(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Amen. Well, it's a great honor and privilege to be here with you guys, and I think it's really important to have a conference like this, the King James Bible Conference, and the church looks awesome. You know, with these chairs up here, it kind of made me feel like we're going back to the old IFB. But then you confirmed it with an hour-long worth of announcements and music. But unfortunately, I'm going to have to ruin that streak because it's not a 15-minute sermon this evening. And that's what I love about the new IFB is there's no time limits, so I really appreciate that. No, I really appreciate Pastor Thompson and his family and Shure Foundation Baptist Church for hosting this conference and all the accommodations. It's been great. It's great to see so many hate preachers in the room. I mean, love preachers. I identify as a love preacher, and so you can't call me that. But it's great to see so many people that love the Bible, and, you know, I have a lot of Bible I want to cover this evening, and it really helped me realize with the sword drill, y'all can turn there fast. So we're going to—and Pastor Messler knows every verse I'm going to use by heart, so I feel really confident that y'all are going to be doing a good job tonight. But I'm going to be turning to a lot of places this evening, so we're going to keep the sword drill going. But who in here has actually watched our film, The Preserved Bible, already? And how many people liked it? Oh, great. A lot of people liked it. So, you know, but, you know, in this film, I had a small section that explained how, you know, while we're King James only and we love the King James Bible, there's a group of people that take this doctrine a little overboard and actually, in my opinion, undermine the King James position, and they're called Ruckmanites. Now, that's kind of a vague term, and it's kind of hard to even understand what that even means. So I figured I'd preach a sermon on, what is a Ruckmanite? So then that way we can all get it on the table and know what a Ruckmanite actually is. And I went to this verse in Second Timothy chapter number three, because it's at the heart of the issue of kind of where Ruckmanism is coming from. And I even listened to a sermon by Dr. Peter Ruckman, and I have a lot of quotes from him this evening, just so you know exactly what he said and where these people are kind of coming from, and then what does the Bible actually say? Well, in his sermon, he kind of starts here in Second Timothy chapter three. Look at verse 16. The Bible says, all scripture is given by inspiration of God. And that's really an important verse. It talks about where the Bible is coming from. And really, when it comes to this particular verse, we see that the source of the Bible, the source of scripture is God. That's why it's called so many times in the Bible, the word of God, because it's not the word of man. It's not coming from a man's heart, but rather it is the word of God. Now, Peter Ruckman in a sermon titled, Is the King James Bible Verbally Inspired? This is a quote from his sermon. He says this, I try to be careful when I speak never to talk about the King James Bible being inspired. So according to Dr. Ruckman, he doesn't believe that the Bible and specifically the King James Bible is inspired. Well, that kind of flies in the face of this verse, doesn't it? And really, that's a dangerous doctrine to deny the inspiration of the Bible. Now specifically, what he's attacking is the verbal inspiration of God's word. And point one, what is a Ruckmanite? It's someone who denies the verbal inspiration of God's word. The fancy theological term is the verbal plenary inspiration, which plenary just means all of it. So essentially, that theological term that a lot of people would subscribe to is really the popular view just simply means that the whole Bible was spoken by God. And you know what? I believe that. I believe that the whole word of God was inspired by God. It was spoken by God. And it's God's words. He's the author. He's the source of our text. Now, this is what Ruckman said. Verbal inspiration is a theological term that deals with the doctrine taught in seminary. It's not a Bible term at all, not written in the Bible. So he denies the verbal inspiration of God's word. He also said, do you believe that the scripture is inspired? And he said, technically, no. So he over, you know, states the fact that he denies the inspiration of God's word. And he says, well, basically the only way that someone comes to that doctrine is a misunderstanding of second Timothy chapter number three, verse 16. And he'll say, well, what often happens in seminary is they'll go back to the Greek with this verse and they'll say, we'll see where it says the inspiration of God. If you go back to the Greek, that literally translates as God breathed, which that's true. If you go back to the Texas Receptus and you look at the underlying Greek word and you try to do a more overly literal interpretation of that particular word, God breathe is a legitimate interpretation of that Greek text. Now here's the thing. Let's just, let's just put aside for a moment that particular point, because I don't need the Greek to believe that God spoke the entire Bible. I think that's a very valid way to look at what this verse is trying to say. But no matter how you interpret this verse, it's clearly saying that God is the source of the Bible, that the inspiration is coming of God. It's not coming of man and that the entire Bible is profitable unto us. And it's going to help us in our entire life. We love this verse because it tells us every part of the Bible is important. Genesis one, one, all the way to revelation chapter 22, everything in between every single verse, every single phrase, every single word we believe in an every single word Bible. But we also, you know, I believe in the verbal inspiration of God's word from a lot of places in scripture. Go to revelation chapter one, if you would for me, revelation chapter number one. And I want to show you what the Bible says about itself because it doesn't matter what I think it doesn't matter what a seminary thinks. And it certainly doesn't matter what Dr. Ruckman thinks it matters what the Bible says. But of course the Bible constantly tells us that the word of God is coming from God himself. Look at verse one, the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him. So where is the book of revelation really coming from? Who's the source of the book of revelation? It's God, it's God. That's the source. Let's keep reading though, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. And he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant, John. Notice verse two, who bear record of the word of God. So notice what the Bible is describing is it's the word of God. God is the source. God is the one that gave it to Jesus. Jesus gave it unto his angel. His angel gave it unto John and John bear record of what? Not the word of John, not the word of the angel, not just the word of Jesus, but the word of God, because that's where it's stemming from. And this is where the book of revelation is coming from. Go to Exodus chapter number 20, go to Exodus chapter number 20. And of course we understand that the word of God itself is eternally existent. John one, one in the beginning was the word. So the words always existed. The word is never had a point when it came into existence. It's just an eternal existence is the word of God. Now Exodus chapter 20, we see an example of the Bible being delivered to mankind and God giving it to man. He's talking with Moses, but notice what it says in Exodus 20 verse one and God spake all these words saying, so notice when we think about the 10 commandments, we often think of a table or tablet of stone with it being written on there by the finger of God. And that's true, but notice what the Bible says. God spake all those words, didn't he? God spake all those words. Look at chapter 31, just flip over the page. Exodus chapter 31. What does the Bible say about the spoken word? Exodus chapter 31 verse 18. The Bible says, and he gave unto Moses when he had made an end of communing with him upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone written with the finger of God. So God tells Moses all of the word of God. And then after he's done speaking or communing with him, as the Bible says, then he literally wrote it with his own finger and delivered it to Moses. Now, which one is more authoritative? They're the same. It's the same, but be it sure that the word of God was also spoken. God actually spake it. And we have a written copy of what God said. It's a transcription of what God said. Go over to Genesis chapter one, Genesis chapter number one. So we understand that we have to have the word of God. And frankly, it starts with the word of God. It ends with the word of God. It's all the word of God. That's the reason why the Bible is special. If it was just the words of man or the word of a smart guy, then okay, it might be better than another book, but it doesn't make it special. You know, it makes the Bible special. It's the word of God. It's not just some book. It's not just some words that a man came up with. It's God actually communicating with us and speaking to us. And God literally spoke everything into existence. Every single thing that exists was coming into an existence through God's spoken words. We see in Genesis one, one in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth and the earth was out form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, let there be light. And there was light. Notice the Bible already starts out with the spoken words of God. Now, I want you to go to Matthew chapter number four, go to Matthew chapter four. We're proving a lot of points real quick as we're kind of doing a mini sword drill here, but it's important to think about what the Bible says about itself. And I don't have time to show you every place, but the Bible is constantly telling you how God is speaking these words. God's communicating to man. He's the one that's audibly giving the words into man and that man's writing them down, transcribing them. And that's what we live by. Okay. Now look what it says in Matthew chapter four verse four, but he answered and said, it is written. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God. That's an important verse because think about what it's saying. It's saying that we have what God said by what was written. Notice that God doesn't have to come and re preach me the entire Bible audibly for me in order to have the word of God. No, he spoke it and then man transcribed it. And now I have the written word of God, what God actually spoke. But notice I get God's audible words through the Bible. This is how God speaks to me. This is how God communicates to me. But be it known that when we talk about the Bible being special, it's because of the verbal inspiration of God's word, meaning that God literally spoke these words. God literally spoke the Bible. It's not just an idea. It's not just, well, it's God gave us this message, but he didn't really say it. No, he really said it. And I really get to hear God's voice through the scripture and through reading. Think about the verse that's actually being quoted. Go to Deuteronomy chapter number eight. This is actually quoting Deuteronomy chapter number eight. And the Bible's telling me I need the words that God's spake out of his mouth and I need all of them. But where did we even get that in the first place? Well, we go all the way back to where he started. Exodus chapter 20 verse one. God's spake all these words, didn't he? And then it was written down. And then the Bible tells us in Deuteronomy chapter eight verse three, and he humbled thee and suffered thee to hunger and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not. Neither did thy fathers know that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live. So what is it that we need? We need the words that came out of God's mouth. This is the verbal inspiration of God's word. How do we have that? We have that in the written word of God in the Bible itself to deny the verbal inspiration of God's word is then denied the Bible itself. Folks, I don't need second Timothy three 16 in the Greek to tell you that God spoke all these words. The whole Bible testifies that this is God's spoken word and that I need every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God. Now go to Acts chapter one for a moment. Go to Acts chapter one. By denying the verbal inspiration of God's word, you're attacking the authority of scripture itself. You're attacking the authority of scripture itself. And you know what? They may use the King James Bible and they may even say, Hey, we're King James only. But you know what? They give King James only a bad name. They're the boil on King James only ism. And you know what? We need to get rid of that boil because I am. I'm sick and tired of King James only is I'm having a bad name because this is the only thing that's going to change this country is the King James Bible is the words of God. This is what actually changed men's hearts, but you know what? We need to believe it for the right reasons, folks, and we need to believe in the verbal inspiration of God's word and we need to give the authority to scripture that it has and not try to undermine it or attack it or try to preach something that's stupid. Okay, now what does the Bible say in Acts chapter number one verse 16 men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. So is this the words of David that we're talking about? No. When the Bible talks about itself, it's saying, Hey, actually God's the one that spoke this, but notice he used a man's mouth in order to communicate it to us in order to deliver it to us in order for us to have the words. He used man as a tool, but you know what? Just like a pen is not the author. Man is not the author of the Bible. David is not the author of scripture. Well spake the Holy Ghost and you know what? We need to realize that this is God's word. How many people attack the doctrine of the verbal inspiration? Billions. They're called Muslims. They're called Jews. They're called atheists. I mean the attack on the verbal inspiration of God is widespread. Even in fact, very liberal Christians will attack the verbal inspiration of God's word and we need to believe in the verbal inspiration of God's word. The good acts chapter 17, acts chapter 17 and more trustworthy than anything that a man could ever say is what God said. But the only way to access what God said is the Bible itself is the written word of God. And that's what's so great about those at Berea. It says in Acts chapter 17 verse number 11, these are more noble than those in Thessalonica and that they receive the word of all readiness of mine and search the scriptures daily whether those things were so. So notice the authority is not in what a man may say and what a prophet or even a man performing miracles may say. They went back to the scripture. It's more authoritative than the greatest witness could ever be humanly speaking. Why? Because it's God is the witness of the Bible. Whereas Peter, John, James, Paul, they're not as good of a witness as God himself. And God's witness is the scripture. And so therefore, even though Paul may have been preaching some great stuff, they still went to the Bible to make sure everything Paul said lined up. Everything that the Bible said was true. Now go to second Peter chapter one, second Peter chapter one. That's an important point because the Bible also makes a similar point in second Peter chapter number one about the reliability of witnesses. Now, when we talk about history, when we talk about scientific evidence, eyewitness testimony is always considered one of the greatest sources of truth or one of the most reliable sources. You don't want to base things on secondhand accounts, hearsay, or those type of pieces of evidence. In fact, in many legitimate court systems, hearsay is not even allowed. It's not even admissible as evidence. So eyewitness testimony is considered one of the greatest sources of testimony. But when it comes to doctrine, when it comes to the Bible, there's an even greater witness than a man being an eyewitness. Okay. That's the whole essence here that we're talking about in second Peter chapter one. Look at what it says in verse number 16 for we have not followed cunning advice fables. We made none unto you, the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we're eyewitnesses of his majesty. So when we talk about the gospels and we talk about the apostles, they were eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ ministry. They were eyewitnesses of his resurrection. That's what even made them an apostle. So that would be a pretty reliable testimony, right? You have two or three apostles telling you, I saw the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. And in this specific passage is talking about the Mount Transfiguration, which is also an incredible miracle. They saw Jesus Christ, uh, in his glorious state and they, they heard a voice from heaven is what the Bible says. Look what it says in verse 17 where he received from God, the father honor and glory. When there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, this is my beloved son whom I'm well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard when we were with him in the holy Mount. So he's saying, Hey, we're eyewitnesses of the transferring transfiguration of Jesus Christ. And we even heard the voice from heaven saying this is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased. That's a pretty reliable source to know who Jesus Christ is. If someone's telling you that you have multiple witnesses of that, but he's saying, you know, what's more reliable than that eyewitness testimony. Verse 19 we have also a more sure word of prophecy wherein to do well that you take heed as unto a light that shined in a dark place until the day dawn and the day star rise in your hearts. Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not an old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy ghost. So he says, you know, it's more reliable than Peter's firsthand account of the Mount transfiguration is the Bible, the word of God. Why? Because it's not the testimony or the eyewitness of a man. It's the witness of God himself. And so therefore that makes it more reliable. But people like Peter Ruckman say, Oh, well, if you read this verse and in his sermon, he says, holy men of God spake, not right. What? Okay. Let's read this again for the prophecy came in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they're moved by the Holy ghost. It does say spake there. Yeah, I can read, but notice what it says in verse 20, knowing this verse that no prophecy of the script. Sure. So what is it referencing when it's talking about those men speaking, it was talking about the scripture that they wrote because scripture means the sacred writings, the sacred writings. So when David wrote down the Bible, yeah, you could call that speaking. And in many cases, in fact, when the Bible was delivered, the men did speak it at first, you have many accounts where the apostle Paul would speak and he had Tertius or he had someone else even transcribing what they wrote. But what's the essence here of second Peter chapter one, verses 20 and 21. It's talking about how the scripture itself is more reliable than man's testimony than the, the testimony of God is more reliable than the testimony of a man, but somehow he tries to make this distinction and Ruckman's teachings. Here's