What about Ruckmanites?

[Soulman]

I know this is not the KJVO forum but aside from Peter Ruckman believing the KJV's translators to have been inspired, he believes that any that do not believe that way are apostates.

My brother belongs to one of these churches. In my experience they are usually very small works of 30-60 members. They are the type that street preach.(nothing wrong with that)

I went to a conference with my brother assuming it would be beneign. I was amazed at the flip flop of doctrines they have.

They are the type that are so busy preaching seperation that they don't grow. It is like they preach the Christ of contention. They beat you over the head with the truth.

What do you think??

 

[AV1611]

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Can anybody give me teachings or doctrine about this Ruckmanites? This sounds new to me any example for their flip flop of doctrines so that I can be aware of? We know that we are in this apostate hour.

 

[HankD]

Do a Google on "Peter Ruckman" and/or "advanced revelation" and you will be busy for a long time with some very unusual doctrine.

HankD

 

[Soulman]

Check this out AV1611: http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Soulman:
I know this is not the KJVO forum but aside from Peter Ruckman believing the KJV's translators to have been inspired, he believes that any that do not believe that way are apostates.

My brother belongs to one of these churches. In my experience they are usually very small works of 30-60 members. They are the type that street preach.(nothing wrong with that)

I went to a conference with my brother assuming it would be beneign. I was amazed at the flip flop of doctrines they have.

They are the type that are so busy preaching seperation that they don't grow. It is like they preach the Christ of contention. They beat you over the head with the truth.

What do you think??

My experience with this pseudo-Christian sect is very different. For several months I infiltrated a “church” belonging to the sect and learned that it owns a very large facility and that it has several hundred members. They are not active in street preaching but observe of the JW practice of spreading their sect by door to door visitation, very much to the distress of those whom they disturb in their own homes! During this time, I developed close relationships with about 35 of the members and was invited to their homes, work parties, etc., and I accepted the invitations, spending as much as 40 hours with some individuals over a period of a few months.

What I experienced with this sect was strikingly similar to what I experienced with another pseudo-Christian sect know as the “Coonyites” or the “Two by Twos.” The members of both of these sects were so severely brainwashed that to a substantial extent they had lost touch with reality and frequently answered my question in a robotic manner spewing out the words that had been programmed into their heads. And from their point of view, they are God’s chosen people and those outside of their sect are enemies of the cross of Christ and need to be saved.

Based upon my experience with the pseudo-Christian sect that Ruckman belongs to, I believe that the members of the sect are in grave peril and VERY MUCH in need of our prayers. Most of them appear to me to be beyond hope, but within this sect there are many who are very much lost and still searching for help.

In closing, I will comment that I do NOT believe that the members of this sect are Baptists. They share with Baptists several doctrines on the surface, but below the surface they have nothing in common with us.

 

[Soulman]

Thats a little different than what I have experienced Craig but I suppose they are diverse being independant and seperatist to their extent. I think you are right. They arent really baptists as we know them. They have such a twisted way of interpreting the scriptures.

 

[DHK]

My experience has been quite different. We have a number of them in the general area in which I live (i.e., KJVO churches). I count them as brothers in the Lord, and as Baptists, in fact these ones are IFB churches. In doctrine they are straight down the line fundamental just as we are. Our youth groups cooperate with each other. We organize camps with each other, as well as other conferences.
KJVO is about the only thing that we differ on. These people are not heretics, only doctrinally misled. A Charismatic, for example, may still be a Christian, but one who is mixed up doctrinally (and I think more mixed up than a KJVO).

KJVO is generally a position taken out of sentimentality, or an emotional attachment to a book which they are afraid to change. People are afraid to change. Some therefore go to extremes and build a hedge about them to prevent that change. That hedge may be so extreme as to say that the KJV is just as inspired (or even more so) than the Hebrew and Greek--a ridiculous position. But people hate change. The same type of things have happened in the past. People didn't want change after Jerome's Vulgate. It was the standard. And when other translations came about people resisted.

In our church to combat error, we constantly teach the error of KJVO. We use examples: the OT "unicorn," the NT "easter," the differences between the various editions of the KJV, and therefore how it would be impossible for any one of them to be infallible. For even one of them to have just one error of any kind would mean that it is fallible and therefore not inspired. God makes no mistakes. What it boils down to is a matter of soul liberty. They can believe that way if they like, just don't force it upon us.
DHK

 

[Soulman]

DHK,
There is a difference between KJVO and Ruckmanite. Most KJVO churches beleive the KJV to be God's word preserved. We do understand that it is a translation.

The Ruckmanite believes the KJV's translators to be inspired. They believe the KJV to be the inspired word of God.

If you don't believe as they do, you are an apostate christian and probobly unsaved. They do not recognize churches at all that do not hold their view of the bible.

So, If they use the KJV and we use the KJV, they still will not accept us as our differences over inspiration and preservation prevent fellowship and cooperation in their eyes.

 

[Ps104_33]

I am a "King James man" but I dont try to force it on others. The other bibles just dont seem to speak to me like the AV1611 does. I guess its like choosing a ribeye over ground chuck.

(I might note that I have had dinner with Ruckman and sat at the same table with him. He is an unusual man to say the least. It would have been interesting to see waht would have become of him had he not gotten saved and become a preacher.)

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by DHK:
In our church to combat error, we constantly teach the error of KJVO. We use examples: the OT "unicorn," the NT "easter,"

If those are your "examples" you better find some better "examples!"

 

[Soulman]

Quoted by ps104_33: I am a "King James man" but I dont try to force it on others. The other bibles just dont seem to speak to me like the AV1611 does. I guess its like choosing a ribeye over ground chuck.

Amen!! There are lots of KJV folks out there that use the KJV out of preference. We aren't milit ant and disfellowship or discount a persons christianity based on their translation.

Ruckmanites give KJV users a bad rap.

 

[Humblesmith]

The best book on this is "The King James Only Controversy" by James White. This book deals specifically with Ruckman and others.

 

[Brother Ian]

I believe the problem with the KJVO folks is that they simply deny that any other translation is the Word. What in the world did the poor folks read who lived before 1611?

I think there are three versions of the KJV, 1611, 1629, and 1769. The KJV was not the first English translation. It was Coverdale in 1535. I love my KJV and all the veres I've memorized are KJV. I preach from KJV.

I used to think that it was the only good version around. Since I did some research into the issue, I have changed my position. I am now of the opinion that the New American Standard is the most accurate word for word translation we have available to us today.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Brother Ian:
What in the world did the poor folks read who lived before 1611?

Most KJVOs would answer that the bibles coming from the same "stream" as the KJV would have been the word of God in English prior to the KJV. That would include Tyndale, Matthews, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops' Bible and others.

I think there are three versions of the KJV, 1611, 1629, and 1769.

1611, 1613, 1629, 1638, 1657, 1762, 1769, 1842, 1873 etc., etc., etc.

The KJV was not the first English translation. It was Coverdale in 1535.

The first bible in English was probably the Lindisfarne Gospels dating to about 700 A.D. These were in Latin with an Anglo-Saxon interlinear translation added about 950 A.D.

In about 1000 A.D., the Aelfric version was translated, but was not a complete bible.

Then came the Ormulum in about 1300.

Richard Rolle translated the Psalms into Early Middle English about 1300 which was followed by the Wycliffe Version in 1382.

The Tyndale Version of 1525 was next.

Myles Coverdale published a work called "The First Complete Bible to be Printed in the English Tongue" in about 1535. This was mostly based on Tyndale's work, with Martin Luther's German translation used for comparison.

In 1537 a Bible was published with a title page suggesting that the translator was Thomas Matthew. The publisher is now known to have been John Rogers, who was an associate of Tyndale, and much of the work had probably been done by Tyndale prior to his death, and the balance was done by John Rogers working from Tyndale's notes.

Later editions in 1539, 1540 and 1541 contained a preface by Archbishop Cranmer and became know as the Cranmer Bible.

Coverdale revised the Matthew's Bible into what became known as the Great Bible, due to its large size (9 by 15 inches). This Bible was used in most Anglican churches from about 1538 until it went out of print in 1569.

Then came the Geneva Bible of 1557/1560.

The Bishops' Bible of 1568 was the bible used by the KJV translators as their base text for their revision.

Then came the Rheims Catholic bible in 1582, followed by the KJV in 1611.

I am now of the opinion that the New American Standard is the most accurate word for word translation we have available to us today.

The NASB's predecessor, the ASV was once known as "The Rock of Biblical Honesty" and was considered a very good, literal translation. However, it has the drawback of being a very good, literal translation of a badly flawed underlying text. Where there is no textual variant, the NASB is excellent, if a bit wooden, but when there is a textual variant, the NASB often follows the minority text, much to its detriment.