Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I've just read most of EbedM & BW #205 to #226 and have this observation. The thing that BW is protecting is not physical descent, it's the land. You kind of wouldn't want to 'protect' physical descent in Rom 9 because the "3 strikes" rule (there are 3 exceptions right off). But what matters to BW is the land promise.
I have to say, this is the weakest place to protect the land promise from. It is also BW's favorite dismissive target, the error of circular reasoning. The most you can 'protect' from Rom 9-11 about ancient promises is that all of those in Israel who believe that a Redeemer would come to Zion and take away the debt of sins would be saved from those sins. (I'm saying this in a way to allow for this Israel--the one in 11:26--to be the ethnos, although it is not.) Given the climate, the times, the things going on in Judea, I don't think Paul thought any thing from the land would be saved, and there seemed to be reports already that it was totalled. (Has anyone else ever noticed that while the Thess thought they heard the day of the Lord had already happened, Paul, for his part, already reports that the complete wrath of God had come on Israel? No internet back then.)
Rom 9-11 explains why more Jews don't believe in a sort of automatic way, given their heritage and background. Paul says it is a problem right to the end of time by using the expression 'kai houtos' in 11:26. "in this manner": with this partial unbelief continuing on in the ethnos Israel (BW says 2/3 won't believe all the pressure of the wrath of God in the GT anyway), the real Israel will always believe the debt of their sins was handled by the Redeemer who came, historically, (past tense) to Zion.
Actually Biblewriter's critical error is he tries to make the issue God's choice of Isaac over all of Abraham's children, when the apostles argument surrounds the people "Israel" being in unbelief.
The case is as simple as this:
*God chose Isaac over Ishmael (Romans 9:7)
*Isaac has two sons, Jacob and Esau...BEFORE either were born, God chose Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:9-13)
*Jacob has 12 sons, and God changes his name to "Israel"...and from Israel and his 12 sons, the nation of Israel is born.
This entire choosing of God, is for HIS PURPOSE! God is making His choice with the line of which Christ would come in mind.
It's about spiritual descendants of Abraham who have "the faith of Abraham" through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. They too become descendants of Abraham. That was clearly stated back in Romans 4:13-25!
Biblewriter is erroneously believing it's about the choice of Isaac, when really it's about the choice of Jacob, who is Israel and the fact that it's about spiritual descendants rather than physical descendants.
This is a key flaw of the whole dispensational idea that God has "two peoples"!
Throughout time God has only had one people...and that is ALL who are of the faith of Abraham!
I said the greek kings are chronicled up to the perpetrator of the abomination of desolation. I never said it was mentioned in Dan 7.You said that Daniel 7 leads up to the perpetrator of the Abomination of Desolation.
Try re reading what I've been saying; your amnesia is acting up again. I have mentioned numerous facts from Daniel related to Revelation and the Roman kings/horn's chronologies than you want to address."Revelation's interpretation" is the interpretation of the Holy Spirit.
I gave conclusive proof that your scenario only approximately matches the prophecy. That is not hoe Bible prophecy works. When a prophecy of God is fulfilled, every detail pf the prophecy is precisely fulfilled, exactly as it was given by God. In the case of Daniel 11:5-32, the fulfillment was so precisely acc\curate that unbelievers claim its very accuracy proves it could not have been written before the events took place.
It's as if you haven't read anything I've said. Dan 7's 4th beast is Revelation's 1st beast, which is Rome. Dan 7's 4th beast's 11th horn that plucks up 3 of the 10 horns is the 5th beast kingdom in Daniel with the feet and toes of iron and clay, and also the 2nd beast in Revelation who is the false prophet. This is why this 11th horn is given to the flame in Dan 7:11. There's no circular knowledge or disproving of approximation involve with these facts. It's these facts that. I keep explaining. proves Rome's 1st 10 kings/emperors to be Dan 7's 4th beast's 10 horns and the 10 horns on Revelation's 1st beast with the 7 heads. These are the facts you continue to ignore. And since it's proven Dan 7's 11th horn is the false prophet by his trip to the lake of fire in Dan 7:11, the Beast/the Antichrist has to be the 8th horn in Dan 7, making the 10 horns in Dan 7, the 7 kings on the 7 heads because the 8th king that's with them is the Beast. There are two views of the beginning of Christ's possession of the heavenly kingdom, Dan 7:8-27 and Rev 4-19.Revelation 17:13 says that "These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast." (Revelation 17:13)
There is no way to even pretend that the ten successive emperors had "one mind," or that they "gave" their power to the eleventh. Thereare just too many details that just don't fit. The only way to make them fit is to start with the assumption that these prophecies are about this time, and just ignore the details that don't fit.
Not worth answering because of your selective amnesia when it comes to the whole truth.No, the simple wordings of scripture are the facts that you are refusing to pay any attention to.
So why did I bring it up?You specifically excepted the four kings of "the year of the four emperors" from your calculations, because they did not fit.
That's the selective amnesia talking.I ignore facts that approximately match the prophecies because, and specifically because facts that only approximately match the prophecies are not fulfillments of the prophecies. If the event in question does not completely match the prophecy, the prophecy has not been fulfilled.
It's ironic that you assume it has to future, creating your unfulfilled fantasy. I stress again, if there where more Beast kingdoms they would of been mentioned by Daniel. There's no gaps between the beast kingdoms nor between the succession of the kings chronicled and prophesied about. Dan 7:11's 11th horn is not a kingdom, but the False prophet in Rev 19:20. There's nowhere in scripture supporting a future event that you're describing other than the same early church fathers that are liars. You would rather believe them than the see the simple facts between Daniel, Revelation, and the 2nd temple's destruction and advent of the Antichrist as prophesied by Christ to soon come after him.Because both refer to a time in the future when ten kings will voluntarily unite giving their power to "the beast," who will be the end tme ruler of the roman empire.
You haven't proven that yet, nor will denying the facts because history numbers the kings differently than they need to be scripturally. That excuse doesn't hold up. Rome is the final and last beast kingdom that reigns until the end of the world. There's no gaps between Daniel's 4 to 5 beast kingdoms or their successions of kings. I proved this showing God prophecy about each beast's line of kings/horns. You're the one wanting to be forced to accept the facts knowing no can force anyone to do anything, but the facts are there.Your "approximate" fulfillments of prophecy simply do nt fit the prophecies, and there is no way to make them fit.
Your problem is that you like the most of denominational christianity haven't discovered the meaning behind those verses. Everything from Israel's Babylon captivity have been doubled. Shalem is said to of recieved double for her sins, the heavenly temple is attacked by the beast as the earthly one was by Nebuchadnezzar, followed by a second earthly and heavenly attack by the Greek lil horn. Gog of Magog. Until you realize all the prophecies in the OT that speaks of Israel's return pertained not only to their physical return to the earthly promise land, but also to the heavenly promise land when Christ conquers death, they will seem unfulfiled. God speaks in parables. Any OT verses that you think aren't fulfilled I can prove they have and their double meaning interpretation if you provide them.But in addition to these failures, you entire system of interpretation simply ignores the vast bulk of Bible prophecy, such as the statement in Ezekiel 36 that absolutely all of "the house of Israel" would once again inhabit "the land of Israel," with its "Mountains, hills, rivers, and valleys." Or the precise definition of the future borders of the land, as spelled out in detail in Ezekiel 47. Or the precise description of the path that Isaiah 10 says that "the Assyrian" will follow as he attacks Jerusalem.
You didn't answer the question, So why does Rev's 1st beast have ten horns also?Sorry your words reflect this, ie, I thought we were both seeking the Kingdom first?
Anyway, Rev.13:1 the "10 horns" bearing the "10 diadems" can only be unveiled by understanding the symbolical numbers "7" & "10."
Old Jack
I quoted you so you could better understand my point. Both Dan 7's 4th beast and Revelation's 1st beast with the 7 heads both have "ten horns all existing at the same time together." Rev 17:12 states the ten horns on the 1st beast in Rev are ten kings, not kingdoms, as does Dan 7:24.Originally quoted by shturt678:
Since the 10 horns all exist at the same time together on the head of the beast, the 10 kings that arise out of the 4th kingdom are to be regarded as contemporary.
You didn't answer the question, So why does Rev's 1st beast have ten horns also?
I quoted you so you could better understand my point. Both Dan 7's 4th beast and Revelation's 1st beast with the 7 heads both have "ten horns all existing at the same time together." Rev 17:12 states the ten horns on the 1st beast in Rev are ten kings, not kingdoms, as does Dan 7:24.
Btw, Dan 7:18 says the saints possess the kingdom during the reign of the 4 kings of the 4 beast kingdoms in Dan 7:17, not during the reign of ten kings after these four.
No. That would not be correct.re Rom 9-11:
can we say that, based on the passion of the verses like 9:2, 6; 10:1, 16; 11:1, 7, that Paul is trying to answer: why is it so few of Israel believe? In fact, isn't 10:16 a restart (besides being the same question I just asked)?
I've just read most of EbedM & BW #205 to #226 and have this observation. The thing that BW is protecting is not physical descent, it's the land. You kind of wouldn't want to 'protect' physical descent in Rom 9 because the "3 strikes" rule (there are 3 exceptions right off). But what matters to BW is the land promise.
All this is pure interpretation. I have demonstrated that the covenants and the promises still belonged to Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh. who are Israelites" In Romans 9:3-4, and that all three examples given to explain "they are not all Israel, who are of Israel" was a case of only some of the physical descendants of Abraham being the promised seed. But not a single one of them was a case of anyone being called "the seed of Abraham" who was not actually a physical descendant of Abraham.I have to say, this is the weakest place to protect the land promise from. It is also BW's favorite dismissive target, the error of circular reasoning. The most you can 'protect' from Rom 9-11 about ancient promises is that all of those in Israel who believe that a Redeemer would come to Zion and take away the debt of sins would be saved from those sins. (I'm saying this in a way to allow for this Israel--the one in 11:26--to be the ethnos, although it is not.) Given the climate, the times, the things going on in Judea, I don't think Paul thought any thing from the land would be saved, and there seemed to be reports already that it was totalled. (Has anyone else ever noticed that while the Thess thought they heard the day of the Lord had already happened, Paul, for his part, already reports that the complete wrath of God had come on Israel? No internet back then.)
Rom 9-11 explains why more Jews don't believe in a sort of automatic way, given their heritage and background. Paul says it is a problem right to the end of time by using the expression 'kai houtos' in 11:26. "in this manner": with this partial unbelief continuing on in the ethnos Israel (BW says 2/3 won't believe all the pressure of the wrath of God in the GT anyway), the real Israel will always believe the debt of their sins was handled by the Redeemer who came, historically, (past tense) to Zion.
We also have to ask: if the gift of the Gospel is so wondrous that angels wish they could look upon it, what's the value of a land promise that wasn't even the promise, as far as Heb 11 was concerned? Are we just trying to find ways to devalue the Gospel?
No, the point is that God's choice was, in every example given, one of only some of Abraham's pysical descendants being chosen. Not even one of these examples even hinted at an idea that people who were not Abraham's physical descendants were those spoken of in the promise.Actually Biblewriter's critical error is he tries to make the issue God's choice of Isaac over all of Abraham's children, when the apostles argument surrounds the people "Israel" being in unbelief.
The case is as simple as this:
*God chose Isaac over Ishmael (Romans 9:7)
*Isaac has two sons, Jacob and Esau...BEFORE either were born, God chose Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:9-13)
*Jacob has 12 sons, and God changes his name to "Israel"...and from Israel and his 12 sons, the nation of Israel is born.
This entire choosing of God, is for HIS PURPOSE! God is making His choice with the line of which Christ would come in mind.
It's about spiritual descendants of Abraham who have "the faith of Abraham" through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. They too become descendants of Abraham. That was clearly stated back in Romans 4:13-25!
Biblewriter is erroneously believing it's about the choice of Isaac, when really it's about the choice of Jacob, who is Israel and the fact that it's about spiritual descendants rather than physical descendants.
This is a key flaw of the whole dispensational idea that God has "two peoples"!
Throughout time God has only had one people...and that is ALL who are of the faith of Abraham!
I said the greek kings are chronicled up to the perpetrator of the abomination of desolation. I never said it was mentioned in Dan 7.
Try re reading what I've been saying; your amnesia is acting up again. I have mentioned numerous facts from Daniel related to Revelation and the Roman kings/horn's chronologies than you want to address.
It's as if you haven't read anything I've said. Dan 7's 4th beast is Revelation's 1st beast, which is Rome. Dan 7's 4th beast's 11th horn that plucks up 3 of the 10 horns is the 5th beast kingdom in Daniel with the feet and toes of iron and clay, and also the 2nd beast in Revelation who is the false prophet. This is why this 11th horn is given to the flame in Dan 7:11. There's no circular knowledge or disproving of approximation involve with these facts. It's these facts that. I keep explaining. proves Rome's 1st 10 kings/emperors to be Dan 7's 4th beast's 10 horns and the 10 horns on Revelation's 1st beast with the 7 heads. These are the facts you continue to ignore. And since it's proven Dan 7's 11th horn is the false prophet by his trip to the lake of fire in Dan 7:11, the Beast/the Antichrist has to be the 8th horn in Dan 7, making the 10 horns in Dan 7, the 7 kings on the 7 heads because the 8th king that's with them is the Beast. There are two views of the beginning of Christ's possession of the heavenly kingdom, Dan 7:8-27 and Rev 4-19.
That's the selective amnesia talking.
No Biblewriter, you keep straying from the point IT'S ABOUT ISRAEL It only mentions Abraham one time Biblewriter! You are simply wrong!No, the point is that God's choice was, in every example given, one of only some of Abraham's pysical descendants being chosen. Not even one of these examples even hinted at an idea that people who were not Abraham's physical descendants were those spoken of in the promise.
Well...let's just continue with Romans 9. Explain why Paul makes this statement at Romans 9:24 if it's just about "physical descendants:I am speaking here only of Ramans 9, and the falsehood of the interpretation that the expression "not all Israel is of Israel"eans that the true Israel is simething different than a subset of the physical descendants of Abraham.
Where does it say that in scripture?Rev.13:1, "ten horns and seven heads" Both number aere beyond question contextually symbolical.
shturt 12:4-15.Like the dragon, the brute arrogates to himself the sacred "seven," the number of God's dealing with men. Will shorten as you'll have to agree to disagree of course. The dragon and brute has appropriated the "seven" for their heads as though all their plans and designs for men were holy and sacred as God's are, ie, operate wtih royal power. As a rejectable bonus Rev.13:1-10 = the whole antichristian power.
You still didn't answer the question. You said that because Dan 7's 4th beast's 10 horns existed at the same time together that meant they were contemporary as the reason why they couldn't be the 10 horns in Revelation which is false because Rev's 1st beast's 10 horns also exists all at the same time.Understanding the Text, ie, Bible translations, as the inspired Word of God, and interpretating as such, one could very well conclude as you do.
Old Jack, and thank you so much for your patience
That is a lie. You're latest excuse was unfulfilled OT verses as to why you want to ignore the facts to which I told you I could rightly interpret any.I read, and not only read, but studied, everything you said, and I pointed out details in the prophecies that most absolutely were not fulfilled in the historical events you referred to.
Another lie. There's more evidence supporting the facts than your assumption of it having to be future just because of Rev 17:12's account of the ten kings.The fact that only some of the details were fulfilled is conclusive proof that the prophecies were not fulfilled in these historical events.
Only according to you. You don't even have a fundamental argument for a future event that could be credible other than it must be future because nothings literal enough for you to comprehend.The fact that some of the details were fulfilled simply does not meet muster. For a prophecy to have been fulfilled, every detail in that prophecy has to have been fulfilled.
Spare me the details.And there is no escape from the undeniable fact that important details of these prophecies were not fulfilled in the historical events you are citing..
No Biblewriter, you keep straying from the point IT'S ABOUT ISRAEL It only mentions Abraham one time Biblewriter! You are simply wrong!
Well...let's just continue with Romans 9. Explain why Paul makes this statement at Romans 9:24 if it's just about "physical descendants:
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Explain also why he's quoting Hose 2:23 and Hosea 1:10 simultaneously at Romans 9:25, 26.
You simply don't get it Biblewriter....and you're digging yourself in a deep hole!
BW,
the reason you think it is only about the ethnic descendants of Abraham is because you don't read the end of the chapter "even us...both Jews and Gentiles". That's your censorship at work, to protect futurism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?