: 16).
2. Minor Premise: "The verse I just quoted was SCRIPTURE" (2 Tim. 3: 16).
3. Conclusion: "The King James Bible was 'GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD' "
(2 Tim. 3: 16).23
Before analysing the above logical syllogism, one should carefully examine the conclusion: "The King James Bible was given by inspiration of God." If Ruckman's logic is correct, the King James Bible (rather than the original autographs alone) was God-breathed (given by inspiration).
Now, this conclusion can only be reached if the major and minor premises are correct. Are they? The logical fallacy is this: Ruckman assumes his conclusion in advance, and then builds his major and minor premises from his conclusion, rather than properly drawing the conclusion from the major and minor premises. In other words, Ruckman assumes that the King James Bible is given by inspiration, and then from that assumption "proves" this to be the Word of God. Therefore, we know that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God because the Book of Mormon says so." So much for the illogical logic of Ruckman!
If you think I have been unfair to Ruckman, listen again to his twisted logic, "We are quoting the scriptures to prove that the scriptures (as the scriptures use the term) were 'given by inspiration of God.'" Using this perversion of logic, a person could prove the Koran, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita, the rantings of Joseph Smith, the writings of Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy, or the "Divine Principle" of Sun Myung Moon to be the Word of God! They claim to be given by inspiration; therefore they are given by inspiration, because they say that they are! Ruckman's argument is exactly that: he says that the King James proves the inspiration of the King James. When he says "the scriptures," after all, he does mean the King James.
The fact is that II Timothy 3: 16 refers to the original, which were inspired (God-breathed). The originals alone were thus given by inspiration. That may not be enough for Ruckman, but it seemed to enough for the author called the "Word of God" because they are faithful to the original inspired copies. We do not need to have these original copies to have the Word of God. We have faithful copies. These faithful copies are every bit as much the Word of God as the originals, though they are the product of man's work, not the product of God's Spirit.
The King James Version is the work of man alone. The translators were human beings doing human work. They were not inspired in any theological sense of the word. There was nothing supernatural about what they translated or the act of their translating. They themselves would have been astonished that Ruckman claims "inspiration" for their translation!
No, it isn't that "the faculty members of every recognized Christian school in the world" are members of a cult, but that Ruckman and those who follow his teachings are rapidly separating themselves from mainstream fundamentalism and becoming a cult. And I predict that Ruckman and his cult will become increasingly twisted as time goes on. Notice that Ruckman already has four plans of salvation, as Dr. Curtis Hutson has pointed out.
Ruckman cranks out books by the dozens. He claims to be correcting a "cult" which has entrapped virtually "every recognized" fundamental school in the country. Ruckman wants his followers to stop buying books written by other fundamentalist educators. Ruckman himself wants to make all the money. Ruckman wants to be the only one selling books. His aims are gold and glory. He wants to be the only one upholding the truth and the only one making the money! This may sound harsh, but I think it is true, after reading scores of his books.
The King James Version is the Preserved Word of God
The next tenet of Ruckmanism is the idea that the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God. Unfortunately, some good men have borrowed this tenet of Ruckmanism without realizing its source. But buying one point of Ruckmanism opens the door to all the rest. Therefore, we must be careful not to say that the King James Bible is "the preserved Word of God."
----------------------------------------------
7
The words "the Holy Bible, preserved in English" are often found in Ruckman's writings.24 Here I give an extended quote showing this tenet of Ruckmanism:
Let us reaffirm our own position lest there be any doubt in the reader's mind about our own profession: We profess to believe that the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible is God's word (and God's words) from cover to cover, preserved without proven error in the language in which God intended for us to have it.25 (Ruckman's emphasis.)
The passage used by Ruckmanites to prove preservation is found in Psalm 12, which I quote in part:
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 (Psalm 12: 6-7).
It should be noted, however, that this Psalm has nothing whatever to do with preservation of the King James Bible. This can easily be proven by noticing the last few words of verse seven, "thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Now, the King James Bible was not written until over 2600 years after verse seven was given. This proves that verse seven can have nothing whatever to do with the King James Bible. Verse seven refers only to the preservation of the words of David, and the other words of God recorded in Hebrew in the Old Testament. This promise of preservation can refer only to the Old Testament Scriptures in Hebrew. God has preserved the Old Testament in Hebrew across the centuries.
But this promise has noting at all to do with the King James Version. How can anyone read into verse seven a translation, which was not made for more than 2600 years after this promise was given? Yet those who have adopted this tenet of Ruckmanism think they can maintain a distance from him and still hold to the preservation of the KJV. This is only wishful thinking. Holding one tenet of Ruckmanism paves the way to accepting all the others.
By assigning one of the divine honors to the KJV, you logically open the door to everything else. For instance, if the KJV is the preserved Word of God, then it must also be inerrant, infallible, given by inspiration, for it cannot be "preserved" unless these other characteristics are also true of it. Why open the door to this error at all? Why open a door, which must inevitably and logically lead to claiming that the KJV contains "advanced revelation"? If all the words are preserved, this must include italics as well as every other part of the translation. Since every word is preserved, the Holy Spirit is involved, and the KJV must then be considered inerrant. If it is inerrant, then it must logically contain advanced revelation in the italics and in every other place which is not supported in the Greek and Hebrew. Thus, claiming preservation for the KJV opens the door to claiming advanced revelation for it.
It is proper, instead, to claim the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus as "the preserved Word of God," rather than the KJV translation. This avoids opening the door even a crack for the entrance of Ruckmanism.
We believe that the Greek and Hebrew language Scriptures can be called "the preserved Word of God." When accurately translated into English or any other language, the historical accuracy and truth of the preserved Word of God passes into such translation.
Verbal inspiration (the very words) applies only to the original Scriptures. The Masoretic Text Hebrew and Textus Receptus Greek are the preserves Word of God. The KJV accurately carries over these preserved words into English.
Because of its high degree of accuracy, the KJV can be called "the preserved Word of God" in everyday speech. But we must never apply this term in a technical theological sense to any translation because attributing preservation in an absolute or divine sense to any translation paves the way to Ruckmanism, as we have shown above.
The King James Version is
Infallible and Inerrant
"Infallible" and "inerrant" are interchangeable words with essentially the same meaning. These words refer to the fact that the Bible contains no errors. When an orthodox Christian refers to the infallibility of the Bible, he is speaking of the Greek and Hebrew texts, not a translation. He is saying that the Greek and Hebrew texts are inerrant. This can be proven by several quotes from Ruckman:
When in doubt it is a good idea to throw all "reliable" translations out of the window and go to the infallible living words of the living Hod (by which he means the KJV).26
------------------------------------------
8
Again, Ruckman writes:
"The Bible" we use here is quite naturally the infallible, inerrant,
living word
of the living God - the Authorized Version of 1611.27
It should be made clear that Ruckman means that the King James translation is without error. He says so specifically:
...we believe the A.V. is "WITHOUT ERROR," and that errors can be found in the ASV, NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NEB, etc.28
Thus, it is a tenet of Ruckmanism to say that the King James translation is inerrant, that it contains no errors of any sort. If this tenet is proved false, then the whole logical base of Ruckmanism is in danger, and Ruckman knows it. That is why he goes to great lengths to prove that even typographical errors in various versions of the KJV are actually inerrant. His logic is so twisted, that it seems almost impossible that an intelligent man could employ it. But Ruckman does. For instance, Ruth 3: 15 was typeset incorrectly in one printing of the KJV, and corrected later. Ruckman actually defends both type settings as inerrant! But let him state this absurd position himself:
"She went into the city" has been corrected from "He went into the city" (Ruth 3: 15), which constituted no error for both of them went into the city, which is perfectly apparent to anyone who can read two-syllable words. (The silly faculty members at Bob Jones and Lynchburg who emphasize this discrepancy(sic) simply fail to read the context of the passage.)29
The verse (Ruth 3: 15) refers to Ruth going into a city. But Ruckman must defend both type settings, including the incorrect reading, "He." For if either typesetting is incorrect, Ruckman's idea of the inerrancy of the KJV translation is undermined, and the basis of his entire theory rests on a sandy foundation. Ruckman is forced to the asinine position of claiming both type settings ("He" and "She") as inerrant! In case you think I have misrepresented him, I quote this absurd idea from another of his books:
Our problem text today is from Ruth Chapter 3. This is one of the "last resorts" used by the Cult to prove a "contradiction" in the AV. The thinking behind this is that some editions of the AV had "SHE went into the city" while other said "HE went into the city"...Now the fact is, they BOTH "went into the city." Observe Ruth 3: 16 - Ruth's mother-in-law, Naomi, is IN THE CITY. Observe Ruth 4: 1 - Boaz had to go up into the "the gate." EITHER READING WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TRUTH OF GOD WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.30
This quotation shows that Ruckman, in effect, does not believe in verbal inspiration (at least not in any traditional sense). The point isn't whether "he" and "she" are interchangeable or not, the point is which word did God want?
The Bible teaches verbal inspiration, that God gave the very words. In the temptation in the wilderness, Jesus confronted the devil. The record of this event is given in Matthew 4: 4 :
But he answered and said, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
Either Jesus was right, or He was wrong. I am convinced that Jesus was correct, that the very words of the Bible were given by God. Ruckman does not believe this. He teaches that the King James Version can give two different words, and that both of them are correct. He does not believe that the correct word was given by God. Ruckman's God speaks with a forked tongue. Ruckman's God cannot be trusted the first time He speaks. Ruckman's God may give a different word at a later time! I am afraid that this is a different God from the one I believe in! My Bible says, "Every word of God is pure" (Proverbs 30: 5).
If you believe that God chose the exact words to put into the Bible that He wanted, then either the "he" or the "she" was in error, and Ruckman is wrong in saying that the KJV is inerrant. True, the KJV is highly accurate, but in no sense can we accept Ruckman's absurd logic on Ruth 3: 15 and other passages and say that this translation is inerrant and infallible.
----------------------------------------------
9
The King James Version is Superior to Any Greek and Hebrew Text
I was talking to a pastor not long ago who has accepted many of Ruckman's ideas. I told this pastor that Ruckmanism says the KJV is superior to any Greek text. The pastor told me, "You have to be careful in reading Ruckman. Ruckman is not referring to the Textus Receptus (from which the King James was translated). When Ruckman says that the King James is superior to the Greek, he's talking about the Westcott and Hort only." I wondered if this were true, so I made a careful study of Ruckman on this point.
