Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 09-28-2003, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amlodhi
Hello Sheshbazzar,

The point Tod has made (and with which I agree) is that Ex. 6:3 is not consistent with Gen. 15:7, Gen. 28: 13 or Gen. 22:14.

The point I am making is that this single verse has long been misinterpreted, and that on this single verse alone pivots the entire argument that the Name Yahweh was not known before it was "revealed" to Moses, Interestingly his fellow Israelites declared to the king of Edom "....when we cried unto Yahweh,
He heard our voice, and sent a messenger,and hath brought us forth out of Egypt.." Num.20:16, that is they claimed to have called on the Name of Yahweh BEFORE Moses came with his message. What help or solace would they have had in calling on the names of their oppressors Elohim ?

Therefore, the fact that the Hebrew YHWH is used in Gen. 15:7 and Gen. 28:13 is indicative that these passages were written and/or edited at some time after "ha Shem" (the Name) was revealed to Moses.

Again, the the only evidence being presented begs the question,"these passages were written and/or edited sometime after.." only because of the traditional interpretation of Gen 6:3

Gen. 22:14, as Tod has pointed out, is of a different nature. Here it is stated that Abraham attributed a specific name to a specific place. Hence, it would be entirely disingenuous for a later editor to retroactively insert the term YHWH into the place name of "YHWH yireh" if Abraham had actually named the place something else; "Elohim yireh" for instance.

Exactly, thus it may be correctly deduced by Tod, by you, or by anyone not persuing a agenda, that Abraham did indeed name that place "Yahweh yirah" Knowing the Name of Him who alone, of all being called "elohim", had spoken unto him saying " I AM YAHWEH..." Gen15:7 your above statement verily acknowledges the error of stating that the Name was first revealed to Moses, and that previous occurances are retroactive.

So, again, I agree with you that YHWH is the revealed name of God. I must, however, disagree that this is consistent with the use of this Name, in Genesis, by those to whom Ex. 6:3 states it was not yet revealed.

Ah, but that is the very point I am making, The original Ex 6:3 did NOT state that His Name was not yet revealed, Such an idea is a latter interpolation on and of one single verse, and when carefully compared to the whole of Scripture, proved wrong.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Tod · 09-28-2003, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
I hate to tell you this Tod but I actually think that you are arguing against your own oblivion because the text tells me something entirely different.

Well anybody reading this sure wouldn't know why this is, since you don't even offer a vague outline of why I'm wrong or what the text tells you.

Had you gone on to look at some of the references in the text I thought supported the idea that Jesus would take his "elect" at his second coming, perhaps you could have been so kind as to tell me what it is that this tells you.

No, the gathering of his faithful in a rapture-like fashion isn't a stretch since the references to "gather[ing] of his elect," saying that when he returns some will be "taken" and others "left," that these people will be his "trustworthy servant[s]" (24:45) which he will then judge and allow into his "kingdom prepared for them" (25:31-34) ALL indicate as much!

Now, exactly what do you thing the "gathering of his elect" means? What do you think it means when he says that when he returns of two people in the field or grinding at the mill "one will be taken, and one will be left."? What of the "kingdom prepared for them"? What does it tell you?

I believe the other verses in question were ones that spoke of the "world," "nation[s]," and "kingdoms" in a manner that sure seems to indicate a large-scale. What do these tell you?

If you interpret these words the same way that Madkins007 does, do as s/he did not and provide some support for these alternate and less clear interpretations.

Amlodhi · 09-28-2003, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheshbazzar

Ah, but that is the very point I am making, The original Ex 6:3 did NOT state that His Name was not yet revealed, Such an idea is a latter interpolation on and of one single verse, and when carefully compared to the whole of Scripture, proved wrong.

Thank you for the clarification. Your point is understood and would, if correct, explain the problem; though the contradiction in the extant text would remain.

There are, however, a least two serious implications to be considered regarding this assertion.

One is that Ex. 6:3 purportedly records God himself speaking. If it is accepted that these words are merely some later scribal interpolation, then this precedent can be applied to every other verse in the bible that purports to record God's very words.

Another concerns the plausibility of the insertions. If Ex. 6:3 is original in the text, the insertions can be plausibly explained by later authorship or editing, (IOW, the scribe uses YHWH because that's how everyone knows Him now, even though the term was unknown at the time).

This leaves only an isolated incident such as Abraham's naming of "YHWH yireh" to be overlooked by the later editors.

If, however, it is Ex. 6:3 that is the later interpolation, it then becomes necessary to explain why a later scribe would insert this discourse here in complete contradiction to the obvious and numerous instances of the usage of YHWH which precede it.

Additionally, no reason or support has been given for the assertion that Ex. 6:3 is a later interpolation, other than the convenience of removing a problematic passage.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Tod · 09-28-2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Prophetessofrage

TOD: Oh my, what have I altered? You say that you don't know the subject matter, but then deal with it directly in your next statement:"

MY REPLY:Well Tod, it's just an expression that more or less is saying, 'all your detail makes you lose sight of the forest for the trees.'

