trc123

David, Thank you for posting about Pastor Dartt's passing. I had not heard until I read this. He was a great man and he will always have a special place in my heart. He was a man of courage and encountered many challenges. He always faced those challenges with strength, a firm backbone and yet showed love and mercy as God directed him. You are right, many a life was changed by Pastor Dartt and I know he will be greatly missed.

All the best to you, Patty and the entire family.

Wow, after over a year this thread is still going...............

J Hutson Taylor

Tiffany, thank you so much for the follow up postings. I would love to have your mom's email address. I will send my email to you via private message, please reply to that with any contact information you wish to share for your mom and/or Pastor Dartt.

Thank you.

Like I said, we are all responsible in the end.

I'm thinking we are (our sins) all responsible for crucifying Christ. I seem to remember that the Roman's were in charge in land at that time and at one point could have stopped it. I believe it was Roman soldiers who did the actual deed. The pope is a delusional man who is fully culpable in an organized cover up of rampant pedophilia amongst the Roman Catholic Church's priesthood. Rather than be exalted he should be brought to justice.

Accepted standards for sacred music have changed in both the culture and the church. It has always been that way and will always be that way. Even amongst the most traditional separated conservative fundamental believers. It is undeniable. All kinds of standards of acceptability change and move along a spectrum continually as each generation comes and goes. It is undeniable.

I am surprised you haven't heard that sort of thing, it is one of the main pillars of "ruckmanism". His own writings make his position rather clear. One of the most common questions ruckmanites tend to "ask" is "where was the word of God before 1611?". They ask this because they believe the pure word of God was lost and unknowable at some indefinite time prior to 1611 and then it was re-inspired in the english KJV at that point. Their belief that the pure word of God was corrupted, lost, and then re-inspired is key to their insistence that the bibles of other languages should be translated from the KJV into a given language rather than from greek and hebrew and is the reason for their general contempt for any scriptures in those languages. That is because they believe "only" the english KJV is the perfect pure word of God. That would differ from a more "typical" none ruckmanite KJVO IFB that would hold that the KJV is the preserved word of God for the english speaking peoples and nothing more. Not Gods new standard for the world circa 1611, but Gods old standard translated into english.

Here are just a couple quotes from his writings, I am sure if you looked you could find much more as he is always saying this sort of thing in one way or another. I have heard him say such things on his tapes myself and a quick internet search turns up many quotes like these with their sources if you care to check those out.


"The AV 1611 is far superior to any manuscript extant, and on occasion it would be superior to the original manuscripts if they could be produced."( Ruckman, Peter. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians Commentary. 1973, 1980, p. 162)

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118)

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 BC and slammed it shut again in 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9)

There is a very good reason he is considered a blatant heretic by many and not IFB at all. If you want to discuss it further feel free to pm me as I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of ruckman and will only make this one post on the subject on this thread.

Marvel at the wonders of the Spirit working through these men but, not the man.

Isaiah 10:15 Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood.

So, is there anything wrong with saying..."God used (name) in a mighty way and glorified His (God's) name, through missions, etc." ...I don't think there is but care must be taken not to lift up the instrument God used in place of the work God performed.

It's very similar to paying for the salary of a Pastor and church staff. If I want the services they provide, I've got to pay the price. Both should be careful to render quality services for monies rendered.

Yes, absolutely, people do tend to put their "heroes" up on a pedestal. People should not do so and really should only hold the Godhead in such high esteem; but that does not mean that it is fair game to tear those men of God down unfairly or based upon false accusation.

Ouch - he really said that? That's not good at all.

Yes, very sad for sure!

Don't you be telling me how to think woman! God don't want no dang femail telling us men what ter do........ :unsure:

True, and I think trc agrees with this.

Depends on who you are talking to.

But, Rick, God was speaking spiritually here. He wasn't advocating divorce between earthly spouses. I realize that there are a couple of instances where he did (Hosea and Gomer, and the Israelites in Ezra). But those were the exception, rather than the rule. They are examples of times God did or allowed things outside of the boundaries which He set...

To use this scripture to justify personal divorce (especially multiple ones!!) doesn't fit with dovetailing scripture. Sorry.

Oh, and LOL

So, the fact that President Obama is not enforcing DOMA is the right thing to do then.......correct? The Federal government has no business being in the business of marriage. That is supposed to be up to the states, right?

It is absolutely the pastor's wife's responsibility to deal with the ladies in the church in this manner! What were you thinking? :smilie_loco:4

Charlotte, my 1 1/2 year old, likes to "get down" as much as she can. We listen to nothing but good music and abhor CCM, but she still does the best she can to boogie to Patch the Pirate music.

The thing that has helped me most in my 30 plus years as a saved person affiliated with the IFB, is to have an "ignore" button in my brain for just such instances and people!

Actually, at the time of our founding, marriage was a civil matter...of course, in Puritan areas, the civil and the religious mixed.

The entire taxing system was different than it is today as well.

Question: At the time of the writing of our country's constitution was there any government sanctioned, supported or legislatively established "marriage?" Was marriage completely sanctioned by the churches or religions of the day, without there being any laws on the books (state or federal) recognizing it or giving legal sanction and tax breaks?

Did you just say that God the Father is divorced?

And here I clicked on this hoping for something different...