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

[logos1560]

New Version Translation of this post: "ad hominem attack! ad hominem attack! ad hominem attack! ad hominem attack!"

Where's my paycheck this New Version is gold.
-Scholar James, Google PhD

You show how KJV-only posters jump to wrong conclusions and cannot deal with the truth about their negative, non-edifying, and often incorrect allegations.

I have read and still read the KJV as what it actually is.

The KJV was a new Church of England version in its day when English-speaking believers already had had the word of God translated into English many years. Would a consistent, just application of your claim attack or condemn the 1611 KJV for being a new version in its day?

 

[tmjbog]

The KJV was a new Church of England version in its day when English-speaking believers already had had the word of God translated into English many years. Would a consistent, just application of your claim attack or condemn the 1611 KJV for being a new version in its day?

You are asking for way too much if you are looking for consistency among the militant KJVO crowd. Two separate sets of standards. If you find a non Christian on the board of any modern version it's proof that the version is corrupt. If you find the same among the KJV translators it's proof that God can use even an unregenerate man for his purpose.

 

[logos1560]

KJV is the most Accurate.

Please back up and prove your own assertion to be true.

Take the original-language OT and NT texts of Scripture and prove by use of consistent, just measures/standards that the KJV has the most accurate rendering of every word in every verse of those texts.

Otherwise, your subjective, biased opinion or unproven assumption based on fallacies is not worth much.

Your failure to prove what you assert will display your own hypocrisy.

When KJV-only posters believe their own assumptions or claims concerning the KJV that they cannot prove to be true and that are not actually true, they show that they choose to deceive themselves.

 

[logos1560]

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."

Do you agree with and accept Peter Ruckman's clear recommendation of 1534 Tyndale's version, the 1539 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, Valera's Spanish Bible, and Luther's 1534 German version?

Would you claim that Peter Ruckman would recommend any Bible translation that was not the inerrant word of God?

Would Ruckman recommend any Bible translation that had errors in text or translation?

By the way, you did not quote exactly from page 1 according to the edition that I have of Ruckman's book. Some of the dates do not match exactly. My edition of Ruckman's book has "Tyndale's version (1534)" and "The Geneva Bible (1568)" even though that is the date for the Bishops' Bible. Valera's Spanish Bible was printed in 1602 so that Ruckman's date may not be factually correct.

 

[tmjbog]

What about the KJVA crowd?

KJV is the most Accurate. What's their stigma according to the high-horse ad hominem cult of everyone who doesn't agree with me is in a cult? The anti-bully wannabe bullies. The "you're not allowed to support some things Ruckman said; you either have to hate him or you're a Ruckmanite and we'll hate you" broken mirrors.

I call them the cult of hypocrites. (COP): They wish they were real cops but they're not. More importantly, there's no "s" to make it plural "Cops" like "SSARs",

That's because, once united, SSARs become one hive-mind thought COP borg entity of hypocrisy. They become and act worse than those they complain about, like a dark clone of their nemesis Ruckman.

I don't know what COP or SSARs or borg has to do with the argument so I'll just touch on the coherent portion of your response. Remember your earlier posts where you were coming to teach those of us with sub standard intelligence levels in all the ways of Ruckman. Now as some of your/his arguments fall apart you disown him and claim to be a victim. If you came on this forum and said I kind of agree with Ruckman on xxx, you would not likely get a response from me, but when you come and tell me I have to respect the man and get belligerent with any that disagree I will argue facts with you.

As far as the KJV being the most accurate, I would go as far as saying it's highly accurate. I at times use the KJV-I'm not opposed to it as a very accurate version. I do have strong disagreements with it as the "only accurate version" or the (sometimes Ruckman position) of it being advanced revelation and inspired itself.

 

[UGC]

Please back up and prove your own assertion to be true.

I'll share what I recently posted on another forum:

KJV-Onlyism is a strawman imo.

I do not argue in favor of the KJV being "perfect", however I do believe it's the most accurate English translation, as the New Versions include manuscripts that the old compilers like Erasmus originally rejected, which do affect doctrine (James White has lied about this but was debunked by men like Al Hembd, Trinitarian Bible Society, Jerusalem, Israel: https://paddlingupcreek.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/erasmus-rejected-vaticanus/ ).

Ultimately though, no one has ever gotten past Westcott and Hort. Contemporary scholars backing the New Versions have literally had to fabricate the argument "we are well beyond the W/H methods of collation of the text", when in fact none of the major New Versions have changed significantly enough to reflect this statement since those released in the time of Westcott and Hort, therefore it is simply a political statement.

The history of W/H is insane, I recommend looking into it. The KJV-"only" issue is riddled with red herrings. But once you see the big picture, you can't look away.

