It's like this brother: When the lexicons and concordances (And the scribes & scholars who wrote them) run contrary to the English words of God - DUMP EM! When in DOUBT - throw them OUT! THROW THEM ALL OUT!

Sorry, George, I will not bow to such teachings from the Ruckmanite camp. It is he who wants people to dismiss that which the Holy Spirit inspired man to pen down 2000 years ago in the manner that they penned them. God's Word outweigh's the English dictionaries and commentaries of today (although there are still a few commentaries and dictionaries that do line up with the Word).

Ruckman teaches so many things that are contrary to the Word, it is no wonder so many fall to his teachings. The flesh does not desire to yield to that which is commanded by God and so must try to reach heaven by some other means... changing the truth into a lie.

There are many roads that lead to heaven, but only one true door. If any enter not by that door, but rather enter in by a different way, that one is a thief and a robber and will fall into the hands of the living God.

To whom ye yield your members servants to obey, his servants ye are. Whether servants unto righteousness, or servants unto disobedience.

But remember, God's wrath cometh upon the children of disobedience.

[LindaR]

Originally Posted by Born Crucified

Sorry, George, I will not bow to such teachings from the Ruckmanite camp. It is he who wants people to dismiss that which the Holy Spirit inspired man to pen down 2000 years ago in the manner that they penned them. God's Word outweigh's the English dictionaries and commentaries of today (although there are still a few commentaries and dictionaries that do line up with the Word).

Ruckman teaches so many things that are contrary to the Word, it is no wonder so many fall to his teachings. The flesh does not desire to yield to that which is commanded by God and so must try to reach heaven by some other means... changing the truth into a lie.

There are many roads that lead to heaven, but only one true door. If any enter not by that door, but rather enter in by a different way, that one is a thief and a robber and will fall into the hands of the living God.

To whom ye yield your members servants to obey, his servants ye are. Whether servants unto righteousness, or servants unto disobedience.

But remember, God's wrath cometh upon the children of disobedience.

AMEN BC!

[peopleoftheway]

Linda, do you and Born Crucified know each other?

[peopleoftheway]

Leave the Bible alone, its perfect in english.

You may want to look up that word perish in a lexicon or concordance. It does not mean 'die' at all. It is the word 'abad,' and it means 'to wander away.' This is speaking of someone who has rejected God altogether, not someone who is on their deathbed.

Job 34:15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.
Job 36:12 But if they obey not, they shall perish by the sword, and they shall die without knowledge.
Job 4:9 By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed.
Esther 7:4
For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, I had held my tongue, although the enemy could not countervail the king's damage.

Plenty more verses to plainly show "perish" is to die. (without a lexicon)

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Born Crucified

Ruckman teaches

Aw, why'd you have to drag poor ol' Ruckman into this thread? What is it with you guys and Ruckman? George didn't appeal to Ruckman, he just pointed out the Bible in English. You know, that Book that doesn't say quite what you want it to say, so you go and "help it out" with "the Hebrew."

Now if you're so sure about alcohol being sinful even without drunkenness, why did God give you a Bible that you have to go and correct just to show that to a "weaker" brother? Is your sword so dull?

It's ironic, since Ruckman holds the same position on alcohol that you do! (At least as far as I've read him on the matter.)

This thread sure is... threadbare! We've burned over this ground before. I think the scriptural case for mandating total abstinence from alcohol (for people who never drink to a "buzz" or "drunkeness") is weak at best, but dear brothers in the Lord disagree with me on that. I can live with that disagreement. There are bigger fish to fry in this pan. What's your problem, though? Is there an alocoholic here you're trying to reach?

Originally Posted by Diligent

Aw, why'd you have to drag poor ol' Ruckman into this thread? What is it with you guys and Ruckman? George didn't appeal to Ruckman, he just pointed out the Bible in English. You know, that Book that doesn't say quite what you want it to say, so you go and "help it out" with "the Hebrew."

Now if you're so sure about alcohol being sinful even without drunkenness, why did God give you a Bible that you have to go and correct just to show that to a "weaker" brother? Is your sword so dull?

It's ironic, since Ruckman holds the same position on alcohol that you do! (At least as far as I've read him on the matter.)

This thread sure is... threadbare! We've burned over this ground before. I think the scriptural case for mandating total abstinence from alcohol (for people who never drink to a "buzz" or "drunkeness") is weak at best, but dear brothers in the Lord disagree with me on that. I can live with that disagreement. There are bigger fish to fry in this pan. What's your problem, though? Is there an alocoholic here you're trying to reach?

I am not trying to reach alcoholics, but God wants His children to be obedient to His Word, does He not?

[George]

Originally Posted by Born Crucified

Sorry, George, I will not bow to such teachings from the Ruckmanite camp. It is he who wants people to dismiss that which the Holy Spirit inspired man to pen down 2000 years ago in the manner that they penned them. God's Word outweigh's the English dictionaries and commentaries of today (although there are still a few commentaries and dictionaries that do line up with the Word).

Ruckman teaches so many things that are contrary to the Word, it is no wonder so many fall to his teachings. The flesh does not desire to yield to that which is commanded by God and so must try to reach heaven by some other means... changing the truth into a lie.

There are many roads that lead to heaven, but only one true door. If any enter not by that door, but rather enter in by a different way, that one is a thief and a robber and will fall into the hands of the living God.

To whom ye yield your members servants to obey, his servants ye are. Whether servants unto righteousness, or servants unto disobedience.

But remember, God's wrath cometh upon the children of disobedience.

Aloha BC,

WHO mentioned RUCKMAN? Hmmm? - Certainly NOT ME! Ruckman did not enter the "discussion". I simply used a reliable English Dictionary to define some fairly simple English words. I didn't mention brother Peter Ruckman once! You aren't afflicted with Ruckman-itise are you? {That is, whenever you encounter the TRUTH, you ignore or deny it, by attributing it to Dr. Peter Ruckman.}

What's with the "LECTURE" on the ONE DOOR and WHO we yield our members to? - What's with all that? What's your problem? If you can't answer a Scriptural (and reasonable) reply to your "private interpretations" - you attack a person personally and try to put them into the "Ruckman Camp", so that you can dismiss anything they say? What is it with some "Christians", that they have such hatred and personal animosity towards a fellow brother in Christ? Hmmm? Oh, by the way, it wasn't the men who were "inspired" it was God's WORDS!

[2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:]

The "inspiration" is on the Holy words of God, that's why we can be sure that we still have them {in English} - no thanks to people like you, or nearly all of the modern "scribes" and "scholars". You have a real problem, my friend, and there is nothing I can do to help you, since we do not recognize the same "FINAL AUTHORITY"!

So, let's just leave it this way: You continue to rely on the "Greek" and the "Hebrew"; and the Lexicons & Concordances; and especially on all those commentators, scribes & scholars that you admire and rely on, and I will look to the Holy Spirit to teach me out of his Holy Scriptures, and we will see at the Judgment seat of Christ - who is right and who is wrong!

Oh by the way - "WHO" is it that you are "following"? It couldn't be David Cloud by any chance, could it?

No private interpretation here, George. Scripture is clear...

Look thou not upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

Where in that does God say 'drink a glass or two and then stop? Where in the entirety of Proverbs 23 are we told God allows even a drop of alcohol to our lips?

It is quite obvious that if there is private interpretation going on it is not from me, nor is it from my wife. Look thou not means look thou not. It does not mean "drink but don't get drunk."

As to the Ruckman comment, I made that because of the fact that Ruckman's teachings are seen throughout the replies to me. Either one is learning from Ruckman, or from an adherent to his teachings.

And just because I believe the Word of God that look thou not means just that does not mean I am a follower of David Cloud either. If believing Look thou not means one is a follower of David Cloud, then Solomon must have received that command from Cloud and not from God, eh?

I choose to believe God's Word... clear command to abstinence from alcohol.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Born Crucified

I choose to believe God's Word... clear command to abstinence from alcohol.

Earlier in this thread (before you joined the forum, I think), I asked someone to explain this verse:

Romans 14:21-22 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

Now, if any time the Bible says "wine" in a permissive sense it is meant "grape juice," what is it that Paul is trying to teach here? If wine doesn't mean wine in this verse, what exactly is the offense?

Since Paul is our apostle, I consider what he says first (2Ti 2:7) before I try to understand other passages, such as the ones you have quoted. Paul seems to have a very permissive attitude about wine compared to you (we've already gone over the specific verses and why they mean wine, i.e. "much wine" and "drunkenness", earlier in the thread). So I have to "interpret" the Old Testament verses you quote in the light of Paul's teaching on the matter.

Anyhoo, Romans 14 seems to be the "prevailing authority" here since he directly addresses the issue of consuming wine when it may offend another. (Surely grape juice is not offensive!?) So as long as a brother is obedient to Paul's clear command, what business is it of yours to tell him, to mandate, that he abstain from all alcohol?

[George]

Originally Posted by Born Crucified

No private interpretation here, George. Scripture is clear...

Look thou not upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

Where in that does God say 'drink a glass or two and then stop? Where in the entirety of Proverbs 23 are we told God allows even a drop of alcohol to our lips?

It is quite obvious that if there is private interpretation going on it is not from me, nor is it from my wife. Look thou not means look thou not. It does not mean "drink but don't get drunk."

As to the Ruckman comment, I made that because of the fact that Ruckman's teachings are seen throughout the replies to me. Either one is learning from Ruckman, or from an adherent to his teachings.

And just because I believe the Word of God that look thou not means just that does not mean I am a follower of David Cloud either. If believing Look thou not means one is a follower of David Cloud, then Solomon must have received that command from Cloud and not from God, eh?

I choose to believe God's Word... clear command to abstinence from alcohol.

BC,

You have refused to refute my points or engage in any "meaningful" debate. There is "no profit" in trying to reason with you anymore.

I have had more reasonable debates with some atheists, agnostics, and Catholics than I have had here with you.

It seems to me that we are both "clairvoyant" about WHO we are supposedly following: You saying I am a "follower" of Ruckman; and me "suspecting" that you may be a disciple of Cloud.

In the short time you have been here - you sure have "endeared" yourself to the brethren. I wonder if you do this everywhere you go? We'll probably never know because, I for one am done with you and your "comments".

Have a nice day!

Aloha nui loa,