Tod

Originally posted by Amos
The dual identity of Jesus is well known and if all humans must be born agian all humans will also have a dual identity of which one must be a self created idea of their existence and this is the identity that will rapture when realization occurs.

That doesn't answer the question. That may be so, at least within the context of your theology, but the question is what in the wording of THIS specific verse makes you think that the two people of which one is left and one taken refers to one person with a dual identity? What in the wording so much as implies as much? Nothing...

Suspiciuos are the words "two men" or "two women" and "rooftop" of all places when the rapture comes our way.

Why are these words "suspicious"?

I didn't read Madkins007 so can't say but the second coming of Christ will be a personal event wherein we are born into eternal life and the "Thousand Year Reign" will be ours to unfold.

Well it is real simple. Madkins007 is arguing that Jesus' second coming occurred in 70 AD. Do you agree with this?

Sheshbazzar

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tod
[B]As stated below, there are too many real contradictions that require a lot of verse twisting and special pleading to rationalize away ..... I look forward to the resident apologists' explanations.

Contradiction number one:

Ex. 6:3 tells us that Abraham did not know Yahweh's name, but Gen. 22:14 tells us that Abraham named a place after him using his name. Obviously he knew his name.

Returning to the original subject of this thread, [which was not began as a debate about the time or manner of the "rapture." ]

Again I quote from my Bible;

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Issac, and unto Jacob as El-Shaddi, but by my Name YAHWEH, was I not Known to them?"

The important thing about this quotation is not its wording or pronunciation alone, but in that it stands here this day as a wittness of an "extant text".
True, not so common, yet accepted, believed, and cherished, by an uncountable number of people out of every nation, and kindred, and tongue.
That is to say, these diverse peoples have so understood, and so rendered,and so speak, according to the tenor of the above words, as they always have, unto this very day.
You speak of an "extant text" implying that the common KJV or NIV is that text, or that these "versions" renderings accurately convey the meanings of the original language.
We say, No, you do err.
People who love the Name of Yahweh today,each of us,in our own land, and in our own language, wage a struggle against the prevailing worldly "versions" being foisted off on us.
Are you sceptical? so am I, so are we.
Sheshbazzar, friend of YAHshua

Amlodhi

I understand now. You're original statement, however, was a bit misleading:

INTERPOLATE = To alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.


The relevant portion of Ex. 6:3 reads:

" . . . uSHeMi YHWH Lo NoDaTi LaHem."

(NoDaTi) = Ist person Nif'al stem (passive/reflexive) of the verb root "yada".

(NOTE: Sorry, the board would not accept Hebrew characters so I will have to settle for transliteration until such time as I can find a way to make the Hebrew work.)

The literal translation of the transliterated Hebrew words above is:

". . . and by my name YHWH not did I reveal myself (or make myself known) to them.

In what way then has the interpretation of these extant Hebrew words been altered?


Namaste'

Amlodhi

Tod

Ex. 6:3 tells us that Abraham did not know Yahweh's name, but Gen. 22:14 tells us that Abraham named a place after him using his name. Obviously he knew his name.

Returning to the original subject of this thread, [which was not began as a debate about the time or manner of the "rapture." ]

Again I quote from my Bible;

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Issac, and unto Jacob as El-Shaddi, but by my Name YAHWEH, was I not Known to them?"

The important thing about this quotation is not its wording or pronunciation alone, but in that it stands here this day as a wittness of an "extant text".
True, not so common, yet accepted, believed, and cherished, by an uncountable number of people out of every nation, and kindred, and tongue.
That is to say, these diverse peoples have so understood, and so rendered,and so speak, according to the tenor of the above words, as they always have, unto this very day.
You speak of an "extant text" implying that the common KJV or NIV is that text, or that these "versions" renderings accurately convey the meanings of the original language.
We say, No, you do err.


I'm a bit puzzled as to why you want to debate this issue with me, when you are already engaged in a debate with Amlodhi. If anything, you'd think you'd chose the other contradiction listed just for variety's sake.

If you simply must debate this issue on two fronts though, I'll indulge you.

You are making the claim that these nebulous "versions" you speak of (I'm at a loss, since I never use either the KJV or NIV since I feel they are inferior translations) don't "accurately convey the meanings of the original language."

First of all, we don't have "the original language" as it was written and never will. There are no originals and indeed of the books in question there are no copies that are even within a few centuries of when they were thought to be written. So any claim that the "original[s]" said such-and-such is a baseless claim, since no originals exist. We don't know what was written in the originals, and it is rather irrelevant.

However, if you simply mean by "original language" the oldest Hebrew versions we do have, then I have to point out that in the Massoretic text we do have the same claim that Abraham didn't know Yahweh's name in Exodus and in Genesis it tells us Abraham named the place Yahweh provides. Here's what my Hebrew-English Interlinear says:

"and-I-appeared to Abraham to Isaac and-to Jacob as-God Almighty but-name-of-me Yahweh not I-made-myself-known to-them." (Ex. 6:3)

"so-he-called Abraham name-of the-place the-that Yahweh he-will-provide." (Gen 22:14)

In both cases the same Hebrew characters are used for the name of God.

Simply claiming that English translations aren't correct doesn't make an argument! Why don't you tell us what it "really" says?

Sheshbazzar

We are still having a communcation breakdown.
I wrote; "Such an IDEA is a latter interpolation on and of a single verse." If you have such difficulty understanding the English language, why should I,or anyone else trust your grasp of the Hebrew language?
As for the subject IDEAS foreign to the actual text being interpolated upon the text , Judaism is fraught with examples,
as I previously stated concerning the superstitions regarding speaking the Name. The writings of the Mishna, Kabbala et. al.
are filled with IDEAS inconsistent with text,but that have none the less effectively displaced the actual words of the text, in many instances reversing or nullifying the actual meaning of the written words.
Thank you for the Hebrew `lesson`, I have only been a student of Hebrew for some 27 years now, and have read every word of The Torah in Hebrew, and can recite or write from memory many verses correct down to the last yod and tittle.
However if I boast of my own proficiency,I yet account it little, other than that I might of myself have confidence in my integrity.
Howbeit I am not alone in my persuasions, having exchanged correspondence with brethern in Israel, Europe, Asia, Mexico, and not myselfe alone, but such others as Yahweh has called, whom
when we assemble, share their communcations.
We are many and scattered, but are in Yahweh's Name, ONE

Amos

That's not fair to say because the deep structure theme of the bible already begins at the first page. So I think it is unfair to become a literalist just to prove the bible wrong.

When the word "rapture" comes our way the first thing we must look at is the context of its presentation and that is how they become suspicious. For example, why "two and two" instead of two and three, or just two and another group.Not at all. The second coming will be on an individual basis and has nothing to do with the past or the future. The time is here and now but not for everybody at this time.

Amlodhi

Actually, my reading/comprehension skills have proven to be very dependable. Frankly, as worded, your statement (above) makes little sense. Is it intended to mean that the extant text is not the original or that the meaning of the extant text has simply been misconstrued?

Additionally, I find your defensive attitude to be nearly as curious as your failure to provide an answer to the single inquiry I made in my post.

If you know the Hebrew, then you know what the extant text says.

So, I ask again, in what way have the Hebrew words been altered and/or in what way has the interpretation of the extant text been misconstrued?

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Madkins007

One of the useful aspects of the parallelism of the Gospels is that you can often find a story from a slightly different slant.

One such parallel to much of Matthew 24 exists in Luke 17:20-37.

Here, the comparison to the days of Noah is amplified a bit:
Luke 17:26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man: 27 people went on eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day Noah boarded the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

"28 It will be the same as it was in the days of Lot: people went on eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; 29 but on the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be like that on the day the Son of Man is revealed.

"31 On that day, a man on the housetop, whose belongings are in the house, must not come down to get them. And likewise the man who is in the field must not turn back. 32 Remember Lot's wife! 33 Whoever tries to make his life secure will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

"34 I tell you, on that night two will be in one bed: one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together: one will be taken and the other left. 36 [Two will be in a field: one will be taken, and the other will be left." ]

"37 "Where, Lord?" they asked Him. He said to them, "Where the corpse is, there also the vultures will be gathered." [Paragraphs are mine, for easier reading]


Same comparison to Noah's day, and an added comparison to Lot and Sodom. Same discussion about people being taken suddenly while others are left. No commentary here or in surrounding verses that might be construed as being a rapture of any sort. This time, there are several references to some type of violence- the flood, the destruction of Sodom, the reference to Lot's wife, and, of course, the reference to the corpse and vultures.



(By the way, here is an interesting article on the rapture from a man preparing to enter Judism: http://tckillian.com/greg/rapture.html)

Tod

Same comparison to Noah's day, and an added comparison to Lot and Sodom. Same discussion about people being taken suddenly while others are left. No commentary here or in surrounding verses that might be construed as being a rapture of any sort. This time, there are several references to some type of violence- the flood, the destruction of Sodom, the reference to Lot's wife, and, of course, the reference to the corpse and vultures.

Why you continually think that the important part of the analogy with the flood, or additionally in this case Sodom, is the violent aspect, I have no idea. In both cases the only important part of the analogy is that people in both cases didn't see it coming, just like people won't see Jesus' return coming. Just like was the case in the flood and in Sodom, people will be going about their merry business when Jesus returns. The event itself, i.e. the flood, the destruction of Sodom, and the return of Jesus, is not the important part of the analogy.

The fact that violent imagery is used in surrounding verses does not at all even remotely imply that the people said to be "taken" are really killed. Yes, there are "several references to some type of violence," but not one of them is a reference to violence occuring to the people that will be "taken." Nothing connects the violent imagery to the fate of the people taken.

Finally, the most important question is: can you find me any biblical precedence of the word "taken" being used to clearly mean that somebody was killed? In our culture we often say somebody's "life" was taken, but we never say simply that somebody was "taken" to mean that they were killed. I have no reason to believe the author or readers of this book would use the word like that, and without some evidence, it is an unsupported assertion.

If you can't provide evidence or precedence, your guess is but a baseless one that has no supporting evidence to suggest it is the correct, or even a likely, one.

There is no reason to believe that the author would use the word "taken" when it has no precedence for being used that way and he had many other ways he could have more easily and clearly said what he meant.

Tod

That's not fair to say because the deep structure theme of the bible already begins at the first page. So I think it is unfair to become a literalist just to prove the bible wrong.

It's not about "becoming a literalist." There are many examples in Jesus' numerous parables of him using metaphors and similies. The difference between those examples and this verse in question is that they are clearly meant to be symbolic. Context makes it clear there is symbolism being used. There is nothing in the verse in question to make one think that these two people symbolize one.

Your comment about "the deep structure there of the bible" leads me to believe you are assuming inerrancy to prove inerrancy. That begs the question.

When the word "rapture" comes our way the first thing we must look at is the context of its presentation and that is how they become suspicious. For example, why "two and two" instead of two and three, or just two and another group.

That seems obvious enough. Two people are most likely used because there are only two groups of people when Jesus returns: those that are saved and those that are damned. Using three or more people in the analogy would be redundant and potentially confusing since only two kinds of people exist in the end: the "sheep" and the "goats" spoken of in the next chapter..