[Diligent]

I'm not an apologist for Ruckman, but citing his views on a pre-Adamic creation as an example of his "strange" error is not reasonable. The Gap Theory did not originate with Ruckman. In fact, the majority of right-dividing theology I have read from the late 1800s and early 1900s support this theory.

I am also not defending the Gap Theory, mind you, just stating a fact.

Also, my understanding is that his previous wives abandoned him. 1Cor 7:15 seems to me to teach that there is no bondage of marriage in such a case.

Originally Posted by Diligent

I'm not an apologist for Ruckman, but citing his views on a pre-Adamic creation as an example of his "strange" error is not reasonable. The Gap Theory did not originate with Ruckman. In fact, the majority of right-dividing theology I have read from the late 1800s and early 1900s support this theory.

I am also not defending the Gap Theory, mind you, just stating a fact.

Also, my understanding is that his previous wives abandoned him. 1Cor 7:15 seems to me to teach that there is no bondage of marriage in such a case.

Brandon - I realize that Ruckman was not the originator of the Gap Theory, I was just showing his connection to it as others in this thread had done.

Your view of I Cor 7:15 is Ruckman's view as well. We should know how God feels about divorce (Malachi and others). While we may not be able to control what a mate does, God clearly commands us not to remarry. This is a really unpopular scriptural principal in today's world. But the Bible does offend! Just because it is the way we live today does not make it right. At any rate, God can and does forgive BUT the office of a pastor of a church is reserved for undivorced individuals whether we like God's plan or not.

One more thing... when the Gap theory was invented, during the late 1800's, is the same time the new versions came on the scene! Maybe a coincidence.

God clearly commands us not to remarry.

kstsells, I have no problem with that. Its what my pastor teaches. But I've always wondered, if the believing mate is not bound on those cases, then why doesn't that mean they are free to remarry? I

Question: Isn't the "bond" to which he refers marriage? i.e. doesn't this verse mean he was not married? And therefore free to marry?

OR

Does the "bond" only refer to the fact that the believing mate does not have to remain married and all is well. . .so long as he doesn't remarry?

I think its traditionally seen in the latter, whereas others take it to mean the former.

Thank you for indulging me here and for letting me continue taking us off message.

1 Corinthians 7 deals with the unbeliever abandoning/divorcing the believer. Is that what happened in the case of Ruckman's divorces?

Originally Posted by jerry

1 Corinthians 7 deals with the unbeliever abandoning/divorcing the believer. Is that what happened in the case of Ruckman's divorces?

Dunno. In my question, I'm only asking about the case where it is an unbeliever leaving a believing spouse: Does the "not bound" refer to the marriage i.e. the believer is not married and is therefore free to marry,
OR
is it (as I suspect it is) that the believer does not have to remain (bound) to the unbeliever when the unbeliever leaves, but is nonetheless not to remarry?

The young widows are permitted to remarry (1Ti 5). He never says this about those with a living (former) spouse.

Personally, I believe that a divorced person is not to remarry until the old spouse has died.

Originally Posted by The Bible for Today

Gary Hudson has a set of questions against the King James Bible as published in the internet (http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/questkjv.htm). His questionnaire entitled, "Questions for the KJV-Only Cult," is actually directed at Ruckmanites. Unfortunately, Hudson did not care to clarify that the majority of KJV advocates are not of the Ruckmanite origin or stripe. Many readers do go away confused, thinking that all defenders of the King James Bible are "Ruckmanites" and "heretics."

It must be underscored that Bible believers and KJV defenders like Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, D A Waite, Ian Paisley, David Cloud, Timothy Tow, the Trinitarian Bible Society, the Dean Burgon Society, and the Far Eastern Bible College do NOT espouse at all the beliefs of Ruckman that:

the KJV is doubly inspired;

the KJV is advanced revelation;

the English KJV is as or more inspired than the original language Scriptures;

the KJV can be used to correct the original language Scriptures;

there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an "inspired" English translation;

the KJV cannot be improved on (The Defined King James Bible edited by D A Waite and S H Tow and published by Bible For Today is certainly an improvement of the KJV);

the KJV is the only Bible that has gospel or salvific content;

those who do not use the KJV are condemned to hell; and

all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.

Nevertheless, Hudson’s questions have created enough misinformation on and misrepresentation of the King James Bible and the majority of its advocates that a response is necessary. Below are Hudson’s questions followed by my answers from a KJV-superiority perspective.

go to the link below to find NON-RUCKMANITE ANSWERS TO ANTI-KJV QUESTIONS by Dr. Jeffrey Khoo
http://www.biblefortoday.org/Articles/answers.htm

I often site this article because those like Ruckman give KJVO's a bad name.

So... let's say that my believing wife leaves me who is a a believer too, even though I don't want the divorce, and she wants it anyway so she can further an adulterous reltionship (not to say Ruckman's wives were as I do not knwo anything about it and frankly, it's none of my business), then what am I to do? Am I in sin for the divorce? (Just a scenario)

The divorce is sin - and the one pushing for the divorce is sinning. Regardless of which believer created the situation or the divorce, it hinders both.