Dr. Ruckman's "advanced Revelation"

[James_Newman]

I preach the truth as I see it at all times. But what do you think would happen to someone if they believed the antichrist was a 10 ft tall black-lipped alien? There are plenty of false doctrines out there, this one doesn't really even make a blip on the radar. What will it do to someone if they believe people will have to work for salvation in the trib? Many people on this board believe people have to work to be saved today. Where is the cry going up? What is the difference between heresy and just plain wrong?

Ruckman's heresies wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if he wasn't teaching that the King James was the word of God. That is the heresy that gets people riled up. Ruckman may be right for all the wrong reasons about this one thing only, that doesn't negate the King James. If kooks and cults try to prove their false doctrines from the KJV, that does nothing to destroy the KJV, it merely shows that even nut cases know where the word of God is. But when read from the page, the KJV cuts all false doctrines to shreds. The best way I know to refute false teaching is by reading the word of God.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by James_Newman:
And at least Ruckman is looking toward the tribulation with the idea that there will be a literal Antichrist. Preterism is far worse than the 10 foot tall alien idea.

So are you saying it is okay to be a heretic? </font>[/QUOTE]No. I don't think it's OK. But what can I do if someone wants to believe something other than the truth? All I can do is try not to be a heretic myself. Just because someone else calls something heresy does not make it so. </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible names Ruckman a false teacher/heretic. Anyone who is divisive is a false teacher.

 

[James_Newman]

Anyone who is divisive is a false teacher...?

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Was Jesus divisive?

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Is the bible divisive?

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Does Ruckman deny the Lord? What is a damnable heresy?

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

HER'ESY, n. [Gr. to take, to hold; L. haeresis.]
1. A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion. But in countries where there is an established church, an opinion is deemed heresy, when it differs from that of the church. The Scriptures being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines, is heresy; but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of christians,may be deemed orthodox by another. In Scripture and primitive usage,heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach.
2. Heresy, in law, is an offense against christianity, consisting in a denial of some of its essential doctrines, publicly avowed and obstinately maintained.

 

[David J]

Apples and oranges James. You are really grasping at straws now.

You fully know the context of what is being discussed. Why even try to smoke us with what you just posted?

I find you comments rather alarming. In order to defend Ruckman are you willing to take what Jesus said out of context? Why are you taking the scriptures out of context to defend Ruckman? I think that you know better than that James. Are you really that liberal in your theology? I certainly hope not.

Ruckman is a heretic no matter how you spin it. The Word of the Most High identifies Ruckman as a heretic and a false prophet.

 

[HankD]

The King James Bible is not the issue of this thread. Dr. Ruckman's teaching of "advanced revelation" in the KJB is the topic.

He has stated in print that God "slammed the door"
of revelation shut in 1611 (not 90AD).

That the King James translation errors were "advanced revelation", God being behind the scenes, caused these "errors" to be made inadvertantly by the KJB translators who were unaware of what they were doing (or being used by God to do).

These "advanced revelations" were not immediately discovered by anyone until he himself discovered them in the 20/21st century. He has written a book which uncovers 200 of these "errors" and their meanings which have gone undetected since the apostles/prophets penned the originals (which didn't exactly include these "advanced revelations").

In other words the full revelation of God had to wait until the KJV translators came upon the scene, made their inspired "mistakes" and Dr. Ruckman discovered and revealed them.

HankD

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by David J:
Apples and oranges James. You are really grasping at straws now.

You fully know the context of what is being discussed. Why even try to smoke us with what you just posted?

I find you comments rather alarming. In order to defend Ruckman are you willing to take what Jesus said out of context? Why are you taking the scriptures out of context to defend Ruckman? I think that you know better than that James. Are you really that liberal in your theology? I certainly hope not.

Ruckman is a heretic no matter how you spin it. The Word of the Most High identifies Ruckman as a heretic and a false prophet.

You made the statement that the bible names Ruckman an heretic, and that anyone who is divisive is a false teacher. I don't think you have a scripture to back that up. Who is blowing smoke?

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is BROTHER Lacy. He IS a preacher.
That's ok though. I don't think he minds. Probably been confused a few times before.

I have never personally been confused. But when I was a little boy, I wore my hair really long and a few folks thought I was a little girl. I guess I was pretty. (I got over being pretty, that's for sure.) I still get stuff in the mail from Avon addressed to "Ms. Lacy Evans". But like I said, I've always had a pretty good handle on the whole issue of my gender, despite my name or my long hair.

Hey Jim, speaking of long hair, remind me to tell you the story about the time (way back before we at Kingdom Baptist cut our hair) that we all got ran off by a bunch of Baptist "Brethren" when we showed up at their church (TO HEAR RUCKMAN no less) shoeless, with our long hair, and wearing shorts and tanktops. We liked to have scared those poor people to death.They were gonna beat us up in the parking lot.


Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Hey! I went to "that" same church 30 years ago with my yankee girlfriend,them thar "brethren" were gonna "cut" my love and we liked to got it on! But thanks to the godly people ( KJB Fundemental to this day!), the antics of the wild men were thwarted, andmuch would come of it if the "wild men" with their modernistic theologies would also be put in their respective places, but then the Will of God would be established here on earth, as it is in Heaven.

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by HankD:
The King James Bible is not the issue of this thread. Dr. Ruckman's teaching of "advanced revelation" in the KJB is the topic.

He has stated in print that God "slammed the door"
of revelation shut in 1611 (not 90AD).

That the King James translation errors were "advanced revelation", God being behind the scenes, caused these "errors" to be made inadvertantly by the KJB translators who were unaware of what they were doing (or being used by God to do).

These "advanced revelations" were not immediately discovered by anyone until he himself discovered them in the 20/21st century. He has written a book which uncovers 200 of these "errors" and their meanings which have gone undetected since the apostles/prophets penned the originals (which didn't exactly include these "advanced revelations").

In other words the full revelation of God had to wait until the KJV translators came upon the scene, made their inspired "mistakes" and Dr. Ruckman discovered and revealed them.

HankD

Lets take a look at a different example. Ruckman's theology doesn't come in to play here, because apparently he believes the mark of the beast is a black lip-print. However, on the subject of the mark of the beast, the KJV says IN the hand or forehead, and the other bibles say ON the hand or forehead. If either might be correct according to the greek scholars, does it follow that both are correct? I hardly see how they could both be correct. If the KJV is correct when it says IN and the others are slightly less correct if not outright wrong with ON, would that be advanced revelation? Or would it be God using the translators to use the correct English word in the translation? What would be the difference, if any?

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by James_Newman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by James_Newman:
And at least Ruckman is looking toward the tribulation with the idea that there will be a literal Antichrist. Preterism is far worse than the 10 foot tall alien idea.

So are you saying it is okay to be a heretic? </font>[/QUOTE]No. I don't think it's OK. But what can I do if someone wants to believe something other than the truth? All I can do is try not to be a heretic myself. Just because someone else calls something heresy does not make it so. </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible names Ruckman a false teacher/heretic. Anyone who is divisive is a false teacher. </font>[/QUOTE]You have condemned thyself with thine own tongue myfriend, you are the divisive, and Jesus divides us from you in His own Word, simply because you incite division rather than untiy of the brethren. Much likened the the entirety of the multiple (so-called) versions that are divided, against themnselves at that due to their many different interpretations the the mass of confusing and contradictory MSS that the uinderlying texts are used the divise them, get that? Divise!

gb has slipped his own head into the noose meant for the man of God!

Hmmmm? Seems I read that story somewhere before? Huh, Naaman?

 

[av1611jim]

Ruckman this, Ruckman that...

Here is what I suggest you naysayers do, since ya'll seem to have a problem with the man.

Mt 18:15
¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mt 18:16
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mt 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Have any of you done this? If not then your mouth should be shut. If you personally have followed this passage to the letter, then what is the uproar about?

I don't go around shouting about the falsities of, say, Robert Schuller. I simply preach the Scriptures. The discerning Christian will be able to see what's what.

A few of us have stated clearly that some things Ruckman teaches are not right as far as we are concerned. Yet, ya'll keep hammering away at this dead horse. We have answered your questions as we see them to be relevant to this brother. Yet you keep hammering away. Why? Are you just not satisfied with our answers or what?

Do you want us to say, "Ruckman is wrong about the 10 foot tall alien?" Ok, he is wrong. THERE! Happy?

Now, I suggest you do the Scriptural thing and go to him personally and privately and see if you can correct him. Don't give me this stuff about Cloud doing it or Kutileck doing it, or White, or "Joe Schmoe". Do it yourself. Then follow the guidelines Jesus gave you.

That's all we ask.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[av1611jim]

Illustration;

I LIKE fried chicken. When I was a kid, my younger brother would literally CHOMP the bones, chew them up and swallow them. I never did like bones. Some folks do, I guess.


Get it?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[HankD]

Or would it be God using the translators to use the correct English word in the translation? What would be the difference, if any?

