Ruckman admitting he doesn’t know where the Word of God was before 1611

Ruckmanism falls all apart when an attempt is made to apply it consistently to the area of other languages as well as the era before 1611. The reason for this is that Ruckman demands a perfect Bible right now. If Ruckman has a right to demand and have a perfect Bible now, logic tells us that those who lived before 1611 had a right to demand and have a perfect Bible then. In this brief article we will demonstrate in Ruckman’s own writings that he doesn’t know or care where God’s Word was before 1611.

In his book The Scholarship only Controversy, page 22, Dr. Ruckman asks the following relevant question:

Where was the word of God before 1611?

The only problem is—he doesn’t answer his own question! Instead of answering the question, he calls those who would dare ask such a thing “equivocating sophists.”

When referring to the era before 1611, Ruckman is very non-specific and evasive. Observe:

God preserved it through many other channels until He produced His final and finished work: the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible in the universal language of the end time. (Ruckman, Peter. James White’s Seven “Errors” Bible Believers’ Bulletin. March 1996, p. 13)

Notice in the following quote how Ruckman avoids his own question and admits he doesn’t care:

"What version of the Bible was the inerrant, infallible, inspired translation prior to the AV1611?" Answer: Who cares? Ask the people that read it. (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin Reprint Vol. 7 Strictly Personal. 2004, p. 251)

In other words, let's avoid questions that invalidate my arguments! He then follows up with another hard question:

"If there was an infallible, inerrant, inspired translation produced before 1611 is it identical to the King James?"
Answer: Who could care less whether it was or it wasn't? (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin Reprint. Vol. 7 Strictly Personal. 2004, p. 251.)

More evasive answers:

Where was the infallible, inerrant Bible before 1611? Well, where was it before 350 A.D.? Why do these insipid nuts think there was ANY infallible Bible, when the word "Bible" Is Chrysostom's term, and before 350 AD., the term wasn't even used! The scriptures were not even a book (Bible) until after 90 A.D. On they go. (Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Sep. 1980 p. 1)

Here’s another case that led to an evasive answer:

"If the KJV is the only inspired, inerrant version of the Bible from God to man then what was the inspired, inerrant Bible before the KJV was published in 1611?"
That's easy, the same place it was in 33 A.D. In 33 A.D. there wasn't any New Testament. That's easy. There's never been an "inspired, inerrant Bible" on the face of this earth since 1500 B.C., if Lyle is right. David didn't have one. Hezekiah didn't have one. Neither did Jesus Christ, if Lyle is right. (Bible Believers’ Bulletin. March 1992, p. 11)

It seems in the above answer Ruckman is trying to make a point about there not being an "inspired, inerrant Bible" since 1500 B.C. because the originals wouldn’t have been bound together in one volume. The 1500 B.C. date is apparently arbitrary. With this non-answer Ruckman is obfuscating in order to distract from answering directly.
In the following case, Ruckman uses the fallacy of mocking the one asking the question:

Where does this leave everyone who spoke English before 1611? Quack, quack! Where does it leave everyone who spoke Greek before ANY New Testament was written? Where does it leave ninety-eight percent of the world's population who never spoke or read Hebrew when three-fourths of the Bible was written in Hebrew? Quack, quack! Somebody is talking with the pilot light blown out. (Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Dec. 1982, p. 2) 

Ruckman is essentially admitting that there was no inerrant inspired manuscript or translation between the original manuscripts and 1611. He and his Ruckmanite followers and some others that don’t follow Ruckman consider it scandalous for a Christian or a preacher to not believe that the KJV or any translation is inspired, yet they have no qualms about not believing in an inspired inerrant translation for most of church history!

