The splitting of the Mount of Olives

[David M]

Would a Preterist please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and explain when the prophecy in Zechariah was fulfilled?

Zechariah 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

It has been said in a post elsewhere on this forum, the splitting of the Mount of Olives is figurative. If this is the case, will someone please explain the figurative meaning?

I look forward to your answers.


David

[L67]

Would a Preterist please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and explain when the prophecy in Zechariah was fulfilled?



It has been said in a post elsewhere on this forum, the splitting of the Mount of Olives is figurative. If this is the case, will someone please explain the figurative meaning?

I look forward to your answers.


David

David when you put Zechariah in context it's talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and how they would flee. We know that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. The real question is, is how do you ignore this and think it points to thousands of years in the future?

But to answer your question. There is evidence that this event already occurred. I posted about it the other day and wasn't sure about the article. But now I have found confirmation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_of_Olives

An apocalyptic prophecy in the Book of Zechariah states that Yahweh will stand on the Mount of Olives and the mountain will split in two, with one half shifting north and one half shifting south (Zechariah 14:4). According to the Masoretic Text, people will flee through this newly-formed valley to a place called Azal (Zechariah 14:5). The Septuagint (LXX) has a different reading of Zechariah 14:5 stating that a valley will be blocked up as it was blocked up during the earthquake during King Uzziah's reign. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions in Antiquities of the Jews that the valley in the area of the King's Gardens was blocked up by landslide rubble during Uzziah's earthquake.[25] Israeli geologists Wachs and Levitte identified the remnant of a large landslide on the Mount of Olives directly adjacent to this area.[26] Based on geographic and linguistic evidence, Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, a 19th-century linguist and archeologist in Palestine, theorized that the valley directly adjacent to this landslide is Azal.[27] This evidence accords with the LXX reading of Zechariah 14:5 which states that the valley will be blocked up as far as Azal. The valley he identified (which is now known as Wady Yasul in Arabic, and Nahal Etzel in Hebrew) lies south of both Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Would a Preterist please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and explain when the prophecy in Zechariah was fulfilled?

It has been said in a post elsewhere on this forum, the splitting of the Mount of Olives is figurative. If this is the case, will someone please explain the figurative meaning?

I look forward to your answers.


David

Hey there David,

What's the point of inventing an explanation? Anyone can do that. How are we supposed to know which interpretation is true? Maybe nobody knows the proper interpretation. In any case, you can't prove or disprove any eschatological system by appealing to verses with no clear meaning! Of course, this is the primary tactic of Futurists who ignore the main and the plain things that are established by many mutually confirming verses and focus on obscure fragments of verses with no clear meaning so they can invent their wildly speculative unbiblical doctrines. I explained this in depth in a very detailed post which you totally ignored with the excuse that you are not going to "go in circles." Nice move dude! Refuse to answer, and when I bring it to your attention, say that you don't want to "go in circles" when in fact you never answered at all.

The irony here is very, very deep. I answered your question, and you TOTALLY IGNORED MY ANSWER even as you said "I shall ask the question here again because it is not getting answered in my other posts." I answered it! And you ignored my answer! Here is the explanation I gave in that thread that you ignored:

As for Preterism, that is far and away the best fit to the Biblical data. Futurism is utterly absurd. It directly contradicts the plain text of the Bible on hundreds of points. Of course, it appears the Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent which explains why no one can agree about it.

You have said all that before and I do not know why you have to keep repeating. You do not win your argument by repetition. Preterism might seem the best fit to you, but others do not share that view and will say you are wrong. I shall ask the question here again because it is not getting answered in my other posts. Please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and if it is not taken to be literal, what is it supposed to mean figuratively?

Yes, others can "say" anything they want. The can say that the sky is green. But saying don't make it so, and I have refuted every futurist that has ever attempted to prove their doctrines. It's all recorded here on the forum. If you think this is not true, then I invite you to find any example that contradicts my claim and I will recant (or prove you wrong).

Ahhh ... yes, the quintessence of the Futurist hermeneutic. Ignore the main and the plain things and demand explanations that require speculation because they cannot be confirmed and then complain when a speculative answer is given. How very typical. That's not how Bible study is supposed to be done. That's how DECEIVERS invent their doctrines that are not really supported by the Bible at all. I've explained this error many times but you still don't understand. So here it is again. It's called The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics. Futurists hate it because it exposes their errors. I wrote it long ago when I was a fundamentalist. Violation of this principle is the first sign of all Bible based cults:

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:

• Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses,shall the matter be established.
  
• Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
  
• 2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistemology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.

