Originally Posted by chette777

We all know and so does Ruckman where he is stretching his Bible. but you will never see him correcting it. As you have done on these forums BC.

I have not corrected the Bible. Not one single post of mine on this forum or any other forum i am a member of has me trying to correct the Bible.

Just because you disagree with my posts does not mean I am correcting the Bible. Truth is, those who claim Proverbs 23:31 is not a command to abstinence are the ones correcting the Bible.

[chette777]

yeah right. anytime a person says the Greek means this or that. what they are saying is the English word as it stands is incorrect so it should say this. you did that in the New Wine thread in your post there. you corected teh English by changing the meaning of the word to fit your theology.

Secondly in the context of Prov 23 it says "instructions" at least twice in the chapter. and not only that none of us disagreed about abstenence from alcoholic beverages ever anywhere. that is where you are Fantasizing.

[LindaR]

Originally Posted by chette777

yeah right. anytime a person says the Greek means this or that. what they are saying is the English word as it stands is incorrect so it should say this. you did that in the New Wine thread in your post there. you corected teh English by changing the meaning of the word to fit your theology.

Secondly in the context of Prov 23 it says "instructions" at least twice in the chapter. and not only that none of us disagreed about abstenence from alcoholic beverages ever anywhere. that is where you are Fantasizing.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek. The HEBREW word for "look" is "ra'ah", and the meaning of this HEBREW word from Strong's is:

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
7200. ra'ah

ra'ah raw-aw'

a primitive root; to see, literally or figuratively (in numerous applications, direct and implied, transitive, intransitive and causative):--advise self, appear, approve, behold, X certainly, consider, discern, (make to) enjoy, have experience, gaze, take heed, X indeed, X joyfully, lo, look (on, one another, one on another, one upon another, out, up, upon), mark, meet, X be near, perceive, present, provide, regard, (have) respect, (fore-, cause to, let) see(-r, -m, one another), shew (self), X sight of others, (e-)spy, stare, X surely, X think, view, visions.'ah"

In addition, the English does not correct the Hebrew.

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by chette777 Forrest, The Writer is not telling us that Moses was suffering for telling the people about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. rather he is saying that the same kind of reproaches had fell on Christ fell on Moses for doing right. Dr Peter Ruckman.

Not always are the rewards of doing right felt at the time we do them. sometime we suffer reproach for it. Moses just felt that reporaches was a good reward for doing right.

I really am interested in your view on this Chette. I thought perhaps you missed my earlier post #53 so here it is with some additional thoughts.

Hebrews 11.

24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

Moses endured seeing who? Who was "him who is invisible". I thought since the writer of Hebrews under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit specifically chose the name Christ in verse 26, that the words "him who is invisible" must refer to Christ. If not, who did Moses suffer and endure for?

Chette wrote: The Writer is not telling us that Moses was suffering for telling the people about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

I certainly agree with your statement above. I'm just pointing out that by "divine revelation" Moses must have known Christ, not fully as we do of course, but they knew Him as the coming promise of salvation. Like King David in Psalm 110:1. And like all of the prophets of God. Do you agree?

[chette777]

Linda and BC,

BC added to the word in his post on new wine. whenever an addition to scripture is added that is a change in Gods word or a correction. go back to it and see for yourself. Even George mentions it. I said BC had done so to meet his own theology or as george put it his own Private interpretation.

click here http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...5&postcount=64

I like how he didn't admit he was wrong when I showed him a vese that had God giving a COMMANDMENT to Israel to buy wine and strong drink and to enjoy it. After BC said God never allowed his people to drink wine or starng drink. Duet is a true COMMANDMENT given by God for Israel once they were in the land if they could not make it to Jerusalem for the required feasts.

Proverbs is an instruction and we would all do well to heed that instruction. But whenyour husband insinuated I advocated drink of alcholic beverages he was insulting. And then saying if I tught what Gods word says that drunkeness is a sin. Ionly pointed out God never says drinking alcholic beerages or wine is a sin. he said drunkeness is a sin.

maybe you both are to ex drunks on a kick or something. but don't put words in our mouths.

I will not post with either of you again EVER!!!

Originally Posted by chette777

Linda and BC,

BC added to the word in his post on new wine. whenever an addition to scripture is added that is a change in Gods word or a correction. go back to it and see for yourself. Even George mentions it. I said BC had done so to meet his own theology or as george put it his own Private interpretation.

click here http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...5&postcount=64

I like how he didn't admit he was wrong when I showed him a vese that had God giving a COMMANDMENT to Israel to buy wine and strong drink and to enjoy it. After BC said God never allowed his people to drink wine or starng drink. Duet is a true COMMANDMENT given by God for Israel once they were in the land if they could not make it to Jerusalem for the required feasts.

