What does Ruckmannite mean?

He did if He quoted His Word IMpurely to the psalmist in such a way that it needed to go from thje impure psalm to a language that did not exist at the time.

Make it plain... Was His Word IMpure and needed purifying over many centuries, or was it not so?

[ August 23, 2002, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]

 

Japeth said:

Then I guess God lied when he said Psa 12:6-7 right??

Nope. The psalm says that God will preserve the poor and needy from this wicked generation forever, and I believe this, because "the words of the Lord are pure words, purified seven times."

There's no lie there, but there is a pet misinterpretation which is held by many people who take vv 6-7 out of context and ignore vv 5, 8, and the rest of the Psalm.

 

I think YOU need to think about your own question. Note that when God said it through David, he said "are" (present tense) pure. Not "will be" pure. Whoops.

[ August 23, 2002, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

I agree with the doctrine of the preservation of the Word of God in the original languages.

I don't agree with the out-of-context application of this passage:

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

This passage is in contra-distinction of verses 2 3 and 4:

2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?

In verse 6, the words of God, untainted by sin are being compared to the words of vain and deceitful men.

The words of God are free from all such vanity and deceit.
The purity of the copied text is not being called into question anywhere in this Psalm.

HankD

[ August 24, 2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

If I can't trust what Ruckman says in his books, how can I trust what he says in Childersburg - even if KEVO "pays the way"?? Actually, it seems that you're avoiding the question.

 

Okay, folks, I made y'all a promise. I said that if I could get my hands on "The Mark of the Beast," I'd find out exactly what Dr. Ruckman said about a black anti-christ from outer space kissing people on the forehead.

Well, I didn't expect to get the book until next week, or the week after, and was fully expecting to have to do this sometime in October (I'm fixing to go TDY for the month of September). However, the book arrived today. So, much to the anguish of my wife, I knocked it out.

Be advised: I've only skimmed the book, and provided comments about a couple of things that caught my attention while skimming it. When I have the chance, I intend to read it more in-depth.

Til then, here y'all go: http://d__o__n.tripod.com

 

Hey,

Good work, Don.

I have a question about page 115 though. In your comments, you said "it should be pointed out that in this section of the book, Dr. Ruckman is only presenting a possibility, and has not stated that this is exactly what will happen", yet I don't see anywhere on page 115 that this is not what he believes. And does he present any other "possibilities", or is this the only one he talks about?

 

Brian,

Perhaps a better phrasing would be, Dr. Ruckman presents a scenario. No, he doesn't present any others; but the phrasing he uses on pg 114 is "Get the picture clearly in mind." And on pg 116, he states "Many of the details on the coming of this false Christ are still lying hidden in the word of God. Much study needs to be done...." In other words, Dr. Ruckman doesn't make the definitive claim that this is exactly what will happen.

[ August 27, 2002, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

Don,

Then that sounds to me like it *is* what he believes, he just needs to fill in some of the missing details (ie. he's expecting yet more advanced revelation about this).

Brian

 

Just realized I missed one other detail. On page 75 (see web site), Dr. Ruckman discusses the fact that the number six hundred sixty and six is only used in two other places in the Bible (2 Chronicles 9 and Ezra 2); and he points out the number of descendents of Adonikam. However, Dr. Ruckman does not address the fact that this same exact list is also found in Nehemiah 7, but the number of descendents is listed as six hundred sixty and seven.

[ August 27, 2002, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

Don,you did a great job of putting all of that together.That is the way to find out the truth,go to the source. Thanks for going to all that trouble.
Kevin

 

Hmmm...got really quiet in here....

 

Sure did. Where is Japheth et al? I wonder if following a person who follows unorthodox doctrine(DocCas doesn't like the word that describes Ruckman best) bothers them.

[ August 29, 2002, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

I have other things to do than to stay on here and argue about Dr Ruckman. I have given what I believe to be the reason for his unpopularity. Also,for those who really dislike him, a offer was given to come and "take it up with Him" so to speak.

 

Too bad you didn't feel that way earlier, before the allegations were proven true.

And that reason was proven wrong, for we don't view other KJV-only supporters the same way. Also because even some KJV-only supporters also think Ruckman is "extremely unorthodox" to put it nicely.

And ask him what? "Did you really write (insert bizarre doctrine) in your book?" We already know he did.

 

Japheth, I admire Dr. Ruckman's stand for the KJV. As I admire all those that take a stand for their beliefs.

However, after reading things here, and researching some of the claims myself, and looking at some of Dr. Ruckman's work--his stand for the KJV isn't enough.

