Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/7/2006 8:57:42 PM EDT
As of late on television and on the radio their is a bombardment of programs about the antichrist, prophecy, and general armageddon/end of days. While I do not believe in a deity in the terms of the Bible/Tora/Koran I still find it fascinating what I hear, in that interests I have questions to ask.

The antichrist who do you think it was/is?

Is RFID the mark of the beast?

Any Christians read the Jewish bibles book of David? If it is not David correct me but it paralells Revelations.

I find the RFID fascinating as it seems to fit the book of revelations so earily closely any thoughts to share?
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 8:59:39 PM EDT
Something else Nostradamus is said to have prophecied the next pope is the last pope and that the current popes reign would be short. Thoughts?
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 11:48:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 3:31:31 AM EDT
The Book of Daniel. I believe is what you meant.

Not the 'Book of David.'

And I surely think that the Scriputures foretell everything we need to know about the Second Coming of Christ, just as they did of His First Coming.

And just as a great many who should have seen the First Coming, misunderstood it, there will be a great many who should foresee the Second Coming, and yet will misunderstand it.

But not His Chosen.

Eric The(PonderThat)Hun
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 4:59:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Something else Nostradamus is said to have prophecied the next pope is the last pope and that the current popes reign would be short. Thoughts?



The Pope's 'reign' will be short because he is old. Some have interpreted him as being the last pope because he is a Benedictine, and he (unsurprisingly) chose the name Benedict.

The scripture implies (if not outright says) we won't know the time or place of the second coming, so its all just wheel-spinning guesswork.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 5:26:54 AM EDT

The antichrist who do you think it was/is?


The term antichrist is used exclusively by John in his letters. It is never used in Revelation or any other book. There are four references.

(1Jo 2:18 ASV) Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.

(1Jo 2:22 ASV) Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son.

(1Jo 4:3 ASV) and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

(2Jo 1:7 ASV) For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

John says that there is not one particular antichrist, but many. That anyone who denies 1) that Jesus is the Christ, 2) that Jesus is of God, or 3) that Jesus came in the flesh is an antichrist.


Is RFID the mark of the beast?


No.

A mark upon your hand and forehead would have had special meaning for the Jews.

Deut. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart;
Deu 6:7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes.
Deu 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.

In the Old Testament the Jews were commanded to live by the words of God. This was symbolized by "a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes." Now the Pharisees took this literally (and some orthodox Jews today) and bound this Scripture on their heads and hands, but the originally meaning was to always let God's Word determine how you think and what you do.

In light of this, the best interpretation of the mark of the beast would be those who allow Satan to determine how they act and think. To be more specific about this behavior, about the time Revelation was written, anyone who did not sacrifice to the emperor was persecuted. One of the forms this persecution took was a refusal to do business with anyone who did not sacrifice.


Any Christians read the Jewish bibles book of David? If it is not David correct me but it paralells Revelations.


As ETH said, I think you mean the book of Daniel. It is the only other book in the Bible written in the apocalyptic style. There are numerous extra-biblical examples of this genre. They all share a common symbolism and while difficult for us to read were easily understood by their original audiences. That is something very important to keep in mind. The authors of Daniel and Revelatiion expected their audiences to understand them. That makes me very skeptical about many of the futuristic interpretations of both.

Hope this helps.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 6:31:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 6:34:51 AM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By Mattl:


The antichrist who do you think it was/is? There were and are many to this day.Many call the Beast the antischirst as well. No use speculating. God is still in control. Putting too much focus on the end times is the wrong focus IMHO.

Is RFID the mark of the beast? No. For one thing I can still buy and sell without it.

Any Christians read the Jewish bibles book of David? If it is not David correct me but it paralells Revelations. There are many OT boooks that Revelation (not revelationS) are very similar to.

I find the RFID fascinating as it seems to fit the book of revelations so earily closely any thoughts to share?Not really much in common with it. YET

Link Posted: 1/8/2006 6:32:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Something else Nostradamus is said to have prophecied the next pope is the last pope and that the current popes reign would be short. Thoughts?



I think he also said a comet would hit NY in the 80's. He has been more wrong than right and in most cases people change his loopy prophecies to fit their agenda. He is a billion dollar business for some.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 7:12:30 AM EDT
There's a book you can read that will answer most of your questions
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:01:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By Mattl:


The antichrist who do you think it was/is? There were and are many to this day.Many call the Beast the antischirst as well. No use speculating. God is still in control. Putting too much focus on the end times is the wrong focus IMHO. Didn't it say god granted man free will? Man is always destructive it is our lot. With the giving of free will I think a deity would be more "hands off" in other terms we walk our own path.

Is RFID the mark of the beast? No. For one thing I can still buy and sell without it.Tou answered that with the last question. Not yet, they are still trying to remove cah are they not? The implant the administration is pushing. Not that the inplant really matters since nearly all of us own several things with RFID tags and any of those that get a power source can broadcast and be read.

Any Christians read the Jewish bibles book of David? If it is not David correct me but it paralells Revelations. There are many OT boooks that Revelation (not revelationS) are very similar to.
Does the Koran have a paralell?

I find the RFID fascinating as it seems to fit the book of revelations so earily closely any thoughts to share?Not really much in common with it. YET


Exactly not yet. RFID is sold as a convenience, but I suspect it at a minimum is the death of privacy, and more likely as it grows a tool of tyrranny.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:02:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TWIRE:

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Something else Nostradamus is said to have prophecied the next pope is the last pope and that the current popes reign would be short. Thoughts?



The Pope's 'reign' will be short because he is old. Some have interpreted him as being the last pope because he is a Benedictine, and he (unsurprisingly) chose the name Benedict.

The scripture implies (if not outright says) we won't know the time or place of the second coming, so its all just wheel-spinning guesswork.



I meant like a year or two?
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:20:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 12:26:44 PM EDT by Krackels]
Sorry but what's RFID?

NVM, I googled it.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:23:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wdsman:

A mark upon your hand and forehead would have had special meaning for the Jews.

Deut. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart;
Deu 6:7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes.
Deu 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.

In the Old Testament the Jews were commanded to live by the words of God. This was symbolized by "a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes." Now the Pharisees took this literally (and some orthodox Jews today) and bound this Scripture on their heads and hands, but the originally meaning was to always let God's Word determine how you think and what you do.




Just a thought on this. What you are talking about is Tefelin (It is a transliteration and can be spelled many ways) They have dug up Tefelin in Israel that predate "Pharasees" and the Jesus narative by 100's of years. These verses you quote come from a Jewish book, written by Jews in the Traditional Jewish language with the target audiance being the Jewish people and the Practice has been to put on Tefilin is a lot older than christianity. So why or who do you derive authority from to say...."well, these verses really mean this" We could all be wrong, but from a logical standpoint wouldnt the traditional Jewish thinking on these traditional Jewish things that predate anything christian be a more prudent interpretation?

BTW, the translation you use is less than accurate. I defy you to tell me what "Totafos" means. The Hebrew word used in those verses.

Again, just a thought.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:28:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Krackels:
Sorry but what's RFID?



Google
is
your
freind

Long story short it makes a few creature comforts, but the rest is all bad.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:55:14 PM EDT
Everyone wants to think they live in the cursed times where Revelations will come true. Time will keep passing, and it still won't be coming true.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 8:31:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
As of late on television and on the radio their is a bombardment of programs about the antichrist, prophecy, and general armageddon/end of days. While I do not believe in a deity in the terms of the Bible/Tora/Koran I still find it fascinating what I hear, in that interests I have questions to ask.

The antichrist who do you think it was/is?

Is RFID the mark of the beast?

Any Christians read the Jewish bibles book of David? If it is not David correct me but it paralells Revelations.

I find the RFID fascinating as it seems to fit the book of revelations so earily closely any thoughts to share?



atheists aren't an organized group so beliefs on the meaning of the Biblical prophecies will vary.

I'm a preterist and I believe the prophecies were written to refer to the fall of Jerusalem and have already occured. I also believe they were written after the fact.

Link Posted: 1/9/2006 4:12:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dino:

atheists aren't an organized group so beliefs on the meaning of the Biblical prophecies will vary.

Christians aren't an organized group so beliefs on the meaning of the Biblical prophecies will vary.

I'm a preterist and I believe the prophecies were written to refer to the fall of Jerusalem and have already occured.

A lot of Christians believe that, as well.

A lot of Christians believe that Revelations refers to two separate, yet connected events - the reign of Nero and the reign of the anti-Christ.

I also believe they were written after the fact.

Why would anyone believe that?

Simply because they don't believe that the Bible, including Revelations, is an inspired work.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Why waste your precious time on material you don't really believe in?

Eric The(Eschatological)Hun
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 5:32:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By neshomamench:

Originally Posted By Wdsman:

A mark upon your hand and forehead would have had special meaning for the Jews.

Deut. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart;
Deu 6:7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes.
Deu 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.

In the Old Testament the Jews were commanded to live by the words of God. This was symbolized by "a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes." Now the Pharisees took this literally (and some orthodox Jews today) and bound this Scripture on their heads and hands, but the originally meaning was to always let God's Word determine how you think and what you do.




Just a thought on this. What you are talking about is Tefelin (It is a transliteration and can be spelled many ways) They have dug up Tefelin in Israel that predate "Pharasees" and the Jesus narative by 100's of years. These verses you quote come from a Jewish book, written by Jews in the Traditional Jewish language with the target audiance being the Jewish people and the Practice has been to put on Tefilin is a lot older than christianity. So why or who do you derive authority from to say...."well, these verses really mean this" We could all be wrong, but from a logical standpoint wouldnt the traditional Jewish thinking on these traditional Jewish things that predate anything christian be a more prudent interpretation?

BTW, the translation you use is less than accurate. I defy you to tell me what "Totafos" means. The Hebrew word used in those verses.

Again, just a thought.



From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:


The passages on which the wearing of the phylacteries is based are as follows: “It (i.e. the feast of unleavened bread) shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of Yahweh may be in thy mouth” (Exo_13:9); “And it (i.e. sacrifice of the firstborn) shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes” (Exo_13:16); “thou shalt bind them (i.e. the words of Yahweh) for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes” (Deu_6:8); “therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul; and ye shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes” (Deu_11:18). It is evident that the words in Exodus are beyond all question used figuratively; a careful reading of the verses in Deuteronomy in close relation to their contexts, in which are other figures of speech not to be taken literally, is sufficient proof of their purely figurative intention also. Only the formalism of later ages could distort these figures into the gross and materialistic practice of the phylactery. Just when this practice began cannot accurately be determined. While the Talmud attempts to trace it back to the primitive, even Mosaic, times, it probably did not long antedate the birth of Christ. In conservative Jewish circles it has been maintained through the centuries, and at present is faithfully followed by orthodox Judaism. Every male, who at the age of 13 becomes a “son of the Law” (bar micwāh), must wear the phylactery and perform the accompanying ceremonial.
In the New Testament passage (Mat_23:5) our Lord rebukes the Pharisees, who make more pronounced the un-Scriptural formalism and the crude literalism of the phylacteries by making them obtrusively large, as they also seek notoriety for their religiosity by the enlarged fringes, or “borders.” See FRINGES; FRONTLETS; PHARISEES.

Litrature.
The various commentaries. on Ex and Dt: tractate Tephillīn; the comprehensive article by A. R. S. Kennedy in HDB; articles in Encyclopedia Biblica and Jewish Encyclopedia[/b].


"totafos טופפה" from an unused root that meant (presumably) to guard, protect, bind or wrap. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. It's use in this context may refer to the practice of binding the scriptures to the body or to the admonition to protect one's heart from evil.

"My authority" is the text itself. Notice the emphasis in 6:6 on the heart. All of the verses that follow are ways of protecting the heart. Even if the command is to be taken literally, it still takes a back seat to the command to keep the word in your heart or to live what is taught.

As for the translation I was using: 1) the use of "frontlets" while not my first choice does not damage the meaning of the text 2) the point I was making comes across clearly in several translations.

King James:
Deu 6:6 And these words, which command thee this day,shall be in thine heart:
Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

The Tanakh, translated by the Jewish Publication Society

6 Take to heart this instruction with whcih I charge you this day. 7 Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home adn when you are away, when you lied down and when you get up. 8 Bind them as a sign upon your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 7:21:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 7:26:04 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By Dino:

atheists aren't an organized group so beliefs on the meaning of the Biblical prophecies will vary.

Christians aren't an organized group so beliefs on the meaning of the Biblical prophecies will vary. true, but there is high degree of correlation between all Christian groups on the basics. The only thing atheists agree on is they don't believe in God. Christanity is a lot more organized than that.

I'm a preterist and I believe the prophecies were written to refer to the fall of Jerusalem and have already occured.

A lot of Christians believe that, as well. yup I had the same belief, including the part about being written after the fact with respect to Jerusalem, when I was still a Christian.

A lot of Christians believe that Revelations refers to two separate, yet connected events - the reign of Nero and the reign of the anti-Christ.

I also believe they were written after the fact.

Why would anyone believe that?

Simply because they don't believe that the Bible, including Revelations, is an inspired work.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Why waste your precious time on material you don't really believe in?

Eric The(Eschatological)Hun



So the Bible is only useful if you believe the supernatural elements?

I think it has a lot of historical and moral value that don't have to tie in with any supernatural beliefs.

Link Posted: 1/9/2006 8:18:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 8:20:06 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Originally Posted By Dino:

So the Bible is only useful if you believe the supernatural elements?

Pretty much.

I think it has a lot of historical and moral value that don't have to tie in with any supernatural beliefs.


'Warm and fuzzy' now will likely get you 'hot and tormented' later.

Think as you wish, though.

But a very Moral Man once said, that it might be better that you'd never been born....

Eric The(Eternal)Hun
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 12:31:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By Dino:

So the Bible is only useful if you believe the supernatural elements?

Pretty much.

I think it has a lot of historical and moral value that don't have to tie in with any supernatural beliefs.


'Warm and fuzzy' now will likely get you 'hot and tormented' later.

Think as you wish, though.

But a very Moral Man once said, that it might be better that you'd never been born....

Eric The(Eternal)Hun



true, that could be my fate.

It could also be my fate to be dragged before Yan Luo Wang by Ox-head and Horse-face and judged by him. I could then be sent to one of the many chambers of hell to be sawn in half, beheaded, thrown into pits of filth or forced to climb trees adorned with sharp blades. After the punishment had purged my sins and had repented, I would then be given the Drink of Forgetfulness by Meng Po and sent back into the world to be reborn.

Its not just a matter of you or I being right. We could both be wrong and wind up spending time in hell together as some deity we both thought was imaginary tortures us for our insolence.

Needless to say, I'm not any more worried about your mythology than I am anyone elses.

If we do wind up in the Hell of the Bladed Trees together, we'll be able to look back on this thread and laugh and laugh

Link Posted: 1/9/2006 3:59:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wdsman:

Originally Posted By neshomamench:

Originally Posted By Wdsman:

A mark upon your hand and forehead would have had special meaning for the Jews.

Deut. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart;
Deu 6:7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes.
Deu 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.

In the Old Testament the Jews were commanded to live by the words of God. This was symbolized by "a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes." Now the Pharisees took this literally (and some orthodox Jews today) and bound this Scripture on their heads and hands, but the originally meaning was to always let God's Word determine how you think and what you do.




Just a thought on this. What you are talking about is Tefelin (It is a transliteration and can be spelled many ways) They have dug up Tefelin in Israel that predate "Pharasees" and the Jesus narative by 100's of years. These verses you quote come from a Jewish book, written by Jews in the Traditional Jewish language with the target audiance being the Jewish people and the Practice has been to put on Tefilin is a lot older than christianity. So why or who do you derive authority from to say...."well, these verses really mean this" We could all be wrong, but from a logical standpoint wouldnt the traditional Jewish thinking on these traditional Jewish things that predate anything christian be a more prudent interpretation?

BTW, the translation you use is less than accurate. I defy you to tell me what "Totafos" means. The Hebrew word used in those verses.

Again, just a thought.



From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:


The passages on which the wearing of the phylacteries is based are as follows: “It (i.e. the feast of unleavened bread) shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of Yahweh may be in thy mouth” (Exo_13:9); “And it (i.e. sacrifice of the firstborn) shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes” (Exo_13:16); “thou shalt bind them (i.e. the words of Yahweh) for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes” (Deu_6:8); “therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul; and ye shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes” (Deu_11:18). It is evident that the words in Exodus are beyond all question used figuratively; a careful reading of the verses in Deuteronomy in close relation to their contexts, in which are other figures of speech not to be taken literally, is sufficient proof of their purely figurative intention also. Only the formalism of later ages could distort these figures into the gross and materialistic practice of the phylactery. Just when this practice began cannot accurately be determined. While the Talmud attempts to trace it back to the primitive, even Mosaic, times, it probably did not long antedate the birth of Christ. In conservative Jewish circles it has been maintained through the centuries, and at present is faithfully followed by orthodox Judaism. Every male, who at the age of 13 becomes a “son of the Law” (bar micwāh), must wear the phylactery and perform the accompanying ceremonial.
In the New Testament passage (Mat_23:5) our Lord rebukes the Pharisees, who make more pronounced the un-Scriptural formalism and the crude literalism of the phylacteries by making them obtrusively large, as they also seek notoriety for their religiosity by the enlarged fringes, or “borders.” See FRINGES; FRONTLETS; PHARISEES.

Litrature.
The various commentaries. on Ex and Dt: tractate Tephillīn; the comprehensive article by A. R. S. Kennedy in HDB; articles in Encyclopedia Biblica and Jewish Encyclopedia[/b].


"totafos טופפה" from an unused root that meant (presumably) to guard, protect, bind or wrap. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. It's use in this context may refer to the practice of binding the scriptures to the body or to the admonition to protect one's heart from evil.

"My authority" is the text itself. Notice the emphasis in 6:6 on the heart. All of the verses that follow are ways of protecting the heart. Even if the command is to be taken literally, it still takes a back seat to the command to keep the word in your heart or to live what is taught.

As for the translation I was using: 1) the use of "frontlets" while not my first choice does not damage the meaning of the text 2) the point I was making comes across clearly in several translations.

King James:
Deu 6:6 And these words, which command thee this day,shall be in thine heart:
Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

The Tanakh, translated by the Jewish Publication Society

6 Take to heart
this instruction with whcih I charge you this day. 7 Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home adn when you are away, when you lied down and when you get up. 8 Bind them as a sign upon your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead



Again, my origional statement stands. You use non Jewish sources to try and justify what traditional Jewish things mean. You also assume that the Jewish Publication Society (or the Jewish encyclopedia)is somehow a traditional Jewish source. It is not. It is a rehash of the King James Bible with a few minor exceptions and rejected in whole by traditional Judaism. To use such a source shows you have little to no understanding of traditional Judaism. Thus again making my statement stand. Why would your thoughts on Traditional Jewish things in a Jewish book, about Jews, for Jews written in the Jewish language be logical if Traditional Jews think you are wrong?



BTW, I dont use translations, dont need to. And while you might find this offensive, I think anyone who must use a translation has no grounds to discuss what the Hebrew scriptures say. You must, by definition take someone elses word on what they say and you have no way of knowing the difference...no matter how firmly you believe what you are told. So again, I ask you this source you use, They say it is from an "unused root" and "presumably".... So what the hell does that mean? Where do they derive this information from again. I defy you to tell me what Totafos means.

Again, we could all be wrong but from a logical standpoint...
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 7:18:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 3:14:28 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Originally Posted By neshomamench:

BTW, I dont use translations, dont need to. And while you might find this offensive, I think anyone who must use a translation has no grounds to discuss what the Hebrew scriptures say. You must, by definition take someone elses word on what they say and you have no way of knowing the difference...no matter how firmly you believe what you are told...

<cough>bullshiite<cough>

If you believe that the 'word of someone else' is correct with respect to...say...the Periodic Table, then you are entitled to rely upon it in discussions.

Yet you must think that no one can correctly use the atomic weights supplied in that Periodic Table unless they themselves verified that those weights were correct?

Balderdash!

Besides, you only know what your Hebrew teacher(s) taught you!

Correct?

We all rely on the work of others.

Thanks!

Eric The(Knowledgeable)Hun
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 7:44:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 5:38:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 5:40:43 AM EDT by Wdsman]

Again, my origional statement stands. You use non Jewish sources to try and justify what traditional Jewish things mean. You also assume that the Jewish Publication Society (or the Jewish encyclopedia)is somehow a traditional Jewish source. It is not. It is a rehash of the King James Bible with a few minor exceptions and rejected in whole by traditional Judaism. To use such a source shows you have little to no understanding of traditional Judaism. Thus again making my statement stand. Why would your thoughts on Traditional Jewish things in a Jewish book, about Jews, for Jews written in the Jewish language be logical if Traditional Jews think you are wrong?


First of all, the subject of the thread was a passage from Revelation in the Christian New Testament. If only Jews can understand Judaism, then only Christians can understand Christianity. By your logic, no Jew could comment intelligently on this subject.

Second, show us your traditional Jewish sources. Show me one that doesn't translate Deuteronomy 6:6 with some variation of "in your heart." "Because I said so" works for Moms, God and VA-gunnut (within the limits of this forum).

Third, why is my thinking illogical just because you say one section of society thinks I'm wrong. I may be wrong, BUT you haven't shown one source that agrees with your position. At this point you haven't shown that what you say IS the Traditional Jewish Interpretation. After that you would need to show WHY they are right and I am not before you could label my position wrong.

Fourth, Technically speaking you have been arguing that my conclusion is wrong because my premises are wrong. If the problem is with my premise then my argument could be wrong and still be logical.

To illustrate:

Premise 1: A mark on the hand and forehead were used in the Old Testament to symbolize Israel's belief in and commitment to the commandments of God.
Premise 2: The audience to whom the book of Revelation is addressed would have been familiar with this passage.
Premise 3: The author's intended meaning can be discovered through how his audience would have understood the text.

Conclusion: When Revelation discusses a mark on the hand and forehad it is symbolic of a person's beliefs and actions. (to any logicians I know that needs work, but I'm just illustrating a point)

Your problem is with premise 1. If that premise is wrong. My argument may be logical, but it is invalid because it is based on a faulty premise.


BTW, I dont use translations, dont need to. And while you might find this offensive, I think anyone who must use a translation has no grounds to discuss what the Hebrew scriptures say. You must, by definition take someone elses word on what they say and you have no way of knowing the difference...no matter how firmly you believe what you are told. So again, I ask you this source you use, They say it is from an "unused root" and "presumably".... So what the hell does that mean? Where do they derive this information from again. I defy you to tell me what Totafos means.


I can read Hebrew and Aramaic. I still find translations helpful. My reasons:

1. As noted above, sometimes I'm wrong. I like to check others work and see if there is agreement. If not, then I explore why.
2. When I'm in conversation with people who don't know the language, they get pretty skeptical if I base my interpretation on something that is only in my translation.
3. When I'm in conversation with people who do know the language but disagree with me it helps to show other scholars who agree.

BDB says that "totafos טופפה" is from an unused root because "it ... comes .... from .....a .... root .... that .....is ...... not ....... used. As you know, nearly all Hebrew words come from a three-letter verb, the root. Unlike many other Hebrew words where we can demonstrate the usage of the root verb in Biblical or extra-Biblical literature and confirm the meaning of the root, this word's root is not used. Therefore scholars must take other words based on the same root and guess what the original meant. Since for many years Hebrew was a dead language and we only know it through extant writings, this is sometimes necessary for us to better understand the language. So since we don't have any instance of the root actually being used in its simplest form, we must "presume" what its meaning was.

Again, I've told you what "totafos טופפה" means. Show me a source that disagrees.

ETA: Notice that in my original argument it is not even necessary that the word on the hand and feet be purely symbolic. As long as the reason includes symbolism of their commitment the argument stands.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 5:43:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By neshomamench:

BTW, I dont use translations, dont need to. And while you might find this offensive, I think anyone who must use a translation has no grounds to discuss what the Hebrew scriptures say. You must, by definition take someone elses word on what they say and you have no way of knowing the difference...no matter how firmly you believe what you are told...

<cough>bullshiite<cough>

If you believe that the 'word of someone else' is correct with respect to...say...the Periodic Table, then you are entitled to rely upon it in discussions.

Yet you must think that no one can correctly use the atomic weights supplied in that Periodic Table unless they themselves verified that those weights were correct?

Balderdash!

Besides, you only know what your Hebrew teacher(s) taught you!

Correct?

We all rely on the work of others.

Thanks!

Eric The(Knowledgeable)Hun



LOL

you want to use standards of science for interpreting your religion, but when science says something that disagrees with your religion, you put your fingers in your ears and chant "I'm not listening!"

too funny
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 6:47:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dino:

you want to use standards of science for interpreting your religion, but when science says something that disagrees with your religion, you put your fingers in your ears and chant "I'm not listening!"

No I don't.

And you obviously didn't understand what I said, at all.

too funny

Yes, it is to laugh.

Eric The(LooneyTunes)Hun
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 8:09:37 AM EDT
please explain what you meant then,

here is how I interpreted what you said:



<cough>bullshiite<cough> I don't have much of an argument so I'll start with a curseword to imply the OP doesn't have a clue

If you believe that the 'word of someone else' is correct with respect to...say...the Periodic Table, then you are entitled to rely upon it in discussions. you are equating translation of a language to the Periodic Table of elements. Translations are notoriously tricky, especially from a language like written Hebrew, whereas any chemistry student has verified at least some of the info on the periodic table and can review the experiments for the others

Yet you must think that no one can correctly use the atomic weights supplied in that Periodic Table unless they themselves verified that those weights were correct?

Balderdash! EXACTLY, your argument is fallacious because you compare apples and oranges

Besides, you only know what your Hebrew teacher(s) taught you! you are implying that the Hebrew teachers of a Evangelical Christian are more likely to be correct than the Hebrew teachers of a mainstream Jew? Balderdash

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 8:34:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By neshomamench:

BTW, I dont use translations, dont need to. And while you might find this offensive, I think anyone who must use a translation has no grounds to discuss what the Hebrew scriptures say. You must, by definition take someone elses word on what they say and you have no way of knowing the difference...no matter how firmly you believe what you are told...

<cough>bullshiite<cough>

If you believe that the 'word of someone else' is correct with respect to...say...the Periodic Table, then you are entitled to rely upon it in discussions.

Yet you must think that no one can correctly use the atomic weights supplied in that Periodic Table unless they themselves verified that those weights were correct?

Balderdash!

Besides, you only know what your Hebrew teacher(s) taught you!

Correct?

We all rely on the work of others.

Thanks!

Eric The(Knowledgeable)Hun



Again, when it comes to Religion, we could all be wrong. But that doesnt mean we shouldnt apply logic as much as we can.

Eric, while, as you can imagine, I disagree with your positions on a great many things, I do enjoy your posts. They are often well thought out and written. However this is not of your ussual logic. Something such as Science is about verifiable roads. Religion on the other hand is about strong opinions.

When it comes to the Hebrew language. I will share with you my observations. You can take that for what it is worth. Christian English Translations and translators are dishonest. Come on, Christians are the only folks out there who can write a 40 page thesis on the word "Almah" and why it "really" means what Christians say it has meant for 1700 years. It has a simple meaning and always has you cant change that. For close to 2000 years. Jews did it as they always have and Christians did it as they saw fit as well. In this modern world, for the first time in a long time Jews are free to say "Hey guys, thats not what it says" and Christians cant burn us alive for doing so. It has been very interesting to say the least. And (some) of Christianity has decided to be more intulectually honest about this and some have not. While I understand they exist, I have yet to meet a Christian who claimed to be fluent in Hebrew that was. I never understood this dishonesty and time and time again I here the claim "Well, my pastor, friend, whoever is fluent and he says"(insert Christian party line on translation here)

Seriously. The only way I can get this point accross it to ask you what you would think if someone told you they were fluent in English, and because of it they would now prove a point, then they started to tell you that "Going to the store" means "Baught milk" Sure they are related events, but the first does not mean nor imply the second. This would be as clear as day to you, and how can you argue it with someone who believes other wise?

Anyways, I should know better than to even get involved in it around here. I am going back to the real world. Have at it.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 10:10:34 AM EDT
I thought about just letting this die, BUT . . .


Again, when it comes to Religion, we could all be wrong. But that doesnt mean we shouldnt apply logic as much as we can.


Eric, while, as you can imagine, I disagree with your positions on a great many things, I do enjoy your posts. They are often well thought out and written. However this is not of your ussual logic. Something such as Science is about verifiable roads. Religion on the other hand is about strong opinions.



When it comes to issues of language, there is a similarity to the scientific method. While linguists don't do experiments, they do research. A linguist looks at how a word and various forms of a word are used in numerous contexts and comes to an understand of its definition. In good lexicons they will list numerous examples of this usage. This enables other linguists to verify their work.


When it comes to the Hebrew language. I will share with you my observations. You can take that for what it is worth.


Ah, but without references or sources we don't know what it is worth do we?


Christian English Translations and translators are dishonest. Come on, Christians are the only folks out there who can write a 40 page thesis on the word "Almah" and why it "really" means what Christians say it has meant for 1700 years. It has a simple meaning and always has you cant change that. For close to 2000 years. Jews did it as they always have and Christians did it as they saw fit as well. In this modern world, for the first time in a long time Jews are free to say "Hey guys, thats not what it says" and Christians cant burn us alive for doing so. It has been very interesting to say the least. And (some) of Christianity has decided to be more intulectually honest about this and some have not. While I understand they exist, I have yet to meet a Christian who claimed to be fluent in Hebrew that was. I never understood this dishonesty and time and time again I here the claim "Well, my pastor, friend, whoever is fluent and he says"(insert Christian party line on translation here)


You accuse Christians of dishonesty.

1. If that is a blanket statement about all Christians, it is a) illogical and b) irrellevent
2. If that is a statement about particular Christians you have met in the past it is irrellevent.
3. If that is a statement about Christians on this board you need to show
a) that they are incorrect
b) that they know they are incorrect
c) that they make incorrect statements anyway.
d) for it to be relevent, that the incorrect statements are about the topic under discussion.



Seriously. The only way I can get this point accross it to ask you what you would think if someone told you they were fluent in English, and because of it they would now prove a point, then they started to tell you that "Going to the store" means "Baught milk" Sure they are related events, but the first does not mean nor imply the second. This would be as clear as day to you, and how can you argue it with someone who believes other wise?


This is why context is important. You say "going to the store" doesn't imply "bought milk" what about this context.

The Mrs.: Dang, we're out of milk and I need some to make (some delicious dish). I don't have time to go to the store.

Me: I'll go to the store.

Later.

The Mrs. Oh, you're home. Good. I need that milk.

Me: I didn't buy any milk.

Her: You said you were going to the store.

Me: Yeah, but I didn't say I was going to buy milk.

You can understand while technically I am correct. Because of what the phrase "I'll go to the store" implied in that context, if I argue I'll be sleeping on the couch.


Link Posted: 1/10/2006 11:50:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 11:58:35 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Originally Posted By neshomamench:

Again, when it comes to Religion, we could all be wrong.

Yes, it is possible, but not probable, IMHO, that we are all wrong.

But that doesnt mean we shouldnt apply logic as much as we can.

Yes, indeed, apply all the human logic you wish...and we may all still be wrong.

Eric, while, as you can imagine, I disagree with your positions on a great many things, I do enjoy your posts.

Thank you, and the feeling is mutual, I can assure you!

They are often well thought out and written. However this is not of your ussual logic.

Well, let's just see, shall we?

Something such as Science is about verifiable roads.

Yes, it surely does.

As does the study of languages, modern or ancient, living or dead.

Religion on the other hand is about strong opinions.

Yes, one does not read of opinions in science, does one?

But what I posted has nothing to do with religion, but with the science of language, or linguistics.

And such etymological studies can be addressed to Biblical languages, such as Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, that would permit us to confidently determine precisely what is meant by a certain, particular word....whatever its source.

That, and that alone, is what I was referring to in the post that you are addressing.

You need not speak Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, either as a first or second language, or even be trained in the language, at all, in order to obtain a clear and concise understanding as to what anything in the Bible meant.

When it comes to the Hebrew language. I will share with you my observations. You can take that for what it is worth.

Thank you.

Christian English Translations and translators are dishonest.

Yes, dishonesty is a chief characteristic of all things 'Christian' to some people.

We have a monopoly on bending the Bible to suit our previously arrived at religious convictions.

No one else, on the planet, does that.

Ever.

Right?

<insert typical Hun expletive here>

Come on, Christians are the only folks out there who can write a 40 page thesis on the word "Almah" and why it "really" means what Christians say it has meant for 1700 years.

Yes, the Lord Himself will give you a sign, a young lady will bear a child!

That's truly amazing, isn't it?

A young woman shall bear a child!

Well, there's probably just such 'signs from the Lord' crying, mewling, and puking in nurseries all over the planet.

Some sign!

It has a simple meaning and always has you cant change that. For close to 2000 years.

Yes, we know that our tribe differs from your tribe on this very matter.

Well, at least a part of your tribe agreed with us in the past, for our tribe began when members of your tribe seriously thought that a Virgin did conceive and bring forth a Son, Who was destined to be called 'Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.'

And so she did, and so He was called, and is still called unto this very day.

We are obviously going to disagree on this, but don't be foolish in trying to say that 'there is no indication....no expectation....', etc.

Just as present day Jews attempt to diminish the very idea of a Messiah....when Jews of the Second Temple Period would say, 'Nothing is written in the Scriptures that is not written of Messiah.'

Want some evidence that 'classical' Judaism thought that the Messiah was more akin to the Christ of the Christians, than the 'messiah' of King David?

I'd be happy to provide you with a few examples....

Jews did it as they always have and Christians did it as they saw fit as well.

I think that is where we find ourselves today.

In this modern world, for the first time in a long time Jews are free to say "Hey guys, thats not what it says" and Christians cant burn us alive for doing so.

If we don't burn y'all alive, it is solely because, finally after 2,000 years, we have listened and obeyed the Words of the Messiah, Whom y'all care not a whit for, anyway!

What irony!

Y'all are finally 'saved' by the Messiah!

It has been very interesting to say the least.

Yes, we are all tickled pink nowadays.

And (some) of Christianity has decided to be more intulectually honest about this and some have not.

As some Jews have decided, likewise, while others have not.

See? It works both ways!

While I understand they exist, I have yet to meet a Christian who claimed to be fluent in Hebrew that was. I never understood this dishonesty and time and time again I here the claim "Well, my pastor, friend, whoever is fluent and he says"(insert Christian party line on translation here)

That's a real shame.

You know, sometime right after 1900, Dallas High School stopped requiring final exams in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, as a prerequisite to receiving a...high school diploma!

Seriously. The only way I can get this point accross it to ask you what you would think if someone told you they were fluent in English, and because of it they would now prove a point, then they started to tell you that "Going to the store" means "Baught milk" Sure they are related events, but the first does not mean nor imply the second. This would be as clear as day to you, and how can you argue it with someone who believes other wise?

A very, very bad analogy.

Try again.

Anyways, I should know better than to even get involved in it around here. I am going back to the real world. Have at it.

Before you do, could you please give us your take on the Messiah?

Is the Messiah an important part of Judaism?

Will the Messiah ever come to the Temple? Either the Temple of Solomon, the Second Temple, or, perhaps, a Third Temple?

We'll see where this leads!

Eric The(AlwaysInterested)Hun
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 4:28:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
[A young woman shall bear a child!

Well, at least a part of your tribe agreed with us in the past, for our tribe began when members of your tribe seriously thought that a Virgin did conceive and bring forth a Son, Who was destined to be called 'Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.'

And so she did, and so He was called, and is still called unto this very day.

Isaiah 9:5
For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Advisor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom; upon the one with the greatness of dominion and the boundless peace that will prevail on the throne of David and on his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it through justice and righteousness, from now to eternity. The zealousness of Hashem, Master of Legions, will accomplish this!

This would be King Hezekiah.

Isaiah 7:13 Hear now, o House of David is it not enough for you that you scorn human prophets, that you scorn my God? 14 Therefore, my Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold the maiden will become pregnant and bear a son, and she will name him Immanuel. 15 He will eat cream and honey as soon as he knows to abhor evil and choose good. 16 For before the child will know to abhor evil and choose good, the land of the two kings you fear will be abandoned.

Isaiah spoke the words to King Ahaz about Rezin, king of Aram and Pekah, king of Israel about 150 years before the destruction of the first temple.

1st temple destroyed 3328/423 BCE

2nd Temple destroyed 3828/68AD

How you read Jesus into this I do not know, maybe Sarah Silverman is right, Jesus is Magic!

Link Posted: 1/12/2006 9:00:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2006 9:01:27 PM EDT by Muskrat]

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Something else Nostradamus is said to have prophecied the next pope is the last pope and that the current popes reign would be short. Thoughts?



I've read an interpritation of Revelation in which the Catholic Church is the beast from the sea. It supported this timeline.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 12:17:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Is RFID the mark of the beast?



First, what's a beast? Lots of people think that the beast is Lucifer and, in a large sense, they're right. But more specifically, a beast is a teacher/preacher/someone with a doctrine (specifically a false doctrine) they're trying to share. Paul said that he faught with beasts at Ephesus. He wasn't battling animals or even Lucifer, per se, but rather false prophets/teachers. He was speaking of a battle of words when he said he fought with beasts.

Now, the mark of the beast, Revelation says, is 6 - 6 - 6. The important thing to understand about six is that it is NOT seven. I'm not being flippant. Seven symbolizes COMPLETENESS, the end of the thing. Seven is what God wants. He wants us to be fully grown/matured/realized in him. He wants us to grow to the measure of the fullness of Christ. That, my friend, is seven . . . or seven - seven - seven (777). Anything short of that is six . . .

Top Top