Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Beck
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    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,

    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.
    Hey there Beck,

    I think that's an extremely lucid explanation. It should be pretty much self-evident to anyone familiar with the Bible.

    The Futurist arguments depend critically on literalizing the figurative and explaining away the literal.

    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

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    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.
    Hello Beck

    Thanks for that. I read very quickly through the whole thread you directed me to and by the time I had finished, I did not want to trawl througt it again to extract all you had contributed.

    The one question I would ask at the moment is; What are the specific verses in Isaiah and Joel are you referring to?

    I have selected some and we can contrast those with Zechariah



    Isaiah 13
    3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness.
    4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.
    3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness.
    4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.



    Joel 2
    2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
    3 A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.
    4 The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.
    5 Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.


    Zechariah14
    1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
    2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
    3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
    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.
    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.
    As I have said so often, but not lately, we have to consider the context of each chapter and verse we are considering. I do not agree with lifting phrases out of context and plugging them into other parts of scripture. I know we have to look to scripture to explain other scriptures in order to get understanding.

    At this moment, I am uncomfortable taking those verses above in Joel and Isaiah and getting them to fit in with Zechariah. That is why, I want you to give me the exact verses you are quoting. I would not take verses from Zechariah 14 and put them back in Isaiah and Joel. We have to be very sure they are talking of the same events. If not, then we are on dangerous ground plugging ideas from Isaiah and Joel into Zechariah's prophecy

    Isaiah and Joel above does read figuratively and we can note that no specific place names are given. Zechariah is very specific.


    Zechariah uses the phrase; the day of the Lord. I will not answer that now, but that has to be answered and see where that fits in.

    For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle. Again, when did this happen? Who are "All" the nations?

    Then Zechariah specifically mentions the Mount of Olives and this event takes place around the same time "All nations" come against Israel.

    Lastly, for the moment, Zechariah mentions "the saints". I understand the saints to be the resurrected ones who will be with Christ in his Kingdom when he returns.

    The events from the time of Zechariah are future and when thise prophecy is fulfilled we have to work out. There is nothing about this prophecy which seems figurative to me.


    David

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Beck,

    I think that's an extremely lucid explanation. It should be pretty much self-evident to anyone familiar with the Bible.

    The Futurist arguments depend critically on literalizing the figurative and explaining away the literal.

    Richard
    Hey Richard,

    I thought it to be very self explainatoray. Especially determining whether literal or figurative langauge is being used.
    Beck

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Beck

    Thanks for that. I read very quickly through the whole thread you directed me to and by the time I had finished, I did not want to trawl througt it again to extract all you had contributed.

    The one question I would ask at the moment is; What are the specific verses in Isaiah and Joel are you referring to?
    I have selected some and we can contrast those with Zechariah
    Hey David,

    I give them in my first response. "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."


    As I have said so often, but not lately, we have to consider the context of each chapter and verse we are considering. I do not agree with lifting phrases out of context and plugging them into other parts of scripture. I know we have to look to scripture to explain other scriptures in order to get understanding.
    I would totally agree, but the method of using parallel scriptures to interpert scripture is an very good exegetical way in determining whether figurative or literal explanation should be taken from the context.

    At this moment, I am uncomfortable taking those verses above in Joel and Isaiah and getting them to fit in with Zechariah. That is why, I want you to give me the exact verses you are quoting. I would not take verses from Zechariah 14 and put them back in Isaiah and Joel. We have to be very sure they are talking of the same events. If not, then we are on dangerous ground plugging ideas from Isaiah and Joel into Zechariah's prophecy

    Isaiah and Joel above does read figuratively and we can note that no specific place names are given. Zechariah is very specific.

    David, just upon first reading of Zech 14 one 'should' come to the realization that the Lord would never literally stand on the mount and it be split that it would create a great valley...and that 'ye' shall flee to that valley and the Lord will come and all his saints...In that same day 'in that day' Livings Waters shall go out of Jerusalem [mountain] as if it was split half to the eastern sea and the western sea...Seem to me to be very figurative of the 'valley of decision' spoken of by Joel and how Isaiah spoke of the time when John the Baptist came to preach repentance with water and said that one would come after him with living waters [holy spirit]. Thus is splitting of the mount is figurative of how the words of God will be as a earthquake shaking the mount in half.
    Last edited by Beck; 03-27-2013 at 02:08 PM.
    Beck

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    Hey David,

    I give them in my first response. "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."

    I would totally agree, but the method of using parallel scriptures to interpert scripture is an very good exegetical way in determining whether figurative or literal explanation should be taken from the context.

