Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

TheSword

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    1,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    TheSword got a reaction from OlBrotherDC in Freemasonary in the midst of the brethren   
    ​Sort of, but that's not entirely accurate. The first three degrees are a continuance of a single-story arc. At each successive degree, more and different symbols are introduced. I don't recall any reinterpretation of a particular symbol. The only things that really changed in meaning were the ways in which the apron was worn and the positioning of the square and compass; but these were progressive symbols that said something of the new degree attained. What you may be thinking of is the way they explain the meaning of each symbol. For example:
    "The twenty-four inch gauge is an instrument made use of by operative Masons to measure and lay out their work; but we, as Free and Accepted Masons, are taught to make use of it for the more noble and glorious purpose of dividing their time; it being divided into twenty-four equal parts is emblematical of the twenty-four hours of the day, which we are taught to divide into three equal parts; whereby are found eight hours for the service of God and a distressed worthy brother; eight hours for their usual vocations; and eight for refreshment and sleep."
    The discerning Christian should notice several unbiblical things here, but most people who go through this don't look below the surface. It's all done verbally and nothing is allowed to be written down. So when you hear it, most think "hey, he just said we have to make time for God. That sounds good and right. Next symbol please!"
  2. Like
    TheSword got a reaction from Jerry in Insects and the Flood   
    In addition to UM's excellent points, here's a fantastic article on a Noah's Ark feasibility study that should answer most questions you have on that one: http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark
    Additionally, I would caution against the use of micro-evolution because it still implies evolution is a real phenomenon. Evolution (be it micro or macro) assert a gaining of genetic information through mutation. Rather, what we see with speciation within the created kinds is a loss of genetic information that differentiates between species we know of today.
  3. Like
    TheSword got a reaction from wretched in Baptism.....   
    I am of the opinion that it is the latter application and the Great Commission applies to the individual believer. I think the greater witness of the New Testament bears out the directive to spread (i.e. preach) the Gospel to everyone:
    - Even if Jesus spoke the Great Commission only to the Apostles (questionable), part of that was to teach everyone to obey all of His commandments, which included the Great Commission itself (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 1:8).
    - Evangelism is a spiritual gift, but so is giving, service and mercy, but all are still expected to give and serve and be merciful. Spiritual giftedness speaks to divine enablement, not basic responsibility. (1 Cor 12-14, Eph 4)
    - All believers are ambassadors of Christ charged with helping people be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:20; 1 Pet 3:15; Col 4:5-6; 1 Pet 2:9)
    - Acts 8:4 tells the entire church went out preaching the Gospel when they were scattered from Jerusalem.
    - If the Church is a body of believers and not a building, then it is the responsibility of the members of the body to spread the Gospel (Eph 4:12; 1 Cor 12:12)
    Given all of that, I would say that the individual believer has the divine "authority" to baptize based on the possession of the Holy Spirt and the inclusion as a member of Christ's church. If baptism is a self-declaration of faith in Christ and affirmation of inclusion into His church and the act itself imparts no grace/salvation or any other secondary blessing, then then the one assisting the immersion is irrelevant. Technically speaking, anyone can act as a representative of the church to assist the new believer in joining the fellowship. One does not need a preacher, priest, or apostle to obey God through baptism.
    However, baptism is also an identification with a set of doctrines/teachings (e.g. Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, etc.).This is why we Baptists accept baptisms from like-minded churches and reject baptisms in errant churches or false religions and require re-baptism for membership. In order to identify with a particular set of teachings, it is necessary to be baptized by a representative of that set of teachings. As has been tradition since Paul's day (1 Cor 1:10-16), the one preaching and teaching the true Christ are the ones who perform baptisms on those whom they instruct/evangelize. Having a leadership representative of the church also lends to conducting things decently and in order (1 Cor 14:40). As it happens, the pastors and deacons are the appointed, elected, or otherwise recognized leadership of a body of believers ascribing to a certain set of doctrines and they act on behalf of the church rather than as the mediator of grace in the way that the Catholic church does.
    To sum up...I believe any born-again Christian may baptize, but for the sake good order in the church and clarity of identification, the duly-designated representatives of the local church body should do the baptizing in the presence of the body of believers (i.e. the church).
    There's my two-cents.
  4. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Alimantado in Christian and Depression   
    In addition to what DaveW said and along the lines of Swathdiver, depression can come in different forms. DaveW covered the emotional form in which events in our lives affect our emotional health. Swath talked about an environmental form in which the things we do to or put in our bodies can have a profound effect. I would like to add a physical or hormonal form in which our bodies fail to function properly. A great example of this is post-partum depression, which my wife has been through a couple times. Sometimes it's not related to any event in our lives other than the fact that in our sin-cursed world, the body breaks down and doesn't always work correctly. Just as our pancreas can stop producing insulin and cause diabetes or your kidney may stop filtering your blood properly and result in kidney failure, your thyroid or pituitary glands can stop producing the right amount of hormones and wreak all kinds of havoc. Whether we like to admit it or not, this fallen vessel we call a body functions or fails without or consent and has a profound impact on how our soul is able to interact with the physical creation.
    There are many potential causes for true depression, and the cause determines the treatment. Sometimes it is steady prayer and engagement with friends, family, or counselors and sometimes it's medication to get your body functioning the way it should. While I believe it can be sinful to keep yourself in a depressed state by focusing on the negatives in life and a refusal to find joy in Christ, true clinical depression is an ailment like any other illness. Making yourself (or someone else) feel bad about it will only make it worse. Acknowledging the problem and seeking the cause to determine the right solution is the first step to recovery.
  5. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from swathdiver in Christian and Depression   
    In addition to what DaveW said and along the lines of Swathdiver, depression can come in different forms. DaveW covered the emotional form in which events in our lives affect our emotional health. Swath talked about an environmental form in which the things we do to or put in our bodies can have a profound effect. I would like to add a physical or hormonal form in which our bodies fail to function properly. A great example of this is post-partum depression, which my wife has been through a couple times. Sometimes it's not related to any event in our lives other than the fact that in our sin-cursed world, the body breaks down and doesn't always work correctly. Just as our pancreas can stop producing insulin and cause diabetes or your kidney may stop filtering your blood properly and result in kidney failure, your thyroid or pituitary glands can stop producing the right amount of hormones and wreak all kinds of havoc. Whether we like to admit it or not, this fallen vessel we call a body functions or fails without or consent and has a profound impact on how our soul is able to interact with the physical creation.
    There are many potential causes for true depression, and the cause determines the treatment. Sometimes it is steady prayer and engagement with friends, family, or counselors and sometimes it's medication to get your body functioning the way it should. While I believe it can be sinful to keep yourself in a depressed state by focusing on the negatives in life and a refusal to find joy in Christ, true clinical depression is an ailment like any other illness. Making yourself (or someone else) feel bad about it will only make it worse. Acknowledging the problem and seeking the cause to determine the right solution is the first step to recovery.
  6. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from BabeinChrist in Christian and Depression   
    In addition to what DaveW said and along the lines of Swathdiver, depression can come in different forms. DaveW covered the emotional form in which events in our lives affect our emotional health. Swath talked about an environmental form in which the things we do to or put in our bodies can have a profound effect. I would like to add a physical or hormonal form in which our bodies fail to function properly. A great example of this is post-partum depression, which my wife has been through a couple times. Sometimes it's not related to any event in our lives other than the fact that in our sin-cursed world, the body breaks down and doesn't always work correctly. Just as our pancreas can stop producing insulin and cause diabetes or your kidney may stop filtering your blood properly and result in kidney failure, your thyroid or pituitary glands can stop producing the right amount of hormones and wreak all kinds of havoc. Whether we like to admit it or not, this fallen vessel we call a body functions or fails without or consent and has a profound impact on how our soul is able to interact with the physical creation.
    There are many potential causes for true depression, and the cause determines the treatment. Sometimes it is steady prayer and engagement with friends, family, or counselors and sometimes it's medication to get your body functioning the way it should. While I believe it can be sinful to keep yourself in a depressed state by focusing on the negatives in life and a refusal to find joy in Christ, true clinical depression is an ailment like any other illness. Making yourself (or someone else) feel bad about it will only make it worse. Acknowledging the problem and seeking the cause to determine the right solution is the first step to recovery.
  7. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to DaveW in Christian and Depression   
    Oh, this is a big topic with much controversy.
     
    To begin with, it is just a lie to say that the Christian life is one of constant happiness and good living - it is definitely not.
    Jesus Himself said:
    John 16:33
    (33)  These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
     
    In this world YE SHALL HAVE TRIBULATION - it is not all going to be roses just because you are saved.
    And as you read through the book of Acts in particular you see men suffering for Christ, not having good times.
    So it is plain that the Christian life is not all smooth seas and plain sailing.
    That is point 1.
     
    Secondly, this world is perpetuating the lie that if you are unhappy there must be something wrong with you.
    Think about this for a minute: if your dog dies, how would you expect to feel? You would expect some level of unhappiness over it.
    That is absolutely fine - but the world makes it out as though only people with depression are unhappy, and if you are "depressed" or unhappy about something then you need to be treated.
    Now the Lord does want us to be happy, and the Lord does want us to be joyful, but there are specific reasons to be joyful that are not necessarily related to our daily living.
    By this I mean the Bible tells us to :
    Philippians 4:4
    (4)  Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice.
     
    Note that it is rejoicing in the Lord - and it is just after this that Paul speaks about his contentment in all situations.
    Philippians 4:11
    (11)  Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
     
    I doubt very much that Paul was "happy" when he was abased (in great need), but he was contented - there is a difference between being "happy" and having godly contentment.
     
    And in fact this is one of the keys - godly contentment comes from knowing that God is in control, and that although he may allow hard things into your life, you know that:
    Romans 8:28
    (28)  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
     
    Understanding this - and it is not easy to come to terms with by the way - but understanding this fact allows you to rest in Him.
    So it is absolutely OK to be unhappy when sad or hard things happen in your life, as long as you keep in mind that the Lord loves you (if you are saved), and:
    1 Corinthians 10:13
    (13)  There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
     
    There is another thing to keep in mind through all of this, and it is another thing that the world has totally wrong.
    The world says you have have drugs to stop the bad thoughts.
    (Note here that I am not saying that the drugs are always wrong - I am no medical professional, and do not have the knowledge or authority to advise about that specifically, but it is my opinion that drugs are way over-prescribed, and many of these people need nothing more than to be told they are normal and feeling like normal people should feel. Also, anyone currently on drugs should not stop without talking to their doctor, because some of these drugs will cause withdrawal symptoms that can be severe.)
    The world says that you cannot help the way you think.
    The bible says differently - very differently.
    2 Corinthians 10:5-6
    (5)  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
    (6)  And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
     
    Notice here that we are told to "bring into captivity every thought" - now it specifically relates this to Christ, so this is not in our won strength, but why would the Lord command us to take our thoughts captive if it was not possible?
    Casting down imaginations? That is putting our thoughts into their proper place.
    The World says you cannot control your thoughts and in fact that your thoughts control you, but the Lord says you must take your thoughts CAPTIVE!
    DO NOT BUY the lie that says that you cannot control your thoughts - God says you can and should.
     
    And the best way to do that?
     
    Lets go right back to one of the first passages I pointed to, but lets look at more of it:
    Philippians 4:4-9
    (4)  Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice.
    (5)  Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.
    (6)  Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
    (7)  And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
    (8)  Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
    (9)  Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
     
    Several things here:
    Rejoice IN THE LORD, not in your troubles.
    Moderation, not extremes, are the way of the Christian life - including moderation in emotions. Try not to go "really high and really low". The Christian life should be one of stability.
    "Be careful for nothing" means don't worry about everything all the time - instead of worrying about everything, pray about it.
    Do these three and the "peace of God" can be yours, because of what Christ has done for you.
    But it doesn't stop there.
    Paul adds a "finally" to it, and it is an amazing addition.
    He lists a bunch of things and says to us at the end of verse 8 "think on these things".
    This is again an indicator that we can control our thoughts, and we should control our thoughts, and we should specifically think about the things he lists in vs 8.
    Things that are:
    true honest just pure lovely of good report virtue praise And the thing I like to remind people of is that the highest expression of truth, honesty, justice, purity, loveliness, good report, virtue, and praise, is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ.
     
    Think about the wonderfulness of God and what He has done for you, and what He continues to do for you every day.
     
    Now then, whilst always keeping in mind that Jesus Christ loves you in amazing ways, if you lose your job, or you get some bad news, you are allowed to be unhappy about it - but if the unhappiness begins to overwhelm you, then you need to bring those thoughts into captivity, and make yourself think about the things of the Lord.
    Then you can be unhappy, and yet still rejoicing in the Lord.
    God made us with emotions - the key is to control them, not allow them to control us.
     
    Finally, the world loves us to think we are the only one and that everyone else "has it all together" - the truth is that people only see what we let them see.
    the best illustration I can think of is the wife and mother, who when she hears that someone has been invited over, goes on a massive cleaning spree. When the guest comes over they look around and see the house spotless and perfectly organised, and they think to themselves "I wish my house was as neat and clean as this".
    But the house isn't always as "neat and clean as this" - it is normally pretty good, and not a mess, but it only gets perfect when people come over - but the guests don't see that - they only see the specially prepared "neat and clean" not the normal. But when the roles are reversed and the hosts become the guests the same things happens, and each wife feels as though she is not as good as the other - but they each do a fine job normally, but a special effort for guests.
    Depression is exactly the same - people look at each other and only see the outside that we want to show them, which looks like we have it all together - but inside is a different story.
    Outside we want everyone to think we are doing fine, and that is what we show them, and that is what they see. What they don't see is the inside, which is probably very much like their own "inside" which they don't let others see.........
     
    I hope all of this is clear.......
     
  8. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Baptism.....   
    I am of the opinion that it is the latter application and the Great Commission applies to the individual believer. I think the greater witness of the New Testament bears out the directive to spread (i.e. preach) the Gospel to everyone:
    - Even if Jesus spoke the Great Commission only to the Apostles (questionable), part of that was to teach everyone to obey all of His commandments, which included the Great Commission itself (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 1:8).
    - Evangelism is a spiritual gift, but so is giving, service and mercy, but all are still expected to give and serve and be merciful. Spiritual giftedness speaks to divine enablement, not basic responsibility. (1 Cor 12-14, Eph 4)
    - All believers are ambassadors of Christ charged with helping people be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:20; 1 Pet 3:15; Col 4:5-6; 1 Pet 2:9)
    - Acts 8:4 tells the entire church went out preaching the Gospel when they were scattered from Jerusalem.
    - If the Church is a body of believers and not a building, then it is the responsibility of the members of the body to spread the Gospel (Eph 4:12; 1 Cor 12:12)
    Given all of that, I would say that the individual believer has the divine "authority" to baptize based on the possession of the Holy Spirt and the inclusion as a member of Christ's church. If baptism is a self-declaration of faith in Christ and affirmation of inclusion into His church and the act itself imparts no grace/salvation or any other secondary blessing, then then the one assisting the immersion is irrelevant. Technically speaking, anyone can act as a representative of the church to assist the new believer in joining the fellowship. One does not need a preacher, priest, or apostle to obey God through baptism.
    However, baptism is also an identification with a set of doctrines/teachings (e.g. Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, etc.).This is why we Baptists accept baptisms from like-minded churches and reject baptisms in errant churches or false religions and require re-baptism for membership. In order to identify with a particular set of teachings, it is necessary to be baptized by a representative of that set of teachings. As has been tradition since Paul's day (1 Cor 1:10-16), the one preaching and teaching the true Christ are the ones who perform baptisms on those whom they instruct/evangelize. Having a leadership representative of the church also lends to conducting things decently and in order (1 Cor 14:40). As it happens, the pastors and deacons are the appointed, elected, or otherwise recognized leadership of a body of believers ascribing to a certain set of doctrines and they act on behalf of the church rather than as the mediator of grace in the way that the Catholic church does.
    To sum up...I believe any born-again Christian may baptize, but for the sake good order in the church and clarity of identification, the duly-designated representatives of the local church body should do the baptizing in the presence of the body of believers (i.e. the church).
    There's my two-cents.
  9. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to 1Timothy115 in Baptism.....   
    4 cents...add my 2 cents.
  10. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Salyan in Raising Children   
    Lol... I think instant compliance would be the dream of every parent. Kids are individuals, though, and don't always do what we want or expect of them. I have a feeling that when we become parents, we'll find parenting isn't as simple as we singles think it's going to be! ;-)  Be sure your planned justice is tempered with mercy.
  11. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to weary warrior in Raising Children   
    As the father of seven children, I can't tell you how many good-natured chuckles the original post gave me. 
  12. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Orval in Freemasonary in the midst of the brethren   
    ​I feel I need to interject here on behalf of the hypothetical individual you're describing because the tone of this thread seems to echo your sentiment to varying degrees. This is not an attack on this quoted post in particular or anyone really, but rather a plea to all who are concerned with the issue.
    At full disclosure, I was a Mason for a few years (just after graduating college) before I got right with God. I was saved long before I ever even considered that. Many concerns about Freemasonry are valid and wholly agree that a Christian should not be a part of it. However, I would ask that you please realize and keep in mind that just because someone is a Freemason does not negate their claim to Christ. Almost to the person, every Mason I ever knew who fit this description fell into one of two categories:
    1 - They did not think critically about anything they encountered in in Freemasonry. Everything is done in highly symbolic fashion such that people who aren't inclined to look below the surface never see anything out of place. A requirement for entry is the belief in a singular deity. Combined with the ceremonies revolving around a narrative about building Solomon's Temple (albeit an entirely fictional one) with many Old Testament references; many undiscerning Christians don't see how it can refer to anything but the faith that they know. They, themselves, have been greatly deceived and just don't understand what the fuss is about. They think they're in an organization that augments their Christianity. They're not devious. They're not heretics. They're not cultists so far as they understand it. They are simply deceived/misguided/undiscerning and need loving correction.
    2 - It is entirely a social club. They don't see anything particularly religiously binding and the majority of time spent in/with the lodge have nothing to do with spirituality. They play dominoes and eat chips and cookies. They lean on each other through personal problems. They volunteer with charities and having meetings on public service projects. They just spend time with their friends. Simply put, they don't see it as something in opposition to their faith or in direct support of it. To them, it's no different than the Lion's Club or Rotary Club or even their local DFW. As far as they see it, they're a group bound together by a higher moral standard (one of their tag lines is "taking good men and making them better"). They simply think they're involved in something dedicated to the greater good, and that's all the investigation they think they need. Again, they're deceived, not condemned.
    Look, I know all the downfalls of Freemasonry. I came out of it for a lot of a good, biblical reasons; but please don't make the mistake of branding all of its members cultists like Mormons or Jehovah's witness. I know some that are as worldly as the visitor sitting in the pew next to you and some that are as spiritually mature as anyone here and could run circles around most of us in a biblical/theological discussion. Being deceived and entangled by something that intentionally obscures its true nature does not negate their saving faith. They are every bit as much a redeemed believer as you and I. (please keep in mind I'm not talking about all Masons, just those who continue to proclaim Christ)
    Yes, they are a part of something that ultimately teaches heresies of all kinds. Yes, they absolutely need to come out of it. I simply ask that you consider their statement of faith and treat them with brotherly love, because I promise you that the people they're entangled with treat them with more of it than what I see posted about them by those who see Freemasonry for what it is. Each one is a soul in dire need of correction and deliverance, and you'll never get anywhere without love.
  13. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in How to handle apparent discrepancies in the KJB   
    It's not stated in those particular passages, no. However, taking in the context of the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, the pattern of co-regency in Judah is easily established as is the chaotic power transitions of Israel. The precedent was established in David's line for the southern kingdom of Judah when he placed Solomon in power a substantial amount of time before his death (1 Kings 1-2). See also 2 Kings 8:16 where Jehoshaphat and his son Jehoram reigned together as well as 2 Kings 15:5 stating that Azariah and Jotham shared the throne.
    The text certainly does not demand co-regency, but it does allow for it as a valid explanation. It also allows for the explanation given above by 1611mac, which doesn't actually contradict the co-regency explanation; it only changes the co-regent. Further, the contexts of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and the rest of the OT support that explanation. While it is not a concrete and unquestionable solution because neither singular verse makes it specific and clear, it is far from speculation.
  14. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to 1611mac in How to handle apparent discrepancies in the KJB   
    The following is taken from "Things Hard to be Understood" by David Cloud (he quotes Robert Sargent) - Presented as information only....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2 KINGS 24:8 – “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.”
    2  CHRONICLES 36:9 – “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.”
    There is no contradiction between these accounts, as they refer to different aspects of Jehoiachin’s reign. “It is important to remember that with the biblical method of reckoning the beginning of the reign of a king may be given from his anointing or his accession—or both. Following the deportation of his father, Jehoiachin legally became king over Judah when he was 8 years old (2 Chronicles 36:9), but his mother ruled for him as queen (Jeremiah 13:18) until he was 18 (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later both king and queen mother were deported (2 Kings 24:12)” (Robert Sargent).
  15. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from swathdiver in How to handle apparent discrepancies in the KJB   
    I think I touched on this in another thread, but the 2 Chron 36 vs. 2 Kings 24 is easily explained by co-regency. It was normal practice in Judah for the king to designate and empower his heir early in his reign to ensure the desired passage of power. The two books are likely referencing these two start points.
    On the Acts 7 vs. Genesis 11 issue, you just have to read a little closer. Genesis 11 states that Terah took his family from Ur to Haran after  his son Haran (who already had a full-grown son in Lot and daughter in Milcah). Additionally, it is likely that Haran was the firstborn since his daughter was old enough to be wed to his brother Nahor. What's not stated is anyone's age when they left Ur or how long they stayed in Haran before Terah died. 75 years is not an unreasonable amount of time for Terah to have three sons, at least one of which had two full-grown children, and for Sarai to have gone without children long enough to be declared barren.
    The key to solving apparent discrepancies usually comes down to critical reading and stripping away assumptions in order to interact with the basic facts of the text before adding any suppositions.
     
     
  16. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Alan in How to handle apparent discrepancies in the KJB   
    You are still adding in an presumption regarding the immediacy of the narrative. Let's look at the text:
    2 Chron 36:9 - 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.
    2 Kings 24:8 - 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.
    Here are the facts as presented:
    1) Jehoiachin was 8/18 years old when he began to reign
    2) He reigned in Jerusalem 3 months + 10 days
    Here is what is NOT in the text: ...and Jehoiachin was 8/18 years in 3 months when Nebuchadnezzar rolled in from Babylon... (i.e. no indication that the second fact immediately follows the first on the timeline).
    Here is what I find to be an intriguing clue. 2 Kings was written before the Exile and/or during the initial transition and was concerned with keeping accurate history. That is why you see more information about lineage. 2 Chronicles was written toward the end of the Exile or shortly after which is why you see more specificity that includes the totality of his time in power and length of his reign in Jerusalem as well as the focus on his failure that invited God's judgment.
    Genesis, and the Pentateuch and OT generally, were about the lineage and descent of the Israelites. Therefore, the important figures in the lineage are given prominence. In a highly inflected language like Hebrew, emphasis is often given with word position rather than description. That Abram is listed first attests to his importance to the narrative. Nothing is actually said of his birth order. The only information is that given is that Terah had 3 sons and their names were Abram, Nahor, and Haran. It is an assumption to say that because Abram was listed first that he must have been born first, because the text does not demand it.
    So I guess the short answer is yes, Abram's importance and significance to the purpose of Genesis would naturally put him first in any list, just as Shem is listed as first among Noah's sons. In every genealogy in Genesis, you'll find that the siblings of the lineage of importance are only mentioned when they are important to the narrative of that individual. Most instances just lists "sons and daughters" without specifying number or order.
  17. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Alan in How to handle apparent discrepancies in the KJB   
    I think I touched on this in another thread, but the 2 Chron 36 vs. 2 Kings 24 is easily explained by co-regency. It was normal practice in Judah for the king to designate and empower his heir early in his reign to ensure the desired passage of power. The two books are likely referencing these two start points.
    On the Acts 7 vs. Genesis 11 issue, you just have to read a little closer. Genesis 11 states that Terah took his family from Ur to Haran after  his son Haran (who already had a full-grown son in Lot and daughter in Milcah). Additionally, it is likely that Haran was the firstborn since his daughter was old enough to be wed to his brother Nahor. What's not stated is anyone's age when they left Ur or how long they stayed in Haran before Terah died. 75 years is not an unreasonable amount of time for Terah to have three sons, at least one of which had two full-grown children, and for Sarai to have gone without children long enough to be declared barren.
    The key to solving apparent discrepancies usually comes down to critical reading and stripping away assumptions in order to interact with the basic facts of the text before adding any suppositions.
     
     
  18. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in How to handle apparent discrepancies in the KJB   
    You are still adding in an presumption regarding the immediacy of the narrative. Let's look at the text:
    2 Chron 36:9 - 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.
    2 Kings 24:8 - 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.
    Here are the facts as presented:
    1) Jehoiachin was 8/18 years old when he began to reign
    2) He reigned in Jerusalem 3 months + 10 days
    Here is what is NOT in the text: ...and Jehoiachin was 8/18 years in 3 months when Nebuchadnezzar rolled in from Babylon... (i.e. no indication that the second fact immediately follows the first on the timeline).
    Here is what I find to be an intriguing clue. 2 Kings was written before the Exile and/or during the initial transition and was concerned with keeping accurate history. That is why you see more information about lineage. 2 Chronicles was written toward the end of the Exile or shortly after which is why you see more specificity that includes the totality of his time in power and length of his reign in Jerusalem as well as the focus on his failure that invited God's judgment.
    Genesis, and the Pentateuch and OT generally, were about the lineage and descent of the Israelites. Therefore, the important figures in the lineage are given prominence. In a highly inflected language like Hebrew, emphasis is often given with word position rather than description. That Abram is listed first attests to his importance to the narrative. Nothing is actually said of his birth order. The only information is that given is that Terah had 3 sons and their names were Abram, Nahor, and Haran. It is an assumption to say that because Abram was listed first that he must have been born first, because the text does not demand it.
    So I guess the short answer is yes, Abram's importance and significance to the purpose of Genesis would naturally put him first in any list, just as Shem is listed as first among Noah's sons. In every genealogy in Genesis, you'll find that the siblings of the lineage of importance are only mentioned when they are important to the narrative of that individual. Most instances just lists "sons and daughters" without specifying number or order.
  19. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from wretched in How to handle apparent discrepancies in the KJB   
    You are still adding in an presumption regarding the immediacy of the narrative. Let's look at the text:
    2 Chron 36:9 - 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.
    2 Kings 24:8 - 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.
    Here are the facts as presented:
    1) Jehoiachin was 8/18 years old when he began to reign
    2) He reigned in Jerusalem 3 months + 10 days
    Here is what is NOT in the text: ...and Jehoiachin was 8/18 years in 3 months when Nebuchadnezzar rolled in from Babylon... (i.e. no indication that the second fact immediately follows the first on the timeline).
    Here is what I find to be an intriguing clue. 2 Kings was written before the Exile and/or during the initial transition and was concerned with keeping accurate history. That is why you see more information about lineage. 2 Chronicles was written toward the end of the Exile or shortly after which is why you see more specificity that includes the totality of his time in power and length of his reign in Jerusalem as well as the focus on his failure that invited God's judgment.
    Genesis, and the Pentateuch and OT generally, were about the lineage and descent of the Israelites. Therefore, the important figures in the lineage are given prominence. In a highly inflected language like Hebrew, emphasis is often given with word position rather than description. That Abram is listed first attests to his importance to the narrative. Nothing is actually said of his birth order. The only information is that given is that Terah had 3 sons and their names were Abram, Nahor, and Haran. It is an assumption to say that because Abram was listed first that he must have been born first, because the text does not demand it.
    So I guess the short answer is yes, Abram's importance and significance to the purpose of Genesis would naturally put him first in any list, just as Shem is listed as first among Noah's sons. In every genealogy in Genesis, you'll find that the siblings of the lineage of importance are only mentioned when they are important to the narrative of that individual. Most instances just lists "sons and daughters" without specifying number or order.
  20. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in How to handle apparent discrepancies in the KJB   
    I think I touched on this in another thread, but the 2 Chron 36 vs. 2 Kings 24 is easily explained by co-regency. It was normal practice in Judah for the king to designate and empower his heir early in his reign to ensure the desired passage of power. The two books are likely referencing these two start points.
    On the Acts 7 vs. Genesis 11 issue, you just have to read a little closer. Genesis 11 states that Terah took his family from Ur to Haran after  his son Haran (who already had a full-grown son in Lot and daughter in Milcah). Additionally, it is likely that Haran was the firstborn since his daughter was old enough to be wed to his brother Nahor. What's not stated is anyone's age when they left Ur or how long they stayed in Haran before Terah died. 75 years is not an unreasonable amount of time for Terah to have three sons, at least one of which had two full-grown children, and for Sarai to have gone without children long enough to be declared barren.
    The key to solving apparent discrepancies usually comes down to critical reading and stripping away assumptions in order to interact with the basic facts of the text before adding any suppositions.
     
     
  21. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Orval in Book of Esther-Queen Vashti.   
    I think that particular interpretation is deeply flawed for a couple reasons. First, in the immediate context of the three verses that discuss Vashti's disobedience/refusal, absolutely nothing is said about her motives. It is 100% speculation and a personal imposition on the Bible to assert anything about why she did or did not do something. Second, even within the context of the entire chapter, no mention is made regarding in what state of dress Vashti was to be in. It doesn't even say whether she was to be wearing or carrying the crown. It is also 100% speculation to say in what manner she was supposed to present herself other than in obedience.
    The facts are as follows:
    1 - The king called her into the party
    2 - The king wanted to show off her beauty
    3 - She refused
    4 - The king got angry and removed/replaced her
    Anything beyond those facts is pure speculative storytelling. We could all probably come up with a list of good and bad motives for both of them, but they would be opinions, not Scripture, and therefore not a valid source from which to draw timeless principles.
  22. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from busdrvrlinda54 in Book of Esther-Queen Vashti.   
    I think that particular interpretation is deeply flawed for a couple reasons. First, in the immediate context of the three verses that discuss Vashti's disobedience/refusal, absolutely nothing is said about her motives. It is 100% speculation and a personal imposition on the Bible to assert anything about why she did or did not do something. Second, even within the context of the entire chapter, no mention is made regarding in what state of dress Vashti was to be in. It doesn't even say whether she was to be wearing or carrying the crown. It is also 100% speculation to say in what manner she was supposed to present herself other than in obedience.
    The facts are as follows:
    1 - The king called her into the party
    2 - The king wanted to show off her beauty
    3 - She refused
    4 - The king got angry and removed/replaced her
    Anything beyond those facts is pure speculative storytelling. We could all probably come up with a list of good and bad motives for both of them, but they would be opinions, not Scripture, and therefore not a valid source from which to draw timeless principles.
  23. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Book of Esther-Queen Vashti.   
    I think that particular interpretation is deeply flawed for a couple reasons. First, in the immediate context of the three verses that discuss Vashti's disobedience/refusal, absolutely nothing is said about her motives. It is 100% speculation and a personal imposition on the Bible to assert anything about why she did or did not do something. Second, even within the context of the entire chapter, no mention is made regarding in what state of dress Vashti was to be in. It doesn't even say whether she was to be wearing or carrying the crown. It is also 100% speculation to say in what manner she was supposed to present herself other than in obedience.
    The facts are as follows:
    1 - The king called her into the party
    2 - The king wanted to show off her beauty
    3 - She refused
    4 - The king got angry and removed/replaced her
    Anything beyond those facts is pure speculative storytelling. We could all probably come up with a list of good and bad motives for both of them, but they would be opinions, not Scripture, and therefore not a valid source from which to draw timeless principles.
  24. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Salyan in Book of Esther-Queen Vashti.   
    I think that particular interpretation is deeply flawed for a couple reasons. First, in the immediate context of the three verses that discuss Vashti's disobedience/refusal, absolutely nothing is said about her motives. It is 100% speculation and a personal imposition on the Bible to assert anything about why she did or did not do something. Second, even within the context of the entire chapter, no mention is made regarding in what state of dress Vashti was to be in. It doesn't even say whether she was to be wearing or carrying the crown. It is also 100% speculation to say in what manner she was supposed to present herself other than in obedience.
    The facts are as follows:
    1 - The king called her into the party
    2 - The king wanted to show off her beauty
    3 - She refused
    4 - The king got angry and removed/replaced her
    Anything beyond those facts is pure speculative storytelling. We could all probably come up with a list of good and bad motives for both of them, but they would be opinions, not Scripture, and therefore not a valid source from which to draw timeless principles.
  25. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Brother Stafford in Biblical Archaeology   
    When I was walking through the dig at Hazor, one of the coolest things was seeing the burn line in the walls from when Joshua razed the city (Joshua 11:10-13). Walking up the same steps that Joshua and the Israelites tread was just really neat.
×
×
  • Create New...