KJV ... again verified...
Email Queries & Answers
Discussion Extract from Despatch Magazine Vol. 9:1
by W.B. Howard ...Editor of Despatch
Also an article by David Cloud...Editor of O'Timothy Magazine, USA

Subject: Question Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997
From: "garfie" <garfie@healey.com.au>
To: <despatch@mail.cth.com.au>

I only have one Question to ask. How can you be so sure that The Bible Today is what it was when it was Given to Man after the thousands of years of Corruption that have proven to be inherent in the Organised Catholic Faith. We already Know that the Bible was re written by the order of King James and many things were slightly changed and again with the newer versions where words have been changed again ( Good News Bible) where do you get Your true meaning ? Can you read Hebrew? as that is the only way one can read the true word of the Lord before it has been changed and Twisted into the English Language.

My Point is The Bible was Written By man Possibly under the Lords instruction But Man has Changed it. Where is the real truth? Garfie

Subject: Re: Question
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997
From: <despatch@mail.cth.com.au> Organization: Christian Resource Centre
To: garfie <garfie@healey.com.au>

Dear Garfie,
Sorry to take so long in answering - we have a lot of work in our resource centre. Anyway, the question was a good one, which needs to be addressed. I will possibly use your question and the answer in the next Despatch magazine, if I can do a reasonable job on it of course. The same thought must have concerned others, the whole KJV versus New Versions has opened up many areas, it is a good thing too.

God HAS promised to preserve His Word, and he has done so! The Authorised KJV has been translated from the correct documents, the newer versions have not! (I will explain in depth as we go along). The Authorised version is not "twisted" into English, it has been translated by Godly men of the highest calibre, who lost their lives in many cases to give the ordinary person, who reads English, a Bible they can study themselves. The slight translation difference between the KJV and the originals is very small, and is of no consequence at all.

How do we know that this is so? Because the original "autographs", given by direct inspiration of God through the Holy Spirit, were faithfully copied by Godly men down the centuries, in the original languages. The Catholic "Bible" has added books, which were not part of the Canon of Scripture of the early church, and the Jerusalem Bible is a flawed, altered version.

How do I know that the KJV is the right Bible, if I cannot read Greek or Hebrew? Church history on the way we received our present KJV, and the source documents. Also the matter of Biblical numerics.... internet address for you... http://www.theomatics.com/ . I may not read Hebrew unaided, but I have Hebrew and Greek Lexicons, aids like Strong's concordance, study Bibles which show me the meanings etc. At any rate, the quality of the translation in the KJV is so satisfactory, this I have found by careful study, although I am just a person with a heart for God and His Word, not a great expounder of the Biblical texts, that I can utterly rely on it alone. For this God has raised up other men and women, I am not of their stature in any way! This is why the men of 1611 translated the Bible into English, for people like you and me to have the Scriptures in their own homes, beside their beds, to read for themselves. Where is the real Truth, you ask? In the Authorised version, the KJV. Make no mistake, God has preserved His Word! Now if I go from one language to another, there are bound to be some small ways that the languages differ. Alexander's Greek was a much fuller language than ours, richer and more complicated. The Hebrew of the Old Testament was quite ancient, words must be found to express the meaning to other people who are removed by, not only ethnic difference, but by time! NO doctrinal alteration appears in the KJV from the original manuscripts, at all, in no way! This is confirmed by today's scholars, who have the faithfully copied documents from the original autographs. Perhaps I can help here by going into the history of the KJV. I will do this because I want you to be settled in your mind that you hold the Word of God in your hand, when you take up an Authorised, 1611, version. Don't be afraid to trust it with confidence.

Before I go on to the history, let me make this comment. The Bible has been PRESERVED in the KJV, but not preserved in the way people like Peter Ruckman make out. God does not ADD certain words to the original texts in order to preserve it from one language to another. God did not create something newer and better than the originals, when He had the Bible translated in 1611. If this were true (it is not) then for centuries (we are made to believe), right from the earliest times, mankind did not have a perfect Word, in the original languages! But they did, the KJV is a version in English, not twisted, not flawed, just translated into another tongue. Can you see what I mean here? HISTORY OF KJV. JESUS CHRIST believed in preservation of the Scriptures. From the great theologian Dr, John Owen in the "Divine Original of the Scriptures" states: "Our Lord evidently believed that the Old Testament had been thus preserved. There are two passages especially which clearly indicate this. The first is Matt.5:18...and the second is Luke 16:17. Here Jesus attributes greater stability to the text of the Old Testament than to the heavens and the earth...."

From the same scholar: "Christ also taught that the same divine providence which had preserved the Old Testament would preserve the New Testament, too. In the concluding verses of the Gospel of Matthew we find His 'Great Commission" not only to the twelve apostles but also to His Church throughout all ages, 'Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations.' Implied in this solemn charge is the promise that through the working of God's providence the Church will always be kept in possession of an infallible record of Christ's words and works." HOW DID THE BIBLE COME DOWN TO US? "The very concept of God's providential preservation of Scripture" (continues Dr.Hill) "involves this basic idea, that God authenticates as well as preserves, that He has placed His Church in actual possession of the genuine text. God chose the Jewish Church to be the guardian of the Old Testament scriptures and the Greek Church to guard the New, and at the time of the Reformation, Protestants received from the Jews and the Greeks the genuine texts of Holy Scripture.... Therefore, if the New Testament really has been divinely inspired and providentially preserved, the theory of Westcott and Hort cannot be correct because it has neglected the two special factors which make the textual criticism of the New Testament different from that of all other books...."

(Here remember that Westcott and Hort are the source of the NEW versions of today!
Despatch has an Online book in our files exposing these men at length.)

"Since, therefore, God controls and directs all the activities and processes of the universe, even the smallest, surely the transmission of the New Testament down through the ages must always have been the object of God's special care and guidance. The nature and the results of this providential preservation of the New Testament text can be summarised in the six following axioms of consistently Christian New Testament textual Criticism:

(a) "The purpose of the providential preservation of the New Testament is to preserve the infallibility of the inspired original Text." (Here you might say,but the KJV has small errors, doesn't it? Only because it is from one language to another, the KJV has preserved the infallibility of the original Text, it has preserved perfectly the work and life of the Lord, His death, the doctrines, the history of the Jews and the early Christians etc, etc. It has also upheld implicitly the infallibility of the ORIGINAL text. The New Versions do not, they are from OTHER documents).

(b) "The providential preservation concentrated itself on the GREEK New Testament text." (ALL GREEK texts which came from the originals perfectly kept, are NOT in another language, and have been kept without any problems of language translation. We may not have the very original documents in our hands, but we have today faithfully copied, infallible GREEK manuscripts).

(c) "This providential preservation operated within the sphere of the Greek Church."

(d) "This providential preservation operated through the testimony of the Holy Spirit."

(e) "The text of the majority of the manuscripts is the providentially preserved and approved text."

(f) "The text of the majority of the manuscripts is the standard text."

(These above sections, in italics are Dr.Hill, in parenthesis are my comments)

THE BYZANTINE TEXT.

Here we will go to the book, "The King James Version Defended!"

THE MANUSCRIPTS. THE NEW VERSIONS.
The history of the New Versions is terrible to read, the theories and error of Westcott and Hort are documented in many books.
One to get would be "The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament." by Rev.W.MacLean, pub.Westminster Standard.
Another would be, "God Only wrote One Bible," by Jasper James Ray. Pub. Eye Opener Pub.
and just one more, "Perfected or Perverted"? by Norman Ward, Pub. Which Bible? Society. Inc. Grand Rapids.

I am finding, Garfie, that this will take a lot longer than I at first imagined, there is so MUCH to add! I suggest you find out about the Bible numerics on Internet, and get copies of the books suggested.

Write again if still in doubt.
W. B. Howard.

Subject: Re: re tracts Date: Sat, 10 May 1997
From: <despatch@mail.cth.com.au> Organization: Christian Resource Centre
To:Scott Gregson <webmasterkjv@mail1.simplenet.com>

Dear Scott, Thankyou for your quick response, (re us misusing your tracts) we did not want to print them out at this point only to see the content, and to save you the cost of samples.

We are non-profit only serving the Lord so we understand.

We are very concerned these days that KJV believers are slipping into "Ruckmanism"
see our article in Despatch Vol 9:1 Online, and hence we do like to check out all KJV things for our subscribers.

Yours in Christ, Wendy Beuster for W. B. Howard

Subject: re tracts misuse?
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997
From:"ScottGregson" <webmasterkjv@mail1.simplenet.com>
To: despatch@mail.cth.com.au

Hi, By Hymers standard I am indeed a "Ruckmanite", thank you very much for the complement.

When I think of Hymers I think of the religious leaders who received Jesus' scathing rebukes. He is a very proud and useless fellow, save to serve as an example of what the Bible says not to be.

Also, as far as advanced revelation goes, If God were stupid He might let foolish men "translate" the supposed originals into the end time universal language (English) using their own intellect, but He is wise enough to know that He had to control the translation into what we now have, the KJV. Why would God trust the preservation of His word to men? He probably has learned by now the we (mankind) have a way with His word (Gen 3:1) Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?), why should we think that those men in 1611 were above the influence and attacks that Satan has for God and His word? They were not, God intervened and "inspired" the translation, that is why it is perfect (italics too!).

Hymers smymers, God is right and Dr. R.L Hymers, Jr., M.Div., D.Min., Th.D fits here: Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. and here Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, Mat 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. Love Ya, Scott

E-mail to S.Gregson, 14/5/97.
RUCKMANISM AND SALVATION
by W.B. Howard...Editor of Despatch

ANSWER...to above quoted email.

There is more to Ruckmanism than a misunderstanding of what inspiration and preservation mean. (See last Despatch Vol. 9:1). There are many heresies in Peter Ruckman’s writings that have been addressed by Dr. R.L.Hymers get the book from “The Bible For Today” 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. (In Australia, order it from E.L.E. TRUST, P.O.B. 5010, Brendale, Q'ld. 4550.)

Ruckman teaches demonic doctrines!

Actually, the sample tract sent to Endime Ministries from your website, entitled “Why I am Not a Calvinist”, by A.V. Hughes and Pastor Al Hughes, has serious heresy in it, compliments of Ruckman! The otherwise very good tract has been spoiled by this. There are many other Christians than Hymers who have denounced Ruckmanism, I have attached four articles re Ruckman from David Cloud of “O’Timothy Magazine” to this email, as a sample...
(one article has been included here, in Despatch, titled, "What about Ruckman")

In your tract cited above, this error of Ruckman appears:

“No one in the Old Testament was ‘quickened by the Holy Spirit.’ No saint from Genesis to Malachi was regenerated! No one in the Old Testament was ‘chosen in Christ.’ These acts of ‘freewill’ were all performed by unregenerated men who were still dead in trespasses and sins!”

This is classic Ruckmanism! He teaches that there are different ways to be saved in different dispensations, other ways than by Christ Jesus’ sacrifice alone. This is terrible apostasy indeed. If there was some other way to be saved, other than the sacrifice of God’s Son on Calvary, and through the Life-giving of the Holy Spirit, in any dispensation, any period of time on earth, then why would God have sent His Son to die on the Cross? There is NO other way to be saved, at any time in earth’s history! Jesus Christ is the Only Saviour, and there is no other Name under Heaven by which anyone can be saved but by Him. Christ Jesus was actually the Saviour of the world BEFORE anyone was born! God foreknew the plight that mankind would get itself into, and Christ Jesus was “slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8). See also Heb.4:3; Heb.9:26; 1Peter 1:20 for this wonderful provision in God’s Son.

