replenish (v.)

And here's the link to the prefix "re"  https://www.etymonline.com/word/re-

I'm not convinced either way. Evil did exist before man sinned, otherwise God would not have  "known good and evil" and the serpent would not have been an evil entity to have tempted Eve. And "death" was a known concept, otherwise the serpent and Eve would not have discussed it. The Bible says that death passed upon Adam and Eve.. I don't recall reading where it says that animals had not yet died. I'm just curious as to what happened to all them "dinosaurs". Except for crocodilians, they were completely annihilated long ago and I don't believe any of them were on the ark.

On 4/14/2024 at 8:56 AM, SGO said:

 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Romans 9:21-23

Deuteronomy 30:19 says.....

¹⁹ I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

So, why did God(same God) give people the option to "choose" life if He already has made the choice for them?

6 hours ago, Pastor Matt said:

Poor Calvinist...they are forced to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ outside of their will.  However, I willingly do it. 

Belief was totally selfish, on my part. I don't see how Calvinists can say our belief is 'taking credit" for salvation; unless they have never really been saved themselves.

Here's another example using the same word for "walking" used in Job 1:7 and 2:2. In the following passage of scripture, all three words; "walking", "standing" and "sitting" are clearly speaking of our "manner of life"; not physical actions. The same word is used in "Enoch walked with God" and "Noah walked with God". Both of these are also speaking of their manner of life; not physically "walking". Just to let you know I wasn't completely making something up. I believe the word "up" is sometimes used metaphorically as well with "up" having positive connotations and "down" being the negative. Perhaps when I get some more time I will study this further.

Psalm 1

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, Nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; And in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, That bringeth forth his fruit in his season; His leaf also shall not wither; And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so: But are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: But the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Job 2: 2And 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.

First of all, would God need to ask Satan where he came from? No

But would He ask since this needed to be written for us to read? Yes

Second- Is Satan primarily concerned with "walking up and down" through the layers of dirt, rock and magma of a physical planet? No.

I suspect that this passage, as in most of the Book of Job, is speaking in metaphors. So this is how I interpret it (at this time).

The "earth" would be the heart or soul of mankind.

"Walking" would be how Satan conducts himself

"Up" would represent the appearance of good/morality

"Down" would be the revelation of blatant evil

"To" would mean Satan is entering someone

and "Fro" would mean leaving.

So, Satan sometimes influences people via subtle appearances wherein he makes things look right when they're not. Other times, the evil is blatant and obvious.

So, I would say that "up" means ascending to a higher place, whether it be physically or morally/spiritually, and "down" would be the opposite. Hence, going "down" into Egypt is not a good thing.

3 hours ago, TheGloryLand said:

Follow up, 
It’s has been a year now, roughly.  Have you made any adjustment to your worship service and are members still foot tapping?

Nope ...everything still the same

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/REJgiZQFQnnpdAev/?mibextid=4Ouufp 

The devil hates and wants to destroy the family. Feminism, Femininization of men, masculinization of women, domination by women, open disrespect and vilification of men by society, abuse of women and children, our education system, government and our judicial system are all part of the many ploys and avenues the devil uses to destroy the family. Destroying God's order at the very basic level, in the home, I think is the most devastating. But he even works in churches; not just by the teaching of the wrong things, but failing to teach some of the right things. (1 Peter 4:17)

10 hours ago, TheGloryLand said:

Biden probably won't make it either, we might be stuck with his vise president. But selling Bibles to help win an election, we have never seen that. We can not be blinded to attempt to do good. I voted for Trump 3 times already starting from his first primary. Now, I m not sure or confident he is the right man. The abortion issue is important, but one man or woman can win the president for a short time for any changes. The woman who has it, an abortion, will be between her husband and herself. They will have to respond to the Lord. It's time to approach the sinners with hope.

No sir, they are also responsible to government. An unborn child has the God-given right to life. (remember our little post about "rights"?) An who did God make the protector of that right? And the punisher of evildoers?

Romans 13: 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

On 8/8/2023 at 10:13 AM, Joe Chandler said:

Proverbs 21:9 It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.

Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

Show me a domineering woman and I'll show you confused children, They produce very aggressive or very effeminate boys and another generation of domineering girls. I have seen this in Christian families as well as lost families. Why the Bible doesn't correct this in the Christian family is beyond me.

