Quote:
Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish
Bro. Tony B,
Have you read Bro. Ruckman's Bible Believer's Commentary on Genesis, he devotes about 10 pages to this exact issue, pp 174--184. Just for another view on it...
|
Brother Parrish, I had all of Dr. Ruckman's Commentaries up until about 1999, I found the beginning of his commentary on Genesis to be one of his weakest. I'm not going to detail the reasons, they are quite obvious to those who have read them. With respect to The Gap Theory and the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japeth Dr. Ruckman, to me, attempts to do what he damns in others: Retranslate the Bible to fit a preconceived precept. One of these is found in Genesis 9 and one I believe is worthy of discussion:
Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
In Gen. 9:22 his teaching was, in the edition of the Commentary I had, that Ham sodomized Noah based on an interpretation of "...saw the nakedness of his father,..." rendering the verse:
Gen. 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, sodomized his father, and told his two brethren without.
What holds true for verse 22 must then hold true for verse 23:
Gen. 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and that they sodomized their father not.
Of all men that write commentaries, my conviction is that Dr. Ruckman is quite accurate and more honest than many, particularly Cornelious Stam, but we must remember Dr. Ruckman is a man just like me. I have a belief, based on Bible numerics(NOT numerology) and dispensationalism in that the number of people who will go up to meet the Lord in the "Rapture" will be 1/10 the living and 1/10 the dead. I believe Paul died of pneumonia while imprisoned and not execution. I could be wrong on those beliefs. As I recognize Dr. Ruckman could be wrong on Genesis 1, Genesis 6, and Genesis 9. Dr. Ruckman is quit critical of A. W. Pink in Pink's "corrections" to the 1611 text and his Calvinism with respect predestination, yet uses Pink's(quite correct) Bible "types" for Joseph and Christ without crediting Pink's commentary on Genesis. Dr. Ruckman condemns us "dry cleaners" on our convictions about water baptism being an OT ordinance and a dead work, yet is more dispensational that Stam in many his teachings, which has led me several times to say he hunts with the Baptist hounds and runs with the dispensational rabbits. His Commentary on the book of Hebrews is what actually led me into investigating the teachings of the "hypers", and is also one of his best in my opinion.
Dr. Ruckman is my first choice if I need a commentary, however there is much in his Commentary on Genesis forces me to, as he himself puts it, put his private interpretations into File 13.
Grace and peace brother
Tony