It's Finally Here: The Ultimate Scale of "Ruckmanite" and Those Falsely-So-Called

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
323
Reaction score
22
Points
28
The Ultimate Scale of "Ruckmanite" and Those Falsely-So-Called (created for dire demand by UGC)
(we simply compared it to Yelp reviews, or any other 5-star rating scale):

Ruckmanites: would rate Ruckman 5 stars. Their pastor most likely graduated from PBI. I personally have little experience irl with these folks, so I can't judge them.
Ruckman Readers (RR): 4 stars. They actually read a book of his (yes, the whole book), then a few more + aren't fearful of Anti-Ruckmanites in public. They don't agree with the Doc on everything, and have studied plenty of other teachers. (UGC is here)
No one: 3 stars. It's impossible to be neutral with Ruckman. It's Ruckman.
Ruckman Avoiders (RA): 2 stars. Most people are here.
Anti-Ruckmanites: 1 star (this scale doesn't allow for 0 stars because 3 needs to be in the middle). Bad experience ex-IFB, kids once bullied, men depriving themselves of their own testosterone go here. The 1-stars are very powerful. This is because Ruckman gives them something they never had before: the feeling of being accepted and understood by a team. Only Ruckman can bring a group of church soy boys together as their perfect outlet for their haunted pasts. He reminds them of the quarterback who dated 3 of the girls they had a crush on in high school while stuffing them in a locker every day, except they can attack him with no remorse because 1. well it's the internet, but more importantly 2. he's a Christian Bible teacher who doesn't act soft "like he's supposed to", so they can tear into him shamelessly, blinded to the fact that they've now become what they're attacking. It is the ultimate cheat mode: all of the feelings of reward with none of the work or danger required to actually be Ruckman, or a Ruckmanite, or an RR... and when the feeling of elation goes unchecked long enough, it transforms their egos into Super-Saiyan Anti-Ruckmanites (SSARs, pronounced like the virus) with which they unleash their special move: the diarrhea spew. This move carries no regard for logic or the humanity of the opponent, it hinges exclusively on lying and twisting all things with the sole purpose of making the Ruckmanite or the RR look as horrible as possible. They must project and protect this imaginary culture on everyone around them at all costs: for if the world ever knew that Ruckman, Ruckmanites, and RR's (a.k.a. Rest & Relaxationists in the face of SSARs as we really don't care) weren't as bad as the SSARs need them to be, their entire social construct would fall and they would lose the only team identity they ever had. Their cult would be destroyed.
 
Last edited:

tmjbog

Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
237
Reaction score
20
Points
18
The Ultimate Scale of "Ruckmanite" and Those Falsely-So-Called (created for dire demand by UGC)
(we simply compared it to Yelp reviews, or any other 5-star rating scale):

Ruckmanites: would rate Ruckman 5 stars. Their pastor most likely graduated from PBI. I personally have little experience irl with these folks, so I can't judge them.
Ruckman Readers (RR): 4 stars. They actually read a book of his (yes, the whole book), then a few more + aren't fearful of Anti-Ruckmanites in public. They don't agree with the Doc on everything, and have studied plenty of other teachers. (UGC is here)
No one: 3 stars. It's impossible to be neutral with Ruckman. It's Ruckman.
Ruckman Avoiders (RA): 2 stars. Most people are here.
Anti-Ruckmanites: 1 star (this scale doesn't allow for 0 stars because 3 needs to be in the middle). Bad experience ex-IFB, kids once bullied, men depriving themselves of their own testosterone go here. The 1-stars are very powerful. This is because Ruckman gives them something they never had before: the feeling of being accepted and understood by a team. Only Ruckman can bring a group of church soy boys together as their perfect outlet for their haunted pasts. He reminds them of the quarterback who dated 3 of the girls they had a crush on in high school while stuffing them in a locker every day, except they can attack him with no remorse because 1. well it's the internet, but more importantly 2. he's a Christian Bible teacher who doesn't act soft "like he's supposed to", so they can tear into him shamelessly, blinded to the fact that they've now become what they're attacking. It is the ultimate cheat mode: all of the feelings of reward with none of the work or danger required to actually be Ruckman, or a Ruckmanite, or an RR... and when the feeling of elation goes unchecked long enough, it transforms their egos into Super-Saiyan Anti-Ruckmanites (SSARs, pronounced like the virus) with which they unleash their special move: the diarrhea spew. This move carries no regard for logic or the humanity of the opponent, it hinges exclusively on lying and twisting all things with the sole purpose of making the Ruckmanite or the RR look as horrible as possible. They must project and protect this imaginary culture on everyone around them at all costs: for if the world ever knew that Ruckman, Ruckmanites, and RR's (a.k.a. Rest & Relaxationists in the face of SSARs as we really don't care) weren't as bad as the SSARs need them to be, their entire social construct would fall and they would lose the only team identity they ever had. Their cult would be destroyed.