The Bible does correct/rebuke this type behavior in several places. It's too many modern-day pastors who seem to have trouble following suit.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1577537373046417

What say you?

, 

On 3/6/2024 at 8:05 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I would simply say -- The husband is the "head" of his wife in the same manner that Christ is the "Head" of the church.  However that might apply for Christ in relation to the church must have a similar application for the husband in relation to his wife.  So, is Christ just a "spiritual leader" for the church; or is Christ the "boss" of the church?

I would say both. We are to obey Christ and follow his example.

Brother "Behold" that was not the point. The point was to give a Biblical example of a Godly man voicing "rights" to one thing or another. In verses 8-14, shown above, Paul was basically saying that those who preach the gospel have the right to "reap carnal things" aka accepting worldly goods etc.. just like it's "right" to not muzzle the ox which treads the corn. Then I showed how Paul did not exercise that right for the sake of the gospel. Likewise, just because a spouse does not "demand" certain rights within a marriage, does not mean those rights do not still exist and it does not mean it is wrong to make certain "rights" known, as Paul did.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I think "lordship salvation" would be defined as giving your whole life to Jesus at the time of salvation. In other words "making Him Lord of all" at the moment of faith. Not cleaning up our lives beforehand. No?

On 3/14/2024 at 9:31 PM, Jerry said:

It’s not a reference to him procreating. It mentions generations because he lived in two entirely different generations of people - those before the flood and those after.

The word for generations in Genesis 6:9 means:

“properly, a revolution of time, i.e. an age or generation; also a dwelling.” It comes from a root word meaning “dwell.”

It is a reference to the times he lived, not any children he may have begotten. I do not know if the word “generation(s)” is used in a sexual sense in the Bible (it will take a little bit of time to look up and check all the Hebrew words in those 206 passages), but it is certain that this particular word used for this exact Hebrew word translated here and in 132 other passages is not referring to sexual activity or offspring.

Noah would not be considered "perfect" after the flood. He got drunk and then cursed his own grandson for something the poor kid didn't do. I believe he was a flawed sinner saved by grace just like you and me. It's not speaking of being a "perfect" man for sure. But one can be absolutely perfect in God's prescription for procreation by marrying one woman and gendering all of your children solely and exclusively by that one wife. That is exactly what Noah did. We say we believe that the King James Bible was accurately translated into the English language by the providence of God, down to the last detail. Yet we have to go to the Greek or original Hebrew to determine what it really means only to find it doesn't mean the same from one passage to another(only to be determined by having access to Hebrew or Greek)? Here you have one word "generations" and it means different things in different places? Did the folks back in 1611 have access to a Strong's Concordance or anything else in order to determine what the words meant? The word Generation comes from the same root  that our word "generator" comes from. It basically means to "produce" something: does that mean "dwelling" or "revolution of time". I guess, if a bunch of guys built a house you could say they "generated" the house.

When the Bible says, in Genesis 5 "These are the generations of Adam" it's talking about what Adam "produced". In other words Adam "generated" every single one of the people named in Genesis 5. That's all it means. I can't help what Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or whatever word the two different instances of "generations" came from; In English "generations" means "generations". And nobody mentioned "sexual activity".  All I'm saying is, just like a "generator" produces electricity, the word "generations" means  "productions" or "things produced"..Actually, I believe Noah "generated" more than just Shem, Ham and Japheth. If you look at the sentence "these are the generations of Noah" is followed by a colon(:). That means that what follows in the sentence is what those "generations" are.

1. Noah was a just man (how? by trusting God in faith)

2. He was perfect in his generations (already explained)

3. And  Noah walked with God (Noah chose to not only trust God, but he chose to walk with God)

All 3 of these things were produced in Noah's life. 

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/generation

There is such a thing as God giving people "over to a reprobate mind" when they reject God and His love until there is no more hope for them. God indeed loves sinners, but He is never going to force anyone to love Him back. When people rebel so much like many of these people have, trying to proselytize children, I believe they have hardened their own hearts until they have reached a level of wickedness to the point of no return.

As to the gay agenda, I believe that "breaking our bands asunder" and "casting our cords away" is what the world in general is actively trying to do as we speak. You can see it plainly in the actions of the Democratic(communist) Party whose ruthlessness is suppressed less and less as time goes on.. They won't stop their agenda until every Christian is in prison or dead.