The pastor was wrong. Ruckman plainly says in a number of places that the King James Version is superior to any Greek text. Ruckman even goes so far as to say that if he had the originals he would not teach them. Ruckman says, "If I had the original right here in my pulpit tonight I wouldn't teach them to you."31
In many places Ruckman teaches that the King James is superior to any Greek text, the Textus Receptus or any other Greek text. He is not referring to the Westcott and Hort mutilated text, but even to the reliable text from which the King James itself was translated. Read the following quotation from Ruckman which prove this to be his position:
The AV 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text (emphasis his).32
This is his comment on John 4: 24. Here, the KJV states "God is a spirit." The Textus Receptus, from which the King James was translated, says, "Pneuma ho Theos." Ruckman defends the adding the article "a" so strongly that he says that following the Greek literally "is inaccurate."33 The KJV, thus, corrects the very Greek from which it was translated according to Ruckman!
Again Ruckman states:
The A.V. 1611 text is to be preferred over any Greek test, as it tells the truth of the matter...notice how the English text corrects the errors in the Greek text.34
Further on in this same book he states:
Reader desiring to see additional places where the A.V. 1611 text is superior to the Greek, should investigate Matthew 5: 44; 6: 33; 8: 29; 13: 51; 16: 3; 17: 21; 18: 11; 21: 44; 25: 13; Mark 1: 14; 9: 49; 15: 28; 16: 9-20; Luke 1: 28; 22; 20; 24: 12; 21: 4, and scores and scores of others.
Ruckman is so strong on this point that he claims the order of the books, as they are arranged in the KJV, shows the KJV to be superior ot the Greek and Hebrew:
That isn't the order of the Hebrew text. That isn't the order of the
Masoretic text... That's the order that God gave you in this Book that's
superior to the
original, brother. That isn't in the originals. That's in this Book.
That's some "layout" of books you've got in the King James, isn't it? (Emphasis
mine).36
Thus, Ruckman has plainly stated that the arrangement of the KJV makes it superior even to the texts it was translated from!
What Ruckman has done is to make the KJV English translation superior to even its own Greek text. The KJV English translation becomes, for Ruckmanites, the only authority for faith and practice. Even the Hebrew and Greek texts from which the King James was translated cannot be used to correct the KJV, which is moved into a place of supremacy over the very Greek text from which it was translated. This makes the next doctrine, advanced revelation, inevitable, since the KJV gives ideas, which are not in the Greek. Logically a person must believe that the King James Version contains advanced revelation, which cannot be found in the Greek and Hebrew texts. This is heresy. The view that the KJV is superior to the Greek and Hebrew opens the door to a heresy similar in its idea of advanced revelation to Mormonism, Christian Science, and Islam.
---------------------------------------------
10
The King James Version Contains
Advanced Revelation or Advanced Light
The next step in Ruckmanism follows logically the idea that the KJV is superior to the Greek and Hebrew. The next step in this: the KJV contains advanced revelation. Notice how Ruckman comes to this conclusion in defending the translation of "churches" for "temples" in Acts 19: 37. The Greek word "hieron" is poorly translated as "churches" in the KJV. The word should be translated "temples" to be correct. But this obviously weak translation does not change Ruckman's view that the KJV is inerrant.
Defending the poor translation of "churches" for "temples" in Acts 19: 37, Ruckman writes:
Since the "majority of scholars" (i.e. textual critics) were never " serious students" of either Book, they could not possible "grab" the significance of "churches" for "temples," in Acts 19: 37. If it is left as "temples," all future application is nullified, for the pagan temples of Diana disappeared with the pagan idolatry of pagan Rome, but...!! But, if Rome were to exchange Diana for Mary, and Icons for Images, and "CHURCHES" for temples, then the reformation text would point a finger in the right direction clearly, and a direction that the Greek text is unable to indicate. Moral: “Mistakes in the A.V.1611 are advanced revelation!"37
Replying to this defence of the poor KJV translated by Ruckman, evangelist Gary Hudson has written"
By definition, the word cannot be translated as "churches," unless the Greek text had used "ecclesia," which, here is not the case. ALL of the Greek texts, Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, or otherwise, read "hieron" in Acts 19: 37. Faced with this real problem of the KJV English being at variance with its own Greek text, Ruckman forces his own private interpretation on the use of the word "churches," and concludes, "Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!" The "advanced revelation," however, is actually Ruckman's own historical interpretation about the use of the word "churches." This is the little game of making-up-the-rules-as-you-go-to-fit-your-own advantage! Such a tactic is at total variance to well-established, solid rules of Biblical interpretation. Why, whoever heard of such a thing as translation problems in the KJV being correction of its own Greek text BEFORE Peter Ruckman stepped on the scene! THIS is Ruckmanism! Such an idea is completely foreign to any born again Bible teacher or preacher before Ruckman.38
Ruckmanism is forced to defend the translation as "churches" in Acts 19: 37, because their theory demands a perfect KJV. But the Ruckmanite position also logically demands advanced revelation, since the KJV is different from the Greek and Hebrew, which it translates in several places. Logically, advanced revelation is needed to support the differences between the English translation in the KJV and the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts. Ruckman writes:
A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvellous undesigned "coincidences" which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigations of the greatest Bible students 300 years later.39 (Emphasis mine).
Ruckman goes so far as to say, on this page of the above quoted book, that two of his own commentaries shed more light than anything written by Keil, Delitzsch, Lange, or Clarke:
(The reader is referred to the two works on the "Bible Believer's Commentary," the Commentary on Genesis, 1969, and the Commentary on Revelation, 1970, by the same author. In these will be found the "light," from the A.V. text, that Keil, Delitzsch, Rosenmuller, Hengstenberg, Gesenius, Trench, Alford, Wuest, Weiss, Gregory, Von Soden, Tregelles, Tischendorf, A.T. Robertson, Deissman, Moulton, Milligan, Origen, Westcott & Hort, Lange, Clarke, and Bullinger were unable to find.) (Author's emphasis.) 40
So strong is Ruckman's commitment to the King James Bible as advanced revelation and advanced light that he sys, "Light to be found only in the Authorized Version text. No other bible (sic) contains it. No other translation, of any edition, or in any language (except German) contains this kind of
------------------------------------------------------------------
11
phenomena. If all you have is the 'original Greek,' you LOSE LIGHT."41 Thus, Ruckman actually implies that the use of the Greek and Hebrew causes a person to "lose light" that they get by using the KJV exclusively.
Again, Ruckman writes, "Observe here how the Authorized Infallible 1611 English gives new light on the text that is unavailable in HEBREW or GREEK, from any set of manuscripts published by anyone (Ruckman's emphasis)."42 In the same book he writes, "As usual, the highly scientific and advanced King James text 'sheds new light' on the Scripture..."43
Why is Ruckman's teaching that the KJV contains "advanced revelation and new light" important? The answer can be found in this quotation from The Monarch of the Books!, a Ruckman paperback, "The truth is God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 B.C. and slammed it shut again in 1611."44 Ruckman declares that the Old Testament canon of Scripture closed in 389 B.C. and that there was "no more written revelation till 1st. Advent."45 He then states that "the King James text is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th. century...the truth is that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 B.C. and slammed it shut again in 1611."46 This is extremely dangerous because Ruckman has opened the canon of Scripture until the year 1611.
No orthodox, Bible-believing scholar has ever said that God continued to give revelation after the New Testament was finished in about 96 A.D. (Ussher). Ruckman has done something no Christian scholar in history has done: he opens the canon of Scripture after 96 A.D. and states that the KJV, written one thousand five hundred years after the last New Testament book, gives, "advanced light and advanced revelation." 47
This places Ruckmanism in the same category as Islam, which says that the Holy Koran is advanced revelation, to be added to the Bible. The Muslims believe that "the door of revelation" was reopened in the seventh century after Christ, and that the Holy Koran is "advanced light and advanced revelation"
This places Ruckmanism in the same category as Mormonism, which says that the Book of Mormon is advanced revelation, to be added to the Bible. The Mormons believe that "the door of revelation" was reopened in the nineteenth century, and that the writings of Joseph Smith are "advanced light and advanced revelation"
This places Ruckmanism in the same category as Christian Science, which says that Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is advanced revelation, to be added to the Bible. The Christian Scientists believe that "the door of revelation" was reopened at the turn of the century, and that the writings of Mary Baker Eddy are "advanced light and advanced revelation."
One of the well-known characteristics of a cult is added revelation, revealing something that isn't recorded in the Bible itself. Ruckman has followed this error by saying that God has stated something, which was not in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. This opens the door to revelation and places
Ruckmanism in the same camp with other cults. I believe that Ruckmanism has already taken major steps toward separating from the main body of fundamentalism and will ultimately become a full-blown cult. It is true that there are good men who have borrowed ideas from Ruckman and are under the umbrella of Ruckmanism. Whether most of these men will be sucked into the developing cult of Ruckmanism remains to be seen. It is to be hoped that they will see the error of Ruckmanism in time to obey the Scriptures and "come out from among them." Separation from the cult of Ruckmanism is necessary.
Some men have seen the error of advanced revelation in Ruckmanism and have rejected it, while holding some of the other tenets characteristic of Ruckmanism, such as the preservation of the KJV, or the inerrancy of the KJV. These men may mean well, but they have unwittingly opened the door to advanced revelation, for the KJV cannot be "preserved" or "infallible" without logically containing advanced revelation. I fear that those men who hold a partial Ruckmanism (preservation or inerrancy of the KJV) have not seen that they have logically paved the way to acceptance of advanced revelation. Why? Because if the KJV is the preserved Word of God or is inerrant, this assigns to the KJV translation a supernatural origin which it does not deserve. The KJV is a purely human effort. When supernatural designations such as preservation or inerrancy are assigned to this purely human effort, the water is muddied, and the way is paved to f full-blown Ruckmanism which accepts the KJV as advanced revelation.
