Peter S. Ruckman has come up with so many controversial views as well as new teachings and exclusive views unheard of before his time, that it is no surprise that it has been labeled as "Ruckmanism" by his critics. Since it is obvious that those who tend to propagate his views got it from him (either directly or indirectly, whether they admit it or not), they have been labeled as "Ruckmanites" for obvious reasons. Ruckmanism teaches the following among other things in a dogmatic fashion, in addition to matters (such as the Bible version issue) already covered elsewhere on this website :
- Different plans of salvation for different dispensations. (Ruckman, Peter. Ruckman’s Bible References: Personal Notes on Salient Verses in the Bible. 1997, p. 282)
- Women will get 33-year old male bodies at the rapture. (Ruckman, Peter. 22 Years of the Bible Believer’s Bulletin Vol. 1 “The AV Holy Bible.” 1999, p. 110)
- Childish name-calling and put-downs against other preachers, such as "go suck on your bottle!" (Ruckman, Peter. The Last Grenade, 1990, p. 303)
- Teaching the most bizarre conspiracy theories, such as the government operating underground labs with human bodies preserved alive in tall jars in an amber-colored liquid standing by for animal-mutant experiments. (Ruckman, Peter. Black is Beautiful. 1995, p. 313)
- Claims to have come up with over 100 "new teachings." (Ruckman, Peter. The Alexandrian Cult, Part 8. 1981, p. 28) This would include teaching such weird things as Adam being created with a water system instead of a blood system, and that Adam's mouth was connected to his heart directly. (Ruckman, Peter. Ruckman’s Bible References: Personal Notes on Salient Verses in the Bible. 1997, p. 25)
- He slams people who disagree with him on just about anything. For example, “If a 20th century, college educated American does not believe in UFO’s (and UFO occupants) he is MENTALLY SICK.” (Ruckman, Peter. Black is Beautiful. 1995, p. 341)
- All black people are racists. (Ruckman, Peter. The Pastoral Epistles. 1989, p. 121)
- Convoluted logic and superstition abounds in his writings. For example: The most interesting thing about the number 666 is that it contains three words that end in “X”…Words that will damn the human race are as follows: sex, hex, pox, vex, hoax, jinx, tax, marx, etc. The two latest are “Xerox” and “Fax,” although you will have to admit that Felix, Sphinx, Lynx, Styx, and Rex are very appropriate since the Son of Perdition is a King likened to a cat (vs. 2). “Alsorans” are Ax (Rev. 20:4), Ox (Ex. 32), Lux (Isa. 14:12), Vox (Rev. 13:5), X-mas, and “Malcom X.” “X” marks the spot. (Ruckman, Peter. Ruckman’s Bible References: Personal Notes on Salient Verses in the Bible. 1997, p. 364)
- Ruckman believes in a ten foot-tall Antichrist with a bad right arm and a bad right eye that will land in St. Peter's square in a 600 feet in diameter by 60 feet thick flying saucer, who will implant the mark with his huge black lips. (Ruckman, Peter. Mark of the Beast. 4th edition 1977, pp. 79, 106, 108)
- Ruckman has publicly tried to guess the date of the rapture. He is in print guessing that the rapture would take place between May 14 and June 20, 1989. (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers' Bulletin. January 1989, p. 5)
Im very curious about where you get this information…I dont just go believing what people have to say..I would like proof…”go suck on your bottle!” that is a very good way of putting in..I mean seriously peopl need to grow up !! What right do you have to say wether someone is saved or not..are you God ??
You asked where I got this information. At the end of every statement, there is a footnote that points to an exact page in Ruckman’s writings where he teaches or says what was stated. No, I am not going by what other people say, but by what Ruckman says himself as evidenced by the footnotes. I read after Ruckman myself, and did not depend on anyone else’s research. Telling someone (in the case I documented it was directed at an ordained Baptist preacher who has been in the ministry for many years) to go suck on their bottle is childish and disrespectful. Most unsaved people will have better manners in treating people with whom they disagree. Col 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. Nowhere have I stated whether Ruckman is saved or not, although we have a right to an opinion on that matter.
I may disagree with some of his “teachings”, but who really cares and what’s the big deal with #’s 2,4,5,6,8,and 9. A little “odd” maybe, but THIS is your big problem?? I’ve seen bigger issues brother.
