Zecheriah 14 is it literal or figurative what proves it

[revmwc]

No, "heaven and earth" do not exist today. Not the "heaven and earth" that Jesus was speaking about. We bring so much of our own worldview into Scripture that we have a hard time understanding Bible terminology.

The heavens and earth refer to the Jewish dispensation.

"The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. 2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: "I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against Me;" Isaiah 1:1-2

Now, is God speaking to all of the Earth here? Is He speaking to the heavens? No. He is speaking to Israel; according to context, to "Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah".

"But I am the LORD your God, Who divided the sea whose waves roared; The LORD of hosts is His name. 16 And I have put My words in your mouth; I have covered you with the shadow of My hand, That I may plant the heavens, Lay the foundations of the earth, And say to Zion, 'You are My people.'" Isaiah 51:15-16

When did God create the Heavens and Earth? According to this passage it was when He divided the Red Sea. No, I am not denying the physical creation as described in Genesis 1, but that is not the topic here. And - once again, focusing on this passage in Isaiah - what were the accompanying results of this dividing of the Sea?
1. The planting of the heavens,
2. The laying of the foundations of the earth, and
3. The saying to Zion, "You are My people".

It is this "heavens and earth" Jesus is referring to in Matt. 5:18.

Peter, writing three decades later, but still before the Parousia, describes this same heavens and earth:

"But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter. 3:7

Peter is looking forward to the time that Isaiah had written of:

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." Isaiah 65:17 (KJV)

Once again, we have a hard time appreciating the context of Christ's words because we are so attuned to our own understanding of the phrase "heavens and earth", not the Scriptural intent.

2 Peter 3:7 are the same Greek words and the verse reads "But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." Again no meaning of nation Israel but of the Heavens and in cotrast to Heaven the Earth. Peter was quoting the Isaiah 65:17 verse therefore from His use of the Greek it would again means the literal Heaven (sidderal and sky) and the earth as a whole.

Going back to the original language shows the meaning as a literal heaven and earth. When God seperted the Red Sea He established in Zion a nation of people He called His own.

 

[revmwc]

Thanks, Ky. This is a wonderful topic. Too bad the discussion of it all too often devolves into polemics.

So you would rather po·lem·ics [ pə lémmiks ]
art of polemical argument: the art or practice of arguing passionately and strongly for or against something
Than debate. You would rather people believe your view without question without debate?

Sorry scripture says it won't be that easy to spread what you preach,
1 John 1: 1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

I will test every Spirit, every teaching and let the Holy Spirit be the guide. So far He hasn't shown me the truth in your belief, in fact scripture upon scripture word upon word is proving it incorrect.

 

[thomas15]

...... You would rather people believe your view without question without debate?.....

You are of course correct. Take just one verse; Zechariah 12:6 On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among sheaves. They will consume all the surrounding peoples right and left, but Jerusalem will remain intact in her place.

This does not fit with the preterist view that 2nd Temple in Jerusalem (or is it Babylon) was destroyed in AD 70 by the Roman Army.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Matthew 5:17

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Christ tells us that he came to fulfill the law and until it all passes away none of it passes away.

When the term 'Law and the prophets' is used in the NT, it ususally means the whole ofthe OT. Our Lord's teaching was so radical, calling the poor in spirit, the meek and the hungry 'blessed' that people were asking, "Has Jesus of Nazareth done away with the Scriptures? Is His teaching something absolutely new?" He says, "No. I am the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures and I am where the OT was always pointing. These are the Scriptures which testify of Me" (John 5:39). If you are saying that all the OT dietary laws and so forth remained in force until AD 70, you will be in a complete mess when you come to Mark 7:14ff esp. v19, not to mention Acts 10:9ff; Acts 15:28f and Gal 2:11ff. All the OT sacrifices and Temple stuff was ended (as far as God was concerned), not in AD 70, but at our Lord's death when the curtain of the Temple was torn in two.

