Jump to content

eswarden

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to ... in Opposing Theistic Evolutionism   
    I was having a discussion with a new friend a few weeks ago and the subject of Theistic Evolutionism came up.  Apparently, she believed in it, but I didn't know that.  She asked me if I thought that it was possible for God to have used Evolutionism to bring about things.  I told her, "Not the God of the Bible."  She asked me why I said that and I replied, "Because Evolutionism has a long string of deaths bringing man into existence, but the Bible says that one man brought death into existence.  (Romans 5:12, 15, 17, 1 Corinthians 15:21).
    I didn't make a presentation out of it; I said it in about 30 seconds or so.  I wasn't expecting the affect it would have.  She just sat there, looking at me with her mouth open. I asked her if she was okay and she said, "You just shattered my belief in Theistic Evolutionism in a few sentences.
    Now, I didn't come up with that reasoning.  I had heard it somewhere else and it made such good sense that I kept it.  You never know what mixture of logic and Scripture will reach people.
  2. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to heartstrings in Scientists create organisms that contain the cells of humans and animals   
    First of all, they have "created" nothing; manipulated what already exists, but no creation going on.
  3. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to Alan in Patriotism   
    Here is a great quote from President Ronald Reagan.
    "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

  4. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to John81 in Patriotism   
    Growing up in a very rural, small town there wasn't any hippies or war protestors around here. Thankfully I was spared from being dosed with much liberal propaganda from that era until I was much older and able to rightly evaluate it.
    The veterans in this town, from WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, (and later the other wars) were always respected, equally accepted and equally honored.
    America isn't perfect, isn't the greatest nation in every category (more-so back then than now), but America is my home, the land of my birth, the nation both sides of my family have called home for generations, and I love America no matter how many warts she's developed.
    Our neighbor lost both his legs to "friendly fire" in Vietnam. He could have been bitter, could have blamed America for spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair, but he chose not to. He didn't agree with everything involving that war but he proudly served and never shied away from proclaiming himself as a Vietnam veteran. He died several years ago and his son now lives in his former home.
    I'm not sure what the above references to Israel have to do with the topic of America and Vietnam, but I've been a "fan" of and supporter of Israel since I was a young child. That's never changed, not even when I had several very anti-Semitic friends in university for a few years.
    Every nation will one day be judged by the Lord. The best we can do in the meantime is do what we can to help as many people as possible come to Christ.
  5. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to Alan in Patriotism   
    Brethren,
    Every once in a while I see numerous articles that only present one side of the Vietnam War. 
    During that time of the Vietnam War the newspapers, liberals, the Hollywood crowd and the public in general were feed a continual stream of anti-American ideals: especially patriotism. My father taught me one good thing and that was to love our country. America, in spite of all the evil, corrupt politicians, and other forms of corruption, is still the best country on the face of this planet for Democracy, Individual Freedom, and Religious Freedom.
    It saddens me tremendously to witness the continual downgrade of America and the ideals why we fought the Vietnam War.
    While I was growing up (in the house of an agnostic and church hating father), I was taught, (rightly so), the values of America, Democracy, Patriotism, and the evils of Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and liberals. I have not changed a whit from my father's correct moral teachings.
    While growing up during the Vietnam War every day, (like our day and age), I read the supposedly vile actions of the U.S. Military as brought forth by Hollywood actors, liberal Religious figureheads, and the liberal, atheistic, and propaganda written by the communist leaning press. I read all about the evil actions of the military killing defenseless civilians by our Air Force and Army. And, I read all of the stories of how the Vietnam veterans were dope fiends, anti-military, and crazy in the head: remember Rambo?
    When was the last time that you heard a story in the press that told the public of the brave, sacrificial, and patriotic deeds of the vast majority of the men in uniform during the Vietnam War?
    Because of the vicious lies of the press, the traitorous acts of the Hollywood stars, the communist inspired Vietnam War demonstrations,and the unpatriotic acts of the ungodly religious crowd, our cowardly politicians gave in and did not allow the military to win the Vietnam War. Vietnam was the first war America lost. Now, South Vietnam is communist. Laos, which I was also indirectly involved, also was lost to the enemy. The enemy of America, and the nation of Israel, during that age, is Fascist (formally Communist), Russia and her allies. Vietnam was just a pawn that Russia used to obtain her goals.
    In spite of all the vicious verbal attacks, and numerous speeches, hippies, men rushing to Canada to avoid the draft, and others acts of civil disobedience, I decided to volunteer for military service (the US Air Force), to join the war.
    During the Vietnam War I volunteered and was not drafted. I found out by personal experience that the innocent civilians were not so innocent, the Hollywood actors were traitors, the liberal press was lying and the religious figureheads were lost men seeking fame and fortune. The Vietnam War, started by President Kennedy, was initially a war against communism. Due to communist lies the American public was misled. Even to this day you cannot hardly find an article written against communism. But, you can find plenty of articles against the war and downgrading the men who bravely, and patriotically, fought against the communist North Vietnamese and their Russian allies.
    I am a proud American Vietnam Veteran. I am a proud verbal defender of America and its ideals of Freedom. And I have come to realize that there is a concerted effort by the enemies of Freedom to downgrade America and the nation of Israel. I hope that there are other patriotic freedom loving Americans who remain faithful to these ideals of freedom in the day ahead in spite of this concerted effort to bash America and Israel through misleading articles.
    Alan
     
