Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9048 total)
150 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, kjsimons (3 members, 147 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,585 Year: 5,231/14,102 Month: 152/677 Week: 11/26 Day: 11/2 Hour: 0/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
Member (Idle past 2405 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 7 of 2241 (700019)
05-29-2013 2:09 PM

Rousseau, one of the most respected minds of the Renaissance, had this to say: 'Either the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God- or they were gods themselves, for it is too profound to be a mere work of man'. If your opinion differs from his, then how does your capability and objectivity stack up against Rousseau's? Lastly, I would point out that the prophetic part (as in prediction) of the Bible HAS & IS coming true. You will see this with your own eyes regardless of your opinions. Not talking Mayan calendar nonsense, nor Nostradamus hindsight- but empirically deduced validated by scientific facts. For details, email me.

Edited by PaulGL, : some text accidently left out

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2013 3:06 PM PaulGL has responded
 Message 11 by Stile, posted 05-30-2013 8:30 AM PaulGL has responded
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 05-30-2013 8:36 AM PaulGL has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2405 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 9 of 2241 (700035)
05-29-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
05-29-2013 3:06 PM

I stand corrected
Rousseau was a pretty smart Frenchman! OK? As to the origin of that quote, I'll track it down and get back to you. Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2013 3:06 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2013 4:50 PM PaulGL has responded

Member (Idle past 2405 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 13 of 2241 (700103)
05-30-2013 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Stile
05-30-2013 8:30 AM

Re: Bible doesn't provide a better method for anything
Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that the summer is nigh; even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. (Matt. 24:32﷓34)

It has been realized by students of the Bible for more than a hundred years (Footnote #305, published in 1876) that the parable of the fig tree meant that Israel would become a nation again. The prophecy of the Lord related to the parable of the fig tree stated that the generation that sees the fig tree put forth its leaves shall not pass away till “all these things” are accomplished. "All these things" refers to verses immediately preceding these verses, verses that describe outward signs of the end times and include the actual, physical return of Christ to the Earth.
Israel became a nation again on May 14, 1948. This event was the fig tree becoming tender (showing unmistakable signs of life). However, the last generation starts with the putting forth of the leaves by the fig tree and not with her branch becoming tender. This (as we shall see very shortly) refers to 1967.

Notice that Luke 21:25﷓26 is a description of outward signs also occurring at this time, since it is at the same time as these outward signs that the powers of the heavens are shaken and Satan and his angels are cast out. What causes the roaring of the sea and the billows (waves)? What is the main cause of wave action? Mainly tidal forces resulting from the influence of the moon and the sun form waves. What are the only signs in the sun that are visible to the naked eye? Sunspots!
The word translated as 'stars' in Luke 21:25 may equally be in reference to the planets. Is there a connection between the cause of this great earthquake and these other, simultaneously occurring outward signs?

Let us narrow the time span for the most likely occurrence of this earthquake. What day of the year should we choose as the focal point of most likely occurrence? The most likely time for the triggering of the earthquake is the time midway between the spring and fall of 1982. Thus, the focal point of likeliest time is midnight August 4- 5, 1982 (Israeli time), midway between spring and fall. Are there any other outward prophetic signs that we may refer to?

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matt. 24:30)

What is the sign of the Son of man (accent on and in reference to His humanity), which will appear "in heaven" before the time of Christ's actual return?

Due to the juggling of records by the Roman Catholic Church, Christ was actually born in the year that we record as 4 B.C. Subtracting 4 B.C. from 240 B.C. gives us 236 years between the time of the star that the Wise﷓men followed and the recorded date of the visit of Halley's Comet in 240 B.C. Dividing 236 years by three (the number of intervals between successive visits) gives us 78 years and 8 months per interval- within the 74 to 79 year variation of the period of Halley's Comet. Undoubtedly, Halley's comet was considerably more brilliant then than now. Almost certainly this was the star that the Wise﷓men followed, and it was the tail of Halley's comet that was used by God to point their way.