As for number 1, you telling me that Adam, Eve, Noah, Hezekiah, Samuel, Samson, Lot, etc…. were all saved the same way we are????? Ruckman could give you maybe 300 verses that says they aren’t…which one’s say they are again?
Number 3 is truly kids stuff. Anyone having a problem with a statement like that, come on, we are soldiers in a fight, we don’t or shouldn’t have the time or thin skin to be worried over silly stuff like someone using an illustration that is MANY times used in the Bible.
“All blacks are racists” OK, this may be a stretch, but certainly many are.
And the date of the rapture thing…I know what you are going to say, and you are quoting the verse wrong.
Looking forward to your response,
Brian Beam (Ruckman graduate, 2007)
Which one says they aren't? I'll give you two verses that show that Old Testament saints were saved by faith plus nothing:
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
I can’t help but to notice that you don’t explain all that he (Dr. Ruckman) is saying and your taking things so far out of context it’s not even fun! Have you ever met him and do you really know him? Yeah he will speaks his mind, but he should. Dr. Ruckman is one of the brightest preachers of our time!
Your statement is founded upon poor logic. “Have you ever met him and do you really know him?”
I would ask the same of Paul the Apostle. Have you ever met Paul? (Only Gentiles referred to him as “Paulos”, so if he was going by his Hebrew name – “Sha’ul” – at the time, perhaps you didn’t know it was him you were speaking to at the time.) Just in case you haven’t – which is very, very likely, as he’s been dead for over two millennia – we can get to know Paul by reading the copies of his letters to various ancient congregations that have been included in the New Testament. Born and raised in Tarsus in modern day Turkey (Acts 22:3), a Benjaminite trained in rabbinical studies as a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5) in Jerusalem under the auspices of the famed Sanhedrin authority Gamaliel the Elder (Acts 22:3). Learned in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, prolific author of twenty-seven lengthy letters (especially for the era he lived in), and he knew how to make tents (Acts 18:1-3), which was a valuable skill for a man always on the go. This biography is based on only a few verses, but it already tells us so much about a man we’ll never meet until we join him either in death or in the Messianic kingdom to come. As for Paul’s doctrines, we have twenty-seven letters that testify to what he taught.
If we can learn that much about a man we’ll never meet in this life from twenty-seven letters (yet feel like we know him well enough that many of us view him as a “hero of the faith”), how much could we learn about a modern individual Dr. Ruckman – who many of us who have read the articles at this site may never get to meet – from his copious books or audio/video recordings (especially now that they may be easily published and widely disseminated via the Internet)?
"you don’t explain all that he (Dr. Ruckman) is saying"
That’s because this is an "overview" as the title of the page indicates. Some of these areas are covered more in depth in the website.
"your taking things so far out of context"
You did not provide a single example. Please send me a documented example if you want me to take you seriously.
"Have you ever met him and do you really know him?"
This is irrelevant when it is already known what he believes via his own words in his plentiful writings. The way he treats people he disagrees with in his writings makes it clear that he does not ever want to meet them.
"I may disagree with some of his ‘teachings’, but who really cares and what’s the big deal with #’s 2,4,5,6,8,and 9."
It doesn’t matter if you or I disagree, but it matters if the Bible disagrees. It is a big deal when something is not taught in the Scriptures or contradicts it.
"As for number 1, you telling me that Adam, Eve, Noah, Hezekiah, Samuel, Samson, Lot, etc…. were all saved the same way we are????? Ruckman could give you maybe 300 verses that says they aren’t…which one’s say they are again?"
He will "use" the Bible to try to prove his point, but by the time it’s all over his strange interpretations end up with 6 plans of salvation (Bible Believers’ Bulletin Jan 2007, p. 16) and has to come up with exceptions (such as David) who "was a chosen exception to the Law" (Bible Believer’s Bulletin reprint vol. 3, p. 324).
"you are quoting the verse wrong"
Please demonstrate this.
How can Ruckman be taken out of context? His teachings are so bizarre and ridiculous that they don’t need to be taken out of context. His teaching that the Antichrist will have huge black lips and kiss people to give them the mark of the beast, how on earth can THAT be taken out of context or even be exaggerated? Ruckman is a racist, he is a liar, he teaches doctrines that are outside the word of God, he is foul-mouthed and a pastor divorced TWO times (something that God’s word addresses directly, especially for pastors), and that is more than enough to disqualify him as a teacher. If you think he’s the “brightest preacher of our time” you are truly blind and may God cause the scales to fall from your eyes. You need to compare the word of God with what this man teaches.
I found this site when I was looking up some info on Ruckmanism, all I can say is thank you very much! This is very informative, everything is done in a very gracious manner from what I have read.
With all respect to Mr. Ruckman, I was laughing for half an hour after reading “What Is Ruckmanism All About?”.
some of his claims were hilarious! (such as the Antichrist)
This is funny until you see it tear families apart. 🙁
Get a life. He’s done more in 1 day for the Lord than you’ve done in your whole life. The Lord’s stamp of approval is on him, as evidenced by his works and fruit. I’m not a big fan and have many disagreements with: Jack Hyles, Jack Schaap, Phil Kidd, etc… But I wouldn’t waste 10 minutes of my God given time to do what you’ve probably wasted 100’s of hours at least doing. Leave the man alone. BTW, I’ll give you $500 if you show me in the Bible where it says a “Pastor can’t be divorced”. You’ll go broke. It says a Bishop(which you can’t prove Biblically is a pastor) and it says husband of one wife(which I can prove Biblically DOES NOT ALWAYS INCLUDE divorced and remarried)
I doubt very seriously that Paul ever intended for to be a bishop/pastor in which they equate in meaning; Paul not once ever intended that you can have one wife at a time, and then Paul’s words got into Scripture in unction of the Holy Ghost of God when he only said, “THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE”!!! LET’S GO FIGURE WHAT IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S PERFECT WORD!!!
My response to your typical defense of Ruckman is right here: Ruckman, his defenders, and the issue of accountability
It’s funny how many people criticize and poke fun at Peter Ruckman’s “bizarre” theories but don’t refute them with the Bible. I don’t defend everything he’s said or done, but after reading quite a few of his books and seeing and hearing many of his sermons (on tape), I can say that he is easily one of the best Bible teachers I’ve ever come across. And I don’t think I’ve seen or heard anyone that comes close to him as far as knowledge of the Bible. Simply put, Dr. Ruckman’s passion for the Word has been a great influence on my life.
That being said, I’d like to ask the author a couple of questions: 1) Where in the Bible does it say that every person is saved in the exact same way from Adam to the Great White Throne Judgement? And where does it say that Noah (or Elijah, or David) was saved by receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior? 2) Have you ever considered that maybe some of Peter Ruckman’s statements are sort of tongue-in-cheek? 3) Did Dr. Ruckman state that the rapture would happen on exactly those aforementioned dates, or did he say that he thought that it would happen at that time based on a few assumptions? 4) Did you ever read all of the references he uses to back up his “dogmatic” teachings?
1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Many of Ruckman’s bizarre theories are self-refuting simply because they are not found in the Bible. The responsibility is on him to prove a given theory, not us to refute it if he hasn’t presented a case.
1) Where in the Bible does it say that every person is saved in the exact same way from Adam to the Great White Throne Judgement? And where does it say that Noah (or Elijah, or David) was saved by receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior?
It doesn’t say it in those exact terms, just as it doesn’t say it in the exact terms Ruckman uses. How were Old Testament saints saved? The Bible does answer the question for us, invalidating any contrary speculation. The clearest passage is the entire chapter of Hebrews 11. A single verse that sums it up nicely is found in Acts 10:43: To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. The following passage also answers the question: Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. 1 Peter 1:10-12
2) Have you ever considered that maybe some of Peter Ruckman’s statements are sort of tongue-in-cheek?
That is possible, but with his wierdness it can be hard to figure whether he means something to be taken literally or not. You even expressed uncertainty by using the term "sort of" before "tongue-in-cheek." Don’t tell me that I should ask Ruckman himself whether he meant something to be taken seriously or not, because the time I dared to write him with questions he replied with one of the most unkind letters I have ever received. If he is unclear about something in his writing, he should be humble about it and even be willing to apologize if something wasn’t clear, and be willing to change it in the next printing. Theological writers generally don’t have the practice of using "tongue-in-cheek," because of the issue of respectability and to avoid misunderstandings. If Ruckman feels he is often misunderstood, I belive it is often a problem of his own making.
3) Did Dr. Ruckman state that the rapture would happen on exactly those aforementioned dates, or did he say that he thought that it would happen at that time based on a few assumptions?
The title of my article called it "guessing the approximate date." I quoted him word-for-word several times in my article Peter Ruckman’s failed attempts at guessing the approximate date of the rapture. Read for yourself and see what he said.
4) Did you ever read all of the references he uses to back up his "dogmatic" teachings?
I haven’t done it every single time without fail because of how many times I found his references to be bogus. For example, in his book Ruckman’s Bible References: Personal Notes on Salient Verses in the Bible, p. 198, he states "There is no blood in Adam’s original body or Christ’s resurrection body." He gives the following references for this: Genesis 2, 1 Corinthians 15:49-50, and the heading above the paragraph had Luke 24:39. His own references are self-refuting, because in those references there was nothing that established a foundation for his theory. More examples could easily be given.
I’m a firm believer that we learn alot from our critics because they aren’t trying to get something from us or kiss up to us. Their criticisms may not always be valid, but sometimes one or two accusations should be examined.
Dr. Ruckman doesn’t need anyone to defend him,so that’s not my goal. I just ran across this site and thought I would voice my opinion also.
I’ve listened to him for years, studied his teachings, attended his church, and seen him speak at other churches. He doesn’t know me and I’m not a member.
Yes, he can be very direct, harsh, and even offensive at times, but who says we should all be meek and dispassionate, epecially in matters of our eternal future.
I grew up around harda**s military men, and tough talking and living southern folks, and his speech etc. has never offended me. I seem to be more focused on what he is saying rather than they way it is being said, but I admit I can be a little hard headed myself, so direct, in my face admonitions gets my attention, and I listen better. I’m probably that way myself sometimes.
I won’t get into a Bible quoting debate but I agree with many of his “revelations” that you believe are not correct. I don’t believe all of them, but he has helped me understand my Bible and my place “dispensationally” in this current age.
He isn’t the originator of his basic teachings, but he has expanded the dispensational truths taught by his predecessors, Larkin, Scofield, Bullinger, Stam, etc. (though he disagrees with them in some areas) There is a very pleasant speaking preacher, E.C. Moore, who once was affiliated with Ruckman, and although Ruckman considers him a “Hyper-dispensationalist”, he presents many of the same teachings in a less “in your face” manner. I don’t know whatever happened to him or where he is now.
I think Dr. Ruckman is doing a wonderful service for Jesus Christ and the furtherance of the Gospel and Yes, I would like him to not call names and be so harsh sometimes.
God appears to use someone as they are and he is the real thing being used by God in the personality and demeaner that he was born and raised with.
I’m more comcerned about the slick, easy preaching, smooth talkers that lull people into a false sense of security believing doctrines that might not save them at all (only God knows).
Step back when you get a chance, look past the flaws and personality traits that you don’t like, and ask yourself if maybe this man could have some valid points.
It’s your right to criticise him and his teachings, and even though I don’t agree with you on your doctrinal criticisms, they help me to examine myself and to decide what the truth is.
Balaam knew stuff too, but he loved money more. How about studying Gods Word on your own? John said in I John we don’t need someone to teach us..Gods Spirit will teach us. Why not step out in faith and start reading His Word without preconceived ideas?
I think it is funny how people will spend more time reading Ruckmans work and studying it, and building a site just to bash and discredit him. All this time could have been used in GOD’s service to win souls not to just destroy one. People who create sites just to bash one man are no better than the man they are bashing. I dont agree with EVERYTHING Ruckman says and I do Believe that he is a bit racist, but I dont see a link on your site to material on Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. These are “men of GOD” who are some of the most racist people I’ve ever heard on national television. Instead you bash someone who is acctually teaching the Bible. It’s up to us (CHRISTIANS) to lean not unto our own understanding, but to study to show ourselves approved. Like I said, I dont agree with a lot of Ruckmans teachings, but I’m smart enough to open my own A.V 1611 KJV and see what GOD has to say about the whole thing myself. I will give you credit though. You have been at least tactful in attempting to demoralize Ruckman and I’ve enjoyed reading some of your material, but if Ruckman is wrong and you know it, then a chapter and verse will go a lot further than just calling him names. That kind of puts you in the same catagory. When I was saved (in prison after being a devil whorshipper for years) Dr. Ruckman was the first to respond to my many letters and sent me material and scripture to research my questions. He would not answer them unless I tried to myself first. Noone is perfect and Ruckman is no exception, however, I think he does a lot of work for the Lord and if people follow him blindly then they also shall stand before GOD. As for the old testament saints getting saved……who really cares… Today it is through the blood of Christ or not at all. I truly hope I did not come of as rude or unchristian like. I just wanted to get a few things off of my heart. God bless you and thank you for allowing me to post here.
You said that I was tactful, but in the same sentence you said I was calling Ruckman names. Can you document examples where I have called him names? I’m not even sure, but I may have referred to him as being racist or weird, but if I did it would have been accompanied by quotes demonstrating how I came to that conclusion, so accurate documented descriptions would not be an improper form of name calling. Now for a contrast, let me provide you an example of genuine improper name calling. This is Ruckman referring to John R. Rice: "Shut your blasphemous mouth, you lying hypocrite!" (Commentary of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. 2004, p. 441) If you call what I do "bashing," and you say it’s wrong, then Ruckman is a hundred times more guilty of bashing than I am. By your own criteria, Ruckman is no better than the people he bashes. I know you said some obligatory things such as Ruckman not being perfect, but you are defending him overall when Ruckman is far guiltier of what you are accusing me of!
The problem is one word–AUTHORITY, people simply refuse to submit to God’s authority on earth–the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Dispensational System of Interpretation as taught by Peter S. Ruckman.
Truth is not wanted much these days, those who want it find it, and they do not concern themselves with such nonsense as how the truth is communicated or how a preachers family life is, etc. The truth remains; God is going to send ALL unsaved people into an unending eternal fire called Hell, and men like Peter S. Ruckman represent THAT God in word and deed. Modern Christianity is a joke, ‘God is love’ they say–rejecting the dispensational realization that I John is NOT for the church! Read THE BOOK my friends–THE BOOK!
You said it. You included Ruckman’s interpretation as one of two things consisting of God’s authority on earth. Don’t act surprised if people say you are cultic.
Thank you for this information. I am curious about Ruckman, however I don’t intend to purchase all of his books and cannot find any at my local library. My mother is in school at Pensacola Bible Institute and so I am trying to find out more about it. Your overview has proven to be a good source of information. I thank you for citing all of your information about him back to one of his own works and thank you also for not being some angry KJV-only or anti-KJV-only basher, because I cannot find those sites credible when they are so obviously angry when they’re making inferences. I appreciate this and again, thank you for credible information. If you have a moment, please pray for my mother and others who believe that I’m going to hell because I don’t subscribe to Ruckmanism. Thank you.
Bill, E.C. Moore went to be with the LORD last year…our church is affiliated with him…I got to talk to him many times…he was the one responsible for making me a “hyper-dispensationalist” (as Ruckman calls us)…knew him for over 20 years…he was one of the greatest gospel preachers of our time…but, he never was the same since that accident a few years back — was in a van that blew a tire on the interstate, then rolled over 3 times…and I think he was 78 at the time (his wife of 80 was driving, she is still alive!)…hope that helps…
You must not read and listen too well…Bro Ruckman said he was only speculating about Adam having water in his veins before the Fall..he has NEVER tuaght that as the gospel truth…go back and READ
“Bro Ruckman said he was only speculating about Adam having water in his veins”
Really? Read this.
“…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. Ruckman, Peter. Theological Studies. Booklet 17, p. 8
Actually, this is one of the cases of many of Ruckman’s contradictions. In another source, Ruckman refers to Adam having blood in his veins as “chances are…” (Body, Soul, and Spirit. 1986, 1997, p. 10) Will Ruckman admit he has contradicted himself? Will Ruckman admit he was wrong in some of the things he has taught? I don’t think so.
Where does Mr Ruckman get his wild doctrines from?
Demons. Read 1Timothy, chapter 4 and 2 Peter chapter 2. I understand Dr. Merill Unger wrote a book about false doctrine and I was told he teaches that false doctrine comes when someone listens to a seducing spirit. ALL FALSE RELIGION starts in this manner.
