Moderator: Moderators
For debate:JehovahsWitness wrote: From speaking with my brothers and sister, far from undermining our faith and causing confusion, the impact of coronavirus only serves to strengthen our conviction we are living in the last days and our resolve to preach the good news of the kingdom before the Lord tells us the work is complete.
It doesn't have to be authoritative to have it in a reply or to use it. If you don't agree with it then so be it. Yet with the Bible then Christianity at least has a reference on how to define the "last days". However what you call the "last days" is just opinion and hear/say with no reference. Why should anyone use what you call or feel is traditional as a reference? What makes your traditional definition of the 'last days' so special?Zzyzx wrote:
The Bible may be considered authoritative in TD&D or Holy Huddle sub-forums, but is no more authoritative than any other book in debates in this (C&A) sub-forum. Consult Guidelines if in doubt.
2timothy316 wrote:....Zzyzx wrote:
The Bible may be considered authoritative in TD&D or Holy Huddle sub-forums, but is no more authoritative than any other book in debates in this (C&A) sub-forum. Consult Guidelines if in doubt.
The Bible is the central focus for thousands of years to define doctrine for true Christians, why would anything else be used? If we we discussing a math equation wouldn't we use a calculator and not a pineapple? So why not use the source of where the term 'last days' came from rather from people's opinions?
Comparing 66 books by various, often anonymous authors who frequently tell tales that defy simple observation as well as exhaustive science, to a 'calculator' is laughably inapposite. The Bible has exactly the same authority as Grimms' Fairy Tales, per the guidelines of this forum as Z says.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApocalypticismArising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation.
Apocalypticism is often conjoined with the belief that esoteric knowledge will likely be revealed in a major confrontation between good and evil forces, destined to change the course of history.
One is free of course to disscuss an alternative expression/ meaning as one sees fit but to suggest that a reference to the bible is irrelevant when we have established the parameters of the discussion in relation to the biblical usage is ludicrous. There is nothing in the OP (or in the forum guidelines) that prohibits opinions on biblical usage of expressions.
Regardless of what sense is subsequently discussed, any further discussion naturally relates to this base. In short saying "I'm not talking about X demands at the very least we know what X *is* my post is X (see above).
If we rely on the creator of this thread's explanation, we find he refers to "last days" in a much broader sense:JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 221 by Danmark]
Who wrote the bible is irrelevant to the discussion. The OP (which by the way quotes me) is based on a biblical expression and it entirely relevant to refer to the meaning in context of said expression. The OP provides no explanation of what is meant in the question outside of my words, so I hereby confirm that I used the expression "last days" in its wider biblical sense.
JW
Your "confirmation" is irrelevant given that the author of the OP has clearly stated he is referring to the "last days" much more broadly than the just a biblical view.otseng wrote:
I believe we are in the last days in several aspects, and not all of them are religious.
We are in the last days of the United States as a great nation. We are rapidly descending into socialism and into a police state. The massive debt incurred by the government, corporations, and individuals will bankrupt us. Society will soon start to collapse as bread lines get longer, grocery shelves get emptier, and more file for unemployment. Massive monetary policy will only lead to hyperinflation and kill the dollar as the reserve currency.
] Danmark wrote: Evangelicals have been preaching about the 'last days' and the 'antichrist' for 2000 years. When he finally shows up, they elect him President.
"And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for three and a half years."
__ Revelation 13:5
"... and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy...."
[Hmmmmm . . . scarlet is an orange tinged red
__ Revelation 17:3
For 2000 years people have been using these 'prophesies' to make whatever point they want.
It is acceptable in C&A debates to refer to what the Bible says -- but NOT to refer to the Bible as authoritative or proof of truth. Does that need further simplification or clarification?JehovahsWitness wrote: Oh so YOU are allowed to refer to the biblical "last days" AND quote scripture but when timothy or I do the same thing it is suddenly "irrelevant"? Is that it? I wonder how many people will try and shut you down because you refer to the bible in your comment?
Timothy's comment was his opinion based on the bible. Both timothy and I believe the bible is the absolute authority on matters of faith and if asked (as he was) we will not hesistate to say so. Unless we instruct you ar anyone to believe the same, our comments on the biblical meaning of biblical expressions are as relevant as anyones else's. Does that need further simplification or clarification?JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 221 by Danmark]
The OP, which by the way quotes me, sites a biblical expression and it entirely relevant to refer to the meaning in context of said expression. The Original Post provides no explanation of what is meant in the question outside of my words, so I hereby confirm that I used the expression "last days" in its wider biblical sense.
One is free of course to disscuss an alternative expression/ meaning as one sees fit but to suggest that a reference to the bible is irrelevant when we have established the parameters of the discussion in relation to the biblical usage is ludicrous. There is nothing in the OP (or in the forum guidelines) that prohibits opinions on biblical usage of expressions.
Regardless of what sense is subsequently discussed, any further discussion naturally relates to this base. In short saying "I'm not talking about X demands at the very least we know what X *is* my post is X (see above).
JW
Opinions are permissible provided that they are not masquerading as anything more than opinion. However, many Apologists give the impression that their opinion gains authority because they believe Bible tales or because they (foolishly) presume to know more about the Bible than opposition debaters -- and to pontificate upon 'what the Bible really means' (is what I say it means) -- and pretend to be more capable than official Bible translators and editors (in order to bolster their position).JehovahsWitness wrote: There is nothing in the OP (or in the forum guidelines) that prohibits opinions on biblical usage of expressions.
