My argument on this shows that the interpretation of Rev. 1:1 is wrong. The Greek is 'en tachei' and is to be translated 'in speed' and not 'soon' as many have translated it to mean. I explained this in post #29, here's part of it:Ram wrote,
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.
The 'context' of verse 1 speaks about the 'suddenness or speed' (en tachei) in which the fulfillment of the prophecy would come in its time. My argument is that verse 3 is not a 'time reference passage.' John was commanded by Christ in 1:11 to write in a book and send it to the churches Jesus indicated, this is confirmed by the angel in Rev. 22:10 to not seal the 'words,' the writings of the prophecy given John 'for the appointed time (Kairos) was at hand.' The angel reminds and commands John of what Jesus commanded John to do, that is send these writings to the churches. Thus John says in verse 3 writes Happy is he that reads the words of this prophecy and keep to heart the things written therein 'for the (appointed) time is at hand.' This is the 'context' of verse 3. Then John gives his greetings to the churches in verse 4.
Concerning appealing to scholars, my case in point Rev. 1:1, scholars are fallible men as can be seen by how they have translated 'en tachei' to mean 'soon' in Rev. 1:1. I believe a student who believes the Bible is the Inspired Word of God and who is serious in finding God's truth should research these things (Greek translations) themselves and let God's Word, not the scholars who are fallible be the final authority to appeal to. And that is who I appeal to as my final authority in my research for that truth.
It's not vanity, it can't be disputed because its grammatically true. In prophetic scripture no detail is to small, every word and detail is important, for it is another piece of the puzzle that helps in the making of the final picture.Ram replied,Originally Posted by Twospirits
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?
Not at all, when reading the context we see Peter is speaking of diversified trials (manifold temptations), these are trials that occur in ones lifetime in their walk in Christ. Which Peter refers as being 'tested with fire' (1 Peter 1:7), so that we may receive in the end 'the salvation of our souls' ( 1 Peter 1:9).Ram replied,Originally Posted by Twospirits
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.
The surrounding context shows that this is not speaking of the prophetic 'tribulation of Revelation,' but rather the trials and tribulations that occur in the life-time of a saint in Christ (read Peter 4:12-19).
It shows by your answer that you are so certain that preterist hermeneutics is correct that you didn't include that as a 3rd option in your equation. That your hermeneutical approach to eschatology is wrong.Ram replied,Originally Posted by Twospirits
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).
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.