If the King James Version is preserved or inerrant, then the translation of the Greek word "hieron" as "churches" is an advanced revelation. Since "hieron," in its first-century context, must be translated:"temples," and only the word "ecclesia" can be translated as "church," then this translation as "churches" rather than "temples" is, of necessity, an advanced revelation, as Ruckman himself sees; this is the only logical conclusion possible if one accepts the KJV as the preserved Word of God or the inerrant/ infallible Word of God. Ruckman himself sees this logical conclusion when he refers to Acts 19:37 and says, "Mistakes (such as 'churches' for 'temples') in the A.V.1611 are advanced revelation!"48
-----------------------------------------
12
Upholding the Ruckman position will lead to fantastic and extravagant claims for the KJV translation, such as Ruckman's statement, "If all you have is the 'original Greek' (pascha), you LOSE
LIGHT' " (Author's emphasis).49 He makes this statement defending the translation of "Easter" for "pascha" which should properly be translated "Passover" in Acts 12: 4. But notice that Ruckman claims that you "lose light" if all you have is the Greek!
Another absurd statement by Ruckman is in connection with Psalm 74: 8 where the word "synagogue" is used to translate the word "moade" which is properly translated as "congregation," but which the King James translates as "synagogue" although Jewish synagogues did not appear until 600 years after Psalm 74: 8 was written. Ruckman, claiming advanced light, makes this absolutely incredible and dangerous statement in defence of using the word "synagogue" instead of "congregation" in the KJV translation:
In Psalm 74: 8, the advanced revelation of 1611 sheds considerable light on the corrupt Hebrew manuscripts used by the Laodicean washouts, for all of them translated "the Hebrew text" as "meeting places" or "places of assembly." Using the highly scientific Elizabethan English of 1611 for light, we find that although "SYNAGOGUES" (Authorized Version) were not in operation until 600 years after the author of Psalm 74 was dead (the Inter- -Testamental Period), the author has reached out into A.D. 1990, where the SYNAGOGUES IN JERUSALEM WILL BE BURNED BY THE ANTICHRIST. Naturally, such a revelation is greatly obscured in the "original Hebrew text" (Author's emphasis).50
The first thing to note about this statement on Psalm 74: 8, is that he once again calls the KJV "advanced revelation." He says that the KJV "sheds considerable light on the corrupt Hebrew manuscripts." Next, he says that we should use the AV 1611 "for light." Then he says that the word "synagogues" to translate the word for "congregations" is prophetic revelation regarding the coming Tribulation period, when he states, "the author has reached out into A.D. 1990, where the synagogues in Jerusalem will be burned by the Antichrist." Needless to say, he has set a date for the Rapture, since the Antichrist's anti-Semitic activities will take place during the second half of the Tribulation period. We will discuss his date-setting regarding end-time events and the Second Coming of Christ later. Suffice it to say that Ruckman, as of the writing of this book, has set the date for the rapture as the spring of 1989.51 Finally he says that "such a revelation is greatly obscured in the 'original Hebrew text'." According to Ruckman, the Hebrew text obscures the "revelation" in the King James translation! If this hasn't boggled your mind, then I seriously doubt that your mind is capable of being boggled! I call this heresy!
The Incidentals of the King James
Version are God-given
The next tenet of Ruckmanism is that the very incidentals of the King James Version are God - -given, including word in italics, chapter and verse numbers, the order of the books, and the fact that it was translated under a king named James.
Ruckmanites tend to make extravagant claims for every particle and incidental of the KJV. THEY DO THIS BECAUSE THEIR POSITION RESTS UPON THE KJV being perfect. Therefore, if anything in the KJV is imperfect, it undermines their position.
Ruckman even goes so far as to say that the italics were "God-led," or in some way given by inspiration. Ruckman says:
The italics in the King James Bible are marked to show that the man who did the translating is an honest man...You say, "What about adding to the Word of God like that?" Well, when they add, they let you know where they added, so you wouldn't think it was the word right there...you say, "Do you believe God led them and guided them in that?" Yeah, I sure do. I sure do. As a matter of fact, I know He did, "How do you know that?" I read one time over there in 1 John 2 that if a man denies the Son, he denies the Father. Then I read if he confesses the Son, then he has the Father also, and notice half the verse was in italics. Half the verse! When the King James translators sat down and came to that verse, they wrote it in italics...You better watch that book! It comes along there, and speaks about talking in an unknown tongue, and somebody said, "That word, 'unknown,' isn't in the original." You mean, you haven't found the copy that's got it yet? You better watch that stuff. I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because of the instruments of its preservation, and because of the honesty of its preservation.52
-------------------------------------------------------
13
Note here that he says that the very italics in the King James Bible are "God-led" and "God-guided." Thus he attributes inspiration to the very italics, which do not have the Greek Textus Receptus as a base.
In 1 Corinthians 14: 2, the KJV says, "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God..." The word "unknown" is in italics in the KJV, showing that it was added by the translators and is not the translation of the original Greek. The word "unknown" was not translated from the original Greek, but was added by the translators to try to clarify (in their Minds) the passage. It also appears in verses 4, 13, 14, 19, and 27. To Ruckman, this italicized word, which is not a translation of the Greek, was "God-led" and "God-guided."53 In other words, the italics in the King James Bible, which are not even based upon the Greek, were given by inspiration of God according to Ruckman. Making such extravagant claims for the italics in the KJV is characteristic of Ruckmanism in general.
Ruckmanism also tends to make extravagant claims for the order of the books in the King James Bible. Ruckman says:
The order of books in the English is vastly superior to the order of books in the Hebrew Old Testament in any set published by anyone, for the Hebrew "original" so not preserve the premillennial order found in Jeremiah-Lamentation-Ezekiel.
In the Authorized Version, this order produced Jerusalem's destruction
by the Antichrist (Jer.), the great Tribulation (Lam.), and the Second
Advent (Ezek.). Lamentations has been EXTRACTED from the order in "the
original Hebrew." Again, the Authorized Version order of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah-Esther-Job-Psalms
has been completely shattered by Daniel following Esther, Job following
Proverbs, and Chronicles following Ezra. The Authorized Version plainly
preserved the order of destruction and dispersion (A.D. 70-1918), return
(A.D. 1918-1948),
rebuilding (A.D.1948-1988), rapture and replacement of a Gentile Bride
with a Jewish Bride (A.D. 1918-1998), Daniel's Seventieth Week (A.D 1993-1999??),
and the Second Advent (A.D. 2000). If you had the "originals," you would
have failed to find LIGHT on the future of Israel. (Author's emphasis.)54
Thus, in Ruckman's mind, the re-arranging of the books of the Bible from the way they are presented in the Hebrew Scriptures presents "prophetic truth" in the King James arrangement of the books. His idea that the arrangement of the books of the Hebrew Bible in the King James gives prophetic light is queer at best. The danger of such speculation can be seen in the fact that Ruckman actually goes so far as to date the Second Advent of Jesus Christ at A.D. 2000, based upon these misguided calculations. No sensible scholar has ever espoused such an exotic view that the arrangement of the books of the Old Testament reveals prophetic truth.
Closely related to this view that the arrangement of the books presents new light in the KJV, is Ruckman's view on Biblical numbers. His book, titled Bible Numerics, goes to great lengths to show that the chapter and verse divisions of the King James Bible are God-given. For instance in dealing with the number 5, which Ruckman says refers to "unsheeted death any place you find it, any time, anywhere,"55 he says that Genesis 5: 5 is given that way to reveal the first human death. He states, "The first man that ever died, died in Genesis 5: 5, and don't tell me the King James translators planned that thing."56 Ruck- - man brushes aside the fact that Abel had already died in Genesis 4: 8 by stating, "You say, 'Well, Abel died.' He did not. He was killed! The first man that ever died on this planet died in the fifth verse of the fifth chapter of the King James Bible."57 Ruckman's idea that a man who has been killed hasn't really died is, to say the least, novel. Tell that to poor Mother Eve! "Your son isn't dead, he's only been killed. Stop crying!" But Ruckman rushes past this absurdity to proclaim some sort of "advanced revelation" through the two fives coming together in this verse in the King James Bible.
The next incidental of the KJV claimed as God-given by Ruckman is the very name of the King of England at the time of the translation, King James. Notice that Ruckman actually indicates that the King James Bible could not have been written until a king named James was on the throne of Britain.
It's a strange Book. And the more you study it, the stranger it gets (referring to the KJV). For example: This book here at the beginning of it says, "To the most high and mighty Prince James, defender of the faith." Now some of you don't have that dedicatory in your Bible; you ought to have it though. "To the most high and mighty Prince James...by the grace of God..." Do you know where the word James comes from? Do any of you fellows know what the Greek word or the Hebrew word for James is? It's not an English word. It's Jacob. God waited until He had a king on the English throne with the name James and then put that thing in there: "To the most high and mighty Prince Jacob." Why Jacob was a prince in Israel. This is a Jewish book. Every writer in it is a Jew. God
wouldn't turn out a perfect Book when Elizabeth was on the throne or when George was on the throne. He had to get James, and there is no power in a Bible unless it is the word of a KING (Ecc. 8: 4). (Author's emphasis).58
------------------------------------------------
14
Notice here that Ruckman here is actually claiming inspiration for the KJV translators' preface to the Authorized Version. He says, "God waited until He had a king on the English throne with the name James and then put that thing in there." So, some Ruckmanites will follow Ruckman and claim inspiration for the translators' preface to the 1611, a preface which was made up by them and not based upon any Greek or Hebrew text whatever. Here, we see Ruckman adding to the Word of God. One wonders what fantastic doctrines will be invented in the future and based upon the "preface" to the King James Bible rather than the Word of God. Notice that Ruckman has already said they had to have a king named James, and has taken as his basis the preface. No telling what other fantastic doctrine may come out of the preface to the King James Bible in the future.
Ruckman - Where Is Your Bible?
Ruckman fails to distinguish between the various editions of the King James Version. As a result of this, he falls into the same trap that he accuses others of falling into. In effect, Ruckman himself has no Bible (that is, Ruckman does not have the perfect English Bible which he demands of others).
This can easily be shown by studying his booklet, Differences in the King James Version Edition.59 On page 5 of this booklet he writes, "...we documented their findings throughout the editions from 1611 to 1852, with the standard edition being produced in 1769."60 On page 7 he writes, "The typographical errors of the 1613 edition were brought right back into line with 1611. Samples of these are: 'We said unto them' back to 'We said unto him' (Genesis 42: 31)."61 On page 13 he has still another edition, "...a pure text was arrived at in 1813, which conformed to the original intent of the AV translators."62 On page 14, still another edition is brought out, "...on the 28th of April, 1850 they completed their work."63 On page 18 he lists seven copies of the KJV (1611, 1613, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1769, and 1850).64 He says that these revisions "result in a purified book."65 Yet on page 19 Ruckman says, "At this writing it is the Standard Edition Octavo Reference Bible of 1852...":66 He says that this is "the AV as it stands before him at this writing."67 So, Ruckman actually has at least eight editions of the KJV to deal with. Which one is the Word of God, Dr. Ruckman? When did the Word of God appear? So, an honest reader will see that Ruckman has been caught in his own trap. Ruckman's "perfect" KJV does not exist.
