-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who is Ruckman?
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
carlaimpinge
New Member
Quote: So Ruckman's clear and unambiguous teaching that the KJV corrects the Greek, that the AV translators were "inspired" and that errors (perceived) in the KJV were really advanced revelation by God to clear up the problems in the original texts is NOT heresy, but just Bob being nasty?
Hope I misunderstood you. Ruckman (you can follow many threads here that quote his exact words) teaches heresy.
Unquote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr.Bob,
No, I believe you got what I said, and I read what you said. Mean and nasty? Do you mean like Ruckman? Surely not.
You gave your OPINION on Ruckman being a man of God. I did also.
You gave your OPINION on heresy. I pointed out others have also concerning SCRIPTURE believing men.
People can argue days about whether they like Ruckman or not. I'm not one of them, although it looks like my respnse generated the beginning of a deluge.
The real issue is believing there IS a copy of the word of God, which ANY BAPTIST should believe. Ruckman does, whether anyone LIKES THAT or not.
Have a good day.
Hope I misunderstood you. Ruckman (you can follow many threads here that quote his exact words) teaches heresy.
Unquote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr.Bob,
No, I believe you got what I said, and I read what you said. Mean and nasty? Do you mean like Ruckman? Surely not.
You gave your OPINION on Ruckman being a man of God. I did also.
You gave your OPINION on heresy. I pointed out others have also concerning SCRIPTURE believing men.
People can argue days about whether they like Ruckman or not. I'm not one of them, although it looks like my respnse generated the beginning of a deluge.
The real issue is believing there IS a copy of the word of God, which ANY BAPTIST should believe. Ruckman does, whether anyone LIKES THAT or not.
Have a good day.
carlaimpinge
New Member
gb,
You're mistaken about all of them.
Quote: "A time they did not seek after God?"
Unquote.
David,
Quote:
A couple of problems with your logic.
Ruckman is not a prophet. Those people that you referenced got right with God after they sinned with the exception of Lot (at least the bible does not say if this saved man every got his life right). Too bad Dr. Ruckman will not follow their example and step down from the pulpit etc...
Just follow some of the links and read Ruckman's works. There is nothing loving and Christian in this man's works.
Paul was considered a heretic by the Jews because he taught the gospel of Jesus Christ. He taught that we no longer need to observe the law that was against us. Please don't slander the name of Paul by putting Paul in the same sentence as Peter Ruckman.
It would do Dr. Ruckman well to read the writings of Paul and obey them fully:
1 Tim. 3:1-5,"It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. [2] An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [3] not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. [4] He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity [5] (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?);"
Ruckman is not qualified to be a preacher or a teacher.
Don't you find it odd that Ruckman will still stand behind a pulpit?
Even as a KJVO, I knew that Ruckman was wrong and his methods ungodly.
But then again KJVOism covers a multitude of sins.
Unquote.
I don't intend to argue about Ruckman BASED on your LOGIC and OPINION of the scripture, but I will answer this INITIAL response.
You have taken the position that the Doc (Ruckman) IS NOT a man of God, which is ignorant foolishness based on your "extreme visible prejudice".
You followed the same mistake of gb above concerning those men. Yoyr statement was incorrect. THOSE PEOPLE were right with God. Paul himself HAD A GOOD CONSCIENCE "before" he met Jesus Christ. (Acts 23-24)
Your perception and opinion of his speech doesn't justify your belief. The speech of the Holy Bible is oftentimes CAUSTIC and CALLOUS, to the point.
I certainly didn't SLANDER Paul, nor Peter Ruckman who teaches Pauline theology. I resent your remark. Watch it brother.
By your quotation of 1 Tim.3, you're speaking of YOUR INTERPRETATION of the passage, which is faulty.
Your opinion as to his qualification is superfluous BUILT on a "false" doctrinal idea from the above passage.
You didn't say what you were qualified for?
Ungodly methods? Harsh language? Not quite.
LOVE covers them, brother. CHARITY REJOICES IN TRUTH. (1 Cor.13) See John 17:17 for further explanation.
