Lutrasimilis:Please allow me to enlighten you. I don't suspect you will actually pay attention to what I say, and you will go on slandering God's holy Word. If you really are reading Scripture with an open heart, you are giving yourself a chance to overcome the sin and oppression that currently ensnares you. I genuinely am praying for your strength. :)I understand why you have misinterpreted Isaiah 11:12. It is confusing, and you are most likely parrotting something you've read that was written by someone who was educated in our public school system. heh. The Hebrew word translated into English as "earth" in Isaiah 11:12 is erets. It specifically refers to the territorial surface of the earth. In the same book the earth is acknowledged as being spherical. (Isaiah 40:22) In Isaiah chapter 11 God assures Israel that He will send His Messiah, who will be from the "root of Jesse", in other words, a descendant of King David, and at His Second Coming He will gather again the Jews who will have been dispersed at His return. (v.11-12) Don't miss this profound prophecy. It implies that Israel will have been re-gathered (think 20th Century to today!) and then will be scattered again in the very near future, just before the Messiah's Second Coming. The word for "corner" in the verse is kawnawf, which means border, end. Thus, in Isaiah 11:12, the 'kawnawf' of the 'erets' is a reference to the re-gathering of the Jewish outcasts by the Messiah from the ends of the earth. You accidentally misquote Jesus in Matthew 24:29. I know you didn't really mean to. He foretold that in the Last Days of judgment "the stars will fall from the sky". He absolutely did not say that every star is going to fall to the earth in that verse. In the Last Days there will indeed be meteor collisions with the earth. These are specifically prophesied elsewhere in the Bible (Revelation 8:10, 9:1, etc.) Certainly, an enlightened scientific person as yourself would not have any difficulty acknowledging that science in that regard has finally caught up to those prophecies, as we now know that much of our planet has indeed been pummelled in the past by asteriod impacts, and that these constitute perhaps the most serious scientifically demonstrable threat to our continued existence.Joshua 10:12-13 does not come close to saying that the sun orbits the earth. It was a description of the horizon from the earth's vantage point as the Israelites were fighting with the Amorites. Some theorize that there was a polar shift, like the one Einstein predicted would take place in 2012 when the sun enters the center of the galaxy. Who knows? But there are other ancient sources that corroborate the Joshua account. Celestial cataclysms will be predominant in the Last Days bc God has a flare for punctuating prophetically significant events with celestial events, demonstrating that He is still in control.Your abuse of the Genesis creation account is shocking. The very FIRST verse in the Bible states quite succinctly 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Why do you interpret that as meaning the God created the earth first? Whether He created the earth first or not, to me, is immaterial. But why would you interpret it that way, and then use that interpretation to somehow discredit His holy Word?
That chapter in Genesis tells us to take care of the earth (note that "replenish" is one of the words in the passage). Also, practically every Christian is familiar with the concept of stewardship; we are to be wise with everything from how we spend our money to, you guessed it, how we treat God's Creation. Regarding Darwinism, I could just as easily see someone saying "Oh well, survival of the fittest", and then using Darwinism to justify trashing the earth and destroying entire species.
HumanNouveau:I've got to go to work, so I'll be way too brief. sorry. But I do want to quickly reply to help give you some things you may not have been told b4 which are very interesting.People who deny that Jesus ever existed probably were educated in our public school system. There are categories of reasons why you should acknowledge that Jesus existed, even if you reject Him as the Messiah or the Son of God. I can only fire off a couple right now.There are extraBiblical sources of ancient history that confirm He existed. Josephus was a First Century Jewish historian and dignitary. When I say "First Century", that actually means that Josephus lived in the first century dating from the historical time of Jesus' life, by the way. All of our dating system, which is utilzed the world over, is in fact synched to the historical time of Jesus' life on earth. Whenever you write down the date you are indirectly acknowledging something that you have (arrogantly) denied in your post. heh.Josephus wrote incredibly detailed accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, bc he was an eye witness and fought against the Romans in their first siege of Israel. The destruction of the temple by the Romans was actually in accordance with a prophecy that Jesus stated and was recorded by His disciples, by the way. Josephus spoke specifically about Jesus saying that He perfomed many miracles, and was more than just a man, and was the Messiah. Many scoffers who simply refuse to grow up, like to say that Josephus never said that. But the actual truth is, just like Darwinian evolution, they have NO EVIDENCE to prove their point. In EVERY manuscript of Josephus that we have, it contains what has been called the "Testamonium Flavianum", directly describing Jesus as a miracle worker and having followers who believed that He was the Messiah. It's funny that the scoffers DO NOT dispute Josephus' writings about John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus, but they do dispute the account about Jesus Himself. But think about it, if John the Baptist existed, then so did Jesus. It's a package deal. John the Baptist's whole life ministry was to tell people that Jesus was the Messiah. Also, if James the brother of Jesus existed, then so did Jesus.Pontius Pilate was so impressed by Jesus, and probably by his wife's visions, that he petitioned the Roman Emperor to declare Jesus one of the pantheon of Roman deities. The Emperor submitted the proposal to the Senate, but the Senate rejected it. This happened probably bc God did not want Jesus' name to be entangled with paganism.The timing of Jesus' life was *cough* coincidentally, the exact timing that Daniel the Prophet said that the Messiah would come to Israel. This is why there was clearly an expectation among the Jews that the Messiah was coming in the Gospel accounts, and why Josephus was justified in saying that all of Israel was prepared to do whatever John the Baptist asked of them. Many oppressed unbelieving Jews later rationalize this major timing dilemma as saying that the FIrst Century was not really when the Messiah was supposed to come, but just that that was the time when the expectation of the Messiah was prophesied to come. Obviously, they just have hard hearts. Jesus clearly is the Messiah, and He is coming back.ALso, if anyone disputes that Jesus' had followers in the First Century they are seriously braindead. People don't dispute that Christians existed, but they like to say the Jesus didn't exist, bc they refuse to repent. But if Jesus had followers AFTER HIS DEATH, this shows that He not only existed but also rose from the dead. Every other person who claimed to be the Messiah had their movement terminate upon their death, except Jesus. His followers grew a millionfold AFTER His death, bc they saw Him rise from the grave and then they finally understood His role as being much larger than just conquering Israel's worldly enemies: He came to conquer the whole world's greatest enemy--sin--to save the whole world, not just the Jews. And this was also specificaly prophesied in the Old Testament (Isaiah 49:6)Jesus came and fulfilled a huge amounts of Biblical prophecies, but people still scoff and say He never existed. Look at His impact on the world. He is still the most loved and most hated person to ever have existed, and He lived 2000 years ago. Connect the dots...
Well, the 'rapture nuts' as you call them, may not be correct on the pre-trib, but I'm sure it's the truth of what they are saying that upsets you so much. I'm a non-christian believer in the Lord, and Jesus is indeed exactly who he says he is.
The question is: what loving God would create a creature that lays eggs in the human eye?The same loving God that created the bees, who pollenates the plants. The same one who created you and every single intricate and complex cell in your bod.The same loving God that gives you a choice as to whether you believe in Him or not. Life is frought with danger and bad things happen to good and even innocent people. It's called life.It's really got to suck for non-believers to accept that the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob allows us to experience life and that he's a great deal more than this make believe God of only mercy and love. He's so much more than that, it would scare you to realize it lutrasmilis.The choice is yours and you've made it. We've made ours. Can we carry on now?
Sir Richard Attenborough is nothing more than a priest of the Eco & Evolutionary Religion. To say it is not is ignorant of what a religion is....a belief system. System being the operative word, because a system is man made and there is a system, which is being taught to our children as fact, to believe evolution is fact and there is a system to believe that mankind is the cause of climate change. It's a religion folks which the government is now forcing 'the people' to accept as truth. It's no different than any other religion.
