[Wondergirl]

So, I take it you're not about to dive into a very thorough personal investigation of the published material.

Why should I bother? He's wrong. And if he's wrong on that, I'm betting he's wrong about a few other details.

[HeadStrongBoy]

Here's another thought you may have overlooked. There definitely will be a Judgment Day... one day. And if past history is any indication, the example you've given of all the others who have tried to predict accurately and failed, eventually someone is BOUND to hit it exactly and be right.

Why couldn't it be Camping ? In my opinion the material he's offering is true to the Bible. It DESERVES AT LEAST VERY SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.

[Wondergirl]

Here's another thought you may have overlooked. There definitely will be a Judgment Day... one day. And if past history is any indication, the example you've given of all the others who have tried to predict accurately and failed, eventually someone is BOUND to hit it exactly and be right.

It might be tomorrow... or the next day. I'm ready. I don't need a prediction.

Will Camping get points or special favors in heaven if he turns out to be right?

Why couldn't it be Camping ? In my opinion the material he's offering is true to the Bible. It DESERVES AT LEAST VERY SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.[

His opinion. Your opinion. I wouldn't even give my own mother's opinion any credit.

[450donn]

Wondergirl:


The correct date is Oct. 21, 2011. It comes exactly 153 days after May 21, 2011. There are at least two specific references to this five month period. (Revelation 9:5 and Rev.9:10) One reference to 153 comes from John 21:11. But these references are only the tip of the "ice-berg." It remains to be shown exactly HOW all of the other information fits together with these pieces.

Oct. 21 itself is the vey last day of the five month period known as THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. On that day "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. The Earth also and the works therein shall be burnt up." 2 Peter 3:10

Gee, I beg to differ with you on Rev9:5. It is referring to one of the plagues that God unleashes on the earth. Taken literally there will be creatures let loose on the earth to torment people for a period of five months. This is the fifth trumpet, the fifth plague if you will.
Cannot fathom how you get any more out of John 21 than a man fishing and God blessing his catch.
Like I said before please explain yourself or refrain from making such brash and outlandish statements. It is only fair to the rest of us that you substantiate your claims with scriptures. Not merely conjecture or the claims you read in some book. Unless that book is the Bible it is only the thoughts of man. Heck I could take the fictional thoughts out of the Left Behind series and spout them here, but I know they are a work of fiction from two men's minds.

[HeadStrongBoy]

Wondergirl

His opinion. Your opinion. I wouldn't even give my own mother's opinion any credit.

I agree totally. It's definitely NOT a matter of opinion. Acts 17:31 says:"...He hath APPOINTED a day in the which he will judge the world..." An appointment CANNOT happen at random. It is a set date.

Amos 3:7 says:"Surely the Lord Jehovah will do NOTHING but He revealeth his secret to His servants the prophets."

And look at the examples of the great flood of Noah's day, the city of Nineveh in Jonah's day, and the cities of Sodom in Lot's day. In EVERY case God gave SPECIFIC warning and SPECIFIC TIME to His prophets. Will He do it any differently this time ? Yes, "the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." But for whom?? Only for those who remain "in the night" (spiritual darkness). Look at 1 Thessalonians 5:4. "But ye brethren are NOT in darkness that that day should overtake YOU as a thief. Clearly there are some who WILL KNOW. And what about Ezekiel 33:6 ? "But if the watchman see the sword come and blow not the trumpet... " Clearly the watchmen, the prophets (true believers), MUST know the precise time. Otherwise HOW COULD THEY GIVE CLEAR WARNING ? Want more scriptures ? It's NOT anyone's opinion. It's the Bible.

[HeadStrongBoy]

450donn

Taken literally

On what basis do you take it literally ? There are other methods of interpretation (hermeneutics). Is it a matter of personal preference ?

[Wondergirl]

I agree totally. It's definitely NOT a matter of opinion.

You had used the phrase "in my opinion," so I was working off that.

Acts 17:31 says:"...He hath APPOINTED a day in the which he will judge the world..." An appointment CANNOT happen at random. It is a set date.

But God's not telling anyone when. It's a secret.

Amos 3:7 says:"Surely the Lord Jehovah will do NOTHING but He revealeth his secret to His servants the prophets."

Different secret.

Will He do it any differently this time ? Yes, "the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." But for whom?? Only for those who remain "in the night" (spiritual darkness).

You're twisting the meaning of "night."

the prophets (true believers), MUST know the precise time.

The true believers are not prophets. And they don't know the precise time.

It's NOT anyone's opinion. It's the Bible.

It's Mr. Camping's opinion and his interpretation of some passages.

[450donn]

450donn


On what basis do you take it literally ? There are other methods of interpretation (hermeneutics). Is it a matter of personal preference ?

I take what the Bible says to be the truth. Not some mans opinion of what the Bible says. You on the other hand seem to want to twist and bend what the Bible says to match your notion of the truth. So, again I will ask you. Please quote chapter and verse to substantiate your outlandish claims of the world being in the tribulation.

[HeadStrongBoy]

Wondergirl

Acts 17:31 says:"...He hath APPOINTED a day in the which he will judge the world..." An appointment CANNOT happen at random. It is a set date. But God's not telling anyone when. It's a secret.
Quoting :

Amos 3:7 says:"Surely the Lord Jehovah will do NOTHING but He revealeth his secret to His servants the prophets." Different secret.

Ecclesiastes 8:5"... and a wise (man's) heart discerneth (shall know) time and judgment."

450donn, these quotations are for you also. And I agree that they are outlandish. Name calling, however, does not change anything.

[Wondergirl]

Ecclesiastes 8:5"...and a wise (man's) heart discerneth (shall know) time and judgment."

Outlandish? That's putting it mildly. They have nothing to do with the Last Judgment. Read the above verse in context.

[450donn]

Wondergirl


Ecclesiastes 8:5"...and a wise (man's) heart discerneth (shall know) time and judgment."

450donn, these quotations are for you also. And I agree that they are outlandish. Name calling, however, does not change anything.

Totally out of context.
Acts 17:31 is telling us that Jesus is the appointed one who will sit in judgment. You really need to stop taking things out of context and start reading the whole passage.

Amos 3:7?

[HeadStrongBoy]

Wondergirl, 450donn, et al...

That's putting it mildly.

I understand that these few verses I'm presenting are not conclusive enough to be definite proof. BUT, the mere possibility that they can be interepeted in the way I suggest, should cause people who respect the Bible to at least CONSIDER that it may be necessary to RETHINK some long held and cherished beliefs.

[Wondergirl]

I understand that these few verses I'm presenting are not conclusive enough to be definite proof. BUT, the mere possibility that they can be interepeted in the way I suggest, should cause people who respect the Bible to at least CONSIDER that it may be necessary to RETHINK some long held and cherished beliefs.

Why do you continue to hedge? Those verses were taken out of context completely. They have NOTHING to do with what you had hoped and do NOT support your "cherished" beliefs.

[dwashbur]

Wondergirl, 450donn, et al...


I understand that these few verses I'm presenting are not conclusive enough to be definite proof. BUT, the mere possibility that they can be interepeted in the way I suggest, should cause people who respect the Bible to at least CONSIDER that it may be necessary to RETHINK some long held and cherished beliefs.

A long time ago, I read a commentary on Romans that quite literally never mentioned eternal life once. When it got to 6:23, it said "When Paul says the wages of sin is death, what he means is that a life lived in sin is a life that's not really worth living." Now, this commentator never even touched the second half of the verse. Are you claiming that, because he found a way to make such an interpretation, it should cause me to rethink everything I actually know about that verse? Anybody can come up with any interpretation of any word, phrase or sentence in the Bible. That doesn't mean people who know better should give every potential interpretation equal credence. Here's a classic example for you:

Judas... went out and hanged himself. Matt 27:5

Go thou and do likewise. Luke 10:37

That thou doest, do quickly. John 13:27

It's clear what the Bible is telling you to do, because some guy you've never met and really know nothing about says he's had a revelation and this is what God really expects of you. Are you going to do it?

*DISCLAIMER*
This is satire. I am NOT telling you to kill yourself. If you decide to do so, it's your fault, not mine.

The idea that some interpretation, however out of context, anachronistic or manipulative, COULD have validity is not just a poor way to approach the Bible, it's potentially dangerous.

[HeadStrongBoy]

Dwashbur

The idea that some interpretation, however out of context, anachronistic or manipulative, COULD have validity is not just a poor way to approach the Bible, it's potentially dangerous.

I agree with the above statement. And I have been aware of it for many years. Your sentence explains precisely how it's possible for the great variety of Christian denominations and their often conflicting interpretations to exist. Even though all of them claim to follow the inerrant Bible.

Clearly the "classic" example you've presented is nothing more than a clever game with words. Ha, ha.

The fact remains that we (Camping-ites) do follow a particular method (hermeneutic). It is not just a game designed to bring about a particular man-made result.(May 21, 2011) And that method has affected virtually every major Christian doctrine. For example:
[1] The availability of justification to all Old Testament believers BY THE SAME SALVATION that is available to the New Testament believers. A critical doctrine.
[2] Many other details of God's salvation and judgment that are misunderstood by those who follow the man-made hermeneutics.(grammatical-historical, etc.)

[dwashbur]

dwashbur


I agree with the above statement. And I have been aware of it for many years. Your sentence explains precisely how it's possible for the great variety of Christian denominations and their often conflicting interpretations to exist. Even though all of them claim to follow the inerrant Bible.

Clearly the "classic" example you've presented is nothing more than a clever game with words. Ha, ha.

The fact remains that we (Camping-ites) do follow a particular method (hermeneutic). It is not just a game designed to bring about a particular man-made result.(May 21, 2011) And that method has affected virtually every major Christian doctrine. For example:
[1] The availability of justification to all Old Testament believers BY THE SAME SALVATION that is available to the New Testament believers. A critical doctrine.

I have never disputed the idea that God's salvation is by faith in any and every age of humankind. Sometimes that faith is forward-looking (Old Testament) and sometimes it's backward-looking (New Testament). And I have never heard any major Christian theologian, minister or anyone else try to say that there were two different methods of salvation in the Bible. So what you have there is a cure for which there is no known disease.

[2] Many other details of God's salvation and judgment that are misunderstood by those who follow the man-made hermeneutics.(grammatical-historical, etc.)

Um, grammatical - what the words, sentences and paragraphs actually say - and historical - what the writer meant to say, its context of its time, culture and language, is the only reliable hermeneutic there is. It is not man-made, it is common sense. What did Paul or Jeremiah or whoever write and what did he mean to say? The only way to really determine that is to get inside the writer's head, and that means in terms of language, culture, setting, and intention. If you're trying to say that's a bad hermeneutic, you're totally wrong.

[HeadStrongBoy]

Dwashbur

I have never disputed the idea that God's salvation is by faith in any and every age of humankind.

Your statement is irrelevant because I'm not diputing you, or your personal beliefs. What I am harping on is the very definition of the word faith as it applies to salvation.

For example Christ is called (named) "faithful and true." Therefore those specific verses that say "Abraham believed, and God counted it for righteousness unto him," should more properly be understood if we substitute "Christ" (or Him - referring to God Himself) for "it." In other words the true meaning to those confusing verses is found when we read it thusly: "Abraham believed, and God counted Him (Christ) for righteousness unto him (Abraham)."

If we interpret that way, the result is a completely different understanding of faith that is toward salvation. It takes the work of faith out of our hands (the work of justification) and puts it squarely into the hands of God alone. Where it has always been, and where it should remain.

[Wondergirl]

If we interpret that way, the result is a completely different understanding of faith that is toward salvation.

Huh?

It takes the work of faith out of our hands (the work of justification) and puts it squarely into the hands of God alone. Where it has always been, and where it should remain.

The work of Justification was done by Jesus on the cross. The work of Sanctification ("brings me to faith and keeps me in that faith") is done by the Spirit with our cooperation.

[dwashbur]

dwashbur


Your statement is irrelevant because I'm not diputing you, or your personal beliefs. What I am harping on is the very definition of the word faith as it applies to salvation.

For example Christ is called (named) "faithful and true." Therefore those specific verses that say "Abraham believed, and God counted it for righteousness unto him," should more properly be understood if we substitute "Christ" (or Him - referring to God Himself) for "it." In other words the true meaning to those confusing verses is found when we read it thusly: "Abraham believed, and God counted Him (Christ) for righteousness unto him (Abraham)."

If we interpret that way, the result is a completely different understanding of faith that is toward salvation. It takes the work of faith out of our hands (the work of justification) and puts it squarely into the hands of God alone. Where it has always been, and where it should remain.

Sorry, but the Hebrew of Gen 15:6 won't support your interpretation. It reads literally "He believed [or, trusted] YHWH, and he treated it as righteousness for him." Hebrew just doesn't work the way you're trying to read it. It says what the major translations say, and your guy is wrong. Jesus being called "faithful," which incidentally is a completely different word in the original, has nothing to do with it.

[HeadStrongBoy]

Dwashbur

I have never disputed the idea that God's salvation is by faith in any and every age of humankind. Sometimes that faith is forward-looking (Old Testament) and sometimes it's backward-looking (New Testament).

Your quoted sentence exactly illustrates my point. The atonement made by Christ was, at the time of Adam and Eve, already a done deal. And Mr. Camping has been able to verify that from scriptures. Here are two of the plainest verses (there are others) to support that contention. "Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world." (Hebrews 4:3) "And without the shedding of blood there is no remission." Hebrews 9:22 indicates that atonement (shedding of blood) had to be made before any sins could be forgiven.

Your sentence shows that "looking forward" and "looking back" are two different methods of atonement that are not supported by scriptures. The Bible I read teaches that all believers, both Old Testament and New Testament must look back to the atoning work of Christ that was completed before the creation of the world. The cross in 33 AD serving a different function, other than atonement.