Regarding Knight and Itwillend

[Just_me_Mike]

I believe that this verse is literal. It's literally what he saw....

Fair enough, so when I read the opening verses to Isaiah 2:

1: the word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
2: And it shall come to pass in the last days

Why can we not conclude the same thing, this is something Isaiah saw about the future. It was very real and plain to him, but does that mean we take it literally.

to review, you say Ezekiel, the part about the wheels and eyes, and faces, was all real, only because it was real to Ezekiel vision.
Yet, for Isaiah's it will be taken literally because it is not as wild as Ezekiel's?

Am I making sense at all, or do you think I am just trying to fight with you?

I am saying both Ezekiel and Isaiah saw visions of the future, and you are taking one as literal (Isaiah, and world peace here on Earth) and the other as literal as far as it was seen by Ezekiel.

so to be certain are you saying what Ezekiel saw was not literally what was going to happen?

 

[TheKnight]

Fair enough, so when I read the opening verses to Isaiah 2:

Why can we not conclude the same thing, this is something Isaiah saw about the future. It was very real and plain to him, but does that mean we take it literally.

to review, you say Ezekiel, the part about the wheels and eyes, and faces, was all real, only because it was real to Ezekiel vision.
Yet, for Isaiah's it will be taken literally because it is not as wild as Ezekiel's?

Am I making sense at all, or do you think I am just trying to fight with you?

I am saying both Ezekiel and Isaiah saw visions of the future, and you are taking one as literal (Isaiah, and world peace here on Earth) and the other as literal as far as it was seen by Ezekiel.

so to be certain are you saying what Ezekiel saw was not literally what was going to happen?

Ezekiel didn't see an event. He saw a being. He was describing a creature he saw. Isaiah saw an event, a time period, an occurrence. Isaiah was describing the advent of world peace in the last days as a result of the Messiah's coming.

And yes, I do believe that what Ezekiel saw was literally whatever creature it was that he described.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Ezekiel didn't see an event. He saw a being. He was describing a creature he saw. Isaiah saw an event, a time period, an occurrence. Isaiah was describing the advent of world peace in the last days as a result of the Messiah's coming.

And yes, I do believe that what Ezekiel saw was literally whatever creature it was that he described.

I need to be certain I understand, so I will ask again for clarification. You think that the creature described by Ezekiel was a real creature?

 

[TheKnight]

I need to be certain I understand, so I will ask again for clarification. You think that the creature described by Ezekiel was a real creature?

Yes. I do.

 

[Poisonshady313]

We know that peace will NEVER happen on this earth,

What makes you think that? Do you believe God is incapable of making it happen?

And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and confidence for ever. And my people shall abide in a peaceable habitation, and in secure dwellings, and in quiet resting-places.

Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, desolation nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.

nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Do you assert that God was lying to His prophets?

Thanks for trying anyway. Oh and I could just as easily say it would make you look more intelligent if you stopped kidding yourself that LITERAL Israel will have peace one day.

Just what support do you have for this conclusion?

 

[Poisonshady313]

What makes you think that?
Do you believe God is incapable of making it happen?
Do you assert that God was lying to His prophets?
Just what support do you have for this conclusion?

By the way... none of these questions are rhetorical. It is your right to ignore me... though I genuinely would like you to answer them truthfully.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

What makes you think that? Do you believe God is incapable of making it happen?

God is capable of doing anything, but I don't believe saving this Earth is part of the plan he chose.

And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and confidence for ever. And my people shall abide in a peaceable habitation, and in secure dwellings, and in quiet resting-places.
Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, desolation nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Do you assert that God was lying to His prophets?

Not saying you can't provide one, but none of these verses directly says Earth, but can be viewed figuratively. You don't want to hear that, and I understand. So I am not sure how far this conversation can really go.

Just what support do you have for this conclusion?

Poison, I am just as willing to have a private discussion with you. But, I guess it will just end up in the same place.

Quickly though my supoprt is the fact that Abraham had two children and both seeds today think they are rightful owners of the pormise. I believe God set up a rift that NO ONE can fix, because it was done by God. It is IMPOSSIBLE to convince a Jew they don't have a rightful place over there, and just as IMPOSSIBLE to convince a Muslim they don't either. This doesn't exlclude Christians either, because I know PLENTY of christians that think Israel the nation is something special. I just disagree and say it is a paradox God has created, and one that can not be undone ever.

Anyway that is why I believe what I do. I respect your beliefs, and it is up to you to respect mine.

 

[TheKnight]

And so the debate ends. It's difficult to debate with someone about the Bible when that person doesn't even accept what is written in the Bible.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

And so the debate ends. It's difficult to debate with someone about the Bible when that person doesn't even accept what is written in the Bible.

Look man, I am not saying why you are difficult or saying anything negative about you at all. Why do you feel the need to make comments like that?

 

[TheKnight]

Look man, I am not saying why you are difficult or saying anything negative about you at all. Why do you feel the need to make comments like that?

Because they're true? In any case, I see no further need to read your posts and as such I will place you on my ignore list.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Because they're true? In any case, I see no further need to read your posts and as such I will place you on my ignore list.

wow? OK.

 

[Poisonshady313]

God is capable of doing anything, but I don't believe saving this Earth is part of the plan he chose.
Not saying you can't provide one, but none of these verses directly says Earth, but can be viewed figuratively. You don't want to hear that, and I understand. So I am not sure how far this conversation can really go.

He shall not fail nor be crushed, till he have set the right in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his teaching.

What more do you need to understand that this world isn't doomed?

You say you don't believe saving this Earth is part of the plan God chose.

I think the prophets reveal otherwise, and it is not for any other reason than simply you wish it to be that you feel the way you do. You cannot provide any scriptural evidence to support the notion that God is incapable of bringing real literal peace on this earth. You're using the "I believe" which you specifically asked TheKnight not to do.

Poison, I am just as willing to have a private discussion with you. But, I guess it will just end up in the same place.

Probably. You're stuck on your worldview, you're not willing to see the scripture as it actually is... so I couldn't imagine a debate between us on this matter would be very productive.

Quickly though my supoprt is the fact that Abraham had two children and both seeds today think they are rightful owners of the pormise. I believe God set up a rift that NO ONE can fix, because it was done by God.

You don't think God can fix it? The bible is full of God helping the Jews against hostile enemies, even after hundreds of years in exile... and you think God can't fix it?

I'm sorry you feel God is so inept.

I just disagree and say it is a paradox God has created, and one that can not be undone ever.

Not even by God, eh?

Maybe we don't believe in the same God. The God I believe in is Almighty.

Anyway that is why I believe what I do. I respect your beliefs, and it is up to you to respect mine.

I respect your right to have your beliefs... but I do not respect Christianity any more than I respect Scientology, Hinduism, or Satanism.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

You don't think God can fix it? The bible is full of God helping the Jews against hostile enemies, even after hundreds of years in exile... and you think God can't fix it?
I'm sorry you feel God is so inept.
Not even by God, eh?
Maybe we don't believe in the same God. The God I believe in is Almighty.

I think where you are misunderstanding me is when I say God won't save the world, I am not suggesting that God can't, I am saying God has predestined the world to be destroyed.
What is a world to Him? He can create a million of them in the blink of an eye. So it is not that I think he can't, I just believe he has said he will destroy this one and create a new one for the "spiritual Jew" Which is a make up of all those that become his children.
So I don't think he is inept at all, I just think He sticks to his words, and it just so happens you and I see those words differently.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I think where you are misunderstanding me is when I say God won't save the world, I am not suggesting that God can't, I am saying God has predestined the world to be destroyed.

And I'm saying that according to the bible, you're wrong. And you haven't begun to support your position, other than repeating your assertion over and over.

What is a world to Him? He can create a million of them in the blink of an eye. So it is not that I think he can't, I just believe he has said he will destroy this one and create a new one for the "spiritual Jew" Which is a make up of all those that become his children.
So I don't think he is inept at all, I just think He sticks to his words, and it just so happens you and I see those words differently.

I should say so.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

And I'm saying that according to the bible, you're wrong. And you haven't begun to support your position, other than repeating your assertion over and over.

I know you don't accept the New Testament, but a verse like
2nd Peter Ch 3, is an indication to me what I am saying will be. You said I have not provided anything accept to say "I believe". If you would like something from the Old Testament, I can provide that too.

"5": For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
"6": Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
"7": But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

And I'm saying that according to the bible, you're wrong. And you haven't begun to support your position, other than repeating your assertion over and over.

I also think Nahum is a great book that discusses the judgment, and what will become of the Earth.
Nahum ch 1 sets it off well, but the whole book really.

You are learned in a different way, so I am not sure it is Messianic at all to you.

Anyway, those are real references that I point to, that suggest God will deal with this Earth with a judgment, and not in a fashion suggested by you or knight that peace is the goal of God for "this" earth.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I also think Nahum is a great book that discusses the judgment, and what will become of the Earth.
Nahum ch 1 sets it off well, but the whole book really.

You are learned in a different way, so I am not sure it is Messianic at all to you.

Anyway, those are real references that I point to, that suggest God will deal with this Earth with a judgment, and not in a fashion suggested by you or knight that peace is the goal of God for "this" earth.

There is a difference between learning something in a different way, and totally ignoring what the bible actually says.


Allow me to show you the first verse of Nahum 1.

A prophecy regarding Neneveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elko****e.



You are confirming my belief that what you do is, instead of reading the bible for what it actually says, you distort the content to fit your conclusion. This may not be your fault... you may have been taught to do this.

I'm convinced that the authors of the "new testament" are guilty of the same sort of distortion, which is why it is utterly useless to bring a quote from the "new testament" to support a particular way of looking at a prophecy from the Tanach.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

There is a difference between learning something in a different way, and totally ignoring what the bible actually says.


Allow me to show you the first verse of Nahum 1.

A prophecy regarding Neneveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elko****e.



You are confirming my belief that what you do is, instead of reading the bible for what it actually says, you distort the content to fit your conclusion. This may not be your fault... you may have been taught to do this.

I'm convinced that the authors of the "new testament" are guilty of the same sort of distortion, which is why it is utterly useless to bring a quote from the "new testament" to support a particular way of looking at a prophecy from the Tanach.

My bible says:

"1": The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elko****e.

So this is not the same thing as what you wrote. Mine could be wrong, I would have to check the concordance.

 

[Poisonshady313]

My bible says:
So this is not the same thing as what you wrote. Mine could be wrong, I would have to check the concordance.

They're both referring to the same thing. The words of Nahum 1... the words of the prophet Nahum... they are indeed a burden to Nineveh... because it's rather harsh and gloomy.

If all this is too distracting to you, I think I should have called your attention more specifically to the words "of Nineveh"

 

[Just_me_Mike]

They're both referring to the same thing. The words of Nahum 1... the words of the prophet Nahum... they are indeed a burden to Nineveh... because it's rather harsh and gloomy.

If all this is too distracting to you, I think I should have called your attention more specifically to the words "of Nineveh"

No it is not distracting. I simply can cite David plenty of times being referred too in the Old Testament. That the throne of David would reign forever. Do you think David is going to come back and rule?

I am honestly asking you that, because I believe when it refers to the throne of David, it is not implying David will be coming back to rule. Do you believe he will?

If not, than this would be a suitable example of how the words can mention people and places, but also be possible to be speaking about other things.

I am not trying to twist anything, I am simply applying the logic and method found throughout the Old Testament to all aspects, so that I am not missing anything.