Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Samie]

52 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

The Hebrew term Moshiach, which means Comforter, does resemble the word for Messiah (since Hebrew itself has no vowels), and so Jews often use it in place of Messiah in order to distinguish him from the Christian concept of Messiah.

Thank you for the information regarding the use of Moshiach by the Jews.

While it is true that Hebrew has no vowels, is it likewise true that the masoretic diacritical markings or pointings found below, beside or even above a Hebrew letter give the reader a clue as to what vowel sound the consonant carries with it when read?

[phkrause]

7 hours ago, MCBGM said:

A well known --and quite deliberate-- mistranslation.

For one thing, Hebrew has no present tense. There is only completed action and incomplete action --past and future.

Numerous Bible translations today in fact correctly render the phrase "am I" in the past tense as "I was" or "I have been" etc. See, for example, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, international Standard Version, God's Word Translation, Jubilee Bible 2000, Douay-Rheims Bible, etc.

Even the famous phrase where KJV and many others still have God saying "I am that I am" is incorrect. The correct translation, now beginning to be acknowledged, is "I will be who I will be." 

CJB:"Come close to me, and listen to this: since the beginning I have not spoken in secret, since the time things began to be, I have been there; and now Adonai ELOHIM has sent me and his Spirit."

Tanakh Online:Draw near to Me, hearken to this; in the beginning I did not speak in secret, from the time it was, there was I, and now, the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit.

w/Rashi's commentary:

from the time it was, there was I: [Jonathan paraphrases:] From the time the nations ceased fearing Me, there I brought Abraham your father near to My service.
and now, the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit: [Jonathan paraphrases:] Said the prophet, “And now, the Lord God has sent me, and His word.” This is an intermingling of words. The one who said this did not say that [i.e., the first part of the verse was said by God, and the second part by the prophet]. And the Aggadic Midrash of Rabbi Tanhuma (Yithro 21) explains: Hearken to thisThis alludes to Moses’ Torah, referred to as “This is the Torah.” In the beginning, I did not speak in secretat Sinai. And the prophet says, “From the time that thing was that, He says, I was there.” And we learned from here that all the prophets stood at Sinai. And now He sent me to prophesy to them. Even in this version there is an intermingling of words. “In the beginning I did not speak in secret,” was said by the Shechinah.“From the time it was, there was I,” was said by the prophet. It is possible to interpret it so that there should not be intermingling of words [as follows:] Draw near to me, hearken to this what I prophesy to you regarding the downfall of Babylon and your redemption. In the beginning I did not speak that in secret. From the time it was, that the Holy One, blessed be He, decreed to bring it, there I was. This teaches that from the time of the decree, the Holy One, blessed be He, appoints the prophet who is destined to prophesy regarding the matter in the council of the heavenly household, although it has not yet been created.

[Pickle]

On 4/16/2016 at 3:13 PM, MCBGM said:

The previous verse (28, omitted) says both events occur in the same hour. That all (good and bad) come forth at the same time.

...

Unlike the first resurrection, however, the second resurrection includes both good and bad. But not all the bad people who ever lived, since at least some we are told will be permitted to slumber even then. Out of compassion, because it was through no fault of their own that they failed to develop righteously.

But vs. 28 doesn't say that both events happen in the same hour. The word "same" isn't in vs. 28.

Look at every verse in the Bible that uses the word "hour," and you'll find that it doesn't always mean a period of time containing 60 minutes. Vs. 28 could be paraphrased in this way: "The time is coming when all that are in the graves shall hear His voice." And I doubt that would surprise you given the fact that yom, the Hebrew word for "day," sometimes is translated "year" or "yearly." Sometimes words have different meanings.

1 Thessalonians 4:16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Should Paul have instead written that the dead in Christ at the second coming will rise second, rather than rise first?

Note that John Gill in his comments in 1 Th. 4:16 has cited many rabbinical writings on the idea of a first resurrection. He cites "T. Hieros. Kilaim, fol. 32. 3. & Cetubot, fol. 35. 2. Bereshit Rabba, sect. 74. fol. 65. 1" and "Bereshit Rabba, sect. 96. fol. 83. 4. & 84. 1. & Shemot Rabba, sect. 32. fol. 135. 2" when quoting two quotes where they believed that the first resurrection occurs "in the days of the Messiah." He even cites "Abkath Rocel, p. 138. Ed. Huls" as saying:

"Michael shall shout with a great shout, and the graves of the dead shall be opened at Jerusalem, and the holy blessed God will restore the dead to life, and Messiah the son of David shall come, ...."

And thus, if you are correct, Jesus must be the Messiah the Son of David.

