Are the three Angels' Messages Dead or Alive?

[hch]

9 hours ago, Martn said:

Kings are representative of their kingdoms.

The terms are used interchangeably in prophetic language:

"another kingdom inferior to you"

"these kings ... these kingdoms"

"great beasts ... four kings"

"fourth beast ... fourth kingdom"

Daniel 2:39, 44; 7:17, 23. Etc.

What is meant therefore are not specific individuals, but the offices they embody.

Martin,

Truth out of context is no longer truth

Daniel 2 was about the kings on Babylon not kingdoms

Daniel 7 began with beasts that were symbolic of kingdoms, which repeated and enlarged the meaning of Daniel 2 to include kings and kingdoms

Daniel 7:17 clearly repeated and enlarged the meaning of Daniel 7 to redirect the prophecy to the endtime kings from the earth (American Presidents)

But by misapplying the interchangeability of kings and kingdoms,

when the prophecy is talking about kings some folks assume that they are kingdoms

Such a mindset will explain away a clear thus saith the Lord

[Martn]

15 hours ago, hch said:

Daniel 2 was about the kings ... not kingdoms

 

Those of us who have read the texts cited in my example don't agree:

"another kingdom inferior to you"

"these kings ... these kingdoms"

Daniel 2:39, 44

 

[Martn]

Mountains / hills, repeatedly in prophetic language, are used as symbols of empires, kingdoms, nations.

Never, ever are they even once symbolic of individuals.

The seven kings, John says, are seven mountains.

 

[JoeMo]

17 hours ago, hch said:

when the prophecy is talking about kings some folks assume that they are kingdoms

...and rightly so.  Are you so confident in your interpretations that you fail to see that of others; which is much clearer and easier to understand.

There is a theory called Occam's Razor which basically says simpler more straightforward theories are preferable to complex convoluted ones because they are more testable.  While Occam's Razor is not a provable fact, it is a worthwhile test of the robustness of alternative theories.  I do believe that the Occam's Razor principle applies here.  Who's interpretations more clearly represent scripture - the Obama is the beast/antichrist, or almost any other prevailing interpretation?

God told Joel that in the last days, His Spirit would fall upon all men - not just you.  If the Spirit is indeed falling, how come you seem to be the only person on this forum who accepts your theories?  It's much easier to see that radical Islam (maybe even the papacy) is a better candidate for the beast/antichrist than Obama.  Obama is powerless.  Both our allies and enemies look at him as weak.  Both the allies and enemies of Islam consider radical Islam to be powerful and dangerous - one of the most existential threats to the stability of humanity since Hitler (maybe even ever).

[hch]

Quote

 

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 12:46 PM, Martn said:

Those of us who have read the texts cited in my example don't agree:

"another kingdom inferior to you"

"these kings ... these kingdoms"

Daniel 2:39, 44

 

Martin,

There will be those that read a passage superficially and get a superficial understanding

that does not completely agree with a more in-depth study of the text.

A correct understanding of the Scriptures will not always agree with those who make up their mind before all of the facts are examined. It does not matter how many people agree on an interpretation, Bible prophecy is not a beauty contest where the contestant who gets the most votes is the winner:

"another kingdom inferior to you" Daniel 2:39 (inferior is a poor rendition it means earth or land)

The word translated as KINGDOM in this passage is translated: his kingly <04437> (5:20),  realm <04437> (6:3), and  reign <04437> (6:28)

"another king from your land" Daniel 2:39

"another realm from your land" Daniel 2:39

"another reign from your land" Daniel 2:39

clearly Daniel was speaking of King Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty

"these kings ... these kingdoms" Daniel 2:44

"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever" (Daniel 2:44)

"the days of these kings" the word KINGS here is never kingdom 179 out of 180 times it is KINGS.  And the same word in Hebrew is king 2518 times out of 2523 occurrences in Scripture. These kings are identified in Daniel 7:17.

When Christ comes King Jesus (His realm or His reign) "shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms [Babylon, MedoPersia, Greece, & Rome- kingdoms that do not exist TOGETHER when He comes], and it shall stand for ever" (Daniel 2:44). No. Jesus will "break in pieces and consume all these kings, realms, and reigns" that exist when He comes.

Knowledge has increased, Present Truth is not the same as it was in the days of the SDA pioneers.

Da 2:35  "Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth."

[hch]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 0:56 PM, Martn said:

Mountains / hills, repeatedly in prophetic language, are used as symbols of empires, kingdoms, nations.

Never, ever are they even once symbolic of individuals.

The seven kings, John says, are seven mountains.

Re 17:9-10  "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space."

In the phrase "And there are seven kings" THERE is not in the text it is inferred by the translators-- thus it reads: "And <2532> are <1526> (5748) seven <2033> kings <935>"

Strong (5748) TVM: Present 5774, Not Stated 5799, Indicative 5791, Count: 1617

Quote

 

The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time.  In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense.

Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English will often occur in the present tense in Greek.  These are termed "historical presents," and such occurrences dramatize the event described as if the reader were there watching the event occur.  Some English translations render such historical presents in the English past tense, while others permit the tense to remain in the present.

 

 

Present example: "The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And they are seven kings:"

[hch]

Quote

Occam's Razor which basically says simpler more straightforward theories are preferable to complex convoluted ones because they are more testable.

This makes sense. When the Bible talks of kings, they are kings without doing any gymnastics to turn them into kingdoms unnecessarily.

Thus when Daniel 7:17 states explaining the beasts that Daniel saw "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth."

We can understand that the beasts represent 4 kings that are from the earth (rather than the sea that Daniel saw in the vision). So since Heaven changed the location of the beast from the sea to the earth, it is only a matter of identifying the earth in Bible prophecy (it relates to the USA cf Revelation 13)

And since Daniel was sealed until the endtime (Daniel 12:4 & 9 [1798 and beyond]) it is only a matter of identifying the endtime American Presidents that Heaven is explaining to Daniel.

But for various reasons, we should not expect everyone to grasp the Present Truth this hour. I spoke at a meeting of a dozen people yesterday, and we were praying for the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. The host who has studied this topic with me numerous times, suddenly got it. He testified, "It never made any sense to me no matter how many times I've heard it. But just now, it makes sense; I understand it now."
God will lead the seeker of truth to truth if we ask Him too fulfill His word in us. 

[hch]

On 8/4/16 In his Pentagon briefing, President Obama said that ISIS was driving the people away from the Euphrates River valley. He confirmed Bible prophecy that ISIS is fulfilling prophecy it is drying up the Euphrates to make way for Christ's coming.

President Obama also said that Russia was not showing itself a reliable partner in the Syrian peace process 1) they might not want to 2) they might not have all that much influence over Assad.

Today it was reported on the news that a faction of the Syrian rebels have broken through the northern siege of Aleppo.

The coincidental time line is noteworthy:

Obama promised Russia and Iran consequences on 8/1/16 if they did not have a plan in place to remove Assad. On 8/1/16 a Russian helicopter was downed

And on 8/6 or 8/7 fighters that had been trapped in Aleppo were finally able to break out

We should be watching waiting and praying

[Martn]

49 minutes ago, hch said:

There will be those that read a passage superficially and get a superficial understanding

 

Looking at it --in depth-- there is no good reason to take such plain words so far afield, by which method it is possible to make the text say whatever one wants it to say.

On 8/6/2016 at 1:42 PM, JoeMo said:

There is a theory called Occam's Razor which basically says simpler more straightforward theories are preferable to complex convoluted ones because they are more testable.

 

[hch]

Quote

Martin wrote: Looking at it --in depth-- there is no good reason to take such plain words so far afield, by which method it is possible to make the text say whatever one wants it to say.

If every Bible translation was perfect, there would be no reason for another translation to come along later.

But the translators are fallible. The obvious need to double check the translators is self-evident.

Clearly Daniel 7:17 states "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth." Heaven says that they are kings. But the translators ignored Heaven's interpretation and declared the fourth king to be a kingdom. 7:23  "Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces."

When there is such an obvious contradiction for Heaven to say that the fourth beast is a KING and the translators to ignore Heaven's interpretation and go with their understanding of the meaning of the passage to the extreme that they contradict Heaven---There Is A Very Good Reason To Look A Little Deeper.

When God sealed, shut-up, and closed Daniel until the time of the end, He did it by using the word translated as kingdom that could also be rendered realm, reign, or king. To be satisfied with an interpretation that was set "in stone" 200 years before the book of Daniel was unsealed and opened, is foolishness. The promise is that in the endtime KNOWLEDGE SHALL BE INCREASED.

So who is going to benefit from the increase of knowledge if "there is no good reason to take such plain words so far afield"? Without looking at the various possible translations, the likelihood "to make the text say whatever one wants it to say" is increased because translators did it 200 years ago and those who could double check them are too confident to do a thorough job in their studies. 

But alas that is the condition of Laodicea, it is happy with what it has and sees no need to receive any more light.

[hch]

Quote

 

JoeMo Posted Saturday at 02:42 PM

God told Joel that in the last days, His Spirit would fall upon all men - not just you.  If the Spirit is indeed falling, how come you seem to be the only person on this forum who accepts your theories?  ...

