Your real problem is that you think this stuff is true. Justify that position first, then it might be worth the effort to figure out what it means.
You have to go through some pretty elaborate analyses to make it fit, but really, whether it fits together or not has nothing to do with whether it's true or not.I think all this stuff fits together quite nicely, yes.
Why do you make such sweeping assumptions? I'm not inclined to respond point by point to everything you post, some of it's ideas we've covered before and some of it I've given up on trying to get through to you on. I just wanted to point out that consistency is not a sufficient condition for something to be true. Your whole argument stands or falls on the truth of Scripture. You've stated elsewhere that you believe it to be literally true except where it's obviously meant allegorically (though what's obvious to you isn't the same as what's obvious to me), and until you can justify that position, you've got nothing.So why did you stop looking at that point? If your POV is as you describe, you could have freely chosen to read a little more, instead you ran out of steam.
At least it is a vivid and dynamic nothing.
Instead of trying to convert me just sit back and relax and read.Why do you make such sweeping assumptions? I'm not inclined to respond point by point to everything you post, some of it's ideas we've covered before and some of it I've given up on trying to get through to you on.
Actually true of false, the picture prophecy paints for some upcoming events is still the very same, truth only becomes a factor when it is/isn't played out.I just wanted to point out that consistency is not a sufficient condition for something to be true. Your whole argument stands or falls on the truth of Scripture. You've stated elsewhere that you believe it to be literally true except where it's obviously meant allegorically (though what's obvious to you isn't the same as what's obvious to me), and until you can justify that position, you've got nothing.
I'm quite aware that you only see white pages when you open the Bible. Nothing delusional about that conditional at all.Well, I think the question of who is sufferering from hallucinations has been clearly answered.
I'm not trying to convert you, only you can do that. I'm just trying to get you to think a bit. You can be a good Christian without being a biblical literalist. I know lots of such people and frankly I think they're better Christians than the literalists I've encountered in real life.Instead of trying to convert me just sit back and relax and read.
Given the Bible's record of failed promises--there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of them; I haven't counted--that's hardly likely to inspire confidence. God tells Adam that on the day he eats the fruit of a certain tree he will die, Adam eats the fruit and lives another 930 years. Cain is cursed to be a wanderer and a vagabond, but a few verses later he's getting married (who did he marry?), having children, and founding cities. Jesus tells his followers he will return within their lifetimes. Paul tells us multiple times that the Second Advent is imminent, he clearly expected to see the Rapture. John tells us at least three times in Revelation that all he describes will soon happen, he too expected his audience to see it. He even reports Jesus as telling him personally that it'll happen soon. You have to go through elaborate circumlocutions and ad hoc hypothesizing, effectively denying what the Bible plainly says, to maintain your literalist position. It's incoherent.Actually true of false, the picture prophecy paints for some upcoming events is still the very same, truth only becomes a factor when it is/isn't played out.
I'm not trying to convert you, only you can do that. I'm just trying to get you to think a bit. You can be a good Christian without being a biblical literalist. I know lots of such people and frankly I think they're better Christians than the literalists I've encountered in real life.
Given the Bible's record of failed promises--there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of them; I haven't counted--that's hardly likely to inspire confidence. God tells Adam that on the day he eats the fruit of a certain tree he will die, Adam eats the fruit and lives another 930 years. Cain is cursed to be a wanderer and a vagabond, but a few verses later he's getting married (who did he marry?), having children, and founding cities. Jesus tells his followers he will return within their lifetimes. Paul tells us multiple times that the Second Advent is imminent, he clearly expected to see the Rapture. John tells us at least three times in Revelation that all he describes will soon happen, he too expected his audience to see it. He even reports Jesus as telling him personally that it'll happen soon. You have to go through elaborate circumlocutions and ad hoc hypothesizing, effectively denying what the Bible plainly says, to maintain your literalist position. It's incoherent.
Gawd no, wouldn't be caught dead at one. I'd rather go to a convention of psychics and astrologers. I was vastly amused a few years ago to read a report of William Shatner addressing a Star Trek convention and in effect telling everyone to get a life.Ever been to a Star Trek convention?
Whatever that means. There are 3 main views of a rapture, pre, mid, post. Are you saying whichever doctrine they adhere to has some influence on their ability on what kind of display they put on in public? Whatever problems that causes, is small compared to allowing any literalism into those 3 doctrines.I'm not trying to convert you, only you can do that. I'm just trying to get you to think a bit. You can be a good Christian without being a biblical literalist. I know lots of such people and frankly I think they're better Christians than the literalists I've encountered in real life.
Are any prophecies past?Given the Bible's record of failed promises--there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of them; I haven't counted--that's hardly likely to inspire confidence.
Wasn't he kicked out of the Garden that very same day? God even made them some clothing. Part of their sentences was that Eve experience pain when giving birth. That would require having children. Does that mean they could have had over 900 children? How many years after their exile did the 120 years come into effect?God tells Adam that on the day he eats the fruit of a certain tree he will die, Adam eats the fruit and lives another 930 years.
Do you think he had any contact with fallen angels? If 1 out of 2 of Adam's children sinned would that mean about half of their children should end up with Cain. That whole line should have become related by blood to fallen angels. Noah was the last of man that wasn't related to them.Cain is cursed to be a wanderer and a vagabond, but a few verses later he's getting married (who did he marry?), having children, and founding cities.
Is Revelation a vision of a literal place when John is taken up?Jesus tells his followers he will return within their lifetimes. Paul tells us multiple times that the Second Advent is imminent, he clearly expected to see the Rapture.
We've already cover this.John tells us at least three times in Revelation that all he describes will soon happen, he too expected his audience to see it. He even reports Jesus as telling him personally that it'll happen soon.
You also have to black-out a lot a verses to maintain what you claim it says.You have to go through elaborate circumlocutions and ad hoc hypothesizing, effectively denying what the Bible plainly says, to maintain your literalist position. It's incoherent.
Well you have said quite a bit in 26 pages, but how did that prove what you put in the next paragraph?
Are you calling it 'Mission Complete", if so I will try to find a pic from Bush's carrier landing for you.