What exactly does Ruckman believe about double inspiration?

One of Peter Ruckman's views which is often rejected except by the most loyal of his followers is his teaching on "double inspiration." The historic and biblical view is that inspiration took place once (over a period of time), never to be repeated again once the canon was closed. Therefore the term "double inspiration" has the tendency to raise a red flag for many people, for good reason. Our experience is that many who otherwise tend to agree with Ruckman on Bible translations shy away from this controversial term.

We have presented the title to this article as a question because some questions remain about Ruckman's position on the double inspiration of the KJV. If you disagree or if you have another explanation for Ruckman's views on double inspiration, we welcome your respectful comments. We will start off with what is known and can be documented about his position.

We will allow Ruckman to explain his concept of double inspiration in his own words. The following summarizes his teaching on this matter in a concise manner:

What blank, freshman fool didn’t know that there are more than 150 quotations from the Hebrew Old Testament that pop up as a translation (the Greek New Testament) in every copy of the New Testament ever printed? The first time they were “inspired” was in the Hebrew language, and the next time (“double!”) they were inspired again in the New Testament “original autographs”! They were inspired in a different language, and many times the translations did NOT match “the original Hebrew” or the “original Old Testament manuscript” or “the Hebrew text.” ([No author listed, but bears Ruckman’s unmistakable style] Bible Believers' Bulletin. Jan. 2008, p. 9)

Briefly, what Ruckman teaches is that since the Greek New Testament portions that originally come from the Hebrew Old Testament are inspired, we have a precedent for "double inspiration." If the term "double inspiration" was used in that restricted sense alone, most Christians probably wouldn't have a problem with the term. However, Ruckman uses this "double inspiration" argument in an attempt to prove the view that human Bible translations can be inspired. The problem is that he applies select translation work done uniquely by the Holy Spirit (Hebrew to Greek of select portions) 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 through the Biblical writers compared to human beings translating the whole Bible. Ruckman also points out that when Hebrew portions appear in the Greek New Testament they are not always translated literally. Sometimes words are added or left out. He uses this to go a step further in pointing out that the KJV would not have to match the originals for it to be inspired. He therefore strongly implies that a legitimate case of double inspiration has occurred with the KJV. Here is another quote from Ruckman's perspective:

Third lie: “No translation can be inspired.” The liar has just denied more than 100 verses in the New Testament in any set of Greek manuscripts, from any “family,” in any time, by anybody, any place, anywhere. There are more than 100 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, which were originally written in Hebrew and then TRANSLATED into Greek. If you say “no translation could be inspired,” you’ve thrown more than 100 verses out of the New Testament in all the manuscripts, including the “original manuscripts.” The “original manuscripts” of the New Testament were written in Greek, and their Old Testament quotations were TRANSLATIONS of the Hebrew. (Ruckman, Peter. "The Sound Mind." Bible Believers' Bulletin, May 2008, p. 14)

When the statement "no translation can be inspired" is made, in virtually every case it would be in the context of translations that were done since the Bible was written. So for Ruckman to accuse the person making the statement of being a liar is part of his unethical tactics. What Ruckman is doing is as unreasonable as accusing a person of being a liar for referring to an aircraft "black box" by its common name, even though in recent decades the color has changed to yellow or orange.

It is likely that Ruckman came up with his double inspiration argument sometime after 1972, as it is not mentioned in his books The Bible Babel, (1964) The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, (1970) nor Satan's Masterpiece: The New ASV (1972). Up till the early 1970's, Ruckman said very little along the lines of the KJV being "given by inspiration of God" or inspired. This changed drastically with his double inspiration argument coupled with his new twist on interpreting 2 Tim. 3:16 later in the decade (See Ruckman's self-serving interpretation for 2 Timothy 3:16).

Ruckman's endorsement of a book teaching that the KJV was the third inspiration

One of the glowing endorsements in Ruckman's Bible Believers' Bulletin for a book by the title The New Athenians does not list an author, but it is written in Ruckman's characteristic style (Sep. 1992, p. 3). However, there is another promotion for the book in the March 2008 issue which clearly lists Ruckman as the author of the endorsement. The book in question, written by James Son, is sold by Bible Baptist Bookstore as product KJ-1740. It stated the following about "triple inspiration:"

I believe that the Authorized Version is the inspired, infallible, inerrant, immutable, pure word of God to English speaking people. (I not only believe in DOUBLE inspiration [which the NEW Athenians reject], but, also, I believe in TRIPLE INSPIRATION. I believe that God not only inspired the writers in the original languages, but also the New Testament writers when they TRANSLATED the Hebrew passages into the Greek, and the translators of the Authorized Version as they made their selection of English words.) (Son, James H. The New Athenians. Lubbock, TX: Praise Publishing, 1992, p. 25)

Ruckman declares that "the infallible Elizabethean English" is doubly inspired

Ah, the unsearchable riches of the infallible Elizabethean English! How profound are its revelations, and its “double-inspiration” past finding out! (No author listed, but it bared Ruckman's unmistakable style. Bible Believers' Bulletin, June 2006, p. 19)

Ruckman’s double inspiration is not so much a teaching as an argument. The teaching is that the KJV is inspired, and the double inspiration argument is only brought up in an attempt to refute the historical view that “a translation cannot be inspired.” He surfaces with this little-thought-of issue in order to confuse and catch people off guard who have not given much thought about the originals containing portions that are inspired but had been translated.

The problem with Ruckman's argument is that he seems to want you to think that when a human being translates a Bible of which he approves, it is just as inspired as if the Holy Spirit had translated it. However, when a human translates a given word in the Bible, it is not God breathing out his word in the new language as when the Holy Spirit inspired Biblical writers. There are some God-breathed words in Greek and Hebrew that a human may not be able to translate precisely without losing some of the nuances and implications of the original language. There is also the possibility of a human translating the wrong meaning when a given Greek or Hebrew word has many possible meanings. What the Holy Spirit can do flawlessly cannot be compared to what a human can do with all his limitations.

While reading Ruckman’s books we do not recall a case in which Ruckman stated something to the effect that the KJV was an extra inspiration, but he strongly implies such by applying the double inspiration argument to those who say the KJV cannot be inspired. Adding to the complexity in the analysis of Ruckman's views is that he at times denies what he seems to affirm about double inspiration of a translation: "We cannot claim direct inspiration in the original Biblical sense for the King James text…" (Ruckman, Peter. Theological Studies. Booklet 15, 1988, p. 15). This seems contradicted by the following, which implies a second inspiration occurred with the KJV: "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).

There are many good people who claim not to hold to Ruckman's double inspiration but teach that the KJV is inspired. My question for them is: If they do not wish to identify with Peter Ruckman, and if they do not believe that God breathed out the words of the KJV, why even state that the KJV is inspired to begin with? Why make such statements that are susceptible to misunderstanding? We believe that if they insist on using such terminology, they should explain in detail why their conclusions coincide with Ruckman's (that the KJV is inspired) if they disagree with Ruckman's double inspiration view.

When God breathes out words, they are inspired, regardless of whether those words in Greek match Hebrew Old Testament quotes or not. They are inspired because God himself breathed out the words in both languages. However, when human translators translate, the divine act of the Holy Spirit breathing out words does not take place. No double or secondary inspiration takes place when human translators do their work because they are not being inspired in the process as were the Biblical writers.

 

2 Responses to “What exactly does Ruckman believe about double inspiration?”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Visitor says:

    Double Inspiration Part 2
    Steve Somner of Lighthouse Baptist Indiana has posted in public domain a theory that he supports “double inspiration”.
    See http://www.lighthousebaptistchurch.biz/index.php?p=1_56&nid=1#comments_top. Somner has taken several passages to conform to and idea of “double inspiration” but rather than work in his favor it works against him. In Somner’s mind, if passage in one testament is quoted differently in another we have double inspiration. This is suposed proving that Ruckmanism is correct i.e. the AV of 1611 corrects all the errors of both the Hebrew and Greek texts and those also in the received text. Somner being a four point Ruckmanite is not forward in defining “advanced revelation” within the fundamental theory. But more on this latter.

    The attitude the foundation of the doctrine…
    In general Somner likes to sling off and his apologetics as Ruckman’s is always prefaced by “trout mouthin’” then providing absolutely no comments upon the texts cited from the English AV 1611 translations or the texts themselves. Ruckmanism is well known for its public rudeness which characterizes it more than its teaching. In fact its fame is born of its mindset not its teaching. This indicates that the teaching is a cloak to be a “naughty boy” to be a “bully” full well knowing that righteous men tempered by the fruit of the spirit will not respond with the same gusto… However Somner as Ruckman both forget that though justified by faith we are mortal men in a body of death with earthly limits and one should not tick off a righteous man in the Spirit for he has nothing to loose.
    The foundation attitude of Ruckmanism is Lucifarian and it is upon this foundation that the entire movement is built. Ruckmanism gains its reputation from this controversial approach the “naughty boy”, “the controversial star” seeking some attention tempting and denouncing any authority except its own. The error apologetically has been first to isolate attitude from the doctrine however the attitude is the teaching and cannot be divorced from it… The Apostle in his defense of the faith clearly attacks the mindset in advance of the doctrine, the Lord did likewise with the Pharisee understanding that the mind is not separated from what it teaches. It is from the abundance of the mind that the mouth speaks and the abundance of the mind of Ruckmanism is the gall of bitterness. This mindset is universal in serious serous Ruckmanites and it is plain that the apple has not fallen to far from the tree. Ruckmanism is a mind cult where control of the mind through discrediting any scholarship except their own deludes many and keeps others in the darkness of death, fear and superstition. In answering Somner as Ruckman we are most likely casting our pearls before swine however, we do this in order that those who sit under this ministry of death might be awakened to flee this court of Babylon’s cults.

    Continuing
    When challenged on this view of “double inspiration” in association with the text Somner insists that the explained figure of speech used in such cases to adequately explain differences in quotes i.e. the gnome, was of our invention. His response is quoted “You mention the gospel variations with a wide stroke of all being due to syntax, gnomes, and figures. It seems as if you are inventing your own catachresis as you go. “ The critique finishes with the following “Therefore, despite all the Greek grammar, that reveals nothing, God the author of Romans is revealing the hidden mysteries to his saints. Written a’ ONE a, a’ TWO a! Double inspiration” his quote is nothing more than ignorance of language and linguistics.

    However for interested readers this figure can be found in the English bible as a quotation taken from its original sense a gnome or gonmee in the Greek meaning knowledge or understanding. The “gnome” is of the root “gnonai” meaning to know. There are 244 gnomes in the NT documents 147 agree in content while 97 differ in content, Somner’s ignorance could be passed over if his arrogance was not so invigorating and inviting well earned response. The entire batch of this figure is beyond the scope of this response but we include a few for the readers who wish to be further informed; Matt 1:23, Matt 15:4, Heb 9:8, Acts 28:25, Rom 9:17, the original sense is preserved in these internal gnomes… Matt 12:40, John 19:36, Eph 5:31-32, Gnomes where the original sense is modified…

    Double inspiration is pre-suppositional apologetics where presupposition proceeds argument and if the Greek grammar reveals nothing “double inspiration” sits in a vacuum begging the question, “what comes first the chicken of the egg”. Logically a Ruckmanite cannot appeal to any of the texts for the 1611 edition of the AV, as these priori documents did not give rise to the postori translation… inspiration was the priori source f the 1611 AV. In the mind of a Ruckmanite the 1611 AV is a priori document not requiring any priori apart from itself… However without these priori documents there is no 1611 AV and consequently no argument. Ruckmanism is by default a moot point, self contradicting as it cannot escape it’s the postori nature in the translation of the 1611 AV…

    In simpler terms it is like the “atheist” that must logically appeal to the priori of theism to define its “atheist” views… And like the atheist Ruckmanites hold the truth concerning themselves in unrighteousness…

    We are indebted to the brilliance of Apostle Paul’s mind in exposing the real nature these arguments and Babylon’s Babblers… The sad fact is many are led to the second death under such teaching irrespective of the claims made by its “guru’s” … This fact alone should stir good men to action

    We hope this stimulates more debate upon apologetical methods as it no point picking off the fruit one must go to the root of unbelief.
    regards in Christ
    Rabbi Ansel

  2. Aaron Taylor says:

    Ruckman simply believes that the God who created the universe is still alive and is able it speak English and has given us a perfect inerrant bible fulfilling Ps. 12:6,7. If I believed what you do about God I would trade him in for a good pair of shoes, and get myself an honest job.

Would you like to comment? Comments must be respectful. All comments will be moderated. The reason a comment may not be approved could range from provocativeness, going off topic, lack of substance, lacking Christian grace, baseless accusations, etc.

*