    David, just upon first reading of Zech 14 one 'should' come to the realization that the Lord would never literally stand on the mount and it be split that it would create a great valley...and that 'ye' shall flee to that valley and the Lord will come and all his saints...In that same day 'in that day' Livings Waters shall go out of Jerusalem [mountain] as if it was split half to the eastern sea and the western sea...Seem to me to be very figurative of the 'valley of decision' spoken of by Joel and how Isaiah spoke of the time when John the Baptist came to preach repentance with water and said that one would come after him with living waters [holy spirit]. Thus is splitting of the mount is figurative of how the words of God will be as a earthquake shaking the mount in half.
    Hello Beck
    What is the next step? Would you like to explain the context each prophet is speaking in? Did I choose the verses correctly you were thinking of?

    As I said, it is obvious Joel and Isaiah are speaking figuratively because they do not in the main mention any specific names. Figurative language could apply to many situations. Like the regathering of Israel, God's promise was unconditional and open-ended. God did not say, I will only regather you once. Whenever Israel was scattered, God promised to regather them. No matter how many times they would be scattered, they would eventually be regathered.

    The scattering of Israel after AD 70 in the middle of the 2nd century lead them into all nations upon the earth from which they have been returning from all nations. When they were taken into exile in Babylon, it was hardly into all nations. Whichever way we look at this and take into account both the Northern and Southern tribes and the Assyrian and Babylonian invasion and capture and exile, it was not into all nations; not as we see all nations today.

    I know Richard is pleased you are agreeing with him and Richard is again confusing the topic and not staying on topic by saying;
    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.
    Here is the definition of sacrifice;
    1.
    the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.
    Who has said for example, tything has ceased? I have explained this to Richard and he continues to bring up the same comments. Richard does not apply any other interpretation. He is stuck in his rut and his dogma, and doing all that he accuses other people of doing.

    The verse Richard is quoting (the last verse of Zechariah says; (21) Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

    I ask you; what is the type of sacrifice being offered? I agree with Richard in so much as Christ has done away with animal sacrifices for the remission of sins.

    Now look at this in the context of Zechariah 14:18; And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

    You see that? The Feast of Tabernacles continues. Why do you suppose all offerings to God should cease? If I want to make a voluntary offering and give a proportion of my wealth back to God (which in the days of the Mosaic law, the tribute went to feed the Levitical priests who ministered unto the people and who did not earn their living off the land). An offering is the same as the sacrifice of giving something up. Do you envisage the hacking a sheaf of barley to death on the alter is sacrificing plants?

    It peeves me when Richard says he is open to learning and yet does not get off the track he is on and keeps bringing up the same misinformation. He is misguiding everyone on this forum by continually saying things which are wrong and so I have to keep repeating my argument against him. It would not be so bad if he did not keep bringing up the same things to me which I have corrected him. He is totally obessed with getting his message out and proving to everyon that he is Mr Perfect and no-one can challenge him on logic. Don't be deceived is my warning. I cannot let his mistakes pass or else those who know no better will assume Richard is the authority on this forum and assume he is correct. Readers beware!! You have been warned.

    Let us not be diverted by Richard and stay on track. Richard has a bee in his bonnet and keeps insisting I answer him and when I have done so in my own way, he does not accept my answer and insists I answer his way. He does not answer my many questions just as he can accuse me of not answering all of his questions. Arguing as he does is a total waste of everybody's time. At least, he is wasting my time by having to counter his continual repeating of mistakes.

    Please let us stay on track with the specifics about the splitting of the Mount of Olives.


    David
    Last edited by David M; 03-28-2013 at 01:57 AM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Beck
    What is the next step?
    Hey David,

    Well for me it would be that you would address what I have given as toward the splitting of the mount as being figurative of dividing the mountain. Which would create a great valley that Zech said that they should flee toward the valley. And I gave an parallel statement found in Isaiah 40:4 of how the mountain shall be maded low as being used as figurative langauge about the preaching of John the Baptist.

    And if you would like another ... Jesus himself spoke of moving 'this mountain' and casting it into the sea (Mark 11:23). Now his disciples either didn't have enough faith to cast that mountain into the sea or they understood Jesus to be speaking figurativley of casting down the authority upon the mountain of Jerusalem. Which first must have been done spiritually by casting down the high places of authority (Eph. 6:12) upon the mountain and at the end would come that every stone would be casted down (Matt.24:1-2).


    Would you like to explain the context each prophet is speaking in?
    As stated Isaiah was prophesing of John the Baptist of one coming in the wilderness preaching repentance and would make straight a highway for the Lord God in the dry places. That every valley shall be exalted and every mountain [high place] and hill shall be maded low and the crooked shall be made straight....(Isaiah 40:3-4) This was figuratively of John the Baptist making a highway in the desert...He never literally would build a highway nor lift up any valley nor any mountain would be made low. It would come by the preacing of the word of God as the word has that kind of power to remove mountains as if an earthquake had moved them. All figurative language of the power of the word to tranform men. To those of high authority to make them low and to those low to make them sit in heavenly [high] places.


    Joel in this same context of transformation of men. As harvest time was near there were multitudes [peoples, nations] in the valley of decision. Jesus said that he saw that the fields was white ready to be harvested (John 4:35-36). That as many as heard the word was like a man sowing seed to some found good ground to others found a rock.

    Both relate in an figurative language of the preaching of the word which is actually what Zech is making mention of as splitting of the mount that LIVING WATERS might flow. No reason to force any literal reading of such langauge.



    Here is the definition of sacrifice;

    Who has said for example, tything has ceased? I have explained this to Richard and he continues to bring up the same comments. Richard does not apply any other interpretation. He is stuck in his rut and his dogma, and doing all that he accuses other people of doing.

    The verse Richard is quoting (the last verse of Zechariah says; (21) Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

    I ask you; what is the type of sacrifice being offered? I agree with Richard in so much as Christ has done away with animal sacrifices for the remission of sins.
    Well I'm not sure you are willing to get into all of this chapter 14 of Zech. I thought you wanted to remain focus of the point of 'splitting of the mount'.?

    But again I think it should be clear when one understands which literature tool of expression is being employed (figurative language) that the feast of Tabernacles [House] that no 'Rain' shall come down upon those that do not come to worship the King the Lord of host. We again can draw an parallel to that of Isaiah's writings in Isaiah 44:3 which speaks of the Lord God poring out water upon them and poring out his spirit ...Thus this out pouring of rain water can be seen as figurative language of the out pouring of the Spirit of God. This again is what Zech was prophesing about that when the mount is split that LIVING WATERS shall flow out. In that day when the Spirit of poured out it will fill every ones 'pot' that comes up and there will no more be a Canaanite (Gentile) in the House of God.





    Now look at this in the context of Zechariah 14:18; And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

    You see that? The Feast of Tabernacles continues. Why do you suppose all offerings to God should cease? If I want to make a voluntary offering and give a proportion of my wealth back to God (which in the days of the Mosaic law, the tribute went to feed the Levitical priests who ministered unto the people and who did not earn their living off the land). An offering is the same as the sacrifice of giving something up. Do you envisage the hacking a sheaf of barley to death on the alter is sacrificing plants?
    No! Please read it again. There is no other sacrifice acceptable to God. The only sacrifice is of yourself to come a worship the Lord God. The highway that John was making was the same highway mentioned in Isaiah 11:16. That highway was NOT an literal highway, but maked possible with and by the Word of God to bring all of his scrattered people back home.
    Beck

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Beck

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    Hey David,

    Well for me it would be that you would address what I have given as toward the splitting of the mount as being figurative of dividing the mountain. Which would create a great valley that Zech said that they should flee toward the valley. And I gave an parallel statement found in Isaiah 40:4 of how the mountain shall be maded low as being used as figurative langauge about the preaching of John the Baptist.
    I am addressing these things. I have come to the conclusion, Zechariah is not figurative because of his specific naming of places. I appreciate your reply and how you attach other figurative phrases found in the Bible to explain Zechariah. We have given our explanations and if each other's explanation does not modify the thinking of the other, then that is OK; we have stated our case. We do not need to continue to argue. If you have presented something new in support of your view, then I will examine that and make comment. It would be better if current members and guests on the form when reading this and other threads, gave their opinion. It would be good if contributors could just give us the benefit of their opinion, but as we know, in most cases Richard will jump in an challenge anything anyone says in which he has a different opinion and like to prove his case. That is OK; its his forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    And if you would like another ... Jesus himself spoke of moving 'this mountain' and casting it into the sea (Mark 11:23). Now his disciples either didn't have enough faith to cast that mountain into the sea or they understood Jesus to be speaking figurativley of casting down the authority upon the mountain of Jerusalem. Which first must have been done spiritually by casting down the high places of authority (Eph. 6:12) upon the mountain and at the end would come that every stone would be casted down (Matt.24:1-2).
    This is what this thread and this exercise is all about. If you present different ideas and pieces of evidence, then that gives me and others something to think about. So then, what do I make of this new piece of evidence. I agree, Jesus is speaking in parables and also uses figurative language. Would I associate his saying to the disciples; "say unto this mountain..." to that of Zechariah? No! The association you have made, had never crossed my mind, and now you have brought it to my attention, I think it is stretching it to make the association with Zechariah. Jesus was talking in the context of "faith". Zechariah is not talking of faith; he is referring to future events in a literal way which does not need figurative language to explain the events. It is usually the other way around and we need to identify specific eventst to prophecy which uses figurative language. Not so here as I see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    As stated Isaiah was prophesing of John the Baptist of one coming in the wilderness preaching repentance and would make straight a highway for the Lord God in the dry places. That every valley shall be exalted and every mountain [high place] and hill shall be maded low and the crooked shall be made straight....(Isaiah 40:3-4) This was figuratively of John the Baptist making a highway in the desert...He never literally would build a highway nor lift up any valley nor any mountain would be made low. It would come by the preacing of the word of God as the word has that kind of power to remove mountains as if an earthquake had moved them. All figurative language of the power of the word to tranform men. To those of high authority to make them low and to those low to make them sit in heavenly [high] places.
    Now you have given me Isaiah 40:3-4 to consider. I did ask you if I had selected the verse from Isaiah you were referring to. Evidently, I had chosen a different verse. I will now read the verses in Isaiah;
    3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
    4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
    I can agree with your comments and John did not build a highway (freeway) and it is speaking of the work John would do in a figurative way. Would I associate this with Zechariah? No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    oel in this same context of transformation of men. As harvest time was near there were multitudes [peoples, nations] in the valley of decision. Jesus said that he saw that the fields was white ready to be harvested (John 4:35-36). That as many as heard the word was like a man sowing seed to some found good ground to others found a rock.

