Steve_S

All who are participating, please remember to keep it civil and discuss this difficult topic in love.

This is far too personal. Please refrain from such going forward in the thread. Doing so will result in your removal from it.

This is a theological situation, though, not a textual situation. Nobody disputes that Hebrew says Bene Elohim (literally translated into virtually all English translations, accurately - the sons of God). The disputation is in the meaning of it, not whether the actual phrase has been changed in newer Masoretic scrolls.

The post attached to this was far, far too much of an attack to leave up, so I removed it. Please refrain from saying such things going forward.

Could you give some examples that are more than grammatical and that have a reasonable amount of agreement. Pretty much the entire book of Isaiah has been found there and was almost word-for-word exact. I don't know of any full New Testament books and there are debates as to whether there are even any fragments. Most of the old testament books found there are fragmented as well and so great care needs to be taken in order to say for sure that something has changed from them.

Sarah was a Chaldean (or at least came from Chaldea), but I doubt she was "very white" nonetheless (but I can't be dogmatic on that, nobody can - so she could've been). Agreed for sure.

Interesting take. I do have a question though. You say these must represent the whole earth and *not* geographic locations. In Ezekiel 27, in the lament for tyre, we see that Tyre traded with: Eze 27:13 Javan, Tubal, and Meshech were your traders. They bartered human lives and vessels of bronze for your merchandise. Eze 27:14 Those from the house of Togarmah traded for your wares with horses, steeds, and mules. If these are unidentifiable as geographic locations and only represent people, is this saying that Tyre literally traded with the entire world? Persia, Libya, and Ethiopia being mentioned are obviously nations with geographic boundaries, then and now. The original Hebrew for Libya and Ethiopia is Kush and Put. If these are not geographic locations, in fact, that presents some strange issues for the rest of scripture. Does the location of Libya change generationally as people migrate? Or somewhere like Egpyt? In short, if this principle is applied here, it would seem that it would necessarily have to be applied across the board scripturally. In other words, either these names mean specific places or they do not.

Basically a combination of atheism, eastern mysticism, paganism, and western ecumenicism all bundled into one package and stamped with Christianity.

I rarely will just look at a single verse. Probably best to look at the whole passage. Rev 16:12 Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared. Rev 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. Rev 16:14 For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Rev 16:15 "Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame." Rev 16:16 And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon. The main problem I have with the idea that these battles are one in the same is that the players do not seem to be the same. Eze 38:2 "Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him, Eze 38:3 and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal. Eze 38:4 I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and lead you out, with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all splendidly clothed, a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords. Eze 38:5 Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet; Eze 38:6 Gomer and all its troops; the house of Togarmah from the far north and all its troops—many people are with you. Here specific players are mentioned. It is hardly the "whole word." If Russia is in view as Rosh or Magog, that would be the most powerful country involved. If not, then the most powerful country would be Turkey followed by Persia. This does not seem to possibly be the same group when given a plain literal reading. There are many other reasons to think this, of course, it's just that this probably highlights it the fastest.

She brought to the King's attention that Haman was attempting a holocaust of all Jews in the Persian Empire, her and Mordecai included. It was indeed important significance, to the utmost.

Are you speaking of the final battle or this battle being separate, but towards the end of the final week?

Is there a prophecy you're specifically referring to when you say He will reveal a female apostle? The Greek word for apostle (transliterated apostolos) is used over 80 times and never never applied to a female to my knowledge, not in the entire new testament.

Or perhaps we should be careful to hold the claims of anyone claiming apostolic authority up against the scriptures. Word based is not fleshed based. The bible demonstrates pattern after pattern for multiple things. How many female apostles were there then?

