Okay, thanks...this is confusing though.

This is the one that is in the regular Bible, right?


Actually, I didn't even know there was all this going on in what Dee Dee explained. :lol I was "agreeing" to the song itself as I just further explained in post 50.

I guess I'm in over my head again....that always happens to me in this forum. :redface

I don't believe so, no.

Making war is indeed Biblical - that is indeed though a subject for another thread - whether preterist, futurist, or historicist all see the "Great Tribulation" as God's wrath and he uses human means and armies to accomplish it - the passages that speak of these things aree numerous.

Good definitions posted.


I differ or am beginning to differ from other preterists in my position on the term Last Days, though Ihave not parsed it out yet enough, but that summary is what the majority believe. I am not yet theonomic, once thought I was, then realized I will be undecided until I really have the time to read the pro and con literature with diligence. I do think though most common arguments against theonomy are self-defeating.


My explanation was not proving anything more than that certain phrases can be used differently. Agreeing to obvious points isn't selling the farm but the hardcore here seem to have difficulty to conceding possibilities. I do think I accurately represented Julia's view and used it as an example of theological thinking at that time - not to prove my view is correct, one cannot do that through a hymn, but to show it is not new or unusual.

I challenge each of you when singing through the old hymns to pay attention to the differing presuppositions on issues such as this.

I agree....sorry, I just wasn't following what you were trying to say which is why I brought that up.

Yes, I read it and was well aware of it when wrote my previous response.
Please tell me what verse in NEW TESTAMENT, GOD'S GRACE, says that it is
okay to make war and kill thousands of people. I believe we are under the
New Contract(New Testament) and He told us to LOVE, so I don't think it is
justifiable to make any kind of war just because the Israelites made SELF
DEFENSE war agains their hostile neighbours under the OLD TESTAMEN, THE
LAW.

.[/quote]
But would the LORD want Christians to knowingly look the other way and not do something to change the conditions for blacks regarding slavery, then later segregation? (I know there were other issues causing the Civil War but for the most part, it was the scourge of slavery that inspired many to go to war against fellow citizens.) .[/quote]

Was that the only reason why they fought? All that for the emancipation of the African American salves? I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure about that, but the Civil Right Movement was conducted in rather non-violent manners if I'm not mistaken. [/color] .[/quote]

What about this passage:
Why else would you need to lay down your life for a friend unless that friend was being unjustly threatened by another man?

The men who decided to go to war to abolish slavery made the greatest sacrifice for their "friends" (the slaves) and I am certain that because Christ praises this action in this verse that this war also pleasing in GOD's eyes & served a just & moral cause..[/quote][/color]

Are you absolutely sure that nobody innocent, for example children, was ever victimized in the war? Are you sure that there was no wrong doing by either party during the war? Do you really believe the use of the force was the only option to emancipate the slaves?

.[/quote]
After all, these men could have simply ignored the issue of slavery. They could have simply allowed it to go on but not owned slaves or supported slavery in any way themselves....and that may have gotten them into heaven but would have done nothing for the black people of this country.

I doubt this country would have been so blessed by GOD throughout history if we all did not look out for those in our society who are mistreated and attempt to correct the situation.[/quote]

Please just tell me...did they do that in the name of "Freedom" or in the name
of "God". Let me put it this way, did they do that for "Freedom" or " the Lord"?
Do you truly believe that your resorting to violence pleases God. Aren't we supposed to make peace? Didn't God say that He wants mercy not sacrifice?
Wasn't Christ Himself who told us to love our neibours? Have't we been told
to reward evil with good and love our enemies?

What is "Freedom" anyway? Freedom for whom? A particular group of people?
What about the people who were victimised for "Freedom"? Didn't they
have "Freedom" to live?I wonder how many people have been slaughtered
and thrown into mysery in the name of "Freedom" through the history of
mankind. Actually, I don't belive in "Freedom" at all. We can only be free
when we are with God. I don't believe men can rule men, but I believe only
Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, the Lord of Hosts, God of Israel
can rule us perfectly because He is our God! I really look forward to His
Return and True Peace He will bring to Earth.

That is the view that many here, including myself, hold to. It takes the following verses literally and applies them to a literal 1000 years, occuring after The Tribulation which is yet to happen.

Revelation 20:1-8

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom [is] as the sand of the sea.

Those who are not premil, believe the 1000 years are figurative to an unspecified length of time. Some believe this unspecified length of time leads up to The Tribulation, at which time they see satan loosed [believing he is now bound], and that we are now in the 1000 years.

They were cut and paste from somewhere that I've had shelved for a while. I was hoping the Partial Preter one would be accurate enough so as to not misrepresent your view.

My response was to what you had said earlier...


Applying this to Matt 24 in the following manner...

...Isn't that a little more than showing that certain phrases can be used differently? Isn't it actually applying it to your view or saying the song was written in the view of a preterist?

The reason the "hardcore" would have difficulty conceding to these possibilities is because our view goes entirely against that of the preterist. :):

Guys please let's not debate the merits of war or the politics of the Civil War - that isn't the focus (though very worthy topics)


You want to know something funny? When I read them I thought I had seen them before, and some of the wording is exactly how I word things.... my memory is terrible but wouldn't it be a hoot if you originally got it from me and here I go complimenting my own definition? I am going to try to find the source, it is likely a friend of mine - Many Justin from John15.net?


Perhaps I was a bit confusing in my train of thought. When I said that I was not going to prove that certain things MUST mean what I say, I was referring to the disputed verses in the Bible. So what I did was take a song in which the meaning CANNOT be taken in the way a futurist takes similar terms in the Bible, but yes the way a historicist or preterist might (I suspect Julia was historicist btw with postmill leanings).

So the point was in some debates I hear futurists say "but it plainly says such and such and NO WAY can it mean what you are saying." So what I have done is shown how Julia plainly intended the soldiers to be declaring that their eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord, but we all know the Second Coming didn't happen then.

Thus my point is something I would think you guys could reasonably concede up to a point. I have proven that the phraseology saying that there was "seeing" of the "coming" that was not the Second Coming, but was in fact tightly connected to a judgment theme. Therefore, while you may, and I am sure still do, disagree that it means it that way in Matthew 24, we will make progress if you can concede that taking just those terms in isolation (more on that in a sec) can possibly be taken in the way that I do. I am not asking you to say that it does, just that it is possible

Now, I anticipate that you will say no it is not possible because if we bring in other verses it says such and such. Fair enough, but I am taking baby steps here so that we can understand each other as you admirably did by finding fair definitions, and not feel like we have to fight for every inch. We don't.

I agree in isolation your interpretation is possible - in fact I once held it fervently. I know you have good reasons for believing as you do.

My exercise was to see if you (and I mean the plural you, not just you personally PT) could reciprocate. In isolation my interpretation of the "coming of the Lord" language in the Discourse is possible.

Let's discuss from there.

I have no idea where I got them [bad memory here too], it's been a long while, though I know I didn't get them all from the same source. Usually when I'm looking for the definition of a view though, I pick something that has 'dictionary' in it. I don't choose message boards or anything like that for the definitions. Just more of a 'blanket' definition, I guess.

In isolation, yes, I can see how you can take the terms the way you do, and put them to Scriptures that relate and force them into a view. Isolated, we can make the Bible say just about anything we want to. But I don't and can't do isolated. Years of debating posties in this forum, if anything, has taught me, even forced me, that if I am going to approach an argument, I better have an argument for the argument to the argument and a Scripture for the Scripture to go with the Scripture, if that makes any sense. :B:

Because you see the winepress [Rev 14] as a judgment going along with Matt 24, you see the song as holding an historic view, or in your eyes, applicable to a preterist view, correct? Because you hold that the song cannot be applicable to the Second Coming?

I see the winepress as a judgment that accompanies Christ at the Second Advent.

Before we get any further into this part, I need to know where you see in Scripture the Second Coming of Christ. Which Scriptures do you use to support His Second Coming? This will help me in the defense of my view [timing of the winepress], and argument against yours.

I will respond more fully when I can (we are trying to work on home repairs over the next few months) but this is funny! I think I did write that definition or at least contribute to it - it is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

I was heavily involved in that page for a while

Well at least I don't have to worry about misrepresentation then. :B:

Yeah - I am cracking up though how I was impressed by what I likely wrote. We are cutting out drywall now - not a fun task.

Okay Pre-Trib, I may not go or proceed in the direction you would prefer, but that is why I started my own thread. I am not sure how things are done here, but at TWeb we give the thread-starter pretty wide latitude to govern the direction of the thread, within reasonable limits of course.

Okay for the next baby step (not trying to be insulting I am just meaning we are going slowly). Also I want you to understand that I am not trying to convince you of my view, all I want to do is to show you that what we think is not as unreasonable as some here have made it sound, that is all.


That is not what I asked, but I think it is a step forward. I haven't put anything personally into Scripture yet. I was demonstrating that Julia used obvious Biblical terminology in a way that is similar to the way that preterists do (and I do not think she was a preterist). Julia very well could have interpreted the actual verses in their placement as you do. I don't know - if anyone has any information on Julia's eschatology was I would be interested. I already know she was a Unitarian (not sure if she was Arian or Sabellian though. I find no record of any protests at her use of that language, in fact it became the most popular song of the Civil War.

So I think we both agree that in the Battle Hymn that Julia is taking clear eschatological verses and placing them in her own modern time as symbolic of God's judgment on slavery.

There are other historical hymns that do similar things - so I am not talking about a theological novelty. I do not think theological novelties are a good thing (which is part of my objection against dispensationalism).

At this point I would say it is unfair to say I have forced them into a view - really I am not trying to be persnicketicky, just hoping that you and I can keep discussing without either of us posturing (I do it it too, I am not pointing a finger at you).


Pre-Trib we were not even yet at the Bible, I am speaking about one phrase. It is not true that any one Biblical phrase or even nonBiblical phrase can reasonably be made to say anything. Let's pretend to go far into the future, and someone is examining a writing that says, "I am so hungry I could eat a horse" - in isolation it would not be unreasonable to think that is pretty literal - people can eat horsemeat and perhaps someone could consume a whole horse. Someone comes along and says no, that is idiom for meaning that a person is desirous of gaining more knowledge, the "hunger" is mental hunger and the "horse" was a symbol of high learning two thousand years ago. If that person could not produce any credible proof of this idiom then no, that is not reasonable. If someone else came along and said that the phrase has nothing to do with eating horses, it is just an idiom for saying a person is so hungry that they could eat a very large meal.

So all I wanted to do is show that I have proved an idiom. That does not prove (yet or maybe never) that it cannot be "literal." But it does make illegimate any claim that my view is foolish because no one saw Jesus in glory actually physically coming. Back in the thread that we were having a spitting match in, that was the basis of your objection - that I could not produce any historical evidence of anyone who literally saw Jesus in glory coming on a cloud.

Neither did anyone in Julia's time, yet they gladly sang "Mine eyes hath seen the glory of the Coming of the Lord." So ... they mean something different from that phrase, and it woud be just as illegitamate to ask them where are the historical records of anyone seeing Jesus' actual touchable person.

Are we together so far?


You do without even knowing it because it is automatic. When interpreting anything, not just the Bible, but even the words I am saying now, your mind automatically searches through possible meanings, and THEN takes those possibilities and compares them with the context outward.


It makes sense, but we are not even at that point. Years of posting on numerous forums has taught me not to battle on points I should concede because I will lose the respect of my opponent and credibility with the audience when I am totally in the right because they saw me dig my heels in unnecessarily.

Are we together so far? I don't want to go to the next step until I am sure where we are at on this.

:confused You said-

"This hymn exemplifies the eschatological understanding prior to the rise of dispensationalism."

How can you say this hymn was an example of what was understood prior to dispensationalism, and not force it into some kind of view at the same time?

Not necessarily. A song, whether using Scripture or not, is just that. A song. And while there may be truth in the lyrics due to using Scripture, it doesn't necessarily make the song literal in application to the one who writes it. So I wouldn't ask a person who wrote a song to prove what was written is true.

But I would ask a person who says certain Biblical prophecy has come to pass, to prove that it has. ;): My thinking is that if one can confidently say this, then one should be able to present the proof.

This is where you and I get all tangled up. I see the entire of Matthew 24 as being literal. I think you do too, with the exception of vss 27,29-30 [?].

So as to not be deceived, the Lord speaks of false Christ's and prophets that will display great signs and wonders, and speak of Christ being in a certain place when He's not, He tells us exactly how He will return. This way we know, without a doubt, that it is indeed Christ returning. I can't accept a spiritual approach to this being fulfilled, when it's a literal application to what was literally being said prior.

To be honest... I have no idea. You're saying that the lyrics to the hymn are idioms? That anyone can make them say anything they want? And I'm not real sure what this has to do with your interpretation of Matt 24:27,29-30, or how it compares to what you've said here.

It's your thread. No problem. However, around here we pretty much like to cut to the chase. I can use idioms too. :): To draw it out too long results in boredom or loss of interest.

I apologize for any confusion. I wasn't attempting to force it into a view of mine or yours - I was making a historical comment that this symbolism was commonly understood that way at that time. That is all.


PreTrib this is where we are going wrong - all I am asking for you to acknowledge is at least in that song we have an example of someone using phrases from the Bible in a judgment context, not a bodily second coming context. If Julia was saying:

I am seeing God's justice being vindicated and is setting prisoners free who were unjustly in bondage and the righteous message of the Gospel is going forth

by using those words (which she was)

Then that is true from her perspective, and I would think from ours, unless anyone here thinks slavery was a good thing. I know there are other reasons for being against the North in the Civil War that have nothing to do with slavery but Julia's burden was slavery.


I am getting there, but I am trying to see if you concede that the language in the Hymn is borrowed from the Bible and is used figuratively and no one claimed that Julia was claiming the Second Coming happened.


"Literal" isn't an issue to me - so I would disagree. There is no verse that says the Bible should be taken literally - I believe the Bible should be taken in the sense in which it was intended - the same way I expect my words to be taken. I would hate for all of my words to be taken literally, I would hope that my listeners are trying to find out what I mean.

When I say Mike Tyson knocked someone's lights out I would sure hate for someone to claim that I said Mike broke into someone's house and wreaked havoc on their lamps


But you are applying assumption upon assumption. We are not even there yet - I am still waiting to see if you can agree to what I said above


Yes


No. Do you think that is what idiom means? If I say it is raining cats and dogs that you are free to decide that means I am taking a bus to Disneyland?

