|
|
Post by Natalie on Mar 31, 2021 11:03:17 GMT -6
So, I'm going to put my moderator hat on for a bit, boraddict 
One of the main truths to understanding Scripture is that we must let the text inform our theology. And use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Exegesis is the fancy word for it. We cannot take our ideas and make the text support them. That is what they call eisegesis.
That is one of the main reasons I keep asking you to show me in Scripture where you get your ideas. If the Church is Israel (or the 10 tribes) then the Bible must clearly say it. If the sacrifice of goats is for those in rebellion, then the text must say it.
I am not sure using the parable in Matthew and applying it everywhere is the right use of the parable. The parable was for the End. It's a separation of righteous from the unrighteous – like the parable of the wheat and tares. It's meant to tell a story that shares a truth. The righteous enter His Kingdom and the unrighteous are punished. I think it's reading into the text when you say believing Israel then are sheep and unbelieving Israel are goats and whenever the word goat appears in the text somewhere in the OT it means unbelieving/rebellious Israel. It's eisegesis.
For example, In Daniel 8, the Bible clearly says that the ram Daniel saw is Media and Persia. It's not Israel. The goat is the kingdom of Greece. It's not Israel. To take an interpretation from a parable in Matthew and apply it to this historical text is not a proper way of interpreting Scripture, especially when the text clearly interprets itself.
(Yes, sometimes the NT can be used to interpret the OT. But when it does that, it should do it very clearly. I think of Romans or Hebrews as books that do this.)
Leviticus tells us that sheep or goats were acceptable sacrifices for sin offerings. To read in to it that you were in rebellion if you offered a goat is going beyond what the text says. It's forcing an interpretation that's just not there.
Eisegesis can be very dangerous and leads people astray. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Mar 31, 2021 15:01:56 GMT -6
mike , yes I know what you are saying and I have never wanted to get into this chapter because of he bizarre imagery. However, the chapter seems to span the entire captivity of Judah from the beginning as stated in Dan. 1:1-2 to the final release as shown in Chapter 12. I have taken my analysis from the perspective that the ram represents Israel and the goat rebellious Israel. That being said, then Israel under Mead/Persian captivity is the ram with the two horns. Then we are told the ram is attacked and the victor is Alexander the Great and this is clearly historical information. That is, the world power presiding over Israel changed from Persia to Greece when Alexander conquered Persia. Since Persia was conquered and Israel was part of Persia then Israel was conquered as well. Thus, the ram was conquered by Greece removing the two horns from the ram. Then we are told about the four generals that followed Alexander presiding over Israel, and lastly that someone rises within one of the "western" of the four domains. This last someone is dominant just prior to the return of the Savior. To me, the most interesting part of the imagery in this chapter is that Alexander is called a goat that is rebellious Israel. This implies that Alexander has some of the blood of Ephraim as his ancestry. Just saying. BORA - so you are saying unfaithful Israel was in captivity and rebellious Israel came and conquered them? Israel was in Persia when conquered by Greece. Is it possible some of the Israelite women were mixed (married) with the Persian men? An interesting thing to consider is that Alexander is certainly who is spoken of...BUT we encounter this which says it cant be Alexander could it: This is a fulfillment in Alexander but a type of the future Anti-Christ as well. Predicting history in advance TWICE! This predicts Alexander first then points to the ultimate culmination Placing a chronological order: 1) Assyria conquered the northern kingdom of Israel and took captives at about 720 B. C. and before. These captives were placed in cites and provinces throughout Assyria. Then the Assyrians took captives from other conquests and placed these foreigners into the lands of the northern kingdom of Israel. Then the wild beasts attacked these displaced people and so the Assyrians returned some of the people of Israel to the northern kingdom lands and they blended to become the Samaritans. I think this information is common knowledge. However, the Assyrians did not return all the captives of the northern kingdom and so there were some people of Israel that remained in Assyria. These people blended into Assyrian populations. 2) Assyria was conquered by Babylon. 3) Babylon falls to Media/Persia. In Chapter 8 of Daniel, the ram has two horns that seem to be Darius and Cyrus and here is an excerpt about these two people www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Darius-MedeDARIUS THE MEDE də rī’ əs (דָּרְיָ֨וֶשׁ׃֙). Medo-Pers. governor (“king”) of Babylonia under Cyrus the Great mentioned esp. in the sixth ch. of Daniel. Immediately following the death of “Belshazzar the Chaldean king” in Oct. 539 b.c., Darius the Mede is said to have “received the kingdom” (Dan 5:31), prob. having been made “king over the realm of the Chaldeans” (9:1) by Cyrus the Great (1:21; 6:28). He is best remembered for the unalterable decree which his officers tricked him into signing, which resulted in Daniel being cast into a den of lions (6:7-18). In contrast to Nebuchadnezzar, this ruler was helpless to reverse his own decree, vividly illustrating the inferiority of the silver kingdom of Medo-Persia to the golden kingdom of Babylon in the matter of royal sovereignty. Compare Daniel 3:29; Esther 1:19; 8:8, and the testimony of Diodorus Siculus (xvii, 30), that Darius III (335-331) wanted to free a man he had condemned, but realized that “it was not possible to undo what was done by royal authority.” So I think that we can reasonably conclude that the two horns of the ram are Darius and Cyrus. (Dan. 8:20). This does not mean that the ram is Darius and Cyrus, but that the two horns are Darius and Cyrus. 4) Persia falls to Greece Similarly, the goat has a horn that is the first king in Grecia, and this is Alexander (Dan. 8:21). This does not mean that Alexander is the first king of Grecia but that he is the first king after having conquered Persia. So as the horns go in the chapter, they metaphorically represent the kings: Darius/Cyrus (Dan. 8:3), and Alexander (Dan. 8:5), and then the four successors of Alexander (Dan. 8:8), followed by a final someone at the very end (Dan. 8:9).The question of greater importance is that of who the ram and the goat represents and so let's look at the goat first. We can say that the goat has in it's leadership positions: Alexander (Dan. 8:8), and then the four successors of Alexander, and from one of these the bad guy at the end (Dan. 8:9). It is reasonable to assume that none of these leaders follow Christ. In addition, if any of these people have the blood of the northern kingdoms in their ancestry then that information is lost to us. However, we can not categorically say that these people absolutely do not have some of the Blood of Israel in them. For instance, my family came from Germany and mixed with the Quakers and then the American Indians and who knows what else. My ancestors came through Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, etc. And that is just in the past 200 years. Comparatively, Alexander and his army traveled from Greece to Afghanistan in just a few years. In fact, most armies would rape and capture the women and just from that aspect alone it is easy to see that the blood of Israel was scattered throughout Mesopotamia and Egypt. So if the goat represents those people who are not following Christ, and those people have some blood of Israel, then it can be said that the goat represents rebellious Israel. Or, at the very least, the goat represents Grecia that does not follow Christ. Conversely, Cyrus released Judah to go back to Jerusalem. In other words, by comparison, the goat is void of following Christ and the ram is not. So let's say that the ram is Persia that releases Judah to live in peace in their homeland, then the ram is in alignment with the Savior and his people Israel. That is, the ram although in the macro of the Chapter 8 vision is Persia, let's say, it is in the more precise application a sheep that follows Christ. In the end, there appears to the be contrast between the ram and the goat in that one follows Christ and the other does not. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Mar 31, 2021 16:20:03 GMT -6
1. At the time of the prophecy given to Daniel, Christ had not come yet. No one was following Him. Both the Greeks and the Persians were polytheistic. Neither would have been following Him.
2. If you are projecting this onto a future (from Daniel's life) rebellious Israel vs faithful Christians, I don't see that being supported by the text.
or
3. If you are just applying the sheep/goat judgment parable to this sheep and goat (which Gabriel tells Daniel is Greece and Persia) then see my previous post - you are using a parable in a way that it is not meant to be used.
You are drawing a conclusion that the text does not state or support. God has given Daniel a vision of the kingdoms that are coming and what will take place. It goes with the dream of the statue. It says nothing about faithful Israel, unfaithful Israel, Judah, Christians.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Mar 31, 2021 17:58:11 GMT -6
The beauty of God's inspiration at work! His word is a multi-layered work. The more light you shine on it, the more you see. Just as our Lord has revealed Himself in 3 separate manners, yet all the same, so his words act accordingly. Several truths layered amongst each other. Each applying to a separate thing and a separate time/place and message, Yet all one in the whole! Who but God could write such a book of laws and statutes and judgements, and have it apply as much thousands of years later?! I was recently reminded of such language when discussing "Jewish". Has several meanings to different people, but all are encompassed into the one word. Bible does that a lot. Israel, is one. The beauty of the bible is there is seldom just one True answer there. Three people can be right about the same passage meaning three different things. Isn't that awesome! boraddict , Natalie , John 13:52 He said to them, "Therefore, every scribe who has been made a disciple in the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who is a householder (those called to write the message of God/Apostles), who brings out of his treasure new and old things. (reveals things of (present, past) and future) This is why there are often so many quarrels over meaning in scripture. Each sees clearly a truth the Lord reveals, but seldom see the truth the other does, both fall short of the larger Truth, that both are right, and wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Mar 31, 2021 18:26:41 GMT -6
lionofgod, people may see "truth", but if it's not supported by Scripture then it comes from bias, or imagination, wrong interpretation, eisegesis instead of exegisis (as I defined earlier). It's not right to make Scripture say something that isn't there. People can see all kinds of "truth" and apply it however they want...it's how cults get started, how gay marriage is supported, how the prosperity gospel gets spread, how social justice is seen as savior, "what's true to you doesn't have to be true for me" mindset, etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Mar 31, 2021 19:10:21 GMT -6
The following is Dan. 8 in chiasmus form: 1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. 2 And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the citadel, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the vision, and I was at the Ulai canal. 3 I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. ... 25 By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.” 27 And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king’s business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it. This Chapter appears to be about the return of the Savior. , Natalie , When using chiasmi to try to find clarity in a passage, you must follow the proper use of it. Use of chiasmi requires that each paired verse set reflect essentially the same message, thought or idea. For instance: Verse 1 and verse 27 should be giving fundamentally the same message, thought or idea. Similarly, verse 2 and verse 26 should be saying basically the same thing. Verse 3/Verse 25, et c. What singular message do each of these verses share? I think you will be hard-pressed to get people to agree with you, if you can find a singular message. Where there is not parallelism between the pairs of verses: chiasmus does not work; is not applicable; and the verses should not be shoe-horned into the chiasmus pattern; because, as shown in v1 and v27, such attempted parallelism makes no sense. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChiasmusI think it is absolutely okay to test the verses and see if they work, but ALL pairings must match/make sense for the chiasmus method to be effective; and by effective, I mean, correctly applied; and provides additional insight or reinforcement to the ideas being communicated. |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Mar 31, 2021 19:35:43 GMT -6
The beauty of God's inspiration at work! His word is a multi-layered work. The more light you shine on it, the more you see. Just as our Lord has revealed Himself in 3 separate manners, yet all the same, so his words act accordingly. Several truths layered amongst each other. Each applying to a separate thing and a separate time/place and message, Yet all one in the whole! Who but God could write such a book of laws and statutes and judgements, and have it apply as much thousands of years later?! I was recently reminded of such language when discussing "Jewish". Has several meanings to different people, but all are encompassed into the one word. Bible does that a lot. Israel, is one. The beauty of the bible is there is seldom just one True answer there. Three people can be right about the same passage meaning three different things. Isn't that awesome! boraddict , Natalie , John 13:52 He said to them, "Therefore, every scribe who has been made a disciple in the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who is a householder (those called to write the message of God/Apostles), who brings out of his treasure new and old things. (reveals things of (present, past) and future) This is why there are often so many quarrels over meaning in scripture. Each sees clearly a truth the Lord reveals, but seldom see the truth the other does, both fall short of the larger Truth, that both are right, and wrong. , boraddict , mike And thus, is orthodoxy born: Those truths which are agreed upon by unanimity or consensus. Such orthodoxy's purpose is to help guide people: primarily by ensuring that whatever 'truth' they believe they see, it must not contradict overarching concepts, rules-of-thumb, basic theology, et c. This is the purpose of 'doctrine'. Paul commends the Bereans for doing comparing what they were taught to the scriptures: Acts 17:11Note also the entire chapter of 2 Tim, focusing on 3:16 biblehub.com/niv/2_timothy/3.htmCheck teachings against the scriptures. If they do not conform, one may run afoul of these things described here: biblehub.com/niv/1_timothy/6.htmbiblehub.com/niv/1_timothy/4.htmbiblehub.com/niv/2_peter/3.htm |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Mar 31, 2021 21:35:52 GMT -6
1. At the time of the prophecy given to Daniel, Christ had not come yet. No one was following Him. Both the Greeks and the Persians were polytheistic. Neither would have been following Him.
2. If you are projecting this onto a future (from Daniel's life) rebellious Israel vs faithful Christians, I don't see that being supported by the text.
or
3. If you are just applying the sheep/goat judgment parable to this sheep and goat (which Gabriel tells Daniel is Greece and Persia) then see my previous post - you are using a parable in a way that it is not meant to be used.
You are drawing a conclusion that the text does not state or support. God has given Daniel a vision of the kingdoms that are coming and what will take place. It goes with the dream of the statue. It says nothing about faithful Israel, unfaithful Israel, Judah, Christians.
1. Judah was presided over by the Persians, and so that portion of Persia (Judah) was following the true God. Whereas, by comparison, no portion of Grecia was following the true God. 2. The text appears to be speaking about the ram and his two horns at the time of Darius/Cyrus (600 - 530 B. C.) and also the goat and his horn at the time of Alexander followed by four horns that are his four generals (356 BCE - ). The only part that seems latter days the little horn that rises within one of the western most regions of those four generals. This seems to support that the beast during our time comes from one of the western most regions (Dan. 8:9). "Cyrus II of Persia (Old Persian: 𐎤𐎢𐎽𐎢𐏁 Kūruš;[5][6] New Persian: کورش Kūroš; c. 600 – 530 BC)[7] commonly known as Cyrus the Great,[8] and also called Cyrus the Elder by the Greeks, was the founder of the Achaemenid Empire, the first Persian Empire.[9]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great![]() ![]() ![]() "...known as Alexander the Great (l. 20 or 21 July 356 BCE – 10 or 11 June 323 BCE, r. 336-323 BCE),...." "When he was asked who should succeed him, Alexander said, “the strongest”, which answer led to his empire being divided between four of his generals: Cassander, Ptolemy, Antigonus, and Seleucus (known as the Diadochi or 'successors'). www.ancient.eu/Alexander_the_Great/"The Hellenistic world eventually settled into four stable power blocks: the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, the Seleucid Empire in the east, the Kingdom of Pergamon in Asia Minor, and Macedon" courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/macedonian-conquest/Since the last days individual comes from one of the western regions then he comes from Pergamon or Macedon (IMO). So the only part of the Chapter 8 vision that appears to be latter days is that which is about this little horn coming from Pergamon or Macedon, and also the central portion of the chapter that is about Christ (IMO). The span of time between the four generals and the little horn is about 2300 years that appears to correspond to the 2300 days in Dan. 8:14. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Apr 1, 2021 9:13:52 GMT -6
The following is Dan. 8 in chiasmus form: 1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. 2 And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the citadel, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the vision, and I was at the Ulai canal. 3 I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. ... 25 By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.” 27 And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king’s business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it. This Chapter appears to be about the return of the Savior. , Natalie , When using chiasmi to try to find clarity in a passage, you must follow the proper use of it. Use of chiasmi requires that each paired verse set reflect essentially the same message, thought or idea. For instance: Verse 1 and verse 27 should be giving fundamentally the same message, thought or idea. Similarly, verse 2 and verse 26 should be saying basically the same thing. Verse 3/Verse 25, et c. What singular message do each of these verses share? I think you will be hard-pressed to get people to agree with you, if you can find a singular message. Where there is not parallelism between the pairs of verses: chiasmus does not work; is not applicable; and the verses should not be shoe-horned into the chiasmus pattern; because, as shown in v1 and v27, such attempted parallelism makes no sense. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChiasmusI think it is absolutely okay to test the verses and see if they work, but ALL pairings must match/make sense for the chiasmus method to be effective; and by effective, I mean, correctly applied; and provides additional insight or reinforcement to the ideas being communicated. I would add that there is a standard form for chiasmi and then variations from that standard form. Two of the most classic chiasmi are from W and JFK as follows: a) To be b) or
c) not to be. a) It is not what your country can do for you b) but
c) what you can do for your country.
Please notice that these follow the form a, b, c, where a and c are opposites. Again, this is the standard form or the classical type of chiasmi that is often found in writings of all kinds including scripture. However, in scripture the easy-to-locate standard form chiasmi is not so readily available and what is found are the variations; some being more complex than others. One that I like is Rev. 19:19 that when read as a straight read appears to mean one thing, and when placed in the correct chiasmus states something else. Here is Verse 19:19 in a straight read chiasmus form:
a) "And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth
b) with their armies gathered to make war
c) against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army.
Please notice the "against him" and "against his army" that really highlights the opposite nature of the verse and states clearly that this verse is written for a standard form chiasmus. However, the kings of the earth are the Savior's people here in the Book of Revelation (Rev. 1:5-6, 5:10). Therefore, the standard form chiasmus is not the ending chiasmus, even though it is absolutely correct. So a sight modification provides: a) "And I saw the beast b) and the kings of the earth c) with their armies gathered to make war d)
e) Please notice now that c) armies are gathered, and, both a) the beast as well as b) the kings of the earth have armies. That is, a) the beast, and b) the kings of the earth, both have armies that are c) gathered together to make war. The chiasmus modified slightly reveals: a) "And I saw the beast b) and the kings of the earth c) with their armies gathered to make war d) against him who was sitting on the horse e) and against his army. That is, a) the beast is d) against the Savior, and b) the kings of the earth are e) against his (the beast's) army. That is, since b) the kings of the earth are the Savior's people then the army at e) is the army of the beast. The crisscross in the verse is like: a) beast b) Savior's army
c) the armies are gathered to make war.
d) Savior
e) beast's army
Of course all the above is my personal analysis but my point is that while doing an analysis the verses should not be limited to a standard form.
However, in my previous posting of Daniel Chapter 8, I was not looking at the parallels all that closely but was working towards the center. So the chiasmus does need some work for greater accuracy and so I do agree with yardstick on that. However, the placement of the center appears to be correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Apr 1, 2021 10:40:19 GMT -6
lionofgod , people may see "truth", but if it's not supported by Scripture then it comes from bias, or imagination, wrong interpretation, eisegesis instead of exegisis (as I defined earlier). It's not right to make Scripture say something that isn't there. People can see all kinds of "truth" and apply it however they want...it's how cults get started, how gay marriage is supported, how the prosperity gospel gets spread, how social justice is seen as savior, "what's true to you doesn't have to be true for me" mindset, etc etc. , lionofgod , boraddict , yardstick The Messiahs lineage traces back to Judah who had intercourse with his daughter in law, and David who had Solomon from Bathsheeba whos husband he (David) basically had killed. Does this mean that prostitution is okay or intercourse with a daughter in law? When we take things out of context and apply them incorrectly we end in error. Saying things we cannot support in the text or other areas of text leads to what Natalie outlines. Something else that I would like to add here is that God equipped us together as a body. We need one another to ensure we do not go astray and should be receptive when others point that we may be in error. This takes some humility, prayer and further study. One can take the discussion to the Lord to ask "where do I err?" or "If I am onto something please help me see more clearly" - But we need not make the scripture say what we think it should to support our view, rather the other way around. , boraddict, lionofgod, yardstick, mike, I think that we all agree that Daniel chapter 8 is about several time periods the first of which is Persia during the time of Darius and Cyrus, secondly, the time period around Alexander and his four generals, and lastly the last days ending with the beast at the time of the return of the Savior. So it is clear that the ram is in the first time period that is Persia, the goat is in the second time period that is Grecia, and the last days time period involves one of the western locations of Alexander's kingdom. What is in dispute is my analysis that the ram and the goat represent Israel and rebellious Israel and I will work to find credible evidence to support my claim. |
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 1, 2021 18:56:11 GMT -6
Natalie , lionofgod , boraddict , yardstick The Messiahs lineage traces back to Judah who had intercourse with his daughter in law, and David who had Solomon from Bathsheeba whos husband he (David) basically had killed. Does this mean that prostitution is okay or intercourse with a daughter in law? That is not out of context, applying modern morality to ancient times is out of context. We all know that we began of the same 2 original people, so if God said to multiply, who does everyone think they multiplied with if not there own families? God also had no issue with having a woman give a servant to a husband to have children with. What God says about women in the bible is not accepted now. We are "civilized", yet further from God. I think assuming God's "moral compass is in any way human is folly. He is the one that gave us the laws, we didn't invent them. The bible also says there were giants in the world. But few people actually believe in giants. Man has the hubris to not only think he is the only creation, but the smartest too. Who are the son's of God? When they mated with humans it made God angry enough to wipe out the entire planet except Moses Noah and family. Thats not covered in the Bible, only that it happened. So how do we rationalize that one? It happened according to scripture, but it isn't gone into. Man has taken what God made perfect, and has dissected and torn it apart and tried to be God "creating" better things! LOL We sure must be powerful, that we can make better what God made perfect from the start. It's "mans" knowledge that has created the end times, and yet he stubbornly clings to it in the belief that somehow we are smart enough to "figure it out". If that were the case, we wouldn't be here on the earth we've destroyed, we would just make a new earth. OOPS! We can't, we are not smart, strong or in any way Godly. But somehow applying that knowledge to the bible is going to help us see? Sure seems to me that God's law and message has always been the same, and we have always ignored it. H's threatened to wipe us out before, for ignoring his word, but here we are. And as in the days of Jesus, the bankers and "scholars/keepers of the law" are still telling us how and what to believe and we still do it. We are Israel repeating all over another time. When we take things out of context and apply them incorrectly we end in error. Saying things we cannot support in the text or other areas of text leads to what Natalie outlines. Something else that I would like to add here is that God equipped us together as a body. We need one another to ensure we do not go astray and should be receptive when others point that we may be in error. That's scriptural is it? Who did Moses have? God, and even his own people wouldn't hear him. It actually appears that the most righteous were usually individuals that trusted God when everyone else was saying something else. Abraham, Moses, John, Jesus. After Jesus we began to pair up and lean on each other as a church more, but in the letters to the churches, you see they didn't look to good in the lords eyes. If being opposed to the common thought is what I am, thats awesome! I'm not here to "convince" anyone. You are free to be right. I'm just sharing as I've been called to do. If it makes sense and fits for you, I'm truly happy for you! If not, fell free to ignore me, as I don't post on here to attack or sway people, just to enlighten and spread love. Acceptance is not my problem.This takes some humility, prayer and further study. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't just insinuate that I can't see truth because i'm not smart or humble enough.One can take the discussion to the Lord to ask "where do I err?" or "If I am onto something please help me see more clearly" - But we need not make the scripture say what we think it should to support our view, rather the other way around. To Clarify for all who may be unsure or unclear. I am in almost constant prayer, but it is always the same one or variation. "God, you know alll things and know my heart and my future. I only ask that you would reveal to me that which you would have me do to please you and fulfill your will. In The name of Jesus your son and Christ, Amen."You see, if I ask for specific things, I ask for me, but when i ask for Him, he reveals.Taking self out of prayer seems to really help. God Bless. , boraddict , lionofgod , yardstick , mike , I think that we all agree that Daniel chapter 8 is about several time periods the first of which is Persia during the time of Darius and Cyrus, secondly, the time period around Alexander and his four generals, and lastly the last days ending with the beast at the time of the return of the Savior. So it is clear that the ram is in the first time period that is Persia, the goat is in the second time period that is Grecia, and the last days time period involves one of the western locations of Alexander's kingdom. What is in dispute is my analysis that the ram and the goat represent Israel and rebellious Israel and I will work to find credible evidence to support my claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 1, 2021 20:22:18 GMT -6
The mods have decided to temporarily lock this thread. boraddict, please contact me, or another mod, when you have found Scriptural evidence for your positions on the following: 1) that the Church is Israel 2) that applying faithful/rebellious Israel to sheep/goats throughout the Bible is correct interpretation 3) that goats are the sacrifice for those in rebellion for #2 please do not use the parable in Matthew about the sheep/goat judgment. That parable is to tell a story to teach a truth about the judgment of the righteous and the wicked at the end of days. We will unlock the thread when you are ready. |
|