  6. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to Jim_Alaska in Is 'Calling Upon The Name of the Lord' salvation?   
    Obviously it is true that the exact phrase "ask Jesus to save you" is not in the Bible. But there are many exact phrases that we use that are not in the Bible in their exact wording, yet they are taught in "other words".
    Consider the thief on the cross:  Lu 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 
    And lastly consider the answer of Jesus to this man:  Lu 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
    If this is not teaching that he asked Jesus to save him and Jesus did exactly that, then I don't know what is.
  7. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to John81 in Church Covenants: Yes or No?   
    What were the requirements to join the church exampled in Scripture?
    From what I've noticed, without doing an exhaustive study at this time, there were only two requirements.
    Being saved (born again), followed by baptism, added to the church.
    After being added to the church members received preaching, teaching and instruction (as well as examples) of what they should know, how they should live, etc.
  8. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to No Nicolaitans in Church Covenants: Yes or No?   
    We used to belong to a Missionary Baptist Church, and they had the Church Covenant on the wall...close to the pulpit area. It wasn't just on the wall...it was huge...about 10 feet tall x 6 feet wide (just an estimate there).
    No one paid attention to it, and no one seemed interested in following it. I remember there was one section that said the members wouldn't drink alcohol or work in an establishment that sold alcohol. Not sure about the drinking part, but there were lots of folks who worked at grocery stores (including Wal Mart) that sold alcohol, and they were never reprimanded or kicked out. 
    My personal opinion is "no church covenant". I think the Bible, its teachings, and the teaching of it are all that is needed.
  9. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to wretched in Church Covenants: Yes or No?   
    IMO it is far from Scriptural Mike. Guide them in how to live for Jesus through your preaching. Signing a document won't make them walk in the Spirit, it will just make them more religious through rules and ritual.
    Sad about the pants thing, that makes little Scriptural sense. If the pants were made for women and not form fitting/immodest, it is hardly sinful.
  10. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to Jim_Alaska in I can't take it anymore!!!   
    It looked different when it was enlarged in posts. As a small avatar I aways thought I was some kind of giant lizard.    
  11. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to No Nicolaitans in Rightly Dividing Doctrine   
    Here's a short version of my personal explanation...
    The Old Testament Law wasn't given to Israel as a means of salvation; rather, it was given to show them that they were sinners who couldn't live (in the flesh) up to God's standard. They couldn't earn salvation; therefore, they needed a savior.
    My understanding is that many of the laws; such as, cutting their beard, shaving their head, marking and cutting their flesh, etc. was because God didn't want Israel looking like the surrounding idolatrous and heathen countries and thereby basing their "outward worship" of God...or their "outward association" with God on idolatrous practices. Those types of things were associated with idolatry.
    While none in Israel (or anyone else for that matter) could keep the law, the law was still holy, righteous, and showed God's standard for living a holy life.
    Therefore, while we aren't bound to live by the law, as children of God, we should want to try and please him with our lives. As we grow in grace and knowledge, he will conform us more and more into his image. As a result, we will gladly and freely "adopt" more of the law into our lives, because it shows our willingness to please him. This is a natural thing for those who do it out of love for God...not to be saved...but because we are saved. Not because it makes us better...but because we want to be better. It comes from a heart of love...not because we have to do it, are made to do it, or are commanded to do it.
    Romans 13:8-10
    8   Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
    9   For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    10   Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
    We just have to be careful not to become more focused on the law instead of the law-giver (and I'm not talking about Moses). This is a very fine line, and not many people walk that line in love or without making it the focus of their lives. Also, not many people do it for the right reason either. They do it to please other men or to feign righteousness...and God gets no glory for that.
  12. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to heartstrings in Rightly Dividing Doctrine   
    1 Corinthians 6:9-10
  13. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to wretched in 1Cor 7: Divorce and Remarriage   
    Hey Brother Scott, long time no argue with..... Let me also state as a qualifier to this post that I also respect your studies and appreciate them. These are my gleanings over the years and are presented only as food for serious thought.
    I contend that God settles the divorce/remarriage argument for us as a chosen generation, a peculiar people in verses 27 and 28 using Paul. I also contend that marriage/divorce/remarriage it is not the big deal that we tend to make it to be through Paul. Using the rule of "last mention" (may not be original thought but it is original to me :)) and the rule of who God is addressing by context. When directed only to the church age born again believers in a passage, that passage overrides (by applicability) any previous mention God made to other audiences. Including our Lord's rebukes of the Pharisees over divorce in the Gospels.
    After all, God settles many arguments through Paul for the Church age. Another one addressed through this book is the importance (or lack thereof)of marriage in the first place. I think God settles much simply through the following passages after He clarifies the divorce/remarriage issue: I think He also settles the confusion over church office qualifications in the same passages:
    29. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
    30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
    31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
    32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
    33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
    34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
    35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
    Now if God is telling us as "last mention" that marriage is a distraction from true discipleship, how on earth can we think a pastor or deacon has to be married? Or cannot be divorced? I think we grossly misinterpret those qualifications. Husband of one wife is never anywhere else mentioned in the Bible as a definition of "not divorced". It is simply a disqualification for polygamy and written in present tense just as all the rest of the quals are written. Do we really think that single church members although overseen by married men are capable of being far more advanced Spiritually than these pastors/deacons because of their "single" status?? God says a married man by nature will be focused more on the world than on the Lord. After all, a happy wife, makes a happy life (in this world).
    I find it sad that most if not all NT churches these days legalistically look down upon single and or divorced adults as "less" advanced Spiritually or even crippled in God's service. As opposed to their married counterparts when God holds the exact opposite view in these passages which are clearly directed to us (NT Churches).
     
