Why God's Word The Bible IS Infallible!

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Though I try to stay out of, when the bible-citings start, I couldn't resist this one.

You wrote:

["Should I believe the Lord Jesus or YOU?"]

What anyone not sharing your premises will read is: Shall we believe the Lord Jesus AS EDMC^2 BELIEVES HIM TO BE, or shall we believe Akragon?

I would put my money on Akragon.

Not least because you, edmc^2, are using a kind of 'logic' which could 'prove' square wheels superior to the round ones. Whereas I have come to know Akragon as being rather rational.

Maybe we also need a return to earlier parts of the thread to brush up on logics.... as one of our small detours.

What say you then if I say that I WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe on the WORDS of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That he is telling the truth.

Do you believe his words or Akragon?

reply to post by edmc^2


You wrote:

["No need to define "infallible" as everyone knows what it means....."]

Well, Akragon already did it. Can we stick to that (those) defintion(s)? Any of them you prefer above others?

Quote: ["but by what standard or criteria do you want the Bible The Word Of God to proven Infallible?"]

For the time being, and in a context with gen. 1 and 2, standard science and standard logic, on my part with the aim of pointing out the incompatabilty between science/logic and gen 1/2.

I would also like your position clearly defined (which you already have done), and finally an outlining of your methodology of bible-interpretation more precise than just 'self-evidence'. This is no trap, .... I ofcourse respect your right to choose how to interpretate the bible your way for you, only I have to know it. E.g. if it negates standard logic.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Though I try to stay out of, when the bible-citings start, I couldn't resist this one.

You wrote:

["Should I believe the Lord Jesus or YOU?"]

What anyone not sharing your premises will read is: Shall we believe the Lord Jesus AS EDMC^2 BELIEVES HIM TO BE, or shall we believe Akragon?

I would put my money on Akragon.

Not least because you, edmc^2, are using a kind of 'logic' which could 'prove' square wheels superior to the round ones. Whereas I have come to know Akragon as being rather rational.

Maybe we also need a return to earlier parts of the thread to brush up on logics.... as one of our small detours.

What say you then if I say that I WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe on the WORDS of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That he is telling the truth.

Do you believe his words or Akragon?

No disrespect, you undoubtly have many excellent human qualities. But I have come to know Akragon quite well (we have actually quibbled extensively a period) and I'm afraid that I'll take his words instead of yours any old time. Which is what your question REALLY asks.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Though I try to stay out of, when the bible-citings start, I couldn't resist this one.

You wrote:

["Should I believe the Lord Jesus or YOU?"]

What anyone not sharing your premises will read is: Shall we believe the Lord Jesus AS EDMC^2 BELIEVES HIM TO BE, or shall we believe Akragon?

I would put my money on Akragon.

Not least because you, edmc^2, are using a kind of 'logic' which could 'prove' square wheels superior to the round ones. Whereas I have come to know Akragon as being rather rational.

Maybe we also need a return to earlier parts of the thread to brush up on logics.... as one of our small detours.

What say you then if I say that I WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe on the WORDS of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That he is telling the truth.

Do you believe his words or Akragon?

No disrespect, you undoubtly have many excellent human qualities. But I have come to know Akragon quite well (we have actually quibbled extensively a period) and I'm afraid that I'll take his words instead of yours any old time. Which is what your question REALLY asks.

edit on 16-8-2011 by bogomil because: missing word

OK let's simplify this further to make my q crystal clear:

The Lord Jesus said:

".. Nobody is good, except one, God.” (Mark 10:18)"

and

"“Continue becoming merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”—LUKE 6:36."

But Akragon said:

God from the bible is NOT just/kind/merciful/caring

Who is telling the truth?

The Lord Jesus Christ or Akragon?

reply to post by edmc^2

Even Jesus recognized that God CANNOT do such a thing that you’re claiming. Only those who have hatred for God will say that

I have no hatred of anything... Hate is a pointless emotion.

Im not claiming anything.... Im showing you instances of Violence and murder which was condoned by Your God

Jesus does not condone the actions of Your God who you say is Infallible. You know, the God you claim was responsible for writing the entire bible through "inspiration"

But if you insist that God is wicked then you’re basically saying that Jesus is lying

I do not think that God is wicked... Nor is Jesus lying. He did not condone anyone bringing harm to anyone... Unlike Your God...

Are you claiming that you’re correct and Jesus is mistaken? That you know more than Christ Jesus?

No.... Im saying that YOU are mistaken in your innital premise, and lack understanding of your own book.

In other words when Jesus said:


“Continue becoming merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”—LUKE 6:36.


You’re saying that he (Jesus) was mistaken

No... He is completely correct.... Your God is not the same as the one Jesus spoke of.

So who is telling the truth here? And who's mistaken?

Should I believe the Lord Jesus or YOU?

You believe whatever you like... But don't make a claim you can't back up with simple logic.

Your answers have nothing to do with the actual questions being asked to you, almost as if you're speaking a different language. I give you a specific example of YOUR GOD condoneing murder/rape/violence towards who are supposed to be "his creations"... And you answer with passages that have nothing to do with the question.

Can you see why i called you delusional yet? Either way at least everyone else can....even if you don't.

Jesus say's God is merciful.....

YA... thats great....

BUT...

The OT clearly says God is a crazy jelous hateful bastard........Which is the actual problem i have with your thread.

The bible can NOT be infallible, when it has so many instances of YOUR God killing innocent people...

And considering you said... Even Jesus knows God can't do such things....

Why is it written in your infallible Book that he can and has?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Though I try to stay out of, when the bible-citings start, I couldn't resist this one.

You wrote:

["Should I believe the Lord Jesus or YOU?"]

What anyone not sharing your premises will read is: Shall we believe the Lord Jesus AS EDMC^2 BELIEVES HIM TO BE, or shall we believe Akragon?

I would put my money on Akragon.

Not least because you, edmc^2, are using a kind of 'logic' which could 'prove' square wheels superior to the round ones. Whereas I have come to know Akragon as being rather rational.

Maybe we also need a return to earlier parts of the thread to brush up on logics.... as one of our small detours.

What say you then if I say that I WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe on the WORDS of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That he is telling the truth.

Do you believe his words or Akragon?

No disrespect, you undoubtly have many excellent human qualities. But I have come to know Akragon quite well (we have actually quibbled extensively a period) and I'm afraid that I'll take his words instead of yours any old time. Which is what your question REALLY asks.

edit on 16-8-2011 by bogomil because: missing word

OK let's simplify this further to make my q crystal clear:

The Lord Jesus said:

".. Nobody is good, except one, God.” (Mark 10:18)"

and

"“Continue becoming merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”—LUKE 6:36."

But Akragon said:

God from the bible is NOT just/kind/merciful/caring

Who is telling the truth?

The Lord Jesus Christ or Akragon?

I never once said that Jesus was incorrect... Im saying YOUR God(the one that inspired the "entire bible" ) Is not the same as the one Jesus spoke of...

If you insist on maintaining your belief of the bible's infallibility, at least get your facts straight.

I truely am starting to believe you have an issue understanding english... At least it would be logical considering the answers you've been giving me.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Though I try to stay out of, when the bible-citings start, I couldn't resist this one.

You wrote:

["Should I believe the Lord Jesus or YOU?"]

What anyone not sharing your premises will read is: Shall we believe the Lord Jesus AS EDMC^2 BELIEVES HIM TO BE, or shall we believe Akragon?

I would put my money on Akragon.

Not least because you, edmc^2, are using a kind of 'logic' which could 'prove' square wheels superior to the round ones. Whereas I have come to know Akragon as being rather rational.

Maybe we also need a return to earlier parts of the thread to brush up on logics.... as one of our small detours.

What say you then if I say that I WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe on the WORDS of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That he is telling the truth.

Do you believe his words or Akragon?

No disrespect, you undoubtly have many excellent human qualities. But I have come to know Akragon quite well (we have actually quibbled extensively a period) and I'm afraid that I'll take his words instead of yours any old time. Which is what your question REALLY asks.

edit on 16-8-2011 by bogomil because: missing word

This isn't a character assasination guys, im sure hes probably a wonderful person. I just disagree with his understanding of the bible.

Infallible is a big word, and can not be used to discribe a book written millinea ago by "inspired" people...

reply to post by edmc^2


It is, as so often on this thread, a question of imprecise semantics.

There are options. Options where I can draw logical conclusions from the texts, whether these texts are mythological, symbolic or describing something 'real' (which is not an issue just now).

I don't have to be a believer to make such analyses, it's just like any other textual examination. (E.g. was the character Sherlock Holmes sane, neurotic, psychotic and/or a chronic junkie?).

1/ Your words against Akragons words on interpretation of the complete bible. I can see the point in a distinction between its two books, with Jesus as a maverick describing another 'god' than the OT 'god', with Paulus hijacking the message of the maverick movement and on unsupportable claims reknitting the doctrines of the maverick-movement back into OT terms.

2/ The words of the maverick Jesus against the words of the pauline Jesus.

3/ The words of the one-size-fits-all 'god' (covering both OT and NT), instead of the words of the NT 'god' against the OT 'god'.

However I'm not here as part of a 'finer-point' doctrinal dispute, which mainly is outside my competence. Though I have a full understanding of the content and implications of the really central and fundamental doctrines, which are quite simple and imo don't need any patchwork 'footnotes' through cherry-picking. (I have made a cursory check on that on gen. 1:1, which I can extend on request, WHEN I'm presented with an outlining bible-interpretation methodology, which is how logic functions).

I'm mainly here representing logic and science (to the best of my ability) in a comparative analysis including gen 1 and 2. Possibly later gen. 3 from a perspective of epistemology (the application of circle-arguments in this context) and psychological character-profiling. But with the present development of this thread, the last could take years to get to.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Maybe you might show us all where Jesus condemed homosexuality?

Since you want to ignore my other questions that is...

Since your Q has already been answered - I'll move to the next Qs - your long cut and pasted list which I believe you haven't even looked at.

Since it's a long list it'll be a while to get to all of them.

Any more to add?

Considering this is an insufficient answer....

From the words of Jesus himself:

MK 7:20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean.'

I will still be waiting for your answer, if you have one that is...

Notice this particular version of the bible says "sexual immorality".... It is not immoral when two consenting adults engage in sexual activity, regardless of their sexual preference.

Perhaps your bible considers it immoral, but again....God didn't write the bible.

Homosexuality exists in all species in nature, just as it occurs and always has in our species.

Typical bible/God fearing garbage..... again similar to the witch trials of the 16-1700's... If you're not like us, we don't like you, Nor does our God.

BTW...."Believe" whatever you like, thats only a part of the list....which i have went over, and theres plenty more to come.

And you still haven't answered my innital question....

Biblical justification for mistreatment of ANY individual is not Gods way according to Jesus... Perhaps it is with YOUR God... but not the one Jesus spoke of.

What say you....

edit on 16-8-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

The term sexually immoral is the ancient Greek word porneia; it broadly refers to all types of sexual activity outside of marriage (including homosexuality).

i. Originally, porneia just referred to going to prostitutes; but before New Testament times, the Jewish community used the word to refer to any kind of extramarital sex, including homosexuality. This is its sense in the New Testament.

ii. Commentators on the word porneia: “The Scripture by this word comprehends all species of unlawful mixtures. Must be understood in its utmost latitude of meaning, as implying all kinds of impurity.”

iii. Porneia so often appears first in New Testament “sin lists” but not because the first Christians had a lot of “hang ups” about sex. Instead, it is because the area of sex was one of the most dramatic places where the ethics of Greek culture clashed with the ethics of Jesus. Sexual immorality was an accepted fact of life for the common person in Greek culture, but it was not to be so among the followers of Jesus.

Here is an example using the same greek word for sexual immorality, admittedly it is not in a homosexual context in this example but you get the drift.

1CO 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Maybe you might show us all where Jesus condemed homosexuality?

Since you want to ignore my other questions that is...

Since your Q has already been answered - I'll move to the next Qs - your long cut and pasted list which I believe you haven't even looked at.

Since it's a long list it'll be a while to get to all of them.

Any more to add?

Considering this is an insufficient answer....

From the words of Jesus himself:

MK 7:20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean.'

I will still be waiting for your answer, if you have one that is...

Notice this particular version of the bible says "sexual immorality".... It is not immoral when two consenting adults engage in sexual activity, regardless of their sexual preference.

Perhaps your bible considers it immoral, but again....God didn't write the bible.

Homosexuality exists in all species in nature, just as it occurs and always has in our species.

Typical bible/God fearing garbage..... again similar to the witch trials of the 16-1700's... If you're not like us, we don't like you, Nor does our God.

BTW...."Believe" whatever you like, thats only a part of the list....which i have went over, and theres plenty more to come.

And you still haven't answered my innital question....

Biblical justification for mistreatment of ANY individual is not Gods way according to Jesus... Perhaps it is with YOUR God... but not the one Jesus spoke of.

What say you....

edit on 16-8-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

The term sexually immoral is the ancient Greek word porneia; it broadly refers to all types of sexual activity outside of marriage (including homosexuality).

i. Originally, porneia just referred to going to prostitutes; but before New Testament times, the Jewish community used the word to refer to any kind of extramarital sex, including homosexuality. This is its sense in the New Testament.

ii. Commentators on the word porneia: “The Scripture by this word comprehends all species of unlawful mixtures. Must be understood in its utmost latitude of meaning, as implying all kinds of impurity.”

iii. Porneia so often appears first in New Testament “sin lists” but not because the first Christians had a lot of “hang ups” about sex. Instead, it is because the area of sex was one of the most dramatic places where the ethics of Greek culture clashed with the ethics of Jesus. Sexual immorality was an accepted fact of life for the common person in Greek culture, but it was not to be so among the followers of Jesus.

Here is an example using the same greek word for sexual immorality, admittedly it is not in a homosexual context in this example but you get the drift.

1CO 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

I believe that those of us, not using christian 'logic' HAVE understood the message. Circle-argumented, 'on my premises', self-proclaimed authority on this or that.

This thread is NOT about further preachings in that direction, but about why the overall system (bible, interpretation etc) is 'infallible' and as such can withstand scrutiny.

So sermons and semantic gymnastics have no justification on this context, and as to avoid more excesses in that direction, one example: Let homosexuals marry....no problemo. Until you guys invent a new problem based on the homophobia of your 'god'.

reply to post by bogomil



He wanted evidence from within the scriptures that JESUS forbid's homosexuality.

I need to use the scriptures to do this.

His argument was that 'sexual immorality' does not include homosexuality. This is why I used the ancient greek meaning of the word 'porneia'.

Sorry for using the 'theist's dictionary as you so put it, but in the context of what he was asking it was absolutely necessary.

Originally posted by XplanetX
reply to post by bogomil

 

He wanted evidence from within the scriptures that JESUS forbid's homosexuality.

I need to use the scriptures to do this.

His argument was that 'sexual immorality' does not include homosexuality. This is why I used the ancient greek meaning of the word 'porneia'.

Sorry for using the 'theist's dictionary as you so put it, but in the context of what he was asking it was absolutely necessary.

It may have escaped your attention, but the apologetics (applied by various types of christians here) AREN'T based on intrinsic (inner, inherent) values from YOUR system(s) and to be conducted exclusively from there.

You are, so to speak up against EXTERNAL perspectives, such as mine representing standard science/logic and those from Akragon representing a bible-interpretation different from the pauline one-'god' model.

Whatever happens inside your circle has little, or no consequence in the broader context applied here, where 'objective' claims (or what alternative can be presented for 'objective'. edmc^2 hasn't answered on that) are at stake.

The bible proving the bible...... or the bible explaining the bible....on whatever intrinsic premises is not an option in an objective perspective, which is what I represent.

If you wish, you can approach from a methodological perspective (such as I have asked edmc^2 about) and meet Akragon on some kind of common agreement there concerning bible-text interpretation, which while not strictly objective at least isn't done on your subjective premises alone.

In my case the science/logic perspective is clearcut for a comparative gen 1 and 2 analysis.

reply to post by bogomil



You have ignored the context of my response entirely.

Originally posted by XplanetX
reply to post by bogomil

 

You have ignored the context of my response entirely.

Only on your premises, which as said aren't exclusive or even relevant here.

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Maybe you might show us all where Jesus condemed homosexuality?

Since you want to ignore my other questions that is...

Since your Q has already been answered - I'll move to the next Qs - your long cut and pasted list which I believe you haven't even looked at.

Since it's a long list it'll be a while to get to all of them.

Any more to add?

Considering this is an insufficient answer....

From the words of Jesus himself:

MK 7:20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean.'

I will still be waiting for your answer, if you have one that is...

Notice this particular version of the bible says "sexual immorality".... It is not immoral when two consenting adults engage in sexual activity, regardless of their sexual preference.

Perhaps your bible considers it immoral, but again....God didn't write the bible.

Homosexuality exists in all species in nature, just as it occurs and always has in our species.

Typical bible/God fearing garbage..... again similar to the witch trials of the 16-1700's... If you're not like us, we don't like you, Nor does our God.

BTW...."Believe" whatever you like, thats only a part of the list....which i have went over, and theres plenty more to come.

And you still haven't answered my innital question....

Biblical justification for mistreatment of ANY individual is not Gods way according to Jesus... Perhaps it is with YOUR God... but not the one Jesus spoke of.

What say you....

edit on 16-8-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

The term sexually immoral is the ancient Greek word porneia; it broadly refers to all types of sexual activity outside of marriage (including homosexuality).

i. Originally, porneia just referred to going to prostitutes; but before New Testament times, the Jewish community used the word to refer to any kind of extramarital sex, including homosexuality. This is its sense in the New Testament.

ii. Commentators on the word porneia: “The Scripture by this word comprehends all species of unlawful mixtures. Must be understood in its utmost latitude of meaning, as implying all kinds of impurity.”

iii. Porneia so often appears first in New Testament “sin lists” but not because the first Christians had a lot of “hang ups” about sex. Instead, it is because the area of sex was one of the most dramatic places where the ethics of Greek culture clashed with the ethics of Jesus. Sexual immorality was an accepted fact of life for the common person in Greek culture, but it was not to be so among the followers of Jesus.

