Binding and Loosing: Prohibiting and Permitting

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that 'By the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you prohibit on earth shall have been prohibited in heaven; and whatever you permit on earth shall have been permitted in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Matthew 18:15-20

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you prohibit on earth shall have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth shall have been permitted in heaven." Matthew 16:19

Apparently, the first-century Jewish application of these concepts was that their leaders were understood as having authority from God to decide what practices should be followed by the community. In other words, to determine "Jewish law." In Matthew 18:18-20, Jesus transfers this power from the rabbis to His own disciples. Verse 20 is then understood to mean that two or three Messianic Community leaders suffice to determine proper practice (Messianic law).

When the council met in Jerusalem, certain Pharisees demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses. It seemed good to the Apostles not to lay a greater burden upon them than these essentials: abstain from things sacrificed to idols; abstain from blood; abstain from things strangled; and abstain from fornication. It seems the Apostles were already prohibiting and permitting certain things.

The Bible, the Word of God!

John Mason's Spiritual Sayings

The Word of God must be . . .
    nearer to us than our friends,
    dearer to us than our lives,
    sweeter to us than our liberty, and
    pleasanter to us than all earthly comforts.


Take the candle of God's Word and search the corners of your heart.


We speak to God in prayer.
God speaks to us in His Word.


All arguments against the Word of God are fallacies;
    all ideas against the Word are delusions;
    all derision against the Word is folly; and
    all opposition against the Word is madness.


When God threatens, that's a time to repent;
when He promises, that's a time to believe;
when He commands, that's a time to obey.


If a man believed the threatenings of the Word of God,
he would tremble and fly to the promises for refuge.


As Christ came out of His Father's bosom, so
the promises came out of Christ's riven side.

Does God Hate Divorce?

According to the translations of these three Bibles, a man appears to be commanded to divorce his wife if he hates her:

when thou hatest her, leave thou her, saith the Lord God of Israel. Forsooth wickedness shall cover the cloth of him, saith the Lord of hosts; keep ye your spirit, and do not ye despise. (Wycliffe Bible, 1388)

"If thou hatest her, put her away," sayeth the Lord God of Israel "and give her a clothing for the scorn," sayeth the Lord of hosts. Look well then to your spirit, and deceive her not. (Matthew's Bible, 1537)

"If thou hatest her, put her away," saith the Lord God of Israel, "yet he covereth the injury under his garment," saith the Lord of hosts: therefore keep yourselves in your spirit, and transgress not. (Geneva Bible, 1560)

According to the translations of these two Bibles (the CSB being a major revision of the earlier HSCB), a man who hates and divorces his wife merely commits an injustice against her:

"For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless." (English Standard Version [ESV], 2001)

"If he hates and divorces [his wife]," says the Lord God of Israel, "he covers his garment with injustice," says the Lord of Hosts. Therefore, watch yourselves carefully, and do not act treacherously. (Holman Christian Standard Bible [HCSB], 2009)

"If he hates and divorces his wife," says the Lord God of Israel, "he covers his garment with injustice," says the Lord of Hosts. Therefore, watch yourselves carefully, and do not act treacherously. (Christian Standard Bible [CSB], 2017)

According to the translation of this Bible, the man who divorces his wife commits violence against her:

He that rejects her, sending her away, said the LORD God of Israel, covers the violence with his garment, said the LORD of the hosts; therefore take heed in your spirit, and do not be treacherous. (Jubilee Bible, 2000)

 

According to the translation of this Bible, nothing is said one way or the other about divorce:

For the LORD, the God of Israel, says that no one should conceal the iniquity in his robe; therefore take heed to your spirit, and do not deal treacherously. (The Syriac Peshitta, 1933)

 

According to the translations of these 17 Bibles, God says matter-of-factly that He hates divorce:

For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (King James Version [KJV], 1611)

For I hate putting away, saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith Jehovah of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (American Standard Version [ASV], 1901)

"For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless." (Revised Standard Version [RSV], 1952)

