Dr. Ruckman
 

What do you guy think of Dr. Ruckman?

Dave

There are a lot of sound defenders of the King James Bible out there - so we do not need to depend upon or refer to someone who is highly questionable.

Bro. Dave: I found this for you perhaps it will answer you question, perhaps not. I am simply not Knowlegeable about him to make a judgement. This is a fairly harsh critisism of Him.

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm

Bro. Danny

Not harsh at all - just an honest critique of Ruckman's writings. Harsh implies that it is wrong or overboard - what it is is an expose of what Ruckman actually believes, plus his typical fleshly attitude when it comes to his writings.

Of my own opinion, I enjoy reading his articles. They're quite eye opening as far as what's in the KJV Bble and the omissions that the other translations have. I could do without the harsh name calling myself but then again, he reserves those for the ones that deny the KJV, the Pope, cults, charismatic, and types like that. Then again, Psalm 14:1 says,

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

In essence, name calling athiests that they're fools. As if it wasn't enough, the verse gets repeated in Psalm 53:1. And Jesus did call Pharisees hypocrites and blind guides in Matthew 23.

True that there are other sound Bible teachers out there, but as always, as I do with Ruckman articles and whoever, the Word of God comes first. No matter what accolades has gotten heaped on whoever... whether it be Ruckman, Perry Stone, Sly Stone, Bob Jones III, or Bono.

Dr. Peter Ruckman has many positives. In fact, I am so helped by his positives that I overlook his many blemishes to take advantage of his positives. He is devisive and I wish he were not. His protege, Dr. Sam Gipp is just terrific! So that's a good way to get the benefit of Ruckman's gifts. I am the only person whom I know personally that will listen to him. I generally will not mention his name at all. I like to give credit where credit is due. I offered some information at a church dinner which I obtained from reading Ruckman. It was very well received. But then I cited my source. It just put a damper on the whole dinner. We were hosting an evangelist and his family and they really cut loose on Ruckman. I have a number of his books (KJV defense only) and several of his videos (again KJV defense only). And I have a number of his audio files (KJV defense and prophecy) and he is very good on that material.

His negatives in addition to his ingracious speech includes his Hyper-Dispensationalism.

Now here is where I appreciate Ruckman the most. He is one of the very very few KJV defenders who go all the way and say the KJV/AV is the infallible word of God and is not trumped by the greek or hebrew.

I love brother David Cloud of wayoflife.org very very much. He is the author of the article on Ruckman referenced above (Note: wayoflife.org is just as hard on Gail Riplinger as it is Ruckman. There are many more folks who accept Riplinger's books than do Ruckmans). But even (I believe) brother Cloud's (and the majority of KJV defenders) position is that the greek TR "trumps" the KJV. Ruckman is one of the very few KJV defenders who are consistent at this point.

I believe the KJV/AV is God's infallible word in english. I believe the TR is God's infallible word in Greek. I therefore believe the greek TR cannot trump the KJV anymore than the Spanish Valera can trump the KJV.

NOTE: I have stated this position but I have not defended it. If anyone wants to go into that, let me know and I'll start a thread on that.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!!

Ruckman doesn't just knock unbelievers and heretics - he knocks sound KJVdefenders who don't dot their i's the exact same way as he does. For example, both him and Riplinger knock David Cloud and slander him as some kind of KJVcorrector, preferring the TR over the KJV, etc. That is simply hogwash. I have been reading David Cloud's materials and studies for 10 years, and he has never ONCE corrected the KJV in any sense, never once said it was in error, never once pushed the TR ABOVE the KJV or used something in the TR to change or correct the KJV. His position is the same as mine, and the reason I become KJVonly: the TR and Masoretic Text are the preserved Bible texts as their history clearly shows, and they are on equal footing with the KJV; the KJV is the soundest translation available from those texts - but the KJV is obviously the edition of the TR that has God's hand on it; therefore he won't change the KJV if some TR manuscript differed from it somewhere (though I have yet to see any supposed discrepancy from the manuscripts behind the KJV and the KJV itself).

Dr Ruckman is basically a good man. he like all of us has our weaknesses and our strong points. he has amazing insights at times and at others it is almaost sickening. but my opinion of him is I am fair inhearing him. like another questinable man Jerry Falwell use to say, "chew the meat and spit out the bones"

Chew the meat and spit out the bones is great advice if you are eating a steak - but not if the steak is poisoned. You have to get to where you decide, do his flaws outweigh his good points. His language, his wacky doctrine (such as all his belief in aliens, in the Gap Theory, his hyperdispensationalism, his belief in the RE-inspiration of the KJV, belief in new revelation in the KJV) - do these outweigh his defense of the KJV? I believe they do.

Jerry May God bless you so much more in wisdom. Many have different Gap theories, he is not by any means a Hyper dispensationalist, He is correct in saying there is no error in the KJV.

Jerry I hate to say this but I have read many of your posts throughout AV1611 Forums. You are a CYNIC man! not critical but Cynical.

So? Refute what I am saying if you believe it is wrong.

Ruckman is a hyperdispensationalist. He teaches different salvation in different time periods, he relegates about half of the NT to the Tribulation period and not to the church.

Ruckman is a hyperdispensationalist. He teaches different salvation in different time periods, he relegates about half of the NT to the Tribulation period and not to the church.

Bro. Ruckman's KJV defense is one of the best. I have read, heard, and watched him preach and debate several times. But he is a hyperdispensationalist. He doesn't believe the gospel of grace was being preached on the day of pentecost (even though it was preached to Abraham!). That and his nasty attitude I just "spue out" like bone and fat in a steak.

He also adds his own quirky doctrines to the issue of the KJV defense. Doctrines such as the re-inspiration of the KJV or the KJV translators, and the correction of the Hebrew and Greek (ie. new revelation in the KJV not found in the preserved manuscripts underlying the KJV).

there at no other time is Salvation by faith alone than now. OT Salvation by works plus beleif, kingdom pur works. just read the english in your bible it is clear. Do Like I did get an old unabridged webster's dictionary with complete english word meanings and you can understand some of those old english words so many think are outdated.

if you think a person was looking toward tehcross fromthe OT you are wrong. no one and the Bible says no one knew Jesus the Lord of Glory would be crucified. if they had they would not have allowed it to happen. sorry lots of typology in the old test but no looking to a ulitmate sacrifice of Christ. though Christ did fulfill all those types.

if you want to see hyperdispensationalism look at the writtings and teaching STAM now there is a hyperdispensationalist. Ruckman is just a dispensatinalist. how about you? oh Jerry, dont have no Gap so no dispensation before the recreation of the world in six days.

There was no recreation of the world. Only one creation - and the Bible is pretty clear that God created ALL things within Heaven and earth in those six days. Doesn't leave room for anything else.

The OT didn't look forward to the death of Christ? Genesis 3 tells a different story - so does Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, other passages.

This ends the debate, if you accept the Bible:

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Abraham, David, and all OT believers were saved by faith, by grace - not by the works of the Law.

This is quite true. Whereas the truth lies in the fact that the KJV is the english revelation of God's word and the TR is the greek revelation of God's infallible word.

One must keep from the extreme of Ruckman, one must go closer to it than many TR defenders. Gary Hudson is an example of a very terrific TR defender who does not go far enough. He is not alone. He is representative of many TR defenders. He is upfront with his hearers and comes right out to say there are mistakes in the KJV which should be corrected by the TR.

That is an example (of many) TR defenders who need to step closer to Ruckman's point of view. Ruckman is fearless in this. I take advantage of his courage in the lion's den and apply it to the truth and avoid his false extreme.

That's the reason I don't throw Ruckman out. i.e. I still have room for him in my KJV defenders hall of fame.

He is an extremist, he is a hyper-dispensationalist, he is an advanced revelation man, he is a KJV-corrects-the-TR man. But he is still a marvellous example of courage in his fearless presentation of the truth (when he's not presenting his extremes that is).

I have an excellent couple of his debates on video. One against a TR defender, and one against an NIV man. In both of these nice videos, he never goes off the deep end (not wanting to give his opponents an easy target). And he gives them both a mighty greek grammar lesson. Really takes'em to school. I love those two videos. So, I'm glad I retained Ruckman to this extent (no further though). And I'm certainly not an apologist for Ruckman and I'm not going to misrepresent his extremes nor deny them.

if there was one creation why does the earth appear in vs 1 heaven and earth and then he calls forth light to come upon a earth that is in darkness. darkness denotes something that is not of God. for in him is no darkness at all. the second day of recreation he had to place firmament around our universe to separate the sinful darkness that had engulfed the earth (that was not there since the begining of time when the earth was in the heaven) from a Holy God and his dwelling place you will notice it is the only day God does not say it is good. for anyhting that separates from God is not Good and sin is one thing that separates all men from God, and the believer he is separated by not yielding to God.

so what your saying from the beginning God created something that he would not pronounce as good and separates men from Gods abode. I think not the reason for the darkness on the earth and the firmament being put in place was to put a limit on how far sin could go and not invade the holiness of God. In wisdom he did that.

just because God wont reveal everything to us in the Bible doesn't mean everything he ever did is recorded in the Bible. it is only what God wants us to know for this life and Godliness. there are many things that are not revealed in the Bible. but maybe you believe angels are women with long flowing hair and white wings too? no angel in the Bible is ever diplicted as a woman. But Demonic escorts of evil are discribe as such.

when did God place the Morning stars that sang they were in the Heaven, not heavens that came after Darkness entered into the realm of God. he reveals very little about that but lets you know it was pride that caused it in Lucifers heart. Prideful knowledge of any kind leads men into sin. that is why God reveals that to us. there are many things God does not reveal about the creatures of heaven. no mention of Seraphim and Cheriphim creation in the 6 days of Recreation. if what you feel is true why doesn't God tell us Oh Yeah during th first Second third, foruth, fifth or sixth day He created these beings. that is because they were created before the 6 day recreation.

