[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Sorry Tim, don't mean to hijack but I was talking to Chette. See I have met Bro. Ruckman, and I have seen him preach many times, in many different churches in different cities all over the place going back well over 25 years. And I have never even once seen him use "body guards."

Brother Parrish, I can get you sworn depositions that on one night he did.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

C'mon guys! There are a dozen threads on the forum where Dr.Ruckman can be discussed.

The topic is Genesis 9 and the erroneous teaching from it Tim. Would you like me to order Dr. Ruckman's Commentary on Genesis 9, though it was alone among all his Commentaries the one I felt I wasted money on, and quote verbatum his teachings on the topic? He holds "no copyright on anything written with my name on it" according to this month's BBB so no intellectual property rights will be violated.

From time to time, particularly when I first joined this forum, people employ the carnal weapons of snide little anonymous emails. One of those was after sister Jennifer(Greenbear) joined the forum and her agreeing for the most part with my dispensational position, and it stated in part, the part that fit to reproduce, that I am "...stacking the deck over on Brandon Stagg's 1611 forum with dry cleaners..." I've never known John and Jennifer before they joined this forum, but had it been my superficial and shallow purpose to disrupt this forum I'd brought 25 "dry cleaners" with me when I joined.

That was not my purpose and is not and never will be, Tim I don't need numbers to back my positions in doctrinal studies here, I have the Scriptures, rightly divided. I have friends here now for all eternity, I have people here who have been kind to me and been true Christian brothers and sisters. Do you know of one more forum that is neck deep in Baptists who accept and welcome a Grace believer(me) among them, other than this one?

What I have observed is the forum is stacked pretty deep in Ruckmanites who don't tolerate criticism of a man, particularly when his teachings on the topic of the thread are brought up.

Grace and peace Tim, perhaps one day we'll see that no matter how "good Godly dedicated conservative fundamentalist KJV Only" any man is we are all still flesh, and have to struggle with that all the time we breath.

Tony

[JOHN G]

I am not sure where decendents really comes in at all. In just plain reading of the scripture it seems the curse is on Canaan (one man, Ham's son) only. Where are we getting decendents from?

Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Diligent

Gee, how nice, another thread turned into a debate over Ruckman.

Well, at least this proves this isn't a "Ruckmanite" forum. There's at least a silver lining...

Brandon, it's not nice brother. Dr. Ruckman is the most verbal and highest profile teacher today of the heresy that Genesis 9 is used to teach that we are discussing in this thread. This teaching is a work of the flesh as Paul tells us of in Galatians. It's sad that a man as talented as Dr. Ruckman would teach such a heresy, it's sad a man as talented as Cornelius Stam taught the heresy of absolute Calvinist predestination, and i think it's sad that when Dr. Ruckman's false teachings and fleshly nature are demonstrated in this forum on any topic out come the pitchforks and torches. We tried to have a discussion on water baptism and it was disrupted with the Gospel According To Peter Rickman & Harry ironside and that's why I dropped out of it, not because i am wrong or that I was "outvoted", but to help keep peace in the forum. That's not possible, so I'm returning to the water baptism thread.

You're right, this is not a "Ruckmanite" forum but it's gittin' close brother.


Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by KingSolomon1611

I'd say Canaan was also prophesied to be a servant to the descendants of Japheth.

Genesis 9:26-27 (KJV)
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

So all blacks in Alybamy and Ol' Mississipp or the three black sisters here in Ohio who worked with my mother, who helped raise me and were blood family to me while Mom and Dad had to work and still are today, who wept and cried at my mother's funeral while the rest of my family("Japethites") sat like stone statues, are descended from Canaan and i shouldn't sit next to them at Wendy's? Am I supposed to research the genealogy of anyone who moves in next door to me? Am I to give offense to neither Hamite, Japethite, or Shemite, or is it Jew, Gentile, and church of God? Were blacks excluded from the Mystery Body of Christ that was kept hid in God from eternity and revealed only to Paul by a curse placed by Noah, or are they included, they are just excluded from sharing a hospital bed with me in a two-bed hospital room?

Brother King, I used to collect for a loan shark back in the bad ol' days, and had just ruined another good door with a pair of brass knuckles and was walking to my car in Atlanta Georgia. An elderly black woman and two small kids stepped off the sidewalk into the gutter to let me pass. I reached out my hand and helped her back onto the walk, I thought she was gonna pass out. She said to me, "You're a good man.." I said back to her, "No, I'm a bad man, the worst, but you don't step into a gutter for anybody."

Brother, I think you and most other PBI graduates need to move up north. I got 2 vacant houses on my street, 1 Arab, 2 black, and 7 Mexican families live on my street, and we get along just fine. The child molester(a Japethite) had to move when someone put a 9mm shell casing in his mailbox as a hint, I think you'll like it here.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Diligent

Brothers Tim and Tony,

I'm with you guys. I'm really, really tired of people reading into this passage -- both in making assumptions about what was "done to" Noah and assuming that our modern ideas of "race" can be grafted on to the curse in some way.

I notice brother Presswood already addressed this anomaly, I guess for some people you have to draw a picture. In 1988 I wrote a tract called the Levitical Lynch Mob, this is the gist of the tract:

Gen. 9:18 ¶ And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
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.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.


"Saw nakedness" is found nowhere else in the Scriptures, and is cross-referred to Leviticus 18 to mean "lie carnally with":

Lev. 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

There are two problems that impeach this private interpretation:

1. Noah passed out naked, no one "uncovered" anything, he was already "uncovered" by his own fault of getting drunk.
2. Nowhere in the Scriptures is the phrase to "see" someone's "nakedness" to mean to "lie carnally with" but implies a physical act of "uncovering".

There are three places in Genesis in the KJV that "KJV Onlys" retranslated the Scriptures: Genesis 1 and the "gap"( the earth was without form and made void, rather than just "void"), Genesis 6 with "nephIlim", and Genesis 9 with the insertion of the word "sodomized". Let's look at this private interpretation:

Gen. 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, sodomized 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 unsodomized their father; and their faces were backward, and they sodomized their father not.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

That makes a whole lot of sense and is the product of a "sound mind", isn't it? There you have it, and there is no way in the Universe it can be changed. If "saw the nakedness of" means to "lie carnally with" then Ham sodomized Noah and the Shem and Japeth somehow "unsodomized" him by covering him with a blanket or animal skin so that they would not sodomize him? By the same method of private interpretaion, what does "cover the nakedness of" mean? Is this somehow a way to "fix" a sexual tresspass?

My next message will show "what Noah saw that was done to him."

As i said, with some people you have to draw them a picture.

Grace and peace

Tony

[George]

Brother Tony said:

"We were prevented from meeting with Dr. Ruckman because he refused to address the issue that he was wrong and failed to check out what he endorsed before endorsing it. I quote William of Occam:"

"Oops".

"We were prevented bodily from getting within proximity of Dr. Ruckman by "Dr." Estep and two young men who were bodybuilders, Ruckman's bodyguards. When I made the statement to the men and women with me that let's not waste anymore time and head for the street ministry, one of the young men made an obscene remark I won;t repeat for the sake of the women in this forum. I won't repeat it for the sake of the men, either."

Aloha brother Tony,

I believe what you have testified to, but I don't think that the "bodyguards" were from brother Ruckman - Baptist "bodyguards" were "standard fare" for Greg Estep and his followers.

On the Island of Kauai we had an Estep "clone" Baptist church that followed in the footsteps of Greg Estep. It was (and may still be) the most Fascistic setup I ever saw in 50 years of being a Christian!

I have a friend (Ed) who was invited by the groom (who was attending said church) to his wedding. When my friend (Ed) showed up at the wedding, he was met at the door by two "Christian" GOONS who PHYSICALLY PREVENTED him from attending his own friend's wedding! Later on, one of those GOONS threatened to knock my block off when my wife and I were trying to counsel a Christian couple to reconcile and not divorce!

If Estep was involved, I can believe that the "bodyguards" were either his, or his idea. I do not think that they were brother Ruckman's, or brother Ruckman's idea.

Take a deep brother; although you and I "differ" on some of the dispensational issues, I have never had the inclination to reprove or rebuke you, because I think your conduct has been peaceful here (and a lot less controversial than mine ).

