Maybe Bob Dylan was right all along??
Democracy don't rule the world
You'd better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid
Union Sundown from the album Infidels - Bob Dylan
As the American dean of Science Fiction is alleged to have said.....
(Robert Heinlein)
God fights on the side of the heaviest artillery......
God fights on the side of the heaviest artillery......I thought that was Napoleon? Or was that battalions?
Maybe Bob Dylan was right all along??
Democracy don't rule the world
You'd better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid
Union Sundown from the album Infidels - Bob Dylan
As the American dean of Science Fiction is alleged to have said.....
(Robert Heinlein)
God fights on the side of the heaviest artillery......
So we are to learn to love and not hate, and overcome evil with good.
On 11/03/2026 07:58, Timreason wrote:
So we are to learn to love and not hate, and overcome evil with good.
Thanks for those thoughts.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 10/03/2026 14:02, hermeneutika wrote:
Maybe Bob Dylan was right all along??
Democracy don't rule the world
You'd better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid
Union Sundown from the album Infidels - Bob Dylan
As the American dean of Science Fiction is alleged to have said.....
(Robert Heinlein)
God fights on the side of the heaviest artillery......
I tend to interpret Genesis less literally than some, but I believe it
does impart to us underlying important ideas. In Genesis we are told
that after the Fall, Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel.
We are told that Cain and Abel gave sacrifices to the Lord, and the Lord looked on Abel's sacrifice more favourably than that offered by Cain. An argument ensued and that resulting in Cain murdering his brother Abel.
So, right at the beginning after the Fall, the killing started and Man
has been killing his brother ever since.
This tells us that there is something in the Fallen nature of Man, that
this propensity is now innate, and is a base nature that is very
difficult to overcome.
Christ's kingdom, however, is not of this world. He gave us clear
commands to love God and to love one-another, and to put those things
above all else. He did not 'Pick sides', He might have, since He says initially that He came 'For the Jews', but then He offered His salvation
to all Mankind and not just the Jews.
So we are to learn to love and not hate, and overcome evil with good.
Where Cain says, rCLAm I my brotherrCOs keeper?rCY, Christ says, rCLLove one another as I have loved you.rCY
Tim.
On 10/03/2026 14:02, hermeneutika wrote:
Maybe Bob Dylan was right all along??
Democracy don't rule the world
You'd better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid
Union Sundown from the album Infidels - Bob Dylan
As the American dean of Science Fiction is alleged to have said.....
(Robert Heinlein)
God fights on the side of the heaviest artillery......
There's a song by Lily Allen, called Him, which I rediscovered last week when listening to her music on Spotify.
"Ever since he can remember
People have died in his good name
Long before that September
Long before hijacking planes
He's lost the will, he can't decide
He doesn't know who's right or wrong
But there's one thing that he's sure of
This has been going on too long"
Christ's kingdom, however, is not of this world. He gave us clear
commands to love God and to love one-another, and to put those things
above all else. He did not 'Pick sides', He might have, since He says initially that He came 'For the Jews', but then He offered His salvation
to all Mankind and not just the Jews.
So we are to learn to love and not hate, and overcome evil with good.
Where Cain says, rCLAm I my brotherrCOs keeper?rCY, Christ says, rCLLove one another as I have loved you.rCY
I tend to interpret Genesis less literally than some, but I believe it
does impart to us underlying important ideas. In Genesis we are told
that after the Fall, Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel.
We are told that Cain and Abel gave sacrifices to the Lord, and the
Lord looked on Abel's sacrifice more favourably than that offered by
Cain. An argument ensued and that resulting in Cain murdering his
brother Abel.
So, right at the beginning after the Fall, the killing started and Man
has been killing his brother ever since.
This tells us that there is something in the Fallen nature of Man,
that this propensity is now innate, and is a base nature that is very difficult to overcome.
Christ's kingdom, however, is not of this world.
He gave us clear
commands to love God and to love one-another, and to put those things
above all else. He did not 'Pick sides',
He might have, since He says initially that He came 'For the Jews',
but then He offered His salvation to all Mankind and not just the
Jews.
So we are to learn to love and not hate, and overcome evil with good.
Where Cain says, rCLAm I my brotherrCOs keeper?rCY, Christ says, rCLLove one another as I have loved you.rCY
* Timreason <10or7b4$tc5g$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 11 Mar 2026 07:58:29 +0000:
I tend to interpret Genesis less literally than some, but I believe it
does impart to us underlying important ideas. In Genesis we are told
that after the Fall, Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel.
We are told that Cain and Abel gave sacrifices to the Lord, and the
Lord looked on Abel's sacrifice more favourably than that offered by
Cain. An argument ensued and that resulting in Cain murdering his
brother Abel.
So, right at the beginning after the Fall, the killing started and Man
has been killing his brother ever since.
This tells us that there is something in the Fallen nature of Man,
that this propensity is now innate, and is a base nature that is very
difficult to overcome.
John 8:44
Christ's kingdom, however, is not of this world.
It is not of the *present world*, which is to say the earth, given as it
is to satan with the power to monetise sin, but that does not mean
Christ is not the legitimate ruler of earth, and only holds office in "heaven". I believe the biblical promises of messiahship extends to the physical earth, and the establishment of Christ's kingdom here. (after redeemption and judgment)
He gave us clear
commands to love God and to love one-another, and to put those things
above all else. He did not 'Pick sides',
The message to the laodicans is to pick a side: choose God, reject
Satan. The statements on Mammon, James 4:4, and the whole undercurrent
of both testaments is to choose a side: choose God, reject Satan.
On 13/03/2026 02:26, Madhu wrote:
The message to the laodicans is to pick a side: choose God, reject
Satan. The statements on Mammon, James 4:4, and the whole undercurrent
of both testaments is to choose a side: choose God, reject Satan.
Again, that is a spiritual context of 'picking sides'. I was talking
about the context, of Jesus not coming to lead the Jews in an earthly
battle to overthrow the Romans. IOW not picking *human* sides. I
thought it was not necessary to clarify something I thought was
obvious.
I didn't intend to offend, or even elicit a defence from your side (to clarify the obvious) but I think the Gospel in general and Revelation in particular is a call for "action", where the spiritual choice manifestsObviously Christians have chosen Christ and rejected the devil. Exactly
in the earthly battle, in witnessing christ. e.g. if one sees that all propaganda is from the devil, witnessing christ involves rejecting all propaganda.
I didn't intend to offend, or even elicit a defence from your side (toObviously Christians have chosen Christ and rejected the
clarify the obvious) but I think the Gospel in general and Revelation in
particular is a call for "action", where the spiritual choice manifests
in the earthly battle, in witnessing christ. e.g. if one sees that all
propaganda is from the devil, witnessing christ involves rejecting all
propaganda.
devil. Exactly how that spiritual choice manifests itself in the
physical world is not specified in the Bible. Some feel called to go
to Calcutta and establish a home for the dying poor. Some feel called
to stand on a street corner in Chester and shout a Bible message. Some
lead a fairly conventional life in banking - say - but give generously
to charitable causes.
The only thing which a true Christian will not do is take up arms or
engage in violence. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus said.
I took my cue from the KJV and the archaic usage of hence to mean "from
this time",
Then there is the
christian dogma that Satan was defeated with the victory of Christ at
cross and that the Christian (and the church) participates in Jesus'
victory at the cross.
The local pastor is covering
Revelation on wednesdays, and the letters to the churches and the
references to the victory of the lamb seem to be, for me, the clue for
to resolve this issue.
Vulnerability to The risks from the Nicolatians,Quite possibly, though there is far more at play than just a conspiracy
Jezebel, etc. can come from "spiritual" or "secular" views that does not
take the power of evil in the world seriously, and instead work to
reconcile and justify it, often using a biblical basis.
On 14/03/2026 16:24, Madhu wrote:
I took my cue from the KJV and the archaic usage of hence to mean "from
this time",
Whereas I would understand it as "not from here"; ie. Jesus' kingdom was
not an earthly one.
Then there is the
christian dogma that Satan was defeated with the victory of Christ at
cross and that the Christian (and the church) participates in Jesus'
victory at the cross.
In exactly the same was a Hitler was defeated when the Allies stormed
ashore in Normandy and his attempts to dislodge them were defeated. The
war continued, but from then on Hitler was fighting a losing battle.
The local pastor is covering
Revelation on wednesdays, and the letters to the churches and the
references to the victory of the lamb seem to be, for me, the clue for
to resolve this issue.
Interpretations of Revelation are as numerous as the interpreters. The
last word has definitely not yet been spoken on how the book should be understood.
Vulnerability to The risks from the Nicolatians,Quite possibly, though there is far more at play than just a conspiracy
Jezebel, etc. can come from "spiritual" or "secular" views that does not
take the power of evil in the world seriously, and instead work to
reconcile and justify it, often using a biblical basis.
of bankers.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 14/03/2026 16:24, Madhu wrote:
Then there is the
christian dogma that Satan was defeated with the victory of Christ at
cross and that the Christian (and the church) participates in Jesus'
victory at the cross.
In exactly the same was a Hitler was defeated when the Allies stormed
ashore in Normandy and his attempts to dislodge them were
defeated. The war continued, but from then on Hitler was fighting a
losing battle.
The local pastor is covering
Revelation on wednesdays, and the letters to the churches and the
references to the victory of the lamb seem to be, for me, the clue for
to resolve this issue.
Interpretations of Revelation are as numerous as the interpreters. The
last word has definitely not yet been spoken on how the book should be understood.
How is satan fighting a losing battle?-a Let's say since Jesus's time
there have been 30 billion people born.-a At best less than half will go
on to eternal life, at worse, something like 10%.-a-a I'd say it's more likely to be the latter, or fairly close to, how is that a victory?
I'm enjoying the nuanced interpretations set out in this commentary,No doubt very profound and stuffed to the gills with theology, but as he appears to lack historical knowledge, he misses the true significance of
(without necessarily making them my own) https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/e-books/beasley-murray_g-r/revelation_new-century-bible_beasley-murray_g-r.pdf
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/e-books/beasley-murray_g-r/revelation_new-century-bible_beasley-murray_g-r.pdfNo doubt very profound and stuffed to the gills with theology, but as
he appears to lack historical knowledge, he misses the true
significance of many of the symbols.
To give just one example: Revelation 5 begins with reference to "a
book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals". The
NIV renders it as "a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with
seven seals."
In fact the KJV is more nearly right, provided one corrects the
punctuation. Excavations in Wadi Muraba'at uncovered examples of
scrolls that were "writen within, and on the back side sealed with
seals". In all three cases the scrolls were title deeds to property
owned by a lady called Babatha.
To avoid people changing the contents of the scroll, a sheet of
papyrus or parchment had the terms of the deeds written on the top
half, which was then tightly rolled up. It was kept closed by a
continuous thread which was wrapped around the rolled up portion and
punched through the unrolled part and knotted on the back. Over each
knot a witness would place his seal (and his name written below the
seal). On one of the scrolls a summary of its contents was written on
the unrolled portion.
If the ownership of the property was ever called into dispute, the
deed holder would produce his title deeds in court. Each witness would
be identified by name and summoned to testify to to the validity of
his seal and to what he knew about the property and the seal would be
broken. When all the seals were broken and all the witnesses had
testified, the scroll could then be unrolled and its contents verified
by the court.
I presume that Mr Beasley-Murray has never heard of the Wadi Muraba'at
and therefore has no clue about the true significance of the heavenly
court scene in chapters 4 and 5 or the opening of the seals (breaking
of the seals) in chapters 6 and 7.
I fear you may be doing Mr. Beasley-Murray injustice. While he doesn't mention Wadi Muraba'at, he addresses all the points you have made aboveIf he is not aware of Babatha and her legal documents, then he will not
when he deals with the scholarship on the matter upto that point of time (presumably 1974?), and resolves the views of Rollers and Zahn in 4
pages of introduction (pp. 120-123, pdf starting page 119), before
starting the commentary
On 16/03/2026 07:26, Madhu wrote:
I fear you may be doing Mr. Beasley-Murray injustice. While he doesn'tIf he is not aware of Babatha and her legal documents, then he will
mention Wadi Muraba'at, he addresses all the points you have made above
when he deals with the scholarship on the matter upto that point of time
(presumably 1974?), and resolves the views of Rollers and Zahn in 4
pages of introduction (pp. 120-123, pdf starting page 119), before
starting the commentary
not be aware of the true significance of the scroll "written within,
and on the backside sealed with seven seals".
On the contrary the historical knowledge he presents, without referring
to your three particular dead sea scrolls, is sufficient to understand
the symbols. No point that you have stated in your post is missed in
his presentation, which also goes into other details.
On 17/03/2026 14:35, Madhu wrote:
On the contrary the historical knowledge he presents, without referring
to your three particular dead sea scrolls, is sufficient to understand
the symbols. No point that you have stated in your post is missed in
his presentation, which also goes into other details.
Unfortunately he doesn't give references for his many assertions. For example, he claims that certain documents were always sealed with
seven seals. I would like to know his evidence for that claim.
Furthermore he makes heavy weather of the "No man worthy to open the
seals" when in fact it is very simple from the legal point of
view. Who is authorised - who has the legal authority to stand up in
court and call the witnesses and sum up the evidence?
Finally, because he doesn't realise that the seals are the seals of witnesses, he fails to understand the significance of the "Come", the equivalent in our courts of "Call Mr XYXX", and that the horsemen and
so on are the testimony to who is the rightful owner of the property
in dispute.
Except the courtroom drama analogy breaks down here because there aren't seven individual witnesses who sealed the scroll who are now beingUnfortunately for your argument, "and see" (or "and hear") does not
called up at the unsealing event. The unsealing is entirely due to the
lamb. "Come and See" is not addressed to John in the sense, John was
not an original witness who was present at the sealing. "Come and Hear"
is the call (synonmyous with halakah) with which the rabbinic courts dispensed judgement. Each unsealing was accompanied by judgements on
thw world, and this is what I think is referred to here.
Unfortunately for your argument, "and see" (or "and hear") does not
appear in the earliest manuscripts, which is why more modern
translations simply have "Come!" Which, of course, fits in entirely
with my understanding that it is a court room and it is the witnesses
who are being summoned.
This is a point made in the book you have referenced, so I'm surprised
you didn't pick up on it.
I did notice it, so it wasn't a new point (for me) when you brought it
up with the scrolls. I still think the bare "Come"s may be the elders calling the horses and their demonic riders to come..
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 16:03:36 |
| Calls: | 863 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
11 files (21,614K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,788 |