Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
The only thing I left behind was my Scofield Notes.
= = =
Uncle Chip,
Doesn’t leaving behind even the more than questionable Scholfield notes
for a
RUBBER BIBLE, RUBBER DICTIONARY, RUBBER HISTORY VOLUMES AND RUBBER LOGIC BOOK
SOUND LIKE AN EXCEEDINGLY HORRID DEAL,
to you?
Obviously your non-scriptural theology doesn't account for anything that is written in the word.
Obviously your non-scriptural theology doesn’t account for anything that is written in the word.
= = =
VERY WELL put.
Thx.
As preterists this morning scramble to cover their rears, let us take solace in the fact that he really missed nothing -- no clouds, no coming, no abomination. Had he lived 22 years more he would have been thoroughly disappointed and he too would have been looking for his Greek Text, asking where was that "coming in the clouds" and "were you talking to me"???
To his great dismay as to his present location, he remains a preterist, still imagining his present and future to be behind him. If he only knew. If he only had a Bible. Alas let's pray that he finds his Greek Text and can exegete his way to his preterist future --
It is no fantasy that Israel is back in the Land.
It is no fantasy that they control Jerusalem after 2,000 years.
It is no fantasy that there are plans to rebuild the Temple.
Just as the Scofield notes explained those verses, long before those events took place and seemed impossible ever to happen.
I still do not know what that means, esp. in light of the fact that there is still sin in the futurist millennium.
All things are restored, but the effects of sin on natural man remain.
The Creation however is healed from its curse when the Church receives their resurrection bodies (Rom.8:19-23) which happens before the Millennium begins at the Judgement seat of Christ. (Rom.14:10, 2Cor.5:10)
That doesn't quite seem to square with 1 Cor. 15 where we read:
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.Note that it does not say "… afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the millennium". It say "then comes the end". It also does not say "then comes seven years of tribulation followed the real second coming followed by the millennium then comes the end". From this text we see clearly that "the end" involves the final conquest of all Christ’s enemies including death (and by implication sin also). There is no room in this passage for a "thousand years" of spiritual resurrected folk living among natural, sinful non-resurrected folk.
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Cor. 15:50)
Are you claiming that modern, secular, agnostic, Christ-denying Israel is what is spoken of in the Bible?
That, my friend, is a fantasy.
I take it then that you do not have a real answer.
Thanks for the clarification. It is a simple gospel matter that Satan has been bound, and has always been bound in one form or fashion.
Do you believe the binding at the start of the 1,000 yr reign is different?
“Oh my — another new definition for the “abomination”. So now the “holy place” [Mt 24:15] is the hills and valleys outside of Jerusalem, not Jerusalem or the temple??? and the Roman armies are “the abomination” and not Cesar Nero???”
Has it occurred to you that Jesus was not speaking to you when He said “when YOU see the abomination of desolation”? I know that in this “it’s all about me” world it’s easy to forget that Christ wasn’t addressing us.
But the fact is you weren’t there. But the ones whom Christ was speaking to understood the signs and as a result were able to escape the Romans.
One thing we know positively is that the abomination of desolation was from the Romany army. How do we know? BECAUSE LUKE 21 EXPLAINS MATTHEW. And we know from Josephus and other historic accounts that the Roman army set up their idol in the Temple before they destroyed it completely.
Apparently I misunderstood. A great deal of discussion has gone on whether Jesus came in the clouds physically or spiritually when the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed in 70 AD.
Besides, the second coming comes at the end of the "thousand years" not the beginning, at least according to the amil/postmil positions.
That's my understanding as a premillenialist. However, I thought it was stated that the 1,000 yr reign was a symbolic figure to the amil/postmil believers.
Do you also acknowledge that at least one of the gospels is NOT in the correct order for sequence of events?
It may just be semantics (we do a lot of that here), but why wouldn't the Jews and Gentiles who realize that Jesus is the Christ and believe in him be Christians. Also, during the 1,000 yr reign not everyone is a believer, but I'm assuming some become believers, wouldn't they also be Christians.
I'm looking at my Bible and I see where all things are made new, but this is after the rebellion at the end of the 1,000 yr reign. FTD noted in an earlier post that the curse of the ferocity of nature was lifted and lifetimes were extended (Isaiah 65), but I was thinking where did those that are in rebellion at the end of the 1,000 yr reign come from.
Just a side note. I caught a news story yesterday that an archaeologist in Jerusalem found the wall that Nehemiah had built.
The "thousand years" is a symbol and represents the period of time when Satan is bound from deceiving the nations and the saints are reigning with Christ. The reign itself, however, is not symbolic, it is quite real.
If I may respond, I believe the binding of Satan in Rev. 20 corresponds to the binding of the strong man in Matthew 12:28,29, and represents the present kingdom age when the gospel by the power of the Spirit has freedom out among the nations. Jesus is presently plundering Satan’s domain, and many souls are leaving the kingdom of darkness for the kingdom of light.
PRAISE GOD.
GLAD TO HEAR OF IT.
From another thread on FR . . . one of those things that even the more rational Replacementarians asserted
COULD NOT happen . . .
This article also shows that it is being ‘engineered’
DELIBERATELY by the folks DELIBERATELY SETTING UP THE WORLD GOVERNMENT
WHO by all informed accounts . . .
WORSHIP
. . . not Mary . . .
. . . . not Calvin . . .
. . . . not Luther . . .
. . . . Not Moses . . .
. . . . not Abraham . . .
. . . . not Almighty God . . .
. . . . not Jesus The Christ . . .
but
. . . .
surprise, surprise . . . .
SATAN himself.
Guess the Rubber Bible doesn’t show that. Must not show lots of things so obvious to so many of us.
############
Comment: Globalization makes national currencies obsolete
Financial Post ^ | 08 Nov 2007 | Benn Steil
Posted on 11/12/2007 7:33:35 PM MST by BGHater
Capital flows have become globalization’s Achilles heel. Over the past 25 years, devastating currency crises have hit countries across Latin America and Asia, as well as countries just beyond the borders of Western Europe — most notably Russia and Turkey. The economics profession has failed to offer anything resembling a coherent and compelling response to currency crises.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) analysts have, over the past two decades, endorsed a wide variety of national exchange-rate and monetary-policy regimes that have subsequently collapsed in failure. They have fingered numerous culprits, from loose fiscal policy and poor bank regulation to bad industrial policy and official corruption. The financial-crisis literature has yielded policy recommendations so exquisitely hedged and widely contradicted as to be practically useless. Anti-globalization economists have turned the problem on its head by absolving governments (except the one in Washington) and instead blaming crises on markets and their institutional supporters, such as the IMF — “dictatorships of international finance,” in the words of the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz.
Is this right? Are markets failing, and will restoring lost sovereignty to governments put an end to financial instability? This is a dangerous misdiagnosis. In fact, capital flows became destabilizing only after countries began asserting “sovereignty” over money — detaching it from gold or anything else considered real wealth. Moreover, even if the march of globalization is not inevitable, the world economy and the international financial system have evolved in such a way that there is no longer a viable model for economic development outside of them.
The right course is not to return to a mythical past of monetary sovereignty, with governments controlling local interest and exchange rates in blissful ignorance of the rest of the world. Governments must let go of the fatal notion that nationhood requires them to make and control the money used in their territory. National currencies and global markets simply do not mix; together they make a deadly brew of currency crises and geopolitical tension, and create ready pretexts for damaging protectionism. In order to globalize safely, countries should abandon monetary nationalism and abolish unwanted currencies, the source of much of today’s instability.
The political mythology associating the creation and control of money with national sovereignty finds its economic counterpart in the metamorphosis of the famous theory of “optimum currency areas” (OCA). Fathered in 1961 by Robert Mundell, a Nobel Prize-winning economist who has long been a prolific advocate of shrinking the number of national currencies, it became over the subsequent decades a quasi-scientific foundation for monetary nationalism. Dr. Mundell, like most macroeconomists of the early 1960s, had a now largely discredited postwar Keynesian mindset that put great faith in the ability of policymakers to fine-tune national demand in the face of what economists call “shocks” to supply and demand. His seminal article, A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas, asks the question, “What is the appropriate domain of the currency area?” Dr. Mundell goes on to argue for flexible exchange rates between regions of the world, each with its own multinational currency, rather than between nations.
The economics profession, however, latched on to Dr. Mundell’s analysis of the merits of flexible exchange rates in dealing with economic shocks affecting different “regions or countries” differently; they saw it as a rationale for treating existing nations as natural currency areas. Monetary nationalism thereby acquired a rational scientific mooring. And from then on, much of the mainstream economics profession came to see deviations from “one nation, one currency” as misguided, at least in the absence of prior political integration.
Why has the problem of serial currency crises become so severe in recent decades? It is only since 1971, when U.S. president Richard Nixon formally untethered the U.S. dollar from gold, that monies flowing around the globe have ceased to be claims on anything real. All the world’s currencies are now pure manifestations of sovereignty conjured by governments. And the vast majority of such monies are unwanted: People are unwilling to hold them as wealth, something that will buy in the future at least what it did in the past. Governments can force their citizens to hold national money by requiring its use in transactions with the state, but foreigners, who are not thus compelled, will choose not to do so. And in a world in which people will only willingly hold U.S. dollars (and a handful of other currencies) in lieu of gold money, the mythology tying money to sovereignty is a costly and sometimes dangerous one. Monetary nationalism is simply incompatible with globalization.
For a large, diversified economy like that of the United States, fluctuating exchange rates are the economic equivalent of a minor toothache. They require fillings from time to time — in the form of corporate financial hedging and active global supply management — but never any major surgery. There are two reasons for this. First, much of what Americans buy from abroad can, when import prices rise, quickly and cheaply be replaced by domestic production, and much of what they sell abroad can, when export prices fall, be diverted to the domestic market. Second, foreigners are happy to hold U.S. dollars as wealth.
But the U.S. dollar’s privileged status as today’s global money is not heaven-bestowed. The dollar is ultimately just another money supported only by faith that others will willingly accept it in the future in return for the same sort of valuable things it bought in the past. This puts a great burden on the institutions of the U.S. government to validate that faith. And those institutions, unfortunately, are failing to shoulder that burden. Reckless U.S. fiscal policy is undermining the dollar’s position, even as the currency’s role as a global money is expanding.
The U.S. current account deficit is running at an enormous 6.6% of GDP — about US$2-billion a day must be imported to sustain it. The current account deficit is partially fuelled by the budget deficit, which will soar in the next decade in the absence of reforms to curtail federal “entitlement” spending on medical care and retirement benefits for a longer-living population. In the absence of long-term fiscal prudence, the United States risks undermining the faith foreigners have placed in its management of the dollar — that is, their belief that the U.S. government can continue to sustain low inflation without having to resort to growth-crushing interest-rate hikes as a means of ensuring continued high capital inflows.
It is widely assumed that the natural alternative to the dollar as a global currency is the euro. Faith in the euro’s endurance, however, is still fragile— undermined by the same fiscal concerns that afflict the dollar, but with the added angst stemming from concerns about the temptations faced by Italy and others to return to monetary nationalism. But there is another alternative, the world’s most enduring form of money: gold.
It must be stressed that a well-managed fiat money system has considerable advantages over a commodity-based one, not least of which that it does not waste valuable resources. There is little to commend in digging up gold in South Africa just to bury it again in Fort Knox. The question is how long such a well-managed fiat system can endure in the United States. The historical record of national monies, going back over 2,500 years, is by and large awful.
