Originally Posted by Nehemiah

In other words, by way of example ONLY, given the longevity that people lived, Adam (a "son of GOD") takes a wife from "the daughters of men" who's 4-5 generations removed from him. . .that would equal one messed up off-spring, huh?

Adam didn't take a wife from the daughters of men.
You seem mired in confusion...

Originally Posted by Nehemiah

Are we really suppose to believe that GOD, destroyed mankind (Save Noah's party), because "fallen angels" started procreating with human women? And yet, the so-called "embodied devils", were left by GOD, to do (and/or try) the same thing after the flood?

The word Nephilim means "fallen ones." Not Sethites.
It would seem you are having a problem with a spiritual being interfacing with female humans. Have you ever thought how Jesus wound up in Mary's womb? Considering that your very Saviour once lived in ambiotic fluid, only the most jaded of Bible students would completely close off the idea that at least some type of interaction could happen in the realm of evil as well. I'm actually not as dogmatic on all this as you may think, and I try to avoid from completely shutting out information from others, especially when I ask the questions.

Originally Posted by Nehemiah

But you just stated that "Our perception is moot."
His WIFE.

Look, if you want to truly have a "civil discussion" as you stated, why not just stop playing games. My comment about perception was in response to your indication that there were no real GIANTS, only perceptions of giants. The Bible is pretty clear about the fact that there were giants, whether YOU accept it or not. The comment about his WIFE, indicates you may be a stubborn jackanapes and this is unfortunate, as I had hoped you were looking for answers, not a merely a platform for your quips.

[George]

Aloha brother Parrish,

I think you missed the fact that "Nehemiah" was banned! It's been a long time since I have seen as many heresies come from one individual in such a short time!

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I can see where there would have been no "profit" in trying to "reason" with the man, when it is obvious that he was into "word games" and "Sophistical arguments", trying to impress us with his deep theological reasoning.

It's just too bad, and really sad, that so few "Christians" have a love of the truth anymore, but instead they will hop on some "hobby horse" (or in this case several "hobby horses") and ride it to death - to the detriment of a sincere and genuine Biblical discussion of Scriptural issues!

Well thanks Bro. George it looks like you're right...
Guess I'm slow today, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what on earth he was spouting off about!!!

It's a shame when we get new members who feel they have to pick some of the most strange, controversial and divisive questions in order to introduce themselves to the forum... I mean the questions are not all bad, but at least have the decency to listen to the answers provided...

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Since we're getting off topic and he's not responding anyway...

How do you get pneumonia 21 times...?
do you have a problem with your immune system brother that's gotta be rough...

Brother Parrish, I had an interesting childhood.

The "family" doctor I had as a child was an alcoholic. His prescription to everything, colds, flu, puncture wounds, was sulfa drugs and penicillin. At the age of 39 during my 19th bout of pneumonia, I discovered I was allergic to both, along with onions and marijuana. I had 18 bouts of pneumonia, in varying degrees, till the age of 25. This unknown allergy to penicillin only made me more susceptible to the virus, according to my pulmonologist. I was pretty free till the age of 39, and have had it 2 times since then, and been free of it since 2000 when I began regular anti-pneumonia shots. My doctor I have now is very attentive.

Brother, I think Nehemiah is digesting the vast amount of information given to him, like Jordan in the other thread, I think he's just trying to come to grips with our replies. I guess they thought I cut and run over on FFF, to be honest, I get so much from this forum, the fellowship is so home-like, and days don't have 29 hours, I just don't have time to deal with FFF at the moment. I'm going to set aside one whole day of computer time online to deal with them. Brother George's reply to my query on I Cor. 15:29 was so complete and filled with info I've been most the day checking into that. Nehemiah wants to express himself as we all do and put his two drachmas in, he'll be back. His long reply containing comments to me are unique and interesting, but not after knowledge. I hope he stays and becomes one of us. Off topic? I think Nehemiah arrived at his unique interpretations after much study, but not according to Isaiah 28. Our explanation of the off topic Scripture we discussed and how we arrived at our individual conclusions is a lesson not only to Nehemiah, but unto those who read and don't register in the forum. I think where we differ is: 1. One side is right, the other is wrong, 2. Our own different personalities and beliefs on questions I don't believe there is a clear answer on. I guess it could be said I am nice here and acerbic and rowdy in FFF and giving a "poor witness". I've proven one thing over there: They can dish out arrogance and ridicule, they can't take it.

Brother, you have a great day and...back to the Scriptues.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by George

Aloha brother Tony,

I know that this is off topic but . . . I too wonder at some of the same things (and others) that "baffle" you. However, in going through the Bible (this time around) I believe I "get" what "...baptism for the dead" is. Please follow the Scriptures along with me.

We all know (or should know) that 1 Corinthians Chapter 15:1-4 defines "the Gospel (Paul's "Gospel"). However the whole Chapter could be called "The Resurrection Chapter" of the Holy Bible.

Read through Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians and take note of the phrase: "the dead" [1Corinthians 15:12-13,15-16,20-21,29,32,35,42,52]. Verses 12 through 52 define "THE DEAD".

1 Corinthians 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, IF the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The first thing that has to be done is identify WHO "the dead" are and then WHO are the "they" that are being "baptized for the dead". [And you can be absolutely sure that the Mormons don't have a "clue" about the matter!]

I believe that when a new (born again child of God) Christian is "baptized" (in water) that that "baptism" is a DECLARATION to the world - "the dead" ARE GOING TO RISE AGAIN! "They" are saying: Even though "the dead" are dead and buried, there will come a day WHEN THEY SHALL RISE! And correspondingly (as Paul said) "IF the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" That is - WHY bother baptizing "for (on the behalf of) the dead", IF "the dead" don't rise?

In other words "Water Baptism" for the church DOES NOT place a born again child of God INTO the body of Christ (The Holy Spirit DID THAT the moment we BELIEVED!); and although it "could be" a PICTURE of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (and our identifying with Him); I believe that water baptism "for the dead" is a DECLARATION {by those who are alive, and who are being baptized} to the world that says: "SEE, you may "think" that all those who have died (i.e. "the dead") are dead, buried, and GONE FOREVER, but I am declaring to you: that just like I am buried in this water, and just like I have come up out of the water, so shall ALL of "the dead" also come up out of the grave someday."

"The dead" can no longer speak, but those of us who are alive can. And we can speak with "words" and we can "speak" by way of a "picture" (a physical "illustration"). When a Christian is "baptized for the dead", he (the Christian) is speaking on their behalf (since they can longer speak); he is testifying that "the dead" are NOT going to remain "dead" FOREVER. Read the verse:

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Ask yourself WHO are "the dead"? They are either ALL of "the dead" ["For as in Adam ALL die,"] or they are ALL of "the dead" in Christ ["even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive"].

"The dead" in Christ can no longer speak, but we can speak. And when we are baptized we are speaking (by way of an "illustration") for "the dead"; and DECLARING to the world that just like we DID NOT STAY UNDER THE WATER, neither shall "the dead" STAY DOWN - "the dead" SHALL RISE AGAIN!

George, I can only say thank you for the time and the effort you put into this, and that this is the first real complete explanation of the verse I've been given, and I am in your debt brother. You've given me even more perspective on both books of Corinthians than I had, I feel a spiritual delight in what you've given me to study. Brother, I don't preach my dispensational beliefs on water baptism, the signs of an apostle, Mark 16 or the Great Commission versus the ministry of reconciliation, we have touched upon them since I became a member of this forum. I'll answer inquiries of my beliefs. I don't want to be a nuisance. I would however like to graze over my own beliefs by saying though I am not a petrified Bullingerite I believe there are portions of both letters to the Corinthians that are transitional, as befitting books written during the Acts period. Your exposition here fits I am sure your, and it also fits into my own convictions, so thank you again and I owe you one

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Diligent

Well, that is an interesting heresy.

Banned.

Brandon, were you beginning to feel like a termite in a yo-yo?

Grace and peace my friend.

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Well thanks Bro. George it looks like you're right...
Guess I'm slow today, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what on earth he was spouting off about!!!

It's a shame when we get new members who feel they have to pick some of the most strange, controversial and divisive questions in order to introduce themselves to the forum... I mean the questions are not all bad, but at least have the decency to listen to the answers provided...

Brother, we didn't waste a nanosecond. Where we gave Nehemiah Scripture, it will bear fruit. Where we said "thus sayeth the Lord..." or "It is written..." will not return unto Him void. We have another Tim, another new member, I have some verse comparison sites for him, so we move right along...

Grace and peace to you.

Tony

[chette777]

Originally Posted by Winman

The creation was a process. First he made the earth which is solid, but it was covered with water.

Winman, I disagree God first Created the heaven (Gen1:1) then he created the Earth, and the earth was not covered in water. And we have a Scripture which the Lord wrote and he wrote it in an order that if it is sequential and/or Chronological which means the earth was created before there was fountains abounding with water. and it is in His preserved word for us to read it in that order.

look Carefully at God preserved word in Prov 8:22-24 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,before his works of old (this term related to the six days of the Lord's work as found in Gen1-2). I was set up from everlasting (Eternity past for us but is always present with the Lord), from the beginning (this beginning is not that of Gen 1:3 where God began his six days of work), or ever the earth (the earth is mentioned first setting the order of the three things mentioned in Prov 8:22-24) was. When there were no depths (second in order- this would indicate the abode or Heaven of God still had no deep to it), I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water ( third in order and here is the first mention of water as far as it's creation. no where else in scripture can we find where water came from but here is the indicator it was created after the earth).

so what we have here is a sequential order for the earth, the deep and the waters. all these show up in Genesis 1:2. Now if the earth was created first according to the Order God placed in the scriptures of Prov 8:22-24, in it's original form it did not nor could have been covered with water as water came later after the deep. All three of these created things (which the Lord preceded) were created before the establishment of the 24 hour day as found in Gen.1:3. We have no indication here when they were made but they were created before Genesis 1:2 and most definitely before Gen1:3 and Prov 8 supports that order as verse 25-31 all agree with Gen1:6-13 as far as God's works of old done in the 24 hour parameter. simply put the heaven, Earth, the deep and the fountains abounding with water were created in Everlasting (eternity past)

[Winman]

First, I would like to thank Brother George for his study on the baptism of the dead. I too had often been confused by that, what you said made a lot of sense.

So, in the early church did believers participate in a "baptism for the dead" ceremony? Or did I misunderstand you?

I also appreciate Tony's posts, you have a very unique style.

And Brother Chette, you know that you and I are never going to agree on this gap theory. Maybe I should be like Tony and just let it go. As he said, nobody has ever gotten saved by arguing either for or against this gap.

But there are several things about this gap theory that really bother me. Most importantly, it casts doubt on God's Word. I have seen several of those that support the gap make statements saying the word "was" in Genesis 1:2 should more properly be translated "became". Now that bothers me, and bothers me a lot. I believe God has preserved his Word, I believe it to be infallible. That's why I came to this forum in the first place. I believe God is much wiser than all of us, and that God clearly knows the difference between the word "was" and the word "became". God did not say, "And the earth became without form and void;" the Bible says,

And the earth WAS without form and void;

Now, maybe I am being picky, but this is a pretty big deal to me. We haven't gotten two verses into the Bible, and those who support the gap theory are telling honest Christians who simply take God's Word as literal, that they lack the spirtual discernment to understand the "deep" things of God. Well, all I can say is consider Nehemiah. He believed the earth "became" without form and void;. And look how messed up he was.

And you are not reading Proverbs chapter 8 properly. The whole chapter is about wisdom and understanding. It was wisdom and understanding that God possessed before his works of old.

And Proverbs 8 is not chronological. Genesis 1 is chronological. That's why God takes us step by step, the first day, the second day, the third day, the fouth day, the fifth day, the sixth day. There is no mistaking that Genesis chapter 1 is a chronological account.

Now, Genesis chapter 2 is not chronological. In Genesis chapter 2 it tells of Adam being created before the beasts of the field and every fowl of the air. In Genesis 1 the fowls were created before the beasts of the field, and the beasts of the field were created before man. So Genesis chapter 2 is not a chronological account.

And Proverbs chapter 8 is not a chronological account either. So, this is not something to base your gap theory on.

And you forever talk about this timeless eternity between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 without a single verse anywhere to support it. You say creation "began" at Gen 1:3. Well, I beg your pardon, I believe creation began when God said,

IN THE BEGINNING

I really don't care what you, or some preacher somewhere says. My Bible says everything began in Genesis chapter 1, verse 1, and I believe God.

[George]

"First, I would like to thank Brother George for his study on the baptism of the dead. I too had often been confused by that, what you said made a lot of sense.

So, in the early church did believers participate in a "baptism for the dead" ceremony? Or did I misunderstand you?"

Aloha brother Winman,

I do not believe that their ever was a special "ceremony" involving "a" baptism for the dead (like the Mormons).

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

I believe that when a saved (born again) child of God is baptized (in water) that it not only represents our identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ [Romans 6:4 & Colossians 2:12], but that it also signifies that those who have died in Christ, (i.e. "the dead") are going to rise again someday. And just as the living saved child of God (undergoing the baptism) came up out of the water - to "walk in newness of life", someday "the dead" are going to come up out of the grave to "walk in newness of life" for all eternity.

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

I do NOT believe that when a Christian is "baptized for the dead" that that "Baptism" somehow SUBSTITUTES for a "baptism" that "the dead" may or may not have received (that's what the Mormons do); instead, I believe that (down through the church age) when each and every saved, born again child of God has been baptized (in water) that this showed forth a wordless "picture" or a simple "illustration" of what is going to happen to "the dead" (in Christ) someday; in which case then, whenever a living child of God is baptized (in water) they are showing forth (by a "picture") that all those who died in Christ are going to (someday) rise again.

Since "the dead" can no longer speak or testify (their bodies are "asleep" in the grave) - when the living child of God is baptized, that "Baptism" is not only a testimony for himself, but it is also a testimony on behalf of "the dead" in Christ (that can no longer testify) that they too are going to come up out of the grave - just like the individual who is/was being baptized came up out of the water.

If I am right, then every single individual child of God (since the church began) who has been baptized (in water), has been "baptized for the dead" (in Christ), so that, although "the dead" cannot speak - they still "speak" through the one being baptized. Water Baptism then, although it bestows no special "efficacy" on the one being baptized, does signify that just as the Lord Jesus Christ came up out of the grave - someday "the dead" in Christ are going to rise also, and the individual being baptized is "speaking" wordlessly (testifying physically) not only on his behalf, but also on the behalf of all those who have died in Christ (i.e. "the dead") when he undergoes water baptism, and in that sense he is "baptized for the dead".

I have tried to explain myself as clearly as I can. I am a bit "tentative" about this because after 50 years reading my Bible, this is the first time that this explanation has occurred to me (I have never read this from any one else). It seems like it is sound Scripturally, but I wouldn't fight over this issue, and if someone could show me where I may be wrong, I sure wouldn't feel bad.