Jump to content


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DaveW

  1. OK then, since it is apparently so difficult to understand.... You posted this: I asked: You replied: Now please note: NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE PASSAGE YOU QUOTED DO YOU SEE EITHER RUSSIA OR THE MUSLIMS MENTIONED. I then replied: Note that I said I thought it was probably reasonable speculation, but YOU STATED IT AS OUTRIGHT FACT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. In STATING IT AS OUTRIGHT FACT you are going beyond the Bible. As unlikely as it appears to us today, you have to agree that it is possible (Incredibly unlikely, but possible) that in some way the Muslim religion ceases to exist before the time of the passage to which you refer. And as unlikely as it appears to us today, it is possible that Russia could cease to exist before the time spoken of in the passage you refer to. THEREFORE because of the fact that you STATE THESE THIGNS IN THE TERMS OF A CATEGORICAL FACT you are going beyond the Bible. It is really not all that difficult to understand. State the exact same premise in the terms of likely speculation, or even in terms of probable fulfillment, and I have no problem - I actually agree that in light of what we know today, your premise is the most likely - BUT IS IT NOT BIBLICAL FACT. And for reference I mentioned that people at one time thought that Napoleon was the anti-Christ. It seemed to make sense to them at the time, but THEIR SPECULATION WAS WRONG A good number of people also thought that Hitler was the anti-Christ. It made sense to them at the time, but THEIR SPECULATION WAS WRONG. And by the way, there is no indication of Muslims in the Bible - it is various brands of Arab peoples that can be referred to Biblically, but not muslims in general. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Arab nations are also Muslim is true, but biblically irrelevant. You can point to various brands of Arab peoples and SPECULATE about a muslim link, but biblically the only true link that can be made is to their Arab heritage, not their religion per se. In STATING SUCH THINGS AS OUTRIGHT FACT you are going beyond the Bible, and that leads to dangerous places.
  2. Australia is still a part of the Commonwealth. Canada is more like an associate member now, hence the "Old Commonwealth" reference by the Canadian.......
  3. Context is always helpful. Rev 21:4-8 (4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. (7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. (8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Note in the first place that God shall wipe away all tears, etc. That is because (in vs 5) God makes all things new. In vs 6 it tells us that the way that God makes all things new is to give to "them that thirst, the water of life". In various places it explains what the water of life is: Joh 4:13-14 (13) Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: (14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. So vs 8 is talking of those who HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED by the water of life, the Lord Jesus Christ. Further to that, if we look at the last part of the previous chapter we see: Rev 20:15 (15) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Vs 8 is not talking about daily fears, nor about the fear of the Lord, but is talking about those who have not been changed by trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, and are therefore still judged to be in sin of various sorts. By the way, what is your understanding of salvation and Jesus Christ? It is a simple thing to be saved: Rom 10:9-10 (9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. If you want to see some more verses or if you would like some explanation, various here will be happy to help.
  4. Actually, you may have missed them, but they are there. Mat_8:25 And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish. When they were in the boat in the storm. Mat_14:17 And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes. Mat_15:33 And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude? Mat_16:7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Mat_17:19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? Mat_19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? Mat_20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. Mat_26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? Mar_4:38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? Mar_6:37 He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat? Mar_8:16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. Mar_9:28 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? Mar_9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. Mar_10:28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. Mar_10:35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. (and vs 37 and 39) Mar_14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? This is only a simple search of Matthew and Mark (as they were the ones that you specifically mentioned), and as you can see there are a multitude of times that the Disciples said "We". I hope that has answered your question?
  5. Not arguing for arguments sake - trying to give you some advice. Proverbs 12: 1 Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.
  6. And considering he is always spouting on about readability and understandability, he posted what must be just about the least readable and least understandable version that he could find, with some words in red and some crossed out. He has posted against his main criticism of the KJV - but has run both side of arguments so often that doesn't surprise me at all. ***** One can only post what one sees - apparently the strikeouts and corrections were done by Jim, because this guy posted a non-KJV version quote, which he should have known was against the rules, but which I suspect he knew and simply decided to ignore the rules.*****
  7. A hard situation to find himself in. Not the greatest solution by him. And your help is better than nothing. Terrible that he feels that his only option is to not attend any where......
  8. And again....... you refuse to acknowledge the point - what you state goes beyond the Scripture. When you go beyond Scripture, you go into the arena of speculation and men's philosophy and ideas.
  9. This is simply disrespectful. This is a KJV board. It is in the rules. It has been pointed out to you before. And you have claimed "advanced member" status, so you should know that. But you have also stated that you will not give proper respect, so why are we surprised...... Edit to add: I seem to remember that the Mods told you in another thread to stop it. If you can't abide by the proper authority of this board then why are you here?
  10. My point is that you are making categorical statements which are actually beyond Scripture. I stated that it was probably reasonable speculation, but it is not certain. Only a few years ago people were referring not to "Russia" per se but to "the Soviets" in relation to this. There is a small but significant difference. Many many years ago people were pointing to Napoleon as the anti-christ. The point is that you don't know for certain if Russia will even be in existence when the times you are talking about actually happen. There could be some sort of socio-political upheaval which changes the whole landscape (politically and nationally) before the anti-christ is revealed. So again, it is reasonable speculation, BUT IT IS SPECULATION. I really wish people would not state as fact that which can only be speculation, and they do it so often with prophecy.
