Critique of the new Ruckman Reference Bible

The Ruckman Reference Bible (hereafter RRB), highly anticipated among Ruckmanites, was published in November of 2009. The introduction to the RBB itself states that "It has been a long time coming and long awaited by many Bible believers." Ruckman had arrogantly promised that:

The work will have in it a minimum of 8000 “facts” not found in any four other reference Bibles. Four study Bibles might have 1/10th of the information. (Ruckman, Peter. "The Ruckman Reference Bible" Bible Believers' Bulletin. December 2009, p. 2)

The first thing we noticed about the RRB was that the layout of the notes and references is similar to the Scofield Bible, except that it included 118 appendices in the back, making it a much thicker volume. It has the dedication to King James as in the original 1611, but considering that is included, it noticeably lacks The Translators to the Readers preface, probably because several statements therein by the KJV translators are contrary to Ruckmanism.

We will begin our critique backwards by going through the appendices first, followed by the notes in the body of the text. The fact that an appendix was skipped does not mean that the contents were found to be Biblical. We are simply jotting down some observations regarding what stood out to us the most during our first reading of the RRB.

Appendix 1
 

The very first appendix includes a statement saying that if Jehovah had been used for Lord every time, it would have destroyed the unity of the Bible. Since Hebrew does not make the same distinction as in the KJV, he closed the appendix with the following statement: "The King James Version is an improvement over the 'Hebrew.'" 

Appendix 5


Although documented (mostly from E.L. Abel's questionable book Moon Madness published by the publisher Fawcett, not written by Fawcett as stated in the RRB) this appendix is loaded with superstition about the moon. Among the unusual things mentioned is the following: "In eight years, Henry Lee Lucas murdered one hundred girls. Every time the moon was full, he had intercourse with a corpse or a severed head." Needless to say, such information is out of place in a reference Bible.

Appendix 20


As part of this appendix there is a chart on p. 1,707 in which Ruckman tries to prove through some illustrations and Scripture references that Mt. Zion is shaped like a pyramid. Ruckman's point can be summarized in the following two statements on this page: "Since God is a trinity, 'Mt. Zion' has to be a pyramid shape." "All Greek and Hebrew scholars missed all of the revelation."

Appendix 21


Within this appendix there is a heading with the title "The Tricks of the Tradesmen (1880-2000)" Under this heading there is a list of statements in quotes which he does not comment on, but disagrees with or considers to be diversionary tactic. We will list some selected ones and comment on them:

"The Greek text says…" & "The original Greek text says…"

Even when the worst manuscripts are included, there is no dispute whatsoever concerning over 95% of the text of the New Testament. When all manuscripts agree on a given reading, this statement should be considered safe. In his RRB notes under Deut. 32:31, Ruckman refers to the "original Greek" as follows: "The Holy Spirit preserved (in 'the original Greek') the difference between the two words by using 'petros' for Peter and 'petra' for Jesus Christ in every copy of Matthew extant (Matt. 16:18). The words are not the same in English, Latin, or Greek."

"Erasmus was pro-Catholic."

Although it should be acknowledged that Erasmus was openly critical of some practices and beliefs of the Catholic church, he never left it.

"There was no Receptus before 1633."

The Textus Receptus (TR) got its name from a prefatory statement in Latin in a TR edition from 1633. However, the 1633 edition was part of a series of Greek New Testament editions that had only been lightly revised since Erasmus' 1516 edition; therefore Ruckman is right to point out that it is wrong to say there was no Textus Receptus before 1633.

"Editions of the Receptus differ"

That there are some variances between editions of the Textus Receptus is not in dispute, and Ruckman has even used that argument in his writings against those he calls "TR-men" in an attempt to justify correcting the Greek with the English.

"Where was the word of God before 1611?"

See Ruckman admitting he doesn't know where the Word of God was before 1611.

"The AV had a Crown copyright"

It absolutely did. The New Testament title page of the 1611 edition has cum privilegio, which is how copyright notices were noted in the 17th century. See Testing Ruckman’s Credibility: His KJV copyright denials.

"The Russians (Spanish, Germans, etc.) had no AV before 1611."

They had TR-based translations, but no AV. They are left with something Ruckman considers to be inferior.

Appendix 27


Under this appendix, there is a section called "'Ruckmanism' in the 17th-20th Centuries." Under this, he has a list of 7 people who supposedly taught that the Authorized Version of 1611 was a perfect Bible before his time. He does not quote any of them directly (if he would have, people could see that the quotes did not back up what he says). In six cases the reference is not to a primary source, but rather one of his publications which provides the quote. Six of the seven on his list were refuted in our article No evidence of Ruckmanism before 1950. The seventh one is new to us, and we will report on it once we obtain a copy of the book.
Update, Dec. 29, 2009: We obtained a copy of the only book on Ruckman's list we were not familiar with, and we were not surprised to find that on the page number Ruckman lists, there is no mention of the "KJV," the "Authorized Version," or even "our English translation." All that was found is a statement that referred to the Bible in general terms, with no version specified: "When the Bible says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go plumb to the devil." (20 Years with Billy Sunday by Homer Rodeheaver, p. 69)

Appendix 31


Who but Ruckman would have a list of "asses" in the Scripture as an appendix to a reference Bible? He provides a list of 28 uses for them, then links it to the 28-day cycle of the moon!

Appendix 35


This appendix contains a paragraph with one of Ruckman's strange beliefs:

Since the first public miracle in the Old Testament was Moses turning water to blood, and since the first public miracle in the New Testament was Jesus Christ turning water into wine (a type of blood), it stands to Biblical reasoning that the circulatory system which Adam and Eve had before they fell, was a water system … This brings up the problem of bloodsuckers like vampire bats and Dracula…

Appendix 36


This appendix has to do with the tithe being one tenth, and it is so strange throughout, that we will only quote the first line which should be sufficient to demonstrate its weirdness: "In the Book, the 'tithe' is directly connected with cannibalism in the United Nations after the Rapture."

Appendix 37


Most of this appendix has to do with Ruckman's superstitions regarding the letter x. He has a long list of words that contain this letter, and the ridiculousness of it all is summed up in the sphinx, a mythical creature which he defines as "a double-sexed cat!" Does Ruckman really expect people to take his Ruckman Reference Bible seriously?

Appendix 51


Ruckman is still trying to guess the dates of the rapture, in spite of God's warning of such futility in Mat. 24:36. In the current appendix he has the heading "The Calendar for the Second Advent." Under this he introduces his dates with the following statement: "Possible dates for a pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church would be either three days after Passover or on Pentecost (on a Jewish calendar)." Then he lists the following possible dates:
 

Year     Passover    Pentecost
2010     March 29      May 18
2011     April 19       June 8
2012     April 7         May 27
2013     March 26      May 15
2014     April 15        June 4
2015     April 4         May 24
2016     April 23        June 12

Appendix 118


As to the teaching that "Sinners are saved the same way in the Great Tribulation as they were saved before the Rapture," Ruckman calls it a "fable" that is more "'fabulous' than any of Aesop's Fables." In this list of "fables" he lists such things as the possibility that the KJV could have errors in it and that only the original autographs were infallible and inspired. 

Miscellaneous observations about appendices:

Quite a few of the appendices do not add to the study of the Bible, as some of it is nothing more than sermon illustration material (see appendices 14-17, for example). One appendix covering nearly two pages consists merely of bumper sticker slogans. The introduction to the RBB itself states: "We trust you will be blessed and edified by the years of study and teaching Dr. Ruckman has assembled in these pages."

The notes in the body of the text


Genesis


As expected, Ruckman starts off teaching the gap theory in Genesis 1, lamenting that people even call it a theory. By Genesis 2 he is already teaching that Adam's salvation was by works. He calls all teaching to the contrary regarding Old Testament salvation "irreligious claptrap." In this same chapter he is already into racist jabs, stating: "In northern Alabama, Negros used to eat red clay out of the clay hills on Sunday afternoon with spoons to get back their original color." In chapter 3 he is teaching that the lack of sweat due to air-conditioning is causing people's bodies to be full of poison by the age of forty, in which circumstance we can only survive with medicines and operations. Ruckman starts chapter four with his wondering imagination stating: "This means that the Bible implies, without stating it directly, that some kind of a sexual union could have taken place between Eve and the 'angel of light' (see 2 Cor. 11:14)." Under Genesis 8:21 Ruckman has a comment which is characteristic of his twisted view of God: "The printed record that God gives of what he thinks about you is the greatest 'hate literature' ever assembled on earth." Under Genesis 10:2, he has a list as to what people from different nationalities and races have been labeled. Some of the labels are non-offensive, while others are unchristian. Notice this one: "the Black man is a 'n*****,' 'Jungle-bunny,' or 'Porch-monkey.'" While passing himself off as a Baptist, Ruckman shows his true colors in this statement in notes under Gen. 22:5: "By perverting this Scripture, the Baptists (as well as other denominations) have constructed the foolish epigram that 'in the Old Testament people were saved by looking forward to the cross and in the New Testament they are saved by looking back to the cross,' which is a nice pious piece of drivel." Some might try to say “at least Ruckman does not believe in salvation by works only in the OT, but rather works plus faith.” However, notice the following in the RRB under Gen. 42:25: “Some dispensations manifest salvation by works without faith, such as Genesis 2-3 and Revelation 20-22.”

Exodus


Note under Ex. 8:22: “Angels do not have wings (Gen. 18:2; Acts 1:10; Rev. 21:17).” These verses simply describe angels as men. Ruckman has to deny that Seraphims are angels, as they have wings (Isa. 6:2). Note also that Dan. 9:21 and Rev. 14:6 describes an angel flying. On another matter, a note for Ex. 16:20 explains a little more about his bizarre belief that tithing is related to cannibalism in the Tribulation. 

Numbers


Ruckman claims that Numbers 6:4 "identifies the exact fruit of which Adam and Eve partook;" (He describes it vaguely as a "vine tree," without identifying the exact fruit). He then goes on to castigate others for not finding this over a period of twenty centuries. The following is the entire note in which he attempts to prove he discovered what no one else could find in the Bible in 2,000 years:

The verse identifies the exact fruit of which Adam and Eve partook; this escapes the eyes of Bible correctors through a period of twenty centuries. It is a “vine tree” (Gen. 2:17; Judg. 9:8-15). How several thousand professing Christian scholars missed the connection between this and the Lord’s Supper (Deut. 29:6, 32:14, 32-33) is past finding out. As sure as Jesus Christ refused to call Mary His “mother” (John 2:4), the water pots of wine in John 2:10 were types of His blood shed on the cross (John 2:4).
The most logical explanation is since all Roman Catholics have been taught that it is perfectly all right to drink blood, that they instinctively overlooked all the verses. When you partake of blood, orally, you are violating three Testaments (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:14; Acts 15:20). It was connected with “original sin.”

On another topic, he claims that the word "pictures" in Numbers 33:52 is a reference to "the deadliness of television."

Deuteronomy


Concerning "giants" in Deuteronomy chapter 2, Ruckman believes there is a "connection to aliens from outerspace [sic]." For Deut. 4:19, Ruckman has the following unusual interpretation: 

The truth is, there are twelve constellations for twelve nations to inhabit in eternity, after the Millennium is over. Each nation has been assigned a constellation, exactly as each nation has to have a matchmate [sic] from the twelve tribes of Israel (Deut. 32:8).

1 Samuel


Under 1 Sam. 16:10 we find one of the RRB's "Ruckmanisms": "Always allow the English to correct the Greek and Hebrew texts; it will never fail a single time." In the notes for 1 Sam. 20:30, Ruckman feels compelled to tell you that the modern equivalent of the expression in this verse would be "son of a b****." (He spelled the whole word out).

2 Kings


According to the center-column notes for 2 Kings 4:34, Ruckman treats this as a case of Elisha using CPR, instead of a genuine resurrection miracle. This is in spite of the chapter telling us twice that the boy had indeed died, and the considerable amount of time that had passed from when Elisha heard of his death and was able to come and lay upon him. Ruckman presents it as follows: "This is known as CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Elisha was about 2,700 years ahead of 'modern science.'"

Psalms


At Psalm 139:15 Ruckman reveals an unusual view for someone who passes himself off as a Baptist. We will quote the entire note for this verse, so it cannot be said that we took Ruckman out of context: 

Verses 13-16 are used by "pro-life Christians" (anti-abortionists) to prove that abortion is murder. The only way they can get that interpretation, though, is to ignore or alter this verse. Many expositors will make the expression "the lowest parts of the earth" a figurative reference to the "womb" (vs. 13). But the phrase has nothing to do with any woman's womb in Psalm 63:9; Isaiah 44:23; or Ephesians 4:9. Typical Laodicean, apostate scholarship–changing what God said to prove what you want the Scriptures to say. The reference is obviously to the creation of Adam (see note on Gen. 2:12).

Isaiah


Under Isa. 53:12, he goes into a confusing explanation about his views on what can happen to a soul. The following sentence summarizes his conclusion to the whole matter: 

That would explain what Christ meant when he said a man could "lose his own soul" (Mark 8:36), for the soul would lose the bodily shape of the man and become a red maggot.

Jeremiah


For Jeremiah 1:5 we find the following note, which we reproduce in its entirety: "This verse is used by 'pro lifers' to prove that abortion is murder. However, it is addressed to a grown man who was not aborted (see note on Psa. 139:15)."

On another topic, observe this note for Jer. 36:32:

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]

Ezekiel


Ruckman has the heading "the UFO in the Temple" for Ezekiel chapter 10. This and some other references to UFO's in the RRB might be tongue-in-cheek, as the term merely means "unidentified flying object." However, Ruckman's book Black is Beautiful documents his belief in UFOs, so some of his references to UFOs might be meant in a literal sense to represent creatures from outer space.

Jonah


In the introduction to the book of Jonah, Ruckman states: "Jonah died in the belly of the whale." In the notes for Jonah 2:2 he elaborates: "Jonah was the only man in the Old Testament to go 'To Hell and Back' (an Audie Murphy movie)."

New Testament


Matthew


A note for Mat. 4:1 reveals that Ruckman believes in the “peccability” of Christ:

Verses 1-10 deal with the question of the peccability of Christ; i.e., Could Jesus Christ have sinned? Every apostate Fundamentalist would say He could not have sinned, under any condition. If that were so, why would Satan tempt Christ if he did not believe there was a chance that he could have succeeded in getting Jesus to rebel against God? When a Conservative or Fundamentalist takes the position that Christ was impeccable (unable to sin), he is claiming to be smarter than the most brilliant being in the universe outside of God Himself (see Ezek. 28:3).

A note for Mat. 12:40 expands on what Ruckman had previously said about Jonah: "Jonah literally died, he was literally resurrected."

The note for Mat. 19:5 states: “But marriage per se, is intercourse, and it is defined as such even when there is fornication with a harlot (see 1 Cor. 6:16-18).” Even though Ruckman has a verse for this strange belief that says something similar, one should keep in mind that one of the most important rules of hermeneutics is that if a literal interpretation of an isolated passage would result in a total absurdity, the passage is speaking in figurative terms.

1 Corinthians


In his notes for 1 Cor. 14:14, Ruckman’s characteristic style comes forth as he portrays the apostle Paul telling Charismatics to “get mad, kick out the slats in their crib, throw their bottle on the floor…”

Hebrews


Ruckman’s arrogance is revealed in his comment for Heb. 6:4: “None of the scholars, commentators, or expositors understand verses 1:8…” Ruckman describes Scofield’s attempt at interpreting the passage an “excursion into theological madness.” Ruckman of course, understands what no scholar, commentator or expositor ever could understand, so he proceeds to set them straight with an interpretation that includes works for salvation during the tribulation.

Hebrews 11 is a chapter which completely refutes Ruckman’s teaching that Old Testament saints were saved by works. The theme of this chapter is faith, but Ruckman tries to take away from that theme in his headings throughout the chapter. For example, above verse 6 he has the heading: "The faith of Abraham manifested by his works." Except for changing the names, he has the exact same heading for several others in the chapter.  

2 Peter


Under 2 Peter 3:16, Ruckman makes the following claim:

…never does the word "scriptures," in the Scripture, ever refer to "original autographs" or "original manuscripts"–not a single time. That lie was invented to defraud you. Thieves (John 10:1, 8) invented it: Christian thieves.

However, 2 Tim. 3:16 tells us how the Scriptures were given, which has to refer to the originals. Some say that the Scriptures Timothy had mentioned in the previous verse demonstrates that the originals were not being referred to in verse 16, however the Greek word underlying "scriptures" in verse 15 is a different Greek word. Ruckman does not want to accept that 2 Tim. 3:16 is a reference to the originals, because it would demonstrate that inspiration took place only once with the originals, never to be repeated again.

Revelation


We will end with this paragraph found under Rev. 21:24:

But the eternal life that these Gentiles get from the Tree of Life is different from that of the Christian. Christians don't bear children in Eternity (Matt. 22:30); these gentiles do (Isa. 9:7; Psa. 103:17). When these children reach a certain age (probably 33 1/2 years old–see 1 John 3:2), they enter into the city on the month each of them was born (Isa. 66:22-23) through the gate assigned to the nation to which each of them belongs. They then eat from the Tree of Life the specific fruit that grows on it for their nation (Rev. 22:3). As these "nations" grow in number and become too many for the earth to sustain, God transports them to one of the twelve "houses" of the Zodiac to populate outer space (see note on Deut. 4:19).

We will not comment on the above, as we believe its ridiculousness speaks for itself.

Concluding comments
 

The RRB is loaded with slang in the notes, such as the expression “stuffing their gut with food,” (Ex. 32:19) “You’re liable to puke,” (Prov. 25:16) and “blow it out your nose” (p. 1,498) which seems out of place in what is supposed to be a study Bible. Many crude words are used by Ruckman in his RRB to describe people with whom he disagrees, such as “dirty dogs” (p. 1,485). Another example of impropriety in the RRB is the following note for Heb. 1:12: "Verses 1-12 record the greatest 'striptease' in the history of the universe, for the passage speaks of God taking off his clothes."

Like the Scofield Bible, the RRB has a center column for references. Sometimes Ruckman does more than insert references of parallel passages, as in this case in Matthew 20 in which he mocks how some old-time blacks preachers speak: “Hit don’t make no diffunce what time you went to work. De question is, is you on de job?” Perhaps it is not always wrong to see the humor in how others talk differently, but the fact that this appears in the center column of a reference Bible does nothing for its respectability nor does it aid anyone in the study of the Bible.

Over 90 percent of the time that he makes a reference to a belief that he labeled along the lines of being a Baptist or a Fundamentalist belief in the RRB, it was in a negative sense. If he is truly a Baptist as he calls himself and his church, why continually degrade Baptists beliefs?

Throughout the RRB we observed that Ruckman has an obsession with the United Nations. For example, in the book of Genesis alone there are nine headings in the text that he labels, “God’s warning to the United Nations.” In the note for Mat. 21:44 we find: “At His Second Advent, He is the smiting stone of Daniel 2:44-45 that comes to crush the UN beneath his feet (Rev. 14:14-20; Isa. 63:1-6).” As Christians we should not have confidence in the UN, and we believe that practical applications can be made to the UN with such verses as 1 Thes. 5:3 (For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them…). However, we sense that Ruckman goes far beyond that using his vivid imagination to interpret many dozens or perhaps hundreds of verses as containing specific warnings to the UN or prophecies about the UN.

In other writings, Ruckman claims to be against abortion, but the way he denied in the RRB that certain passages could be applied to abortion as we have documented, you would never know it.

Although we do not agree with the influx of so many new versions, and we personally only use the KJV, we believe Ruckman is way out of line in referring to these new translations as “pieces of trash” (note for 1 Tim. 5:17). He claims people can be saved from modern translations, but you would never know from the way he portrays them almost as if they were satanic bibles. Problems with modern translation can and should be pointed out, but it does not have to be done at the cost of losing Christian dignity and respect. See our list of recommended books here: Recommended non-Ruckmanite literature in defense of the KJV or Textus Receptus.

We believe all the writings of Ruckman and authors influenced by him should be shunned, not only because of the bitter spirit manifested therein, but also because of doctrinal issues, many of which have been documented throughout ruckmanism.org.

Scan of a page from the RRB which did not contain notes. To be fair, this is not a typical page, as most pages contain some notes, as can be seen from what bled through from the facing page.

 

104 Responses to “Critique of the new Ruckman Reference Bible”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Anonymous says:

    Wow. You found all that and it just came out. Reading Ruckman is like eating fish-you throw out the bones. You do that with other Bible commentators, don’t you? Have you given thought to the fact that Ruckman is trying to get people to think and to know what they believe, and not just be blindly following along? And he does like to give the “Brethren” fits. I have a copy of his reference Bible, and a handful of his books. Ruckman is Ruckman. You take that which is profitable and leave the rest.

  2. Webmaster says:

    If you really believed that consistently, you would require Ruckman to do the same. But Ruckman is allowed to bash writers he disagrees with frequently with some of the crudest remarks possible for a religious writer, and you defend him? This philosphy of keeping the meat and throwing out the bones doesn’t apply biblically when false doctrines are involved.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Wow, Dr. Ruckman has serious mental/emotional issues. As the Gospels quote Jesus, *what’s in your heart comes out of your mouth* and James says if you can’t control your tongue, your religion is in vain.

    The problem with Ruckman influenced Fundamentalism is those who mimic his behavior and worship his persona (really, this can apply to ANY Christian teacher/follower relationship)aren’t following Christ.

    That said, the RRB is a compilation of the “Best of” moments in Mr. Ruckman’s relationship to his God/god. If his words make you “happy”, vindicated, feel “spiritual”, I would arrange for some alone time and really re-evaluate your relationship with God. There is not ONE fruit of the Spirit related to anything he says.

    Mike
    Columbus, Ohio

  4. Anonymous says:

    Thank you for helping expose Peter Ruckman for the person he is. He is one of the reasons God instructs Christians to “try the spirits.”

  5. Anonymous says:

    It’s funny how all of “Ruckman’s” strange beliefs don’t have any Bible references in this critique. If they’re so strange why are the “proof” texts missing (I put that in quotes for the writers’ of this page’s sakes). All of them have numerous references in the appendices and of course notes. If they’re all so “strange,” tack on the refs and let people see for themselves. Otherwise nice write-up. It made me laugh. And, btw, when will you guys ever figure out what doc. means when he says, “the original greek”?

  6. Webmaster says:

    You want me to take Ruckman more seriously than what he deserves. When a quote included a reference, I left it. Sometimes I volunteered the verse Ruckman used even though the quote I selected didn’t include it. An example would be Numbers 6:4, a verse which Ruckman claims 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.

  7. Webmaster says:

    Here’s another nonsense reference by Ruckman I came across. In the book Twenty-Two Years of the Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Vol. 3, Doctrinal Studies. 2000, p. 95 in the context of speaking of demons and Satan Ruckman writes: "He is in charge of FLIES (Matt. 12:24)." Read what that verse says: But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. More nonsense.

  8. Brad Kaliman says:

    Thank you for such a valuable review of the Grand “Ruckman Reference Bible”

    How ANYONE can take this sophomoric and puerile excuse for a Reference Bible seriously is beyond me. Ruckman has also dated his new Bible by referring to contemporary figures like Mel Gibson, Bill Clinton, and Michal Jackson in his study notes. Within a decade or two Ruckman’s Bible will be out of date. Compare that with the Companion Bible which was first published in 1910. This work is STILL being sold and used today. I doubt if Mr. Ruckman’s creation could do the same.

    This whole production seems so undignified and UNscholarly that it very well may set back we in the whole Pro KJV camp quite a few years.

  9. Visitor says:

    I am a graduate of PBI. I went there wanting to learn the Book. I learned The Book. Did I come away from there believing everything, exactly the way that Doc does, “NO”. I disagree with him on quite a few issues.
    For 3 years of school, I did hear one repetitive statement made by him and the rest of the teachers, “the most important thing that a Christian has to worry about is his own personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ”. Why is it you never hear that from his opponents.
    Doc always said that a person is going to get out of that Book what they go into it looking for. The same goes with his writings. He many times will tell you that you can easily find fault in him. He admits that. But all his opponents seem to find is statements that make him look completely arrogant. You found what you were looking for didn’t you.
    My question is, how much time have you wasted putting this webpage together going after him when you could have actually helped the cause of Christ? Wow, look at the publicicty you are giving him.
    I have a crazy, wacky idea….let the Holy Spirit tell people where Doc is wrong. That is His (Holy Spirit) job isn’t it? But I guess you people know better the the Holy Spirit does don’t you?
    I was at Doc’s church 2 weeks ago for the Blowout, and heard some of the greatest preaching I have ever heard. But more importantly, I saw something every person should have seen. Saturday night, I saw an 87 year old man (Doc) get down on his kness with a teenage boy at the altar because the boy needed prayer. That is the Doc I have seen. The man cares about people whether you think so or not. Have you met the guy? Have you seen him in person? I bet some of the people reading this have not.
    You people need to ask yourself a few questions….
    1. If Doc believes in UFO’s, how does that affect your salvation?
    2. Same goes with abortion, angels, aliens, the gap theory etc…
    3. Who are you going to give an acocunt for when standing before God…Dr. Ruckman, or you?
    Let Doc answer for himself, he openly admits he is willing to answer for the things he teaches.

    Lastly, your apparent ignorance of Scripture is agonizing when dealing with some of these major doctrines. Usually, I would jump right into showing you these things from Scripture, and brow beating you senseless with these facts, but you would not take it anyway, you have your mind made up. You want to talk about it, you have my email.

    I have a crazy idea, quit making your life’s goal to tear one guy down with witless accusations, and mind your own personal relationship with Christ (if you have one). Your actions do not show the love of Christ, whether Doc’s do or not.

    Get over yourself, and mind your own business.

    • Anon says:

      AMEN! AMEN!

    • R&R says:

      Well said.

    • PCC Student says:

      1 John 4:1 “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

      Christians are supposed to test what men say about God against the Bible. Christians should always be watching for people who would use God’s word to twist it to say what they want. Not every man who says he speaks for God truly does.

      Matthew 7:21-23 “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
      Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
      And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

      As to the reference bible and the content Dr. Ruckman writes in it,

      Deuteronomy 4:2 “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

      Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
      Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

      Dr. Ruckman defenders claim that those who are critical of his teachings take him out of context. They should be more concerned with whether or not Dr. Ruckman is taking the word of God out of context.

  10. Webmaster says:

    If you sincerely apply everything to Ruckman that you are trying to apply to me, you would repudiate Ruckman’s practices and disassociate from him in a heartbeat. Let’s break it down:

    “how much time have you wasted putting this webpage together going after him when you could have actually helped the cause of Christ?”

    Now let’s apply your own criteria to Ruckman: “How much time has Ruckman wasted going after his opponents in his 120 books when he could have actually helped the cause of Christ?”

    “let the Holy Spirit tell people where Doc is wrong.”

    Now let’s apply your own criteria to Ruckman: “Let the Holy Spirit tell Ruckman’s opponents where they are wrong.”

    “But I guess you people know better the the Holy Spirit does don't you?”

    Now let’s apply your own criteria to Ruckman: “But I guess Ruckman knows people better then the Holy Spirit does, doesn't he?

    “Have you met the guy? Have you seen him in person?”

    Now let’s apply your own criteria to Ruckman: “Has he met all the guys he attacks? Has he seen all of them in person?”

    “If Doc believes in UFO's, how does that affect your salvation?”

    Now let’s apply your own criteria to Ruckman: “If Ruckman’s opponents believe (fill in the blank) how does that affect their salvation?”

    “Who are you going to give an acocunt for when standing before God…Dr. Ruckman, or you?”

    Now let’s apply your own criteria to Ruckman: “Who is Ruckman going to give an account for when he stands before God…himself or his opponents?”

    “Let Doc answer for himself”

    Now let’s apply your own criteria to Ruckman: “Let his opponents answer for themselves”

    “quit making your life's goal to tear one guy down”

    Now let’s apply your own criteria to Ruckman: “Ruckman, quit making your life's goal to tear guys down.”

    “Your actions do not show the love of Christ”

    Now let’s apply your own criteria to Ruckman: “Ruckman, your actions do not show the love of Christ.”

    “Get over yourself, and mind your own business.”

    Now let’s apply your own criteria to Ruckman: “Ruckman, get over yourself, and mind your own business.”

    I don’t deny that I am guilty of criticizing Ruckman, but Ruckman is one thousand times more guilty of what you attribute to me, especially when you consider his harshness. If what I do is wrong, Ruckman is a thousand times more wrong, yet you are going after me and defending Ruckman! Don’t you see the double standard? If you really believe in the criteria you set up for me, I would be out, but Ruckman would have been OUT the first time you picked up one of his books. It is not too late to repent of following a man. Look to Christ, (Heb. 12:2) as He will never fail you.

     

    • Anon says:

      Amazing how, without exception you deflect every single issue addressed to YOU and turn the issue to Ruckman. I think you really have a heart issue and a personal issue with Ruckman. Beyond the obvious tone of attack you take, the fact that you conceal your identity make it obvious you have a personal dislike for Ruckman.

      Get your heart right and get over whatever it is he did to you or your family.

      Go spend your time on something far more important like winning souls or drawing near The Saviour.

      Leave pointing out flawed teachings to the Holy Spirit since it is his job anyway.

      I’m neither a Ruckmanite nor a Ruckman defender. He says things I disagree with, don’t understand, can’t follow etc, but he has done more to educate christians in our age on the Bible, and populate this world with zealous, God loving servants than any other institution or person.

      I’m sure this will all go over your head, and like all previous admonitions you will immediately ask why I wouldn’t apply this to Ruckman. The main focus of all Ruckman’s teachings is “THE WORD OF GOD”. He does criticize and correct, even shred others who he believes are wrong, but in the end, his focus is “THE BIBLE” not correcting others.

      You’d do well to make your heart a matter of prayer and get over your personal attacks on anyone.

      • Webmaster says:

        “Amazing how, without exception you deflect every single issue addressed to YOU and turn the issue to Ruckman.”

        It’s due to hypocrisy. According to Ruckman defenders I’m not allowed to point out my disagreements with Ruckman with restraint, and yet Ruckman is allowed to blast other Christians saying things like “[name withheld] is fit to serve only as a Fundamentalist ‘bed pan'” (The Last Grenade, pp. 213-214).

        “Beyond the obvious tone of attack you take”

        Tone of attack? Who is the one who has written “[name withheld] would kill his own mother for fifteen cents,” “Hey, sonny! Your diapers need changing…We eat sticks like you for breakfast,” “BITE ‘em. Bite ‘em good. Draw blood (Jer. 48:10) when you bite. Let ‘em holler and scream and kick, throw rocks, beat you with batons, and curse you, but just keep bitin’ ‘em. Puncture ‘em just like you would an inner tube.” ???? Is that the tone of the writers of this site or of the man you are defending?

        “He does criticize and correct, even shred others who he believes are wrong, but in the end, his focus is ‘THE BIBLE’ not correcting others.”

        So it’s not wrong for him to “shred others” because according to you his focus is on something else?

        “Leave pointing out flawed teachings to the Holy Spirit since it is his job anyway.”

        If you really believed this, you would be lecturing Ruckman to do the same. My “pad” is littered with pieces of torn cloth and flesh. That is how God wanted it done. I had nothing to do with it. I put the entire blame on my master. He was fed up with educated a**es messing with His book. So He raised Him up a junkyard dog to take care of it.
        (Bible Believers’ Bulletin reprint #7 (Strictly Personal). pp. 584-585)

        Of everything you accuse me of, Ruckman is a thousands times more guilty than I am, and yet you praise him and defend him. That is cultish behavior. Look to Christ and not man, as He will never fail you.

  11. Visitor says:

    Beelzebub means “Lord of the Flies”

  12. Webmaster says:

    There might be Greek lexicons that list that as one of the pagan meanings. The first few I looked up referred to dung instead of flies. For example, Strong’s Concordance says "dung god." But even then it would be ridiculous based on the meaning of a name to say "he is in charge of dung." It is not wrong to point out the meaning of a name, but it can sometimes be misleading if applied as a literal characteristic. It could get as absurd as someone saying "strawberries are berries made from straw" or "grapefruit is the fruit of grapes." If Beelzebub can mean "lord of flies" it gives Ruckman some justification for what he said, but he should have pointed out that his basis for saying that was the meaning of the Greek word, which means he would have relied on the lexicons he so despises. Ruckman can be found quoting from lexicons, then at other times, look at what he writes:

    Again, we shall place all of the Greek Lexicons and Grammarians in the trash can – with the Commentaries, expositions and exegetes… (Ruckman, Peter. The Books of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians. 1973, 1980 reprint, p. 561)

     

  13. Mark says:

    I own his reference Bible. I have seen the man preach and I own a decent collection of his books. You have to take Ruckman with a grain of salt. He is the foremost authority on the King James Bible. The man is in his late 80’s. You have to get through all his name calling and criticisms and just draw out his knowledge. He fully admits that he is not a nice person he is never trying to be a nice person. On the other hand he never personally attacks someone unless they attack God’s word. I am not saying you have to like Ruckman, I am just saying that you need to pull out his doctrine and his knowledge of the scripture because they are both sound. Read some of his books. He will fully admit when a theory is his own and he can’t back it up scripturally and he won’t criticize someone for having a different view. He only starts when someone messes with The Bible

  14. Webmaster says:

    «You have to get through all his name calling and criticisms and just draw out his knowledge.»

    It's not wise to wade through so much name calling garbage and bitter criticism to get something when there are Spirit-filled writers out there and we can go to the Bible itself. Even if his doctrine was sound, Ruckman is more guilty of violating Titus 2:8 than any other religious writer I'm familiar with: 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.

    «He will fully admit when a theory is his own and he can't back it up scripturally and he won't criticize someone for having a different view.»

    Please provide examples to back up what you are saying.

    «Read some of his books.»

    We have already done so, which is evident by the abundance of quotes from his writings on this website. His writings should not be recommended to anyone, especially young Christians or the unconverted. Most unsaved people who disagree among themselves treat each other with more dignity and grace than Ruckman does. His books only serve to demonstrate what happens when one becomes full of himself and allows the root of bitterness to take hold of his heart. Heb. 12:15.

  15. Visitor says:

    I have read little of Ruckman. I believe him to be very harsh, and some of what he says unbelieveable…both literally and figuratively. I own only one of his books. I don’t intend on owning another. Not because I think he’s wrong, but I don’t appreciate his harshness. That’s just me.

    I have one criticism in your response.

    You stated, “If what I do is wrong, Ruckman is a thousand times more wrong…”

    I have to say in God’s “economy,” if you have committed one sin, you have broken the whole law. If you have committed one sin, you are just as guilty under God as someone who has committed a thousand sins.

    Let us both hope that you are both right instead of both wrong.

    D~

  16. Webmaster says:

    Thank you for commenting. I don't think I'm wrong in exposing Ruckman, but I said what I did for the sake of argument, to demonstrate the double standard implemented when defending Ruckman in the way it was done.

  17. CARL says:

    FOUND IT REFRESHING AND VERY GOOD FOR THE AVERAGE HARD WORKING MAN.

  18. Visitor says:

    I can not find anything doctrinaly wrong with the man. It is a
    shame that I find the so called scholars who add to the bible, or
    take things away from the bible (KJV). You will always find
    some translator who messes with KJV will always put their religous
    prefferences in it. To these so called scholars from BJU and Liberty
    university, Critics be gone.
    Timthy A Sturm

  19. Webmaster says:

    You say you can find nothing doctrinally wrong with Ruckman, and you even complain of those who add to the Bible, yet Ruckman on this very page you commented on is documented as teaching that Adam had a water circulation system in place of blood! Where is that in the Bible? Ruckman is the one who is off doctrinally, and adding to what the Bible says.

  20. Tim says:

    Bar none the best reference Bible on the Market, and more than likely will always be!!!

  21. Webmaster says:

    Your silence to all that was documented here speaks volumes.

  22. Visitor says:

    Someone is straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel. Doc never said, “the Bible says Adam had a water circulatory system”. What he teaches is that from scripture, it looks like he “could have had” a water system. I sat in his classes, I don’t agree with everything he says. What I know is that he told us every time something that he taught was what he thought and may or may not be.
    Get a life people. Worry about your own Christianity and quit being envious of another man’s ministry. Just because someone does not live up to your “Christian” standards (notice I did not say Biblical) they have to be bad.
    Doc has to answer to God, not you or me. Quit wasting everyone’s time you bunch of God depraved reprobates and do something that will actually count toward your own judgment.

  23. Webmaster says:

    Doc never said, "the Bible says Adam had a water circulatory system".

    He has said so in writing, almost verbatim. Here’s his quote:

    We pointed out to you that although Adam had no blood, as such, when he was created, he had a circulatory system of water with was changed to blood orally by the forbidden fruit. We pointed out the documented, scriptural evidence for such a belief and pointed out to you that this could not be found in any commentary written on Genesis… (Theological Studies. Booklet 17, p. 8)

    I have seen a quote in which he used less certain language about Adam supposedly having a water circulatory system, but in the above he claims outright that it is documented and scriptural.

    “What I know is that he told us every time something that he taught was what he thought and may or may not be.”

    That something odd he teaches “may or may not be” is rarely stated in his writings. And if he is not sure about something, he has no right to bash those who disagree and call them all sorts of names. For example on the critique of the RRB on this page Ruckman makes fun of those who interpret several anti-abortion verses as teaching life begins at conception by calling such interpretation “apostate scholarship.”

    Doc has to answer to God, not you or me.

    If you applied your view consistently, wouldn’t you admit that those whom Ruckman calls all sorts of names and puts in lists along with such unsavory characters as Charles Manson will also answer to God, not Ruckman? If I am wrong for exposing Ruckman in the meantime, then Ruckman is one hundred times more guilty than I am of doing what you accuse me of.

  24. Micah says:

    I have only heard of this man recently, but he is deeply troubling. For those who say “you take the good and leave out the bad,” let us remember that scripture tells us to avoid false teachers (both Testaments tell us that). Scripturally, Ruckman is unqualified to be pastor for many reasons, including his marriage failures and his use of scriptures to make wild proclamations and strange doctrines.
    I hope we will all seek God and not defend a man who fails practically every test God’s word establishes for men to lead a church.

  25. Don says:

    I have RRB and think it is great. It’s his notes take them or leave them. Personaly I have a better note Bible than his. It’s the notes I write in my Bible myself. I believe you both do a fine job a criticising each other, and hope it works out for you at the judgement. As for me I will stand with Dr. Ruckman and his teachings before I stand with someone that teachs their Bible is’not their final authority. But only what they USE.

  26. francis says:

    I bought Ruckman reference Bible and I found it so very interesting and even enjoy reading more the bible.. thank you for this site who promoting Ruckman and his work though in a pessimist way (as ruckman always says)…Long live Dr. Ruckman… Vengeance is mine saith the Lord for Ruckman’s opponent….

  27. Richard says:

    Strong’s 954. Beelzeboul Beelzeboul beh-el-zeb-ool’; of Aramaic origin [by parody on 01176]; dung-god; Beelzebul, a name of Satan:—Beelzebub.

    Flies are certainly associated with dung, but Strong gives a different interpretation for the Hebrew:

    Strong’s 01176. [heb.letters] Baæal Z@buwb bah’-al zeb-oob’; from 01168 and 02070; Baal of (the) Fly; Baal-Zebub, a special deity of the Ekronites:—Baal-zebub. Greek 954.

    Technically fly is singular, but can be extended to flies.

  28. Robert says:

    I salute you for the good work that you have done on this site. I was considering purchasing this bible and you have made me aware of the contents therein. People usually don’t accept advice. I totally agree that this mans comment in his bible are not appropriate. What I think people may find enticing is the shear volume of information contained in the bible itself. I’m wondering if anyone can tell me if there is another bible out there that contains as much or more information. I understand that quality is better than quantity. Another preacher that seems to be on the same playing field as he is Shepard’s chapel. He’s got some really weird ideas as well. Thanks again for this ministry of making everyone aware. God Bless. Robert.

  29. charlotteprofit says:

    It seems you folks either don’t know the word of GOD like you should or are extremely jealous of a man that GOD has blessed with the understanding of His word. I agree 100% withe everything that this man teaches and if you jealous people were smart, you would pray about your attitude of one of GOD’s greatest servants in the 20th and 21st century. He understands that Bible better than anyone else that I know except for his students that are HUMBLE enough to learn from him.

  30. Mike says:

    Do you include yourself in that herd of “humble” students? One more thing…”Charlotte…profit” Don’t you mean “Prophet”?…you may be humble, but not the brightest bulb in the pack.

  31. Johnson says:

    Would it be okay with you if I linked to this page from my website? Just asking since some people don’t allow linking to their sites if you don’t take their permission.

  32. Webmaster says:

    Absolutely. Please link to our website.

  33. Sexual activity is not marriage? Isn’t marriage the cojoining of flesh and flesh? Old Testament law says that if a woman and man were found together, the man humbling her, one had to pay a dowry for marriage. I dont agree with everything Ruckman says, but some of his beliefs ring true and what I admire of him is that he challenges the established way of thinking. Also, I also feel that some of the material here has been not represented fairly, as one pointed out. List the proof texts! If those really had no merit to them, then what is the matter? An objective scholar will, whether it was ridiculous or not.

  34. Caleb says:

    You need to take a good look at the KJV Bible, not references, and then make your judgment about how Doc forms his comments. The KJV Bible is not an easy book to read. It has a lot more harsh statements than doc ever makes in his writings. Look at what the Lord says about Pharisees, homosexuals, proud, etc. Many people just look at God as a God of Love. Ask Pharaoh and his army in the bottom of Red Sea if that is what they think. Ask every human being outside of Noah’s family prior to the flood what they think.
    I never met doc personally but I have read some of his books. He takes a firm stand on truth which is hard to hear sometimes but doesn’t mean he is wrong. Doc is flesh and blood like anybody else. I heard a few tapes of his preaching and I know one thing. The man knows God better than many, many other people I ever met.

    Don’t throw rocks at glass houses.

    • visitor says:

      Amen caleb ! I have met him personally you are correct. Many will be surprised when Lord returns they are expecting a meet and lowly galilean….. not so…… blood to the horses bridle.
      Perhaps it would help to re read the KJV before putting down an excellent
      reference Bible.

  35. Billy Goat says:

    TIME MAGAZINE. Medicine: Why People Eat Dirt, Monday, July 13, 1942 “Many a homesick or sardonic Northern Negro, writing to Southern friends, says “Ship me a bag of good dirt to eat.” Sometimes he means it. Even in the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, Negroes and whites send requests to their upcountry friends for a bit of red clay, declaring that black Delta soil is “right bad eating.” In certain parts of Mississippi, poor whites will walk miles for a spoonful of dirt from a favorite bank of clay, because it “tastes sour, like a lemon.” In other sections of the South, some top their meals with a savory tablespoon of dirt, believing that it…

    And what was that you were saying about Ruckman’s tall tales??

    • Webmaster says:

      At no time has this website declared Ruckman’s claim that some black folks have been known to eat clay to be false, or a “tall tale.” Here it was called a “racist jab.” Ruckman was trying to stigmatize blacks, and put them in a bad light. Your quote was very revealing, because it stated that some whites were known to have been involved in this activity as well. Did Ruckman mention this to provide some context and balance? Nope. Your quote helped make my point. Thank you.

  36. Tim says:

    Ruckman ref bible, the best one I have ever read.

  37. Jonathan says:

    Within the past two years ,I have begun to listen to some of Dr.Ruckman’s material. I have never learned so much about the bible. I am seeing things I’ve never seen before, and I love it. I do not follow any cultish “camp”
    I am in the Lords camp. Dr. Ruckman is not my captian, Jesus Christ is my captain. I have taken a likening to many great bible teachers from many differnt walks, such as the late Dr. J Vernon McGee, I also grew up listening to the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, and often attended Bellevue where he pastored, all of them great, but all them flawed because they were human. I take everything I hear with a grain of salt, as there is NO teacher who is one hundred percent correct. Yes we should be carful with Ruckman, but we should also be careful with everybody. And if we ever have an argument, it must always be with the teacher and never the bible. However IF Ruckman can back up what he’s saying with scripture, and the interpretation is correct, your argument is not with him, it’s with the bible. Oh how often we attack others for simply speaking the truth. Amos 5.6

  38. Chad Bush says:

    I have a great many study Bibles. I decided to buy Ruckman’s version last year around Christmas. I want to preface what I am about to say with the fact that I am no stranger to Ruckman or his teachings. I used to read his books and listen to his preaching and teaching. I own a few of his works. I used to think Ruckman was the best preacher I ever heard, and I honestly wanted to emulate him. As I matured in the faith I began to think otherwise.

    The Ruckman Reference Bible is not worth the money one pays. I know that his supporters will proclaim in disbelief “seventy years worth of his notes is not worth the money you pay” for the reference work, mainly because that is the very thing they say to me all the time when I proclaim the work is not worth the price.

    I have found that just as with his books the Reference Bible could be pared down by about two-thirds; not the scriptures, the notes and appendices. Just as with his books and articles he spouts random information, lists, numbers and so forth which mean nothing in the light of scripture. If his work is worth the money then Charles Manson’s ramblings ought to be nearly as valuable. That is a major contention I have with the work. I hate when people ramble and provide informationless information. I want people to get to the point, use the least amount of words as possible, and stay on topic. Ruckman fails miserably in that category.

    As for the exegesis of scripture, he really lacks the appropriate context for some of what he teaches. He opts for personal eisegesis instead of letting the scriptures speak. For example, he teaches angels all appear as 33-year- old males. He piles on a few passages to prove this, but nothing in scripture reveals the age of angels when they appear to man. He claims women will be males in heaven, and miserably applies something out of context to back up that claim. Do not get me started on his beliefs regarding aliens, the gap THEORY, or salvation in different ages being through various means (works, works + faith, faith alone, etc.).

    I have the following King James Bible study Bibles: Dake’s Annotated (The Pentecostal and Charismatic “Holy Grail” of study Bibles), The KJV Study Bible (Falwell and crew prepared this), The Analytical KJV Study Bible (an old one I cannot find in stores), Thompson’s Chain, Nave’s Topical, The Defender’s Study Bible (Creationist study notes), The Companion Bible (E. W. Bullinger – Mid-Acts, Pauline Dispensational theology in this one), Old Scofield (Notes Only, though I once owned a couple of these before giving them away), and I USED to have the New Living Translation study Bible (My first before I studied in and now major on the Bible translation issue), along with many other digital editions.

    That being said, I agree that the best study Bible is the King James Bible alone. If you cannot study on your own then it will be easy to fall for some doctrinal errors which men are able to expound upon and make sound, well, sound. I am a trained preacher of the word and do not often use the study Bibles except as references. I find some of them are excellent for helping refute the errors taught therein. Ruckman’s Study Bible falls in that category in my personal library.

    I honestly hoped Ruckman’s work would be worth the buy and teach much sound doctrine. It took very little reading of his notes and references to realize my hopes were wrong. I was not surprised as I knew his teachings. Please do not WASTE your money on this sad work.

    IF you FEEL you MUST have a study Bible then consider either the Thompson’s, The KJV Study Bible by Falwell and company, or The Defender’s Study Bible. The Thompson’s is best in my opinion as it links references together so you can learn to interpret the scriptures in light of what they say as a whole on a given subject. The Defender’s Study Bible is strong for those wishing creationism or scientific truths from the scripture, and also covers other topics in a sound manner. The KJV Study Bible is FULL of notes and references, and I found it quite sound in the majority of places.

    For those able to stand strong meat and discern truth I would recommend two study Bibles. The Companion Bible the more technical of the two I recommend as it gets quite deep and can be hard to use if you do not understand the system Bullinger employed. The Dake’s Study Bible has the most references, notes, and information of any study Bible I have ever seen. Many sound preachers I know have this work in their library. However, there are issues as the author was a Pentecostal/Charismatic author. One study note states Christians need to take care not to become cannibals where the Paul states Christians ought not to consume one another if they bite and devour one another.

    All things being stated, I find Ruckman a dangerous teacher, especially for the unlearned, novice, or misled. Steer clear of his study Bible. Ask the Lord to reveal what the Scriptures say through a plain, old KJB; and, be sure to compare scripture with scripture. Remember that the Bible never contradicts. If something SEEMS to contradict the context can reveal why it appears that way to you. Beyond that, consider the four study Bibles I recommended before shelling out money to waste on the Ruckman Reference Bible. The others are cheaper and more profitable spiritually.

    Ever Your Humble Servant in The Lord Jesus Christ,

    Chad Bush aka Baptist Evangelist

  39. Naresh Wijesinha says:

    I was searching for a reference Bible on the Internet and found two good Bibles. Common mans reference Bible and RRB. I will be ordering Both. After reading this website and what critiques said say about the RRB I think it will be a useful RB for research work if you are a mature KJV reader. One must understand that Dr. Ruckman would have been about 86 years of age when he wrote this Bible. So it is a good achievement for a person in his late 80’s. I too do not agree with some of the stuff the critiques say he has written. But those comments of Dr,Ruckman got me thinking. I think it will be a useful RB for research work for mature Christians who are able to filter what they read. I will comment again after I read both reference Bibles. (Commom Mans & Dr.Ruckman,s)

  40. David says:

    Good critique. Read every comment as well. I will not be buying commentaries from this man.

  41. Roger Yandell says:

    I don’t know Ruckman personally, but i have been reading his works for several years and they are an answer to my prayer to know which bible is God’s bible. i have to agree with Ruckman and the apostle my Lord Jesus Christ provided for me, the apostle Paul; we prefer to let Jesus Christ judge us on our choices of what we believe and trust.

  42. Roger Yandell says:

    i have read Ruckman’s works and checking out what he writes and checking the others he writes about for several years now and even though i don’t know him personally, i would say i trust his works and do not trust anyone on this website that is against his writings.

  43. "However, 2 Tim. 3:16 tells us how the Scriptures were given, which has to refer to the originals. Some say that the Scriptures Timothy had mentioned in the previous verse demonstrates that the originals were not being referred to in verse 16, however the Greek word underlying "scriptures" in verse 15 is a different Greek word."

    As Doc would say, You dirty dog! You disgusting dirty dog you! Ya know what? The same Greek word used in verse 16 is used in Acts 17:11. You mean to tell me the Bereans had the "graphe" or the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT? If they did, what were they doing with Apollos in Acts 18:24 where the SAME GREEK WORD "GRAPHE" IS USED??? You stupid idiotic LIARS! If GRAPHE is only the originals, how did the Bereans and Apollos have them? The SCRIPTURES "GRAPHE" that IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD is shown thus to be COPIES OF GOD'S WORD, NOT THE ORIGINALS. COPIES ARE GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD! "*GASP!* RUCKMANISM!!!! AAHHHHH!!!!" Give it up, joker.

     

    "We believe all the writings of Ruckman and authors influenced by him should be shunned, not only because of the bitter spirit manifested therein, but also because of doctrinal issues, many of which have been documented throughout ruckmanism.org."

    This is the attitude of a CULT! Should be SHUNNED? SHUNNED? Is this the Watchtower I'm reading, where no JW can read "forbidden material"? Is this the Vatican now, with their list of FORBIDDEN BOOKS? "SHUNNED"? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR SKULL??? Why not allow Christians to look at Ruckman's materials for themselves and make their own conclusions? SHUNNED? You must be off your ROCKER to go to the cult-like status of shunning books and forbidding certain doctrinal books to believers. You stupid dirty lying FOOL!

    • Webmaster says:

      Acts 17:11 is in a different context. I did not say that the Greek word graphe was only the originals anywhere it was mentioned in the Bible. You are trying to frame me as if I had said that in order to call me a liar. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Joshua Alvarez,

      Your recent post above only proves Webmaster's point as to why Ruckman's material should be shunned. Your post looked like it could have been copied directly out of one of Ruckman's commentaries. 

      When Ruckman writes in his books there is no one there to challenge him on the wild claims and assertions he makes so it might seem as though what he says is true. But apply critical thinking, which is what this website has done, and his teachings fall apart.

      I own all of his commentaries and many of his books and have been where you're at right now. There is a spirit that comes with Ruckmanism and it it is very critical and divisive in nature. Please do not dismiss the material on this website as it is being presented in an honest and fair fashion. That's something that Ruckman never did in his writings. 

      You also might consider this: Ruckman is known for having participated in several debates but I have never seen him engaged in a public debate on KJV issue. Why is that since he was one of the main figures who spearheaded the movement? I believe he knew much what he claimed could not stand public scrutiny and his position could have easily been disproved. Take away all of the bluster and name calling and you're not left with much real substance. 

      • Nate Beck says:

        Umm excuse me Anonymous,

        but Dr. Ruckman DID do public debates on the KJV, there are two of them, one debating Earl Kalland of the NIV and one debating Gary R. Hudson on the KJV issue. The "critical spirit of divisiveness" that you speak of is a real Christian's response to men corrupting the Bible! I guess you would also call our Lord Jesus critical and divisive in Matthew chapter 23?

        • Anonymous says:

          Mr. Beck, 

          I stand corrected as I was not aware of Ruckman's debates on this issue with these two fellows. 

          As far as a "real Christian's response" to those with whom we have disagreements it is certainly not childish name calling and insults but rather meekness and humility as found in II Timothy 2:25

          In Matthew 23 Jesus was preaching against lost Pharisees who exalted their traditions over the word of God. He was not insulting them over their preference in Bible versions of which has absolutely nothing to do with a person's salvation.

          Ruckman will use Matthew 23 to justify lambasting anyone who doesn't agree with everything he says as does his followers. 

  44. Jeremy Lui says:

    I like the way Mr. Ruckman thinks, though I disagree with several of his conclusions..

  45. Mark R says:

    Plus his reference to Henry Lee Lucas is puzzling since it is well-established that Lucas didn't commit anywhere near the number of crimes he claimed to have done.  His compulsive lying was so bad that he is one of only two persons in Texas (a state well-known for its use of capital punishment), during the modern era (that being after the Gregg case which allowed the death penalty after Furman banned it), to receive a gubernatorial pardon on the basis that Lucas likely did NOT commit the crime for which he was sentenced.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Webmaster, concerning the subject of the RRB. On page 315 of his study bible and at the heading of Deuteronomy chapter 21 it reads as follows: "The God-ordained way to trigger the Rapture". The note for verse one says "This chapter reviews how the Jews could get the blood of Jesus Christ off their hands. By doing so, they trigger the Rapture and start the Tribulation. This has escaped every corrector and revisor of the King James Version."

    That's a far cry from the message Peter gave on the day of Pentecost to the Jews who actually had him killed. Peter preached faith and repentance to have their sins forgiven. And again in Acts 3:19 "repent and be converted ". There is no Levitical priesthood today and killing a red heifer in the rough valley (vs  4) will not wash away any sins. 

    The blood  of Jesus Christ washes away all sin and there is nothing man can do or has in his power to "trigger the Rapture". It's faith in the blood of Christ.

    Pure heresy

    Btw you'll find the same doctrine propagated in the Common Man's Reference Bible in the introduction to the book of Acts. 

  47. David says:

    No man is 100% right on EVERY bible subject. Ruckman’s reference bible is far superior to all others as far as I’m concerned. He, along with James Knox, has, and clearly teaches, the Bible RIGHTLY DIVIDED, moreso than anyone I know of. Confusion comes from bible teachers and preachers who do not rightly divide God’s Word. Making sense of the whole bible is essential; and most Christians have no idea. A random example is teaching church age salvation from the parable of the Ten Virgins. There are MANY other examples that will leave a young Christian to be tossed to and fro, with no real assurance of salvation. These two men are champions of piecing together, like a puzzle, the entire Word of God. So the question is :DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THE BIBLE? Do you want a source that might help you get a grasp on a tough to understand subject in the Bible? Or on a supposed error in the Bible?

    if you do, brother Ruckmans reference bible will be a great help. 

     

    • Webmaster says:

      Your comment made no sense, because if Ruckman’s Bible “will be a great help,” you need to demonstrate that this critique is grossly mistaken. Ruckman is the master of confusion, and you are portraying him wrongly as the exact opposite. From using the offensive N word for blacks, to mentioning for no good reason someone supposedly having sex with severed heads, to teaching that in the Bible the tithe is directly connected with cannibalism and the United Nations after the rapture, this reference Bible is a disgrace to the cause of Christ. You should be embarrassed by it instead of endorsing it!

      • David says:

        There is far more damage being done from “Bible believing/ bible preaching “ pulpits  all around in preaching and teaching the scripture out of context and misapplied. They might have dotted their I’s and crossed their T’s, and be smooth talkers, but are WRONG in their basic doctrine.  I get it that bro Ruckman is rough around the edges. If you are thin skinned, you might be offended. But, as the old saying goes,he has forgotten more than most preachers and teachers KNOW today.

        • Webmaster says:

          You speak in generalities about others teaching the Scriptures out of context and misapplying (there is no denying that a lot of that is going on), as if Ruckman was the example to follow, when Ruckman himself is the master of misapplying the Scripture and teaching out of context. Want documented proof? Just keep reading on this website.

      • Nate Beck says:

        Cannibalism and other grossly immoral matters are talked about in the Bible with regularity for very good reason Webmaster. God is showing just how depraved mankind really is! As far as passages relating to the United Nations and disgusting activity during the Tribulation, there are many verses in the Bible on that, so I don't understand why you're slamming Ruckman on that?

      • Nate Beck says:

        Jeremiah 19:9, Isaiah 6:13 talk about cannibalism and there are a host of other Bible verses that speak of other acts of debauchery such as the raped and mutilated concubine of Judges, so I think it strange and unfair for Dr Ruckman to be criticized for talking about such passages in his Bible commentaries! Do you seriously think that the time of the Antichrist won't be even worse where there are people who molest the severed heads of Christians? Dr. Ruckman was right to speak on such topics!

        • Webmaster says:

          No one is denying that cannibalism is mentioned in the Bible or that it could play a role during the Tribulation. My specific complaint in the comment was Ruckman teaching that “in the Bible the tithe is directly connected with cannibalism and the United Nations after the rapture.” (At first I wrote “in the United Nations,” intending “and the United Nations”). In the critique I had written:

          “This appendix has to do with the tithe being one tenth, and it is so strange throughout, that we will only quote the first line which should be sufficient to demonstrate its weirdness: ‘In the Book, the ‘tithe’ is directly connected with cannibalism in the United Nations after the Rapture.’”

          Allow me to discuss three key words:

          1. United Nations

          Ruckman involves the UN in fulfilling prophecies dozens, perhaps even hundreds of times in his reference Bible. Ruckman often presents these prophecies supposedly involving the UN as an established fact, as if the scholars were too dumb to find and link with the UN. An example is Appendix 36, in which he had included the UN in prophecy, and he mockingly asks “How did 5,000 Bible teachers, scholars, pastors, evangelists, and theologians miss all of that?” But no worries, Ruckman with his superior intellect, high IQ, his book a day diet, has come on the scene to rescue us from our own ignorance. However, every single passage he links to the UN is mere speculation. If the Lord comes within the next few decades, some prophecies could indeed involve the UN. However, if Ruckman had been born earlier, he likely would have made the mistake of attributing prophecies to the now all-but-forgotten “League of Nations” or the “Inter-Parliamentary Union.” Although the UN has become much more powerful, and it may seem unthinkable today, the UN could be replaced by another organization if the Lord tarries his coming. Any linking of the UN with prophecy should be humbly presented as a theory, not a fact.

          2. Tithe

          “Tithe” in its original meaning in Hebrew refers to a tenth. The way it is used in English in our times is used almost exclusively to refer to a tenth of income given in a monetary form, generally to a church. But Ruckman, using his word games, uses tithe in all sorts of ways, such as “God tithes people” regarding Neh. 11:1, which is simply about people casting lots to determine which one out of every ten (which is a tenth) would dwell in Jerusalem. This is an example of Ruckman obfuscating.

          3. Cannibalism

          Here’s an example of what Ruckman is saying in his reference Bible:

          “During the Tribulation, the Jews in Jerusalem will be sacrificed on an altar and eaten (Psa. 16:4; Mic. 3:3; Zech. 13:8; Rev. 6:9-11)…” (1st edition, p. 922)

          Let’s actually look at the verses he provides that are supposed to back up what he said:

          Ps. 16:4  Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips.

          This passage is not specific enough to support what Ruckman is saying. To use it as specifically as Ruckman does in the prophetic sense, it does not stand up to scrutiny as a proof text because it does not answer the following type of questions: When will this take place? Is it animal blood or human blood of Jews? Could it be a case of drinking blood of dead enemies only as a ritual in celebration?

          Mic. 3:3 Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.

          This is given in the present tense starting with verse one. Some prophetic passages may not always be written in the future tense, but there must be sufficient details or context to determine a passage is prophetic. The context starting in verse one demonstrates that everything through at least verse three is directed at the “heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel.” Ruckman even has the subtitle for the chapter as “God’s judgments against Israel’s leaders.” No one else is mentioned, so the “who” of verse three are not the foreign enemies of Israel committing this cannibalism, if it is meant to be taken literally as such.

          Zech. 13:8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

          Where is cannibalism in this verse? It’s not there.

          Last passage. This one must be the one that proves Ruckman, because so far he has struck out every time.

          Rev. 6:9-11

          And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
          And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
          And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their
          fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

          Case closed. Not a single passage Ruckman provided backed him up with the specifics he came up with. We see this often when we look up a long string of references Ruckman lists after teaching something questionable. This example is proof that Ruckman can’t be trusted outside of basic Christian teachings (some of which he denies or obfuscates anyway). Therefore no Christian should read after Ruckman.

          There are a number of references to cannibalism in the Bible, mostly in the context of famines leading to starvation. You brought up Isa. 6:13: But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof. Strong’s defines the Hebrew word for eaten as “to kindle, that is, consume (by fire or by eating);” Bishops has “wasted” and Coverdale “conuert.” The Geneva may have been the first English translation to utilize similar wording to the KJV: “eaten vp.” The Geneva notes indicate they didn’t have cannibalism in mind: “For the fewness of them they will seem to be eaten up: yet they will later flourish as a tree, which in winter loses leaves, and seems to be dead, yet in summer is fresh and green.” The KJV translators apparently didn’t understand it to be cannibalism according their translation note: “Or, when it is returned and hath been bruised.” One possible interpretation using “eaten” literally is to understand that the land which was once “forsaken” (v. 12) has “returned” (v. 13) to flourishing in spite of such a small remnant to work the land, and people are now eating of the abundance that the land is miraculously producing. To understand “it” as referring to “land” (see end of previous verse) and not people in Isa. 6:13 makes a lot more sense than imposing cannibalism unnaturally in the verse. A literal cannibalism interpretation doesn’t square well with the context of a positive analogy of the elm and oak tree that follows in the same verse. The last few previous verses had presented bad news, however verse 13 sets up a contrast starting with the word “but” projecting positive news, not a horrific event involving the cannibalism of so many people. That not all mentions of eating in the Bible are literal cases of consuming something as food is demonstrated in Ps. 69:9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up;

          If Jer. 19:9 is not already fulfilled in the Bible (such as in Acts 11:28), but refers to a prophecy yet unfulfilled, it could indeed be speaking of cannibalism during the Tribulation. The Bible speaks of famines during end time events in Mat. 24:7 and Luke 21:11.

          • Nate Beck says:

            I agree that Dr. Ruckman should have presented his comments as theory and not fact. However, I cannot agree that "no Christian should read after Ruckman". I've been tremendously blessed by reading after Ruckman and this whole website wouldn't even exist if you hadn't "read after Ruckman". As for Ruckman's theories, I can see how some of the verses cited could lead one to the idea he came up with, but agree that it's not as conclusive as Ruckman made out. 

            Thank you for going over the verses cited. Let me see if there are other verses that can be brought into the discussion.

            • Primitive Baptist Forum says:

              Ruckman claimed thousands of advanced revelations as fact, Mr Beck, in the identical line of the myriad of Burned-Over District sect leaders like EG White, MBG Eddy, Joseph Smith, CT Russell, SM Moon ad nauseum. It does not appear from reading your posts you grasp this was the Ruckman modus operandi nulli secundus, second to none. We are talking of the man whom made consipriatory surmisings about Daffy Duck, blue-blooded aliens, an antichrist 10 feet tall with a bad right eye implanting the mark with big black lips, as well as the mythic multiply-inspired Authorized Version. I struggle to find where he had a rival in this department.

              • Nate Beck says:

                Primitive Baptist,

                I don't think it so strange for any Christian to get revelations from the Bible. Sure, some of Ruckman's ideas are weird, I admit. But more often than not, many of his ideas are supported by scripture I have found. It's been my observation that ruckmanism.org usually highlights only the extremist of Ruckman's views and is often unbalanced. The whole mission of this website is to make Ruckman out to be the worst Bible teacher ever, when in fact Ruckman never criticized the Bible, as some do, and he always made you think and study. I have found that Ruckman is right about 75% of the time, but you'll never see a balanced view on this website, I'm afraid. Which is why Christians like me like to comment and point out what Ruckman got right. I like to think I'm a balanced Christian with more understanding than you've given me credit for.

                • Primitive Baptist Forum says:

                  Do you understand a revelation means Ruckman claimed to have divinely inspired truth contradicting the word in direct violation of Hebrews 1.1-2? Furthermore, since Ruckman's reference version taught in the notes of I Corinthians 15.28 theosis, as well as his endless instances of date setting all on advanced revelation? Assuredly, Isaiah 8.15-22 enters into the conversation. 

                   

                  A spurrious prophet is such at literally one false prophecy; Ruckman made scores of them.

          • Nate Beck says:

            After reading all of Isaiah 6, and then running the reference into chapter 7, it seems to me as though this prophecy was for the time of the Babylonian captivity and the few left in the land after the Babylonians had invaded Israel. But as many scriptures have a historical and prophetic application, I can see how this verse could come into play during the Tribulation. But, you and I won't be here Webmaster, so I guess the people in the Tribulation will have to worry about that one. But Ruckman's theory is a possibility. But I also understand that some scriptural references to eating and consuming are figurative and not literal.

            • David says:

              So bro. Ruckman is never afraid to read between the lines. And he normally alerts the listener to what he says that is only of his opinion. Sometimes I don't see what he sees. But even in obscure areas, he never makes it his platform. His platform is "Thus saith the Lord".

              His knowledge of the Bible comes from knowing it. He teaches with cross referencing. The solid truths about the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, and how they are NOT the same, for example. Most bible teachers have no idea. This is a CRITICAL matter, that any student of the bible MUST be settled on. 

              Take for another example, I John 3:6,9. What do you do with that? Most bible colleges make it say what they THINK IT SHOULD say. They add to the text. Ruckman clears it up. Cross references are key. Knox does too. I wish James Knox had a study bible! These two brothers have very different personalities, but they know the Bible, and both have many resources to help any one who desires to KNOW their Bible.

               

              • Webmaster says:

                “And he normally alerts the listener to what he says that is only of his opinion.”

                I have found it very rare for Ruckman to admit that a far-out Bible interpretation was merely his opinion. For example, in his reference Bible he links the United Nations to his interpretation of prophecy many times. Can you provide even one example where he admits this linking of the UN to Bible prophecy is merely his opinion? 

                • David says:

                  Honestly, I utilize bro ruckman's teaching to clear up muddied waters of ignorant and wrong bible teaching. When he starts on the UN, other colleges and teachers, ufos, etc., I take all that with a grain of salt. Some of it I find interesting, and some of it… actually alot of it, I skip over. I personally appreciate some of his reading between the lines. I have no problem disagreeing with him on some of those items. Maybe this trait of his is what makes him NOT boring lol. He stands out from the pack. After all, there is a website that wants to dismantle him. I like that he has spunk. He's anything but a drag. Could he, or his church, have a more subtle approach? More kindness? Absolutely! But then again, don't we ALL? Not many people, if any, are balanced with GRACE and TRUTH. One man was! However, He was also God!  Here's why I like him: there is much to glean from him. 

                  Is there a preacher anywhere that you or anyone else fully agrees with? That you don't take the good and discard the "bad" (what you disagree with)? I've yet to find one. I've never had a pastor like that either. And I've sat under TWO spectacular preachers/ pastors. 

                   

                  • Webmaster says:

                    The following reasons you gave for reading after Ruckman are all carnal reasons:

                    “he has spunk”
                    “he’s anything but a drag”
                    “NOT boring”

                    There was nothing about being drawn closer to the Lord, learning more about God’s holiness, having the spirit Christ, or demonstrating the love of Christ to others amidst all the head knowledge of the Bible Ruckman claims to impart.

                    When those who have read after Ruckman feel like there is nowhere else to turn for Bible knowledge, Ruckman has you just where he wants you. See Ruckman teaching that no other scholar can be trusted other than himself

                    Assuming one already attends a church regularly that preaches sound doctrine, one can grow much by simply reading the Word of God daily with not much more than a Bible dictionary and a concordance handy. A commentary need not be used constantly, but can help with difficult passages because it might shed light by referring to other relevant passages that we had not considered. If one is concerned that a Bible commentary might sometime quote from a modern translation or change a word as it stands in the KJV (a fear that Ruckman self-servingly exploited) one can read from old conservative commentaries published before most modern Bible translations even existed. Many old conservative commentaries have been digitized and are available for free online. You are likely to encounter some issues like Reformed (Calvinist) teaching, but it wasn’t an agenda with most commentators in my experience, so you won’t constantly get bombarded. You won’t have to worry about a lack of reverence for many things of God or people of God, racism, using hell as a cuss word, conspiracy theories galore, a bitter, angry spirit, trying to come up with new doctrines after 2,000 years to impress the brethren, teaching God switched back-and-forth between contradictory plans of salvation, superstition, rapture date guessing failures, and 101 other reasons why Ruckman is a false teacher who we need to separate from for biblical reasons. Ruckman is guilty of several matters listed in 1 Tim 6:3-5. Then it concludes warning what we must do: “from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Tim. 6:5)

                    • David says:

                      So let me dial it all the way in. For 22 years, I had NO assurance of salvation. Alot of it due to my lack of obedience, but alot of it due to preaching that was not rightly divided. I saw God's Word as very baffling. Salvation is very, VERY difficult IF you take verses out of context. I needed help with the doctrine of salvation. Bro Ruckman is solid on that subject. CHURCH AGE salvation. Now for OT salvation  and salvation after the rapture, you can agree or disagree with him. That is irrelevant to salvation TODAY, for you and me.

                      A specific passage that helped me was Colossians chapter 2. The operation of God… where He cuts away our soul from our body. Spiritual circumcision.

                      AMEN! 

                      So for one example of clearing up "muddied waters"… NOW, one can go to 1 John 3:6,9 and have a VERY clear understanding, crystal clear, as to the meaning. 

                      I have only heard or read two people ever go into this in Colossians 2. Guess who one of them is!

                      Also, if Paul didn't write it, then the literal doctrine of salvation to the church age is not always applicable.  For concrete teaching on today's salvation, one must stick with Paul's writing.

                      So yes, Mr. Primitive Baptist, he does go into what saith the Lord. How do I know? Comparing scripture with scripture. This confirms any teaching by anyone.

                      I thank God, He has preachers and teachers like Peter Ruckman and James Knox. God has used them both to help me have a better understanding of His Word.

                      By the way, bro Knox has absolutely ZERO affiliation with bro Ruckman. Because this website makes Ruckman into a heretic, I MUST clarify that these two men are nothing alike, in regards to every accusation you make towards Ruckman.

                      NOW, I can say with full assurance, based on God's Word, I KNOW where I'm going when I die. As sinful as I STILL am, I KNOW! Praise the Lord!

                       

                    • Webmaster says:

                       

                      That God cuts the soul out of one’s body upon salvation is another one of Ruckman’s countless heresies based on his big imagination, not the Bible. He mainly uses (or rather “abuses”) Col. 2:11 and Rom. 7:1-4 (two passages that are completely unrelated and dealing with totally unrelated topics). (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians Commentary 1980, p. 80) In Col. 2:11 you will not find the word “soul,” nor will you find “cut” in any of its various forms. There is the analogy of physical circumcision, which does literally involve cutting, but it is an analogy or word picture only. In the analogy, one circumcision is literal, physical, and would involve cutting, in the other, it is spiritual, described in Col. 2:11 as “made without hands” therefore not physical, no cutting necessary. You can read Col. 2 a thousand times, and you will not find the teaching that God cuts the soul out of one’s body upon salvation. If it’s Ruckman or the Scriptures, I will take the Scriptures every time.

              • Primitive Baptist Forum says:

                Do you have any remote idea how many times Pentecostalism or their separated brethren the Jesuits hounds of papal horror has claimed divine inspiration with a rousing THUS SAITH THE LORD!?

                The Christian Science mind-healing cult claims divine inspiration to MBG Eddy (1821-1910). Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures claims in 109.20-3 — 

                I won my way to absolute conclusions through divine revelation, reason, & demonstration. The Revelation of Truth came to me gradually & apparently through divine power.

                EG White (1827-1915) claimed divine inspiration as the Spirit of Prophecy; Ruckman's planetary trips from the gold apartment houses of heaven was a near-exact replication of the Planetary Vision with the added stipulation all women become men in glory. White even wrote a plaigarized work of this title. Notice the 18th article of the SDA 28 Fundamentals, their official church creed —

                One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift was an identifying mark of the remnant church & was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing & authoritative source of truth for the church comfort, guidance, instruction & correction…

                • David says:

                  Um. What part of “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh” in verse 11 do you not see? The soul is not removed from the body, it is cut AWAY from the body. No longer attached. Read all of Romans 7. We are lugging around a dead corpse. Trapped. Until death or the rapture. Furthermore, there are other cross references. Why do you think Paul refers to drunkards vs. drunkenness. Liars vs. lying. Fornicators vs. fornication, and on and on… It’s because the TITLE is given to the sinner whose body is still connected to his soul. He is his body. If he lies, he is a liar, scripturally. The Christian is not his body. When he sins he is given the action, not the title. If he lies, he is lying. But his title is a CHRISTIAN. Galatians 5:19-21. Actions Then see rev. 21:8 among other references for titles.  Have you ever LIED? Well then how will you escape the lake of fire? I’ll tell you how, because, God forbid it, the Christian can lie, but through the blood of Christ, he is NOT a liar in Gods eyes. 

                  It’s all about making sense of the Bible. Plain and simple. I’ll leave scofields notes put away any day compared to ruckmans. He says angels as sexless? You’ve got to be kidding! 

                  So no one is spot on, accept it.

                  if ruckman is using his “demonic and wild imagination” for spiritual circumcision, then please tell me what it means.

                   

                  • Webmaster says:

                    “The soul is not removed from the body, it is cut AWAY from the body. No longer attached.”

                    Show us where the Bible says that the soul gets cut away from the body. It is not in any verse you have presented so far, so don’t repeat the same verses that don’t say what you and Ruckman say they do.

                    “The Christian is not his body.”

                    I guess the apostle Paul was addressing unbelievers only then in Rom. 6:12 “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.” Ruckmanism falls apart when it passes through the filter of the Word of God!

                    This is how I understand the analogy of circumcision in Col. 2:11-13. In physical circumcision, a work is performed “with hands” by others that one is unable to do for himself at birth. This results in a physical change. In spiritual circumcision, a spiritual work of regeneration is performed “without hands” by the Holy Spirit that one could not do for himself. This results in a changed heart.

                    Col. 2:13 brings up circumcision again as an analogy. Col 2:13 “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” Here it is linked with death, because under the law, the uncircumcised were dead in their sin. Likewise, one who is living in unbelief and sin is under condemnation. In this verse the analogy is not so much in the physical aspect involved in circumcision, but rather the guilty condition they had been under the law before the act, compared to forgiveness thereafter.

                    There is absolutely NOTHING in the passage about Christ or the Holy Spirit literally cutting the soul loose from the body by a two-edged laser going inside the body. It is a false teaching NOT FOUND in the Bible.

                    • David says:

                      Ah yes, there most definitely is and thank you for reminding me of Hebrews 4:12.”For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” 
                      The instrument God uses for this circumcision : the SWORD of the Spirit: the Word of God. PIERCING EVEN TO THE DIVIDING ASUNDER. There it is.
                      This new creature, II Cor 5:17. Sealed with the earnest of our inheritance Eph 1:13-14.
                      Gods people in the OT were set apart with the physical circumcision. This is a type of what God does for the Christian.

                      The Christian is still VERY accountable for his sins. But POSITIONALLY, he is washed in the blood of Christ, justified. Righteous. How could that be? Especially in light of references like the one you mentioned in Romans 6:12, written to Christians?
                      The changed heart, which you interpret to be this circumcision… why then does Paul verse after verse HAVE to WARN Christians to RESIST sin and NOT do it?? I Cor. 10:1-14 for a great example.
                      Our hearts must willfully be surrendered to Christ moment by moment. If not, we will wander away from God in complete disobedience. Gods surgery then would look to be a failure.
                      Can you admit what very few fundamental Christians will: that you are a mess. You sin. You sin a lot. You even sin and enjoy it. And yes, dare I say you WILLFULLY sin… DAILY.
                      I admit it. I hate everything about my sin nature. I don’t trust myself as far as I can throw me. I am NO good. This is the body of the sins of the flesh.
                      So what do you do with I John 3:6,9?
                      It’s all about piecing the word of God together.

                    • Webmaster says:

                      “The instrument God uses for this circumcision : the SWORD of the Spirit: the Word of God. PIERCING EVEN TO THE DIVIDING ASUNDER. There it is.”

                      That’s a new one. Ruckman didn’t even know that! He thought it was a laser:

                      “A sinner dies ‘in Christ’ because he could not possibly ‘live in sin’ (Rom. 6:2) one second after his spiritual circumcision: he was cut loose by a two-edged ‘LASER’ going inside the body and circumcising the flesh from the soul.”
                      Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Sep. 2006, p. 15

                      “The changed heart, which you interpret to be this circumcision…”

                      No, the Bible does. It says “circumcision is that of the heart.” (Rom. 2:29) Biblical circumcision is not about cutting the soul from the body. Again, the Bible says “circumcision is that of the heart.” (Rom. 2:29). It is also taught in Deut. 10: 16; 30:6, and Jer. 4:4.

                      “So what do you do with I John 3:6,9?”

                      That is a fair question, and I believe the answer is rather simple. A believer has two natures. Even Ruckman recognizes this, although he apparently does not apply this Biblical concept consistently because of his spiritual circumcision heresy. The Bible sometimes refers to the old nature as the “old man” (Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22 and Col. 3:9), and the new or spiritual nature as the “new man” (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). Many references to the flesh versus the spirit in the Scriptures would likely involve the same Biblical concept. Our old nature is what is responsible for sin in the believer. The new nature does not sin. When the Bible says in certain terms in 1 Jn. 3 that believers do not sin, it is meant to refer to the new nature, not the old nature, which we are still cursed with until we receive a heavenly body.

                      “Can you admit what very few fundamental Christians will: that you are a mess.”

                      Absolutely! I can identify with Romans 7:24, which says, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”

                  • Nate Beck says:

                    David, I wouldn’t bother wasting your time here. Anything you say in defense of Ruckman or the things Christians like us see in our Bible, is just going to be shot down by this Webmaster or ignored. The agenda here is to make a villain out of Ruckman, nothing else. Just rejoice in the Lord and enjoy the awesomeness of the King James Bible and the so called “Ruckmanisms” that have blessed us so much, while people like Primitive Baptist and Webmaster sit in the dark and sling mud. I’m done with this website and these fruitless debates. Ruckman wasn’t perfect, and he had a few weird theories and said some things I do not believe or agree with (surprise, that goes for EVERY Bible teacher I’ve ever read!), but I Thank God for Bible teachers like Peter Ruckman who was usually right and made you think and search the scriptures! Peter Ruckman is dead, long live the Book!

                    • Webmaster says:

                      Notice this revealing phrase: “or the things Christians like us see in our Bible.” In other words, no one else sees it in their Bible, because it’s not there. Only “Christians like us” (Ruckmanites) “see” it, which is proof positive that Ruckmanites are following a man instead of the Scriptures. Reformers and others were tortured and died for the Scriptural principle that the authority of Scripture is greater than the authority of any man. Wycliffe is known to have said, “We ought to believe in the authority of no man unless he say the Word of God.” He continued, “That if any man in earth either angel of heaven teacheth us contrary of holy Writ … we should flee from him … as from the foul fiend of hell … and hold us steadfastly to … the truth and freedom of the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

                      “Webmaster sit in the dark and sling mud.”

                      At Ruckmanism.org we have put Ruckman’s teachings through the filter of the Word of God. You are not concerned about slinging mud, because you continue to defend the KING of mudslingers, no matter how much he is exposed as a divider and false teacher!

                    • Particular Baptist says:

                      I told you what Ruckman said as well as where he said it. Why are you suddenly so ashamed of Ruckman?

  48. Nate Beck says:

    Actually, I believe that Dr. Ruckman is right about the whole spiritual circumcision theory. For one, Ruckman never said that God cuts the soul "out" of a Christian's body, as Webmaster just claimed. Furthermore, Webmaster, the Bible never says that Colossians 2:11 is an "analogy" or "word picture". That is scholar nonsense and adding to the scriptures. Don't put words in the text that aren't there. Furthermore, it is circumcision "without hands" because it is not human hands doing the cutting, but God Himself. If God can divide soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12), then He can also divide soul and body. The body still contains the soul but they're not connected to where the sins of the flesh have any affect on the soul that is saved.

    This is simply another case of the Webmaster being arrogant and hell-bent to have Ruckman be wrong no matter what, and it's getting old.

    • Webmaster says:

      You had to admit it was a theory, while your false teacher teaches it as an absolute fact. Don’t you see a problem there? 

      “For one, Ruckman never said that God cuts the soul ‘out’ of a Christian’s body, as Webmaster just claimed.”

      I was going by Ruckman apologist David, to whom I was responding, who had written regarding how Ruckman’s teachings were supposed to have helped him: “The operation of God… where He cuts away our soul from our body. Spiritual circumcision.” And look who else wrote that God himself does the cutting: “…doing the cutting, but God Himself.” (Someone who writes under your name). I know neither one of you claim to speak for Ruckman, but who do you believe Ruckman attributes the cutting action to?

      “Furthermore, Webmaster, the Bible never says that Colossians 2:11 is an ‘analogy’ or ‘word picture’. That is scholar nonsense and adding to the scriptures. Don’t put words in the text that aren’t there.”

      If someone in the process of interpreting Scripture knows enough grammar to establish accurately whether a statement is a hyperbole, or a euphemism, or a paradox, or a synecdoche or whatever, how is that adding to Scripture or scholarly nonsense? Do you disagree that the mention of circumcision in Col. 2 is an analogy? If not, what is it, or what would you call it?

      You still have not shown from the Scriptures that someone literally cuts the soul from the body at salvation. So far that’s a Ruckmanism, not a Scriptural teaching. I’m with the Book, not Ruckman. “Nevertheless what saith the Scripture?” Gal. 4:30

       

    • Primitive Baptist Forum says:

      If it's getting old, most ingracious Mr Beck, why in the blue blazes do you comment on a website dedicated to exposing Ruckmanism? 

  49. Nate Beck says:

    Another verse that has gone ignored relating to Colossians 2:11 is Colossians 2:12, which is a continuation of verse 11. This spiritual circumcision, along with the resurrection of Christ and our salvation is called the "operation of God" in verse 12. You know Webmaster, like a surgeon cuts on a person during an "operation"? 

    • Webmaster says:

      So are you serious that we are supposed to interpret “operation” in Col. 2:12 as if it could be likened to “surgery?” If so, you are making a good case for why ministerial students should continue to be taught the original languages! 

  50. David says:

    So are you serious that we are supposed to interpret “operation” in Col. 2:12 as if it could be likened to “surgery?”
    Exactly. Like Nate said… there is a colon at the end of verse 11, which means verse 12 is giving more detail to verse 11.

    • Webmaster says:

      Let’s see how Col. 2:12 would read with the interpretation you are pushing: “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the surgery of God of cutting your soul from your body, who hath raised him from the dead.”

      So in your plan of salvation, you have faith in a “surgery” (not discovered till Ruckman after 1900+ years of Christianity) instead of faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross! This is silly, but it demonstrates what happens when you take Ruckmanism to its logical extent.

      • David says:

        No. I KNOW I’m going to Heaven because my sin debt is paid in full. I’m trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ. His bloodshed is my hope!
        What Colossians 2 does is show what God does to the believer the moment he believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s a perspective from God’s side. It’s a great truth that unlocks alot of tough to grasp scripture.
        Anyways, I do think Nate is right. You either have a personal problem with Ruckman, meaning this website is run by FEELINGS, or you have another problem. The man offers so much to glean from, that the “things that might be out there” are very trivial to write the man off for. He is VERY rough around the edges, there’s no doubt. As a matter of fact, where I attend church, I’m sure there are people there who are very offended by Bro Ruckman. But I GLADLY and unashamedly carry my Ruckman Reference Bible. Why? Because I have a valuable tool that no one there does. Lol.

        • Webmaster says:

          “…the things that might be out there’ are very trivial to write the man off for.”

          Trivial? Like teaching and writing a “tract” that teaches people the unbiblical concept that they should depend on their works after the rapture for salvation? This amounts to the difference between salvation and condemnation for anyone who ends up affected. Not a trivial matter! And this is only one example.

        • Ruckman denied the Trinity in the note on I Corinthians 15.28. He preached the theosis heresy callled in the occult at-one-ment, that Christians go into the Godhood. Are you surely so happy to tote that around? Mentioning tracts, don’t forget Ruckman’s failed guess at the resurrection from 1988 entitled Millions Disappear.

          • David says:

            Lol. I can’t believe I’m still replying. So regarding tribulation salvation, rightly dividing the Word reinforces that it’s works plus faith. There are too many references of losing salvation in the New Testament. And in each one, the Jew is addressed. Whether in parables, James, Hebrews, etc…
            This is why many Christians are stumbling in the lie of a HARD BELIEVISM church age salvation. Getting “saved” multiple times. This is typical of a church I was in for a long time. This is why I value ruckman so much. He straightens up a very important and muddied subject: church age salvation. Not with opinion, but with cross referencing.
            And regarding what Particular Baptist mentioned. How is that denying the Trinity? “These three are ONE” 1 John 5:7
            Now I admit, his comment is one of a kind. I truly value his opinion. But I leave it at that: an opinion. And I can’t remember, but if he didn’t have cross referencing, he normally admits it’s only a possibility as to what he interprets. On that one, I count it to his opinion, and leave it there.
            I don’t know if it’s a fact, but from what I see, scofield is one the most widely used reference bibles today. His comment on angels being sexless disregards so much scripture, that it’s absurd. My point is, a reference bible is MAN’S thoughts on God’s Word. So any thoughts from a man should be BASED on cross referencing, otherwise it’s only his opinion. And an opinion not backed up with scripture and verse in context, isn’t worth a dime. Overall Ruckman GIVES more cross referencing than you could ask for or want. (He lists verses for THE READER to look up himself) So it’s up to the reader to check it out himself and come to his own conclusion. I don’t have ruckman held to an inerrant status. But he’s probably one of the smartest men to ever teach the bible.

            • Webmaster says:

              Ruckman’s cross-references are only as good as their accuracy. Every time I’ve looked at his references for questionable teachings or outright heresies, I have not been impressed. In fact, on some occasions, it looked almost as if he had pulled random verses out of a hat just so a long list of references could look authoritative! There’s an example I provided on this very page in the comments section where I looked up the references that he listed for his teaching that “in the Bible the tithe is directly connected with cannibalism and the United Nations after the rapture.” Each verse was checked out and it was demonstrated that there was no sound Biblical basis whatsoever for his position in spite of the list of references provided.

  51. Nate Beck says:

    The Bible Formula by P. Esplana, The Tuning Fork by B. MacGregor. Two books that PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt that the King James Bible is superior to any other text and sanctioned by God Himself! Dr. Ruckman was right on that most important fact!

    Pete Ruckman wasn’t the nut or heretic that Webmaster and Particular Baptist make him out to be! My very last comment. You’re welcome!

    • You are blowing smoke because I proved Ruckman was an antitrinitarian promoting theosis; you did not address his heretical statement on I Corinthians 15.28. This is in additio to his Incarnation Sonship or Semi-Arianism. You must be a child of the General Baptists since like Ruckman they taught a modalistic Godhood a la their 1660 Confession. What do all the YouTube KJVO schismatics like Denlinger, Pfenninger, Richling, Riplinger, Breaker share? Antitrinitarian heretic PS Ruckman.

  52. Anonymous says:

    I have been reading this thread and found the discussion about spiritual circumcision to draw me in somewhat.

    As a former Ruckmanite for many years, owning all of Ruckman’s commentaries and purchasing the very first edition of the RRB which I preordered in 2009 and having read it and studied it extensively. I know precisely Ruckman’s theory on the subject of spiritual circumcision and have heard many preachers regurgitate the same teaching from the pulpit.

    I thank God that I have had my eyes opened and am no longer blinded and entrapped by Ruckman’s teachings as he truly is a false teacher of false doctrine. I now read his commentaries (actually I try to read them but it’s very painful to muddle through to try & see what he is actually saying) and say to myself “how could I have been so blind??”

    As far as spiritual circumcision is concerned, and has already been stated by Webmaster and others: there is no mention of the soul in Colossians chapter 2. Ruckman’s teaching on this is that “the soul and body are stuck together before salvation & in the O.T.” (I’m paraphrasing but that’s his teaching). And when someone is saved the soul is “cut loose from the body”. I have heard the illustration given of ice cubes in an ice tray and how you must twist the ice tray to break loose the ice cubes from the tray. The ice cubes are still in the ice tray, but they are not “connected” any more. This is supposed to illustrate salvation and spiritual circumcision: although our soul is still in the body but it’s not connected to it anymore and when we sin the soul is not defiled by the flesh.

    I have never heard a more absurd, silly, or wild, explanation of Colossians 2. Every time the bible speaks of circumcision in a spiritual (as opposed to physical) sense, the heart is mentioned and not the soul. The soul is not an entity that can be “stuck” to the body. The soul not a physical component of a man that can be “stuck” or glued to the body or that is on need of being cut loose.

    What is mentioned in Colossians 2 in connection with this spiritual circumcision is putting off the old man (the flesh), a spiritual baptism (being joined together with Christ), a spiritual resurrection (a new creature in Christ), forgiveness of sins, no longer being under the Law, and victory through Christ over spiritual principalities and powers.

    I pray for those who are still being led astray by Ruckman’s teachings that they will one day be rescued from it and will have their eyes opened to the truth.

  53. Ben says:

    I know this page is ten years old and the comment section is all but dead…but I can't help myself…

    Is this whole site devoted to saying Ruckman is wrong, but not replacing his falsehoods with what the actual truth is? It appeared to me that the overwhelming majority of it is unconstructive criticism. Like someone trying to point and laugh at him, saying he's wrong, but refusing to elaborate on why or what is actually the truth in the matter.

    Ruckman and his ilk seem to critique other denominations and people indiscriminately based on their consistent core beliefs, according to the Bible. Their opposition on the other hand, as if they're ecumenicists trying to unite, seem to gang up to try and smear his entire character, trying to make them look like crazy fools.

    I'm not a "Ruckmanite", I'm a baby-Christian and haven't learned enough to commit to anything specifically yet but I have to admit that the “King James only Bible-believers” are very ‘appealing’. Saying this, I am trying to learn more on this clearly toxic subject today, and this was the top result on Google when I searched ‘Ruckman exposed’. I want to know what the ‘other side’ thinks so I can be sure I’m on the right track. However smears that start right at the beginning like, 'Ruckman was overly superstitious with the moon', really put me off. As someone coming from the outside, I really don't yet understand why people hate him so much… I’m starting to think it is jealousy. Ruckman seemed to say it how he saw it without apologising. I can respect that. Where’s all the ‘teaching’ from this webmaster? The only links seem to be directing to more Ruckman ‘exposing’… Man, he must have been uniquely important to deserve such attention from you! I’d really like to understand your genuine point of view!

    If someone can point me to the 'masterclass' in why any of the core of Ruckman's teaching is wrong, not muddied with silly smears, as well as what the actual 'replacement truth’ is, I'd really appreciate it and you might save my soul if Ruckman is as wrong as some say. Something more than one-off statements he made that are wrong or edgy or ‘mean’. I'm guessing I'll be attacked for saying all this since I definitely feel more love and even humility from the people advocating Ruckman (however articulate they are or aren't), and rivalry or worse from the so called 'exposers'. Perhaps I’m just bias toward my initial perceptions? If so, show me the core truths that Ruckman etc. are wrong about! Surely that’s how this article should’ve begun, rather than going on and on about irrelevant ‘fluff’.

    Right now, this website just makes me like Ruckman (and those that mention him respectfully) even more, even if that makes me wrong. Truth is the most important thing for evil (Satan) to fight against and cover up. Learning that is one of the things that helped me come to the realisation that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life!

    • Webmaster says:

      As passionately as you question exposing Ruckman, I have a hard time believing that you are not a Ruckmanite and that you are “coming from the outside.” You gave the example that you were “really put off” with what I said about Ruckman being overly superstitious about the moon. I had pointed out that an appendix in Ruckman’s reference Bible was loaded with superstitions about the moon. I then submitted an example to back it up. In the example, I quoted Ruckman directly stating “In eight years, Henry Lee Lucas murdered one hundred girls. Every time the moon was full, he had intercourse with a corpse or a severed head.” And then all I said was “Needless to say, such information is out of place in a reference Bible.” Reference Bibles are supposed to provide assistance in studying the Bible, primarily in the form of parallel or relevant Scriptural references, so a questionable mention of an abhorrent act of sexual violence sure seems out of place. Why would more explanations be needed for the average person? My review was long enough as it was, and I was not trying to write a whole book about this Reference Bible. Sometimes things that are brought to light are ridiculous enough on its face to not require further explanation, especially when you are trying to be brief. The Bible says “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” (Pro. 26:4) But it also depends on the situation, as the following verse also states “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”

      “Right now, this website just makes me like Ruckman (and those that mention him respectfully) even more, even if that makes me wrong.” Even if that makes you wrong?!?!?! Think about what you just said! This is cultic thinking. The antidote to that wrong thinking is not necessarily this website, but the Word of God. Get into the Word!

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.

*