Jump to content
Online Baptist - Independent Baptist Community


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 02/24/2018 in all areas

  1. 6 points
  2. 6 points
    I have full assurance of conviction that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are NOT angelic beings.
  3. 5 points

    The beauty of creation

    This picture was taken by a gentleman in Sequim last Thursday. Even though we are surrounded by mountains, snow is very rare in this area. It started snowing Sunday a week ago, and snowed several times after that. Temps remained very cold, so the snow hung on. Yesterday it began raining, so our front yard is basically clear (the back yard still has a lot of snow). It is beautiful, but I''m ready for spring.
  4. 5 points
    No Nicolaitans


    I'm tired of it all. Maybe I'm in a bad place, but I'm tired of it all...extremely tired of it all. I miss people...especially fellow believers...being happy and joyful...enjoying the salvation that the Lord has given us. At one time, I thrived on debate and trying to prove others wrong...it took me a long time to realize how miserable I was. I've read things on here lately that makes me raise an eyebrow and go, "HUH?", but I've long since lost the desire to try to counter it. I'm sorry...I don't claim to be right...and if you look at some of my past postings, you'll see that I've said that quite often. I just don't have it in me any longer to try and continue on. I just need some time to love the Lord and be his child...I've lost that at some point in this journey. I no longer post in forums that have to do with anything of dire importance regarding scripture, theology, doctrine, or any other kind of important spiritual significance. I'm tired of the arguing. Of late, I've just been trying to have a little bit of fun in hope of bringing a smile to someone who may be having a bad day or a sad moment. I miss the days when I didn't know all of the crazy "theology" that I know now. Perhaps it's my fault for being where I am now, but I'm just tired of it. I long for the days when I was new to the faith, when I couldn't get enough of Jesus and the bible, and when I (mistakenly) thought that all Christians believed rightly. I'm tired, I'm worn out, and I'm depleted. Make of it what you will...and please pray for me...but I just can't take any more right now. Would to God that the blessed Lord Jesus would take us home right here...right now. I want to go home.
  5. 4 points
    Matthew 24:35 and several other similar: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Christ is the Word and the Word is Christ. If you know His Word, you know Him as you know yourself. This cannot be achieved by men's published books, it can only be achieved by saturation in God's Word. You must consume yourself with listening to Him just like most the professing consume themselves in temporal, self-interests.
  6. 4 points
    At the completion of the canon of scripture, the Book of Revelation, the church was not a child but a mature adult. As an adult, the church did not need the prophecies of the New Testament prophets as recorded in the book of Acts, the gift of biblical tongues, languages, and the knowledge that the prophets had. All of these gifts ceased at the completion of the New Testament canon of scriptures. All, may I repeat all, of the apostles, prophets, and the so-called "tongues" gifts in our age are false. The church, the body of Christ, is mature and not a child. The written scriptures are the only, may I repeat, the only body of knowledge and prophecies that the church needs. A child needs to lead by the hand by a tutor; an adult does not. The prophets and the 12 apostles (please note I said 12 Apostles), were the tutors of the early church. The "early" church was the church in the child stage. The sign gifts: Prophesies, Knowledge and the gift of tongues were childish things. The mature Christian, a mature church, does not need these "childish things" that are recorded in 1 Corinthians 13:8-11 1 Corinthians 13:8 is explained by Paul in verses 10 and 11 Marilyn, In connection to your above post, in order to fully know your statement, please answer the following three questions. 1. Do you still believe that there are apostles in the world today? 2. Do you consider yourself an apostle? 3. Does the church that you attend have "apostles?" The scriptures, not a Greek dictionary, defined an Apostle as an disciple who was personally, and audibly, called, and chose, by the Lord Jesus Christ face to face. "And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles." Luke 6:13 The twelve apostles were audibly, personably, and in the presence of the Lord Jesus, called, and chosen, to be an apostle. After the death of John the apostle the office of the Apostle ceased to exist. Alan
  7. 4 points

    The beauty of creation

    All trees are beautiful. They remind me of the majesty of God and His creation. As Mrs. Alan and I were driving on Highway 54, near El Dorado Springs, Missouri, one fine Sunday morning we encountered the beauty of this Maple Tree. Hope you enjoy the scenery as we did. Alan and the Mrs.
  8. 4 points
    We also had some new arrivals. These two guys arrived about five weeks ago. They are Nigerian Dwarf Goats.
  9. 4 points
    I said that I would drop it, but I guess I lied. Forgive me. I've been pondering the questions asked by WW, and since no one else has answered, here are my thoughts... While I've certainly entertained the idea that those sons of God in Job were angels, there's nothing definitive in Job describing them as such. In Job 38, there is the reference to both "morning stars" (often commonly interpreted to be angels) and "sons of God" (also commonly interpreted to be angels) in the same verse. If that's the case...that both refer to angels...then the angels and the angels were there (?). Christ was foretold before Genesis 6. I believe salvation has always been, is today, and always will be given freely by grace through faith...apart from any works/deeds/law-keeping/etc...regardless of which "dispensation" existed, exists, or will exist. (I'm not trying to get into a dispensation debate. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world). They were called sons of God, because that's who they were. As I mentioned, the bible isn't definitive (in my understanding) of exactly who the sons of God were in the Old Testament. The first human to be called the son of God wasn't the Lord Jesus Christ; it was Adam...one might find a reference to Christ being referred to as the son of God early in one of the Gospels; however, the Bible definitively states that the very first man who ever lived was the son of God... Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. ...as such, at this time, I can only conclude that "sons of God" are men...whether alive bodily and saved...or dead bodily but spiritually alive in Christ. In my understanding, it didn't. Their children became mighty men of old...men of renown. Was Goliath a fallen angel/human mix? Were his brothers? Were the other sons of Gath who were called giants also fallen angel/human hybrids? Was Og? All of these men lived after the flood. One can be a mighty man and a man of renown without being a giant. Alexander the Great, George Washington, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, goodness...I would imagine if you asked anyone who Donald Trump was, they would have an answer. Why? They may not have followed the news, and they may not be able to give you an accurate answer about him; however, he has become a mighty man...a man of renown, and they can tell you something about him. I don't understand where you get "bloodlines" as the interpretation for "generations"? When you responded to my original question, you respectfully included the following prerequisite... "one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly." ...I also think that we often make the mistake of applying modern-day meanings to words that were written in the 1600's...many of which have changed meaning over the centuries. What did the word "perfect" mean in 1611? Sorry...I don't follow you on this. Because... Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The flood was about mankind's wickedness and evil...not angels. I would respectfully and humbly assert that to assume a Satanic plot of stopping the Messianic bloodline is an extra-biblical assumption with no biblical evidence. After Joseph, Pharaoh did a lot of dirty business toward the Israelites, but that was toward the Israelites...not the Messiah. He was trying to do population control. The only definitive proof (that I'm aware of) that we have of an actual attempt to stop Christ in the Bible is found in Matthew 2; in which, Herod had all of the male children killed (who were two years old and under). Why did God save Noah and his family? Genesis 6:8-9 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. He found grace and was just. Everything that you've described here was done by holy angels who served God. No. I would respectfully and humbly say that we would assume it...without real biblical evidence. True. God "married" the first two humans, and told them... Genesis 1:27-28 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. From this, it would appear to me that sex (as originally intended by God) was "part-and-partial" to marriage. However, sex isn't automatically part-and-partial to marriage in this sin-stricken world that we live in, because of man's sin nature. Sin has twisted it into something other than the wonderful joy and closeness that God intended to exist between a husband and wife. Sex outside of marriage always brings baggage and always brings remorse of some kind. Many married couples no longer enjoy the intimacy of marriage...because of sin. Pride and selfishness take over and drives a wedge between couples. She won't be intimate, because he won't _______ , or he does _______ . He won't be intimate, because she won't _______ , or she does _______ . It's all sin. It's all due to sin. It's all an effect of living in a sin-cursed world and not allowing Christ to live through us. WW, I didn't mean any of this as an attack on you. In fact, I thank you for stirring my interest and taking my mind off of my troubles for a while. In closing, I leave these last few thoughts... The giants were already living and existed when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, married them, and had children. The flood was a judgment upon mankind...not fallen angels, nor their offspring with human wives. Giants lived and existed after the flood. How did this happen if the angels (who are chained up until judgment day as given in Jude) were the ones who produced the giants?
  10. 4 points
    I think something that people ignore is that men like Goliath were called giants - they were just big guys, not "Jack and the beanstalk" giants. Taken like that, the giants were men noted for their size, and the mighty men were simply men noted for their fighting skill, as with the "mighty men of valour" noted in various places of the OT. And I agree with Pastor Scott - two separate groups of guys noted for different reasons, who were prominent at that time.
  11. 4 points
    It is amazing and somewhat discouraging when people, especially Christians, are drawn to the dramatic and sensational, rather than what God's Word plainly teaches. These are followers of men rather than The Word of God.
  12. 4 points

    The beauty of creation

    A lady took this photo this morning. It's from the east end of Sequim. Gorgeous sunrise.
  13. 3 points

