No Profanity *** No Flaming *** No Advertising *** No Anti Trappers ***NO POLITICS
No Non-Target Catches *** No Links to Anti-trapping Sites *** No Avoiding Profanity Filter
And remember, no one doubts Plato, or Aristotle, or Homer ever lived, so why do people doubt that Jesus lived when is much more evidence for his life than the others?
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413372 06/03/2501:11 PM06/03/2501:11 PM
Even most secular historians agree that Jesus was a real person that lived in Israel about 2000 years ago. What they disagree on is whether or not he was the Son of God that performed miracles and died and came back to life.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413373 06/03/2501:23 PM06/03/2501:23 PM
Did you know Jesus was a common name back then? Why do you think Judus had to kiss Jesus? So the guards knew which Jesus to arrest, because there was more than one in the garden that night
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413377 06/03/2501:29 PM06/03/2501:29 PM
Peter James and John were with Jesus - can't find any reference to the other 9 being present - I am open to scripture though - please show me if I am in error
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413383 06/03/2501:40 PM06/03/2501:40 PM
trusting brakes to stop a vehicle often is also a bizarre thought process if you don't get out and take off all wheels and check your brakes every time - or we can live in faith.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413389 06/03/2501:51 PM06/03/2501:51 PM
Keith, yes, I agree 100%. Just because the same story is repeated the same way over and over, simply means its the same story. If the story is factual is completely unrelated to how it is told, and retold. Like so many family "legends". Passed down through generations, some true, some not.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413390 06/03/2501:53 PM06/03/2501:53 PM
Interesting that not one archeological discovery has disproved the Bible, but many have been discovered that prove the Bible's accuracy. Many rivers, mountains, valleys, cities, kings, battles, even scribes and priests.
Psalm 34:6
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: KeithC]
#8413391 06/03/2501:53 PM06/03/2501:53 PM
Copying a document well in no way whatsoever means that document is truthful. What a bizarre thought process.
Keith
This is true. I've also heard it said that we can use the Bible to verify the truthfulness of the Bible, or that the Bible proves itself to be true, which is also nonsense. If that were true, then we could also use Snow White and the 7 dwarves to prove that Snow White and the 7 dwarves is true.
Copying a document well over a long time period does mean, though, that we can eliminate the variable of a sort of "telephone game" thing where the text changes over time, and we can look at what we have today, and know that it's what the original document writers wrote, and that helps to understand the thought processes of the writers, and what they intended to say. Now, whether or not they were confused, lying, or actually believed what they wrote..............
Interesting that not one archeological discovery has disproved the Bible, but many have been discovered that prove the Bible's accuracy. Many rivers, mountains, valleys, cities, kings, battles, even scribes and priests.
Archeology has proven a lot of Biblical events that were previously thought to be myths true. But archeology also proves that mankind, and the world, has been around waaaaaaaaaay longer than 6000 years, which directly contradicts the Bible.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413397 06/03/2502:04 PM06/03/2502:04 PM
There's an entertaining genre of writing called Historical Fiction. In Historical Fiction pure fiction is merged with real people, places and events in time. It's generally an easier way to create a setting for the story being told, though good authors do a lot of research. Just because real people places and events are included doesn't make the work non-fiction.
Keith
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413398 06/03/2502:05 PM06/03/2502:05 PM
I put no faith in the dating methods of evolutionists. Their date for the age of the earth has changed from 10,000 years in the beginning of their religion, to 4.5 billion years old now... that's a pretty big variable.
Psalm 34:6
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413400 06/03/2502:09 PM06/03/2502:09 PM
I found this interesting. Thought you people that think the Bible is false would like to see this.
Once again I believe you don't understand what you are posting.
The last column..."Accuracy of Copies" does not mean that the content is true or accurate. It only means.......as Keith has pointed out .....that the 'copy' is 99.5% accurate compared to the source that was copied. I has nothing to do with validity or facts. Case in point is the inclusion of Homer's Iliad. This is mythology about the Wars between Troy and Greece. It includes the intervention of the 'gods' Apollo, Athena, and Achilles. It is obviously not factual in that aspect..........but it was copied fairly well.
Interesting that not one archeological discovery has disproved the Bible, but many have been discovered that prove the Bible's accuracy. Many rivers, mountains, valleys, cities, kings, battles, even scribes and priests.
Archeology has proven a lot of Biblical events that were previously thought to be myths true. But archeology also proves that mankind, and the world, has been around waaaaaaaaaay longer than 6000 years, which directly contradicts the Bible.
How has archeology proven any contradictions to the Bible? Dating of items has been shown to be in error. For example, million year old fossils(not truly) can be made in a few minutes with some heat and pressure - then carbon dated and come back millions of years old - when you just watched them being made.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413412 06/03/2502:34 PM06/03/2502:34 PM
1. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that Adam was the first man.
2. In Luke 3:23-38, a complete genealogy from Jesus back to Adam is given, it has 77 generations by my count.
3. The ages of several of the folks listed in that genealogy are listed in various places in the old testament, and after the flood the Bible says that humans can only live a maximum of 120 years.
If all three of those pieces of information are true, then man has only been around for 6000ish years. IF man has been around for more than 6000ish years, then at least one of the following must be true.......
1. Some guy named Adam that lived 6000ish years ago wasn't the first man, contradicting Genesis 1
2. The genealogy is incorrect, and there were alot more generations between adam and Jesus, contradicting Luke 3:23-38
3. The ages of the folks listed is wrong and/or some folks after the flood lived waaaaaaay longer than 120 years.
We know that's not true though. Humans have been around more than 6000 years. We've been in North America alone for at least 14,000 years, some estimates say up to 25,000 years.
Last edited by loosegoose; 06/03/2502:38 PM.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413417 06/03/2502:46 PM06/03/2502:46 PM
One other thing to add before I get......I know that many Christians believe that the Genesis creation story isn't meant to be literal, that its a metaphor. The problem with that is that if that were the case, then the genealogy in Luke wouldn't be correct. If the genealogy in Luke is correct, then Adam as the first man must be taken literally. And if Adam wasn't the first man, then the genealogy given in Luke is wrong. The genealogy points to the creation story, or at least the part about adam being the first man, as literal and not metaphorical.
Husky, if your wrestling with whether or not the religion you've been taught is real, trapperman is not the place to do research.
This is true. These threads give me an instant knot in my stomach. It’s not spirituality and faith that upsets me; it’s the constant battling over who has it all figured out. I certainly don’t. When something like this is shoved down your throat all your life, you get an aversion to it. Husky I hope you can find peace in your own spirituality.
I’ve always thought the Bible was a history of the times, as written by those who lived it, as they remembered it. My big issues have been with its interpretation by priests, ministers, bishops, rabbis, popes, prophets, professors and the like. Everyone has an opinion of who and what their God is. Everyone wants me to believe what they say is what the Bible contains. Every religion thinks it is the true way, and their interpretation is the only way.
I see all religions like trapping: Everything has qualifiers. No one lure catches them all. The wind and rain play havoc with the best laid plans. It boils down to the trapper and individual studying the situation, getting comfortable with the interpretation, and laying steel in a way that works for them.
Now, there are some universal truths in trapping. 1. A trap left in the truck doesn’t catch anything. 2. Otters are non-existent in Washington DC so don’t put your trap in the middle of a cement intersection. 3. Catching your aunt’s favorite cat will guarantee you a dope-slap or even worse. 4. Flooding makes it hard to stay clean. 5. Wet, muddy fur guarantees a low offer by the fur buyer. 6. Tainting bait in the basement makes loved ones less loving.
There are some universal truths about biblical stuff, too. 1. If you don’t open the Bible, you’ll never learn it’s contents. 2. The Bible was written by those who could read and write. 3. The Bible was written based on memories, and memories aren’t always accurate. 4. No one living today was present when the miracles performed by Jesus were done. We’re taking the memories, passed thru generations of interpretations, as truth. 5. The Bible is, essentially, a history book.
History tends to be written by the victors. Some of it is probably accurate but considering how much beverage was consumed from lead goblets, even that is suspect. If someone wants to believe in the words of the Bible, I’m all for it. But the way I see it, no book is perfect.
Never too old to learn
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413491 06/03/2505:55 PM06/03/2505:55 PM
1. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that Adam was the first man.
2. In Luke 3:23-38, a complete genealogy from Jesus back to Adam is given, it has 77 generations by my count.
3. The ages of several of the folks listed in that genealogy are listed in various places in the old testament, and after the flood the Bible says that humans can only live a maximum of 120 years.
If all three of those pieces of information are true, then man has only been around for 6000ish years. IF man has been around for more than 6000ish years, then at least one of the following must be true.......