One cannot state that the only bible we should use is the KJV, and then blatantly misuse it, as Dr. Ruckman does with the number six hundred threescore and six (changing it to six-six-six, and reverse-applying Greek--hex hex hex--to back it up...anyone with a concordance or bible program will be able to see that the Greek behind it is actually hexakosioi hexēkonta hex, not hex hex hex); or specifically quoting the verse from the King James that says the number of the beast is a man, and that number is six hundred threescore and six, and then turn around and state that the man will be associated with only the number six. Or using the verse in Ezra that talks about the descendents of Adonikam, while ignoring the same list--but with a different number--in Nehemiah.

One cannot state that the only bible we should use is the KJV, and then misrepresent a parable from that bible, as Dr. Ruckman did.

These are the charges that I would bring before him, if I were able to attend the meeting you've mentioned. However, I will not be able to attend. I do not have the luxury of planning for such events. Therefore, I ask YOU to bring these charges to him, and ask him to explain.

Or attempt to explain them yourselves. Either way, I look forward to the answers.

[ August 30, 2002, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

Hi!
I have read this entire thread. I did so intentionally so I would be able to rightly reply to the main points of discussion. First let me state unequivocably (sp) that I am not a "Ruckmanite" as defined by the majority in this thread. However; I am a Ruckmanite if you would label me as such because I have been trained by a man (my Pastor) who was directly trained by Doc himself. I have heard him preach and "chalk-talk". I do own a few of his books. The Mark of the Beast being one of them. Others include Church History Vol. 1 & 2, and Problem Texts, Errors of the King James Bible. Yes, Doc does teach some very 'far-out' doctrines. Some of them border on even Mormonism. For example, the idea that we Christians will populate space. Hmmm I personally can see no Biblical support for many of these ideas of his. We had a saying in Bible Institute,"Doc has a bunch of gristle in his meat" My own Pastor did not display the 'mean-ness' of Doc and on occasion would warn us not to imitate him. But we all did admire one very important thing about Doc. He was not shy about saying exactly what he meant when dealing with bible correctors. We did not like his method, but we sure liked his 'fire'. Now I know, some of you will misinterpret this. That is your business, not mine. I liked Doc's spunk. I detested his vulgarity. I would not recommend some of his books to anybody. It takes a bit of dedication to wade through his constant tirades against certain "scholars" to glean what meat there may be in his books. For example, His treatise on Church history is well done, I thought. Then again, his pages-long tirades and rabbit trails should have been sent to a competent editor for readability. I suppose his 2 volume work would easily have been condensed into one and maybe a half. LOL I truly feel pity for him. He should NOT be in a pulpit. He has spoken of the "knock-down-drag-out screaming fights" in his home with previous wives. This can not be a very good example of a pastor's home. In fact, it is scandalous! He does not need a pulpit to preach in prison nor on the street. Which is exactly where MOST of the conversions have happened that another writer on this thread talks about. So to you defenders of Ol' Doc. Quit it. I've met the man. He is no icon. He is just an old man who has gotten full of himself in his old age. He needs to quit graciously, but he will not. I used to subscribe to the BBB. (Bible Believer's Bulletin) He is full of himself. And that's a shame. And to you who only know what others have written to critique him; you really should see him at least once, he is quite the preacher. You would LOVE his chalk talks. And by the way, he DOES love sinners so much that he will not quit telling them of Jesus. He still goes down to the streets to preach and bring 'em in. He believes he is right in what he does. That does not mean that we should imitate him nor endorse him. But it also does not imply by default that we should attack him either.What ever happened to praying for such an one? Yes, speak out against his error, but do not detract from his efforts to win souls for Jesus. How many of you have preached in prison? I have. Although a 'captive' audience, they are by no means very receptive sometimes. It takes a certain "realness" to get through to them. Maybe Ol' Doc should have just stayed at it in that ministry, hmmm? Today, a Ruckmanite is a term used in derision much the same way the term "Ana-baptist" used to be. More is the pity.
Sign me; once an admirer, but now a pitier.
Av1611jim

 

Hi av1611jim:

Thanks for your post. That was one of the most honest and informative that I've seen on this entire thread. I'm assuming you are KJO? If so, please post here some more. I think we could all benefit by your insights.

peace,
kman

 

av1611jim, excellent post. I too know Dr. Ruckman personally, and I really like him! In person he is a completely different person than he is in print. In person he is actually shy and self-effacing! And I agree about his great talent as a chalk artist! I have seen, again, in person, some of his chalk-sermons. Great stuff! And still going strong in, what, his late 70s now?

And I agree, his unfortunate short falls out weigh is great strengths all too often.

[ August 30, 2002, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: DocCas ]