    Both relate in an figurative language of the preaching of the word which is actually what Zech is making mention of as splitting of the mount that LIVING WATERS might flow. No reason to force any literal reading of such langauge.
    I appreciate what you say, and I like to associate scriptures where possible. However, I think it is tenuous, or as Jesus might say;strain at a gnat, to make the association with Zechariah 14. That is just my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    Well I'm not sure you are willing to get into all of this chapter 14 of Zech. I thought you wanted to remain focus of the point of 'splitting of the mount'.?
    Yes I do and if you remember, I said it was Richard who had introduced the diversion and taking the chance to correct him (yet again), I brought the discussion back to focus on the subject of this thread, which I respect you for doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    But again I think it should be clear when one understands which literature tool of expression is being employed (figurative language) that the feast of Tabernacles [House] that no 'Rain' shall come down upon those that do not come to worship the King the Lord of host. We again can draw an parallel to that of Isaiah's writings in Isaiah 44:3 which speaks of the Lord God poring out water upon them and poring out his spirit ...Thus this out pouring of rain water can be seen as figurative language of the out pouring of the Spirit of God. This again is what Zech was prophesing about that when the mount is split that LIVING WATERS shall flow out. In that day when the Spirit of poured out it will fill every ones 'pot' that comes up and there will no more be a Canaanite (Gentile) in the House of God.
    OK, so you make a comment about what I said. I can agree with you on all the figurative language and what that figurative language can mean. The problem we have and this is the problem leading to much confusion and difference of opinion, is taking literal things to be figurative and figurative things to be literal.

    Let me ask a couple of questions to try and see it we can find a way out of the problem we have by wronlgy associating the figurative with the literal. Is prophecy, which is, foretelling future events, speaking of only events with figurative language? Is there a prophecy you can think of which does not use any figurative language?

    It is only my opinion at this stage. I can look at the same passages as you and read them as figurative language and say; what is this referring to? Is it referring to one specific event or period in time? The same applies to something which is said specifically and is not shrouded in figurative language. My problem (as you will see it) is; I see Zechariah speaking specifically. Jerusalem, Mount of Olives, Feast of Tabernacles, these are all indentifable things and Zechariah is not speaking in the same figurative language as Joel and Isaiah. I see Zechariah speaking of the splitting of the mount of Olives plainly, in the same way as the disciples said to Jesus; (John 16:29) Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
    By way of contrast, on an earlier occasion, the Jews came to Jesus and asked him to speak plainly, yet in his answer, Jesus uses the metaphor (figurative language) of sheep. (John 10:24) Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: In this we see Jesus is both specific (plainly speaking) and yet can introduce a metaphor. Was Jesus literally leading a "flock of sheep"? Of course not. Those who followed Jesus were to him like the flock of sheep led by a sheppard. The Jews which did not follow Jesus belonged to a different flock. Now, consider this; if Jesus later referred to his "flock" does that mean; his disciples only? or those at that time who were following him? or in general to all those who follow him in any age and particularly the age of the Gentiles in which we are now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    No! Please read it again. There is no other sacrifice acceptable to God. The only sacrifice is of yourself to come a worship the Lord God. The highway that John was making was the same highway mentioned in Isaiah 11:16. That highway was NOT an literal highway, but maked possible with and by the Word of God to bring all of his scrattered people back home.
    I agreed earlier with the non-literal "highway" of John.
    What do you mean about sacrificing ourselves? How is going to worship the Lord God a sacrifice of one's self? In the age to come, when Jesus returns and is the age I consider Zechariah to be speaking of, he is talking about the nations. These are nations which have yet to learn that Christ's rule is the only rule that can work; man's ruling himself failed. God's way is the only way. People will be alive after the terrible events have taken place who had not accepted Christ. People will still be alive in the millennial age who have to be taught and brought to an acceptance of God and His Son. Christ is going to rule with an "iron rod". He will not pussy-foot around. Nations which do not go up to Jerusalem to worship God and show their acceptance of Him, will have rain withheld as in the past when that literally happened. By way of example, look at what took place when Elijah had to go to Ahab and God had withheld rain (1 Kings 18). It is good way to make people conform when God has the power to withhold rain and famine and pestilence etc will naturally follow. When all sources run dry and there in no provision of water, then the people will have to cry to God to give them rain. God will not do so before they accept Him and do what He instructs them to do. We have the example of Naaman the leper who was not healed till he yielded to God's instruction. In the time when Jesus returns, Jesus has been given all power and authority, even the tiltle and name of God. Jesus will be as God in order to restore the kingdom in readiness to hand it over to his Heavenly Father when complete.

