Reuben Hick

Are we in the midst of a cold war with Kuwait? Otherwise the Russian comparison is somewhat lacking. But I understand your concern. Are you sure that there is no one present on the scene from the US State department overseeing the project? Then again, I don't trust our own State Department. Its like who do you trust the Muslims or the crowd that supports the Muslims? (Remember, its the same US State Department, that despite 9-11, has extended yet another 15,000 "student" visas to Saudi residents) Common sense doesn't appear to be all that common.

Are we open to Kook Theory? I made this prediction back in 1998, might as well drag it out here. The UN, or a reformulated set of responsibile "democratic" nations will be set up in Bagdad - or the future reconstituted Babylon. You can imagine how geeked up I have been over the events of the past few years, particuarly when I read about that utterly massive campus being built on a prime piece of real-estate in the heart of Bagdad. Just a few weeks ago, news from McCain's campaign suggested that the possibility of leaving the paralyzed UN and forming a new clique of "democratic" nations is in the works. These folks are going to need a new home. So how is the mechanism for making this move to Bagdad? Simple. It is a given that the execution and handling of this Iraq imbroglio has left many scratching their heads. Why didn't anyone raise the black flag and show them old-fashioned "shock and awe"

I do not mean to be rude, but I feel that we are not yet premitted to know who the antichrist is yet. There are many Christians today who get so focused on discovering who antichrist that they lose focus on Jesus Christ. I do not mean to be rude, but that statement is ridiculous. Those who genuinely love Jesus Christ will not be distracted from Him. We are also supposed to be awake and waiting, at least that is how some folks interpret the Parable of the Ten Virgins. And what will happen for those who do focus hard enough? Does Christ toss them into outerdarkness? Does He abandon them? Does He foresake them? Where does it say that God will care more for the sparrow than He does for you, and how that care is contigent on some token level of "focus" that we are expected to make (though that standard of "focus" is never articulated or described in Scripture). And which seventeen of the soveriegn states of the European Union are supposed to bail-out and quit, and by what mechanism is that supposed to take place? That used to be the prophecy back in Hal Lindsey's heyday, back when there were fewer than ten nations in the ersatz union and folks were still guessing who number nine and ten would be. But we have moved on! The newspapers aren't in sync with so-called Bible prophecy anymore! My map, and so does every other map on the planet puts Babylon in the Mesopotamian valley on the Euphrates River. Besides, you are now leaping to the Dispensational Baptist view that the Whore of Babylon is Rome. Since the ECT movement, that has been pass

Other than the fact the "temple" in the map is really the Roman Fort Antonia, whereas the real temple is at least 400 yards south (and not depicted); how do the cartographers justify putting Golgotha where they do. In other threads I have provided the abundant documented evidence, where is the same for this map? But in answer to the OP question, it had to be within a Sabbath's distance.

Well, are you going to follow the well promoted and shilled advice and rush out and buy the gender sensitive TNIV dynamic equivalence? I find it wildy ironic that in a book allegedly on hermeneutics, they radically redefine the word so that it no longer keeps its traditional meaning. The authors split the definition, divorcing their relationship so that they can promote two different lines of thought: exegesis and a new definition of hermeneutics to mean finding the answer to the question "so why should I care". Then there is the continual shameless plug for the TNIV which makes sense because Gordon Fee was a member of the NIV editorial board. Another tool from the deconstructionalist's tool kit is the promotion of steering the reader away from the original author's words. In another ironic twist, they recommend reading from a "dynamic equivalence" rather than a more faithful word-for-word translation. Believers know that the Bible was inspired by God, and if people don't find the original inspiration worthy of learning the original languages, then a translation seems in order. But those who can read the originals and compare it to the various english translations find that, the authors are correct in their statements that something is lost in translation. But using that as an argument to use a dynamic equivalence, or a thought-for-thought translation assumes that those prechewing our spiritual food are indeed inspired by God in the same manner as the original authors. Otherwise our knowledge of God is only as deep as those anonymous figures who find fault in God for saying "man" when our modern sages feel that God should have been more gender inclusive. For instance, Fee, in discussing 1 Co 7:36, criticizes the KJV's literal rendering of the Greek "parthenos" as "virgin". THe NAS says "daughter" which Fee correctly states "may not be right". Fee then recomends the version he was working on by saying that the NIV's "virgin that he is engaged to" is the proper and best. Interesting because "Vincent's NT Word Studies" specifically agrees with the ERV (which says "daughter" like the NAS) "RObertson's Word Pictures" thinks "daughter" also. Just to stir things up a bit, the UBS Committee gives us the option of translating "parthenos" as (A) "unmarried daughter", (B) "spiritual bride", © "dead brother's young widow", and (D) "fianc

Great, yet more proof that Dispensational Premillennialism is heresy. (it demands that our LORD is a liar) Read what our LORD had to say about what it would be like just as the Son of Man is revealed. Food and Drink were in abundance.

So where is it said that there will be hunger and famine as a sign of the Last Days? Matthew 24:37-38 "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark." Luke 17:27-30 "They ate, they drank,...Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought and they sold, they planted, they built... even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed." Ezekiel 16:49 regarding Sodom in the last of her days: "...She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness..." The nexus between Noah and Lot: Food was abundant. So what we do know is that "food riots spreading across the globe" are NOT a sign of the Last Day. You folks must stop listening to these false prophets who tell you what you want to hear!

You may be able to immerse yourself in nonsense, but the Bible is not "Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There". Both terms "Love" and "hate" have clear technical definitions that preclude them from being possible at the same time and instance. How do you know that the "us" in this passage means absolutely everyone, head for head? Especially when the "us" is defined in the salutation of this letter: Ro 1:7 "To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:" and verses 5 through 6 that reads "Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ." I fail to see "us" defined as everyone, without exception, head-for-head. Rather, I see the "us" as those who God has indeed saved, not some hypothetical class, but those who are of the Elect of God. Actually the Bible says that no one seeks after God. No one cares to please God and the natural man hates God. So unless God has regenerated that soul, the natural soul will always be in enmity with God. The natural man will never call upon the name of the LORD. You have the cart before the horse. The regeneration [logically] precedes the sinner becoming a saint. This is the deconstructionalist's claim that since both the Elect and the Reprobate begin life as sinners, that by removing the fact that God saved only the Elect by just saying "sinner" that the reader will be fooled into thinking that God also died for the Reprobate. The scriptures teach that Jesus Christ died for the Elect sinner, not all sinners. Nice try.

If the female sex offender looks good in a skimpy two-piece, her punishment, especially if she is a school teacher, is a contract with Playboy magazine. Its hard for a woman to be an "offender" when she is a "nympho" starring in every teenage school boy's dreams.

If you have the guts for the silver bullet question - ask your father how he would react if one of his work buddies forwarded to him a link of explicit photos of you... The implied question is "is it OK for your buddies and coworkers to see me nude and if it is not, why are you looking at some other father's daughter?" No father wants to disappoint his daughter. But unless you like family strife, keep others in the family out of it.

My favorite part of the article was what they had in mind for "sex offender", which can be a kindergarden boy who playfull slaps a classmate on the buttocks during recess. Also realize that schools routinely hand out condoms, provide for gay student clubs, day care and set aside the school day to offer sexual advice and instruction for all minors in attendance. Essentially the State is advocating and facilitating felony statutory rape and buggery. Now when the youngsters, after many hours of amoral guidance and coaxing by the State do indeed fornicate and engage in sexual behavior, any parent can turn around and sucessfully bring the law down on the male participant and have him labeled as a "sexual offender". This "sexual offender", like the elementary school kid who hugged his teacher and was branded by the State as a "sexual offender", will now have their genitalia mutilated or forced at gun point to imbibe in some harmful chemical that will leave them unable to leave a normal life. At the least, they will spend time in the pen for wearing a mask or handing out candy. That's how I want to see my tax dollars spent - chasing down people who wear costumes during Mardi Gras then throwing them in prison for three years. It so refreshing to see that the same government that demands that all kids commit felony statutory rape with a condom in the right hand have the scapel ready in wait in the left.

I invite you to read Matthew 25. In the parable of the ten virgins, the Bridegroom judges. In the parable of the talents, the one who was the lord who travelled to a far country judges when He returns. But the real meat is found in vv 31-46 which deals specifically with the Son of Man judging the nations. You may note in the common theme of all these parables and summed up in v31 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory...then He will sit on the throne of His glory" So we have Jesus Christ returning in glory, taking the throne and performing the duties as King v 34 "...blessed of my Father..." meaning that the Father is over everything, but the role of King and Judge is that of Jesus Christ when He returns and assumes the throne. Personally I view it as a necessary role for Christ our LORD to be the sole Judge rather than having His Father keep stepping in and kibitzing on the Judging. How could the Trinity be at odds? In the passage that you presented, Jesus is saying that He is in perfect harmony with His Father in heaven, therefore there would be no necessity for anyone other than the omnipotent, omniscient risen LORD to be King and Judge.

yep. men should have short hair to demonstrate obedience. I don't know about obedience, and certainly that is not in the context of the passage. The whole paragraph is talking about hair as a woman's covering, and as an example Paul simply points out that it is natural for a man to want to look like a man and differentiate himself from women by having shorter hair. If some man wants to look like a woman, and have the hair of a woman, all the passage really says is that the long haired guy has an unnatural view of himself. It should be pointed out that traditionally long hair on a man has been countercultural, for Nazarites, their entire lives were culturally unnatural so the sign of one, being long hair, would help differentiate them from the rest of the crowd. Now I seriously doubt the OP intends to pass himself off as a Nazarite, and it is still unnatural for him to want to look like a woman, so I leave it up to the rest of y'all (as v 13 suggests "Judge among yourselves"). I'm concluding that well adjusted men would prefer to keep their hair short and appropriate. Leave the long hair to women, hippies, rebels and drug addicts.