Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lebanon In End Time Bible Prophecy
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 166 of 178 (351984)
09-25-2006 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by ReformedRob
09-25-2006 1:00 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
quote:
You cant see the poetic language used to describe this?
Bob is the concept of hell merely poetic extravagance? How about the Creation story, Noah, Babel, Exodus, David/Goliath - poetic license?
Where does the poety end and the literal truth start?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ReformedRob, posted 09-25-2006 1:00 AM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by ReformedRob, posted 09-25-2006 2:16 AM iceage has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 167 of 178 (351987)
09-25-2006 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by ringo
09-25-2006 1:54 AM


Re: You Ignore that which refutes you
I shouldnt be doing this I have to be up early but I couldnt resist!
The prophecy states exactly what you say it doesnt:
ringo writes:
But the point you are trying to make is that the city-state of Tyre would be no more. That is not what the test or the context says. It says it will not be built again. It refers specifically to the buildings, not just the political influence
the cite to prove this is too long to post here it is all of chapt 27 but I will cite four quick vs that I already did which refute you that you ignore, which clearly demonstrate the loss of political influence is key, vs 15-18: "Thus says the Lord GOD to Tyre: "Will the coastlands not shake at the sound of your fall when the woulded cry, when slaugher is made in the midst of you? Then all the princes of the sea will come down from their thrones, lay aside their robes, and take off their embroidereed garments; they will clothe themselves with trembling: they will sit on the ground, tremble every moment and be astonished at you. And they wil take a up a lamentation for you: How you have perished O one inhabited by seafaring men, O renowned city, Who was strong at sea, She and her inhabitants, Who caused their terror to be on all her inhabitants! Now the coastlands tremble on the day of your fall; Yes the coastlands by the sea are troubled at your departure."
You cant see how the 'princes lamenting for the renowned strong city' demonstrates the lack of political influence? Again read all of Chapt 27 it is too long to post here which talks extensively of the trade and status of Tyre lost.
No more tonite I promise...see ya tomorrow.
Good nite and God bless

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by ringo, posted 09-25-2006 1:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by ringo, posted 09-25-2006 2:18 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 168 of 178 (351989)
09-25-2006 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by iceage
09-25-2006 1:59 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
I think it is rather simple actually. The language can be poetic but the overall context usually isnt making the poetic a subset to the point. I think hell is clearly taught as was Noah and David and Goliath. When hyperbole is used I think it is clear also such as the passage about God covering us with his wings like a mother hen covers her chicks etc... As I just wrote to Ringo all of Chapt 27 and vs 15-18 already cited make it clear that the punishment from God was the removal of Tyre's 'political influence' as Ringo puts it
"26:15-18 "Thus says the Lord GOD to Tyre: "Will the coastlands not shake at the sound of your fall when the woulded cry, when slaugher is made in the midst of you? Then all the princes of the sea will come down from their thrones, lay aside their robes, and take off their embroidereed garments; they will clothe themselves with trembling: they will sit on the ground, tremble every moment and be astonished at you. And they wil take a up a lamentation for you: How you have perished O one inhabited by seafaring men, O renowned city, Who was strong at sea, She and her inhabitants, Who caused their terror to be on all her inhabitants! Now the coastlands tremble on the day of your fall; Yes the coastlands by the sea are troubled at your departure."
This with the extensive hyperbole about trade in chapt 27, the literal point with poetic language, makes it clear that the punishment for Tyre for disobeying God is the removal of her status and the details of who and what they do.
Aristotles treatise on Art makes it clear that the presumption goes to the author until we have clear evidence otherwise which I agree with.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by iceage, posted 09-25-2006 1:59 AM iceage has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 169 of 178 (351990)
09-25-2006 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by ReformedRob
09-25-2006 2:09 AM


Re: You Ignore that which refutes you
ReformedRob writes:
You cant see how the 'princes lamenting for the renowned strong city' demonstrates the lack of political influence?
I showed that the walls and the houses are specifically mentioned. You are ignoring the specific description of the physical destruction of the city.
Since the houses have been rebuilt, the prophecy is not fulfilled. Any decline in political influence is utterly irrelevant.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by ReformedRob, posted 09-25-2006 2:09 AM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ReformedRob, posted 09-25-2006 2:24 AM ringo has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 170 of 178 (351992)
09-25-2006 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by ringo
09-25-2006 2:18 AM


Re: You Ignore that which refutes you
Ringo writes:
Since the houses have been rebuilt, the prophecy is not fulfilled. Any decline in political influence is utterly irrelevant.
Just cause you say it dont make it so!
until you respond to the point made by vs 15-18 and all of chapt 27 which speak of the glory and 'political influence' being taken away then there is nothing more to talk about. You consistently ignore these verses and chapters cited that utterly refute you and the obvious point that God's punishment for Tyre was that many nations starting with Neb, were to remove her status and glory which was a trade state.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ringo, posted 09-25-2006 2:18 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by ringo, posted 09-25-2006 3:14 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 171 of 178 (351995)
09-25-2006 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by ReformedRob
09-25-2006 2:24 AM


Re: You Ignore that which refutes you
ReformedRob writes:
Since the houses have been rebuilt, the prophecy is not fulfilled. Any decline in political influence is utterly irrelevant.
Just cause you say it dont make it so!
I'm not the one who said it. Ezekiel said it. Argue with him.
until you respond to the point made by vs 15-18 and all of chapt 27 which speak of the glory and 'political influence' being taken away then there is nothing more to talk about.
I have responded to that: The "glory and political influence" are not all that Ezekiel was talking about. Until you address the permanent physical destruction of Tyre, your argument is dead in the water.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by ReformedRob, posted 09-25-2006 2:24 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 172 of 178 (352077)
09-25-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by ReformedRob
09-24-2006 10:20 PM


Grammatical Mistakes
quote:
1) the verses of 3-5 and 12-14 are not just saying similar things...they say the same thing the same way. So the many nations is obviously the 'they' referred to in vs 12-14 as they do the same things. Many nations will do these things, then 'they' will do the same things! It is more than reasonable.
As I said in Message 142: Determining a pronoun's antecedent is not the same as pulling a meaning out of a sentence or word. Similar phrasing is also not the way one determines a pronoun's antecedent. Similar phrasing is one way to discern a word's meaning.
You haven't shown me that it is a common practice today to determine a pronouns antecedant by using similar phrasing.
quote:
Just saying that He could then be they is pointing out a possibility but you have do do more than that...you have a burden to demonstrate why it is an inevitability and must be exegeted that way. But all you offer is the possibility and an errant eisogesis of II Kings and Chronicles which actually refute your point. Had someone argued with you using the same approach you would dismiss them outright.
I didn't say that "he" could be "they", I said that "they" refers to Nebs horses (army) spoken of in the previous sentence. "He" refers to Neb, but since Neb is the king and kings don't attack by themselves, but with an army; Neb represents a group (army) in this vision.
Also in Message 142 I stated: As I showed you in Message 125, the II Chronicles is an example of a singular pronoun used to refer to a leader and his army and then a plural referring to the army carrying out orders. The format is the point, not the players. As I showed, it doesn't matter what translation you use.
Writers do not always write grammatically correct. Mistakes in pronoun-antecedent agreement aren't uncommon in writing and Ezekiel is not ammune to this common mistake.
Ezekiel 4:4
"As for you, lie down on your left side and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel on it; you shall bear their iniquity for the number of days that you lie on it.
Ezekiel 24:3
"Speak a parable to the rebellious house and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Put on the pot , put it on and also pour water in it;
Ezekiel 27:16
"Aram was your customer because of the abundance of your goods; they paid for your wares with emeralds, purple, embroidered work, fine linen, coral and rubies.
Ezekiel 28:21-22
"Son of man, set your face toward Sidon, prophesy against her and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Sidon, And I will be glorified in your midst. Then they will know that I am the LORD when I execute judgments in her, And I will manifest My holiness in her.
Ezekiel 29:9
"The land of Egypt will become a desolation and waste. Then they will know that I am the LORD. Because you said, 'The Nile is mine, and I have made it,'
The explanation I offered concerning the verse you shared from II Kings and the verse I shared from II Chronicles had nothing to do with exegesis or eisegesis. It deals with writers and grammar and you haven't shown that I'm wrong.
You haven't shown me that it is a common practice today to determine a pronouns antecedant by using exegesis.
quote:
2) The players of II Kings which you described as irrelevant are the antecedents for the pronouns we are aguing about which provides the exegesis for Chronicles. You have to say they are irrelevant because if you acknowledge who they actually are you lose the point; which you have but just dont have the intellectual integrity and honesty to admit. There are 4 players i.e. antecedants, Neb, his captain and army, the chaldean army and their king. The 'they' is the chaldean army not Neb's army or Neb. It is obvious to anyone not trying to win a point and arguing for the sake of arguing.
No, the players of II Kings are not the antecedents for the pronouns in II Chronicles. They are separate books with different purposes. I don't know of anyone who reads a book and expects to read another book to find the antecedant to a pronoun.
Excerpt from the introduction to Chronicles (NIV)
Purpose and Theme: Just as the authors of Samuel and Kings had organized and interpreted the data of Israel's history to address the needs of the exiled community, so the Chronicler wrote for the restored community.
The writer of II Kings gave a more specific rendition of the story than the writer of II Chronicles. But one does not determine the antecedant for pronouns used by the other. Again the only reason I used II Chronicles was as an example of a leader being referred to by a singular pronoun but having a plural assumption.
You might want to clarify what point I supposedly lost. In Message 125 I agreed that in your version the "he" refers to the King of the Chaldees, and the "they" refers to his army. 2 Kings 25:10 supports that the "they" refers to the army. and I showed you that there was a difference in our translations which accounted for my use of Neb.
quote:
to summarize...the verses in 3-5 describe the many nations and what they will do and verses 12-14 use the plural pronoun, all consistent in the Hebrew I might add, to describe again the same things the many nations will do. Vs 6-11 are only Neb and he did those things.
You keep saying that, but you haven't shown that "they" refers to the many nations from a grammatical standpoint. I have shown grammatically that the "they" refers to the many horses which represent Nebs army. I have also shown that it is a common mistake for writers to inadvertently shift from singular to plural pronouns when the singular noun represents a group (army/nation).

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by ReformedRob, posted 09-24-2006 10:20 PM ReformedRob has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 173 of 178 (456188)
02-16-2008 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
08-04-2006 11:46 PM


At Buzsaw's request I have bumped this thread - the first still open Bible prophecy thread that I have found where we were involved.
Since none of the points in my first post to this thread (Message 3) were effectively answered, here it is again. Note especially the point about Ezekiel 17 as an example of where reading the Bible trumps Buzsaw's boasted "60 years of study":
quote:
When I see one of these posts form Buzsaw I expect him to misrepresent the Bible and it is no surprise that he has done it again.
1) A minor point here, Zechariah 10 refers to the return of the Lost Tribes. So we cannot say that it is being fulfilled.
2) Ezekiel 17 does NOT mention the destruction of a cedar by an eagle
3 saying, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "A great eagle with great wings, long pinions and a full plumage of many colors came to Lebanon and took away the top of the cedar.
4 "He plucked off the topmost of its young twigs and brought it to a land of merchants; he set it in a city of traders.
Plucking off the "topmost twigs" is not destroying a full-grown tree by any stretch of the imagination. And read on to see what happens to the twigs.
3) Isaiah 10 is about liberation from the Assyrians
12 So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness."
24 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, "O My people who dwell in Zion, do not fear the Assyrian who strikes you with the rod and lifts up his staff against you, the way Egypt did.
25"For in a very little while My indignation against you will be spent and My anger will be directed to their destruction."
So it is about days long gone, and not about modern times at all.
4) Isaiah 29 doesn't give any real details that can be linked to the current situation - and seems to be predicting the immediate future:
17 Is it not yet just a little while
Before Lebanon will be turned into a fertile field,
And the fertile field will be considered as a forest?
The present day canot be reasonably considered to be only a "little while" after the writing of Isaiah 29
So to answer the first 3 questions:
1) The Lost Tribes have not returned, Ezekiel 17 has been completely misrepresented and the two Isaiah references refer to things that must be long past. Accordingly we cannot reliably say that ANY of these prophecies are being fulfilled in the present day.
2) Equally these prophecies cannot be said to indicate that the Bible is especially reliable historically or in any way supernatural. Why should we be surprised that the Bible mentions a neighbouring kingdom - which existed at the time that the relevant verses were written ?
3) Current Lebanon cannot be said to be a factor in any of these prophecies. The only one that could refer to a future event is the first (ruling out the second on the grounds that it completely misrepresents the text) and we have no way of knowing if it will ever be fulfilled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 08-04-2006 11:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by IamJoseph, posted 02-24-2008 12:07 AM PaulK has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 174 of 178 (457551)
02-24-2008 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by PaulK
02-16-2008 5:19 AM


quote:
So to answer the first 3 questions:
1) The Lost Tribes have not returned, Ezekiel 17 has been completely misrepresented and the two Isaiah references refer to things that must be long past. Accordingly we cannot reliably say that ANY of these prophecies are being fulfilled in the present day.
I think the issue of biblical prophetic writings was not to suit a particular generation's wish list. The factor you have missed is that the lost tribes were prophesized to be 'dispersed' by Isaiah, and this occured. That their return has not happened as yet is debatable: you may never know if the one standing beside you is one of them, nor when the appropriate time is come for it. Israel was returned after 2000 years, during the Holocaust, when all nations barred Jews entry while they fleed the camps and as Europe's chimneys still fumed. So the time factor is not time, but event factored. This is the true impact of a prophesy, a sign and an omen - when it over-turns natural phenomena.
Re Lebanon. This state only manifests the principle that the Arab Muslims see the entire region as islamic, and no other religion will prevail in this region [Quran]. The political manourvers of today only hide this truth.
Both christians and jews predate Islam, and are being persecuted - and the christians are quagmired between a rock and a hard place. If they side with the Muslims, and thereby reject the rights of Israel, they will have a war with Islam which will assume control of Jerusalem and all christian claims; and if christians do admit to Israel's rights, they contradict their religion. Here, prophesy says, in ironic, pointed and quagmiring mode:
'I WILL MAKE JERUSALEM AS A BURDEN UNTO THE NATIONS'.
Yes/No?
It also says:
'AND I WILL GIVE YOU YOUR RAINS IN ITS DUE TIME'
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2008 5:19 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 02-24-2008 4:10 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 175 of 178 (457640)
02-24-2008 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by IamJoseph
02-24-2008 12:07 AM


quote:
The issue of biblical prophetic writings was not to suit a particular generation's wish list.
The only thing that might be considered a "wish list" is the prophecy itself. So you are presumably saying that the prophesied events aren't meant to happen.
The rest has even less to do with the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by IamJoseph, posted 02-24-2008 12:07 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by IamJoseph, posted 02-24-2008 9:01 PM PaulK has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 176 of 178 (457683)
02-24-2008 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by PaulK
02-24-2008 4:10 PM


quote:
So you are presumably saying that the prophesied events aren't meant to happen.
What I said was, whether one subscribes to prophesy or not, certain predictions were made, in evidenced writings, and its fruition occured - in a non-confusing, open manifestation, and which equivalence has not been encountered or heard of elsewhere. I gave an example. That the fruition came much later, says this had nothing to do with the subject [Abraham], as much as it being a big picture historical prediction, and one which could not have been imagined or contrived or manipulated by the subject person or anyone in his following generations.
Phophetic verses are not simple writings to deciphere, and usually its true import is lost by the uninitiated. This is what I meant by not according to everyone's wish list. True prophesy cannot be a casual or biased, self-serving proclamation, as this would be antithetical of its own premise of coming from a higher source to humanity. We cannot see the big picture, till it becomes retrospective.
Further, I don't see prophesy as an unscientific or illogical premise, because by reductionism, we prophesize all the time. Even our thoughts, which we do not have full control of - some being involuntary and coming from a mysterious place [thus the depiction of a light turning on inside the brain; a gut feeling, etc] - these too are prophesies, but related to the immediate surrounds only. Penicilin was discovered by accident - and humanity would not have survived without it. It is also unscientific and illogical to assume we are responsible for all knowledge which appears to descend into selective human minds - at critically relevent instants - and we shout EUREKA! - not when a simple thought can change the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 02-24-2008 4:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2008 1:31 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 177 of 178 (457729)
02-25-2008 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by IamJoseph
02-24-2008 9:01 PM


quote:
What I said was, whether one subscribes to prophesy or not, certain predictions were made, in evidenced writings, and its fruition occured - in a non-confusing, open manifestation, and which equivalence has not been encountered or heard of elsewhere. I gave an example.
No, you didn't. You haven't given a real reference to this claimed prediction and a significant portion of Isaiah was written AFTER this dispersal.
quote:
Phophetic verses are not simple writings to deciphere, and usually its true import is lost by the uninitiated. This is what I meant by not according to everyone's wish list. T
That's not a problem for me. I haven't relied on anything that is difficult to interpret. If you object to Buz's interpretations you should reply to HIM and explain that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by IamJoseph, posted 02-24-2008 9:01 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
sl33w
Member (Idle past 5733 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 178 of 178 (473375)
06-28-2008 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
08-06-2006 3:36 AM


Re:Zechariah limited to AD 77-78
Reply to Buzsaw & PaulK
The Bible contains about 1,125,000 words.
You cannot read only one book and comprehend anything correctly.
Zechariah, Chapter 10, was about New Jerusalem, founded in "one day" (Isa 66.8); which was from AD 77 to AD 78.
This is comfirmed by Rev 2.10, "you will have tribulation 10 days" (AD 67-77).
Revelation was written after "Antipas died" in AD 66, according to Josephus; and -- he was there!
Revelation was written in AD 67, and Jesus returned in AD 77.
Consider what the opponents of this opinion write;
"The apostles expected Jesus to return in their lifetimes, BUT - we know that did not happen."
So then, they read the Bible correctly, but denied it.
This is the opinion of church leaders today -- DENY THE BIBLE.
sl33w

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2006 3:36 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024