The Context Of Scripture

[volgadon]

According to Revelation 20:7-9, the Lord destroys Gog BEFORE Gog has a chance to destroy Israel (thus He repents of allowing Gog the ability to devour the land of Israel).

And according to Amos 7 God decides not to send the locusts at all.

Inasmuch as the Septuagint version of Amos 7:1-3 actually gives us the name of the would-be devourer of Israel (i.e., Gog), it IS more accurate than the KJV OT.

Why is that any indication of accuracy?

[jo1952]

And according to Amos 7 God decides not to send the locusts at all.

Why is that any indication of accuracy?

[volgadon]

"This shall not be." Notice the abscence of any "remnant" terms.

I'm sorry if scripture doesn't accord with the castles you have built in the sky.

Why is the insertion of a name any indication of accuracy?

[volgadon]

Found an incredibly accurate rendition of Revelation 6:8.

"And I looked, and behold Reginald, a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Mortimer La Morte, and Mrs. Mortimer La Morte's mother followed with him...."

[Franktalk]

Now you are sidestepping the issue. If this is a prophecy of the destruction after the millenium then why does it explicitly state that God decided not to do it that way?

It is obvious that different people read scripture differently. The gold standard does not rest with men. So to the degree that I can learn from my senses and also from the Spirit I do have what I think is an interpretation that is valid. It may be that what I understand is not even what it says. But the Spirit may give me what the Spirit knows I need. I accept this with every fiber of my being. I also accept that each of us as we travel along our path may need a different message even from the same scripture. I know that many passages have changed over time for me as I have gathered more understanding of God's message. Sometimes reading the Bible is like an onion. Each time I read it a new layer is exposed and the whole Book is new. This just verifies that the message is from God.

Many times in scripture as an event is described the power behind the event is discussed. It may be described in terms of some second event. This confuses many people. Once you get to this level many people glaze over. They instead focus on the surface meaning and don't look further. This is fine and any study of scripture will lead to a better relationship with God if you let it. God will commune with us at any level we happen to be at.

[jo1952]

"This shall not be." Notice the abscence of any "remnant" terms.

I'm sorry if scripture doesn't accord with the castles you have built in the sky.

Why is the insertion of a name any indication of accuracy?

I see it is your intent to fight rather than just allow the various passages speak for themselves. So, I will reason out my thoughts and then let the issue rest.

Both the Septuagint and the KJV of the verses in question indicate that the Lord repents of sending in locusts (grasshoppers in Hebrew translates to locusts) to destroy the land. Now, this discussion between Amos and the Lord took place long before John ever received The Revelation. Thus, why would God need to repeat for John something which He had already decided not to do? The part of Revelation where John writes about Gog, therefore, no longer references anything about locusts devouring the land of Israel. HOWEVER, Gog is STILL a major player in the events prophesied by John. Yet, it is only the Septuagint version of Amos 7:1-3 which provides the name of Gog, whereas the KJV doesn't mention his name at all. IOW, in these verses the Septuagint lines up with Revelation; the KJV OT simply does NOT. In fact, a person studying the KJV of these verses in Amos would not be able to recognize that they have anything at all to do with Rev 20:7-9. It is the Septuagint which makes that connection for us.

Regards,

jo

[volgadon]

I see it is your intent to fight rather than just allow the various passages speak for themselves. So, I will reason out my thoughts and then let the issue rest.

I am letting Amos 7 speak for itself. Franktalk and you are the ones trying to force it to fit Revelation.

Both the Septuagint and the KJV of the verses in question indicate that the Lord repents of sending in locusts (grasshoppers in Hebrew translates to locusts) to destroy the land.

Which really means case closed.

Now, this discussion between Amos and the Lord took place long before John ever received The Revelation.

Indeed. Amos' message was a warning for his people, not preterism.

Thus, why would God need to repeat for John something which He had already decided not to do? The part of Revelation where John writes about Gog, therefore, no longer references anything about locusts devouring the land of Israel. HOWEVER, Gog is STILL a major player in the events prophesied by John.

Perhaps, then, they are not talking of the same thing at all?

Yet, it is only the Septuagint version of Amos 7:1-3 which provides the name of Gog, whereas the KJV doesn't mention his name at all. IOW, in these verses the Septuagint lines up with Revelation; the KJV OT simply does NOT. In fact, a person studying the KJV of these verses in Amos would not be able to recognize that they have anything at all to do with Rev 20:7-9.

We disagree on the significance of this. I contend that this is because they indeed have nothing to do with Rev. 20:7-9.

It is the Septuagint which makes that connection for us.

Where none exists in the first place.

[Franktalk]

Found an incredibly accurate rendition of Revelation 6:8.

"And I looked, and behold Reginald, a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Mortimer La Morte, and Mrs. Mortimer La Morte's mother followed with him...."

Be very careful.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

[volgadon]

Be very careful.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Ok.

[jo1952]

I am letting Amos 7 speak for itself. Franktalk and you are the ones trying to force it to fit Revelation.

I believe that Amos is prophesying about both his time AND about future events.

Indeed. Amos' message was a warning for his people, not preterism.

Preterism is a system of belief held by the interpreter of scripture; it is not something taught in scripture. IOW, it is a type of interpretation of scripture which has been given a label.

Hyper-preterists believe (among other things) that Christ has already returned the second time. A milder form of preterism is the belief (among some other things) that the abomination of desolation took place in 70AD, though they do not believe that Christ has already returned.

I believe in neither. I DO believe that Amos was also prophesying about the end times, which have not yet taken place. It is not a stretch to believe in this way; patterns are taught throughout scripture. The fact that Amos actually mentions the name "Gog" in the Septuagint version further indicates to me that he is prophesying about end times.

Perhaps, then, they are not talking of the same thing at all?

You can interpret this however you want to interpret it.

We disagree on the significance of this. I contend that this is because they indeed have nothing to do with Rev. 20:7-9.

I would offer that this could have something to do with your belief that the Masoretic text is more accurate. It is through that filter of belief that you might then not see that Amos could also be tying in with The Revelation. It is my guess, however, that even those who have never even read the Septuagint would also agree that the whole of Amos chapter 7 is prophesying not only about his own time, but also the end times.

The point of referencing the three verses being questioned was to show the differences between the Septuagint and the KJV of the OT, and present a case in supporting the Septuagint as being more accurate.

Where none exists in the first place.

(In your opinion).

Regards,

jo

Edited September 9, 2011 by jo1952

[Franktalk]

An example of one event being described by another or one being a foreshadow of a future event can be seem in Dan 11:31 thru Dan 12:3 here we see the picture of the abomination of desolation in 167 BC being contrasted with the final event in the middle of the 70th week. Even the event of 167 BC is written in a way that the power behind the person is described.

Here context can only be achieved by overlaying both prophetic events next to each other. I think that Amos is the same. But I have not done a deep study of Amos but my first reading tells me it is similar to Daniel.

[jo1952]

Ok.

Many people believe that Revelation is pointing to Petra as the destination which will protect the Jews.

Do you believe that your interpretations are the only possibilities; thus, the only "correct" ones? I ask this due to comments you have made like this one:

I'm sorry if scripture doesn't accord with the castles you have built in the sky.

Such comments lead me to believe that perhaps you have some insider information which the rest of us are not privy to.

We are here to discuss our "beliefs" - not anything which we can "prove". IOW, I did not think the purpose of these discussions was to mock one another's beliefs.

Regards,

jo

Edited September 9, 2011 by jo1952

[volgadon]

Many people believe that Revelation is pointing to Petra as the destination which will protect the Jews.

And still others don't. The point though was that Franktalk is stating that I will be plagued with the curses in Revelation for something which isn't too far removed from his own threads.

Do you believe that your interpretations are the only possibilities; thus, the only "correct" ones?

No, I just happen to believe that the ones you advanced here aren't correct.

I ask this due to comments you have made like this one:

I'm sorry if scripture doesn't accord with the castles you have built in the sky.

Such comments lead me to believe that perhaps you have some insider information which the rest of us are not privy to.

No, the information is easily available. I hope you'll forgive me for finding your indignation ironic, considering that Franktalk and you like to appeal to "scripture," your Ultima Ratio Regum, as if all others are somehow against it if they don't fit your interpretation.

We are here to discuss our "beliefs" - not anything which we can "prove". IOW, I did not think the purpose of these discussions was to mock one another's beliefs.

I didn't think the thread was meant for threatening me with myriads of plagues either, but all is fair in love and war if you end it,

Respectfuly,

Right?

[volgadon]

I believe that Amos is prophesying about both his time AND about future events.

Why? It is stated explicitly that the vision won't come to pass.

Preterism is a system of belief held by the interpreter of scripture; it is not something taught in scripture. IOW, it is a type of interpretation of scripture which has been given a label.

Hyper-preterists believe (among other things) that Christ has already returned the second time. A milder form of preterism is the belief (among some other things) that the abomination of desolation took place in 70AD, though they do not believe that Christ has already returned.

I believe in neither.

Yes, I am sorry, I meant futurism, sorry for the mixup.

I DO believe that Amos was also prophesying about the end times, which have not yet taken place. It is not a stretch to believe in this way; patterns are taught throughout scripture. The fact that Amos actually mentions the name "Gog" in the Septuagint version further indicatese to me that he is prophesying about end times.

The problem is that nothing in Amos 7 the idea that this was about the end times. That patterns are taught throughout scripture doesn't mean that every account fits the same pattern. Gog is a perfect example of circular reasoning. You claim that it shows that Amos is talking about the future whereas the point is that neither you nor Franktalk have shown that it was meant to be there.

[jo1952]

And still others don't. The point though was that Franktalk is stating that I will be plagued with the curses in Revelation for something which isn't too far removed from his own threads.

(emphasis added)

View Postvolgadon, on 08 September 2011 - 07:00 PM, said:

Found an incredibly accurate rendition of Revelation 6:8.

"And I looked, and behold Reginald, a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Mortimer La Morte, and Mrs. Mortimer La Morte's mother followed with him...."

As you will recall, Franktalk made his remark in response to the above comment where you were mocking verses in the Revelation - this is, as you know, entirely different from discussing any interpretation of the Revelation. THAT is where Franktalk's concern came from. He is warning you because he doesn't want you to wind up bringing unintented consequences upon yourself. BTW, I noticed you had second thoughts about your own post because you deleted it. However, Franktalk was already responding to it and didn't see that you had deleted it until after he responded to it. So it still shows up in his response. The fact that you reconsidered your own remarks by attempting to delete them indicates to me that the thought entered your mind that you had crossed the line.

No, I just happen to believe that the ones you advanced here aren't correct.

Then why don't you just say that? Why must you add unnecessary mocking toward those who don't agree with you?

No, the information is easily available. I hope you'll forgive me for finding your indignation ironic, considering that Franktalk and you like to appeal to "scripture," your Ultima Ratio Regum, as if all others are somehow against it if they don't fit your interpretation.

What I see see here is a projection of your own tactics onto others. I know the difference between someone presenting their beliefs for the purposes of discussion, vs presenting their beliefs for the purposes of mocking the beliefs of others who cannot be persuaded to accept yours.

Your style of confrontational debate is not something I am going to continue to particpate in. I would rather focus on trying to enjoy being edified by other posters and vice versa.

Regards,

jo

Edited to cross out my misunderstanding. I thought Volgadon had deleted his post - but it is still in the thread (see post #79).

Edited September 9, 2011 by jo1952

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Franktalk's "concern" sounded more like a threat, and a pretentious one as well. And volgadon didn't delete his post; it's on the last page.

[Calm]

As you will recall, Franktalk made his remark in response to the above comment where you were mocking verses in the Revelation - this is, as you know, entirely different from discussing any interpretation of the Revelation.

I don't believe volgadon was mocking scripture, instead (and he can correct me if i am wrong) he was using a form of argument that pushes the logic to the extreme demonstrating the absurdity of such logic, in this case the idea that just because something includes more information (in this case names) it is automatically more accurate. As he demonstrated with his example, it is only more accurate if the information added is accurate to begin with.

Assuming Gog or the scripture that contains it is more accurate simply based on its additional presence in the text isn't a logical approach.

Edited September 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[jo1952]

Franktalk's "concern" sounded more like a threat, and a pretentious one as well. And volgadon didn't delete his post; it's on the last page.

I stand corrected. Volgadon's post IS still in the thread - it is post #79. I will edit my post accordingly.

Why would you call it pretentious to use a verse from The Revelation which warns about adding to or changing The Revelation, when that is clearly what Volgadon did? Do you see it that way because you agree with Volgadon's take in believing that the KJV version of Amos 7:1-3 has nothing to do with Revelation? If we believe a person is heading for a cliff, can we not try to warn him?

It seems to me that regardless of where a person stands with respect to whether or not Amos IS referring to the end times, that a person is walking on dangerous ground to take any part of The Revelation and add to or take away from it, even if it is only for the purpose of mocking the beliefs of another. It seems to me that there are other methods of providing support for one's position which are much safer to use.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

I don't believe volgadon was mocking scripture, instead (and he can correct me if i am wrong) he was using a form of argument that pushes the logic to the extreme demonstrating the absurdity of such logic, in this case the idea that just because something includes more information (in this case names) it is automatically more accurate. As he demonstrated with his example, it is only more accurate if the information added is accurate to begin with.

Assuming Gog or the scripture that contains it is more accurate simply based on its additional presence in the text isn't a logical approach.

To me, it looked like he was mocking it as a means to mock Franktalk's comments.

Seeing as Gog IS the name which also shows up in Revelation, I believe the Septuagint is a more accurate translation. Volgadon has not presented anything in his rebuttals which support his stance that Amos is NOT prophesying about the end times. Just by saying he doesn't think it is, without any support other than mocking my comments, and then also mocking a discussion he had on another thread with Franktalk is not my idea of having a discussion at all. Rather than supporting his stance, he is trying to discredit our credibility as capable debaters.

FYI, here is more of Amos' prophesy. It sures does look like end times prophesy to me; and, here I am using the KJV to support my belief.

Amos 9:11-15 (emphasis added)

11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

13 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.

14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

Regards,

jo

Edited September 9, 2011 by jo1952

[Franktalk]

Franktalk's "concern" sounded more like a threat, and a pretentious one as well. And volgadon didn't delete his post; it's on the last page.

I have often wondered why those comments are included at the end of Revelation. I think it is there because an earlier prophecy was ignored and God does not want man to do that again. Of course I refer to the 69 week prophecy of Daniel 9. Here Daniel receives a prophecy which describes to the day when the Messiah will enter Jerusalem and declare Himself. Instead of all of the Jews lining the road to welcome Him they instead (some) killed Him. As the Messiah enters Jerusalem He declares the judgment on the city because they missed their day. So 38 years later the city is destroyed and blindness in placed on most Jews. This ushered in the Church period. The Revelation is also a prophecy that we all must know and follow or we will also receive a judgment but instead of a destroyed city and blindness we may suffer spiritual death. So the Jews received a judgment of the earth which allows God to then have mercy on them. For those of us who have the option of forgiveness and yet don't take it the judgment will be after we die and it will be much more severe than what happened to the Jews. The Revelation starts off with a blessing to those who read or hear the words. This blessing is the understanding of what the anti-Christ will do. Knowing first will allow us to avoid being taken in by his lies and powers. But those who are deceived will suffer much more than the Jews of 70 AD.

Believe what you wish. The future will unfold just as it was seen by John who was brought to the future. For those who enter the tribulation they must make a choice if they know scripture. Those who don't know scripture will have a much more difficult choice.

Then again we have people who change scripture to what they feel is correct due to man's knowledge. So the scripture which represents the past they modify such as making the flood local. Using this same interpreted method they may project on future prophecy. So it is possible for some to believe that the tribulation is a local event, who knows maybe Tucson is burned up because it is hot here anyway.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Franktalk

[volgadon]

To me, it looked like he was mocking it as a means to mock Franktalk's comments.

If anything, it was addressed to your comment, and no, I'm not mocking, merely pointing out what I see as the flaw in your argument. BTW you have yet to explain why the inclusion of a name would indicate that a text is accurate.

Seeing as Gog IS the name which also shows up in Revelation, I believe the Septuagint is a more accurate translation.

A more accurate translation than what.

Volgadon has not presented anything in his rebuttals which support his stance that Amos is NOT prophesying about the end times. Just by saying he doesn't think it is, without any support other than mocking my comments, and then also mocking a discussion he had on another thread with Franktalk is not my idea of having a discussion at all. Rather than supporting his stance, he is trying to discredit our credibility as capable debaters.

Mocking another discussion? No. I was reffering to the proverbial goose and gander.

As far as supporting my position goes, I mentioned Amos 7:3 which states that "The LORD repented concerning this; 'It shall not be', saith the LORD."

In other words, if this is a prophecy of Gog, then we are to understand that he won't go up to war in the end times.

There are prophecies in Amos which seem directed towards a distant future, but those are indicated as such. You provided an example of that. OTOH, far more frequent are the references to a relative immediacy. Amos 5:11,15, for instance.

[volgadon]

Honestly?

Learning about the context is a great thing to do, but you will never fully know it because you have not lived it. Yes, you can come close, yes, you will learn more about it, and get incrementally closer on a logarithmic scale according to how much effort you put into it (ie: the closer you get the harder it becomes to get still closer)

But you will never be fully "there" because you will never be (say) a First Century Jew who lives in (pick name of town)

And of course, all that study will not help you to determine if the person Jesus of Nazareth was in fact the Son of God and the savior of the world.

But if you like such things, I am sure it would be a lot of fun!

That's the good news AND the bad!

I agree with you that we will never be fully "there" but I also feel that the less we know about a time and place the further away from it we'll be.

I'm reminded of when a few years before my mission I was involved in an online RPG set in the Peninsular War. One of the players had a character who was a British officer. A certain post that I remember had the officer dreaming of a holiday in some Caribbean paradise. Perfectly natural sentiments for an early 21st c. American. I was never in the Peninsular, but I have read enough to know that if they were in their right mind no British officer circa 1811 would have been dreaming of the West Indies. Being sent to serve their was considered tantamount to a death penalty. Fever, jaundice, the heat, harsh working conditions, etc.

I haven't live through the Battle for Stalingrad. I did however serve part of my mission in that city, and after hearing so many so many stories of how the snow was red for miles and how the shock instantly greyed the hair of the young men and women who were tasked with burying the dead, I think I have as good an appreciation of what people went through as anyone could who never lived through it.