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):
- They believed the authority was in the originals.
- They believed in making new translations.
- They believed they were not inspired, but translators.
- They believed in putting varying readings in the margin.
- They said a variety of translations were necessary.
- They believed Scripture should be in common language.
"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).
"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).
"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).
"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).
"That varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" (p.10).
"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.
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:
- King James Onlyism is not a mere preference for the King James Bible.
- King James Onlyism is also not merely the formal use of the KJV in public worship.
- King James Onlyism is also not merely the assertion that the KJV is the best translation.