Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 16:28 ¶ "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 16:28 ¶ "I assure you and most solemnly say to you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." |
Subject: Still not convinced preterism is false |
Bible Note: 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 |