QUESTION LIST #23:
| To list of all questions on Website |
A reader asks what should we be looking for, as far as signs, nearing the endtime?
Answer:
Hi Deb, in my opinion we should be watching for anything that will lead to Martial Law in America, Great Britain, and other Christian nations.
Of course 911 and any Homeland Security measures are high on the list. I believe that 911 capitulated us forward in leaps and bounds towards the coming apostasy. I also believe that the "free Christian nations" will be enslaved by their controlled governments through Martial Law – this, in my opinion is how the prophecies of martyrdom in Rev 13:15 are carried out. And while they are written under the second beast's (antichrist) actions, it is looking back on the directives to the first beast (the New World Order). So the timing is not out of sync; it just relates who has control over who (antichrist verses New World Order) and by what authority the (evil) men of the earth (NWO) are operating under.
Remember, before antichrist comes he has a global system in place that is run by flesh men under his influence. This, I think, is what shall throw off many in the endtime, thinking that the Tribulation will be ending when antichrist is just getting here.
And to determine the correct English meaning one must look to the context of the Scripture. Obviously, if one misinterprets the Scripture, he may make a "his" into an "it's," or vice-versa, etc. In other words, in verse two above, you see that I noted that the word "him" as to refer to the 1st beast SYSTEM, and not a single being such as antichrist himself; i.e.,
In the Greek, the verse reads, simply: "and the dragon gave autos autos power, and autos seat, and great authority." It is purely interpretation that one makes it "his" instead of "it's" seat, and great authority. And as far as the Greek goes, either word would be correct. So you see that even in strict translation there is a certain amount of necessary interpretation. This leads to disagreements and alterative readings. That is why CONTEXT is so very important when reading a Scripture. one must not simply read the target verse, but also the several preceding and proceeding verses also, so as to be sure that the interpretation of the subject by the reader is in the context of what the Holy Spirit was speaking of. Taking a verse out of context is one of the greatest causes of error regarding the understanding of a Scripture. Example (and this example is admittedly a little obvious and fundamental, but is useful to illustrate my point):
If we took a single clause from the lips of our Lord, separating it from the surrounding context, as we shall in the below, we would have God saying that there is no God!
Of course a complete reading, understanding the context in which our God said the above, shows that He was saying that there are no OTHER gods other than He. He is the only God:
Point made? I trust so.
Anyway...back to our subject. This New World Order system will run for 42 months BEFORE antichrist and his locust army appears (or perhaps antichrist comes in the last 5 months of the 42 months, or there is some overlap). But either way, the world will be under tribulation a few years before the Second Advent (47 months by my reckoning: 42Mo. for the 1st beast [NWO], and 5Mo. for the 2nd beast [antichrist]). I marvel at Christians who say “come Lord Jesus” as though it could happen tomorrow―when I know that they do not realize that there is a set order of events that, by prophecy, MUST precede the Second Advent. But I know that they mean well and just desire the Lord, though not knowing the Scriptures.
So we need to
watch what man is doing to man first, then after that, satan will come and do
‘his thing.’ Many people seem to overlook this. Satan
(antichrist―2nd beast of Rev chpt. 13) heals a deadly wound,
but before he can heal a system (1st beast of Rev chpt. 13) it must be in place to be damaged. That
system is not yet fully in place today, but everything is set; and with the right
impetus it could rise in perhaps six to twelve months time, eighteen at the
outside. And I am talking of total global unification. But that time line is
from the start of the 'event,' the event has not yet happened and we don't
know when it will.
What will 'the
event' be? Something that will utterly convince all the world's governments
to yield their freedom and sovereignty to the one world global system (this is
the beast spoken of in Rev 13:1-2). I believe personally that it will not be
a single event but a montage of global happenings in all four spheres of
satan's dominion: the Political, Economic, Financial, and Education (expressly
the Media arm of Education).
Once there is One
World, then men must create One Government, One Religion, One Financial
System, One Morality, One G(g)od. Obviously there shall be dissidents and
revolutionaries (many Christians and others), the Christians among them are
the Martyrs and shall be killed by the first beast system. Of those who
resist, only God's Elect will not be killed. All others eventually who remain
alive shall worship the beast and antichrist who gave him his power:
Rev 13:7-8 Note: There are two groups who are protected on this Earth (no Rapture!) during the Tribulation, these are found in Rev 12:6 & 16, and we shall cover these in our upcoming book. But suffice it for now to say that God does divinely protect two groups of Christians in the tribulation which are not the Elect. So all hope is not lost. You may notice that I somewhat disagree with Pastor M. on the end-time scenario (P.M. has of late stated that the entire Tribulation is only 5 months long. This is incorrect. But Pastor Murray is great teacher and servant of our Lord Jesus Christ. You must believe what the Lord gives you to believe through His Scriptures. Many good men of God disagree on certain end-time prophecies; Bullinger, in fact, believed in a Rapture Theory, but he is still my favorite Bible teacher. As time goes on, much more is revealed to us from the Scriptures (Dan 12:4). You must be able to document everything by the Scriptures. If there is any point that I have made here that you cannot find agreement in with the Scriptures, please send me a rebuttal and I will document. I do not take offence at being questioned, nor should anyone else.
God
bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor) Back to list of questions at top of page
A reader, Charles, objected to our writing the word "allah" in a study (which was speaking of false gods). Charles called us to task for a "sin" in writing the five letters "a-l-l-a-h". For witness, he directed Ex 23:13 at us.
Reply to the reader: Thank you Charles, though you misunderstand the Scripture [Exod 23:13] you presented. It is not saying that you cannot utter a name of some false god, for the Bible itself mentions several, and I am sure that God presumed that these names may someday be read out loud at a Bible study or something. Obviously your conclusion is not the case.
Example:
The list really could go on much further, but I'm sure that you get the
message. What the Scripture that you posted to me really means is not
to call upon these false gods, not to name them as their God.
Exod 23:13
Thanks for caring, though.
God bless
the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Charles wrote back with rebuttal. To which we answered:
Hello again, Charles. I do not get offended that you question me. In fact I rather enjoy it. For in being asked to clarify a certain point one finds himself searching the Scripture deeper.
You said:
My above was an explanation of what the verse meant, not a transliteration or even a literal word for word translation. I am sure that you understand that much is lost in English of the Hebrew idiom.
Is the following not true?: But what God a man speaks with his mouth, that God is the God of his heart.
However, that does not cover what you said. For you seem to state of me, a teacher, when speaking of FALSE gods, and CALLING them false gods, somehow violated the Scripture that you supplied [Exod 23:13]. You are looking at the letter and not the spirit of the Scripture. You are also not using context.
By your reasoning I could post: “yea, there is no God“ (Isa 44:8) and have you say that "God said that there is no God". But using context you can see that God meant that there are no OTHER Gods besides Him.
How your studies must be confusing to you, so much Strong's Concordance and so little simple understanding. Do you suppose that before 1900 AD when Strong's wrote his Concordance that the King James Bible was a closed book to English readers?
And imagine what you could do with Isa 44:8 if you gave it the same Strong's treatment that you gave our verse? Don't you agree that, if you were inclined to do so, you could completely change the meaning of the above Scripture with selective Strong's work?
And you do take liberties with the Strong’s and have no fear to insert your own interpretations into the Scripture claiming it is so. This is a dangerous practice.
When I showed you that God Himself had man to “speak a name of several false gods,” that didn’t bear any weight with you at all. And your ‘sidestep’ (no offense) of saying that God wrote it but man can’t say it - doesn’t get it, friend. God had holy men write those Scriptures and instructed man to read them; even to the ends of the earth are we to spread the good book. Are you implying that when reading the Bible to each other we must fear speaking any name contained within it? Is there power in the names of false gods to a True believer? Is there witchcraft in the words contained on the pages of the Bible? God forbid!
No offence, but you sound like a legalist, the very thing Christ chastised the Pharisees for.
You said [my comments in blue bracketed text]:
If you so object to me writing the names of false gods which are nothing but imaginations of deceived people, why then do you not object to me writing satan's name who in fact does exist and according to 2nd Thess 2:4 will come as a false god? Which, according to your reasoning, would be the more dangerous name to utter should uttering names be dangerous at all?
I understand our impasse here, I wonder if I can explain it to you without offending you. Better yet, let’s allow Paul to answer between you and me (please read the entire Scriptural references presented to you, ponder them, don't just gloss over them seeking to disagree without hearing me out):
What this means is that when I speak to YOU (Charles) I should not utter the empty name “allah” because to you it is wrong to do so, and by my doing so it makes you think less of me and my ability to teach God’s Word, it makes you put me aside and listen no further to what I have to say.
But what it says to you is that you should understand that God has not set the same conviction upon my heart against uttering the names of idols and false gods, and that when I do it it is because it has been given to me to understand that an idol is nothing. Therefore when I speak to a Muslim and witness Christ Jesus to him I can say the word “allah” and know in my heart that it is nothing. Did not Paul also tell us:
So, therefore I will apologize to YOU (Charles) that I wrote the name “allah” in a Bible study that was teaching of false gods, because it is a stumbling stone to you. But at the same time my conscience is clear before God because I know the truth. So in other words, I must limit myself around you because you are limited. Not all who read my work think as you do.
