Home » Posts tagged 'Ruckman'

Tag Archives: Ruckman

King James Bible Onlyism & No Pre-Christian LXX Ruckmanism

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 LXX Septuagint MS manuscript

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

King James Bible & Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman & Gail Riplinger

Who is King James Only Advocate Sam Gipp?

Sam Gipp is an extremist defender of the King James Bible (also known as the King James Version or Authorized Version) of 1611 (KJB / KJV / AV).  Gipp has been heavily influenced by the “Baptist” heretic Peter Ruckman, having graduated from Ruckman’s Bible institute, and having received an honorary doctorate from Ruckman’s educational institution. His views are also very similar to those of Ms. Gail Riplinger.  Thus, Sam Gipp is a representative of Ruckman’s brand of King James Onlyism (KJVO).

While I strongly disagree with Mr. Gipp on his Ruckmanism, I am thankful that he preaches the gospel, as far as I know, and I trust that people have been born again through his preaching.  I rejoice that there will be people in heaven who are there because the Spirit used the Word through the (very!) imperfect vessel of a Ruckmanite preacher (Mark 9:38-39; Philippians 1:15-18).

Sam Gipp Peter Ruckman Pensacola Bible Institute honorary doctorate
Gipp Receiving His Honorary Th. D. from Ruckman

I do not know if Mr. Gipp agrees with Ruckman’s gospel-corrupting heresy that people in different periods of time have been and will be saved by faith and works together, although if Gipp does not agree with it, he certainly does not separate from and plainly warn about Peter Ruckman’s false gospel and tell everyone to separate from Ruckman and his many heresies and blasphemiesGipp does follow Ruckman in calling black people “nig–r”; he calls on white people to start regularly using this inappropriate term for blacks. He also makes foolish statements that undermine the gospel and will cause unbiblical offense (Mark 9:42), such as: “I hope you racists enjoyed this racist rant by a fellow racist. Tell your racist friends about it.” (Sam Gipp, “‘Racist’ the New ‘N-word,’ August 1, 2020. Bold print reproduced from the original.)

Dr. Gipp also agrees with Ruckman’s unbiblical KJVO extremism.  For example, in Gipp’s Answer Book, he says:  “The King James Version we have today … is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not … in the Greek Received Text” (pg. 24; note that the KJV is not said to be authoritative because it accurately translates the ultimately authoritative Greek text, but is allegedly authoritative independent of the Greek Received Text.). “QUESTION #30: The King James Bible is a mere translation from Greek to English. A translation can’t be as good as the originals, can it? ANSWER: A translation cannot only be “as good” as the originals, but better” (pg. 69; the humorous and embarrassingly bad reason provided is that when Enoch and others were “translated” to heaven, they were better afterwards than before, along with two other texts where the English word “translation” appears that have absolutely nothing to do with rendering the Bible from one language to another.). People should be “convinced that the King James Bible is the infallible Word of God” and therefore “remove those little so called ‘nuggets’ from the imperfect Greek” (pg. 115) to study only the English of the King James Version.  Gipp’s Answer Book offers many words of praise for Peter Ruckman (pg. 89) but not one syllable of warning.

Sam Gipp: Ruckmanite Extremism

I recently was at an event where Christians from a variety of backgrounds were present.  I was able to have a conversation with a sincere Christian man who, unfortunately,  had been strongly influenced by Sam Gipp’s view on the King James Bible.  (I would not be surprised if he simply wanted to have certainty about Scripture rather than really being excited about Ruckman’s claims of alien breeding facilities run by the government, Ruckman’s carnal language, and so on.)  A friend of mine mentioned to him that I had debated James White on the King James Version.  This brother in Christ asked me what I thought of Gipp.  I said I would be happy to debate him, too.  (That was the Biblically faithful answer, but not the answer this Christian brother wanted to hear, I suspect.)  I would indeed be happy to debate Dr. Gipp on a proposition such as:  “Because God has preserved His Word in the English language, study of the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture is detrimental or, at best, useless.” If Gipp will affirm this, I will deny it in any venue that is, within reason, mutually agreeable to both of us.  I can be reached through the “contact us” page here if Dr. Gipp is open.

This Christian brother influenced by Mr. Gipp proceeded to argue that nobody really knew Greek, because it is a dead language.  He seemed to think that there is no reason to look at the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture (a conclusion also advocated by fellow KJVO radical Ms. Gail Riplinger in her book Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers).

