Hearing no further questions, I'll proceed.

The number 666 appears in Revelation 13:18. That's the only place. Now, you'd think if it was so important to the end of the world, there'd be more development, or at least it would show up more than once, but it doesn't. That in itself is interesting, but probably a subject for another thread.

First thing to notice: it's not six-six-six. It's specifically six hundred sixty-six. It's one number, not three. Greek had easy ways to write out numbers like that so there's no confusion, just like English does. What Greek didn't have was separate written glyphs to represent numbers. In certain contexts, the letters doubled as numbers. Hebrew did the same thing. So in English, for example, we would have
A=1
B=2
...
I=9
J=10
K=20
L=30
...
S=100
T=200

and so on. In some of the manuscripts of Revelation, the number is written in this way. But since we know the values of the letters it's still very clear that we're dealing with one number, six hundred sixty-six.

But the manuscripts aren't consistent about this number. A significant number actually read "six hundred sixteen," or 616. Textual criticism has made us 99%+ certain that 666 is what John actually wrote. The question is, how in the world did some of our manuscripts end up with this variant reading?

It was a mystery until we started to understand the literary technique of Gematria. It's a Jewish technique for encoding names as numbers. It's easy enough to sort out: take the numerical values of the letters of a person's name and add them up. Most often, Jewish writers using this would encode the name in Hebrew letters, no matter what language the name actually was. John would have been familiar with this technique, and in fact this passage shows us that he used it.

Why would people use such a technique? That's easy, too; to keep one's head attached to one's shoulders. Criticizing an emperor, even a previous one, could have far-reaching consequences and could literally cost you your life. Using this kind of method to make a criticism would give you an "out" because to the untrained eye, it just looks like so much nonsense. To readers "in the know," however, it makes perfect sense. John was counting on this.

In Hebrew letters, the name Nero Caesar is spelled NRWN KSR. The numeric values of these letters add up to six hundred sixty-six. And it's the only name from antiquity that really fits that description. But more important, it explains the variant. Some scribes, seeing that number and realizing what it meant, thought there was a mistake in the documents they were copying. Why? Because the Latin pronunciation of Nero Caesar is NRW KSR, without the second "N." With that change, then numbers add up to 616. So that's what they wrote in place of 666.

Nero Caesar is the only name from all of antiquity right down to the present time that not only explains the number, but explains the variant reading. The Gematria technique was a common method for doing such things in writing and both John and his readers would have been familiar enough with it to understand what he was saying. Even though John wrote this a couple of decades after Nero, he still could have gotten in big trouble for criticizing him. Why did he choose Nero? Because Nero instigated the first really big persecution of Christians, one that took down both Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles of Christianity. He was truly a "beast."

We don't have all the answers about the rest of the symbolism in the chapter, but that's one thing we do know with a reasonable amount of certainty: when John described the beast with the number 666, he was looking back, not ahead. It's possible he was seeing Nero as a type for future persecutors of Christians throughout the Church age, but that's open to question and interpretation.

As the emperor said to Mozart, "Well. There it is."

Dave buddy ol pal,

John was SOOOO not looking BACK... ugh,, Are you serious?? ( you need a dutch rub and a yes, maybe even a wedgie for that comment.):D
( just teasing you) :)

I really believe that...
Nero was a type of the antichrist . He certainly was ANTI Christ. He was horrible, no two ways about it! But the man or beast that John describes has supernatural abilbities because he is backed by Satan himself. ( know, I know, you don't take what he actually does literal)

Joseph was a type or picture of the Lord Jesus too. Didn't make Joseph the Lord Jesus. Just a type or a picture. ( you never did comment on that post... didn't see it as relevant at all huh?)

IF the Lord Jesus is really finished with the Nation of Israel, perhaps I could believe Nero WAS who John was talking about. BUT I don't believe the Lord is... I really believe Israel as a Nation plays a HUGE part in endtimes. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it is ALL about getting them as a NATION to recognized WHO the Lord really IS ( was)... their Messiah who as a nation they rejected.

Why do you think the Lord Is coming back to sit on the Throne of David and rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lord's. Or why He is placing his foot on the Mount of Olives when he returns? If HE is so done with Israel... why Does he go to Jerusalem? Or do you NOT take that literal either?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Dave buddy ol pal,

John was SOOOO not looking BACK... ugh,, Are you serious?? ( you need a dutch rub and a yes, maybe even a wedgie for that comment.):D
( just teasing you) :)

I really believe that...
Nero was a type of the antichrist . He certainly was ANTI Christ. He was horrible, no two ways about it! But the man or beast that John describes has supernatural abilbities because he is backed by Satan himself. ( know, I know, you don't take what he actually does literal)

---

What supernatural abilities do you refer to?

Quote:

---

Joseph was a type or picture of the Lord Jesus too. Didn't make Joseph the Lord Jesus. Just a type or a picture. ( you never did comment on that post... didn't see it as relevant at all huh?)

---

It's relevant, I just haven't felt up to digging into it with the Creeping Crud polluting my overweight body.

Quote:

---

IF the Lord Jesus is really finished with the Nation of Israel, perhaps I could believe Nero WAS who John was talking about. BUT I don't believe the Lord is... I really believe Israel as a Nation plays a HUGE part in endtimes. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it is ALL about getting them as a NATION to recognized WHO the Lord really IS ( was)... their Messiah who as a nation they rejected.

---

Do you know what circular reasoning is?

Quote:

---

Why do you think the Lord Is coming back to sit on the Throne of David and rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lord's. Or why He is placing his foot on the Mount of Olives when he returns? If HE is so done with Israel... why Does he go to Jerusalem? Or do you NOT take that literal either?

---

I haven't decided whether it's literal or not. Some of that stuff is in the passages that galveston tossed out, and I haven't felt up to that much digging. I'm hoping to be able to check them out soon.

Now, let's turn it around. You say there's no way John was talking about Nero. What other explanation do you have for the Gematria and especially the textual variant? Because unless you have a reasonable explanation for those things, you don't have much to back up your comments. Without some kind of alternate explanation for these things, your answer amounts to "Is not is not is not!" :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

1. Earthquake divides Jerusalem. Rev. 16:18-20

---

Where does it say this is Jerusalem? In most apocalyptic literature of the time "the great city" means Rome. The context also references Babylon, which was another code name for Rome. This has nothing to do with Jerusalem.

Quote:

---

2. Plague on forces that fight against Jerusalem. Zech. 14:12

---

Look at the context. This "plague" seems to be taking place AFTER all the other events in the chapter (a string of obvious symbols), such as living water flowing out of Jerusalem to the eastern and western seas and all the rest. Of course, that happened in a manner of speaking when Christianity spread from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. Frankly, taking just about anything in Zechariah literally is a mistake, because his symbolism is rampant throughout the book.

Quote:

---

3. Time required for Israel to bury Gog. Eze. 39:11,12

---

I don't understand what this passage has to do with anything.

Quote:

---

Also, the Beast and the 666 are clearly tied together. You say Nero was 666, but the judgment declared against the Beast are given here, and none of it happened to Nero's Rome. Rev. 16:1-10

---

This judgment doesn't happen to the beast, but to those who followed him. And if you can't see obvious symbolism and non-literalism here, then there's noplace for us to go. The sea turns to blood, the sun scorches everybody on earth, giant frogs coming out of the beast's mouth - were I not a believer, I'd wonder what kind of mushrooms John had been eating. How anybody can try to interpret this stuff literally is beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Stick with me. I am trying to show you one of the MANY reasons I believe that God is NOT finished with the NATION of Israel.

Anyone who studied the Bible at all agrees that Joseph is a picture of the Lord Jesus. His Brothers are the sons of Israel..

---

It's only a very general and vague picture, so you don't want to press it too far.

Quote:

---

Both were the favorite son of their father: Gen. 37:3, Matt. 3:17

---

So God has 11 other sons? This is way beyond reaching.

Quote:

---

Both were rejected and hated by their brothers and
Both were sold for the price of a slave: Gen. 37:28, Matt. 26:15

---

How exactly are you defining "brothers" in the case of Jesus? He had actual brothers, according to the gospels, and they didn't hate him. They didn't believe in him, but they sure didn't hate him and didn't sell him to anybody.

Quote:

---

Their brothers conspired to kill both of them;

---

Same question.

Quote:

---

Joseph was the Savior of his people AND of the gentiles, Jesus, the Savior of all mankind

---

Still reaching. Joseph was put in Egypt to bring his family down there and keep them alive so they could grow into the nation of Israel. In a sense that makes him a "savior" but only in a very limited sense.

Quote:

---

Both were taken into Egypt to avoid being killed: Gen. 37:28, Matt. 2:13

---

Joseph wasn't taken to Egypt to avoid being killed. He was taken to Egypt because his brothers sold him into slavery.

Quote:

---

Both began their ministry at the age of thirty: Gen. 41:46, Luke 3:23

---

Luke actually says Jesus was "about" thirty. We don't know how old he was. He could have been anywhere from about 27 to 33.

Quote:

---

Both gained the confidence of others quickly: Gen. 39:3, Matt. 8:8

---

So did a lot of other people.

Quote:

---

Both resisted the most difficult temptations: Gen. 39:8-9, Heb. 4:15.

---

There were lots of temptations that Joseph DIDN'T resist. Pride, telling his family about his dreams, lying to his brothers about who he was in Egypt, falsely accusing Benjamin of stealing his cup, to name just a few. Joseph is not a good picture of Jesus on this score.

Quote:

---

Both were hated for their teachings: Gen. 37:8, John 7:7

---

No, Joseph was hated for his ego. He was bragging about his dreams and basically rubbing his family's nose in them. He was not hated for any "teachings."

Quote:

---

Both were falsely accused: Gen. 39:14, Mark 14:56

---

I can give you that one, but it doesn't really prove anything.

Quote:

---

Now check this part out:



Joesph's brothers come to seek food and help during the 7 year faminie Genesis 42:5,6,7

Israel is going to come seeking help in their distress during the 7 year tribulation period. Hosea 5:15

---

How do you get a tribulation period out of that Hosea quote? It's not there, sorry. Then there's the question of what you do with the seven years of plenty that preceded the famine in Egypt. If you're going to use Joseph as a parallel, you've got to do better than that. And Hosea is talking about the northern kingdom of Ephraim/Samaria, which no longer exists. He's not talking about Israel as a people. Check the context.

Quote:

---

During the 7 years of Famine, Joesph feeds and takes care of his brothers (Genesis45:11)

During the 7 year tribulation the Lord, seals , protects and takes care of Israel Rev. 7:4

---

We have no idea what that Revelation passage means. There are several problems with it, not the least of which is that it includes both a tribe of Manasseh and a tribe of Joseph. Manasseh was one of Joseph's sons, and his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh became tribes to keep the number at 12 for land inheritance purposes, since Levi didn't have a land inheritance. Yet this list also includes Levi. And considering the number of Jews in the world today, if he's only rescuing 144,000 of them that's not much of a protection!

In addition, during the famine in Egypt Joseph took care of everybody, from Egypt on out to the most outlying regions of the famine, not just his family. So if you're going to try and connect these two things, then you have to have Jesus protecting everybody, not just a handful of Jews. Your picture doesn't work at all.

Quote:

---

Joesph's brothers finally realize who Joseph really IS and were troubled and they wept. Genesis 45: 3, 14

The Nation of Israel will have her eyes opened and KNOW who HE is and mourn: Zecheriah 12:10

---

There's no indication of any "tribulation" period, much less a 7 year one, anywhere near this passage. Plus, Joseph first lied to his brothers about his identity; he spoke through an interpreter and pretended to be Egyptian, sent them away and rearrested them on a bogus charge, and it was only after he reached the end of his rope that he revealed himself. And his brothers didn't "finally realize" who he was, he came out and told them after deceiving them first. And they didn't believe him until he found a way to prove it to them. So is Jesus lying to Israel right now about his identity? (I'm messing with you there, obviously.)

Quote:

---

Joseph was the lord of the Land Gen. 45:8,

Jesus is Lord of Lord's and King of Kings Rev. 19:16.

---

Joseph was NOT the lord of the land. It's pretty clear he was exaggerating there, and if Pharaoh had heard him make such a statement he probably would have been demoted post haste. What did Pharaoh say? "Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you" (Gen 41:40). Joseph was clearly second-in-command (Gen 41:43), not the ultimate authority. Considering that the Pharaohs claimed to be gods, it would have been absurd for the Pharaoh to consider Joseph his "lord."

Quote:

---

This is NO coincidence... the Lord is painting the picture even in the very first book.

---

You're painting quite nicely; I'm not so sure the Lord is. Joseph is a type of Jesus, but types only go so far and you're pushing it way beyond the limits. The seven-year famine is not a type of any seven-year tribulation period, because there's no seven-year period of plenty before the purported tribulation. The famine only affected Egypt and its immediate environs; the tribulation is supposed to affect the entire world. During the famine people sold all their belongings, and ultimately sold themselves into slavery to Joseph and the Pharaoh for food, whereas in the supposed tribulation people aren't supposed to be able to buy or sell anything, much less themselves, without take the bad guy's mark and giving themselves to Satan. It just doesn't work.

Nice try, though.

Dave,

I didn't say Joesph WAS Jesus.. I said he was a type. His brothers were the sons of ISRAEL... or Jacob if you prefer. So when I say Jesus' brothers, I'm referring to the Nation of Israel as I'm sure you will agree that Jacob's sons make up the 12 tribes. Come on, really you don't see any comparison in that? I'm not in any way referring to the Lord Jesus half brothers. So.. hopefully you are clear on that.

I'm not stretching the son thing... Joseph was Jacobs favorite... and the Father clearly proclaimed that Jesus was his beloved son in whom he was well pleased. It isn't a perfect match... but again.. Joseph is simply a type... not the real deal.

OH! Actually I forgot about the coat of many colors... Joseph had that.. Jesus had a robe that was expensive and the soldier's cast lots for it. ( perfect match?. naaah, but certainly another similarity)

Joseph was sold for a price of a slave... Jesus was betrayed for the price of a slave. ( perfect match? Naaah but a similarity)

So they were around 30... ( again you are being Sir Nitpick) Perfect match?. naaah.. but a similarity.


Ok so you don't like my comparison with Joseph being Lord of the Land and Jesus being the Lord of Lords. Will you accept this... Joseph was second in command and Jesus is the second person in the Godhead... ( nanna nanna BOO) is this a perfect match?. naaah but it is a similarity.

Jesus isn't LYING or decieving anyone. The Nation of Israel rejected him... just like Joseph's brothers rejected HIM. The Nation as a whole are BLIND to who he is... but they won't always be. Yes, I believe the Lord will reveal himself to them. But Good Grief Dave, how long has the Nation of israel been around? Ummmmmmm... not that long. May 1948. After 2000 years. And THAT IS BIG FAT HAIRY DEAL. That didn't happen by accident either.

Check out the prophecy in Ezekial 37:4 Then he said to me, "Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD!

37:5 This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life.

37:6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

(It is interesting in your one post you pointed out that Israel became a Nation after World War II. Ever seen pictures of the bones of those poor Jews piled high... sickening.)

Anyway, that prophecy is about them becoming a Nation again.. being brought back together. Something that was dead and gone.. suddenly comes back to life. They become flesh and blood.

Then check out this prophecy:

Is. 66:8 Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment?.

Wow, May 14, 1948. THAT very thing was fulfilled. I can't just shrug that off.

Joseph was a sinner, Jesus is NOT. But you are making it out like I'm grasping at straws here. I'm not. There is a REASON there is THAT many similarities. Nothing in the bible is by accident.

Also you seem to think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to decode or understand revelation. No WAY. The Lord wouldn't give us some weird mumbo jumbo that we can NEVER truly understand. He never has done that.. and he never WILL do that.

Incidentally, the mark of the beast will not be given to everyone... but those that take it are condemned forever. Those that don't are either hunted down and beheaded or they starve to death because they can't buy or sell. But there will be millions saved during that time. And the 144.000 GOD will take care of , he said it... not me.

I wish I had more time, I fear I am all over the map here but I have to get my children some food. They are driving me nuts even as I type. Pardon if I have misspelled.. I didn't have time to double check.

Sorry, T, but it's all reaching. Types are just that: examples. Very general examples, very general foreshadowings. You can't extend them to the details or they break down. And you sure can't get any 7-year tribulation with a pretrib rapture out of Joseph. So this line of thought is getting us nowhere.

Dave,

As long as you stay on a stubborn streak about the Nation of Israel... you are RIGHT... we are never going to get anywhere.

I never said I could get a pretrib rapture out of Joseph.. because the story is not about the Church. The story is all about the Nation of Israel and how the God of the Universe protected what would become the 12 tribes.
Joseph himself said it was all the plan of God.

And I will let you win on one thing... maybe the 7 years of famine and the 7 years of tribulation aren't the same... I DO NOT KNOW. I think it may be a small picture... my thoughts. But THAT is IT Buddy Boy! The rest you are simply not correct.

You aren't dealing with the dry bones. In Ez.. your not dealing with Is. 66:8 .

You aren't dealing with the truth that the Lord WANTS us to understand Revelation... and not just think it is something that we really can NEVER fully understand.

And you are really not dealing with the very fact that Israel is INDEED back in the land.

Like I said before: ain't no other people scattered all over the world without a homeland, going to know who they are after 2,000 years. It has NEVER happened before. I know, I know.. just another one of those DANG coinsedences.

Psst dave, ain't no such thing in the word of God as a coinsedence.

Nero is but a type of the antichrist just as Joesph was but a type of Jesus... the one described in Revelation, and Daniel is going to be a big deal... according to Revelation.. the whole world is going to watch him in amazement. WHAT? There can't ever be another man rise up out of the rivived Roman Empire with the numbers 666 matching his name? Is anything to hard for the Lord?

AND... incidently... prophecy is about the future not the past... John is looking forward.

On a personal note: I want you to know the Left Behind series in my opinion is a fictional story with bits and pieces of truth to it. I wouldn't and do NOT go by those books. I know you didn't ask... but I didn't EVER want you are anyone else to think I'm big into them. Because I am NOT. I disagree with many things. I only read like maybe a few chapters in the first book AND it wasn't biblical in MY opinion.

What I base all of my beliefs on is the word of God and rightly dividing it. Not taking any ONE scripture such as( cough cough)... Galatians 6:16.. as proof that the Lord is finished with the Nation of Israel.

The reason I keep bringing up the Nation of Israel is until you see her as being right smack dab in the middle of the tribulation 7 years... you can't understand the raputre of the Church aka the Bride of Christ. And you will NEVER understand Daniel or Revelation, The Lord WANTs us to know.. otherwise he wouldn't have told us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

as long as you stay on a stubborn streak about the Nation of Israel

---

I love you dearly, classyT, and have managed to stay out of this and allow you and Dave to go at it tooth and nail. I do have to say, though, that your trying to force Joseph's and Jesus' lives into parallel pathways reminds of the supposed Lincoln-Kennedy parallelisms:

snopes.com: Lincoln and Kennedy Coincidences

Quote:

---

You aren't dealing with the truth that the Lord WANTS us to understand Revelation... and not just think it is something that we really can NEVER fully understand.

---

Again I say, what is related in Revelation has already transpired. Partially because of this, the book almost didn't make the cut into the canon.

Quote:

---

AND... incidently... prophecy is about the future not the past... John is looking forward.

---

Yes, looking forward to what he thought might happen in his day and age. We weren't even a twinkle in his eye.

Quote:

---

What I base all of my beliefs on is the word of God and rightly dividing it.

---

Maybe you should keep it together once in a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Dave,

As long as you stay on a stubborn streak about the Nation of Israel... you are RIGHT... we are never going to get anywhere.

I never said I could get a pretrib rapture out of Joseph.. because the story is not about the Church. The story is all about the Nation of Israel and how the God of the Universe protected what would become the 12 tribes.
Joseph himself said it was all the plan of God.

---

Yes - the plan of God to create a separate people that he would bring his revelation through. News flash: he already did that.

[wnip]

Quote:

---

You aren't dealing with the dry bones. In Ez.. your not dealing with Is. 66:8 .

---

That's easy. They're talking about the return from the Babylonian exile under Cyrus. Check the context, biblical and historical.

[snip]

Quote:

---

And you are really not dealing with the very fact that Israel is INDEED back in the land.

---

Meaningless in this context. I've already explained why.

Quote:

---

Like I said before: ain't no other people scattered all over the world without a homeland, going to know who they are after 2,000 years. It has NEVER happened before. I know, I know.. just another one of those DANG coinsedences.

Psst dave, ain't no such thing in the word of God as a coinsedence.

---

I never said there was. How many other races have been scattered all over the world like that? None. Well, there's the Africans, of course, but that's different... somehow.

[snip]

Quote:

---

AND... incidently... prophecy is about the future not the past... John is looking forward.

---

Actually, the vast majority of Old Testament prophecy was about the present. That is, the prophet's main job was to call the people back to God and expose their sinfulness and their corruption and all that and call on them to repent. Prophecy in its most basic biblical sense isn't foretelling, it's forth-telling. As WG already pointed out, John continued in that tradition with Revelation.

[snip]

Quote:

---

What I base all of my beliefs on is the word of God and rightly dividing it. Not taking any ONE scripture such as( cough cough)... Galatians 6:16.. as proof that the Lord is finished with the Nation of Israel.

---

So you can just write off that verse because it doesn't fit your theology? Sorry, but your explanation of it was lame in the extreme. You accuse me of using one verse as proof, but you take that one verse that doesn't fit what you want to believe and just set it aside.

Is being filled with the Spirit important? Guess how many verses there are that command that? One. Count 'em, one. There may only be one verse that says we have taken over Israel's role, but that's all that's needed for it to be part of God's revelation. Of course, there are other hints, but there's one direct statement and you have yet to come to grips with it.

Quote:

---

The reason I keep bringing up the Nation of Israel is until you see her as being right smack dab in the middle of the tribulation 7 years... you can't understand the raputre of the Church aka the Bride of Christ. And you will NEVER understand Daniel or Revelation, The Lord WANTs us to know.. otherwise he wouldn't have told us.

---

There is no 7 year tribulation, and I understand Daniel and Revelation just fine, thank you. While you may not base anything on the Left Behind junk (that's a Very Good Thing, btw), you base your ideas on its principle of interpreting things literally. And that's as wrong as wrong can be, because John never intended it that way. Taking outlandish symbols like he used and interpreting them literally isn't rightly dividing the Word.

Dave,
Ha ha ha... you make me laugh Dave because you act like just debunked my theology... please if only it were that easy.:p

Quote:

---

How many other races have been scattered all over the world like that? None. Well, there's the Africans, of course, but that's different... somehow.

---

No, no, no Davey... I never said how many races were JUST scattered? I said how many races were scattered without a homeland... a country, and still knew who they were. Last time I checked... Africa was still there.

I have yet to run into a Philistine... but I'm thinking right now YOU could actually be one... so maybe I WAS wrong after all.:D ( yes, I think I am a HOOT)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Maybe you should keep it together once in a while.

---

Wondergirl,

I keep it together.. that is exactly how I rightly divide it. Hey, Paul is the one who said to rightly divide the word of truth... not me. I just follow the word.

Well, Dave and I may have been going at it tooth and nail.. but so far I don't think he has any of us have teeth marks or scratch marks.

I am surprised you don't see Joseph as a type of the Lord Jesus. I forgot to mention another similar thing... we know Joseph WAS a sinner, just check the last verse of Genesis out. BUT have you ever noticed that there is no mention of sin in his life? There is another one for my side!

(Dave, do not EVEN bring up the bragging thing.. first the Lord never told Joseph NOT to tell anyone the dream. It wasn't a sin to get up and go to breakfast and tell everyone a dream you had the night before. God never said he was displeased. I think his BROTHERS had the EGO problem, they couldn't STAND the thought of bowing to him. OOOH there is ANOTHER one for my side. Every knee Shall bow (to the Lord Jesus).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

I keep it together.. that is exactly how I rightly divide it. Hey, Paul is the one who said to rightly divide the word of truth... not me. I just follow the word.

---

I've never heard that term until you said it on this site. It must be a Bible church/fundamentalist term. Plus, that term is not in any of my concordances. I did a Google search to find out what it means, since "divide" means to separate. One site says it means "to correctly understand the Bible." Why not say it that way?

***ADDED*** I just found out that 2 Tim. 2:15 is your "rightly divided" verse. My RSV says "correctly handles." NIV uses that too. The KJV is the only one that uses that term, it seems.

Quote:

---

I am surprised you don't see Joseph as a type of the Lord Jesus. [snip] there is no mention of sin in his life

---

Uh oh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

(Dave, do not EVEN bring up the bragging thing..first the Lord never told Joseph NOT to tell anyone the dream. It wasn't a sin to get up and go to breakfast and tell everyone a dream you had the night before. God never said he was displeased. I think his BROTHERS had the EGO problem, they couldn't STAND the thought of bowing to him. OOOH there is ANOTHER one for my side. Every knee Shall bow (to the Lord Jesus).

---

Excuse me? Even Paul says all boasting is sin. And even Jacob thought that his boast about the sun and moon bowing to him was a sign of disrespect to for his parents. And you completely overlooked the blatant lying to his brothers in Egypt, as well as the bogus theft charge against Benjamin. He falsely accused the brothers of being spies, even though he knew who they were. He lied through his teeth every chance he got. Don't think I haven't heard this "no sin attributed to Joseph" stuff before; I've seen all the arguments, and it's still a crock. We see several sins explicitly committed by him, most against his brothers. There it is, like it or not.

Dave,

Who SAID he bragged? Who can help what they dream? He just told everyone! And he wasn't instructed NOT too! Where is the verse that says... he bragged and gloated and blah, blah, blah. Nope, he got up and told his family his dream. How can you brag when the dream is what the Lord gave him while he slept? I don't GET it. And just because Jacob got in a huff doesn't mean anything. Like I said, the kid just told everyone a dream he had. THEY had the ego problem, not Joseph.

Where did the Lord condemn him? Where did the Lord say what Joseph EVER did was a sin? I stand by it... there is NO mention of sin. Because Joseph didn't tell his bratty, mean bothers who he was when they came a begging... doesn't mean anything. He wanted to see Benjamin, he wanted to see his father. Maybe he was using wisdom. ( Like Solomon, he said he cut a baby in half to get to the truth and he didn't.) Like I said, Joseph WAS a sinner... check out where he was in the last chapter of Genesis. He is dead... so he DID sin. The BIBLE just doesn't mention him sinning. YOU assume... and you know what THAT means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I've never heard that term until you said it on this site. It must be a Bible church/fundamentalist term. Plus, that term is not in any of my concordances. I did a Google search to find out what it means, since "divide" means to separate. One site says it means "to correctly understand the Bible." Why not say it that way?

***ADDED*** I just found out that 2 Tim. 2:15 is your "rightly divided" verse. My RSV says "correctly handles." NIV uses that too. The KJV is the only one that uses that term, it seems.


Uh oh.

---

Wondergirl,

Glad you found it. I should have told you where it was... my bad. I mostly use KJV...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Dave,

Who SAID he bragged? Who can help what they dream? He just told everyone! And he wasn't instructed NOT too! Where is the verse that says... he bragged and gloated and blah, blah, blah. Nope, he got up and told his family his dream. How can you brag when the dream is what the Lord gave him while he slept? I don't GET it. And just because Jacob got in a huff doesn't mean anything. Like I said, the kid just told everyone a dream he had. THEY had the ego problem, not Joseph.

---

It's in the tone of the report. No, he wasn't instructed not to tell the dreams; he wasn't instructed at all. They were images, not communiques. Look at Gen 37:8: they hated him, not just because of his dream, but because of what he said to them, or more precisely, because of HOW he told them.

He's already gotten them in trouble with a "bad report," and he's his father's favorite as shown by the fancy coat. He has to know his brothers hate him. But rather than try to get along with them, he rubs their noses in it with his dreams, to the point where even his father can't take his boasting any more.

Quote:

---

Where did the Lord condemn him? Where did the Lord say what Joseph EVER did was a sin? I stand by it... there is NO mention of sin.

---

Get real. This could be said about 90% of the characters in both testaments. It's meaningless.

Quote:

---

Because Joseph didn't tell his bratty, mean bothers who he was when they came a begging... doesn't mean anything.

---

Surely you jest. He didn't just withhold info, he LIED. He pretended not to speak their language, he falsely accused them of being spies, the whole enchilada. There's no other way to look at it: he LIED. He bore false witness. He apparently also practiced divination (Gen 44:5). Joseph has several sins to his credit. Get used to it.

Quote:

---

He wanted to see Benjamin, he wanted to see his father.

---

So that justifies anything and everything he did? Come on, you're smarter than that.

Quote:

---

Maybe he was using wisdom. ( Like Solomon, he said he cut a baby in half to get to the truth and he didn't.)

---

That's not what Solomon did. Read it again. 1 Kings 3:16-27.

Quote:

---

Like i said, Joseph WAS a sinner... check out where he was in the last chapter of Genesis. He is dead... so he DID sin. The BIBLE just doesn't mention him sinning. YOU assume... and you know what THAT means.

---

I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading it there in Genesis. You seem to think that because the Bible never explicitly identifies anything he did as a sin, that means nothing he's recorded as doing was a sin. That's simply not the case. We know that lying was a sin from the very beginning, and no amount of interpretive gymnastics will make it otherwise.

Dave,

Stop hating on Joseph. I really don't believe telling his family about a dream was a sin. Having said that, you may have a point with decieving his brothers. I don't know. BUT he is still a type of the Lord. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

This is totally off topic but I'm still going to say it. I really do think it is an assumption to say the Joseph was bragging. I once heard someone say that the reason John the Baptist was beheaded was because he didn't have enough faith in the Lord Jesus. (You know... when John sends a message to the Lord asking him if he really was the "one".) Utterly ridiculous, in my opinion. If the Bible doesn't say he was bragging and he had a big ego, don't add it.

"interpretive gymnatstic"... lol lol lol You're descriptions are too much.

I'm not done either with discussing the prophetic verses you dismissed so easly regarding the rebirth of the Nation of Israel. But I'm not going to say something off the top of my head anymore without researching it further. ( like with solomon and Joseph) I believe you are wrong but I want to study and pray before I debate this further.

(Dust off your boxing gloves Dave, because you are going down.) :)

classyT
On your defence... http://www.his-forever.com/jewish_weddings_rapture.htm
The rapture is a big deal and as long as we have the time to give others the chanse to get away from the wrath of God, we should not stop doing that.

classyT
On your defence... http://www.his-forever.com/jewish_weddings_rapture.htm
The rapture is a big deal and as long as we have the time to give others the chanse to get away from the wrath of God, we should not stop doing that.