Now look at your demand in light of this principle. Are there any "mutually confirming" verses that could establish the proper interpretation of Zechariah 14? Certainly nothing obvious. That's why it's open to dispute! And that's how Futurists sneak their doctrines into the Bible. They look for GAPS and AMBIGUOUS PASSAGES which they can manipulate and twist to force their doctrines. They SHRED the mutually confirming verses so that they totally destroy any integrity that the Bible actually has. Case in point - they utterly SHRED the unity of the Olivet Discourse so that some parts of Matthew and Mark are taken as future while the corresponding parts of Luke are taken as past. It blatant intellectual inconsistency all designed to FORCE a futurist doctrine.

But as for Zech 14 - it's obviously figurative because it speaks of future sacrifices and all Christians know that the sacrifices ended with Christ.

Now I grant that I didn't give a full answer. I was waiting for your response to see if you understood the answer I had already given. But you never responded ....

So how do we interpret Zech 14? It's TRIVIAL. By your standards, we can interpret it any way we want so long as it fits our presuppositions. So if we start with Futurist presuppositions, we just say it will all happen "literally" sometime in the unknown future. If we want to interpret it with Preterist presuppositions, we just take all the words and interpret them as symbols. Such a game is utterly meaningless because you can make up any story you want. Case in point: When Michael Rood uses the most explicit language possible to speak of Satan as a spiritual being in the traditional Christian sense (as a fallen angel who rebelled against God) you treated his words like HOLY SCRIPTURE and began "interpreting" all the possible meanings of his words, as if they were not plain and obvious so you could conclude that " Rood is leaving that open to our intepretation." Here is what you wrote:

Let me address our readers and review again what you wrote having had time to reflect on it and having got over the knee-jerk reaction I had to your opening post. You said (and I will add some comments);

I'll be writing a full refutation of his book soon(DM - Good, as long as your quote accurately), but for right now, we need only look at his central theme: THE FALLEN ANGEL NAMED SATAN LED A REBELLION OF GOD'S HOLY ANGELS. (DM - Is "God's Holy Angels" and exact quote from the book or your words Richard?) Here's what Rood says on page 7 in his section called "Rebellion in Heaven" where he explains that David M's interpretation is totally false (DM - Again your assumption Richard as I shall explain) :
Satan acted in open rebellion against the one to whom he owed his allegiance. Satan led an organized uprising of angels who sought to overthrow their lawful ruler, God. We see that Satan was able to draw away one third of the heavenly hosts in his original rebellion against God, as is depicted in Revelation.
Rood then quotes this verse:
Revelation 12:4 ... his (the dragon, Satan's) tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth.
Well, that pretty much settles it.(DM - No it does not, because you have missed the obvious of what is actually written)David M has written many thousands of words defending his doctrines that 1) God's Angels cannot and never have sinned, and 2) The war in heaven was just symbolic and did not involve any fallen angels that sinned.

Let us re-examine what Rood has actually said (written) (note, Rood refers to Revelation 12:4 to show the verse he is referring to and of itself proves nothing until the verse is correctly interpreted;

Satan (DM - not identified here )acted in open rebellion against the one to whom he owed his allegiance. Satan led an organized uprising of angels (DM - not identified here and nothing to say that these are not similar to the "angels" of Jude 6 who are human)who sought to overthrow their lawful ruler, God. We see that Satan was able to draw away one third of the heavenly hosts (DM - this is quoted only in the context of the verse he quotes (Rev 12:4). As Richard has explained in one of his posts, the heavens can relate to the "political heavens" (and I agreed with him) and the stars are to be taken as the heavenly host representing the political governments of this world in that context)in his original rebellion against God, as is depicted in Revelation.

Note carefully, Rood has not identified "Satan" or the "angels". I need to see the book and what is written or else; "his central theme: THE FALLEN ANGEL NAMED SATAN LED A REBELLION OF GOD'S HOLY ANGELS" are Richard's words and not Rood's.

Rood has not identified Satan as a fallen Angel of God or anyone. Rood is leaving that open to our intepretation. This is why I can say, having trawled through his videos expecting Rood to identify Satan, I did not hear the words identifying Satan from his mouth. If they are said in a video and I missed them (when falling asleep at times) I will stand corrected, but until I get the book or someone reproduces accurately the actual words of the book, I shall continue to give my understanding of Rood's words which Richard has actually quoted from page 7 of the book. At this stage, Richard's words (presumptions) are more controversial to me than Rood's.

This reveals the fundamental error your entire method of "interpretation." You begin with a presupposition of what you want a text to mean, and then you twist things around until you can force it to mean what you want it to mean. Your method is utterly delusional. It is the essence of delusion. It's very revealing to see you apply it to Rood words. It shows why your delusion is so impenetrable. Your ignorance is invincible by your own design. You are trapped in your own mind with no way for anyone to get through to you.

Do you understand a word I'm writing? Do you understand what is required to be free from delusion? You need to drop your unjustified presuppositions. You need to quit trying to force everything to fit your presuppositions. You need to turn your world around and make your thoughts conform to reality, rather than trying to force reality to conform to your thoughts. You are trapped in a world of delusion based on false religious presupposition with no evidence supporting them.

Don't you want to be free?

Who first taught you the dogmas you believe? Why do you believe dogmas at all? Why don't you choose the path of EVIDENCE and REALITY?

I'm calling to you David. I'm calling to you as a friend with whom I've debated for over a year. I understand your mind now. I see the trap you are in. I want to help.

Richard

[David M]

Thank you Richard for your input but answering my reply to yours about Michael Rood belongs in the thread where it belongs. Once again you claim Michael Rood is talking as if he is saying Satan is a fallen Angel of God and as I pointed out, Michael Rood does not say that. Rood has not identified Satan. Satan can be applicable to many humans and in that context what human is he referring to? Jesus called Peter "Satan" and Peter was human. That is the context we can see any human who opposes God's will.
God's "battle" is with sinful men and women, not His Angels which are "ministering spirits" and "does His will". Anything else is a man-made myth and that is why you accept the myths to support what you think the Bible says and your reason for rejecting it. Your mutually confirming verses do not stack up supporting the idea that Satan is a fallen Angel of God; this is plain wrong.

You are showing your own presupposition that Satan is a fallen Angel and that is not obvious from the text.

David

[Beck]

Would a Preterist please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and explain when the prophecy in Zechariah was fulfilled?



It has been said in a post elsewhere on this forum, the splitting of the Mount of Olives is figurative. If this is the case, will someone please explain the figurative meaning?

I look forward to your answers.


David

Hey David,


My comments and thoughts can be founded HERE.
It would be the same as the valley of decision (Joel 3:14) and figurative of such passages as Isaiah 40:4 which prophesied of John the Baptist.

[David M]

David hatwhen you put Zechariah in context it's talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and how they would flee. We know that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. The real question is, is how do you ignore this and think it points to thousands of years in the future?

But to answer your question. There is evidence that this event already occurred. I posted about it the other day and wasn't sure about the article. But now I have found confirmation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_of_Olives

An apocalyptic prophecy in the Book of Zechariah states that Yahweh will stand on the Mount of Olives and the mountain will split in two, with one half shifting north and one half shifting south (Zechariah 14:4). According to the Masoretic Text, people will flee through this newly-formed valley to a place called Azal (Zechariah 14:5). The Septuagint (LXX) has a different reading of Zechariah 14:5 stating that a valley will be blocked up as it was blocked up during the earthquake during King Uzziah's reign. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions in Antiquities of the Jews that the valley in the area of the King's Gardens was blocked up by landslide rubble during Uzziah's earthquake.[25] Israeli geologists Wachs and Levitte identified the remnant of a large landslide on the Mount of Olives directly adjacent to this area.[26] Based on geographic and linguistic evidence, Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, a 19th-century linguist and archeologist in Palestine, theorized that the valley directly adjacent to this landslide is Azal.[27] This evidence accords with the LXX reading of Zechariah 14:5 which states that the valley will be blocked up as far as Azal. The valley he identified (which is now known as Wady Yasul in Arabic, and Nahal Etzel in Hebrew) lies south of both Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives.

Hello L67

I saw this reply, but since it was not clear to me what they were saying and needed to be investigated, in continuing I asked you to explain what I should understand if I am to take the event as figurative? I want us to focus on whether this event is literal or figuartive and whether it relates to an event in the past or future.

At this moment in time, I consider it to be literal and it has not happened. In order to come to a conclusion, we must examine the texts very carefully and note what is said and what is not said before we draw our conclusions.

We can all go to Google and do our investigation. Charisma has told me she looked at the Mount of Olives using Google Earth. Recently, I did see Jerusalem with Google Earth but did not focus on the Mount of Olives. I have just looked at one website which gives photorgraphs of the Mount of Olives as we see it today. Here is the url to the website; http://www.biblewalks.com/Sites/MountOlives.html

The Mount of Olives looks like a hill with a slight dip in the middle if what I see is all of the Mount of Olives. I can see the dip as the possible place for the Mount to divide in two on a large scale. Maybe there have been smalll earthquakes and landslides in the past which have nothing to do with this prophecy in Zechariah. These are the facts which Richard relies on and I agree we must know all the facts of what has happened to the Mount of Olives and when those things happened.

As for considering the Mount of Olives to split in two in a figurative sense, we must be careful not to let this thread take us into territory whereby we wander of the track completely. We must stay focussed on the Mount of Olives and not on other topics which we will have great disagreement.

Let me know what you know about the history of the Mount of Olives and events (geographically speaking - topography) that have happened to the mount.



