Side of a No religion But relation

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am reading your post in other threads which gives me an insight into what you believe and to some extent why you believe as you do. We clearly have our difference even though we could define ourslves as Christians. As you will gather, I am not holding with the belief of other so-called Christians. Many claim to be Christians, but in reality, they do not know who Jesus really is or what his. I can subscribe (like a magazine subscription) to something, but that does not make me become a believer in what I subscribe.

Before I came (somehow) to this forum, I was looking at another website in which it was claimed that that real Jesus and the real God of the Bible was largely unknow to Christians. This is a view I share. Like me, you perhaps feel you are in a minority and your views are not appreciated or respected; they are. I cannot share your all your views, I cannot claim to have had an encounter with Jesus or God. Paul the Apostle did not meet Jesus face to face, but he had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. I can see how Jesus can communicate through the power that God has given him, even though he is not on earth physically after he ascended to be with his Heavenly Father. I have written in another post how I am trying to stay grounded. My belief is that God's purpose with this earth is that He is intending to occupy it with believers; those who have proven faithful. The only place for these believers is on this earth which one day will be filled with God's Glory; it is nowwhere near that glorious state now, though we can discern the hand of the Creator by what we can see now. This as Richard points out is subjective and is not by itself proof.

Hey there David,

I find the discussion between you and Rick to be very fascinating, because by Rick's definition, you are not saved since you have not had an "encounter with Jesus or God."

Your conversation brings forth the fundamental problem of the concept of the "real Jesus" as opposed to the Jesus believed by all the various versions of Christianity. Rick has been adamant that many, if not most, people who call themselves "Christians" are deceived and believing a false religion. Unfortunately, it was this point that drove him to quit the conversation and to falsely accuse me of trying to "dupe" him. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem with the subjective nature of Christianity is a fundamental problem that plagued me even while I was a professing Christian.

Our personal subjective experiences cannot be proof of God to others, though the subjective experience can make profound changes as it did with Paul. Others can see the changes in the person and as such, we must be ready (quote) and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with In whatever way has led us to believe in God ( personal revelation or study of the scrirptures), we are to develop the mind of Christ within us and it is that mind within us that people observe by our actions. I have had people saying to me; "you are different to other people". I take that as a compliment. I feel a failure before God and Jesus, yet people see something different about me to the other people they meet. Of course this can be said of many who do not share my beliefs. We are the product of our mind, what we believe we manifest in our lives. Not everyone will "hold fast" and some will quit and as the adage goes; "quitters never win and winnners never quit". I encourage you not to quit (and I do not mean quitting this forum). Richard and Rose have quit for the present time being Christians. Whether they were true Christians (in the full and true sense of the meaning) is debatable. The parable of the sower should come to mind and the seed that grows and then for one reason or another does not fully develop, withers and dies.

If my former status as an authentic Christian is debatable, it is only because the status of anyone who makes such claims is "debatable." There is not a word in Rick's statements concerning his current faith that distinguish it from the faith I once held. This only goes to show that there is no objective standard by which to discern between "true" and "false" Christians. In other words, the faith is entirely subjective and so differs not one iota from any other religion that is based on faith and dogmas.

Religions of all types have a lot to answer for. The Bible is full of warnings not to believe in lying words, not to be deceived. Many are responsible for perverting the word of God to commit attrocities in the name of God. There are a lot of false religions based on the writings of men. Rose thinks that most of the Bible is based on the writings of men and not the inspired word of God. You and I Rick do not share this view and see the Bible as the inspired word of God and is the only book that gives us a reason why we are here, how the world/earth came about and what the future of the world is. There is no other book that gives such plausible explanation of these matters. I am not saying the Bible makes everything plain, it is not a scientific book. The Bible makes clear bold statements and then there is a lot of hidden truths that have to be uncovered which when they are adds to the clear statements. There are many lessons to be learnt from not following what others have done in the past. There is no one thing in the Bible that is proof of God's existence. We cannot prove it by our subjective experiences.

I agree that subjective experiences cannot prove the Bible.

As for the "perversion" of God's Word: Christians devoted to the idea that the Bible is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God" are the very ones "responsible for perverting" it when they try to justify the errors, contradictions, and moral abominations it attributes to God. If God is God and God inspired the Bible, then the first duty of every Christian is to present what it says with the greatest accuracy. But just the opposite is what typically happens because the Bible is not what they want it to be.

Your assertion there is "no other book that gives such plausible explanation" for creation makes no sense because the Biblical explanation is obviously fallacious in the extreme. The "earth" was not made "in the beginning." It was made about 9 billion years after the beginning. The sun and stars were not made after the earth. There is no solid dome "firmament" holding up waters in space. There was no Adam, there was no Eve. The whole Biblical explanation is based on mythology that is demonstrably false.

As I have said elsewhere, there is only one test by which God declares that He can be proved. Even in this, Richard will hold my feet to the fire, which Richard has yet to prove for himself. The only proof for God is His ability to tell us what is going to happen in the future. Prophecy is the only proof. I have come to believe in the promises of God based on the evidence of what He said would happen centuries before it took place. I know others disagree with me on this point, and others in history have not had the advantage I have of looking of being able to look back at history retrospectively to see the prophecies of God and how many have been fulfilled and come true. There are those we wait for that have still be to be completed.

As I said last time you brought up this point, the vast majority of prophecies in the Bible have failed and the few that remain are rejected by most Futurists because they want to hijack them to fit their Futurist eschatology. It would be great if you started a thread that listed the top three fulfilled prophecies so we can evaluate the evidence.

I think we should all hold our feet in the fire!

As the chosen people of God, because of the promises made to Abraham, God has said of the Jews; Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any". The Jews today are God's witnesses. Miraculously God has preserved them, He has regathered them as a nation and Israel is central to His purpose. This is why I look to the middle East and Israel to see how God is controlling the nations which proves He is at work fulfilling his plan. Every generation has been left with some hope of the nearness of the return of Jesus to set up the kingdom, but in the last days which describe leading up to this event, none have fitted in with the desperate state of the world on so many levels as is happening now. Israel could be overturned for the third and final time very soon

So you are saying that God's witnesses reject God's ultimate witness (Christ)? Fascinating.

The "regathering" was not predicted. The verses that speak of gathering Israel were written before or during the Babylonian exile and were referring to the regathering from that exile. The most notable fact of Biblical "prophecy" is that the verses are taken out of context and misapplied to current events. The modern secular state of Israel has nothing to do with the Biblical Israel that was destroyed in 70 AD.

People have thought we were living in the last days for 2000 years. Luther believed it 400 years ago and there was no "Israel." It's just more date setting, and date setting is always wrong. I can't believe that you would stake your eternal destiny upon such a faulty foundation.

I know it is difficult to say something on this forum and for it not to be accepted without question. I do not want this post to be jumped on in the same way because what I have said above, I have said elsewhere. There will probably come a time when I thingk I have said everything I can say and after that it all becomes repitition. At the moment, I am sharing my non-mainsteam beliefs. Rick, I urge you to do the same, you have posted over 600 times so you have said a lot more than me and so you might expect to have said all you can. I am learning from your most recent posts. I shall not be reading what you wrote in you first posts. This forum of Richard's will always be attracting new visitors and so Richard and Rose will always have sufficient numbers to reply to, I am surprised just how much Richard has time to reply to in the detailed way he does.

When a point is made, it can be confirmed, refuted, or clarified. If you feel that you are repeating yourself too much, it is likely that you failed to do one of those three things. Personally, I feel that I have made many points that are simply rejected without adequate reason because they cannot be refuted and you are not willing to accept them. The solution is to narrow the conversation down to a single point so that we can discern it's precise status as true, false, or undecidable.

I do not expect to win any arguments with Richard or anyone else on this forum. To have statements challenged does hold all our feet to the fire and if we are firm in our beliefs and if those beliefs are built on rock instead of sand, they will stand up to the test. For the sake of the un-decided, stick around and jump in occassionally. I might not post so often once the threads or the conversations I have started dry up. As far as I am concerned, you say a lot of truth and where we differ we enlighten one another. All our views on this forum enlighten each other. What you say in your replies can help me with my understanding and help me with my replies to others, so I think all our contributions are helpful in different ways. I would like to think that Richard and Rose are going through a phase of playing devil's advocate. This might be wishful thinking on my part, but their challenge (and yours), is benefitting me because it ensures that my basis for belief is not undermined by anything that is said. If I am wrong, I have to admit it. I am willing to change on some points, but nothing is going to shake my firm belief before I die. Standing in front of the judgement seat of Christ might be the only way I find out if I am correct or I am wrong and whether I have proved faithful enough.

All the best to you.

David

Good points. I love testing our beliefs and seeing if the foundation is rock or sand. But I have a distinct advantage. I do not have any "dogma" that I must protect, so I can freely change my mind the moment an error is revealed. You don't have that luxury because you must protect your dogma. Your dogma that the Bible is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God" is extremely brittle. If it could be shown that the Bible contains a single error, your dogma would instantly shatter.

As for playing the devil's advocate - I could see how you might think that. But in reality, I have frequently written about positive things in the Bible. I'm just speaking the truth as best as I can see it. I don't have a problem with the Bible at all. My problem is with the false dogma that says the Bible contains no errors or moral abominations. That doctrine attributes evil to God, and that's something I cannot abide.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Timmy]

There's a race of men
Who don't fit in,
A race that can't
Stay still;
So they break the hearts
Of kith and kin,
And they roam
The world at will.
They range the field
And rove the flood,
And they climb
The mountains crest.
Theirs is the curse
Of the gypsy blood,
And they don't know
How to rest.
If they just go straight
They might go far.
They are strong
And brave
And true;
But they're always tired
Of the things that are,
And they want
The strange and new.
They say, "Could i find my proper groove
What a deep mark i would make!"
So they chop and change,
And each fresh move
Is only a fresh mistake.
And each forgets
As he strips and runs
With a brilliant fitful pace,
It's the steady quiet
Plodding ones
Who win in the lifelong race.
And each forgets
That his youth has fled. . .
Forgets that his prime is past,
Til' he stands one day
With a hope that's dead
In the glare
Of the truth
At last.


Have ever you heard
Of the land of beyond
That dreams
At the gates of the day?
Alluring it lies
At the skirts of the skies,
And ever so far away;
Alluring it calls:
O Ye the yoke galls,
And ye of
The trail overfond
With saddle and pack,
By paddle and track,
Let's go
To the land of Beyond. . .

[David M]

Hello Richard
I had not intended to get into discussion as my post was intended for Rick, though not having stated that explicitily, I know my comments are open to challenge by anyone. I shall just add a word in response to some things you say, though I hope and expect these matters to be dealt with in other threads

Your assertion there is "no other book that gives such plausible explanation" for creation makes no sense because the Biblical explanation is obviously fallacious in the extreme. The "earth" was not made "in the beginning." It was made about 9 billion years after the beginning. The sun and stars were not made after the earth. There is no solid dome "firmament" holding up waters in space. There was no Adam, there was no Eve. The whole Biblical explanation is based on mythology that is demonstrably false.

The Creation that takes place on the earth begins in verse three with the creation of light and the forming of day and night.
Verses 1 and 2 as you say took place before the first day of creation on the earth. There is nothing to argue with verse 1 and nothing to suggest that God had not also made other stars and planets (in the beginning). Who really knows whether the figure of 9 billion years is correct? It could be a lot more or a lot less, it is man's best guestimate.
Verse 2 merely describes the condition of the earth as it was before God created the conditions to sustain life, and then God creates life.
In verse 16, The text does say that God made the Sun and Moon. We could consider the possibility that the sun and moon were already created and that God made them appear in the sky on the fourth day. Also consider the phrase "he made the stars also". Note; I have shown words in italics the same as my Bible shows them. This means these words are not in the original text, and have been inserted by the translators. If you take out the italic words, the sense of the verse is that the stars (as the moon does) rules the night. This makes sense as we can only see the stars at night; we do not see stars until the sun has set.

As I said last time you brought up this point, the vast majority of prophecies in the Bible have failed and the few that remain are rejected by most Futurists because they want to hijack them to fit their Futurist eschatology. It would be great if you started a thread that listed the top three fulfilled prophecies so we can evaluate the evidence.

It would be good. I have asked you elsewhere to tell me what prophecies you see as fulfilled. AD70 appears to be a fulfillment of a prophecy you agree with, but I need you to confirm which prophecies you agree with.

So you are saying that God's witnesses reject God's ultimate witness (Christ)? Fascinating.

We are told that a veil is over the eyes of the Jews and until the veil is removed they will not recognize Christ. This is one prophecy to be completed and they will come to recognize Jesus as the one they crucified. This will not happen until they call for God's deliverance once more and knowing how much Israel is hated by its neighbours right now, it should come as no surprise when their cry for help is made.

The "regathering" was not predicted. The verses that speak of gathering Israel were written before or during the Babylonian exile and were referring to the regathering from that exile. The most notable fact of Biblical "prophecy" is that the verses are taken out of context and misapplied to current events. The modern secular state of Israel has nothing to do with the Biblical Israel that was destroyed in 70 AD.

Ezekial 11:17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. After the Babylonian exile, from which the Israelites returned they have not returned from all the countries into which God scattered them. This is not to say, every Jew will return. We have seen the establishment of Israel in 1948 after the Jews returned from many countries. Not every prophecy concluded in AD70.

When a point is made, it can be confirmed, refuted, or clarified. If you feel that you are repeating yourself too much, it is likely that you failed to do one of those three things. Personally, I feel that I have made many points that are simply rejected without adequate reason because they cannot be refuted and you are not willing to accept them. The solution is to narrow the conversation down to a single point so that we can discern it's precise status as true, false, or undecidable.

Apart from the words I have highlighted in the quote above, I can agree with the other points you make.

I will catch up on these proints in another thread.

Regards
David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard
I had not intended to get into discussion as my post was intended for Rick, though not having stated that explicitily, I know my comments are open to challenge by anyone. I shall just add a word in response to some things you say, though I hope and expect these matters to be dealt with in other threads

Hi David,

I've been knocked out with a rhinovirus for the last few days so I haven't been able to respond.

The Creation that takes place on the earth begins in verse three with the creation of light and the forming of day and night.
Verses 1 and 2 as you say took place before the first day of creation on the earth. There is nothing to argue with verse 1 and nothing to suggest that God had not also made other stars and planets (in the beginning). Who really knows whether the figure of 9 billion years is correct? It could be a lot more or a lot less, it is man's best guestimate.
Verse 2 merely describes the condition of the earth as it was before God created the conditions to sustain life, and then God creates life.
In verse 16, The text does say that God made the Sun and Moon. We could consider the possibility that the sun and moon were already created and that God made them appear in the sky on the fourth day. Also consider the phrase "he made the stars also". Note; I have shown words in italics the same as my Bible shows them. This means these words are not in the original text, and have been inserted by the translators. If you take out the italic words, the sense of the verse is that the stars (as the moon does) rules the night. This makes sense as we can only see the stars at night; we do not see stars until the sun has set.

If the creation "that takes place on the earth begins in verse three" then why does verse one speak of God creating the heavens and the earth?

I agree that there is some uncertainty as to the age of the universe, but we know that the age derived from the Bible is totally wrong by thousands of orders of magnitude.

There is no way to fix the Biblical account of Creation without utterly abandoning any kind of "literal interpretation."

Modern science has revealed that the Bible is not a reliable source of knowledge concerning the physical universe. There is nothing in the book that would suggest it was inspired by a God who actually created the universe. On the contrary, the story of creation in Genesis 1 is set in the context of the primitive mythological cosmology of the Ancient Near East. If this is denied, then the Bible is shown to be useless as a guide, because rather than getting our knowledge from the Bible, we are trying to conform the Bible to our knowledge.

It would be good. I have asked you elsewhere to tell me what prophecies you see as fulfilled. AD70 appears to be a fulfillment of a prophecy you agree with, but I need you to confirm which prophecies you agree with.

I don't know of any other prophecies that have been fulfilled. The prophecy of Psalm 22 is more like a typological fulfillment that could be known only "after the fact." It wasn't like a prophecy which actually predicted anything. The same goes for most other prophecies ... except the ones that obviously failed, like the prophecy against Babylon being suddenly destroyed.

Ezekial 11:17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. After the Babylonian exile, from which the Israelites returned they have not returned from all the countries into which God scattered them. This is not to say, every Jew will return. We have seen the establishment of Israel in 1948 after the Jews returned from many countries. Not every prophecy concluded in AD70.

As you note, the prophecy was not predicting the return of every individual. So why do you think it was not fulfilled? And if it wasn't fulfilled, why would you think it will be fulfilled in the future?

And more to the point - the context proves it was fulfilled in the first century:

Ezekiel 11:17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. 18 And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. 19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Paul said this prophecy (and/or others that are nearly identical) were fulfilled in the church:

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Your futurist eschatology shreds Scripture and ignores all the PROOF TEXTS used by Paul to show that the Church was the fulfillment of those prophecies.

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Hi David,

I've been knocked out with a rhinovirus for the last few days so I haven't been able to respond.

You have my sympathy Richard. I thought you might be involved with other business and I had noticed you have not been contributing for a short while. I have not heard of this virus, but anything described as "rhino" sounds like it will knock you over.

In your haste to reply (and this might be a trap you keep falling into), you miss my point entirely. I might be alone in my suggestion. I am trying to reconcile the age of the earth and that of the Creation process on the earth. I am seeing a distinction between "the beginning" an " the first day of Creation". "In the beginning" gives no time scale of when the beginning was and is man's guestimate and is most likely wrong.

If the creation "that takes place on the earth begins in verse three" then why does verse one speak of God creating the heavens and the earth?

The heavens contain the stars and could have been made at any time in the beginning along with the earth. I am not eliminating a type of Big Bang when by God's power, His energy converted to mass and things came into being. It is just a period we are told nothing about and we are given the simplest possible explanation as to why things came into existence.

I agree that there is some uncertainty as to the age of the universe, but we know that the age derived from the Bible is totally wrong by thousands of orders of magnitude.

What I am saying is (and I could be wrong) that the Bible does not tell us the age of the universe or when precisely the earth was made along with the stars and the planets and the debris floating around. If Creation on the earth does not start until verse 3, I do not see the Bible giving any dates before this time. I believe that man was created 6,000 years ago (based on all the evidence), and that the earth was created sometime in the beginning. How the beginning can be dated with any degree of certainty, I fail to see. Science does not have the answers. Ageing processes do not have to be linear in the way the scientists expect. Unfortunately, for Evolutionists, they have failed to provide solid evidence for man's existence beyond 6,000 years. I expect you to disagree but you cannot give any proof of your own.

There is no way to fix the Biblical account of Creation without utterly abandoning any kind of "literal interpretation."

There is no reasonable evidence for supporting the existence of man more than 6,000 years ago. Any figures given beyond that are extremely suspect. If man had existed for 20,000 years we should have a lot more evidence, and unfortunately, for the evolutionists, the evidence is not solid enough.

Modern science has revealed that the Bible is not a reliable source of knowledge concerning the physical universe. There is nothing in the book that would suggest it was inspired by a God who actually created the universe. On the contrary, the story of creation in Genesis 1 is set in the context of the primitive mythological cosmology of the Ancient Near East. If this is denied, then the Bible is shown to be useless as a guide, because rather than getting our knowledge from the Bible, we are trying to conform the Bible to our knowledge.

If this is your conclusion, so be it, there is little point with me chatting further. I am trying to reason with you, and all you can do is make silly assertions. I fail to see how you are trying to reason and understand.

I don't know of any other prophecies that have been fulfilled. The prophecy of Psalm 22 is more like a typological fulfillment that could be known only "after the fact." It wasn't like a prophecy which actually predicted anything. The same goes for most other prophecies ... except the ones that obviously failed, like the prophecy against Babylon being suddenly destroyed.

One prohecy about Babylon is that it would never be a great city or the seat of power that it once was. The city of Babylon was covered with sand for centuries and thought at one time never to have existed and so became regarded as a Bible myth. Once it was discovered and the sand removed, the Bible was proved correct. If anything, the prohecies concerning Babylon were correct and proof the Bible is correct. You do not want to acknowledge this and yet I know of someone to whom this prophecy was instrumental in bringing them to believe the Bible is true. Sadam Hussain, was in the process of restoring the ancient city that had been uncovered and he wanted the city to become great again, but God has decreed it will never be. You should put Babylon into one of the prophecies that have been fulfilled.

As you note, the prophecy was not predicting the return of every individual. So why do you think it was not fulfilled? And if it wasn't fulfilled, why would you think it will be fulfilled in the future?

It was not fulfilled completely in the period you say it was, when it is evident that the people were being regathered before the nation could be established on the world stage in 1948, before which the Jews returned in large numbers. If you are blind to this regathering, I cannot help you.

And more to the point - the context proves it was fulfilled in the first century:

Ezekiel 11:17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. 18 And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. 19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

This is still future, they still have a stoney heart and they still have the veil over their eyes by which they did not recognize Jesus as the Son of God and will not recognize him until he comes again. We have the assurance of they will recognize him when he returns, and this remains to happen in the future.

Paul said this prophecy (and/or others that are nearly identical) were fulfilled in the church:

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

.

This is an irrelevant quote to what is being considered, namely the return of the Jews and the establishment of the nation of Israel. It does not matter that the Jews did not recognize Jesus or that they do not recognize him today, the Jews are still God's witnesses. It does not matter what they say or do under their own power, God is in control of events. It is important we watch what is taking place in the Middle East. It is what takes place to Israel that is their witness to God. That is why God says that the only way He can be proved is by prophecy. There is no other proof for the existence of God. There is prophecy to be fulfiled; the miracle existence of Israel is still witnessing to God.

Your futurist eschatology shreds Scripture and ignores all the PROOF TEXTS used by Paul to show that the Church was the fulfillment of those prophecies.].

Sorry, you have not given me any PROOF TEXTS. This is your failing. You are not giving me any sound Biblical reasoning. You attempt to disparage every remark I make without following my reasoning through. It is you who are shredding Scripture by misquoting and taking things our of context. Be sure that every time you accuse me of so doing, I will turn the tables and accuse you of doing the same. Let others be the judge.

Thanks for sharing.

David

[Lotus Feet]

David did you know that the scripture tells you that God cares more for ZION then he does for Israel? Do you know why that is? It is because daughter ZION was sent to help the nations and the children of the world, not just Israel.

And the Ram reports that

I've been knocked out with a rhinovirus for the last few days so I haven't been able to respond.

Did you get the message?

I was given a vision of a Rhino.

The keynote of rhinoceros is ancient wisdom and its cycle is one year. Interesting that there are legends about the rhino stamping out the fire in Malaysia, India and Burma. The animal could come when a fire is lit and stamp it out. [1] Traditionally, they live until they are 60+ years old and they are on the endangered species list. Does it remind you of ISRAEL and the fire on Mount Carmel?

It seems that there was a comedy film released in 1974 called RHINOCEROS as well. Gene Wilder, an office clerk watches the people from a distance going through bizarre transformations. Stanley, (Wilder) suddenly finds himself outnumbered by people that have turned into Rhinos. As we say, 'It could only happen in America'. Its worth reading the film review to understand more.

The year 1974 is relevant, that was the year before the last days of the end times began, when Christians in Southern Lebanon were decimated by Arafat and his followers.

CHRIST VISIONS AND MESSAGES
http://academysounds.blogspot.co.uk/...-messages.html

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You have my sympathy Richard. I thought you might be involved with other business and I had noticed you have not been contributing for a short while. I have not heard of this virus, but anything described as "rhino" sounds like it will knock you over.

Thanks David, but it's not as bad as it sounds. The "rhinovirus" is just the name of the virus that causes the common cold. It's from the genative form of the Greek word "ris" which means "nose." We see the same root in rhinoceros which means "horned nose."

In your haste to reply (and this might be a trap you keep falling into), you miss my point entirely. I might be alone in my suggestion. I am trying to reconcile the age of the earth and that of the Creation process on the earth. I am seeing a distinction between "the beginning" an " the first day of Creation". "In the beginning" gives no time scale of when the beginning was and is man's guestimate and is most likely wrong.

I didn't miss the point - I guess I just didn't express myself clearly. I knew you were trying to reconcile Genesis 1 with science. I just consider such an effort to be vain.

The heavens contain the stars and could have been made at any time in the beginning along with the earth. I am not eliminating a type of Big Bang when by God's power, His energy converted to mass and things came into being. It is just a period we are told nothing about and we are given the simplest possible explanation as to why things came into existence.

No, the stars could not have been made "at any time along with the earth." The stars predate the earth by billions of years.

The problem with Genesis 1 is not what we are not told, but what we are told. It follows the pattern of the ancient mythological cosmology in which there was a "three-tiered universe" with a flat earth covered by a dome with waters above and below. After years of reviewing various attempts, I am convinced that no attempt to reconcile the Biblical account with the science will be successful. The Biblical account is simply incoherent with scientific fact.

Here is an article from the conservative Christian thinktank called www.Biologos.org that explains the ancient mythological cosmology:

Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible

Here's the three-tiered universe the article talks about:



And here is a snippet from their article where they show that this three tiered cosmology was used frequently in the Bible:

Let’s take a look at the Scriptures that appear to reinforce this three-tiered universe so different from our modern understanding of expanding galaxies of warped space-time, where the notion of heaven and hell are without physical location. Though the focus of this essay will be on Old Testament context, I want to start with the New Testament to make the point that their cosmography did not necessarily change with the change of Old to New Covenants. (See Phil. 2:10, Rev. 5:3, 13,,Ex. 20:4, Matt. 11:23)

Phil. 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth,

Rev. 5:3, 13 And no one in heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth, was able to open the book, or to look into it… And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, 'To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.'

Ex. 20:4 'You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

Matt. 11:23 Jesus said, 'And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades [the underworld].

Both apostles Paul and John were writing about the totality of creation being subject to the authority of Jesus on his throne. So this word picture of 'heaven, earth, and under the earth' was used as the description of the total known universe – which they conceived of spatially as heaven above, the earth below, and the underworld below the earth. And not only the human writers wrote of the universe in this three-tiered fashion but so did Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith; as well as God himself, when giving the commandments on Sinai.

There's no denying these facts. The Bible incorporates a lot of mythology that was common at the time of its composition.

What I am saying is (and I could be wrong) that the Bible does not tell us the age of the universe or when precisely the earth was made along with the stars and the planets and the debris floating around. If Creation on the earth does not start until verse 3, I do not see the Bible giving any dates before this time. I believe that man was created 6,000 years ago (based on all the evidence), and that the earth was created sometime in the beginning. How the beginning can be dated with any degree of certainty, I fail to see. Science does not have the answers. Ageing processes do not have to be linear in the way the scientists expect. Unfortunately, for Evolutionists, they have failed to provide solid evidence for man's existence beyond 6,000 years. I expect you to disagree but you cannot give any proof of your own.

Based on all the evidence? What are you talking about? The evidence is incontrovertible that the species homo sapiens has existed for roughly 200,000 years. The "evidence" you mention sounds like calculations based on Biblical genealogies. To me, this only demonstrates yet another conflict between the Bible and science.

Could you cite a reputable scientific source for your claim that evolutionists "have failed to provide solid evidence for man's existence beyond 6,000 years"?

There is no reasonable evidence for supporting the existence of man more than 6,000 years ago. Any figures given beyond that are extremely suspect. If man had existed for 20,000 years we should have a lot more evidence, and unfortunately, for the evolutionists, the evidence is not solid enough.

How is it possible that you feel confident to reject the massive amount of evidence contradicting your claims? Have you read a single book written by evolutionary scientists explaining the evidence? How do you explain the broad agreement between biologists, geologists, astronomers, nuclear physicists and scientists from a wide variety of other well established fields? Do you imagine that there is some vast "scientific conspiracy" invented merely to contradict the Bible? Do you really think that the whole body of scientists have so little integrity? Or that they even care about the Bible enough to pervert their entire scientific endeavor? I get the impression that you have uncritically accepted the baseless claims of religiously driven anti-evolutionary propagandists.

Modern science has revealed that the Bible is not a reliable source of knowledge concerning the physical universe. There is nothing in the book that would suggest it was inspired by a God who actually created the universe. On the contrary, the story of creation in Genesis 1 is set in the context of the primitive mythological cosmology of the Ancient Near East. If this is denied, then the Bible is shown to be useless as a guide, because rather than getting our knowledge from the Bible, we are trying to conform the Bible to our knowledge.

If this is your conclusion, so be it, there is little point with me chatting further. I am trying to reason with you, and all you can do is make silly assertions. I fail to see how you are trying to reason and understand.

Unfortunately, you are probably correct. If you have chosen to reject the entire body of modern science as "silly" in favor of a text written by primitive man purporting to be the "Word of God" then no evidence I could provide would convince you. But I am willing to pursue this if you are interested.

One prohecy about Babylon is that it would never be a great city or the seat of power that it once was. The city of Babylon was covered with sand for centuries and thought at one time never to have existed and so became regarded as a Bible myth. Once it was discovered and the sand removed, the Bible was proved correct. If anything, the prohecies concerning Babylon were correct and proof the Bible is correct. You do not want to acknowledge this and yet I know of someone to whom this prophecy was instrumental in bringing them to believe the Bible is true. Sadam Hussain, was in the process of restoring the ancient city that had been uncovered and he wanted the city to become great again, but God has decreed it will never be. You should put Babylon into one of the prophecies that have been fulfilled.

Your assertion that I "do not want to acknowledge this" is false. I have no problem acknowledging that there was indeed a "Babylon" mentioned in the Bible. But how is it that you fail to admit the truth of what the Bible actually teaches? The Bible plainly states that Babylon would be suddenly destroyed with great violence, like Sodom and Gomorrah, but that never happened.

Isaiah 13:15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. 16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. 17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. 18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. 19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. 20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.

Why do you trifle with the Bible as if you could just ignore what it actually states?

I am stunned that Christians do not recognize the irony of claiming the Bible is "God's Word" even as they ignore what it says.

It was not fulfilled completely in the period you say it was, when it is evident that the people were being regathered before the nation could be established on the world stage in 1948, before which the Jews returned in large numbers. If you are blind to this regathering, I cannot help you.

