Well after reading your post, it is probably best that I don't say much because we have different views on eschatology. I don't believe in the rapture theory whatsoever Leg. I believe Christ will eventually bring the kingdom of God to Earth and that no one is flying away anywhere.
I think pretty much everyone has different views on eschatology, and I think that is somewhat deliberate of God, I think there are some things God simply does not want us to know, like the specifically stated non knowing of the date Jesus will return Mat 24:42 . I believe that the reason it is talked about in such figurative language is to tell us that God knows exactly what will happen, but we don't and don't need to worry about it since God has it covered. I also do not beleive in the rapture as such, specifically, a secret rapture is impossible, since Jesus very clearly said that when he comes it would be seen as far as the east is from the west, with the voice of an archangle and of a loud trunpet, not exactly secret, and the specific descriptions given say the only people caught up in the air are such Christians as exist on earth on that day, to meet with the Christians (including pre Christ old testiment believers) in the air, and then return with Christ immediatly back to earth. The two men in the field are a Christian and a non Christian, the Christian is caught up, then returns, and spends forever with the Lord, the non Christian is not caught up, sees Christ return, and is judged. Mat 24:30 Mat 24:31
I also beleive that many people spend far too much time thinking about it, going to prophecy conferences, and just acting more like rapturians than Christians. The only thing God said to do about it was to be ready, and to be ready we need to concentrate on what we are doing that God said to do here and now, otherwise we will be "so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good". I suspect that a lot of this is a trick of Satan, to get people to believe in Christ only because of an increasingly fanciful and made up eschatology, which, when it is eventually proven false will cause people to say 2 Pet 3:4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." .Basically, it looks like Satan is setting up a false straw man eschatology, which will be knocked down, and many peoples "faith" will be so tied up to their eschatology that their "faith" will be knocked down with it (or that's the plan, anyway, Satans' plans often don't work out). After all, many people "came to Christ" through eschatology these days, and some may believe not in Christ but in the eschatology, because it looks like the world is going to hell in a handbasket (so what else is new?) and eschatology promises a way out. Others will be dissapointed that their eschatology did not work out, but have actually come to Christ, and will stay with Christ, and be saved, even though their faith may be temorarily shaken for a time.
Some of these may have more impact than you know.
The debate between Young earth creationism and old earth.
To support a young earth, you must deliberatly ignore a huge amount of evidence that the earth is old. To do that, you must lie to yourself, repeatedly. That sets up a pattern of lying to cover up your former lies, a pattern that does not lead to God, and looks like something invented by the father of lies, not God. You may indeed be saved, despite your inorance, however, others will fall away due to your ignorance, since the trick by Satan is to get you to say something so very easily disproven that everyone will say that if the bible says that, it is merely fable and not true, and therefore the God of the bible is not true, and should not even be considered. This is now taught in every public school, it is far more important than some little minor disagreement, because of it the majority of people on the earth may not even consider coming to Christ, since the bible was "proven" not true. Of course, if you don't care if those people go to hell...
Between theistic evolution and creation ex nihilo.
For either of these to be true, there must be a God, for that matter, non theistic evolution is impossible without a God (even a universe where it is even possible is impossible without a god
http://www.youtube.com/user/IDquest#g/a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTS5ZVuK6Jw), therefore I would tend to sort of agree with this one. However, the idea from Satan is to say "evolution is science, non evlolution is anti-science, you don't want to be anti-science do you?". In fact, if you look closely at the bible, it leans toward evolution, "let the earth bring forth grass" not "and God made grass out of nothing", thus to dogmatically support ex nihilo (except for mankind, where the method WAS specified) you must once again ignore some physical evidence of evolution which once again results in you lying, and then lying again to cover up your former lies, a pattern that leads to a bad end. It can also lead some to say that evolution is science, therefore science is bad, therefore they reject science, and others say that the bible is therefore non factual since it does not agree with science and therefore one should ignore it.
Between those who believe in a local flood and those who believe it was global.
You may go to heaven in your ignorance, but you may lead others to hell, since what you are saying here is completly denied by the physical evidence, and once again you must lie to yourself and others, and cover it up with more lies, to avoid that evidence, not a good path. Once again you will have "proven" to others that the bible has been proven false, so they should not even consider that it might be true, did Jesus say you should lead people to hell? Perhaps we should consider that the place specified in the bible, "east of Eden", is where the people were, as seen here
http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-c ... -gulf.html rather than making up a fable which Satan can use as an easily knocked down straw man.
Between those who believe the food laws are done away with and those who don't.
So, you can go to heaven even if you substitute works rightiousness for what Jesus did? Have you read the epistles, where this problem is covered over and over? Gal 2:11 Gal 2:12 Gal 2:13 Gal 2:14 Gal 2:15 Gal 2:16 Gal 2:17 Gal 2:18 Gal 2:19 Gal 2:20 Gal 2:21 causing Paul to say Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. Gal 3:2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Gal 3:4 Have you suffered so much for nothing--if it really was for nothing? Gal 3:5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
So, yes, it is very possible to, by believing in food laws, in works rightiousness, to end up damned since you have rejected the gospel. It is possible to maybe not be strict about it and not believe that it is actually nessissary for salvation and still be saved Rom 14:3, but that is toeing a fine line there.
Between those who believe Satan is real or symbolic.
If you believe Satan, who appeared to Jesus hiself when he was tempted in the desert, is symbolic, you really have to stretch. If you can beleive that is "symbolic", what other things do you relagate to the catagory of merely symbolic? Was Jesus symbolic, was the cross symbolic, some say so, should we agree with them? To say that something that is stated as not symbolic is symbolic, and something stated as symbolic (such as revelation which states it is a vision) is not symbolic, we are going down a path that leads us to essentually making the bible largely symbolic, merely "fable" or "literature", and that can indeed lead to hell.
Between those who believe in hell and annihilation.
Well...granted. However, if you downgrade it to anhiliation, well, that's not so bad, you might be inclined to risk it...
Between those who believe in a rapture and those who don't.
Covered above, can lead to hell, can lead to a shaking of your faith if proven wrong, for many leads you away from doing what you should be doing in the here and now, does not lead to good things in any case. Beleive in rapture, get no rapture, faith shaken or destroyed. Not believe in rapture, get raptured anyway, merely a pleasant suprise.
Lastly, I do not nessissarily accept that someone is a Chrsitian simply because they go to church, after all, going to a garage does not make you a car. Also, Jesus said that many say they are believers but are not Mat 7:21 Mat 7:22 Mat 7:23, therefore, some of the above "beleivers" who may believe in these things, may not be believers at all. One should not accept something simply because the person who believes it says that they are a Christian, not even if they can back it up with "many miracles", but soley on what the word says.
As for the day of the lord, well, just because many may believe the wrong thing does not mean I should. I really don't care if millions or billions beleive something or disbelieve it, it is a non factor. The question is, what did God say. I covered what God said above, in my first post in this thread. God does not even mention "the day of the lord" in Rev 1:10, only "the lords day", stated as sunday occording to concordences and suchlike that look up the actual original language words used, their original definition, and where and how they were used elsewhere.
And remember, if 2 Pet 3:8 says that when God says one day, he means one thousand years, well then, when God says one thousnad years, he means one day, so that one thousand year millenial kingdom must last exactly one day. You can't have it both ways, if you believe the first part of that verse is some 'secret code" where God says one thing but means another wherever God says "day", well then, to be consistant, when God says one thousand years, he must mean one day. Or are you going to beleive half of this verse and throw out the other half/ There are penatlies for thowing out parts of the bible you want to ignore Rev 22:19. And check out Psa 90:4for what Peter is saying (again).
And as for that link about E W Bullinger, well, at least you gave a link, and I copied it, can give it a look. Many do not give links or anything, at least you have a reason for your beleif (it may or may not be correct, but at least you gave me something to judge for myself). I do have one question though, does he anywhere in that book argue that day means 1000 years because of 2 Pet 3:8 ? My search shows it may not, however, I cannot be sure as I do not know what exact translation of the bible he used and thus do not know the exact words to search for. The question here is after all, does Rev 1:10 refere to a 1000 year period, or just John having a vision on a sunday? And does 2 Pet 3:8 mean that we should alsways say that 'day" means "1000 years", and if so where, and why not here or there also, and why not also translate 1000 years to mean one day?
My objection is to saying that Rev1 :10 saying "on the lords day" means anything other than the day of the lords supper, sunday, which is how it is used in the bible here 1Cor 11:20, Strong's G2960 - kyriakos .
My objection is to using 2 Pet 3:8 in a way that is completly wrong from what it actually states, even to using the first half of it while turning a blind eye to the second half to suit your taste.
My objection is to using 2 Pet 3:8 this way while ignoring Psa 90:4, a verse I am sure Peter knew about and was just saying it again.
My objection is to turning 2 Pet 3:8, and the bible, into some kind of "secret code", where God says one thing but means another.
My objection is to accepting that when 2 Pet 3:8 says day it means 1000 years, while ignoring that if that is true, then 1000 years means one day. My objection is to throwing out parts of the bible that don't fit the idea we like. If you don't like what it said, go write your own bible.
My objection is to turning this into some kind of Chrsitian numerology, magic, witchcraft, where God is obliged to follow some higher than himself law of numbers and use times like exactly 365 days times 7, or 365 days times 1000 (or 360 days if you like).
My objection is how that sort of idea has resulted in people standing on top of hills waiting for the Lord's return, sure that they have figured out the date of his return based on their numerology, only to be dissapointed again and again, and bring Christ's name into disrepute.
My objection is to ignoring the way that the Hebrews of these times actually used these numbers as symbols to stand for the perfect amount of time (10*10*10, one thousand, the perfect peroid of time, of fullfillment), instead, twisting the clear word of God into our own twist on these numbers. God chose the laguages and the cultures behind those languages, and had a hand in shaping that language and culture, to assure that the bible said EXACTLY what God wanted it to say. We must accept what it said and the way it said it in it's original language, what those people ment when they said that (which has been exhaustively studied), and not substitute our own desired modern meanings whenever we feel like it. If you don't like the original languages and culteral meanings of those words and phrases God chose to write the bible in, go make your own universe, with your own cultures and languages, and see if you can do better.
My objection is to interpreating parts of the bible as figurative that are indeed stated to actually BE figurative, but then taking small snippets of that, sandwitched between figurative parts, and decideing that that one small part is exactly literal, such as that 1000 years. Figuarative figurative figurative figurative figurative LITERAL figurative figurative is just dishonest, you can't just arbitrarily decide which parts are which to suit your pet theory.
Or are we now to change or ignore parts of the bible that do not suit us, just as Adam and Eve chose to ignore what God had commanded so very long ago in the garden? THAT is what I am objecting to here.
? Or is it not written that the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath Mark 2:27?