TheSword

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    1,075
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

TheSword last won the day on October 9 2015

TheSword had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About TheSword

  • Rank
    Super Contributor

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Are you IFB?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

15,519 profile views
  1. Along with what Ukulelemike said, if God did not allow us to make mistakes, then how could we be said to have free will? In essence, it is the same questions as "why does God allow evil or bad things to happen?" We either have free will or we do not and if God is choosing any of our actions for us, then it is the latter.
  2. It's not stated in those particular passages, no. However, taking in the context of the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, the pattern of co-regency in Judah is easily established as is the chaotic power transitions of Israel. The precedent was established in David's line for the southern kingdom of Judah when he placed Solomon in power a substantial amount of time before his death (1 Kings 1-2). See also 2 Kings 8:16 where Jehoshaphat and his son Jehoram reigned together as well as 2 Kings 15:5 stating that Azariah and Jotham shared the throne. The text certainly does not demand co-regency, but it does allow for it as a valid explanation. It also allows for the explanation given above by 1611mac, which doesn't actually contradict the co-regency explanation; it only changes the co-regent. Further, the contexts of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and the rest of the OT support that explanation. While it is not a concrete and unquestionable solution because neither singular verse makes it specific and clear, it is far from speculation.
  3. You're kind of double stating my point. The immediate nature of Nebuchadnezzar came at the end of the 3 month reign in Jerusalem. Both verses agree on that point. What is in dispute was whether that 3 months began when he was 8 or 18. My assertion is that he began to reign as co-regent when he was 8 and began to reign on his own from Jerusalem when he was 18. Truly, both passages even allow that he reigned by himself for a period of time in a place other than Jerusalem and then settled into the royal palace there at the end.
  4. You are still adding in an presumption regarding the immediacy of the narrative. Let's look at the text: 2 Chron 36:9 - Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. 2 Kings 24:8 - Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. Here are the facts as presented: 1) Jehoiachin was 8/18 years old when he began to reign 2) He reigned in Jerusalem 3 months + 10 days Here is what is NOT in the text: ...and Jehoiachin was 8/18 years in 3 months when Nebuchadnezzar rolled in from Babylon... (i.e. no indication that the second fact immediately follows the first on the timeline). Here is what I find to be an intriguing clue. 2 Kings was written before the Exile and/or during the initial transition and was concerned with keeping accurate history. That is why you see more information about lineage. 2 Chronicles was written toward the end of the Exile or shortly after which is why you see more specificity that includes the totality of his time in power and length of his reign in Jerusalem as well as the focus on his failure that invited God's judgment. Genesis, and the Pentateuch and OT generally, were about the lineage and descent of the Israelites. Therefore, the important figures in the lineage are given prominence. In a highly inflected language like Hebrew, emphasis is often given with word position rather than description. That Abram is listed first attests to his importance to the narrative. Nothing is actually said of his birth order. The only information is that given is that Terah had 3 sons and their names were Abram, Nahor, and Haran. It is an assumption to say that because Abram was listed first that he must have been born first, because the text does not demand it. So I guess the short answer is yes, Abram's importance and significance to the purpose of Genesis would naturally put him first in any list, just as Shem is listed as first among Noah's sons. In every genealogy in Genesis, you'll find that the siblings of the lineage of importance are only mentioned when they are important to the narrative of that individual. Most instances just lists "sons and daughters" without specifying number or order.
  5. I think I touched on this in another thread, but the 2 Chron 36 vs. 2 Kings 24 is easily explained by co-regency. It was normal practice in Judah for the king to designate and empower his heir early in his reign to ensure the desired passage of power. The two books are likely referencing these two start points. On the Acts 7 vs. Genesis 11 issue, you just have to read a little closer. Genesis 11 states that Terah took his family from Ur to Haran after his son Haran (who already had a full-grown son in Lot and daughter in Milcah). Additionally, it is likely that Haran was the firstborn since his daughter was old enough to be wed to his brother Nahor. What's not stated is anyone's age when they left Ur or how long they stayed in Haran before Terah died. 75 years is not an unreasonable amount of time for Terah to have three sons, at least one of which had two full-grown children, and for Sarai to have gone without children long enough to be declared barren. The key to solving apparent discrepancies usually comes down to critical reading and stripping away assumptions in order to interact with the basic facts of the text before adding any suppositions.
  6. Certainly, Bro. Stafford. Sorry for contributing to the derailing of the purpose of the thread.
  7. I don't use it for Green's translation, I use it for the text and parse it myself along with the KJV rendering, that's why I included a picture of a KJV for you. You'll also notice I included non-interlinear copy of the MT and TR as well. You're using special pleading and a loaded question to assert that I'm reading and supporting a Jay P. Green version of the Bible. Do you read Hebrew? If not, there's no point getting into this discussion. Co-regency. It was the common practice in Judah to ensure the desired succession. Yes, which has no substantive differences from the Beza 1598, Stephens 1550, Erasmus 1527/1535, and Complutensian Polyglot used in KJV translation. Question 1: What exactly do you mean by that? Question 2: Yes. I get the notion you're attempting to walk this back to the point that the originals and many of the early copies are no longer in existence. Am I correct in understanding your overall point?
  8. I agree in full with Bro. Scott's post, but if you need a visual... I'm not at home to take a picture, so I took screen grabs from what I do own. KJV.bmp MT.bmp
  9. No, normally you would not capitalize it unless it's in a heading or title because it is a concept and not a proper noun or philosophical idea/movement.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. All, I truly appreciate the input.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Unfortunately, atheistic evolution is the religion of just about any public school system and it carries over into most universities, including many "Christian" universities.