Jump to content

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    2,327
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from HappyChristian in Disease in the camp   
    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.
  2. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from HappyChristian in Disease in the camp   
    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.
  3. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from DaveW in Disease in the camp   
    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.
  4. Thanks
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from busdrvrlinda54 in Disease in the camp   
    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.
  5. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to RSS Robot in Way of Life:John Macarthur and Cultural Liberalism   
    This is a warning about the dangerous waters of evangelicalism and the fact that many fundamental Baptists are building bridges to these waters.
    Recently I received an e-mail from a father who said that his church has begun using John MacArthur’s material for Sunday School. He asked, “Should a parent like myself be concerned?”
    I replied: “I would be extremely concerned if a church started using MacArthur's material. Not only is he a staunch Calvinist who believes that one must be born again in order to believe, but he is a worldly rock & roll evangelical.. Read More View the full article
  6. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to RSS Robot in Way of Life:Ten Tips for Daily Bible Reading   
    One of the most important habits to develop in the Christian life is that of daily Bible reading.
    It is the Word of God that has the power to sanctify the believer and build him up in Christ. It imparts conviction, enlightenment, spiritual strength, faith, wisdom, repentance. Consider the following Scriptures:
    “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success” (Joshua 1:8).
    “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall... Read More View the full article
  7. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Alan in "This is Our Deed to the Land."   
    The land of Israel is firmly established by a written Covenant, the Bible, to the physical, descendants of Abraham, Issac and Jacob: the Jews. 
    The Israeli Ambassador, the Honourable Danny Danon, explains it very plainly when, after quoting Genesis 17:7 & 8, he said, while holding up the Bible, "This is the deed to our land."
     
     
     
     
     
  8. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to RSS Robot in Way of Life:Is 17th-Century British English Holy?   
    We have become aware of a tendency among some King James Bible defenders to exalt 17th-century British English to the level of divine holiness.
    For example, the following changes are made in some editions of the KJV:
    afterwards - afterward; alway - always; apparelled - appareled; armour - armor; armoury - armory; asswage - assuage; astonied - astonished; behaviour - behavior; baken - baked; broided - braided; cloke - cloak; colour - color; defence - defense.. Read More View the full article
  9. Like
  10. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to DaveW in Dealing with the World   
    Pro 15:1
    (1)  A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
     
    Mat 5:44
    (44)  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
     
    Sorry to use Bible on you, but it works.
    Don't let them get you angry - answer them as softly as possible.
    Humour can help, if you can do funny, but not in a snarky way. 
    And pray for them - I find it is hard to be too angry with someone if you are praying for them.
  11. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to DaveW in Baptists   
    No.
    To be clear, this site is about Independent Baptists, not just about "Baptists".
    Some "Baptists" do consider themselves part of the protestant movement, but in general IB churches are INDEPENDENT from all denominations, and are not a close and solid group, but a bunch of independent churches that have similar doctrines because we try to follow the Bible.
    As to the actual term "protestant" - that is technically referring to those people who were protesting against the Catholic church, and this happened during what is known as the "reformation" where these people were tyring to "reform" the Catholic church "back to the truth".
    Problem is that the Catholic church was never a true church following the Bible anyway, so to "reform" them is to take them from an unbiblical position to an older unbiblical position.
    There has however always been a group of people who have tried to follow the Bible alone, and it is this group that IB tentatively trace our heritage back to - not protestant, not Catholic, but Biblical.
  12. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to DaveW in Salvation   
    Agreeing with Jerry, in the first instance it is an unreasonable and unbiblical request, but in any case we need to look at the verse.
    Mat 16:27  For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
    Would you show us where this verse mentions salvation AT ALL?
    It mentions a reward for works, but it doesn't mention salvation. And if you think it is talking about salvation, then show it WITHOUT providing other verses. You see how unreasonable that is?
    If you will allow other verses to be used we can easily show the exact judgement of works. You might consider 1 Cor 3: 11-15 and Rev 20:11-15.
     
  13. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Alan in Archaisms in the KJV.   
    Interesting response, considering that it does NOT acknowledge the devil's work to create corruptions in the Scriptural TEXTS of God's Word.  Allow me to repeat my above comments in a more organized and emphasized manner, so that you might see more clearly the point:
    1.  Yes, you see the process whereby the Lord our God maintained His Word in the English language since the time of Wycliffe. 
    2.  But do you also see that the various translations which existed from the time of Wycliffe until the time of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s all originated from the SAME basic TEXTUAL tradition? 
    3.  Whereas the line of newer translations that originated with the work of Wescott & Hort and the Revised Standard Version in the late 1800s are founded upon a completely DIFFERENT TEXTUAL tradition than those translational works that came before them? 
    4.  Do you see that in their work Wescott & Hort purposefully intended to create something DIFFERENT than that which had come before, and thereby intended to REPLACE the TEXTUAL and translational tradition that had come before? 
    5.  As such, do you see that starting with the work of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s, TWO completely DIFFERENT lines of translational work have progressed before us? (Specifically because those lines of translational work are founded upon TWO completely DIFFERENT TEXTUAL traditions) (parenthetical added by Pastor Scott Markle) 
    6.  As for myself, I do NOT intend to follow TWO DIFFERENT lines of TEXTUAL and translational work.
    7.  But to follow the FIRST line of TEXTUAL and translational work that the LORD OUR GOD placed in English before His people.
    8.  And to reject the later attempt to REPLACE that which Lord our God FIRST gave us. 
    9.  I would contend that what the Lord our God does FIRST in righteousness and edification, the devil seeks AFTER to corrupt with error and deception.
    You see, until you acknowledge the TEXTUAL issue in this doctrinal debate, you will NOT have touched upon the foundational conflict of the debate and disagreement.
  14. Thanks
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from busdrvrlinda54 in Archaisms in the KJV.   
    Interesting response, considering that it does NOT acknowledge the devil's work to create corruptions in the Scriptural TEXTS of God's Word.  Allow me to repeat my above comments in a more organized and emphasized manner, so that you might see more clearly the point:
    1.  Yes, you see the process whereby the Lord our God maintained His Word in the English language since the time of Wycliffe. 
    2.  But do you also see that the various translations which existed from the time of Wycliffe until the time of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s all originated from the SAME basic TEXTUAL tradition? 
    3.  Whereas the line of newer translations that originated with the work of Wescott & Hort and the Revised Standard Version in the late 1800s are founded upon a completely DIFFERENT TEXTUAL tradition than those translational works that came before them? 
    4.  Do you see that in their work Wescott & Hort purposefully intended to create something DIFFERENT than that which had come before, and thereby intended to REPLACE the TEXTUAL and translational tradition that had come before? 
    5.  As such, do you see that starting with the work of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s, TWO completely DIFFERENT lines of translational work have progressed before us? (Specifically because those lines of translational work are founded upon TWO completely DIFFERENT TEXTUAL traditions) (parenthetical added by Pastor Scott Markle) 
    6.  As for myself, I do NOT intend to follow TWO DIFFERENT lines of TEXTUAL and translational work.
    7.  But to follow the FIRST line of TEXTUAL and translational work that the LORD OUR GOD placed in English before His people.
    8.  And to reject the later attempt to REPLACE that which Lord our God FIRST gave us. 
    9.  I would contend that what the Lord our God does FIRST in righteousness and edification, the devil seeks AFTER to corrupt with error and deception.
    You see, until you acknowledge the TEXTUAL issue in this doctrinal debate, you will NOT have touched upon the foundational conflict of the debate and disagreement.
  15. Thanks
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from busdrvrlinda54 in Archaisms in the KJV.   
    Yet I never indicated that the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word in an "original autograph" manner, that is -- preserving the original manuscripts themselves down to our time.  Rather, I indicated the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, that is -- preserving the original WORDING of His perfect Word as it was perfectly given, which preservation can certainly be carried through manuscript copies as long as those manuscript copies are perfectly accurate to the original WORDING.
     
    Indeed, I DO reject Sinaiticus & Vaticanus because:
    1.  They were NOT passed down to us through the stewardship of God's true church.
    2.  They were NOT available to and among God's true church for a multiple number of generations.
    3.  They disagree significantly with the textual material that was available and passed down from generation to generation through God's true church.
    4.  They disagree with each other in a VERY significant number of places.
    As such, I would contend that they do NOT pass the test of acceptability in accord with the Biblical doctrine of preservation.
     
    Yes, you see the process whereby the Lord our God maintained His Word in the English language since the time of Wycliffe.  But do you also see that the various translations which existed from the time of Wycliffe until the time of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s all originated from the same basic textual tradition, whereas the line of newer translations that originated with the work of Wescott & Hort and the Revised Standard Version in the late 1800s are founded upon a completely DIFFERENT textual tradition than those translational works that came before them?  Do you see that in their work Wescott & Hort purposefully intended to create something DIFFERENT than that which had come before, and thereby intended to REPLACE the textual and translational tradition that had come before?  As such, do you see that starting with the work of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s, TWO completely DIFFERENT lines of translational work have progressed before us?  As for myself, I do NOT intend to follow TWO DIFFERENT lines of textual and translational work; but to follow the FIRST line of textual and translational work that the LORD OUR GOD placed in English before His people, and to reject the later attempt to REPLACE that which Lord our God FIRST gave us.  I would contend that what the Lord our God does FIRST in righteousness and edification, the devil seeks AFTER to corrupt with error and deception.
    Throughout your various comments and responses in this discussion with me, you continually present faith in the Lord our God to preserve and provide His Word as He so pleases.  Such faith is certainly right and good.  However, throughout these comments and responses, I find a GLARING reality that you appear continually to disregard and neglect, even though I have referenced that reality a number of times.  It is the reality of the devil's work to corrupt God's perfect Word, and thereby to deceive.
  16. Thanks
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from busdrvrlinda54 in Archaisms in the KJV.   
    Ah, but the details within the Biblical doctrine of preservation help us to establish parameters by which to discern a valid or invalid Scriptural manuscript.
    1.  Since the Lord our God gave His PERFECT Word in the original writings thereof, and since the Lord our God promised to preserve that PERFECT Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, then ANY number of variations among Scriptural manuscripts indicates SOME form of corruption therein.  It does not necessarily reveal which "jot and tittle" is originally correct, but it DOES reveal the reality of corruption.
    2.  Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His PERFECT Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, then ANY corruptive variation among Scriptural manuscripts indicates that our adversary the DEVIL has had a hand in the matter, and thus that we should be on careful guard NOT to just accept ALL of these variations, but to be careful in discernment.
    3.  Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His perfect Word for each generation of His own people, then we should grant more credibility toward those Scriptural manuscripts that have been in available usage from generation to generation through the stewardship of the Israelites during the time of the Old Testament and through the stewardship of our Lord's true church since the time of the church age.  (Note: The Roman Catholic "church" is NOT the Lord's true church.)
    4.  Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His perfect Word for each generation of His own people, then we should grant much less credibility toward those Scriptural manuscripts or textual families that have been discarded and/or hidden away from God's own people and true church for multiple generations.
    Now, such a recognition is NOT an "automatic" dismissal of a Scriptural manuscript, but a careful discernment concerning a Scriptural manuscript that is based upon the DOCTRINAL foundation of Biblical preservation.  On the other hand, any who create a textual philosophy that is NOT founded upon this doctrinal foundation are in error; and any who do not recognize the evil working of the devil to develop and spread corruption within God's perfect Word are in error.
    In fact, from this perspective your own declared acceptance of ALL variations and your own neglect to refence and carefully consider the devil's corruptive work reveals your own position of ERROR.
  17. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to DaveW in Archaisms in the KJV.   
    PROVE IT, PROVE IT, PROVE IT ,PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    You keep making this claim and thus far you have shown one that has been disproved, and one that actually supports the accuracy of the KJV.
    I DEMAND - YES DEMAND -that you stop making this false claim UNTIL you have backed it up with solid evidence.
     
  18. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from DaveW in Goofs and booboos in the KJV.   
    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.
  19. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from DaveW in Archaisms in the KJV.   
    NO!!!!! It is not!!! Rather, it is better to read Scripture in English that is ACCURATE to the VERY WORD OF GOD as perfectly inspired and preserved by the Lord our God.
  20. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Rebecca in Archaisms in the KJV.   
    I'm not going to get involved in the debate, I just wanted to say a couple of things:
    1. I read the KJV as a child, yes I asked questions - but those questions were answered and my vocabulary and understanding of scripture grew.
    2. I teach bilingual Bible classes to ESL learners and when reading English scripture we use the KJV. My ESL learners are not only learning the Bible, they are also broadening their vocabulary, so using the KJV isn't a deterrent, it's an asset. 
  21. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Rebecca in Archaisms in the KJV.   
    NO!!!!! It is not!!! Rather, it is better to read Scripture in English that is ACCURATE to the VERY WORD OF GOD as perfectly inspired and preserved by the Lord our God.
  22. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Jerry in Archaisms in the KJV.   
    Actually there are sound TR and Masoretic text-based Bibles in other languages - so the wise believer would encourage the immigrant to get one of those Bibles and perhaps also a King James Bible - so they could learn from both their own language and the language they are now seeking to learn - and could compare passages in both to see how a passage they are learning in their original language comes across in English.
  23. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to DaveW in Goofs and booboos in the KJV.   
    And of course the translators have the HONESTY to denote EVERY instance where they included extra words for clarity.
    How many other "translations" do that?
    Most don't have any indication of when they have done similar.
    Thanks for pointing out the honesty of the KJV translational process.
    Not really having much success with these errors.... in spite of your constant implying that there are many.
  24. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to DaveW in Archaisms in the KJV.   
    So no one can know which mss are valid but YOU CAN know which Bible versions are valid???????
    Double standard much....
    You logic - or lack of consistent logic - is unbelievable.
    There are plenty of good reasons to reject certain mss, which we haven't even begun to discuss.
    You can't run one argument on mss and the exact opposite on Bible versions......
  25. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from DaveW in Archaisms in the KJV.   
    Indeed, its faithfulness to its SOURCE would reveal if it is a valid translation of THAT source; but it would NOT reveal if the SOURCE ITSELF is a faithful source.
    You see, the question of this matter is NOT whether a given translation is a faithful translation of a given source.  Rather, the question of this matter is whether a given translation is a faithful translation of GOD'S VERY WORD.  In order for that to be the case, at least TWO things must be true:
    1.  The translation MUST be a faithful translation of its source.
    2.  The SOURCE ITSELF must be a faithful source of GOD"S PRESERVED WORD, without corruption and error.
    Even if a translation is a faithful translation of its source, it is still NOT a faithful translation of GOD'S VERY WORD if the source itself was not a faithful source of God's preserved Word, without corruption and error.

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...