Filling in Scriptural Blanks

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

keithr

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2020
1,795
492
83
Dorset
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
The pathway to salvation that each of the Elect will travel before they die is taught by end-time prophecy AND by various analogies. One of those analogies is the Marriage analogy. The engagement of a person occurs when they receive the Early Rain of the Spirit. This is when they become a spiritual chaste virgin. The time of waiting for the Bridegroom to return is when they will fall away and become apostate. The wise virgins (represents the Elect) will be given the Latter Rain of the Spirit (the extra flask of oil). That extra oil will light the way for Christ to appear the second time and for the marriage to occur (new birth). The Marriage Supper will then occur when Christ feeds His new bride bread and New Wine. With this knowledge of the truth, judgment will fall on the believer to complete their conversion. This must all happen before a believer dies or they will remain apostate and be resurrected with the foolish virgins (the "many" who are called to be saints but not chosen).

One final point: When a person has both the Early Rain of the Spirit and the spirit of anti-Christ within them, they are said to contain two people; the child of God and the child of the Devil. The child of the Devil will be removed and destroyed by judgment as shown in Mat 24:37-41. Your understanding of the two people is carnal. You see the two people as being out in the world. But Christ's teachings are spiritual and must be applied within a person. Until you can understand the teachings of the New Covenant in a spiritual way, you are going to misunderstand them.
Jesus started by saying, Matthew 24:4 (WEB):
(4) Jesus answered them, “Be careful that no one leads you astray.​
also Matthew 7:15 (WEB):
(15) “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.​

The nonsense that you wrote in your post makes me think that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, trying to lead people astray. Sorry, but I don't buy it!

John 14:23 (KJV):
(23) Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.​

God and Jesus do not abide with "the child of the Devil".
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ok...
Yes there are different words used. Hebrew itself is a metaphorical language....meaning a verb based language using metaphors. Every word is a description of a scenario. The idea is difficult for those who have used a noun/object based language their entire lives.
We see the word "beth" in Hebrew as an equivalent to the English word "house". But that's not really accurate. Beth means dwelling as in all the activities that go on in living inside a house. Including sleeping, cooking, various crafts, and etc.

The verb "bara" as all Hebrew is a verb requires a material for the heavens and the earth to be fashioned from....but the material isn't listed for good reason. It's poetry and a deliberate absence of the words used for absence of any material or empty because look at what the translators have already done to the incomplete poetry....they made it a complete sentence.

This Hebrew literary device is used again in Daniel to indicate what happens to the Messiah. And while Jesus was being crucified he had nothing...not even clothes or family as he gave his family to John.

There have been literally encyclopedia sized sets of books describing this chapter, it's poetry and meaning. I'm barely scratching the surface here in my explanation. But it should suffice.
For a somewhat different view, see https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/aid/v2/did-god-create-or-make.pdf It concludes:

"The context of Genesis, indeed the whole Bible, is overwhelmingly in favor of interpreting both bara and asah in Genesis 1 as virtually instantaneous acts. Whether God created something out of nothing or created something from material that He had just made, the force of the words in context is that both kinds of activities were instantaneous and supernatural after God spoke “Let there be . . . .” In Genesis 1 and 2 we should assume ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation unless the text clearly indicates otherwise (for example, Genesis 2:7, 22)."
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
15,012
4,467
113
70
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When Scripture is silent on something, we often make an assumptions about what likely happened based on our own predilections masquerading as logic.

Here’s an example: Did Methuselah die in the Great Flood? Gen. 7:6 tells us that Noah was 600 years old at the time of the flood. That means his dad Lamech, who was 182 at Noah’s birth, Gen. 5:28, was born 782 years before the flood. Coincidentally (or perhaps not coincidentally) Methuselah lived 782 years after Lamech was born, Gen. 5:26. So Methuselah died in the year of the flood. But IN the flood? We don’t know.

It is tempting to assume that if Methuselah were still alive when the rains came, Noah would have found a spot on the Ark for his grandpa, and Genesis would have mentioned this elderly passenger. Such an assumption fits nicely with our presuppositions about the kind of man Noah was, and perhaps that Methuselah was. But in my view, these sorts of temptations must be resisted. Living with the uncertainty is preferable to guessing wrong.

As a warm up, I’ve intentionally given an example where the “right” answer is insignificant in the grand scheme of Biblical things. Before the fastballs start coming, I’ll just ask: who agrees with me that filling in Scriptural blanks is in invitation to indulge our biases?
100% agree
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
9,899
7,170
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The verse says "all".
"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.” - vs 38
“(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. ”
Romans 4:17 KJV
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
13,088
6,199
113
www.FinishingTheMystery.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When Scripture is silent on something, we often make an assumptions about what likely happened based on our own predilections masquerading as logic.

Here’s an example: Did Methuselah die in the Great Flood? Gen. 7:6 tells us that Noah was 600 years old at the time of the flood. That means his dad Lamech, who was 182 at Noah’s birth, Gen. 5:28, was born 782 years before the flood. Coincidentally (or perhaps not coincidentally) Methuselah lived 782 years after Lamech was born, Gen. 5:26. So Methuselah died in the year of the flood. But IN the flood? We don’t know.

It is tempting to assume that if Methuselah were still alive when the rains came, Noah would have found a spot on the Ark for his grandpa, and Genesis would have mentioned this elderly passenger. Such an assumption fits nicely with our presuppositions about the kind of man Noah was, and perhaps that Methuselah was. But in my view, these sorts of temptations must be resisted. Living with the uncertainty is preferable to guessing wrong.

As a warm up, I’ve intentionally given an example where the “right” answer is insignificant in the grand scheme of Biblical things. Before the fastballs start coming, I’ll just ask: who agrees with me that filling in Scriptural blanks is in invitation to indulge our biases?

This is good. Indeed "Living with the uncertainty is preferable to guessing wrong."

As for Methuselah, the flood of Noah's time was a foreshadowing of the greater flood of the spirit which was to come according to the prophecy of Joel. Wherein God promised, saying "never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” (Genesis 9:11b). Notice that His promise is not to never again flood the earth, but by qualification, is rather a promise never to "destroy the earth" (with a flood of water). The promise is rather a clarification, not of what He will do, but of what He will not do.

Joel's prophecy, on the other hand, is what God will do. Which is also a flood of sorts, as it is a promise to "pour out His spirit upon all flesh." Which is indeed, not to "destroy" the earth--but to save it. None of which is physical, but spiritual, as He is spirit.

It is right therefore that Methuselah be present in the world within the time of God's destroying, but not present in the world after--but rather in heaven. Thus, the days of his life in the world align with the foreshadowing of the end of all flesh.
 

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
1,444
924
113
45
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
LOL
At least it starts with a complete sentence.

Why do you suppose the traditional translations don't?
There must be a reason.
The verse numbers that were added to Scripture in 1555 encourage the translator to make each verse a discreet sentence. It seems wrong to make a verse into half a sentence, even though that's probably the best way to translate Gen 1:1.

Also see my topic God created the world out of... Monsters?
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
1,444
924
113
45
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Where did this come from? I've never seen this translated this way before.
I first heard it at another forum... that you would be familiar with... from someone there who you would also be familiar with [/cryptic]

After that, I looked around the interwebz and found a number of places where scholars advocate for such a translation. Here's one now!

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/7qj5za
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JohnDB

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The verse numbers that were added to Scripture in 1555 encourage the translator to make each verse a discreet sentence. It seems wrong to make a verse into half a sentence, even though that's probably the best way to translate Gen 1:1.
The LXX renders Gen. 1:1 as a full sentence, even without punctuation (which didn't exist at the time). Hard to read it any other way. Subject, verb, object. Distinct from what follows. I'm calling that a Sentence.
 

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
1,444
924
113
45
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The LXX renders Gen. 1:1 as a full sentence, even without punctuation (which didn't exist at the time). Hard to read it any other way. Subject, verb, object. Distinct from what follows. I'm calling that a Sentence.
1:1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
1:1 At first put the God the heavens and the lands

Yes, that's a sentence. (Eποίησεν is an odd word choice to me). I disagree that it's distinct from verse 2. They still run together.

Translating Hebrew to Greek has the same trouble as translating it to every other language... each Hebrew word has several meanings, and the translator is forced to give just one of them. That's more relevant to the second verse.
 

JohnDB

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2010
5,250
3,472
113
TN
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I first heard it at another forum... that you would be familiar with... from someone there who you would also be familiar with [/cryptic]

After that, I looked around the interwebz and found a number of places where scholars advocate for such a translation. Here's one now!

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/7qj5za
I would say that some people overestimate their abilities to parse Hebrew in a coherent fashion. Basically it's going beyond what was said and using scissors on it at the same time....just to make it say what they wish it to say.

It's not very often that I EVER disagree with translators and not without very solid and good reasons when I do....John 3 is one of the few exceptions and I have very very good reasons. (Born again vx Born from Above)
The translators have often worked very diligently in good faith with clean consciences to create our translations....and often it was done by a committee when difficulties arise.
 

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
1,444
924
113
45
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I would say that some people overestimate their abilities to parse Hebrew in a coherent fashion. Basically it's going beyond what was said and using scissors on it at the same time....just to make it say what they wish it to say.
Anyone who thinks they have a solid grasp of Biblical Hebrew is overestimating their abilities. There's nobody alive who speaks that language or has ever known someone who did. ALL of it is put back together from literal scraps, using outside information and other people's translations.

It's not very often that I EVER disagree with translators and not without very solid and good reasons when I do....John 3 is one of the few exceptions and I have very very good reasons. (Born again vx Born from Above)

The translators have often worked very diligently in good faith with clean consciences to create our translations....and often it was done by a committee when difficulties arise.
Well, which translators and which manuscripts? There are several Bibles that I DON'T think are good faith efforts... e.g. pretty much every "chain reference" Bible.

Others are good faith efforts, but with bad methodology... my opinion of the NIV is low for this reason. "Thought for thought" is a bad methodology that opens the translators to more of their pre-conceptions creeping in. And there are paraphrases like The Living Bible which shouldn't even be called Bibles. No translation done... someone just paraphrased the English.

I've worked through translating quite a few chapters now, and the biggest thing I learned... there is NO perfect translation. It isn't even a possibility. Translating from Hebrew inherently does harm to the meaning, because it isn't possible to render the overloading of Hebrew words into another language.
 

ChristinaL

Active Member
Oct 4, 2024
366
173
43
54
Halifax
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It's very simple ....If the Bible doesn't tell us ...we simply don't know.
To adlib or fill in the blank is private interpretation ...The result of private interpretation is religious denominations.
This sort of question often comes up when people ask why is there no mention in the bible of Jesus between the ages of 12 and 30? Really very simple. Nothing happened. He would have grown up as any other young man, going to whatever passed for school in those days and apprenticing himself to Joseph
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen