rancher824

I once heard a man preach on Jonah. When he got to Jonah 1:3 KJV
“But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord , and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord” he went into how any time the Bible says “went down to” it was speaking of sin. His whole sermon was based on this statement. After church I made sure there wasn’t anyone around and I asked him if I had understood that anywhere the phrase “went down to” was used it was referring to sin. He confirmed that I had understood correctly. I then showed him John 2:12 KJV “After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.” This verse is of course speaking of Jesus, so there could not be and sin involved. My point in mentioning this is that we need to be careful not to build a belief, or sermon on a single word or even phrase. We need to study the context and see if there is anything there. 
 

There is one in Spokane, called faith Baptist that we really like. It is about an hour from Ava, so a bit of a drive. But they might get in contact with them and find somewhere that they suggest. 

12 hours ago, Jerry said:

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 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

I also understand what you are saying, and in no way want to come across to be saying you are wrong in the way you study. I for instance use 2 particular commentaries for getting ideas from when I have a passage confusing me. Now, I know they are not inspired, but the thoughts of learned men. They do give me ideas to think on, and passages to go to to compare. I also, obviously use the 1828 Websters, and rarely the Strong's. I don't personally care a lot for it, but to each his own I will use the word let mentioned earlier. I already gave the Websters definition, here is the Strong's

"G2722
κατέχω
katechō
kat-ekh'-o
From G2596 and G2192; to hold down (fast), in various applications (literally or figuratively): - have, hold (fast), keep (in memory), let, X make toward, possess, retain, seize on, stay, take, withhold.
Total KJV occurrences: 19

G737
ἄρτι
arti
ar'-tee
Adverb from a derivative of G142 (compare G740) through the idea of suspension; just now: Sometimes you- this day (hour), hence [-forth], here [-after], hither [-to], (even) now, (this) present.
Total KJV occurrences: 36" copied using Esword

Now to me, the Webster's makes more sense, but that might just be me. And I see nothing wrong with either definition. They both fit the word. So whichever makes the easiest understanding for the one studying is the one they should use. Again, I totally understand that, and do not want to be coming across as condemning anyone for their personal way of studying. But, now as to your statement that few even know about the 1828 Webster's, what makes it where so many more know Greek, Hebrew, or even Strong's? I realize we all know the "originals" were not written in english, but Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. But how many of us understand those languages? That being a very small number brings us to Strong's. What makes it where so many know about Strong's, but not 1828 Webster's?  Is it not that if more preachers were saying "if you look at this word in the 1828 Webster's it's meaning is" we would have a majority knowing that my KJV was properly translated even though my English has changed?  But, I still contend, that the preaching, and discussing that "in the Greek this means" sheds a shadow over the perfection of the KJV. As to the not knowing about the 1828, I asked my dad if Grandad had a Strong's, as I was only 20 when Grandad passed away I could have forgotten many things because of youth. He replied "no, He didn't even have a 1828 Websters." He went on to tell me that Grandad's dictionary was a (then) modern high school type dictionary.   Yet he got the truthes of God's word from a combination of study, context, and it.

I agree we need to study. And that the scriptures are set up to be compared to themselves (context). But I do not know how many pastors I have seen that when asked a question, never say “well the word x means” but rather “well the Greek word translated x actually means”. That is not comparing. That is saying you have to go back to the Greek to get the true meaning, and yes I have heard some go so far to actually say just that. You cannot get the actual meaning without the Greek. If that is not correcting, I do not know what is. And using the Greek one or twice a year, maybe. But I have seen some that use it a large percentage of their sermons. 

1 hour ago, Salyan said:

One example would be the word 'let.' 2 Thess. 2:7 uses this word with the idea of hindering, while our common  modern usage has more the idea of permitting.

1828 Webster defines let “

5. To retard; to hinder; to impede; to interpose obstructions. 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

[This sense is now obsolete, or nearly so.]”

37 minutes ago, Salyan said:

That is a very good statement. I agree.

I will say that I don't mind going to the original languages to clarify a word that has shifted meaning in English over the centuries.  But that's not about not relying on the English translation so much as clarifying my own misunderstanding of seventeenth century definitions. 

I understand what you are saying. On that thought though, the KJV was “brought up to date” (mainly spellings) in 1769. I would think if words had changed a lot at that point, they would have brought them up as well. So seeing that we actually use a 1769 version and we only have to look 60 years (yes I know a lot can change in 60 years) to find a English dictionary that not only explains the meaning of the words in English, but also gives scripture references to go with them. To me, I’m satisfied that I can get the full meaning that way. But, as I said, I do not mean to say anything against you for how you study. It is more of a thing of telling people it is the only way to find the “true meaning” that I take issue with. 

I have looked for a topic to post this under, and the way this one started seems like a good place. I want to preface what I have to say with a bit of my family history. I was born mid 70's into the family of a America Baptist Association pastor. He had been to seminary (my grandad on mom's side called the cemetery,  the place they send young preachers to die) a few years before he met my mother, and had taken the pastorate a few months before I was born. By the early 80's he had become what I  would consider a leader among the local level, serving as the secretary and printing the minutes of the meetings. He was well known on a state level, though not as well respected. Nationally he was not really known at all. But by the late 80's things quickly changed. You see, though the association has no authority over the local church, they do have a doctrinal statement that all the churches in the association are supposed to agree they believe. If they don't, they are supposed to either leave or be asked to leave. One of these doctrinal statements was about believing the Bible to be God's perfect inspired word. But there were several of the leading pastors that decided that there needed to be a phrase added, "as originally written." Now on the surface this phrase might not sound so bad, as it is true the way the scripture was when it was written down by holy men of old was by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. So why would this be a problem? Because it lends to the question, is the KJV the perfect complete infallible word of God for the English speaking people? It was taught to my dad in seminary that there are certain things in the word of God that cannot be understood without the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. And he saw this as their reason to put that clause in. Because they felt the KJV had deficiencies that needed the original language at best, the original text in the original handwriting at worst to correct it. That the KJV was not a perfect inspired Bible. He decided to run a test. I mentioned what my grandad called seminary, well he was a man with a 2nd grade education. He did not know how to read when he and my granny married. But shortly thereafter he was saved and granny taught him to read so he could study his bible. And study he did! So dad took these things that "you had to have Greek and Hebrew" to him without telling him he was an experiment. And every one of them he either answered with scripture then and there, or said he needed time and later came back with scripture to match. Every one of them. So dad went to the association every year for a few years trying his best to get them to remove the phrase, but alas, they would not. So in the early 90's dad lead the church he was pasturing to leave the association. From that point on we were, though we did not fellowship with any that said they were nor did we call ourselves, essentially IFB. We always held to the baptist distinctives. Then 17 years ago I met my wife. She was in a church that called itself IFB. We married a year later and served in my dad's church until about 10 yrs ago, when we joined our first church that called itself IFB. Now with all that stated, in these 17 years since I have been around IFB churches and pastors, I am seeing the same trend, though using a different way of spreading. I don't know how many pastors I have seen and heard that are constantly in their sermons stating that "in the Greek this word means!" I do not know if it is mainly from how they are taught in Bible collage and never really think it through, if it is arrogance that "my education makes it where I can understand things you cannot", or what the deep rooted reason for this is. But here is what I see as the fallacy of it. If my KJV is the perfect (without error) complete (lacking nothing) inspired (God breathed) word of God for the English speaking people, it needs not to be corrected by the Greek and Hebrew. If it cannot be understood without the Greek and Hebrew, it is not complete. It is not Perfect.  And it is but a crutch for the English speaking people to try to stand until someone who knows the truth can correct them. For you cannot have complete and perfect that needs correcting. "But we are not correcting." Yes, yes you are. Anytime you say that the KJV says, but the meaning in the Greek is, you are correcting. Now I want to make it perfectly clear, I am not a "Ruckmanite"! I do not hold to his re inspiration bologna. If you know the Greek and read from the proper TR texts, you will get the same word of God as I do through my KJV. And if you enjoy studying in Greek, more power to you, you are still studying the word of God. But I wish everyone would quite saying I believe the KJV, but casting doubt upon it. If I had began my christian walk, building it from these pastors I have heard the last few years, I would NOT be KJVO. I have heard to many say, without saying it out right, "the KJV is not as good as the Greek, therefore it is not complete and perfect."

I’m not sure where you have gotten the idea I am disagreeing with your explanation of the phrase. The word pertain in the 1828 Webster means “1. To belong; to be the property, right or duty of.” which goes right along with your armor idea. I have no argument with that at all. That is the reason I listed armor in my list earlier. I still stand by that God is not sickened by the armor but the heart. For example, if a mother were at home without her husband and saw an enemy coming against her home, would God be more sickened by her picking up her husbands armor and sword and at least try to protect her children, or her standing by and watching them slaughtered because she could not put on that which pertains to a man? I stand by the belief it is the heart wanting to look like the opposite sex, not the actual thing being put on. Now with that said, I will not be responding to this thought anymore. I am a strong believer in my KJV Bible. I will discuss it with anyone at any time. But when I feel it is no longer looked at as the perfect word of God I leave the discussion. I do not know Hebrew or Greek. Yes, I have access to a Strongs and it is a good way of finding passages. But I have heard many pastors say that the Greek or Hebrew says and my first thought is that they, whether they think they believe it or not, have just put the KJV on the same level as the NIV. For if I need the Greek or Hebrew to understand the scriptures, I do not hold a perfect word of God in my hands, but one that could use correcting. 

5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Although Brother "Rancher" has stood more on "my side" of this discussion lately, I cannot express whole-hearted agreement with his presentation above.  The reason - I believe that the "meat" of any given passage must ALWAYS BEGIN with the precise meaning of that passage in its original context.  Once that precise meaning has been discerned, then spiritual principles can be gleaned from that precise meaning.  From these principles we then can develop behavioral applications for our present-day living.  In my observation, both sides of this discussion tend to jump past the study work of precise meaning in original context to proclaim principles and applications.  When we do this, we already set ourselves on a path of wrongly handling Scripture, regardless of whether we are on the right hand or the left hand of the issue.

I agree we always need to look at what the verse meant and what the context is. In this case I don’t see much in the surrounding verses to give us much in the way of context. So we don’t get much there. Then the verse itself. Perhaps my mentioning Sodom goes a little to far as to say that is the reason for the verse. But we do know that kind of perversion was going on in that time frame. I also know that some say it was because of some worshipping false gods were dressing as the opposite for the activity they were taking part in. And yes, I can see the possibility of this being in it. But either of these still gives the same base reason for the verse. Not to dress in such a way to appear as the opposite sex. It is not what the clothes look like (dress, pants, armor, etc. I’m not meaning immodest) that is important to God as the heart that is putting them on. And the man who is trying to look like a woman or the woman trying to look like a man has a heart issue. And that heart issue is what sickens God. If it was a condemnation that meant God wanting certain things to differentiate, it would be in scripture. Such as if there were a verse that said a man’s robe should be 2 to 3 inches below his knee, but a women’s should come to 1/2 inch from the floor, we would know what God saw as men’s and women’s attire. But it’s not there. Therefore He did not want us demeaning one another over it in the way we do (if your wife doesn’t wear dresses all the time, you are out of God’s will and cannot preach/teach in the church).  If our society today still looked at it that a women should be in a dress, then the verse could be used because we would not want to be wearing what society said was sinful. So 150 years ago I could accept this. Funny though during that time a boy under around 4 was most likely going to be wearing a dress. In our culture there is no way I would have put a dress on my son at that age. But if there is no room for culture to change, then which one is right? A 3 year old boy in a dress or pants?

I agree 100% they did not wear unisex robes. There is not a question in my mind that there was a definite difference. Now I would not guarantee that you or I could tell the difference, but it was there. Even in the movies you are mentioning, are you positive they are all unisex? I’m not saying they are not, as we all know Hollywood does not care about honesty nor decency. But with the cultural differences are you sure we would notice the difference? For instance, when you look at shirts, some are very similar at a glance. But if you look a man’s buttons from one side and a woman’s from the opposite. Small difference, but enough for someone who knows to tell quickly. 
now I am going to get to where I think the real meat of the passage lies. I have seen those who stand that any manly man would wear pants, therefore “don’t you dare say my Lord wore anything but pants!” I don’t believe the Bible nor history supports this. I have seen the society and “even the McDonald’s bathroom doors know what we should wear!” But if you look around, yes our society says a Godly man won’t wear a dress, they do not see pants as a masculine only thing. Now I realize they are accepting certain men wearing dresses, but that comes later in my opinion. I have heard the modesty is the reason for women to wear dresses. But with the probability (I realize we can’t go back in time to check, but history and the fact the Bible doesn’t mention pants(besides the breeches that went under the priest’s robe) but does robes I feel certain) that in the time of Christ they all, male and female, all wore some sort of flowing covering that did not accent those parts of the body, why shouldn’t we do the same. I know some will say “ but men look at things different”. But I do not believe this to be true. From the time of my teens I have seen girls go crazy about looking at boys in ways that totally go against this theory. Maybe, at one time this was different and girls didn’t have the fight against lust we men do, but a lot of them today do. So if it is modesty, and to keep the opposite sex from looking, shouldn’t we all be wearing something different? Now I’m not saying unisex. But men wearing something like a kilt? Then I’ve heard the “well it makes the ladies stand out and be noticed as Christian’s.” Now this one, to me, is a direct argument against the “culture says” reason. As in if culture said that women should be in a dress all the time, then a lady in a dress would not stand out at all. Also, this one crosses over into the modesty thinking. If again Christ wore a robe, and will give me a robe to wear  in eternity, why should I not stand out , as a Christian, by wearing a masculine robe? Now what would define masculine and feminine, I don’t know. But it could be done. But! I don’t believe this is what we need to see in that verse. When I go to church on Sunday, will I wear a button up shirt or pearl snaps? The definite answer is pearl snap. Is that because God is only happy with pearl snaps? No. That is because I am only happy with them. God expects me to come dressed in a spirit of humbleness to him. I dress up in what I feel makes me look my best to show Him respect. He doesn’t care what the clothing is, but that my heart is right. The verse in question does not specify what a woman nor a man is to wear. Just that it is not to be what belongs to the opposite. Now why? We know God had already destroyed Sodom, pulling Lot out by the hand. We know (Ecc 1:9) that there is no new thing under the sun. The sins we see today have been haunting this earth since the beginning. It is not the dress. It is not the shirt. It is not the armor as was mentioned earlier in this thread. It is the reason for putting on the thing that belongs to the opposite. It is the telling a holy infallible God “you messed up when you made me, so I am going to act the way I should have been made!” I do not believe the Arab I spoke of earlier would have sinned by covering himself in the women’s robe long enough to get to a man’s robe in that he was not doing it so that he would be thought as a woman, but simply to cover his nakedness. It’s the heart more than the clothes. If there is sin in the heart, it will come out to be seen. 

As I mentioned in the last post, the Arab man was offended that someone offered him a women’s robe. There are/were differences. Things can be very similar while having very certain differences. And they may be a difference that someone from another culture would not see. In the instance with Arab I mentioned, the one telling about it said he could not tell the difference. It was stated by one poster a few pages back (don’t remember her name) that she worked making pants and that there were different cuts depending if it was women’s or men’s. It is obvious the high priest wore a robe. In Revelation it says the saints are seen in white robes. How is it hard to believe robes were the normal wear. We cannot say pants are what we should wear, so they wore pants, so we know we should wear pants. That is circular. It is a common belief that Jews wore robes or Tunics which are very much the same. With that being the common belief, how can we say I don’t want it to be because it disagrees with what I think, so you should accept it. As for it being a hill to die on, it is a very important part of the discussion. If the men wore robes, then we have to ask when it became wrong for men to wear them. What and when culture can change the rules. How many need to accept the change before it is acceptable. How long it has to have changed before being acceptable. 

In 2 Samuel 6 we find David leaping and dancing before the Lord. He comes home to a very unhappy wife, Michal. She tells him he was shamelessly uncovering himself before the maidens as one of the vain fellows. Now if most men were wearing pants or breeches, how was he uncovering himself? 
in judges 3:16 Ehud strapped a 1 cubit knife under his clothes on his thigh. Now if he was wearing pants and a shirt this would either be impossible to get to, or obvious to all around him. But if he had a robe with a skirt, it would work out nicely. 
you read the description of the garments of Aaron where the linen breeches are mentioned, and you also find a robe. The robe would have hang down to around his knees. So with him climbing the steps, he needed something under the robe for modesty. The breeches were in fact under garments. Now Bro Jerry, if you truly believe these could be undergarments that over time became pants ( I think that’s what you were saying) and that they pertain to men as pants do today, does this also mean you do not believe in women wearing undergarments that would in any way resemble these? I don’t mean this as a vulgar question, but that is the logical conclusion. Also, can you give me historical writings that agree that they did not all wear robes? I know I have heard stories of a Arab man getting something spilt on his robe and someone offering him a clean robe, but he was offended that they offered him a women’s robe. I had a man once tell me that even Wikipedia said that Jews wore pants. I went to the article he provided and a little ways down it said that (and this is not word for word as I don’t want to take the time to look it up) for the last 100 years the Jews have dressed much like the western world, but before that they dressed much like the Bedouin Arabs. Trying to put our culture onto the Jews of old is arrogant. And as has been pointed out, our culture has changed a lot in recent years. 

6 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

So, for clarification's purposes, you're saying "No." Correct? 

Correct. Paul was out of due time. He was an exception for a special job. He is the only exception mentioned. And him being an exception puts it in a place of apostolic succession makes no sense. Because then it would be the rule, not an exception. 

On 5/7/2022 at 7:40 PM, Jim_Alaska said:

According to scripture there cannot be any Apostles today. No one can qualify.

 

Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
 

I’ll add to this 1 Corinthians 15:8-9 KJV
[8] And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. [9] For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

paul was an apostle, but he was one despite being born out of due time. He did not fulfill the requirements, but God made an exception. He did see Christ with his own eyes on the road to Damascus. But today, they are not seeing him with their own eyes and it is way out of due time. 

Congratulations!!!

Very good points. In my case, the scriptures say to honor father and mother. Any of us that are blessed to have been born into a God fearing/loving family will have our roots in what our parents teach us. The same is true that those who find Christ later in their lives will most surely have someone they love and respect that will build that base. So long as we are trying the spirits on our own we can come to the same conclusion without just being a photo copy. And that is where we need to be. Ever listening to those who came before us. But, as those at Berea, we should be checking what they say against scripture to be sure it is truth. Always amazes me how that the things they were checking came from the apostle Paul. He being the instrument God used to give us so much of the New Testament. And they were greatly commended for questioning him. We should always push brethren to check what we are saying and rejoice when the come to correct us in love, even if we have to then guide them to the truth they are missing. Not get offended by them. And we should always have an open mind that even though the Bible is never wrong, I can be wrong in my understanding. 

8 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Good to see you, rancher!

Good to see you as well. 

I’ve not been here in several years, and won’t be around a lot because of a busy life. But I saw this thread and thought it interesting. Years ago I was in a several month long disagreement with my then fiancé, now wife’s pastor over something to do with our up coming marriage. It was a huge ordeal for both of us that ended in my pastor/father officiating over it instead of him. Anyway, as we drew near to the end of the debating, one day he said that to me. “You only believe that because your father does!”  The funny thing to me looking back, within 5 minutes he turns to another man, several years younger than me and asks him what true baptists believe. Now first off, though there are more independent Baptist that agree with him than I would like, the vast majority agree with me. Secondly, and most comical part, the man he called over was his son. He proved I only believed what my father told me to by using his son to prove me wrong. 

Christ made it clear the only reason an "exception" was made was due to hardness of heart. Christ made it clear that God hates divorce and there should never be divorce, the only real exception comes about only because of the hardness of the ones heart who sues for divorce.

God declares marriage is a lifetime committment, and if a marriage is severed by anything other than death, there is not to be any remarriage as long as both parties live.

Divorce isn't a necessity in God's eyes. A Christian can separate, if safety reasons make such necessary, without divorcing.

We could all write of personal experience, which never trumps Scripture, of how this or that sin worked out in our lives, or how we or another "had to" take a certain direction and point to how we think it worked out best.

However, if we obey the Word of God, there is no doubt things would have always worked out best because our trust is to be in Him, not ourselves.

We will be praying for you and your family. What a reunion you have to look forward to!!

The point isn't translation vs catching up vs rapture. The point is that it is the same event as the resurrection. I believe in a rapture at the second coming and the resurrection if you want to call it that. It's just not a separate event is what my point is.

So sorry to hear this.

The analogies here can only be taken so far. All three of these men lived in a vastly different time from ours in a culture very different and in a very different political climate.

Abraham, as far as we can tell from Scripture, would not have took the handmaid to bed if his wife hadn't convinced him that was the only way to fulfill the Lord's promise. Now, that doesn't make what he did right, but in his culture that was common practice. In America such isn't common practice and therefore Sarah likely wouldn't have made such a suggestion and Abraham wouldn't either.

We could go into similar with regards to David and Solomon.

We, as Christians, in a nation that was once governed and dominated mostly by Christian principles, live in a different culture. Even among the lost, most know it's not right to cheat on your spouse, it's horrible to cheat on a spouse who is gravely ill and divorcing such a spouse is disgusting.

We know that if a wife can't trust her own husband, then he has some serious charactor flaws.

We also know if a man continually says one thing but does another that he's a liar and cannot be trusted.

There is a vast difference between a man who lives a life of moral corruption and the man who stumbles on occasion, or maybe even has a fall in his life, yet repents and strives to walk in integrity.

Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

It's not about finding someone "perfect", as we know they don't exist. The questions we should be asking is whether or not any of those seeking our vote are men of charactor, integrity, honour. Can they be trusted or are they liars.

If there is a man of charactor we could vote for, that one would be considered "evil". If we have a dozen men running for a particular office and none of them are men of charactor, then they could all be viewed as "evil" so if we vote for any one of them we would be voting for an evil person.

One thing many forget is that we are not forced to vote for anyone. If there is not a person of charactor to vote for in a particular category, we don't have to vote in that category.

I would like to add that I have not seen anyone here saying that politicians are THE answer to Americas problems. I think we would all agree the only true answer is God. But there is no sin in trying to guide our country toward freedom through voting so that we can continue to preach openly. Yes I know that many revivals have came through persecution, but I would rather pray that we would open our eyes enough that the churches would start preaching strong and loud through freedom, than to see my children taken from me and murdered because I was caught teaching them about Christ.