Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Daniel Rush

The Sons Of God And The Days Of Noah.

Recommended Posts

In the Greek it just says "Adam Theos", the words "son of" are not in the original text, they are in italics in the King James.

Sticking to the Hebrew Old Testament, bene ha 'elohim always refers to angels, not to man.  The daughters of man are differentiated

 

from the sons of God in Genesis.  The Holy Spirit did not say "the daughters of Cain", he said bath 'adam.  And they gave birth tonephilim (translaterated).

 

 

 

 

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

 

Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

 

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

Let's look at this.....

#1 Adam was the son of God, correct?

#2 The "sons of God"  "saw the daughters of men....and took wives" WHEN men BEGAN to multiply, correct?

#3 Adam lived 930 years and "begat sons and daughters", correct?

 

Now let's put it together....

If Adam lived 930 years "begetting sons and daughters", don't you reckon he was around when men "BEGAN to multiply"? So if "the sons of God" were taking "daughters of men when all the multiplying "began" where does that put 930 year old Adam? Did it say "some" of the sons of God? NO, it says THE sons of God so that included Adam since he was one too? 

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam was a direct creation of God as were the angels [bene ha 'elohim  Strong's H1129+H430].

The descendents of Adam were "created" by DNA -- "begotten" by his "seed" (sperm).

 

Adam was created with the elements of the earth.

Jesus was created with the "elements" of Mary's womb, nevertheless He was/is God.

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 1 Cor 15:47
Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It says Adam was a son of God, the rest say they were the son of the previous male in the family line. the English does not state or imply that Joseph or any other except Adam were the sons of God. there are 11 verse in the Bible which hold the term sons (plural) of God. Six of them all found in the New Testament are in reference to believers on Christ. the other five in the Old Testament are: Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Ge 6:4 ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown. We sill skip these two Job 1:6 ¶ Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Job 2:1 ¶ Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. When did Seth or any other man go on any day to present themselves before God where Satan would be allowed to come also? I had to have the context of the last verse for sos of God in Job 38 Job 38:4 ¶ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons (plural) of God shouted for joy? Was Seth or any other man shouting for joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth? If you say Genesis 1 and 2 those persons would be whom?
How about this? Mat 21:42 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner:this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Act 4:11-12 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other:for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Is it possible that "oppositions of science falsely so called" have caused us to miss another reference to Christ? Anishinaabe Edited by prophet1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ is "the son of God"  not one of the "son of the god's"

 

KJV Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

 

NIV Dan 3L:25 He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.

 

YLT Dan 3:25 He answered and hath said, `Lo, I am seeing four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like to a son of the gods.'

 

ASV Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods

 

I always wonder why the goodnews would use angel but it could be these connect sons of God to be angels

 

GNT Dan 3:25 Then why do I see four men walking around in the fire?” he asked. “They are not tied up, and they show no sign of being hurt—and the fourth one looks like an angel.

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Adam was a direct creation of God as were the angels [bene ha 'elohim  Strong's H1129+H430].

The descendents of Adam were "created" by DNA -- "begotten" by his "seed" (sperm).

 

Adam was created with the elements of the earth.

Jesus was created with the "elements" of Mary's womb, nevertheless He was/is God.

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 1 Cor 15:47

 

Yes, we all know what "seed" is. But you hit the nail on the head.

A "son" is a begotten being, who carries "seed". Earthly "sons" are males begotten by a father, Jesus was the only "begotten" son of the Heavenly Father. Likewise, Sons of God are begotten spiritually 1 John 5:8 Angels, however, were never begotten physically nor spiritually and were never born physically or spiritually. In short, they were created beings, just like chickens, kangaroos, and elephants, but they do not have God for a Father; only Jesus Christ, and believers can be so.

 

Hbr 1:5

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! A son is one who is born. There is not one iota of Scripture that speaks of an angel being born.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Job 38:4

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:7
 
Can we conclude "thus sayeth the serpent"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Job 38:4

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:7
 
Can we conclude "thus sayeth the serpent"?

 

I was wondering is there anything in the Bible about how angles multiply heaven, or other than they have food that was called manna by Israel do they drink in Heaven, Are we told at all if they age in heaven.  Oh wait that would all be speculation to say that they are not born.

 

One problem with the angels aren't born so they can't be called sons.  Is that Adam was not born and yet he is called a son.  Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! A son is one who is born. There is not one iota of Scripture that speaks of an angel being born.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6
 
Can we conclude "thus sayeth the serpent"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6
 
Can we conclude "thus sayeth the serpent"?

 

Thus saith the Lord..............
 
And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. Genesis 18:22
 
 

Gen 27:7

Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the LORD before my death.
 

Exd 6:12

And Moses spake before the LORD, saying, Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips?
 

 

Exd 23:17

Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.
Exodus 16:9
And Moses spake unto Aaron, Say unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, Come near before the LORD: for he hath heard your murmurings.
 
2 Samuel 6:14
And David danced before the LORD with all hismight; and David was girded with a linen ephod.
 
If you say any of these occurred "in Heaven" "before the throne of God"....you have to ADD to the Word of God to do it. And in the verse you quoted above, all it says is "the sons of God" "presented themselves" "before the Lord": and it don't say WHERE.
 
 
Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD,
and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

 

 

Can we consider this "yea sayeth the serpent"?

 

PS: wasn't the "original sin" the one of pride?

I believe that failure to acknowledge you are

wrong would fall under this category...

Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering is there anything in the Bible about how angles multiply heaven, or other than they have food that was called manna by Israel do they drink in Heaven, Are we told at all if they age in heaven. Oh wait that would all be speculation to say that they are not born.

One problem with the angels aren't born so they can't be called sons. Is that Adam was not born and yet he is called a son. Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Heb 1:5
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?


Anishinaabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD,
and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

 

 

Can we consider this "yea sayeth the serpent"?

 

PS: wasn't the "original sin" the one of pride?

I believe that failure to acknowledge you are

wrong would fall under this category...

 

Who would the sons of God being during Job's day.  It is thought he is a contemporary of Abram.  It was before Israel was in the picture if that was true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Job 38:4
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:7

Can we conclude "thus sayeth the serpent"?

Can you say "Type of Christ"?
1Co 3:11
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.



Anishinaabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say "Type of Christ"?
1Co 3:11
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.



Anishinaabe

Some would say that the brass serpent was a type of Christ

 

Nun 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
 9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD,
and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

 

 

Can we consider this "yea sayeth the serpent"?

 

PS: wasn't the "original sin" the one of pride?

I believe that failure to acknowledge you are

wrong would fall under this category...

 

If the verse said this. I would concede and agree with you....

 

Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD,
and said, From the earth, and from walking up and down in it.  
 
Because that would indicate that Satan LEFT earth. But it doesn't: he simply says what he was DOING in the earth......."going to and fro in the earth"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the verse said this. I would concede and agree with you....

Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD,
and said, From the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Because that would indicate that Satan LEFT earth. But it doesn't: he simply says what he was DOING in the earth......."going to and fro in the earth"

This is where English grammar comes into play. "Going to and fro in the Earth" is a gerund OP.
That means that the whole phrase is acting as a noun.

Job 1:7
7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

The second prep phrase also has a gerund OP.

Anishinaabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,
and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD,
and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

 

 

Can we consider this "yea sayeth the serpent"?

 

PS: wasn't the "original sin" the one of pride?

I believe that failure to acknowledge you are

wrong would fall under this category...

 

Oh my  :nuts:

There is a difference between failing to "acknowledge" you are wrong when you KNOW that you are and holding with what you truly believe is right.

 
 
Gen 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
 
The phrase "and also after that" is not speaking of "later in time" because of the grammar and punctuation, and because of the fact that the whole story takes place "in those days". The word "after" can also mean "In imitation of", "in conformity with", "according to the nature of", or "in accordance with" such as "after his kind". This is important because it explains the phrase "There were giants in those days.".
 
This is what the verse means........
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also in conformity (or in accordance) with that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
 
These are the Bible definitions of the term"Sons of God" Jhn 1:12,  Rom 8:14, Rom 8:19, Phl 2:15, 1Jo 3:1, 3:2  Men began to become "sons of God" back in Genesis 4:26 when they began to "call upon the name of the Lord". Their "generations" aka "begetting" of such named individuals are recorded in Genesis 5, their names appear again in the lineage of Christ in Luke 3:23-38, and the details of their "begetting sons and daughters" are found in Genesis 6:4.
 
Understand that if a man, such as Methuselah "begat sons and daughters", and lived to be 969 years old, he would be alive to witness his family multiply exponentially into the thousands and possibly millions in his own lifetime. Such a man and his "family" would be immensely powerful politically(taking wives of all aka "marrying and giving in marriage"), economically(Boaz was a "Mighty man of wealth"), and militarily(such as Davids "mighty men").  So Methuselah, a "son of God" aka believer in the lineage of Christ, was alive for all of the 120 years that Noah preached righteousness and built the ark. 
 
But Methuselah is not recorded as having "walked with God" or "perfect in his generations" and died the exact same year of the flood. The only named "son of God" listed in Genesis 5, who entered the ark and came out the other side of the flood, was Noah. The Bible says that Noah was "perfect" in his "generations" , meaning his "procreating", and I think this is because he was not a polygamist(taking wives of all aka marrying and giving in marriage), and because his one wife was a believer ("daughter" of God) instead of one of the "daughters of men")
 
In short, the "sons of God" aka believers, with the exception of Noah, were living after the world, "Mighty men" in a world of violence, God let them all die out, and the last one (Methuselah) died the year of the flood leaving only their last descendent, Noah. Oh yes...and the "giants" were simply tall people, such as the "sons of Anak" or the Masai.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if this will help.  But I was told in Liberty Bible College as you finish your study always check it with others to see if your conclusions match with other men of God. Not that this is a must do kind of thing.  But this is from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.  And here we have it the sons of God must be men in Gen 6 but in Job it is angleic beings and that is according to this article in the ISBE.

 

1. Job and Psalms:

This article will deal with this phrase as it is used in the above passages. In the passages from Job and Psalms it is applied to supernatural beings or angels. In Job the "sons of God" are represented as appearing before the throne of Yahweh in heaven, ready to do Him service, and as shouting for joy at the creation of the earth, In the Psalms they are summoned to celebrate the glory of Yahweh, for there is none among them to be compared to Him. The phrase in these passages has no physical or moral reference. These heavenly beings are called "sons of God" or "sons of the 'elohim" simply as belonging to the same class or guild as the 'elohim, just as "sons of the prophets" denotes those who belong to the prophetic order (see A.B. Davidson, Commentary on Job 1:6).

 

2. Genesis 6:2,4:

Different views, however, are taken of the passage in Ge 6:2,4: "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose ..... The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men."

See GIANTS ; NEPHILIM .

 

(1) "Sons of God" is interpreted as referring to men, (a) to sons of the nobles, who married daughters of the common people. This is the view of many Jewish authorities, who hold that it is justified by the use of 'elohim in the sense of "judges" (Ex 21:6; 22:8 f, etc.). But this cannot be the meaning of 'elohim here, for when 'adham, "men," is used to denote the lower classes, it is contrasted with 'ish, as in Ps 49:2 (Heb 3), not with 'elohim. When contrasted with 'elohim it signifies the human race. ( B) Some commentators hold that by "sons of God" is to be understood the pious race descended from Seth, and by "daughters of men" the daughters of worldly men. These commentators connect the passage with Ge 4:25 f, where the race of Seth is characterized as the worshippers of Yahweh and is designated as a whole, a seed (compare De 14:1; 32:5; Ho 1:10 (Heb 2:1)). They consider the restricted meaning they put upon "men" as warranted by the contrast (compare Jer 32:20; Isa 43:4), and that as the term "daughters" expresses actual descent, it is natural to understand "sons" in a similar sense. The phrase "took wives," they contend also, supports the ethical view, being always used to signify real and lasting marriages, and cannot, therefore, be applied to the higher spirits in their unholy desire after flesh. On this view Ge 6:1-4 are an introduction to the reason for the Flood, the great wickedness of man upon the earth (Ge 6:5). It is held that nothing is said in Ge 6:4 of a race of giants springing from the union of angels with human wives (see paragraph 2, below), and that the violence which is mentioned along with the corruption of the world (6:11) refers to the sin of the giants.

 

(2) Most scholars now reject this view and interpret "sons of God" as referring to supernatural beings in accordance with the meaning of the expression in the other passages. They hold that De 14:1, etc., cannot be regarded as supporting the ethical interpretation of the phrase in a historical narrative. The reference to Jer 32:20, etc., too, is considered irrelevant, the contrast in these passages being between Israel and other nations, not, as here, between men and God. Nor can a narrower signification (daughters of worldly men) be attached to "men" in Ge 6:2 than to "men" in Ge 6:1, where the reference is to the human race in general. This passage (Ge 6:1-4), therefore, which is the only one of its kind, is considered to be out of its place and to have been inserted here by the compiler as an introduction to the story of the Flood (Ge 6:5-8). The intention of the original writer, however, was to account for the rise of the giant race of antiquity by the union of demigods with human wives. This interpretation accords with Enoch chapters 6 through 7, etc., and with Jude 1:6 f, where the unnatural sin of the men of Sodom who went after "strange flesh" is compared with that of the angels (compare 2Pe 2:4 ff). (See Havernick, Introduction to the Pentateuch; Hengstenberg on the Pentateuch, I, 325; Oehler, Old Testament Theology, I, 196 f; Schultz, Old Testament Theology, I, 114 ff; Commentary on Genesis by Delitzsch, Dillmann, and Driver.)

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if this will help. But I was told in Liberty Bible College as you finish your study always check it with others to see if your conclusions match with other men of God. Not that this is a must do kind of thing. But this is from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. And here we have it the sons of God must be men in Gen 6 but in Job it is angleic beings and that is according to this article in the ISBE.

1. Job and Psalms:
This article will deal with this phrase as it is used in the above passages. In the passages from Job and Psalms it is applied to supernatural beings or angels. In Job the "sons of God" are represented as appearing before the throne of Yahweh in heaven, ready to do Him service, and as shouting for joy at the creation of the earth, In the Psalms they are summoned to celebrate the glory of Yahweh, for there is none among them to be compared to Him. The phrase in these passages has no physical or moral reference. These heavenly beings are called "sons of God" or "sons of the 'elohim" simply as belonging to the same class or guild as the 'elohim, just as "sons of the prophets" denotes those who belong to the prophetic order (see A.B. Davidson, Commentary on Job 1:6).

2. Genesis 6:2,4:
Different views, however, are taken of the passage in Ge 6:2,4: "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose ..... The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men."
See GIANTS ; NEPHILIM .

(1) "Sons of God" is interpreted as referring to men, (a) to sons of the nobles, who married daughters of the common people. This is the view of many Jewish authorities, who hold that it is justified by the use of 'elohim in the sense of "judges" (Ex 21:6; 22:8 f, etc.). But this cannot be the meaning of 'elohim here, for when 'adham, "men," is used to denote the lower classes, it is contrasted with 'ish, as in Ps 49:2 (Heb 3), not with 'elohim. When contrasted with 'elohim it signifies the human race. ( B) Some commentators hold that by "sons of God" is to be understood the pious race descended from Seth, and by "daughters of men" the daughters of worldly men. These commentators connect the passage with Ge 4:25 f, where the race of Seth is characterized as the worshippers of Yahweh and is designated as a whole, a seed (compare De 14:1; 32:5; Ho 1:10 (Heb 2:1)). They consider the restricted meaning they put upon "men" as warranted by the contrast (compare Jer 32:20; Isa 43:4), and that as the term "daughters" expresses actual descent, it is natural to understand "sons" in a similar sense. The phrase "took wives," they contend also, supports the ethical view, being always used to signify real and lasting marriages, and cannot, therefore, be applied to the higher spirits in their unholy desire after flesh. On this view Ge 6:1-4 are an introduction to the reason for the Flood, the great wickedness of man upon the earth (Ge 6:5). It is held that nothing is said in Ge 6:4 of a race of giants springing from the union of angels with human wives (see paragraph 2, below), and that the violence which is mentioned along with the corruption of the world (6:11) refers to the sin of the giants.

(2) Most scholars now reject this view and interpret "sons of God" as referring to supernatural beings in accordance with the meaning of the expression in the other passages. They hold that De 14:1, etc., cannot be regarded as supporting the ethical interpretation of the phrase in a historical narrative. The reference to Jer 32:20, etc., too, is considered irrelevant, the contrast in these passages being between Israel and other nations, not, as here, between men and God. Nor can a narrower signification (daughters of worldly men) be attached to "men" in Ge 6:2 than to "men" in Ge 6:1, where the reference is to the human race in general. This passage (Ge 6:1-4), therefore, which is the only one of its kind, is considered to be out of its place and to have been inserted here by the compiler as an introduction to the story of the Flood (Ge 6:5-8). The intention of the original writer, however, was to account for the rise of the giant race of antiquity by the union of demigods with human wives. This interpretation accords with Enoch chapters 6 through 7, etc., and with Jude 1:6 f, where the unnatural sin of the men of Sodom who went after "strange flesh" is compared with that of the angels (compare 2Pe 2:4 ff). (See Havernick, Introduction to the Pentateuch; Hengstenberg on the Pentateuch, I, 325; Oehler, Old Testament Theology, I, 196 f; Schultz, Old Testament Theology, I, 114 ff; Commentary on Genesis by Delitzsch, Dillmann, and Driver.)

Please ensure that your sources believe in the same AV you do.

Anishinaabe

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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 53 Guests (See full list)

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...