On 1/31/2024 at 1:36 AM, Jerry said:

Noah was obviously saved, therefore a son of God - so Methuselah was not the last one prior to the flood. The last one who died perhaps - dying the year of the flood. His name means “when he dies, then comes judgement”, a prophecy for the other believers to gauge when they were getting close to God’s time of judgement.

True, Noah was a son of God too. The difference between he and Methusela and the others was; he was "perfect in his generations" .I believe that refers to the fact that he had one wife and ",generated" all three of his sons only by his one wife. He was not "taking wives of all" aka " marrying and giving in marriage" like the other "sons of God".

20 hours ago, Jerry said:

Right. Also, Biblical live is not an emotion - it is doing right to our enemies even if we don’t feel like it. Love is obeying God towards them. I may not feel any warm emotions towards them, but I won’t seek to do them harm, won’t lie to them, steal from them, think or act inappropriately sexually towards them, if they are an authority over me I will obey and respect them - plus, I will do good to them in the way God expects me to: witnessing, helping them according to God’s will, not slandering them or gossiping about them or to them, etc. Basically, obeying God in all my actions and dealings towards them.

Biblical love is in the heart. You either love somebody or hate them before any action takes place. For example, the verse you quoted.....Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart:..............Then comes the action...... "thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him."

Here's another. When Jesus was talking with the "rich young ruler" He was talking with a lost man, a sinner, a man trusting in his riches and his own righteousness. But the Bible says "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, .............(Then came the action) and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." That looks to me like God was loving this young lost man in His heart before God took action. So, again. You can call that "emotion" or whatever but Love goes alot deeper than just "doing right by our enemies". Sure, you can do that. You can do good things for people all day long for reasons other than love. But Love is something "in the heart" just like "hate" is. So, if Jesus "loved" the rich young ruler as He "beheld" Him, how many more lost sinners does He love?

The point of the post was that Calvinists, like RC Sproul, teach that God hates sinners, and they try to make it sound reasonable.. But this is part of their real agenda; to push their doctrine that God predetermined those he hates to go to Hell for his glory. 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/4ch8cabJ4di6evzY/?mibextid=oFDknk                                      Isn't someone you "hate", an "enemy"?  Jesus told us to "love your enemies" that we may be the "children of your Father".  So if we obey that, and love our enemies as our Father does His, even WE can be more holy than RC Sproul's false God. Cuz RC Sproul says his god don't live his enemies. I guess he knows better now. But knows too late.

I would also add, for clarification. Though it is the right thing to VOICE ones "rights" as Paul clearly did here in 1 Corinthians 9, it is best not demand them(as I said above) as the rest of that scripture shows..

15But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. 16For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 17For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. 18What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Even so, we are left with the fact that Paul still had the "right" to "reap carnal things"

On 2/27/2024 at 2:35 PM, Jerry said:

The Bible talks more about our responsibilities than our rights. To my understanding, rights are what we think/believe others owe us - responsibilities are what we owe to God and others. This is not stated to be argumentative, but for consideration (and because I don't have perfect memory of all the Bible), is not the emphasis in Scripture to do what we know to be right towards others (in obedience to God and His Word), rather than expecting others to be a certain way towards us? For example, there are commands for parents and commands for their children - but I do not think we ever find a command for the children to expect or demand certain things from their parents, wives from their husbands and vice versa - but rather commands of how THEY are to be and conduct themselves.

Yes, it is sad when a parent does not follow God in regards to their children, children to their parents, bosses to their employees, and vice versa, etc. - but that is why we are to rely on the Lord when others do not do right towards us, trusting that the Lord will work it all out for our good and will one day make it right. I think that our only rights are to claim what God has promised to His children - not what we think others should do or be towards us.**

**I am adding this by way of comparison: I have some family in the States who will not obey certain things in the Bible - because they feel their "rights" as US citizens are more important than their responsibilities towards God and His Word - yet we are accountable to what God has said and commanded more than what man has said or commanded (if they are not the same in a particular instance). We ought to obey God (rather than men), and seek to do His will, regardless of what rights others think we owe them (and yes, if God's Word commands us to act/behave a certain way as believers and citizens of Heaven, we should strive for that, trusting the Lord when others do not do the same towards us).

1 corinthians 9:

8Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. 13Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

What this is basically saying its that, as the ox which treads the corn has a right to eat of the corn, so those "who plow" should expect compensation for their efforts. Likewise, those who preach the gospel have the right to be "partakers" of "carnal things". I've heard this preached on many times by the same men who not infrequently tell the men in the pews that they "have no rights". On the contrary, "Rights" are things ordained by God and god alone. Our "Bill of Rights" for instance outlines things that are just "right" aka things "endowed by the Creator". I've already said, above, that it's not a favorable thing to be "demanding" rights for yourself. Who wants to have to "demand" something that is just "right"  when they could simply "plow in hope" for it? If there is a scripture to refute this, I would like to see chapter and verse.

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I would simply say -- The husband is the "head" of his wife in the same manner that Christ is the "Head" of the church.  However that might apply for Christ in relation to the church must have a similar application for the husband in relation to his wife.  So, is Christ just a "spiritual leader" for the church; or is Christ the "boss" of the church?

I would say both.

Here's an English definition taken from https://www.etymonline.com/

 head (n.)

On 2/26/2024 at 4:43 PM, SureWord said:

Adrian Rogers was a great preacher.

I have long agreed with and enjoyed listening to Brother Rogers. But I still question men's teaching this subject in this way.  Where is it found in the Bible that "The problem is primarily with the husband"? Chapter and verse please? Did Paul and Peter teach it this way when addressing the family? How about Ephesians 5? I Peter 3?, Colossians 3, Titus 2?

The woman in the above comment says that the husband is not to be the "boss". Well, that's not what the Bible indicates. But a husband shouldn't have to 'assert' his headship/authority because the Bible already says it and the preachers should be preaching it, Instead they have watered it down to calling husbands a "leader". Sounds better that way doesn't it. Many wives/women say "well he's overbearing and unloving". Well, what are they doing about it? Is it right for him to be that way? Is it pleasing to the Lord for him to be that way? Is he obeying the word of God by not being unloving? Certainly not. But they can do something about it. Wives can be the "leader" for awhile until their husband "get's his act together". Actually, they can remain the leader in that respect as the following scripture says. It will not work any other way.

¹Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; ²While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. ³Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; ⁴But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. ⁵For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

This verse is basically saying that such a man is disobeying the word of God, but the wife can win him by using her power. Power? Yes, power.

Proverbs 14:1 says  Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.

That verse shows that a wife has the power/ability to build her house up and make something strong and beautiful. But she also possesses the power/ability to "pluck  it down" and destroy it.

The Bible teaches that both husband and wife are responsible for their family, both are accountable and it is unbiblical to put the "primary" blame and fault on one gender/spouse or the other. If the wife is being an "odious woman", "foolish" or "brawling woman in a wide house", the husband is still commanded to love her regardless. Same goes for the husband. If he is being unloving, "bitter", and overbearing, the wife is to take up her leadership role by submitting or "being in subjection". to him "in every thing" with  the "meek and quiet spirit". The "feminist" world hates this, but we are not supposed to be like the world. let me also say that the world regularly puts the blame on one gender/spouse too. But we are not supposed to preach it that way, no matter what man says so.

"Rights"

So, here you have husbands, sitting out in this audience, who are being told that they have the primary responsibility, only token authority, and zero "rights". Not only that, but he just told these mens' wives and kids, sitting on the pews next to them, that Dad has no rights. Don't get me wrong, no one has the "right" to demand "rights" from anyone; I don't guess do they? But what about the things the Bible says are right? What about Mom "being in subjection to her own husband" and "submitting" and the kids obeying their parents(including Dad)? And what about "due benevolence". Is that the right thing to do for Dad? Is that part of the marriage "covenant"? Well, the Bible says it is "due". I don't have time to look up that word but I'm pretty sure it still means "due". Don;t the children have the right to be raised up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? Don't wives have the right to be loved and honored by their husbands? But does the Bible say that Dad has to bear responsibility without authority and no rights? If it's there I haven't seen it. Like I said already, men have no "right to demand "rights" and neither should we desire to demand them. The World certainly indicates that husbands have no rights and they make it clear every time a man loses his home and his kids in the divorce and is left with nothing but the child support payments. Should the Church be doing the same?

This is one of the comments to the above video.  If the above lady has a job, does she tell the supervisor in authority "you're just the "leader" and then decide whether to "follow the  leader"? Or does that "leader" regularly give her "commands" which she is supposed to obey? 

Have you ever heard the saying "responsibility without authority is slavery, and authority without responsibility is tyranny"? For this not to be a total disaster you can't have one without the other. What say you?