Jerry

Maybe "far spent" in Romans 13:12 means far along, almost over, rather than I was taking it to mean that it was over. I am not 100 % sure (haven't studied that exact phrase out yet.) Yes, the Day of the Lord includes all of the events of the Tribulation and Millennium (and probably the Great White Throne Judgment as well), which would make that prophetic Day at least 1007 years long. The Day of Christ, the Day of Jesus, the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. is obviously the Day that happens in. Perhaps it would be profitable to look up all the references that use all or part of that phrase (easiest way to find them all is look up Day and notice which ones refer to Christ in the same phrase). From what I have studied a long time ago, the Day of Christ is at the start of the Day of the Lord (though that could be people's opinions), AND maybe it is the term used to describe the time period in Heaven where Christ is dealing with His church (as the references I looked up the other day seemed all or mostly to do with the church - though was not exactly looking for that context, just for certain phrases), and the Day of the Lord is the time period where God is judging the world, dealing with the world. Yes, Revelation does cover some scenes in Heaven, but they are preparatory to doing something on earth.

Scrivener's is one of the Textus Receptus Greek mansucripts. There are multiple manuscripts that make up a "stream" of manuscripts.

Many times - however, only nine of the Ten are restated in the NT. The Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ, as He is our rest; therefore that command does not apply to the church today.

I do not believe the Bible refers to any time in prophecy as the night (unless it was directed at an individual), other than to say the night is past already. Romans 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Several times Christ states He will return and catch the lost off guard like a thief in the night, but that is not the same as referring to that time as night. In both Testaments, the end times are referred to as the day of the Lord, day of my wrath. In the NT, various places refer to the Day of Christ Jesus, day of Jesus, day of our Lord Jesus, etc. (worded various ways - just look up "day" in the NT and you will see what I mean). From what I recall of studying out endtimes prophecy in the past, some people have referred to the Day of Christ Jesus as a subset of the Day of the Lord - but still occurring during part of the same time as the Day of the Lord (though not encompassing all of the same time). A few places the end times are referred to as a time of darkness, even a day of darkness: Amos 5:18-20 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him. Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it? Zephaniah 1:14-15 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

I do not know if the New Testament presents a timeline for the Judgement Seat of Christ. It does possibly give one indication here: 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. It could be referring to the individual days we each stand before Christ, but it specifically says "the day", which seems to refer to the Day of the Lord. This is anytime during the Tribulation or Millennium - but from other passages obviously before Jesus comes back with His bride in Revelation 19. If this is referring to the Day of the Lord, it also refutes the idea that we each appear individually at the Judgement Seat when we die. My opinion, the two passages that specifically refer to the Judgment Seat of Christ sound like it happens to all of us at the same time - not like Jesus is hopping on and off His judgement seat everytime a believer dies. Romans 14:10-12 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 2 Corinthians 5:9-10 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

I agree with What Hugh said above - first the rapture of all believers being given their new bodies, then the judgment seat of Christ, then we come back with Jesus in Revelation 19. Other places refer to Him coming back with His holy ones, His saints - implying everything about our sins and sinful nature has been fully dealt with, and then He is coming back to judge the world and the nations, then rule from Jerusalem.

There is no existing copy of a 2000 year old manuscript (I am not 100% sure the first time all the NT books were put together into one manuscript) or an existing copy of an original NT book. They've all been copied, worn out, recopied, recopied, recopied, compiled together, recopied, etc. Scrivener's is the closest you can find today - actually an exact duplicate if you will, as he reconstructed the Greek text underlying the King James Bible by looking at how the King James read and sorting through all the Greek manuscripts, found the Greek for that exact verse/phrase/section of the Bible from all the available TR manuscripts, and put together his Greek text reflecting the Greek TR underlying the King James Bible. I have never found differences between his Greek and my KJV - maybe differences between a lexicon definition, but not differences between the Greek and the English (ie. each Greek word equates the same translated word or phrase in English).

The Textus Receptus is available anywhere you have a Bible program. Yes, usually when someone is attempting to correct the Bible by the "better", "older", etc. manuscripts, they are referring to the Critical Text. The Scrivener's Textus Receptus is exactly the same as the King James Bible. It does not "correct" the Bible, but shows what Greek words are underlying it.