I highly doubt the Magog confederation from Ezekiel 38-39 is the same as is mentioned after the millennium. There are a plethora of reasons I doubt this, but the in the main it can probably be best expressed in the players. Rev 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison Rev 20:8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. Rev 20:9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. Rev 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Four corners of the earth. As Dennis said earlier, Gog is probably a title in both passages. Magog may be a title here as well (though I doubt it is in Ezekiel). Eze 38:2 "Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him, Eze 38:3 and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal. Eze 38:4 I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and lead you out, with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all splendidly clothed, a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords. Eze 38:5 Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet; Eze 38:6 Gomer and all its troops; the house of Togarmah from the far north and all its troops—many people are with you. These are geographically identifiable areas. There are, of course, debates as to the identify of some. But these seem to be players from the mideast, plus possibly Russia. In other words, this is not a worldwide confederation, but a mostly regional confederation led by possibly a singular extra-regional instigator. The reasons are also different: Eze 38:10 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "On that day it shall come to pass that thoughts will arise in your mind, and you will make an evil plan: Eze 38:11 You will say, 'I will go up against a land of unwalled villages; I will go to a peaceful people, who dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates'— Eze 38:12 to take plunder and to take booty, to stretch out your hand against the waste places that are again inhabited, and against a people gathered from the nations, who have acquired livestock and goods, who dwell in the midst of the land. The Gog confederation of Ezekiel is basically an attempted larceny writ large. Israel is wealthy and they want it. Another: Eze 39:11 "It will come to pass in that day that I will give Gog a burial place there in Israel, the valley of those who pass by east of the sea; and it will obstruct travelers, because there they will bury Gog and all his multitude. Therefore they will call it the Valley of Hamon Gog. Eze 39:12 For seven months the house of Israel will be burying them, in order to cleanse the land. Eze 39:13 Indeed all the people of the land will be burying, and they will gain renown for it on the day that I am glorified," says the Lord GOD. Bodies are being buried for seven months here. That's not what happens to the army that comes against Israel in Revelation, though: Rev 20:9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. They are likely reduced to dust right there on the spot. There are many more arguments, of course, and I didn't even mean to make this many (I try not to post walls of text). Ultimately, the final in Revelation is a rebellion against God that is immediately put down. Shortly thereafter there is judgment and New Jerusalem comes into play. Ezekiel 38-39 seems to end with God making an example out of the invaders. Fire, hail, brimstone rains on them. They lay dead for seven months before they can all be buried, etc.

There was a woman who judged Israel (was not queen), Deborah. Esther was not a Queen over Israel. She was a queen of Persia and was so chosen after queen Vasthi insulted the then king of Persia Ahasuerus, probably Xerxes. A queen in her situation did not rule as the queen of england does now. Queen was not a hereditary title that implied leadership. The queen in the persian court was basically the most favored wife of the king (he had numerous concubines). There is, however, a time that a woman did indeed try to claim rule and queenship over Judah after the fashion of kings. Her name was Athaliah. In fact, she attempted to usurp the authority that had been given to the royal line and, indeed, tried to wipe it out. Jehoiada was able to protect one of the King's sons from her attempted purge. I won't recount the rest of the story, but suffice it to say that it did not end pleasantly for her.

The only thing i would disagree with in this statement is calling something such as this "church." It's a perversion of the faith parading as a church.

It's not because they are men. It's because the church as a whole is not watching. Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Act 20:30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Act 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. For the very most part, if the people, men and women, in those denominations actually opened their bibles occasionally, they would not sit under these people or allow their children anywhere near them. In the case of the catholic church, it's endemic and that church has been apostate for well over a millennium. I would point out here, just to show you that this has nothing to do with being a man (or rather, nothing to do with *just* men), Donald Trumps top "spiritual adviser," Paula White, is a prosperity gospel preacher (point 3 of yours in this quote) and who had an extramarital affair, left her husband, and kept her church and ministry (point 1 above on both counts). You see, it wouldn't matter if you replaced every single man in a position of authority with a woman who is in a position of authority, it would still happen, because they are human. I think it is quite possible to be well concerned about both. Male pastors who are progressives are responsible for some of the worst and most false Christian doctrines that have ever been concocted.

I'd have to disagree there, simply because that's not what he says. He says that on that specific thing he is speaking authoritatively, but of himself. What most people don't realize is that's the verse that allows people to divorces unbelieving spouses that abandon them. 1Co 7:10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 1Co 7:11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. 1Co 7:12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 1Co 7:13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 1Co 7:15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 1Co 7:16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? Now let me ask a question? Why on earth, regarding what this verse is actually speaking towards, does nobody ever say - "No! That was just Paul's opinion, if that unbelieving spouse of yours leaves, you had better just wait, even if it's the rest of your life, on them to return!!!!!!!"... You see, this is something most people like the idea of. If it turns out their spouse is not saved and they leave, they are free, according to Paul's command here. Nobody wants to ever, ever, call that into question - "Well, that was just his opinion! He's just saying stuff, whatever is on his mind randomly in that moment!" No, what ends up happening is folks like Paul's opinion on this, so they never question it. Jesus spoke of marriage and the only legal thing He said one could dissolve a marriage over was if your spouse cheated. Paul is saying here, that in his judgment as an apostle, a chosen apostle of the living God, that if your wife or husband doesn't believe, but also doesn't abandon you and remains faithful, then you have a duty to demonstrate the love of Christ to them and maybe through that demonstration, they will come to knowledge of and faith in Christ. But if they leave you, if they don't like that you're now a follower of Jesus, don't like that you won't do some of the things you were willing to do before, don't want to deal with you being saved, and they leave, you are free. He's saying, even though God did not say this, even though he cannot point to Christ speaking this specific thing, you are free from the bonds of marriage in that one specific case, even though Jesus did not specifically mention it in His exposition on marriage in the gospels. The entirety of this chapter, where he invokes this, is on marriage. People were obviously worried about it and did not have a firm grasp of what they needed to do. Virtually every believer who was married then had an unbelieving spouse. He was giving them theological doctrine on how to deal with it. Now, I will not say that I don't understand why folks take this, which they never invoke on the actual topic, and carry it over to an entirely different letter to Timothy with regards to teaching authority. They do it because it's the only leg to stand on to wedge female pastors/teachers into the scriptures. I would have no problem with women being pastors if someone could only show me specifically why I should not believe what the bible actually says about it. The real problem though, is if you start saying anything Paul said was just his opinion, which is required if you are going to apply 1 Corinthians 7 to 1 Timothy and Titus indiscriminately, then you are tossing out half of the new testament as just the theological opinion of a former pharisee with no inspiration. Either it was inspired or it was not. It cannot be "it was inspired on the things that we like and it was his opinion on the things we don't." And that, right there, is my main problem with the whole thing.

Modern Progressivism is one of the most anti-God forms of political thought that the western world has ever seen. It basically openly celebrates a plethora of things that God hates. Knowing that progressive states are the ones more accepting and promoting of such a thing would not give me peace as a Christian on something doctrinal such as this.

This is in one chapter, 1 Corinthians 7. This is also Paul speaking with apostolic authority. This is not the opinion of some guy on the street, or even a pastor. This is an ordinance that a chosen apostle of Christ instituted. However, this thread is not regarding 1 Corinthians 7. What I would specifically point out is that in that specific case Paul noted that it was from him specifically. What that should tell anyone is that when that is the case he will tell us. He does not tell us that here.

I take it quite literally. Adam is listed in the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Luke 3. Kind of doesn't make sense that a poetic narrative could be listed as a physical antecedent of Jesus the Messiah, God among us. I could list all the times that Adam (and Eve for that matter) are mentioned as being literal people throughout both the old and new testament, but I don't figure that is necessary.

Firstly, I'd ask why that makes you believe it was just his opinion? Secondly, Christ said that no man knows the day or hour of His return. That is a highly special case. Paul, or any other apostle or any other Christian, expressing hope that Christ's return is near or even feeling as if it is, is not a lack of insight on their part. We are told specifically that this time will be at the Father's choosing. I am positive Paul of all people would have understood that. Topics like this are always difficult because they involve things that people want. These aren't abstract concepts. They involves opinions and desires of individuals that have a direct bearing on them today. The problem, though, is that I have never seen anyone make a good argument that was based on the scriptures themselves that this is just some random opinion of Paul that he decided to insert into the God-breathed scriptures of his own accord, because that is what it would require for me to believe that. That is the sort of thing that could end up calling into question the legitimacy of a lot more than this single verse and that is why it is so incredibly dangerous to entertain it.

So you meant where you live the question is settled or nationally?

Praying.

I did take the time to read most of it at least and it's the same old recycled arguments. This man, simply put, is wrong. He starts with a description of Eisegesis and Exegesis and then immediately and unremittingly engages in eisegesis. It's unfortunate. Simply put, his argument is absurd. He has a lot of titles, but that means virtually nothing. It would be simple to produce 15 counter-examples with guys with the same titles.