What do you think of Peter Ruckman?

please explain

 

Ruckman is a scumbag, and so are you if you if you regard him as you claim.

 

Ruckman and his followers are NOT fundamentalists. You can call them pseudo-fundamentalists, neo-fundamentalists, anti-fundamentalists, or some other variation but he rejects the teachings and premises of genuine fundamentalist.

Pastor Larry, Dr. Griffin, and Kal-El are good examples of fundamentalists.

 

Scotty aka Scott J said:

Ruckman and his followers are NOT fundamentalists. You can call them pseudo-fundamentalists, [etc.]

Ooops, sorry. My term is "psycho-fundamentalist," and that's what I meant.

Thinking for oneself is the last thing the psycho-fundies want people to do, and it is evident from the string of phrases the Harvest strung together that he is not practicing what he preaches, either.

 

Ruckman and his followers are NOT fundamentalists. You can call them pseudo-fundamentalists, neo-fundamentalists, anti-fundamentalists, or some other variation but he rejects the teachings and premises of genuine fundamentalist.

Pastor Larry, Dr. Griffin, and Kal-El are good examples of fundamentalists.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree. Ruckman "followers" as you call them do not usually consider themselves "fundamentalists". The term "Bible-believers" is most often used.

Hey Ransom, isn't it funny that you accuse me of wanting people to not think for themselves and yet you, as a calvinist, don't believe in the free will of man. Wouldn't thinking for yourself be kind of like having free will? You believe people can't choose to be saved, so what's the difference with what you believe and what you accuse me of believing?

 

[ January 30, 2003, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: swordsman ]

 

The Harvest said:

Hey Ransom, isn't it funny that you accuse me of wanting people to not think for themselves and yet you, as a calvinist, don't believe in the free will of man.

Hey, you know what's even funnier? Every time I start questioning the presuppositions of the KJV-onlyists, you try to change the subject to me.

You're like the big talking head in The Wizard of Oz, blathering "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

KJV-onlyists are so predictable. You gotta .

[ January 30, 2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

typical ransom, can't find an answer so he claims the subject has been changed when he wasn't even discussing the subject in the first place.

 

Really BAD theology, and really SAD personal attack.

Consider this a warning. I will silence folks who demonstrate the spirit of antichrist that is prevalent here.
I di not show the spirit of antichrist

The KJV is NOT going up in the rapture.
I did not say it was,although I seriously doubt the antichrist would use it

There WILL be thousands of true christians on earth after the rapture.
.
Yea, after the rapture, singing the song of Moses?

The only way people get saved (and they will be) is by the Holy Spirit, so the Spirit WILL be here on earth.

Like I said, really bad theology.
Well that is your opinion and evvverry one has one

But to equate a person not worshiping the AV1611 (whatever revision you use) or using another English translation with not being a Christian is totally abhorent and intrinsically evil.
I AGREE IF THAT WAS WHAT I SAID, IT WAS HIS STATEMENTS OF THOSE CHURCHS THAT I WAS BOTHERED ABOUT NOT ANY VERSION OF THE BOOK HE USES

Now, if I held that mentality, I would say that someone who says such about his brother is probably not saved.
Okey Dokey

How would you feel?
Fine

Let's all grow up a little. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

isn't it odd how some of us quote the Bible when trying to prove a point, and some of us, like ransom, quote hollywood as their final authority.

 

But at least The Wizard of Oz actually makes my point.

That's more than can be said for the KJV-onlyists and the Bible. Not a single Bible verse, used in its proper context and in the way its author intended, can be, nor ever has been, cited in support of KJV-onlyism. Not one.

Biblical support for KJV-onlysm just ain't there.

At least I recognize The Wizard of Oz as the fantasy it is. KJV-onlyists, apparently, do not know fantasy from reality.

[ January 30, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

GASP!!!???? you're not trying to change the subject are you ransom?????

this is not a KJB discussion and before you accuse me again of changing the subject just be forewarned, i'm not discussing KJB Onlyism with you here.

 

ransom, why do you keep editing your messages? are you having trouble thiking on your own with your own free will? oh wait, you don't have free will. i keep forgetting.

 

The Harvest said:

this is not a KJB discussion

Look at the top of the page.

"Topic: What do you think of Peter Ruckman?"

What else would a thread about Dr. Petey be in a "Bible Versions/Translations" forum, if not KJV-onlyism? Who's changing the subject here?

 

The Harvest said:

ransom, why do you keep editing your messages?

Because I can.

[Edited to add] And because I frequently notice after the fact that I neglected to point out that KJV-onlyism is a fundy fairy tale.

[edited again] And because it really tweaks the KJV-onlyists when I do it.

[edited again] Because it gives them just one more temptation to try and change the subject away from their fairy-tale doctrine.

[ January 30, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

flip back to page 10 and see the discussion between myself and Refreshed and Pastor Larry. that's the subject.

 

Flip back to page 1 and look at the very first sentence posted. That's the subject.

 

the general thought on Peter Ruckman and his stand on the KJB

the subject on page 10 was general thoughts on PSR, but if you want to start talking about the second part of the topic then go right ahead.

 

Heck, let's just combine the two.

Dr. Petey is a cranky, self-important, psycho-fundamentalist adulterous windbag whose "career," which goes practically unnoticed except in the psycho-fundy ghetto, is built on nothing but the aggressive promotion of fantasy and fairy tales disguised as "Bible doctrine."

[Edited because I forgot to say "adulterous." When you hear "adultery," think of Ruckman.]
[Edited again because what the heck.]

[ January 30, 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]