Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

1Timothy115

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    2,351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

Reputation Activity

  1. Praying
    1Timothy115 reacted to HappyChristian in My Family in Need of Comfort   
    So my Dad's remaining brother contracted covid, as did his wife. (Just FYI - this is not a thread about covid, so don't make it so...just know that masking, "social" distancing, isolation, etc., were all practiced by the family and yet he and his wife contracted covid. Viruses are gonna virus...)
    My uncle, Dave, ended up in ICU on a respirator. Today I was told that they had to take him off everything - they had to remove air from around his heart and lungs, so the oxygen had to be removed. He had suffered a number of strokes and there is no brain activity. And they said it is only a matter of time.
    My uncle is saved, and will be reunited with his parents, my dad, and their 3 other brothers, as well as I know rejoicing upon seeing Jesus. The "baby" - their sister - is still alive. There is a lot of family, actually. Most in WVA, so we have not seen them in years.
    My cousin and her husband moved back to WVA a couple of years ago to be closer to family. She has not been able to see her dad since this covid stuff started months ago. As one who has gone through the loss of a dad, my heart breaks for her. Especially now, when likely there will be no funeral allowed. She also has 2 brothers. And there are a slew of cousins.
    Prayer for comfort, wisdom, and drawing nearer to the Lord would be appreciated.
  2. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to Jim_Alaska in Ballot Fraud and Detection   
    Salyan, thank you for the strong dose of reality.
    Acts 5:29 (KJV) Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
  3. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to Salyan in Ballot Fraud and Detection   
    BB, don't set up straw men. Socialism isn't human beings helping their neighbors, it's the government taking your money to feed those who won't work for themselves (mostly the head honchos) in the vain attempt to end poverty.
     
    For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 2 Thess. 3:10
    But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Thess. 5:8
    For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good... Mark 14:7 (Individual choice, not the government.)

    Socialist-style REQUIRED alms ends you up where my country is now - it is REQUIRED that we 'protect' others by masking, and not visiting, and not traveling, and just to make sure "for your protection"  the government will fine you $1000 if they catch you meeting up with your elderly parents for Christmas (those are thankfully being thrown out in court), and detain you at your own cost ($1500 USD) for 3 nights in a hotel to get testing once you return from traveling, and if you test positive, you are removed for quarantine in a government facility.  But it's all to protect you and others. Oh, and no level of enforcement - health services, AB, CAD, border patrol, RCMP - will take responsibility for what's going on, even while they assist. Apparently no one's in charge.  (Where's that little angry guy emoticon when you need him?)
    Sorry for jumping there but I am so DONE with anyone supporting socialism/communism nowadays - 100% of history shows where it ends up - Russia, Cuba, China, Venezuela - and maybe Canada down the drain too. And freedom of religion is the first to go - so don't try to tell me it's more Christian to support a system that suppresses Christianity. In our country, Manitoba has forbidden church services and is actively fining those that go anyways - Ontario is developing underground churches - Alberta 'allows' it at 15% capacity, with masking and no singing, so there are some churches openly defying it and others surreptitiously ignoring the limits - BC has banned in-person services. Hospitality (a direct command of Scripture) is banned, as you are not permitted to have other people in your own home. 
    It's real easy to support socialism when you are sitting comfortably in your own home, ignoring the lessons of history. It's a lot harder to ignore those lessons when you are counting cars in the church parking lot, installing blinds on the windows so motorists can't see how many people are in the church foyer, parking at a neighboring property and running over before the next car comes along to see you, live-streaming only the sermon so unfriendlies can't try to guess how many people are present by the volume of singing (yes, that happened to us), and having to convince your 71-year old mother that it's okay for us to drive to my brothers' place for Christmas - we can do it without the police pulling us over and giving us $1000 fines each for the audacity of Christmas with our small family in a small town.
  4. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to HappyChristian in Ballot Fraud and Detection   
    Jim, this is the mantra of the left...and, sadly, among many on the right as well as Christians. "la,la,la,la" with blindfolds on as evidence is presented..."I don't see any proof..." sigh
  5. Strongly Disagree
    1Timothy115 reacted to Bouncing Bill in Ballot Fraud and Detection   
    That was very interesting, but unconvincing for a variety of reasons.  Foremost is he gave opinion, but no evidence. He also does not tell the whole truth, especially of the failure of his invention. 
    Pulitzer does have a background in technology. He does have patents. The technology he refers to concerning scanning at grocery stores, etc. was called, Cuecat. It generated interest when it first came out, but was found to be poor technology. In 2006 PC World Magazine called it one of the 25 worst tech products of all time. Cuecat came out in 2000. It never really took off as a viable product. In Sept. 2000 a security breach of users was discovered. In October 2000 the Wall Street Journal had a major article on the failure of this product; Cuecat Fails to Meet Its Promise of Being Convenient and Useful. It was a technological and commercial failure. 
    Pulitzer has failed at a number of treasure hunts and his claim of a Roman sword with magical properties found at Oak Island seems really strange. I don't believe we should put much creditability in his talk.
  6. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to Jim_Alaska in Ballot Fraud and Detection   
    No evidence???? Evidently you had your head in the sand when his PowerPoint showed ballots with no bar code and the bull's eye obviously off center. And his testimony regarding the original ballots mysteriously disappearing is spot on. Those ballots are supposed to be kept available for 22 months by law. This is so they can be physically examined in case of irregularities; but now they are unavailable? Certainly nothing irregular about that.
    I don't think that there is any evidence that anyone in the world could produce that would convince you that there was fraud in this election process. But that is okay, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is wrong.
  7. Like
    1Timothy115 got a reaction from WellWithMySoul in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    You won't be quoting the NLT to the "non-believer that you meet on the street" either. Or, for that matter any other version unless you just happen to have your large print New Living Translation with you as you approach Walmart. So, that argument doesn't fit either.
    No, you still won't admit that the 1769 has MANY changes to words. The "v" for "u" was one of 1000s. I think you were caught off guard when you discounted significant changes from 1611 to 1769 only to find there are thousands. We have the best Bible available to english speaking people and it has been for almost 300 years. Your argument isn't holding water or, for that matter attaining your goal of agreement for a another new version. Why don't you just stop "as one that beateth the air:" [1 Cor. 9:26]  and move to a different topic; "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." [1 Timothy 2:16] "Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." [Galatians 5:26]. There is "discord among brethren" [Proverbs 6:19] being sown. 
  8. Like
    1Timothy115 got a reaction from HappyChristian in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    You won't be quoting the NLT to the "non-believer that you meet on the street" either. Or, for that matter any other version unless you just happen to have your large print New Living Translation with you as you approach Walmart. So, that argument doesn't fit either.
    No, you still won't admit that the 1769 has MANY changes to words. The "v" for "u" was one of 1000s. I think you were caught off guard when you discounted significant changes from 1611 to 1769 only to find there are thousands. We have the best Bible available to english speaking people and it has been for almost 300 years. Your argument isn't holding water or, for that matter attaining your goal of agreement for a another new version. Why don't you just stop "as one that beateth the air:" [1 Cor. 9:26]  and move to a different topic; "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." [1 Timothy 2:16] "Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." [Galatians 5:26]. There is "discord among brethren" [Proverbs 6:19] being sown. 
  9. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to WellWithMySoul in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.
  10. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to Pastorj in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    Would you use the KJV if you were a missionary to a place that doesn't speak English or would you use an equivalent version in the language of the country you are going to?
  11. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to WellWithMySoul in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    My response to the OP: without question or doubt, no...to any "update".  
    "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).
    "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Is. 55:11).
    A thoughtful quote is: "Teachers may put good things into our heads, but it is God that can put them into our hearts, that can work in us both to will and to do."
