The "Already/Not Yet" Interpretation of Eschatology

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Do you always see a 'word' or two used by a person in a sentence then immediately 'connect' it to your writing style? You know what they call that don't you--

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. An invented "doctrine" is something like your doctrine of the "church age" that is going to come to an end during the "last days." There is nothing in the Bible that says the "age" that would end is the "church age." That idea was invented by the dispensationalists back around 1830. And it directly contradicts the Olivet Discourse which connects the end of the age with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

I supported the idea that Peter probably read Revelation with a large solid body of evidence, so your assertion that there is no evidence is simply false.

Your cavalier rejection of the Biblical evidence makes a mockery of your claim to believe that the Bible is God's Word.

I meant by itself the passages you presented cannot be used to 'assert' (if I may use that word) that Peter most probably read Revelation, that was my point. It was not to make a mockery of God's word.

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.

How is it possible that you felt you could get away with declaring that I had no evidence? Did you really think I would let that false assertion stand?

Apparently I hit a nerve, that being an insult to your pride and hard study, for that I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention.

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! I've watched you do this over and over and over again. For example, your interpretation of "things that must happen soon ... for the time is at hand" as meaning the events would happen "really fast" after they begin in the distant future, and that the "time was at hand" not for the events to happen, but for the giving of the revelation is an absolute abyss of absurdity. Can you quote even ONE competent scholar who supports your convoluted and self-serving interpretation? Of course not. You invented this entirely unbelievable interpretation to save your Futurism from what the Bible actually states.

Certainly we will find similar words and phrases used throughout the Old and New Testament scriptures, for the simple reason (if one believes) that they come from ONE source and Author. GOD, the Author that inspired the prophets to write those very words by the Holy Spirit. But this doesn't mean because some of these words and phrases are similar that Revelation was already written and that Peter had read it.

It is that very belief that exposes your error. If we assume that God inspired both Peter and Revelation, then we must believe that God made all those connections between those books for a very good reason. In this scenario, it wouldn't matter if Peter read Revelation or not because we would understand that GOD inspired them to make those connections, and the connections strongly suggest that Peter and Revelation were talking write about the same events. If this was not God's intent, then we must conclude that he designed the Bible to be absolutely indecipherable.

We need to remember that the 'mystery' of God (see Rev. 10:7) was hid in the OT and was then being revealed to the apostles who wrote those epistles and Revelation. The book of Revelation completes the 'mystery' (plan) of God. Since the Author is God then it is no surprise why we see these connections, but this does not prove that Revelation had been written and read by Peter and possibly others, that is only speculation.

God bless---Twospirits

As noted above, if we assume that God inspired the Bible, then we don't need to assume that Peter read Revelation. But that changes nothing about the connections between the two books. Why would God inspire Peter to uniquely speak of the "revelation of Jesus Christ" in the context of tribulations that were happening then if he didn't want us to infer that Peter was talking about the same tribulation as the "Revelation of Jesus Christ"? Is God the author of confusion?

And what about all the other evidence I gave that shows many, many, many points of commonality between those books?

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

When the prophecy spans centuries beginning shortly after the prophecy was given, "shortly come to pass" means just that; they will begin shortly. It does not indicate that all this prophecy will be completed shortly. Why such a long detailed, symbolic prophecy that no-one would understand in the timescale you think this was written and when it was all complete. It makes no sense of Jesus to give this prophecy unless it was meant for believers down the ages to unravel and see the work of God at hand and give them hope that Christ is still coming back? In fact the prophecy has accelerated in these last days and is accelerating.

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?

I doubt this was read by any believers before AD70; Let alone understand what they were reading. 2000 years on and we are still struggling over its interpretation. How would readers know that events in this prophecy were fulfilled if they did not know what it meant?
Considering the late date that this prophecy was written, the presupposition (as you say), I consider a better presupposition than that you say was all fulfilled by AD70.

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.

Matt 23 is when Jesus is in the temple and Matt 24 is when Jesus is on the Mount of Olives. There is no obvious connection of the destruction of the temple being linked by Jesus to the sign of his coming and the end of the world.

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.

How can it be "difficult" to see what I'm getting at? It's fine if you have reasons to disagree, but I can't see how you could have any trouble understanding what I am getting at. Jerusalem was called a harlot in the OT (Isa 1:21). You know this. How can you be confused when I say that the Jews of the first century who murdered Christ were apostates and harlots to God?

We agree that the Jews were punished around the time of AD70. The problem we have (and by we I include Twospirits and others) is that you accuse us of nit-picking and straining to make words fit when in actuality, we are taking into account all the words written, much of which is in figurative language. However, on your side you are dismissive of words and yet make loose associations of different passages, because the same word has been used.

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.

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.

I think you dismissed the quotes from Jeremiah without understanding why I quoted them. I was showing that the prophecies against "Mystery Babylon" are the same as Jeremiah's prophecies against apostate Israel in the OT. This is more evidence that supports the idea that Mystery Babylon is symbolic language for apostate Israel.

I have looked at those quotes again form Jeremiah and I still cannot see the connection you are trying to make so I am going to skip this for the moment.

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.

Mystery Babylon in Revelation is thought to be representative of a political and religious power that is set up at the time of the end and is not Jerusalem that was destroyed in AD70. These two Babylonian empires have existed down the ages but becomes more evident in the lat days. While there is a difference of understanding between us about Babylon, this can become the topic of a separate thread. While I agree judgments were made against Jerusalem, the fundamental difference we have is that I see a third overturning of Jerusalem and you see only two of which the last one was in AD70. This fundamental difference means that there are many passages that we shall not agree on. The third overturning of Jerusalem is reminiscent of the third world war that effectively will take place when God's judgment is poured out on the nations.

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.

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.

Anyway, I think we are making better progress and having a more reasoned discussion.

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.

All the very best,

Richard

[CWH]

[QUOTE]

Your explanation doesn't work, because Revelation says the trials would happen "soon" whereas Peter says they were already happening. So if they were talking about the same tribulation, then Revelation was written first.

Say what? Would Peter have seen the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem AD70 since he had died in AD 66. And the siege of Jerusalem only started in AD 67!

You can, of course, simply deny that they were talking about the same tribulation. But that idea is contradicted by a host of facts. First, Peter addressed his letters to the churches in the same region as Revelation, and he used exactly the same phrase "the revelation of Jesus Christ" - the title of the book of Revelation - twice in the very context of where he spoke of the fiery trials they were experiencing. And there is all the other evidence I presented that shows Peter was speaking of the same things as Revelation. It looks like Futurists reject these facts merely because they contradict their eschatological theories.

Your logic is wrong and you seems to be trying to insist that Revelation is written before Peter so as to support your preferred Preterist doctrine. If Zechariah was written in AD 64 and it mentioned the 4 horses like those in Revelation 6 , so Zechariah must have read Revelation! If the Book of Daniel was written in AD 64 and he mentioned about the 42 months of the antichrist as in Revelation, so he must have read the book of Revelation! Logic will tell you that John must have read Zechariah and Daniel which was written centuries before him and therefore he referenced to the 4 horses and the 42 months of the antichrist in Revelation.

I .did not twist or turn in any way at all, let alone in a "convoluted way." I simply showed the direct parallels between the two books, that they were talking about the same things using the same language. Your comments about the thousand years have nothing to do with anything I wrote. You are the one confused. Why don't you try to address what I actually wrote?

I am referring to the unresolved conflict we had regarding Peter 2:3 "to the Lord 1,000 years is as 1 day and 1 day is as 1,000 years" in which the used the same convoluted diagram to explain a simple understanding. I have yet to find the post of the dialogue that we had a few years back on this ....or.... have you forgotten?

Aii the best in Christ.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Your explanation doesn't work, because Revelation says the trials would happen "soon" whereas Peter says they were already happening. So if they were talking about the same tribulation, then Revelation was written first.

Say what? Would Peter have seen the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem AD70 since he had died in AD 66. And the siege of Jerusalem only started in AD 67!

Don't be silly. I never said that Peter saw the destruction of the Temple. And he didn't need to see that in order to write his letter.

