Analysis of Amos 9:11-15 as Prophecy

The Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!! thread touched on Amos 9:11-13 as prophecy. Here's the NIV translation: I had asked this question: Buzsaw replies: This reply has many problems:

• If the vapor canopy was in the past before the flood, then why are the prophets, presumably prophesizing about the future, describing it?
  ​
• Buzz interprets the phrase, "the plowman will overtake the reaper" as meaning that the seasons will run together because the weather is so wonderful, but it is hard to see how this is indicative of a vapor canopy.
  ​
• Buzz's interpretation of other prophecies is global drought, not global plenty, so this Amos prophecy contradicts the other prophecies he has cited.
  ​
• Buzz neglected to mention the most significant part of this prophecy of Amos about the restoration of Israel. Since this has already happened, but the rest of the prophecy about the seasons running together has not happened, the prophecy is incorrect.

Buzz's interpretation raises many questions. How does he reach such firm conclusions from such ambiguous statements? How does he resolve the inconsistencies between different prophecies? How does he decide when a prophecy is fulfilled? How much of a prophecy has to be fulfilled before it is considered fulfilled?--Percy

quote:

---

Buzz neglected to mention the most significant part of this prophecy of Amos about the restoration of Israel. Since this has already happened, but the rest of the prophecy about the seasons running together has not happened, the prophecy is incorrect.

---

Actually, according to the prophecy you're quoting the restoration of Israel has not occurred, and much more needs to happen to say it has occurred. Look at it:"I will repair its broken places,
restore its ruins,
and build it as it used to be,
so that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations that bear my name"Surely "build it as it used to be" and "restore its ruins" at least includes the temple. Surely "possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name" means that they get to close the mosque over the dome of the rock and get complete say over what goes on in Jerusalem. In fact, they have to rule the area of Edom as well in order to say that any of this prophecy has occurred.

quote:

---

Buzz's interpretation of other prophecies is global drought, not global plenty, so this Amos prophecy contradicts the other prophecies he has cited.

---

Am I missing something here? I think the "Left Behind" scenario is utter nonsense, but Buzsaw apparently thinks it's true, and that means he believes in global drought, but only for 3 1/2 years or so, followed by a thousand years of plenty and peace, where those who die at a hundred years old are called sinners, because they died so young.Again, I don't agree with any of that, but since that's what Buz believes, isn't it consistent that he interprets abundance and peace prophecies as applying to the millennium and drought, famine, and death prophecies as applying to the "tribulation"?

quote:

---

11"In that Day I will restore
David's fallen tent.
I will repair its broken places,
restore its ruins,
and build it as it used to be,

---

Hi Percy. The context of this word, translated "tent" in the NIV clearly implies the temple and not the portable tent as used during the Exodus as it's "breaches" or foundations must be built up which would not be the case with a portable tent. According to my Hebrew-English Interlinear, the word is "booths" which could likely itself be translated as either, but the context clearly describes it as something which requires considerable work to rebuild.My old American Standard Bible which is more conservative and literal than the NIV says "tabernacle."

quote:

---

12so that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations that bear my name, declares the Lord, who will do these things."

---

The temple was refurbished and restored after Amos made this 7th century BC prophecy, but after this prophecy things went downhill with Israel to the captivity by Babylon and they never got possession of other nations as is prophesied in the future millenial messianic kingdom. This, together with the following by Amos clearly hasn't happened yet.

quote:

---

13The days are coming," declares the Lord,
"when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills.

---

Definitely not happened yet. This clearly implies a super climate.

quote:

---

14I will bring back my exiled people Israel;
they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
15I will plant Israel in their own land,
never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,"
says the Lord your God.

---

Clear implication here is that they will dwell safely and securely in their land. Partially fulfilled, now, but never since Amos's prophecy until now. Will be fully fulfilled when messiah Jesus returns.

quote:

---

How do you know in what way God is going to circumvent natural laws? For example, why does he need a vapor canopy?
Buzsaw replies:

​

I did address that. I cited the fact that the climate described by the prophets is indicitave of a canopy because the seasons are hardly existing during the messianic millenium. In Amos 9:13 we read that the "ploughman will overtake the reaper." When the crop is reaped, the global weather is such that the plowing for the new crop can commence as the reaper finishes reaping. I also cited that men will live long, according to the prophets, as they did before the flood.
This reply has many problems:

​

If the vapor canopy was in the past before the flood, then why are the prophets, presumably prophesizing about the future, describing it?

---

Because this prophecy, together with prophecies in Revelation, Isaiah and other prophets indicate conditions which I interpret to create this canopy which in turn would produce the super climate similar to what is implied scripturally before the flood.

quote:

---

Buzz interprets the phrase, "the plowman will overtake the reaper" as meaning that the seasons will run together because the weather is so wonderful, but it is hard to see how this is indicative of a vapor canopy.

---

1. We know people lived long before the flood according to the geneologies given.
2. We know humans were vegetarians before the flood, implying that there was a great deal of lust fruits and vegies to eat.
3. During the coming messianic millennium, the lion will eat vegetation like the ox, implying the vegetation will be so good that they will prefer it to meat.
This all to me, indicates a super climate world wide.
4. Please note that I called my interpretation an hypothesis which means I'm not saying dogmatically that it must be how things will work out in the end.

quote:

---

Buzz's interpretation of other prophecies is global drought, not global plenty, so this Amos prophecy contradicts the other prophecies he has cited.

---

I thought I made it clear that I believed the drought, the leveling of the earth via earthquake and the heat, etc would effect the canopy , producing the super climate and other conditions for this new age. Though other prophets for the last times predict the bad stuff, Amos simply sees the good that comes of it all in the end.

quote:

---

Buzz neglected to mention the most significant part of this prophecy of Amos about the restoration of Israel. Since this has already happened, but the rest of the prophecy about the seasons running together has not happened, the prophecy is incorrect.

---

Surely, you should be able to understand, Percy, that it all ainta gona happen simultaneously and suddenly. First things first. According to Jesus's prophecy about Jerusalem, when it comes into the occupation and ownership of Israel again, the end times begin with the decline of gentile nations and their removal from Jerusalem. This, somewhere in Luke 21.

quote:

---

Buzz's interpretation raises many questions. How does he reach such firm conclusions from such ambiguous statements?

---

Again, I referred to the canopy thing as hypothetical. [quote]How does he resolve the inconsistencies between different prophecies? How does he decide when a prophecy is fulfilled? How much of a prophecy has to be fulfilled before it is considered fulfilled?Hopefully I've cleared up some of this.

quote:

---

Am I missing something here? I think the "Left Behind" scenario is utter nonsense.........

---

Jesus talked about this in Luke 17:28 to 37 as he prophesies about the latter days when he is "revealed." Among other things, "two men on one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. There shall be two women grinding together; the one shall be taken and the other shall be left."

quote:

---

but Buzsaw apparently thinks it's true, and that means he believes in global drought, but only for 3 1/2 years or so.....

---

Read about it in Revelation 11. However, the 3 1/2 years implicated is the worst of it. Likely it will crescendo to this long before the stated 3 1/2 years.[/quote]

quote:

---

Again, I don't agree with any of that, but since that's what Buz believes, isn't it consistent that he interprets abundance and peace prophecies as applying to the millennium and drought, famine, and death prophecies as applying to the "tribulation"?

---

Notice that I've not yet mentioned the tribulation, the reason being, that nowhere in the prophesies is it limited to a specific number of years. Imo, it's already happening in some parts of the world. It's another subject and I won't get into that, but imo, it preceeds the 3 1/2 years above. Jesus said it would preceed the "darkening of the sun and moon" in Mark 13:25 or 26. The "wrath" time of Revelation follows the tribulation according to the sequences of the various prophecies.

Hi Percy There's a verse in Genesis that is related to this This has never been fulfilled, and I really cannot see it ever being fulfilled. The Jews do not even have Jerusalem to themselves.Some apologists twist this verse to say 'between' the river of Egypt and the Euphrates and not 'to' as stated in the NIV that I quoted from.Interestingly, I searched the net for an apologetic and found one here:Other Bible prophecies fulfilled by or delivered by Jesus Christ This 'apologist' states:'In Genesis 15:18, the Bible said the descendants of Abraham (Abram) would have their own country, between (emphasis mine ) Egypt and the Euphrates. This prophecy has been fulfilled more than once. About 3400 years ago, the Jews first established Israel.However, he gives a supporting reference:'Here is Genesis 15:18
On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates"As you can see, the verse clearly states 'from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates'Obviously he uses the word 'between' because he knows that to use 'from' means that the prophecy failed.Just another example of how Bible Inerrantists sometimes appear to be economical with the truth.PS My apologies Admin, hope this is more suitable.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 06-15-2003]

Eloquently rephrased. Thank you.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator[This message has been edited by Admin, 06-16-2003]

lol. Brian's editing doesn't do much good while Admin's post is as is. Maybe this reply will help bring that to his attention.I refrained from quoting lest I perpetuate the problem.

