ARTICLE TWENTY-SEVEN
“Three ‘Godly’
Apostates”
By
now our readers should have a solid grounding in the history of the
Alexandrian Cult. We have covered enough
material so that we can begin to dig into the actual mechanics of the
Cult as it seeks to propagate false Bibles, false information on
manuscript evidence, and lies about those who remain loyal to the
Scriptures.
Since loyalty to the Bible
will undercut many of their salaries and institutions, they look upon
the genuine Bible believer as a dangerous heretic and an enemy
with which to be reckoned by any means, fair or foul. This accounts for
the mass of innuendos, rumors, and outright slander that proceeds from
the mouths of teachers to pupils in the classroom, where they cannot
be checked or recorded. It is here that the dirty work is done
exactly as the NEA carries out “blackboard” power for the Communist
Party in the public school system.
While professing that the
matters we are discussing are too inconsequential” (a “hobby horse”)
with which to take up time, the Cult members are taking up hours in
their classrooms, every week, implanting doubt in the student’s mind
about the Bible and those who believe it.
When Bob Jones Jr. writes
in Faith for the Family that the greatest issue in our day is the
“Word of God,” he does it just to make you think that he believes
the Bible. He doesn’t believe anything of the kind, even
when he professes to. If you don’t believe it, write him.
When a Cult member says
“Word of God” (as we have seen and documented for twenty articles), he
never refers to any Book on the face of this earth. The Bible
believer reads such articles and nods his head and says, “Good, I see
that this Fundamentalist still knows that the main issue is the fidelity
and authority of the word of God.” He doesn’t mean anything of the
kind. He means what any unsaved Liberal means when he talks about
the “resurrection of the Christ.” An apostate is a man who professes
something that he does not believe.
An apostate was never
anything else and never shall be. He will use the terms you use
and trust that you will think he means what you mean when you
use the terms, when he doesn’t mean a word of it for five seconds
(see documented evidence in articles five to fifteen on J. Vernon McGee,
Oswald J. Smith, John R. Rice, Cliff Robinson, Afman, Custer, Walvoord,
Weniger, Archer, Bob Jones III, and ten “Fundamental” colleges and
institutes).
Now that we know this and
have read it in black and white on more than one hundred occasions,
let us dig a little deeper.
“The oldest Greek
manuscript that has been found (p 52), dated about A.D. 125, belongs to
the Alexandrian text. These oldest manuscripts are the most accurate
because they are closest to the originals which the apostles wrote. The
student of the Greek Testament may have serene confidence that the
printed edition of the Greek New Testament has the reading of the
original in the vast majority of verses.
“We have no sympathy with
any version of the Bible that is not faithful to the Greek text. We
believe that the text of Westcott and Hort, based upon these
Alexandrian manuscripts, is as a whole superior to the text (AV,
1611) based upon manuscripts of the Middle Ages.”
Who is this? Is this Dean
Weigle who used this exact line of reasoning in setting up the New
Testament text for the RSV? No. Is this Dodd, the English Liberal
who chose the Alexandrian text for the same reason when he wrote the
New English Bible? No. “Button, button, who’s got the button,” Could
it be Kenneth Taylor who used this exact argument for his “Living
Bible” New Testament text? No. Oh, who could this be?
Why, it is the head of
the Bible department at Bob Jones University (Sept. 11, 1976), whose
buddies printed Faith for the Family which said that the
perversions of the Scripture are “The Living Bible,” “The Revised
Standard Version,” and the “New English Bible”!
And this is “scholarship?”
This is Orthodoxy? Orthodox what?
To understand this wild
scene (and it would put Star Wars and Jaws out of
business), let us go to two of the greatest Bible-perverting
“Fundamentalists” that ever were led of Satan to attack the Holy Spirit:
Messrs. Westcott and Hort.
This time, instead of
documenting their hallucinations (the conflate readings, the Lucian
recension, the intrinsic evidence, the “ring of genuineness,” etc.) let
us simply listen to them as they try to “explain” their Mickey Mouse
method of replacing the AV with the Jesuit Rheims New Testament
of 1582. (The hallucinations are documented in The Revision Revised
by Burgon, Which Bible by David Otis Fuller, The King
James Bible Defended by Edward Hills, and any of the works by
Hodges, Pickering, Wilkerson, or Philipots.)
