Critique of the new Ruckman Reference Bible

The highly anticipated Ruckman Reference Bible (hereafter RRB) 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 seems out of place in a reference Bible.

Appendix 20


As part of this appendix there is a chart on p. 1707 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.

"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 supposed 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 not 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 a 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 'nigger,' '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. 1498) 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. 1485). 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 contains some notes, as can be seen from what bled through from the facing page.

 

59 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..

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.

*