Inerrancy of Scripture - Bible believer or bible agnostic?

[tired]

Not letting you teach was nuts. How did they get around that one biblically.

[Guest Guest]

Exactly. Paul is discussing Polygamy here, not divorce, since he covered divorce in 2 Corinthians, the passage I posted earlier.

Yet, some people don't seem to understand this scripture. I dunno?

[Guest Guest]

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
1 Tim. 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5

[futurehope]

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
1 Tim. 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5

[futurehope]

Not letting you teach was nuts. How did they get around that one biblically.

Agreed.

[Guest Guest]

Not letting you teach was nuts. How did they get around that one biblically.

They made up their own set of rules. Man-made ones of course. I was so hurt---I didn't even want to fight it. My pastor was ready to charge over there along with his wife. I am still treated like a "second-class" citizen by many IFB's. Thankfully, I have never been a member at a church like this one. I run into the people at Youth Rallys, and fellowships, though. And, I am a proud IB---I am going to take out the word, fundamental---and use "Bible-believing" though.

[futurehope]

I understand.

[futurehope]

[Annie]

Why would we reason that God would have to have used the terms "in one volume" to believe that He meant that He would keep His word in tact and preserve it so that we would know that it was His entire word??

Futurehope, I'm not saying He would have had to use those very words ("in one volume"). I'm just saying that nowhere does God define "preservation" as "all of His inspired words in the same place." IOW, He didn't say they would be compiled, intact, in a perfect, infallible book. He never said that "we would know that it (as in a single volume/book/manuscript) was His entire word." KJVO's insist that all of His words ARE in the same place, and only in that place. They put words in God's mouth. God merely said that His words would be preserved. He didn't specify how, or where, or in what languages, or anything else. He just said they'd be preserved. And He promised to send the Holy Spirit to teach us all things.

[trc123]

In learning all of these things about Peter Ruckman I would say that being divorced and remarried once doesn't really raise the flag, it's the fact that he's done this a couple of times. Way beyond his being married three times (from the stuff on his Web site and then the video out on YouTube of him giving his chalk talks) he seems to me to be a whack job. Plain and simple. The only thing I can figure is that he's being given a pass from being a whack job by his supporters because of his hyper-KJV stance. I'm not sure one justifies overlooking the other.

[kevinmiller]

By disrespect towards women, I mean the fact that he ignored and broke his vow before God to stay with his wife until death parts them. Three wives and you're going to say that he's totally innocent? I don't think so. I have zero respect for a man that can't respect his wife enough to make it work. By what I've seen of Ruckman's personality and disposition, if his first wife really did leave him because he wanted to be in the ministry, I doubt as if he even tried to work with her or discuss it with her. That last part is pure speculation on my part, but either way, I see a serious problem in his respect for vows made before God as well as respect to women in that he is on his third wife.

As far as the alien stuff, if you want to try to explain that, I'd be really curious to find out where he's coming from. I'm referring to the book "Black is Beautiful" that he wrote where he talks about black aliens with green blood. I find that to be a bit over the top and just a little bit loony. However, if you can somehow explain this dizzying line of reasoning, I'd be more than willing to hear it.

[John81]

Not letting you teach was nuts. How did they get around that one biblically.

Some churches and church groups have very strict rules concerning anyone divorced. I've seen this in various Baptist churches, from SBC to IFB. They tend to view divorce as a sin that precludes one from doing many things.

One woman I know of had an abusive husband. She tried to get the pastor to counsel them but he refused because her husband donated lots of money to the church. The husband became more abusive and took on a girlfriend in another part of town. Even then the pastor refused to step in. Finally the woman/wife sued for divorce. The woman was then shunned by most in the church, she wasn't allowed to be a part of any church programs, but her ex-husband was welcome to attend church with his girlfriend.

There have been numerous cases that as soon as it's discovered one is divorced, and typically this weighs heavier on the women than the men, they are viewed as a lower class Christian. They are not considered worthy to be involved in anything other than the general services.

This doesn't seem to be as common as it once was, what with divorce being so "common" itself these days and with so many in the church having been touched by it, but it does still happen.

[John81]

Futurehope, I'm not saying He would have had to use those very words ("in one volume"). I'm just saying that nowhere does God define "preservation" as "all of His inspired words in the same place." IOW, He didn't say they would be compiled, intact, in a perfect, infallible book. He never said that "we would know that it (as in a single volume/book/manuscript) was His entire word." KJVO's insist that all of His words ARE in the same place, and only in that place. They put words in God's mouth. God merely said that His words would be preserved. He didn't specify how, or where, or in what languages, or anything else. He just said they'd be preserved. And He promised to send the Holy Spirit to teach us all things.