What remains is the Moral Law and it is this of which our Lord is speaking in v19 in referring to 'Commandments.' He then goes on in v21ff to show how the moral law is to be kept: not according to the letter, as the Pharisees did, but according to the Spirit.

Therefore either all the prophecy concerning Jerusalem has been fulfilled already or else we need to keep the Law and not turn to Christ for salvation.

If you think the words of Christ have any meaning then all prophecies pertaining to Jerusalem have been fulfilled as Christ stated.

I myself am not looking for another earthly temple in Jerusalem. I am more interested in the heavenly Jerusalem of Gal 4:26 and Rev 21 & 22. I do not see that prophesies concerning that have by any means been fulfilled.

Luke 21:32
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place.

That would leave but two choices either the generation Christ was addressing is still alive today and we are still living under the law or all things were fulfilled in the first generation.

Just read this in a straight forward manner and don’t inject your previous thinking that Christ’s return is in the future and how would you come to the conclusion that there is any prophecy left concerning Jerusalem to be fulfilled?

Suppose you read it in a straightforward manner and don't inject into it your presupposition that Christ came in AD 70 for which there is not a shred of evidence. 'Every eye shall see Him' (Rev 1:7). Whose eyes? Not the Christians in Galatia, Philippi, Ephesus, Rome or Corinth who would not have found out about the fall of Jerusalem for months, if at all. No Fox News or BBC in those days. According to you, the world ended, the new heavens and earth was ushered in, and the large majority of Christians living at that time never heard about it. Crackers!

I'm not quite sure what all this has to do with Zech 14, but maybe we'll get back to that.

Steve

 

[asterisktom]

The hebrew word for heaven as used by Isaiah in 1:2
Strong's Number: 08064 eym# שמים
Original Word Word Origin
שמים from an unused root meaning to be lofty
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
shamayim shaw-mah'-yim
Parts of Speech TWOT
Noun Masculine 2407a
Definition
1. heaven, heavens, sky
a. visible heavens, sky
1.as abode of the stars
2. as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
b. Heaven (as the abode of God)

Nowhere is it applied to Israel, but to the physical Heavens.

The hebrew earth as used by Isaiah in verse 2

Strong's Number: 0776 ur) ארץ
Original Word Word Origin
ארץ from an unused root probably meaning to be firm
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
'erets eh'-rets
Parts of Speech TWOT
Noun Feminine 167
Definition
1. land, earth
a. earth
1. whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2. earth (as opposed to heaven)
3. earth (inhabitants)
b. land
1. country, territory
2. district, region
3. tribal territory
4. piece of ground
5. land of Canaan, Israel
6. inhabitants of land
7. Sheol, land without return, (under) world
8. city (-state)
c. ground, surface of the earth
1. ground
2. soil
d. (in phrases)
1. people of the land
2. space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
3. level or plain country
4. land of the living
5. end(s) of the earth
e.(almost wholly late in usage)
1. lands, countries 1e
2. often in contrast to Canaan

Isaiah says.....
Strong says....

What part are you not getting? Zero response to what I actually wrote. I needn't have bothered.

This is what happens when forestry is the topic and treeologists show up.

 

[asterisktom]

So you would rather po·lem·ics [ pə lémmiks ]
art of polemical argument: the art or practice of arguing passionately and strongly for or against something
Than debate. You would rather people believe your view without question without debate?

Sorry scripture says it won't be that easy to spread what you preach,
1 John 1: 1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

I will test every Spirit, every teaching and let the Holy Spirit be the guide. So far He hasn't shown me the truth in your belief, in fact scripture upon scripture word upon word is proving it incorrect.

Test away. Make sure you have a clean slate, though, a tabula rasa, and not a borrowed slate that has been handed down to you.

Or, you can just regard my comment to KyRedneck as a semi-private aside to a friend. I don't expect you to properly appreciate this point. I don't mean that in a mean way, just stating a fact.

 

[asterisktom]

Nowhere is it applied to Israel, but to the physical Heavens.

Why do I even bother typing out Scripture for you, if you are just going to ignore it.

