Jump to content


Member Since 17 Oct 2012
Offline Last Active Today, 12:27 AM

#393191 Why King James Only?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 06 November 2014 - 05:42 PM


Where was God's perfectly preserved text prior to 1611?


The Russians had their own Bible from the correct text in the 1500's, as did most of the European languages.  That is why the Title Page on the KJV says "with the former translations diligently compared."  The KJV translators checked their work with other current vernacular translations, the Hebrew and Greek texts (rejecting what is now know as the CT), and other ancient translations.  There work was thorough in every sense of the word, unlike the modern slop that is coming out.  The Bibles in European languages at that time were the correct Bibles. 


Today, the CT has ruined the translation process.  Most languages has traded in their TR translation in for the CT translation to the extent that it is difficult to find a good translation in many parts of the world simply because nobody prints the correct version anymore.  But still, the important thing for those people in that situation is their ATTITUDE toward the word of God.   The attitude of the "scholars" is that they think they know more than God, and it is their duty to tell everyone where the Bible is "wrong."  The attitude of the believer is to believe WHAT HE HAS IN HIS HANDS, and trust that the Lord will bless it.  And God will bless them on an individual basis for their faith, even if their Bible is wrong in some places.  Their growth will be stunted to some degree or another, but God is still able to overcome that.  A good missionary will seek to put the right Bible in their hands if at all possible, even if it means producing a new translation from the correct text. 


Why English?  It is the universal language of the day.  We send people all over the world to teach English.  It is the dominant language used universally.  In the OT times, if you wanted a copy of the TRUE Scriptures, it was in Hebrew.  Today, it is in English. 

So you are saying that if one wants God's word today, he must learn English? Otherwise, its not God's word? The hundred, nay, thousands of translations into other languages over the years from the TR, into oriental languages, European languages, even native American languages, are all worthless, because they aren't English?

#393189 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 06 November 2014 - 05:37 PM

I'm an IFB but see nothing to suggest I won't see it from earth. And my biblical stand, faith and practice are as strong as ever. Good thing we have that little "I" in "IFB".  


BY the way, I'm a big follower of Cloud's work and writings-I just think there is a lot in the argument many, including him, ignore and assume on the subject. I actually still have a thesis written on the subject by another person on the site, which he kindly sent me, as a refutation to my position, which I admit, I have not yet sat down to read. But I will. Its a subject that I have not been afaraid to look at from all sides, nor afraid to hear challenges, especially since I used to hold to the pre-tribulation position. Sadly, I see many pre-tribulationists who refuse to hear or read any differing position, and I have been separated from because of it, though I don't see it as an separation position. BUt we must each do as we believe the Lord wills.

#393188 How Old Is The Earth

Posted by Ukulelemike on 06 November 2014 - 05:32 PM

There is not enough sediment on the ocean floor to support an old earth, neither is there enough dust on the moon to indicate an old universe.

I know that NASA expected an issue when the astronauts landed on the moon, that they might sink into the dust, due to their assumption of the great age leaving many hundreds of feet of loose dust, when in reality it was about 1/8" deep.


Of course, then you have things like the massive amounts of diatomaceous earth in various places on the planet, which scientists say if proof of billions of years of collection of the microscopic diatome fossils it is comprised of...until the find whale fossils stretching through 80' of it, upright, which means the dead whale had to have laid there without decomposing for billions of years as it was slowly covered in the tiny fossils as they died, which would accumulate mabye 1/4" per thousand years. They conveniently tend to forget such things.

#393162 Hell Is A Real Place

Posted by Ukulelemike on 06 November 2014 - 09:22 AM

"and the Devil has his soul to torment in Hell forever."  I would remove this, as it is not the Devil that torments a soul in Hell-the Devil isn't in hell, nor does he wish to be, because the lake of fire, (where we will go after removed from Hell), is his final destination, where he will be as much a prisoner as others.


As well, from the 'Society of Hell" part, this entire idea of being ruled by Satan and his angels is silly-they will be cast in to burn, as well as humans. In the Lake of Fire,  there will be no rulers, no one poking anyone else with pitchforks or jamming pineapples up their nether regions. It will be prison and torment for all there, and actually, if anything, it will be worse for the devil and his angels, because, knowing God as they did, they still rebelled. Where much is given, much is expected, and so the worse the punishment for rebellion.


Still, overall a good site, and I'm sure you'll receive a lot of hate for it, but that would be expected for such a thing. I like it.

#393034 random fact game

Posted by Ukulelemike on 04 November 2014 - 05:56 PM

Observation: babies have tiny fingers, thus, tiny nostrils. Gorillas, large fingers, hence, large nostrils. Simple observational truth. 

#393021 Why King James Only?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 04 November 2014 - 03:10 PM

Let's first clarify which "KJV Only" meaning you have in mind:


1: Ruckman-style, 'the Bible was never perfect or complete until presented in the KJV 1611 version, which is perfect, and actually better than the autographs, as well as being inspired as a version.' I am not of this mind. 


2: Preservation KJV only: The KJV is the preserved Bible, coming directly down in a perfect manner from the inspried autographs. We don't look to the 'originals' because they no longer exist, but we believe God preserved it exactly as He would have it. I hold to this position.


Why? As you said above, Jordan, one reason is the Wescott/Hort connection: a couple Anglicans who made plain that they didn't believe in the Bible, and held to many Roman Catholic doctrines, such as mariolatry.


As well, there is still many unanswered questions concerning Von Tischendorf's finding of the Sinaiticus, and whether it was even an authentic ancient manuscript. Despite the arguments from a man who claimed to have personally written the so-called Sinaiticus, there qas never any testing done to dispute this. As well, the copy was badly damaged and burned, though many of the burns look very neat and orderly, almost as if done on purpose, to look like it had been cast into a fire, as the story goes. AND there are numerous scribal errors and alterations, which as any scribe would know, should disqualify it as a 'good' text.


The Vaticanus manuscript, also supposedly 'discovered' by Von Tischendorf, was well-known by earlier translators and was rejected by them for its many deviations from the other extant manuscripts.   Yet, it was these two foundations of sand upon which W&H chose to build their Fawlty Towers of scripture.


That's a start for now.

#393011 random fact game

Posted by Ukulelemike on 04 November 2014 - 12:01 PM


#392953 random fact game

Posted by Ukulelemike on 03 November 2014 - 07:15 PM

Random fact from my childhood:


My mother recently told this to my wife, and she asked me about it, and honestly, I had forgotten all about it. When I was 9, and my mother was at the hospital giving birth to my sister, i came across a dog, I think a German Shepherd, in a hole about 10 feet deep. I am told that I went to my grandmother and had her call the fire department, then went back to the hole to watch after the dog. When the fire department arrived, they got the dog out, and, I am told, it was in the paper and they called me a hero.


I remember almost none of this, having been ADHD, and having little memory of most of my youth. So it was cool to find out

#392946 File Under Believe It Or Not: Satanic Children's Big Book Of Activities

Posted by Ukulelemike on 03 November 2014 - 03:27 PM

If they want to go on just a secular standard, the Bible is widely acepted as one of the greatest pieces of literature of all time, whether one views it as truth or not. This is a far cry from a poorly-drawn and conceived coloring book trying to uplift Satanism, which itself is actually deceptive, because satanists don't believe in Satan, they use Satan as symbolic of hedonism. They are atheists, plain and simple, they just want tax breaks for their atheism.


On literary merit alone, the Bible stands head and shoulders above every other great work of literature.


Plus, its the everlasting word of God--BONUS!

#392930 Seattle Megachurch Mars Hill Dissolves 2 Weeks After Founder Mark Driscoll Re...

Posted by Ukulelemike on 03 November 2014 - 09:10 AM

No big surprise: it was run completely on Driscoll's charisma, not any Bible truth. Though I am a little surprised there wasn't another wolf in the pack, waiting to take the reins and continue to consume the flock.

#392909 How Old Is The Earth

Posted by Ukulelemike on 02 November 2014 - 06:58 PM

It means, unfilled and unformed-it seems to have been a mass of water, and even science is figuring out that there was water on earth before anything else, or at least, that it was older than the sun-their numbers are waaay off, but they are esentially correct, since the water was first, and the sun on, what, day four.

#392907 Saved , Unsaved, Then Saved Again?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 02 November 2014 - 06:48 PM

Going to try and address two things in this opost. Here is the first:

Christians usually agree that babies that die are taken to Heaven, ie, are "saved". The main scriptural example being when King David acknowledged that he would see his dead baby son again as recorded in 2 Samuel 12.


So, considering the fact that all adults alive once must have saved babies, why do they then have to be saved again as adults....at what point in their development do babies become unsaved and then must be resaved as adults?,


This is a difficult question, particularly in the light of scripture such as John 10 : 28 where eternal salvation is assured, once given, and never taken away.


Comments please?



"Study to shew thyself approved..."  2 Tim 2:15


First, babies are not 'saved', babies, infants, ("infinks", if you're Popeye), are born with sin, but it is dead, or perhaps, hibernating, if you will.


Paul said of himself, "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."


What does he mean here, 'I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revivied and I died'?  The only thing that makes sense, is that, without the law, means before he could grasp the law, before he had the ability to understand of the law and its consequences, he was alive, alive unto the Lord, in innocency. The law could not be applied against one who has no ablity to understand and thus, live acording to the law.

  BUT, when the commandment came, when he had the ablity to understand sin and the law and its consequences, THEN sin revivied, (it was there but ineffective against him before), and he died, he fell under the consequences of the law.


People like to talk about an 'age of accountability'. I don't see an age, I see an understanding. When one can knowingly do wrong, knowing it is wrong, knowing there is a consequence, and yet willingly do wrong, then sin revives, and that person dies.  So, people with mental issues where they cannot grasp right and wrong and eternal conseqences, probably are never under condemnation, regardless of age.


So its not a matter of being saved, then not saved, then saved again, it is about being innocent, and then guilty, due to understanding.


Next issue:


Ok first of all I don't know about you people but there is NO way I am worshiping a God who send babies to Hell. Call me picky but to do so is neither loving nor just. You can try to ignore the elephant in the room as mush as you want but I think his question needs to be considered. You don't seriously think every question is answered in the small amount of scripture that we have access to as canonised in the bible do you ? Jesus said so much more and did so many more things than are recorded in the version as compiled by a group of men. I for one would have been much happier seeing the entire works of that heretic Paul removed from the bible and just had more of what the Master actually said rather than some arrogant legalistic tentmaker with a personal agenda worte to concoct his own version of Christianity, second of all John of course we should be concerning ourselves with such questions. 

Washed, for you to see anything Paul has written as being arrogant or in opposition to Jesus, is to have little discernment of the BIble as a whole. Paul's writings are in perfect agreement, but Jesus' primary ministry, you must remember, was to Israel, to those under the law. His sacrifice made salvation available to all, but He, Himself, said He was sent to seek and to save that which was lost, which was first to Israel. So Jesus was made under the law, (in His flesh, I mean), and sent to those under the law, which is why He said that He wasn't there to destroy the law, and urged those in His ministry to keep the law. He came to fulfill the law, which He did by perfectly keeping the law, then fulilling it, nailing it to His cross.


Jesus Himself called Paul as an Apostle, and Paul's message was perfectly complimentary to the message of Peter and James and all others, including Jesus. Paul directed others to be of Jesus, not of Paul, and I daresay, you would not be able to really grasp the freedom you have in Christ without the words of Paul.


You state some things about scripture that I would be interested in knowing where you get your information. Yes, there are a lot of 'gnostic' books, but these have been proven to date from up to 200-300 years after the writing of the Bible. I believe that everything that the Lord declared to be written and given is what we have present in the scriptures we have, otherwise you are accusing God of not being able to keep His word available.  Pretty strong assertions from someone sitting 2,000 years after, with, I suspect, no hard proof. God has preserved His word for us, as He wants it for us.  

#392284 Way Of Life - Preacher Says "the Brethren" Are Galled With Brother C...

Posted by Ukulelemike on 28 October 2014 - 09:34 AM

A shame this has to continue this way. I suspect that many who accuse Cloud of pride, get that from such letters as this, when, in order to justify his knowledge in the subject, he tells them his experience and studies and such, which, if it were done any other way, would seem like pride. However, I don't see it that way, I see it as him listing his credentials, much as Paul did when he spoke of his earthly credentials, the stock of benjamin, circumcised the 8th day, etc. he wasnt lifting himself up in these things, but showing that he, of all people, understood the Jews and their religion, so he was the perfect person, as it were, to preach to the Jews.


I have some disagreements with David Cloud, but I absolutely agree with his assessment of the musical issues he deals with often, and we have much history and proof in churches who were once solid, but in allowing more and more worldly music in, they have since left IFB and become rock and roll concernt churches that teach false doctrines and licentiousness. Its not like it has never happened. They are allowing fire in their bosom-they will get burned.

#391854 Think Fruit

Posted by Ukulelemike on 22 October 2014 - 12:52 PM

I know, as IFB's we tend to think of fruit almost purely as souls won to Jesus Christ, and to be sure, that IS a fruit, but today, not just among us, but many, fruit is not often enough seen as fruit within one's life and walk-our personal, spiritual growth before the Lord. Yet, a majority of verses concerning fruit are exactly that: growth. Fruits meet, or appropriate, for repentance, a life that shows our repentance, which begins in the heart, and is followed by the walk. The fruit, (mind you, not 'fruits"), of the Spirit-one fruit, numerous aspects of that fruit. And I believe that these aspects are gained, one at a time, by the believer, the more we grow and turn ourselves to the Lord in all aspects of life. Some are harder than others, like, meekness and longsuffering. But they are ALL parts of that one fruit, which shows our growth in the Lord.


  This is why Christians show little change in their lives-not taught about the fruit, about the walk. In fact, it is the fruit that many believers are taught to be legalism, the change in the life, both within and without. We are told that we may know others by their fruit, and yes, that takes, BUM-bum-BUUUUM! Judging! And how can we do that, except that the change extends to the outward, despite the naysayers that tell others that they shouldn't be judged by their tattoos and purple mohawks and miniskirts and tank-tops and multiple piercings, that only God can judge because He sees what is in the inside, yet I say, the Lord tells us we may know them by their fruits, and their fruits inside will be seen reflected on the outside.

#391799 Nonhuman "rights" Soon To Be A Reality, I Betcha

Posted by Ukulelemike on 21 October 2014 - 09:29 AM

True. If "Tommy" has the rights to be free, as it were, then maybe he doesn't want to go back to the jungles, maybe he wants to be free in Manhattan, or free to marry a supermodel and live in Rio, and attend the Sundance film festival each year. And of course, who will decide what Tommy's will IS?


This 'rights' thing is seriously getting out of hand. With the gay rights, and the children's rights, giving children who can barely wipe their own butts, rights to be treated and make decisions as an adult, this will nicely set up the paedophiles to demand to have sex and marry young children, after their 'partners' have been suitably molested and their wills broken, to agree. When I was a kid, I wanted to get a tattoo of the Incredible Hulk on my chest-I thought that was a great idea! Know why? because I was TEN YEARS OLD and I was stupid, like any ten year old is. They are no more capable of making good decisions than Tommy is of deciding where he wants to be. With rights must come responsibility, and the ability to take responsibility.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500