Dr. Ruckman's "advanced Revelation"

[robycop3]

While I see your view, to which you're entitled, of course, I'm hoping we can discuss what Dr. Ruckman actually wrote. It's a matter of public record, and he clearly has claimed that the KJV is right where its sources were wrong. Since God promised to preserve His word UNTO ALL GENERATIONS, this is implying that the English had no pure word of God until the KJV was written. it cannot be both ways...either God DID preserve His word UNTO ALL GENERATIONS as He said, or He did NOT perfectly preserve it and had to "make it right" with the KJV.

Actually, I believe the KJV is an excellent TRANSLATION, and nothing more. Just as GOD provided the English of 400 years ago with His word in the best English of that time, he continues to do so today. He did NOT retire in 1611.

If you have time to check the archives here, you'll find where there are several PROVEN less-than-perfect translations in the KJV, with some words added or omitted that were not in its sources. A prime example is the phrase "the image of" in Romans 11:5. This is NOT "advanced revelation"; it was a whim of a translator. But according to Dr. Ruckman's writings above, it qualifies as "advanced revelation".

So maybe YOU missed MY point...that this thing is a product of Dr. Ruckman's imagination, same as the KJVO doctrine in general is a figment of some other mens' imaginations.

 

[Phillip]

In addition to Robycop3's questions, might I also ask:

Why would the English language be the blessed language to obtain one of the only accurate copies of the Word-Of-God, through the preservation theory?

Do you believe there are accurate Bibles in all languages?

Since there are differences in versions between the 1611 and Oxford which is the least, and which is the most accurate KJV?

Do you believe the NKJV to be correct since it is a very good translation of the TR (for the NT)?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Don't hold your breath, Phillip!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Phillip:

Since there are differences in versions between the 1611 and Oxford which is the least, and which is the most accurate KJV?

In my mind it goes deeper than that Phillip - only one can be "letter for letter" perfect. Even one comma, full stop, Saviour instead of Savior, etc would make it imperfect. Perfect means PERFECT, free from even printer, typo, or spelling errors. Where is our copy of that "settled in heaven" version?

 

[Dr.Tim]

Yes, I see your point, but I think that there is a mistaken notion here of what exhibits a perfect Bible. The question that I ask is "do you believe that the original manuscripts were ever (and I mean ALL 27 instances of the original NT manuscripts) compiled in ONE BOOK or one stack?
If not, and I know it wasnt, then I think this takes away from the idea that before the KJV there was no perfect bible. I think we have always had the entire Bible in the various manuscripts and that the KJV is a translation of those.
The NKJV,,.. no.. i will get to that some other time, but i will be honest, i dont have much respect for how that was done.

tim

 

[robycop3]

But...How about what Dr. Ruckman wrote? Is it true or false? Let's stick to that discussion in this thread, Dr. Tim. We can discuss the KJVO myth in another thread, and/or you may start your OWN thread if you wish.

We had an earlier thread concerning Dr. Ruckman, which was shut down by a moderator because it had gotten too far off-theme. We would like to thoroughly discuss his claims and assertions without venturing off on a tangent.

Once again, I maintain that whatever Dr. Ruckman claims for advanced revelation for the KJV
can be applied to ANY Bible version, or else the whole idea simply isn't true. If we try to apply his assertion to JUST ONE VERSION, we're using a DOUBLE STANDARD.

 

[Dr.Tim]

hello again
I think I have already stated what I believe and I guess its up to the reader to decide whether or not i feel what Dr. Ruckman said was right or wrong. I personally do not like the phrase "advanced revelation". I think leeway is given in ther sense of preservation.
As to your question about whether "advanced revelation" could apply to other translations.. I personally do not think Dr. Ruckman believes that God was involved in the other translations we have available today. Some mention the NKJV, which is the only other translation that is popular today that follows the TR. So, i guess he would say that the prinicple that he calls "advanced revelation" could only be applied to a translation that God is involved in.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by Dr.Tim:
I personally do not think Dr. Ruckman believes that God was involved in the other translations we have available today. Some mention the NKJV, which is the only other translation that is popular today that follows the TR. So, i guess he would say that the prinicple that he calls "advanced revelation" could only be applied to a translation that God is involved in.

Peter Ruckman wrote: "I recommend Tyndale's version, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, Valera's Spanish version, Martin Luther's version, and a number of others" (SCHOLARSHIP ONLY CONTROVERSY, p. 1). Ruckman wrote: "There is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther's version instead of the Authorized Version" (BIBLE BABEL, p. 2).

Modern-spelling editions of Tyndale's and reprints of Tyndale's are available today. Reprints of the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible are also available. While Ruckman recommended them and would seem to accept that God was involved with them, he doesn't make "advanced revelation" claims for them.

It is interesting that Ruckman would recommend Luther's German Bible that did not have 1 John 5:7, Mark 11:26, and Luke 17:36 and other phrases
found in the KJV and that did have the rendering "morgan stern" [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12. At many verses, the NKJV is closer to the KJV than the KJV is to Tyndale's or the Geneva Bible and yet Ruckman recommended them. Is that a hint of inconsistencies or double standards in his KJV-only view?

 

[robycop3]

I am of the opinion that Dr. Ruckman simply made up the whole thing. His assertions posted above simply CANNOT be applied to one version only in ANY language.

 

[Dr.Tim]

Roby...I am trying to understand you here... to me.. if it's an act of God where God Himself prefers one version over another (and i think we all agree He does)I dont think he needs to worry about whether people feel there is a double standard or not. Ruckman thinks its an act of God, not the act of a theologian. God doesn;t have to be "fair"... is this the line we are discuissing along? Hope so, because I am not sure what else it could be.
tim

 

[rsr]

" ... if it's an act of God where God Himself prefers one version over another (and i think we all agree He does) ..."

Why would we all agree?

If it were true, how would we know it?

 

[Dr.Tim]

haha.. well.. lets just say we dont want to take a deistic attitude here. I think God prefers one Bible over another, i think he prefers one denomination over another..etc. How will we know it? Next time Jesse Duplantis goes to heaven i will ask him to find out and let me know when he touches down again.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by Dr.Tim:
I think God prefers one Bible over another

Baptist pastor Charles Spurgeon observed: "If you make apparent providence your guide, you will make a thousand mistakes, but if you follow 'It is written' your steps will be wisely ordered."
He added: "Too many direct their ways by what they call providences." He continued: "I wonder whether Jonah, when he went down to Joppa to flee to Tarshish, considered it a providence that a ship was about to sail. If so, he was like too many now-a-days, who seek to lay their guilt upon God by declaring that they felt bound to act as they did, for providence suggested it. Our Lord was not guided as to what he should do by the circumstances around him" (THE INFALLIBLE WORD, p. 40).

If the supposed necessity for belief in the man-made KJV-only theory is established in terms of experience, results, tradition, antiquity, or "providence," it is not the necessity of the use of the KJV that is being established.

 

[robycop3]

Actually, I see more imagination and guesswork here by those who would try to defend Dr. Ruckman. I see no proof of God's preferring one BV over another nor His preferring one denom over another. I am baptist by my beliefs; I'm Sola Scriptura...but I've seen people from many other denoms whom I'd say are just as saved as I am. God has different work for different believers, and He may well have allowed or even caused the various denoms to come into being to serve Him in various ways.

Dr. Ruckman claims to be a baptist, but he definitely has nome non-Baptist ideas. The KJVO myth was NOT originally part of the IFB doctrine; it was ADDED later by some extremists who had no idea what they were doing.

Now, Dr. Ruckman's theories about the KJV are either right or wrong...no gray area. I believe they're TOTALLY WRONG.

 

[gb93433]

When I read what is often posted about false teachers who teach the KJVO myths and other nonsense is it any wonder why some non-believers think of Christians as stupid?

 

[robycop3]

There are many places in Scripture where GOD adds to it, but NO place where He says, "OOops! Gotta correct this!"

According to Dr. Ruckman's wild idea, God waited 1500 years after he finished presenting His messages to all mankind to correct what He'd first given.

Remember, He did not "correct" the Old Covenant with the New Covenant; He gave mankind a more simple way to have his sins forgiven and to become righteous in His sight. He ADDED to the OC. He did NOT do away with sacrifice; He FULFILLED all sacrificial requirements by the sacrifice of His very own one-and-only SON, as there can be no greater sacrifice in the universe. JESUS HIMSELF said not one jot nor tittle of the law should pass away till ALL had been fulfilled, but while the laws of sacrifice are still "on the books", they no longer apply to us because JESUS FULFILLED ALL OF THEM. Yes, Jesus fulfilled them; he did NOT erase them.

An analogy I often use is the current Selective Service registration law, which says all US males must register with selective Service upon reaching age 18. This law doesn't apply to me due to my age & prior service. It doesn't apply to my wife because of her gender. But it's still on the books, and it DOES apply to some others. Likewise, the people who have not come to Christ will have had to have fulfilled every law in God's book without the slightest mistake to be "pure". They no longer have the option of atoning of sin by animal sacrifice, as JESUS' sacrifice made all subsequent animal sacrifices of no value.

But I'm preaching to the choir & getting off-topic. In summary, Dr. Ruckman's wild, un-Scriptural idea that God used the English to correct the Greek is codwallop, drawn from a vivid imagination. God's word has never needed correction, and He's still in control of it, providing it in the various languages AS HE CHOOSES. While He may alter its exact wording to fit it within a given language, a language HE created, HE DOES NOT CORRECT IT.

 

[Dr.Tim]

ok last post here....
i think it would be silly to say that if two things that are different and are mutually exclusive in some ways are place before God, He would not have a preference.

 

[robycop3]

Dr.Tim:ok last post here....
i think it would be silly to say that if two things that are different and are mutually exclusive in some ways are place before God, He would not have a preference.

Well, what we have here is the KJV Bible and Dr. Ruckman's fantasies about it. Of course God's gonna favor a legitimate translation of His word over some silly theory about that translation based upon nothingness.

I hope you'll consider posting in other threads in this forum, or in other forums, as yours seems to be a voice of moderation and reason among a sea of KJVO cacaphony. But if you choose to go, adieu, & nice meeting you, even if only electronically.

In Christ,

Cranston

 

[robycop3]

Shall we discuss Dr. Ruckman's wild theory that the KJV corrects its sources any more? Or, shall we move on to his black-lipped Antichrist? God Willing, I'll wait a day or so before moving on to that subject. In th meantime, it appears the vast majority of readers, including myself, believes his theory to be phony as a football bat.

 

[robycop3]

It appears it's time to move on to another of Dr. Ruckman's "advanced revelations"-the black-lipped, 10-ft.tall antichrist who arrives by flying saucer. Here's a link to begin with:

http://www.kjvonly.org/bob/ross_black_lip_pr.htm

Bear in mind that Drs. Ruckman & Ross don't like each other, so please ignore Dr. Ross' rhetoric and pay close attention to the excerpts from Dr. Ruckman's book. (Several years back, I read that book for myself, and I can verify those excerpts are indeed in that book!)

ONE bird which definitely rode out the flood and spread about the land was the CUKOO!