PDA

View Full Version : Partial Preterism



CoffeeCat
May 17th 2008, 07:09 AM
I know "full" preterism isn't allowed here, and most Christians find it to be heresy. I also know that quite a few people posting here are probably futurists. Do we have any partial preterists here? ( please check something general like wikipedia if you're not sure what it is.) One main difference between partial and full preterism is that partial preterism....

"is a form of Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) eschatology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology) that holds much in common with but is distinct from Full preterism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Full_Preterism) (or 'consistent' or 'hyper' preterism) in that it places the events of most of the Book of Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation) as occurring during the destruction of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Jerusalem) in 70 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70) AD (and/or the Fall of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Rome) several centuries later) yet still affirms an orthodox future bodily return of Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ) to earth at an unknown day and hour." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Preterism )

I've been comfortable with partial preterism, also called orthodox preterism, for a good while now. I was wondering if there were others here who also had an interest in it. Or for that matter, if there were folks here who rejected the idea completely (I'd like to hear why). I read a good deal on preteristsite.com and listened to a good number of lectures and podcasts and sermons from across the net before I came to the position I'm currently at. My own pastor's more of a futurist, but he and I have had really good discussions.


Looking forward to another good discussion here.

BrckBrln
May 17th 2008, 07:33 AM
It's funny you should post this as I was just doing searches for discussions on Preterism. Since abandoning Dispensationalism a few months ago I have stayed away from Prophecy and just focused on Theology but now my interest in Prophecy is back and I'm seriously looking at Preterism. So I look forward to this dicussion.

Clifton
May 17th 2008, 12:30 PM
I know "full" preterism isn't allowed here, and most Christians find it to be heresy. I also know that quite a few people posting here are probably futurists. Do we have any partial preterists here? ( please check something general like wikipedia if you're not sure what it is.) One main difference between partial and full preterism is that partial preterism....

Yes, there are what is termed as "partial preterists" here.

I come from the historicist side myself, but we all still discuss issues here with much enjoyment.

Blessings.

matthew94
May 17th 2008, 04:13 PM
It seems to me there are quite a collection of partial preterists here. I am one of them.

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 04:25 PM
Hi, I too am an orthodox preterist. I have a few sites that deal with the subject for study at http://www.preteristsite.com and http://www.preteristpodcast.com

I am going through Matthew 24 verse by verse in the podcast, you might enjoy it.

There are a lot of us out there.

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 04:27 PM
I know "full" preterism isn't allowed here, and most Christians find it to be heresy. I also know that quite a few people posting here are probably futurists. Do we have any partial preterists here? ( please check something general like wikipedia if you're not sure what it is.) One main difference between partial and full preterism is that partial preterism....

"is a form of Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) eschatology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology) that holds much in common with but is distinct from Full preterism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Full_Preterism) (or 'consistent' or 'hyper' preterism) in that it places the events of most of the Book of Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation) as occurring during the destruction of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Jerusalem) in 70 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70) AD (and/or the Fall of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Rome) several centuries later) yet still affirms an orthodox future bodily return of Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ) to earth at an unknown day and hour." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Preterism )

I've been comfortable with partial preterism, also called orthodox preterism, for a good while now. I was wondering if there were others here who also had an interest in it. Or for that matter, if there were folks here who rejected the idea completely (I'd like to hear why). I read a good deal on preteristsite.com and listened to a good number of lectures and podcasts and sermons from across the net before I came to the position I'm currently at. My own pastor's more of a futurist, but he and I have had really good discussions.


Looking forward to another good discussion here.

Whoops sorry Cat, didn't see where you mentioned you were already aware of the resources on my site. Have you checked out the podcast?

Be wary - most of the podcasts on preterism are all hyperpreterist which is what motivated me to start one.

moonglow
May 17th 2008, 06:36 PM
Hey Dee Dee...I visit your site quite a bit! You have some great resources on your site. :) I am PP myself too...what's the difference between PP and Orthodox preterits anyway? Nice to meet you! I hadn't seen a link there for your postcast though...don't know how I missed that...:hmm:

My question is (for everyone that has this view)...is the New Heaven and New Earth literal or spiritual? I haven't gotten that far in my studies yet...thanks.

(I have alot more questions too by the way...lol) It would be nice if just us holding this view could do our own little study together rather then be in a constant debate with pre-tribbers repeating the same things over and over again...I don't advance my studies much on PP by doing that.

God bless

Cyberseeker
May 17th 2008, 06:37 PM
Hi Cat,

ScottJohnson is a former mod here and part pret. He is a gentleman and a scholar and his posts are worth digging out.

In my case I respect the research done by preterists concerning the AD70 period. However I prefer to call myself a new-style historicist. I believe that futurism and preterism are at opposite poles and historicism is the balance between the two.

Cyber

markedward
May 17th 2008, 06:48 PM
I am a Preterist.

Another user, Romulus (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=16673), is a full Preterist.


what's the difference between PP and Orthodox preterits anyway?They're the same.

One group is known by these names: Partial Preterism, Orthodox Preterism, Classical Preterism, Moderate Preterism, (and sometimes as an insult) Hypo-preterism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Partial_Preterism

The other group is known as: Full Preterism, Consistent Preterism, (and as insults) Unorthodox Preterism or Hyper-Preterism. (Pantelism is sometimes used as a synonym for the previous names, but in theologic aspects, Pantelism is a sub-division of Full Preterism, holding to Universalism, which traditional Full Preterism is not.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Full_Preterism

Clifton
May 17th 2008, 06:57 PM
I am a Preterist.

Another user, Romulus (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=16673), is a full Preterist.

They're the same.

One group is known by these names: Partial Preterism, Orthodox Preterism, Classical Preterism, Moderate Preterism, (and sometimes as an insult) Hypo-preterism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Partial_Preterism

The other group is known as: Full Preterism, Consistent Preterism, (and as insults) Unorthodox Preterism or Hyper-Preterism. (Pantelism is sometimes used as a synonym for the previous names, but in theologic aspects, Pantelism is a sub-division of Full Preterism, holding to Universalism, which traditional Full Preterism is not.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Full_Preterism

Which one do you classify yourself as?

Blessings.

markedward
May 17th 2008, 07:03 PM
Not a Full Preterist.
Not a Pantelist.

matthew94
May 17th 2008, 07:12 PM
In a more general sense, we are all 'partial' preterists. The term preterist, in this context, just means a view that any given prophecy has been fulfilled in the past. Since we all believe that the Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in the 1st Coming of Jesus, we are all 'preterists' in regard to those prophecies.

As a category, (orthodox/partial) preterists are those who believe in the past fulfillment of very specific prophecies in the Bible. For instance, the vast majority of those labeled as partial preterists believe the 70 weeks & the Olivet Discourse were fullfilled by the 1st century. I suppose to qualify as a partial preterist, you'd have to believe a certain percentage of biblical prophecies have already been fulfilled in the past. I don't know what the percentage would be though.

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 08:29 PM
Moon, I see others have answered your question. As for the podcast, I do post when a new one is up on the what's new portion. Here is an index of the ones already done

http://www.preteristsite.com/podcastindex.html

Matthew I would take a bit of issue though that we are all "preterists" in some way - I think that is not really a theological way to see it. I wrote on this a while back, that I will repost here (I bolded one important part just for here):

http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=156

It seems like a great deal that goes on in this orthodox versus heretical eschatological debate hinges upon a war over terminology. That should not be surprising, since positions which do not have historical credibility or have other inherent flaws which would make persons reluctant to consider them off the bat, will often adopt terminology which either paints a better face on the view or cloaks it with the word that has historically “good” meaning so as to, intentionally or unintentionally, obfuscate the issue. First off, let me say, that there are many people who have fallen into this trap unwittingly. They don’t realize that they have bought into the language game, or do not realize its importance. I am not trying to read into anyone’s overt intentions here, but rather examine underlying motivations which are common with views that have problems with general acceptance, whether rightly or wrongly. For example, at this point in our culture, it seems backward and intolerant to be opposed to abortion. Therefore, many times, those of us who are opposed to abortion will refer to ourselves as “pro-life.” While that descriptive serves a purpose to a point, the fact is, in terms of this debate, we are very much against abortion. I don’t think that we should shy away from the label of “anti-abortion.” I don’t shy away from the labels of anti-murder, anti-racist, anti-child abused, or any number of things that I’m opposed to on moral grounds. I don’t need to pretend and or act as being against abortion is something that I need to cover in flowery language. Yes of course I am in favor of life, but in this particular case, I am in favor of life by being specifically against abortion. Abortion is the specific referent in the discussion, and that is what I am against. That is one example, though it doesn’t walk on all fours necessarily. I did use it, however, to demonstrate that I recognize the semantical gamemanship even with positions thatat are ones I myself hold.


Similarly, the homosexual movement has used the power flowery words to disguise deviant sexual practices. It is not “homosexual”, it is “gay.” I for the most part refuse to use the term “gay.” That word had such a wonderful historical meaning it has now been co-opted to mean something which is an abomination in the sight of God. I will not be a party to that.
So bringing us back to the eschatological discussion, sometimes hyperpreterists, and well-meaning non-hyperpreterists, will say that those of my eschatological persuasion (sometimes it even happens with those who are of my own eschatological persuasion) are simply a variant of futurist. This is boldly historically inaccurate and nonsensical. One cannot be considered a futurist simply because they believe that the physical, bodily return of Christ and the physical, bodily resurrection are future. This discussion is framed with an historical Christian context. ALL CHRISTIANS believe those things. They have been part and parcel of the historical foundations of the Faith for millennia. Things which are to be presumed in common are not items for which labels indicating diversity are created. Therefore, it is completely redundant to say within a Christian (historical) context that a person is a futurist with regards to these items. Those things are presumed and subsumed within the title of “Christian.” This would be about as silly as claiming that all Christians are preterists simply because they believe the Messiah has already come. All Christians believe the Messiah has already come, so there is no need to make a distinction between Christians on something that all Christians have always believed (the machinations of a vocal Internet cultic teaching notwithstanding).


Therefore, in historical context, the terms “futurist” and “preterist” have been used to describe a person’s belief on the timing of debatable events, most notably, the Great Tribulation, and sometimes, the “coming,” that is described in Matthew 24. There are various levels of historical preterism, some of which do not take the “coming” in Matthew 24 to be a first century event and separate out the Great Tribulation from that language. I’m not one of those, but I recognize their existence.


This point becomes very patently obvious when one throws in the other players into this eschatological dispute - namely historicism and idealism. When those two terms are examined, it is very obvious that the issue in dispute is NOT the timing (i.e. futuricty) of the Second Coming or General Resurrection. It is regarding the timing and nature of the events leading up to that point. In orthodoxy, historicists are not those who believe that the event known as the Second Coming is manifested throughout history typically through the church age. That is preposterous. Similarly, in orthodoxy, idealists are not those that believe that the Second Coming of Christ is manifested ideally throughout the church age, but rather both of these views hold that this is a discrete and distinct event yet in our future. All these views hold the futuricity in common because that is a basic Christian belief. It does not make any of these views futurist, it makes them Christian.

I updated this argument a bit here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=359

If interested, you can go take a gander.

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 08:32 PM
Pantelism is a sub-division of Full Preterism, holding to Universalism, which traditional Full Preterism is not.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Full_Preterism

I personally know the author who coined the word pantelism (Pastor Chori Jonathin Seraiah), and I would think he has the right to define it since he invented it. And he means it as identical to hyperpreterism. If some hyperpreterists have taken it make some distinction that is contrary to authorial intent while the author is still living and his book (The End of All Things) which coined the phrase is still in print. If anyone is interested I can type out the introductory portion of his book where he talks about coining the word and what he intends to convey by it, which follows then his usage. At the end he interacts with John Noe, who was not a universalist then or now, and refers to him as a pantelist.

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 08:34 PM
On another note, I would be careful in using Wikipedia as a source for anything controversial and I say that being the author of at least 50% of that Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is all about compromise, I wrote that article with a hyperpreterist and we both had to give and take on things we would have written differently. So while it is a good start for some basic basic things, I would go to more scholarly sources for other information.

moonglow
May 17th 2008, 09:12 PM
Moon, I see others have answered your question. As for the podcast, I do post when a new one is up on the what's new portion. Here is an index of the ones already done

http://www.preteristsite.com/podcastindex.html

Matthew I would take a bit of issue though that we are all "preterists" in some way - I think that is not really a theological way to see it. I wrote on this a while back, that I will repost here (I bolded one important part just for here):

http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=156

It seems like a great deal that goes on in this orthodox versus heretical eschatological debate hinges upon a war over terminology. That should not be surprising, since positions which do not have historical credibility or have other inherent flaws which would make persons reluctant to consider them off the bat, will often adopt terminology which either paints a better face on the view or cloaks it with the word that has historically “good” meaning so as to, intentionally or unintentionally, obfuscate the issue. First off, let me say, that there are many people who have fallen into this trap unwittingly. They don’t realize that they have bought into the language game, or do not realize its importance. I am not trying to read into anyone’s overt intentions here, but rather examine underlying motivations which are common with views that have problems with general acceptance, whether rightly or wrongly. For example, at this point in our culture, it seems backward and intolerant to be opposed to abortion. Therefore, many times, those of us who are opposed to abortion will refer to ourselves as “pro-life.” While that descriptive serves a purpose to a point, the fact is, in terms of this debate, we are very much against abortion. I don’t think that we should shy away from the label of “anti-abortion.” I don’t shy away from the labels of anti-murder, anti-racist, anti-child abused, or any number of things that I’m opposed to on moral grounds. I don’t need to pretend and or act as being against abortion is something that I need to cover in flowery language. Yes of course I am in favor of life, but in this particular case, I am in favor of life by being specifically against abortion. Abortion is the specific referent in the discussion, and that is what I am against. That is one example, though it doesn’t walk on all fours necessarily. I did use it, however, to demonstrate that I recognize the semantical gamemanship even with positions thatat are ones I myself hold.


Similarly, the homosexual movement has used the power flowery words to disguise deviant sexual practices. It is not “homosexual”, it is “gay.” I for the most part refuse to use the term “gay.” That word had such a wonderful historical meaning it has now been co-opted to mean something which is an abomination in the sight of God. I will not be a party to that.
So bringing us back to the eschatological discussion, sometimes hyperpreterists, and well-meaning non-hyperpreterists, will say that those of my eschatological persuasion (sometimes it even happens with those who are of my own eschatological persuasion) are simply a variant of futurist. This is boldly historically inaccurate and nonsensical. One cannot be considered a futurist simply because they believe that the physical, bodily return of Christ and the physical, bodily resurrection are future. This discussion is framed with an historical Christian context. ALL CHRISTIANS believe those things. They have been part and parcel of the historical foundations of the Faith for millennia. Things which are to be presumed in common are not items for which labels indicating diversity are created. Therefore, it is completely redundant to say within a Christian (historical) context that a person is a futurist with regards to these items. Those things are presumed and subsumed within the title of “Christian.” This would be about as silly as claiming that all Christians are preterists simply because they believe the Messiah has already come. All Christians believe the Messiah has already come, so there is no need to make a distinction between Christians on something that all Christians have always believed (the machinations of a vocal Internet cultic teaching notwithstanding).


Therefore, in historical context, the terms “futurist” and “preterist” have been used to describe a person’s belief on the timing of debatable events, most notably, the Great Tribulation, and sometimes, the “coming,” that is described in Matthew 24. There are various levels of historical preterism, some of which do not take the “coming” in Matthew 24 to be a first century event and separate out the Great Tribulation from that language. I’m not one of those, but I recognize their existence.


This point becomes very patently obvious when one throws in the other players into this eschatological dispute - namely historicism and idealism. When those two terms are examined, it is very obvious that the issue in dispute is NOT the timing (i.e. futuricty) of the Second Coming or General Resurrection. It is regarding the timing and nature of the events leading up to that point. In orthodoxy, historicists are not those who believe that the event known as the Second Coming is manifested throughout history typically through the church age. That is preposterous. Similarly, in orthodoxy, idealists are not those that believe that the Second Coming of Christ is manifested ideally throughout the church age, but rather both of these views hold that this is a discrete and distinct event yet in our future. All these views hold the futuricity in common because that is a basic Christian belief. It does not make any of these views futurist, it makes them Christian.

I updated this argument a bit here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=359

If interested, you can go take a gander.

Impressive Dee Dee, but honestly most of that went right over my head...:rolleyes: I struggle enough with the different end time labels and in keeping those straight! Is there any way you can dumb this down for folks like me?...:cool:

God bless

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 09:18 PM
umm the short version would be that it makes no sense to say that all Christians are preterists because we believe the Messiah has come already. That is part and parcel of being a Christian and thus serves no distinquishing purpose. All definitions have to have a baseline. If I say I am ten feet away.... that means nothing unless you know what I am ten feet away from. From you? From Mars? From where? So if our starting point is Christianity, then preterism means something different than believing some events are past, such as the Messiah because we all believe that and it makes it no better than saying all Christians are Christian.

However.... if the starting point is Judaism, then it would make sense since nonMessianic Jews deny the messiah has come. But within Christianity, preterism is a theologial label that refers to events that are disputed amongst Christians, such as the Great Tribulation.

I hope that made more sense.

moonglow
May 17th 2008, 09:29 PM
umm the short version would be that it makes no sense to say that all Christians are preterists because we believe the Messiah has come already. That is part and parcel of being a Christian and thus serves no distinquishing purpose. All definitions have to have a baseline. If I say I am ten feet away.... that means nothing unless you know what I am ten feet away from. From you? From Mars? From where? So if our starting point is Christianity, then preterism means something different than believing some events are past, such as the Messiah because we all believe that and it makes it no better than saying all Christians are Christian.

However.... if the starting point is Judaism, then it would make sense since nonMessianic Jews deny the messiah has come. But within Christianity, preterism is a theologial label that refers to events that are disputed amongst Christians, such as the Great Tribulation.

I hope that made more sense.

Ok thanks...I got that part but I guess what threw me was it sounded as if you didn't care for the label preterism at all...but you are fine with that, correct? you were just explaining the importance of using the correct terminology... With everyone using slightly different terms to me, anyway, I think they are all basically the same, (regarding our end times view on this thread I mean).

I think we all probably have the same views, but I guess if we each want too we can lay out exactly what we think is past and what is yet to come if anyone wants to do that. From what I have seen on other threads is the differences are rather minor. Though I don't know that I know the definition of historicist, that Clifton brought up.

God bless

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 09:37 PM
Oh I am sorry, I have no problem with the label preterist. I just don't think that the orthodox needs a qualifier. As Matthew said I am a preterist. No "partial" needed.

Also I was venting a bit of a pet peeve when we preterists often say "well we are all preterists" because, for the reasons above, it is unhelpful. It might be okay to start a conversation but it must move away from there. Kind of like the really unhelpful analogies for the Trinity. They might be okay as a baby step, but we have to get away from saying things like:

The Trinity is like H20, it can be water, gas, or ice.

Or The Trinity is like an egg, it has a yolk, white goopy stuff, and a shell.

That is all I mean. To say all Christians are preterists to some extent yanks the word out of a meaningful theologically Christian context.

moonglow
May 17th 2008, 09:53 PM
Oh I am sorry, I have no problem with the label preterist. I just don't think that the orthodox needs a qualifier. As Matthew said I am a preterist. No "partial" needed.

Also I was venting a bit of a pet peeve when we preterists often say "well we are all preterists" because, for the reasons above, it is unhelpful. It might be okay to start a conversation but it must move away from there. Kind of like the really unhelpful analogies for the Trinity. They might be okay as a baby step, but we have to get away from saying things like:

The Trinity is like H20, it can be water, gas, or ice.

Or The Trinity is like an egg, it has a yolk, white goopy stuff, and a shell.

That is all I mean. To say all Christians are preterists to some extent yanks the word out of a meaningful theologically Christian context.

Yes I see...Matthew (whom I have a great deal of respect for) says this alot to the pre-tribbers on here, I think, to shake them out of the idea we think its ALL happened and get them away from the stereotype idea they have in their minds about us. Many see us as heretical for our views inspite of them being allowed on the board. They don't understand and many times refuse to even read the definition of what it means. :( Its rather frustrating.

Oh I was looking on those links you gave and found your study on Matthew 24 ...hope you don't mind me copying and pasting a bit on here so you know what I am talking about:


To start this analysis, take a look at how Young's Literal Translation renders the verse:

. . . and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof.

One problem with approaching this passage is that we automatically assume that the word translated as "angels" MUST mean heavenly beings ~ but like with the rest of our study, this is easily cured by recognizing the flexibility of the language, and the distinct OT allusions made by Jesus. The fact is that the Greek word "angelos" simply means messenger and is used throughout the NT to refer to mere men such as John the Baptist (Mark 1:2; Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24-27) and others (Luke 9:52, James 2:25) [Sch M24GT 43]. Interestingly in Luke 9:52, these were human "angels" sent to prepare the way for the message of Christ. Furthermore, in Revelation, John sends Christ's words to the "angels" of each of the seven churches. What need would an angelic being have of these exhortations? Were these "angels" to come and tell the congregation? No, more likely these "angels" are the preachers/messengers of the Gospel to the flock, i.e., the pastors [Sch M24GT 43]. The LXX also shows this same usage, as messengers of God to His people [De LDM 175]:

2 Chron. 36:15-16: And the LORD God of their fathers sent warnings to them by His messengers (Greek: Angelos), rising up early and sending them, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. But they mocked the messengers (Greek: Angelos) of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, till there was no remedy.

Haggai 1:13: Then Haggai, the LORD's messenger (Gk. Angelos - LXX), spoke the LORD's message to the people. . .

Malachi 2:7: For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth; for he is the messenger (Gk. Angelos - LXX) of the LORD of hosts.


I came to this same conclusion also...not that long ago actually! I am going to book mark this and if its ok, I would like your permission to copy parts of it in threads on here (giving the link and posting you as the author which we have to do because of board rules on this), IF I have your permission (people just don't click on links very much on this end times form). I have read Adam Clark's bible commentary on Matthew 24 which is very good in also giving the historical information as to what was going on at that time and usually put some of his commentary on here and I also refer to Coffman Commentaries quite a bit too as one of our Admin personally knew him and said he held to this view also. He passed away, I think it was last summer..:( And the university he worked for yanked off all his commentaries wanting to sell them for a high price in book form instead. :( Eventually they did allow for his NT commentaries back on the net. Anyway this would certainly give me another wonderful source to use on Matthew 24! :)

God bless

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 10:03 PM
I give full permission for any of my work to be reposted in full or in part on any orthodox site (i.e. I deny permission to hyperpreterists) at all times as long as a link back is given, so feel free to copy portions to post whenever you like. I have a notice on my forum giving such permission so that the Board admins know. (we have the same policy on my site, it is important that authors be protected, but many are like me and have very few restrictions on how their work may be used).

Christian Forums once got a cease and desist letter from the Associated Press for having some articles posted! And copyright law is so confusing to begin with to know what is fair use or not.

But I don't mind - the only ones denied permission are hyperpreterists.

moonglow
May 17th 2008, 10:06 PM
Oh yea I forgot...the reason we avoid using the term preterist without partial is because people assume when a person says 'I am preterist' they think everything has been fulfilled and the board rules don't allow for full preterist on here so a person can get reported then have to be explaining what they mean. We have to be clear we don't believe Jesus has had His Second Coming yet...so the prophecies have only been partially fulfilled (I know you know this..its for the readers).

I made the mistake of starting a thread using just the term preterist once and well...lets just say I had to edit my title and make sure I explained my views on the first post as I was getting alot of lack from posters on it.

God bless

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 10:06 PM
Yes I see...Matthew (whom I have a great deal of respect for) says this alot to the pre-tribbers on here, I think, to shake them out of the idea we think its ALL happened and get them away from the stereotype idea they have in their minds about us.

Yeah it is useful in that way as a baby step, but many preterists use it as much more than that, and I just don't think it can bear that weight. Quite ironic since pre-trib is the new kid on the block and unknown in church history prior to the 19th century.

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 10:10 PM
Oh yea I forgot...the reason we avoid using the term preterist without partial is because people assume when a person says 'I am preterist' they think everything has been fulfilled and the board rules don't allow for full preterist on here so a person can get reported then have to be explaining what they mean. We have to be clear we don't believe Jesus has had His Second Coming yet...so the prophecies have only been partially fulfilled (I know you know this..its for the readers).

I made the mistake of starting a thread using just the term preterist once and well...lets just say I had to edit my title and make sure I explained my views on the first post as I was getting alot of lack from posters on it.

God bless

Yeah true. I use the word "orthodox" in the very beginning to be clear and then drop it. You really need to this episode of my podcast

http://www.preteristpodcast.com/index.php/2008/03/10/perfuming-the-hog-episode-3/

It is long but I think you will find it very useful

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 10:11 PM
PS We don't allow hyperpreterism in the eschatology section of theologyweb either so I am very glad to see that this forum does not either. It is very encouraging. I won't participate at forums that don't do that.

moonglow
May 17th 2008, 10:14 PM
I give full permission for any of my work to be reposted in full or in part on any orthodox site (i.e. I deny permission to hyperpreterists) at all times as long as a link back is given, so feel free to copy portions to post whenever you like. I have a notice on my forum giving such permission so that the Board admins know. (we have the same policy on my site, it is important that authors be protected, but many are like me and have very few restrictions on how their work may be used).

Christian Forums once got a cease and desist letter from the Associated Press for having some articles posted! And copyright law is so confusing to begin with to know what is fair use or not.

But I don't mind - the only ones denied permission are hyperpreterists.

Ok thanks! :pp How do I do a link back though? Not sure what you mean by that. Here they are very strict about copyright laws and I know I probably push it a little more then I should...:rolleyes: Meaning I copy more then they would like...but I ALWAYS give the link and the author. Its mostly news articles they only want one or two sentence pasted then the link of course. When I find good bible studies I want to put the whole thing on here..:lol: Cause I know people won't click on the links! Especially if it goes against their views. :cool:

Well I have to give up the computer to my son for awhile and start supper...don't be a stranger on here ok! Its wonderful meeting you. :)

God bless

Dee Dee Warren
May 17th 2008, 10:20 PM
Nice meeting you too, very much. I try to post a bit at other forums but tweb of course comes first. What I mean by a link back is to just give a link to where the material was found. For instance my commentary link is

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

Just copy the URL from the address bar - it lets people know where to go to get the full version.

moonglow
May 17th 2008, 10:28 PM
Yeah it is useful in that way as a baby step, but many preterists use it as much more than that, and I just don't think it can bear that weight. Quite ironic since pre-trib is the new kid on the block and unknown in church history prior to the 19th century.

You know I was raised in the pre-trib rapture view...my grandmother (who had a degree in religion) taught us this...I never knew there were any other views until I came to this board. Every church I ever attended holds the pre-trip rapture view too. When someone told me this was a 'new' idea like you just stated, I was ...what? How can it be new...my grandmother knew it..it wasn't new...then they started giving me links. I tell you it was hard to realize this..it really was. Then in defending my view on here in debates, I started 'seeing' parts of verses I had ignored in the past because they didn't fit my view. I felt like I had spend my life brain washed with this...I really did! Read Hal Lindsey books, saw his movie the Late Great Planet earth...read tons of books on it...it all based on fear though...looking at the world in dark glasses waiting for horrible things to start happening. Matching the latest news events with verses in the bible. It was really depressing.

No one ever told me about the terrible event that happened in 70AD (well actually starting before that) and this was historical fact. No church did, no book...I had no clue until I got on here. Then when I read Adam Clark's bible commentary on Matthew 24 it felt like someone turned my brain around inside my head! It was physically painful to force myself to see things in a totally different way.

Then I walked around for months talking aloud to God saying...'how did this happen...why didn't we know...' meaning how did this pre-trip rapture idea ever take over and cover up history as it did? I was baffled and confused for the longest time and sickened by it all...sickened by our ignorance. By MY ignorance! But then this was all I have ever been exposed too..I truly didn't know any better. Didn't matter I lived in a number of different states over the years and attended many different churches...I never heard one word of what happened to Jerusalem...the scope I mean! Never heard a thing or how it matched perfectly with what Jesus said. We turned the 'fleeing Judea' into 'fleeing the world'...well how can you flee the world if the whole world is being attacked? Did I ever 'think' about that? No, my mind went around it...it was weird...really weird...and scary too actually.

Anyway...sorry for the ramble..said I was getting off and now I really am! :lol:

God bless

Clifton
May 17th 2008, 10:34 PM
Hi Cat,

ScottJohnson is a former mod here and part pret. He is a gentleman and a scholar and his posts are worth digging out.

In my case I respect the research done by preterists concerning the AD70 period. However I prefer to call myself a new-style historicist. I believe that futurism and preterism are at opposite poles and historicism is the balance between the two.

Cyber

I'm on the historicist side as well... my goodness, we get called all kinds of names but that... hyper-preterists / pantelists, hyper-futurists / darbyists, etc.

I have obtained a long list of tables of the names of Early Christian Writers and Expositors in regards to:



Praeterism



Historicism



Futurism


Entitled:
Early Christian Writers and Expositors
Praeterists Or Futurists?, Can we tell?

and while a historicists, futurists, or preterists can pull quotes out of those Early Christians, to "support" their system (as if it was the only legit system), "Historicism" wins big time and #1, then "Futurism", then lastly, "Preterism." I got it in the form of a web page. I may post it to my web site. I need to look it over some more, but may post it soon with an alert of some kind. Just depends. Nonetheless, the charts are nicely developed.

Blessings.

Clifton
May 17th 2008, 11:04 PM
Yeah true. I use the word "orthodox" in the very beginning to be clear and then drop it. You really need to this episode of my podcast

http://www.preteristpodcast.com/index.php/2008/03/10/perfuming-the-hog-episode-3/

It is long but I think you will find it very useful
Generally when you are on a Christian Board, you might see sections (forums, etc.) divided up like,
"Orthodox Section:", Baptist, Methodist, etc.
"Heterodox", this or that, etc.;
"Other (or whatever) Religions", this or that, etc.
But while I love the folks here, and the operators (moderators, staff, etc.) as well, and appreciate their time invested, and the one(s) bearing the cost to provide this site for us (NO OFFENSE INTENDED HERE), I would use CAUTION in using the terms "orthodox" and "orthodoxy" on THIS board - it confuses some of them and this appears to me to be a bubble the board is in - not sure why, maybe someone along the line someone thought the term "protestant" label was being used for a division for Christians since the first Century;

I've been in the modem world for nearly 20 years and just joined this board past New Years' Eve, and it sure staggered my senses when I saw some getting confused - I guess some of them just assume that "orthodoxy", etc. refers only to "Eastern Orthodoxy", etc., which IS different than today's Protestants - and maybe they just have better "clarity" than the others, or just feel that way.;)

Of course, EO (Eastern Orthodoxy) takes offense at protestants being termed as "orthodox". Anyhow, just giving ya a HEADS UP that you are gonna have to use a different vocabulary here - you can adjust, I'm sure - it will ease some, or all of the staff as well and things should be far-out and groovy, can you did it?;)

BTW, as far as I have ever known, the PRIMARY lineage to protestantism is 'oriental orthodoxy', so by linage, we "protestants" are "orthodox", but not all of us are 'oriental', though we love them too, but we are different in issues than EO.:P

Blessings.

Clifton
May 17th 2008, 11:19 PM
Though I don't know that I know the definition of historicist, that Clifton brought up.

God bless

The Historicist position is defined as a view of prophecy which regards the key eschatological passages as unfolding gradually in a fulfilment which commences prior to or in the 1st century AD, and is completed at the return of Christ:

These include:


Daniel 2
Daniel 7
Daniel 8
Daniel 9
Daniel 11
Daniel 12
The Olivet prophecy
2 Thessalonians 2:3-9
Revelation (to at least chapter 20)

On interpreting The Book of Revelation:
The Contemporary-Historical Method. This method rightly presupposes that the visions of The Seer relate to contemporary events and to future events so far as they arise out of them. The real historical horizons of the book were early lost. Yet, even so, traces of the Contemporary-Historical Method still persist in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Victorinus of Pettau and others. But with the rise of the "Spiritualizing Method" in the school of Alexandria this true method was driven from the field and lost to use till it was revived by the Roman and non-Roman Christian scholars of the 17th century. These scholars established as an assured result that the Apocalypse was “originally” directed against Rome. The Apocalypse is not to be treated as an allegory, but to be interpreted in reference to definite concrete kingdoms, powers, events, and expectations. But, though the visions of The Seer related to contemporary events, they are not limited to these. For as pointed out in Vol. II. p. 86 (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of St. John; R. H. Charles, T. & T. Clark, 1920 (2 Volumes).):
"no great prophecy receives its full and final fulfilment in any single event or series of events. In fact, it may not be fulfilled at all in regard to the object against which it was primarily delivered by the prophet or seer. But if it is the expression of a great moral and spiritual truth, it will of a surety be fulfilled at sundry times and in divers manners and in varying degrees of completeness in the history of the world."
“There are actually some scholars who still believe that the Apocalypse
as we now have it is a revision of an earlier Apocalypse” - Edward Hobbs

Blessings.

markdrums
May 18th 2008, 03:05 AM
I know "full" preterism isn't allowed here, and most Christians find it to be heresy. I also know that quite a few people posting here are probably futurists. Do we have any partial preterists here? ( please check something general like wikipedia if you're not sure what it is.) One main difference between partial and full preterism is that partial preterism....

"is a form of Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) eschatology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology) that holds much in common with but is distinct from Full preterism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Full_Preterism) (or 'consistent' or 'hyper' preterism) in that it places the events of most of the Book of Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation) as occurring during the destruction of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Jerusalem) in 70 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70) AD (and/or the Fall of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Rome) several centuries later) yet still affirms an orthodox future bodily return of Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ) to earth at an unknown day and hour." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Preterism )

I've been comfortable with partial preterism, also called orthodox preterism, for a good while now. I was wondering if there were others here who also had an interest in it. Or for that matter, if there were folks here who rejected the idea completely (I'd like to hear why). I read a good deal on preteristsite.com and listened to a good number of lectures and podcasts and sermons from across the net before I came to the position I'm currently at. My own pastor's more of a futurist, but he and I have had really good discussions.


Looking forward to another good discussion here.


I also agree with some of the preterist interpretations. I don't believe that ALL of the prophecies have been fulfilled, because the "second coming" and "the rapture" (in my opinion) are a simultaneous event.

I guess I would classify my "end times" views as "Execegetical Eschatology". At least as best I can that is! LOL!

Funny how what I was "taught" growing up, seemed to keep me confused. I had so many questions; And there were tons of things that never made sense in my dispensational background.
(No need to go into details here..... Y'all know what I mean) ;)

However, after struggling with the "different ideas" than I was used to, I decided to read the scriptures again.... but in a fresh, unbiased light. Just to see if things might make more sense to me.

Well... let's just say that I saw flaws in my old dispensational interpretation.
We'll leave it at that.
:)

Cyberseeker
May 18th 2008, 04:01 AM
... while a historicists, futurists, or preterists can pull quotes out of those Early Christians, to "support" their system (as if it was the only legit system), "Historicism" wins big time and #1, then "Futurism", then lastly, "Preterism." I got it in the form of a web page.

Can you post a link? I would be very interested to see what the ECF had to say.

Yes, historicism makes more sense than the others. Even partial preterism (tho reasonable in comparison to full pret) takes the position that prophecy does not speak for 2000 years. I cannot buy into it.

matthew94
May 18th 2008, 05:08 AM
DeeDee,

I am coming at things from a different angle when I say that we are all preterists to some degree. I'm a pastor at a local church. There are people who don't know anything about preterism and, if they do, they've read that it's heretical. By telling them what the actual meaning of preterism is, we can deflate their initial argument and cause them to start thinking.

I can appreciate where you are coming from as well. You are concerned with wording things in meaningful ways within a context of people who tend to know theological terms. Words mean things. And in that context I completely agree that we need to be somewhat aggresive in claiming proper use of terminology.

In Christ,
matthew

CoffeeCat
May 18th 2008, 05:20 AM
For tonight I just want to say I'm happy to see so much discussion. Dee Dee, I had no idea you posted here. I saw your name, recognized it, and thought "whoa, cool!" :) Your website's been very helpful. Thank you for it!

I also want to be clear that I am a partial/orthodox preterist (not directed to anyone in particular). It seems like a lot of people hesitate around the word 'preterism' at all, which is unfortunate. I like to take the time to explain it, as best I can, to clear up the misunderstandings. The biggest one I hear is definitely the "preterism? There's no WAY the second coming of Christ happened! We're still waiting for Him!" and then I have to make it clear. Which is fine. The more people understand, the better, even if they disagree.

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 05:23 AM
When I was doing my search on Preterism I found a post by markedward that was full of scripture pointing to Preterism. The ones about the gospel being preached to the whole world were the ones that had me convinced that the Olivet Discourse was, at least, mostly fulfilled.

Clifton
May 18th 2008, 01:27 PM
Can you post a link? I would be very interested to see what the ECF had to say.

Yes, historicism makes more sense than the others. Even partial preterism (tho reasonable in comparison to full pret) takes the position that prophecy does not speak for 2000 years. I cannot buy into it.

I uploaded the Web Page to my domain last night:

PHF_ECW (http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/eschatology/PHF_ECW.htm)

It is quite lengthy. The charts gives names of the Early Writers and Expositors (up to at least Primasius, c. 550) to show a continuation throughout history what they believed about what Bible Passage(s) that the varying systems "refer to" (Preterist, Historicist, Futurist) and their beliefs (Early Writers and Expositors) vary according to “which passage(s)” and “which writer” – Example for Daniel 2 (though it looks better on the web page and is in tables):

Historicism:
Daniel 2
Fourth empire broken when Roman empirefalls (feet and toes formed):

180 Irenaeus
185 Tertullian
c. 194 Clement
200 Hippolytus
c. 230 Origen
280 Methodius
300 Victorinus
306 Lactantius
330 Eusebius
c. 347 Cyril
c. 350 Aphrahat
401 Severus
407 John Chrysostom
340-420 Jerome
c. 450 Theodoret
354-430 Augustine
520 Andreas

Early Church Writings, and later, can be accessed at various web sites. One of those sites is:

Christian Classics Ethereal Library (http://www.ccel.org/)

Blessings.

moonglow
May 18th 2008, 06:17 PM
The Historicist position is defined as a view of prophecy which regards the key eschatological passages as unfolding gradually in a fulfilment which commences prior to or in the 1st century AD, and is completed at the return of Christ:

These include:


Daniel 2
Daniel 7
Daniel 8
Daniel 9
Daniel 11
Daniel 12
The Olivet prophecy
2 Thessalonians 2:3-9
Revelation (to at least chapter 20)

On interpreting The Book of Revelation:
The Contemporary-Historical Method. This method rightly presupposes that the visions of The Seer relate to contemporary events and to future events so far as they arise out of them. The real historical horizons of the book were early lost. Yet, even so, traces of the Contemporary-Historical Method still persist in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Victorinus of Pettau and others. But with the rise of the "Spiritualizing Method" in the school of Alexandria this true method was driven from the field and lost to use till it was revived by the Roman and non-Roman Christian scholars of the 17th century. These scholars established as an assured result that the Apocalypse was “originally” directed against Rome. The Apocalypse is not to be treated as an allegory, but to be interpreted in reference to definite concrete kingdoms, powers, events, and expectations. But, though the visions of The Seer related to contemporary events, they are not limited to these. For as pointed out in Vol. II. p. 86 (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of St. John; R. H. Charles, T. & T. Clark, 1920 (2 Volumes).):
"no great prophecy receives its full and final fulfilment in any single event or series of events. In fact, it may not be fulfilled at all in regard to the object against which it was primarily delivered by the prophet or seer. But if it is the expression of a great moral and spiritual truth, it will of a surety be fulfilled at sundry times and in divers manners and in varying degrees of completeness in the history of the world."
“There are actually some scholars who still believe that the Apocalypse
as we now have it is a revision of an earlier Apocalypse” - Edward Hobbs

Blessings.

Ok thanks...but explain to me what is the difference between this and the partial preterism view? Doesn't seem like much from what I can tell.

God bless

Clifton
May 18th 2008, 06:56 PM
Ok thanks...but explain to me what is the difference between this and the partial preterism view? Doesn't seem like much from what I can tell.

God bless

There are some things that Historicism holds as unfolding gradually in fulfilment over time which some partial preterism holds has already happened and is over with (and will not happen again), e.g. events in the texts of Revelation Chapter 4 to 19.

Blessed.

moonglow
May 18th 2008, 08:48 PM
Ok I see...thanks for explaining that. :)


God bless

The Village Idiot
May 19th 2008, 03:25 AM
I was about to ask whether by "historist" you meant the continuo-historical or the preterist viewpoints. But you saved me the trouble of asking. I believe that the preteriest, continuo-historical, futurist and ideal systems all have merit at some points. For myself, I find the ideal perspective the most satisfying overall.

moonglow
May 19th 2008, 02:31 PM
There are some things that Historicism holds as unfolding gradually in fulfilment over time which some partial preterism holds has already happened and is over with (and will not happen again), e.g. events in the texts of Revelation Chapter 4 to 19.

Blessed.

Oh yea...I wanted to ask you since you see Revelation 4- 19 as still going on...(which I might agree with you on some areas here) do you see the four horse men still riding? I do. I think Christ is the conquering white horse rider still putting His enemies under His feet (I image you know which verse I am referring too) ...the bow is empty...no arrow, no aggressive weapon there at all ...second we have always had war, death, famine, disease etc going on so I think its safe to say the riders have always been riding and still are. (at least since the time of Christ on earth).

Thanks.


The Village Idiot
Clifton--Thanks for post# 30:
I was about to ask whether by "historist" you meant the continuo-historical or the preterist viewpoints. But you saved me the trouble of asking. I believe that the preteriest, continuo-historical, futurist and ideal systems all have merit at some points. For myself, I find the ideal perspective the most satisfying overall.

What is the ideal perspective?

God bless

Cyberseeker
May 19th 2008, 02:55 PM
I uploaded the Web Page to my domain last night:

PHF_ECW (http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/eschatology/PHF_ECW.htm)

It is quite lengthy ...

Not kidding ;) but I printed out all 18 pages. Very compelling arguments. None, not even one of the early Church fathers were preterist.

Thanks for putting it together and I hope a few of the resident prets take time to read it.

Clifton
May 19th 2008, 03:07 PM
I was about to ask whether by "historist" you meant the continuo-historical or the preterist viewpoints. But you saved me the trouble of asking. I believe that the preteriest, continuo-historical, futurist and ideal systems all have merit at some points. For myself, I find the ideal perspective the most satisfying overall.
Perhaps Contemporary-Historicist. Not quite sure, but definitely "Historicist", of some sort. I began to try to use caution in "identifying myself" under "labels" in some areas of Biblical issues - thus, I remain with the generic "neutral" label for some issues and fields. I want to be able to know if for sure if I am at McDonald's Restaurant, Burger King, or another Restaurant when ordering.:P

The work, "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of St. John"; R. H. Charles, T. & T. Clark, 1920 (2 Volumes), uses various methods in it's interpretation, translation, and Greek Construction for The Book of Revelation. In post #30, which you referred to, I quote most of that which is #1 on the list. Here's the remainder of that paragraph, after where I dropped off after ("But, though the visions of our author related to contemporary events, they are not limited to these.")

For, as I have said in vol. ii. 86, "no great prophecy receives its full and final fulfillment in any single event or series of events. In fact, it may not be fulfilled at all in regard to the object against which it was primarily delivered by the prophet or seer. But if it is the expression of a great moral and spiritual truth, it will of a surety be fulfilled at sundry times and in divers manners and in varying degrees of completeness" in the history of the world.
For those whom have the time, or wish to bookmark or save this list to disk, the methods of interpretations can be accessed at:

XV. THE METHODS OF INTERPETATION ADOPTED IN THIS COMMENTARY (http://clifton-hodges.com/faith/jap/rhc/intro-XV.htm).

Blessings.

Clifton
May 19th 2008, 03:30 PM
Oh yea...I wanted to ask you since you see Revelation 4- 19 as still going on...(which I might agree with you on some areas here) do you see the four horse men still riding? I do.

I'll get back to you on that, and provide the info out of the monster commentary and exegetical I use. It's 2 PDF files with each file over 500 pages, (and the pages are "image" files at that), however, I have noted the area the four horse men are addressed (the "traditional-historical method" is applied to them for interpretation). I have to copy it from the PDF file, into MS Word, then deal with the Greek letters and the superscripts first, and format it for posting.


I think Christ is the conquering white horse rider still putting His enemies under His feet (I image you know which verse I am referring too) ...the bow is empty...no arrow, no aggressive weapon there at all ...second we have always had war, death, famine, disease etc going on so I think its safe to say the riders have always been riding and still are. (at least since the time of Christ on earth).

Makes sense to me.

As for "war, death, famine, disease, etc.", I have studied much history over the decades, and it does seem like things continue to get worst all the time, despite our 'technological' advancements.:( Nonetheless, there are areas in life for some people on Earth that had been made easier, no doubt.

Blessings.

Clifton
May 19th 2008, 03:40 PM
Not kidding ;) but I printed out all 18 pages. Very compelling arguments. None, not even one of the early Church fathers were preterist.

Originator and Founder of Preterism:
Luis de Alcazar (or Alcasar) (1554-1613).
Another counter-interpretation to the Historicism held by Protestantism was proposed by the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Luis+De+Alcazar+%22&btnG=Google+Search) (1554-1613), who also wrote a commentary called “Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse”, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that in it that all of Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. Sometimes his last name is spelled as Alcasar.

There may have been some small remnants of people prior to Alcazar that believed in some manners as he did. Don't know, but nonetheless, RC was pleased with Alcazar.


Thanks for putting it together and I hope a few of the resident prets take time to read it.Well, I wish I could take credit for that, but someone else 'constructed' the outline. I have just been formatting it into a web page - as you can see, I still have a tad bit way to go. But I placed it there on my domain early for those who wish to look over it, bookmark it, save it disk, and/or print it.

Blessings.

moonglow
May 19th 2008, 03:59 PM
I'll get back to you on that, and provide the info out of the monster commentary and exegetical I use. It's 2 PDF files with each file over 500 pages, (and the pages are "image" files at that), however, I have noted the area the four horse men are addressed (the "traditional-historical method" is applied to them for interpretation). I have to copy it from the PDF file, into MS Word, then deal with the Greek letters and the superscripts first, and format it for posting.



Makes sense to me.

As for "war, death, famine, disease, etc.", I have studied much history over the decades, and it does seem like things continue to get worst all the time, despite our 'technological' advancements.:( Nonetheless, there are areas in life for some people on Earth that had been made easier, no doubt.

Blessings.

Oh...didn't mean to cause you alot of work there...

On the four horsemen...I guess I thought from what you said that in your view you see things as continually unfolding, that would include them...and ongoing happenings...

Compared to history...I just don't see war, death, famine and disease worsening at all...if nothing else its improved. The Black death took at least 75 million people and was a global disease. (just to name one major disease outbreak in history). World War two was a global war involving nearly every nation in the world killing over 70 million people...our ability to deal with disease is much improved though of course will never totally go away. There has been no wars on the scale of WWII since then...we have not gone through another Great Depression which did affect many other countries besides the US....so I am not sure what causes you to think things are gradually getting worse?

God bless

John146
May 19th 2008, 05:33 PM
What is the ideal perspective?

I think he meant idealist, which is the view I hold, with maybe a hint here and there of the other views. Here is one definition of idealist that I found:

Idealist, sometimes called the ‘spiritualist’, interprets Revelation from a spiritual point of view, symbolically, as “representing the ongoing conflict of good and evil with no immediate historical connection to any social or political events”, wherein in understanding the reason why the book is written, the text can be interpreted “for its time, our time, and all time” (Pate & Gundry 1998:23). Chiastically structured, the key to the Book of Revelation “is to be found in 10:1-15:4, with its description of the struggle and liberation of the oppressed communities of the world” (Pate & Gundry 1998:27). Idealist “acknowledges the apocalyptic nature of Revelation”, but stands on a strong hermeneutical foundation that sees what is more important is what the text teaches at that point of time, and through good hermeneutical principles, identify the genre before interpreting literature. This is to say idealist, although acknowledges Revelation as containing some predictions of particular events, does not treat the book as a book of prophecy, but as a text presenting spiritual precepts through symbols for interpretation as apocalyptic literature (Pate & Gundry 1998:127-131).

Idealist sees the Millennium as a non-literal ‘thousand years’, referring to the entire period of history between Christ’s first and second comings, which include the present time, where Christ is now reigning at the right hand of the Father (Pate & Gundry 1998:27). To the idealist, the seven seals do not belong to a particular time, nor follow chronological succession. This deals with the whole history of the church and of the world throughout the Christian age, representing the calamities that fall upon the children of God. The idealist sees it “unnecessary to dwell on particulars of the plagues” and calamities from the seven trumpets and the seven bowls, for the significance is simply that “God uses every department of creation to punish the unrepentant”. The beast of the sea is seen as agents used by the dragon to attach the church, representing the spirit of the world that opposes and persecutes the church. The beast of the earth is seen as false religion and false philosophy in whatever forms it may appear. Babylon is referred to as the worldly city or center of wickedness that allures, tempts, and draws people away from God, or the world in the church, the unspiritual or earthly element that has infiltrated the body of Christ (Pate & Gundry 1998:104-125).

The only part of that I would disagree with is where it says the seven seals are not chronological. I do see the book of Revelation predicting specific events like the future final wrath of God, the future second coming of Christ, the day of judgment and the appearing of the new heavens and earth. Everything else is from a spiritual standpoint reflecting the spiritual warfare that has gone on throughout history, but will intensify during Satan's little season just prior to the second coming of Christ.

Idealists tend to see Revelation as being written in parallel sections or cycles, all culminating with the final wrath of God upon the wicked at the future second coming of Christ. It gives us different angles or perspectives of the same ongoing New Testament time period. Except for the last part that deals with the conditions on the new heavens and new earth.

matthew94
May 19th 2008, 05:43 PM
In regards to interpreting Revelation, there is a great book written by Steve Gregg called "Revelation: 4 Views." It is a parallel commentary meaning that it provides side by side commentary on Revelation from each of the 4 major perspectives (historicist, preterist, futurist, idealist). I found it very even handed. Gregg let the adherents of each view do the talking.

Clifton
May 19th 2008, 08:26 PM
Oh...didn't mean to cause you alot of work there...

Oh, no problem or a lot of work - it is fun and exercising - taking something off an image page in PDF is like OCR Scanning, so I need to do this ever so often to stay in practice - cause I at times need to do this for my personal project files.


On the four horsemen...I guess I thought from what you said that in your view you see things as continually unfolding, that would include them...and ongoing happenings...I believe I will start a new thread for this, entitled "Giddyap". I might be wrong, but I think that you in particular, whether you agree and disagree with the 'British" texts, are going to LOVE (i.e. "Fascinated") at what you will see.;)

I will include The White Horse notes as well.


Compared to history...I just don't see war, death, famine and disease worsening at all...if nothing else its improved. The Black death took at least 75 million people and was a global disease. (just to name one major disease outbreak in history). World War two was a global war involving nearly every nation in the world killing over 70 million people...our ability to deal with disease is much improved though of course will never totally go away. There has been no wars on the scale of WWII since then...we have not gone through another Great Depression which did affect many other countries besides the US....so I am not sure what causes you to think things are gradually getting worse?Well, I understand where you are coming from. Man seems to be more brutal than ever to me. A totality of a lot of little "isolated" issues of death and murder may or may not exceed deaths in wars and plagues. There have been some recent natural disasters lately across the world that has caused lives. One of them was in my home State (Suffolk, VA.), but miraculously, no one died. But I understand where you are coming from.;)

Blessings.

The Village Idiot
May 19th 2008, 09:12 PM
I have company? Wow! I'm impressed. This is the first pouplar forum I've found where anyone has even heard of it.

As for those horsemen, Moonglow, I would suggest that God has so created heaven, earth, and life in them that when we depart from his creational norms, judgment follows. So as I see it, whenever you see war, instability, famine and death, the four horsemen are bestriding the earth.

The Village Idiot
May 19th 2008, 09:17 PM
I believe that the Revelation is rooted in John's world, and that all of hsi literary references were understood by his readership in the seven Asiatic churches. But while John's work is based on his own time, I insist strongly that the message transcends that time.

The Revelation is apocalyptic, as the opening states. But it is also prophecy and I believe that it is an epistle. There is also some indication that it wsa a worship manual used in the early church.

I believe that justice must be done to this work as an apocalyptic prophecy in epistolary form to the seven churches. I also believe that most of the problems in the discussion of this book arise from the failure to recognize the kind of work that it is.

moonglow
May 19th 2008, 10:16 PM
I believe that the Revelation is rooted in John's world, and that all of hsi literary references were understood by his readership in the seven Asiatic churches. But while John's work is based on his own time, I insist strongly that the message transcends that time.

The Revelation is apocalyptic, as the opening states. But it is also prophecy and I believe that it is an epistle. There is also some indication that it wsa a worship manual used in the early church.

I believe that justice must be done to this work as an apocalyptic prophecy in epistolary form to the seven churches. I also believe that most of the problems in the discussion of this book arise from the failure to recognize the kind of work that it is.

Agreed..I would do a Here! Here! if we were all sitting around a table discussing this...:lol:

I also agree on the horsemen too...



John146

Idealists tend to see Revelation as being written in parallel sections or cycles, all culminating with the final wrath of God upon the wicked at the future second coming of Christ. It gives us different angles or perspectives of the same ongoing New Testament time period. Except for the last part that deals with the conditions on the new heavens and new earth.

You know I have seriously considered this...just in looking how different nations seems to cycle through tribulation and other things that seem to fit the bible...:hmm: I am afraid I just don't know enough of world history though to come to any real conclusion on this...though in the discussions on here with tribbers that think things are always getting worse, and doing the research on that..it has helped expand my knowledge on certain areas (especially globally...focusing on one nation such as the US certainly doesn't give a clear picture of anything). So anyway I would be interested in learning more about this view. Though I wonder at times if it isn't a mistake to go beyond the focus of the bible, which was always the middle east...:hmm:


Clifton

Well, I understand where you are coming from. Man seems to be more brutal than ever to me. A totality of a lot of little "isolated" issues of death and murder may or may not exceed deaths in wars and plagues. There have been some recent natural disasters lately across the world that has caused lives. One of them was in my home State (Suffolk, VA.), but miraculously, no one died. But I understand where you are coming from.

I'll look for that thread..this ought to be an interesting discussion...

In studying how the pagans used to worship their gods...by throwing their living babies and children into fire to burn then alive as a scarifies for those gods...in reading how they would bury them alive within the temple walls being built for those pagan gods...and how the Hebrews took up this practice, its hard to image people doing worse. The horrors of Hitler and the horrors of today's terrorist really are no different then what was going on back in the OT. All we did was invent new ways to kill people....but on a positive note...every nation was pagan before Jesus came except for Israel. Their faith did not spread to other countries with the exception of a few individuals. With Jonah that nation he went too repented but it didn't last long before they were back to their old ways. Satan had not been bound yet, until Jesus did His work on the cross, so the gospel could not be spread. Now our faith is in every nation in the world...in some its just tiny groups of people, but its there..in others its underground, but its there. Changing one heart at a time changes nations and in turn changes how people treat each other. Yes the world still has a long ways to go...but we are certainly no longer in the Dark Ages, nor taking our children to see someone hung, or have their head cut off as a form of family entertainment...:cool: Anyway I will shut up on this until I see your Giddyap post...:lol::lol:

God bless

The Village Idiot
May 20th 2008, 03:43 AM
Some would contend that the seals, trumpets and vials all return to the first to traverse the same ground over again, with the severity of judgment increasing each time. On this understanding, the first seal corresponds to the first trumpet and the first vial, the second seal with the second trumpet and vial, and so on. Thus it is intended that the seal, trumpet and vial of corresponding numerical value should form a composite picture of judgment.

This change alone goes some way to--dare I say it--"demythologizing" the book of Revelation.

John146
May 20th 2008, 03:11 PM
I have company? Wow! I'm impressed. This is the first pouplar forum I've found where anyone has even heard of it.

Yep. Shirley Ford and wpm (Paul) also hold that view. I'm not sure if anyone else here does.

John146
May 20th 2008, 03:25 PM
You know I have seriously considered this...just in looking how different nations seems to cycle through tribulation and other things that seem to fit the bible...:hmm: I am afraid I just don't know enough of world history though to come to any real conclusion on this...though in the discussions on here with tribbers that think things are always getting worse, and doing the research on that..it has helped expand my knowledge on certain areas (especially globally...focusing on one nation such as the US certainly doesn't give a clear picture of anything). So anyway I would be interested in learning more about this view. Though I wonder at times if it isn't a mistake to go beyond the focus of the bible, which was always the middle east...:hmm:

I see the final wrath of God coming down on the world several times in the book (Rev 6, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20). That's why I believe there are parallels within it. It describes the time of judgment and rewards as occurring at the seventh trumpet. I can't see that as having already happened. Then there is Revelation 19:15-21. That, to me, is clearly a depiction of the future second coming of Christ when He comes to take vengeance on those who do not know God and obey the gospel of Christ (2 Thess 1:7-8).

As far your statement saying that the focus of the Bible is always the Middle East. I certainly disagree with that. Does it say "God so loved the Middle East that He gave His only begotten Son..."? Also, since we're specifically talking about the book of Revelation, I see that the book depicts things on a global scale. All who dwell on the face of the earth worship the beast (Rev 13:18). The harlot sits on many waters, which represent the many nations of the earth (Rev 17:15). The "flesh of all men" is consumed when Christ returns.

moonglow
May 20th 2008, 04:57 PM
I see the final wrath of God coming down on the world several times in the book (Rev 6, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20). That's why I believe there are parallels within it. It describes the time of judgment and rewards as occurring at the seventh trumpet. I can't see that as having already happened. Then there is Revelation 19:15-21. That, to me, is clearly a depiction of the future second coming of Christ when He comes to take vengeance on those who do not know God and obey the gospel of Christ (2 Thess 1:7-8).

As far your statement saying that the focus of the Bible is always the Middle East. I certainly disagree with that. Does it say "God so loved the Middle East that He gave His only begotten Son..."? Also, since we're specifically talking about the book of Revelation, I see that the book depicts things on a global scale. All who dwell on the face of the earth worship the beast (Rev 13:18). The harlot sits on many waters, which represent the many nations of the earth (Rev 17:15). The "flesh of all men" is consumed when Christ returns.

So you think that I think everything has happened already? Is that what you are saying? The title of this thread is PARTIAL...full preterism is not allowed on here, nor do I believe that anyway.

Your tone towards me is rather distrubing and not appreciated. :( I thought I came across sounding positive in wanting to learn more about this view and instead feel I got my hand slapped for asking about it! I wasn't approaching it with criticism at all...I know nothing about it to crisis it! Please don't put words in my mouth over the John 3:16 quote...that isn't what I meant at all. What I do know, is Russia is not mentioned in the bible, nor Canada, nor China, etc..the focus has always only been on the countries mentioned in the bible...in regards to God's Wrath. That was my only point. I see too many, mostly ones that live here in the US trying to twist scriptures to fit the US in the bible...or say, well we must be destroyed before all of this happens because we aren't mentioned in it! I think its too important to note what isn't there as much as what is there...that is all I am saying. That is how some get this 'fleeing Judas' in Matthew 24 twisted around to mean 'fleeing the world' which is stupid...if the whole world is under tribulation how can you flee it? Going from one side of the world to the other? Jesus was talking about exactly what He said...Judea. No more and no less. And the historical facts show the believers in Him, did indeed flee Judea when they saw the arm of Rome surrounding it and as God promised, they were spared His wrath...they fled Judea. Every single Christian fled and was saved from the coming destruction of Judea! They heeded His words and were indeed saved.

I realize there is alot left to happen..of course, including His Second Coming.

John146
May 20th 2008, 08:25 PM
So you think that I think everything has happened already? Is that what you are saying?

Nope. Never said that.


The title of this thread is PARTIAL...full preterism is not allowed on here, nor do I believe that anyway.

Right.


Your tone towards me is rather distrubing and not appreciated. :(

What do you mean? All I did was give you my view of things. My tone wasn't harsh or condescending or anything like that.


I thought I came across sounding positive in wanting to learn more about this view and instead feel I got my hand slapped for asking about it!

How so? You definitely took my post wrong.


I wasn't approaching it with criticism at all...I know nothing about it to crisis it!

I didn't say you did. I was just giving my view. You're acting like I was harsh or something. Not at all. Are you offended just by the mere fact that I disagreed with you on something?


Please don't put words in my mouth over the John 3:16 quote...that isn't what I meant at all. What I do know, is Russia is not mentioned in the bible, nor Canada, nor China, etc..the focus has always only been on the countries mentioned in the bible...in regards to God's Wrath. That was my only point. I see too many, mostly ones that live here in the US trying to twist scriptures to fit the US in the bible...or say, well we must be destroyed before all of this happens because we aren't mentioned in it! I think its too important to note what isn't there as much as what is there...that is all I am saying.

Take it easy. I see "the earth" mentioned in Revelation and I take it to mean the whole world. That's it. No reason to be offended by that.



That is how some get this 'fleeing Judas' in Matthew 24 twisted around to mean 'fleeing the world' which is stupid...if the whole world is under tribulation how can you flee it? Going from one side of the world to the other? Jesus was talking about exactly what He said...Judea. No more and no less. And the historical facts show the believers in Him, did indeed flee Judea when they saw the arm of Rome surrounding it and as God promised, they were spared His wrath...they fled Judea. Every single Christian fled and was saved from the coming destruction of Judea! They heeded His words and were indeed saved.

Yes, I agree with this and I've said so several times. But I don't believe all of Matthew 24 deals with that time period.



I realize there is alot left to happen..of course, including His Second Coming.

Yes, I knew you believed that.

moonglow
May 21st 2008, 02:44 PM
Ok John...apparently I did take your post the wrong way and I am sorry about that. With the limited way we have to communicate on here (not being able to hear tone of voice or see facial expressions) it happens...

I didn't take offense of your post because it disagrees with my views..I knew it did...otherwise I wouldn't be asking about it. I just wanted to get a better understanding of what it was all about...that's all.

God Bless

Libre
May 23rd 2008, 12:41 AM
I will be very interested in reading this whole thread. I've been inactive here, but it's sooooo refreshing to find a place where there are views accepted other than just futurist. Ohh, the battles! I know you know what I mean....

A friend of a friend told me to check out this thread.

Libre

Libre
May 23rd 2008, 12:53 AM
You know I was raised in the pre-trib rapture view...my grandmother (who had a degree in religion) taught us this...I never knew there were any other views until I came to this board. Every church I ever attended holds the pre-trip rapture view too. When someone told me this was a 'new' idea like you just stated, I was ...what? How can it be new...my grandmother knew it..it wasn't new...then they started giving me links. I tell you it was hard to realize this..it really was. Then in defending my view on here in debates, I started 'seeing' parts of verses I had ignored in the past because they didn't fit my view. I felt like I had spend my life brain washed with this...I really did! Read Hal Lindsey books, saw his movie the Late Great Planet earth...read tons of books on it...it all based on fear though...looking at the world in dark glasses waiting for horrible things to start happening. Matching the latest news events with verses in the bible. It was really depressing.

No one ever told me about the terrible event that happened in 70AD (well actually starting before that) and this was historical fact. No church did, no book...I had no clue until I got on here. Then when I read Adam Clark's bible commentary on Matthew 24 it felt like someone turned my brain around inside my head! It was physically painful to force myself to see things in a totally different way.

Then I walked around for months talking aloud to God saying...'how did this happen...why didn't we know...' meaning how did this pre-trip rapture idea ever take over and cover up history as it did? I was baffled and confused for the longest time and sickened by it all...sickened by our ignorance. By MY ignorance! But then this was all I have ever been exposed too..I truly didn't know any better. Didn't matter I lived in a number of different states over the years and attended many different churches...I never heard one word of what happened to Jerusalem...the scope I mean! Never heard a thing or how it matched perfectly with what Jesus said. We turned the 'fleeing Judea' into 'fleeing the world'...well how can you flee the world if the whole world is being attacked? Did I ever 'think' about that? No, my mind went around it...it was weird...really weird...and scary too actually.

Anyway...sorry for the ramble..said I was getting off and now I really am! :lol:

God blessMoonglow, I relate a bit. I was saved while/by reading The Late Great Planet Earth. I read other Lindsay books, too. Then I had a pastor who was an historicist. Changed my life, after he knocked all the props out from under us. He said many times that it is intellectually dishonest to not inform people that there are other views, and it is spiritually elitist to claim you have the only Biblical view.

I currently waver between historicism and pp.

Blessings,
Libre

Libre
May 23rd 2008, 01:04 AM
Not kidding ;) but I printed out all 18 pages. Very compelling arguments. None, not even one of the early Church fathers were preterist.

Thanks for putting it together and I hope a few of the resident prets take time to read it.Cyberseeker, I have read the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch. He was an apostolic father who was fed to the lions in Rome. His letters can be read online, but I don't have link handy. Google should get something for you.

Ignatius said in one letter that he was living in the last epoch. Which supports the idea that the very early post 70 AD church may very well have understood that prophecy and Revelations was mostly fulfilled.

Writings from this era are pretty much limited to Ignatius and Clement of Rome. And only his first epistle is considered his. These men were writing, however, before Rome got a hold over things. And before the men usually referred to as the early church fathers. The apostolic fathers are seen as men who were contemporary with or knew the original apostles.

Libre

moonglow
May 23rd 2008, 01:25 AM
Moonglow, I relate a bit. I was saved while/by reading The Late Great Planet Earth. I read other Lindsay books, too. Then I had a pastor who was an historicist. Changed my life, after he knocked all the props out from under us. He said many times that it is intellectually dishonest to not inform people that there are other views, and it is spiritually elitist to claim you have the only Biblical view.

I currently waver between historicism and pp.

Blessings,
Libre

My sister and I even went to see that movie when it came out in theaters...left convinced the United Kingdom was the ten horns on the seven headed beast and the end was just around the corner! Of course that was many, many years ago and nothing Hal said ever came to past...:rolleyes: But I am glad to hear something good came out of it...you being saved! :pp That's great!

As the bible says,
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. Romans 8:28

Since God is in control, He can take even bad teaching and make it into something good. :)

God bless

wpm
May 23rd 2008, 04:46 AM
I have company? Wow! I'm impressed. This is the first pouplar forum I've found where anyone has even heard of it.

As for those horsemen, Moonglow, I would suggest that God has so created heaven, earth, and life in them that when we depart from his creational norms, judgment follows. So as I see it, whenever you see war, instability, famine and death, the four horsemen are bestriding the earth.

I am an Idealist as well.

Paul

wpm
May 23rd 2008, 04:49 AM
Cyberseeker, I have read the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch. He was an apostolic father who was fed to the lions in Rome. His letters can be read online, but I don't have link handy. Google should get something for you.

Ignatius said in one letter that he was living in the last epoch. Which supports the idea that the very early post 70 AD church may very well have understood that prophecy and Revelations was mostly fulfilled.

Writings from this era are pretty much limited to Ignatius and Clement of Rome. And only his first epistle is considered his. These men were writing, however, before Rome got a hold over things. And before the men usually referred to as the early church fathers. The apostolic fathers are seen as men who were contemporary with or knew the original apostles.

Libre

I would tend to disagree with your conclusion. You might find that when you read most of the old writings written over this past 2,000 yrs, every generation thinks they are the last. I feel that was the case with Ignatius of Antioch.

Paul

Cyberseeker
May 23rd 2008, 07:31 AM
Cyberseeker, I have read the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch. He was an apostolic father who was fed to the lions in Rome. His letters can be read online, but I don't have link handy. Google should get something for you.

Ignatius said in one letter that he was living in the last epoch. Which supports the idea that the very early post 70 AD church may very well have understood that prophecy and Revelations was mostly fulfilled.


Yes, but Clement and Ignatius lived and wrote before AD70. After AD70 had come and gone the church fathers did not suddenly start saying, "Hey, that was it - AD70 was the fulfilment!" The whole point of Cliftons link was to show that no ECF (after AD70) identified that date as the moment most prophecy was fulfilled. On the contrary, the ECF's after AD70 continued to expect prophecy to go on being fulfilled.

So, the ECF's were not like modern Preterists who put things in the past. Nor were they like modern Futurists who teach long gaps. Rather, their mindset was that of Historicism, teaching and expecting prophecy to work itself out progressively.

Admittedly the ECF's would not have imagined that so many years would elapse before Christ came. Nevertheless they were expecting prophecy to work itself out progressively -ie. not preterists.

Cyberseeker

moonglow
May 23rd 2008, 02:33 PM
Interesting stuff I found that kind of goes along with some of the discussion here as far was what the early church believed:

Biblical Minimalism and "The History of Preterism" (http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demarminimalism1.html)
by Gary DeMar

Plain Text/Printer friendly Version
An Answer to Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, "The End Times Controversy" (Part One)

Even proximity to the apostles is no guarantee of getting it right. There were well-intentioned people in the period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem who got things wrong and needed direct counsel to correct them (Acts 10; Gal. 2:11–14). A special council had to be called in order to clarify doctrinal issues (Acts 15). Even so, some still didn't get it (Gal. 1:6–10). Paul had to instruct the Thessalonian Christians on a matter of eschatology so they would not be "deceived" (2 Thess. 2:1–12). Peter writes that some of the things Paul wrote are "hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort" (2 Pet. 3:16). John warns his readers not to "believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1). Paul makes it clear that "even though we, or an angel from heaven should preach" a gospel contrary to what had been preached, that angel was to be "accursed" (Gal. 1:8).

Given what we know about the history of doctrinal issues in the infant church, it's surprising that Ice wants us to believe that the views of uninspired writers, of which we know almost nothing, writing decades after the death of most of the apostles, are to be taken as authoritative. What we do know is that the history of prophetic speculation has been a persistent embarrassment to the church.[13] Many of the writers claimed as prophetic authorities believed that Jesus was coming back in their day! Ignatius writes around the year A.D. 100 that "the last times are come upon us,"[14] words that echo those of the Apostle Paul when he writes that "the ends of the ages" had come upon him and the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. 10:11). They both can’t be right.

Given a choice, I’ll stick with Paul. Cyprian (c. 200–258) writes "that the day of affliction has begun to hang over our heads, and the end of the world and the time of the Antichrist . . . draw near, so that we must all stand prepared for the battle."[15] This was a constant theme in Cyprian’s writings. These men, along with most of their contemporaries, believed that they were living in the last days, that the time of the end was near for them. They were wrong because they misapplied the time texts. LaHaye and Ice repeat their errors, and in doing so, demonstrate that they've learned little from history.

Thomas Ice: "Biblical Minimalist"

Ice knows all of this, but he still plows ahead with an appeal to broad and unsubstantiated historical claims in his attack on preterism. As we will see, Ice follows the technique used by liberal "Biblical minimalists":

! Nothing in the Bible can be considered historical unless the depicted person or event has a parallel history outside the Biblical text.

! Biblical stories are myth, fiction, or legend unless they can proved to be otherwise by an appeal to non-Biblical sources.

! The New Testament does not present a preterist interpretation unless we can find non-Biblical writers who interpret prophetic texts in a preterist way.

Even though history is not authoritative, I'm willing to take the historical challenge outlined by Ice. He maintains that since all the post-New Testament writers of the first century were consistent futurists, preterism cannot be true. This is how Ice states the argument:

It is strange that there is not one shred of evidence that anyone in the first century understood these prophecies [in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation] to have been fulfilled when preterists say they were. You would think that if a large body of Bible prophecy were meant to relate to a specific generation, as preterists contend, then the Holy Spirit would have moved in such a way so that first-century believers would have reached such an understanding.[16] However, there has not yet been found any evidence that indicates that the first-century church viewed Bible prophecy this way. This fact provides a major problem for preterism, which thus far has proved insurmountable.

* * * * *

There is zero indication, from known, extant writings, that anyone understood the New Testament prophecies from a preterist perspective. No early church writings teach that Jesus returned in the first century.[17] If we as God's people are to understand the prophecies of New Testament in this way, you would think that the Holy Spirit would have left at least one written record of this.[18]

I don't know about you, but I don't need some uninspired, non-canonical document to tell me what the Bible already says! As we've seen, this is the argument of "Biblical minimalists": I won't believe what's in the Bible unless you can show me the same material "outside the New Testament."[19] Of course, when evidence is found, the minimalist will claim, "It's not enough; it really doesn't prove the point; that's not the way I would interpret it." Jesus made it absolutely clear that He would return in judgment to destroy the temple, judge Jerusalem, and come on the clouds of heaven before the generation to whom He was speaking passed away (Matt. 24:34). When the Bible tells Ice and his fellow dispensationalists what was to transpire within a generation, and they do not believe it, then why would they be convinced by some uninspired document written decades after the fact? Ice sounds like the rich man who wants Abraham to raise Lazarus from the dead and send him to his brothers to warn them about the perils of Hades:

"‘I beg you, Father, that you send [Lazarus] to my father's house--for I have five brothers--that he may warn them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead’" (Luke 16:27–31).

If Ice does not listen to Jesus and the New Testament writers on this subject, neither will he be persuaded if some early church father interprets certain passages from a preterist perspective. Like the rich man's brothers, Biblical minimalists all, Ice will find some excuse by demanding even more evidence. Once I supply the shred of evidence that he says does not exist, Ice will set a new higher standard of evidence. Ice wants to use the murky waters of history to divine what the Bible makes crystal clear.

Click here (http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demarminimalism2.html) for Part Two.
*************************
I didn't post the full article on here, too long, you can read the rest at the first link.

God bless

Libre
May 23rd 2008, 03:56 PM
I'm still deciding all this for myself. But I do have a link that discusses how there were "shreds of preterism" among first century writings.

http://www.presence.tv/cms/shreds-demar.shtml

I was taught historicism by a very good historicist pastor/teacher. Only recently have I begun to explore PPret.

Pat

wpm
May 23rd 2008, 04:07 PM
I'm still deciding all this for myself. But I do have a link that discusses how there were "shreds of preterism" among first century writings.

http://www.presence.tv/cms/shreds-demar.shtml

I was taught historicism by a very good historicist pastor/teacher. Only recently have I begun to explore PPret.

Pat

I did the same, but felt that both had their deficiencies, I ended up Idealist. :pp

Paul

jewel4Christ
May 23rd 2008, 08:02 PM
Hi Paul,

I don't know if you remember me or not, but I used to post on a board a long time ago that you were on. Could you 'splain "idealist"?

peaceandlove,

janet

Clifton
May 23rd 2008, 08:41 PM
I'm still deciding all this for myself. But I do have a link that discusses how there were "shreds of preterism" among first century writings.

http://www.presence.tv/cms/shreds-demar.shtml


There are actually "shreds" of "this and that" when looking at the Early Writings of Commentators and Expositors. But when looking at all of it, Historicism appears to win by the numbers.


I was taught historicism by a very good historicist pastor/teacher. Only recently have I begun to explore PPret.I guess to a certain degree we are all "partial preterists" - I know things occurred in the past that were to occur long ago.

Blessings.

wpm
May 23rd 2008, 09:04 PM
Hi Paul,

I don't know if you remember me or not, but I used to post on a board a long time ago that you were on. Could you 'splain "idealist"?

peaceandlove,

janet

Great to see you again. Of course I remember you.

The Idealist believes Revelation to be a number of figurative parallels embodying comparable symbolic visions revealing the overall battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. John had one vision after the other revealed to him, notwithstanding, that didn't in anyway mean they were chronological. The idealist believes that these visions are of a similar nature to that of Peter's symbolic vision re the advance of the Gospel to the Gentiles, or Jacob's ladder, and are therefore to be interpreted symbolically. They too believe it relates, like every other New Testament book, to the period running between the first and Second Advents. Significantly, the conclusion of each parallel terminates with a record of the glorious Second Advent, which includes the rescue of His saint and the final destruction of the wicked.

Paul

jewel4Christ
May 23rd 2008, 10:25 PM
Great to see you again. Of course I remember you.

The Idealist believes Revelation to be a number of figurative parallels embodying comparable symbolic visions revealing the overall battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. John had one vision after the other revealed to him, notwithstanding, that didn't in anyway mean they were chronological. The idealist believes that these visions are of a similar nature to that of Peter's symbolic vision re the advance of the Gospel to the Gentiles, or Jacob's ladder, and are therefore to be interpreted symbolically. They too believe it relates, like every other New Testament book, to the period running between the first and Second Advents. Significantly, the conclusion of each parallel terminates with a record of the glorious Second Advent, which includes the rescue of His saint and the final destruction of the wicked.

Paul


Thanks........I have been on other boards lately....now, off to the woods...for the weekend, see ya'll when I get back.


peaceandlove,

janet

moonglow
May 23rd 2008, 10:26 PM
Great to see you again. Of course I remember you.

The Idealist believes Revelation to be a number of figurative parallels embodying comparable symbolic visions revealing the overall battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. John had one vision after the other revealed to him, notwithstanding, that didn't in anyway mean they were chronological. The idealist believes that these visions are of a similar nature to that of Peter's symbolic vision re the advance of the Gospel to the Gentiles, or Jacob's ladder, and are therefore to be interpreted symbolically. They too believe it relates, like every other New Testament book, to the period running between the first and Second Advents. Significantly, the conclusion of each parallel terminates with a record of the glorious Second Advent, which includes the rescue of His saint and the final destruction of the wicked.

Paul

Does this way of looking at it mean when a nation is literally going through turmoil...this is going on? That each nation which includes the people in it of course are going through this spiritual battle between good and evil? We see this happening real literal ways in certain countries as you know, but I guess what I am asking is where does it all end? Is their a conclusion they finally come too. I guess what I am thinking of this verse:

Hebrews 10:12-14

12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.

God bless

wpm
May 23rd 2008, 10:41 PM
Does this way of looking at it mean when a nation is literally going through turmoil...this is going on? That each nation which includes the people in it of course are going through this spiritual battle between good and evil? We see this happening real literal ways in certain countries as you know, but I guess what I am asking is where does it all end? Is their a conclusion they finally come too. I guess what I am thinking of this verse:

Hebrews 10:12-14

12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.

God bless

Explain further.

Paul

moonglow
May 23rd 2008, 11:34 PM
Explain further.

Paul

Ok take Rome for instance...for thousands of years they were a pagan nation...then they were overcome so to speak, and became a Christian nation...they also lost their great power over the rest of the world...then the dark ages came which were truly horrible times and the common man was not allowed to read the bible...people were tortured to death in gruesome ways...then a big revolt and once again things changed and common people could study the bible for themselves instead of being told what it said...though the Catholic church is the center there and it has its own major problems ...many people living in this area are becoming secular...don't want any religion at all...meanwhile the muslims are moving in by greater and greater numbers ...it just seems they go through this cycle...this struggle as you say between good and evil. I am just wondering if eventually it comes to a conclusion...when the Kingdom of God truly rest there (or any any nation)..or does the struggle just go on and on until Christ returns?

God bless

Libre
May 24th 2008, 12:08 AM
My meager understanding of apocalyptic writing is that it is not so much prophecy as it is a picture of things unseen. My historicist pastor, of some years back now, said that the visions were of political and economic and spiritual conditions (not in that particular order) which were occurring in the same time frame.

I'm a bit rusty. I'll have to check the notes in the margins of my Thompson Bible that I used at the time. Those are all the notes I have left.

Pat

wpm
May 24th 2008, 12:10 AM
Ok take Rome for instance...for thousands of years they were a pagan nation...then they were overcome so to speak, and became a Christian nation...they also lost their great power over the rest of the world...then the dark ages came which were truly horrible times and the common man was not allowed to read the bible...people were tortured to death in gruesome ways...then a big revolt and once again things changed and common people could study the bible for themselves instead of being told what it said...though the Catholic church is the center there and it has its own major problems ...many people living in this area are becoming secular...don't want any religion at all...meanwhile the muslims are moving in by greater and greater numbers ...it just seems they go through this cycle...this struggle as you say between good and evil. I am just wondering if eventually it comes to a conclusion...when the Kingdom of God truly rest there (or any any nation)..or does the struggle just go on and on until Christ returns?

God bless

I believe the battle is perpetual until Christ's return. It may change its name (or its suit) from generation to generation but it is still the beast/world system.

Paul

Libre
May 24th 2008, 12:33 AM
LOL, what are you saying, there, Paul. "It may cahne name or its suit but it is still the beast/world system." I have tried, but can't come up with what you meant to type.....

I like the idealist thing, btw. It sort of blows the rest out of the water. Meaning that as far away as one can get from particularly the futurist view has got to be a good thing. Still, it makes them "right" too. Not that they would agree to be included. Most only see their way as right, and no one else could possibly be, since they are literalists anyway.

Pat

moonglow
May 25th 2008, 04:27 PM
This idealist view makes no sense to me...how does it follow the bible? or follow the verse of Jesus putting all His enemies under His feet? It just sounds like we flounder around until Jesus returns and that to me doesn't line up with the bible...the bible always shows a goal...a direction to go...:confused

wpm
May 25th 2008, 07:10 PM
This idealist view makes no sense to me...how does it follow the bible? or follow the verse of Jesus putting all His enemies under His feet? It just sounds like we flounder around until Jesus returns and that to me doesn't line up with the bible...the bible always shows a goal...a direction to go...:confused

I don't see your point, I don't see your argument. We are moving towards the greatest goal of all - the Coming back of Christ and the final put down of all rule and authority. The abolition of all corruption and unrighteousness. We are looking forward to eternal fellowship with Jesus, no more pain, sin, or sickness. No more devil or sinful world to oppose us. What more do we need to look forward to? What a goal?

Paul

Libre
May 25th 2008, 07:24 PM
What I like about the Idealist view is that it ties the other divergent views together. They can all be "right" in a sense. Sure takes the fight out the arguments - except that others won't agree and will still argue, lol.

What is puzzling me right now (since I hadn't really studied this before) is that the angel tells John that he is going to show him what must shortly/soon/quickly come to pass. Not ever a mention that it will continue in parallel until the end.

