PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error by Me and Most Bible Believers.

PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error by Me and Most Bible Believers, which use and Defend the King James Version and many others as Inspired, but can in no way be associated with the term "KJV-Only", as related to Peter Ruckman, WHOSE 9 PREMISES BELOW WE CONSIDER TO SIMPLY BE 9 DEMONSTRABLE LIES.

"It must be underscored that Bible believers and KJV defenders like Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, D A Waite, Ian Paisley, David Cloud, Timothy Tow, the Trinitarian Bible Society, the Dean Burgon Society, and the Far Eastern Bible College do NOT espouse at all the beliefs of Ruckman that:

(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.

Some people will say outrageous things in order to be recognized and given
attention to. I believe Peter Ruckman was one of those people.

Not only was his view on the inspiration of the Bible bizarre, but his interpretation of it was just as wacky.

He once claimed that all women raptured during Christ’s return would be transformed into 33-year-old male bodies. Now that’s what I call a real sex change operation!

Alan Dale Gross said:

(9) all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.

Click to expand...

Since that was not one of Peter Ruckman's own tenets, you seem to join D. A. Waite in misrepresenting his view.

D. A. Waite alleged that “Ruckman does not believe the Bible should be in Spanish, English, Russian, French, or any other language” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, p. 9). Waite claimed: “The Ruckman position’s ‘only’ is ‘only’ in English (no Spanish, no Italian, no French” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20).

Some of Waite’s factually incorrect claims would misrepresent and distort what Peter Ruckman had actually written. According to a just application of Waite’s incomplete definition, Peter Ruckman would not be KJV-only since Ruckman did not claim that the word of God is only in the English KJV and did not claim that all Bible translations in other languages are not the word of God.


Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

Alan Dale Gross said:

PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error by Me and Most Bible Believers,

Click to expand...

Are Peter Ruckman's tenants as seen in his definition of scripture seen as pure error?

Peter Ruckman wrote: “If it is ‘SCRIPTURE,’ God gave it; if God gave it, the method He used was by inspiration” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 355). Peter Ruckman asserted that “given by inspiration of God” “is the definition of ‘scripture’ in the ‘scripture’” (King James Onlyism, p. 29), but he did not actually prove his claim to be true and scriptural. This definition of Peter Ruckman differs and even conflicts with his definition of the term at 2 Timothy 3:16 in his 2009 Reference Bible. After admitting being “indebted to Herb Evans for the ideas,” Bruce Lackey wrote: “Anything which qualifies to be called ‘scripture’ is inspired” (Why I Believe, p. 19). Gail Riplinger wrote: “No textbooks define ‘scripture’ which ‘is given by inspiration’ by citing the Bible’s usage of the word ‘scripture’” (Hazardous, p. 1174). Gail Riplinger declared: “Inspired scripture must be something that all men must have” (p. 1177). Jack McElroy asserted: “Scripture = given by inspiration of God” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 359).

Seeming to use or agree with Ruckman’s definition of scripture, Ralph Yarnell wrote: “Either the Authorized King James Version is not scripture and therefore uninspired, or it is scripture and therefore inspired since ‘all scripture is given by inspiration of God’” (Fresh Look, p. 10). In his preface, Alan O’Reilly asserted that the KJV ‘is Holy Scripture given by inspiration of God, 2 Timothy 3:16” (O Biblios, p. vii). Alan O’Reilly wrote: “The issue is whether or not a BOOK available TODAY is ‘The Holy Scriptures.’ If there is such a Book, and I believe that it is ANY Edition of the AV1611, then IT (the BOOK) is GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD” (p. 214). Agreeing with Ruckman’s definition, Charles Keesee claimed: “If we do not have anything inspired then we do not have any scripture” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 195).

Tenets (not “tenants”) of Ruckmanism:

Though maintaining an orthodox pretense in the Baptist tradition, ruckmanism is clearly outside the tradition of both historic and Biblical Christianity.

Ruckmanism includes the concept that restricts the deity of Christ to Jesus being the manifestation of God in the flesh, but not actually God, in that Christ the man was capable of sin and could have fallen.

Should Christ have sinned the universe, Ruckman surmised, might have exploded. It is felt that were Jesus above the capacity to sin, His testing on the earth would have been a hoax. This of course is a denial of the Godness of Christ just as so called Apostolic (Jesus Only) doctrine is a denial of His humanity. The fact is that there was no possibility of Jesus falling for He was truly God. His testing is a willing one to reconcile man to Himself, not of any necessity whatsoever to the blessed Trinity.

Other aspects of ruckmanism are: the English King James Version of the Bible is superior to the original Greek manuscripts, the antichrist may land in a spaceship in the Vatican, there are no women in heaven (all resurrected saints will receive bodies identical to the resurrected body of Jesus), and a vicious badgering and name calling of those who do not submit to Ruckman’s authority.

Ruckman invented the unbiblical theory that at salvation, the Holy Spirit physically cuts your soul away from your flesh like a surgeon’s scalpel, so that your flesh can go out and sin freely while your soul remains pure and detached. That is not biblical regeneration—that is ancient Gnosticism!

Another interesting Ruckman tenet is that Judas Iscariot was not human, even though the New Testament shows Judas betraying human emotions, repentance and suicide. Ruckman takes Christ’s statement, “one of you is a devil” to mean that Judas was not human. Of course Jesus no more meant that Judas was not human than He meant that the Pharisees were not human when He called them serpents and children of vipers. Interestingly enough Ruckman’s teachings on the non-humaness of Judas is a denial of the traditional and Biblical teaching of the antichrist, whom Ruckman thinks Judas was and is and will be. For the Pauline teaching on the antichrist is that indeed the antichrist is human, specifically the “man of sin.” (2 Thessalonians 2:2).

Peter Ruckman was infamous for his venomous mouth, his foul language, his public cursing of godly Christian leaders, his vicious racial remarks, and an insufferable pride that boasted of street brawls while claiming that he alone held the pure truth of God.

When people follow Ruckman, they don't produce the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness (Galatians 5:22). They become angry, cynical debate warriors who copy and paste someone else’s study notes because they have never sat quietly on the Father’s knee.

In that the distinct element of this teaching revolves around a man, ruckmanism can be accurately described as a cult.

Ruckman was a narcissistic mess of a human being, and that narcissism pushed him
to make ridiculous claims simply to gain attention, and to give himself the illusion
of having authority. JMHO

Unfortunately, he left a legacy that some, to their own detriment, still try to cling to.

Mike B said:

Unfortunately, he left a legacy that some, to their own detriment, still try to cling to.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I’m aware of at least one church nearby that has a pastor who attended Ruckman Bible School in Pensacola, Florida.

Ascetic X said:

Tenets (not “tenants”) of Ruckmanism:

Click to expand...

I incorrectly copied "tenants" from the opening post in this thread after using the correct "tenets" in an earlier post.

Alan Dale Gross said:

(3) the English KJV is as or more Inspired than the Original language Scriptures;

Click to expand...

The tenets of Peter Ruckman were sometimes inconsistent. What he wrote at one period of time or in one book may conflict with what he wrote at a different period of time or in a different book.

Peter Ruckman himself had evidently understood and interpreted 2 Timothy 3:16 differently in the past [1971] than he later did. In a letter written to Robert Sumner in 1971, Peter Ruckman himself had asserted: “Verbal inspiration has to do with 2 Timothy 3:16 and deals with the original autographs, as we all know” (photocopy of letter, p. 2). In his book with a 1980 copyright, Peter Ruckman wrote: “There is only one verse in the Bible that says ‘INSPIRATION’ (2 Tim. 3:16) and it has nothing to do with any originals by anyone (see 2 Tim. 3:15)” (Problem Texts, p. 171; Errors, p. 175).

In 1988, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Although we cannot claim direct inspiration in the original Biblical sense for the King James text, we could claim that the King James text presents an infallible text, preserved without proven error in the language in which God intended for us to have it” [bold type added] (Theological Studies, Book 15, p. 15). Peter Ruckman asserted: “So our position is this: The King James Bible may not claim for itself the original inspiration of God, breathing through the men who spoke when they were copied down by a writer at the time they spoke. However, it can be claimed to be preserved without proven error in the universal language of the world” [bold type added] (p. 23). In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Peter Ruckman wrote: “We do not refer to the AV as the ‘verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God’” (p. 270). Ruckman asserted: “I’ve never said that the King James Bible was inspired, although I’ve broadly intimated it sometimes” (Why I Believe the KJV, p. 8).

