Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?
- Thread starter NTNT58
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Okay. Do you not believe there are things in the Bible that do not always have a direct reference that talks about how they exist? Yet, they do exist nonetheless?
There is no verse that says,
There is no verse that says,
Yet, the Pre-Incarnate appearances of Christ exist. So if you asked me to show you a Messianic prophecy, I can show them to you, but if you did not believe in Messianic prophecies as shown in the Bible because there is no specific verse telling you of their existence (like the example I given above), then I would say you are not reading the Bible correctly.
Either you are new to studying the Bible or this is an area of topic that you have not learned yet.
In either case, may God’s good ways shine upon you today.
There is no verse that says,
“And I will send unto you prophesies that speak of the coming future Messiah. Look for them in my Word.”
There is no verse that says,
“And before the Incarnation, Christ made pre-incarnate appearances.”
Yet, the Pre-Incarnate appearances of Christ exist. So if you asked me to show you a Messianic prophecy, I can show them to you, but if you did not believe in Messianic prophecies as shown in the Bible because there is no specific verse telling you of their existence (like the example I given above), then I would say you are not reading the Bible correctly.
Either you are new to studying the Bible or this is an area of topic that you have not learned yet.
In either case, may God’s good ways shine upon you today.
-
1
- Show all
I am sorry. I had to laugh at this one. Did you know that multitudes of all mankind never got married. Their number is 5 1/2?
I do jest. But it's a pretty big hole you left in your theory.
And anyone in this forum can clearly see that Dino has invested much time in study. And it becomes apparent that he has hit pretty hard with his message. That usually leads to focus on the messenger, rather than the message.
I do jest. But it's a pretty big hole you left in your theory.
And anyone in this forum can clearly see that Dino has invested much time in study. And it becomes apparent that he has hit pretty hard with his message. That usually leads to focus on the messenger, rather than the message.
Your nitpicking (Which is just silly). When I was referring to all of mankind, I was not saying that there are not exceptions to the rule.
I obviously live on planet Earth know that there are people who do not marry. Even Jesus explains this involving eunuchs in Matthew 19:12. The point here is that mankind in general can be married. I am not talking about exceptions to the rule of those who are not able to marry. Matthew 19:5 addresses a man (singular) who leaves father and mother to cleave to his wife (In marriage). But this truth in this verse applies to most of all mankind. Many people within mankind can be married. Yet, the words “a man” (singular) are there. Nowhere does Matthew 19:5 teach that only Bob is the only man in human history who can be married. It’s not talking just only about one man in all of history. That’s the point I was making in relation to the words “a man” in Revelation 13:18. In Revelation 13:18, the words “a man” is used in the same way. It is referring to one specific man and yet it also referring to a number associated to man in general. Man’s number is 6 according to the Bible, and yet the Beast’s number is man’s number (which is the number 6), but tripled (666).
As for your claim that people who have not gotten married with their number being 5 1/2?
Ah, I see your confusion now. You think I believe that the number 6 is related to married people only?
That’s ridiculous. I am not saying that. I brought up Matthew 19:5 merely to show Dino that his point about how the words “a man” in Revelation 13:18 is not always a reference to singular person only.
Dino has not done any kind of study (even critically) involving the Biblical Numerics issue. He has not addressed the repeat occurrences of these numbers and how they could be just random chance. Also, Dino will not address any of the points I brought up in regards to Messianic prophecies, Pre-Incarnate appearances of Christ in relation to his desire that we must have a clear verse that point blank gives us the meaning like it does in Revelation 13:18 for every significant number in the Bible.
Where did I do that?
Please go back into this thread.
He was calling me names (swear words) before.
Nowhere did I do that. Attacking his argument is not an ad hominem.
I obviously live on planet Earth know that there are people who do not marry. Even Jesus explains this involving eunuchs in Matthew 19:12. The point here is that mankind in general can be married. I am not talking about exceptions to the rule of those who are not able to marry. Matthew 19:5 addresses a man (singular) who leaves father and mother to cleave to his wife (In marriage). But this truth in this verse applies to most of all mankind. Many people within mankind can be married. Yet, the words “a man” (singular) are there. Nowhere does Matthew 19:5 teach that only Bob is the only man in human history who can be married. It’s not talking just only about one man in all of history. That’s the point I was making in relation to the words “a man” in Revelation 13:18. In Revelation 13:18, the words “a man” is used in the same way. It is referring to one specific man and yet it also referring to a number associated to man in general. Man’s number is 6 according to the Bible, and yet the Beast’s number is man’s number (which is the number 6), but tripled (666).
As for your claim that people who have not gotten married with their number being 5 1/2?
Ah, I see your confusion now. You think I believe that the number 6 is related to married people only?
That’s ridiculous. I am not saying that. I brought up Matthew 19:5 merely to show Dino that his point about how the words “a man” in Revelation 13:18 is not always a reference to singular person only.
Dino has not done any kind of study (even critically) involving the Biblical Numerics issue. He has not addressed the repeat occurrences of these numbers and how they could be just random chance. Also, Dino will not address any of the points I brought up in regards to Messianic prophecies, Pre-Incarnate appearances of Christ in relation to his desire that we must have a clear verse that point blank gives us the meaning like it does in Revelation 13:18 for every significant number in the Bible.
Where did I do that?
Please go back into this thread.
He was calling me names (swear words) before.
Nowhere did I do that. Attacking his argument is not an ad hominem.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
And your observation was mistaken, my friend.
I was not talking about married couples only are associated with the number 6.
Nowhere did I say that.
My point was about the words “a man” in Revelation 13:18 can refer to a singular man and yet it also refers to most of mankind.
Matthew 19:5 was brought up as a point in defense of this because “a man” can leave father and mother so as to cleave to his wife. Yet, this truth in Matthew 19:5 applies to most of all mankind, and not just one man alone in human history.
I was not talking about married couples only are associated with the number 6.
Nowhere did I say that.
My point was about the words “a man” in Revelation 13:18 can refer to a singular man and yet it also refers to most of mankind.
Matthew 19:5 was brought up as a point in defense of this because “a man” can leave father and mother so as to cleave to his wife. Yet, this truth in Matthew 19:5 applies to most of all mankind, and not just one man alone in human history.
-
1
- Show all
@Kroogz
Nowhere did I state before that there are no exceptions to the rule. Jesus even clarified this in Matthew 19:12. So again, I was not saying otherwise to what was written by Jesus in that chapter. I am now adding the word “most” of all mankind because most people to my knowledge are able to marry. Most people are not eunuchs, or have other issues that would prevent them from being married, etcetera. Again, this is nitpicking. Now, if I said that “mankind” was in reference to every single person who has ever lived, then you could have criticized me, but I didn’t say that. I have now added the word “most” for clarity so you would not be confused. It was for your benefit. Not all writings that refer to a particular thing involving ”mankind” means that it has to be every single person. It is speaking of the majority of mankind. We all know there are exceptions to the rules on certain things in life.
Nowhere did I state before that there are no exceptions to the rule. Jesus even clarified this in Matthew 19:12. So again, I was not saying otherwise to what was written by Jesus in that chapter. I am now adding the word “most” of all mankind because most people to my knowledge are able to marry. Most people are not eunuchs, or have other issues that would prevent them from being married, etcetera. Again, this is nitpicking. Now, if I said that “mankind” was in reference to every single person who has ever lived, then you could have criticized me, but I didn’t say that. I have now added the word “most” for clarity so you would not be confused. It was for your benefit. Not all writings that refer to a particular thing involving ”mankind” means that it has to be every single person. It is speaking of the majority of mankind. We all know there are exceptions to the rules on certain things in life.
@Kroogz
All of mankind does not always mean it is referring to every single person on the planet or who has ever lived.
For example: “All the world“ does not mean all people even according to the dictionary.
https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/for+all+the+world
James 3:7
”For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:”
This truth in James 3:7 refers to all mankind in general. But do you think the word “mankind” is referring to every single person in mankind? No. Surely not. Not every person on the planet has engaged in the activity of taming animals.
For example: Romans 3 says all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God. This is obviously not referring to Jesus. So Jesus is not a part of the “all” in Romans 3 because Jesus never sinned. There are several examples in the Bible of how the word “all” does not always mean “all” in the most strictest wooden literalistic sense.
All of mankind does not always mean it is referring to every single person on the planet or who has ever lived.
For example: “All the world“ does not mean all people even according to the dictionary.
https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/for+all+the+world
James 3:7
”For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:”
This truth in James 3:7 refers to all mankind in general. But do you think the word “mankind” is referring to every single person in mankind? No. Surely not. Not every person on the planet has engaged in the activity of taming animals.
For example: Romans 3 says all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God. This is obviously not referring to Jesus. So Jesus is not a part of the “all” in Romans 3 because Jesus never sinned. There are several examples in the Bible of how the word “all” does not always mean “all” in the most strictest wooden literalistic sense.