You can, of course, simply deny that they were talking about the same tribulation. But that idea is contradicted by a host of facts. First, Peter addressed his letters to the churches in the same region as Revelation, and he used exactly the same phrase "the revelation of Jesus Christ" - the title of the book of Revelation - twice in the very context of where he spoke of the fiery trials they were experiencing. And there is all the other evidence I presented that shows Peter was speaking of the same things as Revelation. It looks like Futurists reject these facts merely because they contradict their eschatological theories.

Your logic is wrong and you seems to be trying to insist that Revelation is written before Peter so as to support your preferred Preterist doctrine. If Zechariah was written in AD 64 and it mentioned the 4 horses like those in Revelation 6 , so Zechariah must have read Revelation! If the Book of Daniel was written in AD 64 and he mentioned about the 42 months of the antichrist as in Revelation, so he must have read the book of Revelation! Logic will tell you that John must have read Zechariah and Daniel which was written centuries before him and therefore he referenced to the 4 horses and the 42 months of the antichrist in Revelation.

Your argument does not address the reasons I gave for thinking that Peter read Revelation. The connections between Revelation and the books of Zechariah and Daniel were obviously because John read the OT. The same logic supports the idea that Peter read Revelation. If you disagree, you need to explain why Peter twice use the phrase "the revelation of Jesus Christ" in the context of talking about the "fiery trials" that were happening. And all the other connections between the books. It makes a lot more sense to think that Peter was quoting Revelation than vice-versa because Revelation presents a visionary account of the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, whereas Peter is trying to comfort and encourage the people who were experiencing it.

I am referring to the unresolved conflict we had regarding Peter 2:3 "to the Lord 1,000 years is as 1 day and 1 day is as 1,000 years" in which the used the same convoluted diagram to explain a simple understanding. I have yet to find the post of the dialogue that we had a few years back on this ....or.... have you forgotten?

Aii the best in Christ.

The diagram was not "convoluted." It might look that way to you because it contains a lot of information, but it's really very simple and direct. It shows the many connections between those two passages.

As for the "unresolved conflict" around the meaning of the thousand years ... there is no way to prove what it really means, though I think your interpretation doesn't have much going for it. You said I was trying "to prove a simple sentence of 1,000 years is but one day and one day is but 1,000 years which is the same as saying 60 minutes is equals to 1 hour and 1 hour is equals to 60 minutes." That's one way to look at it I suppose, but it makes more sense to me to see it as saying that a thousand years is like a day (meaning that a long time to us is like a short time to God) and a day is like a thousand years (meaning a short time to us is like a long time to God). I think it is absurd to think it is some sort of equation that literally says "a thousand years = one day."

Great chatting!

Richard

[duxrow]

We discussed the thousand years as one day about a year ago-- May 4th, I found but it didnt copy for me. Anyway, the 2Pet3:8 is IAW Ps90, and fits the Timeline--you showed one too, Ram.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We discussed the thousand years as one day about a year ago-- May 4th, I found but it didnt copy for me. Anyway, the 2Pet3:8 is IAW Ps90, and fits the Timeline--you showed one too, Ram.

I found the post. It in the thread called TIMELINE. I didn't see any discussion of the "thousand years as one day" in that thread. You just used it in the production of your graph.

And there's a big problem. Your chart is based on Ussher's date of creation at 4004 BC. That can't be right! The earth is 4.5 billion years old. And contrary metaphors are used for a "thousand years." For example,

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

A "watch in the night" is not a "day" - I think it's about three hours.

And what are folks going to do when the predicted pattern doesn't work? The answer is really obvious. They'll make up a new pattern! Just like a generation was taken as "40 years" by many folks so they could predict the Rapture in 1981 = 1948 + 40 - 7. And when that failed, they played with 40 years from 1967 to get 2000 = 1967 + 40 - 7 and when that failed they played with 70 years to get 2011 = 1948 + 70 - 7. And since that didn't work .... and on and on it goes. Making a mockery of the Bible as a guide to predict anything. When will people learn?

[duxrow]

I found the post. It in the thread called TIMELINE. I didn't see any discussion of the "thousand years as one day" in that thread. You just used it in the production of your graph.

That's the one I found too, but still think we had some words regarding.

