|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Oct 4, 2017 10:39:47 GMT -6
It's a very interesting topic. Until I can see a good reason to think otherwise, I believe it is as the Bible says--they are virgins, and they are male. Rather than dispute this, I tend to then think about where these (evidently young) men are today, especially since most of them come from tribes that are not easily represented in the current geographically recognized nation of Israel. My concept is that when we find out where the various tribes have been hiding out, there will be some surprises and some major "aha" moments. Going back to the Ezekiel 37 2-sticks passage, along with Isaiah 11, it really looks like the rejoining of the 12 (13?) tribes is underway today but the bulk of them have not been revealed. More discussion on that passage in the "Mysterious Dan" thread. But we could expect to come up with the 12,000 from Judah fairly easily, and quite possibly the 12,000 from Levi, and maybe the 12,000 from Benjamin from the current known Jews in the world. (Remember, less than half of all known Jews are in the state of Israel at this time). There are no doubt a few from other tribes--Anna in the New Testament was descended from Asher--but the thing is, the modern Jews have NOT been keeping track of what tribe they are in, and most do not know. The bulk of the 10 northern tribes still needs to be rejoined as in the 2-sticks prophecy. And--it may finally be underway at long last. . . . two days after the Revelation 12 Sign. . . . . . . . But it's too early to say for sure. Do you think its necessary for the 144,000 to know what tribes they are from? However they are selected or called, wouldnt the Lord get it right? That "AH HA!" moment where they are all mysteriously 12,000 from each tribe  Mike, it is not necessary for them to know what tribe they are from when they first believe on Christ, and it is possible they don't know until well after the fact. But the way it is presented in Revelation seems to indicate they will know, at least by the time they are selected to be in this particular special group, what tribe they are from. I have been supposing that if they didn't already know their tribe, God will reveal it one way or another about this time--possibly by direct message from the Holy Spirit or by prophecy of the Two Witnesses. HOWEVER it may be possible for it to not be revealed until long after the fact. BUT--they will know by this time that they are indeed genetic Israelites. This is a big deal because from what I can see right now, the world does not know or acknowledge the identity of the majority of genetic Israel. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Oct 4, 2017 20:46:19 GMT -6
Very nice kjs, every one of you make some good points. I would ask you to watch this video and then give me your thoughts....... |
|
|
|
Post by sawdy on Oct 4, 2017 21:52:27 GMT -6
Very nice kjs, every one of you make some good points. I would ask you to watch this video and then give me your thoughts...... Interesting video. I had already figured out that they wouldn't be JW's, but what he showed was pretty compelling. My only question is, and it really doesn't have to do with what he said, but of all the babies Jesus' age were killed, how did John the Baptist survive? |
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Oct 5, 2017 1:56:23 GMT -6
Very nice kjs , every one of you make some good points. I would ask you to watch this video and then give me your thoughts...... Interesting video. I had already figured out that they wouldn't be JW's, but what he showed was pretty compelling. My only question is, and it really doesn't have to do with what he said, but of all the babies Jesus' age were killed, how did John the Baptist survive? 2 Things. 1. I don;t believe it was ALL the babies, but rather all the babies in Bethlehem. John was probably in Jerusalem with his parents (his father being a priest, and all). 2. John was older than Jesus--Jesus was probably 2 years old at the time of the slaughter. That's why Herod had them kill the babies that were as old as 2. (So I've been told). It was at Bethlehem this happened, and we have the interesting reference to Rachel weeping for her children. This is because Rachel, unlike Leah and the rest of the family, was buried at Bethlehem. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Oct 5, 2017 21:23:14 GMT -6
Very nice kjs , every one of you make some good points. I would ask you to watch this video and then give me your thoughts...... Interesting video. I had already figured out that they wouldn't be JW's, but what he showed was pretty compelling. My only question is, and it really doesn't have to do with what he said, but of all the babies Jesus' age were killed, how did John the Baptist survive? That's a great question sawdy , and we would need to know where he was when he was 2 yrs old. It's purely speculation on my part but, since Gabriel warned Joseph and told him to take the Messiah and Mary into Egypt, my guess is that it was also told to John's father as well and the bible just had nothing to say about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Oct 5, 2017 21:36:06 GMT -6
Interesting video. I had already figured out that they wouldn't be JW's, but what he showed was pretty compelling. My only question is, and it really doesn't have to do with what he said, but of all the babies Jesus' age were killed, how did John the Baptist survive? 2 Things. 1. I don;t believe it was ALL the babies, but rather all the babies in Bethlehem. John was probably in Jerusalem with his parents (his father being a priest, and all). 2. John was older than Jesus--Jesus was probably 2 years old at the time of the slaughter. That's why Herod had them kill the babies that were as old as 2. (So I've been told). It was at Bethlehem this happened, and we have the interesting reference to Rachel weeping for her children. This is because Rachel, unlike Leah and the rest of the family, was buried at Bethlehem. Hey watchmanjim , I just wanted to address point #1 in your statement you say "I don;t believe it was ALL the babies, but rather all the babies in Bethlehem" but that isn't what the bible says. Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Beth-lehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under. Now if my geography is correct, there was a whole lot of coasts just west of Bethlehem. |
|
|
|
Post by MissusMack08 on Oct 6, 2017 12:17:20 GMT -6
2 Things. 1. I don;t believe it was ALL the babies, but rather all the babies in Bethlehem. John was probably in Jerusalem with his parents (his father being a priest, and all). 2. John was older than Jesus--Jesus was probably 2 years old at the time of the slaughter. That's why Herod had them kill the babies that were as old as 2. (So I've been told). It was at Bethlehem this happened, and we have the interesting reference to Rachel weeping for her children. This is because Rachel, unlike Leah and the rest of the family, was buried at Bethlehem. Hey watchmanjim , I just wanted to address point #1 in your statement you say "I don;t believe it was ALL the babies, but rather all the babies in Bethlehem" but that isn't what the bible says. Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Beth-lehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under. Now if my geography is correct, there was a whole lot of coasts just west of Bethlehem. The KJV translates it as "coasts" but it really means more like "borders" or "boundaries." I don't believe it literally means like "coasts by the sea." www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3725&t=NKJV |
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Oct 6, 2017 15:01:36 GMT -6
Hey watchmanjim , I just wanted to address point #1 in your statement you say "I don;t believe it was ALL the babies, but rather all the babies in Bethlehem" but that isn't what the bible says. Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Beth-lehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under. Now if my geography is correct, there was a whole lot of coasts just west of Bethlehem. The KJV translates it as "coasts" but it really means more like "borders" or "boundaries." I don't believe it literally means like "coasts by the sea." www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3725&t=NKJVDear MissusMack08 , as much as I hate to disagree with you, the KJV 1611 version is the most accurate translation of the true intended word of our Lord today. Take just the NIV as one example, they have changed over 3000 words in it and in some instances completely removed entire verses in an attempt to corrupt God's word. Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to lecture you or convince you of anything you don't believe. I would ask that you take faith in that I have done my due dillagence of looking into the matter. So when the KJV tells me, " the coasts there of" that is what I believe. We need to let scripture interrupt itself and not the other way around. According to the Lexicon the one time it may be referred to as border is in Mat 4:14 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders G3725 of Zabulon and Nephthalim: With all love and humility Rick 2Ti 2:15 |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Oct 6, 2017 16:45:21 GMT -6
I'm a bit late to this, but I wanted to address the NIV issue. I wasn't sure who posted about it ( galen ?), but what copyright year is your NIV? My 1984 copyright does not use the word virgins, but I have found that the newest copyright of NIV has changed somethings, and it's not always for the better. I'm sure biblehub uses the newest copyright. |
|
|
|
Post by MissusMack08 on Oct 6, 2017 17:26:52 GMT -6
Dear MissusMack08 , as much as I hate to disagree with you, the KJV 1611 version is the most accurate translation of the true intended word of our Lord today. Take just the NIV as one example, they have changed over 3000 words in it and in some instances completely removed entire verses in an attempt to corrupt God's word. Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to lecture you or convince you of anything you don't believe. I would ask that you take faith in that I have done my due dillagence of looking into the matter. So when the KJV tells me, " the coasts there of" that is what I believe. We need to let scripture interrupt itself and not the other way around. According to the Lexicon the one time it may be referred to as border is in Mat 4:14 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders G3725 of Zabulon and Nephthalim: With all love and humility Rick 2Ti 2:15 Please consider the possibility that the word "coast" used in the KJV does not have exactly the same definition used then (1600s) as it does now. This is why different translations have been done recently (not to defend any of them as being accurate) but because the actual language used then does not always mean the same thing as it does now. Language changes over time. This is why it is very difficult to read Geoffrey Chaucer, and Olde English is impossible for anyone who has not studied it to read. So while the 1611 KJV may be the most accurate translation, it is only if you completely understand 1611 English. Here is a website where I looked up the etymology of the word "coast": etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=CoastIt seems that around the 14th century it meant "margin of the land" and later began to be used also for "shore." I read through the context of each verse that used the Greek word that is translated into "coast" in the KJV. In each one, the context is near a body of water, but that body of water is not always a "sea," which is the context for how the word "coast" is almost exclusively used today. In the verses, sometimes it is the Mediterranean Sea, the Sea of Galilee, or the Jordan River. So then, what does "coasts" mean in reference to Bethlehem if it could mean any of these bodies of water (if it indeed must be referring to lands near a body of water)? Bethlehem is closer to the Jordan and the Dead Sea than to the Mediterranean Sea. |
|
|
|
Post by sawdy on Oct 6, 2017 17:35:04 GMT -6
When you look at the earlier definition of coast as "a margin of land" as in a rib, it does fit with the 12 tribes having access to the "coast"line. Twelve tribes, twelve ribs= part of Christ.
It does still work with that video that was shared.
|
|
|
|
Post by MissusMack08 on Oct 6, 2017 18:05:02 GMT -6
When you look at the earlier definition of coast as "a margin of land" as in a rib, it does fit with the 12 tribes having access to the "coast"line. Twelve tribes, twelve ribs= part of Christ. It does still work with that video that was shared. Yes, that is what it looks like, doesn't it? Ribs. |
|
|
|
Post by galen on Oct 6, 2017 18:08:39 GMT -6
I'm a bit late to this, but I wanted to address the NIV issue. I wasn't sure who posted about it ( galen ?), but what copyright year is your NIV? My 1984 copyright does not use the word virgins, but I have found that the newest copyright of NIV has changed somethings, and it's not always for the better. I'm sure biblehub uses the newest copyright. My NIV is 1984 as well. I have thought that anytime changes are made it becomes a new version. |
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Oct 6, 2017 22:10:35 GMT -6
The issue of Bible translations is a very touchy one to some people. To me, it's important to remember than ANY translation is only a translation, and that the original meaning in the Greek or Hebrew is the primary thing we should look at. In that context, it becomes important which Greek text family you get your English translation from.
But let's not argue about the original text issue in this thread. And let's respect people's opinions even when we disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Oct 6, 2017 22:32:47 GMT -6
The issue of Bible translations is a very touchy one to some people. To me, it's important to remember than ANY translation is only a translation, and that the original meaning in the Greek or Hebrew is the primary thing we should look at. In that context, it becomes important which Greek text family you get your English translation from. But let's not argue about the original text issue in this thread. And let's respect people's opinions even when we disagree. Well Mr watchmanjim, I'm not sure what made you come to the conclusion that we were arguing. I find it pretty educational to see what makes others believe or think the way they do. I enjoy it when it's done through love. And I hope MissusMack08 does not think I was argumentative in any way. But if this is how you feel watchmanjim then I will leave it at that and bow out of the conversation. God Bless~ 2Ti 2:15 |
|
