|
rcjones -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/12/2008 4:45:42 PM)
|
quote:
If the woman were said to be sitting on seven mountains, that were NOT also called seven HEADS on the beast, then there would be no need for further discussion, as, in my humble opinion, no further need for "wisdom/understanding/discernment/insight" is needed; meaning simply, a mountain, is a mountain, is a mountain. BUT, these are not SIMPLY seven mountains, we are told by the angel that they are ALSO seven HEADS of the BEAST. So, again in my humble opinion, because they are NOT only simple mountains, but are actually ALSO HEADS on the beast (kingdom), we have a task in front of us (made that much more obvious by prepending all this with "here is the mind which has wisdom[understanding/discernment/insight]"); that task, I believe, is to "discern", if possible, whether or not these "mountains" MIGHT have another application??? What is BOTH, a MOUNTAIN and a HEAD, BIBLICALLY SPEAKING!?!?
Well, since other have picked up on the scoffing and don't even recognize it, and think that nails have been put in the coffin, I will once again enumerate the errors. I will also remind you that I have shared an observation. Those who think they need to defend on eschatology or another are the ones who have presumed more than I have claimed. In fact, there there are two interpretations indicated by the heads being mountains and kings, and I have only shared the one concerning kings. I have not claimed it is doctrine, so the futurist Inquisition can put their matches away. Can you spell O-B-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-O-N for discussion? Thanks.
Post 2: Since the harlot has not been interpreted, it is an error to assume it to be something. In the shadows, it is the church.
see: http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Dwg:Bunch_of_women.jpg for the prostitute-bride theme of the shadows for more observations concerning it.
Scoffing: laughable, "they are either looking through the wrong end of their telescope, or they really have no idea what Revelation 17 actually says" and this based on an erroneous identification of the harlot.
Post 4:
Scoffing: " Could it be that they're not what we expected because... Well... Because that's NOT what they're meant to be saying? "
If this were considered to be anything but scoffing it would be extremely platitudinous. I am sure Mr. Fribbles is not a moron.
Post 6
Feigned knowledge:
"I'm quite familiar with the method proposed on that site, and I find it ridiculous. "
If one were "quite familiar with the site one would not make the errors of fact concerning the site that were pointed out elsewhere.
Point made: The angle didn't say he would speak in riddles:
Counterpoint: God says he would speak in riddles and the wise would sek to interpret.
Point: None of the passages suggest all Scripture is to be looked at as a riddle.
Unanswered Counterpoint: The number of riddles demonstrated at the site should suggest (notice I did not say PROVE?) that maybe we should give them consideration.
False premise:" If you can prove that was the only hermeneutic style used in the 1st century, you'll have a point. Otherwise, I don't see where you're going there. "
Answer: It makes no difference how many hermeneutics were available, only that this one was.
Point " Why would God want to use an end-times prophecy to tell people about Christ in this way? What would be the purpose? "
Answer: Same purpose as the rest of scripture. To reveal Christ. It might be suggested that Revelation is the Rosetta Stone for interpreting the riddles in the rest of scripture, which is the purpose of pointing to Dr. Gage's research.
Post 10:
Point: Verse quoted out of context.
Ignored: Secondary issue. I didn't quote. The whole purpose of the Bible is the Revelation of Jesus Christ."
My secondary issue: Seek to find Mr. Fribble a-priori assumptions and biases.
Answer to secondary issue: Mr. Fribbles never read the Chicago statement.
Current reply: Since Mr. Fribbles previously used nearly identical words to Longnekker's book on hermeneutics, denying having seen the Chicago statement is irrelevant, he is predisposed to the sentiments of the statement which permits ONLY a literal-historical interpretation.
Post 8:
Straw man: " So, scholarship is a bad thing? " This can be taken as scoffing since Mr. Fribbles is well aware that I did not make such a point.
Answer: My disdain for the narrow field of higher criticism does not imply that I would think ALL scholarship is bad.
Point: Mr.Fribbles a-priori assumption is that God did not inspire every jot and tittle.
Thank you. This immediately places Mr. Fribbles in the category of having decided the issue before it is heard, since the assumption considered in the observation is that every jot and tittle was inspired. Since Mr. Fribbles claims to know the web site well, he would know this is the assumption of the hypothesis. To intentionally not identify his bias places him again in the seat of the scoffer. An honest man can put aside his biases for the purpose of evaluating something else. This does not require that one give up belief in a system, but it is required for an honest evaluation of one.
Point: Cain represents both Christ and Adam, this appears to be a violation o f the rule.
Answer: The way it is verbalized, this is an understandable miscommunication , which burden lies solely on me to correct, which I attempted with the algebra example.
Point: Samson has a literal interpretation, therefore Revelation does.
Unanswered counterpoint: This is misdirection from the topic. The question in context referred to Revelation 17. Obviously the Samson riddle has a literal interpretation as well as a shadow one, as shown shown the web site. My claim is that Rev 17 has a literal AND a shadow. I have not given the interpretation of the mountains. So Samson's riddle is support for dual meaning of Rev 17.
Post 12:
Point: "en"
Counterpoint: Ignored as secondary issue.
Non-answer: "Nope, I don't believe they do. "
Non-answer: "Nope"
Non-answer: "Nope"
Scoffing: Your correlation borders on mysticism.
Point:" Also, it seems Cain means yet another thing - the sins of the Church. So now, not only are we reading names into the text mentioned nowhere in Revelation, but we are assigning yet another "shadow" meaning to them. It seems to me that the rules are being bent to fit the desired meaning. "
Counterpoint: If Mr. Fribbles were as familiar with the site as he claims, he would know the difference between a shadow and double entendre. Since I have started dictionaries for both at the site. So either he has misrepresented his familiarity, or he is simply scoffing.
Furthermore, if he were as familiar as he claims, he would see that I am suggesting there are actually four layers of understanding, like the Jews and Catholics, and have just begun wrestling with the mechanics of unpacking them. I am more interested in finding people who would like to explore something they haven't seen as I am still exploring, than in trying to establish some new doctrine or battling off scoffers. These forums are packed with people trying to impress everyone with their inability to follow a logical argument and unwilling to actually dialog about anything. Every thread turns into a battle ground by such scoffers as these. I am just asking for people to look at it and consider it for what I claim is an observation. So please forgive my attempt to have a conversation by weeding out those who are simply argumentative. I suggest more people do it.
Point: An alternative rendering: Here's a solution - the Beast represents a tool of evil (be it a man, a government, or something else) that will play a large role during the end time events.
Counterpoint: Simply making up "representations" is what popular typology does. He is free to do it. But arguing stuff he made up is superior to things derived from correlation is not a strong argument.
Scoffing: Careful. You're sounding a bit gnostic to me there.
Then Mr. Fribbles drives another member away with rudeness. Do you think this is evidence of a solid doctrinal position?
Post 18: Man, I'm glad I'm too dense to be a theologian. All this frou-frou hairsplitting makes my eyes glaze. I'm also glad the Gospel is easy enough for a child to understand.
Scoffing: No content.
Mr. Fribbles rudeness, scoffing, and failure to address the original topic warranted ignoring him.
Post 23:
FruGod intentionally mixes popular typology with shadows to produce a jumble then mock it.
1love thinks FruGod made an excellent argument that should have been addressed.
So I will address FruGods "excellent points" for the sake of 1love:
Point: Woman riding the beast is drunk with and attempted interpretation using the literal. "He has either been tamed by the woman (which is heresy) or Jesus is carrying her while she kills His people."
Answer: The woman is the church and she rides on Christ. I warned you about mixing, yet you scoff.
Point:This woman also has a plate on her crown that names her as Babylon, mother of all harlotries. Sounds to me like she is Babylon and she is persecuting the church. Difficult to wrap your brain around, I know...
Answer: Mystery Babylon is the flesh of the church. You were warned about mixing, but you jumble it then scoff.
Point: Now, the beast himself is "full of" blasphemous names. Does that honestly sound like Jesus to you?
Answer: Yes. He makes God's name common. You were wwarned about mixing, but you jumble then scoff.
Point: Now the beast has seven heads... the angelic guide of this vision actually TRANSLATES THE BEAST FOR US. Note, the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits... considering that Rome and Babylon were not even close to contemporaries, something is up here. It would seem that the two are going to be united at the time this happens.
Answer: As previously mentioned, the mountains in the shadows indicate that there is a second interpretation, which I have not presented. So you scoff at what you presume I might make of it.
Point: " To put it another way, the context of the beast in Revelation 17 is chapters 16 and 18 which is speaking about judgments against the kingdom of the antichrist and the destruction of the city of Babylon, respectively. "
Answer: By this time your jumbling is tiresome and your scoffing annoying. IF the words of Rev 17 have a second meaning, and IF the Tamar story id a shadow of the birth of Christ, and IF Uzziah, Elgom and the others are shadows of Christ, it is quite probable that Rev 16 and 18 also have double entendre.
Scoffing: " PS, the proof on the website listed isn't fit to prop up a table, let alone an eschatological vision "
Answer: You have overstated my position to make your scoffing seemed deserved. Nowhere on the site will you see a claim for a proof. Quite the opposite. It is made clear that it is an observation that I seek DIALOG on. Instead I get insecure futurists who feel compelled to scoff at every turn.
If there was an honest bone in your body, and you believed it was invention, you would congratulate me for being clever. But you have proven your dishonesty by your repeated scoffing.
Now since I have answered point by point. I would hope that ilove would be able to provide a list of "nails in the coffin". But since he didn't, he has found himself among the scoffers.
Scoffing: I think this is one of the most bizarre and incredible examples of scripture-twisting I've ever seen. I really have a hard time believing the OP is even serious. Maybe this should be moved to the Conspiracy folder.
Answer: With no evidence of understanding the proposition, nor that it is an OBSERVATION wherein I desire DIALOG, Peter also joins the scoffer and accuses me of scripture twisting. Who is it that is so insecure that they can't politely consider something that is out of the ordinary?
A NameWritten is the only one that actually knows how to dialog, and understands the proposition - to let the scripture and the scripture alone solve the riddle.
Thank you for your understanding.
Scoffers will continue to be ignored.
|
|
|
|