Matthew 24: 34 Commentary

1. Few other verses have engendered
a. Such a variety of eschatological interpretation
2. The Believer‘s Bible Commentary states:
a. That “this generation” refers to the fact that unbelieving Israel would continue in its unbelief until Jesus visibly returns to earth
3. Some also have stated that “GENERATION”
a. Could be translated as the “Jewish race”, stating that though the Jews would be persecuted though history, that they would survive as a race to see Jesus return (also discusses the “genos” vs “genea” issue).
b. http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-jesus-wrong-about-his-second-coming.html
c. See also http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/generation.shtml
4. Neil D. Nelson Jr. & Tony Warren believe
a. It represents an evil class of people
b. Opposing Jesus‘ disciples until He returns
c. (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):385)
5. PRETERISTS insist that everything in Matthew 24
a. Up to this point was fulfilled in 70 AD
b. And that Jesus was saying this FIRST CENTURY generation
c. Would see all the things He had just prophesied
6. John Lightfoot writes:
a. “Hence it appears plain enough, that the foregoing verses are not to be understood of the last judgment, but, as we said, of the destruction of Jerusalem. There were some among the disciples, particularly John, who lived to see these things come to pass. And there were some Rabbins alive at the time when Christ spoke these things that lived until the city was
destroyed.” (A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica)
7. Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida:
a. “The obvious meaning of the words “this generation” is the people contemporary with Jesus. Nothing can be gained by trying to take the word in any other sense other than its normal one. In Mark, the word always has this meaning.”
8. D.A. Carson:
a. “This generation can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke.” (Matthew, in the Bible Expositor’s Commentary)
9. FUTURISTS interpret this verse to mean that “this generation”
a. Would be the generation that sees
b. ALL the aforementioned signs Jesus had just discussed
c. Including His BODILY, VISIBLE return to earth
10. Since many of these signs were NOT fulfilled in 70 AD
a. This MUST refer to a distant, future generation
11. Tommy Ice writes:
a. “It’s true that every other use of the phrase “this generation” in the New Testament does refer to Jesus’ contemporaries, because the context supports that. But, those are HISTORICAL uses and Matthew 24 is a PROPHETIC use. Therefore, if Matthew 24 is talking about a future time, then the timing of the phrase “this generation” is related to whatever time frame Christ is speaking of, right?” (The Destructive View of Preterism: The
Conservative Theological Journal, 48, Volume 3)

By Tractorman (wrote 3584 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/4/2012 14:07 pm

Another point re post 175. Angel said “how did moses and so many other bible authors know the name of our planet as “earth?” for it’s mentioned throughout the bible 987 times. the name “earth” is at least only 1000 years old. especially since they were so primitive and such an uneducated civilization?”

First of all, “at least only 1000 years old” seems to be a typo. If it’s “at least” 1000 years old, then it could 2000, 3000, or 100,000 years old. If it’s “only” 1000 then his point would be that … what… Moses invented the word? And what if he did? What’s the point?

In all probability this planet has been known as Earth in all languages since people started talking. It just means solid ground, as opposed to air. If people knew it was a planet, they would have called it Planet. But they didn’t know it was a planet, and so they called it Earth. Likewise Moses would have called it Planet if he knew what it was. But he didn’t know what it was other than earth, so he called it Earth like everybody else.

Sorry, Angel, but your argument doesn’t hold any water… or earth, for that matter!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/22/2011 19:18 pm

Re one point in post 175 (I’ll try to get to others later). Angel said: “i am not a methodist, a baptist, a presbyterian, a nazarene, a catholic, a hindu, a taoist, an atheist, a muslim, a buddhist, nor any other accepted religion of this world. for i am a christian, born of water and of the spirit.”

I know it’s semantics, but… well, first I think that some of those denominations you mentioned would rightfully say they are Christians as well. As I am. I think your point is that religion is as one defines it? (I don’t want to put words in your mouth; you can of course clarify what you meant.)

The only reason why I bring this up is because we question each other’s beliefs and lables intolerably here. I am not directing this at Angel. Actually I may have been guilty myself. For example I classify those who deny certain passages of the Bible as unbelievers. But perhaps I shouldn’t do that. And, of course, by the same token, nobody should classify me as anything that I don’t profess to be. This all falls under the requirement of courtesy, which a few seem to have taken vacation from.

Let’s not be too quick to label anybody and instead take them at their word. If Angel feels he does not belong to any accepted religion other than being Christian, I respect that and, by golly, I do share at least this one thing in common with him!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/22/2011 19:06 pm

Charles: Is your God named El Elyon?

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/22/2011 10:11 am

robert:

let me rephrase what i was conveying so you may understand me.

“i am neither a fundamentalist nor a calvinist… for i stand straight; in between.”

here are the principles of a fundamentalist:

(1.) The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this. (OK TRUE)
(2.) The virgin birth of Christ. (OK TRUE)
(3.) The belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin. (OK TRUE)
(4.) The bodily resurrection of Christ. (OK TRUE)
(5.) The historical reality of Christ’s miracles. (OK TRUE)

here are the principles of a calvinist:

(1.) “Total depravity”: This doctrine, also called “total inability”, asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term “total” in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.) (OK TRUE)

(2.) “Unconditional election”: This doctrine asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God’s mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God. (OK TRUE)

(3.) “Limited atonement”: Also called “particular redemption” or “definite atonement”, this doctrine asserts that Jesus’s substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its design and accomplishment. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus’s death. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power, but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all. Hence, Calvinists hold that the atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect. The doctrine is driven by the Calvinistic concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and their understanding of the nature of the atonement. (OK TRUE)

(4.) “Irresistible grace”: This doctrine, also called “efficacious grace”, asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God’s timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that every influence of God’s Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit, “graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ.” (OK TRUE)

(5.) “Perseverance of the saints”: Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints (the word “saints” is used to refer to all who are set apart by God, and not of those who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven). The doctrine asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return. (OK TRUE)

for you see; i am not a methodist, a baptist, a presbyterian, a nazarene, a catholic, a hindu, a taoist, an atheist, a muslim, a buddhist, nor any other accepted religion of this world.

for i am a christian, born of water and of the spirit.

here is something for you to ponder since you assume to know all truth as others are blinded.

how did moses and so many other bible authors know the name of our planet as “earth?” for it’s mentioned throughout the bible 987 times. the name “earth” is at least only 1000 years old. especially since they were so primitive and such an uneducated civilization?

this kind of knowledge couldn’t of been around in ancient times. all of the planets, except for earth, were named after greek and roman gods and goddesses. the name earth is an english/german name which simply means the ground. It comes from the old english words ‘eor(th)e’ and ‘ertha’. in german it is ‘erde’. and in hebrew “erets.” which is true even to many ancient hebrew manuscripts.

but please; i need a different answer than your obvious; that throughout time it was corrected and changed; by numerous scholars or theologians or whoever; so to fit into the beliefs of that era. please i want to hear this theory of yours since you assume to know me so well.

cause from all your posts it seems you believe in a god but not the power of god; nor that there was one true god but lesser gods which were sons of the one true god; 70 sons to be exact. and the one true god is”el.” also that “yahweh” was one of the 70 sons of “el” and that “yahweh’s” lady was a goddess mentioned throughout the old testament. and that jesus was a good man and an intelligent man, but not god nor anything more. jesus was just a good man with a little rebellion in him.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/22/2011 09:13 am

Ref: # 172

Angel, dear Angel you have a habit of sining (you missed the mark) again. As a case in point, taking a strict literal reading of Biblical text as the undisputed word of God would designate you as a fundamentalist. There can be no argument in fundamentalism for disputing the word, as fundamentalists consider that the Bible is the infallible word of God. You went on to state that fundamentalism was a false perception but as you are wearing rose coloured spectacles you did not recognize yourself as a fundie. That tickled me.

You then asked if I knew what Paul was stating. Yes, I do, do you? I was tempted to go into Paul and his understanding of Jesus, prophecy and all of that but I refrained from doing so, ’cause I can see it would be like caviare to the general. One thing for certain and its immediately apparent here, fundamentalist of all shades cannot handle the truth.

Truth is an absolute. It is the same whether you are a Hindu, Christian or nonbeliever. Absolute truth is only available in the fields of pure logic and mathematics. So what do you oh enlightened one, who is so filled with the Spirit and follow the light think is truth?

Is it no best to take a scientific approach as best you can? Observe things happening. Try to work out why it happens. Test, and see if you are correct. If you are, then great! If not, your idea was wrong or incomplete. The most important aspect of being a freethinking Christian is the willingness to change your mind about what you think, if new evidence comes to light which contradicts what you think.

I do purse truth, knowledge and explanations. When other people claim that something is “true” because they read it in some “holy book,” that God said so and so and they provide no good evidence, then that’s good grounds to put it on the back burner. Doubt as I see it, should be the seed-plot of faith and a questioning faith is healthy. Truth is to be seen, not as once delivered in the past but as emergent and verifiable. Everything else is opinion.

In truth and light

Robert

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_truth_from_an_Atheist’s_point_of_view#ixzz1ePAbiauj

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/22/2011 05:11 am

By the way, carefully rereading the posts, including the # 170, it happened that I had a kind of nightmare, but with an happy end. Here we go:

“Charles this time was in Jerusalem, near the Temple, around the year AD 155. He tied his faithful donkey on a pole (for some reason he has named it Balaam) and started preaching, as usual:

- Do not believe in Matthews, do not believe in Mark, do not believe in Luke. They said that Jesus predicted his second coming still within the generation of his lifetime! This prophecy did NOT come true!!! We are already in 155 and the last person from that generation is now obviously dead! AND WHAT HAPPENED?!! NOTHING!!! As you all know, nobody can live more than 120 years! Pay attention, people from Israel! Jesus, for sure, made a huge, a tremendous mistake!!!

Some orthodox Jews around the Temple heared and loved Charles’ speech. They commented among themselves:

- This man seems being Christian and is telling us that Jesus is a false prophet!!! It is unbelieveble! No one has disauthorized Jesus like that! I think we finally found out our Messiah!!! Let’s test him.

They came until Charles and asked him:

- Who are you, brother?

- I am a believer, an honest believer.

- Believer? What do you believe in?

- In God, an unique God, just, honest, good, loving, merciful.

The Jews thrilled and could hardly contain himself. They added:

- We see you disauthorize Matthew, Mark and Luke. And about John, what do you think about his writings?

- That is the worst scripture. John thinks that Jesus is God!!! Oh darn!

The group of Jews got each time more excited and repeated very happy among themselves: “Oh, my God! My God of this fig tree! He seems being actually our awaited Messiah!!!” And then asked:

- And what do you think about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Israel, GOD OF THIS GENERATION?!

- Monstrous, murder, jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully, in sum a tremendous tyrant, not bound by any moral scruples. Furthermore he mostly does it FOR NO REASON!!!

It is not too difficult to imagine what happened next. There were not enough stones in that place. At the end of the day, the body completely stoned and mangled of poor Charles was taken by Christians to be buried.

The day after the burial, as usual, they prayed all day long for Jesus to do His part and then He finally showed up and, after the usual prayers, resurrected Charles. After that Jesus said:

- Charles, Charles, what is the matter? Stop it! It is the 490th time I ressurrect you since you found that the last person from the generation of my lifetime has died. Is it not enough for you?

- Yes, 70 x 7 is strongly enough - acknowledged Charles.

- Ok, it is actually enough - said Jesus. - I will move you to the year AD 2011. Then you can discuss about my prophecy without being stoned, in your own home, completely secure, behind an amazing machine, ok? I am tired of ressurecting you.

Jesus added patiently:

- Let’s make a bet, Charles: if in 2011 there is no Christianity you’re right: I was wrong in Matthew 24:34 and Christians from the second half of the second century, deeply disappointed because it did not happen my prophesied second coming, have completely abandoned Christianity, since there was no sense to believe in false prophets, in a false God, specially after that “huge mistake”. Agreed?

- I do agree. I have always believed in your wisdom. You inspire me, Jesus.

- I see.

- I’ll have some penitence?

- Oh, yes, yes, Charles, after all your explicit and tiring demonstration of lack of faith and lack of objectivity and common sense, your penitence will be getting stuck on VBVBC.org until you accept me as your Lord and Savior.

After that, my alarm clock rang… Ufa! Thanks God that Charles is alive and in the twenty-first century!

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/22/2011 04:15 am

robert:

do you even know what paul was stating?
do you know the spirit and the power of it as stated by paul? cause there is power of the spirit.
and most importantly, what was your god experience like when he called you out of bondage?

by the way “fundamentalism and calvinism are all branches of false perceptions; for the truth lies in the straight.”

and as for your theory of truth; it only relates to man. not god. you seem to really favor in lowering our god to a more accepted platform of conveniences; which makes no sense to me; but hey whatever. your business not mine.

and as for my sinking boat of humor its hilarious and righteous to those of the light. an everlasting power of life.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/22/2011 03:28 am

Hi Angel, Eduardo and Tiuche

Greeting to you all. I see you all have a sense of humour. To me that’s good although to some your jokes are as funny as a hole in a lifeboat.

I think that all of us here on this thread believe that God (El Elyon) was and is an omnipresent God. Yet this God was seen with burning intensity in the full humanity of the one we call Jesus of Nazareth. This God call those who have been divinely created in this God’s image to be the persons God created them to be, for in the fullness of humanity the presence of God can still be experienced. A literal view of Holy Scripture will never lead one to this vision. Saint Luke knew this, and so it was that through his masterful use of symbols he called us beyond his words to a place where we might engage the living Word.

Fundamentalism is so limited. This is why Paul wrote that “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6).

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

In Jesus precious name

Robert

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/22/2011 02:41 am

Now Eduardo has joined in this name diversion with Scott and Tiuche. What you three stoogies DON’T and CAN’T talk about is the FAILED PROPHECY of Jesus. You are such losers!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/22/2011 00:20 am

Hi Tiuche

I refer to your post # 161 and reply as follows:

You said: “I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy.”

My response: No I did not say that. Rather Thomas Paine said so and I concur with his words.

“…the God you say you believe in have no name, neither does that God have any instructions to you. In fact that God does not talk to you or do you even pray to Him? That God is just a pigment of your imagination, He does not have any history or appearance in the past to prove He exist!”

My response: Your assumption is erroneous. If you were reading my posts you’ll know that both Charles and I believe in the Supreme God of the Universe – El Elyon, Most High God, possessor of Heaven, Earth, Melchisedec, Priest of El Elyon, King of Righteousness, Peace, Son of the Highest. El Elyon is the true God that Jesus addressed as “Father. “ Yahweh and El Elyon are not the same. Go study the scriptures diligently and you’ll see there is a big difference between the god of war Yahweh who was the god of Judah whose barbaric order was to “kill every man, woman and child of the Amalekites and El Elyon the Highest God and God of Israel.

Have you heard of the J (Y), E, D and P strands? Do you know what these symbols stand for and what biblical scholarship has to say for each with its own agenda that later came to be merged into one continuous biblical narrative. Perhaps you like so many people in the pews have not been introduced to these insights, whether in a refined form or not.

God is by no means a figment of my imagination as you stated, for my experience of Him is very real indeed. I could elucidate and you’ll be astonished at my experiences but I have to respect this thread and exercise some restrain. With your zeal and enthusiasm, for God, you remind me a little of Saul before his conversion to Paul.

You spoke of God giving instructions; you accused both Charles and I of saying the Biblical God lied; you spoke of Jesus Christ and saving me from death and the death penalty; you stated my heart was dark and full of pride …like some kind of sinless mortal and you concluded that I am not fit for the kingdom of God. You then ended by asking if God is not the same God as the God of Abraham and the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

I believe that I have already given you an answer to that. However, you can read my detailed post explaining the difference between Yahweh and El Elyon on this website.

I will now try to address your other points as follows:

I have always said and maintained that God cannot lie and nowhere did we say he did. Jesus on the other hand we believe is not God, although God is in him. I have said it before and I will say again, it is that once error has been discovered in the scriptural text, one must regard all narratives as subject to critical examination and dispute. We cannot get back to a pure objective truth, which is free from subjectivity of personal experience and interpretation. Such subjectivity is present in the accounts we have from the very first. So that simple explosive sentence in Matthew 24:34 undermines for ever the view that divine revelation is given in objective historical events, recorded in divinely protected factual records and interpreted by divinely inspired interpreters with inerrant authority.

You seem to have a concept of God based on what you have read in the “good book.” Now you may have seen what others have said about God and their experiences of Him there but have you tasted of the nectar of God? Light has to be found by oneself, not through another, not through a book, not thru a saint. And we cannot find that light or that understanding through another, because the experience of another may be false. All experiences of another must be questioned whether your own or of another. As a Christian you are conditioned by your culture, by what you believe the Bible says and that background projects every form of experience.

You can practice any amount of prayer, fast until you are blue in the face and all the rest in order to find some reality, some experience; but truth cannot be invited. That which is measurable can come, but not the immeasurable. And a man who is pursuing that which cannot be understood by a mind that is conditioned breeds disorder, not outwardly, but inwardly.

In Galatians 2:20 we read: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth IN ME: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. That’s a powerful verse, do you understand it, not with you head or commentaries Ti…. but with your heart? Is it true to you, for you? Read it carefully and ponder its meaning, are you experiencing this in your life?

When Jesus spoke of God, he meant something very different from what most people mean. For him, God was nothing we can point to. God doesn’t have the kind of concrete reality that normally grabs our minds, and therefore doesn’t strike us in the way other things do.

The religious tradition Jesus inherited said that God created the world out of emptiness. God is a reservoir of infinite possibilities, out of which all things emerge and in which everything happens. Jesus called God abba, the Hebrew word for “father.” He spoke of God in this way because God is the essence of all persons. To be a person is to be an expression of God.

We cannot point to God as a separate entity, but we can know God. Jesus took a step that was contrary to every belief of his culture. He acknowledged that the essence of our humanity, behind our surface thoughts and emotions, is in fact God. Most of us hold back from taking this leap. In fact, we prevent ourselves from accessing such direct knowing. We all have the ability to experience direct knowing any time we need to know what to do. While Jesus taught that God can’t be identified as a separate reality, he insisted that God can be experienced. He realized that in truly knowing himself, he knew God. His self-awareness was the wellspring of his knowledge of God.

In love and light

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/21/2011 23:40 pm

Sorry, I cannot resist.

If there were an alien reading these posts and he was asked: “Does God exist? What’s His name?”, he would have answered with absolute certainty: “That God exists I have no doubt, just do not know if His name is Charles or Robert Louis, maybe Charles Robert Louis: the two are sometimes one.

“And the Holy Spirit?” - someone would ask.

“There is no” - would reply the alien even more convinced.

Good bye, trinity…

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/21/2011 23:07 pm

I was going to respond to post 161, but it’s only a diatribe from start to finish. Again, we need to focus on the verse at hand: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Please give your reasons why this prophecy was not fulfilled. Please tell me how smart it is to believe in a book that got it so wrong. Please tell me how holy it is to advance the notion that God made such a huge blunder!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/21/2011 20:42 pm

Tiuche, there is only one thing about this verse, and it’s that the world did not end two thousand years ago as Jesus predicted. You admit defeat with every distraction you try to find, and I have to admit that I find your professed love for me rather flattering, even if unwanted. But the fact remains that this prophecy failed.

Got it, Tiuche? PROPHECY FAILED.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/21/2011 17:17 pm

Charles: You got no name for your god, the term “God: is a a common noun…it is like telling us that your father is a man. I have already asked you several times what is the name of your God? State the truth your god got no name because he is just your imagination! That is the Truth!

You call Jesus an ordinary man? He who rose from the dead is an ordinary man? He who fulfilled the 1st Step in God Redemption Plan is an ordinary man? He who when He spoke even the wind and the seas obey, you think of Him as ordinary? What could i say more? I am tired of talking to you…just let it be! If you don’t want to believe DON’T BELIEVE! Stop talking to me-useless to talked with you! Just post your comment but don’t talk to me,I am free from your blood!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/21/2011 17:05 pm

Tiuche, I already told you God is not a horse. You don’t seem to understand the uniqueness of God.

You want to convince everybody that God makes mistakes. He doesn’t. The words of this verse were said by Jesus, not by God.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/21/2011 16:42 pm

But Charles would give no love…lalalalala lalala…but the air was full of sound….and the prince of the power of the air had deceive those that would give no love…lalalalala lalalala…

While Jesus gave His life for him..telling him he is a sinner in need of a Savior, what does Charles do? He deceives his own self that he really doesn’t need a Savior! He hates the God of the Bible and keep on sour graping the Bible…BUT declares he has his own God, won’t you wonder who the name of his god whom he claims to be SO GOOD, SO MERCIFUL AND SO POWERFUL! Tell us Charles the name of your god?

While our God have many names and nicknames, your god does not even have one? Is he a fake? Or is his name is so sinister that you are ashamed of telling us his name? Tell us his name Charles!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/21/2011 10:59 am

Tiuche, every time you bring up this peeve of yours about God not having a name I instinctively start singing “Horse with no name”. I like that song. Horses need names so we can tell one from another. But there’s only one God, so that’s the name.

But I understand your frustration because the Bible has many gods and so you need to name them like horses to tell them from each other.

In the desert you can remember your name
‘Cause there ain’t no one for to give you no pain.
La la la la la la la la la..

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/21/2011 10:33 am

Robert Louis: Scott Dale is right. You said: “I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy.”

This is also the belief of Scott Date & many other Bible believers…the only difference is that the God you say you believe in have no name, neither does that God have any instructions to you. In fact that God does not talk to you or do you even pray to Him? That God is just a pigment of your imagination, He does not have any history or appearance in the past to prove He exist!

While the God of Scott Dale and many other Bible believers…His Acts good or” bad” as you saw many of His Strange acts, are documented through the Scriptures. And that God had a name-in fact He had many names-wherein some of it you blaspheme-treated like it was rubbish-including His highest Name-THE WORD OF GOD!You and Charles have accuse this Biblical God of lying by saying that you donot need His instruction nor the His Savior Jesus Christ to save you from your sins & the death penalty thereof! You are treating the payment of Christ for your sins with scorn- instead you rely on your intellect thinking that you can go to the God you dream of through your own way! But that is just a deception of your own darkened heart-full of pride of yourself…like you are some k ind of sinless mortal man. Such thinking is a thinking that makes you unfit in the presence of your dream God- you have no loyalty to Jesus Christ nor to His Father. You are unfit for the Kingdom that will come unless of course you see how sinful you are just like everyone of us and humble yourself before the God whose strange acts you judge of being CRIMINAL! FUNNY HOW A FRAGILE MORTAL MAN LIKE YOU WANT TO JUDGE THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE! Donot reason that there is another God of which you dream of-for if that god exist, where is He? Is He not the same God as the God of Abraham and the God and Father of Jesus Christ?

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/21/2011 10:02 am

Ref: # 158

Greetings Charles. You answered Scott correctly. You know what? I read his post and realized he was ignoring the citations I gave on the terrible texts of Yahweh in the OT. His line of defense as you’ll observe is to attack and he can get personal too. As I have said before, I have a thick skin so I pay little attention when one resorts to ad hominem. All, that would be offset if he were to deal with issues. Another thing. It seems to me that the “Prophet” Scott cannot handle the truth. But, I’ll have another go at showing Yahweh - Jehovah in some more gory details.

There are concepts in the Bible that are repugnant to modern man. Yahweh is called “a man of war” (Exod. 15.3) far different from the NT Prince of Peace. Non-Israelite groups such as the Midianites, were ordered to be destroyed by Yahweh (Num. 31:1, 2). Israel obeyed: “They warred against Midian as the Lord commanded Moses and slew every male” (Num. 31:7). They spared the women and children and took as booty all their cattle, flocks and goods (Num. 31:9). So much for “Thou shall not steal”! Then they burnt the Midianite cities (Num. 31:15). He then ordered all the male children to be killed. So much for “You shall do no murder”! Then all the females who were not virgins were ordered to be killed, but Moses allowed the Israelite men to keep all the virgins “for yourself.” So much for “You shall not commit adultery”!

The most disturbing aspect of Yahweh’s humanoid personality, however, is his blood-lust. The smell of burning flesh is a “sweet savour unto the lord” – so sweet, in fact, that the phrase appears in the Old Testament no fewer than twenty-three times. The butchery demanded by Yahweh is truly monumental. Believers are required to sacrifice two lambs day-by-day continuously – and that’s just for starters! Just as well Yahweh had several thousand priests to help him trough through the banquet!

The LORD delivers 10,000 Canaanites and Perizzites for slaughter in Bezek. As part of the fun 71 kings have their thumbs and big toes cut off (Judges 1.2,7).

Livestock bears the brunt of Yahweh’s appetite but humans could so easily get the chop from the big guy. Yahweh kills Uzzah for simply steadying the tumbling Ark (1Chronicles 13.9,10). Poor Onan was zapped for using the withdrawal method of birth control (Genesis 38.10). But such isolated vindictiveness palls in comparison with the mass killings of the Yahweh. When the autocratic Moses faces a rebellion led by Korah, God uses an earthquake and fire to consume two hundred and fifty rebels. When indignant sympathizers protest at the injustice, God wipes out another fourteen thousand seven hundred with a plague (Numbers 16). What a god!

In Joshua’s wars of conquest, Yahweh gets right in there. He throws down “great stones from heaven” (Joshua 10.11) and scores a better body-count than his Israelites with mere swords. When Yahweh gets up a real head of steam the slaughter reaches a truly epic scale. For merely looking into his Ark, Yahweh wipes out fifty thousand and seventy unfortunate men of Bethshemesh (1 Samuel 6.19). When King David slips up and orders a national census, an enraged God zaps seventy thousand.

Quite apart from the celestial superman’s own killing, Yahweh animates his favourites into wiping out whole cities and nations. Jericho, Sodom, Gomorrah, Ai, Makkedah, Libnah etc., etc., are “smote and consumed” – men, women, young, old, ox, sheep and ass!

“You shall annihilate them - Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites – as Yahweh your God commanded you.”

– Deuteronomy 20.11,18.

In the largest single god-inspired massacre in the Bible, one million Ethiopians are slaughtered! (2 Chronicles 14).

But then we have been warned, so let me reiterate;

“The Yahweh is a man of war; the Yahweh is his name.” – Exodus 15.3

To Scott and indeed to all biblical literalists I recommend the reading of: “Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine. I’m afraid I have to curtail my post here but before I do, I would like to leave you with one of his following statements that I fully endorse:

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy.”

In love and light.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/21/2011 05:22 am

I can’t help but smile when I read new “prophecies” that appear from time to time here by people who have clearly lost their argument. Two examples from post 156: “some day science will be turned on it’s ear and all the naysayers will be confronted with the patient Judge that they have so long disregarded” and “Christ will strip all authority from science and then all your reasons will be gone.”

It is a clear admission by Prophet Scott Dale that science and reason are not on his side.

If there is any lesson to take from Matt 24:34 is that prophecies do NOT come true, even when uttered by Jesus Christ.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/20/2011 13:54 pm

This was in post 152: “So I ask, just exactly HOW is the God of the OT MORE vengeful than the God of the NT???”

Very simple answer. The God of the NT punishes people for their sins while Yahweh kills people for no reason.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/20/2011 13:02 pm

Ref:# 156

Thank you Scott for showing the true fruits of your spirit. To be kind, I would hardly say they fall in line with those listed in the NT. But of course while you’re paying lip service to all the Bible, I am sure you can generate a good case for cherry picking what you like and tossing the rest like the fruits of the Spirit out. Of course a dash here and there of ad hominem shows me you have lost the plot.

Moreover, you seem to take issue with reasoning. You said, “reason is only attractive to you when science gives it authority. ” No Scott not true. Reasoning is always attractive to me especially when it stands the litmus test of logic. “Many are destined to reason wrongly; others, not to reason at all; and others, to persecute those who do reason.

In love and light.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/20/2011 08:59 am

Re # 154

It’s amazing how quickly your commentaries have moved from swill to hogwash (though there isn’t much difference)!

You claim that I am “appealing to emotion and not facts”. Well, just what is it that YOU consider facts? I’ve offered 11 NT texts that rival anything vengeful, spiteful, genocidal, vindictive or wrathful found in the Old Testament; indeed they even TRUMP the horrors of the OT and you say I am appealing to EMOTIONS??

It’s very clear to me just what is going on here. Since you don’t consider biblical prooftexts as fact; you obviously consider something else more authoritative than the Bible. Anyone who has followed your blather would know instantly that you regard science and your own human reasoning higher than the sacred scriptures; but now it’s crystal clear just why you do it. It’s not because science has trumped the one and only Word of God, it’s because you just don’t like what the Bible says about human behavior! According to you and science, sexual orientation is not morally culpable. Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t; but what IS morally culpable is sexual BEHAVIOR. Orientation has NOTHING to do with that. You criticize my scriptural facts and then throw Richard Dawkins at me?? Oh, and HE is such an objective, factual authority on morality?? But I see that you feel justified in re-writing the Bible so I suppose Dawkins and kind are valid witnesses to your case.

Go ahead, surely with Dawkins at your side you will be able to stand with confidence before the Judge of all the earth! No doubt, if that holy Judge is the wishy washy all accepting tolerant milquetoast Jesus that you have whittled Him down to be, Dawkins will be far more than an adequate representative. Indeed, you won’t even need him.., no one will. But Jesus doesn’t change just because you say so. Science will not change Jesus; but Jesus will change science! Graves will be opened and death will be forced to relinquish billions of rotted corpses. Some to everlasting life and some to eternal damnation. What do the scientists think of such things? Craziness? Fairy Tales? Isn’t it funny how science can so easily hold to the absurd theory that lower life forms can evolve into higher forms but decomposition cannot re-compose? No doubt, science can explain why. Well, some day science will be turned on it’s ear and all the naysayers will be confronted with the patient Judge that they have so long disregarded. Am I now appealing to emotion? Yes I am because reason is only attractive to you when science gives it authority. But Christ will strip all authority from science and then all your reasons will be gone. What remains will be little more than raw emotion begging and pleading for mercy from the One you claim has made so many mistakes; but pleading will only fall on deaf ears because the time for pleading is NOW while there is STILL time.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/20/2011 07:39 am

ref: # 152

In Genesis 19:4-5 we read: “The men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, “Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”

And Lot….said, “I pray you, brethren, do not (act) so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes Genesis 19:6-8.

Please read the whole story in context and perhaps you can convey you take on it to me.

In love and light.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/20/2011 06:30 am

Ref: # 152

You are appealing to emotion and not facts. I have already stated a few passages to demonstrate that Yahweh was ruthless and savage. He commanded the slaughter of whole peoples; he delights in war, as the Lord of Hosts, head of the armies of heaven. His followers are violent and intolerant, hacking down the idols of other faiths and bringing the whole known world into subjugation to their religious law. This may be a big embarrassment for those who like me love peace and strive for moral responsibility.

There are several terrible texts in the OT and I have already listed some in my previous post. But let me take the text in Leviticus 18 and 20, they are simply wrong. Sexual orientation is not a moral choice. It is something to which people awaken. It is therefore not morally culpable.The God who is love, the God who is heard through the words of Jesus promising life more abundantly, the description of the way others will recognize our desire to follow Jesus “by our love,” all are violated if the texts of Leviticus 18 and 20 are given legitimacy. Such terrible texts cannot be allowed to remain in the lexicon of Christian behaviour.

Is it then any wonder that professor Richard Dawkins in his now famous book stated: ” The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

i believe that Yahweh is a tyrant, not bound by any moral scruples but the true God of the universe is just and requires mercy and is nearer to us than the jugular vein.

in love and light

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/20/2011 06:14 am

EDUARDO:

I appreciate the very kind words and I pray no matter were you are; OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST; may always shine and smile upon you. and may all that come unto you be blessed. I shall be here if you ever want to discuss our LORD. You are always in my prayers; may I be in yours. missed but never forgotten my brother.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/20/2011 05:48 am

I have heard some whoppers in my day but post #148 comes close to taking the cake!

This notion that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament needs to be put to rest. It is said that Yahweh in the OT was cruel and vindictive unlike the gracious God of Jesus in the NT. This is nothing more than sickening swill that is cooked up to delegitimize the True God and His one and only Son, Jesus. Those who lap it up do so at their own peril; for thinking they know the way of life, they in fact have eaten from the poisonous tree of Eden and the very darkness and gloom that they attribute to the vengeful God of the OT becomes their very own shroud of shame that will only lead them into deeper darkness. What shall the gracious, loving God of the NT DO with such as these?

“Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1

“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.” Luke 19

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” Luke 12

“These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.” 2Pet 2

“By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” 2Pet 3

“They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.” Jude 1

They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” Rev 6

The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly and painful sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped his image.., From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible. Rev 16

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns.., He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great.” Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army.., The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. Rev 19

“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” Rev 21

So I ask, just exactly HOW is the God of the OT MORE vengeful than the God of the NT???

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/20/2011 05:25 am

Hi, folks, thank you for the solidarity!

Charles, if you like rhymes, know that I am not a rude drudge, but a good judge, and, indeed, it is my profession.

When I started the debates in here (Post 1 and 2 are mine) I was sincerely concerned with this passage (Matt 24:34) and interpreting the verse literally, what was abating my faith.

During some time I remained confused, going up and down with the sagacious commentaries in this space (that I didn’t know yet), and was so until someone came with deeper words, very patiently, with new, solid and reliable arguments, like an angel.

Yes, it was Angel. He finally convinced me that the expression “this generation” could not be interpreted in a stanch, hermetic way. I have learned a lot of interesting things with you (and I thank you very much for this help), but Angel went beyond and touched me, convinced me. He showed me that he has the gift of the discernment of the spirits, and it is a holy, blessed thing (God bless you, Angel, for your teaching).

So, I have exhausted my motivation to stay here. I will miss Angel, Charles, Tiuche, Scott, Robert Louis and others. Thank you all for the debates. I have learned so much with all the manifestations!

Charles, I still want to be your friend on line, but you must know how to resist a frank debate. Read again all my posts. If you want a false debate don’t count on me. I am not a pharisee. If you interpret my behavior like you interpret Matt 24:34, like I saw in Post 144, I think we have no chance to be friends. But I insist: read again my posts and read your 144.

In fact, I have never said you are dishonest, or liar, or insecure, or uneducated, or a rude drudge, but you did and, even so, you talk about civility! This, yes, is sophism, incoherence and manipulation! I have no doubts about it, but, understand, I am not talking about your personality (I even know you), but about your position, your ideas regarding the topic we are debating. There is an abysmal difference between your words and my words, about your intention and about my intention. You clearly overstepped your boundaries and I don’t embark in this type of conversation.

But if you want an honest debate, without subterfuges, digression of the subject or hysterics, count on me.

God bless you all. Bye.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/20/2011 04:24 am

LET THOSE WHO HAVE EYES & LET THOSE WHO HAVE EARS, BE AWARE!
Do not let soft and smooth words from those against the Word of God lull you to sleep. Let not their complicated talk deceive you. Beware:

Psalm 55:21 The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords.

Psalm 12:2 Everyone lies to his neighbor; their flattering lips speak with deception.

They fully intend to topple God from his lofty place; they take delight in lies. With their mouths they bless, but in their hearts they curse.

Look at it this way ” all scriptures-meaning both the old and new testament” are inspired of God profitable for…(you know the continuation). But when people quotes not from the canonized scriptures but from apocryphas &/or Pseudepigrapha
beware…some sinister spirit is at work! Those believers who went before us took care with inspiration from God to bind the Book for our benefit…when these double tongue deceivers put down some canonized book such as that of Matthew then quotes from uncanonized books ..beware!

THEY ACCUSE THE GOD OF ABRAHAM AS A GENOCIDAL GOD-and are not afraid to speak BLASPHEMOUS WORDS AGAINST THE “I AM!”…they say the God the Father of Jesus is merciful while the old testament God is cruel, this my brothers is meant to confuse you. The God of Israel is a merciful God-that is repeated in the Psalms and other old testament scriptures many times!

After they succeed to convince you that the God of the old testament is cruel. They will also turn to the The New Testament & select scripture that “seems” to signfy that God is cruel and destroy your faith totally on the scriptures. Here are probable scriptures which they might quote:

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Matthew 22:7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

Luke 19:14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

Luke 20:16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never be!”

LET GOD BE TRUE AND EVERYONE A LIAR! Do not think that I speak on my own on these things. These men that believes so much on their intellects and worldly wisdom are nothing but PIOUS FRAUDS! In here to wreck your faith on God and His Perfect Word! Let us bear in mind what St. Paul said:

Exodus 33:19 And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Romans 9:15-16 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

SO LET US NOT BE ENTICED by these men-mere men- fragile men, for we know that soon every men time will be up-ours and theirs! So let us not think that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of Moses, the God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ-our God and Father is a HARD ONE!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/20/2011 01:01 am

robert:

all i can say is… WOW… I AM LITERALLY SPEECHLESS. FOR ONCE. the cow just jumped over the moon.

that was like way way way way way out there in left field… i am not even going to comment… WOW!!! (LOL)

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 23:46 pm

Hi Charles

Ref: # 133

Greetings to you. Although I had signed off this thread I happen to still read the variety of comments which I find interesting. However what hit me forcibly was your take on Yahweh as the god of Israel only. So, I had to pause, take stock and consider if I should take this up or not. You may reason, why not? Well, while I absolutely agree with many of your points made, I wondered if you were not trying to feed the meat of the message when milk of the word would be better received. However, I will cast my net to sea.

One only has to read the Old Testament to observe that Yahweh is ruthless, savage and bloodthirsty. He delights in war, as the Lord of Hosts, head of the armies of heaven and is jealous and vindictive while his followers are violent and intolerant.

Yahweh and the God of the universe are far different. Ancient text and inscription discoveries show that the archaic Hebrew religion knew a highest god “El” Elyon (the sign, is in transliterations used for Hebrew letter “aleph and for the letter ayin). who had 70 sons. One of his sons was Yahweh, who had a consort Asherah ie a goddess. Her name is mentioned some 40 times in the Old testament but it is always translated as “grove” or “tree.”

This is because her symbol is a tree or an upright wooden pole. So when the OT states that it is forbidden to plant a tree at the altar of Yahweh, it really means it is forbidden to place a symbol of “Asherah” there (Deut. 16:21 - and what sense would it otherwise have to forbid planting a tree there?)

The true creator god, the prime creator, was therefore not Yahweh, but “El” Elyon. He obviously created a number of secondary gods as his “sons” of which Yahweh is one (and of course, also the “daughter” Asherah). Yahweh is therefore not the prime creator he wants us to believe that he would be, even though he has also produced certain creations. Let’s examine Gen1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and earth. In Hebrew, the sentence is Bere’shit bara’ Elohim et ha shamayim ve-et ha arets.

According to cabalistic sources, the word bere’shit means not only “beginning”, but also “the first one”, the “original one”, the first entity that was, the highest God. This translation fits grammatically: “The first one created the gods (together) with the heavens (cosmic worlds) and with the Earth. the translation, therefore, refers to a prime creator, who first created “gods” and cosmic worlds, of which is the earth.

According to Gen 2, Yahweh is one of these gods, one of the Elohim (since the Bible calls him “Yahweh Elohim” in the Hebrew text, and not simply “Yahweh”).

Jesus calls the real God, the true prime creator “father” who is unrestrictedly good. The Gnostics, identified this imperfect demiurg- “god” with the god of the Old testament, who they also called Yaldabaoth, who wants to keep humans in a state of ignorance in a material world and who punishes their attempts to achieve knowledge and insight (to “eat from the tree of knowledge”).

The demiurg is a lesser god who wants to be the only one.

The text “The Apokrphon of john (or The Secret Boook of John) states:

“He is impious in his madness, she who dwells in him. For he said. “I am God and no other god exists except me”, since he is ignorant of the place from which his strength had come” (Cf. Ex 20:23 and Deut.5:7).

I believe this to be the explanation of all the abominable cruelties, which after all are literally described in the Old Testament. A similar view was expressed by Marcion (approx. 85-160), the first theologian who made a distinction
between the god of Love in the New Testament and an evil god of the Old Testament.

Those who read the Bible in an objective and unprejudiced way without blinders that fade out certain passages, should become deeply indignant about the abominable cruelties described therein.

The “lord” guides his people to the “promised land” but that land isn’t free. People already live there in various towns. Therefore the “lord” commands his people to mercilessly slaughter all of them. In nearly all cases not even a child, a woman or an old man is spared, but they should all be completely killed, so that his people can live in:

“great and goodly cities, which thou buildest not, and houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full.” (Deut 6:10-11).

With this, a vertiable holocaust begins!

In one city after the other they murder and slaughter until no one is left. The only exception is in a few cases that they kidnap virgins. For what? It would certainly be naive to claim that it would not be for sexual “services”.

When moses by order of Yahweh could say as follows, he strongly disqualifies himself and his commissioner:

“And Moses was wroth with the officers if the host….which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, ‘Have ye saved all the women alive?….Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.’”

That rather looks like a mass human sacrifice for the “lord”….

When Yahweh rages as follows he demonstrates his fake divinity:

“And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your highways shall be desolate. …And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied. And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”
(Lev 26:21-29)

The macho behavior began already before the exodus from Egypt. Yahweh sent Moses several times to the Pharaoh to request letting the Hebrews free.

The Pharaoh repeatedly declared that he would do that, but Yahweh the each time hardened his heart so that he, after all, refused:
“…for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him” (Ex 10:1).
Yahweh insisted in showing his muscles and have all the ten plagues come over Egypt before he would let the Pharaoh allow the Hebrews to go. At last he went through Egypt and killed all innocent first-born! (Ex 11:5, 12:12, 12:29, 13:15)

For what did he want to demonstrate all this cruelty? In a similar way he hardened the hearts of the Hivites (living in the “promised Land”) so that they should not try to make piece with the Hebrews but meet them in battle so that they would be mercilessly destroyed (Josh 11:19.20).

Everyone should die!

In love and light.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 23:25 pm

Well, Scott, Angel has stayed very civil throughout all this. It is Tiuche the only one who has been bastardly idiotic all the time. You, and, now, Eduardo have misbehaved on occasion, but so have I at times.

I can take all the fair punches very easily because truth is on my side. Insults, on the other hand, can make me respond in kind at times. And stupidity… well, I think I am going to ignore that from now on.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 18:19 pm

Eduardo and Angel,

It seems to me that at some point you must both consider just when Matthew 7:6 applies to your nobel efforts.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 18:02 pm

Eduardo: See how manipulative Charles is? And you gave him your email address? And look he is now accusing you of charges that does not describe you but his own bad character! He is false to agreement and his heart as dark and mysterious full of snares and schemes and deceits. Do not think you can convince him if he is not even afraid of speaking blasphemy against the Holy bible and the God of Abraham!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 17:43 pm

Eduardo, I am surprised at your dishonesty and lies. Sophist? Manipulative? Incoherent? Your unwarranted accusations expose you as an insecure, uneducated, and rude drudge.

So all your uncivil talk is because, in your words, I find Matt. 24:34 reliable and some other verse less so? Eduardo, not many things in the Bible are reliable simply because the people who wrote them lived before the scientific age. You may not understand this logic, but it makes perfect sense to educated people.

But if you believe the Bible is unerring and then you start dismissing the verses you don’t like, what does that make you? It makes you insincere and a false believer. It makes you a liar and a hyprocrite. Your faith is false.

Jesus made a mistake when he said the world would end during his generation. If you don’t understand this, then it’s a mental thing and I can’t help you there. But if you insist that Jesus is God, then you’re only making it worse because that would be saying that God made the mistake.

It doesn’t seem you have control of your senses.

I will return to civility when and if you do.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 17:24 pm

Charles, Charles, you are a perfect sophist. Don’t manipulate my words and don’t manipulate the Bible either. You are not being coherent. You believe Jesus made a huge mistake because you found reliable Matthew 24:34. At the same time you didn’t find reliable 1 Peter 2:22 (“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth”).

For you Jesus is not God but He is not a liar or a madman either, despite of many verses where Jesus claims for His divinity (about this topic I strongly recommend this reading http://y-jesus.com/jesuscomplex_1_x.php?gclid=CLbI24jWs6wCFYtT7Aod-2v-CQ.

You like to sit on the fence, stay in a comfort zone.

But I invite you to get off the fence and open your eyes to the wonderful message from the Gospel.

Jesus didn’t make any mistake (”guile found in his mouth”). You know that because fortunately you see Jesus as a behavior model for you.

Understand: if Jesus made a huge mistake, compromising His entire mission (just to use your own words), He definetely is not either reliable or a behavior model for anyone. So, let’s seal Jesus by the correct mode.

I am sure you can do it, like I am sure God wouldn’t allow almost a half of all the humanity be deceived by false doctrines. It wouldn’t make any sense (God is not autist) and, of course, it would be monstrous either. So, Charles, get rid of your sophistry and don’t be afraid to be happy.

Explore Jesus. He is much better than you imagine or can imagine.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 15:35 pm

Dear Eduardo, it seems you want me to repeat what I already told you. Jesus made mistakes, right? This verse unfortunately constitutes a huge error because the kingdom of God was Jesus’ entire mission. Yet he managed to impart many words of wisdom before he was so brutally tortured and murdered.

The alternatives you created for Jesus have no basis either in fact or in understanding how I think (if that’s what you’re trying to do). Suppose I tell you that you’re (1) a goose herder from Mongolia, (2) a Martian with pointed toes, or (3) the ghost of Muhammad … No, you’re none of those, of course, and, likewise, Jesus deserves none of those offensive labels you hanged on him. He was a wise man who taught us how to behave with one another but erred on the doctrine of how to unite with God on a glorious day that will happen two thousand years ago!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 11:48 am

Dear Charles, if you admire Jesus wisdom and feel yourself inspired by Him, of course you have to accept His words, unless you are a good “pharisee”.

I see three alternatives for your surprising position on P. 139:

1. Jesus is a liar;
2. Jesus is a madman;
3. Jesus is a creation from liar authors of the New Testament.

I deny the first and the second hypothesis because I don’t believe you feel yourself inspired either by a liar or by a madman.

Hence, I can see only the third hypothesis to analyse. You say that the Bible is not a reliable document; that imposters put words in Jesus mouth. In sum, Jesus words would be only a fiction created by imaginative authors several decades or even centuries after His death. So, I wonder where did you find the Jesus whose wisdom inspires you. In Josephus? In the scrolls from the Dead Sea?

Charles, let me know: the Jesus that inpires you was crucified? Is He real? For sure? How do you know that? Do you believe in His miracles? I think YOU are not understanding the scriptures. Remember Matthew 5:37 and take care with Revelation 3:15-16. Be coherent. If Jesus inspires you, believe in His words regardless who and when the gospels were written. Just do it! YES is YES and NO is NO. Do not be warm, be hot, my friend!

For your breakfast, I suggest bread, but, listen: bread of the life, please.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 06:56 am

Errata corrige in my latest post. In the 3rd para. “you post 133″ should read “your post 137″. Sorry.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 01:51 am

Hi Eduardo. Welcome back.

I am afraid you overstepped your boundaries in post 137. Why do I have to accept the words of Jesus when we have established that he made mistakes (this verse is a particular example)? I admire his wisdom. I feel inspired by him. But for you to decide for me which words I should accept, well, my friend, you are WAY overstepping your boundaries! What are you going to decide for me next? What to have for breakfast?

Unfortunately Jesus was but a carpenter and probably didn’t know how to write. Oh how I wish he had written his own gospel so I would have known what he REALLY said and not having to get his words second-hand from people who contradicted one another.

Also, about your post 133, I have to say you’re not understanding the scriptures. You need to take note of who’s saying what. And when! For example you quoted 1 Peter 2:22: “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth”. This is not Jesus speaking. Nor is Peter speaking. It is an imposter speaking. This book was written by someone with a sophisticated command of the Greek language (certainly no Hewbrew fisherman!) And it was written about two centuries after both Jesus and Peter had died. Lol!

Just another example of how unreliable the Bible is!

This verse says it all: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Well, that generation passed two thousand years ago and the prophecy went unfulfilled.

Another example!

You are insulting God when you claim that such an unreliable document could have been his word!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 01:49 am

Thumbs up for post#137 of Eduardo for Charles!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/18/2011 20:05 pm

Hi, Charles, I’m back.

You wrote on P. 133: “I worship the God of Jesus”.

First: if you do that, you have to accept the words of Jesus, specially in two fundamentals subjects: when He talks about God (the Creator) and when He talks about the future of the humanity (His creatures).

1) About the first topic (God), what did Jesus say?

If you, Charles, actually “read the Bible VERY CAREFULLY” and “KNOW what the Bible says” and “know what Jesus says” (P. 133), you must read in the same way John 7:16: “Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me”.

The same with John 8:57-59: “Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by”.

Now see Exodus 3:14: “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you”.

The same with John 10:30: “I and my Father are one”.

The same with John 14:6: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”.

And finally the same with 1 Peter 2:22: “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth”.

Ok, Charles, and now? The God of Jesus that you worship is Jesus himself, as He declared several times, who did no sin, neither was guile found is His mouth, as we actually expect from someone that is fully human and fully God, as it is expressed by St. John, St. Thomas and St. Paul (just to cite the New Testament).

If you deny these verses above, you are denying all the Bible or at least what is the most essential from the Bible, whereas Jesus said His Doctrine comes from God. And He is absolutely right: if there is a God, how to take into consideration that there is no communication between the Creator and His creeatures? And then, how to consider that the Bible is not the most reliable instrument of communication between the Creator and His creatures? Do you know some other instrument better than the Bible for this function, for this bridge? If not, you must accept the Bible and the perfection of Jesus, also because God certainly doesn’t communicate Himself through lies; if not, you are denying your own words: “I worship the God of Jesus”.

If you still resist, what about Jesus? Is He a reliable source of communication between the Creator and His creatures or not? You have to decide this question, this gap, this “black hole” in your mind, definitely, because your God cannot be autist.

2) About the second topic (creatures and its future), we all know what Jesus said (His second coming, the end of the age, the final judgment etc.), but let’s focus the verse object of the debates in here (Matthew 24:34: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”).

If Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6), He, obviously, could not make mistakes. So, let’s be coherent. If Matthews 24:34 is an example that Jesus failed, then we are denying Jesus as our Lord and, in fact, the whole Bible, as I sustained before. The expression “This generation” can mean, perfectly, “The jewish nation”. IS IT AN ABSURD?! There is a big controversy about the respective translation (Greek is complicated), but if we, humans, poor mortals, can give to any accused, before our human and falible law, the benefit of the doubt, why do you, Charles, insist on denying this benefit to Jesus?

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/18/2011 18:21 pm

Re: #135

Regarding “denying the words of Jesus”; I knew that’t what you would say, but I’m not.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/17/2011 14:10 pm

Re post 134. Regarding our “two universes” - agreed. Regarding the prophecy is a future policy - disagree because you’re denying the words of Jesus.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/17/2011 09:40 am

Re: #133

“Jesus recognizes a God who is our father. He does not recognize Yahweh. Yahweh is the god of Israel ONLY. He is not the God of Christians.”

Our two universes just became EXPONENTIALLY different! At least your explanation makes it a little more understandable why you spend so much time on this site.

Regarding the above prophecy; it is not a failed prophecy because it is still a future prophecy. I would attempt to offer an explanation but I know it would be futile with you. Our ‘world views’ (universes) are diametrically opposed. I see apes as brute beasts; you see them as relatives. To me, there is no middle ground.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/17/2011 04:54 am

Hey Scott, I have a feeling you and I will go “at it” again sometime, but for now I agree to disagree on all these extra-verse issues we embarked upon. Just one question on this verse, though: you said it’s not a failed propecy, but you never explained why. How is a prophecy that does NOT happen NOT a failed prophecy!? Curious!

About who or what God really is, it is very simple. You worship the god of the Jews. A local god. I worship the God of EVERYBODY. I worship the God of Jesus.

See, Scott, I read the Bible VERY CAREFULLY. I KNOW what the Bible says. I know what Jesus says. Jesus recognizes a God who is our father. He does not recognize Yahweh. Yahweh is the god of Israel ONLY. He is not the God of Christians. Read the Bible carefully.

Jesus made some mistakes, but he was a very, VERY wise man.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 23:54 pm

Re: #130

We’ll just have to agree to disagree because our two universes are as different as anything can be. But one thing I would really like to know is just who is this omniscient, benevolent “God” who “cares about everybody” that you believe in if not the God of the Bible? How did you become acquainted with him? What’s his name? What are his credentials? What has he ever done for YOU personally?

I realize these questions have nothing to do with this thread topic but it would be really good to hear what you have to say about this because it is increasingly perplexing to me (and perhaps not a few others) just why you spend any time on this website. Surely you have the right to do so but just what kind of satisfaction do you get out of it? How does your time here benefit the purposes of your “God”?

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 12:47 pm

TO CONFUSE AND TO HARASS THOSE THAT ARE FOR GOD & RIGHTEOUSNESS IS THE WORKED OF DARKNESS!

The God who revealed Himself in history is the True God for if there were other gods more powerful as Yahweh where are they? Why did these other gods not reveal themselves throughout history?

What Charles is doing by maligning the name of Yahweh is an old deed which had been going on throughout history. Satan & his dupes had throughout history maligned God by accusing Him as a good for nothing creator and leader, that is why they rebelled. While GOD called them DEVILS these created beings also called their Creator “DEVIL”. An example of this can be deemed from the old dialect among the Filipino Visayan where they termed the word devil as ‘YAWAH’ which obviously is the named of God. And they call the devil as “HODEO” which meant someone with a horn looking like JUDAS but the truth was HODEO OR JUDEO means A Jew! Mistress which means beloved in English, they termed mistress as KERIDA or a wild woman who had a relationship with a married man. In their subtlety they had change good words into words that had bad meanings to confuse people. This is what Charles is doing here.

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 12:34 pm

re post 129

Scott, who’s “distorted”?

You said that the “God who has revealed himself in history is holy, gracious and good.” I assume you are talking about Yahweh, the one who massacred innocent first-borns and whole nations. Isn’t it way distorted to call that “gracious and good”?

And what a distortion it is to try to believe that the Christ-following scientists and laymen would not agree with me about evolution! Practically all the people I know I know are Christ-following scientists and laymen and they have all compromised with the realities of evolution.

And when was the last time you heard God walking? Or the world standing still? Or the prophets parting the water or walking on it or turning it into wine? What do you think are the chances for someone in the scientific age to write fake accounts and have them declared as the “Word of God”?

And aren’t you distorting Matthew 24:34 when you insist it is not a failed prophecy? What’s your explanation that two thousand years after the end of the world there are seven billion people on it?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 10:35 am

Re: #124

Charles, your god is no god at all but is apparently one of your own making. The God who has revealed himself in history is holy, gracious and good. Why you refuse to see this is beyond me. He alone is the creator and sustainer of LIFE. He alone has provided the means of forgiveness of sins. He alone promises abundant, everlasting life and joy. What is it in this equation that you have so much trouble with that you are compelled to say that; “Yahweh.., does not give a damn about [me]”?

And how about this statement:

“Jumping on to what you said about God proving his existence, have you ever wondered why we don’t have miracles any more? Have you ever wondered why God doesn’t walk with people any more? Have you ever wondered why prophets who warn us about the end of the world (unfortunately even Jesus did that, as in this very verse) are not taken seriously any more? It is because we have entered the world of science… well, many of us did. You’re one of the last holdouts, Scott.”

First of all, I’m hardly one of the last holdouts. Apparently, you have your head in the sand regarding Christ-following scientists and layman far more than I do regarding evolution. But your other statements border on preposterous! Do you REALLY think that miracles don’t happen anymore? Do you REALLY think that God doesn’t “walk” with anyone anymore? And regarding prophets of doom; just when were they EVER popular? For someone who has such a seemingly good understanding of the created order, you have developed a VERY distorted understanding of the Creator Himself. To me, this is very sad. What was it that hardened your heart to the God of your youth? You say;

“I believe in a God who cares about EVERYBODY”

And just who IS this “God” who cares about everybody if not the God of the Bible? How did you find him? What’s his name? What are his credentials? What has he ever done for YOU personally?

And while I’m at it, Matthew 24:34 is only a “failed prophecy” in the minds of the unbeliever such as yourself. You are so skeptical and full of doubt that it seems you CAN’T believe anymore; and if you can’t believe, you will never come to the knowledge (settled science) of the One true God.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 05:05 am

Re: #120

I have no problem with your FACTS. I am an Old Earth creationist. Where I have a problem is with your “leap of faith” conclusion:

“Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans.”

IMHO, this statement is pure conjecture and is akin to a religious leap of faith.

In respect to the “theory” vs “law” handle of evolution, I have no problem with the generic scientific term of “theory” being applied to settled science. I just don’t agree that the science is settled. If the TOE is correct, verifiable transitional forms should’ve been coming out of the woodwork long ago. Even now, the “discoveries” are paltry at best. The only reason they get so much attention is because “something” suggests a link to a higher life form but the link itself remains UNverifiable. Without the “leap” factor, the science does not presently stand on its own. To me, it still requires too much faith!

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 04:00 am

Angel

I had actually signed off here on the subject of evolution but I’ll gladly discuss this in detail on a more appropriate thread that lends itself to the subject. However, I returned briefly ’cause I noted your citations relative to your, “and as stated by many renowned scientists life comes from man,” and find no issues with the various quotes ’cause they are simple basic biology.

In looking at your original quote as identified here by inverted commas, I thought you were looking at the bigger picture in terms of the origin of life on earth wherein no scientist to date can provide a factual answer to the question as they are working on it. Of course, that’s different from the Creationists, when like the grasshopper they suffer gaps in their understanding of events, summon their “God of the Gaps” to fill the void. Enough said.

Peace.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 03:36 am

robert louis:

as you yourself stated “i am also thick skinned” and i to love a good debate; were two sides of a coin can flash what is seen or unseen by both parties. i to would like to apologize if i have offended you in any way; or to everyone else here. I DO TRULY APOLOGIZE.

and yes robert, i do include you all in my prayers and ask our lord jesus christ to be a lantern of light to our feet; as to guide us to the truth of the word.

and i did very much enjoy debating and reading everyone comments. so busy with school and life. it took me over 9 hours to write post 125. wish i could of commented so much more.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 02:28 am

god bless.

you miss every point stated. in fact you turn around only to declare”i am rubber and your glue.” you discuss many things as if you and all the scholar theories of supposed righteousness, are of truth. but did i not state that your assumption of what i was stating to be untrue. so i will clarify once more. as i, myself, stated in post 104 “i do see your side as a carnal man seeking for all truths set before me in every verse. yet i am also a spiritual man; a deep calling unto the deep; for my flesh is my worse enemy. always conflicting and debating. the greatest battle ever fought goes unseen; within and without.” i am plainly speaking of myself here as being carnal as well as being spiritual.

maybe this will help “i do see your side, FOR I, as a carnal man, seeking for all truths set before me in every verse. yet, i am also a spiritual man; a deep calling unto the deep; for my flesh is my worse enemy. always conflicting and debating. the greatest battle ever fought goes unseen; within and without. i hope this clears it up.

as for your proof of scholars stating life comes from the male. here are a few.

“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception; life springing forth from the male.” Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

To accept the fact that after fertilization, (life source, male) has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.” The “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

From Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”

Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
“Human begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began with the male sperm at conception.

Dr. Richard V. Jaynes:
“To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”.

Professor Eugene Diamond:
“…either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty of life conception.”

Gordon, Hymie, M.D., F.R.C.P., Chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester:
By all criteria of modern molecular biology,life is present from the moment of conception…Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.”

D.J. Moran, M.D., J.D. Gorby, M.D., and T.W. Hilgers, M.E., “Abortion in the Supreme Court: Death Becomes a Way of Life.”, Sheed and Ward, 1974
“Individual human life begins at conception and is a progressive, ongoing continuum until natural death. This is a fact so well established that no intellectually honest physician in full command of modern medical knowledge would dare to deny it. There is no authority in medicine or biology who can be cited to refute this concept. It is not a “theory,” as Justice Blackmun wished to easily pass it off.”

like i said we can play this merry go round game all day of he said, they said, we said; but until we stop playing with all these so called man theories which will always contradict god. we will in no sense grow spiritually but shall grow worldly.

now i am not denying science nor am i denying religion. for in reality they go hand in hand. as albert einstein stated “”Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

Professor Donald Mackay offers a healthy perspective on scientific involvement with religion:
”Obviously a surface meaning of many passages could be tested, for example, against archaeological discoveries, and the meaning of others can be enriched by scientific and historical knowledge. But I want to suggest that the primary function of scientific enquiry in such fields is neither to verify nor to add to the inspired picture, but to help us in eliminating improper ways of reading it. To pursue the metaphor, I think the scientific data God gives us can sometimes serve as his way of warning us when we are standing too close to the picture, at the wrong angle, or with the wrong expectations, to be able to see the inspired pattern he means it to convey to us.”

now look what galileo stated about his theory of the earth being the center of the universe and was corrected by copernicus; “[In] St. Augustine we read: ‘If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.’ ”

“This granted, and it being true that two truths cannot contradict one another, it is the function of expositors to seek out the true senses of scriptural texts. These will unquestionably accord with the physical conclusions which manifest sense and necessary demonstrations have previously made certain to us.”

and as for the list i provided are but a few that evolutionist have been wrong on. as well as to show how inaccurate their theories are. here are some more if you think i am limited to only a few examples.

bombardier beetles:
a statement made by dr. lee spetner: (jewish scholar)
“randomness is an essential feature of ndt (neo-darwinian theory.) there is no known physical or chemical mechanism to generate heritable variations that will improve adaptivity or increase the complexity of living organisms. the neo-darwinians theory, had to choose randomness to produce the variations they needed. in this way they hoped that, through the direction afforded by natural selection, they could describe an evolutionary process thatcould account for a natural origin and development of life. the neo-darwinians have rejected nonrandomness as the major feature of variation.”

here is another quote by an evolutionist named “mark isaak.” notice what he states.
“do bombardier beetles look designed? yes, they look like they were designed by evolution. their feature, behaviours, and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates. yet nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetle which is incompatible with evolution.”

did you know that many science professors never state that the evolutionary model of one cell to man is based on assumptions. and also there are no scientific experiments to prove the molecules to man scenario. the molecules to man is not scientifically testable or experimentally verifiable or reproducible or able to be authenticated in any way. an assumption is basically something taken taken for granted and supposed to be true.

an evolutionist named, g. a. kerkut, gave a list of 7 assumptions. these are the basic ideas an evolutionist “takes for granted” or “supposes” to be true. yet evolutionists skip 1-6 and quote and consider only the 7th assumption.

ASSUMPTIONS:
1. non-living things gave rise to living material. i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.
2. spontaneous generation occurred only once
3. viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related
4. protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms)
5. various invertebrate phyla are interrelated
6. invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates

and now the famous number 7 assumption:
7. within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

so basically assumption #7 states as followed:
“vertebrate fish became water and land creatures, hence the term “amphibia.” then those that didn’t evolve either stayed the same or adapted as millions and millions of years passed. then only certain amphibia’s that did evolve became reptiles. then those that didn’t evolve either stayed the same or adapted as millions and millions of years passed. then only certain reptiles evolved into birds. then those that didn’t evolve either stayed the same or adapted as millions and millions of years passed. then only certain birds that evolved became mammals. then those that didn’t evolve either stayed the same or adapted as millions and millions of years passed. then we come to the one mammal “ape.” who supposedly became man after millions and millions of years.

so basically we were all apes until adam came forth. the first human. then eve came along as a the first woman. so by natural selection adam and eve came forth and denied all previous internal instincts and so begins mankind. so then i guess all the other monkeys/apes that charles believes are our cousins; by relation only. meaning since they are presumed to come from many different primates evolved millions of years throughout evolution. yet each primate stems from one true primate according to evolution. so then this is were god steps in and thus begins true humanity on earth. so that way all scientists theories can fit perfectly in structure as to everyone being already evolve except for those poor unfortunate ones that just never evolved by natural selection. how sad it must of been for every evolved man/woman to see their own ancestors still as a primate. i wonder why they never asked any to move in with them so they could care for them.

for the theory of evolution all comes down to one belief system. which states as follows “life came from a non-living substance and formed a single cell. not one here or one there; but in one specific spot in the whole world. supposedly this one single spot is located within africa. evolutionists believe that this non-living thing gave life to a single cell which in turn learned to reproduce itself before it died. and this first single cell gave life to the entire plant and animal kingdoms throughout the world.” now all this is accepted among evolutionists.

ever heard of “law of biogenesis.” this a law proven by the biological sciences. which states that “life comes from life. anything that is alive came from something that was alive. ever heard of dr. henry morris or dr. gary parker? they worked at the institute of creation research. they wrote a book entitled “what is creation science.” you should read it. did you know that for nearly 160 years or some of the most brilliant scientists in the world have attempted to convert non-living chemicals into some from of reproducible life. all failed. no one has ever succeeded even today.

well then i guess according to you and charles 1 corinthians 15:38-41 is all wrong:

1 corinthians 15:38-41
38. But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

wow so then god was right. and he is infallible and so his word can be trusted. so then the other verses are true due to the fact that the method to view stars and the moon and the sun was by eye. yet it is written in the bible how different each one is to each other. for each star does differ among themselves greatly.

not only that however; scientists through the use of phase-electron microscopes, scientists have discovered that there are consistent differences in cellular substance in various kinds of animals. in other words when the evidence is studied microscopically, the living things of the evolutionary tree do not appear to be related to each other at all in any way.

take for instance an evolutionist by the name of, dr. leon long, from the department of geological sciences at the university of texas. who stated “among the first organisms were lowly bacteria and blue-green algae. they are about as simple as a self-sufficient cell can, be which is none too simple, considering that a bacterium can synthesize some 3,000 to 6,000 compounds at a rate of about 1 million reactions per second! cells of bacteria and blue-green algae contain just a single molecule of dna, and they lack well-defined internal structures, such as a nucleus, chromosomes, and internal membranes.” explain this to me then.

also scientists don’t really discuss the evolution of cell membrane. due to the fact of its complexity. a membrane permits specific concentrations of certain chemicals and solutions into and out of the cell. if these chemicals are even off just even 1/100% ; the cell dies. that is compared to 1 teaspoon of ocean water removed from its own entire source; the ocean. now with all that ocean water and to just remove 1 teaspoon of ocean water; the ocean would die. and as the dating process of using the salt level from the ocean; the salt is diminishing so much that one cannot date how old the ocean is. for an accurate reading the ocean’s salt level must remain stable but marine biologists have declared this dating process inaccurate. due to the fact of all the run off of the melted ice and mixing of the salt water and unsalted water. as it circulates throughout the world.

you also speak of mass energy as being always present. just as every evolutionist believes. as well as matter being eternal. thus claiming that this energy was always present before the “big bang theory.” which is a “state of equilibrium.” simply put; equilibrium is a state in which everything is equal and non-reactive. like a car that sits on a driveway. until the key is turned and thus causing the engine to cause the gasoline to explode; thus giving power to the car.

well science tells us that when matter is somewhere for a long enough time say for instance billions and billions of years ago; it eventually stops doing anything, all the possible reactions would have already occurred, and would of just sat there as the car in the drive way, sitting. nothing else. this is the second part of the law thermodynamics that physicists call zeroeth entropy. so before this supposedly “big bang theory” all matter and energy, if eternal, would be in a neutral equilibrium. it will not move till something starts the process for your supposedly “big band theory.”

so my question is, if everything was in neutral before the “big bang”, what made the “big boom?” what caused the neutral equilibrium to move into motion, to create this supposedly “big boom?” for as stated by evolutionists “life came from the big bang along with all creation in the universe and on earth.”

so from a small speck came the entire different species of life, every specimen of plants and animals, every planet, every star, every moon, everything as we know and see. and through this chaotic explosion came order, design, and function.

now you say science is correct in all its man-made theories yet they do not point to a god who created all. instead it finds what one wants to perceive as faults in god’s holy living word and call what they discovered or perceive as a truth; “true science.”

what is stated here is only a speck of sand showing why evolutionists are wrong. there is so much more. and i have studied a diverse rangs of academics so that way i may understand both sides of the coin.

and yes i know as you stated to me before in your posts “BIG DEAL, SO HAVE I.” truth will never disagree with truth. so why do we differ? or are you going to tell me again as stated in your lovely posts “MY GOD IS THE HORN POINTED DEVIL.”

science is not made to prove the bible, but the bible is so that science can understand its faults and limitations.

may prayer lord is that we realize you are above all. may we come to you as the apostles and all those who were your faithful servants; in faith and trusting you. always putting off ourselves so that we may see and hear you.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 02:15 am

Re 113: Scott, when Copernicus published his discovery that our planet is just one of many revolving around a star it didn’t take educated people too long a time to realize he was right. But the educated people were few. Many people taught their children not to believe such a satan and died convinced that Earth was still the center of the universe.

Then came Darwin and the evolution theory, which is now fact. But, again, it was only an educated minority that accepted his very detailed and well proved findings. The majority refused to let go of their reliance on outmoded documents such as the Bible. You are going to die convinced of a fallacy similar to the ones who refused Copernicus.

Jumping on to what you said about God proving his existence, have you ever wondered why we don’t have miracles any more? Have you ever wondered why God doesn’t walk with people any more? Have you ever wondered why prophets who warn us about the end of the world (unfortunately even Jesus did that, as in this very verse) are not taken seriously any more? It is because we have entered the world of science… well, many of us did. You’re one of the last holdouts, Scott.

No, Scott, God has never proved himself. This is a matter of faith, and I can’t prove it to you that God (a REAL, UNIVERSAL GOD) does exist. You can go on believing in Yahweh, who does not give a damn about you unless you’re a Jew. And the Muslims can go on believing in a god that can only be seen through Muhammad. And people in other parts of the world can believe their own local gods. I believe in a God who is much bigger than one nation or all of Arabia. I believe in a God who cares about EVERYBODY.

And why do you refer to the “brute ape”, Scott? Isn’t the ape as much a creation of God as you and I? Humble your heart, Scott, for you and I are part of the intelligent ape family, and there is no shame in that.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 00:13 am

Greetings Angel

Let me begin by saying that if I have offended you with my tongue in cheek satirical comment of your god having two horns, then I express my unreserved apology for that. I meant no harm.

Charles correctly highlighted in post 109 that the subject at hand is prophesy (Matt 24:34) and evolution will be better served on the creation stories of Genesis. So, interesting though the evolution topic is let me draw a line under it here by finally concluding my last take on the subject.

Since the rise of the natural sciences after the seventeenth century the world can no longer be seen as it once was. The great discovery that mathematical techniques could be applied to the physical world, whose elements could be quantitively measured and correlated in general law-like theorems, the “laws of nature”, has transformed our understanding of the world. From seeing a world inhabited by demons and spirits, who moved things in accordance with obscure whims of their own, we now see the physical world as governed by general, impersonal laws.

The view that human life has evolved by a long slow process from more primeval forms of life has caused a reassessment of our understanding of creation. And for all who stand in a biblical tradition, the old picture of the cosmos as centred on the earth, with waters above the arch of the sky and beneath the floating disc of the earth, has been totally abandoned.

This has naturally caused agonizing reappraisals of the nature and scope of religious beliefs, as such beliefs have had to be distinguished from those of the natural sciences, and particular doctrines about the nature of the universe have been given over to the tentative investigations of scientists, instead of the authoritative certainties of theologians. Undoubtedly, these problems are yet to be completely resolved, but it seems clear that the view of the universe we must now take is very different from the view of it taken by the promulgators of Christian faith at the time of its origin.

For some theologians, the consequence has been to say that Christian doctrines must make no claims about the empirical, sense-perceived world at all. So ideas of how the world began or how it will end, or what causes it to be as it is, are not seen as religious matters at all. They are best left to scientists. However, I think that is simply a defeatist renunciation of any claim to significant religious truth. If religion deals with questions of ultimate truth, meaning and value, it must take account of sound knowledge of facts about the universe, as well as personal experience.

In practice, religion deals primarily with much more personal questions of discovering meaning and value in life, and it does not require a correct scientific knowledge of the cosmos. Perhaps that is why it does not in the end matter if the Genesis account of creation is literally false. Even so, if the earth is a very small planet at the edge of a vast universe; if the sphere of nature is the realm of impersonal law; and if human beings are products of evolutionary mutation; then traditional theology, which thought in terms of a directly created Adam and Eve at the centre of God’s plans and in constant physical interaction with him, must be drastically amended.

Perhaps modern physics can open up a new and exciting scope of an emergent universe, moving towards the goal of self-directing consciousness. The threat of reductionist materialism is not so great as it may have once seemed. Science can be an ally of religion; but the form of that religion will have moved far beyond strict adherence to the pre-scientist beliefs of the world’s scriptures. If one is to assess modern religious belief correctly, the extent of this amendment must be taken into account, as well as the fact that it is not yet completed, nor even fully absorbed into the thought of many Christian churches as yet. There is an exciting future for religion; but only when it fully and consciously completes the transition to the post-scriptural age.

Thank you all for sharing your views and beliefs on this thread. I would like to think we have learnt from each other. I certainly have a deep love and respect for you all and sorry again if in my zeal I may have stepped on some toes. All of you will continue to be in my prayers, as I hope to be in yours.

Peace & Blessings

Robert

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 22:01 pm

Re 121: Tiuche, you stepped right into it: Just because you cannot find anybody’s fossils doesn’t mean they didn’t exist AND just because you Do find old fossils, it means they DID exist. These hominids existed, and we’re their descendants.

Now: documents vs non-documents. What’s a document? Basically anything that’s written is a document. Your schoolpaper is a document. Your grocery receipt is a document. The Quran and the Bible are documents. What Louis Leakey wrote when he discovered Lucy is a document.

What’s not a document. Digging a fossil is not a document. Witnessing a lunar eclipse is not a document. Knowing Jesus is not a document. Talking to your god is not a document.

Obviously having or not having a document is not a litmus test for determining what’s true and what’s not. I have no idea why you brought it up.

I don’t think you expect an answer for all your questions about prophets and Darwin and God’s name and my God versus your god and so on, either. I don’t know what might have driven all that.

So, in the end, I really don’t know what we’re debating here other than that you’re trying to find excuses for not believing you’re monkey kind!

Oh, this my God versus yours thing… Mine doesn’t lie. Mine doesn’t tell me the world was supposed to end two thousand years ago.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 21:22 pm

Charles; You asked where are the fossils of Adam & Eve?

I am also asking you: Where are the fossils of your ancestors two thousand years ago?Who were their names? Just because you cannot find there fossils or you do not know their name, does it mean they did not exist!

But remember what historian says: No documents no history…does your ancestors just two thousand years ago had documents to show they did really exist? None I think! Yet we have the documents to prove where all humans came from, who were the first man and woman, what were the first cities…but i doubt if you be convinced! We cannot convince you nor can you convince us…so we wait for time will tell who is true! If you are right that there is no god or that the god you say you believe in created you from the monkey kind that is fine with us! Your god does not have a name! Your god does not have a manual for your kind! Your god might be so busy that he had left you to search desperately for His Truths.Your donot talk to your god nor does your god talk to you!

While our God have a name! he talked to us and we pray to him. We have his instruction manual. he had told us who were our first parent, the first cities and have told us what he plan for our future!

So Charles did your god tell you that Charles Darwin should be your mentor for Charles Darwin was his prophet? how could Charles Darwin be your mentor for he was a TORMENTED EVOLUTIONIST while you are a believer in a god? Does your god make prophets out of atheists? Where are the prophets of your god or his priests? Please answer those questions!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 17:27 pm

Scott I have already stated the facts to you as clearly as I can. However, I just came across the data below which falls in line with the essence of what I earlier divulged to you.

Theory vs. Fact
Main article: Evolution as theory and fact

The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution. The argument is related to a common misconception about the technical meaning of “theory” that is used by scientists. In common usage, “theory” often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions. However, in science, “theory” usually means “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.”

Debates
Many creationists and scientists engage in frequent public debates regarding the origin of human life, hosted by a variety of institutions. However, some scientists disagree with this tactic, arguing that by openly debating supporters of supernatural origin explanations (creationism and intelligent design), scientists are lending credibility and unwarranted publicity to creationists, which could foster an inaccurate public perception and obscure the factual merits of the debate. For example, in May 2004 Dr. Michael Shermer debated creationist Kent Hovind in front of a predominantly creationist audience. In Shermer’s online reflection while he was explaining that he won the debate with intellectual and scientific evidence he felt it was “not an intellectual exercise,” but rather it was “an emotional drama”, with scientists arguing from “an impregnable fortress of evidence that converges to an unmistakable conclusion”, whilst for creationists it is “a spiritual war”. While receiving positive responses from creationist observers, Shermer concluded “Unless there is a subject that is truly debatable (evolution v. creation is not), with a format that is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion.” (see: scientific method). Others, like evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci, have debated Hovind, and have expressed surprise to hear Hovind try “to convince the audience that evolutionists believe humans came from rocks” and at Hovind’s assertion that biologists believe humans “evolved from bananas.”

The theory of evolution, formalized by Charles Darwin, is as much theory as is the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity. Unlike theories of physics, biological theories, and especially evolution, have been argued long and hard in socio-political arenas. Even today, evolution is not often taught in primary schools. However, evolution is the binding force of all biological research. It is the unifying theme. In paleontology, evolution gives workers a powerful way to organize the remains of past life and better understand the one history of life. The history of thought about evolution in general and paleontological contributions specifically are often useful to the workers of today. Science, like any iterative process, draws heavily from its history. It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Peace.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 17:21 pm

Same for post 116. Creationists have an excuse for every find. I even gave you the website where all these excuses are laid out. It doesn’t help. The fossils are there, and they are real.

Where are the fossils of Adam and eve? And of the Garden of Eden? And of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? And of Cinderella’s shoe?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 16:44 pm

And I mistook authorship again. My last reply to Scott should have been addressed to Tiuche. Sorry.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 16:38 pm

Re post 115. Scott, thank you. You just reiterated one of the many excuses that creationists point out. Bringing individual excuses for each find is exactly what I referred you to in my previous post. It’s no use trying to cut down a tree here and a tree there. There is an entire forest around each tree.

So, Scott, what IF Lucy is not one of our direct ancestor? What difference would it make if we are descended from Margaret or Pauline instead? Not all the hominids are our direct ancestors. Some are cousins. But we’re all interconnected in the evolutionary process.

The larger point is that we are unearthing a multitude of hominids that lived 1.5 to 4.4 million years ago, or even before that. How does this compare to the Bible’s Adam who was created out of clay (or as an image of God, depending on which story you subscribe to) a mere 6,200 years ago? Answer THAT question?

And, while we’re on excuses, what’s your excuse for the failed prophecy in Matt. 24:34?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 16:35 pm

Scot may I interject again. On ARDIPITHECUS RAMIDUS AS A HOAX? I donot know why some people wants apes & monkeys to be their ancestors when God plainly said that we human were made after the God Kind and not the monkey kind! And that God said Adam & Eve was our first parent…probably they have been aped by Satan!

Ardipithecus Ramidus – Really, Really Old Bones, or Another Hoax?
www.iamthemill.com/…/ardipithecus-ramidus-really-really-old.html1 Oct 2009 – Ardipithecus Ramidus – Really, Really Old Bones, or Another Hoax?
www.iamthemill.com/…/ardipithecus-ramidus-really-really-old.html1 Oct 2009 – Ardipithecus Ramidus – Really, Really Old Bones, or Another Hoax? So these scientist guys found a bunch of old bones in Ethiopia. (It was …
Ardipithecus Ramidus (Ardi) - Just Another Evolutionist Hominid Hoax
www.cross.tv/3573221 Nov 2009 – Check out: http://www.icr.org/article/4982/ for more information. Also learn about scientism at http://www.cross.tv/21598 The reconstructions are …
Apemen & Missing Links - Answers in Genesis
www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/apemen-missing-links… of the Trouble (Australopithecus [now Ardipithecus] ramidus); Skull wars: new “Homo erectus” skull in Ethiopia … What about the various frauds and hoaxes? …– Really, Really Old Bones, or Another Hoax? So these scientist guys found a bunch of old bones in Ethiopia. (It was …
Ardipithecus Ramidus (Ardi) - Just Another Evolutionist Hominid Hoax
www.cross.tv/3573221 Nov 2009 – Check out: http://www.icr.org/article/4982/ for more information. Also learn about scientism at http://www.cross.tv/21598 The reconstructions are …
Apemen & Missing Links - Answers in Genesis
www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/apemen-missing-links… of the Trouble (Australopithecus [now Ardipithecus] ramidus); Skull wars: new “Homo erectus” skull in Ethiopia … What about the various frauds and hoaxes? …

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 16:15 pm

Scott may i interject:ON LUCY which Charles claim as the missing link, here is an excerpt from: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080622204822AACLK7M

‘Lucy’ is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as a certain link between ape-like creatures and man—thus supposedly proving evolution. But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’.2

Oxnard’s firm conclusion? ‘The australopithecines are unique.’3

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of ‘missing link’ status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

EDIT: With quotes from an evolutionist-

Australopithecus (‘southern ape’) is the name given to a number of fossils found in Africa. These are claimed by evolutionists to be the closest to the alleged common ancestor of apes and humans. However, Dr Fred Spoor has done CAT scans of the inner ear region of some of these skulls. These show that their semi-circular canals, which determine balance and ability to walk upright, ‘resemble those of the extant great apes’.6

The most well known australopithecine is ‘Lucy’, a 40% complete skeleton found by Donald Johanson in Ethiopia in 1974 and called Australopithecus afarensis.7 Casts of Lucy’s bones have been imaginatively restored in museums worldwide to look like an apewoman, e.g. with ape-like face and head, but human-like body, hands and feet. However, the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones! Several other specimens of A. afarensis do have the long curved fingers and toes of tree-dwellers, as well as the restricted wrist anatomy of knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas.8,9,10 Dr Marvin Lubenow quotes the evolutionists Matt Cartmill (Duke University), David Pilbeam (Harvard University) and the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University):

‘The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes … .’11
Source(s):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicSt…
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are…
http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/stud…

David Menton

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 16:00 pm

Scott started post 108 by saying things are becoming laughable and he seemed to continue the comic mood by ending it this way: “Time is definitely on the side of Matthew, Mark and Luke; but the science(?) of Evolution is beginning to look for a place to hide. Hopefully, it will find one because it’s a cinch it hasn’t found any certifiable transitional forms!”

This is funny because the science of evolution never looked so strong. The “missing link” argument is slipping away with every “missing link” that is found, like:
* Australopithecus sediba, 1.78 to 1.95 million years ago, bipedal.
* “Lucy” (an Australopithecus afarensis), 3.2 million years ago, partly arboreal (tree-dwelling), 107 cm (3′6″) tall, 28 kg (62 lbs) in weight.
* Ardipithecus ramidus, 4.4 million years ago, a spectacularly complete fossil, bipedal on the ground and quadrupedal in the trees, circa 120 cm (3′11″) tall, 50 kg (110 lbs) in weight.

These are just some examples. Check http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
You will find this site to your liking because it also gives you the excuses that creationists have come up with to try to dispute every find.

But why bring up evolution here? Isn’t this about the failed prophecy of Matt. 24:34?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 15:28 pm

Re: #111

“Starting off the wrong assumptions can be very dangerous.”

This is my point precisely. In matters of science it’s good to be the eternal skeptic until matters are established by two or three verifiable witnesses. But, of course, in matters of science these witnesses themselves must be firmly established. Yet, even then science can get it wrong. The Theory of Evolution is a perfect case in point. There are hundreds if not thousands of pieces of circumstantial evidence indicating that the theory is true. The evidence for the most part is typically verifiable but the leap for said evidence to substantiate evolution is STILL very circumstantial. In other words; the jury is still out (except in the minds of the Theory worshippers).

But, IMHO, such worshippers have their compass set all wrong. Since they require God himself to prove his existence to them BEFORE they will start considering him sets them on a wrong-headed course from the get-go. As a result, they are destined to conclude that our human identity is rooted in an ape; a brute beast. However, had their compass been set correctly, they would conclude that human identity is rooted not in something lower and base; but something exalted and glorious. Two conclusions could not be further apart nor with more devastating consequences.

When the pride of science refuses to acknowledge the Source of all empirical reality; when the pot rebukes the Potter who made it; when the creature condemns the Creator; there will surely be a heavy price to pay. “Starting off the wrong assumptions can be very dangerous.”

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 15:06 pm

Ref:# 110

You wrote:

“Charles’ and Roberts of the world use the very same method of interpreting the Bible as they do interpreting science. They start by assuming NOTHING is true and then go about to discover what IS true.”

Ok, so what’s wrong with that? I think by freeing the mind of all conditioning and attachments is vital when one is serious about seeking truth.

You wrote:

“If they had ONLY lived long enough for Charles and Robert to come along and straighten them out regarding the Theory of Evolution (because of the PLETHORA of transitional forms that have naturally been discovered in the last 100 years) I’m sure they would’ve been very grateful.”

Scott, let me pause but for a moment and paraphrase Wordsworth: Shades of sarcasm begin to close upon the growing man, but He beholds not the light, and whence it flows and grasps not the joy. OK, let me see if I can straighten out, to coin your words, your erroneous held belief on the foregoing. The fossil record unequivocally attests macro-evolutionary transition. The lobe-finned fish, which lived in water but had lungs and leg-like fins, was an intermediate between fish and amphibians. Amphibians themselves provided a macro-evolutionary transition from aquatic to land-dwelling reptilian life. Cynodonts bridged the gap between reptiles and mammals, possessing combined traits of both.

On a separate branch of the evolutionary tree, Archaeopteryx, part reptile and part bird, is the perfect example of macro-evolution in action. Archaeopteryx was first unearthed in bavaria in 1860. When paleontologists later realized what they had discovered, creationists became so distraught that they accused the paleontologists of gluing birds feathers on a reptile fossil. After several additional fossils of Archaeopteryx were recovered, creationists refrained from embarrassing themselves again. QED.

In love and light.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 14:39 pm

Scott, I think you got it buddy: “They start by assuming NOTHING is true and then go about to discover what IS true” (from post 108: Scott’s own words and own emphasis). Yes, that’s exactly right. It is crucially important not to make the mistake of starting with assumptions that are based on unverified traditions.

What you got wrong is your next statement: “Never mind that they have no ‘compass’ by which to confirm truth if they should find it.” You confirm whether something is true or not by subjecting to verifiable testing. If it can’t be verified, it’s not truth. I gave an example of this in post 109.

Starting off the wrong assumptions can be very dangerous. If we planned our moon mission based on the traditional assumption that Earth is stationary, Neil Armstrong’s body would be hovering in space!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 14:15 pm

Ref:# 107

In your post 104 this is what you actually wrote:

“i do see YOUR side as a CARNAL man seeking for all truths set before me in every verse. yet i am also a SPIRITUAL man; a deep calling unto the deep; for my flesh is my worse enemy.”

Now if you can see MY SIDE as a CARNAL MAN, then you are inferring that you CANNOT see my side as a SPIRITUAL man. And it is hardly likely in your book that a Spiritual man would hold Carnal views, which you deem my side to be. So even if you are taking a Roman 7 stance with its duality, fact is you are implying that I am Carnal.

You said:

“only when i had lost everything and was completely naked before god; was when god ANSWERED me. this world is not a “big bang theory” nor are we an “evolution theory.” since god created all through the supernatural we go out the same way. (REVELATION.) as for me;”

What you are now saying is, I think you understand what I wrote but what you read is not what I meant.

Angel we know that God does NOT lie and cannot lie. Now if by some answered prayer or by revelation god imparted some spiritual “truth” to you that says we did not evolve when it is a FACT we did, then it seems to me that your source or god was being economical with the truth.

You said in post 104:

“and as stated by many renowned scientists “life comes from man.”

I know of no renowned scientist that says, life comes from man. Go on make my day name me one.

I have already demonstrated in my previous post that SCIENTISTS use the term “theory” to mean “explanation.” And went on to give examples. Now you throw all of that in the bamboo and start spouting pure piffle. Trouble with creationists is that they suffer from a schizophrenic mindset of radiometric dating techniques, which point to a 4.5 billion-year old earth. You scoff at these dating methods, thinking they are unreliable. What EVIDENCE can you or any other creationists offer to substantiate a recent reversal of the rates of radioactive decay? None. Your only “evidence” is that the book of Genesis disagrees with the radiometric test results.

Today as you may know, some creationists are abandoning their long-held belief in a six-thousand-year old Earth. Why this abrupt reversal of opinion? Were startling new chapters suddenly discovered in the Book of Genesis? Did Moses appear in a miraculous vision, revising his previous chronology, and teaching the geological history of an ancient Earth? No. The change of heart among some creationists is due to the fact that modern scientist research has shown the Genesis chronology to be nothing short of ridiculous.

You said

“yet to deny what is rightfully holy in every sense; preordained before time and space is IGNORANCE at its greatest peak.”

Well I will put it this way, to deny FACTS and TRUTH is ignorance. And where ignorance is bliss it’s folly to be wise.

In love and light.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 13:33 pm

Re post 107. Dear Angel, this is the second time you gave us this dissertation about fossils and for the second time I am unable to understand your point. My guess would be that, since you mentioned that some species thought to be extinct were found to be still in existence, you somehow think this proves something?

Ancient fossils by themselves do not prove an animal became extinct x millions of years ago… who, knows, we might still find a little live dinosaur somewhere! But they can and do prove that an animal EXISTED x million years ago. The humanoid fossils geologists and archaeologists are finding in Africa do not prove that humanoids became exinct two million years; they prove that humanoids EXISTED two million years ago.

If you want to discuss evolution or the age of the planet or when life started, the proper place would be in the creation stories of Genesis. If you go there, I will gladly join you. The topic here the prophecy that the world was supposed to end two thousand years ago.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 11:40 am

Things are indeed becoming laughable around here but I’m finally figuring out why. The Charles’ and Roberts of the world use the very same method of interpreting the Bible as they do interpreting science. They start by assuming NOTHING is true and then go about to discover what IS true. Never mind that they have no ‘compass’ by which to confirm truth if they should find it. How UNLIKE biblical interpretation that starts out by assuming that GOD is true and then going about to discover what He has to say.

Perhaps it’s a good time to remind everyone that God does NOT owe us an explanation for anything He does. He’s the Creator; we’re not. However, the converse is not the same; we owe God an explanation for EVERYTHING we do. It’s very easy to laugh at such a notion but failing to recognize that we live in HIS moral universe does not absolve use from moral responsibility; nor does it serve us well to continually ignore our conscience as if it were merely some worthless relic from the unenlightened past.

But just exactly how well do Charles and Robert interpret science and the scriptures?

Matthew, Mark and Luke were WRONG?? Of COURSE they were! How could they NOT be?? Didn’t they know that their Hebrew scriptures were chock full of errors?? Didn’t they know that Jesus was just a charlatan and made all kinds of mistakes himself? No WONDER their gospels are so full of mistakes. And how silly it was of them to believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead and ASCENDED bodily into heaven. Perhaps if Jesus actually DID do these things he would be worthy of worship and worthy of dying for. Too bad he didn’t because ALL of his disciples worshipped Him and ALL of His apostles died for Him and not a few others to be sure! How sad that they were all so deluded and unenlightened. If they had ONLY lived long enough for Charles and Robert to come along and straighten them out regarding the Theory of Evolution (because of the PLETHORA of transitional forms that have naturally been discovered in the last 100 years) I’m sure they would’ve been very grateful.

Time is definitely on the side of Matthew, Mark and Luke; but the science(?) of Evolution is beginning to look for a place to hide. Hopefully, it will find one because it’s a cinch it hasn’t found any certifiable transitional forms!

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 07:14 am

robert louis:
first off god bless.

now a correction is needed here. if you notice i stated “that i am a carnal man and a spiritual man.” and i am the one in conflict with the flesh and spirit. the great battle stated by paul “the things i should do, i don’t. and the things i shouldn’t do, i do.” and because of your misunderstanding; even to your own misinterpretation of one sentence set you in a mood. why. i made no such suggestions as if you were blinded or even ignorant. but i merely stated that man will and shall perceive his own reality in order to fit his already pre-existing beliefs.

then you go even further to state my god is the devil. how much more you prove by your actions and beliefs that man is to emotional and contradictory even to himself.

and yes i do know and studied a lot of those self proclaimed man-made theories. and yes they are all theories in a sense they are not an open and shut book. for man’s interpretation of every discovery is for ever changing in the academics of science. its funny how we will twist a word to fit our own means of self edification. i find this very demeaning and demoralizing.

and by the way god never spoke on the big bang theory or the so called evolution theory to me. (THAT SOUNDS FUNNY.) there have been many scholars and organizations that support this as well. we can play this game all day robert. scholars said this; scholars said that; but in the end they are all theories set forth by the forerunners who during a time spoke out on certain traditions and beliefs. and today we have either expanded on those theories or even modified it according to our own discoveries as we perceive to be the truth of the matter. a pre-established reality only to conform to our self deluded theories of so called man discoveries. yet there is some truth; but how much? for as you stated a theory can only be proven 100% established if it meets all the requirements. why not state this as well to the readers here. if we are to be honest and debate the evidence we must set forth all criteria to the subject at hand.

The California State University Education Code (Title V, Section 40510, p. 473) defines a thesis as
. . .
the written product of a systematic study of a significant problem. It identifies the problem, states the major assumptions, explains the significance of the undertaking, sets forth the sources for and methods of gathering information, analyzes the data, and offers a conclusion or recommendation.

The finished project (product) evidences originality, critical and independent thinking, appropriate organization and format, and thorough documentation.
 A thesis is an original contribution to knowledge resulting from the systematic study of a significant problem or issue.

Thesis Content:

Introduction to the study:

a. background

b. statement of the problem

c. purpose of the study

d. theoretical bases and organization

e. limitations of the study

f. definition of terms


Review of the literature

Methodology:

a. design of the investigation

b. population and/or sample

c. treatment

d. data analysis procedures


Results and discussion
:
a. presentation of the findings

b. discussion of the findings


Summary:
a. conclusions
b. recommendations


References:
a. books
b. articles
c. sites
d. person or persons
e. etc…..

here is the actual guide line for all scholars/professors in every academic field to present one’s evidence pertaining to every discovery and every theory. to be presented before one’s peers and board. to see if all requirements were met to stand as an accepted alternative or reviewed mainly as an addition to an already established theory.

now lets discuss the definition of the word thesis and theory. so all can discover themselves the truth of the matter at hand. so not to be influenced by either side but let them journey to a realization of what is or what isn’t.

thesis: (noun. plural.)
1. A proposition that is maintained by argument.
2. A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research, especially as a requirement for an academic degree.
3. A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof.

thesis - an unproved statement put forward as a premise in an argument
assumption, premise, premiss - a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn;

did you notice the key words here. your a smart man. you know what they mean.

theory: (noun. plural.) theories
1. a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result
2. abstract knowledge or reasoning
3. a speculative or conjectural view or idea I have a theory about that
4. an ideal or hypothetical situation (esp in the phrase in theory)
5. a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms the theory of relativity
6. a nontechnical name for hypothesis (*) definition of hypothesis:

(*)hypothesis, theory, possibility: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; which is as stated, (*) 1. & 2.

(*1.) hypothesis, philosophy, system of ideas, plan, system, science, scheme, proposal, principles, ideology, thesis,
(*2.) belief, feeling, speculation, assumption, guess, hunch, presumption, conjecture, surmise, supposition

like i said; we will be ying and yang all day; presenting evidence as proof from world renowned scholars. to be as factual and as a means to prove one’s self acceptance of his belief as truth. as for me. man may have some truth but god is infallible and perfect. to state that he errs in many places throughout the bible is easily falsified and to others viewed as truth. then why would one subject himself to be persecuted and denied by others to follow our lord jesus christ when every essence of our being would not allow and would reject such infliction to oneself.

and as for myself, yes i do believe the bible to be infallible. not based on your assumptions of being already pre-established in its contexts according to my family or those around me; as to influence my belief. i came to the bible in fact when i lost everything in life as i perceived to be most valuable to me. i was entangled in a web of my own demise. and in this nakedness i discovered god’s holy living word’s reaching out page from page and verse from verse. it was as if it was telling me my mistakes in such an intimate level i felt drawn to a peace i have never imagined. this is when i noticed i lived by man’s truth and beliefs. also that i was completely was alienated from god. in truth and in faith.

yet what is rather hilarious to me now is we are so keen to accept ghost stories, legends, myths, magic, werewolves, vampires, etc… and we refuse to accept what god has done as actual events because you or i say otherwise. man has and will be a vile creature until we are truly born again. the difference you suggested as proof of the apostles is not as you stated but were living the unwritten word of the hour. as if always looking on to another world; devoted to it by faith. why can’t we do the same. is it because we are soooo much more advanced and smarter. even though god said there is nothing new under the sun. look at all the things we say we invented. only to be proven we are only re-inventing. even with all our technology no one knows how the pyramids were made. we have nothing that can lift 80 tons of rock. yet the ancients did it. they had batteries, hand held flash lights, gliders, hot air balloons, dyes that still hold their color after centuries, crossed oceans mapping new lands, knew the stars even more than we do, writings so advanced we don’t understand, roadways, water canals, plumbing, cold & hot water, toilets in rome, glass, aluminum discovered in china which requires huge amounts of electricity to make, as you see the list goes on and on.

man has de-evolutionized. dismiss these then about evolution and why these few examples counter evolution as a biased academic prejudice :

What are fossils?

A fossil is a plant or animal that has been dead for a long time - usually thousands of years. It must be buried immediately after it dies. If it dies and is exposed to the air it will never become a fossil. A flood could cause a sudden burial and provide a means of fossilization.

What kind of fossils are there?

From fossils that have been found:

95.0000% are marine invertebrates (shellfish and coral)
04.7500% are algae and plant (over a trillion tons of coal)
00.2375% are other invertebrates (insects)
00.0125% are vertebrates (fish, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals)

Why do some fossils look exactly like animals and plants living today?

These are often called Living Fossils or plants and animals that were supposed to be extinct millions of years ago but are alive today. Most of these creatures are marine invertebrates.

The Coelacanth, a fish, was considered extinct for 70 million years. One was caught in 1938 by fishermen of the coast of South America.
The Tuatara, a beak-headed reptile, supposedly died 123 million years ago. Today, they can be seen on islands off the coast of New Zealand.
The Neopilina was supposed to be extinct for 280 million years. Today, fishermen in Central and South America catch them in their nets.

How fast can something become a fossil?

The bigger the object, the longer it will take to fossilize. In Brazil, the Santana Formation contains millions of fossilized fish in which lithification [conversion to stone] was instantaneous. A fossil of Ichthyosaurus was in the process of giving birth! Something happened very fast in order to lock this event into stone.

What are index fossils?

They are fossils associated with a particular span of geological time. Almost every stratum [sheetlike layer of rock] contains fossils that seem to be the same type (clams, coral, etcetera). Evolutionists study the stratum and determine what “index” fossils are contained in it. They date the stratum from the index fossils they find.

Okay, now think about this: if the date of the fossil is wrong, then the date of the stratum is also wrong. Remember that geologists tell us that the stratum have been laid down over millions of years!

What is the most unusual fossil?

It is a miner’s felt hat from Tasmania. After 50 years, the hat was found and was as hard as a rock. The minerals in the water that covered the hat had turned it to stone.

What is carbon-14 dating?

In 1947, American chemist, Willard F. Libby and his associates, developed carbon-14 or radiocarbon dating at the University of Chicago.
Carbon-14 and carbon-12 in a living organism remain constant. However, when a plant or animal dies, the amount of carbon-14 gradually decreases. A sample to be dated is burned. Radiation counters measure the electrons given off by decaying carbon-14. The “age” of the sample can be determined by comparing the proportions of decaying carbon-14 and stable carbon-12. This method can produce errors between 2,000 and 5,000 years. And it is heavily dependant upon the radioactivity of the atmosphere remaining constant throughout time.

Are there any examples of “modern” strata forming?

On May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted. A billion board feet of lumber fell like so many toothpicks and melting snow mixed with volcanic debris formed destructive mud flows reaching 90 miles per hour! These mud flows laid down enormous amounts of sedimentation. Another eruption on March 19, 1982, created even more mud flows which eroded large canyons. In fact, one such canyon is now called, “Little Grand Canyon” which is 1/40 that of the real one! Within five years the layers of strata had hardened into solid rock. It does not take a long time for rock to form, just the right conditions. also the eruption of mount saint helen created millions of year old strata formations… in less than 3 hours.

How long does it take coal to form?

We have been taught that it takes millions of years for coal to form. However, in a laboratory, researchers have made low-quality coal in less that one year. It takes eleven years to produce coal that is very close to “Natural” coal. For example, under the right conditions, diamonds can be made in days and opals in a few months to a few years.

How long does it take oil to form?

Popular education tells us that the dinosaurs, buried in sediment millions of years ago, have become the “fossil fuel” or oil that we use today. An article in Chemical and Engineering News (May 29, 1972) describes the process for making oil. The [cow] manure was heated at 716° F [380° C], at 2,000 to 5,000 pounds per square inch [900 to 2250 kilograms per square inch] for 20 minutes in the presence of carbon monoxide and steam. The product was a heavy oil of excellent heating quality. The yield was about three barrels of oil per ton of manure.

How long does it take wood to petrify?

Petrified wood is wood that has been mineralized (turned to stone) by silica. This is another example of fossilization. From September-October 1995 issue of Creation ex nihilo, Australian geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling wrote the article ” ‘Instant’ Petrified Wood”. Here is an excerpt: ” Under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures … The time frame for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood.”

What is a polystrate tree?

Polystrate means many strata. Polystrate trees are fossilized trees that extend through more than one stratum. A dead tree sticking out of the ground would decay over a period of time. However, a polystrate tree confirms rapidly forming strata. At the Joggins in Nova Scotia, many erect fossil trees are scattered throughout 2,500 feet of geologic strata, Evolutionary theory claims that the top strata were deposited millions of years after the bottom strata. Polystrate trees can be found in coal mines. They are called “kettles” which can be deadly. Unless they are secured, they can easily detach and fall on the miners below.

i shall hold off for tomorrow and show you how evolution is a fallacy created by men.

god bless…………

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 07:00 am

Hi Angel

You stated that I am the carnal man and you the spiritual man. Sounds to me like the leaven of the Pharisees at work. You went on to cast scorn on the big bang theory and the evolution theory ’cause God answered you. Please tell me how He did. Did he appear to you and divulge how he created the universe and revealed the lie of evolution? I think wide America and the rest of the world have a right to know how it’s done.

Now, do you know what the law of the conservation of mass energy is? If you do you’ll know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be changed from one form into another. If mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if the universe is entirely composed of mass-energy, then the law of the conservation of mass-energy may be extrapolated to this startling conclusion: the universe, in one form or another, in one density or another, always existed. There was never a time when the mass-energy comprising our universe did not exist, if only in the form of an empty oscillating vacuum, To believe in “scientific” creationism, therefore, is to overlook or dismiss the law of the conservation of mass-energy.

Your next point which God answered you on was the “theory of evolution” Well, you are wrong again, evolution is a fact. It is a gradual accumulation of functional adaptions. It has only three essentials for success: (1) time, genetic variety among offspring, and (3) a mechanism for preserving only beneficial variation. Such a mechanism is called Natural or Cumulative Selection, and was first proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859. Now let me clarify your seeming misunderstanding of the phrase “theory of evolution.” Evolution is called a “theory” not because scientist are unsure whether it’s a fact.

Scientists use the term “theory” to mean “explanation.” We have Cell Theory, which explains the structure and function of living cells. Yet no scientist doubts that cells exist. We have Atomic Theory, which explains the behaviour of atoms. Yet no scientist doubts atoms exist. We have Gravitational Theory, which explains how celestial objects are attracted to each other. Yet no scientist doubts that gravitation is real. Evolutionary Theory, therefore, explains evolution - its subtleties and processes Science considers evolution as undeniable as cells or atoms or gravitation. And the evidence for evolution is just as solid. Btw, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and many prominent Christian believers hold fast to the fact of evolution.

You said not for the first time that you found the test ignorant. Seeing that the test is an inanimate object, I take it that what you are really saying is that I am ignorant,. Now I had asked you in post 102 these questions: Which one of the test questions do you take issue with? Which one is not factual? which one is not Biblical? Please elucidate. Of course your reasoning for your stance as you said is that you have studied this bible inside out. Big deal Angel, so have i. You reasoning is fallacious and lacks logic. You believe the Bible contain no errors because it says so in the Bible, and you believe what it says in the Bible ’cause the Bible contains no errors. Your argument is circular and you are begging the question- petito princippii.

The evidence available, showing that the Bible contains many errors and is by no means the Word of God per se is staggering. Judging from your post, it appears either you have never had a chance to really consider it or else you have and “pulled a pilot” by washing your hands of the evidence and sweeping it under an already lumpy rug. And if god really did answer you and revealed that the “theory of evolution” is false, then with respect, I thing your god had two horns.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 02:45 am

Wow, this verse is certainly getting attention and hard to keep up with!

I have decided to listen to the Admin’s advice and ignore my friend Tiuche. As a matter of fact I am going to provide something that I know will scare him more than a four-legged snake: some education.

This year’s Nobel prize in Physics went to Saul Perlmutter and two other physicists for discovering that the universe is expanding. This is a truly amazing development, on par with Einstein’s relativity theory and Newton’s discovery of gravity. But what struck me most is not the discovery itself, as hugely important as it is, but the way it happened.

See, scientists have long been discussing the SLOWING DOWN of the universe. In their eyes the universe was slowly coming to an end. But they had no proof. And without proof, there is no fact. So these physicists set out to prove this theory correct. Instead they found out the opposite was true! The universe is not only expanding, but it is expanding at an accelerating rate! See: \http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/science/space/05nobel.html?pagewanted=all

Now let’s compare this discovery with the prophecy that the world was supposed to end two thousand years ago (Matt 24:34). In the case of the expanding universe the scientific community ADMITTED that they had been wrong all along. They proved their worth by accepting the truth rather than stubbornly holding onto false traditional beliefs.

But what do the Tiuches and the Scott Dales of the world do when faced with the truth that Matthew and Mark and Luke were all wrong?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 02:37 am

robert louis:
first off… god bless.

as for your test….. i found the gnat rather large and the camel very distasteful. (LOL.)

i do see your side as a carnal man seeking for all truths set before me in every verse. yet i am also a spiritual man; a deep calling unto the deep; for my flesh is my worse enemy. always conflicting and debating. the greatest battle ever fought goes unseen; within and without. yet to deny what is rightfully holy in every sense; preordained before time and space is ignorance at its greatest peak. and to compare such to the likes of every other earthly man made religion is fallacy. you quote man’s wisdom as if to be in such a way as equal or understanding of god. every man failed god that was born from flesh of flesh. but you seem to forget god was perfect and as stated by many renowned scientists “life comes from man.” so if our lord jesus christ divinity comes from the father what is it to you to reinterpret this truth as a mere whimsical fallacy so that our forefathers could control one’s belief and life.

as for myself i have sat many nights burning the candles at both ends reading cautiously every word written verse by verse. i myself can state and claim that i have not come from any pre-established beliefs or interpretations of the bible due to the fact i was as worldly as they come. i had no need in god or his word. as for myself and my family we ran as far as we could from god and all he had to offer us. only when i had lost everything and was completely naked before god; was when god answered me. this world is not a “big bang theory” nor are we an “evolution theory.” since god created all through the supernatural we go out the same way. (revelation.) as for me; i found your test ignorant due to the fact i have studied this bible inside out. only to discover the more i study the more it begins to engulf me. pushing me forward in faith. always seeking the truth as laid out by god and not by man. and yes i do agree that we sometime have to venture in faith to find that which we cannot see. i could tell you so many things hidden with these inspirational verses but to what avail. if you can only perceive to view the bible as a mere guide line filled with fantasies and imprecise documentations.

yet many institutes as well as other well known organizations seem to differate from your views as to how precise the masoretic text is compared to every other bible who lay claims to being closest to the original manuscripts. many linguistics agree that of all the manuscripts discovered throughout the caves of the dead sea scrolls tell us about the three major textual traditions? In the majority of cases (about 60 percent of the biblical scroll manuscripts discovered) the scrolls follow the Masoretic text. About 5% of the biblical scrolls follow the Septuagint version; another 5% match the Samaritan text; 20% belong to a tradition unique to the dead sea scrolls; and 10% are “nonaligned.” The key point is that the readings in the scrolls show that many variations in the biblical text are of long standing, and are not simply errors in later transmission. so therefore the masoretic text cannot be proved 100% due to the fact that not all the books have been discovered but of the 60% only about 1% differs from the masoretic text only by sounding of the word but doesn’t alter the word and its meaning that it is conveying to us in any way. also did you notice what is stated here as well “variations of the biblical text are of long standing, and are not simply errors in later translations.” so a highly educated man as yourself can induce what is being stated here. so in all actuality man literally; as stated by yourself ; twisted the word of god to fit his view and formality of true worship and oneness with god. thus are born “daughters of the great harlot.” so churches who simply cannot view certain teachings or beliefs as truth; simply put; ventures off to create and establish a temple to suit his needs as well as others who follow the twisted dogmas of man only to become entangled and the cycle continues on. another attempt by man to venture within his own self delusions of dogma truth. leaving behind a seed of vipers. to continue on in the chaos of filth.

for the bible also states in in 1 thessalonians 5:12-22

1 thessalonians 5:12-22
12. And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
13. And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves.
14. Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
15. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
16. Rejoice evermore.
17. Pray without ceasing.
18. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
19. Quench not the Spirit.
20. Despise not prophesyings.
21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22. Abstain from all appearance of evil.

as well as 2 timothy 3:12-17

2 Timothy 3:12-17
12. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

yet man who is fallible will always misinterpret what god has to say only to quench their thirst of lust of power and domination for their own self pleasures of their twisted dogma of truth. self righteous truth.

and as the eucharist; it is not the literal body of christ or the literal blood of christ. another twisted dogma. just as one shall not eat meat on certain days
and forbidding to marry. the harlot providing for her daughters a means to abolish the truth and set a twisted dogma of perversion. did not our lord jesus christ say to do this in remembrance. for our lord jesus christ sits at the right hand of the father interceding for us. alive and resurrected. not in a bread or cup. for communion as some like to call it; i prefer the lord’s supper; literally means “to communicate.” so in essence we are communicating to our lord jesus christ and acknowledging our lord jesus christ sacrifice in our behalf. on a tree.

as for you robert it seems from all your posts i read; you lie somewhere in between. seems you walk a fine line of one’s own idealism and to a portion of divinity only as pertaining to the father. for the bible is god’s holy living word. and it is truly inspired by the author and is preordained before the very foundations. manifesting it truth as the inevitable time clock ticks away to its final hour. for it is stated quite boldly “let he who can see,see all truth; and he who can hear, hear all truth; and he who speaks, let him speak a sound doctrine of our lord jesus christ.” for the spirit is the righteous guide to truth so that we may encounter the slain lamb of righteousness. naked is the blind, and deaf is the dumb, and covetousness is its master.

and as for women; a church is the symbol of a woman as the bible is a symbolism of man. a union; between man and woman. as man as its forerunner. as our lord jesus christ is to the church. so for a woman as a pastor is viewed by god as an abomination. an immoral union between woman and woman. just as god commanded.

infallible is my god. who with a twitch of his little finger created his thoughts, spoke it into existence, manifested it at its proper time.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 00:11 am

Greetings Angel

Below you’ll find an article on, “Is the Bible the Word of God” by Dr. Marcus Borg a well known biblical scholar. If you consider both Dr. Robert M Price and Dr. Marcus Borg “ignorant” and lacking in wisdom and understanding, I suggest you write to them advising them of this and please copy me with their replies.

For your edification:

Is the Bible the Word of God?

By Marcus Borg

A biblical scholar explains what’s at stake in the Bible wars How we see the Bible matters. Conflict between two very different ways of seeing the Bible is the most divisive issue among Christians in North America today. It divides fundamentalist and conservative churches from mainline denominations. Even within mainline denominations, the conflict is also present, though to a lesser extent.

Central to the conflict are two ways of seeing the Bible’s origin. The first sees it as a divine product; the second sees it as a human product.

The first is affirmed by fundamentalist and most conservative Christians. They say that the divine origin of the Bible is the basis of its authority. Unlike any other book, the Bible is the uniquely revealed word of God, and that’s why it matters. Why should we take it seriously? Because it comes from God.

