Dr. Ruckman's "advanced Revelation"

[gb93433]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
You cannot show from scripture (haha) the idea that a translation cannot be scripture.

Why would I need to provide scripture? God gave us a brain to use and a little common sense. He also gives wisodm to some.

Anyone knows a standard is the thing that all others are judged by.

A translation of scripture can never be scripture. It is an impossibility.

Apparently you have not done any translation work from one language to another to even think the original document is equal to a translation.

Sometime ask your spanish speaking friends to translate Como estas and Como esta. Then have them explain the difference.

Once you do that then come back and try and make your claim.

 

[KeithS]

Originally posted by gb93433:

A translation of scripture can never be scripture. It is an impossibility.

I really haven't been following this thread that closely, peeking in from time to time...however, this statement seems a bit presumptuous. gb, are you sure you don't want to take it back or clarify? There seem to be clear instances where Jesus or the Apostles quote from the LXX and call it "Scripture". The LXX surely qualifies as a translation.

And, if I have misunderstand the statement by not following the thread more completely, I apologize in advance.

 

[HankD]

The words do matter. We don't have any way of knowing for sure what the words are unless God provides them for us. Little changes in words make big differences in meaning.

That was my point exactly, I have several other examples from the KJV where they made wrong choices. But you made that point the first time, that is, the importance of getting even a single word translated correctly.
When I agreed with you and showed you an example that worked the other way then you balked.

Deny it if you wish.
But you dear brother have a double standard. One for James, one for Hank.

HankD

 

[David J]

Guys your letting our O friends evade and hijack this thread! Let’s get back to Ruckman's heresies!

Drop the version stuff and get back to discussing the heresies of Ruckman.

It seems that some are willing to take a blind-eye to Ruckman. The KJV itself destroys Ruckmanism and the KJV teaches us to AVOID teachers such as Ruckman. To do anything else is to rebel against the Word of the Most High as found in all faithful translations. Again there are not GREY areas with God; greys only exist in the minds of man.

I have yet to get any real answers to my questions. All I have gotten is smoke screens and attempts to hi-jack this thread.

To compromise truth for a lie is unacceptable. I’m amazed at how some people will bend over backwards to defend the heretic Ruckman. That my friends is liberalism that needs some good ol "old fashioned" hard preaching to weed it out of the Baptist camp. Ruckman is an eyesore upon all who love our blessed Lord Jesus Christ! I for one will not make excuses and pardon a man that the Word of the Most High labels a false prophet/heretic.

What has happened to old time preaching and being in season and out of season? Can we not call a dog a dog and a cat a cat? Must we hide behind the feel good line of "don't judge" even when the Bible gives us liberty to make righteous judgements? I am not judging without evidence. Ruckman provides the evidence and the Word condemns him. The Word puts a red flag over his head and YELLS DANGER! DANGER! Whys it is so hard for some to see that simply truth?

What I have read here is not old fashioned bible believing preaching! Its liberal compromising of the Word of Truth in order to defend a “pet” of the KJVO movement. All traditional standards are tossed out the window in order to pardon Dr. Ruckman of his many printed heresies. This really saddens me and I plea with those who do this to consult the Master and ask for wisdom to discern truth from a lie.

It’s very evident to all who read this thread that there are those who are willing to compromise in order to protect Ruckman. It is very evident to those who may read this thread who is conservative and true Baptist and those who are willing to bend and over look problems.

Yes this is hard but sometimes standing for what is right is hard. I say these things in love and hope that those who defend Ruckman’s lies will stop and ponder what they are doing. As a brother in the Lord I am simply trying to point out some errors and help you guys.

 

[James_Newman]

You were the one who said the King James was wrong in the use of 'with' in regard to baptize. I merely said my Strongs said otherwise. Is the King James wrong in the use of 'in' in regard to the mark of the beast? Both instances may indeed be a judgment call from man's understanding. The question is who's judgment is correct. The only standard I hold to is the King James. I do not have the luxury of an original autograph set to compare with. Nor do I have an extensive greek/hebrew education. So if I did have the original autographs they would probably be pretty dusty.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by gb93433:
A translation of scripture can never be scripture. It is an impossibility.

Apparently you have not done any translation work from one language to another to even think the original document is equal to a translation.

This is the dogma of the priests of "Autograph Onlyism."

The truth is that the Bible NEVER ONCE refers to autographs as "scripture". "Scripture" always, every single time it is used in the Bible, refers to copies and translations.

Why is God big enough to give us the clock but not big enough to wind it and service it every so often?

I'll take "Scriptures" in the hand over autographs in the bush of not-here-edness any day. And apparantly that is the Bible way too.

lacy

BTW, we never said the translation was as good as the original and neither did Ruckman, ever.

When Ruckman says you can correct the Greek with the English, he is not referring to the autographs. That would be a neat trick since there are no autographs.

He is saying that if the English is right and the Greek is wrong, go with the English. In the diversity of 5000 scattered extant Greek manuscripts, it is not hard to imagine a scenario where one Gk Ms. says one thing and another says something else. We just believe that the Holy Ghost got it right with the KJV. Fruit bears it out. So if "The Greek" (which you happen to be looking at) contradicts "The English" correct it with the KJV and be sure.

 

[av1611jim]

Hank said; quoting av1611jim: ____________________________________________________
Jim said:
"Now, I suggest you do the Scriptural thing and go to him personally and privately and see if you can correct him." _______________________________________________________________
Hank, "Apparently this public post indicates that you have not even taken your own advice."
__________________________________________________________________
Jim replies;
I am not the one with the apparent problem with Doc. Ruckman. You are. Since you have made this public denouncement of him, I have replied in public. I didn't start this. You fellers did, unscripturally I might add.
__________________________________________________________________
GB said,;
"Read 2 Timothy 3:16 again. The KJV is not scripture but an English translation. Scripture is the standard by which all translations are to be compared against. Other wise we have dumbed down scripture and relegated it to being equal with an translation. It is not equal with any translation."
___________________________________________________________________
Jim replies;
So if the KJV is NOT Scripture because it is just a translation then it follows that there is no Scripture on the face of the Earth INCLUDING any other translation. Since all we have is a scattered rag tag bunch of incomplete MSS, we have no Scripture at all. Since, by your own estimation and testimony, every MSS is error prone, then we have no sure word anywhere on earth. Can't you see how very inept this view is?. And IF Scripture is the standard by which ALL translations are to be compared or tested by your own statement, then SIR, please provide them!
____________________________________________________________________
Gb said;
A translation of scripture can never be scripture. It is an impossibility.
­­­­­­­­­­­____________________________________________________________________
Jim replies;
That is the most foolish emotional statement I have ever seen.
"For with God, nothing shall be impossible." I suggest you retract your statement.
____________________________________________________________________
GB said;
Sometime ask your spanish speaking friends to translate Como estas and Como esta. Then have them explain the difference.
____________________________________________________________________
Jim replies;
Don't need to. I can tell you the difference. It is the difference between formal address and informal address. Whatcherpointdude? Since we'er on the Spanish subject, go and search what this meaneth then check back with us, k?.
Que prende á los sabios en la astucia de ellos, Y el consejo de los perversos es entontecido;
_____________________________________________________________________



In HIS service;
Jim

 

[David J]

When Ruckman says you can correct the Greek with the English, he is not referring to the autographs. That would be a neat trick since there are no autographs.

He is saying that if the English is right and the Greek is wrong, go with the English. In the diversity of 5000 scattered extant Greek manuscripts, it is not hard to imagine a scenario where one Gk Ms. says one thing and another says something else. We just believe that the Holy Ghost got it right with the KJV. Fruit bears it out. So if "The Greek" (which you happen to be looking at) contradicts "The English" correct it with the KJV and be sure.

This is saying that the English corrects the Greek. Sorry Lacy but that elephant will not fly.

 

[David J]

All this slipping and sliding can be hard to follow

Please stick with Ruckman or start another thread.

 

[James_Newman]

If the greek is wrong and the english is right, do the math.

 

[David J]

I did the math James. Now tell me this:

The Geneva says "pascha" means meaning Passover.

KJV says "pascha" means easter.

Which is right? The older tradition rendering or the new rendering found in the KJV?

Stop trying to hijack this thread and stay on track.

 

[James_Newman]

What is easter in Spanish?

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by gb93433:
So you would say as Ruckman who claims the KJV text corrects the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic is not a false teacher?

see above

Isn't that like saying the KJV is inspired and the original text is not? To say that, is saying the scripture is not inpsired by the Holy Spirit but man.

Now this cracks me up because not one of you who believes in Autograph-Onlyism believes that ANY EXTANT MANUSCRIPT IS INSPIRED! They are not the autographs any more than the KJV is. Basically they are just an older copy in another language.

So the issue is not correcting the "originals" (they are gone)with the KJV but rather correcting corrupted Greek copies with a perfect English translation.

[sarcasm]I believe that worshipping the autographs is Bibliotry. [/sarcasm]

lacy

 

[David J]

Lacy what about answer some of my questions about Ruckman teaching in your church. Please.....I'm wondering how you would handle him if he started his special teachings.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by David J:
Lacy what about answer some of my questions about Ruckman teaching in your church. Please.....I'm wondering how you would handle him if he started his special teachings.

David, it is an honest question. If an 82 year old preacher started talking about aliens and such, I would probably let him ramble out of respect for his age. I would be sure to do some damage control after he left.

But he is right about the KJV. And he is an important enough figure in this debate to warrant some honest scrutiny. I just happen to think your scrutiny (although absolutely correct in many respects) is very one sided. I also think that there is a tendency to disregard the man's teachings altogether because of some screwball ideas he has.

It seems to me like you're swatting at mosquitoes while you are lying in a sleeping bag full of rattlesnakes.

Lacy

I don't agree with him on MANY issues. To him, I am a heretic for some of my beliefs, and he wouldn't hesitate to say so.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by David J:
When Ruckman says you can correct the Greek with the English, he is not referring to the autographs. That would be a neat trick since there are no autographs.

He is saying that if the English is right and the Greek is wrong, go with the English. In the diversity of 5000 scattered extant Greek manuscripts, it is not hard to imagine a scenario where one Gk Ms. says one thing and another says something else. We just believe that the Holy Ghost got it right with the KJV. Fruit bears it out. So if "The Greek" (which you happen to be looking at) contradicts "The English" correct it with the KJV and be sure.

This is saying that the English corrects the Greek. Sorry Lacy but that elephant will not fly.

Please read more carefully. That's where you misinterpreted Ruckman too. If I had a Greek manuscript that said Jesus was just a good man, and I had the KJV telling me he is God, could I or could I not "correct the Greek'?

Lacy

 

[David J]

Lacy,

Thanks for answering my questions.

Now the Greek thing...I just disagree with ya on that one. Nuff said.

In His service,
David

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Thanx, C$K, for closing the other Ruckman thread. I reckon some people forgot there IS a Calvinism-Arminianism forum, and THAT'S where such discussions belong.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...

Let us look at the dr.s weird views, both on the KJV and some other things.

In 1970, he released a book, THE CHRISTIAN'S HANDBOOK OF MANUSCRIPTS EVIDENCE in which he asserts the English of the KJV corrects the Greek from which the NT is translated. The book actually has a chapter called "Correcting the Greek with the English"! In it he wrote,"Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation" (p 126).One of those "advanced revelations" is the rendering "churches" in Acts 19:37 when the Greek refers to TEMPLES.

Here's a summary of the teachings of Ruckman as far as the KJV goes:

1.) The King James Version itself is given by special revelation;
_________________________________________________

True when understood to mean that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
_________________________________________________

2.)The KJV is not just a version, it is the actual preserved Word of God;
_________________________________________________
Also true.

_________________________________________________
3.)The KJV is superior to any Greek or Hebrew text of the past, including even the Greek and Hebrew texts from which the KJV was translated.
_________________________________________________
Not exactly what he teaches. He teaches that if the Greek MS under consideration is wrong in a particular place, then the English is what you go with.
__________________________________________________
4.)The reason for "3" is because God has given "advanced revelation" or "advanced light", above and beyond those Greek and Hebrew texts.
__________________________________________________
Show these direct quotes if you will, please. Include those additional words "above and beyond" in the quote if you don't mind. I have never read Doc's books where they say that.
_________________________________________________

5.) So miraculous is the KJV that God has given special revelation in the words in italics in the KJV, in the very order of the books, chapter and verse numbers, and even the fact of its name - the "King James" version.
__________________________________________________
Yep. I have seen where the italics in the OT are directly quoted by Jesus, yet not italicized in the NT because the MSS did not require it.
For example, De 8:3
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every "word" that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. "word" was not in the Hebrew. Yet...Mt 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Jesus quotes the "word". Hence we see that what Doc is talking about is correct.
__________________________________________________

6.)It is doubting the preserved Word of God to look into the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words.
The KJV is the inerrant Bible, why look at original language meanings?
__________________________________________________
Yep. If you can't trust that God is able to give you a perfect Bible then what can you trust?
__________________________________________________

When the KJVOs who support Dr. Ruckman can get past these zingers, we'll return to the subject of his False prophecies, which went untouched in the thread just shut down.

__________________________________________________

I did not reply to the "false prophecies" because I did not want to. Nyaa! Besides, those you quoted clearly show in his own words he was GUESSING about the return of Jesus.

About the hit list? Well sometimes a feller does get a bit full of himself doesn't he? You should be able to tell us all about that Robycop3. We ALL do it.
__________________________________________________

This should satisfy the fellers who claim I/we are dodging the issue. As with Brother Lacy, there are many things Doc Ruckman teaches which I question. But then again, there are many things, You, Dr. Bob, DPT, Primitive Baptist, et al, teach that I disagree with. And you with me. Does that make YOU fellers any less than me? Nope. (Me thinks "liberal", "heretic", "false prophet" et. al. are hurled around here willy-nilly with no thought of how it makes you look to the world wide web at large.)
He's a heretic! He's a liberal! blah blah blah. What do you hope to accomplish? Fuel for the burning I would say.
Spit out the bones!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[robycop3]

Lacy Evans: And that is just my point! If just one person stumbles upon the truth (by eating one of Ruckman's "slimy bisquits") that the Word of God is not subject to the whim of anybody with a Strongs,

Nor is it subject to a myth started by a 7th Day Adventist.


and believes the Words in his hand that he can read are God's Words, then it will have been worth it.

I think every true Baptist believes it. However, SOME incorrectly believe it's only in ONE VERSION in English and that all the others are wrong. What IS wrong, and what's been PROVEN wrong is their myth.

If Ruckman keeps just one person from believing the hooey that no Bible is or ever was inspired, then more power to him.

Even if he does it by LYING?

 

[James_Newman]

Philippians 1:15-18
(15) Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
(16) The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
(17) But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel.
(18) What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretense, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.