Ruckmanism Ruckus was written by Geneha Kim, a 2006 graduate of Ruckman’s Bible institute. The foreword was written by William (Bill) Grady. It is 376 pages in length and was published in 2010. It was printed by Ruckman’s Bible Baptist Bookstore in Pensacola, Florida.
On the first page of the foreword, Dr. Grady assures the reader that the book was not written to glorify Peter Ruckman, but on the very next page he does nothing less than that when he affirms, “He has taught me far more Bible than all of my previous teachers combined.” Grady unrealistically portrays Ruckman as having “befriended the body of Christ.” In the foreword Grady defends Ruckman with one of the most unusual arguments imaginable: “Surely, the man who has exhausted a lifetime defending the King James Bible cannot be a living contradiction of its content.” The use of the word cannot in the above statement is disturbing to say the least.
In the preface the author Geneha Kim (hereafter Kim) promises that the purpose was not to “irrationally defend or give flowery praise to Dr. Peter S. Ruckman.” However, on the very first page of the introduction we find the following: “What must be realized is that Dr. Ruckman is the greatest Bible scholar in the world.” Towards the end of the book this remark is also found on p. 314: “The best school of the Bible is Dr. Ruckman’s Pensacola Bible Institute.” Much more is to be found praising Ruckman between the preface and the conclusion. Are these examples given not flowery praise?
The author admits that a ruckus over Ruckman has occurred. Incredibly, the author believes that those who are opposed to Ruckmanism are the ones to blame for causing the ruckus, and that is apparently what he had in mind with the title Ruckmanism Ruckus. Later on in this review, this will be documented as well as his unrealistic plea for Fundamentalists to quit denouncing Ruckman “so there will be no division among Christians.”
A laudatory work
On p. 13 Kim writes, “Please understand I do not blindly believe in whatever ‘Ruckmanism’ teaches.” However, in the entire book Kim expresses no disagreement with Ruckman on anything. In nearly 400 pages he expresses no regret for anything Ruckman has ever done, taught, written, or said. It is totally a laudatory work, with no intention of being objective.
Ruckmanism dividing Korean Christians
Kim, who is of Korean descent, spends much time in the preface promoting a Korean Bible translated from the KJV by a Ruckmanite who was also translating Ruckman’s books into Korean. Not many details are given, but soon after a non-Ruckmanite provided an alternative Korean translation (presumed to be based on the right texts). This meant that there were two translations used by Korean Fundamentalists Christians, with one of them having a connection to Ruckmanism and the other (presumed to be based on the right texts) by a group vocally opposed to Ruckmanism. This naturally led to division over Ruckman. That Kim blamed anti-Ruckmanism for this division is revealed in the following quote on p. 17: “Not only are the attacks against Dr. Ruckman destroying the Korean work, but also many Bible-believing churches around the world.”
Is Ruckman an example in his marriages?
In what was clearly a reference to Ruckman’s first wife, Kim declares on p. 102 that Ruckman “treated his wife with love and kindness.” However, Ruckman was more candid in his autobiography. Concerning the accusations of physical abuse alleged by his first wife, Ruckman admits to leaving bruises during what he described as “a violent argument” in which he grabbed her by the wrists, and pushed her against a table and a sink (The Full Cup, p. 225). Kim also leaves off some other controversial details, such as Ruckman’s second marriage being to the young ex-wife of one of his former students. Regarding what Ruckman did or did not try to do to keep his first two marriages together, Kim wisely states, “…please note that you were not there, so you do not know for certain yourself.” There is much truth to that statement, but Kim needs to realize that it cuts both ways. Since he was not there, why does Kim state that Ruckman treated his first wife “with love and kindness” (p. 102), “he did not commit any sin when he was divorced from his ex-wives” (p. 103), and also that “Dr. Ruckman has always obeyed 1 Timothy 3 in striving to keep blameless and to rule well over his house, as other Fundamental pastors have done” when he was not there? (p. 110). The all-inclusive word always in the last statement (bold added for emphasis) is disturbing. For more on this issue, see our article Ruckman’s personal controversy and his views on divorced pastors.
Defending Ruckman’s deplorable language
Kim devotes an entire chapter in his book to defend what he admitted was “rough writings and rude speech” on Ruckman’s part. After mentioning a few Bible characters and some preachers of the past who said or acted out things that appear controversial, he excuses Ruckman as follows: “Compared to those men of God from the past, Dr. Ruckman is mild.” (p. 61) Kim does not provide any examples of Ruckman’s vulgar speech so the reader can determine for himself, rather than depend on Kim’s assurances to the contrary. Kim does quote him at length where Ruckman claims he has a balanced view concerning those he criticizes, and incredibly Ruckman makes the assertion that he has “a lot more grace when it comes to the brethren than the brethren have toward me.” (p. 66) However, in the midst of the same lengthy quote Ruckman cannot help but refer to Sumner as “Scumner” and calls his Christian periodical a “rag.” Ruckman claimed to not have anything personal against those he criticizes, and Kim repeats that claim when he states, “Unlike many Fundamentalists, he never criticizes them on personal issues.” (p. 66) However, we have easily shown this not to be true in a test case documented by the title Ruckman denies ever getting personal with his attacks. Is it true?
