Peter Ruckman stance on abortion
 

Guys,


There is never a need to hide what any man believes on any issue.

You may hate me for this, but we need to expose false doctrine no matter who teaches it.

You all need to listen to this. This way I will not be accused of that I am taking him out of context.

http://sites.google.com/site/ruckmantruth/


Peter Ruckman teaches that life starts when a baby breaths open air out side of the mothers womb. This is not found anywhere in the Bible other than in the creation of the first man Adam, and God breathed into Adam. This has nothing to do with anyone of the birth of any person in the history of the world.

The Bible dose not say God breathed open air into Adam.

Now some of the folks here will not like me posting this link. I believe in the truth. I always have. if this is what Dr. Ruckman believes this why hide it. Why not post it for all to see.


Not one man on earth today or in the last 6000 years was made the 1st man Adam. Therefore Gen. 2:7 has nothing to do with when a man's life begins today. Gen. 2:7 has to do with Adam becoming a living soul. God did not make me out of dirt, he made Adam out of dirt. God did not breath into me the breath of life, no any other person alive on this earth today.

Dr. Ruckman is 100% wrong on this issue. I do not care if you like me or hate me for this post. If you are an honest man or woman you'll understand why I made this post any why I oppose Dr. Ruckman on this issue 100%.

I made this post on the topic, " When does a person become a living soul? " I am posting this again for all to read. Dr. Ruckman says a baby becomes a living soul when he gets slapped on the but takes his 1st breath. He dose not seem to acknowledge the fact that no other person other than Adam was made the way Gen. 2:7 describes Adam being made and coming to life.


Abortion is murder 100% of the time.

I do not care what Planned Parenthood, the ACLU or Dr. Peter S. Ruckman says about this issue.


Atlas

I agree that abortion is murder. However, in some cases, I do think it is justified (not in the biblical sense).

If my wife was going to die because of pregnancy, and the only way for her to live would be to abort the child, then I would send my child home to heaven, to save my wife from death. It would be a hard decision to make, and to live with, but I think it would be the right thing in THAT situation, since it is life or death.

I don't think that abortion is justified in matters of rape however. It is murder, no matter when it is done.

I really wish you had waited until I got a hold of the entire sermon before you posted this. We don't know whether he defined abortion as something else (for example, manslaughter) and still said it was a great sin, or what. It's like, lies, and white lies, both are lies.

Murder and manslaughter. Both are murder. But we don't know what the rest of that sermon said. If it stops there, then I disagree 100%, but I don't know what he is saying.

I've heard some fundamental baptists preach like calvinists, but then go on to say man has absolute free will to choose or reject Christ. Until I get the entire sermon and hear it, I am not making any further posts regarding this. Sorry I posted the question in the first place. I was just looking for clarification from some of the people who have gone to PBI.

Luke,


Now Luke I count you as a friend and a brother in Christ. I had to post it because it was so bad. I had no choice. Many folks like Ruckman and need to know the truth. The truth is what matters in any issue. I stand for what is right and oppose what wrong. I do not fallow a man when he leaves the Bible I do not care who this man is.

I have defended Ruckman on every issue other than this and UFO's. UFO's are not a big issue, this is. You can see my many post here where I defend Dr. Ruckman and you know this is true, however Ruckman is not my leader. The Lord is my Leader, NOT ANY MAN. I will not defend any man when he is wrong, I do not care who the man is. Right is right and wrong is wrong. The man is not the issue. The issue is right and wrong. Abortion is wrong If you do not like that, well to bad for you. If Ruckman was here I'd tell him the same thing. Like it or not, sin is sin and wrong is wrong. So if you are mad at me for posting this there is nothing I can do about it my friend. Let every man learn the truth. The truth will always hurt someone., but the truth is what we all need.

I hope this post dose not offend you, however I will post the truth. You can take it as you will my friend.

Why do you need to hear the rest of it. Are you afraid of the truth.? I'm not. Here are the word for word quotes. What else needs to said. He is very plain on what he believes and why.

