If you've ever heard that Ruckman's Bible commentaries are unconventional–that is an understatement! Below is an example of what we mean. We only scanned one page, but the jokes continue half-way into the next page.
Peter Ruckman jokes
Page of jokes in Ruckman Bible commentary
This is a waist of time on who ever is hosting this site. Why don’t you explain from the Scripure where Dr. Ruckman is wrong in what he say’s about the Bible. Can you? If so could you prove it with Scripture? Don’t waist your time harping on someone’s personallity or thier privaite life. What DOES THE BIBLE SAY>
Many of Ruckman’s bizarre theories are self-refuting simply because they are not found in the Bible. The responsibility is on him to prove a given theory, not us to refute it if he hasn’t presented a valid case.
Sir you are wrong, If you are bringing charges against a man you had better come up with the goods. If I am to stand up and say that the hidden “web master” is teaching herisy then I need to prove it. The same principle is applied in the law system of the United State Courts. If a man is on trial for murder the EVIDENCE is given proving his guilty. Then you the defendent or his lawer can try and defend the accussed. Please tell what Ruckman is teaching that is against the Bible and prove it with the Bible. Please tell. We are listening. Remember you are the one with the “given theory” that Ruckman is teaching many bizarre theories. So prove your theory.
How come you would not post these verses. Love the conflict, and the fact that you can hinder the Lord’s work from behind your internet fortress and you will not post the Bible Veres. You so subtily removed the Bible. Why are men afrain of the words of God?
Here they are again.
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” Rom 16:17-18
You picked the wrong page for this complaint. This page was to prove that Ruckman’s commentaries are unconventional, something that I provided proof for that you didn’t dispute. As for the burden of proof to disprove Ruckman, I have several observations:
As mentioned, the burden of proof is borne by the one who presents a theory (in this case Ruckman). In your trial analogy, you need to keep in mind that a judge can throw out a lawsuit for lack of evidence, in order not to waste the courts and people’s time and money. Let me illustrate. If Ruckman teaches that the Antichrist will land on St. Peter’s square and will have big black lips, the burden of proof is for him to prove that from Scripture, not for me to have to find a passage that says something to the effect “the Antichrist shall not land on St. Peter’s square, and he shall not have big black lips” in order for me to disprove him. If a Christian realizes that Ruckman has not proven his case, he doesn’t have to feel obligated to disprove him every time, wasting time that could be spent more profitably in other endeavors. Just like a judge under certain conditions can throw out a lawsuit in order to make room for what at least appears to be more valid claims.
If a Christian feels Ruckman has not proven his case, but that his theory has been presented as fact in a clever enough way that could deceive the simple (Rom. 16:18), a Christian has the right to point out that the threshold of evidence has not been reached to declare a speculative teaching to be an established Biblical fact. If accepted rules of hermeneutics have been breached in the process of proposing a theory, that can also be pointed out. If the Bible plainly teaches the exact opposite of a given theory, of course the Christian should demonstrate it from Scripture. But often Ruckman is guilt of teaching as fact what is mere speculation, such as teaching that Ham had a homosexual encounter with Noah in Gen. 9:22, to give a real example. Ruckman doesn’t teach that as a speculative theory, but rather he says that “There is no doubt about the meaning of verse 22 in the English text. Ham’s boys have a sex problem…[here he brings up Gen. 19 and Rom. 1] There is not the slightest doubt, whatsoever, about the meaning of Genesis 9:22.”(Genesis commentary, 1980 printing) Am I supposed to present a verse that says “Ham did not…” to prove Ruckman wrong? Or is Ruckman the one responsible for proving his speculative, imagination-gone-wild theory regarding Gen. 9:22 is in reality beyond doubt as he claims? When a Christian realizes that Ruckman has not proven his case, he can dismiss Ruckman’s claim outright if he so desires, and move on. He doesn’t have to waste time disproving Ruckman’s theories if they were never close to being proven in the first place.
There are many places where I refuted Ruckman with Scripture. Here are a couple articles for starters: “Ruckman’s sensational characterization of demons” “Ruckman’s multiple plans of salvation for different ages.”
Keep up the good work exposing this fool….
If you’re going to throw doubt on Ruckman’s commentary you should probably show more context. These “jokes” are just showing how God has kept man polarized in modern times. At babel, God used the confounding of languages. Today one of God’s methods is obviously racism and nationalism. These quotes were showing the racism and nationalism of today. Also, Ruckman may be a sinner like all of us and obviously isn’t right about everything, but the bible says: “by their fruits ye shall know them”, and it seems to me that he has plenty of fruit. An article like this does not belong on a website that is supposed to disprove someone’s beliefs.
More context was not needed, as my stated objective was to simply prove that Ruckman’s commentaries are unconventional. No one disputes this.
Ruckman has plenty of fruit? If we go just by what he has admitted himself as documented in http://www.ruckmanism.org/what-ruckman-admits, Ruckman admits that he is one of the crudest people you will ever meet and that he is no example, he admits that he is sometimes too vulgar, he admits that at times his language is downright crude and vicious, he admits to using harsh and sarcastic language, he admits to having a streak of meanness, he admits that his second wife (out of three) had been the young wife of one of his former students, he admits he doesn’t know where the Word of God was before 1611, he admits to abnormal behaviors, Ruckman admits to having some involvement in hundreds of church splits, and he admits he has a bad reputation with many.
Some fruit! Yes, I agree that “by their fruits ye shall know them.” And I have only listed what Ruckman has admitted to in writing. What a tragedy that people continue to defend him, in spite of all that is proven, documented, and even admitted to by him!
God is ok with a Christian referring to someone as a “Kraut”?? Ruckman is not commentating, he is rambling like a person who either has dementia or a demon.