  12. LOL
    1Timothy115 got a reaction from HappyChristian in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    In modern scientific endeavors, NEVER! 😲 That settles it, I won't be getting the Chinese virus vaccine. 😷
  13. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to SureWord in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    You are reading something into the passage that's not there. There's the natural man and the spiritual. The unregenernated and regenerated. The saved and the lost. The Christian and the non-Christian. There is nothing in between. A Christian may be carnal in behavior but he in still a spiritual man with the mind in Christ in him. It's just a matter of yielding to that mind.
    The bible was not intended for the natural, i.e. lost man.
     
  14. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    Brother "BibleBeliever,"
    (Note: I intend the following with grace, but also with clarity.)
    Sure, I can let it go.  However, this discussion between us most definitely HAS affected my view of your original topic for this thread discussion.  Your original topic concerned the matter of updating/altering the present language of the King James translation to something that you view as more simple/modern.  Since you are the one who initiated this thread discussion, you serve as the central representative of that idea within the context of this thread discussion.  Even so, since (from my perspective) I have not found you able to understand the contextual and doctrinal flow of thought in a fairly basic portion of Scripture, I myself have come to not at all trust you as a representative of the pursuit to update/alter the language of the King James translation.  Understanding the flow of thought in a context is a matter of language comprehension.  Even so, if I (from my perspective) cannot trust you in the language comprehension of a fairly basic passage, then I (from my perspective) certainly cannot trust you in the language comprehension necessary to change/alter the entire Scriptures.
  15. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to John Young in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    I appreciate your comments and I think they show the right spirit in which most faithful King James Bible users approach the scriptures. 
  16. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    Brother "SureWord,"
    That is a valuable point to consider why the original translators chose the word "besom" in that context, rather than the word "broom."  Whatever their reasoning may have been (if we are able to discern it) is worthy of consideration whether the word "besom" is more significant for the context than the word "broom."
  17. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to SureWord in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    I'm a high school drop out though I have gotten my GED. I never read much more than the Sunday comics before I was saved at 18. I've never had a problem with the so-called "archaic" language of the KJV. In fact, I always enjoy looking up words I've never heard before. 
    My friend who is the pastor of Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Oriskany Falls, NY grew up a farmer and dropped out of school in 7th grade and said he never read anything until he read the KJV. He credits the reading of the KJV for increasing his comprehension and cognitive abilities. He had graduated from his bible college as one of the top students among his peers.
    From my experience anyone who complains about the "archaic" KJV wouldn't read an updated edition even if they had one just like many still won't read one of the 300+ modern English translations (yes, I have a list of approx that many since 1900) put out in "for ease of reading in a modern, updated English". It's just an excuse for laziness. Along with that I really don't know of any KJV bible believers clamoring for an updated edition. It something nobody is really asking for.
    Anyone at church not understanding an "archaic" word during a sermon has four avenues.
    1) Wait for the pastor to define it which most likely would happen.
    2) Look it up on their smart phone or tablet which many bring to church with them (please make sure your ringer is off)
    3) Take a guess since the context and feel of the word usually will give you an idea of it's meaning.
    4) Jot it down and look it up when you get home a enjoy learning a new word.
    "Besom of destruction" (Isaiah 14:23)
    My take on this "archaic" word. According to etymonline .com the word broom was in use 300 years before the KJV translators chose the word "besom". As I see it the word "besom" (a type of broom) fits the passage better since a "besom" is traditional associated with the occult and witchcraft (even to this day among Wiccans) and the context of the passage has to do with Satan himself as well as probably the future beast of Revelation. God will destroy these people with their own satanic devices.
    Just my thoughts.
  18. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    Hmmm. The following is what you said --
    So, if you you actually believe that the references to "the things" in verse 14 is contextually connected to "the things" in verses 10-11, let us consider how "the things" are presented in verses 10-11.  
    1.  In the opening portion of verse 10, we learn that God has revealed them ("the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" from verse 9) unto us believers specifically by His Spirit.  (Note: This grammatical construction indicates that we should not contextually separate the statement of verse 10 from the statement of verse 9.)
    2.  In the closing portion of verse 10, we learn the reason why God has revealed these things unto us believers by His Spirit.  He has done so because it is the Spirit who specifically searches "all things, yea the deep things of God."
    3.  In the closing portion of verse 11, the reason from the closing portion of verse 10 is substantiated more firmly.  Indeed, we learn that NO man knows "the things of God," but the Spirit of God only.  Thus (as I presented in my previous posting) we learn that it is impossible for any of us to know "the things of God" apart from the Holy Spirit's guidance.
    4.  So, does that which follows in verse 12 help us to understand who actually possesses the Spirit of God?  Indeed, it does; for in the opening portion of verse 12, we learn that we believers have indeed "received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God."  Furthermore, in the closing portion of verse 12, we learn that we believers have received the Spirit of God, specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us [believers] of God."  (Note: By this doctrinal progression in the context, we further recognize that the statement of verse 12 should not be contextually separated from the statements of verses 9-11.)
    But that leaves open the doctrinal question -- What about those individuals (unbelievers) who have not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit of God?  1 Corinthians 2:14 contextually answers the question.
  19. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    Brother "BibleBeliever,"
    I believe that with the above comment we find the foundational reason for our disagreement.  It appears that we each have a significantly different viewpoint concerning the importance of context in Bible study.
    _________________________________________
    Again for the sake of the audience, concerning the usage of "things" throughout the context of 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, we find the following phrases --
    1.  In verse 9, "The things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
    2.  In verse 10, "For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God."
    3.  In verse 11a, "The things of a man."
    4.  In verse 11b, "Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."
    5.  In verse 12, "That we may know the things that are freely given to us of God."
    6.  In verse 13a, "Which things also we speak."
    7.  In verse 13c, "Comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
    8.  In verse 14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God."
    9.  In verse 15, "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things."
    Now, what has been proposed is that we should separate "the thing of the Spirit of God" in verse 14 from all of the previous references to "the things of God" throughout the preceding context.  Yet in verse 14 "the things" is modified by the phrase "of the Spirit of God."  So then we may ask -- Is the Spirit of God at all referenced in the preceding context?  Answer -- Yes, the Spirit of God IS so referenced starting in verse 10.  
    1.  Verse 10, "But God hath revealed them [that is -- "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" from verse 9] unto us [believers] by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God."
    2.  Verse 11b, "Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."  
    3.  Verse 12, "Now we [believers] have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; [Why?] that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."
    4.  Verse 13, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
    5.  Verse 14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually [of the Spirit] discerned."
    6.  Verse 15, "But he that is spiritual [of the Spirit] judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."
    Even so, the above proposal not only requires us to separate "the things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14 from all of the previous references to "the things of God" throughout the preceding context, but also requires us to separate the reference to "the Spirit of God" in verse 14 from all of the previous references throughout the preceding context.  Furthermore, it requires us to separate the two "spiritually/spiritual" references of verses 14 & 15 from the references to the Holy Spirit throughout the preceding context. 
    So, what do we learn about the "work" of the Holy Spirit from this context?  We learn from verse 10 that the things which God has prepared for us believers, He has specifically revealed to us by his spirit.  Even so, those who do not yet have the Spirit of God would not yet have these things revealed to them.  We also learn from verse 10 that it is the Spirit of God who searches out "the deep things of God;" and we further learn from verse 11 that no man can search out these "things of God," but the Spirit of God only.  Even so, we understand that apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it would be impossible for any of us to know "the things of God."  However, we learn from verse 12 that we believers have indeed received "the spirit which is of God," and that we have received Him to dwell within us specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Even so, we may understand that until an individual has received the indwelling Holy Spirit, that individual would NOT be able to know "the things of God."  In fact, that is precisely what verse 14 teaches -- The "natural man" is the one who has not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit.  Because he has not yet received the Spirit, he does not receive "the things of the Spirit of God."  Rather, he finds those things to be foolishness.  In fact, he cannot even know those things because those things require spiritual discernment; and having not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit, the "natural man" does not possess the spiritual discernment that the indwelling Holy Spirit would provide.  On the other hand, "he that is spiritual" (v. 15) is one who has received the indwelling Holy Spirit.  As such, he is able to judge all things, specifically because the Holy Spirit that dwells within him searches all things, even "the deep things of God."
    Indeed, as we consider these things throughout the context, let us also take note of the three references to knowledge within the context.  In the closing portion of verse 11, we are told, "Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."  Then in verse 12 we are told, "Now we [believers] have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; [Why?] that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Finally, in verse 14 we are told, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  Indeed, NO one has this knowledge on his or her own, but the Spirit of God ONLY.  Yet we believers have received the Spirit of God specifically so that we can have this knowledge.  However, the "natural man" [the unbeliever] cannot have this knowledge, specifically because he or she has not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit.
    ______________________________________
    However, the accusation will remain from the other side that I am too concerned about the context in my Bible study.  As for me -- Context, Context, Context (that is -- grammatical context, immediate context, Biblical context).
     
     
  20. Strongly Disagree
    1Timothy115 reacted to BibleBeliever5 in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    You may feel comfortable with the antiquated language of the KJV, but that does mean it isn't archaic for the general population.  The definition of archaic fits exactly what you describe:  "no longer in ordinary use though retained by individuals" (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).  So while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.  We need to be thinking about them.  Even if you explain all the archaic language, they still may not be able to actually understand the language of Scripture itself, just your explanation.  That's a problem.
    I agree, it's mostly spelling changes.  It was not a general update of the grammar and vocabulary.  The grammar and vocabulary of the 1769 is still basically the same as the 1611.  So let's be clear-eyed about this.  We are still using a version basically 400 years old.  It is obviously and factually antiquated.
  21. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to HappyChristian in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    I don't think so, either - although that is where things head when one decides to "make it more understandable.' If it ain't broke (and it ain't) don't "fix" it. 🙅‍♀️
  22. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to Jordan Kurecki in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes. 
  23. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    And these are more of the FACTS that should be considered in the discussion; for whenever we disregard or distort the facts of truth, we always end up going astray in some manner or fashion.
  24. Like
    1Timothy115 reacted to HappyChristian in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    I haven't commented on here so far...folks are doing a well enough job without my input. lol  However, I had to comment on this one...
    Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 
    A bruit is a noise...hmmm...fits the definition you gave, Salyan. It is a noise heard through a stethoscope which can indicate a clogged artery. It can also indicate an imminent stroke (something that I actually learned about 25 years ago).  So, in effect, it is a report that is noised abroad to the listener with a stethoscope that sounds a warning. (It's from the Old French bruire which means "to roar." It is my understanding that it sounds very like a roar via the stethoscope.)
    I am not one in favor of "updating" the KJV. I don't believe there is an actual need to do that. I agree with those who've stated simple things like: ask, study. LEARN what the words we don't know mean.  Years ago, the KJV was classed as 3rd grade reading comprehension, but then after other versions began being used, it was bumped up to 6th grade reading comprehension (and that would be for the "slower" readers).  Now we have adults that complain about not understanding it. Again: ask, study, learn. 
    JMO. 
    There was a group who worked to "make the Bible more understandable to the reader." They came to the "Lamb of God..." Uh-oh...problem, they thought. This particular culture DID NOT KNOW what sheep were, as none lived anywhere near them. We would say it's easy to explain, right? Pictures, etc? No, no...they had to make it modern and understandable. EVERYWHERE that the word "lamb" was used, they instead used an animal with which these people were very familiar: PIG. Put that together, folks...they had people reading "Pig of God." Not at all blasphemous, right? But, you know, it was in words the people "understood."
  25. LOL
    1Timothy115 got a reaction from HappyChristian in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    I think "rant" should be removed from present use and substituted with "wild vehement action." Of course someone will come along and ruin it by making their own language changes. Then I'll have to declaim them violently. Couldn't resist 🤣.
×
×
  • Create New...