Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Awkward questions, especially for preterists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Faber View Post
    And all these years I thought it was Adonikam.
    Adonikam means "the Lord establishes" and is a pun having much to do with Solomon. First, it is a variant of Adonijah (see Nehemiah 10:16), the name of the elder brother Solomon murdered so that he could usurp the throne. Secondly, it is a variant of Adoniram, Solomon's overseer in charge of the forced labor he subjected the Israelites to.

    Comment


    • #32
      Adonikam = Adonai (Lord) + Qom (arises).
      Adonijah = Adonai (Lord) + Yahweh (name of God).

      There is no connection between the two, other than the first three syllables, which were common in Hebrew names.

      By the way, is there any connection between the mark of the beast and the design of Freemason temples?
      When I Survey....

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Darfius View Post
        Adonikam means "the Lord establishes" and is a pun having much to do with Solomon. First, it is a variant of Adonijah (see Nehemiah 10:16), the name of the elder brother Solomon murdered so that he could usurp the throne. Secondly, it is a variant of Adoniram, Solomon's overseer in charge of the forced labor he subjected the Israelites to.
        Wait. I missed that. Solomon USURPED the throne?
        Hey, I'm beginning to like this Socratic Method.
        Last edited by Faber; 08-08-2015, 09:02 PM.
        When I Survey....

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Faber View Post
          Wait. I missed that. Solomon USURPED the throne?
          Not by himself. His whore of a mother, Bathsheba, and that false prophet Nathan concocted quite a lie to grease the wheels first.

          Scripture Verse: 1 Kings 1

          9 Adonijah then sacrificed sheep, cattle and fattened calves at the Stone of Zoheleth near En Rogel. He invited all his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the royal officials of Judah, 10 but he did not invite Nathan the prophet or Benaiah or the special guard or his brother Solomon.

          11 Then Nathan asked Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, “Have you not heard that Adonijah, the son of Haggith, has become king, and our lord David knows nothing about it? 12 Now then, let me advise you how you can save your own life and the life of your son Solomon. 13 Go in to King David and say to him, ‘My lord the king, did you not swear to me your servant: “Surely Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne”? Why then has Adonijah become king?’ 14 While you are still there talking to the king, I will come in and add my word to what you have said.”

          © Copyright Original Source

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Darfius View Post
            Sennacherib never defeated the Judeans and submitted them to forced labor and oppression that the song rejoices they've been freed from. Try again.
            You really need to brush up on your bible history don't you? No, Jerusalem wasn't defeated. He did however destroy and enslave, first of all Israel the Northern Kingdom a few years earlier (last I checked, they were God's people too... ), then in his rampage through Judah he destroyed and enslaved many thousands. This source says he claimed to have enslaved 200,156 persons.

            Source: [URL

            http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Sennacherib.htm[/URL]] Because Hezekiah, king of Judah, would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power I took 46 of his strong fenced cities; and of the smaller towns which were scattered about, I took and plundered a countless number. From these places I took and carried off 200,156 persons, old and young, male and female, together with horses and mules, asses and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless multitude; and Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city to hem him in, and raising banks of earth against the gates, so as to prevent escape... Then upon Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver, and divers treasures, a rich and immense booty... All these things were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my government."

            © Copyright Original Source



            And the text doesn't say "his humiliation on the mountains of Israel will lead to his eventual demise", it says "and you will fall on the mountains of Israel." Stick to the text rather than your own private interpretation, please.
            You keep changing the text. Is it destroyed? Or Killed Or fall? Moving the goal post much? You need to prove from the text that fall on the mountains means to die there. Also, the person being talked about is Assyrian, not Babylonian...they aren't the same people. Two different nations, just like Israel and Lebanon. So it can't reference the Babylon of Revelation no matter how much you want it to. How about you stick to sound exegesis for a change...

            You've given no evidence to justify your "hyperbolic" interpretation. Stick to the text.
            So this is your own private interpretation? I thought so.
            The text doesn't mention parlor tricks. It says that this individual will call fire down from heaven in the sight of the whole world. Stop letting your fancy replace sound exegesis.
            No, it's not just me

            Source: Henry Cowles, The Revelation Of John, 1871

            At this stage of the discussion I need only say that, guided by these limitations of time, by these points of character, and by these special explanations, it is simply impossible to make any thing else of the first beast save the Roman Empire--the civil power of the Roman Emperors; while the second beast (v. II), judging from the description given of him here, from his influence as sketched here, and also from the further description of him which appears in chap. 16: 13, 14, and in 19: 20--" the false prophet that wrought miracles before him" [the first beast] "with which he deceived them that had the mark of the beast, etc., we must interpret to be the Pagan Priesthood--every-whereministering to the idolatrous homage paid to the Roman Emperors; every-where inspiring the animus of Paganism, and by virtue of their character, naturally active in the persecution of Christians.

            © Copyright Original Source

            "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

            "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
              You really need to brush up on your bible history don't you? No, Jerusalem wasn't defeated. He did however destroy and enslave, first of all Israel the Northern Kingdom a few years earlier (last I checked, they were God's people too... ), then in his rampage through Judah he destroyed and enslaved many thousands. This source says he claimed to have enslaved 200,156 persons.
              If a country's capital city withstands and repels an attack from an invading force, can that country be said to have been defeated? Of course not. Invaded and devastated, perhaps, but not defeated. And what evidence do you have that Sennacherib inflicted forced labor upon the Israelites? His practice appears to have been only uprooting them from their native land and reinstituting them in Assyrian lands elsewhere.

              You keep changing the text. Is it destroyed? Or Killed Or fall? Moving the goal post much? You need to prove from the text that fall on the mountains means to die there. Also, the person being talked about is Assyrian, not Babylonian...they aren't the same people. Two different nations, just like Israel and Lebanon. So it can't reference the Babylon of Revelation no matter how much you want it to. How about you stick to sound exegesis for a change...
              Huh? In Isaiah 14, King of Babylon and Assyrian are used interchangeably, and this verse (among others) makes it clear that death is meant:

              Scripture Verse: Isaiah 14

              15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
              to the depths of the pit.

              © Copyright Original Source



              No, it's not just me

              Source: Henry Cowles, The Revelation Of John, 1871

              At this stage of the discussion I need only say that, guided by these limitations of time, by these points of character, and by these special explanations, it is simply impossible to make any thing else of the first beast save the Roman Empire--the civil power of the Roman Emperors; while the second beast (v. II), judging from the description given of him here, from his influence as sketched here, and also from the further description of him which appears in chap. 16: 13, 14, and in 19: 20--" the false prophet that wrought miracles before him" [the first beast] "with which he deceived them that had the mark of the beast, etc., we must interpret to be the Pagan Priesthood--every-whereministering to the idolatrous homage paid to the Roman Emperors; every-where inspiring the animus of Paganism, and by virtue of their character, naturally active in the persecution of Christians.

              © Copyright Original Source

              Oh, well you and a guy from the 1800's agree, so you must be right. So other than strong assertions, do you guys have any actual evidence for the false prophet being a corporate body of pagan Roman priests who ceased to exist a long time ago rather than a future individual who will be cast alive into the lake of fire?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Darfius View Post

                Huh? In Isaiah 14, King of Babylon and Assyrian are used interchangeably, and this verse (among others) makes it clear that death is meant:

                Scripture Verse: Isaiah 14

                15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
                to the depths of the pit.

                © Copyright Original Source

                Hmmm ... "turad" from "yarad (bring down)" Hophal Imperfect verb - who would translate that as present perfect tense? It equates to a future passive - "shall be brought down".

                YOU will be brought down. That piece, taken in isolation, makes it seem that the person is living at the time the prophecy is being delivered. Of course - (prophecy does sometimes word things strangely) - closer examination might change things a bit.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                  If a country's capital city withstands and repels an attack from an invading force, can that country be said to have been defeated? Of course not. Invaded and devastated, perhaps, but not defeated.
                  FIRST of all, you need to decide whether the text relates to Judah or Israel. The text says Israel, which was destroyed in 740 BC. So, IF we only go by the text, then Israel had been utterly destroyed. If you want to keep insisting on Judah, then you need to make a case for that. However, there are other forms of oppression and bondage. Judah was paying an extremely heavy annual "Tribute" to Assyria to leave them alone. But, where is your case that the text references Judah and not Israel? Israel was restored from the/by the permission of the Persian Empire. (See the Book of Nehemiah) So, restoration fulfilled.
                  And what evidence do you have that Sennacherib inflicted forced labor upon the Israelites? His practice appears to have been only uprooting them from their native land and reinstituting them in Assyrian lands elsewhere.
                  Oh...that convenient thing called History...perhaps you've heard of it? The Assyrians were cruel and hard task masters. Here's a just a couple of examples:
                  Source: ancientreplicas.com

