Jump to content

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    2,346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    137

Everything posted by Pastor Scott Markle

  1. Brother Wayne, I know a pastor who preaches both confrontation and commendation unto both the men and the women of the church at appropriate times and through appropriate passages. Indeed, I even know that that same pastor has preached on 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 in the public service of the church (carefully, yet publicly).
  2. Wow! I was out for the whole day, and while I was gone this thread discussion exploded a bit. Brother Paul Christian, Throughout this thread discussion you have now said some things with which I have hearty agreement. However, you have also said some things with which I would have definite disagreement. Now, I do not present that in order to "stir the pot" in anyway, and I do not have any spirit of animosity. I had been pondering over the weekend whether to engage some of the earlier points of disagreement. However, I am now leaning away from doing so simply because so much conversation has proceeded.
  3. Then you might want to check out what God's Holy Word says about who all wears a skirt.
  4. Ok, to me the opening post is a bit confusing. Might it be clearly listed -- What specifically are the characteristics (by demeanor and behavior) that are specifically that of the female, by which the male should never be characterized?
  5. I am not aware that some of these things are actually in the verse presented: 1. "A woman should be wearing clothing that is . . . CLEARLY feminine at an instant glance . . ." Does the verse actually say that? 2. "A woman should be wearing clothing that is . . . CLEARLY feminine at an instant glance from far away . . ." Does the verse actually say that? 3. "A woman should be wearing clothing that is . . CLEARLY feminine at an instant glance from far away without looking at body features to identify their gender." Does the verse actually say that? Does the verse actually say that this principle is about the identification of a male or female from a far away distance through their clothing? Another question -- Does God's Word indicate at all that there is such a thing as a unisex garment?
  6. In your earlier posting you had specified those two times as John 20:19 & Acts 20:7. As such, you excluded Acts 2:1-ff from your recognition as a New Testament account concerning the first day of the week. At the time of my "????" response, I was not yet aware of your Biblical ignorance concerning the fact that the Day of Pentecost was ALWAYS on a Sunday. Thus my "???" were intended as a challenge against your exclusion of Acts 2:1-ff from your list. You acknowledged John 20:19 & Acts 20:7 as two times. Based upon the Biblical facts concerning the Day of Pentecost, you should have at least acknowledged three times. I was not questioning your reference to "weekly gatherings." I was questioning and challenging your statement concerning "only 2 times."
  7. Actually, the great majority of Independent, Fundamental Baptists that I know believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified on Wednesday. I myself believe strongly that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified on Thursday. I myself am not aware of a single Independent, Fundamental Baptist who holds that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified on Friday, no, not even a single one.
  8. My question marks were not about "weekly gatherings." Rather, they were about your own handling of Acts 2:1-ff. Based upon your comments in the following posting: . . . It appears to me that you have not studied God's Word enough to know that the Day of Pentecost was ALWAYS on a Sunday, or enough to know that the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was in direct fulfillment of Christ's promise as per Luke 24:49; John 14:16-17; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7-15.
  9. Romans 16:17-18 -- "Now I BESEECH YOU, brethren, MARK THEM which cause divisions and offenses CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE which ye have learned; AND AVOID THEM. For they that are such SERVE NOT OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches DECEIVE THE HEARTS OF THE SIMPLE."
  10. By the way, the reason that whole nations and people groups were converted unto Christ throughout church history was NOT because of the scientists, but was because of faithful preachers and missionaries who sacrificed all for the cause of Christ and His gospel. (Note: "Logic" CANNOT carry forward its process correctly if it does not handle all information with precise accuracy.)
  11. (Hmmmm, I am having to try this a different way because the forum is giving me troubles about posting.) Mr. Thomas, I am not certain that your above posting was at all directed toward my previous communications and challenges toward you; however, I would point out a few problems with your above posting -- 1. You assert that "God created logic" and that "God made the study of logic." Have you first proven those assertions by any authoritative means, or are those assertions simply two of your assumed premises? Remember that "logic" begins with one or more premises; therefore, when we engage in the process of logic, it is of value for us to recognize our starting premises. If an individual cannot make that recognition, then an individual cannot engage in the process of logic correctly. (As for myself, I would agree that God created human logic; however, I would also contend that the sin nature in man has corrupted that creation, such that human logic is NOT inerrant, but is actually and often errant. Thus I would further contend that human logic cannot be trusted as the FOUNDATION for truth. On the other hand, I am not at all sure that I would agree with your assertion that "God made the STUDY of logic." I am not aware of ANY divinely revealed principles for following the process of logic, which would be required if God Himself actually made the STUDY thereof. Now, I myself am quite familiar with the principles and processes of logic; and this familiarity is one of the very reasons why I reject human logic as the FOUNDATION for truth, although I DO employ human logic in my processes of Bible study.) (Well, let us see if this posting works. If so, then more to follow.) (Well, look at that, it worked. Let us now see if this attempt also works.) 2. You seem to assert that the primary reason we are losing society from Christ unto wickedness is because we have removed logic from our system of Christianity. Through this assertion you appear to make "logic" central to the core of Biblical Christianity. However, as I study God's Holy Word, I find that CHRIST, not logic, is the central core of Biblical Christianity. In fact, Colossians 2:3 declares concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." In addition, Colossians 2:6-8 further adds the following instruction and warning, "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord [that would be - through faith], so walk ye in Him [that would also be - through faith]: rooted and built up in Him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. BEWARE lest any man spoil you THROUGH PHILOSOPHY and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST." (As for myself, I most certainly will not listen to ANY philosopher (whether he claims to be Christian or not) who teaches in contradiction "to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness" (See 1 Timothy 6:3).) 3. As I mentioned in the previous point, you seem to assert that the primary reason we are losing society from Christ unto wickedness is because we have removed logic from our system of Christianity. However, God's own Word in Romans 1:18-23 asserts something different concerning society, saying, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, WHEN THEY KNEW GOD, THEY GLORIFIED HIM NOT AS GOD, neither were thankful; BUT BECAME VAIN IN THEIR IMAGINATIONS, AND THEIR FOOLISH HEART WAS DARKENED. PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 1:20-31 declares, "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world BY WISDOM KNEW NOT GOD, it pleased God BY THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: BUT WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that NOT many wise men after the flesh, NOT many mighty, NOT many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption; that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." (As for me, it would appear then that the real reason we are losing society is NOT because we have cast aside the wisdom of philosophical logic, BUT because we have cast aside the foolishness of preaching Christ.) Now then -- 1. Your foundational authority for truth appears to be LOGIC. 2. Whereas my foundational authority for truth is GOD'S WORD. You initiated this thread discussion with a challenge against my foundational authority for truth, asking if God's Word is truly inerrant, or if it might actually be errant. In return, I have challenged your foundational authority for truth, asking if human logic (and even more precisely - Mr. Thomas' ability in logic) is inerrant, or might actually be errant. Can you defend the inerrancy of human logic; and even more precisely, can you defend the inerrancy of your own ability in logic?
  12. Hello. Just checking, because the forum does not seem to want to let me post.
  13. Mr. Thomas, I am not quite certain that I am understanding "the two" that you are intending to reference. IF by "the two" you mean (1) inspiration and (2) inerrancy, then I would express the following: 1. Divine inspiration is the foundation for Biblical inerrancy. 2. Divine inspiration is the source and origin for God's Holy Word, whereas Biblical inerrancy is the result of that divine inspiration. (That is -- IF Scripture is inspired of God, THEN it follows that Scripture is inerrant, since God Himself is inerrant.) That ALL Scripture is inspired of God as per 2 Timothy 3:16, such that God the Holy Spirit specifically and precisely moved the human penmen of Scripture to communicate God's Holy Word with "jot and tittle" accuracy as per 2 Peter 1:20-21, is my personal belief system. As such, since I would hold that God the Holy Spirit Himself is perfectly inerrant, I would further hold that the product of His personally inspired Scriptures are also inerrant ("true and righteous altogether"). Even so, in ALL Bible study I begin with these premises, such that in Bible study I do NOT set up myself as a judge over the possible errancy of God's Holy Word, but I set up God's Holy Word as a judge over my own errancy. (Note: All genuine logical processes begin with at least one or more premise. In your own earlier postings, you claim to approach the inerrancy or errancy of any portion in Scripture with neutrality, claiming this as the best approach and claiming that your own logic is the means by which you make your judgment thereof. In this manner, you have taken up some premises, such as: 1. Human logic is an accurate tool by which to examine the truthfulness of Scripture. 2. You yourself have a sufficient grasp of the "logic-tool" to employ its process accurately in general. 3. You yourself have a sufficient grasp of the "logic-tool" to employ its process accurately over the content of Scripture. I wonder if you first approached these premises with neutrality BEFORE you began to engage in your "logical" examinations of Scripture.)