Logos1560 said:

that was not one of Peter Ruckman's own tenets

Click to expand...

"It cannot be denied that in several ways English has gradually become a dominant language over the years. Its dominance is noteworthy in areas of technology, commerce, transportation, medicine, etc. The increased dominance of the English language around the world is undeniable. When it comes to choosing to study a second language to advance a career or for other purposes, English is a clear favorite in numerous instances. As we shall document, Peter Ruckman exploits this and exaggerates some of these matters for his own purposes.

"It has been our observation that for those who live beyond our borders, most who manage to acquire relative fluency in English as a second language are the affluent, the college educated, and business leaders; therefore, they do not reflect the vast majority of people around the world.

"Ruckman makes many dogmatic theological proclamations as to God’s plan, purpose, and method involving the English language, while the Bible is silent about English or future languages in prophecy.

"Ruckman often refers to English as “the universal language of the end times” as if there was, is, or ever will be such a thing:

"Any advanced revelations given by the Holy Spirit are always revealed FIRST from the “King’s English” as the authoritative standard for truth, in the universal language of the “end times.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin Feb. 2006, p. 7)

Click to expand...

"As for his claims of advanced revelations in the KJV, see our article “Ruckman’s belief in advanced revelations in the KJV.”

"In an attempt to bolster his claims, Ruckman will take the term “English” out of context when used in reference to “British” matters in a non-language context. Observe:

"From henceforth, even the Antichrist will have to speak English (Rev. 13:1-3), because absolute time, absolute temperature, absolute location, and absolute truth are ENGLISH, and that is FINAL. (The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988, p. 122)"

Click to expand...

"Notice how Ruckman injects the matter of the world supposedly being English-speaking in an attempt to prove that the KJV was “the culmination and final work of the Holy Spirit”:

"It is the culmination and final work of the Holy Spirit in the Church Age in a world that is English-speaking. (22 Years of the Bible Believer’s Bulletin Vol. 1 “The AV Holy Bible” p. 79)"

Click to expand...

"[the KJV] … converted the whole world into an English-speaking world … (22 Years of the Bible Believer’s Bulletin Vol. 1 “The AV Holy Bible” p. 581)"'

Click to expand...

"Absolutely untrue."

Peter Ruckman on the superiority of the English language.​

Logos1560 said:

Are Peter Ruckman's tenants as seen in his definition of scripture seen as pure error?

Peter Ruckman wrote: “If it is ‘SCRIPTURE,’ God gave it; if God gave it, the method He used was by inspiration” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 355). Peter Ruckman asserted that “given by inspiration of God” “is the definition of ‘scripture’ in the ‘scripture’” (King James Onlyism, p. 29), but he did not actually prove his claim to be true and scriptural.

Click to expand...

Peter Ruckman's teachings under discussion 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."

Logos1560 said:

I incorrectly copied "tenants" from the opening post in this thread after using the correct "tenets" in an earlier post.

Click to expand...

That could mean that you are not a schoolmarm. Dunno though. Jury's still out on Clancy.

Logos1560 said:

The tenets of Peter Ruckman were sometimes inconsistent. What he wrote at one period of time or in one book may conflict with what he wrote at a different period of time or in a different book.

Click to expand...

Sometimes Peter Ruckman suggested that he would not accept one change or difference in the KJV while other times he suggested that he recommended any edition of the KJV with any number of variations or differences.

In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman asserted: “Things different are not equal” (p. 18). In this same commentary, Peter Ruckman wrote: “You can’t change the meaning without changing the words, and you can’t change the words without changing the meaning” (p. 606). In his commentary on the book of Genesis, Peter Ruckman asserted: “For if you can change one word, you can change two, and if you can change two verses, you can change ten verses” (p. 295). In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Peter Ruckman wrote: “We will not alter ONE word in the text of the Authorized Version which we have on the table before us” (p. v). In volume one of his commentary on the book of Psalms, Peter Ruckman asserted: “We will leave every ‘jot and tittle: as it stands in the Authorized text” (p. vi). Peter Ruckman wrote: “The words in a text can’t be changed and still be the same text. It is only an evil imagination that makes anybody think they can” (About the New Scofield, p. 7).


