I joined this board close to or over two years ago because she was making a libelous statement against a man of God, and while I've matured and mellowed out a lot in the time since then, she's been just as preachy and mouthy as the day I first came here. She apparently has no idea of how a woman's supposed to act, and in my opinion has absolutely no place moderating anything except a cookie sheet. I've watched her mouth off constantly and I've refrained myself as well as possible, but sometimes she gets to the point where it's ignorant not to call her on it. She has a problem with her mouth that her husband needs to get under control, but if he's unaware or incapable then someone else needs to point it out.That's how it's always been, yet for some reason that board still allows her to be a moderator, in authority over men.
That aside, let's tackle the subject that sparked the post and the title thereof. The OP (opening/original post/poster) provided a partial quote of one of Dr. Ruckman's Genesis Bible classes. One of the best ways to smear someone is to take their words out of context and not provide the explanation they themselves provide, usually directly after the quoted part. While the actions of the OP are rather inflammatory, I will say this for them: they attempted to provide a Biblical rebuttal, and while it was far from satisfactory or conclusive, it was better than anyone else did in that topic.
While the actual quote is worthy of address, I'd prefer to point out some other things first. I don't know who all reads or learns of my posts on this blog, and I don't particularly care. Nor do I worry whether it offends someone or not. I pose my statements to be as unoffensive as I personally can, but I'm not going to bend over backwards in the attempt to appease people; if someone gets offended by what I say, then they should take a good long look at Psalm 119:165 and get back with me.
The Board of which I spoke (and posted an excerpt from above) is extremely biased, from an outsider's (and former insider's) view. Time and again, the female moderator slandered a great old man of God groundlessly, yet when I would speak up in his defense I would be labeled as a "heretic" or a "Ruckmanite" or "immature and impulsive." Biblical evidence remaining strongly on my side was never enough: they refused, as a whole (the leadership), to acknowledge when anything wrong was done. I was wrongly banned at least twice, and never once was I apologized to, and the final ban was done against the very rules of the board. Moreover, almost the entire population of the board is rabidly anti-Ruckman, and jumps on every single opportunity to slash and claw at those that support him or any of his teachings. This is backwards and unintelligent to the extreme; I suppose it also doesn't help that the majority of the members are women, who sometimes seem to experience their lady issues at the same time of the month and thereby rain hellfire and damnation on the rest of the people there.
Ok, about the quote from Dr. Ruckman.
He said that man becomes a living soul when he breathes; God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. That is Bible, that is fact, and if you don't like it, then go suck your thumb. Now, the issue arises that we as Christians believe that life begins at conception. Yes, it does, very clearly, and even Doc believes that from the next part of the quote that the OP failed to include. According to Leviticus 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Scientifically, blood is transferred at conception from the male's sperm to the woman's egg (the mother and child have completely separate circulatory systems; their blood never mixes), so the life of that child begins at conception. Nothing Doc said disagrees with this. The problem arises when people lack the ability to understand the clear-cut 6th grade English of the King James Bible. Behold, a demonstration.
Genesis 2: living soul.
Leviticus 17: life of the flesh.
Soul != flesh
For those of you who are familiar with bash (UNIX terminal language), the third expression should clear it up. (!= means "is not equal to") Man is a trichotomy; Spirit, Soul and Body (in that order). God fashioned the Body out of dust, breathed into him His Spirit, and with that breath, man became a living Soul. All three are present right there: Spirit, Soul and Body. Following?
In Leviticus, the topic is not the soul, but the living flesh. In fact, the only use of the word "soul" in that chapter is used to mean an individual, not the part of a human trichotomy. God is speaking of completely mundane or fleshy things in that chapter; in fact the whole book is dedicated to the Law that the Jews were required to keep.
To sum it up, I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Ruckman that babies aren't souls before birth and do not go to Heaven if they die. I do not, however, have any way to disprove his statements. As such, I'm not brash and arrogant enough to prate like I know so much better than a man that's studied and defended the King James Bible for most of his adult life. I do not agree, but I cannot disprove it. Therefore I will remain quiet on the subject until the Holy Spirit of God gives me a reason to do otherwise.
At conception, a life begins. I am not God, and I didn't create life, so I simply have to go by what the Bible says. Fleshly life begins with blood, and according to Genesis, that Soul was created with the breath of life. Whether or not that extends to where people without the breath of life do not have souls, I do not know, but neither does anyone else, since it is not quickly apparent from Scripture.
What I do know, however, is that people have a tendency to run their mouths (or their keyboards) without engaging their hippocampi, and the result is usually that they appear ignorant and tick me off with unfounded and Biblically invalid statements. As a future father and 100% pro-life individual, I believe that all human life is sacred. I don't agree that rape is grounds for abortion, or even high-risk pregnancies. However, I cannot throw out the Bible to cling to my other beliefs, and anyone that would do so is neither a Bible Believer nor a true Christian (Christian meaning "Christ-like).
I will apologize if I've offended anyone; that truly is not my intention: I simply want to put the Biblical truth out in the open and help keep the reputation of a great man of God from being sullied by out-of-context quotes.