If one part of the bible is wrong do we toss out the whole thing?

[Akivah]

Lets say the Exodus didn't happen, or Genesis is entirely made up. Not a single instance in these books happened. Do we toss out the whole thing? can there still be spiritual truth in a book full of myths?

I remember when a rabbi lectured that he believed the entire Tanakh was metaphor and allegory, and I remember when a different rabbi lectured that he believed the entire Tanakh was historical. The word Torah means teaching, or instruction. We believe that G-d gave us the Tanakh to instruct us: to elevate us, to enable us to live more holy lives, and to help repair the world. Whether each event happened exactly as written isn't monumentally important to Judaism.

I mean could you still be a Jew if most of this didn't happen?

Yes. One's belief does not change the identity of one's mother.

 

[MHz]

No-one was killed by Jesus' sword, unless you are somehow speaking in metaphor; or, as you appear to, subscribe to a strange and uncommon form of Christianity.

Nope, physically made dead. It's called the Bible according to God. step one would be the connection between Ge:3:15 and all of Re:12. Once the relationship can't be denied then what do you do?? If it is new to you you should hear it out before you judge how valid my replies are.

Isa:55:11:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto me void,
but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Re:19:21:
And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse,
which sword proceeded out of his mouth:
and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Jer:25:31-33:
A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth;
for the LORD hath a controversy with the nations,
he will plead with all flesh;
he will give them that are wicked to the sword,
saith the LORD.
Thus saith the LORD of hosts,
Behold,
evil shall go forth from nation to nation,
and a great whirlwind shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth.
And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented,
neither gathered,
nor buried;
they shall be dung upon the ground.

Zec:14:12:
And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem;
Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet,
and their eyes shall consume away in their holes,
and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

What part of Isaiah 65 would you like explained?

Lol, All of it, the same as I would do for you. (in that it is the same group from start to finish how would you be able to explain just part of it to begin with?)

But most scholars and Christians believe that Luke was a goy. Luke, as you know, wrote the 3rd gospel and Acts. Also if, as you believe, G-d can somehow break an eternal covenant (his covenant with the Jews) and create another (Christianity) then I'm pretty sure He could have non-Jews scribe a book, just as He apparently had with Luke. Also, the author of Hebrews us unknown and, despite many Christians' claims, we have just as much evidence for who actually wrote the other gospels and epistles: none. So they could have been Jews or goyim, no-one knows.

The Gospels are based on eye witness accounts. Mathew, Mark and Luke cover two events that only Peter, and the brothers James and John saw so it is a safe bet that is who. Peter would be given the longest one and the family tree would have been information gathered at the wedding that is mentioned in the Gospel of John (the Baptist) via the un-named Disciple. The odds are also pretty high that the 4 Gospels were written before the 40 days after the cross was up. Written in flawless Greek by the same Scribes I have mentioned.

This passage is referencing the Jewish people. Zechariah 13 is a passage about idolatry in The Land of Israel and G-d is speaking about how the idols will be cut down and He will be worshipped only.

The passage that starts Zec:13 ends before the chapter ends.The last 3 verses belong to the passage that covers all of Zec:14 and guess who is being killed yet leaves a remnant?? It is mistakes like this that ruins your ability to come up with a solid doctrine.

The 'little ones' are the Gentiles in Acts:10 and they are the first of the Gentiles and the last ones would be the ones in the farthest part of the globe. The scattering in in Matthew in the passage where the Apostles ditch him in the garden during the arrest.

Zec:13:7-9:
Awake,
O sword,
against my shepherd,
and against the man that is my fellow,
saith the LORD of hosts:
smite the shepherd,
and the sheep shall be scattered:
and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
And it shall come to pass,
that in all the land,
saith the LORD,
two parts therein shall be cut off and die;
but the third shall be left therein.
And I will bring the third part through the fire,
and will refine them as silver is refined,
and will try them as gold is tried:
they shall call on my name,
and I will hear them:
I will say,
It is my people:
and they shall say,
The LORD is my God.
Zec:14:1-3:
Behold,
the day of the LORD cometh,
and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;
and the city shall be taken,
and the houses rifled,
and the women ravished;
and half of the city shall go forth into captivity,
and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Then shall the LORD go forth,
and fight against those nations,
as when he fought in the day of battle.

Zec:14:16:
And it shall come to pass,
that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King,
the LORD of hosts,
and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

'In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness. “It shall be in that day,” says the Lord of hosts, “that I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, and they shall no longer be remembered. I will also cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to depart from the land."'

