Attitude Adjustment

If you hadn't beat me to it, i was was going to.do some variation of "bring it" but it wouldn't have been as well done.

I see you have the same hope for the future as I do

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

Matt 16:28 however also said, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." But assuming you agree the Second Coming did not happen during the first century, as well as that none of those people there have been alive for the last 20 or so centuries, that is a fail. So maybe don't hold your breath for 2nd Peter either, or even call it a success if there were a strike a millennium or more in the future.

"the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" can refer to either the spiritual Kingdom of God, which Jesus did in-fact bring during the lifetimes of the disciples, or to the physical Kingdom of God which He will bring in the end times.

Those are both valid interpretations of "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" however neither of them pass the comprehensive tests of exegesis, hermeneutics, and logic.
Exegesis tells us that we have to take the meaning of a text from the immediate context itself. In the following two verses it says that six days later Peter, James, and John saw Jesus transfigured before them and he was in all the power and glory of his kingdom.
Using a literal hermeneutic or method of interpretation tells us that what Jesus was talking about was not something "spiritual" or "allegorical" since context doesn't call for that.
Logic says that Jesus couldn't have been referring to his second coming because there are other signs that will precede the second coming.
Therefore, the interpretation which is most accurate is that Jesus was talking about coming in the power of his kingdom in the transfiguration which happens two verses later.

Thanks for correcting me on that!

Your worldview can't even account for logic. If you hold to materialistic, atheistic humanism you probably believe that "logic" means "agreed upon principles" as defined by other materialists.

The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and timeless laws that govern the process of proper inference. Tell us how a worldview that postulates only the existence of a materialistic closed system can account for something that is immaterial, universal, and timeless?

What you have done is redefined "logic" to fit your materialistic and anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions.

he does make a point with the adam and eve thing.

It fails because it assumes Adam and Eve only had 3 sons. They had many more suns and daughters (they were healthy, stayed fertile for a long time, and didn't have birth control). The sons married the daughters (which was not as bad as it would be now, because the gene pool hadn't thinned out yet)

Exactly, and as for Noah’s Ark, there were only about 1,500 “kinds” back then, and they only had to be land dwelling animals. And a couple of baby wooly mammoths wouldn’t have been a problem.

Now, the age of the earth is up for debate, for huge assumptions must be made either way. And based on how the word for day (yom) in the book of Genesis is interpreted, that could also go either way. So logic can also be used to prove the Bible is true. ; )

@gassed-up, that is basically what I meant. "thin out" is just an easier way of saying that over generations, genetic variety (needed to avoid replicating faults and concentrating abnormalities) becomes harder to find in closely related people, thus making it necessary to find mates who are not close relatives. When the entire human genome is carried withing two people, however, this problem does not begin to take effect until many many generations have passed.

Gene pools don't "thin out" they replicate faults and concentrate abnormalities, or is demonstrable science considered apostate.

Webster's definition is fine. You still can't account for the universal laws of logic and that is why you are deflecting by attacking my beliefs as "illogical" as you misrepresent them which is not an argument and shows a very poor understanding of logic.

I'm sorry, I try to keep an open mind and avoid trampling on other peoples views and beliefs, but you do spout some absolute bollocks.

A real argument would be to point out what is wrong about my argument and then prove it wrong.
laonsite can't account for the existence of logic using his/her/zis/zer materialistic worldview therefore that person attacks the supernatural aspects of my belief system and deflects my criticism by saying it "makes no sense" and using ad hominems. Please don't be like that...

I'm sorry if you're offended, as I stated I try not to be unkind about other peoples imaginary friends. You can dress any argument up with pseudo academic bullshit but you can't ignore the truth that is staring you in the face. Offering you a counter argument would be pointless and would tend to give your "argument" some validation. Again I'm sorry but you put your head above the parapet, expect people to take pot shots at it.

I respectfully refer you to Clarke's Third Law.

However, feel free to continue arrogantly claiming you know the absolute nature of a universe that is so vast, that the entire planet you're species is stranded on doesn't even rise to the level of a flyspeck by comparison.

Well said! Statements of the impossible (other than ones that have to do with logical impossibilities such as violations of the law of non-contradiction), are very difficult to verify. One counter-example against a claim of impossibility is enough to prove it wrong, and if there is sufficient evidence supporting the counter-example, then the claim of impossibility cannot combat it alone.

This still fails the test of the text itself. Most evangelicals take other references that are no more concrete or unambiguous than this as a definite reference to a Second Coming; in fact if you read the Hebrew usually translated "behold a virgin shall conceive" it's a tougher stretch than even that.

The problem is, that is how the Christian community itself at that time understood the verse, and other NT verses made LOTS of similar "any day now" kinds of end-timey eschatological predictions - to the point that over a few decades the NT writers were themselves forced to acknowledge the problem openly in their texts ("where is the promise of his coming?"), - and only THEN did they start devising alternative "interpretations" like, oh, well, "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."

Which is pretty much an acknowledgment of the failure itself and of course let the thing just keep stretching out for centuries, and centuries, and centuries, and centuries. That clearly fails any kind of test of falsifiability and therefore - ymmv, but just pointing out - especially given many other failed prophecies too - can not be reliably looked to as truth. Prediction was, any time now, any time now, any time now, in fact so soon people shouldn't even bother getting married, any time now - okay, we're going to "reinterpret."

Nope.

The problem with scoffers like you is when I give them the proper interpretation of a text that they believe proves an error in Scripture or a failed prophecy, they say "that can't be right because other Christians in times past have believed that interpretation" and then they bring up other texts they believe prove errors or show failed prophecies in an attempt to RED HERRING the conversation away from the text they were just schooled on.

You went back to the 2 Peter passage, which is where you should have stayed, but you brought up Matt. 16. Why can't you stay in Matt. 16? Is it because you can't argue against the proper interpretation of Matt. 16?

Saying that interpretation "fails the test of the text" then saying what other people have believed about that text and going to other texts and using such fallacious argumentation against those texts is NOT an argument against the interpretation of Matt. 16!

Well, I'm glad you admit the Bible is NOT clear and unambiguous and requires highly intricate and proper "interpretation" in order to not have failed at face-value (in correlation with other similar texts) as prophecy. And clearly it makes the Bible useful to people since everyone in 20 centuries of advent-less history has agreed on what "interpretation is necessary."

And I'm glad you believe the inspired early Christians were incapable of "correctly" understanding the texts they were closer to than we are. Seems to me that unfortunately says way more than anyone can who's spend years in seminary and div school.

Ultimately I think people have to be forced to be honest with the texts. It just seems to be easier for some than for others.

as the sun dies, it expands. inner planets like mercury, venus, and earth will be consumed.

so christianity predicted the sun dying. interesting.

That is one interpretation of it, but unless I'm mistaken, I think God establishes His physical kingdom on earth after the Day of the Lord (granted, He could being the earth back I suppose)

ok then

I am more concerned with living right and doing God's will right now than with what will happen in the "end times" or at "the end of the age."

And indeed we all should be! I know many who are so concerned with the end times that they neglect the here and now. That said, focusing on the here and now should not lead to the neglect of studying the end times at least a little. If God felt it was important to show John the end and instruct him to write Revelation, then I feel it is important to read and study what God has revealed

Sounds like a poetic description of when our sun goes red giant

Could be, but the real question is: how would (as I have heard them called) "illiterate sheep herders and fishermen" know that stars like our sun go supernova and destroy nearby planets?

My nit picky but feels the need to point out that our sun will not go supernova. It doesn't have enough mass. The red giant phase in which it should increase volume (but not mass) should expand to encompass the earth.

Now to your question.
If a more advanced being (be it a deity, or merely an extra terrestrial) were to describe it...

"More advanced being" (God) tells the truth while "more advanced beings" (demons) tell half-truths to promote their lies. It is a very intriguing study into the "demonological phenomenon" throughout the centuries and how they present themselves as "extraterrestrials" that teach people theology. If you are interested, check out a channel on YouTube by Xendrius. His documentaries are top notch.