What would be the point of preserving His Word in a hundred bits and pieces, in various languages, scattered around the world?

When looking at the Old Testament we see many times when the Word of God was brought forth, full and complete. There are even times mentioned when the Word had been "lost" but then found again. When found, it was complete.

In the Jewish synagogues the complete Word of God was kept in scroles. They had all of the Word of God up to that time.

Why would God decide to no longer do this? What sense would it make to provide His inspired Word and then to preserve it in a manner that made it virtually impossible to be a blessing to those He sent it to?

[Annie]

What would be the point of preserving His Word in a hundred bits and pieces, in various languages, scattered around the world?

This is where people start to add their own ideas to what God has promised. I cannot pretend to know the mind of God. I do not add to His promises by putting him in a box with the question, "What would be the point?" I will say, however, that the 5500 available manuscripts are just that: available to us. Language helps abound! Compared to other ancient documents, we have a literal gold mine of ancient scriptural writing; it has been amazingly preserved, no question about it. Bible scholars and translators through the ages have always compared whatever different manuscripts they could get their hands on (the "hundred bits and pieces")--none of which completely agree(d) with each other--to get the most accurate translation possible. Why do we imagine that it is any different today, or that there HAS to be a volume, and only one volume, that contains all of the inspired words of God, and nothing but the inspired words of God, when God has promised no such thing, and we cannot prove that any such thing has ever existed, or exists today?

When looking at the Old Testament we see many times when the Word of God was brought forth, full and complete. There are even times mentioned when the Word had been "lost" but then found again. When found, it was complete.

If, by "complete," you mean that whole scrolls were found in the temple instead of partial documents...you're correct (as far as I know, anyway). But how do you know they were "complete" in the sense that they did not contain scribal errors? No one can prove that either way. Of course, it is more likely that these scrolls were without error than that the KJV is without error, since the scrolls were much closer to the source, and may even have been original autographs in some cases. If they were autographs, then the fact that they were found complete does not support your position of "preservation," as in "copies that contain all the words and only the words of God."

In the Jewish synagogues the complete Word of God was kept in scroles. They had all of the Word of God up to that time.

Up to what time? (I assume you mean NT times, since you use the word synagogues.) And, again, how do you know there weren't scribal errors in these scrolls? There were many synagogues, and even more copies. We know that no two manuscripts (of the 5500 we have today) agree completely. This fact alone should be a good indication that "preservation" doesn't have to mean "all the infallible words of God in one place." How do we know that the seven (or ten, or whatever) manuscripts used to patch together and later edit the TR (as well as the Latin commentary from which Erasmus translated part of the book of Revelation) were all infallible? We don't. They, like all of the other manuscripts we have available today, disagreed with other writings. They happened to be the only ones available to Erasmus. Who is to say that the few Erasmus had available to him were completely infallible, when they disagree with all other manuscripts, just like any other manuscript does?

Why would God decide to no longer do this? What sense would it make to provide His inspired Word and then to preserve it in a manner that made it virtually impossible to be a blessing to those He sent it to?

You have not proved that God ever "did this," as in "preserved every single word infallibly in one copy." (Of course, the originals did have every word.) Also, you assume that I'm not getting a blessing out of reading God's preserved words. Nothing could be further from the truth. Along with David, I rejoice in God's Word! KJVO advocates assume incorrectly that those who do not share their position wander about in debilitating uncertainty, constant insecurity, and utter confusion. This is a complete misconception. It is an incredible privilege to have so many different sources to study and compare, and to have the best Teacher living inside me. Such thoughts are overwhelming, and make me want to leap for joy!

[futurehope]

Futurehope, I'm not saying He would have had to use those very words ("in one volume"). I'm just saying that nowhere does God define "preservation" as "all of His inspired words in the same place." IOW, He didn't say they would be compiled, intact, in a perfect, infallible book. He never said that "we would know that it (as in a single volume/book/manuscript) was His entire word." KJVO's insist that all of His words ARE in the same place, and only in that place. They put words in God's mouth. God merely said that His words would be preserved. He didn't specify how, or where, or in what languages, or anything else. He just said they'd be preserved. And He promised to send the Holy Spirit to teach us all things.

So, if it's not all there, what is missing from the KJB? It can't be unknown or the promise of preservation would be broken. And if the argument is being made that some of the contradicting verses between the KJB and other "versions" are right in the KJB and some in the others, I think you are way off base. I just don't see, from what's been presented, how one could say that the KJB is not the complete word of God. However, I am still open to further suggestions on the topic and will keep an open mind. I just don't think anything has been shown yet that points that way. Maybe you could clarify your position for me.