Believers who love the Lord and His Word have often, and correctly, rejected the modern Bible versions, (source being Westcott and Hort), as being false versions, flawed and deceptive. In a valiant attempt to defend the King James Version of the Bible, some have wandered too far to the right - and have fallen over the cliff of another error. They have departed into the deep water of RUCKMANISM in its various degrees. Have you?
Despatch whole-heartedly endorses the "King James Only" stand in the debate about new versions. However, this does not mean that Ruckmanism and "King James Only" are synonymous. We have been surprised to see that this has often become the case, when ever we read the various discussions on Internet about the KJV and new versions. We believe equally whole-heartedly that Ruckmanism is as destructive to God's Word as the New Age Bible Versions are!
Despatch has dealt with this issue before, but we sense that we need to do so again, as believers' understanding of what we have in the KJV is of immense importance. The KJV is true to the original manuscripts in a way that no modern version comes anywhere near matching. The KJV is trust-worthy, a utterly reliable English version of the Greek and Hebrew, let us be sure of that before we start delving further.
WHAT IS RUCKMANISM?
You might say, "I haven't got that, it sounds like a disease!" There are various degrees of this however, and the reader may well have rushed from the left to the right with misguided zeal. Without ever having heard of Ruckmanism. The rot has spread through a number of magazines and ministries, which are otherwise sound. The trouble is that people have valued the KJV Bible so very much, and so they should, that they are in danger of going too far, and accepting the fake revival of Ruckmanism. This is not a step forward however, it is a retrograde step. The man behind the extreme is Peter Ruckman, who has led many a noble Bible scholar down the garden path.
Texe Marrs has followed the Ruckman errors! Yet, he has done so much for the Christians in our day, and is a fine Christian. Marrs is an expert without match in the area of investigation into the New World Order, but he is not perhaps as expert in Scriptural matters. We owe him a great debt for his work and courage in his investigative ministry. The material presented here has been gleaned from the work of Dr. R.L Hymers, Jr., M.Div., D.Min., Th.D. I will divide the discussion into seven sections, as follows:
.2......What is Biblical
inspiration according to Ruckman,
................and how does he
pervert the concept of "inspiration"?
.3.....What is Biblical
"preservation", and how does Ruckmanism pervert
................the concept of preservation
by his "doctrine of preservation"?
.4.....What
is Biblical "preservation" and how does Ruckman pervert this?
5......Is
Ruckmanism a Last Days' fake revival?
.6.....Are YOU being
drawn, bit-by-bit, into yet another
..............."doctrine of demons"
(1 Timothy 4:1-6).
Simply put this is Ruckmanism, remember, these concepts are WRONG:
Now the average reader may wonder what this has to do with them. It has a lot to do with all of us, for many today are slipping into a wrong idea of what the KJV actually is. In fact, I myself had not had this understanding of the KJV and "inspiration" firmly settled in my own mind, until I almost overbalanced into the errors we are considering here! Be patience, reader, and ask the Lord to help you grasp these points clearly, the Ruckman deception has subtly infiltrated a lot of fundamental material.
Ruckman does not teach that copies of the original manuscripts are simply copies only. He does NOT teach that these copies can be called the "Word of God" because they are faithful to the original manuscripts, on the contrary, he teaches that the KJV is "inspired" by God in a unique, spiritual sense. He does NOT believe that the translators of the KJV were "human beings doing human work". He believes that there was something uniquely supernatural about the very act of their translating. Even more so than the men who wrote the original manuscripts.
Here is an example from Ruckman's "The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship":
"The word 'scripture' was defined in the context (11 Tim.3:16) 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....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...."
The major thought we have here is that "all Scripture" in 11 Tim.3:16 refers to every copy of the Scriptures ever made rather than to the original autographs. There is no solid Biblical proof that we can do this, however. And it becomes a very damaging thing to do, when the end of the matter is reached, as we will find out.
The perversion in this error comes because the copies into other
languages, although faithful to the originals, may contain some differences,
and if these differences are utterly correct (they are "inspired"?), then
the original autographs are placed in a position of being fallible, they
have made mistakes, which the copies have picked up and "corrected". Is
this so? No, never!
3. Is the KJV a "version" only? (back ...3)
Yes, it is a translation, a "version". Does that make it unreliable? No. Does this make it less than the Word of God? No. Why? Because it is faithful to the originals, not because it was a special revelation from God in itself. If Bible students, and I hope and pray you are all serious students of the Word, are to proceed with trust in the Scriptures they must understand the extremism of the Ruckman position. Here is a quote from R.L. Hymers Jr.:
"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 of 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." (P.16, "The Ruckman Conspiracy").
"The King James Bible is the finest translation in the English language. We say this for three reasons:
.....(a) The KJV
is superior because it has a superior text. the Masoretic text in Hebrew
and the 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.
.....(b) 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 mImages the
linguistic knowledge 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....
.....(c) 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." (They were faithful to the meaning of God's
inspired Word).
What do we mean by "translation"? The English word "translate"
comes from "translatus", which means "carrying over from one language to
another." God gave the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, and the KJV "carries
over" into our language of English the Word of God. Thus it can be accurately
termed the Word of God. NOT because the KJV came down from heaven, as Ruckman
teaches, in "advanced revelation". The KJV is the Word of God in English.
We should never be afraid to call the KJV the Word of God, as long we have
a clear understanding of what is meant by this, when we refer to this magnificent
version.
BUT, THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS??
Ruckmanites complain that if we do not have the original manuscripts, how can we say we have the Word of God if what we have is only a version. Now this is really bizarre 'logic', because they themselves do not have the original manuscripts of the KJV! Ruckman has no original manuscripts, and the KJV has gone through at least seven revisions, with spelling and punctuation and some word changes. Just a moment, do not panic here, let's get a balance. William Tyndale and John Rogers gave their very lives at the fiery stake as martyrs for their Spirit-led translation of the Authorized King James Bible. Tyndale translated almost half of the great work. It was given with such devotion to the inspired text, that the threat of death hung over every word, the KJV is bathed in the blood of the martyrs!
Self-appointed experts today have denigrated the very glorious manuscripts that these saints used to compile the Word in English. The KJV translators did their work for the common man, who did not know Greek and Hebrew, that they might have the privilege of reading the Bible for themselves. These new 'experts' have cited "older and more reliable manuscripts", which it seems are mere trash in comparison to the manuscripts which Tyndale and Rogers so painstakingly, and faithful copied into English. These "more reliable manuscripts" were "discovered" in the Convent of St. Catherine, they were found in a waste-paper basket! Yet, they have been used to cause Christendom to discard the Truth of God's Word. Here is what John Burgon has to say about the Authorized Bible's manuscripts:
It is certainly correct to assert that God keeps His Word through the ages, that the originals were given by inspiration, and that God has preserved His word. The words of Psalm 12:6-7 are often quoted by those who have fallen into the Ruckman trap, but there is a serious perversion in what Ruckman means by "preservation". Here is Psalm 12:6-7:
(A) When God preserves His Word, He does it by making special, supernatural changes in His Word when it is carried into another language.
As we have already seen the KJV is a VERSION. It is the most accurate version by far, but it does not match perfectly the originals in every place. Ruckman knew this to be a fact. Now to Imagestain an absolute, perfect inerrancy for the KJV translation, one must eventually come up with a reason for this. Either the KJV is a version, and the originals were infallible in every degree, or the KJV must be better than the originals, because the KJV is slightly different. And so we get the perversion of "preservation" as in (A). To be a Ruckmanite one claims "additional content" and "advanced revelation" in regard to the translation we now know as the KJV. A statement from a former follower of Peter Ruckman, the man who started all these extremes, is quoted here. From Gary Hudson, who wrote the book "Why I Left Ruckmanism":
Here we must pause and reflect on what we have discussed. As groups or individuals, who love and honour the Word of God as we have it today, the King James Bible, we must take great care. We can end up dishonouring and denying the Word of God, when we started out to defend the Word of God. We have a number of "it does not compute" areas when we dogmatically assert that:
The KJV IN ENGLISH is God's Preserved Word and ALSO insist on its absolute inerrancy as an ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Since the KJV does not agree perfectly (very small translations which could have been better) with the original manuscripts, then one must end up with Ruckmanism, if we adopt the above line. Why? Now here is where we must exert logic, it is impossible to say that every word of the English KJV is inerrant and then call that preserved, without believing in ADDITIONAL REVELATION in English! The Ruckman heresy is "additional revelation." The KJV is the most reliable English text because it is based on the right manuscripts and is true to them, NOT because it is inerrant ENGLISH, and its scholars were inerrant translators. The idea that the KJV is "advanced revelation" in English is cult-mentality! To believe that the KJV has knowledge from God which could not be found in the Hebrew and Greek is disastrous! It is the same lie that Satan tempted Eve with, "hath God said?" Eve had "advanced revelation" when she added "neither shall ye touch it" (Gen.3:3) to what God said in His original statement (Gen.2:17). This opens the door into more and more temptations of Satan - and we are not smart enough, we humans, to figure out before hand where we are being led in this heresy of Ruckmanism!
Satan always has more to come on his agenda through false doctrine.
5. Is Ruckmanism a Last Days' fake revival? (back....5.)
Yes, it would appear so! There are very many more apostasies of Peter Ruckman, which we will not deal with here. His "advanced revelation" is similar to the altered Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses, in that the KJV is elevated above the originals, and made to ADD TO THE WORD OF GOD in the Hebrew and Greek! This is a serious business, believers. Consider this statement from Peter Ruckman:
If Christians over-balance in defence of the KJV, they can actually come to deny the Word of God delivered to the world in Hebrew and Greek! Be warned! In an article in the March 1989 Bible Believer's Bulletin, an article by Ruckman appeared (Hymer cited this in his book). The ridiculous extremes are shown, which are a part of what seems to be a revival of belief in God's Word - at first glance. Ruckman wrote in the above article of the "advanced revelation" in the rearranging of the books of the Bible in the KJV. He claims that the KJV's placement of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job and Psalms after 11 Chronicles, instead of ending the O.T. canon with 11 Chronicles as the Hebrew Bible does, has startling significance in view of God's plan of eschatology. Ruckman shows this amazingly inept teaching in this way:
The present period of the Church Age is being bombarded by spiritual evil, and doctrines from the enemy are like a blitz! Who would have believed that the exciting, stimulating "new" doctrines in the churches back in the eighties, would lead into the New Age selfisms, visualisations, and the existentialist heresies the churches are swimming in today. The fake Ruckman-style revival, which seems to elevate the Bible, could lead into something very nasty up ahead. A book on prophecy by a well-known Christian leader, not a Pentecostal but a man who opposes the apostasies of these days, has "advanced revelation" virtually as its theme. He has used the numbering of the Psalms as supposed prophecy, lining up the numbers and making them correspond with the number of our years in the twentieth century. He is attributing divine revelation to the 1611 numbering, and has made prophecy out of them! None of it is turning out to be true of the years he has aligning with the Psalm numbers, naturally enough. Yet, it must be damaging to his ministry. May we all learn caution and "moderation" in our handling of God's Holy word.
(Study material, "The Ruckman Conspiracy",
by Dr.R.L.Hymers, Jr.M.Div.,D.Min.,Th.D. Pub. The Bible for Today.
NJ.USA).