"For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong and violence," says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore keep watch on your spirit, so that you do not deal treacherously [with your wife.] (Amplified Bible [AMP], 1965)

"For I hate divorce," says the LORD , the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously." (New American Standard Bible [NASB], 1971)

"I hate divorce," says the Lord God of Israel. "I hate it when one of you does such a cruel thing to his wife. Make sure that you do not break your promise to be faithful to your wife." (Good News Translation [GNT], 1976)

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith. (New International Version [NIV], 1978)

"For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one's garment with violence," Says the Lord of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously." (New King James Version [NKJV], 1982)

For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless. (New Revised Standard Version [NRSV], 1989)

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel. "I hate the person who covers himself with violence," says the LORD of Armies. "Be careful not to be unfaithful." (God's Word [GW], 1995)

"For I hate divorce!" says the LORD, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty, " says the LORD of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife." (New Living Translation [NLT], 1996)

"For I hate divorce," says ADONAI the God of Isra'el, "and him who covers his clothing with violence," says ADONAI-Tzva'ot. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and don't break faith. (Complete Jewish Bible [CJB], 1998)

because he hates divorce, says the LORD God of Israel, and he also hates the one covering his garment with violence, says the LORD of heavenly forces. Guard your own life, and don't cheat. (Common English Bible [CEB], 2001)

"I hate divorce," says the God of Israel. God-of-the-Angel-Armies says, "I hate the violent dismembering of the 'one flesh' of marriage." So watch yourselves. Don't let your guard down. Don't cheat. (The Message [MSG], 2002)

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and the one who is guilty of violence," says the LORD who rules over all. "Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be unfaithful." (New English Translation [NET], 2005)

The LORD God of Israel says, "I hate divorce. And I hate the person who [or The one who hates and divorces] does cruel things as easily as he puts on cloths [covers his clothes in violence]," says the LORD All-Powerful [Almighty; of Heaven's Armies; of hosts]. So be careful [on your guard]. And do not break your trust [be unfaithful]. (The Expanded Bible [EXB], 2011)

"For the LORD, the God of Israel, says that He hates divorce; for it covers one's garment with volence, says the LORD of Hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously. (Modern English Version [MEV], 2014)

So, does the Word of God actually teach that God hates divorce, or does it have something entirely different to say? For the answer, we will turn to those renown Hebrew scholars, Keil & Delitzsch:

In v. 15a the prophet shows still further the reprehensible character of the divorce, by rebutting the appeal to Abraham's conduct towards Hagar as inapplicable. The true interpretation of this hemistich, which has been explained in very different, and to some extent in very marvellous ways, is obvious enough if we only bear in mind that the subordinate clause וּשְׁאָר רוּחַ לוֹ, from its very position and from the words themselves, can only contain a more precise definition of the subject of the principle cause. The affirmation "a remnant of spirit is (was) to him" does not apply to God, but only to man, as L. de Dieu has correctly observed. Rūăch denote here, as in Num. 27:18, Josh, 5:1, 1 Kings 10:5, not so much intelligence and consideration, as the higher power breathed into man by God, which determines that moral and religious life to which we are accustomed to give the name of virtue. By 'echâd (one), therefore we cannot understand God, but only a man; and לֹא אֶחָד (not any one = no one, not one man) is the subject of the sentence, whilst the object to עָשָׂה must be supplied from the previous sentence: "No man, who has even a remnant of reason, or of sense for right and wrong, has done," sc. what ye are doing, namely, faithlessly put away the wife of his youth. To this there is appended the objection: "And what did the one do?" which the prophet adduces as a possible exception that may be taken to his statement, for the purpose of refuting it. The words וּמָה הָאֶחָד are elliptical, the verb עָשָׂה, which may easily be supplied from the previous clause, being omitted (cf. Eccl. 2:12). הָאֶחָד, not unus aliquis, but the well-known one, whom it was most natural to think of when the question in hand was that of putting away a wife, viz., Abraham, who put away Hagar, by whom he had begotten Ishmael, and who was therefore also his wife (Gen. 21). The prophet therefore replies, that Abraham sought to obtain the seed promised him by God, i.e., he dismissed Hagar, because God promised to give him the desired posterity, not in Ishmael through the maid Hagar, but through Sarah in Isaac, so that in doing this he was simply acting in obedience to the word of God (Gen. 21:12). After meeting this possible objection, Malachi warns his contemporaries to beware of faithlessly putting away their wives. The Vav before nishmartem is the Vav rel., through which the perfect acquires the force of a cohortative as a deduction from the facts before them, as in ועשׂית in 1 Kings 2:6 (see Ewald, §342, c). נִשְׁמַר בְּרוּחוֹ is synonymous with נִשְׁמַר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ in Jer. 17:21, and this is equivalent to נִשְׁמַר לְנַפְשֹׁוֹ in Deut. 4:15 and Josh. 23:11. The instrumental view of בְ ("by means of the Spirit:" Koehler) is thus proved to be inadmissible. "Take heed to your spirit," i.e., beware of losing your spirit. We need not take rūăch in a different sense here from that in which it is used in the clause immediately preceding; for with the loss of the spiritual and moral vis vitae, which has been received from God, the life itself perishes. What it is that they are to beware of is stated in the last clause, which is attached by the simple copula (Vav), and in which the address passes from the second person into the third, to express what is affirmed as applying to every man. This interchange of thou (in wife of thy youth) and he (in יִבְגֹּד) in the same clause appears very strange to our mode of thought and speech; but it is not without analogy in Hebrew (e.g., in Isa. 1:29; cf. Ewald, §319, a), so that we have no right to alter יִבְגֹּד into תִּבְגֹּד, since the ancient versions and the readings of certain codices do not furnish sufficient critical authority for such a change. The subject in יִבְגֹּד is naturally thought of as indefinite: any one, men. This warning is accounted for in v. 16, first of all in the statement that God hates putting away. שַׁלַּח is the inf. constr. piel and the object to שָׂנֵא: "the sending away (of a wife), divorce." שָׂנֵא is a participle, the pronominal subject being omitted, as in maggīd in Zech. 9:12, because it may easily be inferred from the following words: אָמַר ייִ (saith the Lord of hosts). The thought is not at variance with Deut. 24:1ff., where the putting away of a wife is allowed; for this was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts, whereas God desires that a marriage should be kept sacred (cf. Matt. 19:3ff. and the comm. on Deut. 24:1-5). A second reason for condemning the divorce is given in the words וְכִסָּה חָמָס עַל לְ, which do not depend upon כִּי שָׂנֵא, but form a sentence co-ordinate to this. We may either render these words, "he (who puts away his wife) covers his garment with sin," or "sin covers his garment." The meaning is the same in either case, namely, that wickedness will adhere irremoveably to such a man. The figurative expression may be explained form the idea that the dress reflects the inward pat of a man, and therefore a soiled garment is a symbol of uncleanness of heart (cf. Zech. 3:4; Isa. 64:5; Rev. 3:4; 7:14). With a repetition of the warning to beware of this faithlessness, the subject is brought to a close.

With that said, it is quite clear that the evidence points to the fact that God does indeed hate divorce. Those who say otherwise are either looking for excuses for themselves, or looking to provide excuses for others. In either case, what is in their heart is being revealed and they are engaging in disobedience and rebellion against God Almighty and His Holy Word.

Supersessionism

What is Supersessionism? Supersessionism is nothing more than a fancy word for Replacement theology. Has the Church replaced Israel in the promises of God? Yes and no. You see, what the Bible teaches is not "Replacement" theology but Expansion theology.

All through the Old Testament God prophesied of the Gentile Inclusion (Is. 11:10; 42:1, 6; 49:6; 56:6-7; 66:19; Amos 9:11-12; et al). When you get to the New Testament, you see the Gentile Inclusion clearly. In Galatians 3, it is made clear that "it is those who are of the faith who are sons of Abraham" (v. 7), contrasted against Romans 9, which states that "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants" (vv. 6-7). Galatians continues by saying that "the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as referring to many, but rather to one, ' And to your seed,' that is, Christ" (v. 16). The Gentile Inclusion is clinched when it says that "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise" (v. 29). In Ephesians 2, it is made clear that, although Gentiles were formerly "separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (v. 12), that now they "have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (v.13), having "broke down the barrier of the dividing wall" (v. 14) that "He might make the two [believing Israel and believing Gentiles] into one new man" (v. 15) and "reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross" (v. 16). Ephesians continues by saying that Gentiles "are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints [believing Jews from the Old Testament], and are of God's household" (v. 19).

The Gentile Inclusion is made especially clear from Romans 11, where Paul divides national Israel into two separate groups: Believing Israel and Unbelieving Israel. According to Romans 2:28-29, what does this say about Unbelieving Israel? That "he is not a Jew who is one outwardly...But he is a Jew who is one inwardly..." According to Romans 9:6-8, what does this say about Unbelieving Israel? That "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants..." Even though Unbelieving Israel are physical Israel, they are not Israel. How can this be? Let us see how. According to Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8, what does this say about Believing Israel? That they are true Jews and that they are true Israel. Even though Believing Israel are physical Israel, they are also true Israel. What does this mean? That true Israel is a spiritual Israel. Remember, Paul just divided national Israel into two separate groups and said that national, physical, unbelieving Israel are not true Jews even though they are descended from Israel. As you read Romans 11 further, the Gentile Inclusion is clenched. Where are Believing Gentiles grafted? In with Believing Israel. Believing Gentiles "became partaker with them [Believing Israel]" (v. 17). According to Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8 (as well as Galatians 3), what does that make Believing Gentiles? True Jews; true Israel.

In John 10, Jesus even said "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one Shepherd" (v. 16). That is the Gentile Inclusion right there. Jesus does not have two flocks; He does not have two bodies; He does not have two brides. Jesus has one flock, one body, one bride—one Church. The Church consists of believing Jews and believing Gentiles; Old Testament believers and New Testament believers. To separate the body of Christ into two groups is not only unbiblical, it is also ludicrous and insane. National Israel is nothing and means nothing. True Israel is Christ Jesus Himself, to whom belong Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles, all being grafted into Him together. Ephesians makes it clear: "having been built on the foundation of the Apostles [New Testament believers] and Prophets [Old Testament believers], Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone" (v. 20). What is this holy temple that Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles are being fitted together and built into? The Church! If Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles are Christians, and they are, what does that tell us? That true Israel is the true Church, and that the true Church is true Israel. The promises of God still apply to Israel—true Israel, spiritual Israel—but they also now apply to the Church, made up of Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles. Paul refers to this as a "mystery" and says that Israel is hardened "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (v. 25). Into what? Into true, spiritual Israel. In Ephesians 3, Paul makes this mystery known as plainly and clearly as possible: “the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (v. 6).

There are not two paths to God. God does not have two plans of salvation; one by race and the other by grace. All mankind, Jewish or Gentile, must come to and through Christ Jesus as their Lord and Saviour or else there is no salvation for them! When Romans 11:26 says "in this way all Israel will be saved," it is speaking of the "mystery" of the Gentile Inclusion. Expansion theology. Has the Church replaced Israel in the promises of God? Yes and no. No, because it is not speaking of national Israel but of spiritual Israel. Yes, because it is speaking of spiritual Israel and not of national Israel.

Ruckmanism

Who is Peter Sturges Ruckman, and what is a Ruckmanite? Peter Ruckman was born in 1921. He received his doctorate in philosophy from Bob Jones University. As an Independent "Baptist" pastor, he was the founder and president of Pensacola Bible Institute in Pensacola, Florida, where hundreds of students were brainwashed with his legalism and false doctrinal beliefs. We will get to this in just a moment.

Samuel C. Gipp wrote about him:

"He is, without a doubt, the most outspoken champion of the King James Bible in this generation. He is considered an extremely dangerous foe to the Bible critics who teach that God has not preserved His Bible perfect.
His arsenal consists of an above average intellect, years of studying Bible manuscripts and a caustic delivery. This abrasive preaching style so offends (and scares) today's limpwristed 'soldiers of the Lord' that they shrink from any confrontation with him, OR the facts he presents."

