Summer is here
Doug
yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is
near, even at the doors." [Matthew 24:32-33]
Summer pictures a time of opportunity, when crops become fruitful,
and grow.
In the same chapter Jesus said, "Pray that your flight is not in the
winter." Matthew 24:20.
Winter is a figure of the judgement. The judgement is called a time
of "great tribulation," in Revelation 7:14.
And the sabbath day also represents God's rest, that the saints
labour to enter, in Hebrews 4:3-11.
To have to flee in the "winter" or on the "sabbath" means one has
been "left behind" when the harvest of the righteous occurs.
For them, the prophecy of Jeremiah will come true: "The harvest is
past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved." - Jeremiah 8:20
The harvest is in the fall, and it is the hope of all Christians, to
be included the resurrection of the saints.
Jesus gave many warnings about missing out on that harvest.
The "children of the kingdom," the Jews who rejected Jesus, missed
out. Matthew 8:12
The 5 foolish virgins missed out, and the door was shut. The ones
who brought oil for their lamps went in to the wedding. Matthew
25:10
The man who buried his talent in the ground missed out. Matthew
25:30
The servant who began to smite his fellows, and eat and drink with
the drunken, was rejected, Matthew 24:51.
Jesus said, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of
desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy
place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be
in Judaea flee into the mountains:" [Matthew 24:15-16]
The mountains of Israel are prominent parts of the promised land, so
they represent the promises given to Abraham, that in his seed, all
nations will be blessed. When Jesus said to "flee to the mountains"
perhaps he means we should seek those promises, and the kingdom of
God, which is also called a great mountain, that fills the entire
earth, in Daniel 2:35.
In the story of Lot and his family, they were told by the angel
to "Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in
all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed."
The city of Sodom was about to be destroyed. Jesus said: "Remember
Lot's wife." Luke 17:32.
In John's prophecy in Revelation 12:6, the woman flees to the
wilderness, where she is fed for 1,260 days, a symbolic time
representing the remaining time of the church.
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place
prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two
hundred and threescore days. [Revelation 12:6]
The woman represents the church, and her escape to the wilderness
recalls Israel's escape from Egypt at the time of the exodus. They
escaped from bondage and slavery. Egypt pictures worldy society,
and the bondage of sin. In the wilderness, the children of Israel
drank water from the rock, which pictures Christ. They ate manna,
which pictures the word of God. Paul wrote:
1 Corinthians 10:1-5
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that
all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the
sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were
overthrown in the wilderness.
Paul exhorts his readers, "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from
idolatry." [1 Corinthians 10:14]
The prophet Zechariah says we should flee to the "valley of the
mountains."
Zechariah 14:5
And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of
the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye
fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of
Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with
thee.
The way we need to go is between the two halves of the mount of
Olives when it divides into two parts. Interpreting this, the two
halves of the mount of Olives represent the theories of Preterism
and Dispensationalism, which displace the Olivet prophecy of Jesus
from its true application. It applies not to Jews in the future, or
to the Jews in the first century, but to Christians today!
--
Doug
Doug
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> news:fOednQ7VHtq9lfzV...@sentex.net...
>
> [snip]
Context that was snipped by Ike was:
Jesus said, "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is
yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is
near, even at the doors." [Matthew 24:32-33]. Summer pictures a
time of opportunity, when crops become fruitful, and grow. In the
same chapter Jesus said, "Pray that your flight is not in the
winter." Matthew 24:20.
>
>> Winter is a figure of the judgement. The judgement is called a
>> time of "great tribulation," in Revelation 7:14.
>
> No, it's not--the judgment comes after the end of the known world.
> The MILLENNIAL KINGDOM comes after the great tribulation, which
> comes after the tribulation of the SAINTS.
In the context of the Olivet prophecy of Jesus, that refers to
summer and winter, the "summer" and "winter" are contrasting
seasons. What comes between is the fall, the time of harvest. There
are many references to the resurrection of the saints as
a "harvest." For example in the parable of the tares and the wheat,
Jesus said,
Matthew 13:38-40
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the
kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of
the world; and the reapers are the angels.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall
it be in the end of this world.
What comes after the harvest is the winter, so Jesus said "pray ye
that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:"
Matthew 24:20.
>
> [snip]
The context that was snipped by Ike was:
And the sabbath day also represents God's rest, that the saints
labour to enter, in Hebrews 4:3-11. To have to flee in the "winter"
or on the "sabbath" means one has been "left behind" when the
harvest of the righteous occurs. For them, the prophecy of Jeremiah
will come true: "The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we
are not saved." - Jeremiah 8:20
>
>> The harvest is in the fall, and it is the hope of all Christians,
>> to be included the resurrection of the saints.
>
> Another distortion: The resurrection is the hope of Israel TOO, as
> the promises of the resurrection were given to ISRAEL first, via
> Daniel and Ezekiel, LONG BEFORE the Gentile believers were GRAFTED
> INTO those promises.
The resurrection is the hope of every person, according to the
gospel.
John 5:26-29
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son
to have life in himself;
And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is
the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that
are in the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the
resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of judgement.
The KJV has "damnation" in vs, 29 but it is better
translated "judgement," and that is what Jesus warns us to pray
that we may be accounted worthy to escape.
Luke 21:34-37
And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be
overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this
life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of
the whole earth.
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy
to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand
before the Son of man.
For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of
the whole earth.
>
> [snip]
>
>> The "children of the kingdom," the Jews who rejected Jesus,
>> missed out. Matthew 8:12
>
> There's that latent lie of replacement theology again, necessary
> to make your false doctrines work--the Jews who do NOT reject
> Christ, past, present, and future, are every bit the "tree of
> life" that the Gentile believers are, as the Gentile believers are
> grafted INTO Israel, and NOT the other way around.
The tree of life was the tree in the Garden of Eden that stood
before Adam. It is not the Jews!
>
>> The 5 foolish virgins missed out, and the door was shut. The ones
>> who brought oil for their lamps went in to the wedding. Matthew
>> 25:10
>
> The parable of the virgins is NOT about the Jews--it's about true
> and fake believers.
Who said it was about Jews? Ike deceptively insinuates a
ridiculous "straw man" here, which he attacks. His lying tricks are
clear to anyone!
>
>> The man who buried his talent in the ground missed out. Matthew
>> 25:30
>
> This ALSO is not about the Jews, but true versus fake believers.
No one said it was about Jews. Again, Ike insinuates to me a
ridiculous "straw man." Nasty fellow!
>
>> The servant who began to smite his fellows, and eat and drink
>> with the drunken, was rejected, Matthew 24:51.
No one claimed this mean bully was Jewish, did they? But he
certainly resembles YOU in a remarkable fashion!
>
> This doesn't have anything to do with "Jews," either--it's about
> the rise of the antichristians against the Christians.
>
>> Jesus said, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of
>> desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy
>> place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which
>> be in Judaea flee into the mountains:" [Matthew 24:15-16]
>
> Which one?
Jesus does not say which mountain to flee to. But that is what my
post was about. I discussed several things the Bible tells us
to "flee." What Jesus meant was not that we should try to preserve
our present lives, but seek God's kingdom, the great "mountain of
the Lord's house" that will one day fill the earth. That's why
Jesus said,
Luke 17:32-33
Remember Lot's wife.
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever
shall lose his life shall preserve it.
>
> The one that "was," the one that "is," or the one that "is to
> come?"
>
>> The mountains of Israel are prominent parts of the promised land,
>> so they represent the promises given to Abraham, that in his
>> seed, all nations will be blessed.
>
> Nonsense.
Jesus said,
Luke 17:31
In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in
the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in
the field, let him likewise not return back.
When Jesus teaches us something from his word, he warns us not to
return to our old opinions.
>
> Mountains are used in prophecy, both thetically and
> antithetically, to represent those who are "raised up," i.e. great
> leaders.
Nonsense.
>
>> When Jesus said to "flee to the mountains"
>> perhaps he means we should seek those promises, and the kingdom
>> of God, which is also called a great mountain, that fills the
>> entire earth, in Daniel 2:35.
>
> No, when Jesus said to "flee to the mountains," He meant FLEE TO
> THE MOUNTAINS, as anyone who remains behind in Jerusalem will be
> destroyed along with the temple of abominations, as it "was," as
> it "is," and as it is about to be again.
Ike's old opinions, that it would be wiser to abandon.
>
> [snip]
>
>> In John's prophecy in Revelation 12:6, the woman flees to the
>> wilderness, where she is fed for 1,260 days, a symbolic time
>> representing the remaining time of the church.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> It represents the time in which the two witnesses testify in
> Jerusalem to the world of what's about to happen, first in
> Jerusalem, and then in the rest of the world.
I suggest the 1,260 days refers to the "time, times, and a half"
that is mentioned in Daniel's prophecies, in Dan 7:25 and 12:7. It
is the last half-week of the 70 weeks, the remaining time of the
church when Christ confirms his covenant with those who believe the
gospel.
>
>> And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place
>> prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two
>> hundred and threescore days. [Revelation 12:6]
>>
>> The woman represents the church,
>
> WRONG.
>
> The woman represents ISRAEL.
>
> The CHURCH will already be taken out of the game during the
> Beginning of Sorrows and the transitionary year, LONG BEFORE any
> of this comes down in Israel.
It seems that Ike has gone down from his rooftop, and found some
dirty worn out old clothes, apparently second-hand ones, borrowed
from Dispensationalism! He rejects the new clothes that Jesus
offers us!
>
>> and her escape to the wilderness
>> recalls Israel's escape from Egypt at the time of the exodus.
>
> And it will recall Israel's escape from Egypt AGAIN shortly before
> God pours out His wrath against Jerusalem.
The "Egypt" that believers need to escape is the worldly society
that we live in!
>
> That's why John MIXES METAPHORS in Revelation.
>
> "Sodom and Egypt" represent the kingdom of the FALSE PROPHET
> centered on Jerusalem.
Well, no it doesn't. "Sodom and Egypt" are mentioned in Revelation
11:8, and identified as the location of Christ's crucifixion. This
was *outside* Jerusalem, Hebrews tells us.
Revelation 11:8
And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city,
which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord
was crucified.
Hebrews 13:12
Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own
blood, suffered without the gate.
The spiritual significance of this is that Sodom and Egypt represent
the worldly society, as they were places from which God's saints
escaped. God's people are called out of the world. Jesus said,
John 15:18-20
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because
ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world,
therefore the world hateth you.
Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater
than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute
you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
>
> Gomorrah and Assyria represent the kingdom of the FALSE MESSIAH
> centered on ROME.
More dirty, smelly old clothes that Ike drags out.
>
>> They
>> escaped from bondage and slavery. Egypt pictures worldly society,
>> and the bondage of sin.
>
> WRONG.
>
> Egypt represents the same UNIVERSALISTIC/PANTHEISTIC RELIGION as
> it's Assyro-Babylonian predecessors.
Ike's tattered, old, ridiculous, rags!
>
> [snip]
>
>> The way we need to go is between the two halves of the mount of
>> Olives when it divides into two parts. Interpreting this, the two
>> halves of the mount of Olives represent the theories of Preterism
>> and Dispensationalism, which displace the Olivet prophecy of
>> Jesus from its true application.
>
> Total bullshit.
>
> And your idealism based on your concocted notions and is just as
> much a LIE as preterism and Dispensationalism.
Ha ha!
>
>> It applies not to Jews in the future, or
>> to the Jews in the first century, but to Christians today!
>
> Horseshit.
>
> Prophecy applies as it applies, the Jews first, THEN to the
> Gentiles, as it WAS, as it IS, and as it is YET TO COME.
>
> And you, oh clueless one, are just another lying false prophet
> like the Preterists and Dispensationalists you attack, being the
> third "fool" of the four fools.
Get some new clothes, man!
Revelation 16:15
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth
his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
>
> Ike
--
Doug
Doug
> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> news:rIadnR-jRY6Jof_V...@sentex.net...
>> In message <g3rees$dso$1...@aioe.org>
>> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fOednQ7VHtq9lfzV...@sentex.net...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> Context that was snipped by Ike was:
>>
>> Jesus said, "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch
>> is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is
>> nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know
>> that it is near, even at the doors." [Matthew 24:32-33]. Summer
>> pictures a time of opportunity, when crops become fruitful, and
>> grow. In the same chapter Jesus said, "Pray that your flight is
>> not in the winter." Matthew 24:20.
>>
>>>
>>>> Winter is a figure of the judgement. The judgement is called a
>>>> time of "great tribulation," in Revelation 7:14.
>>>
>>> No, it's not--the judgment comes after the end of the known
>>> world. The MILLENNIAL KINGDOM comes after the great tribulation,
>>> which comes after the tribulation of the SAINTS.
>>
>> In the context of the Olivet prophecy of Jesus, that refers to
>> summer and winter, the "summer" and "winter" are contrasting
>> seasons.
>
> They are similes,
Actually, the references to summer and winter are metaphors.
> and only apply in the context of the individual
> statements.
>
> The end of the age IS LIKE the spring of the fruit tree in that it
> will come in due time.
More like fall, as fall is when the harvest occurs, and so
represents the time of the resurrection of the saints. Spring is
the beginning of the growing cycle.
>
> It would be BAD to travel if it's winter.
Who needs to travel?
>
> They are NOT "contrasting statements."
>
>> What comes between is the fall, the time of harvest. There
>> are many references to the resurrection of the saints as
>> a "harvest."
>
> This I know, as John DOES contrast the gathering of the DRIED
> grapes with the resurrection of the DEAD, and the destruction of
> the LIVING VINE with those who suffer THE WRATH OF GOD.
Are referring to this?
Revelation 14:19
And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the
vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the
wrath of God.
>
>> For example in the parable of the tares and the wheat,
>> Jesus said,
>>
>> Matthew 13:38-40
>> The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the
>> kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
>> The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of
>> the world; and the reapers are the angels.
>> As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so
>> shall it be in the end of this world.
>>
>> What comes after the harvest is the winter, so Jesus said "pray
>> ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath
>> day:" Matthew 24:20.
>
> A has nothing to do with B, except they are metaphors for
> DIFFERENT ASPECTS of the SECOND COMING.
>
> The DEAD are gathered.
>
> The LIVING are cast into the "winepress of God's wrath."
>
> And all of this is FUTURE...
>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> The context that was snipped by Ike was:
>>
>> And the sabbath day also represents God's rest, that the saints
>> labour to enter, in Hebrews 4:3-11. To have to flee in the
>> "winter" or on the "sabbath" means one has been "left behind"
>> when the harvest of the righteous occurs. For them, the prophecy
>> of Jeremiah will come true: "The harvest is past, the summer is
>> ended, and we
>> are not saved." - Jeremiah 8:20
>
> The "context" was snipped because there were TWO (actually three)
> unrelated "contexts" in the statements.
>
>>>> The harvest is in the fall, and it is the hope of all
>>>> Christians, to be included the resurrection of the saints.
>>>
>>> Another distortion: The resurrection is the hope of Israel TOO,
>>> as the promises of the resurrection were given to ISRAEL first,
>>> via Daniel and Ezekiel, LONG BEFORE the Gentile believers were
>>> GRAFTED INTO those promises.
>>
>> The resurrection is the hope of every person, according to the
>> gospel.
>
> YOU SAID "SAINTS," IN THE EXCLUSIONARY MANNER OF THE TYPICAL
> REPLACEMENT THEOLOGIST, as you APPLIED the REST of the STATEMENTS.
>
> [snip the rest of the lying snake's attempts to hide his
> [replacement
> theology by diverting from the subject]
Looks like you missed converting some words to caps here!
>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The "children of the kingdom," the Jews who rejected Jesus,
>>>> missed out. Matthew 8:12
>>>
>>> There's that latent lie of replacement theology again, necessary
>>> to make your false doctrines work--the Jews who do NOT reject
>>> Christ, past, present, and future, are every bit the "tree of
>>> life" that the Gentile believers are, as the Gentile believers
>>> are grafted INTO Israel, and NOT the other way around.
>>
>> The tree of life was the tree in the Garden of Eden that stood
>> before Adam. It is not the Jews!
>
> WRONG!
>
> The METAPHORS of GENESIS play out throughout THE ENTIRE BIBLE,
> even to the END OF REVELATION.
>
> The tree of life = THE LINEAGE LEADING TO ISRAEL (with "cast offs"
> on the side).
Nonsense!
>
> The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil = the GENTILES.
Ridiculous!
>
> GOD IS GRAFTING BRANCHES FROM ONE TREE TO THE OTHER, ESTABLISHING
> A TREE FIT FOR USE (WHOLE ISRAEL) AND A TREE FIT FOR DESTRUCTION.
Its a forest of trees that gets destroyed! Jesus said, "Every plant,
which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up."
[Matthew 15:13]
>
> SO THE BIBLE DOES ***NOT*** TEACH REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY, BUT
> PARALLELISM, I.E. TWO PLANS THAT COME TOGETHER IN ONE SOLUTION.
>
>>>> The 5 foolish virgins missed out, and the door was shut. The
>>>> ones who brought oil for their lamps went in to the wedding.
>>>> Matthew 25:10
>>>
>>> The parable of the virgins is NOT about the Jews--it's about
>>> true and fake believers.
>>
>> Who said it was about Jews? Ike deceptively insinuates a
>> ridiculous "straw man" here, which he attacks. His lying tricks
>> are clear to anyone!
>
> No, it's YOUR "lying tricks," as your PREVIOUS statement was that
> "PROPHECY IS NOT ABOUT ISRAEL," which is how this little
> tete-a-tete GOT STARTED.
Get some new reading glasses! What I said was:
To have to flee in the "winter" or on the "sabbath" means one has
been "left behind" when the harvest of the righteous occurs. For
them, the prophecy of Jeremiah will come true: "The harvest is
past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved." [Jeremiah 8:20]
The harvest is in the fall, and it is the hope of all Christians,
to be included the resurrection of the saints. Jesus gave many
warnings about missing out on that harvest. The "children of the
kingdom," the Jews who rejected Jesus, missed out. Matthew 8:12
Nothing in there about "prophecy is not about Israel." But Jesus did
say many who were Jews, the "children of the kingdom," would be
cast out.
Matthew 8:10-12
When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed,
Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in
Israel.
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and
shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom
of heaven.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer
darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
>
>>>> The man who buried his talent in the ground missed out. Matthew
>>>> 25:30
>>>
>>> This ALSO is not about the Jews, but true versus fake believers.
>>
>> No one said it was about Jews. Again, Ike insinuates to me a
>> ridiculous "straw man." Nasty fellow!
>>
>>>
>>>> The servant who began to smite his fellows, and eat and drink
>>>> with the drunken, was rejected, Matthew 24:51.
>>
>> No one claimed this mean bully was Jewish, did they? But he
>> certainly resembles YOU in a remarkable fashion!
>>
>>>
>>> This doesn't have anything to do with "Jews," either--it's about
>>> the rise of the antichristians against the Christians.
>>>
>>>> Jesus said, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of
>>>> desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy
>>>> place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which
>>>> be in Judaea flee into the mountains:" [Matthew 24:15-16]
>>>
>>> Which one?
>>
>> Jesus does not say which mountain to flee to.
>
> Not "which mountain," jerk.
>
> WHICH ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION? THE ONE THAT "WAS," "IS," OR "IS
> TO COME?"
The only abomination of desolation that has any significance is the
one that presently exists, which Jesus referred to; the one that
has desolated the church, and scattered Christians into thousands
of sects and cults and denominations.
>
> [SNIP THE IDIOT'S RAMBLINGS]
>
>>> The one that "was," the one that "is," or the one that "is to
>>> come?"
>>>
>>>> The mountains of Israel are prominent parts of the promised
>>>> land, so they represent the promises given to Abraham, that in
>>>> his seed, all nations will be blessed.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Jesus said,
>>
>> Luke 17:31
>> In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff
>> in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that
>> is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
>
> WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION, oh, clueless
> one.
>
> WHICH "ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION?"
The one that causes desolation of the church, and scatters it into
thousands of sects, cults, and denominations. In Daniel's prophecy
it has "eyes like the eyes of a man" so it is identified as
a "human point of view" as opposed to a divine one. Also it has
a "mouth speaking great things against the Most High."
>
> THE ONE COMMITTED BY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES, THE ONE COMMITTED BY THE
> ROMANS, OR THE ONE YET TO COME IN THE END OF THE AGE?
>
>> When Jesus teaches us something from his word, he warns us not to
>> return to our old opinions.
>
> AGAIN, THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION.
>
>>> Mountains are used in prophecy, both thetically and
>>> antithetically, to represent those who are "raised up," i.e.
>>> great leaders.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> FACT.
>
> Job 9:5 Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which
> overturneth them in his anger.
>
> WHY WOULD GOD BE ANGRY AT LITERAL "MOUNTAINS," OH, CLUELESS ONE?
Ha ha! Sometimes you do amuse me, Ike! :-)
>
> Ps 72:3 The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the
> little hills, by righteousness.
>
> HOW THE HELL CAN "MOUNTAINS" BRING PEACE OR RIGHTEOUSNESS?
I think the "mountains" that David refers to are promises and
covenants of God. Since mountains and hills are part of the
promised land, they represent God's promises, and these are what
bring peace, when we have faith to believe in them.
>
> ...and jumping ahead...
>
> Re 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide
> us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the
> wrath of the Lamb:
>
> WHY WOULD MEN CALL UPON LITERAL "MOUNTAINS" TO SAVE THEM, IDIOT?
There are lots of people who associate with various churches and
sects and denominations, hoping to be included in the promised
rewards of God's saints. The kingdom of God is called a great
mountain that fills the earth. Mountains are linked to God's
promises and covenants in the Bible. For example the Mosaic
covenant was linked to Mount Sinai. People want eternal life, and
not death or infernal punishment. So they associate with some
religious denomination. Perhaps the prophecy refers to this. Jesus
said,
John 10:1
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door
into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a
thief and a robber.
John 10:7
Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I
am the door of the sheep.
We can't enter the kingdom except by coming to Christ. A label is
not enough.
>
> FACT: MOUNTAINS = GREAT LEADERS, GENERALLY, THETICALLY, AND/OR
> ANTITHETICALLY.
Nonsense!
>
> (And once again you demonstrate that you don't know SQUAT about
> prophecy.)
>
>>>> When Jesus said to "flee to the mountains"
>>>> perhaps he means we should seek those promises, and the kingdom
>>>> of God, which is also called a great mountain, that fills the
>>>> entire earth, in Daniel 2:35.
>>>
>>> No, when Jesus said to "flee to the mountains," He meant FLEE TO
>>> THE MOUNTAINS, as anyone who remains behind in Jerusalem will be
>>> destroyed along with the temple of abominations, as it "was," as
>>> it "is," and as it is about to be again.
>>
>> Ike's old opinions,
>
> BIBLICAL FACTS, moron.
If Jesus wanted people to flee to any literal mountain, he would
have indicated which one, and what to flee *from*.
<snip>
--
Doug
Doug
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> news:rIadnR-jRY6Jof_V...@sentex.net...
>> In message <g3rees$dso$1...@aioe.org>
>> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fOednQ7VHtq9lfzV...@sentex.net...
<snip>
>>>> In John's prophecy in Revelation 12:6, the woman flees to the
>>>> wilderness, where she is fed for 1,260 days, a symbolic time
>>>> representing the remaining time of the church.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> It represents the time in which the two witnesses testify in
>>> Jerusalem to the world of what's about to happen, first in
>>> Jerusalem, and then in the rest of the world.
>>
>> I suggest
>
> I SUGGEST YOU TAKE A HIKE,
The prophecy of the 2 witnesses, in Revelation 11, and the prophecy
of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12, both mention a
period of 1,260 days. This is the symbolic "time, times and a half"
which is a symbol of the present age, the age of the church, the
time for which Christ continues to confirm his covenant with
believers. Both chapters describe the church and its mission in the
world in symbolic terms. The 2 witnesses are not humans but they
represent the Spirit of God, and the word of God. These are also
represented by the ministries of Moses and with Elijah, as Moses,
being the author of the Pentateuch, represents the word of God, and
similarly Elijah is a symbol of the Spirit of God. Both appeared
with Jesus in a vision on the mount of Transfiguration.
> AS YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHAT
> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT...
>
>> the 1,260 days refers to the "time, times, and a half"
>
> Nonsense.
>
> They refer to 3 1/2 years; they could also refer to the measure of
> each statement of the prophecies, in 1 year periods (a time), in
> seven year periods (times), or in half-year periods (6 months).
They do indeed refer to 3 1/2 years, but not literal years. They
must be symbolic, as there is no three and a half years having
1,260 days. Neither do the other numbers provided by Daniel refer
to any literal three and a half years. But they all fit the pattern
of a "time, times, and a half" as follows:
1,260 days = 12*30 + 2*12*30 + 12*30/2
1,290 days = 13*30 + 2*12*30 + 12*30/2
1,335 days = 12*30 + 2*13*30 + 13*30/2
42 months = 12 + 2*12 + 12/2
The first three numbers assume months are 30 days but real months
are a little less so these numbers are simply alternate ways of
expressing a symbolic, non-literal period of three and a half
years, the symbol of the remaining time of the church, as explained
by the angel in Daniel 12:7.
>
>> that is mentioned in Daniel's prophecies, in Dan 7:25 and 12:7.
>
> BUT DANIEL DIDN'T SAY "1,260 DAYS," moron--HE SAID 1,290, which
> means the 1,260 OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE TWO WITNESSES lies WITHIN
> the 1,290 DAYS, and it is NOT METAPHOR, moron.
Yes, Daniel uses both leap years of 13 months, and regular years of
12 months, to derive his numbers. John used only years of 12
months. The calendar had been changed in John's time.
>
>> It
>> is the last half-week of the 70 weeks,
>
> NO, IT'S SATAN'S HALF (THE FIRST HALF) OF THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.
> GOD'S HALF IS 1,335 DAYS. AND THESE COME AFTER THE 62 YEARS OF THE
> BEGINNING OF SORROWS, AND THE 1 YEAR TRANSITION.
Only in Ike's delusions!
>
>> the remaining time of the
>> church when Christ confirms his covenant with those who believe
>> the gospel.
>
> YOU KEEP REFERRING TO SATAN'S COVENANT AS GOD'S COVENANT.
It would be sad indeed to be so confused, as to mistake a holy
covenant of God, for one that is made with Satan! But the new
covenant in the Bible is one which says God will write his laws on
our hearts. It was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah. The Spirit of
God is what accomplishes this.
Jeremiah 31:33
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in
their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their
God, and they shall be my people.
This applies to those who believe the gospel, the church of the NT.
Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their
mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God,
and they shall be to me a people:
Hebrews 10:16-17
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days,
saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their
minds will I write them;
And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Mistylein
> In message <g3v6m1$tp0$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The prophecy of the 2 witnesses, in Revelation 11, and the prophecy
> of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12, both mention a
> period of 1,260 days. This is the symbolic "time, times and a half"
> which is a symbol of the present age, the age of the church, the
> time for which Christ continues to confirm his covenant with
> believers. Both chapters describe the church and its mission in the
> world in symbolic terms. The 2 witnesses are not humans but they
> represent the Spirit of God, and the word of God. These are also
> represented by the ministries of Moses and with Elijah, as Moses,
> being the author of the Pentateuch, represents the word of God, and
> similarly Elijah is a symbol of the Spirit of God. Both appeared
> with Jesus in a vision on the mount of Transfiguration.
The 2 chapters you are mentioning is talking about 2 different
things that was to happen all during that time line.
Thank you for keeping those prophetic times in one spot
for a change.
That time breaks down to 1260 literal years and it has
a beginning time date.
All that time is what is called the Great Tribulation.
It has had a fulfillment date as well, and I do not have another
set of prophetic time to add on to the 1260 days unless it may
be some how the 1335 days prophecy is right after the
1260 Days prophecy.
>
>> AS YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHAT
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT...
>>
>>> the 1,260 days refers to the "time, times, and a half"
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> They refer to 3 1/2 years; they could also refer to the measure of
>> each statement of the prophecies, in 1 year periods (a time), in
>> seven year periods (times), or in half-year periods (6 months).
No! it all breacks down to be different things that also have to
happen during that prophetic timeline.
by useing the Bible code Keys of "a prophetic day for a literal
year" it is possible to find a starting date to place some of it
in the timeline of History. . .
However we are not able to prove it past today.
>
> They do indeed refer to 3 1/2 years, but not literal years. They
> must be symbolic, as there is no three and a half years having
> 1,260 days. Neither do the other numbers provided by Daniel refer
> to any literal three and a half years. But they all fit the pattern
> of a "time, times, and a half" as follows:
That is correct: in Revelation 11 and 12 it breaks it down to show
there are 42 months in the 3 and a half years.
and that is with each month having 30 days in them.
That also show the 1260 days that is also in it.
so with the 1260 days prophesied, we can use the
Bible keys to show exactly how long it was to be
Days = years so it is to be 1260 literal years.
This is how it also looks in History.
>
> 1,260 days = 12*30 + 2*12*30 + 12*30/2
> 1,290 days = 13*30 + 2*12*30 + 12*30/2
> 1,335 days = 12*30 + 2*13*30 + 13*30/2
> 42 months = 12 + 2*12 + 12/2
>
> The first three numbers assume months are 30 days but real months
> are a little less so these numbers are simply alternate ways of
> expressing a symbolic, non-literal period of three and a half
> years, the symbol of the remaining time of the church, as explained
> by the angel in Daniel 12:7.
Prophetic Months have 30 days in them and that is what we need
to be using.
>
>>
>>> that is mentioned in Daniel's prophecies, in Dan 7:25 and 12:7.
>>
>> BUT DANIEL DIDN'T SAY "1,260 DAYS," moron--HE SAID 1,290, which
>> means the 1,260 OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE TWO WITNESSES lies WITHIN
>> the 1,290 DAYS, and it is NOT METAPHOR, moron.
"NAME CALLER", , , the 1290 is a different prophecy then the 1260 day
prophecy and if we keep them in proper prespctive they are easy to
work with, but if you want to mix them all into one thaty you have
a big pile of dirty laundry that needs to be seperated out in to the
propher piles before we can wash them.
>
> Yes, Daniel uses both leap years of 13 months, and regular years of
> 12 months, to derive his numbers. John used only years of 12
> months. The calendar had been changed in John's time.
No leap years at all to comlicate it!
>
>>
>>> It
>>> is the last half-week of the 70 weeks,
They have nothing to do with the 70 weeks prophecy at all so
don't even go there.
>>
>> NO, IT'S SATAN'S HALF (THE FIRST HALF) OF THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.
>> GOD'S HALF IS 1,335 DAYS. AND THESE COME AFTER THE 62 YEARS OF THE
>> BEGINNING OF SORROWS, AND THE 1 YEAR TRANSITION.
>
> Only in Ike's delusions!
>
>>
>>> the remaining time of the
>>> church when Christ confirms his covenant with those who believe
>>> the gospel.
>>
>> YOU KEEP REFERRING TO SATAN'S COVENANT AS GOD'S COVENANT.
>
> It would be sad indeed to be so confused, as to mistake a holy
> covenant of God, for one that is made with Satan! But the new
> covenant in the Bible is one which says God will write his laws on
> our hearts. It was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah. The Spirit of
> God is what accomplishes this.
>
> Jeremiah 31:33
> But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
> Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in
> their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their
> God, and they shall be my people.
That written law is "the meaning of Love" if we love then
we have no need for any added laws.
Love God and love you neighbor, on thes 2 rules hangs the
Whole law.
>
> This applies to those who believe the gospel, the church of the NT.
>
> Hebrews 8:10
> For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
> after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their
> mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God,
> and they shall be to me a people:
See my statement above on Love.
M,
Doug
Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
I think the time Jesus called "great tribulation" is the time
described by Daniel. It is when God's saints are delivered, and
when the dead are raised up. So it cannot be the 1,260 years
between 538 AD and 1798 AD, as there was no resurrection then.
Daniel wrote:
Daniel 12:1-2
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which
standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time
of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that
same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every
one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting
life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
>
> It has had a fulfillment date as well, and I do not have another
> set of prophetic time to add on to the 1260 days unless it may
> be some how the 1335 days prophecy is right after the
> 1260 Days prophecy.
Of course you don't, because your approach is wrong. The "time,
times and a half" is the time to the end of the age, and the 1,290
days, and 1,335 days, are simply different ways of representing it.
Daniel 12:6-7
And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters
of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of
the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto
heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for
a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to
scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be
finished.
>>
>>> AS YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHAT
>>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT...
>>>
>>>> the 1,260 days refers to the "time, times, and a half"
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> They refer to 3 1/2 years; they could also refer to the measure
>>> of each statement of the prophecies, in 1 year periods (a time),
>>> in seven year periods (times), or in half-year periods (6
>>> months).
>
> No! it all breacks down to be different things that also have to
> happen during that prophetic timeline.
> by useing the Bible code Keys of "a prophetic day for a literal
> year" it is possible to find a starting date to place some of it
> in the timeline of History. . .
> However we are not able to prove it past today.
Perhaps it is time to abandon old, worn out theories that don't
work.
>
>>
>> They do indeed refer to 3 1/2 years, but not literal years. They
>> must be symbolic, as there is no three and a half years having
>> 1,260 days. Neither do the other numbers provided by Daniel refer
>> to any literal three and a half years. But they all fit the
>> pattern of a "time, times, and a half" as follows:
>
> That is correct: in Revelation 11 and 12 it breaks it down to
> show there are 42 months in the 3 and a half years.
> and that is with each month having 30 days in them.
> That also show the 1260 days that is also in it.
> so with the 1260 days prophesied, we can use the
> Bible keys to show exactly how long it was to be
> Days = years so it is to be 1260 literal years.
> This is how it also looks in History.
It doesn't appear correct to me. Did the Bible cease to exist in
1798 AD? That is when you say the 1,260 days ended, isn't it? 1,260
days is the time of the ministry of the 2 witnesses. Did you not
claim the 2 witnesses represent the scriptures?
>
>>
>> 1,260 days = 12*30 + 2*12*30 + 12*30/2
>> 1,290 days = 13*30 + 2*12*30 + 12*30/2
>> 1,335 days = 12*30 + 2*13*30 + 13*30/2
>> 42 months = 12 + 2*12 + 12/2
>>
>> The first three numbers assume months are 30 days but real months
>> are a little less so these numbers are simply alternate ways of
>> expressing a symbolic, non-literal period of three and a half
>> years, the symbol of the remaining time of the church, as
>> explained by the angel in Daniel 12:7.
>
> Prophetic Months have 30 days in them and that is what we need
> to be using.
Jesus said the period of three years and six months was the duration
of the famine in the days of Elijah.
Luke 4:24-26
And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his
own country.
But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of
Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when
great famine was throughout all the land;
But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of
Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
This is also mentioned by James.
James 5:17
Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed
earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by
the space of three years and six months.
The ministry of the 2 witnesses also has the duration 1,260 days,
which is three years and six months. And they also have the power
to "shut heaven," so there is no rain during the time of their
prophecy. But at the end of the famine in the days of Elijah, there
was a great rain. Will the conclusion of the ministry of the 2
witnesses be accompanied by a spiritual "rain"? That did not happen
in 1798 AD, did it?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> that is mentioned in Daniel's prophecies, in Dan 7:25 and 12:7.
>>>
>>> BUT DANIEL DIDN'T SAY "1,260 DAYS," moron--HE SAID 1,290, which
>>> means the 1,260 OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE TWO WITNESSES lies
>>> WITHIN the 1,290 DAYS, and it is NOT METAPHOR, moron.
>
> "NAME CALLER", , , the 1290 is a different prophecy then the
> 1260 day prophecy and if we keep them in proper prespctive they
> are easy to
> work with, but if you want to mix them all into one thaty you
> have a big pile of dirty laundry that needs to be seperated out in
> to the propher piles before we can wash them.
In Daniel's time, years had either 12 or 13 months, so a leap year
of 13 months is included in the 1,290 days. In John's time, and
since then, because the Romans changed the calendar, all years have
12 months. So John uses years of 12 months, for calculating the
symbolic three and a half years.
--
Doug
Chuck Stamford
> In message <iOF9k.653$Gt....@newsfe06.lga>
> Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>> news:QtudnZiSybTnWvvV...@sentex.net...
>>> In message <g3v6m1$tp0$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>>> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The prophecy of the 2 witnesses, in Revelation 11, and the
>>> prophecy of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12, both
>>> mention a period of 1,260 days. This is the symbolic "time, times
>>> and a half" which is a symbol of the present age, the age of the
>>> church, the time for which Christ continues to confirm his
>>> covenant with believers. Both chapters describe the church and
>>> its mission in the world in symbolic terms. The 2 witnesses are
>>> not humans but they represent the Spirit of God, and the word of
>>> God. These are also represented by the ministries of Moses and
>>> with Elijah, as Moses, being the author of the Pentateuch,
>>> represents the word of God, and similarly Elijah is a symbol of
>>> the Spirit of God. Both appeared with Jesus in a vision on the
>>> mount of Transfiguration.
>>
>> The 2 chapters you are mentioning is talking about 2 different
>> things that was to happen all during that time line.
Mistylein seems to have at least part of this correct; however, I'm not sure
that Ike wasn't also speaking of two different things in interpreting the
two witnesses sent down from God in chap. 11 as the Scriptures and the
Spirit. Of course such an interpretation faces multiple problems I've never
seen resolved.
>>
>> Thank you for keeping those prophetic times in one spot
>> for a change.
>>
>> That time breaks down to 1260 literal years and it has
>> a beginning time date.
>> All that time is what is called the Great Tribulation.
>
> I think the time Jesus called "great tribulation" is the time
> described by Daniel. It is when God's saints are delivered, and
> when the dead are raised up. So it cannot be the 1,260 years
> between 538 AD and 1798 AD, as there was no resurrection then.
> Daniel wrote:
>
> Daniel 12:1-2
> And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which
> standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time
> of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that
> same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every
> one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that
> sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting
> life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Everyone here seems to be operating on the idea the 1,260 days refer to as
many years, yet no one has given any reason to justify such a premise.
Noticing that the concept "day" within an ancient Jewish cultural context
has a wide range of meaning only shows the term "days" here *can* refer to
years. We are still left with no justification whatever for actually making
that eschatological connection. Without that justification (and in my mind
we would need a pretty strong one here!) for making the connection between
"days" and years in our understanding of the prophecy, I would be free, for
example, to understand the 1,260 days as referring to the number of Jubilee
years, and thus, that the 1,260 days is actually referring to 63,000 years!
There has to be a limiting, very plausible reason for understanding the
1,260 days set in the prophetic time frame as years. Without it the
prophecy simply loses all meaning, and thus authorial purpose, and becomes
whatever anyone thinks about those "days". It becomes simply a "launching
pad" for personal speculation, and that's obviously not why the book was
written by John:
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,
and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Rev 1:3 (KJV)
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his
garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. Rev 16:15 (KJV)
And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God
of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things
which must shortly be done. 7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that
keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. Rev 22:6-7 (KJV)
John clearly had some discoverable purpose in writing, which means the 1,260
days mean something the very average truth seeker who loves the Lord will be
able to discover easily. We're not talking pseudo-Gnosticism here people!
And the Church isn't Israel, to whom the Lord hides His truths in parables
difficult to understand so that they will not repent. The simplest
understanding is probably the best understanding, and without that solid
gold justification for making "days" into years in our interpretation (or
any other unit of time for that matter) of the prophecy, a garden variety
"day" looks pretty good to me.