1. Some guy named Adam that lived 6000ish years ago wasn't the first man, contradicting Genesis 1
2. The genealogy is incorrect, and there were alot more generations between adam and Jesus, contradicting Luke 3:23-38
3. The ages of the folks listed is wrong and/or some folks after the flood lived waaaaaaay longer than 120 years.
We know that's not true though. Humans have been around more than 6000 years. We've been in North America alone for at least 14,000 years, some estimates say up to 25,000 years.
The genealogy, if incomplete, doesn't mean it's incorrect. You misunderstand the mindset of the writers. Our modern perception is " just the facts, ma'am. " They didn't necessarily think that way.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Husky, if your wrestling with whether or not the religion you've been taught is real, trapperman is not the place to do research.
This is true. These threads give me an instant knot in my stomach. It’s not spirituality and faith that upsets me; it’s the constant battling over who has it all figured out. I certainly don’t. When something like this is shoved down your throat all your life, you get an aversion to it. Husky I hope you can find peace in your own spirituality.
I will pray for you…..
Ant Man/ Marty 2028 just put your ear to the ground , and follow along
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413515 06/03/2506:31 PM06/03/2506:31 PM
Bishop John Shelby Spong (maybe he was an arch-bishop) made an interesting observation in one of his books. For the record, I only read one. In it, he said in the time of Jesus, heaven was thought to be at the level of the clouds. Since then, we’ve figured out how to see 100,000 light years away. Does that mean heaven moved? Or just our concept of it now that we can see further?
I’m still not convinced the earth and all we know took 7-days to make. Or that the sea parted due to a miracle. That may have worked when people didn’t understand the process of tsunamis and tectonic plate movements. Ask the people in the southern states that just went thru flooding if heavy rains aren’t a possibility.
A lack of knowledge doesn’t a miracle make. So says Yoda.
Never too old to learn
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413531 06/03/2506:52 PM06/03/2506:52 PM
I think the kid just likes to stir the pot. He doesn’t seem to be questioning his beliefs, so much as looking for someone to disagree so he can defend his religion to quell his boredom. Not saying I don’t dip into the whiskey bottle and look for an argument now and again lol
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413538 06/03/2506:59 PM06/03/2506:59 PM
I think the kid just likes to stir the pot. He doesn’t seem to be questioning his beliefs, so much as looking for someone to disagree so he can defend his religion to quell his boredom. Not saying I don’t dip into the whiskey bottle and look for an argument now and again lol
…. You’re probably right…. I liked it when he made another account to talk in his own posts …. That was pretty funny lol
Insert profound nonsense here
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413541 06/03/2507:03 PM06/03/2507:03 PM
I’ve always thought the Bible was a history of the times, as written by those who lived it, as they remembered it. My big issues have been with its interpretation by priests, ministers, bishops, rabbis, popes, prophets, professors and the like. Everyone has an opinion of who and what their God is. Everyone wants me to believe what they say is what the Bible contains. Every religion thinks it is the true way, and their interpretation is the only way.
I see all religions like trapping: Everything has qualifiers. No one lure catches them all. The wind and rain play havoc with the best laid plans. It boils down to the trapper and individual studying the situation, getting comfortable with the interpretation, and laying steel in a way that works for them.
Now, there are some universal truths in trapping. 1. A trap left in the truck doesn’t catch anything. 2. Otters are non-existent in Washington DC so don’t put your trap in the middle of a cement intersection. 3. Catching your aunt’s favorite cat will guarantee you a dope-slap or even worse. 4. Flooding makes it hard to stay clean. 5. Wet, muddy fur guarantees a low offer by the fur buyer. 6. Tainting bait in the basement makes loved ones less loving.
There are some universal truths about biblical stuff, too. 1. If you don’t open the Bible, you’ll never learn it’s contents. 2. The Bible was written by those who could read and write. 3. The Bible was written based on memories, and memories aren’t always accurate. 4. No one living today was present when the miracles performed by Jesus were done. We’re taking the memories, passed thru generations of interpretations, as truth. 5. The Bible is, essentially, a history book.
History tends to be written by the victors. Some of it is probably accurate but considering how much beverage was consumed from lead goblets, even that is suspect. If someone wants to believe in the words of the Bible, I’m all for it. But the way I see it, no book is perfect.
This is a purty good analysis, Teacher.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Savell]
#8413547 06/03/2507:05 PM06/03/2507:05 PM
I think the kid just likes to stir the pot. He doesn’t seem to be questioning his beliefs, so much as looking for someone to disagree so he can defend his religion to quell his boredom. Not saying I don’t dip into the whiskey bottle and look for an argument now and again lol
…. You’re probably right…. I liked it when he made another account to talk in his own posts …. That was pretty funny lol
That was pretty good lol.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Teacher]
#8413563 06/03/2507:22 PM06/03/2507:22 PM
Bishop John Shelby Spong (maybe he was an arch-bishop) made an interesting observation in one of his books. For the record, I only read one. In it, he said in the time of Jesus, heaven was thought to be at the level of the clouds. Since then, we’ve figured out how to see 100,000 light years away. Does that mean heaven moved? Or just our concept of it now that we can see further?
I’m still not convinced the earth and all we know took 7-days to make. Or that the sea parted due to a miracle. That may have worked when people didn’t understand the process of tsunamis and tectonic plate movements. Ask the people in the southern states that just went thru flooding if heavy rains aren’t a possibility.
A lack of knowledge doesn’t a miracle make. So says Yoda.
Heaven was never in the sky. That's the physical heavens. It's not a place in the clouds, and hells not inside the earth. When people die thier bodies don't float up or go down. It's a spiritual reality. Think another dimension right here but not visible to our physical eyesight.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413569 06/03/2507:31 PM06/03/2507:31 PM
How many versions of the Bible are there? I googled it quickly some estimates up to 900, hundreds for sure. So does not what version you read affect what you believe?
How many versions of the Bible are there? I googled it quickly some estimates up to 900, hundreds for sure. So does not what version you read affect what you believe?
Unless it's some modern version that deviates from the original intention, the message is the same. People go on about the catholic vs Protestant versions, but there's nothing different that really should affect belief. I've read both.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: PAskinner]
#8413779 06/03/2511:08 PM06/03/2511:08 PM
Protestent Bible has 66 books the Catholic Bible has 73 books. all the additional books are in the Old Testement. The Gospel of Thomas fouond in Egypt is not in any of the Bibles. One of our Bible studies several years ago studied that Gospel.
Bryce
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413780 06/03/2511:10 PM06/03/2511:10 PM
Is the Book of Enoch or the Book of Giants in the Catholic Bible? Or any of the other Books mentioned in the OT? I need to get a good Catholic Bible, which one is the best?
Reason I ask is that I have two Qurans; one of them modern and one very old one I picked up. They are very different in their translations.
Resident Conspiracy Theorist Accused Moron, Nazi, Low IQ, Putin Fan Boy, and Obama Clone
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Chancey]
#8413800 06/04/2512:18 AM06/04/2512:18 AM
Is the Book of Enoch or the Book of Giants in the Catholic Bible? Or any of the other Books mentioned in the OT? I need to get a good Catholic Bible, which one is the best?
Reason I ask is that I have two Qurans; one of them modern and one very old one I picked up. They are very different in their translations.
The Catholic Bible was compiled in the 4th century. The Protestant Bibles are all.derived from it. The Book of Enoch and The Book of Giants were rejected by the Catholic Church because they did not agree with church teachings.
Keith
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413824 06/04/2502:32 AM06/04/2502:32 AM
And remember, no one doubts Plato, or Aristotle, or Homer ever lived, so why do people doubt that Jesus lived when is much more evidence for his life than the others?
I've heard plenty of modern historians who think Homer is a legendary figure and believe the Iliad and Odyssey were written by different authors.
But I am more inclined to accept the New Testament books as historical accounts than I am with the book of Genesis; they were written much closer in time to the events they attested to.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Chancey]
#8413825 06/04/2502:49 AM06/04/2502:49 AM
Is the Book of Enoch or the Book of Giants in the Catholic Bible? Or any of the other Books mentioned in the OT? I need to get a good Catholic Bible, which one is the best?
Reason I ask is that I have two Qurans; one of them modern and one very old one I picked up. They are very different in their translations.
The Book of Enoch is not in the Catholic Bible, but some Oriental Orthodox churches accept it.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413861 06/04/2507:29 AM06/04/2507:29 AM
Bishop John Shelby Spong (maybe he was an arch-bishop) made an interesting observation in one of his books. For the record, I only read one. In it, he said in the time of Jesus, heaven was thought to be at the level of the clouds. Since then, we’ve figured out how to see 100,000 light years away. Does that mean heaven moved? Or just our concept of it now that we can see further?
I’m still not convinced the earth and all we know took 7-days to make. Or that the sea parted due to a miracle. That may have worked when people didn’t understand the process of tsunamis and tectonic plate movements. Ask the people in the southern states that just went thru flooding if heavy rains aren’t a possibility.
A lack of knowledge doesn’t a miracle make. So says Yoda.
It didn't take 7 days - only 6.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Teacher]
#8413873 06/04/2508:09 AM06/04/2508:09 AM
A lack of knowledge doesn’t a miracle make. So says Yoda.
So the real miracle was that an entire army was dumb enough to drown in the parted sea? A nation of over a million people could pass on dry land and then the army pursuing them is drowned right behind them - what knowledge led to this? You are correct - lack of knowledge doesn't make a miracle - God does.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413876 06/04/2508:13 AM06/04/2508:13 AM
There’s nothing stopping you from believing the Bible, Quran, the analects of Taoism, Torah or whatever word for word. In this country, it is your right to do so. I’m more of a ‘show me the facts’ sort of guy. To the people who believe a million people passed thru the opened sea, was there a count of bodies before or after to show it was a million or are you taking this on faith?
I like the leper observations above. ‘Can’t believe all the others in the leper colony weren’t a little put off by not being chosen to be cured. To me, these stories are metaphors used for teaching purposes. No one would have believed, or understood deeper explanations so stories were used to pass information along.
Never too old to learn
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413947 06/04/2510:14 AM06/04/2510:14 AM
Do you stomp the ground with a stick before you place your foot down every step? Or do you have faith in gravity, the ground will be solid enough to support you?
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: PAskinner]
#8413949 06/04/2510:17 AM06/04/2510:17 AM
Even most secular historians agree that Jesus was a real person that lived in Israel about 2000 years ago. What they disagree on is whether or not he was the Son of God that performed miracles and died and came back to life.
Not according to the Jewish historian, Josephus. He wrote that he was not a follower of Jesus, but there were rumors that Jesus healed the sick and performed miracles.
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8413954 06/04/2510:29 AM06/04/2510:29 AM
You don't think all those watching outside the Ark were a bit put off too? What about the family members of those turned into pillars of salt? How about Josephs brothers who threw him in a pit? Many, many will not be chosen and many will not choose Christ. He stands at the door knocking and many will not answer.......some of you think you are in control and have difficulty comprehending faith but yet you walk daily in your own faith of finding relief at the bottom of a bottle or a pill being prescribed or a job or finances. I have never met a drunk or an addict or a millionaire or someone perceived as having it all together that truly has peace that passes all understanding - without Christ. Many of you are truly unlearned in the Bible and have never put Gods Word to the test. Those of us that have, know He will never forsake us nor leave us no matter what life looks like to others - in that, my faith in Jesus Christ grows and I pray others research it for themselves. Become vulnerable - open up and cry out to the Lord and allow Him to speak to you through His Word. Challenge Him and see He is good. Don't take my word for it - gain your own experience, I can not grow your faith - only you.
You don't think all those watching outside the Ark were a bit put off too? What about the family members of those turned into pillars of salt? How about Josephs brothers who threw him in a pit? Many, many will not be chosen and many will not choose Christ. He stands at the door knocking and many will not answer.......some of you think you are in control and have difficulty comprehending faith but yet you walk daily in your own faith of finding relief at the bottom of a bottle or a pill being prescribed or a job or finances. I have never met a drunk or an addict or a millionaire or someone perceived as having it all together that truly has peace that passes all understanding - without Christ. Many of you are truly unlearned in the Bible and have never put Gods Word to the test. Those of us that have, know He will never forsake us nor leave us no matter what life looks like to others - in that, my faith in Jesus Christ grows and I pray others research it for themselves. Become vulnerable - open up and cry out to the Lord and allow Him to speak to you through His Word. Challenge Him and see He is good. Don't take my word for it - gain your own experience, I can not grow your faith - only you.
Very well put. I hear you explaining why you believe what you believe. Everyone has a free choice as to what they want to believe. If they choose to believe, that's wonderful. If not, that's OK too. It's not your problem and I feel the same way.
Reminds me of something liberal Bill Maher once said, "The difference between Muslims and Christians is: Christians don't kill you if you don't convert to their religion."
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: mink99]
#8414000 06/04/2512:08 PM06/04/2512:08 PM
God has presented every one of us with a full pardon for all of our sins. We all have the opportunity to accept that pardon if we want. The sad thing is there will be more people that decline the pardon than accept it. Mathew 7:13-14 says, “ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
In the end we all have an option, heaven or (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman). I pray you choose heaven. No one knows how long our live will be. James 4 describes our life as a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Don’t wait.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: KeithC]
#8414079 06/04/2502:40 PM06/04/2502:40 PM
Is the Book of Enoch or the Book of Giants in the Catholic Bible? Or any of the other Books mentioned in the OT? I need to get a good Catholic Bible, which one is the best?
Reason I ask is that I have two Qurans; one of them modern and one very old one I picked up. They are very different in their translations.
The Catholic Bible was compiled in the 4th century. The Protestant Bibles are all.derived from it. The Book of Enoch and The Book of Giants were rejected by the Catholic Church because they did not agree with church teachings.
Keith
It has been translated to benefit the translators goals. Just like pagan traditions became Christmas and Easter to get pegans converted. But all hallows eve is bad
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8414080 06/04/2502:42 PM06/04/2502:42 PM
Then there was those 10 that was all healed, but only 1 returned to thank Jesus. Does that mean they weren't grateful or merely that they never took the time to return and thank him?
Where is the link for the fake fossils dating millions of years old?
The earth existed long before man, as we know him today ever inhabited it. The first chapter of Genesis says that at the beginning of time, God created heaven and earth. We don't know when that was. Earth was an empty waste and darkness hung over the deep. The earth was water covered until God caused the waters to recede. Who knows how old the earth is? More than the approximately 5,000 years since the existence of the first man, Adam that's for sure.
There is no doubt that dinosaurs and other creatures existed on the earth millions of years ago. The fossils prove it. We also know something wiped them out totally. God seems to cleanse the earth with water (the flood of Noah). Is that what happened to the creatures that lived during the time of the dinosaurs? Many bible scholars seem to think there was more than one flood prior to the flood of Noah.
The bible says God was sorry he ever made man. Looking at the mess we have in the world today, I believe it.
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8414760 06/05/2512:37 PM06/05/2512:37 PM
Where is the link for the fake fossils dating millions of years old?
The earth existed long before man, as we know him today ever inhabited it. The first chapter of Genesis says that at the beginning of time, God created heaven and earth. We don't know when that was. Earth was an empty waste and darkness hung over the deep. The earth was water covered until God caused the waters to recede. Who knows how old the earth is? More than the approximately 5,000 years since the existence of the first man, Adam that's for sure.
There is no doubt that dinosaurs and other creatures existed on the earth millions of years ago. The fossils prove it. We also know something wiped them out totally. God seems to cleanse the earth with water (the flood of Noah). Is that what happened to the creatures that lived during the time of the dinosaurs? Many bible scholars seem to think there was more than one flood prior to the flood of Noah.
The bible says God was sorry he ever made man. Looking at the mess we have in the world today, I believe it.
One other thing is once when I was elk hunting in Colorado we found sea shells near the top of this one mountain. They crumbled when you picked them up. The rancher whose land we were hunting on said he had seen shells on top before too. How did they get there unless the water was that high at one time?
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8414767 06/05/2512:40 PM06/05/2512:40 PM
There was only one worldwide flood. A lot of Christians think the climate change after the Flood was unsustainable for dinosaurs, which caused them to die off.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8414770 06/05/2512:43 PM06/05/2512:43 PM
An interesting question: what do people think of the Bible’s prophecy that Israel would be reestablished? In the entire history of mankind no other nation has been completely destroyed and spread throughout the world and then showed back up again.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8414783 06/05/2512:52 PM06/05/2512:52 PM
An interesting question: what do people think of the Bible’s prophecy that Israel would be reestablished? In the entire history of mankind no other nation has been completely destroyed and spread throughout the world and then showed back up again.
What verse are you thinking of? Seems to me that already happened.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: PAskinner]
#8415032 06/05/2506:08 PM06/05/2506:08 PM
An interesting question: what do people think of the Bible’s prophecy that Israel would be reestablished? In the entire history of mankind no other nation has been completely destroyed and spread throughout the world and then showed back up again.
What verse are you thinking of? Seems to me that already happened.
It already happened. They can be found in Isaiah 11:12, Jeremiah 30:1-38:22, Romans 11, and a few others. It’s things like that being correctly prophesied that make me wonder why people doubt the Bible. No other book in the world has ever come close to being that accurate in the past or, for then, future events.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8415133 06/05/2509:14 PM06/05/2509:14 PM
I'd say that most of the translations, will get the job done; with the exception of "interpertations/translations" done by particular sects that introduce their bias (wacky) beliefs.
However, the most accurate manuscripts are the oldest ones, preferably in their original languages, such as Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. Problem is, you first need to learn those languages to read them. Therefore, most of us settle for second best.
"My life is better than your vacation"
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8415242 06/05/2511:07 PM06/05/2511:07 PM
Trapper7-Tectonics pushed the sea life up to the top. Scientists believe a huge meteor impact caused the demise of most prehistoric life. You must have mis-read me, I am looking for the link you had of fake fossils dating millions of years old.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8415254 06/05/2511:39 PM06/05/2511:39 PM
Many of us credit God with creating the World and all that is in it, With that in mind we have virusus and bacterias that can mutate multiple times in a year. If God created all life then he created the ability for life forms to mutate. If we go back several hundred million years that gives life forms the ability to evolve, mutate, adapt and also go extinct.
Bryce
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8415294 06/06/2502:17 AM06/06/2502:17 AM
Who cares about any of this. You either believe or don't. I believe in a mud creek bank a cold beer and a pretty young woman that hasn't figured out I wear a touppee
Who cares about any of this. You either believe or don't. I believe in a mud creek bank a cold beer and a pretty young woman that hasn't figured out I wear a touppee
Some of us have inquiring minds that rarely quit asking questions...I can never decide if it's a good thing or not.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8415922 06/07/2501:17 PM06/07/2501:17 PM
Husky What future prophesy or prophecies do you believe have yet to be fulfilled?
Things such as the coming of the Anti-Christ, the Second Coming of Christ, and the eventual destruction of the earth.
I've wondered if the anti christ is just one person or a personification symbolic of the anti christ presence that is always present in the world. I think Nero was one of the first anti Christ's.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8415924 06/07/2501:23 PM06/07/2501:23 PM
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
Context, Ecclesiastes is not a book of prophecy, it is a book of wisdom. As such it is not laying out a theological or eschatological framework instead it is describing the learned wisdom of the "preacher in Jerusalem", aka Solomon. In this context Solomon is an old man approaching his own mortal end of life reflecting upon his own life of the pursuit of wisdom and he concludes thusly; vanities of vanities there is nothing new under the sun and the sum of all wisdom is the fear of God.
In the case of the earth in this passage and the troubles of our time on earth, the earth was here long before and will be here long after we are but a footnote in history.
BTW, Ecclesiastes is my favorite book of the Bible.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416053 06/07/2506:38 PM06/07/2506:38 PM
Husky What future prophesy or prophecies do you believe have yet to be fulfilled?
Things such as the coming of the Anti-Christ, the Second Coming of Christ, and the eventual destruction of the earth.
Sorry for the slow response Husky, I also believe the second coming of Christ is a future fulfillment. Along with the earth as we know it ending. My understanding of Antichrist is not of any one person. But as spoken of in John's epistles, denying the sovereignty of Christ with the Father. Any one who denies Jesus is the Christ is antichrist. Wich includes Islam, and Jews along with the Gentile world that deny the resurrection. I also believe in a future spiritual Jerusalem, in conjunction with the final throne judgment. This heavenly Jerusalem with 12 foundations and 12 gates representing the fullness of the Gentiles. Wich have been grafted in. The fulness of God's work.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416270 06/08/2509:34 AM06/08/2509:34 AM
Nero was anti Christ, but he was not THE Anti-Christ. The Bible says that when he is revealed the whole world will know.
Let me help you on chapter and verse. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-7 Speaking of the son of perdition. Many of the church fathers believe this was the papacy. As did the reformers. It wasn't until the 16th century that idea of this being a singular person came about. A Jesuit named Francisco Riveara or somthing like that came up with the idea af a singular Anti-Christ. Anti-Christ in the bible only appears in the 1sr and 2nd epistles of John. Not in prophetic books. It's a generic term for non believers.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416619 06/09/2512:06 AM06/09/2512:06 AM
I think Nimrod is most certainly the first representation of the antichrist.
Jesus tells us very plainly in nearly all the Gospels about what to expect. Especially in Matthew 24:37-39. Follow that rabbit hole Husky and see what was going on in the days of Noah.
Problem is, folks do more attending church than reading and understanding their very own Bibles IMO.
It's blasphemy to say that the Church has been compromised, but it has. Very few preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ anymore and what true salvation and redemption are. Many are "feel good" churches. It is why membership in churches in the US is falling drastically.
Resident Conspiracy Theorist Accused Moron, Nazi, Low IQ, Putin Fan Boy, and Obama Clone
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416621 06/09/2512:18 AM06/09/2512:18 AM
The Bible is reliable. However , there are folks who try to twist it to confirm a bias. Science is also reliable when not twisted to confirm a bias. https://ncse.ngo/radiometric-dating-does-work
"My life is better than your vacation"
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Chancey]
#8416622 06/09/2512:24 AM06/09/2512:24 AM
I think Nimrod is most certainly the first representation of the antichrist.
Jesus tells us very plainly in nearly all the Gospels about what to expect. Especially in Matthew 24:37-39. Follow that rabbit hole Husky and see what was going on in the days of Noah.
Problem is, folks do more attending church than reading and understanding their very own Bibles IMO.
It's blasphemy to say that the Church has been compromised, but it has. Very few preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ anymore and what true salvation and redemption are. Many are "feel good" churches. It is why membership in churches in the US is falling drastically.
Hey Chancey, have you noticed when Jesus explains, as in the days of Noah. He does not mention the evilness of man's heart or the Giants. He speaks of the normalcy of the fact. Eating and drinking and marriage. He also say no one will no but the father. So his description is not one of great tribulations or even some sign or signs to look for. He also says one will be taken and one will be left. Peaple that say the taken are the Rapture. But in the day of Noah . Who did the flood take away?
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416627 06/09/2512:43 AM06/09/2512:43 AM
Giant Sage, I just see it as Jesus setting the context on what to expect; nothing more. Letting us know what the world will likely be like upon His return. How do you take verse 15 of the same chapter?
The world was certainly different after the flood; but Jesus specifically mentions that time period. If I take it in that context, then the Bible makes sense to me.
I no longer believe in the rapture although taught it my entire life; but I am a growing Christian and don't know much. I just read and study my Bible.
Resident Conspiracy Theorist Accused Moron, Nazi, Low IQ, Putin Fan Boy, and Obama Clone
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416630 06/09/2512:58 AM06/09/2512:58 AM
As far as the reliability of the Bible, Read and take to heart Psalm 22. It pretty much describes our Lord's sacrifice hundreds of years before it happened. The first verse is even the same as what Jesus cried out on the cross. Isaiah is good too. One either believes it or they don't. Not our job to prove them wrong; just live by Christ.
Resident Conspiracy Theorist Accused Moron, Nazi, Low IQ, Putin Fan Boy, and Obama Clone
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Chancey]
#8416635 06/09/2501:20 AM06/09/2501:20 AM
Chancey I believe Matthew 24 is speaking of the distruction of the temple up to vs 33. then Jesus is speaking of his second coming . This I believe is simultaneous with the final throne judgment and the catching up of the saints. Vs 15 is cross referenced with Luke 21:20 wich I beleave is the judgment Jesus spoke of in Matthew 23. The army's of Rome taking the Temple. Luke 21:20 when you shall see Jerusalem compassed with army's, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Chancey]
#8416636 06/09/2501:25 AM06/09/2501:25 AM
As far as the reliability of the Bible, Read and take to heart Psalm 22. It pretty much describes our Lord's sacrifice hundreds of years before it happened. The first verse is even the same as what Jesus cried out on the cross. Isaiah is good too. One either believes it or they don't. Not our job to prove them wrong; just live by Christ.
Psalm 22, I was racking my brain trying to remember that passage. Thanks Chance.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416671 06/09/2505:55 AM06/09/2505:55 AM
I think Constantine was another example of anti Christ. By forcing the mass conversion of the Roman empire into Christendom, it introduced paganist practices into the church.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416677 06/09/2506:06 AM06/09/2506:06 AM
Cool thing about the bible and God and Jesus, you have a free will to believe in it or not. No matter of argument or evidence will convince some that it is true.
And others believe at first introduction.
Make your choice and live your life accordingly.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416684 06/09/2506:24 AM06/09/2506:24 AM
It is why membership in churches in the US is falling drastically
I think it is because of all those stories like people surviving being tossed into a furnace, a talking snake, manna from heaven, surviving being eaten by a great fish, on and on.
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
It is why membership in churches in the US is falling drastically
I think it is because of all those stories like people surviving being tossed into a furnace, a talking snake, manna from heaven, surviving being eaten by a great fish, on and on.
Husky, you wanted reliability.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416727 06/09/2508:29 AM06/09/2508:29 AM
Once you understand that Jesus is talking about the roman destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24, you can't unsee it. The verse that absolutely confirms it for me is when he talks about the vultures or eagles gathering around the carcasses. The Roman armies had eagles on thier shields. Plus Jesus plainly says it was to happen in that generation. You might be wondering about stars falling etc, but that is common hyperbolic language used in OT prophecy.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: PAskinner]
#8416736 06/09/2508:45 AM06/09/2508:45 AM
Once you understand that Jesus is talking about the roman destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24, you can't unsee it. The verse that absolutely confirms it for me is when he talks about the vultures or eagles gathering around the carcasses. The Roman armies had eagles on thier shields. Plus Jesus plainly says it was to happen in that generation. You might be wondering about stars falling etc, but that is common hyperbolic language used in OT prophecy.
Just reading the previous chapter. Chapter 23 especially verses 29-39. Jesus is obviously speaking of judgment In the generation that they are living in. The distruction of Jerusalem in 70AD is one of the great proofs of the reliability of bible prophecy.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: PAskinner]
#8416737 06/09/2508:45 AM06/09/2508:45 AM
Maybe when Jesus talks of the end times he talking about the end of a country, era or your own life. We'll all find out at our end of time.
I believe he speaks of all three scenarios. Depending on the context of the passage. (As far as the reliability of the Bible goes.) Many of these prophecies have been fulfilled. Obviously the end of life will answer Questions If there is life after death, If not then it's just back to the dirt I suppose. Fulfilled prophecy is confirmation of course. But my faith is because of the changes in my life. The Holy spirit moving and teaching me, and confirming in my heart God's existence. Anyone who has become born again and has the spirit guiding them would understand what I'm speaking of. Was blind but now I see. Just like Saul's conversation. He went from being antichrist, persecuting Christ to being a warrior for Christ. All by Revelation. He was blind till his eyes were open to truth.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416798 06/09/2511:27 AM06/09/2511:27 AM
Husky What future prophesy or prophecies do you believe have yet to be fulfilled?
Things such as the coming of the Anti-Christ, the Second Coming of Christ, and the eventual destruction of the earth.
Some people thought Hitler was the anti-Christ at that time. However, he didn't fit the prophesy. The anti-Christ is yet to come. Jesus will return after that happens.
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Trapper7]
#8416826 06/09/2512:07 PM06/09/2512:07 PM
(The antichrist will comes, Jesus will return after that happens. )
Trapper 7, if you could give verses or passages that comfirm the antichrist is coming. And Jesus will return after that happens. This would be helpful. Thank you.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416854 06/09/2501:46 PM06/09/2501:46 PM
This imagery with the destruction of Jerusalem can hardly be missed since similar language is used concerning the fall of the same city to the Babylonians in 586 B.C.: “The Lord has trampled Virgin Daughter Judah like grapes in a winepress” (Lam. 1:15).
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416972 06/09/2506:45 PM06/09/2506:45 PM
Isn't Revelation ch 14 about the distruction of Jerusalem?
Yes it could be but it the book of Revelations was written in 96 AD by John, As stated above the 1st temple was destroyed in 586 BC and the Romans destroyed the 2nd temple in AD 70 during the Roman Jewish war that was from 66AD to 73 AD. The Babylonians were a major enemy of the Jews. The Romans were major enemies of the early Christians and Thus John even in isolation on Patmos was not inclined to dis the Romans.
Bryce
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8416985 06/09/2507:09 PM06/09/2507:09 PM
Because most Christians fall into one of two categories Danny.
Premillennialism or Amillennialism. These are two distinct eschatological views that differ in their understanding of the millennium and Christ's return. I think Zionism also plays a large role in which side of the divide one falls on.
Resident Conspiracy Theorist Accused Moron, Nazi, Low IQ, Putin Fan Boy, and Obama Clone
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: bblwi]
#8417007 06/09/2507:51 PM06/09/2507:51 PM
Isn't Revelation ch 14 about the distruction of Jerusalem?
Yes it could be but it the book of Revelations was written in 96 AD by John, As stated above the 1st temple was destroyed in 586 BC and the Romans destroyed the 2nd temple in AD 70 during the Roman Jewish war that was from 66AD to 73 AD. The Babylonians were a major enemy of the Jews. The Romans were major enemies of the early Christians and Thus John even in isolation on Patmos was not inclined to dis the Romans.
Bryce
I don't think John was worried about dissing the Roman's. Also haven't seen any proof that revelations was written that late.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
How come there is so much contention on what it says?
I didn't realize there was contention in this conversation. No more than if we were talking about the best trap for Coyotes or how many drops of coyote urine is to much. The thread is about the reliability of the Bible. Seeking reliability is Seeking truth. This conversation is amongst believers of different understanding and some who have doubts or maybe don't believe. I ask questions for two reasons. One is because it's edifying and helps me understand other believers views. The other is to share scripture. Chapters, verses, and passages in the way that I understand them. And I voice my beliefs as a hope others will as well. And I'll answer questions as I would hope others would. Is I'm responding to your question.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8417119 06/09/2510:50 PM06/09/2510:50 PM
Chancey, I know your a truth seeker. My hope is that Husky will read all the responses and learn from the different views. Ask questions and think outside the box = let scripture speak to him with an open mind. I'm glad you are standing for your beliefs Husky. Keep reading and pray for truth and discernment. When I was a babe in the faith I was gung-ho to preach the Gospel to all the would. I had a young pastor tell me to keep reading. I cant tell you how many times his advice has popped back into my head. One of the armors of God is to have your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel. This is most important to evangelize.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8417156 06/09/2511:44 PM06/09/2511:44 PM
(The antichrist will comes, Jesus will return after that happens. )
Trapper 7, if you could give verses or passages that comfirm the antichrist is coming. And Jesus will return after that happens. This would be helpful. Thank you.
I think the Olivet Discourse is a clue Jesus gives. He says, it will take place during the generation living at that time. The apostles are asking him, Matt 24:3, "Tell us, when will theses thing be and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" Then in verse 15: "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the hold place." This is the antichrist. Prior to this are the clues he gives.
I feel the end of the age is we are currently living in the church age. It started with the apostles, Paul, and others as they were building the church. The church age will come to an end. We are seeing much of what Jesus said will come to be in this present time. After all this takes place Verse 30 says, "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and glory." John makes reference to this in Rev. 1:7 as well.
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
Trapper7-Tectonics pushed the sea life up to the top. Scientists believe a huge meteor impact caused the demise of most prehistoric life. You must have mis-read me, I am looking for the link you had of fake fossils dating millions of years old.
Tectonics probably did push the sea life to the top which could be proof that the world was once water covered. I think it's possible those could have been a result of the flood of Noah.
When it comes to the millions of years old the earth is I'm only repeating what scientists say. I have no idea on the exact age of the earth, but as mankind was put on it isn't millions of years old. There were no dinosaurs during the time of Abraham. There was no mention of them during that time.
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: J Staton]
#8417445 06/10/2502:38 PM06/10/2502:38 PM
[quote=PAskinner][quote=danny clifton]How come there is so much contention on what it says? Because revelations is a highly symbolic book, and open to interpretation. Or revelations is literal and folks think it is symbolic.
Even the literalist takes a lot of it as symbolic. Does anyone actually think Jesus has a sword coming out of his mouth? And I bet if you go back and read the really early church they believe the Romans were anti Christ. I'm ok with being wrong, lol, there's over 100 views of end times and most are highly speculative. I don't believe in a secret rapture anymore, for example, because it's based on one misinterpreted verse. Jesus is coming back to judge the world, but it's all one event. Anyways I don't think he's gonna care if we misunderstood prophecy as long as we are under the blood.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8417449 06/10/2502:50 PM06/10/2502:50 PM
The Bible describes two major judgments: the Great White Throne Judgment for unbelievers (Revelation 20:11-15) and the Judgment Seat of Christ for believers (2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 14:10). The Great White Throne Judgment will assess the deeds of those who do not believe in Christ, while the Judgment Seat of Christ will evaluate the works and faithfulness of believers for the purpose of rewards.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: PAskinner]
#8417454 06/10/2502:57 PM06/10/2502:57 PM
and for some of you including Savell who may not understand why Jesus only healed certain individuals at times He tells us - in Matthew 13:58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.
We may not understand everything Jesus did and why He always did what He did - but the more we read and get to know His Word - we will learn.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8417459 06/10/2503:08 PM06/10/2503:08 PM
10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’[a]
I don't believe in a secret rapture anymore, for example, because it's based on one misinterpreted verse.
What scripture and what is the correct meaning then? Not too secret is it if you know it could be coming? [/quote] Secret meaning a "Left behind" series scenario, where believers go " poof" and dissappear. Most people get the rapture from Thessalonians 4, but it's actually about the final judgment.
1 Thessalonians 4:16, "For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first."
Ok, now the supposed rapture verse: 1 Thessalonians 4:17, "Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever."
Pretty obvious this is all one event, happening at his return.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8417726 06/10/2509:53 PM06/10/2509:53 PM
Trapper7, You mentioned the abomination of desolation being the antichrist. In Luke's parallel verses, Luke 21:20 it appears that when jerusalem is compassed with armies was his description Of the abomination of desolation. Jesus did say to the Apostles that Not one stone of the temple will not be left standing. He also said in verse 34 that this generation shall not pass, till all there things be fulfilled.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8417769 06/10/2510:42 PM06/10/2510:42 PM
Also after the desolation verse in Luke 21:20 Vs 22 he mentions judgment =vengeance. The generation he is speaking to is surly the same generation he is warning of coming judgment in Matthew 23:33-36 Does this really seem like Jesus is speaking of anything other that the 70 ad distruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8417779 06/10/2510:48 PM06/10/2510:48 PM
I’m not sure where I read it, but it was about the prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by JESUS. There are over 300 known prophecies( probably more yet to be discovered)that were fulfilled . The institute of science and mathematics ( yes it is a real place) decided to tackle this. The odds of 1 man fulfilling just 8 of them were 1 in a quintillion. To help understand these odds.. take a stack of quarters about 18 inches tall.. and place a stack in every 2 inches in Texas… now, pull one quarter out of all those stacks. JESUS fulfilled over 300. Here’s another thought…JESUS appeared to over 500 eye witness after his resurrection, yet, it’s dismissed. But ceasr was stabbed in the back supposedly by Brutus and is considered as a fact, yet, there were no witnesses.
Stand by your principles, Stand by your guns, and victory complete and permanent is sure at last. Abraham Lincoln
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: foxkidd44]
#8417784 06/10/2510:53 PM06/10/2510:53 PM
Wow how misinformed check the facts the real truth not what some preacher said we didn't even have what we call the bible till the 4th century what did the world do before that if one part is made up why can't it all be. judges 15 samson went out and caught (three hundred fox), tied their tails together in pairs and lashed a torch between each pair of tails to spread fire in the philistine's crops yeah, sure he did. how long would it take to catch 300 fox probably have to have pens to put them in and feed and water too. is this a true story
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8417807 06/10/2511:36 PM06/10/2511:36 PM
I'm right about where Wildlifeartist is on all of the bible stuff. I'm a pretty decent BS'er but those boys had me beat hands down.
BP, I'm confident that if you had 2000 years you could come up with some whoppers lol. Just funin.
In all seriousness, the story of Samson and the foxes seems more like folklore. We realy don't know if Samson had super powers and I'm not sure if the story of Samson is a prophetic story. I believe Samson was a Nazarite which I believe that they were not allowed to cut there hair. Maybe this was a precursor of Jesus the Nazarite who had super natural power. I do know of one trapper who cought 400 fox in 20 days and 500 in 30. Maybe some of you have heard of him. His name is Ogorman. When i see the pyramids I have a hard time believing that they could have been built without some sort of super natural power, but they exist. Over 5000 pieces of evidence that are over 90 % in agreement is pretty compelling evidence of the accuracy of scripture. Try and make that happen through the grapevine. and see what the accuracy is. Take it as you will. I'm glad we have free will and are not forced what to believe or think.
Last edited by Giant Sage; 06/11/2512:29 AM. Reason: Spelling
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Trapper7]
#8417846 06/11/2502:55 AM06/11/2502:55 AM
Trapper7-Tectonics pushed the sea life up to the top. Scientists believe a huge meteor impact caused the demise of most prehistoric life. You must have mis-read me, I am looking for the link you had of fake fossils dating millions of years old.
Tectonics probably did push the sea life to the top which could be proof that the world was once water covered. I think it's possible those could have been a result of the flood of Noah.
When it comes to the millions of years old the earth is I'm only repeating what scientists say. I have no idea on the exact age of the earth, but as mankind was put on it isn't millions of years old. There were no dinosaurs during the time of Abraham. There was no mention of them during that time.
Trapper7.......once again....you stated someone was recently making fake fossils and having them dated millions of years old. I cant find that post now but I am interested in reading about it. can you direct me to that source? And how can a flood kill sea dwelling animals? I believe the opposite to be true, drought would almost have to happen for them to die and be fossilized. And why does it have to always be Noahs flood, Im sure there were many back then and earlier just as is happening now? If the earth was once water covered, how could it flood?
Trapper7.......once again....you stated someone was recently making fake fossils and having them dated millions of years old. I cant find that post now but I am interested in reading about it. can you direct me to that source? And how can a flood kill sea dwelling animals? I believe the opposite to be true, drought would almost have to happen for them to die and be fossilized. And why does it have to always be Noahs flood, Im sure there were many back then and earlier just as is happening now? If the earth was once water covered, how could it flood?[/quote]
I will tackle some of this. I too have read and watched as carbon dating of new materials comes back millions of years old. With heat and pressure and flooding - materials can be changed and scientific samples taken and examined and random dates assigned according to interpretation. Flood could easily kill sea animals by dilution of needed materials in the sea. Don't believe me - get a salt water aquarium, buy a bunch of expensive salt water fish and fill it with fresh water. Show me one example of a flood before Noah or I will simplify it for you - show me one example of a rain before then. And again - show me where the Earth was ever covered by water before the flood.
Again, many people simply can't believe what the Bible says and don't even truly know it enough to know what it says. Quit assuming things and research them. It is ok to question things but we should all try to use critical thinking skills and learn. My faith has led me to many, many questions I have researched and experienced for myself. I have learned to believe and trust in Jesus and the Word.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8417917 06/11/2509:09 AM06/11/2509:09 AM
Brandon Lake has a song out called - Too Good to Not believe. I agree with him. When you begin to seek God and desire to know Him you will learn more and more. If you continue to doubt and not believe and try to use our limited minds you can stay stuck in unbelief. That is the wonderful thing about salvation being a gift and something WE can not do for ourselves. There is only one requirement to be saved by grace - to be a sinner. We all qualify. We all deserve death as there is not a single one of us without sin - we all know we have done wrong. But we have hope. His name is Jesus. He paid the price for our sins so that we can choose life eternal with Him or eternal damnation by continuing on in our unbelief. When we begin to understand, we won't ever be able to fully understand, then we have faith. When our faith is in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and we begin to realize what He did and what authors and witnesses testified about His life and hundreds of years before His birth - we begin to understand the reliability of the Bible. I believe in the reliability of the Bible because I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I know who I am in Christ. I know I was dead and now I am alive.
Wow how misinformed check the facts the real truth not what some preacher said we didn't even have what we call the bible till the 4th century what did the world do before that if one part is made up why can't it all be. judges 15 samson went out and caught (three hundred fox), tied their tails together in pairs and lashed a torch between each pair of tails to spread fire in the philistine's crops yeah, sure he did. how long would it take to catch 300 fox probably have to have pens to put them in and feed and water too. is this a true story
You asked what they used before the forth century...the writings of the apostles that became the Bible, along with the Torah. Isaiah alone is enough to convince me it's true. Dated long before Christ, it predicted his existence and death. Samson killed a lion with his hands too. He wasn't an ordinary man when God empowered him.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8417950 06/11/2510:20 AM06/11/2510:20 AM
We just spent a year and half on Isaiah and i agree with it alone and my life experiences it would be enough to convince me. Too many prophetic words fulfilled in it alone by Jesus.
Trapper7.......once again....you stated someone was recently making fake fossils and having them dated millions of years old. I cant find that post now but I am interested in reading about it. can you direct me to that source? And how can a flood kill sea dwelling animals? I believe the opposite to be true, drought would almost have to happen for them to die and be fossilized. And why does it have to always be Noahs flood, Im sure there were many back then and earlier just as is happening now? If the earth was once water covered, how could it flood?
I will tackle some of this. I too have read and watched as carbon dating of new materials comes back millions of years old. With heat and pressure and flooding - materials can be changed and scientific samples taken and examined and random dates assigned according to interpretation. Flood could easily kill sea animals by dilution of needed materials in the sea. Don't believe me - get a salt water aquarium, buy a bunch of expensive salt water fish and fill it with fresh water. Show me one example of a flood before Noah or I will simplify it for you - show me one example of a rain before then. And again - show me where the Earth was ever covered by water before the flood.
Again, many people simply can't believe what the Bible says and don't even truly know it enough to know what it says. Quit assuming things and research them. It is ok to question things but we should all try to use critical thinking skills and learn. My faith has led me to many, many questions I have researched and experienced for myself. I have learned to believe and trust in Jesus and the Word. [/quote] First of all, I don't remember saying someone was making fake fossils and having them dated millions of years old. But, I can see where shysters might do something like that to make a buck. I made mention that we found sea shells on a mountain in CO while elk hunting there. If tectonic plates made the sea high and dry, sea dwelling animals would perish.
In Genesis chapter 1, it clearly says the earth was formless and void and God made the waters recede and the land became visible. This would have been before the flood of Noah. You don't have to research that, it's a fact. Some bible scholars say there could have been many floods prior to Genesis 1. I don't know if there was or not, but the earth was flooded prior to the flood of Noah. That's just common sense.
