Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
Childish outbursts of anger and personal attacks are not appropriate in a Christian forum.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error by Me and Most Bible Believers.
- Thread starter Alan Dale Gross
- Start date
Are Peter Ruckman's tenants (that would follow from his definitions of scripture and inspiration) clearly rejected as pure error when his underlying assumed definitions seem to be accepted or followed? Was Peter Ruckman also indebted to Herb Evans for his new definition of Scripture?
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).
Perhaps these claimed erroneous and heretical tenets of Peter Ruckman are the result of his assumed definition and premise for Scripture. The tenets of Ruckman seem to follow from his own premise and assumption that he claims defines Scripture. How can someone accept the underlying premise of Ruckman's position and reject its logical implications?
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).
Perhaps these claimed erroneous and heretical tenets of Peter Ruckman are the result of his assumed definition and premise for Scripture. The tenets of Ruckman seem to follow from his own premise and assumption that he claims defines Scripture. How can someone accept the underlying premise of Ruckman's position and reject its logical implications?
Last edited:
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
You've got a decision to make.
Either you can continue to use any of these broad-based, contradictory, waffling comments which land all over the map to accuse anyone who remotely concedes to any words or even presumed words that may or may not actually have any similarity to his descriptions of any of the different things he has said he believed, of being a King James Only Ruckmanite devoted to his 'double-inspiration' heresy and its associated errors.
Or, you can restrain yourself from potentially making false accusations against God's children who believe the Bible-Only and are entirely innocent of any charge of agreeing with the Syncretic Heterodoxies of this disturbed individual who we can easily gather didn't specifically and particularly know what he actually believed at any given moment.
I, for one, say that someone could not be accused of agreeing with a person who says he is O.K. believing anything including the kitchen sink, in an attempt to associate that person with the worst teachings of the other person, in all honestly and, therefore, needs to cease if its been suggested.
Either you can continue to use any of these broad-based, contradictory, waffling comments which land all over the map to accuse anyone who remotely concedes to any words or even presumed words that may or may not actually have any similarity to his descriptions of any of the different things he has said he believed, of being a King James Only Ruckmanite devoted to his 'double-inspiration' heresy and its associated errors.
Or, you can restrain yourself from potentially making false accusations against God's children who believe the Bible-Only and are entirely innocent of any charge of agreeing with the Syncretic Heterodoxies of this disturbed individual who we can easily gather didn't specifically and particularly know what he actually believed at any given moment.
I, for one, say that someone could not be accused of agreeing with a person who says he is O.K. believing anything including the kitchen sink, in an attempt to associate that person with the worst teachings of the other person, in all honestly and, therefore, needs to cease if its been suggested.
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
You've got a decision to make.
Either you can continue to use any of these broad-based, contradictory, waffling comments which land all over the map to accuse anyone who remotely concedes to any words or even presumed words that may or may not actually have any similarity to his descriptions of any of the different things he has said he believed, of being a King James Only Ruckmanite devoted to his 'double-inspiration' heresy and its associated errors.
Or, you can restrain yourself from potentially making false accusations against God's children who believe the Bible-Only and are entirely innocent of any charge of agreeing with the Syncretic Heterodoxies of this disturbed individual who we can easily gather didn't specifically and particularly know what he actually believed at any given moment.
I, for one, say that someone could not be accused of agreeing with a person who says he is O.K. believing anything including the kitchen sink, in an attempt to associate that person with the worst teachings of the other person, in all honestly and, therefore, needs to cease if its been suggested.
Either you can continue to use any of these broad-based, contradictory, waffling comments which land all over the map to accuse anyone who remotely concedes to any words or even presumed words that may or may not actually have any similarity to his descriptions of any of the different things he has said he believed, of being a King James Only Ruckmanite devoted to his 'double-inspiration' heresy and its associated errors.
Or, you can restrain yourself from potentially making false accusations against God's children who believe the Bible-Only and are entirely innocent of any charge of agreeing with the Syncretic Heterodoxies of this disturbed individual who we can easily gather didn't specifically and particularly know what he actually believed at any given moment.
I, for one, say that someone could not be accused of agreeing with a person who says he is O.K. believing anything including the kitchen sink, in an attempt to associate that person with the worst teachings of the other person, in all honestly and, therefore, needs to cease if its been suggested.
You seem to describe your own comments more than mine. You have chosen to focus on personal attacks on my honesty and beliefs instead of engaging in serious discussion.
You prove no contradictory assertions on my part. I have not made false accusation against God's children, but you have made false accusations against me. I have clearly defined and explained the term KJV-only, and I have plainly noted that the term KJV-only does not mean Ruckmanite. I do not smear all King James users and defenders as supposedly being "KJV-only Ruckmanite Quacks." I have clearly defined the term KJV-only, and I have clearly noted that the term does not mean followers of Peter Ruckman. You are the one who tries to misrepresent the meaning of the term KJV-only by alleging that it means that.
I soundly pointed out that Ruckman's tenets follow from his definition of Scripture and inspiration, and you do not refute my observation. I back up and provide the support and evidence for my specific and clear points.
You have ignored the definition of KJV-only in a book that you have quoted several times. This book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them edited by Kent Brandenburg in its definitions defined King James Only as follows: “a broad title for any individuals and institutions who read, study, preach, and use only the King James Version as an English translation” (p. 11).
Gary Webb maintained that the Bible doctrine of verbal preservation of Scripture “leads men to adopt the ‘King James Only’ position” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 20).
Alan Dale Gross, according to your own favored source, does the Bible doctrine of verbal preservation of Scripture lead you to adopt the KJV-only position?
According to this definition of King James only in one of your favored sources edited by Kent Brandbenburg, Alan Dale Gross, are you KJV-only?
Last edited:
Herb Evans was a follower and sometimes an instructor of Peter Ruckman or both. Herb Evans contributed to Peter Ruckman's tenets, especially his definition of Scripture and inspiration.
Just as Roman Catholics make salvation depend on their church, some KJV-only advocates attempt to make salvation depend on the KJV. Does this indicate an extreme to which human KJV-only reasoning can lead?
Herb Evans, a KJV-only advocate, in an article "Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?" wrote: "Almost without exception (and we are not sure about the exceptions) any births, resulting from the above perverted bibles [English Bibles other than the KJV], are perverted also--spiritual cripples" (The Flaming Torch, January-March, 1992, p. 10). This unscriptural claim would make the Holy Spirit responsible for the new birth of spiritual cripples and perverts (John 3:5-8, 1 John 3:9, 5:4, Eph. 1:13, Titus 3:5). In Ruckman's Bible Believers' Bulletin, Herb Evans declared: "We have been born of incorruptible seed," and he claimed that this incorruptible seed is the 1611 KJV (October, 1978, p. 3). Peter Ruckman himself had claimed that “the AV was incorruptible in 1611, and it is incorruptible now” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Seven, p. 26). Michael O’Neal asserted: “I believe that this (the King James Bible) is incorruptible seed” (Do We Have the Word of God, p. 13). Al Lacy wrote: “It takes the INCORRUPTIBLE seed to give the New Birth” (Can I Trust, p. 98).
Perhaps, some KJV-only advocates or KJV defenders might attempt to excuse or discount this KJV-only claim that modern translations produce spiritual cripples by saying that only the extreme followers of Peter Ruckman would make such statements. However, fundamental pastors and KJV-only advocates who do not claim to follow Ruckman's view have already gone to this extreme and even further. Almost no one admits that they follow all of Ruckman's KJV-only ideas.