My Thoughts on Peter S. Ruckman's Claim of the Alexandrian Cult

-

Years ago, I remembered getting into the KJV Only movement. I know there are some decent KJV Only people who try to defend the KJV without being an extremist about it. David W. Cloud of Way of Life Literature admits he is KJV Only but rejects the Ruckmanite movement. Personally, Cloud's expose against Ruckmanism should be taken into consideration if you're a KJV Only or if you choose to stay in that field. The late Peter S. Ruckman turned out to be a heretic that even some KJV Onlyists reject. Meanwhile, the late Jack T. Chick apparently doesn't see Ruckman for the heretic he is. Now, I was thinking about another conspiracy theory called the existence of this Alexandrian Cult which is named after Alexandria in Egypt. Manuscripts in Alexandria were to be rejected based on the source. James L. Melton apparently supports heretic Ruckman, a name that's probably not too familiar among KJV Onlyists because some of them even reject him, and Gail Ripplinger who is also another questionable defender of the KJV.

Ruckmanisn.org

I. Chick Publications would also support the claim by Ruckman concerning the existence of the Alexandrian Cult

For one, I did love Chick Publications and thought of Rivera as a hero of the faith. I rejected almost every claim against Rivera believing them to be Jesuit-engineered. One of the comic books from the "Crusaders" series was called "Sabotage?" I remembered believing in the existence of the Alexandrian Cult for years. It's said to be supposedly run by the Jesuits. I don't dare deny that the Jesuits do play a sinister role in world affairs. I don't deny that the Jesuits are indeed shapers of history. However, a very unhealthy view of thinking that almost everything is caused by the Vatican (such as buying into the fantastic stories of the late Alberto R. Rivera who was never a former Jesuit) is not healthy. Unfortunately, some anti-Catholic ministries have put the Vatican in front of the Bible. Some are too busy researching on the Vatican crimes that they're making Roman Catholics too angry to listen to them. The book "Alberto Rivera: The True Story" by the late Roy Livesey reveals the chilling details that make Rivera's so-called evidence fall away. I used to admire Rivera's testimony a lot and ignored some critical artistic license. I mean, in "Double Cross", it's very easy to overlook that the meeting of the Jesuit priests being leaked out was too good to be true. The book's long expose should be more than enough to make you see Rivera's lack of credibility and why anybody serious in refuting Catholicism should reject Rivera. What I didn't realize was that Rivera's "testimony" could be a result of narcissistic lying (such as Rivera's doctorates were fabricated), and sociopathic lying (since he apparently had a lack of conscience) since he apparently lied for his own benefit. 

The fantastic claim of the Alexandrian Cult was most likely a fantasy cooked by Ruckman himself. It's no wonder why Chick decided to promote the lie of Rivera's falsified story (which was refuted by two real former Jesuit priests, Bob Bush, and Victor Affonso) and Ruckmanism in his comics. Rivera was said to be a KJV Onlyist and so was the late Tony Alamo. It's really stupid to assume that all KJV Only churches are sound and saved. Just research on the late Jack Hyles and you'll notice how many of the documents against him are not Jesuit-orchestrated lies. Hyles, like Rivera, shouldn't be trusted. The Alexandrian Cult was not only featured in "Sabotage?" but also in "The Force" which is Part 4 of the "Alberto" series. A book by David W. Daniels called "Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?" did prove that Rome didn't give us the Bible but added half-truths into it. The claim was that there was a certain school in Alexandria that purposely removed verses in the creation of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (actually written by Eusebius, not a Vatican-made manuscript). The book "Sabotage" also said that Eusebius allegedly denied the Trinity and so did Origen. Later, we read the claim in "Sabotage" that Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Hort were allegedly occultists as to why the New KJV can't be trusted because it's supposedly a New Age Bible translation. I wonder if these claims are just as good as cooked up by Ruckman (like Rivera) who added his own lies while speaking the truth about Roman Catholicism. 

I mean, should it be surprising that Ripplinger's book is also promoted by Chick Publications? One of the books Daniels also promotes is "New Age Bible Versions". No surprise that Daniels himself also wrote the unreliable book "Babylon Religion" which tries to defend Alexander Hislop's illogical book "The Two Babylons". I mean, couldn't Daniels decide to write a comic book version of "Truth Encounter" by the late Anthony Pezzotta, or shouldn't Chick Publications request for the rights to share a scholarly anti-Catholic book instead of the unscholarly ones in the aim to win Catholics to Christ? Instead, Chick Publications is making witnessing Roman Catholics even harder because of their intellectual dishonesty. Unfortunately, official Catholic apologists are right to say Chick and Daniels are guilty of intellectual dishonesty! I myself fell into that guilt by supporting their outrageous claims for years. 

II. Ruckman's rather weird view of KJV-Onlyism should be cringeworthy even for some KJV Onlyists (the moderate ones)!

Cloud's research of Ruckman's heresies can be very mind-blowing and I do really feel baffled reading at this stuff:
“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118).

