[Jeff]

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

Gentlemen, have you overlooked that Dr. Ruckman ends all of his "abusive" remarks with the "and I say that with charity, of course!?!"

George,

The fact is that it is not right to suggest that following abusive remarks with, "and I say that with charity" automatically makes whatever words preceded them okay. The words that preceded them may have been perfectly innocent, but that's not what's being intimated.

Was Jerry right to point this out? Yes
Do you have the right to criticize him for that? Yes. Were you right to do so????

You, or anyone else, do have the right to give your views to the contrary. Clearly there is some disagreement on what type of language it is appropriate for a Christian leader to use. No matter how godly a man may be in most things it is still important to warn those who may follow him of any possible problems.

Even if Jerry had said the same thing before it's still right for him to reaffirm it when the subject is brought up again. You don't stop reproving sin just because you've done it once.

It's interesting that Proverbs 26:18, 19 which is being misapplied on another thread would more apply applies here.

As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, 19 So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?

Even though I've never made any personal comments against Dr. Ruckman it's insinuated I'm anti-Ruckman. Brother Wilder has never answered my response to this comment

Who cares what Jeff or anyone like-minded thinks about Dr. Ruckman, go on and have your opinion, its a free country.

I won't suggest he is dishonest and lacks integrity as you have me. In post 48 you asked me

Why are you and others so quick to condemn someone that you don't even know? Just exactly what is your problem?

Who have I condemned? George, you're doing the same thing you've accused me of.

George, I'm happy Dr. Ruckman helped show you the truth. But I'm not going to automatically accept every thing he might do just because he's 50%, 90%, or 99 and 44/100 percent right.

I generally agree with your assessment of Dr. Ruckman and "Rev" Wright, but I do find it interesting you use almost exactly the same argument Wright supporters do to defend Dr. Ruckman.

Peter Ruckman has written approximately 100 books; probably as many pamphlets or booklets; and hundreds of articles over almost 60 years of his ministry. On top of that, he has hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of audio and video tapes also. How can Jerry or anyone else judge this man if they haven’t even seen, read, or heard even 1% of his material?

There's a church in town that I would, I believe wisely, not advise people to go to even though I've not sat through many sermons, I'm positive the pastor is a genuine believer, and appears to be solid doctrinally. But there is evidence of a serious problem and, thankfully, I'm convinced there is a better church.

You know what helped finally fully convinced me of the truth behind the KJB? It was by looking at sites run by modern-version-onlyists and seeing how confused and often even hateful they were. They would also try to squelch any debate.

As far as I'm concerned I'm done with this. We're just going around in circles. If I feel prompted to reply to some post I will, whether or not you, or the majority of people here agree with it. I will try to be circumspect and avoid fruitless arguments (see how long I keep this promise ). Diligent will be the only one who will have the final say as to when I'm no longer able to post.

George, I know many of your posts have been very helpful. Your knowledge and wisdom are appreiciated. I still reserve the right to disagree with you.

[Brother Tim]

First, George, I accept your apology for misinterpretation in post # 23 of this thread.

George, I would ask that you please read the posts that I have made on this thread and one other that references Dr. Ruckman. Then, would you respond to my statements as you have Jerry's. I believe that my request is fair considering the number of times that my name was included in recent posts by you, before your apology. You have on several occasions indicated that one should do sufficient research on Dr. Ruckman's work before criticizing him. It is difficult to read everything that he has written, and listen to everything that he has said, but it should not take long to review my posts.

My first discussion, which had nothing to do with the man himself or anything that he believes, was in the thread about his soon-to-be-printed study Bible. The thread is found on "Bible Versions", page 2, with the title "Ruckman Reference Bible". NOTE: This thread was begun by Atlas, an ardent supporter of Dr. Ruckman.

- I made a post (p.1, #5) about my general disagreement with Study Bibles. I did not even mention Dr. Ruckman's name. George, I would think that you would completely agree with my statements, based on your comments about commentaries.
- pbiwolski made a post (p.1,#7), mischaracterizing my post, and I responded to him (p.1,#10), again saying nothing against Dr. Ruckman.
- The last post I made (p.2,#11) was a light-hearted speculation about what Dr. Ruckman's new study Bible could be called. See Atlas' post (p.1,#6) "RRB" and his response to me. (p.2,#12), and others later that did not find fault with me.

My next entries into this volatile issue came at the beginning of this thread, again started by Atlas, not a critic of Dr. Ruckman. In response to Atlas' opening post, I took the time to read some of the bulletins, beginning with the first one available on the net. I was curious to see what was all the fuss. I had heard enough negative statements from people I trusted to be wary, but I knew that Dr. Ruckman is one of the most well-known defenders of the Scriptures, and since they were available, I would let him speak for himself.