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
Also after the desolation verse in Luke 21:20 Vs 22 he mentions judgment =vengeance. The generation he is speaking to is surly the same generation he is warning of coming judgment in Matthew 23:33-36 Does this really seem like Jesus is speaking of anything other that the 70 ad distruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
I think it does. It definitely predicts his return in both gospels. The generation he refers to is the generation at that future time, not the generation alive when he spoke these words.
2 Thessalonians 2, Paul is talking about the return of Jesus. He is referring to the anti-christ who is revealed as a man who exalts himself above God as he takes his seat in the temple displaying himself as being God.
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8417981 06/11/2511:33 AM06/11/2511:33 AM
I agree, a flood could possibly kill sea creatures, a drought would be more likely. I try to use critical thinking like science. Im pretty sure it was you that made that post but it doesnt matter now, it is gone- I cant find it. They were fossils already when the tektonic plates pushed them up to the top of the mountain. You say the earth was flooded prior to the flood of Noah, How is that common sense and where did the extra water come from?
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Trapper7]
#8417987 06/11/2512:11 PM06/11/2512:11 PM
Also after the desolation verse in Luke 21:20 Vs 22 he mentions judgment =vengeance. The generation he is speaking to is surly the same generation he is warning of coming judgment in Matthew 23:33-36 Does this really seem like Jesus is speaking of anything other that the 70 ad distruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
I think it does. It definitely predicts his return in both gospels. The generation he refers to is the generation at that future time, not the generation alive when he spoke these words.
2 Thessalonians 2, Paul is talking about the return of Jesus. He is referring to the anti-christ who is revealed as a man who exalts himself above God as he takes his seat in the temple displaying himself as being God.
He was talking to that generation. Otherwise what good is fleeing to the mountains? You can't escape from God's final judgment, but you might be able to hide from an army. Yes, the destruction of Jerusalem was God's judgment on the unbelieving Jews. It changed everything for them. No more sacrificial system (Christ was the last sacrifice.) The temple desecration and destruction. Even the part about scorging prophets in the synagogue. Sounds familiar because Paul and others were beaten and scouged by the Jews. All this happened in the first century.
"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near." I don't know how he could have made it any plainer, but for some reason people want to move all this into the future and applaud for Israel the nation instead of Jesus.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8418010 06/11/2501:20 PM06/11/2501:20 PM
In Genesis chapter 1, it clearly says the earth was formless and void and God made the waters recede and the land became visible. - quote from Trapper7
I agree with the earth as formless and void and waters being present as the Spirit of the Lord moved on them. I read again and see a firmament or vault then being created (heaven). Waters were then split above and below heaven (Day2) On day 3 waters below the firmament were gathered together and dry earth or land was formed. I disagree water receded and it became visible - it had not been formed or created. The earth was without form........it is difficult to comprehend but we all need to slow down and learn what the Bible says, not what we think we know. I myself just learned again on day 3 with the land formed, then plants and grass were created - a full day before the sun. Wonder how they functioned without photosynthesis...........I can't explain it but believe it.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8418440 06/12/2511:18 AM06/12/2511:18 AM
genesis says the word cattle what are cattle for if not to kill and eat? so death was already on its why and god made domesticated cows sheep goats dogs pig and many other nope man did we can trace it back 10,000 years or more don't get me wrong i would like to believe again but once's you see the magic trick you can't unsee it and when it doesn't make sense anymore you can't make it
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8418459 06/12/2511:34 AM06/12/2511:34 AM
The premise of carbon14 dating of fossils is already sketchy. We know that carbon14 cannot date anything older than about 60,000 years and is most reliable to about 20-25,000 years. Millions of years is not possible and nobody except people trying to disprove science would even go down that road.
My fear of moving stairs is escalating!
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8418466 06/12/2511:38 AM06/12/2511:38 AM
GS, Jesus and Paul are referring to his return in combination to the other things. If it was that present generation he was referring to, when did Jesus return? The only group I know of that say Jesus has already returned are the Jehovah Witnesses.
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Trapper7]
#8418582 06/12/2504:22 PM06/12/2504:22 PM
GS, Jesus and Paul are referring to his return in combination to the other things. If it was that present generation he was referring to, when did Jesus return? The only group I know of that say Jesus has already returned are the Jehovah Witnesses.
Let me ask another question just to get you thinking: when was Jesus ' first coming? Because it is in the Bible and it wasn't as a baby.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8418596 06/12/2504:51 PM06/12/2504:51 PM
GS, Jesus and Paul are referring to his return in combination to the other things. If it was that present generation he was referring to, when did Jesus return? The only group I know of that say Jesus has already returned are the Jehovah Witnesses.
T7 I believe Jesus speaking to an audience that understood old testament judgment language. . Hears a few.. Lev 16:2 Ezekial 30:3 joel2:2 Zephiniah 1:15 (comes in clouds) Isaiah 13:10. 34:4. Ez 32:7-8 Jer4:27-28 darkness, stars falling. Apocalyptic type language.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8418647 06/12/2506:56 PM06/12/2506:56 PM
T7 Hear is a good example of prophecy leading to Jesus regarding the stars falling. If you read it in context . Obviously this is not actual Starz. It's speaking of how the family of Jacob will bow to there brother Joseph. Another interesting prophecy that falls in line with this is the 70 weeks of Daniel. 70 7s. I don't believe it was by chance that Jesus told Peter to forgive your Brother 70 ×7 This would be in line with the time line of the beginning of Daniel's prophecy to the time spoken of by Luke. ( these are the days of vengeance or judgment.) Ch 21 I believe.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: J Staton]
#8418650 06/12/2507:01 PM06/12/2507:01 PM
John 1:1 tells us that Jesus pre existed everything. But I was speaking about the first time he appeared as a man. Scholars tell us that the angel of God mentioned a few times in the Old Testament was actually Jesus appearing as a man. Now, there are historical writings that indicate strange miracles and Jesus appearing during the Jewish war of 70 AD. That's not concrete evidence that it's true but there's no reason to rule it out, either. Of course it also doesn't mean there won't be a future return.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: PAskinner]
#8418855 06/12/2511:49 PM06/12/2511:49 PM
John 1:1 tells us that Jesus pre existed everything. But I was speaking about the first time he appeared as a man. Scholars tell us that the angel of God mentioned a few times in the Old Testament was actually Jesus appearing as a man. Now, there are historical writings that indicate strange miracles and Jesus appearing during the Jewish war of 70 AD. That's not concrete evidence that it's true but there's no reason to rule it out, either. Of course it also doesn't mean there won't be a future return.
Skinner , are you speaking of instances like the Lord coming to Abraham before the distruction of Sadom. Or maybe when he appeared to Joshua by the river Jordan as a Man with a sword. Or maybe even as early as Adam and Eve heard the lord walking in the cool of the day in the Garden.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8418890 06/13/2501:27 AM06/13/2501:27 AM
they don't even know who wrote what we have now and call the bible and it took 1500 years god has to be the worst communicator.. he? wrote it on grass and skins no problem there as copies got old just make a new copy by hand oops i missed a few lines a paragraph a chapter .. is that ( a we or a them ) i can't make it out just guess, thousands of clerical errors, we do not have the original anymore. so what did really say?
Wow how misinformed check the facts the real truth not what some preacher said we didn't even have what we call the bible till the 4th century what did the world do before that if one part is made up why can't it all be. judges 15 samson went out and caught (three hundred fox), tied their tails together in pairs and lashed a torch between each pair of tails to spread fire in the philistine's crops yeah, sure he did. how long would it take to catch 300 fox probably have to have pens to put them in and feed and water too. is this a true story
they don't even know who wrote what we have now and call the bible and it took 1500 years god has to be the worst communicator.. he? wrote it on grass and skins no problem there as copies got old just make a new copy by hand oops i missed a few lines a paragraph a chapter .. is that ( a we or a them ) i can't make it out just guess, thousands of clerical errors, we do not have the original anymore. so what did really say?
You seem to miss It's GOD your speaking of. Creator if everything. If he wants his word preserved it will be. If he wants a whale to come up and give you transportation and you be alive when you get there you will be and it will. If he wants 300 foxes to be used to start a fire they likely walked right up and wanted to get the fire fastened to them
When the LORD wants something done it will be done. Often it will be unbelievable and against all odds and it's by design to leave zero doubt it was God's hand.
[quote=J Staton]The first coming would be mentioned in John1:1. John 1:1 tells us that Jesus pre existed everything. But I was speaking about the first time he appeared as a man. Scholars tell us that the angel of God mentioned a few times in the Old Testament was actually Jesus appearing as a man. Now, there are historical writings that indicate strange miracles and Jesus appearing during the Jewish war of 70 AD. That's not concrete evidence that it's true but there's no reason to rule it out, either. Of course it also doesn't mean there won't be a future return. Skinner , are you speaking of instances like the Lord coming to Abraham before the distruction of Sadom. Or maybe when he appeared to Joshua by the river Jordan as a Man with a sword. Or maybe even as early as Adam and Eve heard the lord walking in the cool of the day in the Garden.