It is easy to understand why the Bible is seen this way. In the Christian tradition, we have consistently spoken of it as “the Word of God” and “inspired by God,” language which suggests that the Bible is a divine product as no other book is.

The second way of seeing the Bible views it as the human product of two ancient communities. The Old Testament is the product of ancient Israel, and the New Testament is the product of the early Christian movement. As the product of these two communities, the Bible tells us about how they saw things–how they thought about God and told their stories.

This view is the result of modern biblical scholarship over the last three centuries. Thought it was known mostly in scholarly circles until recently, this approach is now being embraced by many mainline Christians.

Indeed, a strong grass-roots desire for a new way of seeing the Bible is one of the most remarkable features of the contemporary church.

Much is at stake in these two ways of seeing the Bible. Here are two illustrations:

The first concerns the Genesis stories of creation. If the Bible is a divine product, then these are God’s stories of creation. As such, they cannot be wrong. That leads to belief that the earth was created by God in six literal days. Going very far down this road leads to scientific creationism and school board conflicts about whether Genesis should be taught alongside evolution in high school biology courses.

But if the Bible is a human product, then these stories are ancient Israel’s stories of creation, not God’s stories of creation. Like most cultures, ancient Israel had its creation stories, but there is no reason to think that they contain scientifically factual information–and if they did, it would be sheer coincidence. Let me add that, as a Christian, I think Israel’s creation stories are profoundly true–but true as metaphorical or symbolic narratives, not as literally factual accounts.

The second illustration involves the laws of the Bible. To use one of the current hot-button issues as an example, consider the single law in the Hebrew Bible prohibiting homosexual behavior between men (Lev. 18.22), with the penalty (death) specified two chapters later (Lev. 20.13). If we see the Bible as a divine product, then this is one of God’s laws, and the ethical question becomes, “How can one justify setting aside one of the laws of God?”

But if we see the Bible as a human product, then the laws of the Hebrew Bible are ancient Israel’s laws, and the prohibition of homosexual behavior tells us that such behavior was considered unacceptable in ancient Israel.

The ethical question then becomes, “What is the justification for continuing to see this issue as ancient Israel did?” The question becomes even more acute when we realize that this law is embedded in a collection of laws that, among other things, prohibits planting two kinds of seed in the same field and wearing garments made of two kinds of cloth.

My point is that we readily recognize some of these laws as the laws of an ancient culture that we are not bound to follow. Why then single out some as “the laws of God”?

From these illustrations, my own point of view is clear: I see the Bible as a human product. But if so, what then is its relation to God? Is it in any sense “the Word of God”?

I see that relation as twofold. On the one hand, I see the Bible as the response of these two ancient communities to their experience of God.

On the other hand, I see the Bible as a sacrament. A sacrament is a mediator of the sacred, a means whereby the Spirit of God continues to speak to us even today. The sacramental function of Scripture occurs especially in its use in Christian devotion and worship. The Bible is the “Word of God” in this sense: in its function, not in its origin.

I am sometimes asked, “Do you believe in the Bible?” My response is, “It depends upon what you mean.”

If you mean, “Do I think it is a divine product and that everything in it comes from God,” then “No.”

If you mean, “Do I take it seriously as ancient Israel’s and early Christianity’s witness to their life with God,” then “Yes.”

One can take the Bible seriously–without taking it literally as the words of God.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 22:20 pm

Ref: # 100 & 101

Gentlemen:

You say such “kind” words to me that am speechless. Angel, your contention that my test is based on ignorance is interesting, since you went on to add that intelligence is ignorance, without wisdom and understanding. But who lacks the “wisdom” and “understanding”? Moreover, which one of the test questions do you take issue with? Which one is not factual? Which one is not Biblical? It seems to me that you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Have either of you really read the whole Bible? I have found that those who take the time to read, to weigh and consider the evidence - with a mind that isn’t so totally prejudiced by being locked in central mental premises that truth can only come from the Bible - are dumbfounded when they discover what the Bible really says.

I have posted below a sermon from Dr.Robert Price one of the 70 biblical scholars from the Jesus seminar on the subject were are discussing. Here goes:

Is the Bible the Word of God?

Old Testament Reading#: Jeremiah 1:4-10

New Testament Reading#: 2 Timothy 3:14-17

A word of introduction: First, let me explain how I came to choose this topic. A few weeks ago, Ed Mills was lay reader and he was supposed to read 1 Timothy 3:16. Making one of the easiest mistakes one can make, Ed read the corresponding verses in 2 Timothy instead. As he read it, he said, “Never let it be said that our pastor avoids the difficult passages!” Then he noticed what had happened, returned to the lectern, and read the assigned passage. Now what Ed had done without meaning to was to issue a challenge: I had better be able to preach on 2 Timothy 3:16, or else be guilty of side-stepping the most important passage in conservative theology, the one in fact from which all conservative theology stems, and simultaneously the most difficult for liberal theology to deal with. This morning I will try to rise to the challenge! You may judge my failure or success.

Let me first outline the traditional, the ancient doctrine of inspiration. Here the idea is that God initiated the writing of every word of the Bible. Where non-inspired sources, like public records, were used, God saw to it that the inspired writers corrected these sources. The result is that the text of the Bible is a repository of infallible, divinely revealed doctrines and historically accurate accounts. It makes no mistake in any area it touches, whether scientific or geographical. Since it is not merely a human document, it is exempt from the thousand natural shocks that human literature is heir to. If it seems to contradict itself or to be mistaken, we have the right, indeed the duty, to harmonize the text, to assume it means something other than what it seems on the surface to say. It must be so, if God is the author of scripture, since surely he cannot err or contradict himself. For conservative Christians, whether evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic, this is what it means to say that the Bible is the Word of God.

Let me say that I reject the doctrine I have outlined in whole and in part, and this for two reasons. First, it fails to square with the actual text of the Bible at every point. If we began with the doctrine, never having read the Bible, we would never recognize the book we have! The actual Bible, as I read it, is a book that brims with myths, legends, and other nonhistorical types of narrative. It is a book that swims in doctrinal and ethical contradictions, differences of opinion between its writers. It is not even a single book, but rather a set of books, most of which individually are patchworks of ill-fitting materials.

Fundamentalists have made a science of rationalizing, ironing out, harmonizing those contradictions, papering over those errors. The trouble is the contrived and unconvincing character of those harmonizations. They would never convince anyone who did not want to be convinced already. And eventually they fail to convince even many of us who began wanting very much to be convinced.

And when the harmonizers are done with all their reinterpretations and text-twisting rationalizations, I venture to say that the result is a book which, forced to mouth the dogmas imposed on it, is a completely different book, having little to do with what Paul, Isaiah, the Yahwist, and the others meant to tell us. We cannot afford to hear those strange and ancient voices, for fear that their impromptu utterances would torpedo our dogmas. We learn to read the Bible through a screen of reinterpretations and rationalizations that in effect make the Bible into a ventriloquist dummy for our inherited theologies. Fundamentalists, as Clark Pinnock once said, simply don’t like the Bible they’ve got! So they go to work on it with theological hammer, axe, and saw, to make a new Bible that will be more amenable to them. One that will teach the comforting doctrines they love, and nothing else.

The second reason I reject this doctrine of the Bible as the inspired Word of God is that it is not only untrue to the evidence of the text, but it is insidious in its effects as well.

While it pretends to wipe away all merely human authority in favor of objective, divine authority, in fact it does the reverse. What it does is to claim the divine authority of the Bible for a set of human opinions on religion and morality which aren’t necessarily false, but which deserve scrutiny and debate, and are not going to get it! Who would dare confute the Word of God, after all, if that’s what it is?

You see, what actually happens is that a particular group of Grand Inquisitors decide what is the true dogma. It may be the Pope; it may be Jimmy Swaggart; it may be Martin Luther; it may be Saint Athanasius; it may be Jim Jones; it may be Bob Jones. But you belong to some particular religious tradition, founded by someone. You imbibed a particular interpretation of the Bible with your mother’s milk, so to speak, the day you began reading the Bible. You were not told, “Read it for yourself, and conclude what you will.” No, more likely, you were told to read it in a context where weekly preaching and catechism assumed and promoted a particular interpretation of the Bible.

Do you think it’s sheer #chance# that results in the fact that all Baptists come away from the Bible believing that baptism by immersion is the biblical mode of Baptism, while Presbyterians believe just as surely that sprinkling is the biblical way? Is it just accident that all Pentecostals come away from the Bible believing that one ought to speak in tongues, while others don’t?

The Bible says no one infallible thing to its readers. It’s not that simple. There’s no index that tells you where to look if you want to know the one and only infallible biblical view on, e.g., divorce, or life after death. So if you hear from some church or some pastor that it does say one infallible thing, where can that allegedly infallible opinion be coming from? Isn’t it the opinion of that pastor, or of the church that trained him? And isn’t the claim that the Bible is an infallible book simply a retreat behind the mysterious curtain of the Wizard of Oz?

The preacher or the theologian who cites the Bible to ram home his opinion is seeking to control you, to bully you into swallowing his opinion without a fight, to exempt his own view from rational scrutiny. He covers himself with the Bible like a political demagogue who covers himself with the American flag, hoping to forestall any discussion and weighing of the issues.

Listen to one more passage, and you will see that the dynamic I am describing is nothing new. “First of all, you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation [or “private interpretation,” as the King James Version says], because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” That is the text of 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Here is precisely the connection I have suggested: the divine origin of the Bible is invoked as the reason that no reader should dare to interpret it for himself, but should rather acquiesce in the official line propounded by the church authorities, who claim to speak for God, who claim the delegated authority of the apostles, as does this very writer, who assumes the name of Peter, even though he writes in the mid-second century.

Thus I think I have made it clear that I reject this traditional doctrine of the Bible as the inspired Word of God as being both false in fact and insidious in design. Now what do I put in its place?

Simply the Bible itself#, nothing else. I do not want or need some kind of theological screen to protect me from what the Bible says. Nor does the Bible need some kind of theological screen to give it an appearance of authority it would otherwise lack!

Let me ask you something. Are there things in the Bible that offend your reason or your moral sensibility, things you would never accept if the Bible weren’t the inspired Word of God? The repeated command to wage genocidal warfare? The claim of the Pastoral Epistles that women are easily deceived by the devil and should not be allowed to teach? Conversely, those things in the Bible that strike you as life-changing truths — do they seem so true simply because they are in an inspired book? Do they need that sanction before they seem so true or important? The Bible is a vast ocean; wave after wave of shattering truth breaks upon its shores as you read it. It is a treasure chest of comfort, a powder keg of challenge. And it needs no help from any doctrine about it to be these things.

But it is a complex book, and just because you think it shouldn’t be doesn’t change that! It does not give easy answers on many things. Just because you wish it would doesn’t change that! If you insist that it be so, you will just wind up accepting somebody else’s pat answers clothed with divine authority.

But having said all this, I see no need to force terms like “inspiration” and “the Word of God” into an early retirement.

As to the first of them, I agree with C.H. Dodd, William Sanday, and other theologians that we may speak of the Bible being at many points the product of inspired writers in the sense that they were religious geniuses. They were more open to the depths of the Spirit than the rest of us. Their inspiration is analogous to that of the great poets and artists, only in the religious sphere. In this they were not unique; inspiration exists outside the Bible.

Nor can we say this of all the biblical writers. To me it is just nonsense to put the writer of the Priestly Code of Leviticus or of Ezra on a level with the writers of 1 Corinthians 13, Psalm 63, or the Sermon on the Mount. Some are inspired, others aren’t, as we would readily admit if it weren’t for the blinders imposed by the doctrine of plenary, verbal inspiration.

And now for the title question: #Is# the Bible the Word of God? I say, Yes, it is. Precisely in the same sense that the bread and the cup of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. There is no exact, one-for-one equation in either case. But both are potent symbols, truly conveying the saving virtue of that which they symbolize for us. The bread on this table is, in its outward form, its chemical composition, in all its testable qualities, simply bread, but I believe that when partaken of in memory of Christ, it brings an encounter with the renewing grace of Christ. To eat it is to partake of the body of Christ.

Likewise with the Bible. In no outward way is this book different from any other human book. If the bread is stale or nutritionally deficient in some way, even so the Bible has its shortcomings and defects. But in it we hear the voice of God speaking to our spirits. Not on every page, or every time we read it. It did not have to fall from heaven or be dictated by angels for you to hear its convicting word when you read it. But deep does call unto deep.

Father, send your Spirit upon this book, that through it we may share in your lively Word.

Amen.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 20:45 pm

to all:

It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for perceived errors lie on the surface and is easily seen with blind eyes, while all truth lie in the depths, where few are willing to search for it. but to he who labors vainly; as a bull in a glass house; perceives nothing but one’s own self delusions of truths; being of shattered pieces. but to he who labors patiently; receives truth; as droplets of rain. each droplet holding a truth till all are gathered into a sea of truth.

Matthew 24:32-35
32. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

now lets take this verse by verse:

matthew 24:32-35
32. our lord jesus christ says “here is a parable you must learn.” (our lord jesus christ always spoke in parables to convey god’s truth. so to be hidden from the wise and prudent.) our lord jesus christ continues by saying “when the fig tree is still young; it shall bring forth its leaves.” (this is a prophecy of israel returning back to her homeland and flourishing.) and by this fig tree and its signs you shall know that summer is near. (summer is a harvesting season for fig trees as well as december)

33. our lord jesus christ says here “you shall also know; when you shall see all these things, that the time is near, even just outside your door.” (what things shall they see as a sign unto them? so what was discussed prior to this that leads our lord jesus christ to use this parable of a fig tree? and how does a fig tree relate to them?) read JEREMIAH 8:13 (judah’s judgement. israel’s judgement.) also HOSEA 9:10

34. our lord jesus christ says “verily i say unto all of you that i shall see israel’s descendants from this generation; at the great end of days. for all the signs have to be fulfilled. before my second coming. (so the signs our lord was talking about was matthew 24:4-31. the tribulation period and our lord jesus christ second coming. so if these are the signs then how could “this generation” still be alive unless our lord jesus christ meant “israel’s descendants” at his second coming. are we not taught that “words” in any language have many diverse meanings. for matthew 24:4-26 is the 7 seals. discussed by our lord jesus christ. and our lord jesus christ omits the 7th seal just as in revelation 8. notice this in revelation chapters 5-8. and matthew 24:27-31 is our lord jesus christ second coming and the the duties he performs on his return. just as in revelation chapters 17-19.)

35. our lord jesus christ says “heaven and earth will all perish; but my words will never perish for my words are eternity.” (sounds just like revelation 21-22.)

now you may say israel is not compared to a fig tree. then please explain hosea 9:10.

Hosea 9:10
10. I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baalpeor, and separated themselves unto that shame; and their abominations were according as they loved.

so lets see here. god just said israel is like grapes in the wilderness. (many and scattered.) for they are wild and unruly grapes. so these would be descendants from the fore fathers….. “generations” from the same “fig tree” israel.

also; robert your test is based solely upon ignorance.
“for intelligence is ignorance; without wisdom and understanding.”
so one can say in truth; that a great many people who think they are thinking; will only discover they are merely rearranging their pre-established prejudices of truth. for if all one seeks is fallacies in truth; then fallacies one shall find.

something to think about.

1 John 2:27
27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 19:50 pm

Robert Louis,You asked:In the face of some of the evidence, I ask you Tiuche is the Bible the Word of God? Don’t be in denial, speak the truth, is it?

My comment: The Bible is the WORD OF GOD! IT GAVE YOU THE TRUTHS WHICH YOU SUMMARIZE WHETHER YOU INTERPRETED THOSE TRUTHS AS GOOD OR BAD! And by that post you made, it is now clear as daylight who you are-a little bit like Charles in thinking, although your civil and intelligent…now i am aware that all your good words for the Bible was nothing but just deceptions to let us believe you valued the Bible. But still it is Good that you are honest.

Frankly, what you showed me, I am familiar with them, for you see I was A BIBLE HATER & A GOD HATER whether the biblical God or the unknown God…but God called me to see things more clearly…to have FAITH IN HIM AND HIS WORDS no matter how bad He may seem to be….I will remain loyal to my Father and my God as my Savior have taught me…..or as in the Words of Job:

Job 13:15 Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him;

That is the Faith & Faithfulness THE WORD OF GOD requires for those whom He have CALLED & CHOSEN…

Revelation 17:14… for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful ..

The God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob says:

Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Reasoning with the Biblical God in prayer will cleanse you from your judgement against Him…if you be honest enough and watchful enough of yourself…you will see your badness and evilness in you and you will appreciate the True God of Truth! But you are still in your search for the Truth…and i cannot pull you from where you are to where i am…neither is my spiritual level like yours….you may claim you are more enlightened than us believers, but I hope you won’t experience burnout with your hopeless search for God without His Written Word-which have shown you all things good or bad, even concerning Himself from the Bible!

When I was young I look upon my father in awe; when I became a little bigger I despise him for his hardness and simple wit; but now that I am old I am again in awe of the strength and wisdom of my father! And I bet and hope it will go the same with you.

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 17:15 pm

Ref:94

A careful reading of the Bible will show you that the God of the desert tribes of the Hebrews is ruthless and savage. He commands the slaughter of whole peoples; he delights in war, as the Lord of Hosts, head of the armies of heaven. his followers are violent and intolerant, hacking down the idols of other faiths and bringing the whole known world into subjugation to their religious law. This is a mighty embarrassment to those who love peace and strive for moral responsibility.

Below is a short bible test. Can you carefully scrutinize each question and provide an answer. If you struggle with any question, not to worry, you will find the correct answer beneath the heading: “Answers”.

1. How many contradictory creation of man stories are there in Genesis?

2. Did the patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Abraham, pimp his wife/half-sister?

3. Does the Bible god favor one group of people above all others?

4. How many “little children” did the bears kill that the Bible god sent because they teased Elisha about his bald head? Were the bears male or female?

5. According to the Bible, what is God’s name?

6. Did the Bible god give orders to slaughter women and children?

7. Why did the Bible god in Exodus 11:10 (among other places), the blasphemous Passover horror story, “harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land” and then in Exodus 12:29 the Bible god killed the first born of everyone, even of the animals, to punish Pharaoh for not doing what the Bible god allegedly made impossible for him to do?

8. When the Bible god wanted to kill Moses, what did Moses’ wife throw at the Bible god’s feet that made him change his mind?

9. Why does Joshua 10:12-14 say the Bible god made the sun stand still to allow the Jews more time to slaughter their neighbors when in reality the sun is stationary in relation to the earth?

10. Why is II Kings 19 almost identical with Isaiah 37 and why is II Chronicles 36:22 identical to Ezra 1:1 through most of 1:3?

11. Who said they did not come to bring peace, but a sword?

12. Was Jesus supposed to return to earth during the lifetime of some of his followers?

13. Who was critical of the Jews for not following their Biblical teachings to kill their disobedient children?

14. Who said their followers must hate their families?

Answers

1. 2. Genesis 1:25-27 and Genesis 2:5-7

2. Yes. Once when she was younger and once when she was in her 90’s! Genesis 12:10-16 and Genesis 20:1-2 (Even though in both cases the men Sarah was handed over to did not know she was married, the Bible god was upset with them and not the pimp Abraham!)

3. Yes, the Jews. Deuteronomy 7:6

4. 42 The protestant versions of this Biblical nonsense and horror story say they were “she-bears” (2 Kings 2:23-24) but the Catholic version of the Bible simply says they were bears.

5. Jealous! Exodus 34:14

6. Yes, many times the Bible claims he ordered the Hebrews to slaughter women and children as in Numbers 31:7-18, 1 Samuel 15:2-3 among many other places!

7. No reason.

8. The fresh foreskin of the infant son. Exodus 4:24-26

9. Joshua 10:12-14 demonstrates the raw ignorance of the ancient Jews who wrote the Bible.

10. Bad editing! II Kings 19 II Chronicles 36:23

11. The Christian’s king of peace, Jesus. Matthew 10:34

12. Yes. Of course, he’s already about 2,000 years too late! Matthew 16:28

13. Jesus. Mark 7:9-10

14. Jesus. Luke 14:26

In the face of some of the evidence, I ask you Tiuche is the Bible the Word of God? Don’t be in denial, speak the truth, is it?

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 14:54 pm

Scott Dale/ Charles:

Scott Dale, thanks that I have a brother in Christ, though we may not agree on all things yet for we do not see clearly yet all things, but we will see each other in the Wonderful World Tomorrow with God’s permission. Thanks! God bless!

Charles, The Trouble with you is that you thinks, acts and comment like there is no God in Heaven who can see and record all your deeds and words! If indeed you believe in a God that is powerful and full of Truth, but you say that the Bible is not His Word, then tell me, where is His TRUTHFUL WORD? Why had he not gave it to you since you claim you believe in Him? And tell me if you pray to that God you claim to believe in? All you do is to mixed lie and truths and to file them up those adulterated compounds which were meant not to give life but to give death & misery to those who will eat of it!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 12:25 pm

Sorry the word was interject not interdict! And Charles we are not friends.

Let this be known that every move and action of the Messiah when he walked the earth to fulfill the FIRST STEP IN THE REDEMPTION PLAN OF GOD( which was laid down thousand of years before His birth on earth)…HIS EVERY MOVE AND ACTION WERE AIMED AT SHOWING THE TRUSTWORTHINESS & POWER OF THE WORD OF GOD!

“Almighty God had, and is painstakingly and meticulously trying to show us that we should trust and lived by HIS EVERY WORD. When the Word of God was made flesh His every move and actions were designed to magnify His Word above all His name! ” (Psalm 138:2).-from TRC’s Controversies, Stories & Songs on the Book of Books (Treasured KNOWLEDGE OF CRISTOLOGOS) Page 232.

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 12:05 pm

I guess my friend Tiuche will intervene (I think that’s what he meant to say, not ‘interdict’) whether he knows what he’s talking about or not. Look at this inconsequential question, for example: “since the Word of God is Truth can an almighty God not deliver his pure w/o error through fallible men toward fallible believers?” NO, he can’t; and that’s why he DIDN’T. Since we know for sure that the Bible errs, and Tiuche has on a few occasions agreed with me on this, then it follows that it CANNOT be God’s word. Believing that the Bible is the word of God is believing that God errs.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 10:14 am

Tiuche,

Praise the Lord for revealing His TRUTH! I love your comments and thanks for interdicting!

Now, shall we also explore what Jesus meant when He said;

“I am the WAY.., and the LIFE” ??

And then let’s compare it to Hinduism, Budhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Animism, Bahaiism, Mohammadanism, Sikhism, Judaism, Communism, Socialism and every other ISM under the sun!

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 06:19 am

May I interdict. Robert Louis post#93- you say “God is Truth.” Scott Dale, and other believers agree with that…however you fail to mention that if God is TRUTH ….then it goes that HIS WORD IS TRUTH! Do you believe that HIS WORD Is TRUTH? God cannot lie nor will He speaks words contrary to TRUTH! As Jesus prayed for those who believe in God, he said: Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth(John 17:17).

And since the Word of God is Truth can an almighty God not deliver HIS PURE WORDs w/o error through fallible men toward fallible believers? I have read in your post#78 that state that “It is dangerous to believe that one has a guaranteed truth in some ancient document, which is certain, unchangeable and ultimately authoritative in every detail. It is dangerous in a number of ways. First, it is simply false to think that a belief is certain when it is not (when competent, informed judges reject it). Since religion usually claims to be concerned with truth, it is a pity to force believers to accept such a basic falsehood.”

As I have said-the Bible is our foundation to knowledge. Rejecting the Bible and arguing that we can find TRUTH through our own intelligence and wisdom is a lie that would lead many men to be burnt out before they find the Truth! The Truth is from God and only HIS Words and our FAITH AND TRUST IN THOSE WORDS as preserved in the Scriptures will lead us into TRUTHS!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 05:00 am

Ref:# 91

Scott, I can take strong persuasive prose, illumined by shafts of sardonic observation and mordant yet compassionate wit and then some. However, not all have as thick a skin as I and a little attention paid to your choice of words from a wordsmith as you, could pay dividends. As Paul said all things are lawful, but all things are not expedient.

Moving on to truth. Let me say right off the bat that I believe God is Truth and Love. I do not believe that they are attributes He, She or It has but what God is. You can develop an interesting work of mythical stories and still be telling the truth. In fact Jesus spoke parables which may have been fact or myth but I think we can agree they held truth. One can also analyze the facts for truths. On the other hand one can state facts in such a way the the result is anything but the truth. Now then, I believe what Charles and I were referring to is absolute or ultimate truth. However, that was should have been clearer.

Scott the subject of Faith, Fact and Truth is an interesting one that I can discuss with you in-depth, but it would be better served on a new thread. If you wish you can kick start it.

Peace!

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 01:16 am

Re post 91.
Scott, again I find problems with your deductions. You said “Charles and Robert seem determined to persuade us all that Truth cannot be known.” Whether the truth can ever be known is one argument. Whether we know the truth is a different argument. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

Your contention that truth can be known could be right, actually. Look at how far we’ve gone already. 500 years ago we didn’t even know that the sun was the center of the solar system and now we have pretty much mapped the solar system out and we’re on the verge of space tourism. Look at how far we’ve advanced from Genesis when stars were merely dangling lights in heaven and now we know what they really are and we are actually witnessing their creation and demise. I suspect that’s not the kind of truth you care about but if we are talking about a Creator and his works all this is part of the truth we seek. So, rest your mind, Scott; the scientist is not about to “cease to put on his lab coat!”

I think that you are confusing the meanings of truth and faith. Nobody is arguing with your faith. Your faith could be the right one and any of the Hindu faiths could be the right one and all the faiths in the world could and probably do have something right in them (although, of course, all of them cannot be right to the exclusion of each other). But a Hindu can’t convince me his faith is the truth without proof and you can’t convince me your faith is the truth without proof either. On the flipside, of course, nobody can tell my Hindu friend or Scott Dale or anybody that their faith is wrong - unless, again, there is proof. Truth requires proof. Faith doesn’t.

Finally, Scott, again I find your choice of words “deplorable”, to use your own word. By admitting I don’t know the truth, I thought I was being humble. You interpreted it as “fundamentally presumptuous” and “exceedingly arrogant” and an “illogical voice”. Scott, no argument is solid if it has to rely on this kind of language.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/14/2011 00:11 am

I think we may finally be coming full-circle on this discussion of Truth. Charles and Robert seem determined to persuade us all that Truth cannot be known. The fundamental point of my post #84 is that Truth CAN be known. If a scientist did not believe this he should cease to put on his lab coat!

The argument that truth cannot be known is often expressed with passion and conviction. I have no trouble with the emotion often attached to this position; however, it is the logic that’s so deplorable. To declare as Charles does; “Scott, you don’t know the truth. Robert doesn’t know the truth. I don’t know the truth. We’re all looking for it” is not only fundamentally presumptuous it is exceedingly arrogant. How is it that someone can admit they “don’t know the truth” but are somehow quite certain that nobody else does either? To “know” such a thing with any degree of certainty would require such a one to have infinite knowledge would it not? (”I KNOW that you DON’T know anything!”)

If we continue to listen to these illogical voices we eventually find them suggesting that ignorance of the truth is more virtuous than knowledge of the truth. (”Let’s put some humility in our hearts and keep this dicussion civil”). Possessing a knowledge of the truth has never led to arrogance and self-righteousness any more than ignorance has led to humility and self-abasement; for these attitudes can occupy the human heart irrespective of knowledge.

The truth is, the Truth CAN be known. If a Christian doesn’t understand this then just who on earth does?? “You shall KNOW the Truth and the Truth shall set you free!” Is this not what happened at our conversion?? Did not the scales drop from our understanding and the light of God’s glorious salvation flood our being?? (Unless we have not been converted at all). And what do we do with Jesus’ words in John 14:6 “I am the TRUTH..,”?? Anyone who has NOT met Jesus personally is still in his sin and darkness envelops him. To such a one Truth is too obscure and distant. Like Pilate, their constant narrative is; “What is truth?”

But to those of us who HAVE met the blessed Savior and have survived the encounter; how can we say we do not know him? We CAN’T! For He promises to NEVER leave us or forsake us. Should we go back to our debauchery and bondage and forfeit the wonders of His Grace and Truth?? May it NEVER be!

I am NOT ashamed to declare that I KNOW JESUS CHRIST, nor will I apologize for it. My search for THE Truth ended 30 years ago when I met Him. To know Jesus is to KNOW The Truth. Of this, I am absolutely certain.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/13/2011 21:24 pm

Being devoted to Jesus as God can, and often detract from common human kindness to others. We may come to distrust or even hate those who do not share our complete devotion to Jesus. To be specific, Christian devotion is not often enough concerned with the development of the virtues of peace, equanimity, joy and compassion in oneself. It is slow to recognize the fallibility and bias of all human thought and feeling. It emphasizes the importance of absolute certainty about one universal truth, that Jesus is God. That truth is essentially divisive, since it is obvious that not all people will accept it, as a matter of fact. Yet instead of accepting that this way of devotion only attracts some people, Christians too often insist that it ought to attract all, so that those who do not revere Jesus become his revilers and detractors.

The more one loves Jesus, the more one finds oneself ranged emotionally against those who do not love him, who reject and despise him. If you despise the one whom I love, I will despise you - and if my faith tells me that I must repress this inner hatred, since it is sinful, that only increases its force, as an un-admitted destructive power which comes to dominate my relationship with others. I will seek to rationalize it, by discovering your sins, which deserve punishment - a punishment I can then give, as one of God’s elect.

The objectivization of one person as divine thus breeds division, opposition and a narrowing of human sympathies until only that one person, so long and safely in the past (so that he cannot really confront us with hard decisions) requires all our love and devotion. On the traditional view, all people must come to accept Jesus as Lord. Apart from seeming in practice highly unlikely, this is almost bound to lead to condemnation of other faiths as false and misleading.

Would it not be more helpful to acknowledge Jesus as a unique and effective disclosure of God, but actually to deny that “direct personal encounter between God and man” is ONLY made possible by the incarnation? Many Jews, Muslims and Hindus would resent this claim, and see no reason for making it. It is that “only” which lies at the root of so much religious intolerance and misunderstanding; and high views of incarnation underpin it. To that extent, such views perhaps represent a falling-away from the highest disclosure of love and wisdom which discipleship of Christ surely has to offer.

Perhaps the most hopeful future for Christianity lies in renouncing the Hellenistic concept of the God-man, which transformed the church of messianic expectation into the mystery-cult of an “elect people”, separated out from the mass of humanity to be participants in divinity. If the former church misjudged the spatial and temporal span of God’s purposes, the latter church overlooked the universality of God’s love. Yet Christian discipleship takes many forms. One of them may be commitment to the belief that God’s universal purpose of love may be worked out in many ways through the universe. Or, more exactly, in the tradition which responds to the life of that young Jewish teacher whose vocation was to proclaim God’s rule and to die rather than to turn aside from that calling.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/13/2011 19:11 pm

I agree with Eduardo that this is a very good debate. Let’s keep it that way. For starters, let me suggest not to put words in other people’s mouths. In post 84 I noticed this line: “the very skeptic who says you can’t possess the Truth has in fact declared that HE possesses the truth.” This inference is not scientifically correct. If I tell you that you don’t know something, it doesn’t necessarily follow that I know it.

When it comes to the subject of truth, the safest and proper assumption to make is that we don’t know it. In general we started our journey on Earth knowing nothing except how to procreate and how to respond to hunger pains. Then we started learning things and, being the presumptuous species that we are, we started DICTATING implied truths to others. Inevitably we found that many of these implied truths were not truths at all.

Let’s stay with Scott and post 84. He gave the example of the Earth being round as something we can all agree upon as being true. Well, not so fast! This is a learned truth today, but it wasn’t a “truth” when the Bible was written. The world rotating around around the sun? Again, true now, but you would have been judged mentally unstable and possibly killed if you dared say that 500 years ago!

What I am saying here is that we are too fast to assume something as true and to hold in disdain (to quote a term that unfortunately has been used too often here) anyone who disagrees with you.

When the gospels were written, Earth was flat, the universe revolved around us, and the prophecy of Matthew 24 was about to occur. Now we know that those three “truths” were all false.

Scott, you don’t know the truth. Robert doesn’t know the truth. I don’t know the truth. We’re all looking for it. Let’s put some humility in our hearts and keep this dicussion civil.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/13/2011 16:30 pm

Eduardo Martins. That’s all.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/13/2011 16:08 pm

Eduardo, can’t find it. Is there another part to the name, like one beginning in N? Or a J?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/13/2011 14:52 pm

Very good debates. We have established a true community! But please, less personal defensive positions and more Matthew 24:34. If this space is too used (almost 100 posts), lets migrate to Mark 13:30 (or Matthew 16:28). The point is the same.

Charles, the code is Martins (without face). I hope you can find it.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/13/2011 12:36 pm

Oops on Post #84

In the 4th paragraph where the bold type begins, the sentence should read; “A is less than B; and A is greater than B”.

Evidently the ‘greater’ and ‘less than’ symbols on my keyboard do not register on this site except to change the print to bold face. Who knew?

My apology for the confusion.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/13/2011 06:44 am

re: Post #73

“It seems to me that you believe you have the “truth” and so hold in disdain anything that you consider differs from your belief.”

Your comment above has two mischievious implications: (1)That Truth cannot be known; and (2)that I hold disdain against those who differ from my belief. Both implications are patently incorrect.

Surely, an educated man as yourself would agree that truth CAN be known on numerous levels regarding numerous elements. “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”; “The earth is round”; “Heat, fuel and oxygen are necessary to produce fire”. Last time I checked, these are still immutable truths. Perhaps you just meant to imply that SPIRITUAL truth can not be known; or that there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE truths or THE Truth. But why should people be suspicious of someone who believes he has found THE Truth unless they themselves are convinced that there is no such thing? In other words; the very skeptic who says you can’t possess the Truth has in fact declared that HE possesses the truth.

If I should hold disdain for such people, it’s only because they present themselves as knowledgable and neo-religious yet violate their own position time and time again while holding to a form of godliness or religiosity in order to preserve their self-righteousness. The scientific mind knows that there is no such thing as a conflicting truth. AB cannot coexist. But whoever heard of a scientist who was content with such a conflict? Wouldn’t everything within him dig all the deeper to locate the missing element of truth that settles the issue?? And would he waste his time looking for verifiable proof in places where he believes no proof can be verified?? Yet, that’s what many people do with issues of faith and spiritual realities.

A “Christian” is not something anyone merely chooses to become. The only thing we can actually do is SEEK! One is not a Christian because he has joined a church; nor is he a Christian because he loves his neighbor and believes in the Golden Rule or because his family was Christian or because he said a certain prayer or signed a pledge card. One becomes a Christian when Jesus snatches him from darkness and brings him into the glorious light of His presence! A person who calls himself a Christian and cannot testify to such a miracle in their life is most usually a fraud. How will they ever be a follower of Jesus when they have never even met the Man? How will they ever live a life of genuine faith when they have never regarded the bible as authoritative? How will they avoid the same consequence as our first parents who reasoned that their own thoughts made more sense than simply obeying God??

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/13/2011 06:36 am

Robert Louis: Your stand is totally new to me.Now i begin to understand you…you are a believer in God and Jesus!

Your prayer:
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the arrogance that thinks thinks it knows all truth,
Oh God of Truth deliver us.

David’s prayer:(a man after God’s own heart)
2 Samuel 7:28 And now, O Lord GOD, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant:

Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Jesus prayer:
John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world… and they have kept thy word.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

You said: When two people always agree on all points, only one is normally doing the thinking.

My comment: I agree.May i add It is always natural that people won’t agree in all things. This is one of the reason that God wants us to “eat” of His Perfect Word so that we all maybe one in saying that our God of Truth speak always Word of Truth-His Word is Truth! Jesus said in John 8:31:If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

You said: Moving on to you Tiuche, you flatter me by associating my views with those of the great Robert Green Ingersol. However, when you carefully examine his quotation you highlighted, you can quickly ascertain that his ideas and mine are very different indeed and are as far removed from each other as chalk is from cheese. Moreover, he was an agnostic and I am a believer.

My comment: Glad to hear you are a believer that is probably the reason why you are civil in manners.

You added:You went on to ask, what hope I have for the future. Good question. To answer you, I think it’s essential to begin by noting the relinquishment of a literal or infallibilist understanding of the Bible which has occurred in modern theology.

My comment: I agree with you on this.

You added: One reason for this is a new appreciation of the true function of religion as evoking disclosures of ultimate value and meaning which can liberate human lives from selfishness and frustration. The literal truth of ancient historical narratives is not essential to such an appreciation.

My comment: I agree with you on this but your idea borders near dangerous ground.Only the Word of God literal and deeper can truly liberate humans from selfishness and frustration and other negative things. Jesus said in John 8:31:If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

You added: More importantly, the belief that the world would end before the death of the last apostle was mistaken. despite various implausible attempts to disguise this point, it means that reinterpretation of the biblical narratives is required, if they are to remain religiously relevant today. Critical study of the Bible shows that it does not record an objectively establish-able history. It expresses particular experiences of God which are often projected back on to the history of the religious community.This is true of the Gospels, too; and so one must see the narratives about Jesus as partly an expression of the living religious experiences of early Christian communities, as they reflected on the life of Jesus and their new experience of life in the Spirit. This does NOT mean they are false; on the contrary, they record genuine experiences of God through Christ. But it means they cannot be understood as straightforward historical descriptions.

My comment: The belief that the world would end before the death of the last apostle may have been among early believers and if it was written at all…you agree that judging the Bible outright as erroneous is of course not right. Judging the Bible immediately in such a manner would make the one making that narrow minded and not a good searcher or detective.

Lastly you confirmed the Truth, you said: This is true of the Gospels, too; and so one must see the narratives about Jesus as partly an expression of the living religious experiences of early Christian communities, as they reflected on the life of Jesus and their new experience of life in the Spirit. This does NOT mean they are false; on the contrary, they record genuine experiences of God through Christ. But it means they cannot be understood as straightforward historical descriptions.

The doctrine that Jesus simply is God becomes much less plausible with the rejection of literal historical accounts of his life; but one can still maintain that Jesus is a human being in and through whom God acts for human salvation. The life of Jesus generates a unique image of the divine and so discloses God in a unique way. One can still speak of the incarnation of God in Jesus, which enables one to see Jesus as the “manifestation and expression” of the love of God.

My comment:I agree with your Word though at first glance and superficial scan would sometimes make one thinks you are an unbeliever. But a deeper study of your Word confirms you are also a believer in God and Jesus. I believe too you believe in Jesus as your Savior and that He paid for our sins…if this is you…then we agree with all true & serious beleivers almost 99% on the Word of God!

In closing, let me take repeat the ancient prayer with an embellishment you cited:

From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth(s),
From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the arrogance that thinks thinks it knows all truth,
Oh God of Truth, our God & Heavenly Father, deliver us.
This we ask & pray in the name of our Lord Jesus. Let it be!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/13/2011 01:02 am

Ref: #81

Greetings and good to hear from you Tiuche. It’s also refreshing to hear from Charles and thanks for your kind words. May i say Charles, I too enjoy reading your views and those of others even when some of them are the antithesis of mine. When two people always agree on all points, only one is normally doing the thinking.

Moving on to you Tiuche, you flatter me by associating my views with those of the great Robert Green Ingersol. However, when you carefully examine his quotation you highlighted, you can quickly ascertain that his ideas and mine are very different indeed and are as far removed from each other as chalk is from cheese. Moreover, he was an agnostic and I am a believer.

You went on to ask, what hope I have for the future. Good question. To answer you, I think it’s essential to begin by noting the relinquishment of a literal or infallibilist understanding of the Bible which has occurred in modern theology. One reason for this is a new appreciation of the true function of religion as evoking disclosures of ultimate value and meaning which can liberate human lives from selfishness and frustration. The literal truth of ancient historical narratives is not essential to such an appreciation.

More importantly, the belief that the world would end before the death of the last apostle was mistaken. despite various implausible attempts to disguise this point, it means that reinterpretation of the biblical narratives is required, if they are to remain religiously relevant today. Critical study of the Bible shows that it does not record an objectively establish-able history. It expresses particular experiences of God which are often projected back on to the history of the religious community.

This is true of the Gospels, too; and so one must see the narratives about Jesus as partly an expression of the living religious experiences of early Christian communities, as they reflected on the life of Jesus and their new experience of life in the Spirit. This does NOT mean they are false; on the contrary, they record genuine experiences of God through Christ. But it means they cannot be understood as straightforward historical descriptions.

The doctrine that Jesus simply is God becomes much less plausible with the rejection of literal historical accounts of his life; but one can still maintain that Jesus is a human being in and through whom God acts for human salvation. The life of Jesus generates a unique image of the divine and so discloses God in a unique way. One can still speak of the incarnation of God in Jesus, which enables one to see Jesus as the “manifestation and expression” of the love of God.

In closing, let me take this opportunity to cite an ancient prayer:

From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the arrogance that thinks thinks it knows all truth,
Oh God of Truth deliver us.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 21:10 pm

Re Post#78 Robert L: Your post somewhat reflect the same idea that Robert Green Ingersol(1833-1899) had of the Bible, he said:

“The real oppressor, enslaver and corrupter of the people is the Bible. That book is the chain that binds the dungeon that holds the clergy. That book spreads pall of superstition over the colleges and schools. that book put out the eyes of science and makes honest an investigation a crime. that book fills the world with bigotry, hypocrisy and fear.”

And many other men had been against the Bible for whatever reasons they think are right…but where are they now? They are dead as we and all of us will be someday! Do we have time to save ourselves from the sure death that is coming upon all of us?
The bible tell us there is a Savior and there is a God who have given His perfect Word-His Manual! How about you… what hope do you have for the future?

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 18:31 pm

I’d like to thank Robert Louis for his very logical and very elegant comments. I would like to see more of them both here and in other verses.

I think that one excerpt from post 75 explains why apologists so stubbornly cling to denial in the face of clear evidence: “For one only needs one mistake to undermine the thesis of inerrancy. If one finds it, that is the keystone, the removal of which brings so many doctrinal systems crashing to the ground.”

A staunch so-called “believer” (who is actually an UNbeliever since he is so adamantly opposed to accepting any truth that does not subject itself to his beliefs) has good reason to deny verse 24:34 because accepting it would open up a whole can of worms. If the second coming of Jesus did not occur when it was supposed to, will it EVER happen? If the Bible errs on this fundamental point, where else does it lead us astray? Was Jesus the promised messiah? Was Mary a virgin? Did miracles happen? Is there a heaven?

Apologists know their whole argument is built on an extremely shaky foundation and therefore they have no other choice but to remain in complete denial. There is no room for reason.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 18:16 pm

Re Post #77 I don’t think Roland or me violated your privacy…you gave it yourself when you posted in your own real name and acted in a manner that would provoke bad reactions!We are only humans you know, and you trying to treat others in uncivilized manner such as acting stupid in their face would surely bear the same fruit! Look at other commentators, did they receive such treatments from us or from anybody? Look at those whose behaviors are exemplary, from believer Tractorman to Bible unbeliever Robert Louis…why do others respect them? It is because of how they behave!

I donot say that all our reactions toward you have been quite right, I am simply telling you that what you plant would surely be what you harvest!

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.

Job 4:8 As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it.

Job 13:9 Would it turn out well if he examined you? Could you deceive him as you might deceive men?

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 18:12 pm

It is dangerous to believe that one has a guaranteed truth in some ancient document, which is certain, unchangeable and ultimately authoritative in every detail. It is dangerous in a number of ways. First, it is simply false to think that a belief is certain when it is not (when competent, informed judges reject it). Since religion usually claims to be concerned with truth, it is a pity to force believers to accept such a basic falsehood.

Creative thinking may be stopped, since the truth is already known. Why check out anything? And critical and reflective thinking may be discouraged by the use of censorship and very selective programmes of education. If the final truth is not yet fully in our possession, it is something to look forward to. True spirituality should look to the future, to what the Spirit is leading us towards. There is a danger that the “immutable faith” will always be a fearful and reactionary force, opposing such moves.

Ironically. the radical and revolutionary faith of Jesus, which led to his death at the hands of religious conservatives, is then transformed into an essentially conservative set of dogmas which forbids creativity and new thought and percutes heretics of the sort to which its own founder belonged.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 17:55 pm

Thanks Eduardo for post post 76. I would also like to befriend you but this is not the place to give any personal information. Two people here have violated my privacy and one of them still keeps trying to insult me with any tidbit of info that he thinks he has dug up about me (e.g. my age!!) He has problems!

I am on facebook but people tell me they have a hard time finding me there. If you don’t mind divulging your last name I can try finding you.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 17:05 pm

Charles, my compliments for your last post. It was pure diplomacy and fair play. Furthermore, your Portuguese, although very short, was perfect. Thank you very much. I would like to talk to you, but not through this space, that is reserved only for Bible debates. Is it possible?

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 16:11 pm

The a priori road to faith is filled with false beliefs. It is never good enough to believe something because we think it ought to be true. In fact, to base items of faith upon such a process is, ironically, to base it on an extreme form of rationalistic pride. We believe something because, in the end, we think a God who conforms to our expectations would have said it. By one of those delightful ironies of belief, those who claim faith is superior to reason, base their faith on a very rationalistic view that God would reveal things just as they themselves think he would. Because they think he ought to give them INFALLIBLE scripture, therefore he has done. But why should they think that? Of course, they could, and often do, say that they think that because it says so in their INFALLIBLE scripture.

But that is to utter one of the classical fallacies of logic: I believe the Bible is infallible because it says so in the Bible, and I believe what it says in the Bible because the Bible is infallible. The argument is completely circular, and amounts to saying simply that I am going to assert that the Bible is infallible, because I think it ought to be (it conforms to my idea of what a divine revelation would be).

So I may think that God ought to have revealed an infallible scripture. That is, I am making God conform to my ideas of what he should and should not do. When I make the claim that I am subordinating my human reason to divine revelation, I conveniently forget that it is my human reason which has decided that God would give an infallible revelation, and that he has given it in the New Testament, not the Qur’an or Book of Mormon. But I have to put such a belief to the test, and ask, “Has he done so?” There is one very obvious test, and that is to see whether anything in the Bible is pretty obviously mistaken. For one only needs one mistake to undermine the thesis of inerrancy. If one finds it, that is the keystone, the removal of which brings so many doctrinal systems crashing to the ground. In fact, any system which relies on the inerrancy doctrine or its force will have to be rethought, and that will include much more than is often recognized.

I believe that among others, there is such a glaring mistake. It is sunshine clear and bluntly expressed in Matthew 24:34. Fact is, either Jesus was wrong, or the writer of this Gospel was wrong in ascribing this statement to Jesus; either way, what is in the Bible has been shown to be false. Various Christians have wriggled and squirmed to evade this point; I have done it myself. But each wriggle and every squirm is strained, implausible and, in the end, deceitful. What the verse says is plain enough. It is only because we know it is false that we look for some other interpretation, to save the appearance of truth.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 16:07 pm

Re post 68. Eduardo, thank you for explaining your reference to John 21. So, we find Jesus’ mistake in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Revelation… why not add John to the list?

You’re right, it’s a thought/opinion, not a theory. Sometimes even English proficients use the wrong words, let alone people who speak it as a second or third language. Still I have to say that your English is excellent. Congratulations!

I assume your use of the word “mad” is also a bad translation. I understand you don’t make a good comedian, but you certainly don’t make anyone mad either.

Your translation of Charles to Carlos is, of course, accurate, and I take no offense in it, as I’m sure you would not be offended if I called you Edward or Yedvard or Edoowaadoh. However the custom here is to address people by their chosen handle. Consider it a userid, not an actual name. We’ve had some issues about this which had Administration involved, so I expect you to refrain from calling me by any name other than Charles.

Muito obrigado.

If we meet for cerveja or caipirinha, THEN you can call me Carlos!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 15:59 pm

Ref: #70

Thank you Scott for your post. It seems to me that you believe you have the “truth” and so hold in disdain anything that you consider differs from your belief. Your contention that am not a Christian demonstrates this. Moreover, you were bordering on the fringe of ad hominem and I will NOT respond to you in kind. As to whose post is “boring and wearisome”, I leave the readers to judge.

Fact is, people do interpret things in very different ways in church. One person can say “I believe in God”, and mean that there is a person looking after them. Another can mean that an ineffable reality of supreme value underlies all things. Strange as it may seem, the latter is closer to the main theological tradition of the Christian church.

Perhaps religious discourse is inherently polysemic - has many possible layers of meaning, and can be interpreted in various ways. And perhaps its real importance, for all believers, does not lie in what it says about past history or about supernatural realities, but in how it enables one to live in the face of a disclosure of an external reality in time. If so, people may differ about its exact factual content, while agreeing on the more important matter of what sort of human attitudes it specifies, and what sort of life it enables one to live in the light of a discernment of ultimate value and meaning.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 13:11 pm

1 Corinthians 2:1-16
1. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8. Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

2 Peter 3:1-10
1. This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2. That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7. But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

1 John 2:18-27
18. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
25. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
26. These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

1 John 4:1-6
1. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

2 John 1:1-11
1. The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
2. For the truth’s sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
3. Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
4. I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
5. And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
6. And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
7. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Revelation 3:14-22
14. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15. I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18. I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 08:09 am

1 Corinthians 2:1-16
1. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8. Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

2 Peter 3:1-10

1. This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2. That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7. But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

1 John 2:18-27
18. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
25. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
26. These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

1 John 4:1-6
1. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

2 John 1:1-11
1. The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
2. For the truth’s sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
3. Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
4. I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
5. And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
6. And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
7. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Revelation 3:14-22
14. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15. I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18. I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 08:08 am

Re: #67

Generally speaking, I’m not very fond of labels. Neo-orthodoxy means nothing to me and I have no desire to investigate what the popular definition is. I’ve already told you that my beliefs aren’t anything at all like what you have supposed so perhaps your label doesn’t fit me at all.

Regarding what you call “knight jumping”; I assume that expression comes from the game of chess. If so, the “knight” can only make that particular move because he has authority to do so. If I jumped over your first point in order to address your second point, just how have I avoided the gist of anything? Why not address the “move” itself instead of just slinging an accusation? Surely, the “move” has merit and was legal!

Regarding the rest of post #67, it’s just all so boring and wearisome. In your determination to de-legitimize the divinity and authority of the Son of God you only confirm that you have no standing to do so because it is manifestly evident that you have never met the Living Christ and as such, you have no rational or spiritual basis to call yourself a Christian. This is not a criticism; it’s merely an observation because, as I think I have said before; if you really knew Jesus Christ, you would never espouse the things you do. Never mind the fact regarding the futility (and insanity) of trying to find purpose and meaning in life from a book that is full of mistakes! WHY would anyone spend ANY time doing so? Just WHERE is the logic in such a pursuit?? Does not life become a meaningless treadmill at some point after the “fun” wears off and we begin to actually THINK? Yet, we remain on the treadmill!!

As C.S. Lewis pointed out so well, Jesus Christ cannot be merely defined as a good or great teacher and role model. Lewis says that Jesus is either a Liar, a Lunatic or Lord to which I wholeheartedly agree. Why should any of us give even the time of day to a liar or lunatic? When you realize the level of authority the Lord Jesus has over YOUR life, perhaps you will then begin to understand this. However, I find few people do. His authority meant nearly NOTHING to me before I knew him because sinful humanity nearly always rises up in pride against authority of any and every kind and only yields when forced to.

However, the love of Christ for me slew my pride and ushered me into His wonderful presence in worship and devotion. Until this happens to you, try as you might, you cannot know him; and until you know Him, you cannot understand his infallible Word just like 1 Cor. 2:14 says.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 06:47 am

Consider what many modern Christians do not believe: the literal existence of Satan, angels and demon possession; the existence of everlasting hell; the imminent return of Christ and bodily resurrection on the planet earth sometime in the future; the total predestination by God of all events, or even God’s complete foreknowledge of what will happen.

Many theologians do not believe these things; yet they are plainly in the New Testament. What one does, as a modern theologian, is to disentangle false cultural beliefs from the core of universal truth - which is that Jesus shows the love of God to be self-sacrifical and unrestricted. How does one get to such a core? How does one decide what is truly important about Jesus? Surely it is by discovering that many original beliefs were false and yet that the figure of Jesus can still mediate the presence and love of God to us.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 05:09 am

Carlos, you wrote on post 65:

“Eduardo, you never answered what you meant about John 21 in post 34, or what theory you were referring to. Was that anothere one of your dreams?”

Lets by parts, like “Jack”:

1. For your comfort, here is John 21:21-23:

“21:21 - Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

21:22 - Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

21:23 - Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”

You are sure that in Matthew 24:34 that prophecy didn’t come true and cited Mark 9:1 to confirm your thought.

Just to help you I cited John 21:21-23. It is because in that passage Jesus seem say that the disciple John could be alive when He come for the second time, in the end of the world. It is just one element more that seems to confirm that Jesus, in Mt 24:34 and Mark 9:1, was saying that His second coming was at door, that is, coming soon. But I think you didn’t understand my “hand”.

2. I am Brazilian and my first language isn’t English, obviously. I used the expression “theory” to express “thought”, “writen”, “thesis”, “point of view” or something. Maybe I committed a mistake, sorry. At the end of the day I am human, lol!

3. About the dream, feel yourself happy because when Jesus chose Paul as His apostle, He did it because He preferred an educated, cultured, enlightened and especially reliable man to evangelize and propagate the gospel broadly, since Cuba untill New Zealand, passing speedly for Denmark, of course.

Now tell me what made you mad with that dream. It is because I had other dream last night and now I prefer take the care to censure some improper parts, lol!

But, look, take care, theologians and expert scholars tend to stand back from God. One six (6) more and your post (66) could be anathemized, lol!

God bless you, Carlos…

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 05:04 am

Ref: Post 63

You raised a few aspects which I will address as follows:

If you do not know what neo-orthodoxy is or means I suggest you check it out. It has nothing to do with “new” orthodox as raised by you. I use the word “modern” before it to denote beliefs held by such believers. I note you are fond of doing the knight jumping tactics and have taken out a sentence from a paragraph without taking note of the gist of what the message conveys.

It seems to me and a growing number of Christians that there are mistakes that Jesus made as recorded in the New Testament. The one under discussion here namely Matthew 24.34 is a case in point. This mistake is so glaring that it is extremely difficult to deny that it is there. And those modern Christians who think of the return of Christ as some culmination of the whole cosmic process, as a revelation of the Logos, far in the future, are radically reinterpreting the tradition.

What distinguishes Jesus from other great spiritual teachers? According to the Gospels, it is basically the belief that he is to return as judge of the world. It is his authority which gives him a unique place among spiritual teachers, his authority to judge the living and the dead at the general resurrection. This authority is founded upon an especially close knowledge of God’s will and purpose, and a special calling to be ” son of God”, or anointed vicegerent of the divine judgement and forgiveness.

But is this not precisely what he was wrong about? Whatever Jesus himself taught, many believers expected him to return as Judge very soon, and past generations to be raised to life again before many then living had died. That belief in a resurrection of all past generations on this earth very soon is one that has now been given up, for the simple reason that the “very soon” has long passed. This picture belongs to the mythology of a past age. It may have given Jesus uniqueness then, but it cannot do so now, because it is unbelievable now.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 04:48 am

Angel, I’m not the only one who said that Jesus made a mistake in Matthew 24, so I’m not sure you addressed post 64 to me. But you usually do, so I’ll answer it.

You wrote: “so you say our lord jesus christ made mistakes yet the bible says he was without sin. so how could perfection make mistakes. you also stated our lord jesus christ can’t be god. please explain hebrews 1:8-12….”

If Jesus makes mistakes in one book and then becomes perfect in another, it only means that the Bible is an unrealiable source. What have I been saying all this time, duh!

And, of course, people who make mistakes can’t be gods. And we can take this one step further: people can’t be gods, period. You’re either a man or a you’re a god. You make the Bible look like a comic book!

You said: “so who is god talking to when he calls his own son ‘god?’
There’s your proof again, Angel. If the one and only God calls someone else god (and you are probably not incorrect in your interpretation) that’s proof positive that the Bible is an unreliable source.

In the OT we also find instances when Yahweh acknowledges other gods and even converses with them. If you believe in ONE GOD, then the Bible is a corrupting influence on you.

Speeding along here and trying to answer all your questions:
No, I am not my father; and no, I am not my son; and no I don’t believe in ghosts. I cannot be more than my own self. And what does this ahve to do with Matt. 24:34? We’re talking here about the world ending during Jesus’ lifetime. That’s what we’re talking about Did you forget?

The more quotations you quote, Angel, the more you prove how self-contradictory the Bible is.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 01:19 am

Eduardo, you never answered what you meant about John 21 in post 34, or what theory you were referring to. Was that anothere one of your dreams?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 00:20 am

to all:
first off….. god bless each and everyone of you always.

so you say our lord jesus christ made mistakes yet the bible says he was without sin. so how could perfection make mistakes. you also stated our lord jesus christ can’t be god. please explain hebrews 1:8-12…..

Hebrews 1:8-12
8. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11. They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12. And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

so who is god talking to when he calls his own son “god?” then god begins to explain all right there. sure sounds like creation. so let’s review genesis 1:1 then shall we.

genesis 1:1
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

here is another question if you can fulfill this example. for a better understanding of the godhead body.

now can you yourself fulfill these 3 positions in one? I CAN…..
1. are you a father?
2. are you a son?
3. are you not the spirit of your father?

now matthew says “father, son, holy ghost.”
1. father/ lord
2. son/ jesus
3. holy spirit/ christ

the only name to be baptized in. not “in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost.”

so please, please tell me god’s name?
please tell me the son’s name? which is quite obvious.
and please tell me the name of the holy ghost?

so that way i can be baptized right. also; that way i can tell them to baptize me in a very very very very long name that will contradict acts 2:38 in every way.

sounds like god fulfilling all positions.

here are three more verses explain the same thing. ALL GOD.

1 john 5:7
7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word(son), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
not maybe, not separate, not 3 individuals; BUT ONE.

hebrews 1:1-3
1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

colossians 2:8-10
8. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

also here is even more proof of god fulfilling the godhead body.

Revelation 19:13
13. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

john 1:1-3
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

john 1:14
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

so “the word” is our lord jesus christ. according to revelation 19:13.

so then john 1:1 reads then as followed:
1. in the beginning was jesus christ, and jesus christ was with god, and jesus christ was god.

now lets look at john 1:14 which reads like this:
14. and jesus christ was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

like i said god fulfilling the godhead. show me the word “trinity” in the bible. show me that they are three individuals.

just another example then with 1 john 5:7 which reads now:
7. for there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, jesus christ, and the holy ghost: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.

god bless you all and i pray our lord and saviour jesus christ shines his glory on us all and that we reflect our lord to the world.

OUR TRUE LORD AND SAVIOUR….. JESUS CHRIST…..

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/12/2011 00:05 am

Re:#61

Biblical texts “may to an indeterminate degree, be metaphorical, allegorical or mythopic.., [and] there are good reasons, well established now in biblical scholarship, for taking this view.”

The above statement is clearly true but ONLY if there are valid grammatical or contextual elements within the texts that warrant such interpretation. When it comes to prophetic texts; however, there are many other interpretive “rules” in play as well but most students(?) don’t bother to consider them and too often fail to apply the proper hermeneutic or fail to even recognize that a text is actually a verifiable prophecy.

“I deduce from your post that you, like so many modern neo-orthodox, hold the view that God is on earth in person in the form of Jesus; yet God, in that form, is ignorant and makes mistakes.”

If you are attributing the view above to me, nothing could be further from the truth. I have no idea what you mean by “modern neo-orthodox”. Just what is the “new” orthodox? Also, God is not “on earth” in the “form of Jesus”. Jesus is alive in heaven and the Spirit of God is “on earth” as he indwells his saints; but also because He is very simply sovereign over all of creation whether there are a billion saints or no saints at all.

Lastly, God, in Christ is neither ignorant nor makes mistakes and never has and never will. To believe such a notion even in the tiniest form would be the equivalent of deicide thereby eventually leaving the adherant in fundamental despair with suicide as a very tempting escape from the madness.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 23:25 pm

Well, it’s always nice to lighten up, even if one can’t come up with anything clever. Sure beats the anger!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 20:20 pm

I refer to post 51 by Scott and reply as follows:

Angel’s post 44 stated that he “laughed” and “cracked up” on reading the posts from Charles and me. Seeing that he was so tickled, I was just playing with words to convey the idea that such merriment would be better received if he were to wear the protective suit of armour.

Now then, I read your post with interest and grasped only too clearly your understanding on the divine. I am not here to score points or undermine your belief. However, I take the biblical texts as expressions of belief, which may to an indeterminate degree, be metaphorical, allegorical or mythopic (expressing inner spiritual relationships in an objective, physical and cosmically grandiloquent form). There are good reasons, well established now in biblical scholarship, for taking this view.

You may hold that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. I believe that it may be morally more acceptable, and just as spiritually illuminating, to see Jesus as a man wholly indwelt by God, obedient to God, and called to manifest the presence and actions of God in his life.

Can God be revealed in Jesus, without EVERY statement of Jesus being revelatory of God? Which statements are revelatory of God? The clearest view is that it is the story taken as a whole, the general pattern of the life and general tenor of the teaching, which discloses God. One does not need an inerrant life in every detail, or an infallible text in every particular. The whole can be used by God as a means of divine self-disclosure, partially and fallibly but truly, to human beings.

I deduce from your post that you, like so many modern neo-orthodox, hold the view that God is on earth in person in the form of Jesus; yet God, in that form, is ignorant and makes mistakes. The human consciousness is aware only of being dependent upon God, not of being identical with God. So God appears to be self-deluded as well as mistaken. This unpalatable consequence can best be avoided by simply saying that a disclosure of God occurs in the pattern of Jesus’ life, and subsequently that completed life is used by God as a vehicle and matrix of redemptive activity in the church (ecclesia). Nothing of spiritual value is thereby lost; and one escapes the unacceptable belief that at least for a while the almighty and omniscient God forgets who God really is.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 14:13 pm

Carlos, Carlos, you have to admmit that the dream was very funny and the Tiuche’s response very intelligent. Don’t miss the opportunity to demonstrate that you have fair play.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 13:36 pm

Post #53

“Nail, meet Hammer!”

LOL!!

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 13:30 pm

Hahahahahahaha!(LOL!) Excellent point, Tiuche!!! Congratulations!

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 13:30 pm

Re 56: My sense of humor is in the pony. Where’s yours?
Re 55: OK, I’ll be Balaam; and you the donkey?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 13:15 pm

Hahahahahahahaha! C’mom, Charles, where is your refined sense of humor?

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 13:08 pm

Eduardo: If you agree you were the pony then Charles would probably be BALAAM!LOL!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 10:38 am

Eduardo, yes I had that dream, but I wasn’t riding a high-breed horse. I was riding a stupid, good-for-nothing pony and my pony was the one doing all the mumbling you described. You were the pony.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 07:50 am

Post 50: good point, Scott!

By the way I had a curious dream last night. Charles was in Denmark, riding a high breed horse and suddenly he felt a very shining light from heaven. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying:

- Charles, Charles, why persecutest thou me?

After that Charles became livid and the following dialogue happened:

- Oh, darn! Who are you?!!

- Oh, Charles, c’mom. You study the Bible for several decades and now do not know who I am?

- Oh, my God!!! Oh, my God!!! Ooooooh, my Goooooood!!!!!

- Ok, bingo! Good boy! Yes, Charles, it is me, Jesus, your God, “whom thou persecutest”.

- What?!!!! What are you saying?!

- Yes, Charles, it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks…

- Oh my God!!!

- You said that yet, Charles. No need to identify me again.

- Oh, my Lord, forgive my lack of faith. You know, I was just being an honest person and a true believer, accepting the written word of the Bible just as it is written.

- Oh, Charles, Charles, always so literal! “Quosque tandem, Charlitina”?

- Oh, my Lord, forgive me, mercy! You know, you are omniscient, I have bent my beliefs to fit the Bible.

- I see.

- Oh, please, my Lord, forgive my sins, don’t send me to Damasco. That city has been too dangerous lately. You know…

- Yes, Charles, I know. I am omniscient, remember? For those who lives in Denmark “Arab Spring” is, in fact, too much heavy.

- Thanks God.

- Now tell me, Charles, do you think I am a charlatan?

- No, absolutely, my Lord.

- Do you think Saint Paul is a defrauder?

- Oh, my Lord, never. Oh, please, don’t make me blind, not even for 3 days only. You know, I need read the commentaries about Matthew 24:34 each day. I guess I am adicted.

- I will make you adicted for me, Charles. Now, tell me, do you really think I did not die for redeem your sins?

- Yes, I believe it, I believe it! I believe it! You are my Lord and Savior.

- Ok, Charles, now you are being honest and a true believer. From now on you will be called Carlos and not Charles anymore. You can start your preachs in Cabul. Is it good for you?

- Oh, no, Afeghanistan, nooooo, my Lord, pleeeeeeease!

- Nor Copenhagen either. Ok, you can start commenting Matthew 24:34 on VBVBC.ORG, saying: “This generation” means “this perverse nation”, the nation of Israel - and not of Denmark.

- My Lord?

- Yes?

- Since You are talking about Den-mark, what about Mark, 9:1?

- Carlos, Carlos, calm down, Carlos, step by step one goes a long way. You, now, only need to know that I could not allow a holy instrument like the Bible, worshipped as the Word of God, deceive one third of all the humanity! This omission would be senseless for so many christians and, verily, a cruelty! So, Bible is not a fraud or a legend. All christian must interpret the Bible in prayer, always, just to receive from the Holy Spirit the necessary gift of discernment.

After that I woke up and suddenly felt strongly that we can have soon a second “Saul” coming, a saint for sure, and the best: maybe in this generation.

Wow! What a dream!… Carlos?

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 07:35 am

In post 50 Scott referred to a couple of comments:
1. Different parts of the Bible lead to diffrent conclusions (made by me), and
2. Things can mean the opposite of what they say (made by Robert)
and concluded “which is just another way of saying ‘how can you be certain of anything you read in the bible?’”, and then add “Of course, the answer to that question would be you CAN’T. And if that’s the case, the bible is worse than worthless because it makes God the supreme author of confusion.”

There are two reasons for the confusion:
(1) The Bible sends out conflicting messages. God is sometimes a one-nation god, other times everybody’s God; Jesus sometimes a prophet, other times God himself; and I could go on and on.
(2) Bible Apologists do not accept such conflicts, even as they stare them right in the face. To them “this generation” does not mean this generation and “Joseph, son of Heli” does not mean Joseph, son of Heli! Etc. etc.

If (1) the Bible authors had been more clear and coherent and (2) we were more honest about what we read, there wouldn’t be such confusion.

We can do nothing about (1), but there is surely a lot we can do about (2)!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 06:41 am

Re: Post 49

IMHO, your determination is not to discover what the infallible Son of God really means when he speaks but rather to relegate the Savior to a strictly fallible position as a mere man. The idea that Jesus could possibly be as “divine” as his Father is somehow too difficult or too threatening for you to consider. Hence: it is easier to diminish his revealed nature into someone who occasionally makes mistakes than to ascent to his perfection and worship him as the God-man he is. Verses like; “Before Abraham was I AM” mean nothing to you but to the Jews of his day it meant that Jesus was claiming equality with the Father. But like you, they could not accept His claim and determined to kill him rather than acknowledge his Authority. All you have to do is convince yourself that Jesus is not God and you are free of any responsibility toward him. By nullifying his divinity you have essentially killed him yourself.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “fragile” and “cracked up” but what these comments suggest to me is that you have little regard for the pivotal question of who Jesus Christ really is. If he is just another imperfect human being then perhaps I am a bit over-reactionary for if he was, then he had no business whatsoever calling anyone to be totally dedicated to himself since “only God” is worthy of such dedication. But if he is not a mere man then he IS worthy of total dedication so much so as to “deny yourself, take up your cross and follow HIM”. But of course, this is where the denial lies because we don’t like to yield our independence to anyone.

You say of Jesus; “It is even worse to give total devotion, or attempt to give it, to a person who is in fact almost wholly unknown.” It is obvious by your words that you have never met the risen Savior, for if you had, you would know him wholly to the point of not only being willing to die for him; but to live for him as well.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 05:06 am

Re: Post 47

“My beliefs are based on an honest interpretation of the Bible, which I have studied for several decades. The difference between me and you is this: I have bent my beliefs to fit the Bible; you have bent the Bible to fit your beliefs.”

Your beliefs in post #45 may be based on an “honest interpretation” but the only conclusion that can be drawn is that your interpretation; though honest, is not accurate; whether you’ve spent days or decades of study matters very little when you come to the sweeping erroneous conclusions in your post. Prophecy is difficult to be sure, but to infer that “All the OT prophecies were [only] about a David-like messiah-king” is to turn a blind eye to the dozens if not hundreds of OT prophecies that speak of Christ’s suffering, intercessory role for mankind. You may dismiss this observation as erroneous itself, but therein lay the distinctions of interpretation and faith. You will have your flawed bible and by extension your flawed savior and God as well as the uncertainty that accompanies’ it for “Different parts of [your] Bible lead to diffrent conclusions.” Or as Robert says; “things can mean the opposite of what they say”; which is just another way of saying “how can you be certain of anything you read in the bible?”

Of course, the answer to that question would be you CAN’T. And if that’s the case, the bible is worse than worthless because it makes God the supreme author of confusion.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/11/2011 03:45 am

I refer to posts 43 & 44 by Angel and Scott respectively. It seems to me that in the latter you are a little fragile if you are cracked up so easily. The cloak of armour may come in handy thus preventing any fragmentation. I think it is prudent to return to to the Bible to see what it says but equally important to observe what it does not say.

Jesus says according to Matthew 24:34: “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.” What are all these things? Quite a long listis given in Matthew 24 and I will not go into them here. However, they refer to the familiar doctorine of the end of the world (age) and the Second Coming of Jesus, which fundamentalist Christians are always sure is just around the corner.

Now then, jesus stated that all these things will happen “in this generation” ; that is, before the last person living at the time of Jesus dies. Keep in mind that biblically, a generation is normally 40 years. Sometimes it could also be 100 years depending on context. Jesus however uses the demonstrative adjective “this” in the present tense. He does not say “that” generation. The statement is plainly false as decisively as anything ever could be. IT DID NOT HAPPEN; and the time is long past when it could happen. This early Christian belief was a mistake. What the sentence say is plain enough. It is only because we know it is false that we look for some other interpretation, to save the appearance of truth. Please read1 Thessalonians one of the earliest of Paul’s letter.

So when Jesus says, “Surely I am coming soon” in Revelation 22.20, he means “Surely I am coming in quite a long time - at least two thousand years.” If you believe that, you can believe anything; things can mean the opposite of what they say.

Jesus was a Jew and believed firmly in the Shema - “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One. Do you really believe that Jesus believed himself to be God or the second person of a trinity? That would have been tantamount to blasphemy. All humans including Jesus make mistakes but God is infallible and cannot make mistakes.It is wrong to centre complete devotion on any human person. Only God, that which is of unconditional value, is worthy of total submission. To identify any finite thing, whether a person or book, solely and completely with the infinite God, is idolatry. God is, after all, omnipresent; if God is seen anywhere, God must be seen everywhere. Jesus may show the divine nature particularly clearly, but cannot be taken as the only embodiment of the divine. It is even worse to give total devotion, or attempt to give it, to a person who is in fact almost wholly unknown. As all reputable scholars know, very little is known about the historical Jesus.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 23:28 pm

Re post 43. If Jesus is not God, then the gospel of John would be hard to explain. (But if the “word of God” means the “mouthpeice of God”, as you explained, then by definition Jesus is NOT God but just a spokesman for him.)

On the other hand, if Jesus is God, then many other parts of the Bible, would be hard to explain. And the chapter we’re discussing here is a prime example.

Different parts of the Bible lead to diffrent conclusions.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 16:23 pm

Well, Scott (post 44), again, I am not here to change anybody’s beliefs. But I do take exception to your calling my beliefs ill-informed. My beliefs are based on an honest interpretation of the Bible, which I have studied for several decades. The difference between me and you is this: I have bent my beliefs to fit the Bible; you have bent the Bible to fit your beliefs.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 15:07 pm

Post 45 shows a very narrow, ill-informed view of OT prophecy regarding the ministry of the Savior to come. For every prophecy regarding the coming King, there must be at least one prophcy regarding the intercessory role of the coming Messiah. Isaiah 53 is classic; the entire OT priesthood and sacrificial system points to the mediatorial role of the messiah; the conversation between Jesus and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus was all about this as well. Thousands of books have been written about these things and if time permitted I could fill this page with example after example.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 13:49 pm

Re post 44. I think we’re managing to keep this discussion civil and even light-hearted at times. Thanks Angel, Robert and others.

We’re of course not here to change anybody’s beliefs but I’d like to make mine clear:

1. All the OT prophecies were about a David-like messiah-king, someone who would go to war for Israel with the strong backing of Yahweh. They weren’t about a peace-loving, Kingdom-of-God seeking Jesus-type of leader.

2. Paul was the one who came up with this idea that Jesus had died for our sins. It wasn’t Jesus. Jesus told us many things about his own death. If he was dying for our sins, he would have told us that as well.

These are not the beliefs I grew up with. I developed these beliefs after studying the Bible. I derive them DIRECTLY from the words of the Bible.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 12:27 pm

charles:
thank you for making me laugh with ” oh darn. ” just thought it was funny. thank you for the laugh. god bless you always buddy.

and you to robert louis. you cracked me up too.

you say that the ” kingdom is at hand. ” have you ever wondered what that truly meant. also you say our lord jesus christ mission was “repent: for the kingdom is at hand.” yes that is correct. that was our lord jesus christ ministry. well he was alive. but throughout old and new testament it was prophesied and after our lord jesus christ death; was declared to us why our lord jesus christ died.

Galatians 1:4
4. Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

1 corinthians 15:3-4
3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4. And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

1 peter 3:18
18. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

isaiah 53:4-5
4. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken , smitten of God, and afflicted.
5. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

isaiah 42:5-6
5. Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out ; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
6. I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

here but a few 3 from new testament and 2 from new testament why our lord jesus was here. to redeem all from sin.

here is some scripture verses for you as well robert louis. when you stated that of saying “our lord jesus christ had made mistakes.” which would be sin in the eyes of god as well as those who constantly kept telling our lord jesus christ he was a devil and a blasphemer.

1 john 2:2
2. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 peter 2:2-4
22. Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23. Who, when he was reviled , reviled not again ; when he suffered , he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we , being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

2 corinthians 5:21
21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

here are some more for you robert louis on your comment on “jesus not being god.” please feel free to explain. besides the usual blasphemes of “no the bible is wrong/its been changed/jesus can’t be god/jesus isn’t mentioned in the old testament/etc.”

colossians 2:8-10
8. Beware lest any man spoil * you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

hebrews 1:1-3
1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

well here are 2 along with many more. stating our lord jesus christ is god in flesh. hence the term “son of god.” jesus himself stated “me and the father are one.”

god bless.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 03:21 am

If Jesus is not God, we’re all just wasting our time here. Do you not realize that the scriptures in MANY places refer to Him as THE Word of God? Do you not realize that that makes him THE mouthpiece of God Himself? Does God make mistakes? If any prophet’s prophecy did not come to pass, he was judged as a FALSE prophet and stoned to death! Why? Because he spoke for Yahweh himself! God’s prophets don’t make mistakes when they prophesy! If Jesus made even the SLIGHTEST mistake in a prophecy he would not have lived long enough to be crucified!

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 03:14 am

Hi Charles

I agree with most of most of what you have said in your post 41. Thing is what did Jesus mean by the Kingdom of God? He held a different view from what those of his day thought it meant and clearly different from what many Christians today think it means. Jesus taught that the Kingdom did not come with observation, where one can say it is here or there in that place. He went on to say the Kingdom of God in within you. Jesus spoke here of the rule of God in ones life.

The life of Jesus can be seen, not as the one place where God acts, but as a paradigm for divine action everywhere. Jesus as the scriptures show made mistakes, so in real terms he is NOT God, for God can make no mistakes. Still, Jesus’ life can be the vehicle of divine revealing and redemptive acts, performed thru the medium of his life or thru the ritual presentation of that life in the community of the ecclesia. Now then, we might indeed say that, if God acts in and thru Jesus, then Jesus “is” God. But it does not entail that Jesus has all, or even the major properties of God - eg omnipotence, omniscience and the maximal possession of every excellence.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 01:51 am

Dear Angel, sorry I have to disagree with you again (post 35); oh darn!

What was the very first thing Jesus did when he came out of his 40 days of retreat in the wilderness? What was the first item on his public mission? What was his first sermon? Give up? Okay, Matthew tells us in 4:17: “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

That was the Jesus mission, ladies and gentlemen. It was not dying for our sins. He never mentioned that. He never recited a parable about it. It never entered his mind at all. I am probably very much like most of you here: I too have been fed this kind of lies throughout my formative years.

The mission of Jesus was that the Kingdom of God was “at hand”, meaning perhaps months or a few short years…certainly within HIS GENERATION. You find this theme everywhere you roam in the first three gospels: Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and, of course, Matthew 24:34. In each instance Jesus stresses that he was going to deliver the kingdom of God within his lifetime. He made this very clear. He promised people standing right there in front of him that they would see the kingdom of God before they died.

Just because that didn’t happen doesn’t give anybody the authority to re-interpret the Bible to make it more to our liking! A true believer accepts the written word whether he likes it or not. I am, for one, an honest person and a true believer: I accept the written word of the Bible just as it is written. I never try to make it mean anything else other than what it actually says. Few people here can make that claim.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/10/2011 01:03 am

Eduardo (post 34), I have no idea what you meant about John 21. What theory? Do I have a theory?

About your other questions, I think you are beginning to answer them yourself. God is perfect (agreed); and the Bible is imperfect (agreed); then doesn’t it follow that we’re looking for God in the wrong places?

Eduardo, do you agree that God is for everybody? Is he or is he not the God of Latinos and Aussies and indigenous peoples and migrants and Indians and Chinese? ¿Dios es para todos, no? All cultures try to reach out to God. We do it with the Bible. Others do it with the Quran, the Vedas and Upanishads, oral traditions, prayer, and so on and so forth. The Jews reach out for him through part of the same Bible you and I are used to, and yet they find a different God! Why is everybody finding a different God when there is really only one?

Think about that!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 23:48 pm

posts 37 and 38 go together

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 23:36 pm

to all:
here is a well known fact for everyone about matthew 24:4-26 and all of matthew 25:1-46. its all the great tribulation period. our lord jesus christ is telling us what signs to look for as a guide to see what time it is; so that we here in the present; will be able to see the time at hand; during the end of days. this is so we can recognize the hour. nothing else.

also compare matthew 24:4-26 to revelation chapters 6-8. they are the same as witnessed by isaiah, ezekiel, daniel, john, and most importantly our lord jesus christ. same visions. end of days. so what makes matthew 24:4-26 so interesting is; our lord jesus christ is revealing the 7 seals but he omits the 7th seal. just as john did in revelation 6:1-17 about the 6 seals. but then notice revelation 8:1; 7th seal is silent. the same.

you don’t have to believe me. see for yourselves and truly study it. and i pray that the holy spirit guides you through all this as well.

god bless each and everyone of you always.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 23:32 pm

to all:
god bless you always.

now john 21:21-23 does not fit in to matthew or as proof to charle’s point at all. lets look at this verse clearly.

john 21:21-23
21. Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22. Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

john 21:21-23
21. peter asks our lord jesus christ “and what shall john do lord?
22. our lord jesus christ replies “if i want john to wait till i come; what is that to you peter? for you follow me peter.
23. then among the disciples began to gossip saying “john can’t die!” literally. to which our lord jesus christ replies unto the disciples “i didn’t say john can’t die; but if i want john to wait for me till i come, why does this concern you?”

now this is what being said here.

god bless you all always and may we always reflect the light of our lord and saviour jesus christ always. amen…..

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 22:33 pm

Eduardo,

“Holding on” or “persevering” is clearly part of the intent of the Olivet Discourse; verse 13 alone makes this abundantly clear. But this is not the reason for my complaint. You have attributed motive to me that is not warranted by my postings:

“Scott thinks He just wanted to stimulate the Saints..,” and “God could not use artifices (in fact, lies) just to help saint people “hold on”, like in the thesis defended by Scott.”

What you say I “think” I do NOT think. What you say I “defend” I do NOT defend.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 22:19 pm

dear charles:
i consider you a friend and as a friend mark 9:1 has nothing to do with matthew 24:34.

in fact mark 9:1 is at mount carmel. also known as the transfiguration.

mark 9:1
1. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

matthew 16:28
28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

luke 9:27
7. But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

2 peter 1:17-18
17. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

matthew 24:34 is another event entirely than mark 9:1, matthew 16:28, luke 9:27, and 2 peter 1:17-18. as seen in the bible scriptures.

mark 9:1 along with matthew 16:28, luke 9:27, and 2 peter 1:17-18 are stating that elijah and moses shall not see death until they fulfill the 2 witnesses in revelation 11.

god bless you all always.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 21:52 pm

Charles, John 21:21-23 also completes your theory, right? I understand you, but I ask you then: how can we trust in the Bible? Do we have to abandon the word of God? If the Bible is imperfect, how to consider certain texts perfect? Is it possible, considering that the Bible is “the Word of God” (and God is obviously perfect)?

Finally, do we have to trust in the Bible only in part, according our convenience?

How do you deal with this?

Thanks.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 21:24 pm

For those still trying not to beleive that this generation means this generation, take a look at Mark 9:1: And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Does “some of them that stand here” leave any doubt?

He who has ears, let him hear.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 19:24 pm

Scott, take a look on the post 24.

Tiuche, take a look on the post 29, here, in combination with the post 3 from Luke, 23:43. Bumerangue effect?

Charles, is it ridiculous trying to establish in our mind a solid and correct interpretation of the God word? Take a look on John, 8:32. The research is necessary and you could help better.

Lets pray before writting. Lets remember Matthew 15:11.

God bless you all.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 18:44 pm

to all:
god bless you all once again and may you all have a blessed day in our lord and saviour jesus christ.

eduardo;
to your question you had asked me in post 26. that is correct in saying when our lord jesus christ answered his disciples what to look for at the great and dreadful day of our lord jesus christ return. our lord jesus christ was stating to his disciples and to all israel ( in context ) this generation shall not pass. so how can that specific generation be around until the second coming of our lord and saviour jesus christ. they couldn’t. so our lord jesus christ was telling ” israel ” i shall see your descendants from this generation that shall pass. for the bible says that our lord deals with israel as a whole nation.

for proof read these chapters in romans ( 9-11. ) for these chapters deals with israel at the end of days.

romans 9- deals with how our lord has revealed unto paul what shall happen to israel and he is sorrowed. then in this same chapter paul moves on to discuss god’s sovereignty. then after this paul begins to discuss how israel seeks righteousness by works.

romans 10- begins with paul discussing how israel rejects christ and also how israel rejects the prophets.

romans 11- now paul begins with discussing of israel’s rejection of christ and the prophets stating this is not held against them for a reason yet not known to them. for then paul immediately begins to discuss the purpose of israel’s rejection. which of then immediately after paul begins to discuss the promise of israel’s restoration through our lord jesus christ at his return. next paul begins to discuss israel’s restoration where israel shall glorify god and all he has done. for this is a moment of triumph and victory for israel as it was to the gentiles before.

now if you prefer not to read these chapters to have a better understanding of what is happening i shall post romans 11.

romans 11:25-32
25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father’s sakes.
29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31. Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

now i ask everyone here please feel free explain these verse?

i pray this helps you eduardo and everyone else here.

may it bless you as it has blessed me.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 18:17 pm

Whereas I agree with Tiuche that “this generation” refers “primarily to the descendants of Jacobs and their modern nations” as he says, I disagree that the “distress” or “tribulation” spoken of in verse 21 is the same time of trouble as that spoken of in verse 29. These are two separtae and distinct “times of trouble”. Verse 29 is THE Great Tribulation spoken of in Rev. 7:14 whereas, the “time of great tribulation” in verse 21 is the “time of Jacob’s Trouble” prophesied by Jeremiah (and others)in Jer. 30:7.

