Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Brother Parrish

Members
  • Posts

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brother Parrish

  1. Hayesy, I didn't say I believed it, I just thought it might help you. :Green It's an excellent discussion. I guess the Fred Phelps family would have their own spin on this, but without taking it to those extremes?it could be construed that God has a love/hate relationship with sinners. Sometimes I feel that way about computers, LOL. It's been a while since I taught this in Sunday School, but I'll give it a shot... It is important to remember, that POSITIONALLY there is a different standing for the redeemed as opposed to unbelievers. Unbelievers are like a building destined for destruction?they are condemned already due to their unbelief (John 3:18). The unbeliever who is actively rejecting God's love is in a position of sin?he is the ENEMY OF GOD. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Romans 5:10 It could probably be argued that the unbeliever is not only a sinner?but positionally HE IS SIN. We often hear "God hates the sin," well,?there you are. Look carefully at the KJV text in this verse: "For he hath MADE HIM TO BE SIN for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Corinthians 5:21 He not only is sinning, he is positionally titled "SINNER,"?he was made that way by Adam's sin. "For as by one man's disobedience many were MADE SINNERS, so by the obedience of one shall many be MADE RIGHTEOUS." Romans 5:19 Watch this now... The unbeliever has the opportunity to avoid God's hatred?because of God's love. I say again?it seems that God has a love/hate relationship with sinners. How can this God of the Hebrews both hate and love at the same time? Well the verses are pretty clear?God is love, but He is also a man of war. (Exodus 15:3) The same sun which nourishes one plant, can easily destroy another. The soul that is not clothed in God's righteousness (Jesus)?will feel God's hatred. When a believer sins, (as we all have done) they are CHASTISED as opposed to being hated. Why? Because of adoption. Despite the humanists claims?the inhabitants of earth are not all the children of God. The believer on the hand, has the spirit of adoption?he is a true child of God. God loved everyone (the world) enough to pay for their sins, but until they repent, His hatred for those who defy Him and His hatred for their sin is not reduced. (Psalm 5:5; Lev. 20:23; Prov. 6:16-19; Hos. 9:15).
  2. I hear ya bro, thing is?I was using Panther!!! I am such a freaking luddite, lol... now I have my office checking into the Mac tech stuff to make sure our printer drivers will work, font utilities, yada yada, you know the drill... we have several Macs, some old G4's some newer G5's... I have built my company on Apples for over 15 years?they have never let me down.
  3. Yeah, I hear ya?it's gonna be an interesting election. I see we have some Ron Paul fans here too... I was reading an article the other day about how Ron Paul was a liberal, LOL... who knows about these politicians, I like Fred Thompson but he seems really old to me now, I'm afraid the job stress might kill the poor guy. BTW, I see you're a Mac guy, cool... I just bought Leopard today, my daughter's brand new iPod wouldn't work without it.
  4. Ahhh, thank you?I'm glad you foks are enjoying these, please share them with your Muslim friends.... Ergun Caner is the President of Liberty Theological Seminary at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. When Caner was named to the position in 2005, he became the first former Muslim to become the leader of an evangelical seminary. Along with his brother Emir, Caner has become a leading voice for evangelicalism on the national stage. He has been a guest on such networks as FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, the BBC, and TBN... Here's his official site: http://www.erguncaner.com/home/default.php
  5. Gotcha, thanks for clarifying that my friend. Yeah, the way I understand it there are solid translations in other languages as well, but I do believe the KJV is God's preserved Word. Geez, it seems there is a lot of hostility and scarcasm on this board, but as I say, I am new here and that's only a first impression. To be honest with you, I normally debate with atheists on other forums... I had looked for a good KJV forum, and I was attracted by this post along with Bro. Matt's avatar, lol... viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2512
  6. I haven't misplaced anything. Sorry guys, I settled this one long ago. For me it's like this?If God is not preserving His perfect Word for us today, none of those other verses matter. Thanks for the welcome!
  7. LOL, Psalm 12:6-7 is absolutely the single most important passage in the entire Bible and it has EVERYTHING to do with the KJV.
  8. Hate and love, two very powerful words... Hayesy, this article may help you?from apologeticspress... Does God Hate Sinners? by Kyle Butt, M.A. "...How, then, can one reconcile the verses that seem to suggest that God hates sinners, but loves them at the same time? One of the most plausible solutions is that the Bible writers are using a figure of speech called metonymy when they write that God hates sinners. Metonymy is defined as: ?A figure by which one name or noun is used instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation? (Bullinger, 1898, p. 538). Bullinger further explains that metonymy can be ?of cause,? when the person acting can be put in place of the thing that is done (p. 539). For instance, in Luke 16:29, the text says: ?They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.? In reality, they did not have ?Moses? or the ?prophets,? but they did have their writings. The name Moses is a metonymy that stood for his writings, since he was the cause of the writings. In modern times, that would be like saying, ?I hate Shakespeare.? Would the person who said that mean that he hated Shakespeare?s personality? No. We understand he would be saying he does not like the writings of Shakespeare, with no comment on the playwright?s personality. If we apply that same figure of speech to the passages about God ?hating sinners,? we can see that the sinner is put in place of the sin. Thus, when God says He hates ?a false witness who speaks lies? (Proverbs 6:19), if metonymy is being used, then God hates the lies, and the one who is doing the lying (the cause) is put in place of the lies (the effect). It is interesting to see how clear this feature can be in other contexts. For instance, Proverbs 6:17 says that God hates ?a lying tongue.? Does that mean that God hates a physical tongue, made of muscle and body tissue? No. It means God hates the sin that a tongue can perform. In the same context, we learn that God hates ?feet that are swift in running to evil? (6:18). Again, does that mean that God hates physical feet? No. It simply means that God hates the sin that those feet can perform. It is interesting that while few, if any, would suggest that God hates physical tongues or actual feet, they would insist that God hates actual sinners and not the sin done by them. When studying the Bible, it is very important to keep in mind that the Bible writers often used figures of speech. When we look at the idea that God hates sin, but loves sinners, the figure of speech known as metonymy clears up the confusion. Just as God does not hate physical feet or tongues, He does not hate sinners. These nouns are put in the place of the things they cause?sin." http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3170
  9. It's a good discussion. As I say, I am not dogmatic about any of this, if you're not careful you soon find yourself into the crytpozoology, paranormal sites and other questionable authorities... http://paranormal.about.com/library/wee ... 61702a.htm
  10. Another look at a dinosaur that survived the flood? "Before 1912 the species was completely unknown and large lizards were thought to be extinct. Then, in that year, a party of pearl fishermen anchored at an almost entirely-unknown isle in a chain of islands called the Lesser Sundas. The fishermen brought back stories of an enormous, prehistoric creature living there. The island's name was Komodo. An expedition followed from the Buitenzorg Zoological Museum in Java. A report about the dragons was published, but received little attention in the years leading up to World War I. It wasn't until 1926 that an expedition from the American Museum of Natural History, under the leadership of W. Douglas Burden, traveled to this remote island to further investigate the dragons and, if possible, bring some back alive..." please note the mention of possible recent sightings of Megalania in this article: http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/bigliz.htm
  11. I'm not a mineral expert, I do have some fossils, and I have examined a lot of them over the years. Regarding the mineralization process, check this out: "A recent book, co-authored by a world expert on dinosaurs, points out some things about dinosaur bones that are of great interest to creationists. For one thing, it says: ?Bones do not have to be ?turned into stone? to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.? Ok, but even if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly ?permineralized.? This means that rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone. Doesn?t this show that the formation of these fossils, at least, must represent a long time? Think again. The same authoritative work also tells us: ?The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks.? So even a rock-solid, hard shiny fossil dinosaur bone, showing under the microscope that all available spaces have been totally filled with rock minerals, does not indicate that it necessarily took millions of years to form at all. Now of course if a dinosaur bone is indeed permineralized, it would give it great protection from the normal processes which cause things such as bone to just naturally ?fall apart.? So a permineralized bone might indeed be anything from a few weeks to millions of years old. However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics, just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein. There are actually instances, mentioned in the same book, in which dinosaur bones in Alberta, Canada, were encased in ironstone nodules shortly after being buried. We are told: ?The nodules prevented water from invading the bones, which for all intents and purposes cannot be distinguished from modern bone.? This is a stunning revelation. Evolutionists are convinced that all dinosaur bones must be at least 65 million years old. Those who take Genesis as real history would predict that no dinosaur bone is more than a few thousand years old, so the existence of such totally unmineralized dinosaur bones that have not disintegrated is perfectly consistent with our expectations. We have previously told you about the unfossilized dinosaur bone which still contained red blood cells and hemoglobin. Also, we wrote about ?fresh dinosaur bones? in Alaska. Let the evolutionist experts writing this book confirm this: ?An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.? In summary, therefore: Most fossil dinosaur bones still contain the original bone. Even when heavily permineralized (?fossilized?), this does not need to require more than a few weeks. The Creation/Flood scenario for fossilization would allow many centuries for such permineralization to occur, even under less than ideal conditions. Where bones have not been protected by permineralization, they are sometimes found in a condition which to all intents and purpose looks as if they are at most centuries, not millions of years old..." http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... nes.asp#r6
  12. Well, we are in a position to assume scientists are not always right. We are certainly in a position to say that creatures like Coelacanth were mistakenly thought by the evolutionists to be extinct millions of years ago. I'm sure before the "fresh one showed up," that the idea of a living one would have been considered an outrageous view by the monkey men?perhaps even more outrageous than gooey dino remains.....? Look, all anyone is saying here is?it is possible that dinos were around more recently than some in the scientific community may want to believe. Creationists have lost their jobs over stuff like this, in effect being shut down by the Godless community for even suggesting or exploring publicly what I just wrote above. For me, the most interesting comment in the article is not the dinosaur blood and tissue, it is this little tidbit: "Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ?Dinosaur? Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, ?So far, we haven?t been able to." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... canth.html
  13. I regularly debate with a lot of evolutionists on other forums, and one of the big topics is always dinosaurs. I think it's possible that Dinos were around a lot more recently then some may believe... I don't like to get too dogmatic about this. There is room for different views here, some believe all dinosaurs were destroyed during the flood, (there is much fossil evidence for flood related dino-deaths), others believe eggs or young were carried on the ark and survived the flood, only to later become extinct at the hands of men?who called them "dragons." The Bible uses ancient names like "Behemoth? and ?tannin.? (Job 40:15-19) The word dinosaur was not heard until the 1800's. If they survived the flood, dinosaurs would have come under increasing pressure from hunters and weather changes?many believe Earth's atmosphere after the flood was changed quite a bit. They would have been killed out of fear and for food, just like many other large animals down through history. Men have driven many species to extinction, not just the dinosaurs. As I posted above, scientists have now found T-Rex bones with blood and soft tissue still present?providing strong evidence to suggest they may have existed on the Earth far more recently than evolutionists care to admit. Take a look at both of the informative articles below. One thing is certain, there are references to dragons and behemoths with scales in the Bible and throughout European writings and artwork, Marco Polo wrote of Chinese training dragons, and evidence exists today suggesting they may have been seen by Anasazi Indians in North America at the first link below: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2705 http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/15
  14. And many accept Allah as just another name for the Christian God! :freak:
  15. The Chuck Norris candidate is gaining ground... if this guy had more money I bet he could win... Huckabee comes in second in Iowa In what has become one of the least predictable presidential races in recent history, Mike Huckabee, the far-right conservative Baptist pastor who likes to make jokes and play his guitar, has moved into second place in polls in Iowa. Sixty-five days remain before Iowa's caucuses, and until now Huckabee was a far cry from the lead, which has been solidly held by Mitt Romney. He doesn't have Rudy Giuliani's celebrity status or John McCain's gravitas -- or anywhere near the warchest of Mitt Romney -- but Huckabee has quietly established himself as a godsend to the religious right, principally due to his skepticism of evolution, vehement opposition of homosexual rights, and aggressive stance on Iraq. Huckabee knows that Christian conservatives have heretofore lacked the perfect fit in a candidate, and has set about quietly becoming their top choice. Despite his conservatism, he's also a fan of the liberal arts and education spending. He recently told Northern Iowa University students that there was too much of a focus in academia on math and science. "Math and science without music and art, is like trying to fly an airplane with a wing on the left, but without one on the right," he said. As far as all fifty states go, Huckabee was polling Wednesday in third place behind Giuliani and Fred Thompson and ahead of Romney and McCain. However, despite recent gains Huckabee is still short on capital. As of last month, he has only raised $2.3 million. This is in comparison to Romney's impressive $62 million. http://www.kcrg.com/explorepolitics/...im&id=11130506
  16. Even the most hateful and vile hearts have been changed by the Gospel, as proven by testimonies like Ergun Caner, don't miss this powerful and funny three part series, it will bless your heart. I have shared this with Muslims on other forums?very powerful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbijYMzo92I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7tas5C3w4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5xSEdWgaPk
  17. LOL, will he wear a white shirt and ride a bike to the White House???? :Green
  18. A Mormon for President (Mitt Romney)... I wonder what that would be like...? Will he have more than one first lady in the White House? :cool Oops I forgot, it was Giuliani who was divorced. And it was Bill Clinton (Baptist) who had more than one woman in the White House (!) Seriously?what would a Mormon (false religion leadership) mean for our nation... Kennedy was a Catholic, hmmm... Both Romney and Giuliani, have picked up key evangelical endorsements, some interesting links below... Romney, Bob Jones III http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1MP ... AD8SAKM500 Giuliani, Robertson http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 1da24.html CNN claims to have audio from private meeting of Bob Jones University community: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/09/ ... ngelicals/ Meanwhile, Chuck Norris has endorsed former SBC minister Huckabee: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58255 Huckabee says GOP not above character issues states "Clinton may be owed apology" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980177/
  19. Biblefaith1, not sure if you are still reading this, but I was raised with both Catholic and Baptist influences. I think your questions seem valid my friend, and I hope you are seeking the truth?because you will find it if you are. The idea that a Catholic cannot be saved is simply an honest error, I think what believers are saying here is that we cannot be saved trusting Catholic doctrine. If the doctrine of a church or relligious group is Biblical, it will lead men to freedom in Christ, not bind them in confusing teachings and traditions. The RCC has basically set itself up as a pseudo spin-off of the Old Testament Hebrew priesthood?(Italian style, LOL). Bible believers don't need a middle man anymore?they have direct access to the throne via the precious blood of God, hence the torn temple veil. So this is good news, we can cut out the middle man! The Bible states: ?For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus? (1 Timothy 2:5). I hope this helps you, more below from Greg Wilson: "Many have grown up believing that God must be approached through various and sundry mediators. They have been taught that He can only be reached through a human priest. They have learned that for prayer to be answered it must be addressed to the ?Patron Saint? who has the oversight of their particular area of need. There has even been planted in their minds a fear of approaching Christ Himself, except through the mediatorship of His mother. Established churches have long been able to turn these and other man-made doctrines into great wealth, as can be seen by the magnificent Cathedrals of Europe, and elsewhere. God?s revelation to mankind, the Bible, contains no references to these pagan superstitions..." http://users.aol.com/libcfl/mediator.htm For the record, I love Sean Hannity. And I wouldn't trade him for 10,000 Godless, liberal media mouhs in a million years.
×
×
  • Create New...