Those infamous "advanced revelations" by Peter Ruckman
Last year some pipsqueak out in California (a man named Hymers)
decided to put himself on the map by associating himself with the
Alexandrian Cult as a qualified critic of what he called "Ruckmanism."
His main beef was that the AV could not have "advanced revelations" in
it since it was not the "ORIGINAL HEBREW AND GREEK." His reasoning was
simple: if you were as stupid as he was (and the average Hebrew or
Greek scholar), nothing could be found in the AV that hadn't already
been found in the "originals." Or, to put it more candidly, since he
and his buddies were the most brilliant men who ever lived, NO ONE (but
"NO ONE") could ever find any revelation in the Bible advanced beyond
what THEY already knew. NO DOUBT THEY WERE THE PEOPLE, AND WISDOM DIED
WITH THEM (Job 12:2). In over fifty pieces of correspondence sent out
in duplicate to more than fifty Fundamental leaders, Hymers never
mentioned any of the "advanced revelations" he was so worried about.
All the mail I got from him didn't have ONE listed in it. I mean, he
didn't even LIST ONE IN ORDER TO DEBUNK IT. He didn't list one in order
to DISCUSS it, and he didn't even list one to CRITICIZE IT. He just
made a blanket denominational fiat as a dictator: "THERE ARE NO
ADVANCED REVELATIONS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION."
HERE WE LIST NINETEEN THAT HE MISSED. (Hymers has a problem that a
lot of apostates have when they try to quote the scriptures or teach
the scriptures: they seem unable to READ the scriptures):
I. The Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts end the Old Testament canon
in 2 Chronicles. No book follows the command to return to Jerusalem (2
Chron. 36). In the AV, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, and Psalms follow,
showing 1. THE RETURN (1917); 2. THE REBUILDING (1948); 3. THE
RAPTURE (Esther 1); 4. THE TRIBULATION (Job); and 5. THE ADVENT (Ps.
1, 2). If this is not an "advancement" in revelation, what is it? A
coincidence?
II. The Hebrew word for "REPLENISH" in Genesis 1:28 is defined in
all Hebrew lexicons as meaning simply "fill." It is not translated that
way in an AV. An AV points to a PREVIOUS POPULATION (Job 38; Ps. 82)
WHO WERE DROWNED (2 Peter 3:6; Gen. 1:1-2; Ps. 82). Couldn't find it
in the Hebrew lexicon, could you, stupid? DRIVER didn't find it.
KALITSCH didn't find it. GESENIUS didn't find it. DELITZSCH didn't
find it. KAHLE didn't find it, and neither did YOU. You need a little
"advanced revelation, " Doctor!
III. The word "PICTURES" in Numbers 33:52 doesn't appear as
"pictures" in any work done by any Hebrew scholar since 1700. Not one
new translation by Hymers's buddies (or the men that taught him) could
produce the word. The word reveals that "PICTURES" are one of the main
threats to a called-out people who are in danger of picking up the
customs and religions of the HEATHEN. With TV in front of you and the
warnings about the eyes in Genesis 3:6; Joshua 7:21; 2 Samuel 11:2; and
Genesis 20:10, don't you appreciate THE ADVANCED REVELATION OF THE 1611
TEXT? It isn't in the NKJV.
IV. In 2 Peter 3:6 we learn that there was a flood BEFORE Adam
showed up (see Gen. 1:2), the earth was overflowed with water, and the
earth spoken of was "FROM THE BEGINNING" according to the AV of 1611.
How did ALL of the Greek and Hebrew scholars, using ALL of the Hebrew
and Greek texts from ALL of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, MISS IT,
including HENRY MORRIS and the Creation Research Society? Need a
little light there, Doc? You didn't get it from any Hebrew or Greek
manuscript! What's the problem? Not enough "revelation"?
V. The KING JAMES inserted the word "SYNAGOGUE" (with no Hebrew
authority for doing it) into Psalm 74:8. Who doesn't know that David
(or whoever wrote the "Hebrew") wouldn't have known a synagogue from a
synonym? Isn't it amazing how the passage moves over to 1990 in the
Tribulation where the Antichrist HAS burned the synagogues? (Or, if
you are an Amillennial, dead orthodox Conservative, you could apply it
to 70 A.D. and get the same thing. Thank God for the English!)
VI. How would you know that pagans who worshipped a female "queen of
heaven" had "CHURCHES" if the AV had not told you so (Acts 19:37)?
You already knew that they had temples (see Ezra 5:14; etc.), but
"CHURCHES"? Yep, they have churches, and they still worship the "QUEEN
OF HEAVEN" (Jer. 44:17). It wasn't in any Greek manuscript. IT WAS IN
AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION. If that isn't an "advancement, " what is it? A
lie? A reaction? A degeneration? A retreat?
VII. I have the Hebrew text (Kittel's for Exod. 12). How do you
explain a sinner needing "A" lamb, but not just any lamb; only "THE"
lamb (Exod. 12:4), and then this still being unavailing unless it is
HIS PERSONAL LAMB (Exod. 12:5)--IN ENGLISH. This is not "advanced
light"? What is it, DARKNESS? Tut, tut, children; some of us are
adults, even if you aren't. Kittle in v. 4 has the Masoretic text
saying, "AN UNDEFILED LAMB."
VIII. In 2 Corinthians 2:17 we learn that many people were
CORRUPTING the word of God before the New Testament was complete. FROM
WHAT "GREEK TESTAMENT" DO YOU GET THIS INFORMATION? It is not in the
Alexandrian manuscripts according to the NIV, ASV, and NASV. It is not
in the Syrian manuscripts according to the NEW KING JIMMY VERSION. From
whence, then, cometh this NEW LIGHT that the scholars cannot find in
ANY set of Greek manuscripts? Easy: it comes from 370 years ago. It
came from the AV HOLY BIBLE: IN ENGLISH.
IX. In 1 Timothy 6:5 we learn that apostates like Ronald Walker,
Doug Kutilek, Robert Sumner, and R.L. Hymers think that if they can
get GAIN, that proves they are "godly" (read the verse in the AV). Why
was this advanced revelation obliterated in the NIV, NASV, ASV, RV,
NRSV, and NKJV? Why, obviously, because they were translating truly to
the "ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT"--AT LEAST, THAT IS WHAT ALL OF THEM PROFESSED
TO HAVE DONE! A little "archaic, " aren't you there, old buddy? Better
get up-to-date with the English, don't you think?
X. What are these notes in the Hebrew and English Bibles doing,
saying that "LEVIATHAN" (Heb. livyathan) is a crocodile or a whale
(Job 41:1) or hippopotamus or DINOSAUR? Who could make a foolish error
like that unless it was a Hebrew scholar engaged in translating Hebrew
from a Hebrew manuscript? The ENGLISH told you what Leviathan was
(Isa. 27:1-2) and WHO he was (Rev. 12:9). How did the HEBREW SCHOLARS
miss it if they had the same revelation that I HAVE? All I have is a
KING JAMES BIBLE.
(Now do you see why Hymers and his apostate peers didn't list
"Ruckman's" false teachings or even define what "Ruckmanism" was? Is
it getting clear? It will. There is a very good reason why the
faculty members at BBC, TTS, BJU, and any other apostate school, CANNOT
LIST THE VERSES AND DISCUSS THEM. They are not Bible teachers, and
they have never been called to teach the Bible. If the truth were
known, they have no "Bible" to teach. We have listed ten "advanced
revelations" found in an AV that no Hebrew or Greek scholar could find
in ANY set of manuscripts for ANY revision, translated by ANYONE from
Hebrew and Greek. Let's go nine more, okay? That will give Hymers and
Walker a "batting average" of 0.000. THEY DIDN'T MENTION ONE OF THE
NINETEEN VERSES WHEN THEY ATTACKED THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
XI. Well, let's see girls: let's go to Exodus 3:22, where some dumb
thump of a Hebrew scholar looked at the "original Hebrew" that was
"verbally inspired" and translated "ASKED" for "BORROWED." No "BORROW"
in the ASV, no "BORROW" in the NASV, no "BORROW" in the RSV, no
"BORROW" in the NRSV, no "BORROW" in the NIV. No "advanced revelation"
from "the original text, " so shall we try the ENGLISH of 1611?
THE LOAN WAS "BORROWED" because they served to pay it back in
Deuteronomy 28:68, they served for it again in Jeremiah 44--46, they
paid a lot more of the revenue back in Hosea 12:1, and they paid the
rest of it back in 2 Chronicles 12:9. It was BORROWED, but you
wouldn't know that without the ADVANCED REVELATION OF AN ENGLISH
TRANSLATION 370 years "out of date." "Advanced revelation" is a HERESY,
is it? Hasn't God showed you anything from your "original texts"?
XII. Joshua 4:23, "AS THE LORD YOUR GOD DID TO THE RED SEA"? Why,
how could Israel have crossed the "marshy grounds" around the "Bitter
Lakes" if the crossing of Jordan was a REPEAT of the Red Sea crossing?
In the crossing of the Jordan, the water came down one of the steepest
descents in Asia Minor and stopped dead, with the rest of the water
running on down into the Dead Sea. But "SUPH" means "Sea of Reeds, "
does it? Well, that's what you would get if you were dumb enough to
believe a Hebrew lexicon instead of the Holy Bible. The "RED SEA" of
Joshua 4 and Exodus 14 is the RED SEA of 1 Kings 9:26. IT'S THE SAME
HEBREW WORD. So what is a NAVY DOING SAILING OUT ON THE "MARSHY
GROUND" BY THE "BITTER LAKES"? SOLOMON'S NAVY was based on the Red Sea
at Ezion Geber, and it was by the land of EDOM, which is not within
fifty miles of the "Bitter Lakes" (Deut. 1:40; 2:1). Isn't it a good
thing to have the ADVANCED REVELATION OF THE PLAIN ENGLISH so you can
CORRECT all of those "route maps" in the back of all the Bibles put out
by Conservatives and Fundamentalists? Even the Scofield Bibles have
Solomon's Navy sailing around the "Bitter Lakes" in Egypt. I thought
he had some HEBREW SCHOLARS on his board. Where were they when the
lights went out? Easy: they were studying HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS to
communicate to the "receptor" the "original intent" of the author. SO
THEY LOST THE REVELATION. Typical: par for Hymers or Walker or anyone
who taught them to be as stupid as they were.
XIII. Micah 6:5. How fortunate we are to have here the advanced
revelation of the AV, which surpasses all of the Hebrew scholars'
translations of all Hebrew manuscripts. Here the archaic and obtuse
versions (ASV, NASV, NIV, etc.) have translated "that ye may know the
RIGHTEOUS ACTS OF THE LORD." There are no RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the Lord
recorded in Balaam's "answer to Balak" in Numbers (read Num. 23:21).
This theme is "THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD" (see Romans and Galatians).
GOD DOES NOT IMPUTE SIN TO HIS PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE GUILTY OF IT
(Numbers 23:21). He had just finished slaughtering several thousands
of His people after killing off a whole generation. Balaam's "answer"
to Balak IS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE SINLESS! They have the IMPUTED
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. "The righteous ACTS of the Lord" are not within
400, 000 miles of the context in any direction. It was the "Hebrew"
that misled the ASV, NASV, NIV, RSV, and NRSV translators. THEY NEEDED
THE ORIGINAL ENGLISH.
XIV. Consider Hosea 12:4, where the greatly advanced revelation of
the AV of 1611 corrects the archaiv mistakes of the ASV and New ASV.
Here these Arian attackers of the Deity of Christ (see their rendering
of John 1:18 and marginal reference to John 9:35) have capitalized the
word "He" three times in v. 4 so it will look like it refers to God,
but when they HIT THE TRINITARIAN STATEMENT ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE
GODHEAD IN THE SAME VERSE--"US"--THEY WOULD NOT CAPITALIZE IT! THE
"US" OF V. 4 IS THE GODHEAD. It it is not, who is it? Jacob? Well,
the "original Hebrew" didn't capitalize any of the words. SO THERE IS
NO LIGHT ON THAT FROM THE HEBREW. But the "US" in the AV, following the
Hebrew practice of no capitals, has God saying that Jacob spake with
"US"--not "Him." The "Him" WHO TALKED TO JACOB SAYS THAT JACOB TALKED
WITH "US." This advanced revelation is grossly obscured in the modern
versions recommended by BBC and TTS and BJU.
XV. Thank God for the advanced revelation of the AV in Genesis 1:16,
where we learn that the earth was made BEFORE the sun was made. Notice
how greatly ADVANCED this knowledge is above all of the scientific
knowledge gathered on this earth since 1800 A.D. Notice how reference
to the "HEBREW" by Scofield obscures the revelation. SCOFIELD PRETENDS
THE HEBREW WORD MEANT TO "FUNCTION, " NOT TO "BE MADE." Thank God for
the advanced revelation in 1611 that the greater light was "MADE" on
the fourth day; since the sun is a type of Christ (Ps. 19), why
wouldn't it be "made" the fourth day? CHRIST WAS BORN 4000 YEARS AFTER
ADAM FELL (2 Peter 3:8). But this is an advanced revelation that
Hymers couldn't find anywhere in his library. He was short on
"revelation."
The doctrines of ADVANCED REVELATION from a KING JAMES BIBLE has a
great deal more to commend itself than the heretical teaching that the
final authority for the child of God is a random set of non- existant
manuscripts that got lost before Nero burned Rome down. We have given
fifteen cases and gladly go on to sixteen.
XVI. Here in Genesis 24:22, Rebekah is having a little trouble
hanging an earring in her nose (or hanging a nose ring in her ear). The
Hebrew "NEZEM" has gone into a "NOSE jewel" in all of the "reliable
translations" put out by people who despise advanced revelation and
stick to the "original Hebrew." Here their frustration knew no bounds,
for the "earring" was said to go on Rebekah's "FACE" (24:47). They
reasoned (as any Bible rejecting, apostate Fundamentalist would reason)
that the word "FACE" blew it. The earring had to be a "NOSE JEWEL" to
go on her "FACE." In their madness to unlock the unsearchable riches of
the "Hebrew original" they failed to notice that the BRACELETS (v. 22)
didn't go on her WRISTS; they went on her "HANDS."
The WRIST in the Bible is part of the HAND, and the EAR is part of
the FACE. That is, in the inerrant ENGLISH. (The word "Nezem," by the
way, is "EARRING"--not nose jewel--in Exod. 32:2-3 and Isa. 3:20- 21.
The NEZEMS here were "IN THEIR EARS, " not in their noses.)
Blew it again, you supercilious idiot you! Blew it again, didn't
you, you old God-forsaken, "godly" men! You old "nice" Christians
whose "good lives" are shining examples for us sinners. Blew it again,
didn't you, you old BIBLE REJECTING, SELF-RIGHTEOUS, PUFFED UP FOOL.
You missed the PLACE FOR THE NAILS FITTING INTO JESUS CHRIST'S "HANDS,
" FOR AS SURE AS THE ENGLISH TEXT CAN CORRECT YOUR HEBREW GRAMMAR,
CHRIST'S WRISTS BORE THE NAIL PRINTS: THE WRISTS ARE PART OF THE
"HANDS" IN THE "ORIGINAL ENGLISH."
Ah, the advanced revelation of the Holy Bible! How superior it is to
the befuddled muddling of Hebrew and Greek scholars and their
non-existant "original autographs"!
XVII. How marvelously the ENGLISH clears up the HEBREW MESS of
Genesis 49:6, where the Hebrew scholars used the "original Hebrew" to
justify the LXX, written in 330 A.D. (Vaticanus: this is the main
manuscript for the LXX and always has been.) Here the "original Hebrew"
must have said "they houghed oxen, " for that is how you got it in the
NASV, ASV, RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV and NKJV. "Houghed oxen"? Why, no one
on earth did that until Joshua 11:6. Do you think that Simeon and Levi
"houghed oxen" when the Bible says they TOOK THEM AND WALKED OFF WITH
THEM AS THEIR OWN PROPERTY (Gen. 34:28-29)? It was pagan animals
dedicated to the sun god that were "HOUGHED" (Josh. 11:9; 2 Sam.
8:4). Simeon and Levi weren't interested in "houghing" anybody's oxen.
They "DIGGED DOWN A WALL, " according to the DEFINITION of that term as
found in the INFALLIBLE ENGLISH in Ezekiel 12:5; Job 24:16; 2 Kings
19:24; and Psalm 7:15. Read the passages. Go on and read them, and
learn something. Learn that any time you want to correct a Hebrew or
Greek scholar with the Holy Bible, just let him have it in the face,
both barrels. God will honor it every time. I have made a lifelong
habit of it.
XVIII. There are no "advanced revelations" in an AV, are there? Are
you sure, kiddies? What about that "EASTER" in Acts 12:4 that "should
have been Passover." IT ISN'T PASSOVER ONE TIME IN MARTIN LUTHER'S
BIBLE: IT IS "EASTER" EVERY TIME IT (Pascha) APPEARS. Martin called
Jesus Christ our "EASTER LAMB" (I Cor. 5:7). How would any of you have
ever guessed that the background of the Roman Catholic "Easter" was
pagan, without the reference to a Roman MURDERER in the context: HEROD
WAS A ROMAN WHO OBSERVED "EASTER." It was the Babylonian festival for
Ishtar (Astarte, Ashtoreth, etc.), and it was in EDOM (Herod was an
Edomite) BEFORE MOSES WAS BORN (see Gen. 13:1- 4). Good thing you
didn't stick to the Greek lexicon on THAT one, right?
It is late at night, kiddies. Time for bye-bye. There are more than
FORTY-FIVE ADVANCED REVELATIONS in a KING JAMES BIBLE that NO HEBREW OR
GREEK SCHOLAR was able to find in ANY set of Greek manuscripts, in ANY
translation of any Hebrew text, for ANY version in ANY language,
published by ANYONE who rejected the AV as the final and infallible
authority. We close at nineteen, which puts us nineteen proofs ahead
of Kutilek or Hymers, WHO COULDN'T EVEN DISCUSS ONE WHEN THEY DIDN'T
BELIEVE IT.
XIX. Let's try one "below the belt, " shall we? Since we believe
the AV text is capable of correcting all the Hebrew and Greek scholars,
let's just choose a place where an advanced revelation will show us why
the Hebrew and Greek scholars want to correct it. We land on 1 Tim.
6:10: "THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL." Professors make a
living correcting the KING JAMES BIBLE. Revisers make a living selling
counterfeit translations. The income of Christian seminaries is in
proportion to their ability to CORRECT the AV with Hebrew and Greek.
"THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL." But there is "no article
in the Greek, " so we must drop the revelation of the AV and accept the
unenlightened renderings of the ASV, RV, NASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, and
NKJV; this must be done to cover the sins of the translators. Money
can only be "A ROOT" of "all kinds of evil, " if you are a Greekolator
or a Manuscriptolator. The thinking is simple (exaclty like the
thinking on Rebekah's "nose jewel" and Scofield's "sunlight"); the
apostate reasons that since sin was first found in Satan, that PRIDE
must have caused more sin than the love of money, and since Eve sinned
with her mouth before there were any dollars, pounds, marks, pesos,
francs, or lira around, the HOLY BIBLE JUST COULDN'T BE TRUE. FIRST
TIMOTHY 6:10 WAS A LIE. THE AV BIBLE LIED. IT SAID SOMETHING WAS "THE
ROOT" WHEN IT WAS NOT.
(See how nice and "godly" our "dedicated scholars" are who believe in
"plenary verbal inspiration"? You never met a more "godly" bunch of
crooks in all your life!)
Well, thank God for the advanced--and I do mean "ADVANCED"--
revelation of the Holy Bible (AV 1611). It states that the love of
money (covetousness) IS (present tense) the ROOT (not the SOURCE or
CAUSE) of all evil in the present world system (when Paul wrote). He
didn't say that the love of money was the FIRST SIN committed. He did
not say that the love of money WAS the root of original sin. He said
"THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL." It was this love that put
fifty English translations on the market in forty-five years with the
lying alibi that the English language got "archaic" EVERY YEAR. It is
this love that lies behind the entire TV and motion picture industries.
It is this love that carries on the drug traffic and sells rock and
roll records. It was this love that set up the Federal Reserve System,
and the Illuminati, and the Bilderbergers, who control the finances of
the entire world, causing recessions, depressions, bankruptcy, and all
the attendant evils that come with them. It is this love that causes a
Christian intellectual to give up his faith in the AV Holy Bible and
"go for the big time" so he will earn a good salary as a Bible
corrector. It is this love that converts missionary money into zoya
grass, lush campuses, marble restrooms, air- conditioned classrooms,
underground wiring, and elaborate dormitories in America. It was this
love that made Swaggart, Roberts, Goreman, Copeland, Bakker, Swindoll,
MacArthur, Schuller, and Hagin carry on as they did. It is this love
that keeps LIQUOR and TOBACCO flowing and keeps the politicians
promising lesbians, murderers, rapists, queers, pornographers, and
loafers A FREE GUARANTEED INCOME for life. It was the love of money
that caused KARL MARX to write everything he wrote (he wanted it and
didn't have it). It was the love of money that caused every aggressive
invasion of every other nation from Chedorlaomer (Gen. 13) to
Afghanistan. The battle for the sea shipping lanes (oil, minerals,
etc.) and the murders in South Africa, Israel, and Ireland (1989) are
connected with THE LOVE OF MONEY.
"THE LOVE OF MONEY IS (PRESENT TENSE) THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL."
The context of this remark is the evil that takes place in the life
of a child of God where it is connected with MATERIAL THINGS (read the
chapter). How would we have known that our modern apostate
Fundamentalists believe "THAT GAIN IS GODLINESS" without our KING JAMES
BIBLE? THE ADVANCED REVELATION (1 Tim. 6:5) IS NOT TO BE FOUND IN ONE
BIBLE ON THE MARKET TRANSLATED BY ANYONE WHO ACCEPTED THE UNKNOWN,
UNREAD, UNAVAILABLE "ORIGINALS" AS THE INFALLIBLE WORDS OF GOD.
THANK GOD FOR THE ADVANCED REVELATIONS GOD HAS GIVEN US IN THE HOLY
BIBLE (AV 1611)!
We'll give you nineteen more in the next issue. Let Hymers eat his
bran flakes.
CORRECTING "THE GREEK" WITH THE ENGLISH
After many years of beating around the bush (1960- 1985), the
Alexandrian Cult finally got around to giving America a definition for
the expression "RUCKMANISM." For many years this was a vague term which
was supposed to describe the followers of a "Cult" led by some heretic,
but no one could exactly nail down WHERE the Cult was or WHAT the
heresy was. Stabs and jabs were made into the air about Ruckman's
"peculiar teachings on abortion--which, by the way, is "IF abortion is
MURDER, the Bible says to kill the doctor, or the mother, or both of
them"--or Ruckman's teaching on Tribulation salvation--which, by the
way, is a "faith and works" setup exactly as it was found to be under
the Law of Moses. But when called upon to produce SCRIPTURE VERSES
refuting these "heresies, " the Alexandrian Cult found itself exactly
where it had been under Origen back in 200 A.D.: stuck in mud hubcap
high to a ferris wheel. Verses on Abraham and Noah are not connected
with salvation under the Law, and none of the pro-life advocates would
obey ANY Bible (ANY translation of ANY version) when it came to
punishing the "abortionists." So their definitions petered out.
But now, finally, we have been given the definition of what a
"Ruckmanite" is. The DEAN BURGON SOCIETY has graciously consented to
give us this nugget in a work by a young truck driver in Florida named
GARY HUDSON, who wanted to court the Society to get some evangelistic
meetings. (Hudson never taught Hebrew or Greek a day in his life and
wouldn't know a Piel participle from an iota subscriptum.) The
definition given (WHY I LEFT RUCKMANISM, pp. 10-75) is this: "A
Ruckmanite believes that the HOLY BIBLE (AV) in English is capable of
giving ADVANCED REVELATIONS over any Greek text, and errors in ANY
Greek text can be corrected with THE ENGLISH."
This is what a "Ruckmanite" is. (I often wondered. I always thought
that "Ruckmanism" was the belief that RUCKMAN was the final authority
in all matters of faith and practice. According to THIS belief, I LEFT
"RUCKMANISM" MORE THAN FORTY YEARS AGO--the 14th of March, 1949. At
that time, I substituted the HOLY BIBLE (AV) for "Ruckman." Gary
Hudson was a tad tardy in "leaving Ruckmanism." I beat him to it by
forty years.)
So now we think it is about time to print the documented evidence
that proves that "Ruckmanism"--at least as OFFICIALLY DEFINED ABOVE IN
AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY--is a system of
truth as well founded as the canon of the New Testament or the birth of
Abraham Lincoln.
For years Donald Waite traveled up and down the country preaching on
the "dangers of Ruckmanism." I have his tapes. He advised all pastors
to CENSOR THE READING MATERIALS OF THEIR CONGREGATIONS, just like a
Roman Catholic INDEX. The idea was to keep the Christians in the local
church from obtaining the documented evidence you are about to read.
