Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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..... |
||||||