Changing the Book to Suit Your Needs | Speaking in Tongues | Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

This video focuses on just ONE question from a much longer video.
You can see the whole video here:
Part01: • Peter S. Ruckman - Q...
Part02: • Peter S. Ruckman - Q ...
Make sure to give a like and a follow.
I have cleaned up the audio and added verses to match the teaching.
I hope you find this a blessing.

[@Ari_speaks]

Thank you so much for sharing these videos! Some of us are completely new to the KJV Bible, and to Dr. Ruckman

[@alexkjvgrg6417]

AMEN.

[@TravisGann-m8b]

Excellent

[@kevinclint7588]

TRUST IN THE LORD WITH ALL THINE HEART ; AND LEAN NOT UNTO THINE OWN UNDERSTANDING . PROVERBS 3 : 5 KJV ❤

[@Kingjamesstreetpreacher]

Good point made by Dr. Ruckman. This was helpful.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

Larkin corrected Ruckman on this long ago, Dr. Ruckman makes a completely irrelevant cross reference to 2 John that has absolutely nothing to do with 1 Corinthians and then has tongues and the gifts continuing until Christ returns (by his interpretation of this passage).
Ruckman though does bring out a great point in his false interpretation, don’t be so anxious to overthrow a false teaching that you come up with a forced and unnatural exegesis. Ironically though Dr. Ruckman does so here. Rev. Larkin had this right before Ruckman was born. This isn’t about men it’s simply about what is the interpretation that aligns best with sacred scripture.

[@LastCall777]

Or, just maybe, seeing that Ruckman studied and respected Larkin, he read what Larkin had to say, studied it out, and came to a different conclusion.
You've said nothing in your comment to correct this teaching other than saying the cross reference is irrelevant and Larkin said something else. Clearly, having made the cross reference himself, Ruckman felt the reference was perfectly relevant.

[@MitchellCH]

I don’t think you know what irrelevant means.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

@@LastCall777 yup, I’m not trying to prove Larkin’s idea correct here and I agree with Larkin’s conclusion. My point was, saw Larkin’s answer to be wrong & tried to fix it, and what I found was just the opposite ironically. I believe Larkin had it right and Ruckman just messed it up. That’s all.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

@@MitchellCH and what makes you think that?

[@anthonyprose4965]

I'd like to study what Larkin had to say. Can you point me to a source?