Here is an example using the same greek word for sexual immorality, admittedly it is not in a homosexual context in this example but you get the drift.

1CO 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

Excellent... im glad we're getting some answers on this thread, even if its not from the OP.

Unfortunatly this is completely off the topic of "the bibie is infallible" but none the less... its an answer!

This really comes down to personal beliefs on mariage. There are also people who condem any extra marital relations commited by people the same way homosexuals are persecuted. Though what isn't shocking is that its usually the exact same people condemming both acts. So basically anyone that has sex outside of mariage will be thrown in the "firey pit" along with the gays/murderers/rapists etc etc...

Now as we know this isn't the OP's belief because he doesn't believe in hell. Probably one of the only things i do agree with him on.

So we get back to "personal beliefs on mariage".......... Lets keep in mind this is MY personal belief. Im not saying this to offend anyone that is married, i completely respect anyone who can follow through with it.

My belief is that mariage is mearly a piece of paper that eventually gives you access to half your partner's belongings legally. If you love someone, you don't need a piece of paper to prove it, though your partner may disagree.

Diving further into the issue, many "christians" belief that divorce is also a "sin"....even though its spoken of in the OT and the NT. Deut 24, Mat 19

Interesting eh... Though once again getting back to the original issue here.

Jesus did not condem homosexuals in any case. As i've said in a previous post, it is not immoral for two consenting adults to engage in sexual activity, regardless of their sexual preference.

reply to post by Akragon


Just in case, and also for general information.

If anything I write appears to be speaking on your behalf, I apologize. It's not my intention. I mainly observe, that your bible-interpretation, overall or on some details, differs from from others manifesting on this thread.

Just say the word, and I can approach the present direction of same-gender relationships from 'neutral' sources, not even slightly implicating your position.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Akragon

 

Just in case, and also for general information.

If anything I write appears to be speaking on your behalf, I apologize. It's not my intention. I mainly observe, that your bible-interpretation, overall or on some details, differs from from others manifesting on this thread.

Just say the word, and I can approach the present direction of same-gender relationships from 'neutral' sources, not even slightly implicating your position.

Say what you must my friend, im not offended by anyones position on anything. No need to appoligise, i know my interpretation is quite different from most. I use references that were apparently from the mouth of Jesus( or as close to it as possible according to the bible) And unlike most i can defend my position with not only my own words, but with scripture as well.

No worries, i don't need anyone to speak on my behalf.... and i know its not your intention in any case.

As far as the "same gender relationships" thing goes....... Even though this is completely off the topic of "the bible being infallible"....... i would say you might as well present your postion on the matter. Our OP has spent 20 some odd pages dancing around questions and side stepping obvious answers he prefers not to state.

At least this thread is going somewhere, though i believe the matter of "infallibility" has been put through the wash and thoroughly "debunked"

Though if the OP is planning on continuing down this road, might i suggest he hire a ringer?

Considering that gen. 1-3 for many christians can be said to be cornerstones in their religion, and in the case of gen. 1 and 2 the best option of a reality-check, I find it significant and strongly indicative, that there apparantly are very few christians who will or can back up the uncessant claims of the (smaller or 'absolute') 'truths' of their mythological manual.

If I had been a hardcore atheist (with an atheist 'gnostic' position), a university-degree in astrophysics and had spent most of my life polishing anti-theist arguments, I would understand that such could be intimidating.
But this debate has, on my part, been running on college-science and well-informed layperson knowledge....not that frightening.

So can I take it ....... now that the 'ultimate truth' of the bible hasn't been 'proved',....... that we all are back to good old, 'agnostic' positions, and that we FINALLY can see the end of self-proclaimed authority, circle-arguments, elitism and missionary whining on 'persecution' manifested in lack of privileges, and just talk about faith as faith on live-and-let-live principles?

Adding, that my above thoughts on liberal principles amongst faiths and other ideologies are directed towards social implications. An 'academic' debate on 'truth' though is not only welcome, but also beneficial.

Who would want to live with square wheels allegedly being superior to round ones, because square wheels have a strong (possibly noisy), doctrinal supporter group.

If you look at Bible prophecy there is two that is verifiable and that is the Jews returning to Israel and that God promised he wouldn't destroy them.

The Jews have been persecuted throughout history and many have tried to destroy them but have failed. That fulfills the promise by God that he won't destroy the line of David.

The Bible also says God will gather his people back to Israel and that happened in 1948 with the creation of the state of Israel.