Where is the abomination of desolation of Daniel, Matt and Mark shown in Revelation

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
But the word ἁρπαγμον, which we translate "robbery," has been supposed to imply a thing eagerly to be seized, or desired; and on this interpretation the passage has been translated: Who, being in the form of God, did not think it a matter to be earnestly desired to appear equal to God; but made himself of no reputation, etc. However, it does not affect the eternal Deity of our Lord.

I guess you know by now that I, myself, am on the side that believes Christ was all-knowing, and knew the end from the beginning. I mean really, He pretty much told us everything that was going to occur and gave us the signs to look for when they would occur. Even the Devils knew he knew the time.

Matthew 8:29
  • "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?"
Christ knew the time, He knew the future, He knew Judas would betray Him, He knew Peter would deny Him three times, to me, to claim Christ didn't know the future is contradictory, considering all He said and did, and considering He didn't empty Himself of being God or being the creator or having the power of God or the knowledge of God.

John 8:58
  • "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM."
That's why I say it seems foolish to claim Christ was without knowledge of the future, when all evidence is to the contrary--that He knew Past, Present and future. Christ never ceased to be God and thus could not have ceased to know all things.

As for your related question, the very literal meaning of the word is indeed "emptied," but the real or pertinent question is, what is the word conveying in this context of Philippians chapter 2. Personally, I think a lot of theologians over the years have tried too hard to deconstruct and even deny the word in a well-meaning attempt to preserve the doctrine of the deity of Christ. But that doctrine does not stand or fall on this verse, and it generally ends up just confusing the whole issue. The Bible really has its own system, it is its own interpreter, and often t is its own dictionary. In this case, I believe that the meaning becomes "obvious" from the context, when we consider it circumspectly. Consider the key parts of these passages that I've highlighted:

Philippians 2:6-8
  • "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
  • But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
  • And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
God was in heaven in His heavenly form. That is a form which Scripture tells us no man could look upon and live (see Moses as just the glory of God passed by him (by looked at his back) on the mountain and turned his hair white). If God came to earth "in this form" that He had in heaven, then no man could gaze upon Him and live. Thus, he emptied himself of "this" form and instead took on the form of a man, a flesh, that He might become the Saviour on earth of man. That doesn't mean that He ceased to be God, simply that the form He had in heaven, He emptied Himself of it and took on the form of a man in order to redeem man. Not the God, but the form He had in heaven, just as that passage plainly said. No man could have seen Him as Saviour otherwise.

1st John 4:12
  • "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."
God sent His Only Son as propitiation and His Holy Spirit as comforter because no man could see God and live in His natural form. Thus the word emptied does not express the idea removing from Himself the omnipotent, omniscience of God, but rather taking Himself out of that form of God that He had in heaven, and place Himself in a form which man could not only survive but live by.

For the record, the King James translators originally translated it emptied, but changed it to "of no reputation" because they felt translating it empty might (and indeed did) cause some to come to erroneous conclusions regarding Christ's deity. While the "of no reputation" translation might not be the perfect rendering, it's not really a bad translation because made Himself "of no reputation" expresses the lowering of God to take on the form of a man. And anyone who actually knows about translating from one language to language (regardless of the language) is aware that often words, idioms, metaphors and figurative language are not always meant to be rendered literally. However, unlike some (B. B. Warfield and others), I would not o so far as to claim that the translation "emptied himself" is a mistranslation. It definitely can be confusing, but it is not in my humble opinion, a mistranslation.
 
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
The Amplified Bible, you are quoting with, published by the Lockman Foundation is straight out of the pits of hell. This work of heresy is just another IMPOSTER based upon the corruptions of Westcott and Hort. Here is proof in the text. A diabolical attack against the Word of God occurs in Philippians 2:6 for example:
...​

And of course the "he" in Daniel 11:28 was NOT referred to Antiochus Epiphanes nor it talks about Syria!
You can be wrong about Daniel 11:28 - and you are.
 
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You can be wrong about Daniel 11:28 - and you are.

VERY UNLIKELY.

I can see that you lack biblical exegesis, to begin with anyway. First, you did not show how the context of the verse, then the chapter, then the rest of the Bible confirm your position. You never did. You just make speculations by saying "Oh that "he" is Antiochus Epiphanes" without actually prove it biblically. This is an example of one of the biggest mistakes I saw people making here which is to try to allow world history to interpret Bible prophecies. That is a big no-no. No wondering your Antiochus Epiphanes "theory" remained refuted which I am not interested to discuss him (and your silly "amplified bible") with you anymore knowing that I have easily refuted you on different subjects before. Only that my posts, whether response directly or indirectly, are here as a public record for anyone who is interested in my position.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But the word ἁρπαγμον, which we translate "robbery," has been supposed to imply a thing eagerly to be seized, or desired; and on this interpretation the passage has been translated: Who, being in the form of God, did not think it a matter to be earnestly desired to appear equal to God; but made himself of no reputation, etc. However, it does not affect the eternal Deity of our Lord.

I guess you know by now that I, myself, am on the side that believes Christ was all-knowing, and knew the end from the beginning. I mean really, He pretty much told us everything that was going to occur and gave us the signs to look for when they would occur. Even the Devils knew he knew the time.

Matthew 8:29
  • "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?"
Christ knew the time, He knew the future, He knew Judas would betray Him, He knew Peter would deny Him three times, to me, to claim Christ didn't know the future is contradictory, considering all He said and did, and considering He didn't empty Himself of being God or being the creator or having the power of God or the knowledge of God.

John 8:58
  • "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM."
That's why I say it seems foolish to claim Christ was without knowledge of the future, when all evidence is to the contrary--that He knew Past, Present and future. Christ never ceased to be God and thus could not have ceased to know all things.

As for your related question, the very literal meaning of the word is indeed "emptied," but the real or pertinent question is, what is the word conveying in this context of Philippians chapter 2. Personally, I think a lot of theologians over the years have tried too hard to deconstruct and even deny the word in a well-meaning attempt to preserve the doctrine of the deity of Christ. But that doctrine does not stand or fall on this verse, and it generally ends up just confusing the whole issue. The Bible really has its own system, it is its own interpreter, and often t is its own dictionary. In this case, I believe that the meaning becomes "obvious" from the context, when we consider it circumspectly. Consider the key parts of these passages that I've highlighted:

Philippians 2:6-8
  • "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
  • But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
  • And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
God was in heaven in His heavenly form. That is a form which Scripture tells us no man could look upon and live (see Moses as just the glory of God passed by him (by looked at his back) on the mountain and turned his hair white). If God came to earth "in this form" that He had in heaven, then no man could gaze upon Him and live. Thus, he emptied himself of "this" form and instead took on the form of a man, a flesh, that He might become the Saviour on earth of man. That doesn't mean that He ceased to be God, simply that the form He had in heaven, He emptied Himself of it and took on the form of a man in order to redeem man. Not the God, but the form He had in heaven, just as that passage plainly said. No man could have seen Him as Saviour otherwise.

1st John 4:12
  • "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."
God sent His Only Son as propitiation and His Holy Spirit as comforter because no man could see God and live in His natural form. Thus the word emptied does not express the idea removing from Himself the omnipotent, omniscience of God, but rather taking Himself out of that form of God that He had in heaven, and place Himself in a form which man could not only survive but live by.

For the record, the King James translators originally translated it emptied, but changed it to "of no reputation" because they felt translating it empty might (and indeed did) cause some to come to erroneous conclusions regarding Christ's deity. While the "of no reputation" translation might not be the perfect rendering, it's not really a bad translation because made Himself "of no reputation" expresses the lowering of God to take on the form of a man. And anyone who actually knows about translating from one language to language (regardless of the language) is aware that often words, idioms, metaphors and figurative language are not always meant to be rendered literally. However, unlike some (B. B. Warfield and others), I would not o so far as to claim that the translation "emptied himself" is a mistranslation. It definitely can be confusing, but it is not in my humble opinion, a mistranslation.

My question was regarding the meaning of "robbery".

As you've confirmed, the Greek is ἁρπαγμὸν, and its meaning is elaborated upon here.

A portion of the elaboration states "2. a thing seized or to be seized, booty: ἁρπαγμόν ἡγεῖσθαι τίto deem anything a prlze — a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained, Philippians 2:6"

Thus the verse is declaring: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not necessary to retain His equality with God:"

This is no different in essence from what the AMPC is stating:

"Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained"

There's nothing hellish or devilish about that rendering.
 
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
VERY UNLIKELY.

I can see that you lack biblical exegesis, to begin with anyway. First, you did not show how the context of the verse, then the chapter, then the rest of the Bible confirm your position. You never did. You just make speculations by saying "Oh that "he" is Antiochus Epiphanes" without actually prove it biblically. This is an example of one of the biggest mistakes I saw people making here which is to try to allow world history to interpret Bible prophecies. That is a big no-no. No wondering your Antiochus Epiphanes "theory" remained refuted which I am not interested to discuss him (and your silly "amplified bible") with you anymore knowing that I have easily refuted you on different subjects before. Only that my posts, whether response directly or indirectly, are here as a public record for anyone who is interested in my position.
Most of the Christian world KNOW this is referring to Antiochus.
I know, you are great in your own mind, and have successfully refuted everyone that disagrees with you.

This verse is also referring to Antiochus:

31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
 
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
My question was regarding the meaning of "robbery".

As you've confirmed, the Greek is ἁρπαγμὸν, and its meaning is elaborated upon here.

A portion of the elaboration states "2. a thing seized or to be seized, booty: ἁρπαγμόν ἡγεῖσθαι τίto deem anything a prlze — a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained, Philippians 2:6"

Thus the verse is declaring: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not necessary to retain His equality with God:"

This is no different in essence from what the AMPC is stating:

"Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained"

There's nothing hellish or devilish about that rendering.
Agreed: in general the Amplified did an awesome job. In a few places I disagree, but that is to be expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Most of the Christian world KNOW this is referring to Antiochus.
I know, you are great in your own mind, and have successfully refuted everyone that disagrees with you.
This verse is also referring to Antiochus:
31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
Truthfully, I have never read the books of Maccabees........so all I know about Antiochus is what I read on this forum..........

Antiochus IV Epiphanes - Wikipedia

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (/ænˈtaɪ.əkəs ɛˈpɪfəniːz, ˌæntiˈɒkəs/; Ancient Greek: Ἀντίοχος ὁ Ἐπιφανής, Antíochos ho Epiphanḗs, "God Manifest";[1]
c. 215 BC – November/December 164 BC)[2] was a Hellenistic Greek king of the Seleucid Empire from 175 BC until his death in 164 BC.[3][4][5] He was a son of King Antiochus III the Great. His original name was Mithradates (alternative form Mithridates); he assumed the name Antiochus after he ascended the throne.[citation needed] Notable events during the reign of Antiochus IV include his near-conquest of Egypt, his persecution of the Jews of Judea and Samaria, and the rebellion of the Jewish Maccabees.

Jewish tradition
Antiochus IV ruled the Jews from 175 to 164 BC. He is remembered as a major villain and persecutor in the Jewish traditions associated with Hanukkah, including the books of Maccabees and the "Scroll of Antiochus".[27]

Rabbinical sources refer to him as הרשע harasha ("the wicked"); the Jewish Encyclopedia concluded that "since Jewish and heathen sources agree in their characterization of him, their portrayal is evidently correct", summarizing this portrayal as one of a cruel and vainglorious ruler who tried to force on all the peoples of his realm a Hellenic culture, "the true essence of which he can scarcely be said to have appreciated".[28]
Whether Antiochus's policy was directed at extermination of Judaism as a culture and a religion, though, is debatable on the grounds that his persecution was limited to Judea and Samaria (Jews in the diaspora were exempt), and that Antiochus was hardly an ideologically motivated Hellenizer. Erich S. Gruen suggests that, instead, he was driven more by pragmatics such as the need to gather income from Judea.
====================================
Sounds like Herod and Titus in 70ad...........

https://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/timeline_military.html
"..probably the greatest single slaughter in ancient history."
ROMAN SIEGE AND SACK OF JERUSALEM


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Most of the Christian world KNOW this is referring to Antiochus.

Really? I also noticed the "most Christians" KNOW that Babylon the Great is Papal. No wait, its Rome. Humm, no, its Jerusalem. Nope. maybe its America? Likewise, there are also "most Christians" who believe that antichrist candidates were European monarchs, popes of the Roman Catholic Church, Adolf Hitler, Mikhail Gorbachev, Saddam Hussein, even President Trump! So what does your claim has to do with the price of banana?

I know, you are great in your own mind, and have successfully refuted everyone that disagrees with you.

To the glory of God.

This verse is also referring to Antiochus:

31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

What?! Where did you get this from? Oh, wait, Sigh...of course, you are following the consensus of the "most Christians," which is not a Gospel Truth in itself.
 
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Agreed: in general the Amplified did an awesome job. In a few places I disagree, but that is to be expected.

Oh, Amplified is not a perfect Bible but you still use it as Gospel Truth? Humm... let see verse by verse comparison between KJV and Amplifed:

Gen 1:21 KJV: "And God created great WHALES ..."
AMP: "God created the great sea monsters ..."

Matt. 12:40 KJV: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALES's belly ..."
AMP: "For even as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster ..."

Note: God creates monsters?

Gen. 2:7 KJV: "... and man became a living SOUL."
AMP: "... and man became a living being."

Note: A MAJOR difference between man and beast is that the man is the ONLY creature with a SOUL. The beast does not.

Gen. 3:4-5 KJV: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil."
AMP: "But the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be as God, knowing the difference between good and evil."

Note: Ouches! This is major blaa sphemy! God (with a big "G") is
not evil! Think about the difference between "as gods" and "as God".

Matt. 18:11 KJV: "For the Son of Man IS come to save that which was lost."
AMP: "For the Son of man came to save (from the penalty of eternal death) that which was lost."

Note: The AMP says Jesus Christ "came" to save that which was lost; a PAST TENSE statement. The AMP implies that ALL who were to be saved, HAVE BEEN saved. Not true. Anyone, TODAY, can be saved by Jesus Christ. The correct reading is PRESENT TENSE. This AMP corruption is very subtle but very important.

1 Pe. 2:2 KJV: "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk OF THE WORD, that ye may grow thereby:"
AMP: "Like new born babes ... desire - the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may ... grow unto [completed] salvation."

Note: The AMP leaves out "OF THE WORD". It's God's Word that makes us grow. Also, unlike what the AMP says, we DO NOT grow to "[completed] salvation". That equals to salvation is by works which is hearsay! Remember: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2: 8-9).

So, of course, you will go along with the consensus of the "most Christians" who argue that the compromised version of AMP is an awesome Bible. Satan thought so too! Where will you find most Christians walking through with AMP? The wide and broad gate? Or the narrow gate?
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Gen 1:21 KJV: "And God created great WHALES ..."
AMP: "God created the great sea monsters ..."

Sixteen versions including the YLT include the term "monsters".
What's the problem?
 
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

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Matt. 12:40 KJV: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALES's belly ..."
AMP: "For even as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster ..."

Eleven versions use the term "monster".
Thirty versions including the YLT use the term "fish".
A whale is not a fish.
The KJV is inaccurate.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Gen. 2:7 KJV: "... and man became a living SOUL."
AMP: "... and man became a living being."

Fourteen versions use the term "soul".
Twenty-three versions use the term "being".
The YLT uses the term "creature".

The term "being" is arguably more legitimate than the term "soul".

Your KJV-only arguments are spurious.
 
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Sixteen versions including the YLT include the term "monsters".
What's the problem?

The verse of interest here come from the King James Bible, Genesis 1:21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Here we have one of many cases from the King James Version where the translators used terms of animals and plants that were well known to the interpreters at the time and they did not consider the flora and fauna with which the original audience would have been familiar. The same thing is happening today, creation scientists frequently interpret/translate the word Tannin as a dinosaur or in the case of Genesis 1:21 the great sea monster as a long-necked plesiosaur. A plesiosaur or a whale both are a translation that is affected by a modern worldview. Translators would not have been familiar with dinosaurs but neither does it seem likely that the original Hebrew audience would have been either. Nor does one simply go with the King James use of the world "whale" but is convinced of an argument which uses an animal for which the Israelites would have been quite familiar. Which the Targums of Jonathan and Jarchi interpret of the Leviathan and its mate, concerning which the Jews have many fabulous things: large fishes are undoubtedly meant, and the whale being of the largest sort, the word is so rendered.
 
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Fourteen versions use the term "soul".
Twenty-three versions use the term "being".
The YLT uses the term "creature".

The term "being" is arguably more legitimate than the term "soul".

Your KJV-only arguments are spurious.

Read again:

Note: A MAJOR difference between man and beast is that the man is the ONLY creature with a SOUL. The beast does not.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Read again:

Note: A MAJOR difference between man and beast is that the man is the ONLY creature with a SOUL. The beast does not.

Seven versions use the term "person".

The Hebrew וַֽיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃ is found only in Genesis 2:7. It is never used to describe a beast.

Its synonymous meaning in Genesis 2:7 is either soul, or living being, or person.

The terms are interchangeable, and all are legitimate, as evidenced by the use of all in the various versions.

The most frequently used "living being" suggests that it is the most accurate rendering.
 
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

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The verse of interest here come from the King James Bible, Genesis 1:21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Here we have one of many cases from the King James Version where the translators used terms of animals and plants that were well known to the interpreters at the time and they did not consider the flora and fauna with which the original audience would have been familiar. The same thing is happening today, creation scientists frequently interpret/translate the word Tannin as a dinosaur or in the case of Genesis 1:21 the great sea monster as a long-necked plesiosaur. A plesiosaur or a whale both are a translation that is affected by a modern worldview. Translators would not have been familiar with dinosaurs but neither does it seem likely that the original Hebrew audience would have been either. Nor does one simply go with the King James use of the world "whale" but is convinced of an argument which uses an animal for which the Israelites would have been quite familiar. Which the Targums of Jonathan and Jarchi interpret of the Leviathan and its mate, concerning which the Jews have many fabulous things: large fishes are undoubtedly meant, and the whale being of the largest sort, the word is so rendered.

Genesis 1:21 in the KJV is insufficiently inclusive and thus less accurate than other versions.

From the Hebrew:

hat·tan·nî·nim
הַתַּנִּינִ֖ם
sea creatures

3 sea- (or river-) monster, Genesis 1:21
 
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The Hebrew וַֽיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃ is found only in Genesis 2:7. It is never used to describe a beast.

Its synonymous meaning in Genesis 2:7 is either soul, or living being, or person.

The terms are interchangeable, and all are legitimate, as evidenced by the use of all in the various versions.

The most frequently used "living being" suggests that it is the most accurate rendering.[/QUOTE]

No, I will take a "living soul" over your "living being" anytime. The reasons are obviously
  1. On the sixth day, Adam was created “in the image of God” and quite apart from the land animals through a clearly distinguished separate act of creation. The Hebrew word bara (create) is used three times in Genesis 1:27 to emphasize this act of creation.
  2. Only man, not animals, received the breath of God. In this way, he was given a spirit (Eccles. 12:7; 1 Thess. 5:23) so that he transcends the world of the animals. That given him a soul.
  3. Only when Adam was created, did God “use his hands”: “The Lord God formed [Hebrew yatsar] the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7). In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word yatsar is used to describe the actions of a potter who skillfully and imaginatively forms his vessels. In the same way, God used earthly matter for Adam’s physical parts.
  4. Only man can actually communicate with God. Only he possesses the gift of speech and of prayer by means of which he can express all his thoughts before his Creator with his spirit and soul. Man was created to be near and close to God. He is dependent on communion with God. The "living beings" do not.
  5. Only man has a free will and possesses the faculty of creative thought. According to Psalm 8:5, a man was made “a little lower than the heavenly beings.” Human beings possess gifts such as freely developing personalities, inventiveness, and the capacity for cultural development (writing, music, historical awareness). Animals do not.
  6. Even the difference in the flesh is mentioned in the Bible: “All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another” (1 Cor. 15:39). This finding has consequences for molecular biology: Proteins comprise the major part of the body. The human body contains approximately fifty thousand different kinds of proteins, each fulfilling its own specific functions. They have different amino acid sequences. All organisms have certain amino acids in the same positions in the polypeptide chain, and they serve to establish and preserve the characteristic functions of the specific protein. In contrast to this precise positioning, there are other positions where the amino acids clearly differ from one kind to the other.
  7. It is said only about man that he was not only created “by God,” but also “for Him” (Col. 1:16). This high purpose is only ascribed to man. Animals are also creatures of God, but they did not receive the calling to become children of God (John 1:12). So the animals were only a living being.
  8. In contrast to the animals, man is an eternal being; this means that his existence never ends, even after the death of the body (Luke 16:19–31). An imperishable body will be raised from the perishable one (1 Cor. 15:42). The animals, even your dogs or cats do not exists heaven. The white horse in Revelation, for example, is not actual animal, but symbolically the strength of Christ's coming.

    Besides if anyone believes that the "being, soul, spirit" of animals will go somewhere after they die, then they need to read the following article: Will the pets and animals go to heaven?



 
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Genesis 1:21 in the KJV is insufficiently inclusive and thus less accurate than other versions.

From the Hebrew:

hat·tan·nî·nim
הַתַּנִּינִ֖ם
sea creatures

3 sea- (or river-) monster, Genesis 1:21

A whale is a sea creature. Let me knows if you find someone who actually witnessed "that" sea creature or monster of Genesis 1:21. Did Adam give it a name as he did with all other animals? :p
 
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
A whale is a sea creature. Let me knows if you find someone who actually witnessed "that" sea creature or monster of Genesis 1:21. Did Adam give it a name as he did with all other animals? :p

I am done with this silly sea creature/monster/whale debate. Stay with the topics of this thread which is "Where is the abomination of desolation of Daniel, Matt and Mark shown in Revelation.
 
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

shilohsfoal

Jacks or better to open
Jan 3, 2011
2,891
492
✟73,277.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Truthfully, I have never read the books of Maccabees........so all I know about Antiochus is what I read on this forum..........

Antiochus IV Epiphanes - Wikipedia

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (/ænˈtaɪ.əkəs ɛˈpɪfəniːz, ˌæntiˈɒkəs/; Ancient Greek: Ἀντίοχος ὁ Ἐπιφανής, Antíochos ho Epiphanḗs, "God Manifest";[1]
c. 215 BC – November/December 164 BC)[2] was a Hellenistic Greek king of the Seleucid Empire from 175 BC until his death in 164 BC.[3][4][5] He was a son of King Antiochus III the Great. His original name was Mithradates (alternative form Mithridates); he assumed the name Antiochus after he ascended the throne.[citation needed] Notable events during the reign of Antiochus IV include his near-conquest of Egypt, his persecution of the Jews of Judea and Samaria, and the rebellion of the Jewish Maccabees.

Jewish tradition
Antiochus IV ruled the Jews from 175 to 164 BC. He is remembered as a major villain and persecutor in the Jewish traditions associated with Hanukkah, including the books of Maccabees and the "Scroll of Antiochus".[27]

Rabbinical sources refer to him as הרשע harasha ("the wicked"); the Jewish Encyclopedia concluded that "since Jewish and heathen sources agree in their characterization of him, their portrayal is evidently correct", summarizing this portrayal as one of a cruel and vainglorious ruler who tried to force on all the peoples of his realm a Hellenic culture, "the true essence of which he can scarcely be said to have appreciated".[28]
Whether Antiochus's policy was directed at extermination of Judaism as a culture and a religion, though, is debatable on the grounds that his persecution was limited to Judea and Samaria (Jews in the diaspora were exempt), and that Antiochus was hardly an ideologically motivated Hellenizer. Erich S. Gruen suggests that, instead, he was driven more by pragmatics such as the need to gather income from Judea.
====================================
Sounds like Herod and Titus in 70ad...........

https://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/timeline_military.html
"..probably the greatest single slaughter in ancient history."
ROMAN SIEGE AND SACK OF JERUSALEM



No one knows for sure who wrote the book,of maccabees.We do know its not written by a known prophet therefore it is not completely trustworthy.We undestand the events contained in Maccabees were taught by the sect of the pharisees which was founded by the son of john maccabess in 167bc.The events are also found in the antiquities of the jews written by Josephus who was also a pharisee from the age of 19.

The pharisees belief is that a pig was slaughtered on thier alter and therefore was the abomination of desolation.
The problem with this tradition of the pharisees is that thete was no desolation .Nothing was made desolate from the death of a pig.

In fact the jewish priests later slaughtered thier own sacrificed animals on that exact same alter.
 
Upvote 0