It is a shame that Peter Ruckman died in 2016, because contrary to Samuel Gipp's exaggerated flapping of his gums, I would quite welcome a confrontation to debate with him. The only thing dangerous about Ruckman was the heresy he preached. Ruckman was not caustic; he was outright rude and disrespectful, resorting to vicious badgering and name calling for those who did not submit to his authority. When debating, if my opponent speaks and acts in a mature manner, I respond kindly in a likewise mature manner. If they attempt to mock me (when they have absolutely nothing to mock with), then I will mock them in return to show them how utterly absurd their position is, as well as their behaviour. If I were to have debated Ruckman, and if he were going to try and use such a tactic against me via ad hominem in order to try and silence me and end any possibility of logical, rational discussion, I would be just as caustic in return and put him in his place. Just like Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

Those who think suck responses are not very "Christian" or "Christ-like" need to have a wake-up call and have their heads examined. The idea that you should only respond in a gentle, loving manner all the time is ludicrous and unrealistic. Nabeel Qureshi, an ex-Muslim, when he would discuss Christianity and Islam with David Wood, would get upset when David responded calm and gently. Why? Because for the Muslim, such a discussion was very passionate, and being responded to in a calm, gentle manner offends the Muslim and makes them think you do not take them very seriously. When someone mocks you, they think you will just roll over and give in to them. But when you mock them back, it shocks them and causes them to stop, listen, and think. You need to respond in kind. If you have ever bothered to pay attention when you read the Bible, you will notice that Jesus and the Apostle Paul are not always calm, loving, and gentle. Responding more harshly does not in any way, shape, or form make you less loving to those you are dealing with. Sometimes love needs to be hard. If you do not think so, then you are very unrealistic.

Ruckman's intellect was not "above average." His so-called "study" of manuscripts was clearly very poorly done. Was Ruckman aware that there are more than just one TR (Textus Receptus) in existence? Erasmus [a devout Roman Catholic] (1516), Stephanus (1550), Beza (1565), Elzevir (1624), and Scrivener (1881, 1894) are just a few. Each of these men produced several variations of their TRs that differ greatly one from another. Their TRs also differ greatly from each other's. There is not 100% agreement between any TR! To claim that the KJV is based on the TR, which one? None of them is an exact, precise match to the KJV. Furthermore, the base text for the translation of the KJV was supposed to be the Bishop's Bible, but a comparison shows the translation of the KJV to be far more influenced by the Geneva Bible. Was Ruckman aware of this? Probably not. Did Ruckman have the intellectual fortitude to logically conclude that there is no way an 1881 or 1894 TR (Scrivener's) could be the foundational basis for the 1611 KJV (as some argue today)? What Ruckman presented were not "facts" by any stretch of the imagination. You can engage in all the logical gymnastics you want here and his arguments will still be void of any real facts.

A number of Christians favour the Byzantine manuscripts; the underlying text used in the translation of the New Testament in the KJV. They believe that the Authorized Version represents the best possible translation of the New Testament into the English language. Peter Ruckman agrees with this, but takes it a step further. He believes that the translators of the KJV were "inspired" by the Holy Spirit in their translating work. Ruckman elevated the KJV to the level of "inspired" and therefore "infallible," which is a grievous error.

In Acts 12:4, the KJV uses the word "Easter." This translation is an erroneous mistranslation of the Greek pascha (πάσχα), which is translated as "Passover" everywhere else it occurs. Ruckman is forced to defend the erroneous translations of the KJV, and in so doing insists that the Holy Spirit personally directed and inspired the translators to use "Easter" here rather than "Passover." Sadly, Kent Hovind, who attended Pensacola Christian College, even attempted to argue for the legitimacy of the use of "Easter" in one of his videos. He was wrong. Ruckman even goes so far as to defend the KJV's errors as "advanced revelation," talking about "correcting the Greek with the English" (which is essentially what Scrivener did, turning to the KJV to sort out discrepencies in the original Greek manuscripts). By claiming the translation of the KJV to be infallible, Ruckman makes his assertion more authoritative than Scripture itself.