Since Kim does not provide any examples of Ruckman’s crude speech (except for the incidental mockery of Sumner’s name) we thought we should provide some so our readers can decide for themselves:
…the prostitute faculty members at Bob Jones, Tennessee Temple, Hyles-Anderson…
(Ruckman, Peter. History of the New Testament Church Volume 2, 1984, p. 276)
Phillip Schaff…one of the most deceived and unfaithful professing Christians that ever “pimped” for the Whore on 7 hills.
(Ruckman, Peter. The Anti Intellectual Manifesto, p. 76)
…the World’s Most Unusual Hell-hole…” [A twist on a former promotional slogan for Bob Jones University]
(Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Hebrews. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1986, p. 192)
We could provide dozens of more examples of Ruckman’s vulgar talk, but this would distract from the purpose of this book review. Kim tries to come across as balanced by stating, “Please do not mistake me as saying that it is acceptable for Christians to say crude words in their everyday language” (p. 63), but on the same page he refuses to see any wrongdoing in Ruckman’s speech, and actually pleas with readers, “do not consider him to be carnal.” (p. 63) Why would Kim say he was against crude speech when it was in “everyday language,” but continue defending Ruckman’s speech? Could it be that because Ruckman’s crude speech is publicly revealed only in his writings, audio lectures, his pulpit and his radio program, it would not be considered “everyday language?” As we consider this matter, let us be mindful of this admonition in Col 4:6: Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
The Gap Theory
Kim is correct in pointing out that the gap theory was not a Ruckmanite invention. The booklet The Gap Theory by Kent Hovind and Stephen Lawwell describes the origin of the gap theory as follows on p. 5:
Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a notable Scottish theologian and first moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, is credited with being the first proponent of the gap theory. His proposal of the theory was first recorded in 1814 in one of his lectures at Edinburgh University. Prior to 1814, few theologians considered Genesis 1 as describing anything other than a normal 24-hour, six-day week.
Kim follows Ruckman in referring to the gap theory as “the Gap Fact.” On p. 190 Kim insisted that if there was no gap between Gen 1:1-2, that God would be a liar in that passage as well as in Is. 45:18. In spite of insisting it was biblical and calling it a fact over and over, notice how many times in the gap theory chapter he uses phrases expressing less than absolute certainty about some aspect of his position: “there must have been,” (p. 177, 182, 188) “must have happened,” (p. 178) ‘must have,” (p. 180) “the most likely conclusion,” (p. 181) and “must have been” (p. 181). To be intellectually honest, we would like to point out that the above statements were sometimes used in analyzing some passages in an effort to gradually build a case. Kim does not express uncertainty about every verse he covered.
Ruckman’s failed rapture guessing
Kim totally buys Ruckman’s excuse for guessing wrongly that the rapture would occur in 1989: “The reason why God did not come back at May 14, 1989, is because today’s calendars are in error.” (p. 166) Kim continues defending Ruckman as follows on p. 166: “Dr. Ruckman did not do anything wrong. He merely timed the dates from the Bible and used scripture references for his guidelines.” (p. 166) The problem with this statement is that there are no dates or data in the Bible provided in such a manner as to indicate clearly that it would be a mathematical formula for timing the rapture. Regarding this, Kim states on p. 171, “In Daniel 9:25-27, God gave Daniel the exact time and day of Christ’s coming.” If this was the case, there would be a contradiction in Mat. 24:36 and parallel passages, where it says, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” Christ could not have said this if the “exact time and day” was already publicly available in the Old Testament.
Kim made several references to 1 Thes. 5:1-6 as if it vindicated Ruckman’s rapture guessing. On p. 169 Kim writes, “Some Christians may find it hard to understand that 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6 shows we can know the time for Christ’s coming.” The reason some Christians would find Kim’s statement hard to understand is because it does not say exactly what Kim alleges. Notice what the passage says:
1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
One possible reason why verse 1 states that there is no reason to write about the times and the seasons is because of Acts 1:7: And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
1 Thes. 5:2 affirms as in other passages that the Lord will still come as a thief in the night, which implies uncertainty about the time of his coming, not exactness. 1 Thes. 5:4 does state “ye, brethren, are not in darkness” but that lack of darkness does not have to be referring to the actual date of his coming. Christians—who are not in darkness because they are the children of light (see very next verse)—are to expect Christ’s coming at any time (verse 6), and therefore when it does happen we will not be taken (overtake is the exact biblical term used) by surprise.
On p. 166 Kim writes: “If you think Dr. Ruckman is wrong with his timing of Christ’s coming, then you had better give scripture references, rather than just accusations to prove it.” Kim was already given Scripture references to prove Ruckman was wrong in Hymer’s writings which he is supposed to be refuting. Mark 13:32 is an example of such a reference: But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Kim refuses to see anything wrong with what Ruckman did and brings it up yet again in another chapter as follows: “But as already covered in Chapter 10, Dr. Ruckman is not proven wrong on his timing of the second advent.” (p. 291) Notice the use of the all-inclusive word always in the following statement: “However, Dr. Ruckman has always abided by the scriptures as his final authority, including his date-setting of the Rapture.” (p. 167)
A false balance?
