[geocentrism] Re: Calendar query
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 19:47:16 -0400
Alan,
Let's review.
When this Jonah prophecy issue was raised here, I had no answer, no pat
'model' of Scripture to impose. I saw a discrepancy between the Word and my
reasoning on it, as did others.
But I knew a thousand questions about Scripture cannot never create a single
doubt. So I researched the resolution of the 3 days and nights with an open
mind, hopefully with the aid of the Spirit, and found a credible
explanation.
The source I found has a different faith than I, but no one is excluded from
knowing the truth. So I accepted his thesis after critically reading the
arguments.
I thank the Lord for guiding me to a reasonable solution, as I knew it must
exist, but not that I would discover it.
Now my faith is firmer than ever in His revealed truth.
Dismissal of my arguments, as supported by the source reference, without
addressing them at all, or their credibility, won't convince anyone that
they are false. I have used other Scripture passages to understand the Jonah
passage. Why is that faulty? I seek truth from the Truth.
There are over 20,000 conflicting and contradicting sects all proclaiming to
read the truth from the same Bible. When a person disagrees with his present
sect, he goes out and forms another. The reason for all this is that the
Scriptures can be difficult to read - the idea that we don't need His help
in comprehending His word is self-righteous.
Some Biblical revisionists read the Hebrew 'yom' and say it means millions
of years, to support evolution. Ultra literalists swing the other way in
over-reaction, slavishly translating Scripture mechanically, word by word,
with no attention to intent or meaning. They forgive others 490 times, but
not 491, because of Matt 18:22. Or they pluck out their right eye to obey
Matt 5:29.
Where is it written that there is only the literal meaning to revelation or
that there is only the symbolic? The Lord gave us common sense; let's use it
in exegesis as we would in any practical decision-making. This is called
Biblical realism.
words of wisdom:
If you buy into this approach (litera sola) with this scripture here you
will do it every time you run into a crisis of theory or a crisis of faith.
You have not addressed the arguments (of realism), you have only ignored
them and scripture in favor of your own ideas and a exegesis that fits you.
> If the scripture cant be understood plainly
> by the lay person then who can ?
The salvific content of Scripture can be understood by all informed/prepared
people, but what of the generally illiterate or those Biblically illiterate?
Who of us is so naive to claim knowledge of all Revelation?
RIP, JPII
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Allen Daves
> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 11:26 AM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Calendar query
>
>
> Robert, your logic is without question identical. Its all just a
> figure of speech or a mistranslation of the "Original tongue".
> The bottom line is you can make your models fit scripture or you
> can make scripture fit your models. The scriptures say the same
> thing in English as they do Hebrew, if they did not then what you
> have is not scripture, but rather a privet interpretation.
>
> Carl & Robert , you have obviously chosen to make scripture fit
> your models and attempt to justify it by selective approach and
> very privet interpretation.
>
> No ones responsibility to the truth is to me in any way. However,
> don?t deceive yourselves in thinking that the reason there are so
> many different interpretations and religious organizations is
> because people don?t understand the subtle nuances of scripture.
> There are so may different groups because people will not accept
> the plain blunt truth. They like you have an affinity for there
> own ideas friends and preconceptions above that of the plain
> truth . This is shameful you should know better. If you buy into
> this approach with this scripture here you will do it every time
> you run into a crisis of theory or a crisis of faith. You have
> not addressed the arguments you have only ignored them and
> scripture in favor of your own ideas and a exegesis that fits
> you.Don?t deceive yourselves into believing you are defending
> truth here, you are washing it under the rug because you like
> your privet interpretations. If the scripture cant be understood
> plainly by the lay person then who can
> ? Whose
> exegesis are you going to rely on? I can find a Ph.D. in
> linguistics or Greek or Hebrew that will take any position I
> want. At the end of the day your faith is in what God has
> provided for you or in yourselves.
>
> 2Timothy 4:2. Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of
> season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and
> teaching. 3. For the time will come when they will not endure
> sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they
> have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4.
> and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned
> aside to fables.
> Allen
>
> Robert Bennett <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Allen,
>
> The heliocentrist logic is quite different. They know that the phenomenal
> language used in the Bible is the same as used in English today - the sun
> sets and rises, not the earth. They choose to ignore this consistent world
> view of both past and present reflected in the semantics to invent a
> contrary perspective of a moving earth.
>
> To understand "x days and x nights" as it was understood 2000 years ago is
> not contrived, but good hermeneutics. The exegetical point to be made is
> that Hebrew idioms, when faithfully and literally translated, may
> not convey
> the same sense as in English. Much understanding of Scripture
> would be lost
> if we ignored Jewish law and customs and idiosyncracies of the language.
>
> You are correct: The text is very plain and clear ..... if read in the
> original context of Hebrew. We already know that the Hebrew day was
> inclusive, so any part of a modern English day would be a Hebrew day.
>
> This is not a private interpretation, but public, since this Hebrew manner
> of speaking was common to all and is evident to all in reading the
> Scriptures.
>
> > If I have not spoken as the scriptures fine, point that
> > out.
> To I Corinthians 8:2: Amen!
>
> The easiest way to misinterpret the Bible is to take modern-day,
> English-language definitions and apply them to these documents written
> thousands of years ago in foreign languages. Yet if it is truth
> and correct
> interpretations we wish to arrive at, we need to understand the culture,
> language, and especially the idioms of the original writers.
>
> Why presume that this figure of speech (or any others) had the meanings in
> Jesus? day that we would assign to them today? We must elicit the
> meaning of
> Christ?s Messianic prophecy of Jonah in the context of the times
> in which it
> was given, if we are to correctly understand it.
>
> In our modern tongue, we do not speak in terms of ?days and nights?; we
> don't take trips for ?fourteen days and fourteen nights?. However, the
> Scriptures are not this strict in chronology when they speak of three days
> and three nights.This Hebrew expression, idiom, or figure of
> speech is used
> over and over in Scripture. It always has the same number of days and
> nights. For example:
> The flood lasted for forty days and forty nights ? Genesis 7:4, 12
> Job's so-called friends sat with him seven days and seven nights
> ? Job 2:13
> Jonah was in the fish three days and three nights ? Jonah 1:17.
> .....
>
> There are 15 citations in Revelation that use the x days and x nights
> phrasing, There are no instances , NONE, of x days and y nights.
>
> Genesis 42:17 tells us that Joseph put his brothers ?into ward
> three days?.
> Yet the very next verse says that Joseph pulled them out and spoke to them
> ?the third day?. Here Moses reckons time inclusively.
>
> Rabbinic sources confirm the usage of inclusive reckoning. In the Jewish
> Talmud (Shabbath 9, 3; cf.) and the Babylonian Talmud (Pesahim
> 4a), we read
> about Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around 100 AD (making
> him a near
> contemporary of Jesus), making the following statement: ?A day and a night
> are an Onan [a portion of time] and the portion of an onan is as the whole
> of it.?
>
> The Jewish Encyclopedia points out that this practice of inclusive day
> reckoning is still in use among Jewish people today: ?In Jewish communal
> life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; e.g., the day of the
> funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon,
> is counted
> as the first of the seven days of mourning; a short time in the morning of
> the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on
> the eighth day, even though on the first day only a few minutes remained
> after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day? (vol. IV,
> p.475).
>
> ?three days and three nights? covers any part of the first and third days,
> and all time in between - not in any way meaning three time periods of 24
> hours each (72 full hours) as we would understand them. . Since we do not
> use this figure of speech today, we cannot properly form our understanding
> of the prophecy based on our modern English usage. To do so would be to
> change the meaning and misinterpret it.
>
> More excellent commentary - much more - on this and the Wednesday Sabbath
> cruxifixion theory at :
> http://midnightcryministries.com/ThreeDays.htm
>
> RIP, JPII
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Allen Daves
> > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 11:17 PM
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Calendar query
> >
> >
> > 1Peter 4:11. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God;
> >
> > Romans 3:4 Let GOD be true and Every man a Liar
> >
> > Robert, your suggested logic is the same logic used by
> > heliocentrist creationist with Geocentric scripture.
> >
> > The text is very plain and very clear. There is no need to
> > develop some contrived understanding when it plainly tells you
> > the truth of the mater, unless you don?t like what it says and
> > prefer someone elses interpretation over the plain text.
> >
> > If you want to believe something hard enough you can believe it
> > but there is NO ambiguity of the text here. This is not my
> > opinion. If I have not spoken as the scriptures fine, point that
> > out. If not, then any other meaning other than what it plainly
> > says is just an attempt to apply your own interpretation to it.
> > 2Peter 1:20. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the
> > scripture is of any private interpretation.
> >
> >
> >
> > I Corinthians 8:2. And if any man think that he knoweth anything,
> > he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
> >
> > Allen
> >
> > Robert Bennett wrote:Here's another
> > solution that makes sense.
> >
> > "three days and three nights", in Jewish terminology, did not
> necessarily
> > imply a full period of three actual days and three actual nights as in
> > modern English, but was simply a First Century colloquialism
> used to cover
> > any part of the first and third days.
> > The expression was always used with an equal number of days and
> nights; x
> > days and x nights, as though for emphasis.
> >
> > Full discussion at:
> > http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/jonah.html#three
> >
> >
> > RIP, JPII
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
