Post-Tribbers often tend to see The Second Coming and The Rapture in the same parts of Revelation that I do, and then some more. And that is why their view is dependent on messing around with the Chronology of the book.
That includes this part of Revelation 14. The Son of Man riding on a Cloud, is a clear identifying characteristic of The Parusia in both Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4. Plus people use the Kingdom Parables to justify associating Harvest imagery with The Rapture.
So naturally I've seen Post-Tribbers say they specifically believe this event is the same as or happens at the same time as the Revelation 19 event.
Now the core premise of this Blog has become that The Book of Revelation should be interpreted Chronologically. I've done numerous posts on that subject. But even if I abandoned that, even if I recanted every prior post on the Revelation Chronology tag. Even if I accepted a claim that the earlier parts of this same Chapter didn't happen right before or at the same time as this part. I would still have to say it's absurd to place this event after The Bowls of God's Wrath are poured out.
Verse 19 says "And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the
earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.". This is clearly the beginning of the Bowls of Wrath narrative, this is the origin of what fills those bowls. Not matter how literally or symbolically you interpret that imagery this chronological fact about it is clear.
So even if one doesn't believe the whole book is Chronological, there is still no denying that 14:14-16:21 are a continuous narrative, a narrative about The Wrath of God. Just read all that remembering that our modern chapter and verse divisions weren't originally there, and it should be self evident.
So as far as I'm concerned you simply can't agree that this is part of the Parusia/Rapture, yet continue to insist that the Parusia/Rapture doesn't happen till after all the Bowls have been poured out.
Now from there we can dispute how long it takes the seven bowls to be poured out, and then how much time there is between the last bowl and Revelation 19. I have myself become increasingly flexible on that.
I've decided the point of my Midway-Point Rapture view is not it being the literal exact halfway point on a timeline, but that it's between the Trumpets and the Bowls.
Monday, February 26, 2018
A view being New is not an argument against it being True.
Daniel 12:4 foretells that in the End Times knowledge shall be increased. That is often taken to be about Knowledge in general, the explosion of knowledge that has happened since the Industrial Revolution. But some have taken it to be about specifically knowledge of God's Word.
I say those two naturally go together. We today have lots of advantages in studying God's Word that didn't always exist. Today in debates people often get mad at you if you neglect to cite the exact Chapter and Verse, when Jesus didn't have that luxury, He just named the Prophet He was quoting and that had to be enough. Not to mention how the Internet and Computer Programs have made it easier then ever to do word searches and to check the original Greek and Hebrew, and compare variant manuscripts.
But even before all of that. The New Testament interprets some parts of The Hebrew Bible in ways that seemingly no Israelite ever thought of in the B.C. Era.
The Canon was closed I believe with the publication of The Book of Revelation. So it's a part of The Bible that never gets interpreted by other parts of The Bible, instead it is a key to helping us interpret other parts.
But I'm a Continuationist, I believe God does still inspire people, but those revelations have to be scrutinized against Scripture. Sometimes I think even the person who receives the revelation might mis-interpret it.
This has become a vital part of the Rapture Dispute. With people wondering why it took till the 19th Century for The Pre-Trib view (and by extension anything like Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath) to be popularized, however many debatable hints at it before you might find.
This tactic conveniently ignores how Futurism in general was not popular in the Protestant world till the late 19th Century, their default Eschatology was Historicism.
For over a Thousand Years the Catholic Church kept most people from reading The Bible in their own language. After the Reformation started it still took awhile for Translations to be made, and arguably the first ones made weren't the best. So that's why it makes perfect sense that lots of valid interpretations of Scripture wouldn't be discovered or re-discovered till the 1600s or later.
Now there is a lot of mis-information about Darby. He first wrote out the basics of his Pre-Trib Rapture view in early 1827, before Margaret MacDonald had her vision in 1830, and also before Irving published his translation of Manuel Lucanza.
Still neither of those sources teach a Pre-Trib Rapture. MacDonald's account of her revelation has certain things left out of it when people make it seem like it could have inspired Darby's Pre-Trib view, like how she did say The Church would be persecuted by The Antichrist. Her vision does not lay out a clear chronology however, I feel it could be compatible with either Post-Trib or Mid-Trib, but certainly not Pre-Trib. Plus Darby said he thought her visions were Satanically inspired.
This whole "The Rapture must be false since it started with Darby" rhetoric definitely has an Anti-Continuationist tone to it. Darby's own account of how he first came to the idea makes it seem slightly like a divine revelation. And then they add the association with a controversial proto-Charismatic.
I think it's possible that Darby did receive a legit Revelation about Christ gathering His People before His Wrath is poured out. But then made many mistakes when trying to figure out how that fit into Scripture. In a way making the same key mistake Post-Tribbers make.
Because in my opinion, no amount of precedent for Post-Trib makes up for the fact that Post-Trib (in both it's Futurist and Historcist varieties) is based on an inherently wrong assumption, that Revelation 19 is the Second Coming. Pre-Tribers make the same mistake however when they say The Rapture is distinct from the Second Coming.
But I understand why this mistake would be so common. If you start your study of Bible Prophecy with Revelation, which many do, it's easy to see why one would make that mistake. I myself did originally which is why I used to be Post-Trib, though I was always distinct from most Post-Tribbers.
Morgan Edwards taught a form of Pre-Trib in the mid 18th Century, while also being one of the earliest Futurists of the English Speaking world.
So I still haven't given up on finding some obscure little known Ancient or Reformation era precedent for something similar to my Midway-Point view. But regardless it is not necessary.
My view on The Rapture is the one that correctly identifies where to find The Parusia in Revelation using Scripture to Interpret Scripture.
I say those two naturally go together. We today have lots of advantages in studying God's Word that didn't always exist. Today in debates people often get mad at you if you neglect to cite the exact Chapter and Verse, when Jesus didn't have that luxury, He just named the Prophet He was quoting and that had to be enough. Not to mention how the Internet and Computer Programs have made it easier then ever to do word searches and to check the original Greek and Hebrew, and compare variant manuscripts.
But even before all of that. The New Testament interprets some parts of The Hebrew Bible in ways that seemingly no Israelite ever thought of in the B.C. Era.
The Canon was closed I believe with the publication of The Book of Revelation. So it's a part of The Bible that never gets interpreted by other parts of The Bible, instead it is a key to helping us interpret other parts.
But I'm a Continuationist, I believe God does still inspire people, but those revelations have to be scrutinized against Scripture. Sometimes I think even the person who receives the revelation might mis-interpret it.
This has become a vital part of the Rapture Dispute. With people wondering why it took till the 19th Century for The Pre-Trib view (and by extension anything like Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath) to be popularized, however many debatable hints at it before you might find.
This tactic conveniently ignores how Futurism in general was not popular in the Protestant world till the late 19th Century, their default Eschatology was Historicism.
For over a Thousand Years the Catholic Church kept most people from reading The Bible in their own language. After the Reformation started it still took awhile for Translations to be made, and arguably the first ones made weren't the best. So that's why it makes perfect sense that lots of valid interpretations of Scripture wouldn't be discovered or re-discovered till the 1600s or later.
Now there is a lot of mis-information about Darby. He first wrote out the basics of his Pre-Trib Rapture view in early 1827, before Margaret MacDonald had her vision in 1830, and also before Irving published his translation of Manuel Lucanza.
Still neither of those sources teach a Pre-Trib Rapture. MacDonald's account of her revelation has certain things left out of it when people make it seem like it could have inspired Darby's Pre-Trib view, like how she did say The Church would be persecuted by The Antichrist. Her vision does not lay out a clear chronology however, I feel it could be compatible with either Post-Trib or Mid-Trib, but certainly not Pre-Trib. Plus Darby said he thought her visions were Satanically inspired.
This whole "The Rapture must be false since it started with Darby" rhetoric definitely has an Anti-Continuationist tone to it. Darby's own account of how he first came to the idea makes it seem slightly like a divine revelation. And then they add the association with a controversial proto-Charismatic.
I think it's possible that Darby did receive a legit Revelation about Christ gathering His People before His Wrath is poured out. But then made many mistakes when trying to figure out how that fit into Scripture. In a way making the same key mistake Post-Tribbers make.
Because in my opinion, no amount of precedent for Post-Trib makes up for the fact that Post-Trib (in both it's Futurist and Historcist varieties) is based on an inherently wrong assumption, that Revelation 19 is the Second Coming. Pre-Tribers make the same mistake however when they say The Rapture is distinct from the Second Coming.
But I understand why this mistake would be so common. If you start your study of Bible Prophecy with Revelation, which many do, it's easy to see why one would make that mistake. I myself did originally which is why I used to be Post-Trib, though I was always distinct from most Post-Tribbers.
Morgan Edwards taught a form of Pre-Trib in the mid 18th Century, while also being one of the earliest Futurists of the English Speaking world.
So I still haven't given up on finding some obscure little known Ancient or Reformation era precedent for something similar to my Midway-Point view. But regardless it is not necessary.
My view on The Rapture is the one that correctly identifies where to find The Parusia in Revelation using Scripture to Interpret Scripture.
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Pre-Tribbers mis-quoting old Historicists
A lot of the attempts of Pre-Tribbers to claim there were Pre-Tribbers before Darby involve a lot of mis-quoteing old Historicists, people who weren't even Futurists.
All these quotes tend to involve references to a "Great-Conflagration", that old Historicists like Joseph Mede, John Gill and Cotton Mather tended to place between the fulfillment of 1 Thessalonians 4 and the start of the Millenial Kingdom.
This "Great-Conflagration" is probably based on 2 Peter 3's talk of a coming destruction of the Earth by fire. One thing I've been struggling with is how this particular prophecy of Peter's does not at face value have an obvious place where it happens in Revelation.
Morgan Edwards was not a Historcist however, there are a couple sites out there trying to claim he was but that is easily refutable. I wanted to believe Edwards might have been Mid-Trib, but was forced to admit he was Pre-Trib, just not giving the Trib a full Seven Years.
It would be absurd to suggest any Historcist view on the timing of the Rapture is analogous to Pre-Trib, since they definitely place the Seals and Trumpets before the Rapture, and from examples I've seen also the Bowls of God's Wrath.
That of course is why a Post-Tribber might feel inclined to say that these Historicists were essentially Post-Trib. Well it's complicated, since not all these Puritan Historicists were even Pre-Millenial, at least a few flirted with Post-Millenialism.
But even when they are Pre-Millenial. Based on how I've defined my Midway Point Rapture model. It can be fair to say this "Great-Conflagration" equates to the idea of the Wrath not happening until we are taken out. Plus there is my past arguments (I'm now less sure on but kind of still lean towards) that the Church remains in Heaven until the descent of New Jerusalem.
A doctrine being new is not an argument against it being valid. Strangely enough I thought I'd already done a post specifically on that, but I guess I didn't. I'm gonna have to get to that. Update: Here it is.
Additional Update April 2020: Imminence
What I failed to get at the time is how being Hisotricist can allow you to be functionally exactly like Pre-Tribbers on Imminence. They technically agree with what Post-Tribbers and Pre-Wrath and my view says must come first, but to them those things have already happened.
All these quotes tend to involve references to a "Great-Conflagration", that old Historicists like Joseph Mede, John Gill and Cotton Mather tended to place between the fulfillment of 1 Thessalonians 4 and the start of the Millenial Kingdom.
This "Great-Conflagration" is probably based on 2 Peter 3's talk of a coming destruction of the Earth by fire. One thing I've been struggling with is how this particular prophecy of Peter's does not at face value have an obvious place where it happens in Revelation.
Morgan Edwards was not a Historcist however, there are a couple sites out there trying to claim he was but that is easily refutable. I wanted to believe Edwards might have been Mid-Trib, but was forced to admit he was Pre-Trib, just not giving the Trib a full Seven Years.
It would be absurd to suggest any Historcist view on the timing of the Rapture is analogous to Pre-Trib, since they definitely place the Seals and Trumpets before the Rapture, and from examples I've seen also the Bowls of God's Wrath.
That of course is why a Post-Tribber might feel inclined to say that these Historicists were essentially Post-Trib. Well it's complicated, since not all these Puritan Historicists were even Pre-Millenial, at least a few flirted with Post-Millenialism.
But even when they are Pre-Millenial. Based on how I've defined my Midway Point Rapture model. It can be fair to say this "Great-Conflagration" equates to the idea of the Wrath not happening until we are taken out. Plus there is my past arguments (I'm now less sure on but kind of still lean towards) that the Church remains in Heaven until the descent of New Jerusalem.
A doctrine being new is not an argument against it being valid. Strangely enough I thought I'd already done a post specifically on that, but I guess I didn't. I'm gonna have to get to that. Update: Here it is.
Additional Update April 2020: Imminence
What I failed to get at the time is how being Hisotricist can allow you to be functionally exactly like Pre-Tribbers on Imminence. They technically agree with what Post-Tribbers and Pre-Wrath and my view says must come first, but to them those things have already happened.
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Were Increase and Cotton Mather Pre-Trib?
This isn't me asking only to then answer myself, I honestly don't know. The easy to find online for free versions of their writings have not had their texts modernized and so are difficult to read. I tried once and gave up.
I've seen a number of websites cite Cotton Mather as being a Pre-Darby Pre-Tribber. Some may also mention his father Increase Mather, but not always. And I've never seen Increase mentioned without Cotton. So there is always Cotton and sometimes there is Increase.
However they have never actually quoted them, or even said what book of theirs they said it in. The only person I've seen actually quote them talking about The Rapture is a commentator on an article that didn't mention them at all citing them among people who they say were clearly not Pre-Trib.
The thing is, it's mainly people who are opposing Pre-Trib (and I would assume implicitly any other non Post-Trib view) who are citing them as such. It used to be the Post-Tribbers clung strongly to the not before Darby narrative, but there is a trend now of people willing to push it back to the Puritan era.
A lot of views on The Bible began or arguably were revived in the English Speaking world in the 17th Century. England was the largest and most prosperous nation where Protestantism had become the mainstream religion. It took a while for that issue to be settled, but by the Reign of King James England finally found peace, and early in his reign finally settled on what would for awhile be the default English Bible.
The Levelers and Diggers and others were the source of a lot of modern Biblical Based political theories that I'm certain many of these Post-Tribbers revere. Not to mention Roger Williams inventing the modern notion of Religious Liberty. So only if you're Catholic would you reject the idea that that is naturally a time to expect new Biblical ideas to be discovered or rediscovered. Back before the 19th Century, Historicism was the standard Eschatology of the Protestant world, though some early Protestants followed Augustinian Amillenialism.
The agenda behind associating Pre-Trib with Cotton Mather is to then engage in a guilt by association smear campaign against Pre-Trib. Because both father and son Mathers were involved with and sometimes partly blamed for the Salem Witch Trials. Only a few of these sites mentioned that association, but I suspect they all know that a Wikipedia search for their names will lead to that coming up. Especially since some even say outright they were the first Pre-Tribbers.
The thing is every doctrine has some guilt by association with it. If you hold the Calcedonian position of how Christ's Divinity and Humanity relate to each other (which is the presumed position of all major Western Denominations, I personally am undecided), or the Miaphsyte one. Then you subscribe to a doctrine that was popularized by Cyril of Alexandria, Emperor Theodosius II and his sister Pulcheria. Who were involved in persecuting Jews and other non-Christians including the murder of Hypatia.
But on the subject of the Salem Witch Trails, the Mathers believed in the supernatural and thought what was going on was supernatural, which was hardly rare. But they actually felt things got out of hand and opposed using "Spectral Evidence" as the sole basis for convictions. Increase said something that reminds me of a quote of Voltaire I used to cite a lot, "It were better that ten suspected witches should escape, than that one innocent person should be condemned".
Still I do not approve of what they did.
But returning to the subject at hand. I don't know when they placed the Parusia. I do vaguely remember them being Zionists from when I tried to read them before, which post-Darby has been strongly linked to Pre-Trib and least popular among Post-Trib. But I don't know for certain.
Update: Well I have found a link to read Cotton Mather's The Threefold Paradise. For one thing their views were rather Historicist, but Cotton wound up developing something rather unique.
Without even getting to the book itself yet, the Introduction makes clear where the basis for a Pre-Trib accusation lies. It's actually quite interesting reading it's analysis of how Mather's views changed over time.
Ironically he developed his belief that the Saints would be taken to Heaven to escape a "Great Conflagration" at the same time he abandoned his long held belief in a coming mass conversation of The Jews. Making him certainly not compatible with modern Pre-Tribulationism, if it's accurate to call it Pre-Trib or even Pre-Wrath at all.
It seems one of the issues he struggled with was a basis for a popular hypothesis that a Supernatural Appearance of Christ would trigger their mass conversion. He should have considered the option that when Jesus comes to take the Saints to Heaven, is that appearance.
Indeed I feel like maybe if I could have explained my basic Midway Point Rapture view argument to him, that it could have solved this confusion and made this rather contrived "Golden Key" of Bible Prophecy he developed unnecessary.
I was also surprised to learn there was a time when the Duel Fulfillment argument was considered insufficiently literal, and something that supposedly existed only to help the New Testament. Judaism has it in some contexts as well, in fact if you reject it there is no basis for a coming Messiah Ben-David at all, cause Nathan's Prophecy in II Samuel 7 was clearly first fulfilled by Solomon.
I've seen a number of websites cite Cotton Mather as being a Pre-Darby Pre-Tribber. Some may also mention his father Increase Mather, but not always. And I've never seen Increase mentioned without Cotton. So there is always Cotton and sometimes there is Increase.
However they have never actually quoted them, or even said what book of theirs they said it in. The only person I've seen actually quote them talking about The Rapture is a commentator on an article that didn't mention them at all citing them among people who they say were clearly not Pre-Trib.
Increase Mather (1639-1723): “That part of the world [Europe] was to be principally the Seat of the CHURCH of Christ during the Reign of Antichrist” (Ichabod, p. 64).The quote from Cotton there I don't see how it'd be Rapture relevant at all. The Increase quote is definitely not compatible with Pre-Trib but it could fit Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath.
Cotton Mather (1663-1728): “…that New Jerusalem, whereto the Church is to be advanced, when the Mystical Babylon shall be fallen” (The Wonders of the Invisible World, p. 3).
The thing is, it's mainly people who are opposing Pre-Trib (and I would assume implicitly any other non Post-Trib view) who are citing them as such. It used to be the Post-Tribbers clung strongly to the not before Darby narrative, but there is a trend now of people willing to push it back to the Puritan era.
A lot of views on The Bible began or arguably were revived in the English Speaking world in the 17th Century. England was the largest and most prosperous nation where Protestantism had become the mainstream religion. It took a while for that issue to be settled, but by the Reign of King James England finally found peace, and early in his reign finally settled on what would for awhile be the default English Bible.
The Levelers and Diggers and others were the source of a lot of modern Biblical Based political theories that I'm certain many of these Post-Tribbers revere. Not to mention Roger Williams inventing the modern notion of Religious Liberty. So only if you're Catholic would you reject the idea that that is naturally a time to expect new Biblical ideas to be discovered or rediscovered. Back before the 19th Century, Historicism was the standard Eschatology of the Protestant world, though some early Protestants followed Augustinian Amillenialism.
The agenda behind associating Pre-Trib with Cotton Mather is to then engage in a guilt by association smear campaign against Pre-Trib. Because both father and son Mathers were involved with and sometimes partly blamed for the Salem Witch Trials. Only a few of these sites mentioned that association, but I suspect they all know that a Wikipedia search for their names will lead to that coming up. Especially since some even say outright they were the first Pre-Tribbers.
The thing is every doctrine has some guilt by association with it. If you hold the Calcedonian position of how Christ's Divinity and Humanity relate to each other (which is the presumed position of all major Western Denominations, I personally am undecided), or the Miaphsyte one. Then you subscribe to a doctrine that was popularized by Cyril of Alexandria, Emperor Theodosius II and his sister Pulcheria. Who were involved in persecuting Jews and other non-Christians including the murder of Hypatia.
But on the subject of the Salem Witch Trails, the Mathers believed in the supernatural and thought what was going on was supernatural, which was hardly rare. But they actually felt things got out of hand and opposed using "Spectral Evidence" as the sole basis for convictions. Increase said something that reminds me of a quote of Voltaire I used to cite a lot, "It were better that ten suspected witches should escape, than that one innocent person should be condemned".
Still I do not approve of what they did.
But returning to the subject at hand. I don't know when they placed the Parusia. I do vaguely remember them being Zionists from when I tried to read them before, which post-Darby has been strongly linked to Pre-Trib and least popular among Post-Trib. But I don't know for certain.
Update: Well I have found a link to read Cotton Mather's The Threefold Paradise. For one thing their views were rather Historicist, but Cotton wound up developing something rather unique.
Without even getting to the book itself yet, the Introduction makes clear where the basis for a Pre-Trib accusation lies. It's actually quite interesting reading it's analysis of how Mather's views changed over time.
Ironically he developed his belief that the Saints would be taken to Heaven to escape a "Great Conflagration" at the same time he abandoned his long held belief in a coming mass conversation of The Jews. Making him certainly not compatible with modern Pre-Tribulationism, if it's accurate to call it Pre-Trib or even Pre-Wrath at all.
It seems one of the issues he struggled with was a basis for a popular hypothesis that a Supernatural Appearance of Christ would trigger their mass conversion. He should have considered the option that when Jesus comes to take the Saints to Heaven, is that appearance.
Indeed I feel like maybe if I could have explained my basic Midway Point Rapture view argument to him, that it could have solved this confusion and made this rather contrived "Golden Key" of Bible Prophecy he developed unnecessary.
I was also surprised to learn there was a time when the Duel Fulfillment argument was considered insufficiently literal, and something that supposedly existed only to help the New Testament. Judaism has it in some contexts as well, in fact if you reject it there is no basis for a coming Messiah Ben-David at all, cause Nathan's Prophecy in II Samuel 7 was clearly first fulfilled by Solomon.
Sunday, February 11, 2018
My relationship with the Islamic Antichrist theory is complex
To a large extent it's a theory I don't want to be true. All the contemporary political agendas and fear mongering that are assumed to be behind the desire to create an Islamic Antichrist theory are things I oppose. I'm politically a left learning libertarian, I don't think Islam is an inherently more violent religion then most. And I certainly didn't vote for Donald Trump.
It would be nice if speculating that these Prophecies could be fulfilled by a Muslim didn't connect to Anti-Muslim or Anti-Arab bigotry any more then the Nicolai Carpathea theory is bigotry against Blonde Haired Blue Eyed Europeans. But we don't live in a perfect world. In western fiction, unless the author is explicitly trying to be progressive, white villains are never assumed to be evil because of their whiteness, but with minority villains that subtext is always there a little whether the writer intends that or not. And it's not a coincidence that popular theories about the Antichrist echo those Super Villain tropes. When he's White he's Lex Luthor or Chancellor Palpatine, but when he's not he's Fu Manchu.
Fortunately I'm an Evangelical Universalist now, I don't think people who accept the Mark are damned to hell for all of eternity, I don't even think the Antichrist and False Prophet themselves will be. Therefore I need not view them as cartoon villains. So I certainly don't want any Antichrist theory I might advocate to be viewed as demonizing any people groups who would share either a spiritual or physical kinship with that hypothetical Antichrist.
There is nothing in The Bible that says The Antichrist will follow a religion that won't exist till over 500 years after Revelation was written. But in general The Bible doesn't talk about The beast's religion, it says he will in some way deify himself at some point, but that doesn't tell us what his original religious affiliation will be.
There are plenty of Prophecies that can be taken as geographical clues, and most of them point to places that have been Islamic regions for a long time now and aren't likely to change any time soon. Babylon/Assyria, Edom, Egypt, Syria, ect. Only Greece and Rome aren't, but those don't have any solid witnesses outside symbolic visions in Daniel and Revelation drawing on Daniel.
And my research has lead me to evidence that Arabia itself has a role to play in prophecy. It's research I've been doing mainly for the purpose of hoping to emphasize positive common ground between Islam and the Judeo-Christian tradition. But a lot of the good things in The Bible have a dark-side as well. And so even the evidence for Sinai and Kadesh-Barnea possibly being in Arabia, leads to reminders of the Golden Calf incident and Korah's Rebellion, and what typological relevance they could have for the Image of the Beast and the references to the Wilderness in Revelation.
Back to the subject of Greece and Rome, the Roman Empire grew to include many of the now Islamic regions alluded to above, and parts of southern Italy were under Islamic Control for some of the middle ages. And much of what Greece meant in Antiquity is now part of Turkey. Not to mention how Islam is a fast growing religion in modern Europe.
Those statistics are often exaggerated as part of Islamiiphobic fear mongering from the Right. But are also something the Left will point out as a good sign that the world is becoming more diverse. I don't care one way or the other, and am only interested in terms of what it might mean for Bible Prophecy.
Now my recent post about The Beast possibly using the Name of YHWH or a Yah Theophoric name, might at first glance conflict with an Islamic Antichrist view since Muslims are often hostile to that name. However there are some exceptions to that general trend, particularly in Shia traditions.
The way I would make an Islamic Antichrist argument is different from the major people doing so already like Walid Shabbat and Perry Stone. Not just in terms of my tone towards Islam in general, but also in the Biblical Arguments I'd make. Which is made clear in my past posts on this tag.
I still don't consider it the most likely option, the theory that The Beast will be teaching something similar to the Hebrew Roots movement is still more likely in my view. But it's become the second mostly likely model I think. Certainly more Biblically supportable then the Left Behind model.
It would be nice if speculating that these Prophecies could be fulfilled by a Muslim didn't connect to Anti-Muslim or Anti-Arab bigotry any more then the Nicolai Carpathea theory is bigotry against Blonde Haired Blue Eyed Europeans. But we don't live in a perfect world. In western fiction, unless the author is explicitly trying to be progressive, white villains are never assumed to be evil because of their whiteness, but with minority villains that subtext is always there a little whether the writer intends that or not. And it's not a coincidence that popular theories about the Antichrist echo those Super Villain tropes. When he's White he's Lex Luthor or Chancellor Palpatine, but when he's not he's Fu Manchu.
Fortunately I'm an Evangelical Universalist now, I don't think people who accept the Mark are damned to hell for all of eternity, I don't even think the Antichrist and False Prophet themselves will be. Therefore I need not view them as cartoon villains. So I certainly don't want any Antichrist theory I might advocate to be viewed as demonizing any people groups who would share either a spiritual or physical kinship with that hypothetical Antichrist.
There is nothing in The Bible that says The Antichrist will follow a religion that won't exist till over 500 years after Revelation was written. But in general The Bible doesn't talk about The beast's religion, it says he will in some way deify himself at some point, but that doesn't tell us what his original religious affiliation will be.
There are plenty of Prophecies that can be taken as geographical clues, and most of them point to places that have been Islamic regions for a long time now and aren't likely to change any time soon. Babylon/Assyria, Edom, Egypt, Syria, ect. Only Greece and Rome aren't, but those don't have any solid witnesses outside symbolic visions in Daniel and Revelation drawing on Daniel.
And my research has lead me to evidence that Arabia itself has a role to play in prophecy. It's research I've been doing mainly for the purpose of hoping to emphasize positive common ground between Islam and the Judeo-Christian tradition. But a lot of the good things in The Bible have a dark-side as well. And so even the evidence for Sinai and Kadesh-Barnea possibly being in Arabia, leads to reminders of the Golden Calf incident and Korah's Rebellion, and what typological relevance they could have for the Image of the Beast and the references to the Wilderness in Revelation.
Back to the subject of Greece and Rome, the Roman Empire grew to include many of the now Islamic regions alluded to above, and parts of southern Italy were under Islamic Control for some of the middle ages. And much of what Greece meant in Antiquity is now part of Turkey. Not to mention how Islam is a fast growing religion in modern Europe.
Those statistics are often exaggerated as part of Islamiiphobic fear mongering from the Right. But are also something the Left will point out as a good sign that the world is becoming more diverse. I don't care one way or the other, and am only interested in terms of what it might mean for Bible Prophecy.
Now my recent post about The Beast possibly using the Name of YHWH or a Yah Theophoric name, might at first glance conflict with an Islamic Antichrist view since Muslims are often hostile to that name. However there are some exceptions to that general trend, particularly in Shia traditions.
( إذا أذَن الإمام , دعا الله بإسمه العبراني ( كتاب الغيبة للنعمانيAnd another quote about the Imam's own Name implies it'll be treated similarly to the Holy Name.
Al-Mufadhal ibn Umar is reported to have said that Abu Abdullah [a.s.] (Shia’s 6th Imams) said: “When the Imam (Mahdi) makes a call (for prayer), he will supplicate to God using God's Hebrew name...” (Al-Numani, Al-Ghayba , p.326)
مهدي الشيعة لا يحل ذكر اسمه ومن سماه ملعون (بحار الأنوار 51/33)And these quotes are emphasized by that Sunni Websites that thinks the Dajjal will be the Shiite Imam Mahdi.
According to Al-Majlisi’s Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol. 51, page 33, it is not permissible to mention the name of the Shia’s Mahdi and whoever refers to him by his name shall be cursed.
The way I would make an Islamic Antichrist argument is different from the major people doing so already like Walid Shabbat and Perry Stone. Not just in terms of my tone towards Islam in general, but also in the Biblical Arguments I'd make. Which is made clear in my past posts on this tag.
I still don't consider it the most likely option, the theory that The Beast will be teaching something similar to the Hebrew Roots movement is still more likely in my view. But it's become the second mostly likely model I think. Certainly more Biblically supportable then the Left Behind model.
