Fulfilled Prophecy

You list is a bit short....Jim Jones - Everybody knows the story. Liar, killer, sexual glutton, etc.Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge fame - Randy was a ultra religious nut case job. Weaver smeared the blood of a goat over the front door frame in celebration of Passover. During their menstrual periods, Vicki and the
girls, "unclean" in the eyes of their male god, had to retreat to
a shed outside. Proxy Killer with the aid of the FBI.

The difference would be? It says that people's from all lands and backgrounds will despise these two men. And it says that they will "send" gifts because of what they had done all over the earth. I'm giving you my opinion on the matter. Buz is giving you his opinion on the matter. You seem to be dead set on it not referring to television which invariably makes you out to be the one thing you are claiming me to be. That's rather ironic. Wait, no, that's rather hypocritical. If its not making allusions to television, okay. That's fine. I won't get bent out of shape over it. Why are you mad because I gave my opinion on the matter?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Well, it goes with the territory. I suppose at least were not being stoned to death..... yet. If I'm a messenger for God, I'm the least in line of prestigious names. I'm more like God's paperboy. Thank you for the kind words, nonetheless. In a sea of people at enmity with me, its good to have you by my side.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

i never said that you did. though i may have implied that by your distortions you are turning genuine prophecy into false prophecy. yet strangely missing that "messiah" factor. i know i've mentioned that there are actually groups of jews that sent hamas congratulatory notes on their somewhat recent election in palestine, because they agree that israel should be destroyed. creating the state of israel minus the messiah is false fulfillment, according to them. this is not about the prophecy. it's about your interpretation technique. this is a good example that shows exactly what's wrong with it. clearly, it is you that has the comprehension problem here. the rest of are able to read the book of nahum as a contiguous entity, one that proceeds logically, is driven by a main point, and is not totally schizophrenic. you somehow see the book as little individual sound-bites which can each individually be read out of context and applied to whatever you wish. this problem is systemic in the accepted christian way of reading prophecy, and it is strongly insulting to anyone with intelligence who actually respects the prophets. in nahum? i think you're missing the point. perhaps it's been a while since your last writing course, but i cannot fathom that you somehow fail to understand how a literary argument is made. the prophet nahum is not prophesying end-time events, but attesting to the might of god. he does this to make a point: that nineveh should be very, very afraid of the lord god.the book is written with a singular point, and anyone reading the book all at once can easily see this. the structure becomes obvious. this is simply another example of your own failing to understand what you are reading, and the breakdown of standard christian bible interpretation. it is just another quote-mine. the prophecy in question is the destruction of nineveh. chariots are part of that.

quote:

---

Merkava seriesMerkava means "Chariot" in Hebrew - not necessarily a "battle chariot" even, the word comes from the root Resh-Kaf-Bet, meaning "vehicle". ...

---

in modern hebrew. guess what the word comes from? "chariot." you're putting the cart before the horse. literally. i'll do you one better, buz. ‘ merkava is the name a specific israeli tank. do you see problem with this?their name means "chariot." they are named after war chariots. the bible influenced the name, not vice-versa. chapter one is about the might of god -- why nineveh should not mess with israel. think, buz. think. who could possibly be the enemies of israel in nahum's time? who was invading, just then? it's like talking about jewish adversaries in 1944. gee, i wonder who they could mean. i really wish you'd quite using that mangling of a name. it's insulting to purposefully get someone's name wrong, and it's disrespectful to my god when you insult him so. you know it's wrong, as you've been repeatedly told so by people who know far more about the language he spoke it in than you do. clearly those other bits about war and destruction have nothing to do with these bits about war and destruction. gimme a break, buz. nahum's talking about war and destruction continuously for almost 2 whole chapters, and only this one line is about nineveh? the rest, because it fails to mention the name "nineveh" everytime there's a little number in your book, are really about something else?quote. mine. i see, so "chariot" in one part of the chapter means "tank" or some such, but "chariot" elsewhere means "chariot?" you're mighty selective, aren't you? try 613.that's the especially ridiculous thing about this. by most accounts, the book of nahum was written somewhere between 615 and 612. nineveh fell in 612, along with the rest of assyria. should this have been written before, the prophecy was fulfilled.but you would rather it be about something vague and easily distorted into modern times, even though there is nothing in the book to indicate that it's about anything other than assyria. but if you'd just cut out it with the wildly off-base "decoding" act you're playing, this would be a perfect example of fulfilled prophecy to add to your list.the fact that it's not says something really, really damning about the way that you read prophecy. it tells us that, for you, prophecy is never actually fulfilled. it's not testible, or falsifiable, because it's not specific. you are so desperate to maintain your strangehold on your ability to distort that you are willing to give up prophecies that have actually been confirmed.good job, buz. fast, metal chariots drawn by horses are actually quite common in nahum's time. and guess what the horsemen would take along on nighttime raids so they could see? torches. i don't know why this is so hard for you. in this one post alone, you have sufficiently demonstrated that you in fact are.

---

i suspect that he is willfully ignorant. he wants to believe his claims, and refuses to hear anything different. this is something of a pattern for buz, who on many a previous occasion has termed refutations of his premise as "off-topic." i am fully aware that i am full of bs. it's why i'm especially good at catching other people who are. i am strictly vouching for the plain and obvious meaning of the text, as written by the prophets. anyone who can actually read should be able to see that i am not misrepresenting anything. cryptic and tautological. but the fact is if i say "the bible predicts x" when anyone reading the text can clearly see that the bible really says y, i am not right.if i talk about how the tower of babel really represents the evil lord xenu's intent to confuse man with religion, or the flood the atom bombs he killed all our alien ancestors with, or how original sin is really refering to body thetans... therefor the bible predicts scientology, would you agree with me?because i would be betraying the meaning of both the bible AND scientology in such an effort. yet this is exactly the calibre of interpretation buz is committing. one thing means another. removal of context. distortion. ignoring the main points. and really, anyone with half a braind should be able to see what exactly is wrong with this kind of interpretation technique. yet it seems so common. i think you're over-reading. really, i think we should avoid revelation for now, for the specific reason that it completely breaks with every biblical tradition for prophecy. revelation is, itself, not actually prophecy. rather, it is a vision given to john. visions are one way god communicates with people, prophecy is another. take for example my mention of joseph and pharaoh above. the dreams that pharaoh had were visions, but the interpretation and advice given by joseph were prophecy. see the difference?

---

precisely. that is what buz is doing: turning concrete prophecy into a game of odds. making one specific war -- the fall of assyria in 612 bc -- into any war, and thus into the war he wants (armagedon). by making vague claims, claims with a loose variable like number of applications, or people affected, or time, a prediction becomes worthless. it was earlier in this thread. i would link, but just look up a few posts. buz is still discussing it, wishing to push his quotemining through. read the book of nahum. it's only 3 chapters long. tell me, straight up, what you think it's about. i'll tell you what they don't do. recognize him as king, put him on the throne, and then conquer the planet. see, this is perhaps another problem. jesus cannot both have fulfilled the prophecy, but not fulfilled it yet. buz breaks up long prophetic passages into little bite-sized quotemines. are you about to do the same? the bit about the donkey: check, the bit about world peace: not yet? it's the same passage. you mean, because he hasn't? clearly, i would think that the messianic criteria are defined by messianic prophecy. doesn't this make sense to you? so if jesus does not fulfill the messianic prophecies, he does not fulfill the messianic criteria, and this is not the messiah. if he will at some point, that's great.but that would make the second coming of christ the messiah, and not the first. i fail to see a distinction in the text of the bible. and your source does not particularly allow for either messiah to be jesus. ben-yosef is from ephraim (jesus was from judah) and a military leader. ben-david is the king of new jerusalem (the "standard" messiah). your article does not allow for that either, (neverminding that neither can be jesus, to date) as the first messiah and the second messiah will be in the same place at the same time.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

meaning, taken over-literally, the minimum requirement would be a single person from each and every nation. idiomatically, it probably just means "a large diverse group" either way, it doesn't seem to mean "every single person on the planet."

---

read first corinthians chapter two.i have seen christians (on this board) use it to claim special powers of perception, saying that no one can interpret or understand the bible except by special teaching of the holy spirit. iano is quite famous for using this argument to attempt to trump an opponent. something akin to: "your view makes sense, but that's only the worldly perception. you need the holy spirit to actually understand what it means, which is this contrived reading."i have attended almost every variety of christian church there is, and pentecostals, methodists, baptists, and whatever the heck calvary is all like to indicate that god leads their bible study. god leads them to passages, god tells them how to read it, and god tells them what it means. the "decoder ring" idea isn't all that uncommon. and people who are a little more aware and use their special perceptual ability called "common sense" are quick to identify it in off-the-wall claims like buz's that require some interesting mental gymnastics to justify. perhaps wrongly, as buz does not seem to make this kind of claim. but the inference is usually justified, as when there is an obvious surface meaning, and one begins to treat words like "chariot" as a code for something else entirely, something unusual must be going on.when one treats the bible like a coded message, it is not only unjustified, but unneccessary, and disrespectful to the author. except, possibly, with the book of revelation (as visions are often symbolic). when done with other books, it is generally the beginning of all kinds of quackery and bias and just plain lunacy. this is the premise of the ufo's in the bible crowd, the time-travelling cd-roms in bible crowd, the bible-code crowd, and any number of cults. it is absolutely incompatible with any claim of literal bible interpretation.

---

Who was the virgin that gave birth in the book of Isaiah?Brian.

So instead of sending food parcels to deepest darkest Africa, Christians now need to send state of the art TVs?If everyone will see Jesus' return, then He cannot return until everyone has a TV set!Brian.

THe difference is that "people form every nation" does not refer to the peoples of the nation as a whole, or imply that it refers to people curently within the nation. IN short if you read the Bible correctly your inference is a highly strained and unnatural intepretation. Indeed I find it very odd that when you use a miosreading apparently calculated to support an erroneous translation you fail to understand that the correct reading shoots down your claims. Is it really so difficult to correctly report the words of the Bible ?

quote:

---

It says that people's from all lands and backgrounds will despise these two men. And it says that they will "send" gifts because of what they had done all over the earth.

---

And how does this imply television ?

quote:

---

I'm giving you my opinion on the matter. Buz is giving you his opinion on the matter. You seem to be dead set on it not referring to television which invariably makes you out to be the one thing you are claiming me to be. That's rather ironic. Wait, no, that's rather hypocritical. If its not making allusions to television, okay. That's fine. I won't get bent out of shape over it. Why are you mad because I gave my opinion on the matter?

---

No, the fact is that Buz misrepresented the Bible, you misrperesent the Bible. And now you call me a hypocrite for catching you in your obivous misrepresentations of the `Bible. Whether your misrepresentation was intentional or not it hardly shows respect for the Bible or the discussion.

quote:

---

NJ didn't say every nation will view the bodies. He said all nations can view the bodies - big difference.

---

Actually a very small difference - especially when compared to what the verse actually says. Once again we see that you don't care about the actual words of the Bible.

quote:

---

1. Book title: Burden of Ninevah
NOTE: Narry the hint of anything aluding to Nineveh until chapter 2 verse 8.

---

i.e. you are using the lack of anothe r exlicit reference to Nineveh as an excuse to ignore what this verse says. Not a good start.

quote:

---

2. Topic one: The Biblical god, Jehovah. (ASV) Jehovah avenges and is full of wrath, taking vengence on his adversaries, reserving wrath for his enemies in verse 2.

​

Jehovah has his way in the whirlwind (tornadoes, hurricanes) and in the storm and the clouds are the "dust of his feet." verse 3

​

Jehovah rebukes the sea by making it dry, dries up all the rivers, Bashan, Carmel and the "flower of Lebanon" languish. verse 4

---

As has been already pointed out these are written in the present tense. Therefore they either refer to events at the time of writing (which we know not to be the case) or they are simply praise of God's power.And have a look at this translation of Nahum 2:3(NASB) Shields ? cypress spears ? warriors dressed in scarlet ? THat doesn't fit a modern army. Could it be that Nahum really did mean chariots ? You've offered no reason why he couldn't.

quote:

---

Suffice to say, if one; anyone who cares to keep what is written in perspective looks at the evidence which I have documented, the description of the speedy steel chariots having torches/lights in question are not contemporaneous to the time of Nahum.

---

Well no, you haven't. Chariots WERE fast by ancient standards - that was why they were used. Speedy steel chariots with flaming torches sounds fine for a night attack. In an ancient context. Scarlet uniforms, red shields and cypress spears on the other hand don't fit a modern army at all.And then again we have clear references in 1:1 and 2:8 that this prophecy refers to the fall of Nineveh (an event which occurred in 612 BC) and none to suggest that any part of it refers to much later events. There is no break in the narrative to suggest that 2:8 is anything other than a continuation of the earlier verses. No valid reason to suppose that 1:1 should be ignored.The "expert" way to read the Bible is apparently to ignore the context , invent imaginary breaks in the narrative, arbitrarily rejected plain readings that make perfect sense, all in favour of claiming dramatic fulfilled prophecies. That's no way to read anything.

1. Some names on your list are not Biblical fundamentalists at all but mere cultists.
2. Among the millions of Biblical fundies, it should not be unusual to expect that there will be some who will not consistently adhere to all of the fundamentals of the Bible.
3. Secularists and non-Biblical fundies have a worse track record globally than Biblical fundies have by a long shot. Well over a hundred million people last century were murdered by their own secularist governments prohibitive of the propagation of the Biblical fundamentals. Most global terrorists in our day have some connection to Islam. The most oppressed nations today are either Communist leaning or Islamic fundamentalist with few Biblical fundies in them.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

And that brings us to the consideration of the motives and intents of the heart. At the risk of "quote-mining" I would like to bring another scripture or two into the discussion. Why is it that people look for proof? What is it that we want the proof for?Obviously, not many believe that Jesus would deliberately attempt to mislead and/or confirm His own legend by deliberately riding a donkey into Jerusalem only to confirm prophecy.