Here we go!
“A careful comparison of
the accessory attestation (?) of readings supported by Aleph and
B together, by B against Aleph, and by Aleph against B, respectively,
render it morally certain (?) that the ancestries of B and Aleph
diverged from a point near the autographs (?) and never came into
contact subsequently (?) so that the coincidence of Aleph and B
marks these portions of text in which two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from each
other through independent corruption in the one or the other (?)
accordingly with certain limited classes of exceptions the
readings of Aleph and B combined may safely be accepted as genuine (?)
in the absence of specially strong internal evidence (?) to the
contrary and can never be safely rejected altogether (?).”
“Documentary evidence in
its simplest form consists in the relative authority (ah yes,
baby!) of individual documents; that is, in the relative
antecedent probability (?) that the reading attested by them is the true
reading. That is what is meant when it is said in popular language that
‘good manuscripts’ should be trusted. (?) The only adequate criterion of
authority for an individual document apart from its affinity to other
documents is the character of the text (?) as ascertained by the
fullest possible comparison of its different readings; the variations in
which internal evidence is of such exceptional clearness (?) as to be provisionally decisive (?) being taken as tests of the
general
characteristics (?) of the text throughout, and thus shewing how far
it is likely (?) to have preserved genuine readings in the more
numerous variations in which internal evidence is more or less
ambiguous.” (?)
Now, do you know what that
was?
Well, we have a word for
it, in the Service, that I could not repeat.
This is a professional
huckster giving you the shaft to sell you a bum product, and
the only way he can do it is talk all around it till you think he has
said something when all he has said is “I am going to tell you how to
get rid of the Authorized Version.”
I have placed a question
mark everywhere that Westcott and Hort refused to talk straight
or refused to present or discuss evidence. Reading Hort is
exactly like reading MacRae, Newman, Neal, Custer, Afman, Robinson, or
any other Cult member: one stream of continuous opinions without a
fact behind them.
Accessory
attestations?? Did he list any? No. Does he know of any? Probably not.
Why write “accessory”? Is he implying that any reading that agrees with
Aleph and B is connected with it (as an “accessory”)? Why this would
mean that you could prove all AV readings were “late” by the simple
expedient of saying that every verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that
matched the AV reading could claim every manuscript used for the
AV reading as its own.
You dirty, old,
filthy-mouthed, lying hypocrite.
“Morally certain??” Come,
come doctor, this is not the time for preaching the Sermon on the Mount.
You are supposed to be dealing with documented evidence. It may
be “morally certain” that Westcott and Hort were lost and in Hell right
now, but none of you bigots would believe that without
evidence, would you? Of course not. All right then, let’s can all
this rot about “morally certain” when you have immorally refused
to list anything that would prove anything was certain, let along
“morally” certain.
“A point near the original
autographs??” But you didn’t list any evidence. Not one reading.
Not one manuscript. Not one word from any set of manuscripts. Not
one case that could prove (or even suggest) anything of the kind.
We are not dealing with “scientific methods of manuscript evidence,” we
are dealing with two clowns.
In this issue, we shall
examine (briefly, let us pray) the correspondence of John R. Rice as he
sought to shake the faith of two Christians in the authority of their
Bibles. (See letter in Appendix.) It is understood of course (see
lengthy documentation in Articles Four through Fifteen) that when Rice
and the Alexandrian Cult say “Bible,” they mean two to four different
things depending upon who they are trying to deceive. When we say
“Bible,” we mean a Book you have in your hand.
The article that was
printed in order to split the Body of Christ on issues of authority
appeared in the so-called Sword of the Lord (June 9, 1978). As
all Cult members, Rice accuses Bible believers of being
troublemakers and splitting the Body of Christ over “nonessential
issues.” This is SOP with the Cult, for they have, for nineteen
centuries, split the local churches and divided Christians among
themselves by recommending more than one final authority (see
lengthy documentation in Articles One through Fifteen).
Readers of the following
will also observe that while gently professing not to have anything
“personal” in his differences with “Dr. Ruckman,” Rice is somewhat of a
foulmouthed gossip. This is also SOP. What appears in Cult
correspondence against Bible believers is rarely printed publicly. That
is, the divisive, underhanded, dirty work is done “under the table.”
In a letter to a
sixteen-year-old young man in Detroit (June 22, 1978), John R. Rice
defends his attacks on the authority of the AV text by saying:
“Let me suggest that I
probably know the King James Version better than you do and
love it more than you do. You are not sensible. You are not
even honest. You have been misled … to criticize others who
love the Lord better and have proved it more than you have, love
the Bible better than you and know it better than you do.
“You talk about the
American Standard Version. You don’t know anything about
it. Now, why don’t you get to loving the Bible and believe it
and work at it instead of slandering others? You see, you are not
honest; you are not sensible. You don’t even tell the truth.
What do you suppose could
cause a “good, godly, dedicated Fundamentalist” to rip into a
Bible-believing young man like that? Simple: the young man who wrote to
Rice asked him where the word of God was, did anyone have a copy, and
how did you preach it if you didn’t have it?
Naturally, Rice didn’t
answer one question.
While telling the young
man to believe and love “the Bible,” he was careful not to tell the
young man what the “Bible” was. Rice hasn’t got a copy of “the
Bible.” If you don’t believe it, ask him.
Shall we see how a “good,
godly, dedicated, soulwinning, premillennial Fundamentalist” handles an
older man when he is trying to destroy his faith in “the Bible”? This
one is to Mr. Fred Chitwood, of Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. Mr. Chitwood
had the audacity to write to Rice and ask him why “Ruckman” was included
with Thieme and Armstrong on page 25 of his silly book called Our God
Breathed Book. (Rice never saw it, read it, preached
it, checked it, or knew anyone who did; how then did he
write a book about it?) The page and a half of return mail dated
June 1, 1978, never even attempted to answer the question. Cult members
never deal with facts; they deal with innuendos and implications
and call facts “slander” if the facts overthrow their falsehoods.
Johnny
writes: “I am a little shocked that you should even inquire and not know
any reason why you should avoid the influence of Dr. Ruckman. You have
heard his tapes, you have been in his class, you have read his books,
you listen to him each Sunday morning, so I understand that the damage
is already done.” (What “damage” is it that Chitwood would believe
the words of the AV over Rice’s word—Is this “damage”?)
“You see no special harm
in his violent language … the divisive nature of his ministry.” (Matthew
23 perhaps? Titus 1 perhaps? John 7:43, “So there was a division
among the people because of him?”)
Then Brother Rice proceeds
to indict Brother Ruckman on three counts. The Scriptural reasons he
gives for including Ruckman with Thieme and Armstrong are not
that Ruckman teaches anything wrong; the reasons Rice gives are
Jude 8-9; 2 Peter 2:10-11; and Acts 23:3-5!
That is the quality
of Rice’s “scholarship.” That is the quality of the scholarship of any
Cult member trying to find a way out of the mess into which he
has gotten himself. All Rice could say was that Brother Ruckman was a
railer against “high priests” (Acts 23) and “dignities” (2 Pet. 2), and
therefore, you shouldn’t eat with him (1 Cor. 5:11). I don’t recall that
Thieme or Armstrong ever “railed” on anyone! Strange classification!
Then to get rid of
Chitwood’s faith in our stand on the AV completely, Rice tunes up the
cello and comes out with this professional sob story.
“Now, if you are an
honest man, you must be distressed by the split of Dr. Ruckman’s
church, by trouble in his home, and by his slanderous accusation against
godly men … But if Dr. Ruckman had a good Christian tongue and
used moderate Christian language (Matt. 23 perhaps? Titus 1 perhaps? Jer.
23 perhaps?), then he would not be causing trouble everywhere he
goes, as he does.”
So much for Johnny. Thh-h-h-h-here’s
Johnny!!
