• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

What the Bible says about: The End of the World

Dust514.jpg

A Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: What The Bible Says About The End Of The World

The SAB indicates that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners. I will demonstrate why this is not the case by explaining the verses they use to conclude this. They mistake the transfiguration, the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus being at the right hand of power, and John's Revelation at Patmos.

Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Also see Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27)

The Interpreter's Bible says: "The prediction was not fulfilled, and later Christians found it necessary to explain that it was metaphorical."

What believers and skeptics alike seem to have glossed over is the fact that in the very next verse Matthew reveals that just 6 days later this prophecy was fulfilled. Peter, James and John witnessed the transfiguration. (Matthew 17:1-2; Luke 9:27-36; 2 Peter 1:16-18)

Matthew 23:36 - Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Also see Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32)

All of the above verses differ from the verses given in consideration of Matthew 16:28. British scholar G. R. Beasley-Murray: "The phrase 'this generation' should cause no difficulty for interpreters. While admittedly genea in earlier Greek meant birth, progeny, and so race, . . . in the [Greek Septuagint] it most frequently translated the Hebrew term dor, meaning age, age of humankind, or generation in the sense of contemporaries. . . . In sayings attributed to Jesus the term appears to have a twofold connotation: on the one hand it always signifies his contemporaries, and on the other hand it always carries an implicit criticism."

So Jesus could have been directing that statement to the Jewish opposition there around him at that time, who, within a generation would see the destruction of Jerusalem in 66 - 70 CE by Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian where 1,100,000 Jews died and 97,000 were taken captive, most of whom died horrible deaths and the Christians who knew it would come were saved. (Matthew 24:16, 22) And Jesus may have been applying the same to those in opposition in the future as well.

Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62 are parallel accounts to one another and you won't have to wait or look far to see them fulfilled. Acts 7:55-56: "But he, being full of holy spirit gazed into heaven and caught sight of God's glory and of Jesus standing at God's right hand, and he said: "Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God's right hand." Also see Psalm 110:1; Luke 22:69; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1.

John 21:20-23 is somewhat interesting. Jesus may have been telling Peter that John would live longer than him, and in fact John would live 70 years, but also he might have been referring to the prophetic vision that John was given at the end of his life while in exile on the island of Patmos. As recorded in the book of Revelation John was transported to "the Lords day." (Revelation 1:1, 10; Revelation 22:20)

[SAB] - The end will come within the lifetime of the New Testament authors.

Response: Jesus taught his followers that no one, not even Jesus himself, knew the time of the end of the world. (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7) It's important to note that Jehovah God doesn't see into the future like a crystal ball simply because the future doesn't exist. When God foretells something that means that either it is obvious to him, with a great deal more experience and resources than us, that something is going to happen or he is going to make sure it happens. What Jesus meant is that God will know when the time is right and act accordingly.

Also at this point some clarification should be made as to what exactly is the "end of the world." The Bible says that Earth was given to man for him to fill and subdue it, that the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it, and that it will last forever. (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 37:29; 115:16; Ecclesiastes 1:4) The end of the world is the end of the present system of things and all that involves. Of Satan's influence and sin, which, when concluding brings much destruction, but when ended, allows peace. Pretty much government, religion and commerce. Sin, death, sickness, greed, etc.

1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 7:29; Philippians 1:10 all convey the importance of the missionary work in the early stages of Christianity. They all had important work to do before the end of their lives. Nowhere in any of these passages is it conveyed that they expected the end of the system of things to occur during that time.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 is often used to support the rapture, but actually it is referring to some who were mourning the death of their fellow Christians. Paul was reminding them as well as faithful Christians in the future of the resurrection hope, some to heaven immediately upon death and some to paradise earth upon resurrection.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 refers to the presence of Jesus Christ. The Greek noun parousia is used. It means "being alongside." In his work on The Parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote: "Had our translators done with this technical word 'parousia' as they did with 'baptisma,' - transferring it unchanged, - or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a 'Second Presence,' I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, 'second advent,' and 'second coming,' would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of The Presence Of The Lord, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period, - that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered."

The word occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7; 10:10; Philippians 1:26; 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9; James 5:7, 8; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28.

