Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

TheSword

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    1,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Alan in Scientific Facts in the Bible.   
    “The Lack of Sustaining Human Life on other Planets”
    Psalm 115:16
    “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.” Psalm 115:16 God has given the earth for  mankind to dwell in and not the heavens, or, in our modern vernacular, “Outer Space.”
     
    In Genesis 1:2 we read that the earth, as originally created, was created completely barren and unsuitable for the sustaining of human life on it.“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the
    waters. Genesis 1:2
    Note
    The scriptures are very clear. The scriptures did not say, “...and the earth became without form, and void,” It says very clearly that the earth in Genesis 1:2 was, “...without form and void.” The belief that there was a “Gap” between Genesis 1:1 and 2 and during the, “Gap,” the earth became without form and void is without merit of any kind and a private interpretation.
     
    Jeremiah 4:23, “I behold the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, they had no light.” Jeremiah 4:23 is not a historical reference to a supposed ‘gap’ between Genesis 1:1 and 2. A close to look at the context, Jeremiah 4:19-31, reveals it is a prophecy concerning the desolation of the land of Israel and Jerusalem. “For thus hath the LORD said, the whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end ... The whole city shall flee for the noise of horsemen and bowmen they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.” Jeremiah 4:27 and 29
    “Form and Void meanings
    Among the many definitions of the word ‘form,’ Webster’s 1828 Dictionary gives us this meaning:
     
    “FORM, n. The root of this word is not certainly known. The primary sense is probably to set, to fix, to fit.”
     
    Determinate shape. The earth was without form, and void. Gen. i.
    A mold; something to give shape, or on which things are fashioned. Encyc."
     
    Therefore, the earth, as depicted in Genesis 1:2, was not settled, or fixed, or fit for mankind, and, the earth was without a determinate shape. The Earth in Genesis 1:2 had the makings of a habitable planet for human life but it had to be fashioned in order for human life to live.
     
    The Earth was in the ‘mold’ stage to sustain human life. As a potter takes a lump of clay that has no human utility and molds the clay into a vessel that a man can use, so did God mold the Earth into a habitable planet for mankind. A comparison of Jeremiah 18:1-10 and Genesis 1:3-23 is recommended to the reader.
     
    Among the many definitions of the word ‘void,’ Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives us this meaning:
    “VOID, a
    1. Empty; vacant, not occupied with any visible matter; as a void space or place. 1 Kings xxii.
    2. Empty; without inhabitants or furniture. Gen i."
     
    Therefore, the word ‘void’ in Genesis 1:2 simply means there was nothing occupying the Earth and it was vacant, i.e., no inhabitants or items ‘furniture’ suitable for the sustenance of the inhabitants.
     
    In Genesis 1:3-23 we see the creative acts of God in supplying the Earth suitable for the habitation of human life. The Earth was made for Man and his descendants.
     
    “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
     
    Photos of the Meanings of the Words, “without form, and void.”
     

    ‘Buzz’ Aldrin, Apollo 11, July 1969, proves that the moon is ‘without form and void,’ and cannot support human life.
     

    NASA’s Pathfinder proves that Mars is “without form and void.”

    NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft verifies that
    Pluto is, “without form and void.”
     
    The Purpose of the Sun, Stars, and Planetary Bodies
     
    Genesis 1:14-19, “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”
     
    The, ‘greater light’ is the Sun and the, ‘lesser’ light is the moon.
     
    God made the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, and all of the planetary bodies for the following reasons:
     
    To divide the day from the night.
    Signs
    Seasons
    Days
    Years
    Lights to shine on the Earth: “to give light upon the earth.”
     
    There are no other reasons why God made the other Stars, Moons, Planets, Asteroids, and Comets of the Universe.
    Conclusion
    God did not make the planetary bodies of the universe for the habitation of mankind. All of the planetary bodies of the universe are barren and desolate of life nor can they sustain human life. The planetary bodies of the universe are in the same condition that the Earth was in Genesis 1:2 before God made the Earth suitable for the support of human life. “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.” Psalm 115:16
     
    True scientific study and analysis always verifies that the scriptures are scientifically accurate.
     