Now, to set the record
straight with facts instead of the old, sidewinding, double-tongued,
crooked “good Christian” language of Dr. Rice:
1. We have finished a
$120,000 church building to seat 650 people, and there is so much
shouting in the song services down here sometimes you can’t hear
yourself sing.
2. All ten of my
children are saved and attending church. They all believe the
Book. They all tithe, and two of them are considering full-time
service. My wife is a soul winner.
3. Rice didn’t give
one piece of concrete evidence for one single “slanderous
accusation” and didn’t give one piece of evidence for one
single case of “causing trouble everywhere he goes.”
Rice is a foul-mouthed
gossip where “Ruckman” is as issue.
No slanderous accusations
have been made. There are scores of meetings we hold every year where
there is no “trouble” but the trouble that the Holy Spirit and
the word of God bring when either are in evidence or in power.
Rice is a liar when he attacks “Ruckman’s” ministry.
He will not lie about
some things, but when it comes to opposing those who believe the
Book and oppose the Alexandrian Cult, he will take his side with the
Cult and write slanderous letters that deal with gossip. The letter
cited above is printed in this issue in full. You notice that it begins
with “There is no personal matter between me and Dr. Ruckman.”
If this is the case, we
would suggest he deal with facts and not rumors about the
personal life of a man he knows nothing about except by second-hand
innuendo and slander. Rice has never been in my home or my church or
my school, and I stopped subscribing to his paper five years after I was
saved (that is in 1954). He has no business talking about the personal
lives of preachers about whom he knows nothing, and his appeal to his
readers to be “honest” is just about as funny as you can get without
putting on a Halloween suit.
Heeeerree’ssss Johnny!
ARTICLE TWENTY-EIGHT
“Rice and the Bean Bag
of the Lord”
It
is now time to close shop on the Cult and devote our remaining articles
to undoing the damage that they have done to 70,000-100,000 ministerial
students in the last seventy years; that is, from here on our column
will be devoted to solving the invented problems which these
arrogant egotists have invented to destroy your faith in the Reformation
text of the English-speaking people.
In closing, we should
present the last will and testament of John R. Rice, an outstanding
Cultist, whose leadership of apostate Fundamentalists has been
consistent throughout the years. Rice would always lie about matters of
Biblical authority, he would always recommend more than one
authority; he would always reserve the right to correct the Bible
wherever he felt like it; and he would not hesitate to implant
doubt into the mind of any young minister in regards to the
accuracy of the Authorized Text. He, therefore, is an outstanding
example of the arrogant egotist disguised as a “dear, sweet,
godly, good man.” Herewith follows Rice’s own words from the
Sword of the Lord (Friday, June 9, 1978).
“You need not bother too
much about the Received Text and the Textus Receptus … the truth is that
the differences between the King James Version and the
American Standard Version are so minor, so incidental, so
infrequent, it is very foolish to make a big fight over the
difference. The ASV is sometimes more accurate, and I check it
frequently.”
In addition to this,
Brother Rice (most modern destructive critics of the AV text are
saved) tells us that “nobody” should teach that there is a perfect
translation because God didn’t promise that “specifically,” and that the
King James Bible has to be subject to errors because the
Bible doesn’t guarantee that anybody who copies it will do it exactly
right or “translate it perfect.”
This is the Creed
of the Cult. This is how to step into the pulpit as a destructive critic
of Biblical authority and save face by using “good words and fair
speeches” for belly purposes (Rom. 16:18). The reason why we call
such men professional liars is that they gain their income (their
livelihood) by lying about Biblical authority. We do not say that
they will lie about the “fundamentals of the faith” or about their
income bracket. We said they will lie—and lie every time—when
positing an opinion on Biblical authority.
The context of Rice’s
remarks (see above) is the authority of the Authorized English text.
Make no mistake about it. Before you believe the party line
(propagated by Rice and others) that people who make such statements are
“unchristian” or “railers,” you had better spend some time with an
Oxford dictionary. These men make their living by posing as
authorities on the Bible; they maintain their living by recommending
more than one authority so that they (or their friends in the
Cult) can be the final authority. And we have documented this now
to the tune of twenty-seven articles running over 300,000 words. There
is no doubt in the mind of an honest reader (I did not say “good, godly,
dedicated, Christian gentleman”) about the tune and pitch of Rice’s
lying.
