Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

michae1

The Beast Revelation

Recommended Posts


Believing something that is wrong, that is not there, does mean something. Truth always means something to those that love God. When a person believes something that is not true, it may very well may lead that person off on rabbit trials that are not there even believing many more untruths. Of course, that is just 1 error in that Bible, there's others, & I will let you find them.

Surely if they are there, its worth your time to hunt them down, & if you do not want to hunt them, that just means the truth is not all that important.

Agreed. The push in Scofield's time to come up with a way to fit the theory of evolution into the Bible by use of a "gap", was and is a dangerous wrong. This aspect alone has opened the door to questioning other aspects of Scripture and attempts to claim certain portions of Scripture as inaccurate or to make other additions to Scripture.

If we accept the idea the beginning of the Bible is flawed, incomplete or lacking, we then accept the idea the same is likely true in other areas of the Bible. Trying to fit an evolutionary gap, or other ideas into a gap that Scripture doesn't declare to even be there or to be something in need of our attention, is a terrible distraction and the opening of the door for the full reworking of Scripture to suit the theories, ideas and wishes of man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believing something that is wrong, that is not there, does mean something. Truth always means something to those that love God. When a person believes something that is not true, it may very well may lead that person off on rabbit trials that are not there even believing many more untruths. Of course, that is just 1 error in that Bible, there's others, & I will let you find them.

Surely if they are there, its worth your time to hunt them down, & if you do not want to hunt them, that just means the truth is not all that important.


Jerry, I usually understand your posts, even if I do not agree with them, but the above leaves me completely confused. Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believing something that is wrong, that is not there, does mean something. Truth always means something to those that love God. When a person believes something that is not true, it may very well may lead that person off on rabbit trials that are not there even believing many more untruths. Of course, that is just 1 error in that Bible, there's others, & I will let you find them.

Surely if they are there, its worth your time to hunt them down, & if you do not want to hunt them, that just means the truth is not all that important.



I don't think any of us here have it all right, wouldn't you agree to that brother? Therefore, we all probably believe something that is incorrect. Would you discredit someone for believing something that was incorrect? Would you want your church members to leave your church if you ever said something incorrect from the pulpit?

That's all Scofield is doing when it comes to the evolutionary gap theory. There's how many thousands of notes in the OSRB? And because one is wrong it's no good? Like I said, I've heard there are about six errors when it comes to the notes and everything else is good. I've found the OSRB to be a help to me in study, I've heard solid Christians say the same thing and reading on his site apparently David Cloud likes it alot as well. I just think if you're going to trash the OSRB for a mistake on the first few pages and ignore the fifteen-hundred plus pages of good, helpful notes then you might as well never read another book again. Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have refrained from the "what's wrong with the SRB" discussion but of course his whole paradigm is dispensationism, & that has influnced generations of Christians & prejudiced them against covenant theology.

Do any of you agree with his assertion:

The Fourth Dispensation: Promise. For Abraham, and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant (See Scofield "Genesis 15:18") made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing. In Egypt they lost their blessings, but not their covenant. The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law Exodus 19:8. Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Exodus 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law. The Dispensation of Promise extends from Genesis 12:1 to Exodus 19:8, and was exclusively Israelitish. The dispensation must be distinguished from the covenant. The former is a mode of testing; the latter is everlasting because unconditional. The law did not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant Galatians 3:15-18 but was an intermediate disciplinary dealing "till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made" ; Galatians 3:19-29; 4:1-7. Only the dispensation, as a testing of Israel, ended at the giving of the law.


I wonder if he had actually read Ex. 19:
3
And Moses we
nt
up u
nt
o God, and the LORD called u
nt
o him out of the mou
nt
ain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jac
ob
, and tell the children of Israel;

4
Ye have seen what I did u
nt
o the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you u
nt
o myself.

5
Now therefore, if ye will
ob
ey my voice indeed, and keep my covena
nt
, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure u
nt
o me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

6
And ye shall be u
nt
o me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak u
nt
o the children of Israel.

7
And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.

8
And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people u
nt
o the LORD.

9
And the LORD said u
nt
o Moses, Lo, I come u
nt
o thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people u
nt
o the LORD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How should the Israelites have responded to the LORD's words in Ex. 19 in order to continue in the "promise" dispensation?

Apparently NOT: "And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Scofield Bible has led to many wrong ideas and faulty teaching and preaching. At the same time, there have been many who point to the things in the Scofield Bible as proof the Bible is flawed. Why so many have held to the Scofield and recommended it I don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Scofield Bible has led to many wrong ideas and faulty teaching and preaching. At the same time, there have been many who point to the things in the Scofield Bible as proof the Bible is flawed. Why so many have held to the Scofield and recommended it I don't understand.


I never met anyone like that. What I've met is people who use the OSRB and find it to be very helpful in personal study, understanding that the notes are written by a man and will of course contain error.

Is there a better Dispensational Study Bible out there, or do we write them all off? Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never met anyone like that. What I've met is people who use the OSRB and find it to be very helpful in personal study, understanding that the notes are written by a man and will of course contain error.

Is there a better Dispensational Study Bible out there, or do we write them all off?

I'm sure there are better disp study Bibles, but that wasn't my point. What do you make of my previous posts #30 & 31 ?

Do you consider Scofield to be correct in his assertion "The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law Exodus 19:8. Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Exodus 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law." ????

If I were a disp, I would reject Scofield for that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I'm sure there are better disp study Bibles, but that wasn't my point. What do you make of my previous posts #30 & 31 ?

Do you consider Scofield to be correct in his assertion "The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law Exodus 19:8. Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Exodus 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law." ????

If I were a disp, I would reject Scofield for that statement.



I wouldn't reject him entirely, but I don't think Israel was doing something wrong when they accepted the covenant given them by God. He offered them a bilateral contract, and they accepted it. Doesn't later on Paul say that there wasn't any fault in the contract, but the fault was in the nation of Israel not being able to keep it?

My question still stands: is there a better dispensational study Bible out there than the OSRB, or do we just forsake all study Bibles? No offence, but I wouldn't someone who holds to Covenant Theology this question. Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




I wouldn't reject him entirely, but I don't think Israel was doing something wrong when they accepted the covenant given them by God. He offered them a bilateral contract, and they accepted it. Doesn't later on Paul say that there wasn't any fault in the contract, but the fault was in the nation of Israel not being able to keep it?

My question still stands: is there a better dispensational study Bible out there than the OSRB, or do we just forsake all study Bibles? No offence, but I wouldn't someone who holds to Covenant Theology this question. I won't try.

Scofield seems to think that "Israel" had the option of not accepting that renewed covenant relationship, & staying with the "promise disp" as with Abraham. "You made unconditional promises to Abraham & his seed - we'll stay with that, thank you, LORD & reject your latest offer." He forgets even Abraham had to conform in certain respects, e.g. circumcision, or violate the covenant. Is there any hint in Scripture that Scofield's assertion (highlighted red above) is valid?

The apparent change of disp in Ex. 19 was necessary as Israel had changed from a family to a nation, & nations need laws to regulate conduct. I know all are sinners & guilty of breaking God's laws, but we are all capable of acknowledging God's laws & complying with them in general. We may not be pure in thought, but we can be faithful to our wife, we can covet without stealing, etc, so we seek to live by them. The Israelites could have refrained from idolatry & not made the calf. Is Scofield suggesting that had they rejected the "offer" in Ex. 19, they could have made the calf but not been condemned for idolatry? That the promise disp meant they could sin with impunity, because the commandments would not have been given, nor needed?

My mind is boggling. I consider Scofield is writing rubbish - not because of any label you stick on me, but because I believe the Bible. I am no more capable in myself of complying in detail with the Law, but the Law is in my heart (Heb. 8) just as the believing Israelites were circumcised in heart. Peter reassures me when he applies Ex. 19 to us:
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

My baptism was a commitment to walk with God in the new life he had given me. All the wonderful promises would be worthless to me if I were to trust the promises of grace & continue in sin. (Rom. 6) Too many people follow what Scofield seems to be saying, that Israel had the option of enjoying the promises without obedience to God. "I've accepted Christ as Saviour, now I'm saved regardless of how I live." Edited by Covenanter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scofield is wrong on that note in my opinion, but considering the fact that you think you were saved before you ever prayed the prayer of faith I think you should pull the beam out of your own eye before going after him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scofield is wrong on that note in my opinion, but considering the fact that you think you were saved before you ever prayed the prayer of faith I think you should pull the beam out of your own eye before going after him.

Why do you assert that? I said that prayer many times before I was saved - my only visit to the famous Wemley football stadium was to hear Billy Graham & I said that prayer then, & again when they had a Southampton Crusade.

PLEEEEEEEEZ consider what I wrote - I note that "Scofield is wrong on that note in my opinion." Is that a serious error that casts an extraordinary doubt over God's dealings with Israel from Ex. 19 onwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Why do you assert that? I said that prayer many times before I was saved - my only visit to the famous Wemley football stadium was to hear Billy Graham & I said that prayer then, & again when they had a Southampton Crusade.

PLEEEEEEEEZ consider what I wrote - I note that "Scofield is wrong on that note in my opinion." Is that a serious error that casts an extraordinary doubt over God's dealings with Israel from Ex. 19 onwards.



We were talking about Calvinism and you said that you believe you had recieved Christ before you actually prayed to accept Him. Maybe I misunderstood, if so, I apologize. Do you believe a person recieves the Holy Spirit before they actually pray "the sinner's prayer"?

Regardless, the point I was making is that your opinion doesn't matter to me when it comes to a study Bible. I don't mind having conversations with you, and I respect you in certain areas, but in many important areas your views and mine couldn't be any more further apart.

A bad note in Ex. 19 doesn't ruin thousands of other good notes in my opinion. Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think there is a good dispensational study Bible out there. They are all flawed to the point where they can be dangerous to non-Christians, new Christians and those not grounded in the Word. If one is grounded in the Word well enough to be able to tell the difference between the bad and good notes then they don't need a study Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think there is a good dispensational study Bible out there. They are all flawed to the point where they can be dangerous to non-Christians, new Christians and those not grounded in the Word. If one is grounded in the Word well enough to be able to tell the difference between the bad and good notes then they don't need a study Bible.


I appreciate your opinion and consistancy.

I don't agree though, I think the OSRB is a great study Bible. Mentioning the possibility of a gap on the first couple pages and the note that Covenanter pointed out aren't enough to me to rule out all the good things.

How do you feel about Bible commentaries? I view study Bibles and Bible commentaries as being the same thing, which is why I don't have a problem with the OSRB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I appreciate your opinion and consistancy.

I don't agree though, I think the OSRB is a great study Bible. Mentioning the possibility of a gap on the first couple pages and the note that Covenanter pointed out aren't enough to me to rule out all the good things.

How do you feel about Bible commentaries? I view study Bibles and Bible commentaries as being the same thing, which is why I don't have a problem with the OSRB.

One has to be careful with Bible commentaries as well but I view them as less dangerous than notes that are actually with the Bible. One of the main reasons the KJB came into being was because of opposition to the notes in the Geneva Bible. This is also one of the reasons it was decided to not have notes in the KJB.

Back to commentaries, they are similar to reading any Christian book. They were written by men and must be considered in the light of Scripture.

Returning to study Bibles, I've encountered many over the years who seem to think that since the notes are in the Bible that means the notes are all accurate. I've seen much confusion over this as well as many problems in various Bible studies over the years as well as during times of witnessing.

Another aspect particular to the dispensational aspect I've seen trouble with is there is more than one view as to just what dispensationalism is and how it's divided and taught. I've witnessed varying dispensational "wars" over this that were mostly based upon the differing notes in their Bibles.

While it may not be the intent, in many cases the notes are viewed by many readers as being a part of the Bible, an addition to the Bible. Dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course one has to be careful with commentary, that is why I said a 'good commentary.'

It would be good to check with your pastor & see what he recommends.


Having read through a few of the posts here, I must agree and disagree. A perfect commentary is impossible to find, a good commentary almost impossible, but a perfect bible however can be found and we all know which one that is. I use the Thompsons chain ref, but even in this one I sometimes find opinions.
I was once told by a teacher that the best way to use a commentary is to use it for historical information only and then to compare commentaries, and doctrine must be found in the Word. That we must never take the notes of another at face value without using the Word to confirm it, and then if we do not understand it to pray and ask for wisdom until we understand it.
When I first started my doctrinal studies the Gap theory and the Sin of Eve theory and the bloodline of Satan theory was thrown in my face for the first time in my life. I first thought that my teachers believed this to be true and got a bit (VERY) concerned, but with more study it became clear that what they were trying to teach is that even the best bible scholars can use the Word to come up with anything and that it is our responsibility before God to rightly divide (2Tim2:15). We can not say to God one day that we were taught this or that and place the responsibility on another when the responsibility is clearly the individuals.

Having not started my christian walk in an IFB church I can categorically state that many "pastors" have no idea how to study the bible nor how to rightly divide and are not always the right person to ask. Many a baptist pastor has told me that the bible has errors - here is SA they are taught that the rapture is unbiblical, that we are now living in the kingdom of God.

Those who use bibles with notes and individuals who use the study bibles of supposedly more informed people without confirming with the Word and diligent study are IMHO lazy or have not been taught how to rightly divide. And that is why I believe we have so many factions in the church today that can not agree on anything.

In the end we are all individually responsible before God for how we study and interpret His Word, regardless of what version, whose study bible, what church we are in and who we listen to. And i think that when the individual christian realizes this, there own personal walk with God and His Word improves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Having read through a few of the posts here, I must agree and disagree. A perfect commentary is impossible to find, a good commentary almost impossible, but a perfect bible however can be found and we all know which one that is. I use the Thompsons chain ref, but even in this one I sometimes find opinions.
I was once told by a teacher that the best way to use a commentary is to use it for historical information only and then to compare commentaries, and doctrine must be found in the Word. That we must never take the notes of another at face value without using the Word to confirm it, and then if we do not understand it to pray and ask for wisdom until we understand it.
When I first started my doctrinal studies the Gap theory and the Sin of Eve theory and the bloodline of Satan theory was thrown in my face for the first time in my life. I first thought that my teachers believed this to be true and got a bit (VERY) concerned, but with more study it became clear that what they were trying to teach is that even the best bible scholars can use the Word to come up with anything and that it is our responsibility before God to rightly divide (2Tim2:15). We can not say to God one day that we were taught this or that and place the responsibility on another when the responsibility is clearly the individuals.

Having not started my christian walk in an IFB church I can categorically state that many "pastors" have no idea how to study the bible nor how to rightly divide and are not always the right person to ask. Many a baptist pastor has told me that the bible has errors - here is SA they are taught that the rapture is unbiblical, that we are now living in the kingdom of God.

Those who use bibles with notes and individuals who use the study bibles of supposedly more informed people without confirming with the Word and diligent study are IMHO lazy or have not been taught how to rightly divide. And that is why I believe we have so many factions in the church today that can not agree on anything.

In the end we are all individually responsible before God for how we study and interpret His Word, regardless of what version, whose study bible, what church we are in and who we listen to. And i think that when the individual christian realizes this, there own personal walk with God and His Word improves.


I suppose you could find a neighbor, who is lost, & does not attend church, & let him suggest a 'good commentary.'

The point is, you can find a commentary that is much better than most study Bibles.

And as always, what ever one reads in a commentary, or even notes in a study Bible, remember, its mans word & subject to being wrong. That the only thing that can be trusted 100%, is God's Word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you could find a neighbor, who is lost, & does not attend church, & let him suggest a 'good commentary.'


???


The point is, you can find a commentary that is much better than most study Bibles.

And as always, what ever one reads in a commentary, or even notes in a study Bible, remember, its mans word & subject to being wrong. That the only thing that can be trusted 100%, is God's Word.


Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copied from America's Last Warning by Eric E Stahl

Revelation 13:1
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. KJV

AT THE TIME of the tribulation period, the revived Roman Empire will again emerge as a dominant world power. It will be an alliance of ten kings or dictators and their kingdoms. Their common denominator will be the apostate Christian church, or what is left of the church after the rapture of the born-again Christians. This ecumenical church will be centered in the city of Rome on seven mountains. In the Scriptures, God calls the apostate church “harlot Babylon” because harlot Babylon takes the place of the proper church as a harlot takes the place of a wife.
Daniel saw in a vision of the future that four world empires would come to power over a period of thousands of years. The Babylonian Empire of his time was the first of the four. In Daniel 7:7, he describes the last empire, which is evolving in our time. The new Roman Empire will morph into ten separate areas and leaders as indicated by Daniel’s fourth beast having ten horns and ten crowns. We call the Western part of the alliance the European Union.

Daniel 7:7–8 KJV
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it;
and it had ten horns.
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

When we come to the end of time before Jesus comes to take owner- ship of the earth, an eleventh horn, (nation) will come from the ten horns. It is a colony or offspring of the Roman Empire people. The Antichrist, who speaks very persuasively, will come to power in this young country, or little horn. The Antichrist will not come from Europe, which is the original western part of the original ten horns (kingdoms). The Antichrist will not come from the Middle Eastern or the North African parts of the former Roman Empire either, because he will not come from one of the ten areas of the revived Roman Empire.

Lets hunt the beast rather then bunnies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I appreciate your opinion and consistancy.

I don't agree though, I think the OSRB is a great study Bible. Mentioning the possibility of a gap on the first couple pages and the note that Covenanter pointed out aren't enough to me to rule out all the good things.

How do you feel about Bible commentaries? I view study Bibles and Bible commentaries as being the same thing, which is why I don't have a problem with the OSRB.

The gap theory was an attempt to accommodate evolution without denying the literal truth of Scripture - by allowing evolution to occur, & subsequent judgement before the recorded creation. I encountered it in my early days.

Back to the errors of Scofield in that note on Gen. 12 I have previously criticised. We can further question his assertions in Ex. 19:


It is exceedingly important to observe:
(1) that Jehovah reminded the people that hitherto they had been the objects of His free grace;
(2) that the law is not proposed as a means of life, but as a means by which Israel might become "a peculiar treasure" and a "kingdom of priests";
(3) that the law was not imposed until it had been proposed and voluntarily accepted. The principle is stated in Galatians 5:1-4.


Hitherto free grace - but now a choice of law or continuing grace which Israel got wrong ????
Surely Israel was unconditionally special, because of the free grace promises to Abraham, not because of an impossible obedience.
Would Israel have been wiser to reject God's wonderful & gracious covenant promises as Scofield asserts- did they have that option ???
Does Gal. 5:1-4 teach what Scofield claims it does?
1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 94 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

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...