>
>>
>> It has had a fulfillment date as well, and I do not have another
>> set of prophetic time to add on to the 1260 days unless it may
>> be some how the 1335 days prophecy is right after the
>> 1260 Days prophecy.
>
> Of course you don't, because your approach is wrong. The "time,
> times and a half" is the time to the end of the age, and the 1,290
> days, and 1,335 days, are simply different ways of representing it.
>
> Daniel 12:6-7
> And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters
> of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
> And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of
> the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto
> heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for
> a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to
> scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be
> finished.
You're focusing on Daniel, to the *exclusion* of what John has already said,
to explain this prophecy in Revelation, and I think that's a serious
mistake. Revelation certainly leans heavily upon Daniel, and the parallels
are certainly there between them; but where exactly they are is the issue,
and we can't find them by ignoring what Revelation has to say while we run
off to Daniel.
We're talking about the two witnesses and the woman clothed with the sun,
and what these metaphors mean in chapters 11 and 12 of Revelation. So our
*first* priority is to see *all* that Revelation has to say before we go
anywhere else seeking additional data or a better understanding of the data
we're given.
Now I'm no biblical scholar when it comes to Revelation. I freely admit
that right up front. However, I"m pretty good at comprehending what a text
right in front of me is saying, even if I'm not nearly that good at
understanding all that the author meant in saying it. Here is what I see
John saying about this portion of his vision (the "vision" being the entire
book of Revelation) that includes the two witnesses and the woman clothed
with the sun:
He begins in 8:13 - "And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the
midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, *to the inhabiters
of the earth* by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three
angels, which are yet to sound! Rev 8:13 (KJV)
He then goes on to list these "woes" for us, but he doesn't do it in what we
may think of as a "normal" way. This is how he does it:
One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. Rev 9:12
(KJV)
The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly. Rev 11:14
(KJV)
Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe *to the
inhabiters of the earth* and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto
you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
Rev 12:12 (KJV)
Interestingly enough, 8:13, 9:12, 11:14, and 12:12 are the *only* places in
all of the tribulation and disaster recounted in Revelation where John uses
the word "woe" (Gr. "ouai"), and he uses the phrase, variously translated as
"the inhabiters of the earth", and "those who dwell on the earth", and "the
inhabitants of the earth" (Gr. "katoikeo ge") consistently for real people
living on the real earth (See 6:10; 8:13, 11:10, 13:8, 13:14, 17:2 for
examples of the consistency with which John uses the phrase). He also
equates these "woes" with the three angels yet to sound their trumpets.
Now this is significant to me; this is John giving me a framework by which
to understand what is coming; something solid to work with in what follows.
Whatever these "woes" happen to actually be as fulfillments of this
prophecy, and whatever the ensuing Johannian metaphors symbolize, they all
have to "fit" within the "framework" established by these Johannian markers
of "woes" and trumpet sounding angels who haven't yet sounded.
Obviously this entails that the four angels that have already sounded in the
book mark events that transpired prior to the events that make up these
three woes/angels "yet to come" in 8:13. And just as obviously, those
events that together make up these three woes/sounding angels occur in the
order given between 8:13 and 12:12. And unless we turn the temporal markers
John uses throughtout Revelation into something other than temporal markers,
the odering of events between 8:13 and 12:12 *is* a temporal ordering of
those events...which means the two witnesses and the woman clothed with the
sun *can't* be two different metaphors symbolizing the *same* events or time
frame, as has been suggested by someone (I'm not really sure who, but I
think Ike) in this ongoing discussion evidenced in the header.
To summarize:
1.) John gives us a solid framework to use in understanding the order of
events between 8:13 and 12:12 (actually 12:17, the end of the chapter.
Interesting is that at the end of this chapter the "dragon" goes off "to
make war against the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's
commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.", which entails that
however these three "woes" are to be distinguished in Revelation, it's *not*
that they are the last calamity to befall those upon the earth, even those
who "obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus")
2.) According to this framework, the metaphors (if indeed they both are
metaphors) of the two witnesses and the woman clothed in the sun can't be
symbolizing either the same events or the same trime frame.
I'll just leave it at that for now.
Chuck Stamford
Doug
Chuck Stamford <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
It is Mistylein who supports that. He has claimed that the 1,260
days represent 1,260 years, which he says is the period 538 AD to
1798 AD. He also claims to have figured out the 1,290 days of
Daniel 12:11, but I don't remember what that is. But has admitted
several times that he has no clue what the 1,335 days of Daniel
12:12 represent. So, it seems to me that the idea that any of these
numbers refer to equal spans of years seems to be discredited. It
is not surprising one can find one or two intervals in history that
have some semblance of a fit, but *three* sets of numbers is
required for the interpretation to stand. Think of a three legged
stool; take one leg away and it is unstable; so it is with
Mistylein's approach. His methodology is proved false if he cannot
come up with solutions in history for *all three* sets of numbers
that he assumes represent spans of years already fulfilled in
history.
> Noticing that the concept "day" within an ancient
> Jewish cultural context has a wide range of meaning only shows the
> term "days" here *can* refer to
> years.
I don't think anyone denies that days may sometimes represent years,
as it is clearly the case in some examples in the Bible. But there
is nothing that requires it has to always be so. In fact, that
would make no sense. Jesus was not three *years* in the tomb, for
example. And Peter tells is that a "day" in prophetic terminology
can also refer to 1,000 years, and 1,000 years may refer to a day!
> We are still left with no justification whatever for
> actually making
> that eschatological connection. Without that justification (and
> in my mind we would need a pretty strong one here!) for making the
> connection between "days" and years in our understanding of the
> prophecy, I would be free, for example, to understand the 1,260
> days as referring to the number of Jubilee years, and thus, that
> the 1,260 days is actually referring to 63,000 years!
There is no biblical precedent for it.
>
> There has to be a limiting, very plausible reason for
> understanding the
> 1,260 days set in the prophetic time frame as years. Without it
> the prophecy simply loses all meaning, and thus authorial purpose,
> and becomes
> whatever anyone thinks about those "days". It becomes simply a
> "launching pad" for personal speculation, and that's obviously not
> why the book was written by John:
>
> Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this
> prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the
> time is at hand. Rev 1:3 (KJV)
>
> Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and
> keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
> Rev 16:15 (KJV)
>
> And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the
> Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his
> servants the things which must shortly be done. 7 Behold, I come
> quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of
> this book. Rev 22:6-7 (KJV)
>
> John clearly had some discoverable purpose in writing, which means
> the 1,260 days mean something the very average truth seeker who
> loves the Lord will be
> able to discover easily.
Once we understand the symbolism of the Church fleeing to the
wilderness, the answer is rather obvious, IMO. The church consists
of those who have escaped from the corruption of the world, as
Israel escaped from bondage and oppression in Egypt. So John says
she flees to the wilderness, as happens continually throughout its
history. It is a basic doctrine taught by the apostle Paul.
1 Corinthians 10:1-5
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that
all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the
sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same
spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that
followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God
was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
Compare the above scripture with John's prophecy:
Revelation 12:6
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place
prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two
hundred and threescore days.
> We're not talking pseudo-Gnosticism here
> people! And the Church isn't Israel, to whom the Lord hides His
> truths in parables
> difficult to understand so that they will not repent.
The church may not be Israel in the flesh, but it is called "the
circumcision" in the NT.
Philippians 3:3
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and
rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Paul called believers "the children of Abraham."
Galatians 3:7
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the
children of Abraham.
Paul referred to believers those who are "Jews inwardly."
Romans 2:29
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of
the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is
not of men, but of God.
He said Gentile believers who were previously "aliens," had
been "made nigh" to the commonwealth of Israel.
Ephesians 2:11-13
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the
flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the
Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh
by the blood of Christ.
James identified the church with "the tabernacle of David." [Acts
15:16]
Peter said the church is "an holy nation."
1 Peter 2:9-10
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation,
a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who
hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in
time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which
had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
> The
> simplest understanding is probably the best understanding, and
> without that solid gold justification for making "days" into years
> in our interpretation (or any other unit of time for that matter)
> of the prophecy, a garden variety "day" looks pretty good to me.
Yes, but one still has to interpret the three and a half years that
they represent. These are evidently symbolic, because:
(1) The numbers provided don't equate to any literal three and a
half years, in any calendar.
(2) Different numbers are mentioned for the same period.
(3) They are equivalent to half of "7 times," which is obviously a
symbolic period.
(4) They correspond to the last half-week of the 70 weeks of Daniel
9:24-27. Christ confirms his covenant for one week, and since he
still does that today, it is reasonable to view the final half-week
of the 70 weeks as symbolic of the entire age of the church.
The third "woe" is identified with the 7th trumpet, Rev 8:13. The
sounding of the 7th trumpet occurs in Rev 11:15. It seems likely it
is the "last trump" of 1 Corinthians 15.
1 Corinthians 15:52
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible,
and we shall be changed.
>
> Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe *to
> the inhabiters of the earth* and of the sea! for the devil is come
> down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath
> but a short time. Rev 12:12 (KJV)
This probably does not refer to the "third woe," as there is no
trumpet associated with it.
>
> Interestingly enough, 8:13, 9:12, 11:14, and 12:12 are the *only*
> places in all of the tribulation and disaster recounted in
> Revelation where John uses the word "woe" (Gr. "ouai"), and he
> uses the phrase, variously translated as "the inhabiters of the
> earth", and "those who dwell on the earth", and "the inhabitants
> of the earth" (Gr. "katoikeo ge") consistently for real people
> living on the real earth (See 6:10; 8:13, 11:10, 13:8, 13:14, 17:2
> for
> examples of the consistency with which John uses the phrase). He
> also equates these "woes" with the three angels yet to sound their
> trumpets.
>
> Now this is significant to me; this is John giving me a framework
> by which to understand what is coming; something solid to work
> with in what follows.
Or perhaps Rev 11 & 12 describe the entire history of the church and
its role in taking the gospel of God's kingdom to the world.
Are you claiming the 1,260 days of Rev 11:3 is not the same as the
1,260 days of Rev 12:6?
Hmm.. How unreasonable! Oh, the claims in section (2) of
your "summary" do not follow from the preceding discussion, IMO. I
suggest the 1,260 day symbolism used in both these chapters is
clearly intended to identify the period as one unique span of time.
I think to deny it, one would have some pretty solid reasons and
arguments that I failed to find above.
Chuck Stamford
Sorry. I guess I jumped to the conclusion that because you didn't base your
objection on his equating a day in 11 and 12 to a year, in the part of your
response I read, you didn't have one. My mistake.
> So, it seems to me that the idea that any of these
> numbers refer to equal spans of years seems to be discredited. It
> is not surprising one can find one or two intervals in history that
> have some semblance of a fit, but *three* sets of numbers is
> required for the interpretation to stand. Think of a three legged
> stool; take one leg away and it is unstable; so it is with
> Mistylein's approach. His methodology is proved false if he cannot
> come up with solutions in history for *all three* sets of numbers
> that he assumes represent spans of years already fulfilled in
> history.
I think it's a mistake to base one's analysis of any particular exegesis of
Revelation, or any portion of it, on how well or ill the one proposing it
can cram historical events into it. A good exegesis has to be based on
sound hermeneutics first and foremost, and only secondarily on how well or
ill any particular events "fit" within it.
>
>> Noticing that the concept "day" within an ancient
>> Jewish cultural context has a wide range of meaning only shows the
>> term "days" here *can* refer to
>> years.
>
> I don't think anyone denies that days may sometimes represent years,
> as it is clearly the case in some examples in the Bible. But there
> is nothing that requires it has to always be so. In fact, that
> would make no sense. Jesus was not three *years* in the tomb, for
> example. And Peter tells is that a "day" in prophetic terminology
> can also refer to 1,000 years, and 1,000 years may refer to a day!
Well, that's not quite what Peter says, and the only time a "day" doesn't
mean a normal day or some portion of it in the Bible is when it is used
prophetically.
What Peter actually says is that *to the Lord* a day is no more or less
important than a thousand years; with the clear intent that in some sense
the Lord is temporal, but in another is independent of the passage of time.
It's a difficult saying, but it doesn't give us any "prophetic terminology"
as such. It would be a mistake to take this passage to mean anytime we run
across the term "day" in a prophecy, we should understand "1,000 years", or
visa versa. The concept being given is the lack of any time constraints on
God in fulfilling His predictive word unless God Himself puts those
constraints within those predictions.
>
>> We are still left with no justification whatever for
>> actually making
>> that eschatological connection. Without that justification (and
>> in my mind we would need a pretty strong one here!) for making the
>> connection between "days" and years in our understanding of the
>> prophecy, I would be free, for example, to understand the 1,260
>> days as referring to the number of Jubilee years, and thus, that
>> the 1,260 days is actually referring to 63,000 years!
>
> There is no biblical precedent for it.
It's wrong-headed to think that because one can find something given in the
Bible at one place, it gives us justification for interpreting it in
another. As I said, just because something is *possibly true* is *not*
evidence it is true.
The question is, would this be a connection the early Church would have
made, and would John have expected them to make it when he wrote as he did?
You're suggesting that "once we understand the symbolism of the Church
fleeing to the wilderness, the answer is rather obvious". Okay. Then make
the case the Church would have understood the symbolism in this way, and
that John had a legitimate expectation they would as he wrote.
Personally, I think you're making very speculative assumptions about the 1st
century Church!
>
>> We're not talking pseudo-Gnosticism here
>> people! And the Church isn't Israel, to whom the Lord hides His
>> truths in parables
>> difficult to understand so that they will not repent.
>
> The church may not be Israel in the flesh, but it is called "the
> circumcision" in the NT.
snip (I fully understand that the Church is described as "spiritual Israel",
and a branch "grafted in", etc.; and have no argument whatsoever with this
understanding of the nature of the Church)
However, all this is beside the point. I'm saying that John didn't write to
hide or distort, but to reveal. Therefore, we should be looking for the
simple before the complex, and the clear before the obscure, and we have to
keep in mind the audience to whom John was writing...which by and large were
not biblical scholars, yet he expected (and warned) them they needed to
"understand" the vision.
>> The
>> simplest understanding is probably the best understanding, and
>> without that solid gold justification for making "days" into years
>> in our interpretation (or any other unit of time for that matter)
>> of the prophecy, a garden variety "day" looks pretty good to me.
>
> Yes, but one still has to interpret the three and a half years that
> they represent. These are evidently symbolic, because:
> (1) The numbers provided don't equate to any literal three and a
> half years, in any calendar.
> (2) Different numbers are mentioned for the same period.
> (3) They are equivalent to half of "7 times," which is obviously a
> symbolic period.
> (4) They correspond to the last half-week of the 70 weeks of Daniel
> 9:24-27. Christ confirms his covenant for one week, and since he
> still does that today, it is reasonable to view the final half-week
> of the 70 weeks as symbolic of the entire age of the church.
You've almost got it, I think. The 1,260 days clearly represent 3 1/2 years
actual, just as "time, times, and a half time" represent 3 1/2 actual years.
But it would be wrong to insist these 3 1/2 years are symbolic of some other
span of time unless one can provide good grounds for so doing. It is also
wrong to insist that before 1.260 days can refer to a real time span of 3
1/2 years one must be able to locate those years, and the days in which they
consist, on a "calendar". Daniel obviously uses 360 days to represent a
year, and just as obviously rounds his numbers like every other number in
the Pentaetuch is rounded.
"And the leaders of all the people, all the tribes of Israel, presented
themselves in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand foot
soldiers who drew the sword." Judges 20:2
Are we to understand here that precisely 400,000 foot soldiers, and not a
man more or less, presented themselves in the assembly of God? How many
times do we find these sorts of rounded numbers? Do we *ever* see something
like "and of the tribe of Judah, 40, 243 men..." did this and such? Do we
*ever* see something like "make "x" two and 5/6's cubits in diameter"? Do
we ever get a solid definiton of a "cubit"???
No, we don't.
Of course there is. Have you forgotten already that this was done at 8:13?
Why would there be any reason to repeat it just to short chapters later?
>
>>
>> Interestingly enough, 8:13, 9:12, 11:14, and 12:12 are the *only*
>> places in all of the tribulation and disaster recounted in
>> Revelation where John uses the word "woe" (Gr. "ouai"), and he
>> uses the phrase, variously translated as "the inhabiters of the
>> earth", and "those who dwell on the earth", and "the inhabitants
>> of the earth" (Gr. "katoikeo ge") consistently for real people
>> living on the real earth (See 6:10; 8:13, 11:10, 13:8, 13:14, 17:2
>> for
>> examples of the consistency with which John uses the phrase). He
>> also equates these "woes" with the three angels yet to sound their
>> trumpets.
>>
>> Now this is significant to me; this is John giving me a framework
>> by which to understand what is coming; something solid to work
>> with in what follows.
>
> Or perhaps Rev 11 & 12 describe the entire history of the church and
> its role in taking the gospel of God's kingdom to the world.
No one has ever given me any plausible reason to think so. Look at the
following...
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is
spoken of throughout **the whole world**. Romans 1:8
We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying
always for you, 4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of your
love for all the saints; 5 because of the hope which is laid up for you in
heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel,
6 which has come to you, **as it has also in all the world**, and is
bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and
knew the grace of God in truth; Col 1:3-6
But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious, took some of the evil
men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar
and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
6 But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some brethren to
the rulers of the city, crying out, "These **who have turned the world
upside down** have come here too. Acts 17:5-6
It appears we have good reason to believe the prevalent attitude of the
Church at the time John wrote Revelation was already global. Certainly by
the last half of the 1st century the Gospel had reached into every corner of
the Roman Empire, and if tradition is correct, Thomas and others had already
taken it beyond the borders of the Empire in the east, and Paul had been to
Spain, northern Europe, and the British Isles prior to his martyrdom in Rome
in the early sixties. There are respectable biblical scholars who date
Revelation early, but even the earliest dating for it is just prior to the
invasion of Judea by Titus at the end of the decade, and there are good
arguments for dating it nearer the end of the century well after the
destruction of Jerusalem.
The point is that if John believed the Gospel had *already* reached into the
far corners of the world as he wrote Revelation, there is no good reason to
suppose he would place in his prophecy the Church would do this in the
future.
I'm claiming I have no good reason to think they are.
>
> Hmm.. How unreasonable! Oh, the claims in section (2) of
> your "summary" do not follow from the preceding discussion, IMO. I
> suggest the 1,260 day symbolism used in both these chapters is
> clearly intended to identify the period as one unique span of time.
> I think to deny it, one would have some pretty solid reasons and
> arguments that I failed to find above.
Well then let me attempt to give you that argument again so that you can see
it more clearly.
1.) John gives us a "framework" in 8:13 by which to understand the ordering
of events he then goes on to describe in chapters 8-12 (at least, for he
probably flashs both forward and back from 13-22). This framework is
denoted by the three "woes" phrase and "the inhabitants of the earth" phrase
(along with the fact he equates these woes to the trumpet soundings of the
final three angels!); the first of which we are given somewhere between 8:13
and 9:12; the second between 9:13 and 11:14; and the final woe occurs
between 11:14 and the end of chapter 12 (with the specification actually
given at 12:12: "Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the
devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has
a short time."; where **again** John makes sure to give us the marker
phrase: the woe to the inhabitants of the earth phrase. So we have this
phrase from John both at the beginning and at the end of this section, like
thematic bookends.
2.) If it weren't for that recurring phraseology, "the inhabitants of the
earth", we would be completely free to speculate that this ordering of the
three woes could be any type from sequential simply because it is impossible
to relate events in any other way, to temporally chronological. But that
phrase is time indexical in that it happens to "the inhabitants of the
earth", or more to the point, the inhabitants of God's created temporal
reality; strongly suggesting a chronological ordering.
3.) If it is a chronological ordering, then the 1,260 days of the two
witnesses can't be the same 1,260 days that the woman clothed with the sun
hides herself in the place that has been prepared for her.
4.) Since the two time periods taken together give us roughly the seven
years of Daniel's final week, they may very well be the first and the last 3
1/2 years of the Great Tribulation, looked at from a much more Jewish
Christian perspective than a Gentile Christian perspective.
I would offer one other thought that I won't make part of the actual
argument here, but may bear retaining in mind as the argument is considered.
Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy concerns the Jews exclusively. As Gabriel says
of the prophecy, "Seventy weeks are determined For **your people** and for
**your holy city**, To finish the transgression...etc." Clearly this is a
Jewish prophecy that will not be fulfilled until the second coming when
Jesus Christ, the Anointed Holy One establishes His kingdom of God in
righteousness upon the earth, and rules it "with a rod of iron" (Ps. 2:9,
Rev. 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15), and just as clearly that all occurs during
Daniel's 70th week sometime.
We're already agreed, I think, that Revelation is John's vision that expands
on Daniel's vision, and concerns almost exclusively that final week in
Daniel's vision and what the end of the ages is all about once that week is
over (in a very real sense we come full circle from Genesis 2:2-3
And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested
on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He
rested from all His work which God had created and made.
To Revelation 22:1-5
And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding
from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and
on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits,
each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for
the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse, but the
throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve
Him.
4 They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. 5 There
shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the
Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.
The point is that Daniel's vision and John's are intimately tied together,
and because they are we should expect that us Gentiles will not be center
stage in any of this. We are the branch grafted in; the beneficiaries of
the chosen Israel's failure of faith; the other woman meant to engender
jealousy in the unchaste wife, and bring her back to her Husband. In short,
we are saved by God's grace in using us to woo Israel back to His bosom, as
the many promises God has made to Israel to **never** foresake them and
**never** take back from them the land He gave to them for the sake of
Abraham so clearly informs us. Thus, while we Gentiles get a mention here
and there in Revelation, the "Church" is still largely Jewish in John's
vision, and still intimately bound up in the stricly Jewish vision given to
Daniel.
And once we understand that we shouldn't be automatically expecting to see
some account of the Gentile Church (as we understand it today from our
modern perspective) on every page of Revelation, it could very well be that
the 1,260 days of chapter 11 concern certain specified events of the first
half of the Great Trib, and the 1,260 days of chapter 12 represent certain
specific events of the second half, giving us a total of 7 years for the
Great Trib.
If this idea of God refusing to foresake Israel is something new to you, I'd
be happy to survey a few dozen Old and New Testament examples for you.
One final thought here: John's gospel has traditionally been viewed as the
most "Hellenistic" (i.e., Gentile) of the four, but more recent scholarship
has begun to change that conclusion, and now John is seen by many as the
most "Jewish" of the four. If that's true, then it would further bolster
the theory that John writes from a much more Jewish perspective than he does
from a Gentile perspective, and we would expect to see that cultural bias
throughout his works, including Revelation.
Mistylein
You are in titled to your thoughs.
However you are not thinking it right for this one.
The Saints are delivered in the time of Jesus ministy after He
resurrects from the grave 3 days after He is cut off by
Crucifiction.
> Daniel wrote:
>
> Daniel 12:1-2
> And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which
> standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time
> of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that
> same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every
> one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that
> sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting
> life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Was there a Definite prophetic length of time in that?
I do not see it.
Is Jesus not that Michael?
Did not Jesus stand up as prophesied?
>
>>
>> It has had a fulfillment date as well, and I do not have another
>> set of prophetic time to add on to the 1260 days unless it may
>> be some how the 1335 days prophecy is right after the
>> 1260 Days prophecy.
>
> Of course you don't, because your approach is wrong. The "time,
> times and a half" is the time to the end of the age, and the 1,290
> days, and 1,335 days, are simply different ways of representing it.
The 1290 has a starting date, that starts The very day Jesus
is Crucified.
Sorry I am not sure of when the 1335 Day kicks in but it may
follow after the 1290 days. Some one would have to show
that to me better then just saying it.
>
> Daniel 12:6-7
> And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters
> of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
> And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of
> the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto
> heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for
> a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to
> scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be
> finished.
You forgot to add your comments below that Bible passages
post,
>
>>
>> No! it all breacks down to be different things that also have to
>> happen during that prophetic timeline.
>> by useing the Bible code Keys of "a prophetic day for a literal
>> year" it is possible to find a starting date to place some of it
>> in the timeline of History. . .
>> However we are not able to prove it past today.
>
> Perhaps it is time to abandon old, worn out theories that don't
> work.
The Bible does work most effectivly when applied correctly
and to History of the last 2,000 years.
>
>>
>>>
>>> They do indeed refer to 3 1/2 years, but not literal years. They
>>> must be symbolic, as there is no three and a half years having
>>> 1,260 days. Neither do the other numbers provided by Daniel refer
>>> to any literal three and a half years. But they all fit the
>>> pattern of a "time, times, and a half" as follows:
>>
>> That is correct: in Revelation 11 and 12 it breaks it down to
>> show there are 42 months in the 3 and a half years.
>> and that is with each month having 30 days in them.
>> That also shows the 1260 days that is also in it.
>> so with the 1260 days prophesied, we can use the
>> Bible keys to show exactly how long it was to be
>> Days = years so it is to be 1260 literal years.
>> This is how it also looks in History.
>
> It doesn't appear correct to me. Did the Bible cease to exist in
> 1798 AD? That is when you say the 1,260 days ended, isn't it? 1,260
> days is the time of the ministry of the 2 witnesses. Did you not
> claim the 2 witnesses represent the scriptures?
There may well be another set of Prophetic days such as
the 1335 that kick in at that time but I can not be sure of that
enough to positivly state it.
That Bible says they prophesied in Sacloth durning that time.
It did not say that is all the time they would prophesy.
They are still with us today.
But I can say, Yes the 1260 day Prophecy was fulfilled at
that time. That is when the one head of the Beast
received it's deadly wound, but it did not die either in that
year. for the wound was healed later in 1929 in Febuary.
When another was seated in that office on that throne
and one sits there even to day as we can plainly see.
Rev 13.
Neither one of those places that time in prophetic time language.
so that time can be read as literal time not prophetic time.
>
> The ministry of the 2 witnesses also has the duration 1,260 days,
> which is three years and six months. And they also have the power
> to "shut heaven," so there is no rain during the time of their
> prophecy.
Rain represents God's Word. and there was very little if any
of Gods word being told or taught all during the GT of
1260 days
It was toward the end of that time that the Bible was printed
from a printing press in the language of the commone people.
but limited to one language.
It was a few centuries later that the Bible became more translated
into other languages.
Today there are some prining presses that only print Bibles and
nothing else.
God is in full control of His 2 Witnesses!
< But at the end of the famine in the days of Elijah, there
> was a great rain. Will the conclusion of the ministry of the 2
> witnesses be accompanied by a spiritual "rain"? That did not happen
> in 1798 AD, did it?
It was the end of the GT in 1798 that the great evangilisitc era
kicked in and that is why we have do many religeous sects going on
today. 1798 was the start of it.
>
>>
>>
>> "NAME CALLER", , , the 1290 is a different prophecy then the
>> 1260 day prophecy and if we keep them in proper prespctive they
>> are easy to
>> work with, but if you want to mix them all into one then you
>> have a big pile of dirty laundry that needs to be seperated out in
>> to the propher piles before we can wash them.
>
> In Daniel's time, years had either 12 or 13 months, so a leap year
> of 13 months is included in the 1,290 days. In John's time, and
> since then, because the Romans changed the calendar, all years have
> 12 months. So John uses years of 12 months, for calculating the
> symbolic three and a half years.
You may try to add in all you like but if you keep it simple it all
will work very well.
One year may well be the time it takes the earth to orbit arround
the Sun. The Bible likes to keep it simple and not comlicate it
with man's handlings of the times.
M,
>
>>
>> They have nothing to do with the 70 weeks prophecy at all so
>> don't even go there.
>>
>>
Mistylein
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9oP9k.7525$r_2...@newsfe14.phx...
>
> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> news:lrSdne-z9dKmEfrV...@sentex.net...
>> In message <iOF9k.653$Gt....@newsfe06.lga>
>> Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>>> The prophecy of the 2 witnesses, in Revelation 11, and the
>>>> prophecy of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12, both
>>>> mention a period of 1,260 days. This is the symbolic "time, times
>>>> and a half" which is a symbol of the present age, the age of the
>>>> church, the time for which Christ continues to confirm his
>>>> covenant with believers. Both chapters describe the church and
>>>> its mission in the world in symbolic terms. The 2 witnesses are
>>>> not humans but they represent the Spirit of God, and the word of
>>>> God. These are also represented by the ministries of Moses and
>>>> with Elijah, as Moses, being the author of the Pentateuch,
>>>> represents the word of God, and similarly Elijah is a symbol of
>>>> the Spirit of God. Both appeared with Jesus in a vision on the
>>>> mount of Transfiguration.
>>>
>>> The 2 chapters you are mentioning is talking about 2 different
>>> things that was to happen all during that time line.
>
> Mistylein seems to have at least part of this correct; however, I'm not sure that Ike
> wasn't also speaking of two different things in interpreting the two witnesses sent
> down from God in chap. 11 as the Scriptures and the Spirit. Of course such an
> interpretation faces multiple problems I've never seen resolved.
Your Bible is indeed witnesses.
You have both of them One is the Old Testament,
and the other is the New testament and they agree one to the
other.
What does a Witness do?
Ir Testefies if I spell this right,
What is a Testamony called?
It is called a Testament!
Well I think you can put it all together from this, I hope.
>
>>>
>>> Thank you for keeping those prophetic times in one spot
>>> for a change.
>>>
>>> That time breaks down to 1260 literal years and it has
>>> a beginning time date.
>>> All that time is what is called the Great Tribulation.
>>
>> I think the time Jesus called "great tribulation" is the time
>> described by Daniel. It is when God's saints are delivered, and
>> when the dead are raised up. So it cannot be the 1,260 years
>> between 538 AD and 1798 AD, as there was no resurrection then.
< No you again are mixing Prophesies. . .>
>> Daniel wrote:
>>
>> Daniel 12:1-2
>> And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which
>> standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time
>> of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that
>> same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every
>> one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that
>> sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting
>> life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
>
> Everyone here seems to be operating on the idea the 1,260 days refer to as many years,
> yet no one has given any reason to justify such a premise.
The Justification has to come from the Bible it self.
Numbers 14:34 (NIV)
34 For forty years-
one year for each of the forty days you explored the land-
you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have
me against you.'
The obove shows it once but also see it 2 more times in
Ezekiel 4:4-6 (NIV)
4 "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself. [a]
You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. 5 I have assigned
you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the
sin of the house of Israel.
6 "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear
the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.
Is this justification enough coming from your own Bibles?
> Noticing that the concept "day" within an ancient Jewish cultural context has a wide
> range of meaning only shows the term "days" here *can* refer to years. We are still
> left with no justification whatever for actually making that eschatological
> connection. Without that justification (and in my mind we would need a pretty strong
> one here!) for making the connection between "days" and years in our understanding of
> the prophecy, I would be free, for example, to understand the 1,260 days as referring
> to the number of Jubilee years, and thus, that the 1,260 days is actually referring to
> 63,000 years!
>
> There has to be a limiting, very plausible reason for understanding the 1,260 days set
> in the prophetic time frame as years. Without it the prophecy simply loses all
> meaning, and thus authorial purpose, and becomes whatever anyone thinks about those
> "days". It becomes simply a "launching pad" for personal speculation, and that's
> obviously not why the book was written by John:
See the above Bible passages for you authority from Scripture.
>
> Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep
> those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Rev 1:3 (KJV)
>
> Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest
> he walk naked, and they see his shame. Rev 16:15 (KJV)
>
> And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy
> prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be
> done. 7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy
> of this book. Rev 22:6-7 (KJV)
The Lord reveals His Word to the Wise but the unwise will never
learn it.
In other word you must approach Gods work with Prayer
and suplications and open eyes of understanding.
>
> John clearly had some discoverable purpose in writing, which means the 1,260 days mean
> something the very average truth seeker who loves the Lord will be able to discover
> easily. We're not talking pseudo-Gnosticism here people! And the Church isn't Israel,
> to whom the Lord hides His truths in parables difficult to understand so that they
> will not repent. The simplest understanding is probably the best understanding, and
> without that solid gold justification for making "days" into years in our
> interpretation (or any other unit of time for that matter) of the prophecy, a garden
> variety "day" looks pretty good to me.
Is your Eye of understanding open?
See the above Bible passages I have posted for you to ask more
Questions about.
M,
Mistylein
>>
>> Mistylein seems to have at least part of this correct; however,
>> I'm not sure that Ike wasn't also speaking of two different things
>> in interpreting the two witnesses sent down from God in chap. 11
>> as the Scriptures and the
>> Spirit. Of course such an interpretation faces multiple problems
>> I've never seen resolved.
>>
>>>>
>>
>> Everyone here seems to be operating on the idea the 1,260 days
>> refer to as many years, yet no one has given any reason to justify
>> such a premise.
>
> It is Mistylein who supports that. He has claimed that the 1,260
> days represent 1,260 years, which he says is the period 538 AD to
> 1798 AD. He also claims to have figured out the 1,290 days of
> Daniel 12:11, but I don't remember what that is.
It has a starting date of When The Messiah was cut off.
So count off 1290 Literal years to see what event in History
went on at the end of that time.
I am sure it is talking about 1290 literal years.
I have not been given what event shows that prophecy has been
fulfilled though.
< But has admitted
> several times that he has no clue what the 1,335 days of Daniel
> 12:12 represent. So, it seems to me that the idea that any of these
> numbers refer to equal spans of years seems to be discredited.
It is not discredited just because I do not have the event at the
end of that time period.
It does have credit because your Bible states the "days for years"
Key for the code or "a year for a day" depending on how it is
stated.
See Numbers 14:24
and Ezekiel 4:4=6
it these 2 it give it Three times so we have no excuse that
The Lord did not give it to us to use as the Keys to unlock
the Prophetic code, of the stated "days"
One problem you will have though is in the KJV Bible and
Daniel 14 where it is a misinterpretation and should read
as all other Versions say as "evenings and mornings" not
"days" as it does say there. This is the very place Ellen
White missed her reading of it as well and it got
the SDA into hot water way back in 1844.
I may also add that if a prophecy does not have a starting
date such as the one Jesus said "no man knows the day nor
the hour" it may well be an on going Prophecy with no end
to it.
< It
> is not surprising one can find one or two intervals in history that
> have some semblance of a fit, but *three* sets of numbers is
> required for the interpretation to stand. Think of a three legged
> stool; take one leg away and it is unstable; so it is with
> Mistylein's approach. His methodology is proved false if he cannot
> come up with solutions in history for *all three* sets of numbers
> that he assumes represent spans of years already fulfilled in
> history.
See the Bible passages above it is as you say given 3 times
so it stand on it's own with out an excuse that we do not know
it.
>
>> Noticing that the concept "day" within an ancient
>> Jewish cultural context has a wide range of meaning only shows the
>> term "days" here *can* refer to
>> years.
>
> I don't think anyone denies that days may sometimes represent years,
> as it is clearly the case in some examples in the Bible. But there
> is nothing that requires it has to always be so. In fact, that
> would make no sense. Jesus was not three *years* in the tomb, for
> example. And Peter tells is that a "day" in prophetic terminology
> can also refer to 1,000 years, and 1,000 years may refer to a day!
Jesus being in the belly of the earth was a literal time of 3 days and
nights just as it is stated in Genisis 1 for the key to that.
"and the evening and the morning was the first day". . .
>
>> We are still left with no justification whatever for
>> actually making
>> that eschatological connection. Without that justification (and
>> in my mind we would need a pretty strong one here!) for making the
>> connection between "days" and years in our understanding of the
>> prophecy, I would be free, for example, to understand the 1,260
>> days as referring to the number of Jubilee years, and thus, that
>> the 1,260 days is actually referring to 63,000 years!
NO it dose not say that any place is this a Typo?
>
> There is no biblical precedent for it.
Numbers 14:34
and
Ezekiel 4:4-6 Should be Biblical Prededents enough. . .
"Rev 12:6The woman fled into the desert to a place
prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care
of for 1,260 days."
She was taken care of all during the GT!
This is why we do not hear of much God Worship going on
all during that time.
However History does show after that time there again was a
burst of God worship going on again right up to today.
>
> 1 Corinthians 10:1-5
> Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that
> all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the
> sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
> And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same
> spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that
> followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God
> was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
"This is talking about "Baptism". . .
>
> Compare the above scripture with John's prophecy:
>
> Revelation 12:6
> And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place
> prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two
> hundred and threescore days.
(1260) Right?
>
>> We're not talking pseudo-Gnosticism here
>> people! And the Church isn't Israel, to whom the Lord hides His
>> truths in parables
>> difficult to understand so that they will not repent.
>
> The church may not be Israel in the flesh, but it is called "the
> circumcision" in the NT.
It is also called the New Jerusalem, among other titles.
>
> Philippians 3:3
> For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and
> rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
>
> Paul called believers "the children of Abraham."
>
> Galatians 3:7
> Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the
> children of Abraham.
>
> Paul referred to believers those who are "Jews inwardly."
You are starting to learn!
Let the Bible clearer verses put light on the darker verses
if you will.
M
Chuck Stamford
"Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:xm%9k.116$Lt...@newsfe02.lga...
You have an error here. Numbers 14:24 reads:
But My servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit in him and has
followed Me fully, I will bring into the land where he went, and his
descendants shall inherit it.
And the Ezekiel passage isn't any "key code" for days symbolizing years in
any biblical prophecy in which days are mentioned. It's perfectly
straightforward, and *says* what it actually is. What possible reason could
you have for thinking it was some sort of "key" to prophecy in general?
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
You've totally missed what "testament" means as applied to the biblical Old
and New Testaments. The idea is "covenant" or "an inheritance", not being a
witness giving testimony.
testament:
c.1290, "last will disposing of property," from L. testamentum "a will,
publication of a will," from testari "make a will, be witness to," from
testis "witness," from PIE *tris- "three," on the notion of "third person,
disinterested witness." Use in reference to the two divisions of the Bible
(c.1300) is from L.L. vetus testamentum and novum testamentum,
loan-translations of Gk. palaia diatheke and kaine diatheke. L.L.
testamentum in this case was a mistranslation of Gk. diatheke, which meant
both "covenant, dispensation" and "will, testament," and was used in the
former sense in the account of the Last Supper (see testimony) but
subsequently was interpreted as Christ's "last will."
You'll also find that most dictionaries have a bequeathing of personal
effects in a last will as the first and primary definition, with the concept
of giving evidence by being a witness way down the list. Also, if you
consult Roget's II: The New Thesaurus online, you'll find this given for
"testament": "...belief, covenant, credo, evidence, legacy, proof,
testimony, tribute, will"; again, the main concept here being the passing on
of a gift to another.
Finally, if we are going to suppose the Bible is a witness, to what is it
supposed to witness if it is God's inspired word? Are we to think of God's
revelation as Him being called to "witness" to us of the truth? That would
be absurd! God "witnesses" to the truth of His word by the exercise of His
Divine attributes; through His foreknowledge in predictive prophecy; through
His omnipotence in performing miracles; through His omnibenevolence in the
giving of Himself to us by becoming as one of us. All of these things are
"witnesses" to the truth of His word; His revelation, which **is** the
Bible!
Shows *what* once? That God has used days to symbolize years in the past?
Okay, fine. You've proved that God has used actual days to symbolize actual
years in the past. What follows from that when it's not stated by God that
this is what's being done...as in the case of Rev. 11 & 12?
>
> Ezekiel 4:4-6 (NIV)
>
> 4 "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon
> yourself. [a] You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on
> your side. 5 I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of
> their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel.
>
> 6 "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right
> side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days,
> a day for each year.
>
> Is this justification enough coming from your own Bibles?
Of course it isn't. Where does it say in my Bible that the Numbers and
Ezekiel passages are a "key" for every use of the term "days" in prophetic
texts? That each time I run across the term "day" in a prophetic text I'm
to understand it means "year"? And if God wants to convey the concept of
"year" to me in a prophetic text, what's keeping Him from doing that in the
text itself, as He does in the Numbers and Exekiel (and Jeremiah, and
possibly some others I can't recall off the top of my head right now)
passages? Why the fatuous resort to some gnostic flavored "key code"? The
idea is to *reveal*, remember? Not hide in a prophetic "code" of some sort.
And I think you've been handed this already by someone else, but if it's as
you say, and Numbers, et. al. gives us a prophetic key code by which to
understand that each prophecy we meet in the Bible that uses "days", it is
years that are meant, then you've got a real problem with Jesus' prophetic
utterance concerning the length of time He would remain in the grave after
His death! That prophecy is given in *days*!! If it doesn't necessarily
mean years **there**, then on what basis can you argue it necessarily means
years at any other biblical prophecy where it's not expressly stated?
Come on, Misty, you can say it. The truth is the passages you've cited here
don't do what you're saying they do. There is no prophetic key code linking
days and years given in the Bible. We have to take each prophecy as we find
it, and in the cultural context in which it was given. And we're not going
to find any prophecies in the Bible that give us the methodology for
deciphering the metaphors and symbolism of other prophecies. That's not the
purpose of prophecy.
>
>
>> Noticing that the concept "day" within an ancient Jewish cultural context
>> has a wide range of meaning only shows the term "days" here *can* refer
>> to years. We are still left with no justification whatever for actually
>> making that eschatological connection. Without that justification (and
>> in my mind we would need a pretty strong one here!) for making the
>> connection between "days" and years in our understanding of the prophecy,
>> I would be free, for example, to understand the 1,260 days as referring
>> to the number of Jubilee years, and thus, that the 1,260 days is actually
>> referring to 63,000 years!
>>
>> There has to be a limiting, very plausible reason for understanding the
>> 1,260 days set in the prophetic time frame as years. Without it the
>> prophecy simply loses all meaning, and thus authorial purpose, and
>> becomes whatever anyone thinks about those "days". It becomes simply a
>> "launching pad" for personal speculation, and that's obviously not why
>> the book was written by John:
>
> See the above Bible passages for you authority from Scripture.
They don't give me any authority to interpret the days of Rev. 11 and 12 as
years. And that's so obvious I'm having trouble seeing how you could
suppose they do.
>
>>
>> Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this
>> prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time
>> is at hand. Rev 1:3 (KJV)
>>
>> Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his
>> garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. Rev 16:15 (KJV)
>>
>> And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord
>> God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the
>> things which must shortly be done. 7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is
>> he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. Rev 22:6-7
>> (KJV)
>
> The Lord reveals His Word to the Wise but the unwise will never
> learn it.
> In other word you must approach Gods work with Prayer
> and suplications and open eyes of understanding.
No that's not what God promises. You're preaching a gnostic approach to
understanding Scripture, and nothing could be farther from the truth. God's
word REVEALS to anyone willing to recieve. You don't have to be smart. You
don't need some "code". What you need is humility; the humility to realize
that we should look for the simple and obvious before we start searching for
the complex and hidden. You need the humility to understand that God
doesn't use His revelation, or put it into some form that only the elite few
can understand, and that if you can't get general agreement amoung your
fellow Christians on *your* understanding of God's word, chances are better
you've misunderstood it than that they all have.
>>
>> John clearly had some discoverable purpose in writing, which means the
>> 1,260 days mean something the very average truth seeker who loves the
>> Lord will be able to discover easily. We're not talking
>> pseudo-Gnosticism here people! And the Church isn't Israel, to whom the
>> Lord hides His truths in parables difficult to understand so that they
>> will not repent. The simplest understanding is probably the best
>> understanding, and without that solid gold justification for making
>> "days" into years in our interpretation (or any other unit of time for
>> that matter) of the prophecy, a garden variety "day" looks pretty good to
>> me.
>
> Is your Eye of understanding open?
> See the above Bible passages I have posted for you to ask more
> Questions about.
There's only one real question to be asked, and that's what's your
justification for thinking the above two Bible passages have anything to say
about how any other prophetic use of the concept "day" should be understood
by the reader. You can't simply say they use a day to symbolize a year and
that means I can too whenever I read a biblical prophecy that speaks of
days. You need to show me *why* they mean that, and Numbers and Ezekiel
don't do that.
Chuck Stamford
Doug
Chuck Stamford <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
Whether they understood it that way or not is hardly relevant, as
the scriptures show that the sun was to become black as sackcloth.
This pictures the gospel being obscured by false teachings, as
occurred in the early church. And there was great ignorance for
many centuries, that are often called "the dark ages" when few knew
how to even read.
Rev 8:3 identifies the last 3 trumpets with 3 "woes." The 7th tumpet
sounds in Rev 11:15. It is this event that fulfils the mystery of
God that is foretold by the prophets.
Revelation 10:5-7
And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth
lifted up his hand to heaven,
And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven,
and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that
therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that
there should be time no longer:
But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall
begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath
declared to his servants the prophets.
The language that John uses here seems very similar to that used by
Daniel.
Daniel 12:7
And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of
the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto
heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for
a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to
scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be
finished.
So that event, the last trumpet, heralds the resurrection of the
saints. The "inhabiters of the earth" are contrasted with "them
that dwell in heaven" as the ones in heaven are those who are part
of the church, which is represented by the woman in heaven
described in Rev 12:1. John says this is "the time of the dead,
that they should be judged." Isn't that the judgment? The initial
reaction of the world is:
Revelation 11:18
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of
the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give
reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them
that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them
which destroy the earth.
So it is this, a time of God's wrath, that is identified with the
third "woe." The woe mentioned in Rev 12:12 is the devil's wrath.
Don't you suppose John might have realized that his generation would
eventually die off? Obviously, that fact alone requires that the
gospel would need to be preached throughout the world continually,
throughout all generations, does it not?
The 3rd woe is identified with the 7th trumpet of Rev 11:15.
Beginning in Rev 12:1, John introduces a new vision, that of the
woman in heaven, who is clothed with the sun. War in heaven
pictures the struggle to discover the truth, that spans the entire
history of the church. Everything in chapter 12 relates to the
church's role before the resurrection that occurs at the 7th
trumpet.
>
> 2.) If it weren't for that recurring phraseology, "the
> inhabitants of the earth", we would be completely free to
> speculate that this ordering of the three woes could be any type
> from sequential simply because it is impossible
> to relate events in any other way, to temporally chronological.
> But that phrase is time indexical in that it happens to "the
> inhabitants of the earth", or more to the point, the inhabitants
> of God's created temporal reality; strongly suggesting a
> chronological ordering.
John seems to contrast those who dwell on earth with those who dwell
in heaven. The woman clothed with the sun is seen as being in
heaven in Rev 12:1. However, she later flees to the wilderness, so
this describes the saints who remain physically on the earth. They
are the ones "in Christ" who Paul says "sit together in heavenly
places" in Christ.
Ephesians 2:4-7
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved
us,
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with
Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly
places in Christ Jesus:
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his
grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
This is another example of the symbolism of Revelation being closely
related to Paul's epistles, that I have discussed in another
thread.
In the war between the dragon and Michael, the stars that are cast
to the earth picture those Christians who are deceived by the
dragon, abandon faith, and return to the world.
>
> 3.) If it is a chronological ordering, then the 1,260 days of the
> two witnesses can't be the same 1,260 days that the woman clothed
> with the sun hides herself in the place that has been prepared for
> her.
Rev 12:1 begins a separate vision so it seems to me that the numbers
of Rev 11 and Rev 13 are not intended to be chronological, but
instead represent identical periods of time. They are equivalent to
the "time, times and a half" of Daniel 12:7 so they both must
terminate at the 7th trumpet, when "the mystery of God" is
finished.
>
> 4.) Since the two time periods taken together give us roughly the
> seven years of Daniel's final week, they may very well be the
> first and the last 3 1/2 years of the Great Tribulation, looked at
> from a much more Jewish Christian perspective than a Gentile
> Christian perspective.
In Christ, there is no "Jewish Christian perspective" or "Gentile
Christian perspective."
>
> I would offer one other thought that I won't make part of the
> actual argument here, but may bear retaining in mind as the
> argument is considered.
> Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy concerns the Jews exclusively. As
> Gabriel says of the prophecy, "Seventy weeks are determined For
> **your people** and for
> **your holy city**, To finish the transgression...etc."
There is only one holy city, the one that Abraham and the prophets
sought.
Hebrews 11:8-10
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he
should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out,
not knowing whither he went.
By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange
country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs
with him of the same promise:
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and
maker is God.
Hebrews 12:22-23
But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of
angels,
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are
written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits
of just men made perfect,
Since Jesus said, "salvation is of the Jews" in John 4:22, and Paul
said, "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the
spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the
flesh" in Philippians 3:3, how can Daniel's prophecy NOT apply to
those who are heirs of salvation, those who believe the gospel, and
who are in the church? Peter said that the OT prophets prophesied
for *our* benefit.
1 Peter 1:10-12
Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched
diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which
was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us
they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by
them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost
sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
Scripture refutes any claims Daniel's prophecy applies only to those
who are Jews in the flesh, and not to Christians.
> Clearly
> this is a Jewish prophecy that will not be fulfilled until the
> second coming when Jesus Christ, the Anointed Holy One establishes
> His kingdom of God in righteousness upon the earth, and rules it
> "with a rod of iron" (Ps. 2:9, Rev. 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15), and
> just as clearly that all occurs during Daniel's 70th week
> sometime.
>
> We're already agreed, I think, that Revelation is John's vision
> that expands on Daniel's vision, and concerns almost exclusively
> that final week in Daniel's vision and what the end of the ages is
> all about once that week is over (in a very real sense we come
> full circle from Genesis 2:2-3
Dispensationalists say the 70th week of Daniel 9:24-27 is in the
future, but that requires an enormous gap, between the 69th and
70th week, for which scripture offers no support.
The message of Revelation is for the church that has existed since
the days of the apostles, not for some future age, and not for Jews
who remain after the church has been taken away.
>
> And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and
> He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
> 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in
> it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
>
> To Revelation 22:1-5
>
> And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal,
> proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle
> of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of
> life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every
> month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
> 3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of
> the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.
The curse could be referring to the one mentioned in Genesis, or the
one described in Leviticus 26, or perhaps both. Oh, and there is
another "curse" described in Zechariah 5, that goes out over the
whole earth. That one would be included too.
> 4 They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their
> foreheads. 5 There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor
> light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they
> shall reign forever and ever.
>
> The point is that Daniel's vision and John's are intimately tied
> together, and because they are we should expect that us Gentiles
> will not be center
> stage in any of this. We are the branch grafted in; the
> beneficiaries of the chosen Israel's failure of faith; the other
> woman meant to engender
> jealousy in the unchaste wife, and bring her back to her Husband.
> In short, we are saved by God's grace in using us to woo Israel
> back to His bosom, as the many promises God has made to Israel to
> **never** foresake them and **never** take back from them the land
> He gave to them for the sake of
> Abraham so clearly informs us.
Clearly the Jews lost their land when they were removed at the
Babylonian captivity. That was the judgement that was specified in
the law of Moses. In the captivity, Daniel understood that the
curse had been poured out on Israel, as he said in his prayer of
confession:
Daniel 9:11
Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that
they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon
us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of
God, because we have sinned against him.
When we look at the description of the curse that Daniel mentions
here, it consists of 4 periods of "7 times." The 70 weeks prophecy
seems to expand upon the last three of these 4 periods of 7 times,
as it consists of three sections, each of which consists of "7
times" where "times" has different values in each section.
In Leviticus 26, it is in the final period of "7 times" that God
remembers his covenant with their ancestors while they are in the
land of their enemies.
The last period of "7 times" corresponds to the final "week" of the
70 weeks. It is in the final week the Christ confirms his covenant.
It is in the final half-week that the sacrifices cease and the
temple and city are destroyed, and the amomination of desolation
set up. So the final week spans all the time since the beginning of
the ministry of Jesus. There can be no gaps in it as that would
imply a lapse in the curse, when Israel was temporarily reconciled
to God, but there is no mention of that happening and of course no
such thing has occurred.
> Thus, while we Gentiles get a
> mention here and there in Revelation, the "Church" is still
> largely Jewish in John's vision, and still intimately bound up in
> the stricly Jewish vision given to Daniel.
I think Dispensationalists distance themselves from Israel, and
Jews, even though the NT identifies the church with Jews, "the
circumcision" and "the Israel of God" due to fear. They are
terrified of the book of Revelation and the things Jesus mentioned
in the Olivet Discourse, that seem to refer to "those in Judea,"
which is taken literally by them.
>
> And once we understand that we shouldn't be automatically
> expecting to see some account of the Gentile Church (as we
> understand it today from our modern perspective) on every page of
> Revelation, it could very well be that the 1,260 days of chapter
> 11 concern certain specified events of the first half of the Great
> Trib, and the 1,260 days of chapter 12 represent certain specific
> events of the second half, giving us a total of 7 years for the
> Great Trib.
>
> If this idea of God refusing to foresake Israel is something new
> to you, I'd be happy to survey a few dozen Old and New Testament
> examples for you.
>
> One final thought here: John's gospel has traditionally been
> viewed as the most "Hellenistic" (i.e., Gentile) of the four, but
> more recent scholarship has begun to change that conclusion, and
> now John is seen by many as the
> most "Jewish" of the four. If that's true, then it would further
> bolster the theory that John writes from a much more Jewish
> perspective than he does from a Gentile perspective, and we would
> expect to see that cultural bias throughout his works, including
> Revelation.
The promises of God are confirmed in the church. Even the "land"
promise made to Abraham belongs to all those who believe the
gospel. The mountains and hills of Israel are symbolic of all the
promises, covenants, and prophecies of the Bible. They are given to
us *unconditionally* and *eternally*. The "promised land" is
symbolic of the "rest" that believers labour to enter, Heb 4:9-11.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I'll just leave it at that for now.
>>>
>>> Chuck Stamford
>>>
--
Doug
Doug
Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
A prophecy that points to a date when nothing happened is useless!
Worse, it is a liability, as it gives the scoffers a reason to jeer
and sneer at God's word! Of course, there is no such prophecy; the
problem is with the interpretation. The 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11
are not intended to represent 1,290 years at all! The 1,290 days is
simply a symbolic three and a half years, which includes one leap
year of 13 months. It is not a literal three and a half years, as
real (lunar) months are not 30 days. Similarly the 1,335 days of
Daniel 12:12 has to be a symbolic three and a half years, where all
years, except one, are leap years of 13 months. It can not be a
literal three and a half years, as lunar months are not exactly 30
days. These numbers both represent the same symbolic three and a
half years, the "time, times and a half," that represents the time
from the crucifixion to the end of the age. A real three and a half
cannot have two different numbers of days, but a symbolic three and
a half years can! It can even have three numbers to represent it,
as in Revelation the same period of time is represented by 1,260
days!
>
> < But has admitted
>> several times that he has no clue what the 1,335 days of Daniel
>> 12:12 represent. So, it seems to me that the idea that any of
>> these numbers refer to equal spans of years seems to be
>> discredited.
>
> It is not discredited just because I do not have the event at the
> end of that time period.
Not only are you unable to find a suitable period of 1,335 years in
history, you cannot identify any significant event that the 1,290
years fulfil. So your efforts are fruitless!
> It does have credit because your Bible states the "days for years"
> Key for the code or "a year for a day" depending on how it is
> stated.
> See Numbers 14:24
> and Ezekiel 4:4=6
> it these 2 it give it Three times so we have no excuse that
> The Lord did not give it to us to use as the Keys to unlock
> the Prophetic code, of the stated "days"
This is called "flogging a dead horse."
>
> One problem you will have though is in the KJV Bible and
> Daniel 14 where it is a misinterpretation and should read
> as all other Versions say as "evenings and mornings" not
> "days" as it does say there. This is the very place Ellen
> White missed her reading of it as well and it got
> the SDA into hot water way back in 1844.
There is no problem with the 2,300 days prophecy of Daniel 8:14;
they represent 2,300 years, which fit very well the period from the
giving of the prophecy in the 3rd year of Belshazzar, to the
scientific revolution in the mid eighteenth century, when men
abandoned the idea of a rigid firmament revolving around the earth
each day, and so the heavens became "cleansed" of the flawed
cosmological system of the ancient world, with its planetary
spheres, equants, deferents etc. It was all swept away like old
cobwebs when men realized the earth rotates, not the heavens!
>
> I may also add that if a prophecy does not have a starting
> date such as the one Jesus said "no man knows the day nor
> the hour" it may well be an on going Prophecy with no end
> to it.
>
> < It
>> is not surprising one can find one or two intervals in history
>> that have some semblance of a fit, but *three* sets of numbers is
>> required for the interpretation to stand. Think of a three legged
>> stool; take one leg away and it is unstable; so it is with
>> Mistylein's approach. His methodology is proved false if he
>> cannot come up with solutions in history for *all three* sets of
>> numbers that he assumes represent spans of years already
>> fulfilled in history.
>
> See the Bible passages above it is as you say given 3 times
> so it stand on it's own with out an excuse that we do not know
> it.
I have no reason to accept your interpretation, as your methods do
not work!
Chuck Stamford
> In message <G4_9k.2263$W65...@newsfe16.phx>
> Chuck Stamford <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>> news:1NadnXFx-upbffrV...@sentex.net...
>>> In message <9oP9k.7525$r_2...@newsfe14.phx>
>>> Chuck Stamford <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:lrSdne-z9dKmEfrV...@sentex.net...
>>>>> In message <iOF9k.653$Gt....@newsfe06.lga>
>>>>> Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:QtudnZiSybTnWvvV...@sentex.net...
>>>>>>> In message <g3v6m1$tp0$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>>>>>>> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
I find it remarkable that any thinking human being could suggest it is
"irrelevant" how the generation that produced the New Testament understood
the meaning of it. Who do you think they were written for? You? Not them?
I suggest you bone up on your early Church history.
> as
> the scriptures show that the sun was to become black as sackcloth.
> This pictures the gospel being obscured by false teachings, as
> occurred in the early church. And there was great ignorance for
> many centuries, that are often called "the dark ages" when few knew
> how to even read.
This idea of a general ignorance during the period after the fall of the
Roman Empire is overblown first off, but that's hardly the issue here. What
is the issue is your penchant for making sweeping factual statements you
don't even pretend to justify. How the heck do *you* know the sun becoming
darkened is even a metaphor, let alone the metaphor *you* take it to be??
Doesn't the sun become dark during solar eclipses? What's so impossible
about a solar eclipse occurring that you throw it out like this?
If you notice the passage that begins at 11:15 describes the scene in HEAVEN
when the seventh angel sounds the trumpet. Then we're taken back to earth
and the woman clothed with the sun, and it's not until 12:12 that we are
told the third "Woe" comes upon the "inhabitants of the earth". The reason
I focused exclusively on 12:12 is to try and show you something you've
obviously missed about how John writes. He gave us a framework for
understanding the last three trumpets/angels/woes as they affect THE
INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH. You got it now?
There is no reason to suppose the three woes that come upon the earth are
other than fairly literal...as literal as a 1st century Jewish man can
recount a vision he's given that he can't possibly understand completely.
I'm sure he was shown things he had absolutely no past experiences that
prepared him to deal with them; no background knowledge by which to describe
them, so he gives us these things as they appear to him. But he's TRYING to
be accurate. He's NOT trying to couch his descriptions in so many metaphors
no one can make heads or tails out of them...or worse, that anyone can make
anything they want out of them.
No, it's not. Look, starting in Rev. 19 we are given the following order of
events, beginning at verse 11:
1.) The "King of kings and Lord of lords" descends from heaven with His
"army" and defeats the forces of Satan, capturing the "beast" and the false
prophet and casting them into the burning lake.
2.) Chapter 12 begins with the imprisonment of Satan
3.) At Rev. 19:15 we were remined that Christ would not only smite the
nations with a "rod of iron", but that having conquered "He Himself will
rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the
fierceness and wrath of Almighty God " (See also the other half dozen
prophetic passages I pointed out to you last time on this point concerning
Christ's rule upon the earth). Beginning at 20:4, we are told more about
Christ's earthly kingdom that He sets up after Satan is put down.
4.) Beginning at 20:7 we are told that Satan is released to once again
decieve the nations and foment rebellion against God. We are also informed
that Christ destroys this FINAL earthly rebellion, and
5.) Beginning at 20:11 we are taken right into the second resurrection of
the dead and the Great White Throne Judgment by God and the Lamb.
Now, I'm not saying that chapters 19-20 couldn't be pushbacks on previous
descriptions given in Revelation. Perhaps they are. That's not the point
here. The point is that there are two, and ONLY TWO resurrections given in
Revelation: the first of the saints in Christ at His Parousia, the second of
all the rest of the dead; presumably those who are lost and end up in the
Lake of Fire with "Death" and "Hades" at the end of chapter 20.
IF therefore, there are only two resurrections (and there are!), and IF the
second one doesn't occur until AFTER Satan is loosed, and AFTER Satan
promotes yet one more massive rebellion against God, and AFTER the KING OF
KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS casts Satan into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:10), then
Rev. 12 CAN'T be the judgment of the dead, for in Rev. 12 we are told that
Satan is still running amok upon the earth! (See Rev. 12:17)
So even if Rev. 19-20 is a lengthy pushback by John to some prior account of
events in Revelation, they can't be pushbacks to Rev. 12. Why? Because
Rev. 19:11 BEGINS with Satan being locked up! He can't be locked up, and at
that same time free "to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep
the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Rev.
12:17b) simultaneously...I don't care WHAT your interpretation of the
metaphors are!
Now, can we agree on this at least? I mean, are you able to acknowledge
that Satan can't be free to make war on the offspring of the woman in
chapter 12 (regardless of who the "offspring of the woman" are), and AT THE
SAME TIME be "bound for a thousand years", as in Rev. 20:1-3? That's all I
really want to know at this point; because if you can't acknowledge what is
patently obvious, and has been served up for you on a platter, then this
converstation is pointless.
What does that have to do with the price of corn in Kansas???
Look, you were making a point, or so it looked to me. You were arguing that
despite the fact there is absolutely no good reason to think so, Rev. 11 and
12 could be highly stylized metaphors for the entire history of the Church;
that we should just IGNORE the obvious literary framework John is giving us
in 8:13ff, for this skyscraper of a theory with no foundation...except for
your idea that the Gospel had yet, when John wrote this, to be preached in
all the world. Then I GIVE YOU three biblical passages that taken together
give us a good reason to suppose that if John wrote Revelation when most
people think he did (ca. 80-90ad), and even if he wrote it much earlier (ca.
60-80ad), but after Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, James, and Peter (i.e., after
about 4/5's of the New Testament had been written and in wide circulation
within the larger Church), then he wrote Revelation KNOWING the Gospel had
ALREADY been taken to the whole world, as the Pauline and Lukan passages I
quoted for you show us.
Now, that I've closed off that argument for you, you want to change horses
and say, "Well, yeah, but just because the Gospel had already been preached
to the whole world when John wrote Revelation, clearly he would know it had
to be continually preached to the whole world until the Lord returned".
Well...no...there's no reason at all to suppose John thought that his
present generation would pass away before the Lord returned. The command to
the Apostles was to TAKE the Gospel to the whole world, and they were also
told:
For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of
Israel before the Son of Man comes. Matt 10:23
This passage, and others (not to mention oral tradition) persuaded the very
early Church that Christ would return within the first generation of the
Church. We can see in 2 Peter (which many hold was written very late; ca.
65-100ad) the author is trying to assuage the disappointment with what Misty
takes to be some sort of prophetic keycode!
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as
a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack
concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward
us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to
repentance. 2 Peter 3:8-9
What this really is is an exortation to the Church not to become discouraged
when they realize (as they had by the time this epistle was written) that
Jesus wasn't coming back in their lifetimes. And how do we know that's what
this passage is? Because...you got it...that's what it says. You will note
that even here it is implicitly stated that the opportunity for repentance
ends with the return of Christ?
I'm going to quit know, because I'm getting tired of this. You don't seem
to be interacting with anything I have to say anyway, so what's the point in
continuing?
Chuck Stamford
Mistylein
>> <snip>
YEs Thank you That should be Numbers 14:34 (NIV)
34 For forty years
-one year for each of the forty days you explored the land-
you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.'
>
> But My servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit in him and has followed Me
> fully, I will bring into the land where he went, and his descendants shall inherit it.
>
> And the Ezekiel passage isn't any "key code" for days symbolizing years in any
> biblical prophecy in which days are mentioned. It's perfectly straightforward, and
> *says* what it actually is. What possible reason could you have for thinking it was
> some sort of "key" to prophecy in general?
Ezekiel 4:
4 "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel
upon yourself. [a] You are to bear their sin for the number of days
you lie on your side.
* * * *5 I have assigned you the same number of days as the years* *
^ ^ ^^ ^^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel.
6 "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your
right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah.
I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.
^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
The Lord was Making Prophecy in these passages and He is
Giving it to us "THREE TIMES" so we have no excuese that
we have not received it from the Bible itself.
God is letting the wise know how to use this information
but the unwise will not be able to receive it as readily,
God is not going to give that Key code every time a Prophecy is
Made however.
M,
>
> Chuck Stamford
>
>>
>> One problem you will have though is in the KJV Bible and
>> Daniel 14 where it is a misinterpretation and should read
>> as all other Versions say as "evenings and mornings" not
>> "days" as it does say there. This is the very place Ellen
>> White missed her reading of it as well and it got
>> the SDA into hot water way back in 1844.
>>
>> I may also add that if a prophecy does not have a starting
>> date such as the one Jesus said "no man knows the day nor
>> the hour" it may well be an on going Prophecy with no end
>> to it.
>>
>>
>> See the Bible passages above it is as you say given 3 times
>> so it stand on it's own with out an excuse, that we do not know
>> it.
>>
>>
>> Jesus being in the belly of the earth was a literal time of 3 days and
>> nights just as it is stated in Genisis 1 for the key to that.
>> "and the evening and the morning was the first day". . .
>>>
>>>> We are still left with no justification whatever for
>>>> actually making
>>>> that eschatological connection. Without that justification (and
>>>> in my mind we would need a pretty strong one here!) for making the
>>>> connection between "days" and years in our understanding of the
>>>> prophecy, I would be free, for example, to understand the 1,260
>>>> days as referring to the number of Jubilee years, and thus, that
>>>> the 1,260 days is actually referring to 63,000 years!
>>
>> NO it dose not say that any place is this a Typo?
>>>
>>> There is no biblical precedent for it.
>>
>> Numbers 14:34
>> and
>> Ezekiel 4:4-6 Should be Biblical Precedents enough. . .
>>>
Mistylein
>>
>>
>> It has a starting date of When The Messiah was cut off.
>> So count off 1290 Literal years to see what event in History
>> went on at the end of that time.
>> I am sure it is talking about 1290 literal years.
>> I have not been given what event shows that prophecy has been
>> fulfilled though.
>
> A prophecy that points to a date when nothing happened is useless!
This is a discussion not a rock hard truth Campain.
If you have something to contribute it would be fine to share it
If you have nothing to share then keep silent, please.
> Worse, it is a liability, as it gives the scoffers a reason to jeer
> and sneer at God's word! Of course, there is no such prophecy; the
Daniel 12: (NIV)
11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the
abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
This is definitly a Prophecy.
It indicates that in 1124 AD That "abomination that causes desolation
was to have been set up.
Just because I do not have the info of what that may be does not
discredit the Prophecy one bit.
Then some time after that the 1335 days prophecy kicks in.
Dan 12: (NIV)
12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.
I can only claim but not prove this prophecy follows right
behind the 1290 days prophecy.
> problem is with the interpretation. The 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11
> are not intended to represent 1,290 years at all! The 1,290 days is
> simply a symbolic three and a half years, which includes one leap
> year of 13 months. It is not a literal three and a half years, as
In fact it is not even close to any 3.5 years, now is it.
If it is prove it from any Bible and not your assumtions
of leap years and such.
> real (lunar) months are not 30 days. Similarly the 1,335 days of
> Daniel 12:12 has to be a symbolic three and a half years, where all
> years, except one, are leap years of 13 months. It can not be a
So You are saying all bible Prophesies are the 3 and a half years?
Preposterously incorrect and not even close to common sense.
M,
Chuck Stamford
So? How does the fact (and it certainly is a fact here) that God is telling
Ezekiel to lie on his side one day for each year of Israel's and Judah's
transgression become a hermeneutic for exegeting all other prophecies that
have "days" in them?
When are you going to answer that question?
>
> God is letting the wise know how to use this information
> but the unwise will not be able to receive it as readily,
>
> God is not going to give that Key code every time a Prophecy is
> Made however.
Why not? Is three the magic number or something? Besides, there's
absolutely no implicit or expressed idea in ANY of these three suggesting
that these instances of God using a day to symbolize a year are not specific
to the instances themselves. Point me to the phrase suggesting this
symbolism should be generalized throughout Scripture. You can't. Why?
Because it's not there. In fact it's no where except imprinted in your
mind. The only thing in ANY of this saying the symbolism of a day for a
year is generally true in biblical prophecies is YOU! And who are you?
Besides, you can't even make up your mind whether or not this day/year
symbolism should be generalized or not. What you apparently think is that
it should be generalized when you say it should be, and be specifically
stepped over when you say it should. Examples: When we get to Rev. 11 and
12, you say the symbolism holds. The text doesn't say that; just you. When
we get to Jesus prophesying "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in
three days", you say the symbolism doesn't hold. The text doesn't say that,
just you.
So from all I can see here, we're supposed to check with you to arrive at
anything like a correct understanding of God's word. Which prompts me to
ask: Do you have any passages of Scripture backing that idea up? Maybe God
said, "Check with Misty if you want to know" three times somewhere in the
Old Testament and I missed it.
Chuck Stamford
Mistylein
>>> Personally, I think you're making very speculative assumptions
>>> about the 1st century Church!
>>
>> Whether they understood it that way or not is hardly relevant,
>
> I find it remarkable that any thinking human being could suggest it is "irrelevant"
> how the generation that produced the New Testament understood the meaning of it. Who
> do you think they were written for? You? Not them?
>
> I suggest you bone up on your early Church history.
>
>> as
>> the scriptures show that the sun was to become black as sackcloth.
>> This pictures the gospel being obscured by false teachings, as
>> occurred in the early church. And there was great ignorance for
>> many centuries, that are often called "the dark ages" when few knew
>> how to even read.
>
> This idea of a general ignorance during the period after the fall of the Roman Empire
> is overblown first off, but that's hardly the issue here. What is the issue is your
> penchant for making sweeping factual statements you don't even pretend to justify.
> How the heck do *you* know the sun becoming darkened is even a metaphor, let alone the
> metaphor *you* take it to be?? Doesn't the sun become dark during solar eclipses?
> What's so impossible about a solar eclipse occurring that you throw it out like this?
>
>>> Of course there is. Have you forgotten already that this was done
>>> at 8:13? Why would there be any reason to repeat it just to short
>>> chapters later?
>>
>> Rev 8:3 identifies the last 3 trumpets with 3 "woes." The 7th tumpet
>> sounds in Rev 11:15. It is this event that fulfils the mystery of
>> God that is foretold by the prophets.
>
> If you notice the passage that begins at 11:15 describes the scene in HEAVEN when the
> seventh angel sounds the trumpet. Then we're taken back to earth and the woman
> clothed with the sun, and it's not until 12:12 that we are told the third "Woe" comes
> upon the "inhabitants of the earth". The reason I focused exclusively on 12:12 is to
> try and show you something you've obviously missed about how John writes. He gave us
> a framework for understanding the last three trumpets/angels/woes as they affect THE
> INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH. You got it now?
>
> There is no reason to suppose the three woes that come upon the earth are other than
> fairly literal...as literal as a 1st century Jewish man can recount a vision he's
> given that he can't possibly understand completely. I'm sure he was shown things he
> had absolutely no past experiences that prepared him to deal with them; no background
> knowledge by which to describe them, so he gives us these things as they appear to
> him. But he's TRYING to be accurate. He's NOT trying to couch his descriptions in so
> many metaphors no one can make heads or tails out of them...or worse, that anyone can
> make anything they want out of them.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
John Just like Daniel Did not know what those visions meant because
they are all "PROPHECY"
Revelaion was given to help explain the prophesies in Daniel.
but now we have 2,000 years of History to also use as tools to
put Bible Timeline over History Timeline.
Where they Match they Match and Those prophesies show fulfillment.
m,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>
>>
>> Revelation 10:5-7
>> And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth
>> lifted up his hand to heaven,
>> And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven,
>> and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that
>> therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that
>> there should be time no longer:
>> But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall
>> begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath
>> declared to his servants the prophets.
>>
>> The language that John uses here seems very similar to that used by
>> Daniel.
~ ~ ~ ~~~
For starters we must go back to Daniel 2 to see that Prophecy.
it is that prophecy that the rest of the book of daniel is explaining.
in the later chapters it is trying to give times when it all will
be happening as it unfoldes.
But when you get to the New Testament there is plenty left
that is not explained so God told John "Son of man" you must
prophesy again and then the Lord unfolded the Book of Revelation.
Today some 2,000 years later The Lord has givin us reems
of History to use also along with the 2 books in Quesiton.
m,
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
>>
>> Daniel 12:7
>> And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of
>> the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto
>> heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for
>> a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to
>> scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be
>> finished.
>>
>> So that event, the last trumpet, heralds the resurrection of the
>> saints. The "inhabiters of the earth" are contrasted with "them
>> that dwell in heaven" as the ones in heaven are those who are part
>> of the church, which is represented by the woman in heaven
>> described in Rev 12:1. John says this is "the time of the dead,
>> that they should be judged." Isn't that the judgment?
>
> No, it's not. Look, starting in Rev. 19 we are given the following order of events,
> beginning at verse 11:
>
> 1.) The "King of kings and Lord of lords" descends from heaven with His "army" and
> defeats the forces of Satan, capturing the "beast" and the false prophet and casting
> them into the burning lake.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
You are right.
With the last trump thing it is talking about each individual soul
that has come out of the world of unbelief finally at the last trump
to finally see the Light of Jesus.
m,
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
>
> 2.) Chapter 12 begins with the imprisonment of Satan
>
> 3.) At Rev. 19:15 we were remined that Christ would not only smite the nations with a
> "rod of iron", but that having conquered "He Himself will rule them with a rod of
> iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God "
> (See also the other half dozen prophetic passages I pointed out to you last time on
> this point concerning Christ's rule upon the earth). Beginning at 20:4, we are told
> more about Christ's earthly kingdom that He sets up after Satan is put down.
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~
Is not the iron Rod, the giving over of the nations to war with each other?
m,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>
> 4.) Beginning at 20:7 we are told that Satan is released to once again decieve the
> nations and foment rebellion against God. We are also informed that Christ destroys
> this FINAL earthly rebellion, and
>
> 5.) Beginning at 20:11 we are taken right into the second resurrection of the dead
> and the Great White Throne Judgment by God and the Lamb.
>
> Now, I'm not saying that chapters 19-20 couldn't be pushbacks on previous descriptions
> given in Revelation. Perhaps they are. That's not the point here. The point is that
> there are two, and ONLY TWO resurrections given in Revelation: the first of the saints
> in Christ at His Parousia, the second of all the rest of the dead; presumably those
> who are lost and end up in the Lake of Fire with "Death" and "Hades" at the end of
> chapter 20.
>
> IF therefore, there are only two resurrections (and there are!), and IF the second one
> doesn't occur until AFTER Satan is loosed, and AFTER Satan promotes yet one more
> massive rebellion against God, and AFTER the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS casts
> Satan into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:10), then Rev. 12 CAN'T be the judgment of the
> dead, for in Rev. 12 we are told that Satan is still running amok upon the earth! (See
> Rev. 12:17)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
That "lake of Fire" May well be the aplication of the truth finally getting
through to satan and his followers and the Whole inhabitants of the
world.
m,
>
> So even if Rev. 19-20 is a lengthy pushback by John to some prior account of events in
> Revelation, they can't be pushbacks to Rev. 12. Why? Because Rev. 19:11 BEGINS with
> Satan being locked up! He can't be locked up, and at that same time free "to make war
> with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the
> testimony of Jesus Christ." (Rev. 12:17b) simultaneously...I don't care WHAT your
> interpretation of the metaphors are!
>
> Now, can we agree on this at least? I mean, are you able to acknowledge that Satan
> can't be free to make war on the offspring of the woman in chapter 12 (regardless of
> who the "offspring of the woman" are), and AT THE SAME TIME be "bound for a thousand
> years", as in Rev. 20:1-3? That's all I really want to know at this point; because if
> you can't acknowledge what is patently obvious, and has been served up for you on a
> platter, then this converstation is pointless.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
Satan did indeed have full reign to make war with the Saints all
Through the Dark Ages aka The Great Tribulaiton perioid of
time I have told you all about for the 1260 Literal years.
That was about 21 literal years after the Second Beast appeared.
See Rev 13.
m,
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
>
> The initial
>> reaction of the world is:
>>
>> Revelation 11:18
>> And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of
>> the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give
>> reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them
>> that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them
>> which destroy the earth.
>>
>> So it is this, a time of God's wrath, that is identified with the
>> third "woe." The woe mentioned in Rev 12:12 is the devil's wrath.
>
>>> The point is that if John believed the Gospel had *already*
>>> reached into the far corners of the world as he wrote Revelation,
>>> there is no good reason to suppose he would place in his prophecy
>>> the Church would do this in the future.
>>
>> Don't you suppose John might have realized that his generation would
>> eventually die off?
>
> What does that have to do with the price of corn in Kansas???
>
> Look, you were making a point, or so it looked to me. You were arguing that despite
> the fact there is absolutely no good reason to think so, Rev. 11 and 12 could be
> highly stylized metaphors for the entire history of the Church; that we should just
> IGNORE the obvious literary framework John is giving us in 8:13ff, for this skyscraper
> of a theory with no foundation...except for your idea that the Gospel had yet, when
> John wrote this, to be preached in all the world. Then I GIVE YOU three biblical
> passages that taken together give us a good reason to suppose that if John wrote
> Revelation when most people think he did (ca. 80-90ad), and even if he wrote it much
> earlier (ca. 60-80ad), but after Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, James, and Peter (i.e.,
> after about 4/5's of the New Testament had been written and in wide circulation within
> the larger Church), then he wrote Revelation KNOWING the Gospel had ALREADY been taken
> to the whole world, as the Pauline and Lukan passages I quoted for you show us.
~ ~! ~~~ ~ ~
Remember John is not giving this to us.
An angel is giving it to John.
m.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
>
> Now, that I've closed off that argument for you, you want to change horses and say,
> "Well, yeah, but just because the Gospel had already been preached to the whole world
> when John wrote Revelation, clearly he would know it had to be continually preached to
> the whole world until the Lord returned".
>
> Well...no...there's no reason at all to suppose John thought that his present
> generation would pass away before the Lord returned. The command to the Apostles was
> to TAKE the Gospel to the whole world, and they were also told:
>
> For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel
> before the Son of Man comes. Matt 10:23
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
That was before the Crucifixtion or the Cutting off of that Messiah.
m,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
>
> This passage, and others (not to mention oral tradition) persuaded the very early
> Church that Christ would return within the first generation of the Church. We can see
> in 2 Peter (which many hold was written very late; ca. 65-100ad) the author is trying
> to assuage the disappointment with what Misty takes to be some sort of prophetic
> keycode!
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
You can see where the early church was starting to be gathered;
in Luke 24 and John 20.
I do not know of any key code that may apply to that situation.
Sorry
m,
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~
>
> But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a
> thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning
> His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that
> any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:8-9
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
The only code key for that is a "GOD DAY" and that is to clear up
why Adam did not died the very literal day he ate from the forbiden
tree in the garden.
"No man in the Bible lived beyond 1,000 years so it was in a God day
That Adam died as did all humans. but the animals were not under
that curse so they may have lived much longer then that.
*think about the size of the dinosours*
m,
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
>
> What this really is is an exortation to the Church not to become discouraged when they
> realize (as they had by the time this epistle was written) that Jesus wasn't coming
> back in their lifetimes. And how do we know that's what this passage is?
> Because...you got it...that's what it says. You will note that even here it is
> implicitly stated that the opportunity for repentance ends with the return of Christ?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
As I have said many times before Christ comes on a "ONE ON ONE
BASIS" and not to a whole nation like he did to the Children of Israel
in the past.
There is even time for us as individuals today to repent and be saved.
m,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>
> I'm going to quit know, because I'm getting tired of this. You don't seem to be
> interacting with anything I have to say anyway, so what's the point in continuing?
>
> Chuck Stamford
Do not go on the count of him but you
may reply to my interjections if you will.
M,
>
>
>
Mistylein
>>
>>
>> Your Bible is indeed witnesses.
>> You have both of them One is the Old Testament,
>> and the other is the New testament and they agree one to the
>> other.
>>
>> What does a Witness do?
>> It Testefies if I spell this right,
>> What is a Testamony called?
>> It is called a Testament!
>> Well I think you can put it all together from this, I hope.
>
> You've totally missed what "testament" means as applied to the biblical Old and New
> Testaments. The idea is "covenant" or "an inheritance", not being a witness giving
> testimony.
The Testament is explaining what you are taling about as Covenents.
The Bible itself is not a Covenent it is a testamony of Witness.
>
> testament:
> c.1290, "last will disposing of property," from L. testamentum "a will, publication of
> a will," from testari "make a will, be witness to," from testis "witness," from PIE
> *tris- "three," on the notion of "third person, disinterested witness." Use in
> reference to the two divisions of the Bible (c.1300) is from L.L. vetus testamentum
> and novum testamentum, loan-translations of Gk. palaia diatheke and kaine diatheke.
> L.L. testamentum in this case was a mistranslation of Gk. diatheke, which meant both
> "covenant, dispensation" and "will, testament," and was used in the former sense in
> the account of the Last Supper (see testimony) but subsequently was interpreted as
> Christ's "last will."
Both the Old and the New testaments bare witness all about the
Messiah.
The Bible is not a will it is a testament of information about
the Living Son of God not the last will and testament of a dead
person.
And they are in agreement one with the other.
>
> You'll also find that most dictionaries have a bequeathing of personal effects in a
> last will as the first and primary definition, with the concept of giving evidence by
> being a witness way down the list. Also, if you consult Roget's II: The New Thesaurus
> online, you'll find this given for "testament": "...belief, covenant, credo, evidence,
> legacy, proof, testimony, tribute, will"; again, the main concept here being the
> passing on of a gift to another.
The Gift that was passed on was the Gift of receiveing of the Holy Spirit
the very one that makes it possible to know that The Son and the Father
even exist.
>
> Finally, if we are going to suppose the Bible is a witness, to what is it supposed to
> witness if it is God's inspired word? Are we to think of God's revelation as Him
> being called to "witness" to us of the truth? That would be absurd! God "witnesses"
> to the truth of His word by the exercise of His Divine attributes; through His
> foreknowledge in predictive prophecy; through His omnipotence in performing miracles;
> through His omnibenevolence in the giving of Himself to us by becoming as one of us.
> All of these things are "witnesses" to the truth of His word; His revelation, which
> **is** the Bible!
To be sure. Where else may we go to get the information needed
to know the Messiah and His Father the God in Heaven if we did not
have the 2 witnesses to tell us all we need to know on the subject?
>
>>
>> The Justification has to come from the Bible itself.
>>
>> Numbers 14:34 (NIV)
>> 34 For forty years-
>>
>> one year for each of the forty days ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
< < you explored the land-
>> you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have
>> me against you.'
>>
>> The above shows it once but also see it 2 more times in
>
> Shows *what* once? That God has used days to symbolize years in the past?
The "Day for a year key".
>
> Okay, fine. You've proved that God has used actual days to symbolize actual years in
> the past. What follows from that when it's not stated by God that this is what's
> being done...as in the case of Rev. 11 & 12?
God useses parabel form and does not give the keys every time
a prophecy is stated.
He gave it 3 times for the wise to follow and he give that knowedge
to usward so there is no guessing about it.
>
>>
>> Ezekiel 4:4-6 (NIV)
>>
>> 4 "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself.
>> [a] You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. 5 I have
>> assigned you the same
number of days as the years
of
>> their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel.
>>
>> 6 "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and
>> bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days,
>> a day for each year.
>>
>> Is this justification enough coming from your own Bibles?
>
> Of course it isn't. Where does it say in my Bible that the Numbers and Ezekiel
> passages are a "key" for every use of the term "days" in prophetic texts?
It does not but The Lord Give the wise that understanding of it to
use where it is prudent to be used.
>That each time I run across the term "day"
No! That would be taking it out of context.
When the Word days follows a prophetic number is when the Key
code is to be used.
However in Daniel 8:14 in the KJV it is a big mistake in the
translation and that is what got the SDA in to do much trouble that
made that prophecy come to bougus fulfillment in 1844 AD.
More on that if you are intrested in discussing a mistake in a translation.
> in a prophetic text I'm to understand it means "year"? And if God wants to convey the
> concept of "year" to me in a prophetic text, what's keeping Him from doing that in the
> text itself, as He does in the Numbers and Exekiel (and Jeremiah, and possibly some
> others I can't recall off the top of my head right now) passages? Why the fatuous
> resort to some gnostic flavored "key code"? The idea is to *reveal*, remember? Not
> hide in a prophetic "code" of some sort.
God talks in Parables and so that is why it is like that.
See Matt 13 for a better reason or should I post it for you to read also
in here?
>
> And I think you've been handed this already by someone else, but if it's as you say,
> and Numbers, et. al. gives us a prophetic key code by which to understand that each
> prophecy we meet in the Bible that uses "days", it is years that are meant, then
> you've got a real problem with Jesus' prophetic utterance concerning the length of
> time He would remain in the grave after His death! That prophecy is given in *days*!!
> If it doesn't necessarily mean years **there**, then on what basis can you argue it
> necessarily means years at any other biblical prophecy where it's not expressly
> stated?
God is not giving prophetic vission to any one about the length of time
Jesus would be in the earth dead.
That is a literal length of time not a prophetic length of time.
>
> Come on, Misty, you can say it. The truth is the passages you've cited here don't do
> what you're saying they do. There is no prophetic key code linking days and years
> given in the Bible. We have to take each prophecy as we find it, and in the cultural
> context in which it was given. And we're not going to find any prophecies in the
> Bible that give us the methodology for deciphering the metaphors and symbolism of
> other prophecies. That's not the purpose of prophecy.
Ok here I will post the reason The Lord Give to the desciples.
Matt 13:
10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou
unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them,
Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom
of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall
have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him
shall be taken away even that he hath. 13Therefore speak I
to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing
they hear not, neither do they understand.
14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith,
By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing
ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are
dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time t
hey should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should
understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I
should heal them.
Notice it is not Misty that is giving this scienario but
Jesus.
You may read it for your self in your won bible if you will now then.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> See the above Bible passages for you authority from Scripture.
>
> They don't give me any authority to interpret the days of Rev. 11 and 12 as years.
> And that's so obvious I'm having trouble seeing how you could suppose they do.
See what Jesus told the Desciples about not understanding.
Matthew 13.
>
>>
>>
>> The Lord reveals His Word to the Wise but the unwise will never
>> learn it.
>> In other word you must approach Gods work with Prayer
>> and suplications and open eyes of understanding.
>
> No that's not what God promises. You're preaching a gnostic approach to understanding
> Scripture, and nothing could be farther from the truth.
Tell that to Jesus when you again remember Matthew 13.
> God's word REVEALS to anyone willing to recieve. You don't have to be smart. You
> don't need some "code". What you need is humility; the humility to realize that we
> should look for the simple and obvious before we start searching for the complex and
> hidden. You need the humility to understand that God doesn't use His revelation, or
> put it into some form that only the elite few can understand, and that if you can't
> get general agreement amoung your fellow Christians on *your* understanding of God's
> word, chances are better you've misunderstood it than that they all have.
You are right you need to be "willing to receive".
Until you are willing you can stand outside and keep on hollering
at me that it is not so all you like.
>
>>
>> Is your Eye of understanding open?
>> See the above Bible passages I have posted for you to ask more
>> Questions about.
>
> There's only one real question to be asked, and that's what's your justification for
> thinking the above two Bible passages have anything to say about how any other
> prophetic use of the concept "day" should be understood by the reader. You can't
> simply say they use a day to symbolize a year and that means I can too whenever I read
> a biblical prophecy that speaks of days. You need to show me *why* they mean that,
> and Numbers and Ezekiel don't do that.
>
> Chuck Stamford
Read and understand Matthew 13 it will come to you eventually I hope.
Then we can have a better discussion.
Some prophesies say "time"
Some prophesies say "evenings and morning"
and they too have their own key codes to be applied to them also
that comes from the Bible itself not from Mistylein.
>
>
>
>>
>> M,
>>
>>
>>
>>
Snipalot
Chuck Stamford
That's not exactly true. I mean, it's probably true (although I certainly
can't say for sure, and neither can you or anyone else!) that John didn't
fully understand the vision he recounted in Revelation anymore than you or I
or anyone else does, but it's not because it was prophecy per se. There are
prophecies and their are prophecies. Clearly some were understood well by
those who heard them, while others were not.
>
> Revelaion was given to help explain the prophesies in Daniel.
That's not the case either. John doesn't "explain" Daniel. He expounds on
Daniel. You understand the difference?
> but now we have 2,000 years of History to also use as tools to
> put Bible Timeline over History Timeline.
> Where they Match they Match and Those prophesies show fulfillment.
> m,
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You're simply proving my point that this is a very dangerous way to
understand prophecy. You don't come to a correct understanding of a
prophecy by trying to match historical events to it.
No, it's not. It's speaking of the Parousia; the Second Coming. Get out
your concordance and look up the word "rod", and then complie all the times
that word appears in the phrase "rod of iron".
>>
>> 2.) Chapter 12 begins with the imprisonment of Satan
Oops! That should have been chapter 19 begins with...etc.
>>
>> 3.) At Rev. 19:15 we were remined that Christ would not only smite the
>> nations with a "rod of iron", but that having conquered "He Himself will
>> rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the
>> fierceness and wrath of Almighty God " (See also the other half dozen
>> prophetic passages I pointed out to you last time on this point
>> concerning Christ's rule upon the earth). Beginning at 20:4, we are told
>> more about Christ's earthly kingdom that He sets up after Satan is put
>> down.
>
> ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~
> Is not the iron Rod, the giving over of the nations to war with each
> other?
> m,
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
No. Do the research assignment above.
Based on what? Your imagination?
Look, M, has it ever occurred to you to actually do some WORK before you
unleash your imagination? I mean, actually STUDY?
>>
>> So even if Rev. 19-20 is a lengthy pushback by John to some prior account
>> of events in Revelation, they can't be pushbacks to Rev. 12. Why?
>> Because Rev. 19:11 BEGINS with Satan being locked up! He can't be locked
>> up, and at that same time free "to make war with the rest of her
>> offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of
>> Jesus Christ." (Rev. 12:17b) simultaneously...I don't care WHAT your
>> interpretation of the metaphors are!
>>
>> Now, can we agree on this at least? I mean, are you able to acknowledge
>> that Satan can't be free to make war on the offspring of the woman in
>> chapter 12 (regardless of who the "offspring of the woman" are), and AT
>> THE SAME TIME be "bound for a thousand years", as in Rev. 20:1-3? That's
>> all I really want to know at this point; because if you can't acknowledge
>> what is patently obvious, and has been served up for you on a platter,
>> then this converstation is pointless.
>
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
> Satan did indeed have full reign to make war with the Saints all
> Through the Dark Ages aka The Great Tribulaiton perioid of
> time I have told you all about for the 1260 Literal years.
> That was about 21 literal years after the Second Beast appeared.
> See Rev 13.
> m,
> ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
I"m beginning to think you're more concerned with appearing to be
knowledgable than you are in having any actual knowledge. You've got a TON
of opinions, but hardly an ounce of justification for them. And the truly
remarkable thing to me is, neither you nor Doug seem at all concerned about
this state of affairs!
Thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious.
>
>>
>> This passage, and others (not to mention oral tradition) persuaded the
>> very early Church that Christ would return within the first generation of
>> the Church. We can see in 2 Peter (which many hold was written very
>> late; ca. 65-100ad) the author is trying to assuage the disappointment
>> with what Misty takes to be some sort of prophetic keycode!
>
> ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
> You can see where the early church was starting to be gathered;
> in Luke 24 and John 20.
> I do not know of any key code that may apply to that situation.
> Sorry
> m,
> ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~
Yeah you do. It's your day/year thingy.
>
>>
>> But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is
>> as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not
>> slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is
>> longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all
>> should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:8-9
>
> ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
> The only code key for that is a "GOD DAY" and that is to clear up
> why Adam did not died the very literal day he ate from the forbiden
> tree in the garden.
Except that Adam DID die in that day, because God SAYS he did. It's not
God's fault you don't understand what He means by "death".
Look, I don't want to hurt your feelings, or insult you, but you've got one
of the most fertile and incoherent imaginations I've run across in a LONG
time! I don't even know where to BEGIN to respond to your comments in
anything like an adequate manner. Take that "dinosaur" remark, for example.
How do you respond to someone who thinks size and longevity are biologically
linked, except to suggest to them they go learn something about biology?
For example: there is a species of African termite queen about 3-4 inches
long that lives nearly sixty years, all else being equal. An African
elephant lives about 80 years. There is very little correlation between
size and longevity in nature, and certainly no necessary one as your dino
remark above implicitly suggests!
Chuck Stamford
Mistylein
<snip>
>>
>> YEs Thank you That should be Numbers 14:34 (NIV)
>> 34 For forty years
>>
>> -one year for each of the forty days you explored the land-
>>
>> you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.'
>>
>>
>>
>> Ezekiel 4:
>> 4 "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel
>> upon yourself. [a] You are to bear their sin for the number of days
>> you lie on your side.
>>
>> * * * *5 I have assigned you the same number of days as the years* *
>> ^
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel.
>>
>> 6 "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your
>> right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah.
>> I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.
>> ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>>
>> The Lord was Making Prophecy in these passages and He is
>> Giving it to us "THREE TIMES" so we have no excuese that
>> we have not received it from the Bible itself.
>
> So? How does the fact (and it certainly is a fact here) that God is telling Ezekiel
> to lie on his side one day for each year of Israel's and Judah's transgression become
> a hermeneutic for exegeting all other prophecies that have "days" in them?
>
> When are you going to answer that question?
Therein God is makeing early Prophesies so along with makine
early prophesies He is giveing the code for prophesies that
were given later but still hiding it in plain sight for the Wise to
Pick up but those with blind eyes will not see it nor will
they hear it when some one tells them it is there for the taking.
read the Matthew 13 reasoning behind that question already
explained.
>
>>
>> God is letting the wise know how to use this information
>> but the unwise will not be able to receive it as readily,
>>
>> God is not going to give that Key code every time a Prophecy is
>> Made however.
>
> Why not? Is three the magic number or something? Besides, there's absolutely no
> implicit or expressed idea in ANY of these three suggesting that these instances of
> God using a day to symbolize a year are not specific to the instances themselves.
> Point me to the phrase suggesting this symbolism should be generalized throughout
> Scripture. You can't. Why? Because it's not there. In fact it's no where except
> imprinted in your mind. The only thing in ANY of this saying the symbolism of a day
> for a year is generally true in biblical prophecies is YOU! And who are you?
I am living the answer to the prayer for the wisdom needed to indulge in
The Books of the Living God.
10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but
whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they
hear not, neither do they understand.
14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall
hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their
eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with
their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I
should heal them.
>
> Besides, you can't even make up your mind whether or not this day/year symbolism
> should be generalized or not. What you apparently think is that it should be
> generalized when you say it should be, and be specifically stepped over when you say
> it should. Examples: When we get to Rev. 11 and 12, you say the symbolism holds.
> The text doesn't say that; just you. When we get to Jesus prophesying "Destroy this
> temple and I will raise it up in three days", you say the symbolism doesn't hold. The
> text doesn't say that, just you.
All you need to do is ask the Lord for the widom and understanding to even
read The written Word of God.
Why do you insist on discing me?
Do you only want to discrecit the Bible Because some one other then
you has some deeper understanding thend you do.
Ask God NOt me.
>
> So from all I can see here, we're supposed to check with you to arrive at anything
> like a correct understanding of God's word. Which prompts me to ask: Do you have any
> passages of Scripture backing that idea up? Maybe God said, "Check with Misty if you
> want to know" three times somewhere in the Old Testament and I missed it.
God does say test the Spirit.
The Spirit I represent is the Spirit of the Truth.
M,
>
> Chuck Stamford
>
Chuck Stamford
>
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:S31ak.7551$r_2....@newsfe14.phx...
>>
>> "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:uT_9k.115$Lt...@newsfe02.lga...
> <snip>
>>>
>
>
>>>
>>> Your Bible is indeed witnesses.
>>> You have both of them One is the Old Testament,
>>> and the other is the New testament and they agree one to the
>>> other.
>>>
>>> What does a Witness do?
>>> It Testefies if I spell this right,
>>> What is a Testamony called?
>>> It is called a Testament!
>>> Well I think you can put it all together from this, I hope.
>>
>> You've totally missed what "testament" means as applied to the biblical
>> Old and New Testaments. The idea is "covenant" or "an inheritance", not
>> being a witness giving testimony.
>
> The Testament is explaining what you are taling about as Covenents.
> The Bible itself is not a Covenent it is a testamony of Witness.
No, it isn't. The Bible is revelatory in nature. The Bible cannot be
described by an incoherent phrase like "testimony of Witness".
>
>>
>> testament:
>> c.1290, "last will disposing of property," from L. testamentum "a will,
>> publication of a will," from testari "make a will, be witness to," from
>> testis "witness," from PIE *tris- "three," on the notion of "third
>> person, disinterested witness." Use in reference to the two divisions of
>> the Bible (c.1300) is from L.L. vetus testamentum and novum testamentum,
>> loan-translations of Gk. palaia diatheke and kaine diatheke. L.L.
>> testamentum in this case was a mistranslation of Gk. diatheke, which
>> meant both "covenant, dispensation" and "will, testament," and was used
>> in the former sense in the account of the Last Supper (see testimony) but
>> subsequently was interpreted as Christ's "last will."
>
> Both the Old and the New testaments bare witness all about the
> Messiah.
No, they REVEAL there IS a Messiah, and REVEAL what He will be.
> The Bible is not a will it is a testament of information about
> the Living Son of God not the last will and testament of a dead
> person.
You're wrong. I can't say it any plainer. You're wrong.
"For God so loved the world that He GAVE His only-begotten Son"
The testamentary bequest (of the New Testament) is God's Son, and through
Him, God's grace, mercy, and forgiveness of sin. In short, life from death.
The testamentary bequest of the Old Testament is the Promised Land and the
Law of Moses.
> And they are in agreement one with the other.
>
>>
>> You'll also find that most dictionaries have a bequeathing of personal
>> effects in a last will as the first and primary definition, with the
>> concept of giving evidence by being a witness way down the list. Also,
>> if you consult Roget's II: The New Thesaurus online, you'll find this
>> given for "testament": "...belief, covenant, credo, evidence, legacy,
>> proof, testimony, tribute, will"; again, the main concept here being the
>> passing on of a gift to another.
>
> The Gift that was passed on was the Gift of receiveing of the Holy Spirit
> the very one that makes it possible to know that The Son and the Father
> even exist.
>>
>> Finally, if we are going to suppose the Bible is a witness, to what is it
>> supposed to witness if it is God's inspired word? Are we to think of
>> God's revelation as Him being called to "witness" to us of the truth?
>> That would be absurd! God "witnesses" to the truth of His word by the
>> exercise of His Divine attributes; through His foreknowledge in
>> predictive prophecy; through His omnipotence in performing miracles;
>> through His omnibenevolence in the giving of Himself to us by becoming as
>> one of us. All of these things are "witnesses" to the truth of His word;
>> His revelation, which **is** the Bible!
>
> To be sure. Where else may we go to get the information needed
> to know the Messiah and His Father the God in Heaven if we did not
> have the 2 witnesses to tell us all we need to know on the subject?
At least a couple of other places. First, and by far most important, is the
infilling of the Holy Spirit (which, btw, is different than you letting your
imagination run wild!). Secondly, there is natural revelation; what the
creation of God itself can give us of God's truth. But again, this is not
testimony; it's revelation. We are not talking about any third party here,
which is what all witnesses are.
>>>
>>> The Justification has to come from the Bible itself.
>>>
>>> Numbers 14:34 (NIV)
>>> 34 For forty years-
>>>
>>> one year for each of the forty days ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>>> ^ ^
> < < you explored the land-
>>> you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have
>>> me against you.'
>>>
>>> The above shows it once but also see it 2 more times in
>>
>> Shows *what* once? That God has used days to symbolize years in the past?
>
> The "Day for a year key".
>>
>> Okay, fine. You've proved that God has used actual days to symbolize
>> actual years in the past. What follows from that when it's not stated by
>> God that this is what's being done...as in the case of Rev. 11 & 12?
>
> God useses parabel form and does not give the keys every time
> a prophecy is stated.
Oh please! You're hurting my head!
I'm going to end our discussion here, mainly because I just can't take the
nonstop nonsense anymore. I'm sure you're a nice person, and it's my prayer
that God will overlook the fact you ramble on and on about things you
haven't a clue about, just as He overlooks my failings and faults. But in
closing I'd like to suggest you stop trying to defend indefensible notions
with off the cuff comebacks like the above. All that sort of response does
is flatten one's learning curve.
Chuck Stamford
PS - Jesus, not God in heaven, used the literary form "parable" for a very
specific reason, which Jesus Himself tells us:
And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in
parables?" 11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to
you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not
been given. 12 "For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have
abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away
from him. 13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do
not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 "And in
them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear
and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; 15 For
the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and
hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and
turn, So that I should heal them.' Matt 13:10-15 (NKJV)
Obviously you have no ground for suggesting that God speaks in parable form
in prophecies meant for BELIEVERS, sealed by His Spirit, to gain knowledge
that is important for their spiritual welfare. AGAIN, and for the last
time; the gift of prophecy, either when given or manifested, is NOT for the
purpose of HIDING information, but for the purpose of REVEALING information.
We are CHRISTIANS, not Gnostics. Try keeping that in mind as you apply
yourself to studying God's word to become wise.
Mistylein
>> John Just like Daniel Did not know what those visions meant because
>> they are all "PROPHECY"
>
> That's not exactly true. I mean, it's probably true (although I certainly can't say
> for sure, and neither can you or anyone else!) that John didn't fully understand the
> vision he recounted in Revelation anymore than you or I or anyone else does, but it's
> not because it was prophecy per se. There are prophecies and their are prophecies.
> Clearly some were understood well by those who heard them, while others were not.
Ok Call them Prophetic vissions then if you must have it your way.
I confess I do not even pretend to understand all of the Vissions in
Prophecy and prophetic literature of the Bible.
But that what I have been researching for the last 45 years I am
willing to share that what I do understand.
>
>>
>> Revelaion was given to help explain the prophesies in Daniel.
>
> That's not the case either. John doesn't "explain" Daniel. He expounds on Daniel.
> You understand the difference?
So now you want to play with words. Sheesh.
>
>> but now we have 2,000 years of History to also use as tools to
>> put Bible Timeline over History Timeline.
>> Where they Match they Match and Those prophesies show fulfillment.
>> m,
>> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>
> You're simply proving my point that this is a very dangerous way to understand
> prophecy. You don't come to a correct understanding of a prophecy by trying to match
> historical events to it.
It is a lot better then mixing up all prophecy in to one big ball
and then trying to see if they fit something real or imagined.
>
>>
>> ~ ~ ~ ~~~
>> For starters we must go back to Daniel 2 to see that Prophecy.
>> it is that prophecy that the rest of the book of daniel is explaining.
>> in the later chapters it is trying to give times when it all will
>> be happening as it unfoldes.
>> But when you get to the New Testament there is plenty left
>> that is not explained so God told John "Son of man" you must
>> prophesy again and then the Lord unfolded the Book of Revelation.
>>
>> Today some 2,000 years later The Lord has givin us reems
>> of History to use also along with the 2 books in Quesiton.
>> m,
>> ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
>>
>> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
>> You are right.
>> With the last trump thing it is talking about each individual soul
>> that has come out of the world of unbelief finally at the last trump
>> to finally see the Light of Jesus.
>> m,
>> ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
>
> No, it's not. It's speaking of the Parousia; the Second Coming. Get out your
> concordance and look up the word "rod", and then complie all the times that word
> appears in the phrase "rod of iron".
No coment on the No it is not scienario. Have it your way now then.
>
>
>> ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~
>> Is not the iron Rod, the giving over of the nations to war with each other?
>> m,
>> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>
> No. Do the research assignment above.
Not a very well exicuted reply I must say.
>
>>
>>
>> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
>> That "lake of Fire" May well be the aplication of the truth finally getting
>> through to satan and his followers and the Whole inhabitants of the
>> world.
>> m,
>
> Based on what? Your imagination?
>
> Look, M, has it ever occurred to you to actually do some WORK before you unleash your
> imagination? I mean, actually STUDY?
How about new idea sharing with you?
I have been researching Bible for the last 60 years.
I can only share that what I have been given.
>
>>
>> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
>> Satan did indeed have full reign to make war with the Saints all
>> Through the Dark Ages aka The Great Tribulaiton perioid of
>> time I have told you all about for the 1260 Literal years.
>> That was about 21 literal years after the Second Beast appeared.
>> See Rev 13.
>> m,
>> ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
>
> I"m beginning to think you're more concerned with appearing to be knowledgable than
> you are in having any actual knowledge. You've got a TON of opinions, but hardly an
> ounce of justification for them. And the truly remarkable thing to me is, neither you
> nor Doug seem at all concerned about this state of affairs!
and you will never learn as long as you take appart every one you
talke to or with.
Ask any questions you will and maybe we will have some little
titty for you as a justification that never will satrisfy your lack
of wisdome.
Snip the rest of your snubing remarks of self death.
M,
Chuck Stamford
Matthew 13 is Jesus explaining why He TEACHES the unbelieving JEWS in
parables. There's not a WORD in the whole chapter about predictive
prophecy, much less any principles for properly interpreting it! That you
can still use it in spite of this rather glaring deficiency adequately
demonstrates, at least to me, why there is no further use in talking about
any of this with you.
May the Lord bless and keep you as you seek Him.
Chuck Stamford
Pastor Dave
<shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
I find it humorous that end timers argue this
when they disagree with someone and yet,
argue the opposite with me, trying to claim
two or three fulfillments, or stretching time out
and using OT examples to try to do it with.
--
He did not make us alive and new that we might
give Him something old and dead. - Unknown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Pastor Dave
news:0hlak.55$O42...@newsfe06.lga...
> Therein God is makeing early Prophesies so along with makine
> early prophesies He is giveing the code for prophesies that
> were given later but still hiding it in plain sight for the Wise to
> Pick up but those with blind eyes will not see it nor will
> they hear it when some one tells them it is there for the taking.
Isn't it interesting how people like you try to scare people
into believing what you say. After all, "the blind" are
always those who don't agree with what you say and hey,
who wants to go to Hell for not believing the right thing?
--
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance.
It is the illusion of knowledge. -Daniel Boorstin
Doug
Chuck Stamford <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
Jesus identified the scriptures as one of the things that testify of
him.
John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:
and they are they which testify of me.
One who testifies is called a "witness."
He also said the Spirit, or Comforter, would testify of him.
John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father,
he shall testify of me:
So Jesus identifies these as two things that testify of him, so they
are "two witnesses."
>
>>
>>>
>>> testament:
>>> c.1290, "last will disposing of property," from L. testamentum
>>> "a will, publication of a will," from testari "make a will, be
>>> witness to," from testis "witness," from PIE *tris- "three," on
>>> the notion of "third person, disinterested witness." Use in
>>> reference to the two divisions of the Bible (c.1300) is from
>>> L.L. vetus testamentum and novum testamentum, loan-translations
>>> of Gk. palaia diatheke and kaine diatheke. L.L. testamentum in
>>> this case was a mistranslation of Gk. diatheke, which meant both
>>> "covenant, dispensation" and "will, testament," and was used in
>>> the former sense in the account of the Last Supper (see
>>> testimony) but subsequently was interpreted as Christ's "last
>>> will."
>>
>> Both the Old and the New testaments bare witness all about the
>> Messiah.
>
> No, they REVEAL there IS a Messiah, and REVEAL what He will be.
They also "testify" of him, as Jesus himself said. So the scriptures
are indeed a "witness."
>
>> The Bible is not a will it is a testament of information about
>> the Living Son of God not the last will and testament of a dead
>> person.
>
> You're wrong. I can't say it any plainer. You're wrong.
Moses and Elijah appeared to some of the disciples with Jesus at the
mount of Transfiguration. This event was highly symbolic, as their
roles are characterized by the powers given to the two witnesses of
Rev 11. They represent the scriptures, and the Spirit of God.
Matthew 17:1-3
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother,
and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun,
and his raiment was white as the light.
And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with
him.
>
> "For God so loved the world that He GAVE His only-begotten Son"
>
> The testamentary bequest (of the New Testament) is God's Son, and
> through
> Him, God's grace, mercy, and forgiveness of sin. In short, life
> from death.
>
> The testamentary bequest of the Old Testament is the Promised Land
> and the Law of Moses.
The mountains and hills of Israel are symbolic of the covenants and
promises of God that belong to the saints. The Law of Moses is
represented by Mount Sinai in Arabia, which was not included in the
promised land. Paul wrote:
Galatians 4:24-25
Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the
one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is
Agar.
For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem
which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
The prophecy of Ezekiel 36 depicts the mountains and valleys of
Israel as desolate, and possessed by the heathen, but God promises
to plant his people there. It is not referring to some literal area
in the Middle East, but to Christians realizing that God's promises
belong to them, not unbelievers!
Ezekiel 36:24-28
24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out
of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be
clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I
cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put
within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh,
and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and
ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
Ezekiel is not referring to a literal territory in Palestine, but
the spiritual promises of God. If it was a literal land that is
referred to here, and to Israelites according to the flesh, as
Zionists believe, all the Jews who returned to the land of Israel
over the past 60 years would be Christians by now, and they all
would have received the spirit of God! Because that is what is
promised here. But no, they are not believers. They remain in
unbelief. The promises of God are not intended for unbelieving Jews
as Dispensationalism claims, but for the saints! Ezekiel says those
who have dishonoured God's name will be ashamed.
Ezekiel 36:22-23
22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD;
I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy
name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye
went.
23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the
heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the
heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I
shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
Dispensationalists deny the promises of God in the OT apply to the
church, but they say those promises apply to unbelieving Jews! How
incredibly wrong! Shame on them!
Jesus identified the Spirit and the scriptures as two things that
testify of him. So they are 2 witnesses. We don't need to resort to
Chuck's opinions!
God conceals his truth from those who are "wise and prudent," and
reveals it unto "babes."
1 Corinthians 1:19
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord
of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the
wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
--
Doug
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> In message <g3v6m1$tp0$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>> The METAPHORS of GENESIS play out throughout THE ENTIRE BIBLE,
>> even to the END OF REVELATION.
>>
>> The tree of life = THE LINEAGE LEADING TO ISRAEL (with "cast offs"
>> on the side).
>
> Nonsense!
Fact.
>> The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil = the GENTILES.
>
> Ridiculous!
>
Fact.
>> GOD IS GRAFTING BRANCHES FROM ONE TREE TO THE OTHER, ESTABLISHING
>> A TREE FIT FOR USE (WHOLE ISRAEL) AND A TREE FIT FOR DESTRUCTION.
>
> Its a forest of trees that gets destroyed!
Yo.
Moron.
ONE TREE from TWO TREES.
Ro 11:13-32
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the
Gentiles, I magnify mine office, if by any means I may provoke to emulation
them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what
shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be
holy, so are the branches.
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive
tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and
fatness of the olive tree; boast not against the branches. But if thou
boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be
graffed in.
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by
faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural
branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell,
severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness:
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still
in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and
wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall
these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is
happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out
of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for this
is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as
touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes: For the
gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained
mercy through their unbelief, even so have these also now not believed, that
through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them
all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
[snip]
> Get some new reading glasses! What I said was:
I'm not referring to what you said in the last post, MORON.
I'm referring TO WHAT YOU'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.
[snip]
>> Not "which mountain," jerk.
>>
>> WHICH ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION? THE ONE THAT "WAS," "IS," OR "IS
>> TO COME?"
>
> The only abomination of desolation that has any significance is the
> one that presently exists,
HEY, ASSHOLE.
Antiochus "abominated" the temple in 166 BC.
The Romans "abominated" the temple in c. 136 AD.
Prophecy speaks of the abomination yet to come.
WHICH ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION? THE ONE THAT WAS, THE ONE THAT IS, OR THE
ONE THAT IS YET TO COME?
> which Jesus referred to;
Yo, ASSHOLE.
Jesus referred to what SEEMED TO BE the desolation by the Romans, BUT THAT
DESOLATION CAME TO NO PROPHETIC END.
And Jesus used THE SAME DUALISTIC DICHOTOMY AS EZEKIEL.
Now, WHICH "ABOMINATION" WERE YOU REFERRING TO?
The one that WAS, the one that IS, or the one that is YET TO COME?
> the one that
> has desolated the church, and scattered Christians into thousands
> of sects and cults and denominations.
No such "abomination" has ever taken place.
And Jesus DECREED the divisions of the churches into seven archetypes in THE
SEVEN LETTERS OF REVELATION.
[snip]
>> WHICH "ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION?"
>
> The one that causes desolation of the church, and scatters it into
> thousands of sects, cults, and denominations.
JESUS DECREED THE SEPARATION OF THE CHURCHES, MORON.
See, that's the essential element in ALL CULTS--the "MY CHURCH IS THE ONLY
RIGHT CHURCH" syndrome.
Only the irony is YOU DON'T BELONG TO ANY CHURCH!
> In Daniel's prophecy
> it has "eyes like the eyes of a man" so it is identified as
> a "human point of view" as opposed to a divine one. Also it has
> a "mouth speaking great things against the Most High."
That's YOU, moron.
[snip]
>> Job 9:5 Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which
>> overturneth them in his anger.
>>
>> WHY WOULD GOD BE ANGRY AT LITERAL "MOUNTAINS," OH, CLUELESS ONE?
>
> Ha ha! Sometimes you do amuse me, Ike! :-)
You'll notice, ladies and gentlemen, that the fraud didn't ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
>> Ps 72:3 The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the
>> little hills, by righteousness.
>>
>> HOW THE HELL CAN "MOUNTAINS" BRING PEACE OR RIGHTEOUSNESS?
>
> I think the "mountains" that David refers to are promises and
> covenants of God.
WHO GIVES A SHIT "WHAT YOU THINK?"
SEE, there you go interpreting prophecy WITH THE "EYES OF A MAN" AGAIN,
demonstrating that YOU are the ANTICHRISTIAN here.
[snip]
>> ...and jumping ahead...
>>
>> Re 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide
>> us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the
>> wrath of the Lamb:
>>
>> WHY WOULD MEN CALL UPON LITERAL "MOUNTAINS" TO SAVE THEM, IDIOT?
>
> There are lots of people who associate with various churches and
> sects and denominations,
Oh, here we go with the "silent consent" cult argument, in which you produce
an unsubstantiated claim bereft of scriptural reference, and then refer to
"lots of people" who DON'T EXIST EXCEPT IN YOUR MIND.
What "people," moron?
Since you can't show "what people," we'll go with the WORDS definition: IN
PROPHECY, MOUNTAINS = PEOPLE OF HIGH PLACE, ESPECIALLY WHERE RELIGION IS
CONCERNED.
[SNIP]
>> FACT: MOUNTAINS = GREAT LEADERS, GENERALLY, THETICALLY, AND/OR
>> ANTITHETICALLY.
>
> Nonsense!
PROPHETIC FACT, moron.
Even JESUS is referred to by Daniel as the stone that becomes THE GREAT
MOUNTAIN (He being the "Most High" and all)!
[snip]
> If Jesus wanted people to flee to any literal mountain, he would
> have indicated which one, and what to flee *from*.
No, He just said to GET THE HELL OUT OF JERUSALEM--the shit will be hitting
the fan, and He is NOT RESPONSIBLE for what happens to ANYONE WHO DOESN'T
HEED HIS INSTRUCTIONS. (And THAT defines the war.)
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> In message <g3v6m1$tp0$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>>> In message <g3rees$dso$1...@aioe.org>
>>> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> In John's prophecy in Revelation 12:6, the woman flees to the
>>>>> wilderness, where she is fed for 1,260 days, a symbolic time
>>>>> representing the remaining time of the church.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> It represents the time in which the two witnesses testify in
>>>> Jerusalem to the world of what's about to happen, first in
>>>> Jerusalem, and then in the rest of the world.
>>>
>>> I suggest
>>
>> I SUGGEST YOU TAKE A HIKE,
>
>
> The prophecy of the 2 witnesses, in Revelation 11, and the prophecy
> of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12, both mention a
> period of 1,260 days.
WHICH ARE THE 1,260 DAYS IN WHICH MOSES AND ELIJAH WILL WITNESS IN
JERUSALEM, moron.
> This is the symbolic "time, times and a half"
Which is SATAN'S HALF of the LAST SEVEN YEARS, moron.
That DOESN'T ADDRESS THE FACT that there are 62 AND 1 that COME BEFORE IT.
> which is a symbol of the present age,
BULLSHIT.
The SEVEN LETTERS are the "symbol of the present age," divided into seven
epochs, moron.
[SNIP THE REST OF THE UNSUBSTANTIATED DAWDLE]
>> AS YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHAT
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT...
>>
>>> the 1,260 days refers to the "time, times, and a half"
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> They refer to 3 1/2 years; they could also refer to the measure of
>> each statement of the prophecies, in 1 year periods (a time), in
>> seven year periods (times), or in half-year periods (6 months).
>
> They do indeed refer to 3 1/2 years, but not literal years.
SAYS WHO?
YOU?
> They
> must be symbolic,
WHO SAYS THEY "MUST BE?"
YOU.
WHY?
SO YOU CAN TELL LIES USING PROPHECY!
[SNIP THE REST OF THE LIES]
>>> that is mentioned in Daniel's prophecies, in Dan 7:25 and 12:7.
>>
>> BUT DANIEL DIDN'T SAY "1,260 DAYS," moron--HE SAID 1,290, which
>> means the 1,260 OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE TWO WITNESSES lies WITHIN
>> the 1,290 DAYS, and it is NOT METAPHOR, moron.
>
> Yes, Daniel uses both leap years of 13 months, and regular years of
> 12 months, to derive his numbers. John used only years of 12
> months. The calendar had been changed in John's time.
Notice, ladies and gentlemen, that the liar didn't address the statement:
DANIEL DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT 1,260 DAYS, MORON.
>>> It
>>> is the last half-week of the 70 weeks,
>>
>> NO, IT'S SATAN'S HALF (THE FIRST HALF) OF THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.
>> GOD'S HALF IS 1,335 DAYS. AND THESE COME AFTER THE 62 YEARS OF THE
>> BEGINNING OF SORROWS, AND THE 1 YEAR TRANSITION.
>
> Only in Ike's delusions!
ONLY IN THE HISTORICAL AND PROPHETIC FACTS, moron.
Antiochus IV came to power in 167 BC, and the war ended in 160 BC, and the
temple was cleansed HALFWAY BETWEEN, which is a REPRESENTATION of the things
to come IN THE END OF THE AGE.
>>> the remaining time of the
>>> church when Christ confirms his covenant with those who believe
>>> the gospel.
>>
>> YOU KEEP REFERRING TO SATAN'S COVENANT AS GOD'S COVENANT.
>
> It would be sad indeed to be so confused, as to mistake a holy
> covenant of God,
YES, IT IS SAD THAT YOU KEEP CONFUSING THE ANTICOVENANT WITH THE HOLY
COVENANT, SPEAKING OF THE HOLY COVENANT WHERE DANIEL REFERS TO THE
ANTICOVENANT.
[SNIP THE REST OF THE LIES WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATION]
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip]
> Mistylein seems to have at least part of this correct; however, I'm not
> sure that Ike wasn't also speaking of two different things in interpreting
> the two witnesses sent down from God in chap. 11 as the Scriptures and the
> Spirit. Of course such an interpretation faces multiple problems I've
> never seen resolved.
That wasn't me, Chuck.
> Everyone here seems to be operating on the idea the 1,260 days refer to as
> many years, yet no one has given any reason to justify such a premise.
???
I've been arguing the exact opposite.
(GoogleNews strikes again.)
[snip]
> You're focusing on Daniel, to the *exclusion* of what John has already
> said, to explain this prophecy in Revelation, and I think that's a serious
> mistake. Revelation certainly leans heavily upon Daniel,
...and Jesus' outline, and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and Psalms, and Zechariah,
and...
> and the parallels are certainly there between them; but where exactly
> they are is the issue, and we can't find them by ignoring what Revelation
> has to say while we run off to Daniel.
Ah, but properly understood, they all tell THE SAME STORY from DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVES, Chuck.
[cut to the chase]
> To summarize:
>
> 1.) John gives us a solid framework to use in understanding the order of
> events between 8:13 and 12:12 (actually 12:17, the end of the chapter.
> Interesting is that at the end of this chapter the "dragon" goes off "to
> make war against the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's
> commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.", which entails that
> however these three "woes" are to be distinguished in Revelation, it's
> *not* that they are the last calamity to befall those upon the earth, even
> those who "obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus")
OK, first problem is you're not separating events (the scroll) from
supplemental visions.
The chronology has two sets of markers.
The visions have their own marker.
So to lump everything from 8:13 to 12:12 is a mistake.
Second, the "woes" designated the last three trumpets, i.e. the "woe"
trumpets, and these encompass the rule of the antitrinity up to the rebuke
of God (as given in the seven vials, then jumping to the second coming,
there being two more "interludes" between them).
This actually proves Dispensationalism WRONG as it demonstrates that the
seals/trumpets/vials do NOT occur concurrently, but sequentially!
> 2.) According to this framework, the metaphors (if indeed they both are
> metaphors) of the two witnesses and the woman clothed in the sun can't be
> symbolizing either the same events or the same trime frame.
Correct.
And in fact, it is a dualism of symbolism (and actually a triunism), as John
uses the "woman" to represent Israel the first time, the "church" the second
time, and all together in the "New Jerusalem" metaphor at the end of the
book.
[snip]
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip]
> Once we understand the symbolism of the Church fleeing to the
> wilderness...
HOW CAN SOMEONE "UNDERSTAND" SOMETHING THAT'S A LIE?
JESUS WASN'T BORN FROM THE CHURCH.
THE CHURCH CAME FROM JESUS.
BUT JESUS WAS BORN FROM ISRAEL, MORON, and THAT'S what the REFERENCE IS
TO--ISRAEL.
(See, this is the kind of garbage that Doug's nonsense both gives rise to
and derives from: First, he connects things that AREN'T connected, and then
he breaks the connections between things that ARE connected.)
> 1 Corinthians 10:1-5
> Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that
> all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the
> sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
> And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same
> spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that
> followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God
> was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
>
> Compare the above scripture with John's prophecy:
>
> Revelation 12:6
> And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place
> prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two
> hundred and threescore days.
THESE ARE TOTALLY UNRELATED STATEMENTS, WHICH YOU SLAM TOGETHER WITHOUT ANY
SUBSTANTIATION (as usual), SO HOW CAN SOMEONE "COMPARE" STATEMENT THAT
AREN'T CONNECTED TO ONE ANOTHER?
[snip the rest of the dawdle]
Ike
Chuck Stamford
The point is the Bible is not a witness to God's truth. It IS God's truth.
You start with this notion that the Bible is a witness, and you start
chasing your tail forever! Eg. - The Bible is a witness. To what does it
bear witness? To the truth of God's word. Isn't God's word true by
definition? Well...yes. Then to what does it bear witness? To the truth?
Isn't all truth bound up in God? Yes. And isn't the Bible God's word?
Well, yes. Then isn't the Bible true by definition? Yes. So then how does
it bear witness to what it is by definition?
You see?
I'm not saying the Bible isn't testimony to given events in history, because
it obviously is; but when someone begins exaggerating it's testifying aspect
and ignoring it's Divine revelatory attribute just to make some stupid
argument, then I have to dig my feet in and demand some perspective.
Now you're a fan of backward causation? How can the roles of Moses and
Elijah be affected at all by what you're saying is a metaphor for the entire
history of the Church? Is the Church supposed to reach backward in time to
exert this influence??
>
> Matthew 17:1-3
> And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother,
> and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
> And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun,
> and his raiment was white as the light.
> And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with
> him.
>
>>
>> "For God so loved the world that He GAVE His only-begotten Son"
>>
>> The testamentary bequest (of the New Testament) is God's Son, and
>> through
>> Him, God's grace, mercy, and forgiveness of sin. In short, life
>> from death.
>>
>> The testamentary bequest of the Old Testament is the Promised Land
>> and the Law of Moses.
>
> The mountains and hills of Israel are symbolic...
That's your problem, Doug: with you everything is a symbol for something
else. It's a transparent device you use to make Scripture say whatever
you'd like it to say regardless of the actual text. It frees you from being
governed and guided by the text; in effect cancels out what God intended by
giving us the Bible!
I can't help you with that problem, so I'll just bid you good luck in
following your own imaginings.
Chuck Stamford
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:17tj645ennnb8a80m...@4ax.com...
> "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:0hlak.55$O42...@newsfe06.lga...
>
>
>> Therein God is makeing early Prophesies so along with makine
>> early prophesies He is giveing the code for prophesies that
>> were given later but still hiding it in plain sight for the Wise to
>> Pick up but those with blind eyes will not see it nor will
>> they hear it when some one tells them it is there for the taking.
>
> Isn't it interesting how people like you try to scare people
> into believing what you say. After all, "the blind" are
> always those who don't agree with what you say and hey,
> who wants to go to Hell for not believing the right thing?
Which is PRECISELY THE SAME THING YOU DO, going the OTHER WAY.
Ike
Chuck Stamford
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:g4dgfr$av5$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:9oP9k.7525$r_2...@newsfe14.phx...
>
> [snip]
>
>> Mistylein seems to have at least part of this correct; however, I'm not
>> sure that Ike wasn't also speaking of two different things in
>> interpreting the two witnesses sent down from God in chap. 11 as the
>> Scriptures and the Spirit. Of course such an interpretation faces
>> multiple problems I've never seen resolved.
>
> That wasn't me, Chuck.
Glad to hear it.
>
>> Everyone here seems to be operating on the idea the 1,260 days refer to
>> as many years, yet no one has given any reason to justify such a premise.
>
> ???
>
> I've been arguing the exact opposite.
>
> (GoogleNews strikes again.)
>
> [snip]
Ike, I was obviously playing catch up with this first post, so if I got your
part or argument in some other thread wrong by just trying to decipher the
headers in this one, I apologize for inadvertently mischaracterizing them
here.
>
>> You're focusing on Daniel, to the *exclusion* of what John has already
>> said, to explain this prophecy in Revelation, and I think that's a
>> serious mistake. Revelation certainly leans heavily upon Daniel,
>
> ...and Jesus' outline, and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and Psalms, and
> Zechariah, and...
I didn't mean to the exclusion of all other Scripture. You'll have to
agree, I think, that the vast majority of commentators and scholars on
Revelation conclude the very strong Daniel connection between them; to the
point it's not an exaggeration to say Revelation expounds upon Daniel a
great deal.
>
>> and the parallels are certainly there between them; but where exactly
>> they are is the issue, and we can't find them by ignoring what Revelation
>> has to say while we run off to Daniel.
>
> Ah, but properly understood, they all tell THE SAME STORY from DIFFERENT
> PERSPECTIVES, Chuck.
That's what "parallel" means, Ike.
>
> [cut to the chase]
>
>> To summarize:
>>
>> 1.) John gives us a solid framework to use in understanding the order of
>> events between 8:13 and 12:12 (actually 12:17, the end of the chapter.
>> Interesting is that at the end of this chapter the "dragon" goes off "to
>> make war against the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's
>> commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.", which entails that
>> however these three "woes" are to be distinguished in Revelation, it's
>> *not* that they are the last calamity to befall those upon the earth,
>> even those who "obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of
>> Jesus")
>
> OK, first problem is you're not separating events (the scroll) from
> supplemental visions.
>
> The chronology has two sets of markers.
>
> The visions have their own marker.
>
> So to lump everything from 8:13 to 12:12 is a mistake.
I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out that John gives us a framework to use
to help us understand Revelation by equating the three "Woes" of 8:13 with
the last three trumpets and the last three angels that sound them, and by
informing us these "woes" come upon "the inhabitants of the earth".
I'm not trying to "lump in" what came before 8:13 into what comes after,
nor am I suggesting these three "woes" are any sort of "key" to
understanding all of Revelation. What I'm saying is they are important; a
useful aid to understanding, in that they tend to limit the wild
imaginations of people like Doug and Misty if they'll just LOOK at them for
what they are.
>
> Second, the "woes" designated the last three trumpets, i.e. the "woe"
> trumpets, and these encompass the rule of the antitrinity up to the rebuke
> of God (as given in the seven vials, then jumping to the second coming,
> there being two more "interludes" between them).
>
> This actually proves Dispensationalism WRONG as it demonstrates that the
> seals/trumpets/vials do NOT occur concurrently, but sequentially!
Ike, as I said at the start I don't fancy myself an authority on Revelation.
I just know that the "woes" of 8:13 help to see what of what comes after is
being given chronologically, and what is a literary "pushback" giving a
different perspective of the same time frame. I would point you to my post
in this thread where I use this Johannine framework to show that Doug and
Misty's theory that the woman clothed with the sun in chapter 12 is NOT
symbolic of events in history. I'm not using it to argue what she IS
symbolic of, because they (the "woes") don't allow one to do that.
In short, my judgment on the "woes" is that while they don't give us a lot
of help in deciphering what the symbolism is in Revelation, they can be a
big help to us in winnowing through bad theories as to what that symbolism
is.
>
>> 2.) According to this framework, the metaphors (if indeed they both are
>> metaphors) of the two witnesses and the woman clothed in the sun can't be
>> symbolizing either the same events or the same trime frame.
>
> Correct.
>
> And in fact, it is a dualism of symbolism (and actually a triunism), as
> John uses the "woman" to represent Israel the first time, the "church" the
> second time, and all together in the "New Jerusalem" metaphor at the end
> of the book.
That's a pretty sweeping statement to throw out without any supporting
argument, even though I agree with you the woman of chapter 12 probably
symbolizes Israel's entire history and future until the Second Coming.
I'm scratching my head here though trying to think what you're talking about
when you suggest John uses the "woman" symbol a second and third
time...assuming I've got it right and that's what, in fact, you are
suggesting in the above paragraph.
Chuck Stamford
Al Smith
If you believe, as I tend to, that we are all damned souls (fallen
angels) living in hell right now, the only meaningful direction we
can travel is up. If incarnation in flesh is hell, then we have two
places to go -- heaven (whatever that may be like) and oblivion. We
can either be redeemed, or obliterated. To reincarnate is to remain
in hell.
Of course, there are various levels of hell, some worse than others,
as Dante pointed out in his allegory. And even if we assume that we
are all fallen angels who have forgotten our original nature and
high estate, that does not necessarily mean that we deserve this
punishment. We may have been wrongly imprisoned in flesh, as I
believe to be the case.
-Al-
Chuck Stamford
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
news:Ootak.1175$1o6.167@edtnps83...
How about we subject the above theory to a little critical analysis? Here
are some of the problems with this theory that leap out at me:
1.) First you say, "we are all damned souls (fallen angels) living in hell
right now, the only meaningful direction we can travel is up", by which I
understood you to mean the only possible and meaningful change in our
circumstance is a betterment of it. This could not possibly be true if it
were possible for our situation to change for the worse. However, you go on
to say, "Of course, there are various levels of hell, some worse than
others", which, given your first remark, is completely incoherent.
2.) The only "authority" yoiu cite for your premise there are various
levels of punishment in "hell" is the author of a work of fiction. Enough
said about that.
3.) You say you believe you are a fallen angel who doesn't remember being
an angel at all. Another incoherent statement on its face.
4.) You say, "If incarnation in flesh is hell, then we have two places to
go...etc." First off, the phrase "incarnation in flesh" is redundant.
Secondly, and much more importantly than poor phrasing, it is patently false
that being in hell leaves us only the two possibilities: reaching some
better state or ceasing to exist. It is a true premise that "things can
always get worse than they are", which can be demonstrated as follows:
No matter how good any particular state of affairs is in which we exist, it
could possibly be better. Do I have 72 virgins obsessing over my happiness
and contentment? Clearly I could possibly have 73. Do I have 73? I could
have 74...etc. The point of my silly example is no matter what it is that
makes me happy, I could have more of it, and thus be happier, giving me a
possible state of affairs better than the one I'm, in fact, in.
This same logic holds for any "evil/bad" state of affairs. There simply is
no possible "worst state of affairs" for any contingent being. It follows
that if there is no possible worst state of affairs for me, that no matter
how bad things actually are for me, they could get worse. Therefore it is
false that in hell our state of affairs must either improve or we cease to
exist. Things could get worse. Things could stay the same. Neither
possibility entails us ceasing to exist.
5.) "We may have been wrongly imprisoned in flesh, as I believe to be the
case" This is my favorite! Here you've admitted already you can't even
remember your original "high estate", let alone what you did to lose it, and
yet you manage to form the belief you've been wrongly punished for doing
whatever it was! Could there be a more completely unwarranted and blatantly
self-serving belief than this??
You're like the guy screaming, "Whatever it is, I'm INNOCENT!" Why attempt
jumping through all the above metaphysical hoops to make what you really
mean sound better? Why not just say it like it is: you believe you deserve
better than you've getting, or likely to get, from reality. Sounds to me
like you're looking for an apology from God. You can trust me on this:
you're never going to get one. Necessary beings just don't do that sort of
thing for the contingent creatures they create. Remember, "God is love" (1
John 4:8, 16), and "Love means never having to say you're sorry" (the Ali
McGraw character to the Ryan O'Neal character in "Love Story"). QED ;-)
Chuck Stamford
Doug
Chuck Stamford <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
You set up a straw man, and then try to set it on fire! Jesus said
the scriptures "testify of him." What scriptures? Well, the OT of
course. And in the NT there are many examples of scriptures from
the OT that are interpreted as referring to Christ. In the NT we
also have 4 gospels that are accounts of the ministry and death of
Jesus. Who would deny that each of these bears witness to the
sayings and acts of Jesus? And so it seems rather foolish for
anyone to argue that the scriptures, both OT and NT, are not
a "witness," one that "testifies" of Jesus!
> You start with this notion that the Bible is a
> witness, and you start
> chasing your tail forever! Eg. - The Bible is a witness. To what
> does it
> bear witness? To the truth of God's word. Isn't God's word true
> by
> definition? Well...yes. Then to what does it bear witness? To
> the truth?
> Isn't all truth bound up in God? Yes. And isn't the Bible God's
> word?
> Well, yes. Then isn't the Bible true by definition? Yes. So
> then how does it bear witness to what it is by definition?
>
> You see?
I see someone making a fool of himself!
The 2 witnesses emit "fire from their mouth," that kills their
enemies. Perhaps this is a reference to the "lake of fire" of Rev
20:14. I view the "fire" as a symbol of the word of God, and
the "lake of fire" as a metaphor combining the ideas of Isaiah
11:9 and Jeremiah 23:29. The "sea" represents the knowledge of God
and the "fire" is God's word.
They have the power to shut heaven, "that it rain not in the days of
their prophecy." Isaiah uses rain as a symbol of God's word. The
prophecy shows there would be no further revelation, no new
prophecies, and no more scriptures are added, during the church
age. The canon of scripture was closed in the days of the apostles.
Isaiah 55:10-12
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth
not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and
bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not
return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
They have "power over waters to turn them to blood". The "waters"
represent knowledge of God, as presented in the scriptures. The
waters that were turned to blood by Moses in Egypt made them unfit
to drink. The scriptures, which are the source for the truth about
our salvation through Christ, are considered unfit to be believed
by those in the world, just as the Egyptians could not drink the
water when Moses turned to into blood. The gospel, which is as
cool, clean, fresh drinking water to believers, is as distasteful
as blood to the world, because of the miracles described in the
bible, and the flawed cosmology of the OT that was introduced in
the time of Antiochus IV.
They "smite the earth with all plagues", which refers to the plagues
mentioned in the prophecies of scripture.
--
Doug
Al Smith
> right now, the only meaningful direction we can travel is up", by which I
> understood you to mean the only possible and meaningful change in our
> circumstance is a betterment of it. This could not possibly be true if it
> were possible for our situation to change for the worse. However, you go on
> to say, "Of course, there are various levels of hell, some worse than
> others", which, given your first remark, is completely incoherent.
Not at all. If we are in hell, then the only direction out from
hell, is to a better place. But there are various levels of hell,
with various degrees of unhappiness. Your failure to understand this
simple presentation of concepts in no way invalidates it.
-Al-
Doug
Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> news:AKqdnfjzN8Mn3_TV...@sentex.net...
>> In message <xm%9k.116$Lt...@newsfe02.lga>
>> Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
> <snip>
>>>
>
>>>
>>> It has a starting date of When The Messiah was cut off.
>>> So count off 1290 Literal years to see what event in History
>>> went on at the end of that time.
>>> I am sure it is talking about 1290 literal years.
>>> I have not been given what event shows that prophecy has been
>>> fulfilled though.
>>
>> A prophecy that points to a date when nothing happened is
>> useless!
>
> This is a discussion not a rock hard truth Campain.
Oh, do you prefer the soft, squishy kind? :-)
>
> If you have something to contribute it would be fine to share it
> If you have nothing to share then keep silent, please.
>
>
>> Worse, it is a liability, as it gives the scoffers a reason to
>> jeer and sneer at God's word! Of course, there is no such
>> prophecy; the
>
> Daniel 12: (NIV)
> 11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the
> abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290
> days.
>
> This is definitly a Prophecy.
> It indicates that in 1124 AD That "abomination that causes
> desolation was to have been set up.
> Just because I do not have the info of what that may be does not
> discredit the Prophecy one bit.
I don't know how you get the date 1124 AD. But there is no reason to
equate the 1,290 days with 1,290 years. They are simply an
imaginary period of three and a half years, which include 1 leap
year of 13 months and the rest regular years of 12 months, where
months are 30 days.
In the context of Daniel 12 the three and a half years is a symbolic
representation of the "time, times and a half," the last half-week
of the 70 weeks. It is the Bible's symbol of the entire age of the
church!
>
> Then some time after that the 1335 days prophecy kicks in.
> Dan 12: (NIV)
> 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the
> 1,335 days.
> I can only claim but not prove this prophecy follows right
> behind the 1290 days prophecy.
No, it does not. And there is no start date/event or end date/event
for the period. In the context, it is simply a representation of
the "time, times and a half," mentioned in Dan 12:7. It is the last
half-week of the 70 weeks, and represents the remaining time of the
church when Christ confirms his covenant with his saints.
>
>
>> problem is with the interpretation. The 1,290 days of Daniel
>> 12:11 are not intended to represent 1,290 years at all! The 1,290
>> days is simply a symbolic three and a half years, which includes
>> one leap year of 13 months. It is not a literal three and a half
>> years, as
>
> In fact it is not even close to any 3.5 years, now is it.
In the Hebrew calendar there were about 354 or about 384 days in a
year, depending on whether the year had 12 or 13 months. There were
7 leap years every 19 years.
> If it is prove it from any Bible and not your assumtions
> of leap years and such.
It would be silly to ignore leap years, and Daniel does not ignore
them. Maybe that is something you should educate yourself about.
The following sites may help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar
http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-jewish.html
http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm
>
>> real (lunar) months are not 30 days. Similarly the 1,335 days of
>> Daniel 12:12 has to be a symbolic three and a half years, where
>> all years, except one, are leap years of 13 months. It can not be
>> a
>
> So You are saying all bible Prophesies are the 3 and a half years?
The prophecies that refer to the "time, times and a half", 1,290
days, 1,335 days, 1,260 days and 42 months all refer to
the "remaining time of the church," the last half-week of the 70
weeks, the final part of the "week" in which Christ confirms his
covenant with his church.
--
Doug
Chuck Stamford
>> 1.) First you say, "we are all damned souls (fallen angels) living in
>> hell right now, the only meaningful direction we can travel is up", by
>> which I understood you to mean the only possible and meaningful change in
>> our circumstance is a betterment of it. This could not possibly be true
>> if it were possible for our situation to change for the worse. However,
>> you go on to say, "Of course, there are various levels of hell, some
>> worse than others", which, given your first remark, is completely
>> incoherent.
>
>
> Not at all. If we are in hell, then the only direction out from hell, is
> to a better place.
But if there are various levels to hell, that's simply not true. I'll try
one more time to show you why this is true...
Say hell has various levels of punishment to it, as you've suggested (and
btw, I happen to agree with you on this narrow point), and say you're in
hell. As I've already demonstrated for you, there is no such thing as a
worst possible state of affairs. No matter how bad a state of affairs is,
it can be worse. If it's true that no matter how bad a given state of
affairs may be, it can always get worse, then it follows it can get better
as well. If you understand the principle that no matter how big a number
you have, you can still get a bigger one or a smaller one by adding to or
subtracting from it, then perhaps you'll be able to see how the same
principle applies in this case.
There is therefore nothing to limit these levels in hell for us, you say
there are. We are therefore left with a good reason to suppose that the
number of levels comprise an infinite set, and no good reason to suppose
otherwise (if we don't count completely arbitrary and transient personal
tastes here!). If the levels of torment in hell are in fact an infinite
set, then no matter what level you're on in hell there will be an infinite
number of levels where things are better ("above" you, let's say), as well
as an infinite number of levels where things are worse (i.e., "below" you).
It then follows that no matter what the change of your state in hell is
(assuming you can even change states in hell...which I DON'T), you can make
an infinite number of changes in either "direction" without ever leaving
hell, or ever ceasing to exist, and what you said about the only
possibilities being going up and out, or ceasing to exist, is simply wrong.
And, btw, the same principle applies to heavenly states of affairs; i.e., no
matter how good one's state of affairs is in heaven, there's one better and
one worse.
This is the idea behind this biblical passage:
For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is
Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver,
precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one's work will become clear; for
the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire
will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone's work which he
has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is
burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through
fire. 1 Cor 3:11-15
The truth being taught here is that there will be various levels of reward
in heaven just as there are various levels of punishment in hell taught in
other biblical passages.
Chuck Stamford
Al Smith
> news:Vuzak.1353$7%6.92@edtnps82...
>>> >> 1.) First you say, "we are all damned souls (fallen angels) living in
>>> >> hell right now, the only meaningful direction we can travel is up", by
>>> >> which I understood you to mean the only possible and meaningful change in
>>> >> our circumstance is a betterment of it. This could not possibly be true
>>> >> if it were possible for our situation to change for the worse. However,
>>> >> you go on to say, "Of course, there are various levels of hell, some
>>> >> worse than others", which, given your first remark, is completely
>>> >> incoherent.
>> >
>> >
>> > Not at all. If we are in hell, then the only direction out from hell, is
>> > to a better place.
>
> But if there are various levels to hell, that's simply not true. I'll try
> one more time to show you why this is true...
>
> Say hell has various levels of punishment to it, as you've suggested (and
> btw, I happen to agree with you on this narrow point), and say you're in
> hell. As I've already demonstrated for you, there is no such thing as a
> worst possible state of affairs. No matter how bad a state of affairs is,
> it can be worse. If it's true that no matter how bad a given state of
> affairs may be, it can always get worse, then it follows it can get better
> as well. If you understand the principle that no matter how big a number
> you have, you can still get a bigger one or a smaller one by adding to or
> subtracting from it, then perhaps you'll be able to see how the same
> principle applies in this case.
The only improvement on the state of hell is escape from hell.
Within the state of hell are various degrees of wretchedness. Being
in hell encompasses a spectrum of experiences, all of them bad. It
results in a general experience that we call hell. This experience
can only change by escape from hell, which always results in an
improvement, since hell is the bottom of the ladder of experience,
and there is no worse experience than hell.
-Al-
Chuck Stamford
Not if hell has various degrees of wretchedness.
> Within the state of hell are various degrees of wretchedness.
Well, there you are, then.
Chuck Stamford
Al Smith
Too bad you can't understand what I've written. There's obviously
nothing I can do to assist your understanding.
-Al-
Chuck Stamford
You're trying to be funny, right? Please tell me you're trying to be funny!
> There's obviously nothing I can do to assist your understanding.
Well I'll tell you what definitely has no potential at all in that
direction, and that's simply repeating two premises, which when conjoined,
form a self-refuting compound proposition. Since that procedure seems to
exhaust your personal resources, you're probably right.
Chuck Stamford
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip]
> The point is the Bible is not a witness to God's truth. It IS God's
> truth. You start with this notion that the Bible is a witness, and you
> start chasing your tail forever! Eg. - The Bible is a witness. To what
> does it bear witness? To the truth of God's word. Isn't God's word true
> by definition? Well...yes. Then to what does it bear witness? To the
> truth? Isn't all truth bound up in God? Yes. And isn't the Bible God's
> word? Well, yes. Then isn't the Bible true by definition? Yes. So then
> how does it bear witness to what it is by definition?
Point of fact: The Bible isn't "God's Word," although it is PRESUMED that
the Bible CONTAINS God's Word, God's Word being every Word that proceeds
from the mouth of God.
The Bible is only our BEST REASONABLE FACSIMILE of God's Word (and not a
perfect one at that).
> You see?
>
> I'm not saying the Bible isn't testimony to given events in history,
> because it obviously is; but when someone begins exaggerating it's
> testifying aspect and ignoring it's Divine revelatory attribute just to
> make some stupid argument, then I have to dig my feet in and demand some
> perspective.
But NOT everything in the Bible HAS "Divine revelatory attributes." For
instance, Paul speaks of the TRADITIONS of head cover or not covering, but
concludes that HIS churches don't follow such conventions.
(To say otherwise is paramount to making Paul (or James, or Peter, etc.,
etc.) EQUAL to Christ when they were just guys hashing out The Way as they
went along.)
[snip]
>> Moses and Elijah appeared to some of the disciples with Jesus at the
>> mount of Transfiguration. This event was highly symbolic, as their
>> roles are characterized by the powers given to the two witnesses of
>> Rev 11. They represent the scriptures, and the Spirit of God.
>
> Now you're a fan of backward causation? How can the roles of Moses and
> Elijah be affected at all by what you're saying is a metaphor for the
> entire history of the Church? Is the Church supposed to reach backward in
> time to exert this influence??
THANK you...
I've been nailing him for this one all along, ESPECIALLY when he says the
woman surrounded by 12 stars represents THE CHURCH, when it fact, the first
reference is to ISRAEL, as John is rehashing Matthew's infancy narrative.
And Jesus didn't come FROM the church, but from MARY, who came from THE
TWELVE TRIBES.
But Doug INSISTS in using what you call "backward causation" to try to make
his false case.
And why do Doug's arguments hinge on this CLEARY false assertion?
Because Doug is a REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY, as it is a necessary component of
his FALSE METAPHORICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF PROPHECY.
Now, there IS "backward causation" in the relationship between eternity and
temporality (as Christ demonstrates when He says "I Am the root AND
offspring of David"), but CLEARLY John was restating Matthew's infancy
narrative in the given passage (although Jesus puts an interesting twist on
the "man-child" reference in the Olivet Discourse, said in reference to the
REMNANT to come...)
But, yeah, you just nailed Doug demonstrating his worst theological
attributes, and ALL FOR THE SAKE of changing God's nature INTO DOUG'S
NATURE, that is, that of the CONSEQUENCELESS MAN.
[snip]
> That's your problem, Doug: with you everything is a symbol for something
> else. It's a transparent device you use to make Scripture say whatever
> you'd like it to say regardless of the actual text. It frees you from
> being governed and guided by the text; in effect cancels out what God
> intended by giving us the Bible!
EXACTLY.
[snip]
Ike
Mistylein
>>
>> This is a discussion not a rock hard truth Campain.
>
> Oh, do you prefer the soft, squishy kind? :-)
It sure looks like you prefer the sands of time rather then
The rock hard truths the Bible is presenting.
>
>>
>> If you have something to contribute it would be fine to share it
>> If you have nothing to share then keep silent, please.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel 12: (NIV)
>> 11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the
>> abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290
>> days.
>>
>> This is definitly a Prophecy.
>> It indicates that in 1124 AD That "abomination that causes
>> desolation was to have been set up.
>> Just because I do not have the info of what that may be does not
>> discredit the Prophecy one bit.
>
> I don't know how you get the date 1124 AD. But there is no reason to
> equate the 1,290 days with 1,290 years. They are simply an
> imaginary period of three and a half years, which include 1 leap
> year of 13 months and the rest regular years of 12 months, where
> months are 30 days.
No I am sure you have no idea how that is arrived at because
you add in so many of your own passages to the prophecy.
"Jesus was Crucified and that abolished the Daily sacrifice.
So add the 1290 days from that day and it comes up to XXXX AD
as The Messiah Was Crucified in 31 AD.
"Oops that then should be 1321 AD
>
> In the context of Daniel 12 the three and a half years is a symbolic
> representation of the "time, times and a half," the last half-week
> of the 70 weeks. It is the Bible's symbol of the entire age of the
> church!
The 1290 and the 1335 are not even close to be the time, times and
half time prophecy as you claim.
The time, times and half time is only 1260 years, Just so you can
keep the prophesies in their proper prespctive.
>
>>
>> Then some time after that the 1335 days prophecy kicks in.
>> Dan 12: (NIV)
>> 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the
>> 1,335 days.
>> I can only claim but not prove this prophecy follows right
>> behind the 1290 days prophecy.
>
> No, it does not. And there is no start date/event or end date/event
> for the period. In the context, it is simply a representation of
> the "time, times and a half," mentioned in Dan 12:7. It is the last
> half-week of the 70 weeks, and represents the remaining time of the
> church when Christ confirms his covenant with his saints.
It may do that some how in the Bible your rewrite but not in
The Bible I read. . .
>
>>
>>
>> In fact it is not even close to any 3.5 years, now is it.
>
> In the Hebrew calendar there were about 354 or about 384 days in a
> year, depending on whether the year had 12 or 13 months. There were
> 7 leap years every 19 years.
"about"?
"Depending"?
"leap years"?
If the Bible would have needed leap years it would have stated it needed
it in the Prophesies, but it does not!
>
>
>
>> If it is prove it from any Bible and not your assumtions
>> of leap years and such.
>
> It would be silly to ignore leap years, and Daniel does not ignore
> them. Maybe that is something you should educate yourself about.
> The following sites may help.
It is a lot more "silly" to rewrite your Bible now isn't it?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar
> http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-jewish.html
> http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm
all man made assumtions because man is not able to be as
precice as the Way God puts it all in place to be just as HE
wants it not as man is trying to match it.
>
>>
>> So You are saying all bible Prophesies are the 3 and a half years?
>
> The prophecies that refer to the "time, times and a half", 1,290
> days, 1,335 days, 1,260 days and 42 months all refer to
> the "remaining time of the church," the last half-week of the 70
> weeks, the final part of the "week" in which Christ confirms his
> covenant with his church.
That is only in your imagination!
Not in any Bible that we are reading.
M,
>
>>
>> Preposterously incorrect and not even close to common sense.
>>
>> M,
>>
>>
>
> --
> Doug
>
> http://vinyl2.sentex.ca/~tcc/OP/
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:g4dgfr$av5$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
[snip]
>>> You're focusing on Daniel, to the *exclusion* of what John has already
>>> said, to explain this prophecy in Revelation, and I think that's a
>>> serious mistake. Revelation certainly leans heavily upon Daniel,
>>
>> ...and Jesus' outline, and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and Psalms, and
>> Zechariah, and...
>
> I didn't mean to the exclusion of all other Scripture. You'll have to
> agree, I think, that the vast majority of commentators and scholars on
> Revelation conclude the very strong Daniel connection between them; to the
> point it's not an exaggeration to say Revelation expounds upon Daniel a
> great deal.
Ah, the chronological portions of Revelation (the scroll) gets its form from
Daniel (which is obviously important), and John uses some of Daniel's
references (like the "four winds" reference), but John very much relies on
the other OT and NT prophets in equal, if not greater, measure.
A couple of "for instances," in broad strokes...
John's post-letters vision is an upside-down version of Ezekiel's opening
vision (because Ezekiel was dealing with the Israelites whom God will cast
down, and John's was dealing with the Gentiles who will be brought up).
John's four horses are an antithesis of Zechariah's four horses.
John's second set of markers throughout the scroll are based on references
to Psalms and Job (i.e. "The Lord shall deliver you in six troubles..." and
"there are six things..." etc., etc.)
Revelation contains wholesale quotes of Jeremiah's "Babylon" prophecies, to
whit "no more sound of the bridegroom," etc., etc.
In fact, one of John's devices is that he introduces a "strong" or "mighty"
angel, then quotes a prophet, belying the fact that the PROPHET is the angel
JOHN IS QUOTING...
There is even a secret reference to Paul's prophecy in Romans 11 in
Revelation 10.
So, I think that the "scholars" overplay the significance of Daniel in
Revelation given how much prophetic material John was borrowing from the
others (mostly because Dispensationalist "scholars" never get PAST Daniel
and Revelation, because their FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES are wrong, and they can't
FIT the rest of the OT prophets into their schemes.)
[snip]
>>> 1.) John gives us a solid framework to use in understanding the order
>>> of events between 8:13 and 12:12 (actually 12:17, the end of the
>>> chapter. Interesting is that at the end of this chapter the "dragon"
>>> goes off "to make war against the rest of her offspring--those who obey
>>> God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.", which entails
>>> that however these three "woes" are to be distinguished in Revelation,
>>> it's *not* that they are the last calamity to befall those upon the
>>> earth, even those who "obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony
>>> of Jesus")
>>
>> OK, first problem is you're not separating events (the scroll) from
>> supplemental visions.
>>
>> The chronology has two sets of markers.
>>
>> The visions have their own marker.
>>
>> So to lump everything from 8:13 to 12:12 is a mistake.
>
> I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out that John gives us a framework to
> use to help us understand Revelation by equating the three "Woes" of 8:13
> with the last three trumpets and the last three angels that sound them,
> and by informing us these "woes" come upon "the inhabitants of the earth".
>
> I'm not trying to "lump in" what came before 8:13 into what comes after,
> nor am I suggesting these three "woes" are any sort of "key" to
> understanding all of Revelation. What I'm saying is they are important; a
> useful aid to understanding, in that they tend to limit the wild
> imaginations of people like Doug and Misty if they'll just LOOK at them
> for what they are.
Point well made.
>> Second, the "woes" designated the last three trumpets, i.e. the "woe"
>> trumpets, and these encompass the rule of the antitrinity up to the
>> rebuke of God (as given in the seven vials, then jumping to the second
>> coming, there being two more "interludes" between them).
>>
>> This actually proves Dispensationalism WRONG as it demonstrates that the
>> seals/trumpets/vials do NOT occur concurrently, but sequentially!
>
> Ike, as I said at the start I don't fancy myself an authority on
> Revelation. I just know that the "woes" of 8:13 help to see what of what
> comes after is being given chronologically, and what is a literary
> "pushback" giving a different perspective of the same time frame.
Ah, I see what you're saying.
Yes, Daniel re-refers to the "woes" in others parts of the supplemental
visions (of which there are seven) to show how those asides line up with the
chronology.
> I would point you to my post in this thread where I use this Johannine
> framework to show that Doug and Misty's theory that the woman clothed with
> the sun in chapter 12 is NOT symbolic of events in history. I'm not using
> it to argue what she IS symbolic of, because they (the "woes") don't allow
> one to do that.
Ah, but the fact that John is rehashing Matthew's infancy narrative DOES
clearly indicate that the reference is to Israel, NOT the Churches.
And why do Doug and Misty deliberately distort the obvious?
Because Doug is a replacement theologist, so nothing in prophecy present and
future can in any way refer to Israel, and MistyBrain is a Mormon, which
means he is ALSO a replacement theologist in regards to both Israel AND the
Churches (as is part of her cult's "we're the only right church" theology
necessary to sustain any cult's organizations).
> In short, my judgment on the "woes" is that while they don't give us a lot
> of help in deciphering what the symbolism is in Revelation, they can be a
> big help to us in winnowing through bad theories as to what that symbolism
> is.
Actually, they DO give us a lot of help deciphering what the symbolisms are
in Revelation, as they point to the rule of the anti-trinity in the earth
for 3 1/2 years, as Paul describes in both books of Thessalonians and Daniel
describes in his prophecies.
(Then again, we have to get into the dualism/triunism aspects of prophecy,
which these two flat-out reject, and you don't cotton to much either.)
>>> 2.) According to this framework, the metaphors (if indeed they both are
>>> metaphors) of the two witnesses and the woman clothed in the sun can't
>>> be symbolizing either the same events or the same time frame.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> And in fact, it is a dualism of symbolism (and actually a triunism), as
>> John uses the "woman" to represent Israel the first time, the "church"
>> the second time, and all together in the "New Jerusalem" metaphor at the
>> end of the book.
>
> That's a pretty sweeping statement to throw out without any supporting
> argument, even though I agree with you the woman of chapter 12 probably
> symbolizes Israel's entire history and future until the Second Coming.
>
> I'm scratching my head here though trying to think what you're talking
> about when you suggest John uses the "woman" symbol a second and third
> time...assuming I've got it right and that's what, in fact, you are
> suggesting in the above paragraph.
I'm sorry. I forgot that John (or, rather, Jesus through John) swaps out the
term "woman" clothed with the Sun for "angel" standing in the Sun, and
switches from "she" to "he."
First reference:
Re 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with
the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve
stars...
This is about Israel, as John recounts Matthew's infancy narrative.
(But with underlying dualistic undertones, as Jesus refers to the eventually
"joy" of the "man-child" (i.e. the Remnant) being born in the Olivet
Discourse, which John ALSO refers to in Revelation 12.
Second reference:
Re 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud
voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and
gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God...
Here John reverses the masculine/feminine roles, as in the first reference
the stars (tribes of Israel) "sire" the "Son" (Jesus) through Mary, but in
the second reference the "husband" calls the "guests" to the "wedding
supper" given for his "bride," i.e. Israel calls the avengers to the feast
of revenge for the sake of the martyred believers, i.e. the church.
This is typical of the interplay between gender roles John uses throughout
Revelation to indicate the nature of the Remnant to come, i.e. they will be
DUALISTIC parts of Israel AND Christianity, but not entirely either, like a
child is like his or her parents, but NOT his or her parents.
Ike
Ike
Doug
Chuck Stamford <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> news:BdednXjeVt0HffXV...@sentex.net...
>> In message <G4_9k.2263$W65...@newsfe16.phx>
>> Chuck Stamford <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1NadnXFx-upbffrV...@sentex.net...
>>>> In message <9oP9k.7525$r_2...@newsfe14.phx>
>>>> Chuck Stamford <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:lrSdne-z9dKmEfrV...@sentex.net...
>>>>>> In message <iOF9k.653$Gt....@newsfe06.lga>
>>>>>> Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:QtudnZiSybTnWvvV...@sentex.net...
>>>>>>>> In message <g3v6m1$tp0$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>>>>>>>> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
> snip more
>>>>>
>>>>> John clearly had some discoverable purpose in writing, which
>>>>> means the 1,260 days mean something the very average truth
>>>>> seeker who loves the Lord will be
>>>>> able to discover easily.
>>>>
>>>> Once we understand the symbolism of the Church fleeing to the
>>>> wilderness, the answer is rather obvious, IMO. The church
>>>> consists of those who have escaped from the corruption of the
>>>> world, as Israel escaped from bondage and oppression in Egypt.
>>>> So John says she flees to the wilderness, as happens
>>>> continually throughout its history. It is a basic doctrine
>>>> taught by the apostle Paul.
>>>>
>>>> 1 Corinthians 10:1-5
>>>> Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how
>>>> that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed
>>>> through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud
>>>> and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And
>>>> did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that
>>>> spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
>>>> But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were
>>>> overthrown in the wilderness.
>>>>
>>>> Compare the above scripture with John's prophecy:
>>>>
>>>> Revelation 12:6
>>>> And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place
>>>> prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two
>>>> hundred and threescore days.
>>>
>>> The question is, would this be a connection the early Church
>>> would have made, and would John have expected them to make it
>>> when he wrote as he did? You're suggesting that "once we
>>> understand the symbolism of the Church
>>> fleeing to the wilderness, the answer is rather obvious". Okay.
>>> Then make the case the Church would have understood the
>>> symbolism in this way, and that John had a legitimate
>>> expectation they would as he wrote.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think you're making very speculative assumptions
>>> about the 1st century Church!
>>
>> Whether they understood it that way or not is hardly relevant,
>
> I find it remarkable that any thinking human being could suggest
> it is "irrelevant" how the generation that produced the New
> Testament understood
> the meaning of it. Who do you think they were written for? You?
> Not them?
>
> I suggest you bone up on your early Church history.
I think the prophecy of the woman remaining in the wilderness for
1,260 days is "something the very average truth seeker who loves
the Lord will be able to discover easily," when Jesus opens his
mind to understand it. Otherwise, it remains a mystery.
Paul explained that the experience of the Israelites in the
wilderness was meant to be a figure or a lesson for the church to
learn from. He also refers to the story of Moses before Pharaoh.
2 Timothy 3:8
Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist
the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
Peter alludes to the false prophets who were among the Israelites in
the wilderness, in 2 Peter 2:1.
Paul compares the church to a woman, the wife or bride of Christ.
Ephesians 5:25-32
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church,
and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water
by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having
spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and
without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and
cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the
church.
In Revelation 12:6, John pictures the church as a woman who escapes
to the wilderness, so he combines these two images. The early
Christians could hardly have missed the relevance and meaning of
John's imagery, if they had read and understood Paul's epistles.
>
>> as
>> the scriptures show that the sun was to become black as
>> sackcloth. This pictures the gospel being obscured by false
>> teachings, as occurred in the early church. And there was great
>> ignorance for many centuries, that are often called "the dark
>> ages" when few knew how to even read.
>
> This idea of a general ignorance during the period after the fall
> of the
> Roman Empire is overblown first off, but that's hardly the issue
> here. What is the issue is your penchant for making sweeping
> factual statements you
> don't even pretend to justify. How the heck do *you* know the sun
> becoming darkened is even a metaphor, let alone the metaphor *you*
> take it to be??
> Doesn't the sun become dark during solar eclipses? What's so
> impossible about a solar eclipse occurring that you throw it out
> like this?
A solar eclipse may have been observed by the prophet Joel, and
viewed as symbolic for the church. The sun represents the gospel,
as it clothes the woman in Revelation 12:1, who represents the
church. National Israel is not clothed with the sun, or the gospel.
Neither is it in heaven. However the saints are said to be seated
in heavenly places in Christ, Ephesians 2:6.
The sun turning to darkness was a highly significant event in the
church's history, as Peter referred to it on the day of Pentecost,
Acts 2:20.
The church was to be the "light of the world," but it became
associated with long ages of darkness. Jesus said, "Ye are the
light of the world." [Matthew 5:14]
When the tares sown by the devil are gathered and burned up, the
church again shines like the sun!
Also by Matthew 13:43
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of
their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Since the sun, which represents the gospel, was to become darkness,
the truth of the gospel was to become obscured, and history shows
that has occurred. For example, it was obscured by early church
fathers who admired the doctrines of Plato, and introduced the
pagan idea of immortality of the soul, mixing it up with their
theology. And by Augustine, who brought in his Manichean doctrine
of unending infernal torment of unbelievers. And many other pagan
concepts were introduced into Christianity in the early centuries.
<snip>
--
Doug
Doug
Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> news:z7WdnUt2zsEeVffV...@sentex.net...
>> In message <DZiak.11$C7...@newsfe03.lga>
>> Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> This is a discussion not a rock hard truth Campain.
>>
>> Oh, do you prefer the soft, squishy kind? :-)
>
> It sure looks like you prefer the sands of time rather then
> The rock hard truths the Bible is presenting.
The phrase "sands of time" alludes to the hourglass. The
phrase "time, times and a half" suggests that *time* is of the
essence! It is time to wake up!
Romans 13:11
And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of
sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
Ephesians 5:14
Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the
dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
It is important for us to make good use of the remaining time! Paul
spoke of "redeeming the time."
Ephesians 5:16
Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Colossians 4:5
Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.
>>
>>>
>>> If you have something to contribute it would be fine to share it
>>> If you have nothing to share then keep silent, please.
>>>
>>>
>
>>>
>>> Daniel 12: (NIV)
>>> 11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the
>>> abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be
>>> 1,290 days.
>>>
>>> This is definitly a Prophecy.
>>> It indicates that in 1124 AD That "abomination that causes
>>> desolation was to have been set up.
>>> Just because I do not have the info of what that may be does not
>>> discredit the Prophecy one bit.
>>
>> I don't know how you get the date 1124 AD. But there is no reason
>> to equate the 1,290 days with 1,290 years. They are simply an
>> imaginary period of three and a half years, which include 1 leap
>> year of 13 months and the rest regular years of 12 months, where
>> months are 30 days.
>
> No I am sure you have no idea how that is arrived at because
> you add in so many of your own passages to the prophecy.
>
> "Jesus was Crucified and that abolished the Daily sacrifice.
>
> So add the 1290 days from that day and it comes up to XXXX AD
> as The Messiah Was Crucified in 31 AD.
> "Oops that then should be 1321 AD
Well this illustrates that your identification of the 1,290 days
with an equal number of years is incorrect since there is no
prophetic significance to the date 1321 AD. There was no event at
that time which might have fulfilled the prophecy. And yet, I do
agree with starting the period at the crucifixion, which was
probably in 30 AD.
>>
>> In the context of Daniel 12 the three and a half years is a
>> symbolic representation of the "time, times and a half," the last
>> half-week of the 70 weeks. It is the Bible's symbol of the entire
>> age of the church!
>
> The 1290 and the 1335 are not even close to be the time, times and
> half time prophecy as you claim.
Sure they are. These numbers are all mentioned in the same chapter
of the Bible, Dan 12.
> The time, times and half time is only 1260 years, Just so you
> can keep the prophesies in their proper prespctive.
A proper perspective is not Mistylein's perspective, is it? What we
need to get is God's perspective. Without it, we cannot understand.
John 3:27
John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be
given him from heaven.
1 Corinthians 2:12
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit
which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely
given to us of God.
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is
written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Then some time after that the 1335 days prophecy kicks in.
>>> Dan 12: (NIV)
>>> 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the
>>> 1,335 days.
>>> I can only claim but not prove this prophecy follows right
>>> behind the 1290 days prophecy.
>>
>> No, it does not. And there is no start date/event or end
>> date/event for the period. In the context, it is simply a
>> representation of the "time, times and a half," mentioned in Dan
>> 12:7. It is the last half-week of the 70 weeks, and represents
>> the remaining time of the church when Christ confirms his
>> covenant with his saints.
>
> It may do that some how in the Bible your rewrite but not in
> The Bible I read. . .
You are hung up on the days=years mantra. That does not always
apply.
>>
>>>
>
>>>
>>> In fact it is not even close to any 3.5 years, now is it.
>>
>> In the Hebrew calendar there were about 354 or about 384 days in
>> a year, depending on whether the year had 12 or 13 months. There
>> were 7 leap years every 19 years.
>
> "about"?
In the Hebrew calendar, an ordinary (non-leap) year has 353, 354, or
355 days. A leap year has 383, 384, or 385 days.
> "Depending"?
> "leap years"?
The Hebrew calendar began the year at the new moon in the spring.
Exodus 12:2
This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be
the first month of the year to you.
>
> If the Bible would have needed leap years it would have stated it
> needed
> it in the Prophesies, but it does not!
It is nature that requires leap years; if the month began on a new
moon, nature makes some years 12 months and some 13 months. This
was how God arranged it!
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Complete hogwash.
1) This world isn't heaven or hell--it's a suspension between the two.
2) Reincarnation is a complete myth.
3) Dante's "Inferno" is fiction.
4) We are NOT all "fallen angels:" Half come down from above (the cast off
Israelites) and half come from below (the acceptable Gentiles), which is why
John documents two origins of the demons in Revelation.
5) No one is "imprisoned" in the flesh--it is PART of them, as Jesus
demonstrated, having been resurrected IN THE FLESH, as well as body and
soul.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Hmmm.
Pretty much the same analysis I came up.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Except this isn't heaven OR hell--it's the point of decision in which those
destinations are determined (mostly by rejecting Christ and coming up with
our own cockamamie religions).
Ike
Chuck Stamford
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:g4f4td$cjj$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:sQsak.11072$Fj5....@newsfe23.lga...
>>
>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>> news:y4WdnWTNJLL-vPfV...@sentex.net...
>
> [snip]
>
>> The point is the Bible is not a witness to God's truth. It IS God's
>> truth. You start with this notion that the Bible is a witness, and you
>> start chasing your tail forever! Eg. - The Bible is a witness. To what
>> does it bear witness? To the truth of God's word. Isn't God's word true
>> by definition? Well...yes. Then to what does it bear witness? To the
>> truth? Isn't all truth bound up in God? Yes. And isn't the Bible God's
>> word? Well, yes. Then isn't the Bible true by definition? Yes. So then
>> how does it bear witness to what it is by definition?
>
> Point of fact:
Translation: what follows is what I (Ike) believe.
> The Bible isn't "God's Word,"
Ike that's a matter of faith whether it is or isn't, and you can't turn your
belief that it isn't into a fact just because it's your belief.
I happen to believe, along with a good deal of Christians in the world, that
it is God's word. Your belief that it isn't doesn't automatically turn that
belief into a false belief.
>
>> You see?
>>
>> I'm not saying the Bible isn't testimony to given events in history,
>> because it obviously is; but when someone begins exaggerating it's
>> testifying aspect and ignoring it's Divine revelatory attribute just to
>> make some stupid argument, then I have to dig my feet in and demand some
>> perspective.
>
> But NOT everything in the Bible HAS "Divine revelatory attributes." For
> instance, Paul speaks of the TRADITIONS of head cover or not covering, but
> concludes that HIS churches don't follow such conventions.
And I can take that as "fact", because of my belief the Bible is the
inspired word of God, and is factually inerrant (with the caveat it's only
inerrant as to what the original inspired author wrote). You, otoh,
believing the Bible is not God's word, cannot take this revelation that
there was a tradition of covering the head in the churches, and that this
traditon wasn't followed in the Gentile churches Paul founded as "factual".
To you, it must be merely something else to take or leave as true.
>
> (To say otherwise is paramount to making Paul (or James, or Peter, etc.,
> etc.) EQUAL to Christ when they were just guys hashing out The Way as they
> went along.)
You're speaking as if the baptism of the Holy Spirit that filled these men
specially chosen by God for this work was a lie. I don't happen to believe
the ministry of the Holy Spirit, given in the New Testament, is a lie.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Moses and Elijah appeared to some of the disciples with Jesus at the
>>> mount of Transfiguration. This event was highly symbolic, as their
>>> roles are characterized by the powers given to the two witnesses of
>>> Rev 11. They represent the scriptures, and the Spirit of God.
>>
>> Now you're a fan of backward causation? How can the roles of Moses and
>> Elijah be affected at all by what you're saying is a metaphor for the
>> entire history of the Church? Is the Church supposed to reach backward
>> in time to exert this influence??
>
> THANK you...
>
> I've been nailing him for this one all along, ESPECIALLY when he says the
> woman surrounded by 12 stars represents THE CHURCH, when it fact, the
> first reference is to ISRAEL, as John is rehashing Matthew's infancy
> narrative.
>
> And Jesus didn't come FROM the church, but from MARY, who came from THE
> TWELVE TRIBES.
It's pretty difficult, even for God manifest in the flesh, as Jesus was, to
"come from" what you yourself found. That's like saying the foundational
pylons upon which the skyscraper sits "come from" the skyscraper!
>
> But Doug INSISTS in using what you call "backward causation" to try to
> make his false case.
>
> And why do Doug's arguments hinge on this CLEARY false assertion?
>
> Because Doug is a REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY, as it is a necessary component of
> his FALSE METAPHORICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF PROPHECY.
>
> Now, there IS "backward causation" in the relationship between eternity
> and temporality (as Christ demonstrates when He says "I Am the root AND
> offspring of David"), but CLEARLY John was restating Matthew's infancy
> narrative in the given passage (although Jesus puts an interesting twist
> on the "man-child" reference in the Olivet Discourse, said in reference to
> the REMNANT to come...)
I think the over-arching concept you're dealing with here is God's
transcendence in time. It's a difficult concept, and a very complex one.
If you're interested, William Craig has written a fascinating philosophical
study concerning God's relationship to time that attempts to answer the
question is God atemporal or temporal. However, regardless of the answer,
I'm not sure we can say anything God ever does is an example of true
backward causation, because I think backward causation is logically
impossible.
>
> But, yeah, you just nailed Doug demonstrating his worst theological
> attributes, and ALL FOR THE SAKE of changing God's nature INTO DOUG'S
> NATURE, that is, that of the CONSEQUENCELESS MAN.
I assume Doug's motives are the same as all of us here: we don't want to be
responsible for our sins. In Doug's case, he seems to think he's found a
neat trick for having his cake and eating it too. Trouble is, if a dummy
like me can see through it, what's God looking at?!
>
> [snip]
>
>> That's your problem, Doug: with you everything is a symbol for something
>> else. It's a transparent device you use to make Scripture say whatever
>> you'd like it to say regardless of the actual text. It frees you from
>> being governed and guided by the text; in effect cancels out what God
>> intended by giving us the Bible!
>
> EXACTLY.
Well that "the Bible 'contains' God's word" belief allows some of the same
thing, Ike. I'm not saying you take advantage of it, but it clearly does.
Clearly it mandates one sitting in judgment on what is and what isn't
inspired of God in the Bible, and sitting in judgment of God's word is
exactly what Doug does. He just uses a different set of tools to do
it...and does it UNTIL THE WHEELS FALL OFF!
I haven't seen you take your "the Bible only contains the word of God"
belief anywhere near that far yet, but occasionally I have thought I saw,
just for a second, a whisp of smoke coming from the wheel bearings ;-)
I really wish I could talk you out of your acceptance of the B theory of
time that you think is key to understanding God's word. So much would just
fall into place if you let go of that theory.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
I'm not a Gnostic, Ike, so I don't believe in "secrets" in Scripture. I
find the idea of God's "revelation" consisting in "secrets" self-refuting on
its face.
>
> So, I think that the "scholars" overplay the significance of Daniel in
> Revelation given how much prophetic material John was borrowing from the
> others (mostly because Dispensationalist "scholars" never get PAST Daniel
> and Revelation, because their FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES are wrong, and they
> can't FIT the rest of the OT prophets into their schemes.)
I don't know about that being true, Ike. I'm a dispensationalist of sorts,
and I have no problem at all seeing the entire book of Revelation being, in
significant part, an exposition of Daniel's 70th week. I'll grant you all
of your above, but for me it still comes down to John being given a vision
by God of, amoung other things, a period of seven literal years preceding
the return of Christ to complete the establishment of His reign over all the
earth. As you say, Revelation goes beyond that, but it certainly has that
in it, and that is a significant part of what it is.
Your characterization grates a bit, but you're essentially correct in the
basic observation. However, if there is no reason to go to a far context to
understand a near one it's best not to...at least this is the hermeneutic I
learned.
>
> And why do Doug and Misty deliberately distort the obvious?
>
> Because Doug is a replacement theologist, so nothing in prophecy present
> and future can in any way refer to Israel, and MistyBrain is a Mormon,
> which means he is ALSO a replacement theologist in regards to both Israel
> AND the Churches (as is part of her cult's "we're the only right church"
> theology necessary to sustain any cult's organizations).
Misty's a Mormon? That explains a LOT, if true. How sure are you?
>
>> In short, my judgment on the "woes" is that while they don't give us a
>> lot of help in deciphering what the symbolism is in Revelation, they can
>> be a big help to us in winnowing through bad theories as to what that
>> symbolism is.
>
> Actually, they DO give us a lot of help deciphering what the symbolisms
> are in Revelation, as they point to the rule of the anti-trinity in the
> earth for 3 1/2 years, as Paul describes in both books of Thessalonians
> and Daniel describes in his prophecies.
You'll need to explain what the "rule of the anti-trinity" is, because I
haven't a clue at this point.
>
> (Then again, we have to get into the dualism/triunism aspects of prophecy,
> which these two flat-out reject, and you don't cotton to much either.)
LOL! Master of understatment. What are you? English?
I see. However, I don't think the wedding feast of the Lamb and His Bride,
the Church, can legitimately be identified with an angel calling the
vultures to feast on "...the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the
flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and
the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great." Rev 19:18
Iow, I don't think we can say that the feast spoken of at Rev. 19:9 is the
same feast as that spoken of at Rev. 19:19. I mean, talk about symbolism
that doesn't match up very well! ugh!
>
> This is typical of the interplay between gender roles John uses throughout
> Revelation to indicate the nature of the Remnant to come, i.e. they will
> be DUALISTIC parts of Israel AND Christianity, but not entirely either,
> like a child is like his or her parents, but NOT his or her parents.
Ike, I've no trouble with gender substitutions in prophecy, or gender
specifications being symbolic rather than literal, however, I do have a
problem when a given interpretation requires I either add some similar event
no one ever hears anything about anywhere else (as in this idea of another
"wedding feast" that ISN'T between Christ and the Church), or requires I
completely change the nature of the one event I've seen described elsewhere.
As I see it, seeing Rev. 19:17ff as a "wedding feast" asks me to do one or
the other.
I understand that event (the one at Rev. 19:17ff) in completely different
terms, in case you were wondering. ;-) And therefore, while the change of
gender (not to mention BEING!) doesn't make or break it for me, the totally
different characters of the two symbols does despite whatever similarities
there may be between them. For me, it's simply a case of the differences
far outweighing the similarities, rather than it being the case there aren't
any similarities.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Yes, but did you make the crucial appeal to Ali McGraw "Love Story"? ;-)
Chuck Stamford
Al Smith
That could be. It's another reasonable viewpoint. Some say we make
our lives a heaven, or a hell, by our own actions, and I'm not
saying that's necessarily false.
Lately, though, I've been tending toward the view that incarnation
itself is hell. Every soul in flesh is damned and in hell. However,
some levels of hell are not as bad as others, so we have a tendency
to think of them as heaven -- or at least, as pretty good places to be.
The consequences of this view would be major. It would mean that we
are all damned souls, even the best of us. Not damned forever, but
damned while in the flesh. It would mean that wherever we go when we
leave this incarnate existence would be better than incarnation.
On the other hand, we may not get to leave hell when we die. That's
where the concept of reincarnation may come into play. If we
reincarnate, we continue to be damned souls.
I've postulated that escape from this hell would be either an
improvement, or oblivion, because hell is the bottom rung of
existence. Of course, there might be other hells worse than this
one, and within this hell there are certainly gradations of
suffering. But if there is only one hell, then when we finally get
free of it, we are in for something better -- for in for an eternity
of nothingness. Reincarnation may be a way of keeping us trapped in
this hell beyond the span of our individual lifetimes.
It's an interesting speculation that I find worth playing around
with. It would explain the myth of the fallen angels -- we are the
angels, but our fall into flesh has cast a forgetfulness over our
minds. The rebellion was the awakening of self-awareness, the
punishment, to be cast down and forced into flesh, as prisons that
we carry around with us wherever we go. Our self-awareness of our
own divinity is veiled from our minds, to prevent us from liberating
ourselves.
The myth of hell would then be merely a poetical description of our
everyday condition. The myth of heaven would be a foreshadowing of
something better to come.
-Al-
Chuck Stamford
>
> The myth of hell would then be merely a poetical description of our
> everyday condition. The myth of heaven would be a foreshadowing of
> something better to come.
The question you SHOULD BE considering is what is your justificatiion for
thinking either is a myth?
Al Smith
It's pretty obvious that descriptions in the Bible, and descriptions
in other associated literature such as the apocryphal books and
commentaries by the Church Fathers and by saints, are not to be
taken literally, for the most part. Hell as it is set forth in early
Catholic writings doesn't make a lot of sense. A place under the
ground? Where under the ground? Why haven't we noticed it? If it
were deep enough to avoid detection, it would be in the magma.
Imagine how huge it must be, to accommodate all the damned souls!
And all the varieties of tortures. Don't they seem a bit medieval to
you? They do to me. They seem like projections of fears and
nightmares in the form of a fable. However, if that fable is based
on something, we can speculate about what it might be based on, and
we can examine some of the symbolism in the popular forms of the
myth of hell, in an effort to understand what they may be saying
about our actual condition, both present and future.
-Al-
Chuck Stamford
I asked you what reason you had for thinking heaven and hell are myths. You
told me it's obvious they are, and then went right to fourth and fifth hand
accounts, skipping entirely over anything Jesus had to say, or any of His
apostles. You say hell, and described in the early Catholic writings,
doesn't make a lot of sense, but you don't quote any early Catholic author,
or even define what you're talking about when you say "early Catholic
writings".
Al, everyone KNOWS already you have your own opinions about things. We all
do. Opinions are like bowel movements in that respect; healthy human beings
have them on a regular basis! However, one of the many properties that
distinguishes between a bowel movement and an opinion is that the opinion is
supposed to have some sort of valid, objective warrant for its truth. You
can't get that by pointing out that some people wrote some strange ideas
about both heaven and hell centuries AFTER the Son of God walked the earth
and ascended back up into heaven. You've got to start with HIM, what HE has
to say, then next what the authors of the New Testament had to say in their
epistles to the faithful, and only THEN do you go to anyone writing later,
taking what you've learned already with you as a check on what they have to
say. At least so long as you're writing in a Christian context (which,
coincidently enough alt.christnet.christianlife happens to be!), that has to
be your approach if you want any credibility.
So tell me, what did Jesus have to say about hell that is so obviously
mythological? What did Paul have to say? And Peter? And James? And John?
These men are your "authorities" on the Christian concept of heaven and
hell. Those who came centuries later made good faith attempts to expand
upon these views, but didn't always do a good job, and the popularization of
them in art and poetry over the last 2,000 years is, no surprise here, even
worse!
Chuck Stamford
Al Smith
As I'm sure you know, the complex and detailed popular conception of
hell is not in the Bible. It was built up over centuries, based upon
interpretations of demonologists and theologians, and upon the
visions of saints. It is a myth, and that's how myths are made, bit
by bit, over time.
I'm not sure what your point is, Chuck. Are you saying that the
mentions of hell in the Bible are to be taken literally, merely
because they are in the Bible? What makes you think that "gloomy
dungeons" and the worm that "does not die" and the fire that "is not
quenched" are any less mythical? What is so probable about a "fiery
lake of burning sulfur"?
The descriptions of hell in the Bible are sparse and few, but I
don't see them as any less mythical than the more involved
descriptions of various Catholic visionary saints. Both describe an
unpleasant physical place, where unpleasant physical things happen.
But when we are dead, physical things will not be a problem since we
will have no physical bodies.
On the other hand, if this incarnate life in bodies of flesh is
hell, then our suffering is physical, although the torments
described by the saints are only metaphors for our actual torments
(most of the time, at least).
What are you driving at, Chuck? Do you have a point? You keep
carping at what I've written, but you don't seem to be saying what
bothers you about it.
-Al-
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:g4f4td$cjj$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:sQsak.11072$Fj5....@newsfe23.lga...
>>>
>>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>>> news:y4WdnWTNJLL-vPfV...@sentex.net...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The point is the Bible is not a witness to God's truth. It IS God's
>>> truth. You start with this notion that the Bible is a witness, and you
>>> start chasing your tail forever! Eg. - The Bible is a witness. To what
>>> does it bear witness? To the truth of God's word. Isn't God's word
>>> true by definition? Well...yes. Then to what does it bear witness? To
>>> the truth? Isn't all truth bound up in God? Yes. And isn't the Bible
>>> God's word? Well, yes. Then isn't the Bible true by definition? Yes.
>>> So then how does it bear witness to what it is by definition?
>>
>> Point of fact:
>
> Translation: what follows is what I (Ike) believe.
>
>> The Bible isn't "God's Word,"
>
> Ike that's a matter of faith whether it is or isn't, and you can't turn
> your belief that it isn't into a fact just because it's your belief.
No, it's NOT a "matter of faith." It's a matter of fact.
God's Word is what proceeds from the mouth of God.
The Bible is what men wrote in those regards, and has certain discrepancies
caused by the men who wrote these things down.
The Bible is a FACSIMILE of the Word, but it is NOT the Word itself.
For instance, the Gospels are four accounts OF MEN of what Jesus said and
did, but they don't agree on the particulars.
Likewise, the chronologies of the OT are written from two different
perspectives, that of Judah, and that of Ephraim Israel. They, too, have
discrepancies.
If the Bible was the Word, perfect and true, direct from the mouth of God,
then it WOULDN'T have discrepancies, as there can only be one truth of the
matter, but, like the church itself, the Word is an institution of God
administed by men, and anywhere men are involved in the process, errors are
introduced.
> I happen to believe, along with a good deal of Christians in the world,
> that it is God's word. Your belief that it isn't doesn't automatically
> turn that belief into a false belief.
But it IS a "false belief."
>>> You see?
>>>
>>> I'm not saying the Bible isn't testimony to given events in history,
>>> because it obviously is; but when someone begins exaggerating it's
>>> testifying aspect and ignoring it's Divine revelatory attribute just to
>>> make some stupid argument, then I have to dig my feet in and demand some
>>> perspective.
>>
>> But NOT everything in the Bible HAS "Divine revelatory attributes." For
>> instance, Paul speaks of the TRADITIONS of head cover or not covering,
>> but concludes that HIS churches don't follow such conventions.
>
> And I can take that as "fact", because of my belief the Bible is the
> inspired word of God, and is factually inerrant
(a statement that is patently false)
> (with the caveat it's only inerrant as to what the original inspired
> author wrote). You, otoh, believing the Bible is not God's word, cannot
> take this revelation that there was a tradition of covering the head in
> the churches, and that this traditon wasn't followed in the Gentile
> churches Paul founded as "factual". To you, it must be merely something
> else to take or leave as true.
No, Paul WROTE that they didn't follow this convention, and he was stating
AN OPINION...
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God.
>> (To say otherwise is paramount to making Paul (or James, or Peter, etc.,
>> etc.) EQUAL to Christ when they were just guys hashing out The Way as
>> they went along.)
>
> You're speaking as if the baptism of the Holy Spirit that filled these men
> specially chosen by God for this work was a lie.
Not at all.
But they were STILL MEN, as attested to by the fact that Peter STILL MADE
ERRORS, even AFTER having received the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by the fact
that Peter could still be enticed by the Pharisee party to start
circumcising Gentiles, which turned out to be an obvious error.
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is NOT "Divine possession," and men do NOT
loose control over their own wills, otherwise, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE
for Peter TO HAVE MADE SUCH AN ERROR!
Likewise, if the Gospels were written by "Divine dictation," then the boys
COULDN'T have discrepancies in their accounts, BUT THEY DO.
> I don't happen to believe the ministry of the Holy Spirit, given in the
> New Testament, is a lie.
Neither do I--but it does NOT perfect the flesh, nor the people IN that
flesh, which accounts for the discrepancies IN ACCOUNTS.
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Moses and Elijah appeared to some of the disciples with Jesus at the
>>>> mount of Transfiguration. This event was highly symbolic, as their
>>>> roles are characterized by the powers given to the two witnesses of
>>>> Rev 11. They represent the scriptures, and the Spirit of God.
>>>
>>> Now you're a fan of backward causation? How can the roles of Moses and
>>> Elijah be affected at all by what you're saying is a metaphor for the
>>> entire history of the Church? Is the Church supposed to reach backward
>>> in time to exert this influence??
>>
>> THANK you...
>>
>> I've been nailing him for this one all along, ESPECIALLY when he says the
>> woman surrounded by 12 stars represents THE CHURCH, when it fact, the
>> first reference is to ISRAEL, as John is rehashing Matthew's infancy
>> narrative.
>>
>> And Jesus didn't come FROM the church, but from MARY, who came from THE
>> TWELVE TRIBES.
>
> It's pretty difficult, even for God manifest in the flesh, as Jesus was,
> to "come from" what you yourself found. That's like saying the
> foundational pylons upon which the skyscraper sits "come from" the
> skyscraper!
What?
You're saying that Jesus wasn't an Israelite, born of the tribe of Judah?
Jesus Himself DECLARES that.
Re 22:16b I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and
morning star.
This is NOT metaphor.
It's absolutely LITERAL.
So Jesus DID COME FROM ISRAEL.
In fact, He HAD TO to fulfill the law and the prophets.
>> But Doug INSISTS in using what you call "backward causation" to try to
>> make his false case.
>>
>> And why do Doug's arguments hinge on this CLEARY false assertion?
>>
>> Because Doug is a REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY, as it is a necessary component of
>> his FALSE METAPHORICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF PROPHECY.
>>
>> Now, there IS "backward causation" in the relationship between eternity
>> and temporality (as Christ demonstrates when He says "I Am the root AND
>> offspring of David"), but CLEARLY John was restating Matthew's infancy
>> narrative in the given passage (although Jesus puts an interesting twist
>> on the "man-child" reference in the Olivet Discourse, said in reference
>> to the REMNANT to come...)
>
> I think the over-arching concept you're dealing with here is God's
> transcendence in time. It's a difficult concept, and a very complex one.
> If you're interested, William Craig has written a fascinating
> philosophical study concerning God's relationship to time that attempts to
> answer the question is God atemporal or temporal. However, regardless of
> the answer, I'm not sure we can say anything God ever does is an example
> of true backward causation, because I think backward causation is
> logically impossible.
Well, then, you're not paying attention to what the Word says, and imposing
your own thinking on it, because the WORD points to causeless/effectless
singularity ALL OVER THE PLACE, as I previously cited from Exodus, and in
the disparate use of the potter-and-clay analogy as interpreted by Isaiah
and Jeremiah, as well as Jesus' time based stories.
>> But, yeah, you just nailed Doug demonstrating his worst theological
>> attributes, and ALL FOR THE SAKE of changing God's nature INTO DOUG'S
>> NATURE, that is, that of the CONSEQUENCE MAN.
>
> I assume Doug's motives are the same as all of us here: we don't want to
> be responsible for our sins. In Doug's case, he seems to think he's
> found a neat trick for having his cake and eating it too. Trouble is, if
> a dummy like me can see through it, what's God looking at?!
You're not dumb. You're just so enamored of Dispensationalist traditions
that you refuse to go back and consider what the Word says if there is even
the most remote chance that your theology is wrong (as demonstrated in the
previous discussion of cause and effect, which evaporates in light of
eternity versus temporality).
>> [snip]
>>
>>> That's your problem, Doug: with you everything is a symbol for something
>>> else. It's a transparent device you use to make Scripture say whatever
>>> you'd like it to say regardless of the actual text. It frees you from
>>> being governed and guided by the text; in effect cancels out what God
>>> intended by giving us the Bible!
>>
>> EXACTLY.
>
> Well that "the Bible 'contains' God's word" belief allows some of the same
> thing, Ike. I'm not saying you take advantage of it, but it clearly does.
> Clearly it mandates one sitting in judgment on what is and what isn't
> inspired of God in the Bible,
It doesn't take a great deal of "judgment" to discern that the Gospels
contain four different chronological accounts, varied by the information
that the given author had at his disposal, like Luke breaking up the Olivet
Discourse because he found out that Jesus had delivered His prophetic
narrative twice--once to the Sanhedrin, as required, and once to the
disciples, as was necessary.
(Like I said, the written Bible is only a BEST ESTIMATION of the Word of
God, NOT the Word itself.)
> and sitting in judgment of God's word is exactly what Doug does.
Maybe, but his judgment isn't fair, and is, in fact, downright dishonest, as
he makes no attempt to make his case--he just operates from assumptions, and
those assumptions are always derived from his agenda.
> He just uses a different set of tools to do it...and does it UNTIL THE
> WHEELS FALL OFF!
I'm not sure he's using any tool AT ALL--at least I can MAKE my case. He
doesn't even attempt to. He just SAYS this means this and that makes that,
without presenting ANY FACTUAL INFORMATION is SUPPORT of His case.
In my regards, I make my case, but no one responds (mostly, because they
have no idea HOW to respond). For instance, I've made my case SEVERAL TIMES
that Hebrews was written AFTER Revelation, and it WASN'T written by a
Christian, but someone trying to UNDERMINE the theology of Revelation.
I've pointed out twenty points of conjunction where the author of Hebrews
paraphrased John's Revelation.
I've pointed out numerous places where the author of Hebrews was corrupting
the theology given in Revelation.
Did anyone respond to THE FACTS?
NOPE.
They just hurled accusations and epitaphs.
So be it. It's not like the weren't well told.
(Same thing with all of the falsehoods of Dispensationalist eschatology.)
> I haven't seen you take your "the Bible only contains the word of God"
> belief anywhere near that far yet, but occasionally I have thought I saw,
> just for a second, a whisp of smoke coming from the wheel bearings ;-)
>
> I really wish I could talk you out of your acceptance of the B theory of
> time that you think is key to understanding God's word. So much would
> just fall into place if you let go of that theory.
I can't "let go" of what Jesus and the boys taught, and what He taught was
there IS NO "cause" and there is no "effect"--there are only TRUISMS,
established in quatum singularities, as when He says "I am the root AND
offspring of David," a statement which creates an eternal loop (i.e. a
singularity), and loops don't HAVE causes and effects--only truisms, whether
general, thetic, or antithetic.
So, in fact, it is YOU who is doing yourself disservice by elevating what
MEN have to say on the subject over what the Word says on the subject.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Neither am I...
> so I don't believe in "secrets" in Scripture.
No?
Prov 1:1-6
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; to know wisdom
and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the
instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; to give subtilty
to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of
understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and
the interpretation; the words of the wise, AND THEIR DARK SAYINGS.
> I find the idea of God's "revelation" consisting in "secrets"
> self-refuting on its face.
Well, sorry, but it's in there...
>> So, I think that the "scholars" overplay the significance of Daniel in
>> Revelation given how much prophetic material John was borrowing from the
>> others (mostly because Dispensationalist "scholars" never get PAST Daniel
>> and Revelation, because their FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES are wrong, and they
>> can't FIT the rest of the OT prophets into their schemes.)
>
> I don't know about that being true, Ike. I'm a dispensationalist of
> sorts, and I have no problem at all seeing the entire book of Revelation
> being, in significant part, an exposition of Daniel's 70th week.
Then you don't understand Revelation at all, because it's based on the
THREE-PART visions of Daniel, and the THREE-PART outline Jesus gave in the
Olivet Discourse.
Like I said, Dispensationalists can't get past Revelation and Daniel BECAUSE
their FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES are wrong, and ONE of those fundamental premises
is the ERRANT "MISSING WEEK" THEORY.
John even closes each section of the chronology with a SECOND MARKER of an
ADDITIVE FASHION based on references to passages in Job and Proverbs.
Do the Dispensationalists note this fact?
NO.
Why not?
Because it PROVES the chronological scroll in Revelation is SEQUENTIAL, not
CONCURRENT.
> I'll grant you all of your above, but for me it still comes down to John
> being given a vision by God of, amoung other things, a period of seven
> literal years preceding the return of Christ to complete the establishment
> of His reign over all the earth.
That's WRONG.
Where is ONE PROPHET who ever said the end of the age is just SEVEN YEARS?
THERE AREN'T ANY.
Now the Word requires TWO or THREE WITNESSES to establish every word, but
there isn't ONE that says that, except where the Dispensationalists HACK
DANIEL TO PIECES in their efforts to cut off the HARD PARTS of Jesus'
warnings.
> As you say, Revelation goes beyond that, but it certainly has that in it,
> and that is a significant part of what it is.
No, it's NOT a "significant part of what it is."
That's a FABRICATION that the cult of the Plymouth Brethren came up with,
and IT'S A LIE!
Which is another mistake of Dispensationalism.
If John's Revelation is a construct-of-constructs, then the keys to
understanding ARE GIVEN IN THE PROPHECIES TO WHICH HE REFERS, and there are
DOZENS of cross-references to OTHER MEN'S PROPHECIES, both Old and New.
>> And why do Doug and Misty deliberately distort the obvious?
>>
>> Because Doug is a replacement theologist, so nothing in prophecy present
>> and future can in any way refer to Israel, and MistyBrain is a Mormon,
>> which means he is ALSO a replacement theologist in regards to both Israel
>> AND the Churches (as is part of her cult's "we're the only right church"
>> theology necessary to sustain any cult's organizations).
>
> Misty's a Mormon? That explains a LOT, if true. How sure are you?
Whenever I bring it up, he "plonks" me.
He's been trying to hide the fact from everybody.
Didn't you notice his oblique reference? According to him, the only "true
church" is the one "that actually has Jesus' name in its title."
Get it?
"Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
>>> In short, my judgment on the "woes" is that while they don't give us a
>>> lot of help in deciphering what the symbolism is in Revelation, they can
>>> be a big help to us in winnowing through bad theories as to what that
>>> symbolism is.
>>
>> Actually, they DO give us a lot of help deciphering what the symbolisms
>> are in Revelation, as they point to the rule of the anti-trinity in the
>> earth for 3 1/2 years, as Paul describes in both books of Thessalonians
>> and Daniel describes in his prophecies.
>
> You'll need to explain what the "rule of the anti-trinity" is, because I
> haven't a clue at this point.
???
That's the three and a half years in which the false messiah, false prophet,
and false god rule the earth, and preside over Jerusalem.
>> (Then again, we have to get into the dualism/triunism aspects of
>> prophecy, which these two flat-out reject, and you don't cotton to much
>> either.)
>
> LOL! Master of understatment. What are you? English?
Hey, it's Dispensationalism's major error, and I've been rebuking it from
scripture and history over and over again, but you guys insist on holding on
to your errors.
Nevertheless, at the end of each section of the chronology, John adds
another manifestation of God's anger, based on the formulas given in Job and
Psalms.
That you guys don't want to pay attention to the facts is witness to the
stubbornness of cultic thinking...
Ah, but that IS the "wedding feast of the Lamb"--JUSTICE AND AVENGEMENT.
> Iow, I don't think we can say that the feast spoken of at Rev. 19:9 is the
> same feast as that spoken of at Rev. 19:19. I mean, talk about symbolism
> that doesn't match up very well! ugh!
Well, sorry, but they're one and the same.
And it is referenced all through the OT prophets...
Ec 9:12 For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in
an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons
of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.
Isa 31:5 As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem;
defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it.
Jer 12:4 How long shall the land mourn, and the herbs of every field wither,
for the wickedness of them that dwell therein? the beasts are consumed, and
the birds; because they said, He shall not see our last end.
Jer 12:9 Mine heritage is unto me as a speckled bird, the birds round about
are against her; come ye, assemble all the beasts of the field, come to
devour.
Eze 39:4 Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy
bands, and the people that is with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous
birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the field to be devoured.
So John's reference to "birds" [as the host] feasting on the wicked is not
unique to Revelation, but a cross-reference to MANY prophecies of the OT,
both thetic and antithetic.
>> This is typical of the interplay between gender roles John uses
>> throughout Revelation to indicate the nature of the Remnant to come, i.e.
>> they will be DUALISTIC parts of Israel AND Christianity, but not entirely
>> either, like a child is like his or her parents, but NOT his or her
>> parents.
>
> Ike, I've no trouble with gender substitutions in prophecy, or gender
> specifications being symbolic rather than literal, however, I do have a
> problem when a given interpretation requires I either add some similar
> event no one ever hears anything about anywhere else (as in this idea of
> another "wedding feast" that ISN'T between Christ and the Church), or
> requires I completely change the nature of the one event I've seen
> described elsewhere. As I see it, seeing Rev. 19:17ff as a "wedding feast"
> asks me to do one or the other.
Nope.
They're one and the same: The wedding feast is bloodfeast of VENGEANCE on
the part of all the slain of the Lord, past (OT), present (NT), and future
(by those reconciled in the Testaments).
> I understand that event (the one at Rev. 19:17ff) in completely different
> terms, in case you were wondering. ;-) And therefore, while the change of
> gender (not to mention BEING!) doesn't make or break it for me, the
> totally different characters of the two symbols does despite whatever
> similarities there may be between them. For me, it's simply a case of the
> differences far outweighing the similarities, rather than it being the
> case there aren't any similarities.
Then you're missing the point.
The woman is robed in the Sun as a wife protected by her husband.
The man stands IN the Sun as a father overseeing his family.
It's all part and parcel of John's continuing masculine/feminine equations
given throughout the book.
This, TOO, the Dispensationalists miss because any reference to a THIRD
Israel, derived from the first two, completely shatters Dispensationalist
thoughts, as Dispensationalism relies on a SEPARATION of fates of Israel and
Christianity, whereas the Word speaks of the MARRIAGE of them, fusing the
host into ONE Israel, consenting to share THE SAME FATE, as a husband and
bride do.
Ike
Mistylein
> Chuck Stamford <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>> No, it isn't. The Bible is revelatory in nature. The Bible
>> cannot be described by an incoherent phrase like "testimony of
>> Witness".
>
> Jesus identified the scriptures as one of the things that testify of
> him.
>
> John 5:39
> Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:
> and they are they which testify of me.
>
> One who testifies is called a "witness."
>
> He also said the Spirit, or Comforter, would testify of him.
>
> John 15:26
> But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
> Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father,
> he shall testify of me:
>
> So Jesus identifies these as two things that testify of him, so they
> are "two witnesses."
Also all of creation testifies of Him so is that also a witness?
>
>>>
>>> Both the Old and the New testaments bare witness all about the
>>> Messiah.
>>
>> No, they REVEAL there IS a Messiah, and REVEAL what He will be.
>
> They also "testify" of him, as Jesus himself said. So the scriptures
> are indeed a "witness."
But the Scriptures are both OLd and New Testaments so that
Makes 2 of the main ones does it not?
>
>>
>>
>> You're wrong. I can't say it any plainer. You're wrong.
>
> Moses and Elijah appeared to some of the disciples with Jesus at the
> mount of Transfiguration. This event was highly symbolic, as their
> roles are characterized by the powers given to the two witnesses of
> Rev 11. They represent the scriptures, and the Spirit of God.
>
> Matthew 17:1-3
> And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother,
> and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
> And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun,
> and his raiment was white as the light.
> And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with
> him.
>
>>
>> "For God so loved the world that He GAVE His only-begotten Son"
>>
>> The testamentary bequest (of the New Testament) is God's Son, and
>> through
>> Him, God's grace, mercy, and forgiveness of sin. In short, life
>> from death.
>>
>> The testamentary bequest of the Old Testament is the Promised Land
>> and the Law of Moses.
>
> The mountains and hills of Israel are symbolic of the covenants and
> promises of God that belong to the saints. The Law of Moses is
> represented by Mount Sinai in Arabia, which was not included in the
> promised land. Paul wrote:
>
> Galatians 4:24-25
> Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the
> one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is
> Agar.
> For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem
> which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
>
> The prophecy of Ezekiel 36 depicts the mountains and valleys of
> Israel as desolate, and possessed by the heathen, but God promises
> to plant his people there. It is not referring to some literal area
> in the Middle East, but to Christians realizing that God's promises
> belong to them, not unbelievers!
>
> Ezekiel 36:24-28
> 24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out
> of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
> 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be
> clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I
> cleanse you.
> 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put
> within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh,
> and I will give you an heart of flesh.
> 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
> statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
> 28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and
> ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
>
> Ezekiel is not referring to a literal territory in Palestine, but
> the spiritual promises of God. If it was a literal land that is
> referred to here, and to Israelites according to the flesh, as
> Zionists believe, all the Jews who returned to the land of Israel
> over the past 60 years would be Christians by now, and they all
> would have received the spirit of God! Because that is what is
> promised here. But no, they are not believers. They remain in
> unbelief. The promises of God are not intended for unbelieving Jews
> as Dispensationalism claims, but for the saints! Ezekiel says those
> who have dishonoured God's name will be ashamed.
>
> Ezekiel 36:22-23
> 22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD;
> I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy
> name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye
> went.
> 23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the
> heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the
> heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I
> shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
>
> Dispensationalists deny the promises of God in the OT apply to the
> church, but they say those promises apply to unbelieving Jews! How
> incredibly wrong! Shame on them!
>
>>
And they are in agreement one with the other.
>>
>> At least a couple of other places. First, and by far most
>> important, is the infilling of the Holy Spirit (which, btw, is
>> different than you letting your
>> imagination run wild!). Secondly, there is natural revelation;
>> what the
>> creation of God itself can give us of God's truth. But again,
>> this is not
>> testimony; it's revelation. We are not talking about any third
>> party here, which is what all witnesses are.
>
> Jesus identified the Spirit and the scriptures as two things that
> testify of him. So they are 2 witnesses. We don't need to resort to
> Chuck's opinions!
>
>>
The Justification has to come from the Bible itself.
Numbers 14:34 (NIV)
34 For forty years-
one year for each of the forty days
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
you explored the land-
you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have
me against you.'
The above shows it once but also see it 2 more times in
God useses parabel form and does not give the keys every time
a prophecy is stated.
>>
>> Oh please! You're hurting my head!
for many years and even some times now I too get a head ache
in a certain place on my head when I reject Scripture.
and it does not go away until I do find some comon sense to that
which I am researching.
>>
>> I'm going to end our discussion here, mainly because I just can't
>> take the
>> nonstop nonsense anymore. I'm sure you're a nice person, and it's
>> my prayer that God will overlook the fact you ramble on and on
>> about things you
>> haven't a clue about, just as He overlooks my failings and faults.
>> But in closing I'd like to suggest you stop trying to defend
>> indefensible notions
>> with off the cuff comebacks like the above. All that sort of
>> response does is flatten one's learning curve.
Knowledge of God and His written Word is not easy to except
as I see you are now in retreat.
It is not my word nor will that you are not able to receive simple
sugestions and research them
You do show you are in great denyal of understanding though.
God sweed that you may get a better handle on the Word of
God.
>>
>> Chuck Stamford
>>
>> PS - Jesus, not God in heaven, used the literary form "parable"
>> for a very specific reason, which Jesus Himself tells us:
Jesus is the Living Word Portion of the Godhead that inspiered
the Authors of the Bible scriptures.
So it is also Jesus that was being expressed as people wrote down
what they were inspired to do by him.
So yes He also was able to ditate to them to say what they say
in a certain way. (Parabolic form)
>>
>> And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them
>> in parables?" 11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has
>> been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,
>> but to them it has not been given. 12 "For whoever has, to him
>> more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does
>> not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13
>> "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not
>> see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 "And
>> in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing
>> you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see
>> and not perceive; 15 For the hearts of this people have grown
>> dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have
>> closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their
>> ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So
>> that I should heal them.' Matt 13:10-15 (NKJV)
>>
>> Obviously you have no ground for suggesting that God speaks in
>> parable form in prophecies meant for BELIEVERS, sealed by His
>> Spirit, to gain knowledge
Well if Jesus is indeed the LIving Word of God then yes
He will be controling the Words of the Written Word of God.
>> that is important for their spiritual welfare. AGAIN, and for the
>> last time; the gift of prophecy, either when given or manifested,
>> is NOT for the purpose of HIDING information, but for the purpose
>> of REVEALING information.
It is for the purpose of letting the wize understand it but not the
*unwise* so go figure.
>> We are CHRISTIANS, not Gnostics. Try keeping that in mind as you
>> apply yourself to studying God's word to become wise.
Christians all have differnet things to be doing in the Body of Christ.
Each has differnt Gifts as is allocated to them
Mine just happens to be prophecy applied.
I am only sharing that Gift to enlighten other Fellow Christian.
so If you can not except the Words I am telling that it is not
your time to be chosen to know that which is also spreading among
the body of Believes.
>
> God conceals his truth from those who are "wise and prudent," and
> reveals it unto "babes."
God also Give wisdome to some and not to others.
>
> 1 Corinthians 1:19
> For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
> bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
That wise that is being talked about there is self wisdom.
Much like what you may well be portraying.
>
> Matthew 11:25
> At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord
> of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the
> wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
So are you on of the wise and prudent as you are showing your
slef to be
or are you a babe that has the open mind to receive the Truth
and the Holy Spirit of Truth and understanding?
Mistylein
>>
>> It sure looks like you prefer the sands of time rather then
>> The rock hard truths the Bible is presenting.
>
>
> The phrase "sands of time" alludes to the hourglass. The
> phrase "time, times and a half" suggests that *time* is of the
> essence! It is time to wake up!
The wise man builds his house upone the Rock.
The Foolish man builds his house upon the sand.
Jesus is the Rock hard Tuth.
sant is the time or traditions of men
>
> Romans 13:11
> And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of
> sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
>
> Ephesians 5:14
> Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the
> dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
>
> It is important for us to make good use of the remaining time! Paul
> spoke of "redeeming the time."
God also speaks of sleeping in your understanding as well
He calls it eyes that are blind of understanding.
>
> Ephesians 5:16
> Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
>
> Colossians 4:5
> Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.
>
>
Daniel 12: (NIV
11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the
abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be
1,290 days.
This is definitly a Prophecy.
It indicates that in 1321 (Corrected date)AD That "abomination that causes
desolation was to have been set up.
Just because I do not have the info of what that may be does not
discredit the Prophecy one bit.
>>
>> No I am sure you have no idea how that is arrived at because
>> you add in so many of your own passages to the prophecy.
>>
>> "Jesus was Crucified and that abolished the Daily sacrifice.
>>
>> So add the 1290 days from that day and it comes up to XXXX AD
>> as The Messiah Was Crucified in 31 AD.
>> "Oops that then should be 1321 AD
>
> Well this illustrates that your identification of the 1,290 days
> with an equal number of years is incorrect since there is no
> prophetic significance to the date 1321 AD. There was no event at
> that time which might have fulfilled the prophecy. And yet, I do
> agree with starting the period at the crucifixion, which was
> probably in 30 AD.
I guess then we may have to go and have the historians show
us what went on at that time on or about that year.
Like I have stated I do not have that particualar prophecy pegged down
yet.
>
>>
>> The 1290 and the 1335 are not even close to be the time, times and
>> half time prophecy as you claim.
>
> Sure they are. These numbers are all mentioned in the same chapter
> of the Bible, Dan 12.
That does not even pretend to stuff them all in one bag.
>
>> The time, times and half time is only 1260 years, Just so you
>> can keep the prophesies in their proper prespctive.
>
> A proper perspective is not Mistylein's perspective, is it? What we
> need to get is God's perspective. Without it, we cannot understand.
Cool then keep them separate one from the other and not pretend
they all mean one and the same timespan.
>
> John 3:27
> John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be
> given him from heaven.
So pray that the Lord give you the Correct understanding to
keep His Prophsies in their proper order or Timeline.
>
> 1 Corinthians 2:12
> Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit
> which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely
> given to us of God.
As long as you are going to mix up all and any prophetic time
you may read tells us all you are using the sprit of the world
as your guide and not the Sprit if Truth as come from prayer
to receive the Bible Truths of Prophecy.
>
> 1 Corinthians 3:19
> For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is
> written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
So Why are you trying to cratily trap me as I am showing you
Bible Scripture and applications and not my own.
>
>>
>> It may do that some how in the Bible your rewrite but not in
>> The Bible I read. . .
>
> You are hung up on the days=years mantra. That does not always
> apply.
No it does not apply all the time but where it does apply it is to
be used very perfectly.
The wise will know when and how to use it as information comes
in from dilligent research and not foolish rejections as you
do because I reject your jumbling the propheic time all in one
big ball of strings.
>
>
> In the Hebrew calendar, an ordinary (non-leap) year has 353, 354, or
> 355 days. A leap year has 383, 384, or 385 days.
Not applic able because scrpture is not showing us to be doing
such folly
>
>
>> "Depending"?
>> "leap years"?
>
> The Hebrew calendar began the year at the new moon in the spring.
So what it has nothing to do with bible Prophecy.
>
>
>>
>> If the Bible would have needed leap years it would have stated it
>> needed
>> it in the Prophesies, but it does not!
>
>>
snip links.
I have no need to go to links added in to the discussion
M,
>>
>> That is only in your imagination!
>>
>> Not in any Bible that we are reading.
>>
>> M,
>>
>
> --
> Doug
>
> http://vinyl2.sentex.ca/~tcc/OP/
Chuck Stamford
Two things here:
1. This is saying the words of the wise can be "dark", as in difficult to
understand. It says nothing about Scripture containing dark sayings.
2.) There may have been a time before the Holy Spirit was given to us by
Jesus Christ, but since Pentecost that time is no more, and there's no use
trying to use it to say Scritpure contains "dark sayings" FOR BELIEVERS like
you and I, because that's simply not the case.
>
>> I find the idea of God's "revelation" consisting in "secrets"
>> self-refuting on its face.
>
> Well, sorry, but it's in there...
Perhaps it is for unbelievers, who have not the Spirit of God indwelling
them, and leading them into all truth, as we do, but it's not "in there" for
us, which was my point. I can't say to you, as a Spirit-filled child of
God, nor can you say to me as a Spirit-filled child of God that FOR US
Scripture contains "secrets", things only you, but not me, or only me, but
not you, can understand.
However, I don't even believe it contains any such "secrets" (codes, keys,
etc.) at all for anyone, for that would be something in direct contradiction
to it be revelatory by nature, and on what basis could we ever think that
Scripture isn't revelatory by nature? Regardless of whatever else we think
about it?
>
>>> So, I think that the "scholars" overplay the significance of Daniel in
>>> Revelation given how much prophetic material John was borrowing from the
>>> others (mostly because Dispensationalist "scholars" never get PAST
>>> Daniel and Revelation, because their FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES are wrong, and
>>> they can't FIT the rest of the OT prophets into their schemes.)
>>
>> I don't know about that being true, Ike. I'm a dispensationalist of
>> sorts, and I have no problem at all seeing the entire book of Revelation
>> being, in significant part, an exposition of Daniel's 70th week.
>
> Then you don't understand Revelation at all, because it's based on the
> THREE-PART visions of Daniel, and the THREE-PART outline Jesus gave in the
> Olivet Discourse.
So you believe.
>
> Like I said, Dispensationalists can't get past Revelation and Daniel
> BECAUSE their FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES are wrong, and ONE of those fundamental
> premises is the ERRANT "MISSING WEEK" THEORY.
You seem to either know more about what Dispensationalists believe than I
do, or you're using terminology you've coined yourself, because I have no
idea what the "missing week" theory amounts to, and I think I'm a
Dispensationalist!
>
> John even closes each section of the chronology with a SECOND MARKER of an
> ADDITIVE FASHION based on references to passages in Job and Proverbs.
>
> Do the Dispensationalists note this fact?
>
> NO.
>
> Why not?
>
> Because it PROVES the chronological scroll in Revelation is SEQUENTIAL,
> not CONCURRENT.
I guess I don't know what you mean by a "chronological scroll", because if
you meant the events recorded in the scrool as set down chronologically it
would entail they are also set down sequentially, yet you seem to be saying
they're set down concurrently, whatever that means.
>
>> I'll grant you all of your above, but for me it still comes down to
>> John being given a vision by God of, amoung other things, a period of
>> seven literal years preceding the return of Christ to complete the
>> establishment of His reign over all the earth.
>
> That's WRONG.
>
> Where is ONE PROPHET who ever said the end of the age is just SEVEN YEARS?
>
> THERE AREN'T ANY.
Sure there are. There's Daniel's final week, and Revelation has the events
in chapter 11 transpiring in 1,260 days (3 1/2 years) and the events in
chapter 12 transpiring in 1,260 years (3 1/2 years). We've already
established these two chapters DON'T describe concurrent events given from
different perspectives, which means we're looking at the entire Great
Tribulation period in these two chapters (with other chapters describing
this same 7 year period from differing perspectives focusing on different
events).
And before you start with the hackneyed argument that 1,260 days don't make
3 1/2 years on anyone's calendar, let me point out that Revelation equates
them to 42 months (Rev. 11:2-3), and 42 months are 3 1/2 years on ANYBODY'S
calendar!
>
> Now the Word requires TWO or THREE WITNESSES to establish every word, but
> there isn't ONE that says that, except where the Dispensationalists HACK
> DANIEL TO PIECES in their efforts to cut off the HARD PARTS of Jesus'
> warnings.
Oh come off it. You're resorting to rhetoric instead of valid argument.
You don't get to say what anyone else's motives are for doing anything,
anymore than I get to say what yours are. That's number one here. Second,
you're talking to ME, and I don't "hack" Scripture, ANY Scripture, to
pieces. I make a good faith attempt to understand what God is trying to
tell me.
>
>> As you say, Revelation goes beyond that, but it certainly has that in
>> it, and that is a significant part of what it is.
>
> No, it's NOT a "significant part of what it is."
>
> That's a FABRICATION that the cult of the Plymouth Brethren came up with,
> and IT'S A LIE!
Okay, I think we're finished ONCE AGAIN, since you can't seem to control
yourself.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:GYOak.11215$Fj5...@newsfe23.lga...
>>
>> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:g4f4td$cjj$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:sQsak.11072$Fj5....@newsfe23.lga...
>>>>
>>>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:y4WdnWTNJLL-vPfV...@sentex.net...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The point is the Bible is not a witness to God's truth. It IS God's
>>>> truth. You start with this notion that the Bible is a witness, and you
>>>> start chasing your tail forever! Eg. - The Bible is a witness. To
>>>> what does it bear witness? To the truth of God's word. Isn't God's
>>>> word true by definition? Well...yes. Then to what does it bear
>>>> witness? To the truth? Isn't all truth bound up in God? Yes. And
>>>> isn't the Bible God's word? Well, yes. Then isn't the Bible true by
>>>> definition? Yes. So then how does it bear witness to what it is by
>>>> definition?
>>>
>>> Point of fact:
>>
>> Translation: what follows is what I (Ike) believe.
>>
>>> The Bible isn't "God's Word,"
>>
>> Ike that's a matter of faith whether it is or isn't, and you can't turn
>> your belief that it isn't into a fact just because it's your belief.
>
> No, it's NOT a "matter of faith." It's a matter of fact.
No, Ike, it isn't a "fact". I see you've supplied your objective
justification below for thinking the Bible isn't God's word. However, I'm
confident you're well enough informed and intelligent enough to realize that
the below argument isn't an "a priori" type of logical argument in which
each premise is necessarily true, and in which these premises, taken
together, lead logically and necessarily to the conclusion the Bible isn't
God's word.
And that's EXACTLY what your argument below HAS TO DO for you to say it's a
"fact" the Bible isn't God's word. Now if I can get you to agree your below
doesn't meet that remarkably high standard, then we can argue which of our
beliefs comes closest all day long if you like, but I'm NOT going to try to
do that with you so long as you're going to PRETEND here like this.
>
> God's Word is what proceeds from the mouth of God.
You'd have to demonstrate God has a mouth for this to be true. You don't do
that here, and this premise is FAR from self-evidently true, so you can't
use it in your argument, yet you obviously have.
A suggestion for an alternative premise you COULD use:
"God's Word is the expressed thought of God's omniscient mind."
There is nothing ambiguous or untrue or metaphorical contained in that
premise, and it has the added virtue of being one I think we can agree is
true.
Note for the future: when formulating premises to use in a valid, logical
argument, metaphors can't be used, by definition. A "premise" is the
expression of an actual state of affairs. A "metaphor" is language used
that symbolizes, but doesn't directly describe, some actual state of
affairs, ususally by expressing a state of affairs that ISN'T actual, but is
similar to the one the author is interested in communicating to their
reader. Thus a metaphor can never be used within a premise you are going to
use in a logical argument. You have to save them for all those rhetorical
arguments you love so much.
>
> The Bible is what men wrote in those regards, and has certain
> discrepancies caused by the men who wrote these things down.
Here you don't present what you mean by "those regards", so the premise is
hopelessly ambiguous.
>
> The Bible is a FACSIMILE of the Word, but it is NOT the Word itself.
For convience of reference below, I'm going to refer to this premise as "A".
I will also be showing below why your argument for it's truth is fallacious,
but I want to point out that there is one sense in which the above premise
is true (that has nothing to do with your argument below that it is), and
I'll be doing that at the closing of this reply, where **I**, rather than
you, actually present MY belief in detail as to the Bible being the inspired
and inerrant word of God.
>
> For instance, the Gospels are four accounts OF MEN of what Jesus said and
> did, but they don't agree on the particulars.
Again, not defining "don't agree on the particulars" renders this premise
hopelessly ambiguous, and as such, unusable for demonstrating the truth of
A. In other words, because of the ambiguity built into the phrase "they
don't agree on the particulars", it doesn't follow from the truth they don't
that A is also true, or even likely to be true. What you need, and don't
have in this premise, is the concept of "contradiction", as opposed to just
not being verbatim the same. Everyone knows there's more than one way to
say the same thing.
>
> Likewise, the chronologies of the OT are written from two different
> perspectives, that of Judah, and that of Ephraim Israel. They, too, have
> discrepancies.
Again, "discrepancies" are not necessarily contradictions. Similar accounts
of the same events can have a great deal of "discrepancies" in them without
having any logical contradictions, and IF AND ONLY IF two accounts contain
logical contradictions are we allowed to say it is a FACT that at least one
of them is false.
So here again, you cannot use the above premise, as stated at any rate, to
demonstrate the truth of A.
>
> If the Bible was the Word, perfect and true, direct from the mouth of God,
> then it WOULDN'T have discrepancies, as there can only be one truth of the
> matter...
This is a patently false premise that assumes the truth of the false notion
that unless a proposition fully and completely describes an entire state of
affairs, it is untrue. That's obviously false. States of affairs all have
other states of affairs in which they consist. For example, the state of
affairs "My car is red" logically includes the state of affairs "I have a
car" and the state of affairs "There is actually red paint" and "I actually
exist", not to mention an innumerable number of other states of affairs.
The state of affairs "My car is red" is also included in the much larger
state of affairs "God created the actual world". In fact, it is a necessary
truth, if true at all, that the occurance of the state of affairs "God
creates the world", logically includes within itself ALL other states of
affairs in the actual world! Do I need to list every single one of those
other states of affairs to be saying what is true if I want to draw your
attention to the actuality of the state of affairs "God created the world"?
Don't be ridiculous!
Yet that is EXACTLY what your premise demands above before ANY proposition
concerning a given state of affairs is true, and so your premise above is
demonstrated to be false.
This ends your argument that A is true, and as a little critical analysis
shows, that argument fails to show the necessary truth of A.
To sum up here, you haven't demonstrated the truth of a SINGLE premise
you've used in your attempt to justify your belief the Bible isn't the
inspired and inerrant word of God. Since your premises are not demonstrated
to be true, we don't even have to consider whether or not they lead
logically and necessarily to your conclusion, because your entire argument
above is invalid.
What you've got up there is what you specialize in: a strong rhetorical
argument. The problem with rhetorical arguments is, unfortunately for you,
that they have no potential or power to demonstrate the truth OR falsity of
any proposition! They do one thing, and one thing only: they can influence
popular opinion.
> but, like the church itself, the Word is an institution of God administed
> by men, and anywhere men are involved in the process, errors are
> introduced.
>
>> I happen to believe, along with a good deal of Christians in the world,
>> that it is God's word. Your belief that it isn't doesn't automatically
>> turn that belief into a false belief.
>
> But it IS a "false belief."
IN YOUR OPINION!!! Sheez.
>
>>>> You see?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying the Bible isn't testimony to given events in history,
>>>> because it obviously is; but when someone begins exaggerating it's
>>>> testifying aspect and ignoring it's Divine revelatory attribute just to
>>>> make some stupid argument, then I have to dig my feet in and demand
>>>> some perspective.
>>>
>>> But NOT everything in the Bible HAS "Divine revelatory attributes." For
>>> instance, Paul speaks of the TRADITIONS of head cover or not covering,
>>> but concludes that HIS churches don't follow such conventions.
>>
>> And I can take that as "fact", because of my belief the Bible is the
>> inspired word of God, and is factually inerrant
>
> (a statement that is patently false)
If it was, you could prove it was, and you can't.
>
>> (with the caveat it's only inerrant as to what the original inspired
>> author wrote). You, otoh, believing the Bible is not God's word, cannot
>> take this revelation that there was a tradition of covering the head in
>> the churches, and that this traditon wasn't followed in the Gentile
>> churches Paul founded as "factual". To you, it must be merely something
>> else to take or leave as true.
>
> No, Paul WROTE that they didn't follow this convention, and he was stating
> AN OPINION...
>
> 1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
> neither the churches of God.
WHATEVER! The point is that if Paul says so, I believe it IS so, because I
believe, with good reason, that Paul was Divinely inspired to write what he
wrote, right down to the words he chose in writing it.
>
>>> (To say otherwise is paramount to making Paul (or James, or Peter, etc.,
>>> etc.) EQUAL to Christ when they were just guys hashing out The Way as
>>> they went along.)
>>
>> You're speaking as if the baptism of the Holy Spirit that filled these
>> men specially chosen by God for this work was a lie.
>
> Not at all.
>
> But they were STILL MEN...
I'm going to interrupt you right here to point out that unless your
suggestion is that men are incapable of speaking or writing the truth, the
observation that the authors of Scripture were men is irrelevant to your
argument. If men CAN write what is true, and God WANTS them to write what
HE knows is true, then they CAN write that being "STILL MEN"; even men who
have documentation of their mistakes at other points in their lives.
No part of my belief that Scripture is the inspired, inerrant word of God
rests on the authors of it being infallible throughout their entire lives.
All my belief requires to avoid being shown false is that it be logically
possible for a man to sit down and write an error-free account of his three
years traveling with the Son of God (in the case of the gospels, at any
rate), aided in that effort by the Spirit of that Divine Son, another Person
of the Divine Trinity that is God, whom He'd sent to that author to
guarantee such an error-free account be produced! It is CLEARLY, logically
possible that a man, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, is capable of writing
the equivalent of 40 pages of text in my Thompson's Study Bible (which, if
the two columns of annotation were removed would probably be only 20 pages!)
without making any factual errors.
> as attested to by the fact that Peter STILL MADE ERRORS, even AFTER having
> received the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by the fact that Peter could still
> be enticed by the Pharisee party to start circumcising Gentiles, which
> turned out to be an obvious error.
What the heck are you talking about?? Where do you have even a hint in
Scirpture that Peter ever circumcised anyone? Or any where else for that
matter? Or that he ever required any Gentile convert to become circumcised
by someone else?? (I'll agree with you that Peter made many mistakes in his
life, both before and after Pentecost, but come ON!)
And there's no evidence there was ever a "Pharisee" party within the early
Church. There were Jewish converts who believed Gentile converts needed to
be circumcised and obey the law of Moses. However, it's clear that it
wasn't only the Pharisee sect of Judaism who held that circumcision was a
requirement for a person to become a Jew, nor is there any evidence they
were the only Jews to convert to Christianity, nor is there any evidence
Pharisees were the only Jewish converts to think of their new Christian
faith as a new sect of Judaism, and thus require that Gentile converts to
Christ be circumcised and obey the Law.
In fact we have good evidence that until the turn of the century, LONG after
Peter had been martyered in Rome (ca. 65-67ad), Christianity was regarded by
the Jews in general as just one more sect of the many in which Judaism
consisted. It wasn't until the benediction prayers were changed ("Birkat
ha-Minim") by the famous "naszi" of the Sanhedrin at Jabneh (Jamnia), Rabbi
Gamaliel II, sometime between 90 and 100ad, that Christianity was finally
and completely separated from Judaism.. See the Jewish Encyclopedia online
here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=G), the
section "Controverts Christianity", for a souce for the above.
It is therefore pure BLATHER to suggest Peter was either a member of any
"Pharisee party" within the very early Church, or that he was influenced by
such a "party", as there was simply no such party that ever existed. And
because you're once again beginning to resort to blather, and spurning valid
argumentation, you leave me no reasonable alternative but to withdraw.
In cclosing I'd like to take the opportunity to express precisely what my
belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God amounts to...
I believe the Bible is inspired by God at the verbal, plenary level as it
was ORIGINALLY written by it's human authors. This means that the ORIGINAL
manuscripts were entirely, and down to the wording chosen by the human
author, Divinely inspired in the sense that the human authors said EXACTLY
what God wanted said, and that because Scripture has this sort of Divine
inspiration, it is inerrant in EVERY factual statement it makes.
Now, what I DON'T believe about the Bible: I DON'T believe the human authors
were inspired by hearing a voice from out of the blue, and simply taking
down dictation. I believe the method of inspiration to be much more
mysterious and complex than that; some means wherein God prepared His chosen
vessel to write as a member of his culture and time and location, have all
these things influence what he wrote, and how he chose to say it, and yet
have what he wrote be God's words down to the words this human author used!
I DON'T believe my New King James Version of Scripture (or ANY version or
manuscript extant) is inerrant. My Bible that I have on my desk is a
compilation of a line of uninspired copiests and translators, who produced
various "families" of copies of Scripture, stretching back at LEAST 2,000
years, and in the case of the Old Testament, much farther than that. While
there is good evidence that heroic measures were taken to preserve the
original writings intact throughout this transmission process, there is
plenty of evidence (given us almost exclusively by the scholarly discipline
of "textual criticism"; probably the least speculative and most reliable of
all biblical criticism schools) that a small amount (relatively speaking) of
corruption of the original texts crept in over this vast period of time.
How small the identified corruption has been is nearly miraculous, given the
opportunity involved!
The point is that by now we can be reasonably certain the problem texts are
generally known, and so my belief that the Bible is Divinely inspired and
thus inerrant doesn't extend to these texts. It would if we could be
certain of what the original texts said at these places, but we can't.
These problem texts represent about 3%-5% of the New Testament, and about
twice that (or perhaps a little more) for the Old Testament, or so it is
generally acknowledged by textual critics. Again, my view is that the
remaining 95%- 97% of the New Testament is the inspired, inerrant word of
God right down to the wording used.
What do YOU have to do to disprove my belief? Well, you can't; it's that
simple. Why? You were given the answer over 1,500 years ago!
"If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not
allowable to say, the autor of this book is mistaken; but either the
manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have misunderstood
[Augustine of Hippo (354-430ad) Against Faustus, 11.5]
You can go get me the "Skeptics Annotated Bible". You can point me to the
"Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy". You can parade skeptical website after
skeptical website in here dedicated to "proving" the Bible has errors in it,
and you STILL haven't PROVED it has, because there is always going to be
Augustine's rebuttal to it all: "...either the manuscript is faulty, or the
translation is wrong, or you have misunderstood". There simply is no way
for you to PROVE you haven't simply encountered one or more of these three
possibilities when you think you've found a contradiction. And make no
mistake! A contradiction is the MINIMUM requirement for proof Scripture
isn't verbally inspired throughout. Any thing less (your "discrepencies",
for example!) just doesn't rise to the level of proof needed here.
So, AGAIN, and whether you happen to like it of not, no matter WHAT one's
position is vis-a-vis the inerrancy of Scripture, IT'S A MATTER OF FAITH NOT
FACT! I can't PROVE your view it isn't Divinely inspired right down to the
wording and from cover to cover is untrue, and you CERTAINLY can't prove my
view that it is, is wrong. All you can do is bluster that your opinion is
fact.
And let me hold out the olive branch to you once again: if you can ever
manage to control your rhetorical urges to the point you can properly
qualify your statements of fact, I'll be happy to engage you in any debate
you care to have.
Chuck Stamford
Doug
Chuck Stamford <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in
> message news:g4kdf3$6s9$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:ksPak.5532$%q.2...@newsfe24.lga...
>>>
>>> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in
>>> message news:g4f6pi$ed9$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:8gtak.3280$%q.1...@newsfe24.lga...
>>>>>
>>>>> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:g4dgfr$av5$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
<snip>
>>> I'll grant you all of your above, but for me it still comes
>>> down to
>>> John being given a vision by God of, amoung other things, a
>>> period of seven literal years preceding the return of Christ to
>>> complete the establishment of His reign over all the earth.
>>
>> That's WRONG.
>>
>> Where is ONE PROPHET who ever said the end of the age is just
>> SEVEN YEARS?
>>
>> THERE AREN'T ANY.
>
> Sure there are. There's Daniel's final week, and Revelation has
> the events in chapter 11 transpiring in 1,260 days (3 1/2 years)
> and the events in
> chapter 12 transpiring in 1,260 years (3 1/2 years). We've
> already established these two chapters DON'T describe concurrent
> events given from different perspectives, which means we're
> looking at the entire Great Tribulation period in these two
> chapters (with other chapters describing this same 7 year period
> from differing perspectives focusing on different events).
You have not "established" any such thing; the argument you
presented is flawed, as I will try to demonstrate.
John mentioned 42 months in Rev 11:2, 1,260 days in Rev 11:3 & 12:6,
a "time, times and a half" in Rev 12:14, and 42 months in Rev 13:5.
By your argument, if the 1,260 days mentioned Rev 11:3 & 12:6 are
consecutive, the 42 months of Rev 11:2 & 13:5 must also be regarded
as consecutive.
Rev 11:2 says 42 months is the period that the Gentiles trample the
holy city. This holy city is either the church, or the literal city
of Jerusalem. If it is literal Jerusalem, it was "trampled" for
many centuries, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans,
and is still partly occupied by non-Jews. So the 42 months cannot
be literal in that case.
Revelation 11:2
But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it
not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall
they tread under foot forty and two months.
Revelation 13:5 refers to the period that the beast with 7 heads and
10 horns holds power. "And there was given unto him a mouth
speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him
to continue forty and two months."
This beast makes war with the saints, and has power over all
nations:
Revelation 13:6-7
And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his
name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to
overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and
tongues, and nations.
Since it has power over all nations, that must include Jerusalem,
whether the "Jerusalem" here refers to the earthly one, or the
heavenly Jerusalem, which is the church [Gal 4:26].
John's description of the beast corresponds to the beasts of Daniel
7, which include a beast like a lion, a beast like a bear, and a
beast like a leopard, and a fourth beast that had "a mouth speaking
great things" [Dan 7:8] and "made war with the saints, and
prevailed against them." [Dan 7:21]
Obviously, John's first beast of Rev 13 is a composite of the 4
beasts in Daniel's vision; the total number of heads and horns is
the same in both cases. This identifies the 42 months of Rev 13:5
with the "time, times and a half" mentioned in Daniel 7:25.
Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear
out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and
laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times
and the dividing of time.
Since the first beast of Rev 13 has power over all nations, which
includes Jerusalem, the 42 months of Rev 11:2 and Rev 13:5 are the
same, and correspond to the "time, times and a half" of Daniel 7:25
as shown above. But that implies the 1,260 days of Rev 11:3 & 12:6
can not be consecutive, but must refer to the same period of time,
which is also identified with the "time, times and a half" of
Daniel 7:25.
Twice the woman of Rev 12 is described as fleeing into the
wilderness, to escape the dragon. She is "nourished" in both cases;
Revelation 12:14
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place
prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two
hundred and threescore days.
Revelation 12:14
And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she
might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is
nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of
the serpent.
The "wings of the great eagle" of verse 14 associates the
woman's "escape to the wilderness" with the exodus of Israel from
Egypt.
Exodus 19:4
Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on
eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Paul explained to the Corinthians that the Exodus of Israel from
Egypt, and their experience wandering in the wilderness for 40
years (or 42 years in total) was a figure for the sojourn of the
saints in the world, where we are "fed" spiritual food from the
scriptures, until we enter the promised "rest" as described in
Hebrews 4:4-11.
1 Corinthians 10:6
Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust
after evil things, as they also lusted.
1 Corinthians 10:11
Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are
come.
The 1,260 days of Revelation 12:6 and the "time, times and a half"
of Revelation 12:14 are therefore identical, and so, all these
periods that John refers to, the 42 months, 1,260 days, and
the "time, times and a half," must refer to the same thing, which
is identified in Daniel 12:7 as the *remaining time of the church*,
the last half-week of the 70 weeks in which Christ confirms his
covenant with many.
>
> And before you start with the hackneyed argument that 1,260 days
> don't make 3 1/2 years on anyone's calendar, let me point out that
> Revelation equates them to 42 months (Rev. 11:2-3), and 42 months
> are 3 1/2 years on ANYBODY'S calendar!
Except in the Jewish and Babylonian calandars, and other ancient
calendars, where 3 1/2 years would include at least one leap year
of 13 months, and maybe two, or perhaps one and a half leap years.
So the number of months corresponding to 3 1/2 literal years in
those calendars is not 42 months, but 43, or 43.5.
It is certain that none of the numbers used to represent the "time,
times and a half" correspond to a literal three and a half years,
in any calendar. These are the 1,290 days and 1,335 ays of Daniel
12, and the 1,260 days of Revelation 11 & 12. So all these numbers
must be symbolic, and don't refer to any literal three and a half
years.
>
>>
>> Now the Word requires TWO or THREE WITNESSES to establish every
>> word, but there isn't ONE that says that, except where the
>> Dispensationalists HACK DANIEL TO PIECES in their efforts to cut
>> off the HARD PARTS of Jesus' warnings.
>
> Oh come off it. You're resorting to rhetoric instead of valid
> argument. You don't get to say what anyone else's motives are for
> doing anything,
> anymore than I get to say what yours are. That's number one here.
> Second, you're talking to ME, and I don't "hack" Scripture, ANY
> Scripture, to
> pieces. I make a good faith attempt to understand what God is
> trying to tell me.
>
>>
>>> As you say, Revelation goes beyond that, but it certainly has
>>> that in
>>> it, and that is a significant part of what it is.
>>
>> No, it's NOT a "significant part of what it is."
>>
>> That's a FABRICATION that the cult of the Plymouth Brethren came
>> up with, and IT'S A LIE!
>
> Okay, I think we're finished ONCE AGAIN, since you can't seem to
> control yourself.
>
> Chuck Stamford
--
Doug
Doug
Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> news:lrSdne-z9dKmEfrV...@sentex.net...
>> In message <iOF9k.653$Gt....@newsfe06.lga>
>> Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The prophecy of the 2 witnesses, in Revelation 11, and the
>>>> prophecy of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12,
>>>> both mention a period of 1,260 days. This is the symbolic
>>>> "time, times and a half" which is a symbol of the present age,
>>>> the age of the church, the time for which Christ continues to
>>>> confirm his covenant with believers. Both chapters describe the
>>>> church and its mission in the world in symbolic terms. The 2
>>>> witnesses are not humans but they represent the Spirit of God,
>>>> and the word of God. These are also represented by the
>>>> ministries of Moses and with Elijah, as Moses, being the author
>>>> of the Pentateuch, represents the word of God, and similarly
>>>> Elijah is a symbol of the Spirit of God. Both appeared with
>>>> Jesus in a vision on the mount of Transfiguration.
>>>
>>> The 2 chapters you are mentioning is talking about 2 different
>>> things that was to happen all during that time line.
>>>
>>> Thank you for keeping those prophetic times in one spot
>>> for a change.
>>>
>>> That time breaks down to 1260 literal years and it has
>>> a beginning time date.
>>> All that time is what is called the Great Tribulation.
>>
>> I think the time Jesus called "great tribulation" is the time
>> described by Daniel. It is when God's saints are delivered, and
>> when the dead are raised up. So it cannot be the 1,260 years
>> between 538 AD and 1798 AD, as there was no resurrection then.
>
> You are in titled to your thoughs.
>
> However you are not thinking it right for this one.
>
> The Saints are delivered in the time of Jesus ministy after He
> resurrects from the grave 3 days after He is cut off by
> Crucifiction.
Israel was delivered from bondage and slavery at the time of the
Exodus from Egypt, but they did not enter the promised land
immediately. Similarly believers are delivered from the corruption
of the world, and from sin, when they believe in Christ, which is
followed by a period of trial, when we live separated from the
world, preparing to enter the "rest" that is the hope of the
saints, pictured by the "promised land" of the Israelites.
This period in which we wait for our promised inheritance is
pictured by the woman's flight into the wilderness in Revelation
12:6. It is also the time for which Christ confirms his covenant
with us, writing his laws on our hearts and minds, as we read in
Hebrews.
Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their
mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God,
and they shall be to me a people:
Hebrews 10:16
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days,
saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their
minds will I write them;
Even Jesus himself went into the wilderness for 40 days, after he
received the anointing of the Spirit. [Luke 4:1-13]
Doug
Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> news:-L6dndrwq92PFfbV...@sentex.net...
>> In message <z2Fak.67$7y2...@newsfe05.lga>
>> Mistylein <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> It sure looks like you prefer the sands of time rather then
>>> The rock hard truths the Bible is presenting.
>>
>>
>> The phrase "sands of time" alludes to the hourglass. The
>> phrase "time, times and a half" suggests that *time* is of the
>> essence! It is time to wake up!
>
> The wise man builds his house upone the Rock.
> The Foolish man builds his house upon the sand.
>
> Jesus is the Rock hard Tuth.
Actually building ones' house on the rock refers to following the
teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5, 6 & 7.
Having no event that marks the end of a prophecy makes it rather
useless. Your "interpretation" is one that "kills" the witness of
God's word, making it an ineffective, a ridiculous spectacle of a
failed prophecy!
The 1,290 days and the 1,335 days, when equated with years, do not
fit specific events in history that have prophetic significance.
For every believer, Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law,
pictured by his ministry during the first half week of the 70th
week. In the final half-week, Christ continues to confirm his holy
covenant, by his Spirit that dwells in his saints, that fulfils the
promise of God, that he will write his law on our hearts and mind.
That half week is not a literal three and a half years, but it is
symbolic, because it represents "the remaining time of the church,"
and this last half-week is represented in Daniel 12 by the numbers
1,290 days and 1,335 days, which are three-and-a-half symbolic
years, where in one case, the years are all regular years, except
one, and in the other, the years are all leap years of 13 months,
except one. So neither number represents a literal three and a half
year period.
>>>
>>> No I am sure you have no idea how that is arrived at because
>>> you add in so many of your own passages to the prophecy.
>>>
>>> "Jesus was Crucified and that abolished the Daily sacrifice.
>>>
>>> So add the 1290 days from that day and it comes up to XXXX AD
>>> as The Messiah Was Crucified in 31 AD.
>>> "Oops that then should be 1321 AD
>>
>> Well this illustrates that your identification of the 1,290 days
>> with an equal number of years is incorrect since there is no
>> prophetic significance to the date 1321 AD. There was no event at
>> that time which might have fulfilled the prophecy. And yet, I do
>> agree with starting the period at the crucifixion, which was
>> probably in 30 AD.
>
> I guess then we may have to go and have the historians show
> us what went on at that time on or about that year.
>
> Like I have stated I do not have that particualar prophecy pegged
> down yet.
After how many years of searching?
And how many others have looked besides you, in the past 2,000
years?
>>
>
>>>
>>> The 1290 and the 1335 are not even close to be the time, times
>>> and half time prophecy as you claim.
>>
>> Sure they are. These numbers are all mentioned in the same
>> chapter of the Bible, Dan 12.
>
> That does not even pretend to stuff them all in one bag.
No, they are not "stuffed in one bag" but they show very clearly
that the final half-week is symbolic, not a literal three and a
half years.
>>
>>> The time, times and half time is only 1260 years, Just so you
>>> can keep the prophesies in their proper prespctive.
>>
>> A proper perspective is not Mistylein's perspective, is it? What
>> we need to get is God's perspective. Without it, we cannot
>> understand.
>
> Cool then keep them separate one from the other and not pretend
> they all mean one and the same timespan.
Why? Daniel mentions them together, in successive verses, and they
belong together, as they both represent the "time, times and a
half" of Daniel 12:7, and the last half-week of the 70 weeks.
>
>>
>> John 3:27
>> John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be
>> given him from heaven.
>
> So pray that the Lord give you the Correct understanding to
> keep His Prophsies in their proper order or Timeline.
Good idea!
>
>>
>> 1 Corinthians 2:12
>> Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit
>> which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely
>> given to us of God.
>
> As long as you are going to mix up all and any prophetic time
> you may read tells us all you are using the sprit of the world
> as your guide and not the Sprit if Truth as come from prayer
> to receive the Bible Truths of Prophecy.
Nonsense.
>
>>
>> 1 Corinthians 3:19
>> For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is
>> written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
>
> So Why are you trying to cratily trap me as I am showing you
> Bible Scripture and applications and not my own.
No one is trying to "trap" you, but you are obviously already
a "captive" to your own theories and interpretations. Jesus
said, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after
righteousness: for they shall be filled." Matthew 5:6
--
Doug
Chuck Stamford
Nothing wrong with that. Just as the 1,260 days (also described as
"forty-two months") of chapter 11 are consecutive with the 1,260 days of
chapter 12, so to the 1,260 days of chapter 12 are also described as
"forty-two months" in chapter 13. Iow, chapter 13 is a segue back to the
period of time described in chapter 12, with a shift in focus or
perspective.
The main problem for YOU, Doug, is we have Rev. 12 FOR SURE, and probably
Rev. 13, EQUATING the 1,260 days of chapters 11 and 12 WITH 42 months. It
therefore doesn't matter about whether or not you can find 1,260 days
constituting exactly 3 1/2 years on the modern Jewish calendar or not. You
have SCRIPTURE, the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, telling you that as far as GOD is
concerned, 1,260 days is 42 months according to HIS calendar of events, and
42 months is 3 1/2 years on ANYBODY'S calendar!
Chuck Stamford
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
You better go back and read it again...
"to understand a proverb, and the interpretation, and the words of the wise,
AND THEIR DARK SAYINGS."
But of isolated perception you applied there.
And there are PLENTY of "dark sayings" in scripture, like Agur hiding a
reference to the TWO ADVENTS of Christ...
"The Word of Agur, Son of Jakah, even the prophecy: And the man spoke unto
Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal."
The "dark saying"...
Agur = "received"
Jakeh = "obedience."
Ithiel = "God arriving."
Ucal = "devouring."
Retranslated according to the meaning of the names...
"The Word received by the Son of obedience, even the prophecy: And the man
spoke of God arriving, even of God arriving and devouring."
God "arriving" = Jesus' first advent.
God "arriving and devouring" = Jesus' second advent.
> 2.) There may have been a time before the Holy Spirit was given to us by
> Jesus Christ, but since Pentecost that time is no more, and there's no use
> trying to use it to say Scritpure contains "dark sayings" FOR BELIEVERS
> like you and I, because that's simply not the case.
Wrong again.
Ephe/sos = "with these stone"
Smyrna = "I mingle these"
Per/gamos = "by marriage"
Thya/tira = to the good root of wood
Sard/eis = "bound in joy"
Phila/delphia = "[and] brother love"
Lao/di/cea = "one nation in God."
This is a direct reference to Romans 11, as used in Revelation 10, which
describes the wedding of the Lamb (i.e. "father" Israel + "mother"
Christianity = "the man-child" remnant).
(And this isn't the ONLY such construct in Revelation.)
>>> I find the idea of God's "revelation" consisting in "secrets"
>>> self-refuting on its face.
>>
>> Well, sorry, but it's in there...
>
> Perhaps it is for unbelievers,
No, it's the unbelievers who dispute it's in there.
> who have not the Spirit of God indwelling them, and leading them into all
> truth, as we do, but it's not "in there" for us, which was my point.
Well, it may not be "in there" for YOU, but it is in there for those who
have ears to hear.
> I can't say to you, as a Spirit-filled child of God, nor can you say to
> me as a Spirit-filled child of God that FOR US Scripture contains
> "secrets", things only you, but not me, or only me, but not you, can
> understand.
Then how is it that you don't know about these constructs?
>
> However, I don't even believe it contains any such "secrets" (codes, keys,
> etc.) at all for anyone, for that would be something in direct
> contradiction to it be revelatory by nature, and on what basis could we
> ever think that Scripture isn't revelatory by nature?
Go back and read the scribe's header again...
"Blessed is he who READS, and whoever HEARS and KEEPS the sayings of this
book."
It's a three-part process.
Read it (and he wasn't just talking about a shallow, precursory reading, as
practiced by the Dispensationalists et al).
HEAR it, i.e. REALLY perceive is in the depths of its words.
KEEP it, i.e. adhere to its sayings, the BULK of which is "keep the faith,
even to the death," NOT "I'll fly away."
> Regardless of whatever else we think about it?
It doesn't seem like you've "thought" about it much at all.
>>>> So, I think that the "scholars" overplay the significance of Daniel in
>>>> Revelation given how much prophetic material John was borrowing from
>>>> the others (mostly because Dispensationalist "scholars" never get PAST
>>>> Daniel and Revelation, because their FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES are wrong,
>>>> and they can't FIT the rest of the OT prophets into their schemes.)
>>>
>>> I don't know about that being true, Ike. I'm a dispensationalist of
>>> sorts, and I have no problem at all seeing the entire book of Revelation
>>> being, in significant part, an exposition of Daniel's 70th week.
>>
>> Then you don't understand Revelation at all, because it's based on the
>> THREE-PART visions of Daniel, and the THREE-PART outline Jesus gave in
>> the Olivet Discourse.
>
> So you believe.
SO IT IS.
Before the seal is broken on the scroll that reveals the chronology, John
witnesses "thunderings, lightnings, and voices" emanate from the throne of
God.
Re 4:5a And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and
voices:
At the end of the seals, another manifestation of God's anger is added...
Re 8:5b and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an
earthquake.
At the end of the trumpets, ANOTHER manifestation of God's anger is added...
Re 11:19c and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an
earthquake, and great hail.
At the conclusion of the vials, yet ANOTHER manifestation of God's anger is
added, as John segues to two interludes before discussing the second coming
(which is the SIXTH manifestation of God's anger)...
Rev 16:17-21
And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a
great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is
done.
And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings.
And there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon
the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. And the great city was
divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great
Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine
of the fierceness of his wrath. And every island fled away, and the
mountains were not found.
And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about
the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the
hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
This additive prophecy is linked to at least TWO PROPHECIES in the OT, one
in Job, and one in Proverbs.
>> Like I said, Dispensationalists can't get past Revelation and Daniel
>> BECAUSE their FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES are wrong, and ONE of those
>> fundamental premises is the ERRANT "MISSING WEEK" THEORY.
>
> You seem to either know more about what Dispensationalists believe than I
> do, or you're using terminology you've coined yourself, because I have no
> idea what the "missing week" theory amounts to, and I think I'm a
> Dispensationalist!
"missing week" theory = the alleged "70th week" that was supposedly NOT
FULFILLED.
>> John even closes each section of the chronology with a SECOND MARKER of
>> an ADDITIVE FASHION based on references to passages in Job and Proverbs.
>>
>> Do the Dispensationalists note this fact?
>>
>> NO.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Because it PROVES the chronological scroll in Revelation is SEQUENTIAL,
>> not CONCURRENT.
>
> I guess I don't know what you mean by a "chronological scroll", because if
> you meant the events recorded in the scrool as set down chronologically it
> would entail they are also set down sequentially, yet you seem to be
> saying they're set down concurrently, whatever that means.
No, DISPENSATIONALIST THEORY claims that the seals, trumpets, and vials ARE
THE SAME THING, just stated differently, which is all part and parcel of
turning a seventy-year prophecy into a FALSE SEVEN-YEAR PROPHECY.
>>> I'll grant you all of your above, but for me it still comes down to
>>> John being given a vision by God of, amoung other things, a period of
>>> seven literal years preceding the return of Christ to complete the
>>> establishment of His reign over all the earth.
>>
>> That's WRONG.
>>
>> Where is ONE PROPHET who ever said the end of the age is just SEVEN
>> YEARS?
>>
>> THERE AREN'T ANY.
>
> Sure there are.
WHERE? WHERE IS ONE PROPHET WHO SPOKE OF THE END OF THE AGE IN TERMS OF
SEVEN YEARS BY THEMSELVES?
> There's Daniel's final week,
Which was ALREADY FULFILLED ONCE, and CANNOT BE PULLED FROM THE REST OF THE
PROPHECY.
Oh, and by the way, WHERE'S THE TEMPLE?
If the FIRST PART of Daniel's prophecy concerns the rebuilding of the
temple, and their ain't no temple in Jerusalem, THE FIRST PART OF THE
PROPHECY HAS TO COME TO PASS FIRST, or the events PAUL described CAN'T EVEN
TAKE PLACE.
> and Revelation has the events in chapter 11 transpiring in 1,260 days (3
> 1/2 years) and the events in chapter 12 transpiring in 1,260 years (3 1/2
> years).
1) There isn't A SINGLE STATEMENT there about "7 years."
2) This prophecy, like Daniel's is part of a LARGER PROPHECY, but you people
just go on and ignore the fact that the seals and trumpets come to pass
BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN GET TO THE CHAPTERS 11 AND 12.
3) And you DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION: I said WHERE IS ONE PROPHET who ever
said the End of the Age IS JUST SEVEN YEARS?
SCRIPTURE REQUIRES two or three witnesses TO PROVE EVERY WORD.
Yet there isn't A SINGLE PROPHET who speaks of seven years BY THEMSELVES.
And there are SEVEN PROPHECIES that say SEVENTY.
So WHERE ARE YOUR REQUIRED BIBLICAL WITNESSES?
> We've already established these two chapters DON'T describe concurrent
> events given from different perspectives,
Which is irrelevant, because THE SEALS were back in chapter 6, and the
TRUMPETS were back in chapter 8.
> which means we're looking at the entire Great Tribulation period in these
> two chapters (with other chapters describing this same 7 year period from
> differing perspectives focusing on different events).
Which has NOTHING TO DO with the FIRST SIXTY-TWO AND 1 YEARS.
The seals = THE BEGINNING OF SORROWS.
The trumpets = THE RISE AND RULE OF THE UNHOLY TRINITY (1 year, and Satan's
3 1/2 years).
The vials = WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN JESUS' 3 1/2 YEARS, but "those days have
been shortened or no flesh would be left alive."
> And before you start with the hackneyed argument that 1,260 days don't
> make 3 1/2 years on anyone's calendar, let me point out that Revelation
> equates them to 42 months (Rev. 11:2-3), and 42 months are 3 1/2 years on
> ANYBODY'S calendar!
Revelation DOES NO SUCH THING.
Revelation describes the 42 MONTHS in which the Gentiles would trod
Jerusalem under foot, but the reference to 1,260 days IS TO THE WITNESS OF
THE TWO PROPHETS, which is contained IN the 1,290 days MENTIONED BY DANIEL.
So, no, Revelation does NOT equate 1,260 days with the 42 months.
>> Now the Word requires TWO or THREE WITNESSES to establish every word, but
>> there isn't ONE that says that, except where the Dispensationalists HACK
>> DANIEL TO PIECES in their efforts to cut off the HARD PARTS of Jesus'
>> warnings.
>
> Oh come off it.
No, YOU come of "it," i.e. THE LIES OF DISPENSATIONALISM, which have NO
BIBLICAL OR HISTORICAL BASIS.
> You're resorting to rhetoric instead of valid argument.
No, YOU PEOPLE resort to rhetoric instead of valid argument.
I have SEVEN PROPHECIES that speak of prophetic events in terms of seventy
years--YOU HAVE NONE that say seven by themselves.
I have A DOZEN WITNESSES who speak of the DUALISM and TRIUNISM of prophetic
interpretation--YOU HAVE NONE WHO TESTIFY TO SEGMENTATION.
I have an ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT which warns the believers to keep the faith,
even to the faith, even to the end of the age--YOU HAVE NO WITNESSES THAT
SAY "I'll fly away."
> You don't get to say what anyone else's motives are for doing anything,
> anymore than I get to say what yours are.
Sure I do--the MOTIVATOR of DISPENSATIONALISM is SATAN.
> That's number one here.
No, what NUMBER ONE HERE is what the WORD SAYS, NOT what Dispensationalists
SUPPOSE.
> Second, you're talking to ME, and I don't "hack" Scripture, ANY
> Scripture, to pieces.
You just did.
You cite Daniel's reference to 1 week OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT of the REST OF THE
PROPHECY, which also speaks of 62 "weeks" and 7 "weeks."
> I make a good faith attempt to understand what God is trying to tell me.
And this is where you are VERY WRONG.
You are NOT trying to understand what "God is trying to tell you."
You are trying to defend A BLATANTLY FALSE POSITION, WITHOUT APPLYING ANY
MEASURE OF INTEGRITY WHATSOEVER.
>>> As you say, Revelation goes beyond that, but it certainly has that in
>>> it, and that is a significant part of what it is.
>>
>> No, it's NOT a "significant part of what it is."
>>
>> That's a FABRICATION that the cult of the Plymouth Brethren came up with,
>> and IT'S A LIE!
>
> Okay, I think we're finished ONCE AGAIN, since you can't seem to control
> yourself.
I control myself just fine.
YOU are the one who ACTS like he has academic integrity, BUT APPLY NONE
WHATSOEVER.
As I said before, no Dispensationalist ever does.
If they DID, there assumptions would tear apart like tissue paper right
before their very eyes.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
YES, it IS a fact.
> I see you've supplied your objective justification below for thinking
> the Bible isn't God's word. However, I'm confident you're well enough
> informed and intelligent enough to realize that the below argument isn't
> an "a priori" type of logical argument in which each premise is
> necessarily true, and in which these premises, taken together, lead
> logically and necessarily to the conclusion the Bible isn't God's word.
It's the most "priori" type argument there is.
You're looking at thousands of years of translations.
You're looking at THOUSANDS of manuscripts which DON'T AGREE.
To DERIVE a BOOK FROM THAT requires a HUMAN PROCESSES of BEST GUESSES (some
of which don't hold up).
THEREFORE, the BIBLE is NOT the WORD OF GOD, but the BEST REASONABLE
FACSIMILE of IT.
> And that's EXACTLY what your argument below HAS TO DO for you to say it's
> a "fact" the Bible isn't God's word. Now if I can get you to agree your
> below doesn't meet that remarkably high standard, then we can argue which
> of our beliefs comes closest all day long if you like, but I'm NOT going
> to try to do that with you so long as you're going to PRETEND here like
> this.
I'M not the one PRETENDING.
YOU are.
You're PRETENDING that the Bible starts from some PERFECT SINGULAR
DOCUMENTS, and goes through A PERFECT SERIES OF RENDERINGS, and arrives at a
PERFECT FINAL PRODUCT.
THAT'S SELF-DELUSION, not "PRIORI ARGUMENT," Chuck.
>> God's Word is what proceeds from the mouth of God.
>
> You'd have to demonstrate God has a mouth for this to be true.
Oh, Jesus DOESN'T HAVE A MOUTH?
And Jesus DIDN'T SAY THAT THE WORD COMES FROM GOD'S MOUTH?
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceedeth OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.
There you go again, Chuck, trying to do your little two-step to try and
divert from the arguments presented...
> You don't do that here, and this premise is FAR from self-evidently
> true, so you can't use it in your argument, yet you obviously have.
???
Mt 4:4 But [Jesus] answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.
> A suggestion for an alternative premise you COULD use:
>
> "God's Word is the expressed thought of God's omniscient mind."
I don't need any such "alternate premise" because the discussion is about
THE BIBLE, NOT the "Word of God."
The Word of God is the Word of God.
The BIBLE is a BEST REASONABLE FACSIMILE of what may or may not have
actually been SAID by THE WORD.
[snip]
>> The Bible is what men wrote in those regards, and has certain
>> discrepancies caused by the men who wrote these things down.
>
> Here you don't present what you mean by "those regards", so the premise is
> hopelessly ambiguous.
There goes Chuck again, arguing about the state of the argument INSTEAD OF
DEALING WITH THE ISSUES RAISED.
And if you had CONTINUED FIRST, you would have seen that I DID start to get
down to specifics.
>> The Bible is a FACSIMILE of the Word, but it is NOT the Word itself.
>
> For convience of reference below
[snip the rhetorical bullshit]
>> For instance, the Gospels are four accounts OF MEN of what Jesus said and
>> did, but they don't agree on the particulars.
>
> Again, not defining "don't agree on the particulars" renders this premise
> hopelessly ambiguous,
[snip the rhetorical bullshit]
>> Likewise, the chronologies of the OT are written from two different
>> perspectives, that of Judah, and that of Ephraim Israel. They, too, have
>> discrepancies.
>
> Again, "discrepancies" are not necessarily contradictions. Similar
> accounts...
[snip the rhetorical bullshit]
>> If the Bible was the Word, perfect and true, direct from the mouth of
>> God, then it WOULDN'T have discrepancies, as there can only be one truth
>> of the matter...
>
> This is a patently false premise...
[snip the rhetorical bullshit]
IT'S THE ONLY PREMISE THERE IS: If the BIBLE were the perfect Word of God,
then it COULDN'T HAVE VERSIONS AND VARIATIONS.
If there are VERSIONS AND VARIATIONS, then any given version or variation IS
ONLY THE BEST REASONABLE FACSIMILE as assumed by one man, men, or a
consensus of men.
THEREFORE, ANY GIVEN "BIBLE" IS NOT THE "WORD OF GOD."
[snip the rest of the empty rhetoric]
Ike
Chuck Stamford
I guess I better just give up on ever having a decent argument with you.
You're a mulehead. You've got this thick plate of bone right between the
eyes and NOTHING gets in!
Dr. House
[...]
> You're a mulehead. You've got this thick plate of bone right between the
> eyes and NOTHING gets in!
<Yoda>
Mmmmmm . . . the projection is _strong_ with this one.
</Yoda>
House
rogue
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:g4s8rh$amd$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
> > "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:z0Gbk.15160$3q7....@newsfe15.lga...
>
> >> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >>news:g4kbf3$t54$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> >>> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:GYOak.11215$Fj5...@newsfe23.lga...
>
> >>>> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:g4f4td$cjj$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> >>>>> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:sQsak.11072$Fj5....@newsfe23.lga...
>
> >>>>>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:y4WdnWTNJLL-vPfV...@sentex.net...
>
> >>>>> [snip]
>
> >>>>>> The point is the Bible is not a witness to God's truth. It IS God's
> >>>>>> truth. You start with this notion that the Bible is a witness, and
> >>>>>> you start chasing your tail forever! Eg. - The Bible is a witness.
> >>>>>> To what does it bear witness? To the truth of God's word. Isn't
> >>>>>> God's word true by definition? Well...yes. Then to what does it
> >>>>>> bear witness? To the truth? Isn't all truth bound up in God? Yes.
> >>>>>> And isn't the Bible God's word? Well, yes. Then isn't the Bible true
> >>>>>> by definition? Yes. So then how does it bear witness to what it is
> >>>>>> by definition?
>
> >>>>> Point of fact:
>
> >>>> Translation: what follows is what I (Ike) believe.
>
> >>>>> The Bible isn't "God's Word,"
>
> >>>> Ike that's a matter of faith whether it is or isn't, and you can't turn
> >>>> your belief that it isn't into a fact just because it's your belief.
>
> >>> No, it's NOT a "matter of faith." It's a matter of fact.
>
> >> No, Ike, it isn't a "fact".
>
> > YES, it IS a fact.
>
> I guess I better just give up on ever having a decent argument with you.
> You're a mulehead. You've got this thick plate of bone right between the
> eyes and NOTHING gets in!
JERRY
Kinda like you, Chuck. Reading into John 8:24 stuff that isn't there
and then trying to claim that it's "self-evident" when only you can
see it, right? And no amount of showing you the error of your ways
can convince you.
By the way, hope you had a happy 4th.
Al Smith
"Pay no attention to those irrefutable religions arguments ...
they're not the arguments you're looking for."
-Al-
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Well, YEAH, considering that there are THOUSANDS of translations in HUNDREDS
of languages based on THOUSANDS of variant texts in DOZENS of manuscripts.
Now, Chuck, WHICH ONE OF THESE WAS THE ONE GOD "WROTE?"
> You're a mulehead.
No, Chuck, YOU are. For someone so intelligent, you have this same
propensity to for basing your theology on DESIRES rather than FACTS, just
like every other Dispensationalist.
> You've got this thick plate of bone right between the eyes and NOTHING
> gets in!
<chuckle>
Eze 3:4-9
And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel,
and speak with my words unto them, for thou art not sent to a people of a
strange speech and of an hard language, but to the house of Israel; not to
many people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou
canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have
hearkened unto thee.
But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not
hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted.
Behold, I have made thy face strong against their faces, and thy
forehead strong against their foreheads, as an adamant harder than flint
have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks,
though they be a rebellious house.
God establishes hard-headed messengers to deal with hard-headed naysayers.
Ike
Randy �
in article <g4thr4$s1q$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
>God establishes hard-headed messengers to deal with hard-headed naysayers.
You're a legend in your own mind.
�2008 pulpitfire.com, pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. �2 Corinthians 10:5
Chuck Stamford
"rogue" <rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46d291f7-a32e-4b49...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
No, not at all like me, Jerry. You've never produced and argument I didn't
address. Now you may think I didn't refute that argument, and we may differ
on that, but you can't say I didn't address it. Ike ignores them...as if I
didn't write them at all. That's the difference.
>
> By the way, hope you had a happy 4th.
I most certainly did, thank you. I hope you enjoyed yours as well.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
I already told you, Ike, but you ignored me, so why should I tell you again?
Why should I even talk to you if you're just going to ignore what I say? Is
there some good reason for doing that that you can see and I can't??
Sorry for calling you a name, but you frustrate the hell out of me
sometimes.
Chuck Stamford
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:d045741l9kmipnpb1...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:56:01 -0500,
> in article <g4thr4$s1q$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>God establishes hard-headed messengers to deal with hard-headed naysayers.
>
>
> You're a legend in your own mind.
Whatever I am, God makes me to be.
Unfortunately, God had to make fools, too.
Good job.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
LOL
No, I simply cut to the chase and point out that your arguments DON'T HAVE
ANY VALIDITY IN THE FIRST PLACE, and you're using rhetorical bullshit to try
to get AROUND the valid arguments.
[snip]
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
That's because I keep pointing out the truth, and you keep trying to dodge
it, and I won't let you get away with it.
And the TRUTH is that any assumption of what is and isn't "The Word" in ANY
version of ANY given text in ANY given Bible is based on THE BEST EDUCATED
GUESS of the compiler/translators, based on which manuscript THEY think is
the most correct one, and which word THEY THINK best approximately fits any
given word in whatever language they are compiling/translating to.
And THAT means that any written Bible CANNOT in and of itself BE THE ACTUAL
"WORD OF GOD," but only that which PROCEEDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD can, but
WE DON'T HAVE THE ABSOLUTE PERFECT VERSION of what it was HE ACTUALLY SAID.
Thus, one is forced to make A CASE ARGUMENT for or against ANY CONCEPTS
DERIVED from a FALLIBLE WRITTEN WORD.
(And Dispensationalists make POOR CASE ARGUMENTS, because they ASSUME TO
MUCH and DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS OF WHAT WE DO HAVE, and wind up
turning the WRITTEN BIBLE into AN IDOL.)
'nuff said.
Ike
Chuck Stamford
Translation of Ikian: Just as you say, I ignore many of your premises to
expedite my objections to them, and doing this makes me so happy that I just
have to chuckle whenever I think about it.
Ike, it's been so long since you stood up to an argument as given, I'm not
sure you even remember what that's like. You can say what you want; blather
'til the cows come home. You have NEVER offered me an argument for a
position you've held that I didn't a) make a good faith effort to
understand, and b) attempt to refute it as given.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:g4vhc6$6j1$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> "Randy ®" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d045741l9kmipnpb1...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:56:01 -0500,
>> in article <g4thr4$s1q$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
>> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>God establishes hard-headed messengers to deal with hard-headed
>>>naysayers.
>>
>>
>> You're a legend in your own mind.
>
> Whatever I am, God makes me to be.
Are you a theological determinist, Ike, or just another mundane blame
shifter?
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
That is a fantastic characterization of what actully occurs, Ike. What
you're calling the "truth" is what you believe, and what you believe you
have good reason for believing. I don't "dodge" the fact that you believe
you have ample justification for believing your strongly held beliefs are
true, or the resultant fact that therefore, for you, they are true.
What I challenge is whether or not it's true that your justification for
believing those opinions are true is, indeed, ample. I challenge the basis
you have for believing your opinions are "the truth". That can't correctly
be characterized as "dodging" the truth, and until you come to understand
that fact, and start to treat what I do as what it is, there's simply no
point in arguing with you anymore.
You are not God, Ike. You are not omniscient, Ike. You have just as much
chance of being wrong on any particular belief you hold as the next person.
Therefore, the fact you believe something true, and believe it passionately,
counts for NOTHING as evidence that it is!
I would love to continue scrapping up against you, and having iron sharpen
iron, as Scripture describes, but unitl you GET THIS BASIC IDEA FIRMLY IN
YOUR HEAD, that's impossible, and that's all I have to say to you.
Chuck Stamford
Al Smith
>> >
>> > I already told you, Ike, but you ignored me, so why should I tell you
>> > again? Why should I even talk to you if you're just going to ignore what I
>> > say? Is there some good reason for doing that that you can see and I
>> > can't??
>> >
>> > Sorry for calling you a name, but you frustrate the hell out of me
>> > sometimes.
>
> That's because I keep pointing out the truth, and you keep trying to dodge
> it, and I won't let you get away with it.
>
> And the TRUTH is that any assumption of what is and isn't "The Word" in ANY
> version of ANY given text in ANY given Bible is based on THE BEST EDUCATED
> GUESS of the compiler/translators, based on which manuscript THEY think is
> the most correct one, and which word THEY THINK best approximately fits any
> given word in whatever language they are compiling/translating to.
>
> And THAT means that any written Bible CANNOT in and of itself BE THE ACTUAL
> "WORD OF GOD," but only that which PROCEEDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD can, but
> WE DON'T HAVE THE ABSOLUTE PERFECT VERSION of what it was HE ACTUALLY SAID.
>
> Thus, one is forced to make A CASE ARGUMENT for or against ANY CONCEPTS
> DERIVED from a FALLIBLE WRITTEN WORD.
>
> (And Dispensationalists make POOR CASE ARGUMENTS, because they ASSUME TO
> MUCH and DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS OF WHAT WE DO HAVE, and wind up
> turning the WRITTEN BIBLE into AN IDOL.)
>
> 'nuff said.
>
> Ike
>
>
Good points. I agree with you. None of the Bible can be taken as the
infallible word of God, because it was written by men, and men are
fallible.
-Al-
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
No, statement of fact: If the written Bible was the absolute Word of God
(instead of the best reasonable guess), THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE "VERSIONS,"
in the translations OR the original manuscripts.
> Ike, it's been so long since you stood up to an argument as given, I'm not
> sure you even remember what that's like. You can say what you want;
> blather 'til the cows come home. You have NEVER offered me an argument
> for a position you've held that I didn't a) make a good faith effort to
> understand, and b) attempt to refute it as given.
Ah, no, what you've done is a) perceived the threat that arises if
Dispensationalism has serious flaws, and b) used the same sort of tactical
maneuvering that got the Dispensationalists into trouble in the first place.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
The determinist/predeterminist argument is just another exercise in human
vanity.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Not in the least.
The TRUTH of the matter is we're reading translations of translations of
translations that were written over the course of centuries, that are
themselves derived from DISPARATE documents that someone had to sort through
and sift to arrive at what THEY THOUGHT was the best reasonable facsimile of
what God ORIGINALLY SAID via the law and the prophets.
> What you're calling the "truth" is what you believe, and what you
> believe you have good reason for believing. I don't "dodge" the fact that
> you believe you have ample justification for believing your strongly held
> beliefs are true, or the resultant fact that therefore, for you, they are
> true.
>
> What I challenge is whether or not it's true that your justification for
> believing those opinions are true is, indeed, ample.
LOL
I justify everything based on what's actually IN the Bible and what actually
happened IN history.
Then you spout the Dispensationalist constructs, which don't have ANY basis
in the Bible.
[snip]
> You are not God, Ike. You are not omniscient, Ike. You have just as much
> chance of being wrong on any particular belief you hold as the next
> person. Therefore, the fact you believe something true, and believe it
> passionately, counts for NOTHING as evidence that it is!
Again, that's rich, considering that everything I've stated is based on the
BIBLICAL and HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, but you keep trying to find way to GO
AROUND the evidence.
> I would love to continue scrapping up against you, and having iron sharpen
> iron, as Scripture describes, but until you GET THIS BASIC IDEA FIRMLY IN
> YOUR HEAD, that's impossible, and that's all I have to say to you.
Translation: "Oh, well, if the arguments have to based on what's ACTUALLY
WRITTEN, then it's time for me to split."
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:tLUck.3159$7%6.1185@edtnps82...
That's NOT what I said, Al.
In fact, what you just stated is another example of the polarization created
by fools--one takes the extreme that the written Word is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT,
and the other fool thinks that, because there are errors that were
introduced into the process over the course of millennia that one can just
DISMISS on a whim whatever parts of the Bible (if not all of it) suits their
particular private agenda.
The TRUTH lies in between these two points, and it takes an HONEST
examination of the texts to arrive at some facsimile of that truth.
YOUR position isn't any more honest than Chuck's is, but at least Chuck has
the FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE right--Jesus is Lord, AND NONE OTHER.
Ike
Al Smith
No, Chuck's premise is wrong. If you share it, you are also wrong.
We are all God, in varying degrees of enlightenment. Jesus was more
advanced spiritually than we are. The same divine light that shone
within Jesus shines within you.
-Al-
Chuck Stamford
My belief in biblical inerrancy doesn't extend to any particular version,
translation, or manuscript, and I've told you this REPEATEDLY! Yet all you
do is ignore me and continue to argue against a theory of inerrancy I DON'T
EVEN HOLD!
Sheesh, but you're a bonehead! Nothing gets through once you've made up
your mind. Absolutely nothing!
>
>> Ike, it's been so long since you stood up to an argument as given, I'm
>> not sure you even remember what that's like. You can say what you want;
>> blather 'til the cows come home. You have NEVER offered me an argument
>> for a position you've held that I didn't a) make a good faith effort to
>> understand, and b) attempt to refute it as given.
>
> Ah, no, what you've done is a) perceived the threat that arises if
> Dispensationalism has serious flaws, and b) used the same sort of tactical
> maneuvering that got the Dispensationalists into trouble in the first
> place.
All you do is make unfounded assertions about me and ignore my arguments, so
good-bye
Chuck Stamford
>
> Ike
>
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
No, it's RIGHT.
It's the WHORES who say it's wrong...
> If you share it, you are also wrong.
Again, no, it's right.
It's the WHORES who say it's wrong...
> We are all God,
There's Satan, whispering sweet nothings in Eve's ear again...
> in varying degrees of enlightenment.
You confuse the light of Lucifer with the Light of the World, Jesus Christ.
> Jesus was more advanced spiritually than we are. The same divine light
> that shone within Jesus shines within you.
I would like to think so.
However, that DOESN'T apply to YOU, speaking the words of BABYLON rather
than the Word of "Zerrub-Babel" (i.e. "out of Babylon," and, by
interpretation, "out of confusion"), i.e. Jesus Christ.
Ike
Al Smith
>
> There's Satan, whispering sweet nothings in Eve's ear again...
>
>> > in varying degrees of enlightenment.
>
> You confuse the light of Lucifer with the Light of the World, Jesus Christ.
>
>> > Jesus was more advanced spiritually than we are. The same divine light
>> > that shone within Jesus shines within you.
>
> I would like to think so.
>
> However, that DOESN'T apply to YOU, speaking the words of BABYLON rather
> than the Word of "Zerrub-Babel" (i.e. "out of Babylon," and, by
> interpretation, "out of confusion"), i.e. Jesus Christ.
>
> Ike
>
>
I'm telling you that you are divine (potentially, at least) and
you're telling me that for saying it, I'm Satan. Hmmm.
-Al-