Signs of the Times... what do you see?

[jgr]

Jesus. He quoted Isa and stopped mid verse because it launched into the future.

I'm referring to your earlier claim that Christ himself is speaking in Psalm 22. Have you found any commentators who agree with you?

 

[jgr]

I use the Revised English Bible, Oxford Press 1989. It is the best translation from all available texts, into modern English, conveying the meaning in an easy to understand manner.

I can't find this online, so can't comment.

 

[dad]

I'm referring to your earlier claim that Christ himself is speaking in Psalm 22. Have you found any commentators who agree with you?

I posted the link.

 

[jgr]

I posted the link.

Sorry, can't seem to find it.

 

[keras]

I can't find this online, so can't comment.

I checked the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer. It shows there is no 'Then' in the original Hebrew, at the start of 2 Samuel 22:8 or Psalms 18:7
Therefore this prophecy by David remains unfulfilled and it fits best with the forthcoming Sixth Seal worldwide disaster.

 

[dad]

I'm referring to your earlier claim that Christ himself is speaking in Psalm 22. Have you found any commentators who agree with you?

If one agrees, as commentators do agree, that the chapter is about Jesus and the cross...then when it talks in the first person, guess who has to be speaking? Elementary.

 

[jgr]

If one agrees, as commentators do agree, that the chapter is about Jesus and the cross...then when it talks in the first person, guess who has to be speaking? Elementary.

Everyone has the indisputable right to be his or her own commentator.

But you've still not produced any instance of any other commentator who believes as you do that it is Christ and not David who is actually speaking/writing. Infantile.

 

[jgr]

I checked the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer. It shows there is no 'Then' in the original Hebrew, at the start of 2 Samuel 22:8 or Psalms 18:7

The reason is that ancient Hebrew does not incorporate any tense other than present tense. It was and is thus the responsibility of the translators to contextually impute the tense. And in all the translations of Psalm 18 to which I have access that I've checked, the imputed tense is past or present, not future.

 

[keras]

The reason is that ancient Hebrew does not incorporate any tense other than present tense. It was and is thus the responsibility of the translators to contextually impute the tense. And in all the translations of Psalm 18 to which I have access that I've checked, the imputed tense is past or present, not future.

The translators are just humans, with the usual baggage and bias's. In the KJV, etc they thought the 'Then' should be inserted.
In the REB, they didn't. I believe the REB translators were right and this is proved by there being no historical record of the disasters as described having happened.
You determination to place these nasty prophesies into the past or to allegorize them as so many do, shows an attitude similar to what 2 Peter 3:1-7 describes. Verse 7 says God WILL judge the earth with fire, just as Psalm 18:7-15 prophesies.

 

[jgr]

The translators are just humans, with the usual baggage and bias's. In the KJV, etc they thought the 'Then' should be inserted.
In the REB, they didn't. I believe the REB translators were right and this is proved by there being no historical record of the disasters as described having happened.
You determination to place these nasty prophesies into the past or to allegorize them as so many do, shows an attitude similar to what 2 Peter 3:1-7 describes. Verse 7 says God WILL judge the earth with fire, just as Psalm 18:7-15 prophesies.

How do you interpret Peter in Acts 2?

16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:
...
19 ‘And I will grant wonders in the sky above
And signs on the earth below,
Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke.
20 ‘The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come.

 

[dad]

Everyone has the indisputable right to be his or her own commentator.

But you've still not produced any instance of any other commentator who believes as you do that it is Christ and not David who is actually speaking/writing. Infantile.

The commentators agree it is all about Jesus. So when it says something like 'they parted MY garments among them' guess who is talking?

 

[keras]

How do you interpret Peter in Acts 2?

16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:
...
19 ‘And I will grant wonders in the sky above
And signs on the earth below,
Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke.
20 ‘The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come.

Peter is referring to the Sixth Seal. A worldwide disaster that will be the next prophesied event we can expect. 2 Peter 3:7 says it again and there are over 100 prophesies that vividly detail this forthcoming terrible world changer. A reset of our civilization to a similar degree as in the days of Noah.
Note it happens before the glorious Return of Jesus. In fact it must be at least 7 years before, probably about 20 years, as the Seventh Seal tells us. [a half hour in heaven is 1/48th of a day, so 1/48th of 1000 earth years; Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8, is 20.8 years]

 

[jgr]

But those phenomena didn't actually occur then, there is no other record of such worldwide and cosmic events. David's battles were won with God's help, sure, but not in such an overt way!

In reality, if you claim to believe Scripture literally, and I know that you do, then you cannot deny that David literally witnessed at that time what he said he did. He did not claim the futurization of the event. The fact that there is no other record does not prove that it did not occur. There is nothing of which God is incapable, displays of worldwide and cosmic events included. If you are claiming to be literal, then you must accept the full literality at face value of what is described. If you are claiming to be literal, then you must be literal.

 

[keras]

In reality, if you claim to believe Scripture literally, and I know that you do, then you cannot deny that David literally witnessed at that time what he said he did. He did not claim the futurization of the event. The fact that there is no other record does not prove that it did not occur. There is nothing of which God is incapable, displays of worldwide and cosmic events included. If you are claiming to be literal, then you must accept the full literality at face value of what is described. If you are claiming to be literal, then you must be literal.

No, David was a prophet, just like all the rest of them, incl Jesus. They told and wrote of things to happen, most often in far distant times. Ezekiel 12:27
We do have many records, written and oral, that describe ancient things. To not have any other historical indication of such dramatic, worldwide and cosmic events, as Psalms 18:7-15 state, from just 3000 years ago, means it did not happen then.
But we do have many other prophesies that tell us that God will once again Judge mankind, as He did in the days of Noah. A terrible and world changing disaster by fire and David's prophecy is one of the more that 100 that detail this forthcoming Day of the Lord's wrath.

 

[jgr]

No, David was a prophet, just like all the rest of them, incl Jesus. They told and wrote of things to happen, most often in far distant times. Ezekiel 12:27
We do have many records, written and oral, that describe ancient things. To not have any other historical indication of such dramatic, worldwide and cosmic events, as Psalms 18:7-15 state, from just 3000 years ago, means it did not happen then.
But we do have many other prophesies that tell us that God will once again Judge mankind, as He did in the days of Noah. A terrible and world changing disaster by fire and David's prophecy is one of the more that 100 that detail this forthcoming Day of the Lord's wrath.

I've checked the phenomena in Psalm 18 in every English translation on Bible Gateway. There are over 50 translations.

Not one expresses them in the future tense.

Two express them in the present tense.

All of the remainder express them in the past tense. That includes the Darby translation. I checked the Scofield translation on a different site. It too uses the past tense.

That represents a sufficiently cogent consensus to me.

 

[keras]

All of the remainder express them in the past tense. That includes the Darby translation. I checked the Scofield translation on a different site. It too uses the past tense.
That represents a sufficiently cogent consensus to me.

You must not have heard that most Bible scholars believe that Bible prophecy is often Written in the past tense, because of the surety of it's future fulfilment. This is well known and can be proved by the ones that HAVE been fulfilled often being written in that way.
But Psalm 18 and the Sixth Seal +, remain unfulfilled, there is no record of such cosmic and earthly things by the Chinese, or any other peoples.
Denial of what God will do to correct His creation, is a bad mistake and just leaves you in the dark. 1 Thessalonians 5:3-5

 

[jgr]

You must not have heard that most Bible scholars believe that Bible prophecy is often Written in the past tense, because of the surety of it's future fulfilment. This is well known and can be proved by the ones that HAVE been fulfilled often being written in that way.
But Psalm 18 and the Sixth Seal +, remain unfulfilled, there is no record of such cosmic and earthly things by the Chinese, or any other peoples.
Denial of what God will do to correct His creation, is a bad mistake and just leaves you in the dark. 1 Thessalonians 5:3-5

Again, those were decisions made by the translators. And they certainly did render many prophecies in the future tense e.g. those of Christ's first coming, his ministry, death, and resurrection.

But they intentionally chose not to futurize Psalm 18. Why not? Because they understood its applicability and fulfillment during David's life, at the time of the event which he personally experienced and described. And they were unanimous in that choice.

Your thesis is not scripturally sustainable.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[keras]

Again, those were decisions made by the translators. And they certainly did render many prophecies in the future tense e.g. those of Christ's first coming, his ministry, death, and resurrection.

But they intentionally chose not to futurize Psalm 18. Why not? Because they understood its applicability and fulfillment during David's life, at the time of the event which he personally experienced and described. And they were unanimous in that choice.

Your thesis is not scripturally sustainable.

I wonder if it is possible for you to apologize?
Firstly the translators were NOT unanimous. My Revised English Bible does not have: 'Then', But what is more telling the original Hebrew doesn't have it either. [2 Samuel 22:8 & Psalms 18:7]

Second; Zechariah 9:9 - the prophecy of Jesus riding on a donkey, written hundreds of years before Jesus' Advent, was written in the present tense.

It is your beliefs that are unsustainable; there is no rapture removal to heaven of all Christians to be found anywhere in the Bible and God will act once again to correct His creation, as He did in the days of Noah, as Jesus and the Apostles reiterate to us. Matthew 3:12, Acts 17:31, 2 Peter 3:7, Rev 6:12-17

 

[jgr]

I wonder if it is possible for you to apologize?
Firstly the translators were NOT unanimous. My Revised English Bible does not have: 'Then', But what is more telling the original Hebrew doesn't have it either. [2 Samuel 22:8 & Psalms 18:7]

Second; Zechariah 9:9 - the prophecy of Jesus riding on a donkey, written hundreds of years before Jesus' Advent, was written in the present tense.

It is your beliefs that are unsustainable; there is no rapture removal to heaven of all Christians to be found anywhere in the Bible and God will act once again to correct His creation, as He did in the days of Noah, as Jesus and the Apostles reiterate to us. Matthew 3:12, Acts 17:31, 2 Peter 3:7, Rev 6:12-17

I've said nothing about "Then" in my latest posts, only whether the tense is rendered as future or not.

What tense does your REB render it in? Post Psalm 18:7 in its entirety.

One of my earlier posts did acknowledge that all of the ancient Hebrew is rendered in present tense, and that it was at the translators' discretion as to what tense to choose.

None of them chose the future tense. That's the definition of unanimity.

There's no one who is more anti-rapture than I.