Proverbs is an instruction and we would all do well to heed that instruction. But whenyour husband insinuated I advocated drink of alcholic beverages he was insulting. And then saying if I tught what Gods word says that drunkeness is a sin. Ionly pointed out God never says drinking alcholic beerages or wine is a sin. he said drunkeness is a sin.

maybe you both are to ex drunks on a kick or something. but don't put words in our mouths.

I will not post with either of you again EVER!!!

When one dismisses context, one will come to the false notion that I added to Scripture. In reality, I did not. It is those who turn the non fermented wines in the Word of God into fermented wine that are adding to Scripture... a very dangerous thing to do.

Originally Posted by Born Crucified

When one dismisses context, one will come to the false notion that I added to Scripture. In reality, I did not. It is those who turn the non fermented wines in the Word of God into fermented wine that are adding to Scripture... a very dangerous thing to do.

Not that it matters, but I happen to agree with you on the non-fermented wine issue. However, your angry, bitter dismissal of those who might see it otherwise is very unfortunate.

Incidentally, in your zeal to vilify Dr. Ruckman (post #57), you chose to completely ignore my comments about the context of Acts 10 (post #52). That, not Ruckman, was the heart of the post.

I would gently and charitably direct your attention to 1 Timothy 5:1. Perhaps it says something else in "the original Greek," but you might want to consider the English before you slander a man who has been serving God for nearly 60 years.

Like Chette, I do not think that I will be addressing you again. I hope you and your family have a long and fruitful life in God's service, and that, at some point, you will stumble across the message of 1 Corinthians 13.

Originally Posted by Vendetta Ride

Not that it matters, but I happen to agree with you on the non-fermented wine issue. However, your angry, bitter dismissal of those who might see it otherwise is very unfortunate.

I am not sure how you come up with my being angry, but that is far from the truth. I have posted the truth, not in anger, but in love. I was not dismissing them, but trying to correct them. I showed Scripture that clearly shows they are in err.

btw, anger is not necessarily bad either. Jesus got angry on more than one occasion. And His Word tells us, 'Be ye angry and sin not; let not the sun go down on your wrath. Quite obvious that some anger God allows.

But I did not post in anger as you thought.

Incidentally, in your zeal to vilify Dr. Ruckman (post #57), you chose to completely ignore my comments about the context of Acts 10 (post #52). That, not Ruckman, was the heart of the post.

Ruckman's teachings are quite evident there and I am not sure about how you see the Word of God, but I see that mine says not to even listen to false prophets. Ruckman certainly made may false prophecies concerning the Rapture, did he not? If I am not to accept his teachings, I am also not to accept the teachings of those who follow him.

I would gently and charitably direct your attention to 1 Timothy 5:1. Perhaps it says something else in "the original Greek," but you might want to consider the English before you slander a man who has been serving God for nearly 60 years.

60 years? Serving God? How so? by false prophecies? By his hateful and hurtful racial statements such as:

…people who could not invent a calendar or even a wheel…Egypt is now the exception which the monkey men use to overthrow the rule. It is an old, old story. The rule is: unless 'whitey' shows the black man how to play the piano, the tuba, the trombone, the banjo, the saxophone, the clarinet, and the trumpet, he stays squatted in front of a hollow log. Ruckman, Peter. Discrimination: The Key to Sanity. 1994, Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, p. 20

and

Negroes have to be carried. Where they are left to themselves they resort to mugging, rape, slavery, dope traffic, and eventually cannibalism. Ruckman, Peter. History of the New Testament Church. Volume 2, 1984, footnote 44.9, Chapter 11

Like Chette, I do not think that I will be addressing you again. I hope you and your family have a long and fruitful life in God's service, and that, at some point, you will stumble across the message of 1 Corinthians 13.

Since Ruckman teaches also that the KJV is Superior to the original Hebrew and Greek, I hope you stumble across a better man to promote... one that points people to Christ rather than to someone else.

In stating that the KJV in english is superior to the Originals, Ruckman is telling people that God did not know what He was saying when He gave His Word to mankind... that God's Word was not to be trusted.

Run from that false prophet. Turn your eyes from him and back to the God of the Word.

[George]

Originally Posted by chette777

yeah 1Peter 1:12 was the verse that makes sense of it. As when Jesus said that Abraham saw Christ's day and rejoiced. they all had prophecies they may not have known Jesus By Name but they all knew the prophecies concerning him. handed down since adam of the son whose heel would be struck when he crushed the serpents head. they longed to look into those things and did though not understanding them all.

Aloha brother Chette,

Good point! In addition many Christians misinterpret: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." [John 8:56] and they apply that to the First Advent - BUT, since when is: "My Day"; "the Lord's Day"; "the Day of the Lord"; or "the Day of Christ etc. ever a reference to the "death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ? It's not - ever!

Abraham saw Christ's Day (the Second Coming, the Millennial reign, etc.) - NOT "our day" {the "day" that Christ died and paid for "our" (my) sins!}.

[Forrest]

Hello Brother George. Would you look at my post # 56 and expound for me?