|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 8, 2017 9:33:29 GMT -6
Socal - lets try to keep this from being combative please. I understand what you are getting at but keep in mind that boraddict is new to the forum and may need to learn a little how this "on-line" thing works. Writing is certainly not my strong suit, so at times things can be meant one way when written but read differently by those reading. There are not 2 versions of Revelation, totally agreed. So lets get back to the content of how to read the book, understand what God is saying giving each other the benefit of the doubt that maybe we're not reading exactly what is trying to be said. EDIT - ideas outside the box are welcome here for discussion, so long as they stick to the 3 rules of the forum. From the New Members section - " It is also fine to have a debate now and then, but it shouldn't be done like the world would do it. When debating with someone, consider first that they are your brother or sister in Christ. Secondly, consider that they might know something that God hasn't yet revealed to you. There is no need to win an argument, but great need to show graciousness and to stand up for truth. " Please pay attention to #3 unsealed.boards.net/thread/2/new-members-read-first#ixzz4xquBP4AFAsking him to provide evidence for his assertion is not against that rule. Nor is stating one's non-belief in that assertion. There's the second issue of a third member inserting his high-minded moral authority in a discussion to defend someone from providing such evidence, while making the very argument that person they're tying to attack is. I'm sorry, leading people astray with a smile is still leading people astray. I'm asking him to prove his assertions. That is not rude, nor is it uncalled for on a discussion forum. Socialexile you make this so fun. I love the debate; however, I am not trying to lead anyone astray but on the contrary. If there is information that is available for you, and God wants you to have it, then it is your responsibility to hear me out. Not for you to have heavy ears and eyes shut (Isa. 6:10). If it were not so then you would see, and hear, and be converted to a new knowledge. Like Johnathan Livingston's Seagull, flying high above and through the mountainside into a new awakening. A new knowledge reserved for the very elect at the time of the return of our Savior, Lord Jesus. Know this, I can not be the only person to have found this new information in The Book of Revelation. There must be others. |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Nov 8, 2017 9:33:53 GMT -6
In which case you stated my exact point. It's also rude to insert yourself as the moral authority when two people are having a discussion that does not pertain to you, especially to defend against someone asking the hard questions - which is not rude at all. socalexile, Sometimes it is necessary to step outside oneself and look at our actions from the perspective of others. Defense of oneself is not always the way to handle things. Planks and splinters dude. You were not asking the “hard questions”, in the post I addressed. I like that you ask hard questions. You asked no question in that post and you accused a sister of something she did not do and then you accused her of a motive without any proof.
Um, she gave the title of her book, and mentioned writing one several times. I thought I was reading an article by Michael Brown. lol. Just go back and read what you wrote before attacking and defending. I'm not saying you are bad. I'm saying you made an error. Ironically you point out my error about pointing out her error. And what worse is that you reiterated my point.
This is a public forum meant to be a group discussion, if you really want a private conversation, you might want to change the venue of your conversation. Huh? I have made a decision that i am going to stand up when injustice is done on this forum. If that makes me a moral authority, so be it. I am not afraid of that label. So you're going to white-knight and defend against people having to prove their assertions. You're also basically calling the burden of proof an injustice. Let the woman answer for herself, she's an adult and handle adult questions. Civility, brother, Civility. I didn't say anything uncivil; then you got involved. |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Nov 8, 2017 9:36:46 GMT -6
The problem is, your premise is based on an unproven assumption that there are two versions of Revelation, and that you're providing esoteric knowledge that John intentionally mixed up the book, confused it (which would imply that God, through the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion in this case), and that it REALLY should be how you say it is. All this does is add to the confusion, when the primary premise that there are two versions of Revelation has no empirical evidence whatsoever. I never said that there were two versions of Revelation. I said that there are a multitude of linguistic devises that hide the message of The Book of Revelation. The same is true for Ezekiel, a book that I avoid at all costs. He starts out in Chapter 1 with the resurrection, and jumps all over the place from there. Not only that, but his metaphors are not consistent with the other prophets. Thus, your argument that I have an unproven assumption is false because I have never said there are two versions of Revelation. There is one version that I was given to understand and I am sharing that information with you. Secondly, why would John not intentionally mix up the books in the second half of his work if he wanted to hide the message. It is a brilliant move on his part. It has nothing to do with confusing people since they have received the benefit of his work for 2,000 years. They were not confused but inspired to stay true to Lord Jesus. There is no confusion.However, when it is time for Lord Jesus to return then our prophets arise from the dust and their hidden messages are revealed. The hidden message is that we are to prepare to survive a famine (Rev. 18:8) and a civil war (Isa. Chapter 19). We can see it all around us. Everyone is going crazy. They are lost in Satan's madness. Right now we are at Isaiah Chapter 17, the fall of Damascus. Next is Chapter 18 that causes the work of the missionaries to stop, followed by Chapter 19. Chapter 18 links to Psalms 110, and it is there that The Lord tells Lord Jesus (David's Lord) to wait while The Lord subdues Lord Jesus' enemies. That is the second woe in The Book of Revelation and it is clearly elaborated upon in Verses 19:11-21. If I were you I might want to hear what this crazy person has to say and consider it as a possibility. I am not here to argue points of doctrine like a philosopher. I am simply a student of scripture who has been weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts (Isa. 28:9). Reason with me as a follower of Christ and not like those who attacked Lord Jesus on the day of debate. 1. Please be careful not to provoke others. 2. Please explain why you avoid Ezekiel 'at all costs' - is it because you believe he jumps about prophetically from one time/event vision to another? Inconsistent metaphors? Is chronological prophesying a requirement for prophecy? 3. Why would John need to hide his message? Notwithstanding that Revelation is, well, revealing that which was previously hidden, but prophecy by nature is cryptic. Also, unbelievers and those who are 'babes' in the faith, will find prophecy even more difficult to decipher than the rest of scripture. So no need to 'hide' anything? Lastly, if there is no confusion, why a need to hide the message? 4. Who is the 'we' and 'our' you are referring to? Israel? 5. If you believe that Isaiah is chronological, can you please explain events which would have chronologically fulfilled Isa 16, 15, 14, 13, et c? As I understand it, most students of prophecy would believe that Isaiah also 'jumps around'. 6. I believe eschatological interpretation lends itself to prophetic doctrine. So if you post an eschatological viewpoint that is 'unusual', you should expect more challenges the further away from orthodoxy you get. And from what I have read of your posts, you are quite a ways away from orthodoxy. You'll pardon members of the board here, for inquiring about your viewpoint and challenging your 'doctrine', I hope? Thanks in advance for your replies to each of my points. |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Nov 8, 2017 9:39:18 GMT -6
Asking him to provide evidence for his assertion is not against that rule. Nor is stating one's non-belief in that assertion. There's the second issue of a third member inserting his high-minded moral authority in a discussion to defend someone from providing such evidence, while making the very argument that person they're tying to attack is. I'm sorry, leading people astray with a smile is still leading people astray. I'm asking him to prove his assertions. That is not rude, nor is it uncalled for on a discussion forum. Socialexile you make this so fun. I love the debate; however, I am not trying to lead anyone astray but on the contrary. If there is information that is available for you, and God wants you to have it, then it is your responsibility to hear me out. Not for you to have heavy ears and eyes shut (Isa. 6:10). If it were not so then you would see, and hear, and be converted to a new knowledge. Like Johnathan Livingston's Seagull, flying high above and through the mountainside into a new awakening. A new knowledge reserved for the very elect at the time of the return of our Savior, Lord Jesus. Know this, I can not be the only person to have found this new information in The Book of Revelation. There must be others. So in other words, you've got nothing. Again, how is someone saved? Please also define what you mean by "saved" and what you think the consequence is for those not saved. Also, please explain what happens to those who are and those who are not "invited" to this "exodus". And please explain what texts in the Bible you think Satan corrupted. So again, provide empirical evidence that John wrote two versions of Revelation, and rearranged the chapters. Manuscript evidence is going to be what we're looking for. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2017 9:44:16 GMT -6
socalexile . I've made my point. If you can't read the post I referenced and see what you did wrong, than my continuing won't help. It's not like you are trying to understand me.
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Nov 8, 2017 9:45:09 GMT -6
One way to envision it is that John wrote the entire text. Then he divided the text in half; after the earthquake at our present Verse 11:19. He then set the first half of the work aside, and separated the second half of his work into eleven chapters. He then rearranged these eleven chapters into the order that we have today. He then wrote multiple copies of this completed work (the entire book) and distributed it to the churches. or John wrote the entire text in his mind, divided the text in half, separated the second half into eleven chapters and rearranged them into the order that we have today. Then he wrote the text on paper and into multiple copies and distributed it to the churches. In either case he was inspired of God to do this work. In the first case he would have wrote the original work and then rearranged it, and in the second case the work would have been rearranged prior to penning it to paper. There is no other way to explain why the chapters are out of order in the second half of the book. Except, to say that the reminiscing chapter, chapter 14, goes before the ending in Chapter 16. Or the great war in Chapter 19 follows the end in Chapter 16. It is so obvious that these chapters are out of order. The great war in Chapter 19 precedes the ending in Chapter 16, and the reminiscing chapter, Chapter 14, brings up the end. Again, chapters did not exist in the Bible until a millennia after it was written, so the highlighted statement has no basis in fact. What empirical evidence do you have to back your assertions? Because you are simply making a claim with no actual manuscript evidence otherwise. There is more to proving a theory than simple conjecture and claims. I can think of three other ways that chapters might be perceived to be out of order in the second half of the book: 1. The book is written in vignette form with interludes. 2. The understanding of [lack of] sequence is incorrect. 3. The author's visions 'jump around' like Ezekiel's - they are not chronologically sequential as presented. |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Nov 8, 2017 9:46:24 GMT -6
Asking him to provide evidence for his assertion is not against that rule. Nor is stating one's non-belief in that assertion. There's the second issue of a third member inserting his high-minded moral authority in a discussion to defend someone from providing such evidence, while making the very argument that person they're tying to attack is. I'm sorry, leading people astray with a smile is still leading people astray. I'm asking him to prove his assertions. That is not rude, nor is it uncalled for on a discussion forum. Socialexile you make this so fun. I love the debate; however, I am not trying to lead anyone astray but on the contrary. If there is information that is available for you, and God wants you to have it, then it is your responsibility to hear me out. Not for you to have heavy ears and eyes shut (Isa. 6:10). If it were not so then you would see, and hear, and be converted to a new knowledge. Like Johnathan Livingston's Seagull, flying high above and through the mountainside into a new awakening. A new knowledge reserved for the very elect at the time of the return of our Savior, Lord Jesus. Know this, I can not be the only person to have found this new information in The Book of Revelation. There must be others. If you are the only person, what are the implications of that? |
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Nov 8, 2017 9:49:47 GMT -6
If I might interject here, there seems to be too many claims of "this is the way it is..." and not enough "In my opinion...."'
And that seems to be causing some members crank out a response which comes across as a bit inflammatory.
As Mike already mentioned -- debate is fine -- just do not make it personal.
As a FYI -- SoCal -- some of your responses do at first read come off sounding personal .... maybe take time to re-read your response before adding it.
boraddict -- some of your interpretation seems to be "off base" ---
Here is the deal:
Chapters and Verses were inserted into Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in the 16th century. Robert Estienne (Robert Stephanus) was the first to number the verses within each chapter, his verse numbers entering printed editions in 1551....
Before that time all the biblical text simply sentence after sentence (and in the old testament) they were without letter spacing and vowels.
Now we do not know for sure how John sent the seven letters to the churches in his day (one letter to each church, all letters combined together to each church)... we also do not know when the rest of revelation was combined into one book.
For example Paul's letters to the Corinthians -- today they stand at two letters -- but there is some belief that there were originally three letters and letter two got combined to letter three a some point in the past.
Is it possible Revelation was written in sections and at some point got compiled into today's structure -- it is possible -- but being possible does not make it so.
So please boraddict -- share your theories -- but maybe add a bit more -- In My opinion to them....
|
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Nov 8, 2017 9:58:23 GMT -6
Again, chapters did not exist in the Bible until a millennia after it was written, so the highlighted statement has no basis in fact. What empirical evidence do you have to back your assertions? Because you are simply making a claim with no actual manuscript evidence otherwise. There is more to proving a theory than simple conjecture and claims. I can think of three other ways that chapters might be perceived to be out of order in the second half of the book: 1. The book is written in vignette form with interludes. 2. The understanding of [lack of] sequence is incorrect. 3. The author's visions 'jump around' like Ezekiel's - they are not chronologically sequential as presented. Let her answer for herself please. Theories and claims are not evidence. She made a very clear claim that John wrote Revelation, then "encrypted" it and wrote it down again. I want to see empirical evidence for this. You said yourself she's making statements that are far outside orthodoxy. Let her prove her claims for herself. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 8, 2017 10:07:41 GMT -6
Thank you Natalie for your response. I prefer to stay away from commentaries because they might provide an incorrect interpretation on some portions of the text. So for me, to work in Ezekiel would involve going through the book word by word and that is so exhausting. Not to mention his Picasso style that is beautiful but near impossible for me to comprehend. The message in The Book of Revelation was hidden to prevent Satan from corrupting the text. Secondly, the message was intended only for those who are invited to the exodus. That is, it is only for those who are going on the rapture to the exodus, and that is us. You and I are in the generation that is invited to go on the exodus. The previous generations over the past 2,000 years are not invited; therefore, it was not necessary for them and was hidden from them. Daniel's vision is now unsealed with the knowledge of the linguistic devises that I have mentioned. Our knowledge has been increased and that is what unseals the book and this is referenced in Dan. 12:4. Well that has the potential for soteriological implications. So let me ask this. How is someone saved? Please also define what you mean by "saved" and what you think the consequence is for those not saved. Also, please explain what happens to those who are and those who are not "invited" to this "exodus". Also, please explain what texts in the Bible you think Satan corrupted. Okay, sorry about that. Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior is saved. Those who go to church. Those who do not. Those who confess their testimonies and those who do not. Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their personal Savior is saved from their sins and will not be subject to a punishment for their sins. This includes everyone that will simply accept his payment for their sins. The consequence of those not saved is to pay for their own sins in hell. A place in which they will suffer the buffetings of Satan. A suffering so great that the payment thereof caused Lord Jesus, the greatest of all, to tremble as he paid the price for sin. To not be saved is a very sad state indeed. Those who are invited to the exodus, and meet the qualifications, will be enraptured to a location here upon this earth. There they are protected and 144,000 are readied to respond to the aggression of the beast wherein he took control of the earth. Those who are not invited onto the exodus remain until the 144,000 gather them to Zion. That is, until they are enraptured by the 144,000 to Zion. However, they must survive under the reign of the beast where many are forced to take his mark. Those who do not take the mark will be killed like the early saints were killed (v. 6:11). Satan has not corrupted any of the texts in the Bible. The prophetic works were sealed via the linguistic devices. These devises are now known and the books unsealed. Prior to the unsealing of these books Satan had no idea of what was coming except that which was stated in the open. Had he known, then he might have attempted some stratagem against it. As it is, he knew nothing more than we and our ancestors did. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 8, 2017 11:03:56 GMT -6
I can not help but laugh. This is so much fun. I never said that there were two versions of Revelation. I said that there are a multitude of linguistic devises that hide the message of The Book of Revelation. The same is true for Ezekiel, a book that I avoid at all costs. He starts out in Chapter 1 with the resurrection, and jumps all over the place from there. Not only that, but his metaphors are not consistent with the other prophets. Thus, your argument that I have an unproven assumption is false because I have never said there are two versions of Revelation. There is one version that I was given to understand and I am sharing that information with you. Secondly, why would John not intentionally mix up the books in the second half of his work if he wanted to hide the message. It is a brilliant move on his part. It has nothing to do with confusing people since they have received the benefit of his work for 2,000 years. They were not confused but inspired to stay true to Lord Jesus. There is no confusion.However, when it is time for Lord Jesus to return then our prophets arise from the dust and their hidden messages are revealed. The hidden message is that we are to prepare to survive a famine (Rev. 18:8) and a civil war (Isa. Chapter 19). We can see it all around us. Everyone is going crazy. They are lost in Satan's madness. Right now we are at Isaiah Chapter 17, the fall of Damascus. Next is Chapter 18 that causes the work of the missionaries to stop, followed by Chapter 19. Chapter 18 links to Psalms 110, and it is there that The Lord tells Lord Jesus (David's Lord) to wait while The Lord subdues Lord Jesus' enemies. That is the second woe in The Book of Revelation and it is clearly elaborated upon in Verses 19:11-21. If I were you I might want to hear what this crazy person has to say and consider it as a possibility. I am not here to argue points of doctrine like a philosopher. I am simply a student of scripture who has been weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts (Isa. 28:9). Reason with me as a follower of Christ and not like those who attacked Lord Jesus on the day of debate. 1. Please be careful not to provoke others. 2. Please explain why you avoid Ezekiel 'at all costs' - is it because you believe he jumps about prophetically from one time/event vision to another? Inconsistent metaphors? Is chronological prophesying a requirement for prophecy? 3. Why would John need to hide his message? Notwithstanding that Revelation is, well, revealing that which was previously hidden, but prophecy by nature is cryptic. Also, unbelievers and those who are 'babes' in the faith, will find prophecy even more difficult to decipher than the rest of scripture. So no need to 'hide' anything? Lastly, if there is no confusion, why a need to hide the message? 4. Who is the 'we' and 'our' you are referring to? Israel? 5. If you believe that Isaiah is chronological, can you please explain events which would have chronologically fulfilled Isa 16, 15, 14, 13, et c? As I understand it, most students of prophecy would believe that Isaiah also 'jumps around'. 6. I believe eschatological interpretation lends itself to prophetic doctrine. So if you post an eschatological viewpoint that is 'unusual', you should expect more challenges the further away from orthodoxy you get. And from what I have read of your posts, you are quite a ways away from orthodoxy. You'll pardon members of the board here, for inquiring about your viewpoint and challenging your 'doctrine', I hope? Thanks in advance for your replies to each of my points. I stand corrected. However, I do not have time at the moment to address all of these questions but will do so later today. My statement about Ezekiel was primarily tongue and cheek. Nevertheless, I do avoid his work because I find it easier to understand the other prophetic works. The Book of Revelation was written for those who are to be enraptured to the exodus. Yes, others will gain substantial food for growth by reading it; however, its true intent is for those who are taken on the wings of the great eagle (Rev. 12:14). The great eagle is Lord Jesus and the two wings are John and the angel. Those three individuals brought about The Book of Revelation. Lord Jesus said in Matt. 24:28 "for wheresoever the carcass is there will the eagles be gathered together." They are there because that is where the great eagle, Lord Jesus, is. John and the angel are there because they are the great eagles wings. They are included in certain aspects of the rapture. Those enraptured onto the exodus are there because they have been taken in the rapture. Thus, the message is for those going on the exodus. Our prophets are the prophets of the Old Testament. Our apostles are those of the New Testament. We, the citizens of the world can see Satan's warfare all around us. In contrast to Judah that is in the land of Israel, today the Christians are the house of Israel. This is a big topic that I do not have the time to answer at this time. Isaiah is chronological in certain areas. His book is huge with 66 chapters. He has his oracles, and his historical references, however, Chapters 17, 18 and 19 are chronological. Interestingly, these are included along with the other oracles so they all may be chronological. I will look at that. I need more time to answer this question. Thank you for your words of caution. Yes my analysis is not orthodox; however, as you know, that is not the qualifying factor. The question is, is my analysis correct, and I believe it is. |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Nov 8, 2017 11:29:58 GMT -6
boraddict of course you think your analysis is correct, but please be open to the possibility that it may not be. Again it is perfectly fine to share what you believe God has shown you. It is also incumbent upon others reading your synopsis to ask clarifying questions. If those questions, or perhaps objections are valid and do not have a valid response, then it may be time to review your theory. Make sense? I do agree that Chiasm is used here in Rev, to the degree you have stated, I'm uncertain. I will read the dialogue once again to try to understand. For those who are like me and need things dumbed down (or maybe the dumb one is just me) a short practical example of chiasm in text form from me to my daughter and back: "How was last night? Did you see the movie?" response "Nope, good" [ How was last night? - Good.... Did you see the movie? - Nope]
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 8, 2017 11:30:02 GMT -6
If I might interject here, there seems to be too many claims of "this is the way it is..." and not enough "In my opinion...."' And that seems to be causing some members crank out a response which comes across as a bit inflammatory. As Mike already mentioned -- debate is fine -- just do not make it personal. As a FYI -- SoCal -- some of your responses do at first read come off sounding personal .... maybe take time to re-read your response before adding it. boraddict -- some of your interpretation seems to be "off base" --- Here is the deal: Chapters and Verses were inserted into Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in the 16th century. Robert Estienne (Robert Stephanus) was the first to number the verses within each chapter, his verse numbers entering printed editions in 1551....
Before that time all the biblical text simply sentence after sentence (and in the old testament) they were without letter spacing and vowels.
Now we do not know for sure how John sent the seven letters to the churches in his day (one letter to each church, all letters combined together to each church)... we also do not know when the rest of revelation was combined into one book.
For example Paul's letters to the Corinthians -- today they stand at two letters -- but there is some belief that there were originally three letters and letter two got combined to letter three a some point in the past.
Is it possible Revelation was written in sections and at some point got compiled into today's structure -- it is possible -- but being possible does not make it so.
So please boraddict -- share your theories -- but maybe add a bit more -- In My opinion to them....
Thank you for your advice and I will do as your recommend. |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Nov 8, 2017 11:35:52 GMT -6
Ok, so only a partial "rapture" which is not one at all. Do you realize this conflicts with 1 Thessalonians 4 and 5?
|
|
|
|
Post by thetimeoftheend on Nov 8, 2017 14:46:47 GMT -6
boraddict, I think the larger question for me, and maybe it will help others, but very early on in this thread, you claimed you had received this information through personal revelation. Was this confirmed by witness? Anything to back this up? Forgive me if I sound incredulous, but the claim is rather sensational.
|
|
