• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Exaggeration

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟72,222.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Yahu said:
The Hebrew language is full of mental pictures. Scripture paints those same types of pictures to get a concept across. One of the reasons is Hebrew is an ancient language that doesn't have the massive vocabulary of a modern language. It required painting word pictures to get the point across. Even the paleo-hebrew that makes up the meanings of the words is derived by the combination of letters to paint a picture for the meaning of the word.

For example, the Hebrew word for knowledge means 'to read scripture'. The paleo-hebrew word picture is to use the 'doorway of the eye to the covenant/cross'. Knowledge actually means in Hebrew 'to read about the covenant in scripture'.

Parables are not fiction but word pictures to get across a point of view. If you don't understand some of the common pictures used, it can cause misunderstandings of the truth being presented. For example, waters in scripture is a picture of people. We are waters. We are made up of water. We are conceived in an exchange of waters. Birth begins at the breaking of the water. The harlot sits on the beast over many waters which are peoples, tribes, nations and tongues. Angels are called 'waters above'. The wicked are equated with the bitter waters of the sea.

I am OK with that. Why? Because it is truth. Is it impossible still to believe a women riding a beast over many waters? It still can be true wether there is more then one meaning.
 
Upvote 0

Yahu

Jezebel's bain
May 14, 2012
2,349
212
✟3,900.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I am OK with that. Why? Because it is truth. Is it impossible still to believe a women riding a beast over many waters? It still can be true wether there is more then one meaning.

True but it helps if you understand the ancient paganism. The harlot goddess that has influences over the sea is Ashtoreth as the moon goddess with control over tides. She was both the consort and mother of Baal. Baal (anti-christ spirit) is the beast 'out of the sea' (he came out of her) while Molech is the 'beast out of the earth', ie Asherah (mother earth). Molech and Ashtoreth were the twin children of Asherah by the pagan El (mighty one, father of the gods). You have to understand the symbolism associated with the ancient pagan deities to understand the characters (principalities) that are dealt with in the symbolism of Revelation.

The 'great harlot' is the principality behind all Jezebels. Even the biblical queen Jezebel was a high priestess of Ashtoreth as well as a powerful witch. The ancient paganism was riddled with witchcraft by worshiping major principalities of hell. Ashtoreth's spiritual domain is over the bitter waters, ie 'the sea'. She is dominant over Baal as his mother but in an impure relationship over him. Her primary role is in destruction of the prophets. For example the Romans called her the 'great goddess Diana (Diana Luciferah)' in Ephesus where her followers tried to destroy Paul. Her cup is full of the blood of the saints.

She is NOT as some assume, the RCC although all the Mary veneration within the RCC is her corruption in it with all their prayers (witchcraft) to the 'queen of heaven'. She is also behind much of the goddess worship witchcraft worldwide (with Asherah behind the rest) as well as all Jezebel's influences in the churches. She is a major principality.

Revelation is about a spiritual changing of the guards so to speak. Major principalities alternate who is in charge over different world powers in a time sharing fashion. For example the winged lion over the Babylongian empire, the bear over Persian, leopard over the Greek. It is the 'anti-christ' spirits turn to rule the next major empire. He was also over the Greek empire until it was split to the 'four winds/spirits' where they each took 1/4. He took over the Syrian branch of the empire and was behind the desecration of the temple by offering a pig on the alter. Pigs were offered to Baal.

You have to know the symbols for different things to understand the significance just as you have to know the 'eye of the needle' was a gate in the walls of Jerusalem or you draw the wrong conclusions from the picture presented. For example, many Old Testament references to the sun and the moon pertain to the pagan sun god Molech and the moon goddess Ashtoreth.

Another example, who christians call Lucifer is actually a reference to the ancient pagan sun god. Lucifer is a latin translation of an epitaph of the sun god meaning 'shining one' or 'light bringer'. It is the equivalent to Pheobus in the Greek, a title of Apollo. Lucifer is identified as 'ben Shachar' (son of the morning) while Shachar was a Canaanite deities as well that was a 'son of El' or Hadad, 'the thunderer' to the Syrians and Zeus to the Greeks. It is a reference to the pagan god Molech (shameful king) of the Old Testament. His title in Tyre was Melqart meaning 'king of the city' and is also directly referenced in Eze 28 with the prophecy to the 'king of Tyrus', ie Melqart. The Greeks call him Apollo, ie Apollyon, the son of Zeus.

So when you know the symbols, who the four angels bound at the Euphrates, and who the major characters are Revelation makes a lot more sense. Revelation is about the return of the pagan gods and the angels that fell into error that had children at the time of Babel to bring forth those 'gods'. The demonic realm is thrown into chaos, a kingdom divided against itself, then Yeshua returns.

Most common doctrine on the enemy realm is rooted in Augustinian doctrine propagated by the RCC into Christianity and carried on by works like Paradise Lost that influence modern interpretation of scriptures instead of actually study of what scripture says. People need to stop basing their doctrine on Paradise Lost. For example the 1/3 of the 'stars of heaven' that are pulled down by the dragon is NOT some pre-adamic rebellion of 1/3 of Yah's angels but 1/3 of the demonic 'host of heaven' that is referenced all over the old testament as part of the paganism of the 2nd heaven, ie prince of the powers of the air. This event happens during the tribulation and is a re-ordering of demonic forces due to the 'father of the gods' being released from his prison.
 
Upvote 0

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟72,222.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Yahu said:
True but it helps if you understand the ancient paganism. The harlot goddess that has influences over the sea is Ashtoreth as the moon goddess with control over tides. She was both the consort and mother of Baal. Baal (anti-christ spirit) is the beast 'out of the sea' (he came out of her) while Molech is the 'beast out of the earth', ie Asherah (mother earth). Molech and Ashtoreth were the twin children of Asherah by the pagan El (mighty one, father of the gods). You have to understand the symbolism associated with the ancient pagan deities to understand the characters (principalities) that are dealt with in the symbolism of Revelation.

The 'great harlot' is the principality behind all Jezebels. Even the biblical queen Jezebel was a high priestess of Ashtoreth as well as a powerful witch. The ancient paganism was riddled with witchcraft by worshiping major principalities of hell. Ashtoreth's spiritual domain is over the bitter waters, ie 'the sea'. She is dominant over Baal as his mother but in an impure relationship over him. Her primary role is in destruction of the prophets. For example the Romans called her the 'great goddess Diana (Diana Luciferah)' in Ephesus where her followers tried to destroy Paul. Her cup is full of the blood of the saints.

She is NOT as some assume, the RCC although all the Mary veneration within the RCC is her corruption in it with all their prayers (witchcraft) to the 'queen of heaven'. She is also behind much of the goddess worship witchcraft worldwide (with Asherah behind the rest) as well as all Jezebel's influences in the churches. She is a major principality.

Revelation is about a spiritual changing of the guards so to speak. Major principalities alternate who is in charge over different world powers in a time sharing fashion. For example the winged lion over the Babylongian empire, the bear over Persian, leopard over the Greek. It is the 'anti-christ' spirits turn to rule the next major empire. He was also over the Greek empire until it was split to the 'four winds/spirits' where they each took 1/4. He took over the Syrian branch of the empire and was behind the desecration of the temple by offering a pig on the alter. Pigs were offered to Baal.

You have to know the symbols for different things to understand the significance just as you have to know the 'eye of the needle' was a gate in the walls of Jerusalem or you draw the wrong conclusions from the picture presented. For example, many Old Testament references to the sun and the moon pertain to the pagan sun god Molech and the moon goddess Ashtoreth.

Another example, who christians call Lucifer is actually a reference to the ancient pagan sun god. Lucifer is a latin translation of an epitaph of the sun god meaning 'shining one' or 'light bringer'. It is the equivalent to Pheobus in the Greek, a title of Apollo. Lucifer is identified as 'ben Shachar' (son of the morning) while Shachar was a Canaanite deities as well that was a 'son of El' or Hadad, 'the thunderer' to the Syrians and Zeus to the Greeks. It is a reference to the pagan god Molech (shameful king) of the Old Testament. His title in Tyre was Melqart meaning 'king of the city' and is also directly referenced in Eze 28 with the prophecy to the 'king of Tyrus', ie Melqart. The Greeks call him Apollo, ie Apollyon, the son of Zeus.

So when you know the symbols, who the four angels bound at the Euphrates, and who the major characters are Revelation makes a lot more sense. Revelation is about the return of the pagan gods and the angels that fell into error that had children at the time of Babel to bring forth those 'gods'. The demonic realm is thrown into chaos, a kingdom divided against itself, then Yeshua returns.

Most common doctrine on the enemy realm is rooted in Augustinian doctrine propagated by the RCC into Christianity and carried on by works like Paradise Lost that influence modern interpretation of scriptures instead of actually study of what scripture says. People need to stop basing their doctrine on Paradise Lost. For example the 1/3 of the 'stars of heaven' that are pulled down by the dragon is NOT some pre-adamic rebellion of 1/3 of Yah's angels but 1/3 of the demonic 'host of heaven' that is referenced all over the old testament as part of the paganism of the 2nd heaven, ie prince of the powers of the air. This event happens during the tribulation and is a re-ordering of demonic forces due to the 'father of the gods' being released from his prison.

Symbolic is not a lie.
 
Upvote 0

JimB

Legend
Jul 12, 2004
26,337
1,595
Nacogdoches, Texas
Visit site
✟34,757.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If it were proven that parables are fictional; when would the insanity stop. Does the bible warm the reader every time of a parable? If not, then what part of John 3:16 is real? Is hell real?, is the bible all little stories to make man feel warm and fuzzy?
I believe hell is a fact. John 3:16 is a fact. But if they were fiction, they would still be truth. I know that because I have faith and faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Facts are facts and truth is truth and they are not always the same thing. It is the truth that makes us free, not facts. We can know all the facts and still miss the truth. And truth may come to us in a word, or scripture, or story, or movie, or a nod, or smile, or in a million (exaggerated hyperbole ;)) other ways. Personally, I believe all the parables are fictional stories; you believe they are a factual. Either way, we both receive the truth of them. :)
 
Upvote 0

Svt4Him

Legend
Site Supporter
Oct 23, 2003
16,711
1,132
53
Visit site
✟76,118.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
When exactly is a fact not a truth? The issue of the parables in no way clears that up. If the parables are true, then to say they aren't is not a truth, ergo a lie. To receive truth from them, even if one is based on a lie, does not make the lie any different not does it make the truth any more or less true.

Truth may come to us many different ways, as can facts, but a lot of times the words are synonymous- although not always- which is were one gets into subjective truth vs facts; It's hot in here vs. it's 27 degrees Celsius- subjective truth vs fact. Actually that fact is a lie, as it's only 25...
 
Upvote 0

Faulty

bind on pick up
Site Supporter
Apr 23, 2005
9,467
1,019
✟64,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When is a fact not the truth? I'd say polling data fits the bill there.

It may be a fact that a majority of a recent small sample poll favored gun control in America, but when the president cites it as proof of truth that the majority of Americans support gun control, then the fact of the actual polling data is not the actual truth.
 
Upvote 0

FoundInGrace

God's sparrow
Dec 27, 2003
5,341
942
✟38,472.00
Faith
Christian
I personally think exaggeration is lying so it is sinful so I try not to do it myself.
But then again the Bible talks about answering a fool according to his folly.
So if one exaggerates perhaps it is ok to exaggerate back in reply to a fool?? who knows, all i know is that exaggeration is lying because it is not the actual truth of a matter.
 
Upvote 0

Faulty

bind on pick up
Site Supporter
Apr 23, 2005
9,467
1,019
✟64,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just be careful you guys don't use other "lying" forms of speech as well, such as...

Quit pulling my leg.
I slept like a baby.
Drop me a line.
I'll keep an eye out for you.
That just makes me sick.
It's a blessing in disguise.
He has a chip on his shoulder.
Its a dime a dozen.
It's a piece of cake.
The judge just slapped him in the wrist.

They aren't strictly true, therefore they must be lies, right?
 
Upvote 0

JimB

Legend
Jul 12, 2004
26,337
1,595
Nacogdoches, Texas
Visit site
✟34,757.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
When exactly is a fact not a truth? The issue of the parables in no way clears that up. If the parables are true, then to say they aren't is not a truth, ergo a lie. To receive truth from them, even if one is based on a lie, does not make the lie any different not does it make the truth any more or less true.

Truth may come to us many different ways, as can facts, but a lot of times the words are synonymous- although not always- which is were one gets into subjective truth vs facts; It's hot in here vs. it's 27 degrees Celsius- subjective truth vs fact. Actually that fact is a lie, as it's only 25...
Truth contains facts but is not dependent on them. A lie however, is disproven solely by facts and so is completely dependent on them.

For example (I borrowed some of this online):

A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say "fire is hot," I don't care how great your reasoning skills are, if you touch fire your skin will burn. Now when I say this, I am not speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you say "fire is not hot," you are not necessarily lying, you just may be incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply acknowledged.

A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Truths are those things that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered, or created. If I say "God exists," and I possess strong reasoning for the affirmative of that statement, then God really does exist, that is a reality, it is factual. However, if another individual possesses strong reasoning for the negative, and because of this reasoning they believe that God does not exist, then that is also a reality. If we were to debate our ideologies, and my reasoning appeared stronger than theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief that God does exist. If they do, then the existence of God is just as true as the nonexistence of God which they believed a week ago. But I can neither prove nor disprove that God exists empirically. I have to accept it— Truth—only by faith. God cannot be “proven” in a test tube or under a microscope. He has to be received by Faith. Hence, faith is greater than fact because facts have their limits and faith is boundless. And that’s the Truth.

Now, facts may often be used to substantiate one's assertions on certain truths, and truths may be used to help us better understand certain facts. However, to assert a fact as a truth, or a truth as a fact, is backwards thinking, and antithetical to intelligible progress.

Facts are objective; truth is subjective.

Facts are statistics and empirical data. Truth is that unquantifiable sense of something being right, whether or not facts or logic tell us so.

Facts are notes and lyrics on sheet music. Truth is what the song gives the listener.

Facts are someone’s date and place of birth, middle name, and high school GPA. Truth is intimately “knowing” that person.

Facts are the recipe—measurements, temperatures, and cooking times. Truth is bringing your homemade banana bread into the office and making the Monday morning meeting sweeter.

Facts are what the Bible says; Truth is what you take away from it. Even an unbeliever can understand the facts of the Bible; only a believer can understand its truth.

-------------

As my Grandpa used to say, I can explain it to you (give you the Facts), but I can't understand it for you (give you the Truth).

:)
 
Upvote 0

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟72,222.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Faulty said:
Just be careful you guys don't use other "lying" forms of speech as well, such as...

Quit pulling my leg.
I slept like a baby.
Drop me a line.
I'll keep an eye out for you.
That just makes me sick.
It's a blessing in disguise.
He has a chip on his shoulder.
Its a dime a dozen.
It's a piece of cake.
The judge just slapped him in the wrist.

They aren't strictly true, therefore they must be lies, right?

Right. Now you can feel the weight of sin, and the inability of mankind to be able to follow the law. Thumbs up :-/
 
Upvote 0

JimB

Legend
Jul 12, 2004
26,337
1,595
Nacogdoches, Texas
Visit site
✟34,757.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just be careful you guys don't use other "lying" forms of speech as well, such as...

Quit pulling my leg.
I slept like a baby.
Drop me a line.
I'll keep an eye out for you.
That just makes me sick.
It's a blessing in disguise.
He has a chip on his shoulder.
Its a dime a dozen.
It's a piece of cake.
The judge just slapped him in the wrist.

They aren't strictly true, therefore they must be lies, right?

Right. Now you can feel the weight of sin, and the inability of mankind to be able to follow the law. Thumbs up :-/
Are you pulling our leg? :)
 
Upvote 0

Faulty

bind on pick up
Site Supporter
Apr 23, 2005
9,467
1,019
✟64,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Remember Paul's "thorn in the flesh"? Was it an actual thorn or was it an idiom?

Well, it wasn't a physical thorn, so... LIAR LIAR LIAR!

Check out idioms found in the Bible, there are well over a thousand if them. Therefore full if lies if some of you are correct, instead of established forms of speech.
 
Upvote 0

FoundInGrace

God's sparrow
Dec 27, 2003
5,341
942
✟38,472.00
Faith
Christian
Just be careful you guys don't use other "lying" forms of speech as well, such as...

Quit pulling my leg.
I slept like a baby.
Drop me a line.
I'll keep an eye out for you.
That just makes me sick.
It's a blessing in disguise.
He has a chip on his shoulder.
Its a dime a dozen.
It's a piece of cake.
The judge just slapped him in the wrist.

They aren't strictly true, therefore they must be lies, right?

ok I"ll try not to :)
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
23,931
4,272
47
PA
✟181,102.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Whether an exaggeration is a "lie" comes down to intent. If you exaggerate something with the intent being to make someone believe something is true that is not, then it's a lie. OTOH, exaggerations are also perfectly acceptable in figures of speech in the form of metaphors, similes, personifications, idioms and synechdoches.

For example, when someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse", no sane, rational, logical thinking person actually believes that the person wants to eat a horse. It has an understood meaning, and the intent of the saying is not to convince someone that they want to eat a horse.

So as with most things, it boils down to intent. If you exaggerate with the intent to deceive, it's a lie. If you exaggerate in a figure of speech with no intent to deceive, it's not a lie.

:cool:
 
Upvote 0

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟72,222.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Faulty said:
Remember Paul's "thorn in the flesh"? Was it an actual thorn or was it an idiom?

Well, it wasn't a physical thorn, so... LIAR LIAR LIAR!

Check out idioms found in the Bible, there are well over a thousand if them. Therefore full if lies if some of you are correct, instead of established forms of speech.

When you read do you ever think it was actually a thorn? No. So do I question wether it was a thorn? No.

Lazerous and the rich man. They were real people. I believe so.
 
Upvote 0

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟72,222.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
probinson said:
Whether an exaggeration is a "lie" comes down to intent. If you exaggerate something with the intent being to make someone believe something is true that is not, then it's a lie. OTOH, exaggerations are also perfectly acceptable in figures of speech in the form of metaphors, similes, personifications, idioms and synechdoches.

For example, when someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse", no sane, rational, logical thinking person actually believes that the person wants to eat a horse. It has an understood meaning, and the intent of the saying is not to convince someone that they want to eat a horse.

So as with most things, it boils down to intent. If you exaggerate with the intent to deceive, it's a lie. If you exaggerate in a figure of speech with no intent to deceive, it's not a lie.

:cool:

Does the bible not say let your yes be yes and your no be no?

Next when Jesus says "there was a king". When does anyone say this is fiction. Either there was a king, or if he had said "an example would be a king in a far land"; both truths.
 
Upvote 0

Faulty

bind on pick up
Site Supporter
Apr 23, 2005
9,467
1,019
✟64,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When you read do you ever think it was actually a thorn? No. So do I question wether it was a thorn? No.

Lazerous and the rich man. They were real people. I believe so.

This is the point where you say, "hey, I was wrong, thanks".

Language can be non-literal and completely valid, and not a lie. This includes idioms as well as exaggeration.
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
23,931
4,272
47
PA
✟181,102.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Does the bible not say let your yes be yes and your no be no?

Yes it does. Hence my point that the intent of an exaggeration is the key in determining whether the exaggeration is a lie or not.

Using the example in my last post, if I said to you, "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse", would you think that I wanted to eat a horse? I hope not, since this is an established idiom in speech that simply means, "I'm really hungry." I'm not trying to deceive you into thinking I want to eat a horse. I'm simply using a figure of speech to communicate my hunger.

OTOH, exaggerations that are intended to make people believe something that is not true are indeed a lie. The old, "I caught a fish this big!" comes to mind. If I'm trying to convince you with my exaggeration that the fish I caught was much larger than it actually was, then my exaggeration is a lie.

Next when Jesus says "there was a king". When does anyone say this is fiction. Either there was a king, or if he had said "an example would be a king in a far land"; both truths.

You've completely lost me with this, and I have no idea what you're talking about or trying to say here.

:cool:
 
Upvote 0