*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


heartstrings last won the day on April 4

heartstrings had the most liked content!

About heartstrings

  • Rank
    Sheep Whisperer
  • Birthday 04/06/1961

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Are you IFB?

Recent Profile Visitors

17,642 profile views
  1. OK, I'll be more to the point: There are a few "Baptists" who are staunch "KJV only". But they're dead because, although they tout themselves as "all truth", they have no spirit.
  2. Around here, many of the Pentecostal churches hold to the King James Bible and will use no other. Even men like Bennie Hinn use it. But they have the wrong spirit, therefore they mishandle the truth. There must be spirit and truth or there is neither..
  3. I was working outside many summers ago in the sweltering heat. Had a big belt-drive fan in a home-made plywood enclosure blowing on the area I was working. There was a makeshift "grille" on the front of that fan but the back was open. I went in the house for something and when I returned, found my youngest son, about 4 or 5 at the time, poking a stick in the back of that fan, letting it tap. tap , tap. I scolded him good, explained how dangerous it was, and told him he would get a whipping if he did that again. (Just trying to protect my son you know). A while later, I came around the corner and saw my eldest son, about 8, doing the same thing with the little one standing behind watching. I froze at the corner and watched a few seconds as the little one handed his big brother another stick saying "Hewe Bubba"(Here Brother)......and then "be faweful Bubba" (that's "careful" with an f and a w) :D . Just then I burst around the corner and with eyes like a scared rabbit the little one jumped back and blurted "WHIP BUBBA!!" maybe you had to have been there but I had to go back around the corner because I was cracking up. There was no whipping that day.
  4. I I have attended one Missionary Baptist church in the area which is King James only and they seem sound, but they are about 40 minutes away. I don't know of any "General Baptists" around here so I don't know anything about them.
  5. ...also, any Baptist church with Calvinistic teachings.
  6. Maybe so, but this topic is worth "getting it right", else the Holy Spirit would not have inspired Brother Moses to pen it down.
  7. Freewill Baptists, Primitive Baptists, some of the Southern Baptists
  8. "Whipping" is necessary as needed. But you need to give alot more hugging than whipping.
  9. Timeline..... 6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; WHEN did men "begin to multiply"? Read Genesis chapters 4 and 5; Genesis 4, 5 and 6 go together. Now, notice that giants, in Genesis 6:4. are "in those days"? "Those days" are "when men began to multiply" in Genesis 4, 5 AND in the 120 years before God sent the flood. Now notice the term "and also after that". Did the giants cease to exist prior to the "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bare children........."? No. They were still there. So, what does "after that" mean? It means "subsequent to" or "as a consequence of" or "in imitation of" or "as a result of" like........ Genesis 1:11 ...."after his kind" Genesis 1:26..."after our likeness" The word "after" is also used in the word of God to express "later in time" but it cannot be so in this passage because the whole story encompasses "those days". The verse, Genesis 6:4, actually gives more description to Genesis chapter 5 and explains that "There were powerful, fierce, dangerous warriors in those days(giants) and as a consequence of or imitation or result of that,(after that) the "sons of God" (believers named in Genesis 5) begat sons and daughters for hundreds of years (Genesis 5)) and became very powerful politically (giving in marriage Matthew 24:38)), powerful in numbers (begatting sons and daughters) and became powerful militarily(mighty men). I believe it was the "sons of God" AND the offspring which became "mighty men of renown"; to me, the verse does not specify otherwise. That's all it is bro.
  10. Ok, I will answer one more. #3. The word "likewise", which you presented in bold text, means that the "filthy dreamers'' AKA ''certain men crept in unawares'', were doing all three sins; the sins of the angels, Sodomites, and Israelites. That is the context of the passage.
  11. I don't have a lot of time, right now, but I will address these two . #1 Yes, they would have still been "sons of God" by Genesis 6:4. Their disobedience included marrying the daughters of men but this would not have revoked their sonship. It would have affected their fellowship. If it matters, you can check the ages and the timeline; only two of these men would have been alive when Noah began building the ark and only one(Methuselah) was alive in the year the flood came.. But Methuselah did not board the ark. He ,most likely, had been disobedient. #2. If you will read that scripture more closely you will see that the "sons of God" did not beget the "giants". Those are two separate but related statements. It merely states that "there were giants", then goes on to tell about the sons of God, daughters of men, children etc. I believe the reason it mentions the "giants" is because the "sons of God" were conforming to the world as a reaction to their presence. The "sons of God" married "wives", lived hundreds of years(Genesis 5) and lived to see their families multiply into astronomical populations or "superpowers"(mighty men of renoun) which were great and powerful nations in a time in which the earth was "filled with violence". That was their disobedience. And the giants were merely very large, tall men as "Goliath of Gath" was. They were not angel human hybrids.
  12. About the "angels" ,named so in the Book of Jude, their sin was that they "despised dominion"; Not "going after strange flesh" or "defiling the flesh". The Sodomites did that. Three groups of sinners are named in Jude 5-8, with their principle sins. Israelites- "believed not" and spoke evil of dignities(chiefly Moses) Sodomites- fornication and defiled the flesh Angels (which kept not their first estate) - despised dominion
  13. I hold the view that all of the named individuals in Genesis 5, all direct ancestors in the line of Christ, including Adam, Enoch, and Noah are included in the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 and that they became so back in Genesis 4 when "men began to call upon the name of the Lord".(Genesis 4:26) I believe these "sons of God" "took them wives"(plural) from unbelievers and in doing so were disobedient The only exception to this,among them, was Enoch who was "translated" because he "walked with God"(definitely a believer by that account) and Noah who was "perfect in his generations" and "walked with God". The term "Sons of God" is a term which the Word of God directly defines. It only refers to "believers". (John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1, 1 John 3:2) An "angel", however, is a different being entirely and things that are different are not the same. As pertaining to Adam's being a "direct creation of God"; that criteria is never used to define a "son of God" in the King James Bible. A "son" is an individual which was "begotten" by a father and "angels" do not and cannot meet that criteria. (Hebrews 1:5) Another thing to consider about Adam; being that Adam was the "son of God", he would have been also included in "the sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 because it was happening when men "began" to multiply...........I'll stop right there. :)
  14. Yes, it certainly does.
  15. Customer calls awhile ago and wants me to send him his logo design as a "pdf" so he can get it put on Facebook. I questioned him "pdf?.......are you sure you don't want a jpeg?" "No, he says, it needs to be pdf cuz a jpeg won't work", I then tried to explain that I put them on Facebook all the time but I was just interrupted. So, instead of arguing, I dutifully retrieved the file from one CAD program, imported it into CorelDraw, converted it to pdf and emailed it to him. He calls back about a half hour later complaining that all I had ever sent him of the design were pdf's and what he needed was a jpeg. I said, "I've already sent you jpegs before and have NEVER sent you a pdf until you asked for it today. "No, he says, all you have ever sent were pdf's." So I went into my sent emails and looked; sure enough, I had sent him SEVERAL jpegs in several emails beginning in November 2016 along with a vector-based EPS which any graphic artist should be able to use. I have never sent this dude a pdf, ever. I started to send this explanation , but, what's the use. I converted the file to jpeg (again) attached it and clicked "send". I just needed to rant. Happy Friday folks. It has been a good week, really. :)