Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Morant61 | 51731 | ||
Greetings Treadway! I would like to second what Hank had to say to you my friend! Stay around! We enjoy honest questions! :-) You were asking about different takes on 1 Pet. 1:10-13. I'm assuming from your previous posts that you feel that v. 12 is refering to the second coming of Christ. Allow me to touch on that issue. First of all, for study purposes, I would recommend staying away from the Living Bible for this one reason: It is a paraphrase, not a translation. Much of what the Living Bible says in this passage is simply not in the Greek text. Here is the text of this passage from the NASB: "10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven_things into which angels long to look. 13 Therefore, gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ." The context of 1 Peter 1 deals with the blessings of salvation even in the midst of suffering. The first century church was suffering extensively. Peter wanted to remind them that their salvation has both a present blessing (in the sense that we have been born again, and are being protected by God's power) and a future blessing (our inheritance which is being reserved in heaven for us)(vv. 3-4). Because of this salvation, even suffering can be endured. This is the context of 1 Pet. 1:10-13. Peter is refering to the fact that Christians are the present receipients of the blessings prophesied in the Old Testament. Specifically, 1st century Christians have actually seen and experienced the death and resurrection of Christ (v. 11). Nothing in this passage says that the return of Christ would happen 'soon' or in their lifetime. In fact, v. 13 is a good argument that Peter did not expect Christ to return in short order because all of the commands given in v. 13 indicate that these suffering Christians need to prepare to endure for the long haul. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51755 | ||
Hello Tim: Well, thanks Tim, for the kind vote of confidence. Maybe it has been discerned that, "...you can take the Christian out of the church, but not the church out of the Christian.." Or, something like that. :) An "ember" can either die, or explode into flame. -------------------------------------------- Now to business: you said that you would recommend "staying away from paraphasing Bibles.." and you may be right. But in support of them, here's a thought or two. What is "paraphrasing?" My dictionary suggests this: "..explaining or translating more clearly and amply..." In other words, the publishers, editors of these paraphrased tomes have sought to present another form, but, of course, to retain the real meaning. I don't think the intent would ever be to actually change meaning, although that may or may not occur "unwittingly". This latter may be what you warn about, but I don't know. -------------------------------------------- 2nd point: you suggest that 1 Peter 1:12 is not reflective of "soon" (the 2nd Coming), although others (the Bibles--The Book, The Living Bible, etc) have seen fit to say just the opposite. Okay. But then look a tad further down in verse 20: "...but only recently was he brought into public view, in these last days, as a blessing to you." (KJV says: "last times") Then look a little further down in 4: 7 "The end of the world is coming soon." (KJV: "..the end of all things is at hand." "At hand" equals "soon" to the paraphasing editors. In context, then, how can these utterances be interpreted in any other way? Unless nothing is "literal"? But that can't be true; some things are literal. By simply "listing", by simply comparing/contrasting, is it not clear that Peter said, "in these last times", or "last days"? Did he literally mean what he literally said? ------------------------------------------ And remember too, Peter's statements are not in isolation. All kinds of relevant corroboration. Everything is jumpstarted, right from the very beginning of the Gospels with: "The Kingdom of Heaven is near!" This is the controlling sentence, if you will, the governing idea. The Good News is near, soon, right around the corner. The time is NOW to repent. And that theme is followed up, writer by writer. There is a definite "urgency" sense expounded throughout the New Testament. Reinforced by Jesus, Peter, John, Paul and used as the ultimate tool in Revelations, "soon" dominates. How does Revelations begin? "This book unveils some of the future activities SOON to occur..." "For the time is NEAR when all come true." And how does Revelations end? Jesus says, "I am coming SOON!" ----------------------------------------------- I'm about "sooned" out. :) Treadway |
||||||
3 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Morant61 | 51762 | ||
Greetings Treadway! Thanks for the response! Let me touch upon your points briefly! 1) Paraphrases: I don't know how many of my posts you may have read, but I have been trained in Greek translation. Let me show you why I don't like paraphrases by giving you a literal translation of 1 Pet. 1:12 and comparing it with what the Living Bible paraphrase says. Literal: "to whom has been revealed that they were not serving themselves but you in these things, which now have been proclaimed to you by those who announced the glad tidings to you through the Holy Spirit, sent from Heaven - into which angels desire to look." Now, here is the Living Bible paraphrase of this same verse: "They were finally told that these things would not occur during their lifetime, but long years later, during yours. And now at last the Good News has been plainly announced to all of us. It was preached to us in the power of the same heaven-sent Holy spirit who spoke to them; and it is all so strange and wonderful that even the angels in heaven would give a great deal to know more about it." The biggest difference here, in terms of our discussion, is that there isn't any reference to things which would not occur in their lifetime, but in the Apostles lifetime. The Greek simply says that what they wrote was being fulfilled. What was being fulfilled? According to v. 10, salvation is being fulfilled now, which is what the prophets prophesied about. No mention is made in v. 12 of the second coming of Christ being fulfilled in their lifetimes. Paraphrases are great for casual reading, but for serious study, one needs to stick with a literal translation - like the NASB. 2) 1 Pet. 1:20 and 1 Peter 4:7: 1 Pet. 1:20 does not refer at all to the second coming of Christ, but to His first coming. Look at v.19, He is the foreordained Lamb, who has now appeared. 1 Pet. 4:7 simply says, "The end of all things is approaching...." Again, no mention of a date or even a hint that it must be in their lifetimes. I saw that Joe already addressed this issue, but the simple fact is that Scripture consistently teaches that no one knows when Christ will return. It is nearer today than it was yesterday, but saying that doesn't mean that it must occur during my lifetime. He could return today, next week, or in 10,000 years. No one knows. But, Christians are commanded to live like He could be returning at any moment - because He could! To simply take the term 'soon', or 'near' and interpret that as a belief that Christ would return in the first century is the kind of faulty exgesis that critics engage in because they can't disprove the Bible. Therefore, they have to manufacture an issue, so that they can say, "See, the Bible was wrong". However, the Bible never sets a date for Christ's returen. The Bible never says, "Christ will return in our lifetime". To interpret these statements in this way, is not to take them literally, but to read assumptions into them. A literal statement would be: "I will come back in your lifetime". But, Scripture never says that does it? Joe also mentioned 2 Peter 3 which deals with the issue of why Christ hasn't returned yet. The simple fact is that God doesn't view time the same way that we do. Soon for Him may be 10,000 years. Basically, the only way I could agree with your position my friend is if you could produce a definite statement that Christ was to return in the 1st century. However, there aren't any. This whole position is based on an assumption concerning what 'soon' means. :-) You may be 'sooned' out, but I hope that all of this posting doesn't make you 'swoon' out! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51796 | ||
Hello Tim: Tim wrote; A literal statement would be: "I will come back in your lifetime". But, Scripture never says that does it? My concession: This is true, and must be conceded. Interesting that it is not stated, but then, that would be a book all unto itself. So many facets and loose ends to tie in order to establish reasons and purpose. An investigator would have to address motive, mainly, and considering the mystery of who wrote, when did they write, who chose what from how many other writings, etc., that would be a monumental undertaking to acquire knowledge about “in your lifetime.” Not that it wouldn’t be well worth it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, since that investigator won’t be me, back to “soon”. Let’s see what a “reasonable and prudent” person might think concerning IMPLICATION. Mark 9: 1 Jesus went on to say to his disciples, “Some of you who are standing here right now will live to see the Kingdom of God arrive in great power!” Now the reasonable and prudent questions: What does Jesus mean? Are there any implications? If paraphrased, what would be a good way to do it? Based upon Mark 9:1 Some answers to agree or disagree with: 1. Some disciples will still be living when Jesus returns. Agree Disagree 2. Jesus is talking about returning within the lifetime of some of the disciples. Agree Disagree 3. It is clear that Jesus does not mean He will return in the lifetime of his disciples. Agree Disagree 4. It is unclear what Jesus is talking about. Agree Disagree 5. A good way to paraphrase Mark 9:1 would be: Jesus really should not have said this to the disciples because only God knows the day and hour of Jesus’s return. Agree Disagree 6. Another way to paraphrase; Although Jesus does not actually say that he’ll be returning in the lifetime of the disciples, that’s what he means. Instead of saying, “will live”, Jesus could have said “in your lifetime” and the meaning would have been exactly the same. Agree Disagree. Note: agreements or disagreements should be based solely upon the TEXT as it is written. Treadway :) |
||||||
5 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Hank | 51800 | ||