One Ruckmanite, realizing this dilemma, declares the 1769 edition to be the Word of God by faith. This astonishing admission is made David Reese, pastor of the Victory Baptist Church, Millbrook, Alabama:
...Which 1611 edition it is that differs from our present edition is unknown. Did the text delivered by the translators to the printer contain these variations from our present edition? No one knows it did since that text is not available.68
Again, Reese says, "Since the original text of 1611 is not available, the whole issue revolves around different editions..."69 These admissions by Reese prove that Ruckmanism is a house built on a foundation of sand. Ruckman continually abuses those who appeal to the "original Hebrew and Greek" for not having the "originals." Yet Ruckman himself has no originals! Ruckman says that II Timothy 3: 16 cannot refer to the originals, since no originals exist. But the same argument can be used against Ruckmanism itself: since the Ruckmanites have no original text, II Timothy 3: 16 cannot refer to their "originals " either.
Since the "originals" of the King James Bible were lost after being turned over to the printer (who made copies with errors), a constant series of revisions were needed (according to Ruckman 70), which places Ruckmanism in the same place he accuses us of being. Ruckman has no originals!
This places a Ruckmanite like David Reese in the logically embarrassing position of having to affirm the 1769 edition as the inerrant Scripture by faith alone:
There is no way the critics of the King James Bible can prove that the edition we have today is not the accurate translation of the text of God's inspired words in the English language. The critic may point out a difference between the 1611 edition (PRINTED in 1611) and the 1769 edition, but what does it mean? It certainly does not mean that the edition in our hand is in error, Why could we not believe that the present edition is the accurate text?...Of course the present day edition (usually called the 1769 edition), is the Book...71
Reese is right in saying that the critics cannot prove the edition we have today is not the accurate translation of the text, but he does not point out that He cannot prove that it is the exact words of the 1611! The burden of proof lies with Reese, for this is the basis, the very foundation, of Ruckmanism itself. The foundation has proved to be made of sand.
---------------------------------------------
15
Ruckman himself unwittingly points out this weakness in his theory:
On the twenty-fifth of March, 1848, the Board of Managers in charge of pre-
-serving the purity of the original text of 1611 met for the purpose of further revision, and on the twenty-eighth of April, 1850, they completed their work.
Reese claims that the Word of God appeared in 1769. Ruckman says that the Word of God appeared in 1850. Which one is right? And what proof do either of them offer? Another question: Where was the Word of God between 1611 and either 1850 or 1769? Neither Reese nor Ruckman are able to answer these questions with anything approaching a rational answer. Neither of them have the "original" manuscripts of the KJV. Neither of them know where these originals are.
After brushing aside the fact that his entire theory rest on a sandy foundation Ruckman makes this astonishing statement, "Naturally, any edition of the AV is vastly superior to the 'originals'."73
Ruckman says that the KJV is superior to the original Greek and Hebrew, because the original Greek and Hebrew do not exist per se. Yet Ruckman says that "any edition" of the KJV is superior to these originals even though no original of the KJV exists. This unveils Ruckmanism for what it is: a dirty trick and a satanic lie.
Ruckmanism Appeals to
Anti-Intellectualism
Ruckmanism constantly panders to anti-intellectualism. Again and again Ruckman blasts scholarship, and appeals to men who have never studied Greek or Hebrew, even going so far as to say that more light can be gained from the English alone than from studies of the Biblical languages. This has a strong appeal to someone who has not been to college or seminary. Many Ruckmanites respond to this, though some have a theological education. The general appeal is to anti-intellectualism, anti-theological education, and laziness, however. Ruckman rants and raves against scholars as though scholarship itself were wrong. The following quote is typical:
NO GREEK OR HEBREW SCHOLAR IN AMERICA OR EUROPE FOR 200 YEARS HAS BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY LIGHT ON THE SCRIPTURES THAT WASN'T ALREADY IN THE ENGLISH TEXT. Vertical studies done into one word to prove something that has already been proven in the English Text is neither light nor illumination. It is the confirmation of a text that ILLUMINATES without grammatical studies...WHY THESE SILLY ASSES COULDN'T PROVE IT WITH ANY GREEK TEXT.74
This is a good illustration of the anti-intellectual, "know-nothing" belligerency that characterizes Ruckman in general.
Ruckman attacks all other Bible scholars for the purpose of elevating himself as the only one who is worth hearing. He doesn't want his followers to buy anyone else's books but his, so he alone can make all the money and get all the glory. To do this, Ruckman caters to the anti-intellectualism of his followers on the one hand, and presents himself as the greatest scholar in the world on the other. Ruckman brags about reading a book every day, and presents himself as a man who understands virtually every branch of science, theology, language etc. It is characteristic of Ruckman to present himself as an authority in all fields. Yet the following illustration shows this man to be woefully lacking in basic knowledge in at least one important area of science:
That isn't all; there are only seven colors. If a man has red, yellow, and blue, the primaries, orange, green, and purple, the secondaries, and black, he can make or mix any color there is. You say, "What about white?' White is absence of color. Hence we refer down south to "white" people and "colored" people. This is the scientifically correct and accurate terminology. Accurately, scientifically, white is the absence of color.75
Actually, black is the absence of color. White is the mixture of all colors. When you shine a beam of white light through a prism, it divides the light up into a rainbow of the various colors from which it was made. On the other hand, if you look out into the sky at night, between the stars, where there in no color, it is black. Thus, Ruckman the cartoonist and artist does not know this basic fact, a fact which should be known by an artist of his stature. In fact, his not knowing this is inexcusable.
------------------------------------------
16
The Definition of Ruckmanism
Gary Hudson has given a good working definition of Ruckmanism:
The belief that the King James Version is absolutely inerrant, containing advanced revelation over the Greek and Hebrew from which it came, with the demand for one exact, inerrant version to preach and teach.76
I would want to add to that some of the elements, which appear on page 4 of this book as "the tenets of Ruckmanism." Combining these I formulate this definition:
Ruckmanism is the belief that the King James Version is given by inspiration of God and is the preserved, infallible, and inerrant Word of God, superior to any Greek and Hebrew text, including the originals, containing advanced revelation in its translation and in such incidentals as the italics, chapter and verse numbers, and order of the books; the basis fo Ruckmanism is its insistence upon the AV 1611 over the nonexistent original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts; insistence upon portions of Ruckmanism, while rejecting other points, results in partial-Ruckmanism, an inconsistent position, which logically opens the door to full Ruckmanism.
Notes
1 Peter S. Ruckman, Dr. Ruckman's Testimony (Pensacola, Florida: Bible Baptist Book-store, n.d.), tape 1.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ruckman, Dr. Ruckman's Testimony, tape 2.
17 Ruckman, Dr. Ruckman's Testimony, tape 2.
18 Ruckman, Dr. Ruckman's Testimony, tape 1.
19 Curtis Hutson, "Ruckman's Various Plans of Salvation and Other Rabid
Ramblings," Sword of the Lord, February 3, 1989, pp.1, 18-22.
20 Peter S. Ruckman, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Pensacola, Florida:
Bible Baptist Bookstore 1980), ii.
21 Peter S. Ruckman, The Alexandrian Cult, Part One (Pensacola, Florida:
Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1978) p.6.
22 Peter S. Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship
(Pensacola, Florida: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988), pp. 262-263. 23 Ruckman,
The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, pp. 271-272. 24 Peter
S. Ruckman, Problem Texts (Pensacola, Florida: Pensacola Bible Institute
Press 1980) p. 268.
25 Ruckman, Problem Texts, pp. 66-67.
26 Peter S. Ruckman, The Alexandrian Cult, Part Five (Pensacola, Florida:
Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1980), p. 28.
27 Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Numerics (Pensacola, Florida: Bible Baptist
Bookstore, 1981), iii (in preface).
28 Peter S. Ruckman, The Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight (Pensacola, Florida:
Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1981), p. 15
29 Peter S. Ruckman, Differences in the King James Version (Pensacola,
Florida: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1983),
p. 14.
30 Peter S. Ruckman, The Alexandrian Cult, Part Four (Pensacola, Florida:
Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1980), p. 15.
31 Peter S. Ruckman, A Survey of the Authorized Version (Pensacola,
Florida: Bible Baptist Bookstore, revised edition 1983), p. 13
32 Peter S. Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence
(Palatka, Florida: Pensacola Bible Press, 1970), p. 118.
33 Ibid.
34 Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 124.
35 Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 127.
36 Ruckman, A Survey of the Authorized Version, p. 18.
37 Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 126.
38 Gary R. Hudson, Why I left Ruckmanism (Collingswood, New Jersey:
The Bible For Today, 1988). p 17.
39 Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 127.
40 Ibid. 41 Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship,
p. 336. 42 Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. 46.
43 Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. 73
-----------------------------------------------
17
44 Peter S. Ruckman, The Monarch of the Books! (Pensacola, Florida:
Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1980 ), p. 9.
45 Ruckman, The Monarch of the Books! p. 8
46 Ruckman, The Monarch of the Books! p. 9
47 Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 127.
48 Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 126.
49 Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, p. 336.
50 Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, p. 333.
51 Peter S. Ruckman, "Zero Hour Approaches," Bible Believers' Bulletin,
February 1989, p. 9.
52 Peter S. Ruckman, Why I believe the King James Version is the Word
of God (Pensacola, Florida: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988), p. 13.
53 Ibid.
54 Peter S. Ruckman The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship,
p. 334.
55 Ruckman, Bible Numerics, p. 15.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
58 Ruckman, A Survey of the Authorized Version, p. 16
59 Ruckman, Differences in the King James Version Editions.
60 Ruckman, Differences in the King James Version Editions, p. 5.
61 Ruckman, Differences in the King James Version Editions, p. 7
62 Ruckman, Differences in the King James Version Editions, p. 13.
63 Ruckman, Differences in the King James Version Editions, p. 14.
64 Ruckman, Differences in the King James Version Editions, p. 18.
65 Ruckman, Differences in the King James Version Editions, p. 18.
66 Ruckman, Differences in the King James Version Editions p. 19.
67 Ibid.
68 Dave Reese, Newsletter #10, in Gary R. Hudson, Why I Left Ruckmanism,
p. 32 69 Reese, Newsletter #6, in Hudson, Why I Left Ruckmanism, p. 31.