No offence intended to you, just cold hard fact and truths about yourself that you surely will resent me for pointing out. But once again, did not our Paul even say:
God bless
the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)
Charles protests still, and we answer him as thus:
Hello again Charles. You said:
But you aren't making this simple. You are giving me unfair rules in this. The problem is that allah was not considered a god by Muslims until 622 A.D. when Islam became a codified religion. Before that, there were no Muslims as we know them today. The Biblical cannon was closed some 550 years earlier, thus, there was no way for the Bible to post the name of allah, for it was not a name when the Bible was written. And al-lah simply means "the-god"
You are hemming me in by a paradox; i.e, you say that I can’t speak the name allah because God didn’t first speak it in the Bible, but the name allah was not the name of a false god when the Bible was written, so it could not appear in the Scriptures, yet 'he' is today a major false god worshipped by one sixth of the planets inhabitants. A paradox.
The fact is that we have no guidance on the name allah because it wasn’t spoken during Biblical times. So for that reason I refer to the names of other false gods that were mentioned in the Bible and how they were spoken by faithful men when referring to the plethora of false gods (after Ex 23:13 was written, I might add).
As the above causes us difficulty, likewise, try to answer me from Scripture whether or not a heart transplant is acceptable for us to have according to God. I believe that you see my point?
You said:
It isn’t so much that it is an idiom, for it really isn’t, but it is that you do not understand it.
Consider four verses down from Ex 23:13, to Ex 23:17; don’t we run into another such problem? How so-called ‘literally’ would you render this verse with Strong’s definitions?
Oh how we could confuse this verse with ‘strict’ Strong’s Concordance definitions. I wonder if I am making my point? Perhaps the below Scriptures will give you a better feel for what God was trying to say in Ex 23:13 (please pay particular attention to the usage of the phrases wherein it speaks of ‘names’ of other gods or out of their ‘mouth’ about other gods):
I know that you are relying heavily on Dr. Strong’s work to arrive at your conclusions regarding our Scripture, but what you fail to realize is that Dr. Strong himself ‘throws you a loop.’ Observe.
The word translated as “name” in Ex 23:13 is:
It is my position that the Scripture means:
The same word shem that is translated “name” in our Scripture was translated “renown” in at least two other places in the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament):
So the Translators could have just as well translated the occurrence of shem in Ex 23:13 to “renown” as they did in the above two verses. Now let’s read your verse and change the English word “name” to “renown”:
Makes a difference, no? I rest my case (worthily so, I believe). Are you seeing my point at all?
Peace to you, and may God bless your studies always.
God bless
the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor) Back to list of questions at top of page
A reader writes:
Answer:
Hello, the Scripture revisited: Matt 13:36-43
We know that the Son of man is an epitaph of Jesus
Christ (both "Son" and "man" has the article here, i.e, "the
Son the Man." The only other person called "son of man" in the Bible
is Ezekiel, and it never uses the article when referring to Ezekiel,
conversely, it always uses the article when speaking of Christ Jesus.
It may be confusing that Jesus uses His name on earth (for "Son of man" refers
to Jesus in the flesh, humbled for sacrifice; and "Son of God" refers to Him
as glorified), but we see in this same Scripture Jesus refer to Himself as
"Son of man" while doing something that He shall do after being glorified and
set at the right hand of God in Heaven. The point being that Jesus was simply
using the term "Son of man" instead of saying "I," or "me." He did the same
kind of thing (speaking of Himself in the third person) when giving His
formulae for Baptism in Matt 28:19, and also in the below.
Matt 13:41
So by this we see that Jesus was saying that He did and shall do these
things. Jesus was speaking of Himself in the third person, and since He was
on earth at that time and had not yet been offered and resurrected He referred
to Himself in His then current (at the time of the speech) state.
But I know that you know that Jesus was God.
John 1:1-3
Jesus was there at the creation, He was also there in the wilderness with
Moses and Israel during their wanderings. Jesus is the Eternal One.
1 Cor 10:1-4
So it is not odd that Jesus would say in our Scripture
"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man."
How could Jesus sow the good seed (men) and not yet be their flesh ancestor?
You have to remember that men are born again (born
from above - of the Spirit). Satan's seed are not born again. Satan is the
flesh ancestor to his people (Kenites), literally as in man and women having sex and
bringing forth flesh children; but Jesus is not the flesh ancestor to His
people on that wise.
The Lord God formed Adam. Jesus is God in the flesh made human to suffer
death for men everywhere whom believe. It is appropriate to call the Lord God,
Adam's Father; but not to call Jesus Christ, Adam's Father; for Jesus was flesh
and Adam was flesh, but God is Spirit. Though Jesus is God when God is in the
flesh (it is Jesus whom Jacob wrestled with in Gen 32:24). And you may
also recall that Jesus is called the Last Adam (1st Corr 15:45-47).
A study we have may help you here:
The Holy Spirit & The
Holy Trinity
In our Scripture, there is something that is often overlooked: While it does
clearly spell out that the Tares are the children of the devil, it does
NOT say that the Wheat are the children of Jesus (Son of
man), though He sowed them, but rather that they are the children of
the KINGDOM. This is important, and, I believe, answers some
of your question:
Matt 13:37-38 So that the Tares are born into it (their lot), the Wheat enter in (to the Kingdom of God) another way other than by birthright (remember that while true Israel were born into the Kingdom, Jesus opened the door to the Gentiles through faith so that they too may also enter in. Even a Kenite who converts may enter the Kingdom of God on the Great Day).
So then , how did Jesus sow the good seed into the Kingdom? Answer: He saved
them.
Who is this "Word of God" that "liveth for ever?" You know,
it is the Son of man, Jesus Christ, the Word of God:
John 1:1 I wonder if I answered your question? Please feel free to follow-up with any rebuttals or further questions on this answer. I do not take offense when one asks for documentation or when one disagrees with me. Although about an hour ago I was pretty harsh in an e-mail with a Rapturist that told me that I was teaching a post-Tribulation Rapture Doctrine. I gave him a piece of my mind, and feel quite well having done so, thank you.
God bless
the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)
Back to list of questions at top of page Fallen angels, Kenites, salvation, and gender in Heaven
Our reply to a reader: Hello Mary, may I take your e-mail and insert answers as it goes?
You wrote [my replies in brackets, Mary's original in
purple]:
Hi and thank you for your
patience. I'm trying to understand exactly who are the fallen angels?
[There are two groups of 'fallen angels' spoken of in Scripture. The first
are in Gen 6:2 and these are currently incarcerated and condemned in Jude 1:6
and 2nd Peter 2:4, the second are the ones that will return with satan in Rev
12:9. The ones from Genesis are never to return, they are "...reserved in
everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
(Jude 1:6) and their fate is sealed as written in Matthew "...everlasting
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41).]
...Are they the
third of God's children who sided with
Lucifer (satan) in the first earth age? [No, the third
are men everywhere. They are not angels, but flesh men born into this
world.] I thought I read on your site that all of God's children are
here now or will be born here in the 2nd earth age to choose again.
[Well, not ALL entities shall come through this age in
the flesh, just the general masses of souls. For instance, God has some good
ones that are never to be flesh, the Archangels and the Zoon (or Zoi) for
instance; well there are some bad ones that shall never be flesh either, satan
and his angels for example.]
You said that we have no memory of the first earth age, and no one knows whose
side they chose back then...God or satan. Is satan the only one so far who is
destined for soul death? [As
stated above, satan's angels have no part in being born in the flesh, thus
they have no chance for this second chance. It is my belief that the
so-called fallen angels (satan's angels) were his top lieutenants in the
insurrection of the age that was.]
Also, please understand that the term that you used in
the above "soul death" is a confusing term, and I know that it is confused by
many (most) teachers. Simply stated: We do not have souls, we
are souls. (there is a study on this somewhere on the site
- use the insite search engine on the home page and insert the words "we
are souls" - it should come up for you). [The
soul is the entity in whatever body it (you) has (flesh or spiritual).]
Is
God granting all other souls the choice of redemption? [All
mortals (flesh-borns) have a chance at salvation. Even the Kenite may convert
and be saved, though they are not predisposed to do so - but it is possible.]
And who are the demons who hang around
with satan now? [I'm glad you asked that. The demons
(or evil spirits) are NOT the fallen angels. The fallen angels (satan's
angels) are entities on earth, the evil spirits are just that, evil
spirits. Spirits are intellects, angels are entities. In other words, angels
have intellect (spirits) but spirits are not angels.
To easier understand this liken it to us humans having a
flesh body and a spirit within it, but when the flesh body dies the spirit
does not die it just leaves the flesh body. We were angels before being born
into these flesh bodies, but it is the same spirit that was in us as angels
that is in us as flesh humans. When the flesh dies we are once again
angels. Ya know?
And a soul is us. When we were angels (before
being born) we were still a soul, when we are born flesh we are still the
same soul, when the flesh dies the spirit goes back to God - that is what we
are, a soul having spirit (life). But in the Lake of Fire the soul (us, we)
are killed eternally, it is then that the spirit perishes, and without spirit
(life) the soul ceases to be. The spirit is the life, the intellect, the
animation; the flesh is the body on earth, there is a spiritual body that we
know little of but that it is/was the body of satan and the fallen angels.
All living things have spirit (life, ways), but animals
and plants have no soul, they are not a soul. When animals and plants die
they cease to be, but when humans die they continue on in another make-up, in
a spiritual body not a flesh one. But humans continue to have the same
identity after flesh death that they had when alive, that is why they
(spiritual entities) (us) are judged in Rev 20 by what they (we) did when they
(we) were in the flesh. The fallen angels were never flesh and are (were)
judged according to what they did in the spirit body in the age that was.
Flesh is a one-time short ordeal that will be done away with in the New
Heavens and New Earth of Rev 21.
And
while there will be animals and plants in Heaven they will not be the same
ones that died here on earth. Of all created and made things, only man can
resurrect. All else is ornamental. Animals do not have self-awareness, that
is why an animal will see its own reflection in a mirror and try to play with
it or bark at it, they cannot reason that it is them that they see even though
the image moves when they move, for they cannot comprehend that they exist.
They understand that all else exists, other animals and people and cars and
etc..., for they can see, smell, hear, taste, and feel them, but they do not
understand that they themselves exist. They are purely instinct driven. That
is not to say that they do not have personality, just that they don't know of
themselves.
But back to our subject:
A better question would be: Are the evil spirits
spirits of wicked men who were once alive in the flesh but now have passed on,
or, are they spirits of entities that shall never have been born (perhaps
having been judged to death in the first earth age), or, are they the spirits
of the fallen angels? Answer: Well they aren't the ones from Gen 6:2 because
those are in holding until Judgment Day.
So that leaves two choices, either they are the spirits
of wicked men who were once alive in the flesh but now have passed on, or, are
they spirits of entities that shall never have been born (perhaps having been
judged to death in the first earth age). Which of these two are the evil
angels that come to earth and harass man? They are spirits of entities that
shall never have been born (perhaps having been judged to death in the first
earth age). How can I be sure? Well we know that they are the spirits of
the damned, for they pleaded with Jesus:
Luke 8:30-31
30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him. 31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep. (KJV)] (The word "deep" here is the same Greek word for "bottomless pit")
My point is that these were already judged. So they
could not be spirits of wicked men who were once alive in the flesh but now
have passed on because those have not yet been judged. All mortals shall be
judged in Rev 20. Those that are already damned today had to have been judged
in the world that was.]
God bless you,
Mary
God bless you too, Mary.
God bless
the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Mary writes back for further clarification, and we respond as thus:
Hello again, Mary.
You said:
"Now please bear with me a little longer and help me understand this:"
No problem. We are to share God's truth; did not He even tell us to freely
(abundantly, eagerly) give to others that which he had freely given us:
Matt 10:8
You asked:
"If satan is an evil intellect, with a spirit body that would not be flesh-born, how could he have impregnated Eve?"
The same way that the fallen angels of Gen 6 did. For the "sons of God"
(angels) were not flesh men born of women, but were spiritual entities come to
earth directly from Heaven (the bad side of it). This is not hard to
document, I mean that angelic beings can do much of what humans can do.
Example, you remember that the two angels that came with the Lord to measure
Sodom for destruction also ATE dinner with Abraham. And is not Manna called
"angel's food" in the Psalms?
Well, if angels can eat like humans, then why can't they... Well, you know
what I am getting at. Children.
You asked:
" I read that satan was once an "angel of light"
No, you read that satan comes impersonating an angel of light. There
is a difference:
But satan is an angel nonetheless, he is just a bad angel.
You asked:
"but I read on your site that angels had no gender."
Well, if you read it more carefully you will see that I said that angels have
no gender as humans have gender, i.e., no male &
female.
Angels are male, God is male, Jesus is male. Angels are always called the
sons of God, rarely the children of God, never the daughters
of God. Jesus was male, for was He not circumcised Himself. You get the
point. And when you have seen Jesus you have seen God (John 14:9).
John 14:8-9
But them being male means nothing when there is no female. This is what I
mean by no gender in Heaven. You may also notice in the book of
Revelation, in the New Heavens and New Earth, there is no female form. All
are called the sons of God, all are sons:
Rev 21:5-7
In the first earth age all were sons as well. There was no female in the age
that was. You were male then. But as we see in Gen 6, being male only
matters in a world where there are females. This goes a long way to
opening the Scriptures to those who felt that the Bible was chauvinistic, or
who felt that God slighted women (i.e., always speaking of His people in male
gender terms). Quite the contrary, in God's eyes women are sons of God
as well, they are just in a female body for their sojourn on the earth. God
respects your soul as much as the soul of a male, for to Him they are the same
- they are the children of God. It is just that God sees what we really are
in a spiritual body.
So guess what, Mary, someday you will not be female. But in the Heavens this
is no concern for you, for all are the same in Heaven. Could it have
been any other way with God, really? On earth women are
less than men, it is just the way of mankind. Don't take that wrong, but you
know that women are not treated as equals to men on earth (look around you,
look around the world at other cultures). And the wife is told to obey her
husband in Paul's writings. Eve was told that her husband would rule over
her. And is not the female the weaker vessel of the two? That is just the
way it is here in the flesh world.
Well, in the eternity there is not separate genders, no male/female
differences, there is not one child over the other, but God over all. He
shall be our Father and we all shall be the sons of God forever.
These truths are being obscured by the new "gender-inclusive" "Bible" versions put out by lesbian feminists. In these newer versions they are replacing male pronouns for God, like "He" and making it "she," and they are rewriting the "your Father in Heaven," with "your Father and mother in heaven." This is no small thing. And the crypto-Judaic management at Zondervan Publishing Company, who makes most newer Bible versions, is guilty as much as the lesbian/feminist Editors of these profane so-called Bible versions. Both together are not making anything "inclusive," they are simply reserving their place in the Lake of Fire for adding-to, and taking away-from, the Scriptures of our Lord God.
God bless
the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor) Back to list of questions at top of page "Creation Science" and Ken Ham's AiG Ministry (Answers In Genesis)
Our reply to a reader regarding so-called "creation science": Hello, I am not a creation science believer as I understand the term.
And I agree with much of what you said regarding the so-called creation
science 'believers.'
Let's take Ken Ham's AiG Ministry for instance (Answers in Genesis). I feel
that he is doing a great disservice, for perhaps the right reasons. He may
think that he is bolstering faith, but his methods are a time bomb waiting to
explode. When he is proven wrong, the faith of many who came to the Lord
through his ministry will be injured.
I believe that TRUE science proves the Bible, but not the way that so-called
creation scientists do. They believe that this earth is six-thousand
years old. That is foolish! And the Bible does not declare this earth to be
six-thousand years old. Many err because they do not understand the
Scriptures. But many of these have the best of intentions, so it is not right
to paint all with the same brush of disdain. In other words, there is a
difference between a deceiver who knows he spreads lies and error, and one who
is simply himself deceived passing on error because he knows no better.
Have you read our work on creation?
When was Thee beginning?
Also, I would be very interested in anything that you send to me that exposes
the so-called 'creation science' crowd as phonies (especially the fake Masters
Degrees etc. that you spoke of [the reader stated that those "experts" that
write for AiG are frauds with mail-order degrees]). I have often marveled at how Kenneth Ham
gets Doctors of Science to sign their name to such absurdities as: The Grand
Canyon was carved over a mile deep in rock from the run-off of one single
(supposedly Noah's) flood, and, that elements such as Carbon-14 break down at
a slower rate than they did a mere six-thousand years ago thus accounting
(supposedly) for the great ages (supposedly errantly) revealed by these tests
in dating ancient items, etc. ad nauseam. Ken Ham's reader
sponsored multi-million dollar "Creation Museum" project has displays
showing Adam and Eve playing with Dinosaurs as though they were their pets!
I don't think that it takes a genius to know that this would not be a
long-lived friendship between the Dinosaurs and humans; the whole 'pet
thing' would end right around dinner time.
Once again, I am sorry that your e-mail slipped through the cracks and was neglected for so long.
I certainly am not ducking your points, and I willingly open myself up to
questions. I just ask that you don't lump me in with any group unless I
myself place me there by my own statements and beliefs. That's fair, isn't
it? For I agree with some of what they say and disagree with other parts,
just like I do with you. I am about truth, not fitting into neat categories
of man.
Are you a Christian? Any other religion? Atheist, Agnostic? Satanist? Jew,
Muslim, Hindu? Just asking, it would help me to know where you are coming
from. But then I would probably just 'place you in a box' if I knew, just
like you did with me.
Write back, and God bless those who believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ. All
others I pray that He finds and touches as only He can and according to His
own will and great providence.
God bless
the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor) [No reply received] Back to list of questions at top of page Loved ones who die unbelievers Our reply to a reader who believes that her mother and Hello Ms. E., I am sorry for the great tragedy and loss in your life. It is uplifting to see one such as yourself retain your faith in the face of such tragedy. Many forsake God because of adversity in their lives. They just do not understand.
What you are asking me is this: Are your son and mother going to spend the
eternity with God in Heaven?
Man cannot answer that for you, only God can. Beware that many wolves will
lie to you for gain. Understand this, God searches the heart of man (no
gender intended), He knows our inner person.
No man can know what the last fleeting thoughts of a dying person are, but God
knows. It takes only a split-second for one to cry out to the Lord for
salvation.
Many in this life do not have a real chance to hear the true salvation message
because of false churches and false teachings. These will have a chance in
the Millennium (Rev 20:4) as will aborted and stillborns, the mentally
retarded, children who pass-on before the age of accountability, etc...
We cannot fully understand God because He is so much bigger than us:
Isa 55:8-9
Trust God that He is fair and that He would not destroy one who didn't make a
conscience choice to that destruction. If at the first we do not fully trust
God all our hopes are at once vain.
I know that this is painful for you, and that you want to hear what you want
to hear (that it is not too late for them), but no man can judge the soul of
another, and anyone that promises you that he knows the mind of the Lord is
deceiving you and/or himself.
Trust God, He understands the affairs of man and He knows the pain of the
heart, and He knows of your supplications for your mother and son. Consider
this, He knew beforehand that you would be praying for them, so beforehand He
made the decision to answer you or not. We do not know of the conversations
between a dying person and God in that split second before going over.
Everywhere we hear reports of people's entire lives flashing before them in an
instant at the moment of death. We hear this from those who came back (near
death experiences).
What I am saying is that time means nothing to God, He is above and beyond
time. What I am saying is that it is never too late to call upon the Lord.
He will hear.
And if you trust Him you shall never be confounded.
"The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James
5:16).
The below is Christ's words on the cross written 1000 years before He would
say them (Psalm 22 is about the crucifixion to come):
But it is not possible that God could save at the grave, you might say? I
beg to differ:
Luke 18:25-27
Please do not entertain any ideas of visiting mediums or other consorters with
the dead, this is occultism and is an high abomination unto the Lord. I say
that because these charlatans prey on grieving people to their own
destruction.
Trust God and plead mercy for Jesus Christ' sake, the Son of God whom died for
mankind.
As a Christian and one whom loves and trusts the Lord God, as I trust that you
are, do you not, at the end of the day, pray that above all it is ultimately
God's will that should be done? And also believe that God is merciful and
long-suffering (patient)? And if so, and if you trust God, then why not leave
it in His great providence? Move on with your life, and plant the seed of
Christianity in others that you pain over not planting in your own so long
ago. In Heaven we are all to be family.
You are guiltless in all of this, and for all you know your loved ones may be
in Heaven praying for you. God knows. And that is how it should be,
salvation is God's province. You are in the land of the living, get to work
and may the Lord bless you, your family both living and dead, and your work
for Him. Did not our Lord even say:
Matt 9:37-38
Let your situation be a guide to all of us that the time to plant seeds is
when people are yet living.
God bless
the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name! Back to list of questions at top of page Judaic lies about Jesus (Divinci Codes, etc.)
Answer to a reader about the latest blasphemies Hi MT, it is not in the Bible, it is a vile lie. Where they are drawing from is the Divinci Codes (a very popular book on the market today). It comes from a spurious class on manuscripts called Psuedopigrapha (which literally means "Anonymously written" or "of unknown origin"). Many vile manuscripts were written in the 1st-3rd century by Gnostics (Judaic quasi-Christian sects) and other spiritually depraved men. They were satan's response to the blossoming Christianity that was sweeping the globe.
Is it any wonder that satan would beguile this corrupt end-time world with
blasphemy against Jesus Christ?
I could tell you where this evil work originated from, of what corrupt mind,
but that would be called anti-Semitism today. Read the Jewish Talmud some
time if you want to see vile lies about Jesus Christ:
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TALMUD: A Documented Exposé of Jewish Supremacist Hate
Literature First these sons of b*tches killed Jesus, then they hunted
down His early Church and killed scores, then they spiritually polluted the
world, now they blaspheme Him and defame Him with lies! Let there be no doubt
about it, the Tribulation shall be a very 'Kosher' affair.
Jesus was God in the flesh, and therefore, for Him to have sex with a human woman (which are
His children) would make Him an Incest offender!
Lev 18:6
Any who do so are cut off (condemned), thus, they are accusing Jesus Christ of
a damnable offense!
Lev 18:29-30
To have been cut off from Israel at that time was tantamount to being cut off
from salvation.
Jesus told us that He went up into Heaven and He shall remain there until the
Second Advent. There is no place or time for Him practice incest. I get so
mad at these fools for spreading this lie to the mostly Biblically illiterate
so-called Christianity today.
The Divinci Codes also said that Jesus had children with Mary Magdalene and
that there is a seedline alive on the earth.
This is probably some attempt to spring these 'mighty men' on us during the
Tribulation.
What you should have told your pal was that he was committing high blasphemy
for what he said and that he will answer for it one day. I for one will show
no pity for blasphemers on that day.
As you can see, I get very upset when our Lord is lied about and blasphemed.
Keep your pal away from me or I will give him a good healthy piece of my
mind.
God bless
the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)
Back to list of questions at top of page Is smoking and drinking alcohol a sin?
Reply to a reader who asked: Hi Sam. You asked: "Is smoking and drinking alcohol a sin? Please guide me with this doubt I have."
In and of itself, the ingestion of alcoholic beverages and cigarette smoke is
not a sin. The hypocrites of Jesus' day (the Pharisees and the rest of the
corrupt Jewish Priesthood) tried to bind man with so many rules that didn't
matter, but they corrupted the ones that did matter (just as they are again
doing today through ecumenism, that greatest sin). Jesus explained this
simply:
Mark 7:5-23
The several admonitions regarding drinking alcohol in the Bible are not
against the mere drinking of it, but against drunkenness. The reason being
that when a man is drunken he is liable to do bad things because his judgment
is impaired.
A drunk man may engage in adultery or other sexual sins when under the
influence.
They (the hypocrites) even called Jesus a wine bibber (drinker of wine) and
Jesus didn't deny it, He just chastised them for being hypocrites because they
didn't esteem John the Baptist well even though he didn't drink alcohol; and
when Jesus did drink alcohol with men they railed against Him. They were
inconsistent and thus hypocrites. They railed against things that were not
sin and did things that were sin, thus both oppressing and deceiving the flock
at once.
Do we not see a pattern in the modern day false teachers and preachers that
teach error in God's name in the churches but condemn a parishioner for
stopping at the tavern after work for a few drinks?
Matt 11:16-19
The Biblical message is moderation. You can drink but don't be the town
drunk. Don't get so drunk that you loose control, don't do something that
will make you do evil. I drink and smoke casually, and I do not repent for it because
I do not believe that it is a sin. If I thought that it was a sin I would
repent; but I have repented for things that I have done while intoxicated.
That is the difference.
The one Scripture that most churchologists like to throw up is the one about
"your body is a temple to God." But actually they even misquote the
Scripture, for the Scripture says that "know ye not
that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you".
But anyway, it isn't talking about vices, it is talking about idolatry:
Does that mean that I saying that you should run down to the corner tavern and
get just as drunk as you can? Of course not. Drunks are ever taking the name
of the Lord in vain, committing adultery, killing people in car wrecks,
stealing and many other sins.
The Bible even instructs to take a little wine for it's medicinal value "but
use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine
often infirmities" (1 Tim 5:23). That of course does not mean to
go out to the tavern on 'wet t-shirt night' night and drink a hundred pitchers
of beer. I think you get my point.
Moderation in all things. And do not do any idolatry, do not worship
any false gods or fake spirits. And love the Lord God and Jesus Christ - that
is what the Bible is talking about.
Jesus is recorded in the Bible as having drank alcohol, but it is nowhere
written that He was drunk or an drunkard. Jesus was moderate in His drinking
of wine. Smoking is not at all mentioned in the Bible.
Since I do drink, and to avoid the allusion of a possible conflict of interest
here regarding this topic, I think it right that supply some Scriptures to
back-up what I say so that someone can't say that I am just trying to find a
way to justify my own sins here:
Moderation, don't let the drink control you, don't allow it to cause you to
sin against God and to break His commandments, the breaking of which is sin.
Many females do things when they are drunk that they would not do when sober,
they play the whore. There is much truth in the crude saying,
"pansies are dandy, but liquor is quicker." This is an excellent example of how an excess of alcohol
can cause one to get into trouble with the Lord. Men fall away from
righteousness, as well, when drunk.
God bless
the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)
Back to list of questions at top of page Where is satan, now, this day?
Hi John, you asked: "Where does satan abide? In Heaven, earth or hell maybe all three. Could you let me know?"
Satan is in Heaven incarcerated (jailed), he is being held in chains until it
is time for Archangel Michael to cast him back to the earth (in our future).
The below Scripture is future yet to us, John saw the future and returned to
his time (1st Century AD) to write it in our Bible. That is why it is written
in the past tense. Don't let anyone tell you this is past history - the whole
book of Revelation is future (our near future):
Rev 12:7-12
The book of Jude records where satan is currently, he is Heaven being guarded
by Archangel Michael:
When satan
is cast down to our earth you will know him as the one that we now refer to as
the antichrist.
God bless
the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)
Back to list of questions at top of page | To top |
In
His Service: Contact
Editor | Bible
studies | Newer
students |
Bible Q
& A's
| Study
tools
| Search
our site NOTE: To insure quality and content integrity, these In-depth Bible Studies are © copyrighted and may only be downloaded for study and shared private use. They may not be reproduced or distributed for sale or publication without prior written approval. Other Christian Web sites are welcome to link up to this Website or any page on it. |
