Gee whiz... Does this go on all the time?
Well anyway, here's some more. Forgive me if there's a repeat or two.
Well anyway, here's some more. Forgive me if there's a repeat or two.
So, are Daniel 7:25 and Amos 8:11-12 related in prophecy?
- Thread starter The Parson
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Okay, I had looked there, but didn't want to read thru the whole thing to find the pertinent parts, but I was able to find them. It sounded as if the author believed the Reformers restored Premillennialism, which certainly was not the case! I'm certainly not Postmill, but believe that Premill is the proper eschatology of the Bible. I'm not sure what Bible versions have to do with these views, though?
I don't really know enough to argue Majority Text vs. Alexandrian Text. I believe that both should be compared, and a "most likely" adopted. The vast majority of the variances are minor, at any rate. I don't believe there is any conspiracy to "water down" the Scriptures and orthodox Christian beliefs.
I was raised on the RSV Bible. When I committed fully to the Lord, most of my friends and most of the preachers I listened to used the KJV. I don't speak in thees and thous, and so never liked it, as poetic as it sounded. I don't believe God "preserved" any one version more perfectly than another. He did, however, preserve 99% of what we can rely on for our Salvation. A small percentage wasted is of no consequence.
I prefer to talk in the language of those to whom I witness. To make myself look weird, or to try to sound like a prophet, turns people off. And if I wish to win them, I should do so by acting human like they are.
That being said, I'm married to an English lady, and I wouldn't want to insult anything "English." Her accent is wonderful to an American like me, and if her antiquated language seems precious to some, she should feel flattered!
You ask through the topic that you opened "So, Daniel 7:25 and Amos 8: 11-12 are related in prophecy?
At first I took your topic seriously to comment with any kind of biblical version and of any time and even apocryphal, what matters is the Spirit of Truth, understand? THE WORD IS GOD
About video you posted, the question is:
"So, Daniel 7:25 and Amos 8: 11-12 are related in Isaiah 11 prophecy? Will be?
From what we see, the topic you started only served to create confusion and not revelation. Everything that has been sown and discussed so far has been to sow confusion among the readers, the way the Devil likes, ruging like lion.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
To figure out this dilemma is to find who painted the first millennium picture, because they left out the wolf. Augustine is claimed to have preached Christ as being both the Lion and the Lamb. Now marry this sermon with the painting. Who wants to quote the Wolf and the Lamb?
Now what will any do with these words in Isaiah 35:9-10?
9 No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:
10 And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
Did the conspiracy start with Augustine?
Now what will any do with these words in Isaiah 35:9-10?
9 No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:
10 And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
Did the conspiracy start with Augustine?
As you can see throughout the thread, I was sidetracked and got things a bit out of order. I apologize for that. But please don't accuse me of trying to deceive.
And so continuing the original post:
Amos made startling prophecies about the Word of God disappearing. As I said: Bible scholars assumed his words were about things that happened, or were to happen in Amos’ day. But not all of his prophecies.
Amos said: 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, (it was south) they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.
There were attempts to eliminate the Word like Amos said, in my humble opinion... During the dark ages, the Roman Catholic church tried it’s best to eliminate the actual scriptures by confiscating, and burning real Bibles (the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts and the Old Itala Bible which was translated from them). The RCC would make it a crime to even read the real Word that was preserved by the faithful. They tried to replace it with their own twisted versions, where they said that only their priests could read and expound on it, giving their own twisted version of the Gospel. The devil himself was directly behind this evil. What the Roman Catholic church tried to do in fact didn’t work, and God preserved His Word for us, even until just recently.
So how are Amos 8:11-12 and Daniel 7:25 related???
In Daniel 7:25 we see where antichrist thought about changing laws (the word) and times (history), and then it is given to him. Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out (it was vex) the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
That's a real head scratcher, because Antichrist isn’t here yet! At least hes hasn't been revealed as of yet. If he were, I believe we would be out of here through the rapture. So it is defiantly the spirit of antichrist who is already here doing this. (1 John 4:3).
You mentioned deception. Well, if you read Jeremiah 4:10, you'll see that Jeremiah was actually accusing God of deceiving His people. Look it up for yourself in the King James. Jeremiah 4:10 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul.
Well, that's not what the King James actually said... Jeremiah 4:10 Then said I, Lord God! Thou hast suffered them to be greatly deceived by their false prophets. I have proof of that. Ask me for it, and I'll give it to you.
I have figured out something about it though. Wonder why I've found residue of what the Bible used to read? Well God is a perfect God. Everything He does is perfect. Antichrist, not so much. He's not perfect and whatever he's doing to change these scriptures, being an imperfect being, he misses things that he's trying to eliminate. And we can find those things if we just look for it.
But these verses are related in end times prophecy. It's happening now. It seems that our eschatology might very well be wrong...
Is this a man made thing, or something that's supernatural??? Or have we eliminated the possibility of supernatural events with our scholarship only attitude with the Bible???
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I am not against the KJV, but one needs to realize a few facts. First, the King James was originally written in the 1600's, using English of that time period. And to my ears, King James English is a beautiful language but I am fully cognizant of the fact that word change meaning over time and I should expect that a word like "vex" denotes the same idea for me as it did for those in the 1600's.Anyone care to convince a old preacher that these Bible changes aren't really happening???
Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out (I distinctly remember vex, and not wear out) the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Amos said: 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, (I also remember it being south, not east) they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.
And the lion and lamb controversy, how about that?
Exert From: Dispensational Truth II, Pre-Millennialism, by Clarence Larkin
Originally published: 1918
Chapter 2
Pre-Millennialism
I've got tons more. Just looking for someone to talk me out of it.
Second, the church now benefits from hundreds of years of Biblical archeology, which has informed our understanding of various words and ideas and helped complete and improve our lexicons. The more data we gather from the past, the better our understanding. Modern translators have the benefit of historical data unavailable to the KJV translators.
That's a wonderful piece of reasoning. But, as with the others, you're missing the point.
And yet they MESSED UP badly. So what does that tell you?
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
You might want to read The Revision Revised by John William Burgon (https://www.amazon.ca/Revision-Revised-Refutation-Westcott-Theory) It will open your eyes. And he has many other books on the subject. The quotation below is from Amazon.
The Revision Revised: A Refutation of Westcott and Hort's False Greek Text and Theory Paperback – Feb. 28 2008 by Dean John William Burgon (Author)
"The importance of this book cannot be underestimated [sic] [overestimated]. There is no one book that exposes Westcott and Hort's false Greek Text and false Greek theory behind that text any more thoroughly and convincingly than The Revision Revised. Dean Burgon defends the traditional text of the New Testament. He shows clearly the defects in both manuscript "B" (Vaticanus) and manuscript "Aleph" (Sinaiticus). It is very important to see the arguments contained in this historic volume because virtually the same Greek text of Westcott and Hort (1881) FORMS THE BASIS OF ALMOST ALL OF THE MODERN VERSIONS AND PERVERSIONS. See the Appendix, pages 2-3."
Greetings, Parson
First thanks for your reply. Your post deserved the best of my attention.
Judging the conceptions of the scholars "about the Word of GOD disappearing" -Amos 8:v.11 specifically-, according you said, first of all how could they assumed the words of Amos were or could be about things that happened?
You / we know that GOD never put a message about past events in the mouth of His prophets. This does not exist prophetically speaking. GOD does not do things like that, it is the result of imaginations, or speculations, or presumptions of Bible scholars, mainly by the letter of Scriptures, the letter kills. Neither also it could be in the Amos's day because the Word of GOD was with him, was with the prophet Amos. Also, "a posteriori", no one of the prophets preached saying Amos' 8:v. 11 had fulfilled itself. Why? It because Amos 8:v.11 would go to fulfill LITERALLY in the end of the times, precisely in the current time, I would say in the current decade from 2020 to 2030. Get ready.
You/we know: The testimony of JESUS is the Spirit of Prophecy. What does the Apostle Peter reveals (1 Pe. 1:v.8 to 12) about the prophets of the LORD
which preached about our salvation by the revelation of Christ JESUS? Speaking of our faith and salvation in JESUS Christ, Peter Apostle said:
8 - Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
(By the way, in the time of the prophets, Satan had a legion of false prophets among the GOD's people, the people of Israel).
You commented also as follow:
"There were attempts to eliminate the Word like Amos said, in my humble opinion... During the dark ages, the Roman Catholic church tried it’s best to eliminate the actual scriptures by confiscating, and burning real Bibles (the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts and the Old Itala Bible which was translated from them). The RCC would make it a crime to even read the real Word that was preserved by the faithful. They tried to replace it with their own twisted versions, where they said that only their priests could read and expound on it, giving their own twisted version of the Gospel. The devil himself was directly behind this evil. What the Roman Catholic church tried to do in fact didn’t work, and God preserved His Word for us, even until just recently".
Why the devilish things, as you have commented above, that Satan tried to do, against the book of the Lord , through Roman Catholic church, among others satanic agents, did not work? Now, now, GOD is Omnipotent and He is in control of history, nothing random happens, even you said "God preserved His Word for us, even until just recently"(???). The Word is GOD. Great mystery, no? Would be able Satan to destroy GOD not only through the satanic events you described in your post, but also through all kind of persecutions and cruel murders? Oh no, evidently.
GOD -the Word- says: "The hypocrite's hope shall perish: Job 8:v.13.
Regarding your comment under the title: "So how are Amos 8:11-12 and Daniel 7:25 related??? this is a subject that I would prefer to comment on separately in my next post.
See you later.
Last edited:
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Editorial defects in ancient manuscripts is a testimony to their authenticity, as compared with the many acts of "polishing" a manuscript over centuries of copying those manuscripts. Although I don't reject at all the Byzantine texts I certainly welcome the Alexandrian texts. Why would we wish to claim they are evil and devilish when they read basically the same as the Byzantine texts, with mostly insignificant differences?
I believe both Byzantine and Alexandrian texts have early manuscripts available, showing just how little the texts have changed through the centuries. But I'm not really up on all the info involved in this debate.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I may have missed the point. What precisely is your point, that the KJV is superior to all other versions? Some of the so-called "differences" amount to nothing to me! "Vex" is a word I still use, and it has synonyms. To be "made" free or to be "set" free shows no difference at all to me! They mean the same thing. Is the use of different synonyms outlawed? I think the KJV probably arranged to use synonyms that rhymed better?
If you compare, for example, Jesus' Olivet Discourse, as given in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17,21, you will find the authors describing the exact same words of Jesus, and yet did so choosing different synonyms of those same words. In other words, they were concerned with giving the meaning, and not the exact words. Why shouldn't the text translators be able to do the same?
Paraphrasing can legitimately make use of synonyms to present a scenario in less or different words. The meaning remains the same. And for me, as important as it often is to have the exact original words, God has not done that. The exact original words have *not* been preserved for us, indicating to me that God was less concerned with that than with preserving the meaning.
As human beings we sometimes have this strange compunction to want things done *exactly,* a kind of obsessive-compulsive thing. Applying perfection to ourselves, we think when we're "in the Spirit" and doing well, we are all-glorious, and inspired in everything we're saying. In reality, we can be inspired, and yet say a lot of flawed things and have some flawed motives, as well.
In biblical matters, to have the original is like being in search of the holy grail.
To have the authentic cup somehow makes me superior, or gives the cup magical properties. And if we have the cup, that somehow makes me special, and the source of God's miracles!
The Jews got so deep into Scriptural "perfection" that they began to practice Cabbalism, developing interpretations based on patterns, repetitions of words, or the spelling of the words themselves.
I really don't know how far they went, but I've heard it got pretty ridiculous. They wanted to have hidden insight and become the source of God's mysteries to others. ...Like finding hidden meaning in the Beatles' lyrics.
Christians do things like this as well, with respect to the etymological root fallacy. They want to believe that they have some kind of intuitive "leading" into what a passage means, and they become a "prophet" of God to others, the source of divine revelation!
I suppose we're all searching for that "hidden light," so that we can be the 1st to crack the Da Vinci code?
Last edited:
No, this isn't a Bible version comparison, or a debate. Have you read the thread?
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Yes, I read it and answered it. I'm still asking: What was your point? You said:
Anyone care to convince a old preacher that these Bible changes aren't really happening???
You've pointed out some changes in words. So how can others *not* recognize there were these changes? You've provided plenty of proof that there were indeed changes.
So what was your point? My response to you was that most of the so-called "changes" don't appear to be relevant to make any point. Some of the "changes" you cite are merely synonyms, which basically mean the same thing--not a substantial "change."
So again: What is your point?
Let me give you a kind of absurd example, to make the point.
The sun came up this morning, and went down this evening. Has anybody noticed this change took place?
Or, did anybody notice that Joey said he threw a rock. But Susie said that Joey threw a stone. Does anybody notice the difference in words, "rock" and "stone?" Is this a change in stories?
I'm not making light of this. You seem to be an interesting fellow. I'd just like to know what your unspoken concern is? Is it that these changes are dangerous? I'm trying not to read too much into your underlying motivations.
Last edited:
Similar threads