     
     
     
  14. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to wretched in 1Cor 7: Divorce and Remarriage   
    I Cor, chapter 7 is the final authority for NT churches in this matter. Blending the Bible together to attempt to figure out what we as NT Christians apply to ourselves is where all confusion, debate, disagreement come in. Divorce and remarriage is only one of several areas like this that are up for constant debate and for no reason at all.
    Verse 27 and 28: Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
    It don't get any clearer than that and it is without caveat.
  15. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to Steve Schwenke in Why King James Only?   
    I disagree.  For decades young preachers have gone off to Bible College or Seminary with their faith in the Bible they had grown up reading, studying, memorizing and preaching, only to have some stuffed shirt idiot tell them that their Bibles had mistakes in it, and that they had to learn Greek and Hebrew to know what the "originals" said, and that they would never understand the depths of Bible Doctrine without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.  These same over-educated idiots miss OBVIOUS TRUTHS staring at them out of the pages of the KJV.   In the mean time, those students leave these schools with their faith in the Bible and the Holy Spirit destroyed, and they are now dependent on their EDUCATION instead of the HOLY SPIRIT.  
    A.T. ROBertson was one of the outstanding NT Greek Scholars of the early 1900's.  He wrote the definitive NT Greek Grammar - over 1500 pages - about the size of a dictionary.  For all of his knowledge of the NT Greek language, he was a dunce when it came to Bible Doctrine.  So while these "scholars" tell these young preachers that a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to have a proper knowledge of the Bible and Bible doctrine, the TRUTH is that having that knowledge is absolutely no guarantee that you will arrive at the truth.  
    So, Dr. Ruckman's sarcastic jabs only EXPOSE THEIR LIES.  And he would know - he was still writing Greek and Hebrew verses from memory on the dry erase boards in class when I was in school - he was in his 70's then.  He knows as much about Greek and Hebrew as any "scholar" in the country....that is why they think he is so dangerous.  He can shred their arguments at the drop of a hat with the same knowledge and material they use.  
     
    Conclusion? If all you had was a KJV, you would are better off than if you had any edition of any Greek NT available today.  The KJV has everything the Christian needs, and anyone who can read English can get the same information without having to go to Dr. Smellfungus to tell where it is all wrong.
  16. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to Steve Schwenke in Why King James Only?   
    Jordan,
    Where was God's perfectly preserved text prior to 1611?
    Everywhere. 
    The Russians had their own Bible from the correct text in the 1500's, as did most of the European languages.  That is why the Title Page on the KJV says "with the former translations diligently compared."  The KJV translators checked their work with other current vernacular translations, the Hebrew and Greek texts (rejecting what is now know as the CT), and other ancient translations.  There work was thorough in every sense of the word, unlike the modern slop that is coming out.  The Bibles in European languages at that time were the correct Bibles. 
     
    Today, the CT has ruined the translation process.  Most languages has traded in their TR translation in for the CT translation to the extent that it is difficult to find a good translation in many parts of the world simply because nOBody prints the correct version anymore.  But still, the important thing for those people in that situation is their ATTITUDE toward the word of God.   The attitude of the "scholars" is that they think they know more than God, and it is their duty to tell everyone where the Bible is "wrong."  The attitude of the believer is to believe WHAT HE HAS IN HIS HANDS, and trust that the Lord will bless it.  And God will bless them on an individual basis for their faith, even if their Bible is wrong in some places.  Their growth will be stunted to some degree or another, but God is still able to overcome that.  A good missionary will seek to put the right Bible in their hands if at all possible, even if it means producing a new translation from the correct text. 
     
    Why English?  It is the universal language of the day.  We send people all over the world to teach English.  It is the dominant language used universally.  In the OT times, if you wanted a copy of the TRUE Scriptures, it was in Hebrew.  Today, it is in English. 
  17. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to John81 in Why King James Only?   
    That "stood the test of time" is a very important factor and one that most KJB detractors have a difficult time trying to deal with. That's why they will most often ignore and steer clear of the 400 year track record of success only the KJB has and instead argue that the language is "archaic" and "nOBody can understand it".
     
    Interesting to consider that young children used to learn to read using the KJB but today it's claimed neither high school or college graduates can understand the KJB. I would say that's an indictment against the education system, not the KJB.
     
    I see now they are promoting the MEV as being the newest and best Bible today. That's the same thing they said previously about the ESV, NIV and so many others. How long before yet another MV is deemed necessary for the sake of publishers profits?
  18. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to Ukulelemike in Why King James Only?   
    Let's first clarify which "KJV Only" meaning you have in mind:
     
    1: Ruckman-style, 'the Bible was never perfect or complete until presented in the KJV 1611 version, which is perfect, and actually better than the autographs, as well as being inspired as a version.' I am not of this mind. 
     
    2: Preservation KJV only: The KJV is the preserved Bible, coming directly down in a perfect manner from the inspried autographs. We don't look to the 'originals' because they no longer exist, but we believe God preserved it exactly as He would have it. I hold to this position.
     
    Why? As you said above, Jordan, one reason is the Wescott/Hort connection: a couple Anglicans who made plain that they didn't believe in the Bible, and held to many Roman Catholic doctrines, such as mariolatry.
     
    As well, there is still many unanswered questions concerning Von Tischendorf's finding of the Sinaiticus, and whether it was even an authentic ancient manuscript. Despite the arguments from a man who claimed to have personally written the so-called Sinaiticus, there qas never any testing done to dispute this. As well, the copy was badly damaged and burned, though many of the burns look very neat and orderly, almost as if done on purpose, to look like it had been cast into a fire, as the story goes. AND there are numerous scribal errors and alterations, which as any scribe would know, should disqualify it as a 'good' text.
     
    The Vaticanus manuscript, also supposedly 'discovered' by Von Tischendorf, was well-known by earlier translators and was rejected by them for its many deviations from the other extant manuscripts.   Yet, it was these two foundations of sand upon which W&H chose to build their Fawlty Towers of scripture.
     
    That's a start for now.
  19. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to swathdiver in Great Study Bible   
    I for one am weary of study bibles for they contain the words and thinking of man.  Man can be and is often wrong.  A babe in Christ or an untrained/disciplined person could eventually confuse man's words with God's Word and visa versa.
     