Bob Jones and Tennessee Temple did one better; they forbid any student
to READ my material anywhere on the campus. So here we will print it
in the BULLETIN, and we will take our evidence directly from the
favorite of the Dean Burgon Society: the Greek Textus Receptus (or
Majority Text).
Our purpose will be to show the Bible believer how the AV of 1611 (in
any edition) can correct again and again and again, the Greek
scholarship that bases its hope on Greek texts (ANY GREEK TEXT,
according to Gary Hudson) and can give superior renderings that no
Greek scholar was able to find in ANY Greek text. We listed SIX
examples from Greek in the last article: we give the reader six more
here and then a dozen more coming up, with eight of them coming out of
the Hebrew Old Testament (ANY Hebrew text of the Old Testament).
This scriptural material is based on a simple proposition: saved
Fundamentalist scholars, whose final authority is the "verbal, plenary
inspired, original autographs, " (and so profess to believe) CAN NEVER
FIND IN THE GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS OR THE MAJORITY GREEK TEXT (OR ANY
OTHER ECLECTIC TEXT) the wealth of material and advanced revelation
that ANY UNEDUCATED JACKLEG CAN FIND IN AN AUTHORIZED VERSION. That is
the "heresy."
Since "the proof is in the pudding, " we choose the most "godly
Fundamentalists" in the country, whose "historic positions" are
irreproachable, and whose faith in the "verbally inspired originals" is
absolutely unquestioned! That is, we will take the men who believe that
"Ruckmanism" is a heresy and we will see how THEY handle "the original
Greek" ("ANY GREEK TEXT, " published by anyone, according to Hudson).
In the following cases we use the Greek words that are found in the
MAJORITY TEXT (or the RECEPTUS), as well as the Alexandrian, Western,
and Caesarean manuscripts.
I. Here in II Corinthians 2:17, we have some information given to us
in the AV text (any edition for 300 years) that must be completely
missing from Nestle's Greek text, Erasmus' Greek text, Beza's Greek
text, Aland's Greek text, Metzger's Greek text, or "ANY GREEK TEXT" (to
cite Hudson): for the Greek in all texts is "kapeleuontes." This word
must have meant "peddling" in the "original Greek" (or the "original
Greek text, " or "THE Greek text," or whatever), because the NIV, and
NKJV, and the ASV, and the NASV all translate according to the dictates
of the unsaved liberals in the NCC, who published the RSV and the NRSV.
All of the apostates--INCLUDING THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE "PLENARY,
VERBAL INSPIRATION OF THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS"-- give us "PEDDLE the
word of God."
The HOLY BIBLE (AV) says that they "CORRUPT the word of God."
Which reading is superior? Which would give the most light to the
believer? Would you have to guess? The God of history corrected all of
the Greek texts, for the scriptures WERE BEING CORRUPTED in Alexandria,
Egypt, at the time that Paul wrote, and they HAD BEEN CORRUPTED there
even before he penned his first epistle. Naturally the English is a
considerable advancement over "the Greek, " for the "Greek" would lead
you to believe that your biggest danger would be someone SELLING Bibles
(word of God or words of God). THAT ISN'T THE DANGER. The danger is
people selling CORRUPT "BIBLES" which profess to be the word of God or
the words of God AND ARE NOT. Sell as many AV's as you like: THEY
AREN'T CORRUPT.
II. Here in Romans 1:18 we find that the "WRATH OF GOD" abides on
any man who "HOLDS THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS." He can hold it right
in his hands and can be reading it, but if this is done in
"UNRIGHTEOUSNESS," the wrath of God is on that man. With Romans 1:25,
in the immediate context, what do you suppose a "good, godly, dedicated
Fundamentalist" like Hudson, Duncan, Sumner, Wuest, Kutilek, Waite, or
Walker is going to do with Romans 1:18? (One verse said that God was
angry with a man who held the truth in unrighteousness, and the other
one said that He was angry if a man took that truth and "CHANGED IT
INTO A LIE, " Rom. 1:25).
Now the Greek word (ANY TEXT) found in Romans 1:18, that referred to
the rascal who held the truth in unrighteousness, was "katekonton," and
the word in 1:25 for the rascal who changed the truth into a lie was
"metellazan." So what happens when our good "godly" Fundamentalists
(who are worried to death, dearie, about you getting caught up in that
terrible heresy "Ruckmanism") use the RECEPTUS Greek to "unlock the
spiritual treasures of the original language" that are obscured in the
English translation?
Simple: both of the scoundrels in the text come out smelling like a
rose, for the Fundamentalists make TWO SUBSTITUTIONS for them who will
take the wrath of God in their places. The first bird is not merely
"holding the truth." Oh, my, no! He must "SUPPRESS" it before God
gets upset with him! And the second man can change as much of the
Bible as he likes as long as he doesn't "EXCHANGE" it for something.
This NKJV reading from the Greek Receptus matches the NRSV of the
NCCC coming from the NESTLE'S TEXT used by the Jesuits in 1582.
And we are to believe that the "original Greek" is an improvement
over the English, or even an EQUAL to our English text? Go smoke pot,
you Bible-perverting clown.
III. Philippians 2:7, "ekenosen" is found in the Majority texts as
well as the Alexandrian texts. But we said the HOLY BIBLE (AV) could
correct ANY text, and it certainly can. This time the "plenary,
verbally inspired" apostates simply erase the expression "HUMBLED
HIMSELF" and substitute for it the reading of the Communists of the
NCCC. They translated (RSV and NRSV) "The Greek" as "empties himself."
Do you mind terribly if we correct your God-forsaken Greek with
something half decent? Thank you. We don't believe that Jesus Christ
"emptied Himself" of His Deity. Do you mind terribly if we HONOR THE
DEITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST WITH A KING JAMES BIBLE instead of some
depraved claptrap you refer to as "THE GREEK TEXT"?
DANKE SCHON. I knew you would have no objections.
Now, this is how the snow drifts, kiddies. Ruckman's teaching about
that infallible AV is not only NOT a "heresy, " but it turns out to be
the SAFEST GROUND YOU EVER GOT AHOLD OF IN YOUR LIFE TO KEEP YOU
BELIEVING SOUND DOCTRINE INSTEAD OF THE FANATICAL RAVINGS OF A BUNCH OF
HYPOCRITES WHO ARE MORE WORRIED ABOUT LOSING THEIR CONTROL OVER THE
BODY OF CHRIST THAN THEY ARE IN HONORING THE DEITY OF THE SAVIOUR.
Let me ask you something: if you really BELIEVED the old Book, what
would you do with your spare time but spend night and day searching it
for more TRUTH? And if you did NOT BELIEVE the old Book--and NONE OF
THESE APOSTATES DO!--what would you do with your time?
Why, that's easy!
If you had abandoned that Book as your final authority in all matters
of faith and practice and had rejected it because it was full of errors
and "not true to the original Greek, " you would have to spend all of
your spare time in studying it to find out MORE ERRORS SO YOU COULD
ESTABLISH YOURSELF AS THE FINAL AUTHORITY.
Now think about that two or three months.
IV. "AITOUSIN" (I Cor. 1:22). This is the word that is found in all
Greek texts. According to the conservative Fundamentalists who
translated the NKJV from the TR (recommended by the Dean Burgon
Society), the Jews just "REQUEST" a sign. THE HOLY BIBLE says they
"REQUIRE A SIGN."
Do you know the difference between a REQUEST and a REQUIREMENT?
If there IS a difference, what are you going to take? THE Greek or
the English?
I'll give you one guess as to which one matches the scriptural
teaching on the Jews and the signs. One guess is all you get.
The destructive critics who made this boo-boo were reading Matthew
16:1 into their lexicons. Throwing out every verse that dealt with the
Jew and the beginnings of his national life as a Jewish nation (Exod.
1-15), they pretended that the "REQUEST" was unreasonable. They forgot
that even when the Lord Jesus DENIED the request (Mark 8:12), He
GRANTED it (Matt. 12:39)! He would have HAD to give them a sign
according to His Birth (Luke 2:34) and signs would HAVE to accompany
His ministry, according to Deuteronomy 18. That is why He gave the
signs to His Jewish apostles (Mark 16); BECAUSE THEY WERE REQUIRED: and
I don't mean "requested."
A "request" is just some more idiotic nonsense from "THE Greek text"
or "the original Greek text" or any other alibi a sinner might think up
for perverting the Holy Bible.
ALWAYS CORRECT THE GREEK WITH THE ENGLISH; IT IS MORE SCRIPTURAL; AT
LEAST, IT HAS PROVED TO BE THAT WAY 100% OF THE TIME.
V. Acts 17:22 says "deisidaimonesterous." The Greek scholars at
Athens (who could have read the plenary, verbally inspired
whatchamacallits if they had found them) are going to have a hard time
of it, because Paul said that they were "TOO SUPERSTITIOUS." How would
you like THAT one placed on you by the greatest Christian that ever
lived if you were a GREEK TEACHER in a Christian school? Do you reckon
you would "leap for joy"? I trow not. So, using the majority Greek
text of the Textus Receptus, the crowd that followed the Dean Burgon
Society to the letter, ERASED THE WORD AND SUBSTITUTED FOR IT THE
READING OF THE COMMUNIST RSV PUT OUT BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. They said the Greek scholars were not really
"SUPERSTITIOUS" at all; oh, heavens no! To the contrary, they were too
"religious."
Nice work. NICE WHITEWASH JOB. And we Bible believers are to go back
to THAT reading (1949), when we have an advanced revelation from 1611?
"I TROW NOT" again. I have known scores of Greek scholars (correction:
Greek teachers who THOUGHT they were scholars), and if "superstitious"
doesn't describe them to a "T" I don't know what does.
When you take the wild-hair theories that Westcott and Hort
conjectured back in the 1880's, and then consider how every major Greek
scholar and every major Greek teacher on two continents took them
SERIOUSLY (and swore by them for more than eighty years), you realize
the only descriptive word that an honest man would use would be "TOO
SUPERSTITIOUS."
But no, naughty, naughty! The "GREEK" can't mean that. No, "the
Original Greek" (or "The Greek Text," or whatever) that sheds light on
the obscure English is "TOO RELIGIOUS."
That's "light from the Greek text, " is it? Why, what moron wouldn't
know the Greek people were religious if they had cities full of IDOLS
and were "WHOLLY GIVEN TO IDOLATRY" (Acts 17:16). This is "light, " is
it? Why, the light is the revelation that the deeply religious Greek
scholars who "loved wisdom" were actually some of the most
SUPERSTITIOUS, NON-SCIENTIFIC, NON-OBJECTIVE PAGANS ON EARTH. But you
wouldn't get THAT light in any American or European university: TOO
MANY OF THEIR KINFOLK WOULD BE ON THE FACULTY! You get that advanced
revelation from the ENGLISH; just like I said, and am saying, and will
say, and will prove publicly.
"Heresy" is it, you stupid, egotistical Athenians?
"Ruckmanism" is a heresy? Don't you know!
VI. "EN PROSOPO CHRISTOU" 2 Cor. 2:10. What have we here? Paul is
no longer doing anything in the "person" of Christ, but only in
Christ's "PRESENCE." Where does this mouldy piece of stale
sacramentalism come from? Why, from the "majority Greek text, " of
course. Who dished it out? Why, the Fundamentalists who believed in
the "verbal, plenary inspiration of the original autographs." Who
else? Who else could have destroyed the cross-reference to John 20:23
(FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH) better than an apostate
Fundamentalist who thought "the Greek" could correct the AV ENGLISH?
"Forgiving in Christ's presence, " is it? Don't the "godly"
translators know that no Christian is ever outside or without Christ's
"PRESENCE" no matter WHAT he is doing, or WHO he does it to, or WHEN or
WHERE he does it, or HOW he does it? You couldn't do ANYTHING out of
Christ's presence, NOT EVEN IF YOU WERE DEAD (Rom. 14:7-9).
You call that "translating"? You have the "original Greek" for that
translation, do you? Well, what good did it do you or anyone else?
All you did was mess up the correct reading in the English of 1611,
which is found in every edition of a KING JAMES BIBLE for over 370
years. It is in the "PERSON OF CHRIST"--exactly as the expression is
defined by the Holy Spirit in 2 Corinthians 5:20 (IN THE ENGLISH).
(Look out for that "original Greek, " buddy boy!)
Now, who would make such a mess of divine revelation on the grounds
that "Ruckmanism" is a DANGEROUS HERESY? Homer Duncan, Robert Sumner,
Doug Kutilek, Ronald Walker, Donald Waite, and ALL THE MEN THAT TAUGHT
THEM EVERYTHING THEY KNOW.
And here we are entitled to a "breather." Having presented six cases
where the AV of 1611 (any edition) is obviously superior to ANY GREEK
text translated by ANYONE, we leave the reader with a comforting
thought: don't worry about correcting any Greek or Hebrew scholar if he
tries to correct the HOLY BIBLE. Just ridicule the nut; he's earned
it. Just take for granted from the start (on the basis of six
documented cases from his own "Greek"--and we have twelve more coming
up!) that the poor child is trying to pull your leg. He needs
attention. Mean old "Doctor Ruckman" is stealing his thunder: he is
getting "upstaged." Let him call you a "Ruckmanite" or anything else.
The silly child can't translate ANY GREEK TEXT as well as the AV
translators did, and since he cannot translate ANY GREEK text PROPERLY,
why worry about "name calling"? I never did. I don't now.
CORRECTING "THE HEBREW" WITH THE ENGLISH
We have been documenting now for some time a great scriptural truth
called "Ruckmanism" by apostate Fundamentalism. The idea being set
forth by the Dean Burgon Society, is that "Ruckmanism" is a deadly
heresy because it teaches that the English AV HOLY BIBLE is superior to
any set of Greek or Hebrew manuscripts extant--often miscalled "THE
GREEK text" or the "ORIGINAL Greek, " etc. We have just listed TWELVE
CASES to show that any uneducated Bible believer can find light and
advanced revelation in the English AUTHORIZED VERSION (any edition)
that no Greek scholar can find in ANY GREEK text no matter WHAT HE DOES
WITH IT, or what he PROFESSES TO BELIEVE IN while he does it. We have
not yet stooped to the obvious truth, which is the fact that even if
the originals were found, the AV would still be superior to them
because Greek as a spoken language would constitute less than 1% of the
population of the world today; whereas English is universally used and
almost universally understood. Not only that, but it is apparent to a
child that the HOLY BIBLE (AV) got more sinners saved, more missionary
boards started, more Bible schools established, more revivals
conducted, and more Christian literature produced in a hundred years
than the "originals" would in the next five hundred years if they
showed up. If you HAD the "originals, " the words and letters would
all be stuck together and you couldn't preach from them anyway without
four years of education, and you might mess it up then. God knows the
majority of twentieth century Hebrew and Greek scholars screwed up the
manuscripts they had with THREE TIMES that much education.
But we have spared the apostate Fundamentalists these comparisons,
for they fall under the heading of common sense: common sense has never
been a strong suit with Greek and Hebrew scholars, or Bible revisers,
or Bible translators, since 1800.
We turn now to the "original Hebrew" since we already have given the
Bible believer twelve cases where the AUTHORIZED VERSION of the New
Testament gave us information that none of the scholars who believed in
"verbal, plenary, original autographs, etc.," could find.
I. Job 13:12. The Hebrew text says "ZIKRONEKEM MISHLE AEPHER LAGABE
HOMER GABEKEM." This comes out as "Your platitudes are proverbs of
ashes; your defences are defences of clay." At least this is how the
Fundamentalists translated it who believed in the final authority of
the "verbally inspired, inerrant, original autographs" (NKJV). Here
again the Holy Bible must contradict the "Hebrew, " for the AV says
nothing of the kind.
The reading of the "plenary autograph" boys is the reading of the RSV
of the National Council of Christian Churches, one of the most solidly
Communist organizations in the United States.
The Hebrew word for "remembrances" is ZIKKARON, a memorial; and the
one for "bodies" is GAB, a fleshy body, not a "defence." But you didn't
need to know that. NO BELIEVER NEEDED TO KNOW THAT. All he had to do
was accept the ENGLISH TEXT as the infallible CORRECTOR OF ANY OTHER
TEXT, AND SURE ENOUGH, IT IS.
II. The Hebrew word "MALE" shows up in Genesis 1:28 and has been
"faithfully translated" by the boys who believe in the final authority
of the "original autographs" as "FILL." This is the work of
Fundamentalists who believe EXACTLY what Ronald Walker, Gary Hudson,
R.L. Hymers, Robert Sumner, and Doug Kutilek profess to believe.
Shall we correct our Holy Bible with their slobbering extremism? I
think not. The AV says "REPLENISH."
1. If this is NOT an advanced revelation, WHAT IS IT, a lie? 2. If
it is NOT new light on the Hebrew word, WHAT IS IT, a heresy? 3. If
it is not additional information that no Hebrew scholar could find in
the Hebrew word, WHAT IS IT, just a word preference that makes no
difference?
Now, children, it is time to go to bed. Genesis 1:28 in the HOLY
BIBLE (AV) points to a pre-Adamic population of the sons of God (Ps.
82, Job 38) who were drowned (2 Peter 3, Gen. 1:1-3), and you couldn't
find that in any Hebrew lexicon; you had to go to the HOLY BIBLE to get
it. A knowledge of Hebrew wouldn't help you at all; it didn't help
them. THERE WAS NOT ONE FUNDAMENTALIST ON THE ASV COMMITTEE, OR THE
NASV COMMITTEE, OR THE NIV COMMITTEE, OR THE NKJV COMMITTEE THAT FOUND
THAT TRUTH; THEY ERASED IT WHEN THEY CORRECTED THE ENGLISH WITH THE
HEBREW.
Let that be a lesson to you. The next time you hear some
irresponsible fool hollering about "Ruckmanism" and "EASTER should have
been passover, " or "CHURCHES should have been temples, " or "BORROW
should have been asked," GO FISHING. They are blind men leading the
blind.
III. Job 32:16. The revelation about the AUTHOR of the Book of Job
has been completely erased by placing the entire passage in quotation
marks. This was done by Fundamentalists (NKJV) who believed in the
"plenary, verbal inspiration of the original, inerrant autographs." In
the vastly superior AV of 1611 (any edition), verse 16 has a
parenthesis in it (before "for" and after "more"), so that Elihu is
speaking for himself in a soliloquy as the author of the book.
Where was all of this in the "original Hebrew"? It doesn't have
QUOTATION MARKS or PARENTHESIS MARKS! So no HEBREW SCHOLAR knows WHO
wrote Job. (See our lengthy discussion of this vital matter in the
BIBLE BELIEVER'S COMMENTARY ON JOB, where WAW consecutive and WAW
conjunctive are thoroughly discussed.) You know who wrote Job if you
have a KING JAMES BIBLE. You'd better get one instead of a Hebrew
Bible.
IV. Proverbs 1:32. It is NOT the "complacency of fools" that
destroys ANYONE, although that is what the Fundamentalists said who
corrected the English "with the original." They threw the word
"PROSPERITY" out, but it IS "the prosperity of fools" that destroys any
Bible rejecting sinner. (Look at the context: 1:24, 25,27,28,29,30.)
It IS the prosperity of fools that settles their hash because they
suppose that "GAIN IS GODLINESS, " and they can't bear to think of a
fool as being "godly." You see now why Walker's buddies (and Hudson's
buddies and Donald Waite's buddies) altered I Timothy 6:5 using the
Greek Receptus! Observe again how the English scriptures compared with
the English scriptures give light that the Greek scholars CANNOT FIND.
THEY cannot find it because they REJECTED the light God gave them in
the English.
If the Hebrew was not translated as "PROSPERITY, " then the Hebrew
scholar who put his faith in the "verbally inspired original autograph"
might just as well have put his faith in the Easter Bunny.
V. It is the SCHOLARS who get the words of wisdom from the Good
Shepherd in Ecclesiastes 12:11, not the PREACHER, who is the "MASTER
OF ASSEMBLIES." The PREACHER (in v. 10) must go to a Christian school
to get his message from THE SCHOLARS! AHHH! DON'T YOU KNOW!
Now, isn't that some "light" from the "original Hebrew text"?
The text says "BAALLA ASUPHOTH." I thought that "BAAL" in Hebrew
meant "master." Oh, I see, it is a scholar with a "Master's degree, "
right? Like the "MASTERS" of Matthew 23, perhaps? But did these
"masters" get THEIR words from "ONE SHEPHERD" (Eccl. 12:1)? The
"MASTER OF ASSEMBLIES" in Ecclesiastes is a spokesman, in type, for the
Lord Jesus Christ; that is why he is called a "PREACHER" (not a
scholar) in the context. You see, the Greek and Hebrew scholars who
spend all their lives correcting your Holy Bible were never called to
PREACH, so they don't know how to preach, so they TOOK THE WORDS OF THE
PREACHER AWAY FROM HIM AND GAVE THEM TO THEIR OWN KINFOLK.
How "godly" can an anti-Ruckmanite get?
Now, this is what apostates like Walker, Hudson, Custer, Hymers, and
their Cultic brethren call "clearing up the obscurities of the archaic
AV" by consulting "other reliable translations." THAT IS THE
ALEXANDRIAN MENTALITY. If we accept it we can only come to the
conclusion that "The Hebrew text" for Ecclesiastes 12:1 must be no good
(all the Hebrew texts; they all have the same wording; BAALA ASUPHOTH).
Well, if they are not reliable, what are we going to do? We simply do
what we have done for forty years: we go back to the infallible English
of 1611 as it stands in every edition of the HOLY BIBLE for 370 years.
It has never failed ONCE, and it will never fail in the future. Let
the scholars peel bananas.
(You know, I'm feeling so good along about here, I think I'll add
two more I wasn't going to put in!)
VI. You godly Fundamentalists "drank wine, " did you, in Deuteronomy
32:14, right after the Lord said you did NOT drink wine, in Deuteronomy
29:6? They drank wine in the wilderness, did they (Deut. 32:14), when
the Lord said they DID NOT drink wine in the wilderness (Deut. 29:6)?
This is the "original Hebrew, " is it? It is the Hebrew Massoretic
text, translated by the Fundamentalists on the NKJV committee, where
every man on the committee swore by the inerrancy and infallibility of
the "original Hebrew"? This is the text that is SUPERIOR to the English
text because it is HEBREW? YOU MAKE A LIAR OUT OF GOD ALMIGHTY, AND
THEN YOU CALL A MAN A "RUCKMANITE" WHO EXPOSES YOUR ROTTEN DEVILMENT?
They did NOT drink wine; they drank "THE PURE BLOOD OF THE GRAPE"
(grape juice). The passage was a key passage that brought advanced
light on the difference between the Roman Catholic WINE Mass and the
Lord's new wine Supper (Deut. 32:32, 33). "PURE BLOOD" would represent
the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and grape juice was said to be
"PURE BLOOD," not fermented liquor. AH, THE UNSEARCHABLE RICHES OF THE
INFALLIBLE ENGLISH! HOW PROFOUND ARE ITS JUDGMENTS ON THE "ORIGINAL
HEBREW" AND ITS DEVOTEES!
The word "pure" was knocked clear out of Deuteronomy 32:14 in the
NKJV, and its Fundamentalist board never blushed when they did it, and
they are not blushing now. You say, the Hebrew (CHEMER) doesn't mean
"pure"; it means "fermented." Then YOU'D BETTER REVISE YOUR HEBREW
LEXICON AND BRING IT INTO LINE WITH THE HOLY BIBLE (AV).
VII. Instead of the apostate leaders of Israel loving to take up
offerings by shamefully crying "GIVE YE" (AV Holy Bible), they suddenly
are converted into rulers that just love "dishonour" (Hos. 4:18).
Their greed for money is not mentioned by those who believe in the
"plenary inspiration of the original autographs." (See what these same
Alexandrian hypocrites did to 1 Tim. 6:5 and 1 Tim. 6:10 when they got
to them!)
Here, in Hosea 4:18, the plenary, verbally inspired apostates abandon
the English text altogether and run to the Hebrew; but then they find
that the Hebrew is "difficult" (footnote, p. 874), so they translate
"her rulers dearly love dishonour." We do not hesitate to correct "the
Hebrew" with the following: "HER RULERS, WITH SHAME, DO LOVE `GIVE
YE.'"
GIVING AND ATTENDANCE have been the two main themes of 90% of the
Sunday morning sermons preached in America since 1933. No matter what
text is chosen, the exhortation winds up on GIVING and ATTENDING.
They love: "GIVE YE!" So when the translators (every one of them rooted
in "historic positions, " honey, believe me!) read their own biography
in Hosea, they ran to "The Hebrew Text" TO COVER UP THEIR DIRTY, ROTTEN
SINS. Typical; just as typical as crack in a big city high school.
