|
|
Post by socalexile on Aug 1, 2017 9:28:27 GMT -6
I have no idea what you are trying to refute at this point. The link I gave you was to let you know that Hebrew is a concrete language that expresses concepts by their relation to the five senses. A ram is strong and so is an oak, thus the word used for both denotes strength. Look a the word for "roe": www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6643&t=NKJV from H6638 in the sense of prominence; splendor (as conspicuous):—beautiful(-ty), glorious (-ry), goodly, pleasant, roe(-buck). She is saying that her love has splendor and prominence by comparing him to a roe. And the word for hart: www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H354&t=NKJV an intensive form of H352 (in the sense of ram); a stag or male deer:—hart. She is saying He is strong. SoS is defining characteristics of how the Bride sees her Groom. These descriptions can also be used for an army, but that does not mean that her Groom IS an army or is like an army in the same sense that you are thinking of it. Please look at the contexts of what you are reading. You are taking two statements in SoS from separate portions denoting different things and trying to fit them in the context of Joel; that doesn't work hermenutically. I only brought up SoS 2:8-13 to show you the rapture language used with clues on the season. The language is similar to Joel, but the contexts are totally different. I see horse, roe, and stag... that's an animal...a strong one, yes! It's still translated as the likeness of all three of those animals, but not actually being any of them. Based on your "hermenutically" driven opinion, SoS is not describing an animal, so YOUR literal translation would say: "My beloved is like a strong or a young glorious:" (That doesn't make any since? Are you kidding me? and the Translation doesn't say that!) [My beloved is like a verb or a adverb verb] The KJV Bible was actually translated to say: "My beloved is like a roe or a young hart:" ( Actual Translated verse ) [My beloved is like a noun or a adverb noun] (Are you trying to change this from what the Bible says to something it doesn't say?) "SoS is defining characteristics of how the Bride sees her Groom." -- I agree with this comment! The characteristics are of an animal that only looks like a horse, roe, or hart! SoS 1:9 " I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots." (Yea... a company... of horses... of Pharaoh's chariots... yea... no army of horses here! I must be reading into it... It just means she/he is strong, beautiful, glorious!) SoS 2:17 "Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, and be thou like a roe or a young hart upon the mountains of Bether." (I'm sure this means —beautiful(-ty), glorious (-ry), goodly, pleasant, roe(-buck)... Yea... That's it... It means turn, and be (glorious, beautiful, goodly, and pleasant) upon the mountains! I highly doubt it means exactly what it says... Turn, and be like "an animal" upon the mountains) (It truly doesn't mean that after the shadows flee away, that the animal like creature should turn, and leap on mountain tops to get away... Nope! Doesn't mean that at all!) SoS 6:12 "Or ever I was aware, my soul made me like the chariots of Amminadib." (Uh huh... ok... more strong, beautiful, glorious talk!) SoS 6:13 "Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look upon thee. What will ye see in the Shulamite? As it were the company of two armies." (What will you see in the Shulamite ... two armies? This must be one really beautiful, strong, and glorious non-army thing that has nothing to do with a creature that looks like a roe, hart, or horse which leaps between mountain tops!) Ok, please lay off the sarcasm - no need to act like a jerk over this; that is really unnecessary. I am trying to show a way to read this in a manner that fits the context and the actual philosophy of the Hebrew. The fact is that, as the links show, these ARE the definitions of these words. I was hoping you'd take the initiative actually study SoS 2:9 and see how the Hebrew uses these terms, or at least realize that no language is a 1:1 translation. You are trying to add something using English semantics when what the text is actually written in has no problems with these grammatical concepts. Here, read the verse you are arguing over, and consider that the entire OT is about Christ in some form or fashion: www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/sng/2/9/t_conc_673009BTW, in SoS 6:13, the word for "army" can be translated as "encampment": www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4264&t=KJVThis could be referring to the same concept as the Feast of Loaves; that is, the uniting of the Jews and Gentiles into one bride after the 2nd Coming. And "chariots of Amminadib" is referring to a swift chariot: www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5993&t=KJVOh, and the KJV translators do get things wrong; that's why there's been four versions, not including the NKJV. The one you're using is from 1769. Again, no language is a 1:1 translation, so the problem is there are words in Hebrew that carry multiple meanings in English, and vice-versa. That's why we should actually look at definitions ourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 1, 2017 10:04:32 GMT -6
I'll retard the sarcasm.