Pareimi is a related verb with the similar meaning of being present. It also occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 26:50; Luke 13:1; John 7:6; 11:28; Acts 10:21, 33; 12:20; 17:6; 24:19; Acts 12:20; 1 Corinthians 5:3, 3; 2 Corinthians 10:2, 11; 2 Corinthians 11:9; 13:2, 10; Galatians 4:18, 20; Colossians 1:6; Hebrews 12:11; 13:5; 2 Peter 1:9, 12; Revelation 17:8.

The Greek word, eleusis (Latin adventu), which conveys the physical act of coming is different and only occurs once in the Christian Greek scripture, at Acts 7:52. Paul was encouraging those with a heavenly hope to remain blameless until their death, or the conclusion of the system of things and the presence, not the physical presence, of Jesus Christ.

In discussing Hebrews 1:2; 9:26; 1 Peter 1:20; 4:7 it is somewhat difficult to stay on topic of the so called end of the world because the last days that Paul was referring to were not the last days of the present system of things, but rather the last days of the Jewish system of things. Jehovah had given the prophecy of those days 850 years earlier. (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21; Hebrews 1:1-2) It was the end of God's favor upon the Jewish congregation and the beginning of his favor for the new Christian congregation.

1 John 2:18 refers to the end of the apostolic period. The work mentioned as important in the scriptures at the beginning of this article were near completion and would conclude upon the death of John shortly after he completed the writing of Revelation.

[SAB] - The end will come soon. (Within a couple thousand years or so)

Response: It is interesting that, as with the case of Philippians 4:5, the Lord that is being referred to isn't Jesus Christ but rather, Jehovah. Codex Sinaiticus, Greek, fourth century C.E., Codex Alexandrinus, Greek, fifth century C.E., Vatican ms 1209, Greek, fourth century C.E., Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Hebrew, by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599, Christian Greek Scriptures, Hebrew, by William Robertson, London, 1661, and the Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem) all read Jehovah.

James 5:7-8 is talking about the presence (parousia) mentioned earlier in this article.

At Hebrews 10:37 Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:2-3 from the Greek Septuagint, which reads "And the Lord answered [me] and said: Write a vision; write it distinctly in a book that the reader may trace these things [may run]; for the vision is for a time yet to come. But it will spring up at last and will not be vain. Though he may tarry, wait for him; for he will assuredly come and will not fail [and will not tarry]."

Revelation 1:1, 3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20 may undoubtedly amuse the skeptic, who, of course, is familiar with the Biblical fact that a thousand years are as a watch in the night to God (Psalm 90:4), but to the writers of the Bible, especially John when writing Revelation and who would die shortly afterward, the resurrection hope would follow sleep in death which would seem, upon that resurrection, as the same day as they died, though it actually had been thousands of years.​
 
Then why did you ask, “What makes you think we can’t trust the bible about where we came from?”

Uh, because I wanted to know what makes you think we can't trust the bible about where we came from?
Because the Bible obviously comes from us. You don't ask a toddler about the details of their conception!
 
Those capable of having thoughts.

Hmmm.

I don't know why you are so salty about me... agreeing with you, more or less.

It alarms me when this happens.

Minus the anti-semitism of course, but other than that, isn't what I wrote more or less a restatement of what you claimed?

Anti-Semitism. There's a nonsensical phrase. The Semitic languages are a branch of the Afroasiatic language family. Which am I anti? Arabic, Amharic? Tigrinya? Aramaic? Hebrew? or Maltese?

Or is that just what you say to anyone who looks vaguely Repugnican?

We all come from Adam.

Or is the supercessionism the whole point for you, despite your frequent claim to be non-religious?

Supercessionism? Is that a thing? I don't care about religion. I don't care about science. I don't care about politics. I don't like ideas I have to sacrifice thought to. I must be blessed and wise. I don't think so, though, that would be counterproductive. I'm nobody's fool and I didn't like school. I love to learn.
 
DLH is in a feeding frenzy. It is like tossing out a bunch of peanuts for a squirrel to nibble on.
 
Then why did you ask, “What makes you think we can’t trust the bible about where we came from?”

Uh, because I wanted to know what makes you think we can't trust the bible about where we came from?
And she gave you a short, clear, answer that was straight to the point. Which you've not responded to at all.
I believe that the Bible exists. It's an incoherent collection of stories. It's a bunch of myth, legend and a few historically accurate facts. Unlike you, I've not self described as "Bible Believer".
Why do you call yourself that?
Tom
 
Those capable of having thoughts.

Hmmm.

I don't know why you are so salty about me... agreeing with you, more or less.

It alarms me when this happens.

Minus the anti-semitism of course, but other than that, isn't what I wrote more or less a restatement of what you claimed?

Anti-Semitism. There's a nonsensical phrase. The Semitic languages are a branch of the Afroasiatic language family. Which am I anti? Arabic, Amharic? Tigrinya? Aramaic? Hebrew? or Maltese?

Or is that just what you say to anyone who looks vaguely Repugnican?

We all come from Adam.

Or is the supercessionism the whole point for you, despite your frequent claim to be non-religious?

Supercessionism? Is that a thing? I don't care about religion. I don't care about science. I don't care about politics. I don't like ideas I have to sacrifice thought to. I must be blessed and wise. I don't think so, though, that would be counterproductive. I'm nobody's fool and I didn't like school. I love to learn.
You are anti-Jewish.

As for supersessionism, whether intentionally or ignorantly you have been repeting its core argument at us, that the Hebrews have somehow lost their birthright and no longer enjoy a special relationship with the God (and the name of God that you have stolen and insist on mispronouncing pointedly as Jehovah) from their tradition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism
 
Last edited:
I'm nobody's fool and I didn't like school. I love to learn.
Your attitude sounds pretty foolish to me. How can you "love to learn" but reject every possible means of learning anything? It's like saying you love music but hate every genre and instrument.
 
We are given a clear timeframe for when the described event was supposed to happen - within the lifetime of those present at the time, that that generation shall not pass before witnessing the return of Jesus in power and glory, for all the tribes on earth to see and mourn, to gather the elect, to judge each man according to their deeds.

Obviously, none of this occurred within the given timeframe.

How many times did Jesus say no one knows the time and when did that change? No one knows the time now, except God. So, your conclusion is based upon a faulty premise. From the start. I don't even have to explain it like I did in the OP.

The distinction is between a general timeframe and a specific time within that period. A general timeframe is given - within the lifetime of those present, that generation would see it happen - but not exactly when.
 
Then why did you ask, “What makes you think we can’t trust the bible about where we came from?”

Uh, because I wanted to know what makes you think we can't trust the bible about where we came from?
And she gave you a short, clear, answer that was straight to the point. Which you've not responded to at all.
I believe that the Bible exists. It's an incoherent collection of stories. It's a bunch of myth, legend and a few historically accurate facts. Unlike you, I've not self described as "Bible Believer".
Why do you call yourself that?
Tom

That’s right. In his initial statment of beliefs, he described himself as a “bible believer.” He changed that later to “data believer,” and still later to “bible data believer.” Yet despite this, he now counsels not to trust the bible, even while asking why one doesn’t trust the bible. How is one to make sense of all this incoherent mishmash, and perhaps more important, why bother even trying?
 
Last edited:
You are anti-Jewish.

Is that the same as anti-Christian? Yes. I'm anti-Jewish. And anti-Christian. And anti-atheist, anti-theist, anti-Republican, anti-Democrat, anti-communism, socialism, capitalism, anti-religion, anti-homosexual, anti-homophobic. I'm even anti-science [gasp! blasphemy!] and anti-infidel. It would probably be simpler for me to explain it to you but difficult for you to grasp. I'm anti-bullshit. That covers it. Fuck your religion, your infidelity, your politics, your schools, your woke and your dreamers. Poets, priests and politicians.

Think of it like this, I'm like everyone else except for that I wouldn't lift a finger to stop them from being full of shit. Not in war, not in diplomacy, not in pretense and not in fact.

A man of piece.

As for supersessionism, whether intentionally or ignorantly you have been repeting its core argument at us, that the Hebrews have somehow lost their birthright and no longer enjoy a special relationship with the God (and the name of God that you have stolen and insist on mispronouncing pointedly as Jehovah) from their tradition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

I'm anti-supersessionism and every other ism.
 
You are anti-Jewish.

Is that the same as anti-Christian? Yes. I'm anti-Jewish. And anti-Christian. And anti-atheist, anti-theist, anti-Republican, anti-Democrat, anti-communism, socialism, capitalism, anti-religion, anti-homosexual, anti-homophobic. I'm even anti-science [gasp! blasphemy!] and anti-infidel. It would probably be simpler for me to explain it to you but difficult for you to grasp. I'm anti-bullshit. That covers it. Fuck your religion, your infidelity, your politics, your schools, your woke and your dreamers. Poets, priests and politicians.

Think of it like this, I'm like everyone else except for that I wouldn't lift a finger to stop them from being full of shit. Not in war, not in diplomacy, not in pretense and not in fact.

A man of piece.

As for supersessionism, whether intentionally or ignorantly you have been repeting its core argument at us, that the Hebrews have somehow lost their birthright and no longer enjoy a special relationship with the God (and the name of God that you have stolen and insist on mispronouncing pointedly as Jehovah) from their tradition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

I'm anti-supersessionism and every other ism.

Are you also Auntie Em of the Wizard of Oz?
 
That’s right. In his initial statment of beliefs, he described himself as a “bible believer.” He changed that later to “data believer,” and still later to “bible data believer.” Yet despite this, he now counsels not to trust the bible, even while asking why one doesn’t trust the bible. How is one to make sense of all this incoherent mishmash, and perhaps more important, why bother even trying?

Are you and steve_bank married? Socks?

I am a Bible Data believer, a non-believer, I follow the Bible's own counsel not to trust it. I've given you a link to my website explaining Bible Data in detail, I've given you the Bible quote and have explained that. Spirit; literally God breathed. Inspired word. John warned the congregation not to trust or believe the alleged inspired infallible word of Jehovah God. Not to trust what the disciples or their written work said. To be like the Berean Jews, who examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
 
Last edited:
Are you also Auntie Em of the Wizard of Oz?

Nah, she was cool. But I am generally anti-woman. And anti-man. I'm here defending thousands of years of Jewish history and tradition against slander. I can't take seriously anyone so goddamn obvious and stupid to suggest I'm Anti-semetic. For what? Because labeling someone that is really effective. Good! I don't want anything to do with stupid bullshit.

Like that. You've got no power over me. I'm not afraid to shy away from your fucking stupid. Embrace it! The shying away. Not the stupid. The stupid shying away. From the stupid. Shy.
 
You are anti-Jewish.

Is that the same as anti-Christian? Yes. I'm anti-Jewish. And anti-Christian. And anti-atheist, anti-theist, anti-Republican, anti-Democrat, anti-communism, socialism, capitalism, anti-religion, anti-homosexual, anti-homophobic. I'm even anti-science [gasp! blasphemy!] and anti-infidel. It would probably be simpler for me to explain it to you but difficult for you to grasp. I'm anti-bullshit. That covers it. Fuck your religion, your infidelity, your politics, your schools, your woke and your dreamers. Poets, priests and politicians.

Think of it like this, I'm like everyone else except for that I wouldn't lift a finger to stop them from being full of shit. Not in war, not in diplomacy, not in pretense and not in fact.

A man of piece.

As for supersessionism, whether intentionally or ignorantly you have been repeting its core argument at us, that the Hebrews have somehow lost their birthright and no longer enjoy a special relationship with the God (and the name of God that you have stolen and insist on mispronouncing pointedly as Jehovah) from their tradition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

I'm anti-supersessionism and every other ism.
You are clearly anti self-awareness....
 

Is that the same as anti-Christian? Yes. I'm anti-Jewish. And anti-Christian. And anti-atheist, anti-theist, anti-Republican, anti-Democrat, anti-communism, socialism, capitalism, anti-religion, anti-homosexual, anti-homophobic. I'm even anti-science [gasp! blasphemy!] and anti-infidel. It would probably be simpler for me to explain it to you but difficult for you to grasp. I'm anti-bullshit. That covers it. Fuck your religion, your infidelity, your politics, your schools, your woke and your dreamers. Poets, priests and politicians.

Think of it like this, I'm like everyone else except for that I wouldn't lift a finger to stop them from being full of shit. Not in war, not in diplomacy, not in pretense and not in fact.

A man of piece.

My god, what an autobiography in three short paragraphs. And it tells me what I felt, bone-deep, at the start: you're a party animal. Aint no party til DLH shows up.

"Girl, you comin' to my party, right?"
"Prolly, but who-all gonna be there?"
"My boy K-Roy and his friends. He's bringin' some Molly and there gonna be barbecue and malt liquor too."
"No, no, I don't care about all that old stuff. I want to know is DLH gonna be there, cause aint no party til he shows up."
"Girrrl, I don't think so. You want to be called a fool to your face for four, five hours?"
"Girrrrrl, you don't know my man DLH. He is TIZZIGHT. He got your Old Testament, your New Testament, your Jehovah, your end times. Party go turbo when my man shows up!!"
"Girl, you trippin? You want that old guy? He aint done nothin for thirty, thirty-five years but READ. He sitting in the corner with that goddamn dictionary. Last time he sat there and I offered him a beer and he said 'Define beer' or some shit, and it was two hours before we got past all that. You aint serious. You want to define beer??"
"Girl, you want me, you got to have DLH. He is straight up gangsta. He knows it all and he tells it like it is, was, and is gonna be."
"All rigggggght. He'll be there. Him and that fucking dictionary."
And another urban rave was about to get lit.
 
The distinction is between a general timeframe and a specific time within that period. A general timeframe is given - within the lifetime of those present, that generation would see it happen - but not exactly when.

Sorry about that, DBT. The villagers are stomping around with their torch songs again.

In the opening statement of the OP I say "The SAB indicates that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners. I will demonstrate why this is not the case by explaining the verses they use to conclude this. They mistake the transfiguration, the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus being at the right hand of power, and John's Revelation at Patmos."

Jesus, as you must know, always said no one knows that day except the Father. God. Jehovah. He didn't mean that God knew it then, he meant that God and only God, who Jesus wasn't, knows when the time is right. It isn't a fixed date. God doesn't see into the future. The future doesn't exist. God will know when the time is right. No one, not Jesus or God or anyone else, knew or were expecting the end of this world to come within a specific timeframe outside of the end days. The end days began when the world was founded. Specifically, when Adam and Eve first conceived.

Fuck.

The meaning of the word fuck is to throw down seed. The meaning of the Greek word katabole is exactly the same. The writers of the Christian Greek scriptures used that term often, as the founding of the world upon the blood of Abel and the prophets, for example, and in a more literal sense, Paul used it in reference to Abraham and Sarah's conception. (Hebrews 11:11)
 
My god, what an autobiography in three short paragraphs. And it tells me what I felt, bone-deep, at the start: you're a party animal. Aint no party til DLH shows up.

"Girl, you comin' to my party, right?"
"Prolly, but who-all gonna be there?"
"My boy K-Roy and his friends. He's bringin' some Molly and there gonna be barbecue and malt liquor too."
"No, no, I don't care about all that old stuff. I want to know is DLH gonna be there, cause aint no party til he shows up."
"Girrrl, I don't think so. You want to be called a fool to your face for four, five hours?"
"Girrrrrl, you don't know my man DLH. He is TIZZIGHT. He got your Old Testament, your New Testament, your Jehovah, your end times. Party go turbo when my man shows up!!"
"Girl, you trippin? You want that old guy? He aint done nothin for thirty, thirty-five years but READ. He sitting in the corner with that goddamn dictionary. Last time he sat there and I offered him a beer and he said 'Define beer' or some shit, and it was two hours before we got past all that. You aint serious. You want to define beer??"
"Girl, you want me, you got to have DLH. He is straight up gangsta. He knows it all and he tells it like it is, was, and is gonna be."
"All rigggggght. He'll be there. Him and that fucking dictionary."
And another urban rave was about to get lit.

Not anymore you won't.



 
Back
Top Bottom