Bible Believers, sceptics, and wouldbe Bereans, let's look at this quote from one of the articles pasted on "Smear tactics and strawmen":

"It is a cause than the Ruckmanites, Howard, Buester, Riplinger, Dillen, and Aho all share."

Get it from the horse's mouths, not second hand!  Please read on:

There is a consistency in these articles (found on the above link) of labelling (branding is a more accurate word) the likes of Barbara Aho, Vicky Dillen, Richard Engstrom, Wendy Howard, Wendy Buester, and myself "Ruckmanites".  It does not take much to prove this is far from the truth, although some may argue there may be some justification in labelling me a "Ruckmanite", although I am convinced I am not.

Please read Sam Gipp's excellent exposition on Jack Chick's site ... What is a "Ruckmanite?"

Roundabout 1982 I made a decision to quit using any modern versions of the Bible for revelation and guidance.  This conviction, which prompted me to make such a decisive decision, had nothing to do with Peter Ruckman by the way.  The reason was through the result of a personal Bible search I conducted myself, own my own initiative, merely because the only Bible where I could not find Jesus' divinity being tampered with was in the Authorized Bible, compared with all the modern versions I could get my hand on at the time.

As a result of this great surprise, a special Bible study was arranged one evening around our home (why not try something like this yourself?).  This was an honest approach to investigate 'the perfect Bible controversy' together by matching the Authorized Bible and a hand full of modern versions together, with an unbiased approach, by breaking up into small groups of three or four in various rooms throughout the house.  On this occasion people were encouraged to draw their own conclusions without coercion and the use of control tactics on this vital subject, as certain verses and portions of scriptures were looked at in parallel across the wide spectrum of various bible versions.  This was incidentally, when a highly controversial book called "God Only Wrote One Bible" by David Otis Fuller, hit town.

At that stage I don't think any (at least most) of this group had heard of Peter Ruckman.  I was also expecting a clash of opinions, even emotional tension, at the end of the study during the come-together discussion time rounding off the meeting.  However, there was a hunger present, and people were genuine for the truth, as the end result was found to be all conclusive and watertight.

Getting back to the purpose of this study ...  the conclusions were also absolutely staggering.  The AB proved consistent whereas the modern versions were inconsistent to the gospel and were found wanting or contradictory in reference to many of the basics to our faith.  These young Christians who participated were fresh in the Lord, without not as much baggage from the IC as some, and were also questioning the whole "church" system in general at the time, comparing it to the New Testament church in scripture, which made them open (in hearing from God that is), yet closed to being brainwashed.

At the end of the evening, when we all came back together to share our conclusions, I made it clear to everyone present that I still wanted to use my New American Standard Version as my reading Bible, as I was used to it and felt comfortable with it, but would also use my Authorized as my final back-up in what the Lord was saying.  The whole group unanimously thought I was compromising and would not back down.  This created a dilemma I was faced with by the way.  This dilemma was the question of truth or error, where I had to give up my intellectual justifications for the conviction that somehow I was not going to be able to accommodate the two (2 Cor. 13:8).  The question I had to really ask myself was how could I really quote the AB as God's word today, yet still use a modern version which presented contradictions and watered down the blood and undermined the gospel?  This would be a great contradiction in itself, would it not?

Much water has past under the bridge since those early days (because of the discovery and decisions made that evening).  Moreover, due to the latest accusations being made against certain believers who name the name of Christ and show some form of loyalty to the AB; these earlier folk couldn't in any way be labelled "Ruckmanites" (for argument sake) when they did not even know who or what Ruckman stood for.  Furthermore, they were finding the truth without human aids and indoctrination techniques, and without a one-man-band cracking the whip?  Think about it!

Getting back to Barbara Aho, Vicky Dillen, Richard Engstrom, Wendy Howard, and Wendy Buester ...  I would also like to present proof that these people cannot be labelled Ruckmanites in ANY WAY, as I know some of them can't stomach Peter Ruckman at all.  Some would even call him a cultist (unfortunately), and all of them DO NOT believe in the complete perfection of the Authorized Bible, as Peter Ruckman clearly does, along with myself and countless others.

