Featured Discerning the Kingdom of Light vs the Kingdom of Darkness

Don't even go there, friend. I taught English grammar years ago and I know when there is or is not more then one possible meaning to a sentence.

You said, "...you've just lost credibility." So by that statement how can one tell just how much credibility I have lost in your opinion? Such a statement without further information is impossible to discern. You did not make yourself clear.

But I can assume I have at least 1% credibility with you because you are still asking questions. So I will be kind enough to answer.

They are supernaturally transformed from the spirit realm into the physical one just like Satan did when He tried to tempt Jesus. And... just like the angels are sometimes transformed into the physical and appear to men on occasion;

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Secondly, your reply that the dancing satyrs of Isaiah 13:21 is sort of ridiculous. Why? Well, look at what the rest of the verse in context (vss 19-21) to the subject for it tells us:

¶ And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.

21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

Everything in that prophecy has been fufilled to the letter...literally--- historically. Yet because of your personal prejudices contrary to what I have stated you arbitrarily declare that the satyrs are nothing more than shaggy goats AND that the dancing part was a metaphor. By what rule of hermenuetics do you justify taking such a position? Furthermore, why would all the rest of the prophecy be literal but that one point (satyrs) is not literal, but a metaphor? That is terribly inconsistent. You have some explaining to do.

 

Very legitimate questions, Mr. Moderator. It isn't always easy to know just where to draw the line but that is why we need Holy Spirit discernment more than ever and the biggest reason why I started this thread.

 

I agree. But the context of Isaiah 13:21 demands a literal interpretation for there is no such thing as 'dancing goats'. Furthermore the prophecy of Isaiah 13 in context reveals that every other detail about the fall of Babylon has been literal and historical. So it is not right to arbitrarily declare that just one small part of that prophecy (satyrs dancing) is not literal and therefore a metaphor.

 

That truly would have helped, but you should have stopped right there and leave off the % stuff. But we are going to put an end to this confusion very shortly and I will indeed move on and leave behind this waste of time you created for both of us.

Good grief. I gave you the scriptures and examples from the scriptures and you still don't get it. Well, O.K.

Jesus resurrection body, was a spirit body. Satan did the same thing at the temptation. Your rationalizations aren't helping you a bit.

Dancing goats, right?:thumbsup: Just because you arbitrarily decide that that part of a prophecy that was and is historically fulfilled literally is a metaphor. THAT ONE AND ONLY PART...while all the rest is literal.And you call that logical? Consistent?

Oh, you mean from all those corrupt translations as done by eevan-jelly-cul thee-o-logians:thumbs: who are equally unbelieving on this matter as you are? Why not therefore appeal to the NWT of Jehovah's Witnesses? It is a dishonest conclusion based on fear of the reality that I have presented here. AND, I am by no means alone in that assessment.

You are nit-picking in order to escape the reality of this matter. But neither you nor anyone else will escape it.

I am going to remind you one last time that I have personally seen females attacked by demonic spirits.....sexually. One woman I helped bounced up and down off her bed repeatedly and involuntarily just as what was portrayed in that demonic movieThe Exorcist. She was forced into wild sexual gyrations right in front of myself, her husband, and one of my fellow counselors. It was among the ugliest and most horrendous things I have ever seen. So......I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU nor any other critic of this position. But the Bible is clear enough and it is clear you don't really like what it says...hence, the rationalizations.

We are done on this issue.

 

Thanks again. You make your points well.

 

I am currently a member of Online Baptist and Evolution Fairytale Fourm where I have regularly posted since 2009. What is so interesting is that if the critics here had known what I have been posting in the last few years they could just as easily conclude that I am 'obsessed' with the creation vs evolution issue or the Pre-trib, Pre-mill issue.

Oh, well. That goes with the territory I suppose.:godisgood:

Best wishes and God bless you.

 

Didn't I tell you that we were finished with this? You apparently don't respect the wishes of those who differ with your prejudices, do you? I must have touched a sensitive nerve or something, but I assure you this is the last you have heard from me on this subject.


I erased what I had posted for it is useless to try to convince someone who doesn't want the real truth to begin with.

 

Let me take that a step further, dear friend. Some people were (and are today) the offspring of devils. Judas was. Evidence:


Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? John 6:70

διάβολος diabolos, dee-ab'-ol-os

from 1225; a traducer; specially, Satan (compare 7854):--false accuser, devil, slanderer.

I would like to know why that statement is anything less than literal in light of the biblical fact that Judas is the only other character in the entire Bible besides the Antichrist himself that is referred to as 'the son of perdition'?

Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

2Th 2:3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

I think that Antichrist, being the counterfeit and exact opposite to Jesus Christ will likewise have a miraculous birth; with a human mother but not a human father: Satan. What biblical reason would prevent this from being true?

 

How do you know that they were mythical creatures?

 

I gave you scripture and you deliberately twisted it and you dissed the classic definition from Strongs. I described to you in some details what I and my fellow counselors have experienced and you don't accept that either.

So why continue to discuss things with someone who rationalizes away the truth no matter what? Why waste all the time and effort to persuade anyone who only wishes to deny a reality they don't like?

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?John 6:70