ACTIONS or WORDS don't quarantee "rightness" with God. The Pharisees certainly were righteous, but NOT justified. (Matt.5,Luke 18)
My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and truth. (1 John 3:18)
Well brethren, have a good day in the Lord. I will not be responding any more to Ruckman. I made my point.
For one to state or infer Ruckman is NOT a man of God is wrong, falsehood, and slander. But such is the time of "Christianity", isn't it?
You're mistaken about all of them.
Quote: "A time they did not seek after God?"
Unquote.
David,
Quote:
A couple of problems with your logic.
Ruckman is not a prophet. Those people that you referenced got right with God after they sinned with the exception of Lot (at least the bible does not say if this saved man every got his life right). Too bad Dr. Ruckman will not follow their example and step down from the pulpit etc...
Just follow some of the links and read Ruckman's works. There is nothing loving and Christian in this man's works.
Paul was considered a heretic by the Jews because he taught the gospel of Jesus Christ. He taught that we no longer need to observe the law that was against us. Please don't slander the name of Paul by putting Paul in the same sentence as Peter Ruckman.
It would do Dr. Ruckman well to read the writings of Paul and obey them fully:
1 Tim. 3:1-5,"It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. [2] An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [3] not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. [4] He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity [5] (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?);"
Ruckman is not qualified to be a preacher or a teacher.
Don't you find it odd that Ruckman will still stand behind a pulpit?
Even as a KJVO, I knew that Ruckman was wrong and his methods ungodly.
But then again KJVOism covers a multitude of sins.
Unquote.
I don't intend to argue about Ruckman BASED on your LOGIC and OPINION of the scripture, but I will answer this INITIAL response.
You have taken the position that the Doc (Ruckman) IS NOT a man of God, which is ignorant foolishness based on your "extreme visible prejudice".
You followed the same mistake of gb above concerning those men. Yoyr statement was incorrect. THOSE PEOPLE were right with God. Paul himself HAD A GOOD CONSCIENCE "before" he met Jesus Christ. (Acts 23-24)
Your perception and opinion of his speech doesn't justify your belief. The speech of the Holy Bible is oftentimes CAUSTIC and CALLOUS, to the point.
I certainly didn't SLANDER Paul, nor Peter Ruckman who teaches Pauline theology. I resent your remark. Watch it brother.
By your quotation of 1 Tim.3, you're speaking of YOUR INTERPRETATION of the passage, which is faulty.
Your opinion as to his qualification is superfluous BUILT on a "false" doctrinal idea from the above passage.
You didn't say what you were qualified for?
Ungodly methods? Harsh language? Not quite.
LOVE covers them, brother. CHARITY REJOICES IN TRUTH. (1 Cor.13) See John 17:17 for further explanation.
ACTIONS or WORDS don't quarantee "rightness" with God. The Pharisees certainly were righteous, but NOT justified. (Matt.5,Luke 18)
My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and truth. (1 John 3:18)
Well brethren, have a good day in the Lord. I will not be responding any more to Ruckman. I made my point.
For one to state or infer Ruckman is NOT a man of God is wrong, falsehood, and slander. But such is the time of "Christianity", isn't it?
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
Having reached the 5th page, and considering that there are a multitude of "Ruckman threads" available in the BB archives, this thread will be closed no earlier than 3:00 P.M. CST today.
This is the proverbial “strawman” syndrome.
1) Look for a weakness in a translation.
2) Set up a fatal criteria to judge it against.
3) Throw the “baby” out with the “bathwater” (Use a little SHOUTING to add a little melodrama and righteous indignation to your outrage).
Example.
The KJV IS NOT OF GOD!!
The KJV treats the Holy Spirit as a thing, calling Him “it”!
KJV 1 Peter 1:11
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
NKJV 1 Peter 1:11
searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
KJV Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
NKJV Romans 8:16
The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
The KJV IS ARIAN and DENIES the personhood of the Holy Spirit!!!
HankD
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
Could this be accurately described as "Arianism?" It is my understanding that Arianism denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ by teaching that God is unbegotten and without beginning. The Son, because he is begotten, cannot be God in the same sense as the Father is. Arianism teaches that the Son was created like all other creatures and exists by the will of the Father.
I realize your above post was an illustration to make a point, but I thought I'd go ahead and ask in case I have been misinformed regarding Arianism.
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Since he is "killed" by your disdain, yes, we would have to consider Ruckman deceased, also there is this verse, "If a man hate his brother... the love of God is not in him"
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Maybe you should consider the traverse, friend? Seems the rant here jumps on anyone callionganother's salvation into question, you?
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Er, since Jesus is God, and God is not a respecter of persons,then we as Christians are to be Christlike, is it then ok to esteem another higher than those we are indifferent too as "better" or more respected than another?
Seems more likened unto PREJUDICE to me!
The fellow identifies himself by association, sheep do not attack sheep, only wolves attack sheep. Now sort out the pieces, friend.
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Why Ralphy what big teeth you have!
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, they have been collected over the years and placed into my shepherd's staff as a reminder of the victories the Lord has won thru me by refuting false brethren's characteristics.
BTW, in the future would you refrain from calling me "Ralphy", I find it degrading and distinctly a mockery of your brother in Christ?
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
"Morphing"? Explain?
"Hating the niv,nasv,nkjv?"
Why would I hate man's literature, though wanting?
I have read many books of fiction in my years, and I have learned by experience to stick to reading NON-FICTION!
As a "modulator", (can't seem to bring myself to using the term, "moderator", you invite too much contention to rate that title) would you be subject to the same rules you enforce by sticking to "Bible Versions/Translations", and refrain from taking your indifferences towards another living soul out in the public forum?
I suppose not.
Another insult you've made in your self-attainment of the right to judge another by referring to others as "rabid".
Err, since "opinion" delegates whether one is a "man of God" or not, then I'll have to continue to refer to my brother in Christ, who maintains a good report to them which are without as a MAN OF GOD, now should we call your "label" into question? You did invite this you know? That is by your induction of "opinion" as the mainstay for "ruling" in the "Bible Versions/Translations" forum.
"Here puppy,puppy,puppy?"
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Maybe you should consider the traverse, friend? Seems the rant here jumps on anyone callionganother's salvation into question, you? </font>[/QUOTE]We are told to judge by the fruits he produces, and his fruit is hardly in line with Christianity, yet I still seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt, am I not. You would know that if you would read instead of going off onto a tangent!
AVL1984
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Maybe you should consider the traverse, friend? Seems the rant here jumps on anyone callionganother's salvation into question, you? </font>[/QUOTE]We are told to judge by the fruits he produces, and his fruit is hardly in line with Christianity, yet I still seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt, am I not. You would know that if you would read instead of going off onto a tangent!
AVL1984 </font>[/QUOTE]So now you are called of God to be a "fruit inspector"?
Careful, friend, careful:"For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall also be judged"
Seems your ideal of Christianity is a precognantive, not Biblical at all.
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Not completely, and just as the serpent beguiled Eve with omission and alteration of what God hath said, I have found the newer versions to be nothing but men's idea of what they only thought God to have said, and according to the negative influence by the "other".
To try and accuse one of blasphemy indicates your catholic influences, as well as your lack of knowledge what the Lord refers to as blasphemy.
You'd probably be better off playing with children of your own age, friend, rather than try to take on your elders? Your immaturity tells on you.
Ralph writes to AVL1984:
It could very well be that in fact AVL1984 is your elder (both in calendar years and also in years since the new-birth).
I'd be more careful spewing those insults. Also, FYI: in both respects, I am your elder. Born years before you; and born-again before you were even born in the first place.
Hey Ralph, I looked at your bio: it says you were born in 1972. I then looked at AVL1984's bio: his says he was saved in 1983.
It could very well be that in fact AVL1984 is your elder (both in calendar years and also in years since the new-birth).
I'd be more careful spewing those insults. Also, FYI: in both respects, I am your elder. Born years before you; and born-again before you were even born in the first place.
Someone has read or heard too much Ruckman. This statement is almost verbatim that which Ruckman said to James White. Another ad homenim attack with no substance. I doubt you (POR) know anything of AVL. Besides that you misuse the verse on judging as you and your group do it all the time. Hypocrisy.
Bro Tony
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Since there are only 15 minutes to the deadline and since this thread is nothing but traded insults now, it is hereby closed.