I am not "blind to the regathering." But neither am I blind to the context of the prophecy. It says nothing of "1948" - on the contrary, it was written DURING the Babylonian exile and so we know it was speaking of the return from that exile. If you don't want to accept what the Bible teaches, there's nothing I can do about that.

And more to the point - the context proves it was fulfilled in the first century:

Ezekiel 11:17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. 18 And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. 19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

This is still future, they still have a stoney heart and they still have the veil over their eyes by which they did not recognize Jesus as the Son of God and will not recognize him until he comes again. We have the assurance of they will recognize him when he returns, and this remains to happen in the future.

So you deny again what the Bible plainly states. Paul plainly explained that the "new heart" was put into believing Jews in the first century. You don't seem to understand that the first Christians were first century JEWS who fulfilled the prophecy even though that is what the Bible plainly - and repeatedly - states.

Paul said this prophecy (and/or others that are nearly identical) were fulfilled in the church:2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

This is an irrelevant quote to what is being considered, namely the return of the Jews and the establishment of the nation of Israel. It does not matter that the Jews did not recognize Jesus or that they do not recognize him today, the Jews are still God's witnesses. It does not matter what they say or do under their own power, God is in control of events. It is important we watch what is taking place in the Middle East. It is what takes place to Israel that is their witness to God. That is why God says that the only way He can be proved is by prophecy. There is no other proof for the existence of God. There is prophecy to be fulfiled; the miracle existence of Israel is still witnessing to God.

I am stunned that you reject the plain teaching of the Apostle Paul concerning how the first century Jews (the church) fulfilled those prophecies. Your assertion that the "Jews" did not "recognize Jesus" is totally false. All the apostles were Jews! All the first Christians were Jews!

Your idea that it "is important we watch what is taking place in the Middle East" has no foundation in fact. Folks have been saying that for sixty years, and falsely predicting the end all along. But they are always wrong because they don't admit, let alone understand, many things that the Bible plainly states.

Your futurist eschatology shreds Scripture and ignores all the PROOF TEXTS used by Paul to show that the Church was the fulfillment of those prophecies.].

Sorry, you have not given me any PROOF TEXTS. This is your failing. You are not giving me any sound Biblical reasoning. You attempt to disparage every remark I make without following my reasoning through. It is you who are shredding Scripture by misquoting and taking things our of context. Be sure that every time you accuse me of so doing, I will turn the tables and accuse you of doing the same. Let others be the judge.

That is absurd. The entire New Testament is a "proof text" that the OT prophecies about a "new heart" and "new spirit" were fulfilled in the Church.

But I do understand your confusion. It appears you have never encountered anything but a Futurist interpretation of prophecy. That is very sad, since Futurism is made of nothing but incoherent bits and pieces of shredded Scripture held together by fantasies and inventions (like a 2000+ year magical stretchy gap between verses 26 and 27 of Daniel 9). I have debated Futurist eschatology for years on this forum and their theories are nothing if not totally incoherent and unbiblical.

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Your assertion that I "do not want to acknowledge this" is false. I have no problem acknowledging that there was indeed a "Babylon" mentioned in the Bible. But how is it that you fail to admit the truth of what the Bible actually teaches? The Bible plainly states that Babylon would be suddenly destroyed with great violence, like Sodom and Gomorrah, but that never happened.

Isaiah 13:15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. 16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. 17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. 18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. 19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. 20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.

Why do you trifle with the Bible as if you could just ignore what it actually states?

Hello Richard
There is obviously a lot we disagree on. The above being a case in question. Again, I have to turn the tables and say, it is you who are trifling with the words of Bible and not considering what the Bible states. And this is the main basis why we are disagreeing so much. You infer things that are not written and you insert words to make the passages mean what you want. You accuse me of doing the same, and yet I am prepared to examine every possible view-point to derive a trued understanding.
It is you who are claiming that Babylon was destroyed suddenly. The Bible does not say this. Where in the quote you have given me (which incidentally, it is the last part I was thinking about that was fulfilled), does it say; it would be destroyed with great violence as in the volcanic erruptions that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Forget the erruptions that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, this is not what this is talking about. It is talking about the demise of Babylon and its falling from power. Great violence in terms killing did take place, but not the physical destruction of the city as you are trying to make out is false. I agree your assertion is a false claim. That is why the remains of Babylon were found. Since the demise of Babylon, the city has never been properly inhabited and was eventually covered for centuries by sand. So the prophecy about Babylon was true, and in light of the words you inject, which are not there, your interpretation of this prophecy ought to be modified.


David