Noah way?

[BCP1928]

.... I wouldn't call it a fantasy. From my angle of interpretation, the book of Revelation appears historically cogent and relevant even to today's headlines, all that despite what someone like Bart Ehrman (or others like him) says otherwise.

The trouble with end times believers is that so many of them seem to be trying to hurry it along.

 

[Hans Blaster]

.... I wouldn't call it a fantasy. From my angle of interpretation, the book of Revelation appears historically cogent and relevant even to today's headlines, all that despite what someone like Bart Ehrman (or others like him) says otherwise.

How can a not-quite-2000-year-old book be both "historically cogent" and relevant to today?

 

[AV1611VET]

The trouble with end times believers is that so many of them seem to be trying to hurry it along.

Ya -- it's called our ...

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

 

[AV1611VET]

How can a not-quite-2000-year-old book be both "historically cogent" and relevant to today?

Do you know what this means:

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick,

That means It is alive.

From Webster's 1828 dictionary:

1. Primarily, alive; living; opposed to dead or unanimated; as quick flesh. (see Leviticus 13:10)

Meaning it is always up-to-date.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The trouble with end times believers is that so many of them seem to be trying to hurry it along.

Certain ones may seem to do so, I know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How can a not-quite-2000-year-old book be both "historically cogent" and relevant to today?

Easily, Hans. Easily.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Easily, Hans. Easily.

Seems likely. It's supposed to be some book of prophecy or something filled with all sorts of imaginative horrors, but I found it dull and stopped reading.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seems likely. It's supposed to be some book of prophecy or something filled with all sorts of imaginative horrors, but I found it dull and stopped reading.

That's interesting. When I read it for the first time, and the 11th time, I found it to be highly engaging and intriguing. I guess it just depends on what you're looking for when reading it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess it just depends on what you're looking for when reading it.

Or if they know what to look for.

 

[BCP1928]

That's interesting. When I read it for the first time, and the 11th time, I found it to be highly engaging and intriguing. I guess it just depends on what you're looking for when reading it.

Like a laissez faire policy towards Netanyahu.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's interesting. When I read it for the first time, and the 11th time, I found it to be highly engaging and intriguing. I guess it just depends on what you're looking for when reading it.

I gave it another try. The opening was dull and I couldn't see the point of it and lost interest. As for what I was looking for, I wasn't looking for anything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like a laissez faire policy towards Netanyahu.

I didn't say that, did I? Sort of like I didn't say that I'm a Dispensationalist, but somehow everyone assumes otherwise by default.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I gave it another try. The opening was dull and I couldn't see the point of it and lost interest. As for what I was looking for, I wasn't looking for anything.

You gave it another try? I'm guessing you made it to chapter 4 and gave up?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You gave it another try? I'm guessing you made it to chapter 4 and gave up?

Halfway through chapter 2. I did not find John of Patmos's correspondence with those churches to be interesting.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Halfway through chapter 2. I did not find John of Patmos's correspondence with those churches to be interesting.

Well...............let me know when it becomes of interest to you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well...............let me know when it becomes of interest to you.

Don't wait up.

Number 9. Number 9. Number 9.

 

[BCP1928]

I didn't say that, did I? Sort of like I didn't say that I'm a Dispensationalist, but somehow everyone assumes otherwise by default.

I didn't say that you said that. I don't think you are a Dispensationalist, either, though you seem to give them more credit for moral and intellectual integrity than I would.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't say that you said that. I don't think you are a Dispensationalist, either, though you seem to give them more credit for moral and intellectual integrity than I would.

I'm not intending for my question here to sound resentful because it's not, but where have I spoken lately about the modern nation of Israel (or even about Netanyahu) and given them 'credit' for much of anything?

If you're referring to some other past, historical nuance about ancient Israel, then by all means feel free to clarify.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Don't wait up.

Number 9. Number 9. Number 9.

I must have missed that movie reference.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not intending for my question here to sound resentful because it's not, but where have I spoken lately about the modern nation of Israel (or even about Netanyahu) and given them 'credit' for much of anything?

If you're referring to some other past, historical nuance about ancient Israel, then by all means feel free to clarify.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I don't remember that you have made any comment on the Israel/Hamas situation. However, it remains a fact that our accepting and supportive policy towards Israel's actions in Gaza is driven more by Christian Zionists and their lurid Dispensationalist end-times fantasies than by American Jewry.