Tristen

You are being dishonest in several respects: 1 - You are claiming a prophecy refers to modern Israel when the text explicitly says the prophecy is aimed at the "scribes and Pharisees" of the "generation" Jesus was addressing, who were killing and crucifying messengers of Christ. Matthew 23:29-36 29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ 31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 2 - You are being dishonest in trying to change the topic of conversation from, 'Who is responsible for the current violence in Gaza' to 'Jesus prophesied that the powers in Israel will mistreat Christians'. By Equivocating topics, you are pretending that my fair-minded support of current Israel is tantamount to supporting mistreatment of Christians. That is a lie. 3 - You are dishonestly suggesting that my disagreement with you over current Israel, and my challenging your interpretation of certain scriptures, means I am accusing Jesus of being a liar, and am supporting "the king of Babylon". 4 - You are being dishonest (or ignorant) in equating current Arabs in Israel (self-labelled "Palestinians") with ancient Philistines - and hence trying to apply Biblical prophecies directed at ancient Philistines to modern Arabs. 5 - And in your latest post, you again misinterpret and misuse scripture. You said, "Jesus said ALL the righteous blood shed upon earth". But then you quote the verse which clearly states a limit, "all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah". And you ironically accuse me of, "not knowing the scripture of truth".

And yet again you decide to misrepresent scripture. Modern Arabs in Israel are not related to the ancient Philistines of scripture. Arabs are descended from Ishmael, Abraham and Shem. Philistines are descended from Ham (see Genesis 10:6-14). The prophecy in Isaiah 14:28-32 is that God would wipe out the Philistines and restore/establish Israel as a "refuge" for His people.

By putting ""christians"" in inverted commas, you are insinuating that those who support Israel are not ""christians"". However, the state of Israel is not murdering ""christians"". Therefore, your insinuation here is a lie. Another lie in your post relates to the scripture you have misused - which is addressed explicitly to the "scribes and Pharisees" of the "generation" that Jesus was speaking to. And is not a prophecy of modern Israel (Matthew 23:29-36). Ultimately, nothing in your post is related to a fair-minded assessment of who is responsible for the current violence in Gaza.

My responses were to the comments I quoted - which were explicitly about "Israel’s attacks on Gaza since 2005". This is untrue. Firstly, the historical evidence tells us that the Ottoman Empire left the land of Israel abandoned. The people who are there now descended from peoples that followed the Jews reestablishing civilization in the land. Secondly, when the Jews self-declared independence in 1948, they asked the peaceful Arabs to stay. And today, that mentality is reflected in the diverse participation of Israeli society. It is true that some Jews are uncomfortable with Christians and Muslims. But as citizens, the state provides them equal protection under Israel's laws. This Christian persecution is already happening across the world - most notably in Islamist and communist states (and increasingly in the secularized West). Christians in Israel are currently free citizens. You can speculate about people's motives until your eyes bleed. Only God know my heart. My participation in this thread is about rebutting the self-evident lie that Israel are the primary instigators of violence in the region. With very few exceptions, the violence perpetrated by Israel has been in response to wars and consistent terrorist activities threatening Israel's civilians. The conversation is about being fair-minded; and seeing the reality (based in historical fact) through the propaganda.

