Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since the fundamentalists are dead set on insisting only their view is logical, I'd like to introduce FOUR views that are prevalent among the couple of billion people who claim Christ as God:
Dating when Revelation was written is critical in reaching a conclusion about being an idealist, preterist, historicist, or futurist. Dating the Book of Revelation
And, Mike, here is your Scriptural "proof" that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of the Temple:
Same source
My point is not to make anyone believe any particular thing --primarily because it has no existentialist meaning of living in the now. But it is very important that impressionable people not be persuaded that any one group "has got it all down pat." That's just hubris on the part of anyone.
I believe Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem. The measurement of the Temple mentioned in Revelation (which could not have happened had it fallen), and Jesus' own warning that someone of them who stood with Him would see the destruction of the Temple before their generation passed away.
Is that dead certain--no. But it is based on the evidence available--both the internal biblical evidence as well as the weak futurist statements. However, by the time all of it got to Augustine in the fourth century, the Catholic Church had decided that was the way it was going to be---and evangelicals today are following those Catholic decisions.
No, not all of Revelation is futuristic. Chapters 2 and 3 are about events which take place during the church-age. The time we are living in now. What is futuristic are the events beginning in chapter 4 and continuing through the end of the book.
The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say:
'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the Kingdom of God is in your midst.
A greater understanding of God will purify your heart, reach within; and you may find it.
'There are some standing here who will not taste death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.'
Which I see, as coming in our heart and minds.
RESPONSE:
Then you are misinterpreting what Jesus clearly said.
See also Matt 10:23
But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Lake equates to that of a haven or safe harbor, where those who need it will be corrected and changed. However, it has nothing to do with an eternal punishment for a finite life, where many have missed the mark. Personally, I don't think a child-molester should live at all, thus, they would not have to suffer for as you say, forever and ever - that in, and of itself is rather sinister. And doesn't your Bible say, not to return evil for evil.
But it does not say that. Jesus contended with evil workers all of the time, and said their end would be everlasting fire. You have been looking for several ways to step all over. To you good is evil. The Kingdom has no evil.
It begins in Matthew chapter 25 speaking of the talents one has and what they do with them. Some do right while others waste away doing their own thing committing evil acts. They know the Lord does not put up with that.
But instead they try to play games that he is not serious about everlasting punishment. 'It just has to be that one can hide their talent doing other things and get away with it.' Verses 24-30, chapter 25, Matthew the story at.
Such fun is outer darkness. Let us debate how that works: verses 31-46, but play back to verse 41 an eternal fire. Verse 46 it is called eternal punishment. Nothing about any fire or pain ever quenched. No cool water in lakes.
Mine was not logic. Mine was explaining to you they refused on sincere Biblical beliefs and you still don't get it.
Oh, I DO get it. They were absolutely sincere in following the bigotry of their leadership. The point is that they are allowed to do that. What they are NOT allowed to do is to continue conducting their business in that manner. If they wish to follow religious bigotry they can't conduct a public business. No problem.
"But I say to You" does not eliminate or change the eye for an eye laws. As I said it only give a bettger response.
You thinking it is twisted does not mean it is. IMO you are taking away from Scripture and we are not allowed to do that.
It is not called obedience. Since sin requires confession and repentance. He always had that option as Isa 56:3 cleary says,
How do yoou know He was?
If Wooden was the most humble person on earth, that is irrelevant, even if what he said was true. You have no evidence God insiried him to say it.
You are missing the point. Nothing we put into us, defiles us. None of the things you mention are forbidden. Only man's heart condition defile him. This is teaching a spiritual truth, not a literal one.
I don't pick and choose. That is a liberal theology way. I did not pick and choose the eye for an eye commandments, I showed you they were never mandatory and are still in effect.
I think your date is wrong, but it is not worth quibbling over. However it was not adopted by those who had little faith in God. It was developed to fight against the rising tide of liberalism in churches. Iit was basically getting back to the root of the reformation---sola acriptura.
Actually it is both.
More liberal nonsense. No conservative Christian thinks the Bible is Jesus. The Bible is God's inspired message to man for his spiritual well being.
I have no idea what OSAS is. You are not qualified to say I have been misled. The NASB is also literqal and iit it more accurate thatn Young's
So what's your point.
Wooden's quote is very good and true and I am glad it helps you. Many Christians, including me, have gotten along quite will without ever reading it.
Enns is an ultra liberal theologian who has been suspended from his teaching position because of his writings.
If I was afraid to have my faith challenged, I certainly would not get involved in a form where it would be. I join forums because I know my faith will be challenged, and I have a chance to defend it.
You need to try reading some books by R.C. Sproul or J.I. Packer, but I am sure you will not.
Basically you are stating that one can gouge his enemy's eye out while loving him at the same time!!
What an attractive religion.
At one time we had a biblical language scholar on here who pointed out that ALL translations of Scripture have their biases--but in his opinion the RSVB has fewer difficulties. But then experts appear good to fundamentalists only when it backs up their viewpoint. I use FOUR Bibles in parallel verses--the KJV, NIV, RSV, and the Living Bible. Helps to give a sense of bias in some important areas.
The problem with Isaiah 56:3 is that it wasn't written until several centuries after the Levitical an Deuteronomic Laws. So if people had actually FOLLOWED Isaiah 56:3, they would have been in violation of the Torah--the only written "word of God" available to them. Your statement that they had that option violates your own view of obeying Scripture literally.
You have no evidence that God did NOT inspire John Wooden--instead you have an assumption that God spoke in the past to men and has never spoken again. But the SPIRIT of God within a Christian helps him/her to see God coming out of others. If not, then preaching is a waste of time--if God does not inspire men.
Peter Enns IS a liberal theologian---when his first book came out it was over two years before the trustees of his seminary voted him out---overturning the vote of faculty to retain him. He started out as a fundamentalist, as did now agnostic, but excellent bible scholar,
I've read a little of Sprouls, but my fundamentalist upcoming was with D.L. Moody and biographies of Praying Hyde. I was set to go to Dwight L. Moody
Reading one's Bible critically develops one into a liberal! Even Christianity Today admits that the more frequently people read the Bible, the more liberal they become. Here is a quote from a former fundamentalist with his own experience:
Quote:
I read the other day does show that the more often people read their Bible, the more liberal they become— something I have found from experience, is completely true.
When I first arrived at seminary in the fall of 2008, I was more conservative than George W Bush himself. However, once I embraced the learning process and actually began to take the teachings of Jesus seriously, I found my heart begin to melt, and eventually shift, on a host of issues. When I went through my transformation, many wrongly assumed that I was being indoctrinated by some liberal political group when in reality, I was at a very conservative seminary and the only thing making me more liberal was the fact that I was actually engaging the Bible seriously for the first time in my life.
Which, is exactly what the study shows. The results of the study were featured by Christianity Today (see full article here) and show that the more frequently one reads their Bible, the more they develop liberal tendencies on several important issues. What’s even cooler, is the study showed that the “liberalizing effect” was consistent across the entire sample studied--.
It is easy if you prayerfully study the verses and understand coming and going.
Even easier if you're a fundie and just roboticaly regurgitate biblical stuff rather than think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are flapping around in the wind
Read more at 
