Ruckman's commentary on Revelation

[Evangel]

Hi. I was wondering if anyone had Peter Ruckman's commentary on Revelation. I'd just like to see one chapter. Thanks!

 

[robycop3]

What's this book called?

Note: Ruckie's "ministry" doesn't get one penny from me! What stuff of his I have, I get from flea markets & secondhand book stores.

 

[Evangel]

He has a commentary for every book of the Bible.

 

[John of Japan]

I highly recommend against buying anything by Peter Ruckman, since he is what my beloved KJV calls "a railer," which is an abusive name-caller. (And yes, I have one book and a few pamphlets by him and have read others.) He says vicious things about anyone who disagrees with him--just for the record, including his insults against my grandfather, well-known first generation fundamentalist John R. Rice.

According to 1 Cor. 5:11 we should have nothing to do with a railer: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." Any true lover of the KJV will obey the "Monarch of Books," as Gladstone called it. And if you obey the KJV then you will, ergo, reject Peter Ruckman. :type:

 

[robycop3]

Hmmm, doesn't look as if anyone here has it.....not that I blame 'em...

 

[Salamander]

I highly recommend against buying anything by Peter Ruckman, since he is what my beloved KJV calls "a railer," which is an abusive name-caller. (And yes, I have one book and a few pamphlets by him and have read others.) He says vicious things about anyone who disagrees with him--just for the record, including his insults against my grandfather, well-known first generation fundamentalist John R. Rice.

According to 1 Cor. 5:11 we should have nothing to do with a railer: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." Any true lover of the KJV will obey the "Monarch of Books," as Gladstone called it. And if you obey the KJV then you will, ergo, reject Peter Ruckman. :type:

Reject him? Nah, preach the DEVIL out of him!!!

 

[Logos1560]

Hi. I was wondering if anyone had Peter Ruckman's commentary on Revelation.

I have a copy of Ruckman's commentary on Revelation that was given to me. A whole chapter would be too long to attempt to post and would likely violate Ruckman's copyright.

 

[Evangel]

Could you just post verses 12 and 13 from chapter 20?

 

[Logos1560]

Could you just post verses 12 and 13 from chapter 20?

Ruckman's comments on those two verses are around 7 pages, which would still be too much to post.

After providing the text of Revelation 20:12 from the KJV in his commentary, Ruckman wrote: "This is the same context of Daniel 7:9, 10, which we have just studied. And here one of the strangest things occurs, that ever occured in scripture. In Daniel 7:9, 10, where Daniel is talking about the judgment of the unsaved dead and the 'books' being opened (and it has to be in heaven--Proverbs 20:8) an event occurs that would indicate that Daniel 7:10 is placed at the end of the Tribulation, instead of the end of the Millennium. (Scofield puts it at the end of the Tribulation)" (p. 545).

On the next page after giving the text of Daniel 7:18, Ruckman wrote: "This kingdom is possessed 'for ever and ever,' and the Millennial possession is only for 1000 years. (I cannot explain Daniel 7:12-14 other than, for a time after the White Throne Judgment the nations on the earth will continue for a season, and then branch out into outer space, leaving the Jew with the earth to himself. Since this is a 'wild' and 'far-out doctrine,' I'm going to drop it" (p. 546).

 

[Evangel]

Thanks for the excerpts.

 

[Cody2]

I have all of Ruckman's commentaries. He is a smart man, but I don't agree with him on everything. I'll be going to see him at a church near where I live this June and going to see him against in September in Florida.

 

[EdSutton]

Reject him? Nah, preach the DEVIL out of him!!!

I suggest this hasn't seemed to have had much effect thus far.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Legit question??

Out of curiosity, if the Bible (in any version) has language as self-explanatory as Dr. Peter Ruckman claims it does, why does there need to be any commentary, at all, unless the commentary is written solely for the purpose of selling books, in order to financially benefit the author??

(Chew on that one for a bit!)

Ed

 

[Cody2]

To expose false doctrine and new versions.

Here's a piece of gum. Chew on that for a little bit. lol

 

[Mexdeaf]

To expose false doctrine and new versions.

Here's a piece of gum. Chew on that for a little bit. lol

Hmm, I thought we were supposed to get our true doctrine from the BIBLE, not from commentaries!

Don't bite your tongue!:laugh:

 

[EdSutton]

To expose false doctrine and new versions.

Here's a piece of gum. Chew on that for a little bit. lol

New versions??

Oh, I get it.

You mean like _______________ ??

(Hint! You may fill in the blank with any and all MSs, editions, translations, copies and/or printings, languages, and/or versions since the autographs were penned by the writers, here. All were "new versions" at the time they appeared.)

Incidentally, that is not a 'false doctrine', FTR.

BTW, does any major 'standard' version of the Bible ever use the phrase "false doctrine", anywhere, apart from the less than universally beloved (at least by some I've encountered over the years) NIV? If so, where?

It says a lot about "doctrine" both in a good sense, and a bad one, but at least to my limited knowledge, never uses the words "false doctrine" anywhere.

Have the gum back. It still has a little bit of the flavor left in it!

Ed