[Pickle]

On 4/16/2016 at 3:20 PM, MCBGM said:

Indicates.

That means your point is open to interpretation. And therefore doesn't rule out anything.

False. That's not what I meant.

The paper I linked to earlier by Gerhard Hasel about the 70 weeks (http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=863&journal=1&type=pdf) pointed out that when you're dealing with a word that has plural forms for both genders, the masculine gender draws attention to the group, not the individual parts. Thus, the 70 weeks are referred to in Dan. 9 as a single unit. In contrast, the feminine gender draws attention to the individuals of the group.

 

[Pickle]

On 4/16/2016 at 3:47 PM, MCBGM said:

The individuals you name are not Jews. They may have been Jewish at one time, but right now they are not. Right now they are Christians.

Let's leave bigotry out of the discussion. Your response is akin to evolutionists who say that a scientist that believes in a 6-day creation is not a scientist.

Unless you want to say that many of the Jews in Israel today aren't really Jews. I recall one time when some old acquaintances of my mother came by our church to say hello. They were Jewish but had just come from a restaurant, I believe, and they are the ones that noted that my mother was more faithful in Sabbath observance. So the Jews in Israel that are raising hogs, the Jewish government official that wouldn't eat pork but sat down with he reporter covering the story to a plate of squid, are they no longer Jewish because of what they eat? I doubt you'd say so.

The only biblical grounds for saying that a Jew is not a Jew is found in the last two verses of Romans 2. If a Jew isn't circumcised in his heart, then he isn't really a Jew, not in God's eyes.

Albert Einstein was a pantheist, and for that reason was accused of being an atheist. So was he no a Jew?

If you really want to go down that road, then I would suggest that you include in your disenfranchisement any Jew who doesn't believe what the Bible says, including not believing the passages that speak of God creating everything on this planet in 6 days.

[Pickle]

On 4/16/2016 at 3:54 PM, MCBGM said:

You are aware of only two texts. But there are more than just two.

And only one which appears to differ with them.

Again, only mere assertions. No hint of where the other texts might be.

[Pickle]

On 4/16/2016 at 4:13 PM, MCBGM said:

Just because they appear not to know, or remember, the answer (more than likely they were simply unwilling to discuss it with you) doesn't mean they haven't been informed.

You continue to use the offensive term "ultra-Orthodox." Among Orthodox Jews, this is unacceptable.

"Ultra-Orthodox" is the only way I know how to refer to the particular group I am referring to. No one back then or now has ever given me any other label for them. My understanding is that "orthodox" would be inaccurate.

It's possible that the ultra-Orthodox leader didn't want to discuss it with me, but in that case his conduct might have been deceptive, since I was led to believe that he didn't know the answer. If you are right, then this might be another instance of human tradition making void a commandment of God. But I don't see any possible way that the reform rabbi in training could have simply been evasive. He genuinely did not know why there was such a large discrepancy between the Jewish date for creation and Ussher's chronology.

[Pickle]

On 4/16/2016 at 4:25 PM, MCBGM said:

Is it? I don't agree.

Even so, there's no need to correct it because nothing's being hidden.

Expecting Jews to change their calendar is like expecting Christians to change all the calendars which say this is the year 2016, because that date is based on a misinterpretation of when Jesus was actually born and should really be 2020, provided they've got the right understanding now.

Nothing's being hidden? Are you serious? Show me where Jews are actively informing people that 5776 is incorrect because of a misinterpretation of the 70 weeks.

In contrast, show me where Christians today are saying that Christ was born at "0". It is well known that Ussher's chronology has creation at 4004 BC. Why 4004 BC? I would think it's because of Ussher having 4000 years between creation and Christ's birth. So the 4-year discrepancy has been out in the open for centuries.

So in reality, Christians aren't promoting false dates for Christ's birth or creation using the Julian or Gregorian calendars in the way you are suggesting. In contrast, every time 5776 AM is cited, or any other AM date, it is promoting a lie, since AM means "year of the world," the number of years since creation.

And behind the lie appears to be an attempt to prevent Jews from seeing that Jesus fulfilled the 70 weeks, by saying that the two destructions of the temple were 490 years apart, and Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes were three names for the same person.

[Pickle]

On 4/16/2016 at 4:35 PM, MCBGM said:

Hard to believe, no doubt. But it isn't rare. There are more than just a few Christians who interpret Daniel this way. I've encountered many over the years.

They aren't just reading the English translation, as you have it here. In the original language, messiah is not capitalized and there is no definite article.

"Messiah" merely means "anointed one," either a ruler or a priest. It could mean a good ruler or a bad one.

Again, something more than mere assertions would be helpful. I highly doubt it isn't rare among Christians that believe the Bible.

