Religionists of the world unite!

[Dexter Sinister]

I've never asked you what something means...

I know, and I didn't say you had. I said you've asked what I think something means, which I viewed as a common rhetorical trick that would then enable you to offer your correct understanding and show me how wrong I am. I quote from a recent post of yours in this thread:

"Does this verse indicate to the ones (some of them) that would have had a chance to read Revelation a warning not to get excited when they hear the Day of the Lord is near?" followed by a biblical citation.

"Has Israel's blindness about Jesus being the Messiah been lifted? The few times I have chatted with them would seem that there are many who still do not believe it" followed by a biblical citation.

If that's not asking me what I think those citations mean, I have no clue what your point was.

You answered your own question. The last two chapters of Revelation are 21 & 22 (a verse of which you quoted), Ch:20 is the 3rd last chapter.

You're not reading carefully enough. I said Chapter 20 has Satan being bound for 1000 years then loosed again for the final battle, which he of course loses, then chapters 21 and 22 ("the last two chapters", I called them) deal with a new creation. There's no indication in the text that I can see of any significant time interval between the end of chapter 20 and the beginning of chapter 21, and thus no reason to think the time line hasn't expired on the last two chapters (that would be 21 and 22 again, just to be perfectly clear) as well.

 

[MHz]

I know, and I didn't say you had. I said you've asked what I think something means, which I viewed as a common rhetorical trick that would then enable you to offer your correct understanding and show me how wrong I am.

All I'm looking for is a starting point, it doesn't have to be an exhaustive explanation of how you reached a certain conclusion.
I'm not trying to make it a who's right/who's wrong issue either, but the odds are there will be a difference of opinion. What I'm offering is to detail how I came to believe what I believe, that includes the references to certain parts of Scripture that would seem to add support to my view.

I quote from a recent post of yours in this thread:

"Does this verse indicate to the ones (some of them) that would have had a chance to read Revelation a warning not to get excited when they hear the Day of the Lord is near?" followed by a biblical citation.

"Has Israel's blindness about Jesus being the Messiah been lifted? The few times I have chatted with them would seem that there are many who still do not believe it" followed by a biblical citation.
If that's not asking me what I think those citations mean, I have no clue what your point was.

So how should I go about arguing that 'shortly' means not from the time the prophecy was given but 'shortly' before His actual return, a list of events that must pass before that event. Would 4 years qualify as being 'shortly'?
True they are questions, but they only require a yes/no response.
Any other prophecy given has never been fulfilled 'quickly'. It was almost 500 years between the prophecy about the arrival of the Messiah and when He was actually born.
Before the vision that some saw on the mountain Jesus said, some of them would not die before " they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom". Within a week the vision on the mountain was given. After the cross Peter had the vision that had him take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Near the end of the life of the writer of Revelation that book was written, those 3 events involved some people seeing things. Does that fulfill His statement without having to arrive on the white horse?

You're not reading carefully enough. I said Chapter 20 has Satan being bound for 1000 years then loosed again for the final battle, which he of course loses, then chapters 21 and 22 ("the last two chapters", I called them) deal with a new creation. There's no indication in the text that I can see of any significant time interval between the end of chapter 20 and the beginning of chapter 21, and thus no reason to think the time line hasn't expired on the last two chapters (that would be 21 and 22 again, just to be perfectly clear) as well.

That sometimes happens, one of my flaws.
Between the last verse of Ch:20 and the beginning of Ch:21 there isn't any gap. Seeing the new city is right after anybody destined to the lake is in the lake.
That doesn't mean all these events were past by the time Revelation was written. Only the not one stone left standing from Luke:21 was past when Revelation was given, we are somewhere before the end of the given list in that same chapter. That is where the gap is, those other events do not have to be in quick fashion but they could be fairly quick once they start to unfold.
Re:20 does have an expiration date, 21 & 22 don't ever expire. Sin isn't present, nor is death, nor are tears, nor is pain once that 21 begins.
The longer the gap the greater will be the number of Gentiles that make up the 'fullness'. The ones from the Gentiles that remain/become alive for the thousand years stay in the Holy City and serve God and the Lamb, God may have a certain number in mind. Did He have a certain number in mind when He created Angels, they have a static population, the ones in the city are also a static number. They will certainly not be barren, their 'children' will come from those born into the new earth, like a grand-parent is today.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I'm not trying to make it a who's right/who's wrong issue

Then try to avoid saying things like this, as you did a few posts ago: "Nice opinion but it is still wrong..."

That doesn't mean all these events were past by the time Revelation was written.

I didn't suggest any such thing. Revelation makes it clear in the first few verses that they're in the very near future, John expected his readers to see them. "The time is at hand" couldn't possibly mean anything else.

The real point of departure here is that you take the Bible literally as history and prophesy, and sometimes science, direct from the mind of a deity. That position I find logically indefensible, because the book contains so many errors and inconsistencies and outright absurdities. Just look, for instance, at all the dancing around you have to do to explain some of them, like what you had to invent to explain the false value of pi, or hypothesizing a new meaning for "shortly" as anywhere between a few weeks and hundreds of years, or shifting the context so "shortly" refers to some other event that's far from obvious, to justify your position. It shouldn't be that complicated if god really wants us to understand. It's a pretty muddle-headed deity who inspired that book, if that's where it came from, and thus he's not a being worthy of unconditional admiration, if he exists at all. I know of no reason or evidence that would justify believing he exists, so I don't believe he does. And if he doesn't, your thesis goes nowhere.

In fact the whole story is senseless. Six thousand years in this vale of tears, a millennium for every day of the original creation, then there'll be a ferocious battle and Satan will be chained while Christ reigns for a thousand years (another millennium for the 7th day) , then they'll let Satan loose again and have another ferocious battle that destroys everything, then they'll start over with a new creation. Obviously the first creation must have been pretty badly done to make that necessary. And what's the point of fighting Satan twice? In every generation for most of the last two millennia there have been people who believed as you do that Revelation was about their future. Dozens of times in the last 40 years, as assorted conflicts have broken out in the Middle East and the Near East, I've heard somebody claim, "This is how it starts..." Nobody's been right yet. The odds are pretty poor that you are.

 

[MHz]

Okay, but some of your posts say the same thing, like your first one on the Beast thread. How about, I have a different opinion. Would that work?

Then I summed up the pi thing by saying He rounded the numbers off, how much more simple could that be?

I'm not trying to redefine shortly. Every Scripture that was ever going to be written was written by the time the author of John died. Jesus wouldn't have known when His return was (day oy year) yet He still had to have somebody record the events associated with that return. What method, or words, should He have used that would not have you get hung up on that one word?
He couldn't have said in 2013 1/2 from 95 3/4 AD, or whatever, if He himself didn't know the actual date. You almost seem to have taken a Preterist (sp) approach to Scripture.

There is our biggest difference, after all your research you still find Scripture as being muddy. Would God be cruel to you by not allowing you to understand? How many people give up reading because it seems totally foreign? I've studied most popular doctrines in some depth, some made very good sense for the most part, but there was always a question or two that just didn't have an answer that fit. For me that was a good enough reason to keep reading. Finding an answer might have brought down the whole house of verses but at least when rebuilt there weren't any verses that were left out. The picture had certainly changed to some extent but that is all.
Even if He doesn't exist the book is still very well written in that reading it is not unlike putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Many pieces seem to fit, and if forced a bit they can fit but only up to a certain point, it then becomes obvious that they need to be moved a bit.

I doubt that is a dating system He used. Some signs that are said to happen before His return are unique, some are very general. Wars and rumors of war is a general one as far as I can tell, I don't think there has ever been a period without war.
You are right, lots have been false prophets, a trend that will most likely continue. I haven't paid them any attention, have you? That's why I cling, yes cling, to those few that say something about what changes will be easy to spot, all of them about after His return.

I'm not setting any date, but Scripture is not silent about events that immediately precede that event. The OT is full of events that are about the day of his return, that is the biggest single subject covered.
It it somewhat concealed though, the Jews weren't expecting Him to come as a priest first, they were expecting the KING of KINGS, so some words that they took to mean them is actually for Gentiles.

All I have really, is a different sequence of events that Revelation covers, it changes the length, based on who saints really are it changes who is affected, little things like that.

I am pretty damn sure that when the iron kingdom starts, anything us men have been able to do (or even capable of doing) to each other will be minuscule in comparison. That isn't saying those machines of war won't be used, they just won't be used against Satan. I can't even say for sure that the 1/3 of man that die because of 4 fallen angels won't be those weapons of war that all of man posses.

AnonyMoose are you the same as from GLP?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

There is our biggest difference, after all your research you still find Scripture as being muddy.

No, our biggest difference is that you think it's all true and I think the only parts that are true are those that have been independently verified by historical and archeological research that's not focused on trying to prove it's true, i.e. legitimate research. There was not a global Noachian deluge, for instance, there's no evidence of one, and there certainly would be if it happened as recently as the Bible describes. There was an ancient city of Jericho, which Joshua and his army may well have destroyed, but the sun did not stand still for a while to let him do it all in one day. And so forth. The Bible's a compendium of myths, fables, facts, didactic fiction, apocalypic visions intended to reassure the faithful, and a whole lot of other stuff, and some of it has great power and beauty, as any great literature does, but it's no more literally true than Shakespeare's plays are.

 

[BM5]

Ya know Grump, sadly for me, I am a victim of your unbelief, I sorrow, inded I do, I sorrow at the hurt and bitterness espressed in your posts, I have only a moment for you in this sorrow. Goodbye and I hope your coldness towards your unbelief will be acceptable.

 

[MHz]

No, our biggest difference is that you think it's all true and I think the only parts that are true are those that have been independently verified by historical and archeological research that's not focused on trying to prove it's true, i.e. legitimate research. There was not a global Noachian deluge, for instance, there's no evidence of one, and there certainly would be if it happened as recently as the Bible describes. There was an ancient city of Jericho, which Joshua and his army may well have destroyed, but the sun did not stand still for a while to let him do it all in one day. And so forth. The Bible's a compendium of myths, fables, facts, didactic fiction, apocalypic visions intended to reassure the faithful, and a whole lot of other stuff, and some of it has great power and beauty, as any great literature does, but it's no more literally true than Shakespeare's plays are.

Belief in the stories is trivial compared to belief, or not, about the main character. It wouldn't have mattered if He wrote 3 times as many words than what we have today you still would need proof.
No doubt you have read that the Jews (some of them) are in blindness about Christ and that will remain until a certain point. That point is their resurrection back to life. What makes you think that same thing doesn't apply to some Gentiles? You need proof before you will be a believer, would that do it for you?
You already know the seas have risen, what you don't know is how fast the last 20ft was. If the Rockies got 20ft of rain in 5 mo. what would be left of the cities that existed along the rivers?
If it started to rain and it just kept piling up with no run-off would you see the hand of God at work?
Even with your view that it is myths and fables you still don't even understand the words. Fallen Angels are Romans apparently.
When something is called diverse from anything before, that definitely means the difference between Grecian armies and Roman armies, they were totally different from each other. That isn't even close, how many clues did God have to leave before you would spot that?
I'm not trying to be an asshole but you really are being quite closed-minded about this. You have this theory about what Scripture means and that's it, set in concrete.
I'm not sure what you specialize in but maybe this will make sense to you. When assembling an engine you come to install the oil-pan. The recommendation is that all the bolts are tightened a certain amount, it is also recommended that all the bolts be started before the first one is tightened. If you don't follow that sequence and tighten them as you start them the odds are in favor of one or more bolts will not be able to be installed. If that happens, do you throw those bolts away or go back and loosen the ones already tightened and wiggle the pan that 1/2mm so the other bolts can be started? Another choice would be to leave the bolts you already tightened tight (too much work to undo) and get a hammer and start banging away and cursing the manufacturer of the oil-pan for making such a shoddy product. (I have tried this method personally but in the end I still had to loosen the other bolts)
Scripture is somewhat the same. Take the kingdom of iron and clay, several chapters in Daniel have words about that specific kingdom (first you have to find all the bolts), reading them would be like starting to thread the bolts, tightening them (applying a conclusion as to what they are talking about) should be done only after reading them all (just them). If you can conclude that the Romans are the iron and clay opposed to fallen angels you might want to consider hanging up your wrenches.

Do you see any time-gap in this verse?
Ac:1:11:
Which also said,
Ye men of Galilee,
why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
this same Jesus,
which is taken up from you into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Say you are given some information to pass along about things that will happen just before that day, how would you go about it?
M't:24:36:
But of that day and hour knoweth no man,
no,
not the angels of heaven,
but my Father only.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

No doubt you have read that the Jews (some of them) are in blindness about Christ and that will remain until a certain point. That point is their resurrection back to life. What makes you think that same thing doesn't apply to some Gentiles? You need proof before you will be a believer, would that do it for you?

Yes, I suppose if I died and found myself resurrected I'd have to concede I was wrong about some pretty basic stuff.

Even with your view that it is myths and fables you still don't even understand the words. Fallen Angels are Romans apparently. When something is called diverse from anything before, that definitely means the difference between Grecian armies and Roman armies, they were totally different from each other. That isn't even close, how many clues did God have to leave before you would spot that?

That's not close to anything I said either. And I'd argue that I *do* understand the words, I just understand them differently than you do, because I see no clues at all, not in the Bible, not in the world around me, that your basic premise has any reality.

I'm not trying to be an asshole but you really are being quite closed-minded about this. You have this theory about what Scripture means and that's it, set in concrete.

Interesting idea you have of what closed-minded means. Yes I do have a theory about what Scripture means, one that's taken me decades of thought and study to work out, and involved extensive reading in natural science and history and philosophy and psychology and sociology and anthropology. And along the way I went from a position of uncritical belief to complete unbelief. It's not set in concrete by any means, after a lifetime of studying science I know better than to make that error, but if I'm to abandon it, I have to see a better one, one that explains everything mine does, and more. Yours isn't a better one, in fact it's one I rejected for lack of evidence and logic a long time ago. All the evidence and reasoning I've ever seen in support of claims for the existence of any deity, specifically including your version, or claims about the literal truth of most Scripture, simply do not survive skeptical scrutiny.

I've been told by well-meaning believers that god has not yet seen fit to remove the scales from my eyes. Maybe so, but until he does, I'm trusting my own powers of intellect and reason, working on all the information stuffed into my head and whatever else I can stuff into it in the time remaining to me, to give me the truth of things.

 

[MHz]

I've been told by well-meaning believers that god has not yet seen fit to remove the scales from my eyes. Maybe so, but until he does, I'm trusting my own powers of intellect and reason, working on all the information stuffed into my head and whatever else I can stuff into it in the time remaining to me, to give me the truth of things.

Better that than agreeing with something you aren't fully convinced of.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Better that than agreeing with something you aren't fully convinced of.

Exactly. I'm glad, and frankly a little surprised, that you understand that. It's certainly not typical of most people I've encountered who believe as you do. I have to go with what makes sense to me, same as you do, same as any thoughtful person does. The things that make sense to you and to me are obviously very different, but at least it's given us a lot to talk about, and that's no bad thing.

Please don't misunderstand my motives and purposes either. I've said I find such discussions fun, and by and large that's true, but it's not all of it, or even most of it. I've had exchanges with other posters here similar to what I've had with you, though about very different subjects, just a similar difference of opinion. s-lone and china come immediately to mind as examples. One of the reasons I continue to come here is because there are intelligent, thoughtful people here who don't agree with me, and that's the best test I know of for the legitimacy of my own views.

One of the most crucial things a life of studying science and its methods has taught me is that I must never lose sight of the fact that I might be wrong, new ideas and new evidence might tomorrow overturn everything I think is true. Any thoughtful person is a seeker, a searcher, and while I obviously don't think I'm wrong--nobody really thinks they're wrong--I need to test that against the arguments and conclusions of other people. To be perfectly honest, I really would like to believe as you do, it would explain and simplify a lot of things (while also complicating a lot of other things) and there was a time when I did. I grew up in a very religious household and your core beliefs are what I got as received wisdom in my childhood. I eventually became apostate because it didn't make sense to me, and that journey hurt and distressed a lot of people who care about me.

But another of the things a life in science has taught me is how to evaluate evidence, how to eliminate the errors in thinking people routinely make and arrive at something that has a good probability of being correct. I have never seen an argument or evidence from a religious believer that even minimally meets those standards, so I continue to reject them. Can you produce a legitimate argument, with evidence, that would suggest at least a 50% probability that god exists? I don't believe you can. I've seen a lot of people try--St. Anselm, St, Augustine, Blaise Pascal, and dozens of others--but the arguments are all easily demonstrably flawed. If you've got one that really works, I'd like to see it.

 

[mrgrumpy]

One can study one religion for a whole lifetime; study two and it only takes an hour.

 

[MHz]

One can study one religion for a whole lifetime; study two and it only takes an hour.

Shouldn't that be 1 lifetime + 1 hour?

 

[mrgrumpy]

Stop pestering me with inane questions. Your friend AJ is having some sort of religious/paranoaic attack on another thread and needs medical/psychiatric treatment at once...hurry! get out the Holy Water and rosary and start mumbling prayers to yer dear Jesus!

Hurry, Hurry!

 

[MHz]

Exactly. I'm glad, and frankly a little surprised, that you understand that. It's certainly not typical of most people I've encountered who believe as you do. I have to go with what makes sense to me, same as you do, same as any thoughtful person does. The things that make sense to you and to me are obviously very different, but at least it's given us a lot to talk about, and that's no bad thing.

I'm sure not everybody reads all the fine-print in any contract they are thinking of signing. But if you take the time to read and understand that part of the contract you don't get any surprises down the road.
Talking might not lead anywhere or even provide any new info, but not talking is sure to lead nowhere.

Please don't misunderstand my motives and purposes either. I've said I find such discussions fun, and by and large that's true, but it's not all of it, or even most of it. I've had exchanges with other posters here similar to what I've had with you, though about very different subjects, just a similar difference of opinion. s-lone and china come immediately to mind as examples. One of the reasons I continue to come here is because there are intelligent, thoughtful people here who don't agree with me, and that's the best test I know of for the legitimacy of my own views.

That's about the only way I know to try and verify the validity of some thought that is still a debatable subject. It doesn't appear that the subject of God is going to be settled anytime soon.

One of the most crucial things a life of studying science and its methods has taught me is that I must never lose sight of the fact that I might be wrong, new ideas and new evidence might tomorrow overturn everything I think is true. Any thoughtful person is a seeker, a searcher, and while I obviously don't think I'm wrong--nobody really thinks they're wrong--I need to test that against the arguments and conclusions of other people. To be perfectly honest, I really would like to believe as you do, it would explain and simplify a lot of things (while also complicating a lot of other things) and there was a time when I did. I grew up in a very religious household and your core beliefs are what I got as received wisdom in my childhood. I eventually became apostate because it didn't make sense to me, and that journey hurt and distressed a lot of people who care about me.

With Scripture, a 'new verse' might not overturn everything but it is possible that it will rearrange many things. One little piece that answers a lot of 'unanswered questions'. I'm afraid I don't have an example for that. You do have to be willing to question even those who are held in high regard when it comes to the accuracy of any taught doctrine, that isn't always, if ever, welcomed.
Most popular doctrines require some mental gymnastics to make them appear as being truly valid. For this one I can provide a quick (a new word for me when it comes to Scripture LOL) example.
The 7 year trib is based on the last week of the 70 weeks in Daniel. The mental gymnastics comes from introducing a break in time. They separate that last week through some mental word games. Nothing in the actual text indicates that the 70 is broken, it is one solid block of time. Showing that is where the next 6 pages or so would come in, but the basic argument is dependable even if it is somewhat complicated to explain. Same with the kingdom of iron and clay, there is enough Scripture to paint a pretty clear picture that is quite different than what is the popular trend.

But another of the things a life in science has taught me is how to evaluate evidence, how to eliminate the errors in thinking people routinely make and arrive at something that has a good probability of being correct. I have never seen an argument or evidence from a religious believer that even minimally meets those standards, so I continue to reject them. Can you produce a legitimate argument, with evidence, that would suggest at least a 50% probability that god exists? I don't believe you can. I've seen a lot of people try--St. Anselm, St, Augustine, Blaise Pascal, and dozens of others--but the arguments are all easily demonstrably flawed. If you've got one that really works, I'd like to see it.

I don't have anything that would be 'proof of God existing'.
I do have many words that pretty much demolish any popularly taught doctrine though. Once a valid hole is punched into one, the rest fall like dominoes, but they also fall in such a way that a different picture is build as the other is taken apart. Some is easy to show, most aren't. The idea is simple but there are sooo many verse that have to be considered before a conclusion should be formed. An electric Bible is almost mandatory because you are jumping all over the place.

 

[mrgrumpy]

MHz; "I don't have anything that would be ' proof of God existing'.

Of course you don't; there is no such proof.

It's all invented malarkey by folks who specialize in HOAXES.

You are living in a make believe myth that is ages old and for some, very convincing.

It's all a lie.

Wake up to the world around you.

It's a wonderful place when you have 'unshakeled' the God superstitions.

Hope you are on the road to recovery...

 

[MHz]

It's all invented malarkey by folks who specialize in HOAXES.

Hope you are on the road to recovery...

Okay, now that you made the statement, prove it.

Nope, no such road in Red Deer, my road has some numbers on it.

 

[mrgrumpy]

Okay, now that you made the statement, prove it.

Nope, no such road in Red Deer, my road has some numbers on it.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It is unnecessary to disprove that which has not been proven.

Show us your God - where is he hiding;? what and where is he ?

BRING HIM OUT!- IS HE A COWARD OR JUST SHY?

Or just a well exercised figment of your IMAGINATION???

BTW- how is your friend AJ? Recovering...in therapy?...will you too be there soon?...all the best.