Analyzing Peter Ruckman: Some random thoughts and unanswered questions

This article will be different from others, as it consists of random thoughts that may be revised and organized in the future in a more orderly fashion. This website was started as a way to put forth rough draft portions of a book that has long been in the making. For this reason some material in our website may come across as "rough." It was felt that a website would be helpful to get the material out while slowly writing the book, but alsoallowing feedback to be received through reader comments.

What drives Ruckman?

What motivated him to write an extensive Bible commentary series, and over 100 publications? We confess that we do not know his heart. We could be wrong. Ruckman does not hesitate to judge the motives of his critics. One difference about our approach is that we recognize we could be wrong, and only God can see the heart. With this in mind, we will share what we suspect drives Ruckman. He seems to be obsessed with a desire to present a novel and unique theological system of interpretation that can be linked to him. Numerous statements of his have led us to that conclusion. When he studies the Bible, he does not hesitate to “think outside the box” (which is not entirely wrong). He is constantly attempting to come up with something new, as long as there is at least an isolated (and often vague) passage he can point to in order to attempt to justify his unusual view. He uses a combination of conjecture, superstition, vivid imagination, deviation from hermeneutical principles, isolated passages out of context, and a drive to be known as the “discoverer” of a new “truth.” He wants to claim to understand difficult passages that stump other Bible teachers. In his desire to stand out with new interpretations, Ruckman often with questionable interpretations turns mere possibility into probability, and via theological slight-of-hand turns probability into certainty, where other equally viable interpretations exist.

He teaches in his own circles and own church to adoring crowds who will not roll their eyes nor confront him about anything and continue to yell “amen” no matter how off-the-wall it is. He feels safe in his circle, and has little fear of people walking out in disgust over extreme teachings (except an occasional visitor). This theological system of checks and balances is missing. 

This book should not have had to be written. That’s because the false doctrine of Ruckmanism should have been noticed in its early stages, and the command to “note that man” (2 Thes. 3:14) should have been heeded early on. It seems that only a few in the 1970’s raised their voice, during a very crucial time. By the late 1980’s when concern began to grow, the writings of warning of a few was too little, too late. Much damage had already been done.

The case of Peter Ruckman brings up many questions. When did he begin to come up with new doctrines? Was he truly saved? What led him to become so bitter against others? Why did influential fundamentalist leaders open doors for him in his early years? What led him to go to such extremes defending the KJV? What led people to follow him in such a cultic fashion? What was his family life like? What drove him to write so many books and publish so many recordings? Did he have a photographic memory? 

Sometimes Fundamentalists have a reputation for being too quick to judge. In the case of Peter Ruckman, I believe the opposite was true for a significant number of Fundamentalists who opened doors for Ruckman in the early days. I believe that as Fundamentalists/conservative Christians, we should ask ourselves what went wrong, less the same type of mistake be repeated in the future.

A number of independent Baptists have shown a noticeable lack of discernment regarding Ruckmanism. Some non-Ruckmanites will support a Ruckmanite missionary or will have a Ruckmanite preacher in to preach thinking, “they are a little fanatical about the King James, but that’s about it. No big deal.” This tolerance has allowed Ruckmanism to make an inroad (even if small) within mainstream fundamentalism. Many preachers will not inform themselves about Ruckmanism, like they will about the New Evangelical or Ecumenical movement. 

I’m familiar with the case of a fundamental church that claimed to be against Ruckmanism that had an online Christian bookstore that even sold David Cloud’s book against Ruckman. However, this same online bookstore without warning sold books (not written by Peter Ruckman) that promoted Ruckmanism. I pointed this out to the pastor when he was communicating with me about a different matter. The last time I checked (one year later), the books promoting Ruckmanism were still being sold at their online bookstore without warning.

Some non-Ruckmanite preachers will read Ruckman’s books with the intention of “spitting out the bones.” It cannot be denied that there is some truth, or perhaps much truth in Ruckman’s books. But much truth intermingled with serious error is often far more dangerous than straight error. Many of Ruckman’s books pose trick questions that the reader may not be able to answer, therefore the reader is led to believe that Ruckman has answers no one else has.

How did Ruckmanism seduce so many?

The seductive nature of Ruckman is different than in most cases among religious leaders. He does not come across as smooth and polished. He does not try to butter people up. He does not try to win people over with big smiles and a charming personality. He does not try to make friends on all sides. He comes across differently, often reminding people that he was an infantryman, and he seems to use his rough edges to his advantage to reach those who are not impressed by teachers with big smiles who keep repeating the same plain old-fashioned Gospel. He approaches them as a common man who got to experience the world and its main religions before converting to Christianity and becoming an intellectual by reading a book a day and reading the Bible through so many times as to become what he called “the fastest gun in the West.”