Let's simplify.
I agree that one context is a love story between two people.
I also read exactly what the entire scroll says and pictures.
A keyword link DOES join to Joel 2 using two verses about "pillar of smoke" and ["leaping" + "mountains"];
Do you disagree with this keyword join? If yes.. then this is where we will agree to disagree.
A third link based on the actual words written in both SoS and Joel literally STATE ("likeness" of "horses"), chariots, and armies.
You obviously disagree with this keyword join between Joel and SoS. Again, this is where we will agree to disagree.
I also understand that the Hebrew roe or hart would include a [pronoun + noun] meaning to the noun; examples are :"strong deer" and "glorious deer".
But that's not what any of the translations did. Example : a young hart
Young is the first pronoun, it was written, and it is also assumed glorious or strong is the second pronoun for the noun hart.
The translators didn't write in the second pronoun.
Now the nouns themselves... Pharaoh's chariots, horse, roe, hart, army, etc... they WERE written in SoS.
You, and I, assume the symbolic meaning to them as part of the love story context. Great!
I am also giving them the credit due for their literal meaning!
A horse is a horse.
A roe is a roe.
A hart is a hart.
"like" means none of the above animals, but something "like" them.
This is where you stop me and say, don't do that because it doesn't agree with your hermenutical view!
Sorry, I see an actual link to Joel. I also see your contextual love story.
|
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Aug 1, 2017 10:50:18 GMT -6
I'll retard the sarcasm. Let's simplify. I agree that one context is a love story between two people. I also read exactly what the entire scroll says and pictures. A keyword link DOES join to Joel 2 using two verses about "pillar of smoke" and ["leaping" + "mountains"]; Do you disagree with this keyword join? If yes.. then this is where we will agree to disagree. A third link based on the actual words written in both SoS and Joel literally STATE ("likeness" of "horses"), chariots, and armies. You obviously disagree with this keyword join between Joel and SoS. Again, this is where we will agree to disagree. I also understand that the Hebrew roe or hart would include a [pronoun + noun] meaning to the noun; examples are :"strong deer" and "glorious deer". But that's not what any of the translations did. Example : a young hart Young is the first pronoun, it was written, and it is also assumed glorious or strong is the second pronoun for the noun hart. The translators didn't write in the second pronoun. Now the nouns themselves... Pharaoh's chariots, horse, roe, hart, army, etc... they WERE written in SoS. You, and I, assume the symbolic meaning to them as part of the love story context. Great! I am also giving them the credit due for their literal meaning! A horse is a horse. A roe is a roe. A hart is a hart. "like" means none of the above animals, but something "like" them. This is where you stop me and say, don't do that because it doesn't agree with your hermenutical view! Sorry, I see an actual link to Joel. I also see your contextual love story. The problem is context. Let me use another example of two passages that use the same words but have different contexts, and people confuse them in almost every church: Romans 4:2-8 and James 2:14-26. Look at the terms: Ok, I only highlighted a few of the similar words, enough to get the point that both of these passages use the very same terms. People think as a result, that both of these passages are talking about how to be saved from eternal condemnation, and be justified before God. Problem is, both passages contradict each other so starkly on the issue of faith vs. works that some people have to question on whether James was really canonical (like Martin Luther), or that Paul was really an apostle (like much of the Hebrew Roots people). Some even say that Paul and James has a total difference in opinion; while many theologians attempt to play intellectual acrobatics and claim that both are correct as written, but they say that. "salvation is by faith alone...but you have to have works also" which contradicts "faith alone" and makes no logical sense. The fact is, both Paul and James differ in context. Paul is writing THE treatise on how eternal life is obtained and how it works. He states that we are saved by faith alone. Abraham could not be justified by God by works; since he was declared righteous by faith in God's promise in Genesis 15:6, before the Law of circumcision (Gen. 17) and the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 21). Notice he talks also of the deadness of Sarah's womb, and he uses the very same root word that James uses. In James, he is talking about practical Christianity and service before the Lord. in James 2:1-12, he just got done writing about how to treat people in the church: equally and without respect to social status. What he goes into is how one is not justified BEFORE MEN; i.e. the very same people in v. 1-12, by faith alone, or the profession in the belief of one God (the demons believe there is one God, not that they have put their faith alone in Christ for salvation). James uses the example of Abraham, who was justified before men by his faith, and as Hebrews 11:2 says in Greek, he obtained a good testimony (or witness, or report). Likewise, Rahab was saved from the destruction of Jericho by her work of safeguarding the Hebrew scouts; i.e., she was saved from the judgement of God on earth. She wasn't saved from eternal condemnation by that; which comes from faith alone in the Savior. When James says "faith without works is dead" what he means is that it is useless in regards to serving the Lord; he isn't even talking about being saved from eternal condemnation! Without faith you're condemned already (John 3:18)! Read more analysis with some other cross-references here: expreacherman.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/cucuzza-faith-without-works-is-dead.pdfPeople let the terms define the context, rather than letting the context define the terms - and in this case, it results in them not fully putting their faith in Christ to save them, or living a life of trying to be justified to God by their works (like in Luke 18:9-14 and MAtthew 7:21-23, ironically). I'm saying with Joel 2 and SoS, the contexts are different. SoS is speaking spiritually of the relationship of Christ and His Bride (Jew and Gentile). Joel 2 is speaking prophetically of events happening on earth - I would look at the parallels of Joel 2, Revelation 9, and the 10 plagues of Egypt; now THAT's a finding! This here has some insights on how the 10 plagues correlate with the description of the locusts of Rev. 9: |
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Aug 1, 2017 10:57:39 GMT -6
OK, guys, it's time to take a deep breath and say "The other guy I'm talking to is my brother in Christ, for whom Christ shed His blood, and neither he nor I am perfected yet, and I am not going to speak unkindly to him."
You both seem to have some valid points for discussion. But it is not helpful to anyone if you don't both approach your disagreements in humility.
|
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Aug 1, 2017 11:09:04 GMT -6
OK, guys, it's time to take a deep breath and say "The other guy I'm talking to is my brother in Christ, for whom Christ shed His blood, and neither he nor I am perfected yet, and I am not going to speak unkindly to him." You both seem to have some valid points for discussion. But it is not helpful to anyone if you don't both approach your disagreements in humility. yeah we're already back to being civil. |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 1, 2017 11:26:51 GMT -6
I'm in agreement with you up until this point:
"
I'm saying with Joel 2 and SoS, the contexts are different. SoS is speaking spiritually of the relationship of Christ and His Bride (Jew and Gentile). Joel 2 is speaking prophetically of events happening on earth
"
SoS 3:6-11 Is both historic with King Solomon, symbolic with Christ and His Bride, and absolutely prophetic!
Joel 2 is also prophetic, we agree on this!
SoS 3:6-11 and Joel 2 are referring to the same future event on earth! I know you disagree on this.
In fact just before SoS 3:6-11 (the battle), reading SoS 3:1-5 paints a picture of the Rapture “I will rise now,” Going to the city (New Jerusalem), hiding in a chamber, and consummating the marriage... You may or may not agree with this too.
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 1, 2017 11:29:32 GMT -6
OK, guys, it's time to take a deep breath and say "The other guy I'm talking to is my brother in Christ, for whom Christ shed His blood, and neither he nor I am perfected yet, and I am not going to speak unkindly to him." You both seem to have some valid points for discussion. But it is not helpful to anyone if you don't both approach your disagreements in humility. yeah we're already back to being civil. Yes, we are playing nice.  |
|
|
|
Post by whatif on Aug 1, 2017 11:44:38 GMT -6
OK, guys, it's time to take a deep breath and say "The other guy I'm talking to is my brother in Christ, for whom Christ shed His blood, and neither he nor I am perfected yet, and I am not going to speak unkindly to him." You both seem to have some valid points for discussion. But it is not helpful to anyone if you don't both approach your disagreements in humility. Amen to that, watchmanjim!
And thank you, socalexile and uscgvet for calming down and restoring peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Aug 1, 2017 19:46:03 GMT -6
I'm in agreement with you up until this point:
"
I'm saying with Joel 2 and SoS, the contexts are different. SoS is speaking spiritually of the relationship of Christ and His Bride (Jew and Gentile). Joel 2 is speaking prophetically of events happening on earth
"
SoS 3:6-11 Is both historic with King Solomon, symbolic with Christ and His Bride, and absolutely prophetic!
Joel 2 is also prophetic, we agree on this!
SoS 3:6-11 and Joel 2 are referring to the same future event on earth! I know you disagree on this.
In fact just before SoS 3:6-11 (the battle), reading SoS 3:1-5 paints a picture of the Rapture “I will rise now,” Going to the city (New Jerusalem), hiding in a chamber, and consummating the marriage... You may or may not agree with this too.
If you read the whole of Joel 2, it's clearly talking of the return of Christ at the 2nd coming from a Jewish perspective. If you look at SoS, the allusions to the rapture start in chapter 2. Again the wise virgins are in chapter 3, i.e. those Jews who believed in Christ at the 1st Coming. Chapter 5 is about those who missed Him at the 1st Coming and go through tribulations. What you were trying to say is that Joel 2 and SoS 3 is about the same army. I'm saying that the contexts are different, and these are different times in the timeline. In fact, you've been picking things out of a broad overview of history in SoS that cover multiple times in history and applying them to ONE time in Joel. That's a hermeneutical problem. SoS overall needs to be examined from the context of Christ before we start pulling proof-texts out of context. There as been many, many, armies in the history of the world, any mention of an army does not necessarily mean the one in Joel 1-2, which again, is an Army of judgement, not one of splendor or defense like in SoS. |
|
|
|
Post by tiffanybw on Aug 1, 2017 20:22:06 GMT -6
Hey tiffany! We have a lot of people here from Rapture Ready: me, uscgvet, Natalie (she's Wishing4), you, and I'm pretty sure WarriorX. We are NOT afraid to venture into new doctrine; thus, you'll see all sorts of stuff around here! We are all just trying to figure it out together. Welcome! Just now saw this. So great to see you all here!!! That's exactly what I want to do too, figure it out together! We live in such exciting, amazing times! Unfortunately, over there we can't figure anything out because we aren't allowed to even talk about it. I've been thinking, and honestly, am reminded of what it was like when Jesus walked the earth. One group who admitted they were full of sin, corrupt, fallible, could not keep God's Law, admitted that they were not "perfect" and did not have it "all already figured out". Most importantly, they believed in Jesus and had faith in Him! Then there was another group: refused to deviate at all from old doctrine, had preconceived ideas in their head of who Messiah was or would be based upon tradition and culture so would accept none other than a KING. Preconceived notions based upon God's Word, and because it didn't pan out exactly as they thought it would or as they were taught by men, they rejected Christ. There is nothing new under the sun and history repeats itself over and over. It is right now. It reminds me of the 5 wise virgins and the 5 foolish virgins. I truly believe with all my heart the Bible is The Living Word. It will always have significance and meaning no matter who you are, no matter where you are from, no matter what is your generation. The GOSPEL is: Christ died on the cross for us, rose again 3 days later, was seen by many before ascending to Heaven. He did this so that we, all of humanity, could be reconciled back unto God because it had been proven time and time again (still is being proven today) that NONE can keep God's Law. And so... the ONLY way to The Father is through The Son. We are commanded to love Him with all of our heart, mind, body, soul, and spirit. And we are to love our neighbor as we love ourself (all of humanity and it's not as all as easy as it sounds)! Other than the above, NOTHING is set in stone. The rest is up for interpretation. Not only that, but the same passage could have had a meaning in Biblical times, and could also be relevant now, have a new meaning now. Why? Because His Word is Living! I've never understood that more than I do these past few months as more and more is revealed! I worry for certain people. Not just those over at RR, but many in my own family who are so dogmatic about their "doctrine". About this tradition, that one, about what "their own" church has to say or what "their own" pastor has to say as if they are deifying the people themselves instead of trusting on The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. So many I know, even and especially my own family members, they do this so much that sometimes I wonder if they have completely lost sight of who Jesus Christ is. Me personally, I'll not faith upon ANY man... not a pastor, a preacher, a pope, a self proclaimed know it all, and no one else either! Nor will I faith on a doctrine (made by man), a church (man made), or a denomination (again... man). I will listen to what they have to say, go to God's Word about it, pray about it, and will listen ONLY TO GOD about it, to what I feel The Holy Spirit is speaking to me. But blindly follow them just because "they say so" and that is how "they" interpret it. NOPE. Now... sometimes I'm wrong. Actually, A LOT of the time I'm wrong. I'd venture to say it is like that for all of us. The difference between me though; and certain others I've spoken about above who completely and outright dismiss and pooh pooh (without even thinking twice) all that is happening, and the signs that God is giving us... they are 100% sure they are right and leaning upon their own understanding. As for me, I am not 100% sure of anything, except that Jesus is my Lord and Savior and someday I WILL be with Him! |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 1, 2017 21:41:32 GMT -6
This ---> "As for me, I am not 100% sure of anything, except that Jesus is my Lord and Savior and someday I WILL be with Him!"
--tiffinybw August 1st, 2017
|
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Aug 1, 2017 23:08:19 GMT -6
Amen, Tiffany!
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 6, 2017 20:08:07 GMT -6
Ok... I have found new evidence against 2 separate covenants between the Church before Rapture and the Jews in the MK. Dr. John Walvoord's article on the 2 separate covenants: walvoord.com/article/27Dr. John Walvoord mentions the second instance where Hebrews quoted Jeremiah 31 again, but Dr. Walvoord says: "Here the argument is on the question of whether the sacrifice of Christ supersedes the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant. Appeal is made to the new covenant with Israel in that it promises that sins will be forgiven and remembered no more. As in any sin-offering the sins are remembered, this would require a sacrifice once and for all, as provided in Christ. Again, it should be noted that there is no statement that the new covenant with Israel is identical with the new covenant for the church." I disagree with Dr. Walvoord. Here's why... Hebrews 10:11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. 15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, 16 “ This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “ Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. We see here that Hebrews 10:16-17, the writer of Hebrews RE-QUOTES Jeremiah 31:31-34So who are " those who are being sanctified" ...? Let's ask the writer of Hebrews shall we: Hebrews 2:11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, Yep... That's definitely the Body of Christ... See, even the writer of Hebrews says... so look: Hebrews 13:3 Remember the prisoners as if chained with them—those who are mistreated— since you yourselves are in the body also. This verse is describing the Church of believers in Christ! I think we also see the church (Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ's blood sacrifice) plainly described all throughout the letter written to the Hebrews. Based on this, I now believe the Jeremiah 31:31-34 "new covenant", that forgives sins, is the blood sacrifice of Christ as His sacrifice is the ONLY sacrifice that CAN forgive sins. Christ adopted the Church as sons. The Church was grafted in as sons. But after the Trib, those branches that have been cut off for our sake, will also be grafted back in when they repent, believe, and are forgiven (the mystery of blindness of Israel). (Mystery of the blindness of Israel) Romans 11: 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” The Only thing that can take away sins is the blood sacrifice of Christ Jesus. See the next verse in Hebrews: Hebrews 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. And if you want to see where the writer of Hebrews further identifies the "You" pronoun, look no further than: Hebrews 12:5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; Yep... you are sons, otherwise you would not receive "chastening of the Lord". The audience of the epistle to the Hebrews is the Church...(remember, that includes BOTH Jews and Gentiles who believe in the blood sacrifice of Christ Jesus). |
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Aug 6, 2017 20:41:16 GMT -6
Well if you look back through Scripture, not every covenant speaks to salvation directly. I would say that the salvation covenant of the cross will never be removed, upgraded, enhanced, downgraded, etc. But other covenants could be made regarding the way things operate during the Tribulation, and then again, a new way of doing things during the MK.
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 6, 2017 22:03:30 GMT -6
Yes, I probably need to do a deep study on every single time a covenant is mentioned in both the OT and NT.
The Jeremiah 31 "new covenant" is a very important one IMHO as it is a serious pivot point for prophecy about our time right now. And I now believe, based on what was written in Hebrews as to the identity of "those who are being sanctified" as being the Body of Christ, the Jeremiah 31 new covenant was written specifically towards salvation and forgiveness of sins. There is only ONE covenant does that! The new covenant in Luke 22 about Christ's sacrifice. The epistle of Hebrews agrees as well.
I also think there is a link with the covenant mentioned in Hosea 2 to the church as well because both Paul and Peter quoted Hosea 2 while referring to the Church in the NT.
-------------------------------------------------- NT
Paul quoting the Old Testament:
Romans 11:30 (Hosea 2)
For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience,
Peter quoting the Old Testament:
1 Peter 2 (Hosea 2)
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
-------------------------------------------------- OT
Hosea 2:18 In that day I will make a covenant for them
.
.
.
Hosea 2:23
Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they shall say, ‘You are my God!’”
I believe Hosea 2:23 is alluding to the Church here...
|
|
