Jordan Kurecki

Does the heart of the Lord God ever become "merry with wine?" (See Esther 1:10)
Does the Lord God proclaim His commandment unto His people while He is "merry with wine?" (See Esther 1:10-11)
Does the Lord God cast aside Israel, such that their "royal estate" is permanently given unto another? (See Esther 1:19)
Does Jesus Christ ever instruct faithful Israel to hide their character from the Lord God? (See Esther 2:15-20)
Does the Lord God promote, advance, and set the antichrist above all other authorities? (See Esther 3:1)
Does the Lord God give commandment that all others should bow down and reverence the antichrist? (See Esther 3:2)
Does Jesus Christ ever disobey any of the Lord God's commandments? (See Esther 3:2-4)
Does the Lord God ever give the antichrist His ring of authority to operate in the Lord God's place? (See Esther 3:10)
Does the Lord God ever grant the antichrist His own authority to persecute the Israelites? (See Esther 3:9-15)
Does the Lord God ever sit down in unity with the antichrist? (See Esther 3:15)
Does Israel ever invite and have attend both the Lord God and the antichrist to a joint banquet? (See Esther 5:4-8)
Does the Lord God ever take counsel from the antichrist on how to honor Jesus Christ? (See Esther 6:1-10)
Does the Lord God ever instruct and employ the antichrist to administer Jesus Christ's honor? (See Esther 6:10-11)
Does the Lord God exalt Jesus Christ to highest authority AFTER removing the antichrist from that position, which He the Lord God had first given to the antichrist? (See Esther 9:7-15)
With all due respect Brother Young,
As for myself, the claim that King Ahasuerus represents the Lord my God, the Lord God of heaven and earth, is quite offensive to me, even unto the concern that it is outright blasphemy.
 

My conviction is that with preaching the bible we need to be extremely careful to remain exegetical and I am committed to the literal, grammatical, historical approach to the scriptures. I do believe that every text has timeless truths that span across dispensations even though not every single thing in a text will apply. (Such as certain Mosaic Laws that does not apply to us today), I also recognize that there can be different applications of texts. I do think we have to be careful even in application though., One person said that “more heresy is preached in application than in Bible exegesis”. 
Now, Charles Ryrie in his Systematic Theology has an excellent section in Bibliology about Interpretation of the Bible. 
Of course he mentions the different systems such as the Allegorical, Literal and Semi Allegorical. He of course advocates for the Literal Hermaneutic, he gives a few reasons:
1. The Need for Objectivity “If one does not apply normal interpretation, then objectivity is lost to the extent that he does not use it consistently. Switching the hermeneutic base from literal to allegorical or to semi allegorical… inevitably results in different, inconsistent, and often contradictory interpretations.” 
2. The example of the Bible. “The prophecies of the first advent of Christ were all fulfilled literally. This obvious but extremely significant fact argues for the validity and the use of literal hermeneutics in all of biblical interpretation... It is said that over 300 such prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled…”
Ryrie does go on to acknowledge that “some prophecies of the Old Testament are given a typical fulfillment in the New, and certain of those prophecies are cited by non literalists as biblical sanction for a nonliteral hermeneutic… However, of the approximately twenty four prophecies which the New Testament gives typical fulfillment, only seven are cited as examples of nonliteral hermeneutic (and of course not all agree that these seven prove this)…remember, however, that we are not just comparing seven out of a total of twenty four, but seven out of a total of hundreds, for almost all Old Testament prophecies are clearly fulfilled literally in the New Testament..”
Now, I think most relevant discussion however for us is what Ryrie says later in his section on Objections to Normal Hermeneutics: 
“The most frequent objection by Evangelicals to normal interpretation points out that since the New Testament uses the Old Testament in a non literal sense we also may interpret Old Testament Prophecies (about the millennium for example) in a non literal sense. Or to put it more simply: since the New Testament spiritualizes the Old Testament, so can we… The rule is that they [New Testament Authors] interpreted the Old Testament plainly, exceptions are rare and typological”
Now, the point Ryrie makes next I think is spot on:
“The crux of the matter is this: can we as interpreters follow the example of the biblical writers in these rare exceptional uses of the Old Testament that seem to be non literal? Of course the answer is yes, if we want to. But if we do, we do so without apostolic authority, only with personal authority, and comparatively, that is not much authority. Any and all uses of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers made were made under divine inspiration and were therefore done properly and authoritatively. If we depart from the plain sense of the text we do so improperly without such authority. What the biblical writers wrote was infallible; the work of all interpreters is fallible.” 
My opinion and practice for myself is that, I want to be as safe as possible when preaching and interpreting the Bible, so I want to always give priority to the literal hermeneutic. I believe it is safe to avoid spiritualizing passages in the Bible.