"I understand why you have misinterpreted Isaiah 11:12. It is confusing, and you are most likely parrotting something you've read that was written by someone who was educated in our public school system."Actually, I'm reading the Book without inserting new language, euphemisms, and double-meanings. 'Erets' refers to the surface of the world, as distinct from sky or sea. This term was used because people at the time (and God) did not understand that the earth was a sphere. They did believe the sky was a hemisphere, or bowl, but not the earth. Even Islam, concocted centuries later, failed to understand how the heavens work. This would be forgivable if we were just talking about bronze-aged humans, but God seems just as confused as they were. Your explanation of Joshua is even more confused. You can't correct an inerrant text, Took, the text literal. God commanded the sun to stop in the sky, and the moon too. You completely ignore Christian history, and how hard the Church fought against people like Galileo. They put Galileo on trial for heresy, for daring to suggest that the Earth was not the center of the universe. They banned his books. They said his theories were garbage because they contradicted the Bible. Read up on it, Took, it's incontrovertible. They spent vast fortunes, lives, and effort to hold on to the belief that the Earth was the center of the entire Universe. They claimed divine authority on the matter. And they were wrong."Your abuse of the Genesis creation account is shocking. The very FIRST verse in the Bible states quite succinctly 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Why do you interpret that as meaning the God created the earth first?"Um, because God didn't create anything IN the heavens until later? There was nothing in the heavens, not even light. In fact there wasn't even a sky until the second day. There were no stars (including our own sun) until the fourth day.According to Genesis, daisies were around before Alpha Centauri. So yes, according to the Bible, the Earth was the center of the universe. I mean, the sun and moon are described as 'lights'. God didn't even know that the sun is a star just like all the others. Because His authors didn't know.Compare that simple explanation to the awesome linguistic acrobatics necessary to correct and adapt religious misconceptions so that they fit with scientific discovery. Honestly, do you think Noah really had a pair of t-rex on the Ark? Brontosaurs, hadrosaurs, velociraptors, wooly mammoths, mastadons, etc? Do you believe God changed the speed of light to confuse us when we calculate astronomical distances?
I would really like to hear how Jesus - either the actual person, if he really existed or the fictional character we know as Jesus - was not liberal.Maybe I just don't understand what the term means. Maybe I just don't understand what the term means to you. What are some specific things that differentiate the two?
tooksonFeb 2, 2009
Lutrasimilis:Please allow me to enlighten you. I don't suspect you will actually pay attention to what I say, and you will go on slandering God's holy Word. If you really are reading Scripture with an open heart, you are giving yourself a chance to overcome the sin and oppression that currently ensnares you. I genuinely am praying for your strength. :)I understand why you have misinterpreted Isaiah 11:12. It is confusing, and you are most likely parrotting something you've read that was written by someone who was educated in our public school system. heh. The Hebrew word translated into English as "earth" in Isaiah 11:12 is erets. It specifically refers to the territorial surface of the earth. In the same book the earth is acknowledged as being spherical. (Isaiah 40:22) In Isaiah chapter 11 God assures Israel that He will send His Messiah, who will be from the "root of Jesse", in other words, a descendant of King David, and at His Second Coming He will gather again the Jews who will have been dispersed at His return. (v.11-12) Don't miss this profound prophecy. It implies that Israel will have been re-gathered (think 20th Century to today!) and then will be scattered again in the very near future, just before the Messiah's Second Coming. The word for "corner" in the verse is kawnawf, which means border, end. Thus, in Isaiah 11:12, the 'kawnawf' of the 'erets' is a reference to the re-gathering of the Jewish outcasts by the Messiah from the ends of the earth. You accidentally misquote Jesus in Matthew 24:29. I know you didn't really mean to. He foretold that in the Last Days of judgment "the stars will fall from the sky". He absolutely did not say that every star is going to fall to the earth in that verse. In the Last Days there will indeed be meteor collisions with the earth. These are specifically prophesied elsewhere in the Bible (Revelation 8:10, 9:1, etc.) Certainly, an enlightened scientific person as yourself would not have any difficulty acknowledging that science in that regard has finally caught up to those prophecies, as we now know that much of our planet has indeed been pummelled in the past by asteriod impacts, and that these constitute perhaps the most serious scientifically demonstrable threat to our continued existence.Joshua 10:12-13 does not come close to saying that the sun orbits the earth. It was a description of the horizon from the earth's vantage point as the Israelites were fighting with the Amorites. Some theorize that there was a polar shift, like the one Einstein predicted would take place in 2012 when the sun enters the center of the galaxy. Who knows? But there are other ancient sources that corroborate the Joshua account. Celestial cataclysms will be predominant in the Last Days bc God has a flare for punctuating prophetically significant events with celestial events, demonstrating that He is still in control.Your abuse of the Genesis creation account is shocking. The very FIRST verse in the Bible states quite succinctly 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Why do you interpret that as meaning the God created the earth first? Whether He created the earth first or not, to me, is immaterial. But why would you interpret it that way, and then use that interpretation to somehow discredit His holy Word?
netstatterFeb 2, 2009
That chapter in Genesis tells us to take care of the earth (note that "replenish" is one of the words in the passage). Also, practically every Christian is familiar with the concept of stewardship; we are to be wise with everything from how we spend our money to, you guessed it, how we treat God's Creation. Regarding Darwinism, I could just as easily see someone saying "Oh well, survival of the fittest", and then using Darwinism to justify trashing the earth and destroying entire species.
tooksonFeb 2, 2009
HumanNouveau:I've got to go to work, so I'll be way too brief. sorry. But I do want to quickly reply to help give you some things you may not have been told b4 which are very interesting.People who deny that Jesus ever existed probably were educated in our public school system. There are categories of reasons why you should acknowledge that Jesus existed, even if you reject Him as the Messiah or the Son of God. I can only fire off a couple right now.There are extraBiblical sources of ancient history that confirm He existed. Josephus was a First Century Jewish historian and dignitary. When I say "First Century", that actually means that Josephus lived in the first century dating from the historical time of Jesus' life, by the way. All of our dating system, which is utilzed the world over, is in fact synched to the historical time of Jesus' life on earth. Whenever you write down the date you are indirectly acknowledging something that you have (arrogantly) denied in your post. heh.Josephus wrote incredibly detailed accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, bc he was an eye witness and fought against the Romans in their first siege of Israel. The destruction of the temple by the Romans was actually in accordance with a prophecy that Jesus stated and was recorded by His disciples, by the way. Josephus spoke specifically about Jesus saying that He perfomed many miracles, and was more than just a man, and was the Messiah. Many scoffers who simply refuse to grow up, like to say that Josephus never said that. But the actual truth is, just like Darwinian evolution, they have NO EVIDENCE to prove their point. In EVERY manuscript of Josephus that we have, it contains what has been called the "Testamonium Flavianum", directly describing Jesus as a miracle worker and having followers who believed that He was the Messiah. It's funny that the scoffers DO NOT dispute Josephus' writings about John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus, but they do dispute the account about Jesus Himself. But think about it, if John the Baptist existed, then so did Jesus. It's a package deal. John the Baptist's whole life ministry was to tell people that Jesus was the Messiah. Also, if James the brother of Jesus existed, then so did Jesus.Pontius Pilate was so impressed by Jesus, and probably by his wife's visions, that he petitioned the Roman Emperor to declare Jesus one of the pantheon of Roman deities. The Emperor submitted the proposal to the Senate, but the Senate rejected it. This happened probably bc God did not want Jesus' name to be entangled with paganism.The timing of Jesus' life was *cough* coincidentally, the exact timing that Daniel the Prophet said that the Messiah would come to Israel. This is why there was clearly an expectation among the Jews that the Messiah was coming in the Gospel accounts, and why Josephus was justified in saying that all of Israel was prepared to do whatever John the Baptist asked of them. Many oppressed unbelieving Jews later rationalize this major timing dilemma as saying that the FIrst Century was not really when the Messiah was supposed to come, but just that that was the time when the expectation of the Messiah was prophesied to come. Obviously, they just have hard hearts. Jesus clearly is the Messiah, and He is coming back.ALso, if anyone disputes that Jesus' had followers in the First Century they are seriously braindead. People don't dispute that Christians existed, but they like to say the Jesus didn't exist, bc they refuse to repent. But if Jesus had followers AFTER HIS DEATH, this shows that He not only existed but also rose from the dead. Every other person who claimed to be the Messiah had their movement terminate upon their death, except Jesus. His followers grew a millionfold AFTER His death, bc they saw Him rise from the grave and then they finally understood His role as being much larger than just conquering Israel's worldly enemies: He came to conquer the whole world's greatest enemy--sin--to save the whole world, not just the Jews. And this was also specificaly prophesied in the Old Testament (Isaiah 49:6)Jesus came and fulfilled a huge amounts of Biblical prophecies, but people still scoff and say He never existed. Look at His impact on the world. He is still the most loved and most hated person to ever have existed, and He lived 2000 years ago. Connect the dots...
