Jump to content
Online Baptist Community


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DaveW

  1. Longer answer than I intended, so sorry about that, but if you are really interested you will read it all. As Wretched said, if you are looking for a 100% kind of thing, then you are looking to do without faith. Heb 11:6 (6) But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. However, to address the three examples you cite: First of all, we must confirm that you are talking about the KJV. Most of the other versions have some pretty gross errors in them, and the rest are less obvious but still notable. Secondly, I am taking this as a genuine question, although these are the three most common “issues” that people bring up……. Thirdly, if you take single verses in isolation, then it is very easy to become “disoriented” from the account. As a result, I will quote passages in most cases rather than single verses. “Matthew 27:5 (Judas hanged himself) and Acts 1:18 (Judas died by falling down in a field)” Mat 27:4-8 (4) Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. (5) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. (6) And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. (7) And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. (8) Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Act 1:18-19 (18) Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. (19) And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. There are actually 2 issues with this passage: the one you mentioned (the manner of his death), and the purchase of the field. Judas didn’t purchase the field, as Acts 1 18 says, but Matthew 27:7-8 tells us that the chief priests purchased the field – but they did so with the money they paid to Judas, so in effect they purchased it for him. Neither is in error. It was the money of Judas, and therefore he paid for it, although the transaction was not done by Judas himself, but on his behalf. I point this out, because it shows that things stated in different ways can correctly refer to the same event. Now in regard to your actual issue with this passage, Matthew 27 tells us that Judas hanged himself. This would be the manner of his death. Acts 1:18 doesn’t actually mention his death at all – you are assuming it is how he died, but the verses do not say that. If you look at the verse it says that he purchased the land, then fell over and his bowels gushed out. But if you look in Matthew 27 you see that he hanged himself, THEN the land was purchased in his name. Paupers who died in those days were thrown into a rubbish pile outside the city walls, and if he was dropped over the wall into that rubbish pile I would think that he would likely burst asunder and his bowels would gush out…… Of course, the money was used to buy “the Potter’s Field” so that practice (Bodies on the rubbish pile) should have ceased after Judas, for then there was a place to bury strangers in. But only after this event, for even in those days it would take time to find, purchase, and organise the land for this purpose. The order of events, and an understanding of history is enough for us to address this "problem". “1 Chron 21:5 vs. 2 Sam. 24:9 (number of fighting me in Isreal)” 1Ch 21:1-7 (1) And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (2) And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. (3) And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel? (4) Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem. (5) And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword. (6) But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab. (7) And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. One million one hundred thousand men in Israel (Northern Kingdom), and four hundred and seventy thousand men in Judah (Southern Kingdom). 2Sa 24:1-10 (1) And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2) For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people. (3) And Joab said unto the king, Now the LORD thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? (4) Notwithstanding the king's word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel. (5) And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer: (6) Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtimhodshi; and they came to Danjaan, and about to Zidon, (7) And came to the strong hold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beersheba. (8) So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. (9) And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. (10) And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. Eight hundred thousand in Israel, and five hundred thousand in Judah. A seeming difference of three hundred thousand in Israel and thirty thousand in Judah. My first thought is that in 1 Chron 21:6 it says that Joab didn’t count the Levites nor the Benjamites, so we would expect a difference in the numbers, with the 1 Chron 21 being the lower number, because it specifically says that some were not counted. That might explain the difference from Judah, but the difference in Israel is the wrong way for that simple explanation. We must therefore cast our net a little wider. And we come to this passage: 1Ch 27:1 (1) Now the children of Israel after their number, to wit, the chief fathers and captains of thousands and hundreds, and their officers that served the king in any matter of the courses, which came in and went out month by month throughout all the months of the year, of every course were twenty and four thousand. It seems that there was a system of “reserves” called up each month 24000 from each tribe, which equals a total over the year of 288000. For me, that is close enough to 300000 to make up the difference. So Joab refused to count the Levites and the Benjamites – I assume they were associated with the Temple and with Jerusalem – I can happily assume that takes care of the 30000 of Judah missing from 1 Chron 21, and if the count from 2 Sam 24 didn’t include all those who were “already on the books” as it were as soldiers of the regular rotation, then we have a close enough number on the second figure to explain it as a “rounding to the nearest….” “2 Chron 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 (was King Jehoiachin 8 years old or 18 when he was crowned).” This is one of the most common issues we hear – I think that there is a thread from some time ago about this on this site….. 2Ch 36:8-10 (8) Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. (9) Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. (10) And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. 2Ki 24:6-9 (6) So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. (7) And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt. (8) Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. (9) And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done. This at first seems like a problem, but in this case we need to look at the situation and see if we can find a solution. In cases like this it would be easier for us if God made it super clear, but He does tell us to 2Ti 2:15 (15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. ….so we really can’t complain if we have to put some effort in…… What was the situation in which he became “king”. In the first place it is interesting that in 2 Chron 36 it says he was 8 when he began to reign in Jerusalem. But in 2 Kings 24 it says he was 18 when he began to reign in Jerusalem. Both accounts mention the same length of reign – I don’t see the 10 days being an issue. In fact aside from the 8 vs 18 the only other difference is the mention of the mother in 2 Kings 24. The point about that is that in the passage which says he began to reign when he was 8 it doesn’t mention his father’s death, and in the passage where it mentions 18 and his mother, it specifically mentions his father’s death. If you look at the situation of his father’s reign, you see Babylon was all around the place causing trouble and laying on pressure. And in fact the last few verses 2 Kings 24 tells us that when Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon the Babylonian king put someone else as King over Jerusalem. This is why he reigned only three months. So is this an indication that Jehoiachin was appointed by his father as co-regent or heir in waiting? With the unsettled nature of the rule under Babylon (see the early part of that chapter), and the resultant replacement soon after Jehoiakim’s death, it is entirely reasonable to think that he may have appointed his son as co-regent in the hope that his claim to the throne would be established. Therefore, he began to reign with his father at the age of 8, but began to reign in his own right 10 years later. In any case, he reigned only 3 months before he was taken by the Babylonians and put into a prison in Babylon, and another man put into the place of king instead of him, thereby proving his father’s wisdom in making him co-regent, but that not succeeding in its plan. Now, none of these is a watertight answer, but each of them gives a satisfactory answer to the problems presented.
  2. Woah there big boy......The only place I remember John saying anything to do with "low calibre" is: And yet you accuse him of saying: You need to be careful with your accusations, for that is not what John said, nor even what he implied. In fact, almost exactly the opposite. He didn't say they were defiling the church, and he didn't restrict the reason to only divorce - in fact he didn't even designate divorce specifically. And yet you go on a rant about all the other problems with churches today saying that John was ignoring those and suggesting it was ALL ABOUT DIVORCE. In fact, John's statement includes, not excludes all of these things, because it is a general statement. This is very close to a false accusation.
  3. I didn't say you were wrong, I simply suggested a line of study for anyone who cared. It is always better for us to study for ourselves rather than accept what someone says. Does the passage speak of sin or qualifications, and what impact does that have on the subject?
  4. For the record, Cary Schmidt was one of the associates with Paul Chappel. They are one of the main "conservative" independent Baptist colleges in the US. Cary Schmidt is independent Baptist to the best of my knowledge, but possibly not as conservative as many on here. I only state this for the information, and do not imply any criticism.
  5. 1 Timothy 3 1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; note 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; note 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. note 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. I have been rather surprised that people are talking about sin in relation to this passage. Where does it talk about sin? It doesn't. It speaks of qualifications, not sin. Maybe people should consider that rather than talking about this in terms of sin. Sin? Qualifications? What is the difference between them? Interesting study for those who can be bothered and are interested in the biblical truth rather than winning an argument.
  6. A search indicates that it is Cary Schmidt, Emmanuel Baptist church somewhere...….. I think this is a problem with the RSS mechanism - at one stage long ago it used to give the extra info from the feed, but at one of the upgrades it stopped. It might be a setting somewhere??????? https://caryschmidt.com/2019/10/move-forward-or-stand-still-which-is-it/ In any case it is annoying …...
  7. I gotta say that I am distressed at the broad accusations made by SAB and directed at ANYONE who disagrees with his view..... I find it offensive. And juvenile.
  8. We have a FB page that events are posted on, but that's it.
  9. But you don't do that - you defend the man. You like the guy..... You like at least some of his teaching.... You defend the man...... On any level the guy is clearly not qualified to be a pastor, clearly teaches false doctrine, clearly is a bad testimony for the Lord, clearly goes beyond Scripture, clearly does not follow the duties of a Pastor...... etc. You need to stop defending a man who is clearly a heretic. But you can't help yourself - you are a fan..... and no matter how much you deny it, your posts tell a different story. Follow no man - follow only the Lord and His Word.
  10. Why even bother? This guy is clearly a false teacher, and no Bible lover should have anything to do with him. I don't know why you insist on defending a man who is so clearly a bad testimony for the Lord, and who is so clearly a false teacher, and so clearly a hateful man. Anything that he gets right you can find with teachers who don't have his false teaching. In my opinion, anyone who is so prominent as a teacher online and promotes themselves as such is unbiblical - IF he is a pastor (regardless of what he calls himself), he should concern himself with the flock to which the Lord has given him. NO MAN is Pastor to the world. God gives pastors to individual churches, not to the "whole world".......
  11. We are currently going through Isaiah. Just finished chapter 6, lesson 20..... We could be here a while....
  12. 1. I never said definitions were unimportant. I implied that definitions need to be correct. 2. The Greek supports the definition of the word. Just like any dictionary gives definitions. 3. Your proposed definition of wife, given with no reference as to its origin, does not align with the official definitions. To be honest, I am not interested in becoming further involved in this discussion, but as you say, definitions are important, but it is also important that they are correct definitions.
  13. DaveW


    Thanks, and welcome.
  14. It seems to me that much is being made of certain definitions, but those definitions for not appear to be true. For instance, the greek word from which is translated the word "wife" has a primary meaning of "woman", and a secondary of "specifically a wife", which makes the word a descriptive rather than a "title". Secondly, a bishop is absolutely required to rule his house well, the reference to children being an addendum to that, but a wife is absolutely a part of that household. Finally, the rules on divorce must be considered, as Biblically not all divorce is the same. One thing is certain about divorce though: Matt 19:8 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Hey friend, why don't you pop across to the intro section and introduce yourself properly.
  15. I actually think it is a bit of a pity this ended up like this. I genuinely want such people to properly answer the points put to them. It helps me to understand the arguments. Of course this guy was not properly responding in any case, but it is still a pity he decided to force the mods to act. Thanks to the mods for acting appropriately and quickly by the way.
  16. This kind of behaviour is simply disgusting and should not be heard from anyone calling themselves a Christian.
  17. I repeated it because you refused to do so. I stopped as soon as I was asked. I would have stopped the moment you gave this board the proper respect of an intro. Your foul descriptions however should not pass the keyboard of a Christian.
  18. This is a disgusting personal attack. I am neither old, nor senile, and you know nothing about me - that is obvious. And you are wrong. If you paid any real attention you would know you are wrong. And the language you use to refer to the forum is also a disrespectful disgrace.
  19. I thought this would be an interesting subject, but I guess not. I know I have had discussions with people about pastoral duties and it is surprising what people think are biblical duties for a pastor which are not. They are traditional. Some are good things to be done, but some are unnecessary burdens upon Pastors.
  20. I don't know about over there, but here the ride sharing companies (those that use people with private cars as taxis) and several other companies have been prosecuted for trying to claim that their drivers are contractor to whom they don't have to pay benefits and for whom they don't have to pay taxes. They were wrong too, and they are not religious, therefore not being religiously persecuted.
  21. Once again you fail to read the Bible. In the first place, not all covenants are two way agreements. See Genesis 15. Secondly the passage I quoted gives the entirety of this particular covenant and the condition for the Israelites is given in verse 14, and it applies to INDIVIDUALS, not the nation. Read it. Read it carefully. You are wrong.
  22. Can you possibly insert a "moderator's statement" at the head of the thread about it not being the view of the board, but a poster who was banned for his unbiblical views? I think I agree that it should stay - it is part of the history.......
  23. This current guy was one of them I bet. Sounds like Shoostie right down the line.......
  24. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You should delete it - we don't really want people associating us with that kind of false teaching......
  25. And I noted from the article that "at least one" could follow it back - thank you for confirming that and adding that the number according to that article is actually two. Not bad for a nation that you claim doesn't exist at all - you have confirmed that at least 2/12's of that nation still exist, which is enough to prove you are wrong. If they still exist, the the others also do, and the God I believe in is certainly able to keep track of who is who, and call out 12000 from each tribe, even if He has to identify each and every individual. The god that you follow is a liar, and is not powerful enough to know who is who..... I will continue to follow the God of the Bible rather than your weak, counterfeit, lying god. And you still refuse to do this board the basic courtesy of a proper introduction in the intro section.
  • Create New...