This breaks through the Anti-Ruckmanites / SSARs' stiff-necked denial that their delusional scale (which looks like this: anyone who doesn't attack Ruckman every time his name is brought up is either ignorant of him or already silently agrees with and bows to the will of the SSARs, and anyone else is a Ruckmanite: there are no other options) is somehow actually representative of reality.

Indeed, it totally refutes and replaces their fairy tale scale with one of honest accuracy, and dispels all future attempts by them at upholding their imaginary kingdom in the eyes of everyone else in the world now being cured from the cult of SSARs virus.
I'm glad you started another thread for this. You put way too much work into that thing to only post it once.
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,472
Reaction score
75
Points
48
Nope, not at all obsessed with the Moldy Pope of Pensacola.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
323
Reaction score
22
Points
28
I'm glad you started another thread for this. You put way too much work into that thing to only post it once.
Thanks. I put good work into everything I do.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Ruckman Readers (RR): 4 stars. They actually read a book of his (yes, the whole book),
I have read completely several books written by Peter Ruckman.

D. A. Waite and perhaps some other KJV-only advocates attempt to assert that only the followers of Peter Ruckman should be identified as being KJV-only advocates. Waite misrepresents and distorts some of Ruckman's views in order to try to distinguish his form of KJV-only view from that of Peter Ruckman. Waite raises some good points against some of Ruckman's claims, but Waite can make some other KJV-only claims just as extreme and erroneous as some of those made by Peter Ruckman.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Did Peter Ruckman recommend and advocate two differing final authorities--the KJV and Luther's German Bible?

Peter Ruckman recommended “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). In his same commentary, Ruckman asserted: “Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible is a monument in the German language, exactly as the King James Bible is a monument in the English language” (p. 82).

Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

In his book Biblical Scholarship, Ruckman referred to the “Luther‘s Bible and the King James Bible” (p. 56), “Receptus of King James and Martin Luther” (p. 94), “Martin Luther’s German Bible and the King James Bible” (p. 142), and “Martin Luther’s German Bible and the King James Authorized English Bible” (p. 390), seeming to make them equal.

Would a consistent application of Ruckman's own claims and reasoning suggest that Luther’s German Bible and the KJV would have equal authority, and that one of these translations cannot have greater authority than the other?

Is Luther's German Bible the sole final authority for believers that speak and read German according to Ruckman's own stated claims concerning it?

Can there be two varying and different sole and final authorities for any believers that speak and read both English and German?

Based on what greater authority or standard can it be claimed that one of these translations is greater than or superior to the other?

If there are any differences between them and there actually are, it is valid evidence of the need a greater authority than either of these translations to determine which is more accurate.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,489
Reaction score
69
Points
48


Did Peter Ruckman recommend and advocate two differing final authorities--the KJV and Luther's German Bible?

Peter Ruckman recommended “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1).

You are, without a doubt, the CNN of the FFF.

Distorting. Not telling the whole story. Out of context. That pretty much makes you a liar, and probably a heretic.