Once again:

"The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. 2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: "I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against Me;" Isaiah 1:1-2

Now, is God speaking to all of the Earth here? Is He speaking to the heavens? No. He is speaking to Israel; according to context, to "Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah".

Do you really, really think that God is speaking to the physical heavens and earth?

Did all the denizens of the Earth rebel against their divine upbringing and nourishment - or just Israel?

 

[revmwc]

Isaiah says.....
Strong says....

What part are you not getting? Zero response to what I actually wrote. I needn't have bothered.

This is what happens when forestry is the topic and treeologists show up.

Evidently you didn't get the point, since you stated that Isaiah was saying that heaven and Earth meant Jerusalem and Israel. My statement in the post says, "Nowhere is it applied to Israel, but to the physical Heavens." Speaking of Heaven.
Then I stated,
"The hebrew earth as used by Isaiah in verse 2" Of which I should have said That number 2 applies "2. earth (as opposed to heaven)" since we see that in the 2 Peter passage. So as you try to apply what Isaiah is not saying the original language in Hebrew makes very clear what Isaiah meant, of course strongs only gives us meanings of the word where I posted but, I will need to look at Young's also when I get the opportunity.

 

[asterisktom]

2 Peter 3:7 are the same Greek words and the verse reads "But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." Again no meaning of nation Israel but of the Heavens and in cotrast to Heaven the Earth. Peter was quoting the Isaiah 65:17 verse therefore from His use of the Greek it would again means the literal Heaven (sidderal and sky) and the earth as a whole.

Going back to the original language shows the meaning as a literal heaven and earth. When God seperted the Red Sea He established in Zion a nation of people He called His own.

I was going back to the original language - the Covenant language of God and His inspired prophet Isaiah.

I like Strong, and he is useful to a point, but he is not inspired. Often the settling of these issues does not reduce to the technical meanings of words, but how those words are used. I had a friend from Kerala India who used to describe his bike as "understanding the tree." Meaning that he stood it up under the tree. Technically, in a slavishly mechanical etymological manner he was correct. Culturally and in all the real senses that counted he was humorously off target.

Your over-reliance on Strong, and your big shovelful of copy-and-paste, leave the root of the matter untouched - what "heavens and earth" meant in the passages discussed.

 

[revmwc]

Why do I even bother typing out Scripture for you, if you are just going to ignore it.

Once again:

"The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. 2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: "I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against Me;" Isaiah 1:1-2

Now, is God speaking to all of the Earth here? Is He speaking to the heavens? No. He is speaking to Israel; according to context, to "Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah".

Do you really, really think that God is speaking to the physical heavens and earth?

Did all the denizens of the Earth rebel against their divine upbringing and nourishment - or just Israel?

Well let's see who resides in Heaven, hmm well God does but He isn't speaking to himself, the angels do, ah maybe the Angels were hearing Him in Heaven, and who resides on earth well um the whole human race and satan and his angels I'm sure would hear, but also just everyone that reads Isaiah's scripture, think we need to hear and heed what God to Isreal? He says "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah" The vision he saw concerned Israel and these Kings, the message was to everyone in Heaven and on Earth and in the Earth. How much clearer does Isaiah have to be, the "vision concerning" not the statement. But He is speaking of the vision He saw concerning Israel and proclaiming God's message to everyone, that is His point.

 

[revmwc]

I was going back to the original language - the Covenant language of God and His inspired prophet Isaiah.

I like Strong, and he is useful to a point, but he is not inspired. Often the settling of these issues does not reduce to the technical meanings of words, but how those words are used. I had a friend from Kerala India who used to describe his bike as "understanding the tree." Meaning that he stood it up under the tree. Technically, in a slavishly mechanical etymological manner he was correct. Culturally and in all the real senses that counted he was humorously off target.

Your over-reliance on Strong, and your big shovelful of copy-and-paste, leave the root of the matter untouched - what "heavens and earth" meant in the passages discussed.

