Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

TheSword

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    1,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from HappyChristian in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    Depends on the dictionary but I'd say they're about as reliable as Webster's 1828 (which I also use regularly btw) or Oxford English Dictionary. As the Webster 1828 aptly demonstrates, any dictionary is a snapshot in time due to definitional drift; but I believe there are some that are quite accurate to Koine Greek usage in/around the 1st century.
  2. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Ukulelemike in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    And there we go-this is why sometimes we need to look something up. I made an ASSUMPTION of the meaning and was found incorrect. Strongs gives even more definitions to the word, including evil, wicked, etc. So, a great case-in-point as to why sometimes it IS good to look at meanings in the Greek, Hebrew, (if we can), or an earlier dictionary.
    I stand corrected, thank you.
    Actually, it wasn't written in Elizabethan English. Correctly, it was written in Jamesian English, (as it tends to be named after the ruler), but even more so, because some of the terms don't even fit the proper English of the time-it was altered somewhat, even using words in ways that were archaic even then, because they better fit the language found in the ancient writings.
  3. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from trapperhoney in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    I've found Greek and Hebrew to be very helpful in illuminating the KJV word usage. English just isn't always great at expressing things coming from highly inflected languages like Greek and Hebrew (e.g. mood, case, tense, etc.) and so sometimes I just find it helpful to see what the underlying reasons for word usage or word order that may seem a little awkward at first in English. As a very simple and benign example...
    Greek has no set word order and sentences are formed by inflecting words to show how they relate. More often than not, word order is used to show emphasis to make a point. In English, John 1:1 reads:
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Pretty clear in English, no real need for a word study here. The Greek word order reads:
    In beginning was the word and the word was with the God and God was the Word.
    The only thing that's really different is the last phrase (the Word was God vs. God was the Word). The truth conveyed is the same but the Greek word order makes it the deity of Christ and His oneness with God so much more emphatic. It doesn't change anything. It's not earthshattering. It's just illuminating.
    Another reason I like looking into original languages is the way words tend to have multiple meanings and what a possible meaning in an English word may be completely out of bounds for the Greek/Hebrew word it was translated from and vice versa. Another simple and benign example...
    People like to argue over where exactly the nail was driven during crucifixion (hand vs. wrist vs. forearm). Some people read "hand" and dogmatically say it can only mean through the palm. Others go with the anatomical argument say it had to have been in the wrist or forearm because it would have ripped out of His hand. Well, the Greek word used for "hand" (see Luke 24:39 for an example) covers everything from the elbow to the fingertip, so it really doesn't matter where the nail was placed.
    No truth was changed. No doctrine was challenged. All we did was clarify the intended meaning.
    Another, more pertinent example. The English usage of "baptize" has taken on a variety of meanings that validates sprinkling and pouring and confines it to religious ritual. However, the Greek word can only be taken to mean full immersion, thus clarifying an important doctrinal position without having to examine and argue from every example of baptism found in the Bible to see exactly how they did it.
    These examples are really simple and have no great impact and this type of word study makes up probably 80%-90% of valid word studies in the original languages. However, the rest can make big differences in the interpretation of things such as election/predestination that have enormous doctrinal impact. In every case, though, all it should do is make the intended meaning clear when the English rendering appears to leave more than one possibility on the table and people choose the one that suits them rather than the one that was intended.
  4. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from trapperhoney in Fundamentals   
    That's a really good list of resources, and I really like a lot of Cloud's material. Unfortunately, there isn't much circulation and you have to know about them to find them and they are generally history or single-topic works rather than a fully developed systematic theology. What I would love to see is a quality fundamental systematic theology on common store bookshelves that the average person can reach for instead of some of the Calvinist and liberal garbage currently published. The problem is, nobody who is capable wants to go to the trouble to do it.
  5. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from trapperhoney in Fundamentals   
    There really isn't unfortunately. Most IFB theologians who are capable of doing it are wholly engaged in ministry. That's not at all a bad thing, it just leaves the bookshelves a little replete of quality material. If I can ever find a way to pay for a doctorate (and rebuild my wife's patience for schooling), I'd like to write one. We'll just have to see what the Lord's plan is on that one.
  6. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Miss Daisy in Russia blocks world’s biggest porn site for endangering children   
    I read a ghastly quote from one of my textbooks on missions yesterday...it pointed out that America, the supposed most-Christianized country in the world, is the worlds largest producer of pornography. How indicting....
  7. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Cleftoftherock in How many second comings?   
    From a dispensationalist perspective, I would say a couple things. First, like John81 said, the Second Coming is an overall end-times event and not necessarily a single action. Second, I personally do not consider the  rapture (I.e. Christ coming for the saints) as a "Second Coming" because His presence never comes to the earth. Rather, we meet him in the clouds and return with him to Heaven. His physical Second Coming and presence on earth will not happen until the end of the Tribulation when the Millennial Kingdom is established.
  8. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Ukulelemike in How many second comings?   
    As I understand, the rapture, so-called, is not a 'coming', as he does not come to earth, regardless of the timing. his actual coming is directly after the wrath of God falls, with the seven vials of wrath, then in rev 19, is His coming. It is the same coming as we see in Zechariah 14-in both He destroys the nations coming against Israel. The sheep and goats judgment take places after His coming, when He takes His throne, and judges those of the nations that came against Israel-not the armies, but the people who lived in those nations. They are separated according to their treatment of the people of God when they are presecuted, whether they had compassion upon the or not: those who did were brought into the kingdom bodily, (and those are they mentioned in Zechariah 14:16, who will come year to year to worship Christ in Jerusalem), while the goats who had no compassion, will be cast into Hell. This begins the millennial reign of Christ.  So only one coming, only one return.
  9. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Ukulelemike in Fundamentals   
    Well, Spurgeon, despite being pretty Calvinist, was also very evangelistic, so it almost negates his Calvinism. Not completely, but some.
  10. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Genevanpreacher in Fundamentals   
    Correct, I would say a post-trib/pre-wrath position would not inherently exclude you from fundamentalism. I would say the preponderance of eschatological issues do not have any direct bearing on the issue. In truth, fundamentalism has always transcended denominations that have wildly different views on the topic. Now, if we were to talk about the Independent Fundamental Baptist variety of fundamentalism, it gets a little more narrow and most are traditionally dispensationlist of some variety, but even then I don't know that it gets more specific than that in most places. I would assert that fundamentalism is not a monolithic movement beyond the aforementioned 5 fundamentals of the faith. I would also agree that other things like you mentioned have crept in as a benchmark in some circles, but I don't think it necessitates exclusion from the ranks (as it were). For example, there are so many varieties of KJV-only, which has become another hallmark of fundamentalism, and we see that here on this website alone.
  11. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Genevanpreacher in Fundamentals   
    For this answer, I'll re-post my original.
    From a historical perspective, the rise of Fundamentalism and what defined it were the above 5 issues. Without these, the Christian faith is either undermined or altogether not at all Christian, which is why the became the benchmark way back when (early 1900s I believe). Additionally, without these one cannot have any assurance of salvation, even though they are not all salvation-specific issues. I would argue that fundamentalism today, including the IFB variety, still holds on to these 5 tenets, even if they have added something to them.
  12. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Defining 'the Holy Spirit gift of tongues'   
    Another thing you have to realize about 1 Cor 13:1-2 is that Paul is not affirming that he speaks in angelic language or even that there is an angelic language. Rather, if you look at critically, you'll see that it is a conditional statement that should be read something like "even if I spoke with the tongues of men and of angels." I could go into a deeper explanation from the Greek, but it is entirely a rhetorical "if" statement akin to "even if I could jump 30 feet in the air, it wouldn't matter if I was in a building with 12-foot ceilings." Paul's statement is that it doesn't matter what language someone speaks or how eloquently they speak, if they do it without love it's completely useless.
