The "Already/Not Yet" Interpretation of Eschatology

[David M]

I presented many "simple sentences" and then made the diagram to make it easier for folks to see how they all fit together by presenting two Bible passages side by side. The simple fact is that there are only two places in the NT that mention the "new heaven and new earth." One in 2 Peter 3 and the other in Revelation 20. And there are only two places in the NT that mention a thousand years, and they are in the same two passages. And the same two passages have many other points in common. There was nothing "convoluted" about the diagram. It simply displayed these simple facts. If you can't understand these simple facts displayed in that simple diagram, I must conclude that it is your brain that is "convoluted."

Good morning Richard

The part I have highlighted in red is true, but both Peter and John would be well read in their scriptures and would have read Isaiah 65:12,22 where this phrase is mentioned. They are not necessarily quoting each other.


I read through your long post and did not feel at the time replying to such a long post. I appreciate the study that you have put into that. However, there are some things you say that I disagreed with as I read through the post.

There are so many connections in each verse we need to color-code code them:


•Revelation 1:5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings (basileus) and priests (heiroteuma) unto God and his Father; >>>to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen<<<.
•1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal (basileios) priesthood (heireus), an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
•1 Peter 5:10-13 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. 11 >>>To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.<<< 12 ¶ By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. 13 She that is at BABYLON, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

This final correlation is one of the most astounding of all. The blue text in Rev 1:6 correlates with the UNIQUE mention of Christians as a "royal priesthood" in 1 Peter 2:9, and the red phrase is found ONLY in 1 Peter and Revelation, and they are >>>letter for letter identical<<< in both books! Let me repeat, that phase is letter for letter identical in Peter and Revelation, and it appears nowhere else in the Bible. Here it is in the Greek:
>>>αυτωι η δοξα και το κρατος εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων αμην<<< REV 1:6 = 1 Pet 5:11

The first comparison you make (the weaker of the two) shown in red is practically the same as Jude 25: be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen. On the basis you made the assertion that there were only two places the phrase was used and had not included Jude, makes me suspicious of your other claims.

If you are laying claim to this one and only phrase (in blue) that occurs in Peter and John, then what is the argument for saying they read each other's letters? John lived the longer and could have published the revelation given to him at a later date, the balance would swing in favor of John reading Peter's letters (maybe smuggled to him while on Patmos). The more important point to me is that for John the opening of Revelation clearly states;(Rev 1:1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him.

Wherever John received the revelation and in what year, it is not a question of John copying from Peter's letters. This was a direct revelation to John. The revelation also says; (Rev 22:18) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: On this basis, I have to accept that John wrote under inspiration (as did all the prophets that we have the record of in the Bible). John would not have added to this revelation. That means you have to accuse God of plagiarizing Peter's letters or allow for the fact that God had revealed certain truths to Peter. Either way, the case of arguing that Revelation was completed by the time of AD70 is far from proved.

That's all for now,


David

[David M]

Hey there David,

Where did you get the idea that the prophecy spans centuries? The text explicitly spans 42 months, and this "just happens" to match the duration of the Great Tribulation of 66 -70 AD. Is that just a red herring that Jesus put in there to confuse everyone?

Good morning Richard

The forty two months can quite clearly apply to a future fulfillment in the context of the whole of the Revelation. This is the crux of the matter.
God can use the same periods of time. An exact time period can be coincidental. When exactly between 66 -70 AD (60 months) are the 42 months? I do not want to split hairs and will go a long with a coincidental time period which is future.

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
What is all the the measuring for?

There is no reason it could not have been quickly distributed. And why couldn't they understand it? The symbolism is very plain to people who are familiar with the OT.

You mean you can understand the vials, seals, trumpets, beasts and the red, black and pale horses? Your understanding of some figurative language of the Bible has already made me suspicious of what you understand. I do not think the ordinary people who would have received this message would have understood it readily. What about the Gentiles to whom the gospel was to be preached; do you think they would understand Revelation? I doubt they understood the Old Testament.

In the prophecy of the the Revelation is revealed another prophecy to take place:

Rev10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.
Once again, I cannot see the fulfillment of this happening within the time period you state.

I think you have confused your references. Immediately after Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple, the disciples connected that with his coming and the end of the age:

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 ¶ And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?

Why did the disciples immediately connect the destruction of the temple with the coming of messiah and the end of the age? Why didn't Jesus correct them if it was an error? The answers are totally obvious. The coming of messiah was the end of the old covenant age marked by the destruction of the Temple. Simplicity, clarity and coherence are all characteristics of truth. It seems to me that the Futurist doctrines have none of those qualities.

I have not confused my references. Yes;I will agree that the disciples were curious as to when the temple would be destroyed. They also wanted to know what the sign of his coming would be and of the end of the age; This is a separate question which Jesus answered. I can easily separate the destruction of the temple and the end of the age. You want to make the connection and I can see that the connection does not have to be made. Jesus did not correct his disciples, because he did not see them making the connection you are forcing. It is a pity Jesus is not correcting you; or is he (by some angels on this forum)?

Rev10:11[COLOR="#0000FF"] The associations between Peter and Revelation are anything but "loose." For you to say that means you have not bothered to review the evidence. Or worse, you see the evidence and simply reject it without justification because it contradicts your futurist dogmas.

I have reviewed your evidence and commented on it in another post. I appreciate the study you have done, though I cannot agree with your conclusions. So once again you are accusing me of not studying the evidence you presented. I will study the evidence you give as long as it is from the Bible. I shall say it again, I will not use the works of men as evidence or books that were not accepted to be canons of scripture and were rejected for inclusion in the Bible. We have to stick with the 66 books as your Bible Wheel shows.

And yes, I accuse Futurists of "nitpicking" when they try to use grammar to twist words away from their plain and obvious meaning, as when Twospirits rejects John's statement that "it IS the last hour" or when he rips apart the mutually confirming time texts in Rev 1:1-3 that say the prophesied EVENTS must happen "soon ... for the time is at hand" and twists them to mean that the events will happen "swiftly" when they finally begin in the distant future, and the "time was at hand" not for the events but for the giving of the revelation. Do you agree with his interpretation of those passages? Have you ever read a published scholar who would agree with his interpretation? Of course not. That interpretation destroys any meaning the text might have. It is required because the Bible is PLAINLY and OBVIOUSLY contradicting the Futurist dogmas, so he has no choice but to destroy the meaning of the text by NITPICKING the words and forcing them to say something entirely contrary to what they actually mean. How anyone could treat the text with such violent disregard while asserting it is the very "Word of God" is beyond all comprehension. Words have meaning ... except in Futurist hermeneutics.

Taking into account words which you miss is not nit-picking. I agree we might nit-pick the meaning of some phrases and words, but we should be discussing the same words; not leaving any out.

How can you miss it? The prophecies against Mystery Babylon are nearly identical to the prophecies Jeremiah gave against apostate Israel. Anyone familiar with the OT would recognize this, and so it supports the identification of Mystery Babylon as apostate Israel. It's not complicated.

I am not going to revisit those verses in Jeremiah again. However, it can be apparent that the Mystery Babylon in Revelation can be applied to a later political and religious power beginning from the time of the first century church culminating in the climax to come. Babylon has its origins going back to possibly Nimrod the hunter in Genesis. Babylon became a great city and empire and though that city and empire were overtaken, Babylon has become a type. I am not a great typologists as you know, but even I can see the the typology used when referring to Babylon.

First century Jerusalem with the Levitical priesthood fits the description as a "political and religious power that is set up at the time of the end" and the Bible states that the time of the end happened in the first century. This is why Preterism is so convincing.

Well to you it does, and so we have to agree to disagree for all the other reasons I have given.

I think most of the Futurist confusion about the prophecies comes from a false and inconsistent literalist interpretation coupled with a rejection of the plain meaning of many verses. It's really quite ironic.

I see nothing ironic. Are you a preterist still, or simply putting forward the preterist arguments you once held? I simply refute your use of what you say here which gives the impression to readers that you are correct and all futurists are wrong. The evidence is still being weighed in the balance as far as this discussion is concerned. That is why I am against your statements that indicate a conclusion has been reached and you are right.

I think so, and I'm glad. I'm sorry if you were offended by my bold style. No offense intended. I get the impression you have not interacted much with Preterism. That could explain a lot of the confusion. I've been discussing these things for a lot of years, so I just state the facts as if they were facts. This shocks a lot of Futurists because they have been taught so much that is not actually in the Bible.

I agree, I have not interacted with Preterists quite on this scale before. It is not word/label that I use in my everyday vocabulary to attache to others. I have learned quite a few new words while on this forum. I have conversations with all sorts of Bible-believers and I don't recall having conversations with anyone claiming everything was completed by AD70. Even futurists vary in what they think is still future and what has been fulfilled already.

The Internet allows us to communicate in ways that we could not before. Knowledge has certainly increased in the last few decades and has accelerated in the last couple of years with information stores like Google. This rapid acceleration is like many events I see accelerating in the world leading up to God's intervention again. God has things to do to and I cannot accept God has concluded everything in AD 70. God has left on record things to occur between AD70 and until the fully restored kingdom is handed back to Him by His Son. So long as I maintain that, I shall give my reasons.

I do appreciate the arguments presented from both sides when I read the posts from you and others. I have as much disagreement with others on this forum as I do with you; it is just that our disagreements have been expresseive. When I read your replies to others I can see your justification for refuting some of their arguments and I would agree with you. I expect others think the same about my arguments when reading my replies to your posts. I know that some things I present as evidence are not strong and can easily be interpreted another way. Hopefully, by thrashing some things out we might reach a consensus and we might all in some way change our long-held opinions. Having an open mind to re-evaluate our beliefs is the main thing. If after re-evaluation we maintain the same belief, so be it. The word of God does not change. God's promises will not change. Only our understanding will change.

All the very best,

David

[Twospirits]

David M wrote,

I agree, I have not interacted with preterists quite on this scale. It is not word that I used as part of my everyday vocabulary. I have learned quite a few new words while on this forum. I have conversations with all sorts and I don't recall having conversations with anyone claiming everything was completed by AD70. Even futurists vary in what they think is still future and what has already been fulfilled.

Hi David,

I also noted that you seem to have not interacted much with preterists and seemed interested in eschatology, which was the reason why I gave the thread links and suggested that it would be a great help if one took the time to review them for a better understanding and further in-sights into eschatology and the positions held by preterists and futurists on this forum. I admit that the threads are long and it would take some time to read them. But they don't have to be read all at one sitting, they can be re-visited later. Here are the links again:

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1733

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2128

God bless---Twospirits

[David M]

Hi David,

I also noted that you seem to have not interacted much with preterists and seemed interested in eschatology, which was the reason why I gave the thread links and suggested that it would be a great help if one took the time to review them for a better understanding and further in-sights into eschatology and the positions held by preterists and futurists on this forum. I admit that the threads are long and it would take some time to read them. But they don't have to be read all at one sitting, they can be re-visited later. Here are the links again:

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1733

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2128

God bless---Twospirits

Thank you Twospirits. I did visit those links and read some of the posts there. These links are useful to have again. Maybe I should start a file of links so I can easily refer to these things.

Futurism or Preterism, I don't like labels and I will argue from scripture as I find. I appreciate your study of the Hebrew and Greek language. Languages are not my strength. However, when I read your posts and Richard's arguing on the same points of language, I am able to decide who I consider has the better argument. I am learning something from both sides as well as seeing errors in both sides. I know we all have a degree of error in what we believe. The aim is to keep on growing in what we consider to be The Truth. I know that is not the aim of everyone on this forum. Therefore, we identify with those who hold the same beliefs as ourselves and respect each others differences.


I enjoy your posts, so keep up the good work.



David

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

Your assertion that I was "inventing a doctrine" made me think you were throwing that in my face because I have said it many times about Futurism. The absurdity of your assertion seemed to confirm this because the idea that Peter may have read Revelation is not a "doctrine" of any kind, but rather a conclusion about the relation between those books based on their common themes and language.

I wasn't, but aren't you saying here, it's okay for you but not us? :winking0071: As for your assertion of Peter and Revelation I gave you my rebuttal in post #36 of your post #33 on this, you never answered it. You also never answered post #16 where I had refuted your post #13. I'm sure you may just have overlooked them.

And why not? What other explanation do you offer? If you say that God independently inspired Peter and Revelation, we come to the same conclusion that they are talking about the same events because God would be an idiot to have them say the same things if he did not mean for us to make those connections.

I gave an explanation on that as I noted in post #36.

Yes, you hit my "nerve" that fires when I see someone reject a vast body of evidence without refuting any of it merely because it contradicts his preconceived eschatology. We've been talking for years Henry. But we still can't agree about the meaning of the most elementary statements in the Bible. When the Bible says that it was the "last hour" in the first century, you merely reject it!

That is not true Richard, I have never 'merely rejected' someone's position because it contradicts my position. I have always given my reasons to reject it on biblical grounds as to why I reject them. This can be seen in all my posts when discussing particular passages.

God bless---Twospirits

[Twospirits]

Thank you Twospirits. I did visit those links and read some of the posts there. These links are useful to have again. Maybe I should start a file of links so I can easily refer to these things.

Futurism or Preterism, I don't like labels and I will argue from scripture as I find. I appreciate your study of the Hebrew and Greek language. Languages are not my strength. However, when I read your posts and Richard's arguing on the same points of language, I am able to decide who I consider has the better argument. I am learning something from both sides as well as seeing errors in both sides. I know we all have a degree of error in what we believe. The aim is to keep on growing in what we consider to be The Truth. I know that is not the aim of everyone on this forum. Therefore, we identify with those who hold the same beliefs as ourselves and respect each others differences.


I enjoy your posts, so keep up the good work.



David

Concerning labels I feel as you do, scripture is what matters. And as you so well stated, growing in that Truth is what matters.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Richard

I presented many "simple sentences" and then made the diagram to make it easier for folks to see how they all fit together by presenting two Bible passages side by side. The simple fact is that there are only two places in the NT that mention the "new heaven and new earth." One in 2 Peter 3 and the other in Revelation 20. And there are only two places in the NT that mention a thousand years, and they are in the same two passages. And the same two passages have many other points in common. There was nothing "convoluted" about the diagram. It simply displayed these simple facts. If you can't understand these simple facts displayed in that simple diagram, I must conclude that it is your brain that is "convoluted."

The part I have highlighted in red is true, but both Peter and John would be well read in their scriptures and would have read Isaiah 65:12,22 where this phrase is mentioned. They are not necessarily quoting each other.

Good morning David,

You comment doesn't address my point at all. My case was not based on the fact that those two passages in 2 Peter3 and Revelation 20 had that one verse in common. The point is that both passages contain two unique elements, namely the appearance of the phrase "new heaven and new earth" COUPLED with a reference to the "thousand years." This is significant because there is a never ending debate about the meaning of the thousand years in Rev 20. Is it literal or symbolic? How could we determine that? The answer is obvious - we look to see if there are any other passages that speak of the same things that might help us confirm the meaning. And when we look we find that Peter used the "thousand years" in an obviously symbolic way. So that helps establish it's meaning. And given that Peter and John both speak of the "thousand years" in the context of the new heavens and earth, we have reason to believe the passages are connected. To me, it looks like Peter was explaining the meaning of Rev 20, especially given the many other connections his letter has with Revelation. And if he was explaining it, it is reasonable to assume he read it. But that's not the critical point. If we believe the Bible was inspired we come to the same conclusion that Peter explains Rev 20, only now we see that it was God structured it this way for our understanding.

I read through your long post and did not feel at the time replying to such a long post. I appreciate the study that you have put into that. However, there are some things you say that I disagreed with as I read through the post.

The post was long for one reason and one reason only - it requires a lot of space to present SO MUCH EVIDENCE. Most of the post was nothing but correlated Bible quotes.

The first comparison you make (the weaker of the two) shown in red is practically the same as Jude 25: be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen. On the basis you made the assertion that there were only two places the phrase was used and had not included Jude, makes me suspicious of your other claims.

You can verify my claims for yourself. It is absurd to suggest "suspicion" unless you are in the habit of basing your conclusion on someone's "authority." None of my claims are based on my "authority" in any way at all. I present the evidence, and that's it. And besides, I showed the results of the search using my Bible Works software - what's there to be "suspicious" about?



Now your assertion that the passage from Jude is "almost the same" is not accurate at all. Yes, it uses three of the same words, but he also uses three different words and the structure of the phrase is entirely different, as you can see for yourself. I highlighted the different words red to help you see:

Jude 25: δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος

The four passages from 1 Peter and Revelation are LETTER FOR LETTER IDENTICAL. The phrase they have in common is very "formal" - the words glory and dominion are preceded by the definite article. We do not see this in Jude.

I find it fascinating how resistant folks are to evidence when it contradicts their preferred interpretations, and how they will accept the weakest arguments if they think it supports their preferred interpretations.

If you are laying claim to this one and only phrase (in blue) that occurs in Peter and John, then what is the argument for saying they read each other's letters? John lived the longer and could have published the revelation given to him at a later date, the balance would swing in favor of John reading Peter's letters (maybe smuggled to him while on Patmos). The more important point to me is that for John the opening of Revelation clearly states;(Rev 1:1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him.

Wherever John received the revelation and in what year, it is not a question of John copying from Peter's letters. This was a direct revelation to John. The revelation also says; (Rev 22:18) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: On this basis, I have to accept that John wrote under inspiration (as did all the prophets that we have the record of in the Bible). John would not have added to this revelation. That means you have to accuse God of plagiarizing Peter's letters or allow for the fact that God had revealed certain truths to Peter. Either way, the case of arguing that Revelation was completed by the time of AD70 is far from proved.

Your statement that John received a direct revelation is the very reason the connections between the two books suggest that Peter read John and not vice-versa. John presents Revelation as a vision he received about the tribulation believers would "soon" suffer, whereas Peter was trying to encourage believers who were currently suffering tribulation. Peter USES the title and content of Revelation in his letter whereas Revelation has no obvious dependence on Peter. It makes perfect sense to think Peter read Revelation because he twice uses the title of the book "the revelation of Jesus Christ" in the context of encouraging his readers concerning the tribulation they were suffering. And he addressed it to believers in Asia Minor which is the same group that John addressed Revelation. It makes no sense to think the John tailored Revelation to match Peter's letter.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Richard

Where did you get the idea that the prophecy spans centuries? The text explicitly spans 42 months, and this "just happens" to match the duration of the Great Tribulation of 66 -70 AD. Is that just a red herring that Jesus put in there to confuse everyone?

The forty two months can quite clearly apply to a future fulfillment in the context of the whole of the Revelation. This is the crux of the matter.
God can use the same periods of time. An exact time period can be coincidental. When exactly between 66 -70 AD (60 months) are the 42 months? I do not want to split hairs and will go a long with a coincidental time period which is future.

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
What is all the the measuring for?

You did not answer my question. Where do you get the idea that the prophecy in Revelation spans thousands of years? There is nothing in the text to suggest that, let alone prove it. Where did that idea come from? Why should anyone believe it?

You mean you can understand the vials, seals, trumpets, beasts and the red, black and pale horses? Your understanding of some figurative language of the Bible has already made me suspicious of what you understand. I do not think the ordinary people who would have received this message would have understood it readily. What about the Gentiles to whom the gospel was to be preached; do you think they would understand Revelation? I doubt they understood the Old Testament.

Yes, the meaning of the beast would have been obvious - it represents an evil government opposed to God's people. Any first century Jew would have understood it as a symbol of Rome. Things like the vials were obvious too - they represent God pouring out his wrath (judgment). There are, of course, plenty of details that remain ambiguous (especially to folks 2000 yeas removed from the events), but the Big Picture is pretty plain. The two women represent carnal (harlot) vs. heavenly (bride) Jerusalem, just as Paul explained the allegory of the two women in Galatians 4 represent carnal (Hagar) vs. heavenly (Sarah) Jerusalem. It's all so very simply, any child could understand ... unless his mind has been filled with unbiblical Futurist speculations and false doctrines.

Why did the disciples immediately connect the destruction of the temple with the coming of messiah and the end of the age? Why didn't Jesus correct them if it was an error? The answers are totally obvious. The coming of messiah was the end of the old covenant age marked by the destruction of the Temple. Simplicity, clarity and coherence are all characteristics of truth. It seems to me that the Futurist doctrines have none of those qualities.

I have not confused my references. Yes;I will agree that the disciples were curious as to when the temple would be destroyed. They also wanted to know what the sign of his coming would be and of the end of the age; This is a separate question which Jesus answered. I can easily separate the destruction of the temple and the end of the age. You want to make the connection and I can see that the connection does not have to be made. Jesus did not correct his disciples, because he did not see them making the connection you are forcing. It is a pity Jesus is not correcting you; or is he (by some angels on this forum)?

You didn't answer my question. Why did the disciples immediately connect the destruction of the temple with the coming of Messiah and the end of the age? The answer should be obvious. The Jews understood the destruction of the Temple would mark the coming of Messiah and the day of judgment. Jesus had already told them that John the Baptist - who announced that Jesus was the Messiah - had fulfilled the prophecy of the Elijah who would come before the "great and dreadful day of the LORD." Here is how Donald Hagner explains these facts in the Word Biblical Commentary:

As far as the apostles were concerned, the ominous words of Jesus concerning the destruction of the temple could point in only one direction: to the experiencing of the eschatological judgment. This was a subject to which Jesus had often alluded in his teaching ministry and therefore something they may well have expected him to indicate. They were accordingly eager to know how soon this might occur and what sign they might anticipate to indicate its approach. Their concern was not one of idle curiosity, for mere information’s sake, but concern that they might be properly prepared for the time of judgment. From their perspective, the destruction of the temple must have meant the coming again of Jesus, not as he now was with them when his glory was veiled but as the clearly revealed Son of God for all to see.

These facts seem so obvious to me I marvel how futurists can't see them at all. The only way they can make room for Futurism is to shred the text. Thus, they try to separate the disciples questions into three when they were in fact one. It is totally obvious that the disciples were asking a single WHEN question - WHEN would the ESCHATOLOGICAL EVENT involving the destruction of the Temple, the coming of Messiah, and the end of the age happen? That was the question they asked, and that was the question Jesus answered when he said - THIS GENERATION. It's all so very simple, clear, and obvious, especially when compared with the convoluted speculations, inventions, and denials of Scripture required to support Futurism.

Taking into account words which you miss is not nit-picking. I agree we might nit-pick the meaning of some phrases and words, but we should be discussing the same words; not leaving any out.

It is "nit-picking" when the analysis is used to avoid the plain and obvious meaning of the text that is supported by many mutually confirming verses. It's "straining at gnats" while "swallowing a camel."

I am not going to revisit those verses in Jeremiah again. However, it can be apparent that the Mystery Babylon in Revelation can be applied to a later political and religious power beginning from the time of the first century church culminating in the climax to come. Babylon has its origins going back to possibly Nimrod the hunter in Genesis. Babylon became a great city and empire and though that city and empire were overtaken, Babylon has become a type. I am not a great typologists as you know, but even I can see the the typology used when referring to Babylon.

If you can see the typology of Babylon, then you should be able to see how it applies to apostate Israel who opposed God, killed the Messiah, and persecuted the people of God. This fits perfectly with totality of the testimony of Scripture which says the events in Revelation would happen "soon" because the "time is at hand." And this fits perfectly with Christ's statement that everything would be fulfilled during the "days of vengeance" when the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed. And this is confirmed by history.

I think most of the Futurist confusion about the prophecies comes from a false and inconsistent literalist interpretation coupled with a rejection of the plain meaning of many verses. It's really quite ironic.

I see nothing ironic. Are you a preterist still, or simply putting forward the preterist arguments you once held? I simply refute your use of what you say here which gives the impression to readers that you are correct and all futurists are wrong. The evidence is still being weighed in the balance as far as this discussion is concerned. That is why I am against your statements that indicate a conclusion has been reached and you are right.

The irony comes from the inconsistency of the Futurist doctrines. On the one hand, they claim to be taking the Bible literally, while on the other they consistently deny what it plainly written.

I present Preterism as the best fit to the Biblical and historical data. I don't know if it is "true" or not. If it is true, then it is the best evidence for fulfilled prophecy and hence, the best evidence for the truth of the Bible. And that's another profound irony. The Futurist position is aligned with the atheists who reject the prophecies as fulfilled. They read what the Bible plainly states about the first century coming of Messiah, and agree with the Futurists that it didn't happen and so conclude that it is proof that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet and the Bible is false. In other words, Futurists destroy the only solid objectively verifiable evidence that could prove the Bible. I find that extremely ironic.

The fulfillment of the combined prophecies of Daniel and Christ in 70 AD are provide the only hard evidence that proves the Bible contains supernatural prophecy. This is because Daniel predicted the Messiah would come, be killed, and then the city and sanctuary would be destroyed. All scholars agree those prophecies were written before Christ was born. Christ amplified Daniel's prophecy and added detail. Therefore, their fulfillment in 70 AD the greatest proof of the Bible. This has been known for many centuries. This is not a new idea. Here is a typical explanation written over two hundred years ago (source):

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM

An Absolute and Irresistible

PROOF OF THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY

Including a narrative of the calamities which befel the Jews
so far as they tend to verify our Lord's predictions relative to that event.

By George Peter Holford
(Written in 1805)

"I consider the Prophecy relative to the destruction of the Jewish nation, if there were nothing else to support Christianity, as absolutely irresistible." --Mr. Erskine's Speech, at the Trial of Williams, for publishing Paine's Age of Reason

PREFACE
History records few events more generally interesting than the destruction of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the Jewish state, by the arms of the Romans. -- Their intimate connexion with the dissolution of the Levitical economy, and the establishment of Christianity in the world; the striking verification which they afford of so many of the prophecies, both of the Old and New Testament, and the powerful arguments of the divine authority of the Scriptures which are thence derived; the solemn warnings and admonitions which they hold out to all nations, but especially such as are favoured with the light and blessings of REVELATION; together with the impressive and terrific grandeur of the events themselves--are circumstances which must always insure to the subject of the following pages more than ordinary degrees of interest and importance. Many eminent and learned men have employed their pens in the illustration of it; but the fruits of their labours are, for the most part, contained in large and expensive works, out of the reach of numbers, to whom the discussion might prove equally interesting and improving. For the use and gratification of such, the present Treatise, in a more accessible and familiar form, is diffidently offered to the public. In order that it might be better adapted for the general reader, critical inquiries and tedious details are equally avoided; but it has been the care of the writer not to omit any important fact or argument that, in his opinion, tended to elucidate the subject. Countenanced by the example of many respectable names, he has ventured to introduce the extraordinary prodigies, which, according to Josephus, preceded the destruction of the Holy City. He has also added a few sentences in their defense, but he does not intend thereby to express his unqualified admission of their genuineness.

Folks who oppose these facts are opposing the only hard evidence for the supernatural origin of Christianity. I can't think of anything more ironic.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I wasn't, but aren't you saying here, it's okay for you but not us?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. If you find that I have "invented a doctrine" then it's great for you to say so. But if you do, you must provide EVIDENCE supporting your assertion. You didn't do that, so I thought you were just throwing my words back in my face.

As for your assertion of Peter and Revelation I gave you my rebuttal in post #36 of your post #33 on this, you never answered it. You also never answered post #16 where I had refuted your post #13. I'm sure you may just have overlooked them.

I'm sorry I missed that post. I'll go answer right now.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It's not "my view" that they were in the last days. The Bible repeatedly and emphatically states that as fact. If you want to press your point, you will have to refute the plain and obvious meaning of all the verses I quoted and many others too, including some by Paul himself.

It is the view you hold that the scriptures agree with you and your position, and I am refuting that claim by showing that the scriptures do not agree with your claims. I have given a refutation of many passages you and other preterists have presented, and they are seen in this thread and elsewhere. The refutation and burden of proof lies with you (preterists) who make the claim of a 70 A.D. fulfillment of all prophecy.

Yes, you have presented your arguments against my arguments, and we both think we have refuted each other. So who is there to judge between us? That's why I constantly appeal to you to begin with a FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT so we can have something to build upon. Otherwise, all we have is a "Yes I did" vs. "No you didn't" and we just talk past each other and nothing gets resolved, even after years of discussion.

And from my point of view, you arguments are often little more than a blunt rejection of what the Bible plainly states, and worse, your arguments are often entirely idiosyncratic with no support from any scholar. Case in point: Revelation beings by speaking of the EVENTS which must happen "soon" BECAUSE "the time is at hand." There are mutually confirming time texts, so the only way you can destroy what they plainly mean is to assert that the "time is at hand" refers to the giving of the Revelation, and not the events themselves. But there is not a single scholar on the planet who agrees with you as far as I know. You certainly have never cited one. And almost all scholars agree with the plain meaning that is obvious to every reader, namely, that the EVENTS must happen "soon" BECAUSE the "time is at hand."

And we see the same rejection of the plain meaning of "it IS the last hour" written by John. This is the fundamental characteristic of Futurism. Even if it is correct, everyone must admit that it directly contradicts the plain meaning of many passages in the Bible. We don't see this problem with Preterism. On the contrary, Preterism is based upon the main and plain things that the Bible teaches, such as Christ's prediction of the destruction of the Temple in the first century, and the historical confirmation that it happened in 70 AD.

God is the Author who inspired Paul. God and Paul knew the war had started a year before Paul wrote to Timothy. Even an uninspired person like myself if writing to them would state it in the 'present tense,' Why? to let them know and warn them that these perilous times 'has come,' not 'shall come.'

The context of the passage you use proves my point, Jesus states a prophecy that 'was to come,' but note that Jesus then makes clear to them in his following words that this has been fulfilled through John, 'But I tell you 'Elias is come already,' the context of Paul's passage does not give such a statement that this was being (present tense) fulfilled, but rather was future.

I see no point in disputing this detail. You reject things that are explicitly stated with much more clarity, so I know that it would be vanity to discuss this point.

We have to start with the main and plain things that are established with many mutually confirming verses. If you reject the main and plain things, why should I think we could make any progress on the smaller details?

Now if you really are sincere about conforming your doctrines to the Bible based on the use of tenses, try on this pair:

Revelation 3:10 'Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing [peirasmos], that hour which is about to come [future] upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth.
1 Peter 1:6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season [present tense], if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations [peirasmos] :

Revelation said that the trials [peirasmos] were soon to come, whereas Peter said they already had come. And in the same context, Peter spoke of the REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, using the exact phrase which is the title of the Book of Revelation:

Correct, but there are many different trials and temptations, so we cannot say that what Peter is speaking of is the same as what Jesus speaks of in Revelation, they are different times, places and circumstances. The context tells us Jesus is speaking of a particular testing or temptation (singular), whereas the context of Peter speaks of 'manifold temptations' (plural) indicating these are different temptations then that spoken of by Jesus.

OK - so basically you are saying we can make the Bible say whatever we want. It is such a ambiguous document that no one can know what it really means with any certainty. That's the basic idea I get from your refutations of my arguments. We have no point of agreement on anything. After years of talking! If anything proves the Bible is useless as a guide to the future, this is it.

Yes the Jews had dominion, a government, but the point of the scriptures is that all dominion ends with the coming of Christ, not just the dominion/government of the Jews in 70 A.D.

1 Cor. 15:24, 'Then the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.'

Dominion/governments still rule since 70 A.D., the dead in Christ have not been raised, and the living have not been changed into immortality, and death has not been swallowed up (1 Cor. 15;52-54) therefore Christ could not have come in 70 A.D. He is still reigning until that time (1 Cor. 15:25).

God bless---Twospirits

Yes, that's a good point. It shows how Jesus was wrong when he predicted the end would happen in the first century. Nice work! You have proved Jesus is a failed prophet - or that Paul was a false prophet, or both I guess.