He takes Gen. 2:7 and tries to apply it to every man or woman ever born. This is so far out of context it's beyond crazy.

NOT ONE PERSON WAS EVER BORN THE WAY ADAM WAS MADE. THEREFORE YOU CAN NOT APPLY Gen. 2:7 TO ANY MAN OTHER THAN ADAM.

You can not apply Gen 2:7 to any man other than Adam. This is crazy, he is so far off base on this he is not even in the ball park. He is wrongly dividing the word of God on this issue.

How can any man apply gen 2:7 to a child born today.

God did not make the kids today out of dust did he? Did God breath life into a child born today? No he did not. This is one of the worst cases of WRONGLY DEVIDING Word of God I have ever seen. This is on the scale of any apostate Bible corrector. This is beyond bad and needs to be exposed for what it is. FALSE DOCTRIUNE & WRONGLY DIVIDING GOD'S WORD.

On the MP3 file at 29 seconds he says,

MP3 file 42 seconds



It starts back again on the MP3 file at 2:54

Why are you afraid of the truth? I do not fear the truth. Why not stand up and oppose this for what it is? Why not expose it for what it is?

Here is the truth, RUCKMAN IS 100% WRONG!!!

As an example, if Benny Henn said this you'd be over him. If some other preacher said it you'd do the same. If Ruckman says it, oh well maybe I should not have posted it. Why not wrong is wrong no matter who says it. He is 100% wrong, he is out of line and wrongly dividing God's Word. If you can not see this you are brainwashed.


This wrong I do not care who says it. No person can rightly divide the Word of God and apply how Adam was made to how we are made.

Listen to it all, this is beyond sick. This is the worst case I have ever seen in my life. This is so bad it is on the scale of any Bible corrector you can name. This is how bad it is.



Atlas

I too would like to hear it all as well. It sounds like the story was picked up 1/2 way in to give us the 1/2 story.

(I just made a comment in another thread before I saw this one.)

That's why Ruckman is still one of my most FAVORITE preachers!

Good point, there Bro. Atlas!

I have always been a fan of Dr. Ruckman, just like I'm a fan of Polycarp, Martin Luther, Billy Sunday, John R. Rice, Jack Hyles, etc. etc. That doesn't guarantee, however, that all of them rightly divides the word of truth all of the time.

One thing that I admire Ruckman is that he's always been Ruckman - he would never compromise truth for fear of "the brethren". Now, again, he may be wrong in many issues and I've not always agreed with him, but (as Atlas says) he is "VERY PLAIN ON WHAT HE BELIEVES AND WHY".:)

I think the KEY here is RIGHT DIVISION.

I will post my thoughts on this thread instead of the other one I started because it was Dr Ruckman's position on abortion that pricked my interest.

1. IS ABORTION MURDER?

If abortion is indeed murder because a person becomes a LIVING SOUL at CONCEPTION then may I suggest that any woman that uses contraception, other than a barrier method, is a MURDERER.

Oral contraceptives do not simply prevent the release of an egg from the ovary but also alter the lining of the womb so that implantation of the embryo CANNOT occur and the embryo 'dies'.

Likewise an Intrauterine Device (IUD) prevents implantation of an embryo.

So I don't believe that a person becomes a LIVING SOUL at conception. At conception there is POTENTIAL LIFE-all of the 'ingredients' for the want of a better word are not present-YET!

Psalms chapter 139
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Firstly, this portion of Scripture more than likely refers to the creation of Adam because he was made directly from the earth, however, there is an application to us. Our flesh has the same composition as the earth-carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, the various elements etc.

Secondly, notice that God saw our...SUBSTANCE, yet being UNPERFECT and that we were already conceived in the mind of God and our MEMBERS were written in a book, however...as yet THERE WAS NONE OF THEM.

So this passage would suggest to me that there is a time frame within the womb that a person is NOT a LIVING SOUL, but the potential for life is certainly there.

to be cont.

