Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Jerry

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    8,742
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    91

Everything posted by Jerry

  1. Yes, somewhere around that time. They must have been created sometime within the first three days (or first two days), for them all to rejoice on day three.
  2. Not that I am saying I am 100% right in every position I post (though I do strive to be Biblical), if the Bible does speak on something, we should do our best to add up all the passages and arrive at the right conclusion, then adjust our understanding and beliefs of Biblical issues and doctrines as the Scriptures are brought to light. Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. If the Bible teaches something - whether by direct statement, by example, or by precept - then we should base our beliefs and understanding of those issues/passages/etc. on what He has revealed. The opposite is also true: if the Lord has not spoken about something, we should be careful to cling to what He has revealed related to that and hold loosely to any opinions or beliefs that the Bible does not speak on at all. This part is not addressed to anyone specifically here in this thread, but it is worth noting (to the best of my understanding and memory) that there are NO passages that refer to the angels or what they were doing before creation week (ie. in eternity past). Many have the opinions that they were created and dwelling in Heaven before that point in time (and some who hold to forms of the gap theory teach that the Devil rebelled and was judged before creation week), yet the Bible does not state anything about this time period at all, other than what God is doing (ie. predetermining the plan of salvation and all that it entails). If there are passages that specify or give more light on this theme that I have overlooked, please share them in this thread or others as you come across them.
  3. Nehemiah 9:6 is referring to the third heaven though. Also, God had to create the third heaven, and several passages state that ALL He created was in those six days. It is not like the third heaven has always existed if it was a place made for saved mankind and angels to dwell in.
  4. I think, based on these passages, that the angels were created by or just before the third day, when the foundations of the earth were laid (and none had fallen yet) - look at the order of events. Genesis 1:9-10, 13 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good... And the evening and the morning were the third day. Job 38:4-7 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Psalm 104:2-5 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Nehemiah 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee. In the last passage, the host of heaven being referred to are the angels, as the heaven of heaven certainly seems to refer to the third heaven, where the presence of God dwells, and it is stated that those are the host of that heaven (ie. therefore not referring to the stars in the second heaven). That also means the third heaven was not created until creation week - there would be no need to have a "third heaven" as a place until there were occupants in it, which were created during creation week. Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
  5. One book I have called The Serpent Of Paradise by Erwin Lutzer states this: This Eden was not the garden of Eden, for this is a description of mineral beauty, not vegetation. It is a garden bedecked with jewels and every form of extravagance, a paradise that is a suitable home for one who possessed creaturely perfections. A couple of the other resources I have do not mention this subject. If I find out any more references, I will try to post them here too.
  6. I have one or two books on Satan, I think. I will check to see if there is anything in them mentioned about the garden of Eden.
  7. I believe they are the same garden. The different descriptions could be different areas of the garden. I do not believe any angels fell during creation week. At the end of the sixth day, God said it was very good. I don't believe He would have pronounced His creation very good if there was sin in it. Other passages state that everything that was made - including the hosts of heaven, the angels (yes, context determines which hosts are in view - either angels or stars) - was made in those six days. Hebrews 1:14 states angels are ministers to those who shall be heirs of salvation, so there is no reason for angels to be created sometime before the creation of the earth (and the universe). Also, there is nowhere in Scripture that states that the earthly Eden was a type or shadow of a Heavenly Garden of Eden - but in reference to the temple and even Jerusalem, we are told that. Genesis 2 does indicate that there was gold and other precious stones nearby or in the garden of Eden, connected to one of the rivers: Genesis 2:10-12 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
  8. Value Village, a local second hand store in Abbotsford, BC, just added new Palm reader scanners to their self checkout lanes. My local store just built these within the last week or so. My nephew thought they were some kind of readers for smart watches, but I asked the clerk and she said they were palm readers. However, if the customers (who are of all different ages and sizes) were to put their wrists by the part indicated, the small square scanning area could not scan their whole palm, as the center of people's hands would not all be in the same place (due to varying hand sizes). Though a chip could be read as long as it was near the proximity of the scanner. Maybe we are even closer than we think to the Lord's return for His own, and the rise of the Antichrist. The picture is one I took myself. Sorry if it was not the best view, but this scanner was behind something else on the counter and it was hard to get a good picture from that angle on my phone.