- My first post (p.1,#2) criticizes his printing of completely unkind humor. Read my post for a full explanation. Was I wrong?
- My following posts on page 1 (#5, 6, 8, & 10) were attempts defend myself and to get a reasonable response to my criticism about the jokes. I was falsely accused by Atlas (as to the supposed number of "anti-Ruckman" posts that I had made to that point). This was never corrected by him.
- My final response to Atlas was on p.2,#12, when I said that I would not discuss the matter further with him. At that point, he had still not answered my question as to the appropriateness of the jokes.
- In post #14 on p.2, you commented on my prior posts, and incorrectly determined that I had "an extreme personal dislike for brother Ruckman" and had "animosity towards a fellow Christian".
- I briefly responded to your post with #16 on p.2.
- You, in turn, apologized in # 17, and then did a very reasoned explanation of various terminology.
- Atlas addressed me directly in post #18, to which I did not respond.
- In post #19, I gave a lengthy response to your post. I felt that I did a faithful, unbiased explanation of my position. I would ask that you and others who are currently discussing this topic re-read the last two paragraphs and critique them fairly.
- My final post (3/20, p.3, #23) was a response to an abusive post by geologist (p.2,#20) in which he called those who disagree with Dr. Ruckman "a bunch of pious, thin skinned nannys". He then ended his post with a mocking comment to which I took offense. That may sound "thin-skinned" but I was calling attention to a statement that (to me) demonstrated a bad attitude.

I would point out here, that I find it disturbingly frequent for those who strongly support Dr. Ruckman to (sometimes viciously) attack those who question his methods. They also mimic his rough style when speaking or writing about others with differing ideas. (example: Geologist's so-called "joke" is Ruckman-like, based on the messages that I have heard.) While you have not been one of those who do nothing but hurl ridicule at us, you have in your recent posts joined the attack with unfair assumptions, evidenced by your statements about me, for which you sincerely and repeatedly apologized, and I have accepted. [p.s. Thank you, Jeff, for sticking up for me. I had not read this thread since 3/30 until today.]

Brother George, I think that Jerry has been likewise unjustly attacked. His character has been questioned, and he has not been given a very fair hearing. I must admit that I did not read every word that he wrote, but those that I read, in my opinion, were reasonable issues relating to the topic.

I do agree that much of the teaching about the text issue by Dr. Ruckman has been useful in the continuing debate. I can completely understand the fervor with which those whose lives have been benefited by him defend the man. I just believe that it is incumbent that those who God has given exceeding great skill and responsibility to guard themselves lest their "good be evil spoken of:" (Romans 14:16) and no one can deny that Dr. Ruckman's own words have been used to discredit him and his work.

Thank you for your attention in this matter, and may God's Grace be with you and your family,

[Brother Tim]

Now if you guys want to get in on a really worthy fight, come join me at
http://finalauthority48270.yuku.com/forums/11
There are some tough talkers there that you can rightly mix it up with!

Brother Tim, I just checked that forum out there and it is a doozy... After looking over a few things, I don't have time for such debates trying to convince someone that God can preserve His Words... One poster seems to me meant to make it his life goal to convince everybody there that you can read any version and all is well... (I say no, but if he is ignoring the dropped verses, or Herod not celebrating passover but rather celebrate easter then what's the point?Tell him once then tell him twice if he reject it, move along I say...)

So many churches are "NIV" possitive. I'd hate to have to "scap" them as lost causes. I have a great "dislike" for new versions. But, it seems like there are less and less churches to go to anymore because of their "modernizing". I was on staf with a church that used so many different versions of the Bible, it's a wonder anyone learned anything (well MY version says...). It was frustrating.

[George]

Brother Jeff,

Re: Your post (#72)

I wouldn't suggest that you, or brother Jerry, or others, that I have had "differences" on this Forum with should be banned from posting - NEVER!

You are not heretics! I can see banning "kooks", heretics, or people who use abusive or real "foul" language - but not those I disagree with, and I would never ask him to do that.

However, since I answered all of your questions (inquiries) I have a shorter list of questions to ask you. I had the "courtesy" to answer all of your questions, civilly I might add, I hope that when I post my questions, that you will have the same courtesy to answer mine (and you have been civil & courteous, so I don't have to insist on that.)

Your brother in Christ,

George

[Brother Tim]

Timothy, there is one on that forum with whom I will not converse. His handle is steelmaker".

[George]

Brother Tim,

I have sincerely apologized to you twice (and once to brother Jerry). Once because I used the word "animosity" in describing brother Jerry's and your attitude towards brother Ruckman, which when you pointed out that the definition was "hatred" - it was obvious to me that you certainly didn't harbor "hatred" towards him. (That could be considered a "minor" point by some, but I try to be as "concise" as I can be when I speak or write.)