    The beauty of creation

    This is a photo of tonight's moon over Deception Pass Bridge. Deception Pass is the strait between Whidbey and Fidalgo Islands not too far from us (in the Puget Sound). Notice both the moon and Venus (to the right of the moon across the photo). This was taken about 2 hours ago (7:45ish pm). There is actually a pair of bridges, and they are on the National Registry of Historic Places. The photo was taken by Rakan Alduaij and submitted to the Only in Washington FB page.
  14. 3 points
    My concern is this... Since the Lord Jesus Christ explicitly proclaimed that no man knows of that day or hour; in which, he will return... Since the Lord Jesus Christ explicitly compared himself to the master of the house and explicitly said that his servants didn't know if he would return at "even", "midnight", the "cockcrowing", or "morning"... Since the Lord Jesus Christ explicitly said that he would return when we think not... I would be overtly hesitant to proclaim that I believed that he would return upon a certain day...and furthermore...upon a certain day at evening.
  15. 3 points
    Indeed...all temporal things shall be burnt; however, God's word isn't temporal and is settled forever in heaven. If this is just a case of word-play, then I will bow out. I have no desire to debate such things such as this.
  16. 3 points
    you are absolutely right... During your bad times family is the only thing that keeps you running.
  17. 3 points
    Hey Jordan, I hope you are satisfied with the answers to part 2 of this question? As far as Part 1 is concerned: Mar 16:15-20 (15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. This passage gives the purpose for the gifts: (20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. The purpose of the signs was to "confirm the Word with signs". Since the Word is the completion of that which is "in part", and no longer needs such confirmation - because we KNOW it is the Word of God, the signs are no longer needed. This is hardly watertight Jordan, but it is another indicator, and maybe a passage that you can investigate further in regard to this matter.
  18. 3 points
    1Co 13:9-10 (9) For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. (10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. Knowledge - in part. Prophecy - in part. Complete that which is in part? Perfect that which is in part? Your bolded words are only possible meanings of the word, not the absolute definition of the word. The PRIMARY meaning of the word is to COMPLETE (which is why it is the first meaning listed). Which meaning should be referred to is defined by the surrounding words and context. The PASSAGE ITSELF uses the terms "in Part" in contrast to "perfect", thereby setting the meaning of the word "perfect" as relating to "in Part" - in other words, to complete, to perfect, that which is currently in part. The things which are "in part" are ABSOLUTELY DEFINED IN THE PASSAGE as knowledge (Spiritual knowledge is implied, not general knowledge), and prophecy. These are both to do with spiritual knowledge from God, or "Special revelation". This then defines the meaning of "that which is perfect" as also relating to knowledge and prophecy. The Passage itself sets this as the subject under discussion. To force the secondary meaning of "Mental or moral character" into this usage of the word has no justification. Where do we see any discussion in this passage about "mental or moral character" in relation to either that which is in part or that which is perfect? And don't refer back to the discussion on the definition of charity earlier in the chapter for vs 8 begins by pointing out that charity NEVER FAILETH BUT THE PROPHECIES AND KNOWELDGE DO FAIL AND VANISH AWAY. (1Co 13:8) Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. This fact alone removes the likelihood of "Mental or moral character" because the new subject is CONTRASTED against the discussion of charity. Charity has all these factors that could be considered to do with character, but it never fails, and these other things absolutely will fail. The illustrations used are consistent with and supportive of the subject being knowledge and prophecy: (1Co 13:11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. Children have a limited understanding, just like the people of Paul's time had a limited revelation from God. You yourself have pointed that out in discussions with Eric. (1Co 13:12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. Looking into a mirror in those days - or even through an old piece of glass - gave a reflection (or image through the glass) that was lacking in detail, or a not a clear representation of the truth. However, looking face to face you can see clearly all the details. Paul finishes this section by saying that now his knowledge was in part, but then (when that which is perfect is come) he shall have full knowledge. All of this points to the FACT that prior to the completion of the Bible there have been various stages of understanding of spiritual matters, with some things deliberately left a mystery, and some portions of Scripture deliberately sealed by God for a time period. Knowledge and Prophecy IN PART. Now however, we have the completed revelation from God. Complete, or "that which is perfect". The ENTIRE CONTEXT, the terms used, the illustrations used, the obvious subject, the STATED items that are in part as distinct from perfect, ALL Direct us to the understanding that special revelation is the theme of this section of the letter, and when we have the perfect or complete revelation from God, then the items in part - special revelation actively from God at that time - would be done away. Because we have a more sure Word of prophecy. Now that we have the complete, perfect, Word of God without error and without mistake, as closed by John the Apostle under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we have no further need of special revelation as an ongoing thing. That which was in part - partial knowledge being given actively at that time - has been done away with by the perfect written Word of God. There is NO NEED for active special revelation now, and therefore no need for those signs which confirm it was from God.
  19. 3 points
    Knowing Bro. Scott as I do, anytime that I see him start off a post with something like "Well hey", I would automatically assume that he's being facetious. At least the book of enoch (lower caps on purpose) let's us know that the giants were 300 cubits tall... Those poor human women would'a had a time birth'n one'a them-there kids...
  20. 3 points
    Gen 1:11-12 (11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:21 (21) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:25 (25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. The Bible establishes that creatures will bring forth "after his kind", and that is what we see consistently throughout creation. Animals bring forth after their kind, plants bring forth after their own kind. Even in labs today they cannot force things to bring forth another kind. God said it clearly - it is not possible.
  21. 3 points
    I also had not considered that line of thought, but then it occurred to me: Gen 6 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. So I think not. I had to check the exact wording of the passage, but it certainly seems inclusive.
  22. 3 points
    Brother Wretched, That was certainly an interesting thought. It is a completely new thought for me, since I had never encountered it before. Thus I have indeed given it some thoughtful consideration. At the present time, however, I would lean away from that understanding, since everything else within the immediate context of Genesis 6:1-4 seems to be focused upon mankind, not animal kind.
  23. 3 points
    Based upon the grammatical construction of Genesis 6:4, I am convinced that the giants and the mighty men are NOT the same group of people.
  24. 3 points
    If you prefer downloads (pdf, mobi, epub) please visit this page: https://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/what_about_steven_anderson.php
  25. 3 points
    Pastor Scott Markle


    Brother McWhorter, I thank you for your response. It is just that as I read your earlier posting, my heart simply broke within me. Although we have never met face to face (as far as I can remember), you are one of those on the forum who has a deep place within my heart. You are one who is dear to me; and although I am not one who cries often, I think that my eyes watered for a moment. I know, it was probably some dust in my eye. Seriously, my heart is burdened for you my dear brother, over the depth of your need. I cannot help and heal that heart pain, but I can direct you unto the Blessed One who can - Look unto Jesus. Praise the Lord even for a nice, clean, window down drive. (Up here in Michigan that is not really reasonable right now.) I am sorry if these postings are coming across in a wrong way. I am just trying to express my emotional burden for your sake, but I am not very good at emotional expression. By nature I can handle grammatical and informational expression fairly well, but emotional expression is difficult for my nature. So, please receive my expression in the spirit with which it is intended. Your FRIEND, Pastor Scott Markle
  26. 2 points
    There is a reason why God gave us family and friend.. To support each other in our bad time and to help others when they are in pain and need. God made all humans equal but it's our inner devils that make us behave selfish. We need to take control of the devils inside us and encourage others to spread love and peace as well
  27. 2 points

    Whats for Supper...

    Pickles are nasty! I never liked them. It amazes me that restaurants cannot seem to build a sandwich without pickles. Every time I go for a hamburger I have to specify; NO PICKLES. And it doesn't work to try to just pick them off of your burger, once they are put on the burger they contaminate the whole thing. You just can't seem to ever get rid of the nasty taste.
  28. 2 points

    Please pray for the Cseh family

    HC please tell them that if his doctors puts in a good word to him at social security that he can get it earlier... praying for them still... thank God for a new home for them
  29. 2 points
    Much of the problem comes from not rightly dividing God's word. "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom" (1 Cor.1:22) We see also in Mark 16:17-18 the following: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Sadly, many have erroneously believed that the sign gifts applies to themselves in this current church/grace age. After all it does say "And these signs shall follow them that believe". We believe, right? Yet that scripture is not written about us church/grace-age believers. There have been many who have attempted to force these sign gifts to fit in the grace/church age and claim them (erroneously) for themselves. Those who've taken up serpents (and been bitten and died). Those who drink poison ("any deadly thing") and have died also. Those who have tried to claim they have the"gift of healing" (and notice that there is nothing there requiring the recipient of the healing to have faith... rather instead that "they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Not maybe recover, not might recover, not recover if they have enough faith, no... "they shall recover" (no doubt about it). If they truly had that gift they would go to any given hospital and heal the children in cancer wards. And if they had the gift of healing then those children would definitely recover, not maybe reocver, but "shall recover". NONE have the sign gifts to do such things today. Isn't it interesting that the sign gifts that are claimed by charlatans today are those which cannot be proven. They claim to be able to speak in tongues (yet don't even follow the scriptural rules for the time when sign gifts were in effect, prior to the canon of scripture being complete). What were those rules for that time period? Look at 1 Cor.14:27-28 "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." The holy roller, name it and claim it, blab it and grab it crowd doesn't even follow scriptural mandate for speaking in tongues. (Regardless of the fact that it's no longer possible today). Every video I've seen of those who CLAIM they can speak in tongues is a disorganized melee of babbling incoherently by dozens of people. Definitely more than three persons. None interpreting. No order, but chaos. 1 Cor.14:33 (same chapter) "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." Now we know that they truly cannot speak in tongues. The sign gifts were meant for Israel. It was the Jews who required signs. Those sign gifts ended when the canon of scripture was perfected and closed. 1 Cor.13:8 tells us that there would come a time when prophesying would fail, when tongues would cease. Verse 10 tells us that "...that which is in part shall be done away." When? When "that which is perfect is come". What which is perfect? God's word in full, which ended with the Revelation of Christ given to John on the isle of Patmos. There is no reason for additional "prophesy" since His prophetic word is perfect and complete. Speaking of false prophecy: How sad that someone would actually set a date, make a calendar, and claim an actual date. Though not surprising given the unsound doctrine that's being accepted today in the perilous last days. Harold Camping move over, looks like Marilyn has a new date set! Maybe she can get a video going like Scottie Clarke did last year (claiming Sept 23rd, then keep moving the date when it doesn't happen). Do these people realize how they give a black eye to God's word? How when they lead both unbelievers and babes in Christ into buying these false dates, when the date comes and goes (as it always does) then those who are "...tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive". If it were up to some of these holy rollers they would be attempting to add to the canon of scripture their latest "dreams and visions" nonsense from the devil (2 Cor.11:14-15). Every other day is another quack claiming to be a "prophet", calling themselves an "apostle", or other heresies. Too many to even refute now days. No matter, after the first or second admonition reject (Titus 3:9-11). These really are the perilous last days (2 Tim.3:1-7, 13), so we can expect those who are deceived to continue to wax worse and worse. What gifts remains today? 1 Cor.13:13 "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." Maranatha!
  30. 2 points

    My granddaughter

    I had my appointment on Friday and the nurse said it was healing well and I have to go for another appointment in four weeks. I asked Rachel how her treatment is going and she sent the following reply. "They are not sure yet, but they're not giving up so that's good news."
  31. 2 points
    If God's word is magnified to him (TO HIM) more so than his name...and it is (Psalm 138:2)... ...and if taking God's name in vain is included as one of the 10 commandments...and it is (Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11) ...then I would assume that God's word is of some importance and wouldn't be willing to discount its importance in the future... ...but that's me.
  32. 2 points
    Yes, you are right. Love is a pure blessing from God which we should never forget it. But we all are becoming selfish and forget our prime motive i.e. Spreading love and happiness in the world.
  33. 2 points
    Well, I am a website designer for a company and we design logo as well. If you want you can check on your own. Logo designing is an art which everyone cannot possess, so I believe you should research it properly and then finalize your plan.Here is my company's website: https://www.logicsofts.co.uk/essex-website-design.html Thank you, God Bless You
  34. 2 points

    Directline Ministry

    Paul and Debbie Deem have moved Directline Ministry operations to Georgia. They will be missed here in Ohio. Luanne knew the Deems from her time in S.E. Ohio. If anyone would like to follow the deems and God's miracle healing of Debbie here is the website. If you want to follow Debbie's mysterious disease and miracle healing read their newsletters.
  35. 2 points
    (Isaiah 40:8) The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (1 Peter 1:25) But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
  36. 2 points
    Yes NoNics, that's probably true, but it is also certainly not a hidden point. Many moons ago, I mistakenly found my phone Bible set to some strange version, and when I was posting from there I had a few questions asked. I don't even know how it happened, but it did. Fixed it as soon as it was pointed out. But the reminder is a timely one. I have to say also, that of late (the last two years in particular) we have had people specifically seeking a hymn singing, KJV preaching church. And one of the new couples here who have been saved for many years but attending some other church for that time, have started using the KJV because our church does, and they have commented that "they are learning so much more since they started reading the KJV" - their exact words, unprompted. This is not stated as a proof of anything by the way, just as a record of what happened here a few weeks ago.
  37. 2 points
    I didn't quote your whole post brother but agree with every word and was about to write/ask something similar.
  38. 2 points
    Marilyn, Bro. Alan's request is a reasonable one and I too would like to read your answer to it. He is correct in stating that only the KJV is to be used on this site at the request of the board's owner. The guidelines for posting on Online Baptist can be found here.
  39. 2 points
    Hi Eric, You are stringing together those scriptures and do NOT have scriptural basis for that. 1. You have NOT proven that the OT mentions the Body of Christ, when scripture clearly says it doesn`t. 2. You are assuming we are the army, when in actual fact Jesus clearly says in many places that it is His angelic army. 3. The world`s armies ONLY surround Jerusalem at the end of the trib, and that is the ONLY time scripture tells us that the Lord Jesus comes in power and great glory. If you are not able to clearly see what God`s word is saying and continue to go against scripture, then we wont be able to carry on this discussion. We need to be talking about what God`s word actually says and NOT go against it, or assume, having our own opinions. When you continually talk of the Body of Christ in the OT when God`s word says it was not known then, then to me you are on your own agenda and evading the points I bring up. regards, Marilyn.
  40. 2 points

    Bible College

    What Bible College did you attend? Master's Baptist College (Fargo, North Dakota) Did you graduate? What was your Major 2018, Church Secretarial What years did you attend? 2015-2018 What did you like best about the college? They have practical classes so you can get a good taste on what the ministry will really be like, the pastors at the church really invest in the students What did you least like about the college? They operate like a large college, instead of a smaller college (not necessarily wrong, I had just wanted to go to a college with a smaller college atmosphere.) Would you recommend that school now? Yes In your opinion, did the school properly train you for the ministry? I will be graduating this year, and while I believe that the school is doing its best to adequately train its students in every way, I think that there are things in life/ ministry that you will have to learn by experience
  41. 2 points
    God is the author; Moses was the penman
  42. 2 points
    Okay. Thank you for explaining further. As I read both the scripture and your re-wording of it, the giants were already in existence at the time; in which, the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and bare children to them. Therefore, I don't see how the children born from the two groups could be the giants. I will drop this now. Thank you for your Christian attitude in answering my original question.
  43. 2 points
    I have always thought it possible that everyone was giants then. After all, if one lived over 900 years, what would be the reason we would assume they would stop growing at 16 years or 18 years, like today, with so much shorter a lifespan? Before the flood everything seems to have been much larger: giant sloths, lizards, snakes, rhinos, elk, etc, including the dinosaurs, all huge! There was greater air pressure and a higher amount of oxygen, by about 50%, and a virtually perfect atmosphere, so why wouldn't they get much bigger?
  44. 2 points
    The sons of God are saved men. That's what the bible teaches.
  45. 2 points

    Saved in 3 tenses?

    Thank you for the very, grammatically, detailed (in English and in Greek), study on the words of the Lord Jesus in John 6:39, and the appropriate related passages. In my estimation, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the author's premise was false in numerous ways and deceitful in the handling of both the English and Greek texts. You have proven that the words of the Lord Jesus in John 6:39, and its related passages, clearly teach the eternal security of the soul of the redeemed. I appreciate the time, effort, intense study, presentation, and the good spirit, that you made in making the study. Alan
  46. 2 points
    Marilyn C

    God`s Tapestry.

    This is a poem my mother taught me. I think it is from Scotland. `Not till the loom is silent, and the shuttle cease to fly, Will God unfold His wisdom, and explain the reason why, The dark threads are as needful, in the weaver`s skilful hands, As the threads of gold and silver, in the pattern He has planned.` `For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,...` (Rom. 8: 29) Marilyn.
  47. 2 points
    Pastor Scott Markle

    Saved in 3 tenses?

    In his third and final main point, the author of the article presented his most extensive effort to substantiate his given point. I myself believe that this is the author’s weakest point, and that such is the reason that he had to put forth so much effort in order to attempt to make his point. Since this point contains more material, I wish to respond to it by sections. Even so, the author’s introduction to this point is as follows: (https://edgarsreflections.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/what-did-jesus-mean-by-“i-will-lose-nothing”-in-john-639/amp/) Certainly, an individual might present such an argument. In fact, such an argument would be quite valid since the two phrases are a part of the same sentence, and thus are a part of the same immediate context. Indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ specifically connected these two phrases together within the same grammatical sentence. Yet as I have demonstrated through a previous posting (here), the author’s argument on this matter is not as valid as he seems to claim. So then, since the author proceeded to build the present point upon his previous point, his present point will be found to fall without a foundation. Indeed, that is true. The phrase, “But should raise it up again at the last day,” certainly does seem to suggest that our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking concerning the matter of eternal salvation and resurrection unto eternal life. Yet the author suggested that this more natural understanding of the phrase is not necessarily accurate. Thus he attempted to demonstrate this with a four-fold argument. However, I myself stand in conflict with every one of those four arguments. In the first place, the author of the article presented the argument as follows: Herein the author attempted to present an option of compromise. He presented an option which accepts that the phrase, “raise it up again at the last day,” does actually refer unto the resurrection at the end of the world. Yet in this option of compromise, the author presented that meaning of the phrase, “should lose nothing,” could still refer unto the physical protection of the disciples. As such, the author indicated that this option would present the idea that our Lord Jesus Christ was promising to protect the disciples physically “AND ALSO to resurrect them in the last day.” (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle) However, this option of compromise is not grammatically possible. Grammatically, our Lord Jesus Christ did not say, “That of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, AND ALSO should raise it up again at the last day.” Rather, our Lord Jesus Christ said, “That of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, BUT should raise it up again at the last day.” Grammatically, the adversative conjunction “but” does not indicate an addition, but rather indicates a contrast. Thus our Lord’s statement reveals that there is a truth of contrast, wherein two given results would be the direct opposite of one another. In this statement the result of being lost is the direct opposite to the result of being raise up again at the last day. Whatever is the correct meaning for these resulting conditions, they are grammatically presented as opposites. On the one hand, if our Lord loses an individual, then He will not raise up that individual again at the last day. On the other hand, if our Lord does not lose and individual, then He will raise that individual up again at the last day. In the second place, the author of the article presented the argument as follows: Herein the author attempted to present a difference in definition. He began by revealing that the English phrase “should raise . . . up again” is translated from the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”), In this he was correct. Then the author revealed that the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) was created by joining the Greek preposition “ἀνὰ” (“ana”) with the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”). Again in this he was correct. Then the author presented the definition for the the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) as given in Strong’s dictionary. Yet again in this he was correct. Yet it is after this point wherein the author went astray. Directing our attention upon the definition for the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”), the author stated, “The word ‘histemi,’ while it is used to refer to a rising from the dead, it is not necessarily the meaning in John 6:39.” Now, there are two glaring errors with this statement. First, the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) is NEVER used in the New Testament to mean “rising from the dead.” Rather, it is the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) that is used in the New Testament with this meaning. Second, the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) most certainly does not mean “a rising from the dead” in John 6:39, because the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) does not even exist in John 6:39. Rather, it is the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) that is found in John 6:39. Yet for the remainder of his explanation above, the author of the article continued to mix together the two Greek verbs “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) and “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”). (Note: This would be like mixing the definitions of the two English words “standing” and “upstanding,” simply because the word “upstanding” includes the word “standing” in its construction.) In fact, the meaning of the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) is not at all relevant to a correct understanding of John 6:39, specifically because this Greek verb does not exist in John 6:39. Whereas the meaning of the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) may be relevant in helping us understand how the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) developed its meaning, it is the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) itself that is relevant to a correct understanding of John 6:39, since that is the actual Greek verb which is found in John 6:39. So then, what is the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) (which the author of the article never actually provided)? According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary, the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is “to stand up (lit. or fig., trans. or intrans.):--arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up (-right). Now, the author of the article directed us to consider his underlined portions from the definition for the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”). These included “abide, continue, hold up, present, stand (by, forth, still, up).” He directed us thus because it is upon these meanings that he made his argument concerning John 6:39. Yet it should be noticed that the ONLY one of these meanings that the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) also carries in meaning is “to stand up.” Not a single other one of these meanings is a part of the meaning for the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”). Even so, the author of the article has engaged in a significant definitional error herein. The Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) never means “standing by (or, alive),” as the author of the article asserted in the conclusion of his article. Rather, it always indicates some form of movement in an upward direction, whether literally or figuratively. Strong’s Greek Dictionary indicates that the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) can be used either transitively or intransitively. This is important to understand because the difference in this grammatical usage will affect the applicational meaning of the word. Grammatically, a transitive usage of a verb indicates a transition of action from the subject to the object. (Example: I raised up the flag. The subject “I” is doing the action of “raising up” upon the object “the flag.”) On the other hand, an intransitive usage of a verb indicates no transition of action from the subject to any object. (Example: I stand up. The subject “I” is doing the action of “standing up,” but is not doing so upon any given object.) In John 6:39 the Greek verb verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is used transitively. Even so, according to Thayer’s Greek lexicon, when used transitively the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “to cause to rise, raise up; a. properly of one lying down; b. to raise up from the dead; c. to raise up, cause to be born. Furthermore, according to Bauer’s Greek lexicon, when used transitively the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “raise, erect, raise up; a. literally of idols, of one lying down, especially of the dead – raise up, bring to life; b. figuratively raise up in the sense cause to appear or be born.” Thus we may understand that the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “raise up again,” just as it is translated in the King James translation. In the third place, the author of the article presented the argument as follows: Herein the author attempted to present a distinction of usage. First, he indicated that the word “dead” is not found in John 6:39-40, 54. In this he was correct. Then he stated that “all usage of ‘anistemi’ in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word ‘dead’ is always present.” Yet this is a little misleading. First, the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is only used a total of eight time in the gospel of John (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:23, 24, 31; 20:9); and four of those times are in the context of John 6:35-65. John 20:9 includes the word “dead” and is clearly speaking of resurrection, employing the phrase “rise again from the dead.” John 11:31 is clearly not about resurrection, but about rising up from a sitting position. However, while John 11:23 and John11:24 do not include the word “dead,” these two verses clearly are speaking of resurrection. Therein we read, “Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Indeed, Martha’s statement in John 11:25 is quite instructive; for it is clear that in her mindset “the last day” and “the resurrection” were directly connected with one another. Yeah, the resurrection was an event that would occur “at the last day;” and “the last day” was the time period for the event of “the resurrection.” Even so, the claim by the author of the article that “all usage of ‘anistemi’ in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word ‘dead’ is always present” is found to be somewhat inaccurate. John 11:24-25 does not include the word “dead,” yet is clearly speaking of resurrection. So then, what about the context of John 6:35-65? As I have mentioned, the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is used four times in this context, being found in verses 39, 40, 44, 54. Thus whatever meaning this Greek verb might carry in one of these verses, it would contextually carry in all four of these verses. What then do these four verses teach us as a whole together concerning the raising up at the last day? In John 6:35 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is a responsibility that God the Father has given to God the Son, and that it is the opposite of God the Son’s losing an individual. In John 6:40 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to all who “see” God the Son and believe on Him, and that it is directly connected with the promised reception of everlasting life unto such believers. In John 6:44 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to those who come unto God the Son through faith, in response to God the Father’s drawing. Finally, in John 6:54 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to all who spiritually partake of God the Son, and that it is directly connected with the promised reception of eternal life unto such partakers. Joining these truth together, we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised work by God the Son unto those who come unto Him and partake of Him through faith, in direct connection with the gift of everlasting-eternal life, and as the direct opposite of being somehow lost by God the Son. When we further join these truths with what we learn from John 11:24-25, it appears quite clear that the raising up at the last day is indeed a reference unto the event of the resurrection at the last day. In the fourth place, the author of the article presented the argument and concluded his article as follows: Herein the author attempted to present an adjustment of perspective. He implies that we need to adjust our perspective in order to view our Lord’s declaration in John 6:39 from the perspective of the disciples back then, rather than from our perspective 2,000 years later. Indeed, the author of the article stated, “The taking place of the last day in Jesus’ mind during his time on earth was not after 2000 years. The last day in his thinking and in the disciples’ thinking was only a few years away, that is, in the lifetime of the disciples.” Now, it is certainly true that the disciples, during our Lord’s earthly ministry, did not have a correct perspective of God’s plan concerning Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, ascension, exaltation, church administration, and second coming. Yet for the author of the article to indicate that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was just as wrong in His own understanding of God’s plan as the disciples were is (in my opinion) edging toward blasphemy. Our Lord Jesus Christ never had a false viewpoint concerning these things, and in John 6:39 He Himself is the One who is teaching truth from His own perfect perspective. Again the author of the article stated, “In that case, for Jesus to state the he will “resurrect” his disciples is for him to presume that they will die in the next few years since the last day, again, was not thought of as being after 2000 years or even after 200 years.” Yet within this very same gospel of John, in John 21:17-19, the record is given, “He [Jesus] saith unto him [Peter] the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.” So then, our Lord Jesus Christ most certainly did recognize that at least His disciple Peter would experience death before His second coming. Yet this creates a complicating contradiction. IF our Lord Jesus Christ’s promise in John 6:39 is to be applied at the very least unto His chosen apostles, and IF His promise in John 6:39 means that He would not lose even one of those apostles unto physical harm or death, then how could He declare His recognition that the apostle Peter would indeed experience physical death, and that through martyrdom. IF this verse means what the author of the article indicated, then our Lord Jesus Christ was given the responsibility by God the Father not to lose even one of His chosen apostle unto physical harm or death. Thus Peter’s death would be a failure on the part of our Lord Jesus Christ to fulfill that responsibility before God the Father, and thus that failure would cause our Lord Jesus Christ no longer to be qualified as the Savior of the world. To these things I declare – GOD FORBID! Yet again the author of the article stated, “If Jesus was presuming that his disciples will die before he comes again, then his promise in John 14:2-3 is a bit misleading since he promised them that ‘I will come again and receive you unto myself.’ He did not say that they will go to him. Rather, he said that he will come back for them. Thus, in the last day (if it is connected to his coming) his disciples would still be alive.” Yet the New Testament teaching of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 indicates otherwise – “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” Herein we learn that in the event of the catching up (rapture), our Lord Jesus Christ will descend from heaven and will resurrect His own who have previously died to meet Him in the clouds, in order that He might receive them unto Himself and they might ever be with Him. The fact that they have previously died in no way brings doubt upon our Lord’s promise, for it is factored directly into His promise. And yet again the author of the article stated in relation to Matthew 16:27-28, “Jesus was certain that some of his disciples would still be standing or alive when he comes back. Thus, showing that the last day, in Jesus’ thinking, is not after 2000 years and that some of his disciples (probably the Twelve) will be standing still at the last day.” Now, in Matthew 16:28 our Lord Jesus Christ only applied His promise unto SOME of His disciples. This would imply that at least some other of His disciples would indeed experience death, and would thus defeat the promise of John 6:39 for the Lord not to lose even one unto physical harm or death (IF that is what is actually intended in John 6:39, as the author of the article indicated). Furthermore, our Lord Jesus Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled on the high mountain of His transfiguration, even as Peter indicated in 2 Peter 1:16 that he himself, James, and John were “eyewitnesses” of Jesus’ kingdom “majesty.” And yet again the author of the article stated in relation to Matthew 10:23, “Again, another passage that demonstrates that the disciples will be standing still until the last day.” Yet this now pushes forward the false (in my opinion) teaching of preterism. So then, Sister Rose, having thoroughly reviewed the author’s article, and having demonstrated a significant number of errors in that article, I am compelled to content that the author is simply false in his claim that John 6:39 does not teach the doctrine of eternal security. Do you have any further questions about the article or about my review thereof?
  48. 2 points
    weary warrior


    NN, I am very saddened over your distress and discouragement, and humbly apologize for any part I have played in causing it. As has been said already, we've all been there, and will be there again. Thus, we can all empathize. The Lord is our comfort, and we must look to Him in all things. Omega, I have re-read your posts above a number of times, and I see where I may have misunderstood some of the things you were saying, and took them in a way they were not intended. I apologize for this as well, and for the trouble brought about by it. I hope you will forgive me for allowing my passion and warrior's heart to cloud my judgement and common sense. It is a weakness I have to contend with continually, and have my whole life.
  49. 2 points


    NN we all either have been in that place, or will be in it at some time in our life. Just remember: Ne 8:10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the LORD is your strength.
  50. 2 points


    I heard an interview with someone yesterday who was quoting Australian stats in relation to gun control as a justification for US gun control. They implied that since we brought in heavy gun restrictions there have been almost no school shootings in Australia. A couple of things: 1. BEFORE the heavy restrictions there were almost no school shootings in Australia. I don't think anything changed much after they were brought in. 2. Australia has a very different attitude towards guns and gun control. Australia is DIFFERENT to the US, and a direct comparison is not useful. The overwhelming majority of people here are not gun owners and have no interest in owning guns. Therefore gun ownership restrictions were able to be passed through with little issue. Not even a conservative/progressive political issue here. Even most gun owners here were ok with the concept of gun restriction. Not the details, but the concept........ because Australia is different to the US, and attitudes to guns are also different to the US. Not saying one is right and one is wrong - but they are different. My point is that to use the Aussie gun laws as an argument for US gun laws is not right. I do have one question in relation to all this: did school shootings increase when guns were made freely available in the US? Oh wait - guns have been fairly well accessible in the US since before you were a nation. When did school shootings start to be heard of in the US? The "rise" in school shootings is not related to any change in gun availability.