 

[tmjbog]

I'll share what I recently posted on another forum:

KJV-Onlyism is a strawman imo.

I do not argue in favor of the KJV being "perfect", however I do believe it's the most accurate English translation, as the New Versions include manuscripts that the old compilers like Erasmus originally rejected, which do affect doctrine (James White has lied about this but was debunked by men like Al Hembd, Trinitarian Bible Society, Jerusalem, Israel: https://paddlingupcreek.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/erasmus-rejected-vaticanus/ ).

Ultimately though, no one has ever gotten past Westcott and Hort. Contemporary scholars backing the New Versions have literally had to fabricate the argument "we are well beyond the W/H methods of collation of the text", when in fact none of the major New Versions have changed significantly enough to reflect this statement since those released in the time of Westcott and Hort, therefore it is simply a political statement.

The history of W/H is insane, I recommend looking into it. The KJV-"only" issue is riddled with red herrings. But once you see the big picture, you can't look away.

My disagreement would only be slight at best on this. KJV-onlyism is not a straw man when it comes to Ruckman, he had some strong/crazy views on it. It appears you don't support those views. I'm not going to argue with a guy who has looked at all the evidence and believes the KJV is the most accurate. I've done the same and have come to the opposite conclusion even though I still believe the KJV to be very reliable and superior to a looser version like the the NIV.

 

[logos1560]

I do believe it's the most accurate English translation,

Your repeating the same unproven claim does not make it become true. Believing something does not make it true.

People can choose to believe many things that are not actually true. People can believe erroneous reasoning. People can believe assumptions that are based on fallacies.

My scripturally-based position concerning Bible translations has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort could be considered red herrings whenever someone tries to throw out their names against my view.

In agreement with scriptural truth, I advocate that the same exact measures/standards be applied justly concerning the making of all Bible translations.

Having compared thousands of renderings in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1611 KJV. and the 1982 NKJV to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, I find that in many places the 1560 Geneva Bible is clearer, better, and more accurate than the KJV. In those places, the NKJV usually agrees with the renderings in the 1560 Geneva Bible. Also in many places the 1611 KJV is better and more accurate than the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the NKJV usually agrees with the KJV is those places. In some places, the KJV may be more accurate than the NKJV, but that does not make it more accurate overall.

Considering that the NKJV is usually in agreement with the more accurate renderings in both the 1560 Geneva Bible and in the KJV, it would suggest that the NKJV is likely more accurate overall than the KJV.

 

[tmjbog]

As far as Ruckmanites being uneducated and dumb it's not a position I've taken. In general IFB's are kind of looked upon that way partially unfairly and partially justified. For instance my church we have Doctors, accountants, nurses, teachers, truck drivers-a mix of everything. Probably about on par with what the surrounding community is made up of. However, often times you will find IFB pastors who almost glory in just being "a poor, dumb, hillbilly from the backwoods of Tennessee". Of course these pastors are not typically dumb, themselves, its just part of their show and to show their disdain for higher education.

I honestly have not figured out if you belong in the Ruckmanite column or not. When I start to think you don't you say something like:

"if 90% of all the mainstream and megachurches with more cultural influence and connection to the community adopted 10% of what Ruckman taught right"

Or they could follow their Bibles instead of a man like Christians have done for hundreds of years. Ruckman is not the solution for America-Jesus Christ is.

 

[tmjbog]

What I do isn't belligerence, what I do is poetic and satirical gold.
Sorry, I mean silver.
No, bronze.
There, that's humble. Now no one can say I'm "arrogant" as I softened the impact of the word by euphemism. Socialists might all get gold, but Communists all go for bronze.
New Version: "What I do isn't belligerence, what I do is poetic and satirical bronze."
Orwellian Newspeak has clearly improved the precision of language by ridding it of those autistic accuracies in favor of subjective thought-for-thought.
Excuse me, I was almost belligerent. Let me go find a "Ruckmanite" to bully for being a bully, that will restore balance to my universe- I mean the universe. The universe.

Good. I'm glad you are not calling it your "gold". I would hate to think these babblings are you at your gold level.

 

[UGC]

Just updating the thread with the most truthful depiction of Ruckman discussions on this forum:

 

[logos1560]

The only belligerent people on these forums are the SSARs / Anti-Ruckmanites. That should be abundantly clear to everyone by now.

You demonstrate that you do not see clearly and justly. Perhaps you are blind to your own subjective bias. Your posts would show partiality or respect of persons to some. You in effect make unjust allegations because of the use of inconsistent, unjust divers measures.

