View Full Version : The splitting of the Mount of Olives
David M
03-25-2013, 04:49 AM
Would a Preterist please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and explain when the prophecy in Zechariah was fulfilled?
Zechariah 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
It has been said in a post elsewhere on this forum, the splitting of the Mount of Olives is figurative. If this is the case, will someone please explain the figurative meaning?
I look forward to your answers.
David
Would a Preterist please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and explain when the prophecy in Zechariah was fulfilled?
It has been said in a post elsewhere on this forum, the splitting of the Mount of Olives is figurative. If this is the case, will someone please explain the figurative meaning?
I look forward to your answers.
David
David when you put Zechariah in context it's talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and how they would flee. We know that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. The real question is, is how do you ignore this and think it points to thousands of years in the future?
But to answer your question. There is evidence that this event already occurred. I posted about it the other day and wasn't sure about the article. But now I have found confirmation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_of_Olives
An apocalyptic prophecy in the Book of Zechariah states that Yahweh will stand on the Mount of Olives and the mountain will split in two, with one half shifting north and one half shifting south (Zechariah 14:4). According to the Masoretic Text, people will flee through this newly-formed valley to a place called Azal (Zechariah 14:5). The Septuagint (LXX) has a different reading of Zechariah 14:5 stating that a valley will be blocked up as it was blocked up during the earthquake during King Uzziah's reign. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions in Antiquities of the Jews that the valley in the area of the King's Gardens was blocked up by landslide rubble during Uzziah's earthquake.[25] Israeli geologists Wachs and Levitte identified the remnant of a large landslide on the Mount of Olives directly adjacent to this area.[26] Based on geographic and linguistic evidence, Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, a 19th-century linguist and archeologist in Palestine, theorized that the valley directly adjacent to this landslide is Azal.[27] This evidence accords with the LXX reading of Zechariah 14:5 which states that the valley will be blocked up as far as Azal. The valley he identified (which is now known as Wady Yasul in Arabic, and Nahal Etzel in Hebrew) lies south of both Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives.
Richard Amiel McGough
03-25-2013, 09:37 AM
Would a Preterist please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and explain when the prophecy in Zechariah was fulfilled?
It has been said in a post elsewhere on this forum, the splitting of the Mount of Olives is figurative. If this is the case, will someone please explain the figurative meaning?
I look forward to your answers.
David
Hey there David,
What's the point of inventing an explanation? Anyone can do that. How are we supposed to know which interpretation is true? Maybe nobody knows the proper interpretation. In any case, you can't prove or disprove any eschatological system by appealing to verses with no clear meaning! Of course, this is the primary tactic of Futurists who ignore the main and the plain things that are established by many mutually confirming verses and focus on obscure fragments of verses with no clear meaning so they can invent their wildly speculative unbiblical doctrines. I explained this in depth in a very detailed post which you totally ignored with the excuse that you are not going to "go in circles." Nice move dude! Refuse to answer, and when I bring it to your attention, say that you don't want to "go in circles" when in fact you never answered at all.
The irony here is very, very deep. I answered your question, and you TOTALLY IGNORED MY ANSWER even as you said "I shall ask the question here again because it is not getting answered in my other posts." I answered it! And you ignored my answer! Here is the explanation (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3647-O-A-C-____-A-C-A-C&p=53255#post53255) I gave in that thread that you ignored:
As for Preterism, that is far and away the best fit to the Biblical data. Futurism is utterly absurd. It directly contradicts the plain text of the Bible on hundreds of points. Of course, it appears the Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent which explains why no one can agree about it.
You have said all that before and I do not know why you have to keep repeating. You do not win your argument by repetition. Preterism might seem the best fit to you, but others do not share that view and will say you are wrong. I shall ask the question here again because it is not getting answered in my other posts. Please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and if it is not taken to be literal, what is it supposed to mean figuratively?
Yes, others can "say" anything they want. The can say that the sky is green. But saying don't make it so, and I have refuted every futurist that has ever attempted to prove their doctrines. It's all recorded here on the forum. If you think this is not true, then I invite you to find any example that contradicts my claim and I will recant (or prove you wrong).
Ahhh ... yes, the quintessence of the Futurist hermeneutic. Ignore the main and the plain things and demand explanations that require speculation because they cannot be confirmed and then complain when a speculative answer is given. How very typical. That's not how Bible study is supposed to be done. That's how DECEIVERS invent their doctrines that are not really supported by the Bible at all. I've explained this error many times but you still don't understand. So here it is again. It's called The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics (http://www.biblewheel.com/Theology/TheologyIntro.php). Futurists hate it because it exposes their errors. I wrote it long ago when I was a fundamentalist. Violation of this principle is the first sign of all Bible based cults:
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS (http://biblewheel.com/Theology/TheologyIntro.php)
Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:
[*=1]Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses,shall the matter be established.
[*=1]Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[*=1]2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistemology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.
Now look at your demand in light of this principle. Are there any "mutually confirming" verses that could establish the proper interpretation of Zechariah 14? Certainly nothing obvious. That's why it's open to dispute! And that's how Futurists sneak their doctrines into the Bible. They look for GAPS and AMBIGUOUS PASSAGES which they can manipulate and twist to force their doctrines. They SHRED the mutually confirming verses so that they totally destroy any integrity that the Bible actually has. Case in point - they utterly SHRED the unity of the Olivet Discourse so that some parts of Matthew and Mark are taken as future while the corresponding parts of Luke are taken as past. It blatant intellectual inconsistency all designed to FORCE a futurist doctrine.
But as for Zech 14 - it's obviously figurative because it speaks of future sacrifices and all Christians know that the sacrifices ended with Christ.
Now I grant that I didn't give a full answer. I was waiting for your response to see if you understood the answer I had already given. But you never responded ....
So how do we interpret Zech 14? It's TRIVIAL. By your standards, we can interpret it any way we want so long as it fits our presuppositions. So if we start with Futurist presuppositions, we just say it will all happen "literally" sometime in the unknown future. If we want to interpret it with Preterist presuppositions, we just take all the words and interpret them as symbols. Such a game is utterly meaningless because you can make up any story you want. Case in point: When Michael Rood uses the most explicit language possible to speak of Satan as a spiritual being in the traditional Christian sense (as a fallen angel who rebelled against God) you treated his words like HOLY SCRIPTURE and began "interpreting" all the possible meanings of his words, as if they were not plain and obvious so you could conclude that " Rood is leaving that open to our intepretation." Here is what you wrote:
Let me address our readers and review again what you wrote having had time to reflect on it and having got over the knee-jerk reaction I had to your opening post. You said (and I will add some comments);
I'll be writing a full refutation of his book soon(DM - Good, as long as your quote accurately), but for right now, we need only look at his central theme: THE FALLEN ANGEL NAMED SATAN LED A REBELLION OF GOD'S HOLY ANGELS. (DM - Is "God's Holy Angels" and exact quote from the book or your words Richard?) Here's what Rood says on page 7 in his section called "Rebellion in Heaven" where he explains that David M's interpretation is totally false (DM - Again your assumption Richard as I shall explain) :
Satan acted in open rebellion against the one to whom he owed his allegiance. Satan led an organized uprising of angels who sought to overthrow their lawful ruler, God. We see that Satan was able to draw away one third of the heavenly hosts in his original rebellion against God, as is depicted in Revelation.
Rood then quotes this verse:
Revelation 12:4 ... his (the dragon, Satan's) tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth.
Well, that pretty much settles it.(DM - No it does not, because you have missed the obvious of what is actually written)David M has written many thousands of words defending his doctrines that 1) God's Angels cannot and never have sinned, and 2) The war in heaven was just symbolic and did not involve any fallen angels that sinned.
Let us re-examine what Rood has actually said (written) (note, Rood refers to Revelation 12:4 to show the verse he is referring to and of itself proves nothing until the verse is correctly interpreted;
Satan (DM - not identified here )acted in open rebellion against the one to whom he owed his allegiance. Satan led an organized uprising of angels (DM - not identified here and nothing to say that these are not similar to the "angels" of Jude 6 who are human)who sought to overthrow their lawful ruler, God. We see that Satan was able to draw away one third of the heavenly hosts (DM - this is quoted only in the context of the verse he quotes (Rev 12:4). As Richard has explained in one of his posts, the heavens can relate to the "political heavens" (and I agreed with him) and the stars are to be taken as the heavenly host representing the political governments of this world in that context)in his original rebellion against God, as is depicted in Revelation.
Note carefully, Rood has not identified "Satan" or the "angels". I need to see the book and what is written or else; "his central theme: THE FALLEN ANGEL NAMED SATAN LED A REBELLION OF GOD'S HOLY ANGELS" are Richard's words and not Rood's.
Rood has not identified Satan as a fallen Angel of God or anyone. Rood is leaving that open to our intepretation. This is why I can say, having trawled through his videos expecting Rood to identify Satan, I did not hear the words identifying Satan from his mouth. If they are said in a video and I missed them (when falling asleep at times) I will stand corrected, but until I get the book or someone reproduces accurately the actual words of the book, I shall continue to give my understanding of Rood's words which Richard has actually quoted from page 7 of the book. At this stage, Richard's words (presumptions) are more controversial to me than Rood's.
This reveals the fundamental error your entire method of "interpretation." You begin with a presupposition of what you want a text to mean, and then you twist things around until you can force it to mean what you want it to mean. Your method is utterly delusional. It is the essence of delusion. It's very revealing to see you apply it to Rood words. It shows why your delusion is so impenetrable. Your ignorance is invincible by your own design. You are trapped in your own mind with no way for anyone to get through to you.
Do you understand a word I'm writing? Do you understand what is required to be free from delusion? You need to drop your unjustified presuppositions. You need to quit trying to force everything to fit your presuppositions. You need to turn your world around and make your thoughts conform to reality, rather than trying to force reality to conform to your thoughts. You are trapped in a world of delusion based on false religious presupposition with no evidence supporting them.
Don't you want to be free?
Who first taught you the dogmas you believe? Why do you believe dogmas at all? Why don't you choose the path of EVIDENCE and REALITY?
I'm calling to you David. I'm calling to you as a friend with whom I've debated for over a year. I understand your mind now. I see the trap you are in. I want to help.
Richard
David M
03-25-2013, 10:38 AM
Thank you Richard for your input but answering my reply to yours about Michael Rood belongs in the thread where it belongs. Once again you claim Michael Rood is talking as if he is saying Satan is a fallen Angel of God and as I pointed out, Michael Rood does not say that. Rood has not identified Satan. Satan can be applicable to many humans and in that context what human is he referring to? Jesus called Peter "Satan" and Peter was human. That is the context we can see any human who opposes God's will.
God's "battle" is with sinful men and women, not His Angels which are "ministering spirits" and "does His will". Anything else is a man-made myth and that is why you accept the myths to support what you think the Bible says and your reason for rejecting it. Your mutually confirming verses do not stack up supporting the idea that Satan is a fallen Angel of God; this is plain wrong.
You are showing your own presupposition that Satan is a fallen Angel and that is not obvious from the text.
David
Would a Preterist please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and explain when the prophecy in Zechariah was fulfilled?
It has been said in a post elsewhere on this forum, the splitting of the Mount of Olives is figurative. If this is the case, will someone please explain the figurative meaning?
I look forward to your answers.
David
Hey David,
My comments and thoughts can be founded HERE. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2322-Zechariah-14-1-2)
It would be the same as the valley of decision (Joel 3:14) and figurative of such passages as Isaiah 40:4 which prophesied of John the Baptist.
David M
03-26-2013, 12:57 AM
David hatwhen you put Zechariah in context it's talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and how they would flee. We know that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. The real question is, is how do you ignore this and think it points to thousands of years in the future?
But to answer your question. There is evidence that this event already occurred. I posted about it the other day and wasn't sure about the article. But now I have found confirmation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_of_Olives
An apocalyptic prophecy in the Book of Zechariah states that Yahweh will stand on the Mount of Olives and the mountain will split in two, with one half shifting north and one half shifting south (Zechariah 14:4). According to the Masoretic Text, people will flee through this newly-formed valley to a place called Azal (Zechariah 14:5). The Septuagint (LXX) has a different reading of Zechariah 14:5 stating that a valley will be blocked up as it was blocked up during the earthquake during King Uzziah's reign. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions in Antiquities of the Jews that the valley in the area of the King's Gardens was blocked up by landslide rubble during Uzziah's earthquake.[25] Israeli geologists Wachs and Levitte identified the remnant of a large landslide on the Mount of Olives directly adjacent to this area.[26] Based on geographic and linguistic evidence, Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, a 19th-century linguist and archeologist in Palestine, theorized that the valley directly adjacent to this landslide is Azal.[27] This evidence accords with the LXX reading of Zechariah 14:5 which states that the valley will be blocked up as far as Azal. The valley he identified (which is now known as Wady Yasul in Arabic, and Nahal Etzel in Hebrew) lies south of both Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives.
Hello L67
I saw this reply, but since it was not clear to me what they were saying and needed to be investigated, in continuing I asked you to explain what I should understand if I am to take the event as figurative? I want us to focus on whether this event is literal or figuartive and whether it relates to an event in the past or future.
At this moment in time, I consider it to be literal and it has not happened. In order to come to a conclusion, we must examine the texts very carefully and note what is said and what is not said before we draw our conclusions.
We can all go to Google and do our investigation. Charisma has told me she looked at the Mount of Olives using Google Earth. Recently, I did see Jerusalem with Google Earth but did not focus on the Mount of Olives. I have just looked at one website which gives photorgraphs of the Mount of Olives as we see it today. Here is the url to the website; http://www.biblewalks.com/Sites/MountOlives.html
The Mount of Olives looks like a hill with a slight dip in the middle if what I see is all of the Mount of Olives. I can see the dip as the possible place for the Mount to divide in two on a large scale. Maybe there have been smalll earthquakes and landslides in the past which have nothing to do with this prophecy in Zechariah. These are the facts which Richard relies on and I agree we must know all the facts of what has happened to the Mount of Olives and when those things happened.
As for considering the Mount of Olives to split in two in a figurative sense, we must be careful not to let this thread take us into territory whereby we wander of the track completely. We must stay focussed on the Mount of Olives and not on other topics which we will have great disagreement.
Let me know what you know about the history of the Mount of Olives and events (geographically speaking - topography) that have happened to the mount.
David
David M
03-26-2013, 01:12 AM
Hey David,
My comments and thoughts can be founded HERE. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2322-Zechariah-14-1-2)
It would be the same as the valley of decision (Joel 3:14) and figurative of such passages as Isaiah 40:4 which prophesied of John the Baptist.
Hello Beck
Thank you for the link. I want us to stay focussed on this topic. I would like you to state from the beginning whether you consider the splitting of the Mount of Olives to be literal or figurative. I want the discussion to remain focussed and we have to bring our reasons to the table for believing one or the other.
I skimmed through the 40+ posts and it is easy to see how the discussion soon gets off track. We have contributions from Cheow, Twospirits, Richard, Gill, Les, Joseph (apologies for missing anyone out) and whilst their comments can be enlightening they are also contentious and can be considered off the mark. Probably for the first time I want us to stay focussed on the topic of this thread which is the splitting of the Mount of Olives. This is where an impartial referee ought to keep the discussion on track. Anything off track should be moved to an appropriate thread.
As a start, let me have your reasons for believing the splitting of the Mount of Olives is literal or figurative.
David
David M
03-26-2013, 02:34 AM
Do you understand a word I'm writing? Do you understand what is required to be free from delusion? You need to drop your unjustified presuppositions. You need to quit trying to force everything to fit your presuppositions. You need to turn your world around and make your thoughts conform to reality, rather than trying to force reality to conform to your thoughts. You are trapped in a world of delusion based on false religious presupposition with no evidence supporting them.
Don't you want to be free?
Who first taught you the dogmas you believe? Why do you believe dogmas at all? Why don't you choose the path of EVIDENCE and REALITY?
I'm calling to you David. I'm calling to you as a friend with whom I've debated for over a year. I understand your mind now. I see the trap you are in. I want to help.
Richard
Richard
I do not want to be accused by you of avoiding your questions, but in the last 12 months and the 1,000+ posts I have written, your questions have already been addressed and I am repeating and this has to stop. I will answer your last few questions and I will not be answering them again. Your questions do not belong in this thread and is another example of how you (deliberately or unintentionally) move the conversation away from the topic under discussion.
Here are your questions and my replies:
Q. Do you understand a word I'm writing? Most times I do. The subjects I do not understand are not necessary for understanding the basics of God's word.
Q. Do you understand what is required to be free from delusion? I understand this as much as you do.
Please do not tell me what I need to do when you need to do the same. You have presuppositons which are opposite to mine. Our presuppositions are the conclusions we have come to from years of study. What we must do is keep an open mind to hear all opinions that might influence our presuppositions. I am prepared to change once I hear a convincing argument, but that argument has to be based on the words in the Bible (not commentaries on the Bible).
Q. Don't you want to be free? I am "free in Christ". You ought to know what I mean by that. This is where faith comes in. I believe I am free from the consequences of sin, which is eternal death. You are not free from eternal death. You are not free from your own dogmas which you have made for yourself. You have dogmas you deny you have and you belong to a cult (of at least two). None of us are "free" as we think we are from these things.
Q. Who first taught you the dogmas you believe? I was taught first the dogmas of the Church of England, but like Michael Rood, I later found the truth that God has spoken. If you want to label me as a Christadelphian or a Hebrew revivalist (which BTW Rood is not labelling himself) then that is your prerogative. The way to life is not for the many; the teaching of Jesus is very plain and so the question has to be asked; why will the majority get rejected? You have rejected the narrow way that leads to eternal life which the Bible teaches.(I ask you again, please give me a list of the things you accept the Bible teaches. Give me your top 20 topics you say the Bible teaches)
Q. Why don't you choose the path of EVIDENCE and REALITY? I am taking that path. The Bible has much evidence of real events that took place which is the assurance of those things spoken of which are future. You are denying the evidence and accept the evidence of false witnesses which makes you a false witness. I know I can be accused of the same, and I am trying to safeguard myself from being deceived and which God and Jesus warn us about. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom", "Get Wisdom and in getting Wisdom, get understanding". I think you have walked away from the fear of the LORD and lost all Wisdom you might have had and you have not got all understanding of God's word and you have admitted you have not been able to "make it fit". That is your bad. You should not attack a person's integrity for having done or are in the continuous act of doing that which you failed to do. I will not be put off by YOUR logic and misdirection.
"I want to help". Likewise, I want to help you Richard, but do you want help, or do you prefer to bite the hand that feeds you?. You don't believe the Bible. If there is nothing in the Bible you can accept, then that makes our discussions very difficult. You claim to tell me the simple and plain things the Bible says, and then I see you not doing so by the plaln things you reject. We cannot agree the plain and simple things the Bible teaches. I have asked you in a recent post and you have not anwered my evey question and so here it is again; "does the Bible teach the resurrection of the dead?". This is why I want you to list for me the top 20 teachings of the Bible. Even if you do not believe it, I will have a base to work from. Your wriggling out of contradictions which I see you have made, makes me feel like I am standing on quicksand that is unstable and constantly shifting. Accuse me of making contradictions if you must; I accept my fallibility to make mistakes and not make myself clear. I think by now most people who have read my posts will be clear on what I believe for the reasons I have given from the Bible.
From now on stick to the facts of the topic under discussion. Stop asking me questions I have already answered (whether you accept my answer or not). Stop saying everyone else besides you is delusioned. I might agree with you and we know some who are now banned from this forum who have been delusioned and we can think they might have a mental illness, but stop saying I am delusioned; I do not have a mental illness. These accusations against the person do not lead to getting to the truth. A reason based on delusion can be reasoned against, so reason against "the reasoned argument" and not against the person. We will only get to agreeing facts by discussing facts. It is fact, we have a Bible, which is claimed to be the word of God and it is "the facts" which are the words, which have to be understood.
Understanding properly will only come by discussing each and every verse in detail bringing all possible explanations to the table and then fitting the best explanation to build up a picture in which there is harmony and consistency. You can say this is leading by way of a presuppositon, but if you have your own presupposition that there is no fit and there is no harmony, and you do not think it is possible to achieve harmony, then you have set out on a path of doom. We are not walking along the same path leading to truth of what God is actually saying to us. By only concentrating on the discrepancies of the Bible, you are missing the lessons, which the Bible is teaching us. The history of God's people has been preserved in order we learn from it. The Bible is a "warts and all" account, which does not hold back its punches. Man is on earth and God is in Heaven, and without humility, why should we expect God to listen to us? God's word is on course and will not be diverted. (Isaiah 55:11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
By comparison and in general, man's word is void and full of deceit. The only man to whom that cannot be said is the only begotten Son of God, whose words God has told us to; "hear him". Jesus said; "keep the commandments". Who are our friends and the friends of Jesus? Here is the answer; (John 15:14) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Nothing could be clearer. That is why, the majority are not the friends of Jesus and therefore, as he has indicated, in the day of judgment they will receive his condemnation and not enter the kingdom of God and they will be rejected. Eternal death is their future.
Either we discuss things in a way in which we both learn, or we can forget it. You can only lead me off the narrow way which leads to life and I can only teach things that will lead a person to find the path and stay on it. I will not lead people away from finding the Kingdom of God and I will say things that will bring them to a knowledge of God and His only begotten Son. I do not want a millstone put around my neck and thrown into the sea of death for having lead children (young in spiritual terms who have yet to drink the milk of the word) away from finding God. I abide by the teachings of Jesus and whether you accept them or not, doing so benefits mankind and not to the detriment of mankind, which is good for everyone. Not to do so is to do evil, which is to the detriment of society.
That is it from me! You have had my answers and you know what my motives are. I shall not explain myself again and be subject to the same questions.
Now get back on topic and stick to the topic of this thread and I will await your list which you can put in a new thread.
All the best
David
Richard Amiel McGough
03-26-2013, 12:15 PM
Good morning David, :tea:
This kind of systematically thorough answer is EXACTLY what would resolve your confusion about the paradox you have posed concerning angels sinning. Please do EXACTLY THE SAME THING in response to this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3647-O-A-C-____-A-C-A-C&p=53277#post53277). Thanks!
Richard
I do not want to be accused by you of avoiding your questions, but in the last 12 months and the 1,000+ posts I have written, your questions have already been addressed and I am repeating and this has to stop. I will answer your last few questions and I will not be answering them again. Your questions do not belong in this thread and is another example of how you (deliberately or unintentionally) move the conversation away from the topic under discussion.
Here are your questions and my replies:
Q. Do you understand a word I'm writing? Most times I do. The subjects I do not understand are not necessary for understanding the basics of God's word.
This is weird. You take time to answer rhetorical questions but totally ignore essential questions of great importance that I have repeated over and over and over again (as in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3647-O-A-C-____-A-C-A-C&p=53277#post53277)).
Q. Do you understand what is required to be free from delusion? I understand this as much as you do.
Please do not tell me what I need to do when you need to do the same. You have presuppositons which are opposite to mine. Our presuppositions are the conclusions we have come to from years of study. What we must do is keep an open mind to hear all opinions that might influence our presuppositions. I am prepared to change once I hear a convincing argument, but that argument has to be based on the words in the Bible (not commentaries on the Bible).
David, a presupposition is the opposite of a conclusion. The word "presupposition" means "A thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action." That's why it begins with the prefix "pre" which means "before." It is the opposite of a conclusion, which is comes at the END of a line of reasoning.
It is not correct to say that we hold "opposite" presuppositions. You presume that the Bible is the "inspired word of God." I make no presumption about that. Maybe it is the word of God, maybe it is not. I let the EVIDENCE decide that question. This is the difference between us. You begin with the presupposition that the Bible is the "inspired word of God" and then you reject any evidence to the contrary. Thus, we our conclusion differ because you reject evidence without sufficient reason.
Q. Don't you want to be free? I am "free in Christ". You ought to know what I mean by that. This is where faith comes in. I believe I am free from the consequences of sin, which is eternal death. You are not free from eternal death. You are not free from your own dogmas which you have made for yourself. You have dogmas you deny you have and you belong to a cult (of at least two). None of us are "free" as we think we are from these things.
There you go again. Making assertions without providing any EVIDENCE to support them. I have no idea what "dogmas" you think I hold, so there is no way for me to answer until you state what they are. You need to state what "dogmas" I hold.
You have been repeating this error of making baseless assertions for as long as I've known you. I have brought it to your attention many times and as far as I recall you have never even acknowledged my words, and you just keep repeating the same error. What does it take to get through to you?
Q. Who first taught you the dogmas you believe? I was taught first the dogmas of the Church of England, but like Michael Rood, I later found the truth that God has spoken. If you want to label me as a Christadelphian or a Hebrew revivalist (which BTW Rood is not labelling himself) then that is your prerogative. The way to life is not for the many; the teaching of Jesus is very plain and so the question has to be asked; why will the majority get rejected? You have rejected the narrow way that leads to eternal life which the Bible teaches.(I ask you again, please give me a list of the things you accept the Bible teaches. Give me your top 20 topics you say the Bible teaches)
Thanks for the answer! I truly am very interested in your history since it will help me understand where you are coming from (quite literally!).
I don't want to "label" you anything. I am only trying to find out what you actually believe. From a review of your posts, I found a very strong correlation with the Christadelphians, so I asked if you were a member. I can't imagine why anyone would resist stating the name of their fellowship. Are you currently in fellowship with other Christadelphians?
When did you first begin listening to Rood?
Your assertion that "the teaching of Jesus is very plain" is quite a joke my friend! Just look at all the confusion it has generated. Ten thousand denominations. Obviously, it's not as simply as you make out. Such talk is for cult leaders like Rood. He is a very skilled brainwasher. He speaks quickly with great bravado about many things that are true, and then in the same voice and with the same degree of certainty he declares something that is pure speculation that he just made up. He talks fast and mixes truth with error so his audience doesn't have time to think. He's a stage hypnotist. This is how he deceives people. He uses all the classic techniques used by lying preachers. I see through such people instantly. I have something like a "sixth sense" for bullshit. And I'm not the only one who sees it clearly. Another critic stated this quite succinctly (http://www.isitso.org/guide/mixrood.html):
Rood chooses quite frequently to mix solid fact with poorly-substantiated information and even rank speculation, but doesn't vary his delivery in the slightest from one to the other nor give his listeners a hint when he has shifted gears. He regularly makes statements which are not supported from either scripture or standard Biblical reference works, and yet offers no foundation for such statements from other sources. His listeners, many of whom have not been grounded in extensive study of the scriptures and Biblical history before becoming fascinated by Rood's teachings, are often ill-equipped to sort out fact from speculation. And thus many end up just accepting every word of his presentations as "truth". He has, after all, garnered their admiration as a “learned rabbi.” Surely he has researched thoroughly all of those "facts" which he so confidently asserts in his tapes and lectures.
If you care for truth at all, you will click that link and read those pages exposing Rood's deceptive tactics and outright lies. Bible believers are very susceptible to such deceitful teachers like Rood because they habitually suppress the truth to maintain their faith in the Bible. This is why you so easily believe Rood's bullshit but can't understand things I write no matter how plain, simple, and true they are. You accept Rood without reason because he confirms your PRESUPPOSITIONS which you have accepted without reason. You reject what I write for no reason because it contradicts your PRESUPPOSITIONS.
As for the "top 20 topics" - I'll start a thread to answer that since its a topic of it's own.
Q. Why don't you choose the path of EVIDENCE and REALITY? I am taking that path. The Bible has much evidence of real events that took place which is the assurance of those things spoken of which are future. You are denying the evidence and accept the evidence of false witnesses which makes you a false witness. I know I can be accused of the same, and I am trying to safeguard myself from being deceived and which God and Jesus warn us about. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom", "Get Wisdom and in getting Wisdom, get understanding". I think you have walked away from the fear of the LORD and lost all Wisdom you might have had and you have not got all understanding of God's word and you have admitted you have not been able to "make it fit". That is your bad. You should not attack a person's integrity for having done or are in the continuous act of doing that which you failed to do. I will not be put off by YOUR logic and misdirection.
I have never denied any evidence. And again, you have made a baseless assertion because you did not state what evidence I denied. And worse, you have falsely accused me of being a "false witness". I have never shown any evidence that I have accepted any evidence of any false witness. You are just making EMPTY ASSERTIONS. You need to provide EVIDENCE when you accuse.
Your assertion that I have "lost all wisdom" is absurd because it is based on nothing but the fact that I disagree with your presuppositions. You have never shown any error in anything I have written. If you disagree, all you need to do is quote the error and use logic to force me to admit it. You know I will never refuse to admit any provable error in logic or fact. That would expose me as a liar or deluded. This should be quite obvious to you by now because I always answer ever detail of any charge brought against me. You would do well to do the same.
There are two possible reasons I have not been able to "make it fit" -
1) It could be my bad.
2) It could be the Bible is logically incoherent, has errors, etc.
I have given more than enough evidence to support the conclusion that the problem is with the Bible. You reject this CONCLUSION only because it contradicts you PRESUPPOSITION. You have never shown any error in the logic or facts that lead to my conclusion.
"I want to help". Likewise, I want to help you Richard, but do you want help, or do you prefer to bite the hand that feeds you?. You don't believe the Bible. If there is nothing in the Bible you can accept, then that makes our discussions very difficult. You claim to tell me the simple and plain things the Bible says, and then I see you not doing so by the plaln things you reject. We cannot agree the plain and simple things the Bible teaches. I have asked you in a recent post and you have not anwered my evey question and so here it is again; "does the Bible teach the resurrection of the dead?". This is why I want you to list for me the top 20 teachings of the Bible. Even if you do not believe it, I will have a base to work from. Your wriggling out of contradictions which I see you have made, makes me feel like I am standing on quicksand that is unstable and constantly shifting. Accuse me of making contradictions if you must; I accept my fallibility to make mistakes and not make myself clear. I think by now most people who have read my posts will be clear on what I believe for the reasons I have given from the Bible.
David, I'm really glad that we both want to help each other. So let's do that. The first thing we must do is respect each other enough to actually answer the questions asked. This is what has caused such discord. I have repeated questions to you for MONTHS that you have refused to answer. This post is different. You are answering every question I asked. That's great. Now I just need you do to the same thing in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3647-O-A-C-____-A-C-A-C&p=53277#post53277) if only you would be so kind. All you need to do is to answer each point I made with clarity, simplicity, and logic that all rational persons must accept. That will solve the problem. I have repeated those same questions so many times it should be obvious that I think they are central to the discussion. That's what mystifies me - you KNOW that they are the central questions, so why have you been ignoring them all these months? And then you repeated the same error that I was explaining??? Don't you see why that is so infuriating? In any case, I'm really glad we are talking, and that we have the mutual goal of helping each other and our own selves come to a clearer understanding and articulation of the truth.
As for the resurrection of the dead - I did answer that in post #74 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3647-O-A-C-____-A-C-A-C&p=53255#post53255)! You totally IGNORED my answer except to say "I am not going to go on going round in circles especially as I have taken up your offer of a fresh start." This is why conversation with you is so infuriating. I spent a couple hours composing a careful response to all your questions and you totally ignored it, and now you falsely assert that I never answered. :mad:
Again, you make a baseless assertion when you say that I have been "wriggling out of contradictions which I see you have made" is false. You have no shown any contradictions in anything I've written. I'm guessing you are thinking about your charge that I was "inconsistent" in my view about the book of Enoch. I explain in great detail why you were wrong. I have not been inconsistent on anything about the book of Enoch. The only thing that changed was my PRESUPPOSITION that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The evidence forced me to conclude that presupposition was not justifiable.
From now on stick to the facts of the topic under discussion. Stop asking me questions I have already answered (whether you accept my answer or not). Stop saying everyone else besides you is delusioned. I might agree with you and we know some who are now banned from this forum who have been delusioned and we can think they might have a mental illness, but stop saying I am delusioned; I do not have a mental illness. These accusations against the person do not lead to getting to the truth. A reason based on delusion can be reasoned against, so reason against "the reasoned argument" and not against the person. We will only get to agreeing facts by discussing facts. It is fact, we have a Bible, which is claimed to be the word of God and it is "the facts" which are the words, which have to be understood.
I'm sorry for the strong language. I really hate seeing those words on the screen. It deeply bothers me and makes me worry that it might drive folks away. But in the midst of the conversation, when you are posting things that are radically absurd, I guess I lose focus and feel like the only way to get through to you is to tell you exactly what I see. Many of your comments have been radically irrational and you have frequently refused to answer my questions no matter how often I repeated them. I found this infuriating. When I say that something you wrote is "absurd" I am trying to get your attention. It is how I would want someone to talk to me if I were posting such blatant absurdities.
Understanding properly will only come by discussing each and every verse in detail bringing all possible explanations to the table and then fitting the best explanation to build up a picture in which there is harmony and consistency. You can say this is leading by way of a presuppositon, but if you have your own presupposition that there is no fit and there is no harmony, and you do not think it is possible to achieve harmony, then you have set out on a path of doom. We are not walking along the same path leading to truth of what God is actually saying to us. By only concentrating on the discrepancies of the Bible, you are missing the lessons, which the Bible is teaching us. The history of God's people has been preserved in order we learn from it. The Bible is a "warts and all" account, which does not hold back its punches. Man is on earth and God is in Heaven, and without humility, why should we expect God to listen to us? God's word is on course and will not be diverted. (Isaiah 55:11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Again, you have repeated your fundamental error. I have no "presupposition" that "there is no fit and there is no harmony" in the Bible. I think there is plenty of harmony, but there also is a lot of genuine disharmony. And more to the point, this is not a PRESUPPOSITION but rather a CONCLUSION based on logic and facts. It looks like a lot of your erroneous thinking is based on a confusion of these two basic terms.
Yes, the Bible is a "warts and all" account. Unfortunately, it reveals Yahweh's warts which are in consistent with the claim that Yahweh is the truth God.
By comparison and in general, man's word is void and full of deceit. The only man to whom that cannot be said is the only begotten Son of God, whose words God has told us to; "hear him". Jesus said; "keep the commandments". Who are our friends and the friends of Jesus? Here is the answer; (John 15:14) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Nothing could be clearer. That is why, the majority are not the friends of Jesus and therefore, as he has indicated, in the day of judgment they will receive his condemnation and not enter the kingdom of God and they will be rejected. Eternal death is their future.
You are a man. Why do you think your "word" expressed in your statements about the Bible, are any more true than mine?
Your assertion that "nothing could be clearer" reveals a profound ignorance of the history of your own religion. Many contradictions come from the "simple" understanding of that verse. Paul tried to resolve some of those contradictions in his extended discussion in Romans 6-7! Christians have struggled to understand the relation between the Law and Grace for two thousand years. It is anything but "simple." If it were so simple what has prevented believers from coming to a solution? Why did Paul have to write two (rather convoluted) chapters about it? Your suggestion that it is "simple" is a simple-minded answer that reveals ignorance of both the Bible and the history of Christianity. It is the kind of answer that false teachers like Rood regularly spew out. That's why he appeals to Bible believers who want simple answers to complex questions. To suggest that there is a simple solution that is "obviously" better than any found by the most intelligent and sincere believers over the span of 2000 years appears to be the height of arrogance, especially in light of the fact that it is based on gross ignorance. (The two usually go together.)
Either we discuss things in a way in which we both learn, or we can forget it. You can only lead me off the narrow way which leads to life and I can only teach things that will lead a person to find the path and stay on it. I will not lead people away from finding the Kingdom of God and I will say things that will bring them to a knowledge of God and His only begotten Son. I do not want a millstone put around my neck and thrown into the sea of death for having lead children (young in spiritual terms who have yet to drink the milk of the word) away from finding God. I abide by the teachings of Jesus and whether you accept them or not, doing so benefits mankind and not to the detriment of mankind, which is good for everyone. Not to do so is to do evil, which is to the detriment of society.
Excellent! Let's do that!
Your assertion that I can "can only lead [you] off the narrow way which leads to life" is radically absurd. If you have the truth then it is invincible because truth is reality. Therefore, it would be impossible for me to mislead you with valid logic and valid facts. Indeed, you could lead me directly into the kingdom if you could only show that your beliefs are true. That's all you need to do.
Great chatting my friend. I think we've made some real progress.
Shine on!
:sunny:
Hello Beck
Thank you for the link. I want us to stay focussed on this topic. I would like you to state from the beginning whether you consider the splitting of the Mount of Olives to be literal or figurative. I want the discussion to remain focussed and we have to bring our reasons to the table for believing one or the other.
I skimmed through the 40+ posts and it is easy to see how the discussion soon gets off track. We have contributions from Cheow, Twospirits, Richard, Gill, Les, Joseph (apologies for missing anyone out) and whilst their comments can be enlightening they are also contentious and can be considered off the mark. Probably for the first time I want us to stay focussed on the topic of this thread which is the splitting of the Mount of Olives. This is where an impartial referee ought to keep the discussion on track. Anything off track should be moved to an appropriate thread.
As a start, let me have your reasons for believing the splitting of the Mount of Olives is literal or figurative.
David
David,
I thought my response was clear, maybe not. Just as the langauge that has been employed by Joel and Isaiah which 'figuratively' spoke of the mountains parting and the high places made low..etc Was in relationship to the crying in the wilderness of John the Baptist preaching repentance. This is would Zech is using that the mount will be spilt into half to one side and the other to the opposite. This picture is those in the valley of decision. Those people will have to make a decison to repent and be saved or be damned and destoryed. The same figurative langauge as living waters shall flow out of Jerusalem. I don't think one would try to read that as an literal event so neither should the perivous mention of the mount being split. There is also the point of having the Lord's feet on the mount as having the earth his footstool. That again is a picture of his authority and not to be read as an literal event. Hope that helps.
Richard Amiel McGough
03-26-2013, 02:00 PM
Hey David,
My comments and thoughts can be founded HERE. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2322-Zechariah-14-1-2)
It would be the same as the valley of decision (Joel 3:14) and figurative of such passages as Isaiah 40:4 which prophesied of John the Baptist.
Hello Beck
Thank you for the link. I want us to stay focussed on this topic. I would like you to state from the beginning whether you consider the splitting of the Mount of Olives to be literal or figurative. I want the discussion to remain focussed and we have to bring our reasons to the table for believing one or the other.
I skimmed through the 40+ posts and it is easy to see how the discussion soon gets off track. We have contributions from Cheow, Twospirits, Richard, Gill, Les, Joseph (apologies for missing anyone out) and whilst their comments can be enlightening they are also contentious and can be considered off the mark. Probably for the first time I want us to stay focussed on the topic of this thread which is the splitting of the Mount of Olives. This is where an impartial referee ought to keep the discussion on track. Anything off track should be moved to an appropriate thread.
As a start, let me have your reasons for believing the splitting of the Mount of Olives is literal or figurative.
David
David,
I thought my response was clear, maybe not. Just as the langauge that has been employed by Joel and Isaiah which 'figuratively' spoke of the mountains parting and the high places made low..etc Was in relationship to the crying in the wilderness of John the Baptist preaching repentance. This is would Zech is using that the mount will be spilt into half to one side and the other to the opposite. This picture is those in the valley of decision. Those people will have to make a decison to repent and be saved or be damned and destoryed. The same figurative langauge as living waters shall flow out of Jerusalem. I don't think one would try to read that as an literal event so neither should the perivous mention of the mount being split. There is also the point of having the Lord's feet on the mount as having the earth his footstool. That again is a picture of his authority and not to be read as an literal event. Hope that helps.
Hey there Beck,
I think that's an extremely lucid explanation. It should be pretty much self-evident to anyone familiar with the Bible.
The Futurist arguments depend critically on literalizing the figurative and explaining away the literal.
Richard
David M
03-27-2013, 05:41 AM
David,
I thought my response was clear, maybe not. Just as the langauge that has been employed by Joel and Isaiah which 'figuratively' spoke of the mountains parting and the high places made low..etc Was in relationship to the crying in the wilderness of John the Baptist preaching repentance. This is would Zech is using that the mount will be spilt into half to one side and the other to the opposite. This picture is those in the valley of decision. Those people will have to make a decison to repent and be saved or be damned and destoryed. The same figurative langauge as living waters shall flow out of Jerusalem. I don't think one would try to read that as an literal event so neither should the perivous mention of the mount being split. There is also the point of having the Lord's feet on the mount as having the earth his footstool. That again is a picture of his authority and not to be read as an literal event. Hope that helps.
Hello Beck
Thanks for that. I read very quickly through the whole thread you directed me to and by the time I had finished, I did not want to trawl througt it again to extract all you had contributed.
The one question I would ask at the moment is; What are the specific verses in Isaiah and Joel are you referring to?
I have selected some and we can contrast those with Zechariah
Isaiah 13
3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness.
4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.
3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness.
4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.
Joel 2
2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
3 A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.
4 The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.
5 Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.
Zechariah14
1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
As I have said so often, but not lately, we have to consider the context of each chapter and verse we are considering. I do not agree with lifting phrases out of context and plugging them into other parts of scripture. I know we have to look to scripture to explain other scriptures in order to get understanding.
At this moment, I am uncomfortable taking those verses above in Joel and Isaiah and getting them to fit in with Zechariah. That is why, I want you to give me the exact verses you are quoting. I would not take verses from Zechariah 14 and put them back in Isaiah and Joel. We have to be very sure they are talking of the same events. If not, then we are on dangerous ground plugging ideas from Isaiah and Joel into Zechariah's prophecy
Isaiah and Joel above does read figuratively and we can note that no specific place names are given. Zechariah is very specific.
Zechariah uses the phrase; the day of the Lord. I will not answer that now, but that has to be answered and see where that fits in.
For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle. Again, when did this happen? Who are "All" the nations?
Then Zechariah specifically mentions the Mount of Olives and this event takes place around the same time "All nations" come against Israel.
Lastly, for the moment, Zechariah mentions "the saints". I understand the saints to be the resurrected ones who will be with Christ in his Kingdom when he returns.
The events from the time of Zechariah are future and when thise prophecy is fulfilled we have to work out. There is nothing about this prophecy which seems figurative to me.
David
Hey there Beck,
I think that's an extremely lucid explanation. It should be pretty much self-evident to anyone familiar with the Bible.
The Futurist arguments depend critically on literalizing the figurative and explaining away the literal.
Richard
Hey Richard,
I thought it to be very self explainatoray. Especially determining whether literal or figurative langauge is being used.
Hello Beck
Thanks for that. I read very quickly through the whole thread you directed me to and by the time I had finished, I did not want to trawl througt it again to extract all you had contributed.
The one question I would ask at the moment is; What are the specific verses in Isaiah and Joel are you referring to?
I have selected some and we can contrast those with Zechariah
Hey David,
I give them in my first response. "It would be the same as the valley of decision (Joel 3:14) and figurative of such passages as Isaiah 40:4 which prophesied of John the Baptist."
As I have said so often, but not lately, we have to consider the context of each chapter and verse we are considering. I do not agree with lifting phrases out of context and plugging them into other parts of scripture. I know we have to look to scripture to explain other scriptures in order to get understanding.
I would totally agree, but the method of using parallel scriptures to interpert scripture is an very good exegetical way in determining whether figurative or literal explanation should be taken from the context.
At this moment, I am uncomfortable taking those verses above in Joel and Isaiah and getting them to fit in with Zechariah. That is why, I want you to give me the exact verses you are quoting. I would not take verses from Zechariah 14 and put them back in Isaiah and Joel. We have to be very sure they are talking of the same events. If not, then we are on dangerous ground plugging ideas from Isaiah and Joel into Zechariah's prophecy
Isaiah and Joel above does read figuratively and we can note that no specific place names are given. Zechariah is very specific.
David, just upon first reading of Zech 14 one 'should' come to the realization that the Lord would never literally stand on the mount and it be split that it would create a great valley...and that 'ye' shall flee to that valley and the Lord will come and all his saints...In that same day 'in that day' Livings Waters shall go out of Jerusalem [mountain] as if it was split half to the eastern sea and the western sea...Seem to me to be very figurative of the 'valley of decision' spoken of by Joel and how Isaiah spoke of the time when John the Baptist came to preach repentance with water and said that one would come after him with living waters [holy spirit]. Thus is splitting of the mount is figurative of how the words of God will be as a earthquake shaking the mount in half.
David M
03-28-2013, 01:43 AM
Hey David,
I give them in my first response. "It would be the same as the valley of decision (Joel 3:14) and figurative of such passages as Isaiah 40:4 which prophesied of John the Baptist."
I would totally agree, but the method of using parallel scriptures to interpert scripture is an very good exegetical way in determining whether figurative or literal explanation should be taken from the context.
David, just upon first reading of Zech 14 one 'should' come to the realization that the Lord would never literally stand on the mount and it be split that it would create a great valley...and that 'ye' shall flee to that valley and the Lord will come and all his saints...In that same day 'in that day' Livings Waters shall go out of Jerusalem [mountain] as if it was split half to the eastern sea and the western sea...Seem to me to be very figurative of the 'valley of decision' spoken of by Joel and how Isaiah spoke of the time when John the Baptist came to preach repentance with water and said that one would come after him with living waters [holy spirit]. Thus is splitting of the mount is figurative of how the words of God will be as a earthquake shaking the mount in half.
Hello Beck
What is the next step? Would you like to explain the context each prophet is speaking in? Did I choose the verses correctly you were thinking of?
As I said, it is obvious Joel and Isaiah are speaking figuratively because they do not in the main mention any specific names. Figurative language could apply to many situations. Like the regathering of Israel, God's promise was unconditional and open-ended. God did not say, I will only regather you once. Whenever Israel was scattered, God promised to regather them. No matter how many times they would be scattered, they would eventually be regathered.
The scattering of Israel after AD 70 in the middle of the 2nd century lead them into all nations upon the earth from which they have been returning from all nations. When they were taken into exile in Babylon, it was hardly into all nations. Whichever way we look at this and take into account both the Northern and Southern tribes and the Assyrian and Babylonian invasion and capture and exile, it was not into all nations; not as we see all nations today.
I know Richard is pleased you are agreeing with him and Richard is again confusing the topic and not staying on topic by saying;
But as for Zech 14 - it's obviously figurative because it speaks of future sacrifices and all Christians know that the sacrifices ended with Christ.
Here is the definition of sacrifice;
1.
the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.
Who has said for example, tything has ceased? I have explained this to Richard and he continues to bring up the same comments. Richard does not apply any other interpretation. He is stuck in his rut and his dogma, and doing all that he accuses other people of doing.
The verse Richard is quoting (the last verse of Zechariah says; (21) Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
I ask you; what is the type of sacrifice being offered? I agree with Richard in so much as Christ has done away with animal sacrifices for the remission of sins.
Now look at this in the context of Zechariah 14:18; And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
You see that? The Feast of Tabernacles continues. Why do you suppose all offerings to God should cease? If I want to make a voluntary offering and give a proportion of my wealth back to God (which in the days of the Mosaic law, the tribute went to feed the Levitical priests who ministered unto the people and who did not earn their living off the land). An offering is the same as the sacrifice of giving something up. Do you envisage the hacking a sheaf of barley to death on the alter is sacrificing plants?
It peeves me when Richard says he is open to learning and yet does not get off the track he is on and keeps bringing up the same misinformation. He is misguiding everyone on this forum by continually saying things which are wrong and so I have to keep repeating my argument against him. It would not be so bad if he did not keep bringing up the same things to me which I have corrected him. He is totally obessed with getting his message out and proving to everyon that he is Mr Perfect and no-one can challenge him on logic. Don't be deceived is my warning. I cannot let his mistakes pass or else those who know no better will assume Richard is the authority on this forum and assume he is correct. Readers beware!! You have been warned.
Let us not be diverted by Richard and stay on track. Richard has a bee in his bonnet and keeps insisting I answer him and when I have done so in my own way, he does not accept my answer and insists I answer his way. He does not answer my many questions just as he can accuse me of not answering all of his questions. Arguing as he does is a total waste of everybody's time. At least, he is wasting my time by having to counter his continual repeating of mistakes.
Please let us stay on track with the specifics about the splitting of the Mount of Olives.
David
Hello Beck
What is the next step?
Hey David,
Well for me it would be that you would address what I have given as toward the splitting of the mount as being figurative of dividing the mountain. Which would create a great valley that Zech said that they should flee toward the valley. And I gave an parallel statement found in Isaiah 40:4 of how the mountain shall be maded low as being used as figurative langauge about the preaching of John the Baptist.
And if you would like another ... Jesus himself spoke of moving 'this mountain' and casting it into the sea (Mark 11:23). Now his disciples either didn't have enough faith to cast that mountain into the sea or they understood Jesus to be speaking figurativley of casting down the authority upon the mountain of Jerusalem. Which first must have been done spiritually by casting down the high places of authority (Eph. 6:12) upon the mountain and at the end would come that every stone would be casted down (Matt.24:1-2).
Would you like to explain the context each prophet is speaking in?
As stated Isaiah was prophesing of John the Baptist of one coming in the wilderness preaching repentance and would make straight a highway for the Lord God in the dry places. That every valley shall be exalted and every mountain [high place] and hill shall be maded low and the crooked shall be made straight....(Isaiah 40:3-4) This was figuratively of John the Baptist making a highway in the desert...He never literally would build a highway nor lift up any valley nor any mountain would be made low. It would come by the preacing of the word of God as the word has that kind of power to remove mountains as if an earthquake had moved them. All figurative language of the power of the word to tranform men. To those of high authority to make them low and to those low to make them sit in heavenly [high] places.
Joel in this same context of transformation of men. As harvest time was near there were multitudes [peoples, nations] in the valley of decision. Jesus said that he saw that the fields was white ready to be harvested (John 4:35-36). That as many as heard the word was like a man sowing seed to some found good ground to others found a rock.
Both relate in an figurative language of the preaching of the word which is actually what Zech is making mention of as splitting of the mount that LIVING WATERS might flow. No reason to force any literal reading of such langauge.
Here is the definition of sacrifice;
Who has said for example, tything has ceased? I have explained this to Richard and he continues to bring up the same comments. Richard does not apply any other interpretation. He is stuck in his rut and his dogma, and doing all that he accuses other people of doing.
The verse Richard is quoting (the last verse of Zechariah says; (21) Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
I ask you; what is the type of sacrifice being offered? I agree with Richard in so much as Christ has done away with animal sacrifices for the remission of sins.
Well I'm not sure you are willing to get into all of this chapter 14 of Zech. I thought you wanted to remain focus of the point of 'splitting of the mount'.?
But again I think it should be clear when one understands which literature tool of expression is being employed (figurative language) that the feast of Tabernacles [House] that no 'Rain' shall come down upon those that do not come to worship the King the Lord of host. We again can draw an parallel to that of Isaiah's writings in Isaiah 44:3 which speaks of the Lord God poring out water upon them and poring out his spirit ...Thus this out pouring of rain water can be seen as figurative language of the out pouring of the Spirit of God. This again is what Zech was prophesing about that when the mount is split that LIVING WATERS shall flow out. In that day when the Spirit of poured out it will fill every ones 'pot' that comes up and there will no more be a Canaanite (Gentile) in the House of God.
Now look at this in the context of Zechariah 14:18; And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
You see that? The Feast of Tabernacles continues. Why do you suppose all offerings to God should cease? If I want to make a voluntary offering and give a proportion of my wealth back to God (which in the days of the Mosaic law, the tribute went to feed the Levitical priests who ministered unto the people and who did not earn their living off the land). An offering is the same as the sacrifice of giving something up. Do you envisage the hacking a sheaf of barley to death on the alter is sacrificing plants?
No! Please read it again. There is no other sacrifice acceptable to God. The only sacrifice is of yourself to come a worship the Lord God. The highway that John was making was the same highway mentioned in Isaiah 11:16. That highway was NOT an literal highway, but maked possible with and by the Word of God to bring all of his scrattered people back home.
David M
03-29-2013, 01:54 AM
Hello Beck
Hey David,
Well for me it would be that you would address what I have given as toward the splitting of the mount as being figurative of dividing the mountain. Which would create a great valley that Zech said that they should flee toward the valley. And I gave an parallel statement found in Isaiah 40:4 of how the mountain shall be maded low as being used as figurative langauge about the preaching of John the Baptist.
I am addressing these things. I have come to the conclusion, Zechariah is not figurative because of his specific naming of places. I appreciate your reply and how you attach other figurative phrases found in the Bible to explain Zechariah. We have given our explanations and if each other's explanation does not modify the thinking of the other, then that is OK; we have stated our case. We do not need to continue to argue. If you have presented something new in support of your view, then I will examine that and make comment. It would be better if current members and guests on the form when reading this and other threads, gave their opinion. It would be good if contributors could just give us the benefit of their opinion, but as we know, in most cases Richard will jump in an challenge anything anyone says in which he has a different opinion and like to prove his case. That is OK; its his forum.
And if you would like another ... Jesus himself spoke of moving 'this mountain' and casting it into the sea (Mark 11:23). Now his disciples either didn't have enough faith to cast that mountain into the sea or they understood Jesus to be speaking figurativley of casting down the authority upon the mountain of Jerusalem. Which first must have been done spiritually by casting down the high places of authority (Eph. 6:12) upon the mountain and at the end would come that every stone would be casted down (Matt.24:1-2).
This is what this thread and this exercise is all about. If you present different ideas and pieces of evidence, then that gives me and others something to think about. So then, what do I make of this new piece of evidence. I agree, Jesus is speaking in parables and also uses figurative language. Would I associate his saying to the disciples; "say unto this mountain..." to that of Zechariah? No! The association you have made, had never crossed my mind, and now you have brought it to my attention, I think it is stretching it to make the association with Zechariah. Jesus was talking in the context of "faith". Zechariah is not talking of faith; he is referring to future events in a literal way which does not need figurative language to explain the events. It is usually the other way around and we need to identify specific eventst to prophecy which uses figurative language. Not so here as I see it.
As stated Isaiah was prophesing of John the Baptist of one coming in the wilderness preaching repentance and would make straight a highway for the Lord God in the dry places. That every valley shall be exalted and every mountain [high place] and hill shall be maded low and the crooked shall be made straight....(Isaiah 40:3-4) This was figuratively of John the Baptist making a highway in the desert...He never literally would build a highway nor lift up any valley nor any mountain would be made low. It would come by the preacing of the word of God as the word has that kind of power to remove mountains as if an earthquake had moved them. All figurative language of the power of the word to tranform men. To those of high authority to make them low and to those low to make them sit in heavenly [high] places.
Now you have given me Isaiah 40:3-4 to consider. I did ask you if I had selected the verse from Isaiah you were referring to. Evidently, I had chosen a different verse. I will now read the verses in Isaiah;
3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
I can agree with your comments and John did not build a highway (freeway) and it is speaking of the work John would do in a figurative way. Would I associate this with Zechariah? No.
oel in this same context of transformation of men. As harvest time was near there were multitudes [peoples, nations] in the valley of decision. Jesus said that he saw that the fields was white ready to be harvested (John 4:35-36). That as many as heard the word was like a man sowing seed to some found good ground to others found a rock.
Both relate in an figurative language of the preaching of the word which is actually what Zech is making mention of as splitting of the mount that LIVING WATERS might flow. No reason to force any literal reading of such langauge.
I appreciate what you say, and I like to associate scriptures where possible. However, I think it is tenuous, or as Jesus might say;strain at a gnat, to make the association with Zechariah 14. That is just my opinion.
Well I'm not sure you are willing to get into all of this chapter 14 of Zech. I thought you wanted to remain focus of the point of 'splitting of the mount'.?
Yes I do and if you remember, I said it was Richard who had introduced the diversion and taking the chance to correct him (yet again), I brought the discussion back to focus on the subject of this thread, which I respect you for doing.
But again I think it should be clear when one understands which literature tool of expression is being employed (figurative language) that the feast of Tabernacles [House] that no 'Rain' shall come down upon those that do not come to worship the King the Lord of host. We again can draw an parallel to that of Isaiah's writings in Isaiah 44:3 which speaks of the Lord God poring out water upon them and poring out his spirit ...Thus this out pouring of rain water can be seen as figurative language of the out pouring of the Spirit of God. This again is what Zech was prophesing about that when the mount is split that LIVING WATERS shall flow out. In that day when the Spirit of poured out it will fill every ones 'pot' that comes up and there will no more be a Canaanite (Gentile) in the House of God.
OK, so you make a comment about what I said. I can agree with you on all the figurative language and what that figurative language can mean. The problem we have and this is the problem leading to much confusion and difference of opinion, is taking literal things to be figurative and figurative things to be literal.
Let me ask a couple of questions to try and see it we can find a way out of the problem we have by wronlgy associating the figurative with the literal. Is prophecy, which is, foretelling future events, speaking of only events with figurative language? Is there a prophecy you can think of which does not use any figurative language?
It is only my opinion at this stage. I can look at the same passages as you and read them as figurative language and say; what is this referring to? Is it referring to one specific event or period in time? The same applies to something which is said specifically and is not shrouded in figurative language. My problem (as you will see it) is; I see Zechariah speaking specifically. Jerusalem, Mount of Olives, Feast of Tabernacles, these are all indentifable things and Zechariah is not speaking in the same figurative language as Joel and Isaiah. I see Zechariah speaking of the splitting of the mount of Olives plainly, in the same way as the disciples said to Jesus; (John 16:29) Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
By way of contrast, on an earlier occasion, the Jews came to Jesus and asked him to speak plainly, yet in his answer, Jesus uses the metaphor (figurative language) of sheep. (John 10:24) Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: In this we see Jesus is both specific (plainly speaking) and yet can introduce a metaphor. Was Jesus literally leading a "flock of sheep"? Of course not. Those who followed Jesus were to him like the flock of sheep led by a sheppard. The Jews which did not follow Jesus belonged to a different flock. Now, consider this; if Jesus later referred to his "flock" does that mean; his disciples only? or those at that time who were following him? or in general to all those who follow him in any age and particularly the age of the Gentiles in which we are now?
No! Please read it again. There is no other sacrifice acceptable to God. The only sacrifice is of yourself to come a worship the Lord God. The highway that John was making was the same highway mentioned in Isaiah 11:16. That highway was NOT an literal highway, but maked possible with and by the Word of God to bring all of his scrattered people back home.
I agreed earlier with the non-literal "highway" of John.
What do you mean about sacrificing ourselves? How is going to worship the Lord God a sacrifice of one's self? In the age to come, when Jesus returns and is the age I consider Zechariah to be speaking of, he is talking about the nations. These are nations which have yet to learn that Christ's rule is the only rule that can work; man's ruling himself failed. God's way is the only way. People will be alive after the terrible events have taken place who had not accepted Christ. People will still be alive in the millennial age who have to be taught and brought to an acceptance of God and His Son. Christ is going to rule with an "iron rod". He will not pussy-foot around. Nations which do not go up to Jerusalem to worship God and show their acceptance of Him, will have rain withheld as in the past when that literally happened. By way of example, look at what took place when Elijah had to go to Ahab and God had withheld rain (1 Kings 18). It is good way to make people conform when God has the power to withhold rain and famine and pestilence etc will naturally follow. When all sources run dry and there in no provision of water, then the people will have to cry to God to give them rain. God will not do so before they accept Him and do what He instructs them to do. We have the example of Naaman the leper who was not healed till he yielded to God's instruction. In the time when Jesus returns, Jesus has been given all power and authority, even the tiltle and name of God. Jesus will be as God in order to restore the kingdom in readiness to hand it over to his Heavenly Father when complete.
Its good to chat, I shall wait your response.
David
Hello Beck
I am addressing these things. I have come to the conclusion, Zechariah is not figurative because of his specific naming of places. I appreciate your reply and how you attach other figurative phrases found in the Bible to explain Zechariah. We have given our explanations and if each other's explanation does not modify the thinking of the other, then that is OK; we have stated our case. We do not need to continue to argue. If you have presented something new in support of your view, then I will examine that and make comment.
Hi David,
The things you have not address is the continued flow of thoughts that Zech is given... (I say they are in an figurative language)...Like how would you explan to the readers in any literal sence that living waters are to flow out from Jerusalem? Well that's just after mentioning of the splitting of the mount of Olives and a cry to them to flee to the valley.
Also just becasue certain names are mentioned it don't make what is being said as an literal events. Consider Jesus often spoke in parables of certain men or of a certain rich man and give such names as Lazarus to a certain man. All along Luke maded note that Jesus was speaking of parables unto the Phraisees. (Luke 15:3), (Luke 16:1-31). that story 'parable' is in the same context of the Lost son, the lost coin within the continued parable.
This is what this thread and this exercise is all about. If you present different ideas and pieces of evidence, then that gives me and others something to think about. So then, what do I make of this new piece of evidence. I agree, Jesus is speaking in parables and also uses figurative language. Would I associate his saying to the disciples; "say unto this mountain..." to that of Zechariah? No! The association you have made, had never crossed my mind, and now you have brought it to my attention, I think it is stretching it to make the association with Zechariah. Jesus was talking in the context of "faith". Zechariah is not talking of faith; he is referring to future events in a literal way which does not need figurative language to explain the events. It is usually the other way around and we need to identify specific eventst to prophecy which uses figurative language. Not so here as I see it.
The context of Jesus saying that his own disciples could move the mountain was by faith. What you are overlooking is the simple fact that they would never move a literal mountain by faith, but move 'this mountain' which was the high places of authority that would be casted down. Jesus said and likewise Paul made mentioned that they whom where transformed or quicken by the spirit of God hath been rasied to sit in heavnly places with Christ. (Eph 2:5-6) In such figurative language it was that they where replacing those kings and priest over Jerusalem. The Lord God have given them all power over the prince of darkness. This is how that mountain was removed and casted into the deepth of the sea, but it would only be done through faith.
Think!!!! Why would Zech cry to those to run to the valley? If there was a literal earthquake that split the mountain why in the world would one to the low places. That's like running to where the earthquake had just split and made an low place....Reading this in a literal event makes no sence.
Now you have given me Isaiah 40:3-4 to consider. I did ask you if I had selected the verse from Isaiah you were referring to. Evidently, I had chosen a different verse. I will now read the verses in Isaiah;
I can agree with your comments and John did not build a highway (freeway) and it is speaking of the work John would do in a figurative way. Would I associate this with Zechariah? No.
The book of Isaiah has many verses that parallel I just pick those that I thought was the most obvious. Also consider Isaiah 2:1-4 ....I laugh when JW comes to my home and attemp to use Isaiah reference of beating swords into plowshares to make their claim that one day there will be no more war... Now that not understanding figurative language.
OK, so you make a comment about what I said. I can agree with you on all the figurative language and what that figurative language can mean. The problem we have and this is the problem leading to much confusion and difference of opinion, is taking literal things to be figurative and figurative things to be literal.
Let me ask a couple of questions to try and see it we can find a way out of the problem we have by wronlgy associating the figurative with the literal. Is prophecy, which is, foretelling future events, speaking of only events with figurative language? Is there a prophecy you can think of which does not use any figurative language?
Well lets see....Zech 13:1 prophecies of 'in that day' there will be a fountain for the sins of the people of Jerusalem. Shall I assume that to be an literal fountain of water since a proper name was used and a place was given as in Jerusalem. What would be the need for Jesus to come if this prophesy was of a literal fountain of water for the remission of sins?
I agreed earlier with the non-literal "highway" of John.
What do you mean about sacrificing ourselves? How is going to worship the Lord God a sacrifice of one's self?
To do the will of the Father you must first die to self. What Zech is showing that those come to worship the Lord will be poured out the latter rain in so that their 'pot' cup will not be able to hold it that it would run down to be bottom of the altar like that of the bowls before the altar at the dedication. Fill my cup O lord fill it Full....
Richard Amiel McGough
03-29-2013, 01:42 PM
As I said, it is obvious Joel and Isaiah are speaking figuratively because they do not in the main mention any specific names. Figurative language could apply to many situations. Like the regathering of Israel, God's promise was unconditional and open-ended. God did not say, I will only regather you once. Whenever Israel was scattered, God promised to regather them. No matter how many times they would be scattered, they would eventually be regathered.
Good afternoon David,
Where did you get the idea that something is figurative if it does not "in the main mention any specific names"? That's not a valid rule. There are many things that mark figurative language. The most obvious is the use of words like "like" or "as." E.g. "Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?" (Mark 4:30). It has nothing to do with the use of specific names. Specific historical people can be used figuratively: E.g.
Luke 12:27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Likewise, Christ use Noah in a figurative sense:
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
See the words "as" and "so"? Those are words of comparison which are often used in figurative language.
You should Google figurative language ans see what it really is all about.
The scattering of Israel after AD 70 in the middle of the 2nd century lead them into all nations upon the earth from which they have been returning from all nations. When they were taken into exile in Babylon, it was hardly into all nations. Whichever way we look at this and take into account both the Northern and Southern tribes and the Assyrian and Babylonian invasion and capture and exile, it was not into all nations; not as we see all nations today.
There is a BIG difference between the scattering after 70 AD and all the other scatterings. All the other scatterings had very specific lengths and PROMISED end dates associated with them. I explain this in my post called Continuity of Prophetic History confirms Preterism (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?617-Continuity-of-Prophetic-History-confirms-Preterism) that I wrote back in 2008 when I was still a Christian. The basic idea is that ALL the major events in the history of Israel were predicted with numerical precision with very specific end dates:
The Bondage in Egypt for 400 years.
The Wandering in the Wilderness for 40 years.
The Babylonian Captivity for 70 years.
The destruction of Jerusalem after 490 years.
That's it. There is NO PREDICTION or PROMISE in the Bible that says there would be any return after the scattering of 70 AD.
Futurism fails on so many points I just can't imagine how anyone could believe it.
I know Richard is pleased you are agreeing with him and Richard is again confusing the topic and not staying on topic by saying;
But as for Zech 14 - it's obviously figurative because it speaks of future sacrifices and all Christians know that the sacrifices ended with Christ.
Here is the definition of sacrifice;
the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.
Who has said for example, tything has ceased? I have explained this to Richard and he continues to bring up the same comments. Richard does not apply any other interpretation. He is stuck in his rut and his dogma, and doing all that he accuses other people of doing.
The verse Richard is quoting (the last verse of Zechariah says; (21) Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
I ask you; what is the type of sacrifice being offered? I agree with Richard in so much as Christ has done away with animal sacrifices for the remission of sins.
Now look at this in the context of Zechariah 14:18; And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
You see that? The Feast of Tabernacles continues. Why do you suppose all offerings to God should cease? If I want to make a voluntary offering and give a proportion of my wealth back to God (which in the days of the Mosaic law, the tribute went to feed the Levitical priests who ministered unto the people and who did not earn their living off the land). An offering is the same as the sacrifice of giving something up. Do you envisage the hacking a sheaf of barley to death on the alter is sacrificing plants?
You ignored the rest of the passage!
Zechariah 14:20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
That is speaking about ANIMAL SACRIFICES that are seethed. And the phrase "House of the Lord" refers to the Temple. It was destroyed in 70 AD and cannot be rebuilt because the true temple (Christ and his Church) has come. Ye are the Temple of God. From a Christian perspective, it is obviously all figurative. You are twisting words again, looking for ways to force your interpretation by suggesting "plant sacrifices." That totally misses the point. The WHOLE FIRST COVENANT JEWISH SYSTEM ENDED with the coming of Christ. That's why God destroyed the Temple. That's why there is no promise of a rebuilt temple. The old carnal (physical) Temple had to die to make room for the True Temple (Christ and his Body, the Church).
Your interpretations have no natural coherence with any Big Picture. You force words here and there to make things fit, but then they are totally out of harmony with the rest of the Bible. It's like you've never even heard that the PHYSICAL THINGS of the OT were symbols of the SPIRITUAL THINGS of the NT. This blows my mind. It's like you've never read the Bible with any understanding at all.
It peeves me when Richard says he is open to learning and yet does not get off the track he is on and keeps bringing up the same misinformation. He is misguiding everyone on this forum by continually saying things which are wrong and so I have to keep repeating my argument against him. It would not be so bad if he did not keep bringing up the same things to me which I have corrected him. He is totally obessed with getting his message out and proving to everyon that he is Mr Perfect and no-one can challenge him on logic. Don't be deceived is my warning. I cannot let his mistakes pass or else those who know no better will assume Richard is the authority on this forum and assume he is correct. Readers beware!! You have been warned.
There you go again! Making HUGE BOASTING CLAIMS without any evidence! Your words are FALSE! You have not shown that I have presented any misinformation. You have not shown that I have "misguided" anyone. You have never shown that anything I have written is "wrong."
You now have now OBLIGATED yourself to either 1) present evidence that supports your claims, or 2) admit your claims are false. If you fail to do one of those two things you will be exposing yourself to be a liar.
I do not claim to be "Mr. Perfect." That is absurd. All I claim is that you blatantly violated the most elementary rules of logic. For example, you explicitly declared that you "do not disagree" with the Law of Non-Contradiction even as you rejected both P and Not P! So quit complaining. All you need to do is show that you understand basic logic.
Anyone is free to challenge my logic. You are just upset because I have PROVEN your errors and you refuse to admit the truth and you can't prove me wrong because I'm right on this point.
And again you made another baseless assertions when you said you could not let my "mistakes" pass. What mistakes are you talking about? Where have you exposed any "error" of mine?
I am no "authority." My words are strong only because they are founded on LOGIC AND FACTS. They are founded on the solid rock of reality. Your words are weak because they have no foundation. They have no basis. They are just baseless claims that you repeat over and over and over without every presenting any FACTS to back them up.
You need to quit making baseless assertions and start providing EVIDENCE for your claims.
Let us not be diverted by Richard and stay on track. Richard has a bee in his bonnet and keeps insisting I answer him and when I have done so in my own way, he does not accept my answer and insists I answer his way. He does not answer my many questions just as he can accuse me of not answering all of his questions. Arguing as he does is a total waste of everybody's time. At least, he is wasting my time by having to counter his continual repeating of mistakes.
So you are saying that "my way" is the way of logic and facts? That's all I've ever demanded of you.
I have answered a hundred of your questions for every one of mine that you've answered. You habitually ignore my questions. I diligently seek to answer yours. And the few times I choose to ignore them is when they are obviously off-track and/or designed to evade the real issues.
I see your tactic now. You are MIMICKING my words, as if I were doing the things you have been doing for the last seven months. Anyone interested can discover the truth in short order. All they have to do is look at this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3352-God-s-will-is-done-in-Heaven&p=53355#post53355) where I showed that you had repeatedly ignored my questions post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post... for seven long months! And now you want to pervert all truth and reality and spit your false assertions in my face? The Dude abides, but he don't abide that shit.
Richard
David M
04-04-2013, 12:21 PM
Hello Richard
Good afternoon David,
Where did you get the idea that something is figurative if it does not "in the main mention any specific names"? That's not a valid rule. I am not saying it is a rule, but that it sounds literal to me and I have given you my reason for thinking so. We all have our own "ideas".
There are many things that mark figurative language. The most obvious is the use of words like "like" or "as." E.g. "Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?" (Mark 4:30). It has nothing to do with the use of specific names. Specific historical people can be used figuratively: E.g.
Luke 12:27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Likewise, Christ use Noah in a figurative sense:
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
See the words "as" and "so"? Those are words of comparison which are often used in figurative language.
I agree, but that is not how most of the chapter 14 reads. There might be a small part of the chapter than can be described as figurative language.
You should Google figurative language ans see what it really is all about. I have. Figurative language takes different forms as your examples show.
There is a BIG difference between the scattering after 70 AD and all the other scatterings. All the other scatterings had very specific lengths and PROMISED end dates associated with them. I explain this in my post called Continuity of Prophetic History confirms Preterism (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?617-Continuity-of-Prophetic-History-confirms-Preterism) that I wrote back in 2008 when I was still a Christian. The basic idea is that ALL the major events in the history of Israel were predicted with numerical precision with very specific end dates:
I do not agree all history confirms preterism. I do not remember you answering Twospirits to identify the "Abomination that makes desolate" to which Jesus was referring.
You are almost admitting the Bible is prophetic.
That's it. There is NO PREDICTION or PROMISE in the Bible that says there would be any return after the scattering of 70 AD.
God would not have promised "not to make a full end" of Israel had he intended to keep them scattered for ever.
Futurism fails on so many points I just can't imagine how anyone could believe it. The same goes for preterism the way I see it. That is just our opposite opinions.
You ignored the rest of the passage!
Zechariah 14:20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
That is speaking about ANIMAL SACRIFICES that are seethed. And the phrase "House of the Lord" refers to the Temple. It was destroyed in 70 AD and cannot be rebuilt because the true temple (Christ and his Church) has come. Ye are the Temple of God. From a Christian perspective, it is obviously all figurative. You are twisting words again, looking for ways to force your interpretation by suggesting "plant sacrifices." That totally misses the point. The WHOLE FIRST COVENANT JEWISH SYSTEM ENDED with the coming of Christ. That's why God destroyed the Temple. That's why there is no promise of a rebuilt temple. The old carnal (physical) Temple had to die to make room for the True Temple (Christ and his Body, the Church). How are we to identify; "all the pots in Jerusalem being like the bowls before the altar"? You have taken the word sacrifice and seethe and presumed they are speaking of sacrifices for sin. Although I mentioned plants, it by no means excludes animal sacrifice. The only exception and I agree with you that Jesus has abolished the need for animal sacrifice. Of course, if you do not see Jesus returning to earth to set up God's kingdom and restore the earth to its former glory, then the picture you have of the future is far different to mine. I do not see the killing of animals for food abolished. The word "seethe" does not have to relate to animal sacrifices. What proof do you have?
I am no more twisting words than you appeart to be doing. It can be argued that the old covenant with Israel was not totally removed. It was certainly broken by Israel not long after it was given. The new covenant in the blood of Jesus can be regarded as a renewed covenant. Some things in the law were no longer necessary. Until we can all live by the spirit and the law is innate, the law has not been done away with. The law was summed up in the two great commanments spoken by Jesus.
Your interpretations have no natural coherence with any Big Picture. You force words here and there to make things fit, but then they are totally out of harmony with the rest of the Bible. It's like you've never even heard that the PHYSICAL THINGS of the OT were symbols of the SPIRITUAL THINGS of the NT. This blows my mind. It's like you've never read the Bible with any understanding at all. I have no idea what you think is the big picture. I do not know what you think the ultimate purpose of God is and how God will accomplish that purpose.
There you go again! Making HUGE BOASTING CLAIMS without any evidence! Your words are FALSE! You have not shown that I have presented any misinformation. You have not shown that I have "misguided" anyone. You have never shown that anything I have written is "wrong." Yes I have, but I am unable to search the database and I am not wasting my time even if I could.
You now have now OBLIGATED yourself to either 1) present evidence that supports your claims, or 2) admit your claims are false. If you fail to do one of those two things you will be exposing yourself to be a liar. How do I get access to the database?
I do not claim to be "Mr. Perfect." That is absurd. All I claim is that you blatantly violated the most elementary rules of logic. For example, you explicitly declared that you "do not disagree" with the Law of Non-Contradiction even as you rejected both P and Not P! So quit complaining. All you need to do is show that you understand basic logic. I have given my reasons for refuting your logic and I am not going to repeat myself here.
Anyone is free to challenge my logic. You are just upset because I have PROVEN your errors and you refuse to admit the truth and you can't prove me wrong because I'm right on this point. I am not upset and I stand by what I have said.
And again you made another baseless assertions when you said you could not let my "mistakes" pass. What mistakes are you talking about? Where have you exposed any "error" of mine? I am unable to search the database, so until I can, the record stands. I cannot afford the time to trawl through the post. Should I stumble on an example, I will store if for future reference.
I am no "authority." My words are strong only because they are founded on LOGIC AND FACTS. They are founded on the solid rock of reality. Your words are weak because they have no foundation. They have no basis. They are just baseless claims that you repeat over and over and over without every presenting any FACTS to back them up. None of your facts are convincing. It is not only me you have to convince. I will accept your facts when they are sound.
You need to quit making baseless assertions and start providing EVIDENCE for your claims. I am reasoning from the Bible. Wether the Bible is fact or fiction, we have to understand what the authors intended us to understand. Let our argument rest on what the scripture says
So you are saying that "my way" is the way of logic and facts? That's all I've ever demanded of you. I know what you want, I do not have to agree.
I have answered a hundred of your questions for every one of mine that you've answered. You habitually ignore my questions. I diligently seek to answer yours. And the few times I choose to ignore them is when they are obviously off-track and/or designed to evade the real issues. My questions have not been to deliberately misguide you. You have avoided answering some of my questions. Maybe that should be a rule we stick to and answer every question in a post that is identified with a question mark. I know I have inadvertantly missed off the question mark at times.
I see your tactic now. You are MIMICKING my words, as if I were doing the things you have been doing for the last seven months. Anyone interested can discover the truth in short order. All they have to do is look at this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3352-God-s-will-is-done-in-Heaven&p=53355#post53355) where I showed that you had repeatedly ignored my questions post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post... for seven long months! And now you want to pervert all truth and reality and spit your false assertions in my face? The Dude abides, but he don't abide that shit.
Now you are turning the tables on me to exonerate yourself from all that I and others have accused you of doing. You offered the chance of a fresh start, why don't you take it and stop this tirade.
Unless we agree to a set of rules when in discussion on this forum and we enforce the rules, I do not see any future in our conversations. We are diametrically opposed in our thinking and we shall for ever keep passing each other by. I will add my two-penny worth in threads and not be open to questioning from you. I have am not repeating that which has been posted already.
This is now the end of this thread for me and I am moving on to another thread, unless someone posts something which is on topic.
Our discussion has been taken off topic and my objective in this thread was to stay on topic, so this is the end of this discussion for me. I might have other replies from you in other threads and I shall do likewise and close of the discussions unless they are on topic.
All the best
David
Richard Amiel McGough
04-04-2013, 01:32 PM
I am not saying it is a rule, but that it sounds literal to me and I have given you my reason for thinking so. We all have our own "ideas".
OK. I asked because fundamentalists frequently assert that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16 was not a parable because it mentions Lazarus by name. I never found that argument convincing.
I agree, but that is not how most of the chapter 14 reads. There might be a small part of the chapter than can be described as figurative language.
I agree. That's why Zech 14 is probably just false. But from a Bible believing perspective, it needs to be interpreted figuratively to cohere with the rest of the Bible.
There is a BIG difference between the scattering after 70 AD and all the other scatterings. All the other scatterings had very specific lengths and PROMISED end dates associated with them. I explain this in my post called Continuity of Prophetic History confirms Preterism (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?617-Continuity-of-Prophetic-History-confirms-Preterism) that I wrote back in 2008 when I was still a Christian. The basic idea is that ALL the major events in the history of Israel were predicted with numerical precision with very specific end dates:
I do not agree all history confirms preterism. I do not remember you answering Twospirits to identify the "Abomination that makes desolate" to which Jesus was referring.
You are almost admitting the Bible is prophetic.
I am giving the best arguments from a Bible believing perspective. Most of those examples would not convince a rational skeptic because there is no evidence that the Exodus even happened, so it was not really "predicted" at all.
The best objective evidence is the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, and that's really ironic since most Christians reject it because it contradicts their futurism. If Christians reject it, why should skeptics believe it?
As for twospirits and the Abomination of Desolation - I didn't answer that for the reasons I gave. No one has any certain knowledge about what the abomination means, and Henry was refusing to be rational about something that could be determined, namely, the unity of the Olivet Discourse, so it would be absurd to chase him down the rabbit hole of the AoD.
That's it. There is NO PREDICTION or PROMISE in the Bible that says there would be any return after the scattering of 70 AD.
God would not have promised "not to make a full end" of Israel had he intended to keep them scattered for ever.
You have no right nor ability to declare what God would have done. My point stands.
And besides that, Jeremiah 30:11 was talking about the Babylonian exile. It is an error to apply it to the scattering of 70 AD. This has been explained to you at least twice. Why do you persist in your error?
Futurism fails on so many points I just can't imagine how anyone could believe it.
The same goes for preterism the way I see it. That is just our opposite opinions.
That's utterly absurd. There is no equivalence of any kind between Preterism and Futurism. Preterism is based on the "Big Picture" of what the Bible actually states in many mutually confirming verses. Futurism is based on fragments of verses ripped out of context and glued together with wild unbiblical speculations about things like a magical stretchy 2000+ year gap between Dan 9:26-27, the denial a the unity of Scripture (e.g. the Olivet Discourse), denial of the verses that explicitly state the end times was happening in the first century, etc., etc., etc. It is not a matter of mere opinion. It is a matter of fact.
How are we to identify; "all the pots in Jerusalem being like the bowls before the altar"? You have taken the word sacrifice and seethe and presumed they are speaking of sacrifices for sin. Although I mentioned plants, it by no means excludes animal sacrifice. The only exception and I agree with you that Jesus has abolished the need for animal sacrifice. Of course, if you do not see Jesus returning to earth to set up God's kingdom and restore the earth to its former glory, then the picture you have of the future is far different to mine. I do not see the killing of animals for food abolished. The word "seethe" does not have to relate to animal sacrifices. What proof do you have?
There is not a single passage in the Bible that says Jesus will return and rule on the earth for a thousand years. Rev 20 doesn't say where he rules, and all the other passages don't say anything about a thousand years. The doctrine is very weak and since it is contrary to many other passages, there is no good reason to build a doctrine upon it.
Your argument is a twisting of words because the text plainly speaks of sacrifices being seethed, which implies animal sacrifices. But there is a much bigger problem. You are trying to force an OT prophecy into something hyper literal even as you totally ignore the LITERAL meaning of the time pasages in the NT that plainly state that the end times happened in the first century. For example:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
Futurists must DENY the plain text, and then twist words about an OT prophecy that plainly speaks of animal sacrifices? I consider the Futurist game to be absurd in the extreme.
I am no more twisting words than you appeart to be doing. It can be argued that the old covenant with Israel was not totally removed. It was certainly broken by Israel not long after it was given. The new covenant in the blood of Jesus can be regarded as a renewed covenant. Some things in the law were no longer necessary. Until we can all live by the spirit and the law is innate, the law has not been done away with. The law was summed up in the two great commanments spoken by Jesus.
It all depends upon what you mean by Israel. Who were all the first Christians? They were obviously TRUE ISRAEL, that is, members of Israel that were true believers. The unbievers were not true Israel. God has only one covenant people. He calls them "Israel." Paul made this explicit when he said that Christians are the "circumcision" which is the technical biblical term for Israel. Israel because the church. Carnal Israel died.
The idea that the New Covenant is a "renewed covenant" is one of the most absurd teaching that Rood has popularized. And you just believe it because he told you? We KNOW it cannot be correct because the Bible contrasts the Old and New Covenants, and says the Old was "passing away." And there are many other reasons. You really need to think critically and not believe something just because Rood told you. He is one of the most ridiculous Bible teachers I've ever seen. I showed you some of his errors. For example, he teaches that the scroll in Rev 5 is the "title deed" of planet earth. The Bible doesn't teach anything like that. And he says the the rebellious fallen angel SATAN is actually HOLDING the title deed! Here is what he wrote on page 7 of his book "The Mystery of Iniquity":
Satan is now holding fast to his authority in the heavens which allows him access before the throne of God where he now positions himself as the "accuser of the brethren." Satan's purposes and methodology are exposed in Revelation 12 (verse 10), and the book of Job (1:6-2:7) where he is depicted in both scenarios as the accuser before the throne, and the one who steals, kills, and destroys (John 10:10). Besides Satan's position as the accuser before the throne of God, by is deceptive wiles he also received the dominion of this world from the hand of Adam.
Adam originally received from God complete dominion and authority over the entire creation on earth (Gen 1:26). He also had dominion over Satan, but was "bribed" into a deal with Satan after Eve was seduced to sin. Now Satan legally holds the title deed to this world, a title and authority that was delivered to him by the original recipient, Adam. The same authority was offered to Y'shua by Satan, for the small price of worship.
Now the thing that really blows my mind is that you have sought desperately to twist even Rood's words to fit your doctrine that there are no fallen angels. Rather than deal with the plain truth, you try to conform his words to fit your preconceived doctrines, just like you do with the Bible.
There you go again! Making HUGE BOASTING CLAIMS without any evidence! Your words are FALSE! You have not shown that I have presented any misinformation. You have not shown that I have "misguided" anyone. You have never shown that anything I have written is "wrong."
Yes I have, but I am unable to search the database and I am not wasting my time even if I could.
No, you have not. Your words are not only false, but ridiculous in the extreme.
And you can search the database using the search function just like everyone else. It works fine. It's what I use 99% of the time when I'm looking for old posts. I only used my direct access once long ago for a special purpose.
You really need to stop making false and unsupported accusations David. You need to either state (from memory) exactly WHAT you corrected or admit that you don't really have any memory of it, let alone evidence. If you state what it was, I'll help you find the original post so we can all see the evidence. If you cannot support your words with evidence, you need to retract them or be exposed as someone willing to make accusations that are not supported by any evidence.
You now have now OBLIGATED yourself to either 1) present evidence that supports your claims, or 2) admit your claims are false. If you fail to do one of those two things you will be exposing yourself to be a liar.
How do I get access to the database?
Click the "Advanced Search" link on the right just under the navigation bar at the top of every page. Enter your search terms, and there you go.
But again, just tell me what you think you corrected me about, and I'll find the post for you. If you can't even remember what it was about, then you are admitting that you have no evidence at all and you need to acknowledge that fact.
I do not claim to be "Mr. Perfect." That is absurd. All I claim is that you blatantly violated the most elementary rules of logic. For example, you explicitly declared that you "do not disagree" with the Law of Non-Contradiction even as you rejected both P and Not P! So quit complaining. All you need to do is show that you understand basic logic.
I have given my reasons for refuting your logic and I am not going to repeat myself here.
There are no valid reasons for rejecting the Law of Non-Contradiction, let alone saying that you "do not disagree" with it even as you contradict it! I proved your error over and over and over again in a hundred posts, and you refuse to admit the truth. L67 bears witness to this fact. The only path to truth is to admit your error, and write a detailed explanation that shows you understand your error. As it stands, you comments are radically irrational. You just don't get it. Your answers to all my explanations are radically irrational. They are on the level of a person adamantly asserting that Yes = No and Up = Down and 1 + 2 = 33.7. They're just nuts David. You need to man up and deal with the truth.
And again you made another baseless assertions when you said you could not let my "mistakes" pass. What mistakes are you talking about? Where have you exposed any "error" of mine?
