Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Eden/earth
    Posts
    100
    Dude you can't build, correct, or teach off a book that isint the word of God.
    So umm Timothy use KJV stop being ignorant and deceptive.

    John 3:10-13 KJV
    "Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven"

    You realize Jesus in context was speaking about himself in third person -_-.

    [EDIT]
    I relize you will further take this out of context.

    Jesus had not died for our sins at that verse. Therefore ofcourse no man was in heaven :L
    Last edited by Funky1096; 03-05-2013 at 07:04 PM.
    "There is nothing but shame to be gained by willfully holding to false opinions!"
    How true.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Funky1096 View Post
    Dude you can't build, correct, or teach off a book that isint the word of God.
    So umm Timothy use KJV stop being ignorant and deceptive.

    John 3:10-13 KJV
    "Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven"

    You realize Jesus in context was speaking about himself in third person -_-.

    [EDIT]
    I relize you will further take this out of context.

    Jesus had not died for our sins at that verse. Therefore ofcourse no man was in heaven :L
    Hello Funky1096
    Please can you use the 'Reply with Quote' button found in the bottom right corner of the post? I clicked on the button to begin this post. Doing this in future will help when you quote posts. You will see the quote tags enclosing the quoted post. The tags are [QUOTE*] and [/QUOTE*] (minus the * which I have inserted to prevent the tags being recognized or else you would not see them). You can delete unwanted sections of a post within the tags. Anytime you want to create a quote box, you can write the tags or click on the Quote icon in the formatting section at the top of the page and this will create the tags between which you write the text to be quoted.

    Further, if you need to edit the post just written, use the "Edit" button next to the "Reply with Quote" button.

    Doing this will make your replies easier to read and make it clear who is saying what. However, it will not help make better sense of your words. I am having difficulty figuring out what you believe. Maybe you could state the essentials of your faith and what you believe.

    David
    Last edited by David M; 03-05-2013 at 10:21 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Tellus
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Funky1096 View Post
    Dude you can't build, correct, or teach off a book that isint the word of God.
    So umm Timothy use KJV stop being ignorant and deceptive.

    John 3:10-13 KJV
    "Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven"

    You realize Jesus in context was speaking about himself in third person -_-.

    [EDIT]
    I relize you will further take this out of context.

    Jesus had not died for our sins at that verse. Therefore ofcourse no man was in heaven :L
    FYI Funky1096,

    We all realise over 90% of what you haphazardly spin off here in our beloved B.W.F.A.(tm) is out of context. You also read posts from others out of context, only know how to think out of context, and spit out irrationality after irrationality expecting us to swallow that regurgitated pig vomit.

    You already lost credibility here almost from the git-go; but thought you might humble yourself enough to shut up, listen, and learn rather than proving to all of this Acropolis just how wilfully ignorant you choose to remain. You let stupidity overtake what little sensibility you have exhibited in our forum.

    Is it wise to keep on slobbering out lies after being shown otherwise?


    You will begin to realise your postings are lame ducks limping as responses to them continually dwindle. Of those who do write you back, it is only to:

    1. Find out just how off base your ideations are
    2. Attempt to locate and negotiate your major malfunction
    3. To patronize you
    4. To set you up for a fall
    5. To get a laugh
    (Not necessarily in that order. We care for your well being, but what good does it do trying to help anyone when they refuse it?)

    Anyway, back to the issue of you taking things out of context, and then projecting what you are doing onto others, saying prove it and claiming you are right because only you use, and thus proclaim the only words from god(?):

    The only reason i can think, why you swerved off on that tangent claiming your bibliolatry should be everyone elses and everything else is wrong is because you really can not find one verse anywhere in the Bible stating any human goes --aside from Jesus the Christ whom Yaweh has exalted again--into G_d's heaven.

    Again, show us just one verse proving what your lying fingers pound out on your texting apparatus.
    Humans do not dwell in G_d's heaven, even after the resurrection.
    (read the end of the book, along with a whole lot more you obviously have never read, much less memorise or meditated.)




