Tuesday, April 22, 2008

James needs your help


Can any one reading the Flyswatter come to the aid of a frustrated James the Exegeeter?

Rather than demonstrate that he knew anything about Peter Ruckman's "King James Onlyism," James White has evidently been forced to resort to the defense mechanism of "chewing me up and spitting me out" due to his resentment of my revealing his misrepresentation about Ruckman's views.

It occurred to me that perhaps someone in the Flyswatter's audience might venture to help James . . . and at my expense. Here's my offer:

$100 reward to any one who can give a single line from Peter Ruckman's writings where he ever taught what James White alleges in his book, "The King James Only Controversy," page 4, 6 -- specifically, where Ruckman ever taught that God either "'inspired the King James Bible'" or that "God 're-inspired' the Bible in 1611."

I must admit that when James first published this book in 1995 before I ever met James, we assumed from the recommendations that he must have the facts for what he was writing. But when we did a more careful examination of the book, we found it sorely lacking, and we were embarrassed for having promoted it in our magazine before we had thoroughly scrutinized the contents. Of course, we had to "swallow our pride" and admit our mistake. But James has not been inclined to go and do likewise. His best and only defense has been to "bad mouth" old man Bob Ross.

I suppose that it has likewise been embarrassing to others whose names James uses as "endorsements" on the cover of his book, such as John MacArthur, J. I. Packer, Bruce Metzger, D. A. Carson, and Hank Hanegraaff. They probably also merely assumed that James had the documented materials necessary to validate his charges against Ruckman.

Since we have called attention to this misrepresentation of Ruckman by James more than once, and he has yet to come forth with anything which supports his allegations, we have long ago concluded that based on our research of Ruckman's writings, James has no such evidence.

I am not an "apologist" for Ruckman or "KJVOism" by any stretch of the imagination, but if one is going to represent himself to be an "apologist" and a "debater," it is incumbent upon him to know and properly represent that which he is critiquing. The worst "crime" one can commit in polemics is to misrepresent an adversary's views.

Can anyone rescue James from the snare of his own lips (Proverbs 18:7)? Can his "debate partner," Tom Ascol of the Flounders, help him? Can MacArthur, Packer, Carson, or Hanegraaff? Can any one?

Hair will most likely sooner grow on James' head than either he or any one else will be able to validate his charges.



At Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:42:00 PM, Blogger Turretinfan said...

In The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, pp. 271-272, Ruckman claims: “The King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration of God.’”


"I've NEVER said that the KING JAMES BIBLE was Inspired, although I've broadly intimated it sometimes."

[his booklet "Why I Believe the King James Version Is the Word of God" pg. 6 link]


On Level 3, the Textus Receptus has mistakes in it, but the
KJV translation is perfect.

One well-known defender of this view is Peter S. Ruckman. For example,
in "A Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence", Ruckman has a chapter
entitled, "Correcting the Greek with the English." He claims, "Where the
majority of Greek manuscripts stand against the A.V. 1611, put them in file
13" (p. 130). "When the Greek says one thing and the A.V. says another,
throw out the Greek" (p. 137).


He has also said explicitly that he does not believe that the KJV is inspired.

I don't want your $.

At Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:48:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

Turretinfan said...

I don't know if you are trying to say Ruckman has ever said that he believes the KJV is "inspired," but if that is what you were doing, you failed.

You quoted his statement where he said he had NEVER said the KJV was inspired.

Also, when I was the Guest on a "Forum" at his school, he got up and replied to me by saying, "You have a problem if you say the KJV is 'inspired,' for the KJV NEVER says it is 'inspired.'"

If you have read Ruckman, here is what you should have learned from him:

"The holy men of God who 'spake' -- NOT 'WROTE'" (BBB,
1/96, p. 12).

His view of "inspiration" is that what the prophets and apostles"spake" was "given by inspiration," not what they WROTE.

And he says they "'spake' more than what you find recorded in
'scripture;'" thus, First Peter 1:21 does not prove "plenary,
inerrant" inspiration!

Actually, Ruckman denies the "plenary, inerrant" inspiration.

Here is his comment:

"Such terms as 'plenary' and 'inerrancy' and the like are manufactured
terms, and they were invented by the Cult"
(BBB, 4/89, page 2).

In his book, Pastoral Epistles (page 270), he says:

"We do not refer to the AV as the 'verbally inspired, inerrant
Word of God.' We refer to the AV as The Holy Bible, inerrant and infallible, preserved by the grace of God in our language, with the words that God wants us to have."

Ruckman claims that "inspiration" has to do with SPEAKING,
not with writing. Notice:

"'Verbal' inspiration is connnected with speaking, not
, because 'breath' is involved" (BBB, 6/92, p. 19).

This is why Ruckman mocks references to the "non-existent originals," for with him, the "originals" were SPOKEN, not
written. He says:

"It must be profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc. (2 Tim. 3:16). If it is not -- and the originals are NOT NOW, for they are not here -- then it is not 'given by inspiration'
(present tense). You may say the originals were given by
inspiration, but since they are no longer 'profitable,' you
better hadn't kid anyone to thinking they need them now" (BBB, 9/89, p. 2).

You see, the "catch" is -- the "originals" does not refer to WRITINGS. Ruckman says:

". . . since the word 'scriptures' in the Scriptures (where
it refers to the 'scriptures') is NEVER (I SAY 'NEVER') a
reference to 'original autographs,' there isn't any reason why I should confine the word to them" (BBB, 2/89, p. 13).

Ruckman believes
"scripture" is a "speaking" -- not a writing.

The "originals" were "spoken," not the original writings in
the Bible.

As for the "inspiration" of the KJV, he says:

"Not one time did God guarantee that ONE of the translations was
(BBB, 11/91, page 10).

But one might ask, "What about the Textus Receptus?"

Ruckman says:
"The Textus Receptus is NOT even a 'GREEK TEXT,' let alone'THE' Greek
text, it is only a 'TYPE' of text and there are many editions of this type" (BBB, 11/91, page 10).

"And I never told anybody on the face of this earth that the King James is a word-for-word translation of Greek or Hebrew"
(BBB, 7/92, page 20).

On "italics," he says: "I never told anybody on the face of this earth the italics in a King James Bible were inspired"
(BBB, 7/92, page 20).

Now, if any one in my reading audience can find anywhere that Ruckman himself ever said or wrote that ANY written Bible, KJV or otherwise, is the "INSPIRED Word of God," please
send me the quote. I have been asking for it for MANY
years and thus far, no one -- including Ruckman -- has sent it to me.


Post a Comment

<< Home