Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Three way split? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5830 | ||
I would say not. Every part of Scripture meant something to the original audience. If Rev. 16 is referring to the tripartite division of Jerusalem between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, what good would that have done for the first century church? Islam would not come into existence for another seven centuries, and would not take over Jerusalem for a few centuries after that. Also, the land of Palestine ceased to be specifically Jewish in the second century AD. There had not been Jewish/Islamic strife there until this century. If Rev. 16 does refer to Jewish/Islamic/Christian division, it would be of utterly no use to Christians that lived before this century. Scripture does not work this way. More than that though, the church really oughtn't to have any interest in Jerusalem more than any other place on earth. The sacrificial system is _over_ and the temple is no longer necessary. Judaism has served its purpose. Read Hebrews. Now that the new has come the old is dispensed with. |
||||||
2 | Must prophesy speak to original audience | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 5954 | ||
Orthodoxy you say every part of scripture means something to the original audience. In Daniel we see scripture define the beast with iron teeth Dan. 7:7 which we know to be the Roman empire, yet that held no meaning for the original readers. In fact all through Daniel and many other prophetic books we see examples of things that didn't come into fruition until well after the original audience’s demise and therefore held little or no meaning to them. You say the church should have no interest in Jerusalem. Aside from the Futurist's view of Revelation where Jerusalem plays a very important role. Isn't Jerusalem, more specifically the Mount of Olives, where Jesus will touch down Zech. 14:4 when He returns? |
||||||
3 | Must prophesy speak to original audience | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5961 | ||
I am not disputing the fact that Scripture can prophacy about events that have not occurred yet. And yes, Daniel 7:7 does refer to Rome. But this does not mean that the original audience had no idea what was going on. They may have only had a crude, simplistic, and incomplete undesrtanding. But the imagery itself probably meant something to them. Furthermore, assigning ancient empires to Daniel 7 fits with the rest of Scripture pretty well. Rome, Medo-Persia, the Ptolamies, the Selucids, and the Greeks all make showings later in Scripture. The American continent was not even known to the old world for more than two millennia after the time of Daniel. Prophacy? Sure, but I think that's pushing it. Yes, I do say that the church should have no interest in Jerusalem than in any other city. It's just a place, like any other. And you have to be more than a "Futurist" to think that Jerusalem plays an important role in the eschaton. You also have to be at least a bit dispensational. I do believe that the Second Coming is still to come, but I'm self-consciously anti-dispensational. In Revelation, I believe that "Jerusalem" is used both literally and figuratively. But I also believe that all of the literal uses have occurred in the events surroinding its destruction in the war around 70AD. The references that are figurative have to do with "Jerusalem" as the ideal city of God, and nothing at all to do with an earthly location that is not simply a contribution to the imagery. About Zech. 14. Unless someone can provide a better interpretation, I believe that this happened during the first Advent and the destruction of Jerusalem. |
||||||
4 | Where do you see chpt 16 historically? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 5981 | ||
Orthodoxy I think you have two trains of thought here. I never mentioned the American Continent in any of my updates. Though I totally agree with you, anyone that thinks they see a mention of the United States or even the American continent in the Bible is pushing prophecy. If you believe revelation has been accomplished in the first century and mainly through the destruction of Jerusalem. Where do you see chapter 16 being historically being played out? For instance where did the oceans turn to blood and every living sea creature die? Or an earthquake that leveled every mountain? |
||||||
5 | Where do you see chpt 16 historically? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 6076 | ||
The Americas may the third of the world destroyed. | ||||||
6 | Could our understanding be wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 6096 | ||
Steve thank you for your answer. Your right America could be included in the one third. Although I’m not sure where America came into the conversation. However since it was brought, America at the present time is too big to just dismiss in Revelation. That gives us a hint. That the time of Revelation America is either not a major player because all of economic power and/or political power has been removed. Or it is included in the word “island”, The word “Island” in the Bible typically refers to any land outside the immediate land mass that contains Israel. So in Revelation 6:4 and 16:20 where we see very island was moved or fled away may be speaking of both American continents as well as Australia and etc. However my question is with everything that happens during the tribulation, earthquakes, famines, flaming hail, wars, and a total collapse of society along with no food, no drinking water, the oceans dead, and other disasters and then the Anti Christ trying to kill every one that doesn’t carry the mark of the beast. Who is going to be left to go into the Millennium? Why in the opening moments of the tribulation we see 1/3 of man kind destroyed there is no accounting given for how many more die in the rest of the judgements and wraths. Then let’s assume there is people left, where are they going to live. The oceans are dead, all drinking water is contaminated, most everything green has been destroyed, all cattle and wild animals have died, the islands are gone, the mountains have been destroyed by earthquakes, major nuclear or conventional war has been raged, the infrastructure of society has been destroyed, the earth is a wreck. Current teaching is that the New Heavens and new earth don’t come into being until the end of the millennium. Now I know all things are possible through Christ Jesus but doesn't it seem like our understanding of the millennium could be wrong? |
||||||
7 | Could our understanding be wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 6129 | ||
Who is going to be left to go into the millennium? Even if only 1/3 of the current population was left, there still would be alot. maybe all will move to where there is no destruction. Yes we could all be wrong about the millennium. I choose not to study the end of time, in depth. I know there will be a period of the millennium and what is called the "tribulation". There are more important topics to study like preayer and worship. Steve |
||||||