Umm... How does saying I altered things say that I don't see the forest for the trees?

Every conversation directed to you does not require you to be a grammar teacher, okaaaay? However, I said it, you got the point, now didn't ya?

Well gee O' Prophetess I'm so sorry that I focus on the words since it is after all only words we have to go by. I'm sorry that when you claim that words mean something other than what they indicate I ask you to explore this further and support these claims.

I apologize for my focus on grammar, but I just don't see how we can debate this issue without being concerned with the words being used and what they mean!

PROPHETESS EARLIER:Okay, what ever the writer was trying to say, it caused controversy in that what is written concerning 'not knowing the name of God' is seemingly a contradiction.

TOD EARLIER: I thought I'd "go[ne] around in circles" so much that you weren't sure what the subject matter is? Now you quite concisely sum up the problem in your next sentence."

MY REPLY:Hey, hey, hey, Tod, lighten up will ya? Bookworms can be a bit of a bore ya know? Now see if you can follow that statement without giving a grammar lesson. At any rate, at least you showed sense enough to recognize when someone has 'summed' up an issue to 'THEIR' liking, if not yours.'

Well your "REPLY" is lacking in anything but a little ad hominem. I don't mind a little ad hominem, but I insist that it be given only when something of substance that can actually be debated is presented along with it.

TOD EARLIER: But it is neither "valid" nor "plausible," and dispite repeated request in every post to show ANY precedence for the Hebrews refering to somebody not knowing the name of God, or anybody else for that matter, with the intent of conveying the idea that the person simply didn't know the signficance of the name.

Again, you offer ONLY the fact that ancient Hebrews saw significance in names. That is it. How on earth do you reason from the fact that just because they see significance in names that when they use the phrase "didn't know his name" they mean "didn't know the significance of his name"

MY REPLY:Okay, here's a valid reply to the overall, Tod, OVERALL matter of the name/title thing. Did not Moses inquire as to 'God's name and/or title? (Exodus 3:13-15) Now this is a interesting Scripture that validates my point. Moses inquires as to what was the NAME, not TITLE but NAME of God that he should inform the masses/leaders? God reveals his name as 'I am that I am.' Now, I'm sure in you will tell of the ethmylogical or whatever you call the 'root of words' and that will be all well and fine. However, my VALID REASONING on this matter says about the same thing to a being using 'common sense.' Yeah, the 'common sense' approach is many times a satisfactory answer that outweighs minutia for as stated, 'the letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life.

You keep labeling these replies "valid" in such an arbitrary manner. Exactly what part of this last paragraph is supposed to offer any evidence whatsoever for the position you are supposed to offer evidence for? To remind you, I will give you a quick-capsule summary review of the debate to this very point:

You claim the verse in Ex. 6:3 means to say Abraham didn't know the significance of Yahweh's name, even though he did know YHWH's name (emphasized to keep you focused on what you are supporting). The ONLY EVIDENCE you provided to substantiate this claim is the further claim that the ancient Hebrews saw significance in names.

I granted this is true, and pointed out that it is irrelevant unless you can prove that the Hebrews ever said or wrote "x didn't know y's name" to mean "x didn't know the significance of y's name," which are two completely and utterly different things. Listen close: Just because the ancient Hebrews saw significance in a name DOESN'T AT ALL act as evidence that they would chose the words "but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them" to mean "but they didn't know me as their covenant God." Which again, as Amlodhi pointed out to you, isn't even true. If the author had mean this, he could have said as much. He didn't. He said only that Abraham et al didn't know his name.

You're right, "Moses inquires as to what was the NAME, not TITLE but NAME of God." Later on, in 6:3 Moses is told what the "NAME of God" is: YHWH. He is told the literal, proper name of God. Moses is told further that Abraham didn't know this literal, proper name of God. The author of Genesis 22 says Abraham named a place after God using his literal, proper name of YHWH, something he couldn't do if he didn't KNOW the literal, proper name of YHWH.

So in light of all this, forgive me if I'm at a complete loss as to how the fact that in the story Moses at an earlier point had asked YHWH what his name, not title, was supports your position that this verse should be interpreted to mean that Abraham didn't know the significance of the name of YHWH as a covenant God? It certainly doesn't look like common sense has anything to do with it.

QUOTES:"Knowing a name and knowing the significance of a name are two completely different things.

Now, granted you broke it down 'word for word' but sometimes we simply need use 'common sense' as a valid answer, and not so much be bogged down with the details lest we lose sight of rhyme and reason.

When will you realize that you can't apply common sense until you know what the text says. If there is an issue you have with what it SAYS, which is that Abraham didn't know God as YHWH, then we have to look at it "word for word" to see where the evidence is you think would show the verse, contrary to what it SAYS, MEANS to say that Abraham just didn't know the significance of YHWH's name as a covenant God,.

So far you've offered nothing at all but pointing to the fact that the ancient Hebrews, like most people throughout history and alive today, saw significance in names. I'm not even sure what "word" you think should be interpreted differently to give your warped interpretation.

Don't forget to address Amlodhi's point too, btw.

PROPHETESS EARLIER: Let's just say, the 'seemingly' contradictions are cleared up using 'common sense.' As so. perhaps, this matter is best summed up thus, the author of that ancient text meant, Abraham didn't go by that 'TITLE'.

TOD EARLIER: First of all, what you offer isn't common sense. If it was, you'd show why, which you repeatedly refuse to do. Secondly, Abraham's title is irrelevant. I assume your last sentence was a typing error. Perhaps you mean to say that "Abraham didn't use that 'TITLE' to refer to YHWH." That is kinda the point. Exodus says he didn't know YHWH's name, but Genesis says that named a place using YHWH's proper name.

You know Tod, the reason you go on and on is because you get bogged down into 'details' that are a bit boring, but I guess that's just your 'boreworm, i mean, bookworm' disposition, eh? I mean do you have to describe the pony in order to ride the pony? Think about that Tod, and lighten up with the grammatical lesson. If I wanted to take English I'd go to school and do so. At any rate, I meant to say that which I did say, but now that I know you are bogged down with 'minutia' I'll spell it out to you every now and then, but mostly I'll stick to good old 'wisdom' as it'll do it for you everytime.

Again you offer ad hominem and absolutely nothing else. I can see why you were so evasive, however, considering your argument, even without the (apparent?) typo was going nowhere, as the one following:

Now, here this...and here this good. I've given you the one contradiction with regard to Moses.

You have??

Now, I will say this with regard to Abraham, or is it proper phrasing Ibrahim, do tell Tod? Still my point is this, the many 'titles' given to any specific incident in Biblical era meant different things to different people. For instance, when Abraham's grandson Jacob parted company with his father-in-law, the two men made a 'covenant' and named the place of agreement after 2 different titles (Genesis 31:47-50). Now granted, Laban and Jacob were of two different Semitic groups, but the fact is, they used different 'titles' to describe the same incident. Well, there you have your 'evidence.' Learn from it Tod, learn from it.

All I've learned is that you don't understand what would constitute evidence for what you claimed, because it sure isn't what you just wrote. The fact that "many 'titles' given to any specific incident in Biblical era meant different things to different people" is irrelevant. We aren't talking about "many 'titles'," only one name: Yahweh. We aren't talking about a variable meaning, as it is simply God's proper name! This fact doesn't vary over time. Either Abraham knew the name "Yahweh" or he didn't. Varying meanings of titles over time matters little.

Also, if you intend to continue in this PLEASE edit the html in your posts better.

09-28-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tod
Well anybody reading this sure wouldn't know why this is, since you don't even offer a vague outline of why I'm wrong or what the text tells you.

Had you gone on to look at some of the references in the text I thought supported the idea that Jesus would take his "elect" at his second coming, perhaps you could have been so kind as to tell me what it is that this tells you.

No, the gathering of his faithful in a rapture-like fashion isn't a stretch since the references to "gather[ing] of his elect," saying that when he returns some will be "taken" and others "left," that these people will be his "trustworthy servant[s]" (24:45) which he will then judge and allow into his "kingdom prepared for them" (25:31-34) ALL indicate as much!

Now, exactly what do you thing the "gathering of his elect" means? What do you think it means when he says that when he returns of two people in the field or grinding at the mill "one will be taken, and one will be left."? What of the "kingdom prepared for them"? What does it tell you?

Sorry but I don't have the time and these boards are quite fast. I actually read your post and I gave you my initial reaction to it.

At the rapture that which remains is in heaven and it is the ego that raptures away-- which is easy because it has no corporeal body and never did have one.

Notice that there is either two men or two women and never a man and a woman. Both are either in the field or on the roof and it is not the case that one is in the field while the other is on the roof. One of these two is the ego and the other is the true idenity and with the ego gone that which remains is in heaven.

I don't think Jesus takes his elect but the second coming of Christ is equal to the rapture event because the "second coming" is the moment of realization and that is precisely when rapture occurs.

The gathering of his elect is just the reward for being a faithfull servant and the kingdom prepared for them will be enjoyed from that day on. This kingdom exists already in their mind and with the ego gone they will be able to return to Eden.

The large scale effect is made to show that the entire world of the beholder will be reversed and that his prior ideas of heaven and earth will be forsaken to enter into the new idea of heaven and earth.

Sheshbazzar · 09-28-2003, 08:42 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amlodhi
[B]Thank you for the clarification. Your point is understood and would, if correct, explain the problem; though the contradiction in the extant text would remain.

There are, however, a least two serious implications to be considered regarding this assertion.

One is that Ex. 6:3 purportedly records God himself speaking. If it is accepted that these words are merely some later scribal interpolation, then this precedent can be applied to every other verse in the bible that purports to record God's very words.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thank you for overlooking my inexperience in the use of this message board, and for bearing with me.

You are still misunderstanding my statement, I did not say the WORDS recorded in Ex.6:3 were interpolated by latter scribes,
only that the interpretation of those words has been altered,
in a similar manner to the way Jewish tradition perverted the
3rd commandment into a prohibition against speaking Yahweh's
Name, against all the hundreds of express verses to the contrary.
Gen.15:7 and 28:13 also purportedly record Yahweh's very own
words, yet you are willing to readily reject them based on nothing
more than your acceptance of the traditional rendering of a single
verse, but you are not only rejecting these two, but the hundreds
of foregoing verses that contain the Name, in effect declaring all of them to be interpolations to fit your doctrine.
Looks to me like it's not only the Xian apogetics that are bending
over backwards to defend their doctrines.

Sheshbazzar, friend of Yahshua

Madkins007 · 09-28-2003, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tod
(snip)No, the gathering of his faithful in a rapture-like fashion isn't a stretch since the references to "gather[ing] of his elect," saying that when he returns some will be "taken" and others "left," that these people will be his "trustworthy servant[s]" (24:45) which he will then judge and allow into his "kingdom prepared for them" (25:31-34) ALL indicate as much!

Secondly, Jesus didn't say when referring to the "one taken, one left" that there would be "horrible war and desolation," but SPECIFICALLY says "This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes"! He doesn't imply violence AT ALL, but unambiguously states that these people "taken" will be "taken" when he returns. Again, you have in no way offered to substantiate your claim that "taken" refers to being killed and "left" refers to surviving. That is the most twisted interpretation of these words I've yet seen. [/B]

Matt 24:29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. (emphasis theirs)

The Son of Man will come immediately after the "tribulation of those days"- tribulation sure implies nastiness to me.

While I may not have substantiated the idea that taken means removed from life, neither have you substantionated that taken means lifted to heaven or the sky. The 'gathering of the elect' does not, as far as I can see in the text, require a rapture either, simply a bringing together. The 'gathering of the elect from the four winds (or corners of the earth)' is a seperate concept from the 'taken' of people spoken of seperately and later. Only a person or denomination pre-disposed towards rapture theology would connect them. (I say all this being a guy who used ot strongly believe in the rapture, but the idea just does not hold up based on what the Bible is actually saying as far as I can find).

[QOUTE]Well that crosswalk reference is a vague one. When I went, I saw no preexisting link to the Strong's Greek Lexicon, so I did a search. At http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...84&version=kjv
I found the following definition: (snip- definition of 'nation' clipped. I changed my mind about clipping it, but I cannot find an 'undo' command for this- SORRY!! Madkins)

[/QUOTE]

The reference you were going to double check on was the one about kingdoms. it is located here: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...32&version=nas

Tod · 09-28-2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Madkins007

TOD EARLIER: No, the gathering of his faithful in a rapture-like fashion isn't a stretch since the references to "gather[ing] of his elect," saying that when he returns some will be "taken" and others "left," that these people will be his "trustworthy servant[s]" (24:45) which he will then judge and allow into his "kingdom prepared for them" (25:31-34) ALL indicate as much!

Secondly, Jesus didn't say when referring to the "one taken, one left" that there would be "horrible war and desolation," but SPECIFICALLY says "This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes"! He doesn't imply violence AT ALL, but unambiguously states that these people "taken" will be "taken" when he returns. Again, you have in no way offered to substantiate your claim that "taken" refers to being killed and "left" refers to surviving. That is the most twisted interpretation of these words I've yet seen.

MADKINS007: Matt 24:29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. (emphasis theirs)

The Son of Man will come immediately after the "tribulation of those days"- tribulation sure implies nastiness to me.

While I may not have substantiated the idea that taken means removed from life, neither have you substantionated that taken means lifted to heaven or the sky.

That is a strawman. I'm not claiming it means "lifted to heaven or the sky." I'm claiming it simply means "taken." I don't know how the author thought this would be done. They may simply vanish. They may be escorted. Maybe Jesus will come in on board the starship Enterprise and beam them aboard. Hell if I know, and I sure as hell haven't claimed that "taken" means "lifted to heaven or the sky." However, there is NO ambiguity that the text says they will be "taken." "Taken" isn't nearly the same as "killed."

Furthermore, the text substantiates my position! You are the one claiming it means something other than what it says. Why would I have to substantiate anything when the verse already says exactly what I defend it to say? If you think it means something other than what it says, namely in this case that these people will be suddenly killed, you are the one who needs to provide evidence for your assertion. The text as-is backs mine.

The 'gathering of the elect' does not, as far as I can see in the text, require a rapture either, simply a bringing together.

And what, pray tell, is he bringing them together to do? According to Matt 25:31-46 Jesus will, upon his coming, "take a seat at his throne" (vs 31) from where he will separate those who "will go away to eternal punishment," from "the upright" who get "eternal life."(vs. 46) This sounds like judgement day and the acceptance of believers into "the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world." (vs 34) It sure sounds like those "taken" will be the "sheep" he speaks of throughout those verses. Especially since right after the reference to some being taken and some being left behind we see a warning to be prepared for this day that compares the faithful believers to "trustworthy servant[s]." (vs. 45)

Did this any of that occur in 70 AD?

The 'gathering of the elect from the four winds (or corners of the earth)' is a seperate concept from the 'taken' of people spoken of seperately and later.

Okay, and you just assert this? Why should anybody believe that the "gathering of the elect" and the reference to people who will be "taken" while others are "left" are not speaking of the same thing? In both cases we are being told of something that will happen to believers when Jesus' second coming occurs, "After the tribulation of those days"? Notice it says that "after" the tribulation of those days Jesus will return. The people being taken while others are left are said to be taken UPON Jesus' arrival: "This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes." (vs. 39)

It doesn't say this is what it will be like BEFORE the Son of man comes. Furthermore, before this reference the point is made in the analogy with the flood that people went about their business unsuspecting "right up to the day Noah went into the ark." (vs 38) So like the people that died in the flood, the people that will be "taken" in verses 40-41 will be unsuspecting about what will happen until the moment come. What moment is analogous to the flood in the analogy with the flood? The second coming of Jesus, of course.

So obviously these people being "taken" will be "taken" AFTER the tribulation when Jesus returns. In other words, the tribulation won't be what "takes" them, and again for the record, there is no reason to believe "taken" means killed unless you are trying to defend this preterist doctrine, which in turn would have no reason to exist if there wasn't a problem in the text, and inerrancy wasn't assumed to defend inerrancy.

Furthermore, the words "gather" and "take" both indicate getting something. Their similar meanings and the fact that they are both said to happen upon Jesus' arrival both indicate they probably refer to the same thing: "gathering" or "tak[ing]" Jesus' "elect."

TOD EARLIER: Well that crosswalk reference is a vague one. When I went, I saw no preexisting link to the Strong's Greek Lexicon, so I did a search. At http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...84&version=kjv
I found the following definition: (snip- definition of 'nation' clipped. I changed my mind about clipping it, but I cannot find an 'undo' command for this- SORRY!! Madkins)

Well here it is:

1. a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
1. a company, troop, swarm
2. a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
1. the human family
3. a tribe, nation, people group
4. in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles
5. Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians

Again, the usage implies a large-scale assortment of people, NOT a small one.

[/B]The reference you were going to double check on was the one about kingdoms. it is located here: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...32&version=nas [/B]

Actually, that is the definition of only "basileia." "Ethnos," the word for "nation," was the one I had a problem with when I went to check your source. The above definition is for the word "ethnos," and I found it in the Greek Lexicon at "crosswalk."

Tod · 09-28-2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Amos
Sorry but I don't have the time and these boards are quite fast. I actually read your post and I gave you my initial reaction to it.

At the rapture that which remains is in heaven and it is the ego that raptures away-- which is easy because it has no corporeal body and never did have one.

Notice that there is either two men or two women and never a man and a woman. Both are either in the field or on the roof and it is not the case that one is in the field while the other is on the roof. One of these two is the ego and the other is the true idenity and with the ego gone that which remains is in heaven.

Okay, and what on earth in the wording of the verses in question makes you think that it isn't two people being spoke of, but rather just one person with the reference to two people referring to the ego and "true identity" whatever that vague business means?

You have this rather elaborate take on this reference to "one is taken, one is left," but it just so happens that none of what you say is either stated or implied in the verses in question. And you say I was arguing into oblivion? This position you outline is already there!

I don't think Jesus takes his elect but the second coming of Christ is equal to the rapture event because the "second coming" is the moment of realization and that is precisely when rapture occurs.

Er...ummm...okay...

The gathering of his elect is just the reward for being a faithfull servant and the kingdom prepared for them will be enjoyed from that day on.

So if after Jesus returns and "gather[s] his elect" they will enjoy their "reward" in "the kingdom prepared for them...from that day on," and since this hasn't happened yet, I assume you disagree with Madkins007's preteristic belief that Jesus returned in 70 AD?

09-29-2003, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tod
[Okay, and what on earth in the wording of the verses in question makes you think that it isn't two people being spoke of, but rather just one person with the reference to two people referring to the ego and "true identity" whatever that vague business means?

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.

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

Quote:

The gathering of his elect is just the reward for being a faithfull servant and the kingdom prepared for them will be enjoyed from that day on.

So if after Jesus returns and "gather[s] his elect" they will enjoy their "reward" in "the kingdom prepared for them...from that day on," and since this hasn't happened yet, I assume you disagree with Madkins007's preteristic belief that Jesus returned in 70 AD?

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-28-2003, 08:03 PM	#64
Tod Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Little Rock, AR Posts: 152	Originally posted by Prophetessofrage TOD: Oh my, what have I altered? You say that you don't know the subject matter, but then deal with it directly in your next statement:" MY REPLY:Well Tod, it's just an expression that more or less is saying, 'all your detail makes you lose sight of the forest for the trees.' Umm... How does saying I altered things say that I don't see the forest for the trees? Every conversation directed to you does not require you to be a grammar teacher, okaaaay? However, I said it, you got the point, now didn't ya? Well gee O' Prophetess I'm so sorry that I focus on the words since it is after all only words we have to go by. I'm sorry that when you claim that words mean something other than what they indicate I ask you to explore this further and support these claims. I apologize for my focus on grammar, but I just don't see how we can debate this issue without being concerned with the words being used and what they mean! PROPHETESS EARLIER:Okay, what ever the writer was trying to say, it caused controversy in that what is written concerning 'not knowing the name of God' is seemingly a contradiction. TOD EARLIER: I thought I'd "go[ne] around in circles" so much that you weren't sure what the subject matter is? Now you quite concisely sum up the problem in your next sentence." MY REPLY:Hey, hey, hey, Tod, lighten up will ya? Bookworms can be a bit of a bore ya know? Now see if you can follow that statement without giving a grammar lesson. At any rate, at least you showed sense enough to recognize when someone has 'summed' up an issue to 'THEIR' liking, if not yours.' Well your "REPLY" is lacking in anything but a little ad hominem. I don't mind a little ad hominem, but I insist that it be given only when something of substance that can actually be debated is presented along with it. TOD EARLIER: But it is neither "valid" nor "plausible," and dispite repeated request in every post to show ANY precedence for the Hebrews refering to somebody not knowing the name of God, or anybody else for that matter, with the intent of conveying the idea that the person simply didn't know the signficance of the name. Again, you offer ONLY the fact that ancient Hebrews saw significance in names. That is it. How on earth do you reason from the fact that just because they see significance in names that when they use the phrase "didn't know his name" they mean "didn't know the significance of his name" MY REPLY:Okay, here's a valid reply to the overall, Tod, OVERALL matter of the name/title thing. Did not Moses inquire as to 'God's name and/or title? (Exodus 3:13-15) Now this is a interesting Scripture that validates my point. Moses inquires as to what was the NAME, not TITLE but NAME of God that he should inform the masses/leaders? God reveals his name as 'I am that I am.' Now, I'm sure in you will tell of the ethmylogical or whatever you call the 'root of words' and that will be all well and fine. However, my VALID REASONING on this matter says about the same thing to a being using 'common sense.' Yeah, the 'common sense' approach is many times a satisfactory answer that outweighs minutia for as stated, 'the letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life. You keep labeling these replies "valid" in such an arbitrary manner. Exactly what part of this last paragraph is supposed to offer any evidence whatsoever for the position you are supposed to offer evidence for? To remind you, I will give you a quick-capsule summary review of the debate to this very point: You claim the verse in Ex. 6:3 means to say Abraham didn't know the significance of Yahweh's name, even though he did know YHWH's name (emphasized to keep you focused on what you are supporting). The ONLY EVIDENCE you provided to substantiate this claim is the further claim that the ancient Hebrews saw significance in names. I granted this is true, and pointed out that it is irrelevant unless you can prove that the Hebrews ever said or wrote "x didn't know y's name" to mean "x didn't know the significance of y's name," which are two completely and utterly different things. Listen close: Just because the ancient Hebrews saw significance in a name DOESN'T AT ALL act as evidence that they would chose the words "but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them" to mean "but they didn't know me as their covenant God." Which again, as Amlodhi pointed out to you, isn't even true. If the author had mean this, he could have said as much. He didn't. He said only that Abraham et al didn't know his name. You're right, "Moses inquires as to what was the NAME, not TITLE but NAME of God." Later on, in 6:3 Moses is told what the "NAME of God" is: YHWH. He is told the literal, proper name of God. Moses is told further that Abraham didn't know this literal, proper name of God. The author of Genesis 22 says Abraham named a place after God using his literal, proper name of YHWH, something he couldn't do if he didn't KNOW the literal, proper name of YHWH. So in light of all this, forgive me if I'm at a complete loss as to how the fact that in the story Moses at an earlier point had asked YHWH what his name, not title, was supports your position that this verse should be interpreted to mean that Abraham didn't know the significance of the name of YHWH as a covenant God? It certainly doesn't look like common sense has anything to do with it. QUOTES:"Knowing a name and knowing the significance of a name are two completely different things. Now, granted you broke it down 'word for word' but sometimes we simply need use 'common sense' as a valid answer, and not so much be bogged down with the details lest we lose sight of rhyme and reason. When will you realize that you can't apply common sense until you know what the text says. If there is an issue you have with what it SAYS, which is that Abraham didn't know God as YHWH, then we have to look at it "word for word" to see where the evidence is you think would show the verse, contrary to what it SAYS, MEANS to say that Abraham just didn't know the significance of YHWH's name as a covenant God,. So far you've offered nothing at all but pointing to the fact that the ancient Hebrews, like most people throughout history and alive today, saw significance in names. I'm not even sure what "word" you think should be interpreted differently to give your warped interpretation. Don't forget to address Amlodhi's point too, btw. PROPHETESS EARLIER: Let's just say, the 'seemingly' contradictions are cleared up using 'common sense.' As so. perhaps, this matter is best summed up thus, the author of that ancient text meant, Abraham didn't go by that 'TITLE'. TOD EARLIER: First of all, what you offer isn't common sense. If it was, you'd show why, which you repeatedly refuse to do. Secondly, Abraham's title is irrelevant. I assume your last sentence was a typing error. Perhaps you mean to say that "Abraham didn't use that 'TITLE' to refer to YHWH." That is kinda the point. Exodus says he didn't know YHWH's name, but Genesis says that named a place using YHWH's proper name. You know Tod, the reason you go on and on is because you get bogged down into 'details' that are a bit boring, but I guess that's just your 'boreworm, i mean, bookworm' disposition, eh? I mean do you have to describe the pony in order to ride the pony? Think about that Tod, and lighten up with the grammatical lesson. If I wanted to take English I'd go to school and do so. At any rate, I meant to say that which I did say, but now that I know you are bogged down with 'minutia' I'll spell it out to you every now and then, but mostly I'll stick to good old 'wisdom' as it'll do it for you everytime. Again you offer ad hominem and absolutely nothing else. I can see why you were so evasive, however, considering your argument, even without the (apparent?) typo was going nowhere, as the one following: Now, here this...and here this good. I've given you the one contradiction with regard to Moses. You have?? Now, I will say this with regard to Abraham, or is it proper phrasing Ibrahim, do tell Tod? Still my point is this, the many 'titles' given to any specific incident in Biblical era meant different things to different people. For instance, when Abraham's grandson Jacob parted company with his father-in-law, the two men made a 'covenant' and named the place of agreement after 2 different titles (Genesis 31:47-50). Now granted, Laban and Jacob were of two different Semitic groups, but the fact is, they used different 'titles' to describe the same incident. Well, there you have your 'evidence.' Learn from it Tod, learn from it. All I've learned is that you don't understand what would constitute evidence for what you claimed, because it sure isn't what you just wrote. The fact that "many 'titles' given to any specific incident in Biblical era meant different things to different people" is irrelevant. We aren't talking about "many 'titles'," only one name: Yahweh. We aren't talking about a variable meaning, as it is simply God's proper name! This fact doesn't vary over time. Either Abraham knew the name "Yahweh" or he didn't. Varying meanings of titles over time matters little. Also, if you intend to continue in this PLEASE edit the html in your posts better.

09-28-2003, 08:42 PM	#66
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amlodhi [B]Thank you for the clarification. Your point is understood and would, if correct, explain the problem; though the contradiction in the extant text would remain. There are, however, a least two serious implications to be considered regarding this assertion. One is that Ex. 6:3 purportedly records God himself speaking. If it is accepted that these words are merely some later scribal interpolation, then this precedent can be applied to every other verse in the bible that purports to record God's very words. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I thank you for overlooking my inexperience in the use of this message board, and for bearing with me. You are still misunderstanding my statement, I did not say the WORDS recorded in Ex.6:3 were interpolated by latter scribes, only that the interpretation of those words has been altered, in a similar manner to the way Jewish tradition perverted the 3rd commandment into a prohibition against speaking Yahweh's Name, against all the hundreds of express verses to the contrary. Gen.15:7 and 28:13 also purportedly record Yahweh's very own words, yet you are willing to readily reject them based on nothing more than your acceptance of the traditional rendering of a single verse, but you are not only rejecting these two, but the hundreds of foregoing verses that contain the Name, in effect declaring all of them to be interpolations to fit your doctrine. Looks to me like it's not only the Xian apogetics that are bending over backwards to defend their doctrines. Sheshbazzar, friend of Yahshua

09-28-2003, 11:29 PM	#68
Tod Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Little Rock, AR Posts: 152	Originally posted by Madkins007 TOD EARLIER: No, the gathering of his faithful in a rapture-like fashion isn't a stretch since the references to "gather[ing] of his elect," saying that when he returns some will be "taken" and others "left," that these people will be his "trustworthy servant[s]" (24:45) which he will then judge and allow into his "kingdom prepared for them" (25:31-34) ALL indicate as much! Secondly, Jesus didn't say when referring to the "one taken, one left" that there would be "horrible war and desolation," but SPECIFICALLY says "This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes"! He doesn't imply violence AT ALL, but unambiguously states that these people "taken" will be "taken" when he returns. Again, you have in no way offered to substantiate your claim that "taken" refers to being killed and "left" refers to surviving. That is the most twisted interpretation of these words I've yet seen. MADKINS007: Matt 24:29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. (emphasis theirs) The Son of Man will come immediately after the "tribulation of those days"- tribulation sure implies nastiness to me. While I may not have substantiated the idea that taken means removed from life, neither have you substantionated that taken means lifted to heaven or the sky. That is a strawman. I'm not claiming it means "lifted to heaven or the sky." I'm claiming it simply means "taken." I don't know how the author thought this would be done. They may simply vanish. They may be escorted. Maybe Jesus will come in on board the starship Enterprise and beam them aboard. Hell if I know, and I sure as hell haven't claimed that "taken" means "lifted to heaven or the sky." However, there is NO ambiguity that the text says they will be "taken." "Taken" isn't nearly the same as "killed." Furthermore, the text substantiates my position! You are the one claiming it means something other than what it says. Why would I have to substantiate anything when the verse already says exactly what I defend it to say? If you think it means something other than what it says, namely in this case that these people will be suddenly killed, you are the one who needs to provide evidence for your assertion. The text as-is backs mine. The 'gathering of the elect' does not, as far as I can see in the text, require a rapture either, simply a bringing together. And what, pray tell, is he bringing them together to do? According to Matt 25:31-46 Jesus will, upon his coming, "take a seat at his throne" (vs 31) from where he will separate those who "will go away to eternal punishment," from "the upright" who get "eternal life."(vs. 46) This sounds like judgement day and the acceptance of believers into "the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world." (vs 34) It sure sounds like those "taken" will be the "sheep" he speaks of throughout those verses. Especially since right after the reference to some being taken and some being left behind we see a warning to be prepared for this day that compares the faithful believers to "trustworthy servant[s]." (vs. 45) Did this any of that occur in 70 AD? The 'gathering of the elect from the four winds (or corners of the earth)' is a seperate concept from the 'taken' of people spoken of seperately and later. Okay, and you just assert this? Why should anybody believe that the "gathering of the elect" and the reference to people who will be "taken" while others are "left" are not speaking of the same thing? In both cases we are being told of something that will happen to believers when Jesus' second coming occurs, "After the tribulation of those days"? Notice it says that "after" the tribulation of those days Jesus will return. The people being taken while others are left are said to be taken UPON Jesus' arrival: "This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes." (vs. 39) It doesn't say this is what it will be like BEFORE the Son of man comes. Furthermore, before this reference the point is made in the analogy with the flood that people went about their business unsuspecting "right up to the day Noah went into the ark." (vs 38) So like the people that died in the flood, the people that will be "taken" in verses 40-41 will be unsuspecting about what will happen until the moment come. What moment is analogous to the flood in the analogy with the flood? The second coming of Jesus, of course. So obviously these people being "taken" will be "taken" AFTER the tribulation when Jesus returns. In other words, the tribulation won't be what "takes" them, and again for the record, there is no reason to believe "taken" means killed unless you are trying to defend this preterist doctrine, which in turn would have no reason to exist if there wasn't a problem in the text, and inerrancy wasn't assumed to defend inerrancy. Furthermore, the words "gather" and "take" both indicate getting something. Their similar meanings and the fact that they are both said to happen upon Jesus' arrival both indicate they probably refer to the same thing: "gathering" or "tak[ing]" Jesus' "elect." TOD EARLIER: Well that crosswalk reference is a vague one. When I went, I saw no preexisting link to the Strong's Greek Lexicon, so I did a search. At http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...84&version=kjv I found the following definition: (snip- definition of 'nation' clipped. I changed my mind about clipping it, but I cannot find an 'undo' command for this- SORRY!! Madkins) Well here it is: 1. a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together 1. a company, troop, swarm 2. a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus 1. the human family 3. a tribe, nation, people group 4. in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles 5. Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians Again, the usage implies a large-scale assortment of people, NOT a small one. [/B]The reference you were going to double check on was the one about kingdoms. it is located here: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...32&version=nas [/B] Actually, that is the definition of only "basileia." "Ethnos," the word for "nation," was the one I had a problem with when I went to check your source. The above definition is for the word "ethnos," and I found it in the Greek Lexicon at "crosswalk."

09-28-2003, 11:41 PM	#69
Tod Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Little Rock, AR Posts: 152	Originally posted by Amos Sorry but I don't have the time and these boards are quite fast. I actually read your post and I gave you my initial reaction to it. At the rapture that which remains is in heaven and it is the ego that raptures away-- which is easy because it has no corporeal body and never did have one. Notice that there is either two men or two women and never a man and a woman. Both are either in the field or on the roof and it is not the case that one is in the field while the other is on the roof. One of these two is the ego and the other is the true idenity and with the ego gone that which remains is in heaven. Okay, and what on earth in the wording of the verses in question makes you think that it isn't two people being spoke of, but rather just one person with the reference to two people referring to the ego and "true identity" whatever that vague business means? You have this rather elaborate take on this reference to "one is taken, one is left," but it just so happens that none of what you say is either stated or implied in the verses in question. And you say I was arguing into oblivion? This position you outline is already there! I don't think Jesus takes his elect but the second coming of Christ is equal to the rapture event because the "second coming" is the moment of realization and that is precisely when rapture occurs. Er...ummm...okay... The gathering of his elect is just the reward for being a faithfull servant and the kingdom prepared for them will be enjoyed from that day on. So if after Jesus returns and "gather[s] his elect" they will enjoy their "reward" in "the kingdom prepared for them...from that day on," and since this hasn't happened yet, I assume you disagree with Madkins007's preteristic belief that Jesus returned in 70 AD?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.