Last Days Timing

[claninja]

No. Your opinions on the text are pretty clear. It seems you consider all prophecy to be already fulfilled. I've already shown how that is not true from Scripture. Not going to argue about it. Just not interested in spending that energy.

And I could say the same generic thing about you, but that would be a terrible discussion.

Why are you even on this forum? This is a debate and discussion forum, so I’m not quite sure why you are even posting here. Per the forum rules:

“When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.”

What factual evidence have you provided to support you position?

When asked about providing a scholarly resource as to the definition of eggízō, you balked and called it a word game and fools game. I, on the other hand, provided a scholarly definition.

You provided your own personal interpretation of Zephaniah, to claim “look, near doesn’t mean near”, without any type of support for your interpretation. I, on the other hand, provided commentaries from multiple Christian scholars demonstrating the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, Assyria, philistia, Moab, and Ammon was literally near , thus demonstrating I’m not providing my own personal opinion.

You claimed I don’t read the text literally without providing and examples. I provided multiple examples where I take the text literally. But you responded with some generic quip that didn’t address anything….


But, sure, I understand that demanding everyone else provide evidence for their position, while you being immune to that same demand, can be quite exhausting.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

And I could say the same generic thing about you, but that would be a terrible discussion.

Why are you even on this forum? This is a debate and discussion forum, so I’m not quite sure why you are even posting here. Per the forum rules:

“When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.”

What factual evidence have you provided to support you position?

When asked about providing a scholarly resource as to the definition of eggízō, you balked and called it a word game and fools game. I, on the other hand, provided a scholarly definition.

You provided your own personal interpretation of Zephaniah, to claim “look, near doesn’t mean near”, without any type of support for your interpretation. I, on the other hand, provided commentaries from multiple Christian scholars demonstrating the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, Assyria, philistia, Moab, and Ammon was literally near , thus demonstrating I’m not providing my own personal opinion.

You claimed I don’t read the text literally without providing and examples. I provided multiple examples where I take the text literally. But you responded with some generic quip that didn’t address anything….


But, sure, I understand that demanding everyone else provide evidence for their position, while you being immune to that same demand, can be quite exhausting.

Just not interested. You have not done what you claim. So I'm just not going to give any more effort to this. You aren't interested in discussion. You are just wanting to pound your point of view. It's futile to talk with people like this. It's an absolute waste of my precious time.

 

[claninja]

Just not interested. You have not done what you claim. So I'm just not going to give any more effort to this. You aren't interested in discussion. You are just wanting to pound your point of view. It's futile to talk with people like this. It's an absolute waste of my precious time.

Ah yes, this has devolved where you need to start making false claims, without providing any specifics in order to get out of the conversation.

Again, not sure why you’re even posting on this debate and discussion forum.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

No. Your opinions on the text are pretty clear. It seems you consider all prophecy to be already fulfilled. I've already shown how that is not true from Scripture. Not going to argue about it. Just not interested in spending that energy.

To believe your doctrine I would have to believe that "not now" and "not near" of Balaam's prophecy of Numbers 24:17 fulfilled in Matthew 2 would have to be a shorter time than "now" and "near" of the many times stated in the new testament. That would be the same as saying "thou shalt not" is equal to "thou shalt"
Is that what you believe? Is it ok for the bible to be inconsistent within itself?

Revelation 2:4But I have this against you: You have abandoned your first love. 5Therefore, keep in mind how far you have fallen. Repent and perform the deeds you did at first. But if you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
-How will He come to them if they aren't alive?

16Therefore repent! But if not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.
-How could He come to them quickly if they aren't alive?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

To believe your doctrine I would have to believe that "not now" and "not near" of Balaam's prophecy of Numbers 24:17 fulfilled in Matthew 2 would have to be a shorter time than "now" and "near" of the many times stated in the new testament. That would be the same as saying "thou shalt not" is equal to "thou shalt"
Is that what you believe? Is it ok for the bible to be inconsistent within itself?

Revelation 2:4But I have this against you: You have abandoned your first love. 5Therefore, keep in mind how far you have fallen. Repent and perform the deeds you did at first. But if you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
-How will He come to them if they aren't alive?

16Therefore repent! But if not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.
-How could He come to them quickly if they aren't alive?

It seems to be a common practice with some people in this discussion. They pick and choose the verses which they assume bolster their opinions. But, if you look closer and consider things in context, the verses don't actually prove their point at all. It's all pretty hilarious. You've done the same thing again.

1. Start with the single verse you quote about Balaam. You consider this verse (and by extension his whole prophecy) to be completely fulfilled in Matthew 2. I supposed you are mainly keyed in on the "star". But is this really the case? Not if you look a few verses earlier where Balaam says exactly who and when this whole prophecy is for. "I will let you know what this people will do to your people in the latter days.” Num 24:14

So you really think that when Messiah Jesus was born, the people of Israel subdued the Moabites (ie. King Balak's descendants referred to at the end of the verse)? Or that they removed all the people from Edom and destroyed their cities (v 18-19)? Or destroyed the Amalekites (v20)? Or the Assyrians burned and pillaged the Kenites (v21)? Or the navy of caucasian descendants came to fight against the Assyrian and Semetic descendants? Really? Israel has never done any of this in her entire history.

It makes total sense that Balaam said it's not now and not near. Again looking at the prophetic timeline of the Great Week. When was Balaam's prophecy? Around 1500 BC. That's within the 3rd Great Day. In the first half of the 7 Day week. So, no, it's not near if this will all be fulfilled at the Day of the Lord at Day 7 at the end of the Week.

2. Not really sure what your actual point is with these verses you quote in Revelation. But again, you pick and choose without considering the context. There are 7 lampstands and they represent 7 actual churches during the time Revelation was written. You totally miss the context that Messiah Jesus was already walking AMONG the lampstands (Rev 1:13, Rev 2:1). He was already observing and supporting the people in the churches at that time. In Rev 2:4 He would remove the lampstand if they did not repent. In Rev 2:16, he would "suddenly, without warning" deal with heresy if they didn't root it out. The word is not "quickly" but actually "suddenly". (Analysis of Peshitta verse 'Revelation 2:16')

So, as you can see, what you thought about these verses is incorrect. A proper understanding of the full prophetic work and timeline of God needs to be applied.

 

[claninja]

It seems to be a common practice with some people in this discussion. They pick and choose the verses which they assume bolster their opinions. But, if you look closer and consider things in context, the verses don't actually prove their point at all. It's all pretty hilarious. You've done the same thing again.

1. Start with the single verse you quote about Balaam. You consider this verse (and by extension his whole prophecy) to be completely fulfilled in Matthew 2. I supposed you are mainly keyed in on the "star". But is this really the case? Not if you look a few verses earlier where Balaam says exactly who and when this whole prophecy is for. "I will let you know what this people will do to your people in the latter days.” Num 24:14

So you really think that when Messiah Jesus was born, the people of Israel subdued the Moabites (ie. King Balak's descendants referred to at the end of the verse)? Or that they removed all the people from Edom and destroyed their cities (v 18-19)? Or destroyed the Amalekites (v20)? Or the Assyrians burned and pillaged the Kenites (v21)? Or the navy of caucasian descendants came to fight against the Assyrian and Semetic descendants? Really? Israel has never done any of this in her entire history.

It makes total sense that Balaam said it's not now and not near. Again looking at the prophetic timeline of the Great Week. When was Balaam's prophecy? Around 1500 BC. That's within the 3rd Great Day. In the first half of the 7 Day week. So, no, it's not near if this will all be fulfilled at the Day of the Lord at Day 7 at the end of the Week.

2. Not really sure what your actual point is with these verses you quote in Revelation. But again, you pick and choose without considering the context. There are 7 lampstands and they represent 7 actual churches during the time Revelation was written. You totally miss the context that Messiah Jesus was already walking AMONG the lampstands (Rev 1:13, Rev 2:1). He was already observing and supporting the people in the churches at that time. In Rev 2:4 He would remove the lampstand if they did not repent. In Rev 2:16, he would "suddenly, without warning" deal with heresy if they didn't root it out. The word is not "quickly" but actually "suddenly". (Analysis of Peshitta verse 'Revelation 2:16')

So, as you can see, what you thought about these verses is incorrect. A proper understanding of the full prophetic work and timeline of God needs to be applied.

I agree the Moabites were not conquered with Christ. They no longer existed in Christs time. Maybe we can find some agreement here. The prophecy of numbers 24:17 was fulfilled with David, who defeated the Moabites.

2 Samuel 8:2 David also defeated the Moabites. He made them lie down on the ground and measured them off with a length of cord. Every two lengths of them were put to death, and the third length was allowed to live. So the Moabites became subject to David and brought him tribute.

This prophecy simply being a shadow pointing to Christ defeating the enemies of the church.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

This prophecy simply being a shadow pointing to Christ defeating the enemies of the church.

So it's not literal? This Prophecy not literal? You now confirm the kind of theology you have. I thought that might be case but now it's revealed.
And just today this article shows up. Very timely.
https://harbingersdaily.com/wokeism-begins-with-devaluing-the-words-of-scripture/

 

[claninja]

So it's not literal? This Prophecy not literal? You now confirm the kind of theology you have. I thought that might be case but now it's revealed.
And just today this article shows up. Very timely.
https://harbingersdaily.com/wokeism-begins-with-devaluing-the-words-of-scripture/

Huh? No…..the prophecy of numbers 24:17 was literally about David. David is the king who came from Jacob that defeated the Moabites.

all I’m saying is that the prophecy literally happens with David and was typological of Christ.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Huh? No…..the prophecy of numbers 24:17 was literally about David. David is the king who came from Jacob that defeated the Moabites.

all I’m saying is that the prophecy literally happens with David and was typological of Christ.

That is NOT what you said. And you didn't even deal with the REST of the entire prophecy. Again, you pick and choose and treat the text with contempt.

 

[claninja]

That is NOT what you said. And you didn't even deal with the REST of the entire prophecy. Again, you pick and choose and treat the text with contempt.

Huh?…..That’s what I said in post 126. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the terms “shadow” and “typology”? When I say David was a shadow of Christ, that means the same thing as David was typological of Christ.

As far as The rest? You mean vs 18 where this king from Jacob also defeats the edomites? That was also David:

2 Samuel 8:14 He put garrisons throughout Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David. The LORD gave David victory wherever he went.

Numbers 24:17-19 is a prophecy about the coming of David, from Jacob, as king of Israel, to defeat the Moabites, sons of sheth, and Edomites.

And Again, David was typological/a shadow of Christ.

Ellicot’s commentary:
“The prophecy received its primary accomplishment in the time of David (2Samuel 8:14), but the ultimate accomplishment is to be found in the person and work of Christ”

I guess, maybe, can you explain what the prophecy of numbers 24:17 means, if I’m treating it with contempt?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Huh?…..That’s what I said in post 126. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the terms “shadow” and “typology”? When I say David was a shadow of Christ, that means the same thing as David was typological of Christ.

As far as The rest? You mean vs 18 where this king from Jacob also defeats the edomites? That was also David:

2 Samuel 8:14 He put garrisons throughout Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David. The LORD gave David victory wherever he went.

Numbers 24:17-19 is a prophecy about the coming of David, from Jacob, as king of Israel, to defeat the Moabites, sons of sheth, and Edomites.

And Again, David was typological/a shadow of Christ.

Ellicot’s commentary:
“The prophecy received its primary accomplishment in the time of David (2Samuel 8:14), but the ultimate accomplishment is to be found in the person and work of Christ”

I guess, maybe, can you explain what the prophecy of numbers 24:17 means, if I’m treating it with contempt?

You keep wanting to use quotes from other people. That means absolutely diddly squat. As if they are any better experts than anyone else. I also have a degree after my name so what I say has just as much weight. Like I said, you've revealed your particular theology opinion. So not interested in discussing anything more with that particular world view.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

2. Not really sure what your actual point is with these verses you quote in Revelation. But again, you pick and choose without considering the context. There are 7 lampstands and they represent 7 actual churches during the time Revelation was written. You totally miss the context that Messiah Jesus was already walking AMONG the lampstands (Rev 1:13, Rev 2:1). He was already observing and supporting the people in the churches at that time. In Rev 2:4 He would remove the lampstand if they did not repent. In Rev 2:16, he would "suddenly, without warning" deal with heresy if they didn't root it out. The word is not "quickly" but actually "suddenly". (Analysis of Peshitta verse 'Revelation 2:16')

So, as you can see, what you thought about these verses is incorrect. A proper understanding of the full prophetic work and timeline of God needs to be applied.

Well, If you see that Jesus is already here with us as High Priest, then what on earth do you think must still happen? After all, the whole bible was to end with God and the lamb becoming our temple.
The actual timeline for everything is when Jesus laid it out in the Olivet Discourse. He used the demonstrative pronoun this and uses the personal pronoun "you" throughout the discourse while speaking to His disciples the apostles. He doesn't use the demonstrative pronoun "that" and He doesn't use the indefinite(generic) pronoun

Here are the translations from the link you gave and analysis of the Peshitta concerning Revelation 2:16

Translations​

(Etheridge) in like (manner), repent; and if not, I will come to thee quickly, and will war against them with the sword of my mouth.
(Murdock) Or if not, I will come to thee quickly, and I will war upon them with the sword of my mouth.
(Lamsa) Repent; or else I will come to you very soon, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

(KJV) Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Grammatical analysis​

ܡܚܕܐ

ܡܶܚܕ݂ܳܐ

2:6254

ܚܕ

Particle

immediately, at once

263

119

63066-02167

And then we find where you find "suddenly" and therefore declare that to be the correct translation. But others can decide for themselves if you're being completely honest.

mḥdh, mḥdˀ (meḥḏā) adv. at once, immediately

spelled both ܡܚܕܐ‏ and ܡܚܕܗܿ‏ ; CPA only ܡܢ ܚܕܐ ‏

1 at once, immediately, suddenly CPA, Syr. P 2K5:3 : ܡܚܕܐ ܡܐܣܐ ܠܗ ܡܢ ܓܪܒܗ‏ he will heal him of his leprosy immediately. P Mt4:22 : ܗܸܢܘܼܢ ܕܸܿܝܢ ܡܸܚܕܼܵܐ ܫܒܼܲܩܘ ܠܸܐܠܦܼܵܐ ܘܠܲܐܒܼܘܼܗܘܼܢ‏ so they left the ship and their father at once. (a) (in a genitive construction) Syr. BhNom 462:14 : ܚܕ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܡܚܘܿܬܵܐ ܠܐ ܩܵܛܠܲܬܼ ܡܸܚܕܵܗܿ܃ ܘܐܚܪܢܐ ܡܚܘܬܐ ܩܛܠܬ ܡܸܕܵܗܿ‏ one of them is a blow that does not kill immediately and the other a blow that kills immediately.

The thing is, it doesn't change anything anyways because He's sent the prophecy to literally be read to certain churches with specific messages that don't apply anyone else other than as a lesson to be learned. He uses personal pronouns like "you". and not indefinite(generic) pronouns like anyone. If you were in one of those 7 churches and He said "you" who would you think He was talking to.

So you really think that when Messiah Jesus was born, the people of Israel subdued the Moabites (ie. King Balak's descendants referred to at the end of the verse)? Or that they removed all the people from Edom and destroyed their cities (v 18-19)? Or destroyed the Amalekites (v20)? Or the Assyrians burned and pillaged the Kenites (v21)? Or the navy of caucasian descendants came to fight against the Assyrian and Semetic descendants? Really? Israel has never done any of this in her entire history.

Are you claiming that it was David that was the star with the scepter? If so, then not now and not near is merely 500 years.
And where do you get the 7,000 year doctrine from scripture. Since it would be so important, it must be heavily prophesied about. But I'll settle for at least two scriptures that clearly state it.

It is always the Lord who fights and wins the battle.
Proverbs 21:
30There is no wisdom, no understanding, no counsel
that can prevail against the LORD.
31A horse is prepared for the day of battle,
but victory is of the LORD.

Psalm 44:6
For I do not trust in my bow, nor does my sword save me.

Psalm 60:6God has spoken from His sanctuary:
“I will triumph!
I will parcel out Shechem
and apportion the Valley of Succoth.
7Gilead is Mine, and Manasseh is Mine;
Ephraim is My helmet, Judah is My scepter.
8Moab is My washbasin;
upon Edom I toss My sandal;
over Philistia I shout in triumph.”

Ezekiel 25:14I will take My vengeance on Edom by the hand of My people Israel, and they will deal with Edom according to My anger and wrath.
Then they will know My vengeance, declares the Lord GOD.’

Look what Jesus said.
John 5:46

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Here's proof that the star was believed to be the Messiah going all the way back to the Jewish Targums. It is also true that others believed it was David.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges is a biblical commentary set published in parts by Cambridge University Press from 1882 onwards.
Numbers17. In accordance with Numbers 24:14 Balaam treats of the future of Israel. ‘I see him (Israel), but not (as he is) now; I behold him, but not (encamped as he is) nigh.’
There shall come forth] lit. ‘there hath trodden’ (דָּרַךְ). Read probably יִזְרַח there shall rise.
a star] A metaphor for a glorious king; cf. Isaiah 14:12, Revelation 22:16. According to an early Jewish interpretation, found in the Targum, this verse was a prediction of the Messiah. The famous pretender in the reign of Hadrian was called Barcochba (‘son of the star’).

Pulpit commentary:
One of the largest and best-selling homiletical commentary sets of its kind. Directed by editors Joseph Exell and Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones, The Pulpit Commentary drew from over 100 authors over a 30 year span to assemble this conservative and trustworthy homiletical commentary set. A favorite of pastors for nearly 100 years, The Pulpit Commentary offers you ideas and insight on "How to Preach It" throughout the entire Bible.

Numbers 24:17Jewish prophecy, from beginning to end, contemplated the Messiah as the Conqueror, the Subduer, and even the Destroyer of all the heathen, i.e., of all who were not Jews. It is only in the New Testament that the iron scepter with which he was to dash in pieces the heathen (Psalm 2:9) becomes the pastoral staff wherewith he shepherds them (Revelation 2:27 - ποιμανεῖ after the Septuagint, which has here misread the text). The prophecy was that Messiah should destroy the heathen; the fulfillment that he destroyed not them, but their heathenism (cf. e.g., Psalm 149:6-9 with James 5:20). Numbers 24:17

Ellicott's Commentary for English readers:
There shall come a Star out of Jacob . . . —Literally, There hath come forth a Star out of Jacob, &c. The verb is in the prophetic past or historic tense of prophecy, denoting the certainty of the event predicted. (Comp. Jude 1:14 : “Behold the Lord cometh”—literally, came.) If there is any ambiguity in the first symbol it is removed in the second. A star is a fitting image of an illustrious king or ruler, and the mention of the sceptre in the words which follow (comp. Genesis 49:10) shows that it is so employed in the present instance. The Targum of Onkelos is as follows:—“When the King shall arise out of Jacob, and the Messiah shall be anointed from Israel.” The Targum of Palestine reads thus:—“A King is to arise from the house of Jacob, and a Redeemer and Ruler from the house of Israel.” Ibn Ezra interprets these words of David, but he says that many interpret them of the Messiah.
I could go on and on but...

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Well, If you see that Jesus is already here with us as High Priest, then what on earth do you think must still happen? After all, the whole bible was to end with God and the lamb becoming our temple.
The actual timeline for everything is when Jesus laid it out in the Olivet Discourse. He used the demonstrative pronoun this and uses the personal pronoun "you" throughout the discourse while speaking to His disciples the apostles. He doesn't use the demonstrative pronoun "that" and He doesn't use the indefinite(generic) pronoun
----snip----

I just don't have the time or desire to respond to all the false information and assumptions in your comment. It's all spaghetti to try and follow. I give people a few chances to make sense of their view point and if they are dishonest about what the text says, I just let them be. I'm letting you be.

 

[claninja]

So you really think that when Messiah Jesus was born, the people of Israel subdued the Moabites (ie. King Balak's descendants referred to at the end of the verse)? Or that they removed all the people from Edom and destroyed their cities (v 18-19)? Or destroyed the Amalekites (v20)? Or the Assyrians burned and pillaged the Kenites (v21)? Or the navy of caucasian descendants came to fight against the Assyrian and Semetic descendants? Really? Israel has never done any of this in her entire history.

David subdued the Moabites and Edomites (2 Samuel 8).

David defeated the Amalekites (1 Samuel 30), and their remnant was eradicated under king hezekiah’s reign (1 chronicles 4).

the kenite tribes dwelled amongst Israel. So it likely that there taken captive when Assyria conquered Israel.


While Babylon and the Medes defeated the Assyrian empire, they were also subdued by the Greeks and Romans (ships from kittim)

Matthew pooles commentary:
“Now although the Assyrian and Chaldean empire was subdued by the Medes and Persians, yet the chief afflictions and calamities of that people came from two hands, both beyond the sea, and brought to them by ships, as is here expressed; first from the Grecians under Alexander and his successors, by whom that people were grievously oppressed and wasted; then from the Romans, who subdued all the Grecian empire, one great part whereof were the Assyrians largely so called, and after many bloody wars made them a colony.”

So it would be completely false to say none of this happened during Israel’s history

 

[claninja]

You keep wanting to use quotes from other people. That means absolutely diddly squat. As if they are any better experts than anyone else. I also have a degree after my name so what I say has just as much weight. Like I said, you've revealed your particular theology opinion. So not interested in discussing anything more with that particular world view.

No worries. No need to respond. But as this is a debate and discussion forum, I’ll continue to point out your false claims.

 

[claninja]

It makes total sense that Balaam said it's not now and not near. Again looking at the prophetic timeline of the Great Week. When was Balaam's prophecy? Around 1500 BC. That's within the 3rd Great Day. In the first half of the 7 Day week. So, no, it's not near if this will all be fulfilled at the Day of the Lord at Day 7 at the end of the Week.

You’re imposing the “millennial day theory” onto the text.

Balaam saying “it’s not now or not near” was true Because those events were literally, at least, several hundred years away, the millennial day theory being irrelevant.

 

[claninja]

This being the case, the Zephaniah passage was written in the 4th Day.

That's within the 3rd Great Day. In the first half of the 7 Day week. So, no, it's not near if this will all be fulfilled at the Day of the Lord at Day 7 at the end of the Week.

Ah, so under millennial day theory, day 3 means not near, but day 4 means near?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

No worries. No need to respond. But as this is a debate and discussion forum, I’ll continue to point out your false claims.

You do what you want. The text is clear. I pointed out your false claims. People can read it for themselves. It's futile to have arguments and go round and round in circles with people who misquote and pick and choose. I won't fall prey to your lame attempts at baiting.

 

[claninja]

You do what you want. The text is clear. I pointed out your false claims. People can read it for themselves. It's futile to have arguments and go round and round in circles with people who misquote and pick and choose. I won't fall prey to your lame attempts at baiting.

you haven’t pointed out one false claim yet. You just keep making vague generic responses, with zero examples, claiming you have. That’s not how debates work, so again, not sure why you are even on a discussion and debate forum when you don’t want to discuss nor debate.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

I just don't have the time or desire to respond to all the false information and assumptions in your comment. It's all spaghetti to try and follow. I give people a few chances to make sense of their view point and if they are dishonest and lie about the text, I just let them be. I'm letting you be.

Falsely accuse and judge without proving is as woke as it gets. All I did was respond to your other false accusation and ask you a question with regards to your 7000 year doctrine. You could have at least showed 2 clear scriptures proving your assertion, couldn't you?