The Hebrew said HABU KALAON and if it is "difficult" we won't worry
about it since we have an inerrant, infallible translation for it that
an eight-year-old could understand.
Now, we will "take ten." Having given EIGHTEEN EXAMPLES where the AV
proves to be superior to ANY Greek or Hebrew text, TRANSLATED BY
ANYONE, we will return in the next article and pick up SIX MORE NEW
TESTAMENT EXAMPLES of the "verbal, plenary inspired housecat of Uncle
Tom"--places where the HOLY BIBLE (AV) is vastly superior to any Greek
text used by ANYONE for ANY purpose. This will give us a minimum of
TWENTY-FOUR PIECES OF DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE to prove that the "deadly
heresy" called "Ruckmanism" is actually SOUND DOCTRINE. You might have
known that at the start without proof if you spent much time examining
MOTIVES. What could a man's MOTIVE be for teaching you that the Holy
Bible was your final authority and that you could trust every word in
it and wouldn't have to take any man's corrections as a higher
authority? Why would ANY man teach you a think like THAT? On the other
hand, what could be a man's motive for teaching you that HE WAS ABLE TO
CORRECT YOUR HOLY BIBLE ANY TIME HE FELT LIKE IT because HE HAD MORE
EDUCATION THAN YOU HAD?
Simple, isn't it, when you "scarp" it right down?
You see, when these apostates cry "Ruckmanism," they are trying to
cover up the godless EGOTISM of their human natures. What they really
mean is, "We can't stand to be corrected by the HOLY BIBLE (AV) because
we think we are able to CORRECT IT." Their MOTIVE, from the first day,
was to bring you into bondage to them.
That is all they ever meant to start with. They are humanistic
anarchists, and power-mad on top of that, and their motives are no more
similar to the motives of the AV translators than they are to the
motives of John Paton and Samuel Marsden in going to the mission field.
They count on the similarities they can find in PROFESSION to make you
think they are some kin to the AV committee. To blazes with their
PROFESSION; we know their MOTIVES.
Don't you pay any attention to their juvenile whining about, "Wasn't
so-and-so a man of God," and "Who do you think you are, putting him in
a bracket with so-and-so," or "slandering good men." The TRUTH is, the
little sissies are getting their bottoms kicked out by the KING JAMES
BIBLE; the word of God will do that to an apostate every time. We
never slandered anyone; we simply quoted what they said, the way they
said it, in the context in which they said it, and then DEMONSTRATED
what they meant by what they said, by GOING DIRECTLY TO THE GREEK AND
HEBREW TEXTS THEY USED, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN DEFINITIONS OF THOSE
TERMS.
Until we print twenty-four more of these cases, may we recommend THE
CHRISTIAN'S HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP, which answers all the
baloney put out by Robert Sumner and Doug Kutilek, all the tommy rot
coming out of Springfield and Bob Jones, all the Alexandrian cliches
used by Ronald Walker and Gary Hudson, and all the asinine garbage put
out by Hymers and Lindstrom. Baloney is quite plentiful these days.
Garbage is popular. In the meantime, correct all men (and all their
friends and teachers) with the infallible text of the HOLY SCRIPTURES;
and don't let their educational credentials bug you; THE BIGGER THE
BELFRY, THE MORE ROOM FOR THE BATS.
CORRECTING THE "ORIGINAL" GREEK WITH THE ENGLISH
By now the student of the Holy Bible has studied over thirty cases
where the Holy Bible (AV, any edition) was well able to correct ANY
GREEK or HEBREW manuscripts used or translated by ANY scholar of ANY
profession. His profession of believing in "inerrant, infallible,
verbally inspired originals" has no effect at all on his infidelity,
clumsiness, and inability to produce anything but a stinking mess.
We purposely picked the family and friends of the Dean Burgon Society
who thought that if they used the Majority Text (or Receptus) to
destroy your Holy Bible that they would be giving "clearer light" on
"obscure passages, " because they knew Greek or Hebrew and went to the
"originals" written in Greek and Hebrew.
They bombed out thirty times in a row.
This demonstration of proven facts from the authority of God Almighty
in the Holy Scriptures is called "RUCKMANISM" by the destructive
critics of the Holy Bible, Fundamentalists foremost. Believing that the
sun rises and sets on Christian Scholarship instead of the Scriptures,
these jaded apostates are trying to "protect" Christians from a
terrible "heresy." This heresy has proved to be Scriptural fact thirty
times in a row. We used the Greek text for the Authorized Version to
prove the cases exactly, and we proved them. Having given over thirty
cases in a row, we finish with five more.
For sake of abbreviation, we shall refer to the modern
manuscriptolators by the names of "Hudsonites" and "Jonesites, " which
nomenclature means they believe exactly what Gary Hudson and Bob Jones
III believe; that no translation is perfect and that any "godly"
scholar can make as many correctors of the Bible as he likes if he
knows Hebrew or Greek. The Jones boys and the Hudsonites believe that
the final authority for the child of God - what they call "The Bible" -
was a loosely scattered pile of lost pieces of paper that never were
all collected even at the time they were written. No one has seen one
of them in over 1800 years.
With such an orientation; here, first hand, is a sample of the work
done by the Hudsonites and Jonesites. It is called "The New King James
Bible" (1979), published by the company that gave us the RSV of the
NCCC and the NRSV by the same group of Communists.
I. Here in Hebrews 12:3 we find "hupo ton hamartolon eis heauton
antilogian." "Endured such contradiction of sinners against himself.
The reference is to the great contradiction one finds between the
kind of treatment the Lord Jesus should have received and the kind He
got.
And what do the Hudsonites and Jonesites do with the Textus Receptus
"original Greek" at this point? They write down "endured such
HOSTILITY from sinners." Wrong text. Wrong translation. Wrong Greek.
Wrong "original." If the Greek word "antilogian" doesn't contain
"CONTRADICTION" in it, it would be the wrong Greek text: correct it
with the English, immediately.
Look at the scriptural context of the scripture verses: "joy...
shame, " (v.2). See the "contradiction"? Look how the scriptures
interpret the scriptures (v.5): "loveth... chasteneth." See the
"contradiction"? Notice how the infallible English of the AV text
defines how to translate any Greek text, by placing the contradictions
on BOTH SIDES of the verse, within the context of the verse. The
Christian is in danger of "fainting" not because of "hostility, " but
because things happen to him that he doesn't think he deserves; they
seem like CONTRADICTIONS to him. "CONSIDER CHRIST...." Did HE deserve
the treatment that HE got?
Ah, bless my soul, you little apostate guttersnipes who talk about
the "original Greek"! The word "contradiction" is not only the meaning
of the passage and the sense of the passage and the context of the
passage, but it is the doctrinal interpretation of the passage.
"Ruckmanism, " at this point, gives ten times the light that the
Jonesites and Hudsonites could ever give. "Ruckmanism" here is
BIBLICAL, giving the right sense of the word, with the right sense of
the verse, in the correct context in which the verse is found. and why
shouldn't it? "Ruckmanism" - AS DEFINED BY THE FACULTY AT BOB JONES
AND THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY - is nothing more or less than believing
the Holy Bible (AV) is the word of God and the words of God, preserved
for the English-speaking people without proven error.
"Plenary autographs" with "verbal inerrancy" are a BLANK.
II. What happened to all of the Greek texts in Hebrews 2:16 when the
Jones boys got ahold of them?
Well, these verbally, plenary inspired windbags went to the Receptus
(any other "Greek" would have produced the same mess) and came up with
"For indeed He does not give AID to angels, but He does give AID to
the seed of Abraham."
"AID"? You mean God doesn't give aid to angels? God "aids" Abraham's
seed? Why, I thought the Holy Spirit said "Verily he took not on him
the nature of angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham." At
least, that is what is recorded in ANY edition of the Authorized
Version from 1611 to 1990.
Now look at the context.
Man is lower than the angels (v.6), Jesus was made lower than the
angels (v.9), His children are "flesh and blood" men who are lower
than the angels (v.14), so He became like "man" so He could make a
PROPITIATION FOR THEIR SINS (v.17). Was this propitiation for
Abraham's seed ONLY?
Ah, you hard-shell, primitive, five-point Calvinists, your depravity
is showing through! Christ's propitiation for flesh and blood sinners
was for "MAN MADE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS." That is every man who ever
came from Adam.
