Steve_S

Locked at OP request.

The KJV, NKJV, and YLT translate it falling away. The ESV and many others tranlates it as the "rebellion." The NASB and and a few others translates it as "apostasy." I cannot find a single bible translation at this point that translates it as "departing." That's about 500 years' worth of greek experts, many of whom were learned, faithful, Christian men. What makes the theory that it means "departing" correct, where is the evidence of this?

No need to request deletion, I moved it to the eschatology section.

I cleaned out some of the stuff from the last two pages of this thread. Please keep it civil.

I think openly armed police officers at every school would make a difference. The active shooter drills, I don't know. Possibly helpful, but drills like that tend to go out the window in an actual scenario unless they are actively practiced on a more than occasional basis. Putting one cop per 500 to 1000 students at every school at all times would probably dissuade most of the actual mass school shootings i believe (probably not all of the ones that are personal issues between individual students over drugs or a a perceived slight, etc.). These guys are generally actively seeking soft targets. Armed and trained officers make it anything but that. That's not to say it couldn't still happen, just that these mass shootings don't tend to happen at schools where cops are on duty. Very large high schools may present problems to defend. If the cop is known to be a quarter of a mile away for instance, but in elementary schools and middle schools and smaller to moderate sized high schools it would probably have a deterrent effect. I think that the key here would be to do it consistently across the board at every school. If cops are at every school in the county district and the city district half a mile away doesn't have them, it would simply be a case changing plans on the part of the shooters. I would also like to see the cops be actual cops from police departments that rotate through the schools for a day, week, month at a time. The reason I say this is that the intuition that comes with the experience of being an active street cop could not really be replaced by someone who was specifically trained just to work at a school as basically a guard. Ultimately, these guys are basically cowards. That is why they choose to go up into a place to shoot unarmed children and adolescents. I think it's also notable that they generally refuse to actually engage the cops. They, almost uniformly, commit suicide or attempt to flee once they think the police are close. I think they would probably, in most cases, tend to want to avoid any, even marginal, chance of being challenged by a police officer.

I am not attacking you personally and I am indeed a moderator. I simply asked for clarification about a statement you made after starting a thread with a wikipedia article. I did not do so in a moderator capacity, but out of curiosity, mainly because a lot of those sources cited in the wikipedia article (which I did go to) did not seem like they were from overtly Christian sources.

Well, this is what you said. You pasted stuff from wikipedia on here and then claimed that "every scientific source coming from what I post, comes from believing Christians..." in a later post. That's a pretty bold claim. I am not impugning your study or your educational background, but what I am saying is that it's incredibly highly likely that there are sources from non-believers cited in the wiki article you posted. Can you see where the confusion might come in?

That still doesn't answer the question. Was that wikipedia article written by believing Christians and if so, who are they?

All these articles cited at the bottom of this wikipedia article were written by bible believing Christians, you have verified that?

I have removed a few posts. Please don't suggest people not take medications for conditions that they may have. This is not something we allow.

This thread has certainly ran its course.

Praying!

Think this one needs to cool off for a while, at least.

There are only really a couple of ways. The first would be a constitutional amendment or amendments redefining the bounds of the judiciary. This seems politically unlikely and could also present its own dangers, namely that the future is impossible to predict (for mere men) and what may fall out of any changes could ultimately be worse than what we have now. The second, much more politically possible and less dangerous, means would be to replace the judiciary piece by piece from the top down with judges who interpret the constitution as it was written. We are probably in the only real window we are going to get for that for a very long time over the next 5 to 7 years, as the two oldest liberal justices and the one left leaning moderate are all old and highly likely to retire soon. I expect all three to hold their seats in a kung fu grip through trump's first term. If he wins a second, natural attrition will probably take over. It's difficult to envision all three remaining justices while pushing 90 years old (which is basically what the case would be in trump's second term). In fact,It's likely that all three would end up being replaced if trump got two full terms. It's even possible that kennedy will retire during this term (some think likely, but i am not currently in that camp anymore). Also as far as this one thing the founders didn't see coming, most of them probably didn't, but, there are probably other things that can be exploited aside from the judiciary that have not been exploited yet. It took decades to change the perceived function of the court into how it is seen today, which is that it is basically able to write laws. If that avenue wasn't open, somebody would've probably figured something else out and if this is taken away, it's likely they'll start working on something else, though I have my doubt as to whether current day liberals have anywhere near the patience as the ones who embarked upon this strategy decades ago.