the thing. It's, it's not that he's just isolated and, and only he believes this. No, he's influenced a lot of people and you don't have to go far to see that a lot of people have the same kind of doctrines and will have the same kind of teachings. And he has a lot of disciples. That's why I call them Ruckmanites. Now, usually they're found in Florida. Okay. That's because Dr. Ruckman's from Pensacola. Okay. And these people, you know, they don't deserve to be named because they're just following Ruckman anyways, but they don't like it when you call them a Ruckmanite. So I figured I'd call him a name that they can accept Florida man. All right, Florida man. And you know what I've noticed about Florida man? They always seem to be the same kind of guy. Whether you read a headline that says Florida man is killed in a porta potty, or you read Florida man breaks into jail or Florida man with a Florida tattoo on his head, Florida man pretended to be a firecracker. I don't even know what that means. Florida man stole a police car dot dot dot naked. Florida man claims self-defense and killing neighbors rooster. Or you could just say, Hey, Florida man denies the verbal inspiration of God. You know what they all have in common? They believe dumb stuff and they do dumb stuff. But you know, I heard a lot of Florida man preaching in the past and they also attack the verbal inspiration of God. And they'll say, well, if you believe in the verbal inspiration of God, that's the natural man's view. Well, you know what the natural man is in the Bible? An unsaved person. So I guess everybody that believes in the verbal inspiration of God's just not saved now. That's weird. Now he also uses second Peter to try and deny the verbal inspiration of God. Florida man says in verse 17, this is a quote from him. There came such a voice. Oh, there you go. There's that God breathed, right? Hold on. Let's find out if that's the most important thing. What literally just came out of the mouth of God. So Florida man saying, Hey, we can find places where God actually spoke verse 18. He, he, this is his commentary on verse 18. He says, Whoa, it's the very voice of voice of God. It's God breathe. That's what inspiration is. Now he's mocking the idea of God speaking, being the definition of inspiration. And he says, well, if that's the most important thing is what God actually said, then the Bible would say that, but wait a minute. Verse 19 says we have a more sure word of prophecy. So here's a quote from Florida man. Does God say the most sure thing that you have is exactly what God said audibly out of his mouth? Or did he say when we have a written word, we have a more sure word of prophecy than even the very spoken audible words that God's fake. I mean, this guy says that somehow the written word of God is more authoritative than what God actually said. It's like, it's the same bozo. What in the world? Why would it be more authoritative to have the transcript as opposed to what he actually said? It's the same thing, but this is what you get from Ruckmanism is you get these just incomprehensible, you know, statements that you would think like, how could anybody even believe this? But the preaching it Florida man also said inspiration. This is his definition of inspiration. Inspiration is God gave men understanding to write down exactly what should be in the word of God. So basically they just strip away the whole definition of what inspiration even is. They say, well, inspiration is just, he kind of guided them. It was Providence. He led them to write those words. But wait a minute, you know, when I pray and I asked God to help me with a sermon or, or to help me preach, and I feel like he helps guide me to the right things to say, is that now scripture? Is that now the same level of inspiration that David had when the Bible says, well spake the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David, that's blasphemous to try and put man's guidance or man's Providence on the same par as what God actually spoke out of his own mouth. No, there's something special about the word of God opposed to the words of man, the creations of man. So he says, if you have the wrong view of inspiration, if you think it's just the special words that came out of God's mouth, it's like, yeah, I think there is special. The words that came out of God's mouth are special. That is my view. Okay. He says this now, before I make this quote, I have to explain something. Here's, here's the sad part about Ruckmanites and Florida man. They often contradict themselves. Okay. But, but listen to this quote from the same guy that denied what I just taught you about inspiration, what the Bible says about inspiration. And he says that it's not the spoken words of God. This is how he explains how God actually delivers the Bible. This is how he explains inspiration. It's literally just whatever God told them to write down and they wrote down what he said. What? How is that any different than what we just said? It's like, well, it's not, it's not the spoken word, but it's, you know, him writing down what he said. That's exactly what we're saying. But then he makes a straw man to try and say, you don't actually have to hear the audible words of God. God didn't preserve the tape recordings. God preserved the writings. And it's like, of course everyone believes that there's no one in the world that has a tape recording. Like here's what God said in Exodus 20. And if it's out there, show me. Okay. We're pretty funny, but we understand that, Hey, yeah, obviously God's spake one time it was written down and yes, now we have those preserved writings, but these, these rock nights want to distance themselves from the verbal inspiration of God's word because it's going to cause them to look like idiots later if that doctrine is true. And so I just want to at least lay this down, but there is no distinction between what God's spake and what God has written down in the Bible. It's the same thing. Okay. Don't try to make this dumb distinction between the two. Go to John eight for a moment. I want to show you another verse here about the Bible being a witness and who the witness is, but it's not, you know, God just giving understanding to man simply is inspiration. When we're talking about verbal inspiration, when we're talking about verbal inspiration, God literally spake these words and man is just his transcript. In fact, there's a great book out there called God's secretaries and it kind of just, it talks about the process of the King James Bible being translated, but you know, the translators themselves wanted to be called a secretary because they didn't want anybody to think that they were the author because what does the secretary do? The secretary is usually writing the transcript for a boss. And so when we think about the translators and we think about the men of God that were used to give us the Bible, they like to refer themselves as a secretary in the sense that, Hey, I'm just simply writing down. I'm just simply the tool used to transcribe what God actually said. And so we don't want to get this idea of giving the authorship back to man. Look at John chapter eight verse 17. It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. So here's Jesus Christ trying to establish his authority and he's saying, Hey, in your law, two witnesses, two men, that establishes what's true or not. He says, I am one that bear witness of myself. Now, how did Jesus bear witness? He was audibly speaking to them. He was there. They were hearing his words. He was preaching to them. That was one witness. He says this and the father that sent me bear witness of me. Now, how did they have the witness of God, the father, the Bible, because the Bible is God, the father's witness, God, the father literally spake these words and we literally have his testimony and then we have Jesus Christ in the flesh giving testimony and the testimony of two men is true and we know that it's true. We know that we have the words of God. Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. That's what the Bible is. Go to first Thessalonians chapter number two, go to first Thessalonians chapter number two. We want to believe in the verbal inspiration of God's word that the Bible itself is the spoken words of God and first Thessalonians chapter two brings up this point and even further elaborates on it. Look at verse 13. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing because when you receive the word of God, which he heard of us, he received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. Notice he said, I'm so glad that when I preached unto you, you didn't receive what I said as the words of man, but as the word of God, which it really is because the Bible is not written by men in the sense that they're the author. They're simply the tool used to deliver the Bible and truly the Bible is God's words. Now, unfortunately, again, in an effort to deny the inspiration of God's word, Ruckman and Florida Man take us to another place. Very reliable source. Let's go to Job chapter 32. Job chapter number 32. Now in your King James Bible, the word inspiration is only used twice. It's used as we looked in second Timothy chapter three. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and it's used in another place in the book of Job. Now the thing about the Bible and while we understand it's all God's word, we have to understand that sometimes the Bible's quoting people. Sometimes it's just quoting what other people said. Sometimes it quotes the devil. Now here's the thing. It's true that that's what the devil said, but you know what? Every time the devil spoke, it was a lie because he's the father of lies. So just because the Bible says something, it's true that that happened. It's true that person spoke, but sometimes it's recording someone that lied. And so we have to be careful that we don't want to base one of our beliefs on one of the times of the Bible's recording the devil lying or a false prophet lying or some kind of a false doctrine. Now, if there was anybody in the Bible that I would say, I don't want to get doctrine from, it's a guy named Elihu. Okay. Now look at Job 32 verse one. So these three men cease to answer Job because he was right to his own eyes. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barakl, the buzz eye. So when we talk about Job 32, we're not talking about Job speaking, we're talking about this guy named Elihu. Now God tells us in the latter portion of Job, just flip over to Job 38. He tells us the latter portion that everything Job said was right and basically kind of put shade on his three friends as having not spoken that which is right. But he only addresses Elihu one time and far as like how God feels about what Elihu said. But look what it says in verse number one of chapter 38. Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? So when God gives commentary on Elihu, he's saying, Hey, this is darkening. This is not giving you understanding. Whatever he said, it was words without knowledge. So if you're going to base any doctrine on Job 32, you better be able to prove it from another place in scripture because it's very suspect anything that Elihu said. That's that's just point one. All right. But let's actually read the verse that they want to take us to go back to flip to chapter 32 and look what the Bible says in verse number. Let me see what verse I'm even looking for. Verse eight. So the Bible says, but there is a spirit in man and the inspiration of the almighty giveth them understanding. So they take this verse and they say, see, the word inspiration just simply means giving understanding. So therefore it's not the spoken words of God. It's not that God is the author of the Bible. It's just God kind of gave man an understanding of how to write, what he should write down. He just kind of wrote it down. But wait a minute, let's, let's think about what this is actually saying. Number one, it's saying that the inspiration of the almighty does something it gives understanding, but you know, that's not always the right definition of a word is what it does. Notice it's telling you what it does. The inspiration of the mighty, what it does is it gives understanding, but it doesn't tell what it is. Just like, Hey, if I said, Hey, a golf club hits golf balls, but you know what, if you're saying, what's a golf club, it hits golf balls. That's not necessarily an accurate description of a golf club. That's just something it does. Right. What about a man? Well, a man eats sandwiches, but if I said, Hey, what's a man, it eats sandwiches. You say, well, it's a woman. She makes sandwiches. You know, there's all this question about what is a woman and we should tell everybody it's one who makes sandwiches. Okay. With bacon. All right. But, but here's the thing that's not defining what a woman is. That's not defining what a man is. That's not defining what a golf club does or what it is. It's just telling what it does. Right. So by saying that the inspiration of the mighty gives understanding that doesn't tell us what it is though. So let's think about it. What if there was other things in the Bible that told us what gives understanding? Okay. Well, let's go to Psalm 119 for a moment. Go to Psalm 119. How about Proverbs two? The Bible says in Proverbs two six for the Lord giveth wisdom out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. So the Bible actually says, you know, it's another thing that gives understanding the words out of God's mouth. Now that sounds like the inspiration of the almighty, doesn't it? So in fact, even if I were to say, Hey, lie who was right in this verse, which arguably probably is, guess what? It's still pointing to the fact that the inspiration of the mighty is the words of God. Folks look what it says in Psalm 119 verse 99. I have more understanding than all my teachers for thy testimonies are my meditation. Why did this person have understanding the testimonies of God? Look at verse one oh four through thy precepts. I get understanding. Notice it's the testimonies. It's the precepts. It's out of his mouth. Look at verse one 30, the entrance of thy words, giveth light. It giveth understanding under the simple. So notice it's saying the words of God is what gives understanding the precepts, the testimony, what comes out of his mouth. Why? Because that's the inspiration of the almighty folks. You know how we get wisdom. It's not from one. It's from God. Don't be with the first Corinthians chapter number two, go to first Corinthians chapter number two. These people are not using the Bible to truly define words yet that's what they claim. Oh, let's let the Bible define itself. I'm doing this, that I'm not going any places. They're not going, I'll go to the same places, but I'll actually show you what the Bible is really saying here. And let's really let the Bible define itself. And how do we learn anything? By comparing the Bible to the Bible. That's how we actually learn things. That's what the Bible even tells us. Look at verse 11, first Corinthians chapter two, verse 11 for what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is in him, even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit, which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God, which things also we speak, not in the words, which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy ghost teacheth comparing spiritual things with spiritual. So notice how we get understanding is by comparing the Bible, the inspiration of the almighty with the inspiration of the almighty. And that's how we really get the understanding, but be it known that the inspiration of the almighty is the words that proceeded out of God's mouth, the verbal inspiration of scripture. Yet Ruckman, this is what he says. You got a King James Bible. You've got a scripture that was given to you by inspiration. And I didn't say inspired. What is this again? They say good things, but then they totally contradict and undermine the doctrines of the Bible. Here's another quote from Ruckman. I'm not going to call it inspired or say it was verbally inspired. So Peter Ruckman denies the inspiration of the King James Bible and denies the verbal inspiration of the Bible. And you know what? I've noticed that Ruckmanites do the same thing and this attacks the authority of the Bible. And really it undermines the idea of the fact that this is even the word of God. Now, why would someone do such a thing? Why would, why would you have to attack the verbal inspiration of God's word? Well, it's so they can do the next point. This is a quote from Ruckman. You think the English is better than the Greek. Yep. You know what they deny? They deny the preserved originals. They deny the preserved originals of scripture. So not only the deny the verbal inspiration of God, they deny the originals being preserved. So that's why he thinks that somehow an English translation could be better than when God gave the words originally in Greek in the New Testament. Think about the absurdity of that. How could a translation, it could be equivalent. It could be on par. It could say the exact same thing, but how can it be better? You know, that's, that's a bizarre idea. And really in their mind, they think God's constantly redelivering the Bible. So therefore, oh, I guess the next time around, it got even better. Look, the Bible didn't get any better going into English. It's the same folks. We have the same scriptures that they had. There's not anything new under the sun. It's not like well back then they had a decent version and now we have a better version. No, it's the same Bible. It's the same scriptures. It's the same God. It's the same word of God. Here's another quote from him. The original is not in the scripture, at least not in the scriptures. Now he tries to take certain New Testament quotes of the Bible and compare them to Old Testament quotes and show how they're different. Who's noticed that sometimes the New Testament quotes are different than the Old Testament quotes, right? Now there's a lot of different explanations for this and there's a lot of different places that we could go and look at, but you know, in some cases we don't know if the Bible is even trying to be a verbatim quote. Just like sometimes we might say, hey, the Bible says that God is a Trinity. I'm not really quoting any verse, am I? I'm just kind of giving a summary. So I think a lot of times the Bible could just be summarizing a particular point or doctrine, but there's also going to be places where it kind of seems to be saying like it's giving a verbatim quote, but it's a little bit different. One interpretation of this or one possible solution to this is the fact that they're reading a translation of that particular verse. And Peter Ruckman even says this. He says the universal language of that time talking about Jesus was Greek and that was a translation that he read from. So according to Peter Ruckman, he believes that Luke 4, when Jesus Christ read from Isaiah, he actually read the Greek Septuagint version at that time. Now I don't know if that's true or not, but it could be. It could be true. But here, I don't think that a translation is not the scripture or not the word of God. And that actually provides a pretty reasonable approach as to why sometimes New Testament quotes are a little bit different, even though they're saying the exact same thing, even though in essence they're saying the exact same thing, they might be quoting a Greek version. But wait a minute. Does that mean just because Jesus may have quoted a Greek translation of the scripture at his time that God didn't preserve the Hebrew? Well, let's let's go to I want to go somewhere specific. Let's go to Matthew chapter number five for a moment. Matthew chapter number five. No, I do not believe just because he may have quoted from a translation at the time that he was preaching to people that that makes the original Hebrew or makes the copies of the original any less authoritative. In fact, it's very clear that he didn't believe that. Look at Matthew, chapter number five, verse eighteen. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. So notice if Jesus Christ is only caring about a Greek translation at this point in time, then why is he giving reference to a jot and a tittle? Because a jot and tittle is not Greek. A jot and tittle is actually coming from a Hebrew language. So he's saying, hey, the jot and tittle is not going to pass away until all will be fulfilled. That sounds like to me he's believing that the Hebrew itself is going to be preserved all the way until the end. Otherwise, wouldn't he have said something about Greek, like something about the Greek language or a Greek pronunciation or a Greek usage of period or crossing, you know, something we think of dotting and I crossing our teeth. But he didn't say that. Why would he use the Hebrew? Because Jesus is believing in the preservation of the Hebrew. To say that just because he may have quoted from another translation does not undermine Jesus's belief in the preserved originals. Now go back to Romans chapter 15, Romans chapter 15. So in order to prove this point, Peter Ruckman says this. He says the word scripture in the Bible is never a reference to the original autograph, not one single time it occurs. Now I pretty much have the exact opposite opinion that I think it's always in reference to the original writing. However, we understand that many times what they're actually dealing with or touching or handling could be a copy or a translation of that original writing, but they're in reference still to the writings that were original. But I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that's not even true. Look at Romans 15 verse four. For whatsoever things were written a four time were written for our learning. So you know what he's saying? When this was originally written, it was written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have. Oh, so notice what the scripture is actually referencing. What was written a four time. So of course, Ruckman just wrong. Of course, scripture is often in reference to the original writings. When the apostle Paul is being talked about by Peter, he says they do also the other scriptures they're talking about his original writings then saying, Hey, it's like the other scriptures, the also these other scriptures, meaning that what Paul was writing was considered scripture at the time that we're talking about original writings. But you know, did not believe that translations were on par with the originals, the translators of the King James Bible, because you know what? They did not use the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament. They refuse to you read the translators to the reader. We got a great portion read to us by brother Eli, but read the whole thing. You know, my church God willing, or God bless them. They suffered through the whole thing for me. You know, I preached like seven, seven part series on the whole thing. And you know what? I almost completely agree with every single thing that they said in that it's very edifying, but one thing they make abundantly clear, they're going to only use the Hebrew for the Old Testament and they're going to only use the Greek for the New Testament. So if you think that, Hey, uh, I don't think that the originals were preserved, but I'm going to use a King James Bible. You're contradicting the whole reason why the King James Bible exists, folks. Like, why don't you go get the Douay-Rheims then? Why don't you go get the Catholic one? Because they're tracing the lineage from the Latin translation. You know, the Douay-Rheims is an English translation of the Bible done by the Catholic church, not coming from the directly from the Hebrew and directly from the Greek and the New Testament, but rather coming from their Latin translation. So if you think that the translations are on par and in fact are even better, then why wouldn't you use a Douay-Rheims? Because it came from the better Latin or something. No, no, no. The King James translator made it clear. They want to go back to the fountains. They want to go back to the source. They want to stick with the Hebrew and the Greek. And that's where we got the King James Bible. That's why we think it's so much, so much more precious. That's where you get the term textus receptus, what was received and given unto us and what has been preserved and handed down. But this is what Ruckman says, I have in my hand a copy of scriptures. The one I got here was given to me. How? By the inspiration of God. God had to breathe on someone to get this thing here to me. He had to breathe on them when they talk and he had to breathe on them when they wrote. And that's weird because first of all, he already denied that second Timothy chapter three was even talking about God breathing, but then all of a sudden he conveniently brings it back up and says, you know how they got the King James Bible? Well, God's just breathing on people. And then they're just writing the Bible. Okay. Here's what he said. Direct quote from Ruckman. I believe when the King James translator sat down that God met with the committee. I think that the Lord told them what to put down. And I think they put down what they're supposed to put down. I don't believe in verbal inspiration, but I do believe God told them what to put down. It's like, what in the world? These people can't get it right. But you know what? Why would he have to tell them again? That means he denied the verbal inspiration originally and he doesn't need it. So he's giving it to him again. This is where a lot of people will, you know, say Peter Ruckman believed in double inspiration. Who's heard that term? Double inspiration. Yeah. Because he's making weird statements like this saying, yeah, God had to come down and sit in the room and be like, Hey guys, put this word in there. But did God have to speak the English translation into existence again in 1611? No. No, he didn't have to do that. Of course, God can do whatever he wants, but here's a question. Why didn't he do that with the Bishop committee? Why didn't he do that with any of the other previous English translation? Why did he wait for that committee to finally come down and actually tell them what to write? Ruckman also says this, even after the King James Bible was produced, there was a lot of legitimate revisions. Well, why do you have to have revisions if God sat down and just told you exactly what to write? He says this, but the revisions never changed the Greek text this came from. Well, which one is it? Ruckman? Did it come from the Greek text or did God come down and just tell them what to say? It's like Ruckman can't even figure out what he believes. He just kind of says everything. He says that the revisions never put in the Alexandrian text. Okay. But why does that matter if God had just comes down and just tells you again? He says they never make a major change, but only update words and spelling and punctuation. I'm not a fanatic on the spelling or capitalization. Now that's a little bit true. You know who's a fanatic on the spelling capitalization? Gail Riplinger. Gail Riplinger goes so far as to say that certain words had to have certain spellings and certain letters in them. She says you got to use the word S when talking about the serpent because it looks like a Okay. That's a fanatic folks. Okay. We don't want to get to such an extreme with these kinds of ideas, but you know what? Why are there revisions if he just came down and told I mean, did you remember when Moses had to make revisions to that table of stone that God wrote with his finger? No, he didn't have to make any revisions because that was what God already said. So if you have this idea that God literally spoke it into existence in 1611, why did you have to make any revisions or anything like that? You know, and of course, when we talk about revisions of the King James Bible, I agree with him. There was no change. It still matches the Greek. It was just spellings and minor printing errors and things like that. If you get this replica 1611, it's going to read just like your Bible. It's going to say the exact same thing, but at the same time, you know, we didn't have to even update the spellings of the tables of stone, did we? Okay. And so when we talk about the original autographs, it's important to realize that God preserved them so that we could then make an English translation, not just an English translation, a Spanish translation, a French translation, the Latin, I mean, every language. In fact, you watch this documentary, it talks about there's over 500 languages early after the apostles that the Bible is being translated into. And you know what? God didn't have to sit down with those committees and breathe on them again. Why? Because when God's word is translated into another language, it doesn't lose its inspiration, folks. Okay. It can still maintain its inspiration. Now he says this, recommend says inspiration doesn't cease with the original autographs. Now on the surface, I agree with that statement. The inspiration does not cease with the original autographs, but you know what he means is that God's constantly happening to breed the Bible back into existence over and over, but he's not really believing in preservation. He's believing like a reincarnation or like a, a redelivery of the Bible. Now I brought a chart here with me. I'm going to drag this thing over here real quick. Give you a couple of ideas to look at. Hopefully you guys can see this. Okay. All right. Now when we talk about the word of God being delivered and it being preserved, when God first spoke the word and gave it to Moses, this is what I would call original inspiration, right? Some people call it immediate inspiration, but we'll just call it original. Now here's the thing. Does anybody have the originals? No, we don't have the tables of stone. We don't necessarily have the original copies of the first time someone wrote it down. What do we have and what was the point of a scribe was to copy it, right? So you had many men copying the word of God. So you have a copy of the original. Now here's the question. This was obviously inspired. This is the words of God being transcribed and written down. What this is, is it's the copied inspiration of God's word. It's not that it's not inspired, but it wasn't necessarily the original time it was written down. It was a copy of when it was originally written down. But let's, let's be real. What's, what's the difference? There is no difference. What if two people were writing down what God said at the same time? Wouldn't, I mean, there's no difference. Just like this copy being made of the original is the exact same. Now when we have, we talk about going further in the future, eventually the copies of the scripture would get translated. Okay. So we have translations that are coming from the copies of the text. Does it lose inspiration? No. Now it has preserved inspiration. We preserve the inspiration. Now what if the translation didn't say what the copy said? Well then it's just not inspired. It's called the NIV, the non-inspired version. And what's the problem with the NIV is it's not preserving what was originally inspired or what was copied. Now you have to understand another thing about the Bible. Go to Psalm 119. Did you go there for me? Go to Psalm 119. And we think about John 1, the Bible says, in the beginning was the word. So in fact, if we actually think about this, this chart goes in another direction. Because the Bible says, look at Psalm 119 verse 89. Forever O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. Did you know beyond the tables of stone, we also have a heavenly copy. We have a heavenly version and this is eternal inspiration. You know what? They're all inspired. It's all the inspired word of God. And you know what? I'm not going to be like Peter Ruckman and say, this isn't inspired. No, it is inspired. Hey, the King James Bible is inspired in the sense that it preserves the inspiration of God's words. And it is exactly what God said. Albeit in English. Now it doesn't mean that he came down and tried to breathe on the translators to give it to us. But of course, the Ruckmanites, they don't believe in this. They don't believe that the inspiration can be preserved. And so that's why they have to deny the verbal inspiration of God's word. That's why they deny the originals being preserved too. Because you can only get the inspiration from one or two places. You can only get inspiration from the original or a copy of the original or from God speaking again. So by drawing a big X in this, the only way to get an inspired Bible again or inspiration again is for God to have to re-speak it again. So therefore that's why they have this stupid double inspiration doctrine, or they say, Hey, you had to speak to the translators again and give it all over again and breathe on them again and do all these different things. But you know what? That undermines the whole point of it being preserved. Doesn't the Bible talk about it being preserved? Well, what are you preserving if you mark all this out and you have to redeliver it again, then it's not, it's like a reincarnation or some redelivery. It's not any kind of real preservation. You know what? We have the preserved Bible. Really important stuff. Florida man. This is what Florida man says about it. The devil is in the Masoretic text and in the Texas Receptus. The devil. You know what Florida man also said? That he doesn't speak Hebrew or Greek. So explain to me how you would know that the devil is in a book that you can't even read. In fact, Florida man took a Texas Receptus in his hand, albeit a model, but he took it and he threw it on the ground and screamed how it wasn't the word of God. What if I handed you a Bible in Hindi and said, is this the Bible? How would you even know if you didn't speak Hindi? Would you then just throw it on the ground and scream it's not the Bible? But what kind of a weird Florida man throws down book he can't read and says it's not the Bible. I mean what in the world? How do you even know it's not the Bible? You don't. He also says Florida man says my King James corrects your Greek that came 300 years later. Well, okay, it's true that if you want to get a Texas Receptus that lines up with the King James, you're probably going to have to get an 1881 Scrivener or an 1894 edition of Scrivener's text. But Scrivener didn't just come up with that magically. No one breathed on him that I know of. You know what Scrivener did? He just used Beza and Stephanus edition. But let me tell you something. Stephanus of Beza was before the King James Bible. It's where the King James Bible came from. It's what the translator said this came from. So in fact, you're denying what this book even is or what even claims to be or what the translators even claim it to be. Okay. But of course, Florida man also says this that the King James Bible is incompatible with the Greek. Okay. Because they're not literally word for word. So therefore, if you get a Texas Receptus and it's not literally word for word, then I guess it can't be the Texas Receptus. That's why he denies it. Which brings me to my last point of the evening. All right. Ruckmanites, number one, they deny the verbal inspiration of God's word. Number two, they deny the preserved originals. And number three, they deny reality. They deny reality. This forces them to deny reality in so many different ways. Go to John chapter 17, John chapter 17. To say that the Greek cannot be the word of God because it's not a literal word for word and compatibility with the King James Bible is to basically have a fundamental lack of understanding about language itself. Because you're not going to always have a literal word for word in any translation. Even Ruckman understood that point. You know, Ruckman said that good English is bad German. And he said good German is bad English. If you were going to try and just translate it on a literal Google translate version. He's like, you're going to have to kind of alter exactly the word structure. You're going to have to alter the number of words. You're going to have to alter exact, sometimes even the exact word choice, because it doesn't make sense in another language. And people that actually speak multiple languages, this really resonates well. But when it comes to our doctrine on the King James Bible, what we don't want to do is deny reality. God is a reasonable God. God, of course, wants us to have faith. And, you know, faith is not things that we can see or touch or taste. But you know what? God is not asking us to put faith in unreasonable, unverified, stupid arguments. No, we're putting our faith in the Word of God. And everything about the Word of God is true. Everything in the Word of God is true. Now, if you look up reality in a dictionary, you know what it says is the definition of reality is truth. Look what it says in John chapter 17 verse 17. Sanctify them through thy truth. Thy word is truth. If you have an interpretation of the Bible that's denying all reality and all truth, you need to probably check that doctrine, because the doctrines of the Bible align with reality. In fact, the Bible describes the Bible as giving you sight. You can actually see, you actually understand. Things actually make sense. You know, the whole world makes sense through the lens of the Bible. The Bible is true. It's not giving you dumb ideas or foolish ideas. Of course, the foolishness is this world's logic, this world's wisdom that says that men can turn into women. Look, that's denying reality. And the reality deniers are in Romans 1, and we know what happens to them. All right. Go to Psalm chapter 12. Go to Psalm chapter number 12. But Dr. Ruckman and Florida Man just constantly deny reality over and over, and they make just outrageous claims that no one who has any understanding or education could ever fall for. And so they make King James onlyism look bad. They make it look stupid. And you know what? We don't want to have an idiotic viewpoint. We don't want to be buffoons on purpose. The Bible tells us to get wisdom and to get knowledge, and the Bible is true. You know, the Bible says, for the word of the Lord is right, and all his works are done in truth. Everything that God did is true, and it's done in truth, done in the light. Psalm 12, look at verse 6. Real famous verse in the Bible. The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried to furnace birth purified seven times, thou shalt keep them, O Lord. Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. So Peter Ruckman says, well, God had to preserve something. And of course, he doesn't believe in preserving the verbal inspiration. So God's constantly re-breathing on people and giving them the new word of God. So according to Ruckman, Psalm 12, 6 and 7 is right here. This is the seven times that the word of God has been preserved, all right? It was originally preserved in the Hebrew, then it was preserved in the Aramaic, which is called the Targum. And honestly, it's kind of like a paraphrase. It's not even a legit interpretation, okay, folks? Then it was preserved in the Greek, then it was preserved in the Syriac, then the Latin, then Martin Luther's German, then the English finally, okay? But what about all the other translations? What about all the other works? And really, when you have these denying reality doctrines, you know what it does is it creates heresy. Because let me ask a question. If God literally is breathing on every single one of these translators and they're just writing the words of God, and that's what the Bible means when it says holy men of God spake as they're moved by the Holy Ghost, does that now mean that every translator was saved? Because according to Peter Ruckman, they would all have had to bend these holy men of God that spake as they're moved by the Holy Ghost. If he had to redeliver the Bible, you know, we believe that all the prophets are saved. David and Paul and Peter and the original. Now he's transferring that to every single one of the translators. Now look, I'm sure some of them were saved. Some of them seem like pretty great guys. But am I really gonna put my hat in the ring and say, hey, all of them were just these holy men of God that were saved? How about, let's keep thinking about this. Martin Luther, now Martin Luther's saved, right? Because God had to breathe on him to give him this Luther translation. And, oh, you know, just, I mean, we just keep going back the line. Every single one of these guys that did the translation was saved. Not only that, he says that God has to breathe on people for a new translation work. So how do you get these new works? God has to re-breathe it. What's the point of it being preserved? Why do you even talk about the preservation? And okay, did the English Bible come from the German now? So then how did it get purified from this source? It didn't even come from this source. Did the German, you know, is it following this perfect, did we get the Greek from the Aramaic? Did we get this? I mean, of course, this doesn't even make any kind of sense. Also, you know, this is just a side point. This doesn't necessarily have to do with the direct sermon, but when you realize that Dr. Ruckman has this weird view on breathing, is constantly breathing into these translations, it makes me think of another really weird doctrine that Ruckman has on breathing. It's the fact that babies are not a real person until they take their first breath out of the womb. Here's another direct quote from Peter Ruckman, a baby's not a living soul until it breathes. Here's another direct quote from Peter Ruckman, I don't teach that abortion is murder. So when you start getting these weird breathing doctrines, notice where it goes even further. Now all of a sudden abortion's not even murder? He said a child, I'll give you, it's an organism in the womb, but it's not a living soul. I mean, that's the kind of scholarship you're getting from somebody when they start denying the verbal inspiration of God's word. Look where that heresy leads you, and it takes you. He says this, the ASV, I'll go through it, I'll read it, and I'll think certain portions are good, and it matches, but here's the problem, there's no breath in it. It's dead. Well, albeit, yeah, sure, the ASV, I'm sure some of the wording is not nearly as poetic or as good as the King James Bible. But you know what the problem is with the ASV? It's not that it's not the most poetic, it's that it's not saying what the Bible says. It's not saying what the originals were saying. It's not saying what God actually spoke, it's changing and altering the words of God. That's why it doesn't have any breath in it. Florida man, he says that the first century Latin was the primary language of the world, and Latin was the primary language of the day. Again, when you have to come up with these doctrines, you start denying reality in all kinds of ways. He says this, what if Romans was originally written in Latin? Who in here thinks that the book of Romans was written in Latin? I didn't have any takers, all right. I mean, this is weird. He says, what if Moses wrote a copy in Egyptian? So now Moses is just writing the Bible in Egyptian. Also, Florida man says this, the King James translators always used formal equivalents. And he said, I'll explain to you what formal equivalence is. Whenever the Bible says, or whenever someone would say Jacob's house, if you translate that, you have to use the word house. And he uses Spanish for an example. Anybody that knows Spanish, you would say that the word house directly translated would be casa. So he says the direct translation would be casa de Jacobo or Santiago. It doesn't matter, but casa de Jacobo. And he says, you can't use habitation. You can't use dwelling place. You couldn't use any other word. You have to use the word house. Okay. We'll go to Job chapter eight in your Bible. Did you know that the King James translators, when they wrote that they put about 7,000 notes in the margin, they put about 7,000 notes in the margin. And of those hundreds of them say something. It says literal, there's like literal Hebrew or the literal Greek. And it'll just say like H-E-B or G-R. If you have a really fancy King James, you might even have it in there. I have one that just says like G-R right next to it or H-E-B. And you know what they're doing? They're telling you what the literal word would be if you translated that Hebrew or Greek into English. And did you know that if you look up the literal word sometimes in the King James Bible, it doesn't use house for house. So like in Exodus 12 29, the Bible says dungeon in the King James. And it says right next to the margin Hebrew house of the pit. And second Samuel 20 verse three, it says ward, but in Hebrew, it says a house of ward. And second Kings 23 seven, it says hangings and Hebrew it says houses. And first Chronicles 6 10, it says in the temple and Hebrew it says in the house. This is a small, small sample, but I want to show you another one. Okay. Job chapter number eight. So they love Job. So we'll go, we'll go check out Job for a moment. Now again, he's saying that if it's a little, you have to just literally translate it over to get these kinds of words. Job chapter number eight, look at verse 14, whose hope shall be cut off and whose trust shall be a spider's web. Now, you know what it says in the margin of the 1611 King James right here, Hebrew a spider's house. Okay. Now what I did is I looked this up in the bishops and you know what it says in the bishops. This is what it says in the bishops. His confidence shall be destroyed and his trust shall be a spider's web. You know what it says in the great spider's web, you know, it says in the Matthews of spider's web, you know, it says in the Geneva, his confidence also shall be cut off and his trust shall be as the house of a spider. So I guess, I guess a Florida man needs to get him a Geneva Bible because it's the house of the spider. Now, if you know anything about the Geneva Bible, it comes from a certain group. What's this group? It's called Puritans. And if you know anything about the Puritans, they're talking about in the translators to the reader. And you know what the translators, the readers are trying to try to tell the Puritans stop being so superstitious because the Puritans have the same problem that ruckmanites do. Okay. In fact, this is what the translators said in the translators reader for is the kingdom of God become words or syllables. And you know what? That's a pretty interesting quote there because you know what Florida man will say, he can't change speaketh and speaks. It's a corruption of the text. Well, you know what I asked, I said, okay, if that's true in the 1611, if you have a 1611, it uses the word middest 96 times middest and the King James Bible that I have in my hand now, which is a more modern edition, it never used the word middest. It's always changed to midst. So I said, which one is it? And he wouldn't answer the question. Why? Because these people are intellectually dishonest and they deny reality. They make some kind of doctrine. They make some kind of statement. You can't change speaketh and speaks as different words. You're an idiot if you believe that. Okay. I found a website and you could type it in. What's the difference between speaketh and speaks. And it said, it said speaketh means speak and speaks means speak. I mean, come on folks. It's silly that you have to look this up. Now, of course, then Florida man lies and says this, the panel talking about the transfers, the panel admitted to formal equivalents. Where I've read the entire translated reader. They never said that a single time. And in fact, you actually read what they wrote. They said this, if we will not be superstitious, we may use the same Liberty in our English versions. So you know what they're saying? They're saying, Hey, we're not going to just get locked into a particular word and say a synonym that means the exact same thing. Couldn't be used. We're not going to be superstitious. And we're not going to get this over the top view because when you get that superstitious, you know, you start doing denying the preserved originals and denying the verbal inspiration of God's word and denying every other translation and undermine the King James Bible that you even believe in. You know, it's, it's silly to have this view. What is superstitious? An irrational abject attitude of mine toward the supernatural. So it's saying, having an irrational view of God, you know, let's not get an irrational view of the Bible or the word of God. And you could look this up all throughout the new Testament, where it shows you differences. I want to show you one more. Go to second John chapter one, go to second John chapter one and acts chapter 19 verse 35. It uses the word of worshiper in the Greek. It says the temple keeper and Romans two, nine, it says Gentile and the Greek. It says Greek. You know, it actually does that a lot where it would say Greek as a most literal, but it's translated as Gentile and the King James Bible. So you're going to find this everywhere. You would have to say that the King James translators were lying every single time they wrote this hundreds and hundreds of times they were just lying and they weren't using a Greek that was not always super overly literal. Of course, sometimes it's not overly literal, but anybody that speaks Spanish would understand this. If I said, my name is Jonathan. And I said, but I originally said this in Spanish. I originally said that quote in Spanish. Tell me the Spanish words. Well, if you're going to take this over the top few, you would have to, you would just be like, all right, word for word, my, me, name, nombre, es, is, Jonathan, Juan. So you say, me nombre es Juan. But here's the thing, if you actually knew what I said, I said, me llamo Juan. That's what I actually said, but it got translated as my name is Jonathan. Now, if you took me llamo Juan and you translated that directly in English, it'd be me, call myself, John. What if you, what if someone walked up to you and say, me, call myself, John. You're like, is this guy a little special? Is this guy from Florida? Florida, Florida man calls me himself, John. Yeah. It's like, that's, that's dumb. That's not really even doing translating. That's being lazy. Okay. Doing a good translation would be trying to be accurate to what the words actually were. And in fact, by being overly literal often, you're not even actually being accurate because you weren't really communicating what was originally written in Spanish. You made up your own version of the Spanish. And you know what these ruckmanites, they want to make translations that sound like that in foreign languages. You know what? It's stupid. It's dumb. And God's not breathing on them. Okay. But second John chapter one, uh, is this is actually multiple times in the Bible where it has this specific point, but I want to show you one in verse 12. The Bible says having many things to write into you. I would not write with paper and ink, I would not write with paper and ink, but I trust to come on to you and speak face to face that are joyful. Now that phrase face to face, if you look it up in the 1611, it'll say right next to it in the Greek mouth to mouth, because that's what the overly literal translation is mouth to mouth. And if you look it up in every previous translation, if you look it up in the bishops, Geneva, great and Matthews and second John, you know what it says? Mouth to mouth. Every single one of them says mouth to mouth. The only one that I found that didn't say that was the King James. It said face to face. So which one are you going to choose? Well, guess what? It's meaning the same thing. Folks don't get this over the top view, but if you're going to claim that the King James was always literal word for word, you're wrong. There were wooden translations of the past. And you know what? We don't need an overly wooden translation of the Bible. We want it to be majestic. That's why we love the King James Bible. You know, when Psalm 23 was a, was one of the first times translated in English, it was in 1340. I found an addition. Now this is technically middle English. So of course it's going to be a little bit different, but back then, especially they would often translate, or at least it's written that they would translate in a very literal sense where they weren't even changing the sentence structure often. Here's Psalm 23 in English of 1340. Lord governs me and nothing shall me want instead of pastor there he me set. I guess that's what we have to go to is we have to get these literal word for word, you know, that's not doing a very good job translating. Okay. And you know, that's what also makes the King James Bible so special is because if you had a Bible that sounded like that, I mean, it still sounds better than the Quran, but, but let's be, let's be honest. The King James Bible, the Lord is my shepherd. I shall not want, I mean, such beautiful poetry folks. And it's exactly what God said. Okay. It's the words of God it's inspired. It's the preserved inspired words of God. Of course, these, these Ruckmanites, they love to pretend like they're humble, but really they just do a lot of humble bragging. Ruckman says about people, he says, when people hear, you know, other men talking about Ruckmanism and they claim to not know who I am. It's because they're confusing me with the Holy ghost. So in his own sermon, he can, he says that people are confusing him with the Holy ghost. Who would say that? He says, this is another quote from Ruckman. I'm just an odd ball. I'm just a misfit. Yes. That I'm self-taught. I'm so inflexible. I'm so bullheaded and stupid. Who gets up and preaches about themselves like this, but you know, he doesn't believe that about himself. You know, in the context of him calling himself stupid, you know what that is a reference to how he taught himself in many foreign languages. I'm just so stupid. I taught myself foreign languages. That's called a humble brag. He's like, I didn't go to seminary and learn foreign languages. I'm just so stupid. I learned on my own. Well, you know what? He might've actually been pretty smart in that regard, but you know what? He's very prideful because he's, he's bragging about himself and you know, Florida man does the same thing. Here's what Florida man said at the end of my life. I want people to say that I was an ignorant and unlearned man. Thou sayest it. You know, they didn't say that about Paul. They said much learning doesn't make me mad. They didn't look at Paul and say, Hey, you're stupid as a box of rocks. And the Bible doesn't say be dumb on purpose, act dumb or be called dumb. No. In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember a guy named Joseph that no one could compare to. I'm pretty sure I remember a couple of guys like Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego that were 10 times wiser. I'm pretty sure I remember a guy walking around that said, never a man spake like this man's fake. You know why in the world we want God's ministers and God's people to go around and sound like buffoons and idiots and retards. That's what the Ruckmanites call themselves. And you know what I say, thou sayest it. You know what the Bible says, come now and let us reason together. But of course these Ruckmanites like Sam Gipp are telling people on the John Ankenberg show that Russians need to learn English if they really want the Bible. That's a bad idea, folks. And look, I love the King James Bible. You know, would God everybody learn English just so they can benefit from the King James Bible. But you know what? I believe the King James Bible can be translated in any language. And of course, you know, the Ruckmanites are racist. Here's another quote from Peter Ruckman. All black people are racists. Here's another quote from Peter Ruckman. If you notice that no matter how much integration is carried out, the IQ of blacks is always lower than whites. Why? I can see why people don't want to be called the Ruckmanite. You know what? When you re-preach the sermons, Florida man, I guess you're going to be called the Ruckmanite. Why? Because you denied the verbal inspiration, because you denied the preserved original, because you deny reality. Now, John chapter four is the last verse I want you to turn to. Hey, I believe in a preserved Bible and, you know, to deny that the King James Bible is the preserved translation, I mean, you're denying all the history, too. You're denying the bishops. But the bishops was still the word of God. Hey, the Geneva was still the word of God. Hey, these other works were still the word of God. Let's not let's not get this over the top superstitious view. And of course, people like James White typically can only defeat Ruckmanism. It's like taking candy from a baby, folks, OK? Anybody can defeat Ruckmanism. But you know what? He's attacking a straw man because Ruckmanism is stupid, and it doesn't even believe in the Bible. Now, here's the last verse I want you to look at it, and we don't want to deny reality. We don't want to deny the verbal inspiration of God. We don't want to deny the preserved originals are the word of God, too. And look, if you don't speak Greek, just stay out of it. Don't throw it on the ground and scream. It's not the Bible. OK, and look, God wants us to serve him with spirit, right? He wants to serve him with zeal. And, you know, I'll give it I'll give Ruckmanites this. We at least know which Bible they're going to use when you walk in the door, right? I mean, they're going to be using the King James Bible. And you could say they have a lot of spirit. They have a lot of zeal. But you know what? They don't have truth. And notice what God requires of his people. John 4, verse 24, God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Let us champion the King James Bible. Let us be the most zealous for the King James Bible. Let us be the leaders of the King James movement. But let us do it with truth. Let us do it by embracing reality, embracing history, embracing everything. And of course, God is going to greatly bless that which is done in truth. What's a Ruckmanite? It's not something I want to be. Let's go in prayer. Thank you, Heavenly Father, for giving us the King James Bible, for giving us the the preserved, verbally inspired words of God that we can trust, that we can rely on, that we can live by every single day. I pray that as we love the King James Bible and appreciate the King James Bible, we wouldn't put shade on other translations of the Bible, that we wouldn't deny reality, that we wouldn't deny the truth. I pray that we would have the same zeal and fervor for the King James Bible, but rather we would use our brains while we worship you, that we'd worship you in spirit and in truth. And I pray that we would hand it down to the next generation. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.