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).

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 blasphemies.  Gipp 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).

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