The "blood moon"

[oldhermit]

I did. Almost all of the things you posted concerned things which have not happened yet, the great and terrible day of the Lord when he strikes his anger on the earth, and punishes the Lord.

So again, Why would we take them as symbolic?

I think John is more like Daniel also.. where he saw things he could not describe, and put them in the best way he could.

To say it is not ballistic missiles would be dangerous and a mighty assumption. God can do anything he wishes.

O.k. Let's take a look at the first one, Isaiah 13:1-13
The vision was given to the prophet Amoz and this vision concerned the nation of Babylon during the days of Amoz. The vision signified the destruction of the nation of Babylon by the Medes as is mentioned in verse 17. The extent of that destruction is described in verses 19-22. We know this is a mater of both biblical and historical record that Cyrus was the instrument by which God brought about the destruction of Babylon. So, what was prophesied? The destruction of Babylon. Who did God say he would send to destroy it? The Medes. Specifically Cyrus, Isaiah 45:1. How was this destruction portrayed in the vision? As a cosmic catastrophe. These symbolisms were used as a metophor to say that God was about to bring their world to an end. And he did!

Unless you just want to pursue this I shall not go into all of these examples. This prophesy was fulfilled according to what God said he would do to Babylon. All of the other example were fulfilled in the same way. I could be wrong but, I think the only reason you do not see the fulfillment is because you are looking for the literalization of the language rather than the destruction of the nation that was addressed.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

O.k. Let's take a look at the first one, Isaiah 13:1-13
The vision was given to the prophet Amoz and this vision concerned the nation of Babylon during the days of Amoz. The vision signified the destruction of the nation of Babylon by the Medes as is mentioned in verse 17. The extent of that destruction is described in verses 19-22. We know this is a mater of both biblical and historical record that Cyrus was the instrument by which God brought about the destruction of Babylon. So, what was prophesied? The destruction of Babylon. Who did God say he would send to destroy it? The Medes. Specifically Cyrus, Isaiah 45:1. How was this destruction portrayed in the vision? As a cosmic catastrophe. These symbolisms were used as a metophor to say that God was about to bring their world to an end. And he did!

Unless you just want to pursue this I shall not go into all of these examples. This prophesy was fulfilled according to what God said he would do to Babylon. All of the other example were fulfilled in the same way. I could be wrong but, I think the only reason you do not see the fulfillment is because you are looking for the literalization of the language rather than the destruction of the nation that was addressed.

ok lets do this.

A tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together!
The Lord of hosts musters
The army for battle.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]They come from a far country,
From the end of heaven—
The Lord and His weapons of indignation,
To destroy the whole land.[SUP]6 [/SUP]Wail, for the day of the Lord is at hand!It will come as destruction from the Almighty.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Therefore all hands will be limp,
Every man’s heart will melt,
[SUP]8 [/SUP]And they will be afraid.
Pangs and sorrows will take hold of them;
They will be in pain as a woman in childbirth;
They will be amazed at one another;
Their faces will be like flames.

Behold, the day of the Lord comes,
Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger,To lay the land desolate;

“I will punish the world for its evil,
And the wicked for their iniquity;I will halt the arrogance of the proud,
And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

One thing about alot of prophesies in the OT. they are two fold.

Yes it says the meds will come, But that is against national babylon. The first part speaks of spiritual babylon. THE WORLD.

it also talks of the day of the Lord. This is the dame day Paul spoke of. The day of the Lord will come as a theif in the night.

This prophesy not only had a part which already took place. But a part that is yet future.

 

[oldhermit]

ok lets do this.

A tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together!
The Lord of hosts musters
The army for battle.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]They come from a far country,
From the end of heaven—
The Lord and His weapons of indignation,
To destroy the whole land.[SUP]6 [/SUP]Wail, for the day of the Lord is at hand!It will come as destruction from the Almighty.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Therefore all hands will be limp,
Every man’s heart will melt,
[SUP]8 [/SUP]And they will be afraid.
Pangs and sorrows will take hold of them;
They will be in pain as a woman in childbirth;
They will be amazed at one another;
Their faces will be like flames.

Behold, the day of the Lord comes,
Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger,To lay the land desolate;

“I will punish the world for its evil,
And the wicked for their iniquity;I will halt the arrogance of the proud,
And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

One thing about alot of prophesies in the OT. they are two fold.

Yes it says the meds will come, But that is against national babylon. The first part speaks of spiritual babylon. THE WORLD.

it also talks of the day of the Lord. This is the dame day Paul spoke of. The day of the Lord will come as a theif in the night.

This prophesy not only had a part which already took place. But a part that is yet future.

This is why I seldom discuss eschatology on line. The gulf that exists between these two types of eschatology is so wide it seems there is no common frame of reference for discussing it. Perhaps we could at some point find a common ground to take a fresh look at some of these ideas.

I have never been able to understand this type of approach to the text. Yes, there are times when there is dual meaning in a prophesy or in a symbol but, what rule of interpretation do you feel determines when a prophesy contains a dual application? I am curious why you feel this points to a dual fulfillment and why you feel the first part speaks only of spiritual Babylon as opposed to national Babylon?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This is why I seldom discuss eschatology on line. The gulf that exists between these two types of eschatology is so wide it seems there is no common frame of reference for discussing it. Perhaps we could at some point find a common ground to take a fresh look at some of these ideas.

I have never been able to understand this type of approach to the text. Yes, there are times when there is dual meaning in a prophesy or in a symbol but, what rule of interpretation do you feel determines when a prophesy contains a dual application? I am curious why you feel this points to a dual fulfillment and why you feel the first part speaks only of spiritual Babylon as opposed to national Babylon?

because of the words used.

Nations were brought to battle. Not one kingdom

The punishment was on the world. Not on one gentile kingdom

The day of the lord (speaking of Gods wrath) which will behold the whole earth etc etc.

Unless you think we should symbolise those terms also. I do not know how else to interpret it. (not saying this sarcastically just asking a question)

Just to get a point of reference of what you believe.

Daniel spoke of the 4th beast. Do you believe the 4th beast was literal rome which fell already, or a combination of two beasts, one of which fell, and one of which is yet future.

Not asking to argue, just trying to get a frame of reference.

 

[oldhermit]

=eternally-gratefull;1490292]because of the words used.

Nations were brought to battle. Not one kingdom

The punishment was on the world. Not on one gentile kingdom

The day of the lord (speaking of Gods wrath) which will behold the whole earth etc etc.

Unless you think we should symbolise those terms also. I do not know how else to interpret it. (not saying this sarcastically just asking a question)

The question is not whether I see them as symbolic but, how do we see scripture using them?

Just to get a point of reference of what you believe.

Daniel spoke of the 4th beast. Do you believe the 4th beast was literal rome which fell already, or a combination of two beasts, one of which fell, and one of which is yet future.

Not asking to argue, just trying to get a frame of reference.

I presume you are talking about the image of Daniel 2. I see them as four consecutive kingdoms with the Roman empire as the fourth kingdom.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The question is not whether I see them as symbolic but, how do we see scripture using them?

Yes, and this is where we will base out interpretations.

Again, I like to take God literally, unless (as he has done so many times) He shows us to do otherwise.

I presume you are talking about the image of Daniel 2. I see them as four consecutive kingdoms with the Roman empire as the fourth kingdom.

yes, that and 7.

have all the prophesies concerning rome been fulfilled? That was my question, sorry if I confused you. Forgive me

 

[oldhermit]

Yes, and this is where we will base out interpretations.

Again, I like to take God literally, unless (as he has done so many times) He shows us to do otherwise.

I agree.

yes, that and 7.

have all the prophesies concerning rome been fulfilled? That was my question, sorry if I confused you. Forgive me.

Yes, I believe they are. I believe everything in Daniel has been fulfilled. I know you do not believe this. I once believed the millennial views but no longer.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I agree.



Yes, I believe they are. I believe everything in Daniel has been fulfilled. I know you do not believe this. I once believed the millennial views but no longer.

ok. this explains it.

I can not see daniels visions being fulfilled. there is just far to much we are told about the second kingdom of rome which have not occured and could not have occured.

Unless as I said, we take symbolic interpretaion, and get away from the literal. Which again, Unless God shows us (like he did many times in daniel) to take it symbolically and explains the symbolism (which he most always does) then I would not wish take what he said anything but literally.

Anyway , you see our differences are in hermeneutics and how we interpret those things. You taking a symbolic interpretation, and me taking a literal interpretation.

 

[oldhermit]

ok. this explains it.

I can not see daniels visions being fulfilled. there is just far to much we are told about the second kingdom of rome which have not occured and could not have occured.

Unless as I said, we take symbolic interpretaion, and get away from the literal. Which again, Unless God shows us (like he did many times in daniel) to take it symbolically and explains the symbolism (which he most always does) then I would not wish take what he said anything but literally.

Anyway , you see our differences are in hermeneutics and how we interpret those things. You taking a symbolic interpretation, and me taking a literal interpretation.

So, where do we begin to discuss this topic?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So, where do we begin to discuss this topic?

I guess post our views. With open minds, willing to discuss and not judge if we disagree. This is not a salvic issue so fight and argue or judge would not be very profitable to either of us.

 

[oldhermit]

I guess post our views. With open minds, willing to discuss and not judge if we disagree. This is not a salvic issue so fight and argue or judge would not be very profitable to either of us.

Yes, I quite agree.

 

[Richie_2uk]

I think this could be a start for things to come regarding the coming of Jesus. What I mean about that is? Things we are actually going to see with our own eyes, something that has been prophesied. There is something about it that is causing people to think a lot more, and will open the ears to those who have ears. Yes youi will get stupid people will be making wild claims its this or that, mainly to defuse and to derail you from the truth. Nothing new there, we get that a lot on CC. But this Blood moon, will start something spectacular. and I think its a starting of things to come.

 

[crossnote]

Yes, I quite agree.

Now didn't I say yesterday there were irreconcilible differences due to the different hermeneutical approach and presuppositions from each camp?
Amillenialism and the Dispensational view just don't mix.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Now didn't I say yesterday there were irreconcilible differences due to the different hermeneutical approach and presuppositions from each camp?
Amillenialism and the Dispensational view just don't mix.

true, but we should not judge each other like some in here have we can have an honest open discussion I believe.

the question is, where do we start

 

[The_highwayman]

true, but we should not judge each other like some in here have we can have an honest open discussion I believe.

the question is, where do we start

why start nobody is going to convince anyone of anything different

 

[crossnote]

true, but we should not judge each other like some in here have we can have an honest open discussion I believe.

the question is, where do we start

Oh, there's plenty of places to start but I right now don't have an appetite for worms.

 

[danalee]

What are your thoughts?

Gets me hoping for sure. Please Jesus, come for us.

 

[danalee]

Now didn't I say yesterday there were irreconcilible differences due to the different hermeneutical approach and presuppositions from each camp?
Amillenialism and the Dispensational view just don't mix.

So many big words to look up now. Jeez. haha

 

[danalee]

I guess post our views. With open minds, willing to discuss and not judge if we disagree. This is not a salvic issue so fight and argue or judge would not be very profitable to either of us.

You're wrong.

LOL

teasing

 

[crossnote]

You're wrong.

LOL

teasing

shucks, I was hoping you weren't