Again you fail to give which meaning of the word you would use, is not the sidderal heaven and sky along with the earth as opposed to heaven then what of the words meaning would you use or show us a counter definition you find from say Vine or Young or whoever else lexicon can back your view. As for the copy and pasted it just shows my source where I have not seen your source of interpretation other than someone mentioning some guy who founded the teaching.

 

[asterisktom]

Again you fail to give which meaning of the word you would use, is not the sidderal heaven and sky along with the earth as opposed to heaven then what of the words meaning would you use or show us a counter definition you find from say Vine or Young or whoever else lexicon can back your view. As for the copy and pasted it just shows my source where I have not seen your source of interpretation other than someone mentioning some guy who founded the teaching.

My source was Isaiah. He didn't write a lexicon. I guess that is a strike against him.

Look, revw, I am done with this, as far as you are concerned. This is going nowhere. Nothing personal.

 

[revmwc]

My source was Isaiah. He didn't write a lexicon. I guess that is a strike against him.

Look, revw, I am done with this, as far as you are concerned. This is going nowhere. Nothing personal.

Isaiah made it clear He was Speaking to everyone in Heaven and on Earth os you took you source incorrectly. Nothing personal.

 

[thomas15]

........
Look, revw, I am done with this, as far as you are concerned. This is going nowhere. Nothing personal.

Done as in "I can't argue against the plain meaning of Scripture and you have me at a frustration level DEFCON 1" or done as in "I'm putting you on my ignore list?"

Hard to win a debate when the opposing view has the Word of God on their side.

 

[Logos1]

Suppose you read it in a straightforward manner and don't inject into it your presupposition that Christ came in AD 70 for which there is not a shred of evidence. 'Every eye shall see Him' (Rev 1:7). Whose eyes? Not the Christians in Galatia, Philippi, Ephesus, Rome or Corinth who would not have found out about the fall of Jerusalem for months, if at all. No Fox News or BBC in those days. According to you, the world ended, the new heavens and earth was ushered in, and the large majority of Christians living at that time never heard about it. Crackers!
Steve

You might want to contemplate the fact that Christ’s return in 70 AD has the same evidence to support it that you have to support the assurance of your salvation.

Suppose someone asked you how do you know you are saved and going to heaven. What literal, physical, visible evidence can you produce for it—none of course. You wouldn’t try to say you have any shred of physical evidence for it you would say you are trusting in what you have been told in the bible by Christ and the apostles that you are saved.

Of course some may say they feel different on the inside—well just supposing you do-no one else can feel what you feel and see a literal change in you. And, we all know that we can’t judge someone else and tell whether he goes to heaven or not—only God really knows his heart and his eternal destiny—it is not for us to say.

The bible also points to the first generation for the return of Christ when Paul tells them 1 Thess 4:15 we who are still alive at the Lord’s coming.

If the bible is a good enough source for you to base your trust in your salvation on then it ought to be good enough to trust as to the timing of the Lord’s return.

 

[JesusFan]

You might want to contemplate the fact that Christ’s return in 70 AD has the same evidence to support it that you have to support the assurance of your salvation.

Suppose someone asked you how do you know you are saved and going to heaven. What literal, physical, visible evidence can you produce for it—none of course. You wouldn’t try to say you have any shred of physical evidence for it you would say you are trusting in what you have been told in the bible by Christ and the apostles that you are saved.

Of course some may say they feel different on the inside—well just supposing you do-no one else can feel what you feel and see a literal change in you. And, we all know that we can’t judge someone else and tell whether he goes to heaven or not—only God really knows his heart and his eternal destiny—it is not for us to say.

The bible also points to the first generation for the return of Christ when Paul tells them 1 Thess 4:15 we who are still alive at the Lord’s coming.

If the bible is a good enough source for you to base your trust in your salvation on then it ought to be good enough to trust as to the timing of the Lord’s return.

One more time...

Second Coming will be a VISIBLE EVENT eyes of all shall see Him...

Graves shall be openned up, to rise bodily into air to meet the Lord, who is coming back with an Army of His saints with Him...

Which ancient Historian recorded that happening?

he would come back to fight against enemies of isreal, at Armeggaden...

Again, who recorded this happening?

At His Second Coming, ALL war shall cease, nations gathered to worship and serve Him, curse lifted, paradise restored to earth... Satan bound up

Again, are you saying that we now l;ive in time of His ruling over this "paradise' World? Satan is really bound?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You might want to contemplate the fact that Christ’s return in 70 AD has the same evidence to support it that you have to support the assurance of your salvation.

I base my assurance of salvation on the word of God that tells me that Christ died for sinners. That word says nothing about an invisible return of Christ, quite the opposite (see below).

Suppose someone asked you how do you know you are saved and going to heaven. What literal, physical, visible evidence can you produce for it—none of course. You wouldn’t try to say you have any shred of physical evidence for it you would say you are trusting in what you have been told in the bible by Christ and the apostles that you are saved.

Same point; same answer. However, the trustworthiness of the Bible is certainly witnessed by the fact that Josephus, Tacitus and other secular historians refer to our Lord's first coming. Who refers to His coming in AD 70?

The bible also points to the first generation for the return of Christ when Paul tells them 1 Thess 4:15 we who are still alive at the Lord’s coming.

'But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only' (Matt 24:36). Therefore Paul didn't know either. The 'We' of 1Thes 4:15 refers to Christians of whatever time Christ returns.

If the bible is a good enough source for you to base your trust in your salvation on then it ought to be good enough to trust as to the timing of the Lord’s return.

Exactly so. My Bible tells me that no one knows the timing of the Lord's return (Matt 24:26 etc.), but that it will be a visible return (Matt 24:30; Acts 1:11; 1Thes 4:16; Rev 1:7).

Steve

 

[asterisktom]

Same point; same answer. However, the trustworthiness of the Bible is certainly witnessed by the fact that Josephus, Tacitus and other secular historians refer to our Lord's first coming. Who refers to His coming in AD 70?

Several Preterists have already answered this in recent weeks. I know I have. Take a look at the post#15 and #5 of the "How many of The Church fathers held A partial/Full Pretierist Viewpoint of Theology?" thread. I just bumped it up to the top again.

 

[Logos1]

When does without observation--not mean invisible

One more time...

Second Coming will be a VISIBLE EVENT eyes of all shall see Him...

Just a basic “I can scream louder than you can” knee jerk response with no biblical support.

If Christ said it would be without observation then your demands for a visible event make no sense, question the work and sovereignty and plan of Christ, and demonstrate a basic inability to grasp scriptural meaning. One need only read the answer Christ gave you—the same one he gave the Pharisees.

The Coming of the Kingdom (ESV)

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

Obviously the words of Christ hold no meaning or value to you since he specifically stated it is not coming with signs of observation.

 

[Logos1]

Not being observable actually does mean invisible

I base my assurance of salvation on the word of God that tells me that Christ died for sinners. That word says nothing about an invisible return of Christ, quite the opposite
Steve

I could just copy and paste the specific answer (from above) Christ gives you about it not being observable—hint—that means invisible, but I don’t believe the word of Christ is good enough for you. After all why let the words of Christ get in the way of a good preconceived notion. It would simply be a waste of the time learning it now wouldn’t it.

One more thing. You need to learn to let the bible progress through linear time and keep up with current events as they progress. You’re stuck on the statement about no one knows the hour of his return made in Matt 24:36 when Christ was earth bound. When the book of Revelation is written later on Christ is in heaven and clearly seems to know more about the timing of his return. Whether he knows the exact moment of his return then it doesn’t say, but given the details he lays out to John it seems clear his knowledge on the matter has progressed since his return to heaven.

You base your salvation on the word of God—well you have made my point for me—I just hope you don’t run into a creed that contradicts it lest you would have to abandon faith in your salvation to remain consistent with your creeds and preconceived notions.