Parallel Passages Confirm Truth

[shorttribber]

That would be "21:7" and "2:17", things like that.When someone starts claiming the counts of letters, or the "symbolic" meanings of numbers, or the coincidence of verse and chapter numbers form the foundations for their doctrines, I have to ask, what is the proof?

First, there has not been any mention at all about forming "the foundations" of their doctrines based on Any of these things. Possibly contributions TO some doctrines Maybe, but not "Foundations".

I hear this a lot. Hebrew, Greek, they have these deep hidden meaning.
My objection is once you go down that road you can go wherever you want.

My objection to a stricter literal meaning is that it can have the same result, example, God could do that if He wanted to, make "every horse of the people go blind".

God could have all the nations all gather in a big valley and each person could come one by one and approach the throne...and separate them that way...he could do that....but maybe the literal sense goes too far also is what I'm saying.

The Greek and Hebrew is "Deep in Meaning", but that's not a negative Mark. Fearing or believing that someone can take it beyond Reasonable Limits is true, yes, but I don't think Fear of that is a good thing either.

The Fear of that very thing is also why the Catholic Pope and Catholic Bishops didn't want the Bible in English either. For Fear that common person would understand something "Deeper and More Meaningful than what THEY WANTED THEM to Believe.

I know this, because I know many who do this, and without exception, at least so far as I've seen, and I've been paying a lot of attention, Each arrives at their own doctrines.

I agree in part, but what has caused the many variant doctrines that have divided most of the typical modern evangelicals? Each have the common foundation, and that is good, other doctrines that are not as foundational or critical can be more fluid but should not be divisive.

Hidden meanings, all right, hidden so well no one else can see them.

Maybe they can be seen when others point them out, is that possible?

When you say, "no one else" I don't think you mean that literally do you?

Although few in number, could reformers have been "no one else"?

I don't believe God vouchsafed His revelation to mankind hidden in numbers, for a few special individuals to decode for the rest of us.
I think we need learn to understand and accept all the words written.
But that's me. I think I just have a higher standard of proof.

He didn't hide His revelation by hidden numbers Mark for a few special people to decode, I don't believe that either.
Learning to "accept all the words written", may include how they could have been meant with the assistance beyond English Grammatical Rules....that's what I'm saying.

It is also a just a little insulting to read some statement about those of us who look beyond English forms to be called "special people" based on your assessment.

Just letting you know that. None of us are any different from the other that serve and Love Christ. That's the way I feel.
God has this or that person do as He chooses from time to time or through time.....and chooses the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.(1Cor 1:27)

How also is your standard of proof higher by the way? Because it is the more literal?

It may be that you're looking at the proof somewhat subjectively possibly, and to you it is a higher standard.

What if your reading of Daniel 9 is a lower standard Because you hold too strongly to English forms...which I've already proven in the past are not an Absolute Rule of English grammar, as you have in the past mentioned. (Referring back to the nearest antecedent)

To me, a statement like this just says, I can make it what I want. I can layer this onto that, and come up with such and such.

To you that may be true,, that is how you perceive what I'm saying. What I'm saying though is that the Fabric must work properly together, form the right weave or be consistent ....form a garment of use for example...not just a bunch of thread full of knots and inconsistencies. They must agree with other scripture, Perfectly

Hebrew is pictoral, of course, but it's still language. It is still meant to communicate.

On this we are in agreement.

It would be interesting to see you in discussion with a friend of mine. He's into this stuff as much or more as you. He reads Greek, and can read much of Hebrew. And his doctrine is strikingly different than yours. So what do you make of that?

I would be interested in communicating with him. I know people that are Mormons and know Greek and Hebrew, it apparently doesn't help much if as I said above..."They must agree with other scripture, Perfectly

That is the bottom line for me....... They must agree with other scripture,Perfectly

[Jay Ross]

Hello

It often seems to me that if the contextual framework of our understanding is flawed, then our derived conclusions for scriptural passages will also be flawed.

For example the Hebrew root word H:5769, which suggests a long period of time that has a vanishing point in the distant future which is outside of our ability to comprehend and often has a defined finite period of time as provided within the passage itself, but it is often translated as "forever," where the English meaning is "an infinite period of time with no end," that forces an out of wack understanding of God's promised intent within that covenantal promise.

Associated with this promise of God is the entity which God was promising to give is also changed from it understood meaning used in Gen 1:1 to 11:32 where it is translated as "earth", but in 12:1 the assumed time context for the covenantal promise has forced a change where it is now translated as "Land," because supposedly the assumed time frame context of the scriptural passage demands it, i.e. God was leading Abraham down to the Land of Canaan.

