Pending! :)

David, thanks for your continued inquiry into the subject. You seem to indicate that there is something in the text which indicates a destruction of the earth if I am understanding you correctly. However, nothing in either text suggests that. Yes, the text mentions God would not destroy the earth with a flood, but it says nothing about he would destroy it with anything. If so, I confess I've missed it. Rather, God makes an everlasting covenant with all the earth, Gen. 9:16. Now, if it is an everlasting covenant that God will never destroy the earth with a flood, it is an everlasting covenant just the same. So, how then could God say he is making an everlasting covenant with them never to destroy the earth by a flood only to deceptively strike a match and burn it up. Wouldn't that make the everlasting covenant go up in smoke? Surely, many people use that logic, but it really seems suspect to me.

By no means am I claiming that Christ is not God. Jesus declared Himself to be so and everywhere the subject is taught in the Bible, I believe it.

That is precisely what the Bible teaches.

There are many reasons President Obama is not and cannot be the antichrist of the Bible. First and foremost the antichrist's arrival is not a future or present event but one that is past and fulfilled. in the first century.

What is it that doesn't make sense when you read the chapter?

Acts 15:8-17 is a good commentary on Romans 11:25, particularly, notice verse 11. "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." God would save Israel in the same manner as he saved the Gentiles, i.e. by faith in Christ. The fullness of the Gentiles equates in time to the coming of the Lord out of Zion to take away Israel's sins. That coming occurred in 70AD. It was the completion of the mystery of God, Rev. 10:7.

Darryl, surely you have a much better argument that criticism. Are you afraid to state your scriptural reasons for why you disagree with us. Put it to the test and let's see who cracks first!

Yes, that is what the text states.

Michelle, yes, the Bible means what it says, and no God does not need man to tell him what the text means and no man is not smarter than God. But that is the very reason man needs help with understanding the scriptures. In Luke 34:44-47, the Bible says, Jesus opened the understanding of the apostles in order that they might comprehend the meaning of the scriptures he taught them earlier during this ministry. He had to explain it so they could grasp the meaning.

In Acts 8, the eunuch was reading from Isa 53, when Philip approached him and asked him if he understood what he was reading. He replied no and invited a "man" (Philip) to sit with him and help him to understand (interpret) what God had inspired.Peter wrote of Paul's writings, "some things are "hard to be understood" speaking expressly about Paul's eschatological writings, (2 Pet. 3:16). These and many others imply that we must have honest, accurate interpretation of the Bible to understand it. . The problem occurs when people believe they are under some pseudo divine inspiration that they don't need help but can follow any whim of interpretation they choose. The Bible is always it's own best interpreter, but we must accurately divide the word. Some men are more skilled at it than others hence they teach according to their ability. None are infallible so we all are subject to mistakes and errors in judgment. But to say that we should not interpret what is written is pure nonsense. You can't know what something means until you know what it means. If you already know then you are smarter than God or at least as smart as he is. If you don't know what it means you must take the necessary exegetical steps to find out and do so accurately. So again, it is not God who needs help to say what he means, it is we who need help to understand it.