The Danger of Ruckmanism as Applied to Foreign Language Bibles
Calvin George
At a time when the Bible version issue is a hot topic in fundamental churches, attention is being brought to the Bible versions used by missionaries where a foreign language is spoken. Cursory comparisons are frequently being made between the KJV and foreign language Bibles to test their fidelity. The term “Ruckmanism” in this article is used in reference to the peculiar teachings popularized and basically originated by Peter Ruckman, who pastors a Baptist church in Pensacola, Florida. The term “Ruckmanite” is used for those who tend to agree with him on his extreme beliefs regarding the King James versions (that it contains advanced revelation, that it’s given by inspiration of God, that it’s superior to Greek and Hebrew and corrects it, etc.)
For the sake of focusing only on the implications of Ruckmanism as it relates to foreign language Bibles, this study will ignore well-known peculiarities promoted by Peter Ruckman, such as his unbiblical belief in different plans of salvation for different dispensations, those disagreeing with him as members of the “Alexandrian Cult,” women getting male bodies at rapture, name-calling. A good analysis of this is David Cloud’s What About Ruckman?[1]
I would like to state for the record that I believe the KJV is God’s preserved Word in English, and by conviction it is the only Bible version I use in English. I grew up in South America speaking a foreign language, so it enables me to analyze this often overlooked aspect of Ruckmanism from a foreign perspective, something likely difficult for some others to do. I trust that this special insight will be a help and a blessing to you.
The following summarizes the relatively new teachings on Bible versions popularized and essentially originated by Ruckman which affect how foreign language Bibles are perceived:
The King James Version is given by inspiration of God.The King James Version is superior to any Greek and Hebrew text, including the Greek and Hebrew texts from which the King James Version was translated.
The King James corrects the Greek and Hebrew, including the Textus Receptus.
The King James Version contains advanced revelation.
Absolute truth is English truth.
The documentation clearly shows that Ruckman openly teaches the above in his literature:
Correct the Greek with the English. It is always the best policy; the one that God will bless. Feel free (with a clear conscience) in always correcting the Greek Receptus with the Holy Bible…[2]
Three things should be emphasized…1. The absolute insanity of translating any Greek text literally, word for word, in order to give a reader THE WORDS God wants him to have in another language.[3]
The KJB…often contains revelations of truth that evidently cannot be found in any Greek text.[4]
The King James Bible was “given by inspiration of God.”[5]
Although the above views are becoming more prevalent in some conservative circles, they are relatively new. For a number of years, author R. L. Hymer has had a standing offer of $1,000 for anyone who can document any Baptist or Protestant writer before 1950 who held that the KJV translation was given by inspiration. No one has claimed this offer.[6] This reminds me of a little saying I was taught in Bible college regarding new theological “discoveries”: “If it’s new, it’s probably not true; if it’s true, it’s probably not new.” To my knowledge, Ruckman has not stated outright in his writings that no foreign Bible is as inspired and as pure and perfect as he regards the King James Bible, but that is the logical outcome of his peculiar teachings. There are many times in his writings when he hints at non-English Bibles being error-prone. Here is an example:
I received a real nasty letter from a Puerto Rican one time. He said, "What do you mean with all this English stuff?...What about all us [Spanish-speaking] folks down in Puerto Rico here? We had a Bible before the King James came out." I guess he thought I was an Englishman. I wrote him back and told him, "If it weren't for England, we wouldn't know where you're at. Latitude and longitude are given to every airplane in the air and every ship in the sea by the equator and England." You can't even locate Pensacola without finding England. If you put out a distress call, and say, "I'm in trouble," they ask, "What's the longitude and latitude?" And you give England as the mark. How do you explain that? Absolute location is English location. Absolute time is English time. Why would you think that absolute truth wasn't English truth?[7]
This is typical of Ruckman, responding to a valid question with an insult. Sadly, many of his followers are imitating his carnal style. That he would consider English truth to be absolute truth is very revealing. Meanwhile, many of those who parrot his extreme views on the King James are referring to foreign Bibles in an increasingly demeaning style. Sam Gipp, who like many Ruckmanites believes there is only one perfect Bible for all languages (the English KJV), poses the following question and answer in his book:
QUESTION: If there is a perfect Bible in English, doesn't there also have to be a perfect Bible in French, and German, and Japanese, etc? ANSWER: No. God has always given His word to one people in one language to do one job; convert the world. The supposition that there must be a perfect translation in every language is erroneous and inconsistent with God's proven practice...[8]
Sam Gipp's statements on how only the English Bible could be perfect, to the exclusion of other languages, is repugnant to foreigners. If he were to try to preach such a thing in a foreign country where English was not spoken, he would be run out of the country. Acts 10:34 tells us, "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS."
Ruckmanism has given birth to a belief that since the original autographs are lost, God preserved his Word for the entire world in English (in the KJV), and therefore all foreign language Bibles have to conform to it. Ruckman himself explains it thus:
The King James’ text is the last and final statement that God has given the world and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 B.C. and slammed it shut again in 1611.[9]
This is a view not even shared by the KJV translators themselves. They believed translations should only be made from Greek and Hebrew and that truth should be tried by them. The following appeared in the preface to the KJV 1611 edition, which they called “The Translators to the Reader”:
…the Hebrew text of the Olde Testament, the Greeke of the New…These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the oliue branches emptie themselues into the golde…as the credit of the olde bookes (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to bee tryed by the Hebrewe Volumes, so of the New by the Greeke tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greeke. If trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues, therefore, the Scriptures, wee say, in those tongues, wee set before vs to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speake to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.
Those who have a Ruckmanite-type view that God preserved his Word FOR THE WHOLE WORLD in 1611 in English instead of through the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts never seem to be totally satisfied with a foreign language Bible. There is no such thing as a King James Bible in a foreign language because the KJV is in English. Some have translated the KJV into foreign languages, but the end product does not seem to satisfy many Ruckmanite critics. This is especially true in cases when a Ruckmanite critic is familiar with the language in which it was translated and can make his own comparisons back to the KJV.
To illustrate, when a New Testament was translated word-for-word from the KJV into Spanish by a Ruckmanite missionary by the name of McVey, Ruckman’s own periodical (Bible Believer’s Bulletin) was quick to denounce it in their August 1989 issue. The article went on to endorse the Spanish Valera 1909. In August 2003, Ruckman’s paper flip-flopped, and endorsed the Valera 1865, which until recent times had been out of print for many decades. The following was posted during a discussion in an e-mail list for Ruckmanites. It is provided here to allow you to look into the thinking process and flawed logic of a typical Ruckmanite when applying his views to foreign languages:
When in Mexico I tell people that the Word of God is preserved in English as the KJV 1611. The best bet would be to learn English if they want the WHOLE pure word ... a translation of the KJV into Spanish would be great but would be subject to those who learned English returning to the English to clarify the Spanish.... because the Spanish KJV would only be a translation of the preserved text ...
…He [referring to another Ruckmanite missionary] is NOT looking for the Preserved Word of God in Spanish. He don't need to. It would be a waste of his time. And He is smart enough to know that.
I've done more research and have learned that the Ostervald [French] Bible is a fake.…I never had a single French course in my life, and only spent a few weeks of my life in a French speaking country…The French speaking world has not had a true Bible available for at least a century. This is shocking to me and should be to all Bible-believing Christians. What is most shocking is that most Christians still could care less that Bible societies have eliminated the Word of God from the entire planet with the exception of the KJV and a few languages [he doesn’t tell you which ones] spoken by only a handful of people.
Both cannot be the perfect, pure words of God if they are different AT ALL! If a foreign language Bible is different from the KJV ANYWHERE, it is not perfect nor pure. Things that are different are not the same. Plain and simple.
The last statement objecting to any differences may at first seem logical, but no consideration is given to the fact that there are some differences between manuscripts from which the KJV was derived, that there are differences with Reformation Bibles preceding the KJV, and that the NT sometimes quotes the OT differently. Other types of differences could be mentioned, including slight differences between KJV editions from 1611 until today. An attitude of faith is allowed only for those special cases, but why not for a foreign Bible?
The above views expressed on the Ruckmanite e-mail list are arrogant and severely misguided, but they are sadly becoming more common among the most extreme Ruckmanites. A public outcry against the dangers of Ruckmanism is long overdue. The KJV translators were very well aware that differences arise between languages even when honest attempts at translation are made. This is taken from their preface in the 1611 edition:
…wee haue not tyed our selues to an vniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peraduenture would wish that we had done, because they obserue, that some learned men some where, haue beene as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not varie from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there bee some wordes that bee not of the same sense euery where) we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie. But, that we should expresse the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greeke word once by Purpose, neuer to call it Intent; if one where journeying, neuer traueling; if one where Thinke, neuer Suppose; if one where Paine, never Ache; if one where Joy, neuer gladnesse, &c. Thus to minse the matter, wee thought to sauour more of curiositie than wisdome, and that rather it would breed scorne in the Atheist, then bring profite to the godly Reader. For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables? why should wee be in bondage to them, if we may be free, vse one precisely when wee may vse another no lesse fit, as commodiously?... Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay, wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession, (for wee haue seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the Word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee vttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Translator with the like grace, nor peraduenture so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, euery where.
Unknown to many, until at least the early 1970’s, Ruckman actually held the traditional orthodox view that the KJV was not given by inspiration as the originals. In a letter to Robert Sumner in 1971, Ruckman made the following statement: Now, at no time have I stated flatly that the A. V. 1611 was the “verbally inspired word of God.” Verbal inspiration has to do with 2 Tim 3:16 and deals with the original autographs, as we all know.[10] Now he sadly does not hesitate to refer to those who believe like he used to as “apostates.” When asked how they know the KJV is inspired, many Ruckmanites I have dealt with will answer something like this: "Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 119:89, 2 Timothy 3:16, just to name a few…” (Drawn from an actual e-mail reply).
Think about those reading the above verses in their own foreign language Bible, who do not know a lick of English, let alone ever heard of the KJV. Are they supposed to read those verses and reach the same conclusion the English-speaking Ruckmanite did, that it is a reference to an English Bible (of which they have likely never even heard and cannot read)? How about those English speakers reading Reformation Bibles (Geneva, Bishops, Coverdale, etc) before 1611? When they came to those verses, what were they supposed to conclude? That those verses were merely a prophecy about a future English Bible?