Saturday, February 10, 2018
The Name of the Beast could be a Yah Theophoric Name
This theory I'm proposing is compatible with my prior Iapetos theory, since in that post I'd suggested how the name Iapetos could be re-interpreted as a Yah Theophoric name by a Jewish Messiah claimant using it. But it could be compatible with other theories too. In fact it could be just a form of the name YHWH manipulated to have a Greek Numerical value of 666, but I have not yet discovered a form that would work for that.
Revelation 13 at the end mentions the Name of the Beast that has a Numerical value of 666. But earlier the chapter also mentioned the "Name of Blasphemy" that is on each head of the Beast. I have a hunch that could be the same name.
Throughout The Bible however, the primary name that is associated with Blasphemy is The Holy Name, which I prefer to pronounce Yahuah, like in Leviticus 24. It's also one of The Ten Commandments to not use that Name in vain. Blasphemy does include the name being claimed by one to whom it doesn't belong.
There are aspects of the Image of the Beast narrative in Revelation 13 that could lead one to see it as a sort of repeat of the Golden Calf incident. Well remember they sort of called that Calf by the name of YHWH in Exodus 32 verses 4 through 6.
This potentially goes along with what I've suggested before that The Beast may in fact be enforcing a Torah based system.
A Torah basis for the Mark of the Beast system possibly exists in the same verses that are the basis of the Tefillin tradition. Exodus 13:9 and 16, Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18. But I could add to that the Crown of the High Priest which Exodus 28:36 and 39:30 says will have "Holiness to Yahuah" engraved on it. And that verse also uses the word "Signet".
There are a few Biblical Figures viewed as Types of The Antichrist who also have Yah Theophoric names.
Adonijah who attempted to usurp the throne from Solomon.
Solomon himself has been viewed as a Type of the Antichrist when he backslid into Idolatry. In which case it's useful to remember that the name Nathan gave Solomon was Jedediah in 2 Samuel 12:25, which means Beloved of Yah.
All three named children of Ahab and Jezebel had Yah Theophoric names, Ahaziah, Jehoram and Athaliah.
But perhaps most interestingly is Jehu who I've spoken about on this Blog a lot already. Jehu is the closest any Human in the Bible comes to simply being named YHWH, his name is also four letters in the Hebrew, the only difference is the second Heh is instead an Aleph making it YHWA, YHWO or YHWU. And it means "Yahu is He", which could be manipulated to mean "He is Yahu".
The Septuagint spelling of Jehu is Iota-Omicron-Upsilion, which is Iou, which often gets transliterated into English as just Ju. And in Latin it's usually Iehu. Iou has a numerical value of 480, so it's just a matter of somehow adding 186 to it. But it's also a spelling you can get from dropping half the letters out of Iesous/Jesus.
Revelation 13 at the end mentions the Name of the Beast that has a Numerical value of 666. But earlier the chapter also mentioned the "Name of Blasphemy" that is on each head of the Beast. I have a hunch that could be the same name.
Throughout The Bible however, the primary name that is associated with Blasphemy is The Holy Name, which I prefer to pronounce Yahuah, like in Leviticus 24. It's also one of The Ten Commandments to not use that Name in vain. Blasphemy does include the name being claimed by one to whom it doesn't belong.
There are aspects of the Image of the Beast narrative in Revelation 13 that could lead one to see it as a sort of repeat of the Golden Calf incident. Well remember they sort of called that Calf by the name of YHWH in Exodus 32 verses 4 through 6.
This potentially goes along with what I've suggested before that The Beast may in fact be enforcing a Torah based system.
A Torah basis for the Mark of the Beast system possibly exists in the same verses that are the basis of the Tefillin tradition. Exodus 13:9 and 16, Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18. But I could add to that the Crown of the High Priest which Exodus 28:36 and 39:30 says will have "Holiness to Yahuah" engraved on it. And that verse also uses the word "Signet".
There are a few Biblical Figures viewed as Types of The Antichrist who also have Yah Theophoric names.
Adonijah who attempted to usurp the throne from Solomon.
Solomon himself has been viewed as a Type of the Antichrist when he backslid into Idolatry. In which case it's useful to remember that the name Nathan gave Solomon was Jedediah in 2 Samuel 12:25, which means Beloved of Yah.
All three named children of Ahab and Jezebel had Yah Theophoric names, Ahaziah, Jehoram and Athaliah.
But perhaps most interestingly is Jehu who I've spoken about on this Blog a lot already. Jehu is the closest any Human in the Bible comes to simply being named YHWH, his name is also four letters in the Hebrew, the only difference is the second Heh is instead an Aleph making it YHWA, YHWO or YHWU. And it means "Yahu is He", which could be manipulated to mean "He is Yahu".
The Septuagint spelling of Jehu is Iota-Omicron-Upsilion, which is Iou, which often gets transliterated into English as just Ju. And in Latin it's usually Iehu. Iou has a numerical value of 480, so it's just a matter of somehow adding 186 to it. But it's also a spelling you can get from dropping half the letters out of Iesous/Jesus.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Paniym Eretz, The Face of The Earth.
Paniym Eretz is a Hebrew phrase translated in the KJV as either "The Face of The Earth", "The Face of The Whole Earth", or "The Face of all The Earth". Greek translations of the phrase are used in Luke 21:35 and Acts 17:26.
I've read some material on a website I don't want to link to that argued Noah's Flood was just local. And insists they are taking The Bible perfectly literally in doing so.
Now I agree entirely that the word Eretz is also translated land and is often used of more specific locations, a fact I like to point out when addressing Flat Earthers. It's used of the Land of Israel, and the Land of Mizraim and so on.
However Genesis 1 definitely uses it of all dry land when saying God separated the land from the waters.
The Flood is described as covering the Face of The Earth in Genesis 6:7 and 7:3-4 and 8:9. It is this expression I feel must mean the entire surface of the Earth. And I feel I can back that up from passages I will cite later.
But this Website says the Face of The Earth must mean something more specific since Genesis 4:14 says Cain was banished from the Face of the Earth, and yet is also a fugitive and a vagabond in the Earth. However this website contradicts it's own logic by saying the Flood can be considered "Universal" because it covered all the lands that descendants of Adam (of Genesis 2) lived in up to that time. They specifically apply it to Mesopotamia.
Paul used it in Greece in a context where he clearly meant it to be understood that where he was counted as part of it.
Isaiah 23:17 says "And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that Yahuah will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.".
Other Prophets say Israel was scattered across the Face of the Earth.
Genesis 41:56 and numerous uses of the phrase in Exodus through Deuteronomy clearly use it in a way that includes Mizraim (where ever that was) and the lands Israel wondered in for 40 years.
Genesis 11:4-8&9 utterly contradicts limiting it to Mesopotamia.
I'm kind of starting to wonder if maybe Paniym Eretz is a Hebrew equivalent of phrases like Midgard in Norse Mythology from which comes the term Middle Earth (Tolkien didn't invent it), and Ashihara no Nakatsukuni (The middle country of reed beds) in Japanese Mythology. A term that can be viewed as technically more specific then the entirety of what "Earth" means, and yet still effectively the entire world as we know it.
This could be an expression where the context is key to the point being made. Cain was banished from the world he knew up to that time. But that doesn't change that the obvious intent of the Flood narrative is still that the Flood covered everything.
However there is one possible idea I can't help but flirt with. And that is that maybe Cain was banished from the Face of our Earth, but the Land of Nod ("Land" in that phrase is also Eretz) is another planet? It's described as "east" of Eden, but is a specific fairly rare form of the word for east, qidmah. Remember the Sun, Moon and Stars rise in the East and set in the West. And the Hebrew words for East are also sometimes translated things like before and ancient.
That's a bit of a stretch I admit. But I've already argued for other cases of The Bible possibly alluding to humans traveling to outer Space.
I've read some material on a website I don't want to link to that argued Noah's Flood was just local. And insists they are taking The Bible perfectly literally in doing so.
Now I agree entirely that the word Eretz is also translated land and is often used of more specific locations, a fact I like to point out when addressing Flat Earthers. It's used of the Land of Israel, and the Land of Mizraim and so on.
However Genesis 1 definitely uses it of all dry land when saying God separated the land from the waters.
The Flood is described as covering the Face of The Earth in Genesis 6:7 and 7:3-4 and 8:9. It is this expression I feel must mean the entire surface of the Earth. And I feel I can back that up from passages I will cite later.
But this Website says the Face of The Earth must mean something more specific since Genesis 4:14 says Cain was banished from the Face of the Earth, and yet is also a fugitive and a vagabond in the Earth. However this website contradicts it's own logic by saying the Flood can be considered "Universal" because it covered all the lands that descendants of Adam (of Genesis 2) lived in up to that time. They specifically apply it to Mesopotamia.
Paul used it in Greece in a context where he clearly meant it to be understood that where he was counted as part of it.
Isaiah 23:17 says "And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that Yahuah will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.".
Other Prophets say Israel was scattered across the Face of the Earth.
Genesis 41:56 and numerous uses of the phrase in Exodus through Deuteronomy clearly use it in a way that includes Mizraim (where ever that was) and the lands Israel wondered in for 40 years.
Genesis 11:4-8&9 utterly contradicts limiting it to Mesopotamia.
I'm kind of starting to wonder if maybe Paniym Eretz is a Hebrew equivalent of phrases like Midgard in Norse Mythology from which comes the term Middle Earth (Tolkien didn't invent it), and Ashihara no Nakatsukuni (The middle country of reed beds) in Japanese Mythology. A term that can be viewed as technically more specific then the entirety of what "Earth" means, and yet still effectively the entire world as we know it.
This could be an expression where the context is key to the point being made. Cain was banished from the world he knew up to that time. But that doesn't change that the obvious intent of the Flood narrative is still that the Flood covered everything.
However there is one possible idea I can't help but flirt with. And that is that maybe Cain was banished from the Face of our Earth, but the Land of Nod ("Land" in that phrase is also Eretz) is another planet? It's described as "east" of Eden, but is a specific fairly rare form of the word for east, qidmah. Remember the Sun, Moon and Stars rise in the East and set in the West. And the Hebrew words for East are also sometimes translated things like before and ancient.
That's a bit of a stretch I admit. But I've already argued for other cases of The Bible possibly alluding to humans traveling to outer Space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)