What should be clear to readers is that you do not apply justly the same exact measures/standards to your own posts and to the posts of KJV-only advocates that you attempt to apply unjustly to the posts of others.

 

[logos1560]

What's clear to everyone is I present facts and you ignore them.

Because you claim something to be a fact does not mean that it is actually a fact.

What KJV-only advocates claim to be facts are often not actually verifiable facts.

KJV-only advocates will present their own subjective opinions as supposedly being facts and will present assumptions based on fallacies as supposedly being facts.

You do not practice what you preach since you have not actually addressed and refuted the points that are presented in response to your unproven assertions.

 

[illinoisguy]

Talking to Ruckmanoids is like talking to Moonies or any other false cultists. All they can talk about is the greatness of their guru. Ruckmanoids beat their breasts and spew insults and brag endlessly about their superior intelligence, compared to the rest of us mere mortals, but they cannot answer simple questions about the tenets of their cult. As a former member of a Ruckmanoid church, I can assure you that they never rise above that level of imbecility - it never gets any better than what we have been subjected to on this forum.

 

[Ransom]

Talking to Ruckmanoids is like talking to Moonies or any other false cultists.

Point of order: They're not false cultists. They're real cultists.

 

[tmjbog]

Point of order: They're not false cultists. They're real cultists.

I have to a admit, I thought you were being a bit harsh previously. But after seeing their support for extra Biblical doctrines I think I now see it. I'm not sure why they are such strong advocates for the KJV when they are willing to even throw that out the window when it does not line up with Ruckman's doctrines (see inhabiting other planets, racist doctrines, Satan & Eves adulterous affair).

 

[Ransom]

I have to a admit, I thought you were being a bit harsh previously. But after seeing their support for extra Biblical doctrines I think I now see it. I'm not sure why they are such strong advocates for the KJV when they are willing to even throw that out the window when it does not line up with Ruckman's doctrines (see inhabiting other planets, racist doctrines, Satan & Eves adulterous affair).

Believe me, words like "cult" aren't ones I use lightly or as carelessly as some.

I have long referred to the "cult of personality" that significant KJV-onlyists such as Peter Ruckman, Jack Hyles, or Gail Ludwig-Latessa-Kaleda-Riplinger have cultivated. Of course, that's not a "cult" in the same sense as a religious cult.

However, it's been my observation over the 25+ years that I have been researching and interacting with this movement, that the more ardently one believes in KJV-onlyism, the more readily it will displace orthodox Christianity--to the point that in many cases, I think KJV-onlyism has ceased to be Christianity in a meaningful sense.

Take, for example, the Web page of Riplinger's son-in-law, Stephen Shutt. The Web site of his "ministry," Truth Evangelism, claims at the top of the Messages page that they are "Proclaiming the Truth of the Authorized King James Bible." Peruse the titles of the messages on that page, and you can see that Shutt's evangelistic focus isn't Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins! The gospel of KJV has pushed Jesus to the side. Yeah . . . that's a cult.

 

[tmjbog]

No one supports extra-Biblical doctrines. You're simply lying. Again.

Extra Biblical Doctrine #1. Unsaved nations will receive their salvation from the tree of life & Christians will populate other planets.

"The gist of Revelation 22:2 is that on the new earth, in eternity, there are twelve nations divided off by twelve boundaries, and these nations are composed of nations who were saved during the Tribulation (Matt 25) and during the Millennium (Rev 19). These “saved nations” go into the city, partake of the “tree of life” to get their eternal life, and then they spend eternity reproducing and multiplying infinitely and going out into outer space, and populating first the twelve constellations that make up the zodiac, and then from there they move on out into outer space. (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Revelation. 1970, 1982 printing, p. 592)"

 

[tmjbog]

No one supports extra-Biblical doctrines. You're simply lying. Again.

Extra Biblical doctrine #2. Eve had an adulterous relationship with Satan.

"Verses 2–3 are an enigma on which no modern commentator would dare comment—that is, the “recognized” ones. It implies that Satan begat Cain when he seduced Eve. See 1 John 3:12, John 8:44, and Genesis 3:15.
Bible Believers' Bulletin. Nov. 2001, p. 6"

 

[logos1560]

No one supports extra-Biblical doctrines.

If readers' eyes are open, it should be obvious that KJV-only posters in effect do support non-scriptural or extra-Biblical doctrine as they try to add to the scriptures claims that the scriptures do not directly state nor teach. KJV-only posters have not demonstrated from the Scriptures several KJV-only claims or concepts such as that the KJV is given by inspiration of God, that the KJV is perfect, that the KJV is the final authority, or that disagreeing with human KJV-only teaching is supposedly "anti-KJV."