In the 1611 KJV, in the margin for Luke 17:36, it states, "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." If we examine the 1560 Geneva Bible, we can see that this is true. Verse 37 is verse 36. In modern translations, while they tend to include this verse, they make a marginal note that reads similar to that of the 1611 KJV: "Some manuscripts add verse 36." It is rather laughable how Ruckmanite KJV-Only advocates will tell you that you should get a KJV Bible without cross-references, marginal notes, etc. They do so because the marginal notes undermine the position they are trying to make you swallow. The 1611 KJV, in the Old Testament alone, has some 6,637 marginal notes, which is more than many modern translations. Ruckmanites, those who believe along similar lines as to what Peter Ruckman believed, imbibe a steady diet of camels while straining out gnats.

Here is what the 1611 KJV translators had to say for themselves in "The Translators To the Reader" (verbatim):

1. They believed the authority was in the originals.

"The originall thereof being from heauen, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets" (p.3).

2. They believed in making new translations.

"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God" (p.7).

"But the diference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with" (p.8).

3. They believed they were not inspired, but translators.

"Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make of a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one" (p.9).

4. They believed in putting varying readings in the margin.

"It hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, here and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne saluation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scripture are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment" (p.10)

"That any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine … They that are wise, had rather haue their iudgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be another" (p.10).

5. They said a variety of translations were necessary.

"That varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" (p.10).

6. They believed Scripture should be in common language.

"But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee vnderstood euen of the very vulgar" (p11).

Peter Ruckman and Ruckmanites fail to grasp what is meant when Scripture says God will preserve His Word. They believe it refers to the English language of the KJV, but that is utter nonsense and deliberate ignorance. How much manuscript evidence do we have today? How many copies of the original manuscripts?  The sheer number of these copies testifies to the fact that God has preserved His Word. The multiple manuscripts we have available to us today is evidence of that fact. The English translation of the KJV has nothing to do with preservation whatsoever.

Also, have you ever noticed how according to Ruckmanites, there is only one Bible in any language that is "inspired" and "infallible"? The KJV. All English Bibles prior to and after the KJV are apparently Bibles of the Devil, as is every other Bible in every other language. According to Ruckmanites, the English translation of the KJV is the only Word of God that God has given to humanity, and anything and everything else is a tool of the Devil. How preposterous and absurd!

William P. Grady, quite obviously influenced by Peter Ruckman, wrote a book entitled Final Authority: A Christian's Guide to the King James Bible. This book is chock full of error, assumptions, and conclusions drawn from assumptions. It engages in vast amounts of fallacy. Like Ruckman, Grady tries to convince us that the English translation of the KJV is God's final authority to all humanity. Grady, like Ruckman and all Ruckmanites, is ignorant as to church history and Bible history. Anyone who is willing to study both out will quickly see the KJV in a different light, even though they may still respect and appreciate it. But they will no longer be blind following blind guides off the cliff of ignorance.

By the way, Ruckman and his Ruckmanites will deliberately mislabel 1769 KJV Bibles falsely as "1611" Bibles. Any educated individual, or anyone who owns a legitimate facsimile of a 1611 KJV, will be able to tell the difference easily. But Ruckmanites think they are fooling others when the only ones they are fooling are themselves. As such, Ruckmanites, those who subscribe to the same beliefs as Peter Ruckman, are a cult. They are not much better than the Westboro "Baptist" Church. However, do not make the mistake of thinking that anyone who subscribes to the KJV is a Ruckmanite. Here is an excellent article on "What is King James Onlyism?" Three things that KJV-Onlyism is not:

1. King James Onlyism is not a mere preference for the King James Bible.
    
2. King James Onlyism is also not merely the formal use of the KJV in public worship.
    
3. King James Onlyism is also not merely the assertion that the KJV is the best translation.