Peter S. Ruckman Murders Self, After Killing His Two Sons
Peter Ruckman was the founder of the Pensacola Bible Institute, an ardent Independent Fundamental Baptist and KJV-onliest. Ruckman passed away in April of 2016. Charisma Mag claimed today that Ruckman was an âanti-charismatic,â but in reality Ruckman was a Continuationist, believing that the King James Bible was a more sure and more perfect revelation than that which God originally inspired in Greek or Hebrew, a belief some call âDelayed Revelation.â Alpha and Omega Ministriesâ James White offered to debate Ruckman on KJV-onlyism in 1995 and 1996, but his offer was rejected.
Sadly, it has now been reported that his son, named Peter S. Ruckman, has murdered his two sons (ages 12 and 14) before murdering himself.
I think most people have never heard of him, nor his father. Therefore, it may have made more sense to headline the story with "Son of KJV-Only Fanatic Kills Self." That would more correctly identify the story, for those few who are interested in KJV-Only matters.
On that subject, I cannot leave without wondering why KJV-Only folk are not teaching English in their churches to the many immigrants in the US so that they can one day read and understand the KJV. Everyone knows that Bibles in any other language cannot be acceptable to the KJV-Only folk; just take, for example, the Spanish version for Psalm 23:1. Some say it reads, 'El Senor mi pastor es' but others say that is wrong, the correct version is, "Jehovah mi pastor es' I would guess the same things happen in other parts of the Spanish Bible, not to mention the Russian Bible, the Finnish Bible, the Dutch Bible, the German Bible, and so on.
Ignominious Emirakan wrote: the fallacious idea that the apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ quoted from a Greek translation called the Septuagint, or the LXX.
I had uncritically accepted this as a truth listening to James White. It may/may not be true that our Lord quoted from the LXX rather then the Hebrew text, but this truth matters.
Interesting this KJV debate. I don't believe this deification of Erasmus as that single point of inerrant infallible truth. But it doesn't take much to see that, while claimed to be founded on better MSS, these better versions are a product of profiteers and butcherers of Gods word. Bar none!
Its unfortunate and frustrating, but this attack is expected!
John UK wrote: ...doctrines of devils. Scholars may be helpful, especially biblical scholars, but come the end of the day, it is faith that wins through. And what has the Lord himself taught you regarding the word of God? Quoting scripture will only help if you know for sure that the scripture is inerrant and inspired of God.
Edward Hills http://standardbearers.net/uploads/The_King_James_Version_Defended_Dr_Edward_F_Hills.pdf
Start with faith faith in the Bible, & u end with faith
But Gnostic " science falsely so called" Ends with no sure wordsS
"founds his criticism of the New Testament text squarely and solidly on the historic doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of Holy Scripture, and it is his firm conviction that this is the only proper approach. Hence, he not only differs radically with those critics who have a lower evaluation of the Bible, but is also sharply critical of those scholars whose evaluation of the Bible is similar to his but who have, in his estimation, been persuaded .." By doctrines of devils "that they ought not to stress the orthodox view of Scripture in their study of the New Testament text"
If any Christians today feel edgy about using the words "inerrant and inspired" when referring to their Bible, they need to realise and wake up to the fact that they have already been beguiled by the world and have believed doctrines of devils.
Scholars may be helpful, especially biblical scholars, but come the end of the day, it is faith that wins through. And what has the Lord himself taught you regarding the word of God? Quoting scripture will only help if you know for sure that the scripture is inerrant and inspired of God.
#1. The Letter of Aristeas â Many Bible defenders have written articles refuting the fallacious idea that the apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ quoted from a Greek translation called the Greek Septuagint, or simply referred to as the LXX.
Here are a couple of good articles that give you a good overview of why the claims of those who promote the LXX are false.
David Daniels has a very informative vlog dealing with the evidence and history of the alleged pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament.
5 parts. ( less reading)
2Greek Old Testament translation into a pagan tongue and produced by the other eleven tribes in addition to the Levites is UNSCRIPTURAL &unacceptable. 2A. Levites,guardians of the O.T. Scriptures
Mal2:7-8 âFor the priestâs lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.â Dt 31:24-26 - Levi Alone
I don't think your detractors are incapable of seeing the truth in what you are saying, IE. No, they are simply unwilling to accept and admit the truth. To do so would severely damage their pride, stubbornness and rebellion, and this they must avoid at any cost. Down with truth! Up with self! "Truth is fallen in the street," and rebellion puts its filthy foot on her neck.
Dr. Tim wrote: Some of those Chinese bronzes are pretty old, too. Come to think of it, I ain't no spring chicken myself. If older is better, I must be getting pretty close to perfection.
Kinda like losing 2 teeth. closer to perfection! no tooth ache potential there
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lTDJgtxiA3w -- in "Why Not Preach Mark?" Daniels points out the Greek prof admitting " little changes can make big doctrinal differences " God's Son missing from Mk 1:1?? The prof steps thru Adoptionism implications from this.
"Would it make a difference to you if you knew that the New Testament of your modern Bible did not have First and Second Peter? Yet if the total number of missing words were added up, this is how much shorter the modern translations are than the King James Version. Is it cause for concern that the names of Christ are missing 175 times, or if the word "hell" is not found in the Old Testament, or if key doctrinal passages have been diminished? That these things are so, with the reasons why, are set forth in the Dark Secret"
As Old Bodies losing teeth,bone mass, wasting muscle mass... senescence of the Body creepeth in.
It is necessary that every Christian who uses a modern version that they watch these videos, especially since the Sinaiticus is used by every modern translation as one of their "oldest and best" manuscripts. Now it is no longer old and best but a forgery from the nineteenth century. The evidence is irrefutable. If you use a modern version, then you are relying on this nineteenth century counterfeit as your Bible. _ You Tube Videos offering Evidence of the Counterfeit Nature of Codex Sinaiticus
These Youtube videos are concerned with the Sinaiticus Manuscript being a 19th century forgery for the intentional purpose of destroying the King James Bible by replacing it. The videos were done by David Daniels of Chick Publications. Steven Avery contributed research that was used in the Videos. This material is very important because Sinaiticus is one of the two main manuscripts which forms the basis of all modern versions of the Bible, the other main manuscript being Vaticanus. modern versions are satanically inspired
Who wants the earliest and best Manuscripts when you have in your very hand The perfect and pure word of God.
Worst, at that time the earliest and best Manuscripts are still being concocted, cooked, and baked by demonic forces Vatican papal antichrist enterprise.
What kind of god is this whose words and promises he cannot keep, and his people are forced to eat inferior words.
What kind of god is this who lost his words and presently defending modern scholars to purify and perfect it.
The God I worship is infinitely powerful and has infinite wisdom to preserve his words and he did it so, keeping his promise because I have his perfect and pure word today in my very hands the KJV.
Modern bible believers will live a dream of having a perfect bible maybe someday beyond the blue just like modern Judaism who are still waiting for the arrival of their messiah because they refuse to accept the one and true Messiah Jesus Christ.
Notice the entire blank column after Mark 16:8. Luke begins on the new page.
Same as empty argument
Vaticanus is technically, at best, a half-hearted witness to the omission of the verses. Though he considered the verses as spurious, Alford nevertheless offered an observation that ought to give one pause: âAfter the subscription in B [VaticanusâDM] the remaining greater portion of the column and the whole of the next to the end of the page are left vacant. There is no other instance of this in the whole N.T. portion of the MS [manuscriptâDM], the next book in every other instance beginning on the next columnâ (p. 484, emp. added). This unusual divergence from the scribeâs usual practice suggests that he knew that additional verses were missing. The blank space he left provides ample room for the additional twelve verses. -
Well, since IE won't answer my questions, will not recant his argument regarding the reformed position on this issue, and continues to use double standards, I'll close with this:
As a reformed baptist, I think I have defended the word of God, I hope I have challenged some people like Dr. Tim, IE, and any onlookers. I believe we have the word of God, however I don't limit the word of God to a 1611 Anglican translation of the word of God; we have fine translations of the word of God such as the NASB, KJV, and NKJV and we have bad 'translations' of the word of God, such as The Living Bible, The Message, and the New World Translation.
I encourage all Christians to look at both sides of the issue, I recommend reading The King James Only controversy by James White, Canon Revisited, & The Question of canon by Michael Kruger, and Revisiting the corruption of the New Testament by Daniel Wallace.
I also recommend you listen to debates that can be found on SA such as James White vs. Gail Riplinger, James White vs. D.A. Waite, and you can buy the KJVonly debate on the John Ankerburg show. I'm sure IE and Dr. Tim can recommend some resources and I highly encourage you to check those out as well.
And if I can respond to Dr. Tim, certainly sir you are not serious about the argument you just made, because I'm not sure what Egyptian heiroglxifics have to do with the word of God, since Egyptian beliefs were pagan and abhorrent, and are at odds with every doctrine of the word of God, and has not been considered by any Church father that I know of.
"a spiritual issue, here - the issue raised in Isaiah 66:2: "... but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word"; in John 10:35: "... and the scripture cannot be broken"; and in Revelation 22:19: "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
In light of this consideration of a reliable translation alone, how excellent is the KJV. It is a perfectly faithful&reliable translation into English of the Hebrew and Greek original. Men translated it who believed the Bible to be a divine,¬ a human, book, &who believed that God would be able to "communicate" with His people by the words which He inspired, faithfully rendered in English.
Such men are required for the translating of the Bible. It is not enough that they be scholars of the Hebrew, Aramaic&Greek and adepts in the language into which the Bible is translated; but they must also be godly, orthodox saints who reverence Scripture as the holy Word, wholly God-breathed.
translating is not every man's skill as the mad saints imagine. It requires a right, devout, honest, sincere, God-fearing man.."
3. IE says that there are 3,036 textual differences in the gospel alone; he has failed to recognize that there are over 300,000 textual variants in the NT alone with all the manuscripts we have, that may sound like a lot, but if you keep in mind the differences between non-meaningful, meaningful, non-viable, viable variants, then you see just how trustworthy the scriptures are.
Well once again, I.E. has not answered my questions, but rather he has presented another flaw in his argument and proves my point once again:
1. He says that Mark is, "intentionally omitted" this is a common assertion, but it lacks evidence, if a scribe intentionally omitted this, why then did he not do it to other gospels, or Paul's letter to the Corinthians, or Luke Acts? Or the other passages where it says that Jesus is God, Jesus rose from the dead, etc. etc. Daniel Wallace made a good point in the Ankerburg show, "If a doctrine rests on one verse, then we've lost a doctrine, but if a doctrine is found throughout the Bible, we've lost nothing."
2. IE commits the "guilt by association fallacy" his assumption is that if Catholics worked on it then it must be corrupt, if this is true then the logical extreme would put the KJV in question because of the Roman priest Erasmus who was a big role in the KJV.
Furthermore, if part of his argument against Codex Siniaticus is that it has The Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabus, if we take his argument to its logical extreme, then we should not use the 1611 KJV since it had the apacrapha.
"Heretical views of Holy Scripture prevail in the churches today, especially among the scholars and theologians. There is the view that the Bible is only the fallible testimony of Israel and of the church to Jehovah and to Jesus of Nazareth. But there is also the view that Scripture as given by God cannot effectively communicate to modern men, or to certain groups of modern men, e.g., the youth. It must be adapted by the church, in order to be able to speak to men today. These low views of the Word of God influence the translation of the Bible. They give the translators license to render Scripture almost as they please. This is seen today in the version being prepared by the National Council of Churches which will filter the Bible through the mind of the women's liberation movement, even though we lose our Heavenly Father and our Elder Brother in the process. I suppose that these translators are sincere and that their work on this version is consistent with their view of Scripture: it must be made to speak to twentieth century "liberated" women, if not to a unisex society. It is not at all inconceivable that future versions will be made to "communicate" with Marxists; proponents of liberation theology; homosexuals; &those who take salvation as a purely this-worldly event."
If we are going to base our beliefs on "the earliest and best manuscripts," we must by all means include Egyptian hieroglyphics, Assyrian steles and Sumerian cuneiform tablets. Many of these are in far better condition than even Sinaiticus and therefore should be accepted as valid scripture.
thx! controversy concerns 5,000 Greek MSS of the New Testament 90%of these MSS are in basic agreement among themselves. The Greek text contained in this majority of MSS is known as the Majority Text, the Byzantine Text, or the Traditional Text (TT). The text of the KJV, which belongs to this majority of MSS, but is not perfectly identical with the TT, is known as the Textus Receptus (TR)âthe "Received Text." This text was accepted as the authentic text of the New Testament by the Protestant Church from the Reformation to the nineteenth century&by the Greek Church for more than a thousand years before the Reformation. Westcott& Hort baselessly asserted the superiority of a type of text represented by a small minority of Greek MSS, particularly Codex Vaticanus (B) &forgered Sinaiticus(Aleph)
Many Reformed&Presbyterian preachers have accepted the theory of W-H. Those Reformers went back to Rome. UnReformed&uninformed use "False facts" of a mythical "Recension"(&Lxx)the way Darwin used Evilution Both are "science falsely so called"
But so have many "Fundamentalists"- cf BJU Tho u noted yer brand of Fundy knows the Authorized is God's wordS