A Sea Of Red

I realize this is not a hot topic like it was a quarter century ago, but the subject of this thread is Peter Ruckman.

He is the godfather of the KJVO movement that has somewhat divided Fundamentalists and Evangelicals of the Baptist persuasion.

Anyway he's a BJU grad who believes not only that the KJV gets essentially a double-dipping of inspiration. While even the Bob Jones & PCC crowd consider him to over the top, he continues to have quite a few followers nationally.

That said the following two letters to one of his former students who questioned his KJVO stance are rather interesting:

Ruckman Letter - February 2006

Ruckman Letter - March 2006

I have my own strong opinions on this guy. But the reporter in me just presents the facts and let's you decide.

those letters are very Christ-like. Way to go, guy. They're also very difficult to read.

If you grew up in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church you probably have some understanding of this guy and his followers that are referred to an Ruckmanites.

"Faithfully in Jesus Christ". Awww, that's sweet.

That must be some good preachin' down there on Jo Jo Road.

Ruckman's an idiot, pure and simple. Sometimes he's funny to watch, but then you realize the guy's serious.

He sends his "preacher boys" out to "preach" (shout, actually) the Gospel to cars driving on Davis Highway in Pensacola. I used to feel sorry for them, until I heard what they were saying. NOT the most effective presentation of the Gospel that I've ever heard.

We shouldn't need a Ruckman thread to draw you out of the woodwork, Phoenix.

And incidentally you are absolutely correct.

Sly Fox wrote:We shouldn't need a Ruckman thread to draw you out of the woodwork, Phoenix.

And incidentally you are absolutely correct.

You're right. I haven't been doing much online at all lately, unfortunately -- I've been amazingly busy. Things have calmed down, though, so I should be back annoying you all again very soon

I like Ruckman, of course there was a big theology divide among the early LBC preacher boys about him and that was in the early 1970s

Sly Fox wrote:If you grew up in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church you probably have some understanding of this guy and his followers that are referred to an Ruckmanites.

Been there...done that. Movies are bad, dancing is bad, mixed bathing (co-ed swimming) is bad...basically anything they telll you is bad....is bad.
I call it clipboard theology.

bbrothers224 wrote:Movies are bad, dancing is bad, mixed bathing (co-ed swimming) is bad...basically anything they telll you is bad....is bad.

Dad?

RagingTireFire wrote:

bbrothers224 wrote:Movies are bad, dancing is bad, mixed bathing (co-ed swimming) is bad...basically anything they telll you is bad....is bad.

Dad?

Oh yes...and get a hair cut.

bbrothers224 wrote:Movies are bad, dancing is bad, mixed bathing (co-ed swimming) is bad...basically anything they telll you is bad....is bad.

you forgot "devil music"

its the "satanic beat" you know

Sly Fox wrote:I realize this is not a hot topic like it was a quarter century ago, but the subject of this thread is Peter Ruckman.

He is the godfather of the KJVO movement that has somewhat divided Fundamentalists and Evangelicals of the Baptist persuasion.

Anyway he's a BJU grad who believes not only that the KJV gets essentially a double-dipping of inspiration. While even the Bob Jones & PCC crowd consider him to over the top, he continues to have quite a few followers nationally.

That said the following two letters to one of his former students who questioned his KJVO stance are rather interesting:

Ruckman Letter - February 2006

Ruckman Letter - March 2006

I have my own strong opinions on this guy. But the reporter in me just presents the facts and let's you decide.

oooooohhhhh

after reading his "letters", I get it now: It depends on what your definition of the word "is" Is.

what a bunch of crap.

arguing over semantics.

wonder why interest in churches is declining.

I just re-read the letters, and I remember when this first came out. The letter writer believes that Jesus is here right now (that's the whole "is come in the flesh" thing), and since Ruckman (in the one instance where he is in agreement with normal people) doesn't believe that, he's demon possessed. This is one pretty funny arguement all the way around.

I'm going to read the letters, but does he really believe all this below???

Ruckman's unusual notions extend beyond the Bible. For instance, he believes in UFOs and in blue aliens with blue blood, black aliens with green blood, and gray aliens with clear blood.[13] Further, he believes that the CIA has implanted brain transmitters in children, old people, and African-Americans and that the agency operates underground alien breeding facilities.[14] In 1997, Ruckman claimed that Attorney General Janet Reno had drawn up a list with his name on it and prophesied that the "Government Mafia" would make a hit on him during "the next two or three years."

belcherboy wrote:I'm going to read the letters, but does he really believe all this below???

Ruckman's unusual notions extend beyond the Bible. For instance, he believes in UFOs and in blue aliens with blue blood, black aliens with green blood, and gray aliens with clear blood.[13] Further, he believes that the CIA has implanted brain transmitters in children, old people, and African-Americans and that the agency operates underground alien breeding facilities.[14] In 1997, Ruckman claimed that Attorney General Janet Reno had drawn up a list with his name on it and prophesied that the "Government Mafia" would make a hit on him during "the next two or three years."

Unfortunately, yes. His eschatology has taken a back seat to the KJO issue lately, and most of his supporters have really distanced themselves from his more bizzare beliefs, but that stuff is pretty well documented. This page written by a Ruckman critic, gives a pretty interesting account of Ruckman's paranoia and whacked-out beliefs.

Ruckman's biggest problem is his idea that the King James Bible gives special revelation not included in any other translation OR the original texts. Once you get into that territory, you can believe just about anything you want.

As far as Dr. Ruckman being "taken out" in a hockey game... well, I've played hockey with him... he's a goalie, or was. At nearly 86 years of age, he's given it up. (With 2 prosthetic knees, I've pretty much given it up as well).
I could say in our society that Dr. Ruckman is somewhat of a social misfit, but he's also a nice guy, although obviously very outspoken. I'm not an expert on his UFO-ology, but I believe that he thinks that that there are demons involved, and of course, the Bible and Jesus teach a lot about the devil and demons. And, Janet Reno & company did manage to incinerate a bunch of people in Waco, and the government picked off another at Ruby Ridge (not saying that Koresh was too bright, but saving those kids from Koresh by burning them up doesn't make the most sense to me. Nor does sharpshooting Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge while she held her baby). What I'm saying is, when you mess with the government, you can't be sure what is going to happen to you. I love America, but the "system" can obviously take quite a dislike to you under the right conditions. And I don't trust the NIV either. Why did they take "Lucifer" out of Isa 14:12 (only time mentioned in Bible) and insert there a title of the LORD Jesus Christ? Was it to make it more "readable" or easier to understand, or to clear up exactly who Lucifer was, just in case people didn't know? Oh yes - I've met Jack Chick at his little publishing company, and he seems like a nice guy as well.

I can't think of too much more to say.... Oops...One more thing. Most of what is called dancing today is basically simulated sex.

That's all for now...

grm wrote:Most of what is called dancing today is basically simulated sex.

I suppose if you're grindin' at the club, then sure.

However, I've never seen "basically stimulated sex" added as a qualifier to the no dancing rule by fundies before. They don't need any reason to say pants on, hair short, no dancing except for the fact that it's an affront to their personal tastes.

RagingTireFire wrote:

bbrothers224 wrote:Movies are bad, dancing is bad, mixed bathing (co-ed swimming) is bad...basically anything they telll you is bad....is bad.

Dad?

Too funny!

Why did they take "Lucifer" out of Isa 14:12 (only time mentioned in Bible) and insert there a title of the LORD Jesus Christ? Was it to make it more "readable" or easier to understand, or to clear up exactly who Lucifer was, just in case people didn't know?

The term Lucifer was popularized in English from this King James translation. However, the name does not come from the Hebrew or even from the Greek translation (Septuagint), but from the 4th century AD Latin translation of this verse:

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

Only time that Lucifer shows up in the KJV is in this verse. The noun form of the Greek in Is 14:12 translates literally as 'morning star' -- the verb form is 'to shine brightly.' I guess the question is why did the KJV translators not translate the verse literally, instead transliterating from the Vulgate?

Quality exegisis/hermaneutics Phoenix

FlameDad wrote:Quality exegisis/hermaneutics Phoenix

Thanks. I guess I earned that A in Hermeneutics after all -- I really thought I'd get a B (even a B- -- my papers weren't all that good).

I have to admit, though, that I'm not a big NIV fan, either. I'm more ESV-preferred, though I tend to preach out of my NKJV, since that's what most of the people I preach to seem to have. If I was planting a church, I'd probably have ESV pew Bibles, though.

Quality is in the mind of the beholder. Many think that this is a new age transition to seeing Satan as a good angel - in fact The Word. Riplinger, whom I know you guys will laugh at, quotes Robert Jamison as defining
"Daystar" thusly "a title truly belonging to Christ and hereafter to be assumed by antichrist."

She also quotes the Pulpit Commentary (1913) "[T]he title daystar is truly Christ's but will be confiscated by the antichrist of whom Babylon is a type and mystical Babylon is a forerunner. And Satan will assume it, who is the spirit that energizes the heathen world power Babylon, that now energizes the apostate church and shall at last
energize the secular antichrist... and his champion the false prophet."

If "helel" means "brightness" as my dictionaries say, then why is it necessary to translate it as "morning star"?
Why not just take "helel, ben schachar" and translate it as "bright son of the morning" or even just leave it as "Lucifer."?

Why transliterate the Latin at all? helel is the word that was used to indicate the morning star, so that's how it was translated. It wasn't until the fourth century that the word lucifer was introduced into Christian discussion, when the Vulgate was completed. English translations ever since have relied on Jerome, and Satan had a new name. Wycliffe comments on this passage "Lucifer - Which properly is a bright star, that ushers in the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the mighty king of Babylon." Don't know about anybody else, but I trust Wycliffe a lot more than I do "God And" (her words, not mine) Riplinger. I don't laugh at her -- I really don't find her funny.

{EDIT: Sorry, that was John Wesley, not Wycliffe. Saw the WEN abbreviation and assumed the W was Wycliffe. I still trust him more than Riplinger.}

I'm curious -- what is your opinion of Job 38:7? "Job 38:7 When the morning starres sang together, and all the sonnes of God shouted for ioy." (KJV_1611) Are the KJV translators blaspheming by calling all the angels morning stars? Is it a New Age conspiracy to dilute Christ's deity, or make us worship angels?

phoenix wrote: I'm curious -- what is your opinion of Job 38:7? "Job 38:7 When the morning starres sang together, and all the sonnes of God shouted for ioy." (KJV_1611) Are the KJV translators blaspheming by calling all the angels morning stars? Is it a New Age conspiracy to dilute Christ's deity, or make us worship angels?

No, No, & No.

Obviously, these are created beings, and at the time of Job 38:7, they were in right relationship with God. Then, evidently, they fell...probably along with Satan. We probably would not disagree on that.

On Isaiah 14:12, do you believe that it is a reference to Satan? (regardless of the proper name)...

(I'll continue later. I have a school orientation (K-4 thru 12) in less than an hour, and I've got to shower &
get ready.)