Thank you webmaster for providing this site as a rational, documented, scriptural source on ruckman’s strange teachings. Just moved to pensacola and encountered ruckmanism for the first time. I don’t like to be blindsided, and this site has given me a concise, trustworthy crash course on ruckmanism.
This site is _not_ a waste of time better spent. The greatest witnesses I know still spend time studying apologetics and writing works to counter false teaching. You’ve helped educate me and others so we can share the gospel more effectively by avoiding hinderences and being able to give an answer. That is a worthwhile ministry!
E. C. Moore did indeed pass away in 2010. He was born in 1924 in Alabama. He is buried in Pensacola and as of this date, his wife is still alive. She was born in 1921 and still lives in Pensacola.
Moore and Ruckman battled a lot over the years, and Ruckman still clings to the Baptist doctrine regarding water baptism. Moore would call him out on it on his television show.
What is worse? People are Ruckmanites or People who are infected with Ruckmanitis?
The latter publish and promote this website. Why are people so enamored with a man? Ruckmanites may admire him too much and people with Ruckmanitis are infected where they can’t hear or see anything truth from the man.
Truth is truth no mater who says it; error is error no matter who says it.
I don’t deny there is some truth in Ruckman’s writings, but your same arguments when applied to cultic writings fall apart because there is also some truth in their writings. It’s not wise to wade through so much name calling garbage in Ruckman’s writings and teachings that have been proven unbiblical and conduct in open disobedience to the Word of God in an attempt to find something of perceived value. God has blessed the body of Christ with a number of Spirit-filled writers who make an effort to be balanced, and we of course have access to the Bible itself. There is also the Biblical teaching of separation to consider. Here are sample passages:
1 Cor. 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
2 Tim. 2:23-25 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves;
So, what is the difference between a "flesh and bone" body (Eve when brought to Adam as well as Jesus Christ after shedding his blood, in a ressurrected body) and a "flesh and blood" body (which can't inherit the Kingdom of God according to 1Co 15)? Romans 14:17 defines the Kingdom of God as spiritual, not meat and drink as under the law, Cl 2:16-17. (Check it out in Cl 2:17, the body is different than the law, past and future, yes future in the AV – sounds like dispensations to me. Not denying the need for the blood, but why does that tree of life show up again in Revelation?) Christians will be like him, 1Jn 3:1-2 and like angels, Mt 22:30. Was Adam created with the same blood he had after the fall, Lv 17:11?
First of all, why do we really need to know what kind of circulatory system Adam had before the fall? Do you actually think God included that information in the canon of scripture and it is something He wants us to know? I do not believe we should spend our time digging useless information up that might or might not be true & that does not edify, build up, or exhort anyone.
Secondly, digging doctrines out of the Bible such as this one (and many others by Ruckman) that might seem to be a special revelation, are only fueling the prideful, arrogant attitude that is clearly on display by Ruckman and his followers. The Bible says "knowledge puffs up" in I Cor. 8:1. The more knowledge one gets that he or she believes no one else has access to, doesn't believe, or is too "lazy or stupid to find", the more the ego is puffed up. That is why both Ruckman, and his followers, have no problem walking around calling people "stupid" or " he couldn't find a bowling ball in a bathtub". Why use language like that unless your ego is so puffed up by you're supposed special revelations and knowledge that only you and your followers can find in the Bible?
You're free to answer however you wish. On the other hand, you didn't really address anything Biblically to address the issues.
Webmaster, I'm not sure whether you have come across this information or not but the teaching that Adam and Eve didn't have a blood circulatory system before the fall looks to be much older than Ruckman.
According to the website http://improvementera.com/2011/03/no-blood-before-the-fall-whered-that-come-from/ the no blood before the fall teaching is a Mormon doctrine that Ruckman probably read about and then expanded the teaching to include a "water circulatory system" for our first parents.
I would urge everyone following Ruckman's teachings to please do an honest evaluation and leave this false cultic group!
This is great! … Now do the exact same with every preacher and teacher on earth, guaranteed you will find something that does not align with your own beliefs. God gives all saved believers the Holy Spirit for guidance and discernment, Ruckman was weird and off the cuff teacher for sure, but he could show you stuff in the bible that most people would miss, and I respect him for that. I've listened to a lot of different preachers and teachers, but one thing the Lord has taught me is how to separate the chaff.