 

5 Responses to “Ruckman admitting he doesn’t know where the Word of God was before 1611”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Anonymous says:

    On page 228, of Biblical Scholarship-The Professional Liars:

    “13. ‘THE RUSSIANS HAD NO AUTHORIZED VERSION BEFORE 1700: WHAT ABOUT THEM? WHERE WAS THE WORD OF GOD BEFORE 1611?” Answer? Chapter FIVE. It was all over the world, because “the word of God is not bound” (2 Timothy 2:9). Tertullian says that European nations had the word of God before Constantine put out the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313″

  2. Webmaster says:

    Thank you for your input. When it comes to the Word of God in English in our present time, Ruckman demands that the Word of God must be infallible and "given by inspiration of God." He mocks those who say they don’t have a translation that meets that criteria. But you will not find a quote where he tells you specifically where the infallible inspired Word of God was in English before 1611, nor where it is specifically in an infallible inspired state in other languages at any other time. Every foreign translation he mentioned in the "Professional liars" chapter as well as chapter 5 is something he considers to be inferior to the Word of God after 1611 in English.

  3. Mr. Kang says:

    To suggest the scriptures must have been available to all people at all times is to ignore Biblical history: 2Ki 22:13 makes it plain “the book” had been out of circulation for a long time, even among God’s chosen people, to whom were “committed the oracles of God.” It’s not surprising during times of persecution or disobedience, scripture may not have been easily available.

    Where was the English bible before 1611? In Awe of Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible Its Mystery and History Letter by Letter by Riplinger has chapters that cover this pretty well.

  4. Particular Baptist says:

    The unbound, engrafted, pure word that endureth forever (II Tim. 2.9; Jas. 1.21; I Pe. 1.24-5 quoting Isa. 40), in which all Christians hope and gives light from darkness (Ps. 130.5, 119.105, 130; Pro. 6.23-5) are extant in the coallation of the Second Rabbinic Bible or Masorete texts from the twelfth century and Byzantine texts dating to pre-apostolic times.

    It is interesting the Baptist Catechism of 1695, intended for the instructiom of infants and ignorants, has a better understanding than Ruckman on how the Bible works, and what it is, than Ruckman the braggart author of hundreds of books: Notice, this Catechism was penned originally some 45 years after the first edition of the English Authorized Version.

    Q. 4. What is the Word of God?
    A. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, being given by divine inspiration, are the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. (2 Pet. 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Is. 8:20)

    Q. 5. How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God?
    A. The Bible evidences itself to be God’s Word by the heavenliness of its doctrine, the unity of
    its parts, its power to convert sinners and to edify saints; but the Spirit of God only, bearing
    witness by and with the Scriptures in our hearts, is able fully to persuade us that the Bible is the Word of God. (1 Cor. 2:6, 7, 13; Ps. 119:18, 129; Acts 10:43, 26:22; Acts 18:28; Heb. 4:12; Ps. 19:7-9; Rom. 15:4; Jn. 16:13, 14; 1 Jn. 2:20-27; 2 Cor. 3:14-17)

    Q. 6. May all men make use of the Scriptures?
    A. All men are not only permitted, but commanded and exhorted, to read, hear, and understand
    the Scriptures. (Jn. 5:39; Lk. 16:29; Acts 8:28-30; 17:11)
    (Now, if that is so, the scriptures MUST have existed before 1611, for no man can read a mythic document!)

    Q. 7. What do the Scriptures principally teach?
    A. The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Jn. 20:31; Acts 24:14; 1 Cor. 10:11; Eccl. 12:13)

    Yet, the most damning is this interview with Texe Marrs, who calls Ruckman his good friend
    (II Chron. 19.2-3; Pro. 17.15-20); notice what he says about John 5.39! This prodcast isr just before his book Manuscript Evidence was released. http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=910131455124

  5. Craig says:

    You are very contentious. God takes time to perfect the Christian. There’s nothing to suggest He would not also take His time to perfect His word in the universal language of the end times when that language was at it’s peak. Your real problem is with something else, Ruckman personally, or something carnal, and it’s causing you to behave in ways unbecoming.

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.

*