Wiploc

I did some nosing around at the Bible Gateway with no success. I can't even say for sure that there is such a verse. But even if there is such a verse, it is a lame argument to claim that people shouldn't have called whales "fish" before Lineus.
crc

Amlodhi

The misunderstanding occurs because the KJV has:

Jonah 1:17 " . . . And Jonah was in the belly of the fish (Hebrew "da'g") three days and three nights."

Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonas (Jonah) was three days and three nights in the whale's (Greek "Ketos") belly . . ."

Jonah 1:17 - "da'g" = fish

Matthew 12:40 - "Ketos" = a huge fish (as gaping for prey): -whale.

Amlodhi

Tod

Except that *in my opinion*, THAT is why the analogies to Noah, Lot's wife, Sodom, etc. are being used

Matt 24:39,40 together read "and they did not understand until the flood came and TOOK them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then there will be two men in the field; one will be TAKEN and one will be left. " (emphasis mine)

This isn't a matter of "opinion." The context clearly indicates that it is the unprepared state of the people, and not the events, that is being compared:'

"For in those days before the Flood ,people were eating, drinking, taking wives, taking husbands, right up to the day Noah went into the ark, and they suspected nothing till the Flood came and swept them all away. This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes. (vs. 38-39)

Skipping to verse 42: "So stay awake, because you do not know the day when your master is coming. You may be quite sure of this, that if the house-holder had known at what time of the night the burglar would come, he would have stayed awake and would not have allowed anyone to break through the wall of his house. Therefore, you too must stand ready because the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

The clear indication of the analogy is the unsuspecting nature of the people involved, not the event itself. The event itself is made quite clear: the return of Jesus. Jesus is not said to kill people when he returns. It is written, however, that "when the Son of man comes in his glory" that he will "separate people one from another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats." (25:31-32)

The things you think are responsible for these alleged deaths you say the verse in question refers to, the wars and conflict, are said to happen BEFORE Jesus returns. Remember the verse you cited that said Jesus' second coming would be "after the distress of those days..." (vs 29). These people who are "taken" are said to be taken "when the Son of man comes." Where on earth is it implied that people will be killed WHEN Jesus returns? We are explicitly told, on the other hand, in the aforementioned verses of 25:31-32 that Jesus will "separate" people when he returns. That fits well with "one will be taken, the other left."

Furthermore, the additional analogy of the home owner and the burglar does NOT include an element of death, but it clearly DOES indicates that it is a state of preparedness that is the important part of the analogy, and is explicitly followed by the statement "you too must stand ready because the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect." It is unfathomable to me that you think that the event that occurs is the important part of these analogies and not the lack of readiness of the people in each comparison when the context couldn't be more clear on what the analogy is comparing.

[b]I think that v.39 is a clear modifier denoting death.[/i]

But unfortunately for you, the reference to the flood sweeping away the people doesn't modify the word "taken" as used to reference the people spoken of in vs. 40 and 41, but it used to only indicate what happened to the people in the flood! This describes what happened to the flood victims, and isn't used to identify what happens to the people in the field and the mill.

I know the word 'taken' in Greek and Hebrew, as in English, have many, many different meanings and that the meaning is all-dependent on context. Where we disagree is whether the references to the flood and Sodom are direct modifiers on the word 'taken' as used in the 'two people' quotes in Matt. 24 and Luke 17.

The key to which of us is right is to look at what the text says is the same in all of these cases. It says As it was in Noah's day, so will it be when the Son of man comes." What does the text say will be the same when the son of man comes "as it was in Noah's day?" The text NOWHERE says that the fate of the people is the same. It EXPLICITLY says that the unsuspected state of awareness IS the same in all cases. It doesn't just say it once, but several times! So it nowhere says people will die when Jesus returns, but it says multiple times they won't be ready. With phrases such as "they suspected nothing," you do not know the day," "stand ready," and "you do not expect," it seems clear what the analogy refers to.

Heck, at this point, I'll even conceed that they might not have been killed but just have died, been taken prisoner or enslaved, etc.

The only thing analogous to prison that people are said to go to when Jesus returns is "eternal punishment." The second coming is never said to be followed by enslavement, imprisonment, or even death. When Jesus returns, Matt 25:31-46 makes it clear that judgement will occur, and final, eternal rewards or punishment will be given.

I am a bit curious as to why you are willing to link the 'taken' to the 'gathering' several verses away (with the idea of the rapture), but not to the flood immediately preceding it- but that does indeed bring us further from the real heart of our disagreement...

Well I've explained it all before many times, so I fail to see why you are so curious, but again: When one takes looks at the claim that Jesus will "gather his elect," that some will be "taken" while others are "left," that Jesus will "separate" the saved from the damn, and many verses in the New Testament that refer to judgement and eternal reward and punishment, it seems to indicate they all refer to the same or similar things.

Proximity in of itself doesn't determine relatedness. The reason I think this is related to the people being "taken" while references to the fate of the people in the flood are not is because this "gathering," again, fits in well with the idea of people being "taken" and "separated," while the reference to the death of people in the flood, as exhaustively covered at this point and again above, doesn't indicate the fate of those "taken" will be similar since the events that occur are not the compared elements of the analogy, but rather the ready state of the people.

Within the teachings of preterism, there is 'full preterism', which teaches that Jesus DID indeed return in 70AD (and offers an interesting array of intrepretations on what the various prophecies 'meant', and 'partial preterism, which teaches that some prophecies remain unfulfilled. Like most other camps of Christian thought, there is not a lot of agreement even within a camp.

At this point in my research, I cannot offer convincing proof that I think would be of any import to this group that Jesus did return in some way that fulfills the prophecies in 70AD, but I am swayed by what I have read so far.

If the partial preterist don't accept that everything said to happen when Jesus returns happens, and that Jesus has indeed returned, they have the same problems they had when the invented this preterist doctrine, and should discard it. They created this ad hoc idea of preterism to explain the problem of the gospels and some epistles saying Jesus would return soon, within the life time of some alive then, when Jesus has not, it would seem, returned. They didn't want to admit that the authors were wrong in their claims. However, if they turn around and say that some of the things said to occur when Jesus returns haven't occurred (since they believe he returned in 70 AD), they are in essence admitting to error on the part of the authors.

Matthew clearly states that when Jesus returns he will "separate" the saved from the damn, judgement will be passed, and eternal rewards and punishments will be handed out. If Jesus returned in 70 AD then you should be sitting in heaven and presumably I'd be sitting in hell.

I don't see how this insanity could "sway" you so easily since you have no answer for how and when this separating, judging, and giving of reward and punishment occurred. Not to mention just the little things. If Jesus really returned in 70 AD, why weren't his followers aware of this? Why have no books been written about his return? Why do billions of Christians alive on this very day wait for his return?

Jesus return is said by the Bible to be a huge event. It certainly gives the impression that none will miss it, especially when one brings other sources, and not just Matthew, into the picture. How did all of his followers miss it? You'd think it would have been a big enough of an ordeal that we wouldn't have to depend on modern Christian apologists to figure out he returned through a great deal of strained interpretations! If Jesus' second coming was so mundane that there is no record of it and it can only be inferred by some rather unusual interpretations of otherwise clear verses and assuming the gospel writers can't be wrong in their claims of when he returns, it clearly wasn't something worthy of note!

Madkins007

Tod,

Here are the verses in question (Holman Christian Standard Bible, just because it is an easy one to cut and paste) The verses are provided for those who might be following the discussion (if anyone is left!)

Matt 24:37 "As the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. 38 For in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah boarded the ark. 39 They didn't know until the flood came and swept them all away. So this is the way the coming of the Son of Man will be: 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and one left."

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."

------------------------

OK, in both Matthew and Luke, we are told that 'in those days' people were carrying on as normal until the flood or fire hit, and then that 'it will be like that when the Son of man comes back'

You are arguing that in both cases, the 'it shall be that way' only applies to the first part of the comparison- the 'acting normally but unprepared' bit, BUT NOT to the flood or fire bit. That does not seem to be the message in Luke 17:31-34, and I still cannot see why it should only be applied to the 'unpreparedness' aspect of Matt. 24:38,39.

The burglar analogy IS about preparedness... but the 2 slaves analogy right after DOES reintroduce what happens to those who are not ready (Matt. 24:45-51). In fact, the burglar analogy can be used to support my proposal that the Noah and Sodom analogies are MEANT to include the flood or fire aspect- obviously, Jesus could have used other analogies that did not have that part of the story in them if that was all He was trying to teach us.






Partial preterism DOES NOT believe that Jesus has returned- I did not make that clear last time, but the outlines and websites mentioned do.




The 'Jesus has returned in 70AD' teachings focus on the parallelism between how Jesus described His return and how the OT authors describe various judgements of YHWH- coming in the clouds, etc. According to some preterist authors, some aspects of the church DID believe that Jesus had come back, and had written about it- apparently, this sort of discussion has happened before. Many people were waiting for Jesus to return in the flesh, just as earlier people were expecting a conquering Messiah that was going to free Jerusalem from the Romans

It is taking me forever to wade through this stuff, especially as I cannot devote as much time as I would like to it, and I am not familiar with the nuances of the language, culture, and symbolism.

Tod

Originally posted by Madkins007
Tod,

Here are the verses in question (Holman Christian Standard Bible, just because it is an easy one to cut and paste) The verses are provided for those who might be following the discussion (if anyone is left!)

Matt 24:37 "As the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. 38 For in those dthe coming of the Son of Man will be: 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and one left."

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."

------------------------

OK, in both Matthew and Luke, we are told that 'in those days' people were carrying on as normal until the flood or fire hit, and then that 'it will be like that when the Son of man comes back'

You are arguing that in both cases, the 'it shall be that way' only applies to the first part of the comparison- the 'acting normally but unprepared' bit, BUT NOT to the flood or fire bit. That does not seem to be the message in Luke 17:31-34, and I still cannot see why it should only be applied to the 'unpreparedness' aspect of Matt. 24:38,39.

Luke is more vague than Matthew, but Luke still doesn't say that anything bad will occur to those that are taken. Matthew clarifies things infinitely more, and as pointed out, makes the unprepared state of the people clearly the focus of the analogy.

"It should only be applied to the 'unpreparedness' aspect" because it is never said that Jesus' return will be marked by people being killed. In Matthew it makes it clear that readiness is the focus, not the fate of the people. In short, no other "aspect" is said to apply! Furthermore, as repeatedly pointed out, being literally "taken" fits far more better with the idea of Jesus' separating his followers and passing judgement talked about in chapter 25 then dying does.

The burglar analogy IS about preparedness... but the 2 slaves analogy right after DOES reintroduce what happens to those who are not ready (Matt. 24:45-51).

You're correct, but it further strengthens MY point, not yours. It says at the end of the servant analogy that "The master will cut him off and send him to the same fate as the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth." (vs 51) You don't "weep" or "grind [your] teeth" when you are dead! Weeping and grinding of teeth are, however, things associated throughout the New Testament with eternal damnation, and thus fits far better with my notion that "taken" refers to the separating of the faithful from the damned.

n fact, the burglar analogy can be used to support my proposal that the Noah and Sodom analogies are MEANT to include the flood or fire aspect- obviously, Jesus could have used other analogies that did not have that part of the story in them if that was all He was trying to teach us.

How on earth do you figure that? Nothing in the servant analogy implies literal death, and those in the flood were killed, a state in which you don't "weep" much of "grind [your] teeth."

Furthermore, the servant analogy isn't comparing the same thing as the flood analogy. The main point of the servant analogy is that the "trustworthy servant" who does good (analogous to Jesus' followers) will be rewarded, while the servant "who is dishonest" and does bad things to his fellow servants and engages in supposed immoral behavior will be punished.

Jesus is said to reward the faithful with heaven and the unfaithful with eternal damnation. He isn't said to literally kill people.

At any rate, this analogy clearly isn't comparing the same thing as the flood analogy is.

Sheshbazzar

In previous posts I signed "......friend of YAH'shua", in the post you are refering to I signed "......Thl'La'Meed..."
This was a different post, and I chose to use a different sign-off,
My intended meaning was "disciple", (my source is "HaBerith Ha Khdasha") WOW! this must be genuine miracle, we agree on the meaning of a single word! Hope this is'nt just a one time fluke!

Your reasoning ( in my view) sets on the scales one single verse as out-weighing thousands of other verses, and yet your source, and hence its validity, is only the equal of that of any other verse.
So I am left to wonder (marvel) that you attempt to give so much weigh to this verse. I am sceptical.

Protracted arguments about semantics do not change the thoughts and intents of the heart,
So you just happened to stumble in here with no preconceptions?
I'm twice as sceptical.

Zerubabble, friend of YAHshua the Messiah

Amlodhi

Hello Sheshbazzar,

I see.

Can you provide a citation for this source so that I can read it in the original? Again, I question your transliteration because "covenant" is an intangible and would be modified by the Hebrew adjective "Qadash" (as usu. "holy"). Not only does your suffix ("a") indicate a "sacred (or dedicated) person", but also, your indicated sheva implies "Q'deshah" (Ked-ay-shaw), which is a female devotee (i.e. a temple prostitute).

I didn't say that it "out-weighed" them; but, rather, that in the p'shat it is contradictory to them.

Yet my source is the extant Hebrew text.

But you have offered no argument, protracted or otherwise. You have merely presumed that it cannot be contradictory to previous verses.

You like to obfuscate, don't you? I didn't say I had no preconceptions; I said I had no "sacred cows".

Unlike "sacred cows", my conceptions (pre- or otherwise) are subject to re-evaluation based on reasoned and supported argument; as opposed to "I can't tell you why, but take my word for it".


And still, Namaste'

Amlodhi

Sheshbazzar

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amlodhi
[B]Hello Sheshbazzar,



I see.



Can you provide a citation for this source so that I can read it in the original? Again, I question your transliteration because "covenant" is an intangible and would be modified by the Hebrew adjective "Qadash" (as usu. "holy"). Not only does your suffix ("a") indicate a "sacred (or dedicated) person", but also, your indicated sheva implies "Q'deshah" (Ked-ay-shaw), which is a female devotee (i.e. a temple prostitute).

Greetings Amlodhi, The source I refered to is; "The New Testament in Hebrew and English" Printed in Great Britan at the University Press, Cambridge
A publication of "The Society For Distributing The Holy Scriptures To The Jews" 1 Rectory Lane, Edgeware,Middlesex HA 8 7 LF England.
Prominately imprinted upon the binding, and upon the introductory title page, are the Hebrew words which I transliterated as "Haberith HaKhdesha", That is to say "The Covenant The New" I used the letters Kh to represent the vocal value of the Heb. letter "Kheth" so that it would be easily distinguishable and not be confused with the letter "Qowph," and thus the root "Q'desh"as you evidently have done.
As for your statement that "covenant " is an intangible...." feel free to take it up with the above cited publishers. (But I would be remiss if I failed to mention that I have other Hebrew books and literature that also use the the term "HaBerith" independently without modification by any Hebrew adjective.)


I didn't say that it "out-weighed" them; but, rather, that in the p'shat it is contradictory to them.

If you desire to take it that way.

Yet my source is the extant Hebrew text.

The Masoretic text?.....hmmm, and do you think this text is a trustworthy and accurate account ?

But you have offered no argument, protracted or otherwise. You have merely presumed that it cannot be contradictory to previous verses.

And as I previously stated, The two positions on this matter have opposed each other from time immemorial.
The accepted rule of translating and of interpreting the Scripture, is context, context, context,Thus our position is this verse is to be understood in harmony with the context of ALL the words of The Scriptures, taken out of this TOTAL context, it becomes only a pretext against sound doctrine.


You like to obfuscate, don't you? I didn't say I had no preconceptions; I said I had no "sacred cows".

Unlike "sacred cows", my conceptions (pre- or otherwise) are subject to re-evaluation based on reasoned and supported argument; as opposed to "I can't tell you why, but take my word for it".

And what "argument" could be effective? my forerunners were unable to convince the contentious and the unbelievers, leaving to posterity this lament, "Who hath believed our report? " they who would not take our word for it, remained in unbelief.

My Hebrew brethern indicate that an argument in Hebrew today is even less effective than it was then,But what if by some miracle of careful research and wordcraft we did succeed in convincing you concerning the interpretation of this single verse,would you then be a believer? hardly, being in unbelief,you would move on to your next objection,again and again, till your days be no more.
Therein do we differ, I have brethern who are blind yet see, who are deaf, yet hear, and who are foolish,yet understand.
But I have not lived any other mans life, and all other testimony, wether it be found in a book, (Scripture included) or from the lips of men, believing or nonbelieving, is suspect. My own experience is the basis of my own convictions. What can I say to adversaries, "If you knew what I know, then you would believe what I believe"? Or,"If only you saw what I have seen,then you would believe"?
But you do not know what I know, nor what I have seen, and indeed cannot know, see, nor grasp these things because unbelief makes them invisible and totally inaccessable to you.
( I refer to the hidden things that are not the exclusive experience of one individual, but the same truths and standards that are in due time revealed to every believer that seeks in sincierity and in truth)

Zerubabble, plummet in hand

Celsus

Sheshbazzar,

You need to differentiate Amlodhi's words from your own, either through using [ quote ] [ /quote ] (removing the spaces), or [ b ] [ /b ] (again without spaces). Otherwise no one would understand what you're saying.

Joel

Sheshbazzar

Thanks Joel, I am still endevoring to master the art of posting to this forum.