I am unable to search the database, so until I can, the record stands. I cannot afford the time to trawl through the post. Should I stumble on an example, I will store if for future reference.
I trust you now know how to search the database. Click the "Advanced Search" link just under the navigation bar, on the right.
And if you still have trouble, just tell me what you remember and I'll help you find it.
I am no "authority." My words are strong only because they are founded on LOGIC AND FACTS. They are founded on the solid rock of reality. Your words are weak because they have no foundation. They have no basis. They are just baseless claims that you repeat over and over and over without every presenting any FACTS to back them up.
None of your facts are convincing. It is not only me you have to convince. I will accept your facts when they are sound.
To assert that "none" of my facts are convincing is rank insanity. My facts on the level of "the earth is a globe" and my logic is on the level of "1 + 2 = 3." You rarely give any good reason for rejecting the logic and facts I have presented.
And the irony of it all is that you blindly believe biblical charlatans like Michael Rood that are easily exposed as frauds! :doh:
Unless we agree to a set of rules when in discussion on this forum and we enforce the rules, I do not see any future in our conversations. We are diametrically opposed in our thinking and we shall for ever keep passing each other by. I will add my two-penny worth in threads and not be open to questioning from you. I have am not repeating that which has been posted already.
This is now the end of this thread for me and I am moving on to another thread, unless someone posts something which is on topic.
Our discussion has been taken off topic and my objective in this thread was to stay on topic, so this is the end of this discussion for me. I might have other replies from you in other threads and I shall do likewise and close of the discussions unless they are on topic.
All the best
David
The "rules" are just the basic rules governing logic and facts. You know ... like the freaking LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION that you directly contradicted even as you said you "do not disagree" with it?!?! :doh:
So anyway, please use the search function to find the evidence supporting your claims, or tell me from memory of some time you "corrected" me and I will help you find it.
All the best,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
04-06-2013, 02:31 PM
Hey there David,
Did you forget about this thread?
Richard
:pop2:
David M
04-08-2013, 03:06 AM
Hello Richard
Again, this is way off the topic of this thread so I shall keep my reply short as I expect your agurments will come up again.
OK. I asked because fundamentalists frequently assert that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16 was not a parable because it mentions Lazarus by name. I never found that argument convincing. Good.
I agree. That's why Zech 14 is probably just false. But from a Bible believing perspective, it needs to be interpreted figuratively to cohere with the rest of the Bible.
If you agree, it is a pity "you think it is probably false". I see it as true.
I am giving the best arguments from a Bible believing perspective. Most of those examples would not convince a rational skeptic because there is no evidence that the Exodus even happened, so it was not really "predicted" at all. This is way off topic. And the Exodus is true. There is evindence to prove it, but this is not the time to carry on this topic in this thread.
The best objective evidence is the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, and that's really ironic since most Christians reject it because it contradicts their futurism. If Christians reject it, why should skeptics believe it? The Olivet discourse is also off track. I am not talking about what other Christians believe and making that an excuse. Also, I am not considering what skeptics think. Stop introducing the same old questions as excuses and get down to the facts that are the words in the Bible.
As for twospirits and the Abomination of Desolation - I didn't answer that for the reasons I gave. No one has any certain knowledge about what the abomination means, and Henry was refusing to be rational about something that could be determined, namely, the unity of the Olivet Discourse, so it would be absurd to chase him down the rabbit hole of the AoD. Well, don't answer Twospirits and answer me. I want to know what you personally think the A.O.D. is and if yoy have no answer, then you have to keep an open mind. That is not proof it has happened around AD70 if you cannot identify it. Stay on track!!
You have no right nor ability to declare what God would have done. My point stands. Rubbish statement
And besides that, Jeremiah 30:11 was talking about the Babylonian exile. It is an error to apply it to the scattering of 70 AD. This has been explained to you at least twice. Why do you persist in your error? You are off track and I have answered you on the point of Jeremiah and the return of Israel and Judah so keep your remarks in that thread and stop introducing these diversions.
That's utterly absurd. There is no equivalence of any kind between Preterism and Futurism. Preterism is based on the "Big Picture" of what the Bible actually states in many mutually confirming verses. Futurism is based on fragments of verses ripped out of context and glued together with wild unbiblical speculations about things like a magical stretchy 2000+ year gap between Dan 9:26-27, the denial a the unity of Scripture (e.g. the Olivet Discourse), denial of the verses that explicitly state the end times was happening in the first century, etc., etc., etc. It is not a matter of mere opinion. It is a matter of fact. This is off track and we have a totally different understanding of scripture. This can continue in the threads where this discussion belongs.
There is not a single passage in the Bible that says Jesus will return and rule on the earth for a thousand years. Rev 20 doesn't say where he rules, and all the other passages don't say anything about a thousand years. The doctrine is very weak and since it is contrary to many other passages, there is no good reason to build a doctrine upon it. There is vedry good reason, to believe Jesus is going to return, and I have no intention of pursuing that discussion here.
Your argument is a twisting of words because the text plainly speaks of sacrifices being seethed, which implies animal sacrifices. But there is a much bigger problem. You are trying to force an OT prophecy into something hyper literal even as you totally ignore the LITERAL meaning of the time pasages in the NT that plainly state that the end times happened in the first century. For example:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
Futurists must DENY the plain text, and then twist words about an OT prophecy that plainly speaks of animal sacrifices? I consider the Futurist game to be absurd in the extreme. [/QUOTE
The fact is you have a closed mind to accepting any other explanation which does not fit in with yours. End of discussion so long as you keep accusing me of twisting words when you have such a closed mind.
It all depends upon what you mean by Israel. Who were all the first Christians? They were obviously TRUE ISRAEL, that is, members of Israel that were true believers. The unbievers were not true Israel. God has only one covenant people. He calls them "Israel." Paul made this explicit when he said that Christians are the "circumcision" which is the technical biblical term for Israel. Israel because the church. Carnal Israel died. Pauls speaks about spiritual Israel and the gentiles are grafted in. Secular Israel is not the same. This is off topic so stay on track.
The idea that the New Covenant is a "renewed covenant" is one of the most absurd teaching that Rood has popularized. And you just believe it because he told you? We KNOW it cannot be correct because the Bible contrasts the Old and New Covenants, and says the Old was "passing away." And there are many other reasons. You really need to think critically and not believe something just because Rood told you. He is one of the most ridiculous Bible teachers I've ever seen. I showed you some of his errors. For example, he teaches that the scroll in Rev 5 is the "title deed" of planet earth. The Bible doesn't teach anything like that. And he says the the rebellious fallen angel SATAN is actually HOLDING the title deed! Here is what he wrote on page 7 of his book "The Mystery of Iniquity":
Satan is now holding fast to his authority in the heavens which allows him access before the throne of God where he now positions himself as the "accuser of the brethren." Satan's purposes and methodology are exposed in Revelation 12 (verse 10), and the book of Job (1:6-2:7) where he is depicted in both scenarios as the accuser before the throne, and the one who steals, kills, and destroys (John 10:10). Besides Satan's position as the accuser before the throne of God, by is deceptive wiles he also received the dominion of this world from the hand of Adam.
This is way of topic. I have an open mind about Rood and I am accepting some things. I have yet to hear everything from his own lips and that is what I base my judgement on. Not what might have been written about him or information that is old and he might have modified something which had been put in print years ago. As for what Satan is, this is a question I shall get to ask him and see what reply I get. Until then, all that I have heard him speak, he has not identified Satan.
Adam originally received from God complete dominion and authority over the entire creation on earth (Gen 1:26). He also had dominion over Satan, but was "bribed" into a deal with Satan after Eve was seduced to sin. Now Satan legally holds the title deed to this world, a title and authority that was delivered to him by the original recipient, Adam. The same authority was offered to Y'shua by Satan, for the small price of worship.
Now the thing that really blows my mind is that you have sought desperately to twist even Rood's words to fit your doctrine that there are no fallen angels. Rather than deal with the plain truth, you try to conform his words to fit your preconceived doctrines, just like you do with the Bible.
As I have said, I have yet to get some answers from Rood and then I shall comment. I did not listen to him expecting to agree with him on everything, so we shall have to wait and see.
No, you have not. Your words are not only false, but ridiculous in the extreme. As if your words are any better. Just stay on track and do us all a favor.
No, you have not. Your words are not only false, but ridiculous in the extreme. As if your words are any better. Just stay on track and do us all a And you can search the database using the search function just like everyone else. It works fine. It's what I use 99% of the time when I'm looking for old posts. I only used my direct access once long ago for a special purpose. [/QUOTE]
Please find the post where you gave a mysql equation for searching my posts. (This is off track anyway).
You really need to stop making false and unsupported accusations David. You need to either state (from memory) exactly WHAT you corrected or admit that you don't really have any memory of it, let alone evidence. If you state what it was, I'll help you find the original post so we can all see the evidence. If you cannot support your words with evidence, you need to retract them or be exposed as someone willing to make accusations that are not supported by any evidence.
Click the "Advanced Search" link on the right just under the navigation bar at the top of every page. Enter your search terms, and there you go.
But again, just tell me what you think you corrected me about, and I'll find the post for you. If you can't even remember what it was about, then you are admitting that you have no evidence at all and you need to acknowledge that fact.
I am not trawling through past post but if I happen to stumble upon anything I know I have written, I shall make make a note of it and keep a reference for future use.
There are no valid reasons for rejecting the Law of Non-Contradiction, let alone saying that you "do not disagree" with it even as you contradict it! I proved your error over and over and over again in a hundred posts, and you refuse to admit the truth. L67 bears witness to this fact. The only path to truth is to admit your error, and write a detailed explanation that shows you understand your error. As it stands, you comments are radically irrational. You just don't get it. Your answers to all my explanations are radically irrational. They are on the level of a person adamantly asserting that Yes = No and Up = Down and 1 + 2 = 33.7. They're just nuts David. You need to man up and deal with the truth. I have given my explanations in other threads and this is off track here.
I trust you now know how to search the database. Click the "Advanced Search" link just under the navigation bar, on the right.
And if you still have trouble, just tell me what you remember and I'll help you find it.
I do not get the results I expect when I search for words. I might get a thread listed and then I have to read through every post to find the one I want and if there are 100 posts, I find it impossible.
To assert that "none" of my facts are convincing is rank insanity. My facts on the level of "the earth is a globe" and my logic is on the level of "1 + 2 = 3." You rarely give any good reason for rejecting the logic and facts I have presented.
By "rarely" you mean I have given you at least one.
And the irony of it all is that you blindly believe biblical charlatans like Michael Rood that are easily exposed as frauds! :doh: I look for agreement, and will not agree with everyhting. That is what we can all do. I do not reject everything based on a little and I am suspect of what other people report.
The "rules" are just the basic rules governing logic and facts. You know ... like the freaking LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION that you directly contradicted even as you said you "do not disagree" with it?!?! :doh: stick with examples like "All dogs are mammals" and we agree.
So anyway, please use the search function to find the evidence supporting your claims, or tell me from memory of some time you "corrected" me and I will help you find it. If that is the only way I can search, then I will do it that way, but do not hold your breath while you wait.
All the best,
David
PS. Please stay on topic. I do not intend to get sidetracked as we do in practically every thread so far.
David M
04-08-2013, 03:36 AM
Hello Beck
Hi David,
The things you have not address is the continued flow of thoughts that Zech is given... (I say they are in an figurative language)...Like how would you explan to the readers in any literal sence that living waters are to flow out from Jerusalem? Well that's just after mentioning of the splitting of the mount of Olives and a cry to them to flee to the valley.
Also just becasue certain names are mentioned it don't make what is being said as an literal events. Consider Jesus often spoke in parables of certain men or of a certain rich man and give such names as Lazarus to a certain man. All along Luke maded note that Jesus was speaking of parables unto the Phraisees. (Luke 15:3), (Luke 16:1-31). that story 'parable' is in the same context of the Lost son, the lost coin within the continued parable.
I see Richard commented on this. I agree Lazarus could have been a fictitious person, but then Jesus uses everyday examples in the his parables for people to associate with.
The context of Jesus saying that his own disciples could move the mountain was by faith. What you are overlooking is the simple fact that they would never move a literal mountain by faith, but move 'this mountain' which was the high places of authority that would be casted down. Jesus said and likewise Paul made mentioned that they whom where transformed or quicken by the spirit of God hath been rasied to sit in heavnly places with Christ. (Eph 2:5-6) In such figurative language it was that they where replacing those kings and priest over Jerusalem. The Lord God have given them all power over the prince of darkness. This is how that mountain was removed and casted into the deepth of the sea, but it would only be done through faith.
That is one explanation of faith, but hardly expalins the splitting of the Mount of Olives. With enough time, you could literally remove a physical mountain even if as the Chinese proverb solution is to move int one stone at a time.
Think!!!! Why would Zech cry to those to run to the valley? If there was a literal earthquake that split the mountain why in the world would one to the low places. That's like running to where the earthquake had just split and made an low place....Reading this in a literal event makes no sence. Of course we have to see the compete sequence of events which mioght not be clearly seen at present. The valley created might be seen as a way of escape. God will give opportunity for those who see the signs to escape the destruction that is to come of Israel and Jerusalem a final time.
The book of Isaiah has many verses that parallel I just pick those that I thought was the most obvious. Also consider Isaiah 2:1-4 ....I laugh when JW comes to my home and attemp to use Isaiah reference of beating swords into plowshares to make their claim that one day there will be no more war... Now that not understanding figurative language.
It does say in that chapter of Isaiah; neither shall they learn war any more. I would like to know when this has happened. Nations are learning about war and how they sell defeat their enemies all of the time. When does this reversal begin?
Well lets see....Zech 13:1 prophecies of 'in that day' there will be a fountain for the sins of the people of Jerusalem. Shall I assume that to be an literal fountain of water since a proper name was used and a place was given as in Jerusalem. What would be the need for Jesus to come if this prophesy was of a literal fountain of water for the remission of sins?
Even when Jesus has returned, there will people who have not believed. There will be children born who grow up not to believe and yet might come to believe. There will be people who sin and will need some way of proivng their repentance for the forgiveness of their sins. We are talking of a different age to this present age and the role of Christ is somwhat different as it is now. We do not have a clear understanding in detail of how Christ will rule. It is not made any clearer by those who say Christ is ruling now from Heaven.
To do the will of the Father you must first die to self. What Zech is showing that those come to worship the Lord will be poured out the latter rain in so that their 'pot' cup will not be able to hold it that it would run down to be bottom of the altar like that of the bowls before the altar at the dedication. Fill my cup O lord fill it Full.... I am not sure this is the way Ricahrd is interpreting those verses. What do you associate the "seething" with. Why are all the jars in Jerusalem like the bowls before the altar? I do not profess to have the answer and that is why I am open to opinions about this particular verse. It does not detract from condsidering the splitting of the Mount of Olives as literal.
All the best
David
Hello Beck
I see Richard commented on this. I agree Lazarus could have been a fictitious person, but then Jesus uses everyday examples in the his parables for people to associate with.
Hey David,
I just wanted to give you an example of Jesus using a proper name in a parable. That in itself dosen't make the name a real person only that 'names' in the Jewish custom was to give a meaning behind them. Jesus seems to be imploying the same as the other parables and used Lazarus (Eliezer, Eliazar) to denote the opposite of the rich man.
That is one explanation of faith, but hardly expalins the splitting of the Mount of Olives. With enough time, you could literally remove a physical mountain even if as the Chinese proverb solution is to move int one stone at a time.
That might just take their life time and many others....I hardly think that is what Jesus meant.
It does say in that chapter of Isaiah; neither shall they learn war any more. I would like to know when this has happened. Nations are learning about war and how they sell defeat their enemies all of the time. When does this reversal begin?
David I think it's the time of planting seed for the harvest figuratively. Jesus and his disciples wasn't fighting with swords, but with the word of God as their sword. (Matt.13:1-43) Instead of fighting with swords in the physical army they overcame by planting seed as the vineyard hubandmen and fishermen of men. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood...but against powers and rulers of this world..(Eph.6:12). They learned not to make war, but to love thy neighbor.
I am not sure this is the way Ricahrd is interpreting those verses. What do you associate the "seething" with. Why are all the jars in Jerusalem like the bowls before the altar? I do not profess to have the answer and that is why I am open to opinions about this particular verse. It does not detract from condsidering the splitting of the Mount of Olives as literal.
First of all this chapter deals with a judgment day upon Jerusalem and in that day peoples will come to Jerusalem to worship the Lord God and it would be an time of Tabernacle unto God. It is in this theme of Tabernacles that Zech relates the coming together of God's people (Isaiah 2:1-4). It is as when the rain falls it brings life, but to those not coming no rain hints no more life, but death judgment. To those that come and worship their pots 'cups, vessels' will be maded fill in the House of God (Tabernacle) by his Holy Spirit being poured out as the latter rain. Here again Zech is using figurative language to describe a time of coming to the house of God and paralleling it as the day feastival of Tabernacles. Every pot will be maded Holy and separted unto God's for his holy work. The 'seething' is to boil. They were to be used as a Holy vessel unto God. Zech has drawn a parallel to that of the House of God to that of his People being maded Holy and to do the will of the Father.
We only need to read this chapter like much of the other chapters in Zech as being figurative. You have not attempted to address the part of Living Waters shall flow out from Jerusalem. Is this to also be taken literally? What then is Living Waters?
David M
04-09-2013, 03:05 AM
Hello Beck
Hey David,
David I think it's the time of planting seed for the harvest figuratively. Jesus and his disciples wasn't fighting with swords, but with the word of God as their sword. (Matt.13:1-43) Instead of fighting with swords in the physical army they overcame by planting seed as the vineyard hubandmen and fishermen of men. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood...but against powers and rulers of this world..(Eph.6:12). They learned not to make war, but to love thy neighbor.
I think it is good when we can see lessons in scripture that can be applied in our own lives. The same lessons applied to all generations and to those who understood the lessons to be learned. So we have spiritual lessons to be learn from what we read as well as applying the words of scripture to specific times and events.
First of all this chapter deals with a judgment day upon Jerusalem and in that day peoples will come to Jerusalem to worship the Lord God and it would be an time of Tabernacle unto God. It is in this theme of Tabernacles that Zech relates the coming together of God's people (Isaiah 2:1-4). It is as when the rain falls it brings life, but to those not coming no rain hints no more life, but death judgment. To those that come and worship their pots 'cups, vessels' will be maded fill in the House of God (Tabernacle) by his Holy Spirit being poured out as the latter rain. Here again Zech is using figurative language to describe a time of coming to the house of God and paralleling it as the day feastival of Tabernacles. Every pot will be maded Holy and separted unto God's for his holy work. The 'seething' is to boil. They were to be used as a Holy vessel unto God. Zech has drawn a parallel to that of the House of God to that of his People being maded Holy and to do the will of the Father.
We are talikng after the time Jerusalem has come under the final seige. Now Zechariah is talking about the ONE king who is over all the earth and whose throne in another verse we learn is in Jerusalem from where the law goes forth. The law that the people must keep.
Zechariah 14
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one. 10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses. 11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
This is speaking of the time when Jerusalem will finally be at peace, the peace we do well to pray for, for peace will not come to Jerusalem until Jesus returns. No-one will defeat the king over all the earth reigning from Jerusalem. Once again, the words of Zechariah are very specific naming places and things which will happen. There might be a spiritual lesson to come from this, but spiritual lessons have nothing to do with whether the kanguage is figurative or literal.
We only need to read this chapter like much of the other chapters in Zech as being figurative. You have not attempted to address the part of Living Waters shall flow out from Jerusalem. Is this to also be taken literally? What then is Living Waters? Sorry, I missed that off, although I did look up more references and forgot to bring them into my reply. I will do so here. There are only 4 verses in which the phrase occurs. You might be able to tell me if the original Hebrew words are the same in every occurrence:-
(Song of Solomon 5:15) A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.
(Jeremiah 2:13) For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
(Jeremiah 17:13) O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.
(Zechariah 14:8) And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
In the first three references, God is represented as the "fountain" of "living waters". It is the same as Jesus says; (John 4:14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting These are the same words which Jesus told his disciples; (John 15:15) for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. and they are the words that have come to us and give us eternal life to come. The word fountain does not appear in Zechariah, so I regard this as not identical to the other three references.
(Amos 1:2) The LORD will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; (Micah 4:2) for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. I let you see the similarity between those two verses. Both events will take place once Jesus is set up as the King ruling as God from Jerusalem.
Living waters in a figurative sense will flow from Jerusalem, but also waters will flow to make the land bloom as it has not bloomed before. As I write this, I have in mind that picture you will see of the rock in Arabia which is said to be the rock Moses struck and God brought forth water. That rock is an enormous rock that is split down the middle and water at one time gushed up from the middle and produced a lake capable of supplying 2 million people and their cattle. I think we are given the same picture of toipography of the land being changed and the rivers will flow to the west and the east. Again, the words of Zechariah are very specific. Why to the east and west? Why not in all directions? Is it due to the physical topography of the land? We also are given an indication that seedtime and harvest continue and that God's watering the physical land will continue and not be dependent on the seasons.
If the transformation of the land of Israel, made to bloom after the return of the Jews to the land, is a fraction of what the land will be like after Jesus returns, then the continuous supply of water required to water the whole of the land, which the Jews are presently working to make happen, God will make that provision in the future.
Revelation 21:2 speaks in figurative language in which a river flows; In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. This is part of the prophetic image of the new Jerusalem, which is of God (heavenly). The language in this passage of Revelation is figurative and not specific in physical terms; the way the prophecy of Zechariah is.
As for the word "seething" I take it you do not see this part of the prophecy in the same way as Richard does, or do you?
All the best
David
Hello Beck
I think it is good when we can see lessons in scripture that can be applied in our own lives. The same lessons applied to all generations and to those who understood the lessons to be learned. So we have spiritual lessons to be learn from what we read as well as applying the words of scripture to specific times and events.
Hey David,
I probably will be short in my reply since I feel that I have given ample responses already.
Sorry, I missed that off, although I did look up more references and forgot to bring them into my reply. I will do so here. There are only 4 verses in which the phrase occurs. You might be able to tell me if the original Hebrew words are the same in every occurrence:-
(Song of Solomon 5:15) A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.
(Jeremiah 2:13) For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
(Jeremiah 17:13) O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.
(Zechariah 14:8) And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
In the first three references, God is represented as the "fountain" of "living waters". It is the same as Jesus says; (John 4:14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting These are the same words which Jesus told his disciples; (John 15:15) for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. and they are the words that have come to us and give us eternal life to come. The word fountain does not appear in Zechariah, so I regard this as not identical to the other three references.
You say that they are the same as Jesus said, but then say you regard them as different. Which are they figurative or literally? Also 'fountain' is found in Zech it's in Zech 13:1 which speaks of 'in that day' same same chapters 12, 13 and 14 all say it's in that day.
(Amos 1:2) The LORD will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; (Micah 4:2) for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. I let you see the similarity between those two verses. Both events will take place once Jesus is set up as the King ruling as God from Jerusalem.
Living waters in a figurative sense will flow from Jerusalem, but also waters will flow to make the land bloom as it has not bloomed before. As I write this, I have in mind that picture you will see of the rock in Arabia which is said to be the rock Moses struck and God brought forth water. That rock is an enormous rock that is split down the middle and water at one time gushed up from the middle and produced a lake capable of supplying 2 million people and their cattle. I think we are given the same picture of toipography of the land being changed and the rivers will flow to the west and the east. Again, the words of Zechariah are very specific. Why to the east and west? Why not in all directions? Is it due to the physical topography of the land? We also are given an indication that seedtime and harvest continue and that God's watering the physical land will continue and not be dependent on the seasons.
I highligted in bold that you are saying and agreeing that Living waters was in a figurative sence. Glad we could come to that agreement.
Revelation 21:2 speaks in figurative language in which a river flows; In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. This is part of the prophetic image of the new Jerusalem, which is of God (heavenly). The language in this passage of Revelation is figurative and not specific in physical terms; the way the prophecy of Zechariah is.
But it give proper names as in the streets of the New Jerusalem and give desciptions of on both sides of the rivers. Now you what to say that these are different? Just becasue you don't what to come to acknowledge that they both are written in figurative langauges.
As for the word "seething" I take it you do not see this part of the prophecy in the same way as Richard does, or do you?
All the best
David
I'm not sure how Richard understands this part of Zech. I don't recall ever him speaking about it.
David M
04-10-2013, 03:51 AM
Hello Beck
Hey David,
I probably will be short in my reply since I feel that I have given ample responses already.
I agree we have both given ample responses and we agree on some things and differ on others. One interpretation often depends on how we interpret something else and since there are a number of separate topics it is possible to have different understandings, this is the cause for the many different interpretations and understandings. Two wrongs make for right in some people's book.
You say that they are the same as Jesus said, but then say you regard them as different. Which are they figurative or literally? Also 'fountain' is found in Zech it's in Zech 13:1 which speaks of 'in that day' same same chapters 12, 13 and 14 all say it's in that day. The first three use figurative language. The last one I regard "living streams" as liiteral rivers. A spiritual sense can also apply so in that sense it can be seen as figurative. I do not exclude the literal for saying it has spiritual connotations.
I highligted in bold that you are saying and agreeing that Living waters was in a figurative sence. Glad we could come to that agreement. Its good we do not disagree on everything.
But it give proper names as in the streets of the New Jerusalem and give desciptions of on both sides of the rivers. Now you what to say that these are different? Just becasue you don't what to come to acknowledge that they both are written in figurative langauges.
Please give me the names you are thinking of. I cannot find names in the verse I was referring to. Here is the verse; (Rev. 22:1) And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
I'm not sure how Richard understands this part of Zech. I don't recall ever him speaking about it. Richard felt obliged to respond to my reply to you. Here is Richard's reply in which he siezes upon the word "seethe" to wrongly associate (IMO) with animal sacrifices for sin;
Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
You ignored the rest of the passage!
Zechariah 14:20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
That is speaking about ANIMAL SACRIFICES that are seethed. And the phrase "House of the Lord" refers to the Temple. It was destroyed in 70 AD and cannot be rebuilt because the true temple (Christ and his Church) has come. Ye are the Temple of God. From a Christian perspective, it is obviously all figurative. You are twisting words again, looking for ways to force your interpretation by suggesting "plant sacrifices." That totally misses the point. The WHOLE FIRST COVENANT JEWISH SYSTEM ENDED with the coming of Christ. That's why God destroyed the Temple. That's why there is no promise of a rebuilt temple. The old carnal (physical) Temple had to die to make room for the True Temple (Christ and his Body, the Church).
All the best
David
Hello Beck
The first three use figurative language. The last one I regard "living streams" as liiteral rivers. A spiritual sense can also apply so in that sense it can be seen as figurative. I do not exclude the literal for saying it has spiritual connotations.
So do you acknowledge that Zech speaks of a fountain? And also do you think that there are such passages as one part to be literal and the next figurative? I know of the use of parallelism, but never saw any using one part literal and the next part figurative...Do you? If we can agree that in Zech 14 usage of the living waters as being figurative then why would you concluse that the splitting of the Mount as literal?
Please give me the names you are thinking of. I cannot find names in the verse I was referring to. Here is the verse; (Rev. 22:1) And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
The pervious verses mentioned Jerusalem from which you have the street, the river of life and tree of life on each side. (Rev.21:10) Jerusalem is a proper name one such as Zech uses (Zech 14:8) from which the living waters flow from Jerusalem. Now is the river and street in Revelation literal or figurative language? Now consider Zech and the mention of the mount of Olives to be split as literal or figurative? I hope you can see how these both are written in the figurative sence.
Richard felt obliged to respond to my reply to you. Here is Richard's reply in which he siezes upon the word "seethe" to wrongly associate (IMO) with animal sacrifices for sin;
All the best
David
I agree with Richard he said "it is obviously all figurative". Yes as I said it was a picture of the feastival of Tabernacle which includes offerings and sarcifices to God. Zech is saying that every pot in Jerusalem will be made holy and used for God not only those at the altar. The implcation of this is that everyone will be a vessel unto God and maded holy to recieve the Holy Spirit. Know you not that you body is the Temple [Tabernacle] of God.
Richard Amiel McGough
04-10-2013, 04:33 PM
You say that they are the same as Jesus said, but then say you regard them as different. Which are they figurative or literally? Also 'fountain' is found in Zech it's in Zech 13:1 which speaks of 'in that day' same same chapters 12, 13 and 14 all say it's in that day.
The first three use figurative language. The last one I regard "living streams" as liiteral rivers. A spiritual sense can also apply so in that sense it can be seen as figurative. I do not exclude the literal for saying it has spiritual connotations.
That strikes me as very strange. Why would anyone interpret the phrase "living waters" literally? In Jeremiah, God uses that phrase figuratively to describe himself:
Jeremiah 2:13 "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, And hewn themselves cisterns -- broken cisterns that can hold no water.
Here God is describing himself as the "fountain of living waters." Likewise, he repeats himself later in the same book:
Jeremiah 17:13 O LORD, the hope of Israel, All who forsake You shall be ashamed. "Those who depart from Me Shall be written in the earth, Because they have forsaken the LORD, The fountain of living waters."
Exactly the same phrase is used in all three passages:
Zechariah 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
The New Testament explains what the living waters really are:
John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
And this is the water Christ promised to the woman by the well:
John 4:10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." 11 The woman said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? 12 "Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?" 13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."
Likewise, the fountains of water in both Zechariah 13 are obviously figurative:
Zechariah 13:1 "In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.
Of course, the fact that figurative language is used doesn't mean it is not referring to a literal historical event, in this case the crucifixion of Christ, which happened "in that day" - meaning the first century coming of Messiah.
I see no justification for interpreting Zechariah 14 as yet future. It is naturally understood just like all the other prophecies concerning the first century coming of Messiah, and his judgment upon Jerusalem in 70 AD. Indeed, that is demanded by context, as we can see when it speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem in the context of the crucifixion of Messiah:
Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11 "In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.
This coheres perfectly, of course, with the prophecy of Daniel 9 (sans the magical stretchy 2000+ year gap):
Daniel 9:25 "Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. 26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."
Is that not what happened? First the Messiah was killed and then about 40 years later the city and the sanctuary were destroyed, exactly as Christ warned in the Olivet Discourse:
Luke 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 "For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.
And on and on it goes. This is why I say Preterism coheres with what the Bible actually states so much better than Futurism. Almost all Futurists admit that Luke was talking about the destruction of 70 AD. The only way then can then force their Futurist doctrine is to shred its unity with the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark which is utterly impossible as I proved in my famous post #3 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3008-The-quot-Already-Not-Yet-quot-Interpretation-of-Eschatology&p=43310#post43310) that no one can refute (as explained in my victory post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2841-Preterism-in-the-21-Century&p=49824#post49824)).
I highligted in bold that you are saying and agreeing that Living waters was in a figurative sence. Glad we could come to that agreement.
Its good we do not disagree on everything.
I'd like to get in on some of that agreement! :D
Richard felt obliged to respond to my reply to you. Here is Richard's reply in which he siezes upon the word "seethe" to wrongly associate (IMO) with animal sacrifices for sin;
You ignored the rest of the passage!
Zechariah 14:20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
That is speaking about ANIMAL SACRIFICES that are seethed. And the phrase "House of the Lord" refers to the Temple. It was destroyed in 70 AD and cannot be rebuilt because the true temple (Christ and his Church) has come. Ye are the Temple of God. From a Christian perspective, it is obviously all figurative. You are twisting words again, looking for ways to force your interpretation by suggesting "plant sacrifices." That totally misses the point. The WHOLE FIRST COVENANT JEWISH SYSTEM ENDED with the coming of Christ. That's why God destroyed the Temple. That's why there is no promise of a rebuilt temple. The old carnal (physical) Temple had to die to make room for the True Temple (Christ and his Body, the Church).
I don't recall feeling "obliged." I just felt like answering that point, that's all. And you have not, to my knowledge, refuted my point, let alone shown any understanding of the New Testament teachings concerning the symbolic meanings of the OT symbols like the Temple, the sacrifices, and so forth which you are erroneously assuming to be LITERAL. The Book of Hebrews explains the meaning of the OT symbols:
Hebrews 9:8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience -- 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
The message could be no clearer. The Temple and sacrifices were SYMBOLS of the "better things to come" with Christ. This is repeated:
Hebrews 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
And it is repeated again by Paul:
Colossians 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
The whole Futurist paradigm denies the plain teaching of the NT on countless points, especially in the HYPER-LITERAL interpretation of the symbols that were fulfilled in Christ and the Church.
Now think about this. All these many verses I've quoted in this one little post are only the tip of the iceberg of many mutually confirming verses that establish the Preterist view. This is why I keep saying we need to count up the "score" for the two systems. The "score" is the number of clear and unambiguous mutually confirming passages that support your view minus the number that you must "explain away" (or ignore). I'm pretty sure the answer will be ten thousand to one in favor of Preterism. We really should try it.
Great chatting,
Richard
David M
04-23-2013, 12:46 AM
Hello Richard
I am not going to reply to every reference you have given. I see what you are doing, but it is wrong to make every reference to "living waters" or "living streams" of "living fountains" etc all mean the same thing. Zechariah 14 has far more literal content mentioning specific names and places to be taken figuratively. I have heard the arguments and those who associate the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans seem to be forgetting and not explaining the destruction that comes about by the Gogan invasion. Hence Ezelekiel's prophecies have to be taken into account.
I wanted this thread to stay focussed on the Mount of Olives and the splitting of. You and Beck have stated your understanding and readers can make up their mind. I am not going to get sidetracked into other areas which have and can be discussed again in a new thread.
To conclude my contribution on this subject, I did a Google search for "Zechariah 14" and on the first page found two links in which opposite views are expressed. I am simply going to paste what I found and leave it at that. I see the Preterist position is forced as much as you think my position is forced, but for the reason stated above, I am also taking other prophecies into account, which I have not seen explained from the Preterist side.
Here is the first extract from a Preterist website: http://planetpreterist.com/content/day-lord-zechariah-14
As to what the splitting of the Mount of Olives symbolizes, I believe the seventeenth-century Puritan, Matthew Henry was on the right track:
These verses are dark and hard to be understood; but divers good expositors take this to be the meaning of them: God will carefully inspect Jerusalem, even then when the enemies of it are laying it waste: His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, whence he may take a full view of the city and temple, Mk. 13:3 . . . The partition-wall between Jews and Gentiles shall be taken away. The mountains about Jerusalem, and particularly this [the Mount of Olives], signified it to be an enclosure, and that it stood in the way of those who would approach to it. Between the Gentiles and Jerusalem this mountain of Bether, of division, stood, Cant. 2:17. But by the destruction of Jerusalem this mountain shall be made to cleave in the midst, and so the Jewish pale shall be taken down, and the church laid in common with the Gentiles, who were made one with the Jews by the breaking down of this middle wall of partition, Eph. 2:14. Who art thou, O great mountain? . . . A new and living way shall be opened to the new Jerusalem, both to see it and to come into it. The mountain being divided, one-half towards the north and the other half towards the south, there shall be a very great valley, that is, a broad way of communication opened between Jerusalem and the Gentile world, by which the Gentiles shall have free admission into the gospel-Jerusalem, and the word of the Lord, that goes forth from Jerusalem, shall have a free course into the Gentile world. Thus the way of the Lord is prepared, for every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and plain and pleasant valleys shall come in the room of them, Isa. 40:4. 6
Henry’s suggestion that the Mount of Olives splitting speaks of the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile being broken down fits well with the symbol of the sea (the abode of the Gentiles) ceasing to exist and the whole world becoming the Land at AD 70 (Rev. 21:1-2)
Here is the comment from a non-preterist website; http://lamblion.com/articles/articles_issues13.php
Zechariah 14
Fact or fiction?
by Dr. David R. Reagan
When I was about 12 years old, I stumbled across Zechariah 14. It was an amazing discovery.
You see, I grew up in a church where we were told over and over that "there is not one verse in the Bible that even implies that Jesus will ever set His feet on this earth again."
Simple Language
Well, Zechariah 14 not only implies that the Lord is coming back to this earth again, it says so point blank! The passage is written in simple language that any ten year old can understand.
It says that the Lord will return to this earth at a time when the Jews are back in the land of Israel and their capital city, Jerusalem, is under siege. Just as the city is about to fall, the Lord will return to the Mt. of Olives.
When His feet touch the ground, the mount will split in half. The remnant of Jews left in the city will take refuge in the cleavage of the mountain. The Lord will then speak a supernatural word, and the armies surrounding Jerusalem will be destroyed in an instant. Verse 9 then declares that on that day "the Lord will become king over all the earth."
A Muddled Interpretation
When I first discovered this remarkable passage, I took it to my minister and asked him what it meant. I will never forget his response. He thought for a moment, and then He said, "Son I don't know what it means, but I'll guarantee you one thing: it doesn't mean what it says!"
For years after that, I would show Zechariah 14 to every visiting evangelist who came to town preaching that Jesus would never return to this earth. I always received the same response: "It doesn't mean what it says." That response did not satisfy me.
A Sophisticated Interpretation
Finally, I ran across a minister who was a seminary graduate, and he gave me the answer I could live with. "Nothing in Zechariah means what it says," he explained, "because the whole book is apocalyptic."
Now, I didn't have the slightest idea what "apocalyptic" meant. I didn't know if it was a disease or a philosophy. But it sounded sophisticated, and, after all, the fellow was seminary graduate, so he should know.
A Discovery Experience
When I began to preach, I parroted what I had heard from the pulpit all my life. When I spoke on prophecy, I would always make the point that Jesus will never return to this earth. Occasionally, some person would come up after the sermon and ask, "What about Zechariah 14?" I would snap back at them with one word, "APOCALYPTIC!" They would usually run for the door in fright.
Then one day I sat down and read the whole book of Zechariah. And guess what? My entire argument went down the drain! I discovered that the book contains many prophecies about the first coming of Jesus, and I discovered that all those prophecies meant what they said. It suddenly occurred to me that if Zechariah's first coming propheciesmeant what they said, then why don't his second coming promises mean what they say?
The Plain Sense Rule
That was the day that I stopped playing games with God's Prophetic Word. I started accepting it for its plain sense meaning. I decided that if the plain sense makes sense, I would look for no other sense, lest I end up with nonsense.
A good example of the nonsense approach is found in the book, The Millennium, by Loraine Boettner. He spiritualizes all of Zechariah 14. He argues that the Mt. of Olives is symbolic of the human heart surrounded by evil. When a person accepts Jesus as Savior, Jesus comes into the person's life and stands on his "Mt. of Olives" (his heart). The person's heart breaks in contrition (the cleaving of the mountain), and Jesus then defeats the enemy forces in the person's life.
I would suggest that this theologian should be given an honorary doctorate in imagination! When people insist on spiritualizing the scriptures like this, then the scriptures end up meaning whatever they want them to mean.
Keys to Understanding
I believe God knows how to communicate. I believe He says what He means and means what He says. I don't believe you have to have a doctorate in Hermeneutics to understand the Bible. The essentials, instead, are an honest heart and the filling of God's Spirit.
I ask you: How do you treat Zechariah 14 — as fact or fiction?
Thus says the Lord: "I will return to Zion and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth, and the mountain of the Lord of hosts will be called the Holy Mountain." (Zechariah 8:3)
All the best
David
Richard Amiel McGough
04-23-2013, 12:22 PM
Hello Richard
I am not going to reply to every reference you have given. I see what you are doing, but it is wrong to make every reference to "living waters" or "living streams" of "living fountains" etc all mean the same thing. Zechariah 14 has far more literal content mentioning specific names and places to be taken figuratively. I have heard the arguments and those who associate the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans seem to be forgetting and not explaining the destruction that comes about by the Gogan invasion. Hence Ezelekiel's prophecies have to be taken into account.
Good morning David,
Inconsistency is the first sign of a forced interpretation. On the one hand, you interpret every reference to Satan and the Devil - no matter how "literal" and including specific names and places - and declare them all "figurative" because that is what you want to believe. Then when it comes to Zechariah 14 you do exactly the opposite even though we know that "living water" is frequently used figuratively. And why? Because that's what you want to believe. Therefore, your interpretation is entirely subjective. It is not based on any principles, but is arbitrarily forced to fit your preconceived presuppositions. This means that you are not interested in any evidence so there certainly is no reason for us to debate this topic. You simply believe what you want, and there's no way to argue with that! :p
And FYI - I never said we should take "every reference" in the same sense.
All the best,
Richard
David M
04-25-2013, 03:21 AM
Good morning David,
Inconsistency is the first sign of a forced interpretation. On the one hand, you interpret every reference to Satan and the Devil - no matter how "literal" and including specific names and places - and declare them all "figurative" because that is what you want to believe. Then when it comes to Zechariah 14 you do exactly the opposite even though we know that "living water" is frequently used figuratively. And why? Because that's what you want to believe. Therefore, your interpretation is entirely subjective. It is not based on any principles, but is arbitrarily forced to fit your preconceived presuppositions. This means that you are not interested in any evidence so there certainly is no reason for us to debate this topic. You simply believe what you want, and there's no way to argue with that! :p
And FYI - I never said we should take "every reference" in the same sense.
All the best,
Richard
Hello Richard
I do try to be consistent and get passages into context. It is wrong to force fit translations using similar words to all mean the same thing. The Devil, Satan, The Serpent on personifications and do not come into this conversation about the splitting of the Mount of Olives.
For one who has been trying to force me to accept a preconceived idea in the thread 'Can God's Angels In Heaven Be Trusted?', it is ripe of you to make such a claim about me. I am interested in all evidence, but you have to show me evidence I can accept. The evidence you think you are giving me is not good enough and to me is not evidence.
You might not have said; "every reference", but those you gave, you obviously expect me to take in the same sense.
David
Richard Amiel McGough
04-25-2013, 10:48 AM
Hello Richard
I do try to be consistent and get passages into context. It is wrong to force fit translations using similar words to all mean the same thing. The Devil, Satan, The Serpent on personifications and do not come into this conversation about the splitting of the Mount of Olives.
Good morning David,
We agree that consistency is important. I was simply showing that you are not being consistent. You are not using the same principles when arguing the Devil is figurative and Zechariah 14 is not. This is called the fallacy of special pleading. I've seen the same error in many of your arguments. It is one of the most common errors that arise from trying to force an interpretation because forced interpretations are, but definition, not consistent with the text. These inconsistencies are exposed when we compare how you argue your different doctrines.
For one who has been trying to force me to accept a preconceived idea in the thread 'Can God's Angels In Heaven Be Trusted?', it is ripe of you to make such a claim about me. I am interested in all evidence, but you have to show me evidence I can accept. The evidence you think you are giving me is not good enough and to me is not evidence.
I have never tried to force you to accept any preconceived idea that "God's angels in heaven could sin." I have merely shown that the negation of the proposition is the ESSENCE OF YOUR ARGUMENT that the angels that sinned in 2 Peter cannot be "God's angels in heaven." The fact that you do not understand your own argument is a deep mystery, especially since I have explained every word of it with perfect precision over a span of eight months now. It is deeply ironic that I can articulate your argument with perfect clarity and logical precision, and yet you do not understand it!
Richard
David M
04-26-2013, 02:02 AM
Hello Richard
Good morning David,
We agree that consistency is important. I was simply showing that you are not being consistent. You are not using the same principles when arguing the Devil is figurative and Zechariah 14 is not. This is called the fallacy of special pleading. I've seen the same error in many of your arguments. It is one of the most common errors that arise from trying to force an interpretation because forced interpretations are, but definition, not consistent with the text. These inconsistencies are exposed when we compare how you argue your different doctrines.
It is impossible for everything to be literal and everything to be figurative. There is a mixture and so those have to be rightly divided. You might see it as inconsistent of me, but no more that what I see you doing when you take literal things to be figurative and vice versa. You can give your fancy titles like;" the fallacy of special pleading", that does nothing to support the argument one way or another and is just another example of you evading the truth.
I have never tried to force you to accept any preconceived idea that "God's angels in heaven could sin." I have merely shown that the negation of the proposition is the ESSENCE OF YOUR ARGUMENT that the angels that sinned in 2 Peter cannot be "God's angels in heaven." The fact that you do not understand your own argument is a deep mystery, especially since I have explained every word of it with perfect precision over a span of eight months now. It is deeply ironic that I can articulate your argument with perfect clarity and logical precision, and yet you do not understand it!
Instead of the word "articulate", the word "manipulate" would be more appropriate. I understand what you are doing perfectly!
David
Richard Amiel McGough
04-26-2013, 10:18 AM
It is impossible for everything to be literal and everything to be figurative. There is a mixture and so those have to be rightly divided. You might see it as inconsistent of me, but no more that what I see you doing when you take literal things to be figurative and vice versa. You can give your fancy titles like;" the fallacy of special pleading", that does nothing to support the argument one way or another and is just another example of you evading the truth.
Your assertion that I have been "evading the truth" is both false and unsupported, as usual. You cannot support your assertion with any evidence. It is, therefore, meaningless slander. And worse, your words apply to yourself since you have been doing everything in you power to evade the truth of my posts exposing your failure to understand the most basic logic. You have been doing this for eight months now. The evidence reaches to the moon. Yet you will not admit it, and you will not respond to my proof no matter how many times I present it to you.
Instead of the word "articulate", the word "manipulate" would be more appropriate. I understand what you are doing perfectly!
Don't be absurd. My formulation of your argument is perfect and precise. You have to deny your own words to avoid admitting the truth of mine. It is insane in a most literal sense. I exposed your error eight months ago and you have consistently IGNORED the proof for all those eight months. Now you are asserting a blatant falsehood - you have never shown any understanding of what I have written. You have not even responded to my words! This is insane in a most literal sense.
David M
04-27-2013, 02:58 AM
Your assertion that I have been "evading the truth" is both false and unsupported, as usual. You cannot support your assertion with any evidence. It is, therefore, meaningless slander. And worse, your words apply to yourself since you have been doing everything in you power to evade the truth of my posts exposing your failure to understand the most basic logic. You have been doing this for eight months now. The evidence reaches to the moon. Yet you will not admit it, and you will not respond to my proof no matter how many times I present it to you.
Don't be absurd. My formulation of your argument is perfect and precise. You have to deny your own words to avoid admitting the truth of mine. It is insane in a most literal sense. I exposed your error eight months ago and you have consistently IGNORED the proof for all those eight months. Now you are asserting a blatant falsehood - you have never shown any understanding of what I have written. You have not even responded to my words! This is insane in a most literal sense.
For the record, I have responded to your posts and given you my reasons for not accepting your formulation. I have done so in the thread where this argument belongs and it does not belong here.
David
I don't believe the prophecy has been fulfilled yet.
I don't exactly know the answer you're looking for but I came across a blog a few weeks back that stated there had been a fault line discovered through the middle of the mount of olives spanning east to west about a year ago. Apparently the fault is the largest found in the world. The searching has been interesting.
Would a Preterist please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and explain when the prophecy in Zechariah was fulfilled?
It has been said in a post elsewhere on this forum, the splitting of the Mount of Olives is figurative. If this is the case, will someone please explain the figurative meaning?
I look forward to your answers.
David
Pastor Dave
05-01-2014, 07:39 AM
Lu 18:31 "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished."
How is a literalist to take this?
If Jesus meant what he said to his disciples, then Zechariah 14 was fulfilled when Jesus and his disciples went up to Jerusalem.
If Jesus meant only that some things would be fulfilled, then he spoke a falsehood to his disciples.
Unregistered
05-19-2014, 10:23 PM
Would a Preterist please tell me when the Mount of Olives split in two and explain when the prophecy in Zechariah was fulfilled?
It has been said in a post elsewhere on this forum, the splitting of the Mount of Olives is figurative. If this is the case, will someone please explain the figurative meaning?
I look forward to your answers.
David
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?176871-What-verses-contradict-Full-Preterism&p=5614342&viewfull=1#post5614342
The above link is related to zechþ14:4. It's a post I have at another forum. 1000 Yrs before the romans came in judgement against Judah for idolotry, Israel was DIVIDED after solomon put alters on the high places of mt of olives. Thus, the 'splitting of the mt of olives' is, I believe, the splitting of Gods judgement on judah (south) and Israel/Assyria/Rome to the north while the faithful to Christ esxaped through the midst.
This is endtimesdeut32/70AD posting and saying Hi
Joe, forgiven. If you get a chance and want to look at some of my recent posts at Carm forums in the pret section, your welcome to do so. I think/feel I've had some significant growth in insights the last few years. Check out the post on 1000 or 1000's and the one on Is 7:8 prophesying Gog/Magog of 132-135 AD.
EndtimesDeut32/70AD
05-25-2014, 07:40 PM
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?176871-What-verses-contradict-Full-Preterism&p=5614342&viewfull=1#post5614342
The above link is related to zechþ14:4. It's a post I have at another forum. 1000 Yrs before the romans came in judgement against Judah for idolotry, Israel was DIVIDED after solomon put alters on the high places of mt of olives. Thus, the 'splitting of the mt of olives' is, I believe, the splitting of Gods judgement on judah (south) and Israel/Assyria/Rome to the north while the faithful to Christ esxaped through the midst.
This is endtimesdeut32/70AD postiing
Here is the info at the link.
Re splitting mt of olives in zech 14:
Could it be related to the splitting of the kingdom that occurred after Solimons reign but 1000 yrs later; but now a judgement against the idolitry that caused that splitting? Both pagan rome (gentiles =tribes of Israel intermarried) and judah (through continued sacrifice after the cross) were idolotrous. Rome is to the north & judah to the south (the splitting of the judgement whike the saints/believers escaped through the middle.
see Ez 11:23 where the presence leaves the temple and "stands" on mt of olives.
See also 1 kings 11:7 & 2 kings 23:13.
The standing of God on mt olivet was his coming in judgement against the idolitry/sacrifice of both nimrodic ways of Rone and even of the mosaic covt.
The judgement by God through Rome & in favor of the saints (deut 32:42) would be returned on them 65 yrs later.
Abomination that causes desolatiin "STANDING" where it out not be as spoken by jesus sounds familiar to the "standing" in zech 14 & Ez 11:23
Didn't the roman armies encamp on the mt of olives?
Mt of olives is called mt. of destruction in 2 kings 23:13
I believe this perspective holds water from several angles.
The judgement against nimrodic paganistic ways, beliefs & practices is split against both the north (Israel/rome/Assyrian idolotry) and judah, mosaic covt to the south. Deut 32 says the sacrificed to Gods their fathers (the patriarchs of faith in the coming seed of God) knew not. They sacrificed to molech and the law.
This standing on the mount of olives and having it split in two is first century @ 67AD coming if Christ/God through the roman armies who themselves were to testify that the peoples own God had turned against them (deut 32).
I looked up "mt of olives" in the dictiinary in my study bible to see what meaning it had to Israels history. That is where I found the references to Solomon building abominable alters to 'gods' of his wives cultures which would have stemmed from Nimrods/pagan influences. It was this that caused the division/splitting of the kingdom. God's judgement would come against both splits thus revealing the posessors of the favored way of truth, not once, but twice (132-135) and continuous.
Peter K
01-12-2020, 09:32 AM
The Bible prophecies must be read together to gain the full detail of what is to take place. The first coming of Christ was to be the offering for sin as of a lamb without blemish, fulfilling the offerings brought under the law of Moses until Christ. The second coming is equally fully prophesied. Jesus ascended to heaven from the Mount of Olives. When He returns His feet will stand in that day on the Mount of Olives which is before Jerusalem on the east. The mountain will split into two. Half will move north and half will move south. The new temple will be built on the north plateau. A river will emanate from it which will flow two ways. The west flow will descend to the Mediterranean. The east flow will descend to the Dead Sea which will be healed as a result. Fish will live in great abundance in this formerly hypersaline sea. Some try to avoid the literal fulfilment of the prophecies. There will be a real second coming of Jesus as there was a first coming. The Kingdom of God on earth will be set up at that time, fulfilling the Lord's prayer "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven"
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.