Search results

Not before He returned or they repented. That is the heart of the matter. They did not repent in 1948. When God brings them, we know from other prophesies that this is after they repent, and the remnant is saved. Never. They never repented yet and God did not return yet etc. It only fits when...

Prove it was. I posted commentary that places this chapter in history, so that would not be the end time. That is after the verses showing the lamb will lay with the wolf etc. That is not any time in history. Yes God will gather them one day. That was not 1948. Show us a zoo where lions...

Zedekiah lived then? Exactly, that is when they repent. (or when they see Him as another prophesy points out) Israel has not turned to Jesus today. They did not in 1948 or any other time.

The utter defeat of every single enemy of His people has zero to do with any weapon they have. It has to do with one thing only. That is a true belief in Jesus, the Messiah, and crying out to Him. If they did that this afternoon, ant threat from Iran would only be a memory. God will deal with...

Your main points are that God, sometime after the captivity, promises to return them to the land, not to be plucked up again, and that you think that a mention of bad figs means that this all has to be before the rule/return of Jesus. To the first point, that is talking about when the people...

I am sure they will.

I agree that Israel existing again is very significant. The issue is that some claim God already gathered them there from the nations and they say they therefore are at peace, and the desert blooms etc. The same sort of people I have heard ask the US and other nations to support Israel as a holy...

Trying to twist things to arrive at 1948 is similar.

There has been plenty of sword in it's history. Easy to identify that is a land associated with the sword. True they decided to set up a secular nation and came from many nations, that is not God bringing them, sorry. Yes lots of mountains in that area. It does NOT say God brought them back...

The commentary I posted explains that the lying on one side is representing years. However, it also explains that the first lying on one side represented something else. As for the seven year thing, that therefore could not apply, unless for whatever reasons you wanted to tack that number onto...

If they build a temple there, it would appease the religious people (not believers, but religious) Maybe it would also inspire the nation somewhat, as it is quite historical. It might even bring more support from Jewish folks in other countries. Then there is tourism. Building something does not...

We do not know that that secular state was what the bible was talking about in the prophesy. In fact we know it is not the modern nation of Israel, since they are unsaved and Jesus did not return to gather them back. As stated in a previous post, a better fit for the prophesy would be Jewish...

Looking at the first commentary that popped up we see this "The prophet’s next acted parable lasted more than a year. Each day he spent a period lying on his side facing his model of besieged Jerusalem. He was bound with cords so that he could not move, to symbolize that God’s people could not...

That is the point, when we see probably a predominant opinion by bible scholars, we should be careful before declaring something is quite different that what they say. In your case, you want to try to make what was said in history about events around the time of the captivity to be thousands of...

I got the general drift..religious drivel. Sorry you can't defend or clarify it.

Unless you can clarify and relate it to the thread, it seems to be banter.

That is talking to Israel's enemies, and not about Him having already gathered them. Right, and so? That has what to do with claiming GOD restored them and that is why they are there? No. It just tells us that the nation will be there and be attacked and from the rest of the bible we know that...

Post the verse again then. I suspect that may not be talking about the latter days.

That message is for us all actually. Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: In case you claim it was just the apostles there listening, the next verse clears that up. Those He is talking to extend to...

No doubt it does, but has not been their trademark. Believers are the church He founded. Great, so who gets to start with excommunicating a pope? Great. Hopefully some church outfit doesn't think they have a monopoly on that. I don't know, and have no reason to debate that. My rule of thumb...