₦airaland Forum

Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood? Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature? Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?

The above paragraph is an excerpt of this very interesting link:

http://www.halos.com/

Hope this serves to strengthen your faith in the what the bible has to say about God creating the earth and life there in.

Feel free to watch the streaming vidio as well.

I am a partner with GNLD, and I find their products to be exceptionally great.

You guys ever wondered that the scent might be coming from the colon? Brushing the tongue and the teeth, and even flossing are good habits, but if the colon is dirty we might have a problem. Most of the waste reside in the colon, and if our bodies aren't releasing all that waste fast enough, then the gases will rise nothward and channel their way up.

Bobbyaf,

I think it will be good for you if you can imbibe a teacheable spirit.

I hear you T, but is it fair to have people say negative things only because you disagree with them? I am teachable, and I assume we are to some extent, but you'll have to come with convincing arguments, and so far all I have seen are opinions.

For obvious reasons, I think this is lacking in you. Even when the obvious is stated, you still hold to your pre-existing notions and keep "slaughtering" the scriptures like no man's business.

Tell you what lets see how it goes from here on. I will cut my passionate drive which can come over the wrong way, and I hope people will show some respect for other opinions, even if they do not agree.

You have lumped events together, lumped characters together, and lumped timing together. This has made it difficult for me to even begin to correct you. But with the way you have responded so far, I am berginning to think that it might be a waste of time trying to prove the scriptures to you line upon line. You have your mind made up, and as far as I'm concerned, as long as you are saved, you are still better off, and the rest, you will understand as time goes by.

I think part of the problem lies in the way we tend to present information. If its ok with you guys probably we can break things down piece by piece, so as to avoid too much info all at once.

Our discussions here have made me to do some more studies of end-time events, though I have my persuasions already. I have learned from everyone's contributions and I hope we can continue to be scholarly and humble enough to admit when we miss it.

Thats good you've been motivated to research more. I never stop researching.

@4get_me

I've dealt with the texts you quoted from Isaiah in another thread - The Sabbath - What Day Is This?, and you'll find some of the texts in Acts treated there as well. Find them here in clicking source one and source two.

Why not deal with them here since I am responding to you over here. I'd prefer and appreciate if you copy and paste the same response you posted elsewhere.

Second, I wonder why you never quoted Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2 that deal with the first day of the week?

Act 20:7 - And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

I never really had to quote those texts you mentioned, which incidentally are only apart of the 7 or 8 texts that mention anything about the first day of the week, because thats your onous to explain, not mine. I have put the cards on the table concerning my reasons why you're dead wrong about the sabbath being abolished and replaced by Sunday observance.

Howeevr for the sake of the board I will coment on the texts in question.

Acts 20:7-12

Before I begin let me lay down a principle about how the Jews and early jewish christians viewed the day in terms of when it started and finished. Its important for my explanation.

The bible teaches that each day begins at sundown and ends the next sundown. (Genesis 1:15, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31); Leviticus 23:32) The dark part of the day naturally began the day. The sabbath for them began Friday night sundown and would end on what we call Saturday night. In fact using their reckoning, our Saturday night would have rally been their Sunday evening or the dark part of Sunday. The meeting recorded in ACts 20 was held on the dark part of Sunday, seeing that the dark part of a day begins the day, and what we call today as Saturday night.

Proof of that lies in this version of the New English bible whose opening line says:

Acts 20:7-12 NEB
"On the Saturday night in our assembly , "

Every indication points to a late night meeting by Paul which lasted till 12 midnight. Paul was on a farewell tour and knew he would not see these peopel again before his death (see verse 25). No wonder he preached so long and normally no weekly service would have lasted so long in those days, anyway. Paul was ready to depart on the morrow.

So what about the breaking of bread you might ask. Was this any indication that that occassion was a special and normal customary gathering? Absolutely not, because the breaking of bread was never confined to a day for they broke bread every day (see Acts 2:6) With that being the case the breaking of bread has no "Lord's day" significance whatsoever. In fact there is no scriptural indication in this passage that the first day was the norm or customary gathering for early christians. Nor is there the remotest clue of a change from sabbath to the first day of the week.

1 Cor. 16:1,2

1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

is this what you're using to show the change? , sorry but I find it funny how people see what isn't there. Anyway thee is no reference here about a customary gathering or church meeting. In fact the expression "lay by him in store" literally means form the Greek store at your house/home

In other words each christians was to save up something for the poor so that Paul woudn't waste time having to do all that when he passed through. They were written a letter from before telling them to store the stuff at home, and not at church as some would have us believe. These christiasn were sabbath keepers and that is why Paul suggested that they do some work on Sunday and make the necessary preparation. Its as simple as that. The raging famine that prevailed would no doubt have affected the poor brethren in Asia Minor. All bills and accounts were normally settled on a Sunday. Both the french and spanish bibles say the same thing about storing the stuff at home. In French it says:

" doit mettre de cote chez lui" which means "place by your side at home"

Thats the solid truth my friend. Sooner or later the inevetable will unfold.

All touchy aren't we? Hahahahaha, don't take it personal. We all at times are guilty of being too passionate.

Anyway carry on!

So true indeed.

Oh I get it - you got miffed at my agreeing with m4malik, and I suddenly became "biased" because there's a rule against agreeing with people on Nairaland? As for the grace part, you may continue as so pleases you.

None of the above 4get_me. I see you're no better than those you warn about not being graceful, huh?. Insinuations will get you nowhere.

Yes I will continue being honest with who I am. I cannot pretend to being who I am not.

You surprise me!

@ Free

I just want to know whether or not folks are religious or spiritual - which is it?

Even if some thought they were spiritual, it would not come over as wise to proclaim it. I'd rather people tell me I'm spiritual than say it myself. See where I'm going?

I have to agree!

We are all striving to be spiritual, but it aint easy until Christ comes into the heart.

@ Syrup

If I were you I'd be more honest before trying to be religious. Insinuations and deception are just as abominable as lying lips. Remember the Lord knows everyman's heart, including mine, so be careful how you strive to win arguments at the risk of being dishonest.

I don't know you friend but I'd appreciate if you mind your own business 4get_me You're no authority on morals. Keep your selfrighteousness to yourself thank you very much!

No offence meant just in case you think it.

I don't know you friend but I'd appreciate if you mind your own business 4get_me You're no authority on morals. Keep your selfrighteousness to yourself thank you very much!

No offence meant just in case you think it.

@4get_me

We have a liberty in Christ not to be yoked under a rigid "law".

Are you saying that God is stupid? It must be since it was He who instituted the day for our good. Listen to what Jesus said about the sabbath.

Mark 2:27
"the sabbath was made for man, "

Now how in heaven's name can something be rigid if its made by Jesus Christ Himself? In fact the Lord Himself promised that if we keep His day holy He would make us ride upon high places and feed us with the heritage of Jacob our father. Listen as the bible speaks. Remember what Paul said in:

Galations 3:29
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Ish. 58:13,14
13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Isaiah the prophet brings that point over also:

Isaiah 56:6,7
6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

So part of the plan of God was that His chosen people back then would share the knowledge of the sabbath with the gentiles who accepted the way of the Lord. You see God is interested in all people. And that is why the same Jesus who soujourned in the wilderness with His people could have said in Mark 2:27 that He made the sabbath for all mankind, and not just the jews.

So my friend sabbath observance doesn't enslave anyone, but rather it brings a blessing on all those who obey the voice of the Lord.

Christians from the first century have been worshipping on Sunday, the first day of the week; and God inspired it to be written down in the NT for our blessing.

There is absolutely no scripture that says we aught to keep Sunday. If that were the case how come after Christ died that His followers kept the sabbath in accordance with the commandments:

Luke 23:54-56
54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. 55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. 56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

So you said that in the first century christians kept Sunday. Lets see how true that statement is from scripture.

Acts 17:2.
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures."

Acts 13:13-15
13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. 14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. 15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

No where in the above passages do we see any attempt to introduce Sunday as the Lord's day. How come if it were so important?

Now look at this:

Acts 13:42-44
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. 44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

There is something I'd like to point out in this passage. The "who" in the 43rd verse could be either Paul and Barnabas, or the religious proselytes, but the point is an encouragement was made to continue in the grace of God. Nothing was hinted in any of these passages about a new day called the Lord's day. if it were all that important for christians to consider how come Paul didn't emphasise it's imortance?

Isn't it strange that the very person Himself Christ, who would likely have introduced the change of plan to His disciples didn't even mention such a plan? Instead this is what he said to them in anticipation of the AD70 destruction of the temple.

Matthew 24:20
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Why would Christ show any concern for the sabbath if He had anticipated a change of day in order to reflect the new covenant. Wouldn't He have instructed the disciples to no longer keep the day after His death and resurrection? And especially some 40 years thereafter?

Lest you think of arguing that Paul and his company only spoke of the sabbath because they had to visit withn the synagogue. Listen to this account.

Acts 16:11-13
11 Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; 12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days. 13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

Here we see Paul on his missionary journey outside of the realms of jewish influence still demonstrating his custom of sabbath observance.

We're not made spiritual by the observance of days, years or whatever - but rather, faith in Jesus Christ.

Yet you are willing to accuse christians of legalism when in truth and in fact we are only trying to show you the importance of being obedient to God.

In all fairness the burden is yours to prove that Sunday has become the new day on which christians celebrate the resurrection.

I dare you to start the proof.

@ Syrup

6 days to toil and labour - and on which of those 6 days are we not to spend our time "doing spiritual things"?

Not sure if you understood clearly what I said previously, so I will say it again. God in the beginning set aside a day for His people to rest from work, and to dedicate more time to worship and to refresh oneself. He has given us 6 days in which to do our work making a living.

Now based on your question about spirituality, it is obvious that we as christians aught to be spiritual everyday, taking time out from the 6 allotted days for work and render worship and praise, but it doesn't mean we must keep everyday holy, because we cannot, and because God has said otherwise.

Part of keeping His day holy is resting from work, being a fitting symbol of resting from our works of sin.

@4get_me

@Bobbyaf,

Without judging your character, I observe that you've not been consistent in your interpretation of the texts under discussion. M4malik has pointed that out, and I'm persuaded that's the case. You would really help the discussion forward if you demonstrate more grace in your speech.

Listen to me well my friend I don't need your advice about consistency. Its either you contribute to the topic or not. This is not a kindergarten section of the board. People are entitled to their views.

Obviously you are in agreement with Malik, and I have no problem with that, but its also obvious that you're biased in your remarks, being quick to point out that I need to demonstrate more grace in my speech.

I am still looking forward to your commentery in either case.

@Bobbyaf,

First of all, I observe that you hardly know your Bible and will pick on just about any verse to force a pretext.

So far you've not been able to disprove my arguments as yet, not that you can, which disproves your conclusion. Thank God I am not a boaster!

I see, and since the one verse is with "questionable circumstances" and appears in God's word, you have the liberty to choose which to believe and which to "question". Thank you.

You have a lot to learn! The bible as we have it today has been compiled by men who were not perfect in their translational efforts. It becomes very important to confirm certain problematic texts as the one under question with the original language from which it was translated. There has never been anything novel about what I suggested, and in fact it doesn't take anything from the bible when I say. Its plain common sense.

Which is precisely what you have been doing again and again, not only here but in other threads.

Really! Go check the threads and see who has supplied more texts and references. As a matter of fact, the passages I have supplied are more in support of what I have put forth. So your keep your feisty comments to yourself. Don't allow self to take over now. Why take cheap shots now, when it seems your argument is going nowhere.

See how you've treated a verse in isolation simply because it mentions "commandments". Did the Psalmist specifically say it was the "10 commandments"?

Be my guest and say which other ones he could be talking about that would be seen as standing forever!

And what "Law" was He referring to? Have you considered what Christ Himself said in Luke 24:44? Here - "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Of course the "all things" there wouldn't necessarily mean just what Jesus accomplished as some others on the board would have us believe. There are still more matters that were mentioned in the books of the prophets and the psalms that are not yet fulfilled. For example we still have the present heavens and earth to which Jesus mentioned in matthew 5.

The law mentioned in matthew 5 is a composite of the entire torah. Jesus knew that some aspects of the torah would have come to an end at His death, but He knew also that His moral law would be applicable as long as there is an earth and heaven in existence.

Oh now, I see how you interpret scripture - just by looking up any word in a concordance, you can't make a distinction between the one and the other.

I didn't need the concordance to define what the church means. I knew that some many years ago. The first called out ones were Adam and Eve and their line of righteous descendants.

And FYI, I'm well familiar with Greek and Hebrew, so don't even start. The NT Church is not a continuum of the 'ecclesia' in the wilderness who were baptized unto Moses.

Yet your little knowledge of hebrew cannot even help you to see and understand the scripture. Moses ddin't baptise anyone, but the expression means under Moses' leadership. Symbolically and spiritually they were baptised when they demonstrated faith in moving forward through the Red Sea. The same Christ who formed the NT church was the same God who led Moses and His people.

Christ spoke of His Church as yet future in Matt. 16:18 when He said "I will build my church" (future tense, meaning that the Church was not in existence by then). The Church began when the Holy Spirit was poured out in Acts 2, and not before then.

Yet Moses, Enoch, and Elijah are already in heaven even without a NT church! , Salvation is the common denominator for all dispensations. Its one grace, one God, and one salvation. Christ said that He will build His church for a reason other than the reason you have lamely put forward. The Jewish church had completely lost the main purpose for which Christ had called it, assuming you knew that it was Christ who called the Jewish church also. It was now time for Christ to make a fresh start that would include the gentiles, rather than leave indefinitely the divine oracles with them, the Jews.

When you read a text, study its context.

Take your own advice.

The grace of God that brings salvation was not in operation until Christ had accomplished His work on the Cross.

Rubbish! , I dare you to find one scripture that remotely repeats that utter nonsense. Paul said that Salvation has appeared to all men as I have rightly quoted.

Through your false understanding and teaching you yourself, although inadvertently bring disgrace upon God's grace. Your version of limited and cheap grace I can do without.

"Has appeared" is an indicative tense showing that it was not revealed previously, and Peter makes clear that the OT prophets who prophesied of that grace knew it was not meant for them but for us, as it was not then in operation until after Christ accomplished His work -

Your Greek parsing is worthless! Stop ferreting from the internet and books.

So when the bible said "where sin abounds grace did much more abound", what does that mean? It means as long as sin was around grace was around too, but in much greater measure. Hence Adam and Eve would have died instantaneously when they sinned if God's grace was not present. It meant that Noah didn't grace in the eyes of the Lord, unless of course the word grace as used in the OT carries a different and partialed meaning other than the NT.

In other words, your own version of "typical thoughtless response" is saying that the same covenant that God gave to Israel began not with Moses or the Israelites but with the first sinners - Adam and Eve? Okay, so God gave that covenant to Adam and Eve according to your thoughless response, and yet Moses in the Bible says: "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (Deut. 5:2-3).

Same covenant but only because the circumstances were different. Thats all! There is no need for God to change His plans of salvation. He is the same God yesterday, today and forever more.

God did not renew the same covenant, please. He did not ratify the same covenant with the blood of His Son, but completely set it aside for another -

Heb 8:6-7 & 13 >> "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. . . In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

The bible term new is what is confusing you, bu tin reality God's covenant cannot really change. Take a look at this passage:

Psalm 89:34
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

In oher words God renewed the covenant given to Moses only because our effort to keep the agreement failed. Paul in Hebrews explains that under better terms, being ratified by Christ blood, etc; this renewed covenant would be more successful. It would be based on Christ making the promises instead of us who are not able to do it by ourselves.

After leaving Egypt, the people hastily promised that they would obey all that God required, but failed as Moses went for the basis of the covenant being the law.

There is nothing new about God saving a people if that is what the covenant is all about. I cannot think of another covenant that wouldn't continue what God started.

Next time, look carefully before you leap. I was referring to God's word, which you now call rubbish. And here it is -

Gal 3:12 - "And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."

I didn't think you'd stoop so low just to win a point! This is your original quote that didn't mention a scripture as such but your persoonal thought. Now you're pretending to be smart by lying about putting up a scriptural reference.

This was your original quote:

The Law was given to Israel and not to the Church. The covenant that God made with Israel does not apply to the NT Church. Christians are called to live by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the Law - because the Law was not predicated on faith. The two should not be confused. Whatever Moses wrote down was God's Law, and there's only one law and not two.

Do you see a Galations reference therein?

That is what you call "rubbish", and yes, I really believe it, even if you don't. The full statement I made in context was - "Christians are called to live by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the Law - because the Law was not predicated on faith." Call it rubbish, but that's what the Word of God teaches.

And I will continue to call any such statements of that nature rubbish, and especially in the light of it being without substance.

Its one thing to chat rubbish, its quite another thing to be dishonest about it.

@ Syrup

And on what days should we not spend our time "doing spiritual things"?

trying to trick me Syrup?

God has given us 6 days in which to toil and labour so as to be able to take care of life. On those days we are still expected to give time for God and His work. However, He has set aside a day from creation where He and us can commune for a longer time together, where our minds are more refreshed and attuned to spiritual matters.

Isn't God good? Praise be to His Holy name!

@ Malik

@Bobbyaf,

There really shouldn't be any prolonged arguments about this issue, unless you just want to hold on to an inconsistent idea without carefully considering the texts in the Scriptures.

So why do you keep coming back? Inconsistently you say? Hahaha, you seem to be a joker on top of everything else!

Dru missed it altogethr and I'm surprised that you're now pandering onto to her misconception that the expression "the abomination of desolation" in Matthew 24:25 refers to a(n) situation/event rather than to a person. How you read a Greek construct is beyond me, and I'll quote it for you again:

And how that greek expression translates into a person is just as beyond me! In fact any honest person knows that Jesus was referring to the destruction of the temple in AD70 If you recall what Jesus said to the christians who listened to Him, then you would once and for all exit from your head the notion of a single individual. Let me give you a little context and reminder:

Matthew 24:15-21
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Here Jesus is telling His listeners to look out for a sign, being referred to as "the abomination of desolation" that will stand in the Holy place. What does that mean? It means an event that would see the pagan armies of Rome surround the temple walls, which to the jews then was an abomination. This took place in AD66, which gave the true believers ample time to flee the city. In fact the very response of the jewish army revealed how serious a matter it became that warranted a revolt against Rome's first attempt to lay seige. Those who faled to interpret that event and remianed in Jerusalem suffered tremendously.

Of course others interpret that expression as being the Jewish people's abomination that led to their own desolation.

Matthew 24:15 -
οταν ουν ιδητε το βδελυγμα της ερημωσεως το ρηθεν δια δανιηλ του προφητου SBεστως TAεστος εν τοπω αγιω ο αναγινωσκων νοειτω.

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

You can see that a situation does not "stand in the holy place", and until you calm down and carefully look into Scripture, you'll still keep going round ferreting and substituting inconsistent ideas into the texts. First, it was Christ, then it was a Roman Emperor, . . . now it is a situation.

Not only are you suffering from amnesia, because no where was it said by me that Christ was the abomination of desolation, but you make up stuff when your argument goes nowhere.

This quote won't make it any more clearer. You're still left with an expression that can only be properly interpreted by what took place in history. What you're trying to do is to give your private interpretation in order to suit what you believe.

What you fail to see there is that Christ wasn't referring to Himself as the "abomination of desolation" [βδελυγμα της ερημωσεως] that stands in the holy place! Much less was He referring to a situation standing there!

So why do you insist that anyone said that Christ is the abomination of desolation?

The construct in Greek treats it as a phrasal noun

Bravo! tell me whats new! 

and refers to someone who stands there in the holy place,

Well, in truth and in fact General Titus and his army did eventually stand in the Holy Place after the city was burned to the ground. So in both instances an event took place.  His soldiers actually placed their pagan symbols and Roman standards in the place where the temple stood. That in itself was considered an abomination under Jewish law.

and to make it unmistakably lucid, Christ points out that He was referring to Daniel's prophecy. When you turn to the prophecy in question in Daniel 9:26-27, there you find again that it was not a situation/event standing in the holy place, but a despicable individual with his army who comes to "destroy the city and the sanctuary" (v. 26).

Let me pull my last scriptural reference and show you something particular about what Luke the apostle said about the whole matter. While Matthew and Mark use the term directly as "abomination of desollation", listen to how Luke refers to the matter:

Luke 21:20
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Plain and simple isn't it? 

Quoting Daniel 9:27 -

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Notice carefully that this verse identifies three things that this individual would do:

(a) he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

(b) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

(c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate

You'll find that the "he" in this verse would be pointing to one of the individuals in verse 26 - the Messiah or the prince that shall come. The reason it could not be referring to the Messiah is that in verse 27,

Well in this case it would be the people of the prince, which is separate from Christ. I believe you're confusing the issue somewhat. Christ causing the abomination of desolation, is different than being the individual you are talking about. All of those three things that you make reference to qualifies what Christ would be accomplishing.

In other words the Romans actually destroyed the temple, but it was Christ who allowed them to do it. How many times have we read in the scriptures that God allowed Israel's enemies to overthrow them.

(a) Christ did not confirm a covenant with anyone for one week!

Yes He did!

(b) He did not cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease in the midst of the week in question

(c) He did not influence an overspreading of abominations nor make it (the overspread) desolate.

History has proven otherwise. At AD31 Christ did that when He died. The veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom siginifying that the sacrificial ceremonies were obsolete. God's word through the prophet Daniel had insisted that the desolation would continue to the end, meaning that no power on earth can reverse the situation before Christ returns. That temple that was destroyed would remian in that useless state until Jesus returns where His heavenly temple will be the only meaningful temple.

Who then could this verse be referring to? Christ in Matthew 24:15 points out that he is none other than the individual called by the phrasal noun "the abomination of desolation" [βδελυγμα της ερημωσεως] who "stands in the holy place". And what about "the overspreading of desolations"? Look again in Matt. 24:21 - the incomparable tribulation that will take place.

At any rate, when you study the Greek construct (it shouldn't be difficult to do if you're familiar with basic Greek) in Matt. 24:15, you can't sustain the idea that Drusilla put forward advocating the phrasal noun ("the abomination of desolation" as a situation. The word "abomination" in that verse is βδελυγμα = (bdelugma), and does not mean a "situation that is loathsome and disgusting to God or His people." To insist on that is to push an idea not sustained at all in God's Word.

Take it up with Dr. Luke

Luke 21:20
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

https://www.bibleuniversity.com/images/CourseID2/afsg4-14.jpg

Here is an artist's conception of the city. Not sure if its a good one though. If you look you can see the river of life that seems to be running with the tree of life arching accross it.

BOBBYAF my guy, na wa for you o. e be like say u be idol worshipper

Hahhahahahaha, , you lost me there Samson!

Have You Ever Wondered What The City Looks Like That God Has Prepared?

Do you really desire to be there? Can you all find any scriptural references to show the "realness" of this city?

I will be the first:

"Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." Hebrews 11:16.

@ malik

When I use info from any site, I don't plagiarise blindly to the point of being strongly opinionated on misinformation. Second, I leave the link so others won't applaud me cheaply.

Its funny how you can judge another's motives so hastily and more effectively than you're able to prove all I have said so far as unbiblical.

Just bear in mind what Jesus said, "judge not lest you be judged" You're in no position to judge my motives/character, so please stick to the issue at hand. Thank you.

This is why:

2 Timothy 3:16
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

None is more relevant than the other. All are important.

Any particular reason why just JW's?

hello guys,

this is a subject that is very crucial in our spiritual lives, in this generation of ours we were all born into knowing that sundayis the day of worship, but it is isn't

anyway sha, lets hear your views

Good point, but unfortunately until christians see the divine purpose of the sabbath you can expect the answers you're recieving so far. As you can see everyone has jumped off on a tangent already.

I think the point you're trying to get across is that God has given a special day in which to dedicate totally to Him. On the other hand what people tend to argue is that everyday is a day to worship, which to some extent is true. In truth and in fact some time of everyday should be spent in personal or even group worship.

Goodly people the point that the author of this post is making is that God has already from the beginning set aside a special day for communion, where we can forget about the cares of life and business, and class work, and whatever, and just spend that time doing spiritual things.

How do you undeerstand this passage of scripture:

1 Cor. 10
31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

@ Malik

@syrup,

Don't bother yourself too much. His arguments are based on what he ferreted from a website or another.

Which means that you have never used info from a site to support your views!

@ Syrup

Exodus 34:27-28 NIV
27Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 34:27-28 Amplified Bible
27And the Lord said to Moses, Write these words, for after the purpose and character of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. 28Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread and drank no water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 34:27-28 New Living Translation
27And the LORD said to Moses, "Write down all these instructions, for they represent the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel." 28Moses was up on the mountain with the LORD forty days and forty nights. In all that time he neither ate nor drank. At that time he wrote the terms of the covenant--the Ten Commandments--on the stone tablets.

Exodus 34:27-28 English Standard Version
27And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

All these versions seem to say the same thing I will agree. But what concerns me is that verse one of the same chapter says God rewrote the 10 commandments, and verse 28 makes it appear based on its construction, that it was Moses who wrote the 10.

I support the idea that this may have been one of those passages that had a difficult translation, like many others which have been. How do I conclude that? Its pretty simple. If majority of the verses say it was God who rewrote, and this single verse, although with questionable circumstances seem to be saying that it was Moses, then I'd rather go with the weight of evidence. let me give you a more definitive statement from Moses himself.

Deut. 5:22
22 These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

Now this is from Moses' own words my friend. I wonder if you see what I am saying? All I am saying is that you should never be too eager to take one verse and build something around it unless you can show other passages that back up that verse.

Some may say that the LORD was the "he" in verse 28 who actually wrote down the Ten commandments a second time. While I respect whatever persuasions anyone may hold as to that, the Hebrew construct does not say so,

[/quote]If what you call a hebrew construct to mean a translation, then you run the risk of misunderstanding the whole thought. The safest thing to do is to go back to the original hebrew language and see exactly what was said. As I have alluded to before this may be similar to passages that had a poor translation. canot rule it out.

[quote]and several modern translations have inserted "the Lord" there where it does not appear. At any rate, whatever Moses wrote down was God's Law - all came from the same God and none of it originated with Moses.

I have no problem with you saying that everything came from God, but the point I have been trying to make from the very beginning is that there has to be a difference between laws that were meant to be eternal and laws that were meant to be temporary.

I am saying that the 10 commandments are eternal as a law by itself. The word of God says so. Let me quote:

Psalm 111:7-8
7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. 8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Has heaven and earth disappeared as yet? Has everything been accomplished as yet? NOPE!

The Law was given to Israel and not to the Church.

Obviously you do not know what the word church really means. Taken from the greek word "ecclesia" it means the called-out ones. Israel was the church then. Today from Christ's day the church consisted of jews and gentiles. The term church cannot be confined to just the NT times and beyond, because salvation was never confined to just the NT believers. Listen to Paul as he talks about salvation and who it was intended for:

Titus 2:11
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

The all men would begin from Adam down to the very last man to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

The covenant that God made with Israel does not apply to the NT Church.

Typical thoughtless response. The covenant didn't start with the Moses or the Israelites. It started with the first sinners as recorded in Genesis 3:15, where God promised that a saviour would come to redeem fallen man. This covenant has a basic agreement which is to obey and trust God and live not just in this life but to have eternal life through faith in the future death of God's Son.

This covenant took various shape and was repeated with God's righteous people in every dispensation, starting with Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and then Moses. This same covenant has been renewed since Moses and what we call the New Covenant. The only thing new about it this time round is that its built on better promises seeing it was ratified with Jesus' blood, and God Himself is making the promises instead of us.

Christians are called to live by faith

Hahahahaha, , you really believe that rubbish? Lets see what the bible has to say about that:

Hebrews 11:[/b]5 By [b]faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death

7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family

8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going

13 All these people(and not just those mentioned above) were still living by faith when they died.

6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

because the Law was not predicated on faith.

No one is discussing that including me. Thats already a given and is general knowledge. But listen to James who talks about impractical christians:

James 2:14-17
14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

In other words if you say you have faith in Christ and teach men to dishonour His law of 10 commandments, your faith is not valid. The faith that you possess is a gift from God, but God's grace doesn't afford you the right to become disobedient. It was never given to make you think you're free from obeying God. It was given to empower you to overcome sin. Thats why Paul says: "where sin abounds, grace did much more abound"

The two should not be confused.

I agree with you! One reveals sin while one is a gift.

Has God supplied information or action plan to support such an idea that He cares about our bodies? I get the feeling that some christians believe that all one has to do is just pray and all will be well.

Did God have a plan from the very beginning concerning our health? Do you think that the billions of dollars being spent annually on curing people's diseases, could have been avoided if we had followed God's plan from the beginning?

God rewrote the 10 commandments as Ex. 34:1 clearly said, while Moses wrote the covenant agreement and its related laws of ceremonies and rites. Why else would he spend 40 days on the mount?

You guys are reading the bible robotically without putting thought into what you read. I suggest you also read the bible in different versions, rather than struggle with the KJV.

What do you think? Are we free to do as we please where the diet is concerned, or are there standards to follow?