Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    2,832
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    225

Reputation Activity

  1. I Agree
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Jerry in Satan and Eden   
    Nehemiah 9:6 is referring to the third heaven though. Also, God had to create the third heaven, and several passages state that ALL He created was in those six days. It is not like the third heaven has always existed if it was a place made for saved mankind and angels to dwell in.
  2. I Agree
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Jerry in Satan and Eden   
    I think, based on these passages, that the angels were created by or just before the third day, when the foundations of the earth were laid (and none had fallen yet) - look at the order of events.
    Genesis 1:9-10, 13 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good... And the evening and the morning were the third day.
    Job 38:4-7 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
    Psalm 104:2-5 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
    Nehemiah 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.
    In the last passage, the host of heaven being referred to are the angels, as the heaven of heaven certainly seems to refer to the third heaven, where the presence of God dwells, and it is stated that those are the host of that heaven (ie. therefore not referring to the stars in the second heaven). That also means the third heaven was not created until creation week - there would be no need to have a "third heaven" as a place until there were occupants in it, which were created during creation week.
    Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
  3. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from 1Timothy115 in Satan and Eden   
    This seems off to me according to the grammar of Ezekiel 28:12-17; for the grammar seems only to describe the "king of Tyrus" himself, not the Garden of Eden at all:
    "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
    1.  Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
    2.  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;
    3.  every precious stone was THY COVERING, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold:
    4.  the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
    5.  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:
    6.  thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
    7.  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
    8.  By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned:
    9.  therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
    10.  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness:
    11.  I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."
    Grammatically, in verse 13 (as per #2 & #3 above) the description of precious stones is NOT presented as a description for the Garden of Eden.  Rather, the description of precious stones is presented as a description of the king of Tyrus' PERSONAL covering.  In fact, the only thing that verse 13 says about the Garden of Eden is simply that the king of Tyrus had been in that garden.  It says nothing about precious stones as a part of that garden.
  4. Thanks
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Satan and Eden   
    This seems off to me according to the grammar of Ezekiel 28:12-17; for the grammar seems only to describe the "king of Tyrus" himself, not the Garden of Eden at all:
    "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
    1.  Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
    2.  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;
    3.  every precious stone was THY COVERING, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold:
    4.  the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
    5.  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:
    6.  thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
    7.  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
    8.  By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned:
    9.  therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
    10.  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness:
    11.  I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."
    Grammatically, in verse 13 (as per #2 & #3 above) the description of precious stones is NOT presented as a description for the Garden of Eden.  Rather, the description of precious stones is presented as a description of the king of Tyrus' PERSONAL covering.  In fact, the only thing that verse 13 says about the Garden of Eden is simply that the king of Tyrus had been in that garden.  It says nothing about precious stones as a part of that garden.
  5. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from BrotherTony in Satan and Eden   
    This seems off to me according to the grammar of Ezekiel 28:12-17; for the grammar seems only to describe the "king of Tyrus" himself, not the Garden of Eden at all:
    "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
    1.  Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
    2.  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;
    3.  every precious stone was THY COVERING, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold:
    4.  the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
    5.  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:
    6.  thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
    7.  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
    8.  By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned:
    9.  therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
    10.  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness:
    11.  I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."
    Grammatically, in verse 13 (as per #2 & #3 above) the description of precious stones is NOT presented as a description for the Garden of Eden.  Rather, the description of precious stones is presented as a description of the king of Tyrus' PERSONAL covering.  In fact, the only thing that verse 13 says about the Garden of Eden is simply that the king of Tyrus had been in that garden.  It says nothing about precious stones as a part of that garden.