  14. Mr. Thomas, Although you presented the above answer to Brother Alan, I wish to make comment on it. I believe that the above answer reveals the real reason that you are struggling with assurance of faith in the Bible (God's Holy Word). In your present system of belief, you do NOT fully believe that the Bible is wholly God's Holy Word. You appear to have a low view of Biblical inspiration, a low view of Biblical preservation, and a low view of providential translation. As such, you seem to have a system of belief wherein whole portions (and maybe even many portions) of the Bible are simply the thoughts and interpretations of men, not the very (jot and tittle) words of God. I can agree that IF I viewed the Bible (or at least portions of the Bible) as being simply sourced in men, I would also question its errancy (at least in those portions); for it is a certain fact that men are errant. On the other hand, since I believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16), and that no portion of Scripture originated out of "any private interpretation" of men or "by the will of man," but that "holy men of God spake [communicated] as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (See 2 Peter 1:20-21), thus I believe that all Scripture is "true and righteous altogether" (See Psalm 19:9). Even so, accepting the sincerity of your plea and truly seeking to help you, I would contend that your real problem and struggle is NOT with the errancy or inerrancy of the Bible, but is with the doctrines of inspiration and preservation. I would contend that until you come unto full assurance of faith in the Biblical doctrines of inspiration and preservation, you will ALWAYS struggle with the question of errancy.
  15. The foundation for truth is NOT human logic. The foundation for truth is BIBLICAL REVELATION!!! Human logic is the foundation for human philosophy; and if an individual is not careful, human philosophy will lead astray. Human logic (just as human emotion) is of value WHEN it is sanctified by the Holy Spirit; HOWEVER, human logic is NOT the FOUNDATION for truth. In fact, when it is not sanctified by the Holy Spirit, human logic (as well as human emotion) will be faulty and corrupt, and will thus lead into error. Those who have full assurance of faith in the Lord our God will believe the revelation of God's Holy Word specifically because GOD INSPIRED it, not because they were able to "logic it out."
  16. Brother Jim, I am fairly familiar with the church in question, since Melvin Baptist Church (the church wherein I pastor) and Emmanuel Baptist Church have maintained a level of fellowship over the past many years. Most of the core membership are older couples, and many of those are on a fixed income (not large). They probably could provide some small amount to a pastor, but that amount would very likely NOT be enough for the pastor to support his family.
  17. Yes, Brother Alan, it is VERY LIKELY that the pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Sandusky, would need a side job to support his family.
  18. Hmmmm. Brother Young, I am compelled to disagree with your understanding of Numbers 31:16-24 and with your understanding of Joshua 22:16-19. Concerning Numbers 31:16-24: 1. In verse 16 Moses did indicate that the women of Midian, "through the counsel of Balaam," had caused the children of Israel "to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor." 2. In verse 16 Moses did indicate that this trespass against LORD resulted in "a plague among the congregation of the LORD." (By the way, neither Numbers 25 nor Numbers 31 say anything about a plague being anywhere other than "among the congregation" of Israel.) 3. In verses 17-18 Moses did instruct the soldiers to kill all of the male children and all of the non-virgin females of Midian. (Note: They had ALREADY killed all of the adult males of Midian when they conquered them.) On the other hand, he instructed them to keep alive all of the virgin females of Midian. Yet Moses said not a single word about this being in order to deal with some plague/disease that might have existed among the Midianites. (Indeed, IF this was in order to deal with some plague of STD, why were the MALE children killed, while keeping alive the FEMALE virgins?) 4. In verse 19 Moses did instruct the soldiers and their spoils (including the female virgins of Midian) to remain "without the camp seven days," but he did not say a single word about this being to protect the congregation of Israel from some plague. 5. In verse 19 Moses did instruct the soldiers to "purify" all of their captive Midianites and any soldier that had killed someone or that had touched a dead body. Yet this did NOT require a purifying of those who might only have touched a LIVING Midianite. (Note: IF a plague of STD was the problem, then touching ANY Midianite, living or dead, should have been a problem for possibly passing that plague along.) 6. In verse 20 Moses did instruct the soldiers to "purify" all of their raiment, all that was made of animal skins, all that was made with goats' hair, and all that was made with wood; but he did not say a single word about this being to deal with any plague contagion. 7. In verses 21-24 Eleazar instructed the soldiers concerning the burning of that which would burn and the cleansing by water of all else, including their clothing on the seventh day; but he did not say a single word about this being to deal with any plague contagion. 8. In fact, there is NOT a single word about plague anywhere throughout verses 17-24. The ONLY mention of plague in this entire context is in verse 16; and that mention grammatically places that plague in the PAST TENSE ("And there WAS a plague among the congregation of the LORD"). Furthermore, that mention of plague in verse 16 ONLY speaks about a plague that was past tense "AMONG THE CONGREGATION" of Israel (not among the Midianite peoples or nation). 