tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post8931346614205352129..comments2023-12-11T06:02:28.864-05:00Comments on The Wise Fool: The Signs of the TimesTWFhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-13909099329489149832014-04-15T21:06:43.019-04:002014-04-15T21:06:43.019-04:00Hi Felix,
Not a bad selection of "gap" ...Hi Felix,<br /><br />Not a bad selection of "gap" prophesies, but they are not quite parallels to the Daniel weeks, largely because they don't have declared timelines, which makes them difficult to compare as a likeness.<br /><br />Tyre is a odd case, with an apparent retraction, and much later fulfillment to some degree.<br /><br />Hosea 11 almost has an implied timeline in it, given its talk of being conquered, and then later God calling back the diaspora. It would "feel" unrealistic to expect this to occur within, say, a year. So tens of years, or maybe a hundred or two, would be a better fit of expectancy based on the prophesy, (at least in my opinion).<br /><br />But Daniel's weeks are given as one solid "chunk" of prophesy; "Seventy 'sevens'". The first 69 sevens have already happened (at least according to all faithful interpretations I know of), and did so sequentially. Yet with each passing day, we draw closer to being a full 2000 years from the completion of that final "seven". It just appears to be a little unbelievable to me, especially when coupled to the other collective contrary evidence.<br /><br />Best wishes. And I am finally caught up! Feel free to comment.<br /><br />-TWFTWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-65023830498537887832014-04-11T23:58:47.850-04:002014-04-11T23:58:47.850-04:00TWF:
On the Tyre issue, did I remember to submit ...TWF:<br /><br />On the Tyre issue, did I remember to submit this link?: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/Ezekiel-261-14-A-Proof-Text-For-Inerrancy-or-Fallibility-of-The-Old-Testament.aspx<br /><br />Part of the argument presented here is that when it says Tyre will not be built again, it would be fair to say it would not be "built up" again to its former glory. That said, I would recommend going through the whole before responding. I probably could not put their argument as well.<br /><br />May all be well with you,<br />Felix ZamoraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-40669700558314140932014-04-11T23:55:49.566-04:002014-04-11T23:55:49.566-04:00TWF:
Although I don't have an exact timeline ...TWF: <br />Although I don't have an exact timeline case, I think in there are parallels in the prophetic utterances of destruction and restoration such as in Hosea 11 (ESV):<br /><br />5They shall notb return to the land of Egypt,<br />but Assyria shall be their king,<br />because they have refused to return to me.<br />6The sword shall rage against their cities,<br />consume the bars of their gates,<br />and devour them because of their own counsels.<br />7My people are bent on turning away from me,<br />and though they call out to the Most High,<br />he shall not raise them up at all.<br /><br />8How can I give you up, O Ephraim?<br />How can I hand you over, O Israel?<br />How can I make you like Admah?<br />How can I treat you like Zeboiim?<br />My heart recoils within me;<br />my compassion grows warm and tender.<br />9I will not execute my burning anger;<br />I will not again destroy Ephraim;<br />for I am God and not a man,<br />the Holy One in your midst,<br />and I will not come in wrath.c<br /><br />10They shall go after the Lord;<br />he will roar like a lion;<br />when he roars,<br />his children shall come trembling from the west;<br />11they shall come trembling like birds from Egypt,<br />and like doves from the land of Assyria,<br />and I will return them to their homes, declares the Lord.<br />12d Ephraim has surrounded me with lies,<br />and the house of Israel with deceit,<br />but Judah still walks with God<br />and is faithful to the Holy One.<br /><br />May all go well with you,<br />Felix ZamoraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-9498137960868131022014-04-10T13:46:56.521-04:002014-04-10T13:46:56.521-04:00TWF:
Sorry just want to make sure my comment worke...TWF:<br />Sorry just want to make sure my comment worked: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/Ezekiel-261-14-A-Proof-Text-For-Inerrancy-or-Fallibility-of-The-Old-Testament.aspx#ArticleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-9349364689599753242014-04-10T13:46:02.621-04:002014-04-10T13:46:02.621-04:00TWF:
Figure I might throw another Tyre argument yo...TWF:<br />Figure I might throw another Tyre argument your way for when you have time: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/Ezekiel-261-14-A-Proof-Text-For-Inerrancy-or-Fallibility-of-The-Old-Testament.aspx#ArticleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-80465998881420289992014-03-15T09:08:46.242-04:002014-03-15T09:08:46.242-04:00No problem, Felix. Copy and paste errors get the ...No problem, Felix. Copy and paste errors get the best of us. Thanks for the correction.<br /><br />One point I forgot to mention last time: check out <a href="http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/isaiah/mhc/isaiah65.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/isaiah/mhc/isaiah65.htm</a>. By clicking on the different names, you can get many various takes on Isaiah 65. I will let you decide how widespread the Millennial interpretation is. :-)<br /><br />I normally try to shy away from the type of defense I am about to use, because it is inherently difficult to accept for a believer, but I think it really explains what is happening in this particular set of Leviticus verses.<br /><br />If you know anything about the construction of the Old Testament, you know that it was subject to many revisions and this particular section came to its final form well after the Israelites had left the Tabernacle. My suggestion would be that the verbiage here was written by an author with the Temple in mind. So when the author was writing "forever" and "throughout their generations", it was because that is how the author perceived what would (or should) be going on with the Temple, and that author had no concept of Jesus coming into the mix at a later date.<br /><br />In fact, I would further suggest that this Temple-mindset is somewhat intuitive, as we know that this law transferred applicability to the Temple upon its construction.<br /><br />So I would venture to say that this was nothing more than the author either anachronistically writing Temple requirements into the Tabernacle story line, or the author simply writing it with the perspective of knowing the requirements directly applied to the Temple through an inherent, implicit transference of laws from Tabernacle to Temple. Furthermore, based on this perspective, I would suggest that the author really did have forever in mind.<br /><br />Speaking of the Law, may I suggest reading <a href="http://ponderingtruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/i-am-law.html" rel="nofollow">my study on God's opinion of His Law</a>? I think you may find it interesting, even if you do not agree with my conclusion. ;-) It is a completely different format than my other posts. There is no real challenge or questioning what is in the text. It is just a comprehensive look at the Law as portrayed in the Old Testament.<br /><br />Best wishes!TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-9440020714084617232014-03-15T02:20:30.178-04:002014-03-15T02:20:30.178-04:00"1,000 year Messianic ", sorry
TWF:
So..."1,000 year Messianic ", sorry<br /><br />TWF:<br /><br />Sorry, I failed to paste that part, had trouble chopping my response into two. <br /><br />"And the priest shall throw the blood on the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting and burn the fat for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. 7So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations."<br /><br />I had a feeling that would be your response, as it appears to be a fairly valid interpretation to say the ban on sacrifices to goat demons/idols. I, however, took it the other way because after stating that an ordinance lasting forever, the text immediately after states that the Israelites are to bring their sacrifices to the Tent of Meeting or face the penalty of being cut off. Thus I think the statements saying that the Israelites shall bring their sacrifices to the Tent and shall no more sacrifice to goat demons/idols as a regulation followed by an explanation for why. Moreover, the section begins by saying "This is the thing that the LORD has commanded" and then states the Israelites are to bring anything they kill "outside the camp" to the Tent of Meeting. Beyond this, sectioning the this chapter into two--concerning a single permanent injunction proscribing that all sacrifices are to be brought to the Tent of Meeting--results in the passage flowing better, not resulting in an orphaned ban on sacrifices to goat idols sandwiched between two injunction to bring sacrifices to the Tent of Meeting. Thus there is v. 3 command, v. 4 consequence for defiance, v. 5 reasoning/purpose, v. 6 explication, v. 7 reasoning, v. 8-9 reiteration of command an consequence, extending it also to "sojourners". <br /><br />Alternatively, I may state that because God has made statements banning both sacrifices not being taken to the Tent of Meeting and against sacrificing to Goat idols, both are part of the Law of God. Yet the Law of God is forever and there is an injunction neither to add or subtract from it. Thus, it would seem that every ordinance is to last forever itself. Yet one ordinance (requiring sacrifices be brought to the Tent of Meeting) is distinctly transient, only to last as long as there is a Tent and not a Temple. Thus although each command is to last forever, at least one command does not; if one, then why not more? (Mind you, I'm not sure this idea rightly represents Christian theology)<br /><br />Thank you for responding again, hope things go well