Does who mean? Bible critics? If so, whatever edition or version of it that was available in their day. The Critical Text is always changing because every few years it is updated/edited. The common name for the Critical Text these days is the NU Greek Text, which stands for Nestle/Aland and United Bible Societies Greek Text, a modified version of the Westcott/Hort Greek Text. If someone is referring to the Textus Receptus that is readily available today, they usually mean Scrivener's Greek Text (from the end of the 19th century) - though sometimes reference is made to Stephanus' Greek Text (from 1550).

Sorry you don't care about truth. It matters to some of us. If we have a wrong understanding of or wrong information on some things, some of us do appreciate having it cleared up. It does matter what denominational affiliation teachers and preachers have as that will be reflected in their writings and preaching. Unless they are like so many today that are so ecumenical they do not stand and belief where they say they are standing - for example: Max Lucado, who is a Church of Christ pastor, who is so ecumenical he no longer believes what his cult teaches, and yokes up with everyone. Either way, he is bad news (either he is hypocritical, standing where he does not believe the doctrine, or he does believe their water baptismal gospel, but associates with and endorses many who do not). Regardless of that, obviously I don't have any issues with the vast majority of David Hunt's material or I would never have posted the link in the opening thread promoting it.

Plymouth Brethren is associated with Bible Chapels - which is different from Calvary Chapels.

That wasn't the issue at all. I was just curious to confirm where he was from. If I thought he was an unsound source, I would not have posted this thread here. He may not be the typical Calvary Chapel representative though. For example, ecumenical watered-down Greg Laurie is from Calvary Chapel. Generally speaking most people will reflect the theology of their church or denomination. BUT, no, Calvary Chapel is not a generic name for some churches, it is a specific denomination. There are many theologians or preachers today you can find online that identify themselves as a part of the Calvary Chapels. I do find in general that Calvary Chapels are not much for standards - they are the originators of long hair Christian rock.

Ephesians 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Morning, January 28 "Perfect in Christ Jesus." Colossians 1:28 Do you not feel in your own soul that perfection is not in you? Does not every day teach you that? Every tear which trickles from your eye, weeps "imperfection"; every harsh word which proceeds from your lip, mutters "imperfection." You have too frequently had a view of your own heart to dream for a moment of any perfection in yourself. But amidst this sad consciousness of imperfection, here is comfort for you- you are "perfect in Christ Jesus." In God's sight, you are "complete in Him;" even now you are "accepted in the Beloved." But there is a second perfection, yet to be realized, which is sure to all the seed. Is it not delightful to look forward to the time when every stain of sin shall be removed from the believer, and he shall be presented faultless before the throne, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing? The Church of Christ then will be so pure, that not even the eye of Omniscience will see a spot or blemish in her; so holy and so glorious, that Hart did not go beyond the truth when he said: "With my Saviour's garments on, Holy as the Holy One." Then shall we know, and taste, and feel the happiness of this vast but short sentence, "Complete in Christ." Not till then shall we fully comprehend the heights and depths of the salvation of Jesus. Doth not thy heart leap for joy at the thought of it? Black as thou art, thou shalt be white one day; filthy as thou art, thou shalt be clean. Oh, it is a marvellous salvation this! Christ takes a worm and transforms it into an angel; Christ takes a black and deformed thing and makes it clean and matchless in His glory, peerless in His beauty, and fit to be the companion of seraphs. O my soul, stand and admire this blessed truth of perfection in Christ. Morning, April 16 "The precious blood of Christ." 1 Peter 1:19 Standing at the foot of the cross, we see hands, and feet, and side, all distilling crimson streams of precious blood. It is "precious" because of its redeeming and atoning efficacy. By it the sins of Christ's people are atoned for; they are redeemed from under the law; they are reconciled to God, made one with Him. Christ's blood is also "precious" in its cleansing power"; it "cleanseth from all sin." "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." Through Jesus' blood there is not a spot left upon any believer, no wrinkle nor any such thing remains. O precious blood, which makes us clean, removing the stains of abundant iniquity, and permitting us to stand accepted in the Beloved, notwithstanding the many ways in which we have rebelled against our God. The blood of Christ is likewise "precious" in its preserving power. We are safe from the destroying angel under the sprinkled blood. Remember it is God's seeing the blood which is the true reason for our being spared. Here is comfort for us when the eye of faith is dim, for God's eye is still the same. The blood of Christ is "precious" also in its sanctifying influence. The same blood which justifies by taking away sin, does in its after-action, quicken the new nature and lead it onward to subdue sin and to follow out the commands of God. There is no motive for holiness so great as that which streams from the veins of Jesus. And "precious," unspeakably precious, is this blood, because it has an overcoming power. It is written, "They overcame through the blood of the Lamb." How could they do otherwise? He who fights with the precious blood of Jesus, fights with a weapon which cannot know defeat. The blood of Jesus! sin dies at its presence, death ceases to be death: heaven's gates are opened. The blood of Jesus! we shall march on, conquering and to conquer, so long as we can trust its power!

I have heard people say this in the past or read in some books. This is from William Newell on Revelation 1. Fits in with the pagan/unbelieving term Shekinah, or thinking God has both male and female attributes or characteristics. After writing this note, I found to my horror, but I confess not to my surprise, the following: "In order to corroborate the doctrine (of sex in deity) just mentioned, certain Theosophists have invented a new derivation for the Hebrew Shaddai, which in our versions is correctly rendered 'Almighty.' They suppose it to be connected with a word shad, which signifies a woman's breast.** But such a derivation is impossible, and, so far as we are aware, has never been proposed by an unbiased scholar. More than one Christian scholar has taken up this Theosophical derivation of Shaddai, and explained the word as meaning first 'full-breasted,' and then 'bountiful.' The irreverent use of one of the grandest titles of the Most High should have checked them." (Pember: THE CHURCH AND THE MYSTERIES. Page 413.) The Babylonian doctrine of "the motherhood of God," source of all abominations, is what is subtly brought in here. The true derivation of Shaddai is Hebrew, yDv from root ddv to be strong, mighty: in adjective form used only of God (Gesenius). To miss this meaning of The Almighty is to endanger the consent of our hearts to His righteous judgments. -------- ** My comments: After I texted this quote to a friend, he pointed out that the statue of Diana (of the Ephesians) is covered with breasts and is often referred to as the many breasted god. The beliefs and portrayal of Diana is is one of the sources for the divine feminism coming into the church, so it is no surprise that somewhere along the way, false believers would want to add this to our view of the true God. Some may ask why does this matter? Truth matters. I would rather reject the error and cling to the truth and be blessed by my Lord than to be willingly or unknowingly clinging to some error just to fit in with the religious crowd or "Christians" who just do not know their Bibles. This matters because it actually came close to home recently. A little over a week ago, I was speaking with my brother about something - including Mark Lowry referring to the Holy Spirit as "She" and agreeing with some pagan on a video that the Holy Spirit is also referred to as Sophia!! - and my brother brought up some conversations with his girlfriend about God having male and female attributes, and that she knows some people that refer to the Holy Spirit as a female (like The Shack does). All I could think of at that time was the definition of El Shaddai I had heard many times through the years. Didn't want to go there as that would have truly confused the issue! So I focussed on: Yes, God created mankind, male and female and our emotions, etc. - BUT He has always revealed Himself (all three members of the Godhead) as male to us, never as female - even if He has what some may refer to as feminine attributes (compassion, mercy, etc.). But seeing now where some of this confusion came from and what type of people tried to redefine the Bible and add it to Biblical Christianity, I am glad to have this error exposed. And the great thing was, I was studying out a commentary on Revelation, not even looking to expose any possible error in my life or in the world, just wanting to dig in deeper as my preacher is covering Revelation on Sunday morning. This came up - but fit in with my previous research, and it is eye-opening, for sure.

Does it say that on his site? I thought he was from Calvary Chapel.

http://www.davehunt.org has a lot of ebooks you can download for free. A couple of years ago they had a lot of ebooks for free, but the format was different and i think you had to do it through their app. Now I just tested it - choose ebook and you can download and save it to your device or computer. You will need to create an account but don't need to enter any payment info. Choose all the books (and audiobooks if you want those), make sure they are the format you want, then checkout and download.

