I really hate the book of Revelation

[Enkil]

I take it quite seriously. Eternity is too serious not to.

The "prophesies"for the most part are non-prophesies when really studied.

Statements like these are for the most part non-statements when really studied.

Eziekial's rantings against Tyre, that was mentioned somewhere earlier come to mind.



Didn't happen. Ol Nebuchadnezzarbroke his army against Tyre. Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would "be no more forever," but, it just didn't happen that way. Tyre existed after Ezekiel in the days of Jesus, who "withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon" at one time during his personal ministry (Matt. 15:21), and it existed in the story of the Apostle Paul, who, returning from one of his missionary journeys, stopped and found disciples, and "tarried with them seven days "(Acts 21:3). In fact, Tyre still exists today, as anyone able to read a map can verify.

Interesting that you attack Ezekiel (or his cousin Eziekial) instead of Daniel. The scripture states that many nations would come against Tyre, not just Babylon. Two chapters later, Ezekiel even writes of Nebuchadnezzar's war against Tyre, and yet Tyre still stood at the effort.

Eze 29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:

Obviously, not even Ezekiel understood his prophecy as relating to an imminent destruction by Babylon, otherwise a reason would have been given here as to why it was not done. It is better to say that the destruction of Tyre was long and slow, a gradual collapse, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar's attacks on Old Tyre (inland Tyre), on to Alexander's rage and wrath against Tyre (island), and eventually concluding with the ravages of the Mamelukes, though old Tyre was long vanquished at this point.

Eze 26:14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

Less than 200-300 years ago, Tyre was still being described as a place of rocks where the small population subsisted off of fishing. Tyre is certainly doing better these days, but the glory days of Tyre, of its massive walls, wealth, and military power, that ancient Tyre which even received tribute from other nations, has been gone for over 2000 years since Alexander. It's character, kings and royal courts are long gone, and its people are certainly of a vastly different nature!

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary:

"thou shall be no more — Not that there was to be no more a Tyre, but she was no more to be the Tyre that once was: her glory and name were to be no more. As, to Old Tyre, the prophecy was literally fulfilled, not a vestige of it being left."

This is consistent with the speech and mode of thought of the ancients, as even Pharaohs declare of nations being "no more," or "utterly disappeared," and yet they were only captured and subjugated. It's a reference to their glory, their power, their wealth, etc.

 

[Enkil]

Yes, but not coins, which Genesis refers to. There was no unit of weight refered to, not a barter situation. You are grasping at straws.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about, which I think means you're grasping at straws. Genesis 45 does not mention coins, but 300 silver pieces. There's no reason to think they were referring to coins being given them by the Egyptians instead of the silver pieces the Egyptians actually used, which we even see on their own monuments images of them using them.

Genesis as a WHOLE, aside from the usage of silver, dates from the 5th and 6th century. That is the fact I was relaying.

So you're dropping the usage of silver as a logical point and you're reverting back to a general assertion which we must take by faith or by some authority you are quoting whom you assume we all know. Good! It's progress of a sort.

 

[Soulgazer]

Statements like these are for the most part non-statements when really studied.



Interesting that you attack Ezekiel (or his cousin Eziekial) instead of Daniel.

It's more interesting to me that you think I am attacking any personalities, rather than the concept of prophesies, psychic visions and fortune telling. Perhaps I did not make that point clear.

To me, Ezekials prophesy fell flat. He stated very specifically and very unambiguously that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre. Nebechadnezzar did not destroy Tyre.

Not a building was to be left standing. That didn't happen either. To say another army did the job is to ignore the prophesy---- Ezekial did not name Alexander, he named Nebbechadnezzar. I understand that people are trying to make it about the destruction of Tyre by saying it was destroyed economically---

However, that is a simple parlor trick. If I ask you to "Pick a card and it will be the queen of diamonds", and you pick the two of clubs, it is a failed prediction. I cannot then turn it around and say "well, the prediction was that you would pick a card".

Tyre was an impoirtant city, a Coastal city on a trading route. It was attacked by everyone who wanted it for it's strategic importance. That it would fall sooner or later is just a matter of historical percentages. That it would never be rebuilt and rejuvinated, a fail.

It is no more fair to say Ezekial did not mean "Nebbechadnezzar", he meant "Alexander" than it is to say Ezekial did not mean "Tyre" he meant "Roanoke".

Now, do you see what I mean?

 

[dollarsbill]

People seek the truth don't call other people who seek the truth "heretics."

That is an insult that comes from the self-righteous, hateful, person who puts dogma above love.

Who did that?

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

Who do you think?

"Originally Posted by spiritualwarrior77

A Christian gnostic...

Isn't that something like a square circle!!!
​

(heresy never dies)
​

It soon will."

 

[Ripheus27]

Just think of all the college-level research a person has to do to have well-grounded knowledge about when silver came into use as currency, or whether a reference to "70 weeks" is better interpreted literally or not, etc. How could a 3rd Century Christian (Trinitarian, Gnostic, Marcionite, or some other kind) do all that studying? But 3rd Century Christians were still saved (by works, faith, gnosis, or whatever). They also had solid testimony that Christ was/is their savior. Salvation doesn't depend, then, on knowing about the truth, or lack thereof, behind some prophecy.

 

[Enkil]

To me, Ezekials prophesy fell flat. He stated very specifically and very unambiguously that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre. Nebechadnezzar did not destroy Tyre.

He stated very specifically that many nations would rise up against Tyre. If he understood it of just Nebuchadnezzar, why did two chapters later did God reward Nebuchadnezzar for literally working his army to the bone against Tyre, but not destroying Tyre outright? If the Prophecy was indeed a problem, it would have been corrected two chapters later or explained why it was "changed" when the subject came up, but it did not.

But as to "attacking personalities," I was just messing with you for misspelling his name, and that you were going after a different topic rather than the Book of Daniel which you say stands on nothing.

 

[Enkil]

Just think of all the college-level research a person has to do to have well-grounded knowledge about when silver came into use as currency, or whether a reference to "70 weeks" is better interpreted literally or not, etc.

That's an assumption of ignorance. While maybe the average guy on the street might not worry about the nuances of doctrine, they had their rabbis (in the latter times), their prophets and their judges all throughout Biblical history teaching the scripture. Of course, the Judaism of Jesus's time was much degenerated from its former glory. More time was spent figuring out how many cubits you could walk on the Sabbath day than on the plain wording of the law. Even the High Priest of the Jewish temple, at the very end, wasn't even eligible for the post, but had gotten it through cash payment.

How could a 3rd Century Christian (Trinitarian, Gnostic, Marcionite, or some other kind) do all that studying? But 3rd Century Christians were still saved (by works, faith, gnosis, or whatever). They also had solid testimony that Christ was/is their savior. Salvation doesn't depend, then, on knowing about the truth, or lack thereof, behind some prophecy.

I don't think that any actual Christian was confused at that time about the salvation that comes from Christ Jesus. While it is true that there were Gnostics and other folks running around, it is clear that a solid understanding of Christian doctrine was well in place from the very beginning. Assumptions about people being ignorant about everything are just speculations. Even you can study up and get proficient without a college degree. My field of study is Biology/English (a weird combination, I know!), not theology or archaeology.

 

[Soulgazer]

He stated very specifically that many nations would rise up against Tyre. If he understood it of just Nebuchadnezzar, why did two chapters later did God reward Nebuchadnezzar for literally working his army to the bone against Tyre, but not destroying Tyre outright? If the Prophecy was indeed a problem, it would have been corrected two chapters later or explained why it was "changed" when the subject came up, but it did not.

But as to "attacking personalities," I was just messing with you for misspelling his name, and that you were going after a different topic rather than the Book of Daniel which you say stands on nothing.

I see the other side of the coin, as well as the smoke and mirrors. The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. 27, 1984) says:

The neo-Babylonian conqueror, Nebuchadnezzar II, subjected the island to a 13-year siege (585-572) without success.

That's thirteen years.

His prophecy against Egypt did show a clear awareness that he had blown his prediction that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre:

"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it. Therefore thus says Yahweh God: `Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army'" (29:18-19).

​

It follows that the book of Ezekiel could not have been written, at least not in its entirety, until after the siege of Tyre was over. To say the least, then, serious questions must be raised about this being a genuine prophesy. Then, assuming that it was written AS he was making the prophesies, he didn't even bother going back and offering an explanation as to why Nebuchadnezzar failed. I'm sorry, you can believe this if you want to, but it's obvious to me. Parlor trick.

 

[Enkil]

I see the other side of the coin,

You see what you want to see, which seems to me to be a desire to read the Bible in as obtuse way possible. That's an important difference. It is interesting though that Ezekiel is backed up with history!

It follows that the book of Ezekiel could not have been written, at least not in its entirety, until after the siege of Tyre was over. To say the least, then, serious questions must be raised about this being a genuine prophesy. Then, assuming that it was written AS he was making the prophesies, he didn't even bother going back and offering an explanation as to why Nebuchadnezzar failed. I'm sorry, you can believe this if you want to, but it's obvious to me. Parlor trick.

You certainly are free to believe that, but the destruction of Tyre as a major power, with its towers and walls literally being uprooted, has never been an issue for major expositors. You can't just read one chapter, and then ignore what is written two chapters later, or ignore the full import of a prophecy. That might work for you, but not for someone looking to understand it.

 

[timbo3]

Careful research shows that most of the old testament dates no earlier than 550BC. For example, Genesis 45 dates itself with the exchange of silver. Silver as currency was invented by the lydians Ci 600bc. It caught on quite quickly, so a date as early as 550BC for that passage is not out of the question. Except the author would have known it was new!

And of course the story of Goliaths head being carried triumphantly into Jerusalem is completely anachronistic. There were a few years to go yet before David would become king and conquer that city. The author would have David flying an F18.

So I can easily see these so called prophesies being written after the fact.

Austrailian aboriginies were quarenteening sick people as early as 30,000 years ago. They worshipped frogs.

I have seen nothing that convinces me that the Hebrew or later Greek versions of the scripture of the Sadducee paints an accurate picture of the Father of Jesus.

Jerusalem had been inhabited by the Israelites since the days of Joshua (who died in 1443 B.C.E.), along with the Jebusites, almost 350 years before David was born.(Joshua 15:63; Judges 1:8) Hence, upon beheading Goliath, David took his head to Jerusalem, most likely walking some 15 miles northeast to the city around the year 1087 B.C.E.

 

[Soulgazer]

Jerusalem had been inhabited by the Israelites since the days of Joshua (who died in 1443 B.C.E.), along with the Jebusites, almost 350 years before David was born.(Joshua 15:63; Judges 1:8) Hence, upon beheading Goliath, David took his head to Jerusalem, most likely walking some 15 miles northeast to the city around the year 1087 B.C.E.

Nope. Jerusalum was in the hands of the Jebusites until David conquered it. Then and only then did it not only become an Israeli city, but also the capitol.

 

[Ripheus27]

That's an assumption of ignorance... Assumptions about people being ignorant about everything are just speculations. Even you can study up and get proficient without a college degree. My field of study is Biology/English (a weird combination, I know!), not theology or archaeology.

I hopefully didn't convey an assumption of 3rd Century villagers being ignorant of "everything." I meant to convey the fact that the historical research possible for them at the time was liable to be less epistemologically well-formed than research in the modern era. And a college-level study should not be understood as the equivalent of getting a degree: I just mean a peer-reviewed, etc. study, one that is usually only done by people accustomed to university rigor.

The point is that some disciplines (history and science, for instance), because they depend on causes and effects that vary over time, get better over time. But even mathematics, which is a priori, has become a more refined system of knowledge in more recent centuries (for instance, when non-Euclidean geometry was developed). Moral truths are absolutely eternal, however. And salvation only depends on those, wherefore a lack of faith in prophecy is not a lack of faith in the grace of the Lord.

 

[brinny]

And the book of Daniel.

I used to believe that these books were the word of God. Now I believe that they are completely false. I can’t stand all the rubbish that people go on about with eschatology, endlessly quoting from Daniel and Revelation. If you are led by the Spirit, eventually it becomes clear, that not everything that ‘they’ included in the bible is the word of God.

There is not going to be any mark of the beast. There is no antichrist, and never will be. The book of Revelation is totally devoid of the love of God. It is a rant by a very angry, disgruntled and unloving individual, who wanted the peoples of the world killed by God, in revenge for the activities of the Romans, back two thousand years ago, when people didn’t know any better.

Jesus' return is proclaimed in the book of Revelation. In it lies the description of how, what was promised in the book of Genesis comes to pass. The serpents sure defeat (his head is crushed) comes and is witnessed by all, brother in Christ and son of the Most High God.

 

[wordsoflife]

What if I said, "I hate the book of Romans". Would that in any way deny its authenticity or mean that it should be taken out of the canon?

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

What if I said, "I hate the book of Romans". Would that in any way deny its authenticity or mean that it should be taken out of the canon?

If you were Martin Luther it would. For the rest of us it might just mean we don't want to read it any more.

 

[wordsoflife]

If you were Martin Luther it would.

Martin Luther did not remove any books from the canon. His Luther bible included the entire Old and New Testaments as well as the Apocrypha.

Luther Bible

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

If I'm not mistaken he considered removing Revelation. I'll admit I've found conflicting information on who removed the apocrapha and I'm probably mistaken, but I think you understand my point.

 

[wordsoflife]

If I'm not mistaken he considered removing Revelation. I'll admit I've found conflicting information on who removed the apocrapha and I'm probably mistaken, but I think you understand my point.

Luther did have a problem with Revelation. He also called James "an epistle of straw". The Apocrypha was included in the original King James bible. It wasn't until 1895 that it was removed.

 

[dollarsbill]

Who do you think?

"Originally Posted by spiritualwarrior77

A Christian gnostic...

Isn't that something like a square circle!!!
​

(heresy never dies)
​

It soon will."

I wasn't agreeing with someone being called 'heretic'. I think the term is vague and often misused.