Originally posted by Faber
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Eschatology 201 Guidelines
This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Awkward questions, especially for preterists
Collapse
X
-
-
Adonikam = Adonai (Lord) + Qom (arises).
Adonijah = Adonai (Lord) + Yahweh (name of God).
There is no connection between the two, other than the first three syllables, which were common in Hebrew names.
By the way, is there any connection between the mark of the beast and the design of Freemason temples?When I Survey....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostAdonikam means "the Lord establishes" and is a pun having much to do with Solomon. First, it is a variant of Adonijah (see Nehemiah 10:16), the name of the elder brother Solomon murdered so that he could usurp the throne. Secondly, it is a variant of Adoniram, Solomon's overseer in charge of the forced labor he subjected the Israelites to.
Hey, I'm beginning to like this Socratic Method.Last edited by Faber; 08-08-2015, 09:02 PM.When I Survey....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostSennacherib never defeated the Judeans and submitted them to forced labor and oppression that the song rejoices they've been freed from. Try again.
And the text doesn't say "his humiliation on the mountains of Israel will lead to his eventual demise", it says "and you will fall on the mountains of Israel." Stick to the text rather than your own private interpretation, please.
You've given no evidence to justify your "hyperbolic" interpretation. Stick to the text.So this is your own private interpretation? I thought so.
The text doesn't mention parlor tricks. It says that this individual will call fire down from heaven in the sight of the whole world. Stop letting your fancy replace sound exegesis.
"What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostYou really need to brush up on your bible history don't you? No, Jerusalem wasn't defeated. He did however destroy and enslave, first of all Israel the Northern Kingdom a few years earlier (last I checked, they were God's people too... ), then in his rampage through Judah he destroyed and enslaved many thousands. This source says he claimed to have enslaved 200,156 persons.
You keep changing the text. Is it destroyed? Or Killed Or fall? Moving the goal post much? You need to prove from the text that fall on the mountains means to die there. Also, the person being talked about is Assyrian, not Babylonian...they aren't the same people. Two different nations, just like Israel and Lebanon. So it can't reference the Babylon of Revelation no matter how much you want it to. How about you stick to sound exegesis for a change...
No, it's not just me
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View Post
Huh? In Isaiah 14, King of Babylon and Assyrian are used interchangeably, and this verse (among others) makes it clear that death is meant:
YOU will be brought down. That piece, taken in isolation, makes it seem that the person is living at the time the prophecy is being delivered. Of course - (prophecy does sometimes word things strangely) - closer examination might change things a bit.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostIf a country's capital city withstands and repels an attack from an invading force, can that country be said to have been defeated? Of course not. Invaded and devastated, perhaps, but not defeated.
And what evidence do you have that Sennacherib inflicted forced labor upon the Israelites? His practice appears to have been only uprooting them from their native land and reinstituting them in Assyrian lands elsewhere.
Source: http://www.ancientreplicas.com/assyrian-blinding.html
The city of Lachish was captured and destroyed (you know that city 25 miles SE of Jerusalem) The prisoners were abused horribly. Up to and including skinning alive. Source : http://www.bible-history.com/archaeo...h-flaying.html
Sound horribly oppressive to me...
Huh? In Isaiah 14, King of Babylon and Assyrian are used interchangeably, and this verse (among others) makes it clear that death is meant:
Assyria, Babylon and Philistia are all 3 DIFFERENT NATIONS. Your failure to grasp that basic fact leaves me to distrust anything you say TBH.
Oh, well you and a guy from the 1800's agree, so you must be right. So other than strong assertions, do you guys have any actual evidence for the false prophet being a corporate body of pagan Roman priests who ceased to exist a long time ago rather than a future individual who will be cast alive into the lake of fire?"What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Faber View PostGood eyesight, Cerebrum.
I figured Darfius was not one to argue with Mormon theologians, since he loves to quote from them.
I figured there was enough in the context to make it obvious that they were Mormon.
Tabibito, of course citing 2 Nephi is an indicator of Mormonism, I wasn't claiming it was a mystery that Faber was quoting Mormons and that I uncovered it. I was asking why he was using Mormons if he's a Christian. He answered. It was none of your concern. You were rude.Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pentecost View PostTabibito, of course citing 2 Nephi is an indicator of Mormonism, I wasn't claiming it was a mystery that Faber was quoting Mormons and that I uncovered it. I was asking why he was using Mormons if he's a Christian.
Originally posted by PentecostMay I ask why you're choosing to utilize Mormon theologians without noting that they are Mormon, while you self identify as a Christian?
It was none of your concern.
You were rude.Last edited by tabibito; 08-10-2015, 04:17 AM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
But thanks for standing up for me.
By the way, where did our friend go? Did he chicken out after we started using the Socratic Method back at him? I mean, wow! He holds the authenticity of Isaiah 14 but then he trashes the account of David fulfilling God's will in appointing Solomon as king. And Solomon the son of a whore? There were issues there, but David and Bathsheba were at least married by then. And Nathan is now a false prophet? Will Darfius be forced to admit to the contradictions and/or inaccuracies in his position?When I Survey....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Faber View PostBut thanks for standing up for me.
By the way, where did our friend go? Did he chicken out after we started using the Socratic Method back at him? I mean, wow! He holds the authenticity of Isaiah 14 but then he trashes the account of David fulfilling God's will in appointing Solomon as king. And Solomon the son of a whore? There were issues there, but David and Bathsheba were at least married by then. And Nathan is now a false prophet? Will Darfius be forced to admit to the contradictions and/or inaccuracies in his position?If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostFIRST of all, you need to decide whether the text relates to Judah or Israel. The text says Israel, which was destroyed in 740 BC. So, IF we only go by the text, then Israel had been utterly destroyed. If you want to keep insisting on Judah, then you need to make a case for that. However, there are other forms of oppression and bondage. Judah was paying an extremely heavy annual "Tribute" to Assyria to leave them alone. But, where is your case that the text references Judah and not Israel? Israel was restored from the/by the permission of the Persian Empire. (See the Book of Nehemiah) So, restoration fulfilled.
Oh...that convenient thing called History...perhaps you've heard of it? The Assyrians were cruel and hard task masters. Here's a just a couple of examples:
Source: http://www.ancientreplicas.com/assyrian-blinding.html
The city of Lachish was captured and destroyed (you know that city 25 miles SE of Jerusalem) The prisoners were abused horribly. Up to and including skinning alive. Source : http://www.bible-history.com/archaeo...h-flaying.html
Sound horribly oppressive to me...
I have given you several opportunities to revise your stance here by simply reading a history book along with the text, but your insistence on continuing to conflate the two really shows your incompetence in exegesis or you're being intentionally dishonest. Because as any 5th grader can see, a plain reading of the text shows that Babylon is being addressed in verses 1-22. The taunt THEN shifts to Assyria in verses 23-27...THEN the taunt shifts to Philistia from 28 to the end. If you continue to insist that they are the same person, you need to then reconcile why Philistia is included in the taunt as well. And why THAT is ALSO the same person, and what if any significance that has to Revelation.
Assyria, Babylon and Philistia are all 3 DIFFERENT NATIONS. Your failure to grasp that basic fact leaves me to distrust anything you say TBH.
No Sir! This is about Babylon, NOT Assyria. You can't apply it across the board until you answer with actual proof that they belong together.
Well at least I'm right about something! I guess in your world, if it was written in the 1800's it's automatically hand waved away? How many futurists views can we find written about in the 1800's? And TBH, this is just one of the possibilities.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Faber View PostBy the way, where did our friend go? Did he chicken out after we started using the Socratic Method back at him?
I mean, wow! He holds the authenticity of Isaiah 14 but then he trashes the account of David fulfilling God's will in appointing Solomon as king. And Solomon the son of a whore? There were issues there, but David and Bathsheba were at least married by then. And Nathan is now a false prophet? Will Darfius be forced to admit to the contradictions and/or inaccuracies in his position?
Rather careless of Nathan to advise David to do something as important as build God's temple without first consulting the Lord, eh?
But concerning the murder of the rightful king, Ahijah, at the hands of Bathsheba and Nathan, the Bible also has this to say:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostSolomon was conceived before Bathsheba and David were married.Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and went in to her and lay with her; and she gave birth to a son, and he named him Solomon. (2 Sam 12:24)Originally posted by Darfius View PostRather careless of Nathan to advise David to do something as important as build God's temple without first consulting the Lord, eh?
Then he called for his son Solomon, and charged him to build a house for the LORD God of Israel. David said to Solomon, "My son, I had intended to build a house to the name of the LORD my God. But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to My name, because you have shed so much blood on the earth before Me. Behold, a son will be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'" (1 Chron 22:6-10, NASB)Originally posted by Darfius View PostThe lie that he concocted with Bathsheba....
Now when David reached old age, he made his son Solomon king over Israel. And he gathered together all the leaders of Israel with the priests and the Levites. (1 Chron 22:1-2, NASB)When I Survey....
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment