*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TheSword last won the day on October 9 2015

TheSword had the most liked content!


About TheSword

  • Rank
    Super Contributor
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Are you IFB?

Recent Profile Visitors

15,358 profile views
  1. Check out Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. It'll answer just about any question preservation, transmission, manuscripts, and development of English versions that you can come up with. It's written from a solid KJV-only perspective. You can buy it on Amazon or I've attached the the PDF (you can google "forever settled pdf" if the upload didn't work). Forever.Settled.pdf
  2. You can certainly count me in and I'll contribute as much as I can. As far as topic, I don't have a preference at the moment. I like to study just about everything, though I think it'd be wise if we stay away from prophecy for the first go-around.
  3. All, I truly appreciate the input.
  4. Any of you who have children and have gone through a move, I would sincerely appreciate any input you might have on this one... We just moved to Las Vegas about 3 weeks ago and are still getting settled a little bit. One of my biggest challenges is my 3-yr-old. In San Antonio he absolutely loved going to church and being in his Sunday School class and Mother's Day Out class. Since we moved it is an absolute fight (with massive tears and screaming) to get him to go. He doesn't want to make new friends here because Las Vegas isn't San Antonio and he has decided he's not going to like it. It's heartbreaking and frustrating at the same time. On the one hand I know that he needs to go and interact with other kids to make friends and learn to love our new church. On the other hand I can't help but wonder if I'm setting him up to resent or even hate church (and therefore God?) by forcing him to go every time instead of letting him come to my class or "big church" with me. I'm just kind of at a loss right now on how to handle him.
  5. True, true, and true. The big problem is that according to "secular scientists" they get to claim their "gospel" as fact as if they're teaching a science class. So many people, Christians included, have already compromised their foundational beliefs to make room for Darwinism and all of its related made-up storylines. They've compromised with ridiculous explanations such as theistic evolution or progressive creation or whatever and have unwittingly conceded the battleground in full. Christians need to understand (and teach their children to understand) that it's either God and the Bible or Darwin and evolution. They are mutually exclusive faith systems.
  6. Unfortunately, atheistic evolution is the religion of just about any public school system and it carries over into most universities, including many "Christian" universities.
  7. I'm perfectly calm. I'm truly sorry if my post came across otherwise. On viruses being evidence of God's judgment, I would have to give an emphatic yes, and here's why. Due to the inherent destructive nature of a virus (particularly on mankind, though I know there are viruses that affect non-humans), I cannot fathom a way in which it can be considered a part of a "very good" creation (Gen 1:31). Therefore, viruses must have been introduced after God had concluded His creative activity. The most logical place for their introduction would be sometime after the Fall when man was then decreed to die. If God could have introduced a virus after Creation week, then there is no reason He could not have done it anytime until now or anytime after.
  8. First, show me an example of proof that a virus spontaneously arose in a controlled environment and was definitely not a discovery of an already existing virus. Second, viruses are not living cells. It cannot reproduce itself without the presence of an actual living cell and has no source of power/energy. Third, since it is not a living creature in the way that bacteria, mammals, fish, or birds are, it presents to problem from a creationist/biblical perspective because God has not precluded Himself from introducing new viruses. In fact, it makes more sense that a plethora of new viruses would have been introduced as a judgment upon sinful man.
  9. Another book that will explain all of your manuscript/text questions as well as the faith in God's preserved Word perspective and likely cement your stance on it is Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. You can buy the print copy or you can read the PDF version for free at (or google "forever settled pdf").
  10. Same here, I do enjoy the discussion. Although, I think we've strayed from the topic. To continue, perhaps it should be moved to its own thread or debate forum. I don't like derailing a thread and splitting into to topics. It makes things hard to follow. I once read a book from Zondervan's Counterpoints series called The Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation that was a fascinating reading. Each author gives arguments for their position and are responded to by the other two in turn. The issue is such that there is a lot of wiggle room in interpretation, and I think that's probably intentional. Prophecy is always much clearer looking back on its fulfillment than it is trying to discern it beforehand. I imagine when it happens we'll all look back with amazement at how we missed the obvious. For my part, the only one I've completely ruled out is the post-trib position as indicated in the paper I sent you a while back. I haven't seen enough to completely rule out pre-wrath, though I do still strongly lean pre-trib because it makes so much more sense to me in the grand scheme of things.
  11. Could be as little as a few months or as many as 50 years depending on how long it stays submerged in water and the mineral content. But if a teddy bear and hat can be calcified (i.e. made into fossils) in our lifetime, I'm sure your goat is a great candidate to stump evolutionists soon.
  12. Something they like to omit from the narrative is that fossilization, especially in a marine environment, requires rapid burial. I never see anyone try to explain how a whale was buried at all, much less rapidly, since they float upon death, without something like a catastrophic flood. It's laughable how many facts have to be ignored to make the evolution story work.