At the turn of the 20th century — the height of the gold standard — German philosopher Georg Simmel commented: “Although money with no intrinsic value would be the best means of exchange in an ideal social order, until that point is reached the most satisfactory form of money may be that which is bound to a material substance.” Today, with money no longer bound to any material substance, it is worth asking whether the world even approximates the “ideal social order” that could sustain a fiat dollar as the foundation of the global financial system. There is no way effectively to insure against the unwinding of global imbalances should China, with more than a trillion dollars of reserves, and other countries with dollar-rich central banks come to fear the unbearable lightness of their holdings.
So what about gold? A revived gold standard is out of the question. In the 19th century, governments spent less than 10% of national income in a given year. Today, they routinely spend half or more, and so they would never subordinate spending to the stringent requirements of sustaining a commodity-based monetary system. But private gold banks already exist, allowing account holders to make international payments in the form of shares in actual gold bars. Although clearly a niche business at present, gold banking has grown dramatically in recent years, in tandem with the U.S. dollar’s decline. A new gold-based international monetary system surely sounds far-fetched. But so, in 1900, did a monetary system without gold. Modern technology makes a revival of gold money, through private gold banks, possible even without government support.
Virtually every major argument recently levelled against globalization has been levelled against markets generally (and, in turn, debunked) for hundreds of years. But the argument against capital flows in a world with 150 fluctuating national fiat monies is fundamentally different. It is highly compelling — so much so that even globalization’s staunchest supporters treat capital flows as an exception, a matter to be intellectually quarantined until effective crisis inoculations can be developed. But the notion that capital flows are inherently destabilizing is logically and historically false. The lessons of gold-based globalization in the 19th century simply must be relearned. Just as the prodigious daily capital flows between New York and California, two of the world’s 12 largest economies, are so uneventful that no one even notices them, capital flows between countries sharing a single currency, such as the dollar or the euro, attract not the slightest attention from even the most passionate anti-globalization activists.
The world can do better. Since economic development outside the process of globalization is no longer possible, countries should abandon monetary nationalism. Governments should replace national currencies with the dollar or the euro or, in the case of Asia, collaborate to produce a new multinational currency over a comparably large and economically diversified area.
Europeans used to say that being a country required having a national airline, a stock exchange and a currency. Today, no European country is any worse off without them. A future pan-Asian currency, managed according to the same principle of targeting low and stable inflation, would represent the most promising way for China to fully liberalize its financial and capital markets without fear of damaging yuan speculation. Most of the world’s smaller and poorer countries would clearly be best off unilaterally adopting the dollar or the euro, which would enable their safe and rapid integration into global financial markets.
As for the United States, it needs to perpetuate the sound money policies of former Federal Reserve chairmen Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan and return to long-term fiscal discipline. This is the only sure way to keep the United States’ foreign creditors, with their massive and growing holdings of dollar debt, feeling wealthy and secure. It is the market that made the dollar into global money —and what the market giveth, the market can taketh away. If the tailors balk and the dollar fails, the market may privatize money on its own.
-— - Benn Steil is director of international economics at the Council of Foreign Relations.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924854/posts
THE LAW OF THE MEDES AND PERSIANS AND TC HAS DECLARED A NEW RUBBER BIBLE BIBLICAL
using the latter term most loosely.
The "thousand years" is a
OF COURSE! OF COURSE! Why didn't I think of that!
And satan being bound is a sousaphone . . .
And Christ coming in CLOUDS OF GLORY is a tympani . . .
And earthquakes swallowing up evil doers = the first trumpet section . . .
And the 100 lb hail stones = the trombone section . . .
And the signs in the heavens = the flute section . . .
And every island moved from it's place = the baton twirlers . . .
And all the mountains moved = the snare drums . . .
And the Mark of The Beast monetary system = a set of different kinds of cymbals . . .
And the Abomination of Desolation = the clarinet section . . . at least . . . usually, in the band I was in . . .
And the False prophet = the 2nd trumpets . . .
And the TWO WITNESSES in Jerusalem = the 3rd trumpets . . .
Goodness I can see why one would need a rubber Bible to have a score card to be able to guesstimate who was who and what was what in these END TIMES.
/s
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.