    Second, the Textus Receptus ("Text Recieved") out of the hands of the Holey Roman Catholic Church which was translated to comply according to the dogma, theology, and doctrine of The Church of England, so the Bible would appear to fall in line with what King James believed, has several additions to it not found in manuscripts predating the Textus Receptus. The most notorious problem with the KJV are the punctuation placements not found in any extant manuscript of the B'rit Ha'Dasha (NT).

    One of the known textual additions that can be observed in the KJV phrase, "even the son of man which is in heaven."

    One common error with many modern copies of the Bible is the placement of red letters where it is often assumed Jesus said certain things in certain places He might not have said at all. BTW, any copy of the KJV1611, if true to that actual original copy, not only does not have red letters, but has F where modern English always uses S and words spelled in a way few today understand and other grammatical differences that make it obsolete simply for readability and understandings sake.

    If you continue to insist on using the KJV1611, you need to at least obtain a 1928 edition of Webster's Dictionary so you can learn what those Olde English words used in that KJV text actually mean, instead of assuming and writing wrong things based on your misinterpretation.

    BTW, you cannot prove that those are Jesus' words in the third person, as they might just be more of John's perpetual commentary.

    If anyone needs to look at the facts it is you. Several of us here, particularly Richard, have in various ways tried to lead a jackass to water only for that jackass to spit on us.

    Do you even know what you think you believe or has your eclectic syncreting fundamentalistic fundament gotten the best of what little remains of that brain of yours ever so loosely attached to your spinal cord?


    Please, if not for the sake of others, for your own sake, realise how you are cutting yourself off from others even bothering to listen to you...except for amusement.

    Sincerely,

    Timmy
    Last edited by Timmy; 03-06-2013 at 10:26 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Second, the Textus Receptus ("Text Recieved") out of the hands of the Holey Roman Catholic Church which was translated to comply according to the dogma, theology, and doctrine of The Church of England, so the Bible would appear to fall in line with what King James believed, has several additions to it not found in manuscripts predating the Textus Receptus. The most notorious of the problem with the KJV are the punctuation placements not found in any extant manuscript of the B'rit Ha'Dasha (NT).
    Hey there Timmy,

    I agree strongly that Funky needs to get educated about the source of the KJV. It's painfully ironic to see him hold that it is divine without having any actual knowledge of where it came from or what problems there are with its history.

    But that said, where did you get the idea that the TR was produced by the RCC? The TR represents the Byzantine, as opposed to Alexandrian, textual tradition. It has nothing to do with the RCC per se.

    Also, if you are going to play the crypto-Jew game, (writing G_D for God and replacing Biblical Greek for Hebrew), you should at least get the B'rit Ha-Hadasha correct. Sorry for busting your balls, but hey - we're buds, and we both delight in plain speech. It appears you mistook the Chet for a Hey. Your capitalization of the Dalet seems to indicate that you think the word is Ha(definite article)-Dashah (some word?). The actual word is Chadashah, meaning "new." Thus, with the definite article hey, you have B'rit HaHadashah. Here's what it looks like in Hebrew from Jeremiah 31:31:



    בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה << B'rit Hadashah

    בְּרִית
    הַחֲדָשָׁה << B'rit HaHadashah


    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    One of the known textual additions that can be observed in the KJV phrase, "even the son of man which is in heaven."
    That has nothing to do with the KJV per se. We are talking about textual variations in the Greek manuscripts. Here's how Bruce Metzer explains the committees choice concerning that phrase in John 3:13:
    On the one hand, a minority of the Committee preferred the reading avnqrw,pou o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/, arguing that (1) if the short reading, supported almost exclusively by Egyptian witnesses, were original, there is no discernible motive that would have prompted copyists to add the words o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/, resulting in a most difficult saying (the statement in 1.18, not being parallel, would scarcely have prompted the addition); and (2) the diversity of readings implies that the expression o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/, having been found objectionable or superfluous in the context, was modified either by omitting the participial clause, or by altering it so as to avoid suggesting that the Son of Man was at that moment in heaven.

    On the other hand, the majority of the Committee, impressed by the quality of the external attestation supporting the shorter reading, regarded the words o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/ as an interpretative gloss, reflecting later Christological development.

    So there it is. Scholastic opinions about its validity are divided. It has nothing to do with the KJV per se.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    One common error with many modern copies of the Bible is the placement of red letters where it is often assumed Jesus said certain things in certain places He might not have said at all. BTW, any copy of the KJV1611, if true to that actual original copy, not only does not have red letters, but has F where modern English always uses S and words spelled in a way few today understand and other grammatical differences that make it obsolete simply for readability and understandings sake.
    That's true. The 1611 version has many spelling anomalies and errors and typographical features that modern readers would find very difficult. It also contained the APOCRYPHA!

    The KJV only folks are seriously confused. They base their claims on TOTAL IGNORANCE of the most basic facts concerning the KJV. Indeed, they directly contradict themselves. It's really pathetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    If you continue to insist on using the KJV1611, you need to at least obtain a 1928 edition of Webster's Dictionary so you can learn what those Olde English words used in that KJV text actually mean, instead of assuming and writing wrong things based on your misinterpretation.
    I very much doubt Funky uses the 1611 KJV. He almost certainly uses the "standard text" of 1789. How hilarious is that?

    I doubt that Funky knows any of the fundamental facts concerning the book that he has lifted up above the seat of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    BTW, you cannot prove that those are Jesus' words in the third person, as they might just be more of John's perpetual commentary.
    Very good point. It appears that Funky just believes whatever random thoughts pass through his head. I get the impression that he is not fully conscious, that he interprets his own imagination as the "voice of God."

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Do you even know what you think you believe or has your eclectic syncreting fundamentalistic fundament gotten the best of what little remains of that brain of yours ever so loosely attached to your spinal cord?
    Well stated!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Tellus
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Timmy,

    I agree strongly that Funky needs to get educated about the source of the KJV. It's painfully ironic to see him hold that it is divine without having any actual knowledge of where it came from or what problems there are with its history.

    But that said, where did you get the idea that the TR was produced by the RCC? The TR represents the Byzantine, as opposed to Alexandrian, textual tradition. It has nothing to do with the RCC per se.
    Hey Richard,

    Brother man, i missed you response here somehow, somewhere around the time after you and silvius were chattering back and forth on that Ps 22 thread.

    I just woke up, made one cup o' java to paradox meself back to slumberland, but decided to check thread progress since last seen before Konking out again.



    No not "RCC per se," and yes, it is an assumtion from yours truly.

    Aside from the time from Marcus Aralius past Constantine attempting to restore at least a semblance of Pax Romana, many other things not recorded happened that required one to have both the ability to make dot to dot pictures with simple 1 + 1 and just a bit of 'magenation.

    It's doubted anyone can really prove the statement not true, but nobody can prove it true either.

    Sketchy historic records TSTL ...so it's spectacle-ation because i'm so spectacle.

    The destructive inferno of that major library in Alexandria though, guesstulating again, it is doubtful to have been the doings of Theophilus, but i think not Dominitian, and rather Aurelian to be the culprit.

    Anyway, who knows what all they are hiding about what is and is not leaked from beneath the secretive Vatican, said to be the hugestest library with books nobody has seen for millenia.

    It just seems such an obvious source here, with additions instituted in it's script which accord with ruling decisions over beliefs then ordained via the Nicean Council--325 A.D., Constantine.

    Also, if you are going to play the crypto-Jew game, (writing G_D for God and replacing Biblical Greek for Hebrew), you should at least get the B'rit Ha-Hadasha correct. Sorry for busting your balls, but hey - we're buds, and we both delight in plain speech. It appears you mistook the Chet for a Hey. Your capitalization of the Dalet seems to indicate that you think the word is Ha(definite article)-Dashah (some word?). The actual word is Chadashah, meaning "new." Thus, with the definite article hey, you have B'rit HaHadashah. Here's what it looks like in Hebrew from Jeremiah 31:31:



    בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה << B'rit Hadashah

    בְּרִית
    הַחֲדָשָׁה << B'rit HaHadashah
    yeah yoo right. My mistake again again...i think. So far in reading various Jews for Jesus publications, and mingling with different assemblies in different locales i have seen so many variations in spelling through the years. It is very common for us to use word play, which thinking about it bleeds over into my usage of english.

    Maybe i just need to stick with everything acedemically accepted, gramer an spelings bi thah boowk, weather Queen's English, Archaic Hebrew or Modern, hunh???

    I thought when i saw that way of spelling it, it would simplify writing ha instead of haha with the ha implied in the Ha and the D capitalised.

    Not one ha but ha ha
    I stand corrected: ha ha
    I'll ask Ha'Rebbe if it is ok to make ha ha Ha' conjunctively.

    That has nothing to do with the KJV per se. We are talking about textual variations in the Greek manuscripts.
    There i go compiling things again and confusing clarity in the process...first two letters and then two thoughts combined. Man, i am going to have to start seriously double checking when admonishing so it doesn't appear plain old stupid.
    Here's how Bruce Metzer explains the committees choice concerning that phrase in John 3:13:
    On the one hand, a minority of the Committee preferred the reading avnqrw,pou o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/, arguing that (1) if the short reading, supported almost exclusively by Egyptian witnesses, were original, there is no discernible motive that would have prompted copyists to add the words o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/, resulting in a most difficult saying (the statement in 1.18, not being parallel, would scarcely have prompted the addition); and (2) the diversity of readings implies that the expression o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/, having been found objectionable or superfluous in the context, was modified either by omitting the participial clause, or by altering it so as to avoid suggesting that the Son of Man was at that moment in heaven.

    On the other hand, the majority of the Committee, impressed by the quality of the external attestation supporting the shorter reading, regarded the words o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/ as an interpretative gloss, reflecting later Christological development.

    So there it is. Scholastic opinions about its validity are divided. It has nothing to do with the KJV per se.

    've seen it so many different ways in different versions i had to research it after taking note of that phrase. Alot of them have it just like the KJV, but some mss. that phrase is not there...that's why the HCSB is preferred for that verse: because the first phrase is past tense, and the way the last phrase ends it, both possibilities are implied...and realising this, when one thinks about the way KJV and others do that, the phrase is actually redundant.
    ...true. The 1611 version has many spelling anomalies and errors and typographical features that modern readers would find very difficult. It also contained the APOCRYPHA!
    i fail to even think about that fact, having over and over again seen current Protestant versions held in hand and used by so many...of which who thee and thou their prayers which grates my last nerve knowing in doing things like that brings unreality into the picture...where "certain cheap shot" xianities seperate spiritual from physical even though God never does dealing with us, as such was what Yeshua exampled.

    [QUOTE]The KJV only folks are seriously confused. They base their claims on TOTAL IGNORANCE of the most basic facts concerning the KJV. Indeed, they directly contradict themselves. It's really pathetic.


    I very much doubt Funky uses the 1611 KJV. He almost certainly uses the "standard text" of 1789. How hilarious is that?

    I doubt that Funky knows any of the fundamental facts concerning the book that he has lifted up above the seat of God. [/ QUOTE] Yeah, but at least the guy listens...maybe???


    Very good point. It appears that Funky just believes whatever random thoughts pass through his head. I get the impression that he is not fully conscious, that he interprets his own imagination as the "voice of God."
    Too many people take things as honest to God fact because why?
    "i know it is true because i seened iton duh TV" or "There it is in black and white, so now whacha gonna do bout dat, hunh...guess you tink yur purdy smart hunh, dair id iz...reed dit..."

    Thanks Richard, and no need to apologise to Timmy. You know if you can't seem to get my attention to at least take more care before posting, "It ain't nothin' a cattle prod tjen a baseball bat can't solve.