Pat

moonglow
May 25th 2008, 10:39 PM
I don't see your point, I don't see your argument. We are moving towards the greatest goal of all - the Coming back of Christ and the final put down of all rule and authority. The abolition of all corruption and unrighteousness. We are looking forward to eternal fellowship with Jesus, no more pain, sin, or sickness. No more devil or sinful world to oppose us. What more do we need to look forward to? What a goal?

Paul

Its probably because I really don't understand this view...yes I get what we have to look forward too...all the things you mentioned...but during this waiting time...I just don't believe we are left to flounder around for hundreds of years or thousands...that all this waring between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of evil should lead to somewhere..meaning things should be progressively getting better don't you think? :hmm: For instance before Jesus bound satan at the cross the belief in the one true living God really didn't spread to other nations...they all remained pagan (with the exception of course of certain people and a few countries...but overall the pagan beliefs stayed the same).

Now since Christ...the gospel message has spread throughout the world and Christianity is in every nation in the world, though in some its only a small group of people or they are underground due to it being illegal. There is a progression towards the kingdom of God ...but from your view, (if I am understanding it right) there is just a continuous battle going on with no change, no progression? is that right? Other then time going by until Jesus returns. To me that doesn't line up with the bible in which there was always a progression towards God. Even when the Jews back slid and were punished and things looked really bad, and they went through God's punishment (being overtaken by enemy nations, made slaves, etc) it had a purpose...it brought them back to God.

God bless

moonglow
May 25th 2008, 10:43 PM
What I like about the Idealist view is that it ties the other divergent views together. They can all be "right" in a sense. Sure takes the fight out the arguments - except that others won't agree and will still argue, lol.

What is puzzling me right now (since I hadn't really studied this before) is that the angel tells John that he is going to show him what must shortly/soon/quickly come to pass. Not ever a mention that it will continue in parallel until the end.

Pat

Yea the shortly/soon/quicklyis because those passages have to do with the judgment on Israel in 70 AD when they and their temple were destroyed. They are about (back then) the coming judgment...not the coming Christ (as in Second Coming) Revelation is not written in order...that's a clue..;)

God bless

Libre
May 25th 2008, 10:59 PM
Just an aside: There still are unreached peoples in the world. http://svrmin.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=1

The area he wants to visit has some nearly totally “unreached people groups”, and we’re hoping he can make it to them. The one that I learned of is the Kachepo people (aka The Suri People).
These people were visited by Tim and Scott of the Missionary Program, “Travel the Road”. But that was about 4 years ago. So James Nyika, missionary to the Sudan, has been planning on visiting them this month. In his missions quest - he seeks to reach the unreached people groups of the Sudan. So, his goal is to see if they have a Christian missionary with them now. However, Nyika has been having difficulties due to the problems in Kenya is stranded in Eldoret, Kenya, and not yet able to return to the Sudan.


I saw an episode of this in TBN last night. These people wear those lip plates the stretch out the lower lip.

The thing is, it's not clear whether the preaching of the gospel to the whole world was only referring to the known world at the time, or to the known world of our time.

Pat

moonglow
May 25th 2008, 11:11 PM
Just an aside: There still are unreached peoples in the world. http://svrmin.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=1

The area he wants to visit has some nearly totally “unreached people groups”, and we’re hoping he can make it to them. The one that I learned of is the Kachepo people (aka The Suri People).
These people were visited by Tim and Scott of the Missionary Program, “Travel the Road”. But that was about 4 years ago. So James Nyika, missionary to the Sudan, has been planning on visiting them this month. In his missions quest - he seeks to reach the unreached people groups of the Sudan. So, his goal is to see if they have a Christian missionary with them now. However, Nyika has been having difficulties due to the problems in Kenya is stranded in Eldoret, Kenya, and not yet able to return to the Sudan.


I saw an episode of this in TBN last night. These people wear those lip plates the stretch out the lower lip.

The thing is, it's not clear whether the preaching of the gospel to the whole world was only referring to the known world at the time, or to the known world of our time.

Pat


According to some commentaries I have read it was the world back then and it did happen already...but then of course if I remember that scripture right Christ would return then so apparently those commentaries are wrong! I am too lazy and hungry for supper right now to go look....:lol: Maybe after I eat.

I saw a docmentary on that tribe that does that with their lips...eww and ouch ...they freaked out when the moon was covered by clouds and danced all night until it came out again. They also kill and eat monkies...but if the monkey had a baby, they keep and raise the baby...:hmm: They live off the land which is admirable...just of course have some rather primitive ideas about some things. I can't decide which is worse...the lip stretching or the ones that do the neck stretching. You know the women put rings around their necks and gradually add ones until their neck is so long they cannot hold their head up without the rings because they stretched their neck so much...ow...

Clifton
May 26th 2008, 01:39 AM
What is puzzling me right now (since I hadn't really studied this before) is that the angel tells John that he is going to show him what must shortly/soon/quickly come to pass. Not ever a mention that it will continue in parallel until the end.

Pat

What angel and what John?

Blessings.

Libre
May 26th 2008, 01:49 AM
Rev. 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

:saint:
Pat

Clifton
May 26th 2008, 02:40 AM
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show His servants the things which must come to pass quickly (i.e. with quickness, speed). And He made it known by sending it through His angel to His servant John, who testified to the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things as He saw, both the things that are and those that must happen after these.

This final phrase quoted above is reiterated in 1:19.

So what we have here, when this was spoken/written, are things that have been happening, are presently happening, and will continue to happen, and when they do, they happen with a "suddenness", "quickly", "with speed", "swiftness", or "haste" (as opposed to "slowly", etc.). As we learned in Elementary School, "quickly" and "slowly" is the "how" of the Adverb;

Excerpt from a school book on Grammar:

Harry worked quickly.
The citizens walked slowly.

In the first sentence quickly describes the action verb worked.
In the second sentence slowly describes the action verb walked.
Quickly and slowly are adverbs. They tell how the action is done.

Also, the Greek verb, "are" (the Greek "eisin"), is linear, meaning "continuous", "repetitiveness", i.e. an action that is "progressive", and is a Present Tense verb in the Indicative Mood, which means, when such a verb is expressed, it is happening in the present of the spoken/written time. It shows 'action in progress' or 'a state of persistence.'

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves what things are necessary to occur with quickness. And He made it known, having sent through His angel to His slave John,” (Revelation 1:1 ALT)

“Therefore, write what things you saw, and what things are, and what things are about to be coming after these things.” (Revelation 1:19 ALT)

Given the fact that these passages were read from the Greek MSS (Manuscripts) for Centuries (we currently have 5000+ of them), to readers and read to listeners, and the MSS were shared, we can see why the numbers for the historicism position is so high over the others with so many of the earlier commentators and expositors.;)

Blessings.

Libre
May 26th 2008, 03:17 AM
ta/xov from the same as (5036 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=5036))Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Tachos takh'-os http://www.studylight.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.studylight.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=5034g.rm) Parts of SpeechTDNT Noun Neuter None Definition

quickness, speed

Translated Words KJV (7) - quickly + (1722), 2; shortly + (1722), 4; speedily + (1722), 1; NAS (7) - quickly, 3; shortly, 1; soon, 3;

I don't know much, and I have heard your argument before. Still, the sense to me is that it will happen soon. Quickly maybe, but not 2,000 years of more later. Having a problem with that.

Pat

Clifton
May 26th 2008, 03:47 AM
ta/xov from the same as (5036 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=5036))Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Tachos takh'-os http://www.studylight.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.studylight.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=5034g.rm) Parts of SpeechTDNT Noun Neuter None Definition


quickness, speed

Translated Words KJV (7) - quickly + (1722), 2; shortly + (1722), 4; speedily + (1722), 1; NAS (7) - quickly, 3; shortly, 1; soon, 3;

I don't know much, and I have heard your argument before. Still, the sense to me is that it will happen soon. Quickly maybe, but not 2,000 years of more later. Having a problem with that.

Pat

It's simple English, when rendered and read properly. And I have been acquainted with the Greek for about 14 years now. The text expresses that "WHEN" such things "happen", they happen "with speed" (or "speedily" as one example you provide, though it is a different Greek word than you provide, but close enough since it comes from the same stem);

The Greek is a very inflected language, whereas for example, there are over 4 dozen conjugations of the verb alone, that are used for one Greek stem, where as for English, there would only be about 4 or so words/phrases used for those different conjugations;

So that which was spoken of in Revelation "was happening", "did happen", and "continues to happen." There is an ending point, of course - that End has not been reached yet - these things have been and continue to be at hand, or that is to say in today's English, at our front doors;

It is not related to "when" they occur. A good English rendering should suffice showing this, and well, let us look at that Elementary English Grammar schoolbook on Adverbs again:

* When:

Dennis Gates arrived early.
His relatives came later.

In the first sentence early describes the action verb arrived.
In the second sentence later describes the action verb came.
Early and later are adverbs. They tell when the action is done.

Understand yet?:hmm: Seems to me that you are swapping "quickly" for "early." It would not make any difference if this were the year 2500 A.D. - things would be still unfolding, and given that the Greek shows that, as well as good English renderings of it, I have no problems with it. If an English rendering fails, what can I say, other than that the "The Greek is the Greek"? It remains the same in the Greek, so it is not an "argument" to me.;)

Maybe you can find someone whom was in the ring with Mike Tyson - they can express the meaning of "with speed".:P

Anyway, don't worry about not knowing much - it is a long progression, but an enjoyable one!:)

Blessings.

Libre
May 26th 2008, 04:28 AM
Where do you get this:

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves what things are necessary to occur with quickness. And He made it known, having sent through His angel to His slave John,” (Revelation 1:1 ALT)

“Therefore, write what things you saw, and what things are, and what things are about to be coming after these things.” (Revelation 1:19 ALT)

What is ALT? Alternate, I get; but is this your own rendering?

I understand that Jesus will come quickly (i.e. fast, with speed) when He comes. This can apply to coming in judgment, as against the Jews. It can also apply to coming in judgment at the end of this age - which many understand as the resurrection. But if He was speaking to those alive at the time, it could imply "soon" as well as quickly. Why can this not mean "soon"? Indeed, what is wrong with it's meaning "soon"?:confused

Pat

wpm
May 26th 2008, 05:34 AM
Its probably because I really don't understand this view...yes I get what we have to look forward too...all the things you mentioned...but during this waiting time...I just don't believe we are left to flounder around for hundreds of years or thousands...that all this waring between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of evil should lead to somewhere..meaning things should be progressively getting better don't you think? :hmm: For instance before Jesus bound satan at the cross the belief in the one true living God really didn't spread to other nations...they all remained pagan (with the exception of course of certain people and a few countries...but overall the pagan beliefs stayed the same).

Now since Christ...the gospel message has spread throughout the world and Christianity is in every nation in the world, though in some its only a small group of people or they are underground due to it being illegal. There is a progression towards the kingdom of God ...but from your view, (if I am understanding it right) there is just a continuous battle going on with no change, no progression? is that right? Other then time going by until Jesus returns. To me that doesn't line up with the bible in which there was always a progression towards God. Even when the Jews back slid and were punished and things looked really bad, and they went through God's punishment (being overtaken by enemy nations, made slaves, etc) it had a purpose...it brought them back to God.

God bless

I understand, but it was never about quantity but quality. I don't accept things will get better for society - quite the opposite - things will get worse and worse. But God's people can grow from glory to glory. That is progressive. The world before He comes will be like Lot and Noah's day -evil. We just need to look around to see that. That day would not come before a great falling way.

The elect will remain strong. They will not be subjugated, just surrounded (Rev 20).

Paul

Clifton
May 26th 2008, 01:05 PM
Where do you get this:

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves what things are necessary to occur with quickness. And He made it known, having sent through His angel to His slave John,” (Revelation 1:1 ALT)

“Therefore, write what things you saw, and what things are, and what things are about to be coming after these things.” (Revelation 1:19 ALT)

What is ALT? Alternate, I get; but is this your own rendering?
It is the Analytical-Literal Translation and comes available in various formats: hardprints, e-book formats, and Bible Software Modules. It is based on an MT Greek Archetype, particularly the Byzantine Textform;

The web site has a lot of textual and scholarly info as well (variant readings, alternate readings, etc.);
http://www.dtl.org/alt/

As for the given reading, I can provide several of such readings in the same manner. But that would not matter since the things referred to were already in process (see below).


I understand that Jesus will come quickly (i.e. fast, with speed) when He comes. This can apply to coming in judgment, as against the Jews. It can also apply to coming in judgment at the end of this age - which many understand as the resurrection. But if He was speaking to those alive at the time, it could imply "soon" as well as quickly. Why can this not mean "soon"? Indeed, what is wrong with it's meaning "soon"?
Considering the various meanings of “soon” in the English dictionary, technically, it is a valid term per the correct meaning of one of the definitions, but in this case, “early”, is not one of them, and makes no sense since the text refers to that which were already happening and in process (“the things that are and will come afterwards”), thus, shows that as time moves along, as we know it, when these things happen, they will happen quickly, in a speedily manner. BTW, actually, the word “things” is just a supplied word by the English translator(s) to ease the translation for the reader.

So due to a certain degree, since the things were already happening, there were things that were going to happen early from the point it was said, but not everything in the book happens at once in a compressed manner of time. ;)

Blessings.

Libre
May 26th 2008, 03:32 PM
Thanks, Clifton. I will check it out.

But I didn't say that I thought quickly meant early. That would imply that He would come before the time, wouldn't it?


In remembrance today of Spec 4 R.L. Hughes, Vietnam, 1968,
Blessings,
Pat

Clifton
May 26th 2008, 08:31 PM
Thanks, Clifton. I will check it out.

But I didn't say that I thought quickly meant early. That would imply that He would come before the time, wouldn't it?


In remembrance today of Spec 4 R.L. Hughes, Vietnam, 1968,
Blessings,
Pat

Well, yes, that would imply that the final stages of the Second Advent would occur earlier. What the text tells us, is that when He does come, He will come quickly.

There are "reminding words of comfort" verses where Christ continues to come daily in our lives, say, like to aid us, prepare us for a trial, and so on. These "words of comfort" also come with the notation to stay alert and be on watch, which in essence, we do not know when we might be removed from this life. And these words are for all the saints for all eras and ages.

Did you lose a loved-one or friend in Vietnam? The "Spec 4" makes me think, "Special Forces"? We honor those whom have fought and those whom gave up the lives for others.

Blessings.

Libre
May 26th 2008, 09:06 PM
My initial post in any thread today have the tag about Spec 4 RLH. He was my brother. Specialist 4th class. Ground pounder. Recon. CRIP. Combined Reconnaissance and Intelligence Platoon. A rag-tag bunch experimenting with using Vietnamese and American recon troops together. He was there 9 months and had not yet turned 21. Geek in glasses, who couldn't see his hand in front of his face without them. Drafted on my birthday. Landed in country near Cu Chi.

Regarding your ALT version, what one do you recommend besides the ALT? The ALT doesn't seem to be available for reference online unless you pay for it.

Pat

Clifton
May 26th 2008, 10:12 PM
My initial post in any thread today have the tag about Spec 4 RLH. He was my brother. Specialist 4th class. Ground pounder. Recon. CRIP. Combined Reconnaissance and Intelligence Platoon. A rag-tag bunch experimenting with using Vietnamese and American recon troops together. He was there 9 months and had not yet turned 21. Geek in glasses, who couldn't see his hand in front of his face without them. Drafted on my birthday. Landed in country near Cu Chi.

Regarding your ALT version, what one do you recommend besides the ALT? The ALT doesn't seem to be available for reference online unless you pay for it.

Pat

Are you interested in Bible Versions for Computer Bible Software, e-Books, Those with just Online Access, and/or Hardback Prints (such as purchased at the Book Stores)?

For hardback I have LITV and MKJV - For Computer Bible Software, and there a couple of good free ones, I have dozens of Bible Versions, and most of those are free as well. When quoting from English Bibles here, I usually use The Complete Apostles' Bible, The Scriptures 1998+, ACV, WEB, and others. The ALT Bible, like some others I have, contain only the NT. Version 2 of ALT is available as a free download for e-Sword Bible Software. Some of the fore-mentioned English Bibles are available as free downloads / online access as well. WEB is primarily for Internet Use and is public domain.

Just let me know.

Blessings.

Libre
May 26th 2008, 10:26 PM
I have several Bibles, but got rid of some when I moved. Retained my Thompson Chain KJV, and some others. One favorite is the Amplified. I've had a Strong's Unabridged for 30 years, and have had to glue pages back in (it's a paperback version).

Online I primarily use StudyLight, sometimes BlueLetter, and a new one called Advanced Bible Search which is really good for finding phrases. My default is always KJV on any of these.

I don't have Bible software on my computer, and am not looking for any right now. If I'm not online, I just use what's on my shelf. Can get pricey. I live on very little Social Security. What is there that's good that is free?

Pat

Clifton
May 26th 2008, 11:14 PM
I have several Bibles, but got rid of some when I moved. Retained my Thompson Chain KJV, and some others. One favorite is the Amplified. I've had a Strong's Unabridged for 30 years, and have had to glue pages back in (it's a paperback version).

Online I primarily use StudyLight, sometimes BlueLetter, and a new one called Advanced Bible Search which is really good for finding phrases. My default is always KJV on any of these.

I don't have Bible software on my computer, and am not looking for any right now. If I'm not online, I just use what's on my shelf. Can get pricey. I live on very little Social Security. What is there that's good that is free?

Pat

Sounds like you are already in great shape.;)

NET (New English Translation) is available online - some people (myself included) like the various notes (Study, Textual, and Translator's Notes) and the online access, but are not quite totally satisfied with the English Translation of the scriptures themselves. However, since you have KJV, that Version is also listed online, including with Strong's and TVM Numbers (TVM=Tense, Voice, and Mood) - all you have to do is click on the number and bring up the definition/TVM, and Hebrew and Greek Interlinear as well. You can look up a verse, or verses, and Strong's Numbers as well:

http://net.bible.org (http://net.bible.org/)
Integrated and Interactive Site:
Using Frames (like with Bible Book Listings and links on left side):
http://www.bible.org/netbible/

I think it might or might not be used as another resource in addition for those that use other sites. I know StudyLight is pretty good.


WEB (World English Bible), Public Domain (No Copyright)
http://www.worldenglishbible.com/
The first link will take you to an online version, and various formats (like PDF) of it.


The following is a bit more strict concerning “substantiated text” and what is within its English Version, so it obviously does not go over to well with long-time Bible Readers, and it is probably not going to be of interest to you – I would call it more a companion myself. The Book of Matthew has been realigned to parallel better with Luke and Mark – a bit of a head rush at times – at least they provide conversion charts and other stuff. Also media types for listening to the Bible and online access.

http://www.updated.org (http://www.updated.org/)

Matthew 24 (with the blocks of text set straight, and other blocks relocated elsewhere):
http://read.updated.org/bible/Mt/24/

There are others, but you already appear to be great shape, and I think it is time for to lay down for awhile.

I'm on little Social Security as well - still waiting for that Stimulus payment.

So I guess "partial preterist" means also "partial futurist" - and maybe "partial betweenist":hmm::D

Blessings.

Libre
May 27th 2008, 12:01 AM
"So I guess "partial preterist" means also "partial futurist" - and maybe "partial betweenist":hmm::D"

Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I've heard of pan-millennialist. Maybe there is a pan-adventist position?

We must be the only two people in the country who don't have a parade or picnic to go to today, lol. And it turned out really cool and nice this afternoon. So typical of life here. Gray in the morning and sunny later. What's really hard to get used to is not the long winter nights. It's the long summer days. It's not normal in my view for it to get light at 4:30 in the morning!

Already had my nap. And I too am waiting for that stimulus check. My son got his, but he had direct deposit. I don't normally file, so must wait. And my first two digits of the last four digits starts with a zero. Go figure. Watch there be some glitch.

Pat

Clifton
May 27th 2008, 02:23 PM
"So I guess "partial preterist" means also "partial futurist" - and maybe "partial betweenist":hmm::D"

Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I've heard of pan-millennialist. Maybe there is a pan-adventist position?

We must be the only two people in the country who don't have a parade or picnic to go to today, lol. And it turned out really cool and nice this afternoon. So typical of life here. Gray in the morning and sunny later. What's really hard to get used to is not the long winter nights. It's the long summer days. It's not normal in my view for it to get light at 4:30 in the morning!

Already had my nap. And I too am waiting for that stimulus check. My son got his, but he had direct deposit. I don't normally file, so must wait. And my first two digits of the last four digits starts with a zero. Go figure. Watch there be some glitch.

