WHY??? Good questions lead to good discussion!!!
My only comment here is that the Revelation of Jesus actually begins in Chapter 4. Up to that point, John was aware of the "history" of the churches IMO.
Rev. is "what was, what is and what will be".
Revelation 11
- Thread starter th1bill
- Start date
WHY??? Good questions lead to good discussion!!!
My only comment here is that the Revelation of Jesus actually begins in Chapter 4. Up to that point, John was aware of the "history" of the churches IMO.
Rev. is "what was, what is and what will be".
Calvin,
Major has done a great job in answering your questions and I have left it alone but you are twisting his replies and appear to be seeking a fight... for what Christian purpose?
John might well have been aware of the history of the Churches however until Jesus' disclose of His future dealings with those Churches, it was a matter that had needed disclosing. So as the Scripture says of itself, Rev 1:1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave........."Sorry Major I don't see it saying beginning with Chapter four. You are free to put whatever spin you like on it, but at least as early as rev chapter 1 Verse 7 the revealing of things not then yet revealed begins. In addition, Rev 1:20 reveals the mystery of the seven stars to be the seven Churches. Now that this has been declared a mystery by one greater than I, ch1 V 20 is surely a revealing of something previously shrouded in mystery, and in need of explanation.
As for "what was, what is, and what will be" Translation/version-chapter and verse please.
There is reference to the beast that was etc, there is reference to the 'alpha and omega' but I see no teaching in Rev that it is about 'what was' other than that Jesus is he who 'was dead...' is that what you refer to?
blessings,
calvin
I have to say that your post does you little credit.Calvin,
Major has done a great job in answering your questions and I have left it alone but you are twisting his replies and appear to be seeking a fight... for what Christian purpose?
As ye judge so will you be also judged Matt 7:1
If seeking to encourage healthy discussion outside of or apart from long cherished positions is seeking a fight then so be it. What I seek is truth..not my truth, not your truth...just Biblical Godly truth.
Seeing you have decided to refer to major in the third person, I feel entitled to do likewise.
When major presented me with a series of questions that were clearly intended to support a fully literal interpretation of the Bible and then appeared to use that as some sort of proof that my point was moot, I saw in his posts a superciliousness (among other things) that might or might not be intended.
Did I miss his reply to my point about Gen chapter 4 and the allegorical nature of 'sin crouching at the door'? Was the point silently conceded?
Does he require more examples to show that my original comment was not without substantial value?
Please th1bill, if you can not add something of value to the thread, you might like to continue sitting in the sidelines. But please do not indulge in petty accusations with no genuine spiritual input or insight.
As I indicated I intend to bow out for a time at least, no, not shaking the dust off my sandals just thought I'd sit back and watch developments.
Now gentlemen, be careful. I was enjoying this thread up to this point.
Calvin, I appreciate your input in this thread, but to suggest that Bill sit on the sidelines of the thread he started is unreasonable. And saying that he is indulging in "petty accusations with no genuine spiritual input or insight" sounds a bit like a petty accusation in itself. I haven't seen your posts as twisting Major's words or as attempting to pick a fight, but it seems that way to Bill, and I think his question is legitimate from his perspective. Simply stating that your comments were meant to further discussion and analysis would have been sufficient answer. Thing is, such a statement invites a response in kind, and the iron sharpening iron becomes a trading of insults and accusations.
Bill and Major, if you feel that Calvin's statements are misrepresenting what you are saying, I suggest assuming that it is a case of misunderstanding which requires further clarification and responding with patience in making your meaning clear so that we may all learn.
Let's keep this thread focused on the task at hand, which is studying the Bible together for the edification of us all.
Calvin, I appreciate your input in this thread, but to suggest that Bill sit on the sidelines of the thread he started is unreasonable. And saying that he is indulging in "petty accusations with no genuine spiritual input or insight" sounds a bit like a petty accusation in itself. I haven't seen your posts as twisting Major's words or as attempting to pick a fight, but it seems that way to Bill, and I think his question is legitimate from his perspective. Simply stating that your comments were meant to further discussion and analysis would have been sufficient answer. Thing is, such a statement invites a response in kind, and the iron sharpening iron becomes a trading of insults and accusations.
Bill and Major, if you feel that Calvin's statements are misrepresenting what you are saying, I suggest assuming that it is a case of misunderstanding which requires further clarification and responding with patience in making your meaning clear so that we may all learn.
Let's keep this thread focused on the task at hand, which is studying the Bible together for the edification of us all.
I am not going to take the invited shot but good point rumely.
No Calvin...I refer to the exact words of Jesus.
"what was, what is, and what will be"???
Rev. 1:19....
"Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter."
Verse 19 is the divine outline of the book my dear friend and I say that NOT to put a "spin" on anything. It is what it is period and I have no need or desire to spin. SPIN IMO means to try and make it acceptable whereas My goal is simply to get out the Word of God, not make it acceptable to anyone.
Prophecies recorded in the Bible automatically divide themselves into 3 groups........
1. PAST----------- Prophecy that has been literally and minutely fullfiled.
2. PRESENT----- Prophecy that is being fulfilled all around us in this present age.
3. FUTURE------ Prophecy that is clearly set forth in Scripture but also just as clear, "unfulfilled".
John knew the condition of the churches since he was an apostle was was aware of the happenings and persecusion that they HAD BEEN under= "WHAT WAS".
John also was well aware of the present day situation as he was placed on Patmos for his continued witness of the Lord Jesus in those churches..= "THE THINGS WHICH ARE".
John actually begins to speak of unfilfilled prophecy in 4:1 and that = "THE THINGS WHICH SHALL BE HEREAFTER".
If anyone feels the need to understand that Rev. 1:7 does not fit that basic outline....no problem for me my friend.
Rev. 1:7 is of course a quote of Zecheriah 12:10.Jesus also sopke earlier of this in Matt. 24;29,30, ...25:31 so it is not really revealed in Rev. 1:7 but is repeated IMO.
Anyone is of course free to reject that.
John WAS without question aware of the church history up to this point. He was an APOSTLE.
As for Rev. 1:20..........
"The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand and the seven golden candelsticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven candelsticks which thou sawest are the seven churches."
I believe that the "mystery" is solved by the verse itself. The verse teaches the grand old truth that Christ forever stands in the midst of His congregations where He can quickly see all....help all....
or JUDGE all. He is always concerned and close by. Christ controles the angle of each church and He hold them in His right hand. This could mean the "pastor" of those local churches.
I agree 100%.
I have no idea why Calvin is "upset" (lack of a better word). There is no need for it from my end.
IF it is about me saying that the Bible is literal, then I guess I need to explain. I really did not think there was a need, but I guess that is wrong.
I personally believe the Bible is the LITERAL Word of God, unless it is obvious that a certain part is allorgogy, or poem or Psalm. EVERY single word in the Bible can not be understood as LITERAL.
Example....
Psalms 62:6
"God is my rock and my salvation, He is my defence, I shall not be moved".
Do we really believe that is understood that God is a ROCK???
NO! Of course not.
Jeremiah 44:17
"But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven".
Does that mean there is a QUEEN in heaven????
NO!!! Of course not.
Now as to Genesis 4;7
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire and tou shalt rule over him.
Are we really stateing that ..........."sin is lieing on the other side of the door"???? The TEMPTATION to sin is always present with us.
I did not respond to this as it seemed as if it did not need to be used as an example at all. Since sin is not an object, it can not be lieing around anywhere.
But in the same context, I believe that every single person knows that the temptation to sin is just around the corner, behind the next door, YOU FILL IN THE BALNK!!!
Calvin......I hope that answers your concerns and I do love ya man. God bless you!
I agree with you and will do as suggested.
Bill is doing a great job on this thread and it is opening up a lot of good conversation IMO.
Please folks...........Bill and I (he can speak for himself) do not know all the answers. We are just two old country boys who love the Lord and All we are doing is getting out the Word Of God, not tying to argue or be combative.
I hope you all accept it as just that so that we can talk and not be confrontationaL.
Well Major, here is one of the major problems that I see in what is being presented here. I note that
You present the "exact" words of Jesus in a slightly different light than the accepted text. "What was" in place of "which thou hast seen". Major I'm not nit picking here.
If we do not get the foundation true, we can not expect to erect a sound building on it.
You yourself appear to understand that the 'What was' was John's assumed pre-knowledge of conditions within the seven churches. There is an alternate interpretation that requires no alteration of Jesus'..." exact words"; 'Write the things which thou hast seen' What things is it that John has seen?
Beginning at least in Rev 1:12 he saw seven golden candle sticks. verse 13 he saw one like the son of man attired in a certain way, and stationed in the midst of those seven candle sticks. He goes on to describe the rest of the appearance of the being he saw at least up to verse 17. These veres from Verse 12 through to verse 16 as an absolute minimum tell us 'what thou (John) hast seen'.
blessings,
calvin
Rumley,
I tried sit sit back and assume, as you suggested, knowing better than to ever do that from my years in the service to this nation, including three tours of combat and once again my experience has born me out.
and I quote,
He contends he is not nit picking and I agree, rather he has, with your assumed blessing, stepped straight into legalism. Are Major and I hard core? Yes, both of us have watched multiple men die because they, MI or their commander assumed. And the death that comes as a result of assuming, in the face of the evidence here is a death one can never escape.
Major stated that John, because of his position (designated by God) knew of the churches history, I never saw where he stated that he was assuming anything and from the exchanges he and I have indulged in, I have been guilty of assuming, but not him to my knowledge. I have given him credit for being at least as well studied as I and perhaps better studied. I hesitate at the phrase but our friend, Calvin, has, without knowledge or reason, charged Major and is, with this sentence attempting to rub salt in the wound. Major is guilty of using a transliteration that I have hear preached from the pulpit and has gone so far as to ground it with the original scripture... but Calvin is not nit pickin´?
Beginning at least in Rev 1:12 he saw seven golden candle sticks. verse 13 he saw one like the son of man attired in a certain way, and stationed in the midst of those seven candle sticks. He goes on to describe the rest of the appearance of the being he saw at least up to verse 17. These veres from Verse 12 through to verse 16 as an absolute minimum tell us 'what thou (John) hast seen'.
Over the years I have witnessed many incidents of hard feelings, arguments, disputes, and damaged relationships arising from misunderstandings, imputed motives, imputed emotions, etc. Many of the misunderstandings were understandable (if that makes sense), but being understandable did not make them less of a misunderstanding. I had a man harboring resentment against me for years because he thought I had ignored him when the truth is that I had not even been aware of him. I had a lady being offended by everything I said because she was receiving an entirely different message than that which I was trying to convey. I saw a bunch of people lose their jobs (me being one of them) because nobody could communicate with each other. I respect everyone involved in this thread and don't want an interesting thread to devolve into a clash of personalities.
IF you want to think that.... Fine with me.
It is obviouse that you in fact are "nit-picking".
You made this comment.................
"As for "what was, what is, and what will be" Translation/version-chapter and verse please.
There is reference to the beast that was etc, there is reference to the 'alpha and omega' but I see no teaching in Rev that it is about 'what was' other than that Jesus is he who 'was dead...' is that what you refer to?
I then gave you this.....
Rev. 1:19....
"Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter."
In my common every day understnading of English......."WHICH THOU HAST SEEN" translates to WHAT WAS to ME!!!
What John had seen was of course past history and became WHAT WAS.
IMO you really did understand that but seems like you wanted to argue about for some reason. For what end is beyound me.
But of course you are not splitting hairs as you said.
You do not seem able to understand that so I am sorry about that. There is simply nothing else I can say except...............see a later my friend because I am not going to argue over something such as this..
Those 16 prophets do stand out from the 'rest'.
Iḿ sorry, but standing out is not an issue that ever need be entertained. You see, there are folks calling themselves Prophet today that may be a prophet in the order of Muhammad but when the Christian speaks or considers a prophet, we are speaking of or dealing with a man sent of God, not Satan. A prophet must always by perfect in his predictions because he gets his input from God, directly, ad God is perfect.
A great example of this is the modern day, self anointed prophet, Benny Hinn. A prophet... he is not!
Likewise but! I am what has come to be called a FROG by the young folks today and when the Spirit, living within me, tells me a thing I listen. That is the case with Calvin, chills almost run up and down my spin and that was before I ever replied to him.
When I was a Professional Soldier, with a Regular Army serial number, I learned, rapidly, to project the proper image and to read those projected by other. Additionally it is critical, in life, at any station, to trust your instincts and to never attempt to think or reason them out. That, I learned before I was saved. Since, shortly after, I was saved I have relied fully on the leading of the Holy Spirit and just as the Bible states, God has never been wrong.
Now, I know that you are a different type of Christian than I and Major because we spent a time in our lives learning to Obey, no matter how we felt about the matter.
And since I am large on Godś Word for Life Application, lets go to the parable, found in Matthew 22:1-14. Here we find that there are two major divisions of Saved Men... some will say two divisions of Christians. So now lets deal, only, with the Bride. Over the past 6000 years there are, likely, a couple of hundred thousand in the Bride. They are all in the Bride and yet, they are different. And now the guests, there must surely be a couple of Billion or more and they, also, different from one another.
Are these all that sought, at some point, to follow God? Personally, I think not. This youngster, Calvin, I would prefer not be in the, extremely, large group that fail. I, however, fear that he is. When you look at the avatar I use and read the description I include of myself you see a tired but still pushing, bald headed old Sargent that like Calib, is still serving God from his motorize chair. When I look at the avatar Calvin uses and then examine the sentence structure he uses, I see a mean little sprite! That is not Christ-like and it not of God. He structures his replies in the same manor and style used by myself when I was an atheist and it is the same structure used on the anti-God forums, to a Christian, today.
And now you know, about me, much f what all, in Heaven, do or will know. I, just, cannot not trust the Holy Spirit´s leading.
Hmmm...I look at Calvin's avatar and find it rather whimsical. I see on his profile it's actually animated; the smiley tips its hat and says, "G'day mate." Which I take to be friendly. Looking at the sentence structure, I'm not seeing the meanness. It is possible Calvin could be doing a little baiting or instigating, or it could be that he is furthering the discussion, perhaps he is prodding Major to clarify a point, or perhaps he is honestly discussing a disagreement on a particular point. Even if he were a mean person trying to stir things up, so far it is possible to respond to him in a way which attributes to him the best of motives.
What is clear, however, is that the statements highlighted in red are demeaning and insulting. I am leaving them here as an example but will in future delete such comments, or entire posts, as necessary. Such comments elevate hostility, derail threads, and create a divisive and unfriendly atmosphere, and do nothing to resolve conflict. This assessment applies to the statement highlighted and is in no way a comment on your character or motives.
Now, I want to comment a little on the process of this thread and try to get it back on track.
Any further discussion concerning other members' motives should take place in private conversation. (click on the person's profile to whom you wish to speak, go to the "information" tab, click on "start a conversation" near the bottom of the page.)
If anyone has concerns about a post they can report it and the staff will review it and determine what response, if any, is necessary.
Any comments or discussion regarding moderation are to be adressed through through private conversation. Any number of staff can be invited into a private conversation.
Major has declined to discuss further the issue of what "what thou has seen" means. That is his perogative and he is not obligated to discuss or respond to something he does not wish to address. Calvin is free to clarify why he makes the distinction he does and why he considers it important. However, since this thread deals with Revelation 11, the point should be made relevant to the study of this chapter.
This thread is a study of Revelation 11. Discussion of others' motives and character serves only to distract, detract and derail. Let's keep to topic.
Any further discussion concerning other members' motives should take place in private conversation. (click on the person's profile to whom you wish to speak, go to the "information" tab, click on "start a conversation" near the bottom of the page.)
If anyone has concerns about a post they can report it and the staff will review it and determine what response, if any, is necessary.
Any comments or discussion regarding moderation are to be adressed through through private conversation. Any number of staff can be invited into a private conversation.
Major has declined to discuss further the issue of what "what thou has seen" means. That is his perogative and he is not obligated to discuss or respond to something he does not wish to address. Calvin is free to clarify why he makes the distinction he does and why he considers it important. However, since this thread deals with Revelation 11, the point should be made relevant to the study of this chapter.
This thread is a study of Revelation 11. Discussion of others' motives and character serves only to distract, detract and derail. Let's keep to topic.
There are many, many more prophetes and prophetesses in the Old Test. that do not have a book by their name but in fact were prophets.
Enoch comes to my mind 1st.
Not so my friend when you say.........................
Major has declined to discuss further the issue of what "what thou has seen" means.
I did so on post #34.
I also would like to say that when I first said that, it was from memory. I stated "WHAT WAS and The exact words are of course "WHAT THOU HAS SEEN". As I stated in #34. IMO they mean the same thing to me.