Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Yesterday
  3. I've never had to decide between the two and they are both for my family's good. If I can't spare 10% of my worldly goods to provide for my spiritual family and the spiritual well being of my physical family then the 100% of my worldly goods going to only physical things won't help me or them either.
  4. I've always taught a freewill tithe. The New Testament church is structured after the Melchizedek priesthood and Paul makes it clear that he has a right to be paid, as does other ministers of the Gospel. (1 Corinthians 9). If they are to be paid then our example to teach is the tithe but not of commandment or constraint but of a free will and cheerful heart. I've studied the tithe and Christian giving in depth at church as well, which can be found here for those interested in the freewill tithe of Christians: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPBnTVkjTpCIMXwSG6O5iqZUl3LCiqrGf
  5. It should be obvious that I actually accept and believe what the Scriptures themselves state and teach about preservation. I believe what the Lord Jesus Christ taught concerning the Scriptures. I properly and soundly explain what I mean by preservation while many seem to be unclear in what they mean by preserve or they do not define the term or do not use it with the same exact meaning. My statements were clearly based on what the Scriptures state and teach. Exact word preservation would mean that the actual exact same original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would be the words that had to be preserved. Different words in a different language would not preserve the exact same words as was given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Any suggestion that the words in the KJV preserve the original-language Scriptures would have to refer to some type "meaning" preservation since the KJV does not actually have the exact same words as were given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Sometimes the KJV may give a dynamic equivalent meaning instead of a literal word-for-word meaning. Those who use the term preservation to refer to the KJV do not demonstrate that they are actually soundly teaching what the Scriptures teach about the preservation of what God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.
  6. When a younger IFB, (I became one in my 20's while in the Navy), I was, of course, brought up in the idea that the tithe was unquestionable, and absolute. I never bothered to question it-of course, I was learning so much new, but didn't do a lot of searching at the time. It wasn't until much later that my father gave me some of his old Bible college papers he had written, since I was preparing to become a pastor, and one the things he wrote was why He believed the tithe was not for today. I read it once and kind of poo-pooed it, but it stuck in my mind and I began to study it out and came to find that he had, indeed, done his homework, and was correct, that the only reason churches teach a tithe today is because they just seem to want that money and it is often easier to obtain by making it basically a matter of "you're stealing from God!', if you don't. The Bible is really quite plain: the tithe was OT, it was, by the law, generally made up of foodstuffs, not money. Before the law there are only two instances of a tithe, or a tenth, and both were by choice: Abraham giving a tithe to Melchezidek, which was only a one time deal, and it came from the things taken in the battle, not his own property. The other was Jacob, and his tenth had a condition attached to it, being that God returned him back to his father and homeland in peace, THEN he would give God "the tenth part', so it wasn't even so much the first tenth, but the tenth part; and we actually never see the fulfillment of this promise and how he did it. so pre-law tithing is very limited, purely voluntary, and each apparently single incidents. After the law we never see one place where it was given in money, gold, silver or any such thing, always food. And it WAS an aspect of the law. The NT clearly teaches freewill giving, as we have been prospered by God.
  7. Brother McWhorter, I pray that I am counted as one of those "friends;" for I certainly count you as such. Even so, (if you are still paying attention) I would request that you would not leave Online Baptist completely over this matter. On the other hand -- Sadly I have to agree that this happens far too often among the IFB movement. Now, it is not that everyone should be compelled to agree with my given study of Scripture and resulting position. Rather, it is that the IFB movement should be more open to honest and thorough questioning and study on any given matter (and I do mean THOROUGH, which will at times even push me harder and deeper in study).
  8. These are easy questions for me, for I am a evangelist, and I can speak freely. 1. Here's a question for everyone...Which takes priority...tithing or providing for your family? Providing for your family. 2. . Give as I purpose in my heart for the special offerings for others? Correct, this could mean give more than the tithe, to the church and others. Members here are afraid to talk about certain topics, like politics, sex, money and others things here. They are leaders in churches, and have to be more careful.
  9. Nevermind. I'll let you and everyone off the hook. Don't worry about answering. We IFBs claim we only stick to God's word...and we do...until our man-made doctrines take priority over what God's word actually teaches and says. Have any of us actually studied the tithe, or have we just been satisfied to accept what we've been told? That sounds good, but it's not biblical concerning the tithe whatsoever. I'm sorry, but don't we want the truth of God's word instead of what we "consider"? Here's a question for everyone... Which takes priority...tithing or providing for your family? There are consequences to both. Don't answer here (or to yourself) unless you've had to make a decision between the two. Now...at some point...please look up the answers for the questions that I posed...and ask yourself who changed the answers to what God's word clearly states. Did God EVER change those answers concerning the tithe that he COMMANDED, or did man change it? I've made some friends here, and I'm grateful for that...but it's time for me to leave. I've preached tithing as hard as anyone in the past. However, I will do what God's word teaches for New Testament believers... 1. Give as I purpose in my heart for the special offerings for others. 2. Give to help support my pastor. Take care everyone.
  10. First, I respect you deeply...I want you to know that. Secondly, God never put any stipulations nor commands regarding the air we breath that I'm aware of. Thirdly, since you responded after my post, would you be willing to answer the following questions that I posed? I'm not trying to stir up any controversy. I just want answers. I've been on both sides in my life as a believer...to tithe or not tithe (but give).
  11. I don't know for sure about her. I am not with another woman though. But it has been something I have questioned myself alot about..is whether I want to be married to her.
  12. It is obvious you don't consider it so, but Jesus certainly did. I firmly believe that the words preserved for me in the Bible were the mechanism that brought me to Christ. Romans 10:17 (KJV) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
  13. Last week
  14. I do not consider applying scriptural truths soundly and justly straining at a gnat. Advocating scriptural truths is not being a blind guide. Luke 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
  15. Matthew 23:24 (KJV) Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
  16. The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets. The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8, Luke 10:26). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them. Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles? A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that Bible preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration. For when a king [or whoever] copied them, he would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them to be able to “keep all the words” (Deut. 17:18-19). A copy of Scripture should have the exact, same words as the source from which it was copied, and it could be tested or evaluated by its source (Exod. 34:1, Deut. 10:2, 4, Deut. 17:18, Deut. 27:8, Jer. 36:28, John 17:8, Jer. 23:28). Jesus gave the exact same words to the apostles or disciples that God the Father gave to Him (John 17:8, John 14:24, John 12:50). Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the preserved original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Do the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36)? Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47). Unless the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the authority, norm, and standard for Bible translations, there would be no sound, true criteria for distinguishing between a good, accurate translation and a poor, inaccurate translation. Would not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration of God and preserved by God be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing?
  17. Does God really need our money? His ministry will continue with your tithe or not, with a church building or not. Mans focus sometimes is on what he can see, and not in faith. If the Pastor knows how much you are tithing, this is sin. Because this brings favortizium.
  18. Sounds like you don't want to be married, you said, it just won't work. Are you with another woman, is she with another man? If yes, it will not work. We cannot make promises to God, for we all fall short. The flesh is weak, but salvation is personal.
  19. Jim Taylor maintained that preservation is not “an attribute” but that it “is a process” (In Defense of the Textus Receptus, p. 40). Jim Taylor asserted that “translations are not preserved because preservation is not an attribute” (Ibid.). Taylor noted: “Add to this the fact that God preserved what he gave. God gave us his words in Greek and Hebrew and thus, he preserves his words in those languages” (Ibid.). Tim Fellure observed: “Obviously, it’s not required that preservation extends to a translation if the Word of God has been preserved in the Greek and Hebrew text” (Neither jot nor tittle, p. 71). Thomas Corkish acknowledged that “it is true that He [God] has not promised to preserve versions” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 210).
  20. “…Thou art my sonne, this day haue I begotten thee.” (Ps.2:7) In this verse, Scripture speaks of the birth of Israel as the people of God at the beginning of the Millennium. It is said: “Israel is my sonne, euen my first borne” (Ex.4:22) “…Thou art my Sonne, to day haue I begotten thee.” (Heb.5:5) This verse is about the birth of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ on the Day of Pentecost, about His enthronement (Rev. 11:17) in the future.
  21. Without reservation...God didn't stop giving us air to breath, so...tithe!
  22. I appreciate your concern, but I'm still using it and will continue to as long as it lasts. I trust God preserved what I need to know in the one I have.
  23. Could KJV-only allegations against the NKJV demonstrate that many KJV-only advocates do not approach the NKJV with the same attitude with which they would approach the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1611 KJV? Do some seem to approach the NKJV as a Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking reader of a Bible translation? While they may condemn anyone who approaches the KJV as a critic, are they perhaps guilty of the same thing in their approach to the NKJV? Do the Scriptures instruct believers to approach their reading of one English Bible translation differently than their reading of another one? Do the Scriptures instruct believers to show respect to persons or to show partiality to the translating work of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 over the translating work of another group of scholars? Evidently, some KJV-only advocates may come to inspect a mirror [the NKJV] (perhaps using a magnifying glass) instead of coming to see themselves in this mirror of the Scriptures translated into present-day English in the NKJV. Do they only look inconsistently and critically at this mirror and refuse to look in it? Would they read the NKJV as the word of God translated into present-day English and with a willingness to obey and apply the scriptural truths in its verses to their own lives? Because they may come to the NKJV solely as a critic or because they may read against it, they may be unable to see that it would belong in the same family of Bible translations as the Geneva Bible and the KJV. They do not respect, accept, or believe the NKJV as a good Bible translation which could communicate to them the words of God translated into English. Could KJV-only advocates suppose that they see errors in the NKJV because they had already assumed that they are there or because they have been told that they were there based on a superficial judgment according to appearance?
  24. John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Are some possibly jumping to wrong conclusions by judging merely according to the appearance instead of judging righteous judgment by applying the same exact measures/standards justly? Would John 7:24 suggest that judging according to the appearance is excellent teaching? The 1568 Bishops' Bible did not have the name Bishops' Bible on its title page, and the 1611 edition of the KJV did not have the name King James Version on its title page. The first rule for the making of the KJV stated: "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit." If a publisher today had first printed the KJV as a revision of the Bishops' Bible, that publisher may well have called it "the New Bishops' Bible."
  25. The title page of the 1611 edition of the KJV asserted [perhaps by the printer] that it is "newly translated out of the original tongues" while the translators in the 1611 preface suggested that the KJV is only a revision and not a new translation. The fact is that the KJV can accurately be said to be both a revision and a translation [more a revision than a new translation since over 60% of the KJV's English comes from the pre-1611 English Bibles]. The NKJV is also both a revision [a revision of the KJV] and a translation of the same original-language texts used in making the KJV. The terms "edition" and "revision" have been in effect used interchangeably by some KJV-only authors when sometimes it is suggested that the KJV is an edition of Tyndale's or another pre-1611 English and sometimes it is suggested that the KJV is a revision of Tyndale's or another pre-1611 English Bible. Some will say that the 1769 Oxford is a revision of the 1611 edition while others will say that the 1769 Oxford is an edition. Later editors/printers of the KJV made use of the original-language texts is making their revisions and changes to the 1611 edition just as the NKJV translators did in making their revisions to the KJV. Some translating or re-translating was done in the making of changes and revisions to the 1611 edition. David Cloud stated that the predecessors of the KJV were "the same basic Bibles." He wrote: "They were based upon the same Greek text and employed the same type of translation methodology" (For Love of the Bible, p. 48). David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577). He also noted: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). Robert Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198). Edward F. Hills affirmed that the 1611 KJV "is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible" (KJV Defended, p. 215). It remains a fact that the same-type differences can be found between the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and the KJV as can be found between the KJV and the NKJV. I do not think that those same type-differences introduced in the KJV should be considered "insidious" and by the same exact measures/standards neither should they in the NKJV.
  1. Load more activity

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

  • Create New...