This is what Peter Ruckman teaches on salvation in the Old Testament, same words used in Hughes’ tract:

This is nonsense of the highest degree. Hebrews chapter eleven alone lists eighteen people or groups who were indeed saved in the Old Testament dispensation “by faith.” This faith was the same as the new birth in this passage. The passage Heb.11:6 shows this, aligned with Romans 3:28 and Romans 5:1. Faith is a “synonym for the new birth” in Heb.11. See also the man Nicodemus who was told by Jesus Himself that he “must be born again.” (John 3). This man was an Old Testament master of Israel, what a cruel thing it would have been if Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born again, if he couldn’t be. Jesus Christ had not yet died on the Cross in earth’s history, remember, when He spoke to Nicodemus.

This quote from the great Bible teacher, H.Ironside, will clarify the matter: “God had no real pleasure out of all those sacrifices and offerings under law. (In the Old Testament dispensation). Why? Because they could never put away sin. They were just figures, types, shadows. They bore practically the same relationship to the works of the Cross that a promissory note bears to the payment of a debt. It is getting hard cash when the note falls due that gives one satisfaction. and so whenever an Israelite under law presented his offering, if he came as a repentant man to God in faith, he was like a man giving his note to God acknowledging his indebtedness, and the Lord Jesus was the indorser of every note and said, as it were, ‘Some day I will settle them all.’ When He came to the earth and went to the Cross, He paid everything.” (Parenthesis mine). Praise God, Ruckman is wrong again, Old Testament saints were saved by the Blood of Christ, they were “in Christ”, and they were regenerated, by faith in the Promised Sacrifice of God’s Son. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, in any dispensation. (Heb.9:22).
Here is another voice on Ruckmanism, David Cloud: ”What About Peter Ruckman"?

God bless your future investigation into this important matter,
W. B. Howard...Editor of Despatch
"What about Ruckman"?
By David W. Cloud...Editor of O'Timothy Magazine

"What do you think about Peter Ruckman?"
How many times I have been asked this question! For good or for bad,Peter Ruckman's name is intertwined with the defense of the King James Bible. Personally, I think it is bad. On January 24, 1985, I wrote to Dr. Ruckman from Nepal and told him that I believed he had done more damage to the cause of the King James Bible than many of its detractors.

I know these words make some of my friends cringe, but I still believe this. Why? Because his strange ideas, his multiple divorces, his angry spirit, his arrogancy, his Alexandrian cult mentality, his extremism regarding the KJV being advanced revelation, tends to cause men to reject the entire issue.

His teaching has also caused many unnecessary divisions and problems in churches. It is one thing if a Christian tries to stand for the Word of God and leaves a church that does not so stand, a church that promotes the new versions, but it is quite another matter if a Christian becomes caught up in Ruckman's peculiar doctrines and spirit and comes to the conclusion that his church is apostate because it does not accept all of the jots and tittles of Ruckman's thinking even though it is a King James only church.

An example of this occurred last year in the church which publishes O Timothy in Canada. Pastor Wilbert Unger in London, Ontario, stands unhesitatingly for the King James Bible, but he does not swallow all of Ruckman's peculiarities. To many Ruckman followers, though, if a man does not believe about the KJV exactly what Ruckman believes, he is "not a Bible believer." To believe that the KJV is an accurate translation of the preserved Word of God is not necessarily enough. The printer for Bethel Baptist Church began reading some of Ruckman's books and came to this conclusion. He felt that his church was not a true Bible-believing church and he began talking to some of the members, stirring up trouble. He finally left the church because of this and left a serious, unfulfilled gap in the printing ministry which the Lord had led the church to start three years ago.

This has happened many times. For the record, therefore, I want to list the Ruckmanisms that I reject.

Let me also say by way of introduction that all men who support Ruckman are not quarrelsome church splitters. I know a number of gracious Christian gentlemen who appreciate Dr. Ruckman. They appreciate the fact that the man stands boldly for a perfect Bible in a confused, wicked hour. They appreciate the fact that he has stirred up the pot and caused many to look at the Bible version issue. They are willing to overlook his problems. While I have no quarrel with any man who takes such a position, the bottom line for me is this: I don't believe an extreme position on an issue is a blessing to that issue, and I don't believe a mean-spirited defense of the truth furthers the truth. I reject Mr.Ruckman's idea that the KJV was given by inspiration; I believe it was given by preservation

In The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, pp. 271-272,
Ruckman claims: "The King James Bible was `given by inspiration of God.'"

I believe the King James Bible, as an accurate translation of the preserved Word of God, IS the inspired Word of God. I can hold it up and say "this is the inspired Word of God." But I don't believe the King James Bible was GIVEN BY inspiration of God. I don't believe the KJV is GIVEN BY inspiration in the same way that the original writings were. I believe it has DERIVED its inspiration from the text upon which it was based. The King James Bible is an accurate and beautiful translation of the preserved Scriptures and as such is the inspired Word of God--inspired derivatively, not directly.

I don't believe this is merely a semantics game; it is an important distinction. The King James Bible is an accurate translation of the preserved Word of God and as such is the preserved Word of God. It is no more than that, and it is no less than that. The King James Version is the inspired Word of God because it accurately translates the inspired text.

God chose Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. I'm not going to say that God made a mistake. It is important to study those Greek and Hebrew words as much as possible. The KJV is a wonderful translation, but IT IS a translation. Some would charge that to say such a thing detracts from the KJV. No, it doesn't. To say such a thing honors the text God inspired.

To make myself perfectly clear, let me also say that I believe the KJV is superior to all other English versions--superior in its textual basis, superior in its method of translation, superior in the scholarship of its translators, superior the time of its translation. BUT THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OR THAT IT IS ADVANCED REVELATION.

Let me also emphasize that the Bible doctrine of inspiration cannot be divorced from the Bible doctrine of preservation. The key New Testament passage on the inspiration of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:15-17. Verse 16 says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." This refers to the original giving of the Word of God. Inspiration does not refer to the process of transcribing or translating the Bible, but to the process of God giving the words to the men who wrote the Bible.

The thrust of this passage, though, is that Timothy should have confidence in the Scriptures that he possessed. Verse 15 says the Scripture Timothy had known from a child was "holy Scripture." What Scriptures had Timothy known? Were they the original autographs of Moses and David? Certainly not. Timothy had been taught either from copies of the Hebrew text or from a translation thereof, most likely the latter since his father was a Greek and his mother and grandmother had instructed him (2 Tim. 1:5; Acts 16:1).

Further, verse 17 encourages Timothy that the inspired Scripture "is profitable." Any definition of inspiration which does not involve this doctrine of profitability is wrong. God did not intend that His Word be inspired, then lost. The inspired Word of God has been kept by God. There is inspiration, and there is preservation, and this guarantees profitability.

I don't intend to mix inspiration together with preservation, for these are two distinct things. But I also don't intend to remove preservation from the formula as so many do. One without the other is useless. I reject Mr. Ruckman's idea that the KJV is advanced revelation

The KJV translators had good reason for every reading they included in their translation, and some of those readings are based more on ancient versions than on Greek texts. This, though, does not add up to advanced revelation. I believe the KJV translators were God-guided, but the KJV readings were not pulled out of thin air. The readings were not given by inspiration from God. The readings were all based upon textual witness from centuries past. Peter Ruckman, on the other hand, SAYS he believes the KJV is advanced revelation. Consider: "A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvelous undesigned `coincidences' which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigation of the greatest Bible students 300 year later (Peter Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 127).

"We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel's Hebrew text, Derossi's Hebrew text, Kennicott's Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the KingJames text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus' Greek text, Aland's Greek text, Metzger's Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)" (Ibid., page xii).

[Editor: Why does Ruckman put the Critical texts on the same playing field as the Received Text?]

[Editor: Why does Ruckman put critical, Modernistic textual editors Nestle, Aland, and Metzger on the same level with Beza, Elzevir, and Stephanus who honored the Word of God and handed down to us the Text Received from the Apostles?]