Overfilling potholes

[AustinC]

How can a person discern potholes and overfilling them, if they have no shovel or no vehicle to drive over them?

A self-described greek scholar does not a greek scholar make. However, we can look through history and see the organizations formed by self-described greek scholars. Hint: It isn't a positive story.

 

[MrW]

But you could not cite even one example, and you did not address that the grammatical construction is NOT, repeat found in Revelation 13:8, nor 17:8. Names were not written (and others presumably written) since or after the foundation of the world (or founding of humanity) in the Lamb's book of life who was slain.

One example: Has this happened yet? No, the devil is not bound. He is working havoc on the earth right now. Yet John is prophesying what will happen as though it's past tense.

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

I repeat, Revelation is what is, what was, and what is to come, yet John often rights what is to come in the past tense. It's not conditional--it's a surety.

 

[MrW]

"A day is as a thousand years with the LORD and a thousand years as a day". Adam died at 932.

The point is Adam died spiritually to God the moment he sinned. And he died physically also, within that thousand years = one day formula.

No one lived a full thousand years. 969 was the longest.

So anyway one spin's it, God covered all the bases. Adam's spirit died to God when he sinned, and he died physically within God's "day".

All men's spirits came from Adam, so in Adam all die. All who are saved are united in the Body of Christ (spiritually, when their spirit is born again), and thus all in Christ are made alive in Him (spiritually--that is, their spirit is joined to Christ's spirit and thus made alive, see 1 Corinthians 12:13, we are "baptized" into one Body and drink into one Spirit.

 

[Van]

One example: Has this happened yet? No, the devil is not bound. He is working havoc on the earth right now. Yet John is prophesying what will happen as though it's past tense.

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

I repeat, Revelation is what is, what was, and what is to come, yet John often rights what is to come in the past tense. It's not conditional--it's a surety.

The fact Revelation is written from the point of view of End Time is non-germane to the issue. In Revelation 13:8 the text is not describing a future event (Christ's death) but an even that occurred before John wrote Revelation. And you dodged Rev. 17:8 which describes "names not written" from or since the foundation of the world. Your claim about Rev. 13:8 simply will not fly.

 

[Van]

Often when studying scripture, we must "fill in the blank." Something is said where we must supply the scope of the statement. Our interpretive translation fills in potholes produced by ambiguity. For example, Jesus knows all. Is the intended scope, Jesus knows everything imaginable, or just Jesus know all of the things in view based on context?

When we expand the scope of the text, like overfilling potholes in a street, we create just another road hazard.

When we see "the things" of the Spirit, do we say all the things of the spirit, or "at least some of the things of the spirit?"

When we see "no one seeks after God," do we say no one "ever" seeks after God, or no one always seeks after God?"

When we see "do not allow the women to speak in church," do we say do not allow any women to ever speak in church, or do not allow disruptive women to speak in church?

The key to not overfilling the potholes is to ask, what is the minimum God is saying.

For an example of an overfilled pothole, consider the translation of John 21:17. Jesus did not know "all things (imaginable)" as He did not know the time of His return. So even though translators overfilled the pothole, saying Jesus knows "all things" (John 21:17), the contextual scope is "you know all things about those you interact with" such as the woman with 5 husbands. Contextually, in John 21 Jesus knows all things about Peter and the others present.

Whenever you see "all things" or even "the things" remember the scope is limited by the context.

 

[AustinC]

Often when studying scripture, we must "fill in the blank." Something is said where we must supply the scope of the statement. Our interpretive translation fills in potholes produced by ambiguity. For example, Jesus knows all. Is the intended scope, Jesus knows everything imaginable, or just Jesus know all of the things in view based on context?

When we expand the scope of the text, like overfilling potholes in a street, we create just another road hazard.

When we see "the things" of the Spirit, do we say all the things of the spirit, or "at least some of the things of the spirit?"

When we see "no one seeks after God," do we say no one "ever" seeks after God, or no one always seeks after God?"

When we see "do not allow the women to speak in church," do we say do not allow any women to ever speak in church, or do not allow disruptive women to speak in church?

The key to not overfilling the potholes is to ask, what is the minimum God is saying.

For an example of an overfilled pothole, consider the translation of John 21:17. Jesus did not know "all things (imaginable)" as He did not know the time of His return. So even though translators overfilled the pothole, saying Jesus knows "all things" (John 21:17), the contextual scope is "you know all things about those you interact with" such as the woman with 5 husbands. Contextually, in John 21 Jesus knows all things about Peter and the others present.

Whenever you see "all things" or even "the things" remember the scope is limited by the context.

The key to not overfilling your metaphorical potholes is to have scripture interpret scripture. One major problem is the propensity of people who are picking a sentence or part of a sentence and then using what they picked as a prooftext for their presupposition. If a person truly desires to rightfully divide the word of God, they will wrestle with passages, in their context, and then confer with other passages that help interpret the passage that is difficult to understand. However, it seems that very few people are willing to do this since it might tip over their pet presupposition.

 

[MrW]

The fact Revelation is written from the point of view of End Time is non-germane to the issue. In Revelation 13:8 the text is not describing a future event (Christ's death) but an even that occurred before John wrote Revelation. And you dodged Rev. 17:8 which describes "names not written" from or since the foundation of the world. Your claim about Rev. 13:8 simply will not fly.

The Book of Revelation is not all future. It is "What was, what is, and what is to come". The latter is the future. I know I'm stating the obvious, but I've noted this several times, and apparently all haven't seen it, which is understandable--this is a big site and difficult to navigate--for me, anyhow.

 

[Van]

The key to not overfilling your metaphorical potholes is to have scripture interpret scripture. One major problem is the propensity of people who are picking a sentence or part of a sentence and then using what they picked as a prooftext for their presupposition. If a person truly desires to rightfully divide the word of God, they will wrestle with passages, in their context, and then confer with other passages that help interpret the passage that is difficult to understand. However, it seems that very few people are willing to do this since it might tip over their pet presupposition.

Great description of those who overfill potholes.

 

[Van]

The Book of Revelation is not all future. It is "What was, what is, and what is to come". The latter is the future. I know I'm stating the obvious, but I've noted this several times, and apparently all haven't seen it, which is understandable--this is a big site and difficult to navigate--for me, anyhow.

Names were not written [and others presumably written] from or since the foundation of the world is clearly indicated by Revelation 17:8 and therefore many scholars rightly conclude Revelation 13:8 by the same author is saying the same thing and not some other thing. Therefore the text does not say nor imply the Lamb was planned to be slain before the foundation of the world, and such a claim is simply false, an agenda driven corruption of the text.

 

[MrW]

Therefore the text does not say nor imply the Lamb was planned to be slain before the foundation of the world, and such a claim is simply false, an agenda driven corruption of the text.

God calls those things that are not as though they were. The text clearly implies it was God's plan from the beginning that the Word would become flesh and be crucified and resurrected to save His people from their sins. It was not an afterthought and it has several purposes.

One is of course to save His people from their sins, another is as God, He would bring glory to the most deserving Person ever, and that Person is none other than God. The one worthy of the most glory would be the one who suffered the greatest, and that would be God in the flesh, the Lord Jesus.

Yes, it was planned for Christ to become man and die and resurrect as the First-Begotten from the dead, from the very beginning.

 

[Van]

God calls those things that are not as though they were. The text clearly implies it was God's plan from the beginning that the Word would become flesh and be crucified and resurrected to save His people from their sins. It was not an afterthought and it has several purposes.

One is of course to save His people from their sins, another is as God, He would bring glory to the most deserving Person ever, and that Person is none other than God. The one worthy of the most glory would be the one who suffered the greatest, and that would be God in the flesh, the Lord Jesus.

Yes, it was planned for Christ to become man and die and resurrect as the First-Begotten from the dead, from the very beginning.

There is absolutely no implication of the planned slaying of the Lamb, but rather that He had been slain since the foundation of the world (or more accurately since the founding of humanity).

God's redemption plan, formulated before creation, is not implied in every verse.

No one said or suggested it was a afterthought. You are lambasting strawmen.

Names were not written [and others presumably written] from or since the foundation of the world is clearly indicated by Revelation 17:8 and therefore many scholars rightly conclude Revelation 13:8 by the same author is saying the same thing and not some other thing. Therefore the text does not say nor imply the Lamb was planned to be slain before the foundation of the world, and such a claim is simply false, an agenda driven corruption of the text.

 

[MrW]

No lambasting intended nor insinuation of a strawman. Merely making the statement it was not an afterthought, therefore, it was planned from the beginning.

 

[Van]

No lambasting intended nor insinuation of a strawman. Merely making the statement it was not an afterthought, therefore, it was planned from the beginning.

Not at issue, 1 Peter 1:19:20. However that truth is not found in Revelation 13:8, but rather the truth as to when names were not entered (and other presumably entered) in the Lamb's book of life and the indicated time period is since and not before the foundation of the world.

 

[MrW]

Sorry, I was never talking about the Lamb’s Book of Life, but only about the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

[MrW]

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Revelation 13:8

What I see here is the Lord Jesus Christ is ordained of God as slain from the foundation of the world.

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Revelation 17:8

What I see here is some names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, therefore some names were written. I believe God knows all who would believe on Christ, given opportunity, not the double predestination of RT.

 

[AustinC]

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Revelation 13:8

What I see here is the Lord Jesus Christ is ordained of God as slain from the foundation of the world.

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Revelation 17:8

What I see here is some names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, therefore some names were written. I believe God knows all who would believe on Christ, given opportunity, not the double predestination of RT.

"whose names were not written in the book of life"
The phrase is in both verses and in both cases it is referring to those who follow the beast.
This means all who are saved are in God's list. This fits with Hebrews 9 and the New Covenant (Jesus Will) that lists those who receive an inheritance. God wrote these names down, before the foundation of the world.

Another interesting thing is in Revelation 17. Here we see John using parody when he says "the beast that was, and is not, and yet is" as compared to Jesus “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
"The beast was." This means that it was unbound on the earth before the cross.
"The beast is not." This means it was bound and the Church has had a time of growth and spreading across the earth.
"The beast yet is." This means that the beast comes back and is released so that the wheat is separated from the tares. The elect are separated from those whose names are not in the book of life. Then, Jesus comes and reaps the earth at the Mount of Assembly (Har-megeddon).

 

[MrW]

I agree God knows (knew) all who would trust Christ, per His foreknowledge. I don’t go beyond that. We have freedom to receive or reject, though He knows what we will do. The great mystery is why some do, some don’t, and the only Biblical answer I find is John 3, specifically verse 19b:

18 ¶ He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 

[AustinC]

I agree God knows (knew) all who would trust Christ, per His foreknowledge. I don’t go beyond that. We have freedom to receive or reject, though He knows what we will do. The great mystery is why some do, some don’t, and the only Biblical answer I find is John 3, specifically verse 19b:

18 ¶ He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Hmmm... you don't want to admit that God chooses, elects, adopts, and predestines, even though the Bible tells you He does. You only want a God who has foreknowledge, but allows you to be the ruler of your own life.

Do you not see how demeaning that is to a Sovereign God?

 

[MrW]

The Bible doesn't tell me that. I wish it did. Would that God ruled every iota of my life!

Then I could happily put the responsibility of all my failures on Him. Sadly, He has allowed me more room (more free will) than I think is good for me.

Many are called, few are chosen. Therefore I do believe there are some people whom God chose for certain purposes--Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, e.g. And I also believe they were chosen to benefit us, to bring the message to we, who are the "whosoever wills" of humanity.

The Calvinist believes the only way God can know the future is because He predestined it. That's quite limited.

I believe in a God so big He didn't have to predestine it to know the future. Now THAT'S a glorious God! To know without having to make it happen!

 

[AustinC]

The Bible doesn't tell me that. I wish it did. Would that God ruled every iota of my life!

Then I could happily put the responsibility of all my failures on Him. Sadly, He has allowed me more room (more free will) than I think is good for me.

Many are called, few are chosen. Therefore I do believe there are some people whom God chose for certain purposes--Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, e.g. And I also believe they were chosen to benefit us, to bring the message to we, who are the "whosoever wills" of humanity.

The Calvinist believes the only way God can know the future is because He predestined it. That's quite limited.

I believe in a God so big He didn't have to predestine it to know the future. Now THAT'S a glorious God! To know without having to make it happen!

The Bible does tell you that, but you either haven't read your Bible as much as you think, or you prefer to rule and expect God to take the passenger seat.