Author Topic: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11  (Read 1975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« on: Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 11:37:12 »
I had posted the following in another thread which eventually got buried and with no response. I thought I would bring it out into the open (special thread) because I believe its significance is of great importance, especially when the dispensational view of the millennial kingdom is at stake.  This view states that actual animals like wolves and lambs will dwell together in total harmony in a yet future time.

I vehemently disagree although I once held to that view myself for more than 20 years.  Please see the slightly edited interchange that has occurred and some of his (Bible2) defending points defending the view of ACTUAL animals.  I had already shown that animals has clearly represented Gentiles in the Acts 10 vision with the summary in Acts 10:28.  There are several places in the Bible where this animal symbolism is clear...

Acts 10:28 - And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call ANY MAN common or unclean.  

I believe the Apostle Paul (as well as Isaiah) is using animals in the same symbolic nature and I also believe that the STRICT TIMING from Isaiah 11 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt this premise.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said (in reply #86):

The kicker is that we all know that Isaiah 11:10's "IN THAT DAY" refers back to the description given in Isaiah 11:1-9, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE ANIMALS AND HOW THEY WOULD BEHAVE TOGETHER.

Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12, just as he also quotes other OT verses in Romans 15:9-12, only to support the general principle that God had always intended to save Gentiles (Romans 15:9a) as well as Jews (Romans 15:8), and so the salvation of Gentiles that was going in Paul's day (e.g. Romans 11:13-24) (and is still going on today) was God's will.

In Romans 15:12, Paul purposely leaves out the "In that day" part of Isaiah 11:10, just as he purposely in no way refers to the animals in Isaiah 11:6-9, because he's in no way referring to the specific time frame of Isaiah 11:6-16. For the end of the suffering of all the animals (Isaiah 11:6-9) won't happen until the still-unfulfilled physical-body resurrection of the church (Romans 8:19-25).


The interesting thing about Bible2's "general Principle" theory is that it comes with Isaiah's time stamp of "in that day."  This is when your general principle (if you want to call it that) begins its fulfillment.  I call it a prophecy because it has a time stamp.  Real general principle Scriptures are similar to "Love thy neighbor."  These don't have time stamps and therefore they are not prophecies.  The book of Proverbs is full of these kinds of general principles.

Your presumed reality of actual, physical animals is governing your thinking.  Allow the text to speak for itself.

Isaiah 11:1 - And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Isaiah 11:10 - And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
 

A most important point missed by Bible2 is that the whole idea of "in that day" is dependent upon the time frame of the root or stem of Jesse coming to fruition (Isaiah 11:1).  Bible2 has assumed that this period refers to his millennial kingdom AFTER the parousia event.  This is his main error.  He must presume this because of his presupposition that the animals are actual animals and not symbolic of anything.  It is also why he must assign a "general principle" to a future prophecy.  "General principles" are true all the time, not just some time in the future.


Isaiah emphatically states that "in that day" is when this root of Jesse shall be and stand for an ensign.  TO THIS ROOT WHICH IS ESTABLISHED AT THIS TIME IS WHEN THE GENTILES SEEK - NOT BEFORE.


Bible2 must assign his "general principle" theory to this prophecy in order to dismiss the CLEAR timing (when the root of Jesse is established) given to this prophecy.

Were there Gentiles seeking this root of Jesse any time PRIOR to the establishment of Christ's earthly ministry?  Emphatically, NO!!  And why?  Because the root of Jesse had not yet been established!  So much for the general principle, right?

Were there Gentiles seeking this root of Jesse any time AFTER the establishment of Christ's earthly ministry?  Emphatically, YES!!  And why?  Because the root of Jesse had been established!  

And once again, I cannot stress enough the importance of the "in that day" (root of Jesse being established) as the time in which these Gentiles would or even could seek.  They cannot seek UNLESS and UNTIL the root of Jesse (Jesus Christ) had been established.  We see the Gentiles seeking Christ in the first century after the establishment of His earthly ministry!

Therefore, the root of Jesse had been established.  It is Christ's earthly ministry when this is established - NOT AFTER HIS PAROUSIA IN A YET FUTURE TIME FRAME...

As for Paul leaving out the "in that day" from Romans 15:12...well, that is very weak indeed.  When expressing OT fulfillments, the prophet's reference to the future time is often left out because the time for that fulfillment had arrived.  It makes no difference whether it is included or not included.  It is a moot point.  We know Paul was referring to Isaiah 11:10 and we know that the Gentiles HAD BEEN seeking the root of Jesse...

And we know that they could not even begin to seek UNTIL the root of Jesse had been established.

Folks, it doesn't get any clearer than this.  I have no doubt that Bible2 is NOT going to reconsider his millennial understanding of his actual, physical animals because the very foundation for his paradigm insists upon the animals going bad at the fall - despite the fact that there are no Scriptures that mentions this.  It is presumed because of a misunderstanding of metaphorical and symbolic texts similar to these in Isaiah...

And concerning Romans 8, if Bible2 wants to assign consciousness to inanimate objects, I guess I can't stop him.  I see it as being totally ludicrous.  Anybody ever witnessed to a rock these days?  Isn't redemption (the cure for sin) through the message of the Gospel?  Could it be that Bible2 teaches another Gospel for the inanimate rocks and trees?

Acts 13:22-23 - And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.  
23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

« Last Edit: Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 15:09:52 by EdwardGoodie »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11855
  • Manna: 345
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #1 on: Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 17:27:30 »
Have you read 1Enoch, Edward?

I made a post about this awhile ago, but it was mostly ignored:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/apologetics-and-faith/the-animal-apocalypse/

Jarrod

thethinker

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #2 on: Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 18:25:04 »
Have you read 1Enoch, Edward?

I made a post about this awhile ago, but it was mostly ignored:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/apologetics-and-faith/the-animal-apocalypse/

Jarrod


I read it Jarrod and it was quite good.

thanks,

thinker

EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #3 on: Wed Nov 23, 2011 - 11:31:24 »
Have you read 1Enoch, Edward?

I made a post about this awhile ago, but it was mostly ignored:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/apologetics-and-faith/the-animal-apocalypse/

Jarrod


Yes, I am somewhat familiar with 1 Enoch.  Jubilees holds excellent value too.

I am amazed at the general lack of study in regard to animal symbolism.  They have been taught one way and will not venture out on their own "to study to prove thyself."  Everything is based upon a 20th century Western hermeneutic without any regard to the ancient Eastern cultural understandings...

Bible2's last post in response to my question of whether he had witnessed to any inanimate objects was very telling in this regard.  It almost seems that there is no regard for context anymore....here is the link:

Source: http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times-forum/the-fulness-of-the-gentiles-%28romans-1125%29/msg1054637364/#msg1054637364

EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #4 on: Wed Nov 23, 2011 - 11:45:24 »
For any of you kind folks who may be interested in studying the various and NUMEROUS symbols within Scripture, here is a website that is dedicated to these sorts of things.  While I have not read ALL the website, there are certainly some gems there that will no doubt challenge your present interpretations.  Blessings to all who attempt to understand...

http://teachinghearts.org/dre00symbols.html

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #4 on: Wed Nov 23, 2011 - 11:45:24 »



EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #5 on: Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 07:58:30 »
[Reposted from the thread "The Fullness of the Gentiles (Romans 11:25)"]

Bible2,

You refuse to allow the fact that the apostle Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10 knowing full well that the time period for this to happen was "IN THAT DAY" which refers to Isaiah 11:1-9.

You also refuse to allow the description of "IN THAT DAY", which refers back to Isaiah 11:1-9, to have anything to do with the animal symbolism of verses 6-9.  That description is referring to the time period of Isaiah 11:1-3.  This you emphatically deny.

There is only "one period" being described, not two different time periods.

You divide it into two periods because your theology demands physical animals living in harmony with their prey.

The following is ONE CONTINUOUS THOUGHT:

Isaiah 11:1-9 - And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:   
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;   
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:   
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.   
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.   
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.   
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.   
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.   
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
   

The next verse, the one in discussion, refers back to these verses as that day:

Isaiah 11:10 - And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. 

You take that which is one thought and one description and divide it up into two thoughts and two descriptions although there is no reference to any second period, let alone your millennium.

End of story.

And regarding your comment to my question of, "Have you ever witnessed to a rock?" you said:

Quote
Yes, just as in the past Ezekiel was commanded to speak God's Word to mountains (Ezekiel 36). Also, he was commanded to speak God's Word "unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field" (Ezekiel 39:17). St. Francis of Assisi preached to birds. See also the great old hymn "All Creatures of Our God and King".

Funny you never answered my question.  I asked if YOU had ever witnessed to inanimate objects before.  The answer is obvious.  No Christian is to go around preaching the Gospel to spiders and rocks and sparrows.  It find it extremely funny (sorry) that you would continue to use the COMMON animal symbolism as expressed by Ezekiel.  Do you not understand how these items are used in Scripture?  Do you not see the similarities to Peter's vision in Acts 10?  And who cares what St. Francis of Assisi did.

Acts 10:12 - Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.   

Ezekiel 39:17 - And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood.


I can imagine how long it took Ezekiel to speak to every species of bird!!!!  He must have enlisted the help of many bird advocates!  C'mon man.  And imagine the length of time required to speak to every beast of the field.  LOL.  These are people, not birds and animals!  And specifically, those not in covenant with God...

You are not the least bit interested in studying the COMMON animal symbolism contained throughout the Scriptures.  To do so would explode your millennial views...

It is the same thing with mountains:

Ezekiel 36:1-12 - Also, thou son of man, prophesy unto the mountains of Israel, and say, Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD:   
2 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because the enemy hath said against you, Aha, even the ancient high places are ours in possession:   
3 Therefore prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because they have made you desolate, and swallowed you up on every side, that ye might be a possession unto the residue of the heathen, and ye are taken up in the lips of talkers, and are an infamy of the people:   
4 Therefore, ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD; Thus saith the Lord GOD to the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the heathen that are round about;   
5 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey.   
6 Prophesy therefore concerning the land of Israel, and say unto the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys , Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I have spoken in my jealousy and in my fury, because ye have borne the shame of the heathen
7 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; I have lifted up mine hand, Surely the heathen that are about you, they shall bear their shame.   
8 But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come.   
9 For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown:   
10 And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded:   
11 And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.   
12 Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess thee, and thou shalt be their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of men.
   

Mountains are the hierarchy of Israel, the leaders, if you will.

Do you really believe that these mountains have borne the shame of the heathen from verse 6?

And do you really believe that the mountains have literal branches and yield literal fruit from verse 8 above?  C'mon man..."

This was a passage of judgment upon the nation of Israel and all the people involved, from the top to the bottom...

STUDY!

If you wish to add any further postings on these issue, please post them on a thread I dedicated to this subject entitled "Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11"







« Last Edit: Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 08:33:32 by EdwardGoodie »

thethinker

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #6 on: Sun Nov 27, 2011 - 08:58:21 »
Jesus is called the "FIRSTBORN of all creation."  He is NOT the firstborn of animals and plants. The word "firstborn" means "eldest son" or "supreme BROTHER." Christ is not the eldest brother of animals and plants. He is the supreme brother of MANKIND.


Arthur Custance was an anthropologist and an expert in languages:

"It seems clear enough that the Great Commission of Mark's Gospel has reference to the human race alone. There is the familiar story of St. Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds, but I doubt if it is really the intent of the original that the Gospel is to be preached to animals as well as to man, commanding them all alike to believe and be saved. If it is, the command has certainly never been taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of Christian people. So at least in Mark the Greek phrase rendered "the whole creation" clearly refers only to humanity, to human society. Nor can one suppose that Paul was including the world of animals in Colossians 1:23. This must surely be equally true of Colossians 1:15, for it would be ABSURD to suppose that the Lord is to be called the firstborn of animals and plants."

http://custance.org/old/seed/ch8s.html

thinker


« Last Edit: Sun Nov 27, 2011 - 09:05:55 by thethinker »

EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #7 on: Wed Nov 30, 2011 - 12:30:31 »
Can we get back to the topic of animal symbolism in Isaiah, please?

EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #8 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 11:17:14 »
I had posted the following in another thread which eventually got buried and with no response. I thought I would bring it out into the open (special thread) because I believe its significance is of great importance, especially when the dispensational view of the millennial kingdom is at stake.  This view states that actual animals like wolves and lambs will dwell together in total harmony in a yet future time.

I vehemently disagree although I once held to that view myself for more than 20 years.  Please see the slightly edited interchange that has occurred and some of his (Bible2) defending points defending the view of ACTUAL animals.  I had already shown that animals has clearly represented Gentiles in the Acts 10 vision with the summary in Acts 10:28.  There are several places in the Bible where this animal symbolism is clear...

Acts 10:28 - And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call ANY MAN common or unclean.  

I believe the Apostle Paul (as well as Isaiah) is using animals in the same symbolic nature and I also believe that the STRICT TIMING from Isaiah 11 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt this premise.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said (in reply #86):

The kicker is that we all know that Isaiah 11:10's "IN THAT DAY" refers back to the description given in Isaiah 11:1-9, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE ANIMALS AND HOW THEY WOULD BEHAVE TOGETHER.

Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12, just as he also quotes other OT verses in Romans 15:9-12, only to support the general principle that God had always intended to save Gentiles (Romans 15:9a) as well as Jews (Romans 15:8), and so the salvation of Gentiles that was going in Paul's day (e.g. Romans 11:13-24) (and is still going on today) was God's will.

In Romans 15:12, Paul purposely leaves out the "In that day" part of Isaiah 11:10, just as he purposely in no way refers to the animals in Isaiah 11:6-9, because he's in no way referring to the specific time frame of Isaiah 11:6-16. For the end of the suffering of all the animals (Isaiah 11:6-9) won't happen until the still-unfulfilled physical-body resurrection of the church (Romans 8:19-25).


The interesting thing about Bible2's "general Principle" theory is that it comes with Isaiah's time stamp of "in that day."  This is when your general principle (if you want to call it that) begins its fulfillment.  I call it a prophecy because it has a time stamp.  Real general principle Scriptures are similar to "Love thy neighbor."  These don't have time stamps and therefore they are not prophecies.  The book of Proverbs is full of these kinds of general principles.

Your presumed reality of actual, physical animals is governing your thinking.  Allow the text to speak for itself.

Isaiah 11:1 - And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Isaiah 11:10 - And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
 

A most important point missed by Bible2 is that the whole idea of "in that day" is dependent upon the time frame of the root or stem of Jesse coming to fruition (Isaiah 11:1).  Bible2 has assumed that this period refers to his millennial kingdom AFTER the parousia event.  This is his main error.  He must presume this because of his presupposition that the animals are actual animals and not symbolic of anything.  It is also why he must assign a "general principle" to a future prophecy.  "General principles" are true all the time, not just some time in the future.


Isaiah emphatically states that "in that day" is when this root of Jesse shall be and stand for an ensign.  TO THIS ROOT WHICH IS ESTABLISHED AT THIS TIME IS WHEN THE GENTILES SEEK - NOT BEFORE.


Bible2 must assign his "general principle" theory to this prophecy in order to dismiss the CLEAR timing (when the root of Jesse is established) given to this prophecy.

Were there Gentiles seeking this root of Jesse any time PRIOR to the establishment of Christ's earthly ministry?  Emphatically, NO!!  And why?  Because the root of Jesse had not yet been established!  So much for the general principle, right?

Were there Gentiles seeking this root of Jesse any time AFTER the establishment of Christ's earthly ministry?  Emphatically, YES!!  And why?  Because the root of Jesse had been established!  

And once again, I cannot stress enough the importance of the "in that day" (root of Jesse being established) as the time in which these Gentiles would or even could seek.  They cannot seek UNLESS and UNTIL the root of Jesse (Jesus Christ) had been established.  We see the Gentiles seeking Christ in the first century after the establishment of His earthly ministry!

Therefore, the root of Jesse had been established.  It is Christ's earthly ministry when this is established - NOT AFTER HIS PAROUSIA IN A YET FUTURE TIME FRAME...

As for Paul leaving out the "in that day" from Romans 15:12...well, that is very weak indeed.  When expressing OT fulfillments, the prophet's reference to the future time is often left out because the time for that fulfillment had arrived.  It makes no difference whether it is included or not included.  It is a moot point.  We know Paul was referring to Isaiah 11:10 and we know that the Gentiles HAD BEEN seeking the root of Jesse...

And we know that they could not even begin to seek UNTIL the root of Jesse had been established.

Folks, it doesn't get any clearer than this.  I have no doubt that many are NOT going to reconsider their millennial understanding of his actual, physical animals because the very foundation for this paradigm insists upon the animals going bad at the fall - despite the fact that there are no Scriptures that mentions this.  It is presumed because of a misunderstanding of the many metaphorical and symbolic texts similar to these in Isaiah...

I thought I would bring this post to the fore because linker keeps mentioning Isaiah 11 in support of his view.  He simply refuses to listen to the ONLY illumination of this passage by the INSPIRED Apostle Paul in Romans 15...

raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #9 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 12:36:18 »
"I thought I would bring this post to the fore because linker keeps mentioning Isaiah 11 in support of his view.  He simply refuses to listen to the ONLY illumination of this passage by the INSPIRED Apostle Paul in Romans 15..."

Ted, you bring up something that has been on my mind lately. If the OT passages are illuminated by verses in the New Testament, shouldn't we seek to thoroughly understand when and how the inspired writers saw fulfillment of these? I ask because so many dispensational teachers take these OT passages out of this illuminated context and use them much differently than the apostles and leaders of the first century church.

Also, if an OT passage is not illuminated in the NT, should we leave it alone? It seems that much speculation comes from  interpreting these according to certain esch. views...

EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #10 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 14:17:10 »
"I thought I would bring this post to the fore because linker keeps mentioning Isaiah 11 in support of his view.  He simply refuses to listen to the ONLY illumination of this passage by the INSPIRED Apostle Paul in Romans 15..."

Ted, you bring up something that has been on my mind lately. If the OT passages are illuminated by verses in the New Testament, shouldn't we seek to thoroughly understand when and how the inspired writers saw fulfillment of these? I ask because so many dispensational teachers take these OT passages out of this illuminated context and use them much differently than the apostles and leaders of the first century church.

Also, if an OT passage is not illuminated in the NT, should we leave it alone? It seems that much speculation comes from  interpreting these according to certain esch. views...

As a dispensationalist for 20 years, I can assure you that the NT apostles' illumination (explanation) of the OT texts is NOT accepted as the only explanation.  This is why the church must become a parenthesis and no more.

Dispensationalists have a dual-kingdom system - one for the church (spiritual - present and ongoing) and one for Israel (physical - future and limited in time).

When dispys (no derogation intended) see how an inspired NT individual handles an OT text, it is ASSUMED that it is for the church, and only for the church.  They completely ignore that these OT texts were PROMISES TO ISRAEL (old covenant Israel).  Thus, the one OT text has two different understandings - one for the church and one for Israel.

This is why Romans 15:12 cannot possibly be referring to the "in that day" of Isaiah 11:10 because we all know that Isaiah's "in that day" refers to Isaiah 11:1-9 - a bunch of animals getting along together in harmony.

These dispies outright reject that because these animals are clean and unclean that it has anything to do with the possibility that the clean animals represent Jews and the unclean animals represent Gentiles.  This is quite surprising because they most certainly accept that in Peter's vision in Acts 10, where the unclean animals are the Gentiles!

But when one PRESUPPOSES a millennial kingdom view of these types of animals physically getting along together, it is difficult to change.  Their thinking in regard to this goes right back to the foundation of sin in the garden.  This is why they believe the "creation (ktisis) that is restored in Romans 8 Must be the literal physical creation of the planet and universe, because to them these things sinned too.

Sin is about redemption.  Plants, rocks, trees, animals, insects, etc. cannot call upon Jesus to be saved.  Only one Gospel, right?

Christians are the new ktisis in Jesus Christ.  It is people that get redeemed.

And regarding their rebuilt tabernacle of David, it is no different here either.  They use the OT texts to support such a view.  But when a NT inspired individual speaks regarding said OT texts, it is ignored.  Reference Acts 15:15-17 and the OT text of Amos 9:11-12.

The similarities between dispensational theology and Pharisaic thought are amazing!  Both desired a physical ruler, a physical kingdom, a physical throne, and a physical temple.

raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #11 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 15:49:52 »
"But when one PRESUPPOSES a millennial kingdom view of these types of animals physically getting along together, it is difficult to change.  Their thinking in regard to this goes right back to the foundation of sin in the garden.  This is why they believe the "creation (ktisis) that is restored in Romans 8 Must be the literal physical creation of the planet and universe, because to them these things sinned too.

Sin is about redemption.  Plants, rocks, trees, animals, insects, etc. cannot call upon Jesus to be saved.  Only one Gospel, right?

Christians are the new ktisis in Jesus Christ.  It is people that get redeemed."

I admit I fall far short from seeing the big, complete picture here. I was taught in my disp. church that death came by sin, spiritual death was immediate and ultimately physical death followed. But if this is the case, wouldn't the animals live forever? The soul that sinneth shall surely die, but animals cannot sin. Sin is the transgression of the Law. So why do animals die? Unless physical death isn't the issue at all in the fall, only the death incurred from being separated from the life of God. But that leaves me wondering.. did God create man to live forever? Or did He create a perishable, physical creation? These are dumb questions, I know. But if I don't ask the dumb things I will never get past them.   ::treadmill::

So I'm willing to look like a fool to learn...  

EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #12 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 16:22:34 »
"But when one PRESUPPOSES a millennial kingdom view of these types of animals physically getting along together, it is difficult to change.  Their thinking in regard to this goes right back to the foundation of sin in the garden.  This is why they believe the "creation (ktisis) that is restored in Romans 8 Must be the literal physical creation of the planet and universe, because to them these things sinned too.

Sin is about redemption.  Plants, rocks, trees, animals, insects, etc. cannot call upon Jesus to be saved.  Only one Gospel, right?

Christians are the new ktisis in Jesus Christ.  It is people that get redeemed."

I admit I fall far short from seeing the big, complete picture here. I was taught in my disp. church that death came by sin, spiritual death was immediate and ultimately physical death followed. But if this is the case, wouldn't the animals live forever? The soul that sinneth shall surely die, but animals cannot sin. Sin is the transgression of the Law. So why do animals die? Unless physical death isn't the issue at all in the fall, only the death incurred from being separated from the life of God. But that leaves me wondering.. did God create man to live forever? Or did He create a perishable, physical creation? These are dumb questions, I know. But if I don't ask the dumb things I will never get past them.   ::treadmill::

So I'm willing to look like a fool to learn...  

If physical death was part of the curse, then Jesus failed miserably at the cross.  We are still cursed and will physically die.

But if spiritual/covenantal/separation form God death is the curse, then Jesus Christ did not fail.

It is assumed that physical death is part (half) of the curse.  My question to those who believe this way would be, "How does Calvary's death reflect a cure for the non-physical death part of the curse?"

Dispies believe, that in the beginning, all things were created immortal and would live forever.  Then sin happened...
Unfortunately, when Adam was supposed to "die" on the the day that he ate, he didn't die; he just started to die - at least this is what they believe.  

But on the day that they did eat they knew INSTANTLY the difference between good and evil.  How come they knew that but didn't fully die on that fateful day?  Let's take this to redemption.  If we gradually died as a result of the curse, then shouldn't the lifting of that curse gradually bring life?  Jesus told Martha that if she believed she would NEVER die.

There understanding of immortality is based upon the TV series The Highlander.  Immortality comes via the Gospel :

2 Timothy 1:10 - But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:  

It is plainly obvious that the death that Jesus Christ abolished is not physical death...

The ministration of death (old covenant) was not a book about physical death.  

Physical death has nothing to do with the curse.  Kiss goodbye to a physical resurrection because of this.

Doesn't anyone ever wonder that if Adam and Eve ate food (of any kind) that something had to die BEFORE THE FALL?

Doesn't anyone wonder what would have happened if the plants, insects, and animals never died?  We would be over run by them!

Here is another thing for you to chew on:

Hosea 2:18 - And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.  

Animals, birds, and insects, OR INDIVIDUALS?  (Hint: Acts 10)

There is no such thing as a dumb question.  People have stopped asking questions.  If the staus quo was always to be accepted, we would still be purchasing indulgences...

raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #13 on: Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 18:33:36 »
"But when one PRESUPPOSES a millennial kingdom view of these types of animals physically getting along together, it is difficult to change.  Their thinking in regard to this goes right back to the foundation of sin in the garden.  This is why they believe the "creation (ktisis) that is restored in Romans 8 Must be the literal physical creation of the planet and universe, because to them these things sinned too.

Sin is about redemption.  Plants, rocks, trees, animals, insects, etc. cannot call upon Jesus to be saved.  Only one Gospel, right?

Christians are the new ktisis in Jesus Christ.  It is people that get redeemed."

I admit I fall far short from seeing the big, complete picture here. I was taught in my disp. church that death came by sin, spiritual death was immediate and ultimately physical death followed. But if this is the case, wouldn't the animals live forever? The soul that sinneth shall surely die, but animals cannot sin. Sin is the transgression of the Law. So why do animals die? Unless physical death isn't the issue at all in the fall, only the death incurred from being separated from the life of God. But that leaves me wondering.. did God create man to live forever? Or did He create a perishable, physical creation? These are dumb questions, I know. But if I don't ask the dumb things I will never get past them.   ::treadmill::

So I'm willing to look like a fool to learn...  

If physical death was part of the curse, then Jesus failed miserably at the cross.  We are still cursed and will physically die.

But if spiritual/covenantal/separation form God death is the curse, then Jesus Christ did not fail.

It is assumed that physical death is part (half) of the curse.  My question to those who believe this way would be, "How does Calvary's death reflect a cure for the non-physical death part of the curse?"

Dispies believe, that in the beginning, all things were created immortal and would live forever.  Then sin happened...
Unfortunately, when Adam was supposed to "die" on the the day that he ate, he didn't die; he just started to die - at least this is what they believe.  

But on the day that they did eat they knew INSTANTLY the difference between good and evil.  How come they knew that but didn't fully die on that fateful day?  Let's take this to redemption.  If we gradually died as a result of the curse, then shouldn't the lifting of that curse gradually bring life?  Jesus told Martha that if she believed she would NEVER die.

There understanding of immortality is based upon the TV series The Highlander.  Immortality comes via the Gospel :

2 Timothy 1:10 - But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:  

It is plainly obvious that the death that Jesus Christ abolished is not physical death...

The ministration of death (old covenant) was not a book about physical death.  

Physical death has nothing to do with the curse.  Kiss goodbye to a physical resurrection because of this.

Doesn't anyone ever wonder that if Adam and Eve ate food (of any kind) that something had to die BEFORE THE FALL?

Doesn't anyone wonder what would have happened if the plants, insects, and animals never died?  We would be over run by them!

Here is another thing for you to chew on:

Hosea 2:18 - And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.  

Animals, birds, and insects, OR INDIVIDUALS?  (Hint: Acts 10)

There is no such thing as a dumb question.  People have stopped asking questions.  If the staus quo was always to be accepted, we would still be purchasing indulgences...

Great answer, thank you. I'm going to save this for future study. So much to learn, so little time.

thethinker

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #14 on: Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 14:17:10 »
raggthyme wrote:
Quote
Christians are the new ktisis in Jesus Christ.  It is people that get redeemed."

Exactly! Manna sis!

thinker


EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #15 on: Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 14:56:03 »
Who got the manna?  Raggthyme or EdwardGoodie?  It was EdwardGoodie's comment that Raggthyme quoted...

I want the manna...I want the manna...give it to me...lay it on, man

 rofl   ::smile:: 

raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #16 on: Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 16:31:54 »
Who got the manna?  Raggthyme or EdwardGoodie?  It was EdwardGoodie's comment that Raggthyme quoted...

I want the manna...I want the manna...give it to me...lay it on, man

 rofl   ::smile:: 

ahahaha! I was wondering why I got manna... come on Ted, you can afford to share!

I guess I will just have to quote you more often! ;)

thethinker

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #17 on: Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 18:26:54 »
Who got the manna?  Raggthyme or EdwardGoodie?  It was EdwardGoodie's comment that Raggthyme quoted...

I want the manna...I want the manna...give it to me...lay it on, man

 rofl   ::smile:: 

I went back and looked at it and I still can't tell. I botched up a quote today too. You will get your manna when I am permitted.

thinker

EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #18 on: Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 20:41:02 »
Who got the manna?  Raggthyme or EdwardGoodie?  It was EdwardGoodie's comment that Raggthyme quoted...

I want the manna...I want the manna...give it to me...lay it on, man

 rofl   ::smile:: 

I went back and looked at it and I still can't tell. I botched up a quote today too. You will get your manna when I am permitted.

thinker

Yahooooooooooooo!  I'm the manna, ya, baby...I'm the manna  ::bounce::   ::headspin::

thethinker

  • Guest
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #19 on: Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 21:14:55 »
Who got the manna?  Raggthyme or EdwardGoodie?  It was EdwardGoodie's comment that Raggthyme quoted...

I want the manna...I want the manna...give it to me...lay it on, man

 rofl   ::smile:: 

I went back and looked at it and I still can't tell. I botched up a quote today too. You will get your manna when I am permitted.

thinker

Yahooooooooooooo!  I'm the manna, ya, baby...I'm the manna  ::bounce::   ::headspin::

Done.

thinker

Offline MixedEmotions

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 411
  • Manna: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Animal Symbolism of Isaiah 11
« Reply #20 on: Wed Mar 28, 2012 - 20:05:23 »
Wonder why this was moved to  the "Preterist" forum.  It isn't even preterist in content.  It was the historical Christian perspective before the heresy of dispensationalism became popular...I guess the dispensational moderators can't afford to have their own view challenged...

More futurist Spanish Inquisition-type tactics.