Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

1Timothy115

Comment On Current Debate

Recommended Posts

It's not an argument against grammar, but an argument of the use of grammar to prove a 'view' that is disregarding history.

The things Daniel got explained to him were easily shown in the time of history after the book of Daniel through till Christ came, but nobody wants to observe that because it doesn't follow 'commonly modern day thought on prophecy'.

Nehemiah and Ezra are good books to read after Daniel, [as well as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.] because they show God releasing the Jewish line of Israelites back home to Jerusalem and actually living there again, & looking for the coming of the Messiah. Put that with the explanation to Daniel in chapter 9 and it makes more sense why a few of us here think the way we think about what the words 'say' in the plain reading to the 24-27 verses of Daniel 9. And the rest is fulfilled in the Gospels with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, with the 70AD destruction following. (we could touch on the Apocryphal history also but that would be way out of the mainstream modern thoughtline, that most here would cast aside without even considering it.)

If you are gonna use a bunch of 'grammatical' explanations to show something that isn't fulfilled in history, it's not prophecy.

*Added more in green.

Edited by Genevanpreacher
To add 3 more books on the return of the Jews to Jerusalem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now we are not arguing against grammar Itself, just in this instance?

This just gets better and better....

 

Grammar can not be invalidated because it doesn't agree with your understanding.

 

Either the grammar is right or it is wrong - where is his grammatical explanation wrong?

Because it is either his explanation is wrong, or the Bible is wrong?

If the Bible is right, AND his explanation is right, then your ideas don't  fit with the Bible.

So show where his grammar is wrong. 

You can't have it both ways - the grammar of the passage CANNOT be at odds with the truth of the passage. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now we are not arguing against grammar Itself, just in this instance?

This just gets better and better....

 

Grammar can not be invalidated because it doesn't agree with your understanding.

 

Either the grammar is right or it is wrong - where is his grammatical explanation wrong?

Because it is either his explanation is wrong, or the Bible is wrong?

If the Bible is right, AND his explanation is right, then your ideas don't  fit with the Bible.

So show where his grammar is wrong. 

You can't have it both ways - the grammar of the passage CANNOT be at odds with the truth of the passage. 

 

 

​Read my posts in the debate, with an open Bible to look up the cross refs, & an open mind to consider what I am saying may be Scriptural truth, even if I disagree with what has been accepted by fundamentalists for the last 14 "wks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You both seem to be missing a critical point.

There are one of three possibilities here:

1. His grammatical analysis is incorrect - please show where.

2. If his grammatical analysis is correct, but you still say his conclusion is wrong, then the language must be wrong - the Bible itself is therefore in error.

3. His grammatical analysis is correct and his conclusion is correct.

 

There simply is NO ROOM for his analysis to be correct and his understanding of that grammar to be incorrect.

The Bible passages you refer to either do not apply in the way you suggest, or they do not conflict with the grammar in the way you suggest.

We all agree that the passage say what it says, but the grammar is essential in understanding.

The cross references will not nullify the grammar, but will agree with it.

 

Note: I am not saying his overall conclusions are correct, but those which stem directly from the passage analysed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DaveW,

You both seem to be missing a critical point.

There are one of three possibilities here:

1. His grammatical analysis is incorrect - please show where.

2. If his grammatical analysis is correct, but you still say his conclusion is wrong, then the language must be wrong - the Bible itself is therefore in error.

3. His grammatical analysis is correct and his conclusion is correct.

 

The summary statement of the prophecy is:

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

That statement declares that the 7-fold purposes determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city will be finished in 70x7 years. (We all agree that 70 weeks means 490 years.)

We also agree that Jesus' saving ministry, death, resurrection & ascension are the basis for the fulfilment of the prophecy. Also that the 69th week takes us to the baptism & Holy Spirit anointing of the Lord Jesus. 

Simple grammar then adds the 70th week - of 7 years - from the date of Jesus' baptism to completion of the prophecy. That takes us to about 3 1/2 years after Calvary. 

The disagreement has NOTHING to do with grammar, but EVERYTHING to do with imposed doctrine. 

I believe that the predictions of v. 24 should (grammatically) be expected in the 70 weeks, & the new covenant writers make that very clear. The status of believers in Christ is everlasting righteousness by faith in Christ. See 1 John 3:1-10  & Acts 3:22-26 . Actual sins do not affect that status - we are in effect stumbling along the way in our walk in the Holy Spirit with our Saviour. Isaiah 53:1-12 predicts our Lord's saving work in similar terms to Dan. 9:24

Dispensational doctrine demands a future for national Israel after Jesus returns - post trib, & premil, so denies that the Gospel fulfilment recorded in Acts is the fulfilment of the prophecy. It therefore separates the 70th week from the 69, & sees the promises fulfilled in a future dispensation. That is NOT a grammar argument. However, I see no good logical, Scriptural or grammatical reason why dispensationalists should not agree with me on the completion of the prophecy in the 490 years. (Apart from the prophesied destruction of AD 70 where God graciously allowed 40 years for repentance.)   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, instead of addressing the question and the point, you want to introduce as many side points as possible to muddy the waters.

Once the grammar issue is dealt with then maybe we can move onto the many other claims and issues you have introduced - and deal with them one at a time, in order.

 

But not with me - I am not interested in dealing with either of you when you won't deal with the issue at hand.

You are the ones who have accused Brother Scott of changing the Bible by his analysis - prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, I am a patient man, but my patience is limited.

The summary statement of the prophecy is:

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

No amount of grammatical analysis, however exhaustive (or exhausting) can change 70 weeks into 350 weeks - and counting. 

Rather than reading my posts (Bro. Scott's), you may find it more convincing to read Paul's letter to the Romans, particularly noting his teaching on "righteousness." 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The summary statement of the prophecy is:

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

No amount of grammatical analysis, however exhaustive (or exhausting) can change 70 weeks into 350 weeks - and counting. 

This is the key point. If we are to take Scripture literally then why are the 70 weeks not literal? Where is it stated that the 70 weeks will consist of 69 consecutive weeks which will be followed by hundreds of weeks that don't count until at some unspecified time the 70th week will finally begin?

Unless or until this key point can be settled much of the rest is left hanging. ​

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not the grammatical issue in view,  and you know it.

These last few posts of yours are the perfect example of the "bait and switch" which is used by JW's and Mormons.

You hope to confuse the issues so that you can avoid questions you can not answer.

This is not a personal attack - it is an observed truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the key point. If we are to take Scripture literally then why are the 70 weeks not literal? Where is it stated that the 70 weeks will consist of 69 consecutive weeks which will be followed by hundreds of weeks that don't count until at some unspecified time the 70th week will finally begin?

Unless or until this key point can be settled much of the rest is left hanging. ​

Actually John, whilst it is A key point, it is not the current issue.

And it has been amply displayed in previous Dan 9 discussions.

I am sure when the debate reaches this issue it will be covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually John, whilst it is A key point, it is not the current issue.

And it has been amply displayed in previous Dan 9 discussions.

I am sure when the debate reaches this issue it will be covered.

​I hope it gets covered because so much hangs upon this. All these side arguments are pointless if this key point can't be rightly addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I hope it gets covered because so much hangs upon this. All these side arguments are pointless if this key point can't be rightly addressed.

​It wasn't an argument until just very recently. Mostly, the thread has been brethren in agreement without dissimulation. However, I made the OP comment because the thread I was drafting a reply to suddenly closed before I could post. I'm ready for this one to close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I hope it gets covered because so much hangs upon this. All these side arguments are pointless if this key point can't be rightly addressed.