I learned a lot from brother Peter Ruckman's books and tapes from 1968 through the early 1980's (I haven't read much of his material in over 20 years). I disagree with him on this issue, and a few others too boot! The man is not "infallible", but at the same time, I know that God has used him - despite his "shortcomings".

I see no "profit" or "edification" in tearing the man down - let sleeping dogs lie brother, there are a whole lot of other "fish to fry" without tearing down a man who will have to answer to God (maybe shortly) for his faults and shortcomings. In addition, brother Ruckman can not be held responsible for the many "clones" (Ruckmanites) who try to "imitate" him.

I agree with your "take" on many issues (such as the "conspiracy device" [2 Corinthians 2:11]; the hopelessly corrupt governments of the world; the emphasis on the "ministry of reconciliation"; etc.).

Like you often say brother:

"Grace and peace to you",

Yours for the Lord Jesus Christ and for His Holy word,

George

[Winman]

I am not sure where decendents really comes in at all. In just plain reading of the scripture it seems the curse is on Canaan (one man, Ham's son) only. Where are we getting decendents from?

Well, I don't know if this is speaking of one man only (Canaan).

Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

How can one man be a servant of servants (plural) of brethren (plural)? And it says God shall enlarge Japheth, so to me this seems to be saying Japheth will be fruitful and multiply. I really don't believe it means Japheth will swell up or become a larger person (being a little sarcastic there). It also says Japheth will dwell in the tents (plural) of Shem. So this seems to be speaking of multiple people, Japheth's descendents. And then we are told Canaan will be Japheth's servant.

So, I do believe this blessing/curse was to affect the descendants of each brother. For how long, I cannot say.

What is interesting about this blessing/curse is that Noah's sons Shem and Japheth are mentioned, but Ham is not. And the curse is on Canaan, a grandson of Noah.

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

What I have observed is the forum is stacked pretty deep in Ruckmanites who don't tolerate criticism of a man, particularly when his teachings on the topic of the thread are brought up.
Tony

Tony, I love you brother, but you've got to be kidding.
Who has not "tolerated" your posts?
I think you have been tolerated quite well.

You have been "tolerated" while calling believer's baptism a "sacrament," which is a slap in the face to every Baptist pastor here at best and rotten leaven at worse.

You have been "tolerated" while saying Pete Ruckman uses "body guards," and calling Bro. Ruckman a leader of a CULT, which is a fantasy out of a vinyl-bound Pauline training manual written by a Hyperdispensationalist.

You have been "tolerated" while name calling and vomiting up personal hate bombs, including calling me a "chicken and a Neanderthal," to the point where you got so CONVICTED you had come back and apologize all over yourself.

Maybe I missed the part where the administrator called you out and told you your behavior would no longer be "tolerated" or that your posts would be censored. DID I MISS THAT BROTHER????

Now come on Tony, get off your high horse. I think what you are saying is, you would prefer it if we all sat silent, hanging on your every word while you tear down Baptist pastors. I think what you are saying is, you were upset when Ruckman's article exposed some errors about Hyperdispensationalism and cherry picking Bullingerism, and you are STILL ANGRY because everyone here hasn't started eating that ultra-chopped baloney sandwich you are promoting.

TONY, TONY, TONY. Relax man, enjoy the ride, sing a little chorus of Kumbaya. Maybe one day we will all be blessed enough to perfect like YOU. Now you can puff up and act like a hognose snake, roll over and stick your tongue out if you want, but don't give me that trash about not being TOLERATED.

[Brother Tim]

Winman proposed:

So, I do believe this blessing/curse was to affect the descendants of each brother. For how long, I cannot say.

I think that the passage is clearly to be understood as referring to the decendents. I do not see it as a "forever" curse, however. The Scriptures quickly become silent in regards to the three divisions. The focus switches from the Shemite line to Abraham's line finally to Jacob's (Israel). All other families and nations soon become Gentiles in general.

By the way, we cannot know from the Scriptures that the Ethiopian Eunuch was Hamite. By that time decendents of Jacob had scattered all over that region of the earth.