|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I get carried away sometimes
But at least I have no lack of passion! Just a lack of intelligence... it's a dangerous combination
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: This is only one possible interpretation. There are several other possible dates - and the 20th year of Artaxerxes is 445 BC. you can work out wen the 20th year of Artaxerxes, by going back to the end of the reign of his father Xerxes. He died toward the end of 475BCE. Artaxerxes’ would have taken over his thrown in the same yearso 475 - 20 = 455
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
The author of "The Message" Bible seems to add quite a bit to the text.
quote:Except that the the NT writers who quote Isaiah 53 appear to be using it literally. I agree that Isaiah wrote in a poetic style, and this style of writing is creative and not necessarily literal. If Isaiah's writing is full of idioms and figures of speech of the time, that shows me that the prophecy was not meant for the distant future. Idioms and figures of speech get lost over time and over 700 years is a very long time. Not to mention that OT Hebrew is a dead language. God would know that. Also if we accept that Isaiah uses idioms and figures of speech, then that has to be taken into account for the whole writing, not just the difficult parts.
quote:Your quote from the NET Bible doesn't really make the verse we're discussing fit Jesus either. The NT writers did not intimate that Jesus ever fell from God's favor. Also the verse in Job doesn't really show me that Isaiah was using an idiom or figure of speech in verse 10. Unfortunately it is hard for us to determine if our translations have already taken into account the idioms and figures of speech.
Young's Literal Translation: And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed -- he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper. Seed is already a creative way of referring to children and prolonging days is a creative way of saying living longer. We also have the personification of the soul. Obviously a soul can't make an offering. So our translations may have already taken into account Isaiah's creative use of language. Unfortunately all we have are translations. Are there any other resources that show this verse is a figure of speech and not to be taken at face value, meaning actual children of his loin? ABE: Figuratively, Isaiah could be talking about the nation of Israel. Edited by purpledawn, : Added thought. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That's 465 BC.
Wikipedia answers.com Encyclopedia Britannica 465 - 20 = 445.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: That would be an assumption that Christ was born right at the BCE CE which has shown to be incorrect. Even back in the middle ages it was determined that Christ was born somewhere between 3 BCE & 13 BCE. If one accepts Matthew's story of the Magi, than Christ would have to have been born prior to 6 BCE since that is the date of Herod's death.Just to say that Christ was born the same year that places the Crucifixion no later than 27 CE. I said that christ was 'Baptized' in 29ce, not 'born' then. You are correct to say that he was born much earlier....he was actually born Sept/Oct 2BCE...no exact date is known but he was 30yrs old when he was baptized by John.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:But those are not children of his loin, his seed. How does the verse concerning the servants seed support the idea of symbolic "birth" into God's kingdom or eternal life after physical death? That's assuming quite a lot. What translation tells you he will give his descendants long life? I think the use of the word seed is very specific, even creatively, and speaks of direct descendants, the passing of sperm, etc. I don't feel it means figuratively just anyone who joins the club. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But what about when Nabonidus came back or before he want away ? And why not mention that Belshazzar was only co-regent ? Why describe Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar when he was the son of Nabonidus ?
quote: It doesn't show that Belshazzar was only the second most powerful person, and it calls him king anyway.
quote: According to Daniel 8 the "Prince of Princes" (8:25) is supposed to be around in the "latter days" of the Diadochi states (8:21-23), If he didn't turn up then it doesn't mean that the prophecy refers to the future - it means that the prophecy FAILED.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
i agree that 476/465 is a conflict among different sources but 475 bce accepted too for various reasons.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: No matter what translation I read, offspring and a prolonged life is part of the prophecy. didnt Jesus call his followers his 'children'? and isnt he called their 'father'? and wasnt he resurrected again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: I think the use of the word seed is very specific, even creatively, and speaks of direct descendants, the passing of sperm, etc. I don't feel it means figuratively just anyone who joins the club. thats not necessarily true...there are many examples where an indirect decedent is called a 'seed' and where a direct decendent is NOT called a seed
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: But what about when Nabonidus came back or before he want away ? And why not mention that Belshazzar was only co-regent ? Why describe Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar when he was the son of Nabonidus It may be that Nebuchadnezzar was simply the 'father' of Belshazzar as to the throne, Nebuchadnezzar being a royal predecessor. In a similar manner, the Assyrians used the expression 'son of Omri' to denote a successor of Omri. Also the book Nabonidus and Belshazzar (by R.P. Dougherty, 1929) reasons that it is probable that Belshazzar's mother was Nitocris and that she was a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar (II). That really would make Nebuchadnezzar the grandfather of Belshazzar.
Paulk writes: It doesn't show that Belshazzar was only the second most powerful person, and it calls him king anyway. there are many examples of Co-Regencies in the ancient world...its not unusual to find father and sons ruling together as one.
PaulK writes: According to Daniel 8 the "Prince of Princes" (8:25) is supposed to be around in the "latter days" of the Diadochi states (8:21-23), If he didn't turn up then it doesn't mean that the prophecy refers to the future - it means that the prophecy FAILED. if it hasnt happened yet, that doesnt mean that it has failed, that just means it hasnt happened yet and its is still 'for the time of the end'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Stile writes: I get carried away sometimes But at least I have no lack of passion! Just a lack of intelligence... it's a dangerous combination Not at all it shows that you've at least thought about it...that takes intelligence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Please also read Message 48 and Message 51 before responding.
Show that Isaiah meant followers of a messiah as opposed to legal children.
Suffering Servant-Jewish Interpretation So, seeing seed or seeing sons or seeing children are idiomatic expressions used in the Hebrew Bible to describe the experience of seeing one's own family propagate for one or more generations. Actually God is called father, not Jesus and we are considered God's children, not children of Jesus.
Calling God Father: Children is one of Jesus’ favorite titles for His followers, regardless of their age. He calls us children, not out of a desire to be quaint but to point to a fundamental truth about our identity in relation to God the Father. We are children of the Father because He created us, but even more because He gave us new birth through water and the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: Actually God is called father, not Jesus and we are considered God's children, not children of Jesus. Isaiah 9:6 "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end..." this is a messianic prophecy...the messiah (Jesus) would fulfill all these roles. It does not mean that he has taken the place of God, for even he says that he is not the Almighty God. But he has been placed in a position of a god to us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Show me that the followers of Jesus referred to him as father.
Show me that the majority of Christians refer to Jesus as father. I have never heard Jesus referred to as Eternal Father. Reality does not support your contention. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024