vinsight4u
Contributor
Upvote
0
Let's stop interpreting for a while.
- Thread starter Biblewriter
- Start date
- Status
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
here is the historical timeline which matches up to the verses in question from Daniel chapter 11
Starting with verse 14
14 “In those times many shall rise against the king of the south, and the violent among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they shall fail. 15 Then the king of the north shall come and throw up siegeworks and take a well-fortified city. And the forces of the south shall not stand, or even his best troops, for there shall be no strength to stand. 16 But he who comes against him shall do as he wills, and none shall stand before him. And he shall stand in the glorious land, with destruction in his hand. 17 He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of an agreement and perform them. He shall give him the daughter of women to destroy the kingdom, but it shall not stand or be to his advantage. 18 Afterward he shall turn his face to the coastlands and shall capture many of them, but a commander shall put an end to his insolence. Indeed, he shall turn his insolence back upon him. 19 Then he shall turn his face back toward the fortresses of his own land, but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found."
This whole section is speaking of Antiochus III (the Great) the King of Seleucia.
The Seleucid kingdom had fallen into collapse prior to his reign but he proved to be a mighty warrior and general. He was attacked by the Egyptians who at the time controled palestine. Antiochus III soundly defeated the egpytians and took all of the territory down to egypt itself. He was ordered not to take egypt by the Romans who depended on Egypt as a source of food. The reference to the "daughter" who is given from the King of the North to the King of the south was the daughter of Antiochus III. As part of his treaty with Egypt he married his daughter to the king of Egypt. However, when her husband died, and she became the queen regent of Egypt, rather than favoring her father. She ruled in her own right and maintained the independance of Egypt.
After this Antiochus turned his attentions towards turkey and eventually the coast of Europe (thrace). His conquest there earned him the anger of the Romans who promptly sent an army to deal with him. The great Roman commander Scipio defeats Antiochus and Rome imposes a very large war indemnity (tribute) on the Selucid Kingdom. Shortly after this Antiochus III was killed while trying to sack a temple for money to pay his Roman debt.
20 “Then shall arise in his place one who shall send an exactor of tribute for the glory of the kingdom. But within a few days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle. "
This verse refers to Seleucus, the son and successor of Antiochus III. Seleucus came to the throne with a huge debt to Rome hanging over his head. He sent one of his generals to collect very heavy taxes from Palestine and specifically to loot the temple in Jerusalem.
The plan failed, however, and Seleucus was murdered by the general.
"21 In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given. He shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, even the prince of the covenant. "
From this point on, until verse 33 it speaks of Antiochus IV, also known as Antiochus Epiphanes.
He was the brother of Seleucus, and although he was not the heir, he married Seleucus' wife and with diplomatic support of a neighboring king, named himself the King of Seleucia.
Antiochus proceeds to wage war on Egypt, and meddle in the affairs of the Temple in Jerusalem etc. He makes a treaty with egypt which he then breaks and defeats egypt. He goes south into Egypt and Lays seige to the city of Alexandria.
At that point Rome dispatched a fleet to protect their grain supply routes which originate in Egypt. The fleet warns Antiochus to leave egypt and he retreats.
this is the reference in verse 30 to the ships of Kittim (or Chittim).
The antiochus began deliberate efforts to destroy Judaism, and force greek paganism on the jews. This included his infamous defiling of the temple by errecting an alter to Zeus in the Holy Place and sacrificing a pig to Zeus on the temple alter. (the abomination of desolation).
This event sparked a revolt under the Macabees which successfuly expelled the Seleucids from Judea and lead to the establishment of the Hasmonean Judean kingdom. This is fortold in verse 33.
Antiochus himself died while trying to seige Susa in Persia.
Starting with verse 14
14 “In those times many shall rise against the king of the south, and the violent among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they shall fail. 15 Then the king of the north shall come and throw up siegeworks and take a well-fortified city. And the forces of the south shall not stand, or even his best troops, for there shall be no strength to stand. 16 But he who comes against him shall do as he wills, and none shall stand before him. And he shall stand in the glorious land, with destruction in his hand. 17 He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of an agreement and perform them. He shall give him the daughter of women to destroy the kingdom, but it shall not stand or be to his advantage. 18 Afterward he shall turn his face to the coastlands and shall capture many of them, but a commander shall put an end to his insolence. Indeed, he shall turn his insolence back upon him. 19 Then he shall turn his face back toward the fortresses of his own land, but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found."
This whole section is speaking of Antiochus III (the Great) the King of Seleucia.
The Seleucid kingdom had fallen into collapse prior to his reign but he proved to be a mighty warrior and general. He was attacked by the Egyptians who at the time controled palestine. Antiochus III soundly defeated the egpytians and took all of the territory down to egypt itself. He was ordered not to take egypt by the Romans who depended on Egypt as a source of food. The reference to the "daughter" who is given from the King of the North to the King of the south was the daughter of Antiochus III. As part of his treaty with Egypt he married his daughter to the king of Egypt. However, when her husband died, and she became the queen regent of Egypt, rather than favoring her father. She ruled in her own right and maintained the independance of Egypt.
After this Antiochus turned his attentions towards turkey and eventually the coast of Europe (thrace). His conquest there earned him the anger of the Romans who promptly sent an army to deal with him. The great Roman commander Scipio defeats Antiochus and Rome imposes a very large war indemnity (tribute) on the Selucid Kingdom. Shortly after this Antiochus III was killed while trying to sack a temple for money to pay his Roman debt.
20 “Then shall arise in his place one who shall send an exactor of tribute for the glory of the kingdom. But within a few days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle. "
This verse refers to Seleucus, the son and successor of Antiochus III. Seleucus came to the throne with a huge debt to Rome hanging over his head. He sent one of his generals to collect very heavy taxes from Palestine and specifically to loot the temple in Jerusalem.
The plan failed, however, and Seleucus was murdered by the general.
"21 In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given. He shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, even the prince of the covenant. "
From this point on, until verse 33 it speaks of Antiochus IV, also known as Antiochus Epiphanes.
He was the brother of Seleucus, and although he was not the heir, he married Seleucus' wife and with diplomatic support of a neighboring king, named himself the King of Seleucia.
Antiochus proceeds to wage war on Egypt, and meddle in the affairs of the Temple in Jerusalem etc. He makes a treaty with egypt which he then breaks and defeats egypt. He goes south into Egypt and Lays seige to the city of Alexandria.
At that point Rome dispatched a fleet to protect their grain supply routes which originate in Egypt. The fleet warns Antiochus to leave egypt and he retreats.
this is the reference in verse 30 to the ships of Kittim (or Chittim).
The antiochus began deliberate efforts to destroy Judaism, and force greek paganism on the jews. This included his infamous defiling of the temple by errecting an alter to Zeus in the Holy Place and sacrificing a pig to Zeus on the temple alter. (the abomination of desolation).
This event sparked a revolt under the Macabees which successfuly expelled the Seleucids from Judea and lead to the establishment of the Hasmonean Judean kingdom. This is fortold in verse 33.
Antiochus himself died while trying to seige Susa in Persia.
Upvote
0
- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
I have now completed a count of all the translations available in Bibleworks and Quickverse. These two programs include a total of 25 translations that render Micah 5:5 as "When" (the Assyrian comes) and six that render it as "if" or "should" he come.
Upvote
0
vinsight4u
Contributor
Upvote
0
- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
At the time I originally posted this material, I was unable to post the following maps. As they add significantly to my previous comments, I add them now.
The Lands of the Kings of the North and South
With the Assyrian Empire
This map shows that kingdom of the ancient King of the North covered the same area as the previous Assyrian Empire, and thus that the prophetic terms The Assyrian and The King of the North refer to the same individual. The land of the King of the South is shown for reference.
The Path of the Assyrian
This map shows the path the Assyrian will follow as he approaches Jerusalem (as described in Isaiah 10:28-32). This path was never followed by any ancient Assyrian invader. The rest of the Assyrians path is drawn from various other scriptures.
As I am the copyright holder of this material, I have the right to post it. Permission is granted to share this material with your associates, but not to re-publish it.
Upvote
0
B
Bible2
Guest
Micah 5:5a and Isaiah 30:31 could refer to Jesus'
future defeat of the Antichrist at the second coming,
when the Antichrist makes a final attack on Jerusalem
(Zechariah 14:2-4). Micah 5:5b-6 could be the same as
Zechariah 14:14, 12:6-9.
Isaiah 10:5-34 and Isaiah 14:25 could refer to
Sennacherib (Isaiah chapters 36-37). Isaiah 10:10-11
doesn't say that the attack of Judah and Jerusalem had
already occurred. The prophesied boasting in Isaiah
10:9-11 was fulfilled by Sennacherib in Isaiah 36:19-20.
Isaiah 10:12,20 could have been fulfilled in Isaiah
37:31-38. Isaiah 10:12 could simply mean the whole
work with regard to Sennacherib's invasion. Isaiah
10:20 could simply refer to the Jews alive right
after Sennacherib's defeat. Isaiah 10:25 could simply
mean the indignation with regard to Sennacherib's
invasion. 2 Kings 18:5-6 is referring only to Hezekiah,
not to the general population of Judah, which could
have been hypocritical. 2 Chronicles 30:12 was a single
instance of keeping the Passover in the first year of
Hezekiah's reign (2 Chronicles chapters 29-30).
Sennacherib didn't invade until 14 years later (Isaiah
36:1), ample time for the general population of Judah
to have backslidden into hypocrisy.
There's no historical proof that Isaiah 10:28-32
couldn't have been fulfilled by Sennacherib, for he
could have led an expeditionary force down the ridge
while the bulk of his army proceeded down the coast.
The towns on the ridge could have been considered too
insignificant to list on any monument, and the rapid
movement of Sennacherib's forces down the ridge need
not have left any archaeological record. Sennacherib
could have wanted to spy out Jerusalem for himself to
see what it would take to lay siege to it. Then he
could have simply shaken his fist at it (Isaiah 10:32)
before returning to the bulk of his forces along the
coast.
Later, while he was besieging Lachish, he could have
started to worry about his planned siege of Jerusalem,
thinking that it could take years. 2 Kings 18:17-37,
2 Chronicles 32:9-19, and Isaiah 36:2-22 refer to him
sending some forces to Jerusalem to try to simply scare
it into submission with words.
Isaiah 31:8-9 could refer to Sennacherib (Isaiah
37:36-37). The Hebrew word translated as "discomfited"
in Isaiah 31:8 can simply mean faint; it doesn't have
to mean placed into slavery. Regarding Isaiah 31:6-7,
nothing requires that the general population of the
Jews hadn't made personal idols by the time of
Sennacherib's invasion.
---
Isaiah 14:29-31 could refer to the ancient Philistines
around the time of Ahaz (Isaiah 14:28). They could have
been smitten by Tilgathpilneser (cf. 2 Chronicles
28:18-21), and then later by Sennacherib.
Isaiah 7:17-20 could also refer to the time of Ahaz
(Isaiah 7:12), when Judah was invaded by both
the Philistines and Tilgathpilneser (2 Chronicles
28:18-21). The "rivers of Egypt" (Isaiah 7:18) could
mean the wadis near and at the border between the land
of the Philistines and Egypt, for "the river of Egypt"
was a wadi at the southern border of the land of the
Philistines (Numbers 34:5, Joshua 15:4,47).
---
Daniel 11:31 isn't fulfilled yet (Matthew 24:15), and
it's just part of an entire sequence related to the
same person (Daniel 11:21-45), who will be the
Antichrist, "the little horn" (Daniel 7:8, 8:9); he
could be an Arab who will come out of Tyre, Lebanon
(Ezekiel 28:2, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4). So there
could be a king of the north (possibly an Iraqi
General in 2010) who will defeat Israel and Egypt
(Daniel 11:15-16), but then disappear from the scene
(Daniel 11:19), shortly before the Antichrist is first
given some power (Daniel 11:21).
---
Nahum could refer to the destruction of ancient Ninevah.
Nahum 1:9 could mean that God would make an utter end of
ancient Ninevah, and wouldn't have to afflict it more
than once. Nahum 1:12-13 could mean that God would not
afflict Israel with Ninevah any more. Mosul is located
across the river from the site of ancient Ninevah.
future defeat of the Antichrist at the second coming,
when the Antichrist makes a final attack on Jerusalem
(Zechariah 14:2-4). Micah 5:5b-6 could be the same as
Zechariah 14:14, 12:6-9.
Isaiah 10:5-34 and Isaiah 14:25 could refer to
Sennacherib (Isaiah chapters 36-37). Isaiah 10:10-11
doesn't say that the attack of Judah and Jerusalem had
already occurred. The prophesied boasting in Isaiah
10:9-11 was fulfilled by Sennacherib in Isaiah 36:19-20.
Isaiah 10:12,20 could have been fulfilled in Isaiah
37:31-38. Isaiah 10:12 could simply mean the whole
work with regard to Sennacherib's invasion. Isaiah
10:20 could simply refer to the Jews alive right
after Sennacherib's defeat. Isaiah 10:25 could simply
mean the indignation with regard to Sennacherib's
invasion. 2 Kings 18:5-6 is referring only to Hezekiah,
not to the general population of Judah, which could
have been hypocritical. 2 Chronicles 30:12 was a single
instance of keeping the Passover in the first year of
Hezekiah's reign (2 Chronicles chapters 29-30).
Sennacherib didn't invade until 14 years later (Isaiah
36:1), ample time for the general population of Judah
to have backslidden into hypocrisy.
There's no historical proof that Isaiah 10:28-32
couldn't have been fulfilled by Sennacherib, for he
could have led an expeditionary force down the ridge
while the bulk of his army proceeded down the coast.
The towns on the ridge could have been considered too
insignificant to list on any monument, and the rapid
movement of Sennacherib's forces down the ridge need
not have left any archaeological record. Sennacherib
could have wanted to spy out Jerusalem for himself to
see what it would take to lay siege to it. Then he
could have simply shaken his fist at it (Isaiah 10:32)
before returning to the bulk of his forces along the
coast.
Later, while he was besieging Lachish, he could have
started to worry about his planned siege of Jerusalem,
thinking that it could take years. 2 Kings 18:17-37,
2 Chronicles 32:9-19, and Isaiah 36:2-22 refer to him
sending some forces to Jerusalem to try to simply scare
it into submission with words.
Isaiah 31:8-9 could refer to Sennacherib (Isaiah
37:36-37). The Hebrew word translated as "discomfited"
in Isaiah 31:8 can simply mean faint; it doesn't have
to mean placed into slavery. Regarding Isaiah 31:6-7,
nothing requires that the general population of the
Jews hadn't made personal idols by the time of
Sennacherib's invasion.
---
Isaiah 14:29-31 could refer to the ancient Philistines
around the time of Ahaz (Isaiah 14:28). They could have
been smitten by Tilgathpilneser (cf. 2 Chronicles
28:18-21), and then later by Sennacherib.
Isaiah 7:17-20 could also refer to the time of Ahaz
(Isaiah 7:12), when Judah was invaded by both
the Philistines and Tilgathpilneser (2 Chronicles
28:18-21). The "rivers of Egypt" (Isaiah 7:18) could
mean the wadis near and at the border between the land
of the Philistines and Egypt, for "the river of Egypt"
was a wadi at the southern border of the land of the
Philistines (Numbers 34:5, Joshua 15:4,47).
---
Daniel 11:31 isn't fulfilled yet (Matthew 24:15), and
it's just part of an entire sequence related to the
same person (Daniel 11:21-45), who will be the
Antichrist, "the little horn" (Daniel 7:8, 8:9); he
could be an Arab who will come out of Tyre, Lebanon
(Ezekiel 28:2, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4). So there
could be a king of the north (possibly an Iraqi
General in 2010) who will defeat Israel and Egypt
(Daniel 11:15-16), but then disappear from the scene
(Daniel 11:19), shortly before the Antichrist is first
given some power (Daniel 11:21).
---
Nahum could refer to the destruction of ancient Ninevah.
Nahum 1:9 could mean that God would make an utter end of
ancient Ninevah, and wouldn't have to afflict it more
than once. Nahum 1:12-13 could mean that God would not
afflict Israel with Ninevah any more. Mosul is located
across the river from the site of ancient Ninevah.
Upvote
0
- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
From the thread titled "The Assyrian."
I am curious as to why you would post exactly the same words in two different threads. But saying these things over and over again does not make them any more convincing.
You are continually imagining scenarios that "could" happen. This is unprofitable and vain. But now you are imagining scenarios that might have happened, even though there isn't a scrap of evidence to support such nonsense.
You have forgotten the solemn warning to neither add anything to the prophetic word nor take anything away from it.
Upvote
0
B
Bible2
Guest
The same words weren't posted in the two different
threads, but each reply was written from scratch and
related to the thread to which it was posted.
If someone over time has started multiple threads
about basically the same subject, he shouldn't be
surprised to get basically the same answers to those
threads. And if he has become invested in his theory
over many years, it's not surprising that he would
find as unconvincing any answers which could
undermine his theory, no matter how much those answers
were in line with the scriptures.
It's neither unprofitable nor vain for believers to
propose and consider different scenarios that "could"
fulfill an eschatological prophecy, so long as these
scenarios are continually tested against what the
scriptures themselves say. For we don't want to get
locked into our own little theories too tightly in
case they're wrong; we should always be prepared to
see other scenarios occur which will fulfill the
scriptures.
Regarding the scenarios which have been proposed about
what might have happened in ancient times to fulfill
some prophecies made in ancient times, not a scrap of
evidence has been presented which proves them to be
nonsense.
Regarding Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:18-19, they
would apply to one adding or removing words from a
scriptural quotation and then presenting that altered
quotation as if it were the original scripture.
Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:18-19 do not apply to
believers discussing what the scriptures could mean,
for otherwise no discussion could ever take place; all
believers could do is quote scriptures back and forth
without any comments whatsoever.
If one interprets Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:18-19
in this wrong, latter sense, one's claiming that a
certain proposed prophetic scenario is definitely
false, even though it's in line with the prophetic
scriptures and no prophetic scripture contradicts it,
would be adding to the prophetic scriptures no less
than saying that a certain proposed prophetic scenario
could actually occur.
And of course everyone thinks that his pet scenario is
just what the scriptures themselves say, that he isn't
adding anything whatsoever to the scriptures, until
other people come along and show him that his long-held
assumptions about what those scriptures mean aren't
necessarily required by what the scriptures themselves
say.
threads, but each reply was written from scratch and
related to the thread to which it was posted.
If someone over time has started multiple threads
about basically the same subject, he shouldn't be
surprised to get basically the same answers to those
threads. And if he has become invested in his theory
over many years, it's not surprising that he would
find as unconvincing any answers which could
undermine his theory, no matter how much those answers
were in line with the scriptures.
It's neither unprofitable nor vain for believers to
propose and consider different scenarios that "could"
fulfill an eschatological prophecy, so long as these
scenarios are continually tested against what the
scriptures themselves say. For we don't want to get
locked into our own little theories too tightly in
case they're wrong; we should always be prepared to
see other scenarios occur which will fulfill the
scriptures.
Regarding the scenarios which have been proposed about
what might have happened in ancient times to fulfill
some prophecies made in ancient times, not a scrap of
evidence has been presented which proves them to be
nonsense.
Regarding Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:18-19, they
would apply to one adding or removing words from a
scriptural quotation and then presenting that altered
quotation as if it were the original scripture.
Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:18-19 do not apply to
believers discussing what the scriptures could mean,
for otherwise no discussion could ever take place; all
believers could do is quote scriptures back and forth
without any comments whatsoever.
If one interprets Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:18-19
in this wrong, latter sense, one's claiming that a
certain proposed prophetic scenario is definitely
false, even though it's in line with the prophetic
scriptures and no prophetic scripture contradicts it,
would be adding to the prophetic scriptures no less
than saying that a certain proposed prophetic scenario
could actually occur.
And of course everyone thinks that his pet scenario is
just what the scriptures themselves say, that he isn't
adding anything whatsoever to the scriptures, until
other people come along and show him that his long-held
assumptions about what those scriptures mean aren't
necessarily required by what the scriptures themselves
say.
Upvote
0
- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
I am not interested in what "might" happen. If you cannot demonstrate that the scriptures say something will happen, your words are nothing but opinion. And man's opinion is unprofitable and vain.
This is simply false. I presented conclusive evidence that Sennecherib followed a different route than the one presented in Isaiah 10. In answer, you proposed an imagined route for Sennecherib that has absolutely zero basis in history or scripture. If we were to follow this line of reasoning, we could imagine unrecorded historical events to fulfill every prophecy that has ever been made.
I also pointed out prophecies about "the Assyrian" that are exactly the opposite of the scripturally recorded history of Sennecherib's attack on Hezekiah. These, you simply chose to pretend were not presented.
This goes beyond being unprofitable and vain. it is rebelling against the authority of the Word of God. You are so invested in your proposed scenarios that you refuse to submit to what the scriptures actually say.
Upvote
0
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Greetings. How does one concentrate on stated prophecies without interpreting them and making sure translations are accurate first?
Just curious 
Luke 21:28 Beginning yet to-be-becoming/ginesqai <1096> (5738) these-things, up-bend!, and lift up! the heads of ye, thru-that is nearing the Loosing/apo-lutrwsiV <629> of ye [Daniel 12/Reve 16/19]
Reve 21:6 And He said to me: "it-has-become/gegonen <1096> (5754). [Reve 16:17]
I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. I, to the one thirsting, shall be giving out of the spring of the water of the life gratuitously.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Greetings. How does one concentrate on stated prophecies without interpreting them and making sure translations are accurate first?
Luke 21:28 Beginning yet to-be-becoming/ginesqai <1096> (5738) these-things, up-bend!, and lift up! the heads of ye, thru-that is nearing the Loosing/apo-lutrwsiV <629> of ye [Daniel 12/Reve 16/19]
Reve 21:6 And He said to me: "it-has-become/gegonen <1096> (5754). [Reve 16:17]
I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. I, to the one thirsting, shall be giving out of the spring of the water of the life gratuitously.
There is. of course, always the question of whether or not a given statement is translated accurately. But that question is often beyond the skills of most.
But accepting the translations given us except when we have distinct evidence to the contrary seems appropriate.
I have a problem with many of your "translations" because you appear to leave out the unquestionable fact that similar ideas are often expressed in different ways in different languages.
An example is the Portuguese word "brigado" for "thanks." This is a contraction of "obrigado," which literally means "obliged." But it is quite properly translated as "thank you," for although the words are different, it has the same meaning in Portuguese as "thank you" has in English, even though it literally only means "obliged," and does not contain the Portuguese equivalent of "you."
Another example is the Portuguese and Spanish word "nada" for "you are welcome." this is a contraction of either "de nada," which literally means "of nothing," or "por nada," which literally means "for nothing." If we were trying to be sticklers for precision, we might translate either of these expressions as "it was nothing." But the real meaning of either expression is the same as what English speakers mean when they say, "you are welcome."
My point is that an overstress on word-for-word literalism can sometimes interfere with accurate translation.
Also, I agree that even express statements can sometimes be interpreted in more than one way. So care must be used. If a statement can be interpreted more than one way, we should consider each possible meaning of the actual words used, and how each possible interpretation affects the context. But I am aware of only a few such cases among the many explicitly stated prophecies in the Bible.
One of these cases in in Daniel 11:40, where we read, "And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over."
This could mean that the king of the north shall come against the same person that the king of the south shall push against. But it also could mean that the king of the north shall come against the king of the south when the king of the south comes against this individual. (From the four previous verses we know that the subject of at least the first attack, and possibly of the second attack as well, is an individual that this prophecy calls "the king.") From other prophecies I believe the first interpretation I have attached to these words is the correct one, but I recognize that the second interpretation is possible.
I believe in being dogmatic when scripture is dogmatic, and in being flexible when scripture is not dogmatic.
Upvote
0
B
Bible2
Guest
The same unfulfilled prophetic scripture could be
fulfilled in any one of various ways, so we need to
remain open to seeing any one of various possible
fulfillments. It's in no way unprofitable or vain to
explore these, and so become prepared no matter which
one actually happens.
---
No evidence has ever been presented which proves
that Sennacherib couldn't have fulfilled Isaiah
10:28-32 with an expeditionary force as part of his
invasion of Judah in Isaiah chapters 36-37, which
invasion was right in line with what was prophesied in
Isaiah 10:5-34. For example, the boasting of Isaiah
36:19-20 was clearly the fulfillment of the boasting
prophesied in Isaiah 10:9-11, and the miraculous defeat
of Sennacherib by God himself in Isaiah 37:36-37 was
clearly the fulfillment of the miraculous defeat
prophesied in Isaiah 10:16-19.
---
No one has claimed that all other references to "the
Assyrian" in prophetic scripture refer to Sennacherib,
nor have any of the other such references been ignored.
For example, it was stated that some of them could
refer to the coming Antichrist. It hasn't been shown
that anything which has been stated contradicts
anything which the scriptures themselves actually say.
We mustn't ever confuse our own personal, longtime
view of what some prophetic scriptures could mean,
with what the scriptures themselves actually say, for
what the scriptures themselves actually say could be
fulfilled in a way different than what we've come up
with in our own little pet theory.
fulfilled in any one of various ways, so we need to
remain open to seeing any one of various possible
fulfillments. It's in no way unprofitable or vain to
explore these, and so become prepared no matter which
one actually happens.
---
No evidence has ever been presented which proves
that Sennacherib couldn't have fulfilled Isaiah
10:28-32 with an expeditionary force as part of his
invasion of Judah in Isaiah chapters 36-37, which
invasion was right in line with what was prophesied in
Isaiah 10:5-34. For example, the boasting of Isaiah
36:19-20 was clearly the fulfillment of the boasting
prophesied in Isaiah 10:9-11, and the miraculous defeat
of Sennacherib by God himself in Isaiah 37:36-37 was
clearly the fulfillment of the miraculous defeat
prophesied in Isaiah 10:16-19.
---
No one has claimed that all other references to "the
Assyrian" in prophetic scripture refer to Sennacherib,
nor have any of the other such references been ignored.
For example, it was stated that some of them could
refer to the coming Antichrist. It hasn't been shown
that anything which has been stated contradicts
anything which the scriptures themselves actually say.
We mustn't ever confuse our own personal, longtime
view of what some prophetic scriptures could mean,
with what the scriptures themselves actually say, for
what the scriptures themselves actually say could be
fulfilled in a way different than what we've come up
with in our own little pet theory.
Upvote
0
- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
This is begging the point. No evidence can be produced that something didn't happen, because if it didn't happen, there was no evidence about it.
What has been proved, beyond any reasonable debate, is that Sennacherib came by a different route. You have chosen to imagine that a branch of his forces also came by this route. Such imagination is unprofitable and vain. But when it is applied to scripture, it is simply rejection of what God said.
Simply denying it does not make this true. I am not going to go over it again.
This is exactly what you are doing.
I am not going to continue this line of discussion, because you are simply imagining things and denying everything that has been pointed out. To continue would move this from healthful discussion to simply arguing.
Upvote
0
B
Bible2
Guest
It isn't begging the point to say that no evidence has
ever been presented which proves that Sennacherib
couldn't have fulfilled Isaiah 10:28-32, for evidence
can be produced that something didn't happen.
For example, if one person told a second person that
he detonated a nuclear bomb of his own devising in
his backyard the night before, and that it left "a
huge crater" and that now "everything glows in the
dark with radiation"; and the second person went into
the backyard and found no crater or any other trace of
an explosion, and no radiation; and the second person
took pictures of the intact, unglowing yard by day and
by night, and recorded Geiger-counter readings showing
no radiation, and presented these pictures and readings
to the first person, that would be plenty of proof that
in fact no nuclear bomb had been detonated in his
backyard. So even though it didn't happen, there was
still evidence of it not happening.
It has never been proven, beyond any reasonable debate,
that Sennacherib himself came into Judah by a different
route than the mountain ridge of Isaiah 10:28-32. All
that's been shown is that the bulk of his forces went
down the coast. It has merely been imagined that
Sennacherib himself had to have gone down the coast as
well, instead of breaking off from the coast with an
expeditionary force and going down the mountain ridge.
Such imagination is unprofitable and vain, insofar as it
refuses to accept the possibility that Sennacherib
fulfilled Isaiah 10:28-32, just as he fulfilled other
parts of Isaiah 10:5-34. For he fulfilled Isaiah 10:5-6
in Isaiah 36:1. And he fulfilled Isaiah 10:9-11 in
Isaiah 36:19-20. And the fate of his invasion fulfilled
Isaiah 10:12,16-19,25-27,33-34 in Isaiah 37:36-37. And
Isaiah 10:20-21 was fulfilled in Isaiah 37:31-32. And
if so much of Isaiah 10:5-34 was fulfilled by
Sennacherib's invasion in Isaiah chapters 36-37, then
it's not unreasonable at all to assume that Isaiah
10:28-32 was fulfilled at that time as well, especially
when no proof has been given to the contrary.
For example, say that someone was accused of committing
a fatal hit-and-run at around 10:30 on a certain night,
and the case against him was circumstantial: a new
acquaintance of the accused tracked down via the
accused's cell phone records testified that the accused
had said "Shoot! I think I just hit somebody!" while
talking to the new acquaintance "sometime between 10
and 11 that night"; and only a few blocks away from the
scene of the hit-and-run one of the cameras at a
stoplight with an automatic speeding-ticket machine
showed the accused's face through the windshield as his
car ran a red light while speeding in a direction away
from the scene of the hit-and-run at 10:34 pm. But no
one would come forward who actually saw the fatal hit-
and-run happen, and so could identify the accused or his
car as being involved. Nonetheless, it would not be
unreasonable at all to assume that the accused and his
car were involved, especially if no proof were given to
the contrary.
---
When the possibility that Sennacherib went down the
mountain ridge of Isaiah 10:28-32 is applied to the
scriptures of Isaiah 10:5-34 and Isaiah chapters 36-37,
this possibility is in no way a rejection of these
scriptures, or anything else that God has said.
---
Everything that has been pointed out purportedly to
the contrary hasn't been denied without explanation,
but instead has been addressed fully and in detail
with reference to the scriptures themselves.
ever been presented which proves that Sennacherib
couldn't have fulfilled Isaiah 10:28-32, for evidence
can be produced that something didn't happen.
For example, if one person told a second person that
he detonated a nuclear bomb of his own devising in
his backyard the night before, and that it left "a
huge crater" and that now "everything glows in the
dark with radiation"; and the second person went into
the backyard and found no crater or any other trace of
an explosion, and no radiation; and the second person
took pictures of the intact, unglowing yard by day and
by night, and recorded Geiger-counter readings showing
no radiation, and presented these pictures and readings
to the first person, that would be plenty of proof that
in fact no nuclear bomb had been detonated in his
backyard. So even though it didn't happen, there was
still evidence of it not happening.
It has never been proven, beyond any reasonable debate,
that Sennacherib himself came into Judah by a different
route than the mountain ridge of Isaiah 10:28-32. All
that's been shown is that the bulk of his forces went
down the coast. It has merely been imagined that
Sennacherib himself had to have gone down the coast as
well, instead of breaking off from the coast with an
expeditionary force and going down the mountain ridge.
Such imagination is unprofitable and vain, insofar as it
refuses to accept the possibility that Sennacherib
fulfilled Isaiah 10:28-32, just as he fulfilled other
parts of Isaiah 10:5-34. For he fulfilled Isaiah 10:5-6
in Isaiah 36:1. And he fulfilled Isaiah 10:9-11 in
Isaiah 36:19-20. And the fate of his invasion fulfilled
Isaiah 10:12,16-19,25-27,33-34 in Isaiah 37:36-37. And
Isaiah 10:20-21 was fulfilled in Isaiah 37:31-32. And
if so much of Isaiah 10:5-34 was fulfilled by
Sennacherib's invasion in Isaiah chapters 36-37, then
it's not unreasonable at all to assume that Isaiah
10:28-32 was fulfilled at that time as well, especially
when no proof has been given to the contrary.
For example, say that someone was accused of committing
a fatal hit-and-run at around 10:30 on a certain night,
and the case against him was circumstantial: a new
acquaintance of the accused tracked down via the
accused's cell phone records testified that the accused
had said "Shoot! I think I just hit somebody!" while
talking to the new acquaintance "sometime between 10
and 11 that night"; and only a few blocks away from the
scene of the hit-and-run one of the cameras at a
stoplight with an automatic speeding-ticket machine
showed the accused's face through the windshield as his
car ran a red light while speeding in a direction away
from the scene of the hit-and-run at 10:34 pm. But no
one would come forward who actually saw the fatal hit-
and-run happen, and so could identify the accused or his
car as being involved. Nonetheless, it would not be
unreasonable at all to assume that the accused and his
car were involved, especially if no proof were given to
the contrary.
---
When the possibility that Sennacherib went down the
mountain ridge of Isaiah 10:28-32 is applied to the
scriptures of Isaiah 10:5-34 and Isaiah chapters 36-37,
this possibility is in no way a rejection of these
scriptures, or anything else that God has said.
---
Everything that has been pointed out purportedly to
the contrary hasn't been denied without explanation,
but instead has been addressed fully and in detail
with reference to the scriptures themselves.
Upvote
0
Clifford B
Junior Member
- Oct 24, 2008
- 67
- 4
- 78
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I used to search the scriptures and dig through texts to prove a point. My bible studies followed familiar paths, to prop up my theology. My faith was not getting deeper. This had gone on for 25 years....Every denomination was strengthening their own fortresses. A pastor friend in desperation, started listening to the word 24/7. It was always on in his home. After a year or so, his life had changed. He suggested that I try it. It is true. I am not the same, as I no longer study theology. I know what the word says, in my heart. After all we must believe in our hearts that Christ raised from the dead...and all that.
There are no private revelations and prophecies. God will deal with each person that will fill their life with his word. If Christ was the word of God manifest to the world, why can we not follow in his steps?
It is only hunger for his word that will bring satisfaction. I had to let the word play and play before the hunger even developed....as opposed to some type of discipline in my own strength.
I used to chase after miracles and signs. They no longer matter. Jesus satisfies. He comforts, but not in a way that I was ever taught. That still small voice is easily lost through our own efforts to hear it. He opens his word to those whom he choses, and the object is to avail yourself to him in a manner that he can chose the path.
My bible college education is dung. His word is all that delivers, as it is spirit, and it lives. If everyone did this, there would be no denominations or arguements. I have seen it. That pastor's church no longer has differences of opinions in scripture. It no longer has marriage counseling...
The object is to hear with our heart, and not bothering to interpret what we think about it. It becomes clear to everyone who listens.
There are no private revelations and prophecies. God will deal with each person that will fill their life with his word. If Christ was the word of God manifest to the world, why can we not follow in his steps?
It is only hunger for his word that will bring satisfaction. I had to let the word play and play before the hunger even developed....as opposed to some type of discipline in my own strength.
I used to chase after miracles and signs. They no longer matter. Jesus satisfies. He comforts, but not in a way that I was ever taught. That still small voice is easily lost through our own efforts to hear it. He opens his word to those whom he choses, and the object is to avail yourself to him in a manner that he can chose the path.
My bible college education is dung. His word is all that delivers, as it is spirit, and it lives. If everyone did this, there would be no denominations or arguements. I have seen it. That pastor's church no longer has differences of opinions in scripture. It no longer has marriage counseling...
The object is to hear with our heart, and not bothering to interpret what we think about it. It becomes clear to everyone who listens.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B
Bible2
Guest
No one can speak a word against interpretation because
everyone interprets the Bible when he reads or listens
to it. He may think that he's just reading or
listening, but unconciously he's assuming what things
mean; he's interpreting without realizing it.
We should always search the scriptures and dig through
their texts to prove a point (Acts 17:11, 18:28,
Isaiah 28:9-10). Our Bible studies should never follow
familiar paths simply to prop up our own doctrinal
positions, but should constantly be going down the
paths of other doctrinal positions opposed to our own,
to see if we're able to show in detail, from the
scriptures themselves, exactly where they contradict
the doctrine of the scriptures themselves (2 Timothy
3:16-4:4). We should also be able to answer in detail,
from the scriptures themselves, every claim made by
opposing doctrinal positions that our own positions
contradict the scriptures, and be able to prove that
in fact they don't. If we can't do these things, then
we need to reconsider our doctrinal positions and
change them until we can do these things.
Our faith will never get deeper if we never test our
doctrinal positions to see if they can actually stand
up to scrutiny. We may think that we're strengthening
our own fortresses by following familiar paths in our
Bible studies, but in doing do we may be strengthening
fortresses that have foundations of sand. Our doctrinal
positions could be based on nothing but mistaken human
opinions.
---
Listening to the word 24/7 is wonderful; faith comes
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans
10:17). But when people listen to someone speaking
the Bible they're listening to that person's
interpretation of it, for the tone of his voice and
the emphasis he places on words can color the Bible
with tones and emphases which aren't in the Bible
itself. And if music and sound effects are added in
the background, this can further add emotions and
information which aren't in the Bible itself, and
which may cause it to be misinterpreted.
---
If someone says that their life has changed by
listening to the Bible, his interpretation of the
Bible could still be mistaken. He could have
unconsciously assumed what the Bible meant as he was
listening to it, without ever testing his assumptions
against opposing interpretations. He could claim to
know what the word says, in his heart, yet forget that
he who trusts in his own heart is a fool (Proverbs
28:26), and that the heart is deceitful above all
things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). While
his new, changed life could seem right to him, the end
thereof could be the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12).
He could even think that his "knowing" what the word
means came from Jesus himself, when in fact it came
from a demon masquerading as Jesus (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1,
2 Corinthians 11:14).
---
A congregation that no longer has differences of
opinions about scripture could still be in error in
its united opinion, for there could be another
congregation that no longer has differences of
opinions about scripture which has a united opinion
directly opposed to that of the first congregation.
Both congregations can't be right, yet they both could
have perfect peace that they are right, having sunk
themselves into cocoons of their own understanding,
never questioning, never examining their beliefs to
see if they actually hold water, can actually stand up
to opposing interpretations, and prove themselves,
from the scriptures themselves, to be correct instead
of mistaken.
Congregations can smother over all perennial questions
like: When is the rapture in relation to the
tribulation? What is the relationship between the
church and Israel? Are works necessary for salvation?
And other questions the answers to which people in
opposing camps can never seem to convince each other
about. Congregations can prohibit all discussion of
such questions as evil, and say that this prohibition
has brought peace to their congregations, but all they
could have done is assume that their side of each
position is the "obvious meaning of scripture; no
interpretation is required", while squelching those
in the congregation who may hold to the opposite
position, whether by official warning to button their
lip, or by an oppressive peer pressure to "not bring
division".
But what good is peaceful unity if it's in error? And
how can it be known whether or not it's in error
unless it's actually tested against opposing views?
everyone interprets the Bible when he reads or listens
to it. He may think that he's just reading or
listening, but unconciously he's assuming what things
mean; he's interpreting without realizing it.
We should always search the scriptures and dig through
their texts to prove a point (Acts 17:11, 18:28,
Isaiah 28:9-10). Our Bible studies should never follow
familiar paths simply to prop up our own doctrinal
positions, but should constantly be going down the
paths of other doctrinal positions opposed to our own,
to see if we're able to show in detail, from the
scriptures themselves, exactly where they contradict
the doctrine of the scriptures themselves (2 Timothy
3:16-4:4). We should also be able to answer in detail,
from the scriptures themselves, every claim made by
opposing doctrinal positions that our own positions
contradict the scriptures, and be able to prove that
in fact they don't. If we can't do these things, then
we need to reconsider our doctrinal positions and
change them until we can do these things.
Our faith will never get deeper if we never test our
doctrinal positions to see if they can actually stand
up to scrutiny. We may think that we're strengthening
our own fortresses by following familiar paths in our
Bible studies, but in doing do we may be strengthening
fortresses that have foundations of sand. Our doctrinal
positions could be based on nothing but mistaken human
opinions.
---
Listening to the word 24/7 is wonderful; faith comes
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans
10:17). But when people listen to someone speaking
the Bible they're listening to that person's
interpretation of it, for the tone of his voice and
the emphasis he places on words can color the Bible
with tones and emphases which aren't in the Bible
itself. And if music and sound effects are added in
the background, this can further add emotions and
information which aren't in the Bible itself, and
which may cause it to be misinterpreted.
---
If someone says that their life has changed by
listening to the Bible, his interpretation of the
Bible could still be mistaken. He could have
unconsciously assumed what the Bible meant as he was
listening to it, without ever testing his assumptions
against opposing interpretations. He could claim to
know what the word says, in his heart, yet forget that
he who trusts in his own heart is a fool (Proverbs
28:26), and that the heart is deceitful above all
things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). While
his new, changed life could seem right to him, the end
thereof could be the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12).
He could even think that his "knowing" what the word
means came from Jesus himself, when in fact it came
from a demon masquerading as Jesus (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1,
2 Corinthians 11:14).
---
A congregation that no longer has differences of
opinions about scripture could still be in error in
its united opinion, for there could be another
congregation that no longer has differences of
opinions about scripture which has a united opinion
directly opposed to that of the first congregation.
Both congregations can't be right, yet they both could
have perfect peace that they are right, having sunk
themselves into cocoons of their own understanding,
never questioning, never examining their beliefs to
see if they actually hold water, can actually stand up
to opposing interpretations, and prove themselves,
from the scriptures themselves, to be correct instead
of mistaken.
Congregations can smother over all perennial questions
like: When is the rapture in relation to the
tribulation? What is the relationship between the
church and Israel? Are works necessary for salvation?
And other questions the answers to which people in
opposing camps can never seem to convince each other
about. Congregations can prohibit all discussion of
such questions as evil, and say that this prohibition
has brought peace to their congregations, but all they
could have done is assume that their side of each
position is the "obvious meaning of scripture; no
interpretation is required", while squelching those
in the congregation who may hold to the opposite
position, whether by official warning to button their
lip, or by an oppressive peer pressure to "not bring
division".
But what good is peaceful unity if it's in error? And
how can it be known whether or not it's in error
unless it's actually tested against opposing views?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