Using this logic then we can compare the KJV passage with the ASV (of all things)

KJV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:


ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

Seeing King James definite dislike for (he had at least one anabaptist put to death over the KJV issue) the anabaptist doctrine of the believer's baptism, the King James translators apparently made this mistake of translating the koine preposition en as "with" when it should clearly be "in".

So, yes their is partial truth in what you say. The King James translators made many bona fide "mistakes" without following Dr. Ruckman's reasoning of blaming God for said mistakes.

Now, I suggest you do the Scriptural thing and go to him personally and privately and see if you can correct him.

Apparently this public post indicates that you have not even taken your own advice.

HankD

 

[HankD]

I don't go around shouting about the falsities of, say, Robert Schuller. I simply preach the Scriptures. The discerning Christian will be able to see what's what.

Not you jim but many have come here to the BB, ranting, raving, throwing tantrums, filling up several pages of upper-case "shouting", using profane language and calling our Bibles "corrupt" and worse.

HankD

 

[James_Newman]

You say it is an error. According to my concordance with is perfectly fine. More to the point, in English, it really doesn't change the meaning at all, especially when you properly define baptism as immersion. Thank God I'm a baptist! But if it said baptized on water, what would that mean? Would you have to be on a boat to do it?

Some words in some contexts are interchangeable without changing meaning. Some words are not. If I mean to say I have something implanted in my hand, saying on my hand is not accurate. One would only have to look at my hand and see that there was nothing on my hand. In my hand might indicate it was being held in my hand, or resting on the palm of my hand. I might have to repeat myself, IN my hand, IN my hand, before someone understood I meant inside my flesh of my hand. In my forhead? That doesn't make much sense at all unless your talking about something implanted or your talking about some spiritual mark that doesn't exist in reality. But how do you enforce an economic sanction based on a spiritual mark that cannot be detected? The bible is pretty clear on the fact that it will be a literal mark with literal ties to commerce. What do you believe Hank, will the mark be an RFID chip implanted inside the skin? Or when they line you up to get yours will you comfort yourself with the 'knowledge' that the greek might have meant on?

Some of us recognize that we are in a spiritual war, and Satan has an objective. He really wants us to take that mark. The bible says there will be a strong delusion and that if it were possible even the very elect might be deceived. The only way that would be possible would be to undermine the foundation of our faith, which is the Word.

 

[HankD]

Some words in some contexts are interchangeable without changing meaning.

Sure, when they serve your purpose, when they serve Hank's then that's a different story.

What do you believe Hank, will the mark be an RFID chip implanted inside the skin?

I don't know.

HankD

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Some words in some contexts are interchangeable without changing meaning.

Sure, when they serve your purpose, when they serve Hank's then that's a different story.

What do you believe Hank, will the mark be an RFID chip implanted inside the skin?

I don't know.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]It's got nothing to do with serving a purpose, other than serving the Lord. I obviously don't believe that just believing the KJV is going to make you a doctrinal success. But doctrine must have a foundation, and a doctrine can only be as sure as the foundation. I don't care to be compared to Ruckman for my belief that the KJV is innerrant. But I can't shy from what I believe to be true just because it makes me uncomfortable. I would rather be called a bibliolater than to say that it doesn't matter what the words say as long as the general sense is there. 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.

Song of Solomon 2:15
(15) Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by James_Newman:

Does Ruckman deny the Lord? What is a damnable heresy?

HER'ESY, n. [Gr. to take, to hold; L. haeresis.]
1. A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion.

The Scriptures being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines, is heresy; but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of christians,may be deemed orthodox by another.

Do you proclaim relative theology? Relative theology is not theology at all. It is nothing more than accomodation for error and opinion--heresy.

So you would say as Ruckman who claims the KJV text corrects the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic is not a false teacher? 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.

Ruckman clearly fits number 1 of the definition you posted of heresy.

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.

 

[James_Newman]

What is scripture?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
What is scripture?

Take a look at the following verses in context.
Daniel 10:21
Mark 12:10
Mark 15:28
Luke 4:21
John 2:22
John 7:38
John 7:42
John 10:35
John 13:18
John 17:12
John 19:24
John 19:28
John 19:36, 37
John 20:9
Acts 1:16
Acts 8:32
Acts 8:35
Roma 4:3
Roma 9:17
Roma 10:11
Roma 11:2
Gala 3:8
Gala 3:22
Gala 4:30
1Tim 5:18
2Tim 3:16
Jame 2:8
Jame 2:23
Jame 4:5
1Pet 2:6
2Pet 1:20

 

[James_Newman]

You would get a longer list if you included partial matches. I assume you read all those first? You cannot show from scripture (haha) the idea that a translation cannot be scripture.