[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> > That is made most obvious by the atheist, but the same thing is occurring   
   >> > with those that believe there is a God, but they are more interested in   
   the   
   >> > affairs of this world that they have no time for God, and or they don’t   
   >> > want him messing with the sins they enjoy. Some are bitter towards him   
   >> > because he didn’t jump to their commands or demands.   
   >>   
   >> Any examples of this?   
   >   
   >Sure, this thread, as well as the attitudes of all atheists.   
      
   So there was an atheist in this thread who's bitter because God didn't   
   jump to their commands?  That sounds more like a theist trope than   
   actual reality.   
      
   >> > > > > > > > Yet Jesus gave us the signs, and when they are all   
   >> > > > > > > > happening at the same time, with an increasing ferocity and   
   the   
   >> > > > > > > > nations   
   >> > > > > > > > are   
   >> > > > > > > > all lined up as specified for a future war of MAJOR   
   proportions. There   
   >> > > > > > > > is not much left to be fulfilled before Jesus comes in the   
   air.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > War, not peace, is the norm for cities and states in ancient   
   times and   
   >> > > > > > > even in the modern world. Any "signs" of Jesus' supposed return   
   have   
   >> > > > > > > long since occurred, without any end of the world to go with   
   them.   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Nope, for a prophecy to be fulfilled all aspects of it must   
   happen. Only   
   >> > > > > > partial aspects that fit near the defined prophecy, will they   
   protected   
   >> > > > > > those   
   >> > > > > > that were aware, were not the actual fulfillment.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > Presumably, Isaiah's "prophecy" was written before Damascus was   
   >> > > > > rebuilt.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > You have had that discussion with others about that prophecy, but you   
   >> > > > dismissed the words of the Bible to accept a supposition of man who   
   had   
   >> > > > not   
   >> > > > the ears to hear what was written.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > What was the name of the person with whom I supposedly had this   
   >> > > discussion? I don’t recall who all, but it was only a few months back.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > > > > > > For instance, if you see the city of Damascus totally   
   destroyed in one   
   >> > > > > > > > night, as described in the Bible, I don’t see what else is   
   left   
   >> > > > > > > > before   
   >> > > > > > > > the   
   >> > > > > > > > Tribulation. Plus there is a viable chance that that is the   
   trigger.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > Some scholars see the destruction of Damascus as a prophecy   
   which was   
   >> > > > > > > fulfilled by the destruction of Damascus by Assyria in the 8th   
   century   
   >> > > > > > > BCE. No "time of tribulation" in the modern world needed for   
   any of   
   >> > > > > > > it.   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Some mistaken ones did, no doubt, but the prophecy never occurred   
   to the   
   >> > > > > > full   
   >> > > > > > discription of it such as to it was fully there when night fell   
   and the   
   >> > > > > > next   
   >> > > > > > morning it was gone, plus it will never be inhabited again was not   
   >> > > > > > fulfilled.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > So where does the Bible say that Damascus would never be rebuilt, or   
   >> > > > > that it fell over night?   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > You were given those scriptures before, would there be any difference   
   if   
   >> > > > you   
   >> > > > heard them again?   
   >> > >   
   >> > > When did that supposedly happen?   
   >> >   
   >> > They were mentioned as you were arguing about them.   
   >>   
   >> As I was arguing about them? You said it had happened *before* that!   
   >   
   >Your arguing has been the same for decades. All during that time you were   
   >shown things you totally dismissed, at least publicly.   
      
   Any examples?  And note that "it was in this thread" or some other   
   broad generalization won't be sufficient.   
      
   >> > > > Aren’t you diametrically opposed to the Bible, what it is   
   >> > > > and what it stands for. the Bible is for understanding, not a point of   
   >> > > > argument.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > I'm opposed to people not properly understanding the Bible, which is   
   >> > > true about most Christians.   
   >> >   
   >> > Interesting, and why would you declare such a thing?   
   >>   
   >> Maybe I wasn't clear enough: Most Christians don't understand the   
   >> Bible properly -- that's what I'm opposed to. An example would be   
   >> Jesus predicting that his generation would see his return after his   
   >> death -- Christians twist that to mean it wasn't the *generation* that   
   >> would see it, but [t]he Jewish *race* that would see it.   
   >   
   >It was spoken to the Jews at that time, and about the definition in use at   
   >that time.   
      
   Christians bend over backward to get the definition they want to use.   
      
   >Those who cared to know would find out and learn. Of course, a believer could   
   >just ask God and the spirit of God would lead them to the truth so that they   
   >might see and understand.   
      
   What does that have to do with Jesus predicting his return within the   
   lifetime of his followers?   
      
   >> See how that does violence to Scripture, in the name of conservative   
   >> exegesis?   
   >   
   >Speak in plain English please.   
      
   "Violence to Scripture" just means interpreting it in a way that's at   
   odds with its plain meaning, usually for some kind of personal gain.   
      
   "Conservative" just means you favor traditional interpretations of the   
   Bible over more modern and often secular interpretations of it.   
      
   "Exegesis"  just means the process of interpreting and analyzing the   
   Bible to better understand what it's saying.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)