It's from Egypt; it MUST be Bad

I thought Baptists believe in the Trinity? Do the Eastern Orthodox have a view of the Trinity that differs from ours?

 

I don't think so unless you are into hair-splitting.

If I am remembering correctly, the difference has primarily to do with what is called the "Procession of the Holy Spirit" and whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or the Father only. Here is an outside blurb...

HankD

 

Yet there is not one example of the consensus of Byzantine witnesses having an altered text from the Alexandrians, for example, in order to propagate their views on theology. (Examples, Dr. Bob, would be nice!)

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

I'm KJV and I don't think that. Egypt was used to typify evil in the Bible, and Egypt was also used for hiding.

Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (two tribes of Israel), were half Egyptian - Genesis 46

Jeremiah and the King's Daughters fled to Egypt and Jeremiah prophesied there. Jeremiah 43

Besides hiding Jesus.

 

Why was Egypt referred to by God so often? Because the Israelis had spent 400 years there, and had grown from the original 70 which had journeyed to Egypt while Joseph was grand vizier, to the hundreds of thousands who left under Moses. The Israelis had received a daily dose of Amon & Set worship, as well as being made into the Egyptians' brick makers. The israelis had suffered mucho evil in Egypt, so it's only natural they should think evil of it.

Egypt was eventually replaced by Amalek & Philistia as the boogerman of Israel.

Many people don't know that the Amalekites were the "Hyksos" who ruled Egypt for several hundred years. The Amalekite fort Saul destroyed was Auris in Egypt, which sat astride the caravans' path to Israel and Canaan, and which exacted a tax upon every caravan going either way. The caravans HAD to stop there because it contained the only oasis for many miles. The Egyptians simply did not have the military know-how nor the weapons to resist the Hyksos, as they had been greatly weakened by the "ten plagues", including the destruction of their cavalry in the Red sea. They were on their way to Egypt when the Israelis encountered them in the wilderness.

When Saul destroyed Auris, that broke the Hyksos' power, and the Egyptians were able to kill or expel the rest of them. Egypt remained grateful to Israel for several generations for Israel's help, and a healthy trade began between the two nations which lasted for hundreds of years.

Also, more than one Egyptian had left with the Israelis.

The whole Egypt thing is just another attempt by the KJVOs to justify their myth.

 

Isaiah 30:1-2
"1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:
2 That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!"

 

God had specifically told the Jews left behind by Nebuchadnezzar to NOT go to Egypt.

And Israel had done the same thing before, trusting in the ASSYRIANS instead of GOD.

These verses are a rebuke of certain Israelis for depending upon EGYPT for military might while ignoring God. They have nothing to do with Egypt's being evil or otherwise.

 

That was what I was referring to in my posts about KJVo's misinterpreting what Egypt really meant, roby. I just don't understand how some can be so lax in their hermeneutics.

 

Isaiah 19:20-22
20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
21 And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it.
22 And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.

 

Those verses are a clear indication(among others) that God still has some love for Egypt.

What other nations not directly descended from Abraham has He promised to restore? Elam? It became part of Persia. Now, we'll just hafta wait-n-see if He restores Elam as a sovereign nation separate from Iran.

God said Egypt would be the BASEST OF NATIONS, and that's been true. Egypt depends upon US for much of their FOOD...and they're scared to death of the JEWS. Egypt was ruled by others from the time of Nebuchadnezzar until the British finally relinquished control in 1953. For many centuries, various foreign rulers had drained Egypt's resources, leaving her quite poor and weak. Perhaps God's punishment of Egypt is almost over, as it is for the Jews. However, by the verses Dogsbody posted, God's gonna purge Egypt of Islam, same as He'll purge the Jews of "Judaism".

I believe Isaiah 19 is the "clincher" that God has something special and wonderful for Egypt in the future. The whole KJVO thing about Alexandrian mss is just a "lottery ticket" with which they hope to get someone else to believe their false doctrine.

 

This is so, Roby, but again, see how they are being used in a derogatory manner. Again, bad hermeneutics on Dog's part.

 

Correct:
Eastern Orthodoxy asserts that while both Son and Spirit are divine and one in nature with God the Father, they each have a unique relationship with and to Him. This difference of relationship may be expressed in the statement that the Son is eternally generated by the Father, while the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father [16]. In the Eastern Orthodox conception of the Trinity, the emphasis is on the distinct personalities within the God-head. The West has tended to emphasize the unity within the God-head. It is imperative to keep in mind that neither side has denied that the Trinity is one divine nature expressed in three persons. The difference between the two is one of emphasis and not of content.

The EO soteriology is also very different. EO theology has always revolved around the concept of theosis, or participation in the Divine Nature while maintaining a distinct nature as a person. Catholic and Protestant theology in the West emphasize the judicial aspect of salvation. In short, salvation IS what we would most closely call sanctification, for the Eastern Church. For us, salvation involves justification first, then sanctification, then glorification.

I was merely pointing out that the KJVO crowd freqently says the Alex. MSS are tainted by Roman Catholicism, but they never, ever deal with these major issues in the Byzantine Church itself. In other words, they use guilt by association in order to rule out consideration of the Alex. texttype, then exercise a double standard themselves with regard to the associations for the Byzantine texttype.

 

Actually, Amalek was a son of Esau's first-born son Eliphaz and of the concubine Timna. Not Egyptian.

 

Isa.19
[1] The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
[2] And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.
[3] And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.
[4] And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts.
[5] And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.
[6] And they shall turn the rivers far away; and the brooks of defence shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags shall wither.
[7] The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, and every thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be driven away, and be no more.
[8] The fishers also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall languish.
[9] Moreover they that work in fine flax, and they that weave networks, shall be confounded.
[10] And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for fish.
[11] Surely the princes of Zoan are fools, the counsel of the wise counsellers of Pharaoh is become brutish: how say ye unto Pharaoh, I am the son of the wise, the son of ancient kings?
[12] Where are they? where are thy wise men? and let them tell thee now, and let them know what the LORD of hosts hath purposed upon Egypt.
[13] The princes of Zoan are become fools, the princes of Noph are deceived; they have also seduced Egypt, even they that are the stay of the tribes thereof.
[14] The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit.
[15] Neither shall there be any work for Egypt, which the head or tail, branch or rush, may do.
[16] In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: and it shall be afraid and fear because of the shaking of the hand of the LORD of hosts, which he shaketh over it.
[17] And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of the LORD of hosts, which he hath determined against it.
[18] In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
[19] In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD.
[20] And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
[21] And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it.
[22] And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.
[23] In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.
[24] In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:
[25] Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

 

Actually, Amalek was a son of Esau's first-born son Eliphaz and of the concubine Timna. Not Egyptian. </font>[/QUOTE]I think the point is that the Amalekites, the descendents of Amalek are thought to be Hyksos who eventually conquered Egypt and ruled it and thus became Egyptians themselves. Egyptian history is very fluid. It has gone through multiple dynasties just like China has. Egyptian society has tended to eventually absorb those that conquer it and rule it. Additionally, there is reference to the land of the Amalekites at the time of Abraham, which may indicate that there were Amalekites before the birth of Amalek and that they took his name perhaps when he rose to power (since the reference is most like geographical to give the recipients of Genesis a point of reference and not given as an affirmation that there were people called Amalekites at the time of Abraham...more of a "those people we call Amalekites were around at the time of Abraham, but they probably weren't called Amalekites back then, they only took that name later).


There was an Egypt and Egyptians before the Hyksos conquered it and ruled it. We can approximate the Flood of Noah. We know Egyptian history before the time at which the Flood is usually approximated. One of the arguments agains the Flood has to do with the history of Egypt being very complete. The argument goes that, if the Flood had occurred, their history would show it. However, what these folks don't account for is that during one of the interludes between major dynastic periods, one of which occurred at the same time as the Great Flood, Egyptian history very suddenly becomes extremely spotty. It records a time of great social upheaval, an "every man for himself" lawless mentality, which parallels the condition of the world and mens' hearts and actions during Noah's own time that Scripture describes. Then, there is a very short silence of a few years, which occurs at about the same time as we think the Flood occurred.

Their history then picks up again, not long afterward. By time of Abraham, Egyptian society had been rebuilt. Around the time of Joseph certain of the Hyksos are believed to have begun their rule of Egypt. The Amalekites, either Amalek's descendants or a people that took his name, are believed to have intermarried with the Hyksos and thus some of them were absorbed into Egyptian society. We do know that the Hyksos and the Amalekites are the same people that ruled Egypt with great cruelty for several dynasties. Their description of them, what there is, in Egyptian history matches the description of the Amalekites given in the Bible in terms of their geographical origin, their cruelty, and the things they did. Others of them intermarried with the Persians. Haman, for example, was one such person for whom this is true, and he was a descendent of Agag, an Amalekite king.

 

Agreed. I was just pointing out the truth from the beginning, not that I disagreed.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, LOL.

Thank you for elaborating - that makes this thread more interesting.

 

I would like to show for the record that I did NOT give an interpretation of these verses, I only posted scripture. Why would anyone jump to any conclusions without all the facts, without knowing who I was or my agenda? Not that anyone here would really give a rip. BWT, here it is: I want to see who would be the first to jump to conclusions. No one here has the slightest idea of “my” hermeneutics. Oh and I’m not so daft as to think so highly of myself that all “mine” would be correct! A few years ago I don’t even know what the word meant.

Robycop3, you did just fine, got right back on track and into the scripture. The other fellow, oh well. It’s just as bad as the guy who practically broke his neck trying to see what kind of bible I was carrying when I visited his church a few years back. Or the young preacher who criticized me for comforting a lady while door knocking by using “her” bible per her request.

Oh, and to any KJVO; why don’t you just come out and answer the oft repeated question, “Show me from scripture…. come clean and just admit it’s not there. Show a little dignity! At least come here with some facts and give up the hypothetical, convoluted conspiracy. You’re only hurting your position. Show some facts.

And the Anti-KJVO, why don’t you quit asking the repetitious question, quit beating a dead horse. Show a little dignity! Oh, but wait, you all are more highly educated than your KJVO brethren, aren’t you?

Bring some humble facts and not your pride and pompousness.

One last question for you all. KJVO and Anti-KJVO, concerning what you think you know.
Did you learn it from man or receive it by direct revelation from God?

And before any of you jump on it, yes, I’m just as pathetic!

“It is of the LORD’s mercies that we are not consumed, …

…because his compassions fail not.

They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.

Oh, Dr. Bob. Lose the bowtie.

 

Dog, it wasn't the just the posting of the scriptures, it was the timing and NO EXPLANATION. You brought the assessment upon yourself. As far as what you think of me, that is of little or no consequence. I'm not particularly worried about that. If you don't like what I posted, don't read it. Oh, and have a nice day.

 

Dogsbody: It?s just as bad as the guy who practically broke his neck trying to see what kind of bible I was carrying when I visited his church a few years back.

Was he KJVO? Didja offer him a cervical collar?

Or the young preacher who criticized me for comforting a lady while door knocking by using ?her? bible per her request.

Did HE try to comfort her?

I use the Bible requested by the audience, unless, of course, it's one of the bogus ones.

Oh, and to any KJVO; why don?t you just come out and answer the oft repeated question, ?Show me from scripture?. come clean and just admit it?s not there. Show a little dignity! At least come here with some facts and give up the hypothetical, convoluted conspiracy. You?re only hurting your position. Show some facts.

Hope ya brought soap & toothbrush. I've been asking them for over 20 years.

And the Anti-KJVO, why don?t you quit asking the repetitious question, quit beating a dead horse. Show a little dignity! Oh, but wait, you all are more highly educated than your KJVO brethren, aren?t you?

I ask that same question mostly outta sarcasm because I know they cannot answer it truthfully because there ISN'T any Scripture even remotely hinting at KJVOism. I do not believe ANY non-scriptural doctrines. But before anyone says, "You believe in the Holy Trinity and this term's not in Scripture", lemme remind you that all 3 personages are called GOD in various Scriptures.

One last question for you all. KJVO and Anti-KJVO, concerning what you think you know.
Did you learn it from man or receive it by direct revelation from God?

When first confronted with the versions issue, I resolved to learn all I could about it. I spent hours & hours reading everything I could find about it. Thus I learned that KJVO is false, that it's entirely man-made, etc. How much GOD helped me, I cannot answer because very often God's acts aren't apparent to us. I have no doubt He caused me to discover many of the things I've read, but I had to put forth the effort to read and learn. God did NOT automatically upload things into my head.

I remind people of my experience of having a flat tire at 2:30 in the morning along Rt.23 in Ohio. I couldn't pull off entirely away from the driving lane, and I prayed to God to protect me. Do I believe God could simply have fixed the tire? Absolutely. Do I believe God could've protected me from the traffic? Again, absolutely. But what if I'd sat in my car praying for God to fix my tire? Most likely my car would still be there. And what if I hadn't observed the traffic while changing the tire? What if I hadn't left my flashers on or erected my reflective triangle? I did MY part and God did HIS. In the case of KJVO, my part was to make the effort and set aside the time to study. It was God's will to assist me as He chose.

"GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS HIS WONDERS TO PERFORM"

As for the Egyptian mss thingy, don't you agree it's the KJVOs beating another spot on a still-dead horse?