And there's a big problem. Your chart is based on Ussher's date of creation at 4004 BC. That can't be right! The earth is 4.5 billion years old. And contrary metaphors are used for a "thousand years." For example,

Naw, wasn't thinking of Ussher. But the 2,000 years back to Calvary sure figured.

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

A "watch in the night" is not a "day" - I think it's about three hours.

'WATCH? That's like the cockcrowing, right? Wasn't pursuing that line of thought either, but in the Navy they were nearly always just 4 hours.

And what are folks going to do when the predicted pattern doesn't work? The answer is really obvious. They'll make up a new pattern! Just like a generation was taken as "40 years" by many folks so they could predict the Rapture in 1981 = 1948 + 40 - 7. And when that failed, they played with 40 years from 1967 to get 2000 = 1967 + 40 - 7 and when that failed they played with 70 years to get 2011 = 1948 + 70 - 7. And since that didn't work .... and on and on it goes. Making a mockery of the Bible as a guide to predict anything. When will people learn?

I used to object to charts and diagrams too, but this 3part Timeline of 20 century divisions fits with Genesis being Mon-Tue, then the OT as Wed-Thur, and NT Fri-Sat. Looking forward to the Day of Rest! Anyway, the chart is also handy for history lessons; like showing where the Deluge occurred, and where Columbus fits. Stuff like that.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I used to object to charts and diagrams too, but this 3part Timeline of 20 century divisions fits with Genesis being Mon-Tue, then the OT as Wed-Thur, and NT Fri-Sat. Looking forward to the Day of Rest! Anyway, the chart is also handy for history lessons; like showing where the Deluge occurred, and where Columbus fits. Stuff like that.

Oh yeah, I understand that. But it seems to me that we just happen to be living at a time when the numbers lined up nicely. I expect the clock to keep ticking, and the alignment will stop seeming so significant as the years go by.

[CWH]

[QUOTE]

Don't be silly. I never said that Peter saw the destruction of the Temple. And he didn't need to see that in order to write his letter.

Then what did Peter saw that was happening in AD 66 or AD 65 in his letter?

Your argument does not address the reasons I gave for thinking that Peter read Revelation. The connections between Revelation and the books of Zechariah and Daniel were obviously because John read the OT. The same logic supports the idea that Peter read Revelation. If you disagree, you need to explain why Peter twice use the phrase "the revelation of Jesus Christ" in the context of talking about the "fiery trials" that were happening. And all the other connections between the books. It makes a lot more sense to think that Peter was quoting Revelation than vice-versa because Revelation presents a visionary account of the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, whereas Peter is trying to comfort and encourage the people who were experiencing it.

You argument is weak, what does Peter mentioning twice "the revelation of Jesus Chris" have to do with reading the book of Revelation. If I mentioned your name RAM, ten times does that mean I have seen you face to face? What I am trying to say here is that you cannot be biased by saying that Peter read John's book of Revelation when there is an equal possibility that John may have also read Peter's epistles. Further more, John outlived Peter till AD 98 whereas Peter died in AD 66 which is obvious that John must have read Peter's epistles. What more if the book of Revelation was written in AD 90's ?

The diagram was not "convoluted." It might look that way to you because it contains a lot of information, but it's really very simple and direct. It shows the many connections between those two passages.

As for the "unresolved conflict" around the meaning of the thousand years ... there is no way to prove what it really means, though I think your interpretation doesn't have much going for it. You said I was trying "to prove a simple sentence of 1,000 years is but one day and one day is but 1,000 years which is the same as saying 60 minutes is equals to 1 hour and 1 hour is equals to 60 minutes." That's one way to look at it I suppose, but it makes more sense to me to see it as saying that a thousand years is like a day (meaning that a long time to us is like a short time to God) and a day is like a thousand years (meaning a short time to us is like a long time to God). I think it is absurd to think it is some sort of equation that literally says "a thousand years = one day."

What I am saying is that it is much easier to understand simple sentence rather then by making a "convoluted" diagram unless there is a deliberate motive to confuse or sway opinions.


God Blessings to all.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What I am saying is that it is much easier to understand simple sentence rather then by making a "convoluted" diagram unless there is a deliberate motive to confuse or sway opinions.

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."