trell

The bible says that every man will receive praise from the Lord at the judgement seat of Christ (I Cor. 4:5). If our Lord Jesus Christ himself can find some good then I'm sure we can also. We need to show more grace and balance in these matters.

With all due respect, the 'judgement seat of Christ' is in Romans and II Corinthians, where it is bema, the judgement for rewards only, and does not pertain to the unsaved. A study of this section of I Corinthians 4 will shaow that it is speaking of our judging things now, until the Lord returns.

One moment, slow down, stop, that's exactly what I did, I asked you a simple question, but you are about to blow up against me giving me a full blast with both barrels, perhaps reloading & shooting again. I did not say you insinuate anything. Just an innocent question.

Now, if I made a statement saying that's what you believe or said, that would be 100% different.

I did ask. Do you have any doubts about the subject being wrong, a sin.

Edited to add.

Do you think that the person that's a pedophilia is without natural affection? The natural affection God gives a person. I believe so, for its unnatural for a man to force his elf on a young person, especially his own child.

2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection....

After I said: "Having never studied pedophilia before, could you share the scripture that pedophilia is illegal, a perversion, and sin? I cannot see the physical attraction between a child and an adult, but I can understand the devil spirits involved.

And please don't assume because I ask the question that I in any way support or defend or accept such behavior or thinking.

Thanks."

Your question to me was: "So you have doubts that its a sin for grown ups to force their self sexually on infants, & young children?"

What in my statement or question got you to consider that I have doubts? The very question you asked, and asked it by saying "So you have doubts..." insinuates I doubt. And you do not see, apparently, how that insinuates something. To me, it is not 'an innocent question' which you asked. This is the very kind of thing I was referring to when I said "When I have a question or comment, I am hesitant to ask or say much on here because some think that because a question is asked or a comment made that it infers something."

My doubt, if you wish to refer to it as such, is that the Bible specifically singles it out. Whether the people in question are 2 or 102, the sin of adultery would seem to cover it. Homosexuality is covered separately because it is not adultery. If it were a woman with a girl, or a man with a boy, then homosexuality would cover it, unless there are additional verses which deal with the age of the 'participants'. To us it may seem worse, but is it, Biblically speaking, if one person is younger, and if so, how much younger? What if it was someone 8 and 48? What if they were 18 and 58? These are questions which infer nothing by me!

Following this train of thought further, what age is 'inappropriate', or what determines it is sin? In the first century Middle East, the China of 50 years ago, and the USA of 100 years ago, it was normal in many areas for a girl to be married at 12, a boy at about the same age to be working a full time job. We are talking cultures, not sin, unless scripture gives a specific time or age. That being said, it is always wrong for one to force themselves on another, regardless of age. Even in a family relationship, let alone in a non-family situation. Our heavenly Father does not force us to do something. Why should anyone else?

Hello, and welcome!

There is a lot of variety in 'regular' Baptist churches, and there is also variety in IFB churches. Some demand you use a King James Version Bible, others suggest it. Some demand women wear dresses only. Some believe alcohol is evil, others don't. Some are very judgemental and legalistic.

But the same or similar things exist in many denominations.

One of the biggest differences between most Baptist churches and other churches is that most believe eternal life is eternal. Many AOG, CoG (both flavors), Pentecostal type, and such often teach that your eternal life is only eternal until you sin, then you lose that incorruptible seed. IFB churches generally teach that people are saved by God's grace rather than man's works, but some (not many though) say that if you walk away from God you were not genuinely saved to start with, thus they are similar when they do that to AOG.

Just as with any people, the best way to find out is go to a few services. I would recommend Sunday AM and PM services, plus Wednesday if available. You will get a good idea of the taste of the church that way. Check each out until you find one that backs up the words they speak with what the Word of God actually says, and the leadership of the church walk according to I Cor 13 and Eph 5.

I would say good luck, but it doesn't exist. So I will say God speed!

So you have doubts that its a sin for grown ups to force their self sexually on infants, & young children?

You certainly do like to assume and think the worst. I never said that, nor did I insinuate it. It is wrong for anyone to force their will on another, regardless of age or gender. My question is that is there a specific place that says such actions are singled out? For example, homosexuality is specifically spelled out. Fornication is specifically spelled out. Stealing is specifically spelled out. Is this specifically spelled out? If it isn't, then what age do you draw the line? What Biblical basis is there for that? Is 12 too young, or 20, or 2?

When I have a question or comment, I am hesitant to ask or say much on here because some think that because a question is asked or a comment made that it infers something. It doesn't. I use chapter and verse to decide what to believe and practice, not religion or feelings.

Beyond that, as far as Scripture is concerned, both pedophilia and homosexuality are illegal, both are peversions, both are sin and in the case of homosexuality God views that sin as an abomonation. They are both sexually perverse sins.

Having never studied pedophilia before, could you share the scripture that pedophilia is illegal, a perversion, and sin? I cannot see the physical attraction between a child and an adult, but I can understand the devil spirits involved.

And please don't assume because I ask the question that I in any way support or defend or accept such behavior or thinking.

Thanks.

A very bad experience for our Savior, yet man will turn from God over a very minor experience, never darkening the door of one of His churches.

Perhaps because most of His churches are not His at all.

This is quite good.

I think that the difficulty I see is that, grammatically speaking, the term 'son of God' and 'God the son' are not synomonous, yet many people act or believe that they are.

Who could have been present with God? We know that at that time humans had not been created, & we know it was not Christ, so that seems to leave angles. But you stated that angles cannot sing. I've never seems words stating that angels cannot sing Yet I know there's a few that believes that the the morning stars singing in Job 38:7, is angels. And that I what I firmly believe, unless someone can prove it wrong.

And we know there's many angels.

Ps 68:17 The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.

Re 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

Mt 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?


Yes, there's many angels, perhaps some of them can sing after all.

Please read what I wrote. I did NOT say angels CAN'T sing. Please quote me accurately!

In Joel, the transliterated word is Jehovah. Romans 10:13 quoted Joel, and shows that in Romans 10:13, the word in that passage would be referring to God, the same God who raised Jesus from the dead.

This is not a discussion about the Trinity or diety(ies) or any such thing as that. I am not discussing such items. However, if anything, Romans 10:9-10 seems to be an argument for the non-trinitarian position, in that there are only 3 entities spoken of: 1) the person who is confessing and believing, 2) the Lord Jesus who was dead, and 3) God (it doesn't say the Father, or Holy Spirit) who raised him (Jesus) from the dead. Since God made Jesus both Lord and Christ, non-trinitarians use this to show Jesus was not Lord (or lord) until God made him so.

Lord is a title word, like Pharoah, Czar, King, etc. Even the word 'God' is often a title, in the Bible. Especially in the Greek and Hebrew.

I am not arguing for the non-trin position, just stating one of the basic positions of that group. My biggest problems with most in that group is they degrade our Lord Jesus (did you know only demons would refer to him by his first name only, without the title?) to just another man among many, a nice guy, a son of God, a mere man.

I don't know. God's word does not say, so I won't guess.

It could be the figure of speech prosopopoecia (personification) - things or actions represented as persons or actions.

The context is full of figures. (A figure is used for emphasis.)
Foundations of the earth. The earth has no foundation, literally. It spins in space.
The corner stone of the earth. The earth has no cornerstone, literally.
The cloud earth's garment. The earth is not a person, to wear a garment. Nor are clouds garments.

And so it goes on. Figurative language, making the truth even more vivid than the literal truth. God's wisdom is exhibited in so many activities, even in the inanimate creation and created items.

God's opinion of Elihu's words are so different from what most people think. Elihu mixes some truth and error together, to finish the job which Satan had started. God says to Job concerning Elihu's address: Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Elihu's words are not just dark. His words made the counsel Job was receiving (from his miserable comforters) darker.

God wanted Job to come to Him for answers, rather than the three 'friends', and certainly more than darker counseling Elihu.

From the 'for what it's worth department', I grew up in a broken home, as some call it. My Dad got remarried, divorced, remarried, divorced. There were, besides my step mothers, various women spending the night. Drinking to excess was normal. You get the picture.

I read and studied the Bible, spent as much time at church as possible, attended school and worked. God is faithful. He knows and will provide for His children.

Jesus Christ is 'the bright and morning star', not 'the morning star'.

The Bible, God's Word, the scriptures, no where say angels can have wings. That is purely conjecture. Same thing with angels singing.

The answer to your question is found several times within this thread.

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. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9-10)

The title of Lord is a title of Deity! How do we know this?

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

This verse states clearly that the ONE LORD is Jesus Christ, and yet we find that the ONE LORD is also God the Father.

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: (Mark 12:29)

Jesus is citing the Shema found in Deuteronomy 6:4, and is referring to God His Father as the ONE LORD. 1 Corinthians 8:6 also clearly states that the ONE GOD is God the Father. However, we find that Jesus Christ is the ONE GOD in Titus 2:13.

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13)

There are no contradictions found in scripture. Both LORD and GOD are equal descriptions of Deity in the Jewish religious context. Confessing Jesus as Lord from the heart is confessing Him as God (Deity). He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

God Bless!

Quite honestly, Lord is not a title of Diety, unless you are using 'diety' as it was used 2000-6000 years ago, when it meant anyone with divine authority. It is a title used in and out of the Bible. In the Bible, it is used for believers and non-believers, and is the word (as I am sure everyone knows) kurios. It no more signifies diety than theos signifies God. The context determines who and what is being refered to. This is basic Bible study. That is why Abraham is not being refered to as God, but he was god, lord, to Sarah. Capitalization is not the key either way.

Many do not even know basic facts about angels. For example, there is not one record of them singing, no matter what all the songs say. Also, they don't have wings.

When such basic facts are missed, is it a wonder that people believe the other junk?

Right Trell, the new day was the first hours after sunset; the new day began at night. However when counting the hours of the day, they started at dawn or around 6am. The lamb was slain and eaten during the night in the first hours of the new day. Christ was slain at the end of the calendar day in its last hours.

The lamb was slain 'in the evening' of the 14th, according to Exodus 12. 'In the evening' is near the end of the day (what we call late afternoon) before sunset. It was then prepared and eaten that night (again, see Exodus 12), which was the 15th. Each day went from sunset to sunset. There were reckoned to be 12 hours in the day, and 12 hours in the night.

The Passover passed away and was replaced by the Lord's Supper at this meal, wasn't it? As I understand it, the lamb was slain and eaten in the first hours of the new day while he was crucified and killed in the last hours of the same 24 hour period.

The new day began at sunset. Jesus died on Wednesday, the 14th of Nisan, about the ninth hour (3 PM). The Passover lamb was killed "in the evening" (Ex 12:6), a term referring to the time of late afternoon before sunset. He had to be buried before sunset. The lamb was eaten at night. (Ex 12:8).

Are these guys Catholics? They are not accurately reporting the events that are recorded in the scriptures. He couldn't have died before the Passover meal because Jesus Christ ate the Passover meal! What are these fools reading???

The Bible reveals that Christ was crucified on Nisan the 14th which was a Wednesday. He was hung on the cross in the 3rd hour of the day (9am) and died on the 9th hour (3pm). Jesus was placed in the tomb and the rock rolled over the entrance right at sundown (around 6pm) at the beginning of the High Passover Sabbath which was Nisan the 15th and Thursday.

Jesus Christ was our Passover. The Passover had to be eaten standing. Jesus was sitting. If he was sitting, it would have been sin. He desired to eat the Passover with his disciples, but was the Lamb of God, slain at the exact time the yearly lamb was killed.

Not in old Greek.

Then because the appelative "lord" is used, that says someone must believe Jesus is God? Then what about where Sarah calls Abraham lord? Does that make Abraham God? (I am speaking as a fool. I know Abraham is not God.)

No. I stated:

No Christian should put an occasion to stumble in a fellow Christian's path, and I understand the need for modest dress.

I am not suggesting anyone run into a store in a bikini, or even close to that.

However, just as your hubby and myself choose where, and where not to look, we also choose what to think, and what not to think. In this discussion, the opposite genders can either help, or hinder, their counterparts to renew their minds. I am thankful for people who help me renew my mind, but when I see a woman in a store with dress (or lack thereof) which appeals to the old man nature, the choice and responsibility to renew my mind is still their, regardless of whether someone is in a burka or naked.

Having thought, read, and contributed to this thread (I think that is what this is called), I have another observation. I wish to tread lightly on this, but honestly.

Why does it seem on this subject that it is it the responsibility of the woman to dress in a way that the man's eyes are not drawn to her figure?

The primary job of deciding where to look is the person who has the eyes. No Christian should put an occasion to stumble in a fellow Christian's path, and I understand the need for modest dress. But the choice to look somewhere is not up to anyone but the observer. Then, what that observer does in their mind with what they see is up to them also.

A woman who has a large bust has what she has. That is the way she was made and formed. Men, being made the way God made men, are by nature visual creatures, and notice such things. But it is the job of the man to look at the woman's eyes (in American culture) rather than 12-18 inches lower. The same principle applies to pants, whether worn on men or women who are Christians or not.

To see a woman and appreciate her beauty and attractiveness is not lust. Lust is over desire, letting the mind wander where it shouldn't. Believers ought to put the blame for evil thoughts on the person with the evil thoughts, not on anyone else. If a Christian is putting (an act of deliberation) a stumbling block in the way of another, that is wrong and should be corrected. But whether or not that happens, the renewing of the mind of all believers is required.

Christ is the end of the law for rightousness to everyone who believes.

I know some desire the law. Some desire liberty to excess. Neither are correct.

He needs to get saved and walk the believer's life.

A kilt is men's wear. What we, in our culture, call women's clothing, is not necessarily women's clothing in other cultures. In the first century, and before, what we call dresses today are similar to what men and women both wore. In our terms, usually a skirt belongs to a woman, a kilt to a man, a shirt to a man, a blouse to a woman, slacks to a woman, trousers to a man.

In Old Testament times, those who desired a close personal relationship had to come to the Israelites, Israel was to be a light to the nations, and not numbered among them. The 'clothing law' was spoken, written, and for Israel, not for the nations. Anyone who came to Israel to convert was to conform to this law.

Now in the New Testament, we are to go to the all the world, where cultures vary tremendously. We are the bearers of the light of God. The standard now is modesty, not a specific clothing law. Believers are to walk by the spirit, and so fulfill the law. Ours is a law of love.

So when I put on my kilt, a garment made for me (a man), do people think it is wrong because it, according to some people's standards in America, is a skirt (a woman's garment)? Seriously, is God concerned with pants and skirts, (mankinds terms) or rather with men not wearing women's clothing (regardless of the culture...i.e. for a man to wear a womans clothing would be wrong, even if it were a skirt in place of my kilt) and women not wearing man's clothing (again, regardless of the culture...i.e. for a woman to wear my kilt would be wrong, since it is a garment that pertains to a man)?

May I jump in here?

Two ends of the same pendulum:

There are people who hold the belief that the King James Version is different from the King James Bible. I can appreciate their passion on this, but there exists no scripture to support this argument. From this viewpoint arise people who discount the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and put the King James on a level superior to what God-breathed. This usually limits the learning which can be attained because one English word may be, and often is, translated from different words in the texts, each one with a different denotation.

There are others who see no difference between the King James and any other version. I can understand what they are saying, but no scripture exists to support this theology either. The adherence to this gives cause for people to reject the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in order to find a translation which supports what they want to believe God said. Learning here is limited also, because there is no reason to come up to the level of God's Word and Will, but rather bring God down to the level of the individual.

In this forum, the King James is the Bible, Version, Translation, Book, Scripture, Canon of choice. If anyone has been to other forums, I am sure you have noticed the multiplicity of versions. A library of different bibles is needed just to keep up with the talk, as everyone uses a different bible it seems. Here, at least we can all be talking about the same thing.

When people can re-translate willy-nilly, the door is open for additional books, chapters, and verses to be added. Joseph Smith is an excellent example of this.
When people put the English above the first languages, the door is open for telling God He got it wrong the first time. Ruckman exemplifies this logic.

I appreciate everyone having zeal for what they believe. But frankly, the scripture doesn't say 'English' anywhere. We all use King James here. Can't we leave it there? Are there not enough challenges the adversary comes at us with, rather than dealing with such an item?