Christianity and the End Times

Roman Catholics are Christians but Protestants were even more effective at Genocide. Ever Native American belif system was suppressed as well as languages, cultures and sacred sites. It was ethnic cleansing on a scale never before seen.

Whoever suppressed the Indians it wasn't Protestant Christians.And again you offer nothing but assertion, not a shred of evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Did Protestant never come to the New World?

"Twert the Mormons."

That seems like a silly limitation to put on God. I'm not doing the imagining. I'm going by the description of God that most Christians use. They describe Him as "all-powerful".But some, like you, have to diminish His power to "explain" their ludicrous theology. And yet He creates evil. But there's no reason to "give up" on man. He could just accept His creation as He made it. Most parents don't give up on their children because of a few flaws. But if you make the wrong choice it's eternal punishment. That's no "free" choice. I'll never "get" that 2 + 2 = 5. Because it isn't.

Here is a shred of evidence.Canada is a largely Catholic country and I know you have nothing but contempt for Anglicans. The United Church is an amalgamation of Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Evangelical United Brethren. You'll also find some Mennonites and Baptists in the list.

quote:

---

Which is quite true. Bit from the fact that the fruit is not a poison as Eve apparently feared and because at that point she could still have eaten from the Tree if Life and lived forever.

---

Don't know what can be done to help you if you want to be willfully wrong.Literally the translation - ... you will surely die is more like - Dying you will die. The serpent saying "You will not surely die" was a lie.It amounts also to "NOT dying you will die."What happened? He surely died.
Dying he died as God had warned.

quote:

---

Which is quite true. Bit from the fact that the fruit is not a poison as Eve apparently feared and because at that point she could still have eaten from the Tree if Life and lived forever.

---

There is no reason given for them to die apart from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The warning was not "If you do not eat of the Tree of Life, you will surely die."
The warning was "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will surely die."You argue about potentiality - She could still have eaten of the Tree of Life and lived forever. What happened ?Did they surely die or did they live forever ? Whose word turned out to be TRUE - God's or the serpent's ?
God's word turned out to happen.
The serpent LIED.And you're lying to yourself to champion the serpent as the agent of truth there.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Literally the translation - ... you will surely die is more like - Dying you will die.
The serpent saying You will not surely die. was a lie.

​

It amounts also to "NOT dying you will die."

---

Relying on literal translations of idioms is hardly a sensible way to understand them.

quote:

---

He surely died.
Dying he died as God had warned.

---

That death did not occur on the day he ate the fruit so it is certainly not as God warned. Nor was it sure before his exile from the Garden as I have already pointed out.

quote:

---

There is no reason given for them to die apart from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

---

Apart from being unable to eat from the Tree of Life, which would have let them live forever. Moreover the story gives no reason to think that they were immortal before eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

quote:

---

You argue about potentiality - She could still have eaten of the Tree of Life and lived forever. What happened ?

---

No, I argue about certainty. It was not certain that Eve would die when the serpent spoke, even if she ate the fruit. Therefore it was false to say that she would surely die.

quote:

---

Whose word turned out to be TRUE - God's or the serpent's ?
God's word turned out to happen.
The serpent LIED.

---

The serpent’s of course. Adam and Eve’s death was not certain until God exiled them, which had not happened when the Serpent spoke. And neither Adam or Eve literally died the day that they ate the fruit.

quote:

---

And you're lying to yourself to champion the serpent as the agent of truth there.

---

I understand. You have to lie about me because I refuse to believe my lies. You phony Christians are all alike.

Are you deliberately ignoring, "in the day that thou eatest thereof "?For your interpretation to work, you have to mangle TWO things in the text. You have to mangle die into "spiritual death" and you have to mangle a day into nine hundred years. Occam must be spinning in his grave.

Most of the "Wise guys" you are having this conversation with are actually wise enough to not have to pretend to have some magical crystal ball insight into a predetermined future for humanity.That would be you.

quote:

---

Are you deliberately ignoring, "in the day that thou eatest thereof "?
For your interpretation to work, you have to mangle TWO things in the text. You have to mangle die into "spiritual death" and you have to mangle a day into nine hundred years. Occam must be spinning in his grave.

---

This matter of IN THE DAY ... you will surely die is not a major problem to me. Hebrew translators cannot insist that YOM everywhere always HAD to mean a solar day of IE. 24 hours.The Recovery Version translates YOM in Gen. 2:4 as WHEN. [my bolding]The NIV and NLT also renders YOM there as WHEN. Some English versions do translate the Gen. 2:4 YOM as DAY. We were just told that it was SIX days involved in the making of world.
So translators apply context decisions as to what is the likely clearest understanding of the use of YOM.In that same passage above some render the sense of at the time The Bottom line is that you have no case to INSIST that YOM can only be understood in as a typical solar day.IE. " When you eat of it you will surely die. "
" At the time you eat of it you will surely die. "Are valid ways to understand - So Adam physically ceasing to breath and ceasing to have a heart beat after many years in 5:5 still means at the time or when or on the day he ate he died, even though he physically lived on for 930 years. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If anything, "when" is a narrower timeline than "day". If you say, "I'll see you when I get there," you don't mean nine hundred years later. "At the time you eat of it you will surely die," in no way suggests nine hundred years later. It's AT the time, not "long after the time". You're mangling the preposition in an attempt to justify your previous mangling. Oh, what a tangled web you weave....

quote:

---

If anything, "when" is a narrower timeline than "day".

---

No it is not necessarily.I don't see you as having any case. Desperation to assure yourself that God is a liar and the Devil is a champion of truth in Genesis doesn't work.I think it tells us more about Ringo than about the Bible. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And yet you present nothing to refute my case. Show us some evidence that "when" can mean nine hundred years later. You're the one who's desparate to assure yourself that the Bible doesn't say what it says. I have no axe to grind. I don't care what the Bible says any more than I care what Dilbert says.Genesis says what it says. If that doesn't tally with what you think it "should" say, that's too bad - but it still says what it says. They didn't die "when" they ate the fruit.Edited by ringo, : Spellingd.

It's easy to get lost in this thread so maybe this has been discussed and I missed it, but I've been pondering these beasts of Revelation 13 and wondering what your view is. The beast from the sea is generally considered to be the Antichrist, and the beast from the land with the horns like a lamb I think the False Prophet.The beast from the sea has all the characteristics of the beasts of Daniel 7 rolled into one: the lion of Babylon, the bear of Medo-Persia and the leopard of Greece, and the beast itself that has all these characteristics must be the Great and Terrible fourth beast from which the little horn comes, which is usually understood to be the Roman Empire in the time of Christ's first coming. The symbolism in Daniel has the beasts being both empires and ultimately a man, represented by Nebuchadnezzar's statue in Daniel 2, to which the Israelites Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow although they were threated with death for their refusal, and God protected them miraculously.So that statue represents the Antichrist who will become a living reality during the Tribulation according to most interpreters. But the beast with horns like a lamb and a mouth that speaks like a dragon seems to be very much like the Little Horn or Daniel 7 which would make HIM the Antichrist.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.