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvelous undesigned ‘coincidences’ which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigation of the greatest Bible students 300 year later” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 127).

“A little English will clear up the obscurities in any Greek text” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 147).

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 336).

“If you are able to obtain a copy [of Ruckman’s proposed new book] you will have, in your hands, a minimum of 200 advanced revelations that came from the inerrant English text, that were completely overlooked (or ignored) by every major Christian scholar since 90 A.D.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Jan. 1994, pp. 2, 4).

“We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or to demonstrate the superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew” (Peter Ruckman, Problem Texts, Preface, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).

“Observe how accurately and beautifully the infallible English text straightens out Erasmus, Griesbach, Beza, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Trench, Vincent, Davis, Wuest, Zodhiates, Elzevir, and Stephanus with the poise and grace of a swan as it smoothly and effectively breaks your arm with one flap of its wings. Beautiful, isn’t it? If the mood or tense isn’t right in any Greek text, the King James Bible will straighten it out in a hurry” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, pp. 348, 349).

“The original Hebrew had nothing to do with Genesis 1:1-3 at all [referring to Ruckman’s heresy that the flood of 2 Peter 3:5-6 speaks of a flood that took place in Genesis 1:2]. It only muddied the issue. Hebrew is of no help at all in understanding the passage” (Peter Ruckman, The Unknown Bible, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1984, p. 67).

“The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9). [Brother Cloud: In fact, God slammed the door of revelation shut in about 90 A.D. with the completion of the New Testament.]

If Ruckman is right, where was the inspired Word of God prior to 1611? What did the churches do from the time of the apostles until the 17th century? And what did they do before Ruckman came upon the scene to create this doctrine, because it is certain that no one taught it at an earlier date?

Cloud, though a KJV Only, should still be respected for rejecting Ruckmanism as a heresy. In fact, the very words that he says that the Word of God was always there even before 1611! Sadly, "Sabotage" by Chick fails to address Ruckman's stupidity. Sure, I can always respect a KJV Onlyist who addresses some concerns like this apostate age may not give us a good Bible translation. Cloud is open for updating the KJV every now and then but has doubts if it can be done in these last days. Some KJV Onlyists are quick to respond and say that the KJV Only is more applicable today in this day and age because of the previous manuscripts that were used before it came along. The moderate KJV Only would still say that we can only trust the KJV as the only reliable English translation today while rejecting Ruckman's claims. Again, I have no problem with KJV Onlyists as long as they don't quarrel with people or when they reject Ruckmanism like Cloud. I did stick to the moderate KJV Onlyists while still embracing non-KJV people. I mean, some people were led to Christ with an NIV, ESV, or even a Roman Catholic Bible. Martin Luther didn't have the KJV in his hand. All Luther had was a Latin Catholic Bible which he translated into German. That makes Ruckman's claims fall apart!

I think these words by Cloud really mean a lot:

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel.

The argument above would definitely shoot Steven Anderson's nonsense arguments that pastors who preach from the NIV are not saved. Anderson's nonsense comments in his debate with James R. White should be ignored. Personally, I'd still be willing to see Cloud try to defend KJV Onlyism with White since the guy is rather professional in contrast to Anderson. Some KJV Onlyists still embrace non-KJV Only brethren even if they (like Cloud) think that the modern versions are allegedly textually corrupt. Cloud considers the KJV to be a gift of preservation and not inspiration. Also, Cloud acknowledges that the KJV should never be regarded as superior to the Hebrew and the Greek from which they're based. Cloud is still willing to study Hebrew and Greek too. Though, Cloud's position on KJV Only can still be shaky at times.

Fortunately, I wasn't into Ruckmanism. I was more of a KJV Only moderate believing that the KJV is the most diligently done Bible. I still think churches need a KJV with them even if they refuse to become KJV Only. I believe having a KJV can help us honor the Calvinistic masterpiece of a Bible translation even if the ESV is easier to read. My defense of the KJV is centered on the manuscript history. I still believe that some of the 17 missing verses were actually gone missing and were found in the Textus Receptus. Maybe, some copies of the manuscripts had damage which may have caused some scribal error over time. I mean, I still think Acts 8:37 is part of the Book of Acts. I still think that Matthew 23:14 is still part of the Book of Matthew which the verse is also found in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. Though, some were doubtful so they were eventually placed in footnotes. 

III. Conclusion

One should consider that being KJV Only (or not) shouldn't be an issue. If you love the KJV then by all means use it. I still love the KJV and it's my favorite version. Charles H. Spurgeon loved the KJV but he wasn't KJV Only. Spurgeon seldom read from the RSV (which the ESV is based on). I think KJV Onlyism (in moderate form) should be tolerated and treated as a non-issue. Some churches still stick with the KJV and I'm fine with it. The only issue is when KJV Only pulpits start to look for fights or dig into Ruckman's stupidity to defend their stance. 

However, fighting with pastors who aren't KJV Only should not be allowed. Also, defend the KJV as an excellent translation but rising up conspiracy theories (such as the Alexandrian Cult) should not be allowed whatsoever. 

See also: