Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | mark d seyler | 183604 | ||
Hi Coper, What do you make of this passage? Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; What are the "last days" spoken of here, and when did they occur? What relevance does your answer to this question have towards how we view "time frames" in Biblical writings? From a different direction, concerning the prophecies, do we see literal fulfillments, or do we need to understand certain prophecies as symbolic in order to see them as having been fulfilled? If you answer yes to the latter, then I ask you, does the text give us that authority to without reservation declare that such-and-such passage is not be be understood as the plain statement it makes, but should be understood as actually referring to something other than what it says? To me, this is critically important, since if we are to make the claim that while the Bible says one thing, but actually means something else, we need to have a rock solid Biblical foundation for that claim. Do you believe that any given passage of Scripture has one truth (though there may be several applications), and that this truth is knowable? I would assert the the preterist view as it is predominantly taught is dependant on interpreting passages of Scripture in ways that are not supported by Scripture itself, and that if one only interprets Scripture in the way that Scripture presents itself, then a futurist view of Jesus' coming in power and glory, and of the 1000 year reign is the only view allowed by Scripture. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
2 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183691 | ||
It concerns me Mark that you can say 'if one only interprets Scripture in the way that Scripture presents itself, then a futurist view of Jesus' coming in power and glory, and of the 1000 year reign is the only view allowed by Scripture.' I know of no Scripture that says 'there will be a millennium which will follow the second coming of Christ'. Indeed the truth is that if there is a doctrine of such a time it is completely ignored in the New Testament Gospels and letters. Can you really see pre-millennialists of the present time never mentioning the millennium clearly? That surely suggests that the New Testament writers did not belive in a millennium. There is only one New Testament Scripture that you could point to as possibly teaching a millennium and that is Revelation 20.1-7. But it is very doubtful if that is teaching a millennium after the second coming of Christ. Revelation 20 is a new vision, and it is a summary of what has gone before. Jesus Himself spoke of Satan being bound in His day (Mark 3.27). It is a way of indicating that God has limited his power. He could not literally be bound because he has no body. Those who were martyred for Christ, and those who refused to receive the mark of the wild beast enjoy the 'first resurrection'. That is the resurrection described in Ephesians 1.19-2.6 in which all who are Christ's have a part. 'You has He made alive --- who were dead in trespasses and sins'. And from then on they reigned with Christ whether they were on earth or raised up to be with Him as Paul says in Philippians 1.20-23. The 'thousand years, is the ideal period ahead for Christians before His coming. (It does not actually say that it will not be longer than that). Such huge round numbers were rarely if ever used literally. Most people were not numerate. It simply indicated a long period. Peter confirms this when he is the only one to mention the thousand years and there he refers it to the period between Christ's first coming and His second coming. The loosing of Satan for a little while is described in Revelation 9.1-11; 12.12. Thus Revelation 20.7 refers to a period after the time when God's people have been witnessing for some time and before the second coming. Thus it has already been described in Revelation. Now I realise that you probably interpret Revelation differently from me. But it is not on a basis on which all evangelical Christians can agree. My view of the whole of Revelation is that apart from Chapters 21-22 it is all speaking about what you would presumably call 'the church age', and that it began at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ. Now I do not question your right to disagree with me. But I do object (in friendly fashion) to your saying that I am not interpreting the Scripture literally. I certainly do believe in the fact that Jesus Christ will come personally in glory at the consummation, but I do also believe that the whole Book of Revelation (apart from chapters 21-22) has been in process of fulfilment through the centuries. That is the whole purpose of John's symbolism. It is to some extent applicable in every generation. In fact it is quite clear that the book comes up to the time of the second coming a number of times in different visions (e.g. Revelation 6.12-17; 14.14-20; 19.11-21). All this is open to interpretation, but it cannot be denied that it is to take it literally in so far as symbolism can be taken literally. See for this interpretation the commentary on http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
3 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | mark d seyler | 183754 | ||
Hi Jonp, One passage of clear teaching is perfectly adequate, in my opinion, to show a matter. I believe this is part of a progressive revelation that is also taught elsewhere in the Bible, though this is the most clear: Revelation 20:1-10 (1) And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. (2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, (3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. (4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. (6) Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, (8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. (9) And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. (10) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. As chapter 19 prophesies the second coming, this seems rather specific to me. Certainly we may disagree, and I am aware that a great many believe as you do. "Such huge round numbers were rarely if ever used literally." What do you base this conclusion on? There are specific places where terminology is used of uncertain numbers (a multitude which no man could number - Rev 7, for instance.) There were the stock brokers, the military leaders, the census takers, the weavers, herders, and so on, all of these dealt with large but none-the-less specific numbers. "The 'thousand years, is the ideal period ahead for Christians before His coming." In the Book of the Revelation, it is presented as happening after Jesus' coming. Now, regardless of how you place the timing of this, if you read it literally, then it doesn't allow 1000 to become "a bunch, who knows how many", and it follows the second coming. If you want to show how it actually means "a large indeterminate number", you need to be able to show me From The Text how it means that. "But I do object (in friendly fashion) to your saying that I am not interpreting the Scripture literally." I appreciate that we can disagree in a friendly manner! But haven't you basically said that "1000 years" is not actually 1000 years, in terms of 1000 orbits of the earth around the sun? Would this not them by interpreting 1000 years symbolically and not literally? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
4 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183757 | ||
Hi You may believe that Revelation is all chronological, but it does not say so. In fact 6.12-14 if taken literally must mean that the second coming has happened and that there can be no millennium after that as there will be no world. If the stars have fallen to earth (just one would devastate the earth) and the sky has vanished like a scroll and all the mountains and islands have removed from their place humanity could not possibly survive. The fact is that there are a number of visions in Revelation each leading up to the time of the second coming e.g. to 6.12-17 which refers to the second coming; to 14.14-20 which refers to the second coming; to 19.11-21; to 20.11-15 to take four clear examples. It is clear that you actually know little about the use of numbers in the ancient world. It is my specialist field. Most military leaders could not count. They relied on a few experts. They mainly counted their soldiers by the numbers of military units. But a century under a centurion might only contain sixty soldiers. But they would still count it as a century. Weavers and herders would be unlikely to be able to count beyond say twenty, and many not even as many as that (they had not been to school) and they did not need to. The herder knew all his animals and could tell whether there was a gap. Numbers were used roughly. Few people could count very far, beyond say ten or twenty. Thus the third day meant the same as three days and three nights, and so on. Nor were years in Palestine counted on the basis of orbits round the sun. They were based on twelve moon periods, with every now and then a third month introduced in order to keep the seasons in tune. So, no, speaking of 1000 years as a round number is not making it symbolical. It is looking at numbers as they were used in those days. This is an historical fact not a matter of interpretation (or indeed of argument. It is so). You have not explained how it is that chapter 20 repeats all the events that have happened previously. It is history repeating itself gone too far. It really is not good enough to quote some verses and say - 'Look they say what I said'. The problem is that large numbers of evangelical Christians do not agree with you. And anyway no one takes the whole Bible absolutely literally, not even you. Do you believe that we have to hate fathers and mothers. Do you cut your hand off when it sins? Of course not. But you would have to if you took the Bible literally. So we all have to judge when to take something literally and when not. And no, one questionable passage is not sufficient to demonstrate such an important doctrine. If it was not important enough for Paul and Jesus to mention it is highly questionable. You cannot really sensibly avoid the fact. And if we decide to rely on the fact that Jesus and Paul would have taught such an important doctrine if it was true I suggest that we are taking a very sensible position. A chapter from a book which clearly contains much symbol cannot overturn that. Best wishes Peter |
||||||
5 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | mark d seyler | 183759 | ||
There's a lot here, so I won't try to address it all. But here are some points to consider. There are many timing words and phrases used in the Revelation, "and after this. . .", "After these things. . ." and such. I think it is a mistake to overlook the significance of those timing cues. "Stars" are used in the Bible of more than just the celestial lights in the sky. Rev. 1:20, and apparently 9:1 use star for angels, or messengers. Considering the earth is prophesied to remain forever, we need to be certain we can show from Scripture which meaning of "star" is being used here, the celestial burning ball of gas, angel/messenger, or something else. In the opening of the sixth seal, the sky is "parted", the mountains and islands are not "removed", they are "moved". I would like to suggest that we stick to what is provable from the text, when we take it literally - seriously - to determine what God intends to say through it. Should I allow for the sake of argument that none in the ancient world could count, would that mean that God couldn't count? What can be demonstrated from the Bible itself about how numbers are used in Scripture, and particularly concerning prophecy. What about the 70 years of captivity? Daniel seemed to think that they were 70 actual years, and he seemed to be able to know when they were close to ending. I do not believe that Rev. 20 simply repeats all the chapters that have preceded it. If that is your assertion, it is up to you to substantiate it. By "taking a passage literally", I do not mean that we are to think that "God is a bird", or that none of us should have hands. We simply need to demonstrate from the text what God intends us to know, and accept that as the actual meaning of the passage. As with most matters of prophecy, there are large groups of people who will all disagree with each other, but we know that truth is not proven by head count. But as I am looking over this thread, its already rather lengthy, and I don't see the benefit of adding to it our continuing dispute, so I will bow out at this point. Should you desire the last word on any of these things I will understand. God bless! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
6 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183761 | ||
Hi Mark Thank you for your gracious permission for me to reply just once more. I will do so mainly to avoid misunderstanding. I did not say that no one could count in the 1st century, only that counting beyond ten or twenty and calculating mathematically was beyond the vast majority, and with many their limitation would be counting to three. There was little education available except for the wealthy and little reason to count and the synagogue schools were concerned with teaching people to read so that they could understand the Law, not with mathematics. Of course some were trained in numeracy, but they would be a comparatively small minority. Tradesmen would use tally sticks, and when they wanted to make an order they sent along sufficient tally sticks to indicate what they wanted. They did not need to use numbers. And so on. You tell me that the stars falling from heaven are really angels. Now it is true that there are places where it is made quite clear in the context that stars refer to angels. But not in a context like this one where all the references are to natural phenomena. In interpretation consistency is required. And there is no need to introduce angels here. So you see here it is I who am literal and you resort to symbolism, and may I gently suggest that the reason that you do so is because you recognise that the literal will not support your position. Thus you give your case away. You are not a literalist after all, only where it is not inconvenient. And that is why I objected to your suggesting that there was only one possible interpretation of Revelation 20. My interpretation there is equally as literalistic as yours. For while God can count, when He is speaking to men He speaks in terms that they would understand. And they would not understand a thousand literally. They had no conception of a literal one thousand. It was just a very large number. That was the literal meaning to them. You say that I must justify my contention that Revelation 20 is a recap of what has gone before. If you will look back at my first presentation you will find that that is precisely what I did. Incidentally the verb used of the sky is to 'roll up' like a scroll. That is much more than it being parted. It literally mean that the sky is longer spread out but bundled up in a roll. And it says of the mountains that they will be moved out of their place. Now I take all this literally as indicating the end of the world (as also in Revelation 20.11 - another recap) But I must ask myself, do you? Of course I appreciate that you cannot because of your views. You say that I should notice the references to 'after this --. But the question is, does that refer to the writer and his visions or does it refer to chronological sequence. I would suggest that it is the writer's movements and experiences that are in mind. You are happy to avoid seeing God as a bird. Good. But you then say we must demonstrate from the text what God intends us to know. Well I have done that for Revelation 6 (and for Revelation 20 when I commenced). That is what we all seek to do. But in the wider context we must sometimes do what you have done on Revelations 6. Recognise that symbolism MIGHT be involved. But we must not determine our use of symbolism simply in terms of what fits our position. We must do it in the light of the whole of Scripture. You will see symbolism where I do not. I will see picture language (symbolism is a loaded term) where you do not. But we should not therefore suggest that somehow one of us is more literal than the other. That was my argument in the first place. That we both see literal positions and positions which are based on picture language. It is necessary to use language in a way that people will understand. That is why the Old Testament prophets presented heavenly truths in terms of life on earth. It was the only thing that the people would understand. But they spoke better than they knew, as the New Testament makes clear. In fact if you carefully look at the language that you use you will be surprised how much of it is in fact picture language, and not literal at all. We are so used to it that we do not realise it. How boring it would be if we removed all picture language from our conversation. I do not want to convert you to my position. It is not the details that matter (neither of us can change what will happen) but underlying truth. All I ask is that you do not claim somehow to be 'more literal' than others when you turn to seeing things in picture language when it suits you. Best wishes and God bless you. It has been pleasant having a discussion with you. jonp | ||||||
7 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Wild Olive Shoot | 183768 | ||
“I did not say that no one could count in the 1st century, only that counting beyond ten or twenty and calculating mathematically was beyond the vast majority, and with many their limitation would be counting to three.” That’s a very interesting thing you point out. Why, with so much mention of numbers and the fact that someone had to count, I wonder how limited they were. But then again, those of the first century, well the words probably weren’t meant for them since they couldn’t comprehend anyhow. I guess God inspired those to speak and write so only future generations could understand. Those of the first century were just meant to be confused. Matthew 14:19-21: 19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. 20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. 21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children. Who counted the loaves and fishes and baskets and people? I guess this was conveyed only for a more learned people. Deuteronomy 25:3 Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee. I would really hate to be the one getting the forty lashes while knowing I may get 50 because someone can’t count past three. But it was probably okay to break a command of God because you couldn’t count. Matthew 18:22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. Hope they had a calculator for this one. Leviticus 12:2-5: 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. 5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. Don’t even want to attempt to figure how they knew this. John 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. Someone had to count the fish. Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: The good doctor may have been able to count to 40, but someone had to tell him it was forty. Now I’m no expert on the educational standing of first century people, but most couldn’t count past three??? What they do with the extra fingers? WOS |
||||||
8 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | stjohn | 183773 | ||
Amen WOS, seems to me the trouble with math isn't in the 1st but the 21st century, all this talk about preterism is causing division peas stj |
||||||