Patterns, constancies etc. can also be used to justify a particular contextual understanding and so often we need to have a good grasp of the source code from which the translation is derived to understand whether or not our reasoning is justified.

Consider the often hilarious instructions we receive from goods manufacturers overseas who are attempting to provide instructions to help us create a 3-D object out of a flat pack that they have shipped.

The quip, when all else fails properly read the instructions provided, often corrects the failures we have during the assembly of the flat pack into the object that we have purchased at the store and desired to have in our homes.

An example found in the Greek text where the assumed context has driven the wrong message within the English translation can be found in the translation of the Greek Root word, G:4578 which should be understood to have the meaning of "turmoil," rather than "earthquake/tempest." An understanding of turmoil changes the understanding of many passages, particularly with respect to a number of End Time prophecies.

In the Matthew 27:51-54 we are told that the earth did shake and the centurion from outside of Jerusalem saw the turmoil that was happening in the people in and around Jerusalem. Another example is found in Matt 29:2 where there was great turmoil within the guards at the tomb when they saw an angel descend to roll away the stone from the entrance to the tomb. If here had been a "great earthquake" as translated in Matt 29:2, then why is it also not recorded in the other three gospels. The first time "seismos" is found in the Gospels (Matt 8:24) it is used to describe the turmoil in the waves crashing over the boat, because of the standing waves formed by the wave reflections from the shores of the lake, were swamping the boat and causing the boat to begin sinking.

It is the context of our understanding that leads us to wrong conclusions with respect to the Bible and although the translators had good intentions when compiling their respective translations, their understanding of the contexts of the various passages lead them to insert errors into the English words that they chose to use.

Patterns and coincidences can be important, but we should always be cautious about being influenced by the spirits of the air into finding a "pearl" of wisdom within the literal, patterns and coincidences, and verify the leading that we have is from God Himself. Our hearts are very deceptive in matters like this.

Shalom

[shorttribber]

It often seems to me that if the contextual framework of our understanding is flawed, then our derived conclusions for scriptural passages will also be flawed.

Agreed

An example found in the Greek text where the assumed context has driven the wrong message within the English translation can be found in the translation of the Greek Root word, G:4578 which should be understood to have the meaning of "turmoil," rather than "earthquake/tempest." An understanding of turmoil changes the understanding of many passages, particularly with respect to a number of End Time prophecies.

I would agree with that in a general sense. The same problem though can be created Jay IF we feel the ONLY definition for a particular word is correct, and Only what we decide is correct.
That is why we should acknowledge that a single word CAN have different meanings, Based on context.
This is also why the comparison of scripture with like scripture is so important , at least to me it is.

It is the context of our understanding that leads us to wrong conclusions with respect to the Bible and although the translators had good intentions when compiling their respective translations, their understanding of the contexts of the various passages lead them to insert errors into the English words that they chose to use.

True, agreed.

Patterns and coincidences can be important, but we should always be cautious about being influenced by the spirits of the air into finding a "pearl" of wisdom within the literal, patterns and coincidences, and verify the leading that we have is from God Himself. Our hearts are very deceptive in matters like this.

True, and one of those influences have found their way to deceive through astrology, and that is the perversion of the authentic article that has the true foundation of signs, types and shadows in the Word of God.

Just one example to combine a number, type, and sign is the circumcision on the 8th day, The Sign in the Flesh of the Everlasting Covenant.

Welcome Jay.
And welcome to Mark also...I should have said that before.

[Jay Ross]

An example found in the Greek text where the assumed context has driven the wrong message within the English translation can be found in the translation of the Greek Root word, G:4578 which should be understood to have the meaning of "turmoil," rather than "earthquake/tempest." An understanding of turmoil changes the understanding of many passages, particularly with respect to a number of End Time prophecies.

I would agree with that in a general sense. The same problem though can be created Jay IF we feel the ONLY definition for a particular word is correct, and Only what we decide is correct.
That is why we should acknowledge that a single word CAN have different meanings, Based on context.
This is also why the comparison of scripture with like scripture is so important , at least to me it is.

It is the context of our understanding that leads us to wrong conclusions with respect to the Bible and although the translators had good intentions when compiling their respective translations, their understanding of the contexts of the various passages lead them to insert errors into the English words that they chose to use.

True, agreed.

ST I agree that there are words that can have 75 different meanings, from swallow, drink, eat, steal, sit, mock, win, etc. based on the surrounding works associated with it, I.e. "Take a seat." can mean to sit down on a seat, or to steal or carry a seat. The issues with this word "take" is that the context in which it is used can be is very complex.