The next appearance of Halley's comet will be in 1986 ... it will appear brightest in February of 1986 . . 318

Coincidence or fulfillment of prophecy? I also find it to be very significant that Halley's Cornet reached its apogee and thus began its return to the vicinity of the Earth's orbit in 1948, the year of Israel's reestablishment.
The alignment of the planets converges with a sunspot peak only once every 1,969 years. Due to the mortality of short﷓period comets, this will almost certainly be the only time that such a convergence is followed at the appropriate time by an appearance of Haley’s Comet. In this situation, we have the precise concurrence of a series of events that is unique, with a single event (Israel) that is likewise unique, all of which was prophesied nineteen centuries ago. Mathematically, there is no chance whatsoever that these events are merely coincidental.
Only one statement can be made with complete assurance concerning the timing of the commencement of the rapture (and of the occurrence of the great earthquake of the sixth seal): No one (including this author) can know precisely when it will be. Also, we will not know what week Christ will probably return in until the Antichrist rises to power. Nevertheless, there are strong indications that can be drawn from the correlation of prophecy and astronomical-geological data.
It is as close to 100 percent certainty as possible that the generational deadline for the return of Christ applies to the generation that witnessed the possession of all of Jerusalem by Israel. However, the precise length of such a generational period is not 100% definitive.
Scripturally, we know also that Christ will not return physically until after the "sign of the Son of man" appears. If Halley's comet is indeed this sign, then the great earthquake cannot occur until the first week of August 1982, at the earliest. We know also, from Scripture, that this great earthquake does not occur until after the signs in the sun and moon and stars (planets) concur. The concurrence of the signs in the sun and planets only narrows down the timing of the occurrence of this prerequisite prophecy to the year of 1982. To narrow the timing of this prophecy further, we must consider what must be the fulfillment of the "sign in the moon."

What is the only natural sign in the moon, and does such occur in 1982? The only natural sign in the moon, an eclipse, occurred on the night of July 5﷓6, 1982. How does this eclipse relate to the beginning of the likeliest time for this earthquake, the first week of August 1982? The most likely time of day (although by no means conclusively) for the commencement of the rapture (the rapture of the man﷓child and first﷓fruits) is midnight ("At midnight, a cry was made."), Israeli time. This spectacular total eclipse in July occurred precisely one lunar cycle before midnight (Israeli time), August 4﷓5, 1982; which, in turn, is exactly mid-way between Spring and Fall. It is my opinion that the inference to be drawn from this sign in the moon is that the last week of years can start at any time after midnight of August 4﷓5 1982.

This date of 4004 B.C. is a date indicated by the Scriptures. Its actuality may not be verifiable directly from Scripture. This is to be expected as a ramification of free will, since the direct determination of an exact date would be too prone to objective methods of proof and disproof. However, the very fact of its indicativeness increases the significance of this date, since this indicated date applies as well to the date of Adam's "creation," i.e., his receiving of a human spirit.
As we have seen previously, Christ was actually born in the year that we record as 4 B.C. Thus, it was four of the Lord's days (exactly 4,000 of our years) from the indicted date of "creation" to the birth of Christ. Using the same reckoning, the time of the Lord's return (which will be at the beginning of the seventh day, the millennium) should be the year 1996. If He has not returned by this time, then He has tarried because the bride still hasn’t made herself ready.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Stile, posted 05-30-2013 8:30 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Stile, posted 05-30-2013 11:28 AM PaulGL has responded
 Message 109 by Pressie, posted 10-05-2014 6:39 AM PaulGL has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2405 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 14 of 2241 (700104)
05-30-2013 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
05-29-2013 4:50 PM

Re: I stand corrected
Hey, until and unless I document the source of that quote, I admit that I was in error by passing on information which I had reason to believe was valid. I didn't verify this for myself. Sorry, I'm not perfect- only forgiven. And not a good messenger. That's why truth (reality) is experiential requiring faith. If you can see it, it is only temporal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2013 4:50 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2405 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 16 of 2241 (700118)
05-30-2013 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stile
05-30-2013 11:28 AM

Re: Bible doesn't provide a better method for anything
All I can say- and with best wishes for your well being is : that I hope that these prophetic events take place while you are still alive to witness them. And that doing so will cause you to look for something deeper than your self.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stile, posted 05-30-2013 11:28 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Stile, posted 05-30-2013 2:38 PM PaulGL has responded

Member (Idle past 2405 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 20 of 2241 (700142)
05-30-2013 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Zift Ylrhavic Resfear
05-30-2013 1:49 PM

God respects free will. He doesn't want either couch potato lovers nor spiritual robots. He will not force Himself upon anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Zift Ylrhavic Resfear, posted 05-30-2013 1:49 PM Zift Ylrhavic Resfear has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Panda, posted 05-30-2013 5:40 PM PaulGL has responded

Member (Idle past 2405 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 21 of 2241 (700144)
05-30-2013 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Stile
05-30-2013 2:38 PM

Re: Have fun
There is only ONE way to determine the Truth, and is not within the capacity of the mind nor in the sphere of knowledge. Fortunately, God practices KISS. 1. He came to us as a man and removed all the barriers. 2. Now all that the Father is, and all that the Son accomplished, are available to us as the Spirit. Put Him to the test. If He is real and available, then you can receive Him. How? KISS. "The same Lord is rich unto ALL who CALL upon His name". This is not a mind-numbing chant. He is omnipresent and will respond to His name. "No man can say Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit". Do this out loud (in the privacy of your room, if preferred). Just tell Him: "Lord, help my unbelief. I want to know You". And if you don't want to test this now, at least file it for future reference when the 'fecal matter encounters the air-moving device'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Stile, posted 05-30-2013 2:38 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Stile, posted 05-31-2013 10:13 AM PaulGL has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2405 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 23 of 2241 (700166)
05-30-2013 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Panda
05-30-2013 5:40 PM

your choice
He went through a lot of trouble to provide a free choice for you. If you choose to remain in the same condition of your birth- that is also a choice, with consequences. God is love, but He has standards. He is the only unselfish being in the universe, and will give all that He is to you. But you have to choose to receive Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Panda, posted 05-30-2013 5:40 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 05-30-2013 6:10 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Panda, posted 05-30-2013 6:22 PM PaulGL has responded
 Message 26 by DrJones*, posted 05-30-2013 8:30 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2405 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 27 of 2241 (700191)
05-30-2013 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Panda
05-30-2013 6:22 PM

Re: your choice
There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created.
Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point).
The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:...

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1. Omnipotent and
2. Omniscient and
3. Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.


I will do all my pleasure: ... I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it. (Isaiah 46:10﷓11)

I. Divine Purpose

Granted the existence and reality of God, let us consider the following extremely relevant question: What would an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being, knowing, having, and being capable of anything and everything, possibly want? The only possible thing that such a being would want would be an entity, perfectly complementary to Him, that was His of its own choice, and not out of necessity.


Obviously, if there existed only one will (God’s) in the universe, there would be no possible way for such a divine purpose to be realized, as all actions would necessarily be in response to that divine will. Therefore, it is absolutely essential to the attainment of such a divine purpose that there exist in addition to divine will a secondary, opposing will.


It should be equally apparent that, in order for such a complementary entity to choose to belong to God, it must have an independent, free will.


A. Such a being with a free will, in order to practically choose to belong to God, must exist in and be subject to the process of time. A choice made outside of and apart from the process of time would be a one﷓shot thing (pro or con) and would be as much a matter of chance as of choice.
B. Such a being must not only embody a free will, but must also be capable of embodying both the divine will and the opposing will, with the free will located between the two.
C. But God is eternal, necessitating that the part of said being capable of apprehending divine will be of a like eternal nature, necessitating that both the other parts of such a being having the free will and capable of containing the secondary will be temporal. (The specifics of this will be elaborated in the next chapter.) A further and confirmatory reason for the temporality of the part capable of containing the secondary will is, again, the fact that should a being make the wrong choice it would be of eternal consequence if that part of its being capable of containing the secondary will was also eternal. Once again, this would cause matters to be subject as much to chance as choice.
D. It should be somewhat apparent by now that for divine purpose to be achieved on other than a one﷓shot chance situation, such a temporal being must first choose the secondary will and then by a series of many choices choose the divine will.
E. Yet if such a being chooses the secondary will first, how can it then possibly choose the divine will? Only by God partaking of the temporal nature of such a being by the process of incarnation.
F. There remains but one further step necessary: that of the attainment of E. above being made available to said being. After E. then, God would have to retain the accomplishment of such a temporal incarnation yet make it available to said being in the form necessary for it to be able to choose it, i.e., the same as the eternal part of that being. It should be obvious by now whom the being with a free will that we have been talking about is.

A rational, informed person must despise religion- and hate it because it is the most destructive cultural force in man's history. However, it is unjustified to blame (& reject) God because of religion. Religionists (not merely Jews) killed Christ, thinking that they were serving God. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Panda, posted 05-30-2013 6:22 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Panda, posted 05-31-2013 6:25 AM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Stile, posted 05-31-2013 10:26 AM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2013 2:53 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2405 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 850 of 2241 (745077)
12-18-2014 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 849 by jar
12-16-2014 2:10 PM

Re: Even the word of God was essentially the words of men
"Either the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by the Spirit of God or they were gods themselves, for it is too profound to be a mere work of man".

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)

By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear. (Heb. 11:3)

Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. 142

Or, he may declare, "it is all very well to say there was a huge explosion at what we call the beginning; but what about prior to that time?" In one confounding form or another, rest assured, the question is an often-repeated one.
Unfortunately, there is really no good answer to it....
In truth, in direct response to the question, all that can safely be said is that after the beginning things were different from what they were before. That's the best we can do; we will just have to leave it at that.143

As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing﷓ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

Who can say that God is not everywhere else in the universe where He has created habitable planets raising up intelligent life by the same processes and for the same Divine Purpose that He has done so here on Earth? This is why we have not heard from these other civilizations.
What about the incarnation of God as a man?

else must he (Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice himself. (Heb. 9:26)

How could this verse be true, if God is doing the same thing elsewhere in the universe? He only incarnated into the four﷓dimensional physical universe one time. Wouldn't the working out by God of His Divine Purpose elsewhere in the universe also require His incarnation elsewhere? Yes! Wouldn't this contradict the above verse? No!
According to the laws of our four﷓dimensional physical universe, God can incarnate on other worlds at other points in time and still have only incarnated from a spiritual universe into the physical universe only once. Besides, the reference in Hebrews 9:26 evidently applies only to our world, the Earth. But even if it is in reference to our physical universe, there is no contradiction. Thus, there is nothing scriptural to preclude the identical working out by God of His purpose through extraterrestrial life forms on other planets in the universe.
Incidentally, the reasons why the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is not directly mentioned in the Bible are: First, we do not need to know; second, such knowledge would violate free will since it would be direct indication of knowledge that could not be obtained by objective means.

If God is indeed consummating New Jerusalems elsewhere in the universe, then there will be evidence of the sudden emission of increased amounts of energy (seven-fold, mainly in the visible spectrum) emanating from a singular source. This could explain otherwise (scientifically speaking) inexplicable phenomena. Whether or not these phenomena are detectable with our current astronomical capabilities, I do not know.
Man, you search the physical universe in a vain quest for answers that cannot possibly fill your emptiness or satisfy your longing. These answers can only be found within you, and then only by turning back to your Creator and receiving Him. All else is truly vanity of vanities, temporal and finite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 849 by jar, posted 12-16-2014 2:10 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 851 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2014 1:17 AM PaulGL has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021