Posted on 08/02/2006 5:37:46 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
"I think that LeHaye is making a mistake in a way that hasn't been identified yet. He is discussing eschatology with unbelievers. Why?? A Christian needs to [co]nfront the unbelieving world with soteriology, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.""
Yes, but there are many people who see no need to be saved. So, what do you tell them? For some, the reality of Hell, or of the end times, may be the only thing that moves them.
Adrian Rogers used to say, "I'd rather scare you into Heaven than love you into Hell." Don't take that out of context, now - Dr. Rogers preached the love and grace of God for decades. That quote was just one way of saying that fear may be a motivator for those who don't respond to love.
OK, I am correct. In the first book, the Pope is raptured. In fact, this seems to make some people angry (the websites I found doing a search for "Left Behind" and Pope gave me numerous websites that mention the Pope in the book being raptured. So, please stop saying his version of the rapture does not include Catholics, because you are wrong. Did you read the books? Or are you commenting from other things you have read? I have made the same mistake before myself, but you gotta be careful when you do that.
susie
He's also not going to ask us how many arguements we won on the internet.
susie
You could be right. Then again....
;)
susie
you are talking about replacement theology which believes exactly as you stated. however nowhere in the bible does it even suggest that GOD would cast away the nation of israel. he has given them a promise through abraham, issac and jacob(renamed israel) that HE would give them the land that abraham walked on and that they would be the head of all nations, that has not happened at all in the history of the world.
christians have a unique relationship with GOD through JESUS. our position is soley(sp) due to the death and ressurection of our GOD and savior and the prophesy's of the old testament, that GOD would gather for himself a people from ALL nations and languages. we are benifiting from the temporary blindness of the isralies to see their messiah so we (gentiles) can be gathered from all the world.
once the full number of believers is gathered (only GOD knows that number) then the times of the gentiles will be over, then the blinders will be removed from the isralies and they will see as prophesy states in the old testament. GOD will then turn his full attention back to israel (though believers will not be foresaken by HIM) again as it is written in the old and new testaments.
its in the BOOK.
Just a clarification - When Jesus said "I AM", he was using the same name that God gave Moses when Moses asked who should he say had sent him.
Don't agree? The Jews Jesus was talking to thought so - they picked up rocks to stone him. They knew EXACTLY what he was claiming - to be the great "I AM".
Well, honey get busy!
Yes the earth is gone, but the dust of which it was made is not - it is no longer the earth, it is formless rubble.
Again to the Greek, the word used is luomenwn "loosed", "unbound", "disintegrated", etc.
A primary verb; to “loosen” (literally or figuratively): - break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-) loose, melt, put off. Compare G4486.
Man, you're going to educate yourself right out of the Bible...You ought to stick with the English...
There's tons of people that study Greek and Hebrew so's they have ammunition to correct the bible...And they have, there's well over a hundred modern translations out there...
On the other hand, I know some folks who have studied the Greek and Hebrew to prove the Bible is correct...
HaHa...The Catholic church teaches there is no rapture...I doubt LeHay left any religion out...
Sometime soon, there's some Catholics that are going to be in for the surprise ride of their lives...They don't have anything at DisneyLand or Cedar Point that will compare to it...
The translation project actually used 54 translators.
They were very, very good translators - but they were not selected from "the best in the world" but from the best available scholars in Britain who were sympathetic to the moderate party in the Anglican Church. There were many well-qualified translators of other confessions that were not consulted as well as many well-qualified translators from other countries who were not consulted. There was one Belgian.
I didn't correct them - they masterfully translated the Scriptures into the language they spoke. English has not remained static since 1611 however.
I also preferred to do a word-for-word translation, while they were sometimes a little freer. It's a difference in translation philosophy.
And, of course, I could never "top" them - my English translation sounds clunky and uninspiring, while they combined fidelity to the text with a beauty of language I could never achieve.
I translated the verse word-for-word into modern American English not to impugn their translation, but to point out how different the language we speak is from the language they spoke.
So I return to the point: investing the word "dispensation" with a meaning that is alien to the original Greek and which was not intended by the KJV translators is a misstep.
Do I need to pray that God will give you a good wife??
What few critics know is that at least a decade before his Y2K kick began, North (who has a PhD in history) cross-pollinated his discussions of biblical covenants and generations with his observations that history moves in 200- to 250-year cycles (punctuated by profound world-changing events such as the Reformation and the American Revolution). It was at this time, IMO, that North's Y2K expectations took seed. He began predicting that, if he were right about these historical cycles, some world-changing historical event would manifest itself around the time of the new millennium (i.e. 200-250 years after the American Revolution). Y2K wasn't even on his radar at that time. But when the Y2K scare came along, with it's threats of shutting down global communications and commerce, it seemed tailor-made to fulfil his expectations. North bought it - literally - devoting his many businesses, ministries, and personal fortunes towards preparing the world (and especially Christians) for a Y2K meltdown.
In hindsight, people behave as if Y2K just fixed itself. Did it? Or does North get any credit for investing his own money to sound the alarm early enough to prompt it's fixing? Yes, he made a fool of himself, and it cost him dearly. But in it's aftermath, what no one has noticed is that while North was wrong about the anticipated event, history may have proved him right about the covenantal cycles. He was expecting a world-changing event around the turn of the millennium - and in hindsight, 9/11 (with it's islamic terrorist jihads abroad and it's political machinations at home) may have been the very event he predicted.
Therefore, if the Samaritan was non-Jew, he was not following Jesus command.
Considering that a parable is a fictional story meant to teach a lesson, and the Samaritan was the hero of Jesus' parable, I would disagree with you there.
Just as I said. If I break up a statue, the statue ceases to exist, but the stone of which the statue was made is still there. Likewise if I destroy a building by blowing it to smitehreens, let's say, there is no more building but there still are smithereens. If I dissolve a cube of sugar in a glass of water, there is no more sugar cube but there is still sugar in the water. If I melt a block of ice . . . you get the picture. I hope.
On the other hand, I know some folks who have studied the Greek and Hebrew to prove the Bible is correct...
The Bible is always correct.
Your fundamental misunderstanding is that you believe that your interpretation of the Bible is definitive and that if someone else dares to read the text without your preconceived notions already planted in their heads they are tehrefore reading the Bible incorrectly.
Basically, you're saying that I took the time and trouble to study the Biblical languages with the express intention of undermining the Bible and impugning its truth.
That's an empty insult and a childish one.
That's my point. I'm not attacking him. I'm saying that these books are an opportunity for a lot of people to be exposed to the gospels.
But plenty of self-styled Christians and Bible-readers (like the Arians) did not know and claimed that Jesus was not God and that he never claimed to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.