Treadway, good to see you back. Ye Olde Forum can become mildly addictive, can't it? Now let's talk about what Jesus said in that "problem verse," Mark 9:1, and in the parallel passages in the other two synoptic gospels, Matthew 16:28 and Luke 9:27 ..... In the verse, Mark 9:1 NASB, Jesus says this: "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." ..... Now there have been a number of interpretations given of this statement that Jesus made, among them that He was referring to [1] His resurrection and ascension [2] the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost [3] the spread of Christianity or [4] the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But the most logical and contextually accurate interpretation is to connect what Christ said in this verse to the Transfiguration. The proximity of this verse to the subsequent account of the Transfiguration which occurred a week later is consistent in all three of the accounts in the Synoptics and is likely not tossed in the context in a haphazard manner. The contextual support for linking Christ's words to the Transfiguration is very strong indeed. The Transfiguration provided a foretaste of His second-coming glory; and 'kingdom' as Christ used it in this verse can certainly refer to royal splendor. Moreover, 2 Peter 1:16 seems to support this interpretation. Peter, of course, was an eyewitness to the Transfiguration ..... The weakest interpretation of all is to link Christ's words in this verse to His second coming. Not only is there no contextual support whatever for this view, it stands in contradiction of the clear facts of Scripture and would make Christ either a liar or at least someone who did not know what He was talking about. I'm reasonably sure, therefore, that to interpret His words as referring to His second coming would be the interpretation of choice among the skeptics who would love to prove the Bible false. Of course anyone can, by ignoring context, logic, reason, and sound exegesis, twist Scripture and make it seem to say just about anything one wants it to say. Even that the disciples rode in a Honda, because in the upper room they were all with one Accord. [Acts 1:13,14 NKJV] --Hank | ||||||
6 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51810 | ||
Dear Hank ane (Tim): Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful views. I will certainly file them away for later use and perusal. And since Tim "seconds" what you say, they must be accorded more time and study. -------------------------------------------- A couple of points: when you suggest that "skeptics" love to prove the Bible false, that may be true, but there are others with no agenda but that of trying to find out what is going on. As you also say, throughout the ages there have been several interpretations, just of this one statement of Jesus. This reality would demand, it seems to me, investigation. As far as "proving", that is a heavy burden, indeed, but one that does not fall upon the "skeptic". That burden rests squarely on the shoulders of the asserter (not sure that's a word). ----------------------------------------------- A "SOON" summation: the idea of soon, near, imminent, is not just sprinkled throughout the NT--the NT is flooded with those words and ideas. A person would be remiss not to inquire "why"? For example, if these folks were NOT expecting the Return, yes, within their lifetime, then why use these terms? Rather than "soon", why not use words like, "eventually", "may", "could", even the word "will" return, with no dangling "soon". Instead of saying the end of the world is "near" or "approaching", why didn't they say "inevitable"? When the idea of soon comes out of so many mouths, it cannot be ignored. Maybe like trying to sweep an elephant under a rug--everyone still can see that it's an elephant. --------------------------------------------- What you say about Mark 9:1 may very well be true. But I would be better swayed if it stood alone, apart, and had no further corroboration from the rest of the NT. There are many steps to this journey; Mark 9 is the first. Now on to the second.....to be continued.. But coffee, now :) Treadway |
||||||
7 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Morant61 | 51816 | ||
Greetings Treadway! Thanks for the response my friend! Allow me to discuss a couple of philosophical points if I may! 1) Skeptics! My comment about skeptics was based on quite a bit of experience. I have no problem with someone questioning or asking hard questions of the Bible. However, skeptics do have an agenda - to remain skeptics! :-) Therefore, they often, as Jesus put it of the Pharisees, 'strain at gnats and swallow camels'. One example which I remember concerns an Old Testament passage where the circumference is given and the value of 'Pie' was not accurate to enough decimal points in the skeptics mind. Therefore, the argument was made that the Bible was in error! This train of thought about the second coming strikes me as the same kind of strained argument on the part of some to disprove the Bible. 2) 'Soon'! We have touched on this issue several times, but from whose perspective should we view 'soon'? Differing contexts and differing perspectives produce differing definitions and/or expectations. A child has very little patience and 'soon' had better be in the next couple of seconds! :-) A college student realizes that graduating 'soon' maybe in the next couple of years. In geological terms, a small ravine may 'soon' be a giant canyon. But, what about God's perspective as a timeless being. Surely, we cannot mandate that 'soon' for Him means within my lifetime. He ordained the first coming of Christ before the world was even created. Yet, it was not until 2,000 years ago that Christ came. If one does not hold to a young earth theory, that means that God waited possibly hundreds of millions of years before Christ came the first time. If one holds to a young earth theory, God still waited thousands of years before Christ came the first time. My whole point in this discussion has simply been two-fold: 1) Don't read too much in to a word which is very subjective! 2) Don't make a literal statement out of an assumption about the meaning of a word! If Christ had literally said that He was going to return in the 1st century and didn't, I would be right there with you protesting that the Bible was inaccurate. However, He never said that! It is dangerous to build an entire arguement on the truth or falsity of the Bible based upon nothing more than an assumption about how long a time is a reasonable time for 'soon'! ;-) Well, I've got to go! I'm expecting a video call from my mother! God Bless you my friend! Hopefully, we will be able to interact 'soon' on some other issues as well! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51829 | ||
Hello Tim: Brevity response:? You say: Therefore, they often, as Jesus put it of the Pharisees, 'strain at gnats and swallow camels' This train of thought about the second coming strikes me as the same kind of strained argument on the part of some to disprove the Bible. My Reply: Just shows how different people see different things. I would be hard pressed, indeed, to equate the “pie” example with whether or not The 2nd Coming was aimed for the 1st Century AD. In fact, once I discovered all this, quite by accident, and then began to leisurely read the NT, the trail seemed to get hotter. What if this 2nd Coming conjecture were true? What would it mean? Would it mean the beginnng of the end for me, as far as religion? Or, would it mean starting over? Rethinking? Would there be a domino effect, or just simply answers? Would those answers wind up, finally, to THE ANSWER? And how to know THE ANSWER (or any answers) unless questions are asked? As you may have guessed, I am a layman, and my approach is simpler than what is usually denoted “scholarly”. But my layman’s questions carry just as much weight and concern (in my opinion) as those of the more erudite apologist or skeptic. I don’t mean to say that I dismiss those opinions (if I understand them) but feel my approach is as valid, since most of us probably fall into the layman category, And as for the interest in the 2nd Coming being in the “gnat” variety, I don’t think so. In fact, the more I muse, the more I see, the more convinced that if there is anything that could be the “heart of the matter”, this is it. No matter which side of the fence it falls, a WHOLE lot is riding on it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say: 2) 'Soon'! We have touched on this issue several times, but from whose perspective should we view 'soon'? Differing contexts and differing perspectives produce differing definitions and/or expectations. A child has very little patience and 'soon' had better be in the next couple of seconds! :-) A college student realizes that graduating 'soon' maybe in the next couple of years. In geological terms, a small ravine may 'soon' be a giant canyon. My reply: The four letter words, “Soon”, “near,” are this complicated? Reasonable and prudent people cannot agree on what soon and near mean in context? For example look at 1 John 1: 18 “Dear children, this world’s last hour has come.” “…has…” come. “has”. Is that unclear? Either the world’s last hour has, or has not, come. One could even go past “soon” and suggest there is an implication of “imminent”. But even without that extreme, surely reasonable people could agree that if someone says “has”, he means what he says. Had I, personally, been the recipient of this letter, or had John told me this in person, I would have known he was speaking of the “now” in my lifetime. Would this be unreasonable? Then the context of the rest: “You have heard about the Antichrist who is coming—the one who against Christ—and already many such persons have appeared. THIS MAKES US ALL THE MORE CERTAIN THAT THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR.” What other context is there in this? What is there that reasonable people could not agree upon? Is this an example of the “child, student, ravine”? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You say: 1) Don't read too much in to a word which is very subjective! My reply: I cannot see how “soon’s” meaning is “very” subjective, in the commonly held layman sense. If that were so, then its use would almost be rendered useless. It wouldn’t make sense for the authors of the NT to use the term if they knew, as you suggest, that nobody really knows what “soon” is supposed to mean. In fact, when they used it, wouldn’t they have been sure, then, to explain what they meant? Or, do they expect the listener and readers to understand? I think, reasonably and prudently, the authors expected them to understand. Anything can be “intellectualized” to an extreme. I recall a friend who had been introduced to metaphysics, and for days walked around his Air Force base, wondering if he really existed or not. Kind of like: what does soon mean? If one wants to go into a myriad relativities, he will forever be asking: what does soon mean? To be continued..... |
||||||