[George]

Originally Posted by jerry

When was the last time Jesus or one of the apostles made an ethnic joke? Just because your heart is obviously hardened doesn't make jokes like this acceptable to God or in line with His Word. When we are told to have our speach seasoned with salt, and let no corrupt words proceed from our mouths, you (or Ruckman) don't have a leg to stand on - no matter how much you try to justify it. It is not personal preference, it is sin.

Re: Post #89

Aloha brother Jerry,

I want to be clear: I do not do ethnic jokes (because I don't want to offend). On the other hand "pbiwolsky" is obviously of Polish origin and he didn't take offense - but some Polish people might, and that's why I don't personally do them, and you are right about the fact that the Lord and His Apostles didn't do them - so we should avoid them also.

The problem is perceptions: Brother Ruckman is of my dad's generation (The generation that went through the "Great Depression"; the generation that fought and won World War II - the last war the U.S. has won!), this was a generation that was "tough", "rough", and "hardened"; that endured hardships and deprivation that we can only imagine - not having ever endured such.

These are people who grew up in neighborhoods where ethnic jokes were common and practiced every day (some were meant to be humorous and others were "put downs"). This was a common practice, back then, and as such, I cut them some "slack". I don't approve of them or excuse them, but I don't go out of my way to condemn the person doing them - there are a lot worse sins that we "sanctified" Christians commit than telling an ethnic joke (such as: gossip, back-biting, lying, cheating, and railing. Or how about jealousy, envy, and hatred. Or the "good ole standby" - "universal" sin of COVETOUSNESS.) You will notice that the Lord wasn't nearly as hard on the people who committed the "sins of the flesh" as He was on those who committed the sins that I just listed - the sins of the HEART!

Does that excuse any of the "sins of the flesh" - of course not! But on the other hand, we better be carefull to remember (This is not meant to be personal - notice the WE?):

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Or how about:

Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

I look for "fruit" in a man's life and his ministry, I judge a man and his ministry by his "fruit" - not his "works" (that may be in the flesh); or his "words" (that may be offensive to some). If he can demonstrate "fruit" ("fruit of the Spirit" = Galatians 5:22-23), then I leave it up to God to judge his "faults" and his sins - unless his sins are so egregious ("works of the flesh = Galatians 5:19-21) that I must break fellowship with him.

Please note: harsh, rude, and tough speech are not included in the list, and neither do ethnic jokes make the list. Again, are ethnic jokes in poor taste - in today's super sensitive culture - yes. Is harsh, rude, and tough speech also a no-no? I would say it would depend on who it was directed at (See the Lord against the Pharisees & Scribes, etc.; Paul against heretics and false teachers, etc.)

Here in Hawaii Caucasians (Haoles) are in the minority and it makes for a very interesting situation. Hawaiians, Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Portuguese (are not considered Haoles), Caucasians, and "Mixed" make up the majority of the races here with a smattering of others from the Orient, Mexico, South America, etc.

When I get around my "Local" friends I hear ethnic jokes (about every race here) all of the time, but I don't personally do them with one exception, I make fun of myself (Caucasian) and other "Caucasians" - especially "Mainlanders" (all in fun of course) and my Local friends get a real "kick" out of the fact that I am willing to poke fun at myself or people like me.

If you lived here in Hawaii and if you were to be offended every time you would hear an ethnic joke - you would go "bonkers" (out of your mind). Sometimes I think we Christians get upset over things that the rest of the world "let slide", and at other times we overlook serious sins of the heart, especially in ourselves and in those we love.

Surprisingly, the lost often "get" what we Christians often miss: They too look for "fruit" in our lives and are not fooled by our "good works" or "fair speeches".

Actually, I never said I was offended at that joke - someone else did. I just stated it was wrong, sin - and it still is, whether people get offended or not. Jesus didn't crack ethnic jokes or insult people for the sake of knocking them - He called them names that were appropriate to exactly what they were doing wrong. Fool - for being foolish. Hypocrite - for being hypocritical. And so on. If you use a name that a preacher in the Bible used, and are using it in the same way, I have no problem with that. My problem is with casting unjustified insults and slurs around - which I have shown from various passages are sinful. Here is another verse - words of Jesus:

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Raca means basically "empty head" - an insult. Same with fool - unless we are calling someone a fool that God Himself calls a fool, such as an atheist (Psalm 14:1). Going around calling people idiots or bloated jackasses (an insult that Ruckman does use) is evil - taking Jesus at His words leaves no other interpretation. That is rotten fruit.