  9. God's Word indicates that even in the first century He never gave the gift of tongues to everyone - so for those who believe it is a sign of salvation, they are missing the boat (especially when you consider that the "gift of tongues" they are using is not the same as the gift of tongues as found in the Bible (especially the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14). 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
  10. Rancher, I get what you are saying - but the average believer does not even know about Webster's 1828 Dictionary (and most other dictionaries are not good enough for learning the meaning of Bible words as used in the KJV - they would give definitions based on word usage today, not word usage 400 years ago), so for them it makes more sense to refer to the underlying Hebrew and Greek, as through solid resources we can find the exact Hebrew and Greek words used in every verse, and find the range of meaning by consulting the Strong's Concordance. Again, not everyone using Hebrew and Greek tools use them to usurp the English of the KJV - just use it to understand the words used, and see how the range of meaning fits each given context. I have personally found Strong's Concordance a more useful, practical way to get the definitions than even Webster's 1828 Dictionary. It is helpful at times, but I don't have it one the go, looking it up in his dictionary does not necessarily give you the definition as used in each passage (yes, there are many definitions that list some passages - but not necessarily the verse you are wanting to study out - Strong's Concordance (and lexicons at the back of the book) give you the exact Hebrew and Greek word underlying every word or phrase in our KJV (assuming someone is using the Greek TR and the Hebrew Massoretic Text).
  11. Hm... The English of the KJV IS perfect, complete - However, we still need to study it out to understand it - whether we use solid tools like Strong's Concordance or Webster's 1828 Dictionary, we still need to study it out - as we cannot understand it fully without doing so. That is how God designed the Word of God - we seek Him for wisdom (as James 1:5 and Proverbs 2 teach), read and study His Word to rightly divide it and understand it, comparing Scripture with Scripture, precept upon precept. Being aware of the range of meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words is not correcting the KJV - however, if I run to some lexicon or text to get a different meaning than the text of the KJV has, then that would be correcting. If I use the study tools at my disposal to shed further light on the English of my KJV, that is not correcting. Personally, if a lexicon or dictionary gives a different meaning, inasmuch as it does so, I disregard it. (A word has a range of meaning, and at least one or more of those meanings should reflect what the KJV says in English in the passage that is being studied out. If the lexicon/commentator, etc. does not give the meaning that the KJV has, then I disregard it. Also, I do not run to a lexicon to find alternate definitions or meanings - but to find the equivalent, such as a synonym - like using a thesaurus - if I do not fully understand the English word or phrase that is in my KJV.)
  12. Maybe I worded what I was saying awkwardly, my point was there was no way it was unisex robes, like pictured in tv and movies (and robes are mentioned here and there in various places in the Bible, not stated as the main clothing everyone wore in every Bible generation). I am not saying I know the definitive answer as to what the differences were (or that all of the differences could be determined today about clothing worn in Bible times) - but I think it was more than colour differences, otherwise it would not have been an abominable action to God when the other sex wore them.
  13. Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. I would say based on the Hebrew parallel that the same thing is being said for both sides - not to wear the garments pertaining to the other sex. Not trying to be argumentative, but if you think it has another meaning, it is up to you to state it and show any proof for it. Otherwise, I think the normal/regular interpretation will still stand. But, even if it applies to other things AS WELL, it still certainly directly applies to clothing. God certainly is not saying it is an abomination for a man to wear women's clothing, but it is okay for a women to wear man's clothing.
  14. Through the years, I have given Biblical counsel, even during my time as a supervisor at the Gospel Mission. There was never a "you need to do this" approach, but always "here is what the Bible says on this issue, these doctrines, etc." - attempting to show them where certain principles, precepts, etc. were in the Bible, and to exhort a person to apply them. Then there is no line crossed as far as what is said goes - I just taught Bible principles, and showed them where to find them themselves, as well as encouraged them to seek the Lord and dig further into the Bible for guidance. I do agree that any pastor or "Christian counsellor" that uses psychological methods or tells those they are counselling how to live (ie. as a kind of dictator in their lives) is doing wrong. A pastor (and any other minister in a similar situation needing counselling) is a shepherd, who is to guide, lead, teach.
  15. This is not a hill I would die on or a hobby horse I am riding (not saying anyone here is saying or implying anything like that - I don't have any specific reason to die-hard debate my opinion/beliefs in this area, beyond stating them in general as the subject comes up). I just offered my opinion on what I had studied out around 20-22 years ago. But more important than my personal position on this issue is this: IF the robes were worn by both sexes, where is the distinction that God commands and that is an abomination to Him if it is crossed? Regardless of where we all stand on this, BIBLICALLY, whatever clothing they DID wear 3500 years ago and afterwards was distinct enough for God to say to the men, "Don't wear that - that is a women's garment," and vice versa. However, most people teaching that all wore robes in Bible times do not teach any distinction between them - and any portrayal of robes in tv shows and movies and plays all show basically both sexes as wearing the same general garment. Why would God call it an abomination, stating very clearly it was against Him, and then there not be a CLEAR distinction? There had to be one, even if many cannot see it or understand it today.
  16. There are only two occasions of Jesus weeping in the Gospels - one is at Lazarus' tomb, and the other is just before He went to the cross and He wept over Jerusalem. John 11:2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) This verse is a summary statement, and the next chapter gives the details. It is not referring to two separate anointings with Mary of Bethany. I understand how someone could arrive at this conclusion seeing as she is mentioned in the chapter following the events in Luke 7 - though we need to be careful we don't arrive at our beliefs or conclusions of certain things in the Bible by assumption. (Not saying you are doing this - but I am referring to the many commentators, etc. through the centuries that have stated the conclusion that it was Mary Magdalene, taught it as fact, and then for 1600-1700 years it is restated as doctrine.)
  17. I believe all the counselling a child of God needs should be based on the Bible - not on the world's philosophies (which psychology and psychology are - and usually what is often included in the general title "Christian counsellor" when it is referring to someone with a degree or a title). Also, Psalms 1 deals with not following the counsel of the ungodly - of which both psychology and psychiatry come from. That being said, I do believe Christians that do counsel based upon the Word of God should take whatever steps are appropriate and necessary to protect themselves and those they counsel. Men should counsel men and women should counsel women - or at least the men who counsel women (ie. like a pastor counselling a member of his flock) should have another woman present at all times to prevent any problems - perhaps a husband and wife could counsel the female member together, if the issue was such that the pastor's perspective was needed.
  18. When I Read The Bible Through I supposed I knew my Bible, Reading piecemeal, hit or miss, Now a bit of John or Matthew, Now a snatch of Genesis, Certain chapters of Isaiah, Certain Psalms (the twenty-third), Twelfth of Romans, First of Proverbs - Yes, I thought I knew the Word! But I found that thorough reading Was a different thing to do, And the way was unfamiliar When I read the Bible through. You who like to play at Bible, Dip and dabble, here and there, Just before you kneel aweary, And yawn through a hurried prayer; You who treat the Crown of Writings As you treat no other book - Just a paragraph disjointed, Just a crude impatient look - Try a worthier procedure, Try a broad and steady view; You will kneel in very rapture When you read the Bible through! by Amos R. Wells 2 Timothy 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
  19. Call Back If you have gone a little way ahead of me, call back­; 'Twill cheer my heart and help my feet along the stony track; And if, perchance, Faith's light is dim, because the oil is low, Your call will guide my lagging course as wearily I go. Call back, and tell me that He went with you into the storm; Call back, and say He kept you when the forest's roots were torn; That when the heavens thundered and the earthquake shook the hill, He bore you up and held you where the very air was still. O friend, call back and tell me, for I cannot see your face; They say it glows with triumph, and your feet bound in the race; But there are mists between us, and my spirit eyes are dim, And I cannot see the glory, though I long for word of Him. But if you'll say He heard you when your prayer was but a cry, And if you'll say He saw you through the night's sin-darkened sky,­ If you have gone a little way ahead, O friend, call back,­ 'Twill cheer my heart and help my feet along the stony track. - Selected (Quoted in Streams In The Desert devotional)
  20. Skirt, as used in the Bible, means the edge of a garment - not a skirt like women wear today. Webster's 1828 Dictionary states this about Breeches: A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers. Also, the word is related to britches - which is also pants. Even (for the sake of the argument) it referred to undergarments - they were undergarments ONLY certain men were to wear, not women. And if this is what turned into britches, trowsers, pants (as history does show), then they are men's clothing, according to the Bible and therefore an abomination for women to wear. Again, God is not going to have a unisex garment - such as robes - for everyone to wear (and only SOME PEOPLE wore robes in the Bible - not like in a supposed Biblical movie where everyone is wearing them), and then command this: Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. And, again, for the sake of the argument, if there was some unisex garment that was created by mankind to wear somewhere along the way, that would contradict God's Word (the word abomination signifies a greater sin against God than other sins, and those sins that are abominable to Him were never done away with in the sense that those commands no longer apply today), AND therefore should be avoided by children of God today - or else those that ARE blurring those lines and wearing unisex clothing or clothing intended originally for the opposite gender are committing an abomination today.
  21. If you care about what God says, you can study out what type of clothes they wore in the Bible (the men in Moses time wore breeches, which are pants - only some wore robes; there was never a unisex robe they all wore), and also the history of clothes/pants during the last hundred plus years - where they came from, when women started wearing them.
  22. It was either Origen or Augustine (both early church fathers/heretics) that originally taught that it was Mary Magdalene in Luke 7, and many people through the years have taken their words for it - yet both allegorized and corrected the Bible.
  23. They are two entirely different accounts. The passage in Luke is in Jesus' early ministry. The woman is unnamed - church tradition of some sort says it is Mary Madgalene for various reasons, but the Bible does not say. It is an immoral woman who poured ointment over Jesus out of gratitude for being forgiven. The other Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and John) contain the account of Mary of Bethany (Lazarus' sister, who was already saved), who anointed Jesus for His burial. According to those passages, this was literally the last week of Jesus' public ministry before His crucifixion. So two entirely different women, one named Mary of Bethany, and the other unnamed. Both anointed Jesus for different reasons, and both had different people around them (Luke mentions Simon saying something about the moral nature of that woman, and the other Gospels mention Judas getting upset that the money was not put into the treasury bag which he was in charge of).
  24. Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
  25. Exactly! They are not independent (by very definition of the word itself) if they are part of a convention, an association, or anything like that.
×
×
  • Create New...