    Its good to chat, I shall wait your response.


    David
    Last edited by David M; 03-29-2013 at 02:16 AM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Beck


    I am addressing these things. I have come to the conclusion, Zechariah is not figurative because of his specific naming of places. I appreciate your reply and how you attach other figurative phrases found in the Bible to explain Zechariah. We have given our explanations and if each other's explanation does not modify the thinking of the other, then that is OK; we have stated our case. We do not need to continue to argue. If you have presented something new in support of your view, then I will examine that and make comment.
    Hi David,

    The things you have not address is the continued flow of thoughts that Zech is given... (I say they are in an figurative language)...Like how would you explan to the readers in any literal sence that living waters are to flow out from Jerusalem? Well that's just after mentioning of the splitting of the mount of Olives and a cry to them to flee to the valley.

    Also just becasue certain names are mentioned it don't make what is being said as an literal events. Consider Jesus often spoke in parables of certain men or of a certain rich man and give such names as Lazarus to a certain man. All along Luke maded note that Jesus was speaking of parables unto the Phraisees. (Luke 15:3), (Luke 16:1-31). that story 'parable' is in the same context of the Lost son, the lost coin within the continued parable.


    This is what this thread and this exercise is all about. If you present different ideas and pieces of evidence, then that gives me and others something to think about. So then, what do I make of this new piece of evidence. I agree, Jesus is speaking in parables and also uses figurative language. Would I associate his saying to the disciples; "say unto this mountain..." to that of Zechariah? No! The association you have made, had never crossed my mind, and now you have brought it to my attention, I think it is stretching it to make the association with Zechariah. Jesus was talking in the context of "faith". Zechariah is not talking of faith; he is referring to future events in a literal way which does not need figurative language to explain the events. It is usually the other way around and we need to identify specific eventst to prophecy which uses figurative language. Not so here as I see it.
    The context of Jesus saying that his own disciples could move the mountain was by faith. What you are overlooking is the simple fact that they would never move a literal mountain by faith, but move 'this mountain' which was the high places of authority that would be casted down. Jesus said and likewise Paul made mentioned that they whom where transformed or quicken by the spirit of God hath been rasied to sit in heavnly places with Christ. (Eph 2:5-6) In such figurative language it was that they where replacing those kings and priest over Jerusalem. The Lord God have given them all power over the prince of darkness. This is how that mountain was removed and casted into the deepth of the sea, but it would only be done through faith.

    Think!!!! Why would Zech cry to those to run to the valley? If there was a literal earthquake that split the mountain why in the world would one to the low places. That's like running to where the earthquake had just split and made an low place....Reading this in a literal event makes no sence.


    Now you have given me Isaiah 40:3-4 to consider. I did ask you if I had selected the verse from Isaiah you were referring to. Evidently, I had chosen a different verse. I will now read the verses in Isaiah;
    I can agree with your comments and John did not build a highway (freeway) and it is speaking of the work John would do in a figurative way. Would I associate this with Zechariah? No.
    The book of Isaiah has many verses that parallel I just pick those that I thought was the most obvious. Also consider Isaiah 2:1-4 ....I laugh when JW comes to my home and attemp to use Isaiah reference of beating swords into plowshares to make their claim that one day there will be no more war... Now that not understanding figurative language.


    OK, so you make a comment about what I said. I can agree with you on all the figurative language and what that figurative language can mean. The problem we have and this is the problem leading to much confusion and difference of opinion, is taking literal things to be figurative and figurative things to be literal.

    Let me ask a couple of questions to try and see it we can find a way out of the problem we have by wronlgy associating the figurative with the literal. Is prophecy, which is, foretelling future events, speaking of only events with figurative language? Is there a prophecy you can think of which does not use any figurative language?
    Well lets see....Zech 13:1 prophecies of 'in that day' there will be a fountain for the sins of the people of Jerusalem. Shall I assume that to be an literal fountain of water since a proper name was used and a place was given as in Jerusalem. What would be the need for Jesus to come if this prophesy was of a literal fountain of water for the remission of sins?

    I agreed earlier with the non-literal "highway" of John.
    What do you mean about sacrificing ourselves? How is going to worship the Lord God a sacrifice of one's self?
    To do the will of the Father you must first die to self. What Zech is showing that those come to worship the Lord will be poured out the latter rain in so that their 'pot' cup will not be able to hold it that it would run down to be bottom of the altar like that of the bowls before the altar at the dedication. Fill my cup O lord fill it Full....
    Beck

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    As I said, it is obvious Joel and Isaiah are speaking figuratively because they do not in the main mention any specific names. Figurative language could apply to many situations. Like the regathering of Israel, God's promise was unconditional and open-ended. God did not say, I will only regather you once. Whenever Israel was scattered, God promised to regather them. No matter how many times they would be scattered, they would eventually be regathered.
    Good afternoon David,

    Where did you get the idea that something is figurative if it does not "in the main mention any specific names"? That's not a valid rule. There are many things that mark figurative language. The most obvious is the use of words like "like" or "as." E.g. "Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?" (Mark 4:30). It has nothing to do with the use of specific names. Specific historical people can be used figuratively: E.g.
    Luke 12:27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?
    Likewise, Christ use Noah in a figurative sense:
    Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
    See the words "as" and "so"? Those are words of comparison which are often used in figurative language.

    You should Google figurative language ans see what it really is all about.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The scattering of Israel after AD 70 in the middle of the 2nd century lead them into all nations upon the earth from which they have been returning from all nations. When they were taken into exile in Babylon, it was hardly into all nations. Whichever way we look at this and take into account both the Northern and Southern tribes and the Assyrian and Babylonian invasion and capture and exile, it was not into all nations; not as we see all nations today.
    There is a BIG difference between the scattering after 70 AD and all the other scatterings. All the other scatterings had very specific lengths and PROMISED end dates associated with them. I explain this in my post called Continuity of Prophetic History confirms Preterism that I wrote back in 2008 when I was still a Christian. The basic idea is that ALL the major events in the history of Israel were predicted with numerical precision with very specific end dates:
    • The Bondage in Egypt for 400 years.
    • The Wandering in the Wilderness for 40 years.
    • The Babylonian Captivity for 70 years.
    • The destruction of Jerusalem after 490 years.

    That's it. There is NO PREDICTION or PROMISE in the Bible that says there would be any return after the scattering of 70 AD.

    Futurism fails on so many points I just can't imagine how anyone could believe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I know Richard is pleased you are agreeing with him and Richard is again confusing the topic and not staying on topic by saying;
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    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.
    Here is the definition of sacrifice;
    the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.
    Who has said for example, tything has ceased? I have explained this to Richard and he continues to bring up the same comments. Richard does not apply any other interpretation. He is stuck in his rut and his dogma, and doing all that he accuses other people of doing.

    The verse Richard is quoting (the last verse of Zechariah says; (21) Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

    I ask you; what is the type of sacrifice being offered? I agree with Richard in so much as Christ has done away with animal sacrifices for the remission of sins.

    Now look at this in the context of Zechariah 14:18; And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

    You see that? The Feast of Tabernacles continues. Why do you suppose all offerings to God should cease? If I want to make a voluntary offering and give a proportion of my wealth back to God (which in the days of the Mosaic law, the tribute went to feed the Levitical priests who ministered unto the people and who did not earn their living off the land). An offering is the same as the sacrifice of giving something up. Do you envisage the hacking a sheaf of barley to death on the alter is sacrificing plants?
    You ignored the rest of the passage!
    Zechariah 14:20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
    That is speaking about ANIMAL SACRIFICES that are seethed. And the phrase "House of the Lord" refers to the Temple. It was destroyed in 70 AD and cannot be rebuilt because the true temple (Christ and his Church) has come. Ye are the Temple of God. From a Christian perspective, it is obviously all figurative. You are twisting words again, looking for ways to force your interpretation by suggesting "plant sacrifices." That totally misses the point. The WHOLE FIRST COVENANT JEWISH SYSTEM ENDED with the coming of Christ. That's why God destroyed the Temple. That's why there is no promise of a rebuilt temple. The old carnal (physical) Temple had to die to make room for the True Temple (Christ and his Body, the Church).

    Your interpretations have no natural coherence with any Big Picture. You force words here and there to make things fit, but then they are totally out of harmony with the rest of the Bible. It's like you've never even heard that the PHYSICAL THINGS of the OT were symbols of the SPIRITUAL THINGS of the NT. This blows my mind. It's like you've never read the Bible with any understanding at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    It peeves me when Richard says he is open to learning and yet does not get off the track he is on and keeps bringing up the same misinformation. He is misguiding everyone on this forum by continually saying things which are wrong and so I have to keep repeating my argument against him. It would not be so bad if he did not keep bringing up the same things to me which I have corrected him. He is totally obessed with getting his message out and proving to everyon that he is Mr Perfect and no-one can challenge him on logic. Don't be deceived is my warning. I cannot let his mistakes pass or else those who know no better will assume Richard is the authority on this forum and assume he is correct. Readers beware!! You have been warned.
    There you go again! Making HUGE BOASTING CLAIMS without any evidence! Your words are FALSE! You have not shown that I have presented any misinformation. You have not shown that I have "misguided" anyone. You have never shown that anything I have written is "wrong."

    You now have now OBLIGATED yourself to either 1) present evidence that supports your claims, or 2) admit your claims are false. If you fail to do one of those two things you will be exposing yourself to be a liar.

    I do not claim to be "Mr. Perfect." That is absurd. All I claim is that you blatantly violated the most elementary rules of logic. For example, you explicitly declared that you "do not disagree" with the Law of Non-Contradiction even as you rejected both P and Not P! So quit complaining. All you need to do is show that you understand basic logic.

    Anyone is free to challenge my logic. You are just upset because I have PROVEN your errors and you refuse to admit the truth and you can't prove me wrong because I'm right on this point.

    And again you made another baseless assertions when you said you could not let my "mistakes" pass. What mistakes are you talking about? Where have you exposed any "error" of mine?

    I am no "authority." My words are strong only because they are founded on LOGIC AND FACTS. They are founded on the solid rock of reality. Your words are weak because they have no foundation. They have no basis. They are just baseless claims that you repeat over and over and over without every presenting any FACTS to back them up.

    You need to quit making baseless assertions and start providing EVIDENCE for your claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Let us not be diverted by Richard and stay on track. Richard has a bee in his bonnet and keeps insisting I answer him and when I have done so in my own way, he does not accept my answer and insists I answer his way. He does not answer my many questions just as he can accuse me of not answering all of his questions. Arguing as he does is a total waste of everybody's time. At least, he is wasting my time by having to counter his continual repeating of mistakes.
    So you are saying that "my way" is the way of logic and facts? That's all I've ever demanded of you.

    I have answered a hundred of your questions for every one of mine that you've answered. You habitually ignore my questions. I diligently seek to answer yours. And the few times I choose to ignore them is when they are obviously off-track and/or designed to evade the real issues.

    I see your tactic now. You are MIMICKING my words, as if I were doing the things you have been doing for the last seven months. Anyone interested can discover the truth in short order. All they have to do is look at this post where I showed that you had repeatedly ignored my questions post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post... for seven long months! And now you want to pervert all truth and reality and spit your false assertions in my face? The Dude abides, but he don't abide that shit.

    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

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good afternoon David,

    Where did you get the idea that something is figurative if it does not "in the main mention any specific names"? That's not a valid rule.
    I am not saying it is a rule, but that it sounds literal to me and I have given you my reason for thinking so. We all have our own "ideas".

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    There are many things that mark figurative language. The most obvious is the use of words like "like" or "as." E.g. "Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?" (Mark 4:30). It has nothing to do with the use of specific names. Specific historical people can be used figuratively: E.g.
    Luke 12:27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?
    Likewise, Christ use Noah in a figurative sense:
    Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
    See the words "as" and "so"? Those are words of comparison which are often used in figurative language.
    I agree, but that is not how most of the chapter 14 reads. There might be a small part of the chapter than can be described as figurative language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You should Google figurative language ans see what it really is all about.
    I have. Figurative language takes different forms as your examples show.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    There is a BIG difference between the scattering after 70 AD and all the other scatterings. All the other scatterings had very specific lengths and PROMISED end dates associated with them. I explain this in my post called Continuity of Prophetic History confirms Preterism that I wrote back in 2008 when I was still a Christian. The basic idea is that ALL the major events in the history of Israel were predicted with numerical precision with very specific end dates:
    I do not agree all history confirms preterism. I do not remember you answering Twospirits to identify the "Abomination that makes desolate" to which Jesus was referring.
    You are almost admitting the Bible is prophetic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    That's it. There is NO PREDICTION or PROMISE in the Bible that says there would be any return after the scattering of 70 AD.
    God would not have promised "not to make a full end" of Israel had he intended to keep them scattered for ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Futurism fails on so many points I just can't imagine how anyone could believe it.
    The same goes for preterism the way I see it. That is just our opposite opinions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You ignored the rest of the passage!
    Zechariah 14:20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
    That is speaking about ANIMAL SACRIFICES that are seethed. And the phrase "House of the Lord" refers to the Temple. It was destroyed in 70 AD and cannot be rebuilt because the true temple (Christ and his Church) has come. Ye are the Temple of God. From a Christian perspective, it is obviously all figurative. You are twisting words again, looking for ways to force your interpretation by suggesting "plant sacrifices." That totally misses the point. The WHOLE FIRST COVENANT JEWISH SYSTEM ENDED with the coming of Christ. That's why God destroyed the Temple. That's why there is no promise of a rebuilt temple. The old carnal (physical) Temple had to die to make room for the True Temple (Christ and his Body, the Church).
    How are we to identify; "all the pots in Jerusalem being like the bowls before the altar"? You have taken the word sacrifice and seethe and presumed they are speaking of sacrifices for sin. Although I mentioned plants, it by no means excludes animal sacrifice. The only exception and I agree with you that Jesus has abolished the need for animal sacrifice. Of course, if you do not see Jesus returning to earth to set up God's kingdom and restore the earth to its former glory, then the picture you have of the future is far different to mine. I do not see the killing of animals for food abolished. The word "seethe" does not have to relate to animal sacrifices. What proof do you have?
    I am no more twisting words than you appeart to be doing. It can be argued that the old covenant with Israel was not totally removed. It was certainly broken by Israel not long after it was given. The new covenant in the blood of Jesus can be regarded as a renewed covenant. Some things in the law were no longer necessary. Until we can all live by the spirit and the law is innate, the law has not been done away with. The law was summed up in the two great commanments spoken by Jesus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your interpretations have no natural coherence with any Big Picture. You force words here and there to make things fit, but then they are totally out of harmony with the rest of the Bible. It's like you've never even heard that the PHYSICAL THINGS of the OT were symbols of the SPIRITUAL THINGS of the NT. This blows my mind. It's like you've never read the Bible with any understanding at all.
    I have no idea what you think is the big picture. I do not know what you think the ultimate purpose of God is and how God will accomplish that purpose.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    There you go again! Making HUGE BOASTING CLAIMS without any evidence! Your words are FALSE! You have not shown that I have presented any misinformation. You have not shown that I have "misguided" anyone. You have never shown that anything I have written is "wrong."
    Yes I have, but I am unable to search the database and I am not wasting my time even if I could.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You now have now OBLIGATED yourself to either 1) present evidence that supports your claims, or 2) admit your claims are false. If you fail to do one of those two things you will be exposing yourself to be a liar.
    How do I get access to the database?


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I do not claim to be "Mr. Perfect." That is absurd. All I claim is that you blatantly violated the most elementary rules of logic. For example, you explicitly declared that you "do not disagree" with the Law of Non-Contradiction even as you rejected both P and Not P! So quit complaining. All you need to do is show that you understand basic logic.
    I have given my reasons for refuting your logic and I am not going to repeat myself here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Anyone is free to challenge my logic. You are just upset because I have PROVEN your errors and you refuse to admit the truth and you can't prove me wrong because I'm right on this point.
    I am not upset and I stand by what I have said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And again you made another baseless assertions when you said you could not let my "mistakes" pass. What mistakes are you talking about? Where have you exposed any "error" of mine?
    I am unable to search the database, so until I can, the record stands. I cannot afford the time to trawl through the post. Should I stumble on an example, I will store if for future reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I am no "authority." My words are strong only because they are founded on LOGIC AND FACTS. They are founded on the solid rock of reality. Your words are weak because they have no foundation. They have no basis. They are just baseless claims that you repeat over and over and over without every presenting any FACTS to back them up.
    None of your facts are convincing. It is not only me you have to convince. I will accept your facts when they are sound.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You need to quit making baseless assertions and start providing EVIDENCE for your claims.
    I am reasoning from the Bible. Wether the Bible is fact or fiction, we have to understand what the authors intended us to understand. Let our argument rest on what the scripture says


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    So you are saying that "my way" is the way of logic and facts? That's all I've ever demanded of you.
    I know what you want, I do not have to agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I have answered a hundred of your questions for every one of mine that you've answered. You habitually ignore my questions. I diligently seek to answer yours. And the few times I choose to ignore them is when they are obviously off-track and/or designed to evade the real issues.
    My questions have not been to deliberately misguide you. You have avoided answering some of my questions. Maybe that should be a rule we stick to and answer every question in a post that is identified with a question mark. I know I have inadvertantly missed off the question mark at times.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I see your tactic now. You are MIMICKING my words, as if I were doing the things you have been doing for the last seven months. Anyone interested can discover the truth in short order. All they have to do is look at this post where I showed that you had repeatedly ignored my questions post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post... for seven long months! And now you want to pervert all truth and reality and spit your false assertions in my face? The Dude abides, but he don't abide that shit.
    Now you are turning the tables on me to exonerate yourself from all that I and others have accused you of doing. You offered the chance of a fresh start, why don't you take it and stop this tirade.

    Unless we agree to a set of rules when in discussion on this forum and we enforce the rules, I do not see any future in our conversations. We are diametrically opposed in our thinking and we shall for ever keep passing each other by. I will add my two-penny worth in threads and not be open to questioning from you. I have am not repeating that which has been posted already.

    This is now the end of this thread for me and I am moving on to another thread, unless someone posts something which is on topic.

    Our discussion has been taken off topic and my objective in this thread was to stay on topic, so this is the end of this discussion for me. I might have other replies from you in other threads and I shall do likewise and close of the discussions unless they are on topic.

    All the best

    David

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
  •