I use for henrew the lexicomn by Holliday, and those lexicons by Louw-Nida, and Bagd...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
IFB Leaders On Expository Preaching
- Thread starter Truth Seeker
- Start date
- Status
I still use my Young's in hard cover from time to time and still like it. I have Moulton's Analytical Greek Lexicon in hardback, probably another sign of aging!
I'm old enough that I almost always prefer hardback over digital (except for searching). Because I sit with my Mother it is needful to have digital resources when I don't have access to my library. I bought two exact wide-margin Bibles, two "old-school" Bic 4-color pens and two sets of Bible highlighters so I could have the same things at my house and at Mother's and not have to remember to carry it back and forth (remembering is also difficult as you age!
). But I can't quite afford to have two copies of every book I own! 
I just wonder how close hard backs to the the digital versions are, as for doing say research studies, they preferred the hard backs!I still use my Young's in hard cover from time to time and still like it. I have Moulton's Analytical Greek Lexicon in hardback, probably another sign of aging!
I'm old enough that I almost always prefer hardback over digital (except for searching). Because I sit with my Mother it is needful to have digital resources when I don't have access to my library. I bought two exact wide-margin Bibles, two "old-school" Bic 4-color pens and two sets of Bible highlighters so I could have the same things at my house and at Mother's and not have to remember to carry it back and forth (remembering is also difficult as you age!
Last edited:
Thank you. I have looked up both but for the limited use I make of Strong, mainly looking up word usage & occurrence, rather than definitions. I prefer to look at the meanings of the words in dispute by their usage in context, rather than impose a definition.
For my purposes, the www.blueletterbible.org is sufficient, as it enables one to look up the words & compare different translations. In looking up a verse in Greek, the "Morphological Greek New Testament" text is also given.
e.g. Acts Chapter 8 (KJV)
The question under discussion in the earlier threads concerned the meaning & significance of "this generation" in the verse:
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Matthew 24:34
That is the consistent translation of the 14 versions cited. John disputed that, saying it should be "race" or "era."
The obvious reference is to the generation of Jews who rejected their Messiah & suffered the consequences in the destruction of AD 70. The significance of "race" or "era" is less clear & was not explained by those who suggested those alternative translations.
The exposition of the Olivet discourse does depend on the meaning of γενεὰ αὕτη & whole systems of theology reject the literal (partial) preterist meaning that all the translations agree on.
I think that one can hold to differing views on this question, as it could be the generation of that time, the race of the Jews, or couyld very well be the last generation before the Second Coming of Christ!
Certainly differing views can be held BUT lead to differing interpretations & resultant expository preaching.
The natural, literal grammatical, in context meaning will understand "this generation" to be the generation living when Jesus lived, & which he reproved very specifically for their rejection of him. The only problem with that is the reference to his "coming" in verses 26-31. As the context is the destruction of AD 70 - within the lifetime of "this generation" we need to understand "coming" in that sense, rather than completely remove Jesus' coming to his coming at the end of time for resurrection & judgment. Most of us believe in that final coming, which Jesus teaches later in Matthew 24:35-51 without any of the warning signs of the earlier coming for the destruction.
If "race" is correct, meaning the Abrahamic race neither John baptist nor Jesus had any encouragement for those who relied on their ancestry. (Mat. 3, John 8) The fact that forms of Jewish religion continues does not imply that the European Jews now occupying the promised land are genuine Abrahamic descendants. Do they live according to the Law & the Prophets? Also is Jesus saying that his wrath specifically against "this generation/race" will continue until he comes for resurrection & judgment - 2000 years of wrath against 60 generations rather than the maximum 3-4 in the commandments. Deuteronomy 5:9
The record in Acts does show many thousands of Jews believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, & opposition mainly from the authorities who were active in his rejection.
I think all agree that in the present Gospel age/dispensation there is no racial distinction - Jew & Gentile believers become one redeemed people of God. Peter calls us a holy nation in a clear allusion to Exodus 19:6 1 Peter 2:9
There is no prophecy in the NT that teaches a restoration of the nation of Israel to the promised land. The perfect fulfilment of OT prophecy is in the NH&NE. 2 Peter 3 Revelation 21
I also have found the Blue Letter Bible to be a handy online tool.
Jesus Himself stated that the Kingdom though was still intended for Israel, and Peter confirmed that also in Acts!
Folks, take the eschatological discussion to another forum.
Perhaps you know little of the ministry, the effect on the members, the influence, and the total impact that man had.
He most certainly was a cult leader in every aspect of the definition.
As mention in the thread, BB member Voyle Glover's book Fundamental Seduction is a beginning read to glimpsing an understanding of the man and the ministry. Voyle was as intimately involved in the church as anyone.
He, as well as Vic Nischk (author of Wizzard of God)wrote of the absolute control over every single aspect of the people's lives and decision making. (Hyles took Vic's wife for his own pleasure).
His own daughter recognized and speaks openly about this fact beginning some years ago.
Other members who new the man for who he was have spoken and written with the same conclusion.
Thankfully, there were and are those who did know, and did recognize, and published the truth to still warn, even in the face of sometimes vicious slander and physical abuse.
RM, you are too quick with your labeling without yourself knowing the truth.
I was not dishonest and certainly not wrongheaded in the application of the label "cult leader."
Next time you desire to take such liabilities as someone of authority, perhaps you should know a bit more of what you are discrediting.
It's a ridiculous and inflammatory over statement. He had serious problems no one disputes that. In order to be a cult leader he has to be the leader of a "cult". Baptist churches are not cults therefore it is impossible that he was a cult leader. I could go on but that ends the debate right there.