Here is the dictionary.com definition of idiom:

1. A speech form or an expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements, as in keep tabs on.

2. The specific grammatical, syntactic, and structural character of a given language.

3. Regional speech or dialect.

4.
1. A specialized vocabulary used by a group of people; jargon: legal idiom.
2. A style or manner of expression peculiar to a given people: “Also important is the uneasiness I've always felt at cutting myself off from my idiom, the American habits of speech and jest and reaction, all of them entirely different from the local variety” (S.J. Perelman).

5. A style of artistic expression characteristic of a particular individual, school, period, or medium: the idiom of the French impressionists; the punk rock idiom.


Let me give you a humourous example. I may mess up the story a bit, but you will get the point. Apparently in some latin languages the word "molest" means to aggravate, to put someone to some trouble, annoy

Well we all know here that it means something perverse and sexual

There was this Latin man trying to learn English and went to the bank. He had all sorts of difficult transactions to make,, and just as he turned to leave, he remembered one more thing and said to the teller, "Do you mind if I molest you again?"

The Bible was not written in our language or in our culture. Nobody disputes that there is idiom in the Bible.


I have already explained. I am interpreting those verses in the same way Julia used those words in the Hymn. I am not attempting to prove I am right - I am attempting to prove that these words have a history of being used idiomatically. It really cannot be denied.


You want to chase me around???




That was an example of taking your idiom literally. Is it impossible that you mean it literally? Yes, but consider the cultural use of it, that is doubtful. Here is the history in case you are interested:

Cut to the chase

Meaning to get to the point. A movie term from the 1920's, it originally meant to cut from a dramatic scene to an action scene (like a chase).


And if someone gets bored, I am not here to entertain. I am methodical, as I believe discussing such issues should be.

Where we are going wrong, or where you see I am going wrong?

Sure, I can see the phrases being used in the context of judgment. I can see that the writer chose to apply them to the time and events she was living and concerned about. But that is only because I know the history of the song. If I didn't, I would have no idea why the words were penned. But, if those phrases are to be taken in the way Scripture lays them out... Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord, He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,
He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword..., I can't see them applied to anything other than the Second Coming of Christ. Therefore, I wouldn't agree with the way she used them, in the Biblical sense, and I wouldn't ask that it be proven through the phrases used, that she saw something I did not, because as I said earlier, it's still just a song, regardless of how much Scripture is used. But that's just me.

From my perspective, it would obviously be figurative. And yes, it is borrowed from the Bible, though loosely paraphrased, but I also think Second Coming verses and the accompanying wrath of God should not be put to use in something that has no relation or application to a time other than for which it's intended. It's kinda like some of the threads around here that say hurricanes or earthquakes happening in certain places, are God's end-time judgments, due to government decisions, or certain bills passing. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in the big picture of things, just like Second Coming phrases wouldn't make sense to me in a song that has to do with the Civil War.

So we should guess what it says and what it means, if it doesn't make sense to us? If I had never heard the phrase "knock someone's lights out", I am left to my own interpretation of what that means. Either that, or depend upon someone else to tell me what it means, which may or may not be correct. But I don't think the Bible is written to be left one to guessing or depending upon somebody elses idea of what it might mean.

And neither do I want to be guessing what you're saying here. What Mike Tyson has to do with Matthew 24 is beyond me. :B:

Thank you. I know what an idiom means. And yes, you can take the words in one and make it mean anything you want, using the words given. Since common expressions can aquire meanings that differ from the literal meaning of the words, anybody can say they mean whatever they want them to mean. After all, somebody had to come up with them and the definitions, right?


So because somebody used them idiomatically in a song, we should use the same application when interpreting them in Scripture? If we're not applying them to Scripture, I really don't understand what the whole of this is all about.

There are certain discussions that draw certain people. Entertainment has nothing to do with it. It's the interest. That is what can be lost if the point of the whole conversation is too far drawn out.

I think we actually are at a moving on phase


But obviously Julia and the people of that day could. Now what is happening, and this is fine, is that we are operating on different terminology of what "literal" means. In Biblical interpretation, technically speaking, it is to draw out what the author intended to convey. That may not always (and you would concede that) be "literal" in the way you are using the word. I believe I do take the Bible literally for what it is intending to say.


Okay that is fine - I have gotten to the point I needed to with the song.


Okay this is important. It would be figurative language of a literal event. Julia meant something literally and expressed it with symbolic language.


Really? That would rule out a great many messianic prophecies - or are you arbitrarily saying only the ones you think (and I am not trying to be snide) cannot be used any other way.


I understand - what I am trying to show you though is that it made sense to the people then and it makes enough sense now that thousands of churches sing it.


No we should try to research the particular time and culture to find out what something means. That is the historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics. And in the phrase I used it is a modern idiom so one can ask. For instance I didn't know what "fo shizzle" meant until I asked. It is urban slang for "for sure." But if I heard it enough in contexts that I did understand, I likely could have deduced its meaning.


See above. and for the second, I agree with you. The question is what did it mean to the original audience and what did words and phrases mean to the original audience. I often hear atheists complain that the language of Genesis isn't precise to modern ears. If it were it would have been meaningless to the original audience. We must not be anachronistic.


Actually that example has a lot to do with the proper interpretation but that is way ahead of us.


Okay, but you didn't demonstrate that when you characterized it as meaning whatever anyone decided. That is one of the famous lines from Alice in Wonderland:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

I posted the definition because you had defined it improperly.


The first person or group to create the idiom can - such as in the early 1900's "cool cat" was common lingo. But once the idiom was established, someone could not come along and claim that cool cat meant a pregnant lizard.


See above. But we only have communication when as a culture or social group we agree and understand, otherwise there would be chaos, which is the logical outworking of your argument. And I know you don't believe that, so I am just showing you the reductio ad absurdum of the argument.


If the words are known to be used idiomatically we should not rule them out as a possibility. We are not even to Scriptural application at, because I want to come to some agreement, which I think we have, on interpretative principles.


If someone isn't interested that doesn't concern me. Not trying to sound harsh or nasty, but I don't analyze and discourse to be interesting - but to true to come to some truth and if among brethren have some greater understanding. I come to every conversation with the option, no matter how slight, that I might change my mind. I would hope that you do to.

Now we are done with Julia and her glorious song. Let's take the next step. If we know a phrase or genre from the time period in question is used a certain way, even if it seems odd to us, we cannot rule that out as a possibility when we are interpreting an ancient text. In fact, the usage of the day and time should have priority over our modern understandings because, as you noted, languages and idioms change. Would you agree with the above?

Julia and company could because they applied it to that time. A quick look at some of the threads in here will show you how any of us can apply an event [Scripture] to a time [event] and make it fit according to our view, [but not necessarily another's]. I'm not saying Julia was trying to make the phrases fit the Civil War, I don't know what she truly intended to convey by using what I see as Second Coming verses, and applying them to a war that had nothing to do with the return of Christ, but from my perspective, and from my view of when the Lord is seen in Glory, accompanied by wrath, is not, was not, during that time. Does that mean I don't take the verses in question literally? Or does it mean I should not take the verses in question literally? I apply them [as all of prophecy] to a literal timeline. I'm just having a real hard time applying a literal timeline to an event that has nothing to do with it. Or an event such as the Civil War, to a literal timeline that I see as yet future.

Again, I'm having trouble with this. Are you saying she took the literal Glory of the Lord, His coming, and His wrath, but put it into a symbolic language in order to make that literal event occur symbolically during the Civil War?

Yes, really. For the reason I've stated above. It causes confusion.

I'm not sure which Messianic prophecies you think my reason would rule out, as I see a time to every prophetic writing. Every one was and will be fulfilled according to God's timeline.

Well obviously this person of the Church is not seeing why it makes sense to thousands of others. :B:

The problem I have with that, is that I believe God's Word is written for all believers. And while some of it is directed to a certain people, certain places, certain times, it is written still, and full of meaning for all of us, not to be complicated by the passing of time or culture. Atheists have the right to complain that the language may not be precise to their ears. A 1 Corinthians 2:11-14 kinda thing.

Not really. As I said, I believe God's Word is written to all believers. I don't think the passage of time changes that. Neither do I think the passage of time changes the message or the intent thereof, regardless of your language or the day in which we live.

PT - I have been working on a response but that dreaded real life keeps getting in the way, I just wanted you to know that I have not forgotten about you.

Okay, no problem. Real life happens.

:):

Pre-Trib the kitchen remodeling project of course has turned into a long drawn out thing, and guess what? I am right now suffering from the worst case of conjuctivitis I have ever had. As some of my friends say, I am a walking disaster. This was my second emergency room visit in one month - about four weeks ago, for no reason, I tripped and fell hard face first into a solid wooden door. The bruising has just now gone away.

But I haven't forgotten you.

From what I heard, she saw a Civil War unit (maybe a regiment? A brigade?Something big ...) marching through the streets of DC as they were deployed and it brought Scripture to mind. That's why she mentioned "the watch fires of a hundred circling camps ..." because of the units guarding Washington D.C.

People back then often had only one or two books -- the Bible and Pilgrim's Progress commonly available -- and Christian imagery and Biblical phrases were common denominators. Although I'm sure Mrs. WArd-Howe had more than two books to read!

My impression is, she was probably thinking this is probably what the end of the world will look like. And for the folks living back then the War Between teh States WAS the end of the world. Some speculated it was God's judgement on the US for the sin of slavery -- both sides, north and south, were just as guilty -- the north for looking the other way and buying products of slave labor and the south for actively using it.

If we got the ACW for the sin of slavery -- Lord have mercy on us for the abominations we've allowed since then! :fear

It's a very stirring hymn. Much better wording than "John Brown's Body" (Yuck!) and "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the burnin' of the school"

YSIC
Ann

I can so relate to the walking disaster comment. :B: I will pray that the conjuctivitis clears up soon.

First, ironically, the conjuctivitis just decided to move to the other eye now instead, and I got a UTI. Fun. But back to the discussion:


And some of those are correct – as you later say all of Scripture was written to have some application to us. When pro-choicers take a saying meant primarily for ancient Israel, "Choose life so that you may live" are they missapplying Scripture? Additionally, the Bible (with the exception of Luke) was written by ethnic Jews - Matthew said that Hosea's words of "out of Egypt I have called My son" speak of Jesus. But go back to Hosea - in context, written for that time, they spoke of the past bondage of Israel. Was Matthew misapplying Scripture because he saw that Scripture can pertain to one time and then find a different or fuller manifestation in another? The same thing could be said for Matthew's quoting of "Rebecca weeping for her children" during the slaughter of the innocents by Herod. In it's original context that is a BIG stretch - to OUR ears but that was common Jewish exegesis. If we are going to exegete a Jewish book, we should learn how they did it, and NOT anachronistically expect an ancient work to follow modern customs. Many Jews believe in a hermeneutical principle called PRDS (sometimes called paradise) which stands for:

Peshat - what it meant right then on the face
Remez - how can this be applied to other situations (example - God taught an eye for eye - well what if an eye isn't involved but a foot or a tooth?)
Drash - this is midrash, the symbolical and allegorical realization that all of God's Word ultimately speaks of the outworking of his restorative plan
Sod - this is the most controversial, it is a personal "mystical" reading which may just be meaningful to one purpose and is the foundation of a lot of Quabalah, which I of course reject

Now how do you interpret Matthew 16:27-28:

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Is that NOT the exact same language you apply to the Second Coming? Yet Jesus says that there are some standing there that will live to see it?


A part of the problem is because you place Christ's reign in the future, but if someone saw Him NOW as the reigning and subjugating King (which Julia likely did - and as I and a whole host of others do) it makes perfect sense and makes a whole lot of other passages make sense.



You do? I doubt it. How was Jesus in the tomb three literal days and three literal nights? Do you believe the 70 weeks are over, or do you place a highly UNLITERAL gap in them? How come the Virgin Birth prophecy clearly says it will happen back in the time of Ahaz? And where does it say in the Bible that prophecy is excluded from other forms of interpretation?


And I am still waiting for the Biblical command to take verses "literally" in the way you are meaning, for I contend that I do in fact take them literally. I will quote Philip Mauro:



Your first sentence did not make sense to me. With the second, it seems to me the very literal interpretation of “this generation” means the people back then. However, in either event Julie either felt free to use the Civil War as a “type” of a future event or of a past event, or as (and I think this is the case) evidence that Christ is reigning and judging, especially since she connects that idea for us in another stanza that says, ”He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat.”



There are so many presuppositions packed into this statement it is hard to begin. First, I do not believe that the verse she is alluding to in Matthew is speaking directly of the Second Coming – though the Second Coming will be the fulfillment of the reality of His reign NOW. And that is how I believe she saw it. It is how I see it.




Here are a few. The Virgin birth prophecy was to happen during the time of Ahaz. Other “prophecies” were not “prophecies” at all in the “literal” sense, so to be fair, you should not use them to prove the Messiahship of Christ. Psalm 22 was written by David about himself. Also Christ quoted a past judgment of Bablyon in Isaiah 22 and applied to His own time (in my view) or millennia in the future (in your view) – which is not how it was originally applied. Also I like this one that Wayne Jackson has used:


I am assuming you are dispensational (correct me if I am wrong) but now I quote Hans K LaRondelle on this issue:


And since when is lack of confusion the measuring rod? After all Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said that Paul wrote things that were difficult to understand, and I am sure caused a lot of confusion. And confusing to WHO? Us? Or the original audience who would have been seeped in the cultural idioms.

I think you were intending to argue the “where are the brakes on this thing” argument – meaning what is to stop us from symbolizing and metaphorizing [yeah I know that is not a real word] everything. I will quote myself from a debate a few years ago from someone explicitly arguing that point



In fact I have seen this hyperliteralism taken to its extreme. There is this guy named Troy Brooks, he probably has shown up here on RR a few times who has claimed that there is a limit to the number of people who can be saved because the literal dimensions of the New Jerusalem could only accommodate….. and he gave a number. He had no response to my inquiry on how many would the number be reduced by if some of them were really fat.


Well I do hope I am explaining somewhat.


so far so good… but then you make a radical leap into an illogical chasm….


First, where in the Bible does it say that? Second, you then have to be proposing that time or cultures do not make a difference on language and meaning, and that is simply and utterly untrue. You already have it “complicated” by the issue of translation – why are there so many?

Many missionaries would be shaking their heads at such a concept for they indeed do know that understanding the culture to whom they are witnessing makes a huge difference in bringing down barriers.

I quote my friend JPHolding from a book review he wrote on “The Jesus Crisis”



That passage has nothing to do with language being precise or imprecise. In fact it assumes that the unbeliever does comprehend the words but refuses their truth.


The passage of time doesn’t change who it is written to, nowhere did I claim that. The passage of time does mean that if we are to be diligent students we make use of the sources that God has blessed us with to study to show ourselves approved. It appears to me that you are rejecting (in principle – without realizing it) part of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (held to by the majority of conservative evangelicals and has become THE statement on inerrancy) which acknowledges idioms which must be understood


And


and


and


I look forward to your response, and I pray that we both will have the transparency to say that the other does have a point. Conceding possibilities is IMHO the demonstration of teachability and not rigid dogmatism.

I hope you're feeling better by now. :):

I've never heard a pro-choicer say 'choose life that you may live'. I suspect you meant to apply that to pro-lifers.

Matthew did not misapply Scripture when referring to Jesus fulfilling the words of Hosea. He was the antitype of that passage, even though it was primarily referring to Israel. In Isaiah 49:3, Jesus, the servant, is called Israel.

Just because something was written for "that time", does not mean it has no further application. Several things were said to the disciples. Several of those things are applicable to us today.

And your point is what? That I should follow a principle such as this when reading Scripture, even though there is controversy to a portion of it? I think not.

The answer to your question is in the chapter following, in vs 2, where the transfiguration took place. What they saw was the glory of Jesus, exactly as the world will see Him when He returns.

The Son of man did not return in glory as per Scripture. He is not reigning on the earth as per so many Scriptures that speak of this future time, which is a whole subject in itself, and which you can see the arguments for and against in this forum, if you so wish to. The thousand year reign spoken of in Revelation and referred to in those OT passages, which amil spiritualizes away, is a far cry from what we are seeing on the earth today. For starters, it totally does away with the promises made to Israel. It implies that God reneged on those promises and is finished with Israel, and you can argue with me til you're blue in the face, but I will not buy it.

I'm not sure what those questions have to do with the orignal, that being I believe Scripture teaches a literal second return of the Lord in glory as per Matthew 24 and others. The 72 hours I do not believe are literal. And nowhere does Scripture mention 72 hours. The three days and nights are literal and according to how Jews measure time, ie, a part of one day meant 'day', which is Scriptural by the way. The Lord rising on the third day or after three days, is literal.

Would you like me to wait with you while I expect the same of you? Where is the command to not take the Bible literally? When Jesus commands us to preach the Gospel, do we take that literally? When we are given the command to love one another, do we take that literally? To say we should not take the Bible literally, would be saying those two questions should not be taken literally either. So we start out with a literal interpretation. Only when it is obviously symbolic, such as part of Revelation, should it be taken as such. Jesus coming in Glory is not symbolic. There is a literal return of the Lord. As someone who takes the Bible literal first, the problem I have with people, is that they fail to realize, or accuse us of taking everything as literal, when we do recognize that there are symbolic things, and think they are right in that the Bible should not be taken literally. It should. Only when it presents itself with symbolic text, should we see it as that.

If Christ is judging now, what is there left to judge when He returns? Isn't it a full preter belief that judgment is an ongoing thing?

The term 'generation' has a broad definition. From the whole multitude of people living at the same time, to successive members of a genealogy, to an age, which is the time occupied by each successive generation, and a few other definitions.

The problem I see with your interpretation of 'this generation' needing to be those alive at the time the discourse was given, is that not all of "these things" that Jesus described have come to pass, one of those being, "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations". The disciples were commissioned to spread the Gospel.

Was the Gospel preached in all the world by 70AD? While it may be speculative, there are dates given to the deaths of some of the apostles that go beyond 70AD. Did they stop preaching the Gospel because there was nobody left to preach it to by 70AD, or did they continue to preach Jesus Christ?

Preter's believe also that the antichrist has come and gone. That in 70AD, Matthew 24, at least up to vs 31 was fulfilled by then. Yet we have 1 John, whose date of writing is agreed among most to be anywhere from 85 to 95 AD, and who writes still of the antichrist that shall come. And considering the date of John's death, do you think he stopped preaching Christ crucified after 70AD because all the world had heard?

The above does not mesh with "all these things" being fulfilled, nor the end of the world that would occur when they were. And I have a problem in that preter's take literally Matthew 24 up until Jesus' return in vss 27-31, which turns symbolic at that point, even though the "sign of thy coming" is clearly written. Does something that is symbolic need or require a "sign" in order to know when the symbolic event has occured?

"He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;"

Is not the Second Coming associated with the following in Rev 14:18-19?

And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.

And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast [it] into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

Or do you believe this occured during 70AD as well?

Julia is not here for us to ask. So why try to guess what she was saying? Why try to put it to anyone's view? It's still just a song. Songs cannot be used to interpret Scripture, nor can they really be guaranteed to show us what the person believed at the time, especially when that person is not available to ask.

Also, and I've asked this numerous times.. When and where in Scripture does the preter see the Second Coming of Christ?

God is not the author of confusion. As the author of the Bible, I would say God did not intend it to be confusing either. Confusion is brought about either by satan or by ourselves. If I am confused, it means I'm not understanding something. So would not the lack of confusion bring about understanding? How else do you measure it?

Well, that's not me, so it has no bearing to this conversation, as do some of the other writings you included. I don't go by what other people write. Just because they may be from the same camp as I am, to include the hyper, does not mean I agree with them, so I'd rather not have to defend myself from them.

Why are there so many different recipes for fried chicken? :B:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Truth or fallacy? All or part? The passing of time, the culture[s] to which it was written, does not change the message of God to us, or to those after us.

Levels of understanding is different to me than saying the passing of time and culture makes God Word more difficult to understand if you don't know the culture to whom it was written. I also think there is a difference to witnessing to a culture you do not understand, and reading the Word of God that was intended for all people to understand. If it weren't, why should we, who were born neither of that time or of that culture, be included?

If the atheist truly understood the words of God, he would not find it foolish to him.

*wonders how I ever got through my Christian walk thus far without learning the culture to whom the Bible was written*

If I see a point made, even if it goes against what I believe, I am not afraid to say it. My discussions with the posties here will prove that. Just the same, if I don't see a point made, I will continue to argue my position. :):

Please, in our future conversations, let's keep it between you and I, without bringing in beliefs [writings] of others that I will not argue either for or against, nor wish to take the time to read. Thanks.

I wanted to let you know I have not disappeared just very busy. I have about half of my response ready, but it will be a bit yet.

Dear Pre-Tribber:


Yes I meant pro-life, thank you.


He certainly then wasn’t using a standard of literalism – what happened to:

“I started accepting it for its plain sense meaning. I decided that if the plain sense makes sense, I would look for no other sense, lest I end up with nonsense.” from an article here at this site

Did that rule not apply to Matthew? If that is the absolute rule for interpreting Scripture, then Matthew goofed – he looked for another sense. In fact, nowhere in the original passage was there any idea that there was some future fulfillment or even that it was a prophecy at all.


Yes, and the ironic part is if you truly absorbed what that means, you would no longer be a dispensationalist….. but continuing He wasn’t “literally” Israel. The “plain sense” of that passage according to Jews is that it says Israel, why are we trying to misapply it to Jesus? Doesn’t the plain sense make sense?


