I love the absolute certainty with which everyone is proclaiming what various prophets "really" meant.

The 3.5 years...

1.  Could be the 3.5 years of the Roman revolution that weren't too bad, and the 3.5 years that annhilated 1/4-1/3 of the Jewish population in Judea, and enslaved another 1/4-1/3. This occured between the years of 66 and 73 CE. You will notice it's a 7 year period. The author of Revelation was living long after this war, and would have been extremely familiar with the time frame, as well as the things that led up to it (namely the burning of Rome, which was credited to the Christians). This author was ALSO aware of the drift from Jewish Values as evidenced by his rather scathing letters in the first part of the book, wherein he names off infractions against Jewish Torah AND scathingly refers to people who are pretending to be Jewish but aren't.

2.  The 3.5 years could be a referral to the Maccabean era wars, which lasted about 7 years (for the main; civil wars lasted longer).  The first 3.5 years weren't too bad, the last 3.5 years were devastating, although ultimately led to triumph of a sort.

3.  The 3.5 years could refer to the holocaust, which officially started (by some accounts) in 1938 with Krystallnact, and ended in 1945 with the war. The first 3.5 years weren't too bad, body count wise (and the persecutions of the Jews in particular not out of line with what was common in Europe all along) but as of 1942 (about 3.5 years into it) the passage of the Wannasee protocol (memory) officially began the wholesale slaughter of the Jews (and other social rejects). Note: this is about 7 years, divided neatly into about 3.5 year sections).

There's three possible scenarios... just for the 3.5 years. And these are just three... there are probably hundreds, if you count the theories that people have had that haven't worked out!!! There's probably been a few dozen just in my lifetime. Hal Lindsey keeps writing books and setting dates... that all move when his "certainty" is proven wrong.

Who are the two witnesses?

Well, if you take a Jewish POV, I'd have to say the Torah and prophets, which the author saw Christianity ditching in favor of paganism. (See with what certainty I state this!!!!). The author shows his disgust at the Christians who are eating the wrong foods and otherwise discarding the Torah in his letters to the churches; he restates that Israel is the "woman" who has MANY children (not just one) - all of whom obey the Torah - see the 12 stars? That's the 12 tribes... the Sun and Moon are the temple and priesthood ...  the sun turned black when it was burned, the moon blood red when the priests were slaughtered...  It is certain that the beasts are Paganism (which Judaism thought it was triumphing over with it's inroads into Jewish Society) and Christianity (which made paganism come back to life by compromising the feast days and sabbaths with Sol Invictus, the Roman Religion)... thus winding up with a "beast" that "looked" Jewish  (a lamb) but "spoke" like the dragon (satan/paganism)... the acceptance of Jewish rituals had been going on in Rome for a couple hundred years by this point... but so much of the Jewish religion was antithical to Roman society... and along comes Christianity which conveniently ditches the non-acceptable parts (circumcision, dietary regulations, different holy-days than what Rome celebrated) and gives the Romans what they liked (charity to the poor, one G-d, a nice set of ethical standards, and neato rituals) ....Yes indeedy this is CERTAINLY the only interpretation...

Shall we start our war now?

theprinterlady wrote:

KWD:

Abraham represents the God of Covenant
Isaac represents the God of Sacrifice and Atonement
Jacob represents the God regeneration -

TPL: Um, am a wee bit curious on what you base this deduction.

Abraham had a covenant with G-d (circumcision marked it), but as you surely remember, his covenant was contingent on the one that would be established when his descendants came out of Egypt (this was foretold as part of the covenant)...in other words, on obedience to G-d's ways.

At the time of Isaac, there were no set sacrifices, certainly no "sin" sacrifices mentioned... additionally, "atonement" to a Jew doesn't mean what Christianity means... it's not about 'paying off sin", but about aligning oneself with G-d's ways, which is what Abraham did in order to receive the covenant of G-d (see Genesis 23, memory) where G-d clearly tells Isaac that he is getting the benefit of Abrahams' covenant because of Abraham's obedience to G-d's "laws" (teachings, precepts, instructions, etc.)

As to Jacob being a symbol of "regeneration", what G-d says about Jacob is that he is known for "struggling with G-d and man", a heritage that Jews take seriously to this day.... which is why there is much questioning, probing, re-thinking, etc. that goes on in the Jewish realm over scripture, G-d in general, history, historical actions (by Jews and others), etc. Jacob's big claim to fame was that he desired G-d's blessing over all else... he was willing to pin G-d to the ground to get it. However, his family still held to other gods (witness his wives theivery of household gods; witness his son Judah's practice of going to the local shrine and having sex with the prostitutes there (otherwise Tamar would have dressed up in vain)...  Jacob's family were obviously not the monotheists that it is easy to credit them for being, or worshipping G-d quite the way dogma would have us think... the scriptures say otherwise.

So on what do you base your analysis? What does it mean to you?  How was Jacob "regenerated", and from what? I can state with some "certainty" that my view of Jacob will differ greatly from yours... he's my favorite guy in the entire bible, and I think he's been seriously maligned over the years....

Abraham - covenant because it was with Abraham that God established it.
Isaac - because Abraham believed that God could resurrect him and gave a substitution ram
Jacob - regeneration - for he went from "supplanter" - to one who would "rule like God"

Of course, according to our New Covenant Jewish forefathers, it was a symbol of Jesus Christ and the new birth.

Shalom TPL

theprinterlady wrote:

KWD: Abraham - covenant because it was with Abraham that God established it.

TPL: G-d's covenant with Abraham was "sealed" with circumcision, something that Christianity rejected as necessary.

not really - we circumcise the heart.  Although my son is circumcised in both areas - In my view Abraham had to circumcise his heart before his flesh was ever touched.

It also included Mt. Sinai by inference - something that Christainity has rejected.

Lost me here

G-d also made a covenants with Noah, with David,

Yes - those are other covenants - but not like the one with Abraham. 

With the Israelite Nation (an extension of Abraham's covenant as forshadowed to Abraham), etc. It's not only Abraham's covenant (land, population) that is important - it's the whole package, most of which Chrisitanity rejected.

Not really - if we reject it - we have rejected all that point to the Messiah/COLOR]

KWD: Isaac - because Abraham believed that God could resurrect him and gave a substitution ram

TPL: Not sure I'm getting the point here, KWD, especially if you were familiar with Jewish midrash on the subject... some speculation that Isaac DIDN'T survive the incident... the "point" from the Jewish perspective was that G-d ruled out human sacrifice and did it in a graphic way for Abraham, setting Abraham's people out from "the rest" (or so the bible claims).

[COLOR="Red"]I don't deal with speculation - and yes, some Jewish people believe that but Praise the God of Israel that it has been revealed as to what it really was about.  God was using the principle of sowing and reaping.

KWD: Jacob - regeneration - for he went from "supplanter" - to one who would "rule like God"

TPL: Where do you get the meaning of "Israel" being "one who would rule like G=d? The meaning of Israel (according to the bible) is one who struggles with G=d and man. There was no expectation that Israel would rule "like G-d" anywhere I'm aware of.  And "supplanter", by the way, is not the only interpretation of "Jacob", and certainly not in the negative sense that it's usually interpreted. Like I said, Jacob got a bad rap.

Not sure why you say Jacob had a bad rap when he was a patriarch.  He was a great man of faith.

OT:3290 Ya`aqob (yah-ak-obe'); from OT:6117; heel-catcher (i.e. supplanter); Jaakob, the Israelitish patriarch:

OT:3478 Yisra'el (yis-raw-ale'); from OT:8280 and OT:410; he will rule as God;

OT:8280 sarah (saw-raw'); a primitive root; to prevail:
OT:410 'el (ale); shortened from OT:352; strength; as adjective, mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity):Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)