A local SB church may certainly teach the fundamental doctrines, but neglect to discern being in collusion with others that do not hold such fundamental doctrines as essential removes them from actually being fundamental much like the name Hitler. Other family members cannot remove the impact of that name although only one member may bring shame.
Billy Graham was once embraced by fundamental circles until he fellowshipped and took modernists in league. The local SB church must actively and openly rebuke the teaching of others in which they fellowship that do not hold to the fundamental doctrines just as Paul rebuked Petter before all and is read at will by any to this day. If not, they themselves are smeared with the same sin of modernism. If a fellowship is not in agreement of the Scriptures there should be no cooperation.
As far as independent, I doubt that any but those of us who have actually confronted the machinery would come to understand that the independence of most local SB churches makes for good propaganda, but that is the extent.
Certainly, it has been boasted on the BB how tomorrow "our church" could vote to leave, and there has been some that have. The question is, at what price?
If the independence were real, there would be absolutely no cost involved, not in money, not in membership, not in missions, not in outreach, not in influence, not in reputation, not in any way that was public or private. Not even the question, Why?
Which came first, the cooperative program or the SBC? Is not the independence invalidated by the influence of the amount of dollars contributed and the ability to appoint the number of representatives? Why dollars? Why not some other standard such as reflects eternal values of souls actually redeemed and lives influenced being openly recognized by missionaries, preachers, evangelists, teachers,... sent out by that local assembly. Why dollars? Because money buys influence, and so much for independence.
Independence is not just the ability to make self determination decisions. It is that recognition and acknowledgement by the power brokers. The SBC contends that they exist as a group of independent churches such as cooperate at will to the betterment of all, which sound so noble, but like the Articles of Confederation does not actually work. So there is that which is more Constitutionally formed, irregardless of the local desires and independent views.
The question remains, when will the local assemblies become dismayed at the modernists to the point that they might actually consider disenfranchising?
When will the tepid assemblies either become cold and dead to the Scriptures as has been happening as modernism decays the truth, or that local assembly get a Fire in the belly and take stands of righteousness and demand separation from modernists who compromise both Scriptures and worship and teach others it is righteousness in action.
So that is part of my thinking, and it cost me not a penny or independence.
Like I said, you need to read about him and the way he ministered before you spout what you so obviously have established as little historical understanding.
May I suggest you do some research, then contact me. Contact his daughter Cindy, and read the open letter written to the church by one of the daughters of Vic, read the online first hand accounts, do the work and then comeback to the subject.
Yes, he was a cult leader, and yes FBC Hammond, Indiana was a cult. This is not just my opinion, RM.
Do the research, then come back to the topic. If you desire to take the discussion from the public eyes we can visit more privately. There are others on the BB that also have understanding of this situation, too.
I really think you would benefit from the educational experience, or I would never dare encourage the venture.
One caution, be very careful! It is dangerous ground, and our enemy can and does continue to bring disgrace to those who are unaware of the deceitfulness. Do not allow the reading of excess open you to the same sin, but guard wisely that the same sin not be found in you as the Scriptures teach one must.
A church can be part of a real Christian group, but still have a pastor still acting cultic!
However, if you know anything about the named assembly coverups and internal corruption, it was not merely pastor and staff.
Here are two links that give documentation from a BB member. One is an interview, the other is a review.
The historic FBC Hammond displayed (displays) every evidence of cult following. Until that assembly repents and removes itself from the sin of the past, it remains in sin.
P&D Interview: Voyle A. Glover
A Review of Profaned Pulpit by Voyle Glover, atty. | Profaned Pulpit — The Jack Schaap Story
Unless they do as you suggest, the Holy Spirit will depart, and that church is one in name only! Their Lamp stand will have gone out, as in Revelation.
You may want to read the Constitution and Bylaws of the SBC before commenting.
1) Every SBC affiliated church- regardless of size is entitled to two messengers.
2) Every SBC affiliated church is entitle to one additional messenger for each full percent of the church's undesignated receipts
3) Every SBC affiliated church is entitled to one additional messenger for each $6,000 given to the SBC
4) NO SBC affiliated church shall be entitled to more than 12 messengers.
If a church can only have 12 messengers - that is a very small influence at a SBC meeting,where there are thousands of messengers.
Sounds very reasonable to me.
What came first - the co-op pgem or the SBC.
The SBC came first - in 1845 - because they want to appoint certian missionaries that the Tri-annual board would not.
The Co-op was formally formed in 1925.
From the SBC pages:
- It presents a unified and comprehensive budget, throwing a funding blanket over statewide, national and international missions and ministries.
- It provides a long‐term sustainability for our entities. When a church makes their missions giving as a percentage of their church budgets, it provide consistency and stability.
- It adheres to our long term Baptist principle that "we can do more together than alone."
- The Cooperative Program mitigates competition between entities thereby allowing a balanced Acts 1:8Strategy.
- It levels the playing field, and makes a place at the table for small and ethnic churches. Every church can stand hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder, on level ground, as partners in the gospel (large churches, small churches, new churches, growing churches, graying churches, and ethnic churches)
And yes - we can vote ourselves out of the SBC any time we want - we just dont want to.
Is the SBC perfect - of course not,
but neither is the GARBC, the ABC, the BBF or the thousands of unaffiliated churches.
And one more thing about the SBC co-op
When a missionary from IBF churches is over seas - and one of his supported churches disbands, decides to lower their monthly giving -
and ect, the missionary is caught short.
Not so, with a SBC - foreign missionary - when he is overseas, he does not have to worry about loosing any of his suppot.
and one other thing - we have met several of our SBC missionaries. Our churches do have mission conferences and our local association
often has a missionary as a guest speaker.
- Status