Donald et al,

When my wife and I first moved to Phoenix, we had to go downtown to get some cabinent work done. Standing on the corner in this downtown area were several young women. I just figured they were students and remarked, "The girls dress differently here than in California."

Nedra quickly pointed out that these were not students, but "working girls."

Nevada has legalized prostitution for some time. It is everywhere. I wonder why anyone would risk getting a sexually transmitted disease. Apparently, these women make a living or else they would be in a different line of work.

quote:

Originally posted by EQ:
so how important is prostitution as an index for Apocalypse?

This comes from The New International Dictionary of the Bible, which contrasts with no presence of "prostitution" in three of my concordances (although I didn't look for related words):

quote:

p. 829
The words harlot or prostitute, harlotry or prostitution, are used very often, especially in the prophetic books, to describe idolatry. This figurative use was evidently based on the idea that the Lord was the husband of the nation of Israel..When the people took their allegiance from God and gave it to idols instead, he called it "prostituting themselves to their gods" NIV...This expression occurs often...several times in Revelation 17

That sounds like a hit to me.

Donald

Donald,

There is a long history of prostitution, but less you forget, there is easy money in male prostitution also.

As far as its importance to the Apocalypse, as you said, Revelation 17 gives us a picture of what is meant here. I suppose now is a good time as any to post an outline of this chapter as purposed earlier, even though it is not chronological.

quote:

•CHAPTER 17) THE JUDGMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL BABYLON

—A great religious system is brought into view
—Bringing the special attention of God in a Final Consummation and Final Judgment
—Ecclesiastical leaders of people forsake true God and set up their own religion
—Become as harlot sitting on beast meaning closely associate themselves with worldly system
—Become clothed with great wealth and power
—Become as harlots who commit fornication and fall from grace
—Usurp the place of God's authority culminating in Satan's influence
—Harlot's name is called "Mystery Babylon the Great"
—Thus Ecclesiastical Babylon is symbolical system that is both powerful and unfaithful to God
—Make war with the Lamb and operate as one mind against the Lamb
—Align their kingdom (religious institution) with the beast
—Results in complete breakdown in the home and nation
—Under God's providence serve His purpose until His Word is fulfilled

Sela

Not directly related to previous posts, but relevant to the topic:

Eve of Destruction Video

Vintage 1960s Vietnam-era protest song, with new video images. You will love this one, Sela. It's even got a quotation from the Book of Revelation...with WHITE HORSES, no less!

...

quote:

Originally posted by Raksha:
Not directly related to previous posts, but relevant to the topic:

Eve of Destruction Video

Vintage 1960s Vietnam-era protest song, with new video images. You will love this one, Sela. It's even got a quotation from the Book of Revelation...with WHITE HORSES, no less!

Linda,

Unfortunately, this computer I am using does not take well to videos. For a minute, I thought the title "Eve of Destruction" meant 'Eve' as in 'Second Eve'.

I was unable to hear the quotation from Revelation's White Horses. Perhaps you could quote it here.

Sela

quote:

Unfortunately, this computer I am using does not take well to videos.

Sela,

Well, I can certainly sympathize because I had that problem for years and only recently upgraded to DSL from dial-up. It was so frustrating when my friends posted or sent me links to videos I wanted to watch as much as they wanted me to watch them, but I couldn't do it unless I used a neighbor's computer. Most of the time it just wasn't worth the effort. I hope you have access to another computer so you can watch it later.

quote:

I was unable to hear the quotation from Revelation's White Horses. Perhaps you could quote it here.

There isn't anything to hear. The Revelation part is the image of a book page with the relevant quotation on it. I'll have to watch it again so I can quote it. The audio is the same as the original 1960s recording, but with new visuals.

--Linda

Linda,

Was able to watch the video on another computer. Noticed the video showed a quotation that said Revelation 6:6, when it actually was a quotation from Rev. 6:2. (Am sure no one noticed since few people are that familiar with Revelation; and worse, the quote was from the NIV which translated the prophecy to their own thinking; and thus tampered with God's Word.)

Let's look a little closer at Revelation 6:2, since quoting "The Apocalypse" is the purpose of this topic.

quote:

New International Version (©1984)
I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.

King James Version
And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

In the NIV, the rider 'rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest'; in the KJV, the rider 'went forth conquering, and to conquer'. Does anyone see the difference? Thank goodness all these different translations were not available when I was doing my research and commentary; although for the younger generation of Bible students, the various translations certainly would cause confusion. (This has been discussed previously on these religious debate boards.)

Let me say that no way was the rider on the white horse 'bent on conquest', but that is how patriarchy thinks ~~ in military terms. He lives in his own little box collaborating with death in order to hold at bay all those who oppose him. Unfortunately, personal bias weaves itself into even what is said to be the most honest academic efforts in these translations of the Bible; and in looking over the various translations, my knowledge and studies personally see Young's Literal Translation as the best translation for Rev. 6:2.

quote:

And I saw, and lo, a white horse, and he who is sitting upon it is having a bow, and there was given to him a crown, and he went forth overcoming, and that he may overcome.

That is exactly what the KJV means when it states "conquering and to conquer" ~~ spiritually conquering, that is 'overcoming' all the obstacles so that 'he may overcome'. This is also what is stated in my commentary.

Donald, are you listening? Seems to me you made a statement about this verse on the 'White Horses' topic. In order for anyone to have a definite understanding of what is denoted by any of the symbols in John's visions, one must first start with the correct interpretation, which is the purpose of this topic. And, of course, anyone is invited to debate my words; after all, isn't that why we post here?

Also will give an overview of Chapter 6 later since other things are happening right now in my household; and writing requires a certain amount of tranquil solitude.

Sela

Oh, just remembered. Wanted to post this video.

Are These the Last Days?

quote:

The prophet Daniel spoke of “the time of the end.” The apostle Peter said, “there shall come in the last days scoffers.” Paul said, “In the last days perilous times shall come.” Christ’s disciples asked Him about “the end of the world.” Has this time come? Can you be sure?

Oh, and even the CNN pundits were discussing "The Apocalypse" today about the May 21, 2011 date. Wish I had more time to post.

Sela

Compguy gives you too much credit. The predictions you make Sela and all the other diviners who claim to be prophets are obstacles before people who want real change and encouragement. Real prophets help make people into better people instead of distracting them with a bunch of predictions. Prophets aren't obsessed with predictions and signs. They help people. Soothsayers are obsessed with predictions and signs. They hurt people.

quote:

Originally posted by También:
Compguy gives you too much credit.

He does? LOL In what way?

quote:

The predictions you make Sela and all the other diviners who claim to be prophets are obstacles before people who want real change and encouragement. Real prophets help make people into better people instead of distracting them with a bunch of predictions. Prophets aren't obsessed with predictions and signs. They help people. Soothsayers are obsessed with predictions and signs. They hurt people.

It sounds like we obviously are not on the same page. So what else is new?

As far as 'real change' is concerned, I thought that is what Obama promised.

You say 'Real prophets help make people into better people'... Really? Six thousand years after the FIRST SIN, when murder and hate became reality, and widely separated people into their own thing and their own tribe, and oracle after oracle was promulgated by the prophets, how has people's behavior changed? And you say it will take a 'real prophet' to bring change, to bring peace and harmony into this world?! Show me where!

Obama was said to be a 'prophet', a 'messiah', and he hasn't brought about a bit of change. If anything, things are worse! Are you one of his followers?

Real prophets taught that obeying God's commandments would bring about change! Real prophets taught that THERE IS A GOD!

And you teach that only 'real prophets' will make people better?! How so?! Show me where, besides myself, of course?

Real prophets teach that there is a JUDGMENT for disobeying God's Word; and no way will people change without manifestations of judgment, which we are witnessing on a daily basis !! with FINAL JUDGMENT being the END-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-now with all it's sin and great wickedness! It's in the Book!

Yep, it's true. We obviously are not on the same page.

Sela

Sela

I think we have a semantic problem here. Some denominations actually call their pastors prophets, as with the Mormon Church.

It is hard to argue with Tambien if he is referring to pastors.
On the other hand, there is a wider definition of prophets that we deal with, as with the Major and Minor Prophets of the OT.

Donald

quote:

Six thousand years after the FIRST SIN,

So you really do believe that the first man lived only six thousand years ago, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Carry on.

Jeff

Jeff

I think there is a problem of contiuuous calendar coverage, and the shape of the infinite time line as viewed by finite man.
Then there is the continous and acclerating of the Universe.

So why should time be a limitation for prophets?

Donald

quote:

I think there is a problem of contiuuous calendar coverage, and the shape of the infinite time line as viewed by finite man.
Then there is the continous and acclerating of the Universe.

Huh? We all know what six thousand years means. The "shape of the infinite time line" whatever the heck that means is irrelevant. Whatever man's existence on earth, it is a finite time length. I have no idea what you mean by the "continuous and accelerating of the Unvierse."

Let's be simple. A year is roughly the time it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun. (I wonder if Sela even believes that happens.) Most scientists peg the first appearance of **** sapiens on Earth as a few hundred thousand years ago. There is no possible way the number can be anywhere near 6,000 years, no matter what verbiage you throw into the interpretation.

Jeff

P. S. Guess what word is banned and replaced by asterisks here by the robot censor software. That's right--the first four letters of homosexual. Sigh.

Jeff,
     I believe man's origin should be dated from the time he began walking
on two feet and not from the time of his intellectual development. The latter
is, at best, a future event and, thence, as uncertain as all prophecies.
Seán

Seems to me that "began walking on two feet" isn't an instantaneous event, but more likely a prolonged development. Either way, I doubt we have the data to figure out the date or range of dates. Certainly 6000 years isn't enough time for the human race to develop the amount of variety it now possesses; as I recall it was estimated that it would take a bit over 100,000 years since the last genetic bottleneck of the species to produce the amount of variety we see in us today.

As for "The latter is, at best, a future event and, thence, as uncertain as all prophecies.", well, I resemble that remark!

Henry

Everyone,

FWIW, I posted this note a little while ago on a very apocalyptic thread on Democratic Underground. It's reply #20 on a topic that was started by nadinbrzezinski, whose psychic frequency is very close to mine. We aren't friends exactly but we often have similar intuitions at the same time. This is a response to an announcement of a solidarity march from Milwaukee to Madison, WI planned for March 11th.

quote:

20. Wow...Friday, March 11th. Same day as the big demonstration in Saudi Arabia.

The way the Saudis have an army of riot police mobilized, it promises to be violent. Hard to see how it wouldn't be--an authoritarian regime like Saudi Arabia doesn't know how to be anything but heavy-handed. AND it will drive the price of gas up even higher than it is already on an angry, stressed-out and tapped-out American population.

Mubarak resigned on February 11th, the date I picked somewhat arbitrarily as the day of the Great Turning, because 11 is a number with high numerological significance. Don't ask me to explain or defend that because I'm not an expert on numerology. I'm just going by what other people have said.

So now there's going to be a big protest in Saudi Arabia AND in Madison on March 11th. It's even more synchronistic when the number 11 is doubled--usually as 22, but we can read these dates, February 11th and March 11th, as another way of doubling.

I'd better stop now because I'm scaring myself! Only three days to wait to see how it all plays out, though.

Source

quote:

Originally posted by CompGuy:

quote:

Six thousand years after the FIRST SIN,

So you really do believe that the first man lived only six thousand years ago, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Carry on.

Jeff

Jeff,

Huh? Where in my post did I say the first man lived only six thousand years ago? You have a habit of reading your own thinking into my posts; either that, or you have a short memory. The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden has been debated much throughout the years.

A few years ago on either the "Intelligent Design" topic or "Is The Bible True?" topic, I posted that the Genesis story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is a spiritual allegory, in the same way that many stories in the Bible are allegories or parables, to teach moral lessons! Christ spoke in parables in most of his teachings, which are true to life stories but move into the spiritual world to teach human wisdom. His words are immortal, constant from generation to generation because humans basically do not change from their 'evil ways' without spiritual guidance.

The rationale behind spiritual allegories is to set forth spiritual truths and to teach man morality, which means how to behave in his relationship with other human beings! Prior to the FIRST SIN, humans had no concept of morality or of a God in the heavens. Man was essentially like a wild savage, a beast, (which we still witness DAILY six thousand years later!) like the beast of Revelation 13 whose number is 666, which I intend to define shortly on this topic.

Natural man without the Spirit was incapable of moral reasoning until God 'breathed into his soul' which gave him a rational mind; and after they ate of the 'fruit of enlightment', they acquired an understanding of good and evil. Adam and Eve actually were real human beings, since the Hebrews were very meticulous in preserving their ancestry; but they were the first biblical people.

We need to look at the larger story to understand what 'sin' is, and it is obvious that after six thousand years of spiritual enlightenment through God's Word, and Christ's crucifixion on the Cross, most people still just don't get it, just like the wild beasts of the forest who have no comprehension!

This is the 'new song', the 'new gospel' that the 'new Eve' teaches; and only the redeemed understand it!

Sela

So, Sela, you're saying that Adam and Eve did commit the FIRST SIN 6,000 years ago, but they were not the first humans, even though they were human?

Well, that's clear. It's also completely balmy, but I apologize for misunderstanding your statement. Silly me--I assumed that Adam and Eve were the first humans according to the Bible, but I see now that even that most obvious interpretation is wrong, ignorant, and stupid.

According to you.

So, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are only six thousand years old, and before them there were humans who didn't sin at all. How unoriginal they must have been.

Jeff

Jeff, and Sela,

I am posing a question here. Anthropology is not one of my strong suits.

The statement in question was "six thousand years after the first sin." Not six thousand years after man first walked the earth. To have sin, you have to have a standard that defines sin. So my question is when was the first instance we are aware of when mankind was able to define the idea of sin. Hence to note when someone sinned.

Now another question. If Adam and Eve were “Jewish,” that is, the forebears of the Jews, and the first “biblical people,” where does that put everybody else in the eyes of God?

Still another question. If Adam and Eve were “real people,” were they made from scratch, or did they have parents?

quote:

Still another question. If Adam and Eve were “real people,” were they made from scratch, or did they have parents?

Depends on whether God had an itch.

quote:

Originally posted by CompGuy:
So, Sela, you're saying that Adam and Eve did commit the FIRST SIN 6,000 years ago, but they were not the first humans, even though they were human?

Well, that's clear. It's also completely balmy, but I apologize for misunderstanding your statement. Silly me--I assumed that Adam and Eve were the first humans according to the Bible, but I see now that even that most obvious interpretation is wrong, ignorant, and stupid.

According to you.

So, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are only six thousand years old, and before them there were humans who didn't sin at all. How unoriginal they must have been.

Jeff

Your post makes about as much sense as most unthinking persons who post. Obviously you do not have the human wisdom to understand my writings, or the comprehension skills as noted in my post.

Fortunately, Glenn does have that special gift of understanding the words "six thousand years after the first sin", not "six thousand years after man first walked the earth".

Sela

quote:

Originally posted by Glenn:
Jeff, and Sela,

I am posing a question here. Anthropology is not one of my strong suits.

The statement in question was "six thousand years after the first sin." Not six thousand years after man first walked the earth. To have sin, you have to have a standard that defines sin. So my question is when was the first instance we are aware of when mankind was able to define the idea of sin. Hence to note when someone sinned.

Glenn,

It's hard to know other than to use the Bible for reference. For the record, it was probably after the great flood in the time to Noah. People were so wicked that The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Christ also referred to those days in his discourse on age-end prophecy:

quote:

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

How true! How true!

Will have to respond to your other questions later, since my husband worked the night shift, is on his way home and there are other things to do.

Sela

Whoops. After thinking further about your question, it certainly had to be when Moses delivered the Ten Commandments to the Israelites. This certainly would be the first instance of 'when humans were aware of how to be able to define the idea of sin'.

quote:

Your post makes about as much sense as most unthinking persons who post. Obviously you do not have the human wisdom to understand my writings, or the comprehension skills as noted in my post.

Really? I said this:

quote:

So, Sela, you're saying that Adam and Eve did commit the FIRST SIN 6,000 years ago, but they were not the first humans, even though they were human?

Is that or is it not what you're saying?

If I lack the "wisdom" or "comprehension skills" to understand your writings, help me out. Please.

Or perhaps you're not stating your beliefs clearly?

I do see a distinction between first sin and first humans. But I thought the Bible stated that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Obviously, I'm not the only one who thinks the Bible says that. Obviously, you disagree with the Bible. So cut me some slack.

Jefff

Jeff, you said,

quote:

But I thought the Bible stated that Adam and Eve were the first humans.

It is interesting to me how people look at Genesis. The casual reading says the universe and life forms were created 6000 years or so ago in a week. I note that even God gets a day off after all this work. But many problems get raised such as race and other genetic characteristics. This gets further complicated with the Noah story since, as I understand it, all the folks on the ark were blood related. (The wives might have been white, black and oriental for the sons. Still at best we would have half black, half oriental etc.)

And then the obvious problem that mankind has been around a lot longer than 6000 years.

Sela’s exegesis is not bad at all. And, I have to admit one I had not heard before. That mankind evolved into the various races and shapes and sizes. Then God picked out a male and female and made them the parents of the rest of the characters in the Bible. It also adds some ammunition to those who maintain that Adam and Eve had to be white since most Jews are white. (Of course some Jews are as black as the ace of spades.)

One can also argue that these special groups of people were first given the law and a definition of sin.

What is then left hanging is just where the first humans came from and how they got here.