Wow - nothing like building a doctrine where the Bible doesn't speak. Where are the other verses that talk about an earlier creation? There are none. Therefore the Gap Theory is a doctrine that is completely made up - never wise to build your life on speculation!

God created the light - therefore it makes sense that there was no light until He did so. Later, darkness is used as a symbol for evil - you cannot have a symbol until you have the reality (darkness).

God Created the Darkness Called Night
 

There is nothing "sinful" about the night that God created. Gen 1 says that God called the darkness night and the light He called day. The verse referred to above that "in Him is no darkness at all" is refering to sin, it has nothing to do with day and night. By the way it is at night that we can see the glory of God declared by His awesome creation of the stars and planets!!

Also as to Ruckman, he just uses the Bible to make it say what he wants. Kind of like the Calvanists! Ruckman has been divorced and remarried so he takes the verse that says that a bishop is to be the husband of one wife to mean... one wife at a time! Check out his views on this. He believes that there was a gap between Gen 1:1 & 2 so he reads that into the Bible and uses other references to "prove" his point - such as Gen 1:28 replenish. In the Hebrew this means to fill or fulfill. The KJV translators used the best word in their day that meant this - replenish. Do some research on this and you will find it to be factual.

Ruckman has some good things to say but HE and his biased views get in the way many times. I am not a follwer of his but of Jesus Christ. There are many who follow this man and take his views as gospel, inventing gap theories, condoning divorce and remarriage and inspiring the translation of the KJV (which is God's PRESERVED Word in the english language but the translators were not inspired in the same way the original authors were - contrary to Ruckman).

I'm not an apologist for Ruckman, but citing his views on a pre-Adamic creation as an example of his "strange" error is not reasonable. The Gap Theory did not originate with Ruckman. In fact, the majority of right-dividing theology I have read from the late 1800s and early 1900s support this theory.

I am also not defending the Gap Theory, mind you, just stating a fact.

Also, my understanding is that his previous wives abandoned him. 1Cor 7:15 seems to me to teach that there is no bondage of marriage in such a case.

Brandon - I realize that Ruckman was not the originator of the Gap Theory, I was just showing his connection to it as others in this thread had done.

Your view of I Cor 7:15 is Ruckman's view as well. We should know how God feels about divorce (Malachi and others). While we may not be able to control what a mate does, God clearly commands us not to remarry. This is a really unpopular scriptural principal in today's world. But the Bible does offend! Just because it is the way we live today does not make it right. At any rate, God can and does forgive BUT the office of a pastor of a church is reserved for undivorced individuals whether we like God's plan or not.

One more thing... when the Gap theory was invented, during the late 1800's, is the same time the new versions came on the scene! Maybe a coincidence.

kstsells, I have no problem with that. Its what my pastor teaches. But I've always wondered, if the believing mate is not bound on those cases, then why doesn't that mean they are free to remarry? I

Question: Isn't the "bond" to which he refers marriage? i.e. doesn't this verse mean he was not married? And therefore free to marry?

OR

Does the "bond" only refer to the fact that the believing mate does not have to remain married and all is well. . .so long as he doesn't remarry?

I think its traditionally seen in the latter, whereas others take it to mean the former.

Thank you for indulging me here and for letting me continue taking us off message.

1 Corinthians 7 deals with the unbeliever abandoning/divorcing the believer. Is that what happened in the case of Ruckman's divorces?

Dunno. In my question, I'm only asking about the case where it is an unbeliever leaving a believing spouse: Does the "not bound" refer to the marriage i.e. the believer is not married and is therefore free to marry,
OR
is it (as I suspect it is) that the believer does not have to remain (bound) to the unbeliever when the unbeliever leaves, but is nonetheless not to remarry?

The young widows are permitted to remarry (1Ti 5). He never says this about those with a living (former) spouse.

Personally, I believe that a divorced person is not to remarry until the old spouse has died.

go to the link below to find NON-RUCKMANITE ANSWERS TO ANTI-KJV QUESTIONS by Dr. Jeffrey Khoo
http://www.biblefortoday.org/Articles/answers.htm

I often site this article because those like Ruckman give KJVO's a bad name.

So... let's say that my believing wife leaves me who is a a believer too, even though I don't want the divorce, and she wants it anyway so she can further an adulterous reltionship (not to say Ruckman's wives were as I do not knwo anything about it and frankly, it's none of my business), then what am I to do? Am I in sin for the divorce? (Just a scenario)

The divorce is sin - and the one pushing for the divorce is sinning. Regardless of which believer created the situation or the divorce, it hinders both.

OK Book Guy and Timothy,

I think you hit it square on the head!

We have to look at the big picture of what God says about divorce and remarriage and then keep that in mind when we read I Cor. 7. Many people want this to be interpreted that it is ok and that you are not bound so that they can remarry. It is sad and I am not condemning people that this happens to but it is what God says. The believer is not bound means that they are not bound to stay in the marriage - Paul spoke this by permission from God. Which is a subject someone may want to comment on. That has always puzzled me a bit.

God hates divorce but if a woman or man leaves their spouse for another person and demands a divorce, the other person isn't sinning in this!! Their hands were more than likely tied. It does hinder both but the one committing the sin would be the one demanding the divorce. There would be possible exceptions to this - ie: abuse, child molestation etc. The sin would be in them remarrying.

I believe that the knowledge that if I was to ever divorce, I would be going against God's plans if I remarried has been a factor in my own marriage commitment. However God gave me a wonderful husband who is easy to keep my commitment too. I do feel for those who have bad spouses.

1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
That Paul spoke "by permission" does not necessarily mean he gives an uninspired opinion that can be disobeyed or disregarded. Paul had "revelations" (2 Cor. 12:1) from the Lord and was an apostle by the "commandment of God our Savior" (1 Ti. 1:1). Where he had no direct command from God on a particular matter, he gives his "judgment" by permission; that is, he was permitted and given authority by God to write his judgment, and the things that he wrote are to be acknowledged as "the commandments of the Lord".

"No divorce" and "one man, one wife" are God's perfect will (Mr 10:6-9). It is also evident in Scripture that a "bill of divorcement" (Dt. 24:1) is not only because of the "hardness" of man's heart (Mr 10:5), but may in certain conditions be a "just" choice (Mt 1:19).
Concerning remarriage:
1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Looking at the whole context, letting a partner "depart" makes the person "not under bondage" or "loosed". If a person who is no longer "bound" (but not a "virgin") marries, Paul says to him "thou hast not sinned".
On the other hand, I'm just glad that divorce is still banned in the Philippines!

I don't think that GAPS in Scripture are "theories"; they are "doctrine".
For example, John mentions of "the hour" in which "all" will be resurrected - to life and to damnation.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour [singular] is coming, in the which all [in general] that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; [Is there a gap here? No mention.] and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
1. Is the statement continuous? Yes.
2. Is a gap mentioned? No.
3. Is there, therefore, no gap?

"Line upon line, precept upon precept" (Is 28:13), by "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1Co 2:13), it was revealed later that "the hour" is 1,000 YEAR long and the "resurrection of life" is 1,000 YEARS ahead of the "resurrection of damnation".

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Or course, there are many other gaps in Scripture. Concerning the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, here is a link that enlightened my mind on the issue: "To Gap or Not to Gap" (by Dr. David F. Reagan) http://www.learnthebible.org/gap_or_not.htm

Show some Scripture in context that actually teaches a Gap Theory. Aside from the fact that Satan walked in the Garden of Eden before he fell, and the Garden of Eden was not created until day six, the same day man was created - there is no Biblical basis for an earth before the six days of creation, for a pre-creation week fall of Satan, nor for any kind of previous civilization on earth.

I think chapter 7 of 1 Cor needs to be looked at in its entirety.

I'm not saying Ruckman is a god but I do believe that he is one of todays best defenders of the KJV and that God is using him and his ministry. I know that sometimes he is rude or crude in some of his books that I've read, but let's face it, he's human just like us. I'm not saying he's right in what he says all the time but Paul the Apostle even said that he himself was "rude in speech." I don't think we necessarily should throw the baby out with bathwater.

Paul meant he was not an eloquent speaker (like Apollos), not that he spoke crude things.

Ya your right about that Jerry. I can see that, but don't you also think that according to Rom. 16:17 that sometimes it is necessary to strongly make known the sin of some other men around us? Again I myself do not believe that the way Ruckman represents himself all the time is appropriate, but I'm just saying don't you think that it is necessary sometimes to be strong in your approach. Christ himself called the Pharisees "O ye generation of vipers." According to the Pharisees and everyday speech that would be considered "rude," don't you think so? All I'm saying is are we confusing "rude" with "boldness" sometimes?

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

We are supposed to be righteously angry and sin not. Losing control of your tongue and or typing fingers is a sin. If someone is being a hypocrite and I call him one, that is not sinning. If I call someone some crude term or nickname, then I am sinning. And Ruckman has used some crude terminology that the Bible does not use - he also uses various terms in ways that the Bible does not. Even if it is appropriate to use the same terms, we should make sure that they fit the same sins - not just calling them something crude because they don't cross their t's the exact same way I do.