White to revise books
JAMES WHITE ANNOUNCESREVISIONS OF HIS BOOKS
James White says on his blog --
"I should mention that during the next few weeks I will need to finish the new second edition of The King James Only Controversy and I am likewise going to do a second edition of The Potter's Freedom!"
I hope James will have enough sense to correct his misrepresentation of Peter Ruckman's view concerning the King James Version. As for the other book, he needs to simply dump his Reformed Hybrid Calvinism theory on "regeneration" altogether.
A few years ago, when James set out to "take on" Peter Ruckman, James was quite unprepared for doing so. He failed to realize that the very first thing one needs to understand is the stated position of the person whom he endeavors to refute. James, unfortunately, had not studied Ruckman very carefully, and evidently simply assumed what Ruckman believed about the KJV and "inspiration."
When James' book, The King James Only Controversy, made its first appearance in the distant past, we erroneously thought that it was worthy of commendation, and we promoted it. But after carefully examining what James said about Ruckman's view, we discovered that he was very seriously deficient in regard to what Ruckman teaches about the KJV, and we had to withdraw our endorsement of the book. Since we had been critical of Ruckman's views long before James made the mistake of trying to deal with Ruckman, we did not want Ruckman to associate us in any way with James White's misrepresentation.
James foolishly categorized Ruckman as believing the KJV was "RE-INSPIRED" by God in 1611 (The King James Only Controversy, pages 4, 6).
It is no marvel that Ruckman literally laughed-off James as a "fool" when Ruckman reviewed James' book! This is the furtherest thing to what Ruckman actually believes.
Ruckman, in his most "famous" booklet entitled, Why I Believe the King James Bible is the Word of God, plainly states:
"I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE WAS INSPIRED" (page 6, edition of 1988; page 7, undated reprinted edition I obtained from Ruckman in 2005).
See the following link for quotations in the "Comments" section on Sunday, April 02, 2006 as to what Ruckman actually teaches: HERE
James should now have no problem correcting his blunder about Ruckman's view, if he will simply read these comments. He really had no justifiable excuse for his error in the first edition, and if he fails to make a correction in his revised edition, we hope someone will send for the "paddy-wagon."
We know it does not seem to be in James' persona to acknowledge errors of this type, but it he doesn't do so, it will only serve to justify Ruckman's categorizing James as a "fool," and it will further demonstrate why we say that as an "apologist" James is an "appallingist."
posted by Bob L. Ross @ 2:01 PM
3 Comments:
Brother Bob, Hello!
I can't help but wonder if James isn't hoping that his revised books will lead to some new debate challenges which he will issue, only to see him again back out of them.
At one time, James was trying to get a debate with Ruckman. Not sure why he couldn't because you, Brother Bob, had no problem working out the details and actually debating Ruckman.
Then James backed out of a debate with Caner which could have been the biggest debate of James' "ministy."
And of course, James runs from you like a scalded dog and has never taken you up on your offer to debate him.
James has become the CEO of "All Blow And No Go, Inc." He huffs and puffs but when the chips are down he finds a way to back out of debates which might make him look bad to his rabid young male followers.
He will start huffing and puffing again with these revisions and then we'll see what happens.
Charles
DEBATES/RUCKMAN
Charles said...
At one time, James was trying to get a debate with Ruckman. Not sure why he couldn't because you, Brother Bob, had no problem working out the details and actually debating Ruckman.
James has much of his correspondence with Ruckman on his website. It appears that both of them wanted to dictate the format, and neither one would agree with the other. They merely had a "debate" on the format of the debate that did not take place.
As for me, I did not have a debate with Ruckman, for he would not debate. Instead, he had me come for a one-hour so-called "Bible Forum" at which I would reply to questions by his students -- 24 "laundry boys" Ruckman said would "wash, dry, and fold me." He lined them up in the aisle of the church and one-by-one they asked their questions to which I replied. They weren't exactly "Whiz Kids."
Although Ruckman had said he would "say nothing," nevertheless he spoke both before and after the "Forum" for several minutes, but he would not allow me to respond to his comments. Since he would not permit me to respond, I refused to listen to him and walked out until he was finished -- which angered him.
I had hired a video team to record the meeting, but Ruckman refused to let the team set up beforehand so as to record Ruckman's opening harangue. As for his post-Forum jabber, we later discovered that our camera's plug was surreptiously pulled immediately after the Forum so that we did not get a recording of Ruckman's post-Forum palabber.
The two primary Ruckman Assistants who helped orchestrate the "dirty tricks" against our video-taping both split with Ruckman a while after the Forum.
DEBATES/RUCKMAN
Charles said...
At one time, James was trying to get a debate with Ruckman. Not sure why he couldn't because you, Brother Bob, had no problem working out the details and actually debating Ruckman.
James has much of his correspondence with Ruckman on his website. It appears that both of them wanted to dictate the format, and neither one would agree with the other. They merely had a "debate" on the format of the debate that did not take place.
As for me, I did not have a debate with Ruckman, for he would not debate. Instead, he had me come for a one-hour so-called "Bible Forum" at which I would reply to questions by his students -- 24 "laundry boys" Ruckman said would "wash, dry, and fold me." He lined them up in the aisle of the church and one-by-one they asked their questions to which I replied. They weren't exactly "Whiz Kids."
Although Ruckman had said he would "say nothing," nevertheless he spoke both before and after the "Forum" for several minutes, but he would not allow me to respond to his comments. Since he would not permit me to respond, I refused to listen to him and walked out until he was finished -- which angered him.
I had hired a video team to record the meeting, but Ruckman refused to let the team set up beforehand so as to record Ruckman's opening harangue. As for his post-Forum jabber, we later discovered that our camera's plug was surreptiously pulled immediately after the Forum so that we did not get a recording of Ruckman's post-Forum palabber.
The two primary Ruckman Assistants who helped orchestrate the "dirty tricks" against our video-taping both split with Ruckman a while after the Forum.
Post a Comment
<< Home