You mean "since 2005" - when Israel voluntarily withdrew all its citizens from the land of Gaza - including forcibly removing some Jews from the region - giving the land over entirely to the Arabic Muslims in an attempt to garnish some measure of peace in the region? Seems like very strange behavior for a nation bent on "trying to ethnically cleans the land for Zion settlements". Your proposal is as follows - Israel gave the land to Arabs and emptied the land of Jews, so they could empty the land of Arabs and fill it with Jews? "Since 2005" Gaza has been operating as an independent state - with their own government. Then, in their one (and only) election, they voted a tyrannical terrorist organization into power. This Islamist organization has used billions in foreign aid (meant to help the impoverished people) to persistently attack Israel - using foreign aid money to import weapons and build military infrastructure against Israel. Those who think Israel are the main provocateurs are infected with a demonic stupor that cannot withstand the light of self-evident historical facts. These lies won't prevail here. Oh - and there has not even been two "decades" "since 2005". Why try and exaggerate if your argument has merit? You of course must mean "the 2008–2009 Gaza War which started with" Hamas launching 125 rockets and 68 mortar attacks into southern Israel in November of 2008, and then launching a further 361 rockets and 241 mortars against Israel in December of 2008. Seems like you might have forgotten some of the contextual details of the conflict. But 'heaven forbid' that Israel should be permitted to defend its population; by attacking Hamas targets - who - being terrorists - cowardly hide military targets and personnel amidst their own civilians - so as to make it difficult to target them without inflicting civilian casualties. And where can I find the "United Nations" resolution condemning Hamas for firing rockets into Israel, or hiding military resources behind their own civilians (which is explicitly illegal under international law)? Seems like the UN is being somewhat selective with their warnings. So then, what you are saying is - the events leading to this "war" were instigated by "the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank by Hamas-affiliated Palestinian militants". Furthermore, in June 2014 there were 66 rocket attacks fired into southern Israel. And in the first seven days of July 2014, there were 250 rocket attacks against southern Israel. But again, how dare Israel respond to terrorist attacks against their civilians? Only if by "true" you mean completely untrue. There has never been a state called Palestine, nor a people called Palestinians. This is a recently made-up designation - constructed to drive the dishonest narrative of Jewish colonialism. The Arabs in Israel are descended mostly from two groups: 1) When the Jews started to successfully cultivate the land they purchased from the bankrupted Ottoman Empire, many Arabs from the Ottoman territories followed the Jews to Israel to take advantage of newly created job opportunities. 2) When the British were in control of Israel, they imported workers from Egypt for infrastructure projects. The so-called Palestinians are largely descended from these two groups. The Ottoman Empire had left the land of Israel abandoned prior to Jews returning (from the early 1800s). Furthermore, you must mean "since 1967", after five Arabic armies mobilized against Israel, and Israel was able to win the disputed territories they needed to make their nation defensible against future attacks. You don't get to start a war, then have a cry about the results when things don't go your way. The purpose of the war was to take land away from the Jews, but the Jews instead took land away from their attackers. Too bad. The idea that territory was "illegally occupied by Israel" is just another rhetorical lie in the dishonest propaganda war against Israel. Israel gained ground by pushing back against attacking forces in a war that was instigated against Israel. Israel gave most of the gained territory back, but the ground they held onto did not belong to any nation state (so to call it an occupation is technically incorrect). Furthermore, given the historical propensity for their Arab neighbors to make war with Israel, Israel had no choice but to hold the ground they needed to defend themselves from future attacks. As demonstrated by my above comments, "The UN" has an established record of bias against Israel - and are therefore untrustworthy sources of information on this subject. Israel is the only free democracy in the region. There are thousands of Arabs enjoying the fruits of that freedom - in all walks of life - including holding high political positions. How many Jews do you suppose live freely in the surrounding Islamic nations? Do any of your "UN" sources happen to address the persistent internal terrorist problem Israel has been forced to deal with for approaching 8 decades now? After nearly 8 decades of sustained war and terrorism, it is unsurprising that there are more aggressive restrictions placed over the more troublesome, more persistently violent, regions of Israel. The role of government is to protect its civilians from threats; both external and internal.

This is an absurd, and doctrinally inconsequential, complaint. A calendar was constructed with the incarnation of Christ as the central pivot point. Given the mathematics involved, it is a highly proficient system; a feat worthy of respect. Equivocating away from the obvious intent for the sake of frivolous semantics is not clever. There is no grand, meaningful, useful revelation here. The doctrine of Christ's eternal deity is not impacted by this temporal designation.

Satan tempts us away from God, then lies to us that God will not receive us back. James 4:8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you Luke 15:4-6 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ Note the response of the father to the prodigal son: Luke 15:20 “And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. If you turn back to your heavenly Father, He will run to you. If ever we think we are in need "mercy and grace", that is the time to come confidently to God. Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. God is not looking for a reason to reject you. He paid a very high price to save you - so He could have you and love you forever.

No one here is qualified to condemn you to "hell". The best we can do is contribute our knowledge to your understanding of Christian doctrine - enabling you to make an informed decision for yourself. The bad news is that we all start life on a ledger that eventuates in eternal condemnation (a.k.a. "hell"). The good news is that God has provided a mechanism to transfer us off this ledger, and onto a ledger that saves us from eternal condemnation, into eternal life with God. And that mechanism is available to everyone. If one sincerely surrenders ownership of their life to Christ (i.e. making Jesus their Lord/Master/Owner) as a faith response to this good news (Gospel), then they will escape eternal "hell". The raised question (that only you can answer) is, 'Where do you currently stand in this process?'. I note that earlier in the conversation you claimed yourself to be a Christian. This raises two possibilities: Option 1: Your faith's confession to make Jesus your Lord was sincere. We all come to God as flawed, corrupted, broken creatures - who need to be fixed. The moment we make Jesus our Lord, we are officially perfected. However, we still need to undergo the process of sanctification - whereby our wrong understandings, attitudes and behaviors are gradually corrected to reflect the influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit. If this is you, then God is showing something that is wrong in your life that will eventually need to be corrected. You can waste time fighting it, or you can work with God to fix it. Remember that God always wants what is best for you. You can therefore trust God enough to pray that He would help you bring this aspect of your life into line with His will. This might mean God gives your partner a desire to marry. But it might also mean God removes this person from your life. Or maybe God will change your heart - and give you a desire to remove yourself from the relationship. God's will is God's business - our part is to just trust Him to do what is best for us. Option 2: Your faith's confession to make Jesus your Lord was not sincere. Your decision to make Jesus your Lord was emotional, and temporal (not a forever decision). At the time, you were happy to give Jesus most of your life, but ultimately, there are some aspects of your life that you are determined to keep for yourself - and nothing God, nor anyone else, has to say will impact your decision. If this is you, then you have not yet transferred between the above-mentioned ledgers. That is a far more dire circumstance than that of resisting sanctification.

It depends on what you mean by "evolution". If you mean the secular narrative of history, then yes, I would agree that there is a long-standing spiritual agenda to undermine the authority of scripture, and thereby secularize the western world. I don't think it is helpful to conflate separate concepts. "Atheism" is a faith. Atheists do love the secular narrative of history because, a) it gives them an explanation for life (and the diversity of life) without invoking any god, and b) it can be used to call into question the reliability of scripture. However, it is incorrect to claim "atheism" and the secular narrative of history are the same logical entity. It is ironic that those touting themselves as our intellectual superiors fail to recognize when they are the ones limiting the free exchange of ideas. That is, whilst claiming to be rationally objective, they often fail to factor in their own cognitive biases - employing tactics that essentially bully opposing ideas out of the conversation. I'm not sure what is the purpose of this question. The Bible tells us clearly that "the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" (1 John 5:19). The existence of an anti-Christian agenda in the world should not be a surprise to any Christian. I don't see any benefit or purpose to sweeping statements such as this. From a Christian perspective, any non-Christian belief could be described as a "lie". Though I'm not sure what is achieved by stating this. I doubt you will be able to convince anyone who disagrees with you if you simply state to them that what they believe is a "lie". This is inaccurate. There is no logical conflict between the young earth creation position, and the concept of Natural Selection. Arguably, Natural Selection fits better within the young earth creation paradigm, than it does within the secular narrative. What you have stated here is exaggerated. It would be more accurate to claim that the elegant complexity of life (including the DNA code) is a strong indicator that a rational, sentient Designer created life. The concept of "pansermia" has been around for a long, long time. It makes an occasional rise in popularity every 4 or 5 years. Some people prefer it because it circumvents the improbabilities associated with life arising on earth (though it really just moves the same problems into outer-space). However, the popularity of "panspermia" has yet to provide any serious challenge to that of the standard secular narrative. I would suggest that the whole point of popularizing sentient space aliens is to promote the idea that life could evolve elsewhere. And if elsewhere, why not here? Technically, the Bible is silent regarding sentient space aliens. Therefore, despite allusions to the contrary, the existence of sentient space aliens would not "prove creationism wrong". There are many avenues of deception apparent in this fallen world - all leading to the great apostacy and ultimate judgement of the world - as described in Bible prophecy.

I understand your "point". Revelation 16:18 is worded in such a way that it leaves open the mere possibility that there was a period before humans with massive earthquakes. The problem for me is, when you say, "words mean things", you imply that everyone who disagrees with your conclusions is being somehow unreasonable - i.e. not understanding how "words" work. In reality however, the "words" used in Revelation 16:18 do not "mean" that there was a period before humans with massive earthquakes. This concept is neither stated, nor implied, nor suggested, nor insinuated in any way by the "words" used in Revelation 16:18. The "words" in Revelation 16:18 "mean" that there will be an earthquake the likes of which humans have never seen. That is the scope and intent of the "words" used in Revelation 16:18. That is literally what the "words mean". Ideas about a time before humans is beyond the scope and intent of the actual "words" used in Revelation 16:18. But yes - to your "point" - these "words" technically do make some small allowance for the mere logical possibility of a time before Adam when there were larger earthquakes.

"Words" do indeed "mean things". The "words" used in Revelation 16:18 "mean" there will be "a great earthquake" the likes of which humans have "never" previously experienced. The "words" used in Revelation 16:18 do not "mean" there was "a restoration of an earth that "BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND""; nor that "that there WERE earthquakes BEFORE Adam was created". These ideas do not come from the verse itself (i.e. the "words" of the verse), but from outside of the verse.

Ultimately, it is there own doing - for actively refusing to acknowledge the truth revealed to them. Romans 1:28-32 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Once we see the light and turn from darkness, our lives will still spiral - but now in the right direction. Psalm 84:4-7 4 Blessed are those who dwell in Your house; They will still be praising You. Selah 5 Blessed is the man whose strength is in You, Whose heart is set on pilgrimage. 6 As they pass through the Valley of Baca, They make it a spring; The rain also covers it with pools. 7 They go from strength to strength; Each one appears before God in Zion.

Humans are corrupted. Part of that corruption entails the capacity to convince ourselves that truth is untruth (and visa-versa) - regardless of the strength of the available evidence. Further to that corruption, is the desire to be our own master (ergo, the desire that God, our true Lord - to which we are ultimately accountable, does not exist). This generates a confirmation bias against the existence of God (i.e. the tendency to attribute greater weight of evidence than objectively warranted to things that dispute God's existence, and conversely, attributing lower weight of evidence to claims that support God's existence). At some stage, people who find themselves on this self-perpetuating cycle of reasoning, made a decision that they don't like the concept of God, and therefore do not want to believe. They thus ride this cycle into ever increasing self-deception - all-the-while God gently encouraging them towards the truth - and they (hopefully, eventually) wake up enough to see through the lies and deception that they have wrapped around themselves.

I would be interested to see the primary source of this information (note - not a modern revisionist version - but an original, ancient source containing the claimed mythology). When I investigated the origins of the Christmas tree for myself, I could only trace it back to 15th century northern Europe (modern Estonia). Christians decorated evergreen trees with fruits and nuts and used them as the backdrop for performances of Biblical stories on the 24th of December (namely stories from Genesis - not Jesus' birth). So as far as I can tell, the origins of a decorated tree at this time have a Christian origin. There is a pagan tradition of bringing evergreen branches into the home and hanging them on the wall. But that is not the same as a Christmas tree. And I could find no evidence linking the two practices. I could find no evidence of Christians using decorated trees at Christmas before this time. I am therefore very skeptical that there is any primary evidence linking the Christian practice to ancient Babylonian mythology. Furthermore, having investigated various claims of ancient pagan deities being born or celebrated on December 25, I was again unable to find the evidence for any of these in the original mythologies (despite this date being the solstice in ancient calendars). Only the Roman 'Sol Invictus' was explicitly celebrated on December 25. But this is a post-Christ festival that was instituted over a hundred years after Christians were already recorded to be celebrating Jesus' birth on that date.

Every halfway-informed Christian knows that this date is not necessarily the date of Jesus' birth. The date of Jesus' birth is not given in scripture. However, the event of Jesus' birth is most certainly recorded and celebrated in scripture. "December 25th" is simply the day most Christians agree to celebrate the birth of Jesus. This is a myth. I know people who have travelled in Israel on Christmas day - and were surprised to see "flocks" grazing on the hillside. I can't speak to the weather on the day of Jesus' birth, nor "December 25th" that same year. But it is well within possibility that "flocks" were outside grazing - despite it being midwinter. Your argument does not logically support this conclusion. There is nothing counter-scriptural in celebrating Jesus' birth - regardless of the date we choose to do so. Then your encyclopedias are being highly presumptuous. (Though - to the main point - the Christian church has always known that this date is probably not the true date of Jesus' birth. Your "encyclopedia" is not bringing any new information to the table). The authority of a Christian is scripture, and not "Any encyclopedia". Yes. Even if all the specious associations with paganism were true, my heart is to use this event as an opportunity to worship and witness Jesus. Examining your reasoning - Are we only permitted to worship Jesus when we are given the exact date of the "reason" we are worshipping? Is there really a wrong day to thank God for sending His Son to earth? Why can't we do both? Firstly, He did not command us "to observe the Passover". We are admonished to share in communion with His broken body and shed blood. There is no date-limitation on this sacrament (as there is with the "Passover"). 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. Secondly, the word Easter stems from the Germanic word Oster (or Osterfest) - which means Passover - as evidenced in early Germanic Bibles. Common claimed associations with paganism are mostly anti-Christian propaganda (even if your "encyclopedia" tells you otherwise). The majority of Christian traditions can be traced to Christian roots. Thirdly, why are we suddenly talking about Easter? We certainly do know the time of year Jesus was crucified. We can have a conversation about the role of the Law if that suits, but we should stick to one topic at a time. That conversation is of such a scope, that it warrants a thread of its own. NEXT POST Christians are recorded to have celebrated the birth of Jesus on the 25th of December as early as 202AD ("Commentary on Daniel" by Hippolytus of Rome). Your "encyclopedia" got this wrong. This is untrue. Christians were celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25th well before the Romans instituted Sol Invictus (as demonstrated in my previous answer). Saturnalia was indeed a pre-Christian festival - but celebrated over the period leading to December 25, but not on December 25. The fact that evil is constantly trying to gain a foothold in the church, with varying degrees of success, does not logically entail that celebrating Jesus' birth is unChristian nor unscriptural.

No one is ever so far gone that our Father will reject them if they turn back to Him. His grace, and the blood of our Lord's cross, are more than sufficient for us. Nevertheless, there does come a time for each believer when we have to learn to exercise faith beyond what we can "sense" - to trust God whether we "sense" Him or not. If that is the season you are in, it's a good thing - though it may not feel that way at the time. I'd encourage you to treat it like a challenge, and determine within yourself, 'Father, I am going to stick with you whether I can "sense" you or not'.

Hi Starling, I think you are correct that the concept of "kinds" (a term borrowed from scripture) is "the key". The basic idea is that many creatures that we would classify as separate 'species' are related to each other via a shared ancestor pair. For example, there were no lions on "Noah's Ark", nor tigers, nor panthers, nor jaguars etc. There was only a representative pair of the cat form - which themselves descended from the original cats that God created on day 6 of creation. This significantly reduces the amount of animals required on the "Ark". I'd also note that the animals on the "Ark" were only those land-dwelling, breathing, blood-bearing creatures (Hb 'Nephesh Chayah'). This category seems to exclude insects - which make up the overwhelming majority of animal species (though there were probably many insects on the Ark amongst all those animals - And insects are generally small anyways). This leaves us with approximately 50,000 identified 'species' that would qualify for the Ark (i.e. before we reduced that number to accommodate for "kinds"). https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-species-are-there In 1996, A "Noah's Ark" feasibility study was published that conservatively estimated around 16.000 individual animals (8,000 pairs) would have been required on the Ark (https://austore.creation.com/product/1955-noahs-ark-a-feasibility-study-5th-printing). They assumed the average size of the animal was that of a small sheep, and that "kinds" was roughly equivalent to the Linnaean classification of Genus. Given these numbers, roughly a third of the Ark would have been free for other purposes (such as food storage). Hope this was helpful.

I would further interpret this as our flesh nature using pseudo-religious, legalistic thinking to place obstacles before our fellowship with God. Prayer is simply talking to God. We can talk to our Father about anything - big or small (He knows our heart regardless). Prayer is not some sombre religious chore. It's conversation with our beloved. If there's something you want to talk about, then God would love for you to talk to Him about it. But our flesh does not like it when we feed our spirit that way - and will fight to maintain a dominant influence in our thoughts and behaviors. Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

I think it is an inherent problem with having to use a translation. Some concepts don't translate easily from one language to another. But there is nothing to stop us investigating further. One might even suggest we are encouraged to do so.

Hi VA, I think the reasoning behind your argument is flawed. English translations of scripture use English words - which are not found in original language Bibles due to the Bible being penned originally in non-English-speaking cultures. "Hell" is indeed an English word with Germanic roots - defining the place of punishment in the afterlife. "Hell" is therefore an appropriate English translation of the Hebrew and Greek words appearing in the Biblical manuscripts.

My first thought on reading your opening post was to ask, 'Why can't you do both - why can't you pray for big international issues as well as smaller personal issues (and everything in-between)?'. Prayer is just talking to God. As His children, we have a tendency to be mostly asking for things from our Father - as is the way of children. We serve a Father of infinite love. He well able to look after both big and small issues. If you have a concern, big or small, feel free to discuss your concerns with your loving Father. God welcomes us to "boldly" discuss our needs with Him. Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need God values, and has concern for, every small detail of your life Luke 12:7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. When Jesus instructed us to pray, He included both the big issues; Matthew 6:10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. And the small, personal issues; Matthew 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread

I thought it was just called "addition".

I would suggest a possibility - that gentile Christianity culminated in the establishment of the universal declaration of human rights in 1948. The very concept of human rights stems from the Biblical idea that all humans are created by God, in God's similitude. Therefore, humans are born with inherent dignity and rights that are not subject to the whims of the state, and that the state is obligated to protect. This has led to a period of safety, and freedom, and prosperity for the civilians of those sincere signatory nations. However, over time, corrupted humanity has used this freedom to stray further, and further away from the foundational source of the human rights concept (God's Word) and started turning again to tyrannical, paganistic thinking. 1 Timothy 4:1 The Great Apostasy Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, Also in 1948, Israel was declared a nation - a significant landmark in time - indicating that the Jewish dispersion into "all nations" (Luke 21:24) was approaching its final stages. Given that we still have a tenuous hold on human rights in western nations, and that parts of Jerusalem are still under the feet of gentiles (Luke 21:24), I'd say we are in a transition period leading to the "times of the Gentiles" being "fulfilled".

Because ... These are better points to raise with a Christian believer who tries to squeeze Genesis into their long-age belief.