Other words like "sit" has a particular meaning, I.e. to place one's bum on a usually horizonal surface. It can be modified by other words, like "SIT DOWN," or "SIT UP" the difference between the two requests is that one has a downwards movement from a vertical position while the other requires the person to move from a horizontal position to a siting position. But the meaning/understanding of the word "sit" has not changed.

In the case of G:4578, in all of the 14 times where the 6 variations of the root word is found, the meaning of "turmoil" is still consistent. The context of the word is not changed.

The H:0776 Hebrew root word is different in that there are 64 Hebrew word variations in which the Hebrew root word is found embedded in, and these 64 words are found around 2500 times in the OT.

In Genesis 12:1 H:0776 is found twice in two different Hebrew words where the first occurrence is referring to particular area on the earth, I.e. your country, while the second occurrence is referring to the whole earth.

Was God's context in this initial framing of the covenant over a short or long period of time? If the Saints inheritance is the whole earth under the whole heaven, at the time that the beast of Daniel 7:25ff and Revelation 13, 19 is judged and punished in the Lake of Fire, then the time context with respect to the command to "go to the earth that I will show you" has a very different time frame understanding to the time frame of Abraham going down to the Land of Canaan which Abraham during his 100 years in that land, he never had possession of it. Was God speaking of a spiritual understanding of Abraham entering into a refurbished earth at the end of the Age of the Ages, or was God speaking to Abraham in a more literal sense about Abraham traveling a short distance to live in the Land of Canaan.

People use the Context argument to justify that God was promising land to Abraham, whereas if we look at the big picture of the Covenantal promises, God was referring to a distant future event when the Saints, those that will be deemed to have a righteous relationship with God, will inherit the whole earth.

The same is also true of the "Promised land" that God said He would give to Abraham's descendants to confirm to them that they would at the end of the Age of the Ages also inherit the whole earth and not just a small portion of land.

For me God's promise of our inheritance is much bigger than we can comprehend.

It is our inability to full comprehend what God has promised us that limits our ability to understand the context of His promises to us.

Yes we have to keep in mind the contexts of the surrounding words in the various passages but we do need to be careful that the assumed context is within the realms of God's promises.

People who want to be able to have a literal understanding from the scriptures will always fall short because their context is for them to be able to understand immediately what it is that they read. I know from experience that it has taken many years for revelation to come, even though I have read the same passages many times, i.e. like the occurrences of the Greek words, G:4578 in the NT. I too was looking at the increasing severity of earthquakes around the globe thinking that these were a sign for the of the end times, but it is the conflicts found in the world, the turmoils of nations fighting against other nations that we should be considering.

It is my view that we still have to discover all of the hidden contexts in the scriptures before we will have understanding.

For me the context modification rule does not hold up under close examination.

Shalom

[mark s]

My objection to a stricter literal meaning is that it can have the same result, example, God could do that if He wanted to, make "every horse of the people go blind".

Why would you think this won't happen?

God could have all the nations all gather in a big valley and each person could come one by one and approach the throne...and separate them that way...he could do that....but maybe the literal sense goes too far also is what I'm saying.

Are you saying God won't literally judge the people having gathered them before Him?
Of course He will.

The Greek and Hebrew is "Deep in Meaning", but that's not a negative Mark. Fearing or believing that someone can take it beyond Reasonable Limits is true, yes, but I don't think Fear of that is a good thing either.

Depth in meaning is great, but propensity to embue passages with meaning not stated is also great.

The Fear of that very thing is also why the Catholic Pope and Catholic Bishops didn't want the Bible in English either. For Fear that common person would understand something "Deeper and More Meaningful than what THEY WANTED THEM to Believe.

I think it was a matter of holding sway over the people. And even to the point of interfering with the translation to maintain ecclesiastical language.

I know this, because I know many who do this, and without exception, at least so far as I've seen, and I've been paying a lot of attention, Each arrives at their own doctrines.

I agree in part, but what has caused the many variant doctrines that have divided most of the typical modern evangelicals? Each have the common foundation, and that is good, other doctrines that are not as foundational or critical can be more fluid but should not be divisive.

Hidden meanings, all right, hidden so well no one else can see them.

Maybe they can be seen when others point them out, is that possible?

I don't know. What to the debate forums show?

When you say, "no one else" I don't think you mean that literally do you?

None but the one who claims to "know" the "secret meaning".

Although few in number, could reformers have been "no one else"?

?

I don't believe God vouchsafed His revelation to mankind hidden in numbers, for a few special individuals to decode for the rest of us.
I think we need learn to understand and accept all the words written.
But that's me. I think I just have a higher standard of proof.

He didn't hide His revelation by hidden numbers Mark for a few special people to decode, I don't believe that either.
Learning to "accept all the words written", may include how they could have been meant with the assistance beyond English Grammatical Rules....that's what I'm saying.

But that is how you are presenting. And I'm not talking about English Grammatical Rules for interpreting Greek and Hebrew, so that is a Straw Man, a Logical Fallacy.

It is also a just a little insulting to read some statement about those of us who look beyond English forms to be called "special people" based on your assessment.

I'm sorry you feel insulted!

Perhaps if I re-word . . .

I don't think that God vouchsafed His revelation to mankind hidden in numbers for only those few "in the know" to decode for the rest of us. I meant "special" to be elevating.

How also is your standard of proof higher by the way? Because it is the more literal?

I state it that way because I want specific evidence from the Bible about what the Bible means, and I look for every last detail to be such that I can point to a verse, and say, Here is where it says that.

It may be that you're looking at the proof somewhat subjectively possibly, and to you it is a higher standard.

Call it what you will.

What if your reading of Daniel 9 is a lower standard Because you hold too strongly to English forms...which I've already proven in the past are not an Absolute Rule of English grammar, as you have in the past mentioned. (Referring back to the nearest antecedent)

As previously stated, Straw Man.

To me, a statement like this just says, I can make it what I want. I can layer this onto that, and come up with such and such.

To you that may be true,, that is how you perceive what I'm saying.

It is what I see. Yes. That is my perception.

And my greatest objections are the inconsistencies created, to be explained away by yet more "hidden meanings".

It would be interesting to see you in discussion with a friend of mine. He's into this stuff as much or more as you. He reads Greek, and can read much of Hebrew. And his doctrine is strikingly different than yours. So what do you make of that?

I would be interested in communicating with him. I know people that are Mormons and know Greek and Hebrew, it apparently doesn't help much if as I said above..."They must agree with other scripture, Perfectly

Trust me . . . He'll be as detailed in everything as you are. I've known him a number of years, and discussed much with him. He really does come at it a lot like you do. I think he'd really enjoy your He is a fervent Christian, loves God, and want to serve Him as best as possible. One would think . . .

My discussion with him so often end with me pointing to a Scripture, and him saying, I just know . . .

You can make any Scripture agree with any other Scritpure . . . [color=#4000FF]Perfectly . . . if you are willing to look beyond the written word for meaning. The words become plastic and maleable, and you can make them say whatever it is that you want to.

Much love!

Mark

[shorttribber]

Other words like "sit" has a particular meaning, I.e. to place one's bum on a usually horizonal surface. It can be modified by other words, like "SIT DOWN," or "SIT UP" the difference between the two requests is that one has a downwards movement from a vertical position while the other requires the person to move from a horizontal position to a siting position. But the meaning/understanding of the word "sit" has not changed.

Well, not exactly Jay...i'll give one example regarding the word "sit" ...a very important one I think.

2Thes 2
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2523: καθίζω

καθίζω; future καθίσω (Buttmann, 37 (32)); 1 aorist ἐκάθισα (impv. 2 singular κάθισον once, Mark 12:36 Tr text WH marginal reading); perfect κεκαθικα (Mark 11:2 (not WH Tr marginal reading; Hebrews 12:2 L T Tr WH; a late form, see Veitch, under the word)); 1 aorist middle subjunctive 2 person plural καθίσησθε (Luke 22:30 Rec.); future middle καθίσομαι; from Homer down; (cf. Buttmann, 60 (52));
1. transitive, to make to sit down (κατά; which see III. 1), to set, appoint; the Sept. for הושִׁיב: τινα ἐπί θρόνου (L T Tr WH τόν θρόνον), to confer the kingdom upon one, Acts 2:30; τινα ἐν δεξιά αὐτοῦ, Ephesians 1:20; τινα, to appoint one to act as judge
, 1 Corinthians 6:4 (δικαστήν, Plato, legg. 9, p. 873 e.; Polybius 40, 5, 3; συνέδριον κριτῶν, Josephus, Antiquities 20, 9, 1).

Will answer the rest later Jay, just wanted to comment on that particular word....haven't much time at the moment.


And just to briefly mention too...regarding this ...

Quoting you in blue below...
People use the Context argument to justify that God was promising land to Abraham, whereas if we look at the big picture of the Covenantal promises, God was referring to a distant future event when the Saints, those that will be deemed to have a righteous relationship with God, will inherit the whole earth.

The same is also true of the "Promised land" that God said He would give to Abraham's descendants to confirm to them that they would at the end of the Age of the Ages also inherit the whole earth and not just a small portion of land.

For me God's promise of our inheritance is much bigger than we can comprehend.

It is our inability to full comprehend what God has promised us that limits our ability to understand the context of His promises to us

I do agree with you on this point also.

[shorttribber]

shorttribber wrote:My objection to a stricter literal meaning is that it can have the same result, example, God could do that if He wanted to, make "every horse of the people go blind".Why would you think this won't happen?

Because there are many scriptures that point to the idea that it is meant to be understood in the nonliteral sense.
I will hopefully be able to list them at some point...very short on time and doing my best to answer as I can right now.

God could have all the nations all gather in a big valley and each person could come one by one and approach the throne...and separate them that way...he could do that....but maybe the literal sense goes too far also is what I'm saying.Are you saying God won't literally judge the people having gathered them before Him? Of course He will.

I don't believe He will literally do that, no. At the great white throne ,yes...in the middle of a gigantic valley called Jehosophat, no, I don't believe that.

I don't fault you for believing that though...many do....and that's ok with me.
As to my reason for mentioning such, it has to do with expectations that I just think are unscriptural, and is literalism gone too far.

The Greek and Hebrew is "Deep in Meaning", but that's not a negative Mark. Fearing or believing that someone can take it beyond Reasonable Limits is true, yes, but I don't think Fear of that is a good thing either.Depth in meaning is great, but propensity to embue passages with meaning not stated is also great.

Guess I need to look up the meaning of "embue"

The Fear of that very thing is also why the Catholic Pope and Catholic Bishops didn't want the Bible in English either. For Fear that common person would understand something "Deeper and More Meaningful than what THEY WANTED THEM to Believe.I think it was a matter of holding sway over the people. And even to the point of interfering with the translation to maintain ecclesiastical language.

Sounds a lot like the intent of Modern Translations also to me...another subject...not going there.

When you say, "no one else" I don't think you mean that literally do you?None but the one who claims to "know" the "secret meaning".

I would agree if it WERE only ONE....but what if it's thousands or only hundreds of people instead of millions? Would there be a number acceptable to you to consider other possibilities then?

When you say, "no one else" I don't think you mean that literally do you?None but the one who claims to "know" the "secret meaning".Although few in number, could reformers have been "no one else"??

I mean that they were few in number compared to the masses against what they were trying
TO REVEAL in the word of God. But you use "no one else" as a blanket for few in number it seems

He didn't hide His revelation by hidden numbers Mark for a few special people to decode, I don't believe that either. Learning to "accept all the words written", may include how they could have been meant with the assistance beyond English Grammatical Rules....that's what I'm saying.But that is how you are presenting. And I'm not talking about English Grammatical Rules for interpreting Greek and Hebrew, so that is a Straw Man, a Logical Fallacy.

How am I doing that? I'm saying that rigid English Grammar does not ALWAYS APPLY as the only standard to comprehend the Word of God, and Hebraic Patterns must factor in in some way....that's all.

He didn't hide His revelation by hidden numbers Mark for a few special people to decode, I don't believe that either. Learning to "accept all the words written", may include how they could have been meant with the assistance beyond English Grammatical Rules....that's what I'm saying.But that is how you are presenting. And I'm not talking about English Grammatical Rules for interpreting Greek and Hebrew, so that is a Straw Man, a Logical Fallacy.

You may think so...I don't believe it is at all.

I'm sorry you feel insulted! Perhaps if I re-word . . .I don't think that God vouchsafed His revelation to mankind hidden in numbers for only those few "in the know" to decode for the rest of us. I meant "special" to be elevating.

I wonder if those who put the Bishops Bible into verses were accused of being "in the know"

How also is your standard of proof higher by the way? Because it is the more literal?I state it that way because I want specific evidence from the Bible about what the Bible means, and I look for every last detail to be such that I can point to a verse, and say, Here is where it says that.

So do I, and I look beyond English forms and rules to do that.

It may be that you're looking at the proof somewhat subjectively possibly, and to you it is a higher standard.Call it what you will.

ok

What if your reading of Daniel 9 is a lower standard Because you hold too strongly to English forms...which I've already proven in the past are not an Absolute Rule of English grammar, as you have in the past mentioned. (Referring back to the nearest antecedent)As previously stated, Straw Man.

And as stated before...I don't believe it is.

It is what I see. Yes. That is my perception.And my greatest objections are the inconsistencies created, to be explained away by yet more "hidden meanings".

Name one then please, that I have mentioned, not that others have mentioned.

I will communicate with your friend if possible too.

Blessings to ya

[mark s]

What are the Scriptures which tell us that the horses will not be struck with actual blindness? So many? I've missed them all!

And the passages which say the valley of decision isn't real?

Very interested in those also.

and is literalism gone too far.

Personally I reserve that for those saying God has feathers.

But naming places and what will happen there, well, if we can't accept that, what can we accept?

Guess I need to look up the meaning of "embue"

That refers to what you put into it.

The Fear of that very thing is also why the Catholic Pope and Catholic Bishops didn't want the Bible in English either. For Fear that common person would understand something "Deeper and More Meaningful than what THEY WANTED THEM to Believe.

I think it was a matter of holding sway over the people. And even to the point of interfering with the translation to maintain ecclesiastical language.

Sounds a lot like the intent of Modern Translations also to me...another subject...not going there.

I'm talking about the King James Version, with words intentionally not translated, instead replaced with ecclesiastical language such as "Bishop", when the translation should read, "overseer", for instance. It was to maintain the authority of the church.

When you say, "no one else" I don't think you mean that literally do you? None but the one who claims to "know" the "secret meaning".

I see this frequently. Actually, I mean "no one else". But you may disregard my words as freely as you do others, assuming I don't really mean it.

TO REVEAL in the word of God. But you use "no one else" as a blanket for few in number it seems

So then you insist I cannot mean what I say?

He didn't hide His revelation by hidden numbers Mark for a few special people to decode, I don't believe that either. Learning to "accept all the words written", may include how they could have been meant with the assistance beyond English Grammatical Rules....that's what I'm saying.But that is how you are presenting. And I'm not talking about English Grammatical Rules for interpreting Greek and Hebrew, so that is a Straw Man, a Logical Fallacy.

How am I doing that? I'm saying that rigid English Grammar does not ALWAYS APPLY as the only standard to comprehend the Word of God, and Hebraic Patterns must factor in in some way....that's all.

How many times will I need to affirm that I'm not proposing we use English grammatical rules for foreign languages?

You can argue against that all day and all night, but your debate is not with me. I do not say that. You argue against what I'm not saying. That is a Straw Man argument, a logical fallacy.

As I read the balance of your post, it seems you continue to go on about English grammar, so that's more the Straw Man.

And, what do I think I'm accomplishing here anyway?

Much love!
mark

[shorttribber]

What are the Scriptures which tell us that the horses will not be struck with actual blindness? So many? I've missed them all!

I said i will find them Mark, can you give me some time for that please? That is what I first asked.

And the passages which say the valley of decision isn't real?

I didn't say it wasn't "real", I said it wasn't Literal, in the prophetic sense.

Answer more later....short on time.

[Jay Ross]

Other words like "sit" has a particular meaning, I.e. to place one's bum on a usually horizonal surface. It can be modified by other words, like "SIT DOWN," or "SIT UP" the difference between the two requests is that one has a downwards movement from a vertical position while the other requires the person to move from a horizontal position to a siting position. But the meaning/understanding of the word "sit" has not changed.

Well, not exactly Jay...i'll give one example regarding the word "sit" ...a very important one I think.

2Thes 2
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

<snip>

Your example is may be important but the Greek word, καθίσαι, still has the meaning of "sit." In the 2 Thes 2:4 example the meaning of G:2523 in the variant found in this verse is still sit. The reason for sitting in the temple is to show that he, himself is "GOD" to the people that can see him.

To say "sit in a particular "place" is not qualifying what the person is doing, all it tells us is where Satan is intending to sit in the future and the place is in the Temple of God, but that act of defiance is his attempt to demonstrate that he alone is a god.

I do not think that you have shown a modifier for the word "sit" is present in 2 Thes 2:4.

Shalom

[shorttribber]

Other words like "sit" has a particular meaning, I.e. to place one's bum on a usually horizonal surface. It can be modified by other words, like "SIT DOWN," or "SIT UP" the difference between the two requests is that one has a downwards movement from a vertical position while the other requires the person to move from a horizontal position to a siting position. But the meaning/understanding of the word "sit" has not changed.

Well, not exactly Jay...i'll give one example regarding the word "sit" ...a very important one I think.

2Thes 2
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

<snip>

Your example is may be important but the Greek word, καθίσαι, still has the meaning of "sit." In the 2 Thes 2:4 example the meaning of G:2523 in the variant found in this verse is still sit. The reason for sitting in the temple is to show that he, himself is "GOD" to the people that can see him.

I do not think that you have shown a modifier for the word "sit" is present in 2 Thes 2:4.

Shalom

To say "sit in a particular "place" is not qualifying what the person is doing, all it tells us is where Satan is intending to sit in the future and the place is in the Temple of God, but that act of defiance is his attempt to demonstrate that he alone is a god.
The actual Greek word for Temple in that place is Naos, and is not even where an antichrist would even Physically "Sit".
He will show himself as a Judge and God of himself and of the people of God...much like the Pope currently does already.

As to a modifier...I will use the following example...quoting a small amount from internet example below in blue...

Now, let’s try phrases as modifiers. Remember, a phrase is a group of related words that don’t include a subject and a verb.
The dog ate popcorn from the fair.
The dog ran as fast as the wind.


The coming man will "sit" showing himself as god.
Seems this does qualify as a modifier doesn't it?

He will sit in his own body of flesh..as an apostate claiming godhood, as many modern new agers do...the word Noas is spoken of in many places as the physical body rather than a Literal temple precinct or Literal complex

[shorttribber]

And Mark, i'm going over about 150 horses, chariots, and horsemen verses in the prophetic books to single out a few for examples ok?

Need some time still

[mark s]

And Mark, i'm going over about 150 horses, chariots, and horsemen verses in the prophetic books to single out a few for examples ok?

Need some time still

No worries!

It sounds like you're not thinking of a particular place that let's us know this particular passage isn't meant to be taken as stated, as if I said, Helen Keller was born blind, we wouldn't think of her not actually being able to see, of course she could See! I must mean that she was dull and lacking understanding.

Anyway, this is kind of my point. You are saying that the verse is not meant to be read literally, but not because you've read in the Bible that this is so, rather, you have your own reasons for not taking it literally, in this case, from what you've said before, simply that you find the idea preposterous.

But perhaps if you search sufficiently, you may find another passage about something else somewhere else, to show as evidence of why This passage does not mean just what it says, in the normal way of language.

Helen Keller was blind, and horses will be blind. Why is that so difficult?

Much love!
Mark

[shorttribber]

shorttribber wrote:And Mark, i'm going over about 150 horses, chariots, and horsemen verses in the prophetic books to single out a few for examples ok?Need some time still

mark said:No worries! It sounds like you're not thinking of a particular place that let's us know this particular passage isn't meant to be taken as stated, as if I said, Helen Keller was born blind, we wouldn't think of her not actually being able to see, of course she could See! I must mean that she was dull and lacking understanding.

If you were a Prophet...and spoke of her in a prophetic sense, maybe that would be a good example.
Should we wonder if those in the early church actually had "the spirit of Jezebel" Literally...were they possibly all possessed by the Very Actual Soul of Jezebel? That's the difference in prophecy and plain speaking in a literal sense mark.

Anyway, this is kind of my point. You are saying that the verse is not meant to be read literally, but not because you've read in the Bible that this is so, rather, you have your own reasons for not taking it literally, in this case, from what you've said before, simply that you find the idea preposterous.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't think it is preposterous to believe that every horse could be struck blind...I just don't think it is the most reasonable way to understand it based on other text examples.

I did not say taking literalism too far was preposterous, I have just stressed that it may not be the best way to interpret the text.

Helen Keller was blind, and horses will be blind. Why is that so difficult?

Because I haven't read any account of her in the books of Bible prophecy that would lead me to think anything other than the fact that she was Literally born blind.

Now let me repeat what I said above...and why this whole matter is not about difficulty accepting a matter...
I did not say taking literalism too far was preposterous, I have just stressed that it may not be the best way to interpret the text.

You see mark, I do believe in miracles, so much so that if the Bible said that Jonah Swallowed a Whale...and not the other way around, I would believe it...because God's Word does not lie.

[mark s]

shorttribber wrote:And Mark, i'm going over about 150 horses, chariots, and horsemen verses in the prophetic books to single out a few for examples ok?Need some time still

mark said:No worries! It sounds like you're not thinking of a particular place that let's us know this particular passage isn't meant to be taken as stated, as if I said, Helen Keller was born blind, we wouldn't think of her not actually being able to see, of course she could See! I must mean that she was dull and lacking understanding.

If you were a Prophet...and spoke of her in a prophetic sense, maybe that would be a good example.

Is that to say that you don't think a prophet can prophesy something that will literally and actually happen?

Much love!
mark

[mark s]

I did not say taking literalism too far was preposterous, I have just stressed that it may not be the best way to interpret the text.

But why not?

Isn't that more reflective of how you want me to understand you?

And I don't want to stress you out over this! So I'm sorry if I have! We can set it aside for later if you like.

Much love!
Mark

[shorttribber]

shorttribber wrote:And Mark, i'm going over about 150 horses, chariots, and horsemen verses in the prophetic books to single out a few for examples ok?Need some time still

mark said:No worries! It sounds like you're not thinking of a particular place that let's us know this particular passage isn't meant to be taken as stated, as if I said, Helen Keller was born blind, we wouldn't think of her not actually being able to see, of course she could See! I must mean that she was dull and lacking understanding.

If you were a Prophet...and spoke of her in a prophetic sense, maybe that would be a good example.

Is that to say that you don't think a prophet can prophesy something that will literally and actually happen?

Much love!
mark

Of course not. There have been plenty of things literally fulfilled. Do you think there are things that can't be in a non-literal sense?

[mark s]

It's all about what the text says.

I don't point to Scripture and say, It says that the horses go blind, but it doesn't really mean that. Unless I have a Scripture which let's me know otherwise.

But lacking that, I don't just go around saying, Oh, this is a symbol, and that doesn't really happen that way, and so forth.

Much love!
Mark

[shorttribber]

I did not say taking literalism too far was preposterous, I have just stressed that it may not be the best way to interpret the text.

But why not?

Isn't that more reflective of how you want me to understand you?

And I don't want to stress you out over this! So I'm sorry if I have! We can set it aside for later if you like.

Much love!
Mark

I'm not stressed over it at all Mark, I'm just short on time...but I don't know why you would say "Isn't that more reflective of how you want me to understand you?"


I want you to understand that if the horse blindness happened, or the thought of such is not preposterous, I'm not being disingenuous with you Mark, I just do not believe it is correctly understood in the literal sense.

[shorttribber]

It's all about what the text says.

I don't point to Scripture and say, It says that the horses go blind, but it doesn't really mean that. Unless I have a Scripture which let's me know otherwise.

But lacking that, I don't just go around saying, Oh, this is a symbol, and that doesn't really happen that way, and so forth.

Much love!
Mark

I don't do that either Mark.

I have valid reasons for the things I believe a text is saying. Do you honestly think that I don't also use scripture to let me know and understand that it COULD be OTHER than in the Literal sense?

[Jay Ross]

Is the context of the time that the prophecy was written that all of the "horses'" upon which men travelled to get from one place to another in battle would be blinded not applicable to the context by which the means of men use today to travel from one place to another. Within the context of todays methods of war, can the "horses'" pulling the chariots become blinded all at the same time?

The answer is yes they can, but not necessarily within the context of when the prophecy was written, but the prophecy does convey the fact that the blindness of all of the means of travel, i.e. the modern day "horses" drawn chariots ,will occur on the battle field.

That is what a lot of research has been directed towards with respect to modern day warfare.

Yes the imagery of the prophecy cannot be considered literally within the context of the time, i.e. horse drawn chariots, in which it was written, but it can be considered literally within the context of todays horse drawn "chariots" used by fighting men today to move from one place to another in battle.

This requires us to make a leap of faith within our contextual understanding of prophecy.

Shalom

[shorttribber]

Is the context of the time that the prophecy was written that all of the "horses'" upon which men travelled to get from one place to another in battle would be blinded not applicable to the context by which the means of men use today to travel from one place to another. Within the context of todays methods of war, can the "horses'" pulling the chariots become blinded all at the same time?

The answer is yes they can, but not necessarily within the context of when the prophecy was written, but the prophecy does convey the fact that the blindness of all of the means of travel, i.e. the modern day "horses" drawn chariots ,will occur on the battle field.

That is what a lot of research has been directed towards with respect to modern day warfare.

Yes the imagery of the prophecy cannot be considered literally within the context of the time, i.e. horse drawn chariots, in which it was written, but it can be considered literally within the context of todays horse drawn "chariots" used by fighting men today to move from one place to another in battle.

This requires us to make a leap of faith within our contextual understanding of prophecy.

Shalom

Sure Jay, I do think I understand where you are coming from in that regard. As though the prophecy were using ancient ideas to describe a more future event and circumstances that would involve modern movement, a vehicle modern differing from a vehicle ancient.

That's the idea right? Excuse me please in advance if that is not your meaning exactly.

There is a different idea I think though it is speaking of...and as I told Mark, I will share the verses that help me explain that later.
I will add one section of text below that will hopefully at least hint at the perspective I'm coming from on it.

Ps 68
17 The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place............................

30 Rebuke the company of spearmen, the multitude of the bulls, with the calves of the people, till every one submit himself with pieces of silver: scatter thou the people that delight in war.


Pay attention especially to the words "calves of the people"
and compare that wording to the following....

Zech 12
4 In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.


More later