_______
ROBERT 4.27.2011 11:10PM
Answering Family Radio's tract:
The End of the World is Almost Here!...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Before I get started, I must discuss the matter of logical proof. Proof depends on two ingredients: (1) Establishing your facts; and (2) Deducing right conclusions based on those facts.
“Establishing your facts” means satisfying the “burden of proof.” I can claim that I've been to the moon and back, and there is not one person in the world that has been able disprove it. But that does not validate my claim, and I do not deserve to make the evening news. The burden of proof rests on me to prove my claim before people need to start taking me seriously enough to research whether I'm telling the truth.
“Deducing right conclusions” means avoiding “non sequiturs” – a Latin term for “arguments that 'do not follow' from their assumed facts.” The street may be wet, but that does not prove that it just rained. A sprinkler may have caused it; a street sweeper may have caused it. To conclude that it must have rained does not follow from the evidence. This is a non sequitur.
Most, if not all, of what is in these three tracts can be dismissed on one of these two grounds above. (I will also be bringing these up in future topics.)
Since it was not your tract, I don't feel quite right responding to it at all, and neither do I feel right expecting you to try to defend another person's work. So feel free to just read it once and be done with it, so we can get on to better topics. But I spent like two days on it, so at least reading it would be nice.
Tract 1: “The End of the World is Almost Here...May 21, 2011”
Pg. 2: Camping makes a careless mistake, asserting that the word “Allah” is one of the names of God that we find “in the Bible.” That word is found in the Koran, never in the Bible (unless you count later Bible translations into Arabic!). Perhaps he has corrected himself since then. Perhaps he meant “Elohim.” But this would still count as another instance of him being careless or ignorant.
Pg. 4: “By careful study of the Bible we learn that in the year 4990 B.C. God brought a flood...”
He does not provide documentation of this “careful study,” nor even provide us enough reason to take it seriously enough to spend time reading his books, which are hundreds of pages long.
Pg. 5: “In 2 Peter 3:8...Holy God reminds us that one day is as 1,000 years. Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years,...”-- Stop the tape.
Peter is not concerned with telling people how to calculate the future. He is describing the equation forward and backward (1 day ~ 1,000 years AND 1,000 years ~ 1 day). His point is that “God is not slack concerning his promise,” that's all. It is wrong to simply equate 1 day with 1000 years for calculating the future. Why not equate 1 day with 1 single year instead? Don't Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 do that? And does not Mr. Camping, himself, likewise interpret the “70 weeks” of Daniel 9:24 to be 70 sevens of years, thereby implying that one week = seven days = seven years, and therefore one week = one year? He said, “And 490 years equals 70 weeks; that is, 70 x 7 = 490. Immediately we see the precise fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-25.” (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel Nine, http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/70wks.html) He has not established this “correct understanding.”
Based on this purported fact that “the seven days...in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years,” he concludes:
--“...we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, he was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years...to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day.”
In one breath he supposes that the seven days CAN BE understood as 7,000 years, and in the next breath he concludes that therefore God was telling the world there WOULD BE 7,000 years until judgment. “Can be” is a matter of disputable speculation, and “would be” is a claim of certainty. “Would be” does not follow from “can be”; this is a non sequitur. And he argues just like this elsewhere, as we will see in future discussions.
Pg. 7: “We learn from the Bible that Holy God plans to rescue about 200 million people...” And I suppose we are supposed to inquire within for more information about this. He doesn't provide enough reason to suspect that he knows what he's talking about on this one.
And there's that word again, “we.” He uses that word a lot. I suspect he means “I” learned this and others learned it shortly thereafter. And so “we” who know God sort of independently learn these truths and thereby provide independent confirmation of their validity. I have to wonder, though, how often any of Family Radio's teachings originate with more than one person.
One down, two to go. God bless. -Robert
_______
ROBERT 4.27.2011 11:13PM
Answering Family Radio's tract:
No Man Knows the Day or the Hour?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
All I have to say about this tract is that Mr. Camping abounds in unsubstantiated claims, like the one where “accurate knowledge” was revealed to “true believers” (pg. 2), and another “we learned” about how “half and hour referred to the 2,300 days” that were part of a “23-year tribulation.” It's like trying to catch a runaway train of claims that go undocumented.
His main point is that if “no one knows,” then basically that was then and this is now. But I maintain that watching is for believers, because they're the ones who care enough to be listening to Jesus in the first place (Matt. 24:42; see also those other NT “watch” verses). And I likewise maintain that watching is for those who don't know (Matt. 24:42), because no one knows (Matt. 24:36). But I've moved on beyond Matthew 24.
