God is using Russia to fulfill a prophecy

[nobspeople]

According to Pat Robinson (unfortunately there's no Grimm Reaper smilie available) Russia is being used by god to fulfill prophecy (who god can't do its own dirty work is another raging question, but it's not the first time we hear this from biblical 'know-it-alls' like patty).

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pat-robertso ... 45780.html


Is this true?


It's worth noting, about good, ancient patty:
Robertson, who turns 92 this month, is a serial doomsday cheerleader: in the 1970s, he predicted a 1982 ending, the 1990s, he predicted a 2007 ending, 2020, he predicted Donald Trump would win reelection ― “without question” ― and it would lead to the end. (In that case, it wasn’t a war that would end the world, as he is currently predicting, but something a lot more natural, like an asteroid.)

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #70]

Assured expectation is not evidence of anything except hope.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #70]

Assured expectation is not evidence of anything except hope.

Well then its evidence of something... hope. That said you are reading Paul's the second clause incorrectly (see edit where I tried to clarify using Jesus disciples as an example).

As I said, we know you are reading the second clause incorrectly (at least biblically so) because faith biblically is always spoken of as a possession of humans not of inanimate objects, whereas evidence may well be an inanimate object (or a distressing world situation, like a war)

The second clause "the evident demonstration of (unseen) realities" is what is detailing what ---> "the things hopes for" are. "the evident demonstration of (unseen) realities" are NOT detailing what ---- > faith is

HEBREWS 11:6 New International Version

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him

Can you not see that evidence (famines, wars, dead fig trees) cannot be faith? (Please compare John 3:16-b )








JW

RELATED POSTS

Is biblical faith belief/assurance or the evidence that formed the basis of believe?
viewtopic.php?p=1070740#p1070740

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #72]


Hebrews 11:6 KJV
“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”

- replacing 'faith' with 'hope'
“But without hope it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”

So what is being said is that hope is not enough because hope does not require belief?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #72]

Faith/hope potato/potato

Lol... I hope you are going to edit that oneliner, I'd hate to end on a point that has already been addressed.

I recognise the subtleties of faith may seem inconsequential to those that have none, but is more than potato/potato* for those of us that are willing to die for our faith.

[ * ]potato/potato is an "urban expression" that identifies a difference distinction, or correction as being negligible, trivial, or unimportant.

Faith in the opinion of an infidel is less useful than a potato. Biblically however, faith is the difference between eternal destruction and everlasting life.

JOHN 3:16

For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son,+ so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

Last man standing gets to hold the potato.

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #74]

Lol... I hope you are going to edit that oneliner,

Yeah - I thought about it and decided to try out that interchange between faith and hope.

They seem to be different words for the same thing, but maybe not...

[JehovahsWitness]

Yeah - I thought about it and decided to try out that interchange between faith and hope.

They seem to be different words for the same thing, but maybe not...

Nobody could do better than actually read what Paul's own explanations. Hope (like belief) is a component of faith. You cannot have faith in something you don't believe, neither can you hope in that in which you have no faith. I think of hope as that which centers you and keeps you moving forward towards a desired goal.

Trying to think of an illustration: A man enters a race because he is convinced it is a worthwhile activity; that conviction (that leads to committed activity ) would be the "faith". He believes (because he has sufficient information) there will be a prize if he wins, lets say a medal and a cash reward. Knowing what will happen at the end of the race would be the belief. But what keeps him moving when the race gets hard, and his legs start to ache? Why does he keep going when others give up? He keeps a positive attitude and endures hardships because he has hope. He knows his pain will end and he will enjoy his reward. Wanting to experience the reward, so much so that you will not stop running no matter what...well that would be the hope!

You keep belittleling these things but people can face any hardship as long as they still have hope. Hope that things will get better, hope there will be a way out, hope that even if they die, God will remember them and reward their faith in him. Conversely, no matter how comfortable they are, when a person sees no point to their life and loses hope in a better future, they do not want to live and sadly too often, many opt out.

No, mere potatos, as Paul said, faith hope and love are three of the most important things a human can have.





]

To read more please go to other posts related to ....

FAITH, GOD and ...THE BIBLE

[benchwarmer]

Well first of all, I don't think I've made myself clear.

Possibly, let's see...

The analogy pertained to extra-Egyptian evidence of KING TUT OUTSIDE OF EGYPT.

I am talking about any extra-Egyptian source that identified that there in fact existed a young Pharaoh of Egypt named Tutankhamen.

Yup, that's what I thought you meant the first time. Did you not read the highlighted part of my reply to you? People OUTSIDE of Egypt have made claims (published articles, research, etc) about King Tut. These are extra-Egyptian sources that identify that there was in fact a young Pharaoh of Egypt named Tutankhamen. They have examined his body and/or tomb and written down various things from outside of Egypt.

Here's another link. Note these are German authors, published in a Brazilian dental journal. Is that not extra-Egyptian enough for you?

Tutankhamun's Dentition: The Pharaoh and his Teeth
https://www.scielo.br/j/bdj/a/vCBGmyWzJ ... P/?lang=en#

Niels Christian Pausch
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
Franziska Naether
Institute of Egyptology/Egyptian Museum Georg Steindorff, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
Karl Friedrich Krey
Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany

Tutankhamun was a Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty (New Kingdom) in ancient Egypt. Medical and radiological investigations of his skull revealed details about the jaw and teeth status of the mummy. Regarding the jaw relation, a maxillary prognathism, a mandibular retrognathism and micrognathism have been discussed previously. A cephalometric analysis was performed using a lateral skull X-ray and a review of the literature regarding King Tutankhamun´s mummy. The results imply diagnosis of mandibular retrognathism. Furthermore, third molar retention and an incomplete, single cleft palate are present.

Tutankhamun's dentition; cephalometric analysis; mandibular retrognathism

So spare me all of the other nonsense and red herrings.

Readers will note that supplying evidence that contradicts your story is labeled "nonsense and red herrings". If that's how you want to roll...

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yup, that's what I thought you meant the first time. Did you not read the highlighted part of my reply to you? People OUTSIDE of Egypt have made claims (published articles, research, etc) about King Tut. These are extra-Egyptian sources that identify that there was in fact a young Pharaoh of Egypt named Tutankhamen. They have examined his body and/or tomb and written down various things from outside of Egypt.

Readers will note that supplying evidence that contradicts your story is labeled "nonsense and red herrings". If that's how you want to roll...

With all due respect, sir; instead of being my normal wise/witty self...I am going to humble myself here, because it is truly sad..and sometimes, it is just best to take the higher ground.

My point is, benchwarmer, is that there are no extra-Biblical sources, outside of Egypt, from ANTIQUITY, which testifies to the existence of King Tut.

I would like to think that you would have given me benefit of the doubt that I am obviously aware that there are many Egyptologists and archeologists outside of Egypt that know of King Tut and may/may not have written about him.

*Sigh* Moving along..

[benchwarmer]

My point is, benchwarmer, is that there are no extra-Biblical sources, outside of Egypt, from ANTIQUITY, which testifies to the existence of King Tut.

Have you made a typo here or are you completely changing things now? I assume you meant "extra-Egypt". I also note the goal post moving, which is pointless and doesn't help you.

The existence of King Tut can be verified today. You can, if you have the resources and will to do so, go see the body and tomb. It's a physical thing, that can and has been examined.
Why does it matter if some claims were made outside of Egypt from antiquity? We have the actual body and tomb now. We can make modern day claims about King Tut. In fact, with modern medicine and modern science, we likely know more about King Tut's health now then anyone did when he was alive.

Face it, the analogy has failed.

You have tried to compare written claims with no physical evidence to physical evidence that has been studied by experts from around the world. Whatever point you were trying to make has been lost.

Is your point simply that no other people outside of Egypt wrote anything down about King Tut while he was alive? If so, so what? We have the body, we don't need to rely on unvetted, ancient claims.

Do we have Jesus's body or tomb?

I would like to think that you would have given me benefit of the doubt that I am obviously aware that there are many Egyptologists and archeologists outside of Egypt that know of King Tut and may/may not have written about him.

Why would I give you that benefit when you clearly fumbled the analogy? I assumed you had no clue or would not have made that obviously bad analogy. In fact, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in that I assumed you simply hadn't bothered to check into King Tut. Now you are admitting you know there are claims made outside of Egypt about King Tut that corroborate his existence. Your last attempt to save this (for what reason I have no idea) is to say "yes, but these corroborating claims weren't made when King Tut was alive!".

In short, your analogy was not the zinger you hoped for.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Have you made a typo here or are you completely changing things now? I assume you meant "extra-Egypt". I also note the goal post moving, which is pointless and doesn't help you.

Oh yeah, my bad. Typo.

I wish I can be as perfect as you are on here, sir.

But yeah, extra-Egyptian.

The existence of King Tut can be verified today. You can, if you have the resources and will to do so, go see the body and tomb. It's a physical thing, that can and has been examined.
Why does it matter if some claims were made outside of Egypt from antiquity? We have the actual body and tomb now. We can make modern day claims about King Tut. In fact, with modern medicine and modern science, we likely know more about King Tut's health now then anyone did when he was alive.

Face it, the analogy has failed.

And here you are, still not getting it.

It matters if there are some claims made about King Tut outside of Egypt, because William challenged the validity of the Bible by claiming that since there are no extra-Biblical source(s) to corroborate the Scriptures, then therefore we should take it with a grain of salt.

Did you not understand why I made the point that I made?

You have tried to compare written claims with no physical evidence to physical evidence that has been studied by experts from around the world. Whatever point you were trying to make has been lost.

Umm, the point stands.

There are no extra-Egyptian sources, of ANTIQUITY, which testifies to the existence of King Tut OUTSIDE OF EGYPT.

Point blank, period.

That is simply a true statement, and the parallel that I made to that point, as it pertains to Williams' sentiments about Biblical prophecy, STANDS.

Is your point simply that no other people outside of Egypt wrote anything down about King Tut while he was alive? If so, so what?

Is Williams' point simply that there are no people outside of the Bible/Christianity who wrote anything down about Biblical prophecy to corroborate Biblical prophecy? Is so, so what?

We have the body

We have the Scriptures...

, we don't need to rely on unvetted, ancient claims.

We don't need to rely on unvetted, uninspired, ancient claims.

Do we have Jesus's body

Ummm, I don't think so. Probably because he RAISED FROM THE DEAD in bodily from.

Even if you don't believe the narrative, it is still a silly question even if the narrative is false (as you allege).

or tomb?

Have you looked for it?

Why would I give you that benefit when you clearly fumbled the analogy? I assumed you had no clue or would not have made that obviously bad analogy. In fact, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in that I assumed you simply hadn't bothered to check into King Tut.

You sure speak with much conviction to be so blatantly wrong.

Now you are admitting you know there are claims made outside of Egypt about King Tut that corroborate his existence. Your last attempt to save this (for what reason I have no idea) is to say "yes, but these corroborating claims weren't made when King Tut was alive!".

In short, your analogy was not the zinger you hoped for.

Look at that, I clarified what I meant and you are still clinging on to your straw man. Did you notice that William didn't take what I said the way you do?

Probably because he understood what I said. I invite you to do the same.