At Ruckmanism.org we do not endorse any modern translations. Although the main purpose of this website is not for exposing other translations, we are concerned about the proliferation of translations and we do provide a list of literature on the topic that we consider to be balanced compared to most of what is available. However, this does not mean we believe Peter Ruckman is fair and balanced in all he says about modern translations. The following is an example that got our attention while analyzing his writings.
In a brief article entitled "The Great Pretender" in his Bible Believers' Bulletin (Sep. 1996, p. 3) Ruckman starts off remarking that "the choice of words by the new versions indicates a verbal inspiration from unclean spirits." Then he continues:
Way back in 1946 when the RSV came out, a real Bible Believer might have been surprised to find the word "imitator" used instead of "follower" in 1 Thessalonians 1:6 and in Ephesians 5:1. Here the grossly corrupt RSV (published by the National Council of Communist Churches) said that a Christian should imitate God and imitate Paul instead of following them. An imitation is a counterfeit. So this reading in the RSV is very appropriate for that production. It is a counterfeit Bible. All other counterfeit Bibles immediately followed the imitation. The NIV says you ought to imitate God, the NASV says you ought to imitate God. … the greatest imitator of God is Satan…
He concluded the article as follows:
Quit obeying Satanic "commandments" recorded in Satanic "Bibles."
The most glaring omission in the article was not pointing out the meaning of the underlying Greek word mimetes, which simply means "an imitator" (see Strong's, Thayer's, Vine's, etc.). This is also a case where there are no variations between Greek NT manuscripts or between critical texts and Textus Receptus editions. It was simply not scholarly for Ruckman not to even mention or discuss the meaning of the Greek word in the context of his accusation.
Ruckman only defined "imitation" in the negative sense. The first entry for "imitator" at dictionary.com is as follows:
1. to follow or endeavor to follow as a model or example: to imitate an author's style; to imitate an older brother.
2. to mimic; impersonate: The students imitated the teacher behind her back.
3. to make a copy of; reproduce closely.
4. to have or assume the appearance of; simulate; resemble. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/imitator?s=t Accessed Sep. 23, 2016)
To "imitate" can very much be defined in the positive sense, and includes the meaning "to follow," which is what the KJV chose to retain in 1 Thessalonians 1:6 and Ephesians 5:1, following the Tyndale-Geneva-Coverdale-Bishops Bible tradition. Ruckman ignored the Greek, and gave the literal English translation a negative spin in order to suit his agenda. To show the weakness in Ruckman's argument, a negative spin can also be placed on the "followers" translation. There are several passages in the Bible which refer to Peter and others following Jesus "afar off" (Mat. 26:58, Lk. 23:49).
If one were to focus only on imitation in the negative sense, and ignore the meaning of the Greek word, it is possible to perceive how a command in the Bible to be imitators of God rather than followers could seem shallow. However, attempts to be literal in translating the Bible should not be looked upon through a conspiratorial lens simply because the KJV translators decided to be less literal or use an acceptable rendering that was not the most common translation.
In this case Ruckman feels his argument is so sound and revealing that he refers to the non-KJV reading as a Satanic commandment recorded in Satanic Bibles (this means any Greek NT is a Satanic Bible if we apply Ruckman’s logic!) Ruckman has stated in writing on occasion that he believes a person can be saved via a modern translation, but as documented here he trashes them with a vigor that is consistent only with someone who would appear to believe the exact opposite. We deplore these ill-suited tactics, and we believe this adds to the multiple reasons why Ruckman’s literature should be soundly rejected.
Because Ruckman rejected concordances for the alleged inspired Old Version reading, he must have missed Strong’s Greek Concordance G3402 μιμητής mimētḗs derives form G3401, μιμέομαι miméomai meaning “to imitate”. See Blue Letter Bible’s edition of Strong’s here. What an unscholarly blunder indeed!
Ruckmanism comes down to this. There is no Bible other than KJV. Translations are not perfect, so one must learn King James English if he wants to study the words of God. This is what offended me the most when i was at PBI.
I am a Korean, who is bilingual. I see Ruckmanism from the perspective of a non-English speaking Christian. The bitterest pill I had to swallow as a Ruckmanite was that only the English KJV was the perfect words of God, and that translations are not perfect. I loved the Korean KJB at the time, but Ruckmanites told me that it is no better than the NIV.
Gipp went on public broadcast, and admitted that "if a Russian Christian wants to learn the words of God, he has to learn English first". this is what KJVO comes down to. Translations are corruptions of the perfect words of God.
If Ruckmanism was true, Christians would be better off "going unto all nations, teaching English". "Go in the mission field, teach people the English language, so that they may have the privilege of learning from the perfect words of God (KJV) and become a Ruckmanite". That is the mission statement for all Ruckmanite missionaries.
I was so angry that the Bible could not be perfect in any other language, but I accepted the teaching. It offended me as a Christian from a non-English speaking background, and it really sounded heretical, but i took the bitter pill.
I believed this lie for 20 years. I went all over the world, telling people about KJVO. A life wasted in a heretical KJVO Ruckman cult. [The last two sentences were deleted to comply with our comment policy]