Can we support the previous supposition by Scripture, I believe we can:

Job chapter 3

11 Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?

Job already had the ghost he was a LIVING SOUL. Therefore some babies come out of the womb and die already having the ghost in them.

Job chapter 10

18 Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth out of the womb? Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me!

So you can have a babies in the womb who are not yet born and are LIVING SOULS.

However, it can also be the other way.

Job chapter 3

16 Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.

Job chapter 10

19 I should have been as though I had not been; I should have been carried from the womb to the grave.

Some babies NEVER become LIVING SOULS. Sometime during gestation you go from being a baby that doesn't have a soul to a living soul.

The question is when does this happen?

to be cont.

Wow -- look at your steps of reasoning up there. You are saying you don't believe there is the living soul at conception because ("so...") someone might have to re-examine their use of certain types of birth control!?

In fact I totally agree -- people shouldn't use methods of birth control that can cause abortions! I'm not going to redefine an unborn child as an unborn "whatever" just because it might inconvenience someone!

You find me one instance of the word "conception" or "conceive" (any word form) in the Bible that indicates that the life is anything other than a person, and we'll have something to debate.

Look at this:

Genesis 21:2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.

The conception was a fulfillment of God's promise! (If not, why mention it?) They didn't wait around to see if the "ingredients" would become a fully-baked boy to see if God fulfilled his promise to Abraham! Can you just imagine Sarah and Abraham waiting around to see if her pregnancy would be successful before rejoicing in the coming of their new child?

Now we've got two threads on the same topic. :rolleyes:

My post here deals with Ruckman's view.

2. WHEN DURING GESTATION DOES THE SOUL FORM?

Ecclesiastes chapter 11

5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

At some point during formation of the baby the spirit enters the baby and it becomes a LIVING SOUL.

Since my contention is that in the early stages of gestation the baby is UNPERFECT (Ps 139) and only a POTENTIAL LIVING SOUL let's look at a very interesting passage of Scripture which I believe helps us to determine when the baby becomes PERFECT and is ready to become a LIVING SOUL.

Ezekiel chapter 37

5 Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:
6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
7 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone.
8 And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them.
9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.
10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

In verses 7,8 & 10 we have BONES coming together 'bone to bone', we have SINEWS, we have FLESH, we have SKIN covering them and then the BREATH comes into them and they stand and have MOVEMENT.

If as stated by someone else we assume that the creation of Adam and Eve was unique, as it obviously was, and God had to breathe into them because they had no umbilical cords to receive the spirit to make them LIVING SOULS, then a baby must receive the 'breath/spirit' via the mother's BLOOD.

Leviticus chapter 17

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood:

Based on Ezekiel 37 I would suggest the following requirements for a baby to become a LIVING SOUL:

a) FLESH
b) BONES/SINEWS
c) SKIN
d) MOVEMENT/QUICKENING (nervous system)
e) BLOOD/LIFE SPIRIT (must have a fully functioning circulatory system to carry life into it)

to be cont.

And another thing...

Where is life? Is it in the "air" or is it in the blood?

Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

Dr.,


You are just about as far off base as Dr. Ruckman on this issue my friend. I'm not trying to offend you my friend. You may want study some of the post on the life issue on the other topic. Bro. Diligent, Bro. Luke, I and others have made some pretty good post about this issue my friend.

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=609


Atlas

Diligent,


Amen Bro. Diligent. We use or Moms blood in the womb to bring us life, via food, air water and other needed ingredients by babies in the mothers womb. What our mothers eat, breath and drink helps develop us in her womb. Eve was the mother of all living and our mothers feed us even before birth. It may not be in the same way as born babies are fed. Our mothers feed us from what their bodies have obtained via what they have ate, drunk and breathed. This is why the expecting mother needs to watch what they eat, drink and should not smoke and use some types of drugs while with child. What they put into their body will effect the child.


Atlas

That verse doesn't say that at all.

