Leaderboard

(I've dropped out of this thread, and will drop back out after a couple of comments) Pickle's insistence that 'strange flesh' (sarkos heteros) in Jude refers to homosexuality because that is what it suggests to him is contrary to the actual meaning of Scripture. Here's one source where people are digging into the meaning of the expression. The case for interpreting it as being about homosexuality is extremely weak: http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/19854/in-jude-7-what-is-strange-flesh Robert said: You may need to read more closely, because I am not actually reading anyone involved in this discussion as condoning the practice of homosexuality. The distinction between actions and orientations is often used extremely loosely, and many are making the case that those with this orientation should not be judged, rather than arguing about actions. Kevin(wrx) has said multiple times 'there is no evidence Romans 1 was written by someone else', but that's not the argument being made at all. It's accepted that Paul wrote all of it. The issue is about the style of writing and the rhetorical strategy being used by Paul. The reason I dropped out of the thread, and will again now, is that there appears to be much appetite to read assumptions and prejudices into the texts, and very little appetite to seek to determine what the texts actually meant to their writers in the language, time and culture when they were written.

Yes, I believe we should devote many hours over years and years on this forum to that subject!!!

With Paul talking abut how being absent from this body and being present with the Lord, and the Parable of the Richman and Lazarus I am dumbfounded by the amount of energy that Seventh-day Adventist use to say that the dead don't go to heaven or hell at death. This shouldn't be a contentious point among Christians. The point is that as you study the context and the history of the "Proof Texts" it is not as clear cut as we wish. Robert, I am someone who has always been sickened by the idea of homosexuality. However, I need to be fair to the context of the texts and not read into them the same types of ideas that Sunday Keepers read into the Rich man and Lazarus or Paul's present with the Lord. Even though the traditional interpretation sounds good to me, what good is it if we are being unfair to scripture?

I don't see it as an either/or but a BOTH (the sins of Sodom). When people have too much time on their hands and all they could wish for then it is a small hop to not only deny those less fortunate and oppress others but also think of creative ways to pleasure themselves. And pleasure themselves they did, to the expense of the have-nots.

When was the command issued “to restore and to build Jerusalem” ? Do we look to the command issued anciently by Cyrus or Artaxerxes, which freed the Jews to return to their land, and to rebuild their Temple after the captivity in Babylon? If this prophecy is for “the latter days” or “the time of the end”, then why look to this ancient command? The prophet was told to “shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end” (Dan 12:4). The messenger said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end” (Dan 12:9). What makes us think we can clearly understand this prophecy - yet? Do we look to the United Nations recognition of Israel as a nation in 1948? Or do we look for another command in the very last days? If Iran gets a nuclear weapon and destroys Jerusalem, then another command may be forthcoming. The entire 70 weeks may belong to the last days. We have at least two possibilities. Maybe three. How long is a “week” ? The Hebrew word translated “week” in Daniel 9:27 is shabuwa` (Strong’s #07620). The meaning, according to Strong’s Concordance is “seven” - a period of 7 days, or of 7 years. Another more obscure meaning connects the word with the Feast of Weeks (also known as Tabernacles). This was a 7 day feast, which took place each Fall. If one day is equal to one year, then “seventy sevens” would be 490 years (Exo 23:10-11, Lev 25:3-4). If one week equals 7 literal days, then “seventy sevens” would be 490 literal days (1 year, 4 months, 10 days). If one “seven” is one Feast of Tabernacles, then 70 of those feasts, would take place within a period of 70 years. NOTE: The nation known today as Israel, will be 70 years old in 2018. You can see, we have at least three possibilities.

I think every one here KNOWS that Ellen White thought the Vatican was/will be, "the harlot" of Revelation. She might be right. Time will tell. I do not personally look to EGW for interpretation of Scripture. I want to stick with BIBLE only. I want to look for Bible proofs and connections. I know folks will keep on posting EGW quotes, and that's OK, but I will focus on those who stick with Bible.

In Daniel Cpt 10, the "prince of Persia" - the one who "withstood" the LORD's angel messenger to Daniel for 21 days - is a demon - NOT a human. Only Michael - "first" (echad - meaning the first, or "head") of the "chief princes", could help in the battle with this "prince of Persia". I believe there are 7 "chief princes". They stand before God's thrown in the Rev. 4-5 scene. They also release or pour out, the 7 last plagues. Michael was the pre-incarnate Son of God. The name Michael means "like unto God". ONLY the Son of God was "like" God. He was begotten in the Father's "express image".

Yes, I believe the 70 weeks are 490 years. The literal translation from the Hebrew is seventy "sevens" or "periods". Even several Bible translations call it seventy "sevens" or 70 "weeks of years". I infer from that 490 years is a reasonable translation. No translation that I am aware of even vaguely refers to the 1260 days as a "day for a year". I infer (assuming 70 weeks of years) that when Daniel 9:24-27 describes the 70 weeks, the 70th week (last seven years it cut off from the previous 69. "The Anointed One described in Dan. 9:25-26 is literally translated "an anointed one" in the original language and in several translations. It is not referring to Christ; it is referring to an antichrist power. When that power is covenants with Israel for 7 years, part of the deal will be to build a new Temple (sometime in the near future). Halfway through that period (3-1/2 years), this power will break the treaty, end the sacrifices at the new Temple, and stand in that Temple and declare Himself to be God. That leaves 3-1/2 years (1,260 days; a time, times, and half a time) for this power (the beast) to set up his kingdom and try to destroy God's elect. At the end of that 1,260 days, God's elect will be taken into the sky; and the 7 last plagues will fall. It won't be pretty for those remaining on the earth; for their probation (time of mercy - whatever you want to call it) will be over. Forgive me if I'm to lazy and tired to meticulously document this. To do so would make this post boringly long. Again, it is my current belief/opinion; not a "dogma that I think people must believe or be wrong. I'm not saying you (or others in this thread) are wrong; I'm just saying that at the current time, I believe differently than you. This is IMHO not a salvational issue. None of us at this time "know" empirically how eschatology will unfold. However, it is up to us to keep our eyes and mind open to more than just one specific scenario. Prophecy will unfold the way it unfolds; and almost all of us might be wrong. I have a very strong opinion on who this antichrist power and beast are; you can find it by searching this and other threads.

The men of Sodom believed that they were stealing some life force by raping a man. They honestly believed that if they raped a man that some of the food that would have grown in their victim's garden will now grow in your garden. That some of the kids born to their goats will now be born to your goats. That some of the donkeys that would have been born to his donkeys would be born to your donkeys. That some of the children his wife would have had your wife would now have. The issue was not homosexuality but believing that they were stealing, thinking that through the rape that they could give their wives and children better lives.

Think about all the species of animals that have gone extinct that we knew nothing about. While I do believe that just the "pure" Garden of Eden animals will be in the New Earth, we will have all of eternity to breed back our favorite breeds and probably even come up with a few new ones. I think this also goes for food. Tangelos comes to mind, yet we will be able to have both oranges and tangerines, so why not be able to put them together there too? As for people, I think we are to accept them all as Jesus accepted them. Yet he called all the Scribes and Pharisees snakes and vipers, but on an individual level He converted Joseph of Arimathea.

She was memorable in the film about Helen Keller. It was a hard role for anyone, and she was so young!

That is what David (Bravus) wanted to discuss--individual verses and their actual meaning. That discussion might have been profitable. But, to much emotion was involved. People just were not hearing what he was saying. As most know, Southern is a very conservative SDA college. It is not considered to be liberal. But, some years ago I read some material written by one of their religion staff. He was the one who alerted me to the fact that some individual verses commonly used on this subject were actually not as conclusive as the people using them thought. Yet, he held to the position that the Bible did say that homosexual practice was a sin.

Her son played in the movie "Hell and Mr Fudge"

To me, the Easter bunny was just a cute little rabbit who came around once a year, and was the reason for some fun. I never ever questioned that Santa Claus wasn't real when I was little... When I found out otherwise, I was disappointed, but it didn't cause a psychological catastrophe, nor did it make me not trust my parents. My Dad played Santa Claus at Christmastime to kids at school and to patients in hospitals. He did that for church Christmas functions as well, and everyone loved it....until someone got uptight and complained that my Dad was promoting heathenism. So *that* ended the service my father thought he was providing. Dad was crestfallen, but considered it as another thing that the church folks were misunderstanding.

Only if you hold an Adventist or historicist view on eschatology. Futurists (which I am) believe that the 1260 days (literal 24-hour periods) are yet ahead of us. No need to debate me on this; my mind is pretty much closed to the historicist view. The day for a year analogy only applies to those prophecies for which it was explicitly stated (Num. 14:34 and Ezek 4:5-6); not for all prophecy in general. If the day for a year application was universal, then the millennium is really 360,000 years long, unless someone can show me a scripture that says "the day for a year application does not apply beyond the second coming".

Based on Rev. 14:9, I would say anyone who gets the mark of the beast from the 3rd angel's proclamation onward in doomed. If the mark is decreed (or covertly given) Prior to the 3rd angel's pronouncement shouldn't be held responsible; but I'm not God. I've heard various people say that your SSN is the mark; that the digitized photo on passports and driver's licenses is the mark, the implanted ID chip is the mark - no one really knows yet, do they? So how can people be held accountable for something that hasn't yet been revealed? There are probably some out there who will claim to have deciphered the secret mysteries of the 3rd angel's pronouncement; and that those who have not studied the ancient languages and bible codes are lost for their lack of knowledge and insight; and therefore are receiving the mark as we speak - unknowingly sealing their eternal fate already. I don't buy it. Salvation shouldn't have a pre-requisite of intimate knowledge of Hebrew and Greek; as well as insight to God's alleged secret bible codes. I shouldn't be that difficult if Jesus' yoke is easy and His burden light.

I liked the author's ending statement: Illusions and delusions Despite Dawkins’s certainty about his views, in his book The God Delusion he does hedge his bets a bit. He has a chapter titled “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God.” Almost certainly no God? Why almost? For someone so sure of his attack on “God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural,” he has given himself an “out” here. Paul explained Dawkins’s slight uncertainty when he wrote that enough about God’s existence can be seen “by the things that are made” that people will be “without excuse” on judgment day (Romans 1:20). In other words, Dawkins isn’t fully convinced of his position, because the witness from the things “that are made” is too powerful. For all the certainty of Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists, logic in fact does suggest that the real illusion is the delusion that God does not exist.