His ability to draw colorful artwork pertaining to his message while he preached was apparently a big draw. His radio voice and his ability to make up sound effects from the pulpit also captured the attention of his audiences. He sometimes indulged in fantastic speculation for what might otherwise be considered boring Bible passages, making them come to life with interpretations of interplanetary travel and reproduction in heaven, an original chaotic creation, adding sexual elements to Bible anecdotes that no one else could find, revealing what the forbidden fruit was in the Garden of Eden, the date of Christ’s birth, and rapture date guessing–all with some racist remarks added for effect. He had a rapid-fire method of quoting verses that seemed to back up what he was saying, but he would quickly move on to the next verse before his audience had a chance to have a good look at a passage to assess its validity within context for themselves. You were just supposed to trust Ruckman’s interpretation, and many did. Even though he seemed to have plenty of time to develop his pet theories, he nearly always seemed rushed when it came time to back up his views with Scripture. It would be hard to believe that this was not intentional.

There is no denying that his teaching included a significant amount of truth. This, coupled with what was often a long string of Bible references after one of his “Ruckmanisms,” plus telling his audience reassuring statements such as “look up the references,” “don’t take my word for it” no doubt convinced many that he must be right.

However, what happens when someone accepts his challenge to “look up the references,” and writes Ruckman a personal letter expressing their concerns? This author did exactly that in 2004. Instead of clarifying his teachings and answering questions, he wrote back with the most unkind letter I have ever received. He accused me of being a liar and worse. I received two cruel answering machine messages the following week from people likely in his circle he had apparently shared my letter with. To tell someone in the midst of their teaching to look up the Bible references he provides and tell people to check him out, only to insult, demean and ridicule them (and influence others to do the same) when they actually follow through is nothing short of cultic behavior. 

What he is trying to get across subconsciously is that since he has read the Bible over 100 times, has read over 35,000 books, has 5 academic degrees, has written over 100 books, has such a varied background, including dabbling in major world religions, living in different places, and working in many different occupations, that he is uniquely qualified to unlock biblical mysteries and have a special insight on the Bible that no one else has ever had. By continuing to bring up his background and mocking so many other Bible teachers, he is conditioning his audience in a cultic fashion to accept what he teaches no matter how new or odd it sounds. His book sales and number of his followers points to how successful he's been in grooming them with this strategy.

Ruckman often paraphrases the beliefs of others when attempting to refute them. In other words, Ruckman often rephrases what others believe in his own words, in a convenient way in order to make them easier to refute. We are not accusing Ruckman of never providing exact quotes from his adversaries. What we are saying is Ruckman prefers to generalize views held by his adversaries, but spelled out in a way they may or may not accurately express their view. For example. "The Holy Spirit did not come IN to men in the Old Testament. He merely came 'on them.' This standard Fundamentalist lie is held to be Biblical truth by… [lists 7 men without quoting them]" (Bible Believer’s Bulletin April 1984, p. 1)

He intentionally over-simplifies the issues, creating a false dichotomy in which only his position can be correct. Those who are not well informed do not realize he could be withholding information that significantly weakens or even invalidates his arguments, or that there are viable alternatives to his positions that do not violate Scripture or common sense.

In his interpretations, Ruckman is driven by superstitions and a desire to disclose new theological discoveries to add to the concept he has coined as "advanced revelations." In the process, it is not unusual for him to mock others for not noticing what he has "discovered."

For his strange interpretations, Ruckman frequently relies on doubtful or obscure definitions of keywords in order to fit his narrative. Often when this occurs, he doesn't provide a source for his unusual definitions. Using an unusual definition without a source, he will proceed to use key terms outside their normal, ordinary use. In the process he will switch source languages for his keywords at his convenience, something he chides others for doing.

Although Ruckman does not frequently write in a scholarly fashion, there is no doubt that he is intellectually brilliant, well educated, and has an excellent memory to recall facts, figures, dates, names and places. How easily he is able to recall Bible references and recite near encyclopedic knowledge when answering questions on-the-fly (as in the sample made available by the Bible Baptist Bookstore) reveal an extraordinary intellect. However, this alone does not make anyone a well-balanced individual who can exercise discernment and be wise in their views and approaches to issues. Some of the brightest intellectuals throughout history (with some of them being theologians) have been known to hold abhorrent views.