  6. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from 1Timothy115 in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    Certainly, Brother Wayne, I am aware of the cultural element to this issue, which is the very reason for my series of questions above.  In the present-day Fundamental Baptist movement, this issue is being preached with such statements as -- "Men wear pants; pants-wear IS men's wear."  Yet such statements are NOT precisely accurate.  It would be somewhat more accurate to say something like -- "For the last few hundred years, in European and American culture, pants-wear has been men's wear."  However, if we actually acknowledged the cultural element to this issue, then we would also have to acknowledge that culture itself can change, and even has changed from past times.  For example, hosen was originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear hosen today.  For another example, high heels were originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear high heels today.  For yet another example from a different perspective, culottes are defined in a dictionary as "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the leg to resemble a skirt;" yet although many in the Fundamental Baptist movement declare that pants-wear (trousers) are men's wear and are therefore an abomination for a woman to wear, they still allow (and even recommend) females to wear culottes.
    Now, let us consider another point.  It is taught that the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 still has application today, and I FULL-HEARTEDLY AGREE.  It is further taught that the application of that principle for today is to forbid women from wearing pants-wear (except possibly culottes).  However, it is my understanding that we should NOT seek to apply a principle unto our present situation until we FIRST understand the original meaning of that principle in its original Biblical context.  So then, I am compelled to ask -- What did the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 originally mean when it is was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel?  Do we even know?  (By the way, having done a fairly extensive word study JUST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES concerning Deuteronomy 22:5, I am prepared to contend that the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto a man," did NOT originally refer unto a piece of clothing (a garment made from clothe) AT ALL.)  For example, an argument was made in an above posting that if an individual cannot discern whether someone is a male or a female from 200 yards away, then a line has been crossed.  Well, I am compelled to ask -- During the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel, when BOTH males and females wore a robe-type garment, could an individual discern whether someone was a male or a female from 200 yards away simply from the type of clothing that was being worn?
    Yet another thought - I have a pastor friend who often makes fun of the Roman Catholic priest for his priestly garment, claiming that the priest's robe-garment is a dress (since that would be somewhat accurate within present-day American culture), and thus that the priest is wearing woman's wear.  Now, if that pastor friend is correct that a robe-garment is equivalent to a dress and thus to women's wear, then our Lord Jesus Christ Himself wore women's wear when He engaged in His ministry on the earth.  To me, implying any such thing is highly offensive.  Maybe, just maybe, we need to be a little more precise and a little more accurate with our arguments and our declarations about this issue.
  7. I Agree
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Jerry in Charismatic calvinists   
    God's Word indicates that even in the first century He never gave the gift of tongues to everyone - so for those who believe it is a sign of salvation, they are missing the boat (especially when you consider that the "gift of tongues" they are using is not the same as the gift of tongues as found in the Bible (especially the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14).
    1 Corinthians 12:4-6 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
    1 Corinthians 12:28-31 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
  8. I Agree
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    Brother Wayne,
    The best answer that I can give is that which I provided earlier to Brother Carl --
    If the translators had translated the verse with the word "armor," then many would likely conclude that since men no longer wear armor, the verse has no application for us today.  However, by translating the verse with the phrase that they did, they allowed the PRINCIPLE of the verse to be communicated across times and cultures.  Furthermore, since the Hebrew word itself does NOT strictly mean "armor," but actually means "that which is manufactured (from natural substances)," they were quite accurate in their translational choice.  It is through a diligent Hebrew word study throughout the entire Old Testament that the Bible student is able to discern the Biblical reality that the Hebrew word is never even once used for "that which is made of clothe, clothing," but is used a number of times for the attire of armor and of jewelry.
  9. Thanks
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    Indeed, Brother "1Timothy115,"
    Even for myself, who is somewhat driven by personality and ability to study diligently, I find that the battle against true Bible study rages daily; and I must confess that I fail therein all too often, and thereby commit sin against my precious Lord and Savior.
  10. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from BrotherTony in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    Although Brother "Rancher" has stood more on "my side" of this discussion lately, I cannot express whole-hearted agreement with his presentation above.  The reason - I believe that the "meat" of any given passage must ALWAYS BEGIN with the precise meaning of that passage in its original context.  Once that precise meaning has been discerned, then spiritual principles can be gleaned from that precise meaning.  From these principles we then can develop behavioral applications for our present-day living.  In my observation, both sides of this discussion tend to jump past the study work of precise meaning in original context to proclaim principles and applications.  When we do this, we already set ourselves on a path of wrongly handling Scripture, regardless of whether we are on the right hand or the left hand of the issue.
  11. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from BrotherTony in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    Well, skirt-wear is specifically referenced 19 times throughout the Old Testament Scriptures (none specifically referenced in the New Testament); and robe-wear is specifically referenced 37 times throughout the Old and New Testament Scriptures (from Exodus to Revelation).  Whereas "breeches" (specifically as underwear, not outerwear) is referenced only 5 times in the Old Testament Scriptures.  Can you provide any specific reference to pants-wear as outerwear anywhere in the Holy Scriptures?  If so, how many can you provide?  If not, what Biblical evidence could you provide to indicate that robe-wear is not "the main clothing everyone wore in every Bible generation"?  (The problem that I am having here is that things are being stated that do not line up with what is actually found throughout Scripture.)
    (Note: Robe-wear is even revealed in Scripture as the attire of eternity.)
  12. I Agree
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Jordan Kurecki in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    So, does nature itself teach us that robes are man's wear or woman's wear?  Is a robe actually a form of dress (as some of my Fundamental Baptist pastor-friends sometimes indicate)?
    So, does nature itself teach us that the color pink is a masculine color or a feminine color?  (Note: The distinction of pink as a feminine color did not actually become established in America until approximately the 1940s.)
    So, do we get to decide on our own whim what nature itself teaches us?  If so, who gets to be the authoritative voice when a disagreement arises over what nature itself teaches us?
    (Thus I will state again -- The problem that I am having here is that things are being stated that do not line up with what is actually found throughout Scripture, which is ACTUALLY our only and final authority for belief and behavior.)
  13. I Agree
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to rancher824 in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    As I mentioned in the last post, the Arab man was offended that someone offered him a women’s robe. There are/were differences. Things can be very similar while having very certain differences. And they may be a difference that someone from another culture would not see. In the instance with Arab I mentioned, the one telling about it said he could not tell the difference. It was stated by one poster a few pages back (don’t remember her name) that she worked making pants and that there were different cuts depending if it was women’s or men’s. It is obvious the high priest wore a robe. In Revelation it says the saints are seen in white robes. How is it hard to believe robes were the normal wear. We cannot say pants are what we should wear, so they wore pants, so we know we should wear pants. That is circular. It is a common belief that Jews wore robes or Tunics which are very much the same. With that being the common belief, how can we say I don’t want it to be because it disagrees with what I think, so you should accept it. As for it being a hill to die on, it is a very important part of the discussion. If the men wore robes, then we have to ask when it became wrong for men to wear them. What and when culture can change the rules. How many need to accept the change before it is acceptable. How long it has to have changed before being acceptable. 
  14. Thanks
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from BrotherTony in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    "Skirt," according to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, means --
    1.  "The lower and loose part of a coat or other garment; the part below the waist; as the skirt of a coat or mantle. 1 Samuel 15:17"
    2.  "The edge of any part of dress."
    3.  "Border; edge; margin; extreme part; as the skirt of a forest; the skirt of a town."
    4.  "A woman's garment like a petticoat."
    5.  "The diaphragm or midriff in animals.
    Of these definitions three of them relate to a type or part of clothing -- #1, #2, & #3.  In relation to a robe type garment, definition #1 & #2 would have application.  Now, all of the references to a "skirt" in the Old Testament are as follows:
    Deuteronomy 22:30 -- "A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt." (Man's wear)
    Deuteronomy 27:20 -- "Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen." (Man's wear)
    Ruth 3:9 -- "And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman." (Man's wear)
    1 Samuel 15:27 -- "And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent." (Man's wear)
    1 Samuel 24:4-5 -- "And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe privily. And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt." (Man's wear)
    1 Samuel 24:11 -- "Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it." (Man's wear)
    Psalm 133:2 -- "It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments." (High Priest's wear, fashioned by God Himself)
    Jeremiah 2:34 -- "Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)
    Jeremiah 13:22 -- "And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)
    Jeremiah 13:26 -- "Therefore will I discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)
    Lamentations 1:9 -- "Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)
    Ezekiel 5:3 -- "Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts." (Man's wear, that of the prophet himself)
    Ezekial 16:8 -- "Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine." (God's wear, as this is a portrayal of God Himself)
    Nahum 3:5 -- "Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the city of Nineveh is represented as a woman)
    Haggai 2:12 -- "If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No." (Priest's wear)
    Zechariah 8:23 -- "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." (Man's wear, concerning Jewish men during the Millennial Kingdom of our Lord)
    Now, as per each context, it does not seem accurate to claim that in every one of these cases the word "skirt(s)" simply means the hem or fringe.  This may be accurate for some of the above cases, but it does not at all seem accurate for all of the above cases.  Furthermore, by definition any reference to robe-wear implies skirt-wear, since a robe includes an open bottomed portion below the waist (as per the 1828 Webster's meaning #1 above, which he specifically applied to the passage in 1 Samuel 15).  So, how many references to robe-wear are there in the Holy Scriptures; and who all is portrayed as wearing a robe?  Because every reference to robe-wear is by definition and implication also a reference to skirt-wear.
  15. Thanks
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    "Skirt," according to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, means --
    1.  "The lower and loose part of a coat or other garment; the part below the waist; as the skirt of a coat or mantle. 1 Samuel 15:17"
    2.  "The edge of any part of dress."
    3.  "Border; edge; margin; extreme part; as the skirt of a forest; the skirt of a town."
    4.  "A woman's garment like a petticoat."
    5.  "The diaphragm or midriff in animals.
    Of these definitions three of them relate to a type or part of clothing -- #1, #2, & #3.  In relation to a robe type garment, definition #1 & #2 would have application.  Now, all of the references to a "skirt" in the Old Testament are as follows:
    Deuteronomy 22:30 -- "A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt." (Man's wear)
    Deuteronomy 27:20 -- "Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen." (Man's wear)
    Ruth 3:9 -- "And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman." (Man's wear)
    1 Samuel 15:27 -- "And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent." (Man's wear)
    1 Samuel 24:4-5 -- "And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe privily. And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt." (Man's wear)
    1 Samuel 24:11 -- "Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it." (Man's wear)
    Psalm 133:2 -- "It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments." (High Priest's wear, fashioned by God Himself)
    Jeremiah 2:34 -- "Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)
    Jeremiah 13:22 -- "And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)
    Jeremiah 13:26 -- "Therefore will I discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)
    Lamentations 1:9 -- "Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)
    Ezekiel 5:3 -- "Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts." (Man's wear, that of the prophet himself)
    Ezekial 16:8 -- "Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine." (God's wear, as this is a portrayal of God Himself)
    Nahum 3:5 -- "Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the city of Nineveh is represented as a woman)
    Haggai 2:12 -- "If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No." (Priest's wear)
    Zechariah 8:23 -- "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." (Man's wear, concerning Jewish men during the Millennial Kingdom of our Lord)
    Now, as per each context, it does not seem accurate to claim that in every one of these cases the word "skirt(s)" simply means the hem or fringe.  This may be accurate for some of the above cases, but it does not at all seem accurate for all of the above cases.  Furthermore, by definition any reference to robe-wear implies skirt-wear, since a robe includes an open bottomed portion below the waist (as per the 1828 Webster's meaning #1 above, which he specifically applied to the passage in 1 Samuel 15).  So, how many references to robe-wear are there in the Holy Scriptures; and who all is portrayed as wearing a robe?  Because every reference to robe-wear is by definition and implication also a reference to skirt-wear.
  16. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from BrotherTony in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    I have studied what type of clothes they wore throughout the time of the Old Testament; and in all five cases wherein breeches are mentioned, they are a type of underwear, NOT outerwear.  In all five cases they are a part of the holy garments of the High Priest of Israel, which he was to wear ONLY when he was engaging in his holy service.  For the outerwear of the High Priest, the garment which God Himself designed for the High Priest included the "skirt" of his robe for the lower half of his body. (See Psalm 133:2)  In fact, an interesting study throughout the Old Testament is to consider who all wore a "skirt."
  17. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    Here is a very serious set of questions on the matter of standards in general (and thus also on the matter of standards in the realm of clothing) --
    Is it possible for us to mandate a "standard" in a given area (not simply for our own behavior, but over the behavior of others) that is more strict than the Lord our God Himself would mandate?
    Is it possible for us to mandate such a "stricter standard" than the Lord our God, and even base that standard on principles from God's own Word?
    If it is possible for us to so mandate such a "stricter standard" than the Lord our God, how bad of a thing is it for us to do?
    (Note: Consider 1 Timothy 4:1-3 -- "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; fobidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
  18. I Agree
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to SureWord in Christ is the head of the church, then the pastor   
    There's Christ then his body. A pastor is just another part of his body 
  19. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from wretched in Calvinism or Arminianism? How do you answer?   
    James 3:13-18 -- "Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you?  Let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.  But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.  This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.  For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.  But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.  And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."
  20. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from heartstrings in Salvation is of The Lord. Redemption ,Accomplished and Applied   
    Interesting.  Iconoclast, you did not provide a single reference of Scripture to support your statement.  You just provided your own emphatic declaration -- "period."  If we take this statement at face value, then we would have to accept it upon your personal authority.  Yet true doctrine is NOT founded on ANY man's authority.  Rather, true doctrine is founded upon the absolute authority of God's Holy Word.  
    So then, let us consider God's Word.  Do we find the phrase "godly line" or the phrase "ungodly line" anywhere therein?  While we certainly DO find the words "godly" and "ungodly" employed in God's Word to describe particular individuals and groups, we NEVER actually find either the phrase "godly line" or "ungodly line" in God's Word.  Now, when the word "line" is used in the context of humanity, it generally means "lineage; the descendants of a common ancestor."  If such was your intended usage for the term in your declaration, then it would have been better to use actual Biblical terminology, such as that there are two spiritual families -- the children of God and the children of disobedience.
    So, in Genesis 3:15 the singular seed of the woman is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, through faith in Christ believers may indeed be called Abraham's seed (as per Galatians 3:29).  However, this still does NOT mean that believers are the seed of the WOMAN in Genesis 3:15.  Indeed, Genesis 3:15 has nothing to do with a "godly line."  Rather, it has to do with a PROMISED SAVIOR.
     
  21. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from heartstrings in THE Great BLESSING OF ELECTION   
    James 3:13-18 -- "Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you?  Let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.  But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.  This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.  For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.  But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.  And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."
  22. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from BrotherTony in Salvation is of The Lord. Redemption ,Accomplished and Applied   
    James 3:13-18 -- "Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you?  Let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.  But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.  This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.  For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.  But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.  And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."
  23. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from HappyChristian in Salvation is of The Lord. Redemption ,Accomplished and Applied   
    James 3:13-18 -- "Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you?  Let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.  But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.  This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.  For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.  But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.  And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."
  24. I Agree
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Rebecca in Salvation is of The Lord. Redemption ,Accomplished and Applied   
    No, I am thinking that it was not.
  25. LOL
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to wretched in Salvation is of The Lord. Redemption ,Accomplished and Applied   
    Just like flat earthers or evolutionists, reading the debate with this calvinist guy reminds me of an old saying. It is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how brilliant your moves are, the pigeon will simply knock over pieces, poop on the board and then declare victory.
×
×
  • Create New...