Matthew 12:36-37 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by jerry

When was the last time Jesus or one of the apostles made an ethnic joke?

You suppose Christ never joked, or laughed for that matter since that cannot be proven with scripture either.

[George]

Jerry

Actually, I never said I was offended at that joke - someone else did. I just stated it was wrong, sin - and it still is, whether people get offended or not. Jesus didn't crack ethnic jokes or insult people for the sake of knocking them - He called them names that were appropriate to exactly what they were doing wrong. Fool - for being foolish. Hypocrite - for being hypocritical. And so on. If you use a name that a preacher in the Bible used, and are using it in the same way, I have no problem with that. My problem is with casting unjustified insults and slurs around - which I have shown from various passages are sinful. Here is another verse - words of Jesus:

Agreed,

But how about:

SNAKES:
Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Luke 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

DOGS:
Matthew 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Mark 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

Philippians 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

LIARS, EVIL BEASTS, SLOW BELLIES:
Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

With all of the warnings of false teachers & false doctrines given to us - sometimes it may be necessary use harsh and tough speech. Again it depends on who is being addressed and the circumstance and it doesn't give us an excuse to abuse it.
{1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-9. 13; 2 timothy 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-22; The whole Book of Jude}

[Brother Tim]

Most importantly, our words should fit the standards that the Scriptures themselves provide.

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

If our words fit within these parameters, they will be right, no matter how harsh they may seem (i.e. "vipers"-the true condition of the ones being so labeled)

Jesus was called "the man of sorrows". If we saw the wickedness of the world as He sees it, and saw it while on earth, I doubt we would spend much time cracking jokes, especially at the expense of others.

pbiwolski, you may have develped a thick skin when it comes to jokes about your heritage, but not only can you not speak for everyone else, but I would keep this admonition from our Saviour in mind when joking about others, especially believers,

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

I shudder to think what God's reaction is to any Christian whose careless words injure a weaker brother and causes him to wonder whether this "love one another" teaching is all that real!

[George]

Originally Posted by Jeff

I'll attempt to properly answer any questions you may have, I may have to ask for your patience because I may have to limit my time for the next two or three days. I do thank you for your courtesy and civility and, if needed, patience. Thanks.

Aloha Brother Jeff, (Re: Post #85)

There are a few drawbacks to a Bible Forum (any of them) that I find lacking. There is very little opportunity to “Worship” together and there is very little real Christian “Fellowship” that takes place. For another thing – many people join up without identifying themselves, which seems to me to be impersonal and distant. I can understand a woman not identifying herself because of all of the weirdoes, kooks, and perverts on the net; however I see no reason why we men should be unwilling to at least give out a little information about ourselves. Personally – I have nothing to hide, so I am pretty free with my private information short of my address and telephone number.

Here are the few questions that I said I would ask you, since I answered approximately 25 questions from you. These questions are not meant to “trick” you or “trap” you – I hate that kind of sophistical reasoning:

#1. Have you ever read any of the many books, commentaries, booklets, pamphlets, etc. that brother Ruckman has written? (If so - how many? You don't have to list the names just the number -I'll trust you to be honest and truthful).

#2. Have you ever heard any of Peter Ruckman's numerous preaching and teaching tapes? (If so - how many? You don't have to list the names just the number -I'll trust you to be honest and truthful).

#3. Have you ever actually met brother Ruckman or been at any of his meetings where he has either preached or taught the word of God? (If so - where and when? I'll trust you to be honest and truthful).”

#4. If a stranger came along and verbally criticized your father or mother – after hearing or reading something about them (without knowing them) would you defend them? Yes? or No?

#5. If a stranger came along and verbally criticized your wife or children – after hearing or reading something about them (without knowing them) would you defend them? Yes? or No?

#6. If a stranger came along and verbally criticized your brother or sister – after hearing or reading something about them (without knowing them) would you defend them? Yes? or No?

#7. If a stranger came along and verbally criticized a friend of yours – after hearing or reading something about them (without knowing them) would you defend them? Yes? or No?

I have asked the above questions because the basis of my defense of Peter Ruckman is based on my personal relationship with him – as a teacher; a friend; and a brother (in Christ). As far as I know, no one on this Forum has known brother Ruckman as long as I have (40 years); and no one has on this Forum has studied his materials as much as I have, or had the relationship with him that I have had.

And so, just like you would defend a family member or a friend who is subject to unwarranted or unsubstantiated criticism (without excusing any wrong doing or sin on their part), I intend to defend brother Peter Ruckman (without excusing any wrongdoing or sin on his part.)

By today’s modern Christian’s standards we would have nothing to do with king David (Adultery, Murder, and Disobedience - More than one wife at a time!) and yet God never said of any other man in the Bible that: . . . . “I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after Mine Own Heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Acts 13:22.

Did you know that no man in the Bible is spoken of more in the Bible than David? No One! Did you know that David wrote more about the person of God than any other writer in the Bible? Or that David wrote more about God’s words than any ten men in the Bible? Or that David wrote more about the heart of man than any other writer of the Bible?

Did God excuse any of David’s sins? – of course not! But God used him and spoke highly of him through out the Books of Kings; Chronicles; most of the Prophets; and on into the New Testament. Christians better be careful judging other Christians and their ministry – God never has used a “sinless” man.

Here are the rest of my questions:

#8. Have you ever read the Humanist Manifesto’s I, II, or III? Yes? or No?

#9. If you have read the Humanist Manifesto I – What year was it first promulgated? Year?

#10. If you have read the Humanist Manifesto I – How many points or ideals does it put forth? Number?

#11. If you have read the Humanist Manifesto II – How many points or ideals does it put forth? Number?

#12. Are you aware as to just how much influence Humanism has had on the Western World in the last 120 years or so? Yes? or No?

#13. Are you aware as to just how much influence Humanism has had in the United States in the last 120 years or so?: (In the fields of: Education [primary, high school, college]; Government [National, State, County, City, Town – Executive, Legislative, JUDICIARY]; Media [Print, Radio, Television, etc.]; the families; and in the churches [especially with pastors, teachers, counselors, etc.]. Yes? or No?

#14. Are you aware as to just how much influence Psychiatry & Psychology (based in Humanism) has had in the United States in the last 120 years or so?: (In the fields of: Education [primary, high school, college]; Government [National, State, County, City, Town – Executive, Legislative, JUDICIARY]; Media [Print, Radio, Television, etc.]; the families; and in the churches [especially with pastors, teachers, counselors, etc.]. Yes? or No?

I have asked a little over half the number of questions you asked, but these questions are very important because many of the “arguments’; disputes; disagreements; contentions; and wranglings that take place on this Forum are because we Christians have been “infected” with Humanism – some more than others (but none of us is exempt).

We are a nation of sophists:

SOPHIST, n. L. sophista,

1. A professor (not a college Professor) of philosophy; as the sophists of Greece.

2. A captious or fallacious reasoner.

Humanism has permeated every facet of our lives and as such it is very difficult to discern between that which is Scriptural (spiritual) and that which is Carnal (our Culture, etc.). God expects us to act on Scriptural precepts and principles, not with our own (Humanistic) logic and/or reasoning. That is why it is of the utmost importance that when we read the Scriptures we are to look for what God says (His words), and not what does God “mean”.

The same holds true for men’s words: we are not to try to figure out what someone “means” or what we personally “get out of someone’s words” – we are to read the words as they are, not what we may think they “mean”.

I am done with this subject unless someone else brings it up again.

Yours for the Lord Jesus Christ and for His Holy Word,

George

[Jeff]

Aloha Brother Jeff, (Re: Post #85)


#1. Have you ever read any of the many books, commentaries, booklets, pamphlets, etc. that brother Ruckman has written? (If so - how many? You don't have to list the names just the number -I'll trust you to be honest and truthful).

#2. Have you ever heard any of Peter Ruckman's numerous preaching and teaching tapes? (If so - how many? You don't have to list the names just the number -I'll trust you to be honest and truthful).

#3. Have you ever actually met brother Ruckman or been at any of his meetings where he has either preached or taught the word of God? (If so - where and when? I'll trust you to be honest and truthful).”

The answer to all the above questions are NO.

I am learning most of what I know of Dr. Ruckman from this thread. I know he does not rule his tongue well, even his defenders don't deny that, they just try to excuse it, and sometimes even emulate him. There are many references to the tongue in the Bible, many of which have already been listed. I also know that he is a very divisive man (Rom 16:17). Someone stated something to the effect that there is no middle of the road with him. (Please don't jump on me for saying, "something to the effect". I know what the intent of the words were regardless of what you may try to accuse me of reading into them, and I'm not going to spend any more time on this than I need to by searching this thread.)

I don't know that you can say that this isn't a "serious" sin. Any sin is worthy of death and Christ died for them all. What's worse is that this is a habitual sin with him that he appears to have no intention of repenting of. That is no small thing for a Christian pastor/leader.

People argue about whether smoking is a sin or not, I can tell you that I would not attend a church that had a pastor who smokes no matter how perfect he was otherwise. No one wants children to grow up thinking smoking is cool and okay because the pastor does it. Nor should anyone look up to Dr. Ruckman as some kind of hero and think it's okay to emulate him. What other problems might he have if he's so presumptuous to continue against God's word in his manner of speech? I'm an ardent defender of the KJB, but the "version" issue is not the only one out there, and if he feels he's free to use this type of speech because he's preaching against "false teachers" maybe he needs to attend to the beam in his own eye. I believe you would take offense if I called Dr. Ruckman a "bloated jackass."

If he feels called to be doing what he's doing he should be doing it in a godly manner. To say, "Okay Lord, I'll do what you want me to do but I'll do it my way" would be nothing more than pride and trying to draw attention to himself. He's casting KJB onlyists in a bad light and giving others ammunition against us.

Pro 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Nor does the fact that he was raised in a less "politically correct" time excuse him. We are not to be conformed to the world no matter in what time we live, but we're to be transformed by the renewing of our mind.

Again the answer to above questions is "NO". Nor do I intend to read/listen/see or meet him. I see no need to; no man, famous or otherwise, is my final authority and I will avoid those with known serious problems.

#4. If a stranger came along and verbally criticized your father or mother – after hearing or reading something about them (without knowing them) would you defend them? Yes? or No?

#5. If a stranger came along and verbally criticized your wife or children – after hearing or reading something about them (without knowing them) would you defend them? Yes? or No?

#6. If a stranger came along and verbally criticized your brother or sister – after hearing or reading something about them (without knowing them) would you defend them? Yes? or No?

#7. If a stranger came along and verbally criticized a friend of yours – after hearing or reading something about them (without knowing them) would you defend them? Yes? or No?

The answers to questions 4,6 and 7 are not simple "Yes" or "No" questions. I would inquire as to where they heard what they heard and the truth behind it. If I found that my relative was involved in open and habitual sin there would be no way I could defend them. Of course I would not disown them but I wouldn't happily accept their sin either.
Question 5 is not applicable to me.

have asked the above questions because the basis of my defense of Peter Ruckman is based on my personal relationship with him – as a teacher; a friend; and a brother (in Christ). As far as I know, no one on this Forum has known brother Ruckman as long as I have (40 years); and no one has on this Forum has studied his materials as much as I have, or had the relationship with him that I have had.

And so, just like you would defend a family member or a friend who is subject to unwarranted or unsubstantiated criticism (without excusing any wrong doing or sin on their part), I intend to defend brother Peter Ruckman (without excusing any wrongdoing or sin on his part.)

The criticism against Dr. Ruckman has been substantiated enough for me.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Dr. Ruckman doesn't have a good report among those within or without, except among those who follow him. I have to question how a man who is so adept at teaching how to rightly divide the word has such a hard time following it.

By today’s modern Christian’s standards we would have nothing to do with king David (Adultery, Murder, and Disobedience - More than one wife at a time!) and yet God never said of any other man in the Bible that: . . . . “I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after Mine Own Heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Acts 13:22.

Did you know that no man in the Bible is spoken of more in the Bible than David? No One! Did you know that David wrote more about the person of God than any other writer in the Bible? Or that David wrote more about God’s words than any ten men in the Bible? Or that David wrote more about the heart of man than any other writer of the Bible?

Did God excuse any of David’s sins? – of course not! But God used him and spoke highly of him through out the Books of Kings; Chronicles; most of the Prophets; and on into the New Testament. Christians better be careful judging other Christians and their ministry – God never has used a “sinless” man.

David did not practice habitual sin. In fact he repented of his sin and was genuinely sorrowful for it, even if it had to be pointed out to him on occasion. No one has shown any evidence that Dr. Ruckman is the same type of man as David was.

Here are the rest of my questions:

#8. Have you ever read the Humanist Manifesto’s I, II, or III? Yes? or No?

#9. If you have read the Humanist Manifesto I – What year was it first promulgated? Year?

#10. If you have read the Humanist Manifesto I – How many points or ideals does it put forth? Number?

#11. If you have read the Humanist Manifesto II – How many points or ideals does it put forth? Number?

#12. Are you aware as to just how much influence Humanism has had on the Western World in the last 120 years or so? Yes? or No?

8-12: No. I have not read these. The Word of God is the basis everything needs to be judged against.

#13. Are you aware as to just how much influence Humanism has had in the United States in the last 120 years or so?: (In the fields of: Education [primary, high school, college]; Government [National, State, County, City, Town – Executive, Legislative, JUDICIARY]; Media [Print, Radio, Television, etc.]; the families; and in the churches [especially with pastors, teachers, counselors, etc.]. Yes? or No?

#14. Are you aware as to just how much influence Psychiatry & Psychology (based in Humanism) has had in the United States in the last 120 years or so?: (In the fields of: Education [primary, high school, college]; Government [National, State, County, City, Town – Executive, Legislative, JUDICIARY]; Media [Print, Radio, Television, etc.]; the families; and in the churches [especially with pastors, teachers, counselors, etc.]. Yes? or No?

12-14: Again "Yes" or "no" aren't adequate answers. I know there has been MUCH influence, but are even you aware of "just how much". That's why everything needs to be tested against the Word of God.

I have asked a little over half the number of questions you asked, but these questions are very important because many of the “arguments’; disputes; disagreements; contentions; and wranglings that take place on this Forum are because we Christians have been “infected” with Humanism – some more than others (but none of us is exempt).

We are a nation of sophists:

SOPHIST, n. L. sophista,

1. A professor (not a college Professor) of philosophy; as the sophists of Greece.

2. A captious or fallacious reasoner.

Humanism has permeated every facet of our lives and as such it is very difficult to discern between that which is Scriptural (spiritual) and that which is Carnal (our Culture, etc.). God expects us to act on Scriptural precepts and principles, not with our own (Humanistic) logic and/or reasoning. That is why it is of the utmost importance that when we read the Scriptures we are to look for what God says (His words), and not what does God “mean”.

The same holds true for men’s words: we are not to try to figure out what someone “means” or what we personally “get out of someone’s words” – we are to read the words as they are, not what we may think they “mean”.

You have accused me of reading some things into your words, and I have previously given an example where you made those charges and compared your words with mine. You didn't reply to it (unless I missed it). I did not do anything behind your back and you had ample opportunity to reply and defend yourself, as have I. If your intent was not to attmept to stop criticism of Ruckman by criticising others while excusing those who would excuse him, you should have more clearly stated what you were attempting to do. I'll leave it to others to determine who has tried to distort/deny/twist or whatever. So far it seems to go along party lines. But either way your words and my words are both out there for anyone to make up thier own mind. Because I use a figure of speech now and then (and say, "I feel", rather than, "I believe" or whatever) I will not put up with that being twisted to say I'm a humanist. If you wish to sidetrack debates concering Biblical matters with these kind of things I'm really not interested.

I am done with this subject unless someone else brings it up again.

Agreed

Yours for the Lord Jesus Christ and for His Holy Word,

Also agreed.

I just wanted to address one more thing mentioned in this thread: several comments were made along the lines of, how can we judge Ruckman's doctrine or behavious unless we have read the majority of his materials? Since when do I need to read 50 books to be able to compare them to the Bible and see if they line up? If Rick Warren is writing more books, should I hold off critiquing him until he dies so I can read all the others first? Many use the same kind of arguments to defend Westcott and Hort and various false teachers or modernists - oh, you only read THOSE books, but unless you have also read this one and that one, you are in no position to judge them. Sure, I am - does what I have already read line up with the Word of God or not?

[George]

From: Jerry (Post #98)

Originally Posted by jerry

I just wanted to address one more thing mentioned in this thread: several comments were made along the lines of, how can we judge Ruckman's doctrine or behavious unless we have read the majority of his materials? Since when do I need to read 50 books to be able to compare them to the Bible and see if they line up? If Rick Warren is writing more books, should I hold off critiquing him until he dies so I can read all the others first? Many use the same kind of arguments to defend Westcott and Hort and various false teachers or modernists - oh, you only read THOSE books, but unless you have also read this one and that one, you are in no position to judge them. Sure, I am - does what I have already read line up with the Word of God or not?

From: George (Post #78)

"How can anyone judge this man; or his works; or his ministry - IF they are not personally familiar with him; or his books; or his ministry? What is so difficult about that? We are commanded NOT to judge according to appearance and yet that is what these people are doing - if they haven't met the man: haven't heard him preach or teach; haven't read at least 10 or 12 of his various books; or seen or heard his tapes."