for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-25171138758129729682014-03-15T00:09:47.128-04:002014-03-15T00:09:47.128-04:00Thanks for the comment Felix. I appreciate your o...Thanks for the comment Felix. I appreciate your opinion, even though I disagree with it. ;-)<br /><br />(By the way, I was wondering how long it would take you to point out the Tyre ruins. In some ways, it is a valid argument, yet it fails in others, and whatever bias one has for Tyre, one finds the answer one seeks.) <br /><br />I could probably spend a good few hours elaborating on all of the various nuances of issues throughout the Ezekiel 40-48 prophecy, but I am not sure that would be beneficial to either of us at this point. In fact, I would really like to expand into other prophesies, and paint a cohesive picture for you of what was really going on, but its been my experience such discussions online tend to meander around a little too much to truly be valuable to either party.<br /><br />You have made about as strong a case as one can make in a short space. In my opinion, your argument does not fully consider the context which better defines whether or not "forever" means until "until God changes His mind" or actually forever.<br /><br />Take, for example, your example. You pasted in Leviticus 17:1-9 ESV, but it appears from your argument below it that you were referencing a different version, as you quoted "forever" and "throughout their generations" even though the ESV verses do not use those words. One can only presume that the ESV authors interpreted the original Hebrew sources, or perhaps their Latin sources, such that different words were better suited to the intended meaning.<br /><br />Then, of course, is the form of argument that many Christians are familiar with regarding the Law. What is the "spirit" of that ordinance? Is it really about bringing the sacrifice to a certain place, or is it instead trying to ensure that the Israelites do not fall back into their pagan practices again? Leviticus 17:7 in NIV would seem to support that latter case:<br /><br />"<i>They must <b>no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols</b> to whom they prostitute themselves. <b>This is to be a lasting ordinance</b> for them and for the generations to come.'</i>"<br /><br />Indeed, one could easily follow the spirit of this law forever, despite not being able to follow the letter of the law given a Tabernacle/Temple issue.<br /><br />So, as best as I can offer, I would suggest that you take some elevated degree of caution in evaluating the Ezekiel 40-48 eternal references with the mindset that "because it would not match New Testament information, it must be a kind of 'temporary forever'."<br /><br />Indeed, visa-versa would apply to an overly hasty evaluation on my part as well. However, I do have what I believe to be a more solid foundation; the rest of the Old Testament. Even your own words implicitly recognize that the unchanging God of the Bible has changed, as you acknowledged the differences:<br /><br />"<i>In regards to the Ezekiel temple <b>being antithetical to Christian understanding</b> apart from "forever" talk, I don't feel it's particularly more stringent or <b>incongruous than the procedure of the first temple and tent of meeting</b>.</i>"<br /><br />I know, I know. It is a dispensational thing. Different strategies for different times, each serving their purpose. ;-)<br /><br />Maybe so. It does not appear to me that the text supports that, but maybe so. I have been wrong before...<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for the discussion here! Feel free to comment anytime on any of the posts. Best wishes!TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-63276959819831224922014-03-14T21:25:31.525-04:002014-03-14T21:25:31.525-04:00A better example however, may be in this following...A better example however, may be in this following passage from Leviticus 17 (ESV):<br />1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2“Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the people of Israel and say to them, This is the thing that the <br />Lord has commanded. 3If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, 4and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people. 5This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, that they may bring them to the Lord, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the Lord. 6And the priest shall throw the blood on the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting and burn the fat for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. 7So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore. <br /><br />8“And you shall say to them, Any one of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice 9and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from his people.<br /><br />Here is an emphatic statement that the Isrealites will "forever" and "throughout their generations" be required to bring their sacrifices to the tent of meeting, also would demonstrate a transient use of even emphatic terms as the tent of meeting was eventually done away with. Thus "forever" can mean "not forever" or "until a given order of things is no more". So, when the Tent of Meeting was done away with and there was a temple where sacrifices were to be offered, the seemingly everlasting regulation was done away with. Thus a given situation lasting "forever" (such as God dwelling in Ezekiel's temple or his everlasting grudge against non-Zadokite's or even a period in which men live under the law that is said to be perfect and endure forever) may not, at least in the language of the Old Testament.<br /><br />As for the the terrestial/earth-based kingdom, I think a widespread Christian interpretation is the New Heavens and New Earth in Isaiah represent the 1000-year Messianic range, which will then be followed by a final judgment and the creation of a an actually new heavens and earth which will also feature a terrestrial reign, but actually enduring without end with each man in a final state (the saved and unsaved in their respective states of glory and pleasure, and shame and suffering). <br /><br />In regards to the Ezekiel temple being antithetical to Christian understanding apart from "forever" talk, I don't feel it's particularly more stringent or incongruous than the procedure of the first temple and tent of meeting.<br /><br />Thank you for responding, hope I typed what I meant comprehensibly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-40623868187709223162014-03-14T21:25:27.615-04:002014-03-14T21:25:27.615-04:00TWF:
On the point of language I should have speci...TWF:<br /><br />On the point of language I should have specified. In the case of the scientist writing in a paper, the language would be technical and figurative speech limited, while in the case of the popular book, the language used would be somewhat looser yet still accurate. However, attempting to read the latter sort of text as the form would result in an incorrect reading of idioms, figures of speech, etc.. This would also hold if a reader from a significantly different population read the same popular book, because they would likely not understand and so misinterpret idioms, etc. even if they read the reader was literate in the book's language.<br /><br />What would be integral to ascertaining whether the writer was a competent scientist, however, would be if the information was accurate--at least in relation to scientific understanding at the time of the work's writing--only when reading a given work as the correct sort of work and not as another sort (i.e. not reading an idiom as a technical statement, not reading a British turn-of-phrase or slang stiffly). The reason I pointed out circularity, however, is that one reason a figurative reading is advanced in this case is because--if the prophecy is stating Tyre will will never be rebuilt and Tyre was the city which covered the whole island--there is a Tyre at present and determining whether or not the source being divine is dependent on determining whether or not the prophecy came true (here being the equivalent of the scientist being known to be competent based on whether or not he presents accurate science), which is naturally dependent on the interpretation of phrases such as "forever". <br /><br />If I want to be technical on my (I think) unorthodox interpretation of the Ezekiel temple prophecy, it is only stated that God will dwell in the temple forever and, even if the grudge against non-Zadokite preserves in the form of disallowing them from serving as the priests, it is not stated that the priesthood must. Or, alternatively, I might argue forever is used of actually temporary situations. For example, although a slave may vow to serve his master forever, it is obvious that a slave will eventually die and so cannot serve forever. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-45242113527335750332014-03-09T19:54:44.114-04:002014-03-09T19:54:44.114-04:00Hi Felix.
Funny that I messed up with the homop...Hi Felix. <br /><br />Funny that I messed up with the homophone last time... sensor versus censor. :-)<br /><br />I would not go so far as to say that Jesus absolutely could not be woven into the Ezekiel 40-48 Temple (and many faithful scholars have tried that!), but there are some peculiarities with such an approach. You mention it being difficult for Jesus to have been killed in such a Jerusalem. Knowing the prophesies, my impression is that I am not certain that would be such a restriction, but that is a whole other discussion! Other potentially weird things include for example:<br /><br />- Presumably, you are fine with the interpretation that this is a terrestrial, earth-based eternal kingdom, meaning that you take the New Heaven/New Earth in Revelation (and Isaiah) to be metaphorical. (This comes into play with God's knowing the end from the beginning...)<br /><br />- You have God restricting access to Himself.<br /><br />- You have God's restriction on uncircumcised Gentiles gaining access to the Sanctuary.<br /><br />- Restrictions on sweaty clothes<br /><br />- You have the Zadok lineage being the exclusive priests.<br /><br />- You have God holding an eternal grudge against the other Levites<br /><br />- Keeping the Sabbaths (Obviously that may not be a big deal to you, depending on your denomination.)<br /><br />(For reference, all but the first point are in Ezekiel 44. There more oddities beyond this chapter.)<br /><br />So, for me, I have put all of this information together and come up with the conclusion that while it may be possible to work Jesus into the Ezekiel Temple, it just does not seem very likely. In many ways, Christianity offers the antithesis of what is represented in these chapters.<br /><br />The best argument I can give you in support of the Ezekiel Temple prophesy is that God gave that prophesy in order to create a certain reaction in His people in order to orchestrate some master plan. However, I am sure you can see how such an approach sets off a red flag for skeptics.<br /><br />As for the language, indeed, God would need to speak at some lower vernacular level in order to be understood. Yet I do not think that is a sufficiently strong. (Not that my argument is at all conclusive either!) For example, Neil deGrasse Tyson could easily spin off into territory way over my head, but he has a wonderful skill of being able to articulate complex topics in a manner which are easier to be comprehended. Yet, all the while, you can tell Neil is a pretty smart dude, and he uses vocabulary with a distinction from the "common folk."<br /><br />No need to apologize about the comments. :-)<br /><br />By the way, back to what you were originally referring to, the lunar/solar calendar thing, that gets really complicated. You likely know that there are adjustments made every so often to keep the seasons in the correct spot on the lunar calendar. As I remember researching this post, different denominations used different counting standards, and it all got really too complex to wrap up into this one post. So I avoided it. You may notice that in the "The Times" section, I just referenced what specific denominations suggested as the dates, letting them decide which calendar to use. :-)<br /><br />TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-21936671947423628772014-03-08T21:16:59.241-05:002014-03-08T21:16:59.241-05:00In my head I was thinking if this temple were be b...In my head I was thinking if this temple were be built it would only be incidental to the death of Christ as the actual second temple was that Old Tsestament texts set in the post-exile period (Zechariah and Haggai, in particular) of Israel present as being constructed at YHWH's command. The Israel presented in Ezekiel 40-48 does, however, appear more difficult to square away with the New Testament interpretation of Old Testament prophecies (that is, Christ being killed at all in such an Israel).<br /><br />On your second point I am somewhat undecided. I would think whether or not what the words stated would come to pass would be more important in determining if there was the message of a divine figure. The language would simply be an accession to the people of a period for the sake of understanding or simply to speak in a way to resonant with the listeners. To bounce off your analogy, the difference between a scientist writing a paper for his peers and a book for pulp consumption both dealing with the same subject. If there seems to be circularity in this, please point it out.<br /><br />Best wishes to you, too. Sorry for my messy commenting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-17613386746193391112014-03-07T19:38:31.161-05:002014-03-07T19:38:31.161-05:00Felix, thanks for the replies. Sorry for the dela...<b>Felix</b>, thanks for the replies. Sorry for the delay. I do not sensor any objections to my conjectures, but I have had to put on comment moderation to handle the SPAM which still makes it by Google's filter. For some reason it always seems to be the nastiest stuff that slips by, and so I am erring on the side of caution. Thanks for tolerating the moderation. Also note that I am traveling around a lot, so it will be difficult at times to reply, or even to approve your comments, in a timely fashion.<br /><br />May I suggest to you that the Ezekiel 40-48 Temple prophesy is not so easily swept aside? As I recall, there is indeed at least one spot, if not more, later on in the prophesy with a qualifying if. Indeed, consideration of "if" is critical to understanding many prophesies, such as the most infamously overlooked "ifs" (in my book ;-) regarding David's throne of 1 Kings 2:4, 1 Kings 8:25, etc., with the "for ever" essentially being defined in verses like Proverbs 29:14. I am sorry. I digressed. It is so easy to do here. Where was I... oh yes. If. If the prophetic offer was made by God in earnest (which would necessarily be the case based on God's attributes, right?), then truly Jesus' blood was not necessary, and philosophies built around verses such as Hebrews 10:4 crumble apart. For if this Temple could have gone on forever with ritualistic sacrifice of animals for the explicit purpose of atonement, it proves that Jesus' blood was not necessary, and that the blood of animals can take away sin. Not to mention, there are the several odd theological questions which center around God making a plan and offer which He knew would be impossible for us mortals to keep... So, while one can, with some level of justification, simply explain that this is not a failed prophesy because it was an offer contingent upon acceptance and adherence by the Israelites (and they did not keep up their end of the bargain), there are larger issues which the mere presence of the Holy offer creates.<br /><br />As for the trash talking, it is definitely a valid point, but it comes with an unintended consequence. The quote you provided said"<br /><br />"<i>Ezekiel does not predict a permanent destruction but <b>uses the ancient metaphors of war</b> to describe the seriousness of Tyre's predicament.</i><br /><br />At first glance, this looks perfectly logical, but what you have to realize is that this is an implicit confirmation that the language being used in the Bible was nothing more than the language that was being used at the time, and that makes it a very difficult case to argue that it really does have a divine origin. I mean, this is God we are talking about. I would expect a notable difference. A hip hop artist and a scientist may speak the same language, but I would expect them to express that your life is in immanent peril using very different words. Is that reasonable?<br /><br />Of course, there are other philosophical angles I could argue too, like if "never" is hyperbole, how do you have any assurance that "eternal" is in fact eternal and not just a long time, like I spent an eternity in line at the DMV. :-) The more certain the words are to mean what they say, the more reliable God's Word is, and visa versa.<br /><br />Best wishes.TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-84912457025367128082014-03-07T13:33:11.413-05:002014-03-07T13:33:11.413-05:00Sorry for so many. "unmotivated" respons...Sorry for so many. "unmotivated" responses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-62782603463432388302014-03-07T13:32:16.643-05:002014-03-07T13:32:16.643-05:00The only other resolution that I know is by having...<br />The only other resolution that I know is by having the prophecy declaring Tyre to be forever destroyed as centering on the presently ruined south of the island while the modern city is "Sur", taken as a separate city. This is probably a weaker argument.<br /><br />Another is that later rebuildings do not count as they were as a "Phoenician city-state" but as and by foreign powers such as Rome, the Crusaders, and the Caliphate.<br /><br /><br /><br />A "better" one is the talk of being lost never to be found and destroyed forever is simply ancient hyperbole to emphasize how much damage will be wrought.<br /><br />Quoting 'Tektonics.org'<br /><br /> What then of "built no more"? Previously I followed the appeals that went as far as using Mulsim Crusaders as fulfillment, but I now see than as unnecessary. It is here where I now bring in specific insights learned from observation of ancient use of hyperbole, especially in oracles of war. Consider first this statement from Ramesses III:<br /><br />I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore.<br />Ramesses speaks of the Sherden and Washesh being "made non-existent" but then goes on to say that they were captured. Is this contradictory? Of course not. The "made non-existent" part is manifestly "trash talk". In the Victory Stele of Merneptah, we also see trash talk like, "Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent..."<br /><br />Clearly literal descriptions (conquered, seized) are mixed with clearly metaphorical ones (made non-existent), and that is what I now argue we have here. The threat to be "built no more" is trash talk like that of Ramesses speaking of his non-existent, captured people.<br /><br />In fact, Ezekiel goes on a skein of what we now regard as "trash talk" in the next several verses:<br /><br /><br />Islands shaking and trembling at the sound of a fall, the princes descending from their thrones and sitting in dust (signifying actually the fear of other nations over Tyre's conquest); the figures of desolation and of water flowing over, and descent into a dungeon -- all of these bespeak ancient "trash talk" and threats like that of turning Edom's streams into pitch (Is. 34:9).<br /><br />Therefore there is no need for my previous arguments with respect to the identities of the ancient and modern cities, or never "finding" the city again. Ezekiel does not predict a permanent destruction but uses the ancient metaphors of war to describe the seriousness of Tyre's predicament."<br /><br />This latter reasoning, however, I'm certain will be found deficient as the quotation of the Stele is not entirely congruous to the primary statement in question.<br />It would be nice if there were some greater concensus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-43268461403484210322014-03-07T13:31:56.498-05:002014-03-07T13:31:56.498-05:00The only other resolution that I know is by having...<br />The only other resolution that I know is by having the prophecy declaring Tyre to be forever destroyed as centering on the presently ruined south of the island while the modern city is "Sur", taken as a separate city. This is probably a weaker argument.<br /><br />Another is that later rebuildings do not count as they were as a "Phoenician city-state" but as and by foreign powers such as Rome, the Crusaders, and the Caliphate.<br /><br /><br /><br />A "better" one is the talk of being lost never to be found and destroyed forever is simply ancient hyperbole to emphasize how much damage will be wrought.<br /><br />Quoting 'Tektonics.org'<br /><br /> What then of "built no more"? Previously I followed the appeals that went as far as using Mulsim Crusaders as fulfillment, but I now see than as unnecessary. It is here where I now bring in specific insights learned from observation of ancient use of hyperbole, especially in oracles of war. Consider first this statement from Ramesses III:<br /><br />I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore.<br />Ramesses speaks of the Sherden and Washesh being "made non-existent" but then goes on to say that they were captured. Is this contradictory? Of course not. The "made non-existent" part is manifestly "trash talk". In the Victory Stele of Merneptah, we also see trash talk like, "Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent..."<br /><br />Clearly literal descriptions (conquered, seized) are mixed with clearly metaphorical ones (made non-existent), and that is what I now argue we have here. The threat to be "built no more" is trash talk like that of Ramesses speaking of his non-existent, captured people.<br /><br />In fact, Ezekiel goes on a skein of what we now regard as "trash talk" in the next several verses:<br /><br /><br />Islands shaking and trembling at the sound of a fall, the princes descending from their thrones and sitting in dust (signifying actually the fear of other nations over Tyre's conquest); the figures of desolation and of water flowing over, and descent into a dungeon -- all of these bespeak ancient "trash talk" and threats like that of turning Edom's streams into pitch (Is. 34:9).<br /><br />Therefore there is no need for my previous arguments with respect to the identities of the ancient and modern cities, or never "finding" the city again. Ezekiel does not predict a permanent destruction but uses the ancient metaphors of war to describe the seriousness of Tyre's predicament."<br /><br />This latter reasoning, however, I'm certain will be found deficient as the quotation of the Stele is not entirely congruous to the primary statement in question.<br />It would be nice if there were some greater concensus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-20312395939517102552014-03-07T10:28:23.569-05:002014-03-07T10:28:23.569-05:00TWF:
I'm aware of both of those. On the point ...TWF:<br />I'm aware of both of those. On the point of the temple prophecy, the only interpretation that seemed to square well with Christian doctrine is that Ezekiel 40-48 was a very long conditional 'prophecy' for the exilic generation of the Hebrews hinging upon an 'if' in the passage that has long expired. That said I don't believe I'm particularly trying to convince you of this prophecy's validity, just make some comments on how I have heard the weeks prophecy interpreted, not being the best qualified to explain the reasoning put behind these interpretations. Presently I think I'm sitting very much on the "even the demons believe and tremble" side of belief and so, if I am motivated to convince from any idea, it's there.<br /><br /><br /><br />Thanks for responding again. It's great you keep up with this blog's comments. Hope, when you have more time, someone who has studied longer might have discussions with you, especially since the "Calvinist" interpretation played a role in your decisions regarding belief. <br /><br />Thanks again, hope things go well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-71001293503224176322014-03-06T23:29:56.122-05:002014-03-06T23:29:56.122-05:00Felix, I applaud you for actually digging into the...Felix, I applaud you for actually digging into the Bible. That is great! Keep it up!<br /><br /><a href="http://ponderingtruth.blogspot.com/2008/08/26-book-of-ezekiel-summarized.html#ch26" rel="nofollow">Ezekiel 26</a>... I have summarized it as this in my chapter-by-chapter summaries:<br /><br />" On the first day of the month in the eleventh year, God told Ezekiel to prophesy against Tyre. Because Tyre rejoiced at the destruction of Jerusalem, God will send Babylon to utterly destroy them. They will be plundered, killed, and reduced to a flat rock. They will never be rebuilt. People all along the sea will lament its destruction. God will take them to the grave, and they will not return to the land of the living. They will never be found again."<br /><br />And, as you may know, Ezekiel 25-26 continue on against Tyre, although most Christian interpretations like to substitute Satan into the equation around there. Anyway...<br /><br />There is no timeline given in the prophesy, though it begins with a pronouncement of when the prophesy was given. I will spare you the secular scholarly interpretation of why that may be the case. ;-)<br /><br />Without a timeline, such as Daniel's weeks, or God's promise to Abraham, it is hard to say that this is a direct and applicable comparison.<br /><br />Complicating that matter for you even more is that the chapter's last verse is:<br /><br />"I will bring you to a horrible end and <b>you will be no more</b>. You will be sought, but <b>you will never again be found</b>, declares the Sovereign LORD." NIV<br /><br />Yet Jesus and Paul both managed to find Tyre.<br /><br />I would also challenge you by citing another Ezekiel prophesy, chapters 40-48. There you will find the establishment of an everlasting, terrestrial Temple, with the restoration of animal sacrifice. That is going to be a little difficult to reconcile with Jesus' one-sacrifice-takes-care-of-it-all-forever approach. Best wishes to you Felix.TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-92025779411108412382014-03-06T22:43:54.519-05:002014-03-06T22:43:54.519-05:00Ezekiel 26. Hope you do well with whatever is on y...Ezekiel 26. Hope you do well with whatever is on your plate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-56807081751956202692014-03-06T22:08:18.620-05:002014-03-06T22:08:18.620-05:00Hi Felix. I apologize, but I have got a lot on my...Hi Felix. I apologize, but I have got a lot on my plate in life right now (thus the terse response above), so, while I think I know which prophesy you are referring to, I am not certain, as I do not remember a timeline given on the prophesy I am thinking of.<br /><br />Would you mind citing the verse?<br /><br />ThanksTWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-9995133147242150772014-03-06T21:20:31.880-05:002014-03-06T21:20:31.880-05:00Thanks for responding.Thanks for responding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-70712980379318429362014-03-06T21:20:14.722-05:002014-03-06T21:20:14.722-05:00Off the top of my head, the closest thing that I c...Off the top of my head, the closest thing that I can think of is the chiasmus interpretation of the prophecy of Tyre where the outer parts are regarded as destruction from Nebuchadnezzar and the inner parts with destruction from "many nations" (in this case typically taken to mean Alexander the Great's army). That said, I think the "gap" position has some warrant, at least here, as the order the events are written mention the destruction of the temple by the "people of the prince" and then states that sacrifices will be halted and and then an abomination, meaning it would have to be rebuilt so that it could be rebuilt after the former so that there would be sacrifices to cut off and a place for the "abomination" and time for wars and desolations.<br /><br />That said, I think the shorter year is worth mentioning for the Hebrew use of a lunar calendar alone,<br /><br />Daniel 9 is probably one of the messier texts in regards to both the number of interpretations and translations with the way the "weeks" and events are partitioned.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-9734412389207735882014-03-06T20:12:59.074-05:002014-03-06T20:12:59.074-05:00Thanks for the comment Felix. If you have got any...Thanks for the comment Felix. If you have got any other prophesy where God pauses a prophesy from occurring sequentially like He said it would happen, you might just have something. But given that there is no such reference case, that makes lunar versus solar calendars a little unimportant.TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-87991730238424933692014-03-06T18:17:14.623-05:002014-03-06T18:17:14.623-05:00TWF:
I think you should not that when the "we...TWF:<br />I think you should not that when the "weeks" prophecy is used a 360-day year is assumed based on the equivocation between a period of three-and-a-half years and 1260 days in Daniel and Revelations, possibly also the lunar calendar. This typically put the end of 69 weeks sometime in the lifetime of Jesus (when is based on premises, with the one I originally encountered concluding on the day of the "Triumphal Entry") with the last week pushed off until the very end times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-34409447373412767312014-03-06T18:12:13.582-05:002014-03-06T18:12:13.582-05:00TWF:
I think you should not that typically when t...TWF: <br />I think you should not that typically when this prophecy is utilized a 360-day year is assumed, based on references to a 1260 day period seeming to be equivocated with a three and one half year period ((3 times 360) plus 180 = 1260) in Daniel and in Revelations. These typically put the end of 69 'weeks' at least around the time of Jesus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com