But here in the middle of this tremendous discourse is this jackass,
jackleg, jackrabbit, jacksnapes "ORIGINAL GREEK" - "God AIDS Abraham's
seed." Where did it come from? Well, bless your ever-lovin', cotton
pickin', blue-eyed world, darlin', it came from THE GREEK TEXT FROM
WHICH YOUR KING JAMES BIBLE WAS TRANSLATED - SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A
SUPERIOR READING!
Go soak your head in a bucket of tar.
Imagine the nerve of these smurfs trying to get us to respect their
"scholarship"! Imagine the nerve, the gall, the brass, of these
destructive critics, puffing our their little chicken breasts full of
buckshot and talking about believing in "verbally, plenary, inspired,
original autographs."
If God doesn't give angels aid, that sure put them in rough shape,
doesn't it? He had better, because that is how YOU wind up if you are
saved (Matt. 22:30). There is no discussion in Hebrews about saved
people being "Abraham's seed." That is in Galatians. Abraham's "seed"
in most of the Book of Hebrews are HEBREWS, so Isaac his son (a HEBREW)
typifies Christ (one Hebrew), who became a flesh and blood Jew (from
the Hebrews) to save sinners. The saved sinners are NOT "Abraham's
seed" at all, in the passage; Jesus Christ is Abraham's seed in the
passage, exactly as He was David's "seed" in Romans 1:3 and Matthew
1:1.
Correct the Greek Textus Receptus with the AV, exactly as you would
correct the Alexandrian Text with the AV - always. It will never fail
you one time.
III. Acts 7:59 "And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on GOD,
and saying, Lord JEsus receive my spirit" (NKJV). Why hoopty doo!
Lookee here, you Hudsonites, the word "GOD" is not found IN ANY GREEK
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPT ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH!
What happened to your "original Greek" at this point? Weren't you the
nincompoops who told us that we couldn't write even one letter into t
the Biblical text (John 4:24) if it wasn't in "the Greek"? Yes, you
are the same nincompoops.
Hey deah, man! Ah knows wheah y'all got dat word "GOD" from! You took
it out of the Holy Bible (AV)! You done corrected yo GREEK with the
Authorized Version in English!
Ah, you two-face, two-tongued, double-dealing hypocrite! I know what
you are! YOU ARE A "RUCKMANITE"! That is what "Ruckman" does!
Now, do you get the picture yet, dear reader? Do you yet understand
the true (and real) ethical character of these rascals who profess to
be worried about "heresy"? Are you going to think that NAY of these
men fulfill the scriptural requirement for a bishop (1 Tim. 3:2) to
be "APT TO TEACH?"
You would be a fool to think that such men could be entrusted with
anything more true than the barest, basic, elemental truths taught in
Daily Vacation Bible School on the Primary level.
IV. Galatians 5:4, from the original Greek ("ANY Greek text, "
according to Gary Hudson) says "kategethete apo Christou."
The verbally inspired Jonesites and Hudsonites say that this means
someone has "become ESTRANGED from Christ, " but in the original
English it said, "Christ is become of no EFFECT unto you." The first
reading is what some droids like to call "dynamic equivalence." (They
alter these terms back and forth in order to get an alibi to change
ANY wording of the AV they don't like.)
Now, notice the stinking theological mess that arises from this
inferior Greek; in this reading, the unsaved man who has "fallen from
grace" (look at the verse) knew Christ once and Christ knew him, but
they don't know each other any more. That is what the word "ESTRANGED"
means. Look it up in a dictionary; an ENGLISH dictionary. (The
Alexandrian Cult can't read English anyway.) An "estranged" husband or
wife is never a reference to any man or woman who had not been
intimately related at one time. They were intimately related and
became "estranged." So here, these ridiculous, self-deceived
Fundamentalists (after swearing on a stack of books by Dean Burgon that
heir translations wouldn't "effect one Fundamental of the faith") come
out with a verse from the "original Greek" that says you can get to
know Christ in a personal relationship and then "fall from grace."
sensing this catastrophe, the corrupt Textus Receptus translators of
1979 suddenly insert an italicized word ("ATTEMPT") into the verse
after insisting that the article "a" could NOT be inserted in John
4:24. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BOOK OF GALATIANS ABOUT ANYONE
ATTEMPTING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW IF THEY ARE REALLY SAVED. The
verse said that Jesus Christ would become of "no effect" to anyone who
was counting on the law to justify them. Galatians 2:16 should have
cleared up any doubt about how to translate "the Greek text." No
Christian "falls from grace" anyway, whether he attempts anything or
doesn't attempt anything.
The passage was not aimed at anyone who had become "estranged" from
Christ after knowing Him. The AV translators knew it wasn't. The
Greek scholars who used the Greek Textus Receptus in 1979 (NKJV)
thought it was.
The reading is a joke. It is a Dean Burgon, Bob Jones boys,
Hudsonite JOKE on the Body of Christ.
(Gets hotter by the minute doesn't it? No wonder these apostate
Fundamentalists are foaming at the mouth about "Ruckmanism"!)
V. John 10:6. "Jesus used this illustration but they did not
understand."
Illustration? Why, the Holy Bible said "parable" (Greek:
paroimian.) John 10:1-5 is a parable, but since a parable "in the mouth
of a fool" is like a "thorn going up into the hand of a drunkard" (Prov
26:9), the Hudsonites and Jonesites who translated the Textus Receptus
knew their number when it was rung. Someone was "reading their mail, "
so they altered "parable" to "illustration."
Is this the "light" that young preachers needed on the text? Wanna
bet? Better hadn't; you'll lose your shirt and your britches and your
shoelaces in one roll.
Verse ONE was Jesus Christ going up at the Ascension, and it is
compared to the Devil's ascension in Isaiah 14.
Verse TWO was JEsus Christ entering the third heaven at the
Ascension.
Verse THREE is the Exodus of the Body of Christ at the Rapture,
according to the Song of Solomon 2:8-12.
Verse FOUR is the Second Advent, with the sheep following the Lord
Jesus back to the earth of the Millennium.
Verse FIVE describes the sheep on earth in the Tribulation as they
refused to follow the Antichrist.
IT WAS A PARABLE.
But you couldn't get that from any Greek text, and no Greek scholar,
living or dead, found it in any Greek text. The modern Greek scholars
no more understood the parable in 1979 than the Christ-rejecting
Pharisees did in 32 A.D.
So Waite and Hudson demanded that you descend to their level of
ignorance by taking you away from the English AV text and focusing
your attention on "THE GREEK."
And then (if that weren't enough!) when faced with the documented
evidence above, they called the people who believed what the Bible
said "RUCKMANITES."
You go jump in a fish bowl.
Now, we trust you have had enough to get a clear picture of why
apostates like Bob Jones III, Panosian, Afman, Custer, Neal, McRae,
Newman, Sumner, Waite, Kutilek, and Walker invented a straw dummy
called "Ruckmanism" to throw darts at. Their ignorant, stupid little
britches were scorched clear up to their collars. The reason these
spiritual babies - these spoiled brats - are on a crusade against what
they call "Ruckmanites" is because we have their number and they know
it. We "eat their cookies" regularly and will as long as God gives us
breath. We know they are fakirs (and stupid on top of that), and their
profession to be "Bible believers" is about as real as a profession
from Heinrich Himmler on his love for Jesus.
Since they do not believe that ANY book is the Holy Bible, and since
they hide behind some lost pieces of paper that no one can read, they
are thoroughly unreliable to teach the Bible to anyone. they are their
own gods, and all they know about the Book, that is true, they stole
from someone who believed it. Their profession of faith stinks like a
dead mackerel on a sand dune.
We have presented here dozens of cases from the Greek Textus Receptus
and the Hebrew Old Testament that the King James Bible comes from. In
every case cited and documented, and analyzed and discussed, without
one exception, the AV text proved to be superior to ANY text that the
Alexandrian Cult produced from ANY Greek or Hebrew text.
This is the way; walk ye in it. It is the way called "heresy" (Acts
24:14) by the professional scholars of Paul's day. It is the Biblical
and Scriptural way; it is the thorny path for the real Bible believer
in the Laodicean Church age, when the greatest threat to the integrity
and authority of God Almighty is the work of insincere, brainwashed
Fundamentalists who think they are smart enough to correct HIM. There
doesn't breathe on this earth (and hasn't since 1880) any saved scholar
who is smart enough to correct the greatest BOOK the world has ever
seen or ever will see.
If you want more examples, then answer the ones published here and
we'll publish more. Finding places in the New Testament where the AV
can correct ANY Greek text is easier than finding a napkin on a
restaurant table.
Dr. Peter Ruckman
../