Peter Ruckman wrote: “We recommend any edition of the AV (with any number of variations from any other edition)” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Sept., 1985, p. 3). In this same article, Ruckman commented: “In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable” (p. 2). In this article, Ruckman’s only stated exception from being an edition of the AV was the NKJV. Again concerning the KJV, Ruckman claimed that “any edition will do just fine” (Unknown Bible, pp. 1, 86). Ruckman referred to “any edition in any century” of the KJV (How to Teach the “Original” Greek, p. 119). Ruckman appealed to “a King James Bible (any edition from any year)“ (Difference in KJV Editions, pp. 9-10). Ruckman also referred to “a present copy of the AV, which anyone can buy anywhere” (p. 11). Ruckman claimed that “any edition of the AV (Edinburgh, London, Oxford, Nelson, Cambridge, New York, etc.) is vastly superior to the ‘originals’” (p. 18). Ruckman asserted: “The text of the AV in any edition is the text authorized by the Godhead, and it is the text that the Holy Spirit has continually stamped with His approval, in any edition” (Bible Babel, p. 92). Ruckman claimed: “You can find that word [the word of God] and those words [the words that God wants us to have] in ANY EDITION of an Authorized Version” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 414).

Logos1560 said:

Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

Click to expand...

This matter of foreign language texts is one place Ruckman did great harm. He did not know the languages in which he claimed there were KJV equivalent translations, so therefore he often got things wrong. As a result, he caused trouble among missionaries trying to reach souls on the mission fields of the world.

A friend in Japan with the same mission board as we were was told by a pastor that there was a "Japanese KJV," which was totally inaccurate. When my friend, fluent in Japanese, objected, the pastor cut him off from support. The version Ruckman and others thought was a "Japanese KJV" was the 1917 Classical Japanese Bible (Bungoyaku Seisho, 文語訳聖書), the NT of which was from the Nestles Greek text.

Just going to sit back here and watch KJVO types argue over Ruckmanism...

Alan Dale Gross said:

PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error by Me and Most Bible Believers, which use and Defend the King James Version and many others as Inspired, but can in no way be associated with the term "KJV-Only", as related to Peter Ruckman, WHOSE 9 PREMISES BELOW WE CONSIDER TO SIMPLY BE 9 DEMONSTRABLE LIES.

(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.

Click to expand...

Are these tenets indefensibly heretical when suggested in Kent Brandenburg's book Thou Shalt Keep Them?

Gary La More wrote: “Without a living and abiding Word being preserved continuously by God, the believer would not have what he needs to be born again. God has promised perpetuity to His Word because He knows that without it there would be no hope of eternal salvation” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 71). In his footnote 115 on page 71, Gary La More wrote: “We are saved by means of incorruptible seed, not the corruptible. An application could and should be made that the corrupted text will be less effective or powerful because of its level of corruption. As strong as this text [1 Peter 1:23-25] is in relating salvation to the purity of the Bible, it does not go so far as teach that conversion can only occur by means of the King James Bible” In this same book, David Sutton wrote: ”The doctrine of salvation is dependent upon preservation: if there were no preserved Words, then there would be no preached Word, and man could not believe on Jesus Christ” (p. 80). In this book, Thomas Corkish wrote: “There are numerous volumes in existence today that valiantly defend a non-existing Bible and of non-preserved originals, but if this premise is true, man’s salvation, Saviour, sanctification, and sureness are all gone” (p. 151). Thomas Corkish wrote: “Can we trust God for other things if we can not trust His promise concerning the actual Words of revelation? Suffice it to say that without absolute preservation, there is not a lot to hope for Heaven” (p. 150). In this book, Kent Brandenburg wrote: ”Salvation involves agreeing with God about obeying all of His Words” (p. 90).

Jason Harris commented: “This statement implies the dangerous error that belief in Brandenburg’s understanding of preservation is necessary to salvation” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 58, footnote 63).

Edward F. Hills claimed that “only the King James Version can be preached authoritatively and studied believingly” (Believing Bible Study, p. 87). Edward F. Hills suggested that “these modern versions are much more likely to spread doubt and unbelief” (p. 54) and that they lead young Christians “away from the Bible by introducing them to the logic of unbelief” (p. 55).

Alan Dale Gross said:

PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error by Me and Most Bible Believers,

Click to expand...

PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error, to be viewed with abhorrence and indignation.

Alan Dale Gross said:

(1) the KJV is doubly inspired;

Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the Truth and just like the man-made fleshly theory about how the Original Source Language Manuscripts used for Eighteen or Nineteen Centuries had been compromised, corrupted, and were full of errors, which then required a new New Testament Greek text to be Written, in the sole interest of Changing the Word of God, by calling it a necessary "Reconstruction" project, to repair and recover the Word of God which no one had had since the First Century, they and Peter Ruckman both denied the Preservation of the Scripture, where in his case, he was claiming that a brand new Act of Directly Inspiring the Bible was needed because God hadn't Preserved it up 'till then?

Alan Dale Gross said:

(2) the KJV is advanced revelation;

Click to expand...

No way. Crazy. That's not how it works.

Alan Dale Gross said:

(3) the English KJV is as or more Inspired than the Original language Scriptures;

Click to expand...

Wrong. 100%. And stupid.

Alan Dale Gross said:

(4) the KJV can be used to correct the Original language Scriptures;

Click to expand...

This guy had a thing about Going in the Wrong Direction and playing into the hands of Satan to look like a fool.

Alan Dale Gross said:

(5) there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an “Inspired” English Translation;

Click to expand...

Nutcase.

Alan Dale Gross said:

(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);

Click to expand...

The Translators are famous, as you know, from "The Translators to the Reader," in the original 1611 preface to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, which states that their goal was "not to make a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one". [1] and it was not their goal to make the King James where it "cannot be improved upon".

Building on Previous Work: The King James Translators stated they did not set out to create a brand-new Bible from scratch, but rather to review, polish, and build upon earlier valid English translations (such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible) using the original Hebrew and Greek. [1, 2, 3]

"The Translators to the Reader"

"...as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us."​

Alan Dale Gross said:

(7) the KJV is the only Bible that has Gospel or Salvific content;

Click to expand...

This is what's known in religion as "Blowing Smoke".

Alan Dale Gross said:

(8) those who do not use the KJV are Condemned to Hell; and

Click to expand...

I'm sorry he thought that he had that kind of authority to even dream of such a farse.

Alan Dale Gross said:

(9) all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.

Click to expand...

This and the above is what's known in religion as "another Gospel".

Logos1560 said:

Are Peter Ruckman's tenants as seen in his definition of scripture seen as pure error?

Click to expand...

You co-joined the words "seen as pure error" to a different subject altogether, to manipulate a way to ignore facing the issue at hand, as is your way of avoiding ever taking an honest look at any subject other than that of bashing the King James, in lieu of taking the inexcusably inadvisable modern day Translation concerns under consideration.

It gets very ugly, very fast, doesn't it?

"The NU is a shorter and more difficult text than the TR. However, recent academic research, including the author’s at Cambridge, shows that scribes tended to omit rather than add at a rate of sixty to forty.4 This is only common sense – omission is the easiest mistake to make. The author’s study also showed that scribes created more difficulties rather than improving the text. Scribes are the (unintentional) corrupters, not improvers(!), of God’s word.

"Some commentaries which follow the NU text speak of the so-called ‘best’ manuscripts,
but this is now admitted by textual scholars to involve circular reasoning –

"the ‘best’ manuscripts are ones which contain the ‘best’ readings,
but the ‘best’ readings are those found in the ‘best’ manuscripts."

"Avoiding this circularity, studies in scribal habits show that these ‘best manuscripts’ contain many errors.

