Peter Ruckman, King James Bible Only or King James Only extremist, denied (after a fashion) that the LXX or Greek Septuagint existed before the times of Jesus Christ. Ruckman wrote:
Finally we proved, by documented attestation from dozens of sources (pp. 40–68), that no such animal as a B.C. “Septuagint” (LXX) ever existed before the completion of the New Testament. We listed ALL of the LXX manuscripts, including the papyri (pp. 45, 48–51). There was not to be found ONE manuscript or ONE Old Testament Greek “Bible,” not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A.D. 150, that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted. Not ONE. And even the date A.D. 150 is “fudging,” for Aquila’s “Septuagint,” (supposedly written between A.D. 128 and 140), was not published by Origen till after A.D. 220. Aquila’s text (A.D. 128–150) is not extant; it has not been extant since A.D. 6.
No apostle quoted any part of Ryland’s papyrus 458 (150 B.C. supposedly). Not ONCE since our first book was published (Manuscript Evidence, 1970), has any Christian scholar in England, Africa, Europe, Asia, or the Americas (representing ANY University, College, Seminary, or Bible Institute—Christian or otherwise), ever produced ONE verse of ONE part of any verse of a Greek Old Testament written before A.D. 220. (see above) that ANY New Testament writer quoted. This means that 5,000–6,000 lying jacklegs had been given twenty-seven years to produce ONE piece of evidence for the Greek Septuagint the New Testament writers were supposed to have been quoting. In twenty-seven years, the whole Scholars’ Union couldn’t come up with ONE verse. They “stressed out.” As a modern generation would say: “totally outta here!” (Peter Ruckman, The Mythological Septuagint, pg. 6
Before the time of Ruckman, I am not aware of any serious advocate of King James Onlyism, the Textus Receptus, or the perfect preservation of Scripture who denied that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. This is because a Ruckmanite denial of a pre-Christian LXX is historically indefensible. The King James translators certainly believed that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. Christians who believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture, and who consequently believe in the Greek Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, should reject Ruckman’s historically indefensible and confused argument. The KJVO movement should purge itself of Ruckmanite influences, including in this area.
Please note that–as is typical for Ruckman–his argument quoted above is confusing and incoherent. It seems that he is arguing that there is no such thing as a B. C. LXX, and that there is not “ONE manuscript … not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A. D. 150.” From Ruckman’s foul well, the idea that there is no pre-Christian LXX has spread to many quarters. But note Ruckman’s incredible qualification: “that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted.” Many readers will miss this astonishing qualification, for Ruckman, even in his radical anti-LXX book, indicates full awareness that there are papyrus fragments of the LXX that exist (e. g., Rylands papyrus 458) and that are pre-Christian. So now some KJVO advocates, through making the unwise decision to read Ruckman and then misreading him, are arguing that the LXX did not exist before the times of Origen, which is totally indefensible.
Rylands papyrus 458: Pre-Christian Evidence For the LXX
In addition to such small fragments, it is probable that we have an entire Greek scroll of the minor prophets from Nahal Hever that is pre-Christian. But even the small fragments above demonstrate the existence of the book from which the fragments come.
Nor is it wise to dismiss the documentary evidence, such as the Letter of Aristeas. (Have you ever read it? You should, at least if you are going to comment on whether there was a pre-Christian Septuagint or not. At least it isn’t full of carnal language and racism like Ruckman’s works). If you actually read the Letter of Aristeas you will see that it not only speaks of the translation of the Old Testament into Greek centuries before the times of Christ, but it says that there were already multiple Greek versions extant before the LXX was made. Is the Letter to Aristeas infallible history, like Scripture? Of course not. Should we just dismiss everything it says and conclude there is no historical basis for any of it? No, we should not do that either. We would not have much world history left if we dismissed every source completely if we found any errors in it. Furthermore, Philo and Josephus discuss the Septuagint, as do many writers in early Christendom. It would be very strange for all of these sources to be discussing a translation that did not even exist yet. It is actually very much expected that the Jews would translate the Old Testament into Greek, since pre-Christian Judaism was an evangelistic, missionary religion that sought to spread the knowledge of the true God to the whole world.
Within a lot of confusion, carnality, and equivocation in Ruckman’s argument, there are certain elements of truth within his comments on the LXX. Others have made these points in a much more clear and much less confusing way, including in blog posts concerning the LXX on this What is Truth? blog. (See also here, here, and others.) What truths should KJVO people hold to in relation to the LXX?
1.) The LXX was never the final authority for the Lord Jesus and the Apostles; the final authority was always the Hebrew text (Matthew 5:18). They never quoted the LXX where it mistranslated the Hebrew. Indeed, since most scribes of the LXX were in the realm of Christendom, there is every reason to think that they would backtranslate NT quotations into the LXX text. Unlike the nutty idea that there was no pre-Christian LXX, the idea that scribes would move NT quotations back into Greek LXX manuscripts is well-supported and has been advocated widely, from people like John Owen in the past to the evangelical authors Jobes and Silva in their modern introduction to the LXX. (Please see my discussion and quotations of this matter in slides 155ff. from my King James Only debate with James White.) That the LXX was never the final authority does not mean that the NT writers never quoted or alluded to the LXX. Modern KJVO evangelists or missionaries to, say, China may quote the Chinese Bible where it is an accurate translation, but not where it differs from the preserved Greek text accurately translated in the KJV. There is no reason to say that, where the LXX accurately translates the preserved Hebrew text, the NT does not quote or allude to it. There is reason to say that this does not happen where the LXX is inaccurate.
2.) Speaking of the LXX does not mean that there was a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. Indeed, both the ancient sources such as the Letter of Aristeas and significant parts of modern scholarship on the LXX recognize that there were multiple Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. There was no “THE” LXX in the sense of a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. The LXX did, however, exist in the sense that the Old Testament was translated into Greek, more than once, before the times of Christ.
3.) Instead of pretending that the Septuagint is a myth, King James Only advocates should reject the Ruckmanite fable that the LXX did not exist before the times of Christ and instead advocate the position held by pre-Ruckman defenders of the Received Text and of the KJV (and which has never been wholly abandoned by perfect preservationists for the Ruckmanite myth), namely, that the LXX is a valuable tool for understanding the linguistic and intellectual background of the New Testament, but it is never the final authority for the Old Testament–the Hebrew words perfectly preserved by God are always the final authority (Matthew 5:18). Christ, who as Man was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, would almost certainly have delighted to read the Greek LXX, although He would have had a holy hatred for the mistranslations in it and been grieved at how in some books it is much less literal than in other texts (the Pentateuch is quite literal; some books of the Writings, not so much). The Son of Man, the best of all preachers as the incarnate Word, would have had perfect grasp of the Hebrew text and would also be aware of what the Greek Bible said. Recognizing that many of those to whom He would preach the gospel would not know Hebrew, and wanting to minister to them in the most effective way, he would have had a mastery of the Greek Old Testament as well as the Hebrew Bible. A missionary to Japan would read the Bible in Japanese so he could effectively minister to the Japanese. The Lord Jesus and those who followed His example among His Apostles and other disciples would have read the Bible in Greek so that they could minister to those who spoke only the world language-Greek. I would recommend that those who have gained fluency in New Testament Greek, and have read their Greek New Testament cover to cover, go on to read through the LXX as well, as it provides valuable background to the New Testament. They should, however, like their resurrected Lord, recognize that the LXX is never the final authority for the Old Testament. They should rejoice in the Greek Bible when it is accurate, grieve when it is inaccurate, and always make the perfectly preserved Hebrew text their final authority as they study, preach, teach, love and obey the Old Testament.
–TDR
How could there be LXX Ruckmanism when we all know the Bible was revealed in English?
The Ruckman “Enoch was ‘translated’ and was better off than before, so the English ‘translation’ is better than the Greek and Hebrew” does not seem to apply to the LXX.
TDR,
It is one thing to criticize Ruckman, but your article is full of speculations and presuppositions that you cannot prove.
1> Jesus Christ came unto his own, the Jews. Please show me any proof that he spoke Greek?
2> Why would a a Greek LXX exist? Who would write it and for what reason? The oracles of God were given to the Jews, and if you were a proselyte and wanted to learn about God, the only scriptural evidence would be that they learned Hebrew.
3> You keep insisting that others learn Greek to read some historical text (I disagree with that!), then why would you be hypocritical in teaching the same about the OT Hebrew?
4> In Acts 2, the apostles were given power to speak in 14 different tongues of those who came from all around the world to Jerusalem. Since you argument is that there was a Greek LXX, the language that “Jesus knew”, why were the apostles not moved by the Holy Ghost to speak the Greek of the LXX?
It is easy to criticize a brother in Christ (Brother Ruckman) who has done much for the body of Christ in helping them to believe the bible as final authority rather than men who find ways to find fault in those who believe it as Ruckman believed it. It is the infallible, inerrant, perfect word of God without any errors.
I do not need any manuscript evidence to believe that to be true. I believe it as many others all around the world believe it, since it is scripture, it is inspired and the very words of God based on the evidence of the Spirit of God and all those in the body of Christ that also believe it.
Do you actually believe that to be true or not?
Tom
TDR wrote:
“Christ, who as Man was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, would almost certainly have delighted to read the Greek LXX”
That is pure speculation on your part. You have absolutely no proof to make assertion such as that.
Tom
Hello Tom:
Question #1:
Your question does not make any sense. How does the fact that He came to His people, the Jews, prove He did not speak Greek? You seem to assume that Jews did not speak Greek. Do you think the Apostles were Jews? Did John write John in Greek, Paul write Romans in Greek, Peter write 1 & 2 Peter in Greek?
Question #2:
I answered the question of why the Jews would translate the Bible into Greek in the post.
Question #3:
I have no idea what you are talking about with hypocrisy. Maybe you can explain in more detail why you are accusing me of committing this grievous sin.
Question #4:
If you are seriously arguing that because God gave the miraculous gift of speaking in foreign languages in Acts 2, reversing Babel, therefore the Old Testament was not translated into Greek centuries earlier, despite all the historical and MSS evidence to the contrary, and despite what even Ruckman acknowledged about it, go for it.
Question #5:
I absolutely do not believe that we should believe the KJV apart from all manuscript evidence. That is a great way to get people to reject the KJVO position as unscriptural and unhistorical.
A question for you: Has salvation always been, and will it always be, by faith alone, or has it been at least partially by works in the past and will it be by works in the future? If it has always been by faith, is saying it has been and will be by works–Ruckman’s view–corrupting the gospel?
TDR,
Question 1: Who said that John, Peter and others wrote in Greek? Do you have any proof that the NT “originals” were all written in Greek? None.
Question 2: Again, you speculate. The Jews had nothing to do with the Gentiles. That is clear from the scriptures, so why would they translate the oracles of God (OT scriptures) into Greek? Again, you have no proof.
Question 3: Your hypocrisy is telling others today to learn the Greek, believing it to be the NT “original language”. So, in order not to be hypocritical, then why would you not take the position, that the Gentiles are to learn Hebrew in order to read the words of God?
Question 4: Like Ruckman points out, you have no proof that there was a OT LXX in Greek, just presuppositions based on your study of the manuscripts. Studying this many years ago, I disagree with you and agree with Ruckman. The proof that I gave was something that I put out years ago in line with teaching of a mythological LXX. I have added my biblical presupposition (Acts 2) as to another reason why a Greek OT did not exist.
Question 5: I never said that you should not study the preservation of the scriptures. I studied it extensively, but it was after I believed the King James Bible was the very words of God. That study proved that the words of God as found today in the KJB are those words translated by the Spirit through the discovery of those manuscripts, . Also, we know by historical evidence that God assembled “at divers time”, some of the greatest men to translate his “final authority” and finally, that Holy Bible has been used to bring sinners from all around the world to the knowledge of the truth in some of the greatest revivals in all of Christianity.
Answer to your question:
Ruckman’s teaching of OT “faith and works” is not biblically correct (Hebrews 11, Romans 4). Men from Genesis to Revelation, though under different dispensations come to God by faith alone. Brother Ruckman was very clear on the NT gospel of faith without works. He also preached “repentance towards God, and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ.
I believe you are wrong in your teaching of biblical preservation and the necessity of teaching Greek and Hebrew. I believe it is a waste of time. You could not teach me anything that the KJB cannot teach me. As long as you use the Greek and Hebrew to prove the English KJB as final authority, teach away.
Again, i find that you just love to separate brothers in Christ rather than to show grace to those who are truly saved, even though they might be wrong or disagree with your presuppositions and assertions that cannot be proven biblically.
Why is it that you despise Brother Ruckman who had an earned PhD and could also teach Greek and Hebrew and his written many books and articles on this subject to show that the King James Bible is final authority without proven error?
My final question: In these last days, is the King James Bible the final authority because it is infallible and inerrant, proven by the historical proof in the preservation of its words?
Tom
Tom and Thomas,
Maybe a bit peripheral to the discussion, but the tongues of Acts 2 (and tongues in general) are for a sign (1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign…). They were not necessary for communicating to the people on Pentecost. They could all speak a common langauge — Acts 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another…
Dear Bro Vaughn,
Good point.
Acts 2 is as effective at proving Ruckmanism as is Elijah’s “translation” to heaven.
Another relevant takeaway might be that the folks gathered in this crowd were at the least bilingual — they knew a common language in which they could converse (v. 7), and they knew the language of the land of their nativity (v. 8).
Hi Tom!
If you really think that there is no proof that the New Testament was written in Greek, I think we are at the end of our discussion.
Furthermore, if you think I am guilty of hypocrisy because I allegedly do not think people should learn Hebrew, perhaps I am wrong in this because I have never met you, but it makes me wonder how much I would say would get through or what is going on with reading comprehension, as neither Bro Brandenburg nor I have ever discouraged anyone from learning Hebrew; and both of us know Hebrew.
You are a good example of how Ruckmanism destroys apologetics, destroys the historical testimony to the Bible, and destroys Biblical preservation. Apparently all the words of God dictated by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament can be gone, supposedly written in a different language than Greek, and they are all totally lost to us. Nobody ever breathes a word in early church history about this other language that Paul and Peter’s epistles were written in, Greek MSS of John go back to perhaps 25 years after John wrote his gospel, and we can go on and on, but God’s promises of preserving the words He inspired has utterly failed in a way that is far beyond anything James White or Bart Ehrman could want. Muslim apologists would leap for joy, joined in by the Mormons who agree that the actual words written by Matthew, Luke, etc. have vanished from the earth. I am very thankful that nothing like your position is required to defend the KJV.
Dear Tom,
Let me end with something positive. I am thankful that you reject Ruckman’s heresy that salvation is not always by repentant faith alone in all dispensations. Good job! Keep it up!
TDR wrote:
“Nobody ever breathes a word in early church history about this other language that Paul and Peter’s epistles were written in, Greek MSS of John go back to perhaps 25 years after John wrote his gospel,”
1> I did not say that Paul did not write in Greek, for his letters were to churches in Gentile nations
2> As you said, there is a very small miniscule of John 21 written in Greek after John wrote. That is the earliest manuscript we have and it would make that time around 120AD. I am not saying that John could have written in Greek, but that is your presupposition. That writing could have been the first translation into Greek by the church fathers. I cannot prove that anymore than you can disprove that.
3> Why would Peter not write in Hebrew? Was he not the apostle to the circumcision?
TDR wrote:
“Apparently all the words of God dictated by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament can be gone, supposedly written in a different language than Greek, and they are all totally lost to us.”
They are not at all lost. They are found in the English translation of the Holy King James Bible. Every word of God. So, where the Greek context matches the Holy King James Bible, than you have the correct Greek text. Where the Hebrew text matches the Holy King James Bible you have the correct Hebrew text.
It really is not that difficult. That is why you will not answer my last question.
Brother, we can argue all day about scholarship. I have my scholars and you have yours. I have my presuppositions based on what I see in the biblical narrative, the King James Bible as my final authority.
I will reword my final question:
In these last days, is the King James Bible the final authority because it is infallible and inerrant, proven by the historical Greek and Hebrew texts as the very persevered words of God?
Tom
One thing for sure. Any critical text person reading here, that likes lumping our position with something like Ruckman, please see how the Ruckman side definitely does not agree with that. We have examples of that all the time.
TDR wrote:
“Let me end with something positive. I am thankful that you reject Ruckman’s heresy that salvation is not always by repentant faith alone in all dispensations. ”
I have heard “heresy” thrown around much like “racist” is thrown around by those who have a high-minded attitude towards others whom they disagree.
You should not be using biblical words like “heresy” to describe Brother Ruckman and others that I know that believe the false doctrine. Heresy has to do with perverted doctrines of Jesus Christ. None of the brethren I know who believe the KJB pervert the gospel of the grace of God.
As I have said, brother, you seem to have a tendency to divide the body of Christ when they do not agree with you.
That is a grave mistake on your part.
Tom
Tom,
Let’s just say as a baseline, no one here is trying to divide the body of Christ. Our goal is to speak the truth, and the truth is the source of unity like the Father has with the Son, for which the Son prayed in John 17. Based on how I would judge unity and disunity, you are exponentially more a cause of disunity than Thomas. Heresy is not a word designated for the very specific doctrinal application. It is real factiousness and divisiveness of any kind. The one dividing is the one leaving settled truth, exegetical and historical truth. Ruckman’s position on salvation was doing just that. So Thomas, ironically, tries to say something nice about you, and you go with a very caustic dealing with him. Anytime someone twists the doctrinal of salvation, he is also perverting the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Every corruption of the gospel also corrupts the doctrine of Christ. I say that, knowing that heresy is broader than that, but as a specific, it is the factiousness or divisiveness. Your calling Thomas “high minded.” How do you judge that he does this out of pride? I don’t want to hear an answer from you, but I don’t believe you can judge that. This is a common answer given to anyone who says something with which there is disagreement. It’s proud.
When you read 2 John, love and truth are in complete concord with one another. Love must and will tell the truth.
Hi Tom!
The final authority always has been and always will be the actual words dictated by the Holy Spirit through Moses and the Old Testament prophets in Hebrew and the Apostles and NT prophets in Greek. Because the KJV accurately renders those Hebrew and Greek words, it has authority as to its substance, but it is not the final authority. To reference footnote #33 here:
https://faithsaves.net/learn-greek-hebrew/
In the words of the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689:
The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the Native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the Nations being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every Nation, unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope. (Chapter 1:8, W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith [Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911], 230.)
Note that the original language text is “immediately” inspired, while a translation is not “immediately” inspired, but inspired in a way that leaves the translation dependent upon the original for its authority—that is, a translation is derivatively inspired. Compare also Thomas Ross, “Thoughts On the Word Theopneustos, “given by inspiration of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16, and the Question of the Inspiration of the Authorized Version,” elec. acc. https://faithsaves.net/theopneustos/. Richard Muller writes:
[T]ranslations can be authoritative quoad res [according to the substance or thing] because the authority is not so much in the words as in the entirety of the teaching as distributed throughout the canon. … [T]he issue of “things” (res) and “words” (verba) … is crucial to the Protestant [and Baptist] doctrine of Scripture[.] … [T]he words of the text are signs pointing to the doctrinal “things.” This distinction between signa and res significata, the sign and the thing signified, carries over into the language typical of scholastic Protestantism, of the words of the text and the substance of the text, of the authority of translations not strictly quoad verba but quoad res, according to the substance or meaning indicated by the original. … [O]nly the [original language] sources are inspired (theopneustoi) both according to their substance (quoad res) and according to their words (quoad verba)[.] This must be the case, since holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21, who dictated to them not only the substance (res) but also the very words (verba). For the same reason, the Hebrew and the Greek are the norms and rules by which the various versions are examined and evaluated. . . . [There is] a distinction between authenticity and authorship quoad verba, which belongs only to the Hebrew and Greek originals, and authenticity and authority quoad res, which inheres in valid translations. . . . Thus translations can be used, but with the reservation that only the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the authentic norms of doctrine and the rule by which doctrinal controversy is to be decided[.] Versions that are congruent with the sources are indeed authentic according to substance (quoad res); for the Word of God [may be] translated into other languages: the Word of God is not to be limited, since whether it is thought or spoken or written, it remains the Word of God. Nonetheless they are not authentic according to the idiom or word, inasmuch as the words have been explained in French or Dutch. In relation to all translations, therefore, the Hebrew and Greek texts stand as antiquissimus, originalis, and archetypos. Thus, translations are the Word of God insofar as they permit the Word of God to address the reader or hearer: for Scripture is most certainly the Word of God in the things it teaches and to the extent that in and by means of it power of God touches the conscience. Even so, in translations as well as in the original the testimony of the Holy Spirit demonstrates the graciousness of God toward us. All translations have divine authority insofar as they correctly render the original: the tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of divine truth, which remains one and the same in all idioms. (Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy; vol. 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology (2nd ed.), Richard Muller [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003], 269, 326-327, 403, 416, 427-428)
Thus, the original language text has the two-fold Divine authority, the authoritas Divina duplex, in its words and in its substance, while accurate translations retain the authority of the thing or the substance:
[The] authoritas divina duplex [is a] twofold divine authority; a distinction [exists] between (1) the authoritas rerum, or authority of the things of Scripture, the substantia doctrinae (substance of doctrine), and (2) the authoritas verborum, or authority of the words of Scripture, arising from the accidens scriptionis, the … incidental property … of the writing. The authority of the substantia, or res, is a formal, inward authority that belongs both to the text of Scripture in the original languages and to the accurate translations of Scripture. The authoritas verborum is an external and … incidental property[’s] … authority that belongs only to the text in the original languages and is a property … lost in translation. Thus the infallibilitas of the originals is both quoad verbum and quoad res, whereas the infallibilitas of the versions is only quoad res. (Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985], 19, 51-52, entries “accidens” & “authoritas divina duplex”)
Brother Thomas,
You complicate such a simple concept in the scriptures concerning inspiration. You create presuppositions such as “derivative inspiration” that is not even a concept within the bible concerning the concepts, scripture and words. You build up ideas because you believe in “original language of the scriptures” which has no biblical basis to believe that concept anywhere in scripture. There are all kinds of “translations” in the bible that are inspired (Daniel 2- Syraick into Hebrew, Exodus- Pharaoh spoke Egyptian as did Joseph that was translated into Hebrew).
That is the biblical proof that a translation can be inspired.
All I know is that the all the words of God, the scriptures are inspired in the King James Bible. It is proven by many today throughout the world as being final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
Is the above statement true or not?
Why are you avoiding answering a simple question. It is like a Calvinist that I was debating who would not answer the question after going around in circles which was, “Do you believe that God elected those to be saved before the foundation of the world”?
Tom
One final thing, Tom, and I am done. Are you part of the “Anabaptists Church Worldwide” or “Street Preachers Fellowship” anti-Trinitarian (and non-Anabaptist) cult that was exposed on the blog here?
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-anabaptists-church-worldwide-street.html
Are you, or do you know, the person who used to comment here as “the Preacher” until he was banned for making everything on this blog about Ruckmanism and for trying to teach the modalist false teaching of his cult?
There may be no connection. But it seemed likely enough to be worth asking.
Really Brother Thomas?
You go way off the subject by asking questions that are irrelevant to the subject that we are discussing to prove what?? That you want to pigeonhole everyone that does not agree with you or find a reason not to answer questions?
This is your site and if you do not want to answer questions, then just say so. I do not want to waste my time or yours. If you want specific biblical answers to your questions, I would do my best to give you an answer.
Moving on…
I spent about 15 minutes reading your “Learning Greek and Hebrew” and found nothing substantive. One example will suffice, “and some, pastors and teachers” in which you say “the Greek” shows that pastors are teachers. That is not what that verse teaches! It simply states the “gifts” given and the conjunction “and” is used as it is in the previous clauses, “gave some apostles” (1) AND some prophets” (2), then “AND some evangelists”(3) then “AND some pastors” (4) then “AND teachers” (5) showing the five gifts required in the church to (1) preach the gospel and (2) make disciples of men.
Why not rather affirm that Jeremiah, who was a prophet was also a pastor (Jeremiah 17:16), even being without wife (16:2)? That pastor prophesied “knowledge and understand” (3:15) to his people. He could have been a teacher, but what he actually did as one who was a pastor was to prophecy as a preacher of righteousness.
I have the following questions:
Question: Why was Jeremiah a pastor though he never married? Based on the biblical truth found in Jeremiah, then why do you have to be married to be a pastor?
Question: The word in Acts 12:4 is “Πάσχα” which is translated 28 times as “passover” in the NT. The same word here is translated as “Easter”. Is that an error?
Question: The word “lovest” in John 21 comes from both “αγαπώ” (v15, 16) and “φίλος” (v17). What does the Greek teach that the English does not?
Also, from Note (33):
“But woe to the man who changes one letter of the Greek and Hebrew texts dictated by the Holy Spirit”
Question: Therefore, does the English text not violate your presupposition above by not recognizing two different words for love?
Tom
I’m putting an end to this comment section.