I think the LXX seems to interpret the passage that way. But the LXX is not a translation done by Christians, so it doesn't count.

[Pickle]

On 4/16/2016 at 4:52 PM, MCBGM said:

The event mentioned in those prophecies is described as a single event because that is what it is. Christians interpret them as referring to separate events in order to explain away the fact that Jesus failed to fulfill them the first time he was here. But, if such a method of interpretation were correct, then anyone could claim to be the Messiah, simply by saying the rest will be fulfilled in some future life. And that's precisely what has happened. Precisely why serious readers must not permit such interpretations as valid.

My comment wasn't directed to you, but all you've done is reinforce my point. Those OT prophecies speak of Christ's two comings as a single event. Since many Jews failed to recognize this fact at the time of Christ, their misinterpretations of prophecy hindered them from accepting Him. And, obviously, one can find Jews who are making the same error today.

So you have reinforced my point to Samie. Thus he should consider the fact that there are also passages that speak of the beginning and the end of the 1000 years as if they are the same event.

[Pickle]

17 hours ago, MCBGM said:

A well known --and quite deliberate-- mistranslation.

For one thing, Hebrew has no present tense. There is only completed action and incomplete action --past and future.

Numerous Bible translations today in fact correctly render the phrase "am I" in the past tense as "I was" or "I have been" etc. See, for example, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, international Standard Version, God's Word Translation, Jubilee Bible 2000, Douay-Rheims Bible, etc.

Even the famous phrase where KJV and many others still have God saying "I am that I am" is incorrect. The correct translation, now beginning to be acknowledged, is "I will be who I will be." 

Past and future? Don't you mean perfect and imperfect, both of which tenses typically refer to action in the past? That's how Robert Young explained it in his Young's Literal Translation.

Do you, like Young, reject the waw conversive principle which translators use to derive the rest of the tenses from those two?

[Pickle]

For those unfamiliar with AM dating, there have been three variations: AM I, AM II, and AM III.

AM stands for Anno Mundi, which effectively means "Year After Creation," and literally means in Latin "Year of the World."

In Jewish Tradition, Adam and Eve were created on Tishri 1. That puts the first five days of creation during the previous year, since the year is supposed to begin on Tishri 1. (For the sake of the point being made, it doesn't matter if this is true or not.)

AM I starts the calendar with the year 1 AM beginning on the hypothetical Tishri 1 prior to creation week, making the day of Adam's creation the first day of 2 AM.

AM II dating starts 1 AM with the day of Adam's creation, making 2 AM begin on Adam's first birthday.

AM III dating begins 1 AM with Adam's birthday.

So each variation doesn't affect how long ago the events are said to have occurred. They are simply three different ways of saying the same thing.

I think all this is another example of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. A lot of time has been spent at explaining in detail how the various intricacies work, including the differences of one or two years between these variations, all the while the traditional chronology contains a glaring 160+ year error. It comes across to me like debating between pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib while neglecting to inform people there is also an historicist pre-millennial option. You can't tell me the average futurist out there knows about historicism. All the ____-trib debate has obscured the much bigger issues, and I think something like that has been going on regarding the Jewish calendar too.

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Martn]

 

[Pickle]

8 hours ago, MCBGM said:

It says they happen at "the hour" (singular, not plural).

What Paul says is true. They are the first ones resurrected --at that time. But not the first ones ever to have been raised.

Again, if the resurrection of that multitude at Jesus first coming wasn't first, then what was it?

Judaism recognizes only one, final resurrection. The idea of a first and then second resurrection is found only in Christianity.

Paul says nothing about anyone else being resurrected at that time.

Strictly speaking, the "many" raised when Jesus arose was not the first resurrection ever. If we talk about resurrections to resume this mortal life, then we have recorded a number of resurrections from the son of the widow at Zarephath to Lazarus. If we talk of resurrections to an immortal life, then Moses would be the first. Paul did write, "Death reigned from Adam until Moses," and Moses appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration to represent those who will be resurrected when Christ returns.

We know that that "many" did not include King David, since Peter in Acts 2 said that David had not yet gone to heaven.

If we look at "the day of the Lord" as being a little longer than 1000 years, then we could say that the resurrected saints are the first ones resurrected at that time, and the wicked are the second ones resurrected at that time, 1000 years later.

John Gill cites R. Judah as saying that the resurrection of certain ones takes place 210 years earlier than others, R. Isaac as saying that it will be 214 years, and R. Jose as saying that if certain things are so, there will be many resurrections. So I'm unsure that you are correct that Judaism recognizes only one, final resurrection.