​Actually it's already been covered. Cov and Pastor Scott disagree on what 70 weeks does mean, but they both agree that it doesn't mean what it says in English. The word 'week' is unambiguous in English, but both Cov and Pastor Scott reject it's literal English meaning. From the opening posts:

Pastor Scott: "Now, the distance of time between these events are known by historical record to be greater than a period of sixty-nine literal weeks.  Rather, we understand by the historical record that the distance of time between these events encompassed a multitude of years (indeed, 483 years).  Therefore, we are brought to understand that the “seventy sevens” of this context are a reference unto seventy groupings of seven years each.

Cov: "Now the LORD is very specific in this 70 weeks prophecy. All agree that that means 490 years...."

So Pastor Scott rejects a literal 70 weeks because of extra-Biblical sources disagreeing with the English meaning of the word 'week', and Cov agrees that it isn't a literal 70 weeks.

It was this bit of the discussion (the opening posts) that prompted me to ask whether Cov and Pastor Scott would be interpreting English words in English or whether they would be using the underlying Greek to support their arguments at times. Pastor Scott replied to say that he definitely would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we are split along sectarian lines?

The IFB historical perspective of premillenialism vs. preterist view we're living in the millennium.

Do I have this right?

​Not necessarily. My views are compatible with premil - but dispensationalists build on the delayed 70th week to support their end-of-time tribulation/millennial views. 

There could, of course be a serious tribulation before Jesus' return. Many Christians around the world are suffering very serious tribulation. See 2 Thes. 1. 

It's not premil vs preterist, although I hold an amil, partial pret position. I understand Invicta supports me from a premil understanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You both seem to be missing a critical point.

There are one of three possibilities here:

1. His grammatical analysis is incorrect - please show where.

2. If his grammatical analysis is correct, but you still say his conclusion is wrong, then the language must be wrong - the Bible itself is therefore in error.

3. His grammatical analysis is correct and his conclusion is correct.

 

There simply is NO ROOM for his analysis to be correct and his understanding of that grammar to be incorrect.

The Bible passages you refer to either do not apply in the way you suggest, or they do not conflict with the grammar in the way you suggest.

We all agree that the passage say what it says, but the grammar is essential in understanding.

The cross references will not nullify the grammar, but will agree with it.

 

Note: I am not saying his overall conclusions are correct, but those which stem directly from the passage analysed.

​Ok, I'll bite.

Dave says that it's not possible for someone to correctly "analyse" the grammar of a sentence and yet draw incorrect conclusions about what the grammar means. This argument relies on a premise that grammar is like maths: it's totally unambiguous when used correctly.

I reject that premise, with a hypothetitical example. Let's say I publish a book with three co-authors, and lets say I get my own little acknowledgments section. I want to thank my co-authors and I want to thank two other people who helped me whose names are Rod and Jane. So here goes:

"I wish to thank my co-authors, Rod and Jane."

Then Timmy comes along and reads the sentence and thinks, "ah, this person's co-authors are called Rod and Jane."

So let's look at what's happened:

Did I use grammar correctly? Yes I did. I used the most popular British way of listing items in a sentence, which is to omit the serial comma before the word "and".

Was Timmy's "analysis" of my grammar invalid? Nope. It's common for people to use a comma to put things in apposition. In this case, according to Timmy, the co-authors and their names. Therefore it's perfectly possible that I did mean to thank the co-authors and give their names, and Timmy's analysis isn't invalid.

Was Timmy's conclusion about what my grammar means correct? No, he got it wrong. His analysis was valid--it's correct to use a comma like that--but his conclusion was wrong because I employed the comma in an equally valid way that means something different. In other words, the grammar in the sentence is ambiguous.

So I argue that at least in principle it is possible for Pastor Scott's analysis of the grammar of that (or any) passage to be correct and his understanding of that grammar to be incorrect. In other words, grammar is not like maths. It might be more like maths than the meaning of words, but it isn't us unambiguous as all that.

And here's what I'm not arguing:

That all grammar is ambiguous. I'm not saying that. Maybe the passage in question in this discussion lends itself to no other valid grammatical interpretation. But Dave appears to be making a general argument about interpreting grammar and it's specifically that "critical point" I'm arguing with.

That I wrote a book that got looked at by Timmy. I'm not saying that. It's a hypothetical example.

That the problem in the hypothetical example is unavoidable. I'm not saying that. Obviously I could write the sentence with a serial comma, or bullet-point the people I want to thank. Or Timmy could look up the co-authors. But that's all irrelevant to the point the hypothetical example is supposed to illustrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot to say, I notice that Covenanter has 'liked' John's appeal for the debaters to explain why they aren't interpreting 70 weeks as literally seventy weeks, i.e. 490 days. Pastor Scott has already explained why--he has interpreted that bit of scripture in the light of extra-Biblical sources. Cov, will we get yours? I'm sure it's been posted already on the forum in the past, but hey what hasn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Alimantado. I would interject faith in God that His Word is written for all do understand it in context from beginning to end. However the more complex doctrines require grammatical mastery or we run into issues like this.

Faith is the key. If we believe it is true our only hope to understand it all is mastery of the grammar, word usage and definition after we are born again. The Word makes no reference or footnotes to any "mans" history or books. It is completely independent of all other written materials.

It stands alone. The problems like preterism are based on misunderstanding of grammatical context and the interjection of 'man's' written perversion of history to prove a false idea.

I have seen 'mens' interpretation and recording of historical facts throughout my lifetime and of hundreds of example, nothing written soon after those events came close to true in the details. However, God's Word is absolute truth in every jot and tittle.  The original conjurers of preterism placed equal weight of fact on these perverted written records as they do Scripture.

And lets face it, no one enjoys being wrong especially when they fall on their swords blindly in the defense of a false idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Alimantado. I would interject faith in God that His Word is written for all do understand it in context from beginning to end. However the more complex doctrines require grammatical mastery or we run into issues like this.

Faith is the key. If we believe it is true our only hope to understand it all is mastery of the grammar, word usage and definition after we are born again.

Well, I agree that we're guided by the Holy Spirit and we should walk in faith. However I don't think this truth can be levered in a discussion about scripture. Firstly because any person can say "my interpretation is correct because the Holy Spirit has told me" and secondly because by entering into a discussion about scripture, I'd argue we are acknowledging that the Holy Spirit uses such discussions to teach us (else why have the discussion?). And if we accept that, aren't we also accepting in principle that it could be us that the Holy Spirit is trying to correct, not the other person?

    The Word makes no reference or footnotes to any "mans" history or books. It is completely independent of all other written materials.It stands alone.

Have to say I've never really understood this argument. The Bible doesn't have an appendix where it explains English grammar rules (or ancient Greek etc.), so aren't we relying on teaching we're received outside the scriptures? If I was to question some of Pastor Scott's grammatical analyses, I guess he would back up his arguments by making reference to English books about grammar. Ditto for word meanings.

The problems like preterism are based on misunderstanding of grammatical context and the interjection of 'man's' written perversion of history to prove a false idea. I have seen 'mens' interpretation and recording of historical facts throughout my lifetime and of hundreds of example, nothing written soon after those events came close to true in the details. However, God's Word is absolute truth in every jot and tittle.  The original conjurers of preterism placed equal weight of fact on these perverted written records as they do Scripture.

​I'm not sure why you've brought this up in response to me unless it is because you are responding to this statement of mine: "Pastor Scott has already explained why--he has interpreted that bit of scripture in the light of extra-Biblical sources." If you are, then I'm confused because I don't think Pastor Scott is a preterist. Or is he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's in the DNA, 1 out of millions, billions, or more.

Like I've said, I posted my thoughts (OP above) in response to the closed thread, "Current Debate." I'm done and ready for this thread to be closed.

We are not in the millennium from all I can gather in the preponderance of scripture. The millennium is literal. That is the position I will hold close to my heart until the Lord tells me otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, and thanks for keeping it open for those of us who still want to discuss! I spent about 45 minutes composing the last three posts I put up--my first in this discussion--so I'd be galled if that time went to waste because the thread got locked just after I posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all,

Time has been restricted over this past week.  At present, it is my intention over the weekend to formulate my next "instalment" within the discussion-debate itself.  Due to the nature of the discussion-debate, this will take a bit more time than some of the "quick" postings that I am able to present in these "external" threads.

​Actually it's already been covered. Cov and Pastor Scott disagree on what 70 weeks does mean, but they both agree that it doesn't mean what it says in English. The word 'week' is unambiguous in English, but both Cov and Pastor Scott reject it's literal English meaning. From the opening posts:

Pastor Scott: "Now, the distance of time between these events are known by historical record to be greater than a period of sixty-nine literal weeks.  Rather, we understand by the historical record that the distance of time between these events encompassed a multitude of years (indeed, 483 years).  Therefore, we are brought to understand that the “seventy sevens” of this context are a reference unto seventy groupings of seven years each.

So Pastor Scott rejects a literal 70 weeks because of extra-Biblical sources disagreeing with the English meaning of the word 'week', and Cov agrees that it isn't a literal 70 weeks.

It was this bit of the discussion (the opening posts) that prompted me to ask whether Cov and Pastor Scott would be interpreting English words in English or whether they would be using the underlying Greek to support their arguments at times. Pastor Scott replied to say that he definitely would be.

​Brother "Alimantado," (Is it permitted to have your given last name in order that I might refer to you in that manner?)

Actually, I have two reasons why I would contend that the "seventy weeks" phrase in Daniel 9:24 does not mean a literal seven weeks of 490 days.  I did not develop this in the discussion-debate with Brother Day because he and I are already in agreement that the "seventy weeks" phrase in Daniel 9:24 refers to 490 years, rather than 490 days.  So then, that which I presented in your quoting of me above would be the second reason, which is built upon the first reason.  The first reason that I would present would indeed appeal to the underlying Hebrew.  (Just a small corrective to you -- It would be underlying Hebrew, not underlying Greek, since this portion of Scripture is in the Old Testament.)  The Hebrew word that is translated by the English word "weeks" in Daniel 9:24 is the Hebrew word for "seven."  Thus a literal rending of the phrase would be "seventy sevens."  Now, within a context that concerns the matter of time sequence, the most natural grouping of sevens is that of the seven days which make up a week.  However, the Hebrew word itself does not require a reference to a sequence of days.  Rather, the Hebrew word simply indicates a sequence of seven "somethings."  Then, on the ground of this understanding concerning the underlying Hebrew word, I would present as my second reason that which you quoted above -- "Now, the distance of time between these events are known by historical record to be greater than a period of sixty-nine literal weeks.  Rather, we understand by the historical record that the distance of time between these events encompassed a multitude of years (indeed, 483 years).  Therefore, we are brought to understand that the 'seventy sevens' of this context are a reference unto seventy groupings of seven years each."

Ok, I'll bite.

Dave says that it's not possible for someone to correctly "analyse" the grammar of a sentence and yet draw incorrect conclusions about what the grammar means. This argument relies on a premise that grammar is like maths: it's totally unambiguous when used correctly.

I reject that premise, with a hypothetitical example. Let's say I publish a book with three co-authors, and lets say I get my own little acknowledgments section. I want to thank my co-authors and I want to thank two other people who helped me whose names are Rod and Jane. So here goes:

"I wish to thank my co-authors, Rod and Jane."

Then Timmy comes along and reads the sentence and thinks, "ah, this person's co-authors are called Rod and Jane."So let's look at what's happened:

Did I use grammar correctly? Yes I did. I used the most popular British way of listing items in a sentence, which is to omit the serial comma before the word "and".

Was Timmy's "analysis" of my grammar invalid? Nope. It's common for people to use a comma to put things in apposition. In this case, according to Timmy, the co-authors and their names. Therefore it's perfectly possible that I did mean to thank the co-authors and give their names, and Timmy's analysis isn't invalid.

Was Timmy's conclusion about what my grammar means correct? No, he got it wrong. His analysis was valid--it's correct to use a comma like that--but his conclusion was wrong because I employed the comma in an equally valid way that means something different. In other words, the grammar in the sentence is ambiguous.

So I argue that at least in principle it is possible for Pastor Scott's analysis of the grammar of that (or any) passage to be correct and his understanding of that grammar to be incorrect. In other words, grammar is not like maths. It might be more like maths than the meaning of words, but it isn't us unambiguous as all that.

First, I am not fully in agreement with Brother Dave that correct grammatical analysis will automatically result in a correct understanding and conclusion of a passage.  However, I would contend that a correct grammatical analysis is necessary for a correct understanding and conclusion of a passage.

Second, Brother "Alimantado," although I am somewhat in agreement with the point that you are seeking to make above, I cannot agree that your example is accurate to your point.  In the first place, within your opening comments, you change the point that Brother Dave was making.  Brother Dave was speaking concerning when someone analyses the grammar of a sentence correctly.  However, by the end of your opening comments, you were speaking concerning when someone uses the grammar of a sentence correctly, as per your statement -- "This argument relies on a premise that grammar is like maths: it's totally unambiguous when used correctly."  You continue this change in the point when, after presenting your example, you ask the question and deliver the answer -- "Did I use grammar correctly? Yes I did. I used the most popular British way of listing items in a sentence, which is to omit the serial comma before the word 'and'."  Brother Dave's point was not about the correct usage of grammar, but about the correct analysis of the grammar that is being used by another.

Furthermore, on the ground of Brother Dave's point concerning correct grammatical analysis, your example actually makes his point --

In your sentence, as you indicated that you intended it, the grammar would be as follows:

Subject - I; Verb - wish; Infinitive - to thank; Compound direct object of the infinitive - (1) my authors, (2) Rod, and (3) Jane.

However, as per your example of Timmy's viewpoint, Timmy analyzed the grammar as follows:

Subject - I; Verb - wish; Infinitive - to thank; Direct object of the infinitive - my authors; Appositive for the noun "authors" - (1) Rod and (2) Jane.

In your example it is specifically because Timmy incorrectly analyzed the grammar of the sentence that he formulated the wrong conclusion.

On the other hand, I will certainly agree that grammar can be used in a somewhat ambiguous manner.  As such, ambiguous grammar allows for more than one possibility in the process of grammatical analysis.  Furthermore, with more than one possibility in the process of grammatical analysis, there would exist more than one possibility with the meaning of the sentence.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I agree that we're guided by the Holy Spirit and we should walk in faith. However I don't think this truth can be levered in a discussion about scripture. Firstly because any person can say "my interpretation is correct because the Holy Spirit has told me" and secondly because by entering into a discussion about scripture, I'd argue we are acknowledging that the Holy Spirit uses such discussions to teach us (else why have the discussion?). And if we accept that, aren't we also accepting in principle that it could be us that the Holy Spirit is trying to correct, not the other person?

Have to say I've never really understood this argument. The Bible doesn't have an appendix where it explains English grammar rules (or ancient Greek etc.), so aren't we relying on teaching we're received outside the scriptures? If I was to question some of Pastor Scott's grammatical analyses, I guess he would back up his arguments by making reference to English books about grammar. Ditto for word meanings.

​I'm not sure why you've brought this up in response to me unless it is because you are responding to this statement of mine: "Pastor Scott has already explained why--he has interpreted that bit of scripture in the light of extra-Biblical sources." If you are, then I'm confused because I don't think Pastor Scott is a preterist. Or is he?

​Not sure of your points in any of this post friend but thanks for quoting me anyway. The last lines of your post however were simply Markle's refute of the unverified, unreliable reliance preterism has on man's written account of history. No, he certainly does not buy into preterism in any form or fraction of it from what I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 29 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...