70 Ruckman says that the 1813 revision was done to "restore the originals,"
Differences in the King James Version Editions, p. 13.
71 Reese, Newsletter #7, in Hudson, Why I Left Ruckmanism, pp. 31-32.
72 Ruckman, Differences in the King James Version Editions, pp. 13-14.
73 Ruckman, Differences in the King James Version Editions, p. 18.
74 Ruckman, The Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, pp. 29-30.
75 Ruckman, Bible Numerics, p. 25.
76 Hudson, Why I Left Ruckmanism, p. 40.
-----------------------------------------------
18
The Demonic Origin of Ruckmanism
Dr. Robert L. Sumner, cult expert and editor of The Biblical Evangelist, has pointed out that "no fundamentalist before mi-1950 ever claimed inerrancy for a translation."1 I have a standing offer of one thousand dollars for anyone who can document any Baptist or Protestant scholar who held that the KJV translation was given by inspiration before 1950. No one has claimed this offer.
Why did this view come out after the fifties? The answer comes by realizing that it was in the early fifties that the Revised Standard Version, and other modern translations based on the corrupt text of Westcott and Hort, gained popularity. No serious challenge to the authority of the King James Bible existed prior to the fifties. But after the Revised Standard Version, a flood of translations based on the corrupted Westcott and Hort text has made serious inroads into the territory once claimed by the KJV alone.
The proliferation of Westcott-and-Hort-based translation since 1950 has produced a reaction. The most extreme part of that reaction is Ruckmanism. The more reasoned and scholarly part is exemplified by the Dean Burgon Society, which rejects the Westcott and Hort text, accepts the Textus Receptus and the KJV as a reliable translation of it, but does not claim inspiration for the KJV.
On the other hand, Ruckman tries to hide the fact that his position is new, that it did not exist prior to 1950. Ruckmanites in general follow Ruckman in quoting great Christian leaders of the past in support of their position, although these leaders actually were not Ruckmanites at all. For instance, Ruckman claims Billy Graham as a Ruckmanite. He quotes Billy Graham as saying, "Father, I cannot understand many thing about this book. I cannot come intellectually all the way, but I accept it BY FAITH to be the AUTHORITATIVE, INSPIRED WORD of the living God."2 Ruckman claims that Billy Graham was kneeling "on" a King James Bible when he said this.3 He strongly infers that Graham accepted a Ruckmanite position concerning the KJV at this time, an inference he repeats in another of his books when he says, "Even Billy Graham began with the King James Bible and he still preaches it when he wants and expects 'results'..."4 Of course, all Ruckman can do is infer that Billy Graham was at one time a Ruckmanite. He cannot give one shred of documentary proof that Billy Graham ever believed that the KJV is given by inspiration, contains advanced revelation, or any of the other tenets of Ruckmanism.
Using this same technique, Ruckman claims Lee Roberson, 5. W. B. Riley, Billy Sunday, and Charles Haddon Spurgeon6 (though, in another book he claims that Spurgeon preached from the RV in 1891 and was killed by God as a result the next year!7 This statement will seem ridiculous to anyone familiar with the long history of physical illness endured by Spurgeon. It is remarkable that he lived as long as he did).
It is a habit of Ruckmanites, we think learned from Ruckman himself, to claim great Christian leaders of the past without quoting them in context or citing any real proof that they held a Ruckmanite view concerning the inspiration of the KJV translation. Sometimes Ruckman goes so far that he can be documented as falsifying the facts. For instance, he claims that J. Frank Norris "never recommended the ASV a time in his life, although it was in print before he founded his seminary."8 Yet Robert L. Sumner has quoted Norris as saying, "The two oldest manuscripts, the mostly authoritative and reliable of the original Scriptures, are the Sinaiticus and Alexandrian...9 Sumner points out that this statement by Norris was made during a debate, stenographically recorded, so that Norris said "Alexandrian" rather than "vaticanus," in the heat of the debate. But surely this shows that Ruckman's claim that Norris was a Ruckmanite is false. We do not agree with Norris' statement that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the "most authoritative and reliable" manuscripts, but his statement proves him not to have been a Ruckmanite.
In other books, Ruckman claims Billy Sunday, Mordecai Ham and Sam Jones.10 Of course, none of these men can honestly be claimed, because none of them was a Ruckmanite, none of them believed that the KJV was given by inspiration, contained advanced revelation, was preserved etc.
Ruckman even goes so far, in his frantic search for people of another generation who held his position, that he actually claims Dr. John R. Rice's mother as a Ruckmanite.11 But the biggest mistake was in claiming Bob Jones' mother. He writes, "No intelligent person believes what Ruckman believes: you are quite in error...Bob Jone's mother believed it."12 This was a mistake, because Bob Jones' mother is still alive. She turned 100 last year, but is still quite capable of stating that she is not a Ruckmanite at the time of this writing. So, Ruckman's use of great figures of the past to bolster his position is dishonest. The people he names did not believe that the King James Version was given by inspiration, contained advanced revelation, was preserved, pickled, or smoked! The people he quotes and claims believed the Bible, but they did not believe the errors of Ruckmanism concerning that Bible.
No, prior to the 1950's, no one was a Ruckmanite, no one believed that the KJV translation was given through the agency of the Holy Spirit. This error of Ruckmanism came about as a result of the turbulence of the 1950's, in which the mutilated Westcott and Hort text was used by a variety of translators to produce inferior Bibles. This error of Ruckmanism is an extremist reaction; an attempt to thwart the flood of wrongly translated Scriptures. Ruckman may have been well meaning when he started, but he has gone so far that he actually dishonours and discredits the very KJV he is trying to uphold. Ruckman
-------------------------------------------
19
has become what the French call an "agent provocateur" (agent who provokes). This term is used by the French to describe a Communist infiltrator who is put into a place of importance as a secret agent and then makes the thing that he is defending look ridiculous by defending it in the extreme, or by stirring up other trouble.
Ruckman and those who follow his teachings are "agents provocateur." They have been brought in by the devil to defend the KJV so extremely that, in the end, they do the cause of the KJV more harm than good. The devil does not like the KJV because he knows it to be the most reliable translation of the Scriptures available today in the English language. The devil wants to discredit and destroy the witness of the KJV. The devil is using Ruckman and his followers to make a new generation of preachers, men who are not extremists, look askance at the KJV.
Ruckman's Out-of-Body Experience
We must not be unfair to Ruckman. We must only quote what he himself has said. We must not go too far in interpreting his statements. But, in examining carefully Ruckman's "testimony tape" we find strong statements to support the position that Ruckman was demonized, and the idea that he may even now be demonically led.
Using these testimony tapes as a source, we find how Satan recruited Ruckman as an agent provocateur, a troublemaker who will ultimately turn thousands away from the KJV.
Ruckman gives an experience in which his soul flew out of his body, and demons entered him. Keep in mind that these are Ruckman's own words on the subject:
One night in the hotel room I had the experience of nirvana, which the Zen call samadhi, the dislocation of the spirit from the body...and yet, looking at my moral life following that experience, and my desire at times to commit suicide, I realize I had produced a passive state that was an entrance for spirits. And the spirits that entered are not the spirits described in the Bible in speaking of the Holy Ghost and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Note first that Ruckman tells us his soul flew out of his body during this experience of samadhi. Note secondly that he tells us that this "passive state was an entrance for spirits." This hair-raising experience of samadhi made his mind so passive that he says it provided an opportunity for the entrance of "spirits." Note thirdly that he specifically tells us that the "spirits" that entered him were not the Holy Spirit or the spirit of Jesus. These are Ruckman's own words. We have commented on them at face value.
Ruckman's Admission of Being "Full of Demons"
In another place in his "testimony tape" Ruckman says that he came back from the war "uneasy, unsettled, full of demons..."14 So, Ruckman has plainly told us that he was "full of demons" prior to 1949. Furthermore, he gives us a series of experiences where voices talked to him, which I have expanded upon in Chapter 2. These voices and demons were never dealt with, according to Ruckman's own "testimony tape."
Ruckman's Admission that the Demons "Are" in Him
Careful attention should be given, we think, to this statement by Ruckman:
I realized I had produced a passive state, which was an entrance for spirits. And the spirits that entered are not the spirits described in the Bible in speaking of the Holy Ghost and of the Lord Jesus Christ (Author's emphasis).15
Ruckman is an extremely intelligent man, with a Ph.D. from Bob Jones University. It does not seem plausible that his use of the present tense ("are not") to describe the indwelling of demonic spirits could be a mistake of English. Added to this, is Ruckman's admission in 1976 that demons enter him every day. He actually said, "You can't get through a day without getting infested...(with) a number of demons." Then he states, "I'll tell you how I handle "em (demons)." So, as recently as 1976, Dr Ruckman said that demons entered him every day and he had to "handle 'em." This is a clear admission that Peter S. Ruckman is presently demonized. (See Appendix 1 of this book for a full treatment of this subject.)
---------------------------------------------
20
The Possibility that Ruckman is Unconverted
This brings us to the possibility that Ruckman was never scripturally born again. Ruckman himself says that when he told the man who led him in the sinner's prayer that he was saved, "I felt like I was lying."16 If it is true that Ruckman was lying and did not trust in Jesus, this would explain how he could still be demonized. Of course, on the other hand, even a born again Christian can be strongly deceived by the demonic.
In either event, the strong testimony of Ruckman's own tapes on this subject indicates him to be directly influenced by demons. This could explain such strange teachings as Ruckman's four plans of salvation.17
It is not necessary to know whether he is saved or lost for us to ascertain from his own words that he has been led astray by demons, and that Ruckmanism itself is a doctrine of demons.
Merrill Unger's Statements on the Demonic Origin
of False Doctrine
Dr. Merrill F. Unger, late professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, in his landmark book, Demons in the World Today, said this, "One of the most subtle roles of demons is the perverting of revealed truth...this is Satan's attempt to retain some degree of control over those who come to a saving knowledge of Christ. Doctrinal error obscures revelation and gives Satan and demonic forces a toehold."18
Unger goes on to say:
Since departures from the faith were called "doctrines of demons" by Paul (1 Timothy 4: 1-6), it stands to reason that all false religions are demon-inspired. Before pointing to demonism as the source of doctrinal error, the apostle had just summarized the essential verities of the Christian fait (1 Timothy 3: 16).19
Ruckmanism is a perversion of truth concerning the Scriptures. Therefore we can say that it fits
Unger's criteria when he states that the role of "demons is the perverting of revealed truth." As we shall show later in this book, the demonically induced error of Ruckmanism concerning the KJV does give "Satan and demonic forces a toehold" wherever the tenets of Ruckmanism are espoused. Farther on in this same landmark book, Unger goes on to say:
Demonism is the key to the plague of cultism. Christ-dishonoring cults that parade under the banner of Christianity issue from the activities of seducing spirits, producing doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4: 1,2) and so deceiving and dividing God's people (1 John 4: 1-6). False teachers and prophets are not even primarily to blame. Behind the human agent, who is visible, is the demon agent who is invisible. It is the invisible demon spirit who encourages the errors that produce disunity. Christians too often forget this fact and get their eyes off the real enemy. The results are seen in the animosities and ill-will that prevail among many Christians because they are shackled by doctrinal errors that set them off in some small sect and remove them from the pure stream of the historical biblical faith (Jude 3).20
In another of Unger's definitive books on the subject of demons, Biblical Demonology, he writes:
...(the Holy Spirit) is opposed, in His beneficent ministrations, by Satan "the spirit of error" (1John 4: 6), the arch-enemy of truth and the great deceiver, who, with his demon-helpers, is the source of all false inspiration. But since Satan is a mere creature, and, unlike the
Holy Spirit, neither infinite nor omnipresent, he requires the aid of an innumerable host of wicked, deluding spirits to carry on effectively his vast program of doctrinal corruption and deception. As the "Spirit of truth" inspires the genuine prophets and teachers of God (1 Cor.12: 3), so the "spirit of error, " and his spirit-satellites, energize the "many false prophets" who "are gone out into the world" (1 John 4: 1). Hence the Apostle John, like the Apostle Paul, traces error to its real source in satanic and demonic activity, rather than in the human agent.21
Thus, Ruckman himself is not the source of the errors, which he espouses and promotes. Demons are the source, and his errors can be traced to their "real source in satanic and demonic activity, rather than in the human agent."22
-----------------------------------------------
21
The primary object of the demonic is to attack the Bible. As Unger says:
It is not surprising, therefore, in the light of these facts, to find Satanic and demonic assault directed particularly and relentlessly against the Word of God, nor is it amazing to discover that attack against the citadel of revealed truth is, perhaps, the most conspicuous and potent role played by demons.23
It can easily be ascertained, by reading Ruckman's books that he attacks the Word of God, given by inspiration of God in Hebrew and Greek. Again and again, Ruckman makes statements like this: "The AV 1611 reading here, is superior to any Greek text" (Author's emphasis).24 This is a direct attack on the Word of God, given by inspiration in Greek. It attacks the Greek text while feigning allegiance to the Bible. It is actually an attack on God's Word, given by inspiration in Greek. So, Ruckmanism really attacks the Bible while pretending to defend it. Why did the Greek need to be corrected in the first place, since it was God's Word? Ruckman goes so far as to write a whole chapter titled "Correcting the Greek with the English" in The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. This is a direct assault, a demonic attack against the Word of God, given by inspiration in Greek.
Only yesterday I received a letter from a Ruckmanite pastor in the Midwest. This pastor has followed Ruckman's demonic reasoning. The pastor wrote in defence of "Easter" over "Passover" in Acts 12: 4 by saying, "To translate 'pascha' as 'Passover' literally would be a doctrinal heresy. The Lord God saw fit to alter and purify the Greek by the translation..."25
Of course this is a direct attack on the divinely inspired Greek text. It is an attack on the Word of God. The pastor says that the divinely inspired Word of God in the Greek text needed to be "purified" by the translation. This is heresy. This is an attack on the Bible as given by God in Greek. This is a doctrine of demons. The pastor, following Ruckman's reasoning, believes that the writer of Acts was led into "doctrinal heresy" by the Holy Spirit when he wrote down the word "pasha." This doctrinal heresy
had to be corrected 1600 years later by the KJV translators. What absolute, unadulterated perversion! It is a direct attack on the God-inspired Greek text.
I answered the pastor in this way:
Now, dealing specifically with your point of "Easter" in Acts 12: 4. Your view is impossible. You say "to translate 'pascha' as 'Passover' would be a doctrinal heresy. The Lord God saw fit to alter and purify the Greek by the translation of Acts 12: 4 as is." This is demonic foolishness at its worst. What you are saying is that the Holy Spirit led Luke to write down the wrong word in Greek in Acts 12: 4, so that for one thousand six hundred years people were led astray when they read the Greek word "Passover." (1) The Holy Spirit did not lead Luke to use the wrong Greek word. (2) Acts 12: 4 in the Greek text was not a doctrinal heresy until corrected by the King James translation 1600 years later. (3) The Holy Spirit did not commit any error at all in guiding Luke to write "pascha."
The passage simply tells us that Herod made up his mind after the Passover to bring Peter forth. It doesn't refer to his arrest of Peter, but to his decision. So, in general, it was after the Passover that this decision was made. You do not need to read something else into the passage to extrapolate a reason for your fantastic idea that the Holy Spirit had to inspire KJV translators to correct the Greek! Luke was not a "doctrinal heretic" had to inspire KJV translators to correct the Greek! Luke was not a "doctrinal heretic" but I am very much afraid that you are. You need to get out of Ruckmanism altogether.26
An Exegesis of 1 Timothy 4: 1
The Bible predicts, plainly and clearly, that a great deal of demonic activity will take place in regard to the perversion of Christian doctrine prior to the Second Coming of Christ and the end of the age. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, writes:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron...(1 Timothy 4: 1-2)
In examining these verses, we should note that Paul is telling us that "the Spirit speaketh expressly." This refers to the Holy Spirit, as He was inspiring the words of the apostle. John Gill states that "the author of this prophecy is the Spirit of God."27
Next, we are told that the Holy Spirit is speaking "expressly." That is, the Holy Spirit is making a special attempt at plainness, so that there will be no possibility of misinterpreting what is being said.
-----------------------------------------------
22
"It was not by mere hints, and symbols, and shadowy images of the future; it was in an open and plain manner - in so many words."28 The emphatic statement, from the Holy Spirit Himself, was meant to draw Timothy's attention as well as ours to the message about to be delivered. What the Holy Spirit was about to say is of extreme importance, so He speaks "expressly" to draw particular attention to the important subject at hand. The Greek word translated "expressly" is "rhetos," which means "distinctly."29 So, what the Holy Spirit is about to say is to be given quite distinctly and emphatically. Unger translates it, "distinctly asserts."30
The Spirit begins by indicating a certain time in history: "...in the latter times." This phrase refers to the end of this dispensation, as Merrill Unger declares:
The "latter times" are the closing days of the gospel dispensation, as the professing Church lapses more and more into the prophesied lukewarm Laodicean condition (Rev.3: 14 -22). Departing from the faith, neglecting and rejecting God's truth, the dupes of Satan will devote their attention to misleading spirits and pernicious doctrines instituted by demons.31
Theologian Henry Thiessen is in agreement with Unger when he lists 1Timothy 4: 1-3 with other passages describing "the conditions that are predicted as existing just prior to His return."32 In assigning the basic prophecy here to the end times, just prior to the Second Coming of Christ, Unger and Thiessen are in agreement with Lewis Sperry Chafer, who wrote, "A special departure from the faith is forecast for the
last days of the Church on the earth. It is recorded in 1 Timothy 4: 1-3."33
The specific activity spoken of in this prophecy is departure from the faith: "some shall depart from the faith." This means that they will depart from sound doctrine. The Greek word translated "depart" is "apostesontai," from which the English word "apostatize" is derived. So we are told that a great apostasy from sound doctrine will occur at the end of the church age. Clarke points out that this apostasy may come to a person who holds all the essentials or fundamentals of the Christian faith:
A man may hold all the truths of Christianity, and yet render them of none effect by holding other doctrines which counteract their influence; or he may apostatise by denying some essential doctrine, though he bring in nothing heterodox.34
We pause here to say that Ruckman, though holding the fundamentals of Christianity, has brought in another doctrine, which counteracts "their influence." In this way, Ruckmanism maintains the fundamentals of Christianity and yet apostatises by adding the false doctrine that the KJV is given by inspiration, is the preserved Word of God, and contains advanced revelation. These false teachings of Ruckmanism, when added to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, become apostasy because their addition opens the door to advanced revelation, future doctrinal deviations, and is an attack on the Word of God, given by inspiration in Greek and Hebrew. Ruckmanism is apostate precisely because it attacks the Word of God, given by God in Hebrew and Greek. Ruckmanism corrects the God-breathed words with a translation. This is apostasy.
The passage goes on to say that the end-time apostates will be characterized, not only by their departure from the faith, but also by "giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." Rather than listening to the Holy Spirit, the apostate is led astray by demonic spirits. Calvin rightly says that these spirits are similar to the "lying spirit in the mouth of false prophets to deceive (those) who deserve to be deceived (1 Kings 22: 21-23)...That is why John says, "Try the spirits whether they are of God."35
Unger points out the way in which false doctrine comes about: "The false teacher first departs from the truth, next he listens to and co-operates with 'deluding spirits.' This is how 'doctrines of demons' are born."36
1Timothy 4: 1 ends by saying that the end of the age will be characterized by the proliferation of "doctrines of devils." Lewis Sperry Chafer states that "the deviation from the revealed truth will, no doubt, be in manifold ways."37 Two specific "doctrines of devils" are given in this passage, but they are merely two illustrations of the many false doctrines, which are predicted for the end-times. Unger agrees that the two cases in the passage are illustrations of the many "doctrines of devils" at the end of time, when he says that doctrines of devils "appear in manifold perversions of pure Christianity...as spiritual monstrosities."38 To an unjaundiced eye Ruckmanism, with its insistence that the God-breathed Hebrew and Greek Bible must be corrected by an English translation, must indeed appear as a "perversion" and as a "spiritual monstrosity."