The second offense against you was far more egregious (which I have admitted fully - and for which I am truly sorry). Had I been more careful in reading the posts it wouldn't have happened - but I can't take back what was written, I can only apologize, which I have done.

However, I believe that my original premise still stands, and it is not how brother Jeff states it; formulates it; or crafts it. The premise is NOT - do brother Jerry or whoever else chooses to criticize brother Ruckman have a "right" (a civil "right") to criticize him (be my guest - criticize away - it used to be a free country). The point that I was trying to make (through all of the "clutter") is: Is it "RIGHT" according to the Holy Scriptures? Is it the "RIGHT THING" to do as brethren? (Especially since very few of those who are crticizing him know very much about him except for "hearsay" or like yourself, who don't like his rough or crude language. Why are some of the brethren hung up on "Civil "Rights", but have little or no concern for WHAT IS RIGHT & WHAT IS WRONG? (According to the Scriptures)?

The commandment from the Lord Jesus Christ is very clear:

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." John 7:24

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.

Again the Scriptures also point out:

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Luke 12:57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?


James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
James 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

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.

Do those of us who profess to believe the King James Bible "practice" what it says? Or do we pick and choose what to believe and what to follow?

Whenever people on this Forum choose to unjustly criticize brother Ruckman: (And I quote from brother Jerry in regards to Ruckman's materials: "Chew the meat and spit out the bones is great advice if you are eating a steak - but not if the steak is poisoned." - "Poisoned"? Pretty strong criticism in my Book! Please note: I haven't layed this kind of a charge against anyone on this Forum.); or should they choose to lay unwarranted (or unprovable) charges against him such as: (he teaches "wacky doctrines" (?); "quirky doctrines" (?); heresies"(?); "he is a hyper-dispensationalist" (?); "the re-inspiration of the KJV or the KJV translators," (?); etc.; etc. I will respond: If you choose to be critical of someone, at least be specific! NAME (by direct "quotes") "the poison"; NAME -"the wacky or quirky doctrines"; NAME -"the heresies"; PROVE -"he's a hyper-dispensationalist" (definition first and by his words); DEMONSTRATE -"Re-inspiration of scripture" (whatever that means).

It's real easy to throw out accusations. it's much harder to back them up! For example: "The U.S. government introduced aids into America to kill off people of color!" (It true - if believe people like the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright!) But on the other hand "Reverend" Wright couldn't PROVE his allegations and accusations if his life depended on it!

Am I asking for too much? In light of the Scriptural warnings about judging (especially another brother in Christ)? I think not.

Your brother in Christ,

George

[George]

Brother Tim, {A Post Script to your Post}

I read through your post #72 (for the third time) and find myself in agreement with nearly all of it.

I find your responses thoughtful, carefully measured, and reasonable. I was wrong to cast you in the light I did (too hasty - but no excuse).

I agree completely with your statement below:

I do agree that much of the teaching about the text issue by Dr. Ruckman has been useful in the continuing debate. I can completely understand the fervor with which those whose lives have been benefited by him defend the man. I just believe that it is incumbent that those who God has given exceeding great skill and responsibility to guard themselves lest their "good be evil spoken of:" (Romans 14:16) and no one can deny that Dr. Ruckman's own words have been used to discredit him and his work.

And you will note that though I admire brother Ruckman as a Bible Defender; Preacher; Teacher; Evangelist; and Author - I do not emulate him (although some here may think I do). Nor do I imitate his writings. However, God has not called me to the "ministry" that he has. (Thank God!). And so I don't question his use of harsh or crude language (even against Christians - "religious" people today) unless it can be proven that it is unwarranted.

Harsh and or rude speech in itself is not a sin. (The Lord used harsh language against the religious people of His day - not so much against ordinary people. And Paul could also put out some pretty harsh language and admitted that his speech was "rude".) That doesn't excuse the use of it if it is done in the flesh i.e. carnally. That is why if someone presents verifiable evidence that brother Ruckman is "out of line" somewhere (anywhere), you won't find me defending him at that point. I have never defended "wrong doing" on the part of my 7 children; or my Christian friends. And I try real hard not to defend "wrong doing" on my own part. Sometimes it's real difficult since: Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

I hope this settles whatever dispute or differences that we may have.
[2 Corinthians 5:18]

Again, your brother in Christ,

George

OK Jeff, I meant Jerry as far as the slander about Dr Ruckman's teaching, judged out of haste, sorry about that. Its not about whether or not you are with or against Dr Ruckman, its about do you believe and accept the AV 1611 as the final authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice, and do you rightly divide the word of truth as instructed in the KJV that you won't find in the modern versions.