Are We Truly In The End Times?

[jammindude]

I still don't understand how the act of believing things that are known to be factually wrong makes you a person more eligible of eternal reward. What kind of God is this?
And, isn't it the same kind of logic that makes other people strap explosives around their body, in that they're doing the wrong thing for a higher cause?

rumborak

I'm 42 and I've been on both sides of the fence.   I've never seen this.   I have seen theologies interpretation (imperfect men reading in what's not there) be wrong...and I have seen science make unproven claims of truth.   In both cases, the Bible is not the one that's wrong.   But I have seen *both* sides make mistakes, whereas the Bible itself was right all along. 

In almost every case where the Bible seems wrong, it is usually the problem with the English translation of a single word.   It doesn't take a lot of research to clear up the confusion...but most people just jump to conclusions, or don't want to know what the real answer is. 

And anyone who does any harm to another person explicitly ignores the Son of God's direct command to love one another.   That's not hard to figure out.   He who takes up the sword will perish by the sword.   Pretty black and white.

[Rathma]

Don't know where that came from.   I've been saying all along that science is more right than theology is.   Theology is the adversary of The Bible.   And other than a small handful of points (some admittedly more glaring than others) science is MUCH more in agreement with what the Bible says.    Science gets more right than theology does, anyway.

Wtf is this "theology" you keep referring to? Every human being has their own theology. If you're referring to a specific school of theology then you should clarify yourself.

[rumborak]

I'm 42 and I've been on both sides of the fence.   I've never seen this.   I have seen theologies interpretation (imperfect men reading in what's not there) be wrong...and I have seen science make unproven claims of truth.   In both cases, the Bible is not the one that's wrong.   But I have seen *both* sides make mistakes, whereas the Bible itself was right all along. 

In almost every case where the Bible seems wrong, it is usually the problem with the English translation of a single word.   It doesn't take a lot of research to clear up the confusion...but most people just jump to conclusions, or don't want to know what the real answer is. 

We've had these discussions before, but for almost all of them the general linguists' consensus was that the Bible was indeed referring to the erroneous notion at hand.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Y'know what? Screw environmentalism, we're better off being fucked by the planet anyway. End times near? Bring 'em on!

[Adami]

Y'know what? Screw environmentalism, we're better off being fucked by the planet anyway. End times near? Bring 'em on!

Welcome to every year for the past 2000 years.

[Ben_Jamin]

We're witnessing a grand change, a shift from worlds. Those who understand will know what to do and will survive.

That's what I believe is happening. since the world is alive, it's basically just immunizing itself from the bad bacteria that's causing it's sickness.

[jammindude]

Don't know where that came from.   I've been saying all along that science is more right than theology is.   Theology is the adversary of The Bible.   And other than a small handful of points (some admittedly more glaring than others) science is MUCH more in agreement with what the Bible says.    Science gets more right than theology does, anyway.

Wtf is this "theology" you keep referring to? Every human being has their own theology. If you're referring to a specific school of theology then you should clarify yourself.

Sorry Rathma...I missed this, and I should have answered. 

I believe that there should be no personal interpretation of scripture.   If a scripture needs to be clarified, it can only be clarified by other scriptures....not personal philosophy or theology.   Let God's Word speak for itself....don't read anything into it *except* within the context of other scriptures.    If a phrase is unclear, research the original language word(s) in question.     Some clarification of what words or phrases meant in the social context of the time they were written...but personal ideas or slants about these should be minimal or non-existent.     IMO, God speaks for himself through his word, and we have no right to inject our own ideas into what is written. 

In short...LET SCRIPTURE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE.

Any mixture with Greek philosophy (which tainted "Christian" teachings after the death of the apostles) should be completely and wholeheartedly rejected.    And that is mostly what modern theology teaches.

[Adami]

Dude, you know I love you but you interpret scripture your own way all the time. Everyone does............well everyone who cares about scripture.

[jammindude]

Is it just me?  Or is half my message crossed out?   If so, why? 

Also, I make no claims to what scripture says without having it backed up by other scriptures. 

[theseoafs]

Is it just me?  Or is half my message crossed out?   If so, why?   

Because you put a strikeout tag in the middle of it.

[Adami]

Is it just me?  Or is half my message crossed out?   If so, why? 

Also, I make no claims to what scripture says without having it backed up by other scriptures.

Yea, I see it mostly crossed out too. Not sure why. Hm.


And yea, you have made claims like "Well obviously it means this" and so forth. I am wayyyy too tired to search through your old posts to dig it up, but I'm sure someone else could if they felt the need.

[jammindude]

Is it just me?  Or is half my message crossed out?   If so, why?   

Because you put a strikeout tag in the middle of it.

I clicked modify to see if there were any tags at all and I don't see any. 

[Adami]

Don't know where that came from.   I've been saying all along that science is more right than theology is.   Theology is the adversary of The Bible.   And other than a small handful of points (some admittedly more glaring than others) science is MUCH more in agreement with what the Bible says.    Science gets more right than theology does, anyway.

Wtf is this "theology" you keep referring to? Every human being has their own theology. If you're referring to a specific school of theology then you should clarify yourself.

Sorry Rathma...I missed this, and I should have answered. 

I believe that there should be no personal interpretation of scripture.   If a scripture needs to be clarified, it can only be clarified by other scriptures....not personal philosophy or theology.   Let God's Word speak for itself....don't read anything into it *except* within the context of other scriptures.    If a phrase is unclear, research the original language word(s) in question.     Some clarification of what words or phrases meant in the social context of the time they were written...but personal ideas or slants about these should be minimal or non-existent.     IMO, God speaks for himself through his word, and we have no right to inject our own ideas into what is written. 

In short...LET SCRIPTURE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE.

Any mixture with Greek philosophy (which tainted "Christian" teachings after the death of the apostles) should be completely and wholeheartedly rejected.    And that is mostly what modern theology teaches.

This should fix it.

[jammindude]

I found the problem.   When I put "word(s)", I originally used square brackets...my bad.   Carry on.

[hefdaddy42]

I believe that there should be no personal interpretation of scripture. 

ALL interpretation of Scripture is personal interpretation of Scripture.

[jammindude]

I believe that there should be no personal interpretation of scripture. 

ALL interpretation of Scripture is personal interpretation of Scripture.

I'm not understanding this at all. 

If I tell you my name is Ben...is it just your personal interpretation that my name is Ben?   If your answer is yes, we'll be at an impasse, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'll do you one better.   If you receive an Email from a friend, and he updates you on everything that's going on in his life.  (job, living situation, relationship update..etc...etc...)   Are you going to start overlaying a bunch of personal interpretations over what he said?   Spent countless hours second guessing him?   If you trust him, wouldn't you just take him at his word?     If he told you he found a job at a tech company...would you start reading in that this was code for something else entirely?   

My approach to the Bible is exactly like that.  It's a letter from a friend that I trust completely.  (and I didn't come to this conclusion lightly...I didn't just wake up one day and decide this.  This was after months of contemplation and research into the facts)

[theseoafs]

So everything in The Bible should be taken 100% literally? The Garden of Eden, Revelation, Noah's Ark, Creation... everything?

[jammindude]

So everything in The Bible should be taken 100% literally? The Garden of Eden, Revelation, Noah's Ark, Creation... everything?

It depends on what *other scriptures* tell us.   For instance...Jesus spoke of the flood and Noah as an actual event...therefore I absolutely believe that REALLY happened.    However, scriptures in Hebrews (as well as the original Hebrew wording of God resting on the seventh day, and the explanation of Peter that God doesn't view time the way we do, AND other scriptures in the Psalms) make clear that the creative days in Genesis were not 24 hr days the way we understand them.  But I do believe that the events in the Garden of Eden were real. 

As far as Revelation, the opening verses make clear that everything is symbolic...so to take it all literally, would be ignoring the verses that say it isn't.    You can't just ignore explanatory scriptures.   

[theseoafs]

So everything in The Bible should be taken 100% literally? The Garden of Eden, Revelation, Noah's Ark, Creation... everything?

However, scriptures in Hebrews (as well as the original Hebrew wording of God resting on the seventh day, and the explanation of Peter that God doesn't view time the way we do, AND other scriptures in the Psalms) make clear that the creative days in Genesis were not 24 hr days the way we understand them.

Nope. We explained this to you already.

[jammindude]

So everything in The Bible should be taken 100% literally? The Garden of Eden, Revelation, Noah's Ark, Creation... everything?

However, scriptures in Hebrews (as well as the original Hebrew wording of God resting on the seventh day, and the explanation of Peter that God doesn't view time the way we do, AND other scriptures in the Psalms) make clear that the creative days in Genesis were not 24 hr days the way we understand them.

Nope. We explained this to you already.

Well I'll take God Word over yours.   

[theseoafs]

Nope, God used the word "day".

Regardless, does this mean that you accept the order in which everything was created in Genesis? You must wholeheartedly believe that the earth was created before light which was created before the sun and the moon which were created before the stars, right?

[jammindude]

I don't want to get too far off topic...but just to clarify.  Besides Hebrews 4...besides Peter...besides the Psalms...we also have Genesis 2:3 itself.

Young LITERAL Translation:
"And God blesseth the seventh day, and sanctifieth it, for in it He hath ceased from all His work which God had prepared for making."

A little more digging...the Hebrew word used here for "he hath ceased" is in the present and continuous sense (as in...still ongoing...indicating that he was *still* in that day of rest at the time of the writing, which was done *thousands* of years after the fact). 

[theseoafs]

That's lovely. You didn't answer my question.

[jammindude]

Nope, God used the word "day".

Regardless, does this mean that you accept the order in which everything was created in Genesis? You must wholeheartedly believe that the earth was created before light which was created before the sun and the moon which were created before the stars, right?

Again...you're NOT looking at the scripture.

1.  God created the heavens and the earth.

So what was in the heavens?    Everything you see!   So he started by creating all of what we see in the heavens.

2. Now the earth proved to be formless waste and there was *DARKNESS* upon the surface of the watery deep.

Ok...so now we are approaching things from the POV of what's on the earth.   The sun and the stars have been created...but the earth was dark.

3. Let God said let there be light.

Ok...so now light begins to appear ON THE EARTH.   The scripture explains everything.  I don't have to read anything into it at all. 

[Adami]

Cool thanks. I didn't want to look back and find posts where you personally interpret scripture, so you just provided it.


Almost everything you just said is your personal interpretation of what you think "it must mean".

[theseoafs]

Nope, God used the word "day".

Regardless, does this mean that you accept the order in which everything was created in Genesis? You must wholeheartedly believe that the earth was created before light which was created before the sun and the moon which were created before the stars, right?

Again...you're NOT looking at the scripture.

1.  God created the heavens and the earth.

So what was in the heavens?    Everything you see!   So he started by creating all of what we see in the heavens.

I don't see anything in the heavens, because I never have and no one ever has. You're confusing the "heavens" for the "sky".

2. Now the earth proved to be formless waste and there was *DARKNESS* upon the surface of the watery deep.

Ok...so now we are approaching things from the POV of what's on the earth.   The sun and the stars have been created...but the earth was dark.

No, the sun and stars were not created yet. They were created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-18).

Ok...so now light begins to appear ON THE EARTH.   The scripture explains everything.  I don't have to read anything into it at all. 

The sun and stars were already there but there was no light on earth? How does that make sense to you?

[rumborak]

Jammin, is it not somewhat presumptuous, given the vast divergence of Bible interpretations, to think that you are the only one who is not interpreting anything from the text? One might call that arrogant.

rumborak

[jammindude]

Jammin, is it not somewhat presumptuous, given the vast divergence of Bible interpretations, to think that you are the only one who is not interpreting anything from the text? One might call that arrogant.

rumborak

If there is arrogance, there can be no understanding.  The only way to understand scripture is trust in God's Word and not mens.    Don't listen to me.  Look it up for yourself.    Thinking *we* know better than God's Word is the first mistake.   The first step is...WE KNOW NOTHING.   

[Adami]

You're quite good at dodging the point my friend. But all it does it make these debates go on longer.

[theseoafs]

Ever think about becoming a politician, jammindude?

[jammindude]

Nope, God used the word "day".

Regardless, does this mean that you accept the order in which everything was created in Genesis? You must wholeheartedly believe that the earth was created before light which was created before the sun and the moon which were created before the stars, right?

Again...you're NOT looking at the scripture.

1.  God created the heavens and the earth.

So what was in the heavens?    Everything you see!   So he started by creating all of what we see in the heavens.

I don't see anything in the heavens, because I never have and no one ever has. You're confusing the "heavens" for the "sky".

2. Now the earth proved to be formless waste and there was *DARKNESS* upon the surface of the watery deep.

Ok...so now we are approaching things from the POV of what's on the earth.   The sun and the stars have been created...but the earth was dark.

No, the sun and stars were not created yet. They were created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-18).

Ok...so now light begins to appear ON THE EARTH.   The scripture explains everything.  I don't have to read anything into it at all. 

The sun and stars were already there but there was no light on earth? How does that make sense to you?

1. You're the one who's arguing that the stars have not existed for millions of years.   I'm saying that Genesis states very plainly that the entire universe was created "in the beginning".

2. You're taking 14-18 out of the context of vs 2.  If you take 14-18 to mean that they weren't created yet, you're ignoring Genesis 1 that says they were.  If you take into account vs 2 that we are going down to the POV of the earth, then 14-18 all make sense and perfectly harmonize with 1 and 2.  The sun and the stars began to be clearly seen from the POV of the earth.    This is where the confusion often lies.   People *read in* contradictions, when they don't really contradict at all.  You just have to take them together and harmonize them.  That way, God speaks for himself.   No interpretation required. 

3. I cannot speculate.  I have no idea.   The Bible isn't designed to be a scientific textbook.    Remember that we reducing several million years into a couple of paragraphs.   The point was not to explain every little detail.    Who knows what the aftermath of the earth first forming was like?   I don't.    I could imagine that when the earth was first created, there may have been *something* (IDK...dust, clouds...I have no idea) that may have been blocking light from reaching the earth.   Remember that at this point, there is no life yet.  You had to have light before you can have life.    So light first...then as everything starts to "burn off", the sun becomes obvious in the sky rather than just a hazy light.    But again...the Bible does not explain what was blocking light from reaching the earth.  Only that the universe and everything in it existed, and that the earth was dark.   Then from the POV of the earth, things that were already there began to slowly become visible from the earth. 

[Adami]

The bible never states that part of genesis is from the point of view of the earth. You're assuming that.

[theseoafs]

1. You're the one who's arguing that the stars have not existed for millions of years.

What?

1. You're the one who's arguing that the stars have not existed for millions of years.   I'm saying that Genesis states very plainly that the entire universe was created "in the beginning".

Nope. Read it again. It says the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning. Two things: the heavens, where God lives, and the earth, where we live. There was no such thing as a universe when the Bible was written.

2. You're taking 14-18 out of the context of vs 2.  If you take 14-18 to mean that they weren't created yet, you're ignoring Genesis 1 that says they were.

Nope. Genesis 1:1 says God created the heavens and the Earth, not the stars. He couldn't have created the stars in Genesis 1:1 because he created them three days later in Genesis 14-18.

[jammindude]

The bible never states that part of genesis is from the point of view of the earth. You're assuming that.

Wow...this statement just baffles me.    It's like if I said, "there's a car outside, but then I went inside the house, and I couldn't see the car anymore"....and you're saying I never went in the house...and that the car stopped existing.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. 

[Sigz]

It's like if I said, "there's a car outside, but then I went inside the house, and I couldn't see the car anymore"....and you're saying I never went in the house...and that the car stopped existing.

wat