Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 84
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,145
    Quote Originally Posted by highflyertoo View Post
    Visions can be dreams or the vision can be in real time as Ezekiel had........... Saul had a real time vision of the Messiah on the road to Damascus.

    There are visions of the future and visions pertaining to the immediate present of the person being fully awake.

    I base my information on the simple clarity of Ezekiel's account.
    So you think the vision was like a movie of real-time events yet to come. OK. So you think that the men, women, and children in Jerusalem who were really killed by six men with battle-axes, and not the Babylonians. And there was a real man walking around with an inkhorn to mark those who would be spared. Guess there's not much to discuss if that's how you want to read the Bible.

    So are you also expecting a literal seven-headed dragon to rise out of the sea?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    So you think the vision was like a movie of real-time events yet to come. OK. So you think that the men, women, and children in Jerusalem who were really killed by six men with battle-axes, and not the Babylonians. And there was a real man walking around with an inkhorn to mark those who would be spared. Guess there's not much to discuss if that's how you want to read the Bible.

    So are you also expecting a literal seven-headed dragon to rise out of the sea?
    Can you tell me the Number of the Jews living in Jerusalem at that time? What was their Number/Amount of persons dwelling in the Holy City? For if it wasn't a large Number of people living in Jerusalem at that time,then Number of Men who bore the battle axes would have wiped out the unmarked people.Remember how Samson killed a thousand with a fresh donkey's jawbone.

    It's you Richard who is claiming the literal to be symbolic to fit in with your interpretation.

    As for the Seven Headed Dragon there is none. Yet their is literally the Dragon called Satan who has Seven Heads that are his representitives upon the Earth. For the Seven Heads are individual commanders/kings.
    Last edited by highflyertoo; 05-03-2012 at 10:32 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,145
    Quote Originally Posted by highflyertoo View Post
    Can you tell me the Number of the Jews living in Jerusalem at that time? What was their Number/Amount of persons dwelling in the Holy City? For if it wasn't a large Number of people living in Jerusalem at that time,then Number of Men who bore the battle axes would have wiped out the unmarked people.Remember how Samson killed a thousand with a fresh donkey's jawbone.

    It's you Richard who is claiming the literal to be symbolic to fit in with your interpretation.

    As for the Seven Headed Dragon there is none. Yet their is literally the Dragon called Satan who has Seven Heads that are his representitives upon the Earth. For the Seven Heads are individual commanders/kings.
    From reading the books of Kings and Lamentations, it seems that Jerusalem was fully populated at the time of the destruction by Babylon in the 6th century BC. It makes no sense to think that there were six men who went about killing all the men, women, and children who were not marked. There is no biblical or historical record of any such event.

    I do not claim the literal to be symbolic to "fit my interpretation." It's the plain and obvious meaning, just like the seven headed dragon which you admit is a symbol, not a literal reality. There is no evidence to support your interpretation. It is mere assertion.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    From reading the books of Kings and Lamentations, it seems that Jerusalem was fully populated at the time of the destruction by Babylon in the 6th century BC. It makes no sense to think that there were six men who went about killing all the men, women, and children who were not marked. There is no biblical or historical record of any such event.

    I do not claim the literal to be symbolic to "fit my interpretation." It's the plain and obvious meaning, just like the seven headed dragon which you admit is a symbol, not a literal reality. There is no evidence to support your interpretation. It is mere assertion.
    Hello Richard. The explanation of the seven heads is given in these passages.

    Revelation 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

    Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

    Revelation 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,145
    Quote Originally Posted by highflyertoo View Post
    Hello Richard. The explanation of the seven heads is given in these passages.

    Revelation 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

    Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

    Revelation 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
    That's exactly correct, but are you suggesting that we should always assume a literal meaning if we don't have explicit biblical statements about the meaning of the symbols? Isn't that like riding a Harley with training wheels?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,468
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I think the meaning of the mark of the beast is pretty plain and obvious. I just explained my view in another thread a few minutes ago. I'll repeat it here since you have started a thread devoted to this topic.

    Revelation makes it very clear that it is a symbol marking those who are not saved. It is the unbelievers' counterpart to the "Father's name" that is written on the forehead of believers. This is confirmed by the fact that the mark of the beast and the mark on believers appear together within the space of four verses. That's called "context." And it is confirmed again by the OT symbolism that readers of Revelation would have recognized:
    Deuteronomy 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes [forehead]. 9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
    I don't think there is any mystery about the mark of the beast at all. [COLOR="#FF0000"]The confusion was created by the incoherent "literal interpretation" promoted by Futurists who don't have half a clue about how to interpret the Bible.
    Hello Richard

    On this I agree with you more than I do with highflyertoo. I think from a later post of highflyertoo, I think he means "symbolic" when he says "literally". This is another of those confusing areas mixing up the literal with the symbolic.

    Your claim that Futurist have no clue how to interpret the Bible is a wide-sweeping statement that should not include all Futurists. Those who have got a clue, could say the same about Preterists.

    I appreciate it when you get things right and appreciate that you are applying a correct approach on occassions to Bible study. I wish you would apply the same principle of getting "the context" to Jude 5,6,7 I cannot understand how you do not get the "angels" into proper context.

    All the best.

    David

    David

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    That's exactly correct, but are you suggesting that we should always assume a literal meaning if we don't have explicit biblical statements about the meaning of the symbols? Isn't that like riding a Harley with training wheels?

    In the case of the seven heads there was an explanation to who the seven heads are.

    People can discern the meaning of ''Head of State'' refering to a political ruler of some authority,yet can't discern when the scriptures are talking about the Dragon having Seven Heads which are people having a likeness to God's image. In other words the Devil has two arms and two legs and one head and a torso and all things that are pertaining to the likeness of God's appearance.

    So when reading about the Dragon having Seven Heads, {Now this is where Wisdom and Understanding comes into the equation} ,it's talking about 8 individual beings. And if you add the False Prophet to the group the NUMBER has increased to 9,and so the counting goes on until the group consists of six hundred and sixty six individual persons...... Now I have given you the answer to what the Number of the Beast actually means...

    Think long about this Richard, I don't guess about this at all.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,145
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard

    On this I agree with you more than I do with highflyertoo. I think from a later post of highflyertoo, I think he means "symbolic" when he says "literally". This is another of those confusing areas mixing up the literal with the symbolic.
    Good morning David,

    I'm a bit confused aboutwhere highflyertoo is coming from. In other posts, he has expressed what looked like strong skepticism for the Bible, but in this thread he seems to be taking it very literally and as if it were fully accurate. So we'll just have to wait and see. He'll clear things up I'm sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Your claim that Futurist have no clue how to interpret the Bible is a wide-sweeping statement that should not include all Futurists. Those who have got a clue, could say the same about Preterists.
    I can see why you might think I painted with too broad a brush. There may indeed be folks who think of themselves as Futurists who know how to interpret the Bible. But they are so rare that I forgot to qualify my statement. Sorry about that, I certainly did not mean any offense. I'm just expressing my opinion like everyone else, which is something I strongly encourage in everyone to do. And I'm glad you called me on it - we should all be ready to give answers for the things we say. When I said "Futurist" I was thinking along the lines of the dominant Dispensational school of thought that just invents things willy-nilly to support doctrines that directly contradict a host of mutually confirming verses. I've been discussing this topic on this forum for many years now and have so many successful arguments under my belt that I sometimes forget my words can seem unfounded and overblown to those who have not studied this topic as much.

    The views of the Preterists and Futurists are widely divergent. They can't both be true by any stretch of the imagination. It seems to me that almost all the evidence falls on the side of Preterism. The essential problem is that almost all varieties of Futurists deny that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century. They then have to dispute the meaning of "this generation" as well as a host of confirming time texts. And worse, they must shred the integrity of the three synoptic versions of the Olivet Discourse to break out the parts that are supposedly future. When Twospirits tried to do this, he ended up asserting that the same sequence of words found in Matthew and Mark were yet future, whereas those same words referred to a past event in Luke. It is an utterly unjustifiable inconsistency that would, if true, make it entirely impossible to interpret the text with any confidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I appreciate it when you get things right and appreciate that you are applying a correct approach on occassions to Bible study. I wish you would apply the same principle of getting "the context" to Jude 5,6,7 I cannot understand how you do not get the "angels" into proper context.
    I already did that, but you rejected my answer without reason, as far as I can tell. Jude quoted the book of Enoch. He took the words from a CONTEXT which spoke of angels having sex with women. This was the common belief amongst the Jews at the time Jude wrote. Likewise, Peter said the angels that sinned were chained in Tartarus, and again, the CONTEXT tells us that Tartarus was the place the Zeus chained the Titans who rebelled. And again, Jude quoted from the apocryphal "Testament of Moses" which talked about an dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan over the body of Moses. I presume you agree that Michael is a real angel, not a mere human messenger. If so, then you must choose to be entirely inconsistent and say that a literal angel had a "metaphorical" dispute with the symbol "Satan." And on and on it goes. This is what happens when you try to invent doctrines to match what you want the Bible to say. No error will stand in the light of truth. False interpretations are pretty easy to spot because they are "disintegrated" in a most literal sense. They do not cohere with the truth, and so are exposed.

