User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 54 of 54

Thread: Question: "They will return here." How do we understand this Biblical phrase?

  1. #46
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,089
    Thanks
    13,459
    Thanked 21,040 Times in 11,818 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147701

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Of course it mattered to me! But it didn't persuade me. It wasn't strong enough to say "and they shall not sorrow any more at all" and presume that means the kingdom of the messiah has arrived.
    The lack of persuasion in these matters is your problem and not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    The jump to the other books might be warranted, but it might not be.
    That's easy to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    If the Jeremiah passage is comfortably fulfilled with the events of the return from Babylon, we shouldn't go looking for other events to fulfill it.
    Since it didn't, then we need to look further.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    That doesn't mean the passage has no bearing on more future events, but too many of us tend to look at passages as if they are happening right now, or just over the next hill of time. Maybe some of these don't even apply where we are trying to apply them.
    More vague talk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Let's just be careful how we apply the passages. Isn't that your point about Paul's letters vs Peter's, James', and John's? It's good advice when you give it--why does it become bad advice when I give it?
    You're certainly confusing the issue.
    Last edited by Right Divider; December 22nd, 2018 at 12:12 PM. Reason: typo
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    steko (December 22nd, 2018)

  3. #47
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,069
    Thanks
    522
    Thanked 903 Times in 621 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    240492
    Quote Originally Posted by Danoh View Post
    That is nonsense.

    Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

    Daniel 9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

    Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

    Those words in Matthew are based on Daniel, which, in turn, was based on Jeremiah, which, in turn, was based on Deuteronomy.

    And so on...
    "Based on"? More like "quoted from". But if Daniel 9:2 was talking seventy years, which he got from Jeremiah, why are we saying that Jeremiah's prophecy is still to be fulfilled?





    Put your ever obvious books learned reasoning of men, away.
    Don't you know how to read and write, and even reason, because you learned it from men? Like your parents and school teachers and bible teachers? Are you suggesting we put all of that away and not even use any of the skills we learned from men? (If you answer "yes", you'll have refuted your imperative, since you can't even type "yes" without using those skills. If you answer "no" you will have refuted your imperative by your inconsistency--your choice.)

  4. #48
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,069
    Thanks
    522
    Thanked 903 Times in 621 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    240492
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Thank you for this about the tribe of Asher.
    Our pastor on Sunday had us read this from Isaiah 8:
    [Isa 8:14 KJV] And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

    I think this helps answer your question in this thread. Paul quoted this verse here:
    [Rom 9:33 KJV] As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

    He seems to be conjoining Is 8:14 with Is 28:16:
    [Isa 28:16 KJV] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

    So here's the argument: If Jesus was a stumblingstone and rock of offence to Judah, but the verse in Isaiah specifically says it will be so to BOTH houses of Israel, then I would think Paul's account of Is 8:14's fulfillment is not a partial, but a complete fulfillment, which would necessitate that it include BOTH houses of Israel, which would necessitate that both houses of Israel must have returned already in some fashion.

    There's more. In Is 9, we find the famous passage of the Messiah's birth, and a couple verses later it tells us to whom the good news will be given:

    [Isa 9:6 KJV] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
    ...
    [Isa 9:8 KJV] The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.
    [Isa 9:9 KJV] And all the people shall know, [even] Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart,

  5. #49
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,972
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 873 Times in 806 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121121
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Our pastor on Sunday had us read this from Isaiah 8:
    [Isa 8:14 KJV] And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

    I think this helps answer your question in this thread. Paul quoted this verse here:
    [Rom 9:33 KJV] As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

    He seems to be conjoining Is 8:14 with Is 28:16:
    [Isa 28:16 KJV] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

    So here's the argument: If Jesus was a stumblingstone and rock of offence to Judah, but the verse in Isaiah specifically says it will be so to BOTH houses of Israel, then I would think Paul's account of Is 8:14's fulfillment is not a partial, but a complete fulfillment, which would necessitate that it include BOTH houses of Israel, which would necessitate that both houses of Israel must have returned already in some fashion.

    There's more. In Is 9, we find the famous passage of the Messiah's birth, and a couple verses later it tells us to whom the good news will be given:

    [Isa 9:6 KJV] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
    ...
    [Isa 9:8 KJV] The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.
    [Isa 9:9 KJV] And all the people shall know, [even] Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart,
    Why thank you. I am not sure of your point. But thanks. It is usually or almost always good to look at scripture.

  6. #50
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,069
    Thanks
    522
    Thanked 903 Times in 621 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    240492
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Why thank you. I am not sure of your point. But thanks. It is usually or almost always good to look at scripture.
    God laid "in Zion" a stumblingstone for BOTH houses of Israel. Paul says they stumbled over that stumblingstone. The stumbling was the rejection of Jesus as their king/messiah. So both houses (including the ten northern tribes) must have been back in the land when Jesus, the stumblingstone, was laid and subsequently rejected.

  7. #51
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,972
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 873 Times in 806 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121121
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    God laid "in Zion" a stumblingstone for BOTH houses of Israel. Paul says they stumbled over that stumblingstone. The stumbling was the rejection of Jesus as their king/messiah. So both houses (including the ten northern tribes) must have been back in the land when Jesus, the stumblingstone, was laid and subsequently rejected.
    Oh. Thanks. Not for this time but 2,000 years ago.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Jacob For Your Post:

    Derf (December 27th, 2018)

  9. #52
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    15,664
    Thanks
    370
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,892 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1249370
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    "Based on"? More like "quoted from". But if Daniel 9:2 was talking seventy years, which he got from Jeremiah, why are we saying that Jeremiah's prophecy is still to be fulfilled?





    Don't you know how to read and write, and even reason, because you learned it from men? Like your parents and school teachers and bible teachers? Are you suggesting we put all of that away and not even use any of the skills we learned from men? (If you answer "yes", you'll have refuted your imperative, since you can't even type "yes" without using those skills. If you answer "no" you will have refuted your imperative by your inconsistency--your choice.)
    Not in the least, for my point is the need to not over rely on what the traditions of men over rely on, in their endless books "about" the Bible - on the reasoning of men within its own vacuum.

    Case in point, most within Christianity learn "about" the things in the Bible, from books supposedly based on the Bible.

    And I have actually walked in on various people I was to meet with about one thing or another, who were sitting their reading one of those endless books, they would then turn to their Bible and read that book's assertions into their Bible.

    Such are well read in such endless books.

    And out of their kind arise a next generation of writers "about" "what the Bible says..." about this, that, the other.

    Theirs is much more often than not, the traditions of men; the reasoning of men.

    Such "know" what their Bible says about one thing or another in this or that passage based on their traditions of men books based reasoning, together with their own reasoning into...a thing.

    Thus, their straw man arguments.

    That is what I am referring to, when I say "put away your books based reasoning."

    Your reply herein above only revealed how badly said practice ends up crippling one. For you sure read all sorts of notions into what I'd meant.

    Notions from within which you then posed your argument in your reply too me.

    Straight out of your own reasoning about what I'd meant.

    No offense intended, and none taken (because Romans 5:6-8 is that sufficient a COMPLETE provision for the Believer, no matter what might come his, or her way).

    I am merely pointing out the flaw in over relying on the reasoning of men "about" one thing or another "in the Bible."

    Isaiah 8:20.

  10. #53
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,069
    Thanks
    522
    Thanked 903 Times in 621 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    240492
    Quote Originally Posted by Danoh View Post
    Not in the least, for my point is the need to not over rely on what the traditions of men over rely on, in their endless books "about" the Bible - on the reasoning of men within its own vacuum.

    Case in point, most within Christianity learn "about" the things in the Bible, from books supposedly based on the Bible.

    And I have actually walked in on various people I was to meet with about one thing or another, who were sitting their reading one of those endless books, they would then turn to their Bible and read that book's assertions into their Bible.

    Such are well read in such endless books.

    And out of their kind arise a next generation of writers "about" "what the Bible says..." about this, that, the other.

    Theirs is much more often than not, the traditions of men; the reasoning of men.

    Such "know" what their Bible says about one thing or another in this or that passage based on their traditions of men books based reasoning, together with their own reasoning into...a thing.

    Thus, their straw man arguments.

    That is what I am referring to, when I say "put away your books based reasoning."

    Your reply herein above only revealed how badly said practice ends up crippling one. For you sure read all sorts of notions into what I'd meant.

    Notions from within which you then posed your argument in your reply too me.

    Straight out of your own reasoning about what I'd meant.

    No offense intended, and none taken (because Romans 5:6-8 is that sufficient a COMPLETE provision for the Believer, no matter what might come his, or her way).

    I am merely pointing out the flaw in over relying on the reasoning of men "about" one thing or another "in the Bible."

    Isaiah 8:20.
    But if I didn't get the material from my posts from other men/commentaries (I didn't), then the remaining flaw, if there is one, is that my REASONING is flawed. The reasoning, or logic, that I'm proposing is merely that we look at the text to see what it says, then look at other texts to see if it was fulfilled. Is that so bad?

    If you are concerned about the commentaries I'm using, consider them already put away.

    But if I come to the same conclusion as commentaries you disagree with, when I'm not using those commentaries, maybe those commentaries you disagree with are not as bad as you think--since some of their conclusions seem to be easy to reach using just the scriptures. I'm speaking rather specifically of this conversation--surely there are other aspects of those commentaries, whichever ones you don't like, that I also disagree with.

    On the other hand, if you are using commentaries you agree with to disparage commentaries I'm not even using, what does that say about YOUR reasoning.

  11. #54
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    15,664
    Thanks
    370
    Thanked 3,869 Times in 2,892 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1249370
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    But if I didn't get the material from my posts from other men/commentaries (I didn't), then the remaining flaw, if there is one, is that my REASONING is flawed. The reasoning, or logic, that I'm proposing is merely that we look at the text to see what it says, then look at other texts to see if it was fulfilled. Is that so bad?

    If you are concerned about the commentaries I'm using, consider them already put away.

    But if I come to the same conclusion as commentaries you disagree with, when I'm not using those commentaries, maybe those commentaries you disagree with are not as bad as you think--since some of their conclusions seem to be easy to reach using just the scriptures. I'm speaking rather specifically of this conversation--surely there are other aspects of those commentaries, whichever ones you don't like, that I also disagree with.

    On the other hand, if you are using commentaries you agree with to disparage commentaries I'm not even using, what does that say about YOUR reasoning.
    That is the question such things boil down to - how much of one's reasoning is actually aligned with Scripture.

    And unlike most, you are obviously aware that that in itself can also end up in the eye of each beholder.

    For the other side of the coin is often no better off - the side that is ever asserting it alone has a thing right and one is wrong to dare to even question it.

    All of which boils down to the particular study approach.

    As is in the case, say, with a passage like 1 Tim. 3:16, for example.

    The study approach of some leads them to conclude that Paul is referring to Christ.

    In contrast, the study approach of others, leads them to conclude that Paul is referring to the Body of Christ.

    While the "study approach" of most will have been to have reached for various books "about" it.

    The result of said third approach being that having relied on the conclusions of another man's labor, whether or not said other man's reasoning was sound, such never really reach a point where they are often able to get the actual gist of another's words on their own, be it those of a writer of Scripture, or those of any other individual.

    And so, round and round, every one goes.

    Isaiah 8:20

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Danoh For Your Post:

    Derf (December 28th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us