Ahh, but it is ironic to me how you do not feel the shot that just went into your own foot. I agree with you absolutely. Just because something was written for “that time,” does not mean it has no further application. Wonderful – but then we are seeking for “another sense” aren’t we? But such as Matthew’s use of Hosea, the “future application” was not literal, but the message for that time was. Generally speaking (and you seem to be equivocating between application of doctrine and instruction and application of prophecy – I am sticking strictly to application of prophecy), it is the ones to whom it was spoken that had the primary fulfillment – the future “applications” are anti-typical and typological, and not guaranteed whatsoever. In fact, they are often only apparent AFTER the event, not before.


Really? You follow the principle of literalism (stated above) when there is a huge controversy over the whole of it. Do you only have these standards when it is conducive to your position? The point of it was that it is helpful to understand first century Jewish hermeneutical methods – without which Matthew’s antitypical application is sheer nonsense – and fails your own hermeneutical rule. And the portion that is controversial is not necessary to the whole. I was not, nor will I, be arguing for a sod application. But which of the other principles do you exactly have a problem with? Let’s see:

Peshat - what it meant right then on the face

I don’t think you have a problem with that.

Remez - how can this be applied to other situations (example - God taught an eye for eye - well what if an eye isn't involved but a foot or a tooth?)

I don’t think you have a problem with that.

Drash - this is midrash, the symbolical and allegorical realization that all of God's Word ultimately speaks of the outworking of his restorative plan

I don’t think you have a problem with that. So I have to ask why the knee-jerk reaction? In fact you agree with it as do I. The question then is in the proper application but I am getting the feeling you are not truly considering what I said and giving a measured response. If you were doing so, you wouldn’t have been so dismissive of a methodology that you agree with in 3 out of 4 times. And I don’t think you can really wholly deny the Sod either as “mystical” meanings are directly referenced in Revelation.


Of course that verse doesn’t say that at all, but my point was that exact same language can be used to refer to different events, something you were denying before. So now you agree that this terminology can refer to the transfiguration (I don’t agree with that interpretation BTW) so it was proper for the disciples to refer to the Transfiguration as Jesus COMING in His Glory with the holy angels? So I have dismantled your argument that the “coming” in Matthew 24 MUST be the Second Coming because certain language was used. You may have other arguments, but that one doesn’t simply prove your case summarily as you seem to think it did.. You just conceded that the same language can be used of something other than the Second Coming. Good. We are getting somewhere – though you certainly are rewriting Scripture – the verse doesn’t say that those standing there would not taste death until the saw the “glory of Jesus” at all. Additionally the phrase “will not taste death” makes it absurd that it was referring to the Transfiguration – was there really that great worry that most of his listeners would be dead with the week?

AGREEMENT ONE – The language used about the Second Coming can be used to apply to different events


As per Scripture some “coming” would happen while at least some of his listeners were alive. Why do you have to add words to the text?


In other words your mind is completely closed to the possibility that you could be wrong? That contradicts what you said at the end of your post which I will post out of turn here:


You have just contradicted yourself, at least on that one issue. You will not see a point made even if I argue until I am blue in the face by your own admission. I think you overestimate your own willingness to evaluate the arguments, such as your breezy dismissal of PRDS.

However, with regards to that subject, getting into that at this point will take us off the pretty narrow path I am treading here, perhaps on another thread we can speak of that.


Side trail – You said “And nowhere does Scripture mention 72 hours.” – if we ever debate on the 70 weeks prophecy you might be sorry you said that

But carrying on….

You just proved my case for me – this is way to easy. So you then concede that when interpreting Scripture we should take into consideration the way that things were said at that time including local idiosyncrasies and idioms? Before that wasn’t allowed, so how come you are doing that now? I am sorry but three days and three nights makes perfect plain sense so you should be seeking no other sense as per your own hermeneutic. You are able to interpret them as one part of one day, one full night, one full day, and one part night – what is your justification? That it was a Jewish idiom. Agreed. You have just disavailed yourself of claiming that my case that the “coming” in Matthew 24 is also Jewish idiom (of which I have MUCH more proof than there is for the day and night thing) as impossible. You have simply asserted it must be literal. Well do you know that Jews today insist the NT is wrong because they insist the three days and three nights must be literal? What makes you right and them wrong? They are following YOUR hermeneutic.

AGREEMENT NUMBER TWO: When interpreting Scripture it is possible that one may have to be familiar with idioms and symbols of the day in order to get the proper meaning.


I am not one who doesn’t take the Bible literally – meaning in the sense it was intended. I also have not been the one (and it isn’t just you) loudly and proudly IMHO proclaiming that “we only do and say what the Bible says” so I am asking where the Bible said that. I do not have to prove something I never asserted, but you do need to prove what you asserted. I see you are unable to answer the question. Therefore you have disavailed yourself of your position that literalism is the Biblical hermeneutic if you cannot tell me where that is laid out in Scripture.

AGREEMENT NUMBER THREE – There is no verse in the Bible that instructs us that literalism (as defined today) is the proper hermeneutical method


When we are commanded to HATE our mother and father and spouse, do we take that literally?

The Local Strawman Alliance has filed a formal complaint against you for that major blaze. You just showed above several times that YOU do not take the Bible literally – does that mean you do not take those commands literally? Is all chaos about to erupt as you dissolve three days and three nights into a period of time that is barely two days? And you misrepresented my position – I did not say there are no literal statements in the Bible, I said that not all statements are “literal” and it is the job of the exegete to figure out which ones are and which ones are not based upon sound principles.


Where in the Bible does it say that? We actually start out with the same kind of interpretation we use in ordinary conversation – we read the Bible literarily. If you started out with a literal interpretation of the three days and three nights you would have Jesus as a false prophet. You would have the sky being a solid bronze dome, and the sun going around the earth. You would have God only promising to be faithful to a thousand generations, the rest are out of luck, as well as the unlucky cattle belonging to satan who graze on the 1001st hill.


And where is that command in Scripture? And your second statement was an assertion you already defeated. Matthew 16:27 says that Jesus came in glory to THEM which you claim was symbolic of the future literal return. I am sorry but you cannot change the rules just when they are convenient. And symbolic to who? Have you ever had many conversations (and I assume you do right here on this forum) with English-speakers, but they are from another culture? I once was aghast when I said to a person from another culture that “I bet you think I am buttering you up” – and realized this poor soul may think I am a madwoman armed with a stick of butter and willing to use it.

Agreed, but it isn’t taught in those passage in Matthew except possibly as an antitype. You are simply asserting that they are.



You do not take the Bible literal first – vis a vis the three days and three nights – vis a vis the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom within the lifetime of His listeners in Matthew 16. And what you are doing, like you did with the bonfire above, is accuse us of taking nothing literally. So you are committing the same error in reverse.

AGREEMENT NUMBER FOUR – Not all of the Bible is to be taken literally.


First, where in the Bible does it say that. Second, symbolic to whom? How do you judge if something is symbolic or idiomatic?


Absolutely not – that is classic Christianity and a theme throughout the Bible. I recommend reading Leon Morris’ The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment. In the Bible judging is part and parcel of reigning. Did God not judge Sodom and Gomorrah? Does that mean that He has nothing left to judge them for at the final judgment?


Actually it does not in that verse, but we can get to that one. The phrase “this generation” is even narrower. Don’t “broad” definitions destroy literalism? [panic]I mean how in the world can we know which one is correct? [/panic] You decide upon your doctrine and then chose the meaning that suits it?

Additionally “coming” – parousia – has a wide range of meanings, you sure you want to go there? But what you are doing is a classic exegetical error – illegitimate totally transfer aka unwarranted expansion of a semantical domain. In plainer words it means importing all the possible meanings of a word as possible candidates irregardless of contextual qualifiers. I believe the Old-Earthers do that with “day.” We could do a debate on that at some time, for I do not even totally need that verse to prove a first century fulfillment, the Discourse has multiple timing indicators.


That is circular. You are saying I don’t believe it happened so it must not carry it’s “plain” meaning. Unfortunately, I find today that a lot of people dogmatically determine what the “what” of a prophecy must mean and then make the “when” of a prophecy mean whatever they have to make it mean to preserve their interpretation of the “what.” But to me, this cuts to the heart of the test of a true prophet. If a prophet gives express time limitations for the fulfillment of his prophecy, it is circumventing the Deuteronomy 18 test to ignore those limitations.

And. hmm, seems the Bible sees things a little differently than you.

Colossians 1:5-6: ...because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.

Colossians 1:23:…if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Romans 16:25-26: Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith

Acts 2:5: And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.

To name a few.


And John said many antichrists have come and gone. It is not a person, but a belief system that denies Christ. Don’t you find it the tad bit odd that John is the only writing to use the phrase antichrist – he uses it of a doctrinal position of apostasy – and never once in the book of Revelation is the word used when supposedly this individual is one of the prime players.


Verse 34, not 31.


Actually there is not the consensus you would believe on 1 John. Someone on your side of the fence, Norman Geisler has taught that there is no reason to date any of the NT books as post-AD 70. And believe me, he isn’t a preterist, or sympathetic to the preterist view (I know, I have spoken with him).


I think I have addressed those points already, and don’t want to make this longer than needful.


Actually no we don’t, in the sense you mean. We take apocalyptic passages in that light, and didactic teachings, such as timing statements in the light they were intended.

Now the second part of your paragraph makes no since. A literal event – it was expressed in symbolic terms. Again, using our own language, if I say it is raining cats and dogs (which it is right now BTW) I am speaking of a literal hard rainstorm, but using figurative terms to depict it. Additionally, the passage is speaking of spiritual realities which are in fact typified by “signs” on the earth since they are not yet “visible” though just as thoroughly real. Your question is really one against your position – if something was so visible and horrible and obvious as the whole world coming to pieces, why would a “sign” be needed. Did Jesus not literally die and rise from the dead? Yet he said that was the “sign” of the Prophet Jonah.


Associated? The whole Bible is associated with that event. Is it a direct reference? No. It is speaking of the judgment upon the apostates of that time, though we can expect that God will treat apostates consistently so that verse could be applied to God’s various judgments, but specifically that verse referred to back then.


I am sorry but that is just silly. Are you saying that it is possible that she really thought the Second Coming happened back then? If you apply your methodology to any historical work we can really not know too much about the past and cannot make reasoned inferences.


Typologically? Everywhere. Specifically?

The primary passages about the end of history in the NT are:

1 Corinthians 15
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Romans 8
John 5:28-29
Romans 14:10-12
Matthew 12:41-42 (and it's Lukan parallel)
John 6:39-54
John 12:48
Acts 17:31
Acts 1:9-11
Philippians 2:5-11
1 John 2:28 - 3:3
Philippians 3:20-21
Romans 6:5
2 Cor. 4:14
Acts 24:14-15
John 6:39-54
Luke 20:35
Matthew 10:26-28
2 Cor. 5:6-10
1 John 4:17

The primary NT passages that began in the first century and describe events up through the end of history are

Revelation 20 and 21
Matthew 24:31
Matthew 25:31-44
Matthew 28:19
Ephesians 1:20-21
Hebrews 2:5-8

I am sure that there are more that I have not listed, but this should suffice for now.


Be careful or you will never have use of that foot again. Peter says Paul was confusing and difficult to understand. Further, just because something is confusing to you, or seems to be, is not the standard. What you have inadvertently done is made yourself the standard – if it confuses you it must not be right because God is not the author of confusion. Well dispensational futurism confuses the heck out of me so now it must be wrong. No matter what view is taken, there is always somebody that is confused – if not, we would have so many denominations and in house disputes.


Who said the message changed? No one. But that does not mean we do not need tools to assist us – unless you have the autographa and speak Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, your claim is self-refuting.


On some issues, certainly. That is inevitable, and there is no credible way to deny it. For instance, today if you told someone you were going to gone three days and three nights would they think when you left on Friday that you would be back at dawn on Sunday? When people today hear of the word “lamb” – they do not automatically think of a Temple with sacrifices.


And no one claimed that it wasn’t. But I think what you are forgetting that we are being witnessed TO by a different culture, and it is incumbent upon us to use the tools that God has given us to understand. But that doesn’t mean that us of another culture are excused from getting off our exegetical behinds and be diligent to show ourselves approved. Unless again you have the autographa and know the original languages, your argument is self-refuting and would require God to gift all believers with spiritual translation abilities so that all could read the original texts, which God would have had to preserve. If I had the original copy of Romans in my hand right now, which is meant to be understood by all people, and handed it to you, you would not understand it because it is not written in your language. And it is indisputable that different languages and cultures have differing denotations, connotations, and idioms.

I thought you said the Bible was easy for all people to understand? Second, that verse you quoted does not mean lack of understanding, and the Bible makes it clear that men do in fact understand, let me quote:

Romans 2:18-21: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
God has shown the truth to all men, but they reject it, and not because they didn’t understand it, otherwise they would have an excuse – John tells us why they reject it:

John 3:19-20 - And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.


You have to some extent learned the culture, otherwise you would not have made the three days and three nights explanation. You would have no idea why Jesus was called the lamb that takes away the sin of the world, you would hate your family, and be smooching everyone because after all the Scriptures say to greet one another with a holy kiss. You would have no idea why foot-washing would be necessary, why the testimony of the women of the resurrection is so incredible, or why the Pharisees went completely postal when Jesus claimed that before Abraham was, I am.

Now, for what I think is the worst statement made, second perhaps only by when before you said you could care less about logic:


This was in response to my demonstration that you are implicitly denying the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. Do you know how important that statement is or do you think yourself not needful of the wisdom and learning of those who have come before? When I quote someone else in support of my point, I am arguing as it is were my own, and you can deal with it that way. I quote them so as not to plagiarize and to give due credit. I should hope that you would rather take the time to read important documents and findings of the Church such as the Chicago Statement rather than me. And as I said before, it is impossible not to bring in the beliefs of others, otherwise please tell me how you independently came to decide what books should be in the Canon?

A friend gave me this quote, and it is better than I could word it –

"Christians of all ages should be willing to learn from those who have gone before us. The Bible says that Christ gives gifts to his Church, including teachers, and those teachers are not just the elders and pastors of a local congregation, but men who have throughout history been entrusted with great ability to understand the Word of God and to teach that word. It is the height of arrogance for us to close our ears to or ignore what God taught our fathers. He has taught those who have gone before us, we stand on their shoulders, we ought to be willing to learn from them. And so what councils have declared, what teachers have made known the lessons that have stood the test of time we ought to be willing to consider those and weigh those, not as final authorities, not as an equal authority with the Word of God at all, but to measure them in light of what the Word says. I think that is simply the berean spirit, that is humility, that is what Christ would require of his disciples of any generation." – Dr. Thomas Ascol

However, unless you are going to deny the implications of what you have stated or perhaps qualify them in some way, we have agreement on the four major objections you had to my position.

AGREEMENT ONE – The language used about the Second Coming can be used to apply to different events

AGREEMENT NUMBER TWO: When interpreting Scripture it is possible that one may have to be familiar with idioms and symbols of the day in order to get the proper meaning.

AGREEMENT NUMBER THREE – There is no verse in the Bible that instructs us that literalism (as defined today) is the proper hermeneutical method

AGREEMENT NUMBER FOUR – Not all of the Bible is to be taken literally.

I do not know if there is a rule here (I don't remember one) about splitting a long post into two (I have seen others do it so I have presumed it is acceptable. If not, we are going to have to agree to limit the issues raised in our posts, because it takes a bit to answer so many. We have a one post 24K limit at TheologyWeb but we also limit debate points to two or three at one time

PreTrib, you know I don't care about long waits between responses whatsoever, but please do tell me if you plan to respond. I have put aside getting involved in some other debates/discussions since this was ongoing it would be my priority. Just let me - you know for me it is usually like two weeks between substantive posts

DeeDee,

I sent you a PM, but yeah, I plan on responding, just not sure when, as I've been busy and those are some long posts... :fear

No problem. I just wanted to be thorough in answering the questions. We can separate it out as I said into discussing each of the points that I concluded at the end that you conceded to, and you can dispute your concession, or concede that I was correct to say we agree, but how your point still remains. I prefer to have to do shorter responses as well.

Just checking in again

and again - we went through a lot recently too, I fried a laptop and had a hurricane

:doh I forgot all about this. I know I said I was going to reply, had intended to, then got busy and had several things come up, put it on the back burner with no intention to answer you at that time, as I didn't have time to seriously consider it all, then completely forgot about it. I'm sorry.

I started to re-read your latest replies, but my head is spinning. I'll try again later. To be honest, I'm just not sure now that I want to continue this any longer. I think I can say with confidence that I will never become a preter, partial or otherwise, and I don't mind debating the position, at least the parts I can understand, but this debate is built around/came about as a result of a song, and with all the things you want me to read in order to understand where you're coming from, which is okay as far as demands go, but something I would rather not do, is just more than I care to take on right now. Hope you understand. :):

You said you are not sure - are you sure? I totally did not see that last post until then. We are way past the song part so that surely cannot be an issue, but if you are just too busy that is something that I totally understand more than you know. For me to come back and prod a thread is unusual but this I thought was leading somewhere for both of us. I think I did direct some of my readers of the PreteristSite here to read this thread - which I still think is excellent. My last post is really a critical one as I proved (with your agreement as far as I can see) that at least four of your initial objections are without base.

When I am busy chocolate always helps.

Oh and a request then - if you cannot continue for whatever reason - can I have permission to save the text version to host on my preteristsite with a linkback to RR? A lot of people won't come to read the thread because it requires registration to read and a lot of peeps are just funny like that.

bump for an answer please

Always was one of my favorites to sing..........most people don't know all the verses...bravo!

and yes, I wish many in this once-great country would take another look at what our earlier Americans knew to be true.......

Yes the hymn is wonderful, I am going to be developing the idea I started on this thread more fully on my site, thus my request for reproduction request. I eagerly await the response.

DG - what is your eschatological position?

You know, I guess I'm caught between pre-trib and pre-wrath, but it's not a MAJOR sticking point for me..........I figure it doesn't matter WHEN we go, just so long as I'm on the boat!

Oh okay. Well we both like the hymn but have very different positions. I am an orthodox preterist.

Dee Dee, I don't have a problem with you copying the thread to your site. The only thing I ask which I'm sure you're aware of, is that you don't bring any conversation regarding it from there to this thread. :):

Thanks! And I wasn't meaning TheologyWeb but the Preteristsite so there isn't any debate there, just informational reading

This position would be valid if this was the only name ever used for this 'individual'.

Re:16:13: And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Re:19:20: And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

If these verses are taken into consideration then the false prophet is also the second beast in Re:13,

2Th:2:3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th:2:4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

2Th:2:8: And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th:2:9: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th:2:10: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Since the false prophet recieves his power from Satan (either directly or through the beast, who has power only because of Satan) this would seem to indicate that Satan has already had his 42 months of power also. Since two of the three woes are a direct result of Satan these woes would also have to have been fullfilled.
(this relationship is again mentioned in Re:19:20:)
Re:13:14: And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.


The third woe is Christ's return and this follows the end of the third woe 'quickly', Re:11:14:.

Since this thread is quite long I won't address anything else yet.

What does that book have to do with anything in the last 1900+ years.

Jas:2:8:
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,
ye do well:
Jas:2:9:
But if ye have respect to persons,
ye commit sin,
and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jas:2:10:
For whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point,
he is guilty of all.
Jas:2:11:
For he that said,
Do not commit adultery,
said also,
Do not kill.
Now if thou commit no adultery,
yet if thou kill,
thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jas:2:12:
So speak ye,
and so do,
as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
Jas:2:13:
For he shall have judgment without mercy,
that hath shewed no mercy;
and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
Jas:2:14:
What doth it profit,
my brethren,
though a man say he hath faith,
and have not works?
can faith save him?
Jas:2:15:
If a brother or sister be naked,
and destitute of daily food,
Jas:2:16:
And one of you say unto them,
Depart in peace,
be ye warmed and filled;
notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Jas:2:17:
Even so faith,
if it hath not works,
is dead,
being alone.


Please read the above verses for the role of Christians.

God's wrath comes after Satan's 42 months (tribulation) and it is Christ alone that accomplishes the whole of it;
Isa:63:3: I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.




There is the aspect that the 'coming of the Lord' is also a day of destruction, and it is these scenes that may have inspired her words;

Joe:2:2: A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
Joe:2:3: A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.
Joe:2:4: The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.
Joe:2:5: Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.
Joe:2:6: Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.
Joe:2:7: They shall run like mighty men; they shall climb the wall like men of war; and they shall march every one on his ways, and they shall not break their ranks:
Joe:2:8: Neither shall one thrust another; they shall walk every one in his path: and when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded.
Joe:2:9: They shall run to and fro in the city; they shall run upon the wall, they shall climb up upon the houses; they shall enter in at the windows like a thief.
Joe:2:10: The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:

Zep:1:15: That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
Zep:1:16: A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers.
Zep:1:17: And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.
Zep:1:18: Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD's wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.

Mhz, I am sorry I have not responded, but PreTrib and I were having a pretty narrowly focused and structred discussion - in the middle of such I have no interest in going in ten different directions. If you would like to start from the beginning on a different thread let me know via PM.

I don't know what else I could add.
Do you see those verses as reflecting what she might have seen going on around her?

I think it is because you have come in at the end.... I did a great deal of work getting to a specific point with PT on this thread that was generated by a comment she made on another thread if that makes any sense. It was a conversation generated by a specific debate.

In short = MHz, my answer is yes, that is exactly what Julia was doing - describing things that went on around here. My point being that Biblical imagery involving "coming" and "clouds" and similar does not by necessity HAVE to refer to the second Coming.