*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DaveW

  • Rank
    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke
  • Birthday 09/30/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location: I'm a West Aussie
  • Are you IFB? Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

7,011 profile views

DaveW's Activity

  1. DaveW added a post in a topic: current debate   

    You are very heavily suggesting that Brother Scott is CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE PASSAGE with his grammatical analysis.
    He is not changing any meaning, but rather properly explaining it.
    He has not even begun to explain the prophecies of the passage at this point, but rather who the prophecy applies to.
    Without establishing this point, the prophecies are then free to be forced into almost any application.
    The grammar is the ONLY WAY to properly apply the information, for without grammar the sentence CAN CARRY NO USEFUL MEANING.
    You really need to display EXACTLY HOW brother Scott is changing the meaning by using grammar, or you need to stop these accusations.
    And a little phrase saying you are not applying it to Brother Scott is simply a lie - anyone reading your posts ABOUT BROTHER SCOTT  that include such broad accusations  can only see  them as applying to him, as he is the subject.
    As to you "not liking me" I don't  really care about your opinion of me - I  simply want you to stop poisoning my threads with your misquotes and false accusations.
    This is supposed to be about the debate - which I will remind you that you said we shouldn't be commenting on, which you obviously don't believe and were only saying that because you want to stop me commenting.
    And by the way, quoting the whole post of Alan shows your statement regarding his words as wrong - but you don't  care about grammar, so you can make him say whatever you want. That is (twice now) deceitful representation of him.
    How about you now stop your false accusations against both Alan and Brother Scott and leave this thread to its actual purpose.
    Or will you only be happy when this thread is also locked or deleted?
  2. DaveW added a post in a topic: current debate   

    I wonder how Alan feels being so mischievously misquoted?
  3. DaveW added a post in a topic: current debate   

    Wouldn't care to quote Alan IN CONTEXT would you?
    That probably wouldn't suit your purpose.
    "Alan said:
    Yes, at some times he is hard to understand due to being grammeticly precise, but he is doing it so that in every aspect of the exposition of Daniel 9:24-27 we have a correct interpretation of the passage. Pastor Markle has actually helped me in my grammatical understanding of this difficult passage of scripture. As I stated previously, I am lacking in the fine art of the grammer constuction of the scriptures. This is my problem; it is not the scriptures problem."
    There now - Alan has no problem understanding Brother Scott, in fact he is learning from him.
  4. DaveW added a post in a topic: current debate   

    Actually brother, in spite of what someone has said in this thread,  I don't  think I have seen anyone say they couldn't follow Brother Scott's posts, other than that person.  They are complete and detailed, but sensible and well explained - even his grammar points.
    I could never write it the way he does, for I don't have his knowledge of grammar, but I can certainly understand and follow what he is saying - and as a bonus, I  am learning more about language structure too. 
  5. DaveW added a post in a topic: current debate   

    Well this dumb bloke's simple reading of that passage matches exactly with Brother Scott's analysis.
    It is basic reading comprehension.
    To suggest as you have here that proper grammar changes the meaning of the text is at the least disingenuous......
    As has been stated recently on several occasions, the grammar gives the meaning to any sentence - it does not somehow magically change that meaning.
  6. DaveW added a post in a topic: Interesting Perspective   

    1 Tim 115 - give it up brother.
    It is just not possible to discuss the issue of giving on this forum.
    It is only possible to be told you are wrong about giving.
    Unfortunately, discussion whereby you propose a thought or ask a question which is then discussed and which might on turn lead you to learn about this matter is always drowned out.
  7. DaveW added a post in a topic: Interesting Perspective   

    Why yes, she was given the promise before she gave, BUT she gave before the promise was fulfilled, whilst she WAS STILL IN HER POVERTY.
    And in fact she gave by command of the man of God, AND she was a widow, who should receive not give, AND she was to provide for the man of God BEFORE her own needs.
    In fact, while you pull me up on a side point,  you conveniently ignore these many issues. 
    Giving is not so cut and dried as you wish it to be.
  8. DaveW added a post in a topic: Interesting Perspective   

    You can speculate about it all you like but the facts are plain - she gave to the man of God when she had almost nothing, and her words indicate that she thought it would be her last meal.
    That was the entirety of my point, and unworthy men today do not change the facts of the account.
    There are examples of people without means giving sacrificially in the Bible, AND in some cases these people are rewarded, indicating that it was not outside God's will for them to give such.
    If it was not outside God's  will then, it is unreasonable to suggest it is outside God's will now, unless you can show command otherwise.
    This DOES IN NO WAY suggest that every instance of someone without means has to give to their own sacrifice - it is still as the Lord leads.
    But it is certainly not wrong for someone to hive sacrificially If the Lord leads them to do so.
  9. DaveW added a post in a topic: Interesting Perspective   

    The example I gave previously is one where sacrificial giving was fully displayed. The widow was in the deepest of need but gave to the man of God.
    Sacrificial giving is certainly not unknown in the Bible.
  10. DaveW added a post in a topic: Final Canonization   

    And noted that they were included for historical purposes only and were not inspired.
    If you are going to include information, you really ought to include all the relevant information.
  11. DaveW added a post in a topic: current debate   

    I personally don't feel that you need to match his grammatical analysis, but if he is wrong it should be easily displayed. I could not match his understanding of the intricacies of language, but I could pinpoint an error in his explanation of grammar if I found one - in plain and no doubt poor language. But I also have no doubt that if there was an error, that he would acknowledge  and correct it or correct my challenge if it was wrong. Remember, this is not me we are talking about, but brother Scott.....
    Alternatively, if there truly is something that makes the grammar null and void then it should be displayed.
    However, since written language in particular relies on grammar and punctuation to impart knowledge and understanding, it is highly unlikely that the grammar will be incorrect in the proper understanding of a biblical concept.
    Please continue with your explanation of why his grammar is wrong - if your language is not as technical as his I am sure it will be acceptable just so long as it is clear.
  12. DaveW added a post in a topic: Interesting Perspective   

    Yes, he and Linda are married.
    I personally think the question was plain and sensible.
    The verses that have already been used here I think make it plain that a person who refuses to give is in sin.
    However the simple act of giving does necessarily remove that sin - unless it is given from a willing heart, it is still sin although it is actually given.
    The matter one who is unable to give but has a heart that would give if it were possible, is a different and separate matter.
    I think it is plain that the Lord would have us give as our heart is moved to, but there are times when it simply is not possible. Elijah during the drought for instance did not hive but was not in sin - the widow he went to gave her last willingly, and in this particular case was rewarded for it.
    As with so much of the Christian life, it is the heart behind the action that counts, rather than the action itself.
    Give out of duty only and it is sin.
    Not give out of rebellion is sin.
    Give willingly as the Lord moves you is not sin.
    Not give but with a heart that would if the means was there is not sin.
    Conclusion: either giving or not giving can be done in sin - it is the heart motive that determines the sinfulness.
  13. DaveW added a post in a topic: current debate   

    A. I was clarifying my point that it is useless to proceed further, not denying that I said it was useless.
    B. From the very start BroMatt said that discussion of the debate outside the thread was acceptable.
    C. The point I am making is that if one side refuses to debate the points, it is no longer a debate. This is what has happened in this case.
    D. If you so deeply believe in your point that we should let them be, then I can only assume you are commenting here simply to oppose me, which you (wrongly) accused me of in another place.
    Brother Scott, 
    I  think that until the quote I put at the opening,  this has been very useful, however with the refusal to debate the points and instead simply reject the points with no real explanation, it ceases to be a debate.
    If it proceeds in this manner, it will be simply a stating of views rather than a debate. This in itself will be of value, but it is no longer a debate.
    I encourage you continue to try to participate, but I feel it will be increasingly difficult to "debate" when the other side just says "you are wrong".
  14. DaveW added a post in a topic: current debate   

    I don't think it is useless at all, but if one party is not going to abide by the rules and spirit of the debate, there seems to be little point continuing from here.
    What has been put up till now has been very good, and my request to BroMatt still stands - that it be packaged up into a downloadable form if it is possible without that being a burden on him.
    I simply don't  see further progress being made if it continues in the same manner as the post I quoted above.
  15. DaveW added a post in a topic: current debate   

    This statement by Covenantor has rendered the current debate useless. 
    "No. I do not recognise the validity of your complex grammatical analysis. I believe the Scriptures, & the straightforward grammar we actually read there."
    This statement implies that Pastor Markle has changed the meaning of the passage by his grammatical analysis.
    This is not the case - in fact the reason that he gave an in depth - not complex - explanation, is because Covenantor denied the simple reading of the passage, thereby necessitating a more complete explanation.
    Covenantor's statement is a bald misrepresentation which is designed to discredit Pastor Markle personally, and not within the spirit of the debate.
    Pastor Markle's explanation has in no way changed the meaning of the passage - it says what it says, which is precisely what he proved with his in depth and complete examination of the language.
    Simply put, Covenantor can not deal with the truths of the passage exposed by Pastor Markle's discourse and has returned to his standard form of ignoring the arguments and trying to change the focus, which is not how a debate is run.

Contributes To

  1. Devotionals    By Devotionals

    • 63
    • 9
    • 25519

    Most recent entry

    The Word Listen 聽 In Chinese.

Status Feed

  1. DaveW

    "If you're here, your where monsters are" Owl, reading the map in Winnie the Pooh.

    1. Genevanpreacher


    2. No Nicolaitans

      I get it DaveW!