. . .and . . . what??

Many Jews actually speak Hebrew and spent years studying in Yeshivos. Also, neither they nor I care who is responsible for the authorship of the Christian Testament.

You should, John the Baptist was the last Prophet called by God in the same fashion that goes all the way back to Moses and it was his Disciple that wrote the Gospel of John and Revelations so they are as valid to Jews as any of the OT works. The Gospel is the ending to the bruise to the heel part of Ge:3:15 and Revelations contains the ending to the bruise to Satan's head. Their pride and blindness is done all on their own.If Daniel had those two books there would have been no un-answered question at the end of his book. Phonetics over meaning.With the Bible the meaning is what is being looked for.

 

[MHz]

I
Yes. One's belief does not change the identity of one's mother.

Jesus had to be born in Judea to be a Jew.If that transcends political the you can be born a Jew while living in Egypt. The ones mentioned below are Gentiles standing in the area known as Judaea.

M't:24:16:
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Re:11:9:
And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half,
and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
Re:11:10:
And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them,
and make merry,
and shall send gifts one to another;
because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

 

[rusra02]

Lets say the Exodus didn't happen, or Genesis is entirely made up. Not a single instance in these books happened. Do we toss out the whole thing? can there still be spiritual truth in a book full of myths?

Or maybe say it turns out the Jesus of the bible never existed, is there still worth in following his teachings?

I mean could you still be a Christian if most of this didn't happen, or a jew.

For me, no. The Bible stands as God's inspired Word. As 2 Timothy 3:16 affirms; "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial."

 

[Rival]

Nope, physically made dead. It's called the Bible according to God. step one would be the connection between Ge:3:15 and all of Re:12. Once the relationship can't be denied then what do you do?? If it is new to you you should hear it out before you judge how valid my replies are.

So who was killed?

This isn't new to me. I was a Christian for years.

Lol, All of it, the same as I would do for you. (in that it is the same group from start to finish how would you be able to explain just part of it to begin with?)

Isaiah 65 is about G-d's judgement. He is judging His people for abandoning Him and not following Torah. The ones who are faithful will return and settle in Israel. G-d is saying he will bless those servants who serve him and destroy those who don't. The latter half appears messianic in nature, about how they will live in the Land of Israel in peace and obedience to G-d.

The Gospels are based on eye witness accounts. Mathew, Mark and Luke cover two events that only Peter, and the brothers James and John saw so it is a safe bet that is who. Peter would be given the longest one and the family tree would have been information gathered at the wedding that is mentioned in the Gospel of John (the Baptist) via the un-named Disciple. The odds are also pretty high that the 4 Gospels were written before the 40 days after the cross was up. Written in flawless Greek by the same Scribes I have mentioned.

This is all just conjecture. It cannot be proven.

The passage that starts Zec:13 ends before the chapter ends.The last 3 verses belong to the passage that covers all of Zec:14 and guess who is being killed yet leaves a remnant?? It is mistakes like this that ruins your ability to come up with a solid doctrine.
The remnant is the Jews.
The 'little ones' are the Gentiles in Acts:10 and they are the first of the Gentiles and the last ones would be the ones in the farthest part of the globe. The scattering in in Matthew in the passage where the Apostles ditch him in the garden during the arrest.

Not bothered.

. . .and . . . what??

And so it is clearly speaking about the people who dwell in The Land of Israel - The Jews. This passage is not referencing the goyim. G-d says "They are my people." Who are G-d's people who He made His eternal covenant with? The Jews.

You should, John the Baptist was the last Prophet called by God in the same fashion that goes all the way back to Moses and it was his Disciple that wrote the Gospel of John and Revelations so they are as valid to Jews as any of the OT works. The Gospel is the ending to the bruise to the heel part of Ge:3:15 and Revelations contains the ending to the bruise to Satan's head. Their pride and blindness is done all on their own.If Daniel had those two books there would have been no un-answered question at the end of his book. Phonetics over meaning.With the Bible the meaning is what is being looked for.

I'm not bothered about what the Christian testament says.

 

[Akivah]

Jesus ...

Who??

 

[Rival]

Who??

ben Panthera. You know him?

 

[MHz]

Isaiah 65 is about G-d's judgement. He is judging His people for abandoning Him and not following Torah. The ones who are faithful will return and settle in Israel. G-d is saying he will bless those servants who serve him and destroy those who don't. The latter half appears messianic in nature, about how they will live in the Land of Israel in peace and obedience to G-d.

Not even close. The passage is about the one called 'the rest' in Re:20 and they are killed on the day of the return. The difference of what they experience during the 1,000 years is compared to what the people that are alive for that period experience. The new earth verses is them after Judgement Day at the end of Re:20. There is a much more detailed explanation available if you need it

 

[Rival]

Not even close. The passage is about the one called 'the rest' in Re:20 and they are killed on the day of the return. The difference of what they experience during the 1,000 years is compared to what the people that are alive for that period experience. The new earth verses is them after Judgement Day at the end of Re:20. There is a much more detailed explanation available if you need it

No, I don't need it. I have a midrash. You're just inserting later beliefs into earlier texts.

 

[MHz]

'Later' as in a conclusion arrived at after looking at all the relevant material?

The sword in Isaiah:65is the same sword and the same event as mentioned in the last verse of Re:19. if that concept isn't accepted the OT and the NT are going to be nothing but gibberish no matter what passage is being referenced.
No matter what topic we opened up the result will be the same. The Bible backs up my claims when all the material has been presented and considered.
Now what do you do, risk getting the differences covered in detail or end the discussion so that doesn't happen? So far the trend seems to be to end the discussions when judging how it was received on other sites.

Did you know that using the Jews left in blindness to be the harlot actually assures that all of them are resurrected to life no matter how sinful of a life they led? A few Jews going to hell for a few years is so they can relate when talking to the Gentiles that end up there for 1,000 years.

If you are a serious bible student the Ge:3:15 concept should have you extremely interested. Time will tell which is which.

 

[Rival]

'Later' as in a conclusion arrived at after looking at all the relevant material?

The sword in Isaiah:65is the same sword and the same event as mentioned in the last verse of Re:19. if that concept isn't accepted the OT and the NT are going to be nothing but gibberish no matter what passage is being referenced.
No matter what topic we opened up the result will be the same. The Bible backs up my claims when all the material has been presented and considered.
Now what do you do, risk getting the differences covered in detail or end the discussion so that doesn't happen? So far the trend seems to be to end the discussions when judging how it was received on other sites.

Did you know that using the Jews left in blindness to be the harlot actually assures that all of them are resurrected to life no matter how sinful of a life they led? A few Jews going to hell for a few years is so they can relate when talking to the Gentiles that end up there for 1,000 years.

If you are a serious bible student the Ge:3:15 concept should have you extremely interested. Time will tell which is which.

Do you know how antisemitic and preachy you sound? You are clearly not wanting to learn anything, but to teach people your personal version of Christianity. Come back when you are prepared to actually debate and not engage in thinly veiled preaching tactics. You are taking passages from the Tanach and inserting Christian theology where it doesn't fit.

I am such a serious Bible student that I gave up Christianity.

 

[MHz]

I am such a serious Bible student that I gave up Christianity.

And so you should have as it was designed to fail (Da:8) just like Israel was designed to fail as shown by the exile into Neb's Babylon and even angelic beings failed when they attempted to 'follow the rules'. However, the NT that is based on the original documents written in Greek by Jewish Scribes and guided by the same heavenly forces that helped Daniel were helping them so the text that was left behind is letter perfect to the way the one true God wanted. The books that same God gave to Moses in an oral tradition was not put into text form until the days of Daniel and his 3 friends when any errors that came over the many centuries was corrected so the text we have today is letter perfect to the one Moses 'preached'.

Do you know how antisemitic and preachy you sound?

You forgot the 'to me' part. You do know that all I have shown is praise for the God in the OT right? I still have to lookt he text up to get a 100% quote. It takes a few extra seconds at best. That is not the same as being able to put the passage being referenced into it's correct context and being able to find some other references to the same topic which adds clarity and depth and complexity to the bible as a whole.
Was Neb also anti-Semitic just because he exiled the Jews from the promised land????

Da:4:36:
At the same time my reason returned unto me;
and for the glory of my kingdom,
mine honour and brightness returned unto me;
and my counsellers and my lords sought unto me;
and I was established in my kingdom,
and excellent majesty was added unto me.
Da:4:37:
Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven,
all whose works are truth,
and his ways judgment:
and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

The OT has prophecies that apply to the Gentiles as preached to by Peter and those who followed after it began in Acts:10. The level of the fine detail is only found in those prophecies. What was left out is the sequence and the timeline so their places cannot be determined. The NT, Revelations specifically, fills in those blanks and the readers depth of knowledge increases. I am told to look for such things by Jesus Himself yet you mock me even before I say what I have to say on the subject. Fine, let us discuss if I have the right to do that as it always results in a doctrine that is consistent and rational compared to the ones I have explored before settling on this version as being the one God would leave behind as a aid to those who see the bruise to the serpent's head in Ge:3:15.
What makes you think 'Christian's' welcome a different version any better than some Jews do??

A unified version of the OT and the NT would put both religions out of the business since the flock would simply not believe them any more. It takes all 4gospel version of the day of the cross to be examined before you get the best version of just what went down. The OT and the NT both have material that is relevant to getting the best picture of what Ge:3:15 has had in terms of prophecy and in terms of fulfillment with the understanding that both have to be fulfilled before the garden will return to the area.

You are clearly not wanting to learn anything, but to teach people your personal version of Christianity.

That was the explanation for that whole passage?? That should have been a start and by the end there would be a few pages of Scripture and thoughts and then the understanding might be there. You would accuse me of preaching if I broke the chapter down and added Scripture from other books as addition support for my understanding to be the right one to have when contest is applied.
Since you currently do not know what 'my version' is how do you get that if I do not offer an explanation??

Come back when you are prepared to actually debate and not engage in thinly veiled preaching tactics.

Saying somebody is wrong is hardly 'veiled'. The issue is am I correct or not? A Gentile knowing the OT better than most Jews is not something that is welcomed by either side.
So what??

You are taking passages from the Tanach and inserting Christian theology where it doesn't fit.

Actually I have a lot of respect for the Elders that tried to explain what the books meant. Perhaps the most help they were able to offer is in the order the books are listed.The 12 books listed after Daniel only have prophecies that deal with the bruise to Satan's head at the end of the iron/clay kingdom. All things associated with the bruise to the heel was completed in the brass kingdom as written about in Da:8 and 9.

12 books that give rich details of how that transition takes. The NT alone tells us that the wrath part lasts a few hours and the blessings that follow are all one withing a period of 1,000 years and then Christ presents the people to God Himself and He welcomes them as 'children of God'.

We should have a long talk, or somebody with some interest in God might find it helpful rather than it being dangerous.

 

[Ingledsva]

You seem to have adopted them over the Bible's version. (correct version rather than the ones full of errors)
Surely you can come up with some examples of where you think the Bible is flawed.

Read through the site, - and you will find many challenged translations, such as the ones supposedly against homosexuality.

For instance -

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Is actually -

Deu 23:17 There shall be no Qedeshah of the daughters of Israel, nor Qadesh of the sons of Israel.

Qadesh are Sacred Prostitutes for another God, not homosexuals. Thus it is against the Idolatry that was being brought into the Temples.

1Sa 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they had sex with the women that assembled/(PERFORM) at the entrance of the tabernacle of the congregation.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

'Later' as in a conclusion arrived at after looking at all the relevant material?

The sword in Isaiah:65is the same sword and the same event as mentioned in the last verse of Re:19. if that concept isn't accepted the OT and the NT are going to be nothing but gibberish no matter what passage is being referenced.
No matter what topic we opened up the result will be the same. The Bible backs up my claims when all the material has been presented and considered.
Now what do you do, risk getting the differences covered in detail or end the discussion so that doesn't happen? So far the trend seems to be to end the discussions when judging how it was received on other sites.

Did you know that using the Jews left in blindness to be the harlot actually assures that all of them are resurrected to life no matter how sinful of a life they led? A few Jews going to hell for a few years is so they can relate when talking to the Gentiles that end up there for 1,000 years.

If you are a serious bible student the Ge:3:15 concept should have you extremely interested. Time will tell which is which.

I find it rather strange that you can't see a possibility of bull, - when people have added, - many years later, - to an already established Tanakh.

In other words they had READ TANAKH, - and just had to make up future junk, including some of what Tanakh says in the text.

You can in no way prove the new addition is in any way true.

I could mix Tanakh verses with the idea that little yellow rubber ducks are going to drop from the sky at the end.

My addition is in no way true, - nor does it make Tanakh wrong. The NT is a later addition - which adds in pagan triple God ideas.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

...

If you are a serious bible student the Ge:3:15 concept should have you extremely interested. Time will tell which is which.