    Note
    The, ‘comets,’ or, ‘aliens of other races,’ or other suppositions of the science fiction crowd, did not give life upon Earth nor ‘seed,’ the earth with any form of life, water, or any type of germination. All of the life and physical characteristics upon the Earth are from the direct acts of God by verbal command or from the dirt of the Earth. Evolution, whether secular or “Theistic Evolution,” is unscientific, false, full of unproven hypothesis, blatantly unscriptural, and is to be rejected.
  2. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to 360watt in Evolution Evangelism   
    I was watching WatchMojo.com.. not even a christian entertainment site and they had the top 10 hoaxes on video.  What was in the top 10?
    Piltdown Man!
    Yet, I am pretty certain there are a whole lot of evolution books that still have Piltdown man as a missing link.. part of the chain.
    The Lucy find had similar issues also.. and yet that is I am pretty sure still in the latest text books as part of the chain.
    These I think are still presented as facts.. yet proven false by sound scientists.
  3. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to trapperhoney in Evolution Evangelism   
    regardless of which one you believe they both are based on faith.  I find it much easier to have faith and belief in a loving supernatural being that created everything than abiogenesis, which really is far more fantastic and absurd.
  4. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Alan in Helping Kids Adjust   
    All, I truly appreciate the input.
  5. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to wretched in Helping Kids Adjust   
    I guess nobody ever played daddy's hat with their kids?
    My oldest many years ago (she is 33 now) had a similar issue in a new move to a new town and church. She was about that age but perhaps a little older. Anyway, she would get so nervous she would throw up once I tossed her in the nursery.
    An elderly couple recommending wearing her as a hat. IOW: tell the preacher what the deal was and let her into the adult service in the front row (not the back) and let her sit on your shoulders.
    The embarrassment overcame the nervousness and within ten minutes wanted to go into the nursery. No more vomit, problem solved.
  6. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Rosie in Helping Kids Adjust   
    All, I truly appreciate the input.
  7. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from trapperhoney in Helping Kids Adjust   
    All, I truly appreciate the input.
  8. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in Evolution Evangelism   
    Genesis vs. abiogenesis
    One makes complete sense. The other makes no sense and isn't possible...but it's the one evolutionists believe. It doesn't matter how they spin it...they believe in abiogenesis.
  9. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Ronda in Evolution Evangelism   
    True, true, and true. The big problem is that according to "secular scientists" they get to claim their "gospel" as fact as if they're teaching a science class. So many people, Christians included, have already compromised their foundational beliefs to make room for Darwinism and all of its related made-up storylines. They've compromised with ridiculous explanations such as theistic evolution or progressive creation or whatever and have unwittingly conceded the battleground in full. Christians need to understand (and teach their children to understand) that it's either God and the Bible or Darwin and evolution. They are mutually exclusive faith systems.
  10. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Evolution Evangelism   
    True, true, and true. The big problem is that according to "secular scientists" they get to claim their "gospel" as fact as if they're teaching a science class. So many people, Christians included, have already compromised their foundational beliefs to make room for Darwinism and all of its related made-up storylines. They've compromised with ridiculous explanations such as theistic evolution or progressive creation or whatever and have unwittingly conceded the battleground in full. Christians need to understand (and teach their children to understand) that it's either God and the Bible or Darwin and evolution. They are mutually exclusive faith systems.
  11. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Evolution Evangelism   
    True, true, and true. The big problem is that according to "secular scientists" they get to claim their "gospel" as fact as if they're teaching a science class. So many people, Christians included, have already compromised their foundational beliefs to make room for Darwinism and all of its related made-up storylines. They've compromised with ridiculous explanations such as theistic evolution or progressive creation or whatever and have unwittingly conceded the battleground in full. Christians need to understand (and teach their children to understand) that it's either God and the Bible or Darwin and evolution. They are mutually exclusive faith systems.
  12. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from trapperhoney in Evolution Evangelism   
    True, true, and true. The big problem is that according to "secular scientists" they get to claim their "gospel" as fact as if they're teaching a science class. So many people, Christians included, have already compromised their foundational beliefs to make room for Darwinism and all of its related made-up storylines. They've compromised with ridiculous explanations such as theistic evolution or progressive creation or whatever and have unwittingly conceded the battleground in full. Christians need to understand (and teach their children to understand) that it's either God and the Bible or Darwin and evolution. They are mutually exclusive faith systems.
  13. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in Evolution Evangelism   
     
    Exactly...it's a religion, and that's what just amazed me by this. They handled it in the exact same way that they despise Christians for "supposedly" doing; such as...
    They presented their "gospel" to people who didn't ask for it. (Don't they claim that we do just that? Why couldn't they keep their "gospel" to themselves instead of forcing it on others?) At the end of the presentation of their "gospel", they "pressured" their hearers for a decision. (Don't they claim that we do that?) Then they "pressured" their hearers to make a public profession of faith. (Don't they claim that we do that?) I guess the only thing missing was the chance for the kids to be baptized in a pond of primordial soup...in the name of Darwin, Dawkins, and Nye. 
    Boy...talk about hypocrisy!
    As to whether there will be repurcussions...that will depend on how many parents get in an uproar over it. The vast majority of Christians in this area send their kids to public school, and they're just as caught up in "school spirit" as the lost are. In fact, the one child who didn't accept the big bang as their savior was the child of a preacher (from what I understand). Even so, I doubt anything will happen...
     
  14. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Evolution Evangelism   
    Unfortunately, atheistic evolution is the religion of just about any public school system and it carries over into most universities, including many "Christian" universities.
  15. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Alan in Insects and the Flood   
    First, show me an example of proof that a virus spontaneously arose in a controlled environment and was definitely not a discovery of an already existing virus.
    Second, viruses are not living cells. It cannot reproduce itself without the presence of an actual living cell and has no source of power/energy.
    Third, since it is not a living creature in the way that bacteria, mammals, fish, or birds are, it presents to problem from a creationist/biblical perspective because God has not precluded Himself from introducing new viruses. In fact, it makes more sense that a plethora of new viruses would have been introduced as a judgment upon sinful man.
  16. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Insects and the Flood   
    First, show me an example of proof that a virus spontaneously arose in a controlled environment and was definitely not a discovery of an already existing virus.
    Second, viruses are not living cells. It cannot reproduce itself without the presence of an actual living cell and has no source of power/energy.
    Third, since it is not a living creature in the way that bacteria, mammals, fish, or birds are, it presents to problem from a creationist/biblical perspective because God has not precluded Himself from introducing new viruses. In fact, it makes more sense that a plethora of new viruses would have been introduced as a judgment upon sinful man.
  17. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Alan in Insects and the Flood   
    Wow, that is an excellent and astute question and one I don't think I've ever gotten before. It's not often someone makes me stop and think on an academic level, so thanks for that. The answer is actually kind of simple. What we've left out of this conversation so far is that there is a possibility in addition to an allele persisting or being lost, and this is an allele being damaged. A great example is human blood types which has three possible allele's (A, B, and O) that produce four different blood types (A, B, AB, O). The intriguing thing is that the O allele is, functionally, a damaged A allele that will not allow production of A traits on the outside of cells.
    This might sound a little bit odd, but denying evolution via a gain of genetic information through mutation does not necessarily mean we should deny that mutation never happens. Indeed, it happens all of the time, but it is deleterious or damaging. If a damaged allele is copied and propagated, it results in a different gene expressions, but that does not make it a new allele and it certainly does not add information to the genome.
  18. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from trapperhoney in John 3:13   
    Based on the Greek grammatical structure and logical flow of the passage, I currently lean toward #2 with a slightly different proof (omniscience vs. omnipresence). vv. 13-21 are a single literary unit that continues the Jesus' explanation to Nicodemus and v. 22 begins the next segment in the narrative timeline. Additionally, v. 13 begins with the conjunction "and" (Gk. kai meaning "and, even, also, namely") which is normally used to continue a thought or explanation rather than begin a new one.
    Finally, if you'll bear with me on this part...in the final phrase "which is in heaven" is a little bit of an awkward rendering for the way we speak today, but a nuance of "in" (Gk. en) is that it indicates prior association and can often carries a causal connotation such as "before." Therefore, what we have here is an assertion no one has gone up to heaven, but the one who came down from heaven (Jesus), has always been there and therefore has a deep and personal knowledge of the heavenly things that He was trying to communicate to Nicodemus in the prior 12 verses. What I think we have here in verse 13 is an assertion of first-hand knowledge of heaven that only Jesus could have if he was God.
    Those are my thoughts anyway.
  19. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to John81 in Spiritual Experience = Truth   
    The whole idea that "there have always been Baptists", that John the Baptist was the first Baptist, that the Apostles were Baptists, the first church (and then churches) were Baptist, and there is a line of Baptist churches from then to today (except they all used different names) is false.
    Nothing in Scripture points to Christians needing to draw an unbroken line between themselves and the Apostles. Many have tried to do so as a counter to the claims of the RCC that they are the one true church directly come from the Apostles and having existed since then.
    Trying to claim that dozens of different groups of Christians, known by various names, were actually Baptists even though they were not known as Baptists is stretching things to the point of absurdity. Those claimed to have been Baptists were all known by other names, all or most held to views most Baptists here would disagree with.
    Were the English, Germans and French of the 1300s actually Americans since so many Americans stem from them and in some cases had things in common? No, and the same holds true for those various groups of Christians which existed prior to Baptists.
    It's not the name "Baptist" that's important, it's the following of Christ. As we know from history and our current times, all Baptists, whether in America or around the world, are not one and the same. Even tracing the history of actual Baptists we see there have been several "branches" of Baptists with various doctrinal views.
    Why waste time trying to copy the RCC and proclaim Baptists as having an unbroken line of Apostolic authority? Scripture doesn't call for such. Scripture says Christians will be known for following Christ and those around will know true Christians by their love for one another.
    If we have a good Baptist church praise God for we are linked to God through Christ; not some timeline of Apostolic succession.
  20. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in Spiritual Experience = Truth   
    Categorization from a booklet does not a Baptist make. 
    Montanists were heretics in my view...but that's me. 
  21. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in Spiritual Experience = Truth   
    Montanism didn't die out in the 2nd century...
  22. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in Spiritual Experience = Truth   
    Modern-day "prophets", word of knowledgists, et al...
    ...proclaim that a "spiritual experience" equals truth regardless of God's word. They place whatever "spiritual experience" they experience above God's word. After all, "it" happened to them, so it must be true, and it must be of God...even when their "experience" opposes God's word.
    We have an entire movement that is experience-based. They want to experience God. They want to witness a miracle. They want to have a "feeling". They want a manifestation.
    We have an entire movement that exalts temporal feelings and experiences over faith. In their quest to "experience God", they will open themselves up to all kinds of false doctrines that will deliver the experience. It's truly sad, because faith is what pleases God.
    Does experience equal truth; therefore, it takes precedence over (and has more authority than) God's word?
    Peter had a true spiritual experience...he saw the Lord Jesus Christ transfigured, and he heard the voice of God. Yet, while recounting that experience in 2 Peter 1, he said this...
    2 Peter 1:19
    We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
    While Peter's experience was true and genuine, he placed God's word above his experience.
    Do you recall what the third commandment is?
    Exodus 20:7
    Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
    Sounds like God's name is important to him, doesn't it? Do you realize that God magnifies his word above his name?
    Psalms 138:2
    I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
    Yet, we have an entire movement that exalts and magnifies "experience" over God's word?
    The Israelites "experienced" God more than anyone. They experienced God day-after-day for forty years...they saw the miracles, they saw the manifestations...they experienced it. Yet God said...
    Numbers 14:11
    And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?
    Despite the experiences, they didn't believe God...they didn't have faith...and faith is what God wanted. He wanted them to believe; he wanted them to believe his word. All the experience did was cause them to believe the experience, and when they didn't experience God, they complained...like many in today's movement. When they don't "experience" God, they get dissatisfied.
    Can a child of God have a spiritual experience? Sure he can...
    He can experience heartfelt repentance. He can experience the joy of the Lord. He can experience heartfelt sorrow for those who are lost...etc.
    A person's spiritual experience doesn't determine truth separate from God's word. A person's spiritual experience doesn't usurp God's word. A person's spiritual experience doesn't take precedence over God's word, and a person's spiritual experience that opposes God's word isn't an experience from God.
    A true and biblical spiritual experience will be one that is a result of hearing or reading God's word.
    One final thought...
    Can a child of God have a supernatural experience with God? Yes, but it depends upon your meaning of "supernatural". God still performs miracles in people's lives today; however, God has plainly stated that it's faith that pleases him...faith in his word...not faith in experiences.
    Hebrews 11:6
    But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
    Romans 10:17
    So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
     
     
     
     
    Experiences will cause you to put your faith in experiences. That's what this whole "experience" movement is about. Experience, experience, experience.
    Do you want to experience God? Do you want something tangible? You already have it...you can hold it in your hands. God wants you to put your faith in his word.
     
     
  23. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Genevanpreacher in ...and all this time, I thought David killed Goliath!   
    While I agree with the comparison point by NN and DaveW, there's actually a little more nuance to the explanation that makes it all a little more concrete. In 1 Ch 20:5, "Goliath" is preceded by "achi" which specifies "brother of", thus "brother of Goliath" is clear. In 2 Sam 21:19, Goliath is preceded by "et". This is an untranslatable word that can is used as either a particle to designate a definite direct object (i.e. divides the subject/nominative and predicate/accusative parts of a sentence), or signify "with" or "among" for the following word.
    In essence, then, what we have in 2 Sam 21:19 is probably an example of the latter that would woodenly read something like "...slew among/with Goliath the Gittite".  Here's the really cool part, 2 Samuel was written at a time when the immediate audience would be well aware of who Elhanan killed and therefore it wasn't necessary for the author to be as explicit, but rather used elliptical language. 1 Chronicles, on the other hand, was written centuries later to an audience who would not have been as immediately familiar with the events, and the author therefore needed to be explicit.
    What we have in the KJV appears to be both a comparison and a faithful rendering of the text as it was intended.
  24. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Theology Proper   
    Thanks NN. I'm always glad to have extra resources. Unfortunately, Theology Proper was my least favorite theology course. I suppose if I can make it through writing this first section I'll be on to something!
  25. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in Theology Proper   
    Here is my course outline. You're probably already familiar with everything, but if not, perhaps it might give you an extra idea or two.
    Forgive the periodic scribble...
    Edited to add: I don't know why they're out of order...the one without a number in parenthesis is the first page, and the numbers in parenthesis denote the remaining order of the pages.
    Scan_20151013_(2).pdf
    Scan_20151013_(4).pdf
    Scan_20151013.pdf
    Scan_20151013_(3).pdf
×
×
  • Create New...