Hey, Double inspiration people... I have a question.

[zealyouthguy]

Do those of you who believe that the KJV is superior to the TR and the Massoretic texts, believe the margin clarifications in the KJV are inspired likewise?

[LindaR]

Do those of you who believe that the KJV is superior to the TR and the Massoretic texts' date=' believe the margin clarifications in the KJV are inspired likewise?[/quote']
I believe that Peter Ruckman teaches this. Does "double inspiration" mean that the English "corrects" the original Greek and Hebrew? Or does this mean that the "translators" of the KJV were inspired as the original writers (holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost)? I think David Cloud has some good articles on "double inspiration" on his website.

Great topic zyg!

[Guest Guest]

Oh great... another "double inspiration" topic... these seem to come around once in a while. :dead:


What do you mean by "margin clarifications"?? I've never heard that term before.

[Samer]

The 1611 printings had alternate translations and other translators' notes in the margins.

[Guest Guest]

Well, I don't believe those are "given by inspiration" (using Biblical terms) then. Only the actual words of Scripture are. Some things, like chapter and verse divisions, obviously are interesting and it seems that God's hand was in it, but I wouldn't call it "inspired."

I hope you guys aren't trying to start another "Ruckmanite" vs. "Fundamentalist" discussion here... :can:

[kevinmiller]

In my personal opinion, while chapters can be helpful for daily Bible readings, it can sometimes be a hindrance when there is a continuation of a thought into the next chapter. A person has to be alert to the fact that in the original Scriptures, there were no such divisions.

[Guest Guest]

You've got a good point there, Kevin... but I find the chapter/verse divisions to be more helpful than a hindrance in Scripture. I think the only problems is that it makes reading less smooth sometimes... (though it's good for us to read the Bible slower, since the words are FAR more important than the words of any other book), and the other problem is that people use the verse divisions as an excuse to take things WAY out of context sometimes.

[Kubel]

Does "double inspiration" mean that the English "corrects" the original Greek and Hebrew? Or does this mean that the "translators" of the KJV were inspired as the original writers (holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost)?

Both. Double inspiration and advanced revelation are very similar, but there are subtle differences depending on who is using the term. Sometimes they are used interchangeably.

Double inspiration basically takes what all of us believe (that the originals were written as God inspired man), but goes one step farther and says that not just the originals were inspired, but also the KJV (in other words, the Holy Spirit inspired once, man copied and copied and copied the Bible and inevitably introduced error since that's our nature, and God felt the need to inspire once again to 'set the record straight' so-to-speak). Simply put, inspiration for preservation (but nothing new).

Advanced revelation takes it one step farther and suggests that the KJV is superior to the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Texts (some even believe superior to the originals), that the old Bible as we know it was done away with and a new one was inspired in the 1600's. Simply put, this one says there was a new Bible inspired in 1600's.

Both are spinoffs from the teachings of Ruckmanism.

As far as margin notes, Ruckman believes that the chapter and verse system is God inspired, and that the order of the books is God inspired, so I'm not sure if he believes that the margin notes are God inspired. It would bring up an interesting point- Why would the translators include alternate renderings / explanatory margin notes if they were inspired to write something new (and not translate as is traditionally accepted)?

Anyone interested in studying the specifics of Ruckmanism (or even trying to understand the man) should read "The Ruckman Conspiracy". I haven't verified the claims that the book makes, but if they are true, the man is really messed up. I'm not sure of the author, but if you google for it, you can find the entire book online. Some of the things he believes are right on. But many are totally crazy. He's right up there on my list of almost-schizo-extreme-fundamentalists (Ruckman, Phelps, Chick [who isn't as angry as the others, but still believes some crazy stuff]).

[Guest Guest]

Instead of saying "Ruckman believes this", or "Ruckman believes that", why don't you look up what Ruckman said for yourself and find out if it's really true? More people should verify their resources on this so-called "Ruckmanism" stuff.

But really, who cares what Ruckman believes. You're grouping all so-called "Ruckmanites" together as believing all the same things. You know, some of us believe in the Gap Theory, some don't. Some believe the chapter/verse divisions are inspired, some don't. (I bet even some Fundamentalists that hate Ruckman believe that chapter/verse divisions are inspired... but no one's picking on them!! )

[John81]

In my personal opinion' date=' while chapters can be helpful for daily Bible readings, it can sometimes be a hindrance when there is a continuation of a thought into the next chapter. A person has to be alert to the fact that in the original Scriptures, there were no such divisions.[/quote']

Great points Kevin!

Overall, the divisions aid in reading, but there are some areas that I really stop and wonder, "What were they thinking?", when they obviously divide a section that should be together. :puzzled:

[kevinmiller]

You've got a good point there' date=' Kevin... but I find the chapter/verse divisions to be more helpful than a hindrance in Scripture. I think the only problems is that it makes reading less smooth sometimes... (though it's good for us to read the Bible slower, since the words are FAR more important than the words of any other book), and the other problem is that people use the verse divisions as an excuse to take things WAY out of context sometimes.[/quote']
It certainly does seem to make it easier for out-of-context doctrines but I guess that is also our own faults for not studying to show ourselves approved.

And I know what you mean John. Come across those a few times meself. :wink

[Kubel]

You're grouping all so-called "Ruckmanites" together as believing all the same things.

Care to point out where I did that? I don't believe I ever grouped anyone together as believing all the same things. I dunno, maybe I'm going senile in my young age .

For the record: Ruckmanite means anyone who follows the teachings that Ruckman created. If you believe in double inspiration or advanced revelation, you are a Ruckmanite (sorry if that's an offensive term, but it's an accurate word to use for someone who believes in something that stems back to a single person, specifically, Ruckman). But that's not to say all Ruckmanites believe the same thing. Example: we are all followers of Christ, so people call us Christians. Not all Christians believe "all the same things", and I don't think I would ever suggest that they do.

Anyhoo- I believe the translators margin notes are essential parts of the King James translation. Without them, we are not given a complete and honest translation. As I mentioned in another thread, one of the rules that King James made was that there were to be no notes in the margins, except when they couldn't be effectively expressed in the text. This makes them extremely important because the translators felt there was a need for them to be there, and are basically giving you an insight into the details of the translation that they couldn't includ in the text, or that they felt was a very possible alternative to what was chosen in the text.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but by saying that "Ruckmanites" believe "double inspiration" or "advanced revelation", it just gives the reader the assumption that you think all "Ruckmanites" believe that way.

I'm glad you admit that you use the term "Ruckmanite" so broadly, but I don't think that was a good comparison. See, it was meant as an insult when the people following Christ were called "Christians", so following your logic, I'd assume that it's supposed to be an insult when people call us "Ruckmanites." The funny thing is, most, if not all of what Ruckman teaches has been taught and/or believed by someone before him.

Btw, the reason I'm sticking around these boards (besides enjoying some interesting Bible discussions and a few other topics) is to prove that us so-called "Ruckmanites" don't have the bad attitude or believe all kinds of wacked-out doctrines like a lot of people think we do. :smile

[matie-k]

Another question: Since 1611, is there a thread through history of men/groups that believed/taught this double inspiration before Ruckman?

[Guest Guest]

Hmm, I'm actually not sure on that one, Katie. I just know that I've been finding out more and more lately about things he believes and how someone before him believed the same thing. What he believes about Dispensationalism and the Gap Theory are definitely not "new" doctrine.