notpcFeb 2, 2009
Well, the 'rapture nuts' as you call them, may not be correct on the pre-trib, but I'm sure it's the truth of what they are saying that upsets you so much. I'm a non-christian believer in the Lord, and Jesus is indeed exactly who he says he is.
notpcFeb 2, 2009
The question is: what loving God would create a creature that lays eggs in the human eye?The same loving God that created the bees, who pollenates the plants. The same one who created you and every single intricate and complex cell in your bod.The same loving God that gives you a choice as to whether you believe in Him or not. Life is frought with danger and bad things happen to good and even innocent people. It's called life.It's really got to suck for non-believers to accept that the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob allows us to experience life and that he's a great deal more than this make believe God of only mercy and love. He's so much more than that, it would scare you to realize it lutrasmilis.The choice is yours and you've made it. We've made ours. Can we carry on now?
notpcFeb 2, 2009
Sir Richard Attenborough is nothing more than a priest of the Eco & Evolutionary Religion. To say it is not is ignorant of what a religion is....a belief system. System being the operative word, because a system is man made and there is a system, which is being taught to our children as fact, to believe evolution is fact and there is a system to believe that mankind is the cause of climate change. It's a religion folks which the government is now forcing 'the people' to accept as truth. It's no different than any other religion.
Closed AccountFeb 3, 2009
"I understand why you have misinterpreted Isaiah 11:12. It is confusing, and you are most likely parrotting something you've read that was written by someone who was educated in our public school system."Actually, I'm reading the Book without inserting new language, euphemisms, and double-meanings. 'Erets' refers to the surface of the world, as distinct from sky or sea. This term was used because people at the time (and God) did not understand that the earth was a sphere. They did believe the sky was a hemisphere, or bowl, but not the earth. Even Islam, concocted centuries later, failed to understand how the heavens work. This would be forgivable if we were just talking about bronze-aged humans, but God seems just as confused as they were. Your explanation of Joshua is even more confused. You can't correct an inerrant text, Took, the text literal. God commanded the sun to stop in the sky, and the moon too. You completely ignore Christian history, and how hard the Church fought against people like Galileo. They put Galileo on trial for heresy, for daring to suggest that the Earth was not the center of the universe. They banned his books. They said his theories were garbage because they contradicted the Bible. Read up on it, Took, it's incontrovertible. They spent vast fortunes, lives, and effort to hold on to the belief that the Earth was the center of the entire Universe. They claimed divine authority on the matter. And they were wrong."Your abuse of the Genesis creation account is shocking. The very FIRST verse in the Bible states quite succinctly 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Why do you interpret that as meaning the God created the earth first?"Um, because God didn't create anything IN the heavens until later? There was nothing in the heavens, not even light. In fact there wasn't even a sky until the second day. There were no stars (including our own sun) until the fourth day.According to Genesis, daisies were around before Alpha Centauri. So yes, according to the Bible, the Earth was the center of the universe. I mean, the sun and moon are described as 'lights'. God didn't even know that the sun is a star just like all the others. Because His authors didn't know.Compare that simple explanation to the awesome linguistic acrobatics necessary to correct and adapt religious misconceptions so that they fit with scientific discovery. Honestly, do you think Noah really had a pair of t-rex on the Ark? Brontosaurs, hadrosaurs, velociraptors, wooly mammoths, mastadons, etc? Do you believe God changed the speed of light to confuse us when we calculate astronomical distances?
Closed AccountFeb 3, 2009
I would really like to hear how Jesus - either the actual person, if he really existed or the fictional character we know as Jesus - was not liberal.Maybe I just don't understand what the term means. Maybe I just don't understand what the term means to you. What are some specific things that differentiate the two?