Whatever we're doing in Iraq

because we are holding totally opposing positions. I put my faith in Jesus Christ as God and Saviour. This is in complete agreement with the Christian church as we know it comprised of Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc. If I am right and DR does not repent, DR will be eternally condemned to separation from God.

If DR and the Watchtower is correct, then I am doomed to, at least, annihilation and oblivion. Not as bad as DR's fate if Jesus is God, but nothing to look forward to either.

Of course, we may both be wrong, and we may both wind up in trouble.

I think you are being too optimistic Marcia. You are hoping that God will say that your 'best' is good enough. You are hoping that Jesus was wrong to die for your sin because His death was not necessary. The problem with that is that the God of the Bible demands perfection. Your best is not good enough. Jesus was quite clear about this. You need Him, or you will face a righteous judge alone. I sure hope you do find Him.

and, yes, I do tend to be optimistic most of the time, countered with a dose of realism (that's why I like SE )

Thanks, KP,
Take care,
--Marcia

.

And her statements when she began to bear children indicated she may have got big-headed about that. But you can keep your name anyway.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

in your posts to waste time on. 2 Tim 2:23
My info is documented by Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish scholars; yours is wishful thinking, asking us to believe you were alongside Jesus.

So for you, it's back to square one, with this question:
John 17:3; Rev 3:12. Who is the God that Jesus worships?

throwing out generalities with no specifics. It's fine to say that I'm wrong, but without an arguement to back it up? That, in my experience, is what Jehovah's Witnesses do when they don't have an answer from the Watchtower. They'll simply deny the simple interpretation of the facts. My sympathy goes to your quandary, but the Watchtower can't think of everything in advance can they?

I've learned a lot from this exchange. I'm sorry that you haven't DR. Remember, in my last post, I showed how Jesus and His disciples, following the custom of the day, knew that when their Bible used the word Lord (Kurios in the Greek) it was referring to God (Yahweh)? In light of this, Philipians 2 becomes VERY enlightening. Notice:

Phil 2:5-11 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. NASU

Did you catch it? Every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. We can now see that everyone will worship Jesus (every knee will bow), and confess that He is Kurios (Yahweh, God, Jehovah if you wish). That's quite a statement, and that's what is required to be a Christian.

BTW, if I were you, I wouldn't look to Protestant and Catholic scholars to support your position. They will tell you that your belief was declared to be heresy about 1,700 years ago.

The material I refer to comes from mostly Protestant scholars. I have the high end version of a PC Study Bible package will includes 17 different versions of the Bible, numerous Hebrew and Greek language tools, commentaries, concordance, Bible dictionaries and atlases, etc. Thus, most of what I say comes from scholarly sources. The Names of God which started this thread came from one of those sources.

as I can tell, you are responding to one of your own posts. I think you owe it to those who read your post to explain where it went off the track.

New Testament. Item 4 is present in the second link, but is not itself a link. It is not news that the Old Testament was written before Jesus lived. It was, in fact, the 'Bible' that He used.

I sure wouldn't base any conclusions about the Bible on material found on the internet where the author is totally unknown. How about reading what a respected scholar has to say? I suggest 'The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?' by F.F. Bruce.

Translations into English are not a rewriting of the material. If they were, they would not be respected. The translators job is to accurately render the original language into another language. This must be done so that people in the target language will understand what is written. Without translation, few would know what Homer's Illiad says, or what the thinking of Aristotle was. If you object to translations, you should spend several years learning Greek and Hebrew so that you can read the documents in their original form.

Insignificant variations in the text refer to differences between one copy of an ancient text and another copy. They are not the result of memory lapses. They may represent a transcriber's point of view. However, the differences do not alter or call into question the meaning of the larger passages in which they are found.

You need some serious study rather than repeating erroneous ideas about the Bible.

Bible and when. Many books in the Bible were written by first hand witnesses. John, for example, was one of Jesus' disciples. He did not write 'hundreds of years after the fact', and he was not interpreting memories. Peter was also a disciple, and wrote about his understanding of the gospel. Paul was another who was a contemporary of Jesus, and wrote to various churches with explanations of the gospel. For other books, Peter said that holy men wrote as they were moved by the Spirit of God.

There is virtually no doubt that the documents as we have them are identical in all substantial matters to what was originally written.

You are right. All of the religions cannot be right. Christianity is virtually unique in its exclusive claims. God became man, and walked among us. We heard His words. Each person must come to terms with Jesus. Was a God, an evil charlatan, or a raving lunatic? Those are the three choices. Read the accounts of His life and what He said. Then decide for yourself who he is.

to indicate that major doctrines or significant details are in question.

for moderns to believe- that such an old book could be at all useful. You're no doubt aware that much of our "knowledge" of the Roman Empire e.g. comes from partial, medeival-era copies of Julius, Justinian, Marcus Aurelius, etc. And we know our understanding is flawed as a result. Is it the same for the bible?

Evidence at the macro level: We can leapfrog from modern language versions back through the medeival Masoretic [OT] texts through the Siniatic and Alexandrine [NT & OT] codices and on to the Dead Sea Scrolls [OT] and find no variations that affect any important belief we're supposed to have about God and his son. That's a manuscript period of 1500 years.
In this connection, a bible scholar observed: ?It can have been by no

quote:"you can't all be wrong"
Yes, they can ALL be wrong. See, I am not so presumptuous as to believe that I know what it's going to be like when I die, or what's going to happen to me when I die. No matter what book says so. I believe that everyone who thinks that they know what death is, or what becomes of them after death will be sorrily mistaken. Most people who believe they "KNOW" are just clinging onto something because they are scared of the alternative.
After all that's why they call it "FAITH" because it is just that. If people would "KNOW" what's going on, like every Christian thinks they do. It wouldn't be called "Faith" now would it.
When people talk about proof or eyewitness' of accounts in the bible they really aren't being very rational now are they. I mean who wrote the eyewitness account of when God made Adam sleep to take a rib from him. Adam was suppose to be the first and only person on earth and he was sleeping.

not necessary: Moses wrote much later from oral history or written records, all under Jehovah's inspiration. The account itself says Adam was informed by Jehovah: Gen 2:23. Same way I know I was snoring the next morning- my wife tells me.
Eyewitnesses set out at Proverbs ch. 8 and Job ch. 38.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Christians continue to attest to its truth even though they come from many different backgrounds* and religions. I'm not sure you can say that about any other religion.----
How can you come from a different religion yet attest to the truth of Christianity?
*You can say that about other religions. Look at the many different people who believe in Allah or Vishnu. Those societies and belivers range from the dirt poor to the wealthy to doctors and lawyers to politicians and teachers.All attest to the truth of their respective bibles.
As for prophecies Mathew 2:23 "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,'He shall be called Nazarene." The words Nazareth/Nazarene are not even in the OT.
Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, which would never again be rebuilt (26:7-14, but Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre failed to take the city, and Tyre still exists today.
Isaiah predicted just a temporary destruction that would last only 70 years or the estimated lifetime of one king. The fact is that neither prophecy was ever fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre forever, and it was never made desolate for a period of 70 years. Even when Alexander the Great succeeded in his campaign against Tyre in 332 B. C., the city was soon rebuilt (Wallace B. Fleming, The History of Tyre, Columbia University Press, p. 64) and has existed ever since. regardless of whether this prophecy failed or succeeded, it was impossible for both Isaiah's and Ezekiel's prophecies against Tyre to succeed. At least one of these prophecies had to fail and so proponents of biblical prophecy fulfillment have a problem that they must explain.

that there are many buddhists, hindus, etc. who have embraced Christianity and continue to embrace it. There are not many Christians who have embraced buddhism, hinduism, etc.

I'm not going to answer questions by the dozen. I don't think you are really interested in the answer anyway. The question for tonight then is Tyre. What happened to Ezekial's prophecy?

Ezek 26:2-14
'Tyre, as in the prophecy of Isaiah (ch. 23), is not the city of that name upon the mainland, hee (NT:358 pa'lai (NT:3819) Tu'ros (NT:5184) or Balai'turos, Old Tyre, which was taken by Shalmaneser and destroyed by Alexander (as Perizon., Marsh, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, and Eichhorn supposed), but Insular Tyre, which was three-quarters of a mile farther north, and only 1200 paces from the land, being built upon a small island, and separated from the mainland by a strait of no great depth (vid., Movers, Phoenizier, II p. 288 ff.). This Insular Tyre had successfully resisted the Assyrians (Josephus, Antt. ix. 14. 2), and was at that time the market of the nations; and in Ezekiel's day it had reached the summit of its greatness as mistress of the sea and the centre of the commerce of the world.'
(from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

I tried to get the gist of the explanation which goes on at length about why these particular conclusions were reached. If you want me to post the full article, I will do so.

Buddhists and Hindus don't believe in Jesus. Buddhists believe in no god and Hindus believe in whichever god(s) they choose from the Hindu pantheon,ultimately Brahman.

That island KP is inhabited today.There is a town there.Nebuchednezzar took the mainland suburb but he never took the island stronghold which, I assume is the island to which your article refers. Thus the prophecy failed.

If this part is about never regaining its glory:"was at that time the market of the nations; and in Ezekiel's day it had reached the summit of its greatness as mistress of the sea and the centre of the commerce of the world.'" well the prophecy was not about that.

Christians. Also former Hindus. Duh. If they are still Buddhists or Hindus, then they aren't Christians. There are millions who are now Christians.

I think I'll take the word of the scholarly sources Echo. They are far more likely to know what they are talking about. If there was a problem with that prophecy, they would have said so. In fact, they took great pains to identify the correct Tyre. It is gone. The problem with guys like you is that there is always an answer behind your obscure questions, but most people don't have the resources to find it.

Kp you are going to have to do beter than "duh" when you are responding to me, although I know that will put an unacustomed strain on your vocabulary.I will ask again where are you getting this info about Hindus and Buddhists, in particular this millions business. You say you know former Buddhists and Hindus who are Christians. There are former Christians who are or were Buddhists and Hindus.As for your scholarly sources KP, I would not, if I were you, put too much faith in Christian apologists. There is a world of information outside Christian apologetics. I urge you to consider looking elsewhere if you are going to engage in discussion about the Bible. For example, an Encyclopedia, and in the case of Tyre, aerial
photographs:http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/910/919/tyre/tyre.02.jpg
and historical maps:http://www.1uptravel.com/worldmaps/history-middle-east32.html
Look also at a modern map of Lebanon KP http://www.flybmed.com/images/destinations/lebanon_map.jpg. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/mapcenter/map.aspx?refid=701516852 You will see it there.It is also called Sur. It is not gone.It is where it always has been. Failed prophecy 101 is now in session.

don't buy your argument either.

A Bible Prophecy Fulfilled That Takes No Codes to Discover
July 1, 1998
Ezekiel the prophet lived 2,500 years ago. He predicted the destruction of the city of Tyre. It happened 17 years later. In chapter 26, he outlined the total destruction very specifically:

Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre.
Many nations would come up against Tyre.
The site would be leveled and the debris thrown into the sea.
Fishermen would spread their nets there.
Tyre would never be rebuilt on that same site.
Nebuchadnezzar did destroy the city in 573 B.C., leaving just an island colony intact. Alexander the Great sought to conquer that island 240 years later. He put together a naval force from the nations he'd already conquered but couldn't take the city by ship. Instead, he ordered his men to build a causeway from the mainland to the island. They built the causeway out of the debris from Nebuchadnezzar's previous destruction of Tyre's mainland. Then they swept this ancient site bare to bedrock, casting the rubble into the sea. To this day, fishermen spread their nets there. The city of Tyre that does exist in Lebanon today is not located on the ancient site.

As for Buddhists (for example) who have become Christians, there are an estimated 111 million Christians in China alone. There are 68 million in India (former Hindus). These numbers aren't very hard to find.

Do you really want me to continue looking for more evidence?

were converted a long time ago by Chrstian missionaries often through violence and deception and the covering up and destruction of India's cultural heritage.They used modern technology ie printing presses etc. to flood the indian people with Christian propaganda.They built churches seminaries schools etc. There was very little that was voluntary about their conversion to Christianity.It was an invasion.Read up on the history of the British rule in India.The Brits made no secret of their intention to hide or distort Indian culture as a means to furthering Christianity.

Nebuchadnezzar did destroy the city in 573 B.C., leaving just an island colony intact.------KP, the part Nebucchadnezzar took, not destroyed was just an outluing region,a suburb. The island colony was a fortress. He did not take it. It was the point of the prophecy.The prophecy failed. Tyre exists today look it up in an Encyclopedia. In its summation of this period of Tyrian history, The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. 27, 1984) says:
The neo-Babylonian conqueror, Nebuchadnezzar II, subjected the island to a 13-year siege (585-572) without success (p. 331, emphasis added). .-- Go to your local library.It's also called Sur. You'll notice KP that the author of the article provides no footnotes sources or photo evidence to back up his claim.
In fact in his own subsequent prophecy against Egypt, Ezekiel admits his failed prophecy:
"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it. Therefore thus says Yahweh God: `Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army'" (29:18-19).

are there as a result of zealous agressive proselytization by Christian missionaries. It's a story not unlike that of the missionaries in India.THe missionaries never missed a beat in their exploitation of the Chinese citizens and their desperate situation.For example their hunger and poverty.Ever heard of the term "rice bowl" Christians? That was the term given to Chinese who took a bowl of rice from the Christian missionaries in exchange for their conversion to Christianity. Can you say exploitation? That's why there are Christians in China. It was and is not the result of some miraculous realization of Jesus on their part. Ever heard of the Boxer Rebellion? It happened finally because China had been increasingly forced to accept further and further incursions into their country by Western powers over decades and decades.

You made an interesting comment:The problem with guys like you is that there is always an answer behind your obscure questions, but most people don't have the resources to find it.----
Well, do you have a history book KP?
Daniel 9.1 states that Darius was the son of Xerxes ( Xerxes is the Greek for Ahasuerus, which is Hebrew for Xerxes).However,he was the father of Xerxes and son of Hystaspes.

may be something going on with the names? Like maybe two guys named Darius. You think we've got all the people and their genealogies nailed down? Try getting your own back beyond 1800. That's all for today. Buy-by.

Check the quote, Daniel 9:1 Look it up. An Encyclopeadia is a good idea.

?and came and dwelt in a city named Naz?a

There are differing opinions as to the meaning and origins of the word.The etymology of Nazareth are not altogether known.Strong's Concordance, for example, declares that the name Nazareth is of uncertain derivation, and Eerdmans Bible Dictionary says that the name was derived perhaps, repeat perhaps, from naser, which means watch,i.e., one guarding or watching (over) someone or something, or neser, "a sprout or descendant" (1987, p. 751).
Easton's Bible Dictionary: separated, generally supposed to be the Greek form of the Hebrew netser , a "shoot" or "sprout." Some, however, think that the name of the city must be connected with the name of the hill behind it, from which one of the finest prospects in Palestine is obtained, and accordingly they derive it from the Hebrew notserah , i.e., one guarding or watching, thus designating the hill which overlooks and thus guards an extensive region.
There is strong doubt that the city of Nazareth even existed at least not until the 3rd or 4th century C.E. Three of the four Hebrew bible citations you give don't use the word netser, but synonyms and are therefore not really relevant. However,I'm going to do a little more digging around.