Two down, one to go. God bless. -Robert
_______
ROBERT 4.27.2011 11:22PM
Answering Family Radio's tract:
God Gives Another Infallible Proof…
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
OK, I tried to be brief again, but I definitely failed to do so.
Claim: Flood was in 4,990 BC.
Reason: “we learned from the Bible” (pg. 1)
Problem: Unsubstantiated assumption.
Claim: Crucifixion happened April 1, 33 AD. (pg. 1)
Reason: It is “the only date that meets all the requirements of the Bible, such as being a Friday that falls on the correct date for the Passover, which was the date Christ was to be crucified.” (pg. 1-2)
Problems: (1) How do we know the Bible requires it to be on a Friday? Some scholars say it was on Wednesday in order to give him three full days and three full nights before resurrection. Why should I believe Camping over them? (2) Why must it fall on Passover? Scholars point out that John's Gospel puts it on the “day of preparation for Passover” (John 19:13). Why should I trust Camping's assumption on this one? (3) Furthermore, scholars vary about what day of the week April 1, 33 AD even was; some say it was a Wednesday, some say other days. It seems that there is too much uncertainty to trust any controversial Bible teacher's presumptions to know such things with certainty.
Claim: Rapture and Judgment Day to be May 21, 2011.
Reason: “We have known for some time.” (pg. 2)
Problem: Unsubstantiated assumption.
Claim: 722,500 days between April 1, 33 AD and May 21, 2011.
Reason: solar year math
No problem: He gets a pass on his math.
Claim: Special significance to numbers like 3, 5, 10, 17, 23. (pg. 3-4)
Reason: (Lots of various biblical instances cited and analyzed.)
Problems: Specific interpretations not justifiable, too much room for make-believe and bias, not enough proof available; it amounts to trying to read God's mind. Why can't “3” mean some kind of trinity (Mt 28:19), or burial (Mt 12:40), or killing (Gen 40:19; 2 Sam 18:14), or mighty men (2 Sam 23:9)? Same goes for all the other numbers – we can find whatever significance we want to in them.
Claim: Church age officially began May 22, 33 AD. (pg. 5)
Reason: “We have learned”
Problem: Unsubstantiated assumption.
Claim: Church Age ended May 21, 1988. (pg. 5)
Reason: None given, unless it falls under “we have learned” as above.
Problem: Unsubstantiated assumption.
Claim: Satan was bound from 33 AD to 1988 AD. These are 1,955 actual years apart. These 1,955 actual years = the 1,000 symbolic years.
Reason: “from much additional Biblical information we know” (pg. 3)
Problems: Unsubstantiated assumption PLUS the preposterous claim that 1,955 years could do justice to 1,000 symbolic years. He is clearly forcing numbers into his own timeline to defend his other teachings.
Claim: “Numbers, Like Words, Tell Stories” (pg. 5)
Reason? No discernable reasons given.
Problem: Numbers don't tell stories, people tell stories.
Claim: There must be significance in 1,955 = 5×17×23, which represent atonement, heaven, and destruction.
Reasons: 5 is atonement based on 5 shekel or 1/2 shekel stories; 17 is heaven based on an interpretation of Jer. 32:7-17; 23 is destruction based on 23,000 in Num. 25:9.
Problems: (1) “5” referred to the stones David took up (1 Sam. 17:40); to the number of loaves fed to 1000 times as many (Matt. 4:19-21); to the number of talents given to one man (Matt. 25:15). And 1/2 only means 0.5 in a base-10 number system.
(2) “17” was the age of Joseph in Gen. 37:2; it was how long Jacob lived in Egypt (hardly typical of “heaven”) (Gen. 47:28); it was the length of the reigns of kings (1 Ki. 14:21; 2 Ki. 13:1); I found 10 “seventeen” references in the Bible, and none of them signify “heaven,” not even Jer. 32:7-17. It hardly needs to “mean” atonement more than anything else.
(3) “23” (they named a movie after it) appears 7 times in my computer Bible search, and only one mentioned destruction, and only did so trivially and nonrelevantly. Again, no connection is there.
(4) Where is “7”? Isn't that relevant to Judgment Day? And what about “3”? Isn't it God's “purpose” to execute it?
(5) Since 1,955 days resulted in 1988, the supposed end of the church age, what possible relevance could be found in atonement or heaven here? He does not explain.
Claim: There must be significance in 722,500 = (5×10×17)×(5×10× 17).
Reason: “Atonement” was “completed” when believers are raptured into “heaven.” (pg. 6)
Problems: (1) “10” = 2×5; Camping did not prime factor the number all the way, but left it as a “10” arbitrarily in order to make his preferred point.
(2) “10,” he argued on pg. 3, meant completeness, but his only explanation, besides exploiting all those zeroes when 10 is taken to various powers, is that Satan was bound for 1,000 years, which in turn he equated with 1,955 actual years.
(3) “17” I can understand, but where is “23”? Shouldn't “destruction” be more present here than in 1988 AD?
(4) And once again, where is “7”? I thought it was so important for Judgment Day. And likewise "3"?
(5) Large numbers usually have lots of diverse factors, and people can find whatever they want in them. For instance: (a) Subtract one and you get 722,500 – 1 = 722,499 = 3×23×37×283. Hey! doesn't this indicate “purpose” in 3, “destruction” in 23, and “judgment” in 37? (Camping said, “The number 37, like the number 23, signifies God’s judgment.” - Time Has an End, pg. 309)
(6) Almost forgot. Camping never established his assumed starting and ending dates adequately. (He has a reputation for relentlessly choosing dates and data that will support his math and doctrines. I will show later that this is true in his Bible interpretations as well.) Therefore, no matter how significant it may feel to find a squared (not “doubled,” but squared) triplet of not-quite-prime-factored numbers, we must throw it out because his dates used for subtraction to arrive at the number in the first place were not valid and were too likely subject to bias and forgery to support his predictions.
Tracts done. Now to finish Matthew 28:1 and then Calvinism/Arminianism. God bless. -Robert
_______
ROBERT 4.28.2011 12:45AM
Answering Family Radio's booklet:
Sunday the Sabbath
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
In dispute is the Greek phrase “mian sabbaton” found in Matthew 28:1 and elsewhere. The word “mian” means “one” or “number one” or “first.” The word “sabbaton” literally means “of sabbaths.” The Family Radio booklet Sunday the Sabbath claims that the phrase should be literally translated “first of Sabbaths,” and that it thereby intimates the commencement of new, Sunday Sabbaths. Mr. Camping insists that translators universally mistranslate “sabbaths” as “week.”
But are the translators mistranslating a word? Are they directly substituting “week” in place of “sabbath” as Camping suggests? Or are they translating by interpretation, by phrase-equivalence, recognizing Jewish manners of speech in ways that require improvising into the receptor language (English)?
After reading a few commentaries by Bible scholars with degrees in ancient languages and history, I believe that the phrase “first of sabbaths” was an ancient Jewish way of saying “the first day since the Sabbath.” Please consider the following two commentaries on Matthew 28:1, as well as my observations.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible says:
“towards the first day of the week, or "sabbaths"; so the Jews used to call the days of the week, the first day of the sabbath, the second day of the sabbath, &c. take an instance or two (z).” [footnote:] “(z) Misn. Taanilh, c. 4. sect. 3.” (see http://bible.cc/matthew/28-1.htm)
(note: John Gill was a staunch Calvinist, according to wikipedia.)
So “first day of the sabbath” meant Sunday, “second day of the sabbath” meant Monday, etc. I know this doesn't jive well with our modern lingo, and so our Bibles naturally don't translate it that way. Accurate translation often means choosing interpretation over word-for-word literalism. It's a language thing. So if both “first day of the week” and “first day of the sabbath” point to Sunday, then the translation, while not literal, is still true and accurate.
The Geneva Study Bible says:
“When the morning of the first day after the sabbath began to dawn: and that first day is the same as that which we now call Sunday, or the Lord's day.” (see http://bible.cc/matthew/28-1.htm)
(note: The Geneva Study Bible's notes were “Calvinist and Puritan in character,” according to wikipedia.)
So the phrase basically means “first day after the sabbath.”
If this is true, then both sides are right about much. Mr. Camping can have his literal “sabbath(s)”* in Matthew 28:1, while the rest of us can rightly assert that Saturday was that Sabbath, just as it continued to be in Acts 1:12; 13:14, 27, 42, 44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4; and Colossians 2:16. ((*By the way, Jews loved to pluralize words back then. “Sabbath” is pluralized in Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19, but left singular in Mark 16:9 (“sabbatou” = “of sabbath”). And, as we will study below, it is likewise pluralized in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2, but left singular in Luke 18:12. It's a Jewish thing, and it affected the NT as well. Back in the OT, “Elohim” literally means “gods,” being the plural of “el,” or “god.” They didn't have capital letters, so in order to do some justice to Jehovah they basically boosted the word “god” into “God” by pluralizing it.))
You may wonder, Why don't they just translate it “first day after the Sabbath”? That's a fair question. The bottom line is, it points to the same day. You see, “first day after the Sabbath” basically means “first day since the week has started,” which in turn means “first day of the week.” Different words, same meaning.
In this way, “Sabbath” means exactly the same thing in both halves of Matthew 28:1, namely a seventh-day Sabbath. I know that Mr. Camping values consistency in this verse – he insists on it in his booklet. But what he does not insist on, but denies, is the consistency of meaning. He suggests a mysterious transfer from Saturday Sabbath to Sunday Sabbath, something which is simply left unclarified.
It is important to study three NT verses to see further biblical confirmation of the above manner of usage of “sabbath” and it's connection to a week (not being identical to it, but closely related). These are Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; and Luke 18:12.
In Acts 20:7, the disciples broke bread “en te mia ton sabbaton," literally "on the one/first of the sabbaths." Consistent with the above grammar principles, this means "on the first day after the Sabbath." Now, the Sunday the Sabbath booklet claims that "Acts 20:7 should be translated 'And upon one of the sabbaths'." The problem, however, is that the word "the" is present here. It was absent in Matthew 28:1, but everybody, including Mr. Camping, simply supplies it during translation (another language thing). But here in Acts 20:7, the word "the" is right there, making it extra clear that this in not just "ONE of the Sabbaths," but "THE one," or "the FIRST." Mr. Camping offers no explanation of why he can ingnore the word "the," especially when considering that he inserted it out of nowhere in Matthew 28:1.
In 1 Corinthians 16:2, they were told to set aside money "kata mian sabbaton," literally "every one/first of sabbaths." Sensibly enough, it should be read as "every first day after the Sabbath," or "every day-one since the Sabbath," indicating the day after Saturday, meaning Sunday. While Camping agrees with this practice of setting aside money on Sunday, he nevertheless insists that it means setting aside money "every one of the Sabbaths," meaning Sunday Sabbaths. But the best Greek way to say that would have been "kata pan sabbaton," meaning "every every Sabbath," and that is exactly how it appears in all three NT passages containing the phrase "every Sabbath": Acts 13:27; 15:21; 18:4. However, the structure in 1 Corinthians 16:2 is more like that of Acts 20:7 and Matthew 28:1, containing the word "mia(n)," meaning first, and readers will naturally recognize the difference between "kata mian" and "kata pan."
In Luke 18:12, the pious Pharisee claimed that he fasted "dis tou sabbatou," literally "twice of the sabbath." Most translations read: "twice a week." Camping claims it says: "twice in the Sabbath." He claims that the Pharisee is saying, "I fast twice in the Sabbath." He maintains that they could fast twice in the same day. It just makes more sense to me that he is fasting twice after each Sabbath, which implies that he fasts twice a week.
___
OK, done with my Camping criticisms, except for follow-ups. Now on to the main event. Tomorrow. God bless. -Robert
_______
PHIL 4.28.2011 1:34PM
Responding to my criticism of the three tracts above,
and saying, "I would eat my hat if..."
and saying, "I would eat my hat if..."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I am reading your post right now, and I can assure you the world is 13023 years old and from Adam to the flood is 6023 years and from the very day of the flood it will be 7000 years on May 21, 2011. THere is a bible verse to prove it all along the way. Gen 5:3 Adam was 130 when Seth was bron, Seth was 105 when Enos was born,.....Gen 5:28 Lamcech was 182 when Noah was born, Noah was 500 when Shem was born, Arfaxad was born the year Shem died. ect.
I have proof of this and I would eat my hat if you could find one verse wrong in this biblical calendar, better yet, I will call the open Fourm and tell the USA if I find a single verse that is speculation or does not exist in the biblical calendar. It is all based on the history of the world in the bible. If you go to www.ebiblefellowship.com you can read about the timeline of History. It is amazing. At family radio it is called the biblical calendar of history, Campings calendar is more detailed but harder to follow, I have both and read both, that is the main reason I am declaring the world is ending , is because God reveals in the bible a calendar. As you see above if Adam was 130 when Seth was born and Seth was 105 when his son Enos was born, then the world is 235 years old at that time. I will go back to reading what you have said thus far, as I have not yet finished it.
_______
PHIL 4.28.2011 1:53PM
Responding to my criticism of Sunday the Sabbath
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I am not leanred in greek and many false teachers also claim many things in greek to try and persuade their followers. THere was a man named Gabriel Ottero who is a greek and Hebrew Scholar and a preacher. He agrees completely with Harold Camping but does not in the church age doctrine, He has now left family radio as he will not flee the church.
Are you a seventh day Adaventist? THis would change a few things that I said before, as we cannot add to the words of the bible nor can we take away words. Ellen G WHite had visions she claimed from God in which a halo was around the fourth commandment, Women are to be silent in the congregation and not to teach men, this alone should be a hudge flag to those in the Seventh day Adentists churches, along with many of them I have seen have many pictures of a man with long hair and that violates the 10 cammandments and yet they are hung up on the Saturday Sabbath.
I will research this some more as they avoided the Saturday to anoint Jesus with oil and perfume, so they came Sunday Morning to do it. I am so far convinced that I cannot change a plural word Sabbaths to a singular word sabbath or week. It would have to be weeks, or Sabaths.
We can all find a book or scholar to agree with us if we want to, but the rest of the bibles authority also helps in every situation such as in collosians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat or drink or repect of a holy day or of the new moon or of the sabbath days. 17) WHICH ARE A SHADOW OF THINS TO COME; BUT THE BODY IS OF CHRIST.
The Sabbath is a picture of Christ, that we do not work for our salvaiton, in him we have rest, that is no works we do.
I do not accept anything from a penticostals dreams, visions nor tongues as comming from God, nor the book of morman, nor the teachings of Ellen G White. Nor anyone who claims to have recieved devine information from God in our day. We have only the bible as our source of truth. I hope you only turst in the bible and not any ones messeages that they claim are devine?
_______
ROBERT 4.28.2011 6:48PM
Re: Tracts; and more
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
In response to your 1:34pm message, I do not feel qualified to get dogmatic about lengthy calendar math, but at least I admit it. Others have done this for us. If you are inclined to read their detailed calendar math, it can be found at one of two places. The first, still under construction, is: http://www.refutecamping.com/topics/the_biblical_calendar_of_history.
But I might recommend this one instead, as it seems easier to read:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3509 .
One thing I notice in passing through these is that Amram was Moses' father (Ex. 6:20; Num. 56:29; 1 Chr. 6:3; 23:13. I also remember once learning that this one fact caused a great deal of grief to Camping's math and argument, to the point where he had to do some of his usual, fancy, and disputable explaining.
You said you would eat your hat if I found a verse. Well, what if someone else does? Or what if the prediction simply fails? Do you even have a hat?
In response to your 1:53pm message, I am happy to report to you that I am not a Seventh-Day Adventist (SDA), although I have had significant experience fellowshipping with sort-of-SDA's years ago and studying their stuff and rejecting lots of it. I don't agree with them about keeping the Sabbath, but scholars of probably every denomination have agreed that "Saturday is still the Sabbath," regardless of whether they keep it religiously or not. Some SDA scholars have practically gotten the Vatican to admit that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday at some point in history, although I realize Camping's argument does not depend on that.
Also, I only trust the Bible as a source of truth. And yet, even the Bible testifies to God giving visions and charismatic gifts, and never teaches any clear cessation of these. So in the fear of God I must keep an open mind, just in case God should ever give me an experience that only God could convince me is actually from him. I would hate to risk something like keeping God out by deciding ahead of time that he can't come in in a certain (charismatic) way. I would hate to be found blaspheming the Spirit by such judgments.
God bless.
-Robert
_______
PHIL 4.28.2011 8:38PM
Various
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Hello Robert, well you had me worried a little, as I cannot except anything outside the bible as truth from God but the word of God. I have had plenty of pleasant dreams and thoughts but that is my brain cells working overtime.
In Mark 16:16-18 God declares these signs will follow them that believe, In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues ( if that is all we read we would think the we would speak in tongues and cast out deamons as the catholic and penticostals do, but God goes on to explain)
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.
One thing so many do is they hold on to the verse of tongues, they do not realize that if one is saved, he is speaking of Gods word as we are doing ( not a unknow langage ) he is casting out deamons ( we are in Satans domain and he cannot hurt us as we prepare our paths, its as if we are casting out the deamons as we go) We can drink a deadly poison and it will not hurt us ( God speaks of a false gospel as a poison that kills those who drink it) We lay hands on the sick and they shall recover ( that is we share the word of God that spiritual food and it heals the sick and those who are blind now will see. Not as the literal blind man was healed but that blind man still did not know the Lord Jesus until he asked the Lord (not knowing he was the Christ) Who is He Lord that I may worship him, then Jesus said to him, It is I who speaketh to you.
I love that verse, as it is also The Lord Jesus speaking to each one who reads the bible. John 9:37 THou has both seen him , and it is he that talketh with thee.
I have several hats, I am honestly saying I would like to know if one verse is wrong and so would millions of people. THis calendar was done over many years and 5 years alone was put into it from Harold Starting with his book, Adam when.
The world is 13023 years old this year, the Usher view of 6000 year old world is the one that has no scripture proof and theologins and preachers quote from him all the time. It amazes me, I have seen only one reformed church over in Davis Calif, where the preacher has addmitted that Camping did his homework on the timeline of History, He still does not agree with May 21 but he did write a letter to Family raido and said while the calendar is correct the date is wrong, because Christ comes as a thief, if only God would have opend his eyes to I THes 5:4 where God clearly said he will not come as a theif.
The religious world cannot see unless God opens their eyes, jsut as the scribes and pharoahsees could not see when talking to the perfect preacher the Lord Jesus Christ. God is always in control.
Phil
_______
PHIL 4.28.2011 10:14PM
Response to a website I shared with him on 4.28.2011 6:48PM concerning Camping's calendar math
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Hello, I did check out the web site you posted, I dont think it is very accurate and here's why.
it said: Some would say 430 years should be counted not from the etnry by Jacob and his sons and grandsons but the date of the promise....
According to some, the count down of 400 years beagn with Isaac's birth.....
Now is that any way to refute a biblical calendar???
Puzzling that that is research.
Also they said the word quara I read it as quara shem ( spelling?) as Camping said it is always a direct son, but they said the word is used of Eve with Adam.
Now I don't know about that but Eve was taken directly from Adams rib so would that one instance make any differance at all in relationship to direct sons being qara or qara shem? We know begot can be a son or grandson or great grandson.
Besides for this all to work so perfectly with 7000 years, 13023 years, 6023 years even the from Christ rising from the dead and ISreal becomming a nation stands out perfectly in the use of Gods words as numbers in the bible.
I would think the world should have been destroyed long long ago for sin at the begining of abortion and now cloning, but for the elects sake all those God plans to save had to be born or at least created in the womb befoe the end when the world is destroyed.
there is a whole lot more to this than a few tracts, I'm sure you know that. I can only search the bible for truth and watch as God tells us to do. I am not concered as some trying to figure out where judgment begins on earth and hte details of the very end. I am praying for wisdom and mercy and trusting in what I can see in Gods word if the Lord willing will have mercy on myself and my boys in these last few days. Its like 23 days now. May God have mercy. Phil
_______
ROBERT 4.28.2011 11:22PM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
What would you prefer? Should we start talking about God's will and man's will, like I promised, during which I can secretly try to get up to speed on studying calendar arguments for discussion later? Or should I rush to study calendar issues first, since the time is so short, and we can postpone free will / sovereignty discussions until after J-day?
-Robert
_______
PHIL 4.29.2011 8:34AM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Hi Robert, Most definately Salvation is so much more important. So many really have not looked into what the churches teach and why.
The church of Christ believes you are saved when one is baptized. Billy Graham Crusades tell folk, if they do this or that and come forward and pray this or that way, God will save you that moment. No man can see ones heart. The bible really reveals Salvation on nearly every page, but God has to cause us to see it. THe word Cause is what people dont like. they want to Rob God by saying they have to contribute something as they see themselves as zombies if they do not add their own desire.
The free will is really a test in my view, as it seems right unto man, but when we really compare scripture it contradicts election. But election does not contradict free will. THe reason is in salvation it is 100% the work of God and man has a free will but not to save himself or get himself in the right position if you will. We can pray for mercy, read the bible, but God has to apply the Word to our heart, and if God does not apply the word to our heart, we will wind up religious based on our own understanding and could even start a whole new religion but one of works.
We have only 22 or 21 days left. I am sending out a few letters to family here and in Texas and hopefully, Lord willing some might become saved, not by what I do but if it is Gods will. God Bless.
_______
Discussion continues on
No comments:
Post a Comment