Jump to content

End Times/Bible Prophecy

A forum for Bible prophecy, information about the rapture, tribulation, the return of Jesus Christ, ect.

302 topics in this forum

  1. The Third Woe

    • 21 replies
  2. Our Adversary

    • 3 replies
  3. Doomsday 1 2

    • 34 replies
    • 0 replies
  4. Armageddon 1 2

    • 33 replies
  5. Model Of Lucifer 1 2

    • 25 replies
  6. God's Global Warming 1 2 3 4

    • 75 replies
    • 205 replies
    • 18 replies
    • 22 replies
    • 6 replies
    • 98 replies
    • 321 replies
  7. Perry Stone- Huh?

    • 7 replies
    • 28 replies
  8. Revelation 20:5 1 2

    • 28 replies
    • 0 replies
    • 12 replies
  9. Rapture 1 2 3 4 11

    • 250 replies
    • 33 replies
  10. Matthew 10:23

    • 12 replies
  11. Postmillennialism

    • 15 replies
    • 47 replies
  12. Ezekiel 40 - 48

    • 20 replies
  13. Ezekiel 38 & 39 1 2

    • 31 replies
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Recent Topics

  • Recent Posts

    • First, thank you for reading my post with such detail! I really appreciate it! Taking things in order and starting first with your first (and incidentally also your last) stanza: I'm not really sure why I became a Christian; I grew up in a good Baptist household, and I was baptized when I was very young. However, I can tell you why I stayed in: exposure to the works of CS Lewis. I know he's just a man, but he was probably the most good, wholesome, and honest Christian from whom I have ever read, excepting of course the apostles and Paul. He, like the great St. Thomas Aquinas and Plato the ancient Athenian, believed that not only nature and the moral laws contained evidence of Christ, but logic itself too. He was a great boon to my Christian life, because he provided such compelling logical arguments that I became totally convinced of the validity of God's word in my mind as well as in my heart. He was wrong about some things no doubt, but he was undoubtedly a great man of God; I would stake my life on that. If you ask why I still manage to cling to God even as I doubt the Bible (and the earth might as well have collapsed for how stressful that is) it is because of the straightforward and Godly logic and teachings of CS Lewis. I'll try anybody you think will help, including Dr. Peter Ruckman, but CS Lewis is the one man I most hold responsible my salvation. He's not a source of doubt Jordan Peterson I can take or leave, I just mentioned him because he seemed relevant. As to your second set of paragraphs, the one that references 2nd Peter: I don't really doubt God, I just doubt that the Bible is his word. You don't really need to talk about proof of God, I'm already there. As to the set that referenced 1 Kings: Yes, the widow might have doubted that the command "give your last biscuit" was really from God, but she had the prophet Elijah there, who she did know spoke on behalf of God, to verify and back the claim up. She didn't take it as blind faith either; she had a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. I, in perhaps a similar situation, might (reasonably I think) doubt that the Bible is really from God, so like the widow, I think I should have a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. Now, I don't know anyone God has trusted enough to perform miracles and speak for him like he did Elijah, so I have to resort to other verified mouthpieces of God to confirm the Bible. The only other mouthpiece I know of is truth, which God confirms to us by way of logic. If you (or anyone) can logically prove to me that the Bible is inerrant, then I will accept that as Godly verification. I want that proof, so that's why I'm out searching for it, but if I can't tell if God wants me to give away my starving son's last biscuit to a fat man, then I think I should feed my son. As to the part about Judas: Yes, we do use "he" in that manner, but we still don't say 'he broke his arm' or 'he fell down on his face' about cadavers, and I think this usage of "he" falls closer to that usage. As to the use of "headlong", yes I agree, just like you said, how could a hanged body fall headfirst? Well this is the definition of headlong: And that makes it seem like he wasn't hanging. I'm think it's pretty clear the author here meant "headfirst" because saying a body fell "in an impetuous manner", "rashly", "without deliberation" or "without respite" makes even less sense than the other meaning. Finally, to touch back on your last paragraph: Piecing the truth together from the Bible is exactly what I am trying to do, with your (plural) help. The problem is that the closer you look, the more disjoints you find between the pieces. Also, as a mostly irrelevant aside; even if you believe the Bible is inerrant, there's still lots of passages that you can't believe in literally. The Catholics loved to use the passage from Psalms 19:6 about the sun: "It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth." as supposed "proof" that the sun revolved around the earth, and there's plenty of other, darker passages like Psalms 137:9, which gives a blessing to any man who would snatch a Babylonian baby from its mother and bashes it's brains out on the ground. That clearly don't align with God's will. Those passages don't necessarily mean the Bible is errant, it just means that some books (like Psalms) are meant as just holy poetry and not serious theological teachings. In those cases, it would be just as wrong to take them literally as it would to take some other passages symbolically, because it's wrong to use parts of the Bible outside their intended purposes, and the intended purpose of those passages is only related to music and worship. CS Lewis didn't think Genesis and Job were symbolic/fictional because he believed they were in error, he just thought they were meant to be passages like Psalms and taken symbolically, not literally. As far as I know he still believed in biblical inerrancy, that part is my own 'discovery', not his. I think Jordan Peterson does think the Bible is all a myth though, (in a way that is less reverent towards the Bible than me). In that way Peterson is pretty sacreligious, but he seems to be an admirer nonetheless, and he has studied the Bible so thoroughly that sometimes he extracts lessons that you probably would have otherwise missed, and he still sometimes (inadvertently) provides teachings genuinely useful to a Christian life. Like I said, I don't approve of his attitude though, so I wouldn't call myself a fan.
    • To Mr. SAB76: I wrote a reply to you earlier today, but I guess it didn't go through. It was similar in tone and context to my earlier reply to Mr. DaveW. First, I am extremely grateful for your effort and long reply, so thank you! However, a lot of these explanations seem pretty contrived. True, you might be able to work out a way where technically the explanations you provided could work. Yeah, Luke could have been describing Judas' body falling from a noose, but it really seems like he was talking about him walking around then tripping or something. When was the last time you heard someone say something like 'Oh he fell head-over-heels and broke his tailbone' about a dead body? If that's what he meant wouldn't he say 'the body fell down and burst' or something like that? Why would he use the word 'he' instead of 'it', or use the word 'headlong' instead of just 'down'? It seems to me that these words indicate the lateral motion of a man walking or running in a field, not a body in a tree. But anyways, even if the specific wording isn't inescapable, it is still very disquieting, because it definitely doesn't live up to the kind of clarity and precision you would expect from God. I don't find those explanations satisfying or relieving at all, but like I said, I do really appreciate the effort, and would appreciate any more comments or references you can provide! 1. Ok, I now believe in inerrancy 2. Oh wait, here are some passages that contradict, does this mean the Bible is errant? 3. Let's pray, study, and ask some people for help: 4. Ok, I hear some kinda-sorta explanations, but they all rely on the authors suddenly talking in weird, unnatural ways or having strange secret meanings that mean the opposite of what words used in that combination usually mean. Either way, these explanations clearly don't jive with the author's obvious meanings. 5. Huh, well that was no help, I wish somebody had a real explanation that didn't involve grammatical gymnastics, or failing that, could prove that faith is valid even without the Bible, because I'm feeling pretty lost 6. Oh, well here we are in the exact same place as before  Mr. Thomas, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt concerning your truthfulness in your desire to be shown the bible is truth. I am not sure I will help, as it really does seem that you have made up your mind on this subject, and are now desiring proof, and dismiss “technically true” explanations.  Let me begin with the assumption that, due to your knowledge of the scriptures, and fretting over their inaccuracy, you are a saved, born again, Christian believing in Paul’s gospel. I am assuming you realized that you were a sinner, that Christ died for your sins, and that he rose again the 3rd day to offer all that believe on him eternal life. I am assuming you have received Christ as your savior, and believe on him to save you from hell. If this is the case, how did you come to this faith? That a resurrected man could forgive your sin, and save you from hell. You received it from the scripture, correct? How do you know the Lord be God? From the scripture, correct? So, how are you choosing which scriptures are true, and which are not? Maybe I am off on this assumption, but you seem to be double minded, and unstable. It seems you have been drawn away from the faith you once had, when you believed the scriptures at salvation, and have been listening to the Devil, as Eve, “Yea, hath God said?” The Devil has not changed his tactics since then, and why should he? They still work. May I suggest (James 1:5-8 & 2 Peter 3:16) as exhortation to what I said in my previous post about how to approach the scriptures. I’m not sure you realize what you, or many others, are holding in your hands. The bible is not just a book. It is a living book (Heb. 4:12) and discerns a man’s heart (Heb. 4:12) before that man ever reads the first verse, and will answer that man, according to the idols in his heart. (Eze. 14:4) This is why I tried to exhort you previously, and now admonish you…If you are saved, and are truly serious, and truthful about your desire for truth, then I strongly suggest you approach the scriptures with a clean, pure intentioned heart, and seek the truth by prayer, study, and preachers & teachers that believe that book AS IT READS, preachers and teachers that don’t dismiss “insignificant” words as not being an issue. Or try to take you back to some dead  language that God does not use any longer. The word of God is preserved, and perfect in the KJV. The “originals" do not exist any where on this earth. Besides the “originals" being dead and gone, they have been TRANSLATED (See Col. 1:13 & Heb. 11:5 for the biblical definition of TRANSLATED…it is always BETTER than the original) into a better and more accurate language. I chose this name ironically because I predicted that accusation would come out at one point or another. The truth is that I'm not like doubting Thomas, who saw Jesus perform miracles on countless occasions, and personally heard his sermons and speech 24/7 (including the parts where Jesus said he would die and be resurrected) only to abandon his faith the week things looked bad. Doubting Thomas did have proof of the things he believed, then turned away out of fear. The difference is that I have no such proof. I desperately want to believe in biblical inerrancy; my fear is pushing me towards blind acceptance, not away like Thomas.  So, let me first address the above quote, and perhaps shed some light on what faith is and how it works. And then I will address your latest questions on the Judas “death" issue. You said that you don’t have the miracles that Thomas saw, and have nothing but the word and you are leaning to blind acceptance. But what you call blind acceptance , Peter called… 2 Peter 1:16-19  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: The bible says that “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1)  I do not ascribe to “blind” faith, nor do I expect anyone to “just believe”. BUT...faith is just that, faith. Faith is not in things, or your understanding or reasoning. Faith is in...people, and what they say…A very simple example, you go to the doctor, and he says you have cancer. He says you must take chemotherapy in order to survive. You say yes, and begin treatments. Why? Because you believe the doctor. Your faith is not in the chemotherapy, it is just the medicine. You believe the doctor has told you the truth, and therefore put your faith in HIM to know what he is talking about, and how to apply the medicine. And since the bible is the word of God, and the Word is God (Jn. 1:1 & 1 Jn. 1:1), then “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom 10:17) God always tells us what the end is, BUT he does not tell us every detail up to it…This is what makes it faith, and also tests our obedience. For example: (1 Kings 17:1-16) The widow of Zarephath and her son were starving and on their last meal when up pops the preacher Elijah, he was very healthy and had been fed and watered by God for 3 years without missing a single meal. He was fat compared to the widow and her son. So the Lord puts her to the test and show a great example of faith. How? He told the preacher to tell her (How would you like to be put in that position?) to give him the last biscuit, and that if she did that God would supply her with an endless supply of meal until the drought was over. So while it was not blind faith, it was no doubt a hard pill to swallow, when this fat preacher shows up and promises a blessing if you feed him before you feed your starving son. And this is why she is known for her GREAT faith. But her faith was not in the biscuit, oor even in her own reasoning, for surely any mother would feed her starving child before feeding a fat preacher, but her faith was in the preacher, and because she believed him to be the man of God and that he spoke the truth when he made the promise of never ending food IF she trusted the words he spoke. She believed what she was told, and the blessing came afterward…not before. And so, it seems to me, that you are asking for the blessing, before you put faith in the wword.If this is the case, you unfortunately have it backwards. Now, onto the further information on Judas' death to help clarify your latest questions... You make suggestion that all 3 explanations were contrived, yet you only gave a few examples of wording you disagree with in the one about Judas. So I will address the Judas issue, as I assume you are still searching for error on the other 2. I believe I showed very clearly in the 2nd and 3rd examples without any funny math or changing words or their definitions to show the scripture may LOOK contradicted, but is in almost every case of these supposed contradictions or funny math situations, the real problem is the scriptures are just not read correctly. Firstly, you say technically my explanations could work, yet you believe Peter (Peter said this by the way, not Luke - Acts 1:15) would have said “it” or “body” instead of “he”. But you make this claim by assuming that either…  1) Judas was dead when he fell, (Remember, Matt. says he went and hanged himself…you assume death, but it is not confirmed) (2 Sam. 17:23 speaks of a hanging and confirms death)  or  2) that his body cannot be referred to as he, if he were dead when he fell. Although, it is perfectly acceptable in common everyday conversation for people to use this terminology when speaking of dead men. “HE looks so natural”; “HE is buried in Arlington cemetery”; “I want to bury HIM in his favorite suit”. Even scripture uses this terminology…(Josh. 10:26 says “they” when speaking of dead men) (2 Sam. 4:12 says “them” when speaking of dead men) (2 Sam. 18:17 says “Absalom” when speaking of the body of Absalom)  Another point is that the bible is written in common everyday language. It is not a legal document, nor is it a stenographer’s record. It was the intent of the translators to make it that way…“If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives a plough to know more of the scriptures than you do.” William Tyndale when speaking to an educated clergyman. It is a book that gives its own details and lack of details as it sees fit.  Secondly, what definition are you ascribing to HEADLONG? The word shows up 3 times in scripture and the other 2 times, it does not mean “head first" it means…1. Rashly; precipitately; without deliberation. 2. Hastily; without delay or respite. How would a body fall headfirst from hanging?  Thirdly, just because something is NOT in the scriptures doesn’t mean that it isn’t or couldn’t be there. Such as, what caused his bowels to gush out? Well scripture doesn’t say exactly,  but gives enough information to come to a LOGICAL conclusion. He must have fallen from pretty high up in order to gush out OR he must have been hanging dead for a few days, maybe 3, and then a great earthquake so strong that it rent rocks (Matt. 27:51) was strong enough to break the tree he was hanging from, and his decomposing body burst when it hit the ground. As I said before the bible is full of “evidence" that tells the MAIN story. It is up to the detective (you) to search for it (a little here and a little there, line upon line, precept upon precept) piece it together and come up with the truth.  Lastly, IF you are really sincere, then I suggest you turn off CS Lewis and Jordan Peterson, and give Dr. Peter S. Ruckman a try. Turn off the influence that questions what God says (Gen 3), and have faith in what you already understand, and allow God the TIME to teach you the rest, as he sees fit, so that you are established and grounded in the milk of the word, and eventually be able to digest the meat and strong meat of the word.  
    • To Mr. DaveW: I think you might have understood my position a little bit better if you did read the 'humour you' part. Look, I can't help it if your answers don't make sense. They're no good to me if they're no good. I do appreciate your effort, and I'm sorry you're heading out, but all I can do is point out the errors and hope for an explanation that does pass muster. Sincere thanks for your effort though. To John Young: If I had to make a decision right this minute with the best information available to me, it would be that the Bible is errant and therefore can't be relied on. Is that the decision you recommend to me? If the Lord be God, follow him. Well the Lord be God, and God commands us to follow truth. The doctrine of inerrancy seems untrue, so to follow God I must abandon the doctrine of inerrancy. To All: I would like to believe in inerrancy, but the Bible seems errant.If you can prove inerrancy, please do, but don't get mad at me if you cannot. From Job (which John Young also has as his signature): "Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred."
    • You said enough in the first sentence for me to know not to waste my time replying, except to say its clear from your replies that you already have enough information to make a decision one way or another. You just need to make it. 1 Kings 18:21a And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him:...
    • Nuff said..... I am out. No accusation - your starting position is the same as Thomas - I  WILL NOT BELIEVE...…. This attitude displayed in your responses to anyone who has tried to help, and displayed further in the quotes above tells me that you are not actually after answers You are convinced that the Bible is not true, and until you move from that premise you cannot make any forward progress. You need to worry less about what men like CS Lewis or Peterson say and try studying the Bible in order to answer your own questions. You are obviously not interested in what other people have to say (because you reject it without consideration), so the ONLY course of action for you to take is to diligently study the Word of God and find the answers for yourself. If you are indeed in any way interested in getting the answers...…. Have fun, but I will take no further part.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

  • Create New...