 

JoeMo,

When Jeremiah was delivering the true message to God's professed people, Hananiah was also delivering a message that he claimed was from God. It was very difficult for the people living in Jeremiah's day to distinguish which message was Present Truth and which was a lie. When it became clear that Jeremiah had the true message, those who had preached the lie could not undo their evil work and those that had been deceived by the false message had to suffer the consequences of not prayerfully searching for truth.

The Holy Spirit knows what the Scriptures mean that He inspired and He will lead His children into all truth for He has promised that if we seek with all our hearts, we will find.

Of those who have actually studied my message point by point, there are very few who do not agree with it. The nay sayers are generally those who say that they do not understand it and they do not make an effort to look any further to understand it, But they condemn what they do not understand.

The truthfulness of my words will be confirmed by God at His appointed time and the folly of the nay sayers will be apparent at that time as well.

Should I have made an error in my Bible study, I will be embarrassed. When the correctness of my warnings is upon us, those who had opportunity to know the Present Truth and failed to even look at it will be facing the consequences of their actions.

When God says let us reason together, He gives us the opportunity to interact and learn. If I have not seen something others can point me to truth and I can learn. likewise, if they are in that situation, I can share what I have found in Scripture. But it boils down to a thus saith the Lord, not personal preferences that are private interpretations (no matter how many folks like the ideas in question).

[Martn]

17 hours ago, hch said:

translators are fallible

Yes.

Your translation is in error.

The word for kingdom does not mean king. Not at all.

[Martn]

23 hours ago, hch said:

 from the earth

In those days ALL kings and kingdoms were from the earth.

World population in those ancient times, in all places, was as it was in America when the USA was founded.

[hch]

Quote

 

Martin Posted 12 minutes ago   

The word for kingdom does not mean king. Not at all.

 

The word translated kingdom relates to

The realm of the king

The reign of the king

The kingship of the king

The kingly authority of the king

<04437>

1) royalty, reign, kingdom
1a) royalty, kingship, kingly authority
1b) kingdom
1c) realm (of territory)
1d) reign (of time)

[Martn]

8 hours ago, hch said:

Of those who have actually studied my message point by point, there are very few who do not agree with it.

Sister White had a very good answer for this, when confronted with numerous individuals in her day who imagined they had messages from God.

She said that if God had actually revealed a truth to someone, God would reveal the same exact message to more than one person.

Scripture requires that all things revealed by God must be revealed to two or three witnesses at the very least.

Naturally you can get a few to agree with you, after you have first trained them in your way of thinking.

But you cannot show that anyone has come up with the same ideas completely independently of you.

The idea originates with you alone and therefore fails the scriptural test of truth.

 

[hch]

Quote

 

Martin Posted 2 minutes ago        

In those days ALL kings and kingdoms were from the earth.

World population in those ancient times, in all places, was as it was in America when the USA was founded

 

 Earth and se are different (cf Genesis 1:10, and Re 10:2  "And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth")

The symbolic sea refers to an inhabited area

The Symbolic earth refers to a sparsely inhabited area

The symbolic sea in Daniel 7:1-3 is not the symbolic earth of Daniel 7:17 that Heaven is explaining. Features are added in Heaven's interpretation that Daniel did not record in his account of the vision.

The meaning of the book of Daniel was sealed until the time of the end (Daniel 12: 4 & 9.

The kingdoms of Babylon, MedoPersia, Greece, and Rome were understood in the 4th century AD. 1500's (Luther), 1600's (Newton) [to name a few] which was before the book of Daniel was unsealed (1798 and beyond). To assume that the understanding that was popular 100, 200,and 1300-years before the book of Daniel was unsealed and opened.

[Martn]

17 minutes ago, hch said:

1) royalty, reign, kingdom
1a) royalty, kingship, kingly authority
1b) kingdom
1c) realm (of territory)
1d) reign (of time)

All these are definitions of the word kingdom.

I stand by what I said.

[hch]

Quote

 

Martin Posted 2 minutes ago

Sister White had a very good answer for this, when confronted with numerous individuals in her day who imagined they had messages from God.

She said that if God had actually revealed a truth to someone, God would reveal the same exact message to more than one person.

Scripture requires that all things revealed by God must be revealed to two or three witnesses at the very least.

Naturally you can get a few to agree with you, after you have first trained them in your way of thinking.

But you cannot show that anyone has come up with the same ideas completely independently of you.

The idea originates with you alone and therefore fails the scriptural test of truth.

 

Martin

Anyone can say sister White said this or that:

What she actually said that is worthy of consideration:

"When you make the Bible your food, your meat, and your drink, when you make its principles the elements of your character, you will know better how to receive counsel from God. I exalt the precious Word before you today. Do not repeat what I have said, saying, "Sister White said this," and "Sister White said that." Find out what the Lord God of Israel says, and then do what He commands."--Manuscript 43, 1901.

 

[Martn]

9 minutes ago, hch said:

Symbolic earth refers to a sparsely inhabited area

The meaning of the book of Daniel was sealed until the time of the end

All kingdoms in those days were sparsely inhabited, just as America was when the USA was founded.

It wasn't the meaning of Daniel which was sealed. It was the book itself which was sealed. The book we have presently is not entirely his and is missing much of the original content, which will be seen when the original book is eventually uncovered (unsealed) by archaeologists just as Daniel was promised it would be. Such finds usually are not friendly to established ideas, so we can predict the full book of Daniel will not be well received, but the wise will recognize it.

[Martn]

8 minutes ago, hch said:

Find out what the Lord God of Israel says, and then do what He commands

 

And that is exactly what I cited as the authority behind her words.

This is a scriptural test, stated repeatedly from Genesis to Revelation, that all things must be revealed by at least two or three independent prophetic witnesses. Your message does not pass this test.

[hch]

Quote

 

Martn Posted 5 hours ago

And that is exactly what I cited as the authority behind her words.

This is a scriptural test, stated repeatedly from Genesis to Revelation, that all things must be revealed by at least two or three independent prophetic witnesses. Your message does not pass this test.

 

Martn,

You say "This is a scriptural test, stated repeatedly from Genesis to Revelation, that all things must be revealed by at least two or three independent prophetic witnesses."

Jesus saidMt 24:37  "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Noe was back in Genesis when you stated that this test of yours was in use. Please share with us the names of the "two or three independent prophetic witnesses" that revealed that God was going to destroy the world by a flood that confirm your statement.

It is sad how much trash has come into the teachings that some folks try to pass off as "Bible teaching" or "Something in the Spirit of Prophecy."

It is not my place to try to convince anyone of anything. I can only tell you what I have been blessed to learn from prayerful Bible study and it is the Holy Spirit's place to convict hearts of sin and of righteousness.

[hch]

Here is some good counsel:

“Beware lest you read the word of God in the light of erroneous teaching. It was on this very ground that the Jews made their fatal mistake. They declared that there must be no different interpretation placed upon the Scriptures than that which had been given by the rabbis in former years…” (RH, March 25, 1902 par. 4)

“Because of their former erroneous interpretation of the prophecies, because of the customs and traditions of men, presented and urged upon them by the priests…their minds had become confused, and were hardened to truth.” (RH, October 14, 1890 par. 3)

 

---

 

[hch]

Martn,

We are still waiting for you to confirm your view of Scriptural warnings. You wrote:

Quote

Scripture requires that all things revealed by God must be revealed to two or three witnesses at the very least.

I asked who were the second and/or third witness that Scripture required to reveal Noah's message?

Upon further consideration, as well as Noah, Jesus spoke of Lot, Jonah, and Elijah. They are 4 examples of solo messengers that don't follow the rule that you say Scriptures "requires."

Silence on your part to my request that you give evidence to confirm the objection that you raised is understandable. The message of warning is rejected because it is not a welcomed message and the objections raised against the message are groundless private interpretations. (A private interpretation can be held by billions of people collectively, but if it is unscriptural: it is a private interpretation.) 

[Martn]

8 hours ago, hch said:

4 examples of solo messengers that don't follow the rule

Untrue.

That you will not see who the other witness or witnesses were in each case does not change the rule of "two or three" which nevertheless is plainly stated, multiple times, throughout the scriptures. "Every" single word is to be established by it, the scriptures declare.

Naturally you reject the rule. Because you cannot stand by it.

We therefore give your message no further heed.

 

[hch]

Martn,

The solo messengers that Jesus sited were Noah, Lot, Elijah, and Jonah.

Your assertion "That you will not see who the other witness or witnesses were in each case does not change the rule of "two or three" which nevertheless is plainly stated, multiple times, throughout the scriptures. "Every" single word is to be established by it, the scriptures declare."

If the solo prophets that Jesus cited did not have a second witness or a third witness, but they had valid messages from God, the problem is not with their message or the messengers, the problem is probably because you are misapplying the rule to use it as grounds to do away with a message that you object to.

This steadfast rule that you are relying upon was not applicable in the 4 examples that Jesus cited.  The conclusion about your misapplication of Scripture is self-evident