Gail Riplinger New Age Bible Versions KJV KJB AV King James Version Only KJVO
KJV extremist Gail Riplinger

When I asked this sincere Christian brother if he knew where the actual Greek words spoken by Christ and recorded by Matthew, Mark, and the other New Testament writers. were, he said that he did not know where the Greek words of the New Testament were; but he believed the King James Version was perfect.  This Christian man referred to an argument made by Gipp in his Answer Book allegedly proving that agapao and phileo have “absolutely NO DIFFERENCE” (pg. 93, Answer Book–capitalization in the original) in meaning because it is not easy to backtranslate them from English into Greek, and, therefore, there is no need to look at Greek for anything (pgs. 93-94). What Gipp’s argument actually proves is that backtranslating is no easy matter and that the phileo and agapao word groups have significant overlap in their semantic domain; the leap from conclusions about these specific words to the conclusion that Greek is useless is breathtaking and totally without merit, of course. One could, with the same argument, prove that clearly distinct Hebrew and Greek words for miracles are absolutely synonymous, or prove that any number of other words that have overlap in their semantic domains actually have “absolutely NO DIFFERENCE” in meaning.

Sam Gipp’s Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Violates Scripture

There are a number of reasons why I disagreed with my dear brother and his advocacy of Ruckmanism as filtered through Sam Gipp.

First, and most importantly, his position is unscriptural. It denies the perfect preservation of Scripture, instead arguing for a sort of restoration of an unknown and lost Bible.  When the Lord Jesus said:

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).

He was teaching that man must live by every single one of the Hebrew and Greek words that were penned by Moses, the Old Testament prophets, and (proleptically) by the New Testament apostles.  The Lord Jesus was not talking about English words when He spoke Matthew 4:4 in Greek.  When Isaiah 59:21 says that God’s Words would be in the mouths of every generation of the saints from the time that they were inspired and forever into the future, the Holy Ghost through Isaiah was not making a promise about English words.  The words that were in the mouths and in the hearts of the saints, near them and not far off (Romans 10:6-9; Deuteronomy 30) were not English words, but Hebrew and Greek words (and, of course, a little bit of Aramaic).  When David and his greater Son rejoiced in the pure words of God that would be preserved forever (Psalm 12:6-7), He was speaking about Hebrew words, not English words.  Hebrew has jots and tittles (Matthew 5:18)–the Lord speaks of the smallest Hebrew consonant, the yod, and the smallest Hebrew mark on the page, the vowel chireq (a single dot; consider also the Hebrew accents).  When this Christian brother said that he did not know where the Greek and Hebrew words of God were, he was denying the perfect preservation of Scripture.  Ruckmanism is too weak on the preservation of Scripture.

Second, the Ruckmanism of Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger, which denies that one should utilize Hebrew and Greek, changes God’s glorious and beautiful revelation into hiddenness.  God is not hiding Himself in His Hebrew and Greek words.  He is, in ineffable beauty and glory, revealing Himself.  To downplay in any way the very words chosen by the Father, spoken by Christ, and dictated by the Holy Spirit through the original authors of Scripture is wrong, wrong, wrong.  It is 100% wrong to say that we should not look at or study those words.  No, we must love them, trust in them, read them, memorize them, meditate upon them, and (if necessary) die for them.  I do not doubt the sincerity of my Christian brother who was influenced by Gipp, but it is wickedness to downplay in any way the actual words spoken by the Holy Spirit because of something as ridiculous as the fact that Enoch was better off when he was “translated.”

The two reasons above are the most important ones.  Ruckmanism violates Scripture’s promises of preservation and changes the original language words that were the delight of our sinless Savior upon earth, and for which the New Testament Christians were willing to die, into a closed book.

Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Simply Is Not True

There are also many other reasons why Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger are wrong when they tell people not to look at the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture.  There actually are many “wondrous things” (Psalm 119:18) that God has placed in the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture for His children’s instruction and delight, from puns to elements of poetry to syntactical structural markers and discourse elements, that do not show up in even a perfectly accurate English translation.  (You can see many of these in my study on why learning Greek and Hebrew is valuable, especially for Christian leaders).  Unfortunately, Sam Gipp in his Answer Book does not even acknowledge, much less deal with, these facts.  He assumes that ascribing value to Greek and Hebrew necessarily means the English of the Authorized Version is inaccurate, when that simply does not follow.  For example, consider Acts 5:34-42:

34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; 35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. 36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. 37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. 38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. 40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. 42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