    I would be happy to discuss this more, but you reject all evidence concerning the sources Jude used in his little book. That means you are rejecting the CONTEXT that is required before anyone can understand what he intended. The only way you can know, for example, what Peter meant by "Tartarus" is to look into first century Greek literature. We have no other source. The word appears only once in the Bible. Your rejection of the Greek sources is a rejection of scholarship and makes accurate understanding of the Bible impossible, much as would happen if you rejected all Greek dictionaries and lexicons.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by highflyertoo View Post


    And yes someone did literally put somekind of a mark on the questioned faithful to show they were exempt from the slaughter that was about to happen.

    There was nothing symbolic about it at all as God is cruel.
    You say this as if you know that someone literally went about placing a mark on the heads of people. Can you prove your statement? Where is that mentioned in history of Israel?
    Beck

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,468
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Good morning David,


    I already did that, but you rejected my answer without reason, as far as I can tell. Jude quoted the book of Enoch. He took the words from a CONTEXT which spoke of angels having sex with women. This was the common belief amongst the Jews at the time Jude wrote. Likewise, Peter said the angels that sinned were chained in Tartarus, and again, the CONTEXT tells us that Tartarus was the place the Zeus chained the Titans who rebelled. And again, Jude quoted from the apocryphal "Testament of Moses" which talked about an dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan over the body of Moses. I presume you agree that Michael is a real angel, not a mere human messenger. If so, then you must choose to be entirely inconsistent and say that a literal angel had a "metaphorical" dispute with the symbol "Satan." And on and on it goes. This is what happens when you try to invent doctrines to match what you want the Bible to say. No error will stand in the light of truth. False interpretations are pretty easy to spot because they are "disintegrated" in a most literal sense. They do not cohere with the truth, and so are exposed.

    I would be happy to discuss this more, but you reject all evidence concerning the sources Jude used in his little book. That means you are rejecting the CONTEXT that is required before anyone can understand what he intended. The only way you can know, for example, what Peter meant by "Tartarus" is to look into first century Greek literature. We have no other source. The word appears only once in the Bible. Your rejection of the Greek sources is a rejection of scholarship and makes accurate understanding of the Bible impossible, much as would happen if you rejected all Greek dictionaries and lexicons.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    Hello Richard

    If I have rejected your reason, it is on the basis that you have not taken Jude 6 in proper context. Jude is not referring to the Book of Enoch. You have already stated in other posts, the Book of Enoch is not to be trusted. It is not counted acceptable to be included in the Bible. I will not base my reasoning on the Book of Enoch. There is no proof Jude is quoting from that source. The fact that Jude mentions the name "Enoch" later on in his letter is not by way of referring to any writings of Enoch; more a case of quoting the ancient scriptures that mention Enoch.

    You dismissed this as a watershed, but if you fail to get the context of Jude correctly, I do not see any hope of discussing any other prophecies/passages in the Bible.

    To consider the context of Jude, concentrate on the words highlighted:

    5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.6 And the angels (angels = ministers) which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example,


    What specific incident is Jude reminding his readers of?

    Who or what groups of people were destroyed in the Wilderness after deliverance from Egypt?

    What are the names of the ministers destroyed?

    By what means were the ministers destroyed?


    Answer these questions and then you have the context in which the word "angels" has been used.


    I am hoping you will at least give an answer to these four questions. Even if you do not accept the answer you are lead to, you will have found an alternative explanation and a reasonable interpretation of Jude to add to your knowledge base.

    It is better that you do the work to find out who it is that Jude is reminding his readers of, than for me to tell you who it is. Once you have given me your answers to these questions, I can post my explanation of Jude 6 (which I said I would do) in a new thread in the Bible Studies section.


    All the best,

    David

    PS There is also a reasonable explanation for Michael and Satan, but one step at a time. Deal with "angels" first.
    Last edited by David M; 05-05-2012 at 02:07 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •