So, are Daniel 7:25 and Amos 8:11-12 related in prophecy?

[Waiting on him]

Well, what you said in post 211 was ugly, and I know for certain that Jesus doesn’t like ugly.

And I know this because I get ugly at times. Lol

 

[Hemlock]

I might be a King James Almost Onlyist

Visually challenged as some other poster mentioned in being able to read all of the Parson's lilliputin renderings of versions - this comes with AGE - and an even worse thing comes with age - I CAN'T REMEMBER all the stuff I have read - whether VEX did or did not use to appear in an old KJV

Koine Greek flees from my memory too, my once steel trap mind is rusting out...

But in addition to regular reading glasses - I have recently obtained an actual MAGNIFYING GLASS

I recently got an Interlinear of 1611 KJV and NIV and Greek text - and can scrutinize fully a bit at a time. It is the Alfred Marshall KJV-NIV interlinear.

I am not quite so ONLYIST as to say "if that KJV was good enough for Paul and Silas - it's good enough for me!"

 

[Waiting on him]

I might be a King James Almost Onlyist

Visually challenged as some other poster mentioned in being able to read all of the Parson's lilliputin renderings of versions - this comes with AGE - and an even worse thing comes with age - I CAN'T REMEMBER all the stuff I have read - whether VEX did or did not use to appear in an old KJV

Koine Greek flees from my memory too, my once steel trap mind is rusting out...

But in addition to regular reading glasses - I have recently obtained an actual MAGNIFYING GLASS

I recently got an Interlinear of 1611 KJV and NIV and Greek text - and can scrutinize fully a bit at a time. It is the Alfred Marshall KJV-NIV interlinear.

I am not quite so ONLYIST as to say "if that KJV was good enough for Paul and Silas - it's good enough for me!"

First I ever saw this word Lilliputian, had to goggle that one.

 

[Hemlock]

I have enjoyed this thread immensely. I have watched Texas Rangers vs Houston Astros throughout the perusal of this thread - I like both teams.

(I do not literally believe that Paul and Silas knew the King's English.)

 

[Hemlock]

Waiting on him - the corresponding word is Brobdingnagian - from Gulliver's Travels I think.

If something is Brobdingnagian - it's BIG!

 

[Hemlock]

Lilliputian


Brobdingnagian

 

[Hemlock]

Swift claimed that he wrote Gulliver's Travels "to vex the world rather than divert it".

Gulliver's Travels - Wikipedia

And there is our word VEX again (whatever it means.)

Rangers-Astros in 10th inning now - no end in sight...

 

[Oseas]

Scripture says that the power of life and death is in the tongue.

Yes. What does he Word made flesh say?
Here is the power of life: John 4:v.14 - But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.



And the power of death: James 3:v.6 and 8
6 - The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
8 - the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

Romans 3:v.12-13
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; ...
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:


This explains why JESUS said these words: Matt. 8:v.21-22
And another of His disciples said unto Him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. - Impressive, no? -

And more: Revelation 3:v.1-2
1 - And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before GOD (Once the angel of the church is dead, how will be the spiritual condition of them that are guided by him?)
The punishment is inevitable and will be now in the Lord's Day.

 

[Waiting on him]

Waiting on him - the corresponding word is Brobdingnagian - from Gulliver's Travels I think.

If something is Brobdingnagian - it's BIG!

Awesome!

 

[Randy Kluth]

And I think it's totally possible that the only ones that may see my point would be those who are totally KJVO sorta brethren.

1st off, I don't know if the people you quoted claimed to be quoting the KJV or somebody else's version of the Bible. And I wouldn't think it to be a satanic conspiracy if the changes were simply the use of a different synonym from one that is ordinarily in the KJV. If you think about it, every other language besides English uses a different word for what is written in the KJV!

But as an example, look at how the Bible itself quotes Jesus. In the following 3 versions you have Jesus saying the same thing, but using different words. How can we not see this as the authors expressing their ideas of what they heard Jesus saying? Paraphrases sometimes can be used as a close quotation.

Which of these are Jesus' exact actual words, and which are "changes?"

Matt 24.4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

Mark 13.5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

Luke 21.8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”
10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

 

[Enoch111]

I'm pointing out that the KJV, along with others have been SUPERNATURALLY changed. Not with an editors pen, or by an apologist opinions, but in the supernatural realm.

I'm not sure how you have arrived at this bizarre conclusion. The King James Bible has not changed since 1611 (and changes in spelling, typeface, or punctuation do not count). I could put parallel passages before you to confirm this.

As to modern versions they are constantly being changed. They follow the marketing ploy of "new and improved". But whenever a product is presented as new and improved, it turns out to be the exact opposite. Now Woke Coke is going broke for their own stupidity. Just like all the sports teams.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I might be a King James Almost Onlyist

Visually challenged as some other poster mentioned in being able to read all of the Parson's lilliputin renderings of versions - this comes with AGE - and an even worse thing comes with age - I CAN'T REMEMBER all the stuff I have read - whether VEX did or did not use to appear in an old KJV

Koine Greek flees from my memory too, my once steel trap mind is rusting out...

But in addition to regular reading glasses - I have recently obtained an actual MAGNIFYING GLASS

I recently got an Interlinear of 1611 KJV and NIV and Greek text - and can scrutinize fully a bit at a time. It is the Alfred Marshall KJV-NIV interlinear.

I am not quite so ONLYIST as to say "if that KJV was good enough for Paul and Silas - it's good enough for me!"

I'm not a KJV only person, but I have enjoyed your comments. I read Gulliver's Travels, but don't remember that B word. Can read less and remember less all the time. I also have difficulty deciphering the concern between "vex" and "wear out." And I'm still not sure who and why Christians began to say "perish" rather than "destroyed?"

But the Parson doesn't seem to get upset easily, and I enjoy that kind of guy!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm not sure how you have arrived at this bizarre conclusion. The King James Bible has not changed since 1611 (and changes in spelling, typeface, or punctuation do not count). I could put parallel passages before you to confirm this.

As to modern versions they are constantly being changed. They follow the marketing ploy of "new and improved". But whenever a product is presented as new and improved, it turns out to be the exact opposite. Now Woke Coke is going broke for their own stupidity. Just like all the sports teams.

Corrupt changes are not the same as utilitarian changes. It is useful to reword advertisements, for example, if the English used is outdated and does not appeal to the target audience. This is not corrupt--this is just marketing.

If someone, however, decides to dilute Christian doctrine by eliminating something having to do with Christ's deity, or with his ability to do miracles, you can suspect foul play.

Replacing "vex" with "wear out," or "destroyed" with "perish" doesn't appear to be anything more than the choice to use a synonym. That also "doesn't count," in my view. And it certainly isn't "satanic!"

 

[Enoch111]

Corrupt changes are not the same as utilitarian changes.

I agree. But I was questioning the "supernatural" changes mentioned by the Parson.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I agree. But I was questioning the "supernatural" changes mentioned by the Parson.

Satan does have an impact on language changes in society and on what interests societies. Lots of new words of "street origins," for example, and depict corrupt worldly lifestyles.

But I agree--this kind of "supernatural" change sounds more like occultic phenomena than the influence of Satan upon the "flesh," or "carnal interests." I'm not sure God lets Satan play the world like a Ouija Board?

I would say that Satan is influencing nations to engage in "common human interests," such as freedom *from* religion. Of course, the only religion to be "free from" is Christianity.

But the kind of word changes Parson speaks of are miniscule and insignificant. Therefore, I find no basis for seeing these changes as "satanic"--I agree.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes, the KJV and the New KJV both read "are destroyed" for lack of knowledge. And you're saying that in the various quotes it is being said, instead, that they "perish" for lack of knowledge. To be honest, I don't have a history of the changes in these synonyms. But that's all they seem to be to me--synonyms!

You might personally see in the word changes a significant change in meaning. I don't, to be honest with you. "Perish" and "destroy" mean the same thing, as I hear it. Why many used to use "perish" when the current versions use "destroy" I don't know? Did these versions used to read "perish?" If so, that would explain why so many of your quotations use "perish."

The fact that current versions use "destroy" doesn't appear to be a significant change in meaning if earlier versions used "perish." The reason translations change is because society and its language change over time. To convey modern meanings, the language has to change too.

Perish means to wither from lack of something. Destroy is a very definite act made by another entity.

 

[Oseas]

I agree. But I was questioning the "supernatural" changes mentioned by the Parson.

By his spirit, he rises from a region where the esoteric, and kabbalistic, and spiritist belief reigns, exactly as is the esoteric, and kabbalistic, and spiritist Judaism, from where the false messiah of the Jews is currently rising -2 Thess. 2: v .3-4&9 -, and will soon manifest itself in Israel. 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Perish means to wither from lack of something. Destroy is a very definite act made by another entity.

Yes, synonyms often have an additional meaning peculiar to them. It really doesn't matter. It's the *context* that determines how the word is used, whether it has to have a peculiar meaning all to itself or not.

For example, compare "rush" and "hurry," two imperatives that both signify to move quickly. "Rush" contains the additional sense of pressure resisting the quickness, whereas "hurry" only conveys the need to be quick." But in context, "rush" can mean the exact same thing as "hurry" and does not have to convey the idea of resistance.

Rush through enemy lines. Resistance in context.
Rush through the store. No resistance in context.

In our context, "perish" and "destroyed" mean exactly the same thing. The context is the same no matter what synonym is being used. No additional connotation need be conveyed by either word.

As I showed the brother from the example in the Olivet Discourse (post #230), the exact same Discourse is conveyed using slightly different words. And that's because there was no concern that using synonyms and paraphrases would alter the essential meaning.

"Frightened" and "alarmed" are both used, and we have no idea which word was originally used by Jesus. Since both words mean the same, it is acceptable to use either word. See Luke 21.9; Matt 24.6; and Mark 13.7.

"Alarmed" can convey the sense of being notified by a security device. But since that is not in context, "alarm" has the same connotation as "to be frightened."

 

[Oseas]

Yes, synonyms often have an additional meaning peculiar to them. It really doesn't matter. It's the *context* that determines how the word is used, whether it has to have a peculiar meaning all to itself or not.

For example, compare "rush" and "hurry," two imperatives that both signify to move quickly. "Rush" contains the additional sense of pressure resisting the quickness, whereas "hurry" only conveys the need to be quick." But in context, "rush" can mean the exact same thing as "hurry" and does not have to convey the idea of resistance.

Rush through enemy lines. Resistance in context.
Rush through the store. No resistance in context.

In our context, "perish" and "destroyed" mean exactly the same thing. The context is the same no matter what synonym is being used. No additional connotation need be conveyed by either word.

As I showed the brother from the example in the Olivet Discourse (post #230), the exact same Discourse is conveyed using slightly different words. And that's because there was no concern that using synonyms and paraphrases would alter the essential meaning.

"Frightened" and "alarmed" are both used, and we have no idea which word was originally used by Jesus. Since both words mean the same, it is acceptable to use either word. See Luke 21.9; Matt 24.6; and Mark 13.7.

"Alarmed" can convey the sense of being notified by a security device. But since that is not in context, "alarm" has the same connotation as "to frighten."

Your post above called my attention and I would like to know your interpretation, if you agree, on the exchange of messages between Parson and me, as follow:

Parson asked me:

If you don't mind my asking, what version exactly are you posting from??? And how well versed are you to the King James. More specifically, the wording?

I answered him, saying:

Yes, King James, but if the translation doesn’t satisfy I compare it with texts from other versions that are available, for example, CJB, NIV, NKJV, to get better understanding of the text, and I can discern if text is in tune or in accordance with the intention of the Spirit that inspired it.
In other words, I know what the Spirit means, and I check whether the text's vocabulary matches the Spirit's intention. In essence, the words may be different, but the meaning has to be that which the Spirit has inspired. The Word is GOD, letter and Spirit. GOD is Spirit.

Scriptures are Word of GOD. The Word is GOD, so I would say, by analogy, the Bible is GOD, the book of the LORD here, in the world of Devil.

Parson replied my post above, saying:

Isn't that like mixing a bowl of sweet potatoes with Castor Oil?

No, in absolute, the Word is GOD, understand? You are saying this because you know not Him. He that is of the earth is earthly, and speaks of the earth: He that comes from above is above all, and what he has seen and heard, that he testifies; and no man receives his testimony. He that has received his testimony has set to his seal that GOD is true. For he whom GOD has sent speaks the words of GOD: for GOD gives not the Spirit by measure unto him.

Unfortunately you know only the letter of Scriptures, but know not GOD, the Word; the letter kills, and according your spirit you can be a killer of souls.

Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which GOD has prepared for them that love Him. And GOD has revealed them by His Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of GOD.

John 8:v. 47 - 47 He that is of GOD heareth GOD's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of GOD.

For conclusion I would ask to you:

Based on the content of your post above that I quoted, do you think my biblical search criteria is really, as Parson said, "like mixing a bowl of sweet potatoes with Castor Oil?

Forgive me if I'm bothering you with my post, or if my question was a nuisance for you.

God bless

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your post above called my attention and I would like to know your interpretation, if you agree, on the exchange of messages between Parson and me, as follow:

Parson asked me:


I answered him, saying:


Parson replied my post above, saying:





For conclusion I would ask to you:

Based on the content of your post above that I quoted, do you think my biblical search criteria is really, as Parson said, "like mixing a bowl of sweet potatoes with Castor Oil?

Forgive me if I'm bothering you with my post, or if my question was a nuisance for you.

God bless

No, no bother--I had already read your exchange. Unfortunately, I would agree not with you, but with the brother. I don't know Parson, but he seems to be a friendly sort, so I wouldn't take what he says as an insult, though I could be wrong. I give others a chance to rib me a bit before I get too angry. Whether we're right or wrong, if we're simply trying to share our honest sentiments, we deserve respect.

I think I know where you get your notion from, that God and the Word are synonymous. And it's certainly true. I just wouldn't characterize it the way you do. And here's why.

When the Scriptures say that the Word with with God, and the Word was God, it is talking specifically about Jesus' preincarnate existence as God. Well, what was Jesus before he became a man? Was he just words on a page, or both words on a page, and God's regular messages sent out into the universe?

I believe it's simpler than this. The Word is the personification of who God is in the sense of how He chooses to express Himself, whether as the Son of Man or as an angel. The Word is always personal, because it expresses a Being. So this Word is unique and not a word on a page. To confuse Deity with material reality is to confuse the Creator with the Creation. But we do know that in a unique sense God did identify with His creation when He revealed Himself as a man. So God can be seen to be a Man, as long as we know He remains the infinite God, as well.

That's why I don't think God can be said to be the Bible. He cannot be the Bible and God simultaneously. If He is the Bible, He ceases to be God. But when He became the Son He revealed Himself to be both Father and Son, in relationship between the infinite God and His revelation as a finite man.

There is a sense in which you might be able to say that God and the *truth* of the Bible are synonymous. The knowledge of God *is,* I think, God. Jesus said, "I am the truth." That is, Jesus was saying that he was the incarnation of the knowledge of God.

But this gets pretty deep for me. I'm just trying to be honest, and suggest that some aspects of what you're saying are true, whereas I don't think it's good to say that God is the Bible. It would confuse people into thinking God is an inanimate object.