There is no denying that Ruckman had some extraordinary intellectual abilities and talents. He is brilliant in many ways, and he is obviously well read, even if his claim to have read a book a day since the age of ten may be doubtful. However, the proper question to ask at this point is whether he is wise, by God’s definition. James 3:17 defines wisdom as follows: “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” That biblical definition does not seem to describe Ruckman. 

If wisdom and balance and careful exegesis are not a characteristic of someone’s teaching, it doesn’t matter how many degrees they have, or how high an IQ, or how many books they’ve read, or how many souls they’ve won, or how many times they’ve read the Bible, or how much of it has been memorized. Although God can use these things, they are not a substitute for wisdom, balance, and careful hermeneutical practices. 

When Ruckmanites are backed into a corner, our experience is that they will often demand to be shown which Bible teacher should substitute Ruckman. This of course is to facilitate pointing out the faults of whatever alternative teacher is suggested, in an attempt to make a point that everyone has faults—so why not continue to stand with Ruckman? For the purposes of deep Bible study and well-rounded preparation for God’s service, no single person can fill that void and be all things. A given writer may have written one of the best commentaries ever on the book of Psalms, for example, but he may have written a book on Revelation that leaves much to be desired. Someone who is not gifted in Biblical exegesis may have written one of the best books on counseling or sermon delivery. Some are better speakers than writers, and vice versa. The Bible speaks of “diversity of gifts” (1 Cor. 12:4). Obtaining nearly all study material from one author would be convenient, but we would be subjecting ourselves to all his weaknesses and shortcomings. There’s much truth to the adage that says, “to be master of all is to be master of none.”

We have never known Ruckman to admit to discovering he’s been wrong in one of his peculiar views or public teachings with the exception of a detail concerning 2 Timothy 3:16. His previous position on 2 Tim. 3:16 was not unique, but the prevailing view among those who are conservative in their theology. This should hardly count as a change, because it conveniently benefited his views on double inspiration and was suggested by one of his own followers. If our observation is correct, except for the exception noted, he has never admitted to being wrong in one of his personal interpretations or any unique views he has made public. For all the views he held and interpretations he made public over a period of approximately 60 years, it is inconceivable that he would not admit to a mistake in interpretations or more than a slight change in a position. Even with his failure to guess the date of the rapture, he could not bring himself to admit he was wrong for doing so, but instead blamed the calendar! What folly! What utter foolishness that should only be expected from the worse of cults!

When someone is found that seems to be balanced and wise and appears to demonstrate careful exegesis, our guard can still never be let down. When sincere questions arise that appear to show serious weaknesses in a major teaching, the concerns should not be dismissed with unquestioned loyalty.

One area Fundamentalists need to learn from past mistakes is over-reliance on personalities for doctrine and practices rather than the Word of God itself. Human leadership is necessary in ministry, but it also is a way for Satan to get his foot in the door. It must be realized that our loyalty ultimately is to Christ and his Word, not to a man or an institution or a movement.

We will conclude with the following relevant thought from the writings of RA Torrey:

One of the commonest causes of failure in Christian life is found in the attempt to follow some good man whom we greatly admire. No man and no woman, no matter how good, can be safely followed. If we follow any man or woman, we are bound to go astray. There has been but one absolutely perfect Man on this earth–the Man Christ Jesus. If we try to follow any other man we are surer to imitate his faults than his excellencies. Look to Jesus and Jesus only as your Guide.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Analyzing Peter Ruckman: Some random thoughts and unanswered questions

  1. Anonymous says:

    "This book should not have had to be written. That’s because the false doctrine of Ruckmanism should have been noticed in its early stages, and the command to “note that man” (2 Thes. 3:14) should have been headed early on." 

    This quote from your article very much mirrors my feelings about how he made such an impression on myself & certain sects of fundamentalism. It just goes to show you that no one is exempt from being misled or manipulated. And manipulation is exactly what Ruckman did in his ministry. Not even fundamentalism is exempt from being led astray by certain false doctrines & ways of interpreting the Bible. Everyone desires to be superior in some way, and Ruckman tapped into that desire by creating a false sense of confidence in his followers. 

    I had no idea there was a book in the works but I am looking forward to it coming out. Any date on its release or publication? Please let us know! Thanks for another great article, I enjoy reading the new material. 

    • Webmaster says:

      The book has been in the works over 10 years because of other ministry and family priorities. I have been criticized often by Ruckmanites that I must have an awful lot of free time on my hands to investigate Ruckman, that I must not win souls, that I never preached on a street corner, but the reality is quite different. I might have put out a book sooner if it would not have been for this website, but it would not have benefited from the extra years of research and feedback from website readers. When the book is ready, perhaps in 1-2 years, it will not be anonymous. I plan to keep the website when that time comes for those who cannot afford the book.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I have been diving into this website for a while, and I was a former ruckmanite as well.

    When you mentioned about the motives I couldn't help but fleshback to the time how I got out from their group:  i wondered how could one going against all the big names incluidng the "dangerous one" be able to get away with it? That's when I begun to wake up and be drifted away from this " Cultic" like crowd. ( as well as the help of the Holy spirit of course ) 

    I am not saying or implying anything, but if one could say infiltration existed then what makes it not doubtful with this man? Besides he did have some truth in his ministry but his delivery, his background and as well as his controversial life and teaching is causing some of the most serious doubts to people accepting the things not only from him but other authentic christians have been promoting: the kjv, dispensationalism, etc

    I am just asking legit question. I don't think it's easy to convince someone especially when they are blinded so deep that they won't ever hear you. But it's fair to always just throw questions out to help them discern for themselves. 

    Thank you webmaster, though I don't agree with everything you put out, but I admire your courage and heart to put this into effort trying to save those who were once demonized or spiritually abused by this type of christian group 

  3. Ulrich says:

    Great article! I am right now no sure whether to be kjv only, and whether to continue reading Ruckman's material.

    I got interested in Ruckman's teachings by Texe Marrs' praising the "fine books" written by Ruckman. Also David Cloud's book, and the very negativr comments by James White on White's podcast made me want to look into Ruckman's writings.

    I am about to thoroughly study the articles on your great webpage.

    According to the Bible, he who anwers a matter before he hears it, is a fool. Therefore I keep studying and will eventually get to a conclusion in some time.

  4. Noah Zielke says:

    Having read a lot of Ruckman's content, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if Ruckman isn't saved, neither am I. I disagree with a lot of what he says in regards to prophecy, dispensations, Jews, racism, 33 year old males, and UFOs, but the man was clear on the Gospel as it sits today (at least in his reckoning today, in my reckoning always).

    A good example of this is his sermon "4 judgements". It's as good of a Salvation sermon as any, ever. 

    • Webmaster says:

      I personally do not think it is wise to relate our salvation status with anyone else in the realm of “if _____ isn’t saved, neither am I.” Also one’s view of salvation doctrine is a good indicator as to whether he/she is saved, but salvation is more than correct belief. It involves repentance and faith. Perhaps I am guilty of going overboard and picking your post apart, but thanks for having the courage to point out some of your disagreements with Ruckman.

  5. Isaac Tubirore says:

    It seems to me(as all other ruckman critics) that you have some sort of envy as to how greatly the Lord used ruckman and blessed him greatly not only in spiritual things(like prison ministry,a good bible institute et.c) but also in other stuff Like him living that long,and how much of attention and respect preachers that were trained under him and his students have for him.

    you said "ruckman often paraphrase the belief of others in an attempt to refute them" yet you are making blank statements without giving a single quotation from even one of his book or tape,DVD etc,moreover you did not show the letter that he sent you neither did you tell what you sent him the letter for to begin with,This whole article was as subjective as it can get,

    you simply got Hurt by ruckman making racist jokes and his  "bad deliverance" and you are now dedicating your whole life to slandering him on the internet,

    Ah,yes following the example of The man Christ Jesus 


    • Webmaster says:

      “It seems to me(as all other ruckman critics) that you have some sort of envy…”

      No envy here. That is a very shallow argument. There is a Biblical command to heed: “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” 2 Th. 3:14

      “you said “ruckman often paraphrase the belief of others in an attempt to refute them” yet you are making blank statements without giving a single quotation from even one of his book or tape,DVD etc,..”

      I gave an example in the very paragraph where you lifted that quote! The paragraph ended with an example:

      For example. “The Holy Spirit did not come IN to men in the Old Testament. He merely came ‘on them.’ This standard Fundamentalist lie is held to be Biblical truth by… [lists 7 men without quoting them]” (Bible Believer’s Bulletin April 1984, p. 1)

      Here are two more examples, in these cases people he trys to place in his camp without proving it from their writings:

      1. Ruckman presenting Professor Khale as matching Ruckman’s view denying a BC Septuagint without bothering to even quote Khale. The quotes I provided straight from Kahle seemed to show the opposite or at least something very different from Ruckman’s view.

      2. Ruckman presenting John Burgon’s manuscript theories as one that “matches all the facts of history, all the evidence of the papyri, all the evidence found in the unicals [sic]…” without quoting Burgon one time in the book. Burgon is good, but his theories do not match all the manuscripts and facts of history, or else no more books would have been needed on the topic. See

      “you simply got Hurt by ruckman making racist jokes and his “bad deliverance” and you are now dedicating your whole life to slandering him on the internet,”

      False accusation. I’m not even of a race that Ruckman targets. You accuse me of slandering Ruckman, and did not document a single example. Can you provide even one example? Remember that slander does not involve a mere opinion, personal view or impression.

  6. Nate Beck says:



    This post is not to start an argument, stir up controversy, debate or any of that. Just a personal note on where I stand on certain issues of Biblical interest that me and Doc would not have seen eye to eye on.


    1. I disagree with the view that Behemoth (Job 40 KJV) is only a reference to the devil or the beast of Revelation 13. As with Leviathan, I believe that Behemoth and Leviathan were/and/or are actual animals, most likely what we now call dinosaurs, as well as types of the devil. See Dr. Ruckman's Book of Job Commentary.


    2. I disagree that The Septuagint is a first century A.D. invention from Origen and Symmachus and others. While I certainly do NOT believe that Christ and the Apostles were quoting a standard Greek Old Testament Version, I still believe there is enough historical evidence that A Septuagint of some kind certainly existed because Justin Martyr and other "Church Fathers" mention it. See Dr. Ruckman's The Mythological Septuagint.


    3. I don't believe that "ni$$3r" is an acceptable word to use in any circumstances. I completely understand that the Latin word for black in the Bible is Niger-Acts 13:1 KJV, but that is NOT pronounced the same way and only has one "g", not two.


    I also don't believe in mistreating or judging or making jokes about people based on their skin color. The Bible just does not sanction that conduct. I also don't believe black people are inferior to whites or Asians in any way. I've known plenty of intelligent and fine Christian brethren who are black.


    I also don't believe integration is wrong or interracial marriages. I do not believe an entire doctrine of segregation of blacks and whites can be built on the single verse of Acts 17:26, because that's mainly referring to the Old Testament spreading of nations whose counterpart in the OT is Deuteronomy 32:8. If the doctrine of racial segregation can be built on that verse, then Shem, Ham and Japheth should of traveled in separate arks!


    As far as interracial marriage is concerned,  there is 1. No clear cut verse in the Bible that says it's wrong- the events of Nehemiah 13 were because of RELIGIOUS issues, NOT racial issues. The Israelites were forbidden to marry neighboring races because of the danger of falling into the pagan and polytheistic religion due to mixed marriages, such as Solomon. Also, if interracial marriage is wrong, then God would've rebuked Moses for it-He did not- and God would have rebuked Boaz for marrying Ruth, both of whom are in Christ's genealogy!!!


    4. I do not believe Ham sodomized Noah. I've been over Genesis 9 a thousand times and that just is not there. On that note, Noah also cursed Canaan, NOT Africans, for none of Ham's other sons were cursed, ONLY Canaan! That doesn't mean all of Doc's teachings on race are wrong, however. The races (which technically speaking, "race" is NOT a Biblical concept anyway) are NOT all the same. See Dr. Ruckman's Segregation or Integration: What Saith the Scriptures?


    These are my four disagreements with Doc. I'm a solid "Ruckmanite" regarding everything else, without apology to anyone anywhere, no matter how holy and Biblically discerned they think they are, and will go to bat for Doc's teachings and commentaries on everything else he taught about the King James Bible, anytime and anywhere!

  7. Nate Beck says:

    5. I forgot another item! I also do NOT believe that Satan and Eve had any kind of sexual encounter as Dr. Ruckman has suggested. That is just complete nonsense that the Bible does not even hint at. To have such an interpretation, you would have to sexualize the word "beguiled" in 2 Corinthians 11:3 KJV and that just does not work at all. Also, Genesis 3:6 says Adam was "with her", which implies Adam was standing there witnessing this the whole time! 

  8. David says:

    I’m not sure where to post this question but I have a concern about some thing I found in his reference Bible concerning Genesis 24:26 in his reference notes where it says, this simply shows bad judgment on the Almighty part I’m not sure how to interpret this. Is it sarcasm or what is he doing here.

  9. David says:

    I’m sorry the verse in his reference notes is genesis 27:24
    Not 24:27

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *