|
| |
records of unlawful entry into veil? |
|
|
|
2 Chronicles
|
| |
2 Chronicles 36 talks about the Babylonians ransacking the House of the Lord. |
| |
Isai 41:2 referring to Christ or Cyrus? |
|
|
|
Isaiah
|
| |
Is 41:2 NASB "Who has aroused one from the east
Whom He calls in righteousness to His feet?
He delivers up nations before him
And subdues kings.
He makes them like dust with his sword,
As the wind-driven chaff with his bow." . . . The "man from the east" refers to Cyrus, not Christ.
. . . "one from the east. The Lord anointed Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, to accomplish His righteous will by conquering Babylon in 539 B.C. and allowing some of the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem . . . He founded the Persian Empire and ruled from ca. 550 to 530 B.C." . . . (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1015) |
| |
who is She referring to? |
|
|
|
1 Pet 5:13
|
| |
1 peter 5:13 states she who is in babylon,chosen together with you, sends you greetings and so does my son Mark.
Who is SHE referring to? |
| |
Where did Easter get its name? |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Yes, my friend, Easter is a pagan "holy" day. Paul told the Galatian saints that he feared them because they worshiped "days, and times, and seasons." He felt he had bestowed labor upon them in vain. The custom of the goddess Ishtar, or Eastara, can be traced all the way back to Babylonian mysticism. It came up through the false church (Roman Catholicism)and is, sadly, accepted today by many other institutions. |
| |
Is Isaiah 14:12 relating to the fall of |
|
|
|
Is 14:12
|
| |
The Hebrew word translated as "star of the morning" was translated into the Latin word "Lucifer" (meaning "light bearer") in the KJV. There is nothing in the context to suggest that it was meant to be a personal name rather than a title. Assuming that it is either a direct or indirect reference to Satan, the significance of the title is that Satan was radiant, more illustrious than all the other angels before his fall. The term was traditionally used to refer to the planet Venus, which is so bright that it usually can be seen with the moon in the early morning hours.
There are several interpretations of this passage: 1) it refers only to the king of Babylon. 2) It refers to the king and to Satan, the real power behind the king of Babylon. 3) It refers only to Satan's fall from his position of prominence before God. Support for a reference to Satan is found in the name, "star of the morning"; in the fact that he has fallen from heaven; and in his determination to exalt himself as God's equal. The second view is probably the best. |
| |
Is Isaiah 14:12 relating to the fall of |
|
|
|
Is 14:12
|
| |
The Hebrew word translated as "star of the morning" was translated into the Latin word "Lucifer" (meaning "light bearer") in the KJV. There is nothing in the context to suggest that it was meant to be a personal name rather than a title. Assuming that it is either a direct or indirect reference to Satan, the significance of the title is that Satan was radiant, more illustrious than all the other angels before his fall. The term was traditionally used to refer to the planet Venus, which is so bright that it usually can be seen with the moon in the early morning hours.
There are several interpretations of this passage: 1) it refers only to the king of Babylon. 2) It refers to the king and to Satan, the real power behind the king of Babylon. 3) It refers only to Satan's fall from his position of prominence before God. Support for a reference to Satan is found in the name, "star of the morning"; in the fact that he has fallen from heaven; and in his determination to exalt himself as God's equal. The second view is probably the best. |
| |
when is prophecy near or far? |
|
|
|
Isaiah
|
| |
The passage in Ezekiel 12:21-28 is concerning them at that specfic time. Some of the people were already in captivity in Babylonia and those that were still Jerusalem were only there because the king of Babylonia, Nebuchadnezzar, let them stay. 2 Kings 25 bears all this out. The prophecy was that the entire city would be destroyed and the rest of the people would be go into captivity also. But those left in Jerusalem said it would not happen becuase it it had taken so long. So God said since they doubted His word, He would bring that specfic prophecy to pass right then. And so He did. Many prophicies are given that have no date or time limit set on them, such as about the end days. Some of Daniels, Ezekiel, and the book of Revelation have not been fulfilled yet and we don't know when they will be. But God knows and has set the time for them to come to pass. It is for us to believe His Word, watch and be ready. The 2 Kings 10:30 prophecy was fulfilled in the kings that followed Jehu. They are found in 2 Kings 10:35; 13:1,10; 14:23; 15:8,12. It gets confusing when you try to sort all of the kings out, they did not follow strict geneology rules, but they are all there, some of the kings of Isreal and Judah had the same names and so forth. Hope this helps.
later...wdc
|
| |
How do we know we're in the end times? |
|
|
|
Is 1:1
|
| |
Israel became a nation in 1948 but they did so on there own, God didn't send them back there, in Isaiah God said they would return of the own acord, as far as the end times buy God terms the end is very close, but by are terms its still for a time yet, God said he would scatter Israel to the nations because of what they did,than Gods next profit spoken of as Elijah must come and he is give to rase a banner that will cause people to rally and he will gather them together in Babylon of to day (USA)and from there they will be led back to Israel |
| |
1st prophesy: Babylon invades Jerusalem? |
|
|
|
Not Specified
|
| |
Where in Scripture is the first Biblical prophecy of Babylon's future invasion of Jerusalem in 597BC? |
| |
1st prophesy: Babylon invades Jerusalem? |
|
|
|
Amos 1:1
|
| |
Where in Scripture is the first Biblical prophecy of Babylon's future invasion of Jerusalem in 597BC? |
| |
1st prophesy: Babylon invades Jerusalem? |
|
|
|
Amos 1:1
|
| |
In Ezekiel 21:1-27, there is a prophecy here that declares that God had drawn a sword against Israel (vv.1-7). Verses 18-23 explain that Ezekiel was informed that God would supernaturally direct Babylon toward Jerusalem, giving them an omen to go in that direction. Thus, the Babylonian Captivity was fulfilled (2 Chronicles 36:11-15). In Isaiah 39:1-8, Hezekiah shows envoys from Babylon all of his treasure (v. 1-2). Isaiah chided him for this (3-4) and predicted that all of his treasures would be carried off to Babylon including some of his descendants (5-8), but that this event would not occur in his lifetime. (2 Kings 20:16-19)Habakkuk 1:5-11 begins a prediction of the Babylonian invasion. |
| |
Isai 41:2 referring to Christ or Cyrus? |
|
|
|
Isaiah
|
| |
Is 41:2 NASB "Who has aroused one from the east
Whom He calls in righteousness to His feet?
He delivers up nations before him
And subdues kings.
He makes them like dust with his sword,
As the wind-driven chaff with his bow."
. . . The "man from the east" refers to CYRUS, not Christ.
. . . "one from the east. The Lord anointed *Cyrus* the Great, king of Persia, to accomplish His righteous will by conquering Babylon in 539 B.C. and allowing some of the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem . . . He founded the Persian Empire and ruled from ca. 550 to 530 B.C." . . . (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1015) |
| |
who is She referring to? |
|
|
|
1 Pet 5:13
|
| |
The text of the Amplified Bible apparently confirms the validity of the NLT translation of this verse. 1 Pet 5:13 The Amplified Bible "She [your sister church here] in Babylon, [who is] elect (chosen) with [yourselves], sends you greetings, and [so does] my son (disciple) Mark." (Babylon in this verse is used as a synonym or symbol of Rome.) |
| |
Women speak in church? |
|
|
|
1 Cor 14:34
|
| |
Charis,
It's not that I "think I know" "what God speaks on this issue". I just know that is the only side presented in the Word of God. If there were any other indication that women ever held an authoritative position in any church or there were ever one statement where a writer claimed it was OK, then, I'd submit to the teaching. But, there isn't.
I do desire for the people in my church to follow the proper authority--the Bible. If we do that, and that alone without any extra ideas on our part, women will remain silent in the public mixed assemblies because that's the only way the Bible speaks of it.
As for Easter, you are right about the heathen origin of the name. However, the bunny, the egg, and several other points concerning it are of a heathen origin. That word is only mentioned once in Scripture and that word was translated passover every other time except that once--interesting. You should pick up a book, "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop---very interesting.
God bless. |
| |
Women speak in church? |
|
|
|
1 Cor 14:34
|
| |
Dear inHzsvc, I acquiesce to your point that that Bible only states one side of this issue. Your thinking, your method is to adhere to the words of Paul as though they were intended to all, for all time. My thinking, my method is to believe that Paul was addressing a specific situation, and that the gist, the essence(life) of his teaching is to be adhered to. You have admitted that the word is silent concerning the 'other side' of this issue. I do, however, believe that we agree on the premise that women are different, and should be under authority. Children, too. I believe the same result can be attained without the 'gag,' without the hat and the veil. I am sure that the Bible teaches us that love is the preferred method, as taught in this same letter, by the same Author, to the same church. Apparently, this love command was not yet effective, for reasons we do not completely know. I hope and pray that the better teaching is being restored to the church, as we come closer to Jesus' soon return. I am aware of the dangers of 'Babylon' today, but also aware that rigid, stiff-necked Israel did not please God. Jesus' teaching always surprised the extremists with the balance of love and truth.
Thank you for your patience with me.
In Christ Jesus, charis |
| |
Are Christmas and Easter pagan in origin |
|
|
|
Gal 4:10
|
| |
Christmas and Easter are definitely pagan in origin. Twenty years ago, many Bible believers would readily admit that. However, it seems that many have forsaken that view because they know it runs people off. Perhaps we are too concerned with "nickels and noses" in this day and age. Both of these holidays were brought from polytheism (which is rooted in Babylonianism) into the false church, Roman Catholicism--thus the term "Christ-mass." Easter actually comes from the pagan god Ishtar, or Eastara. What these holidays are is a mixture of some truth and some pagan. For instance, Christ was really born of a virgin, in a manger, and there were really wise men (though the Scripture says nothing of 3 wise men, just 3 gifts). The Romans instituted something that was never instructed by or ever observed by the early churches--Christmas. They mixed a little truth with a lot of error producing error--a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
As for the word Easter appearing in Acts 12:4, that Greek word is never translated anything but passover in the Bible except in that one spot.
God bless. |
| |
Textual evidence from Genesis 6:4 |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
There is but one sentence in your question that I am uncertain as to the meaning. You write, "And Moses could not have written the book of Job since he (who is he--Moses or Job?) was long since dead (Deut. 34) at the time of Job." If you mean Moses was long since dead at the time of Job, that is the part I don't understand. Please note the following:
. . . 1) The events recorded in the book suggest a time frame early in the second millennium (approx. 2000) B.C. So Job could have been a contemporary of Abraham and, if so, would have lived 500 years before the time of Moses (which was approx. 1500 B.C).
. . . 2) Scholars have placed the date when the book was written anywhere from the time of Moses (which could not be true IF Moses preceded Job) to the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile. In all probability a date around the age of Solomon is preferable. (See p. 691, Harper Study Bible, Zondervan, 1991.)
|
| |
Did Hezekiah make the right choice? |
|
|
|
Not Specified
|
| |
Did Hezekiah really make the right decision in 2 Kings 20:3 by pleading for his life instead of putting his life in God's hands? During the fifteen years (the time that God gave him because of his plea) he made a mistake by showing all his treasure to Babylonian envoys (2 Kings 20:12-19) and his twelve year old son Manasseh (an evil king) became king of Judah in his place.. |
| |
Did Hezekiah make the right choice? |
|
|
|
2 Kin 20:3
|
| |
Did Hezekiah really make the right decision in 2 Kings 20:3 by pleading for his life instead of putting his life in God's hands? During the fifteen years (the time that God gave him because of his plea) he made a mistake by showing all his treasure to Babylonian envoys (2 Kings 20:12-19) and his twelve year old son Manasseh (an evil king) became king of Judah in his place.. |
| |
Did Hezekiah make the right choice? |
|
|
|
2 Kin 20:3
|
| |
Hezekiah merely prayed God to spare his life, a normal human response. But who made the crucial decision to spare his life and to extend it fifteen years? Was God therefore responsible for the subsequent mistakes Hezekiah made during the term of his new lease on life -- or was Hezekiah? Did Hezekiah have any foreknowledge when he prayed for his life that he would err in the future? Then Hezekiah certainly made no mistake in asking for God's intervention to spare his life. But again I say, God, not Hezekiah made the real choice in the matter. --Hank |
| |
Satan? |
|
|
|
Is 14:12
|
| |
How do you get Satan out of the King of Babylon? |
| |
Did Hezekiah make the right choice? |
|
|
|
2 Kin 20:3
|
| |
This is an interesting question.. It was 'good' that God honored his prayer since he was a 'good king', but it was 'bad' that the long term effects of what transpired after that led the tribe of Judah into exile. Of course, Hezekiah was not sinning by asking God to extend his life, but was it really God's will for him to lead Judah any longer? Isaiah was with Hezekiah then and prophesied that Hezekiah would indeed die. But Hezekiah pleaded to the Lord with tears and God granted his request, knowing that evil would come in the future. But did God really make the choice knowing that evil would be the result? The Lord may have known, of course (being omniscient), but it was ultimately Hezekiah's mistake to show the Babylon envoys his treasure and nobody knew that twelve year old Manasseh would be the most wicked king in all of Judah's history, leading them straight into exile and God's judgment. The Lord may have made a 'provision' or way out for Judah by allowing Hezekiah to be inflicted with disease, since that could have prevented the sin to follow. But the Lord was gracious to Hezekiah because of his plea. Hezekiah was definitely innocent by asking God for his life, but it is a shame that his son had to be the most wicked king in all of Judah's history. The Lord may have known this beforehand (being omniscient) but at the same time He was gracious to Hezekiah.. |
| |
Satan? |
|
|
|
Ezek 28:12
|
| |
The language "you were in Eden, the annointed cherub, blameless in all your ways" speak of an angelic being. This is another example of a dual fulfillment. Not only is this speaking of the king of Tyre, but also and more fully it speaks of a fallen being, one of high stature before the fall. I really don't know how to explain it, other than that the language is to explicit to be speaking of mere man. A parallel passage is Isaiah 14 where the king of Babylon is called "Lucifer, son of the morning" (KJV). Comparing these and the extreme language I come to the conclusion that God is talking about more than just man. |
| |
Is the United States in the Bible? |
|
|
|
Dan 7:4
|
| |
The Lion:
Symbol of Babylon. Lions were at the gates of the city of Babylon. The Babylonians represented themselves with a lion The winged lion which was often depicted on ancient Babylonian sculptures.
If this refers to Great Britian and the United States, note the wings are plucked. So what happens to the US. Then what happens to the lion? Read Daniel 4:33-37 to see the story of Nebuchadnezzar.
The Bear raised on one side:
Symbol of the Medio-Persian empire. The Median empire conquered the Babylonians and the Persians were friends of the Medes. But later the
Persians became more powerful. This is the meaning of the bear raised on one side, two powers in one empire, but one is greater than the
other.
The three bones in the bear's mouth (v5) are the three places that the Medio-Persians conquered: Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt.
Look at Daniel 8:3-4 Here he describes a Ram with two horns, but one horn is longer than the other. The shorter horn represents the Medians and the longer horn represents the Persians. It tells us the Ram goes north, west, and south. This again
represents the three places the Medes conquered: West of the Medes is Egypt, north is Assyria, and south is Babylon. In Daniel 8:20 the bible
interprets the vision of the Ram. Here we can see that the Bible actually interprets itself.
The Leopard with four wings and four heads:
Symbol of Greece. After the Medio-Persian empire, Alexander the Great of Greece conquered the entire area. He conquered the area veryquickly, so a fast leopard with wings is a good symbol.
Alexander of Greece, died at young age after conquering. His kingdom was given to 4 of
his generals that took 4 areas. Lycemicus (Greece), Cassander (Macedonia), Ptolomy (Egypt), Selucus (Syria).
The terrible beast:
Symbol of Rome.
Rome was divided into ten kingdoms: Alamanni, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Vandals, Suevi, Burgundians, Heruli, Anglo-Saxon, and Lombards. Seven of the countries still exist in Europe today.
There are three visions of kingdoms by Daniel and they fit together:
Dan 2..........Dan 7.....Dan 8...Kingdom
Gold Head......Eagle.............Babylon
Silver Breast..Bear......Ram.....Medo-Persia
Brass Thighs...Leopard...Goat....Greece
Iron Legs......Dreadful..........Rome
Iron/Clay Feet...................Future(?)
Remember let the Bible speak for itself, don't make it fit to your view.
Steve
|
| |
Should they be red flagged? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
It might be worth ya'll's while to read Fallen Is Babylon: The Revelation to John by Frederick J. Murphy. It takes Revelation chapter by chapter, verse by verse. Yours in Christ Jesus, Wist ye not |
| |
Amos 1:3-2:3 When judgment fullfilled ? |
|
|
|
Amos
|
| |
Here is what I know ...
Damascus fullfilled by the Assyrians
Gaza fullfilled by the Assyrians
Tyre fullfilled Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander the Great
Edom fullfilled by the Nabateans, 400 B.C.
Ammon fullfilled by Nebuchadnezzar
Moab fullfilled by the Babylonians
Judah fullfilled by Nebuchadnezzar, 586 B.C.
Israel fullfilled by by the Assyrians, 722-721 B.C. |
| |
Nebuchadnezzar a true believer? |
|
|
|
Dan 2:47
|
| |
Daniel 2:47 might lead one to think that Nebuchadnezzar was a true believer in the God of Israel. But was he? Did this most powerful pagan of his time continue to cling to his Babylonian gods? |
| |
Nebuchadnezzar a true believer? |
|
|
|
Dan 2:47
|
| |
Hi Hank, I don't see him clinging to his Babylonian gods in Daniel after he found out that there is no other God who is able to deliver. I think he followed Daniel and his friends "so as not to serve or worship any god except their own God."
Certainly his witness in Daniel 4:2 is excellent. And I think he came to realize that Heaven rules, Daniel 4:26, and that his grandeur was bestowed by Him, Daniel 5:19.
And again He is able. Daniel 4:37, "Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise, exalt, and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride.
I think he even recognized the Spirit of God. Daniel 4:8, marginal note, Or possibly, ..."the Spirit of the holy God." |
| |
Nebuchadnezzar a true believer? |
|
|
|
Dan 2:47
|
| |
Well, Ray, to attempt to answer your question, "Who was the god who was able to deliver?" -- It seems fair to say that all Christians would hold that it could only have been God, the God of Israel, who alone was able then and is able now, to deliver. Nebchadnezzar however, being a pagan steeped in the Babylonian religion of polytheism, obviously did not view the situation in the same perspective that we can today, given the facts some thousands of years later. In Daniel 3:15 Nebuchadnezzar, in asking "what god?" is probably using "god" in a paganistic sense, i.e., what god among other gods. The Chaldee word used here for "god" is elahh, and can mean God or god. In 3:29, the king is clearly speaking of the God of Shadrach, Meshack and Abed-nego. But this presents no proof that the same meaning should be attached to 3:15....Both the NASB and NKJV render "god" in 3:15 and "God" in 3:29. The KJV renders "God" in both verses. I believe the two modern versions, in rendering "god" in 3:15 and "God" in 3:29 more accurately reflect the sense indicated by the context....In any event, the matter doesn't appear to be of any great moment, no matter which meaning of "god" Nebuchadnezzar may have had in mind. And I see this as the only issue involved here. --Hank |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