Pat

Pan-millennialist? I thought I had the varying groups sorted out last week or so. I would suggest that it is a mislabeling on some people's part. This has been noted for some folks of various sorts;

Oh well, at least the prefix, ("pan"), stems from the Greek, "pas" (Strong's #3956 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3956)), which generally means "all", but just like in English, does not necessarily mean "each and every thing/one", i.e.
2) collectively
2a) some of all types

http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3956

You will note an example/statement at the bottom of the lexicon of that web page concerning the words "world" and "all".

Blessings.

Libre
May 27th 2008, 03:29 PM
I was being funny. That's something about me to take note of.:D Panmillennialism is something I thought you would have heard of. It's been around for years. It means, "it'll all pan out in the end.":rofl:

Pat

Clifton
May 27th 2008, 03:40 PM
I was being funny. That's something about me to take note of.:D Panmillennialism is something I thought you would have heard of. It's been around for years. It means, "it'll all pan out in the end.":rofl:

Pat
Oh, I see. Yes, that is funny, and I agree.;)

Blessings.

Romulus
May 28th 2008, 06:36 PM
It's simple English, when rendered and read properly. And I have been acquainted with the Greek for about 14 years now. The text expresses that "WHEN" such things "happen", they happen "with speed" (or "speedily" as one example you provide, though it is a different Greek word than you provide, but close enough since it comes from the same stem);

The Greek is a very inflected language, whereas for example, there are over 4 dozen conjugations of the verb alone, that are used for one Greek stem, where as for English, there would only be about 4 or so words/phrases used for those different conjugations;

So that which was spoken of in Revelation "was happening", "did happen", and "continues to happen." There is an ending point, of course - that End has not been reached yet - these things have been and continue to be at hand, or that is to say in today's English, at our front doors;

It is not related to "when" they occur. A good English rendering should suffice showing this, and well, let us look at that Elementary English Grammar schoolbook on Adverbs again:

* When:

Dennis Gates arrived early.
His relatives came later.

In the first sentence early describes the action verb arrived.
In the second sentence later describes the action verb came.
Early and later are adverbs. They tell when the action is done.

Understand yet?:hmm: Seems to me that you are swapping "quickly" for "early." It would not make any difference if this were the year 2500 A.D. - things would be still unfolding, and given that the Greek shows that, as well as good English renderings of it, I have no problems with it. If an English rendering fails, what can I say, other than that the "The Greek is the Greek"? It remains the same in the Greek, so it is not an "argument" to me.;)

Maybe you can find someone whom was in the ring with Mike Tyson - they can express the meaning of "with speed".:P

Anyway, don't worry about not knowing much - it is a long progression, but an enjoyable one!:)

Blessings.

Hi Clifton,

Here is the scripture:

Revelation 1 (KJV)


1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Based on your premise that the time statements above was for when the Revelation was to occur, therefore making the prophecy valid at any time in history let me propose a few questions.

If God really meant for the fulfillment to be within a few years after He gave the vision to John what words would He have used to express it?

Would He not have used the words actually stated in the scripture above?

Based on the plain reading of the above what impression would have a reader in the 1st century have gotten form the above scripture?

I know you have studied the actual Greek language of the above and I do not have access to the Greek text, so is their anything in the original Greek as far as you have seen to give any other impression about the timing of the events?

Romulus

RogerW
May 28th 2008, 07:55 PM
Admittedly I have not read all seven pages of posts in this thread. So if my question has been addressed, if you could direct to that reply I would be so appreciative. Meanwhile I will attempt to catch up on the reading and perhaps find the answer to this question. How do preterists (full/partial) account for the "near" or "at hand" of Christ's coming? You correctly point out that nineteen hundred some odd years makes absolutely no sense in understanding "near" or "at hand" of His coming in the clouds of glory. I fully agree with this assessment. However, I must point out that neither does thirty or so years make sense in trying to understand what is meant by "near" or "at hand".

Since the Greek word eggus is defined - near (literally or figuratively, of place or time):--from , at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready, I believe we find fulfillment for "near" and "at hand" at the cross or without delay.

So what exactly is "near" or "at hand"? The building or completing of the Kingdom of God through the universal church. This prophecy began to be fulfilled when Christ literally went to the cross, and resurrected from the grave, and will be completely fulfilled in the fullness of time, hence His time was literally "near", even "at hand".

Many Blessings,
RW

Clifton
May 28th 2008, 08:42 PM
Hi Clifton,

Here is the scripture:

Revelation 1 (KJV)


1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Hi Romulus,


Revelation 1:1-2; The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show His servants the [things] which must come to pass quickly (i.e. with quickness, speed). And He made it known by sending it through His angel to His servant John, who testified to the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things as He saw, both the [things] that are and those that must happen after these.

This final phrase quoted above is reiterated in 1:19 (at least in most English Bibles, if not all) if it is not in your English Bible(s) in v.2.

So we see here that the "things" (which BTW, is a supplied word) were already happening and will continue to happen unto an end. This is indicated by "are" and "after these". "Eisin" (the Greek word underlying the English word "are") is a GREEK PRESENT TENSE verb, which for Greek, that means a "Linear Verb". Here, it is in the INDICATIVE MOOD, so that means what is being referred to is "currently" happening as well. For more info concerning the Greek Present Tense verb, I refer you to:

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#TENSE

You will see the 2nd Paragraph that starts out like this:
The kind of action (aktionsart) of a Greek verb will generally fall into one of three categories:
1) Continuous (or 'Progressive') kind of action. <-PRESENT TENSE
...

A few lines later, you will note the subheading "Present Tense". Under that, is a paragraph about two lines long.


Based on your premise that the time statements above was for when the Revelation was to occur, therefore making the prophecy valid at any time in history let me propose a few questions.Uh, not quite worded properly. There were things already occurring and the discussion was related that when they do occur, they occur with quickness. I refer you to Post #89 in this thread, and since you use the term "shortly" (as in "shortly" versus "longly"), please see the notes on "quickly versus slowly" where the school grammar book is used.


If God really meant for the fulfillment to be within a few years after He gave the vision to John what words would He have used to express it?

Would He not have used the words actually stated in the scripture above?
No. Because the word "are" and the context it is in shows that things were being fulfilled over time, and had already been getting fulfilled. A whole lot of what is in the Book of Revelation is in earlier Jewish Literature.

If you are interested in "early versus later", I refer you to Post #91 in this thread, where the same school grammar book is used.


Based on the plain reading of the above what impression would have a reader in the 1st century have gotten form the above scripture?Just exactly what I stated here and in the previous posts, and for anyone reading the Greek of it.


I know you have studied the actual Greek language of the above and I do not have access to the Greek text, so is their anything in the original Greek as far as you have seen to give any other impression about the timing of the events? For the context you address, there is nothing there about "the timing of the events" other than a stopwatch clocking of how quick the actions occur. When they occurred, and do occur, and will occur, they occur with speed - it refers to the rapidity of motion.;)

Blessings.

Clifton
May 28th 2008, 08:52 PM
Admittedly I have not read all seven pages of posts in this thread. So if my question has been addressed, if you could direct to that reply I would be so appreciative. Meanwhile I will attempt to catch up on the reading and perhaps find the answer to this question. How do preterists (full/partial) account for the "near" or "at hand" of Christ's coming? You correctly point out that nineteen hundred some odd years makes absolutely no sense in understanding "near" or "at hand" of His coming in the clouds of glory. I fully agree with this assessment. However, I must point out that neither does thirty or so years make sense in trying to understand what is meant by "near" or "at hand".

Since the Greek word eggus is defined - near (literally or figuratively, of place or time):--from , at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready, I believe we find fulfillment for "near" and "at hand" at the cross or without delay.

So what exactly is "near" or "at hand"? The building or completing of the Kingdom of God through the universal church. This prophecy began to be fulfilled when Christ literally went to the cross, and resurrected from the grave, and will be completely fulfilled in the fullness of time, hence His time was literally "near", even "at hand".

Many Blessings,
RW

This issue of "at hand" is addressed in my Greek Training Book, however, in reference to the "Kingdom of God". To put it into some form of today's English jargon, "at hand" can be expressed "outside your front door" (ya know, like one of them packages UPS or FED EX dropped off:)), and it is up to the person to respond to it. It is there for the awaiting.

Blessings.

RogerW
May 28th 2008, 09:07 PM
This issue of "at hand" is addressed in my Greek Training Book, however, in reference to the "Kingdom of God". To put it into some form of today's English jargon, "at hand" can be expressed "outside your front door" (ya know, like one of them packages UPS or FED EX dropped off:)), and it is up to the person to respond to it. It is there for the awaiting.

Blessings.

Is that like a spoken word away? The Kingdom of God is near, is at hand, i.e.:

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Blessings,
RW

Libre
May 28th 2008, 09:11 PM
Roger, I myself am still trying to figure out what Clifton means when he insists that quickly only means fast. It also, to me, implies soon, by context. But, either way, we are not talking about the futurist view, which has quickly meaning fast, but not occurring for, so far, over 2,000 years.

My personal take on this is that He meant quickly and soon. And He did come in judgment on clouds in 70 AD. This follows the allusion to the Old Testament language about God coming in judgment on clouds.

Only a full-preterist would say that it all happened already. And on this board, the full view is considered in error and not allowed. So we are also agreed that the resurrection and the bodily return of Christ hasn't happened yet.

No, that should be clear as mud...

Pat

Clifton
May 28th 2008, 09:28 PM
Is that like a spoken word away? The Kingdom of God is near, is at hand, i.e.:

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Blessings,
RW


Good enough.:) As for you, you have already "responded" to it.;)

Blessings.

Clifton
May 28th 2008, 09:34 PM
Roger, I myself am still trying to figure out what Clifton means when he insists that quickly only means fast. It also, to me, implies soon, by context. But, either way, we are not talking about the futurist view, which has quickly meaning fast, but not occurring for, so far, over 2,000 years.

My personal take on this is that He meant quickly and soon. And He did come in judgment on clouds in 70 AD. This follows the allusion to the Old Testament language about God coming in judgment on clouds.

Only a full-preterist would say that it all happened already. And on this board, the full view is considered in error and not allowed. So we are also agreed that the resurrection and the bodily return of Christ hasn't happened yet.

No, that should be clear as mud...

Pat

Pat, it is good that you have came out and about - surf the board to see all of what is here and enjoy.:)

True, the text "with speed" itself would not "flip over" a preterist - they would just say it happened "with speed" back then in earlier ages. But, there are other words there in the context as well, aren't they? And that's the catch.;)

Blessings.

jewel4Christ
May 29th 2008, 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonglow http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1650723#post1650723)
Its probably because I really don't understand this view...yes I get what we have to look forward too...all the things you mentioned...but during this waiting time...I just don't believe we are left to flounder around for hundreds of years or thousands...that all this waring between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of evil should lead to somewhere..meaning things should be progressively getting better don't you think? :hmm: For instance before Jesus bound satan at the cross the belief in the one true living God really didn't spread to other nations...they all remained pagan (with the exception of course of certain people and a few countries...but overall the pagan beliefs stayed the same).

Now since Christ...the gospel message has spread throughout the world and Christianity is in every nation in the world, though in some its only a small group of people or they are underground due to it being illegal. There is a progression towards the kingdom of God ...but from your view, (if I am understanding it right) there is just a continuous battle going on with no change, no progression? is that right? Other then time going by until Jesus returns. To me that doesn't line up with the bible in which there was always a progression towards God. Even when the Jews back slid and were punished and things looked really bad, and they went through God's punishment (being overtaken by enemy nations, made slaves, etc) it had a purpose...it brought them back to God.

God bless


I understand, but it was never about quantity but quality. I don't accept things will get better for society - quite the opposite - things will get worse and worse. But God's people can grow from glory to glory. That is progressive. The world before He comes will be like Lot and Noah's day -evil. We just need to look around to see that. That day would not come before a great falling way.

The elect will remain strong. They will not be subjugated, just surrounded (Rev 20).

Paul


hmmmm, this makes sense to me, seeing that His people are continuing to grow in grace and in knowledge, even as the world around us becomes darker and darker.........:idea:


Maybe I am idealist......:eek:

but, I hate labels.

Thanks Paul.


peaceandlove,


janet

Romulus
May 29th 2008, 01:05 PM
Hi Clifton,

Can you give the greek version of Revelation chapter 1 verses 1-3(in english of course?) I think that would make your argument a little clearer, to see the whole context of what most of us have normally seen in our Bibles as compared to the original Greek.

Also, I am interested as to how you feel about Matthew 24, Luke 21 scenarious that use the words "this generation" in regards to it's fulfillment. Does your Greek translation see it differently?

Blessings! :)

Clifton
May 29th 2008, 02:37 PM
Hi Clifton,

Can you give the greek version of Revelation chapter 1 verses 1-3(in english of course?)

Hi Romulus,

Not quite sure why you just want only 3 verses out of a chapter, but nonetheless, here goes:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show His servants the things which must come to pass quickly. And He made it known by sending it through His angel to His servant John, who testified to the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things as He saw, both the things that are and those that must happen after these. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who keep the things having been written in it; for the time is near.
Revelation 1:1-3 Complete Apostles' BibleThey have changed the name of that Bible in recent years, (to “The Apostolic Bible Polyglot (http://apostolicbible.com/index.htm)”) but the NT uses the EMTV, and can be accessed as a MS Word Document at:
http://www.majoritytext.com/

I have several Greek New Testaments, including the new Byzantine Textform 2005. You can get the Byzantine Textform 2005 for free in Adobe Acrobat Reader PDF Format.

The PDF File (619 pages) is available for download at:

http://rpbyztxt.com/

In the middle column of the above mentioned web page is a section:

---


PDF Version of Text



The New Testament in the Original Greek - Byzantine Textform 2005 (http://rpbyztxt.com/RP2005_files/Complete2005RPByzNT.pdf)



(large file)


---
Besides the Alternate Readings, this book also contains the variants of Nestle’s Greek New Testament, including the ones that Nestle did not list! It is a bit of a patchwork job – there are places in it that has no external support – I think the number of them is 105.


I think that would make your argument a little clearer, to see the whole context of what most of us have normally seen in our Bibles as compared to the original Greek. Oh, it is not an “argument” to me. ;) As to what most of English Readers see in their Bibles, depends on which one of the three Greek archetypes was used for the translations, then on top of that, “which variants / alternate readings” the translator(s) they used. Revelation (like the disputed Acts, which is no longer in the newer version of the UPDV Bible), is loaded with variants / alternate readings;

Would you like Internet access to the primary and subset ones (variants and alternate readings)? I’m looking at the Byzantine Textform 2005 (which is just an update of previous versions) at Revelation 9:16 and seeing 100 million horsemen, thus, some of my English Bibles has the same. What does your Bible(s) say for that number?


Also, I am interested as to how you feel about Matthew 24, Luke 21 scenarious that use the words "this generation" in regards to it's fulfillment. Does your Greek translation see it differently? Well, you have a problem here in referencing Matthew 24. There are at least 3 blocks in Matthew 24 (Note that 2 blocks are reversed!)… Here’s what I mean by “blocks”

24:1-25 (verses mildly disordered) – I’ll call this Block 1-A. Verse 12 unattested, omit.

24:29-35 (verse order okay) – I’ll call this Block 1-B because I think it picks up where v.25 left off.

24:36 which we referenced in this discussion: Unattested and Context uncertain, omit. But it appears in Mark as attested and context certain.

24:26-28 belongs a FEW chapters earlier – I’ll call this Block 2. (Verse Order okay).

24:43-50 (verse order okay) – belongs SEVERAL chapters earlier, preceding right before Block 3-B. I’ll call this Block 3-A.

24:37-41 (verse order okay) – belongs SEVERAL chapters earlier. I’ll call this Block 3-B (not A - that’s next)

24:42 Unattested.

24:51 Unattested.

If you would like to see Matthew 24 sorted out (without the parts that belong elsewhere, like to Chapter 16, and so on) and better aligned with the rest of the Bibles, you can see it online here:
http://read.updated.org/bible/Mt/24/

As for Luke, I see you refer to chapter 21 (there is chapter 17 in reference to eschatology events and issues). But there is also Mark 13. The term “this generation” means just that (as opposed to “that generation”). There were events to take place in that generation. There are contrasts though, which show there were other things addressed that were “unknown” as to the events (for example, the final stage of the Second Advent, e.g. the later return of Christ, was unknown). This is noted with a careful and intentative study of Mark 13 and a good English rendering of it for English Reading. This is addressed in my Greek Training Book. I can quote it out for you if you’d like. Actually, I have already quoted it in this forum and probably could search it out without retyping it. I do not have secretarial typing skills. :(

Blessings!

RogerW
May 29th 2008, 02:55 PM
Roger, I myself am still trying to figure out what Clifton means when he insists that quickly only means fast. It also, to me, implies soon, by context. But, either way, we are not talking about the futurist view, which has quickly meaning fast, but not occurring for, so far, over 2,000 years.

My personal take on this is that He meant quickly and soon. And He did come in judgment on clouds in 70 AD. This follows the allusion to the Old Testament language about God coming in judgment on clouds.

Greetings Pat,

My understanding of "quickly" is that His coming will be without delay; in other words nothing will delay His coming, it is sure. But "quickly" is also defined as suddenly; by surprise, or unexpectedly. This is of course why Christians are cautioned to watch, wait, and perservere.

We can see how sudden, or unexpected is used in the letters to the churches. The warning here is repent or else Christ will come to the church suddenly, and at a time least expected remove thy candlestick (church). How many churches throughout human history have been unexpectedly removed by the Lord for lacking to do what God has called them to?

Re 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

The same is true of His Second Coming, it too will be suddenly, or unexpectedly. Christ says, "Behold, I come quickly", in other words He will come suddenly and unexpectedly, so watch, and keep His commands. Although "quickly" can mean soon, or without delay, defined as a short time. I believe His coming is not quickly in the sense of time, or soon, but quickly in the sense of sudden, by surprise, and nothing will delay His Second Coming.

Re 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

We find the word "quickly" then is used when speaking of His Second Coming in the fullness of time. But this is not the term Christ uses when speaking of the coming of His kingdom through the universal church. He speaks of this as being something "near" or "at hand".

Lu 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

What is this "time that is at hand"? Christ is writing, through John, to the churches in time/history, telling them to read and hear the words of His prophecy, from His Book. The time at hand, is the time for building, or completing the Kingdom of God through the message; i.e. His prophecy, written in His Word.

Re 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Re 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

When Christ spoke of the time being near, or at hand, He was speaking of the coming of the Kingdom through His Church on earth. This prophesy was fulfilled at the cross and resurrection, not some 30 years later in A.D. 70, and not some 1900 plus years later. It makes no sense to say something is "near" or "at hand" only to have it delayed by years. When we look at how "near" or "at hand" is used in the NT we find it always means "immediate" within moments, hours or a few days, but is never used in years.

When Christ spoke of His Second Coming, He tells us "quickly", meaning without anymore delays, His coming will be sudden, and unexpected, and to those not watching, and waiting it will take them by surprise.

It seems to me that the only prophesy fulfilled in A.D. 70 was the final and ultimate destruction of the temple and holy city. The Lord used the Roman Army to bring judgment against the Jews, but I do not believe this is what Christ is speaking of when He says, "the time is near/at hand" or "I come quickly."

Many Blessings,
RW

Libre
May 29th 2008, 03:20 PM
That's cool, Roger. I do beleive in implies "soon" and refers to that generation. I do not believe this refers to His coming at the end of the age at the resurrection. I believe that event is depicted in the end of the revelation.

Still considering what all have said.

Pat

moonglow
May 29th 2008, 03:26 PM
A couple of articles dealing with 'quickly':

Works of Frederick Engels 1894
On the History of Early Christianity (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/)
This one is a long read though...

This next one is short and to the point:
WHAT DID "QUICKLY" AND "LAST DAYS" MEAN IN GOD'S MIND? (http://mikeblume.com/quickly.htm)

God bless

Clifton
May 29th 2008, 04:30 PM
A couple of articles dealing with 'quickly':

Works of Frederick Engels 1894
On the History of Early Christianity (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/)
This one is a long read though...

This next one is short and to the point:
WHAT DID "QUICKLY" AND "LAST DAYS" MEAN IN GOD'S MIND? (http://mikeblume.com/quickly.htm)

God bless

How about just learning Greek Stems and their basics? That for "ταχ" is:
speed, hurry, quick.

For Modern Greek, add "gear" to that.

Here's some Greek Words:

σινομα: soon.
σύντομα: soon.
σε λιγη ωρα: (clock/time wise) soon.
κοντός, κοντοί, κοντή, κοντές, κοντό, κοντά: shortly.
γρήγορα: quickly.
χωρίs καθυστέρηση: without delay.
αντωνυμία: pronto (actually, “pronto” is not a shorter word for “without delay”).
παραχρημα: immediately, forthwith, instantly.
ευθεως: anon, as soon as, forthwith, immediately, shortly, straightway


Blessings!

Romulus
May 29th 2008, 06:59 PM
Hi Romulus,

Not quite sure why you just want only 3 verses out of a chapter, but nonetheless, here goes:



I only wanted these 3 verses because this is specifically the introduction to the entire book and specifically gives time statements as to when the book was to be fulfilled.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show His servants the things which must come to pass quickly. And He made it known by sending it through His angel to His servant John, who testified to the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things as He saw, both the things that are and those that must happen after these. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who keep the things having been written in it; for the time is near.


Revelation 1:1-3 Complete Apostles' Bible

I have highlighted the time statements in bold. Even in the Greek I still see that the events were about to occur. In the plain reading of it here are the statements:

1) which must come to pass quickly-I don't see anything in this verse to suggest that it was far off. In other words an addition of "when this happens" or later is not presented.

2) both the things that are and those that must happen after these-Here the grammer states that some things were(at the time of writing) and some things that must happen after these. If we take my first example and the statement of "are" then we have events that must happen after the events currently occuring, but quickly, and not in an unforseen future time. The very fact that some things are and then the 1st verse of quickly together show a future fulfillment but not one 2000+ years later.

3) Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who keep the things having been written-Notice here how this is the direct opposite of Daniel's book. Daniel was told, not to speak the words of his book because the time was far off but John is told that those that read and keep the things in the book are blessed. The book was to be read and the prophecy to be heard. Most will agree that Daniel and Revelation are speaking of the same event and so here we have a direct conflict with each book if this was future. If the events were not to occur then why are John's readers told to (as some translations state) "do what it says"?

4) for the time is near-This statement in plain reading expresses that the book was to be fulfilled soon. The Greek rendering of this statement is the same as other translations. It is enough to show that the events were close to being fulfilled in relation to everything stated before hand in the previous verses.

Altogether I still see a fulfillment in the near future, in my opinion 4-6 years later.



They have changed the name of that Bible in recent years, (to “The Apostolic Bible Polyglot (http://apostolicbible.com/index.htm)”) but the NT uses the EMTV, and can be accessed as a MS Word Document at:
http://www.majoritytext.com/

I have several Greek New Testaments, including the new Byzantine Textform 2005. You can get the Byzantine Textform 2005 for free in Adobe Acrobat Reader PDF Format.

The PDF File (619 pages) is available for download at:

http://rpbyztxt.com/

In the middle column of the above mentioned web page is a section:

---



PDF Version of Text






The New Testament in the Original Greek - Byzantine Textform 2005 (http://rpbyztxt.com/RP2005_files/Complete2005RPByzNT.pdf)






(large file)




---
Besides the Alternate Readings, this book also contains the variants of Nestle’s Greek New Testament, including the ones that Nestle did not list! It is a bit of a patchwork job – there are places in it that has no external support – I think the number of them is 105.


Thanks Clifton I will check it out.



Oh, it is not an “argument” to me. ;) As to what most of English Readers see in their Bibles, depends on which one of the three Greek archetypes was used for the translations, then on top of that, “which variants / alternate readings” the translator(s) they used. Revelation (like the disputed Acts, which is no longer in the newer version of the UPDV Bible), is loaded with variants / alternate readings;

Would you like Internet access to the primary and subset ones (variants and alternate readings)? I’m looking at the Byzantine Textform 2005 (which is just an update of previous versions) at Revelation 9:16 and seeing 100 million horsemen, thus, some of my English Bibles has the same. What does your Bible(s) say for that number?


With all these translations, it is a wonder whether anyone can get closest to the original. I am eith you that the Greek rendering is the best.



Well, you have a problem here in referencing Matthew 24. There are at least 3 blocks in Matthew 24 (Note that 2 blocks are reversed!)… Here’s what I mean by “blocks”

24:1-25 (verses mildly disordered) – I’ll call this Block 1-A. Verse 12 unattested, omit.

24:29-35 (verse order okay) – I’ll call this Block 1-B because I think it picks up where v.25 left off.

24:36 which we referenced in this discussion: Unattested and Context uncertain, omit. But it appears in Mark as attested and context certain.

24:26-28 belongs a FEW chapters earlier – I’ll call this Block 2. (Verse Order okay).

24:43-50 (verse order okay) – belongs SEVERAL chapters earlier, preceding right before Block 3-B. I’ll call this Block 3-A.

24:37-41 (verse order okay) – belongs SEVERAL chapters earlier. I’ll call this Block 3-B (not A - that’s next)

24:42 Unattested.

24:51 Unattested.

If you would like to see Matthew 24 sorted out (without the parts that belong elsewhere, like to Chapter 16, and so on) and better aligned with the rest of the Bibles, you can see it online here:
http://read.updated.org/bible/Mt/24/


I will check the online version. Thanks!




As for Luke, I see you refer to chapter 21 (there is chapter 17 in reference to eschatology events and issues). But there is also Mark 13. The term “this generation” means just that (as opposed to “that generation”). There were events to take place in that generation. There are contrasts though, which show there were other things addressed that were “unknown” as to the events (for example, the final stage of the Second Advent, e.g. the later return of Christ, was unknown). This is noted with a careful and intentative study of Mark 13 and a good English rendering of it for English Reading. This is addressed in my Greek Training Book. I can quote it out for you if you’d like. Actually, I have already quoted it in this forum and probably could search it out without retyping it. I do not have secretarial typing skills. :(

I would be interested in seeing the english rendering of the original Greek.
God Bless Clifton.

RogerW
May 29th 2008, 07:12 PM
That's cool, Roger. I do beleive in implies "soon" and refers to that generation. I do not believe this refers to His coming at the end of the age at the resurrection. I believe that event is depicted in the end of the revelation.

Still considering what all have said.

Pat

Greetings Pat,

Perhaps you (or others) can help me to better understand "this generation". "This" is translated from Strong's Greek Definition #3778 houtos or Strong's Greek Definition #5026 taute. Can you or anyone else explain this to me? For instance what is the significance, if any, for using different Greek words to translate "this", especially if this is speaking of the same generation?

Mr 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this [houtos] generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this [taute] generation.

I have been told there are several ways that the Greek word generation [genea] is used in scripture. First of all, I'm told it is from the root word [genos] meaning kindred, and in conjunction with that it is used three ways in scripture.

1. It can be used to denote a physical family generation.
2. It can be used to denote the spiritual family or generation of evil.
3. And it can be used to denote the spiritual family or generation of Christ.

Is it true that the word translated "generation" in the New Testament is [gennema], [genos] or [genea], and that the root of all refer to a family or kin? By extension or by implication can it also mean a period of a family line, or even a Patriarch's offspring? For example, if someone declared that something occurred in the 4th generation, they would be telling us that it happened in the family period of the 4th born child. So it would be illustrating a "particular family relationship" removed by three from the Patriarch reference, but still "this generation". If I am correctly understanding this principle, is it possible to see how God uses the word generation in scripture to signify not only the family of God, but the family of His adversary Satan, as well? Does Scripture speak of two distinct seeds, even as God spoke of them in the garden as having enmity?

Is it logical to see both the children of God, and children of the devil are two diverse and distinct generations or families from those two seeds? The family of God extends all the way back to Abel. Likewise, the family of Satan extends all the way back to Cain.

It seems the way God uses the term "the Generation of evil" in scripture, makes it synonymous with the children (or family) of the Devil. But that does not necessarily refer to an immediate family group only. It seems it must also refer to all those, throughout time, who are in "that generation" by patriarchal (of your father, the devil) relationship. Just as the children of God refer to the whole family of God, which is "a chosen generation" that has existed throughout time. It's not just people who happen to be living at the time in which something was written. Isn't this seen in verses like Jo 8:44 and "generation of vipers"?

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Is it possible that the phrase "this generation" is not necessarily periods of time spanning ones life, but rather "this generation" be defined as either "generation of vipers" or "sons of God" that last until all is fulfilled at Christ's return? One generation shall not escape the damnation of Hell, and the other is a special people who shall by Christ's blood escape the damnation of Hell?

Many Blessings,
RW

moonglow
May 29th 2008, 07:24 PM
Greetings Pat,

Perhaps you (or others) can help me to better understand "this generation". "This" is translated from Strong's Greek Definition #3778 houtos or Strong's Greek Definition #5026 taute. Can you or anyone else explain this to me? For instance what is the significance, if any, for using different Greek words to translate "this", especially if this is speaking of the same generation?

Mr 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this [houtos] generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this [taute] generation.

I have been told there are several ways that the Greek word generation [genea] is used in scripture. First of all, I'm told it is from the root word [genos] meaning kindred, and in conjunction with that it is used three ways in scripture.

1. It can be used to denote a physical family generation.
2. It can be used to denote the spiritual family or generation of evil.
3. And it can be used to denote the spiritual family or generation of Christ.

Is it true that the word translated "generation" in the New Testament is [gennema], [genos] or [genea], and that the root of all refer to a family or kin? By extension or by implication can it also mean a period of a family line, or even a Patriarch's offspring? For example, if someone declared that something occurred in the 4th generation, they would be telling us that it happened in the family period of the 4th born child. So it would be illustrating a "particular family relationship" removed by three from the Patriarch reference, but still "this generation". If I am correctly understanding this principle, is it possible to see how God uses the word generation in scripture to signify not only the family of God, but the family of His adversary Satan, as well? Does Scripture speak of two distinct seeds, even as God spoke of them in the garden as having enmity?

Is it logical to see both the children of God, and children of the devil are two diverse and distinct generations or families from those two seeds? The family of God extends all the way back to Abel. Likewise, the family of Satan extends all the way back to Cain.

It seems the way God uses the term "the Generation of evil" in scripture, makes it synonymous with the children (or family) of the Devil. But that does not necessarily refer to an immediate family group only. It seems it must also refer to all those, throughout time, who are in "that generation" by patriarchal (of your father, the devil) relationship. Just as the children of God refer to the whole family of God, which is "a chosen generation" that has existed throughout time. It's not just people who happen to be living at the time in which something was written. Isn't this seen in verses like Jo 8:44 and "generation of vipers"?

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Is it possible that the phrase "this generation" is not necessarily periods of time spanning ones life, but rather "this generation" be defined as either "generation of vipers" or "sons of God" that last until all is fulfilled at Christ's return? One generation shall not escape the damnation of Hell, and the other is a special people who shall by Christ's blood escape the damnation of Hell?

Many Blessings,
RW

I think He meant exactly as He said...'this' generation...which goes along with the verse about those who pierced Him would see Him.

This Generation (http://www.geocities.com/Nashville/Opry/2092/Generation.html#Generation)

In Matthew 24:34, Jesus said: "Verily, I say unto you, this generation [genea] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

What did Jesus mean by "this generation?"
Some say that the word generation should be rendered race, meaning the Jewish race. Others say that He meant the generation alive when the signs begin to occur, not the generation when Jesus spoke these words.

The word translated generation is the Greek word "genea," which Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines as "a generation" or by implication, an age. Berry's Interlinear defines it "the people of any given time," "an age of the world's duration." It is quite safe to render it generation, meaning the age contemporary with Jesus and those who lived at that time.

While it is true that the "great tribulation" was to come only upon the Jews (not the whole world), the word, genea, in this instance does not mean race, as some would claim who do not hold to this view.

If this generation is understood to be the one to whom Jesus spoke these predictions, it makes absolutely perfect sense. This is also fully consistent with all other renderings of the same Greek phrase used elsewhere in the Bible. This is a very important fact if we want the truth concerning this matter.

Examples: This wicked generation, Matthew 12:45. This generation seeks a sign, Mark 8:12. "This untoward generation," Acts 2:40. But first must He suffer many things and be rejected of "this generation," Luke 17:25. Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? Luke 7:31.

Not one of us would try to say that these phrases were spoken of any generation other than the one in which they were uttered. It is obvious, beyond question, that all refer to the generation of people contemporary with Jesus. Yet, our Scriptures under examination reflect the exact same meaning, and many, who are learned Bible scholars, suppose it to mean some later generation. Why? Because it fits the "futurist" doctrine. But it is not true. There is nothing in the Scriptures preceding His statements that would transfer it to some future generation. He said THIS generation.

In Luke 11:29 Jesus said of that generation: "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah."

Then in Luke 11, verse 49, Jesus said: "For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill andsome they will persecute, 50 in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the alter and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'" NASB.

Now doesn't it make perfect sense that He would fulfill His prophecy of destruction of the generation that was charged with the guilt of destroying the prophets and apostles and even Jesus Himself?

Jesus said: "Verily, I say unto you, this generation [genea] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32 and Matthew 24:34)

If it could be interpreted "this generation (which is alive when these signs begin to occur) shall not pass until all be fulfilled," then we must again conclude that the fulfillments of those prophecies came about prior to A.D. 70. The record so dictates. All the signs did come at that time.(read the rest at the link)

supporting information: Seven Years

The period of time from the first attack of the Jews upon the Romans at Masada, in May of A.D. 66, to the final resistance of the Jews at Masada in April of A.D. 73, encompassed approximately seven years. The daily sacrifice ceased at about three and a half years into this seven year period. The abomination of desolation was manifested when the Roman armies surrounded the city.14

Flavius Josephus in WARS OF THE JEWS, chapter VII, section 7, states that the Romans themselves never took the Jews for their enemies until they revolted from them in A.D. 66. Regarding their state of affairs, he wrote, "however, the circumstances we are now in, ought to be an inducement to us to bear such calamity courageously, since it is by the will of God, and by necessity that we are to die: for it now appears that God hath made such a decree against the whole Jewish nation, that we are to be deprived of this life which (He knew) we would not make a due use of;"

Even Titus, who conquered the Jews, stated that God had fought with his army and given the Jews over to him.
*********************************

I think this judgment was solely for the Jews [I]at this point in time. We see very similar things happen with them all through the OT....Oh I have more to say on this but my thoughts are not wanting to come together right now...I will post more lately when I can put what I want into words.

God bless

RogerW
May 29th 2008, 07:44 PM
I think He meant exactly as He said...'this' generation...which goes along with the verse about those who pierced Him would see Him.

Greetings Moonglow,

To find agreement with the partial preterist view, I would need to understand how "near" or "at hand" can be about 30 years later (AD 70) and still be considered "near" or "at hand" according to the definition? And it would also be helpful if you could address Mr 8:12 where "this" is translated from two different Greek words...why? What is the significance? How would the partial preterist explain these???

Many Blessings,
RW

Libre
May 29th 2008, 07:59 PM
Good morning. Er, afternoon. Just had a 3 mile walk and lunch. Time flies....

I like to keep things simple. It's been my experience that we can trust the good translations of the Bible and don't have to read special ones in order to understand what is being said. It's man the complicates the things of God, IMO.

I still think "shortly" means "soon". And quickly means quickly. Etc. Both by word study and context.

Moonglow, I like your Mike Blume. I wish he had more in print. My dial-up takes about 3 minutes to download one minuter of video. If I'm lucky.

The Engels thing was a bit of a slog, but there are some interesting insights into the true early church and Revelation. For the same reason, I have read Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians. But the ones I like best are Ignatius of Antioch's letters, written on his way to be fed to the lions in Rome. In one, to the Ephesians I think, he said they were in the last epoch.

But neither of them say much about the destruction of Jerusalem. I've always thought it odd that no Christian writings really exist that comment on it, one way or another.

Pat

Clifton
May 29th 2008, 09:36 PM
I only wanted these 3 verses because this is specifically the introduction to the entire book and specifically gives time statements as to when the book was to be fulfilled.
Well, that be fine, but the whole chapter (at least) has to be taken into context - Having been a localized writer for years, I am a very contextual, and felt the Bible needed to be read chapter to chapter and Book to book (despite any disorders of text). Remember that Chapter and verse numbers were not used until the 2nd Millennium A.D.


The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show His servants the things which must come to pass quickly. And He made it known by sending it through His angel to His servant John, who testified to the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things as He saw, both the things that are and those that must happen after these. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who keep the things having been written in it; for the time is near.

Revelation 1:1-3 Complete Apostles' Bible
I have highlighted the time statements in bold. Even in the Greek I still see that the events were about to occur. In the plain reading of it here are the statements: There are no “time statements” (e.g. clock) there, such as, “in a few years, days, months, Sabbaths, etc.” (though it is always “near” – “when” and “if” it things come is another thing) – it is a book of unfolding events - some of it subjunctive, meaning, there are some things that may or may not happen. Other things are “definite”, and comply with previous Jewish and Christian Literature that the Book parallels with, and used as sources to convey what The Seer claims to have seen (obviously, foreseen future things, where materialistic things are different, a seer has to use the mind and sources of his time and his past time).

There are about 4+ sections of the Book, and it appears to be a collection of writings penned for that compilation over an extended period of time. Take the first verse or two in Chapter 4, when The Seer goes into another “vision” – that was most likely written before that which is in Chapter 1. Then of course, there are the letters to the assemblies, which are not present in DSS Revelation, since those also did not come about until 1 A.D.


1) which must come to pass quickly-I don't see anything in this verse to suggest that it was far off. In other words an addition of "when this happens" or later is not presented.
It does not have to be because the words already reveal that, no more than If one is going to race, and says he will be “fast”.


2) both the things that are and those that must happen after these-Here the grammer states that some things were(at the time of writing) and some things that must happen after these. If we take my first example and the statement of "are" then we have events that must happen after the events currently occuring, but quickly, and not in an unforseen future time. The very fact that some things are and then the 1st verse of quickly together show a future fulfillment but not one 2000+ years later.
This is why I helped you (and other readers) understand the Linear Verb by referring you the NTGREEK web page – it tells the same as you would learn it from any Greek Teaching School, Book, etc. The Greek verb “εισιν” ("are") is a Linear verb. When you use Bible Software, or hard print, with morphological or codes or grammar tags tells you the verb is in the Greek Present Tense, that means it is a linear verb, i.e. Continuous (or 'Progressive') kind of action, that usually denotes continuous kind of action (http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#AKTIONSART). It shows 'action in progress' or 'a state of persistence.' When used in the indicative mood (http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#INDICATIVE), the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time. The Greek verb “εισιν” is an Indicative Mood verb. It can represent something “habitual”, and so on. Examples:

I go to school.
I do drugs.

The “go” and “do” words are deemed as Linear Verbs.

Such a verb does not mean the action is necessarily taking place every second, minute, day, etc. In the example, “I go to school”, the person has been going to school, does go to school, and continues to go school until that action is done. There are scriptures, which shows Yeshua has “coming” everyday in our lives (to aid, comfort, remove from this earth, and so on) – that is where the Greek verb ερχομια is used, which is a PRESENT TENSE – INDICATIVE MOOD Verb, Linear. In such phrases, you will see such phrases as
“He comes/cometh”, “He IS coming”;
“I come/cometh”, “I AM coming;
as opposed to, say, for other verbs,
Past Tense: “He came”, “He had came”;
Future Tense: “He will/shall come”, “He will be coming”.
Some people take occurrences where ερχομια occurs, and confine it to meaning the “Second Coming” (though I use different terminologies in regards to this), e.g. despite the phrase says “I come”, it is changed as if it said “I will come”. Revelation 16:5 is one example (which is just a pleasant reminder, "break" in text, as oft done in the scriptures). There are other such references, but I think I need a little more caffeine to come up with them. :P I did not actually note these before, but I guess I am going to have to start to.


3) Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who keep the things having been written-Notice here how this is the direct opposite of Daniel's book. Daniel was told, not to speak the words of his book because the time was far off but John is told that those that read and keep the things in the book are blessed. The book was to be read and the prophecy to be heard. Most will agree that Daniel and Revelation are speaking of the same event and so here we have a direct conflict with each book if this was future. If the events were not to occur then why are John's readers told to (as some translations state) "do what it says"? :hmm: I take it you have not read DSS Revelation. A lot of what is in the Bible Version is in there. It is much smoother, eloquent, and poetic. But both Revelations span history. There are some echoes of, allusions, and parallels to some parts of/to The Book of Daniel, as well as to other Jewish Literature (including the Pseudepigrapha), like 1 Enoch (at lot coming from there). I have the charts to those – the work I use is 2 Volumes, over 1000 pages, a 30 year British work (though the people did other work within that period, including the primary Editor). Gotta keep in mind, there was not much materialistic stuff in back in those days thousands of years ago like there is now, so a Seer would use older and present texts to convey (or at least try) penned works and documents of the present and past – in fact, in John’s case, back to the Torah – thus, technically speaking, some text was “first” penned as far back as Moses, if not further back then that!


4) for the time is near-This statement in plain reading expresses that the book was to be fulfilled soon. The Greek rendering of this statement is the same as other translations. It is enough to show that the events were close to being fulfilled in relation to everything stated before hand in the previous verses. Well, not exactly. But since the Book shows that the events were “already” taking place, and that does not mean the events were “to be fulfilled“ within a few days, or years. Some things have been, and are, and will “reiterated” due to the progressive nature of the book. The nature of the Book, the Linguistics and Grammatical structure of it shows that it conveys of how history and the end will be, irregardless of the years. The last 3 Chapters are more literal, as best as could be accomplished. Even the most Literal work does not ever seem to be “free” of “expressions.” The last 3 Chapters are terribly “out of order” in the traditional order of text, and clumsily redacted, as it occurs in Bibles today. Those fragmentations were put into better sequence long ago in a work that was the standard for decades. There are a sparingly few interpolations and marginal glosses – in the whole book, about 22 of them as I recall.


Altogether I still see a fulfillment in the near future, in my opinion 4-6 years later. One can state that things certainly happened within that time frame, but it is not “limited” to that time frame. There have been, and are, and will be gaps.


With all these translations, it is a wonder whether anyone can get closest to the original. I am eith you that the Greek rendering is the best. I prefer to use the Byzantine Textform, of the MT Archetype. If one wants to use a CT or TR archetype, well, of course, that is their right. Personally, I look at all the variants and alternative readings I can. I noticed many Bibles using the alternative “passed away” as opposed to the preferred reading, “sent away” in Revelation 21:1. Well, of course, that is their right, just like it would be a Greek reader’s right. Did you check your Bible(s) to see the number of horsemen it/they render in Revelation 9:16? MOST Manuscripts read 100 Million, but MOST English Bibles on the market read 200 Million – must be due to inflation. :D


I would be interested in seeing the english rendering of the original Greek. Okay, here is an excerpt from Lesson 52.7, para. 5, of “Learn New Testament Greek”:
...
Some theologians have argued that the gospels show that Jesus expected his return soon. If we read Mark 13.30-32 carefully in the Greek text, we will notice a contrast between ταυτα (these things) and ηημερα εκεινη (that day). The destruction of the Temple was to be within one generation, but the time of Christ’s return was unknown. If we can trust the evidence of Mark 13 and some of the parables, Jesus did not expect his return to be soon. Of course, an attentive reading of a good translation will also show this, but it is sometimes the careful attention to the Greek text necessary for the task of translation that makes us more sharply aware of what it actually says.
* END OF EXCERPT *

Blessings!

moonglow
May 29th 2008, 09:41 PM
How about just learning Greek Stems and their basics? That for "ταχ" is:
speed, hurry, quick.

For Modern Greek, add "gear" to that.

Here's some Greek Words:

σινομα: soon.
σύντομα: soon.
σε λιγη ωρα: (clock/time wise) soon.
κοντός, κοντοί, κοντή, κοντές, κοντό, κοντά: shortly.
γρήγορα: quickly.
χωρίs καθυστέρηση: without delay.
αντωνυμία: pronto (actually, “pronto” is not a shorter word for “without delay”).
παραχρημα: immediately, forthwith, instantly.
ευθεως: anon, as soon as, forthwith, immediately, shortly, straightway


Blessings!

I hope you don't mean I need to actually learn to read those greek words...cause they are greek to me! :lol: Ok they look like gibberish...(keep in mind I have dsyeixlia and have a hard enough time with english!). On some words I do go to a lexicon and check the meaning of that word. :) Sometimes the whole meaning of a verse can hinge on what one word means too I have discovered! So at times its very helpful to know this. :)

God bless

moonglow
May 29th 2008, 09:49 PM
Good morning. Er, afternoon. Just had a 3 mile walk and lunch. Time flies....

I like to keep things simple. It's been my experience that we can trust the good translations of the Bible and don't have to read special ones in order to understand what is being said. It's man the complicates the things of God, IMO.

I still think "shortly" means "soon". And quickly means quickly. Etc. Both by word study and context.

Moonglow, I like your Mike Blume. I wish he had more in print. My dial-up takes about 3 minutes to download one minuter of video. If I'm lucky.

The Engels thing was a bit of a slog, but there are some interesting insights into the true early church and Revelation. For the same reason, I have read Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians. But the ones I like best are Ignatius of Antioch's letters, written on his way to be fed to the lions in Rome. In one, to the Ephesians I think, he said they were in the last epoch.

But neither of them say much about the destruction of Jerusalem. I've always thought it odd that no Christian writings really exist that comment on it, one way or another.

Pat

Mmmm ok I am confused...the link I gave you for Mike Blume isn't a video..so I am not sure what you are talking about there. I have video links on my signature but those are always there and not related to this conversation..

Here Mike's website: http://mikeblume.com/prophecy.htm


I like to keep things simple. It's been my experience that we can trust the good translations of the Bible and don't have to read special ones in order to understand what is being said. It's man the complicates the things of God, IMO.

I don't know...I think that is debatable because far too many tend to take scriptures TOO literally and that is why we have the pre-tib rapture point of view to start with and books like Left Behind out there that people believe will happen!

I believe, for sure the gospel message IS clear and honestly the only thing anyone REALLY needs to know...if they know nothing else ever...they will be fine. There are many believers throughout the world that have no access to a bible or a church...yet know who God is...know the gospel message. For them I believe the Holy Spirit guides them in their lives in how to live and what they truly need to know...if anything more. As far as the rest of the bible goes...depending on what area you are in, it can be complicated...at least to me! But then I am told I tend to make easy things hard...:rolleyes:

God bless

moonglow
May 29th 2008, 10:04 PM
Greetings Moonglow,

To find agreement with the partial preterist view, I would need to understand how "near" or "at hand" can be about 30 years later (AD 70) and still be considered "near" or "at hand" according to the definition? And it would also be helpful if you could address Mr 8:12 where "this" is translated from two different Greek words...why? What is the significance? How would the partial preterist explain these???

Many Blessings,
RW

You want me to explain why the greek language used more then one meaning for the word, 'this'? How would I know? :confused I don't read greek or wrote those verses...sorry I am confused by what you are asking...
Are you referring to one of the articles I posted?

I thought it was 40 years after Jesus this all took place also...:hmm:

God bless

moonglow
May 29th 2008, 10:16 PM
Libre, I thought these early partial preterism writings might interest you...I don't know if any of them mention the destruction of the temple or not though...I embedded links in the ones highlighted:

HISTORICAL PRETERISM (http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/index.html)(HP) - A) Umbrella term covering all those who believe that only a slight amount of Bible prophecy was totally fulfilled in the early centuries of the Christian era. Determined by looking at where authors find a "transition" from the past to the future using the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24/25 and the Apocalypse of John. B) This class has roots dating back to the first century, such as in the writings of Barnabus and Clement, and finds greater development in the writings of Justin Martyr (http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/j/justin-martyr.html) and Eusebius (http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/e/eusebius.html). The Catholic and Orthodox churches maintained HP through the Middle Ages. Today's contemporary forms were largely developed in the writings of Calvin (http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/c/calvin-john.html), Luther, Grotius (http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/g/grotius-hugo.html) and Lightfoot. C) Teaches that some of the Bible's eschatology was fulfilled by AD70, but that a large portion is yet to be fulfilled at the "last day." Transitions in the Middle of Matthew 24, or in the Middle of the Apocalypse of John.
*******************************
Edited...just checked, apparently Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (263 - 339) does talk about the destruction of the temple. So does John Calvin (1509- 1564).

God bless

Clifton
May 29th 2008, 10:24 PM
I hope you don't mean I need to actually learn to read those greek words...cause they are greek to me! :lol: Ok they look like gibberish...(keep in mind I have dsyeixlia and have a hard enough time with english!). On some words I do go to a lexicon and check the meaning of that word. :) Sometimes the whole meaning of a verse can hinge on what one word means too I have discovered! So at times its very helpful to know this. :)

God bless

Just to show you what I really nice old geezer I am, I will let you know what I left out of the post:

τάχει − tachei: 8 Occ. − speed
ταχέως − tacheōs: 10 Occ. − hastily, quickly, shortly
ταχινή − tachinē: 1 Occ. − shortly, swift
ταχινὴν − tachinēn: 1 Occ. − shortly, swift
τάχιον − tachion: 4 Occ. − more swiftly
τάχιστα − tachista: 1 Occ. − quickly; quick
ταχὺ − tachu: 12 Occ. − lightly, quickly
ταχὺς − tachus: 1 Occ. − swift

:lol:

:monkeyd:
Blessings!;)

RogerW
May 30th 2008, 12:06 AM
You want me to explain why the greek language used more then one meaning for the word, 'this'? How would I know? :confused I don't read greek or wrote those verses...sorry I am confused by what you are asking...
Are you referring to one of the articles I posted?

I thought it was 40 years after Jesus this all took place also...:hmm:

God bless

Greetings Moonglow,

Let's just forget about how "this generation" is used in Scripture for the time being, and focus on the inconsistency in how the partial preterist interprets "near" and "at hand." It really doesn't matter whether partial preterist believe His coming was fulfilled 3-4 years, or 30-40 years after Jesus, it still does not fit the definition of "near" and "at hand".

But, in reality it doesn't matter because Christ is not referring to His Second coming when He says, "the time is at hand" or "it is near". He is referring to the coming of the Kingdom through the universal church. Just as 2000 years into the future will not accomdate "near" and "at hand", neither will 3 to 40 years into the future.

The partial preterist must explain how "near" and "at hand" is not immediate, but sometime in the future. It makes no difference that we may measure 3 to 40 years into the future as something that is "near" or "at hand", because the way this is used in Scripture and defined in the Greek will not allow for anything less then that present time (immediate). Can you reconcile this?

Many Blessings,
RW

moonglow
May 30th 2008, 02:21 AM
Just to show you what I really nice old geezer I am, I will let you know what I left out of the post:

τάχει − tachei: 8 Occ. − speed
ταχέως − tacheōs: 10 Occ. − hastily, quickly, shortly
ταχινή − tachinē: 1 Occ. − shortly, swift
ταχινὴν − tachinēn: 1 Occ. − shortly, swift
τάχιον − tachion: 4 Occ. − more swiftly
τάχιστα − tachista: 1 Occ. − quickly; quick
ταχὺ − tachu: 12 Occ. − lightly, quickly
ταχὺς − tachus: 1 Occ. − swift

:lol:

:monkeyd:
Blessings!;)

Gee what could it be I wonder....:hmm:


:lol:

smarty pants...:rofl:


I think we should look up the greek for 'old' and 'geezer'...

:P:P:P:P


:lol:

moonglow
May 30th 2008, 02:52 AM
Greetings Moonglow,

Let's just forget about how "this generation" is used in Scripture for the time being, and focus on the inconsistency in how the partial preterist interprets "near" and "at hand." It really doesn't matter whether partial preterist believe His coming was fulfilled 3-4 years, or 30-40 years after Jesus, it still does not fit the definition of "near" and "at hand".

But, in reality it doesn't matter because Christ is not referring to His Second coming when He says, "the time is at hand" or "it is near". He is referring to the coming of the Kingdom through the universal church. Just as 2000 years into the future will not accomdate "near" and "at hand", neither will 3 to 40 years into the future.

The partial preterist must explain how "near" and "at hand" is not immediate, but sometime in the future. It makes no difference that we may measure 3 to 40 years into the future as something that is "near" or "at hand", because the way this is used in Scripture and defined in the Greek will not allow for anything less then that present time (immediate). Can you reconcile this?

Many Blessings,
RW

I agree with the part I bolded...but I have a question for you...do you think the very second Jesus said this, it happened? He went through His ministry using the words, 'near' and 'at hand' regarding many things, including the coming of the kingdom of God and in several places said it was here...as in 'right now'. I agree this isn't about His Second Coming at all that He was referring too...but yet while He ushered in His kingdom...the Jews went right on sacrificing animals for their sins in the temple, having rejected Him as the Messiah. This went on until the temple was destroyed.. what Jesus was referring too, at least in Matthew 24 was judgment coming upon 'this' generation..which happened. I will try to find you some other examples in the bible where God said He was about to do something phrasing it in a way that sounds like 'right now' and yet years went by before it actually happened. This is no different then the word 'forever' in some verses not meaning 'forever' as in ever and ever without ending...but was meant forever for that generation only...or until the Jews broke that their end of the deal.

From the PP point of view it happened as Jesus said because He included 'this generation'...'and those that pierced him' would see...these people were still alive then. It doesn't makes sense to have it happened thousands of years later, I agree...those that pierced Him are long dead.

God bless

The Village Idiot
May 30th 2008, 03:07 AM
"There are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God" (Lu 9:27).

RogerW
May 30th 2008, 02:55 PM
I agree with the part I bolded...but I have a question for you...do you think the very second Jesus said this, it happened?

No, I believe it was exactly as Christ said, it was so near that it was "even at the doors." How could it be near, even at the doors if it was something that would not happen for another 40 years? Christ is speaking of the cross.

Mt 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.



He went through His ministry using the words, 'near' and 'at hand' regarding many things, including the coming of the kingdom of God and in several places said it was here...as in 'right now'.

When Christ spoke of these things, the kingdom of God had come. It came through His being. However the kingdom of God did not come in fullness and power until after Christ literally went to the cross, and defeated Satan and death. Saying the kingdom of God is near or at hand was already true because the kingdom is merely the ability (ears to hear) to "hear" the gospel that He preached. Faith brings one into His kingdom, and faith comes by hearing the Word. The fullness or power of His kingdom came after the cross, at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was liberally poured out upon man. This marks the beginning or power that was "near" and "at hand."



I agree this isn't about His Second Coming at all that He was referring too...but yet while He ushered in His kingdom...the Jews went right on sacrificing animals for their sins in the temple, having rejected Him as the Messiah. This went on until the temple was destroyed.. what Jesus was referring too, at least in Matthew 24 was judgment coming upon 'this' generation..which happened.

Jesus answers these questions, "Tell us, (1)when shall these things be? and (2)what shall be the sign of thy coming, (3)and of the end of the world?" In His reply to their questions, He tells them and every Christian things regarding the physical buildings and the temple, that were just pointed out. He also speaks of the sign of His coming, AND of the end of the world. The end of the world is not simply the end of the world that then existed.

I don't think anyone would argue that this first group of things was limited to the time of those first century Christian Jews. These things have been happening from the beginning, and have continued to grow and intensify throughout the ages.


many come in Christ's name (the whole NT church era)
hear wars and rumors of wars (the whole NT church era)
nation rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom (the whole NT church era)
there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes (the whole NT church era)
you will be delivered up to afflection, and killed, and hated for His namesake (the whole NT church era)
many become offended and betray each other (the whole NT church era)
false prophets arise and deceive many (the whole NT church era)
the love of many grows cold (the whole NT church era)
the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world (the whole NT church era)
This group of things can be argued to have occured within the first century, and is fulfillment of prophesy against the Jewish Nation. But the last two things in this group are also things that have been happening from the beginning, and is warning to every Christian.


abomination of desolation (fulfillment of prophesy to the Nation- AD70)
flee to the mountains (Jewish Nation)
do not return to your houses for clothes (Jewish Nation)
woe unto them who are nursing (Jewish Nation)
pray that your flight won't be in the winter or on the Sabbath (Jewish Nation)
there will be great tribulation, such as never before seen (Jewish Nation)
God will shorten the days of tribulation for the sake of the elect (Jewish Nation)
many will be saying Christ is here or there (the whole NT era)
even the elect would be deceived through false Christs' and false prophets, if possible (the whole NT era)

This last group describes the Second Coming of Christ. When Christ says, "immediately after the tribulation of those days, He is not speaking of only those days when prophesy was fulfilled for the Jews. Tribulation for Christians has never been limited to one certain time. Scripture shows us that all who enter into the kingdom of God will suffer tribulation. Ac 14:22
"Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God."


as the lightening comes from the east, and shines to the west, so too will be the coming of the Son of man (end of time)
wherever the dead are, there will be gathered together eagles (end of time)
immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken (end of time)
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (end of time)
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (end of time)


I will try to find you some other examples in the bible where God said He was about to do something phrasing it in a way that sounds like 'right now' and yet years went by before it actually happened. This is no different then the word 'forever' in some verses not meaning 'forever' as in ever and ever without ending...but was meant forever for that generation only...or until the Jews broke that their end of the deal.

For ever is translated from eis aion, and can sometimes mean an age or period. We find an example here: Jude 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. Here the ungodly, who crept in among the church, but have been ordained to condemnation are kept in darkness for ever; i.e. until the end of this age, or fullness of time. They are not kept in darkness for ever and ever; i.e. ages of the ages, without end, perpetual, or eternally because in the fullness of time they will be ressurected from hell (the grave) to be cast into the lake of fire for ever AND ever; i.e. without end.



From the PP point of view it happened as Jesus said because He included 'this generation'...'and those that pierced him' would see...these people were still alive then. It doesn't makes sense to have it happened thousands of years later, I agree...those that pierced Him are long dead.

God bless

Yes, it does happen exactly as Christ said it will. Everything that pertained to the generation then living, and those that pierced Him, experienced what Christ said would come. Those living at that time were of course curious about His Second Coming, after all how could they know whether or not His return would happen during their lifetime. Prophecy makes perfect sense when we put it in its proper time frame. It only becomes cofusing when we try to read our timing into prophecy as the partial preterist has.

May God Bless you as well,
RW

moonglow
May 30th 2008, 08:21 PM
Roger..I have trying to reply to you all day but I am getting bombarded with other things on the net right now...plus my son playing with a friend and taking care of their needs and all. Its very frustrating these distractions going on but they can't be helped. Anyway while I don't have time to respond to everything you posted right now I wanted to say that first I really enjoyed your post and found it very interesting and gives me alot to consider too.

I don't see the partial preterism view excluding the ongoing trials or tribulations Jesus talked about or many of the other things you mentioned as Jesus said these would be ongoing things. In other words I don't see PP saying it all happened at such and such time end of story..not by any means! I don't quite understand though why you were asking me the questions you were when you had the answers already...that was confusing. I am only guessing you wanted me to defend this view and weren't really looking to understand it...that threw me off because I really didn't know where you were coming from at all or what your view points are. I know since this thread started we have had several others post other viewpoints that are totally new to me...never heard of them and don't understand them at all though I would like to know more about them.

I just have one question for right now before I have to run off again...how long after Jesus said these things do you think He went to the cross?

Thanks.

God bless

Libre
May 30th 2008, 09:21 PM
Mmmm ok I am confused...the link I gave you for Mike Blume isn't a video..so I am not sure what you are talking about there. I have video links on my signature but those are always there and not related to this conversation..

Here Mike's website: http://mikeblume.com/prophecy.htm


I don't know...I think that is debatable because far too many tend to take scriptures TOO literally and that is why we have the pre-tib rapture point of view to start with and books like Left Behind out there that people believe will happen!

I believe, for sure the gospel message IS clear and honestly the only thing anyone REALLY needs to know...if they know nothing else ever...they will be fine. There are many believers throughout the world that have no access to a bible or a church...yet know who God is...know the gospel message. For them I believe the Holy Spirit guides them in their lives in how to live and what they truly need to know...if anything more. As far as the rest of the bible goes...depending on what area you are in, it can be complicated...at least to me! But then I am told I tend to make easy things hard...:rolleyes:

God bless
Hi. For some reason I didn't get an email on this thread, though I'm subscribed. I went to the Blume site and read what was there. But most everything is video and not in print. I like his videos, but they take forever to load, tying up my phone line a lot.

Pat

PS. I just found the printed material. I thought the whole list was audio and video. Silly me....

jewel4Christ
May 31st 2008, 04:12 AM
Hi. For some reason I didn't get an email on this thread, though I'm subscribed. I went to the Blume site and read what was there. But most everything is video and not in print. I like his videos, but they take forever to load, tying up my phone line a lot.

Pat

PS. I just found the printed material. I thought the whole list was audio and video. Silly me....


Hi Pat,

I love Mike Blume...he sure has my vote on alot of things.....;)

Not all, though...but, would we ever find that, this side of "eternity"?

probably not.


You can count on him for the basics, though...and, there is not much of that even in this time frame.


IT seems to me that today, the simple gospel is not even understood.......:B


peaceandlove,

janet

moonglow
May 31st 2008, 02:13 PM
Hi. For some reason I didn't get an email on this thread, though I'm subscribed. I went to the Blume site and read what was there. But most everything is video and not in print. I like his videos, but they take forever to load, tying up my phone line a lot.

Pat

PS. I just found the printed material. I thought the whole list was audio and video. Silly me....

Hey glad you found the printed material...I didn't even know he had video's on there...:rolleyes: Oh well! You might want to recheck your settings for this thread to make sure you still get email notices on it...

God bless