There are a few times in the book in which Kim seems to make balanced statements regarding the authority of the Bible compared to Ruckman. Notice these examples:
To tell if Dr. Ruckman is leading a cult, check him out with the only lie detector in the world: the Bible. Jesus said to search the scriptures (John 5:39). Don’t believe anything that Dr. Ruckman teaches. Simply check him out with the scriptures. (p. 77)
But, we only follow him as long as he follows Christ … However, we do not follow Dr. Ruckman as our final authority. (p. 315)
I have heard Dr. Ruckman say over and over again that you should check from the Bible to see if what he says is true. Do not just believe him or ignore him. Check him out by the Bible. (p. 311)
We applaud such statements, but we are not convinced that the author of the book under review as well as other loyal Ruckmanites apply these principles consistently to Dr. Ruckman.
Let’s examine an example to see if what Ruckman says goes in accordance with the Bible. An example would be Numbers 6:4, a verse which he claims in his Ruckman Reference Bible reveals the exact fruit that Adam and Eve partook of. Let’s use this as a test case to see if his references for new and bizarre doctrines should be taken seriously. Let’s see if the verse says what Ruckman claims:
All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.
The context of the above verse is the Nazarite vow, which has absolutely nothing to do with Adam and Eve. In the notes in the RRB under Numbers 6:4 Ruckman adds some references (Gen. 2:17 & Judg. 9:8-15). The passage in Judges says something about a vine tree, but it is in the middle of speaking about Abimelech as King, with nothing about Adam and Eve. Ruckman then tries to link the above that proved nothing with a passage in Deuteronomy (29:6, 32:14, 23-33) which he says refers to the Lord’s Supper. Then Ruckman refers to John 2 to teach that “the water pots of wine” were “types of His blood shed on the cross.” Absolute nonsense.
In the following quote Kim starts off on the right track, then changes direction when he includes a “but” that gives Ruckman a free pass for his crazy teachings that lack a solid foundation:
Maybe his few “crazy” teachings are not convincing enough to be believed, but on the other hand, there is no solid scriptural proof to show that his teachings are wrong. Whatever “Ruckmanite” doctrine that you think is “crazy,” do not immediately start condemning him for something you cannot prove to be wrong for certain from the Bible. That is a sin. Romans 14:23 says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
The problem with the above approach is that it shifts the burden of proving a position away from the one proclaiming a new position. In other words, it is up to others to disprove Ruckman and not so much for Ruckman to prove something conclusively. When this shallow criteria is applied, it allows Ruckman to get away with all sorts of strange beliefs. For example, Ruckman teaches that Adam was created with water in his veins instead of blood (Theological Studies, Vol. 17, p. 8). By Kim’s criteria the burden of proof is on the reader to find a verse in the Bible that says outright that Adam was created with blood flowing through his veins; otherwise, we must accept Ruckman’s belief that Adam was created with a circulatory system of water which was changed to blood orally by the forbidden fruit, even though he has not actually proven it with the Bible. We do not need to disprove Ruckman’s teachings with the Bible; all that is needed is to verify that his teaching is not found in the Bible.
Here are more examples from Kim in which he unreasonably teaches in certain words that we should give Ruckman the benefit of the doubt even when we are hesitant about one of his beliefs:
If you are hesitant to believe the advanced revelations that Dr. Ruckman defends, then stop attacking those revelations, keep your judgments to yourself, and ask God to show you the truth or lie behind them. (p. 296)
You might ask, “How do you know the advanced revelation that Dr. Ruckman professes are true?” Well, let me ask you this question: How do you know God did not show these revelations to him? (p. 293)
In the above examples he abandons his principle about checking Ruckman out with the Bible. Note another example:
Therefore, to know if Dr. Ruckman is the person that other slanderers claim, why not pray honestly to God for truth, study all the background about him, visit his church, meet him in person, and see if his description is what Hymers and other really claim it to be? (p. 123)
As far as areas of Ruckman’s personal life and character not mentioned in his own writings, any rumors (whether factual or true) should be considered irrelevant because Ruckman admits to enough unbiblical beliefs and actions in his own writings to cause one to reject him and his crowd without the need of meeting him or praying about it. Even if Ruckman’s personal life was flawless, his own writings–of which he does not repent–condemn him.
If what Ruckman teaches is so biblical, Christians should arrive at Ruckman’s same conclusions by studying the Bible for themselves without Ruckman’s contentious literature. The reason Kim tries so hard to get Christians to begin reading Ruckman’s material (or to not quit reading it) is because he knows they would not reach Ruckman’s same conclusions in their own study of the Bible.
Defending Ruckman’s racism
Kim refuses to see Ruckman as a racist and dedicates no less than 19 pages to defend remarks about othe
r races that are not Christ-honoring. On the first page of his racism chapter, Kim makes the following unbiblical statement: “But the fact is that because of his race, the person is more likely to do what his race often does.” (p. 83) The problem with mankind is not their race or skin color but rather a problem of the heart (Jer. 1:19). Kim’s statement would only be true in the sense that people around us are more likely to influence us for evil (and those people are more likely to be of our own race), but it still goes back to a problem of the heart, not race.
Kim acknowledges that Ruckman sometimes uses the inappropriate term “nigger,” but he persists in defending him anyway. Notice the following statements throughout his racism chapter:
Some Christians criticize Dr. Ruckman of being a “spiteful racist” when they read certain websites that post his quotes which have included the word “nigger.” But whenever Dr. Ruckman says this word “nigger,” it is not used spitefully against every black man and woman in the world. I do realize that it may be used as a term of hatred towards the blacks. I have read historical documentations about the slang term “nigger” being misused, and it is indeed upsetting. (p. 93)
So, condemning Dr. Ruckman and other Americans for innocently using the word “nigger,” just like many black people do, is completely unjust. (p. 94)
The word “nigger” was never a term used by Dr. Ruckman and other Americans as hatred towards every black man and woman in the world. They would innocently use the slang word, like many black people innocently use as well. (p. 94)
Please do not misunderstand me for defending the word “nigger.” I am defending Dr. Ruckman, who uses “nigger” without any intention to insult the blacks. Whenever Dr. Ruckman says the word, he does not use it spitefully against every black person in the world. (p. 98)
Noticeably absent in Kim’s defense are any actual quotes of Ruckman in which others believe Ruckman uses the term nigger offensively. Kim expects you to take his word for it when he says, “But whenever Dr. Ruckman says this word “nigger,” it is not used spitefully against every black man and woman in the world. (p. 93, emphasis added) We will provide an example of Ruckman using the term nigger, so our readers can judge for themselves whether it is done “innocently” as Kim claims. The beginning part of the following sentence was omitted, as it was lengthy and started off making mention of Jews and Catholics:
…the “Niggers” get the benefits (welfare, food stamps, Affirmative Action, social promotions, child support, and special privileges for thieves, rapists, muggers, looters, and killers).
Now it is true that the case may not be this “cut-and-dried,” but the case is there.
Ruckman, Peter. Discrimination: The Key to Sanity. 1994, Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, p. 36
Notice that in the above quote nigger was not used as a term of endearment. Everything Ruckman said about blacks in the statement was negative. No Christian, much less a minister of the Gospel who trains preachers, should ever be caught saying such shameful and racist remarks in public or in private. Ruckman is in clear violation of Titus 2:8: Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you. 2 Cor. 6:3 is also relevant: Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed. For more on Ruckman’s racism, see Examples of racism in Ruckman’s writings.
Ruckman’s multiple plans of salvation
While calling themselves Baptists, Ruckmanites hold to a non-Baptist position claiming that the Bible teaches that salvation is by works in certain dispensations. A large portion of Kim’s book is dedicated to defend Ruckman’s teaching on the matter.
The phrase “certain works” appears at least three times in the “Dispensational Salvations” chapter (p. 134, 137). For example, on p. 137 it states, “However, there is no denial of the fact that the generations before Moses did certain works for salvation.” Our question is—which “certain” works? How much “certain” works? How would they know when they had achieved enough “certain” works to earn salvation? Kim does not say. The Bible does not say either, because works salvation is not taught in the Bible. Some isolated verses could give the impression of works salvation, but the Bible is to be interpreted in the light of the whole of Scripture.
Kim uses an unusual approach on p. 127 to brush off Hebrews 11, which teaches clearly that Old Testament saints were saved by faith:
Although Hebrews 11 says, “By faith,” the words do not mean the Old Testament saints were saved by faith alone without works. Whenever the Bible mentions salvation by faith alone, it is referring to Paul’s gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 11-12. If you think when “faith” is mentioned, it refers to Paul’s gospel of salvation everytime, [sic] then someone else is blind.
The word “work” or “works” is not found a single time in Hebrews 11, at least not in the KJV. “Faith” shows up an astounding 24 times in Hebrews 11.
Twice Kim repeats himself stressing that works mentioned in James 2:24 are not referring to the outward testimony of Christian living (p. 125, 160). However, the verse contains the key word “see,” and verse 18 in the context points out “…I will shew thee my faith by my works.”
Kim makes many references to Habakkuk 2:4, where it says “…the just shall live by his faith.” Page 146 contains an example of how he misuses the verse:
The term “his faith” mentioned in the Old Testament is referring to works (Hab. 2:4-5, 9, 12, 15, 18), not Paul’s gospel for salvation by faith without works.
Notice how he actually tries to make faith refer to works! The question to be asked concerning Hab. 2:4 is if faith mentioned is meant to be in one’s self or in God. The answer is obvious, that “his faith” is not a reference to faith in one’s self, as in one’s own merits, but rather one’s own faith in God. Kim seems to interpret the verse as if it said “the just shall live by faith in his own works,” which would not be a scriptural concept.
Ruckman and Kim do not believe that people have been born again even during Christ’s earthly ministry. Notice how Kim on p. 132 conveniently interprets Christ’s timely message to Nicodemus when Christ affirmed, “ye must be born again”:
Secondly, Jesus was preaching about the new birth to the Old Testament Jews, even though the new birth was not yet available (John 7:37-39). Therefore, in John 3:3-7, Jesus was only giving Nicodemus an advanced revelation about the as yet unavailable new birth, just like he did with the Jews in John 7.
Kim repeats Ruckman’s exceptions to his rules in an attempt to get around a Scriptural truth. Romans 4:6 is very clear in stating that God imputed David’s righteousness “without works.” Kim tries to skirt around this by affirming that David was “a special case.” (p. 143)
The following quote from p. 155 reveals that Ruckmanites present the General Epistles as containing a problem in the Bible so that Ruckman can come to the rescue and solve it. Observe:
The General Epistles are some of the most controversial books in the Bible concerning whether salvation is by grace alone or with works in addition. Dr. Ruckman solves this issue by teaching there are some verses in the General Epistles that refer to the Tribulation period. But James W. Knox and Fundamentalists strongly oppose this view.
On p. 164 Kim once again presents the General Epistles as confusing so that Ruckman can come in the picture and sort out the mess:
It is a joke to believe all verses in the General Epistles refer only to the Church Age, otherwise you will have Christians being present in the last days and times, losing eternal security, keeping good works for salvation, looking for the Second Advent, and allowing rich men to be damned to hell.
Notice the following interesting remark on p. 161:
The “grace” in 1 Peter 1:13 is not salvation by grace. Since “the end” and “the revelation of Jesus Christ” are talking about the Tribulation, the “grace” would be the spirit of grace given to Israel during the end times (Zech. 12:10).
On p. 152 Kim chides Fundamentalists for their teaching on salvation by faith at all times which he believes will send people to hell during the tribulation:
Fundamentalists must not dare to mislead the souls who may get saved by faith and works during the Tribulation. If they followed the Fundamentalists’ teaching of salvation by grace without works, then they are responsible for sending them to Hell. If the Tribulation saints do not endure to the end, they will be damned. An individual can stumble and sin during the Tribulation, but he or she must be prepared to face judgment and to pray for allowance into Heaven (Matt. 7:22-23).
Naturally, the inverse is also true. If the Ruckmanites are wrong, their teaching will send people to hell during the tribulation for adding works to salvation. It can be seen by the above statements that Ruckmanites are misleading people by calling themselves Baptists when all along they believe that historic Baptist teachings can send people to hell after the rapture.
Other things that could have been said in response to Kim’s chapter on Ruckman’s “Dispensational Salvations” is already covered in our article Ruckman’s multiple plans of salvation for different ages.
Devils in the electromagnetic waves
An example of a bizarre teaching that Kim defends in the book is Ruckman’s insistence on devils tempting us through radio and television waves that pass through our heads. Even though Ruckman admits we don’t have equipment in our head to capture and interpret signals such as resisters, condensers, tubes and transistors, he still insists that these waves pass through Christians’ minds “to get him to sin or disobey God” and that these broadcasts are on the same frequency as devils or demons. (Peter, Ruckman. Theological Studies, Vol. 18, p. 45)
In Chapter 14 Kim used several verses trying to def
end this Ruckmanite teaching, but none of the verses were speaking of electricity or electromagnetic waves. He did quote from a technical website that states that electromagnetic waves “often travel through the head, bouncing off the skull and brain.” But the quote did not say that the electromagnetic waves used in broadcasts can be deciphered by the human brain without the proper equipment, not to mention devils being on the same frequency! Kim knew Ruckman had a weak case, and that is revealed by his chapter being full of terms indicating doubt, such as: “could also be,” “implications,” “possible,” “this idea,” “possibility” (used 3 times) “may be,” (used twice) and “the Bible intimates that there could be…” In spite of this lack of confidence which bled through Kim’s writings, he concluded stating that “Considering Edison’s electricity affiliation with a Satanic cult, the demonic corruption from technology, and the implications from verses in the Bible (Eph. 2:2; Eph. 6:12; Luke 10:18), there is certainly a possibility that demons are connected with electric waves.” Kim treated the matter as if Ruckman approached this teaching as an idea or possibility, but in all the quotes we’ve seen on the matter Ruckman presents it as an established fact. In his conclusion, Kim also implied that it is up to those who are against Ruckman to disprove Ruckman with Scriptures, instead of Ruckman bearing the responsibility of proving his new teaching with Scripture to begin with: “But since there is no scriptural proof against Dr. Ruckman’s ideas, it is doubtful that Peter Ruckman is a wacko.” What Scriptural proof” against Ruckman is Kim expecting? A verse stating explicitly that “there are no demons in electromagnetic waves?” The mere fact that Ruckman’s teachings on this matter is not found in the Bible proves it is extra-biblical teaching.
Ruckman’s position on KJV inspiration
In all that Kim states about Ruckman’s position on the KJV, he does not admit that Ruckman ever changed his views or that he has made contradictory remarks in that area. All this is documented in our article Does Ruckman believe the KJV is inspired or not?
Kim made the following bold statement on p. 212:
There is no single quote of Dr. Ruckman’s that specifically said he believed that the KJV translators were inspired by God to write and change words in the Bible.
Notice the following quotes from Ruckman’s writings which contradict Kim’s claims:
The Holy Spirit has thrust Himself into the AV committee of 1611 and said, “WRITE…!” (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Acts. 1974, 1984, p. 356)
AV text…the marvelous undersigned “coincidences” which God the Holy Spirit has inserted in the Bible without the awareness of the translating committee. (Ruckman, Peter. Manuscript Evidence, 1997, p. 138)
An invisible hand on the AV (22 Years of the Bible Believer’s Bulletin Vol. 1 “The AV Holy Bible” p. 538)
We cannot but admire the amazing undersigned coincidences in the AV 1611, which were inserted unintentionally on the part of the human instruments, but intentionally on the part of the Author. (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Matthew. 1970, 1978 p. 299)
“Every one of these fellows, every one of them, is obsessed with this idea, that if you teach that the King James Bible is the Scripture, and is infallible, and God gave it to us by means of inspiration, that this is a heresy—on the grounds of what?”
(Ruckman, Peter. Special Studies – Gary Hudson. MP3 CD, track 3. Bible Baptist Bookstore, nd.)
On p. 227 Kim makes the following claim that the Bible reveals that a translation can be given by inspiration of God:
Fundamentalists claim that the KJV is only a translation of the copies, so it cannot be the “scripture given by inspiration of God.” But the phrase also has to refer to any translation of the copies. The Bible reveals that a translation can also be given by inspiration of God.
As to his incredible claim that the Bible reveals that a translation can be given by inspiration of God, he brings up cases of Old Testament passages having been translated from Hebrew to Greek for the New Testament. The problem with this is that he is applying select translation work done uniquely by the Holy Spirit (Hebrew to Greek) in the originals to human translation (Bible versions). He tries to blur or overlook the distinction as if there were no difference between the Holy Spirit translating select Old Testament portions compared to human beings translating the whole Bible.
“Once the KJV was purified, it was free from errors.” (p. 242) Kim does not tell us at what point the KJV was purified. There is no date or edition mentioned. He does not say who purified it to bring it to an inerrant stage.
Notice in the following quotes how Kim tries to portray the KJV translators as if they did not have much confidence in Greek and Hebrew studies:
The Bible shows that a word from God is defined by looking at the scriptures, not lexicons or interlinears…The A.V. translators knew that despite their learning in Greek and Hebrew, they needed the scriptures to interpret themselves. …Why would the translators use the scriptures to interpret the Greek and Hebrew words, rather than Greek and Hebrew studies? (pp. 253-254)
The KJV translators knew that there were many different definitions of the Greek and Hebrew words in the manuscripts, so they abided by the system of comparing scripture with scripture to find the right word when translating. (p. 256)
No doubt the KJV translators used Scripture itself to help them translate difficult passages that forced them to interpret. However, they did use lexicons extensively, as is revealed in translation notes they left behind. They also left hundreds of alternative Greek and Hebrew translations in the margins of the 1611 translation.
“The only way to interpret the words of God is by comparing scripture with scripture.” (p. 256) This is probably the most important tool for interpreting God’s Word, but it is not the only way.
On p. 306 Kim makes the following rule: “Do not look at lexicons, which can contradict each other.” However, on the very next page we find Kim quoting from a Greek lexicon when it was convenient for him!
Advanced revelations in the KJV according to Ruckman
In Kim’s chapter on Advanced Revelation, he goes to great effort to smooth over Ruckman’s controversial statements. On p. 284, he quotes some of what Ruckman has written along these lines:
Other material may be printed in these “gaps,” but God will reveal nothing apart from the word which he inspired or preserved. The King James’ text is the last and final statement that God has given the world and He has given it in the universal language of the 20thcentury…The truth is God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 B.C. and slammed it shut again in 1611;
In his attempt to smooth over the above, Kim writes the following on p. 284:
All Dr. Ruckman simply believed was that all of God’s revelations are found in the Bible, and that the KJV is the Bible. So, all of God’s revelations were available in 1611, because the KJV (the Bible which contains God’s revelations) was being revealed to the public. But, God shut the door of revelation in 1611, because the modern bibles are trying to place themselves within the same sphere as the KJV. That is why Dr. Ruckman said the door of revelation shut at 1611. He never said God opened the canon of Scripture until 1611. That is utter nonsense!
No, Ruckman does not teach that all God’s revelations were available in 1611. Notice what Ruckman has written about this exact matter:
…the revelations of the Holy Spirit given in 1611.
(Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Psalms Vol. 2. 2002 reprint, p. 801)
In our last article we began a series of forty cases where the Holy Spirit placed advanced revelations into the Holy Bible, in 1611, that no Greek or Hebrew scholar (and we have listed 320 of them in The Christian Liar’s Library, 1997) could find in any Hebrew or Greek text between A.D. 90 and 2008. (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Oct. 2008, p. 1)
Kim at times seems to use the term revelation as if it meant illumination. In theological terms it is said that revelation occurred once when God originally gave us his Word, but illumination occurs repeatedly as the Holy Spirit sheds light on our study of his revealed word. Notice this confused utilization of the word revelation on p. 294: “God gives His revelations to the spiritual-living saints when they trust the Bible (1 Cor. 2:4-19).” Here is another example from p. 295: “The truth is, God gives advanced revelations to some that others [sic] before was unable to see as clearly. Advanced revelation is given when a person believes and studies the Bible (like Dr. Ruckman).”
On p. 296 Kim tries to make what Ruckman has done with his advanced revelation claims no different than others. He alleges that other writers claim advanced revelation:
Dr. Ruckman is not the only one claiming advanced revelations from God in the Bible. Christians will accept statements from Luther, Larkin, Scofield, and other men of God, but when it comes to Ruckman, somehow they think he is some extremist to be avoided.
The problem with the above is that the men he listed did not claim advanced revelations. If they would have, Kim would have quoted them. Although they may not have claimed it, their writings at the time no doubt helped illuminate what God had already revealed, but it did not constitute advanced revelation, nor did they claim so.
On p. 285 Kim tries to define the key word revelation. He first quotes from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary as he had done elsewhere in the book, but he also introduced a definition from Easton’s Bible Dictionary. Kim then promptly ignores Webster’s definition and the first part of Easton’s definition to put the focus on what is not the primary meaning of the word. He makes revelation refer to “that which had been previously obscurely seen” instead of “the act of disclosing or discovering to others what was before unknown to them,” (Webster) or “an uncovering, a bringing to light of that which had been previously wholly hidden or obscurely seen” (Easton). Kim is entirely within his right to focus on the secondary meaning found in Easton’s Bible Dictionary, but this is evidence that Kim tries to minimize what Ruckman says in order to defend Ruckman’s teaching that the KJV is an additional revelation. Kim continues as follows on p. 287:
For some odd reason, Fundamentalists falsely accuse Dr. Ruckman for teaching advanced revelation as to mean the KJV is a new Bible and an additional revelation. That is a blatant lie. All Dr. Ruckman is saying is that certain revelations from God were not shown clearly in the Hebrew and Greek texts, because of the “muddy” interpretations of Greek and Hebrew scholars, and that these revelations from God were shown clearly and plainly in the language understood by the world – the English King James Bible!
If it is true that Ruckman has been falsely accused in this area, it is a problem of his own making by using terms such as “advanced revelation” for the KJV, referring to it as God’s “last and final testament,” talking of slamming the door of revelation shut in 1611, and of how God “thrust Himself into the AV committee of 1611,” among other things. How could the accusations be “odd” in the face of such terminology? Ruckman has not ceased using such terms nor apologized for using confusing language that could lead to misunderstanding, so we are not convinced that Ruckman is being falsely accused in this area.
Double inspiration and advanced revelation
As part of defending Ruckman’s view on double inspiration and advanced revelation Kim states the following on p. 18:
These two words supposedly mean the KJV is a new inspiration or a new revelation from God where it is superior to correct the Greek and Hebrew Bible from which it came from. … But the truth is Dr. Ruckman never believed in some new Bible that corrected the Hebrew and Greek Testaments.
Ruckman may not say it outright, but he certainly implies what Kim denies:
This means that what God originally inspired does not have to match the Scripture God preserved, and if you could get a copy of the “original autograph,” you would not have the words God wanted you to have. What the silly scholars (afflicted with the disease of “Ruckmanitis”) call “double inspiration” is known in the Bible as “sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:10; 2 Tim. 4:3; Tit. 1:9, 2:1). [Bold added for emphasis]
Ruckman Reference Bible. Note for Jer. 36:32
Of course, I am dealing with problems of the King James text, not the original manuscripts. Therefore, all this effort to try to prove that the original manuscripts are inerrant and infallible, but the King James has errors in it, is nonsense. We are dealing with statements of the King James, and you don’t have the originals there to see whether they err or not. You say, “They couldn’t have erred.” What do you get for the authority? Second Timothy 3:16? That is not a reference to the original manuscripts.
Theological Studies, Vol. 15, p. 42
Any advanced revelations given by the Holy Spirit are always revealed FIRST from the “King’s English” as the authoritative standard for truth, in the universal language of the “end times.”
Ruckman, Peter. BBB reprint vol. 3 (Doctrinal Studies), 2000, Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, p. 270
Pretending it was impossible for the KJV translators to make a mistake
“…God and the KJV translators out-smarted the scholarly, illogical statements of fallible men.” (p. 309) Were not the KJV translators fallible men? If Kim believes them to be fallible, why does he present them in the way that he did in the sentence just quoted? Continuing with the matter of fallible men, notice the next sentence: “They get it from Greek and Hebrew studies. You are relying on fallible men, rather than God.” (p. 302)
However, even though it has proven to be reliable and trustworthy, is not the KJV the work of fallible men? Kim continues in a different section of the book: “Lexicons are statements of what men think are right definitions. Men contradict each other and are not dependable.” (p. 254) We agree; but again—what about the KJV translators? Were they not capable of the same faults like any other Christian? How could they not have committed any fault related to the KJV if they were not inspired of God as the writers of the original autographs? On p. 287 Kim uses the word fallible twice in one sentence to describe scholars other than KJV translators: “The KJV translators were more capable of translating the words from all the right manuscripts than the interpretation of fallible scholars, and their translation is vastly superior to the interpretation of fallible scholars.”
On p. 306 Kim has another chance to admit that the KJV translators were fallible, but instead he portrays the situation as follows: “Repeatedly, pastors will turn to statements of fallible Greek scholars for the interpretation of the English Bible. The KJV translators (who knew more reasons for an English word than any lexicon)…” Notice the following statement on p. 297: “This make the final authority yourself, because you make the decision to change that KJV word with a Greek, Hebrew, or English definition.” If that criteria is applied consistently, would it not make the KJV translators the final authority?
On p. 243 Kim writes, “The problem is that all Greek and Hebrew study aids are definitions given by fallible men. That means you are placing your final authority in man, not God.” No one would dispute the first sentence, but I am unaware of anyone who has ever declared a given Greek or Hebrew study aid as being infallible. In reality, Ruckman and Kim are the ones placing their final authority in man by declaring the KJV to be infallible, considering that the translation was done by fallible men who were not being inspired of God.
“The King James Bible is a translation directed by God, cannot be proven wrong from lost originals, and is better than the ‘originals’ like the Hebrew and Greek.” (p. 275) How is God allegedly directing a translation different from God directing the inspiration of his holy Word in the originals? Kim does not say. Theologians often use words like “directed” when explaining how God inspired men through the Holy Spirit to write the Bible. Kim denies that God inspired the KJV translators (p. 251), but then he seemingly contradicts himself when he makes statements such as the following on the same page: “You might accuse the KJV translators of being at liberty to change and place different words in the Authorized Version. However, it was not possible.” How could it not be possible? The only way it could be impossible is if God was inspiring the KJV translators and therefore preventing them from committing human error.
Although we at Ruckmanism.org also have concerns about modern translations and only use the KJV, we believe Ruckman goes way too far in his opposition to modern versions. Kim imitates Ruckman’s extremes in this area, which can be noted in the following allegation on p. 231:
There are plenty of signs of evil with the modern versions. They coincide with the bible of the Whore of Revelation, they pervert the true doctrines, and they consider Jesus as the Devil.
The KJV and the originals
On p. 12 Kim states the following: “Dr. Ruckman and Bible-believing Christians do not believe the KJV translation corrects the Hebrew and Greek Bible that God used for the Old and New Testaments.” Kim does not prove this with any quote from Peter Ruckman. I cannot speak for all other Bible believers, but Ruckman does indeed seem to teach what Kim denies:
The AV 1611 is far superior to any manuscript extant, and on occasion it would be superior to the original manuscripts if they could be produced. Ruckman, Peter. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians Commentary. 1973, 1980, p. 162
No Greek text, INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL, would have given you light on the text.
Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Acts. 1974, 1984, p. 38
Kim spends two pages defending Ruckman for making references to the KJV as correcting “the original Hebrew,” “the original Greek,” and “the Greek text” simply because Ruckman uses quotation marks with those terms. On p. 278 Kim explains:
Whenever Dr. Ruckman corrects some Hebrew and Greek text with the King James Bible, he is correcting the corrupt Hebrew and Greek texts of the modern versions which are claimed to be “originals” by the scholars. Dr. Ruckman placed quotation marks around “original Hebrew,” “original Greek,” and “The Greek text” every time in his writings to show he is referring to the so-called Hebrew and Greek texts used by modern scholars. Many know that quotation marks around words are used to either introduce a person speaking or to show certain words as so-called and fake. But amazingly, Fundamentalists and Christians do not quite seem to see those quotation marks.
Does Ruckman really only put quotation marks around terms such as originals when it is something “so-called and fake?” Notice the following quote from Ruckman’s writings:
Watch the Holy Spirit, who inspired the “originals” and preserved them for the universal language of the last days (without error), straighten out the Greek and Hebrew Grammars… (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Acts. 1974, 1984 printing. p. 98)
As can be noted in the above quote, when Ruckman puts quotation marks around a term such as originals it is not always in reference to something that is so-called and fake, or a reference to texts used by modern scholars. In fact, scholars do not normally refer to printed Greek or Hebrew texts as “originals,” although they sometime use terms such as “original text” or “original Greek” to refer to a reading in its original language. The KJV translators themselves used similar terminology when they made reference to “the original,” and “the Hebrew Original” in the preface to their 1611 edition. The title page of the KJV 1611 used the phrase “the original tongues” and the title page of the New Testament stated that it was “translated out of the original Greek.” On p. 279 Kim (like Ruckman) accuses scholars of lying when they use such terms, but the same criteria applied to the KJV translators would make them liars as well.
More documentation on Ruckman’s belief that the KJV can correct the originals can be found here: A look at Ruckman’s reasons for declaring the KJV to be superior to the originals
Did God put the preface in the KJV?
Starting on p. 292 Kim takes issue with Hymers expressing concern about a statement by Ruckman that God put the preface in the KJV. Kim agrees that God put the preface in the KJV, but still insists that God did not inspire the translator’s preface. Observe:
Dr. Ruckman merely believed God put the translators’ preface in the Bible, not the scripture of God in Genesis-Revelation. …