Jump to content
Online Baptist


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Salyan

  1. 5 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

    We have not livestreamed anything yet. Last week we recorded Randy's message as an adudio to upload on FB. Today we videoed it, but not live. We've uploaded it to FB, and I'm posting a link here. We'll be working on things this week to try a live stream next Sunday. Randy is not keen on this kind of thing, but knows it's necessary (I think his reasoning is partly that he ddoesn't want to seem to be promoting himself).



    I think now, of all times, no one will think that! 🙂


    Our church has been live streaming on Facebook. We're looking at moving to a different platform to protect private information once we can figure out the tech stuff.


    Our Children's Church teacher has moved to Youtube:



  2. On 3/26/2020 at 4:03 PM, Alan said:

    My wife and I, driving down the road the other day, observing the speed limit, albeit sitting close 👩‍❤️‍👨  together (we are still in love 💞), when I was stopped by the local Mayor (in these trying times the local officials, governors, etc... make the rules), and he gave me a ticket, and a scolding,  :4_2_109v: for not enough distance between my wife and I! :3531a34faafcd3d5ab8749a94f57319e:


    Tell me you’re joking...

  3. 1 hour ago, DaveW said:

    So what DO you hope to achieve by posting about church that you have never heard of before, that will have no influence on you or your church, and that is based half the world away?

    I don't understand.....

    As far as I know, David Cloud is not on this site. You'll have to ask him yourself. /tongue-in-cheek

    Seriously, DaveW, let's give it a break on the whole defending-David-Cloud bit. No one's out to attack him. The church and the subject were brought up by another member; UkeMike is just continuing the discussion on tribulational doctrine in the churches. Can we focus on that, please? 

  4. On 3/3/2020 at 12:26 PM, Alan said:

     I deleted my post because I deleted what I wanted to say as I did not want to argue with a moderator and because you had to write something, so,  I just said the word, "empty."

    I took it the other way too.  I've edited the post to say 'deleted comment' to remove future confusion. 🙂

  5. Good point... I saw the March dates and didn’t realize 2019 was last year already!  :4_13_13: My apologies for repeating a warning already given. I’m going to lock this thread so it can’t be resurrected again. 

  6. On 3/9/2019 at 5:24 AM, robycop3 said:

      GOD IS NOT LIMITED to the KJV in English now, any more than He was before the KJV was made. History shows that, once God began placing His word in English, He has kept it posted in the language style current for the time. In that respect, the KJV was the latest edition for the "Elizabethan/Jacobean" period. Since then, God has caused several updated English translations to be made.

    Moderator me: 
    Robycop, I will remind you that this is a KJV site, and that all members are asked to respect that when posting. In light of that, I feel that this entire thread is in bad taste. Tread cautiously. 

    Me me:
    I don't think I'm 'KJVO' (because that view usually involves dual inspiration), but I am TRO. However, I am unaware of any modern translations that compare in quality and reliability. The 'updated' translations are based on faulty texts, with poor translation techniques (think dynamic equivalency) from far less learned scholars than were involved in the translation of the KJV.  How can God approve of translations that take away from His Word (wasn't there a curse about that somewhere?). 

    Personally, I think that the English language is increasingly being dumbed down. It used to be a lot richer - a richness we've lost - and I see no reason to allow modern laziness as an excuse for not using the KJV. People may need explaining the first time round, but they will be wiser and richer for it in future. 

  7. I have to say that I'm not in favor of transposing music - in the long run, it prevents congregations from learning to sing in good, four-part harmony. This is because if you're trying to transpose a piece down so the melody is at the comfort level of a natural alto or bass, it becomes too low to actually sing alto or bass!  There are also very, very few church musicians who can play harmony well while transposing - either you get sight readers (like me) who can't transpose on demand, or you get ear players who can transpose but don't actually get the correct harmonies (again, making it hard to learn four-part singing).  Hymns have a much more complicated chord structure than guitar scores account for. 

    If you have a low voice, can you sing the melody an octave lower?

    The simplest option, if you want to transpose, is to invest in an electric piano (not keyboard) with a transposition option.  We just picked one up for our youth camp; it's missing an octave, but it's okay for occasional use (the camp we use has a very old, very out of key acoustic piano!).  This one was only $450 CAD (second hand). I strongly dislike electric pianos, but they have their uses.

  8. “Looking into Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith...”

    “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

    Also John 3:16; 6:35; 11:25-26.

    We are saved by faith in Jesus, specifically. Faith must have an object. 

  9. To be honest, your writing sounds rather like you have been convinced of their doctrine. I'd encourage to you to look at their claims more critically and compare it to Scripture. 

    Regarding the so-called passage about Peter (we're all saints in Christ, so it's silly to call him Saint Peter anymore than I'd call you Saint Angel), let's take a look at the passage in context.

    "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:13-18

    The context shows that Jesus had asked His disciples a question, and Peter had answered it with a statement of faith - "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." This is the 'it' that Jesus later told him had been revealed to Peter by the Father. He follows that up with a play on words. You see, 'Peter' in Greek is 'Petros'. The word Christ used for 'rock' is 'petra'. 'Petros' refers to a pebble; a small stone, while 'petra' refers to a large rock; bedrock. Peter himself was only a pebble, but the statement of faith he spoke was to be the bedrock of Christ's church - the fact that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), and Son of God. You see? Jesus wasn't establishing Peter as the rock of the church (unstable Peter? that would be a poor foundation indeed). Rather, it was the illustrated faith and confidence in Jesus the Son of God that would be the bedrock of all believers. 

    Furthermore, the Gentile Church (which  is what the first church established in Rome would be primarily comprised of) was largely evangelized and led by Paul. Peter stayed in Jerusalem and was a chief elder to the Jewish believers.


    As far as Mary, she is called a co-mediatrix by the Catholic organization. This means they believe that she is a co-mediator between God and man. This is blasphemy. 1 Timothy 2:5 says: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Also, Hebrews 1:2-3 says: "...his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:"

    The co-mediatrix doctrine is also where they get the idea of Mary praying for us. But as we see from 1 Timothy, the only mediator between God and man is Jesus - not Mary, not the saints.  Only Jesus. 

    As far as that passage in John, let's take a look at the wording:

     "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." John 19:26-27

    First, a grammar lesson. The translators of the KJV were attempting to translate languages that used both singular and plural second-person pronouns (unlike modern English, which uses the generic you/your/yours for both singular and plural uses). In order to translate the sense of the words accurately, they chose to use thy/thine to translate singular pronouns, and you/your for plural pronouns. For this reference to be applicable to all of us, Jesus would have had to say 'behold your mother' (as you incorrectly quoted). Rather, he said 'behold thy mother'. The use of the word 'thy' indicates that he was speaking to a singular person - the disciple He loved (i.e. John). The Catholic understanding that she was given to all of us is thus grammatically inaccurate. 

    The Catholic organization also teaches that Mary was herself immaculately conceived (i.e. of a virgin) and without sin. This extrabiblical teaching would make her the promised Messiah, not Jesus - you see the doctrinal problem with this? They call her 'mother of God' - but God by definition has no parent - only the human body of Christ had a mother. They also call her Queen of Heaven. The Bible references a Queen of Heaven. She was a false goddess sinfully worshipped by the Israelites in the time of Jeremiah (Jeremiah chapters 7, 44). The Catholic representation of Mary thus traces back to an ancient false religion that provoked God's wrath against the Israelites. 


  10. it was good of you to warn them away from dangerous locations, and has nothing to do with chauvinism.... except in this case, you're behaving that way. The comments on their looks and your play on the word Mormon are downright rude. I think the Bible has something to say about that too...

  11. That specific section relates to Paul's opinion that it's  better to stay single rather than get married, but that in the end, it's not a sin to get married. 'Trouble in the flesh' is just a fact of binding two sinful people together (in that everyone is a sinner, not that those two in particular committed fornication). This passage doesn't refer at all to fornication and the consequences. 

  • Create New...