(Side note -- this topic is tough to discuss because it is not always clear if a poster understands that a soul and a spirit are two different things. But on this verse it makes little difference.)

The verse is a clear exclamation that the growth of a new child in its mothers womb is something we don't know. This reminds me of a video I watched in government school on gestation. You know what it was called? The Miracle of Life! Here these secular scientists knew that even after all their explaining they didn't scratch the surface of it and still called it a "miracle."

This very verse calls it a "work of God." Who are we to interrupt this work of God at any stage when the work is clearly began? (and the Bible makes clear this work begins at conceive -- just do a Bible search for "conceived") And absolutely that means not using hormonal birth control that can prevent implantation. Whether or not one thinks the soul is present at any given stage, it's still the work of God in progress. Let God complete his work -- and he calls his work a "child" -- not an embryo or zygote or fetus -- a child, brother! Look it up -- 26 times in 25 verses the Bible says it's a woman "with child" -- how much more glorious a description than "pregnant" or a woman "with the ingredients baking" -- with child! Amen?

This verse clearly tells us WE DO NOT KNOW the basic mysteries of life any more than we know the works of God!

But you then go ahead and assume to know the workings of God.


1 Corinthians 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

3. WHEN ARE ALL THE REQUIREMENTS PRESENT?

I'm afraid we will have to look to medical science to answer this question.

Gestation:

Week 5

The baby's heart and circulatory system are taking shape, but not fully formed.
No BONES, no SKIN, no MOVEMENT

It's POTENTIAL LIFE

Week 6

Heart is beating with a regular rhythm

Week 7

The umbilical cord is formed.
But still no BONES or MOVEMENT

Week 8

Baby's fingers and toes begin to form.
We are getting closer and closer.

Week 9

MOVEMENT BEGINS
Now have a central nervous system that is actually creating movement. There is a functioning heart, circulatory system and movement, but still no BONES.

Week 10

The bones begin to form.
So at this point all the requirements are present. We have skin, flesh, bones in movement (quickening) and a nervous system.

The baby has transitioned from POTENTIAL LIFE to a LIVING SOUL

4. INTERESTING STATISTICS ON ABORTION

61% occur within first 9 weeks of gestation.

Approx. 80% occur before 10/11th weeks of gestation.

Which means that 80% of abortions occur before you really have ALL the REQUIREMENTS for a LIVING SOUL.

CONCLUSION

In perspective the majority of abortions are NOT MURDER.

And so Dr Ruckman is probably correct although for the wrong Scriptural reasons.

Now, let me just make it quite clear that my own PERSONAL CONVICTION is that abortion is WRONG because "children are an heritage of the LORD and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps 127:3) and "every good gift and every perfect gift is from above" (Jas 1:17).

However, if a baby is aborted before 10 weeks I don't believe it is MURDER.

Clearly this is a very emotive subject and NOT clear cut and I believe we should not judge the woman/couple if they abort the baby-it's between them and the Lord.

Dr.,

Well Dr. Ruckman disagrees with you brother. He wants to use gen 2:to apply to every child ever born.

The question to you is this.


Dose Gen. 2:7 apply to every person that has ever lived or dose it only apply to Adam?


Now you may or may not agree with Ruckman on this issue. This post is about what Ruckman believes and teaches. Now I say and have proved he takes Gen 2: 7 out of context. Now where do you stand on the issue of context of Gen. 2:7?




Atlas

I wish you had waited until I had finished completing my posts before commenting.

This is why I wrote...to be cont.

The debate is when does a person become a LIVING SOUL. Yes Sarah CONCEIVED but it wasn't until 9 months later that she gave Abraham a LIVING SOUL.

I don't understand your point about the rejoicing-what does that prove one way or another?

May I suggest that a woman who has been raped and ends up conceiving is most UNLIKELY to be rejoicing

No offence taken.

I have learned over the years to be hard-skinned.

Please read my posts carefully right up to my conclusion.

Dilligent,

This very verse calls it a "work of God." Who are we to interrupt this work of God at any stage when the work is clearly began?

I don't disagree with you-read my conclusion.

However, I believe Scripture teaches that early on in gestation the baby is not a LIVING SOUL and on this occasion science/medicine appears to concur with what God said in Ezekiel 37.

You know brother I'm leaning towards disagreeing with Dr Ruckman on Gen 2:7, however, as we all know human beings are a trichotomy body(flesh), soul and spirit and Leviticus 17:11 CLEARLY says the LIFE of the FLESH is in the blood.

A person who is brain dead and is then resuscitated and placed on life support has LIFE in the FLESH because they have a working circulatory system-but are they still a LIVING SOUL?

I have resuscitated folk who have 'given up the ghost' I have actually heard them EXPIRE and they have then been placed on life support and their FLESH is clearly still ALIVE! but their soul has presumably gone??????????

Thanks for the sound bite. I would not have believed this until I heard it. :(

So because people use contraception it makes it not murder? Well, if everyone commits adultrey it must make it OK as well! This is very poor reasoning at best. By the way not all contraceptives stop the baby from feeding but do stop the egg before it all starts. If not then YES! It's murder! I know I am new to this forum and probably the most liberal one here too. Yet I even know this is not the case.

These verses prove both you and Ruckman wrong...

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Both verses refering to John the Baptist. If he was not a living soul then why was he leaping in the womb. If John was not a living soul what was John doing leaping in her womb? Why was she filled with the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost was not there for an embroy but for a SOUL!

Using the details of Luke 1, it can be seen that Mary's pregnancy had just begun when she visited Elisabeth. Elisabeth, prophesying by the Holy Ghost, called her "the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43). The LORD Jesus was not a potential being at that time, though His mother was certainly only weeks along, definitely well before the end of the first trimester.

WRONG, atlas, no he does not.

You even quoted him...

"On the MP3 file at 29 seconds he says,
Quote:
I teach ta baby is not a living soul until it breaths

C'mon atlas, get it straight.

The trouble that you, and so many others, are having here is that you misquote Dr. Ruckman and then rail on him after doing so. (Go back and read you words and see if the quotes match.)

"He's 100% wrong (big and bold), wrong, wrong, wrong...blah, blah, blah"

No, atlas, you're 100% wrong! (but I won't put it in bold!)

What you suggest and what he said are two different things.

You said that he teaches that LIFE starts when a baby breathes...

No he does not.

Dogs and trees have LIFE, but they are NOT living souls.

The life of the flesh is in the blood...right??? Of course, but it does not say the life of the soul is in the blood (you understand there's a difference, don't you?).

Souls are a bodily shape (Rev. 6), but they are NOT the body. The unborn living baby in the womb is a body (flesh) with life in it, but it is not yet an eternal soul. It is not yet "self-sustaining," that is it is only alive (flesh) as its "host" (mother) is providing its life...

Dr. Ruckman teaches (and so do I) then that when someone aborts a living baby in the womb, they are not murdering a living soul. They are not sending the unborn baby to heaven, they are simply terminating the life that was in the flesh, life that when born would become a living soul. Never has he condoned or recommended abortion, but he teaches that it is not what everyone says it is.

You can run all kinds of scripture to say what you think refutes this, but you'll have trouble considering that the position is not saying the unborn baby is not living, as you falsely supposed.

pbiwolski, aside from the fact that Dr. Ruckman's position was misquoted, you and he both appear to consider that abortion is not a moral crime because a living soul is not killed. Murder is taking a life, not taking a living soul. So I would say that even in your (incorrect) position that a baby becomes a living soul at birth, abortion, that is the taking of an innocent human life, is still murder.

While you are at it, since your take the counter-position to others here, could you answer my questions found in posts #12 and #13 found here: http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...5&postcount=12

Regardless of what Ruckman teaches, this position is not clear from Scripture. It is at best conjecture. And it is not consistent with other Scripture.

We agree that a person is a tri-partate being -- body, soul, spirit.

David referred to himself at conception (Ps 51:5). If all three parts were not there, then how was David himself? I just don't buy your reasoning. We know children have a body, soul, and spirit. What business do we have correcting the Bible when it says an unborn baby is a child or an infant? It calls the unborn human a child in at least 25 verses and an infant in one. I'll stick with that.

Your questions...

Some questions for those who see the soul entering the body at birth: (give references if possible)
1 ) When does the spirit get created? If at conception, why?

I would have to say at conception, although "created" would not be the right word. The scriptures are plenteous in connecting the spirit with our/God's breath and even wind. A few...

Job 27:3 All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Job 34:14 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
Ezek. 37:1-14 (spirit likened to wind/breath of God)
John 3:6-8 (spirit likened to wind)

(The "why?" is answered in question 3.)

2 ) If the body is without a soul, is it alive? If no, then when is a baby alive?

Yes, it (the body/flesh) is absolutely alive.

3 ) Does the spirit separate from the soul at any point?

Of course!

Ecc. 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Gen. 49:33 And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost (spirit), and was gathered unto his people (soul).
Gen. 50:1 And Joseph fell upon his father's face (body), and wept upon him, and kissed him.

The soul does not need the spirit - the body does. As long as the baby is in the mother, it does not need "the spirit" (it's own), it exists off of its mother. Should mom "give up the ghost," there goes the life of the unborn baby.

Job 34:14-15 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; All flesh shall perish together, and man (the body) shall turn again unto dust.

When the child is conceived, the child receives its own spirit (the breath of life) and becomes a living soul.

4 ) If the pre-born child has no soul, then if death occurs in the womb, does the child cease to exist?

Yes. Please forgive the crude wording, but it is no more that a pile of meat and tissue - flesh. If you allow emotions and humanism to affect your understanding, you'll want to make those harmless unborn babies living in "a better place" (which can nowhere be proven with scripture).
__________________

Yep, you said it, "at conception."

And now for YOUR reasoning...

Are you serious? This is your reasoning?

So what if the unborn is called a "child." I'll stick with it too! However, it proves nothing to convey a living soul in the womb as you suggest.

And c'mon, please don't accuse me (or others) of correcting the Bible with such a lame statement about "child/infant."
Check out II Kings 4. The "child" is dead and its flesh has gone cold, but its still a "child."

pbiwolski,

You are 100% wrong I did not misquote anyone one time.

Can you not read my post? It is on page one. How dare you missrepresent and say I misquote anyone, when the facts prove I do not.

Do you not understand I put the time the quote came from? Can you not read and hear at the same time? The quotes are a 100% perfect word for word match.

I did this and the quotes match word for word

Every quote I made has the MP3 time beside the quote. Check it out. Do not lie and say I misquoted anyone I NEVER DID SO!!!!

GO READ THE POST I MADE AND LISTIN TO IT!!!!!!

You will see the qoutes are word for word.



Well both of you have no scripture for this teaching.


Tell me who dose Gen 2:7 applies to other than Adam?



Atlas

Tim,

There is no fact that Ruckman was misquoted.

This is where I quoted Ruckman.

You go listen to the MP3 READ the quote and tell me I misquoted him.

You need to get the facts. The facts are I quoted Ruckman word for word.


Atlas

Atlas, you need to cool down. You are indeed misstating Dr. Ruckman's statement. You say for us to look at your first post. Here is your statement: (underlining mine for emphasis)

You directly quote Dr. Ruckman here:
pbiwolski identifies that (in his opinion) having life and being a living soul are two different things. That may be up for argument, but to be specific, the two phrases are not the same wording. I attempted to point out that even using pbiwolski's separation of meaning, that abortion is still murder.

I agree with atlas. Life starts at conception, body - soul - spirit. I also believe abortion is 100% wrong 100% of the time.

Luke used the senario of his wife at risk of dying giving birth. I am getting married soon, so I have put much thought to this as well. It would be a very tough decision, but I believe it would still be wrong even in this case. There's no such thing as justifiable murder. The taking of human life is allowed in (a) time of war, and (b) self defence, or the defence of others. Abortion never falls under self defence. To defend requires there to be an attacker. An unborn child is not an attacker, the threat is not one of attack. Therefore in this case to have an abortion is trying take the situation out of God's hands and choosing to kill an innocent child instead of trusting God to do what is best.

Tim,

You and PBI the ones that need to calm down and stop saying someone did something they did not do.

Now you are saying I am misstating, what happened to misquoting? Back peddling a little now are we? Maybe you should apologize for the misquoting statement. As it was 100% incorrect and you know it.

You both stated I misquoted Ruckman. Both of you have said I did this. Both of you are wrong and this is backed up with facts.


You both state this as a fact, you can not show me where I misquoted him.

This is the quote again.

Now is this a misquote or not?



He also says,

Now is this a misquote or not?

Now either I did or I did not misquote him. You both said I did.


PBI said,


You said in this in reply to PBI's statement,

I have not misquoted Ruckman one time.


Do not attack Ruckman for taking Gen. 2:7 out of context. Attack the person that made the post pointing out that Ruckman takes the verse out of context. This is how you guys play the game is it? Well any Bible corrector in the world would be very proud indeed.



Atlas

Josh,

This is a very interesting point. I have never looked at it this way before. I agree with you 100%. Thanks for the wonderful post on this issue. I also think in this case you should pray and ask that God's will be done and hope somehow that mother and baby live. Doctors have been wrong before, it would be my hope the doctor would be wrong and mother and child would live.


Atlas

Atlas, did you say:
Yes or no?

Does that misquote his position? Some might say "yes", but the exact meaning of misquoting one's position as opposed to misquoting one's words could be debatable.

Would you be willing to admit that your first statement misrepresented Dr. Ruckman's position or at least did not make it clear?

I will gladly admit that my sentence would better have been, "aside from the fact that Dr. Ruckman's position was misstated," and would apologize and ask that you forgive me for not being as clear as I should have been.

For the record, I very early in the discussion about the "living soul" made my position unmistakably clear. http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...3&postcount=10

You and I agree on the position, just not in the language of the discussion. I have not called you a liar.

You will change your mind fast when you get married. Or her parents will change it for you. And if you are ever in this situation, you will change your mind.

I think this position, while it sounds noble, is legalistic and ridiculous.

atlas,
Slow down and read. Read clearly and slowly without skipping or jumping to conclusions.

Tim was not defending my position, he merely understands what you (and others) are doing, and sees where the "error" (it's in quotations for you, Tim!) is.

By the way, thanks for attempting to clear it up, Tim.

Tim,

No because without a soul no human is anything more than a dog or cat. Without a living soul no man is a man. We are not talking about just a body here. We are talking soul. All men have 3 parts, and must have 3 parts to be a man. Anything else is an animal and not in the image of God.

This is Ruckmans stand and he uses Gen. 2:7 taken out of context for this false doctrine. He bases this false doctrine by taking the Bible out of context. AS an example, RC's do the same thing with John 3 and use it for getting babies wet and saying they must do this to be saved. All false doctrines come from taking the Bible out of context and wrongly dividing God's word. We all oppose this and will agree that RC's take John 3 out of context to teach false doctrine.

Dose Ruckman take Gen 2:7 out of context?

yes or no.

Dose Gen 2:7 apply to you?

Did God make you out of dirt?

yes or no

Did God breath into you the breath of life?

yes or no

Who dose Gen. 2:7 apply to?


You seem to be far more worried that I may have misstated what Ruckman has said, yet Ruckman taking Gen. 2:7 100% out of context seems to be just fine with this. Why is this the case? This is what I'd like to know?



Atlas