:34 ἀναστὰς δέ τις ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ Φαρισαῖος, ὀνόματι Γαμαλιήλ, νομοδιδάσκαλος, τίμιος παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, ἐκέλευσεν ἔξω βραχύ τι τοὺς ἀποστόλους ποιῆσαι. 35 εἶπέ τε πρὸς αὐτούς, Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις, τί μέλλετε πράσσειν. 36 πρὸ γὰρ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνέστη Θευδᾶς, λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν, ᾧ προσεκολλήθη ἀριθμὸς ἀνδρῶν ὡσεὶ τετρακοσίων· ὃς ἀνῃρέθη, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διελύθησαν καὶ ἐγένοντο εἰς οὐδέν. 37 μετὰ τοῦτον ἀνέστη Ἰούδας ὁ Γαλιλαῖος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ἀπογραφῆς, καὶ ἀπέστησε λαὸν ἱκανὸν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ· κἀκεῖνος ἀπώλετο, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διεσκορπίσθησαν. 38 καὶ τὰ νῦν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων, καὶ ἐάσατε αὐτούς· ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἡ βουλὴ αὕτη ἢ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο, καταλυθήσεται· 39 εἰ δὲ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, οὐ δύνασθε καταλῦσαι αὐτό, μήποτε καὶ θεομάχοι εὑρεθῆτε. 40 ἐπείσθησαν δὲ αὐτῷ· καὶ προσκαλεσάμενοι τοὺς ἀποστόλους, δείραντες παρήγγειλαν μὴ λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς.41 οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐπορεύοντο χαίροντες ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ συνεδρίου, ὅτι ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ κατηξιώθησαν ἀτιμασθῆναι.42 πᾶσάν τε ἡμέραν, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ κατ’ οἶκον, οὐκ ἐπαύοντο διδάσκοντες καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν.

In this passage, Gamaliel makes the famous statement that if the Christian religion “be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”  The translation in the King James Version is perfectly accurate.  However, Greek has several different ways to express the conditional idea of an “if” clause.  A Greek 1st class conditional clause assumes the reality of the condition, while a Greek 3rd class conditional clause ranges from probability to possibility; it is the difference between a petite woman struggling with heavy groceries telling a muscular body builder, “If you are so strong, help me!” (that would be a Greek 1st class conditional) and one of two evenly-matched boxers in a ring saying, “If I win our boxing match, I will be the champion” (which would be expressed using a Greek 3rd class conditional).  In Acts 5, Gamaliel’s “if this counsel or this work be of men” is a Greek 3rd class conditional clause, while “if it be of God …” is a 1st class conditional.  Gamaliel’s balancing a 3rd class with a 1st class conditional clause indicates that he assumes–correctly–that what the Apostles was preaching was actually from God, and the Jewish leadership could not overthrow it–indeed, attempting to do so was to fight against God.

There is nothing wrong with the KJV’s translation of this passage–English simply does not have different words for “if” like Greek does, and that is not the KJV translators’ fault.  The Authorized Version is perfectly accurate, but there still is value in studying the Greek words dictated by the Holy Ghost through Luke.  Is this a  question of a major doctrine?  No, of course not.  But does it affect how an expository preacher explains this passage?  Yes.  Why should the hungry children of God not have everything that their Father wants for them?  Why should some of the food the Good Shepherd has for His little lambs in the infallible Greek words of the Book of Acts be kept from them?

The argument of my Christian brother that nobody really knows Koine Greek because it is a dead language (Hebrew seems to be left out of this argument, as it is the living tongue of the nation of Israel) is also invalid.  Imagine if someone in China is born again and then adopts a Ruckmanite view of the King James Version.  He does not care if he learns to engage in conversation in English–he just wants to read the KJV.  His goal is to read a particular written text, not to gain conversational ability.  He does a lot of work and becomes fluent in reading Elizabethan English, progressing to the point where he can sight-read and translate into Chinese large portions of the KJV, although he never takes the time to learn how to, say, order a hamburger at McDonalds or talk about the weather tomorrow.  Would a Ruckmanite say that this person really does not know English?  Would he not say that he has learned what is by far the most important thing in English–learning to read the Bible?  Would he say that this Chinese Christian should not use the KJV to shed light on his Chinese Bible?  No, he would be completely in favor of this Chinese Christian comparing his Chinese Bible with the King James Version.