Quoting EXACTLY from page 1 of "Scholarship Only": "...I recommend Tyndale's version (1596), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), Valera's Spanish version (1596), Martin Luther's German version (1534), and a number of others."

Now if you read ALL of page 1, you'll get his position exactly.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,489
Reaction score
69
Points
48
We'll be renaming the FFF to the RFF since Ruckman is promoted so much.
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,472
Reaction score
75
Points
48
We'll be renaming the FFF to the RFF since Ruckman is promoted so much.
Then we'll have to call it the Twisted and UGC Necrophilia Club.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Distorting. Not telling the whole story. Out of context. That pretty much makes you a liar, and probably a heretic.

Quoting EXACTLY from page 1 of "Scholarship Only": "...I recommend Tyndale's version (1596), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), Valera's Spanish version (1596), Martin Luther's German version (1534), and a number of others."

Now if you read ALL of page 1, you'll get his position exactly.
Perhaps you reveal that you are the one trying to distort Ruckman's stated view of Luther's German Bible since you ignore and avoid the other statements that Ruckman himself made. Your own incorrect allegations would condemn your own seeming attempt to misrepresent some of Ruckman's stated claims concerning Luther's German Bible. I properly take all Ruckman's statements concerning Luther's German Bible into account, not just one statement.

In the one example, Ruckman did also recommend several of the pre-1611 English Bibles, but that statement does not change the meaning of Ruckman's other statements concerning Luther's German Bible. Are you in effect suggesting that you have not read Ruckman's other books that I cited?

Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

KJV-only posters dodge and avoid the questions that they were asked. You fail to prove that I supposedly distort Ruckman's own statements quoted again for you.
 
Last edited:

tmjbog

Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
237
Reaction score
20
Points
18
Perhaps you reveal that you are the one trying to distort Ruckman's stated view of Luther's German Bible since you ignore and avoid the other statements that Ruckman himself made. Your own incorrect allegations would condemn your own seeming attempt to misrepresent some of Ruckman's stated claims concerning Luther's German Bible. I properly take all Ruckman's statements concerning Luther's German Bible into account, not just one statement.

In the one example, Ruckman did also recommend several of the pre-1611 English Bibles, but that statement does not change the meaning of Ruckman's other statements concerning Luther's German Bible. Are you in effect suggesting that you have not read Ruckman's other books that I cited?

Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

KJV-only posters dodge and avoid the questions that they were asked. You fail to prove that I supposedly distort Ruckman's own statements quoted again for you.
So it appears a case of Ruckman Vs. Ruckman. So which personality do we go with?
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,489
Reaction score
69
Points
48
Perhaps you reveal that you are the one trying to distort Ruckman's stated view of Luther's German Bible since you ignore and avoid the other statements that Ruckman himself made. Your own incorrect allegations would condemn your own seeming attempt to misrepresent some of Ruckman's stated claims concerning Luther's German Bible. I properly take all Ruckman's statements concerning Luther's German Bible into account, not just one statement.

In the one example, Ruckman did also recommend several of the pre-1611 English Bibles, but that statement does not change the meaning of Ruckman's other statements concerning Luther's German Bible. Are you in effect suggesting that you have not read Ruckman's other books that I cited?

Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

KJV-only posters dodge and avoid the questions that they were asked. You fail to prove that I supposedly distort Ruckman's own statements quoted again for you.
You pick-and-choose your "quotes" while I quote in context yet I'm distorting? LOL!

Your first quote is not on page 146 (Maybe you have the extra-large print edition for the spiritually blind?) but on page 105 (1987- glue-bound - first edition). Did you list all the other translations based on Luther's? Of course not. The second quote is not on page 230, but let's assume its in there somewhere.

Your last quote in its entirety: "Never hesitate to correct ANY English "bible" with the Reformation text of the AV (1611) and never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the "Reichtext" or "Imperial Text".

Now I'm not "dodging" anything. That's what he wrote. You don't agree? OK. So what? You don't understand it? I'm not surprised. Seems conflicting to you? Good. It probably keeps you up nights.

Picking and choosing out-of-context quotes only has one purpose; to confuse. It doesn't edify.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Picking and choosing out-of-context quotes only has one purpose; to confuse. It doesn't edify.
Thanks for admitting that KJV-only out-of-context quotes confuse and don't edify. You demonstrate that KJV-only advocates do not practice what they preach.

Unwilling and likely unable to present any positive, clear, consistent, convincing, sound, just, true, scriptural case for human KJV-only reasoning, KJV-only advocates tend merely to throw out allegations that they fail to prove.
 

tmjbog

Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
237
Reaction score
20
Points
18
You pick-and-choose your "quotes" while I quote in context yet I'm distorting? LOL!

Your first quote is not on page 146 (Maybe you have the extra-large print edition for the spiritually blind?) but on page 105 (1987- glue-bound - first edition). Did you list all the other translations based on Luther's? Of course not. The second quote is not on page 230, but let's assume its in there somewhere.

Your last quote in its entirety: "Never hesitate to correct ANY English "bible" with the Reformation text of the AV (1611) and never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the "Reichtext" or "Imperial Text".

Now I'm not "dodging" anything. That's what he wrote. You don't agree? OK. So what? You don't understand it? I'm not surprised. Seems conflicting to you? Good. It probably keeps you up nights.

Picking and choosing out-of-context quotes only has one purpose; to confuse. It doesn't edify.
I teach that the AV was “given” to us “by inspiration” while knowing as well as I know my own name, than an EXACT word-for-word in ANY language, from any so-called “original Greek text,” would be an awkward, stilted, ambiguous, ROTTEN Bible revision. (Ruckman, Peter. The Christian Liar’s Library. 1997, p. 141)

That the KJV is verbally inspired…“Ruckman” never believed that for a minute. (Ruckman, Peter. Pastoral Epistles. 1989, p. 417)
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Your first quote is not on page 146 (Maybe you have the extra-large print edition for the spiritually blind?) but on page 105 (1987- glue-bound - first edition).
The quote is on page 146 in the edition I have. I double checked to make sure that I did not make a typing error in the page number. I have a later edition that states that it was reprinted in 1999 on the copyright page.

The copyright page does not say it was revised, but perhaps Ruckman added more pages to his vain KJV-only reasoning in it. You blindly jumped to a wrong opinion in trying to suggest or assert that the quotation would have to be on the same page in all editions of his book.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
19
Points
18
I teach that the AV was “given” to us “by inspiration” while knowing as well as I know my own name, than an EXACT word-for-word in ANY language, from any so-called “original Greek text,” would be an awkward, stilted, ambiguous, ROTTEN Bible revision. (Ruckman, Peter. The Christian Liar’s Library. 1997, p. 141)

That the KJV is verbally inspired…“Ruckman” never believed that for a minute. (Ruckman, Peter. Pastoral Epistles. 1989, p. 417)
In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Ruckman wrote: “We do not refer to the AV as the ‘verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God’” (p. 270).

Ruckman claimed: “I’ve never said that the King James Bible was inspired, although I’ve broadly intimated it sometimes” (Why I Believe the KJV, p. 8).
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,489
Reaction score
69
Points
48
In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Ruckman wrote: “We do not refer to the AV as the ‘verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God’” (p. 270).
Why not the WHOLE quote? Because your crooked, that why. The rest:

"We refer to the AV as The Holy Bible, inerrant and infallible, preserved by the grace of God in our language, with the words that God wanted us to have. This is our position, that has been our position, and that will be our position until "Hell freezes over," as they say in the "Koine."

Instead of paying attention to logos666 as he wastes time, may I suggest you get the material and read it ALL in context. The Pastoral Epistle commentary is very good.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
19
Points
18
KJV-only posters are the ones who waste the time of readers as they do not present any positive, clear, consistent, edifying, sound, just, true, scriptural case for their unproven assumptions and claims concerning the KJV.

In addition, they waste the time of readers with their negative, non-edifying, and incorrect allegations against believers and against the word of God translated into present-day English.
 
Top