The Book of Revelation and the Bible

No Malice ? .. why would you say such a thing - was just repeating your words .. showing you how you were contradicting yourself.. You claim "Salvation" but can't manage to explain how one achieves it

You quote a quote vague passage from the bible about salvation claiming to know "The Truth" then you claim the Bible has no relevance to salvation .. an irrelevant waste of time you say and that don't wrestle with things you don't understand so you can give no explanation of what this Truth is ... the doctrine of Jesus.

Then when asked what this doctrine is -- you run from the playground .. name calling .. claiming to be persecuted.

I am not the one persecuting you mate .. is your own words that are pesecuting you..

 

That's your opinion.

 

Well you do try to assert that your religion is truth while simultaneously telling people to ignore contradictory details.

 

Revelation is the work of a Gnostic genius. It's actually an inspired insult that sublimely contradicts much of the previous Biblical dogma, but the author wrote it up in such a way that those fooled by his disguised mocking would be so impressed by it that they would pass it off as worthy for their collection of God's word.

There's no denying that the attempt to understand Revelation is a perplexing challenge. Is that why you despise it? What do you think is the meaning in Rev 14:14 -20?

 

What Opinion - was just repeating your words .. You claims are under examination .. not mine - despite your desperate attemps to avoid your own words. ..

You claim to know about Salvation - quoting a bible passage - which states that following the teachings of Jesus will get one eternal life - and you concur - stating that following the doctrine of Jesus will gain eternal life.

Then ... after using this passage - you state that the Bible has little or no relevance to salvation -- an "irrelevant waste of time"

So is this the passage you posted relevant .. or not ?

 

Nope. I'm saying what Jesus said. You have to start with the basics. First you lay a foundation. Then come the walls. Then come the trusses. Then the decking. Then the tarpaper. Then the shingles. If you begin with the shingles and it makes no sense, it's because you aren't following the blue prints laid out by Jesus Christ. He is the way, truth, and life. If the subject is Christian salvation, then why wrestle over ancient Judaic rites which predate Jesus by thousands of years when he is the consummation of it all...the foretold, the purpose, the lamb, the ultimate sacrifice and savior. He is the leader of the revolution in the midst of the history and future of mankind. He is the mighty God, the rock, cornerstone, and foundation. Furthermore, neither he nor his authority live within the pages of the Bible. He lives in heaven. And the Bible testifies of him. It is highly superstitious to think that God lives in a book. If I testify that God lives, that he is divine, kind, and good. It does not make anything of me, but rather to glorify God. I'm just me. Similarly, if the Bible testifies of Gods existence, divinity and character. It is to the glory of God, rather than to that of the Bible. There is no person or authority in the Bible. It's simply a book of remembrance to be cherished, not worshipped. One might commit the entire Bible to memory and repeat it like nature swaying and blooming to the rolling seasons. But it is meaningless if Jesus's admonitions and gospel aren't employed and a foundation laid by his Fathers hand in ones heart and soul as a bulwark against the storm. That's why I told Gif that if a scripture makes no sense I put it away and abide in what I know, which is that God lives and is in whom I place my trust. If one has not that fallback, then all the scriptural learning and building in the world which one assembles, will come crashing down without a sanctuary in which to abide. I've also reiterated to Gif the first principles of salvation according to Jesus which are faith according to recognizance of his divinity, repentance of sins, baptism, and reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost/spirit by one having authority. This isn't my religion. It is the truth and gift of Christian salvation which I have accepted.

 

Oh please. You've yet to acknowledge my words, but to feign ignorance, then misstate, then accuse me of one ridiculous thing or another. You have not ceased to run from the truth and pretend your aggression to be valiant and intellectually quizzical. You aren't fooling anyone. You and I both know you are playing games, gathering bits for the cause of philosophy rather than establishing the truth for the sake of salvation. So be it.

 

Yeah, no.

 

Suit yourself.

 

Paragraph breaks!

 

I believe Saint John wrote it, and he was the most beloved of Jesus' Disciples. He certainly was no gnostic.

 

The Bible is God's Word, but if knowledge of the Bible was necessary for salvation, then where would it leave children and the mentally handicapped? Also where would it leave the illiterate who lived before the printing press, and at a time when the Bible was almost nonexistent?

What is necessary for salvation is prayers and a pure and humble heart, nothing else. God will do the rest.

 

John of Patmos.

Apparently these kind of works were common in that era but this book was included in the Canon while others were not due to its references to Daniel. It also was a commentary on the politics of the day regarding Nero so it was relevant. Unfortunately it was vague enough that people could pretend the book was about their time period whether they lived during the crusades or the American Civil War etc

 

You could pretend it's a trench coat.

 

No Jen .. its not -- the Bible is a book - written by men - a number of which were far less than inspired.

We can say and believe that parts of the Bible is Inspired .. but not the whole thing - with a straight face. The reason this is the case is that I can give you the same passage - Deut 32:43 - from different Bibles .. which say very different things.. begging the question .. "Which one is inspired" .. God's word ? Feel free to post this passage from your favorite Bible if you want to prove this to yourself.

As with the case above - in case you have yet to come to the conclusion that claiming God inspired both ... turns God into an idiot of sorts .. "beyond our understanding" being the response of the adherent at this point... unable to come to grips with the obvious conflict/contradiction.

I do not view God this way .. perfectly able to distinguish between "mens rea" - and lack therof ...

Men's rea - Actus Rea - Latin terms that are good to know ... as the burden of proof of the prosecution is to prove both .. hence the criminal insanity defense. Actus Rea means you have to have committed the crime .. Men's rea - you have to have intended it.

You telling me God doesn't know the difference ? .. now that my dear is "Beyond my Understanding" - and thus I will refuse to deem God a Moron .. until such time as God is proven otherwise - innocent until proven guilty.

 

I can't respond because I don't fully understand your reasoning. This is what I know.

The Old Testament was written for a certain people and at a certain time and in the only way they could understand it. In everything there is a growth factor, and they were just becoming aware of a Creator God and very easily could fall back on their old beliefs.

For example, the one thing that perplexed me was how could Abraham accept that God would ask him to sacrifice his son, when God would never ask such as thing. But Abraham was just growing in his knowledge of God, and as yet couldn't distinguish the difference between our Creator God and the idols - who did expect human sacrifice. Killing one's first born was common practice among the Semites so they could gain favors, and by stopping Abraham, God revealed that He didn't desire or approve of it.

As for God punishing man for his transgressions in the OT, how can Pure Creation destroy anything He Created? It would be an oxymoron. The punishments came from man himself when he transgressed and pulled away from God's protective love. Since everything in this world is interconnected, what we do and what we are will affect everyone and everything around us.

Whatever happens in this world therefore is a consequence of man's own actions and transgressions, but since that could not be understood, God presented Himself in the OT as a punishing God.

When God felt the time was ripe again, He revealed Himself further and gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Then when time was ripe again, God revealed Himself through His Word with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Since the New Testament is Christ's Word, then it has to be Christ as well - as would be the Cross since it represents man's Redemption through Christ's suffering.

As for the Fathers of the Church who had compiled the New Testament, they were Saints and enlightened by the Holy Spirit in what books were truly the Word of God, and which one's weren't.

 

Unfortunately - you did not a quote of the passage Deut 32:43 from a modern Bible .. I will do so on your behalf.

Deut 32:43 NIV

This is the Masoretic Text --- from which all modern Bibles are Translated .. put together 700-900 AD.

Do you notice the subtle changes.. the meaning text is exactly the same until the last line.

1) In the (MT) who's land is it .. In the NIV - whos land is it ?
2) In the (MT) we have ethnic cleansing going on in the NIV -- God is atoning for the Land and People

So which is "Inspired" 1 or 2. 1 is particularly troublesome because God would have to either directly contradict himself if we say both are inspired. 2 is also troublesome because these are two completely different ideas.

Which version is inspired ?

 

"...and make atonement for his land and people."
"...And will cleanse His people’s land"

Cleansing the land doesn't mean ethnic cleansing, since nationalism is a political and human construct, it's not from God. What would be more in tune with God's love, is cleansing the land of error and purifying it and that would come through people's hearts and minds. So in that sense the purifying of the land would be God's atonement.

It all has to do with semantics. I guess they felt the newer version was a better translation.

 

Yes it does mean ethnic cleansing .. your claim that nationalism is a human construct .. completely false .. if you claim the Bible is inspired .. just absurdly false .. "Think" come on the Nation of Israel .and associated nationalism in the Bible .. it is just ridiculous what ou are saying.

Then you completely fail to understand what you are saying "better translation" - and has ZERO to do with Semantics .. Your are just throwing out words in a fit of thought avoidance.

"better translation" ? .. God Gave us the revised version did he ? Which is Gods word then the MT .. or the revised version of the MT ? ..
You completely avoiding the main point 1) the main contradiction. Whose land is it ? .. A) Gods Land .. B) The Peoples Land ? answering the same question Which is God's word. A) or B)

 

I know enough Greek to know that translations can never be exact and that whole paragraphs would be needed at times to express one word, so the Bible is being translated as best it can be.

Also people interpret things differently and especially when it comes to the Bible. I recall in a Bible class that I attended once, that an interpretation that was so obvious to me, was mistranslated by everyone else. The priest said I was right, they were wrong.

Since our Christian God has no 'this world' political aspirations for anyone, then the cleansing of Israel has to be when God's Spirit starts dwelling among the people of Israel. That will be the atonement promised them.

 

We are not talking about a different interpretation .. something that is vague .. we are talking a direct contradiction of something crystal clear.

Is it A) The Peoples Land .. or B) God's Land You can not claim both are "Inspired" .. as this would turn God into a Moron.

O nations, rejoice His people
For He’ll avenge the blood of His servants
and wreak vengeance on His foes
And will cleanse His people’s land"

but we are not done here ... the above is the MT- 700-900 BC .. if we go back further 300-100 BC .. we have a few more changes to account for. Consider the LXX .. aka The Septuagint - a similar reading also found in 4DeutQ - a qumran

"O heavens, rejoice with Him
Bow to Him, all sons of the divine
O nations, rejoice with His people
and let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him.
For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons,
be vengeful, and wreak vengeance and recompense justice on his foes
And the Lord will Cleanse His people’s land"

Now if any of the 3 renditions is "Inspiring" .. the above would be it don't you agree. What happened to all the other Gods.. the angels .. rejoicing with the most high .. The Heavens Rejoicing.

This is not "interpretation" .. this is what you call selective editing my Dear .. aka "Pious Fraud" if you will .. done for obvious reasons .. this not being the only example of the Bible being white-washed of "Other divinities" .. Sons of the Divine ..

So which is inspired A) B) or C) ?

 

The difference here is the reasoning. While I'm accepting of what is written and finding the unifying aspect in the translations while you're looking at it negatively and trying to find contradictions between the one translation and the other.

Translations will always be faulty because the expressions and emotions that exist in one culture, does not exist in another. How one interprets what they're reading depends on a person's own enlightenment by the Holy Spirit - it doesn't depend on the translation.

 

That’s the nexus of the crisis right there.

Christian’s claim non-Christians don’t understand these contradictions because they lack holy guidance. Non-Christians point out that if your holy guidance is causing you to overlook glaring contradictions then you are being fooled.

 

Your in denial .. I am not looking at any of these passages negatively or positively .. Just pointing out the logical fact that only one of the 3 can be inspired .. unless one claims God is a moron .. a position which you seem to want to uphold.

You say "You accept what is written" ...

Which passage.. is it A) The Peoples Land (as in MT-LXX-4DeutQ) - or B) Gods Land - NIV ?

Do you accept that there were other God's rejoicing with the most High - LXX - 4DeutQ - or there were no other Gods - MT- NIV?

 

What's your source for the massoretic text? Stormfront?

The word "cleanse", or any of its various variants, doesn't appear in the massorettic text at all. The word is "kiper", from the same root as Kippur, as in Yom Kippur - The Day of Atonment.

Here's a more accurate translation:

https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0532.htm

No cleansing in the massoretic text.