Let us say that this same Chinese Christian, as a result of carefully studying his King James Bible, discovers that he should not set aside Greek or Hebrew.  He reads verses like:  “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha” (1 Corinthians 16:22) and realizes that the KJV itself, by transliterating instead of translating “Anathema” and “Maranatha,” is calling on him to look at the original language text.  He therefore learns Greek the same way he learned English.  He does not care if he can order a gyro in Koine Greek, or talk about a YouTube video in Koine Greek, but he progresses to the point where he can sight-read large portions of the Greek New Testament and translate it into Chinese.  Can we say that this Chinese Christian does not know Greek?  Is it wrong for him to use his knowledge of Greek to gain insight into his Chinese Bible?  How can we say that he can use English to gain insight into his Chinese Bible, but not Greek?

Furthermore, let me add that, if he is starting from scratch, this Chinese Christian would find mastering the Greek of the New Testament easier than achieving fluency in English.  There are the same number of vocabulary words in the Greek New Testament as there are words known by the average four-year-old child, and far fewer words in the Hebrew Old Testament than the average eight-year-old knows.  The simple country farmers that were the large majority of the population in ancient Israel, and the slaves and lower-class people who were the large majority of the members of the first century churches, could understand the Bible in Hebrew and Greek.  Learning the English of the KJV is a harder task (if starting from scratch) than learning the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament.  Because Ruckmanites are–conveniently–overwhelmingly native English speakers, they assume (without proof) that English, with all its irregularities, exceptions, and complications, is an easy language and that Greek and Hebrew are much more difficult, and ask why God would hide his Word in the hard languages of Greek and Hebrew instead of preserving (re-inspiring? re-revealing?) it in the easy English language.  It would actually be more accurate to ask:  “Why would God hide His Word in the difficult language of modern English, instead of preserving it in the easier languages of Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew?”  What is more, dare we say that God is not allowed to inspire and preserve a perfect, canonical, complete revelation in a language that becomes a dead language?  Has God’s Word failed, because languages change over time?  God forbid!

Believe the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible:

Reject Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger

There are many other problems with Ruckmanism.  Reject Ruckman’s heresies on the gospel, Ruckman’s racism, Ruckman’s carnal spirit, and Ruckman’s many other bizzare doctrines and practices.  Reject the extremism on the KJV of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, and Gail Riplinger.  Their indefensible position leads many away from the KJV to embrace modern versions. Instead, believe God’s promises of the perfect preservation of His Words.  The Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus contain all the words God inspired and preserved.  Since the KJV is a fantastically accurate translation of those inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek Words–the ultimate and final authority for all Christian faith and practice–its English words are authoritative and have the breath of God on them.  All Christians in the English-speaking world should be King James Only.  None of them should be followers of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, or Gail Riplinger.

TDR

The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Three)

Part One     Part Two

Statements for Consideration

Consider these three statements:

The King James Version is divinely inspired.

God immediately inspired the King James Version.

God gave the King James Version by inspiration.

Do all three have the same meaning?  Are all three true?  If not all three are true, then is any one of them?

I will answer these questions.  To start, let’s read the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16 again:  “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.”  The King James Version translators (KJVT) translated the three Greek words:  pasa graphe theopneustos.  We have only this statement on inspiration, because it’s the only time theopneustos (“God breathed”) is found in the New Testament.  Other passages elaborate or apply.

The Considerations from Scripture

God Breathed Out

2 Timothy 3:16 says God breathed out “scripture.”  Inspiration applies in a technical and specific sense to these sacred writings that come from God.  God inspired the product produced, not the men.  Yes, 2 Peter 1:21 says “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”  That doesn’t contradict the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16.  It elaborates.  Inspiration, however, applies to sacred scripture alone according to 2 Timothy 3:16.

Inspiration occurred when God breathed sacred scripture (graphe).  Again, depending on the context, graphe (scripture) refers to inspired writing.  It does in 2 Timothy 3:16.

The Exclusion of Two Statements Above

God breathed out all sacred scripture.  The KJVT, and I agree, took pasa graphe theopneustos as ‘given by inspiration of God.’  When given, the sacred scriptures were either Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.  That excludes the KJV from scripture given by inspiration of God.  Therefore, that excludes two of the above statements:

God immediately inspired the King James Version.

God gave the King James Version by inspiration.

I’m saying these two statements are false ones.  They are saying, I believe, the same thing, meaning “God inspired” and “God gave by inspiration” are the same [An early comment by Jon Gleason in the comment section explain the London Baptist Confession position of “immediate inspiration”].