Finally, the passage tells us that the apostate teacher will speak "lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron." Two characteristics of the various apostasies of the end-times are that they are (1) lies and (2) hypocritical. As applied to Ruckmanism, the idea that the KJV is given by inspiration is indeed a lie. We think that Ruckman himself, because of his fine education and strong intellect, probably (at least in the beginning) knew perfectly well that what he was saying regarding the KJV as given by inspiration and being inerrant was untrue. We believe that Ruckman, at least in the beginning, was entirely hypocritical in maintaining a position he knew to be untenable. He may now, however, have become so demonically deluded that he believes his position to be true.
-------------------------------------------
23
The passage ends by telling us that the apostate teachers' conscience will be "seared with a hot iron." If Ruckman has become deluded to the point of believing his own fantastic teaching, it may be said of him that his own conscience has been cauterized to the point that he no longer feels convicted for propagating false doctrine.
Luther points out that the apostasy predicted in this passage is of a stubborn nature, which refuses to repent:
The nature of this departure (the apostasy predicted in 1Timothy 4: 1-2) from the faith is that it is a stubborn departure. More than this, there is a resistance to sound doctrine, just as heretics do...They strive and they battle so that the church is abused and destroyed as they set themselves up.39
This is an almost perfect description of those who adhere strongly to Ruckmanism. They are stubborn, they resist sound doctrine, they strive and they battle so that the church is abused and destroyed as they set themselves up. Luther has perfectly described the type of personality that finds Ruckmanism appealing. They make themselves out to be great teachers at the expense of all others. They divide churches and break fellowship with other fundamentalists. They fight and destroy over their pet doctrine that the King James Bibles was given by inspiration, is preserved, inerrant, and contains advanced revelation.
Here is the way the demonic deception of Ruckmanism works, as pointed out by Gary Hudson. He shows the four steps followed by those who are deceived into Ruckmanism:
Step #1: The "A.V. 1611" English is superior to the Westcott and Hort Greek.
Step #2: The "A.V. 1611" is superior to all Greek texts...
Step #3: The "A.V. 1611" English corrects the "errors" in any Greek text.
Step #4: The "A.V. 1611" has "advanced revelation."40
The preacher being sucked into Ruckmanism has become dissatisfied with modern translations. He begins to read Ruckmanite literature, and discovers that the Westcott and Hort Greek text is mutilated and is not as reliable as the King James Bible. But instead of getting sound literature, such as that published by the Dean Burgon Society, which shows that the Greek text behind the King James Bible is superior to the mutilated text of Westcott and Hort, the Ruckmanite literature leads the pastor slowly away from Greek and Hebrew altogether into the world of the A.V. 1611 English Bible only. Subtly, then, the demonic teaching of Ruckmanism begins with a truth: the KJV text is superior to other, modern translations. But the Ruckmanite literature does not explain he reason for this, namely that the King James Bible is based on superior Hebrew and Greek texts. Instead, the Ruckmanite literature leads the preacher to phase 2, where he begins to think that the KJV is superior to any Greek text. This appeals especially to pastors who have never studied the Greek or Hebrew. It is appealing because it does not require mental effort or deeper study to say that the 1611 is superior to any Greek text.
Now the pastor is trapped in the deception of Ruckmanism. He will now agree that the A.V.1611 corrects the errors in any Greek text, including the Greek text from which the KJV was translated. As incredible as it seems, the preacher's mind is now so clouded by this doctrine of demons that he will actually defend this almost unbelievable false doctrine. Once the devil has led the preacher to say that the KJV was given by inspiration, rather than the Greek and Hebrew, the trap has been sprung, and the preacher has been caught in the heresy of Ruckmanism, a doctrine of devils. When the preacher looks only to the King James English translation, rather than the Greek and Hebrew from which it came (or in preference to them), then the preacher is forced to defend the KJV as infallible, preserved, inerrant, an exact equivalent of the Greek and Hebrew, and other things which are not true of the KJV or any other translation.
The final point of this doctrine of demons is step 4, "The A.V.1611 has advanced revelation." All of the deceptions by the demonic are designed to lead to this final position, for it is here that heresy takes full bloom. Here the Ruckmanite stands shoulder to shoulder with the Mohammedans and the Mormon. The Ruckmanite now says that God has added to His revelation. The Ruckmanite now must say this. The first three steps in this doctrine of demons lead him inexorably and inescapably in to this damnable heresy. Here is why: when the preacher finally sees (too late, he's trapped) that the KJV translation differs from the Greek and Hebrew that it is translated from in a few places he must now defend the English over the Hebrew and Greek. You see, the preacher has to say that the KJV is right and the Greek is wrong. Therefore, the preacher must now affirm that the KJV contains advanced revelation. There is no other possible place to wind up once the door has been opened to this doctrine of demons.
That is why partial Ruckmanism is so dangerous. By opening the door to Ruckmanism, the way is paved for the person to be sucked to the bottom of this filthy, demonic doctrine. When a good man says that the KJV is preserved or errorless, he tempts God, and opens the door to defending everything in the KJV. If the KJV has no errors, it must not be a human work. It must be given by inspiration. Therefore, it must have advanced revelation.
Every drug addict can tell you about demonic deception by experience. The demons tell them to take just a little cocaine, just a little heroin, just a little opium. The first few "hits" of the drug are pleasant. They don't feel "hooked." But suddenly, after a number of such pleasant drug experiences, they are hooked and there is no way out. This "hooking" is so sudden, so unexpected, that hundreds of thousands of young people are trapped by drugs every year who never expected to be trapped. In the same way, hundreds of our fundamental preachers have been trapped in the heresy of Ruckmanism, and must now defend a false doctrine which has so clouded their minds that their ministries suffer and thousands are deceived.
Ruckman himself was trapped through this process, we are convinced. He began by disliking the modern translations, and wound up defending the horrible false doctrine of advanced revelation. Now he rages into the night like a poor, lost drug addict. He is trapped with no way to escape. Such will be the fate of all who follow his perverted teaching.
Notes
1 Robert L. Sumner, "Was J. Frank Norris a Member of the Alexandrian Cult?" in The Biblical Evangelist, January 1, 1989, p. 11.
2 Peter S. Ruckman, Why I Believe the King James Version is the Word of God (Pensacola, Florida: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988), p. 31.
3 Ibid.
4 Peter S. Ruckman, The Monarch of the Books! (Pensacola, Florida: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2nd printing, 1980),p. 11.
5 Ruckman, The Monarch of the Books!, p. 24.
6 Peter S. Ruckman, The Alexandrian Cult, Part Five (Pensacola Florida: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1980), p.11.
7 Peter S. Ruckman, The Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight (Pensacola, Florida: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1981), p. 2.
8 Ruckman, The Alexandrian Cult, Part Five, p. 11.
9 Sumner, "Was J. Frank Norris...," p. 11
10 Peter S. Ruckman, Problem Texts ( Pensacola, Florida: Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980), p. 267.
11 Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. 59.
12 Ruckman, The Alexandrian Cult, Part Six (Pensacola, Florida: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1981), p. 30.
13 Peter S. Ruckman, Dr. Ruckman's Testimony (Pensacola, Florida: Bible Baptist Bookstore, n.d.), tape 1.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ruckman, Dr. Ruckman's Testimony, tape 2.
17 Curtis Hutson, "Ruckman's Various Plans of Salvation and Other Rabid Ramblings," Sword of the Lord, February 3, 1989, pp. 1, 18-22.
18 Merrill F. Unger, Demons in the World Today (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971), pp. 147-148.
19 Unger, Demons in the World Today, p. 153.
20 Unger, Demons in the World Today, pp. 171-172.
21 Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press, 1952, 5th edition 1963), p. 166.
22 Ibid.
23 Unger, Biblical Demonology, p. 165.
24 Peter S. Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence (Palatka, Florida: Pensacola Bible Press, 1970), p. 118.
25 Personal correspondence of Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr., March 7, 1989.
26 Personal correspondence of Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr., March 9, 1989.
27 John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, 2 vols. (London: William Hill Collingridge, 1853), vol. 2. p. 605.
28 Albert Barnes, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon, vol 24 in Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 9th printing 1971), p. 158.
29 James Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek New Testament with their Renderings in the King James Version, in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, first edition 1894, 44th printing 1986), p. 85.
30 Unger, Demons in the World Today, p. 154.
31 Unger, Biblical Demonology, pp. 167-168.
32 Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., first edition 1949, 15th printing 1974), p. 474.
33 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas, Texas: Dallas Seminary Press, first edition 1947, 5th printing 1957), vol. 2, p. 117.
34 Adam Clarke, The Epistles and Revelation, vol. 6 of The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: The Text in the Authorized Translation: with a Commentary and Critical Notes (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), p. 342.
35 John Calvin, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, trans. T. A. Smail, in Calvin's Commentaries (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), p. 237.
36 Unger, Demons in the World Today, p. 155.
37 Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, p. 118.
38 Unger, Demons in the World Today, p. 155.
39 Martin Luther, Commentaries on 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Corinthians 15, Lectures on 1 Timothy, vol. 28 on Luther's Works, ed. Hilton C. Oswald (St. Louis: Condordia Publishing House, 1973), p. 308.
40 Gary R. Hudson, Why I Left Ruckmanism (Collingswood, New Jersey: The Bible For Today, 1988), pp. 13-16.
----------------------------------------------------
26
CHAPTER 4
The King James Bible is the finest translation in the English language. We say this for three reasons. First, the KJV is superior because it has superior text. The Masoretic Text in Hebrew and Textus Receptus in Greek are far superior to the mutilated Westcott and Hort text used in the modern translations. Dean Burgon, Edward Hills, and other scholars have shown that the Hebrew and Greek texts from which the King James is translated are better than the Hebrew and Greek texts used today, because these modern texts are based on mutilations from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, and other fragments which, though older, are less reliable than the ones used by the KJV translators. Secondly, the KJV is superior because it had superior translators. The men who translated the King James Version were some of the greatest Biblical linguists that the world has ever known. Their knowledge far surpassed, in the main, the linguistic knowledge of the translators of the modern versions. Coupled with this is the fact that the King James translators knew English backwards and forwards. Many of the modern translators have a poor knowledge of English, particularly English style. For this reason many passages in the NASV, for instance, have been labelled "wooden" because the English style is poor. Many of the men who translated the NASV had a poor knowledge of English, though they may have had a good knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. Thirdly, the King James Version is superior because they used a superior translating technique. They did not use "dynamic equivalence" as the NIV, the Living Bible, and other modern translations do. Wherever possible the King James translators gave the literal meaning.