David

[David M]

Hey David,


My comments and thoughts can be founded HERE.
It would be the same as the valley of decision (Joel 3:14) and figurative of such passages as Isaiah 40:4 which prophesied of John the Baptist.

Hello Beck

Thank you for the link. I want us to stay focussed on this topic. I would like you to state from the beginning whether you consider the splitting of the Mount of Olives to be literal or figurative. I want the discussion to remain focussed and we have to bring our reasons to the table for believing one or the other.

I skimmed through the 40+ posts and it is easy to see how the discussion soon gets off track. We have contributions from Cheow, Twospirits, Richard, Gill, Les, Joseph (apologies for missing anyone out) and whilst their comments can be enlightening they are also contentious and can be considered off the mark. Probably for the first time I want us to stay focussed on the topic of this thread which is the splitting of the Mount of Olives. This is where an impartial referee ought to keep the discussion on track. Anything off track should be moved to an appropriate thread.

As a start, let me have your reasons for believing the splitting of the Mount of Olives is literal or figurative.


David

[David M]

Do you understand a word I'm writing? Do you understand what is required to be free from delusion? You need to drop your unjustified presuppositions. You need to quit trying to force everything to fit your presuppositions. You need to turn your world around and make your thoughts conform to reality, rather than trying to force reality to conform to your thoughts. You are trapped in a world of delusion based on false religious presupposition with no evidence supporting them.

Don't you want to be free?

Who first taught you the dogmas you believe? Why do you believe dogmas at all? Why don't you choose the path of EVIDENCE and REALITY?

I'm calling to you David. I'm calling to you as a friend with whom I've debated for over a year. I understand your mind now. I see the trap you are in. I want to help.

Richard

Richard

I do not want to be accused by you of avoiding your questions, but in the last 12 months and the 1,000+ posts I have written, your questions have already been addressed and I am repeating and this has to stop. I will answer your last few questions and I will not be answering them again. Your questions do not belong in this thread and is another example of how you (deliberately or unintentionally) move the conversation away from the topic under discussion.
Here are your questions and my replies:
Q. Do you understand a word I'm writing? Most times I do. The subjects I do not understand are not necessary for understanding the basics of God's word.

Q. Do you understand what is required to be free from delusion? I understand this as much as you do.
Please do not tell me what I need to do when you need to do the same. You have presuppositons which are opposite to mine. Our presuppositions are the conclusions we have come to from years of study. What we must do is keep an open mind to hear all opinions that might influence our presuppositions. I am prepared to change once I hear a convincing argument, but that argument has to be based on the words in the Bible (not commentaries on the Bible).

Q. Don't you want to be free? I am "free in Christ". You ought to know what I mean by that. This is where faith comes in. I believe I am free from the consequences of sin, which is eternal death. You are not free from eternal death. You are not free from your own dogmas which you have made for yourself. You have dogmas you deny you have and you belong to a cult (of at least two). None of us are "free" as we think we are from these things.

Q. Who first taught you the dogmas you believe? I was taught first the dogmas of the Church of England, but like Michael Rood, I later found the truth that God has spoken. If you want to label me as a Christadelphian or a Hebrew revivalist (which BTW Rood is not labelling himself) then that is your prerogative. The way to life is not for the many; the teaching of Jesus is very plain and so the question has to be asked; why will the majority get rejected? You have rejected the narrow way that leads to eternal life which the Bible teaches.(I ask you again, please give me a list of the things you accept the Bible teaches. Give me your top 20 topics you say the Bible teaches)

Q. Why don't you choose the path of EVIDENCE and REALITY? I am taking that path. The Bible has much evidence of real events that took place which is the assurance of those things spoken of which are future. You are denying the evidence and accept the evidence of false witnesses which makes you a false witness. I know I can be accused of the same, and I am trying to safeguard myself from being deceived and which God and Jesus warn us about. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom", "Get Wisdom and in getting Wisdom, get understanding". I think you have walked away from the fear of the LORD and lost all Wisdom you might have had and you have not got all understanding of God's word and you have admitted you have not been able to "make it fit". That is your bad. You should not attack a person's integrity for having done or are in the continuous act of doing that which you failed to do. I will not be put off by YOUR logic and misdirection.

"I want to help". Likewise, I want to help you Richard, but do you want help, or do you prefer to bite the hand that feeds you?. You don't believe the Bible. If there is nothing in the Bible you can accept, then that makes our discussions very difficult. You claim to tell me the simple and plain things the Bible says, and then I see you not doing so by the plaln things you reject. We cannot agree the plain and simple things the Bible teaches. I have asked you in a recent post and you have not anwered my evey question and so here it is again; "does the Bible teach the resurrection of the dead?". This is why I want you to list for me the top 20 teachings of the Bible. Even if you do not believe it, I will have a base to work from. Your wriggling out of contradictions which I see you have made, makes me feel like I am standing on quicksand that is unstable and constantly shifting. Accuse me of making contradictions if you must; I accept my fallibility to make mistakes and not make myself clear. I think by now most people who have read my posts will be clear on what I believe for the reasons I have given from the Bible.

From now on stick to the facts of the topic under discussion. Stop asking me questions I have already answered (whether you accept my answer or not). Stop saying everyone else besides you is delusioned. I might agree with you and we know some who are now banned from this forum who have been delusioned and we can think they might have a mental illness, but stop saying I am delusioned; I do not have a mental illness. These accusations against the person do not lead to getting to the truth. A reason based on delusion can be reasoned against, so reason against "the reasoned argument" and not against the person. We will only get to agreeing facts by discussing facts. It is fact, we have a Bible, which is claimed to be the word of God and it is "the facts" which are the words, which have to be understood.

Understanding properly will only come by discussing each and every verse in detail bringing all possible explanations to the table and then fitting the best explanation to build up a picture in which there is harmony and consistency. You can say this is leading by way of a presuppositon, but if you have your own presupposition that there is no fit and there is no harmony, and you do not think it is possible to achieve harmony, then you have set out on a path of doom. We are not walking along the same path leading to truth of what God is actually saying to us. By only concentrating on the discrepancies of the Bible, you are missing the lessons, which the Bible is teaching us. The history of God's people has been preserved in order we learn from it. The Bible is a "warts and all" account, which does not hold back its punches. Man is on earth and God is in Heaven, and without humility, why should we expect God to listen to us? God's word is on course and will not be diverted. (Isaiah 55:11) 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.

By comparison and in general, man's word is void and full of deceit. The only man to whom that cannot be said is the only begotten Son of God, whose words God has told us to; "hear him". Jesus said; "keep the commandments". Who are our friends and the friends of Jesus? Here is the answer; (John 15:14) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Nothing could be clearer. That is why, the majority are not the friends of Jesus and therefore, as he has indicated, in the day of judgment they will receive his condemnation and not enter the kingdom of God and they will be rejected. Eternal death is their future.

Either we discuss things in a way in which we both learn, or we can forget it. You can only lead me off the narrow way which leads to life and I can only teach things that will lead a person to find the path and stay on it. I will not lead people away from finding the Kingdom of God and I will say things that will bring them to a knowledge of God and His only begotten Son. I do not want a millstone put around my neck and thrown into the sea of death for having lead children (young in spiritual terms who have yet to drink the milk of the word) away from finding God. I abide by the teachings of Jesus and whether you accept them or not, doing so benefits mankind and not to the detriment of mankind, which is good for everyone. Not to do so is to do evil, which is to the detriment of society.

That is it from me! You have had my answers and you know what my motives are. I shall not explain myself again and be subject to the same questions.

Now get back on topic and stick to the topic of this thread and I will await your list which you can put in a new thread.

All the best

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning David,

This kind of systematically thorough answer is EXACTLY what would resolve your confusion about the paradox you have posed concerning angels sinning. Please do EXACTLY THE SAME THING in response to this post. Thanks!

Richard

I do not want to be accused by you of avoiding your questions, but in the last 12 months and the 1,000+ posts I have written, your questions have already been addressed and I am repeating and this has to stop. I will answer your last few questions and I will not be answering them again. Your questions do not belong in this thread and is another example of how you (deliberately or unintentionally) move the conversation away from the topic under discussion.
Here are your questions and my replies:
Q. Do you understand a word I'm writing? Most times I do. The subjects I do not understand are not necessary for understanding the basics of God's word.

This is weird. You take time to answer rhetorical questions but totally ignore essential questions of great importance that I have repeated over and over and over again (as in this post).

Q. Do you understand what is required to be free from delusion? I understand this as much as you do.
Please do not tell me what I need to do when you need to do the same. You have presuppositons which are opposite to mine. Our presuppositions are the conclusions we have come to from years of study. What we must do is keep an open mind to hear all opinions that might influence our presuppositions. I am prepared to change once I hear a convincing argument, but that argument has to be based on the words in the Bible (not commentaries on the Bible).

David, a presupposition is the opposite of a conclusion. The word "presupposition" means "A thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action." That's why it begins with the prefix "pre" which means "before." It is the opposite of a conclusion, which is comes at the END of a line of reasoning.

It is not correct to say that we hold "opposite" presuppositions. You presume that the Bible is the "inspired word of God." I make no presumption about that. Maybe it is the word of God, maybe it is not. I let the EVIDENCE decide that question. This is the difference between us. You begin with the presupposition that the Bible is the "inspired word of God" and then you reject any evidence to the contrary. Thus, we our conclusion differ because you reject evidence without sufficient reason.

Q. Don't you want to be free? I am "free in Christ". You ought to know what I mean by that. This is where faith comes in. I believe I am free from the consequences of sin, which is eternal death. You are not free from eternal death. You are not free from your own dogmas which you have made for yourself. You have dogmas you deny you have and you belong to a cult (of at least two). None of us are "free" as we think we are from these things.

There you go again. Making assertions without providing any EVIDENCE to support them. I have no idea what "dogmas" you think I hold, so there is no way for me to answer until you state what they are. You need to state what "dogmas" I hold.

You have been repeating this error of making baseless assertions for as long as I've known you. I have brought it to your attention many times and as far as I recall you have never even acknowledged my words, and you just keep repeating the same error. What does it take to get through to you?

Q. Who first taught you the dogmas you believe? I was taught first the dogmas of the Church of England, but like Michael Rood, I later found the truth that God has spoken. If you want to label me as a Christadelphian or a Hebrew revivalist (which BTW Rood is not labelling himself) then that is your prerogative. The way to life is not for the many; the teaching of Jesus is very plain and so the question has to be asked; why will the majority get rejected? You have rejected the narrow way that leads to eternal life which the Bible teaches.(I ask you again, please give me a list of the things you accept the Bible teaches. Give me your top 20 topics you say the Bible teaches)

Thanks for the answer! I truly am very interested in your history since it will help me understand where you are coming from (quite literally!).

I don't want to "label" you anything. I am only trying to find out what you actually believe. From a review of your posts, I found a very strong correlation with the Christadelphians, so I asked if you were a member. I can't imagine why anyone would resist stating the name of their fellowship. Are you currently in fellowship with other Christadelphians?

When did you first begin listening to Rood?

Your assertion that "the teaching of Jesus is very plain" is quite a joke my friend! Just look at all the confusion it has generated. Ten thousand denominations. Obviously, it's not as simply as you make out. Such talk is for cult leaders like Rood. He is a very skilled brainwasher. He speaks quickly with great bravado about many things that are true, and then in the same voice and with the same degree of certainty he declares something that is pure speculation that he just made up. He talks fast and mixes truth with error so his audience doesn't have time to think. He's a stage hypnotist. This is how he deceives people. He uses all the classic techniques used by lying preachers. I see through such people instantly. I have something like a "sixth sense" for bullshit. And I'm not the only one who sees it clearly. Another critic stated this quite succinctly:

Rood chooses quite frequently to mix solid fact with poorly-substantiated information and even rank speculation, but doesn't vary his delivery in the slightest from one to the other nor give his listeners a hint when he has shifted gears. He regularly makes statements which are not supported from either scripture or standard Biblical reference works, and yet offers no foundation for such statements from other sources. His listeners, many of whom have not been grounded in extensive study of the scriptures and Biblical history before becoming fascinated by Rood's teachings, are often ill-equipped to sort out fact from speculation. And thus many end up just accepting every word of his presentations as "truth". He has, after all, garnered their admiration as a “learned rabbi.” Surely he has researched thoroughly all of those "facts" which he so confidently asserts in his tapes and lectures.

If you care for truth at all, you will click that link and read those pages exposing Rood's deceptive tactics and outright lies. Bible believers are very susceptible to such deceitful teachers like Rood because they habitually suppress the truth to maintain their faith in the Bible. This is why you so easily believe Rood's bullshit but can't understand things I write no matter how plain, simple, and true they are. You accept Rood without reason because he confirms your PRESUPPOSITIONS which you have accepted without reason. You reject what I write for no reason because it contradicts your PRESUPPOSITIONS.

As for the "top 20 topics" - I'll start a thread to answer that since its a topic of it's own.

Q. Why don't you choose the path of EVIDENCE and REALITY? I am taking that path. The Bible has much evidence of real events that took place which is the assurance of those things spoken of which are future. You are denying the evidence and accept the evidence of false witnesses which makes you a false witness. I know I can be accused of the same, and I am trying to safeguard myself from being deceived and which God and Jesus warn us about. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom", "Get Wisdom and in getting Wisdom, get understanding". I think you have walked away from the fear of the LORD and lost all Wisdom you might have had and you have not got all understanding of God's word and you have admitted you have not been able to "make it fit". That is your bad. You should not attack a person's integrity for having done or are in the continuous act of doing that which you failed to do. I will not be put off by YOUR logic and misdirection.

I have never denied any evidence. And again, you have made a baseless assertion because you did not state what evidence I denied. And worse, you have falsely accused me of being a "false witness". I have never shown any evidence that I have accepted any evidence of any false witness. You are just making EMPTY ASSERTIONS. You need to provide EVIDENCE when you accuse.

Your assertion that I have "lost all wisdom" is absurd because it is based on nothing but the fact that I disagree with your presuppositions. You have never shown any error in anything I have written. If you disagree, all you need to do is quote the error and use logic to force me to admit it. You know I will never refuse to admit any provable error in logic or fact. That would expose me as a liar or deluded. This should be quite obvious to you by now because I always answer ever detail of any charge brought against me. You would do well to do the same.

There are two possible reasons I have not been able to "make it fit" -

1) It could be my bad.
2) It could be the Bible is logically incoherent, has errors, etc.

I have given more than enough evidence to support the conclusion that the problem is with the Bible. You reject this CONCLUSION only because it contradicts you PRESUPPOSITION. You have never shown any error in the logic or facts that lead to my conclusion.

"I want to help". Likewise, I want to help you Richard, but do you want help, or do you prefer to bite the hand that feeds you?. You don't believe the Bible. If there is nothing in the Bible you can accept, then that makes our discussions very difficult. You claim to tell me the simple and plain things the Bible says, and then I see you not doing so by the plaln things you reject. We cannot agree the plain and simple things the Bible teaches. I have asked you in a recent post and you have not anwered my evey question and so here it is again; "does the Bible teach the resurrection of the dead?". This is why I want you to list for me the top 20 teachings of the Bible. Even if you do not believe it, I will have a base to work from. Your wriggling out of contradictions which I see you have made, makes me feel like I am standing on quicksand that is unstable and constantly shifting. Accuse me of making contradictions if you must; I accept my fallibility to make mistakes and not make myself clear. I think by now most people who have read my posts will be clear on what I believe for the reasons I have given from the Bible.

David, I'm really glad that we both want to help each other. So let's do that. The first thing we must do is respect each other enough to actually answer the questions asked. This is what has caused such discord. I have repeated questions to you for MONTHS that you have refused to answer. This post is different. You are answering every question I asked. That's great. Now I just need you do to the same thing in this post if only you would be so kind. All you need to do is to answer each point I made with clarity, simplicity, and logic that all rational persons must accept. That will solve the problem. I have repeated those same questions so many times it should be obvious that I think they are central to the discussion. That's what mystifies me - you KNOW that they are the central questions, so why have you been ignoring them all these months? And then you repeated the same error that I was explaining??? Don't you see why that is so infuriating? In any case, I'm really glad we are talking, and that we have the mutual goal of helping each other and our own selves come to a clearer understanding and articulation of the truth.

As for the resurrection of the dead - I did answer that in post #74! You totally IGNORED my answer except to say "I am not going to go on going round in circles especially as I have taken up your offer of a fresh start." This is why conversation with you is so infuriating. I spent a couple hours composing a careful response to all your questions and you totally ignored it, and now you falsely assert that I never answered.

Again, you make a baseless assertion when you say that I have been "wriggling out of contradictions which I see you have made" is false. You have no shown any contradictions in anything I've written. I'm guessing you are thinking about your charge that I was "inconsistent" in my view about the book of Enoch. I explain in great detail why you were wrong. I have not been inconsistent on anything about the book of Enoch. The only thing that changed was my PRESUPPOSITION that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The evidence forced me to conclude that presupposition was not justifiable.

From now on stick to the facts of the topic under discussion. Stop asking me questions I have already answered (whether you accept my answer or not). Stop saying everyone else besides you is delusioned. I might agree with you and we know some who are now banned from this forum who have been delusioned and we can think they might have a mental illness, but stop saying I am delusioned; I do not have a mental illness. These accusations against the person do not lead to getting to the truth. A reason based on delusion can be reasoned against, so reason against "the reasoned argument" and not against the person. We will only get to agreeing facts by discussing facts. It is fact, we have a Bible, which is claimed to be the word of God and it is "the facts" which are the words, which have to be understood.

I'm sorry for the strong language. I really hate seeing those words on the screen. It deeply bothers me and makes me worry that it might drive folks away. But in the midst of the conversation, when you are posting things that are radically absurd, I guess I lose focus and feel like the only way to get through to you is to tell you exactly what I see. Many of your comments have been radically irrational and you have frequently refused to answer my questions no matter how often I repeated them. I found this infuriating. When I say that something you wrote is "absurd" I am trying to get your attention. It is how I would want someone to talk to me if I were posting such blatant absurdities.

Understanding properly will only come by discussing each and every verse in detail bringing all possible explanations to the table and then fitting the best explanation to build up a picture in which there is harmony and consistency. You can say this is leading by way of a presuppositon, but if you have your own presupposition that there is no fit and there is no harmony, and you do not think it is possible to achieve harmony, then you have set out on a path of doom. We are not walking along the same path leading to truth of what God is actually saying to us. By only concentrating on the discrepancies of the Bible, you are missing the lessons, which the Bible is teaching us. The history of God's people has been preserved in order we learn from it. The Bible is a "warts and all" account, which does not hold back its punches. Man is on earth and God is in Heaven, and without humility, why should we expect God to listen to us? God's word is on course and will not be diverted. (Isaiah 55:11) 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.

Again, you have repeated your fundamental error. I have no "presupposition" that "there is no fit and there is no harmony" in the Bible. I think there is plenty of harmony, but there also is a lot of genuine disharmony. And more to the point, this is not a PRESUPPOSITION but rather a CONCLUSION based on logic and facts. It looks like a lot of your erroneous thinking is based on a confusion of these two basic terms.

Yes, the Bible is a "warts and all" account. Unfortunately, it reveals Yahweh's warts which are in consistent with the claim that Yahweh is the truth God.

By comparison and in general, man's word is void and full of deceit. The only man to whom that cannot be said is the only begotten Son of God, whose words God has told us to; "hear him". Jesus said; "keep the commandments". Who are our friends and the friends of Jesus? Here is the answer; (John 15:14) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Nothing could be clearer. That is why, the majority are not the friends of Jesus and therefore, as he has indicated, in the day of judgment they will receive his condemnation and not enter the kingdom of God and they will be rejected. Eternal death is their future.

You are a man. Why do you think your "word" expressed in your statements about the Bible, are any more true than mine?

Your assertion that "nothing could be clearer" reveals a profound ignorance of the history of your own religion. Many contradictions come from the "simple" understanding of that verse. Paul tried to resolve some of those contradictions in his extended discussion in Romans 6-7! Christians have struggled to understand the relation between the Law and Grace for two thousand years. It is anything but "simple." If it were so simple what has prevented believers from coming to a solution? Why did Paul have to write two (rather convoluted) chapters about it? Your suggestion that it is "simple" is a simple-minded answer that reveals ignorance of both the Bible and the history of Christianity. It is the kind of answer that false teachers like Rood regularly spew out. That's why he appeals to Bible believers who want simple answers to complex questions. To suggest that there is a simple solution that is "obviously" better than any found by the most intelligent and sincere believers over the span of 2000 years appears to be the height of arrogance, especially in light of the fact that it is based on gross ignorance. (The two usually go together.)

Either we discuss things in a way in which we both learn, or we can forget it. You can only lead me off the narrow way which leads to life and I can only teach things that will lead a person to find the path and stay on it. I will not lead people away from finding the Kingdom of God and I will say things that will bring them to a knowledge of God and His only begotten Son. I do not want a millstone put around my neck and thrown into the sea of death for having lead children (young in spiritual terms who have yet to drink the milk of the word) away from finding God. I abide by the teachings of Jesus and whether you accept them or not, doing so benefits mankind and not to the detriment of mankind, which is good for everyone. Not to do so is to do evil, which is to the detriment of society.

Excellent! Let's do that!

Your assertion that I can "can only lead [you] off the narrow way which leads to life" is radically absurd. If you have the truth then it is invincible because truth is reality. Therefore, it would be impossible for me to mislead you with valid logic and valid facts. Indeed, you could lead me directly into the kingdom if you could only show that your beliefs are true. That's all you need to do.

Great chatting my friend. I think we've made some real progress.

Shine on!

[Beck]

Hello Beck

Thank you for the link. I want us to stay focussed on this topic. I would like you to state from the beginning whether you consider the splitting of the Mount of Olives to be literal or figurative. I want the discussion to remain focussed and we have to bring our reasons to the table for believing one or the other.

I skimmed through the 40+ posts and it is easy to see how the discussion soon gets off track. We have contributions from Cheow, Twospirits, Richard, Gill, Les, Joseph (apologies for missing anyone out) and whilst their comments can be enlightening they are also contentious and can be considered off the mark. Probably for the first time I want us to stay focussed on the topic of this thread which is the splitting of the Mount of Olives. This is where an impartial referee ought to keep the discussion on track. Anything off track should be moved to an appropriate thread.

As a start, let me have your reasons for believing the splitting of the Mount of Olives is literal or figurative.


David

David,

I thought my response was clear, maybe not. Just as the langauge that has been employed by Joel and Isaiah which 'figuratively' spoke of the mountains parting and the high places made low..etc Was in relationship to the crying in the wilderness of John the Baptist preaching repentance. This is would Zech is using that the mount will be spilt into half to one side and the other to the opposite. This picture is those in the valley of decision. Those people will have to make a decison to repent and be saved or be damned and destoryed. The same figurative langauge as living waters shall flow out of Jerusalem. I don't think one would try to read that as an literal event so neither should the perivous mention of the mount being split. There is also the point of having the Lord's feet on the mount as having the earth his footstool. That again is a picture of his authority and not to be read as an literal event. Hope that helps.