    Peace out my brother
    ...and we all shine on


    Timmy
    The mind grows by taking in
    :Mesiras Nefesh:
    THE HEART GROWS BY GIVING OUT

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Not only can biblical miracles like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah be explained by natural occurrences, but the reasons given for such disasters are themselves faulty. Sodom and Gomorrah were supposed to have been destroyed by god because of rampant homosexuality, did anything change in the nature of humans? NO!

    The same with the Flood story where god was supposed to have destroyed all of mankind except for righteous Noah and his family because of rampant wickedness, did anything change in the nature of humans? NO!

    God does not seem to be able to accomplish that which the Bible claims is his reason for the destructive actions it records.

    Rose
    Hello Rose

    I expect when you were a believer in the Bible you might have objected to skeptics who said "give us proof" arguing from the standpoint of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah being a myth. Now that the proof has been found and since you are now turned into one of those skeptics, you are now saying that despite the proof of the existence of the destroyed cities, you are now saying that there are other causes to this natural disaster (which was in fact not natural).

    Where else has the same natural disaster taken place in the world, when taking into account that the purest sulphur (brimstone) known has been found only in this location?

    (Genesis 19:24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
    There is the evidence of chunks of brimstone that rained down that did not rain upon the already burning city. Those pieces of brimstone are the remaining evidence for the remains of the incinerated cities which are clearly visible man-made structures. The evidence of a disaster overwhelming a city is itself overwheming.

    Homosexuality was not the only practiced vice of the people of that time, and it would have been the tip of the iceberg for all the other abominable acts those people were committing. It is plain to see that destroying those people was not a cure; has the Bible (God) ever said it was? The remains of these cities remain a testament of the punishment and destruction that will come to those who continue to do such things. By that I mean that a similar event could happen en masse
    again. The ruins of these cities remain as a warning and if you have not learnt the lesson by now, I guess you never will.

    Of course, you and Richard do not see that the prophecy of Ezekeil 38 has yet to be fulfilled in its entirity and so you remain blind to the fact that God's jugement is coming on the world and the " New World Order" spoken of in the higher powers of those governing this world, is going to come about not by their means.

    (Ezekiel 38:22) And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.

    You can continue to remain blind or else you can begin to piece these things together correctly. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I side with those who do not wrest God's word in ways that are false and ignore and twist God's word to meet a hidden agenda. Richard has been very disparaging about Michael Rood of whom I have only just come to know about. He is the sort of Bible scholar I admire for the way he has researched and come to the right conclusions. He is in the minority and there can be no mistaking that the minority will be the ones who inherit the kingdom of God. Even the teaching of Jesus makes this perfectly clear

    (Matthew 7:13) 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: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    When you were part of the mainstream church (that has gone astray), you did not realize that you were still part of the masses that will not reach the kingdom of God, because they have been content to follow lies. I know you have now excused yourself of having to be accountable to God, who you deny and therefore however "good" a person you are, you have no righteousness in the sight of God. God saves the righteous. I cannot and never will claim to be totally righteous and so I have to have faith in God's mercy and the little faith I have (compared to the faith of Jesus) will be counted to me as righteousness; like faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. God's principles have not changed and it is diversionary to introduce "innocence" as an argument against God. God's people destroyed themselves through lack of knowledge (of God's instruction). Those of us who have God's word and can read and understand the simplicity that is in that word have no excuse. It is not an excuse to say there are hard things to understand, therefore because parts of God's word does not make sense to me, I am unaccountable.

    You can continue to be ignorant of those things you misunderstood or do not want to bother to find out the correct meaning, and you are deliberately misleading children (infants in God's word) away from coming to know God and His instruction. That in my book is evil just as you claim that God is evil for killing children. Timmy has explained in another post that those children were "not innocent". You fail to realize that the parents are to blame for bringing those children up to commit the same abominations, therefore those children were not destined to remain "innocent". Using children as an excuse for blaming God who punished an abominable society is not valid.

    It does not make any difference as to when and how the judgments of God come, the final arbiter is death and only those who are counted as righteous and worthy are going to get into the kingdom of God. Of neccessity those righteous who have died must be raised from the dead and the assurance has already been given us by the evidence of Jesus being raised from the dead. There is sufficient evidence regardless of the skeptics protestations that there is not the evidence. We have to make our decision now whether we want to be raised from the dead or remain ignorant and dead in our sins.Whether you believe this or not, you are not ignorant of what God has promised, but you can remain willingly opposed to complying with God's instruction.

    All the best

    David
    Last edited by David M; 03-08-2013 at 02:46 AM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1

    Cool Lot and Noah

    In response to the point: nothing changed, pertaining to evil remaining after the destruction of Sodom, I think that there might be a misunderstanding. God's reason for calling Israel and God's reason for protecting Israel was to bring about the salvation of all mankind through his son Christ Jesus. His motive was to protect the Christ line. Noah was part of the Christ line as was Abraham. That was God's whole reason for calling Abraham. "In you all the nations of the earth will be blessed" God's heart is for all mankind. God so loved the world. If Israel had been destroyed there would have been no savior therefore no salvation for all of mankind. Only though Christ and the new birth can a man [truly] change, as happened to Paul, and Peter and many people can testify today. As far as archaeology, I agree with you. But there is real archaeology that confirms many Biblical events. Google Eliat Mazar who has recently discovered something amazing. In Tel Dan inscriptions were discovered that were written Paleo Hebrew confirming the date as well as pottery found at the site. This inscription mentions the King of Israel and the House of David. Keep questioning and studying. That is how we learn.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Coppock View Post
    In response to the point: nothing changed, pertaining to evil remaining after the destruction of Sodom, I think that there might be a misunderstanding. God's reason for calling Israel and God's reason for protecting Israel was to bring about the salvation of all mankind through his son Christ Jesus. His motive was to protect the Christ line. Noah was part of the Christ line as was Abraham. That was God's whole reason for calling Abraham. "In you all the nations of the earth will be blessed" God's heart is for all mankind. God so loved the world. If Israel had been destroyed there would have been no savior therefore no salvation for all of mankind. Only though Christ and the new birth can a man [truly] change, as happened to Paul, and Peter and many people can testify today. As far as archaeology, I agree with you. But there is real archaeology that confirms many Biblical events. Google Eliat Mazar who has recently discovered something amazing. In Tel Dan inscriptions were discovered that were written Paleo Hebrew confirming the date as well as pottery found at the site. This inscription mentions the King of Israel and the House of David. Keep questioning and studying. That is how we learn.
    Hello Steve
    Thanks for your input and welcome to the forum. I look forward to your constructive comments. It was to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. It is through the singular seed which is Christ that the all promises to Abraham will be fulfilled. Without Christ, no promises would come to fruition. This is why the nation of Israel is important as you have pointed out. Not only had God made promises to Abraham, promises have been made to Israel. Israel serve as witnesses for the outworking of God. The Jews survival is a miracle and the prophecies, which are being fulfilled in Israel, are witnessing to God. God had said that even though Israel would be scattered amongst all the nations and that those nations would be destroyed, he would not make a full end of Israel. That is fact, Israel has not been made a full end of and has been brought back into their own land and and a nation formed. This is the battle ground for God's judgement to come on all the nations which come against Jerusalem, and what we see taking place in the Middle East is leading up to this.
    There has always been a reason to watch for the signs of Christ's coming in all generations, but none more so than now. The Jews still believe their Messiah will come and there will be reason for him to come as the nations gather against Israel and Israel is overrun. The intention of Iran and the nations surrounding Israel is to annihilate them and though that might come close, God will not allow that to happen. Israel will eventually have the veil by which they are spiritually blind removed and they will acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God. As the scripture says; they will mourn for him whom they pierced This will happen after they call on God to save them from a situation in which there is no escape. God will deliver them like he delivered them from the Egyptians when there was no way out. The prophecies of Ezekiel 37 -39 are in the process of coming to pass.

    All the best
    David

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •