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

No one supports extra-Biblical doctrines. You're simply lying. Again.
Extra Biblical Doctrine #3. Blacks & Jews are descendants of Cain.


"This makes Cain the greatest type of the Son of Perdition in the Bible. If you will get The Bible Believer's Commentary on Genesis, you will find he is also a type of two other things: the NEGRO and the JEW."
Bible Believers' Bulletin. Oct. 1993, p. 9
 
Thank you for proving what I said. You said: "their support for extra Biblical doctrine", then quoted one person: Ruckman.

Their support? Since when did I become Ruckman?

And by the way, you go to an exposition on the Book of Revelation of all places to judge a man's overall doctrine? That is the last place you should go. You need to learn how to prioritize the important positions people take versus the ones they're just having fun with. And who knows if Ruckman got much of that right, he certainly was right that "UFO's" exist, as we have now proven.

From a guy who self proclaims to be a 4 out of 5 stars Ruckmanite. You are free to point out that he believed in extra Biblical doctrines and you disagree with him on those points. I see we are back to the point in the debate where you make the turn (or the other person takes over?) where you again deny being a Ruckmanite (despite rating yourself a 4 out 5 stars ruckmanite)
 
Thank you for proving what I said. You said: "their support for extra Biblical doctrine", then quoted one person: Ruckman.

Their support? Since when did I become Ruckman?

And by the way, you go to an exposition on the Book of Revelation of all places to judge a man's overall doctrine? That is the last place you should go. You need to learn how to prioritize the important positions people take versus the ones they're just having fun with. And who knows if Ruckman got much of that right, he certainly was right that "UFO's" exist, as we have now proven.
Depends on what you mean by UFO. UFO's (unidentified flying objects) have existed for a very long time). What those UFO's are is far from proven.
 
Thank you for proving what I said. You said: "their support for extra Biblical doctrine", then quoted one person: Ruckman.

Their support? Since when did I become Ruckman?

And by the way, you go to an exposition on the Book of Revelation of all places to judge a man's overall doctrine? That is the last place you should go. You need to learn how to prioritize the important positions people take versus the ones they're just having fun with. And who knows if Ruckman got much of that right, he certainly was right that "UFO's" exist, as we have now proven.
And lets remember what you said "No one supports extra-Biblical doctrines. You're simply lying. Again."

We were talking about extra Biblical doctrine so let's take a detailed examination of Revelation 22:2 and see if it supports what Ruckman claimed.

"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)"

Romans 22:2
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
 
Perhaps you need to go back to math class. What's 4 out of 5?

All you do is red herring. All day long. I'm giving you the official nickname: "The Bog Fish", as you wade through the bogs of FFF to bog everyone down with your "cool, collected" fishy misleadings.

Ransom and voicecrying are the Ad-hominem duo, their posts are "SSARs Ads": they're aggressive used-car salesmen for the SSARs virus of Super Saiyan Anti-Ruckmanism.

Ok. Maybe we've hit on some of that single star of disagreement you have with Ruckman. So do you agree that Ruckman was wrong on his assessment of Revelation 22:2. I'll include his quote below:

"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)"
 
Since you have a terrible memory, I don't argue from the position that the KJV is perfect, I argue that it is the most accurate English translation.

I did not claim that you argued that the KJV is perfect.

You have not proved your claim that the KJV is "the most accurate English translation" to be true. You have not proven the KJV to be the best authority that we have in the English language. You can choose to assume your subjective opinions, but that does not mean that they are correct.
Why would you suggest that those imperfect renderings in the KJV are the best authority instead of supporting accurate renderings?

Do you acknowledge that the actual KJV-only claims that I mentioned are non-scriptural or extra-biblical?
 
Honestly, dude, I have provided ample evidence,

That is your biased, incorrect opinion. Perhaps you cherry-pick a few examples, and assume too much from too little.
 
Is that how you're avoiding facts presented in the other thread as well?

It is how you avoid actual verifiable facts in contrast to your unproven subjective opinions.
 
Ya, but following Jesus' example is probably a safe thing to do.
Jesus believes the AV 1611 are the Holy Scriptures, given by (His) inspiration.

Be like Jesus.
 
Oh ya I found that part. It's right here in the Gospel of Twisted.
There you have it.

According to tmjboggeddown the AV is NOT the Holy Scriptures. He's never seen the Holy Scriptures a day in his life.

I have to admit I appreciate his zeal to deny the Holy Scriptures exist. Impressive.
 