[Pickle]

8 hours ago, MCBGM said:

This is also the rule in Spanish, French, and many other languages. A group of people which includes both men and women is spoken of in the masculine gender, but that doesn't mean the group can't have different parties in it. Some in the group might be Catholic and others Protestant, even though all are addressed as a singular gender.

How cohesive the group is, is a matter of interpretation.

Did you read Hasel's paper? What you described is not what he wrote.

Again, when talking about Hebrew double-gender plurals, Hasel cites others to show the difference in meaning between a masculine plural and a feminine plural. The masculine plural views the group as a single unit. The feminine plural emphasizes the members of the group as individuals.

The fact that a masculine plural is used in Dan. 9 rather than a feminine plural is what tells us that the "group" of weeks is cohesive. That is the conclusion of his paper.

[Pickle]

8 hours ago, MCBGM said:

Oh

So now you're accusing me of bigotry?

Simply because, as a Jew myself, I dare to tell you what a Jew is and is not.

And you, being not Jewish, think you know better than I what a Jew is and is not?

The only people on earth who have any right at all to say who is or is not Jewish, are the Jews themselves, as a majority.

And Paul was a Jew, and he explicitly said that those who aren't circumcised in their hearts aren't Jews. Now, I have no way to know whether you are circumcised in your heart or not, but if hypothetically you aren't, then you aren't a Jew, and thus you have no right to say who is or is not Jewish, based on your own logic.

Yes, I do consider it bigotry for an evolutionist to say that there are no creationist scientists because if you are a creationist, you aren't a scientist. And while I don't think I've ever before applied this same reasoning to the issue you raised, I do think it fits. For anyone who claims to be a Jew to say that a Sabbath-keeping, pork-abstaining Jew who believes the Jewish Scriptures is no longer a Jew simply because he believes in the Jewish Messiah named Jesus, I do think that smacks of bigotry.

But you evaded my questions, which I am definitely interested in getting your input on, since you do claim to be Jewish. Was that squid-eating Israeli government official a Jew in your mind? Is an atheist Jew really a Jew? I want to know what you think.

The article I read about the pork and squid, I think that was in an early 1980's Wall Street Journal, but I might be off on the year. I recall it being on the front page. It told about how Jews in Israel were raising 200-pound penguins and selling them for meat. Raising 200-pound penguins on concrete slabs, nice clean conditions, and selling them for meat. Calling them penguins so they didn't get into too much trouble. They were really hogs. And I recall the article telling how Jews in Israel routinely call the pork they eat something other than pork.

Are these folks Jews in your mind? Are they more Jewish than Steve Wohlberg and Clifford Goldstein?

[Pickle]

8 hours ago, MCBGM said:

You really don't know where they are?

What good would it do me to show you? Would it make any difference at all?

It depends. You haven't given me any idea yet what sources you were referring to. If the source is based on one of the two texts in Scripture, then of course it wouldn't be very persuasive. And just because 9 sources say one thing, that doesn't rule out a 10th source also being correct, depending on what point is being attested to by the sources.

So it depends.

[Pickle]

8 hours ago, MCBGM said:

Why should they inform people of something which isn't the reason behind it? Just because you --and you alone-- have got this theory that it's all somehow based on a deliberate miscalculation of the 70 weeks.

It seems you have a need to imagine and accuse people of bad motives.

I never said anything about anyone informing people of something behind it. I said that if attention were drawn to the error, it would also draw attention to the 70 weeks, and I think it is this fact that makes people reluctant to correct the error.

Quite a few have cited the rabbinical curse ("blasted be the bones") upon anyone who would dare calculate the 70 weeks, and I've read accounts of Jews who inquired about the 70 weeks, and the reaction was less than cordial. So it is quite clear that the 70 weeks are not a popular topic in Judaism.

If the idea that Babylon destroyed the temple in 421 BC or thereabouts wasn't a deliberate miscalculation of the 70 weeks, please tell me how it came to be. I'd like to hear some sort of plausible explanation for the error, which led rabbis to propose that Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes were all the same person. Josephus the Jewish historian doesn't support such an idea from what I can tell, and so I think the misidentification of these kings had to have come in later.

There is also the issue of the feast days tending to come a month too early due to intercalation of the 13th month Veadar not occurring correctly. I've wondered if this could be due to a change in the date of creation. I've studied the Aramaic tombstones of Zoar, trying to use the dates on them to sort of reverse engineer the evolution of the rabbanite calendar, to see what may have originally been the date of creation, and haven't been able to come up with anything. But it is a topic that interests me a lot.

Can you help at all in this regard? In the time of Christ, say, what was considered to be the date of creation? When did today's date of creation become fixed? When was the error of when the first temple was destroyed introduced into Jewish chronology?