  13. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from trapperhoney in Fundamentals   
    Correct, I would say a post-trib/pre-wrath position would not inherently exclude you from fundamentalism. I would say the preponderance of eschatological issues do not have any direct bearing on the issue. In truth, fundamentalism has always transcended denominations that have wildly different views on the topic. Now, if we were to talk about the Independent Fundamental Baptist variety of fundamentalism, it gets a little more narrow and most are traditionally dispensationlist of some variety, but even then I don't know that it gets more specific than that in most places. I would assert that fundamentalism is not a monolithic movement beyond the aforementioned 5 fundamentals of the faith. I would also agree that other things like you mentioned have crept in as a benchmark in some circles, but I don't think it necessitates exclusion from the ranks (as it were). For example, there are so many varieties of KJV-only, which has become another hallmark of fundamentalism, and we see that here on this website alone.
  14. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from trapperhoney in Fundamentals   
    For this answer, I'll re-post my original.
    From a historical perspective, the rise of Fundamentalism and what defined it were the above 5 issues. Without these, the Christian faith is either undermined or altogether not at all Christian, which is why the became the benchmark way back when (early 1900s I believe). Additionally, without these one cannot have any assurance of salvation, even though they are not all salvation-specific issues. I would argue that fundamentalism today, including the IFB variety, still holds on to these 5 tenets, even if they have added something to them.
  15. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from trapperhoney in Fundamentals   
    I have to disagree with you a little bit on this resource for trapperhoney's stated purpose. This was one of my textbooks in seminary, and truly it is a very good one. However, it's more of an overview of all flavors of Christian doctrine from the various time periods and the major contributors. It does go through all of the major doctrines, but not necessarily from a fundamental perspective specifically. If you want to get a sense of how the various denominations and theological school (e.g. Calvinists, Arminians, Charismatics, etc.) view the different doctrines, it is an excellent book. However, if you're looking for something that lays out the doctrines from a fundamental perspective, I don't think you'll get much out of this book.
    If your intent is to teach Bible doctrines (even a full systematic theology) from a fundamental perspective, I would highly recommend Abeka's Bible Doctrines for Today.
    http://www.abeka.com/abekaonline/bookdescription.aspx?sbn=101222
    It's a 12th grade book so it should be easy for just about anyone to go through while being thorough enough for an adult. I would not consider it an exhaustive resource, but it is a great book to start with for teaching fundamentals.
    Chafer is "ok." He was one of the early leaders in Dispensationalism (which has gone through many positive updates since his involvment), but he was a staunch Calvinist. You won't be able to use his work for anything related to soteriology (salvation) or ecclesiology (church) and it would be questionable for hamartiology (sin) and eschatology (last things).
    I have not yet found a systematic theology that I am willing to fully endorse. Millard Erickson's Christian Theology (http://www.christianbook.com/christian-theology-third-edition-millard-erickson/9780801036439/pd/036439?event=ESRCG) was our main seminary textbook. He leans Calvinist in several places and makes compromises on creation, but generally gives an objective treatment of all sides of each doctrine before giving his opinion. I would classify it as a "read with discernment" resource.
    I have not read it yet, but based on other books of his that I've read, I would like to check out Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology: In One Volume. I obviously can't endorse it without reading, but his other books have been solid.
  16. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from beameup in How many second comings?   
    From a dispensationalist perspective, I would say a couple things. First, like John81 said, the Second Coming is an overall end-times event and not necessarily a single action. Second, I personally do not consider the  rapture (I.e. Christ coming for the saints) as a "Second Coming" because His presence never comes to the earth. Rather, we meet him in the clouds and return with him to Heaven. His physical Second Coming and presence on earth will not happen until the end of the Tribulation when the Millennial Kingdom is established.
  17. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Invicta in Defining 'the Holy Spirit gift of tongues'   
    Another thing you have to realize about 1 Cor 13:1-2 is that Paul is not affirming that he speaks in angelic language or even that there is an angelic language. Rather, if you look at critically, you'll see that it is a conditional statement that should be read something like "even if I spoke with the tongues of men and of angels." I could go into a deeper explanation from the Greek, but it is entirely a rhetorical "if" statement akin to "even if I could jump 30 feet in the air, it wouldn't matter if I was in a building with 12-foot ceilings." Paul's statement is that it doesn't matter what language someone speaks or how eloquently they speak, if they do it without love it's completely useless.
  18. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Ronda in Will our beloved pets be in Heaven?   
    Yeah, I thought about that, and it's certainly true. However, there's no focused account on the creation of any animal the way there is on Man so I wouldn't expect specific statement like that to be anywhere else. It's just not a point of interest for the purpose of Scripture. Since the Bible doesn't say that they definitively do or don't I can't make any dogmatic statement one way or the other.
  19. 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.
  20. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle 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.
  21. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from MountainChristian 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.
  22. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in John 3:13   
    Genevanpreacher makes a valid point. Just because the words are in red, that doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus spoke them. While I believe that the vast majority of what is written in red are indeed Christ's words, and the vast majority of words written in red are easily seen as belonging to Christ...it's still man's opinion that the words in red are Christ's words. Red letters are an addition by man...the New Testament wasn't written with Christ's words in red.
    With that said, I see it in one of two ways...and I'm not sure which one I lean toward.
    This was John speaking about Christ; not Christ speaking about himself. This was Christ speaking about himself, and it is proof that he is God by showing he is omnipresent. As to the question about Enoch and Elijah...
    They both went to heaven. The key word is "ascended". Neither Enoch nor Elijah ascended to heaven on their own like Christ did.
    Enoch was "TAKEN" to heaven (by God). Elijah was also "TAKEN" to heaven (in a chariot of fire). Christ ascended on his own.  
  23. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Donald in A good ensample   
    This morning, I was studying in 1Peter 5: and came across the word “ensample”, and as usual, I simply read it as “example” and started to move on....
    Then I thought that I should make sure, that “ensample” us indeed identical to our word “example”, so I dug into it some more.
    First of all, I nailed it down that they are identical: But I continued studying this word, when I found that this English word example, was translated from 4 or 5 different Greek words.  Then I made a marvelous discovery in 1 Peter 2:21.....
    “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:”
    The Greek word used for the English word “example” in this verse, is only found “one time” in the Bible and it has a specific and unique definition in the application of this verse.(I will leave it to you, to discover this application for yourself;)
    ------------------------
    But in this discovery, I realized how VALUABLE it is, for every serious Bible student to have a copy of Strong’s concordance available to them, for situations just like this.
    Then it came to mind, that this “could be”, a reason to compare other English translations(in my study of the Bible): Maybe..., some other version could actually be more “scholarly” than the KJB.  Therefore, even though I am a KJB man(all the way), I went to the internet and looked up, how a few of the most popular modern versions, would state 1Peter 2:21, to see if any of them would give any hint, of the unique quality of the word “example”, found in this verse.
    I am here to report, that for all the effort that is put into all these other modern translations, it is just a bunch of hooey.  We have not been missing ANYTHING, by sticking to our old KJB.
     
  24. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Covenanter in My personal life   
    One thing you have to consider in this is what your marriage/non-marriage says to unbelieving world and young people who can be influenced by your situation. Truly, it's not about a piece of paper, tax benefits, a ring, or even a ceremony. Rather, it is about making a public commitment to one another and entering into a lifelong covenant not just with each other, but with God. Marriage is not about how you live, it is about commitment and it's a reflection of God's character.
  25. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to OLD fashioned preacher in Bible College   
    Every man needs a PhD - Post hole Digger
×
×
  • Create New...