"Another problem with so-called ‘earliest and best’ manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, is that they disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone, ignoring minor spelling variants.5

"Simple math means that one or the other is wrong, at least, 3,000 times – thirty times per chapter. Few people copying out a chapter of an English Bible today would make as many mistakes.

"The signature errors of these manuscripts are excessive omissions, and more difficult readings."

"The NU text is largely Alexandrian, that is, based on manuscripts related to the early Coptic (Egyptian) versions and quotes from Alexandrian Church Fathers. It preserves an early, but likely localized, form of text.

"The NU text is also often based on very few manuscripts, and in a few places, none at all – the editors abandon all manuscripts and conjecture, i.e., guess, the original reading, Acts 16. 12; 2 Pet. 3. 10."

The Text of Scripture - Precious Seed | A UK registered charity working to encourage the study of the scriptures

A Little History In AD 1453 the fall of Constantinople to the twenty-one-year-old Sultan Mehmed of the Ottoman Empire brought an end to the Byzantine (i.e., Eastern Roman) Empire which had stood for 1,000 years. Greek Orthodox monks fled westward into Europe bringing with them Greek New...

www.preciousseed.org

Alan Dale Gross said:

You co-joined the words "seen as pure error" to a different subject altogether, to manipulate a way to ignore facing the issue at hand, as is your way of avoiding ever taking an honest look at any subject other than that of bashing the King James, in lieu of taking the inexcusably inadvisable modern day Translation concerns under consideration.

It gets very ugly, very fast, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

You are wrong to question my honesty. You improperly try to misrepresent and twist my accurate point. Peter Ruckman's definitions of scripture and inspiration are not a different subject altogether from his stated views concerning the KJV.

You misrepresented a portion of Peter Ruckman's stated views with one of your claimed tenets as demonstrated in post 4 of this thread.

My attempts to present the truth and apply the stated claims of KJV defenders consistently and justly are not bashing the KJV as you falsely allege. If the consistent and just application of assertions made by KJV defenders seems to harm the KJV, it shows that those assertions are misleading or are incorrect. It seems that KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates do not take under consideration a consistent and just application of their very own assertions.

Logos1560 said:

Are these tenets indefensibly heretical when suggested in Kent Brandenburg's book Thou Shalt Keep Them?

Click to expand...

Here are Peter Ruckman's 9 tenets that you must now demonstrate are suggested to be believed or promoted by Kent Brandenburg, or anyone in TSKT.

Peter Ruckman's teachings under discussion 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."

Alan Dale Gross said:

PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error, to be viewed with abhorrence and indignation.

Click to expand...

You are representing that they are positively suggested as having some merit in Kent Brandenburg's book.

PROOVE IT.

THERE THEY ARE ABOVE.

POINT US TO WHERE ANY OF THEM ARE HINTED AT BEING BELIEVED BY kENT bRANDENBURG, OR WHERE HE REFERRED TO THEM FAVOURABLY INHIS BOOK, "THOU SHALT KEEP THEM."

Give us the Chapter and page number from your special 'research' and quote them out, for the sake of honestly.

Just don't give us your fanciful crooked bean counting gyrations where you take words here like "Salvation involves"

Logos1560 said:

In this book, Kent Brandenburg wrote: ”Salvation involves agreeing with God about obeying all of His Words” (p. 90).

Click to expand...

and allowing your pretty little head to run off down the pathway, arm and arm with Satan and adding the words "necessary to salvation", like this poor alarmist simpleton does, when he knows nothing about Kent Brandenburg's teaching on the Preservation of Scripture any more than you do, which is that if God's Words hadn't been Preserved, we'd be wondering around blinking like a goose looking for it, waking up in a new World with every blink, and serching and never finding it, like your mislead and deceived reconstructionists, who haven't found it yet and all admit they probably don't see how THEY ever will...or could.

Logos1560 said:

Jason Harris commented: “This statement implies the dangerous error that belief in Brandenburg’s understanding of preservation is necessary to salvation” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 58, footnote 63).

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

Edward F. Hills claimed that “only the King James Version can be preached authoritatively and studied believingly” (Believing Bible Study, p. 87).

Click to expand...

You know, the King James Version is VASTLY SUPERIOUR to even other fine authoritative Bible Versions which have been Faithfully Translated from the Preserved and accurate Manuscripts Extant and we know we do have in the King James a Bible we can study believingly as being God's Word, if anything ever was, but since Edward Hills' interest was in the comparison of the King James to the hundreds of bibles which have all sought out to CHANGE THE WORD OF GOD, IT WOULD BE DOWNRIGHT ADVISABLE FOR ANYONE USING A MODERN BIBLE TO CHECK ANY AND EVERY VERSE AGAINST THE KING JAMES, TO SEE IF THEY HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED CORRECTLY, AS THE QUICKEST TEST, INCLUDING COMPARISON TO THE ORIGINAL LANUAGE TEXTS, ETC., SINCE, AS YOU KNOW, THE GOAL FOR ALL OF THEM TO ACHEIVE WAS TO CHANGE THE WORD OF GOD TO SUIT THEIR VARIOUS FLESHLY INTERESTS.

Logos1560 said:

Edward F. Hills suggested that “these modern versions are much more likely to spread doubt and unbelief” (p. 54) and that they lead young Christians “away from the Bible by introducing them to the logic of unbelief” (p. 55).

Click to expand...

AMEN. Fideistic is an adjective that relates to fideism, the theological and philosophical doctrine that religious truth is a matter of Faith rather than human reason, logic, or empirical evidence.

The Superiority of the Fideistic Approach to the Preservation of Scripture.​

How has God preserved His Word? Should you place your faith in the science of textual criticism to restore the New Testament text, bit by bit? Or, should you simply believe, by faith, that God has already preserved His Word in the manuscript tradition* which has been preserved* and used by the church* down through the centuries*?

In a book which he edited, entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them, Kent Brandenburg argued for the primacy (not utter exclusivity) of the Textus Receptus and, more specifically, the King James Version of the Bible. In this excerpt, he explains why he believes a Christian must accept this by faith.1

"Living by faith is so integral to and synonymous with Biblical Christianity, and such a foundational truth in the New Testament, that this declaration of the Lord to Habakkuk is quoted three times in New Testament passages (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). The believer is a believer; he lives by faith because that is what it is to be a Christian. Faith is the basis of the righteousness from which someone lives (Rom 1:17; Gal. 3:11).

"Those who do not live by faith are apostates and the Lord has no pleasure in them (Heb. 10:38).

"Faithlessness is a serious issue for serious people."

"Scripture promises the perfect preservation* and availability of all the Words of God* to every generation. Since this is what God says, it is what faith expects. Based on these promises, one assumes that before the printing press all the Words were available* in handmade copies, and afterwards in the printed editions*. Fulfillment of the Biblical teachings of perfect preservation* and availability* require the amalgamation of all the Words into one canonical, printed edition. The view of a perfect** and available text fits with all the passages on preservation, and, therefore, this is the fideistic view of preservation of Scripture."

"Brandenburg continued, and discussed how God “repeatedly repudiates reliance on human understanding and philosophy” on this issue:2"

"Men who question what God said, rather than believing it, insult the Lord. Scripture thoroughly dispels this human claim of divine impotence. God does not want His ability questioned or His way (timing or manner) disputed; since He has Proven Himself Totally andSsufficiently, He simply wants to be believed.

"The hypothesis that God did not preserve His Words, so man needs to restore them, lies at the root of textual criticism.

"This line of thinking rejects what Scripture states about preservation, depending instead on the uninspired words of men, both contemporary and historical."

"On the basis of their futile, temporal thoughts, men argue that it is unreasonable to accept that somehow every Word has remained available for every generation*. In so doing, these men have wrested from their particular circle of influence the assurance of a perfect Bible**.

"The responsibility exhorted and the example patterned in the New Testament is the Reception, not Restoration, of God’s Words. The willingness to Receive them and the Assurance that they are all perfectly** available* is based upon God’s Promises to Preserve every Word."

*Every Word of God has been Preserved and Available in the Original Language Manuscripts, etc.

**'Perfectly' = 'fully'.

***

More here: Theology Thursday - The Superiority of the Fideistic Approach to the Preservation of Scripture | SHARPER IRON