To come clean at this moment, until now I never took it upon myself to come to sufficient, completed thinking on the exact subject of these posts.  I’m not done considering it, but I have arrived at sufficient enough thought to write this post (the third in a series so far).  A comment I wrote last week, I edited because it disagreed with what I am writing here.

God Immediately Inspired Some Translation

“Scripture Saith”

As of this moment, I believe God inspired some translation.  Which translation did God inspire?  He inspired at least these translations:

John 19:37, “And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.”

Romans 9:17, “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”

Romans 10:11, “For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

1 Timothy 5:18, “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.”

James 4:5, “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?”

God inspired all of these translations. . . . in their original Greek.  He gave these by inspiration.  In almost all of these, you are reading translations of translations, English translations of Greek translations from the Hebrew text.  I use these specific verses because they say, “scripture saith.”  If sacred scriptures say it, it means God said it.

“Have Ye Not Read Scripture?”

Jesus also used the language, “have ye not read this scripture”:

Mark 12:10-11, “And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?”

He translated a copy of the Old Testament Psalm 118:22-23.  He again calls a Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew, “scripture.”  Jesus and the Apostles also did more than just translate.  In anticipation of this question, I say that Jesus targummed.  Even the dictionary definition of targum says:

an ancient paraphrase or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, of a type made from about the 1st century AD when Hebrew was declining as a spoken language

God inspired everything in the New Testament, including Jesus’ interpolations inserted into a translation of an Old Testament text.

“Spoken By the Prophet”

Other examples apply.  The New Testament often says the two words, “spoken by,” referring to translated Old Testament scripture:

Matthew 2:17-18, “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”

Matthew 27:35, “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.”

Acts 2:16-21, “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: . . . . . And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Equating a Translation of a Copy with a Copy

Above are three of at least twenty “spoken by” passages in the New Testament.  1 Timothy 5:18 above gives unique information.  Paul translates to Timothy an Old Testament text (Deuteronomy 25:4) and quotes a New Testament one (Luke 10:7), and he calls them both, “scripture.”  He equates what we could call a translation of a copy of the Old Testament with a copy of the New Testament by calling them both, “scripture.”

Unlike what B. B. Warfield later asserted in his book on inspiration, copies are sacred scripture and accurate translations of copies are “scripture.”  I contend, based upon 2 Timothy 3:16, that upon the completion of the canon, God did no more breathing out of translations.  However, I also contend that accurate copies and accurate translations of those copies are in fact “scripture.”  I also contend that these accurate copies and accurate translations are inspired.  What God inspired, breathed out, remains inspired and breathed out.  That occurs also with a translation in light of further New Testament elaboration.

The King James Version Is Divinely Inspired

Because of what I explain above, I believe one of the three statements, “The King James Version is divinely inspired.”  I say that because it remains inspired.  Insofar that the King James Version is an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text, it is inspired by God.  This is how anyone can say about the King James Version, it is the inspired Word of God.

I might disappoint some of you with the following.  The King James Version is not the only inspired translation.  Any accurate translation of a perfectly preserved copy is also inspired.  When I say translation, I also mean translation into any language, not just English.  That also means that if I sit down and do an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved copy, that too is inspired.  If it is what God said, even in a translation, then it is also scripture.

No one translates today by inspiration of God.  God by providence enables translation.  He created language for translation.  Verses above say a translation is scripture, so a translation of scripture can be scripture.  An accurate translation of scripture is scripture.  As scripture it remains inspired.

Peter Ruckman, KJV Only Blasphemer

Peter Ruckman, the notorious King James Only advocate, is a blasphemer.

Why do I say this?  I have never read a book by Peter Ruckman from cover to cover.  I tried reading one years ago but it was too vitriolic for me; I felt defiled reading it, so I stopped.  Now recently I had the privilege of debating evangelical apologist James White on the topic of whether the King James Version and the Textus Receptus are superior to the Legacy Standard Bible and the Textus Rejectus. In James White’s King James Only Controversy he painted the moderate mainstream of KJV-Onlyism with such astonishing inaccuracy.  James White makes arguments such as (speaking about the translation Lucifer for Satan in Isaiah 14:12): “The term Lucifer, which came into the biblical tradition through the translation of Jerome’s Vulgate, has become … entrenched … [y]et a person who stops for a moment of calm reflection might ask, ‘Why should I believe Jerome was inspired to insert this term at this point? Do I have a good reason for believing this?’”[1]  Dr. White argues:  “Anyone who believes the TR to be infallible must believe that Erasmus, and the other men who later edited the same text in their own editions (Stephanus and Beza), were somehow ‘inspired.’”[2]  Of course, White provides no sources at all for any King James Only advocate who has ever claimed that Jerome, Stephanus, Beza, or Erasmus were inspired, since no such sources exist. As I pointed out in the debate, Dr. White makes bonkers claims like that KJV-only people think Abraham and Moses actually spoke English (again, of course, totally without any documentation of such people even existing).

Thus, James White’s astonishing inaccuracies made me wonder if he is even representing Peter Ruckman accurately. I have no sympathy for Peter Ruckman’s peculiar doctrines—as the godly, non-nutty, serious thinker and KJV Only advocate David Cloud has explained in his good book What About Ruckman?, Peter Ruckman is a heretic.  I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s heretical, gospel-corrupting teaching that salvation was by works in the Old Testament and will be by works in the Millennium.  It makes me wonder if Ruckman was truly converted, or if he was an example of what was often warned about in the First Great Awakening by George Whitfield and others, namely, “The Dangers of an Unconverted Ministry.”  I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s disgraceful lifestyle that led him to be disqualified to pastor.  I am 100% opposed to his ungodly language, to his wicked racism, to his wacky conspiracy theories, and to his unbiblical extremism on the English of the KJV.  At the same time, however opposed I am to him, as a Christian I am still duty-bound to attempt to represent his position accurately.  The way Dr. White badly misrepresented the large moderate majority of KJV-Onlyism made me wonder if James also misrepresented Dr. Ruckman.

Peter Ruckman Baptist KJV KJV Only AV 1611

As a result, I acquired a copy of Ruckman’s response to James White’s King James Only Controversy, a book called The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000).  The title page claims: “This book exposes the most cockeyed piece of amateur scholarship that ever came out of Howash University.”  Based on the title, it was already evident that I would be in for a quite painful and dreary time going through the book, but God is a God of truth, and nobody, not even Peter Ruckman, should be misrepresented by a Christian.  Christians must be truthful like their God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

scholarship only controversy peter s ruckman professional liars james white king james only KJV KJB AV 1611

While Christians should not misrepresent anyone, I found it hard to cut through the slander and hyperbole and bloviations in Ruckman’s book as I attempted to  get to something substantial.  Ruckman can say things such as:  “Irenaeus quotes the AV one time and the NASV one time. … Eusebius (later) quotes the King James Bible four times and the NASV once” (pg. 117).  Peter Ruckman has an earned Ph. D. from Bob Jones University.  He knows that the NASV and the KJV/AV did not exist when Irenaeus and Eusebius lived.  He knows that the English language did not yet exist.  (I wonder if James White’s completely undocumented affirmation in his King James Only Controversy—which he also declined to prove any support for at all in our debate—that some KJV-only advocates believe that Abraham and Moses spoke English derives from a misunderstanding some Nestle-Aland advocate had with a Ruckmanite who followed his leader in making outlandish verbal statements, and those outlandish verbal statements became, in James White’s mind, a real group of people who actually thought that the Old Testament prophets spoke English, although he has no evidence such a group ever existed, somewhat comparable to Ruckman saying that Irenaeus and Eusebius quoted the Authorized Version and the New American Standard Version.)  Of course, at this point I am speculating on something that I should not have to speculate upon, since James White has had decades to provide real documentation of these KJV-only groups who allegedly think English was the language spoken in ancient Israel, but he has not done so.

I did discover something that made me wonder if the statement White quotes about Ruckman and advanced revelation in English were similar exaggerations. Note the following from Ruckman’s book, on the first two pages:

“Scholarship Onlyism” is much easier to de­fine than the mysterious “King James Onlyism.” For example, while “using” (a standard Alexan­drian cliche) the Authorized Version (1611), I recommend Tyndale’s version (1534), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), Valera’s Span­ish version (1596), Martin Luther’s German ver­sion (1534), and a number of others. Here at Pensa­cola Bible Institute, our students “use” (the old Alexandrian cliche) from twenty-eight to thirty- two English versions, including the RV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASV, Today’s English Version [TEV], New English Bible [NEB], New World Translation, [NWT], NIV, and NKJV. Our brand of “King James Onlyism” is not the kind that it is reported to be. We believe that the Authorized Version of the En­glish Protestant Reformation is the “Scriptures” in English, and as such, it is inerrant until the alleged “errors” in it have been proved “beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt” to be errors. Until such a time, we assume that it is a perfect translation. No sane person, who was not criminally minded, would take any other position. In a court of law, the “ac­cused” is “innocent until proven guilty” (i.e., O. J. Simpson) … Since not one apostate Fundamentalist (or Conservative) in one hundred and fifty years has yet been able to prove one error in the Book we hold in our hands (which happens to be written in the universal language of the end time), we assume it is the last Bible God intends to give mankind be­fore the Second Advent. God has graciously pre­served its authority and infallibility in spite of “godly, qualified, recognized scholars” in the Laod­icean period of apostasy (1900-1990), so we con­sider it to be the final authority in “all matters of faith and practice.” We go a little beyond this, and believe it to be the final authority in all matters of Scholarship. That is what “bugs the tar” (Koine, American) and “beats the fire” (Koine, American) out of the Scholarship Only advocates who are in love with their own intellects.[3]

Notice that Ruckman himself “recommends” Bibles other than the KJV, such as the Tyndale, Geneva, and Textus Receptus based foreign language Bibles.  At least in this quotation, he does not say God re-inspired the Bible in 1611, but he says that the translation should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, as is proper in a court of law.  That is a much more moderate position than James White attributes to him.

So is it possible that the extreme statements James White quotes on pg. 27 of The King James Only Controversy are hyperbole on Ruckman’s part?  (Ruckman has plenty of hyperbole—even in the quotation above, I cut out a weird statement he made about David Koresh.)  I cannot prove that James White was deliberately misrepresenting Ruckman—Ruckman’s style is too bizarre for one to easily determine what he actually means (another of many, many reasons why I cannot and do not recommend that you read any of his books).  However, from this statement we can see that if one wishes to prove that Ruckman actually believes something it is important to be very careful, as he not only makes large numbers of uncharitable and nutty attacks on others, but many hyperbolic statements.

Unfortunately, as years ago I was not able to finish a Ruckman book because it was bursting with carnality, so this time I was not able to finish Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controversy because it was not just carnal, but blasphemous.  On page 81 Ruckman takes God’s name in vain, reprinting the common curse phrase “Oh my G—” in his book.  A search of its electronic text uncovers that Ruckman blasphemes again on page 269, 308, 312, 452 & 460.  He could do so elsewhere as well, but those statements are enough, and I am not excited about searching for and discovering blasphemy.  The Bible says: “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me. A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person.” (Psalm 101:3-4).  If we were living in the Old Testament theocracy, Peter Ruckman would be stoned to death for blasphemy.  We are not in the Old Testament theocracy, but His blasphemous language is still disgusting, abominable, and wicked in the sight of the holy God.  That someone who claimed to be a Christian preacher would write such wickedness is even more disgusting.  Ruckman was a “Baptist” the way Judas or Diotrephes or Jezebel was a Baptist.  He would be subject to church discipline if he snuck in unawares and became a member of our church.

So did James White misrepresent Peter Ruckman?  White’s representation of the non-wacko large majority of KJV-onlyism was far from accurate, so I wondered if he even got Ruckman right.  From what I read of Ruckman’s book before Ruckman started to blaspheme, I thought it was possible that James White did not even get Ruckman right, although with Ruckman’s pages bursting with carnality and total weirdness I could see why getting Ruckman wrong would be easy to do.  I am unable to determine definitively one way or the other whether James White was accurate on Peter Ruckman’s position (or if Ruckman himself was even consistent in explaining himself) since I am not going to read a book by someone who breaks the Third Commandment while claiming to be a Baptist preacher.  That is disgusting to me, and ineffably more disgusting to the holy, holy, holy God.  Ruckman’s critique of James White’s book deserves to go in the trash, where its filthy language belongs.

I do not recommend James White’s King James Only Controversy because it does not base itself on God’s revealed promises of preservation and because of its many inaccuracies.  I do not recommend Peter Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controvesy because it is not only weird and carnal, but repeatedly blasphemous.  Certainly for a new Christian, and possibly for a mature one, the recycle bin could well be the best place for both volumes.

TDR

[1] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 180–181.

[2] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 96.

[3]           Peter Ruckman, The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000), 1-2.

