I AM A PROPHET and I prophesy
See other I AM A PROPHET and I prophesy Articles
Title: the riddle can never be unveiled ... until we arrive --- at the actual end of days
Source:
ldolphin.org
URL Source: http://www.ldolphin.org/daniel/daniel07.html
Published: Apr 25, 2014
Author: ldolphin.org
Post Date: 2014-04-25 20:38:20 by BorisY
Keywords: new heaven earth Jerusalem, new heaven earth Jerusalem, new heaven earth Jerusalem
Views: 4516
Comments: 11
"But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and (( false )) knowledge * shall increase." (Daniel 12:4) This verse has puzzled many people. They ask, "What does it mean that Daniel was told to seal up the book?" Many have taken this to mean that in some way the book of Daniel is rendered incapable of being understood; that the prophecies given Daniel are couched in such strange forms and weird language that no one can really understand them; the riddle can never be unveiled until we arrive at the actual end of days. 2-500 year old prophecy * post Evolution age How accurate is that !
Poster Comment: All we can do is surmise that this additional period introduces the day of the millennium, the golden age of earth, when God sets up his final kingdom and righteousness shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. That will be a blessed time indeed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BorisY (#0)
* post Evolution age Why do you add to Scripture?
This verse has puzzled many people. They ask, "What does it mean that Daniel was told to seal up the book?" Many have taken this to mean that in some way the book of Daniel is rendered incapable of being understood; that the prophecies given Daniel are couched in such strange forms and weird language that no one can really understand them; the riddle can never be unveiled until we arrive at the actual end of days. Not correct as the Apostle John is told in Revelation 1 to write down what he sees and hears except in one occasion.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Knowledge - God ... can not change - increase --- no shadow - spin - turning ! To: f.Christian Dakmar... I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said. fC... These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character- values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion--- schools)! Dakmar... Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers. God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO. 452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar byeltsin posted on 2004-05-07 13:44:15 ET (1 image) Reply Trace To: f.Christian fC ... Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. LC ... Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule. 152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Are you reading the Wiccan Latter Day Saints bible, book of Ferret? A direct hit by a lightening bolt, might help with your problem of lying about God's word! With you, it couldn't hurt.
Knowledge - God ... can not change - increase - lie --- break a promise !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Boris - predestined..... for eternity == Citations, please.
Translations of James 1:17 Euery good gift, and euery perfect gift is from aboue, & commeth downe from the Father of lights, with whom is no variablenesse, neither shadow of turning. - King James Version (1611) Every gift which is good, and every perfect boon, is from above, and comes down from the Father, who is the source of all Light. In Him there is no variation nor the slightest suggestion of change. - Weymouth Bible http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/James-1-17/ You must think God ... is - in need of --- evolution ! ... ps ... just study physics - nothing changes - elements - atoms - molecules - light - gravity ... relativity is time - space - water varies under temperatures - it doesn't change - planets alter the speed - direction of light - speed of light doesn't change - no biggee relativity - God transcends all of that ! The Bible says no shadow - turning ! Your ignorance - learning - knowledge - belief - ego doesn't change God - reality - ever !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
IMMUTABILITY. The term appears in the KJV in Heb 6:17–18 “Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by oath: that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie.…” By the immutability of God is meant that in His essence, attributes, consciousness and will, God is unchangeable. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
And what of those passages in which God sends down his angels to find out if the noise bruited about the evils of Sodom and Gomorrah are true. Abraham and YHWH have a lengthy discussion..."and if you find 20?..."If I find 20, I will not destroy it for the 20..." etc. When God says himself, before he sends the Flood, that he repents having made man, are we to conclude that this, too, is anthromorphism? Are we to conclude that God didn't actually SAY the words that it says he says, but that these words are ascribed to him? I myself can't do that with the text. I simply cannot accept the argument. When words come from the mouth of God and are recorded as quotes of God, then either those ARE quotes of God and have to be taken as such (which means that when God says that he repents having made man, he means just exactly that - otherwise he would not be telling the truth), or they're not quotes of God, in which the whole reliability of Scripture collapses. Why should I trust the author of Hebrews, or James, if I cannot trust a verbatim quote of God himself in Genesis? What I have observed in Scripture is this: the words that God himself says, from Genesis through Revelation, are pretty consistent internally. God has a personality, and it shines through consistently. There is a particular word that has to be translated correctly or it ends up turning the whole Bible into a set of contradictions, and that is the word "Olam" and the phrase "Olam va'ed", which mean "to a distant time" or, absolutely literally, "to the horizon", and imply an indefinite, unknown time (from the perspective of the hearer). If this word is mistranslated as "forever" or "forever and ever", then God contradicts himself constantly, as things that he says in one place are forever are swiftly changed by him when he becomes angry. Any notion of an impassive, emotionless, stoic God, a God pleasing to the Greek philosophical mind, is cast out the window by page after page after page of God expressing emotion constantly. God loves. God kneels to his creations. People find favor with God. God becomes angry with men and nations, and his wrath blazes. God is jealous. Jesus is God incarnate, and with Jesus we see the Father through the Son, and Jesus is an emotional man. If one looks at what God himself says throughout the Bible, he is consistent, and he is emotional. The impassive God of philosophy is not the Elohiym/YHWH and Jesus of Scripture. Angels also have emotion. The one sent to lead Israel was unforgiving of error. So, that's what God directly reveals of himself in his own words, and he is very, very, very consistent, personality wise, from Genesis through Revelation. However, then there is the rest of the Bible, especially in the Psalms, the Wisdom writings and the Epistles. Here, the human writers are describing God, describing how they see God, and here, there is a lot of variation and contradiction. In fact, that is where the contradictions that are in Scripture arise: the human views of God expressed by various writers sometimes agree with each other but conflict with the views expressed by other writers, and often the ways that these writers viewed God are at variance with what God himself directly says in his own words. In my own readings, I have been struck by the consistency of God in his own words, but the divergence of views in Scripture concerning the nature and personality of God in the words of the various wisdom writers. These things cannot be reconciled on an even basis, because you have at once an emotionless and impassive and static God and an emotional and expressive God who changes his mind and interacts with creation with considerable emotion. My problem with the argument that the emotional God is anthropomorphization while the "real" God is impassive and static and emotionless is this: it completely reverses the authority in the Bible. The God who expresses himself, in his own spoken words, is an emotional God. The impassive and static God is one that comes from the pens of philosophical men. Both Gods are in the Bible. For me to get to the impassive one, I have to take the descriptions of God by men and elevate them above all of the direct words that Scripture says is spoken by God. But Jesus said "[Man lives] by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God." So, I have the divine Son of God telling Satan himself that the words that God speaks are the ones to live by. There is no higher authority than that. I have an emotional Jesus telling me which words in a conflicting set of Scriptures are the ultimate authority, and when I look I see that THOSE words are utterly consistent from one end to the other - and the God who speaks those words is consistently a God of passion, opinion and emotion: an identifiable personality. Greeks (and Roman Stoics) did not like a passionate and opinionated God. It's too human. Being made in man's image, we'd rather expect to be like God, but no! That's not acceptable to a lot of people. It was not philosophically acceptable to some of the Scripture writers either. So there's a choice to be made, really, because there is a contradiction in the text. What I see here is that BYeltsin prefers an impassive, static, emotionless God, and decides to go with what James and the author of Hebrews say about God. Me? I decide to God with what God himself directly said in words that proceed out of his own mouth. I don't think that God was lying, or "testing" us by being wrathful. When olam is properly read, God tells us that things will eventually change, and change again: "until a distant time" is not "forever". Of course JEWISH theologians preferred to hear "forever", for that placed their little world at the apex "forever", but God didn't say that. In fact, he built into the revelation and covenants the promises that the "distant time" would in fact come and things would change. He promises that the world itself will be destroyed and changed, so if God really did say "forever", he contradicted himself right there. NOTHING earthly can be "forever" for the world itself isn't forever. But God didn't contradict himself at all. Rather, men interpreted "to a distant time" as "forever" because it pleased their philosophical theology to do so. And the same is true of the impassive static God that some of the writers seemed to think was there. God is slow to anger, but he gets angry. An impassive God would never anger, and whoever sees him as "angry" is anthropomorphizing. The problem with that view is that, in order to sustain it, one has to cancel out virtually all of the passages in which God speaks for himself with his own mouth. And if one does THAT, one is directly annulling Jesus, who pointed to those very words as THE words to live by. There is an irreconcilable difference in theology between the two views. The circle cannot be squared. Both sets of texts are in Scripture, and they contradict. So, the question is: how does one resolve it. I resolve it by going with Jesus and taking "the words that proceed forth out of the mouth of God" as the ultimate authority. Which means that the bits where God is presented as impassive, and the bits where "to a distant time" is interpreted as "forever" are simple cases of misguided zeal that need to be reined in to the reality of God as God presented himself. BYeltsin and the sources you quoted resolve it by preferring the impassive God of the wisdom writers, and thereby have to reduce the God who says he's angry or jealous - the expressive, emotional God of his own words - to anthropomorphisms. The views are not reconcilable. It's a simple matter of which texts one believes are of greater authority. Yeltsin's answer is Paul and James. My answer is the words spoken directly by YHWH and Jesus. I think it's possible to end up with the same moral outcome in either case, but the view of who and what God is is very, very different. Yeltsin and you are sure that you're right. And I'm sure that I'm right. Therefore, go in peace to love and serve the Lord as you feel you must, and I shall do the same, and we'll find out in the end who was right. For my part, I can't see how one can make an argument for literal Genesis, but then dismiss the wrathful, curious, jealous, emotional God that pervades all of Scripture as anthropomorphism. It doesn't square for me.
I'm for the the ... immutable laws - reality of God --- that means they are not open for discussion - hope - change - yes we can ! You support fascism. That is NOT an "immutable law" or "reality of God." Unless your "God" is the anti-Christ and your reality shrouded in a haze of hashish and shrooms. ... liberator ... harrow up's last words --- go after him for me ! http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36834&Disp=9#C9
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Many shall run to and fro, and (( false )) knowledge * shall increase."
#2. To: BorisY (#0)
"But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and (( false )) knowledge * shall increase." (Daniel 12:4)
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
(Edited)
#4. To: BorisY, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#3)
(Edited)
Knowledge - God ... can not change - increase ---
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#5. To: hondo68 (#4)
#6. To: BorisY (#5)
... can not change -
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#7. To: BorisY (#3)
Knowledge - God ... can not change - increase
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
(Edited)
#9. To: BorisY, Vicomte13 (#8)
The doctrine of God’s immutability is further deducted from biblical passages such as: “They shall be changed, but thou art the same” (Ps 102:26–27); “I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal 3:6); “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever” (Heb 13:8); and “with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning” (Jas 1:17), ASV). In such verses change is explicitly denied to God. This does not mean God is immobile, however, for He acts in history. His immutability is dynamic, not static.
Immutability is also indicated in other verses where the idea is implicit rather than explicit. For example, all those passages that teach omniscience (q.v.) imply immutability; for if the amount of knowledge in the divine mind increased or diminished, there would be time in which God would not know all things (but cf. Heb 4:13). Omniscience allows no change nor temporal sequence of ideas in God’s mind. God can neither forget what He now knows nor think of something additional that He never thought of before. Omniscience therefore involves immutability.
Occasionally the Bible attributes repentance or regret to God. In (1 Sam 15:11, 35) it is stated that God repented (Heb. niḥam, “feel compassion, grief, sorrow”) of having made Saul king over Israel. This seems to indicate a change of mind or emotion in God. But between these two verses, in v. 29 we read that “Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.” God’s seeming change of mind or attitude therefore should be taken as an anthropopathism, the attributing of human emotions to God, just as we understand the arms and eyes of the Lord as anthropomorphism.
Other passages which speak of God as repenting of judgement (e.g., against Israel, Ex 32:14; Nineveh, Jon 3:10) reveal that His threats are often conditional upon human repentance (cf. (Jer 18:7–10; 26:3, 13, 19). Therefore God abides by the same unchanging moral principles in all dispensations of His government.
#10. To: GarySpFC (#9)
For example, all those passages that teach omniscience (q.v.) imply immutability;
#11. To: GarySpFC (#9)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]