Marilyn C

If God's word is magnified to him (TO HIM) more so than his name...and it is (Psalm 138:2)...
...and if taking God's name in vain is included as one of the 10 commandments...and it is (Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11)
...then I would assume that God's word is of some importance and wouldn't be willing to discount its importance in the future...
...but that's me.

I drink more coffee than tea.  But we don't like instant coffee,  We only buy pure arabica,  which we buy when we go to France.  It is own brand from Auchan hypermarket (hypermarché)  They do two versions douce which is the milder and degustation with is stronger.  We buy the degustation both for home and for church which we do after the morning service.  One person who has been attending our service recently asked us to get him some as he doesn't usually like coffee but he likes ours.
 

I understand it was from the past when they high tea and low tea.  They were meals which tea was also served.  Not sure what the difference is.  I did look it up once but have forgotten now.

You certainly all know how to cook a good meal!
Here in sunny, (hot) Aussie land we, (hubby and I) are having for tea, (evening meal) trout - caught by hubby on fishing trip, and chips, which I will make from potatoes. I do like sweet potato chips also.
regards, Marilyn.

Hi Alan,
Please excuse my error. I was using the NKJV, so now I will post the KJV, or write the name of the other version. Thank you for the correction.
(Habakkuk 13!!!! lol)
regards, Marilyn.
 
Thanks Jim, much appreciated.
Marilyn.

Hi Alan,
Please excuse my error. I was using the NKJV, so now I will post the KJV, or write the name of the other version. Thank you for the correction.
(Habakkuk 13!!!! lol)
regards, Marilyn.
 
Thanks Jim, much appreciated.
Marilyn.

I may get ostracized for this but I am going to share my opinion anyway...
The King James Only Movement is tied to Independent Fundamental Baptists. Other than some snake handling type charismatics and Mormons I cannot think of any other groups that exclusively use the KJV (although I would feel confident in saying they do not believe the KJV is the word of God). Because the two are tied together what effects 1 will effect the other. It is my personal opinion that the IFB movement is floundering.
In my opinion the movement was supported by strong personalities that were able to rally large followings behind them. Men like Jack Hyles, Tom Malone, Lester Roloff, etc. These men had huge ministries, many with large Bible colleges. These men are gone and what happened to their ministries? They are gone as well. Midwestern is now basically an online correspondence school, Tennessee Temple is gone, First Baptist Hammond (Hyles-Anderson) is a shell of what it used to be. Scandals that followed some of these men did not help matters any. This leads me to a glaring conclusion, these ministries were built upon men, not upon Jesus Christ.
Now that these Giants in the movement are gone those that learned under them are for the most part unwilling to adapt to changing cultures and instead parrot what they have been taught without being able to attract followers the way their predecessors did. Adapting does not mean compromising. In order to adapt we don't have to change the Bible version we use, we don't have to bring in guitars and drums and huge electronic screens. We might want to consider changing the way we are reaching people. We might want to consider leaving behind shallow topical preaching that is just screaming about women wearing pants or that the movie theater is the devil's playground. We might want to consider actually teaching the Bible and engaging people that have questions and are searching for answers. We might want to consider actually presenting who God is and what the Gospel is to people instead of rushing through the Romans Road and trying to get the person you just woke up on a Saturday morning to pray a prayer.
Shallow preaching, weak evangelism, and refusal to change our methods will finish off what is left of the IFB movement. When we send missionaries out to foreign lands do we expect them to do things exactly the same way we do them here in America? I surely hope not. We have seen evidence from this board that knocking on doors is not culturally acceptable in certain countries, in some places it may even be illegal. So our missionaries find different ways to reach people. Why can't we do that here? Why must we continue to go door knocking every Saturday morning at 10 am regardless of the fact that only 1 out of 10 people answer the door and that 1 doesn't care what you have to say?
I will tell you that with this Millennial Generation that is coming up the only way you will reach them is to be able to answer their questions. Answers like this is the way it is or do it because I said so is not going to go anywhere with them. They are not going to listen to someone read a passage from the Bible and then scream about women wearing pants and rock music for 45 minutes never referencing the biblical passage again. You can say well then forget them we don't need them. But that is not going to work for the church in America. If the church in America is to continue then we must reach them or we will go the way the church in Europe has gone. Would anyone have thought 400 years ago that missionaries would be going into Europe? Well if we keep up the way we are going missionaries are going to be coming to America instead of being sent from her.
If the IFB movement dies or floats off into obscurity the kjvo movement will as well. God's word will still be preserved and available but who will carry it forward? To continue to give God's word to a lost and dying world we must find new ways to reach people and teach them the Bible. Once we reach them God and the Gospel will do the work like He has for 2,000 years. The Romans Road is not the Gospel and very few to any new creatures in Christ will be made using it. And to present the Gospel you have to actually engage lost people. Our churches have to quit swapping members but convert the lost and disciple them in sound doctrine.
All of this is my opinion. I am an Independent Fundamental Baptist. I believe the King James Bible is God's word. I am disgruntled and frustrated. I want to see a stop to a reliance on man's way and a revival of God's way.

Hi Eric,
You are stringing together those scriptures and do NOT have scriptural basis for that.
1. You have NOT proven that the OT mentions the Body of Christ, when scripture clearly says it doesn`t.
2. You are assuming we are the army, when in actual fact Jesus clearly says in many places that it is His angelic army.
3. The world`s armies ONLY surround Jerusalem at the end of the trib, and that is the ONLY time scripture tells us that the Lord Jesus comes in power and great glory.
If you are not able to clearly see what God`s word is saying and continue to go against scripture, then we wont be able to carry on this discussion. We need to be talking about what God`s word actually says and NOT go against it, or assume, having our own opinions.
When you continually talk of the Body of Christ in the OT when God`s word says it was not known then, then to me you are on your own agenda and evading the points I bring up.
regards, Marilyn.

Hi Eric,
You are stringing together those scriptures and do NOT have scriptural basis for that.
1. You have NOT proven that the OT mentions the Body of Christ, when scripture clearly says it doesn`t.
2. You are assuming we are the army, when in actual fact Jesus clearly says in many places that it is His angelic army.
3. The world`s armies ONLY surround Jerusalem at the end of the trib, and that is the ONLY time scripture tells us that the Lord Jesus comes in power and great glory.
If you are not able to clearly see what God`s word is saying and continue to go against scripture, then we wont be able to carry on this discussion. We need to be talking about what God`s word actually says and NOT go against it, or assume, having our own opinions.
When you continually talk of the Body of Christ in the OT when God`s word says it was not known then, then to me you are on your own agenda and evading the points I bring up.
regards, Marilyn.

Hi Eric,
Now I cannot imagine a humble, pleasant man, (from photo) like yourself - killing people. We know that God`s word tells the believers of the Body of Christ that we do NOT war against flesh and blood.
`For though we walk in the flesh we do NOT war according to the flesh.` (2 Cor. 10: 3)
And Ps. 149 cannot be about the Body of Christ as God tells us quite clearly that that was NOT known in the OT.
Now as to Habakkuk, quite clearly that is about the Lord going forth to battle for Israel in the past. There again the OT prophets were NOT told about the Body of Christ.
 
So on to Rev. 19. We see that the army is dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Now did you know that that is also a description of angels?
`And out of the temple came the seven angels, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure, bright linen,...` (Rev. 15: 6)
This description is to show that they are holy angels. Thus the army coming with the Lord Is described as holy, (fine linen) to distinguish them from the beast and his army. Now the Lord is the captain of the hosts through out scripture, and is the ONLY army that is from heaven. The Body of Christ is NOT an army but the Body of believers who will be the court in heaven who bring judgment upon fallen angels and the world system. (1 Cor. 6: 2 & 3)
Another point, bro. You may not have realised it but the Body of Christ is NEVER called the wife, or the bride, only Israel has been referred to as that. As you like the OT you may like to look that up - where God calls Israel His wife and is betrothed to them forever.
regards, Marilyn.

Hi Invicta,
Thank you for that clarification, however since Israel is still a nation there is still more to come. So we can`t say that 70AD was the worst time.
Now about that other point - So the people of Israel were delivered? `And at that time your people shall be delivered.` (Dan. 12: 1)
Marilyn.

Hi Eric,
I hear what you are saying, however those `meek` inherit the earth, (Matt. 5: 5) whereas the Body of Christ has a different inheritance - in heaven. (Rev. 3: 21)
Again, the revelation of the Body of Christ was NOT known to people in the OT.
Marilyn.
Hi Invicta,
So the people of Israel were delivered? `And at that time your people shall e delivered.` (Dan. 12: 1)
And was that time the worst ever? `And there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation,` (Dan. 12: 1)
Marilyn.

I said that I would drop it, but I guess I lied. Forgive me. I've been pondering the questions asked by WW, and since no one else has answered, here are my thoughts...
While I've certainly entertained the idea that those sons of God in Job were angels, there's nothing definitive in Job describing them as such. In Job 38, there is the reference to both "morning stars" (often commonly interpreted to be angels) and "sons of God" (also commonly interpreted to be angels) in the same verse. If that's the case...that both refer to angels...then the angels and the angels were there (?).
Christ was foretold before Genesis 6. I believe salvation has always been, is today, and always will be given freely by grace through faith...apart from any works/deeds/law-keeping/etc...regardless of which "dispensation" existed, exists, or will exist. (I'm not trying to get into a dispensation debate. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world). They were called sons of God, because that's who they were.
As I mentioned, the bible isn't definitive (in my understanding) of exactly who the sons of God were in the Old Testament. The first human to be called the son of God wasn't the Lord Jesus Christ; it was Adam...one might find a reference to Christ being referred to as the son of God early in one of the Gospels; however, the Bible definitively states that the very first man who ever lived was the son of God...
Luke 3:38
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
...as such, at this time, I can only conclude that "sons of God" are men...whether alive bodily and saved...or dead bodily but spiritually alive in Christ.
In my understanding, it didn't. Their children became mighty men of old...men of renown.
Was Goliath a fallen angel/human mix? Were his brothers? Were the other sons of Gath who were called giants also fallen angel/human hybrids? Was Og? All of these men lived after the flood.
One can be a mighty man and a man of renown without being a giant. Alexander the Great, George Washington, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, goodness...I would imagine if you asked anyone who Donald Trump was, they would have an answer. Why? They may not have followed the news, and they may not be able to give you an accurate answer about him; however, he has become a mighty man...a man of renown, and they can tell you something about him.
I don't understand where you get "bloodlines" as the interpretation for "generations"?
When you responded to my original question, you respectfully included the following prerequisite...
"one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly."
...I also think that we often make the mistake of applying modern-day meanings to words that were written in the 1600's...many of which have changed meaning over the centuries. What did the word "perfect" mean in 1611?
Sorry...I don't follow you on this.
Because...
Genesis 6:5
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
The flood was about mankind's wickedness and evil...not angels. I would respectfully and humbly assert that to assume a Satanic plot of stopping the Messianic bloodline is an extra-biblical assumption with no biblical evidence.
After Joseph, Pharaoh did a lot of dirty business toward the Israelites, but that was toward the Israelites...not the Messiah. He was trying to do population control. The only definitive proof (that I'm aware of) that we have of an actual attempt to stop Christ in the Bible is found in Matthew 2; in which, Herod had all of the male children killed (who were two years old and under).
Why did God save Noah and his family?
Genesis 6:8-9
8   But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9   These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
He found grace and was just.
Everything that you've described here was done by holy angels who served God.
No. I would respectfully and humbly say that we would assume it...without real biblical evidence.
True.
God "married" the first two humans, and told them...
Genesis 1:27-28
27   So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28   And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
From this, it would appear to me that sex (as originally intended by God) was "part-and-partial" to marriage.
However, sex isn't automatically part-and-partial to marriage in this sin-stricken world that we live in, because of man's sin nature. Sin has twisted it into something other than the wonderful joy and closeness that God intended to exist between a husband and wife. Sex outside of marriage always brings baggage and always brings remorse of some kind.
Many married couples no longer enjoy the intimacy of marriage...because of sin. Pride and selfishness take over and drives a wedge between couples. She won't be intimate, because he won't _______ , or he does _______ . He won't be intimate, because she won't _______ , or she does _______ . It's all sin. It's all due to sin. It's all an effect of living in a sin-cursed world and not allowing Christ to live through us.
WW, I didn't mean any of this as an attack on you. In fact, I thank you for stirring my interest and taking my mind off of my troubles for a while.
In closing, I leave these last few thoughts...
The giants were already living and existed when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, married them, and had children.
The flood was a judgment upon mankind...not fallen angels, nor their offspring with human wives.
Giants lived and existed after the flood. How did this happen if the angels (who are chained up until judgment day as given in Jude) were the ones who produced the giants?
 