Peter Ruckman: Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy part 1 of 2

You are out of town and are looking for a good church.  After doing online research, you find one and visit.  The church says “Baptist,” “independent.” They go soulwinning, telling people to repent and be saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. They all have King James Bibles. They say nothing about Ruckman. They reject Jack Hyles’s anti-repentance heresies.  They reject CCM, Contemporary “Christian” Music.  They believe in eternal security but are not Calvinist.  They dress modestly and believe in gender distinction.  They reject the charismatic movement.  They reject covenant theology and are dispensational, premillennial, and pretribulational.  Truths such as the resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, etc. are, of course, all believed.  The people are friendly and the pastor preaches with conviction and makes application.  Everything looks great!

 

You go to the tract area to pick up some gospel tracts.  The content seems fine for most of them.  Then you find a pamphlet about the future.  On one side it says: “Very soon millions of people shall suddenly disappear!”  Everything that it says in that part sounds fine.  But on the other side it says “Why have millions of people suddenly disappeared?” and in that section you are shocked when you discover statements that deny the gospel!  In this section, which is addressed to people who miss the Rapture, appear statements such as:  “Remember, to be saved you must put all your faith and trust in Jesus Christ and keep the commandments of God,” and “You can only enter [God’s] Kingdom  if you have put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ and … by … keeping the commandments.”  What is going on here?

 

You look at the pamphlet a bit more carefully.  You notice within it a drawing of people going up in the Rapture; one of the graves with a person going up says “Peter Ruckman.”  Hmm.

Peter Ruckman Rapture to heaven cartoon

Then you see that it is published by one “John Davis” who runs a “Time for Truth!” website and helps lead “The Oaks Church.”  You discover that these sectaries are significant publishers of Ruckmanite literature.

 

The church you thought was fine turned out to be one where Peter Ruckman’s heresy that there are different ways of salvation in different time periods is being believed and practiced, although they did not openly proclaim their Ruckmanism.  That is bad.  It is really bad.  Such a church is not one to go back to unless they repent and renounce their heresy on the gospel.  Multiple (alleged) ways of salvation is a false teaching to tolerate “not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Galatians 2:5).  Ecclesiastical separation is commanded by God (Romans 16:17; 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1; Ephesians 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14).

 

Ruckman believed an eternally secure salvation by grace alone through faith alone is only for the church age; supposedly in past times for Israel and in future times such as the Tribulation period salvation is not by repentant faith alone, but by faith and works.  What are some questions you can ask someone who believes or is being influenced by this heresy?  Here are a few.

 

1.)   Does the fact that Genesis 15:6 is referenced in Habakkuk 2:4, and these two verses are themselves referenced in James 2; Romans 4; Galatians 3; and Hebrews 10-11 show that justification has always been by faith alone, rather than by works?  (The extremely powerful nature of this development of salvation by faith alone from the patriarchal times of Abraham, through the Mosaic dispensation, into the New Testament is developed in the study “The Just Shall Live by Faith”). Why does Paul prove his teaching of justification by faith alone with these kinds of Old Testament texts?  Don’t these passages show that Abraham, Moses, Habakkuk, James, and Paul all taught the same human response was required to be saved—faith, and faith alone?

 

2.)   For century after century the Jews were singing Psalms with many verses such as: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him” (Psalm 2:12). If salvation was ever by works in the Old Testament, why would God command them to sing that ALL who trust in God’s Son are blessed (not “some” are blessed, those who trust and also do enough works to be saved?) Is the Psalter deceiving Israel when it regularly teaches salvation by faith alone?

 

3.)   Why does Peter testify that ALL God’s OT prophets witnessed to justification by faith alone in the Messiah? “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43).

 

4.)   Why is the Old Testament full of the truth of salvation by grace alone? (For example, the Sabbath teaches salvation by faith and resting from works, according to Paul in Hebrews 3-4, so from the very seventh day of creation God’s resting taught man: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Hebrews 4:9-10). One major reason working on the Sabbath deserved the death penalty was to teach Israel what a grave sin it was to seek to enter God’s salvation rest by effort instead of resting in Jehovah and His provided atonement alone. Likewise, Moses told Israel that their being chosen was sheer and totally undeserved grace (Deut 7:6-8); the very preface to the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-2) indicates that Israel was to obey because they were already a redeemed people, not in order to merit salvation, just as believers today obey because they are already a redeemed people, not to merit salvation.  There are many texts such as: “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1-2); how? Through the Messiah, in the immediate context—Isaiah 52:13-53:12; 55:4.

 

Read part two on Peter Ruckman’s Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy by clicking here.

 

TDR

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives