5-21-2011 Rapture... Get the facts strait...

page: 19
76
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sisgood
Why is it that anytime any person from any religious (and I am including atheist in this for convenience) posts something, the topic always gets "taken over" by argumentative, hard-headed people? I think this thread is screaming Off Topic by now.

I mean seriously? The OP was just trying to say that all Christians didn't believe that May 21st was "doomsday" it was an idiotic prophecy by an idiotic man. ANYone that claims to be Christian and yet says they know when "doomsday" is, is a liar. You can SUSPECT it is coming soon and let us know about feelings of doom... but yeah...

The truth is, anytime anyone... ANYone gets into one of these, "is there a God?" arguments BOTH parties come out looking like close-minded ignoramuses. (I know, it's happened to me.) For those of you that go "hunting" for topics just so you can frustrate the other party and make them look dumb... first all, Dear god... please... get a LIFE!!!! second of all. You look just as dumb as they do!

The truth is, we all have our personal experiences and our personal convictions. You atheist are not going to convince anyone of anything aside how dedicated you are to your religion. Congrads. You Christians are normally, less educated than the atheist (whose professors carefully molded them to think like they do today AND supplied them with arguments for each and every one of yours) but that's OK... as long as you don't get into a debate. You know it, you've already said your piece in the OP or in whatever order you posted. Politely say that you disagree, tell them that God loves them, present whatever proof you have... biblically and WALK AWAY. The most you can do is plant a seed. If you think that this person is suffering from something like they were burned by a church before, focus on that. Focus on the love you have for people through your God.

I swear... I'm not on here much because A: I have this thing called a LIFE, B: I can't stand all the arguing. Just... grow up! All of you... please!


It seems the OP was intended for people not to put all christians in one basket...which I'm sure most people don't.

However,you are giving advice in your post,that seems contrary to what you you are posting.

on one hand you say..politely disagree ..present whatever proof you have..biblically... then walk away.

Yet ..you start your post with words like whoever believes that idiot,is idiotic..

What happened on focus the love you have for people through God?

I've stated in a few posts,that we shouldn't be bashing those that believed in this prophecy,and instead try to be understanding to those who had been mislead.

Then you go on to tell people to get a life ,because you have one??

What can I say except..that you confuse me.








posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Actually, that was me summarizing his words. I personally believe that is it impossible to predict the end but... who knows? I personally try not to judge. Did I take the "prophecy" seriously...? no. Did I make fun of his poor followers that quit their jobs and spent their hard-earned money to promote this guy? NO.

Do I think this liar and thief should be held responsible... yes.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
It was my niece's (my wife's side) birthday this past Saturday and my mother-in-law was all bent out of shape because she's been listening to this on NPR (if she ever got on ATS, I don't know what'll happen with her).

I just told her that she needs to refer to the Holy Bible and remember what Jesus said. I think that calmed her down a bit.

I didn't help much by initiating a comment to stir things up. All I said was, "It sure is a beautiful day to be the end of the world." It was only a joke.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I'm no expert, but isn't the 'rapture' purely an American thing? Wasn't it a theory put together by Cotton Mather in the 17th/18th century?

I'm fairly sure Christians outside of the US don't believe in the 'rapture' as viewed by American Christians.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 


You know you are wrong about 1 John 5:7. You're also wrong about the letter's having anonymous author's. There is no proof for that.

Usage of 1 John 5:7 go back to 200 A.D. Even if the verse had not existed, it doesn't take away the Holy Trinity because going by the words of Jesus alone we see He & the Father are one. Your evidence for showing the Qu'ran to be true is rather silly. Since the Qu'ran came after the Holy Bible, the burden of proof is on Muslim's. You need to read The Holy Bible. Until you do, you can't comment on it.

Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Church Fathers , Early Church Fathers

A Trail of Evidence

But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:
200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.
edit on 24-5-2011 by soaringhawk because: addition



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedDawn60
I'm no expert, but isn't the 'rapture' purely an American thing? Wasn't it a theory put together by Cotton Mather in the 17th/18th century?

I'm fairly sure Christians outside of the US don't believe in the 'rapture' as viewed by American Christians.


You are right. It's a modern american thing. The guy who came up first with the notion based his claim on a letter of Paul (the false prophet) which he wrote to some other dudes. Purely his teaching of course, never one of Jesus or any other prophet for that matter. The Gospel writers later (since they wrote AFTER Paul) picked up some of his influence.

And, as it is usual in Christianity, a small thing became big, a rumor became truth, and the rapture became fact.

All conjecture and fraud.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by soaringhawk
 


Don't just COPY a bulk of text from a website (I even know which website you copied that from), without checking your "facts".
The truth is that some early church fathers indeed quoted 1 John 5:7-8 - what that website is NOT SAYING and you also are LEAVING OUT, is that when these church fathers quoted those verses - the part where it says "Father, Word and Spirit - and these three are one" - was NOT in their quotes.
They all only had the second part (water, blood ...).

Now, here is a quote from a REAL scholar, unanimously regarded as the best christian scholar of the 20th century, Dr. Bruce Metzger:

From his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993).

After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

(A) External Evidence.

(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

(B) Internal Probabilities.

(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.



G'day to you.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I hope you know which site I got it from as I link to it on my thread. So what? Everything I gave you is historical fact. Again you point to a scholar, someone supposedly held high. Which doesn't help your argument any.
Even if it weren't, it doesn't remove the holy trinity. You regard this verse and it alone to support a trinity. It's very clear to me you've not read the Holy Bible.

On the gospels- Some history countering popular Muslim myths
edit on 24-5-2011 by soaringhawk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by soaringhawk
I hope you know which site I got it from as I link to it on my thread. So what? Everything I gave you is historical fact.


Trust me, I did not notice you put links there, I simply recognized the text.

The thing is: that text is written on that site (or similar sites) by "someone", or by some "pseudo-scholars" which surely cannot compete with someone like Dr. Bruce Metzger.

If I were to think "Hm ... this guy here on this website is saying HE KNOWS IT ALL - but Dr. Bruce Metzger the No.1 New Testament Scholar is saying something else ---- hmmmm ..." who should I believe ...



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 


But that's simply not true. All of it can be found through other sources. It is a fact of history. I've also added two more links which cover all the early church father's. Truth comes from God. Jesus says He's the way, the truth and the life. It concerns me you ask who to believe and lean on a mere man, who may or may not have a hidden agenda.

I'm aware of where the two different Greek translation's. The N.I.V and other version's come from a corrupt text. Put out by people who themselves are in it for the money and probably have an agenda too.
edit on 24-5-2011 by soaringhawk because: addition.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by soaringhawk
I hope you know which site I got it from as I link to it on my thread. So what? Everything I gave you is historical fact. Again you point to a scholar, someone supposedly held high. Which doesn't help your argument any.
Even if it weren't, it doesn't remove the holy trinity. You regard this verse and it alone to support a trinity. It's very clear to me you've not read the Holy Bible.

On the gospels- Some history countering popular Muslim myths
edit on 24-5-2011 by soaringhawk because: (no reason given)



Are you SERIOUSLY putting forth the claim the four Gospels were written by the Apostles??

SERIOUSLY??

I do not even need someone like Dr. Bruce Metzger to REFUTE that! I only need LUKE:


Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, IT SEEMED GOOD ALSO TO ME TO WRITE an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, - Luke, 1-1-3


SERIOUSLY??
edit on 24/5/2011 by sHuRuLuNi because: freakin SERIOUSLY?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sisgood
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Actually, that was me summarizing his words. I personally believe that is it impossible to predict the end but... who knows? I personally try not to judge. Did I take the "prophecy" seriously...? no. Did I make fun of his poor followers that quit their jobs and spent their hard-earned money to promote this guy? NO.

Do I think this liar and thief should be held responsible... yes.



???..you summarizing his words? How is that? If you are summarizing someone else's words in a post,might be an idea to let the members know you're doing that.

Did you make fun of his poor followers?...I guess calling them idiotic for following an idiot ,isn't really making fun of them, or was that part a summary of his words as well?

I realize you didn't take the prophecy seriously,as many many christians did not,and I'm sure many prayed for the decieved,and still are.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 


Everything in the Holy Bible isn't in chronological order. Acts is written by Luke also & is a history of the beginning's of the church. They all had to of been written before 70 A.D because the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D just as Jesus predicted. This important event would surely have been included in the gospel account's & Acts. Luke was a Gentile convert. Luke is clearly speaking about the other Apostle's when saying them.
Paul ( who you bear false witness against, calling him a false prophet) was originally named Saul.
A persecutor of Christians. Till he was met on the road to Damascus with Jesus speaking to him from above asking why are you persecuting me. All the apostle's except 1 died for the faith. There was nothing false about Paul or the rest.

Matthew is held as being the first written gospel. This page explains it all well.
When Were The Gospels Written & By Whom?


Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.
3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).

Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.
edit on 24-5-2011 by soaringhawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvolEric
Harold Camping is a false profit...

Just one in a long line of false prophets, starting with the Original, Jesus Christ.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by EvolEric
 



Caught up

Matthew 24:36, 29, 30

(NIV)
24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not
the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall
the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the
heavens shall be shaken:*

*13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof
shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his
going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

*34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the
heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their
host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine,
and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in
heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and
they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of
heaven with power and great glory.


(NIV)
Mt. 24:36 “No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels
in heaven, nor the Son, [Some manuscripts: do not have nor
the Son.] but only the Father.

Mt. 24:29 “Immediately after the distress of those days “`the sun will be
darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will
fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
*[Isaiah 13:10; 34:4]

*Is. 13:10 The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show
their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will
not give its light.

*Is. 34:4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky
rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered
leaves from the vine, like shrivelled figs from the fig-tree.


Mt. 24:30 “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the
sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see
the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power
and great glory.



After the Tribulation 7 year "week" of Daniel's prophecy , not at the start of the 7 years 4x's times when

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

(KJV)
4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren,
concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even
as others which have no hope.

4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even
so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that
we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord
shall not prevent them which are asleep.

4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with
a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump
of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught
up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the
air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.


(NIV)
1Th. 4:13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those
who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no
hope.

1Th. 4:14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe
that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in
him.

1Th. 4:15 According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who
are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will
certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

1Th. 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a
loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the
trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

1Th. 4:17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
And so we will be with the Lord for ever.

1Th. 4:18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.


Latin " deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinqui mur simul rapie mur cumillis in avera et sie semper cum Domino erimus "
" Shall be caught up " is " Rapiemur " Root for the Latin word " rapiemur " is " rapio " which means
" to seize ", snatch, tearaway; to hurry along a person or thing " "raptus" now the root Greek word for " shall be caught up " is
" harpazo " Strong's Concordance # 726 means " to seize, catch up, carry off by force, snatch out or away " which is the same as
" rapiemur " which is probably why Jerome translated that way it really doesn't matter if a person doesn't like the word " rapture"
it's the same meaning Latin or Greek " to seize, catch up, carry off by force, snatch out or away "

Verse 15 Paul got this from the Lord " for this we say unto you "
Verse 13 " I would not have you to be Ignorant " educating us to TRUTH


"harpazo" New testment Matthew 11:12

(KJV)
11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the
kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take
it by force.

(NIV)
Mt. 11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of
heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay
hold of it.

Take it by force

Matthew 13:19

(KJV)
13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and
understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and
catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he
which received seed by the way side.

(NIV)
Mt. 13:19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does
not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what
was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.

John 6:15

(KJV)
6:15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come
and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed
again into a mountain himself alone.

(NIV)
Jn. 6:15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him
king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

John 10:12

(KJV)
10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd,
whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and
leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them,
and scattereth the sheep.

(NIV)
Jn. 10:12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So
when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and
runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.

How does a wolf get sheep ? "Harpazo" , "to seize, catch up, carry off by force, snatch out or away"

john 10:28

(KJV)
10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my
hand.

(NIV)
Jn. 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no-one
can snatch them out of my hand.

John 10:29

(KJV)
10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all;
and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

(NIV)
Jn. 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all;
[Many early manuscripts What my Father has given me is
greater than all] no-one can snatch them out of my Father’s
hand

Acts 8:39

(KJV)
8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the
Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw
him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

(NIV)
Ac. 8:39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord
suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him
again, but went on his way rejoicing.

Note earlier in this section that the Angel Phillip to catch up and intercept man traveling by chariot from Jerusalem to Gaza on a
desert route. Take a look of a map of Israel to understand the significance of his being "caught away" now if Phillip was caught away from


Acts 23:10

(KJV)
23:10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief
captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces
of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take
him by force from among them, and to bring him into the
castle.

(NIV)
Ac. 23:10 The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid
Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops
to go down and take him away from them by force and bring
him into the barracks.


2 Corinthians 12:2

(KJV)
12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago,
(whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the
body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
such an one caught up
to the third heaven.


(NIV)
2Co. 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught
up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of
the body I do not know — God knows.


1 Thessalonians 4:17

(KJV)
4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught
up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the
air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.


(NIV)
1Th. 4:17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
And so we will be with the Lord for ever.


Jude 1:23


(KJV)
1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire;
hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

(NIV)
Jude 23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show
mercy, mixed with fear — hating even the clothing stained by
corrupted flesh


Revelation 12:4 Child (I.E. Jesus)

(KJV)
12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven,
and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before
the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour
her child as soon as it was born.


(NIV)
Re. 12:4 His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung
them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman
who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her
child the moment it was born.


His ascension to heaven 40 days after his resurrection


John 6:39

(KJV)
6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that
of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but
should raise it up again at the last day.

(NIV)
Jn. 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none
of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

Jesus said he would rasie you up the Last Day



4 times the last day

John 6:40

(KJV)
6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one
which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have
everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

(NIV)
Jn. 6:40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son
and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him
up at the last day.”

John 6:44

(KJV)
6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath
sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

(NIV)
Jn. 6:44 “No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me
draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54

(KJV)
6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(NIV)
Jn. 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,
and I will raise him up at the last day.

Matthew 24:3 "age" Greek = "aeon" as "world"

(KJV)
24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples
came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these
things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of
the end of the world?

(NIV)
Mt. 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples
came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this
happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the
end of the age?”





new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join