Chicago police confirm 'tragic number' of 500 homicides
Chicago reached âa tragic numberâ today, according to Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy: Its homicide total for the year hit 500, the highest annual total since 2008.
The city's latest homicide occurred around 9 p.m. Thursday when Nathaniel T. Jackson, 40, an alleged gang member with a lengthy arrest record, was gunned down outside a store in the Austin neighborhood.
As of Thursday night, homicides were up 17 percent over last year in Chicago and shootings had increased by 11 percent, according to police statistics. Earlier this fall, Chicago already exceeded the number of homicides that occurred last year, but this is the first time the city has had 500 or more murders since the 512 in 2008....
Publican wrote: I'm not sure what you mean, Frank. Your 11:07 post was addressed at 7:18. I didn't understand the relevance.
Sorry for this late response. I didn't find your post in response to my 11:07 post? You asked for examples and I simply gave you the ones that I had previously used. In other words, yes there are clear examples of the term 1,000 years not being literal. But for you to use those clear figurative examples to deconstruct the clear literal ones is bad hermeneutics. It is like the Old Earth folks finding scripture where a day isn't literally 24 hours and then plugging that in wherever they want.
The example of a door and sheep was also an attempt to show things that were clearly not meant to be literal. No one would say Jesus was a door, etc. You and I would agree on that.
The other part of your post is something I would have to think about, but I'm not sure it is on topic. Others have mentioned Satan being bound etc., but I am simply talking about your hermeneutic that allows you to say scripture means whatever you want it to mean. But, I don't have to understand the 1,000 years, for it to be true. I'm not sure if there is sufficient space available to go there, but I will if you want.
Lurker wrote: Yes, that's a fair assessment as long as it is understood that your presuppositions are you own and obviously not all presuppositions are in error. But here's the crux: How do we know which presupposition is truth or error if we have not put it to the test?
Yes, there are some cults who believe an animal has an eternal spirit based upon one verse only in the Bible.
But let us say that we have a doctrine T. Fifteen parts support T and only one part seems to be against it. What we then do is accept T as a true doctrine, and say we cannot understand the one part which seems to go against it. At least, that is what I tend to do!
John UK wrote: 1. No I've not heard of that. 2. So that if I derive five doctrines from one chapter of scripture which are actually true, they nevertheless remain presuppositions until proven to agree with the rest of the whole of scripture? Is that it?
Yes, that's a fair assessment as long as it is understood that your presuppositions are your own and obviously not all presuppositions are in error. But here's the crux: How do we know which presupposition is truth or error if we have not put it to the test? Far too many in this age are content to warm a pew an hour a week and leave the driving to the preacher. This is our eternal destinies we are talking about and we won't get a second chance to get it right on the last day.
One other thing I wanted to say. Many read the bible like a book. But God is the perfect author who inspired much more than a one dimension book. The bible is an organic whole and all the parts are interrelated and integrated at some point. I'd like to say more but words escape me to articulate the perfect harmony God has interwoven throughout this masterpiece we call the bible. When I see violence wrought on this harmony by views such as Publican has set fourth, it makes me cry. I'd like to help him but his heels are dug in.
Lurker wrote: 1. Have you ever heard of the hermeneutic circle? 2. The circle begins. We read the bible the first time to determine if, for example, there is a God as we have heard. Once convinced by the whole, the part is no longer a presupposition but a biblically established fact, the whole is a bit clearer, the first circle is complete and the process begins again.
1. No I've not heard of that.
2. So that if I derive five doctrines from one chapter of scripture which are actually true, they nevertheless remain presuppositions until proven to agree with the rest of the whole of scripture? Is that it?
John UK wrote: Thank you Lurker for explaining what you meant about the paradoxes. Let me try this on you, and see if I have grasped the principle you espouse.
Have you ever heard of the hermeneutic circle? It's the principal that the whole can't be understood apart from an understanding of the sum of the parts and the parts can't be understood apart from an understanding of the whole. You might then say, if this be true it is impossible to ever understand the bible because all any of us ever begin with are presuppositions.... tidbits about the bible we have been exposed to by outside sources which may or may not be true.
The circle then begins. We read the bible the first time to determine if, for example, there is a God as we have heard. Once convinced by the whole, the part is no longer a presupposition but a biblically established fact, the whole is a bit clearer, the first circle is complete and the process begins again.
In addition, there are two hermeneutics I use strictly 1)scripture interprets scripture 2)cross referencing (source prophecy to fulfillment (Luke 4:21) and context such as Rev 6:9-11 to Rev 20:4 in this discussion.)
Publican hasn't applied these principals to his view and the result is a corrupted timeline/storyline.
Well, I have always believed that the 144, 000 mentioned in Revelation is a literal number. Not in the way that a Jehovah's witness does though, of course. The number sounds too specific to be symbolical. 12 tribes...
Thank you Lurker for explaining what you meant about the paradoxes. Let me try this on you, and see if I have grasped the principle you espouse.
If it can be adequately shown from scripture that the next event in world history is the Second Advent of The Lord of Glory, being heralded by the sound of a great trumpet, and seen by everyone in the world, even by those who pierced him, and that this coming is on the day that the heavens are rolled up like a scroll, every human resurrected and brought to judgment, the world burnt up, the sheep and goats separated forever, the sheep into the eternal felicity and the goats into the fire of hell for eternity, along with the devil and his angels.....
...then a one thousand year reign of Christ from Jerusalem cannot possibly be true, and the passages in the book of Revelation, and some of the prophets in the OT, must be understood in a way that is different from literal.
I'm not sure what you mean, Frank. Your 11:07 post was addressed at 7:18. To answer my post at 8:13, you went off to sheep and doors, after I demonstrated that the 'rules of comparison' did not apply. I didn't understand the relevance. Why did you go there? Here is a brief scenario. Ever since the fall, the world has been in the grasp of the wicked. He is the god of this age. The prince of the power of the air. In order to our salvation, the Lord Christ made a supernatural 'intrusion' into our world, that never would have happened in the natural course of history. Satan was overcome, bound, put on hold, if you will, and could do nothing to thwart the plan of God in this regard. I have no doubt but that he thought he was upsetting God's plan by manipulating the authorities to kill the Son of God, not realizing that this was the plan. He was completely bound by the Lord, to be utterly impotent to do anything but comply with the Lord's design, despite the fact that it appeared, at that time, to believer and unbeliever alike, that Satan had triumphed. Mission accomplished by our Lord, He ascended into heaven, Satan is 'released' to go on about his intended work of the destruction of the church. His time is 'short' it is said. 2000 years in the spiritual realm is nothing. OK?
Publican wrote: I'm not sure I comprehend your post, Lurker.
1) Christians slain and their souls are with Christ. 'Absent from the body, present with the Lord'. First resurrection. Dead live again. In a spiritual realm.
2) I do not understand the quandary.
1) "Absent from the body, present with the Lord" is a New Covenant distinctive (2 Cor 5:8). Christ crucified and risen again is the NC (Is 42:6). Yet according to your view, these martyred saints under the altar (Rev 6:9-11), awaiting the Lamb to avenge their innocent blood, were pleading for the slain (crucified) Lamb's (Rev 5:6) righteous judgment before He was baptized by John baptist. Your view has some major timeline/storyline problems.
2) If you believe the quandary is mine, I'll not waste any more of your time.
Lurker wrote: Hello fellow ember! Indeed, the onus is on us to put to the test the doctrines we believe and hold dear. It is one thing to be shamed among brothers and sisters in Christ when something we have long held to be true is shown to be false (although there is no shame in being mistaken but in refusing caring biblical correction) but quite another to to be found wanting in front of Christ's judgment seat. 500 years ago. "whippersnappers"....
I figured that although you are my younger brother, you would like the whippersnapper comment. Once again, I agree with all of your comments, although not the 500 year one. NICE TRY THOUGH. We discussed this once before, but it is amazing to me how illogical some people can be and how poorly they address the weaknesses of their arguments. Lord willing, this fellow will realize how mystical his approach to scripture is. Or maybe Gnostic? Or maybe both. Or maybe neither.
I really liked your comment and thoughts on shame. I actually love it when it finally dawns on me that I am wrong; no shame.
Anyway, it is great hearing from you again brother.
Nowhere in your 12/31/12 do you address this passage, US. And I am truly sorry that you went through all that trouble, because I asked that when you find the many places where the term is used, and you believe it is not literal; tell me why. And as far as the verses you posted; I never even hinted that I had a problem with: 2.000 pieces of silver; 7,300 men; 1,400 chariots; 1,000 cubits eastward, or any such thing. Ps. 50:10, 68:17, 91:7, 105:8. These are the usages I was asking you to examine, as well as others like them. I am not a little astounded that you do not know of this interpretation of the 144,000. Virtually everyone I have heard expound this has this in mind. 12 tribes of Israel x 12 apostles x 1000 (generally known as a number of completion). The JW's believe that is all that is going to be in heaven.
I'm not sure I comprehend your post, Lurker. Christians slain and their souls are with Christ. 'Absent from the body, present with the Lord'. First resurrection. Dead live again. In a spiritual realm. I do not understand the quandary.
Frank wrote: Well said Ember! Paradoxes are there and so are what I call bookends. I like your thoughts on presuppositions that erroneously guide us. I am just as guilty as the next fellow when that occurs, but most don't even realize that is one of our greatest challenges when studying God's word. Those that recognize the dangers of that are one step ahead, so to speak. Good comment, thanks! Some of these whippersnappers will figure all that out.
Hello fellow ember!
Indeed, the onus is on us to put to the test the doctrines we believe and hold dear. It is one thing to be shamed among brothers and sisters in Christ when something we have long held to be true is shown to be false (although there is no shame in being mistaken but in refusing caring biblical correction) but quite another to to be found wanting in front of Christ's judgment seat. We will have no excuse because we all have a bible as the result of His work nearly 500 years ago.
Thanks for you comment and encouragement as I'm not always able to reply in a timely manner.
Publican wrote: I need something from the Word of God.
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
(These slain souls are noted in Rev 6:9-11 awaiting the avenging of their innocent blood by the Lamb who had already been slain, resurrected and glorified at the right hand of the Father.)
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
(Was there a resurrection after Jesus was baptized by John? The only mention of a resurrection other than the Rev 20 first resurrection of dead souls (the second of dead bodies at the great white throne judgment) is in Matthew 27:52-53 after Jesus' resurrection. Of course there are several mentions in the prophets eg: Ezek 37:11-14 and Isaiah 26:19.)
This is what I spoke of earlier. Contradictions are a clue that an interpretation is in error. I don't see any way you can defend this view, brother.
Psalms 90:4 KJV4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
2 Peter 3:7-8 KJV 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
So that you understand my thoughts, notice in the above verses how the Holy Spirit uses âbut asâ in Psalms 90 and then something that is clearly not the thousand years, âa watch in the nightâ. Then in 2nd Peter He uses one day and this says âas aâ thousand years, etc. Now in the Re 20 verses there are no such comparisons being made. And once again, remember He does this 6 times.
The above is from an earlier post I made. Also notice the time and date of an earlier post made by Unprofitable Servant, listed below.
12/31/12 2:53 PM
The Jehovah Witnesses believe the 144,000 represent the maximum amount of those that will go to heaven if I'm not mistaken. But it has been a while since I studied their doctrines.
No one is saying there is no figurative language in Re. or in scripture.
Publican wrote: I do not understand why this must be literal, when nothing else in this entire scenario is. When the term thousand is used in scripture, it virtually never means a thousand, literally. As a matter of, I am hard pressed to find anywhere that it does...
You may have missed my 12/31/12 2:53 PM post, everything in the entire scenario is literal. However, since you are wondering where verses are that thousand is literal, here is a partial list of the nearly 400 (and you were hard pressed to find any instances) verses: Genesis 20:16; Exodus 12:37; Exodus 32:28; Exodus 38:25.26,28.29; Leviticus 26:8;Numbers1:21,23,25,27,29,31,33,35,37,39,41,43,46;2:4,6,8,9,11,13,15,16,19,21,21,23, etc. etc etc (see Numbers 31:4,5,6;35:4;Joshua 23:10'Judges 15:15,16;II Samuel 8:4;18:12;19:7 etc. etc. if you just want to see the number 1,000). SA's character limitation will not allow me to put all the verses, but obviously a 1,000 meant 1,000. To be honest, I have never seen anybody believe that the 144,000 represents the elect of all ages, (although there certainly must be some who do,obviously my knowledge is limited) it does not even seem to me (IMHO) like a good interpretation.
I do not understand why this must be literal, when nothing else in this entire scenario is. When the term thousand is used in scripture, it virtually never means a thousand, literally. As a matter of, I am hard pressed to find anywhere that it does. The term itself is indefinite. There are even places where a specific number of thousand is figurative. Ps. 68: 91:7 etc. Why everyone insists that of all places where thousand is used, this must be the only place it is literal, I cannot comprehend. And the 144,000 is almost universally believed to represent the entire number of the elect in all ages (Jehovah's Witnesses excepted). There is no reason to take this thousand literally. Search the scriptures, and when you find those places where the term thousand is used, and you believe it is not literal; tell me why.
Publican wrote: Forcing the necessity of 'like' or 'as', on this scripture to mean something, is an imposition on the Word of God, and this 'rule' is contradicted hundreds of times in the bible. Please don't make me enumerate them. This entire scenario is spiritual: dead Christians in heaven; Angel binding dragon, where there is no reference to time, only activity. Again, this is using the scripture to define scripture. Not my reasoning, not current events, nothing but God's word.
I agree with some of your thoughts. For instance Jesus was not a literal door and I am not a literal sheep. As you know, some things in scripture are figures of speech, metaphors or analogies and "like" or "as" are not used. But, in Re. 20, there is no reason to not take the 1,000 literally unless you are guilty of eisegesis. You are stating your case, but not refuting by scriptures what Mike, Rufus, or I am saying. The issue is the 1,000 years and your hermeneutic. Please explain why that term is not literal in Re. 20. Now, I have never given much thought to the 144,000, but I would say that was literal. But, if you could prove it wasn't literal, that would have nothing to do with the 1,000 year argument.