A WRITTEN DEBATE with a LOSER
Peter Ruckman said I’d lose my head If it wasn’t fastened on, ’cause while correcting the A.V., it fell off and rolled away. And now it is gone. And I can’t look for it, ’cause my eyes are in it. And I can’t call to it, ’cause my mouth is on it (Couldn’t hear me anyway ’Cause my ears are on it). Can’t even think about it, ’cause my brain is in it. So, I guess I’ll sit down on this rock and rest for just a minute . . . --Copied and adapted
A paranoid defector, from the King James ranks, has appeared on the scene, Gary R. Hudson. Robert Sumner, Curtis Hutson, and D.A. Waite were now able to hide behind him without exposing their own unbelieving reservations by promoting Hudson’s material. Gary Hudson, the defector, was flattered by the interest; he was with the big boys now. He even threw a few flowers to John R. Rice to firmly entrench himself. His modus oporandi was —simple distort King James history, speak "doublespeak," paint a biased portrait of Dr. Ruckman (racial prejudice, liberal abortion views, heresy, and demon possession), and use a deceptive, disproportionate, and extra-scriptural emphasis on the "originals or their underlying languages." The King James detractor and defender pretender factions were joined by R.L. Hymers, a re-saved, fundamentalized, heresy hunting, ex-Southern Baptist preacher, who wanted a piece of the action, while ladder climbing in the BBF. He also promoted Gary Hudson and patterned his own attack after him. Gary Hudson, after his defection, wrote a book and made an audio tape about Why I Left Ruckmanism. Since then, he has taken an even more negative position towards the King James Bible, having been given the boot by Dan Waite and the Dean Burgon society. It is to these efforts that I responded in the following snail mail correspondence with Gary Hudson. It is my hope that the rank and file Christian will see through such Bible Correcting rhetoric and become more familiar with the Bible Correcting sophistry that is involved in such arguments. – Herb Evans
The Gary Hudson/ Herb Evans Dispute
Dear Evangelist Hudson,
I have your tape "Ruckman s False Theory of Inspiration Analyzed," and have listened to it with interest. As I listened, I was impressed that your entire approach to the King James issue was to find some human flaw, mistake, or fallibility in Dr. Peter S. Ruckman as if that would prove the King James Bible flawed, mistaken, or fallible. Your grasping of what Peter Ruckman believes about other things, namely abortion and racial distinctions, to buttress your argument against the infallibility of the King James Bible is pathetic, to say the least. May I argue that Bob Jones University is wrong on their theory of a fallible King James Bible, because they are segregationists and had to be forced to integrate their schools? May I argue that Terry McLean of Xenia, Ohio is correct in his estimate that the King James Bible is infallible because he verbally assails Doctor Ruckman regarding "abortion" and "racial matters?" You may convince Dan Waite and Robert Sumner that you have an argument here, but some of us have been around a while. You quote a great deal of Peter S. Ruckman and Dave Reese (with whom I have had no small dissension over his ultra dispensationalism but has nothing to do with his loyalty to the King James Bible), but quote very little Scripture. In fact, you quote only one verse of Scripture (2 Peter 1:20, 21) to prove your theory and address three of your opponent s proof texts (2 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 22:19; John 10:35) on the defense.
Now, to prove someone is a "heretic," you must have scripture, or you better quit calling someone a heretic! You have not "proved" Peter Ruckman is a heretic! You have only expressed a difference in interpretation of 2 Tim. 3:16, Rev. 22:19, and John 10:35. The interesting thing about your argument is that you choose unscriptural terms to prove another man a heretic, i.e., "translation," "Originals," "Bibles originally wrote in Greek and Hebrew," and so forth. You accuse any opposition to the changing of the word of God—as a doctrine of demons, while the only doctrine of demons, which is recorded regarding the word of God, is the changing of the word of God (Gen. 3; Matt. 4). Nowhere is there a record of a doctrine of demons that opposes changing the word of God! If you have no scripture to brand a man a heretic, you are an "accuser" of the brethren; go ye, and learn what that meaneth in the Greek!
Since, I could not possibly address every quote and statement on your audio tape; I would like to ask you some practical questions about the scriptures that you did manage to address.
Evans:1. In your efforts to prove 2 Timothy 3:16 cannot mean that the English Bible (King James) is inspired, you say:
“. . . Inspiration is a process . . . Inspiration is a process whereby God gave his word originally. Inspiration does not refer to a product. What is inspired is a product, but the inspiration of God is the breathing out of the word of God, it is a process. The words 'given by inspiration’speak of an event . . . an event that originally produced the word scripture in both verses. The product of inspiration, the product of the inspiration process is scripture of which Timothy had a preserved copy . . ." – Gary R. Hudson
A. If inspiration does not refer to the product and what is inspired is the product, would that mean that after the inspiration process was over and done, the original manuscripts, on paper (or parchment or whatever), were NOT INSPIRED???
B. If the Original “product" is not inspired, after inspiration is over and done, how is it superior to what Timothy had (2 Tim. 3:15)?
C. If the "process" of inspiration produced the word scripture in both verses (15 and 16), how is the scripture in verse 16 superior to the scripture in verse 15? Are they the same? Is the scripture in verse 15 inspired or uninspired? Is the scripture in verse 16 inspired or uninspired?
D. Does the "all scripture" product of verse 16 refer to every translation that resulted from the original "process" of inspiration? How can they be "profitable" for doctrine where they differ? Does it refer to all the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts? How can they be profitable for doctrine where they differ? Does it refer to the Original manuscripts? How are they profitable if we do not have them?
E. Is it true that all scripture is profitable for doctrine and furnish the man of God "throughly" unto "all" good works? If the "product" does throughly furnish the man of God, how is it that folk of your persuasion must go outside of it to prove your theory?
2. If Revelation 22:19 refers to tampering with the word of God, in the Greek and Hebrew, does that mean that you can tamper with any "translation" without impunity? Can you prove that the Original Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek?
3. Beside the examples, which you quote, can you give me a list of the "audible" differences between Nelson’s 1611 King James reprint and the King James Bible, which we are now using? Can you give me the amount of "audible" differences? How many "audible" differences per revision?
4.Is the word of God "quick?" "Alive?" [Heb. 4:4 (corrected to 4:12)] Are all the translations alive? Are the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts alive? Are the original manuscripts alive?
5. Is the word of God corruptible? If the word of God is incorruptible, is the word of God any translation? Any specific translation? Any Greek and Hebrew manuscript? A specific Hebrew and Greek manuscript? Is the word of God here the original manuscripts? Was Peter born again by the Original manuscripts?
6.Can the Scripture be broken (John 10:35)? If not, which Scripture? The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? Translations? The Original manuscripts?
Since you are unashamed of your convictions and beliefs, as it should be, we trust that you will reply and not ignore us. Thank you, Sincerely, (signed) Herbert F. Evans
P.S. We will not return home from business until March 6, so please do not misinterpret any lack of response until then.
* * *
February 8, 1989
Dear Mr. Evans:
I am not at all surprised to get a letter from you since you have been so notorious in the past for coming to the defense of Ruckmanism. This also explains why you would not put your name and return address on the outside of the envelope, for it may have caused me to discard it.
You are most famous around Ruckmanites for your interrogative pamphlet, Dear Dr. John:Where Is My Bible? propagated for many years through Peter Ruckman’s own Bible Baptist Bookstore. The man who started me on Ruckmanism gave me this pamphlet of yours ten years ago along with Ruckman’s Manuscript Evidence. I also distributed your pamphlet to help in convincing people of the Ruckman view. Of course you tried to make Dr. John R. Rice look like some apostate Bible-rejecter, and Ruckman commended you well for the dirty work.
It is you, therefore, who has been the "accuser of the brethren." I’m glad, however, that Dr. Rice’s books and ministry continue to bear much fruit and inspire thousands for revival, prayer, and soul winning while your little pamphlets sit in the bookroom in Pensacola occasionally purchased by instigators of the Ruckman heresy. While you write articles propounding Ruckmanism in The Flaming Torch and the Bible Believer’s Bulletin, old Dr. Rice’s printed sermons and practical booklets continue to warm many hearts in the service of Jesus Christ. And now, since I have given up Ruckmanism, I read and use Dr. Rice s material for prayer, evangelism, and personal work, and have tremendous results. If you were so orthodox on such a basic issue as the word of God and Dr. Rice was the Bible denying man you tried to make him out to be, why hasn’t your ministry yielded one one-hundredth the godly influence of his? If you are so right and Dr. Rice was so wrong, certainly you should have some fruit to prove it. Where is it?
You are completely wrong in saying that my "entire approach to the King James issue was to find some human flaw, mistake, or fallibility in Dr. Peter S. Ruckman as if that would prove the King James Bible flawed, mistaken, or fallible." The tape you mention is not about "the King James issue," but deals with the Ruckman heresy. Ruckmanism as clearly explained on this tape, has to do with a man, Peter Ruckman, and therefore any discussion of that man’s beliefs in connection with his heresy is appropriate. Ruckman is not the reason behind the King James issue nor the Bible translation controversy. The KJV issue, originally debated as a matter of Greek texts, has been seized upon by Ruckman to introduce a new and heretical doctrine: that the KJV English translation is infallible, correcting its own Hebrew arid Greek texts, and containing "advanced revelation." That point is made very clear on the tape you mention having heard.
I did not quote only one verse of Scripture to “prove" my "theory," as you say, but quoted II Tim. 3:16 and Rev. 22:19 to also prove my point. Just because my opponent uses these verses as "proof texts" does not mean that I am limited to being "on the defense" in using them. I revealed how Ruckman twisted both II Tim. 3:16 and Rev. 22:18, 19, and then I used them to refute his logic. This is more than a mere "difference in interpretation”; it is a case where Ruckman, as all heretics, had to distort the meaning of the very passages that would have refuted his unbiblical views. As Ruckman has departed from the classical interpretation of II Tim. 3:16 and Rev. 22:19, you, he, nor anyone else can show that someone before Peter S. Ruckman handled the passages as he did. He twisted them in order to maintain his unique view of the English, but I am only repeating here exactly what I said on the tape.
Regarding a "doctrine of demons," you are absolutely correct in saying that it is in regard to "changing the word of God (Gen. 3; Matt. 4)." Our first mother, in the garden of Eden in Gen. 3, committed the same sin as the Ruckmanites by adding to the word of God (Cp. Gen. 2:17 w/ 3:3). Ruckmanism adds to the word of God, saying that "advanced revelation" was given through of original sin on the human race! No wonder God says, "Ye shall not add a group of translators in 1611. Adding to the word of God brought the curse unto the word which I command you . . . "(Deut. 4:2)! The serpent, as the Ruckmanite, questioned the word of God. Just like you asked Dr. John R. Rice, "Where is my Bible?" so the serpent said to Eve, "Yea, hath God said?" Ruckmanites, like Satan, come questioning the word of God. Ruckmanites, like Eve, add to what God originally said. We fundamentalists don’t believe in adding to God’s word or changing it, but translating as accurately as possible what God said.But Peter Ruckman dares to say that the work of some translators "corrects" the very word of God it was translated from, putting himself in danger of coming under the curse of Rev. 22:18, 19. This is a very subtle approach to actually violating Rev. 22:19, under the guise of doing honor to the word of God. The Ruckman question, which you also probed Dr. Rice with, is the demand for one exact, inerrant version in order to locate "the word of God." But it winds up questioning and dishonoring the word of God, the God-given Hebrew and Greek texts. Now I turn to the "practical questions" you asked me about:-- Gary Hudson
Hudson’s Answers
"1., A." In the context of saying that "inspiration does not refer to a product," I was speaking of the inspiration process ITSELF, which is not an ongoing event in copying and translating the Bible. Since the wording of the original manuscripts is the PRODUCT of that PROCESS, they were "inspired" indeed. You must distinguish between the WORK of inspiration and the WORD of inspiration. The WORK is the process itself, and the WORD is the inspired product. That product was the wording of the original autographs, and that inspired wording is PRESERVED, but it is not being re-given through the inspiration process which produced the words in the first place.
"1., B." No one said that the original product was superior to what Timothy had (II Tim. 3:15). Timothy’s copies were the preserved product of the wording in the original manuscripts, and were therefore not inferior.
"1., C." Again, I never said the "scripture" of verse 16 was superior to what Timothy had, so you can stop repeating the question. Yes, the scripture of verse 15 is inspired, and so is the scripture of verse 16. They are the same. In Ruckman’s false theory of inspiration, he contends for inspired copies which do not match each other and uses Jer. 36:32 in support of his claim. He does this so that he can claim total inspiration for every word in the KJV translation, knowing that it does not match the original autographs. I have refuted this error both in my book and on tape.
"1., D." Now you are multiplying numerous questions in one section. 1 will therefore have to repeat them for reference here. "Does the 'all scripture product of verse 16 refer to every translation that resulted from the original ‘process of inspiration?" ANSWER: Yes, for the O.T. quotations in the N.T. are translations from Hebrew into Greek. "How can they be 'profitable for doctrine where they differ?" ANSWER: I never said Timothy’s copies differed from what was given in v. 16. "Does it refer to all the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?" ANSWER: No, because some of these are mutilated texts. "How can they be profitable for doctrine where they differ?" ANSWER: They are not "profitable where they differ,”but profitable where they can be determined to match the wording of the original texts. "Does it refer to the Original manuscripts?" ANSWER: Of course it does. "How are they profitable if we do not have them?" ANSWER: Because we do not have to possess the actual paper document the words were originally written on in order to have a copy of those words. That is how they are still "profitable," and they are just as "profitable" as they were when originally given through inspiration.
"1., E." Question one, ANSWER: Of course it is, and verses 16 and 17 say it. Question two, ANSWER: We do not go outside of it to "prove" our "theory."
"2." Question one, ANSWER: No, for you cannot tamper with any O.T. translations found in the original wording in the Greek of the original N.T. books. Question two, ANSWER: Yes, see Matt. 5:18 and Rev. 1:8. Also, the KJV translators themselves said that their work was "translated out of the original tongues," and we know that they used the preserved Hebrew and Greek. Besides, Dr. Ruckman himself says that the original manuscripts were written in Hebrew, parts of the O.T. in Aramaic, and Koine Greek (The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, 1987 edition, pg. 125). Have you ever taken up this question with him? If not, why not?