Whore of Babylon

[Nostik]

the bible makes some very clear statements which do not need to be interpreted.

If i make a statement, its a fact. And the bible makes such facts. If someone were to interpret a fact differently to what is stated, they are changing what the bible says.

For example, the bible says of Adam's death; "for dust you are and to dust you will return"
What does a human become after death? According to this verse, dust. But some say they return to 'spirit' which is completely contradictory.

If we were all to pluck out our eyes or cot off our hands as literally stated, there would be hell of a lot of mutilated people out there !:sarcastic:sarcastic

 

[savagewind]

If I make a statement, its a fact

I think you mean if you make a statement it is a fact that you have made a statement. Is that right?

 

[Pegg]

If we were all to pluck out our eyes or cot off our hands as literally stated, there would be hell of a lot of mutilated people out there !:sarcastic:sarcastic

Jesus used hyperbole a lot in his teachings. Can you put a camel through the eye of a needle? Of course not. Would someone literally rip out their eye? Of course not.

hyperbole is a way to make a point stand out, its not a statement of fact.

 

[Nostik]

Essentially then Pegg, you know what are facts and what are not?

 

[Nostik]

Jesus used hyperbole a lot in his teachings. Can you put a camel through the eye of a needle? Of course not. Would someone literally rip out their eye? Of course not.

hyperbole is a way to make a point stand out, its not a statement of fact.

The eye of a needle refers to a low gateway in Biblical times, incidentally, not a sewing needle

 

[savagewind]

The eye of a needle refers to a low gateway in Biblical times, incidentally, not a sewing needle

Thank you. I never stopped wondering about that.

 

[kjw47]

Who is "they"? Who are your teachers? How do you know that the teachings of Orthodox Christianity are false, and that your own personal interpretation of the Bible is more correct than how the students of the Apostles interpreted the Bible?

Jesus taught the Father is the only true God( John 17:1-6)verse 6 = YHWH(Jehovah)-- your teachers do not listen to Jesus. Jesus teaches he has a God like we do, his Father( YHWH(Jehovah)-John 20:17) Again while sitting at his Fathers right hand, Jesus stresses 4 times in a single paragraph, that he has a God.- (Rev 3:12) ------Believe Jesus. Paul did-1 cor 8:6

 

[Pegg]

Essentially then Pegg, you know what are facts and what are not?

the context will tell you if its an illustration, a story, an event or a statement of fact

 

[Pegg]

The eye of a needle refers to a low gateway in Biblical times, incidentally, not a sewing needle

I dont know if that is true or not, so im not going to debate on how the expression may or may not have been applied in bible times.

However, the context of Jesus illustration shows that he is speaking about the difficulty of getting a camel through a needles eye. If everyone thought he was speakign about the city gate, then that would not have been difficult to do seeing the city gate was the entrance way for all to pass in and out of.


Matt 19:24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to get through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.”


Why would it have been hard to get through the city gate???? It wouldnt. So he really was talking about a sewing needle which would have been well understood by his audience.

 

[savagewind]

I dont know if that is true or not, so im not going to debate on how the expression may or may not have been applied in bible times.

However, the context of Jesus illustration shows that he is speaking about the difficulty of getting a camel through a needles eye. If everyone thought he was speakign about the city gate, then that would not have been difficult to do seeing the city gate was the entrance way for all to pass in and out of.


Matt 19:24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to get through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.”


Why would it have been hard to get through the city gate???? It wouldnt. So he really was talking about a sewing needle which would have been well understood by his audience.

It might if the gate was smaller than a camel. Especially a camel with a pack on it's back.

 

[savagewind]

the bible makes some very clear statements which do not need to be interpreted.

If i make a statement, its a fact. And the bible makes such facts. If someone were to interpret a fact differently to what is stated, they are changing what the bible says.

For example, the bible says of Adam's death; "for dust you are and to dust you will return"
What does a human become after death? According to this verse, dust. But some say they return to 'spirit' which is completely contradictory.

What does it mean please?

 

[savagewind]

Does no one else wonder what it means?

 

[2ndpillar]

Jesus used hyperbole a lot in his teachings. Can you put a camel through the eye of a needle? Of course not. Would someone literally rip out their eye? Of course not.

hyperbole is a way to make a point stand out, its not a statement of fact.

Dear Peg,
The Aramaic translation is not "camel" but rope. Regardless it would be difficult, but all things are possible with God.(Mt 19:26) As for ripping out the eye, it is said that it would be "better", if they ripped out the eye. It is like the hiker who got stuck between two rocks in the desert mountains, and decided it was better to cut off his arm with a pocket knife, to free himself, than to die. One instance may be hyperbole, but the other is simple the way things are.

 

[savagewind]

"If I make a statement, it is a fact" sounds like you are saying you are never wrong. I can't believe that is what you mean. Am I on ignore?

 

[savagewind]

What would it mean if I said "if I make a statement it's a fact"? Someone else might help me out here. What does it mean?

I think that even if God said a statement it would not necessarily be FACT. So....

Is there another definition of the word 'fact' that I do not know about?

 

[Shiranui117]

the bible makes some very clear statements which do not need to be interpreted.

I think my list of "clear statements" would be different than yours, and both of ours would be different to, say, 2ndpillar and savagewind. Between the four of us, just using the Bible alone, would there be any way at all to prove which of us four is right? No. It'd just end with each of us saying "I'm right, the rest of you are wrong."

If i make a statement, its a fact.

Overconfident much? :areyoucra

And the bible makes such facts. If someone were to interpret a fact differently to what is stated, they are changing what the bible says.

But how do you know what fact the Bible is stating? Some passages are very unclear. And everyone under the sun seems to have a different idea about which passages are clear and which are unclear. So how can you tell what the Bible is saying using the Bible alone? You can't, it's just one person's personal interpretation vs. another's. This is why there are thousands and thousands of Sola Scripturist denominations; neither side can prove which is right, so they simply split and create new denominations.

For example, looking at an earlier post of yours:

Jesus used hyperbole a lot in his teachings. Can you put a camel through the eye of a needle? Of course not. Would someone literally rip out their eye? Of course not.

hyperbole is a way to make a point stand out, its not a statement of fact.

But this passage looks pretty clear to me. If my eye causes me to sin, I should pluck it out and cast it away. It's better to go into Heaven blind than to be cast into Hell with both my eyes. Jesus commands us to do a lot of things for the sake of the Kingdom of God that seem pretty extreme, like selling everything that we have and following Him. How is plucking my eye out any different? Therefore, Jesus' teaching that I should pluck out my eye and cut off my right hand if they cause me to sin are perfectly clear, and clearly stated as literal truths. Those who interpret them as hyperbole are simply unwilling to take Jesus seriously and go to extremes to follow Him. I will therefore use these verses about plucking out my eye and cutting off my hand to interpret the verses I deem to be unclear.

^Do you see how the process of Sola Scriptura results in so many divergent opinions on how the Bible should be interpreted? It elevates one man's own fallible human reason above what the authors of the Bible actually intended, and what God intends to tell us through those authors.

The Jehovah's Witnesses haven't suffered as much of the division problem, because the Watchtower also publishes what can be considered a "tradition" of how to interpret the Biblical text. All the magazines and papers on doctrine, theology, practice and Biblical interpretation the Watchtower puts out? The fact that the JW's rely on the Watchtower to know how the Bible should be interpreted? That's all proof that the Jehovah's Witnesses, just like the Catholics and the Orthodox, rely on an authority outside the Bible to understand how the Bible should be interpreted, and believe that those who go against this authority are going against the correct interpretation of the Bible.

If the Jehovah's Witnesses really did rely on the Bible alone for their doctrine, then we would have seen the same trend among them as we do among every single other denomination that at least claims to rely on the Bible alone for doctrine--they would be fracturing and splitting seven ways to Sunday. It's just the nature and end result of the Sola Scripturist position.

For example, the bible says of Adam's death; "for dust you are and to dust you will return"
What does a human become after death? According to this verse, dust. But some say they return to 'spirit' which is completely contradictory.

But this view also overlooks the evolution of Biblical thought on the nature of the afterlife. What that means is, in earlier books, the Jehovah's Witnesses position of man only consisting of a physical body is espoused, and that when we die, we're just dead, like what an atheist would say. But in later books, however, the body and soul are shown as being fully distinguished from one another, and Sheol (or Hades in the Greek Septuagint) is shown as not just being where your body gets thrown in, but is instead shown as being a dwelling-place and realm of the dead, whose spirits still exist as shades, and where the spirit does indeed have an existence independent of the body.

Likewise, in earlier parts of the Bible, death is described as being eternal; i.e. there is no resurrection of the dead according to earlier parts of the Bible. This can be contrasted, of course, with later writings such as Hosea and the New Testament.

Further, in the earliest parts of the Bible, henotheism (the teaching that there are many gods, but that only one should be worshipped) is stated as a fact (whence the "god of gods" reference in many of the Psalms of David). Only much later in books such as Isaiah is strict monotheism affirmed (see especially the latter chapters of Isaiah) and the existence of any other "gods" is flat-out denied, instead being called "worthless idols" or "demons".

What the doctrine of Sola Scriptura overlooks is that we need the historical, social and theological context to understand such things about the Bible and how it evolves as God gave more revelation to the people of Israel. Otherwise, you'll start using the wrong passages of the Bible to interpret the rest of it, not understanding the progressive revelation given by God to Israel that makes up the evolution of Biblical ideas. Just knowing the Bible isn't enough. Like any other book with many complex ideas and teachings, we need outside information on its authors, the historical and social context surrounding the time in which it was written, and the ideas and streams of thought common to those eras. Only then will we be able to have a much better understanding of the text beyond the surface level, and once we do that, we may find that our initial interpretations of the text were off-base.

Likewise, interpreting a text using the text itself may lead to some very wrong interpretations. But when we use the extra-text context, then we begin to understand what it actually means. This is why using both the oral and written parts of the Tradition handed down to us by the Apostles, not just the written part (the Bible) but also the oral part (the preaching and teaching of the Apostles, and their teachings to their students which weren't written in the Bible) is so key to having a correct understanding of the Bible, because both the oral and written parts of the Tradition inform one another.

 

[savagewind]

Overconfident much?

The Ten Commandments
…4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, Jehovah your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments

Do you remember I said even if God makes a statement it is not necessarily a fact? Above see my example please.

God says "on the third and the forth" generation. Well...which one is it? Of all those of the third and the forth generation are any able to escape?

What about the blessing? Do "thousands" of generations after actually enjoy Jehovah's blessings?

The third, the forth, and thousands is not a fact, but God said it!

 

[kaoticprofit]

Dear Shira,
If you will note in Daniel 2, Rome has little power in the end, and will be mixed with common clay. As for the power of Rome in this generation, well, the 3rd Roman empire, the 3rd Reich, was recently defeated in 1945, but you must remember, the foot of iron and clay had 10 toes, and the beast of Rev had 10 horns. Hitler and Julius Caesar both usurped the Republic for a dictatorship, the same is being done today by our Muslim dictator in chief, Hussein Obama, in the form of executive orders to turn our country into an Abomination of Harlotry and Immorality. He is already scheduled to meet the pope, and work out the partition of Jerusalem, which is a sign of the times of Joel 3:2, in which the nations will be arraigned against Jerusalem and then be judged by the hand of God.

The Protestant interpretation of Daniel 2 is a colossal blunder.

Daniel 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

The only thing said about the second kingdom is that it's inferior to Babylon. What kingdom was inferior to Babylon? Was Medo-Persia the inferior kingdom? Absolutely not!

The word inferior in this passage is "arah" which means earth, world, and ground. This is the only place the word land is translated 'inferior.' So if inferior means land or 'land inferior', that rules out the Medo-Persian empire as the second empire since it was about three times the size of Babylon! It wasn't 'land inferior' to Babylon. The Median Empire was not only short-lived but it was also much smaller making it the 'inferior kingdom'.

Daniel 5 quotes Darius the Mead as the one who "took" Babylon at the age of 62. Not Cyrus like the secularist would have you believe.

Daniel, Isaiah's, and Jeremiah's prophecies ascribe the conquest and destruction of Babylon to the Medes.

Daniel 5:31
"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

Jeremiah 51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath
raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against
Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance
of his temple.

Another Protestant blunder about Daniel 2 is the belief that Rome is the legs of iron and toes 'mingled' with iron and clay.

I would like someone on the forum to explain how the word mixed can denote an Italian when the word is the Chaldean word 'arab!'

The iron and clay better describes the Arabs and Muslims. Rome and Europe is unified. The Arabs are divided, not cleaved to one another, and mixed with the seed of men. The Arabs are the most intermarried people in the world.

Daniel 2 - BLACKSHEEPPROPHECIES.COM

 

[kaoticprofit]

Several times in Revelation, Babylon/whore of Babylon is referred to as that great city. A city that sits on seven mountains ( Rev. 17:9), a city that reigns over the kings of the earth (Rev.17:18), a wealthy city, clothed in fine linen, purple, and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls!(Rev.18:16), caused the nations of the earth to commit spiritual fornication (Rev. 14:8; 17"2-4; 18:3,9 and 19:2) and is drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.(Rev.17:6)

I see Rome and Vatican City now in particular with the Pope as its head meeting these criteria through history since Constantine began politicizing the Roman Church.

That's incorrect. Rome DOES NOT sit on seven 'mountains'. It doesn't even sit on 'seven hills.' There are seven hills on the East side of the Tiber. Rome or 'Vatican Hill' sits on the west side of the Tiber. THAT MAKES 8 HILLS TOTAL! AND! The word 'hills' is the word 'oros' which is better translated 'mountains' anyway! If John wanted to indicate HILLS he would have used this word...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H1389&t=KJV

But he didn't. He used this word...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3735&t=KJV

And here G5602 is the mind G3563 which G3588 hath G2192 wisdom. G4678 The seven G2033 heads G2776 are G1526 seven G2033 mountains, G3735 on G1909 which G846 the woman G1135 sitteth. G2521 G3699

Rome will have absolutely nothing to do with end-time prophecy.

 

[kaoticprofit]

Dear kjw,
The 7 headed beast of Rev 17 is the same 7 headed beast of Rev 13. With regards to the beast of Rev 17, Rev was written during the period of the 6th head (Rev 17:10) The beast parallels Daniel 7:4-7, in that the lion, bear, leopard, and dreadful beast, represent, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome (Rev 13:2). Rev 17 was written during the reign of the 6th beast, Augustus Caesar, which was the title of the kings of Rome following Julius Caesar, the 5th head which was slain,..and was healed. (Rev 13:3)

That's incorrect. ALL the heads and horns of the beast(s) are end-time king or empires. They DO NOT represent a succession of world empires. That's another colossal Protestant blunder of interpretation.