  13. Mike, First, thanks for the thoughtful and engaging response. After considering your argument and double-checking your facts in multiple linguistic sources, I have to recant the conclusion of my previous post and agree that there are two harvests/reapings in view here (yes, I am capable of accepting instructive correction after all ). Thanks for bringing that nugget to my attention. However, I still do not see this passage as a clear and unequivocal description of the Rapture. There are 3 objections/problems I see... 1) There is nothing in the passage (that I currently see) to demand that the wheat being harvested is made up of pre-raptured believers as opposed to those saved in the Tribulation if there was a pre-tribulation Rapture. 2) I am not entirely convinced that the "one like unto the Son of man" in v. 14 is a specific reference to Jesus. This is partially because he takes direction to reap from an angel out of the temple (v.15), but Jesus takes command and direction from no one except God the Father. I understand that the same wording is used in Rev 1:13 to reference Jesus, but there it is accompanied by descriptive delimiters that echo Daniel's descript of God (Dan 7:9-10). Additionally, while "Son of man" is a title given to Jesus, it is one that is intended to emphasize His humanity and is a title also given to prophets (Dan 8:17 and most of Ezekiel) as well to reference human lineage in general, often with a sense of limitation (Isa 51:12; Jer 49:18, 33, 50:40, 51:43; Heb 2:6). While the "Son of man" on a cloud may echo what we see in the Rapture as depicted 1 Thess 4, it also the common imagery used for the final Second Coming (Dan 7:13; Matt 24:30, 26:64; Mark 13:26, 14:62). Given that it is not unquestionably Jesus on the cloud and that if it was there is nothing to distinguish it from the Second Coming, I cannot yet view this as a definitive reference to the Rapture. 3) The imagery used here for harvesting wheat is dissimilar from the imagery used in the 1 Thess 4 description of the Rapture. In Rev 14:14-16, the wheat is cut down wholesale and gathered. Perhaps there is a separation of wheat from tares at this point (which is not specified and so must be read in), but the harvesting of wheat implies some type of death (cf. John 12:24 on the death of the harvested wheat). In contrast 1 Thess 4:13-18 depicts not death, but resurrection and immediate translation from one life into the next. The believers of the Rapture are not cut down and gathered, they are simply called up by Jesus to meet Him in the air. Given these three reasons, I remain unconvinced that Rev 14:14-20 describes the Rapture.
  14. As a pre-tribber, though probably not an expert, I'll address it... When you look at Rev 14:14-20, there are two possibilities: 1) The reaping in v. 16 is different from the reaping in v. 19. - If this is the case, you might be correct that it refers to the Rapture, though you would be hard-pressed to exegetically support a hard distinction between subject and purpose of the two reapings in context because nothing is ever done with whatever is reaped in v. 16. 2) The passage describes only one reaping - If this is the case, it most certainly cannot describe the Rapture of true believers because they who are reaped are thrown into the winepress of God's wrath (v. 19). This would conflict with 1 Thess 5:9, which I believe we agree says that Christians will not partake of God's wrath. I lean towards option 2 because it fits the natural flow of thought better. The reaping in v. 16 does not specify anything beyond harvesting the vine. Indeed, the word it's translated from (therizo) can be taken to include gathering of what is harvested and storing it, but it is not a necessary component of the word. Rather, it is specific to mean cutting down of the vine/tree/branch. Even the English word "reap" is definitely a cutting down and non-gathering activity when applied to an agricultural context. In contrast, the "gathering" in v. 19 speaks of no reaping, but rather of gathering the crop and transporting it to the winepress. Additionally, the angel with the sharp sickle is merely cutting the grapes off the vine and not cutting down the vine. What I believe we see here is Jesus cutting down the vine (reaping) and the angel gathering the grapes from the vine for the wrath of the winepress. Finally, there is nothing contextually to demand that believers are in view for vv. 14-20. It is a distinct and separate segment of thought from the believers in vv. 12-13. Based on all of that, I do not view Rev 14:14-20 as a description of the Rapture.
  15. Again, on what basis are you making this claim? If you figuratively interpret "body" in Eph 4, then in order to be consistent you must also interpret "Spirit", "hope", "Lord", "faith", "baptism", "God", and "Father" in a non-literal way. You cannot read the understanding of congregation or assembly (ekklesia) into the meaning of body (soma) because it does not fit within the semantic range and is never used in that sense. We may use "body "to describe an assembly in modern English, but 1st century Greek-speakers did not. This word refers to a physical mass and almost always associated with the corporeal tissue of a human, animal, or plant. In the rare instances it does reference a non-physical body, it is always used to reference a heavenly body, thereby rendering an earthly congregation/assembly invalid. This is what I meant in my earlier post by anachronism. Yes, Ephesians is about unity, but there is no reason to restrict its meaning and applicability to a single local body. Additionally, if your interpretation is correct, it conflicts with Rom 12:4-5: "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." Since, at this point, Paul had never been to Rome and was certainly not a part of the church there (he was baptized in Damascus if you recall), he cannot be including himself in anything but a universal body. As mentioned above, you cannot make this assumption based on the text. You have to bring in outside pre-understandings to make that work.