Dr. Peter S. Ruckman Clip, "Revelation 12: Future Fall of Angels"

[Biblebeliever]

Proof of nothing except that you are gullible.

No Scott, I checked the work. I looked up the codes for myself. And they are confirmed.

And I sugges that you do the same sir. Do your due diligence in regard to this matter.

Correlation is not causation.

Also, "Jesuit Rheim bible" is a nonsense phrase, invented by you. The Rheims Bible was translated from the Vulgate, as anyone informed on actual Bible history could have told you, if you had bothered to do any proper research instead of pulling factoids out of your sphincter.

So again, no facts from you, only baseless assertions.

But it is the truth. You cannot deny that we are now living in the most apostate time ever. You have the one world church forming left and right with the help of the Ecumenical Movement as well as the Contemporary Christian Movement. You have the Charismatic deception which is widespread all around the world, and of course you can't forget the wicked World Council of Churches. Things are getting worse not better. And it is the spirit of anti-christ. And of course the spirit of anti-christ is all over the modern Vatican versions.

And no, it is a Jesuit bible. And it would serve as the basis for Catholic bibles and their revisions. Also, the Jesuit Douay-Rheims bible was produced in the Faculty of Theology. And you can do some research on that yourself.

I'm not "implying" anything. I am saying that when you see "word of God" in the Bible and assume it means the KJV exclusively, you are seeing words that are not there.

Well when I see the word of God being mentioned in the Bible, I know that it is a reference to a Book. And I have that Book. And so do many, many others. It is the Authorized King James Bible.

And if you don't think it is. Then where can you find a copy of the perfect and inerrant word of God?

No. I am saying that you see words that are not there.

Well if you are not saying that, then why are you implying that?

No, that's what you seriously imagined I think.

Well then what else could you be implying then?

Biblebeliever's fevered imagination =/= Ransom's facts.

Well again Scott, what is it exactly that you believe about the Bible?

"Is too!" is not an argument for anything.

Well I am simply asking you an honest question. Do you or do you not believe that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible words of God?

If you actually knew that Bible you pretend you were defending, you wouldn't take it out of context so often.

I understand what the context is, but that verse also applies to God's whole nature. And if God is not the author of confusion, that also means that He did not write or author all of the modern versions that are out there. The modern versions are not of the Lord.

The modern versions come from the Vatican, which is the enemy of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Take it for whatever you like. Your opinions aren't worth anything.

Well if that is the case, then why are you even responding to me sir?

Another Bible verse taken out of context. Some "defender" of God's word you are, if all you are going to do is abuse it.

Well let me ask you, what is the context Scott?

I know what the context is. Now do you?

No, the question here, which you have no answer for, is why should I believe they are to be found exclusively in the KJV?

"Is too!" is not an answer.

"Well Scott where are they then?" is not an answer.

Proof is an answer.

And since I'm not the one making any theological claims, the proof is yours to provide. Not mine. Yours.

16 Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them. - Isaiah 34:16 (KJV)

I already have the proof sir. And it is the precious Book that I hold in my hands and know is the inerrant and infallible word and words of God.

Now do you have a perfect and inerrant Bible to give to anyone if they ask you?

I'm not "implying" anything. I'm telling you you are making baseless assertions.

You are implying that. Because I keep asking you whether or not you believe that the edition of the NASB which you have, is the perfect and inerrant word of God? And you continue to avoid and dodge that question by not giving a straight forward answer to my question.

No, all it means is that I'm not going to allow you to shift the burden of proof for your baseless pseudo-theology onto me.  My beliefs are not in question here. Yours are.

Well then answer the question sir. And keep it to either a "Yes" or a "No."

And yes I am questioning your beliefs. Because you say that you believe the Bible (Singular) is (present tense verb) the inerrant and infallible word of God. So I want to know which Bible you are referring to if it is not the Authorized Version. And so yes, your beliefs are in question here.

Come on Scott, do you actually have a tangle, hold it in your hands Bible or do you have a Phantom bible, kind of like the one that James White and Bruce Metzger has?

And your problem is that you confuse "the words of the God" (LOL!) with your foolish opinions about the "words of the God."

I do not tremble at your opinions because they do not come from God. They are nothing but blind faith in a whole bunch of questionable assumptions.

I did not ask you to tremble at my opinions. The real issue here Scott is do you tremble at the words of God? Do you have reverence toward them?

And whether or not you really believe that the Bible (Singular) is (present tense verb) the perfect, pure, inerrant and infallible words of the living God.

I gave you a straightforward answer. You didn't like the answer, so you changed the question. That's not my problem.

I did not accept the answer you gave because it was vague and not straight to the point and you know it.

Now be a man, grow some backbone, and answer the question I have asked you several times already about your edition of the NASB. Do you believe that it is the inerrant and infallible words of God?

And remember that a simple "Yes" or "No" will do. Thanks.

 

[Ransom]

It amazes me that it takes you more than a week to respond with a post that really doesn't say anything other than "is too!"

 

[Biblebeliever]

It amazes me that it takes you more than a week to respond with a post that really doesn't say anything other than "is too!"

Scott, I am still waiting for you to answer my question: Do you believe that the edition of the NASB that you currently have in your possession is the inerrant and infallible word of God?

 

[Ransom]

Scott, I am still waiting for you to answer my question: Do you believe that the edition of the NASB that you currently have in your possession is the inerrant and infallible word of God?

Good grief - it took you two weeks to start harping on this again? I've already told you, I answered your question the first time:

Okay, which Bible do you believe is the inerrant and infallible word of God?

This NASB I've got right here does just fine, thanks.

So to answer your question once again, "This NASB I've got right here does just fine, thanks."

Jack H. Hyles, you are obtuse.

 

[Biblebeliever]

Good grief - it took you two weeks to start harping on this again? I've already told you, I answered your question the first time:

This NASB I've got right here does just fine, thanks.

So to answer your question once again, "This NASB I've got right here does just fine, thanks."


Jack H. Hyles, you are obtuse.

And I said that response and answer of yours was vague.

Again, do you believe that the NASB is the perfect, inerrant and infallible word of God?

A simple "Yes" or "No" answer will do just fine. Thanks.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You are on a wild goose chase for a perfect translation.

 

[rsc2a]

You are on a wild goose chase for a perfect translation.

The premise only works if someone has no understanding of how translation happens and is ignorant as to the fact that languages change over time.

 

[BandGuy]

16 Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.
- Isaiah 34:16 (KJV)


Notice the Scripture says the book (singular) of the LORD. God promised to preserve His words. Therefore we must have them. God keeps His promises and He keeps His word. Amen.

1.  Thanks to all of you, especially to BB for the hilarious entertainment.  I needed that.
2.  I know I am going to regret stepping into this discussion, but here goes:  You do understand that when Isaiah wrote that in Hebrew (not the King's English) that there was not a New Testament written at that time, right?  Does the book you own have a New Testament? 

 

[T-Bone]

It amazes me that it takes you more than a week to respond with a post that really doesn't say anything other than "is too!"

Scott, I am still waiting for you to answer my question: Do you believe that the edition of the NASB that you currently have in your possession is the inerrant and infallible word of God?

Actually what Scott believes and what you believe about the translation does not change the fact of what is...your belief does not make something so.  The Scripture is what it is whether you believe it or not.  Let me give you an example, you believe in some mystical "bible code" in the KJV...it does not exist and only proves you are a nut...your belief in it does not change those two facts!  You're welcome.

 

[Biblebeliever]

16 Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.
- Isaiah 34:16 (KJV)


Notice the Scripture says the book (singular) of the LORD. God promised to preserve His words. Therefore we must have them. God keeps His promises and He keeps His word. Amen.

1.  Thanks to all of you, especially to BB for the hilarious entertainment.  I needed that.
2.  I know I am going to regret stepping into this discussion, but here goes:  You do understand that when Isaiah wrote that in Hebrew (not the King's English) that there was not a New Testament written at that time, right?  Does the book you own have a New Testament?

Of course I understand that. But there are instances in the Scriptures where God calls something that is not as though it were.

God sees the end from the beginning.

 

[Biblebeliever]

Actually what Scott believes and what you believe about the translation does not change the fact of what is...your belief does not make something so.  The Scripture is what it is whether you believe it or not.  Let me give you an example, you believe in some mystical "bible code" in the KJV...it does not exist and only proves you are a nut...your belief in it does not change those two facts!  You're welcome.

And let me ask you now, what is the Scripture?

And whether or not you believe in the Numerical codes and patters which are in the King James Bible, that does not change the fact that those numerical codes are there in the Scriptures.

Also, have you even taken the time to read the King James Code?

Or are you just trying to talk about something which you know absolutely nothing about?

Which one is it?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Actually what Scott believes and what you believe about the translation does not change the fact of what is...your belief does not make something so.  The Scripture is what it is whether you believe it or not.  Let me give you an example, you believe in some mystical "bible code" in the KJV...it does not exist and only proves you are a nut...your belief in it does not change those two facts!  You're welcome.

And let me ask you now, what is the Scripture?

And whether or not you believe in the Numerical codes and patters which are in the King James Bible, that does not change the fact that those numerical codes are there in the Scriptures.

Also, have you even taken the time to read the King James Code?

Or are you just trying to talk about something which you know absolutely nothing about?

Which one is it?

Oh, please, with the insane King James Code already.  Enough of your insanity. 

Move this to a forum where sane people can ignore your gobbledygook.

 

[T-Bone]

Actually what Scott believes and what you believe about the translation does not change the fact of what is...your belief does not make something so.  The Scripture is what it is whether you believe it or not.  Let me give you an example, you believe in some mystical "bible code" in the KJV...it does not exist and only proves you are a nut...your belief in it does not change those two facts!  You're welcome.

And let me ask you now, what is the Scripture?

And whether or not you believe in the Numerical codes and patters which are in the King James Bible, that does not change the fact that those numerical codes are there in the Scriptures.

Also, have you even taken the time to read the King James Code?

Or are you just trying to talk about something which you know absolutely nothing about?

Which one is it?

Oh the irony of this statement...you have pages of proof that this applies to you!  And no, I don't have to time to read mystical tripe of another numerologist!

 

[biscuit1953]

Following Ruckman's lead on "separation", I choose to separate from him and all the other KJVO nutjobs and heretics.

Peter Ruckman is an incredible Bible preacher and teacher of the word of God. He has written well close to a hundred books. Has done many teachings and sermons. And he is now 91 and still serving the Lord. He will be peaching in Jacksonville this weekend. Also his books, teachings and sermons have built Bible belief in young Christian men and women. Pastor Peter S. Ruckman definitely has my respect.

I haven't been to this website in a long time but noticed your thread.  When I joined the old FFF I was a "Ruckmanite" and had been for 30 years.  I thought Ransom among others was nothing more than an apostate so I had the idea that I was going to set him and all those other liberal "Christians" straight.  I now attend a Southern Baptist Church, personally use an HCSB translation and thank God that He had enough patience with me to let me live long enough to realize what a fool I was.  Peter Ruckman is doing more harm to the body of Christ than just about any modern day preacher I can think of.  I was caught up with the King James Only movement as a young Christian in the military and fully understand your mindset.  I believe you are sincere but are sincerely wrong and feel great sorrow for you.  Only the grace of God can bring someone out of a cult like mentality as you have and I truly hope that will eventually happen with you.

Oddly enough I believe Ruckman may be right concerning Revelation 12 but as he has said, "Even a busted clock is right twice a day."

I won't argue with you but here is a video that I believe answers any honest questions someone caught up in Ruckmanism may have concerning modern translations. 
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 1
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 2
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 3
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 4
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 5

 

[Biblebeliever]

Move this to a forum where sane people can ignore your gobbledygook.

Any Sane person would stand for and defend Final Authority.

And since you attack Final Authority, that just shows that you lack both discernment and common sense.

 

[Biblebeliever]

I haven't been to this website in a long time but noticed your thread.  When I joined the old FFF I was a "Ruckmanite" and had been for 30 years.  I thought Ransom among others was nothing more than an apostate so I had the idea that I was going to set him and all those other liberal "Christians" straight.  I now attend a Southern Baptist Church, personally use an HCSB translation and thank God that He had enough patience with me to let me live long enough to realize what a fool I was.  Peter Ruckman is doing more harm to the body of Christ than just about any modern day preacher I can think of.  I was caught up with the King James Only movement as a young Christian in the military and fully understand your mindset.  I believe you are sincere but are sincerely wrong and feel great sorrow for you.  Only the grace of God can bring someone out of a cult like mentality as you have and I truly hope that will eventually happen with you.

Oddly enough I believe Ruckman may be right concerning Revelation 12 but as he has said, "Even a busted clock is right twice a day."

I won't argue with you but here is a video that I believe answers any honest questions someone caught up in Ruckmanism may have concerning modern translations. 

Well it is very unfortunate biscuit1953 that you left the truth. And that you have went back to Rome for your bible. The modern versions are simply Vatican versions. They come from the Alexandrian Nestle Aland text.


And if I were you if that church you attend now is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, well then I would leave that church immediately.

There is a great apostasy taking place now in the church. That's why you have the Chrismania movement growing leaps and bounds, you also have the wicked emergent church movement now, then you have the signs and wonders false prophets going into a lot of these Pentecostal churches pretending that they have the Jewish Apostolic sign gifts, when they DO NOT. And then there is the Contemporary Christian Music movement, ("Christian" Rock and "Christian" Hip Hop) in a lot of the "modern" and "contemporary" churches in this Laodicean period in the church age. And of course you cannot forget about the dangerous Sacred Name Movement and the Hebrew Roots Movement that has also gained a lot of ground in a lot of today's churches. So again, there is great apostasy in these last days that is now taking place.

And the only hope that we have is the King James Bible, which is the word of God. The moment Christians start to abandon the word of God (King James Bible), they are then open to apostasy and deception.


Regarding the videos you posted with James White. I need to let you know that James White has been shown to be a phony, a hypocrite and also a LIAR.


Here are some videos where brother Will Kinney refutes James White's ridiculous attacks on the King James Bible.


James White's Shell Game: Now You See it... by Will Kinney

James White's Shell Game: Now You See it... by Will Kinney


James White's Bible Blunders Book by Will Kinney

James White's Bible Blunders Book by Will Kinney



And here are some video teachings by brother Edward also showing James White's deception and lies:



James White lies about 2Cor 2:17.

James White lies about 2Cor 2:17.

Published on Aug 14, 2013
In this video I explain how James White again lies in his book, 'The King James Only Controversy', in this case, about 2Cor.2:17.
He states that the NKJ is correct in using the word 'peddle' for the Gr. word, when in fact, the correct usage is 'corrupt'. This is seen how the same Gr. word is used in Isa.1:22, where water is said to be mixed with wine, hence 'corrupting' the wine, a fact that White makes sure not to mention.
See also Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon which states, 'and most interp. rightly decide in favor of this meaning [corrupt] (on account of the context) in 2Cor.2:17 (pg.325)





James White Lied about the goal of the KJB translators

James White Lied about the goal of the KJB translators

Published on Jun 13, 2013
In this video I show that the KJB translators would have defended the KJVO view, that the King James Bible is the 'one prinicpal [most important] good one, not to be justly excepted [objected] against.
That was the purpose of the KJB translators-to make one translation that would be THE Bible.
White would have the reader believe that the KJB translators would hold to the same view that he does, one is suppose to have 5 different translations in front of them and choose the reading he thinks is the best one.
On the contrary, the KJB translators goal was the giving the English speaking People THE Bible, not just 'A' Bible.




James White lies about Riplinger's chart on Ja.5:16

James White lies about Riplinger's chart on Ja.5:16

Published on May 23, 2013
James White, in his 2nd edition of his work, The King James Only Controversy' omits a key word in the Riplinger chart he uses, omitting the word 'almost',
The sin of Alexandrians is omission.


James White lies about Dean Burgon and 1Jn.5:7

James White lies about Dean Burgon and 1Jn.5:7

Published on Jun 12, 2013
In this video I discuss yet another lie by James White. In his book, he asserts that Burgon, would have been against 1Jn.5:7 because Burgon defends 1Ti.3:16 against Griesbech, an early modern critic, who attacked the correct reading of 'God'.
Burgon cited Griesbech's rejection of 1Jn.5:7 due to little evidence, while accepting the false reading of 1Ti.3:16 with even less evidence.
Burgon was not saying he rejected 1Jn.5:7 as White asserts. This view comes from White's own convoluted logic.