Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 8:49 PM
33 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, Tanypteryx (6 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,169 Year: 9,205/19,786 Month: 1,627/2,119 Week: 387/576 Day: 62/128 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Fulfilled Prophecy
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15047
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 226 of 303 (376118)
01-11-2007 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Buzsaw
01-10-2007 8:06 PM


Re: Thread Not A Ninevah Thread
quote:

TO ALL: If I don't respond further to this Ninevah segue, don't be surprised unless I see something deemed substantial worthy of response.


WE're not surpised. Especially as your "not worthy of answer" includes points that you CANNOT answer. Like the ASV's translation of Nahum 2:3 - the translation that you recommend contradicts your interpretation of the verse. Either the ASV trnaslators got it badly wrong or your interpretation is wrong. And if the ASV translators are so wrong, then why reccomend them so highly when there is no shortage of other translations to choose from ?

quote:

I'm not conceding anything.


Sure. We don't expect you to concede that the Bible says what it says. I expect you to go on with your war against the Bible and the truth.

quote:

I rest my case with the evidence I have posted so as not to stonewall the thread.

OK so all you have is some obvious twisting of the Biblical text. It's pretty easy to come up with "accurate prophecies" is you don't care what the text really says and you can use your own hindsight to "interpret" it. But if you don't care about what the Bible says, why should we ? Your entire argument is self-defeating.

quote:

I would like to address the return of the Jews in light of Biblical prophecy

I beleive we've already done this. Most of the prophecies clearly refer to the end of the Babylonian exile. And we've gone into depth on Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse (and just so you don't make the same mistake again the exile and return is ONLY in Luke's version)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2007 8:06 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 227 of 303 (376174)
01-11-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by PaulK
01-11-2007 2:00 AM


Re: tense
Perhaps you would like to show an example where an English translation renders a far future prediction in the present tense.

i'm not sure about "far" future (as the prophets generally talked about present concerns). but here's a famous messianic one:

quote:
Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

it's just a stylistic point, the prophets like pulling their audience into the message and they use present tense for that. i could find a whole flood of examples. it's not a hard and fast rule, though. you can find lots of prominent examples of verses translated in future tense. check some of the more prominent examples used here -- for instance, the rest of nahum (the part that talks about the downfall of nineveh explicitly) is all present tense, iirc. the events clearly must have happened either in the past, or would have happened in the future.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2007 2:00 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2007 5:38 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 228 of 303 (376178)
01-11-2007 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by PaulK
01-11-2007 2:18 AM


Re: So is that yes?
Certainly the "but:" does not appear to correspond to any Hebrew word.

sure it does. it's a more "liberal" translation of the vav-prefix, which means "and." we have a separate word for it in modern hebrew, but i don't think it exists in biblical hebrew.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2007 2:18 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2007 5:41 PM arachnophilia has responded

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3757 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 229 of 303 (376197)
01-11-2007 11:54 AM


Mystery Babylon future tense judgment
The Lord is slow to anger and great inpower, and will not at all acquit the wicked: The Lord has his way in the whirlwind and in th storm and the clouds are the dust of his feet. kjv nahum 1:3

Katrina?

There is one come out of thee that imagineth evil against the LORD a wicked counsellor. kjv nahum 1:11

One comes out of Ninevah that imagineth evil against the Lord a wicked counsellor?

For now will I break his yoke from off thee, and will burst the bonds in sunder. kjv nahum 1:13

For Now I break his yoke however is both present and reference to a future tense.(the Mystery Babylon) for God will not acquit the wicked (naham 1:3)yet the Lord is a stronghold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him. kjv naham 1:7.

are thou better than populos No, that was situate among the rivers that had the waters round about it, whose rampart was the sea, and her wall was from the sea? kjv nahum 2:8

Are you better than populos from judgment?

Ethopia and Egypt were her strength, and it was infinite; Put and Lubim were thy helpers. kjv nahum 2:9

Yet was she carried away, she went into captivity; naham 2:10 [/qs]

Even though her strength was infinite she was carried away and went into captivity.

shepherds slumber, O king of Assyria thy nobles shall dwell in the dust, thy people is scattered upon the mountains and no man gathereth them. nahum 3:18

They were destroyed: In revelation you see another Babylon has arisen
The Mystery of Babylon the Great) The mother of harlots and abominations of the earth will be too, destroyed. Rev. 17: & Rev 18:

It says the Great Whore will be burn't with fire because of the hatred of the ten horns but what is interesting is the Great Whore is a City which reigneth over the kings of the earth. kjv Rev 17:16:17

It has a harbor much like popolos, and Ninevah, and it too makes the merchants rich by her costliness, and will be totally destroyed future tense, etc...

for in one hour so great riches is come to nought, And every shipmaster and all the company in ships and sailors, and as many as trade by the sea, stood afar off and cried when they saw the smoke of her burning saying what city is like unto this great city.

Rejoice over her thou heaven and ye holy apostles and prophets for God hath avenged you on her. kjv rev 18:

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.


ONESIMUS BY LANCE WEBB
Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2007 12:26 PM johnfolton has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 230 of 303 (376207)
01-11-2007 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by johnfolton
01-11-2007 11:54 AM


Re: Mystery Babylon future tense judgment
assyria.

assyria fell in 612 bc, right around the time nahum was written. babylon took over as the dominant kingdom in the area, and conquered judah some 30 or 40 years later.

assyria ≠ babylon.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by johnfolton, posted 01-11-2007 11:54 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2007 2:39 PM arachnophilia has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15047
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 231 of 303 (376291)
01-11-2007 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by arachnophilia
01-11-2007 10:30 AM


Re: tense
Looking at the NASB translation is says "Behold your King is coming to you" (whcih is rather ambiguous in tense, but lots of other verses preceding it and part of the same passage are future tense. And the latter point applies to the KJV, which you seem to have used. So this really isn't the example I was looking for - if you look at the passage as a whole it is clearly referrign to the future.

What I wanted was an example where the entire prophecy was written in the present tense - not one verse of it, where the surrounding text is clearly wirtten in the future tense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2007 10:30 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 3:18 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15047
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 232 of 303 (376294)
01-11-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by arachnophilia
01-11-2007 10:37 AM


Re: So is that yes?
i.e. it doesn't refer to a specific word, as Buzsaw claimed. It refers to a prefix to a word. Moreover the "and" translation" is at least as valid as the "but" whcih Buz relies on even though it doesn't really support his case.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2007 10:37 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 3:20 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 303 (376362)
01-11-2007 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by arachnophilia
01-11-2007 12:17 AM


Re: So is that yes?
Buz: 1. The name, Ninevah is not in the Hebrew manuscripts of Nahum 1:1 as your liberal text erroneously implies.

Arach: 1:1? yes it is. the rest of the chapter, no.

Make that 2:1. It was a typo error, Arach. I was responding to quotes of Jar from chapter 2 in which his liberal NIV translation has added the name Ninevah into the text though it is not in the Hebrew manuscripts from which the verse was translated.

2. According to my Hebrew/English Interlinear which supplies the nearest English equivalent to the Hebrew text, verse 8 begins with the significant little word "but as per the Hebrew word of that text. In order to understand at what point Ninevah is being honed in on, one must note that word, "but." Why? Because it implies that the chariots of Ninevah are likely not the same chariots described in verse one.

Arach writes:

nahum 2:8 starts, in hebrew:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
וְנִינְוֵה
v'nineveh

and ninevah

Are you trying to convince the www that you are a more knowledgeable and accurate translator of Hebrew to English than the Hebrew scholar than JP Green, editor and translator of the Hebrew/English Interlinear which has gone through 12 editions? Since the Hebrew language has relatively few words, perhaps either words are acceptable, depending on the context. Apparantly, Green sees the context as rendering "but" the more acceptible translation.

At the time of restoration of Jacob's splendor, at the time of Israel's preparation, appearing like torches, made of steel (to be soon burned up) crashing in the broadways, et al?? I don't think so in these verses.

arach writes:

yeah, no, try again. because what nahum said actually happened. assyria fell in 612 bc. judah's splendor was restored --

1. From my understanding of the post Babylonian Judah, it was nowhere near a restoration of the splendor Judah once had under David and Solomon, et al.

2. The splendor described by the prophets depict a messianic kingdom of even far greater splendor than what was experienced under King Solomon. Israel never came close to restoring Solomon's splendorus kingdom.

Edited by Buzsaw, : cancel last statement


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2007 12:17 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 3:40 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2007 7:55 AM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 303 (376366)
01-11-2007 11:01 PM


Were Prophets Historians Or Prophets?
Question for prophecy skeptics: Were the Biblical books of prophecy, known over the centuries as the prophetic scriptures historical or prophetic? Were those prophets historians as most of you prophecy skeptics appear to imply or were they prophets of future events which were to be fulfilled at some period after they were given?
Are the colleges and seminaries, the majority of studied theologians over the decades and centuries all mistaken in labeling these books the prophetic scriptures?


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
Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2007 11:04 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 236 by ringo, posted 01-11-2007 11:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 237 by jar, posted 01-11-2007 11:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 238 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2007 2:10 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 241 by ReverendDG, posted 01-12-2007 3:40 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 244 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 3:57 AM Buzsaw has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 303 (376368)
01-11-2007 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Buzsaw
01-11-2007 11:01 PM


Re: Were Prophets Historians Or Prophets?
Both. As Jar (I think) pointed out, a "prophet" is not one who sees the future; merely one who sees the truth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Buzsaw, posted 01-11-2007 11:01 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16637
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 236 of 303 (376371)
01-11-2007 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Buzsaw
01-11-2007 11:01 PM


Re: Were Prophets Historians Or Prophets?
What Crash said. I touched on that earlier in the thread, Message 49.

Short-range prophecy.


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 234 by Buzsaw, posted 01-11-2007 11:01 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30986
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 237 of 303 (376372)
01-11-2007 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Buzsaw
01-11-2007 11:01 PM


Re: Were Prophets Historians Or Prophets?
A Prophet is not a fortune teller. A prophet is simply a messenger, one who speaks for GOD.

They are sent by GOD to speak to the audience of their era, their period. To pretend that they were addressing someone thousands of years in the future other than in quite obvious ways (as exemplified by Pope Gregory's prophecy that in the year 2000CE a leap day would need to be added as will be needed in 2400CE) is simply making stuff up.

Prophets carried messages from GOD to GOD's people, they spoke directly to those people, and any predictions were of the short term nature of "If you do this, the following will happen".

Are the colleges and seminaries, the majority of studied theologians over the decades and centuries all mistaken in labeling these books the prophetic scriptures?

No, you are incorrect because you do not understand the meaning of the word Prophet.

It really is as simple as that.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Buzsaw, posted 01-11-2007 11:01 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15047
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 238 of 303 (376409)
01-12-2007 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Buzsaw
01-11-2007 11:01 PM


Re: Were Prophets Historians Or Prophets?
Neither. Prophets were primarily addressing the current situation their people faced. They might include predictions, but generally they were related to the present.

The only prophet I can think of who included large amounts of history is the author of Daniel who clearly wrote at around the time of the Maccabaean revolt. (And before we get th usual strawman that it is his "successes" that determine the dating the real reason has more to do with what he gets wrong than what he gets right.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Buzsaw, posted 01-11-2007 11:01 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 239 of 303 (376420)
01-12-2007 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by PaulK
01-11-2007 5:38 PM


Re: tense
Looking at the NASB translation is says "Behold your King is coming to you" (whcih is rather ambiguous in tense, but lots of other verses preceding it and part of the same passage are future tense. And the latter point applies to the KJV, which you seem to have used. So this really isn't the example I was looking for - if you look at the passage as a whole it is clearly referrign to the future.

yes, it's usually inferred from context. as i understand it, biblical hebrew only has perfect and imperfect verbs. no "tense" in the sense we are used to in english or even modern hebrew, relating to time. so you will likely find multiple translations that differ slightly in tenses.

i could be wrong on this, i'll check.

Looking at the NASB translation is says "Behold your King is coming to you" (whcih is rather ambiguous in tense, but lots of other verses preceding it and part of the same passage are future tense. And the latter point applies to the KJV, which you seem to have used. So this really isn't the example I was looking for - if you look at the passage as a whole it is clearly referrign to the future.

What I wanted was an example where the entire prophecy was written in the present tense - not one verse of it, where the surrounding text is clearly wirtten in the future tense.

most of them kind of go back and forth a bit. i dunno if it's totally possible to find one entirely in one tense. language just doesn't work out like that.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2007 5:38 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2007 3:44 AM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 240 of 303 (376422)
01-12-2007 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by PaulK
01-11-2007 5:41 PM


Re: So is that yes?
i.e. it doesn't refer to a specific word, as Buzsaw claimed. It refers to a prefix to a word.

yup, "and" (or in this case "but") is a vav-prefix. exciting, i know. one little letter.

Moreover the "and" translation" is at least as valid as the "but" whcih Buz relies on even though it doesn't really support his case.

it's generally translated "and." unfortunately, prefixes aren't cataloged in concordances, so i can't give you statistics on that. so you'll have to trust me. it means "and."


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2007 5:41 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by ringo, posted 01-12-2007 10:51 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 248 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-12-2007 11:24 AM arachnophilia has responded

RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019