Peter Ruckman's teachings which are Heretical and of paramount concern to any people of Faith are the following (1) - (9)
"(1) the KJV is doubly inspired;
"(2) the KJV is advanced revelation;
"(3) the English KJV is as or more Inspired than the Original language Scriptures;
''(4) the KJV can be used to correct the Original language Scriptures;
"(5) there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an “Inspired” English Translation;
"(6) the KJV cannot be improved on (The Defined King James Bible edited by D A Waite and S H Tow and published by Bible For Today is certainly an improvement on the KJV);
"(7) the KJV is the only Bible that has Gospel or Salvific content;
"(8) those who do not use the KJV are Condemned to Hell; and
"(9) all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth."
Those are 9 very 'Specific' Tenets held by the most radical, unscriptural, fake, phony, and false proponents of the hardline Heretical splinter religionists that were popularized and known as being called "King James Only" or "KJV-Only", by their fabricator, Peter Ruckman.
In keeping with your desperate theme and panicked dependence on advancing you Hate Crimes toward God and His Servants and children, by employing the most disingenuous, dishonest, and wicked equivocations and abuses of the "General vs Specific Argument" fallacy known to Mankind, you twist the above properly and specifically described "King James Only" or "KJV-Only" by attempting to equate those names and the teachings "Specifically" associated with that overall Heretical view of the Holy Bible, by quoting an individual author who intentionally makes the point that his "broad title", is "Generally" speaking of "
any individuals and institutions who read, study, preach, and use only the King James Version as an English translation” (p. 11).
What could be more despicable than to spend your time on Earth exclusively
"sowing discord among the brethren", regarding extremely different viewpoints held concerning the Word of God and then smearing the God Fearing Bible loving believers and followers of Christ Jesus, who simply recognize the Word of God when they see it and wherever they find a properly Translated copy, which in this case of God's Word Contained in the King James Bible, it is simply in an august and venerable, Miraculous, and Supernaturally Blessed Translation, of which there is no equal, as being the most Magnificent Literary Work ever published and universally acknowledged, for well over four hundred years, to be one of the Greatest Gifts God has ever bestowed on the Human Race.
Your life is being spent finding something wrong with that Godly, Christlike behavior, Led by the Holy Spirit of God.
There is something very, very, sinisterly skewed, warped, and twisted about your chosen walk of life that is not with the Lord.
So, before any discussion of Kent Brandenburg can be permitted, he has several incites into your Anti-Christ ilk.
He's said, "There are more arguments, I’m sure, that the eclectic text people think are brilliant, and that they have on their side, such as their “Septuagint argument” and their “Beza’s conjectural emendation in Revelation 16:5” argument.
What I do want to do is to point out the manner of operation of the eclectic text/no preservation side of this argument.
These are Kent Brandenburg's conclusions with respect to those unscrupulous individuals like yourself who have carnal, flesh-filled bright ideas about other people's business that you are apparently ignorant of in their entirety, with brain dead rash guesswork, not being mixed with Faith, by the Enabling of the Holy Spirit.
Kent Brandenburg said:
"
First, they don’t present a position themselves. They question yours only.
(With all your brilliant utterly loaded questions, Logo1560, do have a position you can state that you believe?)
"Second, they don’t listen to your position. They normally start arguing with a Ruckmanite or English preservationist, even if you’re not, and then they keep doing that after you have told them several times. On many occasions, I’ve found they will still come back to their arguments against these other groups long after you’ve corrected them several times.
(Wow, does that sound mindlessly familiar?)
"Third, when their point is debunked or defeated, they don’t admit that you’re right in any way. They move on to the next point they want to make. This shows a closed mind and that they’re not interested in the truth, only in winning the argument. They like to argue from history (“Look! Hand copies vary!”), but when they find out that they have no historic basis for their position, that doesn’t matter to them at all. They don’t seem to care at all that their position was not what was believed or taught before the 19th century.
(10-4 on "closed", closed, closed, closed, closed "mind.")
"Fourth, they don’t rely at all on Scripture. On this one doctrine, they look away from the Bible to find out what they believe.
(Far, far, who cares how far away).
"Fifth, their quest is a gotcha-game. They want to catch you in an error. They want to prove mistakes in Scripture. That will justify their use of the modern versions.
(That which is flesh is flesh).
"Sixth, even though they say they believe in the preservation of Scripture, they are trying to show how that God didn’t preserve it.
(With the unbelief of the best of them).
"Seventh, when they ask questions, they expect answers, acting is if the burden of proof is upon our side. When we ask questions, they don’t give answers and they don’t think they have to do that. The burden of proof should be on the people who say that what actually happened is something different than what Scripture promised would happen. What’s difficult about that, of course, is that they would need to show the Original Manuscripts to prove that point.
(The Bible is the discerner, or critic, of the intents of the heart, not the other condescending way around).
"These multiple version*, no preservation people provide the foundation for postmodern uncertainty."
"If we don’t even know what the words are, then how can we be expected to know the meaning?"
From: Standard Conversation Between Multiple Versionist with Perfect Preservationist - WHAT IS TRUTH
*The famous phrase from the 1611 KJV preface ("The Translators to the Reader") is: "...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against".
We certainly do not see a similar expression made by the authors of the modern bibles and so they achieved this goal of not having made any plans of making any better ones when they certainly did not.