As an aside, “this generation” DOES, in this case, refer to “that generation”. To deny it only betrays a lack of understanding of a device COMMONLY used by the prophets.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 17:16 pm

ACCUSING JESUS AS MISTAKEN IN HIS TALK IS THE HEIGHT OF Foolishness!The man that thinks ” he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. He is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, & evil suspicions”

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing-socrates. It is knowing that Jesus knew what He was speaking about…and to challenge Him who rose from the dead and who is able to walk on the sea is kind of being concieted! A man who tells us that Jesus made a mistake in His Word is SO PROUD!

He started off questioning some words in the Bible, then after a while he questions whole books and after some times he now questions the very words of jesus but claims to believe in Jesus! What kind of man is that? “ACDC” double minded, chameleon or double tongued?”He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings…”

He is not here to learn nor is he here to teach what is good…he is here to cause trouble, debase the Bible and glorify SINS & ABNORMALITIES !

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 17:04 pm

The Bible says what it says, not what we would have wanted it to say. People who don’t believe the Bible make all kinds of “interpretations” (i.e. excuses) so they can bend the Bible to what they want to be.

What if I said that “in three days I will raise it up” means “in about 40 years I will raise it up?” What if I said that “today you will be with me in Paradise” means “three days from now, when I resurrect myself, you will be with in Paradise”? What if I keep changing everything I don’t like? Wouldn’t that be ridiculuous?

Well, what you’re doing here is just as ridiculous. “This generation” means this generation. It does not mean “that” generation. It does not mean Israel or Denmark. It does not mean posterity. It is what it is. Don’t lie to yourself.

If you really believe the word of God, DON’T CHANGE IT!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 16:40 pm

Eduardo: The GREAT TRIBULATION is the time of the BIG BIG TROUBLE that will come to the earth and which will fall primarily to the descendants of Jacobs and their modern nations! In Jesus words: (Matthew 24 verses:)

21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

22And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.

29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

The generation that will not pass away till all these things he said be fulfilled is the generation that have witness the Great Tribulation. This is an honest and common sense interpretation of the Words of Jesus. If anyone would not believe the words of Jesus that man is proud, knows nothing at all!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 16:35 pm

Angel, if I understood correctly, the expression “this generation” on the Verse can be interpreted as “Israel”, right? I mean: in that context “this generation” = “Jewish nation”, right?

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 16:03 pm

Tiuche, can you explain what do you mean with the expression “great tribulation”? At the end I didn’t understand to which generation the verse was referring to.

Thanks.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 15:35 pm

Scott, I was referring to the following commentary:

“The main reason for the parable has nothing to do with Israel being born again as a nation; it has everything to do with how soon these events will all unfold once they begin. Keep in mind; were talking about the End of the Age when Evil comes to harvest! The testing of faith will be severe and perseverance will be hard to maintain. The parable is an encouragement to the saints at THAT time to “hold on!” This is reiterated in the very next verse; “I tell you the truth..,” Jesus says, “This generation will CERTAINLY not pass away until all these things have happened.” And if that wasn’t enough, he affirms it again with an oath in verse 35″.

You wrote this 1 year and 7 months ago. My English is not perfect and maybe I made a mistake, a misinterpretation. Can you explain that commentary once again, with other words?

Thank you.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 15:30 pm

THE “THIS GENERATION” THAT JESUS IS REFERRING TO IN THIS VERSE IS THE GENERATION THAT HAVE WITNESSED THE GREAT TRIBULATION!

For some to claim that sinless Jesus makes a mistake or that Jesus does not know what He spoke, is a claim that aims to discredit even the Savior of the World. It is the height of being wise in ones own eyes that one who is just mortal and sinful one would ignorantly accuse the Savior of being wrong in His Words!

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves

Make no mistake Jesus Words is God’s Word, Jesus said:

John 14:10 Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwells in me, he does the works.

John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

TO SAY THEN THAT JESUS MADE A MISTAKE IN HIS WORD WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT OF SAYING THAT GOD WORD IS NOT RELIABLE! Which of course we know is the same as the lie made by the devil wherein he makes people to doubt and not believe the Word of God!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 14:09 pm

“Scott thinks He just wanted to stimulate the Saints of His generation, making them “hold on” until His final coming.”

Eduardo,

Unless there’s another Scott on this thread I assume you are referring to my postings; and if the quote above reflects what you think my posts are saying, it’s very evident that you don’t understand what I’ve written. That may be your fault or it may be mine but suffice it to say you are attributing things to me that I have neither said nor suggested.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 06:35 am

eduardo:
god, jesus, and the holy spirit never ever make a mistake. perfection; can never make mistakes. but man can.

and as for charles being a jew i highly doubt that.

israel was seen as a perverse nation throughout the old testament. from idolatry, fornicators, and walking after their own lusts. there is proof throughout god’s holy living word of this and has sent many messengers/prophets to warn them of their wicked ways. finally god had enough and sent his only begotten son. and even our lord jesus christ had to fight their so called knowledge and beliefs. it seemed every where jesus went he was always confronted by his own people. not all. but by most. even paul had to rebuke peter. paul even had to tell the jews they were still wrong in their ways. they were blind then and are blind now till the bride is gone then they shall receive jesus christ as the one true messiah whom they crucified.

does it not state in the old testament that god gave israel her divorce papers as stated in jeremiah 3:8-9.

jeremiah 3:8-9
8. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
9. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.

and then our lord jesus christ took on the gentiles as his bride in the new testament. this is because the jewish nation was a perverse nation and could not and would not recognize what had been prophesied of the messiah who was in their very presence.

is that why in zechariah 12:10-14 and zechariah 13:5-6 the jews shall mourn when they see jesus and ask were did you get those scars to which jesus replies “in the house of my friends.” even though this is mentioned in zechariah one can see it takes place in that great day. end times. book of revelation.

zechariah 12:10-14
10. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
11. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
13. The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
14. All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

zechariah 13:5-6
5. But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.
6. And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

or how about when israel cried out to pontius pilate in matthew 27:25. to let the blood of jesus be on them and their children. this is were israel cursed themselves and the gentile represented here by pilate washed their hands of our lord jesus christ crucifixion.

matthew 27:24-25
24. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

or how about this in luke 19:41-44 when our lord was crying and looking on to jerusalem and was quoted saying….

luke 19:41-44
41. And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42. Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44. And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

now i ask you a question. were they a perverse nation according to god reflected through his holy living word?

god bless and and may our lord jesus christ always be a guidance unto all truth’s.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 02:57 am

Angel (post 18), if it has to take you 598 words to give one definition, it’s a sure giveaway that you are grasping for excuses.

You confused the word generation and posterity. They are totally different. If Jesus had said “posterity”, KJV would have translated it as such. Besides who in his right mind would have said “This posterity shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled?” Lol!

By the way, it’s not just KJV. Eery translation I have seen is the same.

Once again you are distrusting KJV AND every other translation we have. What you’re really saying, Angel, is you don’t believe any modern Bible.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 02:07 am

Thank you Charles for your good humor witnessing my “second coming” and thanks angel for your interesting explanation.

For the morphologic explanation we can interpret the Verse by two different ways: the first one gives us the idea that Jesus was referring to the continuous descendants from that people that was there, listening Him; the second one fortifies the “Jewish Nation” theory, but, in this way, we have to accept that Jesus considered Israel a “perverse nation”. Is that correct?

If the last theory is the correct one, I suspect that Charles is Jewish because he defends that Jesus can commit mistakes…

God doesn’t commit mistakes. So, I prefer believe the first theory, “ad referendum” of some studies of the hard Greek language. By the other hand, for this way that Verse sounds strange, considering the low level of intellectuality of that people and the high intellectual controverse about that Verse two thousands years after that declaration.

Anyway I think there is a (maybe) long way to walk in Matthew 24:34.

God bless you all.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 01:49 am

to all:
god bless you all and i pray our lord guide each and everyone of us to his truth’s.

now eduardo; this is what our lord has revealed about this. but first a definition to help us to understand the full meaning and usage of the word “generation.” i shall provide also the english and greek word of “generation” to show as a comparision and understanding to this verse.

in english first:
generation (noun)
1a. All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor.(*)
1b. The average interval of time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.
2. A form or stage in the life cycle of an organism. See more at alternation of generations.
3. The formation of a line or geometric figure by the movement of a point or line.

thesaurus ( generation/posterity)
posterity (noun)
1. future or succeeding generations(*)
2. all of one’s descendants(*)

now in greek (generation)
genea- fathered, birth, nativity that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
the several ranks of natural descent(*), the successive members of a genealogy
metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character

esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation(*), the whole multitude of men living at the same time
an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

so now if you notice i placed (*) asterisks in the english and greek definition of the word generation.

now we shall proceed forward with the understanding of the word now so we can better understand this verse in it context. in other words this parable comes after the fact our lord jesus christ explains about the tribulation and his second coming. our lord jesus christ then uses a parable first of a fig tree then an illustration of the days of noah to explain to them what he is saying to them.

here is that entire verse.

matthew 24:32-35
32. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass , till all these things be fulfilled.
35. Heaven and earth shall pass away , but my words shall not pass away .

this is what our lord jesus christ is saying unto them. ” you know how a fig tree blooms and when. so you to shall also know when it is time for me (second coming) because their are signs which need to be fulfilled. you know the promises in revelation. so i; your lord; shall see your descendants (generation) and they shall come unto the promise given unto them from god after all is fulfilled. then and only then shall i come. and as promised this old earth and heaven shall pass to a new heaven and new earth together blending together into eternity.”

for if you notice in matthew 24:4-26 is the tribulation period after the bride is raptured and then matthew 24:27-31 is our lord jesus christ return with his bride and the imprisonment of satan for 1,000 years. then comes the battle of armageddon, the great white throne judgement, and then the new heaven and new earth. eternity on earth in the heavenly kingdom.

god bless you all and i pray you are enriched and blessed.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2011 00:38 am

Hello Eduardo. Good to witness your “second coming”. I hope you’ll hang around longer this time!

Sorry nobody could erase your doubts. This is one of those sobering verses where everybody needs to understand that the Bible isn’t perfect.

The hard lesson I take form this - and I know that many will disagree - is that nobody can predict the future. Not even Jesus!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 23:40 pm

Well, I am back one year and seven months after my last participation. Hence, without irony, it is my second coming and nothing happened… I mean in relation to this debate. The doubts persist.

Charles loves Jesus but finds He commited a mistake or someone put wrong words in His mouth.

Scott thinks He just wanted to stimulate the Saints of His generation, making them “hold on” until His final coming.

Well, I was the first commentarist in this very interesting space and gave the first quick for the debates asking about the real meaning of this Verse (Mt 24:34). I did that because I was very confuse and wanted to increase my faith in God with convincent interpretations of this aparently contradictory Verse, in combination with others.

I am strongly catholic, but I confess I am still stuck into this Verse, like the disciple Thome before seeing Jesus wounded in both hands. I consider Jesus the Lord, the Christ, the Messiah, our Savier and also our God (because I believe the very Holy Trinidad: Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

The problem is: if Jesus is God how could he commit such a grave mistake (Mt 24:34)? And more: God could not use artifices (in fact, lies) just to help saint people “hold on”, like in the thesis defended by Scott. I just can’t understand this attitude coming from God!!!

In His perfection (because God is perfect), He couldn’t lie (even moved by the best feelings) or commit a mistake about the future of all the human beings. That’s why the explanation about “this generation” means “jewish nation” sounds good for me.

About Mark, 9:1, the thesis about the transfiguration, ressurection or Pentecostes (50 days after the Passion) don’t convince me. I explain: these three events happened too early and it has no sense to say that “some will be still alive”. I mean: MANY would be still alive, considering the short time from the last possible event (Pentecostes happened less than two months after His death).

When I read John, 21:21-23, I become more concerned about the possibility of mistake involving Jesus words, especially in Mt 24:34 and Mark 9:1.

Am I being fundamentalist? What to do to increase my faith on the Bible?

I also love Jesus.

Thank you.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 21:34 pm

Let’s face the facts: this is a prophecy that did NOT come true. Compare this with Mark 9:1 “And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” Matthew and Mark were the first two gospels. They very probably actually wrote the gospels themselves and they were still believing that the kingdom of God was at hand, as Jesus preached. And “at hand” meant “in their generation”. Nobody in their right senses can possibly have any doubts as to what “This generation” meant!

Now I love Jesus, and I would like to think that he didn’t really make this mistake; that the authors put words in his mouth. But I can’t prove that. The Bible says what it says, not what I wish it would have said!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/8/2011 02:07 am

Robert Louis (Post #13)

Jesus was not talking about the present generation of Jews. Jesus was referring to a future generation of Jews. Jesus told the present generation that those who hate them, that is, the Jewish Nation, will deliver them into great distress and suffering at the end of this age. They will kill you because of my name (Matt 24:9). “This generation,” that is, the one Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:9, will not pass away until everything I have predicted takes place. In other words, the Jewish Nation will be around until Jesus returns and everything he said takes place.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/7/2011 16:23 pm

No amount of knight jumping tactics would do. Accept the fact that Jesus was just plainly mistaken as were the whole of the early Christian ecclesia in thinking that Jesus would return to earth in judgement within one generation.
This fact is neither very disturbing nor very surprising as these ancient believers lived in a pre-scientific age where many false beliefs were prevalent. Jesus however shows the way to the other in terms of walking the talk in being fully human.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/7/2011 07:51 am

No amount of knight jumping tactics would do. Accept the fact that Jesus was just plainly mistaken as were the whole of the early Christian ecclesia in thinking that Jesus would return to earth in judgement within one generation.
This fact is neither very disturbing nor vey surprising as these ancient believers lived in a pre-scientific age where many false beliefs were prevalent. Jesus however shows the way to the other in terms of walking the talk in being fully human.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/7/2011 07:48 am

I may further dwell upon the meaning of the phrase “this generation”.

Let us consider Matthew 12: 38-42. Twice the phrase “this generation” is used. (VV. 41, 42). Whom was Jesus addressing to? Were they all the contemporary people of the various nations living at that time, both the Jews as well as the gentiles? Certainly not; He was in fact addressing the faithless Pharisees and the Scribes of His time seeking the sign from Jesus! They were Jews! This generation included the unbelieving Jews who had rejected their Messiah. Jesus calls them evil and adulterous generation-faithless and unfaithful.

Jesus put “this generation” the Jewish nation as against the Gentiles- Repentant people of Ninveh and the Queen of Sheba, far down in the Arabia. The gentiles will rise in judgment with this generation-(Jewish nation) and will condemn this generation (Jewish Nation). Do we not see here that the phrase “this generation” is used as a slang and that it is used of one race or nation?

Consider also Matthew 11:11-18 or for that matter, Matthew 3: 7-9. For whom are the words “this generation” used but for the Jews who were the addressees there?

Now we know that the word ‘generation’ is derived from the Greek word genea. We now use the word “gene” as well. This has to do with the birth, with the family, with the descendants and descent, stock, race, nation.

The Lexicon results of the word Genea in Strong # 1074 are as follows:

1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30
-33 years.

So the word generation has the meaning of stock, family etc., and in the phrase “this generation” we have some slang, the word “this” pointing to a particular descent in question. Those who interpret “This generation” in Matthew 24:34 as the generation living at the time of the second coming of the Lord Jesus, don’t force that interpretation in the verses with the phrase “This generation.” Will it be all right to them if I say the Jewish generation/nation leaving at the time of Jesus’ Second coming? People try hard to interpret a verse by taking literal meanings of all the word used. How can we say that “this generation” is “that generation”?

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/22/2010 06:48 am

I look at the Olivet Discourse as follows;

Jesus had made only the previous Palm Sunday the triumphant entry into Jerusalem proclaiming himself to the Messiah King. The Jews however rejected him and Jesus reacted sharply and with sorrow and pronounced impending judgment:
(a) Your house is laid waste indicating the destruction of the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem.
(b) You will not see me again till you accept me as the one coming in the name of the Lord.
Scarred at what Jesus said, the disciples drew his attention to the magnificent temple. To this Jesus reiterated how complete the destruction of the temple would be: “Not one stone upon other will be left there! This triggered three questions of the disciples that Jesus replied.

(1) When shall these things be?
(2) What shall be the sign of your coming?
(3) What shall be the sign of the end of the world/age?

Jesus replied these questions, although with some change in its order.

The first reply is in Matthew 24:9-14, concluding with, ‘then shall the end (of the age/world) come” (verse 14). This has the application for the Church.

The second reply is in Matthew 24:15-25. You will see the destruction of the temple. It will be in your own time. What will be sign? It will again be the one foretold by Daniel the Prophet, “Standing in the holy place the abomination that makes desolation.” (Earlier it was Epiphanies Antiochus, and in the last and more fully once again it will be the Antichrist!). Luke says specifically that Jerusalem will be surrounded by the armies and that it would be trampled down by the gentiles ( Romans).the Jews will be taken active into all nations ( Luke 21:20-24). This took place in AD 70 and around. This has application for the Jews in particular.

The third reply is in Matthew 24:27-31. His coming will be suddenly and quickly. The sign will be the son darkened and moon not giving light. This has the application for the Christians and to all. Since the coming of the Lord is quickly and suddenly and that no one knows the day and the hour, the admonition is to be on high alert at all times. This is how the discourse concludes. The main sign however is the sprouting of the fig tree. The scorching summer is imminent. The judge is at the door. Jerusalem will be trampled, temple destroyed completely, Jews will be taken prisoners to all nations, but the Jewish nation will not be wiped out. The trampling of Jerusalem and of the temple in it is for a time given to the Gentiles. But time would be over and the Jewish nation, this generation, will get reestablished. The restoration has already started in 1948. Let him who has the eye to see, see it.

In view of the way the discourse is presented, I don’t see juxtaposition in 24:34!

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/22/2010 03:39 am

“It is easier to me to understand this hard verse. What do you two, my brothers, think about it?”

Eduardo,

It’s only a hard verse if you MAKE it a hard verse. For instance, regarding the metaphor of the fig tree, why should anyone wonder what the meaning of the parable is when Jesus states quite plainly what the meaning is? Why don’t we just BELIEVE Him and let that be enough? Why make some unwarranted overlay of pseudo-interpretation and then turn it into a near DOCTRINE about the rebirth of Israel as a nation? IT’S JUST NOT THERE!

Regarding “this generation”. Again, where’s the mystery? Jesus is answering the question about when the end of the Age will come. He’s simply talking about the generation that will be alive when the Kingdom comes. Show me some REAL interpretive differences that suggest otherwise? How is it that the plain meaning cannot be seen?

If there’s a veil over the ability to understand this; perhaps it’s because of another misunderstanding that is commonly made: Some people think Jesus is answering the question about WHEN the TEMPLE will be destroyed. However; Jesus doesn’t even attempt to answer that part of the disciples’ question at all. The entire thrust of His response concerns “the signs of His coming” AT “the end of the age”.

Keep in mind that the disciples would’ve known about the prophecies that Messiah would “suddenly come to His temple” at the end of the age as it says in Mal 3:1-2. In other words, if the temple were to be destroyed as Jesus said, then the disciples would’ve wanted to know; “what (other) signs should we look for to know WHEN You will be coming at the time of the End?” Notice that the disciples did not ask this question of Jesus immediately after He prophesied the temple’s doom. They clearly thought about it and came later to ask Him privately. The thrust of their inquiry was not so much about the temple’s destruction but rather; the coming of Christ! And for that matter, if you’re a student of prophecy at all, you would know that Jesus took great delight in speaking of His return. What purpose or profit would there be to give details about the timing of the destruction of Herod’s temple? NONE.

By Scott (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/22/2010 00:04 am

Very interesting the two last commentaries. However, the best interpretation for the verse I have ever heard is this: the jews have or had the custom of juxtaposing chapters or issues of a text, always coming back to the main issue. So, in Matthew 24:34 I believe Jesus was really talking about the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem at 70 AD and so still in THAT GENERATION. He was referring to His second coming in name only. It is easier to me to understand this hard verse. What do you two, my brothers, think about it?

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/21/2010 01:36 am

In the Bible, we find words/phrase like generation/s, generation/s to come, from generations to generations, all generations etc. It shows time period. Specific reference to like generation with the adjective “This” points to a specific group of people. It may specify their time or their qualities (Like “the wicked generation, untoward generation, adulterous generation, wicked generation, generation of vipers etc). It may also specify the decent of the particular group address. In almost all languages of the world, a word may have different meanings or shed of meanings. We have to see the scriptural context for arriving at the right understanding of it.

For Futurists, this generation in Matthew 24:34 means the generation of the time when the signs given in therein are fulfilled. If the parable of the fig tree and other trees Israel and the other nations does not relate to the nation of Israel in particular, but is only related to the signs, then what is the connection between the parable and this generation? One of the questions asked by the disciples was about the temple of Jerusalem. Jesus’ answer tells about the destruction of the temple and of the dispersion of the Jews in all the nations as punishment for their rejection of Jesus as Messiah. Both the question and the answer about the destruction of Jerusalem have the reference to Jews only. Other questions and their answers have to do with the Church and/or the world. It seems the futurist’s interpretation is forced one, reading something that is not there.

For the preterits, this generation means the generation at the time of Jesus. (They also quote Matthew 23:36 to substantiate their interpretation). But this verse also talks about “all things shall come to pass.” So they go to the extent that not only the destruction of the temple, but also the second coming of Jesus had taken place in and around 70AD!

If we take the meaning of generation as family group, stock, descent that we have the right interpretation in the right context- textual context. I have been struggling to know the right interpretation of this verse for years together and have come to know the different interpretations; all none of them have been satisfying to me. To me I am still open to the meaning of descent- of Jewish nation- fits well. We may do well to see if this meaning helps us better understand the end time prophecies, even if we have adjust the theory we hold!

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/20/2010 07:45 am

Eduardo,

I have to kindly disagree with the comments of my brothers. Your question is a good one and its been discussed at great length by not a few students and theologians for centuries so I don’t think we’ll put it to rest on this forum. But we might get a little closer to the real meaning. Here’s my take on it:

The parable of the fig tree is a good place to start. Interpreting the fig tree as the nation of Israel is poor exegesis in this case. The rule is; when a parable is given and the meaning of the parable is revealed; do NOT look for another meaning. The meaning of this parable is simply that certain signs will appear and when you see them, the return of Jesus and the end of the age will follow very soon.

This parable simply gives a word-picture answer to the disciples primary question in vs. 3: “What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

The sequence goes like this:
1. Jesus gives them the signs in vss 29-31.
2. Then Jesus gives them the parable in vs 32.
3. Jesus interprets the parable as culminating in his return and the end of the age in vs 33 (IT is right at the door!)

The main reason for the parable has nothing to do with Israel being born again as a nation; it has everything to do with how soon these events will all unfold once they begin. Keep in mind; were talking about the End of the Age when Evil comes to harvest! The testing of faith will be severe and perseverance will be hard to maintain. The parable is an encouragement to the saints at THAT time to “hold on!” This is reiterated in the very next verse; “I tell you the truth..,” Jesus says, “This generation will CERTAINLY not pass away until all these things have happened.” And if that wasn’t enough, he affirms it again with an oath in verse 35.

Now, as to the meaning of “this generation”, again, there is no hidden mystery here. “This generation” is simply the generation that is alive and sees the signs at the time of the prophecy. It doesn’t even matter how long a generation is because when the signs begin it will be a very short time before “the end” comes (this is the purpose of the parable). And in this case, it will take no more than 7 years (not a 100, 75 or even 40 year generation).

Although Jesus’ meaning of “This generation” is not really mysterious, I personally believe there is a bit of irony involved with it. (This may be hard to follow):

The time period that those in “this generation” will be in is at the very end of the sixth seal and the beginning of the 7th seal. (Compare the sign of verse 29 with Revelation 6:12-17). This means that “this generation” is the 144,000 Jews who are sealed with protection from heaven (Rev 7). They are called “first fruits” (Rev 14:3-4). There are NO gentiles in the company of “this generation”. All Gentile believers have been killed by Antichrist by this time (see Rev 6:11 and 7:13-14).

Now here’s the irony involved; by using the phrase, “this generation”, Jesus is making a not-so-subtle comparison to the “generation” of Jews who failed a great test of faith in Israel’s ancient history from Numbers 13 and 14. If you remember it, Moses was ready to take the generation of Israelites who had just come out of Egypt and bring them into the Promise Land. But when the people heard the report of giants in the land their hearts melted with fear and they refused to enter in. God judged their decision as gross unbelief and consigned them all to march through the wilderness until that ENTIRE generation had died–never possessing their promised inheritance! The shame associated with the disobedience of that very first generation to come out of Egypt became an everlasting disgrace in Israel’s history. Hence, Jesus’ promise that “this generation will NOT pass away” is a promise that the stigma will finally be removed and Israel WILL possess the Land. Revelation 14:5 is a perfect testimony describing the Jews in “this generation”:

“No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.”

How UNlike the generation of Numbers 13-14!

By Scott (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/19/2010 06:37 am

Commentaries on Matthew 24: 34/Luke 21:32/Mark 13:30

You have to read Matthew 24:32-35 to understand the whole context. Same with Luke 21:29-33 an Mark 13:28-31.

v.32(Matthew 24) Fig tree pertains to Israel. Particularly the statehood of ISRAEl. May 17, 1948 Fulfilled.

v.34. Pertains to the Generation who will witness the statehood of Israel, will be the same generation who will witness the Rapture and the Second Coming. And that generation is our present generation, from 1948-2018 (70 years 1 generation) see psalm 90:1 & 10.

In effect, what Jesus said in Matt. 24:34 was that the generation of people being born when the first End Times signs appeared would still be alive at the 2nd coming, so He was talking about a life span, not a generation. Using Psalm 90:10 as our authority we see that man’s average life span is 70 years, and that’s where the number 70 came from.

Most scholars agree that the first of the end times signs was the re-birth of Israel in 1948, because none of the specific signs Jesus gave in the Olivet Discourse could have taken place before then.

What about Mark 9:1?

When you combine the teaching of Mark 9:1 with Acts 1:8 here is what you get:
1) Jesus teaches that some of his disciples would not die until they saw the kingdom come with power.
2) They were to receive power when the Holy Spirit came upon them.

Do we find fulfillment in the New Testament of these promises to His disciples? The answer is yes.

Acts 2:1-4(NASB)
1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.
2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

This then is the “Kingdom” that Jesus has reference to in Mark 9:1. It is the church.

So, Mark 9:1 & Matt 24:34 talk about two completely different things. One the coming of the church kingdom, the other the eternal kingdom at Christ’s second coming.

By Atty. Aris Pestano (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/18/2010 15:08 pm

Ok, lets admit that you are correct (and I think you are so). However, how about the connection to Mark, 9:1?

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/27/2010 18:22 pm

The Olivet Discourse has its real starting point in Matthew 23:37-39, where the Lord Jesus tells about what will be the lot of the people of Israel and the temple in Jerusalem. It was this that triggered the questions by the disciples in Chapter 24. The Lord Jesus gives further details about what is going to happen to Jerusalem, the temple in it and the people of Israel.Jerusalem was to be surrounded by armies, temple to be destroyed and the people of Israel to be scattered. But then what? Will the nation of Israel be wiped out? No, they are very dear to their God for the sake of their ancestors and the promises given to them. It is in this context that the Lord Jesus gives the parable of fig tree in Matthew 24. In the Bible trees stand for nations. Fig tree stands for the nation of Israel. The other two parables of fig trees given by our Lord in Luke 13 and Mark 11 are addressed to Israel too. So the Lord says, “When you see the fig tree(singular) budding, then you know that the summer is near.” This refers to the regathering of Israel and the establishment of the State of Israelin 1948. There is also reference to other trees. Other nations budding, becoming Independent States! So Israel is not going to be wiped out, but it was to come forth! This generation,this nation, this fig tree, the people of Israel will not pass away till all these things-the final events and the end of the world, culminating in the return of our Lord- will not pass away! It will surely be there! The Greek word for genration also means people, stock, nation or people. This is the meaning that contextually fit the prophesy and its intepretion.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/23/2010 09:47 am

Please, I expect receiving serious commentaries.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/21/2010 14:36 pm

I can’t understand that verse. When I read Mark, 9:1, in the context the message is very clear, but, despite of this, that generation passed and nothing happened (the second Jesus’s arrival, the end of the times and the final judgement). I am strongly religious, but, please, who can explain that?
Thank you

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/21/2010 14:33 pm