Calendar Patriarchs

You seriously searched every section in search for that verse? You're kidding.

eh, no. it does seem to bring them up in them up in chapter 10. what it's getting at, i don't know. it seems to agree that it means that no one knows when christ will come.you think that would stop people from trying to predict when christ will come -- but no. people don't really take the bible seriously. perhaps you can start another thread on that chapter, and parse the argument into your own words? or is there an argument?the peter verse appears earlier, in references like this:

quote:

---

However, this physical land of Canaan was not to be the eternal inheritance which God had promised because the Bible clearly teaches that this world, of which the physical land of Canaan is a part, will be entirely destroyed by fire at the time Jesus comes again on the last day (II Peter 3:10)

---

that have to do with the rest of the verse, not the first part. those don't count.

---

Yes, in chapt 10, Making your previous statement wrong.No it is not agreeing that noone will know when the last day will be. The book actually is about the end of time. So if you could read the book from the beggining. You cant just take one sentence from nowhere and then start arguing about it. You have to read the idea from the begining.
If you read a novel, would you skip the beginning and know what the book is about if you started in the middle? Come on, basic reading skills. I dont know too much on that topic to make a thread with my own words. You're not making any sence now. What does that have to do with anything? Is it not saying Canaan will be destroyed on the last day?
The Bible is a spiritual book. So if you look at the whole timeline of history, it is actually a image of God's salvation plan. A whole other topic.
What do you mean "those dont count". Who makes the rules?Edited by Crue Knight, : Bbcoding

yes, that was me subtlely admitting i was wrong. it happens from time to time. it argues that time has an end, yes. but it is evident that the author thinks he can predict when such and end will come (as he plainly admits), which is contrary to meaning of the verses i presented on several different levels.i'm not sure how he apologizes for this amazing oversight, but you're more familiar with it than i. and frankly, i have very little interest in reading it, because everything i have read of it has been very, very wrong. such as the point this topic about. i'm saying that he cites the verse for the other part of it, not the "theif in the night" part. that does not count as addressing the "theif in the night" verses that say we cannot know when it will happen. it's not an issue of "making the rules;" it's an issue of it simply not addressing the point i was looking for.anyways, shall we get back on topic now?

---

You are entirely correct on this, and your other comments are good too. We have to remember that we are reading a translation and take the time to compare the Bible with itself to get a clear meaning.

randman, some of us are not reading translations. did you see my argument from the hebrew grammar that his point is entirely incorrect?

---

Can you then explain Gen 11:10-14 (yalad) And... Luke 3:35-36 Lets say "yalad" (To bear; to begat; to bring forth; son of) was used instead of "ben" (a son (in the widest sence of lit. and fig. relationship, including grandson, great-grandson...ect).Why was Cainan inserted there in Luke?One example that proves your point wrong.Yalad was there to say "begat", not to say "son of". It simply stated who begat who. Not in the same framework Luke 3 placed it (who was the son of who).Edited by Crue Knight, : No reason given.Edited by Crue Knight, : No reason given.Edited by Crue Knight, : Fixing mispellings and bbcodes.

---

Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at Time Has An End

crue, i already answered this question in Message 4 of this thread, my very first post in this thread. — (yalad, yeled) literally means "to give birth to" as in "to physically deliver a child." you may be able to find a case or two were it refers to someone way down the line (so far, you have not) but a metaphorical or idiomatic usage does not negate the simple literal meaning. your reading destroys the use and meaning of the genealogies, and is completely unfounded in the hebrew language and text.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

No, you didnt answer the question... You didnt answer why not "begat" (yalad) could mean a begating a grandson.And those verses PROVE that begat could mean a granson, not a direct son. It doesnt matter what the Septuagint ver says.And if Luke copied that ver of the hebrew, then that takes away the meaning when it says the Bible is God's word.

yes, it does. because it shows that versions exist where this is not an ommission. and it's not like the septuagint is a minor version of the bible. it was used by the entire greek-speaking jewish world for several hundred years -- and that includes the 1st century galilea, where and when luke probably wrote.whether or not it was added to the septuagint by copyist error or subtracted from the masoretic (the hebrew version from which most modern translations are made) by copyist error or intentional change cannot be shown to my knowledge. all those verses prove is that you're reading a different version of the bible than luke read. the fact that you're complaining about an apparent ommission that only exists in some texts does to convince us of your argument. i have no idea what you mean by that. luke wrote in greek. so did matthew, mark, john, paul, and peter. every last book of the new testament is written in koine greek, and that means that every last author of the new testament probably was familiar with the greek translation of the tanakh.the fact that it's translation evidently shouldn't change your opinion about whether or not something is the word of god
— ‘ —because literally it means to give birth to, and the grammar indicates direct action. it might be used figuratively that way, but genealogies aren't figurative.

---

Why would God write genealogies for anyways?

you tell me.

---