                  The ancient Assyrians were extremely severe. Their punishments included dismemberment (cutting off limbs, ears, nose, lips, castration, etc.), impalement upon a stake, they also forced their captives to hard labor. Rebellious cities prisoners of war were flayed (skinned) alive, blinded, or had their tongues torn out; they were impaled, burned, and put to death in other ways.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Source: http://www.ancientreplicas.com/assyrian-blinding.html
                  The city of Lachish was captured and destroyed (you know that city 25 miles SE of Jerusalem) The prisoners were abused horribly. Up to and including skinning alive. Source : http://www.bible-history.com/archaeo...h-flaying.html
                  Sound horribly oppressive to me...
                  Huh? In Isaiah 14, King of Babylon and Assyrian are used interchangeably, and this verse (among others) makes it clear that death is meant:
                  I have given you several opportunities to revise your stance here by simply reading a history book along with the text, but your insistence on continuing to conflate the two really shows your incompetence in exegesis or you're being intentionally dishonest. Because as any 5th grader can see, a plain reading of the text shows that Babylon is being addressed in verses 1-22. The taunt THEN shifts to Assyria in verses 23-27...THEN the taunt shifts to Philistia from 28 to the end. If you continue to insist that they are the same person, you need to then reconcile why Philistia is included in the taunt as well. And why THAT is ALSO the same person, and what if any significance that has to Revelation.
                  Assyria, Babylon and Philistia are all 3 DIFFERENT NATIONS. Your failure to grasp that basic fact leaves me to distrust anything you say TBH.
                  Scripture Verse: Isaiah 14

                  15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
                  to the depths of the pit.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  No Sir! This is about Babylon, NOT Assyria. You can't apply it across the board until you answer with actual proof that they belong together.

                  Oh, well you and a guy from the 1800's agree, so you must be right. So other than strong assertions, do you guys have any actual evidence for the false prophet being a corporate body of pagan Roman priests who ceased to exist a long time ago rather than a future individual who will be cast alive into the lake of fire?
                  Well at least I'm right about something! I guess in your world, if it was written in the 1800's it's automatically hand waved away? How many futurists views can we find written about in the 1800's? And TBH, this is just one of the possibilities.
                  "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                  "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Faber View Post
                    Good eyesight, Cerebrum.

                    I figured Darfius was not one to argue with Mormon theologians, since he loves to quote from them.

                    I figured there was enough in the context to make it obvious that they were Mormon.
                    There was enough context, to explain they were Mormon, but I did not know why you used them. Thank you for your response. Also... Yeah, I have trouble reading the white text even knowing that it's there now haha.

                    Tabibito, of course citing 2 Nephi is an indicator of Mormonism, I wasn't claiming it was a mystery that Faber was quoting Mormons and that I uncovered it. I was asking why he was using Mormons if he's a Christian. He answered. It was none of your concern. You were rude.
                    Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                      Tabibito, of course citing 2 Nephi is an indicator of Mormonism, I wasn't claiming it was a mystery that Faber was quoting Mormons and that I uncovered it. I was asking why he was using Mormons if he's a Christian.
                      Bulldust

                      Originally posted by Pentecost
                      May I ask why you're choosing to utilize Mormon theologians without noting that they are Mormon, while you self identify as a Christian?
                      A genuine query would have ended at the comma: you called his integrity into question.

                      It was none of your concern.
                      I disagree.

                      You were rude.
                      Assuredly.
                      Last edited by tabibito; 08-10-2015, 04:17 AM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        But thanks for standing up for me.

                        By the way, where did our friend go? Did he chicken out after we started using the Socratic Method back at him? I mean, wow! He holds the authenticity of Isaiah 14 but then he trashes the account of David fulfilling God's will in appointing Solomon as king. And Solomon the son of a whore? There were issues there, but David and Bathsheba were at least married by then. And Nathan is now a false prophet? Will Darfius be forced to admit to the contradictions and/or inaccuracies in his position?
                        When I Survey....

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Faber View Post
                          But thanks for standing up for me.