1. The differences are
not “minor.” (We will document.)
2. The differences are
not “incidental.” (We will document.)
3. The differences are
not “infrequent.” (We will document.)
That is, three straight
lies in a row to destroy your faith in the authority of the AV and
place it in the Jesuit text of 1582 (ASV, 1901) are not to be taken
lightly by any man who professes to be “straight,” let alone “saved.”
The “Christian” attitude
towards such deliberate lying is found in Matthew 23; John 8; and
Titus 1. It is not found in 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 4.
Before documenting the
professional liar, let us notice the “sick thinking” that
accompanies any attack on the authority of God.
Rice has told us that
because God has not “specifically promised” that there would be a
perfect translation, no one should say that there is. Again, he has told
us that since the Bible (whatever that is!!) doesn’t guarantee
that anybody can copy it perfectly, nobody did.
Observe how “rational”
this type of criticism is when it is laid out where you can see it.
1. Nobody should teach
that there is an imperfect translation because God never said
specifically that there would be an imperfect translation.
Why does Rice then
say that all of them are?
2. Nobody should teach
that the original manuscripts were perfect because God never said
“original manuscripts” in any translation or version including
the “originals.”
3. Nobody should teach
that the ASV is more accurate (see Rice’s letter) because God
did not specifically say that any ASV would even be a
“Bible,” let alone an accurate one.
Notice the mess Rice got
himself into when he began to lie to get subscriptions. He got so
“ultra-scriptural” that he moved in with the Campbellites and
Hyper-dispensationalists who insist on a verse for everything—light
bulbs, nursery, printing press, dormitories, washroom, parking lot,
prayer altar, pulpit, church building, etc. Because God did not
specifically say something no more gives you the right to say that
nobody (see Rice’s bigoted dogmatism) can say it than it gives you the
right to go to church Sunday morning. There is no Sunday morning
specifically in the Scripture, and there is no church building
specifically in the Scripture.
When Rice offered $500 for
Scripture on tithing to the local church, he talked like a Campbellite
with rocks for brains. Nowhere in any Bible did God tell you to give one
dime to a newspaper publisher who made a living attacking the AV
text. Let’s see you find that verse! I’ll “up” Johnny:
$500,000,000 to any man who can find a verse of Scripture telling you to
send a dime to a man who recommends a competing authority that
differs with the word of God in 31,000 to 36,000 places (ASV and NASV).
1. “The differences
are so minor”: Luke 2:33 attacks the Virgin Birth; Luke 23, Acts
9:5, 6; 8:37 and 16:31 alter four passages where a sinner is saved
by GRACE; the Roman Catholic readings are adopted on Mark 8:36, Luke
4:4, 8, John 3:13, Revelation 22:14; blood redemption is attacked in
Colossians 1:14; science is covered up in 1 Timothy 6:20; the RSV
readings of the NCCC are adopted in Romans 1:18, 21; a warning to a
Christian walking after the flesh is torn out in Romans 8:1; the
Deity of Christ is attacked in 1 Timothy 3:16; the physical
ascension of Christ is attacked in Luke 24:51-52; the proofs for the
resurrection is watered down in Acts 1:3; the Deity of Christ is
watered down in Acts 20:28; and Galatians 5:4 and 3:1, Hebrews 11:6,
2 Corinthians 2:17 and 10:4 are perverted. “Minor” aye, Doc? Minor,
like your opinions?
2. The differences are
so incidental. Incidental, aye, Doc? Incidental means “occasional,
without purpose or intent.” The Greek text of the ASV is the
Catholic text (1881) smuggled into the committee of the RV on
purpose by two men who put it together on purpose (Westcott and
Hort) when they knew it differed from the Greek text of the AV
in 4,700-5,000 places.
Incidental, aye, Doc?
“Sword of the WHO?”, Doc? Christ is the truth, is He, Johnny?
