In my defense
First, George, I accept your apology for misinterpretation in post # 23 of this thread.
George, I would ask that you please read the posts that I have made on this thread and one other that references Dr. Ruckman. Then, would you respond to my statements as you have Jerry's. I believe that my request is fair considering the number of times that my name was included in recent posts by you, before your apology. You have on several occasions indicated that one should do sufficient research on Dr. Ruckman's work before criticizing him. It is difficult to read everything that he has written, and listen to everything that he has said, but it should not take long to review my posts.
My first discussion, which had nothing to do with the man himself or anything that he believes, was in the thread about his soon-to-be-printed study Bible. The thread is found on "Bible Versions", page 2, with the title "Ruckman Reference Bible". NOTE: This thread was begun by Atlas, an ardent supporter of Dr. Ruckman.
- I made a post (p.1, #5) about my general disagreement with Study Bibles. I did not even mention Dr. Ruckman's name. George, I would think that you would completely agree with my statements, based on your comments about commentaries.
- pbiwolski made a post (p.1,#7), mischaracterizing my post, and I responded to him (p.1,#10), again saying nothing against Dr. Ruckman.
- The last post I made (p.2,#11) was a light-hearted speculation about what Dr. Ruckman's new study Bible could be called. See Atlas' post (p.1,#6) "RRB" and his response to me. (p.2,#12), and others later that did not find fault with me.
My next entries into this volatile issue came at the beginning of this thread, again started by Atlas, not a critic of Dr. Ruckman. In response to Atlas' opening post, I took the time to read some of the bulletins, beginning with the first one available on the net. I was curious to see what was all the fuss. I had heard enough negative statements from people I trusted to be wary, but I knew that Dr. Ruckman is one of the most well-known defenders of the Scriptures, and since they were available, I would let him speak for himself.
- My first post (p.1,#2) criticizes his printing of completely unkind humor. Read my post for a full explanation. Was I wrong?
- My following posts on page 1 (#5, 6, 8, & 10) were attempts defend myself and to get a reasonable response to my criticism about the jokes. I was falsely accused by Atlas (as to the supposed number of "anti-Ruckman" posts that I had made to that point). This was never corrected by him.
- My final response to Atlas was on p.2,#12, when I said that I would not discuss the matter further with him. At that point, he had still not answered my question as to the appropriateness of the jokes.
- In post #14 on p.2, you commented on my prior posts, and incorrectly determined that I had "an extreme personal dislike for brother Ruckman" and had "animosity towards a fellow Christian".
- I briefly responded to your post with #16 on p.2.
- You, in turn, apologized in # 17, and then did a very reasoned explanation of various terminology.
- Atlas addressed me directly in post #18, to which I did not respond.
- In post #19, I gave a lengthy response to your post. I felt that I did a faithful, unbiased explanation of my position. I would ask that you and others who are currently discussing this topic re-read the last two paragraphs and critique them fairly.
- My final post (3/20, p.3, #23) was a response to an abusive post by geologist (p.2,#20) in which he called those who disagree with Dr. Ruckman "a bunch of pious, thin skinned nannys". He then ended his post with a mocking comment to which I took offense. That may sound "thin-skinned" but I was calling attention to a statement that (to me) demonstrated a bad attitude.
I would point out here, that I find it disturbingly frequent for those who strongly support Dr. Ruckman to (sometimes viciously) attack those who question his methods. They also mimic his rough style when speaking or writing about others with differing ideas. (example: Geologist's so-called "joke" is Ruckman-like, based on the messages that I have heard.) While you have not been one of those who do nothing but hurl ridicule at us, you have in your recent posts joined the attack with unfair assumptions, evidenced by your statements about me, for which you sincerely and repeatedly apologized, and I have accepted. [p.s. Thank you, Jeff, for sticking up for me. I had not read this thread since 3/30 until today.]
Brother George, I think that Jerry has been likewise unjustly attacked. His character has been questioned, and he has not been given a very fair hearing. I must admit that I did not read every word that he wrote, but those that I read, in my opinion, were reasonable issues relating to the topic.
I do agree that much of the teaching about the text issue by Dr. Ruckman has been useful in the continuing debate. I can completely understand the fervor with which those whose lives have been benefited by him defend the man. I just believe that it is incumbent that those who God has given exceeding great skill and responsibility to guard themselves lest their "good be evil spoken of:" (Romans 14:16) and no one can deny that Dr. Ruckman's own words have been used to discredit him and his work.
Thank you for your attention in this matter, and may God's Grace be with you and your family,
|