                          By the way, where did our friend go? Did he chicken out after we started using the Socratic Method back at him? I mean, wow! He holds the authenticity of Isaiah 14 but then he trashes the account of David fulfilling God's will in appointing Solomon as king. And Solomon the son of a whore? There were issues there, but David and Bathsheba were at least married by then. And Nathan is now a false prophet? Will Darfius be forced to admit to the contradictions and/or inaccuracies in his position?
                          Is that guy from an alternate universe where all that stuff is true? Yes, I can't take him seriously after all that crazy talk concerning Solomon.
                          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                            FIRST of all, you need to decide whether the text relates to Judah or Israel. The text says Israel, which was destroyed in 740 BC. So, IF we only go by the text, then Israel had been utterly destroyed. If you want to keep insisting on Judah, then you need to make a case for that. However, there are other forms of oppression and bondage. Judah was paying an extremely heavy annual "Tribute" to Assyria to leave them alone. But, where is your case that the text references Judah and not Israel? Israel was restored from the/by the permission of the Persian Empire. (See the Book of Nehemiah) So, restoration fulfilled.
                            The guy who doesn't know that Israel included both the northern tribes and the southern tribes of Judah is telling me to brush up on my exegesis. Clearly Judah is part of Israel and Judah was never defeated, so that is one of many reasons Sennacherib's invasion could not have been the fulfillment of this prophecy. Oh, and by the way, it was Judah who Cyrus freed from exile, not the northern tribes, who still remain the "lost" ten tribes. Two tribes returning to the promised land doesn't sound like the fulfillment of a glorious restoration prophecy, does it?

                            Oh...that convenient thing called History...perhaps you've heard of it? The Assyrians were cruel and hard task masters. Here's a just a couple of examples:
                            Source: ancientreplicas.com

                            The ancient Assyrians were extremely severe. Their punishments included dismemberment (cutting off limbs, ears, nose, lips, castration, etc.), impalement upon a stake, they also forced their captives to hard labor. Rebellious cities prisoners of war were flayed (skinned) alive, blinded, or had their tongues torn out; they were impaled, burned, and put to death in other ways.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Source: http://www.ancientreplicas.com/assyrian-blinding.html
                            The city of Lachish was captured and destroyed (you know that city 25 miles SE of Jerusalem) The prisoners were abused horribly. Up to and including skinning alive. Source : http://www.bible-history.com/archaeo...h-flaying.html
                            Sound horribly oppressive to me...
                            Fair enough. As I said, Sennacherib was certainly a type of the Antichrist and a partial fulfillment of Isaiah 14, but no restoration occurred in his day, nor did he die on the mountains of Israel, so he was not the ultimate fulfillment.

                            I have given you several opportunities to revise your stance here by simply reading a history book along with the text, but your insistence on continuing to conflate the two really shows your incompetence in exegesis or you're being intentionally dishonest. Because as any 5th grader can see, a plain reading of the text shows that Babylon is being addressed in verses 1-22. The taunt THEN shifts to Assyria in verses 23-27...THEN the taunt shifts to Philistia from 28 to the end. If you continue to insist that they are the same person, you need to then reconcile why Philistia is included in the taunt as well. And why THAT is ALSO the same person, and what if any significance that has to Revelation.
                            Assyria, Babylon and Philistia are all 3 DIFFERENT NATIONS. Your failure to grasp that basic fact leaves me to distrust anything you say TBH.
                            No Sir! This is about Babylon, NOT Assyria. You can't apply it across the board until you answer with actual proof that they belong together.
                            There is no shift, either in the text or in the subject matter, between the king of Babylon or the Assyrian. In fact, it is the Assyrian's "yoke" that the people are to rejoice being freed from, same as the king of Babylon's. On the other hand, there is a clear subject break before Isaiah mentions Philistia, and indeed he prefaces it by citing that he received this prophecy in the time of Ahaz. Your exegesis is terrible.

                            Well at least I'm right about something! I guess in your world, if it was written in the 1800's it's automatically hand waved away? How many futurists views can we find written about in the 1800's? And TBH, this is just one of the possibilities.
                            That you are fine with a roulette of interpretations is contrary to the spirit of the God who is NOT the author of confusion and who does nothing without revealing it by His servants the prophets. Prophecy is meant to be a testament to the power and authority of God. Instead, you preterists make it a matter of private interpretation and though having a form of godliness, deny its power.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Faber View Post
                              By the way, where did our friend go? Did he chicken out after we started using the Socratic Method back at him?
                              I was busy yesterday. Probably safer to wait at least a few days before gloating over silence.

                              I mean, wow! He holds the authenticity of Isaiah 14 but then he trashes the account of David fulfilling God's will in appointing Solomon as king. And Solomon the son of a whore? There were issues there, but David and Bathsheba were at least married by then. And Nathan is now a false prophet? Will Darfius be forced to admit to the contradictions and/or inaccuracies in his position?
                              There is no verse in the entire Bible claiming it was God's will that Solomon be made king. There may be a verse or two where David expressed his opinion that Solomon was God's choice after he had been deceived by the whore and the false prophet. Solomon was conceived before Bathsheba and David were married. You know what that makes him, right? The lie that he concocted with Bathsheba is not the only instance of him prophesying out of his own heart, rather than at the urging of the Lord:

                              Scripture Verse: 2 Samuel 7

                              7 After the king was settled in his palace and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him, 2 he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a house of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.”

                              3 Nathan replied to the king, “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the Lord is with you.”

                              4 But that night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying:


                              5 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in?

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              Rather careless of Nathan to advise David to do something as important as build God's temple without first consulting the Lord, eh?

                              But concerning the murder of the rightful king, Ahijah, at the hands of Bathsheba and Nathan, the Bible also has this to say:

                              Scripture Verse: Ezekiel 13

                              The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: ‘Hear the word of the Lord! 3 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! 4 Your prophets, Israel, are like jackals among ruins. 5 You have not gone up to the breaches in the wall to repair it for the people of Israel so that it will stand firm in the battle on the day of the Lord. 6 Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. Even though the Lord has not sent them, they say, “The Lord declares,” and expect him to fulfill their words. 7 Have you not seen false visions and uttered lying divinations when you say, “The Lord declares,” though I have not spoken? 8 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because of your false words and lying visions, I am against you, declares the Sovereign Lord. 9 My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign Lord.

                              10 “‘Because they lead my people astray, saying, “Peace,” [Solomon means peace, and why is the word peace capitalized?] when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash, 11 therefore tell those who cover it with whitewash that it is going to fall. Rain will come in torrents, and I will send hailstones hurtling down, and violent winds will burst forth. 12 When the wall collapses, will people not ask you, “Where is the whitewash you covered it with?”

                              ... 17 “Now, son of man, set your face against the daughters of your people who prophesy out of their own imagination. Prophesy against them 18 and say, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the women who sew magic charms on all their wrists and make veils of various lengths for their heads in order to ensnare people. Will you ensnare the lives of my people but preserve your own? 19 You have profaned me among my people for a few handfuls of barley and scraps of bread. By lying to my people, who listen to lies, you have killed those who should not have died and have spared those who should not live.

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              Comment


                              • #45

                                Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                                Solomon was conceived before Bathsheba and David were married.
                                Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and went in to her and lay with her; and she gave birth to a son, and he named him Solomon. (2 Sam 12:24)
                                Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                                Rather careless of Nathan to advise David to do something as important as build God's temple without first consulting the Lord, eh?
                                I agree. Good thing the Lord straightened the two of them out.

                                Then he called for his son Solomon, and charged him to build a house for the LORD God of Israel. David said to Solomon, "My son, I had intended to build a house to the name of the LORD my God. But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to My name, because you have shed so much blood on the earth before Me. Behold, a son will be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'" (1 Chron 22:6-10, NASB)
                                Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                                The lie that he concocted with Bathsheba....
                                How was that a lie? It was King David's decision, based on what God told him through the prophet Nathan. Nowhere does scripture say they lied or that David was deceived. I would rather believe that the Apollo astronauts faked the moon landings before I would believe that Nathan and Bathsheba faked David's decision to appoint Solomon as heir. What? You mean they did fake the moon landings?

                                Now when David reached old age, he made his son Solomon king over Israel. And he gathered together all the leaders of Israel with the priests and the Levites. (1 Chron 22:1-2, NASB)
                                Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                                Because they lead my people astray, saying, “Peace,” [Solomon means peace, and why is the word peace capitalized?]
                                Capitalized? Are you familiar with the Hebrew alphabet? Or for that matter, English? The first word of a sentence when quoted still gets capitalized. Just like the word, "Because".
                                When I Survey....

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X