Questions and Statements about God...

[TX_Made713]

Oh i c. Read romans chapter 1-3

read em before....now explain how they prove the bible is truly the word of god outside of "well in the bible it says"

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

read em before....now explain how they prove the bible is truly the word of god outside of "well in the bible it says"

I'm not going to explain anything. I ain't your lap dog. You over here demanding I do something. Please. Ask God to teach you.

 

[TX_Made713]

I'm not going to explain anything. I ain't your lap dog. You over here demanding I do something. Please. Ask God to teach you.

i dont need an explanation on what it says. now your the one pulling straws with no hands. im asking what is the point your trying to make citing this particular book as an example? thats it. you are dodging the question because you dont have an answer beside "well its written in the book"

you cannot validate a book by citing what it says inside it. you need an external source for the real proof

 

[VIBE]

I'm not going to explain anything. I ain't your lap dog. You over here demanding I do something. Please. Ask God to teach you.

To be quite honest, if you're gonna be Gods SOLDIER then you need to explain to the best of your ability. You always state things about the bible, but you do not explain. Jesus would've never said, "well read the bible stupid, then you'll see". He actually DID THINGS to show PROOF (supposedly). So how about you TRY to explain what you're conveying to us. You always say God is guiding you, well you're not going full potential. You should release it all here, you state you aren't here BY CHANCE and neither are we, according to you.

If you're gonna make topics and just drop verses and say read the bible, what do you accomplish? For example, Isrealites, he drops what the bible states and goes into his own depth of what it states, means and how it is supposed to be understood. He gives his own "proof" that way.

That's all TX is saying bro, no one is bossing you around or anything. You seemingly do dodge a lot, it's not just an opinion by a poster here it's what I see as well.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

I ain't your bitch. Plain and simple. So yall can cry me a river for reals. If your not going to talk like you got some respect, then forget it. Yall can miss me. Like way out in left field miss me. No doubt. Happy new year and God bless.

 

[BlackxChild]

I ain't your bitch. Plain and simple. So yall can cry me a river for reals. If your not going to talk like you got some respect, then forget it. Yall can miss me. Like way out in left field miss me. No doubt. Happy new year and God bless.

Do u think if u answered our question with anything outside of the bible itself u wouldnt feel disrespected. Do u not atleast acknowledge that the bible and ur god say and some dumb things. Seriously the whole jesus story, moses, noah and virtually every story in the bible is stupid.

Can u blame us for not believeing in 1 god when pretty much every religion is saying the other is wrong. R u really that pigheaded to where u cant understand that all of us already know whats in the bible where just not going to follow some stupid story bc someone told us or we read it in a book.

 

[TX_Made713]

I ain't your bitch. Plain and simple. So yall can cry me a river for reals. If your not going to talk like you got some respect, then forget it. Yall can miss me. Like way out in left field miss me. No doubt. Happy new year and God bless.

number 1, how have i disrepected you in any way?

number 2 your disrespecting your own bible

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.


you only follow the parts of the bible that you want to follow. thats being a lukewarm christian

Revelation 3:15-16 ESV

“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

so by your own book that your so devouted for...according to it god will send you to hell anyway

 

[TX_Made713]

To be quite honest, if you're gonna be Gods SOLDIER then you need to explain to the best of your ability. You always state things about the bible, but you do not explain. Jesus would've never said, "well read the bible stupid, then you'll see". He actually DID THINGS to show PROOF (supposedly). So how about you TRY to explain what you're conveying to us. You always say God is guiding you, well you're not going full potential. You should release it all here, you state you aren't here BY CHANCE and neither are we, according to you.

If you're gonna make topics and just drop verses and say read the bible, what do you accomplish? For example, Isrealites, he drops what the bible states and goes into his own depth of what it states, means and how it is supposed to be understood. He gives his own "proof" that way.

That's all TX is saying bro, no one is bossing you around or anything. You seemingly do dodge a lot, it's not just an opinion by a poster here it's what I see as well.

Judging by his responses, its only a matter of time before he stops believing in the bible

 

[Disciplined InSight]

read em before....now explain how they prove the bible is truly the word of god outside of "well in the bible it says"

I can try and help you man..what is it that you want to break down in Romans specifically?

 

[TX_Made713]

I can try and help you man..what is it that you want to break down in Romans specifically?

ask him, hes the one that brought it up. i just asked for proof that the bible is truly the word of god outside of "it is written"

 

[Disciplined InSight]

ask him, hes the one that brought it up. i just asked for proof that the bible is truly the word of god outside of "it is written"

Okay...

How the Bible can rationally be proven to be the word of God?

The Bible has the answers--but how do you know whether these are the right ones?

Suppose you were raised knowing nothing about the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament, like some tribe in the jungles of New Guinea or along the Amazon in Brazil. One day, a missionary comes along, and drops on you a copy of the Bible. Suppose it was in your own language and you are literate enough to read it. How could you judge whether its contents are true? Suppose a competing religion's missionary left a Quran behind. How could you judge whether that book was reliable? To be rational in our religious beliefs, instead of just blindly following what our parents believe, we need to apply reason and not just emotion to figuring out what our religious beliefs should be.

Evidence for the historical reliability of the Bible is presented. But first, fulfilled prophecy is presented as the ultimate proof for the Bible's inspiration. Historical accuracy merely is a necessary condition for inspiration, not a sufficient one. A book could be perfectly accurate historically, such as one on the life of Abraham Lincoln, yet not be inspired by God or hold any authority over our lives. Historical accuracy merely keeps the Bible from being ruled out as the Word of God, but by itself doesn't present much of a positive case for its inspiration. But it's another story to explain how the Bible could predict the future in advance accurately centuries after its prophets died. Rationally, this requires belief that its authors received supernatural guidance. Below prophecies that were fulfilled after some part of the Bible was written but before the twentieth century are examined.

The great Hebrew prophet Isaiah prophesied in the general period c. 740-700 B.C. Long before the King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed Jerusalem, Judah's capital, in 586 B.C., Isaiah predicted the destruction of the city of Babylon itself. Note Isaiah 13:19-20:

"And Babylon, the beauty of the kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans' pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation . . ."
This vast city had (if the ancient Greek historian Herodotus is trusted) a 56-mile circumference and 14-mile long sides, with walls 311 feet high and 87 feet wide. These figures appear exaggerated:

Archeological digs indicate the inner city had double inner walls of twelve and twenty feet wide and double outer walls twenty-four and twenty-six feet wide. Nevertheless, since sometimes dirt was put into the area between the double walls such that four horses' spans would fit, Herodotus's figures on the width of the walls weren't that far off. Occupying some 196 square miles (including protected farmland within the outer walls), it was one of the ancient world's greatest cities. In modern terms, Isaiah's prophesy would be the equivalent of predicting the complete devastation and permanent desolation of New York, London, or Tokyo. Situated on the Euphrates River in what is now Iraq, Babylon had been a great center of Middle Eastern culture for some 2000 years. Additionally, predicting the site wouldn't be rebuilt upon again was very bold, since this commonly happened after a city's destruction in the ancient Middle East. After the Greek geographer and historian Strabo visited the site of Babylon during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus (27 B.C.-17 A.D.) , he commented: "The great city is a great desert." It hasn't been rebuilt since either!

 

[Disciplined InSight]

Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire, was a great city on the Tigris River in what is now Iraq (ancient Mesopotamia). Willingly burning cities, the Assyrians's cruelty inspired hatred from those they conquered. Sample punishments they inflicted included skinning people alive, burning children, impaling enemies on stakes, and chopping off hands and heads. Writing around 627 B.C., the prophet Zephaniah predicted Nineveh's destruction along with the Assyrian Empire's:

"And He [God] will stretch out His hand against the north and destroy Assyria, and He will make Nineveh a desolation" (Zephaniah 2:13).
Writing between 661 and 612 B.C., the prophet Nahum predicted Nineveh's destruction (Nahum 2:10; 3:19), with the help of a flood (Nahum 2:6) and fire (Nahum 3:13), during which many of its people would be drunk (Nahum 1:10). Like Babylon, Nineveh was one of the ancient world's greatest cities. Its inner wall was 100 feet tall and 50 feet thick, complete with a 150-foot-wide moat. It boasted a 7-mile circumference. But all this couldn't save it! As predicted (Nahum 3:12), the city fell easily, after a mere three-month siege, to the combined forces of the Medes, Scythians, and Babylonians under Nabopolassar in 612 B.C. Showing this wasn't all mere coincidence, guess work, or hopeful wishing, all of Nahum's specific predictions about how Nineveh would fall were fulfilled.

The fate of Babylon and Nineveh, which were by no means fully identical. Since both cities were capitals of nations that were major enemies of Israel, Israel's prophets easily could have switched the names of these cities. Then they would have predicted wrongly, if they had not been inspired by God. Although both cities suffered destruction, Babylon was clearly predicted to never be inhabited again, but this was never prophesied for Nineveh. Today, the site of Babylon is totally uninhabited. The Euphrates River, which still flows through the site, has eroded the ruins on its west side, turning them into a swamp. On its east side, the ruins are mere low hills of debris. Isaiah predicted wild animals would inhabit the ruins. No shepherd would remain there, or stay to rest their flocks (Isaiah 13:20-22). As Floyd Hamilton relates, this has literally happened:

"Travelers [to Babylon] report that the city is absolutely uninhabited, even [by] Bedouins [Arab nomads]. There are various superstitions current among the Arabs that prevent them from pitching their tents there, while the character of the soil prevents the growth of vegetation suitable for the pasturage of flocks."
By contrast, even when the nineteenth-century archeologist Austen Henry Layard investigated the site, a small village sat upon the ruins of Nineveh, nowadays near the outskirts of Mosul, Iraq. Unlike Babylon, the plains around Nineveh's mound are farmed, and animals can graze on it during seasonal rains. Significantly, the site's largest mound has an Arabic name meaning "many sheep." Clearly, if Isaiah had condemned Nineveh instead of Babylon, which would have made sense when he wrote since Assyria was much the greater threat to Israel and Judah in the eighth century B.C., his specific predictions about site of its ruins would have been wrong. The skeptic can't argue that it's easy to predict the destruction of ancient cities, thinking in time all cities eventually will be destroyed. The Bible also predicts specifically how these cities would cease to exist, so these predictions can't be called mere lucky guesses. Furthermore, many ancient cities of the Middle East are still inhabited today, such as Damascus, Jerusalem, Sidon, Aleppo, etc. (1) Why was Babylon's fate different, its site now having been desolate for centuries after being a center of Mesopotamian civilization for centuries, a city dwelled in for perhaps over two thousand years? Because the God of the Bible yet lives, He intervenes in the affairs of men!

 

[Rock_Well]

fair points made^^^

 

[Disciplined InSight]

The seacoast of what is now Lebanon once was the center of the ancient maritime civilization of the Phoenicians. Two of their leading cities were Tyre and Sidon. Colonists sent out from Tyre settled in and established the city of Carthage in what today is Tunisia in north Africa, which later fought (and lost) the three Punic Wars against the Roman Republic in the period 246-146 B.C.. Tyre was most unusual, since one part was built on the mainland opposite the remainder occupying an island about a half mile off the coast. God through the prophet Ezekiel condemned Tyre, predicting its complete demise:

"Thus says the Lord God, 'Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock. She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken . . . and she will become spoil for the nations.' " (Ezekiel 26:3-5)
This prophecy initially was fulfilled in several steps. First, as Ezekiel 26:7-11; 29:18 described in advance, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar besieged the part of Tyre that was on the mainland for some thirteen years (585-573 B.C.). He was robbed of the fruits of victory: After his army broke down its walls and occupied it, he found most of the people (and their transportable wealth) had departed for the island city off the coast. Since Tyre had a strong navy, he couldn't attack it without a fleet. When Tyre made peace, it only admitted to Babylon's limited overlordship. Nevertheless, by destroying the mainland part of the city, Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled part of Ezekiel's predictions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ezekiel prophesied that the Phoenician city of Tyre was going to be a "bare rock".

Plus attacks from Alexander The Great on the city of Tyre solidified the fulfilled prophecy as well:

Significantly, Ezekiel uses "he" to refer to Nebuchadnezzar in verses 8-11, but switches over to a more anonymous "they" for verse 12:

"Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water."
Surely this wasn't the normal fate for an ancient city's rubble, since usually when ancient cities were rebuilt, the new buildings were conveniently placed on top of the old ones' remnants. What could possibly cause anyone to go through this much bother, to throw a city's ruins into the sea? The main part of the "they" was the next major actor in the drama of Tyre's fate, Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.). During his campaign of conquest against Persia, he attacked Tyre (332 B.C.) after it denied him permission to sacrifice to the Tyrian god Heracles. He insisted on making the offering in the temple dedicated to Heracles on the island off the coast, not the one in the mainland part of Tyre. (The mainland city had been partially rebuilt after the destruction wrought by Nebuchadnezzar over two centuries earlier).

In a remarkable operation, Alexander besieged the island city by taking the rubble of the old mainland city and throwing it into the Mediterranean to build a causeway out to it. After building this land bridge, his army intended to place siege engines up against the island city's strong walls, which seemingly jutted up right out of sea. The siege lasted seven months--once Alexander gained naval supremacy, the city's conquest followed in short order. He punished Tyre by executing 2,000 of it leading citizens and selling 30,000 of those left alive into slavery. Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre's walls and towers would be broken down, and that God "will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock." In order to build the 200 foot wide causeway into the sea about a half mile, Alexander's army left no visible ruins behind. Is this all mere coincidence?

Ezekiel 26:14 predicted:

"'And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the Lord have spoken,' declares the Lord God."
Have these predictions been fulfilled? Clearly, the part concerning the spreading of fishing nets was. After visiting the site of Tyre in recent years, Nina Nelson noted "Pale turquoise fishing nets were drying on the shore." The mainland city became a bare rock due to Alexander's actions in building the causeway, but what about the island city off the coast? Although it never recovered its former great power, it was rebuilt, becoming a major port in the time of Christ during the first century. But after the Muslim Mamelukes captured it from the Crusaders during the Middle Ages, they completely wiped it out in 1291. They wished to ensure some future possible counterattack wouldn't recapture its fort and use it against them again. Today, a small fishing town of about 12,000 sits on the site of ancient Tyre, due to the Metualis reoccupying the island city site in 1766. The mainland city site remains abandoned, despite it has large natural freshwater springs. Since the town of Sur occupies part of the island city site today, was Ezekiel wrong? Remember, the mainland site is indeed "a bare rock," and no city has ever been rebuilt there. Furthermore, the switch in Ezekiel's language from "he" (Nebuchadnezzar) to "they" (Alexander and the Muslims mainly) to "I" may imply the last part of Tyre's drama will be played out when God directly intervenes during the Second Coming and beyond. By this understanding, this prophecy isn't totally fulfilled yet. Even as it is, the town of Sur has no organic and direct tie to ancient Tyre, since hundreds of years lie between Tyre's destruction by the Muslims in the thirteenth century and the resettlers of the eighteen century.

For example, no buildings of old Tyre survived to be used by the present inhabitants of Sur--unlike the case for Jerusalem. Furthermore, some fishermen must be living nearby to supply the nets to be dried on the rocks of Tyre--they aren't going to sail miles out of their way to do that! (2) The witness of the mainland site's desolation should be enough to convince skeptics.

 

[TX_Made713]

Okay...

How the Bible can rationally be proven to be the word of God?

The Bible has the answers--but how do you know whether these are the right ones?
To be rational in our religious beliefs, instead of just blindly following what our parents believe, we need to apply reason and not just emotion to figuring out what our religious beliefs should be.

You made a lot of great points. This is all I was asking from DOU? i have no clue why he got all emotional over it.

The quoted is basically how I live my life

Historical accuracy merely keeps the Bible from being ruled out as the Word of God, but by itself doesn't present much of a positive case for its inspiration. But it's another story to explain how the Bible could predict the future in advance accurately centuries after its prophets died. Rationally, this requires belief that its authors received supernatural guidance. Below prophecies that were fulfilled after some part of the Bible was written but before the twentieth century are examined.

This is true, but then again can this really be proven?

"And Babylon, the beauty of the kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans' pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation . . ."
This vast city had (if the ancient Greek historian Herodotus is trusted) a 56-mile circumference and 14-mile long sides, with walls 311 feet high and 87 feet wide. These figures appear exaggerated:

Archeological digs indicate the inner city had double inner walls of twelve and twenty feet wide and double outer walls twenty-four and twenty-six feet wide. Nevertheless, since sometimes dirt was put into the area between the double walls such that four horses' spans would fit, Herodotus's figures on the width of the walls weren't that far off. Occupying some 196 square miles (including protected farmland within the outer walls), it was one of the ancient world's greatest cities. In modern terms, Isaiah's prophesy would be the equivalent of predicting the complete devastation and permanent desolation of New York, London, or Tokyo. Situated on the Euphrates River in what is now Iraq, Babylon had been a great center of Middle Eastern culture for some 2000 years. Additionally, predicting the site wouldn't be rebuilt upon again was very bold, since this commonly happened after a city's destruction in the ancient Middle East. After the Greek geographer and historian Strabo visited the site of Babylon during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus (27 B.C.-17 A.D.) , he commented: "The great city is a great desert." It hasn't been rebuilt since either!

One thing people dont pay attention to often is the credibility of the source of their facts. It can sound all well written and logical but if the author is bs then that defeats the argument being made. Kinda think of it, isnt that the main problem most people have with the bible?

 

[TX_Made713]

Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire, was a great city on the Tigris River in what is now Iraq (ancient Mesopotamia). Willingly burning cities, the Assyrians's cruelty inspired hatred from those they conquered. Sample punishments they inflicted included skinning people alive, burning children, impaling enemies on stakes, and chopping off hands and heads. Writing around 627 B.C., the prophet Zephaniah predicted Nineveh's destruction along with the Assyrian Empire's:

"And He [God] will stretch out His hand against the north and destroy Assyria, and He will make Nineveh a desolation" (Zephaniah 2:13).

Writing between 661 and 612 B.C., the prophet Nahum predicted Nineveh's destruction (Nahum 2:10; 3:19), with the help of a flood (Nahum 2:6) and fire (Nahum 3:13), during which many of its people would be drunk (Nahum 1:10). Like Babylon, Nineveh was one of the ancient world's greatest cities. Its inner wall was 100 feet tall and 50 feet thick, complete with a 150-foot-wide moat. It boasted a 7-mile circumference. But all this couldn't save it! As predicted (Nahum 3:12), the city fell easily, after a mere three-month siege, to the combined forces of the Medes, Scythians, and Babylonians under Nabopolassar in 612 B.C. Showing this wasn't all mere coincidence, guess work, or hopeful wishing, all of Nahum's specific predictions about how Nineveh would fall were fulfilled.

The fate of Babylon and Nineveh, which were by no means fully identical. Since both cities were capitals of nations that were major enemies of Israel, Israel's prophets easily could have switched the names of these cities. Then they would have predicted wrongly, if they had not been inspired by God. Although both cities suffered destruction, Babylon was clearly predicted to never be inhabited again, but this was never prophesied for Nineveh. Today, the site of Babylon is totally uninhabited. The Euphrates River, which still flows through the site, has eroded the ruins on its west side, turning them into a swamp. On its east side, the ruins are mere low hills of debris. Isaiah predicted wild animals would inhabit the ruins. No shepherd would remain there, or stay to rest their flocks (Isaiah 13:20-22). As Floyd Hamilton relates, this has literally happened:

[/COLOR][/I][/B]

the reason being is due to the religious fanatics carrying out their beliefs. you know that is huge over in that part of the whole. its not just one big coincidence. its man

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

The seacoast of what is now Lebanon once was the center of the ancient maritime civilization of the Phoenicians. Two of their leading cities were Tyre and Sidon. Colonists sent out from Tyre settled in and established the city of Carthage in what today is Tunisia in north Africa, which later fought (and lost) the three Punic Wars against the Roman Republic in the period 246-146 B.C.. Tyre was most unusual, since one part was built on the mainland opposite the remainder occupying an island about a half mile off the coast. God through the prophet Ezekiel condemned Tyre, predicting its complete demise:

"Thus says the Lord God, 'Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock. She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken . . . and she will become spoil for the nations.' " (Ezekiel 26:3-5)
This prophecy initially was fulfilled in several steps. First, as Ezekiel 26:7-11; 29:18 described in advance, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar besieged the part of Tyre that was on the mainland for some thirteen years (585-573 B.C.). He was robbed of the fruits of victory: After his army broke down its walls and occupied it, he found most of the people (and their transportable wealth) had departed for the island city off the coast. Since Tyre had a strong navy, he couldn't attack it without a fleet. When Tyre made peace, it only admitted to Babylon's limited overlordship. Nevertheless, by destroying the mainland part of the city, Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled part of Ezekiel's predictions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ezekiel prophesied that the Phoenician city of Tyre was going to be a "bare rock".

Plus attacks from Alexander The Great on the city of Tyre solidified the fulfilled prophecy as well:

Significantly, Ezekiel uses "he" to refer to Nebuchadnezzar in verses 8-11, but switches over to a more anonymous "they" for verse 12:

"Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water."
Surely this wasn't the normal fate for an ancient city's rubble, since usually when ancient cities were rebuilt, the new buildings were conveniently placed on top of the old ones' remnants. What could possibly cause anyone to go through this much bother, to throw a city's ruins into the sea? The main part of the "they" was the next major actor in the drama of Tyre's fate, Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.). During his campaign of conquest against Persia, he attacked Tyre (332 B.C.) after it denied him permission to sacrifice to the Tyrian god Heracles. He insisted on making the offering in the temple dedicated to Heracles on the island off the coast, not the one in the mainland part of Tyre. (The mainland city had been partially rebuilt after the destruction wrought by Nebuchadnezzar over two centuries earlier).

In a remarkable operation, Alexander besieged the island city by taking the rubble of the old mainland city and throwing it into the Mediterranean to build a causeway out to it. After building this land bridge, his army intended to place siege engines up against the island city's strong walls, which seemingly jutted up right out of sea. The siege lasted seven months--once Alexander gained naval supremacy, the city's conquest followed in short order. He punished Tyre by executing 2,000 of it leading citizens and selling 30,000 of those left alive into slavery. Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre's walls and towers would be broken down, and that God "will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock." In order to build the 200 foot wide causeway into the sea about a half mile, Alexander's army left no visible ruins behind. Is this all mere coincidence?

Ezekiel 26:14 predicted:

"'And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the Lord have spoken,' declares the Lord God."
Have these predictions been fulfilled? Clearly, the part concerning the spreading of fishing nets was. After visiting the site of Tyre in recent years, Nina Nelson noted "Pale turquoise fishing nets were drying on the shore." The mainland city became a bare rock due to Alexander's actions in building the causeway, but what about the island city off the coast? Although it never recovered its former great power, it was rebuilt, becoming a major port in the time of Christ during the first century. But after the Muslim Mamelukes captured it from the Crusaders during the Middle Ages, they completely wiped it out in 1291. They wished to ensure some future possible counterattack wouldn't recapture its fort and use it against them again. Today, a small fishing town of about 12,000 sits on the site of ancient Tyre, due to the Metualis reoccupying the island city site in 1766. The mainland city site remains abandoned, despite it has large natural freshwater springs. Since the town of Sur occupies part of the island city site today, was Ezekiel wrong? Remember, the mainland site is indeed "a bare rock," and no city has ever been rebuilt there. Furthermore, the switch in Ezekiel's language from "he" (Nebuchadnezzar) to "they" (Alexander and the Muslims mainly) to "I" may imply the last part of Tyre's drama will be played out when God directly intervenes during the Second Coming and beyond. By this understanding, this prophecy isn't totally fulfilled yet. Even as it is, the town of Sur has no organic and direct tie to ancient Tyre, since hundreds of years lie between Tyre's destruction by the Muslims in the thirteenth century and the resettlers of the eighteen century.

For example, no buildings of old Tyre survived to be used by the present inhabitants of Sur--unlike the case for Jerusalem. Furthermore, some fishermen must be living nearby to supply the nets to be dried on the rocks of Tyre--they aren't going to sail miles out of their way to do that! (2) The witness of the mainland site's desolation should be enough to convince skeptics.

Man. My boy got that Ali vs Frazier ticket. That heavywieght man! He ain't even playing fair. lol. No wonder it's a fixed fight. We can't lose man. We on the winning team. His name speaks for itself. He got that insight alright! My man over here dropping that CH3-CH2-O-CH2-CH3.That young Pepé Le Pew! Yeah dat! All praise and honor to the father of lights! Hallelujah!

 

[The Lonious Monk]

One of the classic problems that people bring up is: How can a God of love send anybody to Hell? Well, there are several answers to that.

One of course is that God doesn't send anyone to Hell. You send yourself there. God has done everything He possibly can to keep you out of Hell and still leave you as a person with free will and not just a robot. That's the way He made us--after His image, after His likeness, the power to say “yes” or the power to say “no,” the power to reject our own Creator, and of course to take the consequences.

In one sense you can say He doesn't send anybody to Hell, because across the road to Hell he has placed the cross of Christ. There are also the prayers of parents, pastors and Sunday school teachers, and all the other things that God brings into our lives to stop us on our selfish way and to bring us to the Savior. We have to go wandering on past it all and put ourselves in Hell.

Sometimes you hear people say, "God wouldn't send His children to Hell." God certainly doesn't send His children to Hell because when we're His children we're in the family of God. We're born again and part of our salvation includes deliverance from judgment. We're not all children of God except through faith in Christ Jesus.

Can a God of love send anyone to Hell? You might as well ask some other question to make just as much sense. Does God allow disease in the world? Does God allow jails and prisons for some people? Does God allow the electric chair sometimes? Does God allow sin to break homes and hearts? Does God allow war? All of these things are the consequences of sin entering into the world, and in some cases the direct result of man's rebellion, and the result of greed and pride and egotism and hunger for power that doesn't have any use for people--only the desire to get ahead.

This is the incredible fruit of sin. Sin brings suffering into the world. There's no way of getting around it. And the greatest sin in the world is to reject the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.

We have our catalog of sins. We have rape and incest and murder ; and we have them all cataloged and classified--but there isn't one of them (or even put them all together in one big hunk) that comes close to the sin of keeping Jesus Christ out of your life. Did Jesus say, "I'm going to send the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin because they rob banks"-- or, "because they believe not on me"?

It is folly to expect that you or I can trifle with the Lord Jesus and not have a penalty attached to it. What ridiculous thinking people have in this area! We expect penalties for doing much less. Life is just built that way.

You jump off a high building, the law of gravity will take care of you. You might say, “God is love,” all the way down, but you're still going to get splattered when you hit the bottom! You break the law of gravity, and it breaks you! You may love your little child, but if he puts his finger up on that hot burner on the gas stove or the electric stove, he's going to get burned!

Fire burns. Gravity kills. Water drowns. And you can say, "God is love, God is love, God is love," until you're blue in the face. But water will still drown you, fire will burn you, and gravity will kill you, and sin will damn you no matter how much you say about a loving God.

God just set up life that way. He set up the rules. He set up the laws by which we are to live. And if we break those laws, they break us, and we pay the consequences.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-grace/hell-and-god.html

Thoughts?

Good question. Terrible answer. God is the creator of everything, Hell included. Even if it is our sins that send us to Hell rather than God, he's the one that put the mechanism in place. Under what definition of mercy does ~75 years of wickedness warrant an eternity of suffering. Simply eliminating that person from existence would be far more merciful.

There may be some reason God has for Hell that we simply don't know. However, the argument being made in that excerpt is just stupid.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

Good question. Terrible answer. God is the creator of everything, Hell included. Even if it is our sins that send us to Hell rather than God, he's the one that put the mechanism in place. Under what definition of mercy does ~75 years of wickedness warrant an eternity of suffering. Simply eliminating that person from existence would be far more merciful.

There may be some reason God has for Hell that we simply don't know. However, the argument being made in that excerpt is just stupid.

How bout the mercy that was extended to all at the cross? How bout that grace that was provided by God in that He sent His Son to die for all of us? How bout the justice that God poured out on His Son for the sins of humanity?

Do you think God is just going to wink at all those who thought that could get by with rejecting His Son?

Do you think that God is just going to let the wicked off by ceasing their existance?

Sin warrants eternal death! This is the commandment of GOD.

So when God sends all the wicked into the lake of fire, all of the righteous will praise God for being HOLY, HOLY, HOLY! True and righteous are His judgments.

Whatever God does is right. So whatever punishment the wicked will receive on the last day will be just! And nobody will dare say it wasn't!

 

[Knives Amilli]

Indeed. If I make a small boat with a gaping hole in its bottom, and the boat sinks when I place it in a tub of water, I'd be responsible for its sinking.

....................

Plus if god is all powerful, he DAMN SURE hasn't done everything within his power to ensure me a trip to heaven.

Plus what the fuck does god have to say about people who reject him because they grew up indoctrinated to another religion? Or have never grew up never even hearing the words Yaweh or Jesus?