    I believe that the Lord preserved his Word in the English language with the King James bible and feel no need anymore to refer to the ancient languages, the Holy Spirit being my teacher.  What could I miss out on without knowing the Greek or Hebrew?  Well, I used to look up words with my Strong's Concordance, any other reason?
  20. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to Jim_Alaska in Backslide, Backslider, Backsliding, etc. not found in N.T.   
    So then, only Jews can backslide? That is utter nonsense. When we do what they did we backslide. It has nothing to do with replacement theology, it is simply a word we have adopted to describe a specific situation.
  21. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to Jim_Alaska in Concerned over accuracy?   
    I feel that I have made my points in this thread using scripture and historic Baptist doctrine. Any further input into this subject on my part would be nothing other than me justifying what I have already said and provided proof for.
    There just comes a point where a thread degenerates into being silly, I don't need to go there, I have better things to do.
    My hope and prayer is that anyone coming to this thread either now or in the future might be edified by this discussion. If one person is blessed with understanding regarding this subject, then let God be praised.
  22. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Should Women Wear Pants?   
    In order to answer the issue of the question in the opening post, Biblical, doctrinal integrity compels us to answer the following three questions:
    1.  Is it a spiritual abomination for a woman to wear that which is inherently man's wear?  The answer to this question is Biblically easy, since Deuteronomy 22:5 directly declares, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
    (Note: Both sides of this declaration should be honestly considered.  Since God's Word indicated that it is equally a spiritual abomination for a woman to "wear that which pertaineth unto a man" and for a man to "put on a woman's garment," then this matter should not be a one sided consideration.  Thus we are moved also to ask -- What is inherently "a woman's garment," such that a man should never put it on?)
    2.  Is pants-wear inherently man's wear?
    (Note: If one answers to the affirmative, what Biblical evidence might be provided in order to support this answer?  Indeed, wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?  In those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak negatively concerning a woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?  On the other hand, in those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak positively (or, even neutrally) of a godly woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?)
    3.  What exactly is the definition for "pants-wear"?
    (Note: A basic English dictionary definition for "pants-wear" would be "an outer garment extending from the waist to the knees or ankles and divided into separate coverings for the legs."  Within this definition culottes, although commonly accepted among Fundamental Baptists for women to wear, are indeed "pants-wear."  In fact, an English dictionary definition for "culottes" would be "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the legs to resemble a skirt."  Furthermore, wearing any form of "pants-wear" under the skirt or for bed clothes would still be wearing "pants-wear."  So then, how absolute and consistent do we believe the declaration of God's Word in Deuteronomy 22:5 actually is?)
  23. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to Rebecca in Should Women Wear Pants?   
    I have, but I worked at Wal-mart for a while so I've seen everything.
  24. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to swathdiver in The King James Only Controversy by James White   
    White is a blind and foolish man.  Jesus never quoted the Septuagint because there are no jots nor tittles in it.  It is a fraud which did not exist until the 19th century, same with the Critical Text which it is part of.   
  25. Thanks
    eswarden reacted to John81 in The King James Only Controversy by James White   
    This is the typical approach of those who seek discredit the KJB. First, they claim to like the KJB, often claiming it's a good translation, but from that point on virtually everything they say contradicts their opening claim. How can they believe the KJB is a good translation which they like if they find it to be filled with flaws and additions of men?
    The claims of the "obvious additions" are constantly stated as if fact yet no facts are presented to support this claim. Supposition and speculation is all they have. As pointed out above, often the only basis they have for claims of latter additions to the manuscripts is because they don't think a particular verse makes sense to them. If they encounter a portion of writing in other works they can't grasp how it fits there do they believe someone else added it to that writing at a later date?
    In arguing the KJB contains non-inspired verses they are saying the KJB is flawed and therefore unreliable, whether they admit it or not. As well, by pointing to one or more MVs as being accurate where they claim the KJB to be inaccurate they are in effect claiming the MVs to be superior to the KJB. Taken to its ultimate conclusion their claims can only lead to the position that the KJB is not the inspired Word of God but a man polluted text while their preferred MVs, which they claim get things right, must be the actual inspired Word of God. (Unless, of course, they happen to be of those who claim none of our translations are the preserved Word of God. In that case, they claim the KJB is a lesser translation while their MVs are closer to the pure Word of God.)
    In their attacks against the KJB they conveniently ignore their MVs don't agree with one another, often to the point of great contradiction, and therefore their MVs (at the least many of them) must be flawed themselves.
    It's clear authors such as this have the intent of disparaging of the KJB coupled with the the promotion of MVs based upon their own "reasoning" alone; no facts involved.
  • Member Statistics

    6,088
    Total Members
    2,124
    Most Online
    shlomo
    Newest Member
    shlomo
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...