With all humble honesty, there are STILL some sins at some times that I love, even after being a child of God for 34 years.  The reason -- because I still retain the inner motivations of my selfish, sinful "flesh."  In fact, there is NO good thing, no, not even the smallest speck, in my selfish, sinful "flesh;" and thus my selfish, sinful "flesh" ALWAYS loves sin and hates godliness.

When I got saved I still loved sin. I felt bad about it and knew it was wrong, but honestly I still enjoyed it and desired it. God has gradually helped me grow and my desires have changed. If a person is in Christ they are a new creature. How can a person have new desires in order to become a new creature to receive new desires???

When I got saved I still loved sin. I felt bad about it and knew it was wrong, but honestly I still enjoyed it and desired it. God has gradually helped me grow and my desires have changed. If a person is in Christ they are a new creature. How can a person have new desires in order to become a new creature to receive new desires???

When I got saved I still loved sin. I felt bad about it and knew it was wrong, but honestly I still enjoyed it and desired it. God has gradually helped me grow and my desires have changed. If a person is in Christ they are a new creature. How can a person have new desires in order to become a new creature to receive new desires???

Certainly I would agree that the two English words "foreordained" and "foreknown" are two completely different words with two completely different root meanings in the English.  However, my question specifically related to the Greek, wherein the SAME Greek verb is translated with both of these English words.  My intention was to indicate that the Calvinist will most certainly bring this forward in their argument, and thus we non-Calvinists should have a legitimate Biblical response.  
Now, it appears that your response to this matter would simply be -- The Greek does not matter at all, only the English.  However, I myself would have a problem with this response.  I would ask -- Was the Greek directly inspired by God the Holy Spirit, such that He directly moved the penmen to write precisely the Greek words that He intended?  If the answer to this question is "yes," then I would further ask -- Why would I want to cast aside and stay away from that which God the Holy Spirit directly inspired? 
Furthermore, I would ask -- Was the English in the Authorized King James translation directly inspired by God the Holy Spirit, such that He directly moved the translators to choose precisely the English words the He intended?  If your answer is "yes," then it would appear that you hold to "double inspiration," to which I would ask wherein God's Word supports the doctrine of "double inspiration" unto a translation, and that specifically in the English language.  If your answer is "no," then I would ask -- Why would I want to cast aside and stay away from that which God the Holy Spirit directly inspired (in the Greek), and only consider that which is translated from it, but is not directly inspired by God the Holy Spirit?

This man spews unbiblical hatred and false doctrines.
https://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/downloads/What_About_Steven_Anderson.pdf
 

Um. No. Just no. 
First of all threescore is not 66 its 60.
Second of all this man conpletely ignored the literal, grammatical approach to scripture, instead allegorizing and eisegeting beliefs onto the biblical text.
I’m a King James guy, but not because of nonsensical reasoning like that posted by Konstantin.
 
 

These are really solid questions for people to think through. 

Um. No. Just no. 
First of all threescore is not 66 its 60.
Second of all this man conpletely ignored the literal, grammatical approach to scripture, instead allegorizing and eisegeting beliefs onto the biblical text.
I’m a King James guy, but not because of nonsensical reasoning like that posted by Konstantin.
 
 

Spot on. I am so glad for you pointing this out. I am still yet to see any Neo-Evangelical explain scripturally what is a fundamental and what is secondary. 

Spot on. I am so glad for you pointing this out. I am still yet to see any Neo-Evangelical explain scripturally what is a fundamental and what is secondary. 

Ahhh, but here is my problem with your above statement. You continue to use the two phrases, "Fundamentals of the Faith" and "secondary issues."  However, these phrases are NOT found in God's Word; therefore, we cannot acquire a direct Biblical definition for these phrases.  As such, these phrases are able to be defined according to our own preferences/agendas.  How then do we define the "line of separation" according to a BIBLICAL definition thereof?  How do we define "Fundamentals of the Faith" from GOD'S OWN WORD?  How do we define "secondary issues" from GOD'S OWN WORD?  
Now, I myself have presented an actual teaching on separation from GOD'S OWN WORD, as per 1 Timothy 6:3-5.  According to that teaching of GOD'S OWN WORD the matter for separation is NOT the "Fundamentals of the Faith" versus "secondary issues."  Rather, according to the teaching of GOD'S OWN WORD in that passage, the matter for separation is "if ANY man" (believer or unbeliever) teaches contrary "to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness."  This is how GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF defines the matter of doctrinal separation.  As for me, I prefer to follow God the Holy Spirit on the matter of separation rather than man-made definitions and paradigms on the matter.
By the way, the phrase, "come out from among them, and be ye separate" is found in 2 Corinthians 6:16.  The context for this verse encompasses 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.  2 Corinthians 6:14 begins, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with UNBELIEVERS . . . ."  Even so, this passage is NOT about separation from those who teach and/or hold to false doctrine.  Rather, this passage is about separation from UNBELIEVERS simply because they are unbelievers.  The "them" of 2 Corinthians 6:16 from whom we are to "come out" and be "separate" are the UNBELIEVERS of 2 Corinthians 6:14.  Now, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 DOES indeed apply to the Biblical doctrine of separation, but NOT concerning separation over false teaching and from false teachers (which is taught in passages such as 1 Timothy 6:3-5).
Brother DaChaser, my counsel (for what it may be worth to you) is that - if you really want to stand for Biblical truth, then you should bring forward a whole lot more actual Scripture into your communications and discussions, and that you should spend much more time actually exegeting those Scriptural passages according to their grammar and context.

I appreciate this last paragraph and have often wondered this myself, I have asked a few people who have stated the "secondary issues" talking point similar questions and I have never been satisfied with the answer, no one seems to want to explain how you define a primary and secondary doctrine. 

I have also struggled with trying to figure out what issues to separate over, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone must agree 100% with me, But I also think there is more to separate over than what is considered "The Fundamentals". 

While there are clearly some differences that change meaning, shew and show are the same exact word, just different spellings, Shew is British spelling and show is American, also needs and needeth are the same thing. The morpheme -eth is archaic and has been replaced in today’s English with the morpheme -s.
there is also no difference in meaning betwixt the word between and betwixt. 
Same for “wit” and “know” they both mean the same thing as well.
Same for “nigh” and “near” both mean the same thing.
I lament the fact how people do not understand the English language the way they think they do. There are plenty of real changes to point out that exist between the KJV and other versions. But modern equivalent of archaic words are not changes in meaning, nor are spelling changes either..On that note, have you ever seen a 1611 KJV? Son was spelled Sonne. Does the version you use have Son or Sonne? 
I am a through and through KJV bible believer and defender, but can we please stop making issues out of non issues?

Col 2:16 clearly refutes the idea of NT believers being obligated to keep the Sabbath. 
 
 
 

“ If this is so, why not keep the word Easter as it is? Beware, once you start on the road of changing a word like Easter in the KJV due to your thinking on etymology due to some bible translator, or theologian, than you are headed down the road of error on numerous other words as well. ”

I don't think anyone on the forum knows Heidi (with the possible exception of Jordan). She was a college student who worked with us in our nursing home ministry. She struggled with many emotional issues, and succumbed to depression by killing herself. The family desires that the story be told and that her death will not be in vain. It's 30 minutes, so doesn't take long, but it's very much worth it. Please listen and even share it with others.
https://unshackled.org/listen/latest-program/?fbclid=IwAR2kC7jGlk55AeNujJoix082YMJVFNOPbKGwcw33_GPtl9R7V6DSP02_Has

I almost said basically the same.
People need to realize that God doesn't behave according to their preconceived ideas. 

As one person said “we have no right to expect or believe something that God never promised or said”...
God has not promised that people would be happy or rich or never without work or trying times, he HAS promised that all who believe the Gospel will be saved from hell and that He will take care of the financial/material needs of anyone who seeks to do HiS will!

I almost said basically the same.
People need to realize that God doesn't behave according to their preconceived ideas. 

As one person said “we have no right to expect or believe something that God never promised or said”...
God has not promised that people would be happy or rich or never without work or trying times, he HAS promised that all who believe the Gospel will be saved from hell and that He will take care of the financial/material needs of anyone who seeks to do HiS will!

My reply below is not meant to be critical or mean, just honestly asking because I don't understand the logic in your statement. 
Why? Because God is not answering a prayer request in the way and time frame that you want? God is not a genie in a box were you get 3 wishes that you wish. 
1 John 5:14-15 (KJV)  And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
James, I have been there before. I've had no job for over a year trying to provide for my family. I now look back and see how God provided over and over again during that time period. Not working actually saw my faith strengthen because I saw that God was with me and provided food and clothing for my family. 

Matthew 6:31-33 KJV
[31] Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? [32] (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. [33] But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Vs 33 is key. 

For those here, I also am on Baptist Board, Roby has a history of repeating claims about King Janes Only that he has been shown time and time again to be in error. 
for example Im fairly certain he has been shown by me already that the defense if the King James predated Wilkinson. 
 
Roby repeats talking points that people have already corrected or refuted. He has no interest in learning or growing his understanding of this issue but is just seeking to push an agenda. 

The nation of Israel was established by the National Covenant at Mt. Sinai. It is not synonymous with the Old and New Testament Covenants which started with the first and second Adams and has different requirements to be part of then the testaments.

The early church made this distinction clear in Acts 15 and Acts 21 that entering the National Covenant of Israel was not a requirement for the gentiles nor was it the same covenant that you receive when you are saved by God. It was however still a covenant in effect for Jews who wished to identify with the nation of Israel.

To say otherwise is to contradict the Apostles and fundamentally misunderstand what Paul is teaching in regard to Being "Jewish".

Salvation, as Peter stated in Acts 15:11 is the same for all people: But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. James also makes clear in Acts 15:17-18 that of all people, including gentiles of old. that are called by his name who are saved and will be saved:  17 that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Paul is in agreement with this as well when he states that all people of every age is saved the same way, by calling on the name of the lord: Romans 10:11-13 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

While they all believe and taught that Salvation was the same for all people they rejected the idea that the National Israelite Covenant was for all people, that it was required for salvation, or that it was for all saved believers. They taught that the Household of Faith and the Israelite Nation were different and were entered differently. They did not teach that the National covenant suddenly became a spiritual national covenant for all believers. Rather they taught the spiritual household of faith for all believers in the Old Testament was "David's Tabernacle" and in the New Testament was rebuilt by Christ into what is now the Spiritual Body of Christ. What Paul teaches is that a Jew (someone in the national covenant of Israel) is nothing without Salvation. He is not teaching that saved gentiles are now the true Jew. Rather , he is teaching a Saved Jew is a true Jew.