Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Who wrote this?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Hopefully this (Divine Origin)  is carried through from the beginning (of the forum) through today:

 

  

On 1/15/2007 at 2:23 PM, Alison said:

I posted this elswhere and thought I'd post it here too.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE?
 

[*]It's one of the few books that makes the claim to be the Word of God. The phrases, "Thus says the Lord," or "the Word of the Lord" are used hundreds of times. It claims to be the uniquely inspired communication from our Creator to us: All Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). [*]The amazing unity of the Bible: it is unique. It was written by forty authors from different backgrounds over 1500 years and yet reads like it was written by one author.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Who was the author of the book of Genesis?

I would say Moses though some passages suggest it was written later perhaps by Joshua or maybe scribes within the Levitical priesthood.

Regardless who it was it's still the inspired word of God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Who was the author of the book of Genesis?

The holy man of God, Moses, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit.

Note: The same goes for Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

I've always been told it was Moses. I full will believe it is the inspired Word of God and preserved for us today in our KJV Bible. My Bible opens to Genesis with this heading, "The First Book Of Moses, Called Genesis." 

10 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The holy man of God, Moses, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit.

Note: The same goes for Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. 

I've always been told the first 5 books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, was written by Moses. Is there literal evidence Moses was the author? I know of no evidence pro or con for Moses having written Genesis. Is there any contrary evidence it was not written by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses under the influence of the Holy Spirit? That is, I see no reason why the entire book of the Genesis was written by Moses alone. Is it possible it was written in parts by the patriarchs mentioned above?

Edited by 1Timothy115
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The general consensus ( that I know ) is that it was orally past down until Moses wrote it. But maybe the entire book was orally created by Noah or anyone else. I don't know of any actual evidence of Moses writting it how ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I've always been told it was Moses. I full will believe it is the inspired Word of God and preserved for us today in our KJV Bible. My Bible opens to Genesis with this heading, "The First Book Of Moses, Called Genesis." 

I've always been told the first 5 books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, was written by Moses. Is there literal evidence Moses was the author? I know of no evidence pro or con for Moses having written Genesis. Is there any contrary evidence it was not written by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses under the influence of the Holy Spirit? That is, I see no reason why the entire book of the Genesis was written by Moses alone. Is it possible it was written in parts by the patriarchs mentioned above?

If I may chime in there's nothing that I know of that states that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch. But remember, holy men of God SPAKE (not wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It's definitely his words yet there are passages that probably weren't written by him like Numbers 12:3 and Joshua 24:26 suggests Joshua may have written down the words of the Pentateuch.

Now in Jeremiah 36  when Jeremiah tells Baruch to write down the words that God gave him and read them to king Jehoiakim who preceded to cut up the leaves and toss them into a fire. Baruch was then commanded by Jeremiah to rewrite the words he was told and Baruch also ADDED more words to the scripture (Jer. 36:32). 

My point is that I don't see much difference, if any at all, between inspiration and preservation. Holy men of God were inspired, spoke the words, and those words were preserved by being written down. The KJV translators ADDED words that were not in the "original manuscripts" yet they are still the inspired words of God.

So, if Moses did or did not actually write the Pentateuch it is still the inspired words of God written down and preserved by perhaps Joshua and passed on to the Levitical priests.

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
12 hours ago, SureWord said:

If I may chime in there's nothing that I know of that states that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch. But remember, holy men of God SPAKE (not wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It's definitely his words yet there are passages that probably weren't written by him like Numbers 12:3 and Joshua 24:26 suggests Joshua may have written down the words of the Pentateuch.

Now in Jeremiah 36  when Jeremiah tells Baruch to write down the words that God gave him and read them to king Jehoiakim who preceded to cut up the leaves and toss them into a fire. Baruch was then commanded by Jeremiah to rewrite the words he was told and Baruch also ADDED more words to the scripture (Jer. 36:32). 

My point is that I don't see much difference, if any at all, between inspiration and preservation. Holy men of God were inspired, spoke the words, and those words were preserved by being written down. The KJV translators ADDED words that were not in the "original manuscripts" yet they are still the inspired words of God.

So, if Moses did or did not actually write the Pentateuch it is still the inspired words of God written down and preserved by perhaps Joshua and passed on to the Levitical priests.

I agree with over 90% of what you've said above. But, inspiration and preservation are different.

Can you further explain how you mean this..."The KJV translators ADDED words that were not in the "original manuscripts" yet they are still the inspired words of God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I agree with over 90% of what you've said above. But, inspiration and preservation are different.

Can you further explain how you mean this..."The KJV translators ADDED words that were not in the "original manuscripts" yet they are still the inspired words of God."

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. - I John 2:23

Italics. Everything after the colon was ADDED by the KJV translators yet we still consider them the inspired words of God yet then deny the translators were under any kind of inspiration (according to Job 32:8 inspiration gives understanding). Curious. I think we confuse "inspiration" with "revelation" when it comes to the scriptures. 

The workers in Exodus who built the tabernacle we in a sense under the inspiration of God. Exodus 31:1-6

It think we've boxed in what the term "inspiration" means.

Now, the term "revelation" is a whole 'nuther ball game. There are no more revelations, at least, not until the Great Tribulation.

Use whatever terminology we want, inspired or preserved, but those words after that colon were not in the "originals" (that nobody has ever seen or read in nearly two thousand years).

I've seen Christians disfellowship each other over semantics when at the end of the day they both believe the same exact thing, i.e. that the KJV is the inspired/preserved word of God.

Now back to Moses. 

I don't see why the Pentateuch can't be attributed to Moses yet not written by him but by someone else. We have the gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ yet we know he didn't write them but they are still about him and his wondrous works. I don't see why that can't be applied also to the 5 Books of Moses.

Yet, this isn't something I would harp on. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
56 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. - I John 2:23

Italics. Everything after the colon was ADDED by the KJV translators yet we still consider them the inspired words of God yet then deny the translators were under any kind of inspiration (according to Job 32:8 inspiration gives understanding). Curious. I think we confuse "inspiration" with "revelation" when it comes to the scriptures. 

The workers in Exodus who built the tabernacle we in a sense under the inspiration of God. Exodus 31:1-6

It think we've boxed in what the term "inspiration" means.

Now, the term "revelation" is a whole 'nuther ball game. There are no more revelations, at least, not until the Great Tribulation.

Use whatever terminology we want, inspired or preserved, but those words after that colon were not in the "originals" (that nobody has ever seen or read in nearly two thousand years).

I've seen Christians disfellowship each other over semantics when at the end of the day they both believe the same exact thing, i.e. that the KJV is the inspired/preserved word of God.

Now back to Moses. 

I don't see why the Pentateuch can't be attributed to Moses yet not written by him but by someone else. We have the gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ yet we know he didn't write them but they are still about him and his wondrous works. I don't see why that can't be applied also to the 5 Books of Moses.

Yet, this isn't something I would harp on. 

 

The issue with what was "added" in italics, isn't that it wasn't there, it was that the Greek or Hebrew from which it was translated had it, but they didn't translate directly into English, so it was added to show the meaning of the phrase in the Greek and Hebrew. But they placed it into italics to maintain honesty that it had to be added to clear the meaning.

On 3/22/2021 at 6:46 PM, 1Timothy115 said:

Who was the author of the book of Genesis?

I have seen an interesting theory on genesis, that it was actually initially written down by the people it was written about, for instance, Adam wrote part, Seth wrote part, Abraham wrote part, etc, and they compiled the writings at the behest of God, and they were kept until Moses, who compiled them together into one book, both from those writings, as well as, perhaps, the Lord filling in any other information he wanted recorded. Of course, it is just a theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, SureWord said:

I don't see why the Pentateuch can't be attributed to Moses yet not written by him but by someone else. We have the gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ yet we know he didn't write them but they are still about him and his wondrous works. I don't see why that can't be applied also to the 5 Books of Moses.

Yet, this isn't something I would harp on. 

 

I don't see either, that is why it can't be ascribed to Moses or to others and that he compiled it; of course either or both being under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

None of what I've posted is meant to disparage, cause affront, or sew discord [Proverbs 6:19]...just to hear thoughts on the subject and gain understanding. [Proverbs 15:22] Also, to question the comments like a Berean... "in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." [Acts 17:11]

After all brother, we will spend eternity together.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
On 3/24/2021 at 1:12 PM, Ukulelemike said:

The issue with what was "added" in italics, isn't that it wasn't there, it was that the Greek or Hebrew from which it was translated had it, but they didn't translate directly into English, so it was added to show the meaning of the phrase in the Greek and Hebrew. But they placed it into italics to maintain honesty that it had to be added to clear the meaning.

I have seen an interesting theory on genesis, that it was actually initially written down by the people it was written about, for instance, Adam wrote part, Seth wrote part, Abraham wrote part, etc, and they compiled the writings at the behest of God, and they were kept until Moses, who compiled them together into one book, both from those writings, as well as, perhaps, the Lord filling in any other information he wanted recorded. Of course, it is just a theory.

Thanks brother! The latter is exactly what I had been presented with.

Also, I forgot to tell SureWord that even though the words and phrases were added, they agree with other scripture which didn't have to have additions for understanding and they appear to have had the blessing of God since.

I might add that in no way can I agree with anyone who might attempt to say the Pentatruch was written by someone after Moses. That is ludicrous.

Edited by 1Timothy115
added 'they' before agree :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/22/2021 at 8:46 PM, 1Timothy115 said:

Who was the author of the book of Genesis?

Before writing was invented, people greatly respected the integrity of oral history. The narrative would then have been passed down from the various people involved. Adam would have been the author of the beginning of Genesis, various others might have contributed based on relevance and importance of their contribution. But it was Moses who authorized and ordered it being recorded into writing and those he authorized continued to write it to include his death. That would be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Deuteronomy was added later during the reign of Josiah when another written record was found. There's no mention of who authored it, but it matches the first four books enough to verify it's accuracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
 

Pretty sure Jesus’ OT study included the book of Genesis, as there is much in that book that also teaches about Christ, including some very clear types.

The Bible itself teaches Moses wrote the five books of the Law. Even if there were some remnants of oral or written history prior to the time of Moses, God told Moses what to write (ie. inspired him to write it), and we have no reason or Biblical evidence to conclude that he used any man-made sources to do so - and no NT writers question Moses writing of the books of the Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There are several places within the book of Deuteronomy itself that relate God directly telling Moses what to write, including the account of his death - that means it was written by him, during his lifetime - not hundreds of years later. That philosophy just creates doubt and uncertainty about the Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Deuteronomy 31:22
Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

I guess that means Moses wrote at least some of the book of Deuteronomy right then and there. No need for other people to write out the rest hundreds of years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 3/24/2021 at 1:12 PM, Ukulelemike said:

The issue with what was "added" in italics, isn't that it wasn't there, it was that the Greek or Hebrew from which it was translated had it, but they didn't translate directly into English, so it was added to show the meaning of the phrase in the Greek and Hebrew. But they placed it into italics to maintain honesty that it had to be added to clear the meaning.

I have seen an interesting theory on genesis, that it was actually initially written down by the people it was written about, for instance, Adam wrote part, Seth wrote part, Abraham wrote part, etc, and they compiled the writings at the behest of God, and they were kept until Moses, who compiled them together into one book, both from those writings, as well as, perhaps, the Lord filling in any other information he wanted recorded. Of course, it is just a theory.

No, the italicized words in I John 2:23 were not there. 

Would Moses refers to himself in the third person? Because there's plenty of times he would have if he wrote the books himself.

I don't see the problem with the Pentateuch being written by one of his scribes as Jeremiah had Baruch, Paul had his writers, the four gospels of Jesus Christ not being written by Jesus.

22 hours ago, Jerry said:

Deuteronomy 31:22
Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

I guess that means Moses wrote at least some of the book of Deuteronomy right then and there. No need for other people to write out the rest hundreds of years later.

Yes, but then why not write, "Therefore I wrote this song..." if he wrote Genesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed. The very essence and agenda of the liberal belief system.  

No, "the liberal belief system" would say that Genesis was made up of five different textual sources all compiled and edited together as one with some Babylonian mythology thrown in for good measure probably around the time of king Cyrus or the building of the 2nd Temple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 14 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...