Netanyahu says relationship with Obama no bearing on Iran deal

[Guest shiloh357]

You ask a lot of questions, and reject the answers and then pretend the questions were never answered.  That is not the Socratic method.  It's just a dishonest method.

[thereselittleflower]

Shiloh, it is impossible to discuss something with someone who makes up ways to use the english language that distorts its meaning and proper use.  

 

You told me I didn't understand what zionism is.   I asked you to educate me.    I've seen nothing from you attempting to do so.   I just keep seeing this twisting of the english language.

 

I'm sorry, I just don't see this situation changing, or it working to try to continue discussing this with you.

 

God bless you.

[Guest shiloh357]

I am not making anything up.   You are arguing grammar and I am arguing literary analysis.  You are trying refute arguments I am not raising.

 

I told you what Zionism is in post 135.

 

and again, you avoid the question about symbolism because you can't answer it.   You do it in every thread.  I am not the only one who has pointed that out to you.   It only makes my point stronger.

[thereselittleflower]

I am not making anything up.   You are arguing grammar and I am arguing literary analysis.  You are trying refute arguments I am not raising.

 

I told you what Zionism is in post 135.

 

and again, you avoid the question about symbolism because you can't answer it.   You do it in every thread.  I am not the only one who has pointed that out to you.   It only makes my point stronger.

 

I apologize, I did not see your post.

 

Thank you for answering.

 

How does your explanation take into account the different types of zionism that exist now and throughout history?

 

 

What exactly is your question about symbolism that you say I haven't answered?  

 

These are the two questions you asked above:

 

 

What would be the point of symbolism without a literal meaning behind the symbolism??? 

 

 

 If 1,000 years is symbolic, what does it represent as a symbol??

 

 

 

I've answered both.   I explained why it is wrong to look for a literal meaning behind a symbol, and that we are to look for the symbolic meaning insteawd.

 

 

I have told you more than once before the "a thousand years" instead of representing a literal 1000 years, simply represents a long period of time that is undefined.

 

 

The only reason I can surmise you have not realized these questions have been answered is because you are not really reading what I say, but see certain key words and assume what the rest of what I have posted is saying.

 

 

 

I answered the question about the symbolic meaning of "a thousand years in my post above :   

 

 

and in the previous post of this same matter here:

 

 

thereselittleflower

We must look for what these word symbolize - for their symbolic meaning.  In the ancient mid east languages and cultures, this phrase "a thousand years" symbolizs a very long time and is not an exact measure of the number of years involved.

 

 

 

I also answered it here:

 

 

thereselittleflower 

John tells us Jesus reigns on earth for  a thousand years (a thousand years being a figurative, symbolic number with the symbolic meaning of a very long time).

 

 

 

 

And again here:

 

 

thereselittleflower

 In regards to what time frame "a thousand years" refers to, it simply refers to a very, very long time.  It could be much longer than a thousand years.  It could be thousands of years. 

 

 

 

 

so it's puzzling why you claim I have not answered this question.

 

 

So contrary to your assertions I haven't answered this question, I have multiple times, and so very evidently contrary to  your assertions I can't answer, it I actually can, as I already have, multiple times.

 

In order to have an intelligent discussion with someone you must stop misrepresenting what they say, and stop falsely accusing them.

 

 

And since I have dealt with your assertion of looking for a literal interpretation when reading symbolic language more than once by correcting your premise and giving you cogent, well thought out reasons why you are wrong to do so, it is puzzling why you insist I have not.

 

 

I have no idea why you misrepresent the facts like this.   I'm sorry to see this happen.

 

 

God bless  you.

[thereselittleflower]

Also shiloh, you have misrepresented what I have said and have claimed you do something other than you plainly do.    

 

 

shiloh

"I don't interpret a symbol as literal thing.  I look for what the symbol stands for, what it represents.    The way I do that, is I let the Bible tell me what that symbol means."

 

 

if "a thousand years" is symbolic, then by definition it cannot mean a literal thousand years, but must refer to something other than a literal thousand years, otherwise it would not be symbolic.   You can't have it both ways.    And you do indeed interpret a symbol as a literal thing when you interpret the "thousand years" as a literal 1000 years, contrary to your claim above.

 

 

 

 

And when you draw a distinction between literal and face value this demonstrates you don't understand what literal means or what face-value means:

 

shiloh

"you  are still misunderstanding the difference between "literal" and "face-value." 

 

I wish to refer you to this definition:

Face Value Noun[edit]

face value (plural face values)

1. The amount or value listed on a bill, note, stamp, etc.; the stated value or amount.

2. (idiomatic) No more or less than what is stated; a literal or direct meaning or interpretation.

 

 

 

Obviously, by definition, the way you are using "face value" here, they are essentially the same thing so there is no essential difference contrary to your claim.

 

 

And also, in regards to your statement here:

 

Shiloh:

"Symbolism doesn't point to symbolic things.   You are wrong when you say that symbols have symbolic meaning.   That is completely false and that only highlights your lack of skill in hermeneutics.    No one uses symbols that way. "

 

 

not only are you demonstrating you haven't understood what I am saying, but since I have said it more than once, you also are drawing into question whether or not you even care to understand what I am saying.

 

 

 I have never claimed symbolism points to symbolic things, so since I have never claimed this, your first part of the line quoted above makes no sense.

 

In fact,  I have actually stated what symbolisim points to, simply it's meaning.    Since I have done so,  it even makes it more curious you would make an argument against something I never said.

 

I have clearly stated, at least twice now, which you have acknowledged you read:

 

 

 

 

thereselittleflower

When we read symbolic language, we look for its MEANING.

 

 

 

I have also said here:

 

 

 

 

thereselittleflower

The purpose of interpretation is to arrive at the TRUE meaning of a passage, which may be literal or symbolic. 

 

 

 

We must look for its true meaning, and when doing so, as I have said multiple times before, that will be its symbolic meaning if the language is symbolic, or its literal meaning if the language is literal.

 

 

 

symbolic meaning =/= symbolic things and  I have never said it did.   You simply misunderstood not understanding what symbolic meaning is.

 

Symbolic meaning is simple what the symbol means, what it refers to.  That's all.  Its True meaning.

 

The word "things" and the word "meaning" are two totally different words with two totally different meanings, so your substitution of "things" for when I said "meaning" is quite puzzling.

[thereselittleflower]

Shiloh, you asked me

 

   "How can someone cite a source for a non-historical event that no one has written about, that is not part of the historical record??   Your question is irrational.   Your asking for an impossible source because there is no historical record for non-historical events." 

 

 

and you asked:

 

 

"What do I need to provide evidence for??   The Bible says Iran (Persia) will attack.  What evidence do I need?   The Bible's claims aren't good enough for you?"

 

 

 

you also asked:

 

 

 

Proof of my interpretation???  

 

What exactly do I need to prove?? 

 

 

 

 

I answered  you here:

 

 

thereselittleflower

"As far as evidence for your claim here, you could go through Jewish history, the times there have been major events against the kingdom of Israel, and delineate each one and prove that none actually are the fulfillment of this prophecy.    This is something someone such as yourself, who claims to know how evidence works, should have been able to determine on your own without someone having to hold your hand.     Is it work?  Of course it is.  But that is how you determine the evidence."

 

 

 

 

 

You also asked me 

 

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=2241277

 

 

shiloh

"Do you think this is an historical event?    Do you think it was fulfilled previously?"

 

 

 

 

I responded to this in another post:

 

 

thereselittleflower

Of course I see zion in those verses.    I don't see how these verses though are of zion in the future to us.   I also don't see how this relates to the type of zionism shiloh speaks of.  And thank you for calling me sister, even though there is one here who will not.

 

But let me ask you a question, do you not see the ruins Amos speaks of being rebuilt,  having been rebuilt before the time of Christ?

 

We've been talking about the words of Ezekiel in chapter 38.    You bring up the prophecy of Amos.  Amos lived quite a long time before Ezekiel.    In and after the time of Ezekiel (and so after Amos), there were 3 deportations.  And after Ezekiel, there were 3 returns.   I do not see how it can be mandated that these prophecies are for a return in our time.

 

For reference, here is a chart showing the chronology of events in relationship to the prophets and other important figures and kingdoms:

 

https://s-media-cach...bf8d1244441.jpg

 

 

 

You asked me

 

 

 

shiloh

How do I know extra-terrestrials never visited the White House????  Do I need evidence to support the claim that alien creatures from another planet never visited the president of the US????    Do you not see how irrational your question is???  

 

 

 

 

To which I also responded, appropriately with the counter question:

 

 

 

thereselittleflower

For the sake of argument, let's take your example of knowing extra-terrestrials have never visited the white house.

 

Do you know absolutely, with 100% certainty extra-terrestrials have never visited the white house?

 

Or do you assume, because you have no knowledge of something like this happening, that it never has?

 

 

 

If we are going to be talking about hypotheticals like this, it makes sense to respond in kind.       

 

Also, I had never made the claim that Ezekiel was fulfilled in the past so there as nothing for me to offer proof of.    I simply was asking  you questions about your understanding.    But as I later responded to Joe, providing a pictorial representation of the history of that segment of Jewish history, it seems there is ample opportunity for Ezekiel's vision to have already been fulfilled.   

 

 

And what you seemed to miss in our trading hypotheticals is that if we don't know if something happened, we can't catagorically say it didn't happen.   All we can say is we think it didn't happen  or we don't know of anything that would support that it happened,  but we cannot use our ignorance to make a defacto claim something did not happen.

 

And that was my point to you above.

[thereselittleflower]

The posts above cover all the questions I could find  you have asked me in this thread, and I have shown I have answered every single one of them contrary to your assertion I have not.     If I have missed a question, please bring it to my attention. 

 

It is very time consuming to have discussions with you because you distort what I say, ignore what I say, claim have not said things I have said, claim I have said things I have not said, claim  I ignore your questions which is obviously false, and get others to support you in your claims against me.

 

 

My energy is very precious, I am not well, and easily tire.  I will need to pick and choose what I respond to from here on out for my own health and well being, and that may mean I do not respond to much of what you post to me or about me, but that is how things must be.

 

 

God bless you.

[thereselittleflower]

If anyone else feels I have not answered any of their questions, please let me know and I will remedy that situation.  

[Guest shiloh357]

In answer to post 155 by littleflower,  I am boiling my response down to that one post.

 

1.   What different types of Zionism do you have in mind?  I have given you the only true definition of Zionism.  There maybe people with their own customized definition of Zionism, but the Zionism definition is the conventional, mainstream definition of Zionism used by most Jews today.

 

2.  My question about the 1,000 years was a two part question.   What I was looking for from you is how you KNOW from the internal textual indicators that 1,000 simply means a long time.   Where does Revelation 20 make the assertion that 1,000 years means, "a long time?"    If your claim is true, you should be able to show that Revelation 20, by itself, will demand we understand it that way.   So how does Revelation 20 make your case that 1,000 years is a figurative term?

[thereselittleflower]

In answer to post 155 by littleflower,  I am boiling my response down to that one post.

 

1.   What different types of Zionism do you have in mind?  I have given you the only true definition of Zionism.  There maybe people with their own customized definition of Zionism, but the Zionism definition is the conventional, mainstream definition of Zionism used by most Jews today.

 

2.  My question about the 1,000 years was a two part question.   What I was looking for from you is how you KNOW from the internal textual indicators that 1,000 simply means a long time.   Where does Revelation 20 make the assertion that 1,000 years means, "a long time?"    If your claim is true, you should be able to show that Revelation 20, by itself, will demand we understand it that way.   So how does Revelation 20 make your case that 1,000 years is a figurative term?

 

 

Shiloh I have answered your second question several times now.  You have simply not accepted it.

 

Before we even look at the textual indicators, we first must determine the genre.    This is what I have posted to you about the Biblical Literalism approach to bible interpretation.   I will quote it again if need be.

 

Biblical Literalism is also know as the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. 

 

The doctrine of clarity of scripture does not mean that no interpretative principles are necessary, or that there is no gap between the culture in which the Bible was written and the culture of a modern reader. Instead, exegetical and interpretative principles are utilized as part of the process of closing that cultural gap. 

 

Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author.

 

 

 

Look at that word  "unless"  above.      We can rewrite that statement in two ways which are true to the meaning of "unless":

 

Biblical literalists believe that if a passage is not clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author.

 

Bliblical literalists believe that if a passage IS clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, then the Bible should NOT be interpreted as literal statements by the author.

 

 

 

So we first look at the genre to determine if it is a genre, such as poetry, that uses figurative language or not.

 

The apocalyptic genre heavily uses figurative, symbolic language.

 

The Apocalypse of John is of the apocalyptic genre.

 

So right there we stop approaching in a manner that tells us we should interpret it literally, for this book falls in a different category of approach to interpretation . . it should NOT be interpreted as literal statements by the author.       

 

And this is very simply because the Apocalypse of John, being of the apocalyptic genre, heavily uses figurative, symbolic language.

 

In apocalyptic language, "a thousand years" is figurative for a very long time.  This is in keeping with the principals of interpreting apocalyptic language:

 

 

Interpretation guidelines.

As an example of interpretation methodology, let us examine some passages from the Revelation of John. While reading John’s Apocalypse we should keep in mind that,

 

(1) it was written to Christians who had been undergoing long-term persecution (at least two-generations) with no hope for change;

(2) it was written to give the author’s readers encouragement and purpose during this difficult time;

(3) it uses symbolism (containing a lot of common idioms and metaphors) to describe the attributes of the person/place/thing being described rather than simply naming the person/place/thing described.

 

This latter point becomes important as we look at the text. As one encounters images, think about what the symbolism might mean as applied to attributes of that which is described. Try to avoid attaching the symbols directly to the description. This is what makes the Revelation more of a challenge to read. We are not that familiar with how ancient Christians understood many of these symbols, though many are obvious. We are often left with the context of symbolic usage to formulate an explanation.

 

Not all symbolism is lost to us. For example, numerology is used extensively in the Revelation to describe attributes. When numbers are encountered, try to ascertain the symbolism that was used for these numbers in their time. Some common applications of numerology include:

 

3 ½: Half of 7, half of perfection, profound sin, incompletion.

6: Short of perfection, sin. 666: Sin, repeated three times. Complete and pure sin. No evidence of good. Complete depravity.

7: Perfection, completion of God’s task.

12: Complete, complete assembly of God’s design. (12 tribes, 12 disciples.)

40: Sufficient period of time for God to work His purpose for man.

144: 12 times 12, ultimate completion

1000: Largest known number. Used to signify an unimaginably large amount.

144,000: 144 times 1000. A vast and complete/sufficient number.

 

All Colors and literal objects are also used to symbolize attributes. For example:

 

White: Purity

Clear: Purity

Red: God’s redeeming act, Jesus' blood.

Crown: Authority over a domain or kingdom

Green: Mercy, hope.

Trumpet: A clear message.

Throne: A position of power.

Rainbow: God’s covenant.

Jerusalem: The Church, the Bride of Christ

New Jerusalem: The post-rapture, glorified Church

Cubit: A measure by man’s standard.19

 

 

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/CarterJ08.pdf

 

 

The above link is quite an extensive treatment of the apocalyptic genre and writings in scripture.

 

 

The Book of Revelation was the first work to be called an apocalypse, and it exhibits the features that characterize such writings: A revelation from God concerning future events is delivered to a seer through an angelic or divine intermediary (in the case of Revelation, the intermediary is Jesus Christ and the seer is Saint John). The book also uses elaborate animal and numerological symbolism. Variations on these features are found in other apocalyptic writings—for example, the writings may describe many visions instead of only one; they may include specimens of other genres within them (for example, the epistle or the hymn, as in Revelation); and they may describe the destined events literally rather than figuratively.

 

http://autocww.colorado.edu/~flc/E64ContentFiles/SacredScriptures/ApocalypticWritings.htm

 

 

 

 

The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John

 

Fourth, apocalyptic literature employs certain compositional techniques in its writing: for example, symbolism, numerology, formalized surface structure, and recapitulation.  Each needs attention if understanding is to be attained.

 

Apocalypses are written with a high level of symbolism.  Apocalyptic writings are addressed to the imagination.  Their intent is more to create an emotional impression than to give new informaiton.

 

 

The language of the apocalypses is not descriptive, referential newspaper language, but the expressive language of poetry, which uses symbols and imagery to articulate a sense or feeling about the world.  Their binding value does not lie in the pseudoinformation they provide about the cosmology or future history, but in their affirmation of a transcendent world. 11

 

 

...Failure to take the highly symbolic character of apocalyptic into account virtually guarantees a misreading of the text.

 

Revelation also reflects the symbolic use of numbers in antiquity. 12  The numer 1 conveys the idea of uniqueness  or indepence.  Number 2 stands for doubling of energy, strengthening, confirmation (Rev. 11:3).  Number 3 is a symbol for the divine (Rev. 1:4-5) or its counterfeit (rev. 16:13).  Number 4 is the cosmic number, derived from the four corners of the earth (Rev 7:1; 21:13).  The number 7 is the most sacred number.  It expresses completion, 4 (the earth) + 3 (the divine) (Rev. 1:11; 6:1; 8:6; 15:1).  To use seven of anything raises it above the level of the particular to the level of the general or universal.  ...  when 10 is multiplied by 10 the result indicates a great expanse of time (Rev 20:2).   In a document in which numbers are used extensively in this way, it is a misreading to take them otherwise.... The numbers in Revelation cannot be understood by assigning then real numerical value, not even as round numbers.  They are purely symbolic. 

 

The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John, pg 5-7

 By Charles H. Talbert

 

Author:  https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=50286

 

 

 

 

As far as zionism goes, one only needs to do  search on the history of zionism to find  historically there is

 

Labor Zionism

Liberal Zionism

Revisionist Zionism

Religious Zionism

 

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Zionism

 

 

These four worked along side each other.

 

In addition there was

 

 

Cultural Zionism/

Spiritual Zionism

 

which was opposed to the goals of Political Zionism.

 

 

Zionism:

Spiritual Zionism

Spiritual Zionism (or Culural Zionism) — a trend in Jewish nationalist thinking and Zionist ideology, was most prominently championed by Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), one of the leaders of Hibbat Zion, a predecessor of Zionism.

In contrast to the views of Theodor Herzl and Political Zionism, in which Jewish statehood was advocated as a solution to the question of the Jews, Ahad Ha'am saw the crux of the problem in the question of Judaism, which, he believed, had lost its spiritual assets — its sources of creative and national might.

Because Ahad Ha'am did not believe that Palestine could accommodate all of Jewry, a Jewish state there, in his estimation, would not solve the problem of the Jews' social and economic status. Efforts should concentrate on establishing a national spiritual center, a hub of high­ quality life in Palestine, that would radiate to all Diaspora communities.

The correct course of action, Ahad Ha'am argued, is extensive and continuing educational activity among Jews and moderate settlement activity in Palestine.

 

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/Spiritual_Zionism.html

 

 

 

The Jewish Virtual Library has even more types of Zionism:

 

Types of Zionism

• American Zionism

• Christian Zionism

• Messianic Zionism

• Political Zionism

• Practical Zionism

• Religious Zionism

• Revisionist Zionism

• Socialist Zionism

• Spiritual Zionism

• Synthetic Zionism

• Territorialist Zionism

 

 

 

 

Now these are not some customized defintions, but actual zionist movements with followers around the world.