LOL,It does show how incredibly tactful I am! lolI really must refrain from posting when I have had a bad day!

This is the part that interested me the most: Okay, now I think I understand what you were getting at with the vapor canopy. You believe that a super climate existed before the flood, and that it was caused by a vapor canopy. That's why you cite prophecy of a coming super climate as indicative of the return of the vapor canopy. Here are the questions this raises:

• What evidence do you have that a vapor canopy ever existed?
  ​
• What evidence do you have that supports the physical possibility of a vapor canopy, without requiring Godly miracles?
  ​
• What Biblical verses can you cite to support that there was ever a super climate, outside of perhaps the Garden of Eden.

You cited these verses from Amos 9: And about them you said: But the return of the Messiah is not mentioned in this prophecy, so you must derive this requirement from other prophecies outside Amos. In your view, are all prophecies additive? In other words, must all parts of all related prophecies be true before they can be considered fulfilled? No, Buzz, we don't know this. Men kept livestock before the flood, and there were livestock on the ark: Men already been divided the animal kingdom into the clean and the unclean before the flood. Clean animals were those that the followers of the Lord could eat, and unclean animals were those they could not. God instructs Noah to bring both clean and unclean animals onto the ark, so clearly man was already eating clean animals before the flood: Immediately upon disembarking Noah sacrifices clean animals, a liturgical activity he was evidently already familiar with: Outside the Bible we know from archeological and paleontological investigations that man was already hunting and eating animals many thousands of years before the supposed world-wide flood, for which there is no evidence anyway.The bottom line is that not only is there no evidence that man was a vegetarian before the flood, even the Bible indicates that pre-flood man ate meat.--Percy

No. Luke, writing decades after the purported discussion, claims, wholly without substantiation, that Jesus said such things. It doesn't even rise to the level of hearsay.

quote:

---

Okay, now I think I understand what you were getting at with the vapor canopy. You believe that a super climate existed before the flood, and that it was caused by a vapor canopy. That's why you cite prophecy of a coming super climate as indicative of the return of the vapor canopy. Here are the questions this raises:

---

Right. And that's why I believe the prophesied heat, drying up of rivers and darkening of the sun and moon are significant, for all these would contribute to the reforming of the canopy.

quote:

---

What evidence do you have that a vapor canopy ever existed?

---

My evidence consists of the following:
1. The visible evidence I interpret to indicate there was a flood. There would need to be a lotta water both up and under for that, even if the mountains were not pushed up yet. We've gone over this visible evidence before.
2. The Genesis record states that the flood produced the first rainbow. This indicates that no direct sunlight was on earth before the flood.
3. Genesis also says the earth was watered by a mist before the flood.
4. The long life before the flood, according to Genesis indicates there was a much healthier earth and lifespan shortened rapidly after the flood according to the geneologies.
5. The tropical animals found frozen in the Arctic ices indicate the poles were likely warm before the flood. The canopy seems to be the best explanation of this.

quote:

---

But the return of the Messiah is not mentioned in this prophecy, so you must derive this requirement from other prophecies outside Amos. In your view, are all prophecies additive? In other words, must all parts of all related prophecies be true before they can be considered fulfilled?

---

Yes, before they can be totally fulfilled. Many prophecies are so general that they cover very long periods of time and others are clearly about shorter periods of time. One cannot always determine for sure, exactly what span of time some of the more ambiguous prophecies do cover. Others have enough info to figure it out. Most prophecies do need support from what other prophets said about the event to clearly understand what is being prophesied. Some prophecies are so general that they cover events for both the first and 2nd advent of Christ. The ten horned beast of Revelation 13 can only be understood by information given in Revelation 17 about that beast as well as what the OT prophet Daniel said about it in Daniel chapter 7.
As for Amos 9, I believe Isaiah 60 gives some details as to Israel's world status during the messianic rule, as well as the latter part of Zechariah 14, though Isaiah 60 gets into some of what is described in Revelation 20 as the "new earth" which actually comes after the millenium when there will be no sun or moon, but as in the first three days of creation the Spirit of God,imo God himself will light it via his omnipresent Spirit.

quote:

---

2. We know humans were vegetarians before the flood, implying that there was a great deal of lust fruits and vegies to eat.

​

No, Buzz, we don't know this. Men kept livestock before the flood, and there were livestock on the ark:

---

You raise a good point, but the instructions given to Adam were that he was to eat the herbs of the field and the fruit of the trees. Then after the flood he was to eat the clean animals.There are these possibilities:
1. That only the clean animals were to be sacrificed, for we know that to be the case after the law was given. No instructions were recorded as to the details of these sacrifices which were installed way back in Able's time, as to whether the sacrificed meat was to be eaten.
2. The clean animals were mostly for milk, cheese, wool and other clothing materials.
3. God, knowing the animals were to be eaten after the flood, created the clean animals, not only for the above purposes, but for postflood food.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-17-2003]

Buzsaw wrote:

quote:

---

My evidence consists of the following:

---

Very little of this could be considered "evidence"

quote:

---

1. The visible evidence I interpret to indicate there was a flood.

---

There is none. Next...

quote:

---

2. The Genesis record states that the flood produced the first rainbow. This indicates that no direct sunlight was on earth before the flood.

---

Hearsay, appeal to spurious authority. You are citing a biblical claim in support of the claim that the bible is inerrant; circular reasoning.We have good physcial reasons to believe that direct sunlight has been falling in the earth for some 4.5 billion years. This claim is prima facie ridiculous.

quote:

---

3. Genesis also says the earth was watered by a mist before the flood.

---

OK

quote:

---

4. The long life before the flood, according to Genesis indicates there was a much healthier earth and lifespan shortened rapidly after the flood according to the geneologies.

---

Unless the geneolgies are wrong. Which would not be unlikely in the case of a 2000-year old document translated through mutliple languages and multiple policital needs.

quote:

---

5. The tropical animals found frozen in the Arctic ices indicate the poles were likely warm before the flood. The canopy seems to be the best explanation of this.

---

Needs supporting evidence; what tropical animals? Existing scitnitific models of climate change may be sufficient to explain such an anomaly; have they been applied and rejected?

quote:

---

My evidence consists of the following:
1. The visible evidence I interpret to indicate there was a flood. There would need to be a lotta water both up and under for that, even if the mountains were not pushed up yet. We've gone over this visible evidence before.
2. The Genesis record states that the flood produced the first rainbow. This indicates that no direct sunlight was on earth before the flood.
3. Genesis also says the earth was watered by a mist before the flood.
4. The long life before the flood, according to Genesis indicates there was a much healthier earth and lifespan shortened rapidly after the flood according to the geneologies.
5. The tropical animals found frozen in the Arctic ices indicate the poles were likely warm before the flood. The canopy seems to be the best explanation of this.

---

Buzsaw, we've already been over this in your Flood topic. You have still not produced any clear evidence for the Flood other than the Bible and your own opinion, which as we said is bot good enough. The 'visible evidence' you talk about has already been attributed to scientific explanations. You have not produced any kind of proof to support the vapour canopy idea - and it has already been soundly refuted in the same Flood topic by Coragyps' physics calculations. Another thread has been started to discuss your 'frozen tropical animals' comments, which I for one will be following closely.What I really want to hear it a definition of this super climate that seems to figure so much in your prophesies.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

Hi Buzz!I'm interested in your interpretation of past events because of the way they influence your interpretation of prophecies of future events. I asked what evidence you had that a vapor canopy ever existed, and you replied with five points: Even if there were "visible evidence" of the flood, you have not established that the flood requires a vapor canopy. Therefore, even if Noah's flood were an established reality, it provides no evidence for a vapor canopy.Most Creationists have given up on the vapor canopy and instead argue that the water welled up from the ground, citing part of Genesis 7:11: On that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth.... They believe that the rain that fell for forty days and forty nights was an inconsequential contribution to the total floodwater. Eliminating the vapor canopy also eliminates the objections concerning its physical impossibility, and it removes the difficulty of where all the water went afterward, since we obviously have no vapor canopy today. Not that the idea of floodwater springing from the ground isn't full of its own problems, but we won't go there for now.In addition, there is no "visible evidence" for the flood. When you combine this total lack of evidence *for* the flood with the large quantities of evidence for an ancient earth on which geological layers have been deposited and eroded for millennia after millennia it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the flood of Genesis is a religious myth. This assumes several things:

• That Genesis is a true and accurate record rather than an ancient myth. There is no evidence that the Genesis flood account is in any way true, and huge amounts of evidence that it is not.
  ​
• That you've interpreted Genesis 9:12 correctly. It doesn't say this was the first rainbow, but only that God was establishing his rainbow in the clouds as a reminder of the covenant between himself and life.

The evidence says that the while earth's weather has certainly varied, there was never a millennium around 5 or 6 thousand years ago where the sun never shone. In fact, we have evidence from ancient civilizations older than 5000 years that they could clearly see the sun, moon and stars. And there's the testimony of Genesis 1:14-19: And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years." If there had been a vapor canopy then pre-flood man could not have marked the seasons by the position of the rising and setting sun, nor navigated by the stars. There is no evidence to support this, and this is a good time to mention that under a vapor canopy plants in particular would suffer from lack of sunlight. If you've ever done any gardening, tell me what happens to plants that require direct sunlight when you plant them on the north side of your house. There is no evidence that man ever possessed longer life spans and much evidence that he not only didn't, but couldn't. When paleoanthropologists excavate ancient skeletons they have techniques for estimating the age of death. While the techniques for adults are accurate only within a decade or so, the difference between 50 years and 500 years would be particularly telling. No ancient skeleton has even been found where the age of death was estimated to be anywhere near that of Genesis, not even close.The human body physically wears out after a while. Cartilage in the joints, especially the knees and hips, eventually wears away. The bone spurs which then form grow at a predictable rate (and eventually produce immobility long before 500 years of age). Veins and arteries clog. Brain cells die and neurologically we decline, as anyone older than 60 well knows as he feels his ability to maintain balance and sense where his feet are diminishes. Genetically, the telomeres at the terminus of chromosomes shorten with each cell division, putting a practical upper limit on human longevity at around 130 years. Since there's no land under the Arctic ice, did you perhaps mean Antarctica? Perhaps you could elaborate on this. My understanding is that the tropical climate of Antarctica occurred maybe 250 million years ago, which puts it somewhat outside the era of the great flood.Or perhaps you meant the wooly mammoths found frozen in Siberia? These all date, at a minimum, to thousands of years before the great flood, and some of the oldest date to around 40,000 years ago. They provide no support for a world-wide tropical climate 5 or 6 thousand years ago (they were already extinct), nor was their climate tropical when they *did* live.I see that wj has opened a thread for this point: Frozen Tropical Animals. It would probably be better for you to reply there, as this is taking us off-topic. You're referring to Genesis 3:17-19 where God issues a curse that says man will toil in the earth and eat the plants of the field, but he does not prohibit Adam from eating meat, and neither does he mention clean and unclean animals. The first mention of clean and unclean only comes with Noah, and only in regard to how many of each type to save, nothing about to only eat clean animals after the flood.Not only does the Bible not say that man was a vegetarian before the flood, we have paleoanthropological evidence going back not only thousands but millions of years indicating clearly that man ate meat. Hunted it, butchered it, cooked it, ate it. Excavations of Homo sapiens sapiens, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, Homo erectus and Homo habilis indicate that they all ate meat well before the flood.--Percy

I'm relatively certain that the whole concept of a vapor canopy came from Gen 1:7, where we read that God divided the waters below from the waters above with a firmament in between. The "waters above" were said to be a vapor canopy providing this super climate you're thinking of.The problem is that the waters above are divided from the waters below by the firmament which includes the stars, moon, and sun. If we accept conventional cosmology, which even most YEC's do, then that would place the waters above several billion light years away, not in the atmosphere.Without Gen 1:7, there really is no reason to suppose a vapor canopy, as the flood is said to have come from the "fountains of the great deep," not from the waters above. Long life could be attributed to these "perfect genes" that creationists cite to allow brothers to marry sisters in Cain and Abel's day or to many other reasons other than a vapor canopy. The vapor canopy was invented to explain Gen 1:7, not long life before the flood.