Anderson also teaches your Bible IS Jesus. I am not joking and this is not second hand knowledge. My sister went to his church when he was just starting out and it was in his house. He said some wacky things, so I called him and spoke to him in person about it, asking questions to clarify. This was within the first year of starting his church - somewhere about 2000-2002, when her and her family lived nearby and attended for 6 months to a year. This second part is based on my faulty memory, but if I can remember, I believe he also teaches that repentance IS NOT necessary for salvation - YET he rants and raves against sodomites, etc. If he truly preached what the Bible teaches, maybe he wouldn't have to go so far out to preach against certain sins (in a railing fashion) as they would dealt with when witnessing and preaching the Gospel - and then perhaps his sons would not be caught up in sexual abuse and sexual bullying in their texting to each other and those they were affecting, as various online news articles relate. If his children think they are safe spiritually and somehow walking with God while they are doing these things, they do not have a clue about true salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. If someone is giving new prophecy, he is not of God. If you mean he is preaching about a Bible prophecy, then that is something else.

So, you admit that what you believe now you only recently came to believe - yet, you come in like a wrecking ball. Why not show some patience and grace if you truly think you are right and we are wrong - and give those here time to understand your position. Though most if not all the posters on these boards HAVE studied out the doctrine of the rapture and believe you are wrong. Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. Colossians 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. 2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 2 Corinthians 10:1 Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:

Again, stop trying to fit all on these boards into your preconceived opinions when you do not know us at all. Most here (except for maybe a few visitors) would adamantly preach against the gap theory. I cannot speak for any others here on Genesis 6, as this is not an issue I have read any threads on lately, but I personally do not believe that Genesis 6 speaks about fallen angels cohabitating with mankind (for various reasons - sons of God always refers to righteous beings and the angels before any of them fell; there were giants in the earth BEFORE the events of Genesis 6 happened, and even after the flood, so cannot be due to fallen angels; and Jesus states angels do not marry, etc.). And the Pre-trib position has nothing to do with the gap theory or whatever that other theory is called by you, so are side issues to the issue of the rapture.

And, please enjoy your time under God's wrath - all true church age believers will be gone by that point in time. P.S. No one on these boards needs a random know-it-all rude person to come here and school us on what we all got wrong. Why not find a "Christian" board that stands on your position and fellowship there instead?

Hovind is not how he used to be 20 or so years ago when I was into his materials. Now the stuff on his youtube channel is questionable, and he recommends some heretical or seriously questionable books. Also, no matter how he justifies it, he clearly disobeyed God's laws in favour of "his constitutional rights." God says in Romans 13 and 1 or 2 Peter that we are to pay our taxes, pay what we owe to the government. To stand on "your rights" and choose that over obeying God takes you down a wrong path. We are to obey the authorities over us (parents, bosses, pastors, governnment) UNLESS those authorities command us contrary to God's Word - in those cases we are to obey God rather than men, and take the consequences thereof, like the Apostles in the book of Acts, the midwives in Exodus.

Because what is being referred to happens after that. Hm, I thought you knew all the answers! However, this: Matthew 24:29-31 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. does not automatically equal this: church age saints. This passage is referring to the time of Jacob's trouble (referring to in Jeremiah 30:7) and the elect here are those Jews who get saved during the events of the tribulation. THIS passage (one among several) is referring to the church: Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. And this: Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. And this (primary context is eternal wrath, but God's wrath in the tribulation period also applies): 1 Thessalonians 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

He teaches that sodomites cannot get saved - but the Bible teaches they can repent and trust the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. We are to hate sin - but NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE WILL YOU FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION BY GOD TO TREAT ANY LOST PERSON IN A HATEFUL MANNER. Part of loving the lost is preaching the truth clearly to them, denouncing their sin, crying aloud and sparing not. However, it is a sin for you to lie to others, slander them, have hatred in your heart towards them, speak crudely to them, treat them without mercy and grace, etc. and there are MANY passages in the NT that teach these things and others about our conduct towards the lost. Matthew 5:43-48 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. We are to treat our enemies with love - that is how the Lord treated us and the only way they will ever be open to the truth and perhaps repent and turn from their sins to the Saviour. AND NO, loving our enemies doesn't mean we tolerate their sin or choose not to separate from their sin - and them - if they fit the passages where separation is commanded. And for the record, nowhere in the Bible is a believer commanded to hate Esau - that is who God hated because he rejected God and the inheritance God had for him.

He publicly denies the holocaust of the Jews by Hitler and his followers during the second world war.