Timothy
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Joe,
The oldest manuscripts and the vast majority of manuscripts have ἀσελγείαις which means “sensual” or “licentious.” The KJV was made from only a handful of very late Greek manuscripts and considering the Latin Vulgate. Apparently ἀπωλείαις (“destructive ways”) was found in some of the late manuscripts which they had.
Dave,
Sorry for the delay. Yes, I have been extremely busy. The articles you found explain my position. I do not think you should create division. As long as you are tolerated, there is no problem continuing to fellowship, IMO. However, unless you remain totally silent on this topic, you probably will eventually be asked to leave. IMO, your best approach would be to have conversations only with the pastor and other leaders elders or deacons. If you confine your discussions to them, and let them know that this is what you are doing, they may not feel as threatened and be more willing to have frank discussions.
Pramod,
Questions about the LGV would probably be better in the forum marked “Exegesis of Specific Passages.”
Roman,
I do not think God is ever surprised by any event, nor does He change His mind. Since it was always the Son who interacted with mankind as God’s agent, and not the Father Himself, I take all of these kinds of statements as referring to the Son. Since the Son had an origin, His experience was limited to time since creation. So He was learning by experience, IMO.
Anders,
I view the numbered seals, trumpets, and bowls as necessarily taking place sequentially. Also, the three woes must take place sequentially. However, within the description of the seals and trumpets there are parenthetical sections. These sections are not themselves part of the numbered sequences but add further details or answer anticipated questions about what has been mentioned before. For example, between the sixth and seventh seal there is a parenthetical section which deals with the 144,000 from the 12 tribes. Remember, the sixth seal is the second coming of Christ with the cosmic signs. This parenthetical section answers the anticipated question, “What happens to the faithful remnant of Israel during the preceding seals which occur during the great tribulation?” This section is not sequential. It does not describe something that occurs AFTER the second coming, but rather BEFORE the entire sequence. It shows that 12k from each tribe of Israel will be preserved by God during the testimony of the two prophets (described in Rev. 11), which coincides with seals 1-4, and then the place of safety where the woman flees to the wilderness (developed in Rev. 12), but coincides with seals 5-6.
The same is true with the trumpets. The three “woes” are trumpets 5-7. They are called “woes” to let us know that this is much more severe than the first 4 trumpets, and they occur during the last 3.5 years which is called “great tribulation.” Yet between trumpets 6 & 7 (woe 2 & 3), there is another parenthetical section which takes us back to the very beginning of the 70th week, with the 2 prophets prophesying for 1260 days. All of Rev. 10:1 – 11:13 is this parenthetical section. The first woe (5th trumpet) is Rev. 9:1-12. The second woe (6th trumpet) is Rev. 9:13-21. The third woe (7th trumpet) is Rev. 11:14-19, the second coming of Christ. The worshippers at the temple and the two prophets are not part of the 2nd woe (6th trumpet).
One more thing. If the bodies of the two prophets are left to rot in the streets of Jerusalem for the entire 42 months of the great tribulation, then who are the persons referred to in Rev. 12:6 by the plural personal pronoun “they” (NKJV)? “Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that THEY should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days” (Rev. 12:6 NKJ)? The verb is τρέφωσιν, (subjunctive mood, active voice, 3rd person, plural). This requires an implied PLURAL subject which does the feeding. If it was “she might be nourished” as in the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. the verb would have to be in the passive voice. If it referred back to God in the same verse, it would have to be singular. The fact that it is third person and active voice means there is an implied subject doing the action to her. That it is plural in number means that the implied subject must be more than one. This is the same as using the plural personal pronoun “they” which is why the KJV, NKJV, DRV, ETH, YLT all put it in the active voice and add the plural personal pronoun “they,” requiring an antecedent. The only possible antecedent is the two prophets in chapter 11.
In the LGV, I have the critical statement in brackets as a parenthetical statement as follows: “6 And the woman escaped into the wilderness where she has a place there having been prepared from God (so that they may be nourishing her there) a thousand two hundred sixty days.” Punctuating the sentence this way shows that the preparation of this place of safety took place during the previous 1260 days of the 2 prophets prophesying (Rev. 11:3) and solves the problem of both periods being described as 1260 days. Rather, the 1260 days always refers to the first half of the week, and the 42 months and time, times, and half a time always refers to the second half of the week, including in Daniel. In Dan. 12, the time, times, and half a time corresponds to 1290 days not 1260 days. IMO, part of the prophesying of the two prophets concerns instructions to God’s people concerning the preparation of this place of safety for the woman and includes the content of the seven thunders which John heard in ch. 10 but was instructed not to write down.
Tim
Raymond,
In addition to the reasons given by Anders, I believe the association of the two witnesses with Temple worship means that their 1260-days of prophesying is while the Jews have a functioning priesthood and Temple. Once the Abomination of desolation occurs, which also coincides with the stopping of the daily sacrifice, the Temple is “desolate” and the holy city is trampled for 3.5 years. IMO, the primary point of the two prophets is to provide the window of opportunity for Israel to return to the Law of Moses. Remember, Malachi 4 tells Israel “Remember the Law of My servant Moses,” and then prophesies of God sending them Elijah the prophet. This return to the Law is the only means Israel has (as the requirement) for God to then restore the nation nationally in fulfillment of His promises in Deut. 30. Israel is now under “the curse of the Law” as evidenced by the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the priesthood in AD 70, which desolation continues to this day. The only way they can return to the Law, as commanded in Malachi 4, is for God to restore the priesthood and Temple which was completely overthrown in AD 70. So, the two prophets will provide that brief window, the priesthood will be reinstated, and the two prophets will bring down plagues upon anyone or any nation which interferes with the restored Temple and its functioning priesthood and worship. The two prophets being killed coincides with the beast arising (present tense) from the abyss (Rev. 11:7), which means he kills them when arising from the pit, which occurs at the mid-point of the 70th week, and this is immediately followed by the abomination of desolation. It is also why the world begins to follow the Beast, because he appears to be the only one able to defeat the two prophets who “tormented” the people with their plagues for 1260 days.
I take the 3.5 days literally, and the prophets being caught up and relocated to the place in the “wilderness” when the woman is told to flee. Ch. 12 says “they shall feed her there.” There is no antecedent/referent for the pronoun “they” except the two prophets mentioned in the previous chapter.
Also, in Daniel 9:27, the statement “He shall renew (lit. ‘strengthen’) the covenant for one week,” refers to the reinstating of a previous “covenant.” This is not a new “peace agreement” as is taught by many. It is God’s reinstating the “covenant with Levi” (Mal. 2:4-5), that is the Levitical priesthood, which God suspended when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem (Heb. 7:18; Heb. 8:13; Heb. 10:5-9). The LXX reads: “And it will strengthen a covenant with many, one week, and by half of the week sacrifice and libation will cease, and in the temple there will be an abomination of desolations even until a consummation, and a consummation will be given for the desolation.” (Dan. 9:27 NETS). The ECFs quoted this passage as “My covenant will be strengthened” and interpreted it as God’s covenant.
So, it is not possible for the Temple worship which is described in Rev. 11 (which coincides with the 2 prophets) to continue once the “abomination of desolation” takes place, and the image of the Beast stands in the holy place (Dan. 9:27; Mark 13:14; Rev. 13:14).
Dave,
What do you mean by “share?” The major difference between us and JWs theologically is that they are Arians, meaning that they believe that the Son was CREATED by God at the beginning of creation while we believe He was BEGOTTEN by God out of His own Person at that time. So they tend to use many of the same Scriptures, such as those that refer to the Son as “the Beginning,” and “the Beginning of the creation of God” and “the firstborn of all creation.” The difference comes down to the Son’s pre-human essence or nature. What is “begotten” must be of the same essence and nature as the one who begat Him. However, what is merely “created” is necessarily of a different essence and nature from the creator. JWs use the term “begotten” in reference to the Son, but in reality they mean “created.”
The reason JWs (like all Arians) claim that the Son was created of a different essence and nature from God (but above angels and man) was because the ancient Greeks, when encountering Christianity, dismissed it as impossible because Christians claimed that the only-begotten Son was completely transformed in His nature and essence into an entirely human person (as per Phil. 2:5-8). But there was a Greek philosophical principle which claimed that anything that was eternal must be immutable (unchangeable). Therefore, if God who is eternal begat a Son, and therefore that Son had to be of the same nature and essence as God, He too must be unchangeable. A Greek philosopher named Celsus was the first to raise this objection to apostolic Christianity. Certain Christians, who were trying very hard to appeal to the intellectuals of the day, had to answer this problem. The right answer would have been to show that the Greek philosophical principle was wrong. However, unfortunately philosophically- minded Christians adopted the Greek principle and tried to resolve the issue in other ways. Melito of Sardis devised a Platonic nature for Christ (hypostatic union of two natures), that the Son’s divine nature remained unchanged but He simply put on a human body over His unchanged divine nature. Thus no real change occurred to His divine person. Arius rejected this because it made the Man Jesus into a god in disguise. So His solution was to claim that the Son was first created by God of a nature that was similar to God’s own, but was subject to change. Then, in the virgin birth, the Word who had a changeable nature “became flesh” in a complete transformation.
While 4Winds shares many similar theological points with JWS, IMO the real problem for the average member of that group is their required loyalty to the leadership (Watchtower) and that salvation is tied to being a member of their organization. This, IMO, is what makes them cult-like rather than their Arianism. This is what they need to be delivered from, IMO.
Dave,
As you know, I reject the concept of a “sin nature” inherited from Adam which compels us to sin. Eve sinned when Satan deceived her. This shows her ignorance. Deception can only occur in an environment of ignorance of truth. While God told Adam “in the day you eat of it you will surely die,” and Adam had relayed this to Eve, they were ignorant in the sense that they had no significant basis for believing what God had said. So Satan played on this lack of sure knowledge about God’s character and His motives. He got Eve to question whether God was telling the truth, or whether He had some ulterior motive (such as keeping Adam and Eve suppressed and under His thumb). Neither Adam nor Eve had any experience in testing God to see if He was telling them the truth. In fact, IMO, Satan himself wanted to test God to see what would happen when someone disobeyed. Satan got Eve to do it instead of directly opposing or disobeying God himself.
The question should not be whether Adam or Eve would have sinned IF Satan was not present to tempt them. IMO, they probably would have sinned at some point just to see what God’s reaction would be. Just as a young child tests his parents in order to find out the limits, I think Adam and Eve would have done the same. But again, “ignorance” is in their not really knowing whether the authority figure really means what He said. A small child that is testing the limits of the parent does so out of ignorance. They also tend to test repeatedly to see just how far they can push and get their way. Adam and Eve were “infants” in that they had no long-term experience with God as a “parent.”
The right question to ask of those who teach a “sin nature” that is inherited because of Adam’s sin is this: If all humans are born sinners BECAUSE we have inherited a “sin nature” from Adam, and if we had not inherited this alleged “sin nature” we would not necessarily sin, then … Why did Adam sin, if he was created “very good,” in the “image of God,” and WITHOUT this alleged “sin nature?”
Sin is a product of a free will plus ignorance of truth. So what compels some people to OBEY God rather than rebel against Him? It is the KNOWLEDGE of the truth, having a right understanding of God’s character as both good and just, that His motives are pure, that He only wants what is good and beneficial for mankind, and that we as humans are but “worms” by comparison. The KNOWLEDGE that all of God’s laws and commands are intended for our ultimate good, and the survival and flourishing of the human race, and that by comparison, if we “lean on our own understanding” instead of following the directions of our creator, we are headed for disaster — the natural consequences of NOT walking in the LIGHT that God has provided along the path that leads to LIFE.
It all comes down to pride vs. humility. Pride is an illusion that we are greater and smarter than God, so we go our own way ignoring His directions. Humility comes from KNOWLEDGE of the truth, that we are in total darkness without the LIGHT that comes from God’s commands. Consequently, humility breeds faith, and pride breeds doubt. Thus, “The meek shall inherit the earth.”
Anders,
You could be correct. But I am not sure that Scripture always uses the term “day” as strictly or as sharply defined as you are implying. There are times when the word “day” just refers to a general time period when a certain condition exists. For example, there are many prophecies that include the clause “in that day …” in a generic way, like saying “during that time.”
Certainly, the word “day” does often refer to a 24-hour period (for example the 6 days of creation), and at other times it refers to a larger, sharply-defined block of time such as the tribulation period (Rev. 3:10), or to an entire millennium (2 Pet. 3:8). However, since it is also used generically, I think we need to be careful not to impose a paradigm upon any Scripture that we are not deriving from that Scripture. Also, keep in mind that Peter refers to the 7th millennium as: “until the Day dawns” (2 Pet. 1:19). Thus Christ’s return is seen as the “dawning” (a small part) of a larger “Day.”
The “Day of the Lord” is certainly a technical term and refers to when God seizes full control of the kingdoms of this world. But as you know, seizing control is not a momentary thing. It is described as a “day” and a “year.” And the entire process actually takes the whole millennium, since the putting down of God’s and our enemies (including “death”) takes place over the entire 7th Millennium.
Also, while judgement is a feature of the Day of the Lord, this occurs on the 120th Jubilee which is the proclaiming of “liberty” to the captives. So while the Day of the Lord is “darkness” with no light in it for the wicked, it is a time of rejoicing and liberty for the faithful. The entire book of Zephaniah is about this contrast. The Israelites were longing for the “Day of the Lord” because it was supposed to bring liberty and blessing. But because they were rebellious, God warned them that for them it is a day of darkness and gloominess. So I think it is a mistake to define the Day of the Lord as all darkness and judgment.
Given that the Millennial Sabbath was not clearly revealed in the prophets, IMO it is a mistake to try to impose a rigid and technical meaning upon a term that was used widely in the prophets when they and their readers would not have understood it that way. For them it meant only the transfer of sovereignty from their oppressors to God’s people.
Just as with several OT prophecies, there seems to be layers of meaning. IMO, the “Day of the Lord” first refers to the 24-hour day of His coming, which is the 10th of Tishri when the Jubilee trumpet is sounded to announce “Liberty.” In a secondary sense, it refers to the entire 120th Jubilee year which precedes the Millennial Sabbath. Yet, it also has a deeper meaning, that of the entire Millennial Sabbath. The weekly Sabbath was called the Lord’s “Day” (Isa. 58:13). So would not the Millennial Sabbath, during which Christ reigns over all the earth as God’s Agent, also be “the Lord’s Day?”
Lena,
Welcome to the forum.
I am not well versed in Hebrew, so my opinion probably isn’t worth much. The term “Tetragrammaton” simply means “four letters.” Those letters are yodh, he, waw, and he (YHWH or possibly YHVH depending on pronunciation preferences). Hebrew scholars tend to favor the idea that YHWH was derived from the statement in Exod. 3:14 “And God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.”‘” (NASB).
But I do not think even the best Hebrew scholars can prove the exact source of those 4 letters. Also, what vowel sounds may have originally been between the four consonants is impossible to know. Such information would be needed in order to reconstruct the meaning the way you have done. In any case, it is recognized by most that the statement in Exod. 3:14 means something like “the self-existing one.” This implies that He is the prime cause of all that exists as well as needing nothing external to Himself. If YHVH has a deeper or fuller meaning beyond that I cannot determine with my very limited knowledge of Hebrew.
We know that “God is love” from John’s books. And we know also that the hidden “name” of God that Jesus declared to His disciples was not YHWH but “Father” (John 17:6,26). So both of those concepts are biblical, but I do not think we can know whether they are somehow hidden in the name YHWH.
Regarding the word “abba” meaning “father” I believe that is Aramaic (aleph-bet-aleph) derived from the Hebrew aleph-bet. It is not aleph-waw so I do not think “father” should be inferred.
Anders,
It is clear that the Day of the Lord begins with Christ’s return (1 Thess. 5:1-2). So it must include the battle of Armageddon. Isaiah 1 states twice that “the Lord alone will be exalted in that day”, and that the idols will be abolished. 2 Peter 3 describes the purging of the land by fire on the “Day of the Lord.” Yet other passages, where the Day of the Lord is mentioned, the blessings upon God’s people are also described as occurring “in that day.” For example, in Joel 3:9-21, the cosmic signs announce the “Day of the Lord” which then begins with the battle of Armageddon. But vs. 18 says: “And it will come to pass in that day That the mountains shall drip with new wine, The hills shall flow with milk, And all the brooks of Judah shall be flooded with water; A fountain shall flow from the house of the LORD And water the Valley of Acacias.”. Again, in Zech. 14, the Day of the Lord describes the same battle, but then vss. 8-9 say: ” 8 And in that day it shall be That living waters shall flow from Jerusalem, Half of them toward the eastern sea And half of them toward the western sea; In both summer and winter it shall occur. And the LORD shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be– “The LORD is one,” And His name one.” This seems to include the entire reign of Christ as being included in “that day” which is the “Day of the Lord.”
As a side note, when referring to the Day being a millennium (as in Psalm 90:4 & 2 Pet. 3:8) Justin quoted that statement as “the Day of the Lord is as a thousand years” rather than “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.”
For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’ (Justin Dialogue with Trypho, 81).
Irenaeus did the same in Against Heresies, Bk. V, ch. 23 and again in ch. 28. So these early Chiliasts understood the Day of the Lord to be the 7th Millennium.
IMO, the primary focus is the day of Christ’s return. But in a secondary sense it seems to include the entire 7th millennium.
Raymond,
One important point is that the cosmic signs of Matt. 24:29 occur “immediately after the tribulation” and these same signs are before “Day of the Lord” (Joel 2:31 & Acts 2:20). So it is evident that the “Day of the Lord” does not include or overlap the tribulation.
As to whether the Day of the Lord is a single 24-hour day, or whether it refers to the entire Millennium, IMO it is the 7th Day, the entire millennium of Christ’s reign. Peter referred to the beginning of Christ’s reign as the dawning of the Day (2 Pet. 1:19). This is also alluded to in Mal. 4:1-2. Several passages that refer to the Day of the LORD in the prophets go on to state that many things will occur “in that day” which must occur over a long period, perhaps the entire millennium.
Dave,
There is considerable doubt that the reading in our common versions of Matthew 28:19 was what Matthew actually wrote. Several early fathers stated that Matthew wrote in Aramaic, not Greek, and that the Greek copies were translated later. Eusebius had access to an Aramaic copy of the original Matthew, and he quoted this passage several times in his writings without the so-called “Trinitarian” baptismal formula. Consider the following quote from Eusebius.
“With one word and voice He said to His disciples: ‘Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,’ and He joined the effect to His Word; and in a little while every race of the Greeks and Barbarians was being brought into discipleship, and laws were spread among all nations opposed to the superstition of the ancients. But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph ‘In MY NAME.’ For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of ‘In my Name.’ And the power of His Name being so great, that the apostle says: ‘God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,’ He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: ‘Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name.’ He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: ‘For this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.’ But when I turn my eyes away to the evidence of the power of the Word, what multitudes it has won, and what enormous churches have been founded by those unlettered and mean disciples of Jesus, not in obscure and unknown places, but in the most noble cities – I mean in Royal Rome, in Alexandria, and Antioch, throughout the whole of Egypt and Libya, Europe and Asia, and in villages and country places and among the nations – I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man’s, and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them: ‘Make disciples of all the nations in My Name.’” (Eusebius – Demonstratio Evangelica: Bk. III, chs. vi-vii {AD 313}).
See: https://4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Evolution_007.pdf pages 9-16 for many more quotes.
Another fact which argues for Eusebius’ reading and against the common reading is that throughout Acts, people were baptized in the name of Jesus alone, never in an alleged Trinitarian scheme. Similarly, Romans 6 defines the meaning of baptism as being buried with Christ and arising with Him. Paul does the same in Col. 2:12,20. Thus, baptism is about being joined to Christ. It is pretty hard to fit a Trinity into Paul’s explanation of baptism.