Therefore, accusing these people as being Ruckmanites is false and misleading, and is either the result of ignorance or wilfully building a strawman to solely discredit their Christian reputation, for some reason or another.  Repeating again in other words ...  the person responsible for these false accusations has obviously not done his homework thoroughly and adequately enough, or worse still, is pursuing another agenda.

Following is indisputable proof these people CANNOT and ARE NOT the so-called "Ruckmanites" they are accused of being:

Barbara Aho and Vicky Dillen teach that the mark of the Beast will not be a chip in the right hand but a tattoo on the right hand.  Their argument is that the AB is wrong (Rev. 13:16) as it differs from the Received Text (Textus Receptus) in places.  They use the justification that in reference to the Mark of the Beast in the TR it states on the hand, whereas the AB states in the right hand, even though Barb promotes the AB (like the majority of her contemporaries) as the most accurate translation.

Get that ...  the AB is only the most accurate translation in their case, and not a translation or a Bible we can fully trust!  Whereas, in actual fact, one version of "the truth" is either right and the other wrong.  According to these two ladies the Authorized Bible is wrong.  Therefore, these two ladies do not believe in all three of the biblical "D"s found in scripture ...  Divine inspiration, Divine preservation, and Divine revelation, in regards to the AB.  The only way you qualify to be labelled with the misnomer brand name "Ruckmanite" is to believe all three. These ladies do not qualify!  They simply are not "King Jamie Only", so-called!

Vicky Dillen makes it clear on her site that the AV (the AB) is only the best translation (in other words - is not the complete inerrant words of God), and points out why it needs to be compared to (or corrected by) "the original Greek and Hebrew", implying the English version in itself needs scrutiny and is therefore not fully reliable.  The very reason Vicky cannot be labelled a "Ruckmanite"!

Likewise, Richard Engstrom would also argue the KJV (the AB) is the best translation, not perfect, of the bible versions today.  He cannot in all honesty be labelled "Ruckmanite" either as he believes the AB has translation flaws, and therefore cannot be the perfect word of God in written form.  Therefore, he too does not qualify to be branded "King Jimmy Only" or a "Ruckmanite".

Lastly, the two Wendy's from Queensland, Australia cannot be branded "Ruckmanites" either as they discredit Peter Ruckman openly from their website, and write articles against him.  They too teach the AV (the AB) is the best translation but only preserved, not inspired (derivatively any way).  This teaching is also propagated by David Cloud (mentioned on their website) with others, and eliminates the perfection of the AB.  Let's have a wee look at what David Cloud states:

"I reject Mr. Ruckman's idea that the KJV was given by inspiration; I believe it was given by preservation"

Whatta incredible statement by a bloke who apparently defends the AB!  My question to him and others ...  how can you have one without the other?  How can you divide God into segments?  All of God's gifts are either good and perfect (and complete) and are not given in half or watered down measures (according to James 1:17), or else they are from another source.  If the Holy Ghost inspires something, it does not need a human filtering process before it can come out the other end as "indirect" or "secondary" inspiration.  Inspiration and preservation must go hand in hand and must come directly through the unction and life giving breath of the Holy Ghost.

Ruckmanite!?  Don't be fooled!  You can only be one if you throw out being a Berean and continually sit at the feet of Peter Ruckman and are drip fed by every word that falls from his mouth.  Not being disrespectful, but if Peter Ruckman is your "Christian" guru then you deserve to be labelled a "Ruckmanite"!  If there a word for glossing over multi failed marriages by him and his peers, then you need to be labelled something else and see the label "Ruckmaite" as a cheap let-off, as well as a brush-off.  On the other hand, if David Cloud is your "Christian" guru then you deserve to be labelled something else also!  Would "hypocrite" do?

Let God be true, but every man a liar!!  Ruckmanite?  Nope!  Bible believer?  You bet!!

  3/1/03  Updated last 14/3/08 NZ.