9. Thus any insertion of plague among the Midianites is CONJECTURE, and any insertion of dealing with plague through the cleansings of verses 17-24 is CONJECTURE. It is going BEYOND the revelation of Scripture. Concerning Joshua 22:16-19: 1. In Joshua 22:1-9 the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh have completed their obligation to help the other tribes of Israel to conquer the land of Canaan, and are thus permitted to return unto their designated land on the east side of Jordan as promised by the Lord through Moses in Numbers 32:16-33. There is NO indication throughout Joshua 22:1-9 that there is anything wrong, defiled, unclean, or plagued about this land. In fact, in verse 4 that land is described as the land of their possession, which Moses the servant of the LORD had given them on the other side Jordan; and in verse 9 that land is described as "the land of their possession, whereof they were possessed, according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses." Furthermore, there is NO indication throughout Joshua 22:1-9 that after they returned unto this land of their possession, they would be required to engage in ANY manner of purifying for the land. (Note: IF this land was defiled, unclean, or plagued, then their women and children had spent the entirety of the time that they had been helping the other tribes of Israel in such a plague infested land, as per Numbers 32:16-27.) 2. In Joshua 22:10 the problem is raised in that the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh built an alter by Jordan, "a great altar to see to." In fact, throughout verses 11-16 the ALTAR is the problem -- "And the children of Israel heard say, Behold, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar over against the land of Canaan, in the borders of Jordan, at the passage of the children of Israel. And when the children of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up to war against them. And the children of Israel sent unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, into the land of Gilead, Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and with him ten princes, of each chief house a prince throughout all the tribes of Israel; and each one was an head of the house of their fathers among the thousands of Israel. And they came unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, unto the land of Gilead, and they spake with them, saying, Thus saith the whole congregation of the LORD, What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the LORD, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the LORD?" Indeed, the rest of Israel initially viewed the building of this ALTAR as a trespass committed against the God of Israel, as a turning away from the Lord, and as a rebellion against the LORD. 3. In Joshua 22:17-18 the rest of the children of Israel challenge the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh with the following question -- "Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day, although there was a plague in the congregation of the LORD, but that ye must turn away this day from following the LORD?" With this question they do NOT ask whether they were not cleansed from the plague of Peor. Rather, they ask whether they were not cleansed from the INIQUITY of Peor. Furthermore, with this question they reference the plague as being PAST TENSE; and they ONLY reference the plague as being "in the congregation of the LORD," NOT as being in any body of land. Finally, with this question they indicate their concern, NOT that some plague might continue to infest, but that the INIQUITY of turning away "from following the LORD" might continue. 4. In the closing portion of Joshua 22:18 and in verse 20, the rest of the children of Israel express their concern that a trespass by the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh might cause the Lord God to "be wroth with the WHOLE congregation of Israel," even as in the case of Achan. 5. In Joshua 22:19 the rest of the children of Israel offer the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh that IF they had found their land to be unclean, they could always move to the western side of Jordan with the rest of the children of Israel. 6. In Joshua 22:20-29 the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh explain their decision to build the alter, NOT AT ALL as a rebellion against the Lord, NOT AT ALL as an altar for sacrifices, and NOT AT ALL as a replacement for the alter of the Lord in tabernacle, but ONLY as a memorial of witness between them and the rest of the children of Israel that ALL were a part of the same people and the same covenant. 7. In Joshua 22:30-34 the rest of the children of Israel express approval for this altar as a memorial of witness, and thus return unto the land of Canaan with NO FURTHER CONCERNS. Indeed, the chapter ends positively with NO concern about any unclean, plague infested land, and with NO purifying activity of any kind. (Note: IF, as you say, the land was still infested with plague, then I would expect something to have been done about that, or at least some concern about it.) Remember, in Joshua 22:19 the rest of the children of Israel had offered that IF the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh had found their land to be unclean, they could always move to the western side of Jordan with the rest of the children of Israel. Since this chapter concludes positively with NO move by them from their land, it would appear that they were NOT AT ALL concerned that the land was at all unclean.
  19. Indeed, Scripture clearly defines the sin of Israel as follows: Numbers 25:1-3 -- 1. "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab." The sin of fornication. 2. "And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods." The sin of idolatry. 3. "And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor." The sin of idolatry. "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel." Indeed, Scripture clearly indicates that "there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD" because the women of Midian had "caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor." (See Numbers 31:16) However, the Scriptures do NOT actually say that this plague was "contracted" through sexual transmission FROM the women of Midian or Moab. That part is CONJECTURE. Indeed, Scripture clearly indicates that 24,000 Israelites died from this plague. (See Numbers 25:9) Indeed, Scripture clearly reveals how this plague upon the children of Israel was ended as follows: Numbers 25:7-8 -- "And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel." This one act by Eleazar ended the plague, NOT the killing, burning, washing, and quarantine of Numbers 31:17-24. Indeed, the application of this account is Scripturally revealed for us today -- 1. That we should not engage in fornication lest our Lord God's anger be kindled against us. 2. That we should not engage in idolatry lest our Lord God's anger be kindled against. Here then is the problem: Calling this plague something more than a PLAGUE, by specifically defining the category of this plague's nature, is going beyond the revelation of Scripture. Furthermore, specifically calling this plague an "STD" then influences one's view on how they CONTRACTED this plague, since by definition an STD is contracted/transmitted through sexual activity FROM the sexual partner. Finally, having called this plague an STD and concluding that it was contracted FROM the Midianite women then influences one's application concerning how to deal with fornication, fornicators, and STDs today.
  20. I myself would confidently contend that "plague" in these contexts means a physical disease of some kind. On the other hand, I would contend that it is conjecture to state that this physical disease was necessarily an STD of some kind for these contexts, or that it was contracted directly from the women with whom they fornicated. I would agree that STD would be a sound consideration for such a phrase as "a disease that is spread BY fornication." However, I am NOT aware of any Biblical passage that uses such a phrase.
  21. I assume that in this thread discussion we are speaking only about the doctrine of salvation (soteriology). As such . . . Of the five points commonly argued, I would hold to ZERO points with Calvinism, THREE points with Arminianism, and TWO points with neither one.
  22. Indeed. So, if we take the Hebrew particle "ehth" (which stands just before the word Goliath in the Hebrew text) as meaning "with, at, by, near" (which it sometimes and often means), then a strictly literal translation would be -- ". . . Where Alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one with Goliath . . ." or -- ". . . Where alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one near Goliath . . ." However, it must be understood that in this context the words "with" or "near" do NOT indicate spacial or locational connection, but indicate relational connection, that is -- one who was "with" or "near" Goliath in relationship (such as Goliath's brother). Now, under the heading of this thread discussion, you presented this case as a "goof" or "booboo" in the King James translation. However, a strict consideration of the Hebrew text reveals that this is NOT a "goof" or "booboo" at all. I am SURE that it is best to translate as most accurate to the original text as possible without engaging in outright conjecture. The Hebrew text does NOT say anything about a nickname anywhere, ether for Goliath himself or for the individual references in 2 Samuel 21:19. Therefore, I see no need to conjecture about it.
  23. Hmmmm. The English language is known to have existed in three forms, each of which are viewed as being different enough to classify as different languages: 1. Classical English 2. Middle English 3. Elizabethan English (which is the very origin and foundation for the English that we speak today) Now, the English language is indeed a living language, and thus every year it experiences changes in word creation and word nuances. Thus it may be acknowledged that present day English has some variations from the origins of Elizabethan English (primarily in the creation of many new words and word nuances). Yet the grammatical construction of the King James translation, which at present is that of the grammatical and spelling revision of 1769, is NOT contrary to the English of the modern day in wording or grammar. The grammar rules are the same. The word meanings, with very few exceptions, are the same. (But you could try to present a list of all the grammatical or word-meaning differences, if you desire.)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...