Very few words are poorly translated in the KJV. "Easter," "churches," "synagogues," and some of the italics, and a few other inconsistencies are about all we can find poorly translated in the KJV. This puts the Authorized Version miles ahead of any of the modern translations. Dr. D.A.Waite, president of the Dean Burgon Society, has found over 3300 places where the NIV is translated incorrectly, but the KJV is right.1
It is perfectly proper, in a colloquial manner, to call the King James Version the Word of God. This is not to say that the KJV is "breathed out" by God. When we say that the King James is the Word of God, we are not saying that it is given by inspiration, but rather that it is an accurate translation in English. This is true in thousands of verses, with only a minute number of human errors, none of which affect Christian doctrine.
When we call the King James Version "the Word of God in English," this statement actually corrects Ruckmanism, if understood properly. Ruckman teaches that the KJV is given by inspiration, coming down from heaven so to speak, God giving the very words in English. However, the very words were given by God only in Hebrew and Greek, not in English. Translating is a strictly human process. The English word "translate" comes from "translatus" which means "a carrying over from one language to another." Thus, the KJV accurately carries over the words from Greek and Hebrew into English, with only a minute number of human errors, none of which affect doctrine, or even the main sense of the passage in which they appear. Because of the high degree of accuracy of the KJV, higher than any other translation in English a thousand times over, it is perfectly proper, in nontechnical language, to call the KJV "the Word of God."
In technical language, the term should be reserved for the Greek and Hebrew, and "translation" should be used to describe the KJV. But this usage should be reserved only for technical scholarly papers. Since the KJV is so highly accurate in "carrying over" the words of the Greek and Hebrew into English, we can honestly call the KJV "the Word of God."
Peter S. Ruckman, on the other hand, holds that we cannot call the KJV "the Word of God" unless this translation is completely without error or weakness. But Ruckman has made up the rules. Why can't we simply say that the KJV is the Word of God everywhere that it is translated correctly, which is virtually every word, with only a handful of exceptions? Why does the translation have to be completely errorless before we can say that all of the places that are translated correctly are the Word of God?
In fact, we may be so bold as to say that verses in the NASV, NIV, or even the RSV, which are translated correctly are the Word of God. Any verse correctly translated from an undistorted Greek text is the Word of God in the nontechnical sense. The problem that we have with these modern translations is that so many verses are mistranslated, and so many passages are based on a bad text that it becomes virtually impossible for us to call the entire book the Word of God in any meaningful sense.
On the other hand, the number of weaknesses in the KJV is so small (only a handful out of countless thousands of verses) that it is proper to call the KJV "the Word of God in English." No preacher should be afraid to use this term when holding up a King James Bible.
Ruckman distributes a book called Dear Dr. Ruckman: Where Is Your Bible? A written Dispute with Dr. John R. Rice.2 It is a series of letters by a man named Herbert F. Evans and answers by Dr. Rice. We could easily make a similar little booklet titled, "Dear Dr. Ruckman: Where Is Your Bible?" For Ruckman himself has no original copies, and can find no original copies of the King James Version. The manuscripts that were made by the translators and delivered to the printers in 1611 no longer exist. They have been destroyed or lost. So, Dr. Ruckman has no original Bible, no basis to say that the
--------------------------------------------
27
KJV is perfect. Yet, even though Ruckman has no original manuscripts, and the KJV has gone through many revisions with changes in spelling and even in words, Ruckman still holds up his KJV and says, "This is the Word of God." He does this without knowing where the originals are and in spite of the fact that he says the KJV has gone through at least seven revisions, where spelling, punctuation, and even words were changed.
If Ruckman can hold up a KJV which has gone through so many changes and for which there are no originals and call it "the Word of God," why shouldn't the rest of us be able to do this? I believe that God breathed every word of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These originals were lost, but so were Ruckman's KJV originals, so we come out in the same place exactly! The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts have come down to us in the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus. The KJV "carries over" the words of the Hebrew and Greek accurately into English with only a handful of errors in doctrinally unimportant places. I can hold up the King James Bible and say, "This is the Word of God in English," and do this honestly in everyday nontechnical language.
Now Ruckman insists that we must not call the King James the Word of God unless we use the words "without error." But here, Ruckman has made up the rules. Any passage that is correctly translated from reliable manuscripts is the Word of God. The idea that the entire translation must not have a single error or mistranslation before we can call it the Word of God is a rule made up by Ruckman himself and those who follow his teaching. But we have shown that this is a rule unnecessary for sensible, deep-thinking people, people who have gone beyond a Sunday School mentality and simplistic thinking on these questions.
Ruckman's First Deception
Ruckmanism rests upon three main deceptions. The first of these deceptions was given by Ruckman, in his own words:
What benefit could the devil have in your life by convincing you the King James Bible is the Word of God from cover to cover without proven error? Tell me what benefit the devil would receive from that.3
We can say that this is a deception because the devil does obtain benefit from Ruckman saying that the KJV has no "proven error." I will now give the benefits that the devil does get if someone says that the KJV is "without proven error."
The first benefit the devil receives by saying that the KJV is "without proven error" is that it leads to the need to defend poorly translated words, such as "Easter" for "Passover" and "churches for "temples." It leads to advanced revelation, because the person who says that the KJV is "without proven error" must defend these poor translations. As one Ruckmanite pastor wrote me, "The AV translation of 'Easter' is an advanced revelation above the Greek and/or Hebrew."4 The pastor is driven to this absurd
and heretical position of claiming advanced revelation for the KJV because he has swallowed Ruckman's idea that the KJV is "without proven error."
Ruckman himself is driven to an insane defence of both "he" and "she" as these two words appeared in different editions of the KJV in Ruth 3: 15. Ruckman defends both "he" and "she" as correct, God-breathed truth! Listen to him defend both words as given by inspiration:
Our problem text today is from Ruth Chapter 3. This is one of the "last resorts" used by the Cult to prove a "contradiction" in the AV. The thinking behind this is that some editions of the AV had "SHE went into the city" while others said "HE went into the city"...Now the fact is, they BOTH "went into the city." Observe Ruth 3: 16 - Ruth's mother-in-law, Naomi, is INTHE CITY. Observe Ruth 4: 1 - Boaz had to go into the city to get to "the gate." EITHER READING WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TRUTH OF GOD WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.5
Fundamentalists have always held that God picked certain words to reveal His truth. But Ruckmanites, in order to defend their absurd view that the KJV was given by inspiration, must give up the cherished view of fundamentalists that God picked certain words and gave them in the Bible. Now, as the last quote defending "he" and "she" proves, Ruckmanism tells us that the words themselves were not God-breathed, but that various words can be given. In other words, Ruckmanism teaches that there is no sure Word. In fact, a future edition of the KJV may have yet another word, perhaps "they.": By Ruckman's theory all three words, "he," "she," and "they," would be given by God, so we would have no idea who went to the city! The idea that God picked certain words in giving the Bible is destroyed by Ruckmanism. This is a very definite benefit to the devil, who has always attacked the Word of God.
Notice that the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness and said, "If thou be the Son of God, command these stones to be made bread" (Matthew 4: 3). And Jesus answered by saying, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mat- -thew 4: 4). Yes, Jesus said that "every word in the Bible proceeded "out of the mouth of God."
-----------------------------------------------
28
Ruckman attacks that by saying that other words can proceed out of God's mouth later in a advanced revelation, words which contradict the original words, words which Jesus never saw. Thus, Ruckmanism attacks the divinely inspired Greek and Hebrew Bible. Ruckmanism attacks the Bible that Jesus read, adds words to it, claims it to be unreliable, in need of correction from an English translation, made one thousand six hundred years after Jesus lived, and which was never read by Jesus Himself.
The second benefit the devil receives is by moving those who formerly held to the need for a literal translation into a position of defending dynamic equivalence (a position formerly held only by the neo-orthodox and liberals). Now, fundamentalists who hold to some or all of the tenets of Ruckmanism are forced to hold a dynamic equivalent translation rather than a literal translation for such words as "Easter."
Knowing that the Greek word "pascha" cannot literally be translated as "Easter," these Ruckmanites must adopt a dynamic equivalent theory to maintain their view that the KJV is "without error." The dynamic equivalent theory is exactly what makes the NIV a weak translation. This theory says that a translation does not have to carry over the words of the original, but rather should carry over the thoughts or ideas. In the end, the Ruckmanite gives up the fundamentalist position that the Greek and Hebrew words should be translated literally and adopts the liberal view that the "ideas" and "thoughts" are all that count, not the words. Thus, the devil has received the benefit of bringing Ruckmanites out of fundamentalism into liberalism on this matter of not taking the Hebrew and Greek Bible words seriously.
When you say that "Easter" is the dynamic equivalent, or that it carries the right thought for "pascha," you have adopted the liberals' idea that it is the "thoughts" rather than the words that are important. You have adopted a liberal view of the Bible without knowing it! The same is true of "churches" and "temples." If you say that "churches" is a close enough translation of "hieron," or if you say that it conveys the "idea," you have adopted a liberal view of the Bible. You are saying that the "ideas" and not the "words" are what is important. I have fought this type of liberalism for years. It is neo-orthodoxy; if is liberalism; it is heresy. The word "pascha" must be translated "Passover." No dynamic equivalent or thought form can twist the meaning to "Easter." Liberalism has come in through the back door if you accept dynamic equivalence or thought forms. These words have a definite meaning, and must be translated literally. "Pascha" means "Passover." "Hieron" means "temples." Fundamentalists must not accept liberal dynamic equivalent thought forms, but must stick to hard, literal translations of the God-given Hebrew and Greek words.
Thus, the second benefit the devil gets from claiming that the KJV is "without error" is that it opens the door to a liberal view of the Bible. Now this is exactly what happened to our first mother. The Scripture tells us that the devil tempted her, asking, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" (Genesis 3: 1). Our first mother answered, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" (Genesis 3: 2-3). Notice that Eve added the words "neither shall ye touch it." We find this by reading what God actually said in Genesis 2: 17. God simply said, "Thou shalt not eat of it." Eve added the words, "neither sha