Make plain what you mean there.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

*

 

[MHz]

Make plain what you mean there.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

*

This is the more important of your posts so it get replied to first.
Under the theme that the beginning and end of this earth by God's hand is explained in Ge:1-3 and Re:20-22. Because of what happened between Eve and Satan the Ge:3:15 determination was made and some of it has been fulfilled and some of it has not. The part of the bible between the two references just above are how that was said to happen through the prophecies and the historical parts the bible covers.
The verse has a few 'phases', define who the seed of Eve is and when the verses that pertain to that (all of Re:12 is first on the list) and Mary the mother of Jesus is the woman who is the 'seed of Eve' that gave birth to Jesus and He is the man that fulfilled all things to do with the bruise to the heel as fulfilling prophecy and the cross was the literal event that comes when words become reality.

Joseph was sold into Egypt as a slave and he is considered to be the father to the 12 Tribes of Israel and Moses was the member of that group that saw the change from the law the seed of Satan observed and that mean men were also covered by it. The Law from Re:21 was the ones the fallen angels from Ge:6 were under and taking wives and having children was the first law they broke. Since Noah and his wife and his 3 sons were the last of people that were still perfect in their generations going back to Adam means they still had 20 fingers and toes while giants had 24 fingers and toes. God let the attempted extermination go as far as it did before He put a dent into that operation and the son that moved to Canaan is where the generation of giants that died in the exodus wars and with their extermination a new set of Law was introduced by Moses. The 10 Commandments are the Law from Moses until the day the 7th trump sounds and on that day the bruise to Satan's head takes place as far as all fulfillment is concerned. The Law that Christ is under is the one God puts all men under in Re:21 which is the start of the new earth. The offer made by Eve's first seed saw only 1 of the 2 gifts accepted.
The accepted one was suitable for a world in sin. The rejected offering will be the one accepted at the Temple in Jerusalem during the 1,000 year reign the garden and the rest of the earth is inhabited by immortal and sinless people. The whole of the 12 Tribes in the Israel of Jeremiah:46 and the Gentile Church is wandering around Eden like the 12 tribes did for 40 years when they were first gathered. For the Church it will be for 1,000 years and a yearly visits to the Garden. It will be during one such visit that Satan will be released as will all other fallen angels so they can be sent to the same fiery lake that a few fallen angels were sent to when Christ poured out the 7 vials on them.

It is only after that 1,000 years that the 12 tribes and the Church share a common home. New Jerusalem is for the people that were alive for the 1,000 year reign and the ones that live outside the City and make trips to her would be the ones building their houses outside of New Jerusalem and they could only be the ones that come alive a the the Great White Throne which is right after that last fallen angel is in the lake.

Together they will be like Israel was for the visits in Zec:14 when the Church was stopping in for a celebration. The new earth would have a temple that is as busy as the OT one was but the grain offering is the one that will be presented and accepted as is is a sinless place.

Using that lead-in as being correct makes it easier to tell what some obscure prophecy is talking about. There are enough clues in the passages they come from that it can be put with other references that apply to the same topic.
The splitting I use also promotes that is the last 3 chapters are means for a specific group then perhaps the beginning is also mean to them using their reading skill from their time rather than trying to Sherlock something from the mind of Noah.

That is the justification and it is far from complete. Such as the identity of the last woman in Re:12 as she is also the 'seed of Eve' and her children turns out to be any Gentile that was read and believed the NT about Jesus died and rose again. and those that pray to God during the 5th and 56th trumps will be given protection from harm using forces not available to the person in danger. (short version)

 

[ronandcarol]

Lets say the Exodus didn't happen, or Genesis is entirely made up. Not a single instance in these books happened. Do we toss out the whole thing? can there still be spiritual truth in a book full of myths?
Or maybe say it turns out the Jesus of the bible never existed, is there still worth in following his teachings?
I mean could you still be a Christian if most of this didn't happen, or a jew.

There are many skeptics that come up with many reasons why certain things in the Bible could not have happened. It is up to each Christian to sort out and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truths. The Bible is the inspired word of God and should be taken as written.
Or do you think that God was just pulling a fast one on us? Do you think that God used such dramatic events to draw us to Him?
Ask for more faith and believe what God has written for you.
ronandcarol

 

[MHz]

I find it rather strange that you can't see a possibility of bull, - when people have added, - many years later, - to an already established Tanakh.*

How much time do you have to listen to a reply? From simple to complex is available. Simple is God would not allow it. Complex would go as far as saying that using 40 Scribes to write 1 book is a way of making sure no one Scribe could give the book's meaning away.
The oral Torah was certainly the way to go when most of the teaching was done at night under poor lighting conditions. The planned gathering also had a planned scattering that was for 70 AD when the Temple would be taken down so Satan (from Ge:3:15) could not use it it when he was claiming to be the God of the Bible.

In other words they had READ TANAKH, - and just had to make up future junk, including some of what Tanakh says in the text.*

How much time that was devoted to memorizing the required material compared to having it at their fingertips and the same amount of time is spend reading the text to the extent you use a term like 'day of the lord' and when the passages are read the reader should actually know where they are found and what they mean in the overall meaning in the whole of the reference material.

I'm also saying that no matter how devoted a group of people are it is impossible to keep an oral book as accurate as it was on the first day compared to what you would have 1,000 years later. I'm more than willing to accept that God had a reason for each jot be assigned it's won place and when Daniel was being visited by angels is when the OT was put back into letter perfect condition. The NT was always in written form and the only question about it's accuracy is howcould4Jews write 4 Gospels and do it in flawless Greek when they had never met any gentiles let alone been out of Judaeo before said Gospels appeared.
From that point on it is a book that must be studied a rather than being read like a novel. The split has already been suggested and Ge:1-3 and Re:20-22 can be studied on their own without any external references.The bruises from Ge:3:15 are long studies because there is so much material available. The good news is the bible is a circular book so it doesn't matter where you start.
The bruise to Satan's head is the most prophecised event in the book so that might be taken to means we should start there there rather than leave it for the last.
The Gentiles in that Temple are the Gentiles that talk to God by starting with the Lord's Prayer.

You can in no way prove the new addition is in any way true.*

The time we are in is between 70AD and the start of the era known as 'the time of the Gentiles' and the last 3 1/2years it exits before the return which is a day that begins wit Satan getting that bruise to the head from a glorified Jesus who was the seed who took the bruise to the heel as fulfillment to one bruise already being in the fast. Gentiles are given the Bible and if they are believers after that is fine.That is the only way God will accept somebody in this era. Proof that Thomas was given is not available as part of 'belief' and that is why no biblical artifacts will be found that prove God exists. Physical proof was available in the 3 1/2years before the cross, there will be physical proof in the 3 1/2 years the two witnesses are preaching in Jerusalem.Both by them and the fact that prayers will have the same kind of result Daniel was getting.

I could mix Tanakh verses with the idea that little yellow rubber ducks are going to drop from the sky at the end.*

The difference is you are trying to muddy the water intentionally. I have shown nothing but the upmost respect for the Bible, meaning the Hebrew version of the OT and the Greek version of the NT. No Have I condemned any thought without offering an explanation of what is wrong and what the correct version looks like.
If I didn't like Jews I'm sure that format would look different than it does. Maybe I am looking into joining while promoting that my current level of understand is already higher than some Rabbis.

Chatting about topics of mutual interest is never a waste of time, today I have something you don't have.Until you know the details you don't know if it s priceless or a sow's ear. That you are already saying it is 'different' should mean you are willing to grill me with some difficult questions should a 'flaw' be spotted or expand on a subject that still had new parts being added it.

My addition is in no way true, - nor does it make Tanakh wrong. The NT is a later addition - which adds in pagan triple God ideas.*

That is the current view, my mold is from a different view that promotes the Bible as being a single work with a single author who knew the ending before the beginning was ever spoken into existence.

If I can show the book is solid and the variations are there by men's efforts rather than God being unclear or the OT text being meant for the people of the OT.
My version does use the OT but in a respectful way and the picture it leaves behind is better than the Church or the Jews promote these days. That is not boasting,it is telling you it is not a little different from what you have heard it is a lot different that what the Church and OT Jews promote.

Test it out yourself. Do all the verses from the OT that have 'the day of the lord' reference the same destruction that is only available when the 7 vials of Re:16 are poured out on the inhabitants of the whole earth?

 

[RabbiO]

If I didn't like Jews I'm sure that format would look different than it does. Maybe I am looking into joining while promoting that my current level of understand is already higher than some Rabbis.

I didn't realize you have a sense of humor. Nice to know.

 

[Milton Platt]

Lets say the Exodus didn't happen, or Genesis is entirely made up. Not a single instance in these books happened. Do we toss out the whole thing? can there still be spiritual truth in a book full of myths?

Or maybe say it turns out the Jesus of the bible never existed, is there still worth in following his teachings?

I mean could you still be a Christian if most of this didn't happen, or a jew.

If one part is wrong, then who gets to decide which parts are correct and should be followed? And if one part is wrong, then it obviously isn't the word of any sort of god, unless it is a god that is prone to errors in judgement.