Oh ya I found that part. It's right here in the Gospel of Twisted.
Nice, The Gospel of Twisted contains more scripture than Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Bezae combined in the New Versions:

Screen Shot 2020-04-29 at 2.56.18 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-04-29 at 3.01.01 AM.png

I like posting basic info from Wiki because it's like, "even Wiki is aware of that? I guess everyone knows then... Or do they?"

3036 differences between them, 14,800 corrections in just the portion from Petersburg, 23,000 corrections total, many marked as "doubtful".

"Making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence
." So not just among Biblical manuscripts; among all manuscripts in existence.

And these New Versionists claim KJV users are the ones who "never present facts". You guys are the ones with all the explaining to do.

Anti-KJV people are basically just tools going along with the pop church culture of the times. Every Christian with half a brain from the 1600's to 1900 would think you're the crazy new cult on the block trying to change their tried and true Bible with these crap-u-scripts. But no, your 300 "New Versions" (marketing pitch: choose the one that suits you best!) are doing a great job in our time, their fruits are really showing in society. Compared to "back in the day", there's no apostasy in the first world at all right now.
 
Last edited:
Nice, The Gospel of Twisted contains more scripture than Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Bezae combined in the New Versions:

View attachment 978
View attachment 981

I like posting basic info from Wiki because it's like, "even Wiki is aware of that? I guess everyone knows then... Or do they?"

3036 differences between them, 14,800 corrections in just the portion from Petersburg, 23,000 corrections total, many marked as "doubtful".

"Making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence
." So not just among Biblical manuscripts; among all manuscripts in existence.

And these New Versionists claim KJV users are the ones who "never present facts". You guys are the ones with all the explaining to do.

Anti-KJV people are basically just tools going along with the pop church culture of the times. Every Christian with half a brain from the 1600's to 1900 would think you're the crazy new cult on the block trying to change their tried and true Bible with these crap-u-scripts. But no, your 300 "New Versions" (marketing pitch: choose the one that suits you best!) are doing a great job in our time, their fruits are really showing in society. Compared to "back in the day", there's no apostasy in the first world at all right now.
And you don't think there was any differences between the manuscripts Erasmus used to create the Textus Receptus? I'm sure you are aware that many of the differences between Sinaiticus & Vaticanus are spelling and punctuation. Fortunately we are not left with only those those two manuscripts either. Where there are differences the translator/compiler then has thousands of other manuscripts/fragments to compare. At times this examination can lead to the identification of where in the timeline a word may have been added or taken out.

So KJV contain readings that are found in no Greek manuscript.

"Dean Burgon, who is a supporter of the Textus Receptus, has declared that the Textus Receptus needs correction in 150 corrections in the Gospel of Matthew alone.[45]

When Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate, he translated the Latin back into Greek. Consequently, he introduced errors into the TR and subsequently into the 1611 KJV.

. . . As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus’ self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any known Greek manuscript – but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the . . .Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament.

Even in other parts of the New Testament Erasmus occasionally introduced into his Greek text material taken from the Latin Vulgate."
J. W. Burgon, The Revised Revision. London 1883., p. 242, 548
 
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" -2 Tim 3:16

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." -2 Tim 2:15

The verses that you cite do not state nor teach modern, human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

Peter Ruckman now tries to claim that scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 includes Bible translations, but then he seems to ignore or avoid the "all." According to his new private KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16, the "all" would have to suggest all Bible translations, including all those on the chart on the cover of Ruckman's book, are given by inspiration of God if the word scripture includes Bible translations. Of course, KJV-only advocates may try suggest that the "all" does not mean all in their seeming attempt to play word games with the term scripture to try to make it include the KJV. KJV-only advocates show that they do not rightly divide the word of truth.

The chart or illustration on the cover of Ruckman's book Bible Babel has serious errors. The 1611 KJV can clearly be directly connected to the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. It is a verifiable fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Rheims. There is the first-hand testimony of one of the KJV translators that acknowledges the use of the 1582 Rheims.

While there is a proven direct connection between the 1582 Rheims and the KJV, there is no proven direct connection between the 1582 Rheims and the NKJV. If the NKJV has any of the renderings that the KJV translators borrowed from the 1582 Rheims, the NKJV translators kept them from the KJV, not directly from the Rheims. If the NKJV supposedly belongs on that chart, the truth shows that the KJV would belong on it more than the NKJV does. KJV-only advocates avoid or dodge specific verifiable facts such as this fact of the proven connection between the 1582 Rheims and the 1611 KJV.
 
Top