Upon your comparison above (an "exaggeration", "inflation" and "magnification" of nearly 5 to 1) with what I "actually said", I rest my case!

Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The Bible Believers Bulletin has actually been online for at least 3-4 years, the accessibility and visibility of the Bulletins has varied at times. I have always enjoyed reading the Bulletin, agree or disagree with various points, and must have missed or bypassed any Polish jokes the first few years. Perhaps the Lord Jesus shielded my sensitive eyes and ears. (Hmm.. my grandparents on my dad's side were from the Kracow region .. do we view that as Poland or the Austria-Hungary region of the times ?)

Personally I heard Peter Ruckman speak one night about two years ago in a church in Connecticut, it was a fine evening, and I picked up a CD of an earlier night that had been more about the Bible versions issues. On the web I was kicked off a couple of Ruckman-oriented forums some years back, in circumstances that I remember with a bit of a smile and more. Most of my reading of his material has been the Bible Believers Bulletin and some articles here and there, I have never quite plunged for "Manuscript Evidences" and books like that. I am not sure that on the technical level they will offer much that I don't have now from other sources more accurately and deeper (based on the material that I have read) however I am sure his 'pure Bible' books would generally be an interesting read with lots of excellent analysis and exposition.

What I hope to find on KJB boards is more of a fair and interesting discussion of his views and influence on the pure Bible understanding, strengths and weaknesses analyzed, teachings shared. Instead there is what appears to me to be almost incessant chatter about issues I find far less interesting. Does Peter Ruckman have some oddball doctrines in his books ? Possibly in some realms, I would have to research it. Has this been good or bad in his personal life ? I really dunno. Does he attack some folks that are generally pro-KJB too quickly or too harshly ? I can think of a couple of cases where you might say yes to that and perhaps one friend has been on the receiving end. And I did meet David Cloud once in my earlier King James Bible days and enjoyed the chat. Does Peter Ruckman speak harshly ? Well, he was fine in the talk and tape I heard.

True, the Bible Believers Bulletin uses "Alexandrian Cult" a lot. And I hesitated on that for some years, until I got more involved with the pure Bible issue, and I saw that this was a solid and true way to describe the fog of confusion and illogic and rebellion against the word of God that takes hold of the anti-pure-KJB folks. Personally I use the phrase sparingly. Yet I appreciate that Peter Ruckman shares that insight consistently.

What I would like to see more discussed is his views on the Bible. Clearly he has almost single-handedly raised the bar so that anyone who tries to pit "the Greek" (sounds like "the Bears") against the King James Bible will be challenged. And I think this is a very good thing, and likely this is the source of a lot of the discomfit. This is rarely discussed (other than to try to find to criticize a "double inspiration" quote from Ruckman).

Just glancing at the March BBB I see a number of interesting points already. No Fundamental Doctrines Affected is a very good article worthy of a careful read. The Final Authority for Choosing the Final Authority is a good read. In the Bulletin he states his position on Ruth 3:15 that he and she are both acceptable and true (something that many here would disagree with).

And there is at least one area in the Bible discussion where I think Peter Ruckman (and Sam Gipp) has taken a position that is scholarly uncomfortable. That is the 'LXX as myth' view, where I think the majors are minored and the uncertains are declared too dogmatically. And taking this hardline hard-to-defend view can actually hurt the fascinating explanation of why the Greek OT is totally deficient and not the source of New Testament quotations.

There is a lot in the Bible Believers Bulletin that I skim without much comment. Also there are articles that I find fascinating, and read carefully. Like the series about places where the English corrects the Greek. By reading and analyzing those articles we could really learn a lot, have a lot to discuss, whether we agree with this or disagree with that. Yet I have never seen this done, even on a pro-King James Bible forum.

My interest on these types of boards is really to discuss his articles with respect and fairness. After all, he did pave the way, in modern times, for the right and peace and comfort to declare clearly and fully :

"the King James Bible in my hand is the pure and perfect word of God"

Without having to look over our shoulder for "the Greek" or the approval of "the seminarian". And without adding the scholarly nuances and approval (and less strong position) of a Edward Hills type of textual theorist.

And I appreciate that Peter Ruckman has paved the way to be able to make such a declaration in defense of God's pure and perfect word.

Shalom,
Steven