I believe this one has ran its course.

Joh 16:25 "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father.

I believe this one is so off topic as to have ran its course.

This one seems to have ran its course.

I saw a 4D ultrasound of my daughter at 16 weeks. She was wallowing and kicking, arms and legs, everything. It's quite unfortunate that this is even up for debate in our country.

Well, firstly, if that's the case, why did you post it as proof that there's a pre-trib rapture, as your first given verse, as a matter of fact? Secondly, where does the text say that it is specifically addressed to Israel and has nothing to do with the church?

I think that it'd be pretty important to look at this particular verse in its actual context, since you chose it to highlight a pre-trib rapture position. Mat 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Mat 24:30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Mat 24:31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. I'd ask you to keep in mind that this sequence here starts with a thought (Immediately after the tribulation...), continues the thought (Then) and then completes the thought (and). Immediately after the tribulation of those days... then... and... I think it's interesting that you have bracketed there that the church will be raptured before the seven year tribulation begins, even though two verses prior, it is quite obvious that Christ is speaking about a period that is immediately after the tribulation. A pretty good example of the piecemeal assembly of verses that is required by pre-trib theology.

Again, we have an assertion made. Let's just look at the very first part of the first sentence: "The rapture takes place several years before the literal advent of Christ to the Earth" Now, we are given three verses here that supposedly prove this. I'm just going to post these verses and let everyone decide for themselves if they actually say that. Jud 1:14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, Rev 19:14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. Zec 14:5 Then you shall flee through My mountain valley, For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal. Yes, you shall flee As you fled from the earthquake In the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Thus the LORD my God will come, And all the saints with You. Now, it doesn't look to me like any of those verses says explicitly, or implicitly, that "the rapture takes place several years before the literal advent of Christ to the earth"... but, that's just me. And I'm sure folks may wonder where all those saints that are with God in heaven come from that are being mentioned here. Well, actually, the bible does specifically address that! Rev 7:13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?" Rev 7:14 And I said to him, "Sir, you know." So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Rev 7:15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. As an aside, notice how it mentions up there in revelation 19:14 that the armies in heaven are clothed in fine linen, white and clean? The saints explicitly mentioned in Revelation as having white robes are the ones who come out of the tribulation, in fact not once in Revelation (nor anywhere else in the bible) are we told that saints are raptured before the tribulation and put in white robes.

I'd like to demonstrate how pre-trib theology works for those who may be watching. A narrative is given, the narrative in this case is: "The rapture is a distinct coming in itself, not to the earth, but in the air where Christ meets the saints and then takes them back to heaven to present them blameless before God the Father" Now, we are given three passages, a total of 6 verses, which, one would think, would roughly speak to the narrative. Let's take a look at the verses: Joh 14:1 "Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. Joh 14:2 In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. Alright, here we are told, basically, that Christ is going to prepare a place for believers. That's pretty awesome to hear, if you are a believer, because if God builds something for you to enjoy, you can bet you're going to enjoy it. However, this says nothing at all about the timing of Christ's return or the idea that the saints will return to heaven with Christ in order to avoid the tribulation. It certainly does not have anything to do with a "distinct" first second coming (as opposed to what would have to be the second second coming, if there is a first one). It just simply states that Christ is preparing a place for us. I would even go so far as to argue that this is probably referring to new heaven and new earth and new jersualem in revelation 21, which is actually after the millennium, which means it would have no bearing whatsoever on this conversation. Second passage: 1Th 3:13 so that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints. Again, no timing mentioned, whatsoever, no allusion to timing at all. No "distinction" made regarding a first second coming, either. This verse is certainly factual, but it has no bearing on rapture timing. The "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints" could be either at a pre-trib or post-trib point. Third passage: 1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Again, no timing here is mention and no "distinction" made that this this is a coming that is separate from the second coming. There are theological extrapolations that are made in order to arrive at this point, but the scripture itself doesn't say it. However, when the case is made, it is stated as fact, with the scriptures presented as footnotes, even though they do not themselves contain the information given. I will address the second half of the assertion in another post.

1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Mat 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Mat 24:30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Mat 24:31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This one has ran its course.