Gail, Gipp and Grady: The trio defending Ruckman

Who is publicly defending Peter Ruckman? There are many who intentionally or unintentionally defend Ruckman by their silence. Some will write books hundreds of pages long for the noble cause of upholding the KJV, and yet will not warn even once in their extensive writings about watching out for Ruckman’s extremes on the issue. We have identified three prominent authors of the KJV only movement who unfortunately in one way or another are defending or clearly promoting Peter Ruckman’s views in their writings:

Gail Riplinger

Mrs. Riplinger’s writings may not mention Ruckman by name, but her regard for some of his extreme views are clearly evident. Notice this example:

A fog of emotional steam, that carries no substance, precedes comments such as, “I don’t believe the KJV corrects ‘the original Greek’ or ‘I don’t believe the KJV corrects the ‘Majority Text’ or the ‘Textus Receptus.’ … There existed a true original Greek (i.e. Majority Text, Textus Receptus). It is not in print and never will be, because it is unnecessary. No one on the planet speaks first century Koine Greek, so God is finished with it. (Riplinger, Gail. In Awe of Thy Word. Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 2003, p. 956)

As quoted, Mrs. Riplinger is teaching one of the most controversial views Ruckman is known for, namely that “the KJV corrects the Greek.”

In her most recent writings Mrs. Riplinger has taught that foreign Bibles should be translated from the KJV:

English-speaking translators today can simply use the pure preserved King James Bible when translating the Bible into other languages. Lexicons are not an option. (Ibid., p. 990)

This is very similar to Ruckman’s position, which we quote here:

Any translation on the mission field can be safely judged by a King James Authorized Version, and where it refuses to stick to the text the text can be altered safely to match the King James’ reading.  (Ruckman, Peter. The Monarch of the Books, 1973, p. 29)

The only LIVING BIBLE on earth today is the AV (1611), or translations made from it. (Ibid., p. 29)

Her derogatory views concerning Greek and Hebrew lexicons are not new. Notice this Ruckman quote years before she wrote her first book on Bible versions:

Do you see how often the infallible English can straighten out the Greek lexicon? (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Hebrews. 1986, p. 1)

Also it should be mentioned that Mrs. Riplinger’s official website sells several books written by Ruckman, not to mention authors Sam Gipp and Bill Grady who are even more open in defending Ruckman.

Sam Gipp

Sam Gipp is a graduate of Ruckman’s Bible institute, and a few years ago Sam Gipp’s website contained an announcement that he had been awarded an honorary doctorate by Ruckman’s Bible institute (see photo on right of Gipp accepting doctorate from Ruckman).

According to documentation in the book Foes of the King James Bible Refuted by D.A. Waite, when asked, Sam Gipp stated that for a Russian to have the truth of the Word of God he would have to learn English.

Sam Gipp’s The Answer Book contains several sections in which he openly defends Peter Ruckman.

Bill (William) Grady

In a sermon on his website entitled Seven Signs of Pseudo King James Onlyism, Dr. Grady does not hesitate to mention how he was influenced by Ruckman’s writings. He mentions that Ruckman advised him not to mention him by name in his book Final Authority so it wouldn’t get rejected. Now however, Bill Grady is so firmly in Ruckman’s camp that he does not hesitate to elevate Ruckman in his sermons as is evidenced by the video on his website. Dr. Grady mentions in the introduction to the video that he was turned down further preaching opportunities at the church that sponsors the Bible college after preaching his controversial sermon. He seemed to take delight in this, considering this “rejection” a badge of honor. As demonstrated in announcements in The Bible Believers’ Bulletin, in recent years Dr. Grady has preached in conferences in Ruckman’s church.
 

28 Responses to “Gail, Gipp and Grady: The trio defending Ruckman”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Anonymous says:

    …that there are still atleast three out in this world standing for the truth of God’s Word. I pray you will do the same.

    In Christ’s love,

    David.

    • Joseph says:

      David, so Peter Ruckman (deceased), who taught the slaughter of the unborn – abortion – is one of those ‘three’ who stood ‘for the truth of God’s word’?

      • WimE says:

        Joseph,

        The way you put that is a bit skewed. Question is can Ruckman as a sinner stand for the truth of God’s Word? I think he can as he claims the KJB to be the Word of God.
        Did Ruckman “taught the slaughter of the unborn” or “excused his actions by hiding behind scripture”? If he hid behind scripture I think I might be guilty too. We could all agree we do not agree with Ruckman on this one.
        Do you not claim yourself to be more righteous than Mozes as you yourself never killed a man?

  2. Anonymous says:

    I found this site very critical to Mr.Ruckman which is I never met in my life. All I can say to the owner of this site if you just used this site to win more souls to Christ, the Lord may say to you in the Judgment Seat of Christ “well done than thou good and faithful servant” than criticizing anybody. No wonder we Christians are slow in growing than Moslems because of your attitude to other Christians instead of winning souls.

    Sincerely
    Derick

    • Joseph says:

      Peter Ruckman upheld and taught abortion was OK before his church and is college students. He also stated only KJV upholders are saved, a type of ‘saved by works’, and often used hateful language in teaching. He, a pastor-elder, was married thrice and divorced twice – and not for the criteria allowed by Jesus in Mark 9 &10. His last marriage caused a church split. God in Proverbs states He states those who cause division among His people. He did not meet the criteria of church overseer – to be blameless, above reproach, husband of one wife – given by Paul to Timothy. Paul warned of EIGHT false teachers in one epistle (2Timothy). It is therefore correct to warn the naive against this man. His legacy: most of his students follow his false example and teaching, and teach the naive the same errors.

      • Webmaster says:

        Can you document him stating anything to the effect that “only KJV upholders are saved”? There are a number of things he said, that if taken to its logical extent would lean that direction, but I have seen where Ruckman has stated outright that the KJV is not necessary for salvation. However, he does not take a stand against the few who hold to the position that the KJV is necessary for salvtion.

      • Tim Lambert says:

        Can you document and prove Dr. Ruckman taught abortion was ok from his pulpit or school? What about in his books? I would be interested to see your proof for your statement.

        • Webmaster says:

          I don’t know if Ruckman said something that exact about being OK with abortion, but there is proof he wrote some things almost equally as objectionable concerning abortion. See Ruckman: “The destruction of a child in the fetal or embryonic stage is NOT counted as murder” http://www.ruckmanism.org/abortionnotmurder

    • Joseph says:

      Derek, there needs to be MORE warnings against men like Ruckman, a suposed Christian who was used racist hate language against black people and endorsed abortion. Paul commanded Christians to ‘judge the man within’ – in 1 Cor. 6 – ‘and hand put him over to satan/put him outside the church, in that particular example. The NT shows we must mark false teachers. He taught that after the rapture, you are saved by works. This is false teaching, and varius other extra biblical teachings.
      His personal moral failures – eg in marriage – married x3, divorced x2, show he was never qualified to lead, pastor and teach a church. He failed the test of Scripture on many levels. There are other false teachers within the KJV Only movement – eg Texe Marrs & Steven Anderson – who speak hatred toward the Jews, making Jews central to sensationalist conspiracy theories – total fables. Anderson prays for President Obama to die; Jack Chick also endorses P. Ruckman…. I feel it right to mention this in order to warn the unwary.

    • robert donaldson says:

      amen to that webmaster
      the amount of vitriol against Mr Ruckman can only be satanic.
      It has been a huge eye opener to view the ignorance about the AV
      The people who call them selves scholars are often dangerous
      I have not yet seen the word scholar in the bible, however there are such names as pharisees.
      let us realise that the focus is Jesus not Dr not scholar these are wicked terms.

  3. Webmaster says:

    Is Ruckman not be held to the same standard you impose on others?

  4. His Word stands forever says:

    “According to documentation in the book Foes of the King James Bible Refuted by D.A. Waite, when asked, Sam Gipp stated that for a Russian to have the truth of the Word of God he would have to learn English.”

    So? What is wrong with this statement….or do you know of a Bible written in the Russian language which is absolutely 100% guaranteed error free?

    If you have such a Bible in the Russian language, get busy and make the Russians know which Bible that is so all can start buying that particular one.

    If you do not have such a Bible in Russian language….wel…then they would be better of to learn the English so they can read, understand and obey a King James Bible

    • Ann says:

      God isn’t limited by a language and your ideas of KJV onlyism. Praise GOD, He isn’t contained in boxes and books! The HEAVENS DECLARE THR GLORY OF GOD AND THE FIRMAMENT SHEWETH HIS HANDIWORK!

  5. Webmaster says:

    You and Gipp just demonstrated what happens when one tries to take the teaching Ruckman popularized (that the KJV is "absolutely 100% guaranteed error free") to its ultimate and logical conclusion. We should go back to the historic view that the KJV is trustworthy but not perfect like the originals. In this manner foreign translations are capable of being trustworthy as the KJV without needlesly being revised merely to conform to the KJV.

  6. Paul Hyland says:

    Webmaster,if there is one proven error in the Authorized Version,then it is an untrustworthy book and if that is so,then we do not have a trustworthy bible in Ehglish,because the modern translations arent.
    If that is so,where do we go to ,to get the pure Word of God [prov.30:5-6] that God said would be preserved from this generation forever[ps.12:6-7]?
    Ah,of course! To the Greek.But that is where man can put his own interpretation on what the words should be,is’nt it.
    In case you are wondering where I am coming from,it is from the former position of studying Greek-after all,that is the cliche coming through the Body of Christ when one needs to ‘properly understand the scriptures’,is’nt it?
    After taking a long look at the bible version issue when put before me,I gave up the Greek studies I had been taking from a Greek teacher and put my trust in the authority of the Authorized Version,and you know what?-after twenty years of bible study since,where I have not used the Greek,,all I can say is that in the five years previous of learning Greek,it amounted to nothing[By the way,if you wonder where I am coming from,its a Acts 9 Pauline grace position]Yours in Christ,Paul

    • Webmaster says:

      I disagree with you that one proven error would make the AV an untrustworthy book. “Trustworthy” is defined at dictionary.com as “deserving of trust or confidence; dependable; reliable.” Notice it does not define the term as infallible, perfect, flawless, inerrant, or incapable of error. Your notion that a single provable error would make the AV untrustworthy could have the effect of putting the AV in a bad light, because the first editions contained the Apocrypha, printing errors, and translation notes offering alternative translations. Modern printings of the KJV can and sometimes do contain printing errors, and there are still cases of variation between AV editions today, although very, very minor. But your contention that one single provable error deems them untrustworthy is extreme. You probably make exceptions for printing errors and such, but if you make exceptions for all situations that could arise, in such a way that you are in control of what qualifies as a provable error, then in my view this cheapens your contention.

      To test your consistency, if Greek is out, allow me to ask you where people can have the infallible Word of God in other languages, and where was the infallible Word of God before 1611?

    • Ann says:

      Compare Jesus and apostles quotes from the Old Testament. They are not word for words the same. In fact, they are often quite different. Such as, MINE EARS HAST THOU OPENED vs. A BODY HAST THOU PREPARED FOR ME. Jesus and His apostles quoted often from the Septuagint version. Did you know your Masoretic Text is corrupt? Did you know your KJV-Anglican Church translators were often using Vulgate and Septuagint rendering over Masoretic? Did you know that Henry VIII started the Anglican church because the Catholic wouldn’t authorize his divorces? So here you have a church founded and grounded in DIVORCE, which Jesus spoke AGAINST…that interprets your KJV. Is it any wonder that Riplinger and Ruckman have had multiple marriages themselves?

      If there is any conspiracy…the conspiracy is that of people that cannot keep a relationship in tact are out and about wandering causing division over Bible versions.

      • John says:

        Since you’re smart enough to find “mistakes” in the KJV, why don’t you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?

        • Webmaster says:

          List all the verses where I claimed an outright mistake in the KJV, not merely where I don’t understand why the KJV translators translated something the way they did.

    • Joseph says:

      Paul. A Bible, the KJV must be 100% trustworthy, not one proven error:

      so a chair that has scratches on its paintwork, or a loose thread, or error in its material – is that chair no longer trustworthy to sit on, since it isnt 100% perfect?

      So the converts made in China in underground churches, for eg, using the NIV translated to Cantonese, are fake Christians because they have Scriptures that may possibly have the tiniest error, or because their translation didnt come from the KJV?

      What about the reports of converts in Iran who hear the gospel first in a dream, never seeing a Bible before?

  7. jim says:

    kjvonly-ism was thought of long before ruckman…in fact when the authorized version was finished and soon afterward!!!

    • Joseph says:

      Jim, I have yet to see ‘King James Only’ mentioned before 1930. Please provide proof of this from the 17th C: eg: ‘when the authorised was finished and soon afterward’. For one thing, ‘soon afterward’ circa 1615, KJV were printed with, ‘thou shall commit adultery’ – a mistake under the 10 commandments.

      The KJV of 1611 wasnt even the FIRST authorised Bible, and in 1611 it contained ALL the signs of the Zodiac in a calendar; ALL of the dates of Rome Saints days – including Pope Gregory’s, and Blessed Virgin Mary Conception, holy days.

      The Apocrypha it contained, commanded the reader to delve into magic, ‘burn the hearts and liver of fishes over a fire to ward off the devil’. It cross referenced Apocrpha verses with true Bible verses in added margin notes, and advised the reader to use the Apocrypha in Ecclesiastical Prayers. It was read out in churches unti the 1640’s. If the NIV or a modern version contained any of this there would be outrage (New Age! Papal! False Modern Bible!). Sadly KJV Onlyists can always come up with excuses for their heralded idolised? book, using double standards.

  8. Ashley says:

    I find your position refreshing. I have read all of Mrs. Riplinger’s books and some comments of others about them. I have also read some of Ruckman’s writings and Grady’s books. After the most recent book of Mrs. Riplinger, I did some further research and was left with the conclusion that she was uncredible and in the same camp as Ruckman and Grady. This position defies honest scriptural sense. The thought comes to mind that not one jot or tittle would pass away from the Word of God till heaven and earth should pass away(Matt5::18). These punctuation marks still exist, but not in English. I too believe and trust the KJV as the best English version. This in no way does away with the source languages and their respective manuscripts. On the contrary this is the strength of the KJV’s superiority, the accuracy with which it was translated into this tongue and the dependability of the texts from which it came.

    • charley says:

      I agree with Ashley and might also and that if you read ‘The translators to the reader’ in the earlier additions you will come to the conclusion that even they didn’t think their translation was perfect. they called the English vulgar and the original languages as sacred. they also had alternate reading in the margin.[it could read another way] read ‘the translatots to the readers yourself.one more point using an English dictionary instead of the Hebrew or greek dictionary can lead to false doctrine. this is one reason many teach REPENTANCE incorrectly in regards to a sinner being saved.

  9. john says:

    when dr ruckman says hes correcting the greek and Hebrew,which one would you be reffering to.what he means is it corrects the corrupt greek and Hebrew texts that are out there that scholars use to make them sound like a final authority

    • Webmaster says:

      Wrong. And I will prove it from Ruckman’s own writings:

      Now observe in the text of 1611—and all other AV editions at any time, by anyone till 1980—how the inerrant infallible English corrects ALL GREEK SCHOLARS, ALL HEBREW SCHOLARS, ALL MANUSCRIPTS OF ANY FAMILY AND ALL…
      Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Dec. 1983 p. 3

      Bold for emphasis. By referring to all manuscripts of any family, Ruckman is blasting the very source from which the KJV was translated from. Not only is this inappropriate, but it is illogical, for we would have no KJV if there had been no manuscripts.

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.

*