  11. I've heard all sorts of weird and totally unsubstantiated theories.... some of them very recently..... The fact is that the reason for the 360 day year has nothing to do with a "change" in anything - it is to do with the difference between the lunar and solar years.... that's it. Nothing to do with any sort of weird theory..... .
  12. Oh OK - so it they aren't actually named in the Bible and you are speculating that these that you refer to are the the same as those to whom the Bible refers.... Just so we understand that the Bible doesn't actually NAME either Russia or Muslims in fact. Is it reasonable speculation? Yeah, probably, but IT IS NOT STATED.
  13. I'm sorry - could you point me to the verse that says the Muslims will join with the Russians? I can't seem to find it in my Bible.
  14. You do know that the Hebrews add an extra month every coupla years or so to make up for the difference between the solar year and the lunar year don't you? And by the way, the Roman months that don't relate to their position in the year are more than December. SEPTember - 7th - 9th month. OCTober - 8th - 10th month. NOvember - 9th - 11th month. And the reason they are out of place is because of vain Ceasars, like Augustus, adding in a month for himself.....
  15. Once again with this kind of thing people have a habit of making categorical statements where no such statement can be made. By all means speculate about the nature of the mark etc and what form it might take, but to state categorically that (in this instance) the mark is some form of computer chip, is going beyond what the Bible says. This is Sooooooooooooo common when it comes to prophecy, but soooo dangerous. Of course there is the aspect that the writer is describing as best he can something that is totally foreign to him, but for us to then make statements with certainty is just dangerous - maybe what he is describing is something that is totally foreign to us also. But we know for certain that people will willingly and knowing take the mark, so it is not today's credit cards as some have put it, and if the cards are replaced by a chip that is implanted (as it seems certain will happen widescale because it is already being tested small scale) then we have to keep in mind that it is a knowing submission to the mark, as a recognised submission to the anti-Christ. If then the chip implanted is done so without any sort of reference to allegiance to the Anti-Christ, then IT IS NOT THE MARK...….
  16. Except for those that read any one of a number of MV's which clearly state WITHOUT Explanation that both David and Elhanan killed Goliath, and there is no explanation nor indication that they were different men - people reading one of the two passages would come to entirely different conclusions depending upon which they read, and since both passages refer to an UNUSUAL man called Goliath, the obvious conclusion is that they are the same man and there is a mistake in the Bible. If however, those men were reading the KJV they would read the verses as stated without even the smallest thought of a contradiction. SINCE YOU HAVE SPOUTED OFTEN AND LOUDLY about the matter of explanation somehow being a bad thing, YOU MUST BY YOUR OWN CONDITIONS agree that any version that doesn't include the note as in the KJV is INFERIOR - because the KJV makes the need for explanation in this case unnecessary.
  17. Mods, can I ask you to have the discussion that, since we have a thread specifically for him to prove his false claims of "goofs and booboos" (which is in itself deliberately disrespectful phrasing), can I ask if the Mods would consider changing that phrasing with some sort of notice, similar to what is done for foul language? I understand that it is work for the Mods, and would probably have to be done on a case by case basis, and therefore only when it is noticed by a Mod, but since it is deliberately inflammatory, and deliberately disrespectful, I think it is worth the discussion. And I make this request publicly, because I want him to see it.
  18. That doesn't even make sense - mind explaining what you mean, because to me it appears as though you are just smoke screening with irrelevant stuff...... again.
  19. You really don't know what you are talking about do you. The NKJV used the wescott and hort to do their revisions - even though the ORIGINAL CHARTER for the work stated otherwise. And have you ever studied their claims of "older"? I seriously doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't make appeal to it. And you refuse to do any other sort of study suggested apparently.......
  20. I really hope you are NOT suggesting that you don't have to explain something to a child or a English second language person JUST BECAUSE IT IS MODERN ENGLISH! That, apart from being a monumentally stupid position, is simply inaccurate. After all THAT'S WHAT TEACHING IS! You appear to be suggesting that giving someone a Bible in modern English means you don't have to explain anything -they can just understand it all..... because it is in "Modern English". That is plain stupidity.
  21. PROVE IT, PROVE IT, PROVE IT ,PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! You keep making this claim and thus far you have shown one that has been disproved, and one that actually supports the accuracy of the KJV. I DEMAND - YES DEMAND -that you stop making this false claim UNTIL you have backed it up with solid evidence.
  22. Hmmmmm..... so you ONCE AGAIN make comment that is in no way relevant to my statements..... you like doing that.... But to answer your question anyway.... absolutely I would, did, and still do. I preach to children from the KJV and explain what needs to be explained and the kids understand. My own kids could read from the KJV almost as soon as they could read at all..... And in any case, that has no bearing on whether it is true or not. Calculus is true even though lots of people don't understand it.
  23. We are sure that the KJV is correct and more easily understandable in this matter. Certainly more correct than your conjecture about something that is nowhere indicated in Scripture. Your argument is based on nothing of consequence and designed to cause doubt, not clarity.
  • Create New...