And His word is truth (John 17:17)—is it, Johnny? And you would say
that 5,000 corrections on the God-given text are “incidental,” would
you, Johnny? (Documentation: Which Bible?, Fuller;
Believing Bible Study, Hills; The Identity of the New
Testament Text, Pickering; The Revision Revised, Burgon;
True or False, Fuller; and the Preface to the RV by
the translators, which I have here on my desk.)
3. “The differences
are so infrequent” : 4,700 to 5,000 in the New Testament and
20,000 to 25,000 in the Old Testament are “infrequent,” are they,
Johnny? And you a “good, godly, premillennial Fundamentalist!” Is
that what we are to believe? Here is a man who is so anxious to
destroy your faith in Biblical authority that he would recommend
two texts that vary more in the Gospel of Luke than Stephanus, Beza,
Erasmus, and Elzevir (editions for the Receptus) varied in Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and Romans, and then say the differences are
“infrequent.”
The Alexandrian Cult is a
cult of professional liars.
When they speak of
Biblical authority they will lie every time and will not give it
to you straight one time—not once.
When Rice says that he
“checks” the ASV frequently, he blankly admits that he is familiar with
it. Frequent “checks” could not fail to inform a normal man what the
content of a translation is, especially if that man sets himself up as
so great an authority that he can correct the book by which he was saved
and called to preach, the Book that sustained him in the ministry all of
his life.
Such blatant, arrogant,
dogmatic egotism is not to be overlooked by an “honest man.” We will not
overlook it.
If he “frequently”
consulted the Roman Catholic ASV of 1901 (see The Christian’s
Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, 1970), he knew the difference
between that apostate text of the Dark Ages (ibid.) and the AV were:
1. MAJOR
2. PLANNED
3. MULTIPLE Rice
simply LIED three times in a row to sell a newspaper.
Hearst and Luce never did
it any differently though they were lost sinners.
With this little sample (Sword,
Friday, June 9, 1978), we shall close our documented account of
professional lying carried on by the Cult members who profess to
believe in the “verbal, plenary inspiration of our God-breathed
telephone book.”
1. They all question
what God said (Gen. 3:1).
2. They all recommend
a conflicting authority (Gen. 3:2-4).
3. They will lie (Gen.
3:2-4) as quickly as take a breath of air in order to elevate
scholarship to the final seat of authority.
When Jerry Falwell builds
his new university, the Cult will come in on the opening day of class,
seize all chairs of higher learning, and start the work downhill into
apostasy the first week of classes. How will they do it? By doing
exactly what we said they will do, and we have documented it now for
300,000 words. They will do what we tell them to do because we
have an infallible authority, and we can predict what they will do
whether they admit it or not. They will recommend two or more
authorities so the school will be the final authority.
We give them no
alternatives.
They will do what we
tell them to do. (And if a Cult member reads this, he will take the
last paragraph out of context to prove “egotism.” He will not deal with
one documented fact given above.)
All Cultists think alike.
When they read a
documented article dealing with facts, all they can find is
“unchristian attitude,” “railing accusations,” “coarse and vulgar
language,” and “arrogance.” They cannot find the truth (2 Tim. 3:7). “The
truth” is not their “bag.” Their bag is lying.
Beginning with our next
issue, we shall devote our entire time in this column to a discussion of
“Problem Texts.” We have said enough about the modern, apostate
Fundamentalist to identify him clearly wherever he speaks about Biblical
authority. In other matters he may pass by “unidentified,” but in
matters of authority, we have our speckled cat spotted.
We will not “sleep” while
the enemy plants “tares.” The “mystery of iniquity” is just as
much at work in the Laodicean age as any age. We need to know how
he works, why he works, and above all, when he starts to
go to work.
Readers of this column now
know by an objective examination of factual, documented statements made
by the members of the Cult. They will never be refuted by any member of
the Cult, for they can’t be. All the Cult can do is proselyte
sympathy from young Christians and get them to think that “friendship,”
“fellowship,” “cooperation,” “love,” and “understanding” are more
important than the absolute authority of God Almighty.
Every liberal in the
NCCC handles things exactly that way.
SOURCE:
https://www.soulwinning.info/books/peter_ruckman/alexandrian_cult_series.pdf