 
 
 
 
 

The form of coming together in a public meeting run by a religious organisation is only one way for believers to gather, I believe. In the early gatherings of the believers there were many ways they shared, prayed and were taught. Also there was participation by all.  It seems to me that the lecture type services that have developed over the years have come to mean - legitimate and all else not legitimate. 
Something to bear in mind is that an organisation is actually a `business/charity` and as such they are coming more and more under the control of the governments, requiring them to bow to their worldly values. Eventually the government will shut down those that do not adhere to their demands.
regards, Marilyn. 

Hi BabeinChrist,
I so agree with you. It would be ridiculous for God to create angels with apparatus to procreate and then not let them. Angels do not have sexual parts as that is only what people need to have children. Jesus Himself said there is no marrying in heaven.
The `sons of God` to my understanding are the sons of Seth, as from him on then `men began to call on the name of the Lord.` (Gen. 4: 26)
regards, Marilyn.

Hi Eric,
I can see your thinking there bro, however it is not correct. See what you quoted -
`...were grafted in among them, with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree.`  (Rom. 11: 17)
If you think that the olive tree is Israel then we are grafted in among Israel and become a partaker of the root (holy) and fatness of Israel. But Israel is not holy and is not able to give us any fatness - Gk. word `piotes` meaning repletion, fullness. Israel is partially blinded (Rom. 11: 10 & 25) Consider also -
`...how much more will these, (Israel) who are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree.` (Rom. 11: 24)
Clearly the Lord is saying that Israel will be grafted back in again into Christ. 
regards, Marilyn.
 

This is a poem my mother taught me. I think it is from Scotland.
 
`Not till the loom is silent, and the shuttle cease to fly,
Will God unfold His wisdom, and explain the reason why,
The dark threads are as needful, in the weaver`s skilful hands,
As the threads of gold and silver, in the pattern He has planned.`
 
`For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,...` (Rom. 8: 29)
Marilyn.

It is amazing and somewhat discouraging when people, especially Christians, are drawn to the dramatic and sensational, rather than what God's Word plainly teaches. These are followers of men rather than The Word of God.

I have full assurance of conviction that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are NOT angelic beings.

That’s what I am thinking. God uses the word “angels “ in other places in Genesis, so wouldn’t He have done the same if that’s what He meant in Genesis 6.
”sons of God” throughout the Bible always referred to saved people, and I think the people who are telling me they are angels are getting that info from outside of Scripture, and turning it into a false doctrine.
thx!

Hi BabeinChrist,
I so agree with you. It would be ridiculous for God to create angels with apparatus to procreate and then not let them. Angels do not have sexual parts as that is only what people need to have children. Jesus Himself said there is no marrying in heaven.
The `sons of God` to my understanding are the sons of Seth, as from him on then `men began to call on the name of the Lord.` (Gen. 4: 26)
regards, Marilyn.

Genesis 6: 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they werefair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
People (including Christians) use these verses to teach that fallen angels mated with human women, resulting in some half-human/half-demon hybrids.
This doesn’t sit well with my spirit, and I think there is a simple explanation of this passage that is being overlooked.
I just do NOT believe it is saying demons mated with women. Angels are not human & cannot create offspring with us. 
I do not think God would even allow that to be POSSIBLE.
 
 

This is a poem my mother taught me. I think it is from Scotland.
 
`Not till the loom is silent, and the shuttle cease to fly,
Will God unfold His wisdom, and explain the reason why,
The dark threads are as needful, in the weaver`s skilful hands,
As the threads of gold and silver, in the pattern He has planned.`
 
`For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,...` (Rom. 8: 29)
Marilyn.

1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

In the Church...

The Church is not a brick-and-mortar edifice.  It is a living, breathing organism.  God no longer dwells in Temples made with hands, but now dwells in a people.

"When ye come together in the Church" simply means "when ye come together as a Body... because... the Church is a Body. 

Colossians 1:18 And He is the head of the Body, the Church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Christ's Body is not brick and mortar.  It is those who have trusted Him as the propitiation for their sin.

Matt.18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
1 Cor.6:17 "But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."
1 Cor.6:19 "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"
1 Cor.12:12-14
 "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
 For the body is not one member, but many."
I suppose it all depends on what one believes... what they've been indoctrinated to believe? Or what God's word says?