Steve_S

This one seems to have ran its course. Locked.

Ah, i didn't realize it was by book lol, i thought it was loosely by topic.

Gen 21:3 And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him—whom Sarah bore to him—Isaac.

I cleaned this thread and removed a couple of members from it. Please be respectful of each other.

This one has ran it's course.

This thread has gotten way, way too personal. Locking.

This one has ran it's course. Hard to believe people still deny the holocaust, but, it is what it is i suppose.

I believe this one has ran its course.

This is a pretty fine example of why it's probably not a good idea to blanket accuse people of spite. Did Jade deserve that accusation? By her own admission she had an entirely different reason.

Even having 20/20 vision doesn't allow a person to view the thoughts and intent of the heart.

This is not a guaranteed interpretation, nor even a likely one, i would say. It can certainly be more than rebellion or spite. People do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons and since it is the only possible button to really express disagreement, then it's certainly more than possible that it is someone doing just that. Just as easy to sarcastically like a post with disdain in one's heart towards the other party or to openly insult them without selecting a button at all. Again, only God searches hearts, period.

I did just give you a reasonable and highly possible alternative, which is that they simply disagree with you and it is a way to express it without having to type anything or get into a debate. It is not a preapproved way of dissing a person, either, it is simply a button you can click to express something other than approval or agreement in a fairly innocuous way. I believe the standard for one making "what is in their hearts known" should be a little bit higher of a bar than a mouse click of a fairly comical expression of "oy vey," but that is just me.

Yes. There can absolutely be doubt. There is only One who can search hearts and minds. Act 1:24 And they prayed and said, "You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 1Ch 28:9 "As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a loyal heart and with a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever. Judging intent on something as simple as a mouse click can be a slippery slope.

Perhaps it's just their way of voicing their disagreement? Is disagreement always spiteful?

I don't what your point is at this point, but, I'm open to hearing it more specifically if you are so inclined.

Well, whether or not you are wrong to point it out is not a judgment I care to make, for starters. I will say, though, that the guy you quoted is making claims of a literal curse being called down from God by simply uttering the words "oy vey" which can mean a range of things depending on the person saying it and the context in which they are saying it. Context in conversation and with words matters a whole lot and the meanings behind words matter. For instance, if someone is doing very well in a competition of some sort, and another person remarks about them "john's on fire." Do we take the literal meaning of the word fire there? Is it being suggested that the person is literally on fire? Inversely, if a group of firefighters is in a house battling a fire, and one remarks to another "john's on fire"... do you think anyone in the room would think it's at all possible that the person making that remark is suggesting that ol' john is having himself a particularly good day on the golf course? So, in language, context is incredibly important. But, really, the actual translation from the masoretic text (also the septuagint) simply means "woe is me." I'm not sure how that qualifies as calling down a curse. The definition of "woe" is great sorrow or distress. As such, woe is me would basically mean "I am in great sorrow and distress" if you really want to look at it in any sort of literal context. Also, the logic there of calling it a curse is questionable, insofar as he asked for a curse, yet received a blessing: Isa 6:7 And he touched my mouth with it, and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; Your iniquity is taken away, And your sin purged." In short, Isaiah cried out to God in distress and God responded. He used an expression of exasperation in doing so. Someone happening to use the same expression of exasperation about something else equaling "calling down a curse" does not, at all, seem biblical. In fact, based on how the guy worded it in his short thesis, it seems almost superstitious.

Uh, this is a pretty significant stretch. What are the qualifications of the person who made this claim? This comes from what looks to be a 16 year old post and i see no credentials from the author explaining who he is, what he believes, or why he thinks this?

Just for the record. There is no official position of Worthy that I know of vis-a-vis pre-trib v post-trib. I suspect that the ministry team runs the gamut in eschatological viewpoints.

This thread has been locked. Just for clarification. We do not allow videos to be posted outside of the video forum. If you post one, they will not be moved and reviewed for approval. They will be deleted immediately most of the time. Please don't post them in hopes people will get a chance to look at them before they are taken down. If it is determined that one is willfully doing this, they will be banned from the thread and could even be placed on moderator review.

This one has ran its course.

I think this one has ran its course.

It is absolutely guess work. It's based on other premises that also have no direct correlative evidence. You are making a positive claim that this is definitive and it is not. A definitive statement would look like "as though the pretrib rapture had occurred." I'm not asking you not to believe what you believe, simply saying that what you believe is not specifically delineated in the text.

This is sheer guess work, basically. 2Th 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2Th 2:2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. It implies that they thought the day of Christ may have come. It does not expound upon that at all. Anyone can make an assumption that paul is talking about a pretrib rapture, but the bible does not say that paul is talking about a pretrib rapture.

That is not a localized or even broad context, though. That is taking a predetermined assumption and inserting it as context, instead of the scripture speaking for itself. Apostasia is used two times in the new testament and four times in the septuagint. This is the only time where anyone claims it means "departing" and it's because a developed theological assumption requires it.

Except that all of the bibles since the KJV have not copied it, only the YLT and NKJV have directly translated it as "falling away." Most translate it as apostacy or rebellion. The actual definition of the greek word is more in line with "forsake" or "defect." Ultimately, you can use "departed" and equate that with forsake or defect. There is no context in which that word simply means "departed" in a non-rebellious manner, though.