Yes. I'm not sure about the garden of Eden...never really thought about that being Jesus, but of course, why wouldn't it be? He appeared to Abraham as a man to re affirm the promise of a son, too.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
they don't even know who wrote what we have now and call the bible and it took 1500 years god has to be the worst communicator.. he? wrote it on grass and skins no problem there as copies got old just make a new copy by hand oops i missed a few lines a paragraph a chapter .. is that ( a we or a them ) i can't make it out just guess, thousands of clerical errors, we do not have the original anymore. so what did really say?
There's no significant differences between the writings from the dead sea scrolls and the ones that made it in the Bible. Those clerical errors are irrelevant, because the theology remains intact.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8418928 06/13/2507:41 AM06/13/2507:41 AM
When people scoff at the miracles , just remember, they believe in just one miracle but it's a whopper. They believe everything came from nothing for no reason.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8418957 06/13/2509:35 AM06/13/2509:35 AM
Nero was anti Christ, but he was not THE Anti-Christ. The Bible says that when he is revealed the whole world will know.
In numerology, there is a practice called gematria where Hebrew letters are assigned numeric values and then the values of words can be calculated from the letters. The Hebrew for Nero Caesar is calculated as 666.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8418980 06/13/2510:49 AM06/13/2510:49 AM
If Nero was the Antichrist who were the two witnesses he slew that were resurrected three and a half days later?
I don't know. Revelation is steeped in symbolism which leads to a multitude of interpretations. A guess would be Saints Peter and Paul, who were martyred in Rome during Nero's reign.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8418992 06/13/2511:08 AM06/13/2511:08 AM
There are numerous proofs that Jesus existed from the beginning. Gen. 1:26, "Lets US make make man in Our image, according to OUR likeness". Col. 1:16, "For by him all things were created both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created by Him and for Him." 2:9 "For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form." These are more that refer to his deity.
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
GS, Jesus and Paul are referring to his return in combination to the other things. If it was that present generation he was referring to, when did Jesus return? The only group I know of that say Jesus has already returned are the Jehovah Witnesses.
T7 I believe Jesus speaking to an audience that understood old testament judgment language. . Hears a few.. Lev 16:2 Ezekial 30:3 joel2:2 Zephiniah 1:15 (comes in clouds) Isaiah 13:10. 34:4. Ez 32:7-8 Jer4:27-28 darkness, stars falling. Apocalyptic type language.
GS, there are so many opinions on what some of these things mean. My take on it is that right or wrong, it has no consequences on salvation which is the most important issue. I'm putting all my marbles on Jesus and his redeeming blood to save me. Without that I have no hope, I am lost. You, me, and a lot of us on here are on the same team. Our differences really don't matter because of the goal.
The first bottles of Coca Cola contained 3.5 grams of cocaine. That's how our grandparents were able to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow.
Even most secular historians agree that Jesus was a real person that lived in Israel about 2000 years ago. What they disagree on is whether or not he was the Son of God that performed miracles and died and came back to life.
Yes. C. S. Lewis summed it up very well with his "3 L's" -either he was Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. You get to decide your opinion, but you're opinion doesn't change who or what he was. Choose carefully.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Trapper7]
#8419047 06/13/2501:29 PM06/13/2501:29 PM
T7 I fully agree with you on the importance of the gospel. And your last post. I don't have any issues with others eschatological beliefs. We are created with free will and with individuality. I consider you a brother in Christ.
Christ is King
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8419318 06/14/2512:14 AM06/14/2512:14 AM
free will is ..not free if I still believed that would be hard one justify if the message is so important why make it so hard to understand and so often misinterpreted life doesn't have to be eternal to matter
free will is ..not free if I still believed that would be hard one justify if the message is so important why make it so hard to understand and so often misinterpreted life doesn't have to be eternal to matter
I don't agree that it's hard to understand. God commanded the first man not to eat the forbidden fruit. It's a pretty simple instruction.
Jesus distilled his teaching into two commandments (the first called the Great Commandment). They are pretty simple commandments.
The problem is that man has a brain that he can use to rationalize anything that he wants to do.
If Nero was the Antichrist who were the two witnesses he slew that were resurrected three and a half days later?
I don't know. Revelation is steeped in symbolism which leads to a multitude of interpretations. A guess would be Saints Peter and Paul, who were martyred in Rome during Nero's reign.
The spirit of the antichrist is here but the antichrist himself will be from a Jewish line. Otherwise the Jews would not follow him. Some think the antichrist might be from the tribe of Dan. Since they were labeled as a snake and won't be in the 144,000.
With replacement theology I guess you can just make it up as you go. The Jehovah witnesses think two of their people were killed and left in the street in 1914.
Elijah and Enoch seems reasonable to me as they never died. You can't enter Heaven without dying and that will be their time to die.
free will is ..not free if I still believed that would be hard one justify if the message is so important why make it so hard to understand and so often misinterpreted life doesn't have to be eternal to matter
You have the freewill to not believe, and you have the freewill to interpret scripture any way you please. As far as understanding that's part of freewill I believe. But if you choose to not believe. Then the spirit will not teach you. Therefore not giving you understanding. I can't speak for others, but when I turned from trying to understand and rely on my own wisdom and turned it over to God this is when a light came on. I wish I could explain it better than that. I guess in a nutshell, understanding comes from faith. And we have the liberty to believe or not believe.
T7 I fully agree with you on the importance of the gospel. And your last post. I don't have any issues with others eschatological beliefs. We are created with free will and with individuality. I consider you a brother in Christ.
Trapper7 - Your last post as well very much summed up my beliefs and I agree with Giant Sage. I really enjoy when men can get into Gods Word and analyze it and learn as we sharpen one another. I admit, the more I read, the more the Holy Spirit reveals to me and can reveal different lessons at different times. Gods Word is inerrant and yes we may not always agree on every scripture and I am just fine with that.
Re: Reliability of the Bible
[Re: Husky]
#8419368 06/14/2508:21 AM06/14/2508:21 AM
you do know the earliest fragment we have for the number of the beast is 616, hope that doesn't mess it up for anyone it's just one of those many copy problems i feel bad for all the moves and tattoo people that got it wrong
you do know the earliest fragment we have for the number of the beast is 616, hope that doesn't mess it up for anyone it's just one of those many copy problems i feel bad for all the moves and tattoo people that got it wrong
It's Nero either way. The Greek version of the name Nron Qsr yields 666 and the Latin version of the name Nro Qsr yields 616.
and on free will.. give your children the same free will as god gives ,with the same out come love /believe me or i will burn you for ever over and over again just doesn't have that loving feeling and what's really bad is you're the one doing the burning! and this is the best the all-knowing creator came up with that should give you the ick great for back then if you were king love /worship me and you can live or I'll kill you sounds the same
and on free will.. give your children the same free will as god gives ,with the same out come love /believe me or i will burn you for ever over and over again just doesn't have that loving feeling and what's really bad is you're the one doing the burning! and this is the best the all-knowing creator came up with that should give you the ick great for back then if you were king love /worship me and you can live or I'll kill you sounds the same
I understand your arguments, this is a fairly common argument. As far as the type of judgment you are speaking of. It is a matter of interpretation. Eternal punishment is not the only interpretation. Children of course should be given free will as they become responsible so they can grow. I personally don't understand what scripture is saying about the results on judgment day for those that are not in the book of life. I would lean more towards eternal separation or ever utterly destroyed. I have a hard time seeing an eternal firey judgment in God's character. I'm not saying you are wrong or write. If your corect then it probably doesn't effect eternity. If your wrong?
and on free will.. give your children the same free will as god gives ,with the same out come love /believe me or i will burn you for ever over and over again just doesn't have that loving feeling and what's really bad is you're the one doing the burning! and this is the best the all-knowing creator came up with that should give you the ick great for back then if you were king love /worship me and you can live or I'll kill you sounds the same
This is reaction from anger, which doesn't lead to understanding. God actually desires our love a lot more than we desire him. The Creator of a billion worlds wants to invite you and me to have the same kind of conversation with him as the members of the Trinity have with each other. It sounds too good to be true but that's the biblical message, not repent or burn. But yeah, even many believers don't get it, understandably. Everything that is good in life comes from God's hand, even the things that we pervert, the good in them is his. Take that all away and how can you be anywhere but in torment? Some of